back to article Southern Water takes the fifth over alleged $750K Black Basta ransom offer

Southern Water neither confirms nor denies offering Black Basta a $750,000 ransom payment following its ransomware attack in 2024. The Register asked the utility company - which oversees water and wastewater services across the South of England and Isle of Wight - about the alleged ransom offer after it was included in last …

  1. steviebuk Silver badge

    So they did then

    "Southern Water neither confirms nor denies offering Black Basta a $750,000 ransom payment following its ransomware attack in 2024."

    1. Androgynous Cupboard Silver badge

      Re: So they did then

      Well at least they, ahem, watered it down from $3.5M.

      Incidentlally I'm only here for the unstoppable flow of sewage and turd jokes that I expect to follow. I trust the commentariat will not disappoint.

      1. Phil O'Sophical Silver badge

        Re: So they did then

        You think that we're flush with time, and under so little pressure, that we can spout a pipeline of shit jokes all day?

        1. Hans Neeson-Bumpsadese Silver badge
          Coat

          Re: So they did then

          That would be a drain on resources

          1. Jedit Silver badge

            Re: So they did then

            Pipe down, will you?

            1. Korev Silver badge
              Coat

              Re: So they did then

              It'll take us a while to get the crap jokes out of our cistern

      2. Ken Moorhouse Silver badge

        Re: Well at least they, ahem, watered it down from $3.5M.

        Still quite a sizeable bung though.

  2. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Would paying a sum of money to criminals

    itself constitute a criminal offence?

    1. excperr

      Re: Would paying a sum of money to criminals

      Southern Water?

    2. VicMortimer Silver badge
      Alert

      Re: Would paying a sum of money to criminals

      It should.

      It should be a crime that gets CEOs locked up. The ONLY way ransomware is going to stop is if paying ransom becomes a crime with real prison time for whoever signs off on payment.

      Remove the financial incentive, ransomware ends. And since going after the perpetrators who are inevitably in hostile countries is effectively impossible, the ONLY way to effectively do that is going after the payers by making them criminals. CEOs who WILL get caught if they pay and WILL end up spending a year or two in prison for paying will not pay.

      1. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

        Re: Would paying a sum of money to criminals

        So the company just goes bust if it can't recover the data? What if it's a government dept or a school or a hospital?

        Is it a crime if they instead pay a "security specialist" 110% of the ransom demand and they are able to somehow "retrieve" the data?

        Does it apply if their Swiss parent company pays the ransom - do you then imprison the CEO of MegaCorp UK ltd ?

        Does it just mean that all data is now declared to be under Swiss or Panamanian jurisdiction and is subject to their ransomware laws

        1. Richard 12 Silver badge
          Headmaster

          Re: Would paying a sum of money to criminals

          Yes, it goes bust. No change there, as paying a ransom doesn't get the data back anyway.

          - Relying on a criminal network deleting their copies and having fully-working decryption tools that don't leave a backdoor for them to come back to squeeze you for more cash is unutterably stupid.

          Yes. If you hire a hitman you still get prosecuted for murder. Same thing.

          And finally, if they operate here, the laws here apply to that part of the business. That's well established in national and international law.

          BTW, Panama does have an extradition agreement with Europe, so they would probably need to pick a better cover.

    3. excperr

      Re: Would paying a sum of money to criminals

      I'm starting to think its moot. I like 99% have no choice to pay the legal criminals rather than a decent company, one that might give actually give a shit about our water and waters. Prosecute them to poverty.

    4. BartyFartsLast Silver badge

      Re: Would paying a sum of money to criminals

      They'll cut off your water if you don't pay them though.

  3. cyberdemon Silver badge
    WTF?

    The part I don't understand

    Is why it would be necessary to use a hallucinating LLM to analyse the chat logs..

    I guess they may be in different languages but.. Surely there is a better way than that. Using ChatGPT to gather 'evidence' is just a sure-fire way to ensure that all guilty parties get off scot-free.

  4. Will Godfrey Silver badge
    Unhappy

    WHY?

    .. is a report detailing the ransom amount of a UK water company not quoted in good old pounds sterling?

    1. sedregj Bronze badge
      Gimp

      Re: WHY?

      " WHY? is a report detailing the ransom amount of a UK water company not quoted in good old pounds sterling?"

      or whittering on about the fifth amendment to the US constitution.

      Our constitution may not even exist unless its Thursday and Aquarius is shagging Venus. It certainly does not have any amendments.

      1. Richard 12 Silver badge
        Flame

        Re: WHY?

        The UK still has a constitution - however it's difficult to read as it's written on thousands of rolls of vellum, not a single amended document.

        On the other hand, the Republican party just set fire to the US one, so I guess it's only of historical relevance now.

  5. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Annual Report

    Would this not have to go in their annual report?

    1. excperr

      Re: Annual Report

      Only if deductible.

      1. Richard 12 Silver badge

        Re: Annual Report

        Doesn't matter whether deductible or not.

        OFWAT should be finding this out, but it's doubtful because the regulatory capture was pretty much completed over the last 14 years.

  6. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Angry of Tunbridge Wells

    Not sure if Tunbridge Wells is in Southern Waters patch, but my house most certainly is.

    If they are using the funds they demand from me every year to pay off criminals, then I am not very happy at all.

    It's been a long time since I last had issue to contact my MP, but if this is true, I think it needs escalating somewhat higher that the pages of El Reg.

    I'm happy for my money to pay for IT security and updates, but to use it for paying off scum? I would hope that this payment comes directly from the pay packets of the directors who cut/witheld the IT Op's/security budget.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Angry of Tunbridge Wells

      >If they are using the funds they demand from me every year to pay off criminals

      Macquarie?

      1. Androgynous Cupboard Silver badge
        Joke

        Re: Angry of Tunbridge Wells

        > Macquarie?

        Populate a country with criminals then let them form a bank, we shouldn't be surprised at the result.

    2. neilg

      Re: Angry of Tunbridge Wells

      Didn't Southern Water outsource all of their IT to Wipro.

      Would explain quite a lot.

    3. neilg

      Re: Angry of Tunbridge Wells

      Thought the original was:

      Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells.

      1. Androgynous Cupboard Silver badge

        Re: Angry of Tunbridge Wells

        Careful, if you say his name three times he turns up in the comments, ranting about some quasi-libertarian bollocks.

  7. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Is "taking the fifth" a thing in the UK, or is this just a US idiom expanding overseas like our imperialism is about to do, again?

    1. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

      No it's the size of the shot of Whiskey they took when they found out.

      Or it's an ancient rule that Southern Water don't take money from customers:

      Magna Carta Clause 5:

      "For so long as a guardian has guardianship of such land, he shall maintain the houses, parks, fish preserves, ponds, mills, and everything else pertaining to it, from the revenues of the land itself. "

    2. jdiebdhidbsusbvwbsidnsoskebid Silver badge

      It's the latter. I presume it refers to the US fifth amendment which is something about the right to avoid self incrimination. I think UK law also has the same right embedded in it somewhere.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        There is a right to silence in the UK.... unless the question you are asked is "What is your encryption key?" (Technically, you still have the right not to say anything, but....)

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like