QUESTION: Cyberattacks vs. Cash elimination – an argument against eliminating cash. Hello Mr. Armstrong, it is quite apparent that no government, no financial institution, Anti-virus software developer, or either ‘whatever’ is is really capable to stop cyberattacks. Now these people want to eliminate cash, make larger cash amounts illegal. So theoretically these cyber attackers could/ maybe will, eventually just stop the whole economy. Nobody may even be able to buy food. So instead of eliminating cash, should it not be policy people carry at least a month’s worth of expenses in cash? Your reply should be quite interesting to us, your readership!
Best,
AP
ANSWER: The WannaCry ransom attack is actually variant from a February 2015 sample attributed to the Lazarus Group, a Kaspersky-tracked actor tied to the North Korean government. Parts of the code go beyond shared code. It appears to be written by the same programmer.
Let’s get something straight here. At the core of those responsible is really the NSA and Microsoft itself. The attack exploited a Windows networking protocol to spread within networks, and while Microsoft released a patch nearly two months ago, it’s become very clear that patch didn’t reach all users particularly because institutions often do not install patches fearing that proprietary software may not function.
If behind the curtain we have government demanding back-doors into iPhones and computer so they can listen to everything everywhere, well guess what – so can everyone else. Patches will work for individual users, but not major institutions. Trying to upgrade their operations is a real effort. They are slow to act and thus vulnerable.
…click on the above link to read the rest of the article…
