4 ms·

If they didn't pay off the hackers and are recovering on their own, it would be in Garmin's best interests to issue a public statement explicitly saying so. Fa

by beloch 6y ago

If they didn't pay off the hackers and are recovering on their own, it would be in Garmin's best interests to issue a public statement explicitly saying so. Failing to do so may make them a target for other hacker groups. Their vulnerability is now proven and their willingness to pay strongly suggested.

SkyBelow 6y ago
Even if they did pay, wouldn't it still be better to say they were restoring from backups? Makes them look far less vulnerable to the attack and they can likely wrap it with enough PR speak to not be technically lying. Arguably about as morally troublesome of an act as paying for the ransom.
- gruez 6y ago
  >Even if they did pay, wouldn't it still be better to say they were restoring from backups? Probably because that would be securities fraud? You'd be essentially duping investors into thinking the company is better than it is. eg. if there was a fire in your widget factory and the whole place got destroyed, you can't turn around and tell investors "everything's fine, the fire suppression system worked as intended", because you'd be lying to investors about the state of the company.
  - sukilot 6y ago
    Investors don't get to see trade secrets. They obviously restored some backups even if they paid random via a reputation laundering company.
bitexploder 6y ago
Well, if they didn’t have good DR before, you can bet they will now. An ounce of DR planning is worth a pound of the ransomware cure :)
- marktangotango 6y ago
  This is a logical conclusion, big dumb inc are rarely logical. One can hope.
  - not2b 6y ago
    Often what will happen in a large company is that security practices are strengthened in the short term, then people looking for cost cutting measures undo the changes a couple of years later, and the manager responsible might even get a bonus for improving the ops margin (hopefully transferring to another position before the next attack hits).

by beloch 6y ago

SkyBelow 6y ago

Even if they did pay, wouldn't it still be better to say they were restoring from backups? Makes them look far less vulnerable to the attack and they can likely wrap it with enough PR speak to not be technically lying. Arguably about as morally troublesome of an act as paying for the ransom.

gruez 6y ago
>Even if they did pay, wouldn't it still be better to say they were restoring from backups? Probably because that would be securities fraud? You'd be essentially duping investors into thinking the company is better than it is. eg. if there was a fire in your widget factory and the whole place got destroyed, you can't turn around and tell investors "everything's fine, the fire suppression system worked as intended", because you'd be lying to investors about the state of the company.
- sukilot 6y ago
  Investors don't get to see trade secrets. They obviously restored some backups even if they paid random via a reputation laundering company.

bitexploder 6y ago

Well, if they didn’t have good DR before, you can bet they will now. An ounce of DR planning is worth a pound of the ransomware cure :)

marktangotango 6y ago
This is a logical conclusion, big dumb inc are rarely logical. One can hope.
- not2b 6y ago
  Often what will happen in a large company is that security practices are strengthened in the short term, then people looking for cost cutting measures undo the changes a couple of years later, and the manager responsible might even get a bonus for improving the ops margin (hopefully transferring to another position before the next attack hits).