6 ms·

I mean they just proved that they are willing to pay the ransom. If they are also unwilling or unable to clean up their shop and keep it from happening again,

by tempfs 5y ago

I mean they just proved that they are willing to pay the ransom. If they are also unwilling or unable to clean up their shop and keep it from happening again, it surely will.

avgDev 5y ago
It is almost like the groups hacking them are providing a good service. If they get hacked once, shit happens. But if it happens multiple times then someone should probably answer for it.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- chihuahua 5y ago
  "We don't have money in the budget for backups. But we do have money in a different budget for ransom payments!"
  - mywittyname 5y ago
    "how much you got?"
    - BizarroLand 5y ago
      RAAS, Ransomware As A Service
ArkanExplorer 5y ago
The responsibility lies at the nation-state level, and the clear decision is for Governments to ban the formal exchange of cryptocurrencies. As soon as this occurs, ransomware events will collapse since the ransoms will become unpayable. The negatives of cryptocurrencies (ransomware enablement, chip and electricity shortages, scams) clearly outweigh the positives at this point.
- cableshaft 5y ago
  Cryptocurrencies are decentralized. It would have to be banned literally every country in the world for them not to be able to use it and convert to a non-digital currency. Good luck with that. And I'm sure they'd just invent or go back to some other method -- possibly riskier and more violent -- so they can continue to ransom money from people.
  - mytherin 5y ago
    > Cryptocurrencies are decentralized. It would have to be banned literally every country in the world for them not to be able to use it and convert to a non-digital currency. Good luck with that. The effect would not come from the criminals being able to cash out, it would come from the company not being able to cash in. If cryptocurrency were to be banned and public exchanges were closed purchasing cryptocurrency to the tune of millions of dollars worth becomes practically impossible for a regular company without connections in the space. If the company is not able to pay the ransom, the entire venture is pointless. > And I'm sure they'd just invent or go back to some other method -- possibly riskier and more violent -- so they can continue to ransom money from people. Sure, there will be other methods of transferring some amount of money. To the tune of millions of dollars, though? Unlikely. Cryptocurrency enables these companies to pay ransoms of this amount. Without cryptocurrency you might be able to ask for a 50K ransom instead of a 5M ransom, but that reduces your payout by 100X. 5M is enough to retire from. 50K is less than the yearly wage these people can make. It's not like ransomware didn't exist before cryptocurrency, we know what ransomware without cryptocurrency looks like. What cryptocurrency changed is the scale of the payout. Instead of getting a few thousand dollars in gift cards the hackers are now rewarded with millions in bitcoins. It is hard to deny that the change in incentives caused by cryptocurrency is the primary driver behind the huge increase in ransomware attacks in the last few years.
    - bouncycastle 5y ago
      Crypto can work peer-to-peer even with fiat echanges shut down. Sure, it would be more difficult if crypto is illegal, but I think because of the difficulty of getting it, crypto prices would skyrocket. Everyone will also move to using the privacy coins too. So, banning crypto might actually be beneficial for it as it would incentivise crypto projects to improve privacy and decentralization even more. A ban won't stop people from using it or developing it in their homes.

by tempfs 5y ago

I mean they just proved that they are willing to pay the ransom. If they are also unwilling or unable to clean up their shop and keep it from happening again, it surely will.

avgDev 5y ago

It is almost like the groups hacking them are providing a good service. If they get hacked once, shit happens. But if it happens multiple times then someone should probably answer for it.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
chihuahua 5y ago
"We don't have money in the budget for backups. But we do have money in a different budget for ransom payments!"
- mywittyname 5y ago
  "how much you got?"
  - BizarroLand 5y ago
    RAAS, Ransomware As A Service

ArkanExplorer 5y ago

The responsibility lies at the nation-state level, and the clear decision is for Governments to ban the formal exchange of cryptocurrencies. As soon as this occurs, ransomware events will collapse since the ransoms will become unpayable. The negatives of cryptocurrencies (ransomware enablement, chip and electricity shortages, scams) clearly outweigh the positives at this point.

cableshaft 5y ago
Cryptocurrencies are decentralized. It would have to be banned literally every country in the world for them not to be able to use it and convert to a non-digital currency. Good luck with that. And I'm sure they'd just invent or go back to some other method -- possibly riskier and more violent -- so they can continue to ransom money from people.
- mytherin 5y ago
  > Cryptocurrencies are decentralized. It would have to be banned literally every country in the world for them not to be able to use it and convert to a non-digital currency. Good luck with that. The effect would not come from the criminals being able to cash out, it would come from the company not being able to cash in. If cryptocurrency were to be banned and public exchanges were closed purchasing cryptocurrency to the tune of millions of dollars worth becomes practically impossible for a regular company without connections in the space. If the company is not able to pay the ransom, the entire venture is pointless. > And I'm sure they'd just invent or go back to some other method -- possibly riskier and more violent -- so they can continue to ransom money from people. Sure, there will be other methods of transferring some amount of money. To the tune of millions of dollars, though? Unlikely. Cryptocurrency enables these companies to pay ransoms of this amount. Without cryptocurrency you might be able to ask for a 50K ransom instead of a 5M ransom, but that reduces your payout by 100X. 5M is enough to retire from. 50K is less than the yearly wage these people can make. It's not like ransomware didn't exist before cryptocurrency, we know what ransomware without cryptocurrency looks like. What cryptocurrency changed is the scale of the payout. Instead of getting a few thousand dollars in gift cards the hackers are now rewarded with millions in bitcoins. It is hard to deny that the change in incentives caused by cryptocurrency is the primary driver behind the huge increase in ransomware attacks in the last few years.
  - bouncycastle 5y ago
    Crypto can work peer-to-peer even with fiat echanges shut down. Sure, it would be more difficult if crypto is illegal, but I think because of the difficulty of getting it, crypto prices would skyrocket. Everyone will also move to using the privacy coins too. So, banning crypto might actually be beneficial for it as it would incentivise crypto projects to improve privacy and decentralization even more. A ban won't stop people from using it or developing it in their homes.