US city rejects $5.3M ransom demand and restores encrypted files from backup (secalerts.co)

Article summary

A US city was hit with a $5.3M ransom demand after being affected by ransomware, but instead of paying, they restored their encrypted files from backup. The city had considered paying a reduced amount of $400,000. The decision to not pay the ransom was likely influenced by the ability to restore from backups. This approach allowed the city to avoid funding the attackers and minimize the impact of the attack.

Main themes

• ransomware attacks
• cybersecurity measures
• payment of ransoms
• legal implications
• backup and restoration

What commenters say

• Paying ransoms should be illegal to prevent funding terrorist organizations and encouraging further attacks.
• Criminalizing ransom payments could unfairly punish victims, particularly individuals who pay to recover personal data.
• Organizations, especially those handling sensitive information, should be held to a higher standard of cybersecurity and potentially face penalties for negligence.
• Making ransom payments illegal could lead to unintended consequences, such as increased risk for victims who refuse to pay or are coerced into paying anyway.
• The effectiveness of banning ransom payments is debated, with some arguing it could reduce the profitability of ransomware attacks and others citing potential drawbacks.
• Some commenters suggest that working with law enforcement and using existing laws to prosecute fraudulent activities could be a more effective approach than introducing new laws against paying ransoms.
• The distinction between voluntary and coerced payments is crucial, with some arguing that victims should not be penalized for paying ransoms under duress.
• Insurance companies could play a role in mitigating the impact of ransomware by covering restoration costs or refusing to cover ransom payments, thereby reducing the incentive for attackers.