Long story short, I've always felt like I stole from the casino that day too! :-)
Now the real question is why do prank videos mesmerize people?
The chimp troupes handles randomness and unpredictability, with the 3 inch chimp brain whose hardware hasn't been updated in 100K years, only one way - tell stories. It's our randomness handling hack.
The stories breakdown all the time.
MGM reportedly refused to pay a ransom, resulting in an estimated $100 million in losses and roughly 10 days of system outages affecting reservations, slot machines, room keys and websites. Caesars, in contrast, was reported by the Wall street Journal to have paid $15 million of a $30 million ransom demand and experienced less operational disruption.
Access to this page is disabled The law prohibits participation in games of chance organized by unauthorized persons through means of electronic communication.
The authorized organizers of games of chance via means of electronic communication are the State Lottery of Serbia and persons authorized by the Ministry of Finance.
That said, I'd assume governments have access to root certificates, anyway, but they're only broken out for big investigations or secret dragnet stuff we'll find out about in five decades, if ever.
> but they're only broken out for big investigations or secret dragnet stuff we'll find out about in five decades, if ever.
Certificate Transparency, where required, makes certificates unusable if they're not published... But that might not be enough information.
If the user doesn't click through the certificate error, the user will only know it's blocked (or the server is misconfigured), they won't get information on why it's blocked; perhaps details of the certificate might help narrow down the cause of the block or the agency implementing it.
If the user loads the https page and sees "Access to this page is disabled The law prohibits participation in games of chance organized by unauthorized persons through means of electronic communication." as suggested earlier in this thread, and the user did not click through a certificate error, then the MITM must have obtained an acceptable certificate somehow or broken TLS. Since Sep 2024, multi-perspective issuance corroboration has been required by the CA/Browser Forum [1] and it was a best practice for many years, DNS takeover in a single country should be not sufficient to establish domain control for certificate issuance.
[1] https://cabforum.org/2024/08/05/ballot-sc067v3-require-domai...
Ah right, obviously the browser would still try to connect via TLS to the new IP. Not sure why I missed that.
If not, then maybe your browser vendor has been pressured to add some root certificate controlled by the Serbian police, which it approves to issue certificates to impersonate dodgy-casino.games.
How can it be a planned conspiracy if only one person was involved? US law is so weird when it comes to bogus charges just to blow up the case artificially.
Is the offender a person with multiple identity disorder or what's the reasoning here?
On the flip side, I knew someone who interrupted a car burglary and was murdered by the burglar. Imagine what might happen if someone came upon the guy you know of who was doing a robbery while holding a stolen gun?
The person you knew made a lot of choices that led to this, any of which had they not chosen to do would have led to not being an armed robber: don't do a robbery, don't steal a gun, don't do a robbery while holding a gun.
> Robbery, in turn, was simply a "compound" form of larceny. For Blackstone, "compound larciny is such as has all the properties of former, but is accompanied with one of, or both, the aggravations of a taking from one's house or person," id. at *240, and "[l]arciny from the person is either privately stealing; or by open and violent assault, which is usually called robbery,"
I'm not really making a judgement about the rights and wrongs of the actual case (because I'm not only not a lawyer, but also not a witness, juror, etc.), but as described it doesn't sound like robbery at all.
[0] https://web.archive.org/web/20060903163713/http://docket.med...
The way you get there is prosecuting the victims of cybercrime for paying a ransom, if any are stupid enough to break the law.
I'm not even arguing for a specific policy, but I didn't like how the framing of the post was about being "stupid" enough to break the proposed law. It wouldn't be that simple.
james_marks•4mo ago
First time I’ve heard the term “vishing” to describe the attack we’ve all seen coming.
electroglyph•4mo ago
ChrisMarshallNY•4mo ago
AstroNutt•4mo ago
wrayjustin•4mo ago
Then there's even subcategories that further define some of these, like Spear Phishing, Whaling.
The industry loves its fun naming.
airstrike•4mo ago
lostlogin•4mo ago
mmaunder•4mo ago
saithound•4mo ago
antonymoose•4mo ago
Razengan•4mo ago
uh that's something completely different (and not Monty Python)
Ekaros•4mo ago
StanislavPetrov•4mo ago
Barbing•4mo ago