Ransomware at 02:10: Containment Scope and the Payment Question
At 02:10 on a Saturday, the SOC of a 340-bed hospital receives EDR alerts from 14 nursing-station workstations in the east wing: a process named svc_upd.exe running out of C:\ProgramData\ encrypts documents and drops readme.txt in every folder. Six minutes later the file server hosting the imaging archive reports 3,200 modified files. The note demands 40 BTC. Scoping shows the entry point was a phishing email opened five days earlier by a radiology technician whose domain account still carries a legacy local-admin exception, and that the same account authenticated to the file server at 01:52. Nightly backups go to a domain-joined NAS mounted as a drive on that file server. Two operating rooms need imaging access within four hours. The CISO must decide whether to isolate the entire east-wing VLAN immediately or keep clinical systems online while hunting.
1. Which elements of the CIA triad are affected, and how does that drive incident severity?
Read the worked answer
Availability is the property under active attack: 3,200 files changed in six minutes on a server clinical staff depend on. Integrity is also degraded because encryption rewrites content. Confidentiality is unknown, and that matters most - modern ransomware operators routinely exfiltrate before encrypting, so absence of evidence is not evidence of absence and the incident must be treated as a possible ePHI breach until proxy, firewall, and DNS logs prove otherwise. Severity should be driven by patient-safety impact rather than file count: two operating rooms losing imaging access is a clinical outage, which pushes this to a major incident requiring executive and clinical leadership notification. A minor-incident classification would be wrong because the blast radius crosses a clinical service boundary and the affected account holds local admin on multiple systems. The regulatory clock also starts once unauthorized access to ePHI is suspected, so Legal and Privacy belong in the first bridge call, not the tenth.
2. Give a containment sequence for the first 60 minutes, justifying each step.
Read the worked answer
First 15 minutes: disable the technician's domain account, reset the password twice, and revoke its Kerberos tickets; a krbtgt reset is only warranted if there is evidence of a golden ticket, because it is disruptive. Second: network-contain the 14 workstations and the file server through EDR isolation so encryption stops while other clinical paths keep working. Third: identify and block the command-and-control channel at egress using proxy, firewall, and DNS logs keyed to the phishing email and the note. Fourth: preserve volatile evidence on one representative host - memory image, process list, netstat, scheduled tasks - before any reboot, since the encryptor and credential-theft artifacts vanish afterward. Fifth: verify backup integrity by mounting a restore into an isolated segment and scan the NAS for the same indicators; a domain-joined backup target is a lateral-movement target, not an asset. Do not power hosts off - isolate them, so the memory evidence survives.
3. Should the CISO isolate the whole east-wing VLAN or just affected hosts, and should payment be considered?
Read the worked answer
Isolate hosts, not the VLAN, unless evidence shows east-west spread. Full VLAN isolation severs the imaging archive from the operating rooms and creates a second, self-inflicted outage; containment has to be proportionate to observed spread. Fourteen workstations plus one server is bounded, and EDR isolation stops the encryption loop as effectively as a VLAN ACL. Keep a documented rollback, re-evaluate every 30 minutes, and escalate to VLAN shutdown if new hosts appear outside the east wing. On payment: not as a first option. Backups exist and the restore path is testable, payment funds the operation without guaranteeing usable keys, and it may create sanctions exposure if the actor is designated. Frame the decision as restore time versus clinical downtime rather than morality alone. If restore would exceed the surgical window, consider payment only after legal, executive, and law-enforcement consultation - and rebuild anyway, because decryptors are unreliable.