51–60 of 108 posts
Why is ransomware still a problem? Is it that difficult to make off-site backups every hour? Storage is cheap. There are many air gapping options for backups, too. It sounds like a case of normalized deviance, for which the management should be held accountable. As much as I don’t like victim blaming, I think it’s beyond incompetent to still not backup your data in 2023 as a government org.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The US has a similar agreement with China. "The new 1969 agreement included terminal dues, the receiving postal agencies would charge the country of origin for delivering the post on by-weight basis. To be blunt, shipping from China to USA (and most of the rest of the world) is much cheaper than shipping domestically in USA because the terminal-dues are much too low and account only for the total weight of the post,…
Why does international post TO China still cost so much then?
How is it even legal to pay ransoms? Surely this is transferring money to criminal enterprises. If it is not illegal it needs to be made illegal.
I bought some candy from Amazon that was shipped by Royal Mail, and it never arrived. Amazon told me to take up the refund with Royal Mail, with no instructions how to do so. Anyone know how I can get a refund from Amazon/Royal Mail for the candy they never sent?
How is it even legal to pay ransoms? Surely this is transferring money to criminal enterprises. If it is not illegal it needs to be made illegal.
As I understand it, it is indeed illegal in most countries. What happens in practice is the victim hires a 'data recovery specialist' company, provides them the encrypted files, and ask them to decrypt them with their magic algorithms. The data recovery specialist coincidentally is paid a little bit more than the ransom. The specialist then contacts the hackers, pays the ransom, decrypts the files, and provides them…
Why does a corporation not have offline backups to supposedly mission critical files?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why would it not be legal? If I was a hacker, the existence of a law prohibiting businesses from paying cyber ransoms would not deter me. If a company wanted to follow the law and refused to pay the ransom the hackers asked of them, the hackers could follow through and delete or irreparably corrupt their files. The potential upside, that they pay the ransom, is significant, while the downside, that they don't, doesn'…
If paying ransoms become illegal in many countries, it would be very hard to find targets willing to break the law and pay ransom, making it less attractive of an attack.
If Russia were to physically disrupt a country's social services by force, it would be an act of war. Here they have disrupted a British social service without force by state sponsored hacker terrorists, rendering harm in the physical world. The line gets blurrier.
> If Russia were to physically disrupt a country's social services by force, it would be an act of war If the Russian STATE did this yes. But we don't generally consider the act of citizens/organizations/criminal enterprises within a state as a state action unless it's clearly state sponsored. You definitely could make that argument, but it's not a given. For example, we don't consider the 3000 British people fightin…
It's fucking ridiculous to hit the postal service, providing a practically-free function to a lot of people who really need it, and operating at barely even (in US and Canada too, so I imagine other countries are similar). The ransomers sound like kids, "speculating that the directors personally held 100m of crypto"? What a disgusting amateur job.
(Of course these criminals are disgusting.)
How is it even legal to pay ransoms? Surely this is transferring money to criminal enterprises. If it is not illegal it needs to be made illegal.
I can't imagine their S3 bill is above 80 millions...