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.

Risk

9/9/2019
01:20 PM
50%
50%

Texas Refuses to Pay $2.5M in Massive Ransomware Attack

The ransomware campaign affected 22 local governments, none of which have paid the attackers' $2.5 million ransom demand.

The state of Texas is so far refusing to comply with the demands of a ransomware attack that affected 22 local governments, the Texas Department of Information Resources (DIR) reports. None of the affected municipalities have paid the $2.5 million ransom demanded.

On August 16, a coordinated ransomware campaign hit systems of cities and towns across Texas, prompting state officials to activate a task force consisting of the DIR, Texas A&M University System's Security Operations Center, the Texas Department of Public Safety, and emergency and military responders. By August 23, all affected entities had transitioned from assessment to remediation and recovery; now, more than half have resumed their normal operations.

The DIR is now scheduling follow-up visits with governments to ensure their rebuilding efforts are successful, according to an update the organization published late last week. It is unaware of ransom being paid by any of the 22 affected municipalities in the aftermath of the attack.

Ransom payments are a controversial topic among security professionals, most of whom disagree with paying attackers and fueling their motivation to launch future campaigns. Still, depending on the size of the attack and amount of money requested, ransom payments may amount to less than the cost of rebuilding networks from scratch — a burden that could potentially fall on taxpayers' shoulders, commented ImmuniWeb CEO Ilia Kolochenko.

"However, given that no human lives are at stake, in a long term prospective, such rigid tactics may well disincentivize the attackers," he said of the Texas attack. It's imperative governments have processes in place to handle incidents of this scale. Based on the DIR's latest update, it seems Texas had done sufficient preparation to avoid making a high ransom payment.

Read more details here.

Check out The Edge, Dark Reading's new section for features, threat data, and in-depth perspectives. Today's top story: "Phishers' Latest Tricks for Reeling in New Victims"

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
 

Recommended Reading:

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
REISEN1955
50%
50%
REISEN1955,
User Rank: Ninja
9/9/2019 | 3:58:05 PM
One for the good guys
Hooray!!!   Now where did we put that backup and recovery plan?
COVID-19: Latest Security News & Commentary
Dark Reading Staff 6/4/2020
Abandoned Apps May Pose Security Risk to Mobile Devices
Robert Lemos, Contributing Writer,  5/29/2020
How AI and Automation Can Help Bridge the Cybersecurity Talent Gap
Peter Barker, Chief Product Officer at ForgeRock,  6/1/2020
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon Contest
Write a Caption, Win a Starbucks Card! Click Here
Latest Comment: What? IT said I needed virus protection!
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-2020-13842
PUBLISHED: 2020-06-05
An issue was discovered on LG mobile devices with Android OS 7.2, 8.0, 8.1, 9, and 10 (MTK chipsets). A dangerous AT command was made available even though it is unused. The LG ID is LVE-SMP-200010 (June 2020).
CVE-2020-13843
PUBLISHED: 2020-06-05
An issue was discovered on LG mobile devices with Android OS software before 2020-06-01. Local users can cause a denial of service because checking of the userdata partition is mishandled. The LG ID is LVE-SMP-200014 (June 2020).
CVE-2020-13839
PUBLISHED: 2020-06-05
An issue was discovered on LG mobile devices with Android OS 7.2, 8.0, 8.1, 9, and 10 (MTK chipsets). Code execution can occur via a custom AT command handler buffer overflow. The LG ID is LVE-SMP-200007 (June 2020).
CVE-2020-13840
PUBLISHED: 2020-06-05
An issue was discovered on LG mobile devices with Android OS 7.2, 8.0, 8.1, 9, and 10 (MTK chipsets). Code execution can occur via an MTK AT command handler buffer overflow. The LG ID is LVE-SMP-200008 (June 2020).
CVE-2020-13841
PUBLISHED: 2020-06-05
An issue was discovered on LG mobile devices with Android OS 9 and 10 (MTK chipsets). An AT command handler allows attackers to bypass intended access restrictions. The LG ID is LVE-SMP-200009 (June 2020).