SWIFT hacked...again. What does it mean for Bitcoin?

[pawel7777]

After Bangladesh Central Bank $81m cyberheist in Feb, it happened again, details are not disclosed but according to Swift, the victim this time was some commercial bank.

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/may/13/second-bank-hit-by-sophisticated-malware-attack-says-swift
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-05-13/swift-warns-of-new-hacker-attack-on-bank-after-bangladesh-heist

https://www.swift.com/insights/press-releases/swift-customer-communication_customer-security-issues

And some thoughts on how will it affect current system and whether or not Bitcoin/blockchain could be a game changers:
http://seekingalpha.com/article/3975082-swift-hacked-bitcoin-blockchain-fat-lady-sings

...
The party is over for the old, permissioned, firewall based, electronic fortress, concept of trust-in-payments systems. And the alternative is very far from obvious.

The buzzwords, the sweethearts of the fintech movement, are systems known as distributed ledgers. Two words are about to become part of everyone's vocabulary: Bitcoin and blockchain. There are multitudes of manifestations of these two intimately related electronic phenomena. If you are new to the subject of Bitcoin and blockchain, the learning curve is steep.

The significance of the second Swift failure is this. Trust-based systems, such as those upon which the current payments systems operate, are becoming more expensive to protect at a rapidly increasing rate. The horse race between hackers and firewall builders is being won by hackers in spite of the rapidly increasing spending on internet security.

And these most recent hacks took bank's money, not customer money. That is a game changer.
...
The point of the article is this. Now that the bank's own money is being stolen, the financial world will be singing from one hymnal. The time of distributed ledgers is here. There is no longer a question that distributed ledgers will replace our current method of securing transactions. The firewall system no longer has a constituency after the Swift debacle.

What are the implications for investors? First, there is nothing yet you can invest in directly. It is possible to purchase a thing called a crypto-currency. The most prominent of these is called Bitcoin. However, unless you spend the necessary months of research to grasp the underlying determinants of the value of Bitcoin, I have an emphatic one-word recommendation. Don't. This investment is incredibly risky, and those who provide confident forecasts of its future value are deluded or worse.
...

[Evildrum]

In both cases Swift said insiders or cyber attackers had succeeded in penetrating the targeted banks’ systems, obtaining user credentials and submitting fraudulent Swift messages that correspond with transfers of money.

If I am a bank right now I would be extremely worried what the future is going to look like if they do not introduce some fail safes soon.
We could be looking at these attacks manifesting in large attacks over multiple banks all at once. Could cripple the system and cause panic in a very rapid order of events. Scary.

[Bit_Happy]

In both cases Swift said insiders or cyber attackers had succeeded in penetrating the targeted banks’ systems, obtaining user credentials and submitting fraudulent Swift messages that correspond with transfers of money.

If I am a bank right now I would be extremely worried what the future is going to look like if they do not introduce some fail safes soon.
We could be looking at these attacks manifesting in large attacks over multiple banks all at once. Could cripple the system and cause panic in a very rapid order of events. Scary.

Scary times 81M:
I heard about this on the radio, and do not understand why there is not already more panic?

[btcjoin14]

They obviously need better protection and start getting prepared if it happens again. They probably won't stop until they fix it. This could lead to a lot of panic from them.

[mkc]

Holy cow,I did not know about attack in Feb. I thought central bank is safe, much safer than my account in lousy bank.
Can central bank reverse the transaction, I mean, hacker can not take 800 million cash from bank and disappear, is it?
So the receiving bank will have to reverse the transaction.

[Pursuer]

i think it mostly shows that Bangladesh banking system is made of incompetent people who has to be changed. $81 million the first time and who knows how much this time is not a small amount. and the repeat shows they really don't know what they are doing.

[SFR10]

Although this is a bad news, specially for banks themselves since their own money was hacked and not customers money but there's a wake up call of a need to change the way everything has been operating, simple due to the fact that this is the second time so clearly someone didn't do their job to the extent they supposed to do and that's whoever was involved with implementation of security levels. Regarding BTCitcoin and blockchain possible role, the author seem to be much on the negative side of BTCitcoin and rather gives the conclusion that blockchain is the better solution so can't agree with him on many points.

[pawel7777]

Aaaand there's another one:

Now It’s Three: Ecuador Bank Hacked via Swift
http://www.wsj.com/article_email/lawsuit-claims-another-global-banking-hack-1463695820-lMyQjAxMTA2NjI0MDQyNzA1Wj

This one actually happened in 2015, but never got much media attention.

[unamis76]

No issue for the banks, as this was only done on the IT side of things and they can simply reverse the transaction order... But this is definitely a nice thing for Bitcoin. Laws of math protect us, banks are on their own...

[nanonymousx]

Feel like bank is safer, since there are two characteristics about Bitcoin doesn't have:

1 Bank knows the name of the customers.
2 Bank can reverse the transaction.

I know there are many Bitcoin lovers here, what is your take on this?

[pawel7777]

No issue for the banks, as this was only done on the IT side of things and they can simply reverse the transaction order...

No they cannot just undo the transaction once it's settled. Maybe if the hack was immediately detected, but that wasn't a case.

[Shiroslullaby]

I heard something about the Bangladesh heist that they were investigating some bank officials, that it may have been an inside job.
Even if it was not, some institutions have outdated equipment, old code that needs to be reviewed.
And no matter how secure you are, someone can always get info through social engineering, spear phishing email campaigns, etc.
Its really amazing that you can make these transfers without some form of 2FA authentication.

[mixan]

Things like this make bitcoin look less secure for the usual person to be less likely to want to do anything with bitcoin. I for one if I heard about what happened in 2015 would of turned away from bitcoin thinking that it was not safe to use.

[mcduff]

SWIFT is nothing more than a standardised messaging system let's not forget.

Think of it as (supposedly) secure email.

These days bank payment systems used by companies require a second factor. If I'm not mistaken, swift does not require this. But surely it must be coming then, it's quite an antiquated system.

I don't think this gives more power to bitcoin what has happened here.

What I don't understand is how the hackers can get a BIC code. You normally need to be vetted and authorised to get one and therefore receive money. No Tom, Dick or Harry can get their own BIC.

[Bitcoinpro]

Ether is like the magical helper of Bitcoin

[Hirose UK]

What are the implications for investors? First, there is nothing yet you can invest in directly. It is possible to purchase a thing called a crypto-currency. The most prominent of these is called Bitcoin. However, unless you spend the necessary months of research to grasp the underlying determinants of the value of Bitcoin, I have an emphatic one-word recommendation. Don't . This investment is incredibly risky, and those who provide confident forecasts of its future value are deluded or worse.

every investment has risks, but I found many people already got profit investing on bitcoin.

[nanonymousx]

SWIFT is nothing more than a standardised messaging system let's not forget.

Think of it as (supposedly) secure email.

These days bank payment systems used by companies require a second factor. If I'm not mistaken, swift does not require this. But surely it must be coming then, it's quite an antiquated system.

I don't think this gives more power to bitcoin what has happened here.

What I don't understand is how the hackers can get a BIC code. You normally need to be vetted and authorised to get one and therefore receive money. No Tom, Dick or Harry can get their own BIC.

It seems you have some insight into SWIFT, what is BIC code?
Is it some thing like password? Thanks

[mki8]

stuff like this do not affect banks that much,
as fiat is only debt

the banks can easily just write this off, as fiat is not backed by anything.

Just think of all the fraud that goes on daily, the banks just write all that off on a daily basis.

[mki8]

What I don't understand is how the hackers can get a BIC code. You normally need to be vetted and authorised to get one and therefore receive money. No Tom, Dick or Harry can get their own BIC.

when you reach 16 and have a normal adult account
and you start making international transfers,
you will find you have no idea about BIC
Bank Identification Code

you might want to look at:
http://www.theswiftcodes.com/
which has all BIC's for all banks worldwide

please, stop talking dribble if you dont know what you are talking about,
theres already way too much dribble in these forums

[sakinaka]

If a bank is stolen, how does it relates to Bitcoin ? Except if some bitcoins were stolen, I don't see.