Dogecoin off the leash after Doge Vault admits server attack Cryptocurrency exchange Doge Vault has confirmed it has lost about seventy per cent of Dogecoin it held on its customers' behalf. The outfit has updated its website to say “It is believed the attacker gained access to the node on which Doge Vault’s virtual machines were stored, providing them with full access to our systems …
unregulated virtual currencies held by unregulated virtual vaults
and regulated banks with domestic currency on a ledger (so equally virtual you might say)
is that this is the chance you take. A "proper" bank is normally backed to some extent so that if they are robbed (through their own inadequacy) the poor depositor is at least guaranteed to get some of his money back.
"Proper" banks also benefit from centuries of learning from the school of hard knocks. So they have lots of checks and balances in their system to ensure accountability. It isn't fobbed of on "the mathematics" or some other such nonsense. It accounts for humans being fallible and in some instances corrupt, and the fact that any entity that holds large quantities of easily transportable wealth tend to attract the attention of the most corrupt in society. And yes, some of that learning is that governments will enforce some of those learned lessons on "proper" banks because even "proper" banks would sometimes prefer the bad taste from the learning event were forgotten.
I'm sorry to make what seems to be the obvious answer, but:
" "Proper" banks also benefit from centuries of learning from the school of hard knocks."
...and that has helped them a lot recently, hasn't it? Without that particular benefit, you could really see bankers being disliked, couldn't you?
"So they have lots of checks and balances in their system to ensure accountability."
"It isn't fobbed of on "the mathematics" or some other such nonsense."
Well, some of the recent crash was fobbed off on the mathematics, but I'll accept that it wasn't, in reality, the primary factor, even if it was an early, common, excuse. Well, actually two, or more, excuses if you count the US sub-prime usage, the viability guarantees for banking institutions (since revised), Lehmann Brothers, mortgage lending guidelines (since revised) and probably others that my fuddled brain is too weary to bring back (there was also some computer modelling of share price movements that wasn't adequately robust, wasn't there? You know, the kind of modelling that works except for when there are exceptional share falls, which then got caught out when there were exceptional share price falls - no one could have seen that coming, could they?).
Of course, there are some examples that you might write off as just 'bad luck', if you didn't expect financial institutions to be competent, and that, at the moment, looks like too far a stretch. I mean, it just looks like 'bad luck' that all of the major Scottish banking institutions had become maniacally risk-tolerant just when it became obvious to even a dunderhead that good times weren't just around the corner, 'bad luck' that a major Building Society got so overstretched that it nearly caused a widespread run on the banks, bad luck that one of the largest mutual institutions couldn't find a director who could be relied upon to know how many beans make six.
"It accounts for humans being fallible and in some instances corrupt, and the fact that any entity that holds large quantities of easily transportable wealth tend to attract the attention of the most corrupt in society. "
Fallible human beings and greed were big factors, but again I'll have to accept that corruption wasn't, particularly, to the fore. Greed though, greed would be another matter and, bad as corruption is, it is hardly bad enough to make greed seem glorious by comparison.
"And yes, some of that learning is that governments will enforce some of those learned lessons on "proper" banks because even "proper" banks would sometimes prefer the bad taste from the learning event were forgotten."
A lot of that learning seems to be susceptible to selective memory once the people who would like the rules relaxed are in possession of loads of money (They are bankers, so they will be, won't they?) and are big contributors to the tax system. Once you pay - directly or indirectly - for a few hospitals to be built, it gets difficult to ignore your wishes (Think of the Children!). It may be the job of government to resist 'bad' pressure, but that doesn't mean they'll do it.
Even though bankers were in receipt of much opprobrium, governments generally didn't come out looking squeaky clean. Some governments worse than others, of course, but I fail to bring to mind many with reputations (eg, reputation for prudence, an early paramour of one Gordie Bruin, oddly) burnished by the crisis.
There really was enough blame to go around.
Honestly, I accept your major point that trusting 'Scamcoin Enterprises Inc' is not something you can take lightly, but the 'serious' banking establishment has been covering itself with something recently, and it doesn't seem to have been glory.
...at the standard of grammer in this article!
"If the attacker was able to access either the physical server...." and where's the 'or' bit? 'either' usualy implies two or more things.
And then we have "(for anyone mad enough to business with it after this incident)"
To business with it? Really?
Shocked and appalled I am.
Thanks I needed a good laugh this morning.
If you want security, you have to do it yourself. Using a hosted service is inherently insecure, even if you can trust the others on the systems, they might still have made a coding error that leaves you vulnerable. Something as sensitive as banking should always be done on physical machines in a secured data-center.
>If you want security you have to do it yourself
While I don't altogether disagree with the underlying proposition, that presupposes that 'you' can build an infrastructure that's more secure than your external suppliers can, and in practice everyone's reliant on external partners to a greater or lesser extent. Heartbleed, after all, demonstrated just that.
Obviously all the levels of indirection that come with external hosting, cloud hosting etc bring in layers of extra risk, but to make an extreme if not ridiculous comparison, that's still far less risk than an unpatched windows box sitting direct on the net with no firewall protection. You just have to do the best you can, but if you're doing it with my money, well, maybe I will wonder if the risk is similar to that nice investment opportunity in last night's email...
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
