SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
About 200 US businesses have been hit by a "colossal" ransomware attack, according to a cyber-security firm.
Huntress Labs said the hack targeted Florida-based IT company Kaseya before spreading through corporate networks that use its software.
Kaseya said in a statement on its own website that it was investigating a "potential attack".
Huntress Labs said it believed the Russia-linked REvil ransomware gang was responsible.
The US Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Agency, a federal agency, said in a statement that it was taking action to address the attack.
The cyber-breach emerged on Friday afternoon as companies across the US were clocking off for the long Independence Day weekend.
The two big things that are keeping cyber-security professionals up at night lately are ransomware attacks and supply chain attacks. This latest incident combines both nightmares into one big Independence Holiday weekend-ruining event for hundreds of US IT teams.
Ransomware is the scourge of the internet. Multiple organised criminal gangs are constantly attempting to gain access to computer networks to hold them hostage. The rate of attack is relentless but it can take a lot of time and effort on the criminals part to successfully hijack one victim's computer system.
See also:
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Socrastotle on Saturday July 03 2021, @05:07PM
The interesting thing about your question is that it generalizes to something that can be applied everywhere from economic systems, world vs national government, and much more.
And it all comes down to simple game theory. When you have one vendor, and that vendor is doing an exceptional job it will never be able to be beaten by a multi-vendor system. Because a multi-vendor system all but guarantees that at least some of the vendors will be being exploited, or failing at some time or another. The reason that the multi-vendor scenario may often end up being superior is because of the other side of things. When you have a single vendor and that vendor trends towards ineptitude, corruption, greed, or whatever else - then the entire domain under its "rule" (which may be everywhere, when taken to extremes) suddenly ends in a global dystopia. By contrast in our multi-vendor world, you will always have some vendors doing well - even if purely by chance.
So it depends on what you see as more valuable. Because "more security" is somewhat meaningless. In a unipolar world, when the monopoly becomes dysfunctional - the entire world has zero security. By contrast in a multipolar world, you'll probably never have zero security. But, on the other hand, you'll never reach the 100% in those periods during a unipolar world where the solitary vendor has not been exploited.