|
|
|
|
|
by acdha
727 days ago
|
|
Nothing is true in absolute terms but banks care about loss percentages and that’s much better in the real banking sector. For example, the national bank of Bangladesh was compromised in 2016, believed to be a well-resourced attack by North Korea, and the attacker was able to attempt to transfer $1B. That’s about as severe as it gets, but the U.S. Federal Reserve blocked 85% of the transferred funds and of the remaining funds, all of the money sent to Sri Lanka was recovered, and they were able to recover some of the funds laundered through a corrupt bank in the Philippines whose manager was subsequently charged. About $64M was laundered through casinos which were not at the time required to follow KYC. https://www.bbc.com/news/stories-57520169 So, not great, but the losses are under 10% of the amount the hackers had access to and there’s still a chance of recovering the rest - that’s survivable with insurance and it’s basically the traditional finance world at its worst in terms of corruption & poor preparation. Compare it to cryptocurrency, where losses on that scale happen multiple times a year rather than once a decade, and the attackers have a much easier time laundering funds through the infrastructure setup for exactly that purpose. North Korea is getting over a billion dollars a year from cryptocurrency, which is much better than the tens of millions at greater risk they got here. |
|
The only way you are recovering the bulk of losses if you don't notice the theft very quickly is if the amount is high enough that a prosecutor is interested and it hasn't all been withdrawn as cash yet.