группировка Conti вписалась за REvil, и опубликовала свой манифест в защиту «коллег», так сказать
https://twitter.com/BrettCallow/status/1451595931061686276«their honestly earned money.»
прекрасный текст. не знаю, почему, но у меня от этого текста такие же примерно ощущения, когда ПавелД пишет возмущенный текст про Apple — «или полное закрытие Телеграма в России?»
As a team, we always look at the work of our colleagues in the art of pen-testing, corporate
data security, information systems, and network security. We rejoice at their successes and
support them in their hardships.
Therefore, we would like to comment on yesterday's important announcement by the US law
enforcement about the attack on the REvil group.
We want to remark the following:
First, an attack against some servers, which the US security attributes to REvil, is another
reminder of what we all know: the unilateral, extraterritorial, and bandit-mugging behavior of
the United States in world affairs.
However, the fact that it became a norm does not presume that it should be treated like one.
Unlike our dearest journalist friends from the Twitter brothel, who will sell their own mother for
a bone from bankers or politicians, we have the guts to name things as they are. We have a
conscience, as well as anonymity, while our skills allow us to say something that many
“allied” governments are afraid of saying:
With all the endless talks in your media about "ransomware-is-bad," we would like to point
out the biggest ransomware group of all time: your Federal Goverment. There is no glory in
this REvil attack. First, because REvil has been dead in any case, but secondly, because the
United States government acted as a simple street mugger while kicking a dead body.
Let's break it down point by point. There was an extraterritorial attack against some
infrastructure in some countries.
1. Is there a law, even an American one, even a local one in any county of any of the 50
siates; that legitimize such indiscriminate offensive action? Is server hacking suddenly legal
in the United States or in any of the US jurisdictions? If yes, please provide us with a link.
2. Suppose there is such an outrageous law that allows you to hack servers in a foreign
country. How legal is this from the point of view of the country whose servers were attacked?
Infrastructure is not flying there in space or floating in neutral waters. It is a part of someone's
sovereignty.
3. The statement mentions a multinational operation but does not name specific countries
that participated in the cyber strike. We seem to know why; see next point.
4, Most countries, the US included, perceive crtcal cyber strikes against thelr territory as a
casus belli. You think anybody will be fine if Taliban conducts a misfile strike against a place
in Texas to “disrupt an operation" of what Afghanistan considered a "criminal" group?
5. When the special forces arrive at a hostage scene, they at least make sure that there are
hostages there (at least, this is how it used to be). How did you know who you were
attacking? It could just be a reverse proxy on an unsuspecting host. How did you know who
ELSE these servers are serving? How was the safety of other people's businesses, possibly
people's lives, ensured?
Just to be clear: these are all rhetorical questions. Of course.
What happened with this attack is way more than REvil or information security. This attack is
just an another drop in the ocean of blood, which started because of NSA, CIA, FBI, and
another two hundred three-letter security institutions (because, you know, true democracy
and liberty requires millions of people in uniform) never had to ‘answer these questions.
WMD in Iraq, which was "certainly there.”
Drone strikes on weddings because "these were terrorists."
Airstrikes on hospitals and Red Cross convoys because "we thought these are hostile.”
Military raids within the foreign borders ended up with massacring allied soldiers.
