I believe that's a big part of why governments don't negotiate with terrorists and police just stall for time in real world ransom cases.
80% of orgs that paid the ransom were hit again
11–20 of 386 posts
Re: 80% of orgs that paid the ransom were hit again
#12The most important line: > 80% of organizations that paid the ransom were hit by a second attack, and almost half were hit by the same threat group. The same group!
Makes sense to me. From what I've read, it's pretty clear the ransom payment is for a one-time ability to get your data back. It's not advertised as some sort of permanent opt-out.
Re: 80% of orgs that paid the ransom were hit again
#13Meaningless stat without a baseline to compare against. How many who didn't pay were hit again?
If the attacker isn't paid for the first attack, why would she attack again? She's not doing it for the lulz! I do agree with you that there should be more visibility for the "silent majority" of firms who operate their businesses responsibly, and therefore don't ever need to pay ransom.
Because second attacker might not be briefed by the first one.
Re: 80% of orgs that paid the ransom were hit again
#14Meaningless stat without a baseline to compare against. How many who didn't pay were hit again?
If the attacker isn't paid for the first attack, why would she attack again? She's not doing it for the lulz! I do agree with you that there should be more visibility for the "silent majority" of firms who operate their businesses responsibly, and therefore don't ever need to pay ransom.
If the victim doesn't pay the first time, they suffer consequences and next time might decide to pay instead.
Re: 80% of orgs that paid the ransom were hit again
#15I believe that's a big part of why governments don't negotiate with terrorists and police just stall for time in real world ransom cases.
Except that is a terrible analogy and has everything to do with a poor security culture on the firm's part because IT is treated as a liability rather than an asset.
Re: 80% of orgs that paid the ransom were hit again
#16Meaningless stat without a baseline to compare against. How many who didn't pay were hit again?
If the attacker isn't paid for the first attack, why would she attack again? She's not doing it for the lulz! I do agree with you that there should be more visibility for the "silent majority" of firms who operate their businesses responsibly, and therefore don't ever need to pay ransom.
I'm sorry but I have to ask: why assume the attacker is female?
Re: 80% of orgs that paid the ransom were hit again
#17This is an interesting dance. Which company has paid the most? Is it on the jira board every monday "remit darkside for db access"
Re: 80% of orgs that paid the ransom were hit again
#18I mean they just proved that they are willing to pay the ransom. If they are also unwilling or unable to clean up their shop and keep it from happening again, it surely will.
Re: 80% of orgs that paid the ransom were hit again
#19Earlier quoted context omitted.
If the attacker isn't paid for the first attack, why would she attack again? She's not doing it for the lulz! I do agree with you that there should be more visibility for the "silent majority" of firms who operate their businesses responsibly, and therefore don't ever need to pay ransom.
I'm sorry but I have to ask: why assume the attacker is female?
It seems like "they're" would've been a better choice there, as there are a plurality of attackers in the world.
Re: 80% of orgs that paid the ransom were hit again
#20Earlier quoted context omitted.
If the attacker isn't paid for the first attack, why would she attack again? She's not doing it for the lulz! I do agree with you that there should be more visibility for the "silent majority" of firms who operate their businesses responsibly, and therefore don't ever need to pay ransom.
I'm sorry but I have to ask: why assume the attacker is female?
Why not? Why assume that they are male?