As ransomware gangs threaten physical harm, 'I am afraid of what's next,' ex-negotiator says Ransomware gangs now frequently threaten physical violence against employees and their families as a way to force victim organizations into paying their demands. According to a survey of 1,500 security and IT professionals conducted by Censuswide on behalf of security firm Semperis, digital intruders are still holding more …
They don't need to to it themselves, they just need to go to a darkweb site where they can find some gang members or mercenary types living in your country willing to do the violence in exchange for payment in cryptocurrency.
Of course at some point they'll realize they can get the same outcome without bothering with the ransomware, saving money they were using on buying exploits from the scumbags developing the 0 days. They skip the ransomware and go directly to the threats of physical harm. Next step would be the gang members they were subbing realizing they can collect all the money if they skip the former ransomware peddlers and make the threats themselves. That's the nice thing about criminals - you can always count on them to screw one another over.
They don't need to to it themselves, they just need to go to a darkweb site where they can find some gang members or mercenary types living in your country willing to do the violence in exchange for payment in cryptocurrency.
Just like Ross Ulbricht did, and he was pardoned. So no real worries there.
> Of course at some point they'll realize they can get the same outcome without bothering with the ransomware, saving money they were using on buying exploits from the scumbags developing the 0 days. They skip the ransomware and go directly to the threats of physical harm.
Not exactly. The ransomware gives the executives and corporation cover to pay ransoms which are for the personal benefit of said executives. This would be a questionable personal expense as a simple threat, but a legitimate business expense when dressed up as a computer threat.
No, the executives have way less money than the corporations. There are only a few executives in the world who can easily spaff a couple of million bucks in btc.
And if someone threatens my family, but I can get the company to pay the freight, then why would I really try to not pay? (If my wife found out, I'd be divorced before breakfast)
The company won't pay a ransom in the millions just to protect one executive. They'll beef up his security for a couple months, then go back to his normal level of security saying the threat is over. The extortionists would get more extorting the CEO, because he alone can decide to pay where you'd need board approval to pay $5 million or whatever - and shareholders would have a lot of questions because you can't hide an expense like that.
Even the most highly paid executives that have security paid for as part of their compensation are only paying $1 million a year or so for security. If you break that down into 24x7 coverage, it isn't much since it is mostly about his public appearances and it wouldn't be that hard for a few financially motivated gang members to overcome for attacking him at home unless they are unlucky enough to choose a shift where a former SEAL or SAS guy is working rather than when a retired cop who is just collecting a paycheck is working.
> The company won't pay a ransom in the millions just to protect one executive.
Yes, that's the entire point: Threaten the executives family, but phrase the whole thing as a ransomware shakedown of the company.
The company will pay for that. And the executive won't try very hard to avoid the ransom, because it's his family on the firing line, and not his money paying the ransom.
Easy to moralise when you’ve never been the target. Try reporting any kind of threat and see what happens. In most cases, police won’t act unless there’s actual violence. You’ll get a crime reference number, a vague “stay safe,” and that’s it.
Living under that kind of fear isn’t about lacking courage - it’s about recognising that no one’s coming to help. People yield because they’re isolated, terrified, and rightly sceptical of a system that repeatedly proves itself useless.
And let’s not pretend there’s some noble corporate cause to defend. After years of wage suppression, layoffs, “reorgs,” and being discarded to protect dividends, loyalty is dead. Ransomware gangs know it - they weaponise it.
After years of wage suppression, layoffs, “reorgs,” and being discarded to protect dividends, loyalty is dead
People suffering through that aren't going to be the targets of extortionists, because they don't have enough money to be worth it. They'd much rather extort the people who are suppressing wages, laying people off, doing reorgs, and protecting their dividends. The C suite and board are the ones with the money!
No, but they will be sensitive to the offers from ransomware gang for any inside information about their company. These criminals offer substantial rewards for intel, all the way up to a slice of the profits, and if you're feeling disenfranchised from the company -or are even about to get fired- that will look very attractive.
One would think the prospect of having your data used against you would encourage corporate officers to reconsider their own in-house data retention on their customers, but I suppose the modern manor lords would need a little example pour encourager les autres.
Or they're bullshitting about the fear of personal safety.
If you were to draw senior manglement's attention to this and explain tha they'd likely be the recipient of the threats and that by that time it would be too late for the security measures that would protect their hides then they might be receptive.
Not really a surprise it is theft after all. Once upon a time they would have taken the bank manager's family hostage to ensure he opened the safe when requested.
It's just a remote version of that old scam. Maybe does show a bit of desperation on the part of the attackers.
Moving into threats of physical violence puts them in territory where plod will actually put down the coffee mug and get involved. When it's just money and data they can shrug their shoulders and use 'limited resources' as an excuse to do nothing.
Perhaps doesn't apply in the UK, but for US based orgs targeted like this, one would think prosecutors could invoke RICO with its extensive powers to round up pretty much everyone facilitating the crimes.
The money involved (for recovery) would doubly motivate the agencies involved (don't know how it works in UK, but in US seizing assets seems highly correlated with crimes targeted).
If you go back ten years and show that the groups involved are associated with fundamentalists, the book would be thrown at them (unless I'm mistaken), but this seems to be escaping either resources or attention?
This is so 'last year', unfortunately.
There's been some fundamental changes in the structure of the Federal government including some 'purges' of top law enforcement and prosecutors who are not regarded as politically sound. This, combined with a general level of corruption that was once regarded as unthinkable (the recent golf course visits was just the tip of the iceberg) means that anyone who currently falls foul of RICO statues just wasn't dropping the appropriate amounts of money in the right places.
I hope I'm completely wrong and I'm sure that many rank and file Federal officers are still trying to do the right thing but the current administration has completely corrupted the entire judicial system. This has been building for some time, it didn't just happen overnight (although it seems so). It means that nothing is now being done unless there's a political (or even actual) payback involved. We're in trouble.
The best preventetive would be to announce "I may not know who you are but there are undoubtedly people who do, so if we get one of these notes I can afford to and will make it amply worth the while of any of them who delivers your freshly cut off balls, hands and head in that order a week apart."
Article tag line* Crims warned 40% of respondents that they and their families would suffer
There is no mention of this in the risk report published** by Semperis, the words 'family' or 'families' are absent from the report. Staff are the 40% referred to in the report, "40% involved physical threats against staff".
* I am not sure if tag line is the right term. But, I am sure someone will correct me if I am wrong.
** https://www.semperis.com/wp-content/uploads/resources-pdfs/reports/resources-semperis-ransomware-risk-report.pdf
Ah yes. Reminds me of the early days of the Internet and that ol' chestnut of threatening some random person with coming over to their house to beat them AND their dad up after a heated exchange.
Anyone else think it silly to see grown arse adults who run actual businesses cowering before such "threats"?
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2026
