It's a hot topic, the old "pay or don't pay" for hackers not to leak your data. Since recording this a few days ago, we've had Grafana go with the "no pay" approach, and I've seen a raft of commentary around other companies reaching "agreements", which is a much politer way of saying "we paid extortionists a ransom". I'm concerned about the normalisation of ransom payments, and using language that deflects from the criminal nature of it is a big part of that. Instructure's exact words were that they "reached an agreement with the unauthorised actor involved", which really waters down the severity of the whole thing. It looks like, for the time being, "pay or leak" is the new norm... along with nonsensical statements like "the data was returned to us" 🤷♂️
Weekly update- Homepage
- International
- Weekly Update 504
Related
PwC's CISO on AI, Robots & What's Next for Security
9 hours ago
10
NIST: Solo Shouldn't Mean Less Secure
10 hours ago
11
UK Wades Into Tech Sovereignty Amid AI Policy Changes
3 days ago
41
AI Gave Your Incident Archive a Second Job
3 days ago
37
Why Europe's Freezer Hacks Spread So Far, So Fast
3 days ago
43









