GoodWill Ransomware Forces Victims To Donate To the Poor

New submitter Grokew writes: "GoodWill ransomware group propagates very unusual demands in exchange for the decryption key," reports CloudSEK. "The Robin Hood-like group is forcing its victims to donate to the poor and provides financial assistance to the patients in need."

["Once infected, the GoodWill ransomware worm encrypts documents, photos, videos, databases, and other important files and renders them inaccessible without the decryption key," reports CloudSEK.] In order for the victims to obtain the decryption keys, they must provide proof of donating to the homeless, sharing a meal with the less fortunate, and pay a debt of someone who can't afford it. [The decryption kit includes the main decryption tool, password file and a video tutorial on how to recover all important files. It's only given to infected users after the three activities are verified by the ransomware operators, who appear to be operating out of India.]

It's probably just ransomware gangs

[rsilvergun]

testing new code is all.

Re:

[Catvid-22]

That, or they're still a small group with high-minded goals. Maybe when they expand, they'll start pulling in all sorts of shady characters.

Re:

[mmell]

Seems to me, they're already shady enough. This was just a dry run.

Re:

[omnichad]

Most ransomware is sold as a service these days. These attacks could just be to create marketing material for their services.

Re:

[quenda]

It also sounds like a marketing exercise for the new season of Black Mirror.

Who are the victims?

[kunwon1]

If they're not doing this for personal profit, then the only way to judge whether this is an ethical or moral practice is to know who the victims are

I don't subscribe to the idea that vigilante justice is inherently wrong. Usually, but not always...

Re:

[DrMrLordX]

Goodwill Industries, obviously.

Re:

[rantrantrant]

But, but, but giving money to the poor & needy? This is taxation without representation! Throw their tea in the harbour!

Re:

[azcoyote]

I get what you're saying, but the end doesn't justify the means. A vigiante who steals from a criminal still commits a crime, even if it's less morally evil; they violate the legitimate order by taking justice into their own hands. It might be possible for their culpability to be effectively 0, but that does not make the action good. (This is different from a revolution or a case where the authorities have lost their legitimacy due to systemic corruption.) Now in this case, the unfair distribution of wealth

Re:

[markdavis]

>"Now in this case, the unfair distribution of wealth is evil but not necessarily a crime,"

Define "unfair". Not an easy task.

Unequal distribution of wealth is not, itself, evil. It is actually necessary and good to spur development, productivity, innovation, motivation, supply, choice, and is (in many ways) the definition of "fair"- you get more reward out when you provide more value. In a free market, the value of what you provide is set by the market (which is everyone).

Now, there are certainly cas

Re:

[Krishnoid]

Their victims are probably companies with insufficiently strong cybersecurity measures, I'm guessing.

Sounds like a red herring.

[Anonymous Coward]

Probably the goal is to get the information itself, which if they were able to encrypt, they have access to. Then they just tell the victim to donate to some great cause, pretending that that was their original intent.

No such thing as Goodwill malware

[warp_kez]

There are a number of programs that furnish under-privileged families with computers and laptops for school aged children.

They are not going to feel the "goodwill" when little John's or Jane's computer is infected.

Forcing its victims to donate to the poor

[ketchmain]

BASED