[shittyadmin]

I feel this is actually a decent service for a few reasons:

- Many average users don't want to understand cryptocurrencies, how to safely and securely buy and use it is a challenge in and of itself.

- They're on the hook and the client pays nothing if the ransomer fails to provide a working key.

- They'll also manage the ransom decryption software - if there's problems with it there are 3rd party tools that can often do a better job of decryption than the original decryption tool, again, this is something that's going to be complicated for average users to deal with.

- For some ransomware there are decryption processes available without the need to pay the ransom, figuring out which of these applies can be challenging

- Certain institutions may be unable or unwilling to work with the attacker directly - introducing a middle man to broker can help solve this.

Overall the piece seems somewhat hyperbolic.

[jplayer01]

Yeah, seems like a great service to a certain degree. But it's not the service they're selling and they're lying to their customers. Their service incentivizes ransomware authors, so this absolutely needs transparency. I assume most people go to them because they want the problem solved but they feel they shouldn't be paying the hostage takers. "we don't negotiate with terrorists" comes to mind. So if this service is doing exactly this and making the situation worse for everybody else, this is something that needs to be consciously weighed off and decided by the people considering their services.

[Timpy]

If they're making money from ransomware they have no incentive to stop or prevent ransomware. Being the English speaking liaison for ransomware isn't really that different from being an accomplice after a certain point, they both get their cut as long as the industry is booming.

[londons_explore]

I wonder how many of these "white hat middlemen" are also the ransomware owners...

Obviously the two companies collaborating would give benefits to eachother, and it might just be a convenient way to seperate the illegal from the legal...

[Scoundreller]

It can be better to know, but ignore the truth, to avoid unsavoury corporate discussions like:

“Are we paying a bribe? I’ll have to create a new line item in SAP for that” asks Alice from accounting,

and

“I need them to sign this form saying they haven’t tortured anyone in the past 5 years”, Bob from procurement auditing.

Or

“Please have one of their senior directors sign this form declaring that none of their funds employees are based in any of these embargoed countries. I’ve attached the list.” Charlie from legal

[wolfgke]

> Their service incentivizes ransomware authors, so this absolutely needs transparency.

I don't think that companies that offer ransomware decryption services have a problem with this incentive. More ransomware means more customers for their "decryption services". ;-)

[AznHisoka]

For most people, they want their problem solved, plain and simple. And they rather not know the details on how you solved it or how it affects others. especially when it comes to something as urgent as someone holding your data hostage. So to a degree, I am OK with this service.

[UweSchmidt]

Wow, is the world drowning in cynicism? I want a service that breaks the ransomware encryption and researches into that direction to ultimately make the incredibly hurtful extortion of vulnerable computer users not viable. To me these companies are criminals if they facilitate the extortion.

[teekert]

Exactly at this point the "decrypter" companies are just partners of the cyber-criminals, they have the same incentives, share the same profits and both are unethical.

[lozenge]

Most ransomware is using standard public key cryptography, there is no chance of breaking it. If it is broken, only the intelligence agencies would know. They wouldn't use this weapon on something so trivial.

[rini17]

There is indeed such a service, it's called "versioned remote backup". As long as the ransomware is not specifically targeting the backup client in order to damage the backed-up files, you just reinstall and restore.

[el_benhameen]

And all of that would be a fine service if they were honest about it.

[acct1771]

Plausible deniability for a CTO that doesn't want to be known for negotiating with terrorists As A Service?

[Retr0spectrum]

Other than the fact that they are directly facilitating crime...

[Sir_Substance]

I'd throw two more hats into that ring:

- It looks bad to the public if companies directly pay the ransomware creator. Decryption companies can act as a PR "buffer" in that respect.

- By funneling the western worlds contact with ransomware creators through a small number of companies, we create an incentive for ransomware creators to follow through with providing the decryption keys and not play games with the price. If they fail to hold up their end of the bargain, their reputation will immediately be ruined within the small number of companies that do this.

[dearrifling]

And surely there is nothing wrong with the alignment of ransomware authors' and this friendly service's incentives.

[smsm42]

It would be decent if it openly advertised as middleman broker service for paying the ransom to the criminals. False advertising is always a bad sign - if you need to hide what you're doing from your client, you know the client wouldn't like it, and are setting up to deceive them.

[Haga]

Full disclosure?