Our cyber security products span from our next gen SIEM used in the most secure government and critical infrastructure environments, to automated cyber risk reporting applications for commercial and government organisations of all sizes.
How to deal with a ransomware attack is currently a matter of some debate.
There is a school of thought that paying the ransom is a bad idea because it rewards the criminal and can be used to fund further attacks, possibly even on the same organisation. Many organisations run a counter argument which suggests that to get systems and data back up quickly and resume services, paying the ransom is the cheapest way out of a bad situation.
There is an increasing number of stakeholders in this decision which complicates the matter enormously.
Firstly, there are increasing moves by government and regulators to report ransom payments or even make them illegal altogether. This fits well with an international desire to stamp out this type of transnational crime. It may, however, create existential considerations for some seriously affected organisations. Some insurers, like AXA SA, are now refusing to write policies that reimburse ransoms paid by their customers in France, so, in the absence of de-encryption keys, re-instatement efforts and the likelihood of a return to BAU look unlikely for many victims.
Secondly, there is the assumption that the decryption key or system the ransom pays for will, in fact, work. It probably will (although not always) however in the case of Colonial Pipeline Co, the decryption process was so slow that they had to switch to backups anyway.
Thirdly, and briefly returning to insurers’ roles in supporting commercial cyber risk management efforts, the increasing prevalence of ransomware is resulting in underwriters seeking more and more evidence of the use of security controls in the organisations they insure. It is of concern that in the absence of such controls, and in the event of a ransomware attack, insurers may refuse to pay either the claim or the ransom money.
The measure of success of any recovery from a ransomware attack is your ability to resume BAU as quickly and painlessly as possible. Again, there is no silver bullet but the successful management of these “best two” controls will significantly increase your likelihood of successfully reinstating your business and data systems. As a result, these controls will limit disruption and your potential losses as well as, hopefully, the need to pay a ransom.
With ransomware being the topic of international summits, the insurance industry in such flux and future regulatory challenges to be resolved it would seem smart to have a backup plan – how your business could survive in the event of the worst possible set of circumstances.
Regular, comprehensive, tested and accessible backups that can form the basis of the reinstatement of your business. Obviously they need to be secured and safely isolated from the rest of the networks and systems, but also they need to be sufficiently accessible to enable the restoration of the business systems and data to ensure a timely return to BAU.
This includes backups of servers, file stores, workstations and in particular, systems where the integrity of the platform itself is vital – like domain controllers. Losing one of those can result in a massive amount of re-work. Don’t assume, for example, that because systems are resilient or mirrored that you will be OK. The ransomware might spread to all nodes in a cluster, or encrypted data could be replicated across all the same technologies you believed would save you.
Regular and comprehensive, reliable backups of every data store and enterprise system is still the best remedy for large-scale data loss or corruption. Having a secure and tested set of business systems and data back-ups is the best form of insurance you can have.
Assume that you have the ransom money (and are allowed to pay it) OR a good set of backups. Is that all you need?
In short, no.
A ransomware outbreak requires solid management just like any other cyber security incident. Reinstating your business systems and data to support BAU without impacting your business operations and stakeholders is not easy.
There will be the effects of disruption to manage, systems affected by the malware itself and those which have been disconnected to protect them. There will be communications to customers, stakeholders, regulators, law enforcement, insurers and governments to manage. If paying a ransom, who will negotiate with the attacker, and who has the sign off for a multi-million-dollar payment? These are not routine activities.
The vulnerability or security weakness that was exploited will require investigation so it can be fixed, patched or corrected to avoid further infections. Infected systems must be isolated from the network so they don’t infect systems that have not yet been affected, or re-infect the ones you are gradually restoring and bringing back on line.
Planning for how the incident will be managed is essential, and as with any other plan, identify who’s in charge, practice it, establish the pre-requisites and dependencies. Test it again. It all takes time, but if the plan works it sets the platform for a successful re-instatement of BAU whether you pay the ransom or not.
The recovery from a ransomware attack has a number of moving parts. But you will need backups. They might save you; they might be the only thing that does. Especially, if you can’t pay the ransom, or the decryption solution isn’t workable.
The wider implications of a malware-infested environment, of disruption and losses of service, of needing to communicate and to arrange rapid access to funds, forensic teams or consultants all mean having a sound, and tested, incident management plan.
As we said in the first two blogs in this series (see here and here) – having controls and safeguards is important; making sure they all work effectively is equally vital. It’s too late to test your incident management plan and system and data backups after the fact.
<<< Part 2a: Australia’s Essential Eight: Beyond Endpoint Control <<< Part 2b: Activating UK NCSC & US NIST Guidelines: Beyond Endpoint Control Part 4: Systematic Measurement of Cyber Controls >>> As much as we invest into cyber security controls, external threats are inevitable. In a recent Notifiable Data Breaches Report from the Office of the […]Read more
Keen campers, scouts and even the Swiss Army know – that a good penknife is indispensable. This simple device has mitigated many a disaster at one point in time or another. Whether it’s to cut through a bit of string, tighten a screw or simply to solve the problem of no bottle opener in the […]Read more
Supply chain risk is an area of cyber security that demands the ongoing attention of every enterprise; because it can make the difference between being resilient or not. It’s no surprise that insurers warn that the vulnerability of supply chains is potentially a systemic risk that can quickly propagate across supply chain dominated industries. Organisations […]Read more
It took a “tripartite cyber assessment” by the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) to identify that a sample of financial organisations had inadequate cyber security: poor security control management, a lack of business recovery planning and inadequate 3rd party risk assessment. Why were there gaps? Where is the failure? Clearly the common practice of unsubstantiated […]Read more
The discussion over data-driven vs qualitative cyber security assessment has been going for some time. Nowadays, it is at the top of the priority list for many security and senior executive teams. Managing cyber security has always been a noble ambition but without reliable measurement, the lack of actionable information makes evidence-based management decisions almost […]Read more
Attack Surface Management (ASM) characterises a business’s security risks as the monitoring and risk mitigation of a constantly changing and vulnerable “risk-surface”. Importantly, this attack surface extends to both internal and external assets and services. Some ASM solutions deliver clear visibility across both Internet facing and internal assets. Others do not. Instead, they assess external […]Read more
The UK Government has released its annual “Cyber Security Breaches Survey 2023”. It provides some valuable insights into how cyber security is currently being managed in the UK, by a range of organisations. It also speaks to how current competing economic priorities are impacting the effectiveness of some cyber security management efforts. The full report […]Read more
Solving the mismatch between cyber security reporting and directors’ requirements You are undoubtedly familiar with the headlines; you may have even become in part desensitised to them: ‘Cyber-attacks are increasingly damaging’, or ‘large amounts of personal data are most at risk’. The important take-away, however, is that modern day thieves can easily gain access to […]Read more
A system to address the untrustworthy security environment Zero trust approaches to security have been talked about for a while; but in recent times they have certainly gained more currency. As a model for protecting data and services, the simplicity of the concept is its biggest strength – assume, as a default position, there is […]Read more
The ongoing protection of Critical Infrastructure from cyber-attacks has implications for us all – whether it’s supporting our health, well-being or simply our way of life, there is good reason to reflect on the effectiveness your cyber security. Cyber security risks are nothing new and the vulnerability of critical infrastructure to them (and the heightened […]Read more
Read by directors, executives, and security professionals globally, operating in the most complex of security environments.