Эксперты обнаружили новую схему онлайн-мошенничества с криптовалютой

cryptonews.ruPubblicato 2023-11-24Pubblicato ultima volta 2024-12-24

Злоумышленники стали выманивать криптовалюту в комментариях под видео на YouTube, рассказали «Известиям» эксперты «Лаборатории Касперского» 24 декабря. Они выманивают цифровые активы людей, распространяя в качестве приманки настоящую сид-фразу от криптокошельков с токенами Tether USD (USDT).

Как объяснили эксперты, мошенники размещают сид-фразу в комментариях под опубликованным в видеохостинге видео, которое посвящено финансовой тематике. Сообщение оставляется от имени якобы наивного пользователя, который будто бы, не зная о базовых мерах безопасности, выложил конфиденциальные данные от своего криптокошелька в открытый доступ для консультации.

Криптокошелек содержит токены USDT (Tether), и сид-фразы достаточно, чтобы получить доступ к средствам. Поэтому недобросовестные пользователи, увидев комментарий, могут попытаться вывести цифровые активы. При этом они могут видеть баланс USDT и историю транзакций.

Когда пользователь пытается получить доступ к кошельку с помощью сид-фразы, он обнаруживает, что для вывода USDT требуется оплатить комиссию в токенах TRX (Tron), которых в кошельке нет. Если он переводит свои TRX для оплаты такой «комиссии», эти средства перенаправляются на другой кошелек, контролируемый мошенниками, уточнили специалисты.

Также эксперты отметили, что кошелек-приманка настроен как учетная запись с несколькими подписями, что требует дополнительных разрешений для авторизации любых транзакций. Поэтому, даже если жертва попытается перевести средства после оплаты «комиссии», это будет невозможно.

«В этой схеме мошенники делают ставку на стремление людей к быстрому «заработку». В итоге сами пользователи попадаются в ловушку. Мы настоятельно призываем быть бдительными и придерживаться этичных принципов при работе с криптовалютами и в целом при проведении любых финансовых транзакций в интернете. Злоумышленники продолжают совершенствовать свои методы, поэтому крайне важно оставаться осведомленными и осторожными», — сказала старший контент-аналитик «Лаборатории Касперского» Ольга Свистунова.

Чтобы не попасться на уловки аферистов, в компании рекомендовали критически и этично относиться к возможностям получить криптовалюту, использовать только проверенные криптокошельки и сайты обмена, а также установить надежное защитное решение на компьютеры и смартфоны, которое предотвратит переход на фишинговые сайты или запуск вредоносного программного обеспечения.

Ранее, 17 ноября, руководитель проектов координационного центра доменов .RU/.РФ Евгений Панков рассказал «Известиям» о наблюдающемся устойчивом росте фишинговых атак, проводимых через мессенджеры, особенно Telegram и WhatsApp (принадлежит организации Meta, которая признана в РФ экстремистской и запрещена). По его словам, за 10 месяцев этого года в Рунете было заблокировано 2374 домена, имитирующих Telegram, а по второму мессенджеру — 1036.

Letture associate

Bitmine’s Ethereum stash rises to $9.8B: ‘The best years for crypto remain ahead’

Bitmine Immersion Technologies significantly increased its Ethereum holdings, adding 27,084 ETH last week to reach a total of 5,700,040 ETH, valued at approximately $9.01 billion. This accumulation occurred despite a decline in ETH's price and net outflows from Ethereum ETFs. The article draws parallels between Bitmine and Michael Saylor's company, MicroStrategy, noting similar scrutiny over large crypto holdings and market volatility. However, Bitmine's Chairman Tom Lee remains optimistic, citing the company's strong financial position with substantial staking revenue, cash reserves, and recent inclusion in the Russell 1000 Index. He asserts that the best years for crypto are ahead, driven by tokenization and AI advancements.

ambcrypto3 min fa

Bitmine’s Ethereum stash rises to $9.8B: ‘The best years for crypto remain ahead’

ambcrypto3 min fa

UK FCA unveils crypto rulebook: Risk-based approach starts October 2027

UK's Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) has unveiled a new, risk-based regulatory framework for cryptoasset companies, set to take effect in October 2027. This approach moves away from rigid, uniform rules to a system where capital requirements and disclosure obligations will vary based on a firm's individual risk profile. Companies will conduct their own annual risk assessments and stress tests, subject to FCA review. The rules aim to lower compliance costs for smaller firms, boost market confidence, and attract millions of new UK crypto users. The framework also establishes baseline rules for stablecoin issuers, including consumer protections, while allowing for stricter oversight of larger, systemic players. FCA executives state the rules provide needed clarity, though experts caution that regulation reduces but does not eliminate consumer risks.

ambcrypto48 min fa

UK FCA unveils crypto rulebook: Risk-based approach starts October 2027

ambcrypto48 min fa

You Use Claude and Codex Every Day, but Meta Has Restricted Internal Use

In May, Meta imposed internal restrictions on its engineers regarding the use of Claude Code and Codex, two widely used AI programming tools. Despite being a major client, Meta's guidelines, still in effect, prohibit these external models from being used for specific tasks to prevent potential "escalations with partners." The core concern is "distillation"—the risk that outputs from Claude or Codex could inadvertently contaminate the training data and evaluation processes for Meta's in-house AI coding assistant, MetaCode. If MetaCode is trained or evaluated using data generated by these external models, it risks learning their capabilities rather than developing its own, blurring the line of intellectual origin. The restrictions are precise: engineers cannot use the external models to generate test questions, debug source code, or suggest test cases. AI-generated content is also barred from environments accessible to MetaCode. However, AI can still assist with peripheral tasks like workflow setup and code organization, provided all outputs are manually reviewed. This caution reflects a broader industry dilemma. While distillation is a common technique, using a competitor's model output for training raises legal and ethical questions about the ownership of derived capabilities. Contractual terms from companies like OpenAI and Anthropic explicitly forbid using their outputs to build competing products, putting enforcement power in the hands of rivals. The move is also financially motivated, as Meta seeks to reduce its hefty internal AI spending, estimated in the billions this year. Meta's policy illustrates the delicate balance companies must strike: leveraging powerful external AI tools while safeguarding the integrity and independence of their own AI development. As AI systems increasingly help build other AIs, distinguishing the origin of capabilities becomes a fundamental challenge for the entire industry.

marsbit52 min fa

You Use Claude and Codex Every Day, but Meta Has Restricted Internal Use

marsbit52 min fa

Why Do We Need an AI Content Perspective Today?

The article "Why Do We Need an AI Content Perspective Today?" explores the complex and often contentious integration of AI into the cultural and creative industries, particularly film and television. It begins with the cancellation of Amazon's AI-generated animation "Punky Duck," highlighting the ethical debates surrounding AI content. AI's rapid advancement is transforming video production, enabling cost-effective, full-length AI films (e.g., "RAPHAEL," "Dreams of Violets") while sparking industry resistance over issues like "synthetic actors." The core debate has shifted from whether to use AI to how to use it responsibly. The article analyzes why AI's entry into film is uniquely unsettling. It distinguishes between "cultural fast food" (short-form, fast-paced content like micro-dramas) and "cultural main courses" (traditional, long-form film/TV). AI currently excels at the former, matching its fragmented narratives, shallow emotional needs, and free-to-consumer models. However, venturing into the latter challenges the human-centric essence of storytelling—creativity, emotional depth, and the unique value of human labor and experience. While AI can generate massive volumes of content and lower costs, it risks devaluing human creativity, leading to homogenized output, and creating unfair competition through potential intellectual property infringement. Its efficiency also amplifies content safety risks, making preemptive governance crucial. To counter these risks, the article proposes establishing clear boundaries guided by a human-centered AI content perspective. It outlines four principles: 1) Amplify, rather than displace, human creative space; 2) Respect and protect human creative output; 3) Ensure human creative control and responsibility remain paramount; and 4) Guarantee transparency and traceability in AI creation. The conclusion emphasizes that humans must act as the "helmsmen" of technology, steering AI development to enhance, not replace, the core human values at the heart of cultural expression.

marsbit1 h fa

Planck Retracted? The Father of Quantum Tripped by an Algorithm

The recent discovery that two articles (published in 1940 and 1942) by Max Planck, the Nobel laureate and founder of quantum theory, are marked as "retracted" on Springer's digital platform highlights a curious clash between historical publishing practices and modern automated systems. An investigation suggests these retractions are algorithmic errors, not due to fraud or misconduct. The papers, philosophical reflections on science published in *Die Naturwissenschaften*, were likely flagged by the platform's systems. One article, a republished lecture, may have been mistaken for duplicate publication. Another, sharing a title with a prior article by a different author (a common practice for continuing debates at the time), may have triggered a similar automated check. The digital versions have even been replaced with blank pages, contrary to normal practice of preserving retracted texts. This incident underscores how contemporary digital infrastructure, built around concepts like "self-plagiarism" and strict copyright, can misclassify and obscure legitimate historical scholarly communication. It serves as a warning that digital archives are not neutral mirrors of the past but are filtered by platform rules, potentially distorting the scientific record. As AI systems increasingly rely on such databases, such erroneous metadata could propagate, affecting how future tools interpret and access historical knowledge.

marsbit1 h fa

Planck Retracted? The Father of Quantum Tripped by an Algorithm

marsbit1 h fa

Trading

Spot