& cplSiteName &
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View        ADD A COMMENT
kq4ym
50%
50%
kq4ym,
User Rank: Light Sabre
5/23/2017 | 2:13:18 PM
Re: Not Good
I had heard that the only vulnerable systems were the older Windows versions, specifically 7, even though news reports were making like everyone was in trouble.  And the network and local news didn't mention that there was an update patch months earlier that would have prevented a problem. I was surprised to see though that in this story it was noted that even Windows 10 there could be problems if not patched.  I tried breifly to google Microsoft to get to their "direct" page for info but for whatever reason a search would not easily lead me to Microsoft explanation and remedy. Pretty confusing for a lot of folks I would guess.
Phil_Britt
50%
50%
Phil_Britt,
User Rank: Light Sabre
5/18/2017 | 7:16:05 PM
Re: Not Good
Backups are common sense, but still so many don't take the time or effort. And companies should not engineer their internal systems to the point that security patches "break" parts of networks.
Curtis Franklin
50%
50%
Curtis Franklin,
User Rank: Blogger
5/15/2017 | 12:20:11 PM
Re: Not Good
@Carol, over the weekend I had a Twitter exchange with someone who argued that many enterprise customers can't automatically apply every patch because of the chance the new code could break critical enterprise applications. That's quite true, but those organizations should still immediately sandbox every critical patch and update with an eye toward applying them as soon as possible.

And in every case, if a company doesn't have strong backup/recovery protocols in place, then it can't really complain when an event comes along (either accidental or malicious) that eats its data.
Curtis Franklin
50%
50%
Curtis Franklin,
User Rank: Blogger
5/15/2017 | 12:17:36 PM
Re: Not Good
@danielcawrey, If you haven't followed solid backup protocol and haven't kept your systems patched and updated then you're right; paying the ransom is really the only option available. The sad part of this is that, for most companies, it would have been so easy to protect systems from the attack before it started!
Carol Wilson
50%
50%
Carol Wilson,
User Rank: Blogger
5/15/2017 | 7:52:50 AM
Re: Not Good
By setting the initial ransom so low, the attackers certainly make that option more attractive -and if they are raising the stakes over time, it seems even more appealing to pay and get it done. 

This just underscores what every security executive - from either a service provider or a vendor - says in virtually every interview. If the majority of people did the basics, i.e., implemented a security plan, tested it regularly, kept software patches up-to-date and followed their own best practices, most of these kinds of massive attacks that are getting easier to launch could be warded off. 

For some reason, hman nature, I guess, that seems an impossiblle goal to achieve. 
danielcawrey
50%
50%
danielcawrey,
User Rank: Light Sabre
5/13/2017 | 9:44:12 AM
Not Good
This is bad. It shows how far behind most systems are. So many are obviously vulnerable to attack. Many of these sysadmins are pretty set on paying ransoms. They often don't have a choice. 


Featured Video
Flash Poll
Upcoming Live Events
September 17-19, 2019, Dallas, Texas
October 1, 2019, New Orleans, Louisiana
October 2-22, 2019, Los Angeles, CA
October 10, 2019, New York, New York
November 5, 2019, London, England
November 7, 2019, London, UK
December 3-5, 2019, Vienna, Austria
December 3, 2019, New York, New York
All Upcoming Live Events
Partner Perspectives - content from our sponsors
Transform Beyond Borders to Lead the Innovation
By Ben Zhou, CEO, Whale Cloud
Reject Limits. Build the Future.
By David Wang, Huawei
China Telecom & Huawei Jointly Complete the World's First End-to-End 5G SA Voice & Video Call
By Jay Liu, Senior Marketing Manager, Cloud Core Product Line, Huawei Technologies
All Partner Perspectives