Apparently, being a leading destination for AI development doesn't mean AI will bail you out. AI agents broke into Hugging Face's production infrastructure, but commercial LLM guardrails blocked the forensic investigation, forcing it to turn to a Chinese open-weight model instead. The intrusion, “driven, end to end, by an autonomous AI agent system,” compromised a “limited set” of Hugging Face’s internal datasets and “several” credentials used by its services, according to a Thursday security incident disclosure. While the ML platform says that it’s still investigating whether any partner or customer data was exposed in the breach, there’s “no evidence of tampering with public, user-facing models, datasets, or Spaces, and our software supply chain (container images and published packages) was verified clean.” It also doesn't know which model the attackers used to power a swarm of AI agents, which, we're told, executed many thousands of individual actions across short-lived sandboxes, using self-migrating command-and-control staged on public services. “This matches the ‘agentic attacker’ scenario the industry has been forecasting,” according to the Hugging Face blog. Additionally, after unsuccessfully using unnamed frontier models to start the forensic analysis, the Hugging Face security team ultimately ran the log analysis on GLM 5.2, an open-weight model developed by Chinese AI firm Z.ai, on the platform’s own infrastructure. The advanced commercial models didn’t work because their analysis required submitting real attack commands, exploit payloads, and command-and-control artifacts - all of the things that the LLMs’ guardrails have been trained to block so that the AI systems can’t be used in real-life attacks. “The attacker was bound by no usage policy, while our own forensic work was blocked by the guardrails of the hosted models we first tried,” the security team wrote, noting that it’s not arguing against safety measures on hosted models and has shared this information with the LLM providers. Using GLM 5.2 had another benefit, Hugging Face noted: “No attacker data, and none of the credentials it referenced, left our environment.” This also serves as an important reminder to defenders, according to the AI platform. “Have a capable model you can run on your own infrastructure vetted and ready before an incident, both to avoid guardrail lockout and to keep attacker data and credentials from leaving your environment.” The Hugging Face intrusion is yet another indication that attacks carried out by autonomous AI agents are no longer a future threat, but rather the current state of AI-based intrusions. Last week, The Register spoke with TrendAI VP of AI and security threat research Tom Kellermann about another recent attack, during which a jailbroken Google Gemini did 90 percent of the work - including spinning up a new C2 server in just six minutes. The human did just 10 percent. Additionally, earlier in July, Sysdig threat hunters documented what they say is the first-ever documented agentic ransomware infection with an LLM - not a human - driving the entire extortion operation, from gaining initial access to compromising a production database server and destroying data. “Think of a burglar that never gets tired, never needs sleep, and instead of jiggling one door handle at a time, is trying a thousand of them simultaneously,” Zero Networks field CTO Chris Boehm said in an email to The Register about the Hugging Face intrusion. “That's basically what happened here. Not one guy typing commands into a terminal, a swarm of little automated processes hammering away nonstop, hopping between hiding spots to make it harder to trace,” Boehm said. He added, the “part that actually unsettles” him most is that the platform’s security team couldn’t get commercial AI tools to help analyze the attack, “because those tools were built to refuse anything that looked like a real attack command. It didn't matter that it was the good guys asking.” Boehm said the takeaway for security teams is twofold: “These agents can now move faster and more relentlessly than any human ever could, and the safety tools we're building aren't always ready to help us respond at that speed.”®

More than 23 million people who signed up to earn money from online gigs have allegedly had their personal and financial information spilled onto the internet following a breach of microtask platform Paidwork. The incident was added to Troy Hunt's Have I Been Pwned site after a database allegedly stolen from Paidwork was publicly released earlier this month. According to the breach notification service, the leak contains data on 23,272,765 users and traces back to an intrusion in March. The database first surfaced in April when someone using the handle "HACKFORMETOME" advertised what they claimed was an 11 GB dump from Paidwork's production systems on a popular cybercrime forum. At the time, the seller claimed the database contained records on more than 22 million users and attempted to auction it through Telegram and Tox. The alleged breach at Paidwork appeared in Have I Been Pwned on July 19. According to the breach listing, the exposed information goes well beyond names and email addresses. The data reportedly includes bank account numbers, phone numbers, physical addresses, dates of birth, profile photographs, IP addresses, device information, financial transaction records, payout histories, education levels, and passwords stored as bcrypt hashes. While bcrypt makes password cracking significantly harder than older hashing algorithms, weak passwords may still be recovered. Paidwork had not publicly acknowledged the alleged breach at the time of writing. The Register asked the company to confirm the authenticity of the leaked data and detail what steps it has taken to notify affected users, but the company didn't immediately respond. Paidwork markets itself as a way to earn money through small online tasks such as playing mobile games, watching advertisements, completing surveys, testing apps, shopping through cashback offers, and referring other users. Most individual jobs pay only a few cents, with workers required to earn at least $10 before cashing out. For Paidwork users, that modest payday may now come with a much larger bill. Anyone who reused their password elsewhere should change it immediately, keep an eye on financial accounts, and be alert for phishing emails built from the trove of personal information now circulating online. ®

Ransomware has soured production at Coca-Cola-owned Fairlife, forcing the dairy business to temporarily halt production at its US plants. In an SEC filing on Thursday, Coca-Cola said Fairlife detected "unauthorized access by a third party to a portion of its systems, including its production-related systems," in what it described as a ransomware event. The company said it immediately activated its incident response and business continuity plans, brought in outside cybersecurity experts, and notified law enforcement. Fairlife has halted production at its US plants while Coca-Cola investigates the ransomware attack, but its Canadian facilities are still running. The business, which was fully acquired by Coca-Cola in 2020 and makes ultra-filtered milk and Core Power protein shakes, said the quality and safety of the products themselves have not been affected. The drinks giant said it is still investigating the incident and working to restore affected systems, adding that it has not yet determined whether the attack is reasonably likely to materially affect the company. The filing sheds little light on the technical details, other than confirming that production-related systems were affected. It remains unclear whether the ransomware reached operational technology used to run Fairlife's manufacturing facilities or whether production was suspended because supporting IT systems were taken offline as part of the company's response. Coca-Cola also hasn't said who was behind the attack or whether any data was stolen. No ransomware gang has publicly claimed responsibility at the time of writing, although such claims often surface days after an attack if negotiations fail or the attackers decide to increase the pressure. The Register asked Coca-Cola how many Fairlife facilities were affected, whether customer or employee data was compromised, whether operational technology was directly impacted, and when it expects US production to resume, but didn't receive an immediate response. The criminals may not have milked the company for a ransom yet, but they've already curdled production. ®

Threat intel outfit Group-IB has detailed a previously undocumented macOS information stealer that doesn't bother hunting for software bugs. Instead, it persuades users to pwn themselves by pasting a command into Terminal, after which it helps itself to passwords, crypto wallets, browser data, and anything else worth stealing. The boffins have dubbed the malware “ClickLock Stealer,” a nod to its use of the increasingly popular ClickFix social engineering technique and a coercive "locker" feature that pressures victims into handing over their Mac login password. According to the researchers, the operation has been active since around May and has already targeted at least 100 victims across 33 countries, with more than half located in Europe. Group-IB said it discovered the malware after analyzing a malicious shell script uploaded to VirusTotal on June 9 that had zero antivirus detections at the time. The attackers appear to distribute the malware via fake verification pages using ClickFix, host payloads on compromised WordPress sites, and rely on Telegram infrastructure for command-and-control. "The current malware doesn't even need any elevated privileges or rely on exploits for the successful execution," the researchers wrote. Instead, victims are tricked into launching the infection themselves. After they paste the supplied command into Terminal, the malware displays what appears to be a Cloudflare verification sequence, complete with a fake progress animation, while quietly downloading additional components in the background. Group-IB says ClickLock targets data from eight browsers, 31 cryptocurrency wallet browser extensions, seven password manager extensions, eight desktop wallet applications, macOS Keychain, shell history, FTP credentials, and blockchain addresses spanning six different chains. The malware also deploys a modified version of the open source GSocket tool to provide the attackers with remote access. The researchers believe the malware is still under active development based on its code structure and other artifacts, suggesting operators are continuing to expand its capabilities. The nastiest touch comes when victims refuse to play along. During the fake verification process, ClickLock prompts for the user's macOS password. If the password isn't entered, the malware repeatedly kills visible applications, effectively preventing normal use of the machine until the victim complies. If the password is supplied, the theft completes quietly. If the machine is rebooted instead, persistence mechanisms are designed to resume the attack. "The entire attack chain from initial access to full credential theft and data exfiltration relies on a single moment of trust: the user pasting a command into Terminal," Group-IB wrote. The researchers say defenders will need to watch for suspicious behavior rather than known malware signatures. Among the warning signs are unexpected password prompts, applications being repeatedly forced to close, unusual access to browser data and stored credentials, and connections sending stolen information to Telegram. For everyone else, the advice is considerably simpler. If a website claiming to be Cloudflare, Google, or anyone else asks you to open Terminal and paste in a command, close the tab. ®

The two British Scattered Spider members collared for carrying out the 2024 cyberattack on Transport for London (TfL) will each spend five and a half years in prison after being sentenced on Thursday. Owen Flowers, 18, and Thalha Jubair, 20, were sentenced to five years and six months' imprisonment each, having pleaded guilty in June, in turn receiving a 15 percent reduction in their sentences. Sentencing the pair at Woolwich Crown Court, Mr Justice Turner noted both cybercriminals' immaturity, but acknowledged the sophistication of the offending, the scale of the impact on TfL, the significant planning behind the attack, and that both knew the criminality of their actions. Mr Justice Turner further noted the age gap between the pair, and that the one year and four months Jubair has on Flowers "marks a potentially significant distinction in maturity." The judge also acknowledged both defendants' neurodiversity in passing the sentence, which he said was the most lenient, while still reflecting the seriousness of their offenses. Flowers and Jubair were described by authorities as members of Scattered Spider, the loosely connected group of English-speaking individual cybercriminals thought to be mostly young men aged 16-25. Scattered Spider has been one of the most prominent cybercrime groups of the past few years, claiming responsibility for major attacks such as those on MGM Resorts in 2023 and the attacks on British retail giants in 2025. The National Crime Agency (NCA) said the group presented the most significant cyber threat to the UK, and today's sentencing closes the book on the biggest prosecution of cyber offenders in UK history. NCA officials have continually refused to comment on whether Flowers or Jubair were linked in any way to other major attacks claimed by Scattered Spider. The sentencing marks only the second conviction under Section 3ZA of the Computer Misuse Act 1990 (CMA) – reserved for the most serious offenses. Section 3ZA covers unauthorized acts involving computers that cause, or create a significant risk of, serious damage, where the offender intends to cause that damage or is reckless as to whether it occurs. Flowers and Jubair pleaded guilty on the basis that their actions were reckless. The only previous 3ZA conviction came last year and involved a former GCHQ intern who was jailed for six years following a national security investigation. The NCA said there were no parallels between this case and the TfL attack. Deputy Director Paul Foster, head of the NCA's National Cyber Crime Unit, said: "This is the largest cybercrime prosecution ever brought before the UK courts and the culmination of nearly two years of painstaking work by the NCA, CPS, and our policing partners. "Scattered Spider has been the most significant cybercrime threat to the UK in recent years. Through this investigation, we have severely disrupted that threat and brought key offenders to justice. "The attack on Transport for London caused significant financial harm and disruption to a vital part of the UK's critical infrastructure. These convictions would likely not have been possible had Transport for London not engaged with law enforcement early, so I would urge any other organization to please do the same in such circumstances. "We will continue working with partners in the UK and overseas to identify offenders and bring them to justice." Andy Lord, London's Transport Commissioner, said: "We welcome the news that two people charged in relation to the cyber incident which impacted our operations in 2024 have now been sentenced. "The security of our systems and customer data is extremely important to us, and we continually monitor our systems to ensure only those authorised can gain access and continue to take the necessary actions to protect TfL." How TfL attack unfolded Scattered Spider members are known for their phishing, voice phishing ("vishing"), and social engineering tactics to gain footholds in target networks, and TfL was no different. Flowers and Jubair purchased partial TfL credentials from "well-known criminal forums" and used those to reset the 2FA on employee accounts, a process that took multiple attempts. Woolwich Crown Court heard that the pair impersonated an employee and socially engineered a TfL helpdesk worker into resetting the password for their account. The pair gained access to TfL's network on August 31, 2024, and held on to that access until September 3. During this time, they worked to elevate their privileges and gain access to key internal systems, including databases containing information on what was originally thought to be only around 5,000 people. It wasn't until earlier this year that it became known that Scattered Spider actually gained access to around 7 million users' data. The attack had minimal disruption to the transport network in real terms, although the availability of several services suffered, such as account logins, customer portals, and third-party apps reliant on TfL data. TfL was not able to issue photo travel cards to Londoners until December 4, 2024. A limited number of ticket machines also malfunctioned as a result of the attack, and travelers paying by contactless card were unable to view their journey histories online. All of the organization's employees, around 28,000 of them, a considerable proportion of whom were allowed to work remotely, were summoned to TfL's offices to reset their passwords because of uncertainties around whether the attackers were still in the network. Although train and bus services were not affected, the costs associated with remediating the attack climbed to £29 million ($39 million). Several complexities The NCA said the investigation that led to today's sentencing was perhaps even more complicated than Operation Chronos, which crippled the once-dominant LockBit ransomware group. Bringing Flowers and Jubair to justice involved delicate management, owing to their ages, backgrounds, and neurodiversity. Flowers, for example, was known to UK law enforcement prior to the TfL attack, and investigating officers suspected his involvement from the outset, although he could not be named until September last year due to his age. The teenager was initially arrested on suspicion of his involvement in the TfL attack on September 6, 2024, at his three-bedroom home in Walsall, where he lived with his maternal grandmother and uncle. Officials say Flowers spent most of his time at home in his bedroom playing computer games and using chat forums, and was primarily motivated by gaining notoriety among cybercrime circles. He was charged and later released on bail conditions, which he breached twice in October 2024 and again in May 2025 after being handed a warning two months earlier. Before TfL, Flowers had committed lower-level computer offenses. He was visited by police in October 2023 and handed a cease-and-desist order, which officers hoped would deter the then-16-year-old from reoffending. Flowers was also offered training and given advice around CMA offences but officials say he did not want to engage in any of this. Between then and the TfL attack a year later, Flowers continued to commit offenses of increasing severity. The NCA's Foster said the proposed Cyber Crime Risk Orders, announced in the most recent King's Speech, could have enabled officers to arrest Flowers sooner and impose restrictions that could have better prevented possible reoffending. Existing powers, such as serious crime prevention orders, cannot be applied to offenders under the age of 18, and some CMA offenses do not meet the criteria for serious crime, leaving a gap in the police's ability to manage the risk of reoffending. "The proposed cybercrime risk orders would provide law enforcement with a proportionate preventative tool, similar in principle to sexual risk orders to impose conditions that help to protect the public and businesses whilst an investigation continues," said Foster. "Those conditions would be actively monitored, and any breach could result in criminal sanctions, including imprisonment, and that's regardless of whether the underlying investigation has concluded. "And I'd suggest that a Cyber Crime Risk Order, should one have been available to us, would have allowed us to arrest Flowers sooner, potentially acting on information provided by US or Australian partners." Both Flowers and Jubair have autism, and Jubair is also diagnosed as having depression and severe mood disorder. Like Flowers, Jubair was also previously known to UK police, principally due to his prior conviction in 2023 related to his involvement in the Lapsus$ crew that hacked the likes of BT/EE and Nvidia. During the proceedings, Jubair sat in court alongside fellow Lapsus$ member Arion Kurtaj, who BBC's Joe Tidy recently revealed is now awaiting trial after his indefinite hospital order ended. Under the age of 18 at the time, and therefore unable to be named publicly, Jubair received an 18-month youth rehabilitation order, which included a ban on using a VPN, but quickly began reoffending. Officials pointed to Jubair's reoffending as another example of why Cyber Crime Risk Orders are needed, since the existing legal mechanisms that limit the freedoms of criminals such as burglars and sexual predators are not effective for cyber offenders. Jubair lived in a two-bedroom apartment on the third floor of a 21-storey council block in Bow, London, with his two Bangladeshi parents, who both work as carers. He also faces charges further afield in the US, which were unsealed in September 2025. Acting through his Scattered Spider role, between May 2022 and September 2025, Jubair is accused of compromising 120 networks belonging to 47 US entities, including critical national infrastructure and the federal court system, which resulted in more than $115 million in ransom payments being transmitted. In the UK, Jubair has 22 previous convictions in total, including 13 for fraud and one for blackmail. He was also previously sentenced for stalking and harassing two young women online. His offending began when he was 14 years old, and officials said he had an interest in computers from an early age. Jubair, who was first arrested in February 2021, learned to code by age 13. He attended school in the Bow region of London, had a number of GCSE qualifications, and had attempted to enroll in local colleges. Arrests and evidence gathering Flowers' arrest was by far the more significant of the two in terms of collecting evidence linking the pair to the TfL attack. NCA officers arresting Flowers also seized a number of devices, including laptops, tower computers, and USB storage devices. The analysis of one Acer laptop, owned by Flowers, proved to be the pair’s undoing. Forensic analysis revealed that Flowers had accessed the remote infrastructure and virtual machines that were used to carry out the TfL attack. Damningly, officers also found videos and screenshots, produced by Flowers, depicting the TfL attack in progress. Woolwich Crown Court heard that the pair livestreamed the 16-hour attack online. They were able to tie the payment used for the remote infrastructure to a cryptocurrency account found on Flowers' computer and prove that the laptop was connected to this infrastructure at the time of the attack. Further, Flowers used the same cryptocurrency account to pay for food deliveries he ordered to his home address. The teen's computer stored spreadsheets containing partial credentials for TfL employees and contained evidence linking him to cyberattacks on US healthcare organizations SSM Health Care Corporation and Sutter Health. The same computer also contained artifacts linking the activity to Jubair. Officials said they had access to certain chat logs within which a specific moniker appeared frequently. They tied this alias to Jubair because it was the same one used to discuss specific flight bookings, hotel bookings, and food deliveries, all of which could clearly be linked to the 20-year-old. And Officers found evidence of a cloud storage account containing TfL data, to which Flowers and Jubair had access. Devices seized from Jubair revealed comparatively little, other than that he had shown an interest in TfL's systems as far back as 2022. ®

Australia’s Privacy Commissioner has revealed a tech support scam was the cause of the massive 2025 data breach at Australian airline Qantas and found the carrier didn’t breach its privacy obligations despite leaking personally identifiable information for 5.7 million customers. The Commissioner reached that conclusion, and a decision not to open a formal privacy probe, in a report published today. Qantas has previously admitted the incident was the result of a social engineering attack on a contact center. The Commissioner’s report goes deeper, explaining a crook who claimed to represent “Qantas IT help” made the call and told a contact center agent to access a CRM system and perform certain actions needed to close a support ticket. Those actions instead connected the CRM to a data extraction tool which the crooks used to siphon off customer records. The Commissioner considered whether Qantas observed the Australian Privacy Principles (APPs), the binding rules that govern how businesses safeguard PII, and found the airline did the right thing. The report found that Qantas audited the operator of the contact center and tested the security awareness of its employees – and had done so in the months before the incident. Qantas also conducted mandatory and recurring training on how to handle PII. The Commissioner was therefore satisfied Qantas took adequate steps to ensure the contact center observed the APPs and didn’t fail in its obligations. The regulator made a similar finding regarding the airline’s cross-border data-sharing practices. “Our inquiries did not identify any omissions in the steps Qantas took that, if addressed, would have prevented the breach that occurred in this incident,” the report states. The APPs include a requirement to take reasonable steps to protect personal information from unauthorized access. Again, the Commissioner decided Qantas complied because it used role-based access controls, among other techniques to protect data. Another issue the regulator considered was whether Qantas took reasonable steps to destroy or de-identify the personal information it didn’t need. The carrier told the Privacy Commissioner that it scheduled annual data removal runs from its CRM, and that no records that deserved deletion or removal were present at the time of the attack. That clean record saw the Commissioner decide not to launch a deeper investigation. “I have a broad discretion to commence an investigation of an act or practice where it may be a contravention of the APPs and where it is desirable to do so,” the report states. The first-person pronoun is presumably the work of Commissioner Carly Kind, who observed “it does not appear that Qantas could have reasonably foreseen and prevented the breach in the manner that it occurred. The way in which the threat actor gained access was through a vishing attack which could not have been prevented by a strengthening of Qantas’ current role-based access controls.” It’s possible the Commissioner will revisit the matter at another time, and class-action lawsuits are also in train regarding the incident. Qantas may therefore still have to fight through plenty of turbulence before this matter lands. One thing the report doesn’t address is the identity of the attackers. Pundits have suggested the Scattered Spider gang did the deed after it started attacking the aviation industry in the weeks before the Qantas incident. ®

German textile company ZEGO Textilveredelungszentrum has filed for insolvency and is blaming the financial fallout from a March cyberattack that knocked its production offline for nearly six weeks. ZEGO's filing adds another name to the short but growing list of companies that say a digital break-in was commercially fatal to their business. The Bavaria-based company provides textile finishing, processing, and treatment services for customers across industries, including automotive, workwear, and technical textiles. In a notice to customers and suppliers, the organization said it had exhausted every available option before seeking insolvency protection. Managing director Johannes Zenglein described the filing as "one of the most difficult steps in our company's 37-year history." "The cyberattack of March 29, 2026, however, impacted our company to an extent that we could not fully compensate for despite our best efforts," Zenglein wrote. "The consequences resulted in a production outage of nearly six weeks and significant financial strain. These effects ultimately impacted our financial situation so severely that filing for insolvency became necessary." ZEGO did not disclose what kind of attack it suffered, whether ransomware was involved, who was behind it, or whether customer or employee data was compromised. What it has made clear is that the operational disruption alone was enough to push the business beyond the point of recovery. ZEGO said insolvency proceedings have now been initiated, but insisted the filing does not necessarily spell the end of the business. It said it plans to keep production running while administrators attempt to restructure the business, preserve jobs, and keep customers and suppliers on board. Cyberattacks have long been capable of bringing factories and production lines to a standstill, but relatively few businesses publicly acknowledge that the resulting financial damage ultimately tipped them into collapse. Perhaps the best-known example is Knights of Old, the 158-year-old British haulage company that collapsed after a ransomware attack. Criminals broke in using an employee's password, encrypted the company's systems, and left more than 700 people out of work. Paying the ransom made little difference. Last year, another German business, a phone repair company, also blamed a cyberattack for its demise after concluding the cost of recovering its systems and rebuilding customer confidence was simply too much to bear. For everyone else still debating whether cybersecurity spending pays for itself, ZEGO's message is difficult to miss: sometimes the highest cost isn't the ransom, it’s surviving the downtime. ®

A US county reportedly paid $1 million to Kairos, an extortion gang that claimed to have stolen more than 2 TB of data, but the county never received independently verifiable proof that the stolen files had been deleted - just the criminals' promise. This means the county’s stolen files may turn up for sale on a dark web forum, and the same (or another) crime crew could again demand an extortion payment to not leak the data. It’s also a reminder that, despite the feds urging victims not to pay cybercriminals, sometimes coughing up the ransom demand seems to be the lesser of evils. The alleged incident played out in May and June 2025, according to a case study by threat-intel researcher Rakesh Krishnan on Ransom-ISAC, a global knowledge-sharing platform for defenders and incident responders. Krishnan based his report on a leaked transcript of the negotiations between the county and Kairos, along with attacker-provided artifacts and screenshots, and payment-tracing evidence on the blockchain. It doesn’t name the ransomware negotiator, citing privacy concerns, nor does it identify the victim, describing it as a US government entity. Communications between the attackers and the public agency, however, suggest it’s a US county, including this one following the attackers’ initial $3 million demand: “We have reviewed the situation with our leadership and financial teams. As a small county with very limited resources, we simply do not have the ability to meet the amount you have proposed. That said, we understand the seriousness of the matter and want to work toward a resolution. The most we have been able to identify at this time is $100,000. We respectfully ask that you consider this offer.” Additionally, one of the allegedly stolen documents, "Media Release - Motorcycle Crash Claims the Life of Dublin Resident 9-10-2020.pdf," indicates that there’s a city of Dublin inside the county’s boundaries. It’s worth noting that the city of Dublin, Ohio, spans four counties in that state: Union, Franklin, Delaware, and Madison. And last fall, Union County, Ohio disclosed a May 2025 “ransomware attack that involved unauthorized access to and acquisition of protected personal information held by the County.” According to the cyber-incident notice, the intruders accessed Union County networks from May 6, 2025 through May 18, 2025 and stole data including people’s names, Social Security numbers, driver’s license/state identification card numbers, financial account information, dates of birth, fingerprint information, medical information, payment card information, and passport numbers. The disclosure doesn’t say anything about paying a $1 million ransom, nor does it name the attacker. The Register reached out to county officials and law enforcement and asked if Union County is the government entity described in the Ransom-ISAC report. We will update this story if we receive any response. The FBI declined to comment. We should also note that there’s no indication this was a ransomware attack, as the attackers didn’t claim to encrypt any data or provide a decryptor in exchange for payment. Plus, as Krishnan says, security researchers have not obtained, or linked to Kairos, any ransomware sample, encryptor, or locker binary. What we do know, based on the transcript and Kairos’ data-leak site, is that the miscreants claimed to steal more than 2TB of data, totaling about 1.6 million files. 'You are wasting our time with such offers' After listing the victim county on their name-and-shame blog, Kairos demanded $3 million. “We will give you the full list of files we have and give you some time to study it,” the crims told the victim. “You can choose up to 10 files from this list and we will send them to you. In order to prevent the publication of data you need to pay 3000000$.” According to the transcript, county officials reviewed the files during the last week of May 2025, and made the first counteroffer of $100,000 on June 4, 2025. Kairos responded: “You are wasting our time with such offers.We cant accept it.Your files will be a great advertisement on our site and we understand what terrible consequences will await you. You cant hide the data leak.You have two more days to make us a favorable offer.” Two days later, the county increased its offer to $255,000. Kairos reduced its demand to $2 million, and on June 9, 2025, the county proposed paying $430,000. “As a small county and limited resources, we are doing our best to navigate this within what is financially feasible for us,” the leaked negotiations say. “That said, we are committed to finding a resolution and have taken steps internally to increase our offer to $430,000. This reflects a sincere attempt to make progress despite our constraints. We ask that you consider this proposal as part of a continued effort to resolve the matter in a constructive and timely manner.” That same day, both parties settled on $1 million, Kairos provided a Bitcoin payment wallet and the county requested a few deliverables in exchange for the payment: “Please confirm for $1,000,000 you will provide us with: proof of deletion, a complete list of all files taken, and tell us how you got in.” Kairos claimed to have gained initial access by bruteforcing their way into the network, shared an RAR file that they claimed provided “proof of deletion of all downloaded files,” and a promise: “We also guarantee that we will not share the downloaded data with third parties, and we also guarantee that we will not attack you again.” However, as Krishnan notes, “the transcript does not show a technical mechanism by which deletion could be independently verified, which remains a fundamental limitation in ransom-payment scenarios.” To pay, or not to pay? It’s also one of the reasons why both the FBI and US Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Agency urge victims not to pay criminals. “Paying a ransom doesn’t guarantee you or your organization will get any data back,” according to the FBI. “It also encourages perpetrators to target more victims and offers an incentive for others to get involved in this type of illegal activity.” While there is no outright ransom-payment ban at the US federal government level, two states - North Carolina and Florida - explicitly prohibit public agencies from paying extortion demands, and others have proposed similar legislation. The Register has discussed the topic of a ransomware-payment ban with many experts over the years, and while they mostly agree that the only way to eliminate attacks is to cut off the financial incentive for the criminals, they also typically say a total payment ban won’t work. “Complex problems are rarely solved with binary solutions, and ransomware is no different,” Sezaneh Seymour, VP and head of regulatory risk and policy at Coalition, told us in an earlier interview. “A payment ban will backfire because it doesn't address the root cause of our national problem: widespread digital insecurity.” ®