Tech
Study examines whether policy intervention could combat ransomware
As ransomware attacks become more common and complex—and costly to the crimes’ targets—a University of Texas at Dallas researcher is examining how policymakers might combat cybercriminals.
Dr. Atanu Lahiri, an associate professor of information systems at the Naveen Jindal School of Management, said ransomware has become one of the top cybersecurity threats facing organizations worldwide. Spread primarily through email phishing scams and exploitation of unpatched software bugs, ransomware robs a user’s access to computer files until a ransom is paid.
“The data is still on your computer,” he said. “It’s locked up, and the criminals have the key.”
In a study published in Information Systems Research, Lahiri and a colleague examined whether and under what circumstances policy intervention could help deter this type of cyberattack. He found that effective response solutions might depend on factors such as the value of compromised information, the nature of the ransom demand, and who or what organization is most affected.
Although paying ransom often seems preferable to facing business disruptions, payments also embolden the attackers and encourage them to come back for more. This ripple effect, or externality, which is driven by extortion, creates a unique problem dubbed “extortionality” by the authors.
“There are two questions: When do we care, and what do we do?” Lahiri said. “Should ransom payments be banned or even penalized?”
The disruptions caused by ransomware attacks can be crippling for businesses. In 2024, the FBI’s Internet Crime Complaint Center received more than 3,000 ransomware complaints. Victims paid over $800 million to attackers, according to research by Chainalysis, although the impact is likely much higher because many incidents and payments go unreported.
The illegal breaches have hit targets ranging from Fortune 500 companies to police departments to government and university systems.
Lahiri was inspired to explore potential solutions as federal and state lawmakers grapple with laws to restrict government entities and other companies from paying ransoms to regain access to their data. He found that fighting these threats through legislation is tricky because a ban on ransom payments or other penalties could negatively affect the victim, whose goal is simply to recover compromised information quickly and with minimal disruption.
For example, outright bans on ransom payment are particularly problematic for hospitals, where lives are at stake and critical lifesaving information can’t be accessed.
On the other hand, paying ransom rewards criminal behavior, encourages more breaches and elevates the risk of additional attacks, the researchers found.
Through mathematical models and simulations, Lahiri determined that an ideal scenario in many cases would be for companies not to give in to an attacker’s ransom demand. In practice, however, this solution is not so clear-cut.
“It relies on you trusting the other guy, in this case other organizations, not to pay up either,” he said. “It would be better if nobody paid, but if someone does, it would raise the risk for everybody.”
“You have to be careful when you impose a ban, though,” said Lahiri, who teaches the graduate class Cybersecurity Fundamentals at UT Dallas, serves as director of the cybersecurity systems certificate program, and chairs the University Information Security Advisory Committee. “A more reasoned approach might be to first try incentives or a penalty to deter ransom payments.”
If the attackers are not strategic in choosing their ransom asks—and do not demand different sums from the victims depending on their ability to pay—Lahiri recommends that policymakers impose fines or taxes on companies that pay ransoms.
“When imposing a ban, policymakers should be mindful,” he said. “In particular, hospitals and critical infrastructure firms should be exempted to avoid excessive collateral damage from business disruption.
“In some cases, you wouldn’t even have to impose the ban, but if you talk a lot about a ban, ransom payers would take notice. Even the specter of a ban might do the trick and make organizations invest in backup technologies that can help them recover without having to pay the attackers.”
The best offense, Lahiri said, is a good defense, and the best defense is simply more redundancy. Backing up data and practicing drills on recovering information is a strong way to avoid paying the attacker. Policymakers could incentivize redundancy measures, he said, by subsidizing backup technology, practice drills and awareness campaigns.
“One of the biggest problems is that people don’t invest in backups,” Lahiri said. “They don’t conduct drills, like fire drills. Security is always seen as a hassle.
“If we had great backups and we could recover from the attacks, we would not be paying the ransom in the first place. And we would not be talking about extortionality.”
Dr. Debabrata Dey, Davis Professor and area director of analytics, information and operations at the University of Kansas, is a co-author of the study.
More information:
Debabrata Dey et al, “Extortionality” in Ransomware Attacks: A Microeconomic Study of Extortion and Externality, Information Systems Research (2025). DOI: 10.1287/isre.2024.1160
Citation:
Study examines whether policy intervention could combat ransomware (2025, August 28)
retrieved 28 August 2025
from https://techxplore.com/news/2025-08-policy-intervention-combat-ransomware.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no
part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
Tech
What Is That Mysterious Metallic Device US Chief Design Officer Joe Gebbia Is Using?
Joe Gebbia, cofounder of Airbnb and the US Chief Design Officer appointed by Trump, was spotted in San Francisco today using a mysterious metallic device. In a social media post on X viewed over 500,000 times, a man who looks like Gebbia sits with an espresso at a coffee shop. He’s wearing metallic buds that bisect his ears, with a matching clamshell-shaped disc in front of him on the counter.
After the video was posted Monday morning, social media users were quick to suggest that this could be some kind of prototype from OpenAI’s upcoming line of hardware devices designed in partnership with famed Apple designer Jony Ive. An OpenAI spokesperson declined to comment on the potential Gebbia video after WIRED reached out. Gebbia also did not respond to a request for comment.
The device Gebbia appears to be wearing looks quite similar to the hardware seen in a fake OpenAI ad that was widely circulated on Reddit and social media in February. That video from last month seemingly showed Pillion actor Alexander Skarsgård interacting with an AI device that had a similar-looking pair of earbuds and a circular disc. At the time, OpenAI denounced the widely seen video as not real. “Fake news,” wrote OpenAI President Greg Brockman at the time, responding to a social media post.
The earbuds seen in the video of Gebbia also look quite similar in shape to the Huawei FreeClip 2, a pair of open earbuds released earlier this year. However, the clamshell seen on the coffee counter next to Gebbia is different from Huawei’s most recent headphone case. It would also be quite surprising if a government official were seen using Huawei tech, considering the Chinese company is effectively banned from selling its phones in the US due to security concerns.
WIRED’s audio experts say he’s most likely wearing open earbuds, as Gebbia’s pair share some similarities with Soundcore’s AeroClips or Sony’s LinkBuds Clip, though the cases for those buds don’t match what’s on the table in front of Gebbia. WIRED also ran the photo and video through software that attempts to identify AI-generated outputs and other deepfakes. The detection software, from a company called Hive, says the odds are low that this imagery of Gebbia was generated by AI. Still, AI detectors are not always reliable and can include false outputs. It’s possible that the entire post could be a synthetic hoax.
Could this be some kind of soft launch teaser for OpenAI’s hardware? The timing of this trickle out would make sense, since the company may ship devices to consumers sometime early in 2027. Still, OpenAI denied any involvement with the previous pseudo-ad for the metallic AI hardware, with its shiny earbuds and matching disc.
Tech
The ‘European’ Jolla Phone Is an Anti-Big-Tech Smartphone
“There are Chinese components as well—we are totally open about it—but the key is that as we compile the software ourselves and install it in Finland, we protect the integrity of the product,” Pienimäki says.
What makes Sailfish OS unique over competitors like GrapheneOS or e/OS is that it’s not based on the Android Open Source Project, but Linux. That means it has no ties to Google—no need for the company to “deGoogle” the software; meaning there’s a greater sense of sovereignty over the software (and now the hardware). Still, it’s able to run Android apps, though the implementation isn’t perfect. Another common criticism is that it’s not as secure as options like GrapheneOS, where every app is sandboxed.
There’s a good chance some Android apps on Sailfish OS will run into issues, which is why in the startup wizard, the phone will ask if you want to install services like MicroG—open source software that can run Google services on devices that don’t have the Google Play Store, making it an easier on-ramp for folks coming from traditional smartphones without a technical background. You don’t even need to create a Sailfish OS account to use the Jolla Phone.
Jolla’s effort is hardly the first to push the anti-Big Tech narrative. A wave of other hardware and software companies offer a “deGoogled” experience, whether that’s Murena from France and its e/OS privacy-friendly operating system, or the Canadian GrapheneOS, which just announced a partnership with Motorola. At CES earlier this year, the Swiss company Punkt also teamed up with ApostrophyOS to deploy its software on the new MC03 smartphone. Jolla is following a broader European trend of reducing reliance on US companies, like how French officials ditched Zoom for French-made video conference software earlier this year.
The Phone
A common problem with these niche smartphones is that they inevitably end up costing a lot of money for the specs. Take the Light Phone III, for example, a fairly low-tech anti-smartphone that doesn’t enjoy the benefits of economies of scale, resulting in an outlandish $699 price. The Jolla Phone is in a similar boat, though the specs-to-value ratio is a little more respectable.
It’s powered by a midrange MediaTek Dimensity 7100 5G chip with 8 GB of RAM, 256 GB of storage, plus a microSD card slot and dual-SIM tray. There’s a 6.36-inch 1080p AMOLED screen, the two main cameras, and a 32-megapixel selfie shooter. The 5,500-mAh battery cell is fairly large considering the phone’s size, though the phone’s connectivity is a little dated, stuck with Wi-Fi 6 and Bluetooth 5.4.
Uniquely, the Jolla Phone brings back “The Other Half” functional rear covers from the original. These swappable back covers have pogo pins that interface with the phone, allowing people to create unique accessories like a second display on the back of the phone or even a keyboard attachment. There’s an Innovation Program where the community can cocreate functional covers together and 3D print them. And yes, a removable rear cover means the Jolla Phone’s battery is user-replaceable.
Tech
Attacks on GPS Spike Amid US and Israeli War on Iran
Shipping through the Strait of Hormuz—the narrow but vital oil trade route in the Middle East—has almost ground to a halt since the start of the United States and Israel’s war against Iran. Tankers in the region have faced military strikes and a spike in GPS jamming attacks, a new analysis says.
Since the first US-Israeli strikes against Iran on February 28, more than 1,100 ships operating across the Gulf region have had their GPS or automatic identification system (AIS) communications technology disrupted, says Ami Daniel, the CEO of maritime intelligence firm Windward. Ships have been made to appear as if they were inland on maps, including at a nuclear power plant, the firm says.
The analysis comes as maritime officials have warned of a “critical” risk to ships operating in the region and as the initial conflict has quickly expanded to involve countries across the Middle East. At least three tankers in the region have been damaged in the conflict.
“We’re seeing a lot of GPS jamming,” Daniel says of shipping in the Strait of Hormuz and surrounding areas. The levels of electronic interference are “way above the baseline” of usual interference, he says. “It’s becoming very dangerous to go in and out.”
Over the last few years, attacks against GPS and navigation systems have been on the rise—largely driven by the wars in Ukraine and Gaza. They can impact people’s phones or devices, but also disrupt the safety and navigation systems in planes and ships. The electronic interference largely comes in two forms: jamming and spoofing. During jamming attacks, satellite signals are overwhelmed so that positioning data isn’t available. Whereas spoofing can create false signals that make an object appear incorrectly on a map—for instance, making ships appear as if they are inland at airports.
Inaccurate location data can lead to ships running off course, potentially increasing the chances of them crashing into other tankers, running aground, or causing damaging oil spills. In warzones, electronic interference is often used to try and disrupt the navigation systems of drones or missiles, which can rely on location data to find and hit their targets.
Analysis of shipping data by Windward found that there has been an “escalating” level of electronic interference across Iranian, United Arab Emirates, Qatari, and Omani waters since the initial strikes on February 28. Daniel says that the majority of the activity the company has identified so far has been jamming rather than spoofing. The company’s analysis says it has identified around 21 “new clusters” where ships have had their AIS data jammed in recent days.
“Ships were falsely positioned at airports, a nuclear power plant, and on Iranian land, creating navigation and compliance risks,” a report from the firm says. “AIS signals have also been diverted to the Barakah Nuclear Power Plant and nearby waters, while hundreds of other vessels are creating circle-like patterns off UAE, Qatari, and Omani waters.”
GPS and AIS interference within the Strait of Hormuz and the surrounding area is not new. In June 2025, as Israel and Iran exchanged missile fire, significant jamming in the region was reported.
While almost all commercial air travel has been grounded around the Middle East, there have been signs of electronic interference on aircraft flying ahead of and around the strikes. “There are at least six new spoofing signatures in the Middle East,” says Jeremy Bennington, vice president of positioning, navigation, and timing strategy and innovation at technology firm Spirent Communications. “Hundreds of flights have been impacted. However, that decreased significantly over the weekend as flights have been canceled.”
-
Business6 days agoHouseholds set for lower energy bills amid price cap shake-up
-
Politics5 days agoWhat are Iran’s ballistic missile capabilities?
-
Entertainment1 week agoTalking minerals and megawatts
-
Business6 days agoLucid widely misses earnings expectations, forecasts continued EV growth in 2026
-
Sports1 week agoSouth Africa thrash India by 76 runs in T20 World Cup Super 8 – SUCH TV
-
Business1 week agoGovt to return unclaimed EPFO deposits, expand scholarships for unorganised workers’ children – The Times of India
-
Business1 week agoHaryana Govt bars IDFC First Bank, AU Small Finance Bank over alleged Rs 590 crore fraud
-
Sports1 week agoTop 50 USMNT players of 2026, ranked by club form: USMNT Player Performance Index returns
