SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
There is a particularly devious type of malicious software that locks users out of their own computer systems until an individual agrees to pay a ransom to the hackers. In these cases, the FBI has surprisingly suggested just ponying up the dough.
It's not the type of advice one would typically expected from the FBI, but that's exactly what was recommended by Joseph Bonavolonta, the assistant special agent in charge of the FBI's CYBER and Counterintelligence Program Boston office.
"The ransomware is that good," said Bonavolonta at the 2015 Cyber Security Summit in Boston, as quoted by Security Ledger. "To be honest, we often advise people just to pay the ransom."
Yeah, it's RT, but I did a search, and that or similar headlines popped up on dozens of news sites. I clicked a couple of them, and the stories match. Try this one,
https://thehackernews.com/2015/10/fbi-ransomware-malware.html
Personally, I can almost certainly afford to nuke and reinstall, unless they get my RAID array. Then - I'd have to think hard.
(Score: 2) by RedGreen on Thursday October 29 2015, @03:13PM
Well you don't really care about your data then. Personally I have my main copy on a machine connected to the network when I turn it on, then a backup machine with second copy and lastly third machine containing a backup if the backup fails. All using zfs RAIDz for data integrity checking now I did skimp on the two backups as they were re-used old machines left over from past upgrades and they do not use ECC ram in them for rock solid error handling. But they get the job done the main backup machine has ECC ram in it.
"I modded down, down, down, and the flames went higher." -- Sven Olsen
(Score: 2) by Tramii on Thursday October 29 2015, @04:22PM
Well you don't really care about your data then.
To be fair, we don't know how much data is on the RAID array. Sure, most people can easily fit all their important data into 1 TB, so they really have no excuse for not having an offline backup somewhere. But it could be the the OP has many many TBs of data (unlikely, but possible), and attempting to back everything up is simply financially unfeasible.
(Score: 2) by RedGreen on Thursday October 29 2015, @04:56PM
If it is important enough to go out of your way to have it on a RAID then it is important enough to plan for the failure that will occur. Perhaps I am just too anal about it but that is the way I go about it having many years ago lost all my important stuff to them POS Seagate drives I had it on. What I do now is never have a drive that is over two years old holding my main copy, every year and a half or so I start the process of buying the new drives that will hold the new incarnation of my storage. Buying one every couple of months or so until I have enough to copy it all over easy to do if you plan ahead and put aside the money to do it. Middle of next year I am due to start the process all over again as the 4tb drives I bought earlier this year, will by the end of next year be just about two years old ready to go to secondary backup roles.
"I modded down, down, down, and the flames went higher." -- Sven Olsen
(Score: 2) by darkfeline on Friday October 30 2015, @12:22AM
>If it is important enough to go out of your way to have it on a RAID then it is important enough to plan for the failure that will occur.
Actually no; this is one thing that most people get wrong. RAID is not for data protection, although it provides a tiny amount of protection as a side effect: using RAID to protect your data is like using the side effects of some cancer treatment drug to lower your fever.
RAID is for data redundancy. That is, if a disk fails, your server can keep chugging while you swap it out, as opposed to restoring from backup.
If your data needs 24/7 availability, use RAID. If you care about losing your data, use backups. It just so happens that the two often overlap.
Join the SDF Public Access UNIX System today!
(Score: 2) by Nollij on Friday October 30 2015, @11:45PM
RAID does provide data protection from certain types of data loss - most notably, drive failure. Backups provide a superset of protection for other types - most notably user error
Given that hardware failure is the most common source of data loss for people, I would hardly call it "a tiny amount of protection"
In my experience, by far the #1 cause of backup failures is that people just won't do them, even after it's been setup. They also don't test them to see if they work.
It's also possible to have data that's important enough to have on a RAID, but not important enough to have backups for. Just like it may not be important enough for off-site backups, or sensitive enough for encryption.
(Score: 2) by Justin Case on Saturday October 31 2015, @06:40PM
hardware failure is the most common source of data loss
by far the #1 cause of backup failures is that people just won't do them
Well, which is it? Hardware failure or human failure? Because your second point is entirely a human failure.
Plus accidental deletes, getting pwned, installing crapware (but I repeat myself...)
In my completely unscientific opinion, human failures trash a lot more data than hardware. Especially since hardware, properly configured (with redundancy) can be nearly 99.9999... faultless. So again, the decision not to do that is another human failing.
Oh and if you can't afford redundancy, you can't afford a computer. Because sooner or later some part is going to fail, and that's when you'll realize the value of the time you spent creating all that information, plus the time you will now spend trying to piece back together whatever you can salvage, far exceeds the price of doing it right the first time.
I think what I'm saying here is computers would be perfect if nobody ever used them! :)
(Score: 2) by Nollij on Monday November 02 2015, @12:45AM
They measure two different things. One measures data loss as a whole, one measures failures of the backup system. Most people will only use the backup system after suffering data loss, which I find happens most after hardware failure.
Excluding the human factor from a system will guarantee failure - If someone knows they won't send in the rebates, they shouldn't factor them into a buying decision. Yes, it's a human error, but it is still going to happen. If I know I won't run the backups, then I shouldn't be pretending that I will. Instead, I should make a plan that I will actually follow.
That is absolutely absurd, for so many reasons. First, are we talking about the computer or the data? I can use a computer to do all sorts of things that don't require any data to be saved. Second, each piece of data has a value - Do I need backups of my movie collection? How much am I willing to spend to create a backup? Or, put another way, how willing am I to lose that data? What if it's my personal photos? Original, unedited source files? Legal correspondence?
On top of all that, it's an elitist statement, dismissive of those who don't have or aren't willing to spend money on this. Should they really not have access to technology in general, just because some of them will have a problem with it?
Obviously, everyone has to plan for equipment to fail - but that plan does not need to be a blanket answer across the board. I have my movies on a RAID for convenience, and to prevent a common source of data loss. If, however, the RAID should fail, or I get hit by a virus, I won't be heartbroken to lose that data. Therefore, I'm not investing in off-site backups or anything like that, at least not for this.
(BTW, I have my important data - my really important data, and nothing else - backed up on GDrive. I have more data that I feel is important enough backed up on my LAN)