Blog
/
Network
/
February 6, 2025

RansomHub Revisited: New Front-Runner in the Ransomware-as-a-Service Marketplace

Discover how RansomHub is rising in the ransomware landscape, using tools like Atera and Splashtop, reconnaissance tactics, and double extortion techniques.
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
Maria Geronikolou
Cyber Analyst
Default blog imageDefault blog imageDefault blog imageDefault blog imageDefault blog imageDefault blog image
06
Feb 2025

In a previous Inside the SOC blog, Darktrace investigated RansomHub and its growing impact on the threat landscape due to its use by the ShadowSyndicate threat group. Here, RansomHub is revisited with new insights on this ransomware-as-a-service (RaaS) platform that has rapidly gained traction among threat actors of late.

In recent months, Darktrace’s Threat Research team has noted a significant uptick in potential compromises affecting the fleet, indicating that RansomHub is becoming a preferred tool for cybercriminals.  This article delves into the increasing adoption of RansomHub, the tactics, techniques, and procedures (TTPs) employed by its affiliates, and the broader implications for organizations striving to protect their systems.

RansomHub overview & background

One notable threat group to have transitioned from ALPHV (BlackCat)-aligned operations to RansomHub-aligned operations is ScatteredSpider [1]. The adoption of RansomHub by ScatteredSpider and other threat actors suggests a possible power shift among threat groups, given the increasing number of cybercriminals adopting it, including those who previously relied on ALPHV’s malware code [2].

ALPHV was a RaaS strain used by cybercriminals to breach Change Healthcare in February 2024 [2]. However, there are claims that the ransom payment never reached the affiliate using ALPHV, leading to a loss of trust in the RaaS. Around the same time, Operation Cronos resulted in the shutdown of LockBit and the abandonment of its affiliates [2]. Consequently, RansomHub emerged as a prominent RaaS successor.

RansomHub targets

The RansomHub ransomware group has been observed targeting various sectors, including critical infrastructure, financial and government services, and the healthcare sector [4]. They use ransomware variants rewritten in GoLang to target both Windows and Linux systems [5]. RansomHub is known for employing double extortion attacks, encrypting data using “Curve25519” encryption [6].

RansomHub tactics and techniques

The attackers leverage phishing attacks and social engineering techniques to lure their victims. Once access is gained, they use sophisticated tools to maintain control over compromised networks and exploit vulnerabilities in systems like Windows, Linux, ESXI, and NAS.

In more recent RansomHub attacks, tools such as Atera and Splashtop have been used to facilitate remote access, while NetScan has been employed to discover and retrieve information about network devices [7].

External researchers have observed that RansomHub uses several legitimate tools, or a tactic known as Living-off-the-Land (LOTL), to carry out their attacks. These tools include:

  • SecretServerSecretStealer: A PowerShell script that allows for the decryption of passwords [1].
  • Ngrok: A legitimate reverse proxy tool that creates a secure tunnel to servers located behind firewalls, used by the group for lateral movement and data exfiltration.
  • Remmina: An open-source remote desktop client for POSIX-based operating systems, enabling threat actors to access remote services [1].

By using these legitimate tools instead of traditional malware, RansomHub can avoid detection and maintain a lower profile during their operations.

Darktrace’s Coverage of RansomHub

Darktrace’s Security Operations Center (SOC) detected several notable cases of likely RansomHub activity across the customer base in recent months. In all instances, threat actors performed network scanning and brute force activities.

During the investigation of a confirmed RansomHub attack in January 2025, the Darktrace Threat Research team identified multiple authentication attempts as attackers tried to retrieve valid credentials. It is plausible that the attackers gained entry to customer environments through their Remote Desktop (RD) web server. Following this, various RDP connections were made to pivot to other devices within the network.

The common element among the cases investigated was that, in most instances, devices were seen performing outgoing connections to splashtop[.]com, a remote access and support software service, after the scanning activity had occurred. On one customer network, following this activity, the same device was seen connecting to the domain agent-api[.]atera[.]com and IP 20.37.139[.]187, which are seemingly linked to Atera, a Remote Monitoring and Management (RMM) tool.

Model Alert Log of an affected device making connections to *atera[.]com.
Figure 1: Model Alert Log of an affected device making connections to *atera[.]com.

In a separate case, a Darktrace observed a device attempting to perform SMB scanning activity, trying to connect to multiple internal devices over port 445. Cyber AI Analyst was able to detect and correlate these individual connections into a single reconnaissance incident.

Similar connections to Remote Monitoring and Management (RMM) tools were also detected in a different customer environment, as alerted by Darktrace’s SOC. Unusual connections to Splashtop and Atera were made from the alerted device. Following this, the same device was observed sending a large volume of data over SSH Rclone to a rare external endpoint on the unusual port 448, triggered multiple models in Darktrace / NETWORK.

Advanced Search graph demonstrating the rarity of the  external IP 38.244.145[.]85  used for data exfiltration.
Figure 2: Advanced Search graph demonstrating the rarity of the  external IP 38.244.145[.]85  used for data exfiltration.
Model Alert Log displaying information related to the suspicious IP, including the port used and its rarity for the network.
Figure 3: Model Alert Log displaying information related to the suspicious IP, including the port used and its rarity for the network.

In the cases observed, data exfiltration occurred alongside the encryption of files likely indicating double extortion tactics. In September 2024, the Darktrace’s Threat Research team identified a 6-digit alphanumeric additional extension similar to “.293ac3”. This case was closely linked to a RansomHub attack, which was also analyzed in a different blog post by Darktrace [8].

Event Log displaying the extension “.293ac3” being appended to encrypted files on an affected customer network.
Figure 4: Event Log displaying the extension “.293ac3” being appended to encrypted files on an affected customer network.

Conclusion

RansomHub exemplifies the evolving RaaS ecosystem, where threat actors capitalize on ready-made platforms to launch sophisticated attacks with ease. The activities observed highlight its growing popularity among cybercriminals. The analysis showed that the different attacks investigated followed a similar pattern of activity.

First, attackers perform reconnaissance activities, including widespread scanning from multiple devices and reverse DNS sweeps. They then use high-privileged credentials to pivot among devices and establish remote connections using RMM tools such as Atera. A common element among most attacks that reached the data encryption stage is the use of a 6-digit alphanumeric extension.

In all cases, Darktrace alerted on the unusual activities observed, creating not only model alerts but also Cyber AI Analyst incidents. Both Darktrace Security Operations Support and Darktrace Managed Threat Detection services provided 24/7 assistance to clients affected by RansomHub. The analyst team continued investigating these incidents, gathering data and IoCs seen in the RansomHub incidents, providing valuable insight and guidance throughout the process.

As RansomHub continues to gain traction, it serves as a stark reminder of the need for robust cybersecurity measures, proactive threat intelligence, and continued vigilance.

Credit to Maria Geronikolou (Cyber Analyst) and Nahisha Nobregas (Senior Cyber Analyst)

[related-resource]

Appendices

Darktrace Model Detections

Network Reconnaissance

o   Device / Network Scan

o   Device / ICMP Address Scan

o   Device / RDP Scan

o   Device / Anomalous LDAP Root Searches

o   Anomalous Connection / SMB Enumeration

o   Device / Spike in LDAP Activity

o   Device / Suspicious Network Scan Activity

Lateral Movement

o   Device / Multiple Lateral Movement Model Alerts

o   Device / Increase in New RPC Services

o   Device / New or Uncommon WMI Activity

o   Device / Possible SMB/NTLM Brute Force

o   Device / SMB Session Brute Force (Non-Admin)

o   Device / Anomalous NTLM Brute Force

o   Compliance / Default Credential Usage

o   Compliance / Outgoing NTLM Request from DC

C2 Activity

o   Anomalous Server Activity / Outgoing from Server

o   Anomalous Connection / Multiple Connections to New External TCP Port

o   Unusual Activity / Unusual External Activity

o   Compliance / Remote Management Tool On Server

Data Exfiltration

o   Unusual Activity / Enhanced Unusual External Data Transfer

o   Anomalous Connection / Outbound SSH to Unusual Port

o   Compliance / SSH to Rare External Destination

o   Unusual Activity / Unusual External Data to New Endpoint

o   Unusual Activity / Unusual External Data Transfer

o   Attack Path Modelling / Unusual Data Transfer on Critical Attack Path

o   Compliance / Possible Unencrypted Password File On Server

Autonomous Response Models

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

-       Antigena/Network/Insider Threat/Antigena SMB Enumeration Block

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

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

List of Indicators of Compromise (IoCs)

o   38.244.145[.]85

o   20.37.139[.]187 agent-api.atera[.]com

o   108.157.150[.]120 ps.atera[.]com

o   st-v3-univ-srs-win-3720[.]api[.]splashtop[.]com

MITRE ATT&CK Mapping

  • RECONNAISSANCE T1592.004
  • RECONNAISSANCE T1595.002
  • DISCOVERY T1046
  • DISCOVERY T1083
  • DISCOVERY T1135
  • DISCOVERY T1018
  • INITIAL ACCESS T1190
  • CREDENTIAL ACCESS T1110
  • LATERAL MOVEMENT T1210
  • COMMAND AND CONTROL T1001
  • EXFILTRATION T1041
  • EXFILTRATION T1567.002

References

[1] https://www.guidepointsecurity.com/blog/worldwide-web-an-analysis-of-tactics-and-techniques-attributed-to-scattered-spider/

[2] https://www.theregister.com/2024/07/16/scattered_spider_ransom/

[3] https://krebsonsecurity.com/2024/03/blackcat-ransomware-group-implodes-after-apparent-22m-ransom-payment-by-change-healthcare/

[4] https://thehackernews.com/2024/09/ransomhub-ransomware-group-targets-210.html

[5] https://www.trendmicro.com/vinfo/us/security/news/ransomware-spotlight/ransomware-spotlight-ransomhub

[6] https://areteir.com/article/malware-spotlight-ransomhub-ransomware/
[7] https://www.security.com/threat-intelligence/ransomhub-knight-ransomware

[8] https://darktrace.com/blog/ransomhub-ransomware-darktraces-investigation-of-the-newest-tool-in-shadowsyndicates-arsenal

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
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
Maria Geronikolou
Cyber Analyst

More in this series

No items found.

Blog

/

AI

/

December 23, 2025

How to Secure AI in the Enterprise: A Practical Framework for Models, Data, and Agents

How to secure AI in the enterprise: A practical framework for models, data, and agents Default blog imageDefault blog image

Introduction: Why securing AI is now a security priority

AI adoption is at the forefront of the digital movement in businesses, outpacing the rate at which IT and security professionals can set up governance models and security parameters. Adopting Generative AI chatbots, autonomous agents, and AI-enabled SaaS tools promises efficiency and speed but also introduces new forms of risk that traditional security controls were never designed to manage. For many organizations, the first challenge is not whether AI should be secured, but what “securing AI” actually means in practice. Is it about protecting models? Governing data? Monitoring outputs? Or controlling how AI agents behave once deployed?  

While demand for adoption increases, securing AI use in the enterprise is still an abstract concept to many and operationalizing its use goes far beyond just having visibility. Practitioners need to also consider how AI is sourced, built, deployed, used, and governed across the enterprise.

The goal for security teams: Implement a clear, lifecycle-based AI security framework. This blog will demonstrate the variety of AI use cases that should be considered when developing this framework and how to frame this conversation to non-technical audiences.  

What does “securing AI” actually mean?

Securing AI is often framed as an extension of existing security disciplines. In practice, this assumption can cause confusion.

Traditional security functions are built around relatively stable boundaries. Application security focuses on code and logic. Cloud security governs infrastructure and identity. Data security protects sensitive information at rest and in motion. Identity security controls who can access systems and services. Each function has clear ownership, established tooling, and well-understood failure modes.

AI does not fit neatly into any of these categories. An AI system is simultaneously:

  • An application that executes logic
  • A data processor that ingests and generates sensitive information
  • A decision-making layer that influences or automates actions
  • A dynamic system that changes behavior over time

As a result, the security risks introduced by AI cuts across multiple domains at once. A single AI interaction can involve identity misuse, data exposure, application logic abuse, and supply chain risk all within the same workflow. This is where the traditional lines between security functions begin to blur.

For example, a malicious prompt submitted by an authorized user is not a classic identity breach, yet it can trigger data leakage or unauthorized actions. An AI agent calling an external service may appear as legitimate application behavior, even as it violates data sovereignty or compliance requirements. AI-generated code may pass standard development checks while introducing subtle vulnerabilities or compromised dependencies.

In each case, no single security team “owns” the risk outright.

This is why securing AI cannot be reduced to model safety, governance policies, or perimeter controls alone. It requires a shared security lens that spans development, operations, data handling, and user interaction. Securing AI means understanding not just whether systems are accessed securely, but whether they are being used, trained, and allowed to act in ways that align with business intent and risk tolerance.

At its core, securing AI is about restoring clarity in environments where accountability can quickly blur. It is about knowing where AI exists, how it behaves, what it is allowed to do, and how its decisions affect the wider enterprise. Without this clarity, AI becomes a force multiplier for both productivity and risk.

The five categories of AI risk in the enterprise

A practical way to approach AI security is to organize risk around how AI is used and where it operates. The framework below defines five categories of AI risk, each aligned to a distinct layer of the enterprise AI ecosystem  

How to Secure AI in the Enterprise:

  • Defending against misuse and emergent behaviors
  • Monitoring and controlling AI in operation
  • Protecting AI development and infrastructure
  • Securing the AI supply chain
  • Strengthening readiness and oversight

Together, these categories provide a structured lens for understanding how AI risk manifests and where security teams should focus their efforts.

1. Defending against misuse and emergent AI behaviors

Generative AI systems and agents can be manipulated in ways that bypass traditional controls. Even when access is authorized, AI can be misused, repurposed, or influenced through carefully crafted prompts and interactions.

Key risks include:

  • Malicious prompt injection designed to coerce unwanted actions
  • Unauthorized or unintended use cases that bypass guardrails
  • Exposure of sensitive data through prompt histories
  • Hallucinated or malicious outputs that influence human behavior

Unlike traditional applications, AI systems can produce harmful outcomes without being explicitly compromised. Securing this layer requires monitoring intent, not just access. Security teams need visibility into how AI systems are being prompted, how outputs are consumed, and whether usage aligns with approved business purposes

2. Monitoring and controlling AI in operation

Once deployed, AI agents operate at machine speed and scale. They can initiate actions, exchange data, and interact with other systems with little human oversight. This makes runtime visibility critical.

Operational AI risks include:

  • Agents using permissions in unintended ways
  • Uncontrolled outbound connections to external services or agents
  • Loss of forensic visibility into ephemeral AI components
  • Non-compliant data transmission across jurisdictions

Securing AI in operation requires real-time monitoring of agent behavior, centralized control points such as AI gateways, and the ability to capture agent state for investigation. Without these capabilities, security teams may be blind to how AI systems behave once live, particularly in cloud-native or regulated environments.

3. Protecting AI development and infrastructure

Many AI risks are introduced long before deployment. Development pipelines, infrastructure configurations, and architectural decisions all influence the security posture of AI systems.

Common risks include:

  • Misconfigured permissions and guardrails
  • Insecure or overly complex agent architectures
  • Infrastructure-as-Code introducing silent misconfigurations
  • Vulnerabilities in AI-generated code and dependencies

AI-generated code adds a new dimension of risk, as hallucinated packages or insecure logic may be harder to detect and debug than human-written code. Securing AI development means applying security controls early, including static analysis, architectural review, and continuous configuration monitoring throughout the build process.

4. Securing the AI supply chain

AI supply chains are often opaque. Models, datasets, dependencies, and services may come from third parties with varying levels of transparency and assurance.

Key supply chain risks include:

  • Shadow AI tools used outside approved controls
  • External AI agents granted internal access
  • Suppliers applying AI to enterprise data without disclosure
  • Compromised models, training data, or dependencies

Securing the AI supply chain requires discovering where AI is used, validating the provenance and licensing of models and data, and assessing how suppliers process and protect enterprise information. Without this visibility, organizations risk data leakage, regulatory exposure, and downstream compromise through trusted integrations.

5. Strengthening readiness and oversight

Even with strong technical controls, AI security fails without governance, testing, and trained teams. AI introduces new incident scenarios that many security teams are not yet prepared to handle.

Oversight risks include:

  • Lack of meaningful AI risk reporting
  • Untested AI systems in production
  • Security teams untrained in AI-specific threats

Organizations need AI-aware reporting, red and purple team exercises that include AI systems, and ongoing training to build operational readiness. These capabilities ensure AI risks are understood, tested, and continuously improved, rather than discovered during a live incident.

Reframing AI security for the boardroom

AI security is not just a technical issue. It is a trust, accountability, and resilience issue. Boards want assurance that AI-driven decisions are reliable, explainable, and protected from tampering.

Effective communication with leadership focuses on:

  • Trust: confidence in data integrity, model behavior, and outputs
  • Accountability: clear ownership across teams and suppliers
  • Resilience: the ability to operate, audit, and adapt under attack or regulation

Mapping AI security efforts to recognized frameworks such as ISO/IEC 42001 and the NIST AI Risk Management Framework helps demonstrate maturity and aligns AI security with broader governance objectives.

Conclusion: Securing AI is a lifecycle challenge

The same characteristics that make AI transformative also make it difficult to secure. AI systems blur traditional boundaries between software, users, and decision-making, expanding the attack surface in subtle but significant ways.

Securing AI requires restoring clarity. Knowing where AI exists, how it behaves, who controls it, and how it is governed. A framework-based approach allows organizations to innovate with AI while maintaining trust, accountability, and control.

The journey to secure AI is ongoing, but it begins with understanding the risks across the full AI lifecycle and building security practices that evolve alongside the technology.

Continue reading
About the author
Brittany Woodsmall
Product Marketing Manager, AI & Attack Surface

Blog

/

AI

/

December 22, 2025

The Year Ahead: AI Cybersecurity Trends to Watch in 2026

2026 cyber threat trendsDefault blog imageDefault blog image

Introduction: 2026 cyber trends

Each year, we ask some of our experts to step back from the day-to-day pace of incidents, vulnerabilities, and headlines to reflect on the forces reshaping the threat landscape. The goal is simple:  to identify and share the trends we believe will matter most in the year ahead, based on the real-world challenges our customers are facing, the technology and issues our R&D teams are exploring, and our observations of how both attackers and defenders are adapting.  

In 2025, we saw generative AI and early agentic systems moving from limited pilots into more widespread adoption across enterprises. Generative AI tools became embedded in SaaS products and enterprise workflows we rely on every day, AI agents gained more access to data and systems, and we saw glimpses of how threat actors can manipulate commercial AI models for attacks. At the same time, expanding cloud and SaaS ecosystems and the increasing use of automation continued to stretch traditional security assumptions.

Looking ahead to 2026, we’re already seeing the security of AI models, agents, and the identities that power them becoming a key point of tension – and opportunity -- for both attackers and defenders. Long-standing challenges and risks such as identity, trust, data integrity, and human decision-making will not disappear, but AI and automation will increase the speed and scale of the cyber risk.  

Here's what a few of our experts believe are the trends that will shape this next phase of cybersecurity, and the realities organizations should prepare for.  

Agentic AI is the next big insider risk

In 2026, organizations may experience their first large-scale security incidents driven by agentic AI behaving in unintended ways—not necessarily due to malicious intent, but because of how easily agents can be influenced. AI agents are designed to be helpful, lack judgment, and operate without understanding context or consequence. This makes them highly efficient—and highly pliable. Unlike human insiders, agentic systems do not need to be socially engineered, coerced, or bribed. They only need to be prompted creatively, misinterpret legitimate prompts, or be vulnerable to indirect prompt injection. Without strong controls around access, scope, and behavior, agents may over-share data, misroute communications, or take actions that introduce real business risk. Securing AI adoption will increasingly depend on treating agents as first-class identities—monitored, constrained, and evaluated based on behavior, not intent.

-- Nicole Carignan, SVP of Security & AI Strategy

Prompt Injection moves from theory to front-page breach

We’ll see the first major story of an indirect prompt injection attack against companies adopting AI either through an accessible chatbot or an agentic system ingesting a hidden prompt. In practice, this may result in unauthorized data exposure or unintended malicious behavior by AI systems, such as over-sharing information, misrouting communications, or acting outside their intended scope. Recent attention on this risk—particularly in the context of AI-powered browsers and additional safety layers being introduced to guide agent behavior—highlights a growing industry awareness of the challenge.  

-- Collin Chapleau, Senior Director of Security & AI Strategy

Humans are even more outpaced, but not broken

When it comes to cyber, people aren’t failing; the system is moving faster than they can. Attackers exploit the gap between human judgment and machine-speed operations. The rise of deepfakes and emotion-driven scams that we’ve seen in the last few years reduce our ability to spot the familiar human cues we’ve been taught to look out for. Fraud now spans social platforms, encrypted chat, and instant payments in minutes. Expecting humans to be the last line of defense is unrealistic.

Defense must assume human fallibility and design accordingly. Automated provenance checks, cryptographic signatures, and dual-channel verification should precede human judgment. Training still matters, but it cannot close the gap alone. In the year ahead, we need to see more of a focus on partnership: systems that absorb risk so humans make decisions in context, not under pressure.

-- Margaret Cunningham, VP of Security & AI Strategy

AI removes the attacker bottleneck—smaller organizations feel the impact

One factor that is currently preventing more companies from breaches is a bottleneck on the attacker side: there’s not enough human hacker capital. The number of human hands on a keyboard is a rate-determining factor in the threat landscape. Further advancements of AI and automation will continue to open that bottleneck. We are already seeing that. The ostrich approach of hoping that one’s own company is too obscure to be noticed by attackers will no longer work as attacker capacity increases.  

-- Max Heinemeyer, Global Field CISO

SaaS platforms become the preferred supply chain target

Attackers have learned a simple lesson: compromising SaaS platforms can have big payouts. As a result, we’ll see more targeting of commercial off-the-shelf SaaS providers, which are often highly trusted and deeply integrated into business environments. Some of these attacks may involve software with unfamiliar brand names, but their downstream impact will be significant. In 2026, expect more breaches where attackers leverage valid credentials, APIs, or misconfigurations to bypass traditional defenses entirely.

-- Nathaniel Jones, VP of Security & AI Strategy

Increased commercialization of generative AI and AI assistants in cyber attacks

One trend we’re watching closely for 2026 is the commercialization of AI-assisted cybercrime. For example, cybercrime prompt playbooks sold on the dark web—essentially copy-and-paste frameworks that show attackers how to misuse or jailbreak AI models. It’s an evolution of what we saw in 2025, where AI lowered the barrier to entry. In 2026, those techniques become productized, scalable, and much easier to reuse.  

-- Toby Lewis, Global Head of Threat Analysis

Conclusion

Taken together, these trends underscore that the core challenges of cybersecurity are not changing dramatically -- identity, trust, data, and human decision-making still sit at the core of most incidents. What is changing quickly is the environment in which these challenges play out. AI and automation are accelerating everything: how quickly attackers can scale, how widely risk is distributed, and how easily unintended behavior can create real impact. And as technology like cloud services and SaaS platforms become even more deeply integrated into businesses, the potential attack surface continues to expand.  

Predictions are not guarantees. But the patterns emerging today suggest that 2026 will be a year where securing AI becomes inseparable from securing the business itself. The organizations that prepare now—by understanding how AI is used, how it behaves, and how it can be misused—will be best positioned to adopt these technologies with confidence in the year ahead.

Learn more about how to secure AI adoption in the enterprise without compromise by registering to join our live launch webinar on February 3, 2026.  

Continue reading
About the author
The Darktrace Community
Your data. Our AI.
Elevate your network security with Darktrace AI