I agree with this article, but though I am no expert in this topic I do wonder how much the wannacry perpetrators would actually go after this guy. Consider:
1. The fact that it was disabled so trivially was ultimately their own fault.
2. As we have seen, it was easy enough for them to change the logic to remove the web request on the nonexistent domain and start spreading again.
3. Retaliation would not be without cost and risk. Acting on #2 instead is a less costly, less risky action.
1. The fact that it was disabled so trivially was ultimately their own fault.
2. As we have seen, it was easy enough for them to change the logic to remove the web request on the nonexistent domain and start spreading again.
3. Retaliation would not be without cost and risk. Acting on #2 instead is a less costly, less risky action.