to anonymous attackers through the digital currency Bitcoin . A Connecticut city has paidAttack.RansomUSD 2,000 to restore access to its computer system after a ransomware attackAttack.Ransom. West Haven officials said Thursday they paid the moneyAttack.Ransomto anonymous attackers through the digital currency bitcoin to unlock 23 servers and restore access to city data . The attackAttack.Ransomdisabled servers early Tuesday morning , and city officials say it was contained by 5:30 PM Wednesday . City attorney Lee Tiernan says officials initially did n't want to pay the ransomAttack.Ransom, but research showed it was the best course of action . The city says there 's no reason to believe data was compromisedAttack.Databreach. Employee pay was not affected . The US Department of Homeland Security says the attack came from outside the US . An investigation is ongoing .
Hollywood Presbyterian Medical Center paidAttack.Ransoma $ 17,000 ransomAttack.Ransomin bitcoin to a hacker who seized control of the hospital 's computer systems and would give back access only when the money was paidAttack.Ransom, the hospital 's chief executive said Wednesday . The assaultAttack.Ransomon Hollywood Presbyterian occurred Feb 5 , when hackers using malware infected the institution 's computers , preventing hospital staff from being able to communicate from those devices , said Chief Executive Allen Stefanek . The hacker demandedAttack.Ransom40 bitcoin , the equivalent of about $ 17,000 , he said . `` The malware locks systems by encrypting files and demanding ransomAttack.Ransomto obtain the decryption key . The quickest and most efficient way to restore our systems and administrative functions was to pay the ransomAttack.Ransomand obtain the decryption key , '' Stefanek said . `` In the best interest of restoring normal operations , we did this . '' The hospital said it alerted authorities and was able to regain control of all its computer systems by Monday , with the assistance of technology experts . Stefanek said patient care was never compromisedAttack.Databreach, nor were hospital records . Top hospital officials called the Los Angeles Police Department last week , according to police Lt John Jenal . Laura Eimiller , an FBI spokeswoman , said the bureau has taken over the hacking investigation but declined to discuss specifics of the case . Law enforcement sources told The Times that the hospital paid the ransomAttack.Ransombefore reaching out to law enforcement for assistance . The attack forced the hospital to return to pen and paper for its record-keeping .
iOS 10.3 , releasedVulnerability-related.PatchVulnerabilityto the public on Monday , patchesVulnerability-related.PatchVulnerabilitya bug that allowed bad actors to use a JavaScript pop-up in Safari in an attempt to extort moneyAttack.Ransomfrom iOS users . Security firm Lookout ( via Ars Technica ) said the scammers would target Safari users who viewed pornography by placing malicious scripts on various pornographic website that would create an endless pop-up loop that basically locked the browser , if an uninformed user didn ’ t know how to get around the flaw . The scammers abused the handling of pop-ups in Mobile Safari in such a way that a person would be “ locked ” out from using Safari unless they paid a feeAttack.Ransom— or knew they could simply clear Safari ’ s cache ( see next section ) . The attack was contained within the app sandbox of the Safari browser ; no exploit code was used in this campaign , unlike an advanced attack like Pegasus that breaks out of the app sandbox to install malware on the device . The scammers registered domains and launched the attack from the domains they owned , such as police-pay [ . ] com , which the attackers apparently named with the intent of scaring users looking for certain types of material on the Internet into paying money . The pop-ups claimed to beAttack.Phishingfrom law-enforcement personnel , and claimed the only way to get control of the browser back was to pay a fineAttack.Ransomin the form of an iTunes gift card code delivered via text message . Users actually could have gotten out of the pop-up loop by manually clearing the Safari browser cache . However , a new or otherwise uninformed user might believe they actually needed to pay the ransomAttack.Ransombefore regaining control of their browser . “ The attackers effectively used fear as a factor to get what they wanted before the victim realized that there was little actual risk , ” Lookout researchers Andrew Blaich and Jeremy Richards said . iOS 10.3 changes the way pop-up dialogs work in Safari . Previously , a pop-up dialog took over the entire Safari app . Now , pop-ups are only per tab . iOS users who are hit by the scam before updating to iOS 10.3 can clear their browsing cache by going to “ Settings ” - > “ Safari ” and tapping : “ Clear History and Website Data . ”
A new ransomware has been released that not only encrypts your files , but also deletes them if you take too long to make the ransom paymentAttack.Ransomof $ 150 USD . The Jigsaw Ransomware , named after the iconic character that appears in the ransom note , will delete files every hour and each time the infection starts until you pay the ransomAttack.Ransom. At this time is currently unknown how this ransomware is distributed . This is the first time that we have seen these types of threats actually being carried out by a ransomware infection . The good news is that a method has been discovered that allows victims to decrypt their files for free . Jigsaw Ransomware is serious about its threats ... It is not the first time that we have seen ransomware threaten to delete files , but this is the first time that one has actually carried out its threats . The Jigsaw Ransomware deletes files every 60 minutes and when the program is restarted . Every hour , the Jigsaw Ransomware will delete a file on your computer and increment a counter . Over time this counter will cause more than one file to be deleted every hour . More destructive , though , is the amount of files that are deleted every time the ransomware starts . After the initial infection , when the ransomware it restarted , whether that be from a reboot or terminating the process , Jigsaw will delete a thousand , yes a thousand , files from the victim 's computer . This process is very destructive and obviously being used to pressure the victim into paying the ransomAttack.Ransom. After MalwareHunterTeam analyzed further variants of the Jigsaw Ransomware , he brought up an interesting point . Do `` They even care about the money or just want to play with people ? '' When analyzing the variants , it has been shown that they are coded to only execute after a certain date . For example , the Portuguese variant is hard coded to only run after April 6th 2016 , while another was set to go off on March 23 , 2016 . There is also a wide range of ransom prices being offered , with prices ranging from $ 20 to 200 USD . Are these people motivated by money or is this just one big game to them ? In the ransom note there is a 60 minute timer that counts down to 0 . When it reaches 0 it will delete a certain amount of files depending on how many times the counter has reset . Each time it resets , a counter will increase , which will cause more files to be deleted on the next reset . When a victim sends a ransom paymentAttack.Ransom, they can click on the check payment button . When this button is clicked , the ransomware queries the http : //btc.blockr.io/ site to see if a payment has been madeAttack.Ransomto the assigned bitcoin address . If the amount of bitcoins in the assigned address is greater than the payment amount , then it will automatically decrypt the files .
A few days ago experts at antivirus firm ESET spotted a new MacOS ransomware , a rarity in the threat landscape , but it has a serious problem . Malware experts from antivirus vendor ESET have discovered a new file-encrypting ransomware , dubbed OSX/Filecoder.E , targeting MacOS that is being distributed through bittorrent websites. “ Early last week , we have seen a new ransomware campaign for Mac . This new ransomware , written in Swift , is distributed via BitTorrent distribution sites and calls itself “ Patcher ” , ostensibly an application for pirating popular software. ” reads the analysis published by ESET . The bad news for the victims is that they will not be able to recover their files , even if they pay the ransomAttack.Ransom. MacOS ransomware is not common in the threat landscape , this is the second such malware discovered by the security experts after the researchers spotted the Keranger threat in March 2016 . The OSX/Filecoder.E MacOS ransomware masqueradesAttack.Phishingitself as a cracking tool for commercial software like Adobe Premiere Pro CC and Microsoft Office for Mac . The fake cracking tool is being distributed as a bittorrent download . The malware researchers noted that the ransomware is written in Apple ’ s Swift programming language and it appears to be the result of the work of a novice Vxer . The MacOS ransomware is hard to install on the last OS X and MacOS versions because the installer is not signed with a developer certificate issued by Apple . The OSX/Filecoder.E MacOS ransomware generates a single encryption key for all files and then stores the files in encrypted zip archives . Unfortunately , the malicious code is not able to send the encryption key to the C & C server before being destroyed , this makes impossible the file decryption . The experts highlighted that implementation of the encryption process is effective and makes impossible to crack it . “ There is one big problem with this ransomware : it doesn ’ t have any code to communicate with any C & C server . This means that there is no way the key that was used to encrypt the files can be sent to the malware operators. ” continues the analysis . “ The random ZIP password is generated with arc4random_uniform which is considered a secure random number generator , ” “ The key is also too long to brute force in a reasonable amount of time. ” At the time I was writing , the monitoring to the bitcoin wallet address used to receive the paymentAttack.Ransomof the victims revealed that none has paid the ransomAttack.Ransom. Experts believe that the crooks behind OSX/Filecoder . E are likely interested in scamming the victims instead of managing a botnet . “ This new crypto-ransomware , designed specifically for macOS , is surely not a masterpiece . Unfortunately , it ’ s still effective enough to prevent the victims accessing their own files and could cause serious damage. ” closed the analysis .
After the ransackingAttack.Databreachof MongoDB , ElasticSearch , Hadoop , CouchDB , and Cassandra servers , attackers are now hijacking hundreds of MySQL databases , deleting their content , and leaving a ransom note behind asking forAttack.Ransoma 0.2 Bitcoin ( $ 235 ) paymentAttack.Ransom. According to breach detection firm GuardiCore , the attacks are happening via brute-force attacks on Internet-exposed MySQL servers , and there 's plenty of those laying around since MySQL is one of today 's most popular database systems . All attacks came from a server in the Netherlands Based on currently available evidence , the attacks started on February 12 , and only lasted for 30 hours , during which time attackers attempted to brute-force their way into MySQL root accounts . Investigators said all attacks came from the same IP address from the Netherlands , 109.236.88.20 , belonging to a hosting company called WorldStream . During their ransackingAttack.Databreach, attackers did n't behave in a constant pattern , making it hard to attribute the hacks to one group , despite the usage of the same IP . For example , after gaining access to MySQL servers , attackers created a new database called PLEASE_READ and left a table inside it called WARNING that contained their ransom demandsAttack.Ransom. In some cases , attackers only created the WARNING table and left it inside an already existing database , without creating a new one . Investigators report that attackers would then dump the database 's content and delete it afterward , leaving only the one holding their ransomAttack.Ransom. In some cases , attackers deleted the databases without dumping any data . Attackers have their own website Two ransom notes have been found in the hundreds of confirmed attacksAttack.Ransom, one askingAttack.Ransomvictims to get in contact via email and confirm the payment , while the other used a completely different mode of operation , redirecting users to a Tor-hosted website . The two Bitcoin addresses listed in the ransom notes received four and six paymentsAttack.Ransom, respectively , albeit GuardiCore experts doubt that all are from victims . `` We can not tell whether it was the attackers who made the transactions to make their victims feel more confident about payingAttack.Ransom, '' they said . Be sure the attacker still has your data Just like in the case of the now infamous MongoDB attacksAttack.Ransomthat have hitAttack.Ransomover 41,000 servers , it 's recommended that victims check logs before deciding to payAttack.Ransomand see if the attackers actually took their data . If companies elect to pay the ransomAttack.Ransom, should always ask the attacker for proof they still have their data . None of this would be an issue if IT teams follow standard security practices that involve using an automated server backup system and deleting the MySQL root account or at least using a strong and hard-to-brute-force password . This is not the first time MySQL servers have been held for ransomAttack.Ransom. The same thing happened in 2015 , in a series of attacksAttack.Ransomcalled RansomWebAttack.Ransom, where attackers used unpatched phpBB forums to hijack databases and hold websites up for ransomAttack.Ransom.
The average ransomware attackAttack.Ransomyielded $ 1,077 last year , new research shows , representing a 266 percent spike from a year earlier . The reason for the landmark year for hackers ? Many ransomware victims readily payAttack.Ransomthe price . The number of attacks , varieties of distinct malware and money lost ballooned as ransomware became one of the top tactics of attackers , according to new research from the security firm Symantec . Some of the most high-profile ransomware incidentsAttack.Ransomof the last year include San Francisco ’ s Muni getting hitAttack.Ransom, Washington D.C. ’ s police department being breachedAttack.Databreachjust before inauguration and a Los Angeles college payingAttack.Ransoma $ 28,000 ransomAttack.Ransom. Hoping to turn the tide against the billion-dollar ransomware industry , last year the FBI urged businesses to alert authorities and not pay upAttack.Ransom. Instead , most keep attacksAttack.Ransoma secret , paying offAttack.Ransomhackers 70 percent of the time . That behavior only increases the sweet spot for demandsAttack.Ransom, as criminals seek the highest possible ransomAttack.Ransomwhile trying to avoid the attention of law enforcement . Economists say hackers who apply more sophisticated pricing techniques “ could lead to dramatic increases in profits at relatively little costs . ” The highest demandAttack.Ransomseen in public during the last was $ 28,730 from MIRCOP ransomware . It ’ s not clear if anyone actually paid offAttack.Ransomthose specific hackers . In private , however , higher ransomsAttack.Ransomare finding success when hackers successfully target the right companies . An IBM Security study from December 2016 found that over half of the businesses they surveyed said they had already paidAttack.Ransomover $ 10,000 in ransomAttack.Ransomwhile 20 percent said they ’ d paidAttack.Ransomover $ 40,000 . Globally , 34 percent of victims end up paying ransomAttack.Ransom. American victims , however , pay at a rate of 64 percent , according to Norton . “ That ’ s a phenomenal number , ” Symantec ’ s Kevin Haley told CyberScoop . “ I always compare it to direct mail where if you get a 1 percent rate you ’ re doing really good . These guys get a 34 percent return rate . Extortion really paysAttack.Ransom. ” The twist of the knife comes when only 47 percent of victims who pay the ransomAttack.Ransomactually recover any files . “ If so many people are willing to pay the ransomAttack.Ransom, there ’ s no reason for the price to come down , ” Haley said . “ In fact , it ’ s only going to go up . We may see that average go even higher until that price ceiling is discovered when so many people aren ’ t willing to pay that much . But we haven ’ t hit it yet . ”
The average ransomware attackAttack.Ransomyielded $ 1,077 last year , new research shows , representing a 266 percent spike from a year earlier . The reason for the landmark year for hackers ? Many ransomware victims readily payAttack.Ransomthe price . The number of attacks , varieties of distinct malware and money lost ballooned as ransomware became one of the top tactics of attackers , according to new research from the security firm Symantec . Some of the most high-profile ransomware incidentsAttack.Ransomof the last year include San Francisco ’ s Muni getting hitAttack.Ransom, Washington D.C. ’ s police department being breachedAttack.Databreachjust before inauguration and a Los Angeles college payingAttack.Ransoma $ 28,000 ransomAttack.Ransom. Hoping to turn the tide against the billion-dollar ransomware industry , last year the FBI urged businesses to alert authorities and not pay upAttack.Ransom. Instead , most keep attacksAttack.Ransoma secret , paying offAttack.Ransomhackers 70 percent of the time . That behavior only increases the sweet spot for demandsAttack.Ransom, as criminals seek the highest possible ransomAttack.Ransomwhile trying to avoid the attention of law enforcement . Economists say hackers who apply more sophisticated pricing techniques “ could lead to dramatic increases in profits at relatively little costs . ” The highest demandAttack.Ransomseen in public during the last was $ 28,730 from MIRCOP ransomware . It ’ s not clear if anyone actually paid offAttack.Ransomthose specific hackers . In private , however , higher ransomsAttack.Ransomare finding success when hackers successfully target the right companies . An IBM Security study from December 2016 found that over half of the businesses they surveyed said they had already paidAttack.Ransomover $ 10,000 in ransomAttack.Ransomwhile 20 percent said they ’ d paidAttack.Ransomover $ 40,000 . Globally , 34 percent of victims end up paying ransomAttack.Ransom. American victims , however , pay at a rate of 64 percent , according to Norton . “ That ’ s a phenomenal number , ” Symantec ’ s Kevin Haley told CyberScoop . “ I always compare it to direct mail where if you get a 1 percent rate you ’ re doing really good . These guys get a 34 percent return rate . Extortion really paysAttack.Ransom. ” The twist of the knife comes when only 47 percent of victims who pay the ransomAttack.Ransomactually recover any files . “ If so many people are willing to pay the ransomAttack.Ransom, there ’ s no reason for the price to come down , ” Haley said . “ In fact , it ’ s only going to go up . We may see that average go even higher until that price ceiling is discovered when so many people aren ’ t willing to pay that much . But we haven ’ t hit it yet . ”
The email-borne attack locked the city ’ s servers and many of the daily business functions , officials said . ( TNS ) -- SPRING HILL , Tenn. — The city was the victim of a recent cyber-attackAttack.Ransom, which caused its computer system to lock with a ransomAttack.Ransomof $ 250,000 . Spring Hill was one of several other local government agencies who were victim to the attackAttack.Ransom, and city officials say they do not believe any citizen or customer account information was stolenAttack.Databreachor compromisedAttack.Databreach. It did , however , temporarily halt any online credit or debit card payments . `` We received a ransomware attackAttack.RansomFriday evening that ended up going in and locking our servers . It affected all of our departments , and we have been in recovery mode ever since [ Sunday ] , '' City Administrator Victor Lay said . `` We 've now been able to , at least minimally , conduct business , although the manual system of paper and pencil seems to work pretty well against those kinds of things . '' Lay added that the `` appropriate government authorities '' have been contacted about the incident , which will meet later this week to discuss an investigation into the incident . He said it was not a `` hack '' per se , but a virus created from a downloadable email attachment , locking the system using an encryption key . `` We 're working through it . Obviously , we chose not to pay the ransomAttack.Ransom. We 're working through the system and it 's going to take us a few days to get things all back to normal , but we 're getting there . ''
DDoS extortionists have already pounced on the Memcached DDoS attack vector in attempts to extract paymentsAttack.Ransomfrom attacked companies . Akamai revealed earlier today that it detected DDoS attacks executed via Memcached servers that were different from others . Instead of blasting targets with UDP packets containing random data , one group of attackers is leaving short messages inside these packets . This one group is askingAttack.Ransomvictims to payAttack.Ransom50 Monero —around $ 17,000— to a Monero address . The group does n't say it will stop the attack but only implies it . Such attacks have first appeared in 2015 and were initially referred to as DDoS-for-Bitcoin after the DD4BTC group that pioneered such tactics . The group would send emails to various companies , threatening to launch DDoS attacks unless they paid a ransom feeAttack.Ransom. Even if the group 's members were arrested , other factions appeared in subsequent years , using unique names such as Armada Collective or XMR Squad , but also mimicking hacker groups such as Anonymous or LulzSec . The tactic , now known as ransom DDoS (RDoS)Attack.Ransom, has become quite popular among cybercriminal groups , and there have been too many RDoS campaignsAttack.Ransomto remember in the past years . In most past cases , attackers did n't have the firepower to launch DDoS attacks if victims ignored the ransom demandAttack.Ransom. But the Memcached-based DDoS extortionsAttack.Ransomare different . Attackers clearly have the DDoS cannon to take down companies , mainly due to the large number of unsecured Memcached servers they can abuse to launch these attacksAttack.Ransom. Victims are also more likely to payAttack.Ransom, seeing that they 're under a heavy attackAttack.Ransomand this is n't just an empty threat . But according to Daniel Smith , a Radware security researcher who spoke with Bleeping Computer , paying the Monero ransomAttack.Ransomwo n't help companies at all.That 's because attackers have used the same Monero address for multiple DDoS attacks against different targets . Here 's the same Monero address from the Akamai attacks , but spotted by a different security researcher . Attackers would n't have the ability to tell which of the multiple targets they attacked paid the ransomAttack.Ransom. The general consensus is that this group is using a carpet bombing technique , hittingAttack.Ransomas many targets as possible for short bursts , hoping to scare one into payingAttack.Ransom. `` Multiple targets are sent the same message in hopes that any of them will pay the ransomAttack.Ransom, '' Akamai said in a report today , echoing Smith 's recommendation not to pay the ransomAttack.Ransom. `` There is no sign to suggest that they are actively tracking the targets reaction to the attacks , no contact information , no detailed instructions on payment notification , '' Akamai added . `` If a victim were to deposit the requested amountAttack.Ransominto the wallet , we doubt the attackers would even know which victim the paymentAttack.Ransomoriginated from , let alone stop their attacks as a result . ''
( TNS ) — Last month , employees at the Colorado Department of Transportation were greeted by a message on their computer screens similar to this : “ All your files are encrypted with RSA-2048 encryption . … It ’ s not possible to recover your files without private key . … You must sendAttack.Ransomus 0.7 BitCoin for each affected PC or 3 BitCoins to receive ALL Private Keys for ALL affected PC ’ s. ” CDOT isn’t payingAttack.Ransom, but others have . In fact , so-called ransomware has become one of the most lucrative criminal enterprises in the U.S. and internationally , with the FBI estimating total paymentsAttack.Ransomare nearing $ 1 billion . Hackers use ransomware to encrypt computer files , making them unreadable without a secret key , and then demand digital currencyAttack.Ransomlike bitcoin if victims want the files back — and many victims are falling for that promise . Ransomware infects more than 100,000 computers around the world every day and paymentsAttack.Ransomare approaching $ 1 billion , said U.S. Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein during the October 2017 Cambridge Cyber Summit , citing FBI statistics . A study by researchers at Google , Chainalysis , University of California San Diego and NYU Tandon School of Engineering estimated that from 2016 to mid 2017 , victims paidAttack.Ransom$ 25 million in ransomAttack.Ransomto get files back . And one out of five businesses that do pay the ransomAttack.Ransomdon ’ t get their data back , according to 2016 report by Kaspersky Labs . Last spring , the Erie County Medical Center in New York was attackedAttack.Ransomby SamSam due to a misconfigured web server , according to The Buffalo News . Because it had backed up its files , the hospital decided not to payAttack.Ransomthe estimated $ 44,000 ransomAttack.Ransom. It took six weeks to get back to normal at a recovery cost of nearly $ 10 million . More recently in January , the new SamSam variant sneakedAttack.Ransominto Indiana hospital Hancock Health , which decided to payAttack.Ransom4 bitcoin , or about $ 55,000 , in ransomAttack.Ransom. Attackers gained entry by using a vendor ’ s username and password on a Thursday night . The hospital was back online by Monday morning . Colorado security officials are still investigating the CDOT ransomware attackAttack.Ransomthat took 2,000 employee computers offline for more than a week . They don ’ t plan to pay the ransomAttack.Ransombut offered few details about the attackAttack.Ransomother than confirming it was a variant of the SamSam ransomware . Security researchers with Cisco ’ s Talos , which shared the SamSam message with The Denver Post , reported in January that the new SamSam variant had so far collected 30.4 bitcoin , or about $ 325,217 . The reality is that people need to be smarter about computer security . That means patching software , using anti-malware software , and not sharing passwords and accounts . And not opening files , emails or links from unfamiliar sources — and sometimes familiar sources . Webroot doesn ’ t have an official stance on whether to pay a ransomAttack.Ransomto get files back , but Dufour says it ’ s a personal decision . Cybersecurity companies like Webroot can advise whether the hacker has a reputation for restoring files after payment is receivedAttack.Ransom. “ Paying a ransomAttack.Ransomto a cybercriminal is an incredibly personal decision . It ’ s easy to say not to negotiate with criminals when it ’ s not your family photos or business data that you ’ ll never see again . Unfortunately , if you want your data back , paying the ransomAttack.Ransomis often the only option , ” Dufour said . “ However , it ’ s important to know that there are some strains of ransomware that have coding and encryption errors . For these cases , even paying the ransomAttack.Ransomwon ’ t decrypt your data . I recommend checking with a computer security expert before paying any ransomAttack.Ransom. ”
( TNS ) — Last month , employees at the Colorado Department of Transportation were greeted by a message on their computer screens similar to this : “ All your files are encrypted with RSA-2048 encryption . … It ’ s not possible to recover your files without private key . … You must sendAttack.Ransomus 0.7 BitCoin for each affected PC or 3 BitCoins to receive ALL Private Keys for ALL affected PC ’ s. ” CDOT isn’t payingAttack.Ransom, but others have . In fact , so-called ransomware has become one of the most lucrative criminal enterprises in the U.S. and internationally , with the FBI estimating total paymentsAttack.Ransomare nearing $ 1 billion . Hackers use ransomware to encrypt computer files , making them unreadable without a secret key , and then demand digital currencyAttack.Ransomlike bitcoin if victims want the files back — and many victims are falling for that promise . Ransomware infects more than 100,000 computers around the world every day and paymentsAttack.Ransomare approaching $ 1 billion , said U.S. Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein during the October 2017 Cambridge Cyber Summit , citing FBI statistics . A study by researchers at Google , Chainalysis , University of California San Diego and NYU Tandon School of Engineering estimated that from 2016 to mid 2017 , victims paidAttack.Ransom$ 25 million in ransomAttack.Ransomto get files back . And one out of five businesses that do pay the ransomAttack.Ransomdon ’ t get their data back , according to 2016 report by Kaspersky Labs . Last spring , the Erie County Medical Center in New York was attackedAttack.Ransomby SamSam due to a misconfigured web server , according to The Buffalo News . Because it had backed up its files , the hospital decided not to payAttack.Ransomthe estimated $ 44,000 ransomAttack.Ransom. It took six weeks to get back to normal at a recovery cost of nearly $ 10 million . More recently in January , the new SamSam variant sneakedAttack.Ransominto Indiana hospital Hancock Health , which decided to payAttack.Ransom4 bitcoin , or about $ 55,000 , in ransomAttack.Ransom. Attackers gained entry by using a vendor ’ s username and password on a Thursday night . The hospital was back online by Monday morning . Colorado security officials are still investigating the CDOT ransomware attackAttack.Ransomthat took 2,000 employee computers offline for more than a week . They don ’ t plan to pay the ransomAttack.Ransombut offered few details about the attackAttack.Ransomother than confirming it was a variant of the SamSam ransomware . Security researchers with Cisco ’ s Talos , which shared the SamSam message with The Denver Post , reported in January that the new SamSam variant had so far collected 30.4 bitcoin , or about $ 325,217 . The reality is that people need to be smarter about computer security . That means patching software , using anti-malware software , and not sharing passwords and accounts . And not opening files , emails or links from unfamiliar sources — and sometimes familiar sources . Webroot doesn ’ t have an official stance on whether to pay a ransomAttack.Ransomto get files back , but Dufour says it ’ s a personal decision . Cybersecurity companies like Webroot can advise whether the hacker has a reputation for restoring files after payment is receivedAttack.Ransom. “ Paying a ransomAttack.Ransomto a cybercriminal is an incredibly personal decision . It ’ s easy to say not to negotiate with criminals when it ’ s not your family photos or business data that you ’ ll never see again . Unfortunately , if you want your data back , paying the ransomAttack.Ransomis often the only option , ” Dufour said . “ However , it ’ s important to know that there are some strains of ransomware that have coding and encryption errors . For these cases , even paying the ransomAttack.Ransomwon ’ t decrypt your data . I recommend checking with a computer security expert before paying any ransomAttack.Ransom. ”
Hackers logged into the hospital ’ s remote access portal using a third-party vendor ’ s username and password . Greenfield , Indiana-based Hancock Health paidAttack.Ransomhackers 4 bitcoin or about $ 47,000 to unlock its network on Saturday , after the health system fell victim to a ransomware attackAttack.Ransomon Thursday night . Hackers compromisedAttack.Databreacha third-party vendor ’ s administrative account to the hospital ’ s remote-access portal and launched SamSam ransomware . The virus infected a number of the hospital ’ s IT system and , according to local reports , the malware targeted over 1,400 files and changed the name of each to “ I ’ m sorry. ” Hancock officials followed its incident response and crisis management plan and contacted legal representation and outside security firm immediately following the discovery of the attack . Hospital leadership also contacted the FBI for advisory assistance . The incident was contained by Friday and officials said the next focus was recovery . Hancock Health was given just seven days to pay the ransomAttack.Ransom. While officials said Hancock could have recovered the affected files from backups , it would have taken days or possibly weeks to do so . And it would have been more expensive . “ We were in a very precarious situation at the time of the attack , ” Hancock Health CEO Steve Long said in a statement . “ With the ice and snow storm at hand , coupled with one of the worst flu seasons in memory , we wanted to recover our systems in the quickest way possible and avoid extending the burden toward other hospitals of diverting patients . Restoring from backup was considered , though we made the deliberate decision to pay the ransomAttack.Ransomto expedite our return to full operations. ” Hackers released the files early Saturday after they retrieved the bitcoins . The hospital ’ s critical systems were restored to normal function on Monday . The forensic analysis found patient data was not transferredAttack.Databreachoutside of the hospital ’ s network , and the FBI confirmed the motivation for SamSam hackers is ransom paymentAttack.Ransom, not to harvestAttack.Databreachpatient data . The virus did not impact any equipment used to treat patients . However , the hospital ’ s patient portal was down during the security incident . After recovery , officials asked employees to reset passwords and implemented a security feature that could detect similar attacks in the future . The breachAttack.Databreachshould serve as a wake-up call that ransomware attacksAttack.Ransomcan happen . However , it ’ s important to note the FBI , the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and a laundry list of security experts have long stressed that organizations should not pay ransomsAttack.Ransomto hackers . While the hackers returned the files to Hancock , there was no guarantee that would happen . For example , Kansas Heart Hospital paid a ransomAttack.Ransomin May 2016 , and the hackers kept the files and demanded another paymentAttack.Ransom. The hospital declined to payAttack.Ransoma second time . Secondly , when an organization paysAttack.Ransom, hackers place the business on a list of those willing to pay the ransomAttack.Ransomand can expect to be hitAttack.Ransomagain in the future . “ There are lists out there , if you pay once , you may end up having to pay again because you ’ ve been marked as an organization that will pay , ” said CynergisTek CEO Mac McMillan .
Hackers logged into the hospital ’ s remote access portal using a third-party vendor ’ s username and password . Greenfield , Indiana-based Hancock Health paidAttack.Ransomhackers 4 bitcoin or about $ 47,000 to unlock its network on Saturday , after the health system fell victim to a ransomware attackAttack.Ransomon Thursday night . Hackers compromisedAttack.Databreacha third-party vendor ’ s administrative account to the hospital ’ s remote-access portal and launched SamSam ransomware . The virus infected a number of the hospital ’ s IT system and , according to local reports , the malware targeted over 1,400 files and changed the name of each to “ I ’ m sorry. ” Hancock officials followed its incident response and crisis management plan and contacted legal representation and outside security firm immediately following the discovery of the attack . Hospital leadership also contacted the FBI for advisory assistance . The incident was contained by Friday and officials said the next focus was recovery . Hancock Health was given just seven days to pay the ransomAttack.Ransom. While officials said Hancock could have recovered the affected files from backups , it would have taken days or possibly weeks to do so . And it would have been more expensive . “ We were in a very precarious situation at the time of the attack , ” Hancock Health CEO Steve Long said in a statement . “ With the ice and snow storm at hand , coupled with one of the worst flu seasons in memory , we wanted to recover our systems in the quickest way possible and avoid extending the burden toward other hospitals of diverting patients . Restoring from backup was considered , though we made the deliberate decision to pay the ransomAttack.Ransomto expedite our return to full operations. ” Hackers released the files early Saturday after they retrieved the bitcoins . The hospital ’ s critical systems were restored to normal function on Monday . The forensic analysis found patient data was not transferredAttack.Databreachoutside of the hospital ’ s network , and the FBI confirmed the motivation for SamSam hackers is ransom paymentAttack.Ransom, not to harvestAttack.Databreachpatient data . The virus did not impact any equipment used to treat patients . However , the hospital ’ s patient portal was down during the security incident . After recovery , officials asked employees to reset passwords and implemented a security feature that could detect similar attacks in the future . The breachAttack.Databreachshould serve as a wake-up call that ransomware attacksAttack.Ransomcan happen . However , it ’ s important to note the FBI , the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and a laundry list of security experts have long stressed that organizations should not pay ransomsAttack.Ransomto hackers . While the hackers returned the files to Hancock , there was no guarantee that would happen . For example , Kansas Heart Hospital paid a ransomAttack.Ransomin May 2016 , and the hackers kept the files and demanded another paymentAttack.Ransom. The hospital declined to payAttack.Ransoma second time . Secondly , when an organization paysAttack.Ransom, hackers place the business on a list of those willing to pay the ransomAttack.Ransomand can expect to be hitAttack.Ransomagain in the future . “ There are lists out there , if you pay once , you may end up having to pay again because you ’ ve been marked as an organization that will pay , ” said CynergisTek CEO Mac McMillan .
Hackers logged into the hospital ’ s remote access portal using a third-party vendor ’ s username and password . Greenfield , Indiana-based Hancock Health paidAttack.Ransomhackers 4 bitcoin or about $ 47,000 to unlock its network on Saturday , after the health system fell victim to a ransomware attackAttack.Ransomon Thursday night . Hackers compromisedAttack.Databreacha third-party vendor ’ s administrative account to the hospital ’ s remote-access portal and launched SamSam ransomware . The virus infected a number of the hospital ’ s IT system and , according to local reports , the malware targeted over 1,400 files and changed the name of each to “ I ’ m sorry. ” Hancock officials followed its incident response and crisis management plan and contacted legal representation and outside security firm immediately following the discovery of the attack . Hospital leadership also contacted the FBI for advisory assistance . The incident was contained by Friday and officials said the next focus was recovery . Hancock Health was given just seven days to pay the ransomAttack.Ransom. While officials said Hancock could have recovered the affected files from backups , it would have taken days or possibly weeks to do so . And it would have been more expensive . “ We were in a very precarious situation at the time of the attack , ” Hancock Health CEO Steve Long said in a statement . “ With the ice and snow storm at hand , coupled with one of the worst flu seasons in memory , we wanted to recover our systems in the quickest way possible and avoid extending the burden toward other hospitals of diverting patients . Restoring from backup was considered , though we made the deliberate decision to pay the ransomAttack.Ransomto expedite our return to full operations. ” Hackers released the files early Saturday after they retrieved the bitcoins . The hospital ’ s critical systems were restored to normal function on Monday . The forensic analysis found patient data was not transferredAttack.Databreachoutside of the hospital ’ s network , and the FBI confirmed the motivation for SamSam hackers is ransom paymentAttack.Ransom, not to harvestAttack.Databreachpatient data . The virus did not impact any equipment used to treat patients . However , the hospital ’ s patient portal was down during the security incident . After recovery , officials asked employees to reset passwords and implemented a security feature that could detect similar attacks in the future . The breachAttack.Databreachshould serve as a wake-up call that ransomware attacksAttack.Ransomcan happen . However , it ’ s important to note the FBI , the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and a laundry list of security experts have long stressed that organizations should not pay ransomsAttack.Ransomto hackers . While the hackers returned the files to Hancock , there was no guarantee that would happen . For example , Kansas Heart Hospital paid a ransomAttack.Ransomin May 2016 , and the hackers kept the files and demanded another paymentAttack.Ransom. The hospital declined to payAttack.Ransoma second time . Secondly , when an organization paysAttack.Ransom, hackers place the business on a list of those willing to pay the ransomAttack.Ransomand can expect to be hitAttack.Ransomagain in the future . “ There are lists out there , if you pay once , you may end up having to pay again because you ’ ve been marked as an organization that will pay , ” said CynergisTek CEO Mac McMillan .
In wake of an attack on computers at Colorado ’ s DOT , experts at Webroot shed light on ransomware Last month , employees at the Colorado Department of Transportation were greeted by a message on their computer screens similar to this : “ All your files are encrypted with RSA-2048 encryption . … It ’ s not possible to recover your files without private key . … You must sendAttack.Ransomus 0.7 BitCoin for each affected PC or 3 BitCoins to receive ALL Private Keys for ALL affected PC ’ s. ” CDOT isn ’ t payingAttack.Ransom, but others have . In fact , so-called ransomware has become one of the most lucrative criminal enterprises in the U.S. and internationally , with the FBI estimating total paymentsAttack.Ransomare nearing $ 1 billion . Hackers use ransomware to encrypt computer files , making them unreadable without a secret key , and then demand digital currencyAttack.Ransomlike bitcoin if victims want the files back — and many victims are falling for that promise . To better understand how ransomware works and how it has spread so effectively , The Denver Post talked with Broomfield anti-malware company Webroot , which got its start in the late 1990s cleansing computer viruses from personal computers . “ The end goal is just to put ransomware on the computer because right now the most successful way for cybercriminals to make money is with ransomingAttack.Ransomyour files , ” said Tyler Moffitt , a senior threat research analyst at Webroot . Ransomware infects more than 100,000 computers around the world every day and paymentsAttack.Ransomare approaching $ 1 billion , said U.S. Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein during the October 2017 Cambridge Cyber Summit , citing FBI statistics . A study by researchers at Google , Chainalysis , University of California San Diego and NYU Tandon School of Engineering estimated that from 2016 to mid 2017 , victims paidAttack.Ransom$ 25 million in ransomAttack.Ransomto get files back . And one out of five businesses that do pay the ransomAttack.Ransomdon ’ t get their data back , according to 2016 report by Kaspersky Labs . It ’ s a growing business for cybercriminals . And whether to pay or not is something each user or company must decide . Last spring , the Erie County Medical Center in New York was attackedAttack.Ransomby SamSam due to a misconfigured web server , according to The Buffalo News . Because it had backed up its files , the hospital decided not to payAttack.Ransomthe estimated $ 44,000 ransomAttack.Ransom. It took six weeks to get back to normal at a recovery cost of nearly $ 10 million . More recently in January , the new SamSam variant sneakedAttack.Ransominto Indiana hospital Hancock Health , which decided to payAttack.Ransom4 bitcoin , or about $ 55,000 , in ransomAttack.Ransom. Attackers gained entry by using a vendor ’ s username and password on a Thursday night . The hospital was back online by Monday morning . Other times , malware isn ’ t so obvious . Some propagate when user visits infected websites . A trojan named Poweliks injected bad code into vulnerable programs , like an unpatched Internet Explorer . Poweliks crept into the Windows registry to force the computer to do all sorts of nasty things , from demanding a ransomAttack.Ransomto joining a click-fraud bot network to click ads without the user even realizing it . There also are booby-trapped ads , known as malvertising . They get into computers by , again , targeting flawed software and injecting malicious code . This has targeted programs like unpatched Adobe Flash Player , Java or other runtime software , or software that runs online all the time .
INDIANAPOLIS — An Indiana hospital said it paidAttack.Ransoma $ 50,000 ransomAttack.Ransomto hackers who hijacked patient data . The ransomware attackAttack.Ransomaccessed the computers of Hancock Health in Greenfield through an outside vendor 's account Thursday . It quickly infected the system by locking out data and changing the names of more than 1,400 files to `` I 'm sorry . '' The virus demandedAttack.Ransomfour bitcoins in exchange for unlocking the data , which included patient medical records and company emails . The hospital paidAttack.Ransomthe amount , about $ 50,000 at the time , early Saturday morning , said Rob Matt , senior vice president and chief strategy officer . `` It was n't an easy decision , '' Matt said . `` When you weigh the cost of delivering high-quality care ... versus not paying and bearing the consequences of a new system . '' The data started unlocking soon after the money was transferred , Matt said . `` The amount of the ransomAttack.Ransomwas reasonable in respect to the cost of continuing down time and not being able to care for patients , '' Matt said . Hancock Health includes about two dozen health care facilities , including Hancock Regional Hospital in Greenfield , about 15 miles east of Indianapolis . The health system said in a news release that patient data was not compromisedAttack.Databreach. Life support and other critical hospital services were not affected , and patient safety was never at risk . Ransomware is a growing digital extortion technique that affected tens of thousands of Americans in 2016 , USA TODAY reported . Criminals use various phishing methodsAttack.Phishingthrough emails or bogus links to infect victims with malicious software . The virus infects the computer network by encrypting files or locking down the entire system . Victims log on and receive a message telling them the files have been hijacked and to get the files back they will have to payAttack.Ransom. Hospitals are a frequent target of these attacks . In May , a ransomware virus affected more than 200,000 victims in 150 countries , including more than 20 % of hospitals in the United Kingdom . That attack was later traced to North Korea . Hancock Health said it worked with the FBI and hired an Indianapolis cybersecurity expert for advice on how to respond to the attack . The systems were back Monday after paying the ransomAttack.Ransom. “ We were in a very precarious situation at the time of the attack , '' Hancock Health CEO Steve Long said in a statement . `` With the ice and snowstorm at hand , coupled with the one of the worst flu seasons in memory , we wanted to recover our systems in the quickest way possible . '' Hospital officials could have retrieved back up files , but Long said they feared restoring the hijacked data would take too long . `` We made the deliberate decision , ” Long said , `` to pay the ransomAttack.Ransomto expedite our return to full operations . ''
Six weeks after ransomware forced Colorado Department of Transportation ’ s back-end operations offline , the agency is back to 80 percent functionality — at an estimated cost of up to $ 1.5 million , according to the state . Colorado officials said they never caved to the attacker ’ s demands to pay bitcoinAttack.Ransomin order to recover encrypted computer files . But clearing each computer took time and additional resources — including the Colorado National Guard — to investigate , contain and recover . “ We were able to recover from the SamSam attack relatively quickly due to our robust backup plan and our segmentation strategies , ” Brandi Simmons , a spokesperson for Colorado ’ s Office of Information Technology , said in an email . “ We are still capturing costs associated with the incident , but our estimate is between $ 1M and $ 1.5M. ” What started with a core team of 25 IT employees , Simmons said , ballooned to 150 “ during the peak of the incident ” — March 2-9 . She added that others included CDOT , the FBI , state emergency operations and private companies . The million-dollar estimate includes only overtime pay and other unexpected costs . The state ’ s new backup system prevented data loss , but personal data on employees ’ computers may not be recovered . The cyberattack started around Feb 21 when a variant of the SamSam ransomware hijacked CDOT computer files . CDOT shut down more than 2,000 computers . Its employees had to use personal devices to check email . The state did not share the value of bitcoin that attackers demandedAttack.Ransom. Elsewhere , SamSam attacked the city of Atlanta , debilitating computer systems that residents used to pay traffic tickets , report potholes and access Wi-Fi at the airport . The city hasn ’ t issued a public update since March 30 , and a city spokesman said Thursday there is nothing new to share . Attackers demandedAttack.Ransom$ 51,000 worth of bitcoin . Asked whether Atlanta has paid the ransomAttack.Ransom, spokeswoman Anne Torres said : “ Unfortunately , we can not comment further on the ransomAttack.Ransom. ” The rise of ransomware attacksAttack.Ransomhas caused some to wonder whether it ’ s worth paying to avoid business outages — Hancock Health in Indiana paidAttack.Ransom$ 55,000 to get its files back . Dan Likarish , a computer professor at Denver ’ s Regis University , said there ’ s still a good reason not to do it . “ If you pay the ransomAttack.Ransom, you ’ re supporting the criminal , ” said Likarish , adding there ’ s also no guarantee the attacker will return computer files intact . “ The weasel answer ? It ’ s a risk mitigation . That ’ s the way we label ourselves . We talk to upper management , present the business case that we ’ ve identified the problem , let ’ s just pay . That ’ s what a lot of hospitals have done . It ’ s not unusual to pay for the key and go about your business . It depends on how sophisticated your security staff is . If you don ’ t have it , what do you do ? You ’ ve got to keep things running. ” Likarish said he was able to help with efforts to contain the CDOT attack and was in awe at how the state ’ s IT office swooped in and took command . While IT staff had already updated its own computer operations , not every state agency is on the same system , including CDOT . “ People are listening to them now , ” Likarish said .
The city has spent the past two weeks restoring online services disruptedAttack.Ransomby ransomware that held encrypted data hostage . Soon after Atlanta City Auditor Amanda Noble logged onto her work computer the morning of March 22 , she knew something was wrong . The icons on her desktop looked different—in some cases replaced with black rectangles—and she noticed many of the files on her desktop had been renamed with “ weapologize ” or “ imsorry ” extensions . Noble called the city ’ s chief information security officer to report the problem and left a message . Next , she called the help desk and was put on hold for a while . “ At that point , I realized that I wasn ’ t the only one in the office with computer problems , ” Noble says . Those computer problems were part of a high-profile “ransomware” cyberattackAttack.Ransomon the City of Atlanta that has lasted nearly two weeks and has yet to be fully resolved . During that time the metropolis has struggled to recover encrypted data on employees ’ computers and restore services on the municipal Web site . The criminals initially gave the city seven days to payAttack.Ransomabout $ 51,000 in the cryptocurrency bitcoin to get the decryption key for their data . That deadline came and went last week , yet several services remain offline , suggesting the city likely did not pay the ransomAttack.Ransom. City officials would not comment on the matter when contacted by Scientific American . The Department of Watershed Management , for example , still can not accept online or telephone payments for water and sewage bills , nor can the Department of Finance issue business licenses through its Web page . The Atlanta Municipal Court has been unable to process ticket payments either online or in person due to the outage and has had to reschedule some of its hearings . The city took down two of its online services voluntarily as a security precaution : the Hartsfield–Jackson Atlanta International Airport wi-fi network and the ability to process service requests via the city ’ s 311 Web site portal , according to Anne Torres , Atlanta ’ s director of communications . Both are now back online , with airport wi-fi restored Tuesday morning . The ransomware used to attack Atlanta is called SamSam . Like most malicious software it typically enters computer networks through software whose security protections have not been updated . When attackers findVulnerability-related.DiscoverVulnerabilityvulnerabilities in a network , they use the ransomware to encrypt files there and demand paymentAttack.Ransomto unlock them . Earlier this year attackers used a derivative of SamSam to lock up files at Hancock Regional Hospital in Greenfield , Ind . The health care institution paidAttack.Ransomnearly $ 50,000 to retrieve patient data . “ The SamSam ransomware used to attackAttack.RansomAtlanta is interesting because it gets into a network and spreads to multiple computers before locking them up , ” says Jake Williams , founder of computer security firm Rendition Infosec . “ The victim then has greater incentive to pay a larger ransomAttack.Ransomin order to regain control of that network of locked computers. ” The city ’ s technology department—Atlanta Information Management ( AIM ) —contacted local law enforcement , along with the FBI , Department of Homeland Security , Secret Service and independent forensic experts to help assess the damage and investigate the attack . The attackers set upAttack.Ransoman online payment portal for the city but soon took the site offline after a local television station published a screen shot of the ransom note , which included a link to the bitcoin wallet meant to collect the ransomAttack.Ransom. Several clues indicate Atlanta likely did not payAttack.Ransomthe attackers , Williams says . “ Ransomware gangs typically cut off communications once their victims get law enforcement involved , ” he says . “ Atlanta made it clear at a press conference soon after the malware was detected ” that they had done so . The length of time it has taken to slowly bring services back online also suggests the cyber criminals abandoned Atlanta without decrypting the city ’ s files , Williams says . “ If that ’ s the case , the city ’ s IT staff spent the past week rebuilding Atlanta ’ s online systems using backed-up data that had not been hitAttack.Ransomby the ransomware , ” he says , adding that any data not backed up is likely “ lost for good. ” “ If the city had paid the ransomAttack.Ransom, I would have expected them to bring up systems more quickly than they have done , ” says Justin Cappos , a professor of computer science and engineering at New York University ’ s Tandon School of Engineering . “ Assuming the city did not pay the ransomAttack.Ransom, their ability to recover their systems at all shows that they at least did a good job backing up their data . ”
The city has spent the past two weeks restoring online services disruptedAttack.Ransomby ransomware that held encrypted data hostage . Soon after Atlanta City Auditor Amanda Noble logged onto her work computer the morning of March 22 , she knew something was wrong . The icons on her desktop looked different—in some cases replaced with black rectangles—and she noticed many of the files on her desktop had been renamed with “ weapologize ” or “ imsorry ” extensions . Noble called the city ’ s chief information security officer to report the problem and left a message . Next , she called the help desk and was put on hold for a while . “ At that point , I realized that I wasn ’ t the only one in the office with computer problems , ” Noble says . Those computer problems were part of a high-profile “ransomware” cyberattackAttack.Ransomon the City of Atlanta that has lasted nearly two weeks and has yet to be fully resolved . During that time the metropolis has struggled to recover encrypted data on employees ’ computers and restore services on the municipal Web site . The criminals initially gave the city seven days to payAttack.Ransomabout $ 51,000 in the cryptocurrency bitcoin to get the decryption key for their data . That deadline came and went last week , yet several services remain offline , suggesting the city likely did not pay the ransomAttack.Ransom. City officials would not comment on the matter when contacted by Scientific American . The Department of Watershed Management , for example , still can not accept online or telephone payments for water and sewage bills , nor can the Department of Finance issue business licenses through its Web page . The Atlanta Municipal Court has been unable to process ticket payments either online or in person due to the outage and has had to reschedule some of its hearings . The city took down two of its online services voluntarily as a security precaution : the Hartsfield–Jackson Atlanta International Airport wi-fi network and the ability to process service requests via the city ’ s 311 Web site portal , according to Anne Torres , Atlanta ’ s director of communications . Both are now back online , with airport wi-fi restored Tuesday morning . The ransomware used to attack Atlanta is called SamSam . Like most malicious software it typically enters computer networks through software whose security protections have not been updated . When attackers findVulnerability-related.DiscoverVulnerabilityvulnerabilities in a network , they use the ransomware to encrypt files there and demand paymentAttack.Ransomto unlock them . Earlier this year attackers used a derivative of SamSam to lock up files at Hancock Regional Hospital in Greenfield , Ind . The health care institution paidAttack.Ransomnearly $ 50,000 to retrieve patient data . “ The SamSam ransomware used to attackAttack.RansomAtlanta is interesting because it gets into a network and spreads to multiple computers before locking them up , ” says Jake Williams , founder of computer security firm Rendition Infosec . “ The victim then has greater incentive to pay a larger ransomAttack.Ransomin order to regain control of that network of locked computers. ” The city ’ s technology department—Atlanta Information Management ( AIM ) —contacted local law enforcement , along with the FBI , Department of Homeland Security , Secret Service and independent forensic experts to help assess the damage and investigate the attack . The attackers set upAttack.Ransoman online payment portal for the city but soon took the site offline after a local television station published a screen shot of the ransom note , which included a link to the bitcoin wallet meant to collect the ransomAttack.Ransom. Several clues indicate Atlanta likely did not payAttack.Ransomthe attackers , Williams says . “ Ransomware gangs typically cut off communications once their victims get law enforcement involved , ” he says . “ Atlanta made it clear at a press conference soon after the malware was detected ” that they had done so . The length of time it has taken to slowly bring services back online also suggests the cyber criminals abandoned Atlanta without decrypting the city ’ s files , Williams says . “ If that ’ s the case , the city ’ s IT staff spent the past week rebuilding Atlanta ’ s online systems using backed-up data that had not been hitAttack.Ransomby the ransomware , ” he says , adding that any data not backed up is likely “ lost for good. ” “ If the city had paid the ransomAttack.Ransom, I would have expected them to bring up systems more quickly than they have done , ” says Justin Cappos , a professor of computer science and engineering at New York University ’ s Tandon School of Engineering . “ Assuming the city did not pay the ransomAttack.Ransom, their ability to recover their systems at all shows that they at least did a good job backing up their data . ”
A malicious website initially set up to extortAttack.Ransomvisitors to pay a cryptocurrency ransomAttack.Ransomhas changed its course . Instead of demanding paymentAttack.Ransomvia Bitcoin , Ethereum , Bitcoin Cash or Litecoin in exchange for not leaking your password on the internet , the site now hijacks your computer ’ s processing power to mine cryptocurrency in the background . Designed as a copy of the Have I Been Pwned attack , the site began by asking users to enter their emails to see if their password has been compromisedAttack.Databreach. Unfortunately , if your password was breachedAttack.Databreach, the site demandedAttack.Ransoma “ donation ” of $ 10 by cryptocurrency to not publish your password in plain text on the web . Up to 1.4 billion passwords may have been breachedAttack.Databreach, but it ’ s unclear how accurate that figure is . However , because it may be easier — and safer — to change your password than pay the ransomAttack.Ransom, as The Next Web noted , the site shifted its focus from demanding ransomware paymentsAttack.Ransomto taking over your PC ’ s processing power to mine for cryptocurrency in the background . The publication also confirmed that the malicious site did “ have a database with legitimate passwords , ” but that not all compromised passwords were stored in plain text . The Next Web did not reveal the site ’ s address in its report , citing security reasons , but noted that it doesn ’ t appear that any user had made payment . This is the latest ransomware in recent months that demandAttack.Ransomcryptocurrency as a form of payment . Prior to this incidentAttack.Ransom, Thanatos encrypted files on a user ’ s PC by hijacking it using a brute force method . If you want to regain access to those files , you had to send paymentAttack.Ransomvia cryptocurrency to get a key to decrypt your files . However , at the time , there didn ’ t appear to be a proper decryption key even if you paid . According to a recent Google report , extortionists made out with $ 25 million in just two years , and cryptocurrency was the preferred way to get paidAttack.Ransom. Hackers are also changing the game when it comes to data theftAttack.Databreach. Rather than leakingAttack.Databreachthe information to the dark markets , an IBM X-Force Intelligence Index report revealed that hackers prefer to hold files hostage in exchange for a ransom paymentAttack.Ransom.
IBM ’ s latest X-Force Threat Intelligence Index report reveals that more than 2.9 billion records were leakedAttack.Databreachthrough publicly disclosed incidents in 2017 . While that sounds horribly bad , there ’ s a bright side to this stormy disclosure : the number is 25 percent lower than the amount of records leakedAttack.Databreachin 2016 . Why ? Because hackers are shifting over to ransomware . They ’ re becoming more focused on holding files hostage for money than on unleashing all that data to the dark markets . According to IBM , this shift to ransomware cost corporations more than $ 8 billion globally during 2017 , a number derived from downtime , ransom paymentsAttack.Ransom, and other impacts on day-to-day business . The global logistics and transportation industries alone lost “ millions of dollars ” in revenue during 2017 due to ransomware attacksAttack.Ransom. Ransomware is a type of malware that infiltrates a network and encrypts files on connected PCs . These files become unrecoverable , and require a “ key ” generated by the hacker to be released from captivity . These keys are provided after a payment using cryptocurrency , adding to the overall cost corporations incur due to downtime . Hiring a third party to recover the files may or may not work , depending on the level of encryption . “ With the potentially irreversible encryption lock of crypto-ransomware , victims without up-to-date backups often choose to pay the ransomAttack.Ransomtheir attackers demandAttack.Ransom, ” the report states . “ Losing one ’ s files on personal devices may cost a few hundred dollars , but that effect extends much further for organizations where infected users could cause the company to lose massive amounts of data , and possibly to have to payAttack.Ransomthe criminals considerable sums of money to get it back. ” The report reveals that many organizations keep cryptocurrency on hand so they can resolve the problem quickly and reduce costly downtime . Law enforcement agencies discourage paymentsAttack.Ransomto hackers , but the rising ransomware “ epidemic ” is getting to the point where it may potentially cost corporations across the globe more than $ 11.5 billion annually by 2019 , according to research by Cybersecurity Ventures . Malware , by contrast , values leaked personal data over the potential financial gain of locking sensitive data on corporate networks .
LabCorp experienced a breach this past weekend , which it nows says was a ransomware attackAttack.Ransom. The intrusion has also prompted concerns that patient data may have also been stolenAttack.Databreach. One of the biggest clinical lab testing companies in the world , LabCorp , was hitAttack.Ransomwith a `` new variant of ransomware '' over the weekend . `` LabCorp promptly took certain systems offline as a part of its comprehensive response to contain and remove the ransomware from its system , '' the company told PCMag in an email . `` We are working to restore additional systems and functions over the next several days . '' LabCorp declined to say what variant of ransomware was used . But according to The Wall Street Journal , the company was hitAttack.Ransomwith a strain known as SamSam . In March , the same strain attackedAttack.Ransomthe city of Atlanta 's IT network . Like other ransomware variants , SamSam will effectively lock down a computer , encrypting all the files inside , and then demandAttack.Ransomthe victim pay upAttack.Ransomto free the system . In the Atlanta attackAttack.Ransom, the anonymous hackers demandedAttack.Ransom$ 51,000 , which the city government reportedly refused to payAttack.Ransom. How much the hackers are demandingAttack.Ransomfrom LabCorp is n't clear ; the company declined to answer further questions about the attackAttack.Ransomor if it will pay the ransomAttack.Ransom. The lab testing provider first reported the breach on Monday , initially describing it as `` suspicious activity '' on the company 's IT systems that relate to healthcare diagnostics . This prompted fears that patient data may have been stolenAttack.Databreach. The North Carolina-based company processes more than 2.5 million lab tests per week and has over 1,900 patient centers across the US . `` LabCorp also has connections to most of the hospitals and other clinics in the United States , '' Pravin Kothari , CEO of cybersecurity firm CipherCloud , said in an email . `` All of this presents , at some point , perhaps an increased risk of cyber attacks propagating and moving through this expanded ecosystem . '' On Thursday , LabCorp issued a new statement and said the attackAttack.Ransomwas a ransomware strain . At this point , the company has found `` no evidence of theftAttack.Databreachor misuse of data , '' but it 's continuing to investigate . `` As part of our in-depth and ongoing investigation into this incident , LabCorp has engaged outside security experts and is working with authorities , including law enforcement , '' the company added .
The Colorado Department of Transportation ( DOT ) has shut down over 2,000 computers after some systems got infected with the SamSam ransomware on Wednesday , February 21 . The agency 's IT staff is working with its antivirus provider McAfee to remediate affected workstations and safeguard other endpoints before before reintroducing PCs into its network . DOT officials told local press [ 1 , 2 ] that crucial systems were not affected , such as those managing road surveillance cameras , traffic alerts , message boards , and others . The agency 's Twitter feed continued to show traffic alerts after the agency shut down much of its employees ' IT network . Colorado DOT will not pay the ransomAttack.RansomIn a rare sign of transparency , officials revealed the name of the ransomware —SamSam . This is the same ransomware strain that infected hospitals , city councils , and ICS firms in January . The hackers made over $ 300,000 from those attacks . One of the victims , an Indiana hospital agreed to payAttack.Ransoma $ 55,000 ransom demandAttack.Ransomdespite having backups . Hospital officials said it was easier and faster to pay the ransomAttack.Ransomthan restore all its computers ' data from backups . DOT officials said they do n't intend to follow suit by paying the ransom demandAttack.Ransomand they will restore from backups . SamSam ransomware making a comeback The SamSam ransomware is a ransomware strain that 's been deployed by a single group . Infection occurs after attackers gain access to a company 's internal networks by brute-forcing RDP connections . Attackers then try to gain access to as many computers on the same network as possible , on which they manually run the SamSam ransomware to encrypt files . In the recent campaigns , SamSam operators usually asked forAttack.Ransoma 1 Bitcoin ransomAttack.Ransomand left a message of `` I 'm sorry '' on victims ' computers . The SamSam group had been previously active in the winter of 2016 but have come back with new attacks . These new attacks have been detailed in reports published by Bleeping Computer , Secureworks , and Cisco Talos .
The Colorado Department of Transportation ( DOT ) has shut down over 2,000 computers after some systems got infected with the SamSam ransomware on Wednesday , February 21 . The agency 's IT staff is working with its antivirus provider McAfee to remediate affected workstations and safeguard other endpoints before before reintroducing PCs into its network . DOT officials told local press [ 1 , 2 ] that crucial systems were not affected , such as those managing road surveillance cameras , traffic alerts , message boards , and others . The agency 's Twitter feed continued to show traffic alerts after the agency shut down much of its employees ' IT network . Colorado DOT will not pay the ransomAttack.RansomIn a rare sign of transparency , officials revealed the name of the ransomware —SamSam . This is the same ransomware strain that infected hospitals , city councils , and ICS firms in January . The hackers made over $ 300,000 from those attacks . One of the victims , an Indiana hospital agreed to payAttack.Ransoma $ 55,000 ransom demandAttack.Ransomdespite having backups . Hospital officials said it was easier and faster to pay the ransomAttack.Ransomthan restore all its computers ' data from backups . DOT officials said they do n't intend to follow suit by paying the ransom demandAttack.Ransomand they will restore from backups . SamSam ransomware making a comeback The SamSam ransomware is a ransomware strain that 's been deployed by a single group . Infection occurs after attackers gain access to a company 's internal networks by brute-forcing RDP connections . Attackers then try to gain access to as many computers on the same network as possible , on which they manually run the SamSam ransomware to encrypt files . In the recent campaigns , SamSam operators usually asked forAttack.Ransoma 1 Bitcoin ransomAttack.Ransomand left a message of `` I 'm sorry '' on victims ' computers . The SamSam group had been previously active in the winter of 2016 but have come back with new attacks . These new attacks have been detailed in reports published by Bleeping Computer , Secureworks , and Cisco Talos .
PhishingAttack.Phishingis one of the most devious scams for filching your personal information , but experts say it is possible to avoid them if you know what you 're looking for . At its essence , phishingAttack.Phishingis the act of pretending to beAttack.Phishingsomeone or something you trust in order to trickAttack.Phishingyou into entering sensitive data like your user name and password . The goal -- of course -- is to take your money . Some of the most common phishing scamsAttack.Phishingare bogus emails purportedly from trustworthy institutions like the U.S.Internal Revenue Service or major banks . The more sophisticated scams are crafted to look very much likeAttack.Phishinga legitimate message from a site you do business with . “ Many popular phishing scamsAttack.Phishingpurport to beAttack.Phishingfrom shipping companies , e-commerce companies , social networking websites , financial institutions , tax-preparation companies and some of the world ’ s most notable companies , ” said Norton by Symantec senior security response manager Satnam Narang via email . One of the worst cases on record was an aircraft parts CEO who was trickedAttack.Phishinginto handing over more than $ 55 million – which shows that phishing scamsAttack.Phishingcan dupeAttack.Phishingeven smart people . Fox News asked Symantec about the top phishing scamsAttack.Phishingand how to avoid them . 1 . Your account has been or will be locked , disabled or suspended . `` Scare tactics are a common theme when it comes to phishing scamsAttack.Phishing, '' said Narang . `` Claiming a users ’ account has been or will be locked or disabled is a call to action to the user to enticeAttack.Phishingthem to provide their login credentials . '' 2 . Irregular/fraudulent activity detected or your account requires a `` security '' update . `` Extending off of # 1 , scammers will also claim irregular or fraudulent activity has been detected on your account or that your account has been subjected to a compulsory 'security update ' and you need to login to enable this security update , '' Narang said . 3 . You ’ ve received a secure or important message . `` This type of phishing scamAttack.Phishingis often associated with financial institutions , but we have also seen some claiming to beAttack.Phishingfrom a popular e-commerce website , '' said Narang . `` Because financial institutions don ’ t send customer details in emails , the premise is that users will be more inclined to click on a link or open an attachment if it claims to beAttack.Phishinga secure or important message . '' 4 . Tax-themed phishing scamsAttack.Phishing. `` Each year , tax-themed phishing scamsAttack.Phishingcrop up before tax-time in the U.S. and other countries , '' Narang added . `` These tax-related themes can vary from updating your filing information , your eligibility to receive a tax refund or warnings that you owe money . One thing that ’ s for sure is that the IRS doesn ’ t communicate via email or text message , they still send snail mail . '' 5 . Attachment-based phishingAttack.Phishingwith a variety of themes . `` Another trend we have observed in recent years is that scammers are using the luresAttack.Phishingmentioned above , but instead of providing a link to an external website , they are attaching an HTML page and asking users to open this 'secure page ' that requests login credentials and financial information , '' according to Narang . Avast , which also develop antivirus software and internet security services , offered advice on what to look for . Ransomware , which encrypts data ( i.e. , makes it inaccessible to the user ) , tries to tap into the same fears that phishingAttack.Phishingdoes . The hope that the “ attacked person will panic , and pay the ransomAttack.Ransom, ” Jonathan Penn , Director of Strategy at Avast , told Fox News .
The US Attorney 's Office for the District of Northern Georgia announced Wednesday that a federal grand jury had returned indictments against two Iranian nationals charged with executing the March 2018 ransomware attackAttack.Ransomthat paralyzed Atlanta city government services for over a week . Faramarz Shahi Savandi and Mohammed Mehdi Shah Mansouri are accused of using the Samsam ransomware to encrypt files on 3,789 City of Atlanta computers , including servers and workstations , in an attempt to extortAttack.RansomBitcoin from Atlanta officials . Details leaked by City of Atlanta employees during the ransomware attackAttack.Ransom, including screenshots of the demand message posted on city computers , indicated that Samsam-based malware was used . A Samsam variant was used in a number of ransomware attacksAttack.Ransomon hospitals in 2016 , with attackers using vulnerable Java Web services to gain entry in several cases . In more recent attacks , including one on the health industry companies Hancock Health and Allscripts , other methods were used to gain access , including Remote Desktop Protocol hacks that gave the attackers direct access to Windows systems on the victims ' networks . The Atlanta attack was not a targeted state-sponsored attack . The attackers likely chose Atlanta based on a vulnerability scan . According to the indictment , the attackers offeredAttack.Ransomthe city the option of payingAttack.Ransomsix Bitcoin ( currently the equivalent of $ 22,500 ) to get keys to unlock all the affected systems or 0.8 Bitcoin ( about $ 3,000 ) for individual systems . `` The ransom note directed the City of Atlanta to a particular Bitcoin address to pay the ransomAttack.Ransomand supplied a web domain that was only accessible using a Tor browser , '' a Department of Justice spokesperson said in a statement . `` The note suggested that the City of Atlanta could download the decryption key from that website . '' But within days of the attack , the Tor page became unreachable , and the City of Atlanta did not pay the ransomAttack.Ransom. Savandi , 27 , of Shiraz , Iran , and Mansouri , 34 , of Qom , Iran , have been charged under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act ( CFAA ) for `` intentional damage to protected computers ... that caused losses exceeding $ 5,000 , affected more than 10 protected computers , and that threatened the public health and safety , '' the Justice Department spokesperson said . They are also charged in a separate indictment in the US District Court for the District of New Jersey in connection with another ransomware attackAttack.Ransom, in which a ransom was apparently paidAttack.Ransom.
The US Attorney 's Office for the District of Northern Georgia announced Wednesday that a federal grand jury had returned indictments against two Iranian nationals charged with executing the March 2018 ransomware attackAttack.Ransomthat paralyzed Atlanta city government services for over a week . Faramarz Shahi Savandi and Mohammed Mehdi Shah Mansouri are accused of using the Samsam ransomware to encrypt files on 3,789 City of Atlanta computers , including servers and workstations , in an attempt to extortAttack.RansomBitcoin from Atlanta officials . Details leaked by City of Atlanta employees during the ransomware attackAttack.Ransom, including screenshots of the demand message posted on city computers , indicated that Samsam-based malware was used . A Samsam variant was used in a number of ransomware attacksAttack.Ransomon hospitals in 2016 , with attackers using vulnerable Java Web services to gain entry in several cases . In more recent attacks , including one on the health industry companies Hancock Health and Allscripts , other methods were used to gain access , including Remote Desktop Protocol hacks that gave the attackers direct access to Windows systems on the victims ' networks . The Atlanta attack was not a targeted state-sponsored attack . The attackers likely chose Atlanta based on a vulnerability scan . According to the indictment , the attackers offeredAttack.Ransomthe city the option of payingAttack.Ransomsix Bitcoin ( currently the equivalent of $ 22,500 ) to get keys to unlock all the affected systems or 0.8 Bitcoin ( about $ 3,000 ) for individual systems . `` The ransom note directed the City of Atlanta to a particular Bitcoin address to pay the ransomAttack.Ransomand supplied a web domain that was only accessible using a Tor browser , '' a Department of Justice spokesperson said in a statement . `` The note suggested that the City of Atlanta could download the decryption key from that website . '' But within days of the attack , the Tor page became unreachable , and the City of Atlanta did not pay the ransomAttack.Ransom. Savandi , 27 , of Shiraz , Iran , and Mansouri , 34 , of Qom , Iran , have been charged under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act ( CFAA ) for `` intentional damage to protected computers ... that caused losses exceeding $ 5,000 , affected more than 10 protected computers , and that threatened the public health and safety , '' the Justice Department spokesperson said . They are also charged in a separate indictment in the US District Court for the District of New Jersey in connection with another ransomware attackAttack.Ransom, in which a ransom was apparently paidAttack.Ransom.
Two Iranian men already indicted in New Jersey in connection with a broad cybercrime and extortion scheme targeting government agencies , cities and businesses now face new federal charges in Georgia related to a ransomware attackAttack.Ransomthat caused havoc for the city of Atlanta earlier this year . A federal grand jury in Atlanta returned an indictment Tuesday accusing Faramarz Shahi Savandi and Mohammad Mehdi Shah Mansouri of violating the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act , federal prosecutors said in a news release Wednesday . The New Jersey indictment against the pair was filed last month on broad conspiracy charges that included the Atlanta cyberattack . Byung “ BJay ” Pak , the U.S. attorney in Atlanta , said in a news release that the Atlanta indictment was sought in coordination with the earlier indictment and seeks to ensure that “ those responsible for the attacks face justice here as well. ” The Atlanta indictment accuses the two men of launching a ransomware attackAttack.Ransomagainst Atlanta that encrypted vital city computer systems . The attack significantly disrupted city operations and caused millions of dollars in losses , prosecutors said . The Department of Justice has said the two men remain fugitives and are believed to be in Iran , though they are not believed to be connected to the Iranian government . No attorney was listed for either man in online court records . In the Atlanta attackAttack.Ransom, a ransomware known as SamSam was used to infect about 3,789 computers belonging to the city , prosecutors said . The ransomware encrypted the files on the computers and showed a ransom note demanding paymentAttack.Ransomfor a decryption key . The note demandedAttack.Ransom0.8 bitcoin per affected computer or six bitcoin to decrypt all affected computers . Atlanta Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms said in the days after the ransomware attackAttack.Ransomthat the ransom demandAttack.Ransomwas equivalent to $ 51,000 . The ransom note provided a bitcoin address to pay the ransomAttack.Ransomand a website accessible only on the dark web , where it said the city could retrieve the decryption key , prosecutors said . The decryption key became inaccessible shortly after the attack , and the city didn ’ t pay the ransomAttack.Ransom, prosecutors said . The New Jersey indictment filed Nov 27 accuses the two men of creating the SamSam ransomware and says it was used to encrypt the computers of more than 200 victims , including government agencies , cities and businesses . Among the other victims are the city of Newark , New Jersey , the Colorado Department of Transportation , the Port of San Diego and six health care companies across the U.S. , according to the Justice Department . The New Jersey charges include conspiracy to commit wire fraud and conspiracy to commit fraud and related activity in connection with computers . The overall scheme allowed the hackers to make about $ 6 million and caused the victims to lose more than $ 30 million , prosecutors said .
Two Iranian men already indicted in New Jersey in connection with a broad cybercrime and extortion scheme targeting government agencies , cities and businesses now face new federal charges in Georgia related to a ransomware attackAttack.Ransomthat caused havoc for the city of Atlanta earlier this year . A federal grand jury in Atlanta returned an indictment Tuesday accusing Faramarz Shahi Savandi and Mohammad Mehdi Shah Mansouri of violating the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act , federal prosecutors said in a news release Wednesday . The New Jersey indictment against the pair was filed last month on broad conspiracy charges that included the Atlanta cyberattack . Byung “ BJay ” Pak , the U.S. attorney in Atlanta , said in a news release that the Atlanta indictment was sought in coordination with the earlier indictment and seeks to ensure that “ those responsible for the attacks face justice here as well. ” The Atlanta indictment accuses the two men of launching a ransomware attackAttack.Ransomagainst Atlanta that encrypted vital city computer systems . The attack significantly disrupted city operations and caused millions of dollars in losses , prosecutors said . The Department of Justice has said the two men remain fugitives and are believed to be in Iran , though they are not believed to be connected to the Iranian government . No attorney was listed for either man in online court records . In the Atlanta attackAttack.Ransom, a ransomware known as SamSam was used to infect about 3,789 computers belonging to the city , prosecutors said . The ransomware encrypted the files on the computers and showed a ransom note demanding paymentAttack.Ransomfor a decryption key . The note demandedAttack.Ransom0.8 bitcoin per affected computer or six bitcoin to decrypt all affected computers . Atlanta Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms said in the days after the ransomware attackAttack.Ransomthat the ransom demandAttack.Ransomwas equivalent to $ 51,000 . The ransom note provided a bitcoin address to pay the ransomAttack.Ransomand a website accessible only on the dark web , where it said the city could retrieve the decryption key , prosecutors said . The decryption key became inaccessible shortly after the attack , and the city didn ’ t pay the ransomAttack.Ransom, prosecutors said . The New Jersey indictment filed Nov 27 accuses the two men of creating the SamSam ransomware and says it was used to encrypt the computers of more than 200 victims , including government agencies , cities and businesses . Among the other victims are the city of Newark , New Jersey , the Colorado Department of Transportation , the Port of San Diego and six health care companies across the U.S. , according to the Justice Department . The New Jersey charges include conspiracy to commit wire fraud and conspiracy to commit fraud and related activity in connection with computers . The overall scheme allowed the hackers to make about $ 6 million and caused the victims to lose more than $ 30 million , prosecutors said .
The Advocate sought the ransom demandAttack.Ransomamount with a public records request of the Licking County Commissioners . Licking County Prosecutor Bill Hayes provided The Advocate the information Monday . A computer virus discovered Jan 31 caused Licking County government to shut down about 1,000 computers and its phone systems to prevent the virus from spreading , protect data and preserve evidence . The FBI and Bureau of Criminal Investigation were notified . County officials chose not to pay the ransomAttack.Ransom, and recovered data from its backups . By Feb 16 , most of the county system was back in service . Licking County Commissioner Tim Bubb said the price per bitcoin was about $ 1,100 when the computers were hacked , making the demandAttack.Ransomabout $ 30,000 . As of 4 p.m. Monday , the value of one bitcoin was $ 1,235 . The computer hack cost the county more than $ 50,000 , Bubb said , which includes insurance and overtime , but he does not regret refusing to pay the demandAttack.Ransom. `` I 'm just kind of hard-nosed about that , '' Bubb said . `` I feel we were violated by people with criminal intent , and we do n't owe them anything . '' Bubb said people have asked him why the county did n't just pay the demandAttack.Ransom, but Bubb said it may not have been that simple . `` There was no guarantee that would have been the final price , or that they would have acted honorably . There 's a certain amount of unknown that would make you uneasy . '' Sylint , a cyber security firm assisting the county , was set to notify the state that the county 's computer system was virus-free , Bubb said . The state asked for the assurance before it hooked back up with the county .
Security researchers report a massive uptick in the number of MongoDB databases hijacked and held for ransomAttack.Ransom. That ’ s sharp increase from last week when 2,000 MongoDB had been hijacked by two or three criminals . A wave attacks was first spotted on Dec. 27 by Victor Gevers , an ethical hacker and founder of GDI Foundation . That ’ s when he said a hacker going by the handle “ Harak1r1 ” was compromising open MongoDB installations , deleting their contents , and leaving behind a ransom note demandingAttack.Ransom0.2 BTC ( about $ 220 ) . Victims would discover they were hit with the data theft only when they accessed the MongoDB and came across a top database field with the ransom demandAttack.Ransomthat read , “ Contact this email with your IP of your server to recover your database ” . Escalation of the attacks happened fast jumping from 200 14 days ago to 2,000 the following week . On Friday the numbers were at 10,000 , and by Monday Merrigan said there was a huge spike in attacks via his Twitter account reporting 27,000 servers compromised representing 93 terabytes of data gone . Since identifying “ Harak1r1 ” as the original attacker , they say more than a dozen additional hackers are now actively targeting MongoDB installations as well . Researchers said that in many cases , data stored in the MongoDB now is simply being destroyed and when victims pay the ransomAttack.Ransomthey do not receive their data back . Last week , Gevers told Threatpost attackers were battling among themselves . He said , when one hacker would leaveAttack.Ransoma ransom note , another hacker would target the same database , delete the original ransom note and leave their ownAttack.Ransom. This further complicates a victim ’ s ability to retrieve data even if a ransom is paidAttack.Ransom, he said .
Cyberthieves are increasingly targeting the malicious software , which locks all files on a targeted computer or network until the owner pays upAttack.Ransom, at smaller and arguably more vulnerable organizations . The Catholic Charities of Santa Clara County in California was a recent target . Seconds after a co-worker clicked on a malicious email attachment , “ the compressed file she had opened connected her computer with a server in the Ukraine , ” says Will Bailey , director of IT for the organization . “ It downloaded the ransomware code and began to encrypt files on her device ” . While cyberthieves ostensibly have more to gain from large organizations , experts say they see smaller organizations as lower-hanging fruit . Because a successful breach of an institution with fewer information security resources is easier to achieve and more likely to have a meaningful impact , it is also more likely to result in a payment . “ Small businesses are frequently a more appealing target for ransomware because they sit at the juncture of money and vulnerability , ” says Ryan Olson , director of the Palo Alto Networks Unit 42 cybersecurity threat intelligence team . “ They frequently have more money than individuals , but being small businesses , they lack the more sophisticated defenses that larger business have ” . “ These attackers have also learned that the most profitable method is to hitAttack.Ransommany small businesses with low ransom demandsAttack.Ransom—usually $ 300 to $ 2,000 . Even small businesses can generally afford to pay those amounts ” . — Eric Hodge , director of consulting , IDT911 Consulting The stats are staggering . The frequency of ransomware attacksAttack.Ransomagainst organizations with fewer than 200 employees is poised to “ triple or quadruple ” from that of 2015 , according to Eric Hodge , director of consulting for IDT911 Consulting . And 60 percent of small businesses that suffer a ransomware attackAttack.Ransomare already going out of business within six months , according to the U.S. National Cyber Security Alliance . For many small businesses , if the ransomAttack.Ransomis low enough , and data backups aren ’ t available , experts say the most cost-effective response is often to pay the ransomAttack.Ransom. “ At this point , it seems to be the small companies , and individuals providing service as a company , who are in the crosshairs , ” Hodge says . “ These attackers have also learned that the most profitable method is to hitAttack.Ransommany small businesses with low ransom demandsAttack.Ransom—usually $ 300 to $ 2,000 . Even small businesses can generally afford to pay those amounts ” . Ransomware reportedly has cost U.S. small to midsize businesses alone more than $ 75 billion in damages and payments , according to a September 2016 survey by data protection vendor Datto . Indeed , 31 percent of the Datto survey ’ s respondents said they had experienced multiple ransomware attacksAttack.Ransomwithin a single day , and a whopping 63 percent said these attacks led to downtime in their business operations , which could cost them as much as $ 8,500 per hour . And according to Symantec ’ s 2016 Internet Security Threat Report , 43 percent of last year ’ s phishing emails , the vast majority of which were laced with ransomware , targeted small businesses—up from 18 percent in 2011 . New research indicates that consumers similarly are becoming more attractive ransomware targets . According to a recent study from IBM X-Force , which surveyed 600 business professionals and 1,000 consumers , 54 percent of consumers said they would pay a ransomAttack.Ransomto retrieve their financial data , and 55 percent of parents said they would payAttack.Ransomto have digital photos returned . With cybercriminals constantly upping their game in ransomware , small businesses and consumers have little choice but to remain vigilant and take “ simple steps ” to mitigate the risk of an attack , Palo Alto Networks ’ Olson says . In addition to keeping systems up-to-date with security updates , and taking precautions before opening attachments or clicking on links , he recommends maintaining offline backups—or cloud-based backups outside your network—to recover potentially compromised files .
Now , more than ever , a recent report suggests that India ranks second in ransomware attacksAttack.Ransom, this does not come as a surprise to many , especially the industry experts , considering that the country ’ s current state of digital security isn ’ t geared up to handle the emerging threats . It ’ s very likely that India tops the list soon , considering the rapid growth of ransomware . To compound it , the growth in “ Internet of Things ” ( IoT ) industry and the vulnerability towards cyber infections will further fuel new types of malware threats . We had reported earlier in our findings that over 180 Indian companies were victims of Ransomware online extortion schemesAttack.Ransomin the first six months of the year 2016 , causing a loss of whopping $ 3 billion . However , the latest industry reports show a rather grim picture around Ransomware - the findings indicate that businesses in India are most at risk to cyber security attacks globally , with organizations in the country experiencing the highest number of weekly security incidents of all Asian countries surveyed ( 14.8 per cent ) . At the heart of it , Ransomware is a class of malware that ’ s designed for moneymaking with clear criminal intent . The puzzling part about Ransomware is that , no matter what the situation is , even if the ransom is paidAttack.Ransom, there is no guarantee that computer users will be able to fully access their systems ever again . The criminal may flee with the money and the files- both ! While some hackers instructAttack.Ransomvictims to payAttack.Ransomthrough Bitcoin , MoneyPak or other online methods , attackers could also demandAttack.Ransomcredit card data , adding another level of financial loss altogether . Cryptolocker , Petya and Dogspectus are three of the major ransomware making their presence felt strongly . Just like kidnapping for ransomAttack.Ransom, it ’ s a virtual kidnappingAttack.Ransomof data where information is kept as a hostage and money is demandedAttack.Ransomin exchange of freeing the hostage . We all know how much damage a data breachAttack.Databreachcan cost- monetarily as well as reputation wise . Once a ransomware attackAttack.Ransomstrikes , clicking of files yield no results . The malware has corruptedAttack.Databreachthe files and converted them into foreign MP3 files or an encrypted RSA format . And then , the victim gets a note in a text file or HTML file : “ Help_Decrypt_Your_Files ” . In a majority of the cases , once ransomware enters a system , there is no way a user can remove it without losing some files or data , even if one pay the ransomAttack.Ransom. Of late , ransomware has even left behind advanced persistent threat ( APT ) network attacks to grab the numero uno spot in the list of deadliest cyber crimes . Ransomware is fast evolving in form and increasing in number as well , thereby making it more difficult to protect against it . Each version has some properties that are unique to that version alone . This is scary because what is means is , if someone finds a solution to block or erase one version of a malware , that same solution may not work for the newer versions . However , a vast number of ransomware variants are still utilizing the same type of encryption technologies to infect systems . And what ’ s more , these encryption technologies are not just limited to common ones like Tor or I2P communication , but beyond
Ransomware authors are nothing if not persistent . They continue to try new evasion techniques , new programming languages , new naming conventions , and even more forceful demandAttack.Ransomtactics to pressure victims into payingAttack.Ransom. One new technique involves packaging ransomware in RarSFX executable files . Last week we talked about a multi-component variant of Cerber ( detected as RANSOM_CERBER ) found packaged in a SFX file , a feature that helps it evade machine learning . This week , we saw CrptXXX ( detected by Trend Micro as RANSOM_CRPTX.A ) also in a SFX package—most likely for the same reason . This particular ransomware can not execute fully without the correct parameters and other components inside its package . If CrptXXX successfully infects a system , the victim receivesAttack.Ransoma relatively straightforward ransom note . They are instructed to go to a specific .onion site and input their unique ID , then follow the payment instructions . French Locker ( detected by Trend Micro as RANSOM_LELEOCK.A ) is a typical ransomware made by developers who want to get paid quickly . This ransomware displays a 10 minute timer and deletes one of the victim 's encrypted files for every 10 minutes that passes . It arrives through malicious sites or is dropped by other malware , and victims can choose between English or a French version . Initially , the ransomware will install an autostart registry for its dropped copy , which triggers its encryption routine once the machine reboots . Encrypted files are appended with the .lelele extension . SAMSAM has been updated with a new variant ( detected by Trend Micro as RANSOM_SAMAS.I ) .The previous version made waves in 2016 after it targeted vulnerable hospital servers . Traditionally , ransomware spreads through social engineering , malvertisments , or spam—SAMSAM set itself apart when it targeted the network infrastructure of certain healthcare facilities . The threat actors behind this ransomware gain access to the administrative rights of a network and pinpoint specific target hosts . They deploy to a sizeable portion of the victim ’ s network , causing essential systems and services to shut down , leaving the target facility little choice but to pay the ransomAttack.Ransom. This is one of the latest variants of SAMSAM , though this ransomware family constantly changes its behavior when its threat indicators or IOCs are made public . The first ransomware to be written in Google ’ s Go programming language was detected late last year , and now we have another to add to the list . Apart from the programming language used , BrainCrypt ( detected by Trend Micro as RANSOM_BRAINCRYPT ) is a relatively standard ransomware . There are no specific details in the ransom note , just simple instructions explaining the situation and telling the victim to email the threat actors . The continuing evolution of ransomware shows how cybercriminals quick to adopt the latest technology and techniques to make their malware more effective . Because of this , all users should stay vigilant and updated on the latest threat developments .
New variants of an Android ransomware family have surged over the past six months to some 600 unique versions . That 's a dramatic jump from the 100 variants created between October to the start of December , says Michael Covington , vice president of product strategy for Wandera , which published new data on the ransomware today . The new strains of the mobile ransomware use a range of disguises to avoid detection . The SLocker variations are repackaged as altered icon , for example , or offer unique resources and executable files . SLocker encrypts images , documents , and videos , as well as blocks access to the device before demanding paymentAttack.Ransomto unlock the phone and its contents . Chief security officers and their teams have reason to worry about the rapid rise in the number of SLocker strains , say security experts . The malware has morphed beyond just locking users ' screens on their Android devices and demanding paymentAttack.Ransom, to taking over administrative rights and controlling the device , including its microphone , speakers , and the camera . Bogdan Botezatu , senior e-threat analyst with Bitdefender , says an Android smartphone infected with SLocker could potentially broadcast highly sensitive information presented during a closed-door boardroom meeting without the user 's knowledge , for example . Wandera 's Covington points to potential risks to sales and consulting staff , for example . `` In a lot of situations where the employees work out in the field like in sales or consulting , it can have a massive impact on their business if they are locked out of their phone and data , '' he explains . Victim organizations paidAttack.Ransoman estimated $ 10 million in ransomAttack.Ransomto unlock confidential data stored on Android phones that fell victim to SLocker , according to Wandera 's report . Android ransomware first emerged in 2014 , after creators of the Reveton/IcePol ransomware for PCs turned their attention to Android devices and cooked up the Android.Trojan . Koler.A and then later Android.Trojan.SLocker , according to Bitdefender 's Botezatu . For the first two years , SLocker was among the top 20 Android malware families and then shot up to the top 10 in 2016 , notes Botezatu . `` Its rise to the top 10 was mostly because of the frustration factor . It 's a psychological thing when people ca n't get information from their smartphone , '' he says . `` People were willing to pay the ransomAttack.Ransom. The mobile device is more personal than the personal computer . '' But now SLocker ranks in the No . 14 to No . 18 spot among the top 20 Android malware families , as cyberthieves create new types of Android malware and enlarge the pool of contenders and dilute SLocker 's influence , Botezatu says .
There ’ s no question that Friday ’ s WannaCry ransomware attackAttack.Ransom, which spread like wildfire , was bad . Its ability to spread like a worm by exploiting a Microsoft vulnerability was certainly new ground for a ransomware campaign . But along the way , there ’ s been a lot of fear and hype . Perspective is in order . Here ’ s a look at the latest in Sophos ’ investigation , including a recap of how it is protecting customers . From there , we look at how this fits into overall attack trends and how , in the grand scheme of things , this doesn ’ t represent a falling sky . With the code behind Friday ’ s attack in the wild , we should expect copycats to cook up their own campaigns in the coming days to capitalize on the money-making opportunity in front of them . Over the weekend , accounts set up to collect ransom paymentsAttack.Ransomhad received smaller amounts than expected for an attack of this size . But by Monday morning , the balances were on the rise , suggesting that more people were responding to the ransom message Monday . On Saturday , three ransomware-associated wallets had received 92 bitcoin paymentsAttack.Ransomtotaling $ 26,407.85 USD . By Sunday , the number between the three wallets was up to $ 30,706.61 USD . By Monday morning , 181 paymentsAttack.Ransomhad been made totaling 29.46564365 BTC ( $ 50,504.23 USD ) . Analysis seems to confirm that Friday ’ s attack was launched using suspected NSA code leaked by a group of hackers known as the Shadow Brokers . It used a variant of the Shadow Brokers ’ APT EternalBlue Exploit ( CC-1353 ) , and used strong encryption on files such as documents , images , and videos . A perfect attack would self-propagate but would do so slowly , randomly and unpredictably . This one was full throttle , but hardly to its detriment . Here we had something that spread like wildfire , but the machines that were impactedVulnerability-related.DiscoverVulnerabilitywere probably still susceptible to secondary attacks because the underlying vulnerability probably hasn ’ t been patchedVulnerability-related.PatchVulnerability. The problem is that exploit and payload are separate . The payload went fast and got stopped , but that ’ s just one of an infinite number of possibilities that can spread through the unsolved exploit . Companies still using Windows XP are particularly susceptible to this sort of attack . First launched in 2001 , the operating system is now 16 years old and has been superseded by Windows Vista and Windows 7 , 8 and 10 upgrades . It remains to be seen who was behind this attack . Sophos is cooperating with law enforcement to provide any intelligence it can gather about the origins and attack vectors . The company believes initial infections may have arrived via an email with a malicious payload that a user was trickedAttack.Phishinginto opening . Sophos continues to update protections against the threat . Sophos Customers using Intercept X and Sophos EXP products will also see this ransomware blocked by CryptoGuard . Please note that while Intercept X and EXP will block the underlying behavior and restore deleted or encrypted files in all cases we have seen , the offending ransomware splash screen and note may still appear . For updates on the specific strains being blocked , Sophos is continually updating a Knowledge-Base Article on the subject . Meanwhile , everyone is urged to update their Windows environments as described in Microsoft Security Bulletin MS17-010 – Critical . For those using older versions of Windows , Microsoft has providedVulnerability-related.PatchVulnerabilityCustomer Guidance for WannaCrypt attacksAttack.Ransomand has made the decision to make the Security Update for platforms in custom support only – Windows XP , Windows 8 , and Windows Server 2003 – broadly available for downloadVulnerability-related.PatchVulnerability. As severe as this attack was , it ’ s important to note that we ’ re not looking at a shift in the overall attack trend . This attack represents a merging of old behaviors into a perfect storm . SophosLabs VP Simon Reed said : This attack demonstrates the opportunistic nature of commercial malware authors to re-use the most powerful of exploit techniques to further their aims , which is ultimately to make money . In the final analysis , the same advice as always applies for those who want to avoid such attacks . To guard against malware exploiting Microsoft vulnerabilities : To guard against ransomware in general : Finally , there ’ s the question of whether victims should pay the ransomAttack.Ransomor stand their ground . Sophos has mostly taken a neutral stance on the issue . In the case of this attack , paying the ransomAttack.Ransomdoesn ’ t seem to be helping the victims so far . Therefore , Levy believes paying the WannaCry ransomAttack.Ransomis ill-advised : In general , payingAttack.Ransomis a bad idea unless the organization is truly desperate to get irreplaceable data back and when it is known that the ransom paymentAttack.Ransomworks . In this attack , it doesn ’ t appear to work . It ’ s been referred to as a ‘ kill switch ’ – that all the malware author had to do to throw the breaks on for some reason was to register some obscure domains . In the event a security researcher found the domains and registered them . He speculates that its not actually a kill switch but may be a form of sandbox detection ( malware wants to run in the real world and hide when it ’ s in a researcher ’ s sandbox . ) The thinking goes that in the kind of sandbox environment used by security researchers the domains might appear to be registered when in fact they are not . If the malware can get a response from the unregistered domains it thinks it ’ s in a sandbox and shuts down . If you blocklist the domains in your network then you ’ re turning off the “ kill switch ” . If you allowlist the domains you ’ re allowing access to the kill switch .
Disney boss Bob Iger has said the mass media giant is being targeted by hackers who are trying to extort moneyAttack.Ransomfrom the firm by threatening to release a film they claim to have stolenAttack.Databreach. The CEO of the entertainment behemoth told ABC employees of the stand-off at a town hall meeting in New York , multiple sources told The Hollywood Reporter . The hackers are said to have demandedAttack.Ransoma substantial paymentAttack.Ransomin Bitcoin , and threatened to release five minutes of the unnamed film and then subsequent 20-minute chunks if their demandsAttack.Ransomaren ’ t met . There are rumors circulating that the film in question could be upcoming blockbuster Pirates of the Caribbean : Dead Men Tell No Tales , although the hackers are running out of time if so as it ’ s due to open next Friday . The news calls to mind a similar incident last month when a hacker uploaded the upcoming series of Netflix prison drama Orange is the New Black to The Pirate Bay after the streaming giant refused to pay upAttack.Ransom. In that instance , Netflix claimed that “ a production vendor used by several major TV studios had its security compromised ” , highlighting the need for organizations in the entertainment sector to revisit their cyber-defenses and those of their partners . Mark James , security specialist at Eset , argued that anything of high value will be a target for thieves , be it digital or physical . “ Disney has refused to pay the ransomAttack.Ransomand rightly so . If you ’ re going to download the film from an unofficial or dodgy source anyway then a month before or a month after is not going to make much of a difference , ” he added . `` The film industry has been plagued with piracy issues as early as the 1960s and this is n't going to change anytime soon . Paying the ransomAttack.Ransomor indeed any ransomAttack.Ransomis generally frowned upon for many reasons . Funding other criminal activity , rewarding the bad guys or funding future attacks are all good reasons to not pay as the chances are it ’ s going to get released anyway . ”
According to Fortinet researcher Kai Lu , the one who discovered this new threat , the ransomware appears to be targeting only Russian-speaking users , as its ransom noteAttack.Ransomis only available in Russian . A translated version of the ransom noteAttack.Ransomis available below . There are several things that stand out about this threat . The first is the humongous ransom demandAttack.Ransomit asksAttack.Ransomvictims for , which is 545,000 Russian rubles ( ~ $ 9,100 ) . This ransom demandAttack.Ransomis between 10 and 100 times over the price of some phones , and most users who ca n't remove the screen locker will instead choose to buy a new phone rather than payingAttack.Ransomthe crooks . To pay the ransomAttack.Ransom, victims have to enter their credit card number directly in the ransom screen , a technique very different from how other ransomware operators like to work , which is via Bitcoin , Tor , or gift cards . The other thing that sets this ransomware apart is the usage of the Google Cloud Messaging ( GCM ) platform , now renamed in Firebase Cloud Messaging .
The executive director of the organization revealed on Tuesday that their computer systems have been infected with a ransomware by cyber criminals who happen to be “ an international cyber terrorist organization ” . Aimee Fant , the Executive Director of Little Red Door , officially revealed its involvement in the agency ’ s computer system hack in a press release . According to their Facebook post , the attack occurred last week on Wednesday night when the hackers attacked the terminal service and backup driver of Cancer Services ’ computer systems . They managed to access , hack and encrypt the data . After carrying out the hack attack , the notorious gang of cyber criminals demandedAttack.Ransom$ 43,000 ransomAttack.Ransomon Thursday . The press release also revealed that the perpetrators of the crime were gearing up to threaten the family members of living or deceased “ cancer clients , donors and community partners ” . She further informed that the FBI has been contacted to conduct an “ active investigation ” . It is worth noting that a majority of the agency ’ s data is stored in cloud storage . Perhaps , this is why the organization is not willing to pay the ransomAttack.Ransomand believes that “ all funds raised must go to serving families , all stage cancer patients , late stage care/hospice support and preventative screenings , ” instead of cyber criminals .
University College London , one of the world 's leading universities , has been hit by a major cyber-attack . The university describes it as a "ransomware" attackAttack.Ransom, such as last month 's cyber-attack which threatened NHS computer systems . The attack was continuing on Thursday , with access to online networks being restricted . The university has warned staff and students of the risk of data loss and `` very substantial disruption '' . University College London ( UCL ) is a `` centre of excellence in cyber-security research '' , a status awarded by the GCHQ intelligence and monitoring service . The central London university , ranked last week in the world 's top 10 , says that a `` widespread ransomware attackAttack.Ransom`` began on Wednesday . It was first blamed on so-called `` phishing '' emails , with links to destructive software . But later the university suggested it was more likely to be from contact with a `` compromised '' website , where clicking on a pop-up page might have spread a malware infection . Ransomware attacksAttack.Ransomare where computer systems are locked and threatened with damaging software unless paymentsAttack.Ransomare made . Students and staff were warned that `` ransomware damages files on your computer and on shared drives where you save files '' and were told not to open any suspicious attachments . The university says that it believes the risk of further infection has been contained , but it is urging staff and students to help with efforts to reduce any `` further spread of this malware '' . Universities , which often carry out commercially sensitive research , have become frequent targets for cyber-attacks . `` However , what makes this attack interesting is the timing , '' said Graham Rymer , an ethical hacker and research associate at the University of Cambridge . `` Hackers tend to target people who will be desperate to get accessAttack.Databreachto their data and are , therefore , more likely to pay the ransomAttack.Ransom. `` Currently there are a lot of students who will be putting the final touches to their dissertations , so it could be that they were the targets . '' Mr Rymer said UCL seemed to have responded well to the attack and had `` locked it down pretty well '' . `` One thing UCL did is to quickly switch all drives in the system to `` read-only '' following the attack , which essentially prevented the malware from doing real damage . '' Mr Rymer said UCL may not have been the only intended target as he had seen other businesses facing the same malware . Last month , the National Health Service in England and Scotland was subject to a significant ransomware cyber-attackAttack.Ransom, as part of a global wave of attacks .
Over 700 computers at all of SLPL 's 16 branches have been hit . According to library spokesperson Jen Hatton , SLPL does n't intend to pay the ransomAttack.Ransom, which is around $ 35,000 , about $ 50 per infected PC . Instead , library technicians plan to wipe and reinstall all computers from the ground up , an operation that might take a while , several local news outlets have reported [ 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 ] . Hatton said the infection took root on the night between Wednesday and Thursday . By the next day , the library had to shut down all book returns and checkout operations . SLPL libraries also served as public WiFi access points , allowing people to come in and use its Internet connection or computers to surf the web . Internet access is also down , as the ransomware hit those servers as well , along with the staff 's email system . It is unknown if the ransomware infection took place because of the library 's staff or because of a user that used its public computers . A request for comment sent by Bleeping Computer was n't answered at the time of publishing . UPDATE [ January 23 ] : SLPL announced today they started recovering some of the locked computers and are slowly resuming service . I 've been trying since this morning to get in contact with them .
Media Prima Berhad 's computer systems have been locked out by cyber attackers who are demandingAttack.Ransommillions of ringgit in ransomAttack.Ransom. The media company , which runs a stable of TV and radio channels , newspapers , advertising and digital media companies was hit by a ransomware attackAttack.Ransomlast Thursday ( Nov 8 ) , The Edge Financial Daily reported . Ransomware is a type of malicious software ( malware ) designed to block access to a computer system until a sum of money is paidAttack.Ransom. The report , quoting a source , said the attackers are demandingAttack.Ransom1,000 bitcoins to release access to the computer systems . This means that the attackers are demanding a ransomAttack.Ransomof RM26.42 million ( S $ 8.71 million ) . Media Prima is listed on Bursa Malaysia 's main board . It operates , among others , three national newspapers , namely New Straits Times , Berita Harian and Harian Metro ; free-to-air television stations , namely TV3 , TV9 , ntv7 and 8TV ; and four radio stations , namely Fly FM , Hot FM , One FM and Kool FM . When contacted , Media Prima group managing director , Datuk Kamal Khalid , declined to comment when asked to confirm whether the company has been hitAttack.Ransomby ransomware . He urged The Star to get in touch with the company 's corporate communications department for comments , and efforts are ongoing to contact the department . The Edge Financial Daily report said it was not immediately known whether Media Prima 's data has been breachedAttack.Databreach, and whether the media group would be suffering financial losses due to the ransomware attackAttack.Ransom. It quoted another source saying that Media Prima 's office e-mail has been affected but that the company has migrated the email to another system . The source reportedly added that Media Prima has decided not to pay the ransomAttack.Ransom.
Aspiring Netflix users who don ’ t want to actually pay for the popular video on demand service are being targeted with a new type of ransomware . Detected as Netix by Trend Micro , the ransomware is hidden in an executable ( Netflix Login Generator v1.1.exe ) that poses asAttack.Phishinga software for creating valid Netflix login credentials . The file is usually offered for download on sites sharing crackers and free access to paid online services . Users who download and run the file will be faced with the above screen . Clicking the “ Generate Login ! ” button will open another one , offering a username and password . Whether the login credentials actually work or not is unknown . But the other executable dropped by the initial one does work , and it starts encrypting a variety of file types in the machine ’ s C : \Users directory , including images , videos , archive files , and Office documents . “ The ransomware employs AES-256 encryption algorithm and appends the encrypted files with the .se extension . The ransom notes demandAttack.Ransom$ 100 worth of Bitcoin ( 0.18 BTC ) from its victims , ” Trend Micro warns . The ransomware needs to connect to a C & C server to work and to receiveAttack.Ransomthe ransom note and warning to display : Interestingly enough , only users of Windows 7 or 10 are in danger from this particular piece of ransomware , as it won ’ t run on other versions of the OS . Victims are urged by the crooks to pay the ransomAttack.Ransomin order to receive the decryption key , but should know that even if they do , there is no guarantee they will get the key . Regularly backing up important files is the best way to assure yourself that even if you fall for social engineering approaches such as this one , you ’ ll be able to avoid paying the ransomAttack.Ransomand losing your files forever
Discovered at the start of the year , Spora distinguishes itself from similar threats by a few features , such as the option to work offline , and a ransom payment portal that uses `` credits '' to manage Bitcoin fees . Another of those unique features is a real-time chat window where victims can get in contact with ransomware operators . By tweaking the ransomware infection ID , security researchers can access the ransom payment page of different Spora victims . This has allowed researchers to keep track of conversations between victims and Spora operators . As stated in our original article about Spora , the criminals behind this ransomware operation consider themselves `` professionals '' and appear to have considerable experience in running ransomware campaigns . The thing that stood out for us in the beginning , and is still valid even today , is that the Spora gang pays a lot of attention to customer support . They provide help in both English and Russian and are very attentive not to escalate conversations with angry victims , always providing appropriate and timely responses to any inquiries . Security researcher MalwareHunter has spotted a few interesting conversations in the Spora ransom payment portal in the past few days . First and foremost , Spora authors have been very lenient to victims that could n't pay the ransomAttack.Ransom, often offering to extend or even disable the payment deadline altogether . Second , Spora authors had been offering discounts , free decryptions of important files and deadline extensions for people who were willing to leave a review of their support service on the Bleeping Computer Spora ransomware thread . At the time of writing , we have n't observed any users taking them on this offer and posting such reviews on our forum . The reason why the Spora crew asksAttack.Ransomcustomers for reviews is so other victims can read about their story and feel confident that if they payAttack.Ransom, they 'll receive their files back . This is a smart marketing move , since it builds trust in their service . Many times , other ransomware authors do n't always provide a way for victims to recover files , and more and more people now know there 's a high chance that paying the ransomAttack.Ransomwo n't always recover their files . MalwareHunter cites one case where the Spora gang has offered a 10 % discount to a company that suffered Spora infections on more than 200 devices .
Organizations use them regardless of their size ; from MetLife , LinkedIn , City of Chicago , Expedia , BuzzFeed to KMPG and The Guardian there are several other high-profile platforms that are currently taking advantage of MongoDB . At the same time , having a high-profile customer doesn ’ t mean that platform is completely secure . That ’ s why in 2016 , in two different incidentsAttack.Databreach, hackers leakedAttack.Databreachmore than 36 million and 58 million accounts respectively from unsecured MongoDB . More : LG Smart TV Screen Bricked After Android Ransomware Infection Now , unsecured MongoDB databases are being hijacked by a hacker , who is not only wiping out these databases but also storing copies of them and asking for a ransomAttack.Ransomof 0.2 bitcoins ( roughly US $ 211 ) from admins in exchange of the lost data . Those admins who haven ’ t created backups of these databases are seriously helpless because the rate of Bitcoin is also increasing and the latest rate is 1 Bitcoin = USD1063.93 . The hacking campaign was discovered by security researcher Victor Gevers , co-founder of GDI Foundation , a non-profit organization . Gevers notified owners about the presence of vulnerable , non-password-protected MongoDB databases and also informed that around 200 of these installations have been wiped out by the hacker . Gevers believes that the hacker ( s ) might be utilizing an automation tool but they manually select their target databases . Hacker seems to be interested in databases that contain important information/data or he chooses companies that are most likely in a position to pay the ransomAttack.Ransomto get their data back . In a conversation with SecurityWeek , Gevers said that “ They use some sort of automation tool , but they also do some of the work manually . If they used a fully automated tool , we might have seen all exposed MongoDB databases being hijacked in one swift move ” . But that was old news ; as per recent tweet by Shodan founder John Matherly , approx . It must be noted that Shodan is the platform where a majority of MongoDB instances can be located . As of now , 16 admins/organizations have already paid the ransomAttack.Ransomto obtain the lost data . The attacksAttack.Ransomon MongoDB databases have been going on for more than a week and servers from across the globe have been targeted . Researchers believe that the attacker , who uses the alias “ harak1r1 ” does not encrypt the stolen data but runs a script , which replaces the database content with the ransom note .
The hackers could then lock these computers up and demand a ransomAttack.Ransomor else cause a blackout or poison the city 's water . While that 's a scary scenario , it fortunately has n't happened—yet . But a group of researchers from the Georgia Institute of Technology warn that could change very soon , and to prove it they have developed and tested in their lab a working proof of concept ransomware that specifically targets three types of PLCs . In their scenario , a group of cybercriminals targets PLCs that are exposed online and infects them with custom malware designed to reprogram the tiny computer with a new password , locking out the legitimate owners . The hackers then alert the owner , asking for a ransomAttack.Ransom. `` Ransomware '' is a specific type of malicious software that infects computers and locks or encrypts their content , demanding a ransomAttack.Ransomto return the machines to their original state . It 's been extremely popular in the last couple of years , and is often successful because it 's usually easier for victims to pay the ransomAttack.Ransomthan try to decrypt the files on their own . Initially , ransomware targeted regular internet users indiscriminately , but there have already been cases of attacks against hospitals , hotels and other businesses . ( And there will soon be attacks on Internet of Things too ) Thus , the researchers argue , it 's inevitable that criminals will soon target critical infrastructure directly . Beyah and his colleagues David Formby and Srikar Durbha searched the internet for the two models of PLCs that they attacked in the lab and found more 1,500 that were exposed online . With their research , Beyah said , the three hope that industrial control systems administrators will start adopting common security practices such as changing the PLCs default passwords , putting them behind a firewall , and scanning the networks for potential intruders . If they do n't , they might find their systems locked , and the consequence could spill into the physical world .
A new ransomware campaign is infecting businesses by targeting a department that typically has to open email from strangers : Human resources . Dubbed GoldenEye , a variant of Petya , the ransomware imitatesAttack.Phishinga job application and currently targets German speakers , according to a Check Point report released Tuesday . Here 's how it works : An email appears in the HR representative 's inbox with a brief message from the supposed applicant , and two attachments . `` The first attachment is a PDF containing a cover letter which has no malicious content and its primary purpose is to lull the victim into a false sense of security , '' the Check Point report said . `` The second attachment is an Excel file with malicious macros unbeknown to the receiver . '' It also includes a message in German asking the HR representative to enable the content . The ransomware presents its victim with a decryption code , which they can enter in a Dark Web portal to pay the ransomAttack.Ransomand unlock their files . Current ransom rates for GoldenEye begin at 1.3 bitcoins , or about $ 1,000 . Ransomware often targets victims via email attachments . HR departments are especially susceptible , Check Point noted , due to the number of messages and attachments from unfamiliar people they receive .
One tried-and-true technique continues to be hiding malware inside fake versions of popular files , then distributingAttack.Phishingthose fake versions via app stores . Doing the same via peer-to-peer BitTorrent networks has also long been popular . But as with so many supposedly free versions of paid-for applications , users may get more than they bargained for . To wit , last week researchers at the security firm ESET spotted new ransomware - Filecoder.E - circulating via BitTorrent , disguised asAttack.Phishinga `` patcher '' that purports to allow Mac users to crack such applications as Adobe Premiere Pro CC and Microsoft Office 2016 . As Toronto-based security researcher Cheryl Biswas notes in a blog post : `` For those who torrent , be careful . ESET says the ransomware can also encrypt any Time Machine backups on network-connected volumes that are mounted at the time of the attackAttack.Ransom. If the ransomware infects a system , it demandsAttack.Ransom0.25 bitcoins - currently worth about $ 300 - for a decryption key . But ESET security researcher Marc-Etienne M.L Éveillé , in a blog post , says the application is so poorly coded that there 's no way that a victim could ever obtain a decryption key . So far , ESET reports that the single bitcoin wallet tied to the ransomware has received no payments . `` There is one big problem with this ransomware : It does n't have any code to communicate with any C & C ; server , '' says Éveillé , referring to a command-and-control server that might have been used to remotely control the infected endpoint . `` This means that there is no way the key that was used to encrypt the files can be sent to the malware operators . This also means that there is no way for them to provide a way to decrypt a victim 's files . '' The longstanding ransomware-defense advice , of course , is to never pay ransomsAttack.Ransom, because this directly funds cybercrime groups ' ongoing research and development . Instead , stay prepared : Keep complete , disconnected backups of all systems , and periodically test that they can be restored , and thus never have to consider paying a ransomAttack.Ransom. `` We advise that victims never pay the ransomAttack.Ransomwhen hit by ransomware , '' Éveillé says . In other ransomware news , new ransomware known as Trump Locker - not to be confused with Trumpcryption - turns out to be a lightly repackaged version of VenusLocker ransomware , according to Lawrence Abrams of the security analysis site Bleeping Computer , as well as the researchers known as MalwareHunter Team . `` Unfortunately , you are hacked , '' the start of the malware's ransom demandAttack.Ransomreportedly reads . VenusLocker first appeared in October 2016 ; it got a refresh two months later . The researchers do n't know if the group distributing Trump Locker is the same group that distributed VenusLocker , or if another group of attackers reverse-engineered the code . But they say that functionally , the two pieces of malware appear to be virtually identical , Bleeping Computer reports . For example , both Trump Locker and VenusLocker will encrypt some files types in full , while only encrypting the first 1024 bytes of other file types , including PDF , XLS , DOCX , and MP3 file formats . Fully encrypted files have `` .TheTrumpLockerf '' appended to their filename , while partially encrypted files get a `` .TheTrumpLockerp '' extension added , the researchers say . Finally , ransomware gangs ' use of customer service portals - to help and encourage victims to pay their ransomsAttack.Ransom- continues , says Mikko Hypponen , chief research officer of Finnish security firm F-Secure . One chief function of this support appears to be to help victims who do n't know their Windows from their ASP to find a way to remit bitcoinsAttack.Ransomto attackers , according to research into crypto-ransomware called Spora and its related customer-support operation , conducted by F-Secure 's Sean Sullivan .
This Monday , Bleeping Computer broke the news that a hacker/group identified as Harak1r1 was taking over MongoDB databases left connected to the Internet without a password on the admin account . The group was exportingAttack.Databreachthe database 's content and replacing all tables with one named WARNING , that contained a ransom note , askingAttack.Ransomthe owners of the hacked database to payAttack.Ransom0.2 Bitcoin ( ~ $ 200 ) into Bitcoin wallet . At the time of our article , Harak1r1 had hijacked just over 1,800 MongoDB databases , and 11 victims have paid the ransomAttack.Ransomin order to recover their files . As time went by , Harak1r1 hijacked more databases , reaching at one point over 3,500 MongoDB instances , and currently peaking at over 8,500 . Among them , the hacker ( s ) had even managed to make a high-profile victim , in Emory Healthcare , a US-based healthcare organization . According to the MacKeeper Security Research Team , Harak1r1 had ransackedAttack.Databreachand blocked Emory 's access to more than 200,000 medical records . Attacks from harak1r1 went on for two more days , but as worldwide infosec media started covering the topic , two copycats appeared and started doing the same . The second group goes by the name of 0wn3d , and they work by replacing the hijacked database tables with a table named WARNING_ALERT . According to Victor Gevers , the researcher who initially discovered the first hacked MongoDBs around Christmas , this second group has hijacked just over 930 databases . Unlike Harak1r1 , this second group is a little bit more greedy and asks forAttack.Ransom0.5 Bitcoin , which is around $ 500 , but this has n't stopped companies from payingAttack.Ransom, with 0wn3d 's Bitcoin wallet showing that at least three victims had paidAttack.Ransomhis ransom demandsAttack.Ransom. A day later , the same Gevers came across a third actor , using the name 0704341626asdf , which appears to have hit over 740 MongoDB servers . This hacker/group is asking forAttack.Ransom0.15 Bitcoin ( ~ $ 150 ) , and he 's using a lengthier ransom note , in which he admonishes victims for leaving their DB open over the Internet . Furthermore , this threat actor appears to be more strict with victims and gives database owners 72 hours to pay the ransomAttack.Ransom. According to Gerves , the lines that allowed him to track the activity of these three groups is slowly blurring , as these groups started using more varied messages and different Bitcoin addresses . Additionally , in newer variations of these attacks , the hackers do n't appear to bother copying the hacked database . In recent attacksAttack.Ransom, Gevers says that crooks just delete the DB 's content , ask for a ransomAttack.Ransomregardless , and hope nobody checks the logs and discovers what they 've done . There is no evidence that they actual copied your database . According to Gevers , these groups are now fighting over the same turf , with many of them rewriting each other 's ransom notes . This leads to cases where database owners pay the ransomAttack.Ransomto the wrong group , who ca n't give their content back . `` It 's catching on and it looks more players are coming to the game .