Live data from Hacker News

The ransomware surge

bbc.com

161–170 of 216 posts

Re: The ransomware surge

#161
post #8

The difficulty with ransomware attacks and the like, is that it's less a technical problem and more a people problem. IT departments will never have enough money/time/staff to keep systems up to date with the latest OS (look at the number of people still running critical systems on Windows XP). Users will always open attachments from people they don't know, click links, or even pick up random USB sticks. The perpetra…

Absolutely this - most ransomware attacks are pretty unsophisticated. You don't need privilege escalation, or an exploit. You can carry out the attack using just basic user permissions. You are exploiting a basic "problem" of most modern OSs (that apps run "as" the user executing them) - the user/group permission model ceases to work in 2021 with non-expert users. Portal-based access to individual files via secure OS…

> most ransomware attacks are pretty unsophisticated

As weird as it sounds, this is both correct and incorrect at the same time.

It is correct, because ransomware is not particularly sophisticated by today's standards. Couple of decades of R&D has made the building blocks robust and uninteresting.

It is also correct in the sense that the attacks used to breach systems are unsophisticated. A vulnerability is published for an internet-facing system, and in just couple of days the underground toolkits are already (ab)using it.

It is incorrect in the sense that the crews who breached the systems are not the crews who deploy ransomware. Computer crime has evolved to a fully functioning economy, with high specialisation among its participants. Crew A reverse-engineers patches, updates their vulnerability exploitation engines and goes on to breach systems. (In a race against time, because there are other crews doing the same.) They then sell access to crews B, C and D.

Crew B are after financial information and will exfiltrate anything that can be sold to morally ambivalent hedge funds. They may also grab R&D material, because corporate espionage is a thing. Crew C will grab all the personally identifiable data and have intimate knowledge how to best monetise it for various types of fraud.

Crew D will deploy the ransomware, because they have all the sophistication you need to run their extortion operations at scale. These days this includes the ability to handle massive volumes of off-site backups, because why not. "Pay up or we leak it" is a perfectly valid extension to their business model.

The gangs I referred to as "Crew A" are known in the industry as Access Brokers. There are of course other operators too who work in a more asynchronous fashion, such as money launderers.

The economy powering the criminal enterprise markets is certainly sophisticated. And while most of the technology in use doesn't qualify for using that word, the internal operations these gangs run certainly do.

Re: The ransomware surge

#162
post #121
post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Personally, I don't see the problem. 1. Bitcoin drives up GPU costs. 2. Bitcoin makes it ridiculously easy to commit certain forms of crime. 3. And Bitcoin's energy footprint hurts the planet.

Putting an entire society under ubiquitous surveillance to catch a tiny minority of criminals isn't a good bargain. Fact is, though, that's not even why they do it. Eventually you get to the point where you see that the information and ultimate large scale control permitted by the collection of that information is itself the end goal, and that it has nothing to do with detecting or preventing crime.

It's easier to trace Bitcoin than cash.

Re: The ransomware surge

#163
post #148
post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you do offsite offline backups too with verification? What if your infra gets really hacked and they wipe out all of your customer's backup data everywhere? Just because borg clients have append only modes, it doesn't stop them from deleting the raw files on your drives.

If a storage server gets p0wned, the raw data could be deleted. That's true for every cloud provider. What's important, they still can't read the backup, since it's encrypted on the client. Storage servers are also isolated from each other and in different DCs, cities and regions. Additional offline backups aren't really feasible past a certain data volume and daily change/velocity. I'd still encourage everyone to ha…

> If a storage server gets p0wned, the raw data could be deleted. That's true for every cloud provider.

It's not hard to create a cloud backup service where delete requires separate credentials which are not used in day-to-day operations (and so can be kept secure). And without these credentials a backup is kept N days and cannot be deleted or overwritten. Don't know if anyone do this, though.

Re: The ransomware surge

#164
post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> backups that cannot be deleted / overwritten That gets complex if your database contains PII. If a user asks for their account to be deleted...

Would it be sufficient that the delete accounts script be managed and merged at restoration time?

The neatest way I heard is to store PII in an encrypted form and then delete encryption keys when a user requests deletion. That requires the keys to be in a different backup pipeline though.

Re: The ransomware surge

#165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, of course. This is one of the reasons why I have 3 copies of everything I use (local/computer, cloud, NAS). This is particularly why I have a cloud backup, with blockchain data authentication. But, this is a basic overview of how to prevent NAS ransomware attacks: https://www.howtogeek.com/435452/how-to-secure-your-synology... There is better advice elsewhere but this is a good start. This may be a good comment…

Can you elaborate some more on your cloud backup solution? More specifically, I'm curious about the privacy/security aspect. It's the main reason why I've been somewhat hesitant to adopt cloud backups for my own computers. \

I encrypt all of my information before I back it up. It is a risk that I am willing to take. Governments can always decrypt my information. Bruce Schneier, a world-renowned security expert who wrote "Click Here to Kill Everybody", states that he does not recommend storing information in foreign servers, in countries that you are not a citizen of. I suggest taking that advice.

Acronis is Swiss-based and has to comply with the GDPR, due to its direct ties with the European Union. I am a dual US|EU (Croatian) citizen, with legal rights to work/live/retire in Switzerland, so I do not have to worry about storing my information "abroad".

The EU has strict regulations, and they are only going to get stricter. There have even been talks about the EU being allowed to legally break encryption recently. If you are a third-country national (not an EU/EEA/Swiss citizen), then I do not recommend Acronis cloud backup or any other EU/EEA/Swiss service for storing your personal data. America may have its problems, and privacy may be a joke, but at least you have rights and sovereignty there.

Re: The ransomware surge

#166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Backups are annoying and unglamorous It gets better (as in worse) someone can easily cut down back-up expenses, and become a hero by "balancing the budget with no disruptions to operations", get a fat bonus, and then after a year or so, leave. Their successors won't get any bonuses by increasing the budget for something that has no ROI. And randsomware is booming!

This is a somewhat cynical take, but there are kernels of truth in there. Often, organizations not focused on quality will allow such things to happen. More than one startup has also been out out of business by not having a backup. But it’s often negligence / ignorance and not budget. When you put all the cards on the table for an organization and give them the information they need, they make much better security ch…

I think backups come up some time after MVP and launch for most organizations, this means that you don't know when it actually has to come, so someone with technical skills says hey at some point we need to put in the effort and money to get good backups and ability to restore of all this data, and someone in charge of how the business grows has to say yes we better do it.

Unless you do not open for any sort of business without having all backup system set up then you run the risk, and with thousands of companies running the risk so as to not be out-competed by faster, riskier companies someone will suffer a bad outcome of their risk-taking.

Re: The ransomware surge

#167
post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If a storage server gets p0wned, the raw data could be deleted. That's true for every cloud provider. What's important, they still can't read the backup, since it's encrypted on the client. Storage servers are also isolated from each other and in different DCs, cities and regions. Additional offline backups aren't really feasible past a certain data volume and daily change/velocity. I'd still encourage everyone to ha…

> If a storage server gets p0wned, the raw data could be deleted. That's true for every cloud provider. It's not hard to create a cloud backup service where delete requires separate credentials which are not used in day-to-day operations (and so can be kept secure). And without these credentials a backup is kept N days and cannot be deleted or overwritten. Don't know if anyone do this, though.

You can do it with S3 policies. But that's already at the application level. The question above was about the server level below that.

Re: The ransomware surge

#168

Surprised at how much focus there is on backups as the solution. You'll never fully recover from those backups. Backups won't help you avoid fines, lawsuits, lost customers, and lost time. I run an open data set on data breaches. The vast majority of ransomware incidents start with a phishing email, to beach head, to find domain admin, to game over. The root problem is domain admin population size. Reduce it to zero…

A second root problem is the insanity of public SMTP on today's Internet: allowing anyone, claiming any identity, to send you any content without limits. I started the "mnm" open source project to enable a new email network, on a new protocol. More: https://mnmnotmail.org/ Follow: https://twitter.com/mnmnotmail

This problem is partially solved by DMARC/SPF/DKIM. There a few issues with DMARC, but the main one - adoption by senders is well below 100% so you just cannot block mail without DMARC.

But the main question I have - does a typical mail users actually care about sender domain? I suspect - not at all. And I see two main reasons for this. First notion of domain is de-emphasized everywhere - browsers turned address bar into a search bar and make real URL hard to notice, MUA (e. g. Outlook) don't show full email for senders in an address book. Second problem - legitimate senders often behave in exactly the same way as phishers - use unrelated/unknown domain and give no way to verify that the domain is legitimate. For example Charter/Sirius ISP sends mail from domain customeremailnotifications.com [1] and I found no ways to see for sure that is domain is owned or used by Charter. My memory is fuzzy, but PayPal (or ebay) AFAIR used a phishy domain too, something like managemypaypal.com. A largish ZA utility sends mail from eskomstatements.co.za having the main domain eskom.co.za and of course there is no good way to verify that both domains owned/used by the same company. List can be continued. All this conditions users to trust mail which is coming from a random-domain-registered-by-phishers, because legitimate senders do the same.

[1] https://www.reddit.com/r/Spectrum/comments/dfpres/email_doma... (1 year old, but situation hasn't changed a bit)

Re: The ransomware surge

#169
post #72

“ increase regulation of cryptocurrency services” Hmmm.

Cryptocurrencies are the one sole reason that there is a ransomware epidemic today.

Without them, ransomware would be nowhere near as profitable or easy.

Kill cryptocurrencies, kill ransomware. Plus, kill a massive source of carbon emissions. It's a massive win on multiple fronts.

Re: The ransomware surge

#170
post #34

> "The hackers were the Ryuk ransomware gang and they demanded we pay them 45 Bitcoin, which was about half a million dollars. Make no mistake: this ransomware surge is 100% enabled / facilitated by Bitcoin and possibly other cryptocurrencies. This would not have been so bad if cryptocurrencies would actually provide anything of really significant value to our societies, but no. Aside from a mixture of Ponzi scheme,…

Crypto also risks the ability of central banks to print infinite amounts of money

Cryptocurrencies are being printed in massive amounts all the time.
Post reply on HN