Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Saturday October 05 2019, @02:24PM   Printer-friendly
from the risk-versus-gain dept.

Arthur T Knackerbracket has found the following story:

The FBI is easing up a bit on its hardline stance against paying ransomware demands.

The Bureau has posted an updated version of the guidance it offers for companies on how to handle ransomware demands with a section discussing the option of paying the hackers to get data decrypted.

In short, the FBI still says that companies should not cave to hacker demands and pay to have their data unlocked, but the bureau acknowledges that paying is an option.

"Paying ransoms emboldens criminals to target other organizations and provides an alluring and lucrative enterprise to other criminals," the FBI's guidance reads.

"However, the FBI understands that when businesses are faced with an inability to function, executives will evaluate all options to protect their shareholders, employees, and customers."

[...] In other words; it's not advisable to pay ransomware demands, but you won't get in any trouble if you do.


Original Submission

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 05 2019, @02:30PM (7 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 05 2019, @02:30PM (#903082)

    Wanna bet if the supposed recipient is on a sanctions list, you'd still get fucked by the government?

    • (Score: 4, Insightful) by takyon on Saturday October 05 2019, @03:07PM (6 children)

      by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Saturday October 05 2019, @03:07PM (#903091) Journal

      FBI: "It's totally cool, dawg. Pay money to terrorists. We won't bag you and put your name on our '50 terrorists we caught this year' list."

      --
      [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
      • (Score: 2) by RS3 on Saturday October 05 2019, @04:23PM (5 children)

        by RS3 (6367) on Saturday October 05 2019, @04:23PM (#903112)

        I'm not sure if this is what you're implying, but your post made me think that the FBI is encouraging people to contribute to, financially support, criminals.

        Maybe it should be a crime to run a society-critical infrastructure organization and NOT have backups- data and actual systems, ready to go.

        • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Sunday October 06 2019, @02:07AM (4 children)

          by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Sunday October 06 2019, @02:07AM (#903264) Journal

          but your post made me think that the FBI is encouraging people to contribute to, financially support, criminals.

          Maybe FBI finally agreed on the level of cut they are going to receive?

          --
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
          • (Score: 2) by bzipitidoo on Sunday October 06 2019, @02:21AM

            by bzipitidoo (4388) on Sunday October 06 2019, @02:21AM (#903265) Journal

            Maybe the Acting Director of the FBI had his computer infected with ransomware? And had to change the rules real quick so he could get his data back?

            Considering the quality and popularity of recent appointees, it could happen. Might have had to pay extra to hush up the embarrassment of this happening to the FBI, and them being unable to break the encryption.

          • (Score: 2) by RS3 on Sunday October 06 2019, @02:29AM (2 children)

            by RS3 (6367) on Sunday October 06 2019, @02:29AM (#903266)

            So maybe the FBI finally caved and joined "the family", sends out the ransomware, takes the "protection" payments, and the story is cover.

            • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Sunday October 06 2019, @04:00AM (1 child)

              by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Sunday October 06 2019, @04:00AM (#903283) Journal

              What can they do now that the prez hates them? The need some money, no?

              --
              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
              • (Score: 2) by RS3 on Monday October 07 2019, @03:16AM

                by RS3 (6367) on Monday October 07 2019, @03:16AM (#903564)

                Sell pot. I mean CBD oil. From all the gatherings. That they're not consuming. Oh, nevermind.

  • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Saturday October 05 2019, @03:37PM (6 children)

    by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Saturday October 05 2019, @03:37PM (#903097) Journal

    Like kidnapping, paying the abductors is strongly discouraged. But, gubbermint has no right or authority to tell you that you MAY NOT pay the ransom. Of course, I can't pay a ransom over twenty bucks anyway. My take home pay barely takes me home.

    • (Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 05 2019, @05:35PM (5 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 05 2019, @05:35PM (#903143)

      Pretty sure current US government would go after you if you paid a ransom to Iran, N. Korea, or any other place that the US has decided to starve the population in the mistaken belief that starving people will rise up, and put an oppressive right-wing dictator of US corporate executives' liking into power. So far, the right wing murderous dictator taking control has required direct / indirect US military and or CIA involvement-- at least for the last 63 times the US overthrew governments, many of them democracies.

      And,, that is why Iran is fucked up now. Right wing retards in the US overthrew Iran's democratically elected government and installed a bloody right wing dictator, in 1953 to steal Iranian oil. The Shah murdered his own people, but, more importantly he gave oil leases to UK and US oil companies. The US installed dictator was then overthrown in the revolution around 1980, and we got a right-wing theocratic state that doesn't want to give away natural resources to US corporations, so the US stole the freedom of the Iranian people for nothing. oops.

      Funny they don't get along since US christian right and the Iranian islamic right are fellow travelers in nearly all of their hateful oppressive ideology.

      • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 05 2019, @07:33PM (2 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 05 2019, @07:33PM (#903184)

        No less.

        So Iran's last two government fuckups were wholly caused by America's intervention, including most of the Middle East's current religious theocracies.

        America has done more to overthrow democracy than it has to support it for almost 150 years now.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 05 2019, @08:35PM (1 child)

          by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 05 2019, @08:35PM (#903195)

          I was in a really bad mood this AM when I wrote GP post. Sorry to all about the flamebaity tone.

          To answer your question, no the US isn't solely responsible, this is one of the rare cases where a US partner in "regime change" was, in fact, a full partner in all the criminality. The UK was a partner in the overthrow of democratically elected president Mosaddegh. Mosaddegh nationalized the oil fields, so British Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (present day British Petroleum) wanted his ouster so they could continue to pillage the natural resources of Iran for the sole benefit of their corporate coffers and shareholders at the expense of the Iranian people.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 06 2019, @05:54PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 06 2019, @05:54PM (#903446)

            This alone is sufficient reason for Iran to be pissed off at USA.

      • (Score: 2, Disagree) by Grishnakh on Sunday October 06 2019, @01:37AM (1 child)

        by Grishnakh (2831) on Sunday October 06 2019, @01:37AM (#903254)

        >Funny they don't get along since US christian right and the Iranian islamic right are fellow travelers in nearly all of their hateful oppressive ideology.

        No, it's actually pretty understandable if you look at religious conflicts throughout history. Think about all the religious wars: were they between radically different religions? No, most were actually between very similar religions, or even different sects of the same religion. For example: all the conflict in Northern Ireland has been between Christians, namely Catholics and Protestants (even worse, the Protestants aren't just any Protestants, they're Episcopalians (Church of England), which is one of the earlier offshoots of the Roman Catholic Church, and is probably the Protestant sect most similar to Catholicism. The conflict between Israel and their neighbors is between Judaism and Islam, which again are two rather similar religions closely related to one another and sharing a common root going back to Abraham and his sons Isaac and Ishmael. There's probably a bunch in Asian history that I don't even know about. The only recent conflict between very different religions I can think of is the split between Pakistan and India: Islam and Hinduism really are very, very different religions with no shared history or mythology.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 06 2019, @03:14AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 06 2019, @03:14AM (#903271)

          Fun fact of the day: There are more Muslims in India than in Pakistan.

          * absolute numbers, not percentage of total population.

  • (Score: 2) by Rupert Pupnick on Saturday October 05 2019, @04:23PM (8 children)

    by Rupert Pupnick (7277) on Saturday October 05 2019, @04:23PM (#903110) Journal

    Were victims who decided to pay ransom putting themselves in legal jeopardy previously?

    • (Score: 2) by RS3 on Saturday October 05 2019, @04:26PM (6 children)

      by RS3 (6367) on Saturday October 05 2019, @04:26PM (#903115)

      "legal jeopardy"?? How do you mean?

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 05 2019, @04:50PM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 05 2019, @04:50PM (#903126)

        As in being put in a position where they could be charged with something along the lines of "financially supporting a criminal organization". Cops get bonuses for closing cases - the truth doesn't fill their pockets.

        • (Score: 2) by RS3 on Saturday October 05 2019, @06:54PM

          by RS3 (6367) on Saturday October 05 2019, @06:54PM (#903167)

          Yeah, exactly my comment / question above...

      • (Score: 2) by Rupert Pupnick on Saturday October 05 2019, @04:51PM (2 children)

        by Rupert Pupnick (7277) on Saturday October 05 2019, @04:51PM (#903128) Journal

        I mean could a ransom payer be subject to criminal prosecution.

        • (Score: 2) by RS3 on Saturday October 05 2019, @06:56PM (1 child)

          by RS3 (6367) on Saturday October 05 2019, @06:56PM (#903171)

          Yes, exactly what I was thinking and commented above.

          And the next question: if a ransom payer is guilty of crime (or summary or civil offense), is "The FBI told me to do it and said it was okay" a defense?

          • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 05 2019, @09:55PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 05 2019, @09:55PM (#903216)

            Paying a ransom is, generally, legal. However, you can be charged with a crime under a couple of related charges. For example, if you pay for a ransom to someone you know is an enemy of the state, a recognized terrorist organization, "axis of evil," or certain other recipients along those lines, you can be charged with those crimes. In addition, reliance on the FBI would not get you off the hook for those crimes directly, as it wouldn't negate the mens rea, but instead go to the attendant circumstances through specific intent.

            I think the real reason for the softening of the language is because the FBI saying "don't do something" naturally leads to the idea that it is illegal, not that it is a bad idea for other reasons.

      • (Score: 4, Funny) by sjames on Saturday October 05 2019, @06:58PM

        by sjames (2882) on Saturday October 05 2019, @06:58PM (#903172) Journal

        I'll take things that can get you on the no-fly list for 500, Alex.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 05 2019, @06:48PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 05 2019, @06:48PM (#903165)

      Yes, I recall the family of one kidnap victim in the middle east got visited by people from the government for a "chat", the subject of which was why they really shouldn't pay the kidnappers any ransom.

  • (Score: 2) by jmichaelhudsondotnet on Sunday October 06 2019, @09:50AM

    by jmichaelhudsondotnet (8122) on Sunday October 06 2019, @09:50AM (#903329) Journal

    I'd like to point out that the FBI, and every other Protector of The Homeland, admits despite their vast surveillance network that they are completely powerless to do their job of protecting you, despite collecting some really great salaries and having fancy badges for their specific domestic spying agencies.

    Which is really odd(especially for anyone who believe propaganda), because I know they have plenty of extra manpower for harassing people living in their cars, tricking people into being their roommate, running open mic nights in Kansas City, populating music festivals with hundreds of undercover police and endlessly investigating people with whom they would rather not argue.

    I want my money back. My taxes pay for them to prioritize attacking me covertly while not defending me at all.

    If the same scrutiny were applied to the ransomware problem as were applied to the Standing Rock protestors and the standard darknet drug market, I am pretty sure we would get some progress.

    And in this we can see the true priorities of our rulers, which sadly was the same under the allegedly enlightened Pres. Obama as it is under the current abberation.

    How police officers in the united states get up in the morning knowing they let epstein off scott free while they imprison activists for 110 years for protecting ground water and trying to limit CO2 emissions, is still a mystery to me.

    I suggest such people rethink their lives and allegiances.

    thesesystemsarefailing.net
    decultification.org

    p.s. I will try to help out here with an extra tip: ransomeware is at this point a tax for being gullible for the last 20 years and therefore being locked into the worst product on the market, aka windows

(1)