DataBreaches.Net

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

“Bad faith, misunderstanding, or indifference?” Why do ransomware teams falsely insist victims have “revenue?”

Posted on September 8, 2022 by Dissent

Valéry Rieß-Marchive has been following the ransomware attack on the Sud-Francilien hospital center in Corbeille-Essonnes by LockBit 3.0 since it was first announced and has consistently been ahead of the news pack in reporting on developments.

In his latest report, he reveals that a previous report that GIGN negotiators were able to reduce an alleged $11 million ransom demand down to $1 million was inaccurate;  the demand was always $1 million. A comment by a LockBit negotiator aware of the false report and a preview of LockBit’s listing for the hospital support LeMagIT’s reporting.

But Rieß-Marchive’s report today also addresses an issue this site and others have pointed out in other attacks:  attackers claim that a victim can afford to pay a particular ransom amount because they have “x amount of revenue,” as seen on Zoominfo.  The threat actors ignore claims that Zoominfo’s “revenue” figures are not commercial revenue figures and that public entities — such as school districts and public hospitals — do not have disposable revenue or funds that can be used in a discretionary manner.

In today’s report, Rieß-Marchive includes snippets from the chat log between LockBit and the hospital and asks whether it is “Bad faith, misunderstanding, or indifference?” on the threat actor’s part.

By now, I think the answer is clear.

Read his coverage at LeMagIT.

Category: Breach IncidentsHealth DataNon-U.S.

Post navigation

← BianLian hits a community services organization for adults with serious disabilities
How many times was Stratford University hacked? →

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

  • School Districts Unaware BoardDocs Software Published Their Private Files
  • A guilty plea in the PowerSchool case still leaves unanswered questions
  • Brussels Parliament hit by cyber-attack
  • Sweden under cyberattack: Prime minister sounds the alarm
  • Former CIA Analyst Sentenced to Over Three Years in Prison for Unlawfully Transmitting Top Secret National Defense Information
  • FIN6 cybercriminals pose as job seekers on LinkedIn to hack recruiters
  • Dutch police identify users on Cracked.io
  • Help, please: Seeking copies of the PowerSchool ransom email(s)
  • RCMP thumb drive with informant, witness data obtained by criminals: watchdog
  • Evoke Wellness to Pay $1.9 Million to Settle FTC Claims That They Misled Consumers Seeking Substance Use Disorder Treatment

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

  • Rules Proposed Under New Jersey Data Privacy Act
  • Using facial recognition? Three recent articles of interest.
  • India publishes consent management rules under Digital Personal Data Protection Act
  • Republicans Move A Step Closer To Repealing Protections For Abortion Clinics
  • Democrats introduce bill that aims to protect reproductive health data
  • Don’t Mind If I Do: Montana Says Hands Off Neural Data
  • 23andMe leadership grilled by lawmakers demanding answers about data security amid bankruptcy sale

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.