More explanation needed on Australia s naming and shaming of cyber attackers smh.com.au - get the latest breaking news, showbiz & celebrity photos, sport news & rumours, viral videos and top stories from smh.com.au Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday newspapers.
âWe were very engaged with them and the technical information that they were able to provide us about what happened on their network helped us using our more classified capabilities to warn two other entities they were about to be victims as well to prevent them from becoming victims,â Noble said on Wednesday.
Noble said ASD could launch attacks against criminals offshore when there was a reasonable level of confidence it would not involve Australians. But it did not do so during the Nine incident.
The ASD did launch attacks against scammers and hackers who were targeting Australians in April 2020 when the Covid pandemic was taking hold in Australia.
Nine’s cyber attacker was poised to hit two other organisations
We’re sorry, this service is currently unavailable. Please try again later.
Dismiss
Normal text size
Advertisement
Australia’s cyber troops have not hit back at the criminal group responsible for the cyber attack on the Nine Network but they were able to warn two other entities they were about to become victims of a similar onslaught.
Labor’s Tim Watts wants the government and Australian cyber security services to go after ransomware crews, likening them to modern-day pirates.
Australian Signals Directorate head Rachel Noble says it plays a vital role in warning organisations at risk of being hit with a cyber attack.
To talk or not to talk â the cyber-attack dilemma
Cyber-criminals know their victims hate to say anything about a hack attack. This lack of transparency is exacerbating the problem.
Apr 6, 2021 â 12.00am
Save
Share
Nine Entertainmentâs decision to keep the details of its cyber attack secret, including refusing to answer the five fundamental questions â who, what, when, where and why, is understandable.
It might harbour fears the mystery hacker will be emboldened to launch a second attack if it is named and shamed. This thinking could well be informed by the obvious resilience of the companyâs systems.
Nine would not want to be seen to be boasting about its proven ability to contain the damaging attack, repair its systems and continue functioning albeit with significant inconvenience for employees.