Re:US city rejects $5.3M ransom demand and restores encrypte...
by emmp on Friday September 06, 2019 @10:36AM
(#20895999)
Yes. They are often targeting IT providers of SMBs by phishing/otherwise compromising their credentials, and deleting backups before encrypting. It works sometimes, 2FA hygiene and secondary site redundancy are usually good enough to protect you.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:US city rejects $5.3M ransom demand and restores encrypte...
by i_cant_speel on Friday September 06, 2019 @03:39PM
(#20899133)
If you inject the ransomware into a system that is subsequently backed up and wait a significant period of time, you could potentially lock all backups as they are restored. Then people have to decide between paying up or restoring to a time before the ransomware was injected.
I'm not sure if it's feasible to have ransomware lock backups as they're restored, however.
Re:US city rejects $5.3M ransom demand and restores encrypte...
by ev0lv on Friday September 06, 2019 @11:36AM
(#20896574)
2FA is so overrated. You can so easily do a sim swap to get access to a particular phone number and bypass 2FA.
Re:US city rejects $5.3M ransom demand and restores encrypte...
by therealrootuser on Friday September 06, 2019 @11:47AM
(#20896697)
The problem isn't with 2FA, the problem is with SMS-based 2FA.
Re:US city rejects $5.3M ransom demand and restores encrypte...
by bonestamp2 on Friday September 06, 2019 @12:13PM
(#20896925)
True, and that's why you shouldn't use SMS 2FA. The unfortunate part is when that's the only method offered.
Re:US city rejects $5.3M ransom demand and restores encrypte...
by parliament32 on Friday September 06, 2019 @01:18PM
(#20897574)
TOTP and HOTP 2FA are unbreakable and supported by literally everyone. Who still does SMS 2FA anymore?
Re:US city rejects $5.3M ransom demand and restores encrypte...
by out_of_protocol on Friday September 06, 2019 @01:41PM
(#20897818)
Lots, unfortunately. With no way to opt out