back to article LockBit ransomware kingpin gets 4 years behind bars

A LockBit ransomware kingpin has been sentenced to almost four years behind bars and ordered to pay more than CA$860,000 ($635,000, £500,000) in restitution to some of his victims by a Canadian court as he awaits extradition to the US. During a sentencing hearing this week, Justice Michelle Fuerst said 34-year-old Mikhail …

  1. Plest Silver badge
    Facepalm

    Now that's embarrassing!

    "What are you in for Sam?"

    "I killed someone!"

    "What are you in for Mikhail ?"

    "I was in court for computer crime and pled guilty to a charge of mischief."

    1. Paul Herber Silver badge

      Re: Now that's embarrassing!

      Could be worse. Littering.

  2. t245t Silver badge
    Facepalm

    Mikhail Vasiliev the “cyber-terrorist”

    I don't think online fraud is in the same ball-park as shooting-up a shopping center.

    American prosecutors have charged Vasiliev with conspiring to intentionally damage protected computers

    It isn't possible to damage a computer by altering the software and a computer that can be hacked isn't by definition protected. Seriously, if you want to legally extract money from mugs investors, get a job in the City.

    .. infecting victims with LockBit ransomware

    Do you mean their protected computer getting hacked?

    Law enforcement also found .. source code for a program designed to encrypt data stored on Linux-based computers.

    Gowan gowan gowan /s

    1. doublelayer Silver badge

      Re: Mikhail Vasiliev the “cyber-terrorist”

      I agree on the terrorism bit, but not on the cause damage to protected computers bit. I can certainly damage your computer by working only with the software. I can do that in two ways. I can damage the hardware by running intentionally destructive routines repeatedly. However, what they meant, and what we all understand, is that they damaged the computer as a system, a system of which the software is a crucial component. That damage can be repaired by wiping it and rebuilding, but nothing said that damage has to be irreparable to be called damage.

      As for protected, of course it was protected, the protection just failed. Your house is protected; it's got walls to protect it from flying projectiles (blown by winds mostly), it probably has fire suppression of some type designed into it including materials that are hard to burn and alarms, and it has locks on doors and windows to make entry harder. If I walk up with a big hammer and a flamethrower, your house's failure to prevent those from doing damage doesn't prevent it from having had protection, just not enough to withstand what happened to it.

      1. claimed Silver badge

        Re: Mikhail Vasiliev the “cyber-terrorist”

        Or a screwdriver jimmying open a window or whatever, allowing access through something not designed to allow access but not super secure like a castle wall

      2. t245t Silver badge
        Terminator

        Re: Mikhail Vasiliev the “cyber-terrorist”

        > .. If I walk up with a big hammer and a flamethrower ..

        If someone walks up to your ‘protected’ house and can hack the lock with a McDonalds coffee stirrer then it ain't by definition protected.

        1. claimed Silver badge

          Re: Mikhail Vasiliev the “cyber-terrorist”

          That’s the difference between “practically” and “legally”.

          It’s not practically protected but it is legally. Just like I can go a smash someone over the head with a rock, there is nothing practically stopping me, but enough of society has agreed that’s not allowed, it’s now the law, and therefore it’s impossible to do it legally. I might not like how laws are formed, I might fail because my would-be victim isn’t so helpless as I thought, but the point stands, I think.

          That’s why “breaking” and “entering” are separate crimes, if you leave your door open I can walk in “innocently” and there is less of a penalty. I might even get away with it if the signage is poor and I could otherwise expect to be able to walk in (looking for a loo in a public space and wandering through a door, hardly going to result in jail time). If all I need to do is click a link on google, it’s reasonable to enter even if not intended to be publicly accessible. If I have to do anything like fiddle with the URL, then I’m fiddling with an unlocked door, trying the handle as it were.

          I don’t get why we still need to explain that just because you CAN do something, doesn’t mean you’re ALLLOWED to do it. I blame the parents ;)

        2. Prst. V.Jeltz Silver badge

          Re: Mikhail Vasiliev the “cyber-terrorist”

          can hack the lock with a McDonalds coffee stirrer then it ain't by definition protected.

          Who gives a fuck about the lock?

          Are you saying its ok to steal something if you dont damage the lock? or if the owner forgot to lock it?

          Not to mention that other shit you said about "its impossible to damage a computer with software" no doubt alluring to the fact that even if the system is totally borked the hardware is undamaged? Tell that to the people who died as a result of that software being interfered with.

          you seem to be mixing up old school early hacker rhetoric from hackers who were just looking around out of curiosity doing no damage , with modern day extortionists who cripple vital systems demanding ransoms.

    2. GruntyMcPugh

      Re: Mikhail Vasiliev the “cyber-terrorist”

      Our houses are protected with locks on the doors, but we still have glass in the windows. So 'protected' doesn't imply impenetrable protection.

  3. Pascal Monett Silver badge
    Flame

    "Mikhail Vasiliev took responsibility for his actions"

    Yeah, just like a driver who got caught red-handed running a red light is going to recognize that he ran the red light.

    Sorry, that does not instill any measure of leniency in my mind.

    Let him be extradited to the US after he's done his time in a Canadian jail.

  4. Kurgan

    FOUR YEARS?

    Only four years? I'd give him four years for each victim.

    1. Chris 15
      FAIL

      Re: FOUR YEARS?

      Indeed, this is unbelievably weak. Considering the cash this guy has no doubt squirreled away it's pathetic

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like