Slashdot Mirror


Bank Employee Plants Malware on ATMs

Wired's Threat Level has a piece on a Bank of America employee, Rodney Reed Caverly, who has been charged with installing malware on ATMs in North Carolina. Caverly, who worked on the bank's IT staff, allegedly withdrew cash untraceably from the ATMs over a period of 7 months last year. "The charges were filed the same day that credit card company Visa warned the banking industry that Eastern European ATM malware recently showed up in America for the first time. That code, initially spotted last year on some 20 ATMs in Russia and Ukraine, was designed primarily to capture PINs and bank card magstripe data, but also allowed thieves to instruct the machine to eject whatever cash was still in it... At least 16 versions of the East European malware have been found so far and were designed to attack ATMs made by Diebold and NCR, according to the April 1 Visa alert. There is no information tying the malware found in Russia with the malware allegedly used by Caverly."

171 comments

  1. Great by Ltap · · Score: 0

    Now we'll have to jump through even more hoops while banking.

    --
    Yet Another Tech Blog
    (but so much more, including game and movie reviews)
    http://yanteb.peasantoid.org
    1. Re:Great by poetmatt · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Although I hear diebold does better with ATM's, I can't help but wonder how much effort they put into ATM security versus the voting machine fiasco.

      Meanwhile, ATM's have always been pretty shoddy on security. It's a given. People essentially have physical access to the device.

      I wonder if it would be better to have ATM's running a virtual or other remote hosted ATM client so that nothing is hosted on the ATM directly? Or is this already being done in some places?

    2. Re:Great by John+Hasler · · Score: 4, Insightful

      > Although I hear diebold does better with ATM's, I can't help but wonder how
      > much effort they put into ATM security versus the voting machine fiasco.

      Probably completely unrelated. They got into the voting machine business by purchasing a company that was showing a prototype and then rushing the prototype into production without bothering to develop an actual product. That says a lot (none of it good) about their top management, but nothing about the people in their ATM division.

      They eventually dumped the voting machine business, and it is possible that they learned from the experience.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    3. Re:Great by poetmatt · · Score: 1

      yeah, that's why I was hesitant to type up what I did. It was mostly a question if "is it linked", but that kinda implies that it is, and I didn't know which way the ATM division versus voting machine division sits.

  2. hmm... by Pojut · · Score: 1

    I RTFA, and maybe I just missed it...but did they detail how they caught the guy?

    1. Re:hmm... by Monkeedude1212 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      who has been charged with installing malware on ATMs in North Carolina. Caverly, who worked on the bank's IT staff, allegedly withdrew cash untraceably from the ATMs over a period of 7 months last year.

      Wait - so if they caught the guy, how the hell is that untraceable?

      Just because you don't follow the money doesn't mean you aren't tracing.

    2. Re:hmm... by Stenchwarrior · · Score: 5, Funny

      He accidentally withdrew $305326.13. Must have put a decimal in the wrong place...he's always messing up some mundane detail like that, from what I understand.

      --
      Loading...
    3. Re:hmm... by Dare+nMc · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Because stupidity and arrogance is traceable.
      Somehow the money has to get from the hopper to the guys home, then from the guys home to buy stuff. My guess would be the guy was caught spending beyond his means, then they started following him to ATM's where he was then recorded withdrawing the money. Then when they go looking for what account he withdrew money from, and it couldn't be found. Then again he may have just bragged about it to his girlfriend, then when he dumped her...

    4. Re:hmm... by fractalspace · · Score: 1

      ... and "PC Load letter" was seen when this machine attempted to print the receipt.

    5. Re:hmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is slashdot. We got the joke.

    6. Re:hmm... by deKernel · · Score: 1

      You do realize that banks to balance their ATMs right? They don't just keep putting money into the device with making sure it can be accounted for.

    7. Re:hmm... by Richy_T · · Score: 1

      I think that was the plot to Superman III

  3. Poor Diebold ATM programming by DanTheStone · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I once deposited cash at a Diebold BofA ATM that didn't use envelopes. The little door around the cash-taker closed on the bills and stuck there, so I had to slide/pull them back out. It couldn't read the amount I'd put it (since it ended up being $0) so it made me enter it on the keypad. It wouldn't accept that I'd deposited $0, so eventually I told it I'd deposited $1 so it would give the card back.

    To put a long story short, those things are not well-programmed.

    1. Re:Poor Diebold ATM programming by thijsh · · Score: 4, Funny

      You misspelled $1 million as $1. ;-)

    2. Re:Poor Diebold ATM programming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Never, ever deposit money into an ATM in that manner, especially a Diebold ATM.

      I worked for them at one point as a systems engineer and was friends with the engineering group - I was told that they have a "fair" fail rate on the device that you feed the envelope into. On some of the older ATM models there was a gap where it was possible for the envelope to thread downwards instead of into the deposit bin, and you had to take the ATM apart to get those envelopes back.

      That was one of the chief complaints they fielded at the call centers for ATM's - banks would call them and say they would have customers who said they made a deposit, but no envelope was present. They would have to dispatch a service engineer to recover them.

    3. Re:Poor Diebold ATM programming by MiniMike · · Score: 3, Funny

      Never, ever deposit money into an ATM in that manner, especially a Diebold ATM.

      If you don't deposit any money, will it still count your votes?

    4. Re:Poor Diebold ATM programming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Yes, the Diebold atms software does suck, and the software looks like ancient (probably 16 bit) software written by monkeys running on top of windows XP. If it runs long enough, you have to go in and allow more swap space (for some reason windows management of the swap don't work well for their software) and reboot, or simply reboot if you forgot to do the required weekly reboot. This spells a serious memory leak to me.

      I have on occasion looked at the monitor and keyboard inside the bank when it would crash with out of memory resources condition (they use a keyboard/monitor extender that works over regular cat 5 to get those into the building, which I think in itself is a security issue...yea the atm is locked, but with the correct extender box, you could tap into the cat 5 that is right in the open and control the atms keyboard and mouse).

    5. Re:Poor Diebold ATM programming by DanTheStone · · Score: 1

      As I said, this was one of the newer machines that don't use envelopes; they only take checks (cheques) or piles of bills, and count your deposit immediately for you to verify. I'm not sure why you would call it "that manner" when you're talking about the opposite of my situation.

    6. Re:Poor Diebold ATM programming by oldspewey · · Score: 2, Funny

      Yes, but just not as many times.

      --
      If libertarians are so opposed to effective government, why don't they all move to Somalia?
    7. Re:Poor Diebold ATM programming by sideshow · · Score: 1

      Never, ever deposit money into an ATM in that manner, especially a Diebold ATM.

      The ATM the poster refers to does not accept envelopes. In fact, it does a count of the cash right then and there and asks for approval. Then, it rights the bill count and total right into the receipt. If it's before 8pm (at least at BofA) you get immediate access to those funds.

      However, I agree about depositing envelopes full of cash into the old-style ATMs. Not so much because of mechanical errors, but because of bank workers pocketing the cash and then say "Gee, the customer deposited an empty envelope!"

      --

      Hollow words will burn and hollow men will burn.

    8. Re:Poor Diebold ATM programming by operagost · · Score: 1

      That is not likely for the same reason a teller doesn't pocket your deposit at the window. It's called a "camera". They are EVERYWHERE.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    9. Re:Poor Diebold ATM programming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think by "that manner" the OP meant into an ATM in general, instead of hanging your money and a deposit slip to a bank teller.  I concur totally. if you give your money to a machine good luck getting anywhere if it disappears.

    10. Re:Poor Diebold ATM programming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wait, it didn't have a Cancel button? That /would/ be a terrible design.

      I note you say "are not well-programmed." Was that a slip to, well, disingenuously extrapolate an old design's flaws to current machines, or have you used a no-envelope machine like this recently?

      I'm sincerely curious. I've never seen such a machine, and first started using them 30 years ago.

      [For other curious folk, wiki lists ATMs much earlier. What I used were possibly the first widespread units in Canada, from TD bank. That was a great design, with privacy features we're still trying to get back to.]

    11. Re:Poor Diebold ATM programming by IICV · · Score: 1

      Silly goose, your money is your vote!

    12. Re:Poor Diebold ATM programming by Thinboy00 · · Score: 1

      I was under the impression that there are always at least two workers there when they open the envelopes.

      --
      $ make available
    13. Re:Poor Diebold ATM programming by pete6677 · · Score: 1

      Diebold seems like a company that has been living off its reputation for the last couple of decades and pumping out high-cost junk, much like Sony.

  4. Untraceable and Diebold by PmanAce · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Hmmm, where have I heard that before, the terms Diebold and untraceable in the same sentence...beats me!

    --
    Tired of my customary (Score:1)
    1. Re:Untraceable and Diebold by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      mmm, Diebold is untraceable, or Diebold - The Untraceable?

  5. UNfortunately by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This fellow will serve more time than any of the bank CEOs responsible for the huge mess in America's economy.

    1. Re:UNfortunately by Yold · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yes I see your point, but what he did was ILLEGAL. What bank CEOs did was idiotic and a byproduct of Greenspan's Randian/laissez faire outlook on "self-regulation". They weren't violating the law, this guy was. He was deliberately engaged in an act of theft, which doesn't compare to the cluster-fuck of idiocy that caused the last recession. Bank CEOs were reckless, the government was allowing it to happen, and a bunch of toxic assets were being rated as AAA bonds.

      With that said, the real outrage is that some of the CEOs of failed banks made millions off there own failures. When you become CEO you should sign a contract saying "I will return 100% of my bonuses if my fuckups cause this company to fail".

    2. Re:UNfortunately by violasvegas · · Score: 5, Informative

      Actually, what some of these CEO's did was pretty plainly illegal. See - Lehman Brothers and the use of Repo 105. NY Times has a good breakdown. You can find it here: http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/12/the-british-origins-of-lehmans-accounting-gimmick/ Even their own internal legal review determined that the practice was illegal in the US, hence the need to do it secretly in England.

    3. Re:UNfortunately by Dishevel · · Score: 1
      While the Government was not regulating the banks well I have to wonder... If there was NO regulation at all.

      Wouldn't customers be much more likely to know what exactly the banks were doing with their deposits?

      Would they not then move their money to institutions that were more conservative and careful with those deposits?

      Which I think might make banks that were smart and careful more successful and more profitable in the long run than banks that take huge chances. With people less protected and more aware of what was going on I do not think that we would have had this crisis. Which leads me to believe that maybe we should just get rid of FDIC insurance. I think that True market forces can do a better job at regulation than the US Government can.

      --
      Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
    4. Re:UNfortunately by bmo · · Score: 1

      Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice.

      --
      BMO

    5. Re:UNfortunately by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You spelled "laissez faire" properly and then screwed up "there"? FAIL

    6. Re:UNfortunately by Yvan256 · · Score: 1

      Actually the CEO shouldn't get any bonuses at all and only have a % of the profits/losses of the company. If all you get is 0.1% of the bottom line, you try your best that it doesn't become a negative value.

      Those failed banks CEOs would actually OWE money to the USA government at this point.

    7. Re:UNfortunately by blair1q · · Score: 3, Informative

      Yes I see your point. Let's make what those CEOs did ILLEGAL.

      Oh wait, borrowing from each other to make unsecured wagers on other people's debt positions was illegal. Until it wasn't.

      (For you amateur politicians: The retraction of the Bucket Shop laws was added onto a spending bill in 2000. Bill Clinton signed it, because it was a couple of lines in a thousand-page bill, but it was the banking industry's paid-for congresscriminals who stuck it there. Moral: Never allow the GOP to hold power in congress again. When they abuse parliamentary tactics, it costs us $700 billion off the top, and millions of jobs.)

    8. Re:UNfortunately by jimrthy · · Score: 0

      I *hate* this misconception.

      Greenspan paid lip service to laissez faire and Ayn Rand. But he was a total hypocrite. His version of a "free market" still had the government controlling around 90% of it.

      In reality, he was very firmly in the central-planning school of thought. When the bankers (et al) figured out loopholes in the regulations (which they always will), and the economy collapsed, he stabbed free market principles in the back and blamed them.

      We haven't had anything even vaguely resembling a free market in this country since at least 1913. And there was only a vague resemblance before then.

      Don't knock the free market until you've given it a chance.

    9. Re:UNfortunately by brian0918 · · Score: 1

      What bank CEOs did was idiotic and a byproduct of Greenspan's Randian/laissez faire outlook on "self-regulation".

      I am curious what you see that is "Randian" or "laissez faire" about Greenspan or his actions. Sure, he was a free-marketeer back in the 60s, but the dude had absolute power over the monetary policy of the entire country. There is nothing laissez-faire about that. Rand was in favor of ending the Federal Reserve altogether - the Greenspan of the last decade was out for gaining political power, not acting on principle.

      With that said, the real outrage is that some of the CEOs of failed banks made millions off there own failures.

      That is definitely true. Those companies should have gone into bankruptcy, not be rescued from their bad decisions.

    10. Re:UNfortunately by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Prison is too good for the banksters.

      Captcha: humanity - what they're not part of.

    11. Re:UNfortunately by Yold · · Score: 2, Informative

      I think that True market forces can do a better job at regulation than the US Government can.

      Until greed, credit, and gullibility enter into the equation. What do you think causes the Great Depression? Unregulated securities markets and overvalued stocks fueled by the credit of your average citizen. What do you think causes the last recession? Under-regulation in the securities markets, and overvalued bonds fueled by the credit (mortgages) of your average citizen. For fucks-sake, my 20 year old friend had a $150,000 mortgage on $30,000 of income for a house that is now worth $40,000. He defaulted, along with basically the whole neighborhood.

    12. Re:UNfortunately by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      JPMC is manipulating the PM market, GS is manipulating - well fucking everything. (including our government) The whole lot of them need to be dragged out into the streets and fucking shot live on 'Merican Idle. Everything these people do is illegal (or should be), immoral, disgusting and treasonous.

      "You are a den of vipers and thieves. I intend to rout you out, and by the grace of the Eternal God, will rout you out."

    13. Re:UNfortunately by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      And Communism in Russia failed because it wasn't true Communism. Please give true Communism a chance.

    14. Re:UNfortunately by camg188 · · Score: 1

      Bank CEOs were reckless, the government was allowing it to happen, and a bunch of toxic assets were being rated as AAA bonds.

      "s/was allowing/caused/"
      Weren't those toxic assets created due to bad legislation and wasn't it Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac that bundled those assets with solid ones in order to get them a AAA rating?

    15. Re:UNfortunately by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He might be a how you say, french-type. Why do you think he has that outrageous accent?

    16. Re:UNfortunately by tekrat · · Score: 1

      That's a good point, and I'll bet the Lehman officers will never do even a second of jail-time. But to go back to the parent-post (or gandparent post, I'm lost at this point)... The poster points out that what this loser did was "illegal" and what the banks did to fuck the economy wasn't "illegal".

      I'd like to point out that "duh" -- OF COURSE, it's designed that way. Laws in this country ARE DESIGNED to make everything done by a "citizen" illegal, while anything done by large, faceless corps are legal. This is because corporations run the country, buy the laws they want, and do their best to keep down the average guy. Frankly, if Bernie Madoff had just paid off the right guys, he'd not be in jail.

      When you get right down to it, what's the difference between legal and illegal -- words in a document or morality and spirit of a law? Does the parent poster REALLY believe the banks were looking out for the best interests of their clients and the country when they ran those "legal" frauds? You're telling me they stayed true to the spirit of the law by cutting up bad mortgages into tiny little pieces that couldn't be identified and packaging them into derivatives and then falsifying their ratings so that Morningstar would recommend these crappy securities?

      By the letter of the law what they did was "legal", but don't try to make it that the banks were any better than your common mugger. The only reason what they did was "legal" was because the law in this country is bought by the highest bidder.

      Frankly, if muggers had lobby in congress and enough money to buy politicians, it would be "legal" to rob people at gunpoint.

      --
      If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
    17. Re:UNfortunately by Yold · · Score: 1

      He blocked efforts to regulate the derivatives market, saying it would "self-regulate". He believed that allowing market-correction was the best way to deal with fraud/over-valuation.

      Calling Greenspan "Randian" was a bit of hyperbole.

    18. Re:UNfortunately by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Weren't those toxic assets created due to bad legislation and wasn't it Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac that bundled those assets with solid ones in order to get them a AAA rating?No. They buy loans and hold them. Other companies buy loans, bundle them and sell them, but not Freddy and Fannie.

    19. Re:UNfortunately by stephanruby · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Moral: Never allow the GOP to hold power in congress again. When they abuse parliamentary tactics, it costs us $700 billion off the top, and millions of jobs.

      I don't see how you ended up with that moral. Shouldn't the excuse you used for Bill Clinton be equally applicable to the GOP in Congress? or even the few Democrats in Congress? After all, if a Democrat in Congress had seen the couple of lines added in there, wouldn't he have told the Democrat President? Or are you implying that the lines were inserted in the bill between the time it was voted in and the time it was driven to the White House (which is possible granted, but I don't think that's what you said)?

      Disclaimer: I did vote for Bill Clinton. I just think that this attitude of "That my party can do no wrong, and if they did wrong, there must be a good reason for it." is precisely what's wrong with our current political system.

    20. Re:UNfortunately by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 1

      For fucks-sake, my 20 year old friend had a $150,000 mortgage on $30,000 of income for a house that is now worth $40,000.

      One thing that I never see in these discussions is the lack of financial literacy of the general public. Who the fuck buys anything that is worth a) more than 5 times their yearly income, and b) was worth 50% the price paid for about 2-3 years ago?

      I don't care what the interest rate is that you pay the first 6 months. If you make x per year and something costs 5x, you're not going to pay it off, ever. Unless you make about 10 million a year and have a golden parachute for 50 million. But then, the rules don't apply anyway.

      Regulation isn't going to solve that problem. I really, really wish these people will get hit so hard by that problem that their grandkids will hear about it. Otherwise, they won't learn.

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    21. Re:UNfortunately by infinite9 · · Score: 1

      Yes I see your point. Let's make what those CEOs did ILLEGAL.

      Make no mistake. What happened with the banking system, the endless bubble-crash cycles, the bad mortgage lending, the massive bailouts, was on purpose and by design. The CEOs aren't stupid. When they say that no one could have seen this coming, they're lying. When they say that they made a mistake, they're lying. When they say that a bank is too big to fail, and society will collapse if you don't give them billions of taxpayer dollars, they're lying. Big banks stealing from taxpayers is not illegal because they write the laws. When the hacker did was illegal because he stole from the big banks.

      This may be tin-foil-hat stuff, but the middle class is being intentionally, systematically destroyed. This banking crisis was used to enrich the elite at our expense. And anything that happens in the aftermath is an excuse to raise taxes and enslave us all. The big bankers want us living in shanty towns, drinking polluted water, eating the food they give us, working us and our children 80 hours a week.

      --
      Disconnect your television. Do your own research. Draw your own conclusions. They're probably lying. Don't be a sheep.
    22. Re:UNfortunately by bravo_2_0 · · Score: 1

      (For you amateur politicians: The retraction of the Bucket Shop laws was added onto a spending bill in 2000. Bill Clinton signed it, because it was a couple of lines in a thousand-page bill, but it was the banking industry's paid-for congresscriminals who stuck it there. Moral: Never allow the GOP to hold power in congress again. When they abuse parliamentary tactics, it costs us $700 billion off the top, and millions of jobs.)

      I think this is what you meant to say:
      Moral: Never allow the Democrats to hold the presidency again. When they do they don't read what they are signing!

      --
      I AM A SEXY SHOELESS GOD OF WAR!!!
    23. Re:UNfortunately by Jawn98685 · · Score: 1

      Close. The returning of bonuses to the people you screwed should be a part of the government regulation covering people who fuck around with other peoples' money, e.g. "bankers". An escrow or trust account, could hold the money for n months, where n is long enough to determine guilt/blame. Sign whatever contracts you want, but when you lose at the tables, erm... "business", you'll never see your bonus. No restriction on the mythical free trade, just a means of ensuring that everyone plays fair.

    24. Re:UNfortunately by Richthofen80 · · Score: 1

      Its a violation of the law to commit fraud. Most, if not all, of the major banks engaged in fraudulent accounting, at the very least. They used this fraudulent accounting to show excess paper profits, and used those profits as a justification to pay very large bonuses. Then, when the winds turned, none of these banks had enough cash on hand to weather the storm.

      There should be a Pecora Commission, and a perp walk, to say the least. These banks did exactly what Enron did. Enron saw its comeuppance, so should these banks.

      --
      Reason, free market capitalism, and individualism
    25. Re:UNfortunately by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Also the majority in congress said they would override his veto. What he did do is get change made so the middle class wouldn't get left out.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    26. Re:UNfortunately by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So Billy signed it into law but it is the GOP's fault? Maybe Billy should have read it before he signed, that way there would be less of this finger pointing.

    27. Re:UNfortunately by whrde · · Score: 1

      you seem to be equating legal theft with moral theft.

    28. Re:UNfortunately by operagost · · Score: 1

      What bank CEOs did was idiotic and a byproduct of Greenspan's Randian/laissez faire outlook on "self-regulation".

      Because it was God Himself who ordered the banks to give loans to people with low income, bad credit, and no down payment. Or maybe it was Barney Frank... Just stop. Stop blaming capitalism. If you hate capitalism, there are about 100 socialist countries you can go suck off of.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    29. Re:UNfortunately by geekoid · · Score: 1

      no. There was a time of no regulation. It led to massive financial and class failure.

      When the people at the top of the market lie, how is a consumer supposed to know?
      Yes, we are conservative with your money. right up until the time you loose everything and we leave with pockets full of cash.

      People, such as yourself, seem to forget that the regulations stem from past abuses that caused financial crisis.

      True market forces is a myth. You can only have true market forces in a world where all actions and information is equally shared, shallow, and no one lies in any way.

      regulation is needed.
      OTOH, if people wanted to get rid of all banking regulations from the private sector in exchange for a government run bank with regulations then fine. SO then I can at least have the option of putting my money i a regulated system. Of course that wouldn't work because everyone would put there money in the government bank as soon as the first crash in the private sector happened.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    30. Re:UNfortunately by Volante3192 · · Score: 1

      When Congress can and wants to override a presidential veto (hint: that can be done) then it doesn't matter what you do from the Executive chair.

    31. Re:UNfortunately by rgviza · · Score: 1

      Clinton and Greenspan could have stopped it at any time by raising interest rates and vetoing GLBA changes.

      Moral of the story: never allow a liberal president into power that cares more about getting his cock sucked than the US economy.

      This was a bipartisan fuckup. Don't kid yourself. The Clinton administration was asleep at the wheel and democrats voted for it en masse too. They'd have done whatever clinton wanted them to. In case your memory is fuzzy, here's the numbers
      House Democrats: 75% yay (155-51)
      House Republicans: 98% yay (207-5)
      Senate Democrats: 84% yay (38-7)
      Senate Republicans: 98% yay (52-1)

      A veto and a democrat united front would have killed it because the 2/3 majority needed to override the veto wouldn't have been there.

      Clinton and the democrats were squarely in the "Lets loan money to anyone with a pulse" camp.

      Like I said, it was a bipartisan fuckup.

      Anyone that says different is drinking too much koolaid.

      --
      Don't kid yourself. It's the size of the regexp AND how you use it that counts.
    32. Re:UNfortunately by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Lots of people./
      BTW 150K house would be under 700 a month at 5%.

      Walking away may have just been a prudent financial decision. I suspect if it dropped to 100K he wouldn't have walked away.

      You are looking at it wrong. It's not pay 700 a month, or payu nothing.
      It's pay 700 dollars a month in a home you might get equity for, vs 700 a month for an apartment.

      Why pay that kind of money for a house that is no longer worth it? Better to walk, wait a couple of year and the purchase again.

      Historically what would have happen is the loan would have been renegotiate; unfortunately the way they where package home loans made that impossible.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    33. Re:UNfortunately by Richy_T · · Score: 1

      People, such as yourself, seem to forget that the regulations stem from past abuses that caused financial crisis.

      Yes, "something had to be done", of course.

      Never mind that it doesn't actually fix the problem so, sooner or later, "something has to be done" again. And again.

    34. Re:UNfortunately by cusco · · Score: 1

      "When they say that no one could have seen this coming, they're lying."

      We were talking about this on a couple of forums where I regularly participate in 2002 By 2005 most of the participants were agreed about what was coming, just not sure whether it would happen in time to prevent the Rethugs making their position permanent in 2009. Fortunately it started to come apart early enough that the GOP essentially bailed on the presidential race and let McCain take the nomination since they knew they were going to lose.

      Anyway, if a bunch of intelligent amateurs with only access to publicly available information can figure out what was happening SEVEN YEARS before the crash it's pretty obvious that Greenspan, Bernake and the rest of those dirtbags, with complete access to inside information, knew. Even the largest of free market blinders couldn't have hidden it.

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
    35. Re:UNfortunately by migla · · Score: 1

      What's wrong with your political system goes far deeper than that.

      For example: Why don't you have two runs in the presidental elections if no candidate gets more than half of the votes?

      I'm sure there are several other technical issues like this that has made and continues to make it a two party state.

      Now, I'm not aware of representative democracy working particularly well anywhere, but two party states are a bit worse than, say, five party states, right? On the other hand, maybe a 34665 party state is worse than a 7 party state? I don't know where the sweet spot of representative democracy might be, but it sure as hell isn't 2, I think.

      --
      Some of my favourite people are from th US; Vonnegut, Chomsky, Bill Hicks.
    36. Re:UNfortunately by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unless you add in insurance and taxes... then it is much more than 700/month

    37. Re:UNfortunately by kronosopher · · Score: 1

      i wish i could mod this up, if slightly inflammatory, it's still rather pertinent.

    38. Re:UNfortunately by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you make x per year and something costs 5x, you're not going to pay it off, ever.

      That's not even remotely true. From what I've read, the natural equilibrium point for houses is 7x the median income for the area. And that's a perfectly reasonable investment for many income levels. The problem with the $150k loan on $30k earnings is that $30k isn't that much above the poverty line. No matter what the income level, you have to subtract off basic living expenses first before making your calculations. And since most of those expenses are relatively fixed, those with higher income levels are better equipped to take on debt at that level.

      Consider someone making $100k per year buying a house that costs $700k. A 30-year fixed at 5% would be about $3750/mo. Even before considering the tax benefits you'd get from home ownership, a $100k salary will net you about $5500 per month after taxes, so you've got almost $2k left over for living expenses, which should be enough. And, like I said, that's before any of the tax advantages that you'd get from owning a home. And that's assuming financing the entire purchase when financing 80% is much more common. In that case, you'd have to save up $140k prior to buying and the payment would drop to around $3k/mo.

    39. Re:UNfortunately by mdielmann · · Score: 1

      There is a such thing as criminal negligence, and I think it can be argued that the banks crossed that line. ...to use a car analogy...
      It's pretty safe for me to drive 1 million km/h on a totally uninhabited road - my car can do that! OTOH, doing 90 km/h in a city probably isn't a good idea, and will probably get you a ticket - you're not being smart. And hitting a person while doing the speed limit when the person was clearly visible and easily avoidable, even if doing nothing else wrong, can get you convicted of criminal negligence causing death.

      So why is it okay to blow BILLIONS of dollars on bad bets, but less okay to STEAL some relatively small amount?

      --
      Sure I'm paranoid, but am I paranoid enough?
    40. Re:UNfortunately by astar · · Score: 1

      well, on the bank loans, God was involved. How other than as God to treat the "invisible hand". and if not for things like the repeal of glass-steagall, the banks would have been better behaved. Hah, there is a very current data set on this. orszag denied that fannie mae could possibly default! this default threat cost us 1.74 trillion dollars. as far as capitalism is concerned, get a little sense and figure industrial capitalism can be your friend, but financial capitalism is always the world's enemy.

    41. Re:UNfortunately by Dishevel · · Score: 1

      Why pay that kind of money for a house that is no longer worth it? Better to walk, wait a couple of year and the purchase again.

      This is exactly the kind of thinking that tells me I am right in thinking. FUCK THOSE ASSHOLES!. Why bother paying a bill? It is smarter to just be a fuckhead. Fuck all those bastards that bought shit they can not afford and then expect my fucking tax money to fix their shit. Fuck them all.

      --
      Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
  6. WinXP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Although I hear diebold does better with ATM's, I can't help but wonder how much effort they put into ATM security versus the voting machine fiasco.

    I went to a Bank of America branch here in Eastern NC one day last year, and saw a Windows XP error screen on the ATM. I then saw a Diebold guy coming out of the bank, and asked him about it. He says that the BoA ATMs are now running XP on them. How safe do you feel knowing that?

    1. Re:WinXP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Diebold ATM's run a special version of Windows - it's not stock Windows XP. They work directly with Microsoft to create a specialized version where Diebold has much more control of the low-level functions and it's missing a lot of standard Windows components. I worked there for a years.

      Now I'm not saying that it is 100% safer and full-proof as I hate the fact that it is Windows-anything, but its definitely better than stock XP.

    2. Re:WinXP by LinuxIsGarbage · · Score: 2, Informative

      Although I hear diebold does better with ATM's, I can't help but wonder how much effort they put into ATM security versus the voting machine fiasco.

      I went to a Bank of America branch here in Eastern NC one day last year, and saw a Windows XP error screen on the ATM. I then saw a Diebold guy coming out of the bank, and asked him about it. He says that the BoA ATMs are now running XP on them. How safe do you feel knowing that?

      A lot of ATMs have been running Windows for years. I remember 10 or so years ago after I finished my transaction the ATM rebooted. On the green monochrome screen was the POST check, followed by a Windows NT splash screen. I've also seen various Windows errors over the years on ATMs. Some were still NT4.0 errors, even recently. A lot of kiosks run Embedded version of Windows. As do cash registers.

      I've also seen my fair share of Linux based kiosks sitting with an error, or in an endless reboot cycle, so Windows isn't alone in this regard.

    3. Re:WinXP by Volante3192 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      When you don't change the default password, it doesn't matter if you're running XP, 95, OS/2 or SELinux.
      When you can overlay a fake cardreader over the top of the device's real reader, it doesn't matter if you're running XP, 95, OS/2 or SELinux.
      When the criminal behind it is also a device admin, it doesn't matter if you're running XP, 95, OS/2 or SELinux.

      How safe do you feel knowing that?

    4. Re:WinXP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      A couple of years back, I saw an engineer fixing one of the mini-ATMs you get in bars and rest stops, and it booted in to IBM OS/2 Warp - bet eastern European hackers would have trouble cracking that one.

    5. Re:WinXP by PalmKiller · · Score: 3, Interesting

      NO AC, it is not special, it is the regular plan vanilla. It is stock XP with branding done on it with the Diebold name (just like DELL and all the others do to their XP to make them look special)...and yea its installed with a script that leaves out some windows stuff that you don't need...but again this is not special either. I can't say how I know, but trust me I know.

    6. Re:WinXP by PalmKiller · · Score: 5, Informative

      Well as an aside, it is windows XP embedded kiosk edition, but other than that, its the stock banana, so all the viruses and back doors will still work as written.

    7. Re:WinXP by Grand+Facade · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "I can't say how I know, but trust me I know."

      Now there is a security issue right there.......

      --
      Rick B.
    8. Re:WinXP by HideyoshiJP · · Score: 0

      I'd imagine it's just XPe. A place I worked at had a few machines running this and they still managed to get conficker.

    9. Re:WinXP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really? Because I worked there not five years ago, and still know and talk to all the guys that are responsible for that. I've navigated around the old Windows NT custom build myself, and the same thing applied with the newest version.

    10. Re:WinXP by PalmKiller · · Score: 1

      As I recall, Nachia infected several of them.

    11. Re:WinXP by Tanktalus · · Score: 1

      How safe do you feel knowing that?

      Answer 1: Perfectly safe. I keep my money in my mattress.

      Answer 2: I feel much better about keeping my money in the stock market. Even during a crash.

    12. Re:WinXP by poetmatt · · Score: 1

      if you've ever worked for a bank (I have, and have relatives in the IT side), you'd know that the poster above is correct. It's a branded but stock version of XP.
      I thought most companies were trying to replace that, though.

      Not to say you can't make that more secure, I don't know if diebold does or not, but I do know for certain that terminals running XP run it stock.

    13. Re:WinXP by PalmKiller · · Score: 1

      I am sure they made modifications to them, but not to the extent that it is noticeable to the worms and viruses.

    14. Re:WinXP by socz · · Score: 1

      Yep I agree. One of the things that could help reduce the problems is have the gov't (yes, those bastards!) regulate the ATMs (yes thats a nightmare).

      So here's my idea, because the companies won't do it themselves, require that all ATMs look the same: they all have a slanted FLAT front. If a card skimmer is placed on it you'll know right away. Make them all touch screen - no more buttons. Have all of their openings flush.

      Sometimes I see ATMs and get confused with what goes where. I understand everyone wants their machine to stand out, but come on it looks like bad 80's scifi movies!

      --
      My abilities are only limited by my imagination
    15. Re:WinXP by oldspewey · · Score: 1

      Security through obscurity

      --
      If libertarians are so opposed to effective government, why don't they all move to Somalia?
    16. Re:WinXP by PalmKiller · · Score: 1

      Not really a security issue, nothing fishy in that statement, just don't want to get anyone in trouble.

    17. Re:WinXP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've visited NCR headquarters, and I know they use a flavor of Windows on some (if not all) of their machines as well.

    18. Re:WinXP by hyc · · Score: 3, Funny

      Windows-anything handling your money is Just Not a Good Idea.

      http://www.flickr.com/photos/27159137@N08/3186737368/

      --
      -- *My* journal is more interesting than *yours*...
    19. Re:WinXP by skuzzlebutt · · Score: 1

      Many moons ago, my brother-in-law was an ATM tech. He told me that ATMs were the last major users of BeOS. Waddayaknow.

      --
      My debut novel AMITY now available: http://jeremydbrooks.c
    20. Re:WinXP by peragrin · · Score: 1

      So what haveyou done? Tripled your fire insurance? What happens when you fall asleep with a hooker over? Does she just helpherself on theway out?

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    21. Re:WinXP by Thud457 · · Score: 1

      You should see the god-awful mess they made of the Wachovia ATMs since they merged with Wells Fargo.
      What used to be a fairly simple and standard ATM setup all of the sudden grew all sorts of push-advertising for additional services and "value" "added" features. And they slapped at least six stickers on the front, each with enough text for a EULA. It really made it hard to find the usual basic transactions quickly when you're leaning out of your car window trying to just grab some cash.

      --

      the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

    22. Re:WinXP by Nikker · · Score: 2, Insightful

      One issue with touch screens is the ability for a would be attacker to merely clean the screen before you use it. Although recovering further data is not as simple (magstrip, chip, removable device) you are still filling in blank spaces for a would be attacker and that is not usually a good idea.

      --
      A loop, by its nature, continues. If that didn't make sense, start reading this sentence again.
    23. Re:WinXP by aztracker1 · · Score: 1

      Actually, I'm pretty sure they're using an embedded version, which really isn't so much stock. On embedded versions of windows, you have the ability to strip out pretty much everything that your application doesn't need to run.

      --
      Michael J. Ryan - tracker1.info
    24. Re:WinXP by aztracker1 · · Score: 1

      Not all, because on embedded systems, usually it's SOP to remove anything that isn't needed by the application layer, also on ATM systems, they aren't (afaik) used on a public internet connection, usually a private network, or pots connection, and encrypted channels on top of that.

      --
      Michael J. Ryan - tracker1.info
    25. Re:WinXP by trapnest · · Score: 1

      It's not Windows XP embedded, at least never on any install I've seen.

    26. Re:WinXP by deKernel · · Score: 1

      Uhm, BeOS was never used by any major ATM vendor. I know because I argued vehemently while at Diebold that we should have at a minimum, investigated BeOS as a replacement for OS/2 as opposed to going to XP.

    27. Re:WinXP by thetoadwarrior · · Score: 1

      They still crash (often) like XP from my experience.

    28. Re:WinXP by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      I've also seen my fair share of Linux based kiosks sitting with an error, or in an endless reboot cycle, so Windows isn't alone in this regard.

      Both of them (actually any OS) will suffer from hardware problems. My last PC started first developing reboots and bluescreens on the Windows side, and eventually Mandiva as well. The problem was the power supply, which finally croaked; its voltages had been undstable for some time, causeing the problems in both OSes.

    29. Re:WinXP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      She puts one leg into the mattress and whatever money sticks to her pus-oozing sores she can keep.

    30. Re:WinXP by Grand+Facade · · Score: 1

      My point exactly.

      It seems you are a 3rd party in possession of what could be/is confidential information about the structure of a Diebold ATM.

      How is that not a breach of security?

      --
      Rick B.
    31. Re:WinXP by Sabriel · · Score: 1

      One solution is to have the numbers in two rows, with the second row pseudo-randomised by the remote bank; you do a lookup on your PIN from the first row, and enter the corresponding second row values. This resists both smudge-reading on touch-screens and key-loggers on push-pads, because the data you send isn't your PIN, merely a one-time hash that only the receiving bank understands.

      Neither of course helps if someone can get actual video of your PIN entry, but there are other solutions for that. :)

    32. Re:WinXP by awyeah · · Score: 1

      Remember the good old days, when ATMs ran OS/2?

      --
      Why, no, I haven't meta-moderated lately. Thanks for asking!
  7. Life Without Parole by SplicerNYC · · Score: 0

    That should send a message to the next one.

    1. Re:Life Without Parole by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Who did he kill? How many children did they find in his basement?

    2. Re:Life Without Parole by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who cares if he didn't kill anybody or hurt any children? It's high time that we stopped this nonsense once and for all by handing out life sentences to anybody that gets caught pulling this junk.

    3. Re:Life Without Parole by tekrat · · Score: 1

      And which "junk" would that be ?

      I'm all for "Life without Parole" for DUI, how does that sound to you?
      And since our prisons are all filled to the brim, we need to start executing. A LOT.
      I'm all for executing drug dealers, child porn people, rapists and murderers.

      We need to put an end to this junk, so if we send the message that the POLICE STATE will KILL YOU for just about anything, that should put citizens in their place. After all, if you're not cop, you're little people.

      --
      If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
    4. Re:Life Without Parole by LanMan04 · · Score: 1
      --
      With the first link, the chain is forged.
  8. "untraceably", "east european" ... o k by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    yeah, sure. I believe this!

    not

    sounds to me like someone wants mr Caverly for a long time behind bars. 3letter organizations?

  9. Question.... by mark-t · · Score: 4, Interesting

    ... what do you do if you get counterfeit bills from an ATM?

    1. Re:Question.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      RUN!

    2. Re:Question.... by realsilly · · Score: 1

      When ever a transaction doesn't go correctly at the bank you should contact the bank immediately. If it takes your money and doesn't credit your account, this is what receipts are for. If you receive counterfit cash, I'd park my car at the atm window and make sure you call the bank ASAP. It's a direct CYA move. The longer you wait to contact a bank the more difficult it is to fix the problem. If you have a bank ATM card, it's good to put their phone number on your cell, so if you card is lost or stolen or you suspect something fraudulent, you can stop bad transactions before they start.

      I had a waitress mis-place my credit card at a restaurant and rather than tell me ASAP, she delayed me for over 30 minutes, claiming she forgot or something. I was livid. For if someone had stolen it 30 min is more than enough time to destroy my account. Since then, I try to pay cash as much as possible. I almost always sign my cc receipts. I watch my account like a hawk. It's my money, and my account. It's my responsibility to make sure I'm not being had.

      --
      Life takes interesting turns, but the most interest is when you're off the beaten path.
    3. Re:Question.... by FLEABttn · · Score: 4, Informative

      What you're supposed to do is return them to the bank or contact the secret service and turn the money over. However, you're not reimbursed for this. If the ATM gives you a fake $20 and you go inside and give it to the bank, you're out those $20 because they didn't witness what happened between you getting the money and you coming inside the bank. Knowing that, what you do with the counterfeit money is sort of up to you. Maybe you didn't realize it was counterfeit and will spend it anyways. It's best to withdraw cash from inside the bank and verify it in front of the teller, because if they see that you didn't swap any bills and you were given a fake by them, they will exchange it.

    4. Re:Question.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      spend it at a 7-11 immediately, and hope they dont call the cops.
      You can talk your way out of it if you only have 1 bill and can point to the ATM machine it came from.

    5. Re:Question.... by cusco · · Score: 1

      Happened to me. Took a bunch of cash out of the ATM before a trip to Peru. When I got there I found that one of the bills was fake. I kept it until I got back to the States and spent it here. Years ago I got a fake $100 from a bank teller. When I tried to change it in Peru (I didn't know there was anything wrong with it, I thought it was just old) I ended up spending the weekend in jail until I could convince the judge on Monday that I didn't belong to the group of gypsies that coincidentally had been passing through the area trying to change fake bills. Worst weekend of my life, they don't even have to FEED you in Peruvian jails.

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
    6. Re:Question.... by Acer500 · · Score: 1

      IDK about the US, but over here withdrawing from the teller costs money, and you're subject to the absurd working hours of the bank.

      OTOH, if you withdraw from the ATM you're liable to the sort of things you mention (I'm still out U$ 300 from the Bank Boston - now Banco Itaú in Uruguay, and will never do business with them again whenever possible, from an ATM failure that resulted on withdrawal from my account without me receiving the money, and even appealing to the bank didn't work)

      --
      There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.
    7. Re:Question.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That may be true for one bill or two, but if the whole stack is bad, but it stands to reason that if they go open the atm and the rest are counterfeit, then your story holds water and they should exchange it.

    8. Re:Question.... by CptNerd · · Score: 1

      Maybe it's an "on-demand" currency printer...
      "Just in time... served".

      --
      By the taping of my glasses, something geeky this way passes
    9. Re:Question.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What you're supposed to do is return them to the bank or contact the secret service and turn the money over. However, you're not reimbursed for this. If the ATM gives you a fake $20 and you go inside and give it to the bank, you're out those $20 because they didn't witness what happened between you getting the money and you coming inside the bank.

      Knowing that, what you do with the counterfeit money is sort of up to you. Maybe you didn't realize it was counterfeit and will spend it anyways.

      It's best to withdraw cash from inside the bank and verify it in front of the teller, because if they see that you didn't swap any bills and you were given a fake by them, they will exchange it.

      not quite true. The bank "should" investigate the issue, meaning they'd send a servicer to check the ATM and if there were counterfeit bills in it they would refund you. I work at a service center for ATM's, and I've had customers call about having Diebold cash in the ATM instead of real money. Now if you happened to get the only fake bill in the ATM yeah you might get screwed.

  10. wait a second by blair1q · · Score: 5, Funny

    Is this the dude who put that "This bank charges a $3 fee for you to get your own money" exploit on there?

    I hate that.

    Hang him.

  11. Will not use BoA atms! by Bill,+Shooter+of+Bul · · Score: 3, Interesting

    And I suggest you do not use them either. They just operate and behave wrongly, even when they don't have malware installed.

    They're slow. -- ATM's in the 80's were faster.
    They're obviously running window XP. -- The standard windows sounds are used.

    --
    Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
    1. Re:Will not use BoA atms! by Zen_Sorcere · · Score: 1

      I've been with BoA for 20 years, and have been using their ATM's the entire time, and only once have I had an issue with one of the machines. Admittedly, I plan on leaving them soon, as I've been having some other issues with them, but I would hardly call the plethora of BoA ATMs something to avoid at all costs.

    2. Re:Will not use BoA atms! by Bill,+Shooter+of+Bul · · Score: 1

      Well, all of the ones near me are really, really slow. And they are obviously running windows, and didn't do much to cover up that fact. I guess I have a lower threshold for insecurity than you. Its really sort of odd, because BoA's webiste is pretty good.

      --
      Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
    3. Re:Will not use BoA atms! by davemiester · · Score: 1

      They're obviously running window XP. -- The standard windows sounds are used.

      That's why Minesweeper keeps popping up on my local ATM when I try to withdraw cash. I should have known!

      --
      Pardon my lack of intelligence, but on Earth I am considered quite smart.
  12. They should run Linux by LinuxIsGarbage · · Score: 5, Funny

    This is why banks should use Linux. That way it would be impossible to install the same malware on all systems. Because each slightly different model, released on slightly different dates, would have different versions of incompatible libraries

    “Why GNU/Linux Viruses are fairly uncommon” from Charlie Harvey

    1. Re:They should run Linux by rickb928 · · Score: 2, Funny

      ATMs used to be run on OS/2. I would very rarely see one stuck at the Presentation Manager startup screen.

      Nowadays, seeing an ATM stuck at the XP boot screen or BSOD isn't reeally novel.

      But the entire concept of running ATMs in XP is indeed troubling. A custom distro based on Debian would seem a good way to do it.

      Watch that the first Linux ATMs run Mandriva. Ugh. At least they should run Gentoo just to mess with 'us'.

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    2. Re:They should run Linux by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually Royal in Canada still runs OS/2 Warp 4, and I believe that the other major ones do to like CIBC and TD.

      Banks and their IT groups are just lazy by choosing Windows over Linux. They are more about making profit then the odd attack. Just wait it's going to get interesting when a real attack goes out and banks start to loose truck loads of money.

    3. Re:They should run Linux by LinuxIsGarbage · · Score: 1

      Part of it is that that's the solutions they are buying. For example, NCR is a very common ATM brand. Look at the specifications of this model: ncr selfserv22

      SOFTWARE: Windows® XP Pro

      The monochrome NT machine was a Royal.

    4. Re:They should run Linux by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "OK, ATM. Give me $60."

      OK, CUSTOMER. WITHDRAWING $60 FROM CHECKING. PLEASE WAIT. COMPILING BILLS.

      BILLS LEFT TO COMPILE: 3. PLEASE WAIT. ESTIMATED COMPILE TIME: 82 MINUTES

      "Hmm.. not sure how I feel about these new ATMs."

      BILLS LEFT TO COMPILE: 2. PLEASE WAIT. ESTIMATED COMPILE TIME: 97 MINUTES

      "Ugh... Well, at least they have a coffee machine here...."

      BEANS LEFT TO COMPILE: 32. PLEASE WAIT. ESTIMATED COMPILE TIME: 182 MINUTES

      "ARghhhh!"

    5. Re:They should run Linux by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please show me an IT group that has any say on which ATMs to order. ATMs are chosen by groups outside of IT and higher than the IT director and out of a selection provided by the ATM processor and ATM maintenance provider companies. Linux ATMs are like Sasquatch, you hear about them but never see them. For whatever reason, ATM processors and ATM maintenance providers don't want to deal with them. I am surprised malware can even run on the things considering how fragile the software is. I even had an ATM maintenance provider tell me ATM fragility could be considered a feature because anyone trying to do anything to the ATM would break it and thereby let you know something was wrong. The fragility is supposedly due to how the old DOS and OS/2 ATM functionality was rigged to run on Windows.

  13. Is this a US thing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Do these ATMs omit a paper log? Because I didn't know better then ATMs log everything they do on paper, and I do hope they didn't implement that in its userland.

  14. I Wonder How Many Bosses He Has.... by BJ_Covert_Action · · Score: 1

    Caverly, who worked on the bank's IT staff, allegedly withdrew cash untraceably from the ATMs over a period of 7 months last year.

    Someone watched Officespace one too many times.

    1. Re:I Wonder How Many Bosses He Has.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Someone watched Officespace one too many times.

      Or Superman III.

  15. Another victim of Windows !!! by MrData · · Score: 1
    I am surprised it took this long to happen, but it was inevitable since the industry switched their ATM's over to Windows:

    IBM bids OS/2 farewell

    When will people learn ... windows is bad for you !

    1. Re:Another victim of Windows !!! by Volante3192 · · Score: 1

      When the system admin is the one planting malware, it doesn't matter what OS it's running.
      When the default passwords aren't changed, it doesn't matter what OS it's running.

      The real questions are:
      1st, why isn't the system state verified? It's an ATM. It should be static. Anything new installed should force a crash if it's not properly vetted.
      2nd, why is stuff even allowed to install on it? It's an ATM. See above.

      Windows did not fail, BoA's IT policies failed.

  16. Agreed by tacokill · · Score: 1

    When you become CEO you should sign a contract saying "I will return 100% of my bonuses if my fuckups cause this company to fail".

    They do. It used to be called "bankruptcy". Sadly, we have a serious aversion to that under the current administration because it might be uncomfortable for many people living beyond their means.

    GM, GMAC, GE, countless banks, many insurance companies --- all of them "bailed out" of bankruptcy.

    And yes, I am bitter and pissed, as are MANY other business owners. My company doesn't get bailed out if I fail. Rather, I lose all my shit and have to start over. And for the record, that's how it should be. Bankruptcy is the ultimate "stick" to keep management and owners from doing stupid and/or risky stuff. Take that option off the table and you create a moral hazard that encourages MORE, rather than less, risk taking. ie: exactly the opposite of what you are trying to accomplish

    1. Re:Agreed by Yold · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Do you know what a corporation is? A corporation going bankrupt is not the same as a proprietorship going bankrupt; this is the whole reason that you start a corporation... to shield your salary/earnings in case the company goes under. The trade-off is that you essentially pay income tax twice (it is wayy more complicated though).

    2. Re:Agreed by tacokill · · Score: 1

      Yes, I know exactly what a corporation is. I own one. Do you realize that corporations are owned by actual people? And those people (owners) hire managers to run the corporation? And those managers are hired/fired at will and are answerable to the owners/shareholders?

      My point still stands: the moral hazard created by removing bankruptcy changes behavior at all participant levels and leads to perverted incentives that lead to disastrous results. If there is no risk for the owners, then they have no interest in "correcting" the managers. See Fannie Mae. See Freddie Mac. See countless other recent examples where this is the case.

      Risk is moderated by the possibility of failure. Remove the possibility of failure and you change the whole game from "free market" to "centrally planned" allocation of resources. That is part of the beauty of our system and I am saddened that more people do not recognize it.

  17. Who in their right mind... by TheVelvetFlamebait · · Score: 1

    ... sends out an alert on the 1st April? Seriously?

    --
    You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
  18. So your idea is "screw blind people!" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Make them all touch screen - no more buttons.

    "Hey blindey, what's the matter? can't see the screen?!?"

    1. Re:So your idea is "screw blind people!" by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      Then go inside and work with a bank employee.

      Or what, do you want me to stand next to you quietly and watch everything you type?

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    2. Re:So your idea is "screw blind people!" by X0563511 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      OK, that came out ruder than I wanted it to.

      My point is that a blind person using an ATM is dangerous. Unless he has echolocation, he can't know that nobody is watching. Also, how can he tell that he's at a real ATM?

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    3. Re:So your idea is "screw blind people!" by Sigspat · · Score: 1

      Just because someone can benefit from braille doesn't mean they're completely sightless. They may need the braille keys to confirm what buttons they are pressing but can see well enough otherwise to navigate without a cane or seeing-eye dog. Its kind of like having to wear glasses to read but not needing glasses for everything else. Kind of.

    4. Re:So your idea is "screw blind people!" by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      True. I wasn't thinking of that - just complete blindness.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    5. Re:So your idea is "screw blind people!" by poetmatt · · Score: 1

      there's no way, reason or anything for forcing a blind person to work with a bank employee.

      handicap access to stuff is, you know, federally mandated so that such a thing is not required. We would have a significant set of features if it wasn't for forcing people to give blind folks access. /have a blind uncle //he works in upper management for a significant gov't position ///he is the sole reason for a significant amount of new technology that benefits the seeing and the blind in many instances

    6. Re:So your idea is "screw blind people!" by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      I'm not saying that the access shouldn't be provided.

      What I _AM_ saying is that it is much harder to provide proper security to a blind customer without human interaction.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
  19. I wonder how? by WheelDweller · · Score: 0

    I mean, where'd he find malware code for *BSD or Linux? I mean, who'd be dumb enough to use a highly-targeted, personal computer OS for such an important, high-rel application?

    OH! It *was* on Windows.

    Serve's them right!

    Are those school kids still making ATMs play Beethoven anymore?

    --
    --- For a good time mail uce@ftc.gov
    1. Re:I wonder how? by Volante3192 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, guess it doesn't matter he had physical access and passwords to the device.

      Security through obscurity is not the solution. Proper IT policies are the solution. This is an ATM; not something that needs to play dancing bunnies. It should not have been possible to alter the system state away from a trusted environment without forcing a crash.

      And, by the way, you can do that on Windows.

  20. stealing vs robbing by stonewallred · · Score: 1

    What I fail to understand is why America seems to get few if any of the best bank robbery events. How difficult is it for two people to figure out who the bank manager is, grab his wife one morning, have her call him on the phone and have the manager hand relieved 50-100k to one of the robbers in the parking lot. Two people, doing it this way once every couple of months, in several states, could make a very nice living.

    1. Re:stealing vs robbing by kramerd · · Score: 1

      So very many reasons this would never work.

      Marked bank bills. Plainclothes police in banks/across the street. Multiple levels of authorization for cash removals from bank vaults. Unmarried bank managers. Wives with cell phones. Bank managers with conceal/carry permits. Security cameras in the bank parking lot of every bank in the US right after the first one of these attempts fails for other reasons.

      Well, that took 2 minutes to think of. I'll let others respond with more.

    2. Re:stealing vs robbing by Zontar_Thing_From_Ve · · Score: 1

      Where the hell do you live that bank managers are so stupid that they wouldn't call the cops about this prior to handing over the money? And please do tell me exactly how those kidnapping robbers are going to be sure that the bank manager "didn't call anyone else" as they surely will tell him. Again, I don't know where you live, but you CAN get the death penalty in the USA for kidnapping. I've not heard of it being applied without a death, but I don't think a death is strictly required to apply it. Your plan is a great way to turn a "simple" (for lack of a better term) robbery into a lifetime in jail, or death, if the robbers get caught.

    3. Re:stealing vs robbing by geekoid · · Score: 1

      What makes you think the Bank manager can do that undetected and alone?

      What makes you think you won't be identified? You don't seriously think bank parking lots don't have security cams?

      It does happen all that often because security measures have been put in place so it's no worthwhile or practical.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    4. Re:stealing vs robbing by geekoid · · Score: 1

      You would be hard pressed to get the death penalty for kidnapping a person you didn't harm.

      If you kidnap a school bus of children and bury it in the desert, well that's a different matter.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  21. Article mentions ATM fraud in Ukraine and Russia by Zontar_Thing_From_Ve · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The article mentions how some malware previously seen in Ukraine and Russia has shown up in the USA for the first time. While I have not been to Russia, I have been to Ukraine several times. For years now, Kiev (the capital of Ukraine) has been infamous for ATM fraud. Rule of law is very weak in Ukraine and police and the judicial system are notoriously corrupt. Anyone "caught" for ATM fraud could just bribe his way out of trouble. I even heard of fake ATMs placed in various locations in Kiev that never give out money, all they do is record info off the ATM cards and pin numbers and that info is used by the crooks later. It's been like this since at least the early 2000s. I never used an ATM on the times when I was in Kiev. I brought enough cash with me to use anytime I was going to Kiev. For the record, I used ATMs in various other Ukrainian cities and I never had a problem. In fact the only city I've ever heard of ATM fraud happening in is Kiev, but it wouldn't surprise me if it happened in some other large cities like Odessa.

  22. WHY DID WE HAVE TO DROP OS/2 IT WAS SAID XP was ba by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    WHY DID WE HAVE TO DROP OS/2 IT WAS SAID XP was bad and full of crap like this but no M$ had to pay for that golf trip.

  23. Another nail in the coffin by geekoid · · Score: 2, Insightful

    for electronic cash transactions.

    I expect to be back to only using cash in about 20 years.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  24. Untraceably? by Proteus · · Score: 1

    withdrew cash untraceably

    Um, apparently not.

    --
    We may not imagine how our lives could be more frustrating and complex—but Congress can. – Cullen Hightower
    1. Re:Untraceably? by Volante3192 · · Score: 1

      He was at this for seven months. My gut's telling me it wasn't the malware that caught him in the end.

    2. Re:Untraceably? by Proteus · · Score: 1

      Right, but he obviously failed at the "untraceable" part in some way, and the post says that he was able to withdraw cash untraceably. Obviously, that part is not true.

      Also, stop ruining my fun being pedantic. :)

      --
      We may not imagine how our lives could be more frustrating and complex—but Congress can. – Cullen Hightower
    3. Re:Untraceably? by Volante3192 · · Score: 1

      Oh heck no! My whole point is that the transactions were undoubtedly untraceable!

      He probably got greedy or they set up a sting and he got caught on camera. The withdrawls were untraceable. He, personally, was traceable.

  25. beos on a ATM? any ones on amiga os? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Many moons ago, my brother-in-law was an ATM tech. He told me that ATMs were the last major users of BeOS. Waddayaknow.

    beos on a ATM? any ones on amiga os?

  26. All three names.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You know when they refer to someone using *all three* (first, full middle, and last names) that the cuplrit is a guilty-as-hell criminal.

    Now all we need to do is to get the authorities to start referring to the bank CEOs using all three names, then you'll get your wish.

  27. Re:WHY DID WE HAVE TO DROP OS/2 IT WAS SAID XP was by coolsnowmen · · Score: 1

    they probably didn't have a manufacturer of custom hardware, so when the OTS hardware changed with time, OS/2 didn't support the newer hardware and they had to update to a OS that could.

  28. Did he file his TPS reports ? by Antiocheian · · Score: 1

    That *does* remind me of Office Space.

    I guess a "pound me in the ass" prison is now in order...

  29. windows by thetoadwarrior · · Score: 1

    Alot of them run on Windows so that pretty much sums up their security. In the UK, a lot of rail ticket machines are windows too.

    The last place I want Windows is where I stick my bank card.

  30. If the economy keeps... by Nick+Driver · · Score: 2, Funny

    I expect to be back to only using cash in about 20 years.

    If the economy keeps heading in the direction it's going, I expect to be using the barter system within 20 years.

    Like as in: Hey Mr. Blacksmith, I'll swap you 3 dozen fresh hen's eggs for a pound of nails and this here yearling billygoat for welding up my broken plow blade.

  31. pppfffffttt haha by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I got turned down for an IT position in Chicago at BofA due to "poor credit"... at least im not a felonious, thievin' butthole...

    SHEESH

  32. Haha by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Actually this is done on some of them. By the way, did you know than a great many ATMs are running OS2 Warp?

  33. Re:Article mentions ATM fraud in Ukraine and Russi by cusco · · Score: 1

    That happens all the time in the US. Someone shows up at the mall early Friday morning with a new ATM and an official-looking shirt. Sometimes the guards even help them bring it into the building and find a power outlet. The machine sits there all weekend, and every time someone puts a card and PIN into it the machine comes back with a polite message about how it's out of order. Monday morning the official-looking shirt guy shows up and says that there have been complaints that the machine is not working and they'll have to take it back for repair. Guard holds the door for them as they wheel it and a couple hundred bank account numbers out the door. I also heard of them picking up the data wirelessly, but a convincing-looking fake ATM isn't cheap.

    We set up security cameras for a mall where this happened, about a month after the incident.

    --
    "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
  34. Ummm.... by Hasai · · Score: 1

    Oh, I dunno; maybe he showed up to work one day driving a car worth ten times his annual salary?

    Just because someone can write code doesn't necessarily mean they're not dumber than a turnip.

    --

    Regards;

    Hasai