Okay, you put a lot of thought an effort into your response. I will do the same and address your points and questions.
The problem still exists in Columbia. One of the major issues is that it became so profitable that it created corruption with officials, similar to what the cocaine trade has done there. This is one of the terrible side effects when crime is allowed to run rampant. It warps the very system that should be stopping it. We don’t want that to happen with cybercrime and yet we are already seeing cybersecurity product/services companies go that direction because they have a financial incentive. Ransomware and other attacks drive up sales. So, many cybersecurity firms DON’T want paying ransoms to be outlawed as it will be too effective in stopping ransomware.
Outlawing paying ransoms is not punishing victims. It is putting controls in place to greatly LESSEN the number of victims and impacts to the nation in the long term.
There are NOT reasonable controls to stop ransomware. This is why it is growing so fast and we are seeing big corporations and government agencies get impacted.
Ransomware has been around for decades and has continued to grow even in the face of new products, services, and the ‘adaptation’ you are referring to.
I know, I have been in the industry for over 30 years and consult to academia, businesses, and governments around the globe. I also work with some of the biggest cybersecurity companies.
I can tell you that the attackers are actually adapting faster than the security, in large part because of the massive injection of funding they are receiving from ransom payments! This must stop, otherwise security tech won’t catch up.
Ransoms for businesses (source of the survey) were in the 200k-2mil range. This is not the range for when grandma gets ransomware and can’t access pictures of her grandchildren. That is much lower. Also, there are a ton of metrics coming out with a trend of every higher top-end ransom ranges. More studies will be published next quarter.
The 2031 is a predictive estimate. We do these in the industry and publish the results so we can be held accountable later on to see if it was a good prediction. Cybercrime Magazine published those numbers. Here is the source: https://cybersecurityventures.com/global-ransomware-damage-costs-predicted-to-reach-250-billion-usd-by-2031/
Mitigation (prevention) of attacks is a weak point. Sure if you ‘can’ do it the problem goes away. The point is it is not possible given all the other constraints (usability, human interaction, reliance on code, human errors, social engineering, HW/FW/OS/App vulnerabilities, etc.). It is HUGELY complex and tech is constantly changing.
Government enforcement is simple. Pass a law to make it criminal to pay ransoms. In that one act, most executives would not risk jail time or the end of their career. And practically, it is not easy to hide a ransomware infection, hide spending millions to buy a key, and hide using that decryption key to restore files. Many people will be involved. It just takes one to whistle-blow (and there are financial rewards for doing it too).
Even more likely is that the cybercriminals, who are extorting for the unlock key, will simply then shift to extort the payer because they broke the law (in paying the ransom). They can make demands forever as the evidence is permanently stored in the blockchain, email, etc.
For laws to be effective, the government doesn’t need to catch and prosecute everyone. It is about deterrence.
Payments are absolutely material support to the enemy. The criminals are the enemy. Payments are financial resources that will both motivate and facilitate them to improve, scale, and continue more attacks.
We cannot look at this as a one company or one payment situation. This is a systemic problem where everyone is connected and affected. If you pay a ransom to ‘save’ your company, that attacker then might take down a hospital, power grid, or water supply later on. The problem just gets bigger. This is why we have laws, to consider the greater good when individuals want to pursue what is best for themselves.
The OFAC just came out with those rules this year. But it is too narrow a scope and organizations are going around it. A full fledged law needs to be passed.