Later it turned out that most of its victims were in the private sector, but because a lot of the healthcare victims were obliged by law to report the attacks and none of the private sector victims were, the reported incidents painted a skewed picture of what was actually happening. For example, for some time researchers were under the impression that SamSam ransomware, one of the earliest "big game" ransomware gangs, specifically targeted healthcare providers. This has led to some misconceptions in the past. Decryptors can be slow, and they have been known to fail (even though the criminals will tell you they work seamlessly).ĭepending on the country an organization is based in, whether they handle data under GDPR regulations, whether they are a government contractor, what sector they are active in, or whatever other reasons, some organizations have a legal obligation to notify one or more authorities about a cyberattack. Good backups often restore encrypted systems faster and more effectively than paying a ransom for a decryptor provided by the criminals.If the news of the cyberattack gets into the public domain later it can be much more damaging than communicating about it straight away.Not doing a thorough, third-party investigation could leave the access method used by the criminals wide open for the next attack.Paying the ransom funds the criminal ecosystem. Another argument is that paying the ransom and keeping quiet about the fact that you have been attacked has a few negative consequences: One of the main reasons is that with visibility, it is easier to get a good picture of what is going on, what methods the criminals are using, and maybe even who they are. we are increasingly concerned about what happens behind the scenes of the attacks we don’t hear about, particularly the ransomware ones. The UK’s National Cyber Security Centre (NCSC) has published an article that reflects on why it’s so concerning when cyberattacks go unreported, saying:
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |