Biggest Gamble After a Ransomware Attack? Actually Paying the Ransom
The 2018 Cyberthreat Defense Report found that those who pay cybercriminals ransom have as much of a chance of losing their compromised data as they do recovering it.
March 15, 2018 at 12:00 PM
4 minute read
Many organizations paying cybercriminals' ransoms are getting far less than what they bargained for, according to the 2018 Cyberthreat Defense Report.
Released by research and marketing firm CyberEdge Group, the report covered the results of a survey of 1,200 corporate IT security decision makers from companies across 17 countries. Among the respondents, 77 percent suffered a cyberattack within the past 12 months, down slightly from the previous year.
Dealing with ransomware posed a particular challenge for many enterprises. The majority of respondents, 53 percent, did not pay the ransom, but were still able to recover their data. Meanwhile, 8 percent who did not pay were unable to recover any data. However, among those who did pay the ransom, there was an equal chance of recovering or losing the data completely—of the 39 percent that paid, 20 percent still lost their data, while 19 percent recovered it.
When asked how companies were able to recover data without paying a ransom, Steve Piper, co-founder & CEO of CyberEdge Group noted that it came down having data backup capabilities.
“If you back up your devices, when you're affected by ransomware and the ransomware locks the data, then you can just wipe the disk clean, reimage the disk and restore your data from backup and you're back to square one,” Piper said.
Not all companies, however, may have comprehensive data recovery processes in place. While some IT assets, such as “on-premise servers, virtual machines and databases” are frequently backed up, generally remote devices are not, he noted.
Globally, ransomware affected the most enterprises in Spain (80 percent), China (74 percent), and Mexico (72 percent). It also impacted slightly over half of all enterprises (53 percent) in the U.S. and just around half in the U.K.
While such attacks have been increasingly common at enterprises, they are also starting to affect law firms as well. In 2017, a ransomware attack shutdown computer and phone systems across DLA Piper's worldwide offices, with attackers demanding a ransom of $300 in Bitcoin to unlock each system.
The attack came just weeks after the worldwide WannaCry ransomware targeted a host of organizations, such as the UK's National Health Service and law firm Shutts & Bowen, which was able to successfully protect itself from infiltration.
In DLA Piper's case, cybercriminals were potentially asking for a potentially nominal amount. But paying such ransom can be more burdensome than just a financial fee.
Writing in Corporate Counsel, Paul Rosen, partner at Crowell & Moring and a former chief of staff of the Department of Homeland Security, noted that “even if you do engage with hackers, the files they return may be incomplete or corrupted.”
There is also the possibility that payment of a cyber ransom can incentivize further cyberattacks, as cybercriminals now know there is a willingness to pay. What's more, if a victim does pay, it may open itself up to monetary fines and legal liability should the cybercriminals be connected to a sanctioned criminal organization or a nation-state.
Rosen noted that “while the likelihood of a government enforcement action against a victim of a ransomware attack is generally low, especially where the same attack has affected a large number of victims and potentially the government itself, the risk exists.”
“This is particularly true because the sanctions regime is a strict liability—that is, you are potentially liable even if you did not know you were paying a sanctioned entity, which is all the more reason that preparation and prevention of a successful attack is critical,” he added.
But a victim that does not have backup data recovery systems in place and is completely locked out of much needed files may be left with little option but to pay. In addition, some may pay to just to keep the incident, and any of its related consequences, secret.
Uber, for example, paid a ransom of $100,000 to hackers who stole the personal information from 57 million of their customers. Though the ransom was in part to keep the incident from becoming public, Uber is now under investigation from number of states and federal agencies for failing to disclose the breach.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllTrending Stories
- 1Advising 'Capital-Intensive Spaces' Fuels Corporate Practice Growth For Haynes and Boone
- 2Big Law’s Year—as Told in Commentaries
- 3Pa. Hospital Agrees to $16M Settlement Following High Schooler's Improper Discharge
- 4Connecticut Movers: Year-End Promotions, Hires and an Office Opening
- 5Luigi Mangione Defense Attorney Says NYC Mayor’s Comments on Case Raise Fair Trial Concerns
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250