11 ms·

Royal Mail dismisses ‘absurd’ $80M ransom demand

123 points by neverminder 4y ago

paulpauper 4y ago
lol this is Royal Mail, not Google. It's not like it has $80 million sitting around. Maybe they should have been more flexible. That's usually how you negotiate: start with a lot and work to something smaller that the counterparty will agree on. Done-in by greed and got $0, which they deserve. Shows how even the rules of negotiation applies to dark markets.
- optimalsolver 4y ago
  Dare I say, relevant username?
  - TechBro8615 4y ago
    I need this joke explained to me.
    - jahnu 4y ago
      https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/pauper https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/pauper
- smachiz 4y ago
  All about BATNA.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- mytailorisrich 4y ago
  Royal Mail is still a very large corporation and could have paid. BUT they simply did not think the amount was worth paying, I suspect both in term of the direct consequence if the data were published (which the hackers apparently did in the end) and in term of PR, reputation, etc because they couldn't have kept the payment secret (too big). So IMHO the issue was miscalculating leverage.
  - Retric 4y ago
    This could be a loss for the criminals or a way to build reputation so the next victim is more likely to pay up.
  - bluGill 4y ago
    There is one more point: by not paying they develop a reputation that they are not worth attacking. The next criminal org might just skip attacking them. If everyone follows this examples the criminals will give up.
    - frankreyes 4y ago
      It depends because the costs of running the malware operation are way less than 80M. At this point they are just going for the lulz. the hackers already threatened going nuclear by releasing files and letting Europe fines their 0.5% which is more then 80M. This is not over and Royal Mail is in a lose/lose situation here
- moremetadata 4y ago
  Royal Mail was privatised because 1st world state postal systems have to subsidise the postal systems of 3rd world countries. Its an international agreement which has come back to bite the UK because China is still classed as a 3rd world country. Lets just say the globalist's who set the rule's are finding their rules are now not so good.
  - vuln 4y ago
    The US has a similar agreement with China. "The new 1969 agreement included terminal dues, the receiving postal agencies would charge the country of origin for delivering the post on by-weight basis. To be blunt, shipping from China to USA (and most of the rest of the world) is much cheaper than shipping domestically in USA because the terminal-dues are much too low and account only for the total weight of the post, not for the number of items. For example, in 2013 China paid $1/kg (or $0.50/lbs)[1] to have post delivered in USA. This is MUCH lower than domestic pricing, especially if it’s light-weight objects. As an example, I just ordered a new wristband for a watch I own from China. I just weighed it, and it weighs 78 grams. That means China would pay less than 8 cents to have this wristband delivered anywhere in USA. By comparison, sending the same weight in a domestic letter in USA[2] would cost 92 cents, or a factor of 11.5 more. Reality is that this agreement now acts as a massive subsidy to especially China who produces a lot of low-cost low-weight products and can now deliver them to customers worldwide for a price much lower than local companies can. This situation will persist until the relevant agreements are renegotiated. I’m frankly surprised that hasn’t happened already. [1] https://archive.is/20121212225536/http://www.upu.int/en/activities/terminal-dues-and-transit-charges/2010-2013-cycle.html https://archive.is/20121212225536/http://www.upu.int/en/acti... [2] https://www.stamps.com/usps/postage-rate-increase/ https://www.stamps.com/usps/postage-rate-increase/ https://www.quora.com/How-is-China-able-to-offer-free-worldwide-shipping-on-small-items https://www.quora.com/How-is-China-able-to-offer-free-worldw...
    - moremetadata 4y ago
      But the postal strikes during the winter months is timely as well. Will the cold winter months break their spirits or just turn this into a virtual signalling exercise to the rest of the world and the UK to start demanding higher wages much like we see with the Reddit AntiWork getting news organisation attention. Those Spooky Hackers from Russia..... Is this what Trump called Fake News? I've seen how security services can burn a stock market listed company for an agenda knowing the public have short term memories for some things, and share prices recover.
bdcravens 4y ago
I live in a small suburb north of Houston, and they were hit with a ransomware attack in late December. They still aren't fully operational.
- agilob 4y ago
  https://techmonitor.ai/technology/cybersecurity/ransomware-redcar-and-cleeveland-council https://techmonitor.ai/technology/cybersecurity/ransomware-r... Council was hit with ransomware, they went back to pen and paper for everything. They lost track of who lives there and when moved out. They kept resending overdue bills to addresses threatening debt collects to people who moved out. The council said they will still collect council tax once they are operational and it's your responsibility to have money ready for such situation. Even now there are comments on /r/UKPersonalFinance people complaining on getting incorrect bills. Good luck!
  - bdcravens 4y ago
    Fortunately the city quickly said there would be no late fees for utilities, but they haven't said much since then - I suspect they thought it would be a much quicker turnaround than it has been. https://www.click2houston.com/news/local/2023/01/05/tomball-still-grappling-with-ransomware-attack-16-days-later-this-is-what-residents-need-to-know/ https://www.click2houston.com/news/local/2023/01/05/tomball-...
ukoki 4y ago
How is it even legal to pay ransoms? Surely this is transferring money to criminal enterprises. If it is not illegal it needs to be made illegal.
- GalenErso 4y ago
  Why would it not be legal? If I was a hacker, the existence of a law prohibiting businesses from paying cyber ransoms would not deter me. If a company wanted to follow the law and refused to pay the ransom the hackers asked of them, the hackers could follow through and delete or irreparably corrupt their files. The potential upside, that they pay the ransom, is significant, while the downside, that they don't, doesn't mean much. They'll just keep probing for targets. What are they gonna do? Arrest them? In all likelihood, they're hiding behind multiple VPNs, working from a virtual machine, from a country without an extradition treaty.
  - poszlem 4y ago
    The argument seems implausible as it assumes that hackers would persist in deleting data, whereas in reality, they would probably shift their focus to other targets such as private companies that lack similar prohibitions. It is unclear what incentive they would have to continue hacking public companies if they cannot profit from that?
    - GalenErso 4y ago
      > It is unclear what incentive they would have to continue hacking public companies if they cannot profit from that. The intent would be to put pressure on national legislatures to repeal laws that make paying ransoms illegal. Smart ransomware groups don't care about targets that can't afford to pay. So any "inability" to pay is either the result of stubbornness or a law, both of which can change if enough pressure is applied. Of course, the solution is for businesses to harden their systems enough to resist these sorts of intrusion in the first place.
      - bluGill 4y ago
f38zf5vdt 4y ago
If Russia were to physically disrupt a country's social services by force, it would be an act of war. Here they have disrupted a British social service without force by state sponsored hacker terrorists, rendering harm in the physical world. The line gets blurrier.
- advisedwang 4y ago
  > If Russia were to physically disrupt a country's social services by force, it would be an act of war If the Russian STATE did this yes. But we don't generally consider the act of citizens/organizations/criminal enterprises within a state as a state action unless it's clearly state sponsored. You definitely could make that argument, but it's not a given. For example, we don't consider the 3000 British people fighting alongside Ukraine against the Russians [1] to be part of the UK state, so their fighting isn't an act of war either. [1] https://news.sky.com/story/ukraine-war-3-000-british-volunteers-fighting-on-ukrainian-side-against-russia-says-georgian-commander-12633139 https://news.sky.com/story/ukraine-war-3-000-british-volunte...
  - f38zf5vdt 4y ago
    Plausible deniability only gets a country so far. In historical terms state-sponsored terrorism has warranted military action when the severity evolves enough. It's hard to consider British soldiers fighting for Ukrainian sovereignty in the same realm as disrupting children's hospitals. [1][2] I had read that one of the attacks had disrupted imaging systems and prevented diagnoses from being reached, delaying treatments. [1] https://www.healthcareitnews.com/news/fbi-disrupts-hive-ransomware-hospitals-among-those-spared https://www.healthcareitnews.com/news/fbi-disrupts-hive-rans... [2] https://therecord.media/canadas-largest-childrens-hospital-struggles-to-recover-from-pre-christmas-ransomware-attack/ https://therecord.media/canadas-largest-childrens-hospital-s...
  - robotnikman 4y ago
    I have no doubt that the Russian government has been taking its cut from criminals deploying ransomware in their country, and only going after criminals who don't provide their share. Even more so with Russia trying to fund an ongoing war where they are losing a lot of equipment and men.
Our_Benefactors 4y ago
I bought some candy from Amazon that was shipped by Royal Mail, and it never arrived. Amazon told me to take up the refund with Royal Mail, with no instructions how to do so. Anyone know how I can get a refund from Amazon/Royal Mail for the candy they never sent?
- madsbuch 4y ago
  Dispute the transaction on the card used for payment.
- messe 4y ago
  > Amazon told me to take up the refund with Royal Mail In most jurisdictions, at least in Europe (and I think the US, but feel free to correct me if I'm wrong), you take it up with the merchant as they're the ones who hire the delivery service. Your contract is with the merchant, and if they fail to provide the product for whatever reason—such as the delivery service not following through—then they're the ones who are responsible for making you whole. If Amazon refuse to refund, then your recourse if to take them to court. It sounds like it's a small enough purchase that small claims would handle it.
- clnq 4y ago
  It’s not your problem. The seller is legally responsible for the delivery. Chat with Amazon again and remind them. Or consult with Citizens Advice if you need help. Amazon support eventually refunds basically anything if you are persistent enough.
  - ricardobayes 4y ago
    Maybe, but in one specific occasion I know of, the client was told not to contact support anymore for a refund. I think it's a different retail landscape now to what it was in 2020-2022.
    - krisoft 4y ago
      Sounds like they were not persistent enough.
jbverschoor 4y ago
Sounds a lot like the reaction to dr Evil https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BRAkobf-tVI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BRAkobf-tVI
clnq 4y ago
Why is ransomware still a problem? Is it that difficult to make off-site backups every hour? Storage is cheap. There are many air gapping options for backups, too. It sounds like a case of normalized deviance, for which the management should be held accountable. As much as I don’t like victim blaming, I think it’s beyond incompetent to still not backup your data in 2023 as a government org.
- TheNorthman 4y ago
  They're not a government organization. Haven't been for almost 10 years
  - clnq 4y ago
    Ah, that’s true, looks like it has been privatized. But the government originally retained a significant stake in the company even after it was made publicly traded. Not sure about it today. Interesting point. Though I think it’s even worse if a publicly traded company fails to protect its data and falls prey to the extortion. Don’t they have a fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders? It seems wrong to waste their money due to incompetence at such basic infosec. Government orgs are more difficult to hold accountable for losses than PLCs.
- JTbane 4y ago
  >Is it that difficult to make off-site backups every hour? Storage is cheap. There are many air gapping options for backups, too. I'd imagine that often your backups get encrypted as well, early enough that the data loss to the last good backup becomes unacceptable.
  - clnq 4y ago
    Yes, there would still be minimal loss. But not enough to be extorted over.
- londons_explore 4y ago
  Many ransoms now are for the leaking of the info, not the destruction of the info. With huge GDPR fines for data leaks in Europe, the criminals are using the legal system as their 'threat'.
RobotToaster 4y ago
Why does a corporation not have offline backups to supposedly mission critical files?
- kridsdale1 4y ago
  You’d be horrified to learn how incompetent nearly all people are at using software.
personjerry 4y ago
It's fucking ridiculous to hit the postal service, providing a practically-free function to a lot of people who really need it, and operating at barely even (in US and Canada too, so I imagine other countries are similar). The ransomers sound like kids, "speculating that the directors personally held 100m of crypto"? What a disgusting amateur job.
- tpmx 4y ago
  You seem to think criminals would stop to evaluate the public good of a large UK company with yearly revenues of 12B GBP before blackmailing them for 80M USD. And you claim they are the amateurs? (Of course these criminals are disgusting.)
- ta1243 4y ago
  Royal Mail is a private company, it was sold by the UK government for about £3b 10 years ago. It's now worth about £2b.
- bloomingeek 4y ago
  It's also f-ing ridiculous they were so irresponsible as to not protect their computers. F** these ransomers for the terrorist they are!
- 1vuio0pswjnm7 4y ago
  To all those naysayers that claim there is no present use for "cryptocurrency", we present "use of crypto for untraceable ransom payments". One could almost imagine regulating crypto for public policy reasons.
- lostlogin 4y ago
  Ransomeware has hit the NHS and I have colleagues who had their CT scanners locked. I don’t think the ethics of the operation are high on the list of considerations.
- trompetenaccoun 4y ago
  Is it really "ridiculous" to hit a crucial service provider in an enemy state, which local law enforcement is guaranteed to not punish them for, if they aren't outright funding the hackers. These attacks happen all over the West, you only know about this one because the negotiation was leaked. Lots of public service providers are targeted, such as universities for example. The actual scandal is that this gets hushed up, if the people knew the scale of these attacks they might think we're in a sort of digital war.
wellthisisgreat 4y ago
So now that all NFTs and such are out, ransomware is the only application of cryptocurrency that has persisted, right? And cryptocurrency is the main enabler of the ransomware attacks as well.
itronitron 4y ago
I really hope that the Royal Mail releases an 'El Risitas' style video recounting the hackers' thought process here.
kiko123 4y ago
Well, this sucks. I'm waiting for medicine to be delivered to continental Europe from Scotland through Royal Mail. Apparently their international packages are being delayed by a lot right now. Really hope this doesn't affect the operations too much and they'll be able to continue delivering in full capacity ASAP.

123 points by neverminder 4y ago

lol this is Royal Mail, not Google. It's not like it has $80 million sitting around. Maybe they should have been more flexible. That's usually how you negotiate: start with a lot and work to something smaller that the counterparty will agree on. Done-in by greed and got $0, which they deserve. Shows how even the rules of negotiation applies to dark markets.

optimalsolver 4y ago
Dare I say, relevant username?
- TechBro8615 4y ago
  I need this joke explained to me.
  - jahnu 4y ago
    https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/pauper https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/pauper
smachiz 4y ago
All about BATNA.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
mytailorisrich 4y ago
Royal Mail is still a very large corporation and could have paid. BUT they simply did not think the amount was worth paying, I suspect both in term of the direct consequence if the data were published (which the hackers apparently did in the end) and in term of PR, reputation, etc because they couldn't have kept the payment secret (too big). So IMHO the issue was miscalculating leverage.
- Retric 4y ago
  This could be a loss for the criminals or a way to build reputation so the next victim is more likely to pay up.
- bluGill 4y ago
  There is one more point: by not paying they develop a reputation that they are not worth attacking. The next criminal org might just skip attacking them. If everyone follows this examples the criminals will give up.
  - frankreyes 4y ago
    It depends because the costs of running the malware operation are way less than 80M. At this point they are just going for the lulz. the hackers already threatened going nuclear by releasing files and letting Europe fines their 0.5% which is more then 80M. This is not over and Royal Mail is in a lose/lose situation here
moremetadata 4y ago
Royal Mail was privatised because 1st world state postal systems have to subsidise the postal systems of 3rd world countries. Its an international agreement which has come back to bite the UK because China is still classed as a 3rd world country. Lets just say the globalist's who set the rule's are finding their rules are now not so good.
- vuln 4y ago
  The US has a similar agreement with China. "The new 1969 agreement included terminal dues, the receiving postal agencies would charge the country of origin for delivering the post on by-weight basis. To be blunt, shipping from China to USA (and most of the rest of the world) is much cheaper than shipping domestically in USA because the terminal-dues are much too low and account only for the total weight of the post, not for the number of items. For example, in 2013 China paid $1/kg (or $0.50/lbs)[1] to have post delivered in USA. This is MUCH lower than domestic pricing, especially if it’s light-weight objects. As an example, I just ordered a new wristband for a watch I own from China. I just weighed it, and it weighs 78 grams. That means China would pay less than 8 cents to have this wristband delivered anywhere in USA. By comparison, sending the same weight in a domestic letter in USA[2] would cost 92 cents, or a factor of 11.5 more. Reality is that this agreement now acts as a massive subsidy to especially China who produces a lot of low-cost low-weight products and can now deliver them to customers worldwide for a price much lower than local companies can. This situation will persist until the relevant agreements are renegotiated. I’m frankly surprised that hasn’t happened already. [1] https://archive.is/20121212225536/http://www.upu.int/en/activities/terminal-dues-and-transit-charges/2010-2013-cycle.html https://archive.is/20121212225536/http://www.upu.int/en/acti... [2] https://www.stamps.com/usps/postage-rate-increase/ https://www.stamps.com/usps/postage-rate-increase/ https://www.quora.com/How-is-China-able-to-offer-free-worldwide-shipping-on-small-items https://www.quora.com/How-is-China-able-to-offer-free-worldw...
  - moremetadata 4y ago
    But the postal strikes during the winter months is timely as well. Will the cold winter months break their spirits or just turn this into a virtual signalling exercise to the rest of the world and the UK to start demanding higher wages much like we see with the Reddit AntiWork getting news organisation attention. Those Spooky Hackers from Russia..... Is this what Trump called Fake News? I've seen how security services can burn a stock market listed company for an agenda knowing the public have short term memories for some things, and share prices recover.

bdcravens 4y ago

I live in a small suburb north of Houston, and they were hit with a ransomware attack in late December. They still aren't fully operational.

agilob 4y ago
https://techmonitor.ai/technology/cybersecurity/ransomware-redcar-and-cleeveland-council https://techmonitor.ai/technology/cybersecurity/ransomware-r... Council was hit with ransomware, they went back to pen and paper for everything. They lost track of who lives there and when moved out. They kept resending overdue bills to addresses threatening debt collects to people who moved out. The council said they will still collect council tax once they are operational and it's your responsibility to have money ready for such situation. Even now there are comments on /r/UKPersonalFinance people complaining on getting incorrect bills. Good luck!
- bdcravens 4y ago
  Fortunately the city quickly said there would be no late fees for utilities, but they haven't said much since then - I suspect they thought it would be a much quicker turnaround than it has been. https://www.click2houston.com/news/local/2023/01/05/tomball-still-grappling-with-ransomware-attack-16-days-later-this-is-what-residents-need-to-know/ https://www.click2houston.com/news/local/2023/01/05/tomball-...

ukoki 4y ago

How is it even legal to pay ransoms? Surely this is transferring money to criminal enterprises. If it is not illegal it needs to be made illegal.

GalenErso 4y ago
Why would it not be legal? If I was a hacker, the existence of a law prohibiting businesses from paying cyber ransoms would not deter me. If a company wanted to follow the law and refused to pay the ransom the hackers asked of them, the hackers could follow through and delete or irreparably corrupt their files. The potential upside, that they pay the ransom, is significant, while the downside, that they don't, doesn't mean much. They'll just keep probing for targets. What are they gonna do? Arrest them? In all likelihood, they're hiding behind multiple VPNs, working from a virtual machine, from a country without an extradition treaty.
- poszlem 4y ago
  The argument seems implausible as it assumes that hackers would persist in deleting data, whereas in reality, they would probably shift their focus to other targets such as private companies that lack similar prohibitions. It is unclear what incentive they would have to continue hacking public companies if they cannot profit from that?
  - GalenErso 4y ago
    > It is unclear what incentive they would have to continue hacking public companies if they cannot profit from that. The intent would be to put pressure on national legislatures to repeal laws that make paying ransoms illegal. Smart ransomware groups don't care about targets that can't afford to pay. So any "inability" to pay is either the result of stubbornness or a law, both of which can change if enough pressure is applied. Of course, the solution is for businesses to harden their systems enough to resist these sorts of intrusion in the first place.
    - bluGill 4y ago

f38zf5vdt 4y ago

If Russia were to physically disrupt a country's social services by force, it would be an act of war. Here they have disrupted a British social service without force by state sponsored hacker terrorists, rendering harm in the physical world. The line gets blurrier.

advisedwang 4y ago
> If Russia were to physically disrupt a country's social services by force, it would be an act of war If the Russian STATE did this yes. But we don't generally consider the act of citizens/organizations/criminal enterprises within a state as a state action unless it's clearly state sponsored. You definitely could make that argument, but it's not a given. For example, we don't consider the 3000 British people fighting alongside Ukraine against the Russians [1] to be part of the UK state, so their fighting isn't an act of war either. [1] https://news.sky.com/story/ukraine-war-3-000-british-volunteers-fighting-on-ukrainian-side-against-russia-says-georgian-commander-12633139 https://news.sky.com/story/ukraine-war-3-000-british-volunte...
- f38zf5vdt 4y ago
  Plausible deniability only gets a country so far. In historical terms state-sponsored terrorism has warranted military action when the severity evolves enough. It's hard to consider British soldiers fighting for Ukrainian sovereignty in the same realm as disrupting children's hospitals. [1][2] I had read that one of the attacks had disrupted imaging systems and prevented diagnoses from being reached, delaying treatments. [1] https://www.healthcareitnews.com/news/fbi-disrupts-hive-ransomware-hospitals-among-those-spared https://www.healthcareitnews.com/news/fbi-disrupts-hive-rans... [2] https://therecord.media/canadas-largest-childrens-hospital-struggles-to-recover-from-pre-christmas-ransomware-attack/ https://therecord.media/canadas-largest-childrens-hospital-s...
- robotnikman 4y ago
  I have no doubt that the Russian government has been taking its cut from criminals deploying ransomware in their country, and only going after criminals who don't provide their share. Even more so with Russia trying to fund an ongoing war where they are losing a lot of equipment and men.

Our_Benefactors 4y ago

I bought some candy from Amazon that was shipped by Royal Mail, and it never arrived. Amazon told me to take up the refund with Royal Mail, with no instructions how to do so. Anyone know how I can get a refund from Amazon/Royal Mail for the candy they never sent?

madsbuch 4y ago
Dispute the transaction on the card used for payment.
messe 4y ago
> Amazon told me to take up the refund with Royal Mail In most jurisdictions, at least in Europe (and I think the US, but feel free to correct me if I'm wrong), you take it up with the merchant as they're the ones who hire the delivery service. Your contract is with the merchant, and if they fail to provide the product for whatever reason—such as the delivery service not following through—then they're the ones who are responsible for making you whole. If Amazon refuse to refund, then your recourse if to take them to court. It sounds like it's a small enough purchase that small claims would handle it.
clnq 4y ago
It’s not your problem. The seller is legally responsible for the delivery. Chat with Amazon again and remind them. Or consult with Citizens Advice if you need help. Amazon support eventually refunds basically anything if you are persistent enough.
- ricardobayes 4y ago
  Maybe, but in one specific occasion I know of, the client was told not to contact support anymore for a refund. I think it's a different retail landscape now to what it was in 2020-2022.
  - krisoft 4y ago
    Sounds like they were not persistent enough.

jbverschoor 4y ago

Sounds a lot like the reaction to dr Evil https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BRAkobf-tVI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BRAkobf-tVI

clnq 4y ago

Why is ransomware still a problem? Is it that difficult to make off-site backups every hour? Storage is cheap. There are many air gapping options for backups, too. It sounds like a case of normalized deviance, for which the management should be held accountable. As much as I don’t like victim blaming, I think it’s beyond incompetent to still not backup your data in 2023 as a government org.

TheNorthman 4y ago
They're not a government organization. Haven't been for almost 10 years
- clnq 4y ago
  Ah, that’s true, looks like it has been privatized. But the government originally retained a significant stake in the company even after it was made publicly traded. Not sure about it today. Interesting point. Though I think it’s even worse if a publicly traded company fails to protect its data and falls prey to the extortion. Don’t they have a fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders? It seems wrong to waste their money due to incompetence at such basic infosec. Government orgs are more difficult to hold accountable for losses than PLCs.
JTbane 4y ago
>Is it that difficult to make off-site backups every hour? Storage is cheap. There are many air gapping options for backups, too. I'd imagine that often your backups get encrypted as well, early enough that the data loss to the last good backup becomes unacceptable.
- clnq 4y ago
  Yes, there would still be minimal loss. But not enough to be extorted over.
londons_explore 4y ago
Many ransoms now are for the leaking of the info, not the destruction of the info. With huge GDPR fines for data leaks in Europe, the criminals are using the legal system as their 'threat'.

RobotToaster 4y ago

Why does a corporation not have offline backups to supposedly mission critical files?

kridsdale1 4y ago
You’d be horrified to learn how incompetent nearly all people are at using software.

personjerry 4y ago

It's fucking ridiculous to hit the postal service, providing a practically-free function to a lot of people who really need it, and operating at barely even (in US and Canada too, so I imagine other countries are similar). The ransomers sound like kids, "speculating that the directors personally held 100m of crypto"? What a disgusting amateur job.

tpmx 4y ago
You seem to think criminals would stop to evaluate the public good of a large UK company with yearly revenues of 12B GBP before blackmailing them for 80M USD. And you claim they are the amateurs? (Of course these criminals are disgusting.)
ta1243 4y ago
Royal Mail is a private company, it was sold by the UK government for about £3b 10 years ago. It's now worth about £2b.
bloomingeek 4y ago
It's also f-ing ridiculous they were so irresponsible as to not protect their computers. F** these ransomers for the terrorist they are!
1vuio0pswjnm7 4y ago
To all those naysayers that claim there is no present use for "cryptocurrency", we present "use of crypto for untraceable ransom payments". One could almost imagine regulating crypto for public policy reasons.
lostlogin 4y ago
Ransomeware has hit the NHS and I have colleagues who had their CT scanners locked. I don’t think the ethics of the operation are high on the list of considerations.
trompetenaccoun 4y ago
Is it really "ridiculous" to hit a crucial service provider in an enemy state, which local law enforcement is guaranteed to not punish them for, if they aren't outright funding the hackers. These attacks happen all over the West, you only know about this one because the negotiation was leaked. Lots of public service providers are targeted, such as universities for example. The actual scandal is that this gets hushed up, if the people knew the scale of these attacks they might think we're in a sort of digital war.

wellthisisgreat 4y ago

So now that all NFTs and such are out, ransomware is the only application of cryptocurrency that has persisted, right? And cryptocurrency is the main enabler of the ransomware attacks as well.

itronitron 4y ago

I really hope that the Royal Mail releases an 'El Risitas' style video recounting the hackers' thought process here.

kiko123 4y ago

Well, this sucks. I'm waiting for medicine to be delivered to continental Europe from Scotland through Royal Mail. Apparently their international packages are being delayed by a lot right now. Really hope this doesn't affect the operations too much and they'll be able to continue delivering in full capacity ASAP.