I wonder how this will play out. The main reason companies pay the ransoms is their insurance. Bigger companies are insured against interruptions to their business, so when an attack happens, the insurer is on the hook. From the insurer's standpoint, it's often cheaper to pay the ransom than to pay the company for the interruption, and so most ransom payments happen because the insurer demands it (to put it simply). Attackers know this very well.
When the companies won't be able to pay, it will likely drive the cost of business continuity insurance for everyone, at least until the attackers realize it's no longer so easy. I wonder what other unintended side-effects we'll see.
Plumsandsticks t1_iwhu0yc wrote
Reply to Australia to consider banning ransomware payments by giuliomagnifico
I wonder how this will play out. The main reason companies pay the ransoms is their insurance. Bigger companies are insured against interruptions to their business, so when an attack happens, the insurer is on the hook. From the insurer's standpoint, it's often cheaper to pay the ransom than to pay the company for the interruption, and so most ransom payments happen because the insurer demands it (to put it simply). Attackers know this very well.
When the companies won't be able to pay, it will likely drive the cost of business continuity insurance for everyone, at least until the attackers realize it's no longer so easy. I wonder what other unintended side-effects we'll see.