A number of weeks back, a hacker with a heart of gold offered a phony Banksy NFT for 100 ETH and after that provided the cash back. They promoted the auction through Banksy’s main website. If the NFT was phony, somebody hacked that website. Which appeared not likely. Likewise, there is the concern of the alias that the scammed NFT collector utilizes. Pranksy, a play on words referencing the evasive graffiti artist Banksy blended with the word “prank.” Which is what this entire scenario was, a trick.
A lot of coincidences. Suspicious, we postured our theory:
“Was Pranksy targeted by Banksy and his team? If Banksy wanted to create worldwide headlines and comment on the NFT boom at the same time, a notorious art collector was the missing ingredient. Pransky’s prominence in the NFT community mixed with his name makes him an ideal target.”
It appeared to fit, however the case of the phony Banksy NFT continues to astonish.
Security Specialists Cautioned Banksy About His Site’s Vulnerability
Fortunately for us, the BBC is on the case They talked to Sam Curry, “a professional ethical hacker from the US and founder of security consultancy Palisade.” There appear to be a lot of “ethical hackers” in this story, however ok … Curry informed them:
” I remained in a security online forum and several individuals were publishing links to the website. I ‘d clicked one and instantly saw it was susceptible, so I connected to Banksy’s group through e-mail as I wasn’t sure if anybody else had.
“They didn’t respond over email, so I tried a few other ways to contact them including their Instagram, but never received a response.”
These things occur. The number of e-mails does Banksy’s group get? Did it pass their spam folder? Can we make certain they read it on time? The suspicious thing, however, is Mr. Curry’s description of the website’s vulnerability. It:
“allowed you to create arbitrary files on the website” and publish your own pages and material.
So, the defect allowed the hackers to do precisely what they required to do to market the phony Banksy NFT auction and very little more, huh? Fascinating.
ETH cost chart on FTX|Source: ETH/USD on TradingView.com
Banksy Isn’t Accountable For The Phony Banksy NFT, Specialists State
Neither the artist’s main site nor the Bug Control site even acknowledge the phony Banksy NFT. Something does not feel right here. The BBC felt our anxiety and attempted to put our issues to rest. They sought advice from 2 Banksy specialists and they both believed that the shoe didn’t fit. According to them, the evasive graffiti artist is not the mastermind behind the entire occasion. This is not a “Banksy stunt.” Teacher Paul Gough, “principal and vice-chancellor of Arts University Bournemouth,” goes initially:
” I do not see it as a Banksy trick. The timing for me does not work right, the context does not feel suitable. He’s simply done his ‘Spraycation’ stunt where he bombed 10 websites in East Anglia, and put out a video on social networks about it.
“That is a pretty major stunt and takes a lot of organising by a very professional crew, so I just don’t think the timings right here so soon after that.”
Here’s the Spraycation video, dated August 13th, 2021:
It does appear like a “major stunt.” Does that mean that the phony Banksy NFT operation runs out the concern? Or did Banksy went to work instantly after completing his spraycation? Did the evasive graffiti artist strike once again in the digital world?
2nd at bat is John Brandler, a Banksy collector, who offers another reason that the scenario is not an initial Banksy:
“Banksy’s stunts are not malicious and they don’t hurt people.”
Asset, however let’s be sincere, the event didn’t actually injure Pranksy. The NFT collector got his ETH back, was the topic of around the world headings, and still got to keep the phony Banksy NFT. It might deserve something, at some point.
Or is this the last we’re going to become aware of the phony Banksy NFT?
Included Image: Screenshot of the phony Banksy NFT|Charts by TradingView
Credit: Source link