February 27, 2025

New Threat on the Prowl: Investigating Lynx Ransomware

Lynx ransomware, emerging in 2024, targets finance, architecture, and manufacturing sectors with phishing and double extortion. Read on for Darktrace's findings.

Written by

Justin Torres

Cyber Analyst

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

Justin Torres

Cyber Analyst

Feb 2025

What is Lynx ransomware?

In mid-2024, a new ransomware actor named Lynx emerged in the threat landscape. This Ransomware-as-a-Service (RaaS) strain is known to target organizations in the finance, architecture, and manufacturing sectors [1] [2]. However, Darktrace’s Threat Research teams also identified Lynx incidents affecting energy and retail organizations in the Middle East and Asia-Pacific (APAC) regions. Despite being a relatively new actor, Lynx’s malware shares large portions of its source code with the INC ransomware variant, suggesting that the group may have acquired and repurposed the readily available INC code to develop its own strain [2].

What techniques does Lynx ransomware group use?

Lynx employs several common attack vectors, including phishing emails which result in the download and installation of ransomware onto systems upon user interaction. The group poses a sophisticated double extortion threat to organizations, exfiltrating sensitive data prior to encryption [1]. This tactic allows threat actors to pressure their targets by threatening to release sensitive information publicly or sell it if the ransom is not paid. The group has also been known to gradually release small batches of sensitive information (i.e., “drip” data) to increase pressure.

Once executed, the malware encrypts files and appends the extension ‘.LYNX’ to all encrypted files. It eventually drops a Base64 encoded text file as a ransom note (i.e., README.txt) [1]. Should initial file encryption attempts fail, the operators have been known to employ privilege escalation techniques to ensure full impact [2].

In the Annual Threat Report 2024, Darktrace’s Threat Research team identified Lynx ransomware as one of the top five most significant threats, impacting both its customers and the broader threat landscape.

Darktrace Coverage of Lynx Ransomware

In cases of Lynx ransomware observed across the Darktrace customer base, Darktrace / NETWORK identified and suggested Autonomous Response actions to contain network compromises from the onset of activity.

Detection of lateral movement

One such Lynx compromise occurred in December 2024 when Darktrace observed multiple indicators of lateral movement on a customer network. The lateral movement activity started with a high volume of attempted binds to the service control endpoint of various destination devices, suggesting SMB file share enumeration. This activity also included repeated attempts to establish internal connections over destination port 445, as well as other privileged ports. Spikes in failed internal connectivity, such as those exhibited by the device in question, can indicate network scanning. Elements of the internal connectivity also suggested the use of the attack and reconnaissance tool, Nmap.

Indicators of compromised administrative credentials

Although an initial access point could not be confirmed, the widespread use of administrative credentials throughout the lateral movement process demonstrated the likely compromise of such privileged usernames and passwords. The operators of the malware frequently used both 'admin' and 'administrator' credentials throughout the incident, suggesting that attackers may have leveraged compromised default administrative credentials to gain access and escalate privileges. These credentials were observed on numerous devices across the network, triggering Darktrace models that detect unusual use of administrative usernames via methods like NTLM and Kerberos.

Data exfiltration

The lateral movement and reconnaissance behavior was then followed by unusual internal and external data transfers. One such device exhibited an unusual spike in internal data download activity, downloading around 150 GiB over port 3260 from internal network devices. The device then proceeded to upload large volumes of data to the external AWS S3 storage bucket: wt-prod-euwest1-storm.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws[.]com. Usage of external cloud storage providers is a common tactic to avoid detection of exfiltration, given the added level of legitimacy afforded by cloud service provider domains.

Furthermore, Darktrace observed the device exhibiting behavior suggesting the use of the remote management tool AnyDesk when it made outbound TCP connections to hostnames such as:

relay-48ce591e[.]net[.]anydesk[.]com

relay-c9990d24[.]net[.]anydesk[.]com

relay-da1ad7b4[.]net[.]anydesk[.]com

Tools like AnyDesk can be used for legitimate administrative purposes. However, such tools are also commonly leveraged by threat actors to enable remote access and further compromise activity. The activity observed from the noted device during this time suggests the tool was used by the ransomware operators to advance their compromise goals.

The observed activity culminated in the encryption of thousands of files with the '.Lynx' extension. Darktrace detected devices performing uncommon SMB write and move operations on the drives of destination network devices, featuring the appending of the Lynx extension to local host files. Darktrace also identified similar levels of SMB read and write sizes originating from certain devices. Parallel volumes of SMB read and write activity strongly suggest encryption, as the malware opens, reads, and then encrypts local files on the hosted SMB disk share. This encryption activity frequently highlighted the use of the seemingly-default credential: "Administrator".

In this instance, Darktrace’s Autonomous Response capability was configured to only take action upon human confirmation, meaning the customer’s security team had to manually apply any suggested actions. Had the deployment been fully autonomous, Darktrace would have blocked connectivity to and from the affected devices, giving the customer additional time to contain the attack and enforce existing network behavior patterns while the IT team responded accordingly.

Conclusion

As reported by Darktrace’s Threat Research team in the Annual Threat Report 2024, both new and old ransomware strains were prominent across the threat landscape last year. Due to the continually improving security postures of organizations, ransomware actors are forced to constantly evolve and adopt new tactics to successfully carry out their attacks.

The Lynx group’s use of INC source code, for example, suggests a growing accessibility for threat actors to launch new ransomware strains based on existing code – reducing the cost, resources, and expertise required to build new malware and carry out an attack. This decreased barrier to entry will surely lead to an increased number of ransomware incidents, with attacks not being limited to experienced threat actors.

While Darktrace expects ransomware strains like Lynx to remain prominent in the threat landscape in 2025 and beyond, Darktrace’s ability to identify and respond to emerging ransomware incidents – as demonstrated here – ensures that customers can safeguard their networks and resume normal business operations as quickly as possible, even in an increasingly complex threat landscape.

Credit to Justin Torres (Senior Cyber Analyst) and Adam Potter (Senior Cyber Analyst).

[related-resource]

Appendices

References

1. https://unit42.paloaltonetworks.com/inc-ransomware-rebrand-to-lynx/

2. https://cybersecsentinel.com/lynx-ransomware-strikes-new-targets-unveiling-advanced-encryption-techniques/

Autonomous Response Model Alerts

· Antigena::Network::Significant Anomaly::Antigena Alerts Over Time Block

· Antigena::Network::Insider Threat::Antigena Active Threat SMB Write Block

· Antigena::Network::Significant Anomaly::Antigena Enhanced Monitoring from Client Block

· Antigena::Network::Significant Anomaly::Antigena Significant Anomaly from Client Block

· Antigena::Network::Insider Threat::Antigena Network Scan Block

· Antigena::Network::Insider Threat::Antigena Internal Anomalous File Activity

· Antigena::Network::Insider Threat::Antigena Unusual Privileged User Activities Block

· Antigena::Network::Insider Threat::Antigena Unusual Privileged User Activities Pattern of Life Block

· Antigena::Network::Insider Threat::Antigena Large Data Volume Outbound Block

Darktrace / NETWORK Model Alerts

· Device::Multiple Lateral Movement Model Alerts

· Device::Suspicious Network Scan Activity

· Anomalous File::Internal::Additional Extension Appended to SMB File

· Device::SMB Lateral Movement

· Compliance::SMB Drive Write

· Compromise::Ransomware::Suspicious SMB Activity

· Anomalous File::Internal::Unusual SMB Script Write

· Device::Network Scan

· Device::Suspicious SMB Scanning Activity

· Device::RDP Scan

· Unusual Activity::Anomalous SMB Move & Write

· Anomalous Connection::Sustained MIME Type Conversion

· Compromise::Ransomware::SMB Reads then Writes with Additional Extensions

· Unusual Activity::Sustained Anomalous SMB Activity

· Device::ICMP Address Scan

· Compromise::Ransomware::Ransom or Offensive Words Written to SMB

· Anomalous Connection::Suspicious Read Write Ratio

· Anomalous File::Internal::Masqueraded Executable SMB Write

· Compliance::Possible Unencrypted Password File On Server

· User::New Admin Credentials on Client

· Compliance::Remote Management Tool On Server

· User::New Admin Credentials on Server

· Anomalous Connection::Unusual Admin RDP Session

· Anomalous Connection::Download and Upload

· Anomalous Connection::Uncommon 1 GiB Outbound

· Unusual Activity::Unusual File Storage Data Transfer

List of IoCs

IoC - Type - Description + Confidence

- ‘. LYNX’ - File Extension - Lynx Ransomware file extension appended to encrypted files

MITRE ATT&CK Mapping

(Technique Name - Tactic - ID - Sub-Technique of)

Taint Shared Content - LATERAL MOVEMENT - T1080

Data Encrypted for - Impact - IMPACT T1486

Rename System Utilities - DEFENSE EVASION - T1036.003 - T1036

Get the latest insights on emerging cyber threats

This report explores the latest trends shaping the cybersecurity landscape and what defenders need to know in 2025.

Inside the SOC

Written by

Justin Torres

Cyber Analyst

Associate Principal Analyst & Regional Consultancy Lead

•

March 26, 2026

The Darktrace Community

Watch the NIS2 Webinar

Blog

Network

March 26, 2026

Phantom Footprints: Tracking GhostSocks Malware

Why are attackers using residential proxies?

In today's threat landscape, blending in to normal activity is the key to success for attackers and the growing reliance on residential proxies shows a significant shift in how threat actors are attempting to bypass IP detection tools.

The increasing dependency on residential proxies has exposed how prevalent proxy services are and how reliant a diverse range of threat actors are on them. From cybercriminal groups to state‑sponsored actors, the need to bypass IP detection tools is fundamental to the success of these groups. One malware that has quietly become notorious for its ability to avoid anomaly detection is GhostSocks, a malware that turns compromised devices into residential proxies.

What is GhostSocks?

Originally marketed on the Russian underground forum xss[.]is as a Malware‑as‑a‑Service (MaaS), GhostSocks enables threat actors to turn compromised devices into residential proxies, leveraging the victim's internet bandwidth to route malicious traffic through it.

How does Ghostsocks malware work?

The malware offers the threat actor a “clean” IP address, making it look like it is coming from a household user. This enables the bypassing of geographic restrictions and IP detection tools, a perfect tool for avoiding anomaly detection. It wasn’t until 2024, when a partnership was announced with the infamous information stealer Lumma Stealer, that GhostSocks surged into widespread adoption and alluded to who may be the author of the proxy malware.

Written in GoLang, GhostSocks utilizes the SOCKS5 proxy protocol, creating a SOCKS5 connection on infected devices. It uses a relay‑based C2 implementation, where an intermediary server sits in between the real command-and-control (C2) server and the infected device.

How does Ghostsocks malware evade detection?

To further increase evasion, the Ghostsocks malware wraps its SOCKS5 tunnels in TLS encryption, allowing its malicious traffic to blend into normal network traffic.

Early variants of GhostSocks do not implement a persistence mechanism; however, later versions achieve persistence via registry run keys, ensuring sustained proxy operational time [1].

While proxying is its primary purpose, GhostSocks also incorporates backdoor functionality, enabling malicious actors to run arbitrary commands and download and deploy additional malicious payloads. This was evident with the well‑known ransomware group Black Basta, which reportedly used GhostSocks as a way of maintaining long‑term access to victims’ networks [1].

Darktrace’s detection of GhostSocks Malware

Darktrace observed a steady increase in GhostSocks activity across its customer base from late 2025, with its Threat Research team identifying multiple incidents involving the malware. In one notable case from December 2025, Darktrace detected GhostSocks operating alongside Lumma Stealer, reinforcing that the partnership between Lumma and GhostSocks remains active despite recent attempts to disrupt Lumma’s infrastructure.

Darktrace’s first detection of GhostSocks‑related activity came when a device on the network of a customer in the education sector began making connections to an endpoint with a suspicious self‑signed certificate that had never been seen on the network before.

The endpoint in question, 159.89.46[.]92 with the hostname retreaw[.]click, has been flagged by multiple open‑source intelligence (OSINT) sources as being associated with Lumma Stealer’s C2 infrastructure [2], indicating its likely role in the delivery of malicious payloads.

Figure 1: Darktrace’s detection of suspicious SSL connections to retreaw[.]click, indicating an attempted link to Lumma C2 infrastructure.

Less than two minutes later, Darktrace observed the same device downloading the executable (.exe) file “Renewable.exe” from the IP 86.54.24[.]29, which Darktrace recognized as 100% rare for this network.

Figure 2: Darktrace’s detection of a device downloading the unusual executable file “Renewable.exe”.

Both the file MD5 hash and the executable itself have been identified by multiple OSINT vendors as being associated with the GhostSocks malware [3], with the executable likely the backdoor component of the GhostSocks malware, facilitating the distribution of additional malicious payloads [4].

Following this detection, Darktrace’s Autonomous Response capability recommended a blocking action for the device in an early attempt to stop the malicious file download. In this instance, Darktrace was configured in Human Confirmation Mode, meaning the customer’s security team was required to manually apply any mitigative response actions. Had Autonomous Response been fully enabled at the time of the attack, the connections to 86.54.24[.]29 would have been blocked, rendering the malware ineffective at reaching its C2 infrastructure and halting any further malicious communication.

Figure 3: Darktrace’s Autonomous Response capability suggesting blocking the suspicious connections to the unusual endpoint from which the malicious executable was downloaded.

As the attack was able to progress, two days later the device was detected downloading additional payloads from the endpoint www.lbfs[.]site (23.106.58[.]48), including “Setup.exe”, “,.exe”, and “/vp6c63yoz.exe”.

Figure 4: Darktrace’s detection of a malicious payload being downloaded from the endpoint www.lbfs[.]site.

Once again, Darktrace recognized the anomalous nature of these downloads and suggested that a “group pattern of life” be enforced on the offending device in an attempt to contain the activity. By enforcing a pattern of life on a device, Darktrace restricts its activity to connections and behaviors similar to those performed by peer devices within the same group, while still allowing it to carry out its expected activity, effectively preventing deviations indicative of compromise while minimizing disruption. As mentioned earlier, these mitigative actions required manual implementation, so the activity was able to continue. Darktrace proceeded to suggest further actions to contain subsequent malicious downloads, including an attempt to block all outbound traffic to stop the attack from progressing.

Figure 5: An overview of download activity and the Autonomous Response actions recommended by Darktrace to block the downloads.

Around the same time, a third executable download was detected, this time from the hostname hxxp[://]d2ihv8ymzp14lr.cloudfront.net/2021-08-19/udppump[.]exe, along with the file “udppump.exe”.While GhostSocks may have been present only to facilitate the delivery of additional payloads, there is no indication that these CloudFront endpoints or files are functionally linked to GhostSocks. Rather, the evidence points to broader malicious file‑download activity.

Shortly after the multiple executable files had been downloaded, Darktrace observed the device initiating a series of repeated successful connections to several rare external endpoints, behavior consistent with early-stage C2 beaconing activity.

Cyber AI Analyst’s investigation

Figure 7: Darktrace’s detection of additional malicious file downloads from malicious CloudFront endpoints.

Throughout the course of this attack, Darktrace’s Cyber AI Analyst carried out its own autonomous investigation, piecing together seemingly separate events into one wider incident encompassing the first suspicious downloads beginning on December 4, the unusual connectivity to many suspicious IPs that followed, and the successful beaconing activity observed two days later. By analyzing these events in real-time and viewing them as part of the bigger picture, Cyber AI Analyst was able to construct an in‑depth breakdown of the attack to aid the customer’s investigation and remediation efforts.

Figure 8: Cyber AI Analyst investigation detailing the sequence of events on the compromised device, highlighting its extensive connectivity to rare endpoints, the related malicious file‑download activity, and finally the emergence of C2 beaconing behavior.

Conclusion

The versatility offered by GhostSocks is far from new, but its ability to convert compromised devices into residential proxy nodes, while enabling long‑term, covert network access—illustrates how threat actors continue to maximise the value of their victims’ infrastructure. Its growing popularity, coupled with its ongoing partnership with Lumma, demonstrates that infrastructure takedowns alone are insufficient; as long as threat actors remain committed to maintaining anonymity and can rapidly rebuild their ecosystems, related malware activity is likely to persist in some form.

Credit to Isabel Evans (Cyber Analyst), Gernice Lee (Associate Principal Analyst & Regional Consultancy Lead – APJ)
Edited by Ryan Traill (Content Manager)

Appendices

References

1. https://bloo.io/research/malware/ghostsocks

2. https://www.virustotal.com/gui/domain/retreaw.click/community

3. https://synthient.com/blog/ghostsocks-from-initial-access-to-residential-proxy

4. https://www.joesandbox.com/analysis/1810568/0/html

5. https://www.virustotal.com/gui/url/fab6525bf6e77249b74736cb74501a9491109dc7950688b3ae898354eb920413

Darktrace Model Detections

Real-time Detection Models

Anomalous Connection / Suspicious Self-Signed SSL

Anomalous Connection / Rare External SSL Self-Signed

Anomalous File / EXE from Rare External Location

Anomalous File / Multiple EXE from Rare External Locations

Compromise / Possible Fast Flux C2 Activity

Compromise / Large Number of Suspicious Successful Connections

Compromise / Large Number of Suspicious Failed Connections

Compromise / Sustained SSL or HTTP Increase

Autonomous Response Models

Antigena / Network / Significant Anomaly / Antigena Significant Anomaly from Client Block

Antigena / Network / External Threat / Antigena Suspicious File Block

Antigena / Network / Significant Anomaly / Antigena Controlled and Model Alert

Antigena / Network / External Threat / Antigena File then New Outbound Block

Antigena / Network / Significant Anomaly / Antigena Alerts Over Time Block

Antigena / Network / External Threat / Antigena Suspicious Activity Block

MITRE ATT&CK Mapping

Tactic – Technique – Sub-Technique

Resource Development – T1588 - Malware

Initial Access - T1189 - Drive-by Compromise

Persistence – T1112 – Modify Registry

Command and Control – T1071 – Application Layer Protocol

Command and Control – T1095 – Non-application Layer Protocol

Command and Control – T1071 – Web Protocols

Command and Control – T1571 – Non-Standard Port

Command and Control – T1102 – One-Way Communication

List of Indicators of Compromise (IoCs)

86.54.24[.]29 - IP - Likely GhostSocks C2

http[://]86.54.24[.]29/Renewable[.]exe - Hostname - GhostSocks Distribution Endpoint

http[://]d2ihv8ymzp14lr.cloudfront[.]net/2021-08-19/udppump[.]exe - CDN - Payload Distribution Endpoint

www.lbfs[.]site - Hostname - Likely C2 Endpoint

retreaw[.]click - Hostname - Lumma C2 Endpoint

alltipi[.]com - Hostname - Possible C2 Endpoint

w2.bruggebogeyed[.]site - Hostname - Possible C2 Endpoint

9b90c62299d4bed2e0752e2e1fc777ac50308534 - SHA1 file hash – Likely GhostSocks payload

3d9d7a7905e46a3e39a45405cb010c1baa735f9e - SHA1 file hash - Likely follow-up payload

10f928e00a1ed0181992a1e4771673566a02f4e3 - SHA1 file hash - Likely follow-up payload

About the author

Gernice Lee

Associate Principal Analyst & Regional Consultancy Lead

Blog

AI

March 27, 2026

State of AI Cybersecurity 2026: 92% of security professionals concerned about the impact of AI agents

The findings in this blog are taken from Darktrace's annual State of AI Cybersecurity Report 2026.

AI is already embedded in day-to-day enterprise activity, with 78% of participants in one recent survey reporting that their organizations are using generative AI in at least one business function. Generative AI now acts as an always-on assistant, researcher, creator, and coach across an expanding array of departments and functions. Autonomous agents are performing multi-step operational workflows from end to end. AI features have been layered on top of every SaaS application. And vibe coding is making it possible for employees without deep technical expertise to build their own AI-powered automations.

According to Gartner, more than 80% of enterprises will have deployed GenAI models, applications, or APIs in production environments by the end of this year, up from less than 5% in 2023. Companies report a 130% increase in spending on AI over the same period, with 72% of business leaders using AI tools at least weekly. The outsized efficiency and productivity gains that were once a future vision are quickly becoming everyday reality.

AI is currently driving business growth and innovation, and organizations risk falling behind peers if they don’t keep up with the pace of adoption, but it is also quietly expanding the enterprise attack surface. The modern CISO is challenged to both enable innovation and protect the business from these emerging threats.

AI agents introduce new risks and vulnerabilities

AI agents are playing growing roles in enterprise production environments. In many cases, these agents act with broad permissions across multiple software systems and platforms. This means they’re granted far-reaching access – to sensitive data, business-critical applications, tokens and APIs, and IT and security tools. With this access comes risk for security leaders – 92% are concerned about the use of AI agents across the workforce and their impact on security.

These agents must be governed as identities, with least-privilege access and ongoing monitoring. They can’t be thought of as invisible aspects of the application estate. Understanding how AI agents behave, and how to manage their permissions, control their behavior, and limit their data access will be a top security priority throughout 2026.

Generative AI prompts: The next frontier

Prompts are how users – both human and agentic – interact with AI systems, and they’re where natural language gets translated into model behavior. Natural language is infinite in its potential combinations and permutations, making this aspect of the attack surface open-ended and far more complex than traditional CVEs. With carefully crafted prompts, bad actors may be able to coax models into disclosing sensitive data, bypassing guardrails, or initiating undesirable actions.

Among security leaders, the biggest worries about AI usage in their environments all involve ways that systems might be manipulated to bypass traditional controls.

61% are most concerned about the exposure of sensitive data
56% are most concerned about potential data security and policy violations
51% are most concerned about the misuse or abuse of AI tools

The more employees rely on AI in their day-to-day workflows, the more critical it becomes for security teams to understand how prompt behavior determines model behavior – and where that behavior could go wrong.

What does “securing AI” mean in practice?

AI adoption opens new security risks that blur the boundaries between traditional security disciplines. A single malicious interaction with an AI model could involve identity misuse, sensitive data exposure, application logic abuse, and supply chain risk – all within a single workflow. Protecting this dynamic and rapidly evolving attack surface requires an approach that spans identity security, cloud security, application security, data security, software development security, and more.

The task for security leaders is to implement the tools, policies, and frameworks to mitigate these novel, expansive, and cross-disciplinary risks.

However, within most enterprises, AI policy creation remains in its infancy. Just 37% of security leaders report that their organization has a formal AI policy, representing a small but worrisome decrease from last year. Conversations about AI abound: in 52% of organizations, there’s discussion about an AI policy. Still, talk is cheap, and leaders will need to take action if they’re to successfully enable secure AI innovation.

To govern and protect their AI systems, organizations must take a multi-pronged approach. This requires building out policies, but it also demands that they are able to:

Monitor the prompts driving GenAI assistants and agents in real time. Organizations must be able to inspect prompts, sessions, and responses across enterprise GenAI tools, low- and high-code environments, and SaaS and SASE so that they can detect clever conversational prompt attacks and malicious chaining.
Secure all business AI agent identities. Security teams need to identify all the agents acting within their environment and supply chain, map their connections and interactions via MCP and services like Amazon S3, and audit their behavior across the cloud, SaaS environments, and on the network and endpoint devices.
Maintain centralized, comprehensive visibility. Understanding intent, assessing risks, and enforcing policies all require that security teams have a single view that spans AI interactions across the entire business.
Discover and control shadow AI. Teams need to be able to identify unsanctioned AI activities, distinguish the misuse of legitimate tools from their appropriate use, and apply policies to protect data, while guiding users towards approved solutions.

Scaling AI safely and responsibly

The approach that most cybersecurity vendors have taken – using historical patterns to predict future threats – doesn’t work well for AI systems. Because AI changes its behavior in response to the information it encounters while taking action, previous patterns don’t indicate what it will do next. Looking at past attacks can’t tell you how complex models will behave in your individual business.

Securing AI requires interpreting ambiguous interactions, uncovering subtleties that reveal intent within extended conversations, understanding how access accumulates over time, and recognizing when behavior – both human and machine – begins to drift towards areas of risk. To do this, you need to understand what “normal” looks like in each unique organization: how users, systems, applications, and AI agents behave, how they communicate, and how data flows between them.

Darktrace has spent more than a decade designing AI-powered solutions that can understand and adapt to evolving behavior in complex environments. This technology learns directly from the environment it protects, identifying malicious actions that deviate from normal operations, so that it can stop AI-related threats on the very first encounter.

As AI adoption reshapes enterprise operations, humans and machines will collaborate more and more often. This collaboration might dramatically expand the attack surface, but it also has the potential to be a force multiplier for defenders.

‍

Explore the full State of AI Cybersecurity 2026 report for deeper insights into how security leaders are responding to AI-driven risks.

Learn more about securing AI in your enterprise.

‍

[related-resource]

About the author

The Darktrace Community

Your data. Our AI.

Elevate your network security with Darktrace AI

Get a demo

Check out this article by Darktrace: New Threat on the Prowl: Investigating Lynx Ransomware

New Threat on the Prowl: Investigating Lynx Ransomware

What is Lynx ransomware?

What techniques does Lynx ransomware group use?

Darktrace Coverage of Lynx Ransomware

Detection of lateral movement

Indicators of compromised administrative credentials

Data exfiltration

Conclusion

Appendices

References

Autonomous Response Model Alerts

Darktrace / NETWORK Model Alerts

List of IoCs

MITRE ATT&CK Mapping

Get the latest insights on emerging cyber threats

Phantom Footprints: Tracking GhostSocks Malware

State of AI Cybersecurity 2026: 92% of security professionals concerned about the impact of AI agents

Enjoying the blog?

More in this series

State of AI Cybersecurity 2026: 92% of security professionals concerned about the impact of AI agents

How the ActiveAI Security Portal Helps MSSPs and SOC Teams Transform Alert Investigation

What the Darktrace Annual Threat Report 2026 Means for Security Leaders

Blog

Network

March 26, 2026

Phantom Footprints: Tracking GhostSocks Malware

Why are attackers using residential proxies?

What is GhostSocks?

How does Ghostsocks malware work?

How does Ghostsocks malware evade detection?

Darktrace’s detection of GhostSocks Malware

Cyber AI Analyst’s investigation

Conclusion

Appendices

References

Darktrace Model Detections

MITRE ATT&CK Mapping

List of Indicators of Compromise (IoCs)

Blog

AI

March 27, 2026

State of AI Cybersecurity 2026: 92% of security professionals concerned about the impact of AI agents

AI agents introduce new risks and vulnerabilities

Generative AI prompts: The next frontier

What does “securing AI” mean in practice?

Scaling AI safely and responsibly