After the ransacking Attack.Databreach of 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 for Attack.Ransom a 0.2 Bitcoin ( $ 235 ) payment Attack.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 ransacking Attack.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 demands Attack.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 ransom Attack.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 attacks Attack.Ransom , one asking Attack.Ransom victims 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 payments Attack.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 paying Attack.Ransom , '' they said . Be sure the attacker still has your data Just like in the case of the now infamous MongoDB attacks Attack.Ransom that have hit Attack.Ransom over 41,000 servers , it 's recommended that victims check logs before deciding to pay Attack.Ransom and see if the attackers actually took their data . If companies elect to pay the ransom Attack.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 ransom Attack.Ransom . The same thing happened in 2015 , in a series of attacks Attack.Ransom called RansomWeb Attack.Ransom , where attackers used unpatched phpBB forums to hijack databases and hold websites up for ransom Attack.Ransom .

One week ago a global cyberattack Attack.Ransom dubbed “ unprecedented ” by Europol began infecting an estimated 200,000 of the world ’ s computers , starting a seven-day countdown to the destruction of data if victims did not pay a ransom Attack.Ransom . On Friday , those countdowns begin reaching zero . But as of lunchtime the attackers had claimed only about $ 92,000 ( €82,183 ) in payments Attack.Ransom from their widespread ransom demands Attack.Ransom , according to Elliptic Enterprises Ltd , a UK-based company that tracks illicit use of bitcoin . The company calculates the total based on payments tracked to bitcoin addresses specified in the ransom demands Attack.Ransom . The ransomware , called WannaCry , began infecting users on May 12th and gave them 72 hours to pay Attack.Ransom $ 300 in bitcoin or pay Attack.Ransom twice as much . Refusal to pay Attack.Ransom after seven days was promised to result in the permanent loss of data via irrevocable encryption . With affected institutions including the Health Service Executive ( which said it prevented the ransomware from activating ) , the National Health Service in the UK , FedEx and PetroChina , few initially paid up Attack.Ransom , leading to speculation that organisations were taking their chances on fixing their corrupt machines before the ransom Attack.Ransom forced a mass deletion of critical data . A week later , experts agree the financial gains of the hackers remain astonishingly low . “ With over 200,000 machines affected , the figure is lower than expected , ” said Jamie Akhtar , co-founder of the London-based security software firm CyberSmart . “ If even 1 per cent paid the ransom Attack.Ransom that would be $ 600k. ” Mr Akhtar said experts may never know how much larger this figure would have been if a so-called kill switch had not been accidentally triggered by a cyber security researcher , who registered an internet domain that acted as a disabling tool for the worm ’ s propagation . While the world ’ s law enforcement is pointing its resources at trying to identify the culprits , Tom Robinson , chief operating officer and co-founder of Elliptic Enterprises , says it ’ s unlikely the money taken from victims will be taken from the digital bitcoin wallets they ’ re being anonymously held in . “ Given the amount of scrutiny this has come under , I would be surprised if they moved it anytime soon , ” he said . “ I just don ’ t think the risk is worth the $ 90,000 they ’ ve raised so far. ” Mr Akhtar agrees but doesn ’ t think the criminals have given up hope while machines infected later still have time ticking on their ransom Attack.Ransom countdown . “ It seems like they are still actively trying to bring funds in , ” he said , noting a Twitter post from Symantec on Thursday , which seemed to show fresh messaging from the attackers promising to hold their end of the decryption bargain if victims paid up Attack.Ransom . Mr Akhtar believes the best thing the perpetrators can do to hide from authorities is “ destroy any evidence and abandon the bitcoin wallets ” . Of course , the hack may have nothing to do with money at all . Any movement of funds from a bitcoin wallet would act as a valuable clue for law enforcement as to who is behind the attack . Preliminary finger-pointing has already targeted groups with suspected links to the North Korean regime , but clues are still few are far between . – ( Bloomberg )

Ransomware authors are profiting from the rise of the cryptocurrency -- but it 's also bringing some unexpected problems for them and other dark web operators . The value of bitcoin has soared in recent days : at the one point the cryptocurrency was worth almost $ 19,000 before it dropped back to around $ 16,500 , where it has roughly remained since . It 's almost impossible to predict what will happen next . The price of bitcoin could rise again or it could crash -- but , for now at least , a single unit of the cryptocurrency is worth a significant amount of money . Bitcoin has become the popular payment method for ransomware over the last two years , as the digital currency provides cybercriminals with a means of collecting ransoms Attack.Ransom , while also making it difficult to get the ransom-collectors ' identities , thanks to the level of anonymity it offers . WannaCry Attack.Ransom , the biggest ransomware event of the year , for example , hit Attack.Ransom hundreds of thousands of PCs around the globe , encrypting files and demanding a payment Attack.Ransom of $ 300 in bitcoin for the safe return of what was stored on the machine . In this instance , the ransomware code itself was poorly written and the vast majority of victims were able to restore their systems without giving into the demands Attack.Ransom of the cyber-attackers . However , by the time those behind WannaCry Attack.Ransom had withdrawn funds from the associated Bitcoin wallets -- a full three months after the attack -- it meant the 338 payments Attack.Ransom victims had made were worth around $ 140,000 , which was an increase in value of just under $ 50,000 compared to when the majority of payments were made Attack.Ransom . If those behind WannaCry Attack.Ransom have held onto their illicit investment , they could now be sitting on over $ 1m of bitcoin . But the sudden spike in bitcoin could actually be problematic for some cybercriminals . Before the surge in value , 1 or 0.5 bitcoin was a common ransom demand Attack.Ransom , with the idea that if the fee was low enough -- back then the ransom value worked out at a few hundred dollars -- this would encourage the victim to pay up Attack.Ransom . Even as the value of bitcoin steadily rose during the summer , some attackers were still using the standard amounts of cryptocurrency as their ransom demand Attack.Ransom . For example , Magniber ransomware demanded a payment Attack.Ransom of 0.2 bitcoin ( $ 1,138 in mid-October ) , rising to 0.4 bitcoin ( $ 2,275 in mid-October ) if the payment wasn't received Attack.Ransom within five days . Two months later , 0.2 bitcoin is currently worth $ 3,312 while 0.4 bitcoin is up to $ 6,625 . Many forms of ransomware already ask for the payment Attack.Ransom of a specified amount of dollars to be made in bitcoin . While it pins hopes on victims being able to buy a specific amount of bitcoin and successfully transfer the payment -- which some criminal gangs get around by manning help desks providing advice on buying cryptocurrency -- it 's more likely to result in the victim paying up Attack.Ransom , especially if the figure is just a few hundred dollars . `` I imagine the volatility of bitcoin pricing has been an unexpected problem for cybercriminals . The average ransom demand Attack.Ransom has remained somewhere between $ 300 to $ 1000 , and normally the ransom note will specify a USD amount , '' Andy Norton , director of threat intelligence at Lastline , told ZDNet . It is n't just ransomware distributors who might be faced with the problem of valuing items in pure bitcoin : a Dark Web vendor -- whether they are selling malware , weapons , drugs , or any other illegal item -- might find that setting their price in pure bitcoin will quickly result in them pricing themselves out of the market . With bitcoin prices continuing to rise , sophisticated cybercriminal operators can likely react to it , altering prices on a day-to-day basis to ensure that they 're able to sustain their business . Criminals are trying out alternative pricing models for ransomware already . Some criminals already operate around the idea that they charge Attack.Ransom victims just enough so that they do n't see the ransom Attack.Ransom as too much to pay Attack.Ransom -- and that often depends on the country the victims are in . The Fatboy ransomware payment scheme charges Attack.Ransom victims in poorer countries less than those in richer ones . Meanwhile , those behind Scarab ransomware have started asking Attack.Ransom victims to suggest a payment amount Attack.Ransom for receiving the encryption key for their files .

DDoS extortionists have already pounced on the Memcached DDoS attack vector in attempts to extract payments Attack.Ransom from 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 asking Attack.Ransom victims to pay Attack.Ransom 50 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 fee Attack.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 campaigns Attack.Ransom to 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 demand Attack.Ransom . But the Memcached-based DDoS extortions Attack.Ransom are 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 attacks Attack.Ransom . Victims are also more likely to pay Attack.Ransom , seeing that they 're under a heavy attack Attack.Ransom and 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 ransom Attack.Ransom wo 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 ransom Attack.Ransom . The general consensus is that this group is using a carpet bombing technique , hitting Attack.Ransom as many targets as possible for short bursts , hoping to scare one into paying Attack.Ransom . `` Multiple targets are sent the same message in hopes that any of them will pay the ransom Attack.Ransom , '' Akamai said in a report today , echoing Smith 's recommendation not to pay the ransom Attack.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 amount Attack.Ransom into the wallet , we doubt the attackers would even know which victim the payment Attack.Ransom originated 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 send Attack.Ransom us 0.7 BitCoin for each affected PC or 3 BitCoins to receive ALL Private Keys for ALL affected PC ’ s. ” CDOT isn’t paying Attack.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 payments Attack.Ransom are nearing $ 1 billion . Hackers use ransomware to encrypt computer files , making them unreadable without a secret key , and then demand digital currency Attack.Ransom like 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 payments Attack.Ransom are 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 paid Attack.Ransom $ 25 million in ransom Attack.Ransom to get files back . And one out of five businesses that do pay the ransom Attack.Ransom don ’ t get their data back , according to 2016 report by Kaspersky Labs . Last spring , the Erie County Medical Center in New York was attacked Attack.Ransom by SamSam due to a misconfigured web server , according to The Buffalo News . Because it had backed up its files , the hospital decided not to pay Attack.Ransom the estimated $ 44,000 ransom Attack.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 sneaked Attack.Ransom into Indiana hospital Hancock Health , which decided to pay Attack.Ransom 4 bitcoin , or about $ 55,000 , in ransom Attack.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 attack Attack.Ransom that took 2,000 employee computers offline for more than a week . They don ’ t plan to pay the ransom Attack.Ransom but offered few details about the attack Attack.Ransom other 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 ransom Attack.Ransom to 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 received Attack.Ransom . “ Paying a ransom Attack.Ransom to 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 ransom Attack.Ransom is 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 ransom Attack.Ransom won ’ t decrypt your data . I recommend checking with a computer security expert before paying any ransom Attack.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 send Attack.Ransom us 0.7 BitCoin for each affected PC or 3 BitCoins to receive ALL Private Keys for ALL affected PC ’ s. ” CDOT isn’t paying Attack.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 payments Attack.Ransom are nearing $ 1 billion . Hackers use ransomware to encrypt computer files , making them unreadable without a secret key , and then demand digital currency Attack.Ransom like 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 payments Attack.Ransom are 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 paid Attack.Ransom $ 25 million in ransom Attack.Ransom to get files back . And one out of five businesses that do pay the ransom Attack.Ransom don ’ t get their data back , according to 2016 report by Kaspersky Labs . Last spring , the Erie County Medical Center in New York was attacked Attack.Ransom by SamSam due to a misconfigured web server , according to The Buffalo News . Because it had backed up its files , the hospital decided not to pay Attack.Ransom the estimated $ 44,000 ransom Attack.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 sneaked Attack.Ransom into Indiana hospital Hancock Health , which decided to pay Attack.Ransom 4 bitcoin , or about $ 55,000 , in ransom Attack.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 attack Attack.Ransom that took 2,000 employee computers offline for more than a week . They don ’ t plan to pay the ransom Attack.Ransom but offered few details about the attack Attack.Ransom other 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 ransom Attack.Ransom to 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 received Attack.Ransom . “ Paying a ransom Attack.Ransom to 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 ransom Attack.Ransom is 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 ransom Attack.Ransom won ’ t decrypt your data . I recommend checking with a computer security expert before paying any ransom Attack.Ransom . ”

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 send Attack.Ransom us 0.7 BitCoin for each affected PC or 3 BitCoins to receive ALL Private Keys for ALL affected PC ’ s. ” CDOT isn ’ t paying Attack.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 payments Attack.Ransom are nearing $ 1 billion . Hackers use ransomware to encrypt computer files , making them unreadable without a secret key , and then demand digital currency Attack.Ransom like 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 ransoming Attack.Ransom your files , ” said Tyler Moffitt , a senior threat research analyst at Webroot . Ransomware infects more than 100,000 computers around the world every day and payments Attack.Ransom are 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 paid Attack.Ransom $ 25 million in ransom Attack.Ransom to get files back . And one out of five businesses that do pay the ransom Attack.Ransom don ’ 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 attacked Attack.Ransom by SamSam due to a misconfigured web server , according to The Buffalo News . Because it had backed up its files , the hospital decided not to pay Attack.Ransom the estimated $ 44,000 ransom Attack.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 sneaked Attack.Ransom into Indiana hospital Hancock Health , which decided to pay Attack.Ransom 4 bitcoin , or about $ 55,000 , in ransom Attack.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 ransom Attack.Ransom to 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 .

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 send Attack.Ransom us 0.7 BitCoin for each affected PC or 3 BitCoins to receive ALL Private Keys for ALL affected PC ’ s. ” CDOT isn ’ t paying Attack.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 payments Attack.Ransom are nearing $ 1 billion . Hackers use ransomware to encrypt computer files , making them unreadable without a secret key , and then demand digital currency Attack.Ransom like 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 ransoming Attack.Ransom your files , ” said Tyler Moffitt , a senior threat research analyst at Webroot . Ransomware infects more than 100,000 computers around the world every day and payments Attack.Ransom are 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 paid Attack.Ransom $ 25 million in ransom Attack.Ransom to get files back . And one out of five businesses that do pay the ransom Attack.Ransom don ’ 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 attacked Attack.Ransom by SamSam due to a misconfigured web server , according to The Buffalo News . Because it had backed up its files , the hospital decided not to pay Attack.Ransom the estimated $ 44,000 ransom Attack.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 sneaked Attack.Ransom into Indiana hospital Hancock Health , which decided to pay Attack.Ransom 4 bitcoin , or about $ 55,000 , in ransom Attack.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 ransom Attack.Ransom to 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 .

Cyber security researchers on Monday pointed to code in a "ransomware" attack Attack.Ransom that could indicate a link to North Korea . Symantec and Kaspersky Lab each cited code that was previously used by a hacker collective known as the Lazarus Group , which was behind the high-profile 2014 hack of Sony that was also blamed on North Korea . But the security firms cautioned that it is too early to make any definitive conclusions , in part because the code could have been merely copied by someone else for use in the current event . The effects of the ransomware attack Attack.Ransom appeared to ease Monday , although thousands more computers , mostly in Asia , were hit Attack.Ransom as people signed in at work for the first time since the infections spread to 150 countries late last week . Health officials in Britain , where surgeries and doctors ' appointments in its national health care system had been severely impacted Friday , were still having problems Monday . But health minister Jeremy Hunt said it was `` encouraging '' that a second wave of attacks had not materialized . He said `` the level of criminal activity is at the lower end of the range that we had anticipated . '' In the United States , Tom Bossert , a homeland security adviser to President Donald Trump , told the ABC television network the global cybersecurity attack is something that `` for right now , we 've got under control . '' He told reporters at the White House that `` less than $ 70,000 '' has been paid as ransom Attack.Ransom to those carrying out the attacks . He urged all computer users to make sure they install Vulnerability-related.PatchVulnerability software patches to protect themselves against further cyberattacks . In the television interview , Bossert described the malware that paralyzed 200,000 computers running factories , banks , government agencies , hospitals and transportation systems across the globe as an `` extremely serious threat . '' Cybersecurity experts say the hackers behind the `` WannaCry '' ransomware , who demanded Attack.Ransom $ 300 payments Attack.Ransom to decrypt files locked by the malware , used a vulnerability that came from U.S. government documents leaked online . The attacks exploited Vulnerability-related.DiscoverVulnerability known vulnerabilities in older Microsoft computer operating systems . During the weekend , Microsoft president Brad Smith said the clandestine U.S. National Security Agency had developed the code used in the attack . Bossert said `` criminals , '' not the U.S. government , are responsible for the attacks . Like Bossert , experts believe Microsoft 's security patch released Vulnerability-related.PatchVulnerability in March should protect networks if companies and individual users install it . Russian President Vladimir Putin said his country had nothing to do with the attack and cited the Microsoft statement blaming the NSA for causing the worldwide cyberattack . `` A genie let out of a bottle of this kind , especially created by secret services , can then cause damage to its authors and creators , '' Putin said while attending an international summit in Beijing . He said that while there was `` no significant damage '' to Russian institutions from the cyberattack , the incident was `` worrisome . '' `` There is nothing good in this and calls for concern , '' he said . Even though there appeared to be a diminished number of attacks Monday , computer outages still affected segments of life across the globe , especially in Asia , where Friday 's attacks occurred after business hours . China China said 29,000 institutions had been affected , along with hundreds of thousands of devices . Japan 's computer emergency response team said 2,000 computers at 600 locations were affected there . Universities and other educational institutions appeared to be the hardest hit in China . China 's Xinhua News Agency said railway stations , mail delivery , gas stations , hospitals , office buildings , shopping malls and government services also were affected . Elsewhere , Britain said seven of the 47 trusts that run its national health care system were still affected , with some surgeries and outpatient appointments canceled as a result . In France , auto manufacturer Renault said one of its plants that employs 3,500 workers stayed shut Monday as technicians dealt with the aftermath of the Friday attacks . Security patches Computer security experts have assured individual computer users who have kept their operating systems updated that they are relatively safe , but urged companies and governments to make sure they apply Vulnerability-related.PatchVulnerability security patches or upgrade Vulnerability-related.PatchVulnerability to newer systems . They advised those whose networks have been effectively shut down by the ransomware attack Attack.Ransom not to make the payment demanded Attack.Ransom , the equivalent of $ 300 , paid Attack.Ransom in the digital currency bitcoin . However , the authors of the "WannaCry" ransomware attack Attack.Ransom told their victims the amount they must pay Attack.Ransom will double if they do not comply within three days of the original infection , by Monday in most cases . The hackers warned that they will delete all files on infected systems if no payment Attack.Ransom is received within seven days .

There ’ s no question that Friday ’ s WannaCry ransomware attack Attack.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 payments Attack.Ransom had 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 payments Attack.Ransom totaling $ 26,407.85 USD . By Sunday , the number between the three wallets was up to $ 30,706.61 USD . By Monday morning , 181 payments Attack.Ransom had 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 impacted Vulnerability-related.DiscoverVulnerability were probably still susceptible to secondary attacks because the underlying vulnerability probably hasn ’ t been patched Vulnerability-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 tricked Attack.Phishing into 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 provided Vulnerability-related.PatchVulnerability Customer Guidance for WannaCrypt attacks Attack.Ransom and 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 download Vulnerability-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 ransom Attack.Ransom or stand their ground . Sophos has mostly taken a neutral stance on the issue . In the case of this attack , paying the ransom Attack.Ransom doesn ’ t seem to be helping the victims so far . Therefore , Levy believes paying the WannaCry ransom Attack.Ransom is ill-advised : In general , paying Attack.Ransom is a bad idea unless the organization is truly desperate to get irreplaceable data back and when it is known that the ransom payment Attack.Ransom works . 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 .

There ’ s no question that Friday ’ s WannaCry ransomware attack Attack.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 payments Attack.Ransom had 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 payments Attack.Ransom totaling $ 26,407.85 USD . By Sunday , the number between the three wallets was up to $ 30,706.61 USD . By Monday morning , 181 payments Attack.Ransom had 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 impacted Vulnerability-related.DiscoverVulnerability were probably still susceptible to secondary attacks because the underlying vulnerability probably hasn ’ t been patched Vulnerability-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 tricked Attack.Phishing into 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 provided Vulnerability-related.PatchVulnerability Customer Guidance for WannaCrypt attacks Attack.Ransom and 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 download Vulnerability-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 ransom Attack.Ransom or stand their ground . Sophos has mostly taken a neutral stance on the issue . In the case of this attack , paying the ransom Attack.Ransom doesn ’ t seem to be helping the victims so far . Therefore , Levy believes paying the WannaCry ransom Attack.Ransom is ill-advised : In general , paying Attack.Ransom is a bad idea unless the organization is truly desperate to get irreplaceable data back and when it is known that the ransom payment Attack.Ransom works . 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 .