Navigating the ransomware negotiation landscape: a conversation with Jon DiMaggio

Go inside ransomware negotiation: stakeholders, tactics, sanctions risk, proof of exfiltration, and why standards for negotiators matter.

Ransomware is often discussed as a purely technical crisis: containment, eradication, recovery. The part that gets less attention is what happens when an organization is forced into direct contact with the attacker.

In a recent episode of NeedleStack, hosts AJ Nash and Robert Vamosi sat down with Jon DiMaggio, cybersecurity and intelligence expert and author of The Art of Cyber Warfare, to unpack how ransomware negotiation works in practice and why the “human side” of these incidents shapes outcomes.

Below are some key takeaways from the episode. You can listen to the full conversation for deeper context and real-world nuance.

Ransomware negotiation is an incident response function, not a side conversation

In mature organizations, negotiation is typically one thread within a broader incident response (IR) plan. That often includes an internal incident lead, an external IR firm, and frequently a cyber insurance representative. The negotiator may arrive as part of the IR team or be brought in separately, but the core reality is the same: Negotiation decisions are inseparable from technical and legal decisions.

The challenge is that many companies don’t pre-plan for negotiation. They hire support under pressure, during chaos, and without time to vet expertise, methods, or conflicts of interest. Jon’s point is blunt: The organizations that are forced to “figure it out live” are already behind.

The ransomware negotiation process: strategy, pacing, and leverage

To outsiders, ransom negotiation can sound like haggling. In reality, it’s a high-stakes process with asymmetric trust. You’re dealing with criminals who can change behavior midstream, threaten reputational damage, or leak data to apply pressure.

Jon emphasized the importance of setting expectations for stakeholders early. He described using a simple decision-tree style “roadmap” so leadership understands the likely paths: what happens if the attacker cooperates, escalates, goes silent, or tries to accelerate the timeline.

A recurring tactic is the “wait game,” buying time to learn more: what was accessed, what was taken, what can be restored, and what the business impact truly is. But it’s a delicate balance. Delay too aggressively and you may trigger the attacker to escalate or leak. Done well, buying time can improve leverage and help the organization make a better-informed decision.

Ransomware groups can be predictable…until they aren’t

Threat actors develop patterns: typical demands, timelines, negotiating ranges, and how consistently they deliver decryption or delete data. But those patterns can break suddenly.

Jon gave an example of a ransomware group that historically negotiated in a consistent way, then changed behavior when their “volume” of attacks increased. Instead of working through a long negotiation, they cut off communication and moved to their next victim. In other words, operational tempo can reshape “customer service,” and a negotiator relying on historical behavior can be blindsided.

There’s another complication: many ransomware operations use affiliates. Even if the brand looks consistent, the individual on the keyboard (and in the chat) may not be. That variability makes human intelligence on the ecosystem valuable, but never fully reliable.

Ransomware negotiation and sanctions risk: why attribution is messy

One of the thorniest issues is legal exposure. If a victim pays a sanctioned entity, that can be illegal. But in practice, victims rarely know exactly who is on the other end of the negotiation. A ransomware actor isn’t going to provide identity details to validate against sanctions lists.

Jon’s perspective is pragmatic: The legal boundaries exist, but the real-world mechanics of enforcement and attribution are complicated. That reality doesn’t eliminate risk. It highlights the need for experienced counsel and disciplined process, especially as crypto payments, third-party “payment facilitators,” and exchanges introduce added complexity and cost.

The modern ransomware hook is data, not encryption

Ransomware has evolved. Encryption still hurts, but Jon argued that data theft and the threat of exposure often drive payment decisions more than downtime.

Attackers want victims with leverage-worthy data: regulated information, sensitive customer records, proprietary IP, partner data, and anything that creates legal and reputational blast radius. That’s why healthcare, defense-related organizations, and other high-sensitivity sectors remain top targets.

A key operational takeaway: Early in an incident, it’s not enough to assume exfiltration happened. You need to confirm what was actually taken and validate whether the threat is real.

Fake breach claims are a growing problem, and “proof” matters

One of the more alarming scenarios discussed was ransomware actors making public breach claims without having the data. The pressure comes from publicity itself: once a claim is reported, customers may panic, regulators may ask questions, and lawsuits may follow — even if the breach never occurred.

Jon described the importance of demanding validation: sample data that can be confirmed as real. Without that, it’s a claim, not proof. That mindset matters not only for negotiation, but for communications decisions. If an organization treats an unverified claim as confirmed reality, it can amplify damage.

Why the ransomware negotiation industry lacks standards

Perhaps the strongest callout in the episode was about governance. Jon argued that ransomware negotiation has high financial and operational stakes, yet lacks widely enforced standards, certifications, audits, and required oversight.

He pointed to two practical problems:

• No consistent accountability: Organizations may not audit the full negotiation logs or validate what was promised or communicated.
• Conflicts of interest: Historically, some negotiators were compensated based on a percentage of the ransom, creating incentives that can diverge from the victim’s best outcome.

His conclusion is hard to ignore: When millions of dollars and existential business outcomes are on the line, “hire someone off the street” shouldn’t be structurally possible. Yet in many incidents, that’s effectively what happens.

Reduce leverage: segmentation, encryption, and keeping “pricing signals” off the network

On prevention, Jon emphasized fundamentals that still move the needle:

• Segment and enclave sensitive systems so critical data isn’t sitting on the general corporate network.
• Use strong encryption at rest and in transit.
• Minimize sensitive identifiers even when the most sensitive fields aren’t present (anonymize where possible).
• Maintain backups that are not accessible in the same environment attackers can encrypt.
• Don’t store insurance policies and similar “pricing signals” where attackers can easily find them.

He also highlighted a trend that’s increasing risk across the board: organizations cutting security headcount while attacks and costs rise. Tools and automation help, but skilled humans still detect nuance, investigate suspicious signals, and make judgment calls during fast-moving incidents.

Explore more on the NeedleStack podcast

NeedleStack brings together intelligence, cybersecurity, and investigative leaders to unpack real-world threats shaping the digital environment. Each episode delivers practical insight you can apply across access, collection, analysis, and reporting.

Subscribe to NeedleStack to stay ahead of emerging threats and hear directly from experts working at the intersection of security, intelligence, and technology.

Navigating the ransomware negotiation landscape FAQs

How do ransomware negotiators typically communicate with attackers?

Ransomware negotiators typically communicate through encrypted chat portals provided by the attacker, often hosted on dark web leak sites. Communication is structured, paced, and strategic, focused on buying time, validating claims such as data exfiltration, and managing escalation risks while coordinating with incident response, legal, and insurance stakeholders.

What are the key steps in ransomware negotiation?

Key steps in ransomware negotiation include integrating negotiation into the incident response plan, establishing stakeholder alignment, setting a communication strategy, validating proof of data exfiltration, assessing legal and sanctions risk, and managing pacing to preserve leverage. Negotiation decisions are inseparable from technical containment, restoration, and legal considerations.

Can ransomware negotiations help in minimizing damages and recovery time?

Ransomware negotiation can help minimize damages when used strategically. Effective pacing can buy time to assess what was accessed, confirm data theft claims, and evaluate restoration options. However, poor negotiation or delayed planning can increase risk, trigger escalation, or amplify reputational and regulatory exposure.

What skills are essential for a ransomware negotiator?

An effective ransomware negotiator needs incident response knowledge, threat actor behavioral insight, legal awareness (including sanctions risk), crisis communication skills, and disciplined process management. They must understand ransomware group patterns while recognizing variability, especially in affiliate-driven operations where behavior can shift unexpectedly.