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.
No items found.
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.
No items found.
Share
18
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.
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
No items found.
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.
Defending the Cloud: Stopping Cyber Threats in Azure and AWS with Darktrace
Real-world intrusions across Azure and AWS
As organizations pursue greater scalability and flexibility, cloud platforms like Microsoft Azure and Amazon Web Services (AWS) have become essential for enabling remote operations and digitalizing corporate environments. However, this shift introduces a new set of security risks, including expanding attack surfaces, misconfigurations, and compromised credentials frequently exploited by threat actors.
This blog dives into three instances of compromise within a Darktrace customer’s Azure and AWS environment which Darktrace.
The first incident took place in early 2024 and involved an attacker compromising a legitimate user account to gain unauthorized access to a customer’s Azure environment.
The other two incidents, taking place in February and March 2025, targeted AWS environments. In these cases, threat actors exfiltrated corporate data, and in one instance, was able to detonate ransomware in a customer’s environment.
Case 1 - Microsoft Azure
Figure 1: Simplified timeline of the attack on a customer’s Azure environment.
In early 2024, Darktrace identified a cloud compromise on the Azure cloud environment of a customer in the Europe, the Middle East and Africa (EMEA) region.
Initial access
In this case, a threat actor gained access to the customer’s cloud environment after stealing access tokens and creating a rogue virtual machine (VM). The malicious actor was found to have stolen access tokens belonging to a third-party external consultant’s account after downloading cracked software.
With these stolen tokens, the attacker was able to authenticate to the customer’s Azure environment and successfully modified a security rule to allow inbound SSH traffic from a specific IP range (i.e., securityRules/AllowCidrBlockSSHInbound). This was likely performed to ensure persistent access to internal cloud resources.
Detection and investigation of the threat
Darktrace / IDENTITY recognized that this activity was highly unusual, triggering the “Repeated Unusual SaaS Resource Creation” alert.
Cyber AI Analyst launched an autonomous investigation into additional suspicious cloud activities occurring around the same time from the same unusual location, correlating the individual events into a broader account hijack incident.
Figure 2: Cyber AI Analyst’s investigation into unusual cloud activity performed by the compromised account.
Figure 3: Surrounding resource creation events highlighted by Cyber AI Analyst.
Figure 4: Surrounding resource creation events highlighted by Cyber AI Analyst.
“Create resource service limit” events typically indicate the creation or modification of service limits (i.e., quotas) for a specific Azure resource type within a region. Meanwhile, “Registers the Capacity Resource Provider” events refer to the registration of the Microsoft Capacity resource provider within an Azure subscription, responsible for managing capacity-related resources, particularly those related to reservations and service limits. These events suggest that the threat actor was looking to create new cloud resources within the environment.
Around ten minutes later, Darktrace detected the threat actor creating or modifying an Azure disk associated with a virtual machine (VM), suggesting an attempt to create a rogue VM within the environment.
Threat actors can leverage such rogue VMs to hijack computing resources (e.g., by running cryptomining malware), maintain persistent access, move laterally within the cloud environment, communicate with command-and-control (C2) infrastructure, and stealthily deliver and deploy malware.
Persistence
Several weeks later, the compromised account was observed sending an invitation to collaborate to an external free mail (Google Mail) address.
Darktrace deemed this activity as highly anomalous, triggering a compliance alert for the customer to review and investigate further.
The next day, the threat actor further registered new multi-factor authentication (MFA) information. These actions were likely intended to maintain access to the compromised user account. The customer later confirmed this activity by reviewing the corresponding event logs within Darktrace.
Case 2 – Amazon Web Services
Figure 5: Simplified timeline of the attack on a customer’s AWS environment
In February 2025, another cloud-based compromised was observed on a UK-based customer subscribed to Darktrace’s Managed Detection and Response (MDR) service.
How the attacker gained access
The threat actor was observed leveraging likely previously compromised credential to access several AWS instances within customer’s Private Cloud environment and collecting and exfiltrating data, likely with the intention of deploying ransomware and holding the data for ransom.
Darktrace alerting to malicious activity
This observed activity triggered a number of alerts in Darktrace, including several high-priority Enhanced Monitoring alerts, which were promptly investigated by Darktrace’s Security Operations Centre (SOC) and raised to the customer’s security team.
The earliest signs of attack observed by Darktrace involved the use of two likely compromised credentials to connect to the customer’s Virtual Private Network (VPN) environment.
Internal reconnaissance
Once inside, the threat actor performed internal reconnaissance activities and staged the Rclone tool “ProgramData\rclone-v1.69.0-windows-amd64.zip”, a command-line program to sync files and directories to and from different cloud storage providers, to an AWS instance whose hostname is associated with a public key infrastructure (PKI) service.
The threat actor was further observed accessing and downloading multiple files hosted on an AWS file server instance, notably finance and investment-related files. This likely represented data gathering prior to exfiltration.
Shortly after, the PKI-related EC2 instance started making SSH connections with the Rclone SSH client “SSH-2.0-rclone/v1.69.0” to a RockHoster Virtual Private Server (VPS) endpoint (193.242.184[.]178), suggesting the threat actor was exfiltrating the gathered data using the Rclone utility they had previously installed. The PKI instance continued to make repeated SSH connections attempts to transfer data to this external destination.
Darktrace’s Autonomous Response
In response to this activity, Darktrace’s Autonomous Response capability intervened, blocking unusual external connectivity to the C2 server via SSH, effectively stopping the exfiltration of data.
This activity was further investigated by Darktrace’s SOC analysts as part of the MDR service. The team elected to extend the autonomously applied actions to ensure the compromise remained contained until the customer could fully remediate the incident.
Continued reconissance
Around the same time, the threat actor continued to conduct network scans using the Nmap tool, operating from both a separate AWS domain controller instance and a newly joined device on the network. These actions were accompanied by further internal data gathering activities, with around 5 GB of data downloaded from an AWS file server.
The two devices involved in reconnaissance activities were investigated and actioned by Darktrace SOC analysts after additional Enhanced Monitoring alerts had triggered.
Lateral movement attempts via RDP connections
Unusual internal RDP connections to a likely AWS printer instance indicated that the threat actor was looking to strengthen their foothold within the environment and/or attempting to pivot to other devices, likely in response to being hindered by Autonomous Response actions.
This triggered multiple scanning, internal data transfer and unusual RDP alerts in Darktrace, as well as additional Autonomous Response actions to block the suspicious activity.
Suspicious outbound SSH communication to known threat infrastructure
Darktrace subsequently observed the AWS printer instance initiating SSH communication with a rare external endpoint associated with the web hosting and VPS provider Host Department (67.217.57[.]252), suggesting that the threat actor was attempting to exfiltrate data to an alternative endpoint after connections to the original destination had been blocked.
Further investigation using open-source intelligence (OSINT) revealed that this IP address had previously been observed in connection with SSH-based data exfiltration activity during an Akira ransomware intrusion [1].
Once again, connections to this IP were blocked by Darktrace’s Autonomous Response and subsequently these blocks were extended by Darktrace’s SOC team.
The above behavior generated multiple Enhanced Monitoring alerts that were investigated by Darktrace SOC analysts as part of the Managed Threat Detection service.
Figure 5: Enhanced Monitoring alerts investigated by SOC analysts as part of the Managed Detection and Response service.
Final containment and collaborative response
Upon investigating the unusual scanning activity, outbound SSH connections, and internal data transfers, Darktrace analysts extended the Autonomous Response actions previously triggered on the compromised devices.
As the threat actor was leveraging these systems for data exfiltration, all outgoing traffic from the affected devices was blocked for an additional 24 hours to provide the customer’s security team with time to investigate and remediate the compromise.
Additional investigative support was provided by Darktrace analysts through the Security Operations Service, after the customer's opened of a ticket related to the unfolding incident.
Figure 8: Simplified timeline of the attack
Around the same time of the compromise in Case 2, Darktrace observed a similar incident on the cloud environment of a different customer.
Initial access
On this occasion, the threat actor appeared to have gained entry into the AWS-based Virtual Private Cloud (VPC) networkvia a SonicWall SMA 500v EC2 instance allowing inbound traffic on any port.
The instance received HTTPS connections from three rare Vultr VPS endpoints (i.e., 45.32.205[.]52, 207.246.74[.]166, 45.32.90[.]176).
Lateral movement and exfiltration
Around the same time, the EC2 instance started scanning the environment and attempted to pivot to other internal systems via RDP, notably a DC EC2 instance, which also started scanning the network, and another EC2 instance.
The latter then proceeded to transfer more than 230 GB of data to the rare external GTHost VPS endpoint 23.150.248[.]189, while downloading hundreds of GBs of data over SMB from another EC2 instance.
Figure 7: Cyber AI Analyst incident generated following the unusual scanning and RDP connections from the initial compromised device.
The same behavior was replicated across multiple EC2 instances, whereby compromised instances uploaded data over internal RDP connections to other instances, which then started transferring data to the same GTHost VPS endpoint over port 5000, which is typically used for Universal Plug and Play (UPnP).
What Darktrace detected
Darktrace observed the threat actor uploading a total of 718 GB to the external endpoint, after which they detonated ransomware within the compromised VPC networks.
This activity generated nine Enhanced Monitoring alerts in Darktrace, focusing on the scanning and external data activity, with the earliest of those alerts triggering around one hour after the initial intrusion.
Darktrace’s Autonomous Response capability was not configured to act on these devices. Therefore, the malicious activity was not autonomously blocked and escalated to the point of ransomware detonation.
Conclusion
This blog examined three real-world compromises in customer cloud environments each illustrating different stages in the attack lifecycle.
The first case showcased a notable progression from a SaaS compromise to a full cloud intrusion, emphasizing the critical role of anomaly detection when legitimate credentials are abused.
The latter two incidents demonstrated that while early detection is vital, the ability to autonomously block malicious activity at machine speed is often the most effective way to contain threats before they escalate.
Together, these incidents underscore the need for continuous visibility, behavioral analysis, and machine-speed intervention across hybrid environments. Darktrace's AI-driven detection and Autonomous Response capabilities, combined with expert oversight from its Security Operations Center, give defenders the speed and clarity they need to contain threats and reduce operational disruption, before the situation spirals.
Credit to Alexandra Sentenac (Senior Cyber Analyst) and Dylan Evans (Security Research Lead)
Top Eight Threats to SaaS Security and How to Combat Them
The latest on the identity security landscape
Following the mass adoption of remote and hybrid working patterns, more critical data than ever resides in cloud applications – from Salesforce and Google Workspace, to Box, Dropbox, and Microsoft 365.
As SaaS applications look set to remain an integral part of the digital estate, organizations are being forced to rethink how they protect their users and data in this area.
What is SaaS security?
SaaS security is the protection of cloud applications. It includes securing the apps themselves as well as the user identities that engage with them.
Below are the top eight threats that target SaaS security and user identities.
1. Account Takeover (ATO)
Attackers gain unauthorized access to a user’s SaaS or cloud account by stealing credentials through phishing, brute-force attacks, or credential stuffing. Once inside, they can exfiltrate data, send malicious emails, or escalate privileges to maintain persistent access.
2. Privilege escalation
Cybercriminals exploit misconfigurations, weak access controls, or vulnerabilities to increase their access privileges within a SaaS or cloud environment. Gaining admin or superuser rights allows attackers to disable security settings, create new accounts, or move laterally across the organization.
3. Lateral movement
Once inside a network or SaaS platform, attackers move between accounts, applications, and cloud workloads to expand their foot- hold. Compromised OAuth tokens, session hijacking, or exploited API connections can enable adversaries to escalate access and exfiltrate sensitive data.
4. Multi-Factor Authentication (MFA) bypass and session hijacking
Threat actors bypass MFA through SIM swapping, push bombing, or exploiting session cookies. By stealing an active authentication session, they can access SaaS environments without needing the original credentials or MFA approval.
5. OAuth token abuse
Attackers exploit OAuth authentication mechanisms by stealing or abusing tokens that grant persistent access to SaaS applications. This allows them to maintain access even if the original user resets their password, making detection and mitigation difficult.
6. Insider threats
Malicious or negligent insiders misuse their legitimate access to SaaS applications or cloud platforms to leak data, alter configurations, or assist external attackers. Over-provisioned accounts and poor access control policies make it easier for insiders to exploit SaaS environments.
SaaS applications rely on APIs for integration and automation, but attackers exploit insecure endpoints, excessive permissions, and unmonitored API calls to gain unauthorized access. API abuse can lead to data exfiltration, privilege escalation, and service disruption.
8. Business Email Compromise (BEC) via SaaS
Adversaries compromise SaaS-based email platforms (e.g., Microsoft 365 and Google Workspace) to send phishing emails, conduct invoice fraud, or steal sensitive communications. BEC attacks often involve financial fraud or data theft by impersonating executives or suppliers.
BEC heavily uses social engineering techniques, tailoring messages for a specific audience and context. And with the growing use of generative AI by threat actors, BEC is becoming even harder to detect. By adding ingenuity and machine speed, generative AI tools give threat actors the ability to create more personalized, targeted, and convincing attacks at scale.
Protecting against these SaaS threats
Traditionally, security leaders relied on tools that were focused on the attack, reliant on threat intelligence, and confined to a single area of the digital estate.
However, these tools have limitations, and often prove inadequate for contemporary situations, environments, and threats. For example, they may lack advanced threat detection, have limited visibility and scope, and struggle to integrate with other tools and infrastructure, especially cloud platforms.
AI-powered SaaS security stays ahead of the threat landscape
New, more effective approaches involve AI-powered defense solutions that understand the digital business, reveal subtle deviations that indicate cyber-threats, and action autonomous, targeted responses.
