Dark Reading is part of the Informa Tech Division of Informa PLC

This site is operated by a business or businesses owned by Informa PLC and all copyright resides with them.Informa PLC's registered office is 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG. Registered in England and Wales. Number 8860726.

Endpoint

5/15/2019
12:45 PM
50%
50%

Two Ransomware Recovery Firms Typically Pay Hackers

Companies promising the safe return of data sans ransom payment secretly pass Bitcoin to attackers and charge clients added fees.

A new report sheds light on the practices of two US data recovery firms, Proven Data Recovery and MonsterCloud, both of which paid ransomware attackers and charged victims extra fees.

ProPublica researchers were able to trace four payments from a Bitcoin wallet controlled by Proven Data to a wallet controlled by the operators of SamSam ransomware, which caused millions of dollars in damages to cities and businesses across the US. Payments to this wallet, and another connected to the attackers, were banned by the US Treasury Department due to sanctions on Iran, explained former Proven Data employee Jonathan Storfer to researchers.

Proven Data claims to unlock ransomware victims' data using its own technology. Storfer and an FBI affidavit say otherwise: The company instead paid ransom to obtain decryption tools. MonsterCloud, another data recovery firm that claims to employ its own recovery practices, also pays ransoms — without telling the victims, some of which are law enforcement offices.

Proven Data chief executive Victor Congionti did tell ProPublica paying ransom "is standard procedure" at the company, and oftentimes it pays attackers at the request of clients. But Storfer explains how the company developed a relationship with the attackers and, as a result, was able to receive extensions on payment dates and even get discounts on ransoms. SamSam operators would advise their victims to contact Proven Data for help with submitting payment.

The report draws attention to a dilemma that businesses face when hit with ransomware: It's easy to frown on paying the ransom in theory; it's different when your data is held hostage.

It's neither illegal to hide strategies for decrypting data nor illegal to pay attackers, the report points out. But paying ransom while pretending otherwise to a client could fall under deceptive business practices banned by the Federal Trade Commission Act, former FTC acting chairman Maureen Ohlhausen said. The FTC has not cited MonsterCloud or Proven Data, they note.

Read the full report here.

 

 

 

Join Dark Reading LIVE for two cybersecurity summits at Interop 2019. Learn from the industry's most knowledgeable IT security experts. Check out the Interop agenda here.

Dark Reading's Quick Hits delivers a brief synopsis and summary of the significance of breaking news events. For more information from the original source of the news item, please follow the link provided in this article. View Full Bio

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
Where Businesses Waste Endpoint Security Budgets
Kelly Sheridan, Staff Editor, Dark Reading,  7/15/2019
US Mayors Commit to Just Saying No to Ransomware
Robert Lemos, Contributing Writer,  7/16/2019
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon Contest
Current Issue
Building and Managing an IT Security Operations Program
As cyber threats grow, many organizations are building security operations centers (SOCs) to improve their defenses. In this Tech Digest you will learn tips on how to get the most out of a SOC in your organization - and what to do if you can't afford to build one.
Flash Poll
The State of IT Operations and Cybersecurity Operations
The State of IT Operations and Cybersecurity Operations
Your enterprise's cyber risk may depend upon the relationship between the IT team and the security team. Heres some insight on what's working and what isn't in the data center.
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2002-0390
PUBLISHED: 2019-07-21
** REJECT ** DO NOT USE THIS CANDIDATE NUMBER. ConsultIDs: CVE-2002-0639. Reason: This candidate is a reservation duplicate of CVE-2002-0639. Notes: All CVE users should reference CVE-2002-0639 instead of this candidate. All references and descriptions in this candidate have been removed to prevent ...
CVE-2018-17210
PUBLISHED: 2019-07-20
An issue was discovered in PrinterOn Central Print Services (CPS) through 4.1.4. The core components that create and launch a print job do not perform complete verification of the session cookie that is supplied to them. As a result, an attacker with guest/pseudo-guest level permissions can bypass t...
CVE-2019-12934
PUBLISHED: 2019-07-20
An issue was discovered in the wp-code-highlightjs plugin through 0.6.2 for WordPress. wp-admin/options-general.php?page=wp-code-highlight-js allows CSRF, as demonstrated by an XSS payload in the hljs_additional_css parameter.
CVE-2019-9229
PUBLISHED: 2019-07-20
An issue was discovered on AudioCodes Mediant 500L-MSBR, 500-MBSR, M800B-MSBR and 800C-MSBR devices with firmware versions F7.20A to F7.20A.251. An internal interface exposed to the link-local address 169.254.254.253 allows attackers in the local network to access multiple quagga VTYs. Attackers can...
CVE-2019-12815
PUBLISHED: 2019-07-19
An arbitrary file copy vulnerability in mod_copy in ProFTPD up to 1.3.5b allows for remote code execution and information disclosure without authentication, a related issue to CVE-2015-3306.