all 6 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 2 points 9 months ago (4 children)

Tbf isn't that half the point?

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [+] [S] 8 points 9 months ago (3 children)
  • [–] 1 point 9 months ago (1 child)

    Paying is never a guarantee, and if you pay a ransom, you're always at the discretion and risk of the attacker.

    The only thing this changes is that if you know the specific software that encrypted and if it's known publicly that it can not decrypt and if you know about that is that you know paying won't allow for decryption.

    It's the same for paying so they don't disclose and share exfiltrated data. They're already doing illegal immoral activities, and you're hoping they will follow your agreement when you pay. But there's no guarantee.

    This is why the general public guidance is to never pay ransoms. It supports those industries, gives you no guarantees on fulfillment, and whether fulfillment occurs or not, whether your money was not only wasted but will be used for further damage elsewhere, can be considered entirely random.

    The attacker's goal is always betting on despair of the victim, on their grasping on even minuscule hope and at great expense.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 9 months ago*

    Heights of security :P

  • source
  • 17 comments in c/programmer_humor@programming.dev view that post
    [–] 141 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    Ransomware that can't be decrypted is just destructive malware like any other.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [+] 73 points 9 months ago (2 children)
  • [–] 39 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    vibe coded and ranswomare in the same sentence was not on my 2026 bingo card

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 38 points 9 months ago

    rofl of course...

  • source
  • [–] 32 points 9 months ago

    Hebrew-based content appears machine-translated

    Did they vibe code their false identity as well?

  • source
  • [–] 37 points 9 months ago

    Like a virus that kills the host, it won't spread as well and should die out faster than other types of maleware.

  • source
  • [–] 13 points 9 months ago (4 children)

    So they basically created a hashing function?

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 56 points 9 months ago (3 children)

    A hash is at least consistent when given identical inputs. What they created is more like a digital incinerator.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 9 months ago (2 children)
  • [–] 7 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    -u would give you the space back.
    The ransomware doesn't. There is a block of data, sitting there, taunting you.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 9 months ago

    ehehehehe thanks for that mental image

    Of course, one can always reclaim that space if the data truly is inaccessible. Makes me want to write a joke program for "cleaning up" after ransomware that just removes the data from the partition table (or whatever the equivalent for files is - would that just be rm?)

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 9 points 9 months ago

    Brilliant lol.

  • source
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago

    "ransomware can't be decrypted" implies the ransomware itself can't be decrypted, ugh

  • source
  • 1 comment in c/cybersecurity@sh.itjust.works view that post
    [–] 3 points 9 months ago

    That's nothing new. Fake decryption payment have been a thing since Wanacry clones.

  • source