DataBreaches.Net

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

When the charm offensive didn’t work, threat actors just opted to be offensive

Posted on October 2, 2021 by Dissent

In 2020, those of us who report on ransomware attacks witnessed what some described as a “charm offensive” — spokespeople for ransomware groups granting interviews to journalists in which the threat actors tried to make themselves sound like professionals who have an ethics code and who are just trying to provide for their families.

Those of us granted interviews dutifully reported their claims or statements while our readers understandably snickered at some statements in our reports.

That was then. This is now. In 2021, after the seizure of DarkSide’s servers and their disappearance, and after REvil disappeared following the Kaseya attack, the charm offensive seems to have gone by the wayside, only to be replaced by a more aggressive posture by ransomware groups.

In the past month, several groups have started warning victims not to contact the FBI or use professional negotiators, because if they do, the threat actors will cut off negotiations and just dump all the data or sell it.  Ragnar_Locker, DoppelPaymer, and Grief all issued statements and jumped on board with threats that if victims go to the FBI or negotiators, they would be punished.  And now it seems that if victims go to the media or if researchers give information to the media that is published, the victims will be punished harshly for that, too.

Yesterday, Conti threat actors threatened that if journalists commit journalism by reporting on Conti’s negotiations with victims — negotiations that they fail to properly secure from observing eyes — we will somehow be responsible for the victims having all their data dumped or sold.  Conti used their attack and negotiations with JVCKenwood to allegedly demonstrate their seriousness.

The thin veneer of professionalism and attempt at charm is gone. We are now warned to not get in the way of threat actors trying to extort money by reporting on their extortion attempts while they are in progress.

We are warned not to interfere but instead, to aid and abet these criminals by remaining silent, in which case some journalists may get statements or favorable treatment from them?

Once again, threat actors have shown that they do not understand the psychology of the people they try to extort or threaten. They claim to respect journalism and security reporting “when it is done properly.” Their notion of “properly”  and “ethically displeasing” seem to translate as “reporting that doesn’t expose our crimes in progress.”

Conti's announcement
Image: DataBreaches.net

Security reporter Catalin Cimpanu has reported in more detail on Conti’s announcement on The Record.  But elsewhere, he was more blunt in his reaction to their threats:

Tell them to kiss my buttocks. Haven’t used one of these screenshots since 2019, but I’m gonna use all I can get just to see them bleed millions in lost ransoms.

— Catalin Cimpanu (@campuscodi) October 2, 2021

As others commented on Twitter, Conti has simply shown journalists how to help cut off the funds and rewards for their attacks — report on the attack and negotiations, and then the threat actors will cut off negotiations and lose all their possible payment from the victim.

Now it’s true that journalists have an ethical code that includes not harming people or adding to the harm victims experience. And as a someone who reports on cybercrime, this blogger has included chat transcripts or screencaps at times — but generally after negotiations have appeared to stop. And I generally only report on a chat transcript when there’s something newsworthy — like threat actors brazenly (or just idiotically) demanding $60 million from a k-12 school district, or a firm claiming that they haven’t negotiated with threat actors at all when a transcript appears to tell a different story.

But for Conti to threaten us for reporting?  Conti may find that their announcement backfires badly on them.

Someone asked me if I really believe Conti or other groups will really forego any chance of payment and just dump data. No, I don’t believe they would do that. That would involve them keeping their word on something and we’ve already seen that they don’t do that. Give up the chance to extort money by just dumping data? Not likely other than an isolated time or two.


Last updated October 3 at 6:29 pm to include last paragraph with response to a question received.


Related:

  • The 4TB time bomb: when EY's cloud went public (and what it taught us)
  • Some lower-tier ransomware gangs have formed a new RaaS alliance -- or have they? (1)
  • Another plastic surgery practice fell prey to a cyberattack that acquired patient photos and info
  • How a hacking gang held Italy’s political elites to ransom
  • Uncovering Qilin attack methods exposed through multiple cases
  • Predatory Sparrow Strikes: Coordinated Cyberattacks Seek to Cripple Iran's Critical Infrastructure
Category: Breach IncidentsCommentaries and AnalysesMalwareOf Note

Post navigation

← City of Dallas calls IT protocols ‘inadequate’ in 131-page report on police data loss
Barclays Hacked by Cyberthieves Using Monzo Account, PISP →

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

  • District of Massachusetts Allows Higher-Ed Student Data Breach Claims to Survive
  • End of the game for cybercrime infrastructure: 1025 servers taken down
  • Doctor Alliance Data Breach: 353GB of Patient Files Allegedly Compromised, Ransom Demanded
  • St. Thomas Brushed Off Red Flags Before Dark-Web Data Dump Rocks Houston
  • A Wiltshire police breach posed possible safety concerns for violent crime victims as well as prison officers
  • Amendment 13 is gamechanger on data security enforcement in Israel
  • Almost two years later, Alpha Omega Winery notifies those affected by a data breach.
  • Court of Appeal reaffirms MFSA liability in data leak case, orders regulator to shoulder costs
  • A jailed hacking kingpin reveals all about the gang that left a trail of destruction
  • Army gynecologist took secret videos of patients during intimate exams, lawsuit says

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

  • Lawmakers Warn Governors About Sharing Drivers’ Data with Federal Government
  • As shoplifting surges, British retailers roll out ‘invasive’ facial recognition tools
  • Data broker Kochava agrees to change business practices to settle lawsuit
  • Amendment 13 is gamechanger on data security enforcement in Israel
  • Changes in the Rules for Disclosure for Substance Use Disorder Treatment Records: 42 CFR Part 2: What Changed, Why It Matters, and How It Aligns with HIPAAs

Have a News Tip?

Email: Tips[at]DataBreaches.net

Signal: +1 516-776-7756

Contact Me

Email: info[at]databreaches.net
Security Issue: security[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.