Connect with us

Tech

Study examines whether policy intervention could combat ransomware

Published

on

Study examines whether policy intervention could combat ransomware


Credit: Pixabay/CC0 Public Domain

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 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 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.





Source link

Tech

Here’s Why Trump Posted About Iran ‘Stealing’ the 2020 Election Hours After the US Attacked

Published

on

Here’s Why Trump Posted About Iran ‘Stealing’ the 2020 Election Hours After the US Attacked


At 2:30 am Eastern time on Saturday, President Donald Trump posted a video to his Truth Social account announcing that the US had joined Israel in launching attacks on Iran.

His next post, just two hours later, appeared to suggest that the attacks were, at least in part, motivated by a wild claim that Iran had helped rig the 2020 US elections. “Iran tried to interfere in 2020, 2024 elections to stop Trump, and now faces renewed war with United States,” the president wrote on Truth Social.

The post linked to an article on Just the News, a conspiracy-filled, pro-Trump outlet that offered no explanation for its claim beyond the vague assertion that Iran operated “a sophisticated election influence effort” in 2020.

The White House did not respond to a request for comment on whether the alleged interference factored into the decision to attack Iran or what exactly the so-called interference amounted to.

Trump has spent the years since 2020 boosting numerous baseless conspiracy theories about the 2020 election being rigged. Since his return to the White House last year, he has empowered his administration to use those debunked conspiracy theories to inform decisionmaking, from election office raids in Fulton County, Georgia, to lawsuits over unredacted voter rolls.

It’s not exactly clear what supposed Iranian interference Trump was alluding to in his Truth Social post, but Patrick Byrne, a prominent conspiracy theorist who urged Trump to seize voting machines in the wake of the 2020 election, claims to WIRED that it is related to a broader conspiracy theory that also involves Venezuela and China.

Like most election-related conspiracy theories, this one is convoluted and based on no concrete evidence. In broad terms, the conspiracy theory, which first emerged in the weeks and months after the 2020 election and has grown more complex in the years since, claims that the Venezuelan government has been rigging elections across the globe for decades by creating the voting software company Smartmatic as a vehicle to remotely rig elections. (Smartmatic has repeatedly denied all allegations against it and successfully sued right-wing outlet Newsmax for promoting conspiracy theories and defaming the company.)

Byrne laid out the entire conspiracy theory in a 45-minute-long presentation posted to X in 2024. His claims have been widely shared within the election-denial community since it was posted.

Iran’s role in all of this, claims Byrne, was to hide the money trail. “They act as paymasters. They keep certain payments that would reveal this [operation] out of the banking system, out of the Swift system so you can’t see it,” claimed Byrne during this presentation “It’s done through a transfer pricing mechanism run through Iran in oil.”

When asked for evidence of Iran’s role in this conspiracy theory, Byrne did not respond. In fact, none of Byrne’s claims have ever been verified, and most have been repeatedly debunked. Smartmatic did not immediately respond to a request to comment.

There have been two actual documented instances of Iranian election interference, however: In 2021, the Justice Department charged two Iranians for conducting an influence operation designed to target and threaten US voters. And in 2024, the three Iranian hackers working for the government were charged with compromising the Trump campaign as part of an effort to disrupt the 2024 election.

Byrne’s allegations, however, have been wholly different. And while Byrne’s claims have been circulating among online conspiracy groups for years, they have been emailed directly to Trump in recent months by Peter Ticktin, a lawyer who has known Trump since they attended the New York Military Academy together. Ticktin also represents former Colorado election official turned election denial superstar Tina Peters.



Source link

Continue Reading

Tech

A Possible US Government iPhone-Hacking Toolkit Is Now in the Hands of Foreign Spies and Criminals

Published

on

A Possible US Government iPhone-Hacking Toolkit Is Now in the Hands of Foreign Spies and Criminals


Google notes that Apple patched vulnerabilities used by Coruna in the latest versions of its mobile operating system, iOS 26, so its exploitation techniques are only confirmed to work against iOS 13 through 17.2.1. It targets vulnerabilities in Apple’s Webkit framework for browsers, so Safari users on those older versions of iOS would be vulnerable, but there’s no confirmed techniques in the toolkit for targeting Chrome users. Google also notes that Coruna checks if an iOS devices has Apple’s most stringent security setting, known as Lockdown Mode, enabled, and doesn’t attempt to hack it if so.

Despite those limitations, iVerify says Coruna likely infected tens of thousands of phones. The company consulted with a partner that has access to network traffic and counted visits to a command-and-control server for the cybercriminal version of Coruna infecting Chinese-language websites. The volume of those connections suggest, iVerify says, that roughly 42,000devices may have already been hacked with the toolkit in the for-profit campaign alone.

Just how many other victims Coruna may have hit, including Ukrainians who visited websites infected with the code by the suspected Russian espionage operation, remains unclear. Google declined to comment beyond its published report. Apple did not immediately provide comment on Google or iVerify’s findings.

In iVerify’s analysis of the cybercriminal version of Coruna—it didn’t have access to any of the earlier versions—the company found that the code appeared to have been altered to plant malware on target devices designed to drain cryptocurrency from crypto wallets as well as steal photos and, in some cases, emails. Those additions, however, were “poorly written” compared to the underlying Coruna toolkit, according to iVerify chief product officer Spencer Parker, which he found to be impressively polished and modular.

“My god, these things are very professionally written,” Parker says of the exploits included in Coruna, suggesting that the cruder malware was added by the cybercriminals who later obtained that code.

As for the clues that suggest Coruna’s origins as a US government toolkit, iVerify’s Cole notes that it’s possible that Coruna’s code overlap with the Operation Triangulation code that Russia pinned on US hackers could be based on Triangulation’s components being picked up and repurposed after they were discovered. But Cole argues that’s unlikely. Many components of Coruna have never been seen before, he points out, and the whole toolkit appears to have been created by a “single author,” as he puts it.

“The framework holds together very well,” says Cole, who previously worked at the NSA, but notes that he’s been out of the government for more than a decade and isn’t basing any findings on his own outdated knowledge of US hacking tools. “It looks like it was written as a whole. It doesn’t look like it was pieced together.”

If Coruna is, in fact, a US hacking toolkit gone rogue, just how it got into foreign and criminal hands remains a mystery. But Cole points to the industry of brokers that may pay tens of millions of dollars for zero-day hacking techniques that they can resell for espionage, cybercrime, or cyberwar. Notably, Peter Williams, an executive of US government contractor Trenchant, was sentenced this month to seven years in prison for selling hacking tools to the Russian zero-day broker Operation Zero from 2022 to 2025. Williams’ sentencing memo notes that Trenchant sold hacking tools to the US intelligence community as well as others in the “Five Eyes” group of English-speaking governments—the US, UK, Australia, Canada and New Zealand—though it’s not clear what specific tools he sold or what devices they targeted.

“These zero-day and exploit brokers tend to be unscrupulous,” says Cole. “They sell to the highest bidder and they double dip. Many don’t have exclusivity arrangements. That’s very likely what happened here.”

“One of these tools ended up in the hands of a non-Western exploit broker, and they sold it to whoever was willing to pay,” Cole concludes. “The genie is out of the bottle.”



Source link

Continue Reading

Tech

Apple’s New MacBook Air and MacBook Pro Have New Chips, More Storage, and Higher Prices

Published

on

Apple’s New MacBook Air and MacBook Pro Have New Chips, More Storage, and Higher Prices


Alongside its price-friendly iPhone 17e and M4 iPad Air yesterday, Apple just announced a few updates to the MacBook Pro, MacBook Air, and its rarely-refreshed desktop display line.

The MacBook Air has now been updated to the latest M5 chip. It’s a fairly modest upgrade, but it brings it up to speed with Apple’s latest processor that debuted in the MacBook Pro last fall. There are no other major hardware changes—it now comes with 512 GB of starting storage with “faster SSD technology”—but you can still get the Air in either a 13- or 15-inch screen size.

This laptop also features Apple’s N1 wireless chip, which includes Wi-Fi 7 and Bluetooth 6 for the latest connectivity standards. It still comes with the standard 16 GB of RAM, and sadly, there’s a $100 price bump to account for the extra storage. It now starts at $1,099 for the 13-inch model and $1,299 for the 15-inch model. Apple says you can preorder it tomorrow, with sales kicking off on March 11.

More interestingly, Apple is expanding the M5 chip series with the M5 Pro and M5 Max, now available in the 14-inch and 16-inch MacBook Pro. Like previous generations of Apple silicon, the “Pro” and “Max” configurations add significantly improved multi-core CPU and graphics performance.

The new MacBook Air with M5.

Photograph: Courtesy of Apple

The M5 Pro and M5 Max can be configured with up to 18 CPU cores (12 performance cores and 6 “super” cores), up from 16 on the M4 Max. The M5 Pro can scale up to 20 GPU cores, while the M5 Max extends up to 40 GPU cores. Thanks to higher memory bandwidth, more efficient Neural Engine, and improved GPU architecture, Apple says the M5 Pro and M5 Max have “over 4X the peak CPU compute for AI” compared to the last generation and offer 20 percent better GPU performance.

The new MacBook Pros don’t include any other hardware changes; things have stayed largely the same since 2021—same port selection, Mini-LED display, speakers, and webcam. Even the claimed 24-hour battery life hasn’t changed from the M4 models, which came out in late 2024. Interestingly, as recently as last week, Bloomberg reported that Apple plans to launch a more significant update to the MacBook Pro later this fall, which will reportedly debut the M6 chip, an OLED touchscreen, and a thinner chassis.

Like the MacBook Air, all versions of the M5 Pro or M5 Max MacBook Pros come with twice the storage and a slightly higher starting price. Coming with 1 TB, the 14-inch M5 Pro now starts at $2,199, and the 16-inch model at $2,699. That’s $200 more than last year’s machines. Meanwhile, M5 Max prices start at $3,599.



Source link

Continue Reading

Trending