Researcher Who Stopped WannaCry Arrested in US After Def Con...

Automatically I'm thinking he turned the down polite offer of the 3letter to work for them. So....

 

I'm sure they targeted him because he screwed up their phoney ransonware attack by finding their off switch and enabling it before they were ready to do so.
It must have been a major cyber operation, first to ensure they could not be found responsible they invent the phoney theft of their hacking tools.
Then they release the fake ransomeware that uses those tools to target the computers of people and organisations across the world that did not upgrade to their surveillance fest, Windows 10.
Then along comes Marcus and turns it off.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/technol...ho-stopped-wannacry-ransomware-detained-in-us
I've got the feeling they've arrested the wrong man...

 

Who wants to bust the WannaCry hero falsely?-- Washington is already looking bad and foolish as it is. Then again, it's the Feds, and it's dirty pool, but he reportedly had unclean hands anyway with the Kronos issue. Revenge or whatever, they got him.

One takeaway for me: the report of AlphaBay's co-founder Alexandre Caze's dying in Thai custody. You wonder if Hutchins is being moved around like that because he's also a target. Staying tuned.....

Edited for spelling error.

 

I think if they had really wanted him for the kronos thing he would have already been arrested for it in Britain.

 

"Mistaken accusation?

Most of the activities related to the Kronos malware appear to be solely attributed to Hutchins' co-defendant; Hutchins himself is accused only of developing and updating the malware.

On his blog, Hutchins said that he did indeed create simple malware for research purposes, and released some of the code. Such activity is not unusual for legitimate malware researchers.

On his YouTube page, Hutchins demonstrated how several kinds of malware operated; again, that is not unusual.

It is possible that something that Hutchins coded made its way into legitimate malware, without his participation or knowledge. It could also be that an online criminal with a grudge may be falsely accusing Hutchins of similar activities.

'My reading of the indictment is that @MalwareTechBlog wrote some code, but everything else was done by the other guy' tweeted Rob Graham, co-founder of Errata Security in Atlanta, today (Aug. 3).

'It's not a crime to create malware. It's not a crime to sell malware," law professor Orin Kerr told Wired today. "It's a crime to sell malware with the intent to further someone else's crime. This story alone doesn't really fit...' "

https://www.tomsguide.com/us/hutchins-arrest-wannacry,news-25597.html

The link is to a detailed analysis of the indictment.

NB: The above analysis ignores the fact that what is alleged is a conspiracy where the act of one is the act of the other. The danger for Hutchins is the question of intent, whether or not he was the one who furthered the conspiracy. Did he develop/sell the malware with the knowledge that it would be used for criminal purposes. It’s a crime to sell malware with the intent to further someone else’s crime.

 

The trouble is Hutchins is young there's a good chance he is not yet aware of the insideous nature of the law. Its not about right or wrong its about who knows how to manipulate it and who doesn't.
If Hutchins had wrote a simple disclaimer, they probably would not be able to touch him regardless of intent.
By using this code you agree it is for experimental and research purposes only and you agree that you are aware improper use could damage computer systems and you agree you accept sole responsibility for any such damage.

 

Realisticaly speaking, that would be the equivalent of an admission of guilt -- doesn't pass "The Ho-Ho Test."

IMHO The FBI's intent here is to flip Hutchins against the other defendant and then let the "Accidental Hero" off with a light sentence. He's perfect for that role.

 

When you create a malware for research purpose is ok, releasing the code is so-so, updating it is "limit" , and allowing someone you personally knows to sell it, is highly questionable.
Real malware researchers/pentesters don't sell their findings, they share it for free on github or similar developers sites, not sell them on the darkweb which is being a cyber-criminal.
He reaped what he sow. Well deserved.
And anyway , you must be an total dumbass to brag about creating a malware and distributing it on the darkweb ! LOL.

Now does he really stop wannacry just by chance out of curiosity or he was looking at it to "use" it for his own benefit...?

 

You could be right, I don't claim to be a lawyer but I did think disclaimers could protect you from what other people do with things you created.

 

The man who stopped the NHS cyber-attack could face "decades in jail", says US attorney #r4today

https://twitter.com/BBCr4today/status/893367577854050304

 

If someone wrote a novel and then gave it to his associates and said: "here, it's all yours, including the profits," I mean, that makes no sense. Hutchins must have at least profited directly in some way from the proceeds of the Kronos infections in order to be facing this harsh penalty. It's robbery. I'm sure the WannaCry aspect will come up but something is starting to smell. It's all too coincidental. Like I said earlier, he's probably a target now, look at Caze.

 

"...[Hutchins] was arraigned in Las Vegas late Thursday afternoon and made no statement in court beyond mumbling one-word answers in response to a few basic questions from the judge.

A public defender noted that Hutchins has no criminal history and has cooperated with federal authorities in the past. The court-appointed attorney said Hutchins needed more time to hire a private attorney. Hutchins, who asserted his fifth amendment right to remain silent, was ordered to remain detained until another hearing on Friday..."

https://www.theguardian.com/technol...ho-stopped-wannacry-ransomware-detained-in-us

 

He stopped an actor from infecting 10-15 million machines globally, by report. He is a target.

 

You really have to "wrap your head around this one." If this is indeed the legal definition, the U.S. prosecutor will have to prove that Hutchins had prior knowledge that the buyers of his software intended to use it illegally. I guess "prima facie" proof of this would be where the product was sold; such as Dark Web sites the likes of Alpha Bay.

 

I suspect the WannaCry creators are behind this. They "snitched" to the FBI about his past activities which Hutchins felt were past history and well hidden for two reasons:

1. "Payback is a bitch."
2. To set an example to anyone else who wants to play "malware mitigation hero." They better be "squeaky clean."

 

Hutchins arraignment is scheduled for 3:00PM, Las Vegas time.

At this time he will be expected to enter a plea of guilty or not guilty.

He will of course face enormous pressure to plead guilty ("OK sonnie boy. Here's the deal: Plead guilty to a three-year sentence or plead not guilty and risk a 40-year sentence. Aron Swartz resisted prosecutorial pressures to plead guilty and we know how that turned out. **)

The question of whether or not Hutchins is granted bail will be telling. The general view being expressed on the intertubes is that he will unlikely be granted bail because being a non-citizen he is a flight risk, So if he is granted bail it could be an indication that he has struck a "friendly" deal with The FBI to be an asset.

**
"...On January 6, 2011, Swartz was arrested by MIT police on state breaking-and-entering charges, after connecting a computer to the MIT network in an unmarked and unlocked closet, and setting it to download academic journal articles systematically from JSTOR using a guest user account issued to him by MIT

Federal prosecutors later charged him with two counts of wire fraud and eleven violations of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, carrying a cumulative maximum penalty of $1 million in fines, 35 years in prison, asset forfeiture, restitution, and supervised release.

He committed suicide while under federal indictment for his alleged computer crimes. Swartz declined a plea bargain under which he would have served six months in federal prison. Two days after the prosecution rejected a counter-offer by Swartz, he was found dead in his Brooklyn apartment, where he had hanged himself..."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron_Swartz

 

Actually, best to enter no plea. The count will then enter not guilty for him. Keeps his options open.

Important outcome of this hearing is if he will get bail and if will he be able to pay the negotiated percentage of it to get out of the slammer.

 

If the public outcry from The White Hat Community over Hutchins' arrest is any indication, he will have no problem raising bail.


hawki assumes that @itman's familiarty with Rule 11 (a)(4) of The Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure (Faiure to enter a plea) is the result of judicious study rather than personal experience

 

"The Indictment Against Malware Researcher Marcus Hutchines Is Really Weird..."

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/2...d&utm_campaign=Feed: techdirt/feed (Techdirt)

 

Or better still, don't visit countries that have a parody of a justice system which they can use to persecute anyone they want to which of course does not include any of the corporations that have been flooding the world with destructive virus for decades, or any of the government virus and malware creators that created eternal blue in the first place!

 

I stick with my initial assessment he was framed. The problem is it is going to still cost him a lot of money for a good attorney and time in jail - if no bail - and in the U.S. to prove it in court. And it goes without saying that people who have been framed have been convicted and spent time in jail here in the U.S.. Also a lesson to stay off of the Dark Web.

Wonder how many foreign blackhats will show up at the next Defcon conference?

 

I wouldn't say that. Better to say as long as you have money, its a pretty good system As far as court appointed attorney aka public defenders, most are "bottom of the barrel." Now this case might be different due to its worldwide exposure. The kid might just get some high-powered big law firm attorney doing the work pro bono.

 

"British hacker's US arrest worries IT security community

LAS VEGAS (AP) -- The U.S. arrest of a young British cybersecurity researcher is raising major concerns among information-security specialists, leading some to warn it could limit cooperation between the U.S. government and computer experts needed to help fight off future cyberattacks..."


http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/storie...ME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2017-08-04-17-33-47

 

"[Hutchins] 'admits creating malware code'

A British computer expert who was hailed a hero after helping shut down a worldwide cyber attack that paralysed NHS computers has admitted in a police interview that he created the code of a malware that harvests bank details, a Las Vegas court has heard.

A prosecutor at Hutchins' US hearing also told the court that he had "indicated" that he sold the malware.

However, the 23-year-old plans to plead not guilty to all six counts of creating and distributing the Kronos malware, his lawyer said after Friday's hearing...

Hutchins was granted bail under strict conditions that he pay £23,000 [$30,000] and remain in the US..."

http://www.itv.com/news/2017-08-04/...hs-cyber-attack-admits-creating-malware-code/

"WannaCry researcher released on bail after malware indictment...

A security researcher who helped curb a global outbreak of the WannaCry ransomware earlier this year has told a court he is not guilty of charges of allegedly creating a notorious banking malware.

Marcus Hutchins, 22, entered the plea during a hearing at a Las Vegas court after he was arrested and detained earlier this week..."

http://www.zdnet.com/article/wannacry-researcher-pleads-in-banking-malware-case/