NovoMed discovers encrypted data transfers of drug research and participant data to an unknown location...

Explanation (incident response governance):

This scenario combines data theft + extortion involving highly sensitive IP and regulated participant data. The prudent course is to trigger formal legal/incident governance: engage law enforcement and appropriate cybercrime agencies (D), preserve evidence, and coordinate with legal counsel, regulators (if required), and cyber-insurance response processes. Law enforcement engagement can support intelligence sharing, preservation orders, and broader investigation into the infrastructure receiving the exfiltrated data.

(A) recalling the drug is not directly tied to the incident’s immediate technical or legal response; it’s a business decision that may be unnecessary and harmful without evidence of counterfeit risk. (B) immediate public announcement may be legally required in some jurisdictions, but it must be accurate and coordinated; doing it prematurely can worsen harm. (C) negotiation is risky and typically handled only through controlled legal and executive channels; it does not ensure data return and can incentivize further extortion.

Thus, (D) reflects best-practice escalation: treat it as a serious crime, preserve chain of custody, and coordinate response through legal and investigative authorities while technical teams contain and scope.