May 18, 2021

The Dangers of Double Extortion Ransomware Attacks

Learn about the latest trend in ransomware attacks known as double extortion. Discover how Darktrace can help protect your organization from this threat.

Written by

Brianna Leddy

Director of Analyst Operations

Inside the SOC

Darktrace cyber analysts are world-class experts in threat intelligence, threat hunting and incident response, and provide 24/7 SOC support to thousands of Darktrace customers around the globe. Inside the SOC is exclusively authored by these experts, providing analysis of cyber incidents and threat trends, based on real-world experience in the field.

Written by

Brianna Leddy

Director of Analyst Operations

May 2021

A year and a half ago, ‘double extortion’ ransomware was being used by only one known threat actor. Now, over 16 ransomware groups actively utilize this tactic. So, what is it, and why has it become so popular?

What is double extortion ransomware?

The traditional story of ransomware was one of malicious code rapidly encrypting files with public-key RSA encryption, and then deleting those files if the victim did not pay the ransom.

However, after the infamous WannaCry and NotPetya ransomware campaigns over 2017, companies ramped up their cyber defense. More emphasis was placed on backups and restoration processes, so that even if files were destroyed, organizations had copies in place and could easily restore their data.

Yet in turn, cyber-criminals have also adapted their techniques. Now, rather than just encrypting files, double extortion ransomware exfiltrates the data first. This means that if the company refuses to pay up, information can be leaked online or sold to the highest bidder. Suddenly, all those backups and data recovery plans became worthless.

Maze ransomware and friends

In late 2019, Maze ransomware emerged as the first high-profile case of double extortion. Other strains soon followed, with the Sodinokibi attack — which crippled foreign exchange company Travelex — occurring on the final day of that year.

By mid-2020, hundreds of organizations were falling victim to double extortion attacks, various websites on the dark net were leaking company data, and the Ransomware-as-a-Service business was booming as developers sold and rented new types of malware.

Furthermore, cyber security regulations started being weaponized by cyber-criminals who could leverage the threat of having to pay a hefty compliance fine (CCPA, GDPR, NYSDFS regulations) to encourage their victims to keep quiet by offering them a ransom smaller than the penalty fee.

There were 1,200 double extortion ransomware incidents in 2020, across 63 countries, with over 60% of these aimed at the US and the UK.

Despite new legislation being written regularly to try and mitigate these attacks, they aren’t slowing down. According to a recent study by RUSI, there were 1,200 double extortion ransomware incidents in 2020 alone, across 63 different countries. 60% of these were aimed at organizations headquartered in the US, and the UK suffered the second highest number of breaches.

Last month, the cyber-criminal gang known as REvil released details about Apple’s new Macbook Pro on their site ‘Happy Blog’, threatening to release more blueprints and demanding a ransom of $50 million. And last week, Colonial Pipeline purportedly paid $5 million in bitcoin to recover from a devastating OT ransomware attack.

Anatomy of a double extortion ransomware attack

Darktrace has detected a huge upsurge in double extortion ransomware threats in the last year, most recently at an energy company based in Canada. The hackers had clearly done their homework, tailoring the attack to the company and moving quickly and stealthily once inside. Below is a timeline of this real-world incident, which was mostly carried out in the space of 24 hours.

Figure 1: A timeline of the attack

Darktrace detected every stage of the intrusion and notified the security team with high-priority alerts. If Darktrace Antigena had been active in the environment, the compromised server would have been isolated as soon as it began to behave anomalously, preventing the infection from spreading.

Encryption and exfiltration

The initial infection vector is not known, but the admin account was compromised most likely from a phishing link or a vulnerability exploit. This is indicative of a trend away from the widespread ‘spray and pray’ ransomware campaigns of the last decade, towards a more targeted approach.

Cyber AI identified an internal server engaging in unusual network scanning and attempted lateral movement using the Remote Desktop Protocol (RDP). Compromised admin credentials were used to spread rapidly from the server to another internal device, ‘serverps’.

The device ‘serverps’ initiated an outbound connection to TeamViewer, a legitimate file storage service, which was active for nearly 21 hours. This connection was used for remote control of the device and to facilitate the further stages of attack. Although TeamViewer was not in wide operation in the company’s digital environment, it was not blocked by any of the legacy defenses.

The device then connected to an internal file server and downloaded 1.95 TB of data, and uploaded the same volume of data to pcloud[.]com. This exfiltration took place during work hours to blend in with regular admin activity.

The device was also seen downloading Rclone software – an open source tool, which was likely applied to sync data automatically to the legitimate file storage service pCloud.

The compromised admin credential allowed the threat actor to move laterally during this time. Following the completion of the data exfiltration, the device ‘serverps’ finally began encrypting files on 12 devices with the extension *.06d79000.

As with the majority of ransomware incidents, the encryption happened outside of office hours – overnight in local time – to minimize the chance of the security team responding quickly.

AI-powered investigation

Cyber AI Analyst reported on four incidents related to the attack, highlighting the suspicious behavior to the security team and providing a report on the affected devices for immediate remediation. Such concise reporting allowed the security team to quickly identify the scope of the infection and respond accordingly.

Figure 2: Cyber AI Analyst incident tray for a week

Cyber AI Analyst investigates on demand

Following further analysis on March 13, the security team employed Cyber AI Analyst to conduct on-demand investigations into the compromised admin credential in Microsoft 365, as well as another device which was identified as a potential threat.

Cyber AI Analyst created an incident for this other device, which resulted in the identification of unusual port scanning during the time period of infection. The device was promptly removed from the network.

Figure 3: Cyber AI Analyst incident for a compromised device, detailing an unusual internal download

Double trouble

The use of legitimate tools and ‘Living off the Land’ techniques (using RDP and a compromised admin credential) allowed the threat actors to carry out the bulk of the attack in less than 24 hours. By exploiting TeamViewer as a legitimate file storage solution for the data exfiltration, as opposed to relying on a known ‘bad’ or recently registered domain, the hackers easily circumvented all the existing signature-based defenses.

If Darktrace had not detected this intrusion and immediately alerted the security team, the attack could have resulted not only in a ‘denial of business’ with employees locked out of their files, but also in sensitive data loss. The AI went a step further in saving the team vital time with automatic investigation and on-demand reporting.

There is so much more to lose from double extortion ransomware. Exfiltration provides another layer of risk, leading to compromised intellectual property, reputational damage, and compliance fines. Once a threat group has your data, they might easily ask for more payments down the line. It is important therefore to defend against these attacks before they happen, proactively implementing cyber security measures that can detect and autonomously respond to threats as soon as they emerge.

Learn more about double extortion ransomware.

Darktrace model detections:

Device / Suspicious Network Scan Activity
Device / RDP Scan
Device / Network Scan
Anomalous Connection / Unusual Admin SMB Session
Anomalous Connection / Unusual Admin RDP Session
Device / Multiple Lateral Movement Model Breaches
User / New Admin Credentials on Client
Anomalous Connection / Uncommon 1 GiB Outbound
Anomalous Connection / Low and Slow Exfiltration
Device / Anomalous SMB Followed By Multiple Model
Anomalous Connection / Download and Upload
Anomalous Connection / Suspicious Activity On High Risk Device
Anomalous File / Internal::Additional Extension Appended to SMB File
Compromise / Ransomware::Suspicious SMB Activity
Anomalous Connection / Sustained MIME Type Conversion
Device / Anomalous RDP Followed By Multiple Model Breaches
Anomalous Connection / Suspicious Read Write Ratio
Device / Large Number of Model Breaches

Written by

Brianna Leddy

Director of Analyst Operations

Inside the SOC

Written by

Brianna Leddy

Director of Analyst Operations

VP, Security & AI Strategy, Field CISO

•

June 18, 2025

Carlos Gray

Senior Product Marketing Manager, Email

Watch the NIS2 Webinar

Blog

Proactive Security

July 1, 2025

Pre-CVE Threat Detection: 8 Examples Identifying Malicious Activity Prior to Public Disclosure of a Vulnerability

Can you detect cyber threats before the world knows about them?

Every year, tens of thousands of Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures (CVEs) are disclosed, over 40,000 in 2024 alone [1], and a predicted higher number for 2025 by the Forum for Incident Response and Security Teams (FIRST).

However, cybercriminals don't wait for disclosure. They exploit zero-days while defenders remain in the dark.

Traditional, signature-based tools struggle to detect these early-stage threats. That’s why anomaly detection is becoming essential for organizations seeking pre-CVE detection.

Understanding the gap between zero-day attacks and public CVE disclosure

When a vulnerability is discovered, the standard practice is to report it to the vendor or the responsible organization, allowing them to develop and distribute a patch or fix before the details are made public. This is known as responsible disclosure.

The gap between exploitation of a zero-day and the disclosure of the vulnerability can sometimes be considerable, and retroactively attempting to identify successful exploitation on your network can be challenging, particularly if taking a signature-based approach.

However, abnormal behaviors in networks or systems, such as unusual login patterns or data transfers, can indicate attempted cyber-attacks, insider threats, or compromised systems.

Detecting threats without relying on CVE disclosure

Since Darktrace does not rely on rules or signatures, it can detect malicious activity that is anomalous even without full context of the specific device or asset in question.

For example, during the Fortinet exploitation late last year, the Darktrace Threat Research team were investigating a different Fortinet vulnerability, namely CVE 2024-23113, for exploitation when Mandiant released a security advisory around CVE 2024-47575, which aligned closely with Darktrace’s findings.

Retrospective analysis like this is used by Darktrace’s threat researchers to better understand detections across the threat landscape and to add additional context.

Below are eight examples from the past year where Darktrace detected malicious activity days or even weeks before a vulnerability was publicly disclosed.

ten examples from the past year where Darktrace detected malicious activity days or even weeks before a vulnerability was publicly disclosed.

Trends in pre-cve exploitation

The attack vs. patch race

In many cases, the disclosure of an exploited vulnerability can be off the back of an incident response investigation related to a compromise by an advanced threat actor using a zero-day. Once the vulnerability is registered and publicly disclosed as having been exploited, it can kick off a race between the attacker and defender.

Skilled nation-state actors

Nation-state actors, highly skilled with significant resources, are known to use a range of capabilities to achieve their target, including zero-day use. Often, pre-CVE activity is “low and slow”, last for months with high operational security.

After CVE disclosure, the barriers to entry lower, allowing less skilled and less resourced attackers, like some ransomware gangs, to exploit the vulnerability and cause harm. This is why two distinct types of activity are often seen: pre and post disclosure of an exploited vulnerability.

Examples of exploitation

Darktrace saw this consistent story line play out during several of the Fortinet and PAN OS threat actor campaigns highlighted above last year, where nation-state actors were seen exploiting vulnerabilities first, followed by ransomware gangs impacting organizations [2].

The same applies with the recent SAP Netweaver exploitations being tied to a China based threat actor earlier this spring with subsequent ransomware incidents being observed [3].

You spotted the anomaly but did you stop the breach?

Anomaly-based detection offers the benefit of identifying malicious activity even before a CVE is disclosed; however, security teams still need to quickly contain and isolate the activity.

For example, during the Ivanti chaining exploitation in the early part of 2025, a customer had Darktrace’s Autonomous Response capability enabled on their network. As a result, Darktrace was able to contain the compromise and shut down any ongoing suspicious connectivity by blocking internal connections and enforcing a “pattern of life” on the affected device.

This pre-CVE detection and response by Darktrace occurred 11 days before any public disclosure, demonstrating the value of an anomaly-based approach.

In some cases, customers have even reported that Darktrace stopped malicious exploitation of devices several days before a public disclosure of a vulnerability.

For example, During the ConnectWise exploitation, a customer informed the team that Darktrace had detected malicious software being installed via remote access. Upon further investigation, four servers were found to be impacted, while Autonomous Response had blocked outbound connections and enforced patterns of life on impacted devices.

Conclusion

By continuously analyzing behavioral patterns, systems can spot unusual activities and patterns from users, systems, and networks to detect anomalies that could signify a security breach.

Through ongoing monitoring and learning from these behaviors, anomaly-based security systems can detect threats that traditional signature-based solutions might miss, while also providing detailed insights into threat tactics, techniques, and procedures (TTPs). This type of behavioral intelligence supports pre-CVE detection, allows for a more adaptive security posture, and enables systems to evolve with the ever-changing threat landscape.

Credit to Nathaniel Jones (VP, Security & AI Strategy, Field CISO), Emma Fougler (Global Threat Research Operations Lead), Ryan Traill (Analyst Content Lead)

References and further reading:

Realted Darktrace blogs:

‍

*Self-reported by customer, confirmed afterwards.

**Updated January 2024 blog now reflects current findings

About the author

Nathaniel Jones

VP, Security & AI Strategy, Field CISO

Blog

Network

June 27, 2025

Patch and Persist: Darktrace’s Detection of Blind Eagle (APT-C-36)

login on laptop dual factor authentication

What is Blind Eagle?

Since 2018, APT-C-36, also known as Blind Eagle, has been observed performing cyber-attacks targeting various sectors across multiple countries in Latin America, with a particular focus on Colombian organizations.

Blind Eagle characteristically targets government institutions, financial organizations, and critical infrastructure [1][2].

Attacks carried out by Blind Eagle actors typically start with a phishing email and the group have been observed utilizing various Remote Access Trojans (RAT) variants, which often have in-built methods for hiding command-and-control (C2) traffic from detection [3].

What we know about Blind Eagle from a recent campaign

Since November 2024, Blind Eagle actors have been conducting an ongoing campaign targeting Colombian organizations [1].

In this campaign, threat actors have been observed using phishing emails to deliver malicious URL links to targeted recipients, similar to the way threat actors have previously been observed exploiting CVE-2024-43451, a vulnerability in Microsoft Windows that allows the disclosure of a user’s NTLMv2 password hash upon minimal interaction with a malicious file [4].

Despite Microsoft patching this vulnerability in November 2024 [1][4], Blind Eagle actors have continued to exploit the minimal interaction mechanism, though no longer with the intent of harvesting NTLMv2 password hashes. Instead, phishing emails are sent to targets containing a malicious URL which, when clicked, initiates the download of a malicious file. This file is then triggered by minimal user interaction.

Clicking on the file triggers a WebDAV request, with a connection being made over HTTP port 80 using the user agent ‘Microsoft-WebDAV-MiniRedir/10.0.19044’. WebDAV is a transmission protocol which allows files or complete directories to be made available through the internet, and to be transmitted to devices [5]. The next stage payload is then downloaded via another WebDAV request and malware is executed on the target device.

Attackers are notified when a recipient downloads the malicious files they send, providing an insight into potential targets [1].

Darktrace’s coverage of Blind Eagle

In late February 2025, Darktrace observed activity assessed with medium confidence to be associated with Blind Eagle on the network of a customer in Colombia.

Within a period of just five hours, Darktrace / NETWORK detected a device being redirected through a rare external location, downloading multiple executable files, and ultimately exfiltrating data from the customer’s environment.

Since the customer did not have Darktrace’s Autonomous Response capability enabled on their network, no actions were taken to contain the compromise, allowing it to escalate until the customer’s security team responded to the alerts provided by Darktrace.

Darktrace observed a device on the customer’s network being directed over HTTP to a rare external IP, namely 62[.]60[.]226[.]112, which had never previously been seen in this customer’s environment and was geolocated in Germany. Multiple open-source intelligence (OSINT) providers have since linked this endpoint with phishing and malware campaigns [9].

The device then proceeded to download the executable file hxxp://62[.]60[.]226[.]112/file/3601_2042.exe.

Figure 1: Darktrace’s detection of the affected device connecting to an unusual location based in Germany.

Figure 2: Darktrace’s detection of the affected device downloading an executable file from the suspicious endpoint.

The device was then observed making unusual connections to the rare endpoint 21ene.ip-ddns[.]com and performing unusual external data activity.

This dynamic DNS endpoint allows a device to access an endpoint using a domain name in place of a changing IP address. Dynamic DNS services ensure the DNS record of a domain name is automatically updated when the IP address changes. As such, malicious actors can use these services and endpoints to dynamically establish connections to C2 infrastructure [6].

Further investigation into this dynamic endpoint using OSINT revealed multiple associations with previous likely Blind Eagle compromises, as well as Remcos malware, a RAT commonly deployed via phishing campaigns [7][8][10].

Figure 3: Darktrace’s detection of the affected device connecting to the suspicious dynamic DNS endpoint, 21ene.ip-ddns[.]com.

Shortly after this, Darktrace observed the user agent ‘Microsoft-WebDAV-MiniRedir/10.0.19045’, indicating usage of the aforementioned transmission protocol WebDAV. The device was subsequently observed connected to an endpoint associated with Github and downloading data, suggesting that the device was retrieving a malicious tool or payload. The device then began to communicate to the malicious endpoint diciembrenotasenclub[.]longmusic[.]com over the new TCP port 1512 [11].

Around this time, the device was also observed uploading data to the endpoints 21ene.ip-ddns[.]com and diciembrenotasenclub[.]longmusic[.]com, with transfers of 60 MiB and 5.6 MiB observed respectively.

Figure 4: UI graph showing external data transfer activity.

This chain of activity triggered an Enhanced Monitoring model alert in Darktrace / NETWORK. These high-priority model alerts are designed to trigger in response to higher fidelity indicators of compromise (IoCs), suggesting that a device is performing activity consistent with a compromise.

Figure 5: Darktrace’s detection of initial attack chain activity.

A second Enhanced Monitoring model was also triggered by this device following the download of the aforementioned executable file (hxxp://62[.]60[.]226[.]112/file/3601_2042.exe) and the observed increase in C2 activity.

Following this activity, Darktrace continued to observe the device beaconing to the 21ene.ip-ddns[.]com endpoint.

Darktrace’s Cyber AI Analyst was able to correlate each of the individual detections involved in this compromise, identifying them as part of a broader incident that encompassed C2 connectivity, suspicious downloads, and external data transfers.

Figure 6: Cyber AI Analyst’s investigation into the activity observed on the affected device.

Figure 7: Cyber AI Analyst’s detection of the affected device’s broader connectivity throughout the course of the attack.

As the affected customer did not have Darktrace’s Autonomous Response configured at the time, the attack was able to progress unabated. Had Darktrace been properly enabled, it would have been able to take a number of actions to halt the escalation of the attack.

For example, the unusual beaconing connections and the download of an unexpected file from an uncommon location would have been shut down by blocking the device from making external connections to the relevant destinations.

Conclusion

The persistence of Blind Eagle and ability to adapt its tactics, even after patches were released, and the speed at which the group were able to continue using pre-established TTPs highlights that timely vulnerability management and patch application, while essential, is not a standalone defense.

Organizations must adopt security solutions that use anomaly-based detection to identify emerging and adapting threats by recognizing deviations in user or device behavior that may indicate malicious activity. Complementing this with an autonomous decision maker that can identify, connect, and contain compromise-like activity is crucial for safeguarding organizational networks against constantly evolving and sophisticated threat actors.

Credit to Charlotte Thompson (Senior Cyber Analyst), Eugene Chua (Principal Cyber Analyst) and Ryan Traill (Analyst Content Lead)

Appendices

IoCs

IoC – Type - Confidence
Microsoft-WebDAV-MiniRedir/10.0.19045 – User Agent

62[.]60[.]226[.]112 – IP – Medium Confidence

hxxp://62[.]60[.]226[.]112/file/3601_2042.exe – Payload Download – Medium Confidence

21ene.ip-ddns[.]com – Dynamic DNS Endpoint – Medium Confidence

diciembrenotasenclub[.]longmusic[.]com - Hostname – Medium Confidence

Darktrace’s model alert coverage

Anomalous File / Suspicious HTTP Redirect
Anomalous File / EXE from Rare External Location
Anomalous File / Multiple EXE from Rare External Location
Anomalous Server Activity / Outgoing from Server
Unusual Activity / Unusual External Data to New Endpoint
Device / Anomalous Github Download
Anomalous Connection / Multiple Connections to New External TCP Port
Device / Initial Attack Chain Activity
Anomalous Server Activity / Rare External from Server
Compromise / Suspicious File and C2
Compromise / Fast Beaconing to DGA
Compromise / Large Number of Suspicious Failed Connections
Device / Large Number of Model Alert

Mitre Attack Mapping:

Tactic – Technique – Technique Name

Initial Access - T1189 – Drive-by Compromise
Initial Access - T1190 – Exploit Public-Facing Application
Initial Access ICS - T0862 – Supply Chain Compromise
Initial Access ICS - T0865 – Spearphishing Attachment
Initial Access ICS - T0817 - Drive-by Compromise
Resource Development - T1588.001 – Malware
Lateral Movement ICS - T0843 – Program Download
Command and Control - T1105 - Ingress Tool Transfer
Command and Control - T1095 – Non-Application Layer Protocol
Command and Control - T1571 – Non-Standard Port
Command and Control - T1568.002 – Domain Generation Algorithms
Command and Control ICS - T0869 – Standard Application Layer Protocol
Evasion ICS - T0849 – Masquerading
Exfiltration - T1041 – Exfiltration Over C2 Channel
Exfiltration - T1567.002 – Exfiltration to Cloud Storage