Slashdot Mirror
Senators: Has Uncle Sam Paid Off Ransomware Criminals? (securityledger.com)
chicksdaddy writes: Just a month after an FBI official admitted that his agency sometimes advised companies stricken with ransomware to pay the ransom, two U.S. Senators are requesting information about federal agencies' encounters with ransomware malware, and whether Uncle Sam might have paid ransoms, also. "Have federal state or local governments sought DOJ or FBI’s help to remove ransomware from their computers," the Senators asked in a letter (PDF download) addressed to Attorney General Loretta Lynch. "If so, please describe the nature of any assistance sought, whether agencies have paid ransoms to remove ransomware, and whether DOJ or the FBI was able to decrypt the computer systems."
The Senators have some nice buzzkill bob's party was kick ass and he has all the local cops in his pocket as well.
These types of ransom payments are probably taken from petty cash via multiple split transactions to save face... It's not like there's a billing code for "ransom" unless you're talking about the CIA/FBI/DEA/DoD/State Dept...
Can you write off ransom costs on your taxes?
Do you get a receipt when you pay off your ransomware?
Gotta love the "logic" that went into that statement.
Remember kids, paying the ransom is a lot cheaper than investing in security ... as long as everyone else is also paying the Danegeld.
Had a few machines come in from various state orgs and universities 2 years ago when crypto starting making the rounds again. Their backups were too old, had to pay the fuckers. They did get all their stuff back. But still, they paid some assknob in east fuckistan 1200USD a pop. That was when I figured out that I was playing on the wrong team.
unless they are in the white house or cia sponsored.
Taxation without representation
Is this setting up for another social attack on encryption?
Only criminals use it - fearful of it.
Let the government "regulate" it and we could unlock all your family photos or business's data for you free of charge.
see? Criminals use encryption.
Encryption must be outlawed.
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Hillary Clinton has just announced that her "Email Server" and all the "Emails" were held hostage by Ransomware and she didn't pay, and that is why she doesn't have those emails everyone doesn't care about.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
I would hope the reason they paid was to track them down seeing that is the job the FBI and CIA keep telling the tax payers they do.
U.S. Senators are requesting information about federal agencies' encounters with ransomware malware, and whether Uncle Sam might have paid ransoms,
I mean the Obama administration has pretty publicly failed to up hold the 'US does not negotiate with terrorists' line. That is the sort of precedent that gets set at the top. When the President is out there doing prisoner swaps with the Taliban its pretty hard to expect some mid level IT bureaucrat to spine up and tell his bosses they fucked up don't have backups and got hit with crypt malware. Much easier to submit an expense report for "consulting services" and hope the issue is forgotten quickly.
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
So if an FBI official tell governments to pay the ransom instead of attempting to decrypt the systems, the NSA must not have the capabilities required to decrypt ciphers at all?
We already know that local governments, including police and sheriff offices, have been nailed by ransomware and have paid up to get their data back. If this conjecture about the feds proves out, it would reinforce my hypothesis that NSA surveillance is a paper tiger. If NSA data collection was as effective as we fear it is, they would be able to trace the Bitcoin payments and have agents sent out to strangle the perps with their own intestines, no matter where they might be located.
Whatever we think of the NSA's domestic operations, everyone in here would love to see that happen at least once.
Why are the senators even bothering to ask this question? The answer has been made clear many times before: "The US does not negotiate with terrorists." Since this clearly falls into that category, obviously they would have elected to let the data go than pay to have it decrypted.
Right?
Of course they do! China already knows all our secrets anyhow and it's probably cheaper in their eyes than some rudimentary security.
It's the taxpayers' money anyway, right? For great socialist justice!