7th August was a turning point for the world’s largest cryptocurrency exchange; the firm came under a malware attack from hackers. The hackers, as it is alleged, had unlimited access to know Your Customer (KYC) data. Also, the hackers obtained up to 10000 personal photos, among other sensitive information.

The hackers wanted about 300 Bitcoins to remain tightly lipped about the information they collected from Binance’s databases, failure to which the information would be shared all over the internet, and other public platforms.

Also, the hacker set up several Telegram groups that they alleged to have shared a lot of personal information. Telegram, however, acted fast and deleted these groups, or was it the hacker who deleted the groups? That we shall never know for sure. The authenticity of this data is in question as the information shared on Telegram lacked a digital watermark that Binance uses for its internal information.

Binance, later on, came out and issued a press release stating that there was no evidence that some of its information was leaked as the material shared in Telegram lacked the one symbol that the company uses for its internal data, and that is a digital watermark.

Binance further stated that the images shared; date back to February when it was still making use of third-party firms to process their KYC data. Binance also claims that it pleaded with the hacker to reveal the source of information, but their pleas fell on a request for 300 BTC by the hacker, who was not keen to reveal where they got the sensitive information from.

People have come up to question Binance’s intentions as seemingly; it is trying to shift the blame to the company it had contracted to help process its KYC data at the time.

Sam Town a crypto data and analysis firm when contacted had the following to say “, KYC data should be -and is-currently handled in house by major exchanges. We may be more than a decade post-Satoshi, but the cryptocurrency ecosystem is still a work in progress. Stop-gap solutions like third party KYC data management may be necessary to bootstrap a platform, but that doesn’t absolve Binance of responsibility in this case.”

In relation to situations where governments are blamed for acts done by their contractors, Paul Bischoff agrees that Binance should take their fair share of blame and work on preventing similar occurrences in the future, instead of maintaining a wild goose chase. Therefore, the one to receive the fault should be Binance and not the third party firm.

Reward for Information

Binance in a bid to save its reputation is giving a reward of up to 25 bitcoins for anyone who can help it arrest the hacker.

What's your reaction?
Leave a Comment