Digital Thieves Use Ex-Employees Accounts

prostoalex writes "The New York Times is running an article about a new generation of digital thugs. Using unsecured wireless networks, free e-mail accounts, a wealth of security knowledge, and, most important - employee passwords, thieves are getting access to valuable company databases. Once they're in, they start extorting the companies to pay up for them to leave. Otherwise phony e-mails to customers and sensitive information published publicly will lead to an embarrassment."

Comments

Not too likely to be an issue in the long run....

[King_TJ]

It seems to me that the people telling us how "Many times, companies just pay the hackers off to avoid embarassment." have little or no real facts to back up those claims.

In other words, it's just sensationalist writing.

In any nation with reasonably well enforced laws protecting a company's I.P. - I would think it's pointless for an extortionist to even attempt this. Sure, you might have the technical means to steal the proprietary info (especially if the company has unsecured or poorly secured wi-fi networks), but then what?

Even the guy in this story got caught after unsuccessfully trying to scam money out of just one company. And today, it would seem to be much more difficult to get away with than it was even a few years ago. The government and law enforcement are getting more knowledgable about Internet-based crime all the time, and since 9-11, the U.S. at least has enacted more laws giving feds the ability to "spy" on net traffic and trace things back to their source.

I really don't believe any legitimate business would think it made sense to pay some hacker millions of dollars in extortion money. This is MUCH more effective in situations like the one discussed in a Slashdot story a while back ... where someone threatens a denial of service attack on an online gambling/betting or porn site that's already running "beneath the radar" of legislation in nations that would prefer to shut them down.

So Low!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Only a few months ago I read from a respectable psychiatric source (and I wish I could find you a link right now) that more than 10% of those in 'political' life likely suffer from a form of narcassistic psychopathic personality disorder. NPD is one of the most frightening disorders when you really understand it, you actually have no core personality and understand youself only in a power relation to others whose behaviour defines your own. What we commonly call charismatic and charming people are more likely to be NPD sufferers. Politicians and confidence tricksters are commonly sufferers, rather than being 'clever' (NPDs are often marked by above average intelligence) they are deeply damaged. Many of those we hold in high regard as leaders and 'action' people are actually mentally ill, normatively speaking.

If you have never heard of this I suggest you research it and you will be astonished how the symptom list fits the behaviour of so many public figures.

Re:So Low!!

[Concerned Onlooker]

Spot on. My wife is a psychiatrist so I'm well aware of NPD. I also think it's probable that your 10% figure is accurate, but that doesn't mean the 2-3% of the total population figure can't also be accurate. Naturally, those types of people will gravitate to positions of power. It IS a frightening disorder. There is no reasoning with people that have it. For them everyone exists as something to use. They do not have nor do they understand empathy, yet at the same time they can be very charming in order to get what they want.

But, if you ever cross someone who has NPD they will never, ever forget it (it doesn't matter if they were in the wrong) and they will stop at virtually nothing to hit back in their narcissistic rage. On top of it all, I don't think most people realize that not only can you not reason with these people, but that they will never be "cured." It's a life-long affliction.

Re:More truth in that than you might think

[nolife]

Getting off topic here but people are always giving away to much information to fast. I was rear ended in traffic one time. The guy got out of his car and started complaining that I cut in front of him and slammed on my brakes. I said absolutely nothing until the police arrived. He ran up to the cop, told him the same thing but with more details. A few minutes later the cop came to me and asked what happened. I stated that immediatley after merging onto the highway, the traffic in front of me stopped dead. I hit my brakes to prevent hitting the car in front of me and then tapped my brakes repeatedly as he approached so he would see my brake lights and stop as well. The cop asked him if he saw my brake lights flashing and he said, "ahhh, no, when I looked, he was at a dead stop." He got a ticket. What I said was 100% true but if I had disclosed all the facts to the other driver before the police took our statements, he would have had time to try to make up a better defense and could have tailored his story. I know, a long and drawn out story but along the same lines of your suggestion to keep it quiet until you really need to speak.