Why ransomware groups love manufacturers - and what to do about it
Manufacturers pay because every hour of downtime costs more than the ransom. That's the calculation attackers are doing, and it's why the sector is being hit so hard.
Ransomware crews have done the maths on manufacturing. A factory standing idle for a week costs more than almost any ransom they'd dare ask for, and most plants don't have the recovery muscle to refuse. That's why the sector keeps showing up at the top of incident reports year after year.
It's not personal. The attackers don't dislike manufacturers. They just notice that the willingness to pay is high, the time pressure is brutal, and the security posture is often a generation behind professional services or financial services. So the sector keeps getting hit.
What actually goes wrong
It almost never starts on the shop floor. It starts in a mailbox in finance, operations or quality. Someone clicks a link or opens an attachment, the attacker establishes a foothold on a Windows laptop, and they wait.
Over the next few days or weeks they map the network, find file shares, escalate privileges via a service account or a poorly-protected admin, and pre-stage their tooling. The actual encryption happens on a quiet Saturday morning, when detection is slow and the recovery team is at a barbecue.
By Monday, the ERP can't reach the database, the planning files are encrypted, the shared drives the line depends on are gone, and nobody has the backups they thought they did.
Why backups so often fail at the worst moment
The single most common cause of a long outage is a backup story that was configured but never tested. Tapes that haven't been rotated. Cloud backups that turned out to be in the same identity boundary as the attacker. Snapshots that were retained for seven days when the attacker dwelled for fourteen.
Modern ransomware groups know how backups work. They look for them, delete them, and disable the backup software early. The only backups that survive are off-tenant, immutable, and tested by restore.
The unglamorous controls that actually work
MFA everywhere, enforced by conditional access, not optional. This alone prevents the great majority of credential-based intrusions.
A real backup of Microsoft 365 and ERP that has been restored, not just configured. Immutable storage, off-tenant, with a documented recovery time and recovery point objective.
Segmented networks, so the inevitable initial foothold can't spread to the file shares the line depends on. The previous post on OT/IT segmentation goes deeper on this.
Endpoint detection and response watched by someone competent. Either an internal team or a managed SOC. The product matters less than whether anyone is looking at it.
A tabletop exercise that the leadership team has actually sat through. The first time the operations director hears the question 'do we pay?' shouldn't be the day it matters.
The board conversation
Most manufacturing boards approve cyber spend after a peer in their network has an incident. Trying to get ahead of that is the right move and the harder one. The board doesn't need a technology briefing; it needs a clear set of business questions answered.
How long can we be down before it threatens covenants or customer contracts? What's our committed recovery time? What's the gap between that and what we can actually deliver today? Where would the money be best spent to close that gap?
If those four questions have answers in your board pack, you're in the upper half of the sector. If they don't, that's the conversation to have at the next meeting.
On paying the ransom
The honest answer is that paying is sometimes a rational business decision in the moment. That doesn't mean it should be the strategy. Decisions made in extremis are not the place to discover your incident response plan was three pages long and out of date.
Plenty of manufacturers have paid and still spent two weeks recovering. The decryptor doesn't restore the line on its own. The work to get back to production happens regardless.
What good looks like
Good looks boring. MFA is on. Backups are tested. The SOC is awake on a Saturday. The leadership team has a playbook. There's a relationship with an incident response firm before there's an incident, not after.
None of this stops attempts. It stops attempts becoming incidents, and incidents becoming the kind of week that ends with a profit warning.
The recovery muscle nobody practises
Most manufacturers haven't actually rehearsed a full ERP and file share recovery. The backups exist, the runbooks exist, but the team has never sat down on a Saturday and worked through the sequence. The first time they do it is during an incident, with the operations director in the room, and it goes badly.
A live exercise once a year, restoring the ERP into an isolated environment and running a planning cycle against it, catches the things the runbooks missed. Service accounts that won't authenticate, integration endpoints that point at the wrong place, third-party connectors that need re-keying. Better to find these in a controlled exercise than under pressure.
A closing note on insurers. The cyber insurance market for manufacturers has hardened sharply, and renewals now hinge on evidence rather than assertion. Firms that can show MFA coverage, segmentation, tested backups and a rehearsed plan tend to renew cleanly. Firms that can't see premiums climb or cover narrow.
Treat the insurer's questionnaire as a useful checklist rather than a chore. The questions they're asking are the questions an attacker would ask too.
Need the right partner for this?
We'll connect you with a UK specialist.
Tell us where you are and we'll introduce a Microsoft-focused managed support specialist who fits.
Connect me with a specialistMore in strategy
- 22 April 2026 · 7 min
Why Copilot rollouts stall before they pay back
Most Microsoft 365 Copilot pilots get bought, lit up, and quietly stall. The problem usually isn't the AI - it's the data and the habits underneath it.
Read - 25 March 2026 · 8 min
Internal IT hire or managed partner? Two different problems
The choice between hiring in-house and outsourcing isn't really about cost. It's about the kind of work you need someone to own.
Read