Why is ransomware still so pervasive? -Low-cost of entry It's difficult to catch the bad guys -Lower skillset is enough
Sort by:
The cybersecurity awareness and readiness/skills have improved, but so have the attacks and exploitation vectors.
Ransomware has been very lucrative for attackers. Hacktivists and script kiddies have transformed into full-blown criminal organizations with the skills, and the attacks are more and more sophisticated. You have groups that create and rent ransomware tools to criminals, so everything is on the next level now.
On the other side, more and more organizations have cybersecurity insurance. If they get hit, they opt to pay as it is being seen as a cost, i.e. for some, it's cheaper to pay out the ransom than invest in a cybersecurity program, which is more attractive if you only pay the deductible.
I am against paying the ransom because it encourages the bad actors to make more attacks, and I think it should be illegal to pay the ransom.
If no one is paying, we will see less interest in executing it, and the bad actors will move to a different activity.
Thanks, great insights Ajet. <br><br>Relative to your last point, I think that's really the why isn't it. From a threat actor's standpoint, this activity still has the following attributes. Low cost of entry, difficulty to be caught and punished, overall skillsets are fairly low.
Ransomware is still so pervasive for the same reason grand theft auto, Medicare fraud, etc., is so pervasive – it is very profitable, and the odds of being caught are slim. And that makes a dangerous combination for victims.