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

FBI, DHS, HHS Warn of Imminent Ransomware Threat Against U.S. Hospitals

krebsonsecurity.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 357 posts

Re: FBI, DHS, HHS Warn of Imminent Ransomware Threat Against U.S. Hospitals

#151

Post by sillysaurusx »

tossmeout wrote: post #133
Teever wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you actually think that this comment adds to the conversation at hand or are you just using this as an opportunity to wedge in the 'but America does it too!' trope?

I think it's an interesting comment and see no reason America deserves some special shield from criticism, trope or not. It should be responded to on its own merit, just like anyone sharing any other opinion on HN.

I thought it was interesting too. It didn’t seem inflammatory or political flamewar.

Sometimes I miss the days when such conversation was permitted. I’d vouch it, but I like my vouch privileges too much to risk it.

Re: FBI, DHS, HHS Warn of Imminent Ransomware Threat Against U.S. Hospitals

#152

Post by wslack »

samename wrote: post #17
blendo wrote: post #10

Bad health IT is a public health issue. Perhaps it’s time for hospitals to regularly report their OS versions and patch levels to our local health departments.

My hospital offline for a whole week because they got hit by a ransomware attack, and they use Epic. I asked someone I knew at Epic what she knew about it, and confirmed that my hospital was up-to-date on the latest version of their software and following most of their security protocols. My initial thought was they had weak IT security and now I’m not so sure.

Epic is likely not the vector for this sort of thing (it runs using a thin client); far easier to take advantage of unpatched machines.

Re: FBI, DHS, HHS Warn of Imminent Ransomware Threat Against U.S. Hospitals

#153

Post by stjohnswarts »

supertrope wrote: post #94
supertrope wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By the ACA law health insurance companies have to pay out at least 80% of premiums on claims. The cost of running the company and any profit has to come out of the other 20%. 5% of billions of dollars is huge in absolute figures but as a percentage falls in line with other industries.

To fix medical service affordability we need to bring down the cost of the services instead of expecting significantly more efficient insurance plans. We can’t insure away high costs. They just pass through the costs via premium and deductible increases. Even if health insurers were nonprofits that would only directly save us 5%. High deductibles encouraging shopping around but price discovery is very limited as even…

I agree. I believe that the government should definitely control health care and college costs, otherwise they're just attacking the symptoms.

Re: FBI, DHS, HHS Warn of Imminent Ransomware Threat Against U.S. Hospitals

#154

Post by mikelyons »

tpolm wrote: post #112
xvector wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If US citizens die due to this, I am 100% down with bringing the full might of our military down on the state/group that did this. No mercy.

And how are you going to identify the state/group that did this? Believing "experts"? Oh, that worked just fine previously https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Counci...

Whatever makes us feel better, right?

Reality is essentially unverifiable at this point, so ... nuke Russia?

It's not that that's what I want, I just can't find a way to know what's real.

Re: FBI, DHS, HHS Warn of Imminent Ransomware Threat Against U.S. Hospitals

#155

Post by Thorrez »

jazzyjackson wrote: post #134
Thorrez wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>terrorism Isn't ransomware profit-motivated? I thought with terrorism the goal was fear rather than profit.

Terrorists need revenue

Sure, but the attacks done for revenue reasons would be classified as profit-motivated rather than terrorism. The attacks done for fear would be classified as terrorism. Ransomware attacks are known for having responsive and helpful support people, because they want a reputation for promptly decrypting the data when the payment is given.

Re: FBI, DHS, HHS Warn of Imminent Ransomware Threat Against U.S. Hospitals

#156

Post by Thorrez »

mwill wrote: post #127
Thorrez wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>terrorism Isn't ransomware profit-motivated? I thought with terrorism the goal was fear rather than profit.

There have been ransomware attacks that are covers for outright attacks, iirc some where the payment and decryption mechanism didn't even function. On a more theoretical level, it's certainly possible to do both at the same time, two birds with one stone. But it seems a lot of the big gangs are suspected state-sponsored, which is less terrorism and more cyber warfare

If it's a fake ransomware then yeah that's probably terrorism. If it's fake it's obviously not done for profit. I'm referring to actual ransomware that works, that's done for profit.

> On a more theoretical level, it's certainly possible to do both at the same time, two birds with one stone.

I'm not sure how well that would work. Ransomware generally has responsive and helpful support people, because without that it will be hard to convince victims to pay. If they spend their time instilling fear instead of confidence in the payment process, then no one will pay.

Re: FBI, DHS, HHS Warn of Imminent Ransomware Threat Against U.S. Hospitals

#157

Post by sillysaurusx »

agar wrote: post #55
kylebenzle wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does anyone else feel that any organization that isn't doing regular secure backups with a way to restore that data deserves for this to happen? It like an airplane running out of gas because the pilot forgot to fill up the tank. Its kind of step one of working with computers.

You certainly express an unpopular opinion, and at first glance you are right: secure backups should be a priority for any IT organization. However, not all backups are continuous and pervasive. There are often backup windows, gaps, and processes that halt with no one noticing. Ryuk also actively disables and deletes backups to maximize impact, while also seeking out mount points that might be backup targets - and en…

Just wanted to say thank you for one of the most informative comments of the thread. Carry on.

Re: FBI, DHS, HHS Warn of Imminent Ransomware Threat Against U.S. Hospitals

#158

Post by dfsegoat »

haswell wrote: post #8

This is not what we need in these final chapters of 2020 with COVID cases spiking. > Charles Carmakal, senior vice president for Mandiant, told Reuters that UNC1878 is one of most brazen, heartless, and disruptive threat actors he’s observed over the course of his career. This is what terrorism looks like in 2020. Horrifying, terrifying, disgusting.

I wonder at what threshold asymmetric responses get put into play, with these actors clearly focused on basic terrorism. At what point is a ‘kinetic response’ to a cyberattack warranted ?

Edit: got to point

Re: FBI, DHS, HHS Warn of Imminent Ransomware Threat Against U.S. Hospitals

#159

Post by markdown »

Polylactic_acid wrote: post #117
Thorrez wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>terrorism Isn't ransomware profit-motivated? I thought with terrorism the goal was fear rather than profit.

Terrorism is a buzzword that means "Person I don't like" now.

> Brown person I don't like.

FTFY

Re: FBI, DHS, HHS Warn of Imminent Ransomware Threat Against U.S. Hospitals

#160

Post by toomanybeersies »

donor20 wrote: post #136
mwill wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There have been ransomware attacks that are covers for outright attacks, iirc some where the payment and decryption mechanism didn't even function. On a more theoretical level, it's certainly possible to do both at the same time, two birds with one stone. But it seems a lot of the big gangs are suspected state-sponsored, which is less terrorism and more cyber warfare

And plenty just want to get paid - it's actually pretty impressive how many take down / don't share if they are paid or actually come through with the decryption keys. Hard to see how they are terrorists? What are they pushing to accomplish with their terror campaign. Anyways, my health care system constantly assures me security is its "top" priority and "state of the art".

Not saying that it's the case with most (or even any) ransomware, but it's very common for terrorist organisations/liberation movements/violent non-state actors fund their activities through organised crime. ETA used to rob banks, the Contras trafficked cocaine, the RIRA smuggles cigarettes and launders agricultural fuel, the remnants of the Islamic State have turned to illegal forestry, etc. etc.
Post reply on HN