%20(8).png)
Criminal Software.rar [CRACKED]
On 19 January 2012 the United States Department of Justice seized and shut down Megaupload.com and commenced criminal cases against its owners and others. The lead prosecutor, Neil MacBride, had formerly served as Vice President, Anti-Piracy and General Counsel, of the Business Software Alliance, where he oversaw global anti-piracy enforcement and copyright policy. On 20 January Hong Kong Customs froze more than 300 million Hong Kong dollars (US$39 million) in assets belonging to the company.[49]
criminal software.rar
On 23 January, Dotcom appeared in Auckland's North Shore District Court for a bail hearing. The crown argued against bail on the basis that he was a flight risk with a helicopter on his front lawn, while defense lawyers argued that the helicopter could not fly far enough to reach another country. They also said that Dotcom denied any criminal wrongdoing. Judge David McNaughton expressed concern at the discovery of two shotguns at Dotcom's mansion during the police raid,[57] and deferred a decision on whether to grant bail, saying that he needed more time to review the submissions.[58] The request for bail was turned down, with Judge McNaughton saying that "he was denied due to the risk [that] Mr. Dotcom would flee jurisdiction and the possibility that if he reached Germany he wouldn't be extradited to face the charges".[59] On 3 February 2012, an appeal to the High Court of New Zealand upheld the decision to deny bail.[60]
On 30 April 2012, the New Zealand High Court ruled that around $750,000 of Kim Dotcom's assets could be returned, including a Mercedes-Benz G55 AMG and Toyota Vellfire that had been seized during the raid on his home. The assets in 63 bank accounts and around thirty other vehicles remained in custody.[64] A paperwork error by the New Zealand authorities meant that Kim Dotcom's property had been seized in January 2012 without giving proper notice. The restraining order on his property was granted in April 2012. During April 2012, US district court judge Liam O'Grady stated "I frankly don't know that we are ever going to have a trial in this matter," as he found out that the company had never been formally served with criminal papers by the US.
Media reports covering the case highlighted several points from the indictment used to support claims of illegal activity. The indictment provided instances alleged to show criminal behavior, as well as indicating design points of Megaupload's operating model as being evidence of criminal intent:[1]
Legal commentators point out that while the indictment may be correct and Megaupload might have acted as a criminal conspiracy as said, a number of points in the indictment are based upon selective interpretations and legal concepts (described in one article as "novel theories" of the law[76]) and could be challenged in court. A Los Angeles Times analysis stated that the author was "struck by how far the indictment goes to find something nefarious";[76] likewise a TechDirt analysis concluded that while the founder of Megaupload had a significant history of "flounting the law", evidence has potentially been taken out of context or misrepresented and could "come back to haunt other online services who are providing perfectly legitimate services".[77] Both analyses concur that other evidence could show criminality; the concerns were not irrefutable. The legal concerns included:
The US Digital Millennium Copyright Act provides safe harbor for sites that promptly take down infringing content. Safe harbor does not exist if the site has actual knowledge and does nothing about it.[78] Moreover, the DMCA "safe harbor" is less important in criminal cases than civil cases because defeating the first element, lack of knowledge or awareness of infringement, may be easier for the prosecution than meeting the "willfulness" requirement for criminal copyright liability.[79]
In a television interview with 3 News, Kim Dotcom said he was not a "piracy king", and said that Megaupload had applied the provisions of the DMCA and went beyond it, by giving copyright holders direct rights to delete links. He also said that the indictment relied on a malicious interpretation of technical issues to construe its claim of criminal intent, and that there was significant legal use of Megaupload.[82]
Kim Dotcom denied the charges filed against him and retained the services of Ira P. Rothken, an attorney who has defended several copyright infringement cases. Ira Rothken stated that there is no criminal liability for secondary copyright infringement under US law, quoting a similar case involving YouTube as an example of similar accusations which were dealt with as a civil case.[74][75]
Dotcom initially hired Washington, D.C. attorney Robert Bennett, who had confirmed he was going to represent Megaupload in the copyright infringement case.[83][84] On 22 January 2012, Bennett withdrew from the case due to a conflict of interest with another client.[85][86] As of 23 January, attorney Paul Davison was quoted as representing Megaupload's founder, Kim Dotcom, in New Zealand.[87] At the end of April 2012, a controversy emerged over legal representation. The law firm Quinn Emanuel, retained by Megaupload to argue for the retention of Megaupload's data, said in a motion filed to the court that there was a concerted effort by the United States Department of Justice to deny Megaupload fair legal representation. In the brief, Quinn Emanuel alleged that several law firms dropped out of the case after the DoJ informed them of potential conflicts of interest, arguing that they wanted to call clients of the firms as witnesses. Given the size of the Megaupload, Quinn Emanuel said this "conflict of interest" argument could be applied to any law firm with experience in intellectual property rights, denying Megaupload experienced representation in a case where both law and technical issues are involved. Quinn Emanuel received such a letter but rejected the DoJ's arguments.[88]Techdirt argued that while the founder of Megaupload had a significant history of "flouting the law", evidence had potentially been taken out of context or misrepresented and could "come back to haunt other online services who are providing perfectly legitimate services".[77] Eric Goldman, a professor of law at Santa Clara University, described the Megaupload case as "a depressing display of abuse of government authority". He pointed out that criminal copyright infringement requires that willful infringement has taken place, and that taking Megaupload offline had produced the "deeply unconstitutional effect" of denying legitimate users access to their data.[5] Other legal commentators have expressed more skepticism toward Megaupload's likelihood of defending against charges of aiding and abetting copyright infringement on "willfulness" grounds if the allegations of fact in the indictment turn out to be true.[79]
The defense has drawn on procedural errors by the prosecution to challenge the case and in a judgement at the end of May 2012, New Zealand judge David Harvey granted the defendants the right to the disclosure of evidence held by the FBI in preparation for the extradition trial.[89] In his 81-page decision, he came to the assessment that the DoJ is attempting to use concepts of civil law, in particular secondary copyright infringement, in a criminal case, which creates legal issues. He also confirmed that the charges in the indictment relating to money laundering, racketeering and wire fraud are not separate criminal acts but are dependent on the claim of criminal secondary copyright infringement.[90] In a separate development in the United States, the defense has challenged the case against Megaupload as a whole, saying the US has no jurisdiction over a foreign company and the seizure of Megaupload's assets was unlawful.[91] A second brief points out numerous legal errors in the indictment, declaring it "an experiment in stretching U.S. criminal law well past the breaking point."[92]
Former French president Nicolas Sarkozy said he was satisfied with the shutdown of the website. He found the site's operators were reaping "criminal profits from the illegal distribution of copyrighted works". "The time has come for increased judicial and police co-operation between states" in the fight against online copyright infringement, he said in a statement.[108]
Towards this end, criminals can develop trojans and then build an infrastructure, including Command and Control (C2) servers, to infect victims, send commands to the malware, and store the exfiltrated data. This requires them to purchase a VPS and domain names for the C2 servers, renew them every year, and purchase a proxy to anonymize their activities. Alternatively, criminals can invest their efforts in attacking legitimate unprotected sites, like unpatched WordPress sites, and launch attacks from there. Finally, a more expensive option is for criminals to purchase malware-as-a-service (MaaS). Regardless of the option they select, this illegal activity can take time, requires money, and involves the risk of getting caught.
In the sections below, we provide in-depth information about how we leveraged known malware services, like RedLine Stealer, Azorult, Racoon Stealer, and Hawkeye, and known hacker forums, like DrDark and Snatch_Cloud, to uncover sensitive data that is readily available to criminals in VirusTotal.
Raccoon Stealer is an information stealer that supports the theft of user credentials and data stored in web browsers, mail applications, cryptocurrency wallets, and Discord files. It is believed to originate in Russia, openly advertises itself as a malware-as-a-service (MaaS) on the dark web and is well-known in cybercriminal circles. It is also one of the most well-administered and well-managed malware services.
Sometimes searching for already-exfiltrated files is not enough and a little more effort is needed. In this HawkEye example, we explore how criminals can search for malware, which uses simple protocols to exfiltrate the data. The credentials are exfiltrated using SMTP or FTP. The malware connects to the C2 FTP server using the username and password, so a criminal who has them can access them as if they were the original hacker. 041b061a72