Ring LLC home security company ransomed by ALPHV ransomware

https://web.archive.org/web/20230314015249/https://twitter.com/vxunderground/status/1635427567271329792

291 100 3 years ago

web.archive.org

This should be interesting. Also, thanks for not making me visit twitter.

Edit: because twitter doesn't load on this particular device I use for HN. Basically the browser is too old. There is no "hate" ... ffs

jeroenhd• 3 years ago

If Twitter doesn't work (well), I recommend nitter.net (or other instances of Nitter, it's open source software). Addons are available for various browsers to automatically redirect.

Nitter is meant as a privacy-friendly Twitter front-end, but I mainly use it because Twitter takes literal seconds to load a 280 character post and Nitter works almost instantly. As an added bonus, it doesn't rely on Javascript to render.

For example: https://nitter.net/vxunderground/status/1635427567271329792

sourcecodeplz2• 3 years ago

Thank you men. I knew about it. But it didn't always work..

bilekas• 3 years ago

This was always going to happen.. you can't have that much access to sensitive data and expect to be prepared for stuff like this.

It's going to be really bad for customers but it's okay. I'm sure we'll get the "We value privacy" compulsory email any day now.

rftyuikdjhgvcf2• 3 years ago

I'm just shocked it happened before all rings become zombies on some botnet.

maybe we are just missing the news.

incahoots• 3 years ago

I'm genuinely surprised we haven't had something like that happen....yet. All these "smart" appliances, fridges, & stoves gotta have the same vulnerability just waiting to make them bots. Considering they're all running some old Android instance.

bretpiatt• 3 years ago

Info on ALPHV https://www.cyber.gov.au/acsc/view-all-content/advisories/20...

May not be Ring directly, could be in 3rd party supplier with an undetermined level of data access https://twitter.com/TheRegister/status/1635506291232894976

z3c0• 3 years ago

I wonder what kind of data they had access to. It's usually much easier to reach AND dump, say, an invoicing system, than what I can only imagine is an extremely large set of user data.

Either way, bad look for a company that pitches itself as a home security company.

"Hey, we said your home would be secure, not our architecture."

yftsui• 3 years ago

Title should be fixed as “ALPHV ransonware Claims hack of Ring”, there is no proof besides the claim picture on their own website.

josephg2• 3 years ago

I've said it before and I'll say it again:

- Companies should suffer massive fines / damages / criminal charges when they leak the personal data of millions of customers.

- I think EULAs are a ridiculous run-around the law. They should be non-enforceable. Its far from perfect, but case law is pretty clear that people and companies are liable for damages due to foreseeable harm that they cause. (Except EULAs dodge this.) (I am not a lawyer, this is not legal advice.)

Software engineers & security engineers can make just about anything secure. But we can only do so if we're given time and money to hire the expertise when needed. We need to make it incredibly expensive for companies to lose personal data like this. Management teams should be clamoring to hire the best security engineers. But they'll only do so if they're sufficiently motivated.

The risk of massive liability is the right incentive to convince companies to invest in getting information security right. The current status quo is ridiculous.

echelon• 3 years ago

I've said it before and I'll say it again

Don't tell us, tell your legislators. Ideally with some kind of narrative that ties to a financial incentive for the lawmaker and his or her constituents.

If the security industry got together and lobbied for this as both a jobs program (security companies offering services to tech companies) and as a means of protecting Americans/constituents, then it might get somewhere.

InCityDreams2• 3 years ago

Ideally with some kind of narrative that ties to a financial incentive for the lawmaker and his or her constituents.

Absofuckinglutely. Never talk to a politician without remembering that if they don't get a cut...

Gasp0de• 3 years ago

This. It would have been (relatively) easy for Ring to encrypt the video data so that they themselves can't access it. Obviously I don't wish it upon the individuals that use these cameras but I would probably smirk if data gets leaked and Amazon gets sued into the ground.

sasas2• 3 years ago

E2E encryption is supported with Ring. You have to enable it yourself. Only discovered this a few weeks ago and immediately enabled it [1]

This doesn't protect your PII data though. This is not a good situation at all.

[1] https://support.ring.com/hc/en-us/articles/360054941511-Unde...

pipo234• 3 years ago

Yes. Also, this time it's a consumer grade surveillance, but the same goes for security cams in prisons or nuclear facilities: hoarding information (sensitive or not) does not translate 1:1 to increasing security. This should be obvious, still we feel more, not less, safe with our house surveilled with technology.

anonymous_sorry• 3 years ago

Apart from leaks harming the privacy of customers, paying ransoms does social harm by providing an income and incentive to criminals.

I found leaked details of Royal Mail's negotiations with their attackers fascinating [0].

I'm not sure it's practical to outlaw the payment of ransoms, but it should at least be heavily taxed (say, 100%). Naively, I would expect this to cut by half the amount that can be extorted through ransomware attacks, making countries that implement such a tax less attractive targets.

[0] https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/feb/15/under-no-ci...

TylerE• 3 years ago

It’s been tried. Laws against paying just make people not report to the police at all.

netsharc• 3 years ago

Hah the LockBit negotiator displays that childish " I'm going to make something up and be convinced it's true" mentality that's much too common nowadays..

LockBit refused to accept the explanation and accused the company’s negotiator of “bluffing”, speculating that the company’s directors probably held £100m of cryptocurrency personally that could “finish this nightmare”.

JohnFen• 3 years ago

If an organization pays a ransom, I consider that organization to be effectively in league with the criminals, and avoid doing any business with them in the future.

theK• 3 years ago

I am very much with you on this but I think the biggest hurdle in this theory is that introducing such regulation would create a de-facto hostile innovation environment in that jurisdiction. And no regulator will lightheartedly put themselves into the position of being the guy that “drove away all the innovators/startups/research/business”

komali2• 3 years ago

Some would say the most fertile ground for "business innovation" is a country with no labor protection laws.

I think innovation will happen regardless and I'm kinda tired of fear mongering around "throttling innovation" whenever people talk about making our world better for people.

remus• 3 years ago

I am very much with you on this but I think the biggest hurdle in this theory is that introducing such regulation would create a de-facto hostile innovation environment in that jurisdiction.

Personally I think that is a price worth paying. Laws like the parent are suggesting are about having a standard that companies need to meet if they want to operate in a given space, and currently it is clear that companies will not meet these standards unless they are legally obliged to do so.

wruza• 3 years ago

In the next episodes:

- Why so expensive?

- Where did all businesses go?

- Let’s create a certified secure data enclave companies!

- Why so expensive still?

- We can’t charge a certified company because it would damage half the economy!

ajsnigrutin2• 3 years ago

You can translate this to any kind of regulation.

Want cars not to explode when slightly rear-ended? Why are they so expensive now? Where did the car businesses go? Let's create car security companies! Why so expensive still? ...

JumpCrisscross3• 3 years ago

companies should suffer massive fines / damages / criminal charges when they leak the personal data of millions of customers

This is zealous. If consumers don't care, and nobody can show tangible damages, "massive fines" and "criminal charges" are closer to moral outrage than prudent lawmaking.

ajsnigrutin2• 3 years ago

Noone cares about anything, unless they're the one affected by this.

I don't care if people around me don't have car insurance, but once one of them crashes into my car, i sure want them to have one, while the rest will continue not caring.

So yes, requiring companies to safeguard data, even if that means fines and criminal charges for responsible people is important.

mtlmtlmtlmtl6• 3 years ago

What's your basis for assuming customers don't care?

I think there are those who don't care, and those who care but don't know better in the face of misleading marketing.

mnd999• 3 years ago

I kinda agree with you but it’s a tough one because what you’re describing is fining the victims of a crime. We don’t fine homeowners who fit cheap locks and get burgled do we.

Pragmatically, it might be the right thing to do, but it feels wrong. Would you consider a due diligence to security threshold? That would certainly make it easier the well resourced to weasel out of fines, but when a small startup comes up against a well resourced nation state level hackers with a catalogue of 0days what are they supposed to do? Just go out of business?

chrisandchris• 3 years ago

We don't fine them, but homeowners usually don't have million of records of private data at home.

Wouldn't you want your bank get fined if they aren't secure enough and loose your money? Or your local government if they loose your tax records because they think they don't need to lock their door?

The hard part will be determining whether the company could have done something about it (like locking the doors or the windows). If they could, they for sure should get a fine if they didn't.

badrabbit• 3 years ago

It would be like fining the victim of home burglary who stores data about their neighbors for profit. Mandatory business data leak should be exempt but everything else should be a liability. If they save cc info by default (opt-out) that should be a major liability.

proto_lambda• 3 years ago

We absolutely do fine/convict homeowners if, in a burglary, their improperly secured gun is stolen. The fines aren't for being hacked, they're for not adequately securing user data; ownership of which is a conscious decision.

v3x3366• 3 years ago

We don’t fine homeowners who fit cheap locks and get burgled do we

This isn't an appropriate comparison. I'm not a lawyer but I would imagine this would fall under negligence. Businesses are liable for improperly securing dangerous materials in the physical world.

iamacyborg• 3 years ago

We don’t fine homeowners who fit cheap locks and get burgled do we.

The type of locks you have affect the price of your home insurance, in the UK at least.

Moksha108• 3 years ago

Money in almost all banks is guaranteed and secure. Personal data held by almost all companies is not secure or guarantees per UALA.

villgax• 3 years ago

Good riddance

hoseja• 3 years ago

Couldn't happen to a nicer bunch of panopticon-peddlers.

topicseed• 3 years ago

Is there any proof of these claims, has Ring confirmed this?

tyingq2• 3 years ago

There's a little more info on Vice, noting the situation was posted on an internal Amazon Slack channel with a "don't discuss" instruction.

https://www.vice.com/en/article/qjvd9q/ransomware-group-clai...

lynx232• 3 years ago

Leaking user data isn't really penalized enough. First two incidents, high monetary penalty, third incident, company is closed permanently in the interest of public security.

InCityDreams2• 3 years ago

company is closed permanently in the interest of public security.

So there goes a janitors job, secretaries etc. Local cafes, bars, transport lose out. The dependents of all the company are now involved. There's a long chain of consequences after this. Why not just target the guilty: maybe any punishment should make them suffer.

lynx232• 3 years ago

Well, I'd argue if the first two high penalties did not have an effect, the company is likely rotten from within and can not really be fixed, so close it.

Also, I find your "but you have to think about the children^WJobs" argument pretty hollow. Nothing can be changed, because some gay lesbian from a foreign country might loose their already precarious job. Come on, is this really an argument for something?

quantified• 3 years ago

That makes all of them vested in the outcome that that company was actually good in its security of sensitive information. If they are important to anyone actually involved in the company, the company will take care of things properly.

The same argument is made for why breadwinners shouldn't get jail time when they commit a felony.

caskstrength• 3 years ago

So there goes a janitors job, secretaries etc. Local cafes, bars, transport lose out. The dependents of all the company are now involved. There's a long chain of consequences after this. Why not just target the guilty: maybe any punishment should make them suffer.

I agree. It would be better to make execs personally criminally liable.

counttheforks2• 3 years ago

Sounds like a good incentive for the janitors to not leave doors open at night for their own convenience, creating massive security risks.

Regardless, plenty of places need janitors and the likes. They'll find other jobs.

mtlmtlmtlmtl6• 3 years ago

Is this the same Ring that was giving away video to the police with no warrant?

Seems more like a home insecurity company to me.

And why is it an LLC?

bsenftner• 3 years ago

They're weakly hiding their Amazon parent.

mtlmtlmtlmtl6• 3 years ago

Hah, didn't realise they were owned by Amazon.

I guess I shouldn't be surprised that a company with such a terrible ethical track record is a part of the fractal of dark patters that is Amazon.

op00to• 3 years ago

The same reason everyone uses LLC. To limit the liability of their endeavor.

mtlmtlmtlmtl6• 3 years ago

Thanks for the non-answer. I know what an LLC is.

But I would pretty inclined to distrust a "security" company that has "Limited Liability" in their name when they store a lot private data serverside. Doesn't exactly inspire confidence in their commitment to actual security and not merely convenient insecurity which seems to be their actual product.

Hence the question.

ra1202713• 3 years ago

My personal trust of devices like this is low - and since it is capturing public side recordings (outside my front door) I'm less worried about the vidoes. I just prefer to treat them as untrusted devices and put them on my guest network isolated from the rest of my network.

mtlmtlmtlmtl6• 3 years ago

Apparently quite a few people have Ring cameras inside their homes as well.

And another point. You might not think video outside your home matters, but it could be invaluable to burglars who want to know when you're not home. I could imagine it being used to deanonymize location data as well because it would provide known locations and timestamps to filter data against.

_justinfunk• 3 years ago

You think he's so stupid he goes out his own front door? /butchered sg-1 reference

zht• 3 years ago

I guess?

They can also just park on the street and watch you…

sofixa2• 3 years ago

since it is capturing public side recordings (outside my front door) I'm less worried about the vidoes

Differences between countries are funny. For instance, in France Rings don't fly because you're filming a public place, and by default people have an expectation of privacy and the right not to be filmed. If you want to film a public place (like put a camera that covers the street), there's a specific process to follow that includes getting a permission from the privacy authority, putting up warnings, and having processes (who has access to the videos, when, why, etc.).

ra1202713• 3 years ago

I agree with the sentiment. Technically I only trigger video on my property boundary to avoid the street and protect the public's reasonable right to privacy.

mehlmao• 3 years ago

I don't care because it's just the privacy of my neighbors (and their friends and families)

ra1202713• 3 years ago

I only trigger video on my property boundary to avoid the street and protect the public's reasonable right to privacy. There will always be the risk of coincidental videoing when someone is on my property - but I try my best to respect my neighbours.

FollowingTheDao• 3 years ago

Another good reason not to use (Ring is a police state apparatus).

AndrewTerry• 3 years ago

this is interesting. I had an alert from an ID monitoring service I subscribe to today advising of a “mid severity breach” for an undisclosed service. The details leaked were my name, email address, and town of residence. The notification says the service is undisclosed as the provider is still working with law enforcement. I wonder if this it.

m4jor• 3 years ago

Raw link to the ALPHV page: http://alphvmmm27o3abo3r2mlmjrpdmzle3rykajqc5xsj7j7ejksbpsa3...

Will be interesting to see what happens.

jimnotgym• 3 years ago

Ring sounds like such a neat idea. I'm in bed and I heard a noise at the front door...I open the app...start live view...black screen

Really? Is it that hard?

The extension ringer is a great idea too. Place it wherever you will hear it...ding-dong...there was someone at your door about 20-30 seconds ago.

Seriously! A doorbell with a camera, the camera won't connect, the bell won't ring

kevincrane• 3 years ago

Do you think the camera didn’t work because the parent company got ransomwared? Or is this anecdote related to the posted story in a different way that I’m missing

Vrondi• 3 years ago

I have a wifi webcam with no Internet access at my front door. It doesn't need Internet access (in fact, it's blocked from going outside the router). It's happily streaming video onto my home network. I just open the stream in VLC on any device to see the live video feed instantly. Easy to make a shortcut that opens the address in VLC.

Video is also being archived locally elsewhere on my home network, but no outside hosting is needed for either instant live access or home archiving. Just a minimum of research.

When shopping for a camera, only buy one that has ONVIF compatability. Then you can use it with third party apps.

stuckkeys• 3 years ago

Which one/s you got? I got the eUfy and the only reason I went for it is because of the built in battery. Curious to know what product you are using.

vorpalhex• 3 years ago

Even my beloved Ubiquiti's doorbell cam suffers in much the same ways (and my nest had it too). There must be some difficulty here that is non-obvious for all the competitors to be falling into the same flaws.

darknavi• 3 years ago

I personally blame Unifi's SSO for a lot of the slugishness. My old Reolink (1/3rd the price of Unifi's offerings) was instant when loaded and connected via IP+port.

kobalsky• 3 years ago

I've worked professionally with wifi equipment and my take on the whole deal is this: if it's on wifi, it will fail not as frequent enough to be replaced by something better, but often enough to be make you miserable.

Yes, $1000 phones work fine, but every other device? the standard must be a mess because every other wifi certified device is unreliable.

Everything on my house that can be wired, is wired.

zenexer• 3 years ago

Original Tweet rather than an archived version: https://twitter.com/vxunderground/status/1635427567271329792

There’s since been an important follow-up tweet:

Ring denies being a victim of ALPHV. Ring has stated to various media outlets they believe a 3rd party vendor has suffered a data breach.

And a relevant reply:

I mean, file under MRDA, but Ring told me earlier today that "We currently have no indications that Ring has experienced a ransomware event."

Forestessential• 3 years ago

i dont see any ransoming.

lolinder• 3 years ago

We should change the URL to point to the Vice article instead. This is a tweet of a screenshot of the hacker's home page, and while we have no specific reason to disbelieve them, we also have no reason to believe they're telling the whole truth.

The Vice story has more context: Ring denies any compromise to their own systems (and if you can't find the ransomware it's not doing its job very well), but there is a third party vendor with no access to customer data who is currently affected.

https://www.vice.com/en/article/qjvd9q/ransomware-group-clai...

_tom_• 3 years ago

"Ransomed" means they paid the ransom, not they demanded it.

Ring LLC home security company ransomed by ALPHV ransomware

Related Stories