News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Experts suggest AXA’s plan to shun ransomware payouts wil... by paxys on Tuesday May 11, 2021 @03:07AM (#27115113)
This is why you need government intervention. Just make it illegal to pay such ransoms. Now the easy option has disappeared. You likely go out of business, and the company which takes your place implements good security policies from the get go. Funding for hacker groups and newer attacks dries up. Sucks for you in particular, but the public overall is better for it.
Re:Experts suggest AXA’s plan to shun ransomware payouts wil... by nickpp on Tuesday May 11, 2021 @03:19AM (#27115209)
Sure, just like when you have 5 sick people, each needing a different organ to survive. We need the government to select a healthy person, take his organs and save the other 5. Sucks for that person in particular, but the public overall is better for it.
Re:Experts suggest AXA’s plan to shun ransomware payouts wil... by fauigerzigerk on Tuesday May 11, 2021 @04:42AM (#27115728)
It's more like banning the purchase of organs on the black market if you suffer organ failure.
Re:Experts suggest AXA’s plan to shun ransomware payouts wil... by m3at on Tuesday May 11, 2021 @03:41AM (#27115341)
Interesting argument, though forcefully selecting a donnor does not increase organ failure rates for others, whereas paying ransom does increase risks of future attacks.
Re:Experts suggest AXA’s plan to shun ransomware payouts wil... by nickpp on Tuesday May 11, 2021 @04:04AM (#27115457)
It does modify behavior though: I am more likely to engage in risky activities like heavy drinking and overeating if I know a replacement organ (like a liver) is readily available thanks to the wisdom of the government.
Re:Experts suggest AXA’s plan to shun ransomware payouts wil... by nefitty on Tuesday May 11, 2021 @01:40PM (#27121034)
On its face, this sounds like an extreme behavioral reaction to having “replacement organs” available, but it actually tracks with my own anecdotal experience.

I was not comfortable skateboarding again until I had good insurance as I do now. I don’t go crazy, but it is definitely a weight off my shoulders knowing that if I break a bone I’ll be able to get help without wrecking my finances. On the other hand, my brother doesn’t currently have insurance, and in the past he was super advanced at skateboarding. He is very hesitant to skate with me because of his fear of getting hurt. It’s pretty wild to see that play out in my own life, and it has made even more empathetic to the decisions other people make and the sorts of high-level factors that come into play there.

Re:Experts suggest AXA’s plan to shun ransomware payouts wil... by catbuttes on Tuesday May 11, 2021 @08:04AM (#27117049)
Now swing it the other way. Only harvest organs from those guilty of crimes. Would that make you less likely to commit crimes, knowing that your organs will be harvested?
Re:Experts suggest AXA’s plan to shun ransomware payouts wil... by contravariant on Tuesday May 11, 2021 @03:30AM (#27115276)
Somewhat interesting that you use an argument against utilitarianism to argue against deontological ethics.
Re:Experts suggest AXA’s plan to shun ransomware payouts wil... by nickpp on Tuesday May 11, 2021 @04:10AM (#27115495)
Government intervention is government intervention no matter the context: it seems a good idea at first but it always backfires.
Re:Experts suggest AXA’s plan to shun ransomware payouts wil... by contravariant on Tuesday May 11, 2021 @05:55AM (#27116164)
To govern is to intervene, if a government doesn't intervene then what purpose does it have?
Re:Experts suggest AXA’s plan to shun ransomware payouts wil... by arrosenberg on Tuesday May 11, 2021 @12:27PM (#27120098)
Except in this analogy we don't have a healthy person, but one that already was in a motorcycle accident.
Re:Experts suggest AXA’s plan to shun ransomware payouts wil... by DyslexicAtheist on Tuesday May 11, 2021 @03:38AM (#27115323)
> This is why you need government intervention. Just make it illegal to pay such ransoms.

this penalizes the victim. Legally this might be impossible for the same reasons the law is unable to stop you from paying a ransom in kidnapping.

I'm not convinced this would affect the problem even if outlawed. Companies would simply go the path of least resistance the same way they do with avoiding tax. There will always be loopholes for shell / shelf companies to hide activities. The ransomware gangs themselves already today encourage you to reach out from private emails and promise smoother negotiation if you do.

Re:Experts suggest AXA’s plan to shun ransomware payouts wil... by paxys on Tuesday May 11, 2021 @04:01AM (#27115440)
There are several laws already on the books which address this – various international sanctions (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-treasury-cyber/companies-...), anti-terrorism laws (can't pay ransom to a known terrorist group), anti-money laundering laws and more. There is nothing stopping the government from enacting more.
Re:Experts suggest AXA’s plan to shun ransomware payouts wil... by dangerface on Tuesday May 11, 2021 @12:31PM (#27120169)
Businesses that don't look after their business are not victims, their unknowing customers are.
Re:Experts suggest AXA’s plan to shun ransomware payouts wil... by inter_netuser on Tuesday May 11, 2021 @03:57AM (#27115421)
a cybersecurity company to which you pay an annual retainer will just pay the attackers instead.

Communication will be done by lawyers and subject to strong confidentiality protection, no one will ever know.

Basically, exactly how it happens with kidnappings today.

Re:Experts suggest AXA’s plan to shun ransomware payouts wil... by asdfasgasdgasdg on Tuesday May 11, 2021 @12:33PM (#27120190)
Attorney-client privilege does not extend to lawyers doing illegal things on your behalf. For example, you can't ask your lawyer to hire a hitman to off a guy, and any evidence related to such activity will not be protected by attorney-client privilege.
Re:Experts suggest AXA’s plan to shun ransomware payouts wil... by inter_netuser on Tuesday May 11, 2021 @05:14PM (#27123617)
Please. There is a difference between saving a loved one, and hiring a hitman to kill one.

It's literally illegal to pay certain sanctioned organizations today for kidnappings - because they are designated terrorist orgs.

Who negotiates the ransom? Lawyers and security firms, been going on for a long long time.

Amusingly enough, this has even gone through courts in some places, you might wanna look up caselaw. They just decided to classify kidnappers as "criminals" for the ransom purposes, or some other such wordsmithing.

In the US these laws are simply ignored outright.

"The United States Code prohibits funding terrorist organizations, which includes the payment of ransom monies to terrorist organizations.2 However, the outlook in the United States on ransom payments being made to terrorist groups has softened. In June 2015, President Obama announced that private parties may negotiate with and pay ransoms to terrorist groups without fear of criminal prosecution, which has been the informal practice for years. In fact, nobody has ever been prosecuted for paying a ransom in the United States."

Just imagine your election prospects after jailing a mother who paid a ransom to save her child.

Imagine defending a claim that such law is constitutional, moral and just.