Ransomware continues to threaten organizations, governments, schools, and even lives. Ransomware actors are primarily profit-motivated. Would a ban meaningfully decrease payments, and if so, would criminals shift away from this tactic?
On Thursday, February 15, IST Chief Strategy Officer Megan Stifel moderated a panel with Allan Liska, Intelligence Analyst at Recorded Future; Sezaneh Seymour, VP and Head of Regulatory Risk and Policy at Coalition; Bill Siegel, CEO and Co-Founder of Coveware; and Rob Knake, Head of Strategy at ActZero. The discussion assessed the ecosystem’s level of preparedness for a ban, unpacked the implications of a ban across industries–including insurance, finance, cybersecurity, and the public sector–and discussed what comes next.
In 2021, the Ransomware Task Force did not recommend a prohibition on paying ransoms. Every RTF working group raised prohibitions on ransom payments as a potential concept, demonstrating its widespread interest–and increasingly pressing nature. However, each group also discussed downsides of a payment ban, including concerns regarding its near-term impact on victims given the relatively low state of resilience across the ecosystem, as well as the potential impact on voluntary incident reporting. In light of continued interest in a government ban of private sector ransom payments, the RTF Co-Chairs have developed a phased approach to potentially reach payment prohibition, with 15 milestones marking progress in ecosystem preparedness, deterrence, disruption, and response.
Would a ban be effective? What other policy steps should accompany a ban? How many of the milestones identified by the RTF have seen significant progress since 2021?
