Sidelined by Ransomware Attack? Insiders Offer Their Negotiation Tips
From fully assessing the worth of encrypted data to carefully negotiating a lower demand or incremental decrypting, cybersecurity lawyers and professionals offer their tips for successfully emerging from a ransomware attack.
November 18, 2019 at 11:30 AM
4 minute read
Debilitating ransomware attacks struck a host of public and private entities this year, ranging from cities such as Baltimore to a large number of law firms. While those events grabbed headlines for encrypting data and locking entities out of systems, ransomware incidents have "sharply declined" since 2018, the FBI announced last month.
Despite the reported downturn, the FBI's press release still discouraged ransomware payments, noting it motivates hackers to continue targeting entities and payments don't ensure files will be decrypted. But in a real-life scenario, ransomware can paralyze any organization's workflow and easily stir panic that leads to rash decision-making.
To combat this threat, lawyers suggest leveraging outside counsel and a cybersecurity company during ransomware negotiations to serve as an informed intermediary between the hacker. Adams and Reese special counsel Roy Hadley Jr., who also assisted the city of Atlanta in the immediate response and aftermath of 2017's ransomware attack, said deploying a cyber expert and lawyer "takes some of the pressure off the company from making bad or hasty decisions."
Cybersecurity companies know how to obtain cryptocurrency that hackers usually demand, Hadley added. Plus, a ransomware response company will recognize well-known perpetrators and know their track record of providing encryption keys after receiving payments and the likelihood their encryption keys will work.
While law enforcement and an association of U.S. mayors discourage paying ransomware because it emboldens hackers, the decision is ultimately made by the company.
Bill Siegel, CEO and co-founder of ransomware response and recovery company Coveware Inc., noted a negotiation often hinges on if there aren't any backups of the files and if the files are important enough to a company to pay for.
"Time is the only way to signal that you don't really need it and that the business value of the data is actually low," Siegel added.
But when a hacker has encrypted essential data, Siegel said his company leverages an encrypted chat or email platform to negotiate payment with the hacker.
To be sure, impacted companies do have bargaining power while in the throes of a ransomware attack, Hadley noted. For example, if a hacker demands $10 million, the negotiator can counteroffer a smaller amount, stating the company can replace its data and system at a cheaper cost. Hadley likened the back-and-forth to a hostage negotiation, where negotiators "feel where those lines are in that negotiating process."
Still, Hadley warned, "The last thing you want to do here is something that makes the bad actor walk away and not get back the keys if the client isn't able to recover the data on their own."
Similarly, companies can leverage their counsel and outside vendor to agree to incremental payments for keys to decrypt data piecemeal. "That way before you pay the ransomware in full you'll know the purported perpetrator has the key to unlock the system," Hadley said.
He added that "sometimes, ransomware attacks can be purported by anyone on the dark web." In some cases, "they give you keys and they don't work, or they give you keys and the files are corrupted," he said.
After ensuring the keys don't have malware and successfully unlock encrypted data, the company's road to recovery isn't over.
"The bad guy got into your systems; those vulnerabilities are still there," noted Hadley. "Even if you pay the ransom, you have a lot of work to do."
That work includes improving the organization's cybersecurity against similar and alternative cyberattacks and meeting any regulatory requirements, too.
"In addition to an entity's system being shut down, the entity also has to determine if any personal, nonpublic information has been compromised, which would trigger disclosure to infected individuals," said Hill Ward Henderson shareholder and ransomware response counsel Robert Shimberg. "It may trigger disclosure to regulatory agencies."
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 AllLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1'Largest Retail Data Breach in History'? Hot Topic and Affiliated Brands Sued for Alleged Failure to Prevent Data Breach Linked to Snowflake Software
- 2Former President of New York State Bar, and the New York Bar Foundation, Dies As He Entered 70th Year as Attorney
- 3Legal Advocates in Uproar Upon Release of Footage Showing CO's Beat Black Inmate Before His Death
- 4Longtime Baker & Hostetler Partner, Former White House Counsel David Rivkin Dies at 68
- 5Court System Seeks Public Comment on E-Filing for Annual Report
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