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

191–200 of 357 posts

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

#191

Post by newsclues »

FireBeyond wrote: post #139
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.

Wasn't there a ransomware case in Germany recently where when they advised the hackers that they'd hit a hospital, the hackers immediately turned over the unlock keys, without a ransom? Not that that is any way a defense, and I'm sure there was as much a self-interested motivation of "We are going to be hit hard if we ransom a hospital _now_" as much as "doing the right thing"...

At a certain point a “hack” becomes an “attack” and the response moves from “police action” to “military response” and I’m guessing that only state actor or sponsored groups are willing to cross that line.

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

#192

Post by kergonath »

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.

No, those are fascists.

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

#193

Post by mcintyre1994 »

dfsegoat wrote: post #158
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

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/16/us/politics/pentagon-nucl...

The Pentagon have at least suggested that there’s a potential for a nuclear response to a significant enough cyber attack.

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

#194

Post by kleiba »

Thorrez wrote: post #115
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.

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

The original meaning of the word "terrorism" has long lost its course since the early 2000s.

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

#195

Post by maaaaattttt »

Thorrez wrote: post #115
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.

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

The fear of losing money is a real one.

On the other hand, I believe that the word terrorism and the characterization of acts as terrorists should not be taken too lightly as it can lead to misuse of power rather quickly.

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

#196

Post by clusterfish »

Thorrez wrote: post #115
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.

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

Sigh, I feel like we need new words for all the modern horrors.

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

#197

Post by Thorrez »

maaaaattttt wrote: post #195
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.

The fear of losing money is a real one. On the other hand, I believe that the word terrorism and the characterization of acts as terrorists should not be taken too lightly as it can lead to misuse of power rather quickly.

Fear of losing money if you pay the ransom or if you don't pay the ransom? They certainly don't want to make you fear paying the ransom, because that would mean you won't pay and they wouldn't profit.

Fear of losing money if you don't pay the ransom: yes. But this could sort of apply to many salespeople, marketers, negotiators. They want to make it sound very good to take the deal and very bad (yes, maybe scary) to not take the deal.

The way the fear is targeted between ransomware and terrorism is also quite different. Terrorism wants the general public to be scared. Ransomware doesn't want the general public to be scared, because that would lead to people patching their systems, reducing future profit opportunities.

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

#198

Post by bonestamp2 »

maaaaattttt wrote: post #195
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.

The fear of losing money is a real one. On the other hand, I believe that the word terrorism and the characterization of acts as terrorists should not be taken too lightly as it can lead to misuse of power rather quickly.

I wouldn't want to use the word lightly either, but if Russia is trying to destabilize our economy, for their own political gain, and they inadvertently threaten or kill many people in the process (by shutting down hospital information systems)... that is the textbook definition of terrorism.

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

#199

Post by bonestamp2 »

kergonath wrote: post #192
Polylactic_acid wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

No, those are fascists.

To make matters even more complicated, even the anti-fascists (aka "antifa") have become the enemy too.

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

#200

Post by baq »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #163
xur17 wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This sounds like an incentive to increase costs (20% of 2X > 20% of X).

Assuming no competitor exist, which they do for many health insurance situations. There would be plenty of competitors to choose from if everyone was required to choose from healthcare.gov.

incompatible with 'already low margin' - this suggests that there isn't much more any competitor could do to offer lower prices.

besides, i think the issue is the cost of the underlying procedures - doctors charge maximum what the insurance company will pay instead of what the patient would pay. there are plenty of stories where a patient is billed $100 but if they say they don't want it out of insurance the price drops to $40 or whatever.

another elephant in the room is that you can't pick your healthcare provider if you're unconscious. this part of the US system is little more than a scam.

Post reply on HN