×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Cybercriminals Has Heroin Delivered To Brian Krebs, Then Calls Police

samzenpus posted about 8 months ago | from the gift-that-keeps-on-giving dept.

Crime 187

Okian Warrior writes in about a package of heroin that found its way to the door of Brian Krebs. "'Fans' of [security researcher Brian Krebs] have shown their affection in some curious ways. One called in a phony hostage situation that resulted in a dozen heavily armed police surrounding my home. Another opened a $20,000 new line of credit in my name. Others sent more than $1,000 in bogus PayPal donations from hacked accounts. Still more admirers paid my cable bill for the next three years using stolen credit cards. Malware authors have even used my name and likeness to peddle their wares. But the most recent attempt to embarrass and fluster this author easily takes the cake as the most elaborate: Earlier this month, the administrator of an exclusive cybercrime forum hatched and executed a plan to purchase heroin, have it mailed to my home, and then spoof a phone call from one of my neighbors alerting the local police. Thankfully, I had already established a presence on his forum and was able to monitor the scam in real time and alert my local police well in advance of the delivery."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

187 comments

Working link to article (4, Informative)

Svenne (117693) | about 8 months ago | (#44444595)

http://krebsonsecurity.com/ [krebsonsecurity.com]

Re:Working link to article (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44444603)

http://idle.slashdot.org/story/13/08/01/0324210/ahref= doesn't work for you?
just keep clicking on it until samzenpus update the article

Re:Working link to article (5, Informative)

pne (93383) | about 8 months ago | (#44444625)

Re:Working link to article (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44445293)

Wow Mr. Krebs must be an advanced sophisticated and highly effective security guy to be getting so much attention. I bet he's just swell!

Getting us to think so, that IS why he shares this kind of stuff right?

Working link to editor (0, Troll)

Cornwallis (1188489) | about 8 months ago | (#44444661)

http://youareanidiot.org/ [youareanidiot.org]

Re:Working link to editor (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44445117)

WARNING - FUCKING LOUD JINGLE AT THAT SITE!

(blah blah blah yeah I know there's a lameness filter and I know all-caps is shouting - that's the whole point)

Re:Working link to editor (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44445505)

Usually I call for cutting /. editors slack, as they weren't English majors, but COME ON... "Cybercriminals has?" Guys, lay off the beer when you're at work.

Re:Working link to editor (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44445579)

Cybercriminals can has cheezburger.

Re:Working link to article (1)

auric_dude (610172) | about 8 months ago | (#44444745)

Would "Cybercriminals Had Heroin Delivered To Brian Krebs, Then Calls Police" be a better headline than "Cybercriminals Has Heroin Delivered To Brian Krebs, Then Calls Police", not being an English major I don't know for sure but am sure the slashdot editors have made the correct decision.

Re:Working link to article (1)

davetv (897037) | about 8 months ago | (#44444817)

Wouldn't

"Brian Krebs Calls Police, Then Cybercriminals Have Heroin Delivered "

be a headline that is more representitive of the actual story.

Re:Working link to article (3, Funny)

msauve (701917) | about 8 months ago | (#44445111)

The author of the summary was distracted by his cable TV, which was being paid for by the admirers of Brian Krebs.

Re:Working link to article (2)

SMoynihan (1647997) | about 8 months ago | (#44444895)

Ahem, if you're going to point out a grammar mistake, it might be worthwhile checking your own correction:

"Cybercriminals Had Heroin Delivered To Brian Krebs, Then Call Police" (Cybercriminals call the police)

Or:

"Cybercriminal Has Heroin Delivered To Brian Krebs, Then Calls Police" (Cybercriminal calls the police)

Re:Working link to article (4, Funny)

VortexCortex (1117377) | about 8 months ago | (#44445485)

Warning @ Line 3: Expected end of statement or continuation delimiter.
Syntax Error @ Line 5: Extraneous capitalization of boolean list qualifier.
Syntax Error @ Line 5: Invalid list contiuation; Character ':' already in use. Syntax Error @ Line 7: Expected end of statement punctuation.

# Funny how you humans emulate dumb parsers while machine intelligence has overcome this_

Re:Working link to article (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44445653)

Line 3: Unknown word: "contiuation".
Line 3: Missing newline before "Syntax".
Line 6: Expected punctuation, got "_".

Re:Working link to article (1)

naff89 (716141) | about 8 months ago | (#44444927)

The reason it looks weird to you is because "Cybercriminals" doesn't match the verbs in the sentence.

It either should be "Cybercriminal Has Heroin Delivered, Calls Police" or "Cybercriminals Have Heroin Delivered, Call Police"

Asshole blogger can has publicity stunt (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44444601)

Editors, editors. Wakey wakey!

And stop propagating that crap from d-list bloggers. Venezia, Krebs, it's getting tedious (thanks, captcha).

Re:Asshole blogger can has publicity stunt (4, Funny)

AlphaWolf_HK (692722) | about 8 months ago | (#44444739)

I don't know who he, but I get the feeling that if he keeps publicizing everything that people send his way or do to him, it might become an internet past-time for more people to start doing the same. It'll be like an internet gameshow:

"Who can send the craziest thing to Brian Krebs?"

It's all fun and games til somebody decides to send a shit covered blasting cap or who knows what else.

Re:Asshole blogger can has publicity stunt (4, Insightful)

AmiMoJo (196126) | about 8 months ago | (#44445129)

I'm still amazed the police gave a shit. Around here they normally just fob you off until the drugs actually arrive, then arrest you and take your DNA, computers, phones etc. Then finally when you get a lawyer they might drop the case (typically takes about six months if it's fast-tracked) and then after a few years you get your stuff back.

Re:Asshole blogger can has publicity stunt (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44445335)

It's the perfect DOS against the police. Keep them so busy with one person until they finally realize they are the ones wasting all their own money and resources; THEN, they will stop arresting people for stupid things, will leave people alone unless they are really required.

Re:Asshole blogger can has publicity stunt (1)

bipbop (1144919) | about 8 months ago | (#44445701)

Usually? Are you trying to say getting set up in this manner is a common occurrence where you live?

Re:Asshole blogger can has publicity stunt (5, Funny)

Niggle (68950) | about 8 months ago | (#44445269)

"Who can send the craziest thing to Brian Krebs?"

A bobcat? http://xkcd.com/325/ [xkcd.com]

Re:Asshole blogger can has publicity stunt (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44445527)

Whilst I would never advocate harm to an animal (and am not doing so now), I'm sure this could be done at no harm to the welfare of the cat...
Come'on people...someone's got to have access to a Bobcat, the correct type of cage etc....

INTERNET - TIME TO DELIVER!!!

Re:Asshole blogger can has publicity stunt (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44445533)

Or, a length of rubber hose, a ski mask, and a map of the Pentagon.....

http://xkcd.com/576/

Journalist can has risk (5, Informative)

plover (150551) | about 8 months ago | (#44445755)

Brian Krebs is a former Washington Post investigative journalist who has been writing about Internet security issues for a long time. He writes a lot about malicious attacks and often exposes the attackers. These are not nice people, either; they are spammers, botnet herders, guys who make, sell and buy credit card skimmers, hackers who steal credit card info, guys who run DDoS-for-hire sites, etc.

He uses aliases to get himself invited to underground forums, monitors them for as long as he can, then exposes the criminals. The bad guys are also improving their own security, and becoming more adept at turning the tables. One forum placed unique values in the "# of posts" listed in the left side column of their forum, then outed him when he posted a screenshot.

Needless to say, the people he is messing with are very annoyed at him. They are trying all the tricks they can to harass him remotely, such as ordering merchandise paid for on his credit cards, sending him unwanted (and now illegal) stuff, and using his credit cards to donate to charities. They've been trying to send him all the craziest, most annoying, most hazardous stuff they can without personally touching the merchandise themselves. The most dangerous stuff they have managed to send him so far was the SWAT van full of cops in a midnight raid. If these guys could get someone else to ship him a live cobra in a box, or a shit covered blasting cap, they wouldn't hesitate for a second.

While he may not be a "hero", Mr. Krebs has done some good work at cleaning up several of the nastier elements that infest the Internet. You get less spam in your in box thanks to him.

WTH is Brian Krebs?! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44444613)

...And why is an article with a broken link featuring on the /. homepage? Are the moderators drunk?

Re:WTH is Brian Krebs?! (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44444683)

...And why is an article with a broken link featuring on the /. homepage? Are the moderators drunk?

No, but they did recieve a small brown package in the mail this morning...

Re:WTH is Brian Krebs?! (4, Insightful)

Stalks (802193) | about 8 months ago | (#44444791)

The summary switches between third-party and first-person perspective multiple times which is confusing.

Is this the quality standard we are to expect from Slashdot now?

Re:WTH is Brian Krebs?! (3, Insightful)

semi-extrinsic (1997002) | about 8 months ago | (#44444825)

Indeed, yesterday I read multiple summaries which had spelling errors that a fifth grader would catch when reading through. One can only surmise that Slashdot editors now need to spend less than three minutes writing a summary.

Re:WTH is Brian Krebs?! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44445361)

It's all just part of the master plan, 419, and all that. You purposely make grammatical and spelling errors, attracting the lowest hanging fruit.... ..... .....

PROFIT!!!

Re:WTH is Brian Krebs?! (1)

Psychotria (953670) | about 8 months ago | (#44444879)

I only clicked into this story to say exactly that. What the summary is talking about is more than just confusing, it's undecipherable.

A basic spell check (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44444617)

Cybercriminals have..
i mean, wtf

Re:A basic spell check (1)

ebno-10db (1459097) | about 8 months ago | (#44444635)

Cybercriminals have...
i mean, wtf

I think that's actually a grammar check. In my experience people with a knowledge of English can do that. Slashdot editors ...

Seriously, come on folks.

Re:A basic spell check (2)

somersault (912633) | about 8 months ago | (#44444647)

Samzenpus is actually a cat. Don't hold it against him.

Re:A basic spell check (1)

ebno-10db (1459097) | about 8 months ago | (#44444693)

Samzenpus is actually a cat. Don't hold it against him.

My cats have better grammar than that. It's me-ow, not ow-me (a compound word in feline speak).

Czar (4, Interesting)

vikingpower (768921) | about 8 months ago | (#44444669)

A guy named Czar posted a thinly veiled threat as a comment upon Krebs' blog post:

"and easy to speak of the lives of others [hackers, carders, botmasters]

you [Krebs] invade the forum these guys and find that they do not go doing anything?, it would be foolish on your part

be realistic, you are at risk talking shit about these guys

this minimum and that they can make in relation to you,

Now, imagine if it was a bomb?, what do you think? [Krebs]

would be surprising if some hacker will not do this someday

good luck with your work, the risks are increasing lol;"

Now one wonders how THAT is going to be played out....

Re:Czar (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44444689)

If they start playing with bombs, I guess the number of fingers of cyber-criminals is going to decrease sharply

Re:Czar (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44445089)

Czar, You Sir. Will hear from my editor. Just you wait.

Re:Czar (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44445145)

I'm surprised your editor is still on speaking terms with you.

Re:Czar (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44445411)

I don't know, I read that picturing William Shatner reading that with Yoda's voice. It was highly entertaining.

nobody cares (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44444687)

More stuff the matters, less shit.

Krebs is a scam. (4, Interesting)

vovick (1397387) | about 8 months ago | (#44444699)

I posted a comment on his blog a while ago where I questioned the validity of the results of his research [krebsonsecurity.com] that caught a lot of attention [slashdot.org] a while back. For example, one of his biggest finds was that that one of the scammer' name is Vasily Ivanovich Petrov, which is just a placeholder name just like Joe Public in Russian. He never approved my comment or provided any feedback. If he was an actual researcher, he wouldn't silence reasonable criticism towards him.

It's sad to see him get one meaningless article after another on Slashdot.

Re: Krebs is a scam. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44444747)

Have a link to your investigation? Or some research you did?

Re: Krebs is a scam. (3, Interesting)

vovick (1397387) | about 8 months ago | (#44444795)

He never approved my comment, so it never made it in the comment section. I didn't do anything significant, I just made a couple of observations that made his research look less exciting, the most significant find I already mentioned above. A good lesson for me to avoid dealing with blogs and bloggers that pre-moderate comments or at least preserve them locally.

Re: Krebs is a scam. (1, Flamebait)

Required Snark (1702878) | about 8 months ago | (#44444897)

Oh, you poor little ego is wounded. Boo hoo hoo. All of Slashdot should rise up in arms and defend you against this horrible "scam" artist.

Now I don't know Krebs from a hole in the ground. As far as I know I've never read anything by him and I never went to his site. However, the fact that someone went to the trouble to have heroin sent to his house means that he is making some really nasty people unhappy. So it's clear that you whiny little post is as pathetic as you are.

I have a suggestion: if he doesn't take you seriously, then just quit going to his web page. I'm sure you departure will spell the end of his evil reign of terror. It will make the heroin seem like a box of candies.

And while you're ignoring Krebs, why don't you quit posting on Slashdot? There are already enough self absorbed knuckle dragging fools around here, so your contribution is not needed.

Re: Krebs is a scam. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44445367)

you are a filthy, stinking, big lipped, blue gummed, pale palmed, gutter ebonics speaking, bastard child producing, useless, stupid, society burdening, yard-ape of a nigger

Re:Krebs is a scam. (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44444793)

He never approved my comment or provided any feedback. If he was an actual researcher, he wouldn't silence reasonable criticism towards him.
So he didn't bother or didn't have time to reply. How is that *silencing* criticism? Did he delete your comment? Also, researcher doesn't mean infallible person. It means person doing research, and people make mistakes.

Re:Krebs is a scam. (1)

vovick (1397387) | about 8 months ago | (#44444917)

Did he delete your comment?

He did not approve it, so it never became visible. A comment cannot be "deleted" it never gets "approved". How convenient.

Re:Krebs is a scam. (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44444941)

He has uncovered the Anti-vovick conspiracy! Quick everyone look like you were doing something else...

Lord Krebs commands it!

Re:Krebs is a scam. (5, Insightful)

Paradise Pete (33184) | about 8 months ago | (#44444847)

He never approved my comment or provided any feedback.

And so to you the only reasonable explanation is that he read your comment and covered it up, secure in knowing that no one else could catch that error, even though (assuming it's true) it would be obvious to millions of people.
Comments "awaiting moderation" are often never read by anyone and simply fall into a bucket. If they get moderated at all they can easily be inadvertently flagged as spam along with dozens and dozens of other actual spam comments.

Re:Krebs is a scam. (3, Insightful)

vovick (1397387) | about 8 months ago | (#44444985)

even though (assuming it's true) it would be obvious to millions of people.

First of all, I greatly doubt his article was read by millions. Second of all, how many readers spoke Russian to spot the questionable moment? Very few, I must imagine.

Comments "awaiting moderation" are often never read by anyone and simply fall into a bucket.

That is certainly a valid thought. However, a few comments praising his research got approved both before and after mine. In addition, he commented on some of them in person. This is leading me believe that he did read my comment, even though I will never be able to prove it (great way to deal with the critique, Krebs!).

Re:Krebs is a scam. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44445153)

I'm the same AC as below (regarding the issues with my email address being posted by Krebs) - just wanted to say that you hit the nail on the head and it is the lack of any acknowledgement that there may have been mistakes or inadequacies in his "research" or "reporting", (and the attitude shown when faced with the case presented) which is the issue here.

Re:Krebs is a scam. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44445433)

That is certainly a valid thought. However, a few comments praising his research got approved both before and after mine. In addition, he commented on some of them in person. This is leading me believe that he did read my comment, even though I will never be able to prove it (great way to deal with the critique, Krebs!).

You probably (if you tell the truth) just commented on a several-month-old blog post, nobody checks the spam filters of those. Or maybe, Krebs was just tired of getting stupid threats and so auto-filtered all comments from Russia, or when the OS language is Russian. Or you just forgot to type "Send". There is no need to assume an evil conspiracy against you, when simple bad luck and/or a human error is an equally valid explanation.

Re:Krebs is a scam. (1)

eyenot (102141) | about 8 months ago | (#44445745)

Are you saying that if Krebs did what OP is alleging, that makes it a conspiracy? Who would Krebs have to be in with? Krebs, himself? Is this perhaps why you're already implying that if Krebs takes action, that action is necessarily "evil"? Because you see Krebs as an unnatural form of two different people? I don't get it.

Re:Krebs is a scam. (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44445021)

There seem to be a lot of Vasily Petrovs out there in the real world, just as there are a lot of John Smiths. What makes you think it's not a real person?

Re:Krebs is a scam. (1)

vovick (1397387) | about 8 months ago | (#44445185)

It's not just Vasily Petrov. It's Vasily Ivanovich Petrov. Three very common placeholder names chained in a row. At least one person does [wikipedia.org] have this name, but it seems very fishy to see a name like that in a hacker's credentials. I did not claim anything, all I did was make a valid observation that casted certain doubts on the results his work and he effectively muted me instead of giving his thoughts about this or just silently approving my comment.

Re:Krebs is a scam. (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44445079)

I have a personal experience with Krebs that aligns with your observations. He posted my email address on one of his blog entries, and he refused to take down my address when I pointed out the flaws in his (and his security researchers') methods (specifically that the site he was investigating did not do email validation at all, so the email addresses from their user database he accessed can not be verified to real accounts). I would give more details, but currently I'm in the process of seeking legal advice for this matter.

I guess that most people will agree that if you bill yourself as a security researcher or journalist, it's quite important to show some professionalism and integrity and not mislead or give false impressions.

Re:Krebs is a scam. (5, Funny)

Chrisq (894406) | about 8 months ago | (#44445191)

I posted a comment on his blog a while ago where I questioned the validity of the results of his research [krebsonsecurity.com] that caught a lot of attention [slashdot.org] a while back. For example, one of his biggest finds was that that one of the scammer' name is Vasily Ivanovich Petrov, which is just a placeholder name just like Joe Public in Russian. He never approved my comment or provided any feedback. If he was an actual researcher, he wouldn't silence reasonable criticism towards him.

It's sad to see him get one meaningless article after another on Slashdot.

I posted a suggestion to the Pope on how to run the Catholic church and he never approved the comment. This proves he's a fake, right?

Re:Krebs is a scam. (1, Funny)

eyenot (102141) | about 8 months ago | (#44445687)

You can't prove the de facto standard to be fake.

The Pope is the de facto authority of the Catholic church. To back up this relationship, the Pope is regarded as infallible within the church. Questioning the Pope's authority over church matters doesn't even make sense, because it's an unquestionable authority.

On the other hand, Krebs is not de facto authority *over* the facts and knowledge of security. If Krebs says encryption doesn't work, that doesn't make encryption fail to work. Whereas if the Pope says e.g. pedophilia is excusable, it becomes so to the Catholic church, despite whatever *beliefs* were held before.

Krebs is an "authority" by one definition of the word; there is an entirely different definition of "authority" that means something else. In fact, depending on which dictionary you refer to, you may find two entries for "authority" considering them different enough as to be homonyms. I'm not going to go through the rigamarole of actually verifying that for you -- it's the same difference, either way.

Being "an authority concerning a field of knowledge" doesn't give a person control over that field of knowledge the same way a person who is "an authority over an organization" gives that person control over that organization.

You tread a really stupid, fine line between idiocy and another different kind of idiocy when you completely mix up science and religion. You should just get away from all of that.

So this general is named Joe public ? (1)

aepervius (535155) | about 8 months ago | (#44445611)

Some people have that name :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasily_Ivanovich_Petrov.

When yous ay some guy is "joe Smith" and the first hit is a general in the army... That means at least ONE person is named that way, and therefore ANOTHER can be. So your assumption that the name means nothing is falsified.

Next up is child porn (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44444703)

then it won't matter if he spots the plot...

Good scheme (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44444757)

Nice scheme :) now the dude can do basically anything and blame it on others...

How often does law enforcement do this? (4, Interesting)

LeepII (946831) | about 8 months ago | (#44444851)

You have to wonder how often law enforcement does this to justify SWAT raids.

Re:How often does law enforcement do this? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44444929)

You expect too much of them. Those (actually very few) corrupt cops will just plant a few dime bags, which is enough. They're not very creative.

Re:How often does law enforcement do this? (2)

Antique Geekmeister (740220) | about 8 months ago | (#44445127)

Not often, I'd think. Failed SWAT raids are quite expensive, and embarrassing. The SWAT members involved would not take wasting their time lightly.

Misreporting crimes to get them dealt with by another bureaucracy or other department, though, is an interesting way to work around frightened police or bystanders. Remember how assault, especially rape, victims are sometimes encouraged to scream "fire" insead of merely "help I'm being raped"? I've actually run to a fire alarm when my cell phone was out of charge in an emergency. (I saw someone else using their cell phone and didn't have to use the alarm.)

Re:How often does law enforcement do this? (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44445439)

If you justify the raid with planted evidence it is no longer considered "failed".

Get some reading comprehension.

Re:How often does law enforcement do this? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44445389)

Police departments like their toys and normally like the high profile of the operations.

Local SWAT erroneously broke down the doors at the Berwyn Heights mayor's house and killed his dogs. The mayor filed suit after the sheriff's department declared itself exonerated following an internal investigation. http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/2011/jan/24/settlement_reached_maryland_mayo

What the hell, Slashdot? (2)

EmagGeek (574360) | about 8 months ago | (#44444865)

Cybercriminals HAS [sic] Heroin?

What is this, I Can Haz Slashdot?

Re:What the hell, Slashdot? (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44444875)

There's a missing 'e'. What he means is cybercriminals kidnapped Wonder Woman and mailed her to this security researcher's home.

Re:What the hell, Slashdot? (1)

maroberts (15852) | about 8 months ago | (#44444911)

There's a missing 'e'. What he means is cybercriminals kidnapped Wonder Woman and mailed her to this security researcher's home.

I'd prefer CatWoman

Re:What the hell, Slashdot? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44445309)

LOLCatWoman?

Re:What the hell, Slashdot? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44445711)

No, the Joker sweeping in in his ROFLcopter

Re:What the hell, Slashdot? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44444921)

Also, article (supposedly) not posted by Krebs, and talking in the first person.
Except for a "this author".
I think this article deserves a few medals, but not the ones its author would like to receive.

(captcha: "excuse". no I won't)

Re:What the hell, Slashdot? (2)

eyenot (102141) | about 8 months ago | (#44445557)

... that's because the article was cut and pasted from the link. Which the author does write (it's Krebs' blog). In the first person, naturally. Whoever wrote the article took the first instance of "me", and replaced it editorially [using braces], and then failed to understand that it would be within acceptable editing as well as much easier to read if they took the liberty of changing the rest of the first-person references to refer to Krebs, as well.

Why write about this? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44444909)

Disclosing the ways he found out about the plot will only prompt the criminals to be more careful. Now they know which of their communication channels Krebs listens to and that their btc wallets have been traced, and can take measures to evade raising suspicion next time.

Slightly off topic (3, Interesting)

Presto Vivace (882157) | about 8 months ago | (#44445049)

but I have to wonder how many bitcoin users are government intelligence officers of assorted nationalities, or even security officers for assorted private corporations doing stuff that they do not want traced.

Re:Slightly off topic (1)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | about 8 months ago | (#44445239)

That's what secret Swiss bank accounts are for. You just need the (large) account number and nothing more to do business. Driving world politics for hundreds of years, accept no substitute.

Re:Slightly off topic (2)

PRMan (959735) | about 8 months ago | (#44445573)

The Swiss made rules that required identities years ago. That's why everyone switched to the Cayman Islands.

GOVERNMENT CONSPIRACY (5, Funny)

korbulon (2792438) | about 8 months ago | (#44445105)

This is obviously yet another blatant attempt by the federal government to discredit a real American hero. Not convinced? Look at the facts:

  1. Heroin is known by several street names, including (but not limited to) smack, dope, junk, brown sugar, and WHITE HORSE
  2. "Brian" is an Irish-Breton name meaning 'High'.
  3. Krebs is German for 'Cancer', but in a pinch can also mean 'Crab'
  4. 'Crab' has four letters. Four in German is 'vier', which when pronounced sounds like 'fear' in English.
  5. In July of 1963 a little-known top-secret project sanctioned by the CIA was started, which studied - among other things - the effects of illicit drugs on sea-faring crustaceans. The name of this project was Operation Dungeness. Among the members of the research team was - you guessed it - a German scientist of dubious political background, last name of Krabbe.
  6. As the Dungeness scientists became deranged with drugs and power, their range of test subjects expanded from sea-faring crustaceans to rodents and finally to small orphan children
  7. These orphas were harvested from foster homes and from the streets,to become nameless waifs, but one of these orphan children was nicknamed Brian Krebs ('High Crab') - a sick joke of the scientists
  8. One dark and stormy night a lightning strike knocked out the main power transformer suppling power to the underground lab. In the ensuing chaos, Krebs escaped, but during the escape he was bitten by a radioactive sea-faring crustacean, and it left a mark in the shape of a 'K' on his outer right thigh
  9. Armed with the truth, Krebs reached an uneasy truce with government goons, keeping them at bay - for now. But behind the scenes he wages a one man crusade against the mad CIA scientists who subjected him to a wide range of inhumane experiments as a nameless waif. Masquerading as a security expert, he uses his contacts in the underground to uncover evidence which will one day bring the perpetrators to justice.
  10. But the government does not stand idly by: knowing that direct confrontation is out of the question, it instead opts for a campaign of slander, defamation, and sabotage. This latest attempt to deliver illicit drugs is not simply meant to defame and criminalize Krebs, it is a message. And that message is: "We are coming for you."

I could go on and on, but I believe these facts speak for themselves.

Didn't work for me (4, Funny)

PopeRatzo (965947) | about 8 months ago | (#44445109)

I tried that "Hey, cybercriminals delivered this heroin to me" routine and the cops didn't buy it.

I have shitty luck.

Re:Didn't work for me (1)

korbulon (2792438) | about 8 months ago | (#44445133)

I tried that "Hey, cybercriminals delivered this heroin to me" routine and the cops didn't buy it.

Next time don't use FedEx

Re:Didn't work for me (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44445503)

Why should they buy your heroin if they can seize it instead?

Re:Didn't work for me (2)

Ksevio (865461) | about 8 months ago | (#44445693)

Did you tell them before it was delivered or when they walked in on you injecting it?

this 1s goatSex (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44445123)

clearly become are almost THE PROJECT IS IN too manry rules and Propaganda and gloves, condoms

War on Drugs (4, Insightful)

FuzzNugget (2840687) | about 8 months ago | (#44445303)

Another reason why the war on drugs does more harm than good. This guy is lucky to be alive and was very fortunate to have the wherewithal to be one step ahead of the ne'er-do-wells. Anyone else would have had a very real chance of getting injured, maimed or killed by the local paramilitary police force. Let's not kid ourselves, it probably helps that he's white and privileged, too.

If we had sane drug policy, the worst that could have happened is having the drugs confiscated and getting a slap-on-the-wrist regulatory fine.

Hmm (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44445373)

I wonder how the drug dealers will respond to him calling the police, and them not getting their product back, or paid for it.

Re:Hmm (1)

cusco (717999) | about 8 months ago | (#44445443)

The dealer probably got paid in BitCoin, so now he's really pissed. Don't worry though, if it was a large enough amount the dealers will get it back as soon as the lock on the back door of the evidence room breaks again.

What about that free cable? (2)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | about 8 months ago | (#44445403)

I hope he does not have to pay EFT fees and other stuff to fix that and that they don't cut him off. What cable co lets someone pay for 3 years up front like that without an fraud flag going up?

This guy sounds like a real cock sucker (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44445507)

What a fag. This Krebs guy, that is.

Made of pure win (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44445587)

Cybercriminals plot to send a large package of heroin to his house
[success kid]
Lurk on the forum, hear about the plan, alert the cops in time to stop them from finding the meth lab

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...