Posted on 07/19/2015 6:34:05 AM PDT by fwdude
I have recently had the unpleasant experience of having one of the new variants of the cryptolocker malware infect our computer servers at work. In case someone doesn't know, its a computer worm that encrypts all the standard-format files on a system so that the use can't open the file without a "key," supplied by the hacker for a ransom.
My question, which I have researched extensively over over the internet, is whether it is advisable consider paying the ransom, if there is enough "honor among thieves" to trust that the files will be unlock if I pay, and if there might remains some residual malware that might reinfect our computers.
And, no, there are no backup files that were untouched, the backups were infected as well.
Some of the files are critical, or at least would take an enormous amount of work to recreate or recover otherwise. Do you consider the risk worth the reward?
Yup.
And I know nobody uses Apple enterprise servers, because they don't make them.
A single, dual-core proc, 16GB memory max, one GB Ethernet port, and no slots for fiber channel adapters, and no redundant power supplies.
Nobody is going to build a data center out of those.
Run the numbers on how much it costs to pay for them in MASSIVE NUMBERS vs buying machines that were purpose-built as enterprise servers and you'll understand why nobody is doing it.
Or maybe not. After all, it's just other people's money.
Can you show me an enterprise class data center that's running on racks of Mac Mini's?
If it's such a good deal I'm sure they've all figured it out by now.
Fortunately, no personal experience. But I do daily backups that can restore my system from scratch (full image, plus incrementals) and if Crypto hits or the hard drive quits, I can just wipe the drive and reload from backups. So I don't worry about those kinds of attacks or failures.
Acronis True Image. It's less than $50 and I can't say enough good things about it. No, I'm not associated with the company in any way, I'm just a satisfied customer.
I realize that information is of limited value if it's already too late. But it's good for the next time.
Big or small, your company has more value in its data and email than the value of anything else at the company. It needs to be treated to whatever expense it takes to manage it and protect it.
I hope that fwdude hasn't gotten bored with another flamewar that this thread has turned into.
BTW, I really like your tagline. I may borrow it for my own use before our family disappears on a vacation next month.
No, right now you're a bucket of hubris.
You’re the one asking stupid questions.
Need more power? Then buy a Mac Pro and have more power in a small container than I ever has when I used to build 400 seat call centers using Mac Server before 2000. (No, I wasn't the Mac Server guru, so I accept criticism that I know nothing).
Was Mac software perfect? Nope. One of our team members had to rewrite the Apple UDP stacks, and push Apple to admit he was correct.
Still, one or two Mac Minis would easily power fwdude’s server requirements. Storage can be added, the Mac software seems easier than comparable Linux server software. And it costs $20.00!
Will the software ever tempt BoA or Facebook to radically change their server and storage strategy? Never, it's the wrong solution for them.
For the millions of small businesses that pay a small fortune to keep Server 20xx up to date and safe across a network, it looks like a great solution.
What exactly did he "fix" and how? Did he unlock your files? That is the critical thing needing fixing.
Would you build an enterprise data center out of them?
Never.
Wrong hammer for the job - we agree on that. But nothing I saw on their online pages expected that the Mac Mini would ever stand up to the ultra high density server and storage solutions that exist now.
I thought the discussion was directed at small business security, not convincing Facebook to buy pallets of Mac Minis to stuff in their new Fort Worth data center.
I will say - with the proper software and ingenuity, a fanless SSD box like the Mac Mini could be ganged together to create such a monstrosity.
After all, even Saddam used PS2 units for missle or nuclear design.
If I’d known the answer, I would have done it myself!
At this point we don't know what the scale is, or what the original infection vector was. I do know that "replace it with Apple" is not a viable solution for anything beyond a home or small business environment. They simply do not have anything that will scale beyond that. Ransomware encrypts your data and then you have to pay to get the key to decrypt it. It can do this to any file the user has write access to, so it doesn't need admin rights to do a lot of damage. The target vulnerability is the user, not the OS.
No, Microsoft sucks, and I hate them almost as much as I do Google, but do not deceive yourself. Google currently represents a far greater threat than does Microsoft.
Google helped throw the last election to Obama. Google keeps unbelievably detailed data on everyone who gets on the internet. Google is the modern Stasi who are not yet an arm of the government, but given how they support leftwing causes and candidates, might as well be.
Google is a THREAT. We don't need to be helping Google at all. They are f***ing dangerous.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.