Judge Dismisses $200 Million Damage Claim In SIM-Swap Crypto Lawsuit Against AT&T.
A California judge dismissed the $200 million claim for damages against telecommunications giant AT&T for alleged negligence and fraud. The judge still ruled that the telecommunications company had to respond to Michael Terpin’s lawsuit for allowing the theft of $24 million in his cryptocurrency after a company agent turned over his SIM card to hackers. Terpin filed the lawsuit in 2019.
According to a report, Terpin accused the telecommunications giant of “allowing hackers to swap your SIM card, in what appears to be a scheme devised by scammers.” Terpin, a crypto entrepreneur, also claims that AT & T’s lax security “allowed hackers to break into his wireless account and steal roughly $24 million worth of crypto currencies.”
For its part, AT&T argues “that it is not responsible for a series of recent complaints about SIM swapping.” Still, the telecoms giant details the security thresholds it specifically applied to Terpin’s account and include placing the “account at a higher security level with special protection.”
According to AT&T, this security threshold “included requiring a six-digit access code (known only to Terpin and his wife) from anyone attempting to access or change their account settings or transfer their phone number to another phone.”
Although it is not clear exactly how the thieves replaced Terpin’s mobile SIM, the “lawsuit suggests that they impersonated it to AT&T customer service agents and requested that the phone number be transferred to their own device.”
After gaining access to his phone number, the criminals were able to “request a password change and restore security to many of his accounts.” The hackers then “changed the password for their crypto account and initiated the transfer of digital assets to their own wallets.”
Author: Souvik Sarkarhttps://news.triunits.comCrypto Expert And Blogger .
DeFi oracles, explained
September 12, 20200 Comments
The oracle problem and latency are the major risks of running oracles on a blockchain.
The oracle problem arises due to a trust conflict that centralized third-party systems bring to smart contracts and blockchain systems that are decentralized. Because the data provided by oracles is directly fed into smart contracts, which function based on this data, it’s evident that oracles hold hierarchical power in the execution of the smart contracts. Due to these immense implications, it’s critical for DeFi apps and protocols to have oracles with reliable data and little or no latency.
Broadly, oracle solutions can be classified into two categories: fast but insecure, and secure but slow. The first category mainly applies to decentralized oracles, as they have low latency rates. Due to a vulnerability to various game theory attacks, a majority of DeFi applications run on centralized or semi-centralized oracles.
Most decentralized oracles use the ShellingCoin mechanism, wherein independent sources report the data without coordinating with other sources. Due to the absence of this contact, these sources/agents report “true” data to the best of their capabilities while expecting other sources to do the same. This mechanism is vulnerable to various problems such as collusion between parties, signaling and even bribing. And in the event of a hacker attacking the data feed, known as a man-in-the-middle attack, there is no retaliation mechanism in place. Even a single incorrect value can have significant consequences for the applications relying on the oracle.
Centralized oracles fall under the “secure but slow” category. When pitted against decentralized oracles, these oracles are robust with elements of game theory. They utilize manual voting and “dispute rounds” to overcome attacks that attempt to manipulate their data. But because these methods entail longer wait periods, sometimes lasting weeks, DeFi applications are often discouraged from using them as their oracle of choice. However, despite their protection against game theory attacks, they possess counterparty risk and leave a higher chance of effective hacks due to a single point of failure, decreasing the security of DeFi applications in this particular regard.
Author: by admin
Ripple/XRP-Where Crypto Is Going,Stablcoins,Banks,Regulatory Agencies,Govt Advances On Crypto
#2019globaleconomiccrash #2020financialcrash #banksters #bigpharma #bigtech #bitcoin #cabalcollapse #coronavirus #corruptionnetwork #crookedhillary #crookednetanyahu #crookedobama #cryptocurrencies #deepstate #economiccrash2017 #enemedia #epsteinvirus #fed #futureplanningagency #g20 #gas #gcr #globalmeditations #goldbackedcurrency #goldstandard #housingmarketcrash #jubilee #khazarianmafia #massarrests #nesara #newtech #oilwars #petrodollarcollapse #petrodollardemise #qe #qfs #retailapocalyse #sanctions #sealedindictments #silver #usainc #usnavyintel #vaccinehorror #wds #weatherwars #futureplanningagency #tradewars australia benjamin fulford Bitcoin china CJ TV cobra cryptocurrency CRYPTOJACK TV CURRENT INTEL Digital Perspectives disclosure dnc eu ExtraVOD fed finance FinanceAndLiberty.com Financials Radio GCR/RV gold Greg Hunter Group K health hedge fund indonesia iran israel japan jim willie jpmorgan Ltd. north korea oil perpetualassets ROGUE MONEY ROGUE NEWS russia Santa Surfing Beach Broadcast saudi arabia Silver Bullion TV SilverDoctors Silver The Antidote stock market syria The Bearable Bull THE ELIJAH K. JOHNSON REPORT THE XRP BULLY trump us us national debt venezuela whatdoesitmean william mount
- View financialnewsdisclosure’s profile on Facebook
- View financialnewsdi’s profile on Twitter
- View financialnewsdisclosure’s profile on Google+
Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.
RSS – Posts
RSS – Comments
Author: Author: Brian Robert Hyland
Binance listing SUSHI was no big deal
Binance’s Changpeng Zhao has received more than his fair share of criticism since Binance’s 2017 launch. As a high-profile crypto figure and the CEO of one of the sector’s largest companies, that is to be expected. But the denunciation leveled at him after the anonymous Chef Nomi’s SushiSwap sell-off scandal has been unwarranted.
Few things are more antithetical to the ethos of decentralized finance than having a single figure being the arbiter of the quality or viability of a project. If crypto and decentralized finance are borne of the desire to democratize financial markets and liberate the public from the centralized banking sector, the responsibility for determining the value of a project must be placed in the hands of the community. Anything less runs entirely counter to the crypto imperative.
We wouldn’t want CZ to determine those projects that capture the hearts and minds of the public just like we don’t want the same from institutions like central banks or legislators.
At its core, Binance is an exchange that lists tokens to trade. Its users are free to do their own research and decide whether or not to trade on the platform. The question is not: to list or not to list, but to trade or not to trade. And that can only be answered by crypto traders for themselves.
Binance’s listing rules have always been opaque. As CZ has expressly stated, the exchange does not have fixed rules lest applications are engineered to meet them.
Community enthusiasm is surely one of the key determinants in Binance’s decision to list a token. CZ’s job as a businessperson is to respond to that enthusiasm by offering traders a platform to trade on. Just as shovel merchants are not responsible for compensating luckless gold prospectors, exchanges cannot be blamed for poorly performing tokens.
Related: To list or not to list, Part 1: Binance should not have listed SUSHI
Binance offers trading in coins whose issuers have been subjected to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission enforcement action. Others have settled class-action lawsuits. The exchange lists privacy-centric coins when many exchanges bound more tightly by regulatory pressure will not.
If CZ were to play a more active role in anointing projects worth supporting, he would face scorn for picking winners and losers and may well subject himself to unwanted legal jeopardy. Amid the swirling uncertainty of the crypto-regulatory landscape, Binance’s light editorial touch on SUSHI was understandable.
While the SushiSwap situation was unedifying, there remain questions as to how egregious it was. It is not unhealthy for founders to allocate a portion of the tokens to a development fund wallet. Although there is a social contract that those funds nominally align the founders’ incentives with those of the community and won’t be market dumped, all that was exercised here was an execution of the code as it was written. Analysts had warned of that possibility in advance.
Chef Nomi’s rug-pull — as David Hoffman phrased it — was deeply cynical. But CZ is not an accomplice merely for providing the floor space.
This is Part 2 of a two-part debate series exploring the question of whether or not Binance made the right decision in listing the token SUSHI on its exchange. Part 2 presents the supporting side, arguing that Binance was justified in listing the token. Read Part 1 of the debate series challenging Binance’s decision to list the token here.
The views, thoughts and opinions expressed here are the author’s alone and do not necessarily reflect or represent the views and opinions of Cointelegraph.
Paul de Havilland is a fan of disruptive technology and an active investor in startups. He has experience covering both traditional and emerging asset classes and also pens columns on politics and the development sector. His passions include the violin and opera.