Connect with us


Ransomware: Cyber-insurance payouts are adding to the problem, warn security experts



How ransomware has evolved to become a big problem for cities
ZDNet’s Danny Palmer discusses why some US cities have paid ransoms of hundreds of thousands of dollars after falling victim to ransomware and believes it may get worse before it gets better. Read more:

Cyber-insurance companies that encourage ransomware victims to give into the demands of hackers and pay for decryption keys are making the problem of file-locking malware attacks much worse in the long run, cybersecurity experts have warned.

This year has seen a rise in the number of ransomware attacks, with cities and local governments – in the US in particular – regularly falling victim to ransomware attacks.

SEE: 10 tips for new cybersecurity pros (free PDF)

In a number of cases, the victims have given in to the extortion demands of the attackers, often paying cyber criminals hundreds of thousands of dollars for systems to be restored.

This sometimes happens because restoring the system from backups – if the organisation has backups – takes time, resources and money, and organisations want to be up and running as soon as possible.

However, there are a number of incidents, according to experts, where cyber-insurance companies are encouraging victims to give into the demands of cyber criminals because they see it as the cheapest means of reversing ransomware attacks, while ensuring the least downtime possible.

That’s despite repeated warnings from law enforcement agencies that ransoms shouldn’t be paid because they fund criminal activity.

“I’m increasingly frustrated at the trend where the insurance companies are actually encouraging victims to pay,” said Theresa Payton, former White House CIO for the George W. Bush administration and founder and CEO of cybersecurity company Fortalice Solutions.

Speaking at the CloudSec 2019 conference in London, she recalled how one victim of a ransomware attack she was advising explained how they were being encouraged to pay the ransom by their insurance provider – even though their preferred option was to restore from backups.

“They called the insurance company to try to do the forensics to not pay [but] the insurance company said they’re experienced at negotiating with ransomware syndicates, getting the price down and it’s going to be a lot cheaper to pay,” said Payton.

For the insurance companies, she argued, the key goal is to get the problem fixed at the lowest price – and that means paying the ransom.

“The insurance company looks at what the potential incident response and forensic bill might be and that’s going to be bigger in many cases as organisations aren’t prepared, so they’d actually rather pay. It’s very frustrating,” she said.

This is leading to additional problems because criminals are learning that organisations that have cyber insurance could be easier to extort a payment from – and if they’ve compromised the network, they can snoop on corporate files to find out if the company is insured and use that to help influence their attack.

SEE: A winning strategy for cybersecurity (ZDNet special report) | Download the report as a PDF (TechRepublic)

“These are attackers who get on a network and sit there for months, really profiling the target. What they’ve started to do is look at your [recovery] playbook because they’re on your network and will have read it – so they know what they’re going to do,” said Bob McArdle, director of forward-looking threat research at Trend Micro.

“If they know you’ve got cyber insurance, they’ll see that you’ll pay and it’s guaranteed they’ll hit that,” he added.

One way attackers can take advantage of knowing about a cyber-insurance policy is by ensuring their ransom demand is less than the costs of recovering the network from backups or, with the aid of cybersecurity companies, making their offer slightly more palatable.

Recovering the network at the lowest cost possible is potentially appealing for all ransomware victims, but especially those in the public sector funded by taxes. However, while some might argue that taxpayers want things to cost as little as possible, Payton argued that organisations should be honest about why extra funding is being spent – so as not to pay malicious hackers.

“Don’t pay, be transparent and tell the taxpaying citizens why you’re not going to pay – because you don’t want to fund criminals – and trust the playbook you’ve already practiced,” said Payton.

Ultimately, while some might suggest that paying the ransom is the best option for getting back up and running in the short-term, it also brings a lot of problems with it.

Those behind ransomware are criminals and can’t be trusted, so even if a payment is made, the decryption key might not work – if received at all – leaving the victim out of pocket for a ransom payment that didn’t work, plus the follow-up recovery costs.

In general, choosing to pay the ransom rather than properly securing the network is also a huge problem, because there’s no guarantee that attackers won’t come back to hit what they see as a weak target further down the line.

SEE: No More Ransom project has prevented ransomware profits of at least $108 million

On top of this, giving in and paying a ransom after a ransomware attack is funding criminal activity, not only rewarding malicious hackers for their behaviour, but also potentially emboldening them to conduct further attacks against other targets.

“Paying might seem like it helps that person’s problem, but they target sectors at a time, so they’re going to leverage what they’ve learned from that to hit people you probably know – maybe in the next county over – then the next one and the next one. So it just self-perpetuates, it seems like a fix but it really isn’t,” said McArdle.

Despite the rise in ransomware, falling victim to an attack isn’t inevitable and ensuring that unsecured systems aren’t left facing the open internet, and that operating systems and software are patched and up to date, can go a long way to preventing incidents.

And despite the way in which some insurers could encourage victims to pay a ransom in the event of an attack, regularly backing up systems means that the network can be restored without giving into the demands of criminals.


Source link

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


The Five Pillars of (Azure) Cloud-based Application Security



This 1-hour webinar from GigaOm brings together experts in Azure cloud application migration and security, featuring GigaOm analyst Jon Collins and special guests from Fortinet, Director of Product Marketing for Public Cloud, Daniel Schrader, and Global Director of Public Cloud Architecture and Engineering, Aidan Walden.

These interesting times have accelerated the drive towards digital transformation, application rationalization, and migration to cloud-based architectures. Enterprise organizations are looking to increase efficiency, but without impacting performance or increasing risk, either from infrastructure resilience or end-user behaviors.

Success requires a combination of best practice and appropriate use of technology, depending on where the organization is on its cloud journey. Elements such as zero-trust access and security-driven networking need to be deployed in parallel with security-first operations, breach prevention and response.

If you are looking to migrate applications to the cloud and want to be sure your approach maximizes delivery whilst minimizing risk, this webinar is for you.

Continue Reading


Data Management and Secure Data Storage for the Enterprise



This free 1-hour webinar from GigaOm Research brings together experts in data management and security, featuring GigaOm Analyst Enrico Signoretti and special guest from RackTop Systems, Jonathan Halstuch. The discussion will focus on data storage and how to protect data against cyberattacks.

Most of the recent news coverage and analysis of cyberattacks focus on hackers getting access and control of critical systems. Yet rarely is it mentioned that the most valuable asset for the organizations under attack is the data contained in these systems.

In this webinar, you will learn about the risks and costs of a poor data security management approach, and how to improve your data storage to prevent and mitigate the consequences of a compromised infrastructure.

Continue Reading


CISO Podcast: Talking Anti-Phishing Solutions



Simon Gibson earlier this year published the report, “GigaOm Radar for Phishing Prevention and Detection,” which assessed more than a dozen security solutions focused on detecting and mitigating email-borne threats and vulnerabilities. As Gibson noted in his report, email remains a prime vector for attack, reflecting the strategic role it plays in corporate communications.

Earlier this week, Gibson’s report was a featured topic of discussions on David Spark’s popular CISO Security Vendor Relationship Podcast. In it, Spark interviewed a pair of chief information security officers—Mike Johnson, CISO for SalesForce, and James Dolph, CISO for Guidewire Software—to get their take on the role of anti-phishing solutions.

“I want to first give GigaOm some credit here for really pointing out the need to decide what to do with detections,” Johnson said when asked for his thoughts about selecting an anti-phishing tool. “I think a lot of companies charge into a solution for anti-phishing without thinking about what they are going to do when the thing triggers.”

As Johnson noted, the needs and vulnerabilities of a large organization aligned on Microsoft 365 are very different from those of a smaller outfit working with GSuite. A malicious Excel macro-laden file, for example, poses a credible threat to a Microsoft shop and therefore argues for a detonation solution to detect and neutralize malicious payloads before they can spread and morph. On the other hand, a smaller company is more exposed to business email compromise (BEC) attacks, since spending authority is often spread among many employees in these businesses.

Gibson’s radar report describes both in-line and out-of-band solutions, but Johnson said cloud-aligned infrastructures argue against traditional in-line schemes.

“If you put an in-line solution in front of [Microsoft] 365 or in front of GSuite, you are likely decreasing your reliability, because you’ve now introduced this single point of failure. Google and Microsoft have this massive amount of reliability that is built in,” Johnson said.

So how should IT decision makers go about selecting an anti-phishing solution? Dolph answered that question with a series of questions of his own:

“Does it nail the basics? Does it fit with the technologies we have in place? And then secondarily, is it reliable, is it tunable, is it manageable?” he asked. “Because it can add a lot overhead, especially if you have a small team if these tools are really disruptive to the email flow.”

Dolph concluded by noting that it’s important for solutions to provide insight that can help organizations target their protections, as well as support both training and awareness around threats. Finally, he urged organizations to consider how they can measure the effectiveness of solutions.

“I may look at other solutions in the future and how do I compare those solutions to the benchmark of what we have in place?”

Listen to the Podcast: CISO Podcast

Continue Reading