4 ms·
In the case of a $100 thermostat, knowing it's infected, I'd throw it away and buy another brand, unless I knew how to wipe and secure it. It's two screws and
by imglorp 10y ago
In the case of a $100 thermostat, knowing it's infected, I'd throw it away and buy another brand, unless I knew how to wipe and secure it. It's two screws and few wires. Why would I pay even a $1 to someone who might or might not get off my network?
In the case of a $2000 fridge, it's more persuasive. I might respond by revoking its network privs and paying for a service call to wipe and reset to factory. Again, I'm not going to trust the bad guy to get off my network.
In both cases, the bad guy has shown bad intent, means, and opportunity. I'm not trusting him after a payoff.
- csydas 10y agoI understand your position here but you are familiar with ransomware scams it seems and also at least tech savvy enough to know you can restrict network access. However I do not feel you are representative of most homeowners who would be in the same situation, and my evidence by example is that ransomware is exceptionally profitable despite how well known the malware is and many reports and instructions on your options to respond are. Basically while I agree with your assessment on how to respond I think the fact that ransomware is stilk so profitable means that you are the exception in this case. I posit that the same persons who reluctantly pay ransoms for their phones/tablets/desktops/laptops would be all the more quick to pay if not paying meant an additional heating or electric bill on top of it. I don't know if utilities would be sympathetic to victims but I am not confident they would be. No, rationally there is no guarantee that payment unlocks the device or removes the attacker, but part of the attack is intending to induce an irrational state- it's likely why early ransomware pretended to be DMCA claims or FBI warnings. (Please forgive spelling errors as I am on a tablet)
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]