HACKED THIS AFTERNOON! PLEASE HELP!

[Lauda]

And dynamite will destroy both.

With proper network- / privileges-management and some common sense a windows network can be as secure as a linux network.

It all depends on the security mechanism / -management.
A miserably managed linux network is way more prone to being compromised than a moderately good managed windows network.

That is, again, nonsense. You were talking about the out of the box security. Windows is garbage, especially windows server. Luckily for that garbage OS this discussion does not involve performance.

But saying linux is more secure per se, is kind of wrong.

Is not.
For the sake of reference: the last time anything running Linux that I've seen was compromised was never. The again, that might be partially because of proper security practices.

So.. you mean there never were linux kernel exploits, privilege escalations or any other exploits which only affected linux and were severe (*cough*  shellshock  *cough*) ?

What has me never seeing a linux system get compromised have to do with the existence of exploits? Strawman facepalm. I'm well familiar with exploits, especially those that were planted by NSA undercover contributors[1]. Read before you respond next time or just avoid responding at all (the later is the better option).
[1] Greetings to all american kool-aid drinkers again; you live in such a lovely country.

[1715052662]

1715052662

[bob123]

That is, again, nonsense. You were talking about the out of the box security. Windows is garbage, especially windows server. Luckily for that garbage OS this discussion does not involve performance.

Yes, i were talking about out-of-the-box in one sentence:

Generally, yes. Linux is safer (out-of-the-box). And you are more secured against the day-to-day threats, yes.

All i have said was that any system can get compromised and that no system is secure directly after installing.
It is the configuration which makes it more or less secure. The possibilities and simplicity of unix-based OS's are the reason linux can be made more secure in an easier way.
This has nothing to do with linux = secure; windows = horrible. It all depends on the configuration and the management.. always.

What has me never seeing a linux system get compromised have to do with the existence of exploits? Strawman facepalm. I'm well familiar with exploits, especially those that were planted by NSA undercover contributors[1]. Read before you respond next time or just avoid responding at all (the later is the better option).
[1] Greetings to all american kool-aid drinkers again; you live in such a lovely country.

Just because you didn't see X, it means X doesn't exist ? What kind of an argument is that ?

Also.. why are you hating so much ? There is not a single reason to be aggressive at all..


Edit:
Just checked your post history and it seems you have a bad day today..
What about we stop the discussion here now and talk some other day about this topic (given that you want to properly discuss this topic) ?

[Lauda]

All i have said was that any system can get compromised and that no system is secure directly after installing.
It is the configuration which makes it more or less secure. The possibilities and simplicity of unix-based OS's are the reason linux can be made more secure in an easier way.
This has nothing to do with linux = secure; windows = horrible. It all depends on the configuration and the management.. always.

Which is incorrect. Windows is insecure regardless of your "configuration and management" bullshit.

Just because you didn't see X, it means X doesn't exist ? What kind of an argument is that ?

Also.. why are you hating so much ? There is not a single reason to be aggressive at all..

You are posting false information and using fallacies which I utterly despise. Thus you are directly, or indirectly, intentionally or unintentionally harming the readers. Here you go again, with a red herring. Just stop. Then again, you gotta earn your shitposting sig. money somehow. This solves my own question why pseudo-randoms have been posting pseudo-science in this section for a while now; it's time to exclude it from everything.

[philipma1957]

@ Op how many KYC  did you do for crypto companies?

KYC at an exchange like Bittrex,Coinbase

KYC with bitmain
KYC with most anyone in crypto can be a big weakness.

Did you have any

yahoo accounts?
outlook accounts
live accounts?

[keychainX]

Thanks for the reply HCP..

Sad day  :

Working on the gmail issues.. All of my recovery email addresses were compromised as well... hence me being pretty handcuffed on the email front..

I have reached out to Bittrex and Binance to freeze accounts.. Binance has done so but not in time.. KYC'd in both exchanges.

Here is the transaction out of my account: https://bitcoinwhoswho.com/address/1CenzCoKFoQyBdFbi1uYU1DEmyQFyM8cfm/urlid/13236721
This was a very very sophisticated attack.. I was simultaneously hacked at 2 email addresses.. I phone.. Multiple mac computers.. At&T (they changed my ssn and disconnected my phone!)..

At a loss.. total loss..

Any chance suing AT&T? Did they hi-jack your sim? There was several high-profile cases like this in california/miami last year.

[bob123]

Which is incorrect. Windows is insecure regardless of your "configuration and management" bullshit.

[...]

You are posting false information and using fallacies which I utterly despise.

You are wrong.

Just because YOU can't manage a windows system / network properly, it doesn't mean that it is not possible.
While i agree that it takes way more effort to create a somewhat secure system running windows, it is - by far - not impossible.

We would have all of your governments and any other critical infrastructure compromised already.. The majority is using windows only..

You should keep away from the thought that not a single person can do things which YOU can't do..

[Artemis3]

Which is incorrect. Windows is insecure regardless of your "configuration and management" bullshit.

[...]

You are posting false information and using fallacies which I utterly despise.

You are wrong.

Just because YOU can't manage a windows system / network properly, it doesn't mean that it is not possible.
While i agree that it takes way more effort to create a somewhat secure system running windows, it is - by far - not impossible.

We would have all of your governments and any other critical infrastructure compromised already.. The majority is using windows only..

You should keep away from the thought that not a single person can do things which YOU can't do..

You shouldn't take it to the extremes. Linux is much more secure by default, but its not perfect. It also depends on distro, some are more security oriented than others. Windows on the other hand, can be made safer, with work, but the end result isn't perfect either, and is not as good as a truly secured linux or bsd. You just can't do anything about secret backdoors/bombs/bugs hidden in code you have no access to, that is a fundamental difference you have to always live with when using closed source proprietary software.

Of course there is a lot of money to be made in this sector, some people are fool enough to insist on using windows and beg professionals to make it safer. One of the things usually done is put a firewall (with a secure os) in the gateway to the wild savage internet and their little windows Lan to at least contain the brunt of the attacks. You can also spend a lot of effort and time trying to secure as best as you can windows, within the limitations no access to the code will never let you surmount.

The irony here is that a simple user isn't going to make it, that is why they hire you in the first place. If windows was "secure by default", you would have to do a different job. And these are the typical targets, remember? Laziness.

Easy to use, easy to crack, you could say.