Cybercrime at Machine Speed: Key Takeaways from Flashpoint’s 2026 Midyear Threat Intelligence Briefing
Threat actors are no longer just using automation to execute tasks, they are leveraging prepackaged, safeguard-free AI, weaponizing stolen session data, and directly targeting defenders’ security stacks.
The threat landscape has developed at a striking pace with Flashpoint tracking over 22 million illicit AI discussions, 7.4 million compromised hosts yielding 1.7 billion stolen credentials, and over 21,600 disclosed vulnerabilities in just six months. Beyond these staggering numbers, the on-demand session detailed something even more alarming: a fundamental shift in adversary operational tradecraft.
Here are the five critical shifts every cyber threat intelligence (CTI), Vulnerability Management, and SOC team needs to know.
The Death of Signal: Threat Actors are Shifting to “Private AI”
The public discussion surrounding criminal artificial intelligence (AI) has reached a critical inflection point. Early in the AI boom, Flashpoint observed threat actors collaboratively experiment across underground forums, jailbreaking commercial frontier models or advertising surface-level tools like WormGPT and DarkGPT.
Today, adversaries are shifting from public forums to running fine-tuned, open-source models locally on private servers, which greatly hampers traditional signature-based detection. Flashpoint analysts are now seeing attackers generate unique, highly tailored malware variants, flawless phishing lures, and custom exploit scripts at extremely low costs—completely offline and shielded from public monitoring.
“A few months ago, a lot of this was collaborative… public outsourcing. Now what we’re seeing is scarier: pre-packaged cybercrime models run locally on private infrastructure. Malicious code, exploit scripts, and targeted phishing are all being generated inside closed environments.”
Ian Gray, VP of Intelligence, Flashpoint
Weaponizing the Defender’s Own Tooling
Another eye-opening tactical insight shared during the session was how threat actors are repurposing defender infrastructure for automated initial access and extortion. In the webinar, we pointed to recent campaigns where adversaries specifically targeted misconfigurations and zero-day vulnerabilities inside open-source vulnerability scanners, secrets-detection tools, Kubernetes clusters, and Infrastructure-as-Code(IaC) environments.
What this means for defenders is that the attack surface is no longer bounded by traditional enterprise network boundaries: it extends directly into CI/CD pipelines, security orchestration tooling, and third-party SaaS integrations. Security teams are finding themselves in a race against attackers who use automated scanning scripts to weaponize vulnerabilities in the security tools themselves.
The Global Infostealer Threat and Identity-First Attacks
Flashpoint tracked 7.4 million hosts compromised by infostealers in H1 2026—a 27% increase period-over-period—harvesting 1.7 billion credentials and identity information.
While the top infostealer strains remain familiar, law enforcement operations have created vacuums that competitors rapidly fill.
Threat actors are leveraging drive-by downloads, watering holes, and pirated software packages to plant stealers. Once a machine is compromised, the logs capture corporate SSO credentials, active browser cookies, VPN keys, and SaaS session tokens. This enables adversaries to simply log in without having to leverage complex technical exploits.
The Structural Failure of CVE/NVD and the Importance of KEV
The Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures (CVE) and National Vulnerability Database (NVD) have failed to keep pace with the velocity of AI-assisted vulnerability discovery. As such, vulnerability management teams are facing significant operational delays.
Metric
Flashpoint GTIR Midyear H1 2026 Data
Operational Impact
Total Disclosures
21,667
Remediation volume exceeds defender bandwidth.
Exploit Availability
19% (4,015 CVEs)
Functional code is ready before patches are deployed.
Public Catalog Lag
Growing Backlog (NVD/KEV)
Delay in official scoring leaves teams blind to active risk.
Therefore, waiting for NVD enrichment before prioritizing a patch is a dangerous strategy. To compensate, security teams require Vulnerability Intelligence (VI) that provides primary-source confirmation of weaponization, exploit availability, and actionable mitigation guidance long before public databases update.
Ransomware Evolution: From Encryption to Cloud Extortion
Ransomware-as-a-Service (RaaS) activity surged by 45% period-over-period, reaching 6,256 verified victim postings on data leak sites. However, total on-chain payout revenue dropped by 8% to $820 million, with victim pay-rates hitting a record low of 28%.
Faced with declining payouts and resilient enterprise backups, extortion syndicates are adapting. Rather than relying exclusively on technical file-encrypting malware, groups are executing pure data extortion campaigns—frequently targeting cloud platforms or extracting data through third-party vendor access.
Protect Your Organization Using Flashpoint
Defending against machine-speed attacks requires moving beyond reactive, post-incident telemetry. Flashpoint arms security, CTI, and vulnerability management teams with the primary-source intelligence required to preempt adversary operations:
Unrivaled Deep & Dark Web Visibility: Flashpoint’s Primary Source Collection actively monitors closed criminal communities, illicit Telegram channels, and private forums, giving you early warning when threat actors build custom AI toolkits or trade credentials targeting your organization.
Comprehensive Vulnerability Intelligence (VI): Flashpoint tracks zero-days and vulnerability disclosures independently, delivering immediate exploit availability data and threat-informed prioritization so you patch what actually matters.
Continuous Compromised Credential Monitoring: Instantly surface exposed enterprise credentials, active session tokens, and stealer logs tied to your domain or third-party supply chain before they lead to an account takeover (ATO).
In the first half of 2026, the global threat landscape reached a clear operational inflection point: threat operations have fundamentally transitioned from human-led campaigns to machine-speed, AI-driven exploitation. As threat actors gain commoditized access to open-source AI technologies and actively deploy automated, safeguard-free tooling locally on private infrastructure, organizations face an accelerating hybrid risk environment.
Flashpoint’s Global Threat Intelligence Report: 2026 Midyear Edition
The Flashpoint Global Threat Intelligence Report: 2026 Midyear Edition anchors security leaders—from threat intelligence, vulnerability management, to executive leadership—in the data required to navigate this evolving threat landscape. Covering the period from January 1 to June 30, 2026, the report delivers timely insights backed by Flashpoint’s proprietary primary-source collection from over 3.9 petabytes of continuously monitored illicit sources.
Our midyear findings reveal several key metrics that highlight the speed and scale of the H1 2026 threat landscape:
22M+ threat actor posts discussed, shared, or advertised artificial intelligence toolkits for criminal deployment.
1.7B credentials and identity data points extracted across more than 7.4M unique compromised hosts globally.
Nearly one-in-five (19%) of all vulnerability disclosures dropped with ready-made, functional exploit code.
45% period-over-period surge in Ransomware-as-a-Service (RaaS), with total victim volume reaching 6,256 even as victim payout rates dropped to a historic low of 28%.
A Clear Understanding of the Convergence Between AI and Cyber Threats From generating flawless phishing campaigns to automating vulnerability scanning and code obfuscation, discover how adversaries are optimizing for speed and cost-efficiency — utilizing AI as a force multiplier in their various illicit campaigns.
A Comprehensive Top-Down View of the Evolving Threat Landscape Gain full visibility of the threat landscape with Flashpoint’s primary-source collections and real-time threat intelligence.
Strategies for Proactive Defense and Risk Mitigation Move your organization beyond reactive incident response by leveraging Flashpoint’s comprehensive threat intelligence. Gain the foresight needed to strengthen defenses and optimize your security posture.
“AI is compressing the time between opportunity and exploitation. Capabilities that once took significant expertise, coordination, and time to develop are becoming faster to build, easier to scale, and harder to detect. Security teams are facing an adversary ecosystem that can use AI to iterate at unprecedented speed — the only way to keep pace is with primary-source intelligence that surfaces adversary behavior before attacks unfold.”
Josh Lefkowitz, Flashpoint Co-Founder & CEO
The Four Driving Themes Shaping the 2026 Threat Landscape
Artificial Intelligence (AI) Threats
During the first half of 2026, Flashpoint captured over 22M illicit posts discussing or advertising AI for criminal-related activities. By stripping ethical safeguards, custom malicious LLMs allow unsophisticated threat actors to automate complex phases of the attack lifecycle, including target profiling, malware evasion script creation, and zero-day exploit generation.
Information-Stealing Malware Threats
Infostealer malware harvested 1.7 billion credentials across 7.4 million compromised systems in H1 2026 alone, turning digital identity into the main entry point for enterprise intrusions.
Vulnerability Intelligence and Patching Management
19% (4,015) of all H1 2026 vulnerability disclosures arrived with ready-made exploit code. Adversaries deploy automated replication scripts almost immediately upon disclosure, eliminating manual remediation windows.
Ransomware Operations, Multi-Extortion Cartels, and Financial Risk
Despite a 45% surge in victim volume (6,256 overall), total on-chain revenue fell by 8% to $820M. Improved enterprise backups and incident response have driven payout rates down to 28%, prompting syndicates to demand larger sums from paying victims.
Proactive Security in 2026 and Beyond
The data shows that traditional enterprise security organizations are struggling to keep pace with modern threat cycles that are accelerated by illicit uses of AI. This continued convergence of AI engines and initial access vectors have further compressed attack timelines, making it nearly impossible for security teams to defend against them—especially if they are limited by traditional approaches to threat intelligence.
Equipping your team with primary-source threat intelligence is critical for protecting critical assets in 2026. Download the Flashpoint Global Threat Intelligence Report: 2026 Midyear Edition to gain the visibility and strategic clarity required to defend your organization.
For the past year, the ransomware conversation has centered on concentration: a handful of dominant RaaS operations controlling most of the damage, and a shrinking pool of active groups fighting over the same territory. The State of Ransomware Q2 2026 report from Check Point Research shows that picture starting to shift. The leaders are still winning, but the road to joining them has gotten a great deal shorter.
Key observed findings
The ecosystem stayed concentrated even as its tail widened considerably. The top 10 groups accounted for 57.6% of all victims, down from 71% in Q1, while the number of active groups climbed from 71 to 93, a new high for the period tracked in this report.
Victim volume held at an elevated baseline and did not meaningfully change QoQ. Data leak sites recorded 2,139 victims in Q2, essentially flat versus Q1 (up 0.8%) and up 33% year over year, keeping pace with the highs set through 2025.
Qilin and The Gentlemen fought a close race for the top spot all quarter. Qilin remained the most prolific operator for a fourth straight quarter with 279 victims, though its count fell 17%, while The Gentlemen surged 62% to 269 victims and actually outpaced Qilin during the month of June.
An internal leak gave an unprecedented look inside The Gentlemen’s operation. Chat logs and platform data exposed a core team of roughly nine operators supported by a broader affiliate base, along with confirmation that the group used AI coding assistants to build its ransomware management panel in about three days, genuine first party evidence of AI accelerating malicious tooling development.
Ransom payment rates fell to a multi year low near 23%, continuing a six year decline from 85% in 2019. Even so, on chain ransomware payments still exceeded $820 million in 2025, and the payer market itself is splitting: average payments are rising even as the median falls, a sign that large enterprises keep paying heavily while the mid market increasingly holds firm or settles small.
Law enforcement concentrated its Q2 efforts on shared infrastructure rather than individual groups. Actions took down a cryptocurrency laundering platform used by multiple ransomware actors, prompted sanctions against major Iranian digital asset exchanges, dismantled a malware signing service abused by several RaaS operations, and disrupted large infostealer and VPN anonymization networks that many groups depend on at once.
The geographic picture shifted meaningfully. The US share of victims fell from 50% to 42% quarter over quarter, largely because the quarter’s fastest growing groups, including The Gentlemen and the newly active Krybit, target the US far less often than the ecosystem average.
The exploitation window kept narrowing, with AI increasingly cited as the accelerant. Vulnerabilities are now being weaponized within hours to days of disclosure, lowering the cost of exploit development and giving ransomware operators one more edge in the race to reach victims first.
To read the full findings, access the State of Ransomware Q2 2026 report from Check Point Research here.
The new GenieLocker ransomware family has been active since March 2026. It has been used in attacks against organizations in the Russian Federation, primarily in the manufacturing sector, and attributed to the Toy Ghouls group by open-source intelligence (link in Russian).
The Toy Ghouls, also known as Bearlyfy, Labubu and Laboo.boo, is a financially motivated extortion group, which previously relied on third-party encryption Trojans like RedAlert, LockBit, and Babuk. GenieLocker, apparently a custom design, upgrades their toolkit and reduces their reliance on third-party software. We discovered multiple samples of this Trojan in two variants: PE builds for Windows and ELF builds for Linux and ESXi.
Technical details
Modus operandi
We described typical TTPs and modus operandi of the Toy Ghouls threat actor in the previous post (link in Russian).
In this article, we aim to thoroughly describe the capabilities of Windows and Linux builds of the custom encryption Trojan GenieLocker. To give more context, we will also provide a brief overview of the attack that took place at the end of March 2026, where GenieLocker was deployed on the victim’s systems.
Initial Access
During the incident, the attackers first entered the environment through an OpenVPN connection originating from an external partner’s network. They likely exploited the trusted relationship with that partner and used stolen, yet still valid, credentials to connect.
Discovery and Credential Access
After breaching the target’s network, the attackers installed additional tools on the compromised hosts, including OpenSSH, socks5.exe, SoftPerfect Network Scanner, and Mimikatz. They employed SoftPerfect Network Scanner for discovery and used Mimikatz to dump credentials. Forensic analysis also shows that they accessed the KeePassXC password manager already installed on several compromised machines, likely attempting to extract the stored credentials from the KeePass databases.
Lateral Movement and Command and Control
Lateral movement was performed by using RDP to reach Windows machines and SSH for Linux servers. The widespread deployment of the encryption Trojan was conducted with the legitimate utilities PsExec and PAExec. Additionally, the attackers established a reverse SSH tunnel to communicate with their command‑and‑control server.
Impact
During the impact phase, the attackers encrypted files on the compromised Windows machines with the PE version of the GenieLocker ransomware. On the compromised Linux and ESXi servers, they stopped active virtual machines and encrypted their disks using the ELF version of GenieLocker.
The tactics, techniques, and procedures seen here match those documented in earlier attacks attributed to the Toy Ghouls group. As in those prior incidents, forensic analysis found no evidence of data exfiltration, which is typical behavior for this threat actor. Toy Ghouls have not employed a double‑extortion model and do not run a data‑leak website.
Encryption Trojan for Windows
The Windows version of GenieLocker (MD5: 5d62c1349b8981c396c9a23f4f8f053c) is primarily written in C, but compiled with the C++ libraries using Microsoft Visual C/C++. The malware incorporates several ransom‑related capabilities, including process termination, service shutdown, debugger evasion, and a sophisticated encryption routine. For its cryptographic operations, it relies on the open‑source libsodium library.
Aligned with the recent trend supported by our expertise, as observed in attacks of some other ransomware strains, GenieLocker doesn’t save the ransom notes on the victim’s system. The Trojan doesn’t contain any attackers’ contact info or negotiation addresses. Instead, the attackers will need to deliver the ransom demands and contacts manually during the attack. This approach may be an attempt by the GenieLocker developers to avoid proactive detection of the ransomware process being triggered by the creation of multiple readme files.
GenieLocker help message
Arguments and launch
GenieLocker supports multiple arguments for configuring its behavior.
Argument
Description
First argument
“Secret” argument, hex string value
-p, –percent N
Percentage of file content to encrypt
-r, –recursive
Process directories recursively
-l, –log <filename>
Set path for log file
-h, –help
Show help message
Last argument
Path to encrypt
GenieLocker expects the first argument to be a hex string referred to in the malware code as the “secret argument”, which is required for the ransomware to start. Most likely, the purpose of this is to avoid execution on sandboxes and other automated analysis environments. Another reason may be to prevent unauthorized usage by other threat actors.
Checking the secret argument
The secret argument is a hex value with a variable size that does not exceed 4096 bytes. This hex string value is converted to bytes and hashed with the SHA‑256 algorithm. The result is compared to a hardcoded value. If they match, the literal string session is appended to the secret value, and the whole string is hashed with BLAKE2b‑256, but the resulting hash is never used. This may be a part of a feature still in development.
Secret value hashing
Anti-debugging
GenieLocker contains multiple methods to inspect if its process is under debugging. After launch it makes the first check named Environment check and uses WinAPI functions IsDebuggerPresent and CheckRemoteDebuggerPresent to detect the debugger.
Environment check
After the secret argument validation, GenieLocker starts a new parallel thread called watchdog. It runs in an infinite loop that performs a number of checks to detect well-known debuggers every 500 milliseconds. If at least one of the checks fails, the whole GenieLocker process immediately terminates.
Watchdog checks
The only thing worth elaborating on is that the GenieLocker process calculates the CRC32 of its .text section when the watchdog thread is starting, saves the resulting hash, and then recalculates it again in every loop and compares with the initial value. In case the code in this section is modified by the debugger or other program, this method allows the Trojan to detect this modification.
Preparing for encryption
GenieLocker contains multiple exclusion lists. For example, it does not encrypt folders with names from the list below. Among those, there are mostly system folders, which are skipped to avoid corrupting the OS.
Furthermore, the Trojan contains an exclusion list for host names. The malware retrieves the computer name using GetComputerNameA and checks it against this list, but in the sample in question, the list is empty.
Output for whitelisted hosts
If the host name is not excluded, GenieLocker starts to kill processes that could be using the files of interest and therefore prevent the Trojan from encrypting them. These processes are listed below. The Trojan stops them by using the TerminateProcess function.
Finally, GenieLocker starts encryption threads and searches for all available drives, including network shares, to encrypt them.
Threads info output
File encryption and cryptography
The extension for the encrypted files is hardcoded in the Trojan’s body. In the sample under review, it is .03ffc1c4a3da0f02. Before starting to encrypt each file, GenieLocker creates two auxiliary files:
a lock file: <filename.fileext>.03ffc1c4a3da0f02.lock
a journal: <fileext>.03ffc1c4a3da0f02.journal
The lock file helps to protect files from double encryption by other threads or instances. Inside this file, the Trojan stores the current PID obtained from the GetCurrentProcessId function.
The journal file contains the hardcoded string VCJOURN, value 1 (possibly version), some unused zeroed fields, total blocks to encrypt, and the count of blocks that are actually encrypted. The last field is a CRC32 hash sum for the integrity check of the journal content.
Journal content
By default GenieLocker encrypts files using 0x1000000-byte chunks. If the argument -p is passed (it sets the percentage of the file contents to be encrypted), the ransomware calculates how many chunks with 0x1000000 size are necessary to encrypt the specified percentage. Each chunk has a random position inside the file. Regardless of whether the percentage is set, even if it is zero, the first chunk in the beginning of the file will be encrypted anyway.
The Trojan encrypts the file content using the Authenticated Encryption with Associated Data (AEAD) algorithm XChaCha20-Poly1305, with a unique key and nonce for each file. The Trojan also adds a footer that contains the data necessary for future decryption and metadata. The metadata parts are encrypted using the same cipher and key as the file contents, but with a different nonce. The file key is encrypted using the Curve25519-XSalsa20-Poly1305 scheme, with the attackers’ master public key hardcoded in the Trojan’s body.
The metadata of each encrypted file contains the following fields.
Value or name
Size (bytes)
Description
version
1
Hardcoded byte with value 1, most likely the version.
encryption_percent
1
Percentage of file content to encrypt, value from -p argument.
file_nonce
24
Nonce used during encryption of the file content.
original_filesize
8
Original size of the file before encryption.
total_chunk_count
8
Max count of chunks inside the current file.
chunk_size
4
Size of a single encrypted chunk (by default, 0x1000000 bytes on Windows and 0x400000 on ESXi and Linux).
remain_size
4
The number of bytes remaining after splitting the file content into chunks.
blake2b_digest_of_chunks
32
BLAKE2b-256 hash calculated from the original data of all chunks before they are encrypted. Used for integrity checks.
chunk_count
4
Number of chunks that were encrypted.
extension
64
A string with the additional ransomware extension.
poly1305_tags (array)
16 bytes per chunk
Array of Poly1305 tags of encrypted chunks.
bitmask
varies, one bit per each chunk
Chunks bitmask; if set, the chunk is encrypted; otherwise, it is not.
The chunks bitmask contains as many bits as the maximum number of chunks inside a file at 100%. If a bit at a specific index is set to 1, the chunk is encrypted. The value 0 means that the chunk is not encrypted. Since the Trojan encrypts files based on the percentage value, it needs to know which chunks were encrypted.
Metadata structure at the end of an encrypted file (without a Poly1305 tags array or bitmask)
Encryption Trojan for ESXi and Linux
Compared with its Windows counterpart, the Linux and ESXi version of GenieLocker (MD5: 9201e35e2993612612919a3c71302cab) is simpler: there is no secret argument, anti‑debugging techniques, or exclusion lists. However, the sample has ESXi-specific features, such as double‑fork support and the ability to modify the Welcome Message. The sample has the version v1 and, similarly to the Windows version, uses the libsodium library for cryptography.
ESXi version description
The command‑line help output mirrors LockBit’s styling, reinforcing the theory that GenieLocker’s creators set out to craft a LockBit‑style replacement for their own operations.
LockBit output design, possibly the source layout for the GenieLocker ESXi variant
Based on the default path of the encryption directory /vmfs/volumes, we can assume that this version is intended primarily for ESXi. Nonetheless, it can still be executed on Linux distributions.
Argument
Description
-p <perc>
Percentage of file content to encrypt
-j <workers>
Number of encryption threads
-r <dir>
Process directories recursively
-w <sec>
Delay before start
-d
Daemonizing the process
-l <logfile>
Path to log file
ESXi and Linux features
This build allows daemonizing its process with the -d flag, employing the classic double‑fork method so the new process becomes fully detached from its parent.
This variant also modifies the /etc/vmware/welcome file, which contains the Welcome Message (Message of the Day) on the ESXi operating system. On Linux distributions, it does not change anything, because they use different paths for the Message of the Day. In the GenieLocker sample examined here, the message is left empty.
Additionally, the ESXi version supports a few basic features that are not included in the Windows version. For instance, there is a launch‑delay option and the ability to set the number of encryption worker threads. This build also includes several features that already exist in the Windows variant, such as configuring the percentage of a file to encrypt, choosing the target directory, and setting the log file location.
File encryption
The encryption scheme for files is identical to the Windows version. The Trojan uses XChaCha20-Poly1305 to encrypt the file content and metadata, and Curve25519-XSalsa20-Poly1305 for key encryption.
File encryption summary
Victims
According to KSN telemetry, GenieLocker detections are overwhelmingly concentrated on endpoints located in the Russian Federation. In the March 2026 campaign, the primary sector under siege was manufacturing, with construction trailing closely, followed by financial services, retail, and technology.
Conclusions
Toy Ghouls are ramping up their campaign against Russian enterprises. The rollout of their home‑grown encryption Trojan GenieLocker marks a major upgrade to the group’s ransomware toolkit. By engineering bespoke ransomware that runs natively on Windows, Linux, and ESXi, the actor has cut their dependence on off‑the‑shelf ransomware families and unified the cryptographic backbone across all targeted platforms.
Kaspersky’s products detect this malware as Trojan-Ransom.Win64.Agent.genie, HEUR:TrojanRansom.Win64.Generic, Trojan-Ransom.Linux.Agent.genie.
Recently, our teams in Latin America investigated a series of incidents involving misconfiguration, the deployment of BitLocker, and the exploitation of corporate printers. Attackers used the devices to notify organizations that their infrastructure had been compromised and they had to pay a ransom to recover their data.
This article analyzes two incidents that occurred in June in Colombia and in May in Mexico. We highlight the similarities in the attackers’ communications and outline emerging trends in ransom amounts.
Initial sign of an attack
In both cases, the affected users initially noticed a padlock icon next to their drives in Windows Explorer. This indicated that the drive was encrypted with BitLocker, blocking access to its contents.
Drive icon indicating that the drive is locked
A recovery key was required to unlock the drive.
Attempt to access the disk’s contents and the prompt for the BitLocker recovery key
This is not the first time we have seen such threats; a few years ago, our team discovered a threat known as ShrinkLocker, which utilized BitLocker to achieve its goals.
First case: abusing RDP to encrypt data
One of the incidents occurred in Colombia in June. The attackers exploited an internet-exposed RDP service on a machine connected to an 8 TB storage device containing mission-critical data. After taking control of the system and manipulating user credentials, the attackers enabled BitLocker exclusively on the drive that primarily stored financial data. Once the encryption was complete, they locked the drive and used the company’s printers to produce ransom notes.
Ransomware note
Unfortunately, it was not possible to obtain evidence in the case due to the company’s rush to restore the encrypted disk. The communication with the attackers revealed a demand for just $3,000, and the company considered paying the ransom. After that, the system was restored before the forensic team could take any action, eliminating the evidence needed to assess the incident.
Attacker’s reply to the victim’s email sent to the address in the printed ransom note
This attack was made possible by an internet-facing remote desktop service (RDP) with additional open ports, which employees used to access corporate information. By exploiting this network exposure and misconfiguration, attackers breached the system, identified an additional drive, and leveraged BitLocker to encrypt the data and demand a ransom payment. Leaving RDP ports open without proper security controls jeopardizes the security of systems and information, as highlighted in the our “Global Report: Anatomy of a Cyber World“.
Exposed ports identified in the system in recent months
The company confirmed that, due to compatibility issues with applications required for operation, EPP (Endpoint Protection Platform) protection was disabled on the system, making it easier for attackers to validate, enumerate, and execute applications without revealing malicious activity to central monitoring systems.
Second case: meet the XEntry Team
In another incident, which occurred in Mexico in May, our team identified how the threat actor gained initial access to the infrastructure. They exploited a misconfigured MSSQL service. This allowed them to execute commands on the system after obtaining the database login credentials from code insecurely published on GitHub.
XEntry team attack
In this incident, the attack began three months prior to detection, with the intruder discovering and verifying their access to the environment. After confirming their access and privilege level within the MSSQL server settings, which extended beyond the DBMS to the underlying operating system, the attackers initially focused on manipulating certain aspects of the web server configuration on the same system. They lowered the server’s security settings and created web shell files in the publicly accessible folders. Many of these attempts to manipulate the service or create malicious files were contained by existing EPP security controls, but despite the alerts, the necessary investigation to address the activity was not conducted.
Commands executed when attempting to manipulate the web server
The attackers subsequently confirmed their ability to execute commands locally and set up their attack infrastructure to transmit data via a communications bridge. By exploiting the MSSQL service, they gained access to each of the organization’s internal systems.
The database engine used by the company was Microsoft SQL Server 2019.0150.2160.04, misconfigured to allow operating system сommand execution via the xp_cmdshell extended stored procedure.
Due to this misconfiguration of an internet-exposed service, the attackers established a channel capable of executing any type of command directed at the server and the local infrastructure within its scope.
Attack path
One of the main objectives was to identify shared systems and resources that provided access to critical information. Our analysis confirmed the attackers’ access to systems storing configuration parameters for networking, enterprise management, and cloud services, among others.
A subset of the critical information identified and collected by the attackers
In early May, the attackers focused on running additional scans and deploying ManageEngine’s Endpoint Central RMM (Remote Monitoring and Management) to establish persistence and begin the final stages of their intrusion.
Scanning and RMM deployment
Further RMM-type applications, such as Mesh Agent and Tactical RMM, were installed in the days that followed. These were used to deploy scheduled tasks responsible for enabling the BitLocker service and individually encrypting the infrastructure’s disks, generating a key for each encrypted system.
Commands executed through RMM tools to collect Bitlocker keys
Finally, in mid-May, the attackers managed to execute a Group Policy Object (GPO) used to deploy activation and encryption tasks, as well as other policies responsible for continued deployment of RMM applications via scheduled tasks. The activity initially targeted critical systems but later spread to every system synchronized with the domain controller. Users became aware of the attack when their machines displayed a blue screen with the message “Hacked by XEntry Team”, and their credentials stopped working to access their systems.
A few hours later, ransom notes began emerging from office printers.
Ransom note printed by the XEntry team
These cases confirm that adversary’s objective is to gain access to infrastructure while avoiding investment in or partnership with ransomware groups. Instead, they leverage built-in Microsoft tools to facilitate data encryption and ransom payments. Monitoring and centralizing logs on protected resources, as well as promptly managing alerts, are critical to countering this type of intrusion.
Conclusions
Although the systems under review had security measures in place, there was a lack of proper alert management or inadequate decisions regarding application incompatibilities.
We strongly recommend configuring the Remote Desktop Protocol (RDP) in strict accordance with cybersecurity best practices to prevent unauthorized access. This is especially critical: according to our Global Report: Anatomy of a Cyber World, more than 13% of incidents are related to policy violations and configuration errors, confirming that misconfigurations continue to pose a significant risk.
Organizations should prioritize strict application control policies and active monitoring of network traffic for command-and-control (C2) communications. This is especially critical: according to the same report, more than 20% of incidents involved the abuse of RMM (Remote Monitoring and Management) tools for execution and C2 strategies. The fact that attackers used more than three distinct tools to gain control during a single incident further underscores the urgent need for these measures.
Some questions remain unanswered due to a lack of evidence and a hasty system restoration effort that bypassed critical stages of the incident response process. It is important to ensure an adequate incident response procedure, preserving evidence to confirm all related activities, and adjusting or proposing controls to prevent future incidents involving similar TTPs.
Although the ransom notes do not reveal a clear connection between the actors, certain words used in the messages, as well as the method of delivery and communication, may confirm a link:
“As a guarantee, we have no negative online reviews about non-fulfillment of our obligations…” (Ransom note from the first case)
“Our reputation is the guarantee that all content will be fulfilled…” (Ransom note from the second case)
Inside Qilin Ransomware: Custom Rust Loader and Kernel-Level EDR Killer
In this post we analyze Qilin ransomware’s new custom Rust loader, break down the inner workings of its sophisticated kernel-level EDR killer, and explore how organizations can defend against these aggressive defense evasion tactics. Flashpoint customers can access the full intelligence report—complete with deeper technical analysis and all associated IOCs—directly within Flashpoint Ignite.
Qilin ransomware is a highly active and sophisticated ransomware operation that has rapidly modernized its evasion techniques. Historically focused on file encryption, the ransomware-as-a-service (RaaS) group has expanded its operations to include aggressive, kernel-level defense evasion. By deploying a specialized toolkit, Qilin now focuses heavily on blinding and permanently disabling endpoint security products before its main ransomware payload is executed on a victim’s network.
Flashpoint has observed Qilin quietly deploying a previously unreported custom packer, which has been actively observed in wild samples since May 2024, with continuous use detected as recently as last month.
Here’s how Qilin works:
How Qilin Ransomware Uses a Custom Rust Loader for Reflective PE Loading
Flashpoint analysts observed a custom Rust-written loader that performs reflective Portable Executable (PE) loading of the ransomware payload. After deobfuscation, the code execution jumps to the newly unpacked executable within the same process, avoiding noisier process injection techniques. The following is an overview of the decompiled unpacking routine:
Decompiled code of Qilin ransomware unpacking routine. (Source: Flashpoint)
The unpacking routine then reads each DWORD from the embedded bytes, allocates it on the heap, and performs multiple mathematical operations to deobfuscate. Flashpoint notes that the calculations and values used were unique to each sample, but the underlying methodology remained the same.
Manually performing the calculations in the sample confirms the presence of the embedded binary, with the first deobfuscated DWORD yielding an ‘MZ’ header in little-endian format.
To better understand Qilin, Flashpoint analysts created an automated unpacker and configuration extraction script that uses CPU emulation to address the issue of unique calculations per sample. This script uses pattern matching to locate the unpacking routine within the binary. It then reads the disassembly, identifying specific points in the code at which emulation should start and stop.
Python code snippet reading the disassembly to find optimal areas to emulate. (Source: Flashpoint)
Reading the disassembly directly avoids issues arising from hardcoded offsets, such as when threat actors add or remove code, or when the compiler introduces changes. Additionally, it provides a smaller set of instructions for emulation, avoiding WinAPI calls and other invalid memory errors that often occur when emulating a full binary.
After additional setup, including mapping the sample into the emulator’s memory and creating a fake heap, the unpacking routine runs successfully.
Python code snippet performing CPU emulation to unpack the embedded binary. (Source: Flashpoint)
The script then performs configuration extraction from the deobfuscated bytes produced by the CPU emulation, achieving a 100% success rate.
Automated tooling successfully unpacking and extracting Qilin’s configuration. (Source: Flashpoint)
How Qilin’s New EDR Killer Blinds Security Products
An additional update with Qilin is its new endpoint detection and response (EDR) killer, which Flashpoint found to be sold on illicit marketplaces for US $2,000. This is packed via the Shanya packer—which was sold on XSS for US $100 to US $150 back in 2024. The packer is highly sophisticated, and uses several techniques that make it difficult to analyze, such as junk code, application programming interface (API) hashing, IAT hooking, pattern scanning, and VEH code execution flow.
Once unpacked, the EDR killer starts by using dynamic API hashing and PE walking to resolve a number of useful NTAPI functions it will use throughout the process, and stores them in a structure located within the GdiHandleBuffer within the Process Environment Block (PEB).
The structure stored in the PEB itself looks as follows:
Recreated structure definition based on Flashpoint analysis. (Source: Flashpoint)
The API hashing algorithm is simple: it performs a bitwise OR of each character of the API name with hexadecimal value 0x20 to convert any and all uppercase characters to lowercase, then performing additional simple calculations.
The EDR killer compares the returned locale to a known locale blacklist to avoid attacking any Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) countries such as Russia and Belarus.
The malware then attempts to give itself the following privileges by dynamically resolving and calling RtlAdjustPrivilege():
SE_PROF_SINGLE_PROCESS_PRIVILEGE
Required to gather profile information for a single process.
Used later to create a map of the victim machine’s physical memory space.
SE_DEBUG_PRIVILEGE
Required to debug and adjust the memory of a process owned by another account.
SE_LOAD_DRIVER_PRIVILEGE
Required to load or unload a device driver.
Abusing Vulnerabilities to Map Physical Memory
The EDR killer then writes a vulnerable driver to disk and loads this driver via Service Manager. This driver is the ThrottleStop driver from TechPowerUp LLC’s free and legitimate application of the same name, used to bypass CPU throttling. However, the driver suffers from a vulnerability, allowing the malware to map physical memory to kernel-mode virtual memory to perform direct kernel read and write operations.
Qilin weaponizes this vulnerability by feeding its EDR killer physical memory addresses, as the driver relies on the API to map physical memory to a kernel-mode virtual address. To achieve this, the EDR killer builds a physical memory map using a Windows memory management service that preloads frequently used applications into RAM.
First it gathers baseline information about all physical memory blocks. Because memory pages (typically 4KB) are allocated to physical blocks, hundreds of virtual pages can point to a single physical range.
It then calls the service to obtain detailed Page Frame Number (PFN) details. The malware stores this complete mapping in a global variable, giving it a reliable, built-in translation table between virtual and physical memory spaces.
Bypassing Driver Signing Checks
To run its own malicious tools, the EDR killer must first bypass Windows’ driver signing enforcement. Normally, Windows uses a built-in verification check to block unsigned or blacklisted drivers from loading. The malware tricks Windows into disabling this gatekeeper using a simple swap:
The malware finds a specific kernel function and uses its physical memory map to pinpoint its location.
It commands the vulnerable driver to scan this memory area for a specific byte signature. This leads directly to the Code Integrity callback table.
Within this table, the malware locates the built-in verification check and “patches” it with a harmless, dummy function.
Blinding Security Products
With driver signing checks completely bypassed, the malware uses its read/write primitives to dismantle system callbacks, it identifies and targets:
Process notify callbacks
Thread notify callbacks
Image load notify callbacks
Registry callbacks and minifilters
Rather than conducting a blanket unlinking of all system callbacks, the EDR killer checks the address of each callback. If the address falls within a memory range owned by a security product on its hardcoded blacklist, Qilin surgically unlinks it by zeroing out the pointer with null bytes.
Next, the EDR killer drops and loads its own custom driver, which appears to Windows as purpose-built. Once loaded, the Qilin EDR killer gets all relevant running processes. For any processes running that match a hardcoded list, it stores the Process ID in a vector.
For every PID found, the malware sends a message to a driver. At a high level, the driver finds the full path of the target executable, makes it unreadable, unwriteable, and undeletable to any and all users, and then terminates the process.
Interestingly, the Qilin EDR killer performs a Discretionary Access Control List (DACL) modification on the target security product executable. The driver creates a new empty ACL header and sets the flag SE_DACL_PRESENT to TRUE. This is significant because a null DACL and empty DACL are not the same. A null DACL grants everyone access, whereas an empty DACL grants no access. This process makes it so that the security product’s executable can no longer be executed without needing to delete the file like other EDR Killers. Once the driver then terminates the executable, it can’t be restarted.
DACL modification to remove access to the security product executable. (Source: Flashpoint)
Once everything is completed, the EDR killer unpatches the Code Integrity Check to avoid triggering PatchGuard and then exits.
Defend Against Qilin Using Flashpoint
The sophisticated kernel-level manipulation highlights a rapidly expanding trend in the broader threat landscape: the proliferation of highly effective malware designed purely to disable enterprise-level security products. Qilin’s integration of these techniques demonstrates how the EDR killer market is maturing in the cybercrime underground, transitioning from a niche capability into a standard prerequisite for high-impact ransomware operations.
As security platforms continuously improve their detection mechanisms, Flashpoint believes the threat landscape surrounding anti-EDR tools will only grow larger and more aggressive, forcing organizations to focus on protecting the kernel and detecting rogue driver deployments. To learn more about Qilin and the latest advancements in ransomware, request a demo.
The percentage of ICS computers on which malicious objects were blocked continued to decrease, reaching 19.6% in Q1 2026. This is the lowest value in three years, and it is 1.4 times lower than in Q2 2023.
Percentage of ICS computers on which malicious objects were blocked, Q2 2023–Q1 2026
Regionally, the percentages ranged from 9.1% in Northern Europe to 27.4% in Africa.
Regions ranked by percentage of attacked ICS computers
The percentage of ICS computers on which malicious objects were blocked increased in five regions over the quarter, most notably in Southern Europe, Northern Europe, and Russia.
In Q1 2026, Southern Europe led the way in growth for internet and email threats. The region also saw the fastest growth in spyware, as well as malicious scripts and phishing pages.
In Russia, the percentage of ICS computers on which malicious objects were blocked exceeded the figures for the previous two quarters. Russia saw an increase in the percentage for threats from the internet, and a slight increase in the figure for threats from email clients (Russia is one of three regions where this figure did not decrease).
Among the threat categories, the greatest increases were observed in the percentages for denylisted internet resources, as well as spyware (distributed in the region via the internet and email clients).
Selected industries
Biometric systems (26.4%) traditionally rank top among the industries and OT infrastructure types covered in this report in terms of the percentage of ICS computers on which malicious objects were blocked. These systems are characterized by internet access, extensive email use for data exchange and approvals (such as access granting), and, in many cases, minimal cybersecurity controls within the organizations that use these systems.
Industries ranked by the percentage of ICS computers on which malicious objects were blocked
Biometric systems rank first among industries in terms of email threats. At the same time, unlike other industries, the percentage for email threats in biometric systems exceeds that for internet threats.
In all selected industries, the global average follows a downward trend. In Q1 2026, the percentage of ICS computers on which malicious objects were blocked increased only in the manufacturing sector — by 1.0 pp. The percentages for this industry increased across 10 regions, with the most notable increases in Western Europe, Northern Europe, and Russia.
Threat categories
In Q1 2026, Kaspersky security solutions blocked malware from 10,052 different malware families of various categories on industrial automation systems.
Over the quarter, the percentage of ICS computers on which denylisted internet resources were blocked increased (after decreasing over the previous two quarters), and there was a slight increase in the percentage for AutoCAD malware.
Percentage of ICS computers on which the activity of malicious objects from various categories was prevented
Malicious scripts and phishing pages (JS and HTML)
Malicious scripts and phishing pages retained their to spot among threat categories by the percentage of ICS computers on which these threats were blocked. The global average in Q1 2026 was 6.56%.
Over the quarter, the percentages increased in four regions. The most significant change was observed in Southern Europe (9.85%, +0.94 pp). The figures for malicious scripts in the region increased over three consecutive quarters.
Among the selected industries, across all regions, the highest percentages for the malicious scripts and phishing pages category were recorded for biometric systems (19.59%) and building automation (15.43%) in Southern Europe. These same industries lead in similar rankings for malicious documents and spyware.
Spyware
The percentage of ICS computers on which spyware was blocked decreased over two consecutive quarters, dropping to 3.73%. Despite the decline, spyware has ranked second among threat categories by the percentage of attacked computers for three consecutive quarters.
The percentages increased in five regions over the quarter, most notably in Southern Europe (5.46%, +0.35 pp) and Russia (2.84%, +0.24 pp).
In Southern Europe, the percentage of ICS computers on which spyware was blocked increased in all the selected industries except manufacturing. The greatest increase was observed in biometric systems.
Among the selected industries, the highest percentage of spyware in Russia was recorded in biometric systems. That said, the percentage of ICS computers on which spyware was blocked increased in all industries in the region except construction. The percentage figure has been increasing for two consecutive quarters in the oil and gas industry (by a factor of 1.63 over six months), and for three consecutive quarters in engineering and ICS integration, as well as electric power. In the remaining sectors, the values have been fluctuating.
Percentage of ICS computers on which spyware was blocked in various industries in Russia, Q3 2025–Q1 2026
Denylisted internet resources
The percentage of ICS computers on which denylisted internet resources were blocked increased to 3.54%.
The most notable increase over the quarter occurred in Southeast Asia (4.58%, +0.65 pp). Among the industries in the region, the highest percentage figures for this threat category were recorded in electric power and construction. Over the quarter, the largest increases in percentages figures were observed in the electric power and manufacturing industries.
In North America (Canada), denylisted internet resources (2.14%) showed the greatest increase among all categories — by a factor of 1.22.
Among the selected industries across all regions, the highest percentage figures for the denylisted internet resources category were in the electric power (7.11%) and construction (6.25%) industries in Southeast Asia.
Malicious documents (Microsoft Office + PDF)
The percentage figure for this category decreased over two consecutive quarters, reaching its lowest value (1.56%) for the entire period of observations in Q1 2026. It increased just in two regions: Australia and New Zealand (1.12%, +0.04 pp), and Russia (0.62%, +0.01 pp).
Among the selected industries across all regions, the highest percentages for malicious documents were recorded for biometric systems (9.02%) and building automation (6.97%) in Southern Europe. These same industries also lead in similar rankings for malicious scripts and spyware.
Ransomware
The percentage of ICS computers on which ransomware was blocked has decreased for two consecutive quarters, dropping to 0.14%. This is the lowest value among all categories.
The percentage increased in two regions: North America (Canada) (0.11%, +0.04 pp) and slightly in Northern Europe (0.06%, +0.01 pp).
Among the selected industries across all regions, the highest percentages for ransomware were recorded in the oil and gas and manufacturing industries (0.92% and 0.65%, respectively) in Central Asia and the South Caucasus, and in biometric systems (0.89%) in Russia.
Miners in the form of executable files for Windows
The percentage of ICS computers on which miners in the form of executable files for Windows were blocked decreased to 0.59%.
The percentage increased in seven regions. The largest increase was observed in Africa (0.63%, +0.16 pp). Among the selected industries, the largest increases in the region were in the manufacturing and oil and gas industries.
Among the selected industries across all regions, the highest percentages for miners in the form of executable files were recorded in construction (1.99%), biometric systems (1.98%), and the oil and gas industry (1.97%) in Central Asia and the South Caucasus.
Web miners
The percentage of ICS computers on which web miners were blocked has been declining for a year, and in Q1 2026, it reached the lowest value for the entire period under review (0.22%).
At the same time, the percentage increased in seven regions. The largest increases were observed in South Asia (0.28%, +0.11 pp), the Middle East (0.31%, +0.09 pp), and Africa (0.34%, +0.08 pp). Despite the increases, the percentages in these regions for Q1 2026 did not exceed those observed in 2023–2024 and in Q1 2025.
Among the selected industries across all regions, the highest percentages for web miners were recorded for biometric systems (0.97%) in Russia. Biometric systems in South Asia (0.79%) ranked second, and the electric power sector in Southeast Asia (0.76%) ranked third.
Worms
The percentage of ICS computers on which worms were blocked decreased to 1.33%.
The percentage decreased across all regions following an increase in the previous quarter (due to a wave of phishing attacks that distributed the Backdoor.MSIL.XWorm backdoor worm across all regions of the world).
Among the selected industries across all regions, the highest percentage figure for worms was recorded for biometric systems (4.80%) in Central Asia and the South Caucasus. Two industries in Africa – biometric systems (4.04%) and electric power (3.53%) – took the second and third spots, respectively.
Viruses
The percentage of ICS computers on which viruses were blocked decreased to 1.31%.
The top 3 regions by this figure remained the same: Southeast Asia (6.11%, first by a wide margin), Africa (4.15%), and East Asia (2.97%). These same regions are also among the leaders by the percentage of systems affected by AutoCAD malware. The largest increase in this figure was observed in Africa (+0.41 pp).
Among the selected industries across all regions, the highest percentages for viruses were recorded in the construction industry (6.35%) and building automation (5.50%) in Southeast Asia.
Malware for AutoCAD
The percentage of ICS computers on which malware for AutoCAD was blocked increased to 0.30%.
The most notable increase over the quarter was observed in Africa, with the region’s percentage figure rising by 0.47 pp, a very significant increase for this category, and almost doubling (to 0.91%).
Among the selected industries across all regions, the highest percentages for AutoCAD malware were recorded in the construction industry in East Asia (5.58%) and Southeast Asia (3.87%).
Main threat sources
In Q1 2026, the average percentages across all threat sources, except threats from the internet, decreased globally.
Percentage of ICS computers on which malicious objects from various sources were blocked
Internet
The percentage of ICS computers on which threats from the internet were blocked increased to 7.88%. However, over the past three years, the percentage figure for internet threats has followed a downward trend.
The largest increases in the percentages were recorded in Southern Europe (8.59%, +0.59 pp), Southeast Asia (10.16%, +0.55 pp), and Northern Europe (4.47%, +0.51 pp).
Among the selected industries across all regions, the highest percentages for threats from the internet were recorded in electric power (13.16%) and construction (12.55%) in Southeast Asia, and in the engineering and ICS integration sector (12.33%) in South Asia.
Email clients
The percentage of ICS computers on which threats delivered via email clients were blocked decreased to 2.59%. This is a three-year low.
The percentage of this threat source increased in three regions: Southern Europe (6.54%, +0.2 pp), East Asia (1.5%, +0.09 pp), and slightly in Russia (0.7%, +0.04 pp).
Among the selected industries across all regions, the highest percentages for email threats were recorded for biometric systems (19.78%) and building automation (12.34%) in Southern Europe. In these two industries, the percentage of ICS computers on which email threats are blocked is higher than the percentage for threats from the internet. A similar situation was observed in two other instances, both in biometric systems (in South America and Southeast Asia).
Removable media
The percentage of ICS computers on which threats were detected when connecting removable media continued to decrease, reaching its lowest value for the period under review (0.26%).
Among the selected industries across all regions, the highest percentages for removable media threats blocked on ICS computers were observed in the electric power sector in Central Asia and the South Caucasus (1.45%), East Asia (1.34%), and Africa (1.16%).
Network folders
The percentage of ICS computers on which threats are blocked in network folders is steadily decreasing. In Q1 2026, it was the lowest for the period under review (0.029%).
East Asia has traditionally led by a wide margin. The percentage for East Asia (0.135%) is 27 times higher than the lowest regional value (recorded in Northern Europe).
The largest increases in the percentages for threats from network folders were observed in Africa (0.037%, +0.006 pp) and South America (0.013%, +0.006 pp).
Among the selected industries across all regions, the construction industry in East Asia, at 0.36%, holds the top positions in the ranking by the percentage of ICS computers on which threats are blocked in network folders.
Ransomware that combines robust encryption with rapid lateral movement significantly increases the risk and impact of an attack. The Gentlemen ransomware is a ransomware-as-a-service (RaaS) threat that is distinguished by its ability to pair its strong per-file encryption with an aggressive self-propagation capability designed to enable broad network compromise. In addition to using per-file ephemeral Curve25519 keys with XChaCha20 stream cipher, The Gentlemen ransomware attempts to spread across an environment using series of simultaneous, distinct lateral movement methods, increasing the likelihood of widespread impact once initial access is achieved.
Microsoft Threat Intelligence tracks the operators behind the ransomware as Storm-2697, a financially motivated threat actor that manages the RaaS platform known as “The Gentlemen” while affiliates carry out attacks. Emerging around mid-2025, The Gentlemen initially started as a closed ransomware group then began offering its RaaS to affiliates in September 2025. More recently, The Gentlemen operators established an official partnership with BreachForums, a popular cybercriminal marketplace, to recruit affiliates including penetration testers and initial access brokers. Given that The Gentlemen is already a widely adopted RaaS platform, this partnership may lead to increased activity as the program becomes accessible to a broader pool of threat actors.
The operators behind the ransomware use double extortion tactics, encrypting data while also exfiltrating sensitive information to pressure victims through the threat of public release if the ransom is not paid. The ransomware is written in Go and obfuscated with Garble to target the Windows environment. Microsoft has observed The Gentlemen ransomware impacting organizations across education, transportation, healthcare, and financial industries in North America, South America, Europe, Africa, and Asia.
In this blog, we present a detailed analysis of the Gentlemen ransomware encryptor, including its execution flow, defense evasion behaviors, encryption design, and lateral movement techniques. This research is intended to provide defenders, incident responders, and the broader security community with a better understanding of how the threat operates, from initial argument parsing and defense evasion, through its file encryption internals, to the full lateral movement that enables it to propagate across the network. We also provide mitigation guidance, Microsoft Defender detections, hunting queries, and indicators of compromise (IOCs) to help organizations defend against this threat and similar ransomware activity.
Pre-encryption
Command-line argument processing
The ransomware operator can control The Gentlemen encryptor through command-line arguments. A password is required for execution, and optional arguments allow the operator to specify encryption scope, speed, lateral movement, and post-encryption behaviors.
The binary accepts the following arguments:
Command-line argument
Description
--password <password>
Required access password (build-specific)
--path <list of paths>
Comma-separated list of target directories or file paths
--T <minutes>
Delay in minutes before file encryption begins
--silent
Silent mode. Disable renaming files, changing timestamps after encryption, and setting the desktop wallpaper
--system
Encrypt files as SYSTEM, targeting only local drives
--shares
Encrypt only mapped network drives and available Universal Naming Convention (UNC) shares
--full
Two-phase encryption by relaunching itself as two separate processes, one with --system for local drives and one with --shares for network shares
--spread <domain/user:password>
Enable self-propagation. Accept credentials for lateral movement. If no credential is provided, the current session token is used for lateral movement.
--ultrafast
Encrypt 0.3% per chunk (~0.9% total for large files)
--superfast
Encrypt 1% per chunk (~3% total for large files)
--fast
Encrypt 3% per chunk (~9% total for large files)
--keep
Disable self-delete after file encryption completes
--wipe
Wipe free disk space after encryption
The --full command-line argument appears to be the intended mode of operation for comprehensive file encryption on the infected device. When this argument is provided, the malware spawns two child processes of itself: one appended with the argument --system to encrypt local volumes under a SYSTEM-privileged scheduled task, and one appended with the argument --shares to encrypt network shares. This separation ensures that the malware can reach both local drives (which might require SYSTEM privileges) and mapped network shares (which are only visible in the user’s session).
Figure 1. Encryption mode command-line arguments
The speed arguments (--fast, --superfast, --ultrafast) are mutually exclusive and control how much of each large file is encrypted. When no speed flag is specified, the default per-chunk percentage is 9%. These flags only affect files that are larger than 1 MB, and small files are fully encrypted regardless of the speed setting.
Usage prompt
When the encryptor is executed with no command-line argument, the malware prints a branded usage banner to the console.
It first executes the following PowerShell commands to render a console header:
This is followed by a detailed usage prompt provided by the malware author that documents all available flags with descriptions and examples:
Figure 2. The Gentlemen ransomware’s usage prompt
It is worth noting that the file size percentages listed in the usage prompt refer to the total file encryption amount. Internally, the malware encrypts three separate chunks, and the per-chunk percentage used in the code is: fast=3%, superfast=1%, ultrafast=0.3%, default=9%.
Password check
Before executing its primary functionality, the malware validates the --password argument against a hardcoded value embedded within the binary. For the sample analyzed in this blog, the expected password is “9VoAvR7G”. If the provided password does not match, the malware outputs bad args and terminates execution.
This password check is a simple operator authentication mechanism, with each build containing a unique embedded password. Its purpose is to restrict execution to authorized operators and reduce the risk of accidental or unauthorized detonation if the binary is recovered or intercepted. However, because this validation relies on a static comparison, it can be easily identified and bypassed through static analysis techniques.
System encryption: Privilege escalation
When the --system argument is provided (either directly or via the --full argument), the malware creates a scheduled task to re-execute itself as SYSTEM. If a delay value is also specified through the --T argument, the scheduled execution time is adjusted accordingly.
To relaunch itself as SYSTEM, it issues the following sequence of commands:
The malware can only perform this task if it’s executed from an account with administrator privilege. It first deletes any existing task named gentlemen_system to avoid conflicts, creates a new one-time task that runs its binary under the SYSTEM account, and finally triggers that task.
This sequence ensures a clean state by first removing any existing task with the same name (gentlemen_system), creating a new scheduled task that executes the ransomware binary with SYSTEM-level privileges before finally triggering its immediate execution.
When running within this scheduled task context, the malware sets the environment variable LOCKER_BACKGROUND=1. This variable functions as an internal execution flag, indicating that the process is operating as a background encryption worker with elevated privileges, rather than as the original operator-invoked instance.
Defense evasion
Before starting file encryption, the malware executes a sequence of commands to disable defensive controls and remove potential forensic artifacts.
Disable Microsoft Defender
The PowerShell commands disable Microsoft Defender real-time monitoring to remove active protection on the infected device. The malware then adds its own executable to the Defender exclusion list to avoid detection. Finally, it excludes the entire C:\ volume from scanning, reducing the likelihood of subsequent detection during file encryption.
Delete shadow copies and event logs
To further impede recovery efforts, the malware deletes all Volume Shadow Copies using both vssadmin and wmic (Windows Management Instrumentation command-line utility). It then clears the System, Application, and Security event logs using wevtutil to remove key audit trails.
Delete forensics artifacts
These commands remove a variety of forensic artifacts, including prefetch files that track program execution, Defender diagnostic and support logs, and Remote Desktop Protocol (RDP) logs.
Additionally, the malware manually deletes PowerShell command history across all user profiles by removing the following file:
This action eliminates evidence of previously executed PowerShell commands, further reducing the visibility of execution history and threat actor activity.
Process and service termination
Process termination
The malware stops a list of running processes using the command:
The table below summarizes the different categories and processes being targeted:
Terminating these processes and services serves two primary objectives:
File access and encryption reliability: Many targeted processes/services, such as databases, Office applications, and backup agents, maintain active file locks. By forcibly terminating these processes, the ransomware ensures that locked files become accessible for encryption.
Defense and recovery disruption: By stopping backup services, endpoint protection agents, and remote access tools, the malware reduces the likelihood of real-time detection and data restoration from backups.
Collectively, these behaviors maximize encryption coverage while hindering the environment’s ability to detect, respond to, or recover from the attack.
Persistence
The encryptor can establish persistence for itself through two mechanisms: scheduled tasks and registry keys.
Figure 3. The Gentlemen ransomware’s persistence mechanism
Scheduled tasks persistence
For establishing persistence with scheduled tasks, the malware executes the following sequence of commands:
These commands first remove any pre-existing tasks with the same names, then create two persistence mechanisms that execute automatically at system startup. The UpdateSystem task launches the payload in the SYSTEM security context, while the UpdateUser task launches it in the currently signed-in user’s context. This design increases the likelihood that the ransomware will run after reboot regardless of privilege level or sign-in state.
Registry keys persistence
For establishing persistence with the registry, the malware executes the following sequence of commands:
The GupdateS value under HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE (HKLM) provides device-wide persistence that allows the malware to run at startup for all users, while the GupdateU value under HKEY_CURRENT_USER (HKCU) provides user-scoped persistence within the current profile. By writing to both registry hives, the malware establishes redundant autorun paths across both system-level and user-level execution contexts.
Together, the scheduled tasks and Run key modifications create layered persistence, ensuring that the encryptor is re-executed after a reboot in both privileged and user-context scenarios.
Network share traversal
When the command-line argument --shares is provided, the malware initiates network share discovery and enumeration. It begins by probing all drive letters A through Z to identify mapped network drives using the following commands:
This sequence discovers any drives that are already mapped in the current user’s session, which are then added to the encryption target list.
To further enhance visibility into the network environment, the malware enables multiple Windows network discovery services and their associated firewall rules using the following commands:
The services enabled as part of this process include:
Function Discovery Resource Publication (fdrespub): Publishes the host’s resources to the network, allowing other systems to detect it.
Function Discovery Provider Host (fdPHost): Hosts provider components responsible for discovering network resources.
Simple Service Discovery Protocol (SSDP) Discovery (SSDPSRV): Enables discovery of Universal Plug and Play (UPnP) devices.
UPnP Device Host (upnphost): Supports the hosting and management of UPnP devices.
Finally, the malware reinforces this configuration by enabling the Network Discovery firewall rule group. This redundancy ensures that firewall restrictions do not limit its network visibility, further maximizing the number of reachable targets for encryption and propagation.
Volume and directory traversal
To enumerate all available volumes on the system, the malware executes the following PowerShell command sequence:
This command queries Windows Management Instrumentation (WMI) for all mounted volumes with drive letter paths and attempts to enumerate Cluster Shared Volumes (CSVs).
Additionally, the malware performs a secondary enumeration routine by iterating through drive letters A through Z while verifying their existence on disk. This brute-force method ensures broader coverage by identifying volumes that might not be retrieved through WMI queries to maximize visibility into all potential encryption targets.
Directory exclusion list
To maintain system stability and avoid disrupting critical operating system components, the malware excludes a predefined set of directories from traversal and encryption. These directories include core Windows system paths, application directories, and locations commonly associated with security and system management:
Extension exclusion list
The ransomware also excludes a set of file extensions associated with system-critical binaries, configuration files, and executable content:
By avoiding executable files, libraries, scripts, and other system-relevant formats, the malware preserves the integrity of the operating environment. This selective encryption model is a common ransomware design pattern, ensuring that the system remains operational enough for the victim to receive instructions and facilitate ransom payment.
File name exclusion list
The specific file names below are also excluded:
The inclusion of README-GENTLEMEN.txt, the ransomware’s ransom note, prevents it from being encrypted during execution. This ensures that the ransom instructions remain accessible to the victim, which is critical for the operator’s monetization workflow.
Ransom note
During directory traversal, the malware drops a ransom note named README-GENTLEMEN.txt in each scanned directory to provide victim-facing instructions.
The note contains identifiers assigned to the victim, communication channels, and guidance on how to initiate contact with the operators.
Figure 4. Ransom note content
File encryption
File ownership
Before encrypting a file, the ransomware modifies the file ownership and access control settings to ensure it has unrestricted write access to the target. This is achieved through the following sequence of commands:
The takeown command recursively transfers ownership of the specified file or directory to the executing user, overriding existing ownership constraints. The icacls command then grants full control permissions to the Everyone security identifier (SID S-1-1-0), applying inheritance flags to propagate these permissions to all child objects. Finally, the attrib command removes the read-only attributes.
Cryptographic scheme
The Gentlemen ransomware implements a hybrid cryptographic design that combines Curve25519 elliptic-curve cryptography with the XChaCha20 stream cipher to achieve efficient and secure per-file encryption.
For each file, the malware performs the following sequence of operations:
Generates a unique ephemeral Curve25519 key pair, consisting of a randomly generated private key and its corresponding public key
Computes the Elliptic-curve Diffie–Hellman (ECDH) shared secret between the ephemeral private key and the operator’s embedded public key
Uses the resulting shared secret as the XChaCha20 key, and derives the nonce from the first 24 bytes of the ephemeral public key
Encrypts the file contents using XChaCha20 with this key and nonce combination
Appends the Base64-encoded ephemeral public key to the file footer to enable subsequent key reconstruction during decryption
Figure 5. The Gentlemen ransomware’s file encryption mechanism
In this sample, the operator’s public key is hard-coded within the binary as a Base64-encoded value:
This design ensures that each file is encrypted with a distinct key and nonce derived from a per-file ephemeral key exchange, eliminating any possibility of key or nonce reuse across files.
During decryption, the decryptor can use the operator’s Curve25519 private key together with the stored ephemeral public key to reconstruct the ECDH shared secret and recover the XChaCha20 key. The nonce is deterministically reconstructed by extracting the first 24 bytes of the recovered ephemeral public key, making separate nonce storage unnecessary.
Overall, this approach provides strong cryptographic isolation between encrypted files while maintaining operational simplicity and efficiency for the threat actor during both encryption and decryption.
Size-based encryption
The malware uses different encryption strategies based on file size:
File size
Encryption behavior
≤ 1 MB (0x100000 bytes)
The entire file content is encrypted
> 1 MB (0x100000 bytes)
Three chunks are encrypted at distributed offsets
Small files that are less than 1MB in size are fully encrypted. This ensures that documents, configuration files, and other small but critical data are completely corrupted. For larger files such as databases, virtual disk images, archives, full encryption would be time-consuming. Instead, the malware encrypts three data chunks distributed across the file, which is sufficient to corrupt the file structure while dramatically reducing encryption time.
After encryption, each affected file is renamed with the appended extension .umc16h. This extension serves as a quick indicator of files already encrypted by the ransomware.
Large file chunking logic
For files larger than 1 MB, the malware performs partial encryption by dividing the file into three non-contiguous chunks distributed across its contents:
The first chunk begins at the start of the file, the second is positioned near the midpoint, and the third is located toward the end. This distribution ensures that even limited encryption is sufficient to corrupt the file structure while minimizing processing time.
Each chunk is encrypted in 64 KB (0x10000) blocks using XChaCha20. To maintain cryptographic separation between chunks, the malware modifies the nonce on a per-chunk basis. Specifically, the last byte of the 24-byte XChaCha20 nonce is XOR-ed with the chunk index (0, 1, or 2), and a new cipher instance is initialized for each chunk using the modified nonce. As a result, chunk 0 uses the original nonce, while subsequent chunks use deterministically altered variants.
Although all chunks for a given file share the same derived encryption key, this nonce mutation ensures that each chunk is processed under a unique keystream, preventing keystream reuse across different regions of the file.
The encryption percentage for each file is determined by the provided speed command-line arguments:
Argument
Per-chunk percent
Total encrypted percent (3 chunks)
(default)
9%
~27%
--fast
3%
~9%
--superfast
1%
~3%
--ultrafast
0.3%
~0.9%
File footer
After encrypting each file, the malware appends a structured footer containing metadata required for identification and decryption. The footer format differs slightly depending on whether the file was fully or partially encrypted.
Small file encryption (files ≤ 1 MB):
Figure 6. Small file footer example
Large file encryption (files > 1 MB):
Figure 7. Large file footer example
The footer serves three primary functions:
Key and nonce reconstruction: The Base64-encoded ephemeral public key, located after --eph--, allows the decryptor to recompute both the XChaCha20 key (using ECDH shared secret) and the nonce (first 24 bytes of the ephemeral public key).
Identification: The GENTLEMEN marker, located after--marker--, serves as a unique identifier, allowing encryptors/decryptors to quickly determine that the file has been encrypted by The Gentlemen ransomware.
Decryption mode: The optional speed flag marker (only present on large files) tells the decryptor which chunking percentage was used.
Notably, the speed marker is only present for large-file encryption. Files that are ≤ 1 MB do not include a speed marker, and its absence signals that the file was fully encrypted. This implicit encoding in the footer allows the decryptor to distinguish between full and partial encryption modes without requiring additional metadata fields.
Post-encryption
Wallpaper setup
If the --silent argument is not provided, the malware drops the following bitmap image file to %TEMP%\gentlemen.bmp and sets it as the system’s desktop wallpaper.
Figure 8. The Gentlemen ransomware’s wallpaper
This behavior serves as an immediate visual indicator of compromise, signaling to the victim that encryption has completed.
Self-propagation
The self-propagation module is the more distinctive component of The Gentlemen ransomware. When enabled with the --spread argument, it turns the malware from a single-host encryptor into a self-propagating worm that attempts to deploy its encryptor to every reachable system on the network.
The --spread argument accepts either explicit credentials in domain/user:password format for authenticated lateral movement, or an empty string to reuse the current session’s authentication token.
Placeholder legend
The executed commands in this section use the following placeholders:
Placeholder
Meaning
<self>
Host name of the infected device running the malware
<target>
Remote host discovered during network enumeration
<malware_path>
Full local path to the malware executable
<payload_name>
The malware file name
<ps_blob>
PowerShell defense evasion command executed on the remote target
<user>
Username parsed from the provided credentials
<pass>
Password parsed from the provided credentials
<time>
Current time plus two minutes, formatted as HH:MM
Phase 1: Local staging setup
The malware prepares the infected host to act as a distribution point for its binary by executing the following command sequence:
The commands copy the malware executable into C:\Temp, creates a hidden Server Message Block (SMB) share named share$ pointing to that directory, and modifies registry settings to allow anonymous access. With this setup, other systems on the network can retrieve the payload from \\<self>\share$, even when valid credentials are not available.
Phase 2: PsExec drop
The malware binary carries an embedded copy of PsExec and drops it to C:\Temp\psexec.exe on the infected device.
If the embedded PsExec payload cannot be extracted successfully, the malware falls back to downloading PsExec directly from Microsoft’s Sysinternals Live service using the following PowerShell command:
Phase 3: Network enumeration
After dropping PsExec, the malware attempts to enumerate and discover remote systems on the network, including workstations, servers, and domain controllers. Each discovered host becomes a candidate target for propagation.
Phase 4: PowerShell defense evasion blob
Before attempting to run the payload on a remote system, the malware executes the following PowerShell command on the remote target to weaken local defenses and make payload execution more reliable:
This command disables Microsoft Defender real-time monitoring, adds broad Defender exclusions, turns off Windows Firewall across all profiles, shares local drives, grants permissive New Technology File System (NTFS) access, enables SMB1, and loosens anonymous-access restrictions through Local Security Authority (LSA) registry settings. Together, these changes make the remote system significantly more exposed and ready for the payload deployment step.
Phase 5: Payload deployment
For each discovered remote host, the malware attempts a series of independent lateral movement techniques to execute its payload. Notably, these techniques are executed without dependency on prior success, and each method is attempted regardless of whether earlier attempts fail. This execution model of The Gentlemen’s propagation logic can significantly increase the likelihood that at least one execution path succeeds even in secured environments.
5.1: Remote file copy
The malware first stages its payload on the remote system by copying the encryptor binary over the administrative C$ share:
This operation ensures a local copy of the payload is available on the target host, allowing subsequent execution methods to reference a path that does not depend on network shares.
5.2: PsExec-based execution
If PsExec is successfully dropped or downloaded, the malware leverages it to perform a multi-stage execution sequence on the remote host.
First, the malware executes the PowerShell defense evasion payload to weaken host protections:
After a delay to allow defenses to be disabled, the malware executes the payload from the locally staged path C:\Temp under SYSTEM privileges:
After another sleep period, the malware executes the final command to run the payload with the –h flag for elevated token and –c -f to copy and force execution:
5.3: WMIC process creation
The malware uses WMI via wmic.exe to create remote processes:
The first command executes the defense evasion blob, the second runs the payload from the infected host’s SMB share, and the third runs the pre-staged copy from the target’s local C:\Temp directory.
5.4: Scheduled tasks (user)
The malware creates three scheduled tasks under the target user’s context, each running two minutes after the time when they are created:
The scheduled task DefU is set to run the defense evasion blob, UpdateGU executes the payload from the infected host’s SMB share, and UpdateGU2runs the pre-staged copy from the target’s local C:\Temp directory.
5.5: Scheduled tasks (system)
The same three tasks are repeated, running under the SYSTEM account:
By attempting both user-context and SYSTEM-context task creation, the ransomware can improve its chance of propagation across environments with different permission boundaries.
5.6: Service-based execution
The malware executes the following command sequence to create three Windows services on the target host:
Similar to the scheduled tasks, the service DefSvc is set to run the defense evasion blob, UpdateSvc executes the payload from the infected host’s SMB share, and UpdateSvc2 runs the pre-staged copy from the target’s local C:\Temp directory. These services run as SYSTEM by default, which provides another high-privilege execution path for the ransomware payload on the remote system.
5.7: Payload deployment: PowerShell remoting
Using PowerShell remoting, the malware executes commands directly on the target using Invoke-Command:
This method leverages Windows Remote Management (WinRM), providing an alternative execution channel when PsExec or WMIC are unavailable or blocked.
5.8: PowerShell WMI execution
Finally, the malware uses the PowerShell WMI class interface directly to create remote processes with the following command sequence.
This provides functionality equivalent to wmic.exe, but through a different execution path. As a result, it might succeed in environments where the WMIC binary is restricted but WMI access remains available.
Self-propagation summary
Across all techniques, the malware attempts 21 remote execution operations per target host, spanning multiple APIs, privilege levels, and execution contexts. Each method attempts to launch the payload from:
The infected host’s SMB share:\\<self>\share$\<payload_name>
The target host’s locally staged path:C:\Temp\<payload_name>
This redundancy is central to The Gentlemen’s propagation strategy. In secured environments where most lateral movement techniques are mitigated, a single successful execution on a single additional host is sufficient to continue the propagation.
Free space wipe
If the --wipe argument is provided, The Gentlemen ransomware performs an additional post-encryption routine to eliminate recoverable artifacts from disk.
The malware first enumerates all available volume paths on the system. For each volume, it creates a temporary file named wipefile.tmp at the root directory and determines the amount of available free space. It then writes random data to this file in 64 MB blocks until the volume is completely filled. Once the disk space has been exhausted, the temporary file is deleted.
This process effectively overwrites all unallocated disk space with random data, preventing forensic tools from recovering remnants of previously deleted files. This includes cached or temporary versions of original unencrypted data that might still reside on disk. When combined with earlier actions such as Volume Shadow Copy deletion, this behavior reduces the likelihood of data recovery without access to the threat actor’s decryption key.
Self-delete
If the --keep flag is not provided, the malware attempts to remove its executable from disk after completing encryption.
Since a running process cannot directly delete its own binary, the ransomware generates and executes a temporary batch script at <malware_path>.batwith the following contents:
The batch script introduces a short delay by sending three Internet Control Message Protocol (ICMP) echo requests to the local host, pausing execution long enough for the main malware process to terminate. After this delay, the script deletes the original ransomware executable before removing itself. This mechanism helps reduce on-disk artifacts and hinders post-incident forensic analysis by eliminating the ransomware binary from the compromised system.
Defending against The Gentlemen ransomware
Microsoft recommends the following mitigations to reduce the impact of this threat.
Read the human-operated ransomware threat overview for advice on developing a holistic security posture to prevent ransomware, including credential hygiene and hardening recommendations.
Turn on cloud-delivered protection in Microsoft Defender Antivirus or the equivalent for your antivirus product to cover rapidly evolving threat actor tools and techniques. Cloud-based machine learning protections block a huge majority of new and unknown variants.
Enable controlled folder access. Controlled folder access helps protect your valuable data from malicious apps and threats, such as ransomware. Controlled folder access works by only allowing trusted apps to access protected folders. Protected folders are specified when controlled folder access is configured. Apps that aren’t included in the trusted apps list are prevented from making any changes to files inside protected folders.
Run endpoint detection and response (EDR) in block mode so that Microsoft Defender for Endpoint can block malicious artifacts, even when your non-Microsoft antivirus does not detect the threat or when Microsoft Defender Antivirus is running in passive mode. EDR in block mode works behind the scenes to remediate malicious artifacts that are detected post-breach.
Configure investigation and remediation in full automated mode to let Microsoft Defender for Endpoint take immediate action on alerts to resolve breaches, significantly reducing alert volume.
Configure automatic attack disruption in Microsoft Defender XDR. Automatic attack disruption is designed to contain attacks in progress, limit the impact on an organization’s assets, and provide more time for security teams to remediate the attack fully.
Microsoft Defender XDR customers can turn on attack surface reduction rules to prevent several of the infection vectors of this threat. These rules, which can be configured by any user, offer significant hardening against targeted attacks. In observed attacks, Microsoft customers who had the following rules turned on could mitigate the attack in the initial stages and prevent hands-on-keyboard activity:
Microsoft Defender detections and hunting guidance
Microsoft Defender customers can refer to the list of applicable detections below. Microsoft Defender coordinates detection, prevention, investigation, and response across endpoints, identities, email, apps to provide integrated protection against attacks like the threat discussed in this blog.
Microsoft Defender Antivirus
Microsoft Defender Antivirus detects threat components as the following malware:
The following alerts might indicate threat activity associated with this threat. These alerts, however, can be triggered by unrelated threat activity and are not monitored in the status cards provided with this report.
Ransomware-linked threat actor detected
Ransomware behavior detected in the file system
Possible ransomware activity
File backups were deleted
Potential human-operated malicious activity
Possible data exfiltration
Suspicious wallpaper change
The following alerts might indicate threat activity associated with The Gentlemen ransomware if Defender for Endpoint is set to block mode.
‘Gentlemen’ ransomware was detected
‘Gentlemen’ ransomware was prevented
Microsoft Defender for Cloud Apps
The following alert might indicate threat activity associated with this threat. This alert, however, can be triggered by unrelated threat activity and are not monitored in the status cards provided with this report.
Ransomware activity
Microsoft Security Copilot
Microsoft Security Copilot is embedded in Microsoft Defender and provides security teams with AI-powered capabilities to summarize incidents, analyze files and scripts, summarize identities, use guided responses, and generate device summaries, hunting queries, and incident reports.
Security Copilot is also available as a standalone experience where customers can perform specific security-related tasks, such as incident investigation, user analysis, and vulnerability impact assessment. In addition, Security Copilot offers developer scenarios that allow customers to build, test, publish, and integrate AI agents and plugins to meet unique security needs.
Threat intelligence reports
Microsoft Defender XDR customers can use the following threat analytics reports in the Defender portal (requires license for at least one Defender XDR product) to get the most up-to-date information about the threat actor, malicious activity, and techniques discussed in this blog. These reports provide the intelligence, protection information, and recommended actions to prevent, mitigate, or respond to associated threats found in customer environments.
Microsoft Security Copilot customers can also use the Microsoft Security Copilot integration in Microsoft Defender Threat Intelligence, either in the Security Copilot standalone portal or in the embedded experience in the Microsoft Defender portal to get more information about this threat actor.
Hunting queries
Microsoft Defender XDR
Microsoft Defender XDR customers can run the following advanced hunting queries to find related activity in their networks:
Known The Gentlemen ransomware files
Search for the file hashes associated with The Gentlemen ransomware activity identified in this report.
let fileHashes = dynamic(["22b38dad7da097ea03aa28d0614164cd25fafeb1383dbc15047e34c8050f6f67"]);
union
(
DeviceFileEvents
| where SHA256 in (fileHashes)
| project Timestamp, DeviceId, DeviceName, FileName, InitiatingProcessFileName, FileHash = SHA256, SourceTable = "DeviceFileEvents"
),
(
DeviceEvents
| where SHA256 in (fileHashes)
| project Timestamp, DeviceId, DeviceName, FileName, InitiatingProcessFileName, FileHash =
SHA256, SourceTable = "DeviceEvents"
),
(
DeviceImageLoadEvents
| where SHA256 in (fileHashes)
| project Timestamp, DeviceId, DeviceName, FileName, InitiatingProcessFileName, FileHash = SHA256, SourceTable = "DeviceImageLoadEvents"
),
(
DeviceProcessEvents
| where SHA256 in (fileHashes)
| project Timestamp, DeviceId, DeviceName, FileName, InitiatingProcessFileName, FileHash = SHA256, SourceTable = "DeviceProcessEvents"
)
| order by Timestamp desc
Microsoft Sentinel
Microsoft Sentinel customers can use the TI Mapping analytics (a series of analytics all prefixed with ‘TI map’) to automatically match the malicious domain indicators mentioned in this blog post with data in their workspace. If the TI Map analytics are not currently deployed, customers can install the Threat Intelligence solution from the Microsoft Sentinel Content Hub to have the analytics rule deployed in their Sentinel workspace.
Detect web sessions IP and file hash indicators of compromise using Advanced Security Information Model (ASIM)
The following query checks IP addresses, domains, and file hash IOCs across data sources supported by ASIM web session parser:
//IP list - _Im_WebSession
let lookback = 30d;
let ioc_ip_addr = dynamic([]);
let ioc_sha_hashes =dynamic(["22b38dad7da097ea03aa28d0614164cd25fafeb1383dbc15047e34c8050f6f67"]);
_Im_WebSession(starttime=todatetime(ago(lookback)), endtime=now())
| where DstIpAddr in (ioc_ip_addr) or FileSHA256 in (ioc_sha_hashes)
| summarize imWS_mintime=min(TimeGenerated), imWS_maxtime=max(TimeGenerated),
EventCount=count() by SrcIpAddr, DstIpAddr, Url, Dvc, EventProduct, EventVendor
Detect files hashes indicators of compromise using ASIM
The following query checks IP addresses and file hash IOCs across data sources supported by ASIM file event parser:
// file hash list - imFileEvent
let ioc_sha_hashes = dynamic(["22b38dad7da097ea03aa28d0614164cd25fafeb1383dbc15047e34c8050f6f67"]);
imFileEvent
| where SrcFileSHA256 in (ioc_sha_hashes) or
TargetFileSHA256 in (ioc_sha_hashes)
| extend AccountName = tostring(split(User, @'')[1]),
AccountNTDomain = tostring(split(User, @'')[0])
| extend AlgorithmType = "SHA256"
To hear stories and insights from the Microsoft Threat Intelligence community about the ever-evolving threat landscape, listen to the Microsoft Threat Intelligence podcast.
Fox Tempest is a financially motivated threat actor that operates a malware-signing-as-a-service (MSaaS) used by other cybercriminals to more effectively distribute malicious code, including ransomware. The threat actor abuses Microsoft Artifact Signing to generate short-lived, fraudulent code-signing certificates to appear legitimately signed, allowing malware to evade security controls.
Fox Tempest has created over a thousand certificates and established hundreds of Azure tenants and subscriptions to support its operations. Microsoft has revoked over one thousand code signing certificates attributed to Fox Tempest. In May 2026, Microsoft’s Digital Crimes Unit (DCU), with support from industry partner Resecurity, disrupted Fox Tempest’s MSaaS offering, targeting the infrastructure and access model that enables its broader criminal use.
Microsoft Threat Intelligence observed Fox Tempest’s operations enabling the deployment of Rhysida ransomware by threat actors such as Vanilla Tempest, as well as the distribution of other malware families including Oyster, Lumma Stealer, and Vidar. The consistency, scale, and downstream impact of the resulting attack activity demonstrate that Fox Tempest is a vital operator within the broader cybercrime ecosystem.
In this blog, we examine how Fox Tempest’s MSaaS operation functioned and how it enabled the delivery of trusted, signed malware across the cybercrime ecosystem. We also provide Microsoft Defender detections, indicators of compromise (IOCs), and mitigation recommendations to help organizations identify and disrupt similar activity.
Fox Tempest’s role and impact
Fox Tempest doesn’t directly target victims but instead provides supporting services that enable ransomware operations by other threat actors. Microsoft Threat Intelligence has tracked Fox Tempest since September 2025. Microsoft Threat Intelligence has linked the actor to various ransomware groups including Vanilla Tempest, Storm-0501, Storm-2561, and Storm-0249, who have all leveraged Fox Tempest-signed malware in active intrusions. Malware delivery in these attacks have included use of legitimate purchased advertisements, malvertising, and SEO poisoning.
Cryptocurrency analysis associated with Fox Tempest has identified clear links tying the actor to ransomware affiliates responsible for delivering several prominent ransomware families, including INC, Qilin, Akira, and others, with observed proceeds in the millions. Based on the scale of the MSaaS offering, Microsoft Threat Intelligence assesses that Fox Tempest is a well-resourced group handling infrastructure creation, customer relations, and financial transactions.
The downstream impact of these operations has resulted in attacks against a broad range of industry sectors, including healthcare, education, government, and financial services, impacting organizations globally including, but not limited to the United States, France, India, and China.
Fox Tempest’s malware signing as a service infrastructure
Fox Tempest’s MSaaS capability was available through the website signspace[.]cloud, a now defunct service that was disrupted by DCU, which enabled other threat actors to fraudulently obtain short-lived Microsoft-issued certificates that were valid for only 72 hours, obtained through Artifact Signing (previously named Azure Trusted Signing). This use of short-life certificates from a trusted source allowed malware and ransomware to masquerade as legitimate software (like AnyDesk, Teams, Putty, and Webex) to bypass security controls, significantly increasing the likelihood of execution and successful delivery. Fox Tempest offered this MSaaS capability to the ransomware ecosystem since at least May 2025.
To obtain legitimate signed certificates through Artifact Signing, the requestor must pass detailed identify validation processes in keeping with industry standard verifiable credentials (VC), which suggests the threat actor very likely used stolen identities based in the United States and Canada to masquerade as a legitimate entity and obtain the necessary digital credentials for signing. The SignSpace website was built on Artifact Signing and enabled secure file signing through an admin panel and user page, leveraging Azure subscriptions, certificates, and a structured database for managing users and files. A GitHub repository, called code‑signing‑service, included configuration files and technical details that directly linked it to the infrastructure behind signspace[.]cloud.
The signspace[.]cloud service has two unique modeling groupings: the admin and the customers. The admin is responsible for maintaining the tooling, account creation, and infrastructure, while the customers provide files to be fraudulently code signed. Customers who accessed the service could upload malicious files to be signed using Fox Tempest-controlled certificates.
Below are examples of the signspace[.]cloud portal as seen by Fox Tempest’s customers:
Figure 1. Fox Tempest’s SignSpace sign-in portalFigure 2. Fox Tempest’s SignSpace code signing service upload page
In February 2026, Microsoft Threat Intelligence observed a notable shift in Fox Tempest’s operational infrastructure. Fox Tempest transitioned to providing customers with pre-configured virtual machines (VMs) hosted on US-based virtual private server provider Cloudzy’s infrastructure, allowing threat actors to upload their malicious files directly to Fox Tempest‑controlled environments and receive signed binaries in return. This infrastructure evolution reduced friction for customers, improved operational security for Fox Tempest, and further streamlined the delivery of malicious but trusted, signed malware at scale. Microsoft’s Digital Crimes Unit (DCU) disrupted this infrastructure and continues to partner with Cloudzy to identify and disrupt related infrastructure.
Below is an example of the Fox Tempest-provided VM environment as seen by customers:
Figure 3. Accessing VM provided by Fox Tempest
Inside the VM, Fox Tempest provided files that are used to sign code:
The first file, metadata.json, was a configuration file that pointed to an Azure‑hosted endpoint which also included the signing account and certificate profile.
The second file, test.js, is an example of a file provided by Fox Tempest that had been digitally signed to demonstrate their signing capabilities to customers.
The third file, PS code sample.txt, contains the PowerShell script they used to sign customer‑submitted files using certificates under Fox Tempest control.
Figure 4. Fox Tempest provided filesFigure 5. Fox Tempest provided certificate
Threat actors using Fox Tempest’s MSaaS offering paid thousands of dollars to get their malicious code signed, as shown below with the Google Form detailing the service’s pricing model. Actors filled out the form before being added to a queue to submit payment and gain access to a VM. The form (written in both English and Russian) asks the user to choose a selected plan from a price list of $5000 USD, $7500 USD, or $9000 USD, with a mention that higher paying plans receive priority in the queue sequence.
Figure 6. Google form used by Fox TempestFigure 7. Telegram used by Fox Tempest
Fox Tempest engaged directly with customers using a Telegram channel, EV Certs for Sale by SamCodeSign under the user account arbadakarba2000. All signing activity occurred using a Fox Tempest-provided email address associated with a very small number of IP addresses.
Case study: Fox Tempest enables Vanilla Tempest attacks
Vanilla Tempest began using Fox Tempest’s MSaaS service as early as June 2025. Through this service, Vanilla Tempest uploaded malicious payloads such as trojanized Microsoft Teams installers, which Fox Tempest would fraudulently signed to appear legitimate. Vanilla Tempest would then distribute these signed binaries through legitimately purchased advertisements that redirected users searching for Microsoft Teams to attacker‑controlled advertisements and fraudulent download pages.
Figure 8. Vanilla Tempest and Fox Tempest attack chain
Victims were presented with a malicious MSTeamsSetup.exe in place of the legitimate client, reflecting a broader pattern of Vanilla Tempest frequently abusing trusted software brands to lure victims and establish initial access. Execution of the counterfeit installer resulted in the deployment of the Oyster backdoor (also known as Broomstick), a modular, multistage implant that establishes persistent remote access, initiates command‑and‑control (C2) communications, collects host‑level information, and enables the delivery of additional payloads. By masquerading as a widely deployed enterprise collaboration tool hiding behind a fraudulently signed binary, Vanilla Tempest’s Oyster payload was likely able to evade casual detection and blend into normal enterprise activity. In some observed cases, Vanilla Tempest also deployed Rhysida ransomware within victim environments using the same process.
Defending against Fox Tempest-enabled attacks
To defend against Fox Tempest tactics, techniques, and procedures (TTPs) and similar activity, Microsoft recommends the following mitigation measures:
Read the human-operated ransomware threat overview for advice on developing a holistic security posture to prevent ransomware, including credential hygiene and hardening recommendations.
Turn on cloud-delivered protection in Microsoft Defender Antivirus or the equivalent for your antivirus product to cover rapidly evolving attacker tools and techniques. Cloud-based machine learning protections block a huge majority of new and unknown variants.
Encourage users to use Microsoft Edge and other web browsers that support Microsoft Defender SmartScreen, which identifies and blocks malicious websites, including phishing sites, scam sites, and sites that host malware.
Turn on tenant-wide tamper protection features to prevent attackers from stopping security services or using antivirus exclusions. Without tamper protection, attackers could simply turn off Microsoft Defender Antivirus without the need to acquire higher privileges.
If there is an issue with a device during roll out of various antivirus features, the device can be placed in troubleshooting mode to turn off tamper protection temporarily without impacting the wider organizational security policy.
Microsoft Defender XDR customers can turn on attack surface reduction rules to prevent several of the infection vectors of this threat. These rules, which can be configured by any user, offer significant hardening against targeted attacks. In observed attacks, Microsoft customers who had the following rules turned on could mitigate the attack in the initial stages and prevent hands-on-keyboard activity:
Microsoft Defender customers can refer to the list of applicable detections below. Microsoft Defender coordinates detection, prevention, investigation, and response across endpoints, identities, email, apps to provide integrated protection against attacks like the threat discussed in this blog.
Tactic
Observed activity
Microsoft Defender coverage
Persistence
Threat actors distributed malware families including using Fox Tempest‑signed binaries
Microsoft Defender for Endpoint – Vanilla Tempest activity group – User account created under suspicious circumstances – New group added suspiciously – New local admin added using Net commands – ‘LummaStealer’ malware was prevented – ‘Malcert’ malware was prevented – ‘Vidar’ malware was prevented
Impact
Analysis of Fox Tempest MSaaS identified links to the enablement of several ransomware families
Microsoft Defender for Endpoint – Ransomware-linked threat actor detected – ‘BlackByte’ ransomware was prevented – ‘INC’ ransomware was prevented – ‘Qilin’ ransomware was prevented – ‘Rhysida’ ransomware was prevented – A file or network connection related to a ransomware-linked emerging threat activity group detected
Microsoft Security Copilot
Microsoft Security Copilot is embedded in Microsoft Defender and provides security teams with AI-powered capabilities to summarize incidents, analyze files and scripts, summarize identities, use guided responses, and generate device summaries, hunting queries, and incident reports.
Security Copilot is also available as a standalone experience where customers can perform specific security-related tasks, such as incident investigation, user analysis, and vulnerability impact assessment. In addition, Security Copilot offers developer scenarios that allow customers to build, test, publish, and integrate AI agents and plugins to meet unique security needs.
Threat intelligence reports
Microsoft Defender XDR customers can use the following threat analytics reports in the Defender portal (requires license for at least one Defender XDR product) to get the most up-to-date information about the threat actor, malicious activity, and techniques discussed in this blog. These reports provide the intelligence, protection information, and recommended actions to prevent, mitigate, or respond to associated threats found in customer environments.
Microsoft Security Copilot customers can also use the Microsoft Security Copilot integration in Microsoft Defender Threat Intelligence, either in the Security Copilot standalone portal or in the embedded experience in the Microsoft Defender portal to get more information about this threat actor.
To get notified about new publications and to join discussions on social media, follow us on LinkedIn, X (formerly Twitter), and Bluesky. To hear stories and insights from the Microsoft Threat Intelligence community about the ever-evolving threat landscape, listen to the Microsoft Threat Intelligence podcast.
The statistics in this report are based on detection verdicts returned by Kaspersky products unless otherwise stated. The information was provided by Kaspersky users who consented to sharing statistical data.
Quarterly figures
In Q1 2026:
Kaspersky products blocked more than 343 million attacks that originated with various online resources.
Web Anti-Virus responded to 50 million unique links.
File Anti-Virus blocked nearly 15 million malicious and potentially unwanted objects.
2938 new ransomware variants were detected.
More than 77,000 users experienced ransomware attacks.
14% of all ransomware victims whose data was published on threat actors’ data leak sites (DLS) were victims of Clop.
More than 260,000 users were targeted by miners.
Ransomware
Quarterly trends and highlights
Law enforcement success
In January 2026, it was reported that the FBI had seized the domains of the RAMP cybercrime forum, a major platform used extensively by ransomware developers to advertise their RaaS programs and to recruit affiliates. There has been no official statement from the FBI, nor is it clear if RAMP servers were seized. In a post on an external website, a RAMP moderator mentioned law enforcement agencies gaining control over the forum. The takedown disrupted a key element of the RaaS ecosystem, creating ripple effects for ransomware operators, affiliates, and initial access brokers.
A man suspected of links to the Phobos group was apprehended in Poland. He was charged with the creation, acquisition, and distribution of software designed for unlawfully obtaining information, including data that facilitates unauthorized access to information stored within a computer system.
In March, a Phobos ransomware administrator pleaded guilty to the creation and distribution of the Trojan, which had been used in international attacks dating back to at least November 2020.
In March, the U.S. Department of Justice charged a man who had acted as a negotiator for ransomware groups. The company he worked for specializes in cyberincident investigations. The prosecution alleges the suspect colluded with the BlackCat threat actor to share privileged insights into the ongoing progress of negotiations. Additionally, the suspect is alleged to have had a prior direct role in BlackCat attacks, serving as an affiliate for the RaaS operation.
In a separate development this March, a U.S. court sentenced an initial access broker associated with the Yanluowang ransomware group to 81 months of imprisonment. According to the U.S. Department of Justice, the convict facilitated dozens of ransomware attacks across the United States, resulting in over $9 million in actual loss and more than $24 million in intended loss.
Vulnerabilities and attacks
The Interlock group has been heavily exploiting the CVE-2026-20131 zero-day vulnerability in Cisco Secure FMC firewall management software since at least January 26, 2026. The vulnerability enabled arbitrary Java code execution with root privileges on the affected device. This campaign demonstrates the ongoing reliance on zero-day vulnerabilities for initial access, a focus on network appliances as high-value entry points, and the rapid weaponization of new vulnerabilities within the ransomware ecosystem.
The most prolific groups
This section highlights the most prolific ransomware gangs by number of victims added to each group’s DLS. This quarter, the Clop ransomware (14.42%) returned to the top of the rankings, displacing Qilin (12.34%), which had held the leading position in the previous reporting period. Following closely is a new threat actor, The Gentlemen (9.25%). Emerging no later than July 2025, the group had already surpassed the activity levels of mainstays such as Akira (7.25%) and INC Ransom (6.13%).
Number of each group’s victims according to its DLS as a percentage of all groups’ victims published on all the DLSs under review during the reporting period (download)
Number of new variants
In Q1 2026, Kaspersky solutions detected six new ransomware families and 2938 new modifications. Volumes have returned to Q3 2025 levels following a surge in Q4 2025.
Number of new ransomware modifications, Q1 2025 — Q1 2026 (download)
Number of users attacked by ransomware Trojans
Throughout Q1, our solutions protected 77,319 unique users from ransomware. Ransomware activity was highest in March, with 35,056 unique users encountering such attacks during the month.
Number of unique users attacked by ransomware Trojans, Q1 2026 (download)
Attack geography
TOP 10 countries and territories attacked by ransomware Trojans
Country/territory*
%**
1
Pakistan
0.79
2
South Korea
0.64
3
China
0.52
4
Tajikistan
0.40
5
Libya
0.38
6
Turkmenistan
0.36
7
Iraq
0.35
8
Bangladesh
0.33
9
Rwanda
0.30
10
Cameroon
0.28
* Excluded are countries and territories with relatively few (under 50,000) Kaspersky users.
** Unique users whose computers were attacked by ransomware Trojans as a percentage of all unique users of Kaspersky products in the country/territory.
TOP 10 most common families of ransomware Trojans
Name
Verdict
%*
1
(generic verdict)
Trojan-Ransom.Win32.Gen
33.90
2
(generic verdict)
Trojan-Ransom.Win32.Crypren
6.38
3
WannaCry
Trojan-Ransom.Win32.Wanna
5.87
4
(generic verdict)
Trojan-Ransom.Win32.Encoder
4.68
5
(generic verdict)
Trojan-Ransom.Win32.Agent
3.80
6
LockBit
Trojan-Ransom.Win32.Lockbit
2.80
7
(generic verdict)
Trojan-Ransom.Win32.Phny
1.99
8
(generic verdict)
Trojan-Ransom.MSIL.Agent
1.96
9
(generic verdict)
Trojan-Ransom.Python.Agent
1.93
10
(generic verdict)
Trojan-Ransom.Win32.Crypmod
1.89
* Unique Kaspersky users attacked by the specific ransomware Trojan family as a percentage of all unique users attacked by this type of threat.
Miners
Number of new variants
In Q1 2026, Kaspersky solutions detected 3485 new modifications of miners.
Number of new miner modifications, Q1 2026 (download)
Number of users attacked by miners
In Q1, we detected attacks using miner programs on the computers of 260,588 unique Kaspersky users worldwide.
Number of unique users attacked by miners, Q1 2026 (download)
Attack geography
TOP 10 countries and territories attacked by miners
Country/territory*
%**
1
Senegal
3.19
2
Turkmenistan
3.06
3
Mali
2.63
4
Tanzania
1.62
5
Bangladesh
1.06
6
Ethiopia
0.95
7
Panama
0.88
8
Afghanistan
0.79
9
Kazakhstan
0.77
10
Bolivia
0.75
* Excluded are countries and territories with relatively few (under 50,000) Kaspersky users.
** Unique users whose computers were attacked by miners as a percentage of all unique users of Kaspersky products in the country/territory.
Attacks on macOS
In Q1 2026, Google uncovered a new cryptocurrency theft campaign. The scammers directed victims to a fraudulent video call, prompting them to execute malicious scripts under the guise of technical support fixes for connection problems.
In March, researchers with GTIG and iVerify reported the discovery of an in-the-wild exploit chain targeting both iOS and macOS devices. The exploit kit was apparently marketed on the dark web, providing threat actors with a suite of spyware capabilities alongside specialized cryptocurrency exfiltration modules. The exploit was delivered via drive-by downloads when victims visited various compromised websites. Our analysis confirmed that the toolkit included an updated version of a component previously identified in the Operation Triangulation attack chain.
Devices running macOS were similarly impacted by the high-profile supply chain attack targeting the Axios npm package, a widely used HTTP client for JavaScript. The installation of the infected package led to the deployment of a backdoor on macOS devices.
TOP 20 threats to macOS
Unique users* who encountered this malware as a percentage of all attacked users of Kaspersky security solutions for macOS (download)
* Data for the previous quarter may differ slightly from previously published data due to some verdicts being retrospectively revised.
The share of PasivRobber spyware attacks is beginning to decline, giving way to more traditional adware and Monitor-class software capable of tracking user activity. The popular Amos stealer also maintains its presence within the TOP 20.
Geography of threats to macOS
TOP 10 countries and territories by share of attacked users
Country/territory
%* Q4 2025
%* Q1 2026
China
1.28
1.97
France
1.18
1.07
Brazil
1.13
0.98
Mexico
0.72
0.52
Germany
0.71
0.45
The Netherlands
0.62
0.75
Hong Kong
0.49
0.53
India
0.42
0.48
Russian Federation
0.34
0.37
Thailand
0.24
0.27
* Unique users who encountered threats to macOS as a percentage of all unique Kaspersky users in the country/territory.
IoT threat statistics
This section presents statistics on attacks targeting Kaspersky IoT honeypots. The geographic data on attack sources is based on the IP addresses of attacking devices.
In Q1 2026, the share of devices attacking Kaspersky honeypots via the SSH protocol saw a significant increase compared to the previous reporting period.
Distribution of attacked services by number of unique IP addresses of attacking devices (download)
The distribution of attacks between Telnet and SSH maintained the ratio observed in Q4 2025.
Distribution of attackers’ sessions in Kaspersky honeypots (download)
TOP 10 threats delivered to IoT devices
Share of each threat delivered to an infected device as a result of a successful attack, out of the total number of threats delivered (download)
The primary shifts in the IoT threat distribution are linked to the activity of various Mirai botnet variants, although members of this family continue to account for the majority of the list. Furthermore, a new variant, Mirai.kl, surfaced in the rankings. We also observed a significant decline in NyaDrop botnet activity during Q1.
Attacks on IoT honeypots
The United States, the Netherlands, and Germany accounted for the highest proportions of SSH-based attacks during this period.
Country/territory
Q4 2025
Q1 2026
United States
16.10%
23.74%
The Netherlands
15.78%
17.57%
Germany
12.07%
10.34%
Panama
7.72%
6.34%
India
5.32%
6.05%
Romania
4.05%
5.82%
Australia
1.62%
4.61%
Vietnam
4.21%
3.50%
Russian Federation
3.79%
2.35%
Sweden
2.25%
2.09%
China continues to account for the largest proportion of Telnet attacks, though there was a marked increase in activity originating from Pakistan.
Country/territory
Q4 2025
Q1 2026
China
53.64%
39.54%
Pakistan
14.27%
27.31%
Russian Federation
8.20%
8.25%
Indonesia
8.58%
6.71%
India
4.85%
4.66%
Brazil
0.06%
3.30%
Argentina
0.02%
2.51%
Nigeria
1.22%
1.38%
Thailand
0.01%
0.55%
Sweden
0.54%
0.55%
Attacks via web resources
The statistics in this section are based on detection verdicts by Web Anti-Virus, which protects users when suspicious objects are downloaded from malicious or infected web pages. These malicious pages are purposefully created by cybercriminals. Websites that host user-generated content, such as message boards, as well as compromised legitimate sites, can become infected.
TOP 10 countries and territories that served as sources of web-based attacks
The following statistics show the distribution by country/territory of the sources of internet attacks blocked by Kaspersky products on user computers (web pages redirecting to exploits, sites containing exploits and other malicious programs, botnet C&C centers, and so on). One or more web-based attacks could originate from each unique host.
To determine the geographic source of web attacks, we matched the domain name with the real IP address where the domain is hosted, then identified the geographic location of that IP address (GeoIP).
In Q1 2026, Kaspersky solutions blocked 343,823,407 attacks launched from internet resources worldwide. Web Anti-Virus was triggered by 49,983,611 unique URLs.
Web-based attacks by country/territory, Q1 2026 (download)
Countries and territories where users faced the greatest risk of online infection
To assess the risk of malware infection via the internet for users’ computers in different countries and territories, we calculated the share of Kaspersky users in each location on whose computers Web Anti-Virus was triggered during the reporting period. The resulting data provides an indication of the aggressiveness of the environment in which computers operate in different countries and territories.
This ranked list includes only attacks by malicious objects classified as Malware. Our calculations leave out Web Anti-Virus detections of potentially dangerous or unwanted programs, such as RiskTool or adware.
Country/territory*
%**
1
Venezuela
9.33
2
Hungary
8.16
3
Italy
7.58
4
Tajikistan
7.48
5
India
7.21
6
Greece
7.13
7
Portugal
7.10
8
France
7.05
9
Belgium
6.83
10
Slovakia
6.80
11
Vietnam
6.62
12
Bosnia and Herzegovina
6.57
13
Canada
6.56
14
Serbia
6.50
15
Tunisia
6.36
16
Qatar
6.01
17
Spain
5.95
18
Germany
5.95
19
Sri Lanka
5.89
20
Brazil
5.88
* Excluded are countries and territories with relatively few (under 10,000) Kaspersky users.
** Unique users targeted by web-based Malware attacks as a percentage of all unique users of Kaspersky products in the country/territory.
On average during the quarter, 4.73% of users’ computers worldwide were subjected to at least one Malware web attack.
Local threats
Statistics on local infections of user computers are an important indicator. They include objects that penetrated the target computer by infecting files or removable media, or initially made their way onto the computer in non-open form. Examples of the latter are programs in complex installers and encrypted files.
Data in this section is based on analyzing statistics produced by anti-virus scans of files on the hard drive at the moment they were created or accessed, and the results of scanning removable storage media. The statistics are based on detection verdicts from the On-Access Scan (OAS) and On-Demand Scan (ODS) modules of File Anti-Virus and include detections of malicious programs located on user computers or removable media connected to the computers, such as flash drives, camera memory cards, phones, or external hard drives.
In Q1 2026, our File Anti-Virus detected 15,831,319 malicious and potentially unwanted objects.
Countries and territories where users faced the highest risk of local infection
For each country and territory, we calculated the percentage of Kaspersky users whose computers had the File Anti-Virus triggered at least once during the reporting period. This statistic reflects the level of personal computer infection in different countries and territories around the world.
Note that this ranked list includes only attacks by malicious objects classified as Malware. Our calculations leave out File Anti-Virus detections of potentially dangerous or unwanted programs, such as RiskTool or adware.
Country/territory*
%**
1
Turkmenistan
47.96
2
Tajikistan
31.48
3
Cuba
31.03
4
Yemen
29.59
5
Afghanistan
28.47
6
Burundi
26.93
7
Uzbekistan
24.81
8
Syria
23.08
9
Nicaragua
21.97
10
Cameroon
21.60
11
China
21.09
12
Mozambique
21.02
13
Algeria
20.64
14
Democratic Republic of the Congo
20.63
15
Bangladesh
20.44
16
Mali
20.35
17
Republic of the Congo
20.23
18
Madagascar
20.00
19
Belarus
19.78
20
Tanzania
19.52
* Excluded are countries and territories with relatively few (under 10,000) Kaspersky users.
** Unique users on whose computers local Malware threats were blocked, as a percentage of all unique users of Kaspersky products in the country/territory.
On average worldwide, Malware local threats were detected at least once on 11.55% of users’ computers during Q1.
With International Anti-Ransomware Day taking place on May 12, Kaspersky presents its annual report on the evolving global and regional ransomware cyberthreat landscape.
Ransomware remains one of the most persistent and adaptive cyberthreats. In 2026:
New families continue to emerge, adopting post-quantum cryptography ciphers.
As ransom payments drop, some groups implement encryptionless extortion attacks.
In a constantly changing ecosystem of threat actors, initial access brokers maintain a relevant role in this market, showing increased focus on access to RDWeb as the preferred method of remote access.
Ransomware attacks decline but remain a major threat
According to Kaspersky Security Network, the share of organizations affected by ransomware decreased in 2025 across all regions compared to 2024.
Percentage of organizations affected by ransomware attacks by region, 2025 (download)
Despite the formal decrease, organizations across all sectors continue to face a high likelihood of attack, as ransomware operators refine their tactics and scale their operations with increasing efficiency. Kaspersky and VDC Research have found that in the manufacturing sector alone, ransomware attacks may have caused over $18 billion in losses in the first three quarters of the year.
The continued rise of EDR killers and defense evasion tooling
In 2026, ransomware operators increasingly prioritize neutralizing endpoint defenses before executing their payloads. Tools commonly referred to as “EDR killers” have become a standard component of attack playbooks. This reflects a continuing trend toward more deliberate and methodical intrusions.
Attackers attempt to terminate security processes and disable monitoring agents, often by exploiting trusted components such as signed drivers. This technique is called Bring Your Own Vulnerable Driver (BYOVD) and allows adversaries to blend into legitimate system activity while gradually degrading defensive visibility.
Thus, evasion is no longer an opportunistic step but a planned and repeatable phase of the attack lifecycle. As a result, organizations are increasingly challenged not just to detect ransomware but also to maintain control in environments where security controls themselves are actively targeted.
The appearance of new families adopting post-quantum cryptography
We predicted that quantum-resistant ransomware would appear in 2025. Looking back at the previous year, we see that advanced ransomware groups indeed started using post-quantum cryptography as quantum computing evolved. The encryption techniques used by this quantum-proof ransomware could be used to resist decryption attempts from both classical and quantum computers, making it nearly impossible for victims to decrypt their data without having to pay a ransom.
One example is the appearance of the PE32 ransomware family (link in Russian); it leverages the cutting-edge ML-KEM (Module-Lattice-Based Key-Encapsulation Mechanism) standard to secure its AES keys. This specific cryptographic framework was recently selected by NIST as the primary standard for post-quantum defense.
Within the PE32 ransomware architecture, this is realized through the Kyber1024 algorithm, a robust mechanism providing Level 5 security, roughly equivalent in strength to AES-256. Its primary function is the secure generation and transmission of shared secrets between parties, specifically engineered to withstand future quantum computing attacks. This shift toward post-quantum readiness is part of a broader industry trend; for instance, TLS 1.3 and QUIC protocols have already adopted the X25519Kyber768 hybrid model, which fuses classical encryption with quantum-resistant security.
The shift to encryptionless extortion
In 2025, the share of ransoms paid dropped to 28%. As a response to this, one of the developments in the 2026 landscape is the growing prevalence of extortion incidents in which no file encryption takes place at all. Instead, attackers leave out the “ware” in “ransomware” and focus on extracting sensitive data and leveraging the threat of public disclosure as their primary means of extortion. ShinyHunters is an excellent example of such a group, using a data leak site to publicize its victims.
By avoiding encryption, attackers may aim at reducing the likelihood of immediate detection, shortening the duration of the attack, and eliminating dependencies on stable encryption routines. Often, this model is used alongside traditional tactics in so-called double extortion schemes, but an increasing number of campaigns rely exclusively on data theft.
For victims, this shift fundamentally changes the nature of the risk. While backups remain effective against encryption-based disruption, they provide no protection against data exposure, regulatory consequences, and reputational damage. Ransomware is therefore evolving from a business continuity issue into a broader data security and compliance challenge.
Industrialization of initial access (Access-as-a-Service)
The ransomware ecosystem continues to evolve toward a highly industrialized and specialized model, with initial access remaining as one of its most critical components. In 2026, many ransomware operators keep relying on IABs (initial access brokers), a network of intermediaries who supply pre-compromised access to corporate environments, aiming to no longer perform full intrusions themselves.
This “access-as-a-service” model is fueled by credential theft operations, and the widespread availability of compromised accounts harvested through infostealers and phishing campaigns.
The primary access vectors offered for sale have not changed: RDP, VPN, and RDWeb are still the top access vectors. Consequently, remote access infrastructure remains the primary attack surface for initial access sales. In response to the measures against public exposure of RDP access points to the internet, attackers are now targeting RDWeb portals, which are frequently vulnerable and occasionally inadequately safeguarded.
The result is a threat landscape where unauthorized access is increasingly commoditized, and the barrier to launching ransomware attacks declines. This means that preventing initial compromise is only part of the challenge; equal emphasis must be placed on detecting misuse of legitimate credentials and limiting lateral movement within already-breached environments.
Ransomware developments on the dark web
Telegram channels and underground forums increasingly function as platforms for the distribution and sale of compromised datasets and access credentials including those that were obtained as a result of ransomware attacks.
Advertisements posted on these resources typically include the nature of the access, a description of the exfiltrated or compromised data, price terms, and contact information for prospective buyers. In addition, some malicious actors mention their collaboration with other ransomware groups. Lesser-known gangs can use this name-dropping to promote themselves
Multiple threat actors not related to ransomware groups distribute datasets downloaded from ransomware blogs on underground forums and Telegram. By re-publishing download links and files, they spread compromised data as well as information on the ransomware attack within the community.
The ransomware itself is also sold or offered for subscription on the dark web platforms. The sellers underscore the uniqueness of their malware, as well as its encryption and defense evasion features.
Law enforcement actions
Law enforcement agencies are actively shutting down dark web platforms and ransomware data leak sites. A major underground forum, RAMP, which also functioned as a platform for threat actors to advertise their ransomware services and publish service‑related updates, was seized by authorities in January 2026. Another underground forum, LeakBase, where malicious actors distributed exfiltrated and compromised data, was seized in March 2026. In 2025, law enforcement agencies seized well-known forums like Nulled, Cracked, and XSS. Also in 2025, the DLSs of BlackSuit and 8Base ransomware groups were seized. These takedowns cause inconvenience to ransomware coordination, specifically for initial access brokers and affiliates, though similar forums are expected to fill the void over time.
Top ransomware groups in 2025
RansomHub’s sudden dormancy in 2025 marked a shift, and Qilin became the dominant player from Q2 onward. According to Kaspersky research, Qilin was the most active group executing targeted attacks in 2025.
Each group’s share of victims according to its data leak site (DLS) as a percentage of all reported victims of all groups during the period under review (download)
Qilin stands out as one of the fastest-growig and dominant RaaS platforms. Its combination of high-volume operations and structured affiliate model positions it as a central player in the current ecosystem.
Clop, the second most active group in 2025, is distinguished through its large-scale, supply-chain-style attacks, exploiting widely used file transfer and enterprise software to compromise hundreds of victims simultaneously. This one-to-many approach sets it apart from more traditional, single-target campaigns.
Third place is occupied by Akira, which remains notable for its consistency and operational stability, maintaining a steady stream of victims without major disruption. Its ability to sustain activity over time makes it one of the most reliable indicators of baseline ransomware threat levels.
Although no longer active, RansomHub stands out for its rapid rise and equally rapid disappearance in 2025, highlighting the volatility of the RaaS market. Its shutdown created a vacuum that significantly reshaped affiliate distribution across other groups.
DragonForce is also notable – not just for its own operations, but for its broader influence within the ransomware ecosystem, including reported involvement in infrastructure conflicts and possible links to the disruption of competing groups. Thus, the group claims that RansomHub “has moved to their infrastructure.” This positions it as more than just an operator and potentially an ecosystem-level actor.
New actors in 2026
While emerging actors generally operate on a smaller scale, they provide insight into the continuous churn and low barrier to entry within the ransomware ecosystem.
The Gentlemen group caught our attention in early 2026, as they managed to attack a significant number of victims over a short time. This actor is also notable for reflecting a broader shift toward professionalization and controlled operations within the ransomware ecosystem. Unlike many emerging groups that rely on opportunistic attacks and inconsistent leak activity, The Gentlemen demonstrate a more deliberate approach: structured intrusion workflows, selective targeting, and measured communication with victims. This signals a move away from chaotic, high-noise campaigns toward predictable, business-like execution models that are easier to scale and harder to disrupt. Their TTPs include the massive exploitation of hardware very common on big corporations, such as FortiOS/FortiProxy, SonicWall VPN, and Cisco ASA appliances. The group might be comprised of professional cybercriminals who left other prominent groups.
The group is also notable for its emphasis on data-centric extortion strategies, often prioritizing exfiltration and leverage over purely disruptive encryption. This aligns with one of the defining trends of 2026: ransomware evolving into a form of data breach monetization rather than just system denial. By focusing on controlled pressure and reputational risk instead of immediate operational damage, The Gentlemen exemplify how attackers are adapting to lower ransom payment rates and improved backup practices among victims.
Some other groups to take note of in 2026:
Devman appears to be an emerging actor with limited but growing activity, likely leveraging existing tooling rather than developing custom capabilities.
MintEye hasn’t been very active yet, with just five known victims, suggesting opportunistic campaigns without a consistent operational tempo.
DireWolf is associated with small-scale, targeted attacks, though its overall footprint remains relatively limited compared to larger RaaS groups.
NightSpire demonstrates characteristics of an amateur group, such as mistakes during its operations, uncommon communication channels with the victims, and sometimes giving them insufficient time to pay up. Although they both encrypt and leak data, they prioritize publication rather than encryption.
Vect shows low-volume activity. It is yet unclear whether they use a completely new codebase or are rather a rebrand of an existing group.
Tengu is a less prominent actor, with limited public reporting and no clear distinguishing tactics beyond standard extortion models.
Kazu appears to be created by ransomware operators previously engaged with multiple other groups. As of now, they don’t stand out for scale or technique.
Although there is little to say about these groups at the time of writing this report, each of them may be equally likely to disappear from the threat landscape or grow into a prominent threat. That’s why it’s important to track them from their early days. Moreover, collectively, these groups illustrate how dynamic the ransomware landscape is, with new entrants constantly replenishing it.
Conclusion and protection recommendations
Despite the growing effort by law enforcement agencies across the globe to seize and disrupt dark web platforms and threat actor infrastructures, ransomware operations remain stable, with new groups quickly taking the place of those who went silent. In 2026, we see a shift towards encryptionless extortion, with data leaks increasingly becoming the main threat to target organizations. At the same time, data encryption is also upgrading to the next level with the emergence of post-quantum ransomware.
To resist the evolving threat, Kaspersky recommends organizations:
Prioritize proactive prevention through patching and vulnerability management. Many ransomware attacks exploit unpatched systems, so organizations should implement automated patch management tools to ensure timely updates for operating systems, software, and drivers. For Windows environments, enabling Microsoft’s Vulnerable Driver Blocklist is critical to thwarting BYOVD attacks. Regularly scan for vulnerabilities and prioritize high-severity flaws, especially in widely used software.
Strengthen remote access: RDP and RDWeb connections should never be directly exposed to the internet, only through VPN or ZTNA (Zero Trust Network Access). It’s highly recommended to adopt multi-factor authentication on everything; the architecture may require continuous authentication for access, as one valid credential captured is enough to cause a breach. Monitoring the underground for stolen employee credentials is essential. Audit open ports across the entire attack surface. The adoption of the “Principle of Least Privilege” (PoLP), where users, systems, or processes are granted only the minimum access rights, such as read, write, or execute permissions, necessary to perform their specific job functions, is highly recommended.
Strengthen endpoint and network security with advanced detection and segmentation. Deploy robust endpoint detection and response solutions such as Kaspersky NEXT EDR to monitor for suspicious activity like driver loading or process termination. Network segmentation is equally important. Limit lateral movement by isolating critical systems and using firewalls to restrict traffic. Complete and immediate offboarding for employees is necessary as well as periodic permission reviews, with automatic revocation of unused access. Sessions with complete logging for privileged accounts are more than necessary. Monitoring the traffic divergence to new sites or even to legitimate endpoints can help the defenders to spot a new insider threat.
Invest in backups, training, and incident response planning. Maintain offline or immutable backups that are tested regularly to ensure rapid recovery without paying a ransom. Backups should cover critical data and systems and be stored in air-gapped environments to resist encryption or deletion. User education is essential to combatting phishing, which remains one of the top attack vectors. Conduct simulated phishing exercises and train employees to recognize AI-crafted emails. Kaspersky Global Emergency Response Team (GERT) can help develop and test an incident response plan to minimize potential downtime and costs.
The recommendation to avoid paying a ransom remains robust, especially given the risk of unavailable keys due to dismantled infrastructure, affiliate chaos, or malicious intent. By investing in backups, incident response, and preventive measures like patching and training, organizations can avoid funding criminals and mitigate the impact.
Kaspersky also offers free decryptors for certain ransomware families. If you get hit by ransomware, check to see if there’s a decryptor available for the ransomware family used against you.
On May 4th, 2026, The GentlemenRaaS administrator acknowledged on underground forums that an internal backend database (Rocket) had been leaked. This leak exposed 9 accounts, including zeta88 (aka hastalamuerte), who runs the infrastructure, builds the locker and RaaS panel, manages payouts, and effectively acts as the administrator of the program.
The internal discussions provide a rare end‑to‑end view of the operation: they detail initial access paths (Fortinet and Cisco edge appliances, NTLM relay, OWA/M365 credential logs), the division of roles, the shared toolsets, and the group’s active tracking and evaluation of modern CVEs such as CVE-2024-55591, CVE-2025-32433, and CVE-2025-33073.
Screenshots from ransom negotiations were also leaked, showing a successful case where the group received 190,000 USD, after starting with an initial demand (anchor) of 250,000 USD.
Further chats indicate that stolen data from a UK software consultancy was later reused to attack a company in Turkey. The Gentlemen used this during negotiations as a dual‑pressure tactic: they portrayed the UK firm as the “access broker,” while mentioning to provide “proof” to the Turkish company that the intrusion originated from the UK side and encouraging it to consider legal action against the consultancy.
By collecting all available ransomware samples, Check Point Research identified 8 distinct affiliate TOX IDs, including the administrator’s TOX ID. This suggests that the admin not only manages the RaaS program but also actively participates in, or directly carries out, some of the infections.
Introduction
The Gentlemen ransomware‑as‑a‑service (RaaS) operation is a relatively new group that emerged around mid‑2025. Its operators advertise the service across multiple underground forums, promoting their ransomware platform and inviting penetration testers and other technically skilled actors to join as affiliates.
In 2026, based on victims listed on the data leak site (DLS), The Gentlemen appears to be one of the most active RaaS programs, with approximately 332 published victims in just the first five months of 2026. This volume places the group as the second most productive RaaS operation in that period, at least among those that publicly list their victims.
During our previous publication, Check Point Research analyzed a specific infection carried out by an affiliate of this RaaS. In that case, the affiliate used SystemBC, and the associated command‑and‑control (C&C) server revealed more than 1,570 victims.
In this publication, we focus on the affiliate program itself and the actors who participate in it. On May 4th, 2026, The Gentlemen administrator acknowledged the leak of an internal database used by the group, which contained operational information about their infrastructure, affiliates, and victims. Check Point Research obtained what appears to be a partial leak of the group’s internal chats and related data, which was briefly posted on an underground forum before being removed. Later on, the leak also appeared on another underground forum.
The leaked material includes detailed conversations between the RaaS operators and their affiliates across several internal channels (such as INFO, general, TOOLS, and PODBOR). In these chats, they coordinate ongoing intrusions, exchange toolsets and EDR‑kill packages, discuss infrastructure and backend components (including the Rocket database and NAS storage), review CVEs and exploit paths (for example Fortinet, Cisco, and NTLM relay issues), and talk about specific victims, campaigns, and payouts. Together, these messages provide a rare inside view of how The Gentlemen plans, executes, and scales its ransomware operations.
The Gentlemen RaaS Admin
The Gentlemen RaaS administrator has been very active and vocal on various underground forums, trying to attract affiliates with an aggressive profit-sharing model: 90% for affiliates and 10% for the operator.
In September 2025, in one of the first posts promoting the RaaS program, the account Zeta88 published a message advertising the service and inviting individual penetration testers to join as affiliates.
Figure 1 — Zeta88 advertising The Gentlemen’s RaaS.
Later on, the official posts for this ransomware program started to be published by another account, The Gentlemen. The administrator also shared their TOX ID across several forums.
Figure 2 — RaaS admin in underground forum.
The same TOX ID can be seen on the onion data leak site (DLS), where it is used by affiliates or compromised victims to contact the administrator.
Figure 3 — Onion page TOX ID.
In a post on an underground forum, where the administrator demonstrated how affiliates can build the ransomware, we can see the administrator’s profile page, where their TOX ID is again visible in the corresponding field.
Figure 4 — Image uploaded by RaaS admin.
In the second shared image, we again observe the same TOX ID and see how the target or victim entry is supposed to look from an affiliate’s perspective.
Figure 5 — Image uploaded by RaaS admin.
Considering that the initial post was made by Zeta88, it is likely that this account belongs to the administrator and that their TOX ID is F8E24C7F5B12CD69C44C73F438F65E9BF560ADF35EBBDF92CF9A9B84079F8F04060FF98D098E. This assessment is based on the fact that the same TOX ID appears consistently across different contexts: in the early recruitment posts, in the onion data leak site (DLS), and in the screenshots showing the administrator’s profile and communication fields. Taken together, these overlaps strongly suggest that Zeta88, the later The Gentlemen account, and this TOX ID are all controlled by the same RaaS administrator.
RaaS Affiliates
Check Point Research collected most of the available artifacts related to The Gentlemen RaaS from online sources. Based on the current 412 public victims listed on the data leak site (DLS), and considering that there are likely additional victims who paid and therefore were not published, we identified 29 unique campaigns in public sources such as VirusTotal.
For each of these 29 campaigns, we extracted the TOX ID associated with the corresponding affiliate. Our analysis shows that these campaigns were conducted by 8 unique TOX IDs.
There are almost certainly more affiliates involved in this group, however, based on our current locker visibility, we can confidently confirm 29 discovered campaigns and ransomware samples.
Based on this small collection of samples, most of the campaigns appear to have been conducted by the affiliate using the TOX ID 98C132E2B20B531BE6604397D97040C1E9EB42FCE12EDF119BCE8B4031CA5C70DAF5E65FA3C3. It is also noteworthy that the RaaS administrator’s TOX ID has been observed in four unique infections. This suggests that the administrator not only manages the RaaS program but also actively participates in, or directly carries out, some of the infections.
RaaS Leak
On May 4th, 2026, on an underground forum, the RaaS administrator published a post acknowledging the claims of an internal leak involving their so‑called Rocket database, an internal backend system used to store operational data, and addressed his affiliates directly about the incident.
Figure 6 — The Gentlemen RaaS post.
The message continues in a dismissive tone toward the leak seller and then shifts focus back to “more interesting” topics. These include a full overhaul of the communication structure, the deployment of a new NAS with unlimited storage, and several technical upgrades to the locker, such as removing hardware breakpoints, performing NTDLL unhooking, and patching ETW to suppress Event Tracing for Windows.
Demanding ransom from a RaaS
On May 5th, 2026, the account n7778 with TOX ID 7862AE03A73AAC2994A61DF1F635347F2D1731A77CACC155594C6B681D201F7AD6817AD3AB0A advertised the sale of The Gentlemen’s hacked data on underground forums for 10,000 USD, payable in Bitcoin.
Figure 7 — Account selling The Gentlemen RaaS Data.
In the following days, the same account posted two MediaFire links containing proof files supporting the claimed leak.
Figure 8 — Partial leaks.
The first leaked data is a text file that contains the contents of the shadow file from The Gentlemen’s server, including user account entries and their password hashes. The file lists many usernames, among them zeta88, 3NT3R, B1d3n, C0CA, d0wnloAd1, equal1z3r, F3N1X, Gblog88, JLL, LDW, n0n3, PRTGRS, W1Z. Notably, we again see the zeta88 account, the same handle that was used in the initial underground post advertising the RaaS program, further linking this server to the RaaS administrator.
Figure 9 — shadow file content.
The second leaked data set contains partial conversations between the RaaS operators and their affiliates across several internal channels (such as INFO, general, TOOLS, and PODBOR). In these chats, they coordinate ongoing intrusions, exchange toolsets and EDR‑kill packages, discuss infrastructure and backend components, review CVEs and exploit paths, and talk about specific victims, campaigns, and payouts.
While the partial leaked data that we obtained is around 44.4 MB, a screenshot shared by the same account on another underground forum shows a total size of approximately 16.22 GB, which likely corresponds to the full leaked data set.
Figure 10 — Full leaked data screenshot.
Roles & Structure
The group appears to have a clear division of roles and responsibilities. At the core, the main operator and developer, zeta88 (most likely hastalamuerte), runs the infrastructure and builds and maintains the custom ransomware locker, the RaaS panel and builder (Linux with containers and a TOR front), as well as the GPO‑based spread mechanism and the locker’s “spread” module. This operator also curates toolsets in the TOOLS channel, including EDR kill kits and kiljalki collections, selects targets, and assigns them to specific teams, often talking about “targets”, “подбор” (selection) channels, and distributing corporate victims to groups of 2–3 people. In addition, they manage payouts and negotiations, including multi‑million ransom discussions (“переговоры на 10кк”).
Figure 11 — Image shared in the chats, zeta88 – Admin.
Considering our previous assessment that the RaaS administrator also runs campaigns himself (based on TOX IDs), the leaked chats reinforce this view: they show him personally deploying the locker and encrypting at least one victim’s environment.
Figure 12 — zeta88 locking message.
Often, messages sent by zeta88 appear to be copied or adapted from earlier messages made by hastalamuerte, and affiliates frequently mention hastalamuerte by name. Taken together with previous findings and earlier RaaS posts linked to zeta88, these patterns strongly suggest that hastalamuerte and zeta88 are very likely the same person.
Figure 13 — zeta88 – hastalamuerte message.
Below this core role, key operators or affiliates such as qbit and quant handle more hands‑on operational work. qbit is a practical operator on many cases, responsible for scanning and filtering Fortinet VPNs and other edge devices, performing reconnaissance and persistence (including “крепиться клаудом” (English: “to establish persistence via the cloud”) through Cloudflare tunnels or Zero Trust solutions), and using tools such as NetExec (NXC), RelayKing, PrivHound, and NTLM relay scanning. qbit frequently requests clear EDR killer sets, manuals, and guidance for locking ESXi environments, and also brings in new bot or access suppliers (“поставщик ботов”) (English: “supplier of bots”). quant focuses on log‑based access (“логи ЛБ”, i.e. spilled credentials for OWA/O365 and similar services) and maintains a custom log parser and proprietary credential/data collector, referred to as buildx641, which is run from a domain‑joined machine, uses vssadmin, shadow copies, ntds.dit, and SYSTEM copies, and collects and compresses data from multiple hosts. quant is oriented toward OW/OVA spam and higher‑value (“тир1”) (English: “tier‑1”) victims and has set up a powerful “brute server” (Threadripper PRO, 128 GB RAM, RTX 5090) for large‑scale brute forcing.
Around these core and key operators, there are several other accounts, including Wick, mAst3r, Protagor, Bl0ck, JeLLy, Kunder, and Mamba who take on various roles such as red‑teamers, advertising partners, access brokers, or case‑specific collaborators; for example, Protagor is mentioned in connection with OV (online vault/OWA‑type) spam, while Mamba acts as an access broker for Fortinet VPNs sourced from ramp.
Through this specific leak, we identified 9 unique accounts actively communicating with each other: Kunder, qbit, JeLLy, Protagor, zeta88, Bl0ck, Wick, quant, and mAst3r. This internal interaction pattern supports the view that these accounts form a coordinated operational network within The Gentlemen RaaS ecosystem. This number aligns with our earlier assessment based on the unique TOX IDs extracted from the ransomware lockers.
Group members collaborate on various infections and share the profits as well. As a result, the 90% share allocated to the affiliate is often split among multiple affiliates who worked together to achieve a successful intrusion.
Figure 14 — Collaboration and profit sharing.
Based on the analyzed chat messages, the organization’s structure appears to match the model shown in the following image. It is likely that additional members exist who do not appear in this specific leak, but the roles and relationships we observe here are consistent across the available data. There are also indications of an internal separation between trusted members and newcomers—for example, one message notes that “that Rocket is still alive – there are rookies there”—suggesting a tiered or layered structure within the group.
Figure 15 — Organization diagram.
Operational workflow
The conversations from the leak show a fairly standard but well‑organized operational workflow. The group claims to usually gain initial access through exposed edge devices such as VPN appliances, firewalls, and other internet-facing systems, with a particular focus on platforms like Fortinet FortiGate and Cisco. They combine different methods to achieve this, including credential brute‑forcing against web or VPN panels, exploiting known vulnerabilities, and buying access from third‑party “bot” or access brokers. Screenshots shared in the chats also show them searching for accounts and credentials in data‑breach search engines. Once they obtain a foothold, they treat these systems as pivots to move deeper into the internal network.
Figure 16 — Searching credentials & accounts.
After gaining access, the operators perform internal reconnaissance and privilege escalation to understand the environment and obtain higher-level permissions, often aiming for domain administrator access. They rely on a mixture of Active Directory discovery, certificate abuse, and various local privilege escalation techniques. At the same time, they invest significant effort into disabling or bypassing security tools such as EDR and antivirus solutions, using a combination of misconfigurations, registry abuse, logging mechanisms, and bring-your-own-vulnerable-driver–style (BYOD) techniques to tamper with or overwrite security binaries.
With elevated access and reduced defensive visibility, the group focuses on expanding across the network and preparing for the final stages of the attack. This includes lateral movement, establishing additional tunnels or proxies for reliable connectivity, and relaxing security settings to make further operations easier. They also harvest credentials and browser-based sessions to reuse existing access to corporate services. Data exfiltration is then carried out using automated tools and tuned configurations to move large volumes of data efficiently, often targeting NAS devices, backup systems, and virtualization infrastructure. Finally, once the environment is prepared and critical data is in their control, they deploy their custom ransomware “locker,” which is designed to spread quickly across the network, leverage existing administrator sessions, and encrypt systems in a coordinated manner.
Tools & Infra
The leaked conversations show that The Gentlemen RaaS operators use a repeatable and fairly mature toolset to support their operations. For remote access and C2, they rely on frameworks like ZeroPulse and Velociraptor, combined with Cloudflare-based tunnels and custom VPN setups to keep stable access into compromised networks. For offensive operations, they use a range of red‑team utilities such as NetExec, RelayKing, TaskHound, PrivHound, CertiHound, and others to perform Active Directory discovery, certificate abuse, privilege escalation, and file share discovery. A separate group of tools is dedicated to EDR and AV evasion, including EDRStartupHinder, gfreeze, glinker, and DumpBrowserSecrets, as well as techniques inspired by public research on abusing Windows logging and Event Tracing for Windows (ETW). Finally, they support these activities with infrastructure and helper tools like port scanners (gogo.exe), usage guides, OSINT extensions, and password‑cracking services, which together give them a reusable framework for running repeated intrusions and ransomware deployments.
Category
Tool / Resource
Purpose / Usage
Reference / Notes
C2 / Remote Access
ZeroPulse
Remote access / C2 framework for controlling compromised hosts.
https://github.com/jxroot/ZeroPulse
C2 / Remote Access
Velociraptor
Used as a covert C2 platform, including memory and LSASS dumping.
Often used with signed builds to reduce detection.
C2 / Remote Access
Cloudflare Zero Trust / Tunnels
Provides stealthy tunnels into victim networks over HTTPS.
The leaked chats show that the group pays close attention to other ransomware operations, including the leaked Black Basta negotiations. In particular, they discuss Black Basta’s approach to code signing and note how that group allegedly used VirusTotal to search for legitimate code‑signing certificates, which were then targeted for brute‑force attacks on their private keys. The Gentlemen actors refer to this technique as a model they can reuse or adapt, highlighting their interest in abusing trusted certificates to make their binaries look legitimate and harder to detect.
Figure 17 — Code signing conversations.
AI mentions
The Gentlemen mention AI usage in multiple channels and for various purposes. While it is clear that they have already used AI for code‑assisted development, including experiments with Chinese models, more advanced use cases—such as locally deploying models to analyze large volumes of exfiltrated victim data—are only discussed at a conceptual level. These ideas are suggested in the chats but do not appear to be fully implemented.
zeta88 states that he built the GLOCKER admin panel in three days using AI‑assisted coding. He is candid about the limitations of this approach, noting that while AI can speed up development, you still need to understand what you are doing and be able to guide and correct the code it produces.
Figure 18 — zeta88 “vibe-coded” the Panel.
Members share their AI preferences across different chats. zeta88 states that he finds DeepSeek, Qwen, Kimi, and Emi the most effective models for his purposes, particularly for coding assistance and technical queries.
Figure 19 — AI preferences.
He also suggests adding more Chinese LLMs to their toolkit, in addition to those they are already considering or using, such as DeepSeek and Qwen.
Figure 20 — Chinese LLMs suggestions.
A couple of months later, qbit shares in the INFO channel their recommendation for “the most radical neural network, which creates any content without censorship. Runs on Qwen 3.5 with all barriers removed… Zero refusals. Absolutely no restrictions.”
Figure 21 — Qwen 3.5 post.
zeta88 directs affiliates to use AI as a quick reference—for example, to look up FortiGate internals—rather than asking in the channel.
Figure 22 — Usage of AI as quick reference.
For more challenging tasks such as operational data analysis, identifying high‑value access points, and offloading much of the manual data‑triage work to an AI model, the operators explicitly discuss using an uncensored, self‑hosted LLM. However these suggestions appear to remain theoretical, as Protagor admits, “I have no idea how to do that, but I think it’s possible.”
Figure 23 — Local, self-hosted LLM.
Screenshot shared in the chats shows an LLM response on how to send an email to all users via the Jira admin interface, in Russian. It describes two methods, mainly using Jira Automation and user groups.
Figure 24 — Screenshot shared in the chats.
The group appears to be experimenting with well‑known Chinese LLMs and has considered using locally hosted models to assist with data triage on stolen information.
CVEs and Exploits
While the group discusses these vulnerabilities, shares related links, and occasionally attempts to exploit specific systems using particular CVEs, we cannot confirm whether the targeted machines were actually vulnerable to the exact vulnerabilities they referenced.
CVE-2024-55591 – FortiOS management interface
This vulnerability affects the FortiOS management interface and fits directly into their broader focus on Fortinet appliances as high‑value initial access points. While the chats do not show detailed exploitation steps, the presence of this CVE alongside their FortiGate targeting suggests it is part of the set of vulnerabilities they track for potential use against exposed management interfaces.
In the logs, qbit shares a proof-of-concept (PoC) for CVE-2025-32433, and zeta88 comments on its quality and applicability. This shows that the group is not simply aware of the CVE but is actively evaluating whether it can be used in real operations, specifically in environments where Cisco or Erlang-based SSH services are exposed. Even if they are cautious about PoC reliability, the discussion confirms that this vulnerability is part of their potential exploit toolkit.
Figure 26 — qbit & zeta88 related posts.
CVE-2025-33073 – NTLM reflection / NTLM relay
qbit references RelayKing and shares output showing domains being scanned for NTLM relay issues, including checks that explicitly cover CVE-2025-33073. This is strong evidence that they are not just reading about the vulnerability but have integrated RelayKing into their standard reconnaissance process to generate target lists for tools like ntlmrelayx. In other words, CVE-2025-33073 is a vulnerability they actively scan for and intend to exploit as part of broader NTLM relay workflows.
Figure 27 — Mention of CVE-2025-33073.
Other Exploit Paths (Without Explicit CVE IDs)
The operators also make heavy use of technique-based exploits where no specific CVE number is mentioned in the chats. These include:
MSI service abuse via RegPwn, used for privilege escalation.
Veeam to domain admin paths, based on public write‑ups about misconfigured backup infrastructure.
iDRAC to domain admin paths, leveraging Dell iDRAC weaknesses.
WPR, AutoLogger, and ETW manipulation techniques documented by zerosalarium and others to overwrite or disable security binaries.
Payments & Negotiations
Zeta88 acts as the organizer/administrator, distributing cryptocurrency payouts to team members (including those who are “AFK”) and advising on how to cash out proceeds via Bitcoin wallets (Guarda, Trust Wallet, Exodus). The group discusses AML (Anti-Money Laundering) evasion strategies. Zeta88 sends a BTC transaction to Kunder as a payout, which Kunder confirms receiving.
Figure 28 — Transaction link shared.
The specific mentions of how they handle Bitcoin laundering/cash out:
Exchange Chains (“связки обмена”) Zeta88 mentions running ~800 transactions through “buy desks” (скупов) via exchange chains, or sometimes sending directly, suggesting chain-hopping to obscure transaction origins.
AML Checking They discuss whether their BTC is “clean” and reference a buyer who actively checks AML scores before transacting. They’re uncertain how the scoring works but are aware their coins could be traced.
Tinkoff QR Code Cash-Out A specific method mentioned: a buyer converts BTC to cash via Tinkoff bank QR codes, with minimums of 400k rubles (previously 250k). This converts crypto directly to Russian banking infrastructure.
Physical Cash Delivery Kunder mentions “locking in the rate” and a guy physically bringing cash at the end of the month, a classic peer-to-peer OTC (over-the-counter) arrangement that bypasses exchanges entirely.
Wallet Infrastructure They recommend non-custodial wallets (Guarda, Trust Wallet, Exodus) specifically to avoid KYC/AML controls that centralized exchanges enforce.
Blurry screenshots from the leak also shed light on the financial side of the operation. Although not fully legible, they appear to show a negotiation where the group secured approximately 190,000 USD after a discount of about 60,000 USD from the initial ransom demand.
Figure 29 — Agreement to pay 190,000 USD.
zeta88 is very aware of the importance of maximizing pressure on extorted victims to increase the chances of payment. In his private channel, he drafts a generic follow‑up letter that can be adapted to any company, emphasizing the costs of not paying the ransom, including regulatory exposure, reputational damage, and operational impact, and citing assessments from previous attacks. This is not the standard ransom note deployed alongside the encryption, but an additional, more tailored communication intended to reinforce the pressure on the victim.
Figure 30 — Negotiation playbook.
Interesting Negotiation Case
In a high‑profile attack in April 2026, a software consultancy company from United Kingdom publicly reported a breach. The company’s leadership stated in an open letter that only “typical business data, including business contact information, contracts, and NDAs related to client work” had been accessed.
From what appears to be a personal channel used by zeta88, he drafts a ransom demand letter addressed to the UK company, detailing what The Gentlemen claim to have exfiltrated, including customer infrastructure data, secrets, OAuth credentials, and more. The letter explicitly emphasizes potential GDPR violations as leverage to pressure the victim into paying.
Figure 31 — Ransom note.
Two weeks later, the group published the consultancy’s identity and breach details on their data leak site (DLS). According to the internal chats, data exfiltrated from the consultancy was then reused both before and during attacks against a company in Turkey, where The Gentlemen gained initial access via a vulnerable VPN appliance.
Figure 32 — Forti access to company in Turkey.
zeta88 ran this operation alongside Protagor, creating a backdoor Okta service account himself—typical of his intensive, hands‑on involvement in many of the intrusions documented in the leaked discussions. During the same campaign, zeta88 explicitly references data from the UK consultancy breach to cross‑reference and enrich information about the Turkish company, illustrating how prior compromises are used to enrich and support new attacks.
Figure 33 — UK company containing information for Turkish company.
One example mentioned was an internal “Transfer/Migration Document” (in the local language), an internal project document the consultancy maintained in its own collaboration platform describing work they did for the company in Turkey. This document, stolen in the first breach, was then used in the second.
The group discussed how best to use this access for extortion. In their internal chats, they talked about publishing the company from Turkey on their DLS together with a statement that, The access to the company in Turkey was obtained through the compromised consultancy from United Kingdom.
Figure 34 — DLS statement discussions.
This served a dual purpose:
Punishing the consultancy (UK), which the actors described as “a very bad company.”
Increasing pressure on the company in Turkey, by promising to show exactly how they gained access so that, the Turkish would be encouraged to legally pursue the consultancy in UK.
Figure 35 — Initial access proof.
Eventually, the Turkish company was published on the group’s DLS, and the attackers “credited” the consultancy in UK as their “access broker”.
Their View of Other RaaS Programs and Actors
The actors consistently frame the RaaS ecosystem through the lenses of brand strength, payout reliability, and affiliate leverage (percentage splits and control over negotiations). Among the programs mentioned, they clearly distinguish a small “top tier” from a broader landscape of lesser or untrusted players.
Program / Group
Things Discussed
Subjective Sentiment (Their View)
HelloKitty
Name/brand as something they’d like to use; jokes about linking to the real Hello Kitty site and putting (R) everywhere; described explicitly as a “мощный бренд”.
Very positive on brand strength and recognition; sees it as a powerful marketing asset.
Kraken
Mention that “товарищи кракен” wrote to qbit; qbit later says their team might “move” over to zeta88’s side.
Neutral‑pragmatic; current or past orbit, but clearly willing to switch away for better options.
Dragon Force
One of only two programs zeta88 would choose from “all presented”; explicitly says they pay both operators and adverts; only negative comments heard were about their software/panel.
Strongly positive overall; trusted, in the top tier of programs they respect.
Gunra
Listed among candidate PPs for a supplier; zeta88 says “че эт ваще такое…”, and lumps it with Hyflock; calls the operator “этот мудень”.
Negative; unserious / low‑relevance; clear disdain for the operator.
Hyflock
Same context as Gunra; zeta88 dismisses it in the same breath as Gunra, with the same derogatory comment about the person behind it.
Negative; grouped with Gunra as not to be taken seriously.
ShadowByt3$ RAAS
Appears in the candidate list; zeta88 simply comments “хз” (doesn’t know).
Neutral; no formed opinion, neither trust nor distrust expressed.
Anubis
Appears in the candidate list; zeta88 asks “% видел он?”, focusing on what percentage they take.
Cautious / skeptical; interest hinges on profit split; no clear positive trust.
CHAOS
Appears in the candidate list; zeta88 asks whether they will still take that supplier (“возьмут ли они его еще”).
Uncertain; doubts about acceptance / relationship continuity; not a clearly preferred option.
LockBit (tooling)
quant asks what a локбит тулза actually is (builder or decryptor), notes he has not opened it; no explicit evaluation of the group itself.
Curious but cautious; tooling is not trusted or fully understood yet; no explicit sentiment on LockBit group.
Black Basta / Devman
quant asks if “блек баста это девман”; zeta88 speaks harshly about “David” and his link to Devman, calls him “мудак” and “чепуха”, wishes them невыплат (non‑payment).
Strongly negative but personalized; animosity toward David/Devman rather than a structured view of the RaaS.
“Red team” / Mr Beng cluster
Mentions Редтим=красный лотос=арсен=баламут=студент and “мистер БЕНГ”; mocks offer of 15k for “source code” of a C2 built on top of white tools (Velociraptor, etc.); ridicules this as overpriced and based on legitimate software.
Negative; sees them as overpriced grifters repackaging white tools with heavy marketing.
Conclusion
The Gentlemen RaaS program has quickly evolved into a highly active and structured ransomware ecosystem. With over 320 public victims in 2026 and hundreds more systems visible through related infrastructure, it stands among the most productive RaaS operations that maintain a public data‑leak presence. The leaked Rocket backend and internal chats show that this scale is driven not by a loose crowd, but by a small, tightly coordinated core of about 9 named operators and at least 8 distinct affiliate TOX IDs, all organized around the administrator zeta88 / hastalamuerte, who both runs the platform and participates directly in operations.
The leak reveals a repeatable, human‑operated ransomware playbook: initial access through exposed edge infrastructure (such as VPNs and management interfaces), rapid expansion and privilege escalation, heavy investment in EDR/AV evasion and ETW/logging tampering, and systematic use of shared tools for discovery, lateral movement, credential theft, and data exfiltration. The group actively tracks and evaluates modern vulnerabilities, including CVE-2024-55591, CVE-2025-32433, and CVE-2025-33073and combines them with technique‑driven paths like backup and management‑controller abuse and NTLM relay workflows, giving them a flexible exploitation pipeline.
Overall, The Gentlemen exemplifies how contemporary RaaS programs blend productized ransomware with professional intrusion teams. A small, well‑organized set of operators, supported by curated tooling, structured communication channels, and up‑to‑date exploit knowledge, can generate substantial impact in a short time. For defenders, this underscores the need to harden internet‑facing services, close known misconfigurations and relay paths, and monitor for the specific tools, workflows, and TOX‑based communication patterns tied to this group.
Consolidation after peak fragmentation: The top 10 ransomware groups accounted for 71% of all Q1 2026 victims, a sharp reversal from the fragmentation seen in Q3 2025. The ransomware ecosystem is once again consolidating around fewer, more dominant operators.
Volume stabilization at historically high levels: There were 2,122 victims posted on data leak sites (DLS), making this period the second-highest Q1 on record. The long growth trend is stabilizing.
Qilin’s sustained dominance: Qilin maintained its position as the most prominent ransomware operation for the third consecutive quarter, posting 338 victims.
The Gentlemen is the breakout story of Q1 2026 reaching the third place on the global ransomware list, increasing their victim count from 40 victims in Q4 2025 to 166 in Q1 2026.
LockBit 5.0 comeback confirmed: LockBit posted 163 victims in Q1 2026, climbing to fourth place.
Ransomware in Q1 2026: Consolidation at Scale
During the first quarter of 2026, we monitored more than 70 active data leak sites (DLS) that collectively listed 2,122 new victims. This figure represents a 12.2% decline from the Q4 2025 all-time record of 2,416 victims but remains the second-highest Q1 on record at 117% above Q1 2024 (977 victims) and is keeping in line with the elevated baseline established through 2025.
Figure 1 – Total number of reported ransomware victims in DLS, per month (Jun 2024 – Mar 2026).
Monthly volumes within Q1 were consistently stable: in January there were 732 recorded victims, 684 in February, and 706 in March. This reflects a sustained operating rate of an average of 707 victims per month in Q1 2026.
The headline year-over-year (YoY) comparison shows a 7.1% decline from the 2,285 victims in Q1 2025. However, this comparison is misleading as the Q1 2025 numbers were heavily inflated by Cl0p’s Cleo mass-exploitation campaign which contributed approximately 390 victims in a single burst. If we exclude Cl0p from both periods, there were 1,894 victims in Q1 2025 versus 1,995 in Q1 2026, an actual YoY increase of 5.3%. The underlying growth trend in ransomware operations persists, even as the most dramatic spikes subside.
From fragmentation to consolidation
The most significant structural development seen in Q1 2026 is not the volume of attacks but the consolidation of the different operators conducting them. After two years of steady fragmentation, during which the number of active groups grew from 51 in Q1 2024 to a peak of 85 in Q3 2025 and the Top-10 share of victims fell from 68% to 57%, the ecosystem has decisively reversed course.
In Q1 2026, the top 10 groups accounted for 71.1% of all DLS-posted victims, which is the highest concentration since Q1 2024 when the ecosystem was far smaller. The number of active groups shrank from 85 to 71. Fourteen groups that were active in Q4 2025 disappeared entirely, while 21 new names appeared. However, most of the newcomers posted fewer than 10 victims, failing to take advantage of the disappearance of established mid-tier operators.
This is a common pattern repeated throughout the ecosystem’s history: law enforcement actions disrupt the ransomware market, affiliates scatter, and survivors who avoid disruption absorb the displaced talent pool and grow. Groups such as Qilin, Akira, The Gentlemen, and LockBit, who together claimed 41% of all victims in Q1, capitalized on the instability of their competitors. In Q1 2026, Qilin alone posted more victims than the combined output of the bottom 50 groups.
This dynamic carries implications beyond statistics. The consolidation of the ecosystem around fewer, more dominant operators changes its character. Larger RaaS brands invest in operational consistency, including functional decryption tools, because their business model depends on the perception that victim payment results in data recovery. In contrast, the ransomware fragmentation we saw in 2025 introduced dozens of transient operators with no such incentive to invest any effort in decryption. An example is Obscura, whose encryption bug renders files over 1 GB permanently unrecoverable regardless of payment. For defenders and incident responders, consolidation means facing fewer but more capable adversaries.
Figure 2 – Top 10 ransomware groups by number of publicly claimed victims – Q1 2026.
Notable surges and declines
Comparing the data between Q4 2025 and Q1 2026 reveals which groups are absorbing the affiliate talent pool, and which are failing to take advantage of it.
Surges:
The Gentlemen grew by 315%, going from 40 claimed victims to 166, making them the biggest story of Q1 2026, covered in detail below.
LockBit 5.0 activity increased by 106%, from 79 victims to 163.
Nightspire, a closed-group operation with OneDrive cloud encryption capability, expanded by 183% from 29 victims to 82, sustaining growth across two consecutive quarters.
Play posted a 64% increase, going from 74 victims to 121.
Declines:
SafePay fell by 77%, going from 97 victims to 22. SafePay is a centralized, non-RaaS operation whose DLS was marked inactive from mid-March 2026 through early April for unknown reasons.
Devman declined by 70%, from 82 victims to 25. The ransomware’s operator “Tramp”, a former Conti and Black Basta affiliate, was added to Interpol’s wanted list in January 2026. All three DLS sites went offline by early February.
Sinobi dropped by 42%, from 139 victims to 80. After a strong January (56 victims), activity collapsed to just 7 victims in March. As of the time of this publication, no postings were recorded in April.
Figure 3 – Interpol’s Red Notice for Devman’s operator, Nefedov.
Actor Spotlight: The Gentlemen – The Breakout Story of Q1 2026
The Gentlemen is the most significant new ransomware operation to emerge in recent months. Going from zero victims in August 2025 to 166 in Q1 2026, the group achieved third place globally through a combination of pre-existing access stockpiles, aggressive geographic diversification, and a deliberate rejection of the traditional US-centric targeting model.
Figure 4 – The Gentlemen monthly victim trajectory, February peak: 82 victims in a single month.
Origins: A Qilin defection
The Gentlemen was founded by a threat actor known as Hastalamuerte – an experienced Qilin affiliate, who left the Qilin RaaS program following a dispute over an unpaid commission of approximately $48,000. This explains both its rapid operational capability and its sophistication: the operators started with established tradecraft, tooling, and, crucially, a stockpile of pre-compromised access.
The FortiGate stockpile
The group’s most distinctive asset is a cache of approximately 14,700 pre-exploited FortiGate devices, exploited primarily via CVE-2024-55591 (a critical authentication bypass in FortiOS/FortiProxy). In addition to the exploited devices, the operators maintain 969 validated brute-forced FortiGate VPN credentials ready for attack. This stockpile provides The Gentlemen with a supply of ready-to-use initial access tools far exceeding what typical RaaS affiliates acquire through real-time exploitation or access broker purchases.
How was this stockpile acquired? According to this report, Hastalamuerte was an experienced affiliate who had previously worked with Embargo, LockBit, and Medusa before joining Qilin. Before creating their own RaaS platform, The Gentlemen’s operators “experimented with various affiliate models used by other prominent ransomware groups.” The 14,700-device inventory likely predates the group’s September 2025 launch. Publishing 38 victims within weeks of beginning operation strongly suggests pre-existing access in the form of a massive number of compromised devices rather than real-time exploitation.
A non-Western targeting model
The Gentlemen’s geographic distribution is a striking outlier. Only 13.3% of its victims are based in the United States, compared to the ecosystem average of 49.6%. Thailand (10.8%), Brazil (6.0%), and India (4.2%) all feature prominently on their victim list.
This may reflect the geographic distribution of exploitable FortiGate devices; the group attacks where it has pre-positioned access, and that access happens to be concentrated in APAC and Latin American networks. This is an infrastructure-driven pattern rather than a deliberate targeting strategy: the operators did not choose Thailand or Brazil based on strategic preference but are exploiting access they already have.
However, we cannot exclude a secondary factor: deliberate avoidance of US targets to reduce law enforcement risk. The Gentlemen is a Russian-speaking operation founded by an affiliate who already experienced the consequences of ransomware ecosystem disputes. The decision to exploit a globally distributed stockpile while bypassing US devices – if that is what is occurring – would represent rational risk management given the heightened US law enforcement posture.
LockBit 5.0: Making a Comeback
LockBit posted 163 victims in Q1 2026 (an increase of 106% compared to Q4 2025), climbing from outside the top 10 to fourth place globally. After an initial surge of 85 victims in January (likely to reflect the accumulation of access during the pre-launch period), activity dipped to just 33 victims in February before climbing back to 45 in March. This dip-and-recovery trajectory is characteristic of a program rebuilding its affiliate base instead of exhausting a one-time stockpile, assuming these are genuine reports and not recycled or fictional reports.
Until its takedown in early 2024, LockBit was the most dominant RaaS operation globally, responsible for 20–30% of all data-leak site victim postings. Following Operation Cronos, several arrests and data seizures disrupted the group’s infrastructure.
The new LockBit 5.0 was officially launched on the RAMP underground forum in September 2025, coinciding with the sixth anniversary of the operation. The new version introduced multi-platform support (Windows, Linux, ESXi), enhanced evasion and anti-analysis mechanisms, faster encryption routines, and randomized 16-character file extensions to disrupt signature-based detection. New affiliates were required to provide a Bitcoin deposit of approximately $500.
Geographic diversification: from US dominance to global spread
LockBit’s geographic targeting has undergone a dramatic and measurable shift since its last appearance. Historically, the United States accounted for over 50% of LockBit’s victims – consistent with the ecosystem-wide baseline. In Q1 2026, US victims represented just 21.2% of LockBit’s total, with Italy (8.6%), Brazil (8.6%), and Turkey (5.1%) picking up the slack.
The shift away from US victims is new. Despite no documented forum announcements, the circumstantial evidence is strong: the direction is specifically toward non-US and European nations or countries with less aggressive behavior toward ransomware operators such as Italy, Brazil, and Turkey. The result is a nearly 30-percentage-point (pp) drop in US-based victims, despite an overall 106% increase in victims compared to Q4 2025.
The reaction to law enforcement actions may not result in a lower overall attack volume, but operators such as LockBitSUpp appear to be trying to redirect their activity away from the enforcing jurisdictions. Whether this represents a deliberate strategic decision or an emergent consequence of attracting affiliates from different geographic backgrounds remains an open question.
DragonForce: The Cartel Model Under Pressure
DragonForce posted 101 victims in Q1 2026 (an increase of 29% compared to Q4 2025), with a steep climb from 10 victims in January to 35 in February and 56 in March. This trajectory suggests an operation gaining momentum rather than depleting stockpiled access.
DragonForce continues to distinguish itself through its public relations strategy and “cartel” branding, positioning itself as an umbrella organization for multiple sub-brands. However, our investigation indicates that the cartel model is smaller than advertised:
Devman, which split from DragonForce in July 2025, saw their victim totals collapse from 82 (Q4 2025) to 25 (Q1 2026). Twenty-four of those victims were posted in January.
Coinbase Cartel, initially reported as a DragonForce sub-brand, has been independently linked to the ShinyHunters operation by Bitdefender.
Obscura, cited as a potential cartel member, posted only around 20 victims in total.
DragonForce’s technical capabilities remain genuine with multi-platform support and the group actively recruits affiliates. Its data audit service, which analyzes stolen datasets exceeding 300 GB to identify the most valuable information for extortion leverage, represents genuine innovation in the extortion model. However, the broader cartel narrative appears to be more marketing than substance.
Geographic Distribution of Victims – Q1 2026
The geographic distribution of ransomware victims in Q1 2026 maintains the fundamental pattern established over previous quarters: the United States accounts for just under half of all reported cases (49.6%), with Western developed economies making up the clear majority of targets.
Figure 6 – Top 10 targeted countries, Q1 2026.
The most notable development is Thailand’s entry into the top 10 for the first time, driven almost entirely by The Gentlemen, for whom Thai organizations constitute 10.8% of total victims. Taiwan also rose sharply (from 8 victims to 26), while South Korea dropped out entirely. This confirms that Qilin’s Q3 2025 financial sector campaign targeting 30 South Korean organizations was a one-off event rather than a sustained targeting shift.
Per-Actor Geographic Targeting: Distinct Patterns
A per-actor analysis of the top 20 groups’ country distributions reveals that the ecosystem-level averages mask dramatically different targeting strategies. We identified six distinct geographic patterns by measuring each actor’s deviation from the 49.6% US baseline.
Pattern 1 – Extreme US focus (>75% US). These actors target the United States at rates far exceeding the ecosystem average:
Play (85.1% US) operates as a closed group with a Russia-nexus lineage and centralized target selection that consistently prefers US organizations.
Sinobi (76.2% US) explicitly targets US mid-market manufacturing and construction.
Genesis (93.1% US) whose near-exclusive US focus (27 of 29 confirmed victims) and emphasis on the Healthcare sector (20.7%) is striking for an emerging actor with no documented affiliate program.
Pattern 2 – Deliberate US avoidance (<25% US). These actors are going in the opposite direction:
Tengu (11.4% US) is the most geographically diversified actor in the top 20, with victims spread across Indonesia (8.6%), Mexico (8.6%), India (6.9%), and Italy (5.8%).
LockBit (21.5% US) represents deliberate post-disruption diversification, as discussed above.
Pattern 3 – Vulnerability related distribution:
Cl0p’s geographic anomalies (18.1% Canada and 8.7% Australia). Cl0p’s traditional mass exploitation campaigns produce victim distributions that mirror the installed base of the exploited software, in this case EBS campaign (CVE-2025-61882).
The Gentlemen (13.3% US) reflects the geographic distribution of its approximately 14,700-device FortiGate access stockpile, which is concentrated in Thailand (10.8%), Brazil (6%), and India (4.2%).
Country-Level Actor Dominance: When One Group Shapes a Nation’s Threat Profile
Flipping the analysis from “which countries does an actor target” to “which actors dominate each country” reveals an even more striking picture. Several countries’ entire ransomware threat profiles are defined by a single actor’s operational choices.
Single-actor-shaped countries:
Country
Dominant actor
Share
Thailand
The Gentlemen
53%
Argentina
Qilin
39%
Mexico
LockBit
37%
Australia
Cl0p
34%
Switzerland
Akira
31%
Brazil
LockBit
31%
Thailand’s case is the most extreme: more than half of all Thai ransomware victims are claimed by The Gentlemen. Without this single group, Thailand would not even appear in the top-10 most-attacked countries. Similarly, without Cl0p’s Oracle EBS campaign, Australia and Canada would show substantially lower victim counts. These findings underscore that country-level ransomware statistics are frequently shaped by one actor’s specific access inventory, software exploitation campaign, or strategic redirection – not by broad shifts in the threat landscape.
Multi-actor convergence countries. Two countries stand out for having three or more actors independently converging to create unusually diverse threat environments:
Turkey (23 victims): LockBit (6 victims) + DragonForce (5 victims) + The Gentlemen (5 victims), 70% of Turkey’s victim totals are due to the activity of just three actors.
Japan (21 victims): The Gentlemen (6 victims) + Everest (4 victims) + Nightspire (3 victims). = 62% of the victims are due to three distinct actors. Both The Gentlemen and Nightspire exploit the same FortiGate vulnerability (CVE-2024-55591).
Ransomware Attacks by Industry – Q1 2026
The industry distribution of ransomware victims in Q1 2026 shows continued cross-sector impact, with a few notable concentrations.
Figure 7 – Ransomware victims by industry, Q1 2026.
As with geographic patterns, ecosystem-level industry averages mask fundamentally different targeting strategies at the actor level. A per-actor analysis of the top 20 groups reveals that sector selection is driven by at least three distinct observations.
Software footprint targeting. Cl0p’s 53.5% Business Services concentration (+18.6 percentage points above baseline) does not reflect a preference for professional services firms. It reflects the user base of Oracle EBS, the enterprise application exploited in the Q1 2026 campaign. Mass exploitation campaigns produce industry distributions that mirror the deployment pattern of the exploited software. This is the same dynamic observed in Cl0p’s geographic analysis, where Canada and Australia were over-represented because of Oracle EBS adoption.
Operational disruption maximization. Akira’s targeting of Consumer Goods (23.9%, +9.8 percentage points above baseline) and Industrial Manufacturing (17.8%, +6.7 percentage points above baseline), a combined 41.7% versus the 25.1% baseline, is consistent with an economically optimized model. These sectors share high downtime costs (production lines, supply chain dependencies) and complex IT/OT environments that make recovery without decryption keys extremely difficult. With $244 million in total proceeds and a 34% share of IR engagements, Akira’s sector selection reflects deliberate targeting of firms where the pressure to pay is greatest. This is not opportunistic; it’s the Conti lineage playbook applied to the sectors where it generates the highest return per incident.
Anubis stands apart from all other top-20 actors in its willingness to target healthcare (13.0%, +8.3 percentage points above baseline) and critical infrastructure (8.7%, +7.7 percentage points above baseline).
Conclusion
In Q1 2026, the ransomware ecosystem entered a new phase. After two years of steady fragmentation, the market is reconsolidating around a smaller number of dominant operators. Qilin, Akira, The Gentlemen, and LockBit together account for 41% of all victims. Domination by the top-10 actors has returned to levels not seen since early 2024.
This consolidation is not a return to the previous state. The emerging dominant groups are more technically capable, more geographically diversified, and more resilient to disruption than their predecessors. At the same time, the economic foundations of ransomware are showing signs of stress. Payment rates have fallen to historic lows. Mass data-theft campaigns are generating diminishing returns. The gap between the growing number of DLS-posted victims (2,122 in Q1 2026) and the declining monetization per victim may accelerate the current consolidation squeezing out operators who cannot achieve sufficient scale or sophistication to remain profitable.
The percentage of ICS computers on which malicious objects were blocked has been decreasing since the beginning of 2024. In Q4 2025, it was 19.7%. Over the past three years, the percentage has decreased by 1.36 times, and by 1.25 times since Q4 2023.
Percentage of ICS computers on which malicious objects were blocked, Q1 2023–Q4 2025
Regionally, in Q4 2025, the percentage of ICS computers on which malicious objects were blocked ranged from 8.5% in Northern Europe to 27.3% in Africa.
Regions ranked by percentage of ICS computers on which malicious objects were blocked
Four regions saw an increase in the percentage of ICS computers on which malicious objects were blocked. The most notable increases occurred in Southern Europe and South Asia. In Q3 2025, East Asia experienced a sharp increase triggered by the local spread of malicious scripts, but the figure has since returned to normal.
Changes in percentage of ICS computers on which malicious objects were blocked, Q4 2025
Feature of the quarter: worms in email
In Q4 2025, the percentage of ICS computers on which wormsinemailattachments were blocked increasedinallregions of the world.
Many of the blocked threats were related to the worm Backdoor.MSIL.XWorm. This malware is designed to persist on the system and then remotely control it.
Interestingly, this threat was not detected on ICS computers in the previous quarter, yet it appeared in all regions in Q4 2025.
A study found that the active spread of Backdoor.MSIL.XWorm via phishing emails was likely linked to the use by hackers of another malware obfuscation technique that was actively used during massive phishing campaigns in Q4 2025. These campaigns have been known since 2024 as “Curriculum-vitae-catalina”.
The attackers distributed phishing emails to HR managers, recruiters, and employees responsible for hiring. The messages were disguised as responses from job applicants with subjects such as “Resume” or “Attached Resume” and contained a malicious executable file under the guise of a curriculum vitae. Typically, the file was named Curriculum Vitae-Catalina.exe. When executed, it infected the system.
In Q4 2025, the threat spread across regions in two waves — one in October and another in November. Russia, Western Europe, South America, and North America (Canada) were attacked in October. A spike in Backdoor.MSIL.XWorm blocking was observed in other regions in November. The attack subsided in all regions in December.
The highest percentage of ICS computers on which Backdoor.MSIL.XWorm was blocked was observed in regions where threats from email clients had been historically blocked at high rates on ICS computers: Southern Europe, South America, and the Middle East.
At the same time, in Africa, where USB storage media are still actively used, the threat was also detected when removable devices were connected to ICS computers.
Selected industries
The biometrics sector has historically led the rankings of industries and OT infrastructures surveyed in this report in terms of the percentage of ICS computers on which malicious objects were blocked.
These systems are characterized by accessibility to and from the internet, as well as minimal cybersecurity controls by the consumer organization.
Rankings of industries and OT infrastructure by percentage of ICS computers on which malicious objects were blocked
In Q4 2025, the percentage of ICS computers on which malicious objects were blocked increased only in one sector: oil and gas. The corresponding figures increased in two regions: Russia, and Central Asia and the South Caucasus.
However, if we look at a broader time span, there is a downward trend in all the surveyed industries.
Percentage of ICS computers on which malicious objects were blocked in selected industries
Diversity of detected malicious objects
In Q4 2025, Kaspersky protection solutions blocked malware from 10,142 different malware families of various categories on industrial automation systems.
Percentage of ICS computers on which the activity of malicious objects from various categories was blocked
In Q4 2025, there was an increase in the percentage of ICS computers on which worms, and miners in the form of executable files for Windows were blocked. These were the only categories that exhibited an increase.
Main threat sources
Depending on the threat detection and blocking scenario, it is not always possible to reliably identify the source. The circumstantial evidence for a specific source can be the blocked threat’s type (category).
The internet (visiting malicious or compromised internet resources; malicious content distributed via messengers; cloud data storage and processing services and CDNs), email clients (phishing emails), and removable storage devices remain the primary sources of threats to computers in an organization’s technology infrastructure.
In Q4 2025, the percentage of ICS computers on which malicious objects from various sources were blocked decreased. All sources except email clients saw their lowest levels in three years.
Percentage of ICS computers on which malicious objects from various sources were blocked
The same computer can be attacked by several categories of malware from the same source during a quarter. That computer is counted when calculating the percentage of attacked computers for each threat category, but is only counted once for the threat source (we count unique attacked computers). In addition, it is not always possible to accurately determine the initial infection attempt. Therefore, the total percentage of ICS computers on which various categories of threats from a certain source were blocked can exceed the percentage of computers affected by the source itself.
In Q4 2025, the percentage of ICS computers on which threats from the internet were blocked decreased to 7.67% and reached its lowest level since the beginning of 2023. The main categories of internet threats are malicious scripts and phishing pages, and denylisted internet resources. The percentage ranged from 3.96% in Northern Europe to 11.33% in South Asia.
The main categories of threats from email clients blocked on ICS computers were malicious scripts and phishing pages, spyware, and malicious documents. Most of the spyware detected in phishing emails was delivered as a password archive or a multi-layered script embedded in office document files. The percentage of ICS computers on which threats from email clients were blocked ranged from 0.64% in Northern Europe to 6.34% in Southern Europe.
The main categories of threats that were blocked when removable media was connected to ICS computers were worms, viruses, and spyware. The percentage of ICS computers on which threats from removable media were blocked ranged from 0.05% in Australia and New Zealand to 1.41% in Africa.
The main categories of threats that spread through network folders in Q4 2025 were viruses, AutoCAD malware, worms, and spyware. The percentage of ICS computers on which threats from network folders were blocked ranged from 0.01% in Northern Europe to 0.18% in East Asia.
Threat categories
Typical attacks blocked within an OT network are multi-step sequences of malicious activities, where each subsequent step of the attackers is aimed at increasing privileges and/or gaining access to other systems by exploiting the security problems of industrial enterprises, including OT infrastructures.
Malicious objects used for initial infection
In Q4 2025, the percentage of ICS computers on which denylisted internet resources were blocked decreased to 3.26%. This is the lowest quarterly figure since the beginning of 2022, and it has decreased by 1.8 times since Q2 2025.
Percentage of ICS computers on which denylisted internet resources were blocked, Q1 2023–Q4 2025
Regionally, the percentage of ICS computers on which denylisted internet resources were blocked ranged from 1.74% in Northern Europe to 3.93% in Southeast Asia, which displaced Africa from first place. Russia rounded out the top three regions for this indicator.
The percentage of ICS computers on which malicious documents were blocked increased for three consecutive quarters. However, in Q4 2025 it decreased by 0.22 pp to 1.76%.
Percentage of ICS computers on which malicious documents were blocked, Q1 2023–Q4 2025
Regionally, the percentage ranged from 0.46% in Northern Europe to 3.82% in Southern Europe. In Q4 2025, the indicator increased in Eastern Europe, Russia, and Western Europe.
The percentage of ICS computers on which malicious scripts and phishing pages were blocked decreased to 6.58%. Despite the decline, this category led the rankings of threat categories in terms of the percentage of ICS computers on which they were blocked.
Percentage of ICS computers on which malicious scripts and phishing pages were blocked, Q1 2023–Q4 2025
Regionally, the percentage ranged from 2.52% in Northern Europe to 10.50% in South Asia. The indicator increased in South Asia, South America, Southern Europe, and Africa. South Asia saw the most notable increase, at 3.47 pp.
Next-stage malware
Malicious objects used to initially infect computers deliver next-stage malware — spyware, ransomware, and miners — to victims’ computers. As a rule, the higher the percentage of ICS computers on which the initial infection malware is blocked, the higher the percentage for next-stage malware.
In Q4 2025, the percentage of ICS computers on which spyware, ransomware and web miners were blocked decreased. The rates were:
Spyware: 3.80% (down 0.24 pp). For the second quarter in a row, spyware took second place in the rankings of threat categories in terms of the percentage of ICS computers on which it was blocked.
Ransomware: 0.16% (down 0.01 pp).
Web miners: 0.24% (down 0.01 pp), this is the lowest level observed thus far in the period under review.
The percentage of ICS computers on which miners in the form of executable files for Windows were blocked increased to 0.60% (up 0.03 pp).
Self-propagating malware
Self-propagating malware (worms and viruses) is a category unto itself. Worms and virus-infected files were originally used for initial infection, but as botnet functionality evolved, they took on next-stage characteristics.
To spread across ICS networks, viruses and worms rely on removable media and network folders and are distributed in the form of infected files, such as archives with backups, office documents, pirated games and hacked applications. In rarer and more dangerous cases, web pages with network equipment settings, as well as files stored in internal document management systems, product lifecycle management (PLM) systems, resource management (ERP) systems and other web services are infected.
In Q4 2025, the percentage of ICS computers on which worms were blocked increased by 1.6 times to 1.60%. As mentioned above, this increase is related to a global phishing attack that spread the Backdoor.MSIL.XWorm backdoor worm across all regions of the world. The percentage increased in all regions. The biggest increase (up by 2.16 times) was in Southern Europe. The malware was primary distributed through email clients, and Southern Europe led the way in terms of the percentage of ICS computers on which threats from email clients were blocked.
The percentage of ICS computers on which viruses were blocked decreased to 1.33%.
AutoCAD malware
This category of malware can spread in a variety of ways, so it does not belong to a specific group.
After an increase in the previous quarter, the percentage of ICS computers on which AutoCAD malware was blocked decreased to 0.29% in Q4 2025.
Navigating 2026’s Converged Threats: Insights from Flashpoint’s Global Threat Intelligence Report
In this post, we preview the critical findings of the 2026 Global Threat Intelligence Report, highlighting how the collapse of traditional security silos and the rise of autonomous, machine-speed attacks are forcing a total reimagining of modern defense.
The cybersecurity landscape has reached a point of total convergence, where the silos that once separated malware, identity, and infrastructure have collapsed into a single, high-velocity threat engine. Simultaneously, the threat landscape is shifting from human-led attacks to machine-speed operations as a result of agentic AI, which acts as a force multiplier for the modern adversary.
Flashpoint’s 2026 Global Threat Intelligence Report
Our report uncovers several staggering metrics that illustrate the industrialization of modern cybercrime:
AI-related illicit activity skyrocketed by 1,500% in a single month at the end of 2025.
3.3 billion compromised credentials and cloud tokens have turned identity into the primary exploit vector.
From January 2025 to December 2025, ransomware incidents rose by 53%, as attackers pivot from technical encryption to “pure-play” identity extortion.
Vulnerability disclosures surged by 12% from January 2025 to December 2025, with the window between discovery and mass exploitation effectively vanishing.
These findings are derived from Flashpoint’s Primary Source Collection (PSC), a specialized operating model that collects intelligence directly from original sources, driven by an organization’s unique Priority Intelligence Requirements (PIR). The 2026 Global Threat Intelligence Report leverages this ground-truth data to provide a strategic framework for the year ahead. Download to gain:
A Clear Understanding of the New Convergence Between Identity and AI Discover how threat actors are preparing to transition from generative tools to sophisticated agentic frameworks. Learn how 3.3 billion compromised credentials are being weaponized via automated orchestration to bypass legacy defenses and exploit the connective tissue of modern corporate APIs.
Intelligence on the “Franchise Model” of Global Extortion Gain deep insight into the professionalized operations of today’s most prolific threat actors. From the industrial efficiency of RaaS groups like RansomHub and Clop to the market dominance of the next generation of infostealer malware, we break down the economics driving today’s cybercrime ecosystem.
A Blueprint for Proactive Defense and Risk Mitigation Leverage the latest trends, in-depth analysis, and data-driven insights driven by Primary Source Collection to bolster your security posture by identifying and proactively defending against rising attack vectors.
“As attackers automate exploitation of identity, vulnerabilities, and ransomware, defenders who rely on fragmented visibility will fall behind. To keep pace, organizations must ground their decisions in primary-source intelligence that is drawn from adversarial environments, so that decision-makers can get ahead of this accelerating threat cycle.”
Josh Lefkowitz, CEO & Co-Founder at Flashpoint
The Top Threats at a Glance
Our latest report identifies four driving themes shaping the 2026 threat landscape:
2026 Is the Era of Agentic-Based Cyberattacks
Flashpoint identified a 1,500% rise in AI-related illicit discussions between November and December 2025, signaling a rapid transition from criminal curiosity to the active development of malicious frameworks. Built on data pulled from criminal environments and shaped by fraud use cases, these systems scrape data, adjust messaging for specific targets, rotate infrastructure, and learn from failed attempts without the need for constant human involvement.
“2026 is the era of agentic-based cyberattacks. We’ve seen a 1,500% increase in AI-related illicit discussions in a single month, signaling increased interest in developing malicious frameworks. The discussions evolve into vibe-coded, AI-supported phishing lures, malware, and cybercrime venues. When iteration becomes cheap through automation, attackers can afford to fail repeatedly until they find a successful foothold.”
Ian Gray, Vice President of Cyber Threat Intelligence Operations at Flashpoint
Identity Is the New Exploit
Flashpoint observed over 11.1 million machines infected with infostealers in 2025, fueling a massive inventory of 3.3 billion stolen credentials and cloud tokens. The fundamental mechanics of cybercrime have shifted from breaking in to logging in, as attackers leverage stolen session cookies to behave like legitimate users.
The Patching Window Is Rapidly Closing
Vulnerability disclosures surged by 12% in 2025, with 1 in 3 (33%) vulnerabilities having publicly available exploit code. The strategic gap between discovery and weaponization is increasingly vanishing, as evidenced by mass exploitation of zero-day vulnerabilities in as little as 24 hours after discovery.
Ransomware Is Hacking the Person, Not the Code
As technical defenses against encryption harden, ransomware groups are pivoting to the path of least resistance: human trust. This approach has led to a 53% increase in ransomware, with RaaS groups being responsible for over 87% of all ransomware attacks.
Build Resilience in a Converged Landscape
The findings in the 2026 Global Threat Intelligence Report make one thing clear: incremental improvements to legacy security models are no longer sufficient. As adversaries transition to machine-speed operations, the strategic advantage shifts to organizations that can maintain visibility into the adversarial environments where these attacks are born.
Protecting organizations and communities requires an intelligence-first approach. Download Flashpoint’s 2026 Global Threat Intelligence Report to gain clarity and the data-driven insights needed to safeguard critical assets.
Back when ransomware was just a startup industry, the primary goal of the attackers was simple: encrypt data, then extort a ransom in exchange for decrypting it. Because of this, cybercriminals mostly targeted commercial enterprises — companies that valued their data enough to justify a hefty payout. Schools and colleges were generally left alone — hackers assumed educators didn’t have the kind of data worth paying a ransom for.
But times have changed, and so has the ransomware groups’ business model. The focus has shifted from payment for decryption, to extortion in exchange for non-disclosure of stolen data. Now, the “incentive” to pay isn’t just about restoring the company’s normal operations, but rather avoiding regulatory trouble, potential lawsuits, and reputational damage. And it’s this shift that’s put educational institutions in the crosshairs.
In this post, we discuss several cases of ransomware attacks on educational organizations, why they took place, and how to keep cybercriminals out of the classroom.
Attacks on educational institutions in 2025–2026
In February 2026, the Sapienza University of Rome, one of Europe’s oldest and largest higher education institutions, suffered a ransomware attack. Internal systems were down for three days. According to sources familiar with the incident, the cybercriminals sent the university’s administration a link leading to a ransom demand. Upon clicking the link, a countdown timer started on the site that opened — counting down from 72 hours: the time the attackers demands needed to be met. As of now, there’s still no word on whether the university administration paid up or not.
Unfortunately, this case isn’t an exception. At the very end of 2025, attackers targeted another Italian educational institution — a vocational training center in the small city of Treviso. Things aren’t looking much better in the UK, either: in the same year, Blacon High School was hit by ransomware. Its administration had to shut its doors for two days to restore its IT systems, assess the scale of the incident, and prevent the attack from spreading further through the network.
In fact, a UK government study suggests these incidents are just part of a broader trend. According to its 2025 data, cyberincidents hit 60% of secondary schools, 85% of colleges, and 91% of universities. Across the pond, American researchers also noted that in the first quarter of 2025, ransomware attacks in the global education sector surged by 69% year on year. Clearly, the trend is global.
Why schools and universities are becoming easy targets
The core of the problem is that modern educational organizations are rapidly incorporating digital services into their operations. A typical school or university infrastructure now manages a dizzying array of services:
Electronic gradebooks and registers
Distance learning platforms
Admission systems and databases for storing applicants’ personal data
Cloud storage for educational materials
Internal staff and student portals
Email for faculty, students, and the administration to communicate
While these systems make education more convenient and manageable, they also drastically expand the attack surface. Every new service and every additional user account is a potential doorway for a phishing campaign, access compromise, or a personal data leak.
According to a UK study, the primary vector for these attacks is basic phishing. But that’s not all that surprising: since the education sector was off the cybercriminals’ radar for so long, cybersecurity training for both staff and students was hardly a priority. As a result, even the most seasoned professors can find themselves falling for a fake email purportedly sent by the “dean” or the “school principal”.
But it’s not just the faculty. Students themselves often unwittingly act as mules for malware. In many institutions, students still frequently hand in assignments on USB flash drives. These drives travel across various home or public devices, picking up malicious digital hitchhikers along the way. All it takes is one infected USB drive plugged into a campus workstation to give an attacker a foothold in the internal network.
It’s worth noting that while USB drives aren’t as ubiquitous as they were a decade ago, they remain a staple in the educational environment. Dismissing the threats they carry isn’t a good idea.
How to ensure the cybersecurity of educational infrastructure
Let’s face it: training every literature and biology teacher to spot phishing emails is now easy, quick task. Similarly, the educational system isn’t going to cut down on USB usage overnight.
Fortunately, a robust security solution (such as Kaspersky Small Office Security) can do the heavy lifting for you. It’s ideal for schools and colleges that need set-it-and-forget-it protection without a steep learning curve. Plus, it’s affordable even for institutions operating on a tight budget, and doesn’t require constant management.
At the same time, Kaspersky Small Office Security addresses all the threats we’ve discussed above: it blocks clicks on phishing links, automatically scans USB drives the moment they’re plugged in, and prevents suspicious files from executing on devices connected to the school’s network.
Unit 42 details recent Iranian cyberattack activity, sharing direct observations of phishing, hacktivist activity and cybercrime. We include recommendations for defenders.
The escalation of geopolitical tensions specifically focused on the Iranian Conflict over the last days of February 2026 has intensified the significant cyber and physical security risks to organizations globally.
With threat activity emanating from advanced Iranian state-sponsored actors, aligned hacktivist collectives, and opportunistic criminal groups, security teams must remain agile, informed, and proactive.
The Iranian Conflict Intelligence Dashboard has been updated to equip defenders with timely, high-fidelity intelligence that specifically reflects the dynamic threat environment shaped by this high-profile regional conflict with a heightened focus on Iran-linked activity.
Key Threat Actor Groups & Campaign Themes Tracked Include:
IRGC-affiliated Cyber Units (e.g., APT33, APT34, APT39, APT42): Tracking activity from primary state-sponsored groups.
Proxies and Ideological Hacktivist Actors: Monitoring activity from groups like CyberAv3ngers, APT IRAN, Handala Hack, Lulzsec, Dark Storm Team, GhostSec, Cyber Islamic Resistance, and others aligned with Iranian strategic interests.
Coordinated Influence and Disinformation Campaigns.
OT and Critical Infrastructure Targeting Efforts, particularly those targeting Israeli and Western assets.
Rather than tracking isolated threats, the –Iranian Conflict Intelligence Dashboard dashboard provides strategic context and operational detail across the broader cyber conflict spectrum, enabling faster detection, response, and mitigation.
Key Benefits:
Conflict-Centric Intelligence Aggregation – Centralized indicators of compromise (IOCs), TTPs, and threat insights related to Iranian-linked campaigns, sourced from open source intelligence (OSINT), premium threat feeds, and internal telemetry.
Live Threat Environment Tracking – Monitors shifts in activity across major adversary groups, cyber incidents, defacements, DDoS campaigns, and geopolitical events fueling escalation.
Accelerated Incident Response – Enriched and correlated intelligence to support triage, prioritization, and response activities during periods of elevated tension or retaliatory operations.
Custom Visualization & Analysis – Interactive dashboards featuring timeline analysis, actor overlap matrices, infrastructure clustering, and geographic threat origination maps.
ThreatConnect Automation Integration – Seamless correlation with existing ThreatConnect adversary profiles, intrusion sets, and signature-based alerts to identify high-risk overlaps with organizational environments.
Leveraging this dashboard allows security teams to anticipate conflict-related threats, understand attacker motivations, and tailor defenses to emerging risks as the Iranian cyber conflict evolves.
Actor and alias mapping, including cross-reference to public and private sector intelligence.
Vulnerabilities linked to recent Iran intelligence activity.
Screen Capture of Iranian Conflict Intelligence Dashboard
Lead Contributor – Adrian Dela Cruz , Customer Success Engineer
To gain access to the Iranian Conflict Intelligence Dashboard, please reach out to your Customer Success team or reach out to us through our contact form.
The dashboard is also available here, and can be added manually to your ThreatConnect instance.
Login
Table Of Contents
