6 ms·

The ransomware scheme only works because the users actually get their files back and the prices are pretty reasonable for many victims. The perpetrators spend a

by nom 10y ago

The ransomware scheme only works because the users actually get their files back and the prices are pretty reasonable for many victims. The perpetrators spend a lot of time on the ransomware and its backend. The better it works works, the more people will pay. They rely on people like us to spread the word that it's not a scam, it's real and it works. Now that I think about it: It would really damage the whole ransomware scheme if there were fake / rogue versions that won't decrypt, wouldn't it?

TeMPOraL 10y ago
> It would really damage the whole ransomware scheme if there were fake / rogue versions that won't decrypt, wouldn't it? Or a single fake story about how ransom doesn't give your data back, published in a high-profile newspaper. Come to think of it, our news sources write bigger lies every day, here they could actually do some good without any risk to their own reputation.
- throwaway2048 10y ago
  This wouldn't really help, because much like spam, the costs are extraordinarily asymmetric, it costs essentially nothing to infect somebody and they need 1 payout in 100000 to make it worth it.
- dspillett 10y ago
  > Come to think of it, our news sources write bigger lies every day Unfortunately they are also cut throat with regard to each other. The first paper that does this risks the rest of them running stories about that source scare mongering and deliberately spreading panic on behalf of [insert conspiracy theory and/or unpopular agency here].
  - firethief 10y ago
    Sounds like a good thing to me. The watchmen watch the other watchmen.
    - dspillett 10y ago
      But they only act on what they see when it satisfies their own ends. It isn't really an effective force for the general good.
awesomepantsm 10y ago
Exactly, but it will never be zero. There will always be scammers trying to get rich quick on the trust users have placed in the (more) honest scammers. All organized crime has to deal with some amount of posers trying to cash in on their reputation. Sometimes the way they keep the dishonest guys in line is by attacking others who try to get in on the scheme. Traditionally this would be breaking people's knees, and I imagine well-organized cyber crime boils down to the same thing in the end.
- cel1ne 10y ago
  > ... trust users have placed in the (more) honest scammers. > Sometimes the way they keep the dishonest guys in line is by attacking others who try to get in on the scheme. Are you really trying to frame some extortionists/scammers as honest and some as dishonest? How about they all are criminals, extorting money as they do from random people, they don't care about?
  - ardacinar 10y ago
    Some scammers can be honest. You might say "Transfer X amount of money to me. If you don't, you can never get your data back". Saying and acting on that doesn't make you dishonest, it makes you an asshole.
    - cel1ne 10y ago
      That depends on your definition. Googling brings up "dishonest: not honest; disposed to lie, cheat, or steal; not worthy of trust or belief" Thus I think a scammer can be called dishonest.
      - BobCat 10y ago
        An honest kidnapper would have mentioned the Lindbergh baby was already dead...
      - throwanem 10y ago
        A trivial application of the principle of charity makes it obvious that the meaning here intended is 'truthful'. Splitting semantic hairs rather than discussing substance benefits no one.
ocdtrekkie 10y ago
I'm kind amazed at the tone deafness of several comments in this thread. I get that as a larger effect, reducing the success rate of scammers hurts their business, but if I'm dealing with someone who's been hit because they weren't adequately prepared, I'm gonna recommend they pay the ransom if they want their stuff back. Because I'm trying to recommend what's best for them. People could be losing their entire family's memories for the last two decades here. (I find for many consumers, photos is their singular valuable on their PC.) Most of us in this thread ARE adequately prepared with backups, so it's easy to forget that yeah, someone should probably value their family memories over an infinitesimal effect on the scammer business by not paying. A lot of people here seem to suggest lying to or misleading people to believing they can't get their stuff back is a solution, while ignoring that it leaves people... unable to get their stuff back.
- wlesieutre 10y ago
  When Transmission had an infected release a couple of months ago, I remember reading that the malware had in-progress features to encrypt Time Machine drives. It gets installed, waits a couple of days, locks up your hard drive and any backup drives that you connect, and there's nothing to do about it. That's enough to hose 99% of users, even the ones following traditionally sufficient practices. You're only safe if you have offsite backups with drives that didn't mount to your computer recently.
  - derefr 10y ago
    > You're only safe if you have offsite backups with drives that didn't mount to your computer recently. Or if your backup solution is—from the perspective of the computer being backed up—an append-only store. Like a box of tapes, or Tarsnap using restricted keys, or Arq pointed at a versioned S3 bucket, or a NAS exposing an iSCSI target backed by an LVM thin pool LV with automatic daily snapshots. Sadly, as far as I know, no turn-key hardware "home backup" or "home NAS" product is in that category, though.
    - wlesieutre 10y ago
      I've contemplated setting up a small home server with write-only shares for backups, but ended up not doing it because of the cost and time. If there were a reasonably priced off-the-shelf product for this, I'd recommend it to everyone I know. On the other hand, if there were an off-the-shelf product for this, it would probably have unpatched security issues two weeks after you bought it, and if it were in common use you'd see ransomware targeting it. Tough problem to solve if you're not running and maintaining your own devices. I suppose tarsnap or S3 would be the way to go, I'm just not that into cloud backups. Maybe it's time to get over that.

by nom 10y ago

TeMPOraL 10y ago

> It would really damage the whole ransomware scheme if there were fake / rogue versions that won't decrypt, wouldn't it? Or a single fake story about how ransom doesn't give your data back, published in a high-profile newspaper. Come to think of it, our news sources write bigger lies every day, here they could actually do some good without any risk to their own reputation.

throwaway2048 10y ago
This wouldn't really help, because much like spam, the costs are extraordinarily asymmetric, it costs essentially nothing to infect somebody and they need 1 payout in 100000 to make it worth it.
dspillett 10y ago
> Come to think of it, our news sources write bigger lies every day Unfortunately they are also cut throat with regard to each other. The first paper that does this risks the rest of them running stories about that source scare mongering and deliberately spreading panic on behalf of [insert conspiracy theory and/or unpopular agency here].
- firethief 10y ago
  Sounds like a good thing to me. The watchmen watch the other watchmen.
  - dspillett 10y ago
    But they only act on what they see when it satisfies their own ends. It isn't really an effective force for the general good.

awesomepantsm 10y ago

Exactly, but it will never be zero. There will always be scammers trying to get rich quick on the trust users have placed in the (more) honest scammers. All organized crime has to deal with some amount of posers trying to cash in on their reputation. Sometimes the way they keep the dishonest guys in line is by attacking others who try to get in on the scheme. Traditionally this would be breaking people's knees, and I imagine well-organized cyber crime boils down to the same thing in the end.

cel1ne 10y ago
> ... trust users have placed in the (more) honest scammers. > Sometimes the way they keep the dishonest guys in line is by attacking others who try to get in on the scheme. Are you really trying to frame some extortionists/scammers as honest and some as dishonest? How about they all are criminals, extorting money as they do from random people, they don't care about?
- ardacinar 10y ago
  Some scammers can be honest. You might say "Transfer X amount of money to me. If you don't, you can never get your data back". Saying and acting on that doesn't make you dishonest, it makes you an asshole.
  - cel1ne 10y ago
    That depends on your definition. Googling brings up "dishonest: not honest; disposed to lie, cheat, or steal; not worthy of trust or belief" Thus I think a scammer can be called dishonest.
    - BobCat 10y ago
      An honest kidnapper would have mentioned the Lindbergh baby was already dead...
    - throwanem 10y ago
      A trivial application of the principle of charity makes it obvious that the meaning here intended is 'truthful'. Splitting semantic hairs rather than discussing substance benefits no one.

ocdtrekkie 10y ago

I'm kind amazed at the tone deafness of several comments in this thread. I get that as a larger effect, reducing the success rate of scammers hurts their business, but if I'm dealing with someone who's been hit because they weren't adequately prepared, I'm gonna recommend they pay the ransom if they want their stuff back. Because I'm trying to recommend what's best for them. People could be losing their entire family's memories for the last two decades here. (I find for many consumers, photos is their singular valuable on their PC.) Most of us in this thread ARE adequately prepared with backups, so it's easy to forget that yeah, someone should probably value their family memories over an infinitesimal effect on the scammer business by not paying. A lot of people here seem to suggest lying to or misleading people to believing they can't get their stuff back is a solution, while ignoring that it leaves people... unable to get their stuff back.

wlesieutre 10y ago
When Transmission had an infected release a couple of months ago, I remember reading that the malware had in-progress features to encrypt Time Machine drives. It gets installed, waits a couple of days, locks up your hard drive and any backup drives that you connect, and there's nothing to do about it. That's enough to hose 99% of users, even the ones following traditionally sufficient practices. You're only safe if you have offsite backups with drives that didn't mount to your computer recently.
- derefr 10y ago
  > You're only safe if you have offsite backups with drives that didn't mount to your computer recently. Or if your backup solution is—from the perspective of the computer being backed up—an append-only store. Like a box of tapes, or Tarsnap using restricted keys, or Arq pointed at a versioned S3 bucket, or a NAS exposing an iSCSI target backed by an LVM thin pool LV with automatic daily snapshots. Sadly, as far as I know, no turn-key hardware "home backup" or "home NAS" product is in that category, though.
  - wlesieutre 10y ago
    I've contemplated setting up a small home server with write-only shares for backups, but ended up not doing it because of the cost and time. If there were a reasonably priced off-the-shelf product for this, I'd recommend it to everyone I know. On the other hand, if there were an off-the-shelf product for this, it would probably have unpatched security issues two weeks after you bought it, and if it were in common use you'd see ransomware targeting it. Tough problem to solve if you're not running and maintaining your own devices. I suppose tarsnap or S3 would be the way to go, I'm just not that into cloud backups. Maybe it's time to get over that.