DataBreaches.Net

Menu
  • About
  • Breach Notification Laws
  • Privacy Policy
  • Transparency Report
Menu

For hacked companies, paying a ransom may not work: Many say they paid but were attacked again

Posted on June 17, 2021 by Dissent

Hiawatha Bray reports:

To pay or not to pay? For organizations victimized by ransomware, that’s a tricky question that may not have a good answer. A report from the Boston tech security firm Cybereason argues that paying off cybercriminals may not get businesses off the hook.

In a global survey of nearly 1,300 security professionals, two-thirds said that their company had suffered a significant financial loss due to an ransomware attack. About one-third of the victims had paid a ransom. But of those, 80 percent said they suffered a subsequent attack after paying, often by the same criminals responsible for the original breach.

The report also said that while most victims who paid got their data back, 46 percent found that some or all of the data had been corrupted, making it difficult or impossible to use.

Read more on Boston Globe.

Category: Commentaries and AnalysesMalwareOf Note

Post navigation

← GA: Savannah hospital system experiences outage after ransomware attack
San Juan Regional Medical Center notifies 68,792 patients of cybersecurity breach →

Now more than ever

"Stand with Ukraine:" above raised hands. The illustration is in blue and yellow, the colors of Ukraine's flag.

Search

Browse by Categories

Recent Posts

  • The headlines suggested Freedman Healthcare suffered a ransomware attack that affected patient data. The reality was quite different.
  • Runsafe report: Medical device cyberattacks threaten patient care, strain budgets, top concern for healthcare sector
  • Ryuk ransomware’s initial access expert extradited to the U.S. from Ukraine
  • Alleged Geisinger hacker will defend himself pro se.
  • Tallahassee Memorial Healthcare reveals it was also impacted by Cerner/Legacy Oracle cyberattack
  • Hospital cyberattack investigation complete, no formal review needed (1)
  • Largest Ever Seizure of Funds Related to Crypto Confidence Scams
  • IMPACT: 170 patients harmed as a result of Qilin’s ransomware attack on NHS vendor Synnovis
  • DOJ’s Data Security Program: Key Compliance Considerations for Impacted Entities
  • UBS reports data leak after cyber attack on provider, client data unaffected

No, You Can’t Buy a Post or an Interview

This site does not accept sponsored posts or link-back arrangements. Inquiries about either are ignored.

And despite what some trolls may try to claim: DataBreaches has never accepted even one dime to interview or report on anyone. Nor will DataBreaches ever pay anyone for data or to interview them.

Want to Get Our RSS Feed?

Grab it here:

https://databreaches.net/feed/

RSS Recent Posts on PogoWasRight.org

  • DOJ’s Data Security Program: Key Compliance Considerations for Impacted Entities
  • 23andMe fined £2.31 million for failing to protect UK users’ genetic data
  • DOJ Seeks More Time on Tower Dumps
  • Your household smart products must respect your privacy – including your air fryer
  • Vermont signs Kids Code into law, faces legal challenges
  • Data Categories and Surveillance Pricing: Ferguson’s Nuanced Approach to Privacy Innovation
  • Anne Wojcicki Wins Bidding for 23andMe

Have a News Tip?

Email: Tips[at]DataBreaches.net

Signal: +1 516-776-7756

Contact Me

Email: info[at]databreaches.net

Mastodon: Infosec.Exchange/@PogoWasRight

Signal: +1 516-776-7756

DMCA Concern: dmca[at]databreaches.net
© 2009 – 2025 DataBreaches.net and DataBreaches LLC. All rights reserved.