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.

Written by

Maria Geronikolou

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

Maria Geronikolou

Cyber Analyst

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.

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.

Figure 2: Advanced Search graph demonstrating the rarity of the external IP 38.244.145[.]85 used for data exfiltration.

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].

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

Written by

Maria Geronikolou

Cyber Analyst

Senior Product Marketing Manager, Email

Watch the NIS2 Webinar

Blog

Identity

July 7, 2025

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.

On average, a single organization uses 130 different Software-as-a-Service (SaaS) applications, and 45% of organizations reported experiencing a cybersecurity incident through a SaaS application in the last year.

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.

7. Application Programming Interface (API)-based attacks

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.

[related-resource]

‍

About the author

Carlos Gray

Senior Product Marketing Manager, Email

Blog

July 7, 2025

Pre-CVE Threat Detection: 10 Examples Identifying Malicious Activity Prior to Public Disclosure of a Vulnerability

‍

Vulnerabilities are weaknesses in a system that can be exploited by malicious actors to gain unauthorized access or to disrupt normal operations. Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures (or CVEs) are a list of publicly disclosed cybersecurity vulnerabilities that can be tracked and mitigated by the security community.

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.

With a record-breaking 40,000 CVEs reported for 2024 and a predicted higher number for 2025 by the Forum for Incident Response and Security Teams (FIRST) [1], anomaly-detection is essential for identifying these potential risks. The gap between exploitation of a zero-day and 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.

Detecting threats without relying on CVE disclosure

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

Often, 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: attack vs patch.

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.

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].

Autonomous Response

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 Foulger (Global Threat Research Operations Lead), Ryan Traill (Analyst Content Lead)

References and further reading:

Related Darktrace blogs:

‍

*Self-reported by customer, confirmed afterwards.

**Updated January 2024 blog now reflects current findings

About the author

Your data. Our AI.

Elevate your network security with Darktrace AI

Get a demo

Check out this article by Darktrace: RansomHub Revisited: New Front-Runner in the Ransomware-as-a-Service Marketplace

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

RansomHub overview & background

RansomHub targets

RansomHub tactics and techniques

Darktrace’s Coverage of RansomHub

Conclusion

Appendices

Darktrace Model Detections

Network Reconnaissance

Lateral Movement

C2 Activity

Data Exfiltration

Autonomous Response Models

List of Indicators of Compromise (IoCs)

MITRE ATT&CK Mapping

References

Get the latest insights on emerging cyber threats

Pre-CVE Threat Detection: 10 Examples Identifying Malicious Activity Prior to Public Disclosure of a Vulnerability

Top Eight Threats to SaaS Security and How to Combat Them

Enjoying the blog?

More in this series

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

Customer Case Study: Leading Petrochemical Manufacturer

Tracking CVE-2025-31324: Darktrace’s detection of SAP Netweaver exploitation before and after disclosure

Blog

Identity

July 7, 2025

Top Eight Threats to SaaS Security and How to Combat Them

The latest on the identity security landscape

What is SaaS security?

1. Account Takeover (ATO)

2. Privilege escalation

3. Lateral movement

4. Multi-Factor Authentication (MFA) bypass and session hijacking

5. OAuth token abuse

6. Insider threats

7. Application Programming Interface (API)-based attacks

8. Business Email Compromise (BEC) via SaaS

Protecting against these SaaS threats

AI-powered SaaS security stays ahead of the threat landscape

Blog

July 7, 2025

Pre-CVE Threat Detection: 10 Examples Identifying Malicious Activity Prior to Public Disclosure of a Vulnerability

Detecting threats without relying on CVE disclosure

Below are 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

Autonomous Response

Conclusion

References and further reading:

Related Darktrace blogs: