2 ms·
Showing that you were willing to pay but the price was too high seems like the worst way to handle ransomware. Comparatively, the hackers are running an excelle
by boomboomsubban 6y ago
Showing that you were willing to pay but the price was too high seems like the worst way to handle ransomware. Comparatively, the hackers are running an excellent PR campaign, providing the police enough time to protect those at risk and providing early leaks of data likely to upset the public.
- vertis 6y agoI can't see how they're still protected really. If you're in organized crime in Washington DC then surely you get in contact with the ransomware gang and offer to pay for any relevant names. Even if they pay the ransom those people are not 'safe'.
- Griffinsauce 6y agoPaying for stolen data to be... returned? It's a real "you wouldn't download a car moment". The only valid approach in my eyes is: Have backups, never pay, assume this data to be public now and act accordingly. You could even argue that we should destroy the viability of the market for these scams by harshly fining anyone who pays ransom. Right now individual interests go against collective ones. (unlikely to happen because it looks like victim blaming if you squint... but something needs to be done at a system level)
- arsome 6y agoI'm not sure that's a good solution, likely you'd just see people paying ransoms but keeping it quiet and not making these attacks public. Arguably, even more harmful.
- boomboomsubban 6y ago>I can't see how they're still protected really. They have been provided ample warning that their cover is about to be blown. Leaking the hacked data immediately or privately conducting negotiations would put those at risk in far more danger.
- cout 6y agoPerhaps they hoped to gain information about the attackers though paying or negotiating. In that case.