3 ms·
Lets say I run any given hosting company. Someone using a zero-day exploit gets in and encrypts everything that runs my company and demands a ransom in exchang
by castis 9y ago
Lets say I run any given hosting company.
Someone using a zero-day exploit gets in and encrypts everything that runs my company and demands a ransom in exchange for the key.
Using your logic, my government says I'm not allowed to take measures to get my company back in order.
Why should we further expand the power of the government to make an already shitty situation even more detrimental?
- ThrustVectoring 9y agoIt's situations versus strategies. Making certain kinds of situations worse will make people choose better strategies. This is one solution to the Prisoner's Dilemma - if you defect, the mob boss puts a hit out on you, so nobody talks.
- castis 9y agoIf something such as that were implemented, sure you'd stop a few, but it would just become an underreported metric. Making something illegal does not wholesale stop it from happening, it just pushes it out of view.
- ThrustVectoring 9y agoIt'd at least put a significant dent in public corporation's spending on it. If they share it in their audits and reports to shareholders, they get nailed on paying ransomware. If they hide that they paid out significant amounts of money, that's accounting and/or securities fraud. The biggest sensible course of action is to put the IT infrastructure in place that mitigates ransomware attacks.
- alexbeloi 9y agoThe natural response for the attacker is to discount the ransom amount to compensate for the expected cost of penalties (from breaking the law). This will deter attacks if the expected penalty is greater than than the ransom amount, but anywhere less than that, the government just becomes a co-conspirator in the ransom.