Agents with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) on Thursday arrested an executive at a Canadian cybersecurity firm in connection with an investigation into the ShinyHunters hacking group that recently relieved the FBI of sensitive data on thousands of agents, multiple sources tell KrebsOnSecurity.

The New York Times reported today that the FBI has arrested a Canadian man in Pennsylvania on suspicion of assisting ShinyHunters. The Times story did not identify the man, nor did a statement on Twitter/X about the arrest from FBI Director Kash Patel.

One source close to the investigation told KrebsOnSecurity the Canadian person arrested this week was visiting Pennsylvania for a cyber insurance conference, and that the suspect’s company specialized in handling ransomware negotiations with cybercrime groups. Another shared that control over the ShinyHunters investigation has been centralized at an FBI field office in Texas.

An online search reveals the Cyber Risk Summit was held at the Loews Philadelphia Hotel between Oct. 5 and Oct. 7. The conference had several sponsors, but according to the summit’s website its biggest sponsor was a Canadian security company called Cypfer.

According to LinkedIn, one of Cypfer’s “ex-founders” was Edward Dubrovsky, who is now associated with another Canadian security firm and sponsor called CyberSteward. In a post to LinkedIn approximately one month ago, Dubrovsky said he had plans to attend the Cyber Risk Summit with the rest of the CyberSteward team.

[Update: Oct. 10, 9:58 a.m. ET: A spokesperson for Cypfer said Dubrovsky was not a founder or co-founder as his LinkedIn profile claims, but instead served as a managing director before resigning in December 2025].

Edward Dubrovsky’s LinkedIn profile.

“Looking forward to continuing conversations around strategy & compliant driven coercive (ransomware, extortion) advisory, negotiations and settlement services that are global and truly agnostic,” Dubrovsky wrote.

Federal court records show that on October 8, an Edward Dobrovsky (note the slight misspelling of the last name) was arrested in Pennsylvania on cyber extortion and conspiracy charges. Several of those documents — including the core complaint — are now sealed. But a handful of them were indexed at Courtlistener.com, including a summary of the complaint, which charges the defendant with “conspiracy to threaten to impair the confidentiality of information with the intent to extort money,” and “interference with commerce by threats.”

Image: Courtlistener.com

The inmate locator at the U.S. Bureau of Prisons website reports that a 54-year-old Edward Dubrovsky is currently being held at a federal facility in Philadelphia. But the court records indexed by CourtListener include a notice filed on October 9 that moved the case to the Eastern District of Texas, which sources say is now the epicenter of the FBI’s ShinyHunters investigation. The FBI declined to comment for this story.

Dubrovsky’s LinkedIn profile states he is the author of Cyber Extortion Strategic Response, a 252-page book that promises to “take readers beyond the ransom note and into the decisions that determine how an organization responds, recovers, and protects what matters.”

Edward Dubrovsky’s book, which centers on the intricacies of ransomware negotiations.

“At the heart of the book is a critical distinction: communicating with a criminal is not the same as negotiating a payment, and negotiating is not a commitment to pay,” reads an excerpt from the book’s listing on Amazon. “Engagement can serve other objectives, including testing claims, gathering information, creating time, and preserving options while the organization evaluates its next move.”

Mr. Dubrovsky could not be immediately reached for comment. KrebsOnSecurity also sought comment from other executives at CyberSteward, and will update this post in the event they respond. The available court records in Dubrovsky’s case show that he does not currently have an attorney and has yet to be appointed a public defender by the courts.

ShinyHunters typically uses phishing and stolen credentials to siphon data from corporate accounts at software-as-a-service companies, and then threatens to publish the stolen data online unless a ransom demand is paid. According to the FBI, the group has extorted more than $70 million from victims so far this year.

Sources tell KrebsOnSecurity the FBI has been poring over devices that were seized last month when the Dutch police arrested the convicted cybercriminal Pepijn van der Stap in connection with the ShinyHunters investigation, and that charges against principals at other companies that specialize in ransomware negotiation may be forthcoming.

Immediately after Van der Stap’s arrest, another member of ShinyHunters named “Rey” assumed control over the group and began taunting the FBI over data the group stole from the agency’s online recruitment portal, which included each’s person’s unit and specialization, as well as medical and psychiatric records.

Last week, Reuters reported that Rey — identified as a teenager named Saif Al-din Khader — had been detained and was cooperating with FBI investigators. On October 7, we detailed how Rey was apprehended as the cybercrime group allegedly sought to extort a navigation and digital aviation unit that was divested by Boeing in late 2025.

This is likely to be a fast-moving story. Updates will be noted along with timestamps.

While "digital forensics" and "incident response" often appear together (as in the acronym "DFIR"), they represent two distinct disciplines.

What's in a Name?

The American Heritage Dictionary defines forensics as "The use of science and technology to investigate and establish facts in criminal or civil courts of law."

Contrast this with IBM's definition of incident response: "Incident response [...] refers to an organization's processes and technologies for detecting and responding to cyberthreats, security breaches or cyberattacks." Note the absence of any reference to legal proceedings—it simply describes the process by which an organization detects, halts, and recovers from an incident.

Legal Considerations

Although most incidents never end up in court, all should be treated as if they might.

Taking the proper steps before, during, and after response ensures that any data collected can be admissible as evidence.

It's important to know the rules of evidence for relevant jurisdictions. Global corporations should consider each jurisdiction they have locations in when developing standard operating procedures (SOPs). Always include legal counsel when developing your organization's SOPs.

Data Preservation

A common rule for digital evidence is the retention of data in its "original state." This is accomplished by using validated hardware and software to create an exact bit-for-bit copy of a piece of digital media. Yet during incident response, it is rare that full forensic images are created—typically, only a small subset of data is collected from victim devices for analysis. Before any action is taken, consult legal advisors to decide whether to collect full forensic images.

A good practice is to create a folder for the original data, generate and document a hash of its contents, and then create a working copy in a separate folder. Only perform analysis on the working copies of your data to preserve the integrity of the original data.

Documentation

Documentation is critical when handling potential evidence. A chain of custody (CoC) records details about what the data is, where it came from, who collected it, whom it was transferred to, a brief description of what was done to it, and so forth.

The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) provides a sample CoC here:

https://www.nist.gov/document/sample-chain-custody-formdocx

Each person working with the data must keep detailed notes: record dates, times, and any actions taken. Binary files often need to be parsed by special tools to make their data human-readable—include any tool names and versions. The same should be done with human-readable data, such as text-based log files. While you likely don't need to document the version of Excel used to read a log file, if you added a column to show UTC date/time stamps in local time, that is worth noting.

The gold standard for documentation is this: notes should be detailed enough that someone with a similar background can recreate your steps and produce the same results.

This is the scientific method part of digital forensics. Processes need to be repeatable and generate the same results.

Tool Validation Procedures

Before an incident occurs, verify that your hardware and software are working. Test write blockers to ensure they do not alter the evidentiary media. Validate that your forensic software functions correctly (it's not unheard of for new versions to report the wrong date/time stamps when parsing binary data).

While there is no set standard for validation processes, some guidelines exist to help you develop validation SOPs.

Validation SOPs guidelines:

NIST: https://www.dhs.gov/science-and-technology/nist-cftt-reports

SWGDE: http://cet4861.pbworks.com/w/file/fetch/120024474/4861.2014-09-05_SWGDE_Recommended_Guidelines_for_Validation_Testing_V2-0.pdf

Additional Considerations for Incident Handling

When managing incidents, also consider:

• What are the data retention policies of your Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) tools?
• How is your cloud data preserved?
• Who has access to sensitive or personal data?

These factors often depend on your license agreement with providers. Make sure data can be maintained in a secure, long-term manner, as it can take years until an incident makes it into the courtroom. Implement processes to export incident data from systems and services while preserving integrity and meeting long-term storage requirements that protect its availability and confidentiality. Access to confidential information must always be managed carefully.

Remember: Involve your legal team, validate your tools, work from copies (never original data), document everything meticulously, and maintain chain of custody.

Many people ask: At what point do I bring in law enforcement during a cyber incident? When should I get outside help such as another consulting firm to support incident response? The honest answer is simple: before you ever need them. The best time to build reinforcements is not during a crisis. It is now.

It’s the same idea as that old proverb: “The best time to plant a tree was 20 years ago. The second best time is now.” Cybersecurity works the same way. Incident response is messy, emotional, and chaotic. You don’t want to be flipping through your contacts for a random phone number when your domain controller is encrypted and your CEO is standing behind you asking for updates. You want relationships, people who already know you and are ready to help.

Build Your Network Before You Need It

Start with your own community. Get involved with organizations such as InfraGard and HTCIA. Attend local cybersecurity meetups, conferences, and regional response groups. Shake hands. Collect business cards. Swap stories. These small moments build the trust you will rely on when your network goes sideways at 2 a.m. on a Saturday.

Identify who your law enforcement contacts are now, such as local FBI field office personnel, state cybercrime investigators, or specialized digital forensic units. Introduce yourself. Learn what they do and how they operate. Because during an incident is a terrible time to be making introductions.

When to Call Law Enforcement

Whenever you are handling an incident, reach out to law enforcement early. They might not jump into every ransomware attack or stolen laptop case, but it is still important to keep them informed. They have something you do not have: legal authority. If you need warrants, subpoenas, or data preserved from third-party providers, law enforcement has the tools to make that happen. If nothing else, contacting them shows you are acting responsibly, and that matters later.

Your next reinforcement is legal. You should already have a law firm on an incident response retainer before something goes wrong. But don’t just pick any law firm. Choose one with real experience handling cyber incidents.

Traditional attorneys often respond to breaches by locking everything down and preventing collaboration. That approach creates chaos. Experienced breach counsel understands that incident response requires teamwork, not isolation.

They know how to:

• Work with law enforcement
• Coordinate with security firms
• Maintain legal privilege where appropriate
• Guide sensitive communications
• Draft clear breach notifications
• Stay cool when everything burns

If they have been through this before, they will not fall apart when it is your turn.

Cyber Insurance Requires Work

If you are in an incident and asking whether your cyber insurance covers it, it is already too late. You either have coverage or you do not. And getting that coverage is becoming harder.

Insurance companies are nervous. Ransomware costs are rising and payouts have become massive. Even if you do get coverage, read the fine print. Most policies require due diligence—you must demonstrate that you were following reasonable security practices. If you have ignored vulnerability management, asset inventory, access control, logging, and backups, your insurer may deny your claim.

Cyber insurance is not a magic safety net. It is a contract that assumes you are taking security seriously.

Build Relationships, Not Just a Plan

If there is one theme here, it is this: In a crisis, you do not rise to the occasion. You fall back on the strength of your relationships. When an incident hits, you should not be scrambling to track down experts. You should already know who to call and they should already know you.

Start building your network today. Law enforcement contacts, legal counsel, insurance providers, and trusted incident response partners should already be in your corner. When the day comes, you will not be calling strangers. You will be calling reinforcements. Friends. Colleagues. People who already have your back.

Start now.