Pulling the plug: A way to halt a cyber attacker in your network?

Which plug do you pull?

Whether Co-op truly pulled the plug is open to interpretation. But in the wake of recent rulings on ransomware payments, the option to take immediate action may lead to more pragmatic decisions.

Ev Kontsevoy, CEO of Teleport, says that while pulling the plug might be an effective short-term tactic, “it’s a sledgehammer approach, not a strategy”, adding: “Taking systems offline might stop lateral movement or data exfiltration in the moment, but it doesn’t solve the root problem: how attackers got in, how long they were there and what they accessed. It also causes unnecessary business disruption, which is one of the more tangible impacts of cyber attacks these days. We should not be encouraging even more disruption by taking systems offline.”

Tim Rawlins, director and senior adviser at NCC Group, tells Computer Weekly that it is not as straightforward as simply “pulling a plug”. The critical question, he says, is which plug – one connected to the outside world, or one on the internal network?

“When people talk about pulling out the plug, we don’t want them to turn off systems completely, because then we lose all the volatile forensic evidence – the data in memory. If you pull the plug in the classic ‘turn it off, turn it back on again’ sense, that’s what we lose,” he says.

Instead, Rawlins advises proper network segmentation: “You’re trying to make it harder to get from this segment to that segment. It’s either entirely physically separated, or it’s got firewalls with additional role-based access control.”

Segmenting a network, he adds, is best practice regardless. In the event of an attack, it makes lateral movement more difficult. “If you can pull the network plug, not the power plug, then you can reduce the chances of it spreading off one host onto multiple hosts – and really that is where ‘pulling the plug’ comes in,” Rawlins says.

“There is an element of shutting down things you believe haven’t been compromised. If you can see the route they came in, you can get ahead of that and stop access to it. But you need to make sure it fails gracefully. If you just turn a system off – literally pull the plug – a lot of systems will crash.

“You can instead shut them down so they are dormant and not available to be attacked – that’s what a lot of organisations will do. The shorthand is to pull the plug; the longhand is that you’ve got to think about it a bit more carefully.”

Context matters

The issue is not simply whether to pull the plug, but what the situation demands. In a LinkedIn poll this reporter ran on this subject, 55% of respondents said pulling the plug was the best way to stop an attack in its tracks. However, comments on the poll made it clear that it’s not so binary. One respondent said it was “drastic, last resort stuff”. Others stressed the need to consider “architecture, segmentation, critical servers, type of incident and many more data points” before acting.

Tim Anderson, chief customer officer for the UK at CyberCX, explains that while taking servers offline is a common and often effective step, it is not straightforward and can introduce new risks.

“It’s important to target the right systems,” he says. “Given how interconnected modern computer systems are – both internally and to the internet – switching everything off can be complex, time-consuming and disruptive.

“Where possible, our digital forensics and incident responders prefer ‘surgical’ network isolations of specific systems or portions of the network. This effectively disconnects the impacted systems from the internet, rather than pulling the power. It can contain the attack and allow investigators crucial time to understand the scale and impact.”

Pulling the plug, he acknowledges, can sometimes be effective, but it’s not preferred. It can be highly disruptive, and sophisticated attackers often deploy methods of regaining access once systems come back online.

Admission of failure?

Another angle is perception. If you do pull the plug, are you effectively admitting failure? Rafal Los, podcast host and head of services GTM at ExtraHop, suggests yes. “That’s one of the few things I’d fire a CISO for – you’re having a security issue and you have to shut down business? You’re fired,” he says.

Los cites the 2003 SQL Slammer worm as an example of when networks collapsed entirely, leaving shutdown as the only option. But a mere 18 months later, he says, better practices allowed for more surgical interventions, like shutting down specific network segments or ports.

“In 2025, this cannot be a working strategy,” Los argues. “If the answer is ‘shut it all down’, then you’ve got what you perceive to be an uncontrollable bleed in one of your fingers, and your answer is to lop it off.”

He points out that micro-segmentation and zero trust have been discussed for years. If the playbook still ends with pulling the power cable, that signals you’ve lost visibility and control. “At that point, that is every cyber security expert’s absolute worst nightmare,” he says. “I can’t imagine giving the advice to somebody to just shut it down. That sounds, dare I say it, just irresponsible.”

The precedent

Despite these warnings, there are high-profile examples of shutdowns. According to Newsweek, a 2012 cyber attack on Saudi Aramco saw the Shamoon virus delete hard drives, forcing the company to destroy more than 30,000 computers.

Similarly, the 2021 attack on Colonial Pipeline led to several systems being taken offline to contain the breach. That move temporarily halted pipeline operations and disrupted multiple IT systems.

Los acknowledges there are extreme cases where shutting down everything is the only option. But, he said, if that’s the only solution on the table, it reflects being “wholly unprepared as an organisation”.

Rawlins agreed that cutting internet access mid-attack can sometimes make sense, as it deprives attackers of their command-and-control node. But the wider consequences – what else depends on that connectivity – must be weighed.

Final thoughts

Fictional depictions of cyber security often portray pulling the plug as the dramatic solution. But in reality, it’s rarely the final or best option. More often, it reflects poor network architecture or insufficient segmentation.

The true solution lies in preparedness: segmentation, playbooks and rehearsed incident response plans. In cyber security, switching it off and on again may work for some problems – but when it comes to an active attack, it’s rarely the best option.