I have been meaning to share some info on these types of ways of mis"representing" the cost of non-payment. When an organization is fighting a battle with ransomware crooks, usually(not every time) the smallest total cost is the ransom itself. Many orgs were hit because of (cont) https://twitter.com/londonbel0w/status/1390795055602884610

sub-par training, lack of staff, no SOC or managed threat response, out of date technologies, etc. Often the cost of just bringing the security itself up to standards to prevent another incident is $1MM or more. That doesn't include restoring the backups, rebuilding most

of the server infrastructure, costs due to lost business opportunity, etc. Paying the ransom is always a bad thing for the world, but it may be the only option for some, but it isn't likely to be the biggest cost to recovery. Baltimore's cost to recovery wouldn't have been

only $100,000 had they just paid the criminals. It likely would have been $18,100,000. And the criminals would have proven that crime pays.