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.

Comments
The Ransomware Dilemma: What if Your Local Government Is Next?
Oldest First  |  Newest First  |  Threaded View
BigKahuna13
100%
0%
BigKahuna13,
User Rank: Apprentice
5/30/2019 | 12:52:22 PM
To pay, or not to pay?
Scary how many groups and organizations have silently paid to avoid the public humiliation that Baltimore is currently enduring.
schopj
100%
0%
schopj,
User Rank: Strategist
5/30/2019 | 3:43:53 PM
What if you pay, then get hit again?
One of the things to consider when looking at the initial ransom cost vs cost of recovery is the cost of the next infection.  If you pay, the attackers now know youre willing to pay.  They ARE going to target you again.  So that 100,000 could quickly turn into much more over time because now youre seen as an easy target.  A city that doesnt pay, it doesnt make much sense for attackers to spend a lot of time and effort infecting them again when they get nothing out of it.  If we really want these types of attacks to stop, we need to make it cost more and profit less.  The only way to do that is for all businesses and governments to refuse to pay.  Without payment, the attackers will move on.  As long as even some vitims choose to pay, there will be more and more victims and the costs over the entire economy will keep going up.  
BanduraCSO
50%
50%
BanduraCSO,
User Rank: Author
5/31/2019 | 8:17:49 AM
Re: What if you pay, then get hit again?
Totally agree.  Guess the conundrum is there are a healthy number of organizations that are paying and so how do you stop something like this that's already in motion.  On the cost side, Baltimore is now pointing to $8.1 million in lost revenue.  I think if we expand this analysis out the real issue is comparing all of these costs against the investment they should have made to ensure an up to date IT infrastructure and more importantly to apply a patch that's been available for two years. 
RyanSepe
50%
50%
RyanSepe,
User Rank: Ninja
5/31/2019 | 3:12:02 PM
Re: What if you pay, then get hit again?
Agreed. The reason companies are typically told not to pay the ransom is because you are operating under the mechanism that you are expecting an unethical entity to act ethically and do what they say they are going to do. Nothing stopping them from going back on their promises and exposing either the data or secrets that you don't want exposed. 

On the flip side if they are extorting data and you don't have a viable backup program, then you may be at their mercy for getting back.

Its really a lose lose any way you look at it.
REISEN1955
50%
50%
REISEN1955,
User Rank: Ninja
6/5/2019 | 1:09:49 PM
Re: What if you pay, then get hit again?
FOR A SMILE - Firms that lack a backup strategy (damn dumb) now have one - their encrypted data stored securely by thieves.  Negotiate a payment plan and if they backup but do not encrypt the data locally, then the firm has a viable and secure method of restoration and recovery.  Monthly fee service. See, it works if you think weird.


COVID-19: Latest Security News & Commentary
Dark Reading Staff 6/3/2020
Data Loss Spikes Under COVID-19 Lockdowns
Seth Rosenblatt, Contributing Writer,  5/28/2020
Abandoned Apps May Pose Security Risk to Mobile Devices
Robert Lemos, Contributing Writer,  5/29/2020
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon Contest
Write a Caption, Win a Starbucks Card! Click Here
Latest Comment: This comment is waiting for review by our moderators.
Current Issue
How Cybersecurity Incident Response Programs Work (and Why Some Don't)
This Tech Digest takes a look at the vital role cybersecurity incident response (IR) plays in managing cyber-risk within organizations. Download the Tech Digest today to find out how well-planned IR programs can detect intrusions, contain breaches, and help an organization restore normal operations.
Flash Poll
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2020-13777
PUBLISHED: 2020-06-04
GnuTLS 3.6.x before 3.6.14 uses incorrect cryptography for encrypting a session ticket (a loss of confidentiality in TLS 1.2, and an authentication bypass in TLS 1.3). The earliest affected version is 3.6.4 (2018-09-24) because of an error in a 2018-09-18 commit. Until the first key rotation, the TL...
CVE-2020-10548
PUBLISHED: 2020-06-04
rConfig 3.9.4 and previous versions has unauthenticated devices.inc.php SQL injection. Because, by default, nodes' passwords are stored in cleartext, this vulnerability leads to lateral movement, granting an attacker access to monitored network devices.
CVE-2020-10549
PUBLISHED: 2020-06-04
rConfig 3.9.4 and previous versions has unauthenticated snippets.inc.php SQL injection. Because, by default, nodes' passwords are stored in cleartext, this vulnerability leads to lateral movement, granting an attacker access to monitored network devices.
CVE-2020-10546
PUBLISHED: 2020-06-04
rConfig 3.9.4 and previous versions has unauthenticated compliancepolicies.inc.php SQL injection. Because, by default, nodes' passwords are stored in cleartext, this vulnerability leads to lateral movement, granting an attacker access to monitored network devices.
CVE-2020-10547
PUBLISHED: 2020-06-04
rConfig 3.9.4 and previous versions has unauthenticated compliancepolicyelements.inc.php SQL injection. Because, by default, nodes' passwords are stored in cleartext, this vulnerability leads to lateral movement, granting an attacker access to monitored network devices.