4 ms·
For some perspective, CryptoWall made over $300mm in it's first year [0] and CryptoLocker made $30mm in 100 days [1]. [0] http://thehackernews.com/2015/10/cryp
by mastax 9y ago
For some perspective, CryptoWall made over $300mm in it's first year [0] and CryptoLocker made $30mm in 100 days [1].
[0] http://thehackernews.com/2015/10/cryptowall-ransomware.html http://thehackernews.com/2015/10/cryptowall-ransomware.html
[1] http://www.pcworld.com/article/2082204/crime-pays-very-well-cryptolocker-grosses-up-to-30-million-in-ransom.html http://www.pcworld.com/article/2082204/crime-pays-very-well-...
- ufo 9y agoWhy are these orders of magnitude more profitable than WannaCrypt? More computers infected? Bigger percentage of targets paying the ransom? Larger ransom amounts? Something else?
- matthewbauer 9y agoI've read that even after paying you don't get your files back. Might just be buggy software.
- pcr0 9y agoIt seems they accepted alternate methods of payment aside from BTC, which suggests technical difficulties in acquiring BTC.
- celticninja 9y agoPeople have started taking better backups, now they have the option to restore, plus it's too big, the UK government is never going to pay $300 per computer when you may have 10,000 computers locked up. When you get a small firm with 5 pcs and the cost is $1500 it's a cheap lesson so you pay up.
- tudorconstantin 9y agoIsn't the decryption key the same? You pay once and are able to devrypt all the 10k computers?
- celticninja 9y agoWhy would it be? Usually Ransomware has a unique btc address per infection (per machine) so the decryption key is linked to the payment, that doesn't seem to be the case with this malware.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- Nomentatus 9y agoMaybe 'cause it wasn't a commercial operation, but a "retaliation at a time and place of our own choosing" that spread outside Russia before the killswitch could be hit via their cutout.