Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

University pays $20,000 to ransomware hackers

bbc.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 80 posts

Re: University pays $20,000 to ransomware hackers

#61

Post by Mister_Snuggles »

digler999 wrote: post #32
microtonal wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ransomware detection is just a (perhaps necessary) band-aid. By default all applications should be sandboxed. Why should a random application be able to read/write to every user directory? We enforce process separation in memory, we should do the same on disk.

> all applications should be sandboxed. not a bad plan, but also, all data should be backed up . In this 'cloud age' of computing, there's no reason, and no excuse. I certainly don't want to blame the victims of ransomware, but if that data was so important that they paid ransom to get it back, why didn't they back it up ?

The Mac makes this so easy with Time Machine. Is there something that's equally easy and effective in Windows?

Re: University pays $20,000 to ransomware hackers

#62

Post by Cheyana »

They reference another article that contains a quote from an Intel employee...

"Ransomware and crypto malware are rising at an alarming rate and show no signs of stopping," said Raj Samani, European technology head for Intel Security.

That statement instills a confidence in me that makes me so glad Intel bought McAfee six years ago.

Re: University pays $20,000 to ransomware hackers

#63

Post by atomic_lock »

pjmlp wrote: post #45
gambiting wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's exactly what UWP(universal windows platform) is - it sandboxes every app. But I am sure you will agree that having this as default behavior on windows would be disastrous, breaking compatibility with every app written before Windows 10, not to mention that the reason why we use PCs is to have low-level access to hardware, many applications require it and sandboxing isn't going to be a good option here. I guess…

If you search online Mac forums many people ask how to disable such features. For average joe and jane security is a nuisance.

Most of the people I know still keep it on. It also makes the user think a bit before clicking through the scary warning.

Re: University pays $20,000 to ransomware hackers

#64

Post by fredsted »

Mister_Snuggles wrote: post #61
digler999 wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> all applications should be sandboxed. not a bad plan, but also, all data should be backed up . In this 'cloud age' of computing, there's no reason, and no excuse. I certainly don't want to blame the victims of ransomware, but if that data was so important that they paid ransom to get it back, why didn't they back it up ?

The Mac makes this so easy with Time Machine. Is there something that's equally easy and effective in Windows?

Why couldn't the ransomware encrypt your Time Machine drive as well?

Re: University pays $20,000 to ransomware hackers

#65

Post by dagw »

Mister_Snuggles wrote: post #61
digler999 wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> all applications should be sandboxed. not a bad plan, but also, all data should be backed up . In this 'cloud age' of computing, there's no reason, and no excuse. I certainly don't want to blame the victims of ransomware, but if that data was so important that they paid ransom to get it back, why didn't they back it up ?

The Mac makes this so easy with Time Machine. Is there something that's equally easy and effective in Windows?

Unfortunately, not really. Backup on Windows is strangely terrible out of the box. The best solution for Windows is probably Arq.

Re: University pays $20,000 to ransomware hackers

#68

Post by dagw »

drjesusphd wrote: post #66
biot wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

write != overwrite

So changes to files don't get backed up?

Obviously you back up changes, but not to the same place as the old file. Backups should be append only. So that if you at some point you realize you've started to back up encrypted data you can just roll back to the point where the data wasn't encrypted.

Re: University pays $20,000 to ransomware hackers

#69

Post by at-fates-hands »

digler999 wrote: post #32
microtonal wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ransomware detection is just a (perhaps necessary) band-aid. By default all applications should be sandboxed. Why should a random application be able to read/write to every user directory? We enforce process separation in memory, we should do the same on disk.

> all applications should be sandboxed. not a bad plan, but also, all data should be backed up . In this 'cloud age' of computing, there's no reason, and no excuse. I certainly don't want to blame the victims of ransomware, but if that data was so important that they paid ransom to get it back, why didn't they back it up ?

I would also add, multiple backups in multiple places.

Just for my Windows PC I have three backups. One on the machine, one on an external hard drive and one more in the cloud.

How much did it cost me? $80 for the 2TB hard drive and $8 a month for unlimited cloud storage and backup. A small amount to pay to make sure you're covered in nearly any disaster scenario, including ransomware.

Re: University pays $20,000 to ransomware hackers

#70

Post by pjmlp »

prof_hobart wrote: post #58
pjmlp wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you search online Mac forums many people ask how to disable such features. For average joe and jane security is a nuisance.

Not as much of a nuisance as having all of your data corrupted.

Fully agree, but sadly not as many think about it, only after getting through such a pain.
Post reply on HN