undefined | Better HN

0 pointsxienze4y ago0 comments

The bigger IMO problem with ransomware attacks isn't necessarily that they're holding your data hostage, it's that they can and will publish it. You might be able to tell them to kiss your ass because you have backups, but then they'll publish that information. It's a bit more of a rock-and-a-hard-place situation than most people realize.

0 comments

ransom15384y ago

Eh. From my understanding the people that pay do fine. As sick as it is, these crews following through is good for business. These crews are making tons of cash. If word gets out they don't unencrypt and do publicly publish - people will just stop paying: period. Hell. Some of these crews have a help desk. [1]

https://www.macworld.co.uk/cmsdata/features/3659100/how_to_r...

steve_gh4y ago

This is a public health service. It's paid for out of taxation.

headmelted4y ago

Which if you pay the ransom, means also relying on the word of the people that are actively extorting you.

Scary, scary place to be. Especially for a health service.

xienzeOP4y ago

> Which if you pay the ransom, means also relying on the word of the people that are actively extorting you.

As weird as it sounds, reputation matters for these guys. If you have a track record of taking the money and publishing data anyway, no one is ever gonna bother paying you in the first place. Why would they? Your data is gonna get published no matter what, may as well save the ransom money.

perl4ever4y ago

You can flip it around (if you're a pessimist):

  1. If you *don't* pay, then you know bad things will happen.

  2. So you might as well pay, regardless of their reputation, because your chances are strictly better even if they are nearly nothing.

  3. Knowing that, there is no incentive for them to maintain a reputation by honoring the ransoms.

This seems like a stable equilibrium.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse