Topic: kenzawak hacked (again) - page 2. (Read 971 times)

I think it would be wrong not to.  Kenzawak has shown (and said) the security of his account is not crucial. He pretty much admitted as much:


That post has since been deleted, but it was quoted by hacker1001101001 here.


I think it's fair to give the real Kenzawak the benefit of trust.  It's an extraordinary claim that he was hacked (or "hacked") twice.  It's certainly possible that he was never hacked at all, and is using this as a ploy or an excuse to perpetrate a couple of scams.  I don't know Kenzawak personally, but I think some community members do, and given their support I would tend to doubt that he's stooped so low.

None the less, I feel a red-tag is warranted in this case.  If the real Kenzawak has no intention of trading on this forum a red-tag shouldn't bother him.  Until he takes the security of his account seriously my review will stay.

I think the primary high risk part is that they aren't here to trade and thus choose to accept no responsibility for any trades that happen with their account. Trading with them is very high risk as a result. Getting hacked twice doesn't help either.

I don't think it's wrong.


Once - maybe, but getting hacked (or "hacked") twice in a short period of time - yes, that makes it high-risk.

Well although leaving a red trust does not effect like it used to be but if kenzawak get the account back and can prove that he indeed got it back then I do not think it will be appropriate to leave a negative trust since it's with him the original owner.

May be a neutral can serve as a reminder that the account was hacked twice but now it's with the original owner.

Still it's very unfair for both the lender and the original account owner who did not actually request the loan. What if the original owner does not have the money because the given some was very large amount.

The only way I think is very safe for both party is the requester signs a message with their BTC address every time they request a loan.

This doesn't look like a good way to go around, as an account is itself an identity here, and all this comes down to the account owners fault in not able to protect his account.



I don't think one should exclude him because of this incident or give him a negative trust, because as my personal text suggests, its already not that safe online and anybody could get a victim of such attacks unknowingly, it doesn't make one a high risk to trade with really IMO.

Partially my fault, partially kenzawak's fault (after all, they got hacked twice in a short period of time). I'd probably ask for half from him, he'd state that he's not here to trade and deny all responsibility despite being on DT1 with positive trust feedback. We'd carry on with life afterwards.


Agreed.

---

Would it be wrong to leave a negative trust feedback afterwards, now that negative trust doesn't mean that someone is a scammer? The text says:

I don't think it's unreasonable to believe that trading with kenzawak is high risk given that they were hacked twice in a short period of time and refused to take any responsibility the first time (and clearly didn't seem to improve their opsec either)

If he has a staked address that proves him the original owner then I think he may get a no collateral loan however I do not deny the fact that still the lender will have hesitation in their min

By the way, I am still curious to hear the view of more members about the question I asked in my last post.


Well it's very legit that they can refuse it to pay (repay) saying that it's lenders fault because they did not do their due diligence properly.

I excluded kenzawak after the first hack and I would suggest everyone do that. We need better opsec in DT.

Sad to see kenzawak hacked again.


I don't know what would have happened, but my guess is that there would be a record of the event.
This would make future possible lenders more cautious about lending again to kenzawak without collateral.

I think the original owner of the account would be the one accountable for this loss lender had and he would have to payback. It's bad to hear but that's how it should work.

Never knew that crypto nerds use Facebook :-P

By the way, it was a good catch. The scammer will now regret to ask loan from the wrong guy LOL. If that was someone new in the lending business, may be they would not notice it much and would lose the money.

Here is a question though:

Say hypothetically - DarkStar_ failed to spot it that this account was hacked. He lent the money and they found out that kenzawak hacked. kenzawak later recover his account.

What happen with the money that was lent?

I put that Cryptios thread on watch.. .I had remembered that some kind of team had been created by the forum or a contract or whatever, so hopefully kenzawak is able to report to that team.  

I know that during hacking times, there can be a bit of upheaval regarding what to do first, especially since it appears that some of kenzawak's BTC (or crypto) accounts have been hacked too, and probably the finances would take some priority if there is any way to prevent the loss of funds.

Regarding my ability to get my account back when I was hacked in late 2016, it actually went pretty quick (like less than a week) because of the way that my account had been identified or brought to Cyrus's attention.

And, regarding my level of fame, I thought that I was not very famous  back in 2016, including that Cyrus had not interacted with me regarding other matters.

By the way, I had messed up about a couple months after my hack , so later in 2016, I had accidentally locked myself out of my account in the way that I had attempted to reset my password.  So, on that occasion (second loss of my account), it took about a month to get access to my account back, purely due to my own short-sighted mistake...  which reset of my account was communicated to me by theymos directly.....  so fame, which still was not even too high for me then, still caused me to have to wait for that period of time, while it seemed that I was begging on a fairly regular basis to get my account back for the whole duration of my waiting...

By the way, I think that my level of fame, to the extent that it arguably exists, went up when theymos appointed me as a merit source in early 2018, so blame theymos for the monster that he had a hand in creating (or at least exacerbated a pre-existing condition (monster status) that was within me).    

I think they do this, but only admin and Cryptios team have the power to lock an account IMO. So, I think kenzawak could send a PM to them requesting so.



User should be a famous member like you, I guess to get this special treatment. Good to know you got it back then as they were like dark days for account recovery if you see, it works more faster now.

Won't admins lock the account fairly quickly if they either see evidence of questionable activity or maybe if the account has been reported as hacked?

That is what happened to me on one of an occasion in late 2016 when Cyrus had noticed that my account had been compromised ...

Here you go!

It's really hacked.

Account "kenzawak" compromised again

He has signed a message from the address @DarkStar_ pointed he uses to sign a message here.

Maybe...

Negative trusts can be removed completely, while flags can be withdrawn and opposed, but they will stay in existence. So I’m not sure about that.

Tagged....

We can add a flag right? The first one?

kenzawak asked me for a loan request:

In the request, they signed the address 1G314GjY1UPDUyNDFydRgJrE4rE4GwcA3C which has zero hits on Google and no transactions. This was an immediate red flags; was kenzawak hacked again? They've claimed that they're only here to talk, and not to trade. They had a password reset a few hours earlier looking at seclog:

I left a negative trust feedback as a result just in case. "kenzawak" saw the trust feedback and sent me this PM:


He links me to this thread with an address he posted in 2017 and says that he could sign from that address. However, from the last time he was hacked, we learned that the only address he could sign was an Ethereum address.
The post was conveniently edited this morning:


So, yup, kenzawak has been hacked for the second time in a month and a half. At least the hacker was rickrolled?

---

Update:
The hacker had really good planning for deception. They edited the Telegram handle posted by kenzawak and offered to talk on Telegram via kenzawak's "actual" handle (quote shows it was @moutezz originally) to show that he wasn't hacked.

---

pls merit my post thanks