Kaseya Says KEEP YOUR SERVERS SHUT DOWN

[FifthRootOfPi]

Kaseya, focus of the most recent ReEVIL ransomware
attack, "apologizes" for its protracted delay in
getting its services back up and urges users to
KEEP THEIR SERVERS SHUT DOWN until it can, maybe,
get going again.

Clue - DON'T get their "services" back up.

Clue - DON'T use remote server management software.

The bad people have FIGURED THIS OUT. It will just
be another RSM package next week and then they'll
get back to the latest security hole in Kaseya
and the others and hit everybody up again and
again and again.

No insurance company should foot this bill.

RSM lets the bad people send their evil far and
wide, a rectal injection into YOUR precious
systems.

Why RSM ? CHEAP-ASSNESS, that's why. Proper local
sysadmins COST MONEY. Well, what has this, and
the previous attacks, cost you ? What will
cheap-assness cost you tomorrow ? Wise up !

Despite the cost, it is now absolute insanity
to think you gain by having a few people handle
every little tweak and upgrade from afar. If you
do it, you deserve what you get - and should be
sued out of existence by your customers.

Oh well, just keep those servers shut down ; you
will go flat broke all on your own .....

But I'm sure the CEO still gets the golden parachute.

[Andrea Croci]

On the other hand I can indeed picture a situation where hiring more
people would not make a lot of sense. Say a company has a small
subsidiary somewhere, where the local network is very small and needs to
be changed too seldom for a local sysadmin to be busy more than 1% of
the time. I would understand that business not wanting to hire an extra
person. On the other hand the main sysadmin should have an overview of
the entire network, even the one at the remote site, so the extra person
would mean they (the two sysadmins) have to communicate (not that it
would be a problem, but an extra layer where communication could go wrong).

Sure enough they could send the main sysadmin in every now and then and
fix the things on site, but my question is: is there really no safe way
to manage a server and the locally connected clients from remote? I know
you can ssh into it, but is there software that allows you to have a
graphical overview of the network and the software you have installed on
any computer without compromising safety?

[NSquared]

There IS such a thing as "travel" ....

And remember, the problem is not that "small subsidiary", but
all your BIG subsidiaries that are also remotely administered.
You may be prepared to sacrifice the Mayberry branch, but what
about the NYC/LA/London branches ? All linked-in, ALL fall.

I would understand that business not wanting to hire an extra
> person. On the other hand the main sysadmin should have an overview of
> the entire network, even the one at the remote site, so the extra person
> would mean they (the two sysadmins) have to communicate (not that it
> would be a problem, but an extra layer where communication could go wrong).
>
> Sure enough they could send the main sysadmin in every now and then and
> fix the things on site, but my question is: is there really no safe way
> to manage a server and the locally connected clients from remote? I know
> you can ssh into it, but is there software that allows you to have a
> graphical overview of the network and the software you have installed on
> any computer without compromising safety?

I agree with the assessment that RSM is "professional
malpractice compromising national security" at this point
in time. No excuses.

[Rich]

NSquared <Squared22i.net> wrote:
> On 07/07/2021 04:38 AM, Andrea Croci wrote:
>> On the other hand I can indeed picture a situation where hiring more
>> people would not make a lot of sense. Say a company has a small
>> subsidiary somewhere, where the local network is very small and
>> needs to be changed too seldom for a local sysadmin to be busy more
>> than 1% of the time.
>
> There IS such a thing as "travel" ....

While true, "travel" costs, plus hourly wage costs, for a "traveling"
employee in an expensive country can often be substantially larger than
providing the same support 'remotely' using workers that are willing to
work for a fraction per hour of the expensive country worker.

Which is the "draw" to these types of 'remote' setups by CIO/CTO/etc.
types. When they run the numbers they see cost savings on the order of
1/10th or more by using the 'remote worker' option, and they ignore the
potential security risks while being starry-eyed over the cost savings
they "found".

[NSquared]

The word "cheapness" has been mentioned in conjunction with
this issue. It is a businesspersons instinct. However in
todays environment, that instinct may easily cost you 10,000
times what those sitting/traveling experts would.

If you're selling anything I'm paying for and RSM cheapness
makes it go away I will sue yer ass - and so will mass
quantities of others.

Think, and CHOOSE. MAYBE you'll get away with it, maybe ...