To begin the vehicle hack-up process, you must request that the TLC Licensing Division certify that the vehicle can be used with your medallion. First review the Yellow Cab hack-up information below, and the information on the Taxicab Medallion page, then complete the Medallion Certification Request form.
Klyushin was charged along with two Russian co-conspirators: Ivan Ermakov and Nikolai Rumiantcev. Two others, Mikhail Vladimirovich Irzak and Igor Sergeevich Sladkov, were charged in a separate indictment. All four co-conspirators remain at large. In October 2018, Ermakov was also charged in federal court in Pittsburgh in connection with his alleged role in hacking and related disinformation operations targeting international anti-doping agencies, sporting federations, and anti-doping officials.
Evidence presented at trial demonstrated that the times in which the filing agents were hacked corresponded with the times in which Klyushin and his co-conspirators made profitable trades. Additionally, of the more than 2,000 earnings events around which Klyushin and his co-conspirators traded between January 2018 and September 2020, more than 97 percent were filed with the SEC by the victim filing agents. Testimony at trial indicated that the odds of this trading pattern occurring in the absence of a relationship between the trading and the identity of the filing agent was less than one in a trillion.
This as-told-to essay is based on a conversation with Josh Wood, the 32-year-old CEO and founder of the tech hospitality company Bloc, who's based in London, about his experience trying the productivity hack known as "monk mode." The following has been edited for length and clarity.
I found out about the productivity hack known as "monk mode" on TikTok in July 2022, from a video by Iman Gadzhi, who's a young, successful entrepreneur, so I decided to give it a try. As a business owner myself, my TikTok feed is filled with business-related posts, self-help advice, and productivity tips. So I see these kinds of posts all the time from people I respect.
I tend to only go in monk mode during working hours, and it's incredibly rare there's ever an "emergency" that can't wait. If I'm in monk mode for two hours, whoever needs to get ahold of me for something is usually fine with that time frame. I've never had a situation where I've missed something important because I've been in monk mode. I think if there ever was, my partner would ignore their respect for the hack and disrupt me anyway. But most things in life can wait.
Last week, the Wormhole attacker converted 95,000 ETH stolen during the hack into staked ETH. The attacker then borrowed DAI using the staked ETH as collateral, and minutes later, used that borrowed DAI to purchase more staked ETH. The attacker continued this pattern to leverage borrowed capital to acquire more and more staked ETH. We can track this activity using Chainalysis Storyline, as we see below.
Yesterday at around 1:30 PM ET, an unknown hacker exploited a vulnerability in the Wormhole Network, a popular cross-chain protocol, to carry out the second-largest crypto theft from a decentralized finance (DeFi) protocol ever. Across a series of transactions, the hacker made off with roughly 120,000 Wormhole Ethereum (WeETH) worth over $320 million.
In order to understand why this incident was more serious than the average hack, you need to know how cross-chain bridges work. Users interact with cross-chain bridges by sending funds in one asset to the bridge protocol, where those funds are then locked into the contract. The user is then issued equivalent funds of a parallel asset on the chain the protocol bridges to. In the case of Wormhole, users typically send Ether (ETH) to the protocol, where it is held as collateral, and are issued WeETH on Solana, backed by that collateral locked in the Wormhole contract on Ethereum.
We can also see two transactions that occurred prior to the hack itself. First, the hacker received 0.94 ETH from Tornado Cash, an Ethereum-based mixer, which was used to pay for gas fees on the transactions immediately following the initial hack. Second, the hacker sent 0.1 ETH to a deposit address at a large, international exchange.
As we see from the Reactor screenshot below, the Wormhole hacker still holds 93,750 ETH on the Ethereum blockchain, which was bridged back from the Solana blockchain following the hack. We can see this Ether in the balance of the address shown on the Reactor screenshot below.
The good news is that investigators, along with many in the cryptocurrency community, are closely watching this address, which will make it virtually impossible for the hacker to move the funds undetected.
As more value flows through cross-chain bridges, they become more attractive targets for hackers. The complexity of the flaw that was exploited to pull off the wormhole hack illustrates the sophistication of adversaries that smart contract developers must defend against.
"to cut roughly, cut with chopping blows," c. 1200, from verb found in stem of Old English tohaccian "hack to pieces," from West Germanic *hakkon (source also of Old Frisian hackia "to chop or hack," Dutch hakken, Old High German hacchon, German hacken), from PIE root *keg- "hook, tooth." Perhaps influenced by Old Norse höggva "to hew, cut, strike, smite" (which is unrelated, from PIE *kau- "to hew, strike;" see hew).
The slang sense of "cope with" (as in can't hack it) is recorded in American English by 1955, with a notion of "get through by some effort," as a jungle (phrase hack after "keep working away at" is attested from late 14c.). To hack around "waste time" is U.S. slang, by 1955, perhaps originally of golfers or cabbies. Related: Hacked; hacking.
"tool for chopping," early 14c., from hack (v.1); cognates: Danish hakke "mattock," German Hacke "pickax, hatchet, hoe." Meaning "a cut, notch" is from 1570s. Meaning "an act of cutting" is from 1836; figurative sense of "a try, an attempt" is first attested 1898.
"person hired to do routine work," c. 1700, ultimately short for hackney "an ordinary horse, horse for general service (especially for driving or riding, as opposed to war, hunting, or hauling)," c. 1300. This word is probably from the place name Hackney, Middlesex. Apparently nags were raised on the pastureland there in early medieval times. Extended sense of "horse for hire" (late 14c.) led naturally to "broken-down nag," and also "prostitute" (1570s) and "a drudge" (1540s), especially a literary one, one who writes according to direction or demand. Sense of "carriage for hire" (1704) led to modern slang for "taxicab." As an adjective, 1734, from the noun. Hack writer is first recorded 1826, though hackney writer is at least 50 years earlier. Hack-work is recorded from 1851.
"illegally enter a computer system," by 1984; apparently a back-formation from hacker. Related: Hacked; hacking (1975 in this sense). Earlier verb senses were "to make commonplace" (1745), "make common by everyday use" (1590s), "use (a horse) for ordinary riding" (1560s), all from hack (n.2).
This is one example of a hack-and-leak operation where malicious actors use cyber tools to gain access to sensitive or secret material and then release it in the public domain. Hack-and-leak operations pose difficult questions for scholars and policymakers on how best to conceptualize and respond to this new frontier in digital foreign interference. Scholars need to take hack-and-leak operations seriously as a challenge to theoretical understandings of the boundary between legitimate and impermissible political practice. But hack-and-leak operations are also an urgent policy challenge for both offensive and defensive cyber security policies as U.S. government agencies receive greater latitude to conduct such operations around the world.
Perhaps the most well-known example of a hack-and-leak operation is the success of Russian intelligence agencies in obtaining and disseminating documents from the Democratic National Committee during the 2016 U.S. presidential election campaign. Although the campaigns of both Hilary Clinton and Donald Trump repeatedly revealed lies and transgressions of their opponent, the Democratic National Committee emails represented a crucial shift in momentum between the two candidates.
Following the Democratic National Committee leaks, hack-and-leak and other information operations were widely seen as a severe threat to liberal democratic structures, and U.S. policymakers have in turn mobilized significant resources in response, including threat intelligence and cyber security protections, increased election and voting security, legislative pressure on social media companies, and even offensive cyber attacks.
However, the characterization of hack-and-leak operations purely as an aspect of antagonistic foreign relations between states fails to appreciate the complexity of the globalized and congested media environment. Consequently, scholars need to also locate hack-and-leak operations within sociological approaches to digital media and information politics, especially the concept of scandal. In a fast-flowing digital media environment with constant accusations and leaks, the truth as revealed by scandal is always contested and challenged, and political actors seek to gain the upper hand through competing scandal-making. Seeing hack-and-leak operations as the simulation of scandal is a crucial first step in building a broader theoretical base for policy.
These cases have been publicly attributed to governments in the Middle East, namely Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates, although these attributions are tentative and contested. Uncertainty about attribution is not merely an aftershock of the initial incident, prolonged due to well-known difficulties in technical and political attribution for any cyber operation. Instead, such uncertainty is a key part of the simulation of scandal. It stems from the shifting balance of media coverage between stories that focus on the content of the leak and stories that focus on the details of the hack. This ebb and flow occurs as protagonists on each side seek to direct the weight of coverage towards the hacking operation or away from it, towards the content revealed by the hack. 041b061a72