Re:University pays $20,000 to ransomware hackers
by joosters on Friday June 10, 2016 @03:55AM
(#11874885)
...until they find the ransomware is in the backups too?
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:University pays $20,000 to ransomware hackers
by raverbashing on Friday June 10, 2016 @04:06AM
(#11874949)
Only if they made their "backups" writable as well
Re:University pays $20,000 to ransomware hackers
by joosters on Friday June 10, 2016 @04:12AM
(#11874969)
It's difficult to create backups if you can't write into the backups storage.
Re:University pays $20,000 to ransomware hackers
by gambiting on Friday June 10, 2016 @04:20AM
(#11874995)
The way I do it is I create backups locally and then copy them to my NAS over ftp(with a password), instead of samba. Hopefully, that way any ransomeware would not be able to encrypt my nas as well, as it does not have any publicly accessible folders on the network.
Re:University pays $20,000 to ransomware hackers
by joosters on Friday June 10, 2016 @04:29AM
(#11875023)
The problem is that ransomware doesn't have to activate immediately, so you can end up with multiple copies throughout your backups before it takes effect. Hence, restoring from backups may not solve an infection.
Re:University pays $20,000 to ransomware hackers
by biot on Friday June 10, 2016 @05:45AM
(#11875269)
write != overwrite
Re:University pays $20,000 to ransomware hackers
by drjesusphd on Friday June 10, 2016 @09:10AM
(#11876084)
So changes to files don't get backed up?
Re:University pays $20,000 to ransomware hackers
by dagw on Friday June 10, 2016 @09:19AM
(#11876123)
Obviously you back up changes, but not to the same place as the old file. Backups should be append only. So that if you at some point you realize you've started to back up encrypted data you can just roll back to the point where the data wasn't encrypted.