DataBreaches previously reported a breach involving Integris Health in Oklahoma. The incident did not involve encryption, but the threat actors were reportedly contacting patients directly and offering to remove their protected health information for a small fee before leaking or selling the data of what they claim is more than two million patients.
DataBreaches noted in that post that this site had been contacted by someone about the breach. DataBreaches subsequently made contact with them.
Of note, the threat actor claimed that they “taked DA for integris” on 11/11. They also claimed that Integris did not enter into chat or any negotiations with tthehem, even though they say Integris knew that they had acquired patients’ protected health information.
“they know exactly what we taked for months,” the individual claimed, adding that before the threat actors began contacting the patients directly, Integris was not telling patients what had been exfiltrated. It was only after they began reaching out to patients directly, the individual claims, that Integris admitted patient data had been acquired. The “team little bit sloppy, we leaved csv. so they know. and we tell them many emails exactly what (we had acquired),” they say.
Because the threat actors’ strategy seemed identical to what Hunters International recently used with Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center patients (i.e., direct contact with patients and offering to remove data for a relatively small fee), DataBreaches asked if they had used this strategy before. They answered, “Yes,” and explained what they did differently this time compared to Fred Hutch, but their explanation was provided with the understanding that DataBreaches would not publish the reason that they did one thing differently this time.
DataBreaches notes that none of their claims about what Integris knew and when have been confirmed or refuted at this point.
But the more they shared, the more they sounded like Hunters International. “So you are Hunters International?” DataBreaches asked them at some point. “we work with them” was the answer, with the contact later being more direct in saying, “I’m not hunters.”
They later added that, unlike Integris, Fred Hutch had talked with them “long time more” and it wasn’t just stalling. “they talked,” the contact repeated, adding that they “get upset when we threat to swat patients”
“Swat patients?” DataBreaches repeated.
“Swat,” they reiterated.
“Were you seriously considering swat????” DataBreaches asked.
Their answer was immediate and somewhat chilling: “why not?”
“That’s a next level of evil…. swatting cancer patients,” DataBreaches responded.
“We did not,” they answered.
DataBreaches cannot think of any other cyberattack on the healthcare sector (or any sector, for that matter) where threat actors tried to pressure victims to pay by threatening to have patients or customers swatted.
To be clear, DataBreaches does not know at this point whether the swat threat was actually made. DataBreaches reached out to Fred Hutch to inquire whether they had negotiated with the threat actors and whether the threat of swatting was made or mentioned. No reply has been received. DataBreaches will update this post if a reply is received because if a threat of swatting was made, was it reported to law enforcement? And should patients have been told about the threat if it was made, or would telling them have been viewed as possibly needlessly alarming them?
Even apart from the swatting claim, one thing seems clear: breaches involving the healthcare sector became more aggressive in 2023. We saw more instances where sensitive patient data was exposed as a strategy to get victim entities to pay demands. And when victims still didn’t pay, patients have been contacted directly. In some cases, individuals have also been threatened that if they didn’t pay, their families would be contacted and their sensitive information shared broadly with friends and colleagues.
As always, law enforcement encourages people not to respond to direct contact by threat actors nor to pay them anything. Paying only encourages and funds more crime and may show threat actors that you are someone who can be extorted. Paying threat actors who promise to destroy your data is like paying a car thief $2,000 dollars because they promise to return your car to you. They’ve already robbed you once. Are you really going to trust them and give them more money now?