114
115

Erik Voorhees: Complying With BitLicense Would Have Made ShapeShift Hack Much Worse (bitcoinmagazine.com)

tylev が 投稿

全 30 件のコメント
並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A

[–]db2 [スコア非表示]  (15子コメント)

“You can bet that if we had, for example, followed the New York Bitlicense and were taking personal, private information of every single customer that was on our website, all of that personal and private information would now be in the hands of the hacker [and] all over the dark web.”

Well said. I wonder how many of those attending grasped the full scope of that statement though. It should have scared the crap out of them.

[–]squarepush3r [スコア非表示]  (14子コメント)

while true, this still means though if they made their site correctly and not hackable no ones information would be stolen either. So they are skirting responsibility for getting their website hacked a bit here.

[–]eric_sammons [スコア非表示]  (8子コメント)

Is this the first you have heard of the Shapeshift hack? Because Vorhees has been taking responsibility for it from day one. For a while there, there wasn't a day that went by that I didn't see him out front on the issue.

And of course, everyone thinks their site is "not hackable" until it has been hacked. That's why forcing all companies to store unnecessary personal information is insane.

[–]squarepush3r [スコア非表示]  (7子コメント)

he did apologize for it. However, what he is saying is what every website should expect to be hacked, ie: there is not such thing as good security. However I am sure there are plenty of sites that have never been hacked and have proper security in place. just a bit of a distinction there.

[–]evoorhees [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

there is not such thing as good security.

There is absolutely such thing as good security, but there is no such thing as perfect security. Hacks happen to all kinds of business, from startups to multinationals with billion dollar security budgets. Nothing is "not hackable", it is only a question of degree, incentive, and time.

And we have not "skirted responsibility" for anything. It was our fault that we didn't have been procedures in place. We have fixed vulnerabilities, and are working constantly to make things safer into the future.

[–]db2 [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

I would agree with the previous comment, there is no such thing as good security. Unless you're not networked and buried under miles of stone with no access. There are however "good security practices" that can prevent many incursions.

[–]keastes [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Just because a service has not been hacked, does not mean it's unhackable. No matter how seriously you take security, you are always one zero day away from being hacked.

[–]platinum_rhodium [スコア非表示]  (3子コメント)

Google has been hacked. Yahoo has been hacked. Facebook has been hacked. Amazon has been hacked. OPM has been hacked. IRS has been hacked. There are two kinds of websites: The ones you know were hacked, and all the other hacked websites.

[–]InvisibleFileredditor for 27 days [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

NOTHING is 100% unhackable. Requiring unnecessary vulnerabilities to a company is just wrong. Yeah, they got hacked. They lost some reputation, but their point is as valid as ever

[–]cessationoftime [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

It's pretty hard to make something unhackable if it is an inside job aside from not storing the information.

[–]BlockchainMaster [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

This.

Don't blame the bitlicense or anything else for incompetency.

[–]mechatrex [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

They are not doing that they said it could've been worse. Huge difference. Also enlighten me how making a hackable website is incompetency. Cause last time I checked literally every website is hackable.

[–]evoorhees [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Nobody is blaming the BitLicense for the hack. That was our responsibility, and our failure.

The point is that if we had complied with the BitLicense, the damage would've been far worse, and sensitive private customer information would be all over the darkweb now. No customers were harmed in our case with this hack, but if BitLicense had been forced on us, customers would've been harmed.

[–]InvisibleFileredditor for 27 days [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Voorhees said that placing restrictions on the development of this new financial technology would be akin to requiring bloggers to get some sort of publishing license in the early days of the Internet

This comment is spot on

[–]Coinosphere [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

And... It would just be unethical to comply in the first place.

[–]kyletorpey [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Everyone seems to understand this. Erik is the only one who seems to back his morality claims with action. Much respect to him.