86 karma · joined April 12, 2016
Although, you wouldn't even really have to call them. You can dispute the charges with like two clicks on your account page. It's just that if you call them, they can instantly settle the dispute in your favor.
The guy selling the accounts sells hundreds of thousands of them, and obviously doesn't get involved in the fraud itself.
This is why this whole thing is so strange, there's a bunch of people claiming that someone hacked teamviewer and is now using that access for petty paypal fraud instead of targetting the tens (if not hundreds) of thousands of PoS systems teamviewer is used to manage.
>Are they hoping that a small % of their victims won't notice the fraudulent transactions?
No, they certainly don't care if the payments get charged back or not. If they try to send money to their own account, it'll be suspended before they can actually withdraw it out of PayPal.
Instead in this case they seem to be trying to buy itunes gift cards, undoubtedly with the intent to sell them (on sites such as g2a.com) before they get cancelled.
And my experiences with repeatedly calling these guys had different results, that's fine.
>A tech support scam attacker would have many first-time connections to many other first-time TeamViewer users who are generally seniors instructed to run the TeamViewer app over the phone. While they may use a pool of computers/TeamViewer IDs, and a pool of IPs, there's limits to the cost-effectiveness of scaling that variation, and a pattern should definitely be visible.
And then the scammers will just switch to VMs and socks5 proxies. (They probably already use the socks, considering they're buying them in bulk)
>"Assuming proper rate limiting" seems like a large assumption, given that the possible attack vectors are guessing the random alphanumeric passwords and testing password dumps for account pairs from other services that work with TeamViewer.
The mere fact that this all happens over the network is a plenty of ratelimiting.
>Defaulting to accepting any connection from anywhere seems like a great example of poor security configuration by default.
This specifically isn't the default though.
If you spin up an exploit pack and can't get 50k hits in a day you're clueless and should consider a career outside of cybercrime.
>Actions that are deemed to have been taken solely for their tax effects are clearly and explicitly deemed tax evasion by the IRS
What you said would make almost all tax avoidance into tax evasion. Hell, even claiming deductions would by your logic be tax evasion.
This is just not true.
Based on my reading there certainly exists such a duty when it's beneficial, obviously tax avoidance isn't explicitly beneficial though. Potential law changes or even bad press could cost more than the amount of money saved.
tax avoidance=/=tax evasion
I was indeed wrongfully imprisoned, but by the Finnish government. I can and will receive compensation from them but at best that's going to be a few thousand euros per month, a nominal sum considering the time lost. It's hardly an irregular thing here, mostly because every single case where a person is taken into investigative custody and not given a prison sentence is treated as such. This has created a situation where these cases are so common that the justice system treats them as acceptable routine.
It's possible that I could win. But that wouldn't really achieve anything, it wouldn't make the .fi authorities stop.
The best option I have available is to keep fighting my charges in Finland, as no matter whether I win or lose it'll be significantly harder for any other country to prosecute me for those same crimes. The courts here are fairly reasonable, while they require ridiculously low standards of proof, you essentially have to kill someone to actually go to prison here. Perhaps that makes it easier to say "guilty" just to play safe, keep the LE and prosecutors happy.
The law enforcement here will consistently take anything the FBI tells them as a fact, even when the information provided by them has been consistently shown to be false or even maliciously fabricated.
I spent 3 months in jail in 2014 because the FBI emailed the Finnish NBI and alleged that I had perpetrated various attacks against large US tech companies, they provided some information vaguely connecting me to the crimes and claimed to have further evidence they'd deliver shortly. They requested that the Finnish police arrest me and seize my equipment, they did so without question.
Based on that single contact from the FBI the Finnish NBI held me in jail for 3 months and banned me from using the phone or in any manner communicating with anyone outside the jail. After the 3 months had passed the FBI had still failed to deliver any evidence, and the Finnish police had failed to discover any. In fact, they had unquestionably discovered heaps of evidence against the aforementioned allegations since the very day they arrested me. Just a few days before Christmas they were forced to very reluctantly release me.
Now it's 2016 and I just recently got a letter stating that most of those charges have been dropped as the FBI has failed to deliver the promised evidence. I've also received letters informing me of various covert surveillance techniques utilized against me after my release. These are supposed to require an even higher standard of proof than keeping someone in investigative custody, but obviously they're hard to contest when you aren't told about them.
Incompetent fucks desperately hoping to score big wins for their careers or with personal vendettas are hardly an US only problem, but at least in the US I could've fought the FBI in court. That's hardly an option here. The only thing that's better here are the sentencing policies.
Blame your OEM, they're responsible for keeping their drivers functional. Microsoft didn't just go behind OEMs backs and do this.
>Who exactly got an EULA prompt on an unattended, locked workstation with nobody at the sear? As I say, the downgrade was full auto: evening W7, morning W10.
That's certainly strange, are you sure it wasn't just the W10 installer? Or did it really go straight to the login screen?
Want to expand on that a little? Presumably the above quote is regarding skydrive etc.
And until someone bothers to do a MITM we really don't know what that means.
>The traffic is encrypted, and no one has been able to MITM it yet, as far as I know. But Microsoft has confirmed in the press that yes, they do this.
Are you sure? Unless they're specifically trying to prevent such you should be able to just drop in your own root certificate and MITM it with the tool of your choice.
A semantical difference really, previous windows updates just didn't include major UX revamps.
>If I don't want it, I don't get asked if I want it: 19:00 there was a working Win7 box, 07:00 next day, there was a broken steaming pile of something, apparently Windows 10. No prompts, full auto.
surely you got an EULA prompt, no?
>Program files: deleted. Users folder: moved into some other location (both).
I certainly agree that microsofts QA has failed horribly here.
>In other words, FU, astroturfer.
One could easily accuse you of the same.
Installing specific KBs works fine until Microsoft stealth patches something, which isn't exactly unheard of.
>And that is how you end up with another XP fiasco.