Should I just kill myself?
>>111747
Yes.
How the fuck do you guys manage to get this shit onto your computer when "common sense security suite 2016™" is free and doesn't even require a download?
Post yfw spaniard OP has to pay to get his rare Pepes back.
OP here
There's no way i'm going to pay some criminals to get my files back.
But every tech expert says that it's ALMOST impossible to deencrypt the files without the key. So, is there a way in which i can at least attempt to get my files back without paying?
>>111755
No. How did that even happen to you in the first place?
>>111755
>is there a way in which i can at least attempt to get my files back without paying?
Sure, do you have a quantum computer lying around?
>>111755
You can google "cerber decrypt" but it (most likely) will get you nowhere... Or you'll end up encrypting your encrypted files.
I know this is a stupid question, but do you have backups if your important shit?
>>111767
Jimmies officially rustled.
>>111767
>I just ignored it
What was the torrent?
>>111772
Sytrus (vst plugin)
>>111776
>Sytrus (vst plugin)
And now the most important question, from what website? I can't help, I'm only curious.
>>111747
No.
The only way you're going to be able to get through that is the decryption key. Let this be a reminder to use Free Software (as in freedom!) and Common Sense (2016).
I feel for you though. Don't trust torrents.
>>111781
Torrents are perfectly safe if you use Common Sense (2016).
There was this article saying someone made available for free a software to find the password to decrypt ransomware files.
I'd look into it if I were you (or I'd reinstall windows if there isn't any sensitive files).
>>111777
I don't know, I was in incognito mode, but I still have the .torrent. Pic related
BTW, OP. Would you mind sharing the entirety of that text document? I've been startpageing this ransomware name and i cannot seem to find the text file.
>>111784
You're right. Just make sure not to download anything executable. I should have clarified that.
>>111794
Wait... what? Is "Liam" a common Spanish name?
Anyhow, for future reference: download sandboxie
http://www.sandboxie.com/index.php?DownloadSandboxie
and open files inside of it before you let them loose on your computer.
I guess I could write a line or two about what to do with warning from windows, but instead I'll say this. "what have we learned"?
>>111795
https://mega.nz/#!O8pm0Aba!RpFArvUNbrPCdqOr2Dv_V1B6ft2-KLGejPZCCUGT_7Y
>>111799
Thanks, anon
>>111795
>You're right. Just make sure not to download anything executable. I should have clarified that.
I'd say you're fine with downloading executables too, if you, as >>111784 says, use Common Sense™.
Like, say, if you use well-known sites (ie KAT and TPB), the torrent is at least a few weeks old, the torrent has a bunch of comments, and nothing in the comments indicates you have a virus, you're most likely fine.
Installing something you got from wherever though, is as stupid as it gets. Though then again, being a windows user is almost as stupid as it gets. Only being a macfag is more stupid. Though it ties with using systemd.
>>111822
what's the problem with systemd?
>>111835
If you use it, you're not fitting in.
>>111835
There's many.
First and foremost, its non-POSIX compliance. That is, it doesn't "do one thing and does it well", but it tries to do as many things as it can, and does most of it quite poorly. And that's not the worst part of not complying with POSIX. Given that when you use systemd you have to use all of its components, and they're overall quite poorly coded, it's one hell of a security vulnerability. And don't get me started on its logging system.
In other words, it works like Windows' svchost, with all the vulnerabilities that ensue.
But OK, it's bad software. Why hate it so much then? Well, it receives all that hate because, while being as shit as it is, it encroaches itsels in the system. Hell, its author has stated he wants it to be treated as the core OS. A clear example for why this is terrible is udev: It used to be maintained by the kernel group, but then Lennart said the systemd would take care of it and not to worry, that it wouldn't become dependent on systemd - only to, soon after, made udev depend on systemd.
This ensued. Linus is the fucking best:
https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/10/2/303
When systemd does this (steal the job of other packages when it was supposed to only be an init daemon - and let's not forget it's gone as far as taking over mount and network, and you can't have just one systemd service, you have to have them all), it affects FOSS at large, because there's a bunch of lazy devs who don't care about their users and just want to get software done quickly, regardless of quality and efficiency (mostly because they're paid programmers), and adopt systemd dependencies. The biggest example of this is gnome: they decided to use systemd for the login page, semi-replacing GDM (while still calling it that). That was the only component of systemd used by gnome, the login page. But as you can't use only some components of systemd, if you use gnome, you have to use all systemd, from the login page to its mount. And this snowballed. (cont)
>>111835
>>112087
(cont)
Given that gnome3 depends on systemd, and most big name distros depend on gnome3 (or at least in GTK3 which depends on gnome3), all of these distros moved to systemd, with the exception of Gentoo (that had already started their own fork of udev after the fiasco detailed in the previous post) and Slackware (its author said how Slackware users are not the kind of people to just take a crap program like that and roll with it).
There was a big debate in Debian about whether or not to adopt systemd, but there was a poll that gave a lot of weight to Debian Women, a feminist group with strong ties to Gnome (as in, the ones who took in all of systemd for a login page) and RedHat (the company paying Lennart for the development of systemd), and of course, the poll ended up with adoption of systemd winning (if barely). This is what prompted Devuan to be created - its explicit reason to exist is the fact that it doesn't depend on systemd:
>https://devuan.org/
First phrase:
>Devuan GNU+Linux is a fork of Debian without systemd
And of course, seeing as how Ubuntu is hard-dependent on Debian, and Debian is hard-dependent on gnome3, and gnome3 is hard-dependant on systemd for the pettiest of reasons, Ubuntu became dependent on systemd:
http://www.markshuttleworth.com/archives/1316
And this is only the tip of the iceberg. There's the fact that it's assumed RedHat is working with PRISM and all. Like what happened with openssl and heartbleed.
tl. Quite tl;dr: it's insecure, bloated, highly incompatible and inefficient as fuck, and hated by sysops, security analysts and non-lazy devs all around for good reason.
>>112087
>First and foremost, its non-POSIX compliance. That is, it doesn't "do one thing and does it well", but it tries to do as many things as it can
POSIX has nothing to say on this matter, and damn you for misrepresenting it as if it does.
Anyone can google the actual standard, read it, and see that you're lying.
>>112088
>was a poll that gave a lot of weight to Debian Women,
All Debian's referenda are one-man-one-vote; they don't give preferential treatment to anyone.
Debian conducts its business in public: both the details of the vote, and the discussion surrounding it, are right there on the web for anyone to read, debian-developer or not.
Your allegation that Ubuntu was forced to do anything is absurd: Ubuntu is a for-profit corporation with thousands of times the resources Debian has, used Upstart (their own, in-house init) whilst Debian was using sysv init, and at the time of the vote *was already using systemd*.
tl;dr: everything you write can be safely ignored, because there's evidence that you just make shit up and present it as fact when it isn't.
>>111747
>should i kill myself
Don't worry, when trump deports you, you will probs be raped and killed by some gang
>>111767
>but I just ignored it.
>>111747
So let me get this straight.
You wanted to download a program for free, so you went to 'just anywhere' and downloaded from a a website that might or might not have been shady (would probably set off alarm bells for most people).
Windows warned you that it might be harmful, but that still didn't faze you. You opened an .exe file that turned out to be, surprise surprise, ransomware that's encrypted all of your files and denied you access to them.
Are you older than 35? How much experience do you have with computers?
>Windows warned me when I opened the setup, but I just ignored it
I came in this thread just to laugh at you
>>111776
Dude all VST come in dll
>>112093
Look everyone, a dumbass that thinks every Spanish person on 4chan is from the US.
>>112234
not true but only a retard could not tell the difference between a malware and a legit exe copy -pic related they usually have the author/company name plus icon and documentation.
>>111799
Probs a panchito, not even spaniard. Sheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeit.
