ryanl0l

I've been on the phone with PayPal on far too many occasions, and they definitely know how to handle these issues quick.

Although, you wouldn't even really have to call them. You can dispute the charges with like two clicks on your account page. It's just that if you call them, they can instantly settle the dispute in your favor.

Most paypal fraud, like credit card fraud happens at a very small scale. A fraudster pays $50 for 50 accounts and then spends a day with them and maybe walks out with $300.

The guy selling the accounts sells hundreds of thousands of them, and obviously doesn't get involved in the fraud itself.

This is why this whole thing is so strange, there's a bunch of people claiming that someone hacked teamviewer and is now using that access for petty paypal fraud instead of targetting the tens (if not hundreds) of thousands of PoS systems teamviewer is used to manage.

>Are they hoping that a small % of their victims won't notice the fraudulent transactions?

No, they certainly don't care if the payments get charged back or not. If they try to send money to their own account, it'll be suspended before they can actually withdraw it out of PayPal.

Instead in this case they seem to be trying to buy itunes gift cards, undoubtedly with the intent to sell them (on sites such as g2a.com) before they get cancelled.

RDP at home is certainly difficult, but I have to disagree on the performance bit. In fact, RDP is probably by far the best such protocol in use right now.

Why would you care? You can call in and reverse the payment in minutes.

>Of the hundreds of support requests I've responded to post-attack, all except one attack was carried out over TeamViewer.

And my experiences with repeatedly calling these guys had different results, that's fine.

>A tech support scam attacker would have many first-time connections to many other first-time TeamViewer users who are generally seniors instructed to run the TeamViewer app over the phone. While they may use a pool of computers/TeamViewer IDs, and a pool of IPs, there's limits to the cost-effectiveness of scaling that variation, and a pattern should definitely be visible.

And then the scammers will just switch to VMs and socks5 proxies. (They probably already use the socks, considering they're buying them in bulk)

>"Assuming proper rate limiting" seems like a large assumption, given that the possible attack vectors are guessing the random alphanumeric passwords and testing password dumps for account pairs from other services that work with TeamViewer.

The mere fact that this all happens over the network is a plenty of ratelimiting.

>Defaulting to accepting any connection from anywhere seems like a great example of poor security configuration by default.

This specifically isn't the default though.

On paypal or TV? Needs clarification.

I'm aware. But even tens of thousands of affected people wouldn't qualify as "an extremely wide spread malware".

If you spin up an exploit pack and can't get 50k hits in a day you're clueless and should consider a career outside of cybercrime.

I can't see how you could possibly describe his behavior as "childish" here. Pangu straight up stole his code and sold it.

I'd imagine it's more about not driving all the domestic companies away.

The citations do not support your original claim.

Subsidiaries in countries with low tax rates certainly aren't against the spirit of the law.

That's not what you said though.

>Actions that are deemed to have been taken solely for their tax effects are clearly and explicitly deemed tax evasion by the IRS

What you said would make almost all tax avoidance into tax evasion. Hell, even claiming deductions would by your logic be tax evasion.

You should reconsider whatever client program you're using if it's causing issues.

>Actions that are deemed to have been taken solely for their tax effects are clearly and explicitly deemed tax evasion by the IRS

This is just not true.

No? Could you expand on that a little please.

Based on my reading there certainly exists such a duty when it's beneficial, obviously tax avoidance isn't explicitly beneficial though. Potential law changes or even bad press could cost more than the amount of money saved.