In the context of personal relationships, the best example of mutual trust is perhaps Patrick and Spongebob in Bikini Bottom. Spongebob is perplexed by his friend Patrick’s unwavering trust, “Why do you trust me?” “Giving you trust is my decision, losing my trust is your choice,” Patrick replies.
There are two conditions that always prove effective in determining whether someone can be trusted or not. The first way is to trust him (or them) completely, until it is proven on its own that he (or they) cannot be trusted. The second way is not to trust anything, until he (or they) show that they can be trusted within certain limits.
The second condition is a logical choice when dealing with parties that show a lot of evidence of being untrustworthy. Use the second condition when dealing with hackers. This is not without reason, if you know the following definition of ‘hacker’:
A hacker is someone who does something. In the context of informatics, a hacker is someone who does something with computer programming from behind the scenes. Hackers are not only known in the cyber and computer world, breaking into a passenger’s luggage, can be called a hacker for the process alone. A hacker is someone who modifies something so that it can function as they want, not as it should, in this context the program code. In the context of breaking into luggage, a ‘hacker’ uses a pen to match the passenger’s bag buckle until it opens to steal its contents in a place that is out of the reach of surveillance cameras. The pen in his hand is no longer for writing, but for doing something as he wants.
Because it starts from the second condition, the language logic flaws in the Brain Chiper statement are gradually revealed. The first statement, “More important than money, only honor”. Excuse me, where is the honor in disrupting public services for days?
The second statement, “We make monero wallets for donations, we hope that on Wednesday we will get something (reward). And we repeat again: we will give the key for free and on our own initiative.” Hoping to get donations, but will give the encryption key of the PDNS database for free.
Spin doctor (but not the band). Trying to turn a pure criminal condition into a cyber security advisor, the premise only wants to do a ‘pentest’ (Penetration Test, a comprehensive security test that should be periodic on an information system to anticipate various disaster scenarios by nature nor by human that may occur at any time) becomes the basis for opening an ‘open donation’ through the Moreno digital wallet. It’s okay, we at repiw.com need donations too.
The third statement, “We want to make a public statement. This Wednesday, we will give the keys (ransomware PDNS) for free. We hope our attack makes you understand how important it is to finance this industry (cyber security) and recruit qualified specialists.” Thanks for the advice.
We really understand the importance of cyber security, thanks to our involvement in designing and building information technology infrastructure in a university and a small town. Whether the regulator also understands its importance, we don’t know yet. However, “This Wednesday” is not a programmer class statement. At least the year must be clear, there are 52 Wednesdays in a year, especially the countdown on the page that contains the statement, it is clear that ‘this Wednesday’ is not July 23, 2024. Coincidentally, we are cleaning our website from old posts, even the script to delete the database must include a clear range of years, or months, or days, or hours.
DELETE FROM wp_posts
WHERE post_type = ‘post’
AND DATEDIFF(NOW(), post_date) > 365
On the one hand, the Brain Chiper ransomware attack opens the eyes of the Indonesian people, how our digital data is managed. The existence of hackers who provide ‘free PenTests’ with unlimited donation options, may still be cheaper than asking professional third parties to do a ‘PenTest’.
However, giving trust to hackers and to the national data management regulator, that’s another matter.
