A couple of weeks ago, a hacker with a heart of gold sold a fake Banksy NFT for 100 ETH and then gave the money back. They marketed the public sale by way of Banksy’s official web site. If the NFT was fake, someone hacked that site. Which appeared unlikely. Additionally, there may be the problem of the alias that the scammed NFT collector makes use of. Pranksy, a play on words referencing the elusive graffiti artist Banksy mixed with the word “prank.” Which is what this whole situation was, a prank.
Too many coincidences. Suspicious, we posed our theory:
“Was Pranksy focused by Banksy and his crew? 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 within the NFT group blended along with his title makes him a super goal.”
It appeared to suit, however the case of the pretend Banksy NFT by no means ceases to amaze.
Security Experts Warned Banksy About His Website’s Vulnerability
Luckily for us, the BBC is on the case. They interviewed Sam Curry, “a professional ethical hacker from the US and founder of security consultancy Palisade.” There appear to be too many “moral hackers” on this story, however okay… Curry advised them:
“I was in a security forum and multiple people were posting links to the site. I’d clicked one and instantly noticed it was weak, so I reached out to Banksy’s crew through e-mail as I wasn’t positive 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.”
This stuff occur. What number of emails does Banksy’s crew get? Did it cross their spam folder? Can we be sure they read it on time? The suspicious thing, though, is Mr. Curry’s description of the site’s vulnerability. It:
“allowed you to create arbitrary information on the web site” and publish your personal pages and content material.
So, the flaw permitted the hackers to do exactly what they needed to do to advertise the fake Banksy NFT auction and not much more, huh? Interesting.
Banksy Isn’t Accountable For The Pretend Banksy NFT, Specialists Say
Neither the artist’s official web site nor the Pest Management web site, even acknowledge the pretend Banksy NFT. The BBC felt our uneasiness and tried to put our concerns to rest. They consulted two Banksy specialists and so they each thought that the shoe didn’t match. In response to them, the elusive graffiti artist shouldn’t be the mastermind behind the entire occasion. This isn’t a “Banksy stunt.” Professor Paul Gough, “principal and vice-chancellor of Arts College Bournemouth,” goes first:
“I don’t see it as a Banksy prank. The timing for me doesn’t work right, the context doesn’t feel appropriate. He’s simply carried out his ‘Spraycation’ stunt the place he bombed 10 websites in East Anglia, and put out a video on social media 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.”
It does appear to be a “main stunt.” Does that imply that the pretend Banksy NFT operation is out of the query? Or did Banksy went to work immediately after finishing his spraycation? Did the elusive graffiti artist strike again in the digital realm?
Second at bat is John Brandler, a Banksy collector, who supplies another excuse:
“Banksy’s stunts are not malicious and they don’t hurt people.”
Good level, however let’s be trustworthy, the incident didn’t actually harm Pranksy. The NFT collector got his ETH back, was the subject of worldwide headlines, and still got to keep the fake Banksy NFT. It might be price one thing, sometime.
Or is this the last we’re going to hear about the fake Banksy NFT?
