16 ms·
Yes, that's the point. These organizations holding my PII haven't historically given half a damn if all my data gets exfiltrated or not. By electing to pursue t
by c22 6y ago
Yes, that's the point. These organizations holding my PII haven't historically given half a damn if all my data gets exfiltrated or not. By electing to pursue the other side of the coin these attackers provide incentive for those companies to batten down the hatches, causing my PII to become more protected as a side-effect, thus leading to a greater feeling of safety.
- gowld 6y agoOK but they aren't.
- zie 6y agoMore incentive to at least make sure their backups work.. but not enough incentive... yet, to actually increase security. So I don't disagree with your premise, I'm just not sure it's actually true in real life, where companies are not punished by anyone for being lazy.
- c22 6y agoI don't have any evidence either way so all I can do is appeal to common sense, but I can't imagine most of the organizations hit by ransomware didn't at least devote some extra amount of attention or resources towards IT security in response. At a bare minimum I'd expect them to at least patch the vulnerability that the ransomware used to infect their systems. Are there any examples of orgs that have been repeatedly hit by ransomware over and over? Working backups are not enough to insulate you from this threat. If you allow an attacker to remain within your systems long enough you might find they've encrypted all your backups!
- zie 6y agoagreed. I prefer your version of reality, I'm just not sure it's true.