Article
Surtr Ransomware Pays Tribute to REvil
Combating Ransomware
Arete Analysis

Summary
Surtr ransomware, a significant threat in the current cyber landscape, paid tribute to the now defunct REvil (aka Sodinokibi) group through its sophisticated techniques, although the developers of Surtr ransomware likely do not have a direct connection to REvil.
In February 2022, Arete investigated a Surtr ransomware incident where the ransomware author(s) paid tribute to the now defunct REvil (aka Sodinokibi) group by making a registry key change to the infected host. REvil was an infamous Russian-speaking Ransomware-as-a-Service (RaaS) operation known for the Kaseya attack. In October 2021, a multinational effort disrupted REvil’s operations, followed by Romanian and Russian law enforcement largely dismantling the group by arresting individuals and seizing millions in cash and cryptocurrency.
Arete notes that the developers of Surtr ransomware likely do not have a direct connection to the now defunct REvil ransomware group. However, it is likely that the developers of Surtr are leveraging their REvil tribute to gain popularity. Arete also notes that multiple ransomware groups and affiliates work in a closed ecosystem, sharing source code, strategies, initial access brokers, functionality, and development resources. Thus, it is possible a Surtr developer previously worked with the REvil ransomware group.
Research revealed that Surtr ransomware
Changes the victim’s system manufacturer name with a sentence paying tribute to REvil.
Uses a message box to warn affiliates not to run the malware in the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) — a group of countries in Eastern Europe and Asia formed by Russia and other republics after the dissolution of the Soviet Union — or they will be banned.
Displays messages not common on mature ransomware, which could indicate that the ransomware’s development is still in the early stages.
Like other ransomware, encrypts files in network shares, deletes volume shadow copies, clears Windows event logs, and has a list of whitelisted file extensions, file names, and folders.
Has multilayer obfuscation.
Creates persistence through registry key changes to start as a service, in registry run keys, and make a copy of itself in the StartUp directory.
Creates a mutex value to prevent another copy of the process from running in the system.
Background
Surtr is a new RaaS operation, first observed in December 2021. Like many other ransomware groups, Surtr avoids its execution in the CIS countries and adopts the double extortion scheme of stealing and threatening to leak data if ransom demands are not met. In this investigation, the ransomware targeted Windows systems and employed several anti-debugging/anti-sandboxing techniques. At present, there are no public decryptors or logical flaws to recover files encrypted by Surtr.
Technical Analysis
Surtr ransomware is packed and has an entropy value of 7.62115. The malware has multilayer obfuscation. The native Windows Application Programming Interface (API) “CryptDecrypt” unpacks the first layer of packed content. The packer used Microsoft Enhanced RSA and Advanced Encryption Standard (AES) Cryptographic Provider (CALG_AES_256) to decrypt the data. The unpacked sample is once again UPX packed, which drops the actual payload.

Figure 1. Decrypt function

Figure 2. Decrypting PE file in the memory (encrypted vs decrypted)
Upon decrypting the Portable Executable (PE) file, the packer spawns the same as a new child process with the original packed executable name. Using Windows API “VirtualAllocEx”, it allocates an address space in the spawned child process and writes the process memory with newly decoded binary, later resuming the child process.

Figure 3. Process injection
The decrypted sample shown in Figure 2 is UPX packed. Upon successful unpacking, the analyst gets the Surtr ransomware payload.
Surtr ransomware retrieves file attributes for a specified file or directory “NoRunAnyWay”. If the file or directory does not exist, the program continues creating a folder “Service” at “%ProgramData%”. Later, the sample checks for “config.txt” at the same directory. It appears the ransomware stores its configuration at the “C:\ProgramData\Services” folder at a later point in time.
The ransomware tries to open a mutex by the name “SurtrMUTEX”. If the mutex does not exist, it continues the execution or the ransomware terminates the current program. This activity ensures that a single instance of the program is running.

Figure 4. Creating Mutex
Similar to other ransomware, Surtr avoids execution in the CIS countries, which include Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kirghizstan, Moldavia, Uzbekistan, Russia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, to avoid infecting users where the operators and affiliates most likely reside and visit to prevent arrest by local authorities. Initially, the sample checks the IP address of the victim’s machine and collects IP-related information using ip-api[.]com, which returns a JSON file containing the country of IP origin. Later, this is compared against the list of countries hardcoded in the sample. If there is a match, it avoids execution, leaving a comment “WARNING. Surtr does not run in this country if you do it again you will be banned.” Note: The ransomware also works without proper response from the ip-api[.]com.
Here is the list of countries the ransomware avoids:

Figure 5. Comparing CIS name to avoid execution
Ransomware anti-sandboxing techniques are shown below
The ransomware keeps track of anti-sandboxing techniques using a counter. As shown below, the sample initially checks for API Hooks “E9” for the Windows function “CreateProcessA”. The counter is updated accordingly.

Figure 6. Anti-Sandbox-1
The ransomware checks if the total physical memory (RAM) of the host machine is less than 500MB using the API “GlobalMemoryStatus”. If the victim’s hardware passes this check, the counter is incremented.
Later, using DeviceIOControl, the ransomware gets the geometry (File size) of the C:\ drive and compares it with a hardcoded constant. If the victim’s hardware passes this check, the counter is incremented.[1]

Figure 7. Anti-Sandbox-2, 3
Ransomware anti-debugging techniques are shown below.
Initially, the ransomware checks if any hardware breakpoints (DR0, DR1, DR2, DR3) are set. If the condition satisfies the debugging, the counter is incremented.

Figure 8. Anti-Debugging-1
It also leverages the Windows API “IsDebuggerPresent” to check if the process is being debugged or not and updates the counter accordingly.

Figure 9. Anti-Debugging-2
It appears the program accesses the “Configuration Directory” itself and checks if “GlobalFlagsClear” is set to 0. If yes, the counter is updated.

Figure 10. Anti-Debugging-3
The ransomware checks for the NtGlobalFlag value of the Process Environment Block, which is set to the default value “0” by the operating system. When debugging the malware with a software debugger, the NTGlobalFlag value would be set to 0x70. Passing this check would indicate the presence of a debugger and the counter would be updated [2].

Figure 11. Anti-Debugging-4
Upon these checks, the ransomware compares these calculated individual counters of anti-debugging/anti-sandboxing with the value 2. If either of these counters is more than 2, the ransomware exits with a message box saying, “WARNING. SandBox/Debugger Detected!!!”
The key characteristic of the program is using multithreading for file encryption. Arete observed that multiple threads were created during the execution process, which delays malware analysis and hastens data encryption.
The program makes sure to remove system backups, shadow copies, and system logs.

Figure 12. Removing system backups, Shadowcopies, System logs.
As part of the initial encryption process, the ransomware creates and assigns a random ID to the victim’s machine. The ID is later stored in “c:\ProgramData\Services\ID.surt” and used in further file encryption.

Figure 13: Creating victim ransomware ID
The ransomware checks mounted drives from (A to Z) using Windows native API “GetDriveTypeW”. Once the ransomware enumerates all mounted drives and shares, it encrypts all files except the following:
File Extensions: “.exe”, “.DLL”, “.lnk”, “.surt”
File Names: “surt”, “NTUSER.DAT”, “WIN.INI”, “UsrClass.dat”, “Pagefile.sys”, “hiberfil.sys”, “DumpStack.log.tmp”, “Config.msi”, “boot”
Folders: “Windows”, “Microsoft”, “Windows.old”, “Windows kits”, “WindowsApps”, “Tor Browser”, “Google”, “Mozilla”, “DropBox”
The ransomware uses the “net use” command to connect the remote host device’s share “ADMIN$”. If the connection is successful, the share is added to the encryption list.

Figure 14. Enumerating network shares
The ransomware acquires a targeted file’s handle. Later, it generates a 64-bit random value using a Windows Native API “CryptGenRandom” as shown in Figure 15.
Figure 15. Generating 64-bit random value
The generated random value creates XOR keys, which are used to further encrypt the file contents. Upon encryption of the file, the ransomware encrypts the generated random value using asymmetric encryption and stores the encrypted key at the end of the file as shown in Figure 17.

Figure 16. File encryption loop

Figure 17. Dissecting encrypted file
Figure 17.1 “SURTR” – The attacker identifies if the file was encrypted by the Surtr ransomware using the keyword.
Figure 17.2 Asymmetric encrypted 64-bit random generated values.
Figure 17.3 Delimiter.
The ransomware achieves persistence by copying itself to the “StartUp” folder, creating scheduled tasks that execute the ransomware “ONLOGON” and adding a registry value in “Run” and “RunOnce” key to make the ransomware restart on a system reboot.

Figure 18. Achieving persistence
Arete found that the threat actor also updates the system manufacturer name to “Tribute to the REvil <3” by adding/modifying the “OEMInformation” registry value.
Figure 19. Adding “Tribute to REvil” registry entry
The registry changes mentioned above are shown below.

Figure 20. Updating the system manufacturer
The ransomware further tries to hide by updating its file attributes, thus complicating forensic investigations to identify the same.
Figure 21. Updating file attributes
Upon successful execution of the ransomware, Surtr changes the background of the victim’s machine as shown below and reboots the system.

Figure 22. Changes desktop background
Ransom note name: SURTR_README.hta, SURTR_README.txt.

Figure 23. Ransomware note
Conclusion
A new ransomware on the scene, Surtr could be one to keep an eye on as it mentions REvil’s name in its operations. As more information unfolds, Arete could assess the future of Surtr ransomware. Arete has countermeasures coverage to detect Surtr payloads and artifacts via Arsenal Threat Management and Threat-ID.
Countermeasure
Yara Rule
rule Surtr_ransomware_executable
IOCs:
MD5 Sample B7966CCA3C6FE9B9C64D772EC7DF804C Packed
460FDD0198A286067211BFCF47825B11 UPX Packed
FD16AC037269708C1AB135653483E891 Payload
URL 2i74xfkhsu4zd6qv5aiifv3wznj6vq3jo6mle3zxux6vpftyuezxhmad[.]onion
References:
Back to Blog Posts
Podcast
Cyber Risk and Insurance for Law Firms
In this episode of Bytes of Insight, host Vinny Sakore is joined by Laura Zaroski, Managing Director of the Law Firms Group at Gallagher, as they discuss the evolution of cyber risk for law firms. Tune in for firsthand insights on how to select the right cyber policy, the incident response process, and the nuances of ransom payments and sensitive data.
Article
Canvas Platform Compromised by ShinyHunters
In early May, the ShinyHunters threat group claimed responsibility for a large-scale cyberattack on the Canvas learning management platform, affecting almost 9,000 educational institutions worldwide. Instructure, the education technology company that owns Canvas, confirmed the intrusion and, on May 11th, announced that a settlement was reached with the threat actor. According to the statement, the settlement included return of the stolen data to Instructure, assurance of destruction of any copies of the data, and assurance that no Canvas users would be extorted for additional ransom payments.
Unauthorized activity was first detected in Canvas on April 29th and was reportedly the result of cross-site scripting vulnerabilities. Leveraging the same vulnerability, the threat actor conducted a follow-up attack on May 7th, replacing the login screens of Canvas users at hundreds of institutions with a message from ShinyHunters, claiming responsibility for the attack and displaying a list of impacted schools and the threat actor’s contact information.
By May 8th, neither Canvas nor Instructure was posted on ShinyHunter’s data leak site (DLS), and instead a vague “Press Statement” indicated that the group would not comment on the incident. On May 9th, Instructure shared another update, indicating that Canvas was “fully back online and available for use,” along with updates to the company’s FAQ page.

Figure 1. Press statement on ShinyHunters DLS (Source: Arete)
ShinyHunters: Not Just For Pokémon Anymore
ShinyHunters is a predominantly English-speaking cybercriminal group first observed in 2020 that focuses on data exfiltration and extortion. During its early operational phase, the group carried out a series of data breaches targeting organizations, including Tokopedia, Wattpad, and Nitro PDF, establishing a reputation for compromising and monetizing large datasets. Over this period, ShinyHunters remained heavily centered on a “pay or leak” model, leveraging stolen data to pressure victims into ransom payments or selling the information on underground forums when demands were not met.
As the group matured, it evolved beyond opportunistic database theft into a more sophisticated threat actor capable of executing complex, large-scale intrusion campaigns. ShinyHunters has since demonstrated an ability to target higher‑profile industries, including telecommunications, aviation, and enterprise software-as-a-service (SaaS) platforms, by leveraging advanced tactics such as social engineering, SaaS abuse, and supply chain compromise.
The group went as far as to partner with two other threat groups to form the Scattered Lapsus$ Hunters (SLH) collective in early 2025. Playing to each group’s strengths, SLH leveraged compromised OAuth tokens from the Salesloft Drift integration in an advanced supply-chain attack that led to the exfiltration of data across hundreds of Salesforce instances. Despite multiple law enforcement actions and arrests linked to its members, the group has remained operational under the same branding for several years. This persistence highlights the group’s resilience and adaptability, suggesting an operational model that can evolve in response to external pressures.
Analyst Comments
Given the group’s track record, ShinyHunters is likely to continue conducting large-scale data theft and extortion operations while further engraining itself within the broader cybercriminal ecosystem. This recent incident highlights the disproportionate impact of cyberattacks against supply chain vendors like SaaS platforms, open-source ecosystems, MSPs, and cloud integrations, where a breach on one platform can affect thousands of organizations. Any organizations impacted by the recent Canvas incident should not attempt any communication with the threat actor and should continue to follow any future guidance posted on Instructure’s Incident Update & FAQ page.
Sources
Security Incident Update & FAQs
Canvas login portals hacked in mass ShinyHunters extortion campaign
ShinyHunters: A Threat Profile
ShinyHunters
Scattered LAPSUS$ Hunters: Anatomy of a Federated Cybercriminal Brand
FBI warns of UNC6040, UNC6395 hackers stealing Salesforce data
Article
Critical MOVEit Automation Vulnerabilities Disclosed
A security advisory released by Progress Software details critical and high-severity vulnerabilities affecting their MOVEit Automation managed file transfer (MFT) solution. The vulnerabilities, tracked as CVE-2026-4670 and CVE-2026-5174, could allow a threat actor to bypass authentication and escalate privileges, leading to unauthorized access, administrative control, and data exposure. Cybercriminals have leveraged several MFT tools in previous campaigns, including the Accellion File Transfer Application (FTA), Fortra GoAnywhere MFT, and Cleo MFT. Flaws in MFT software are highly targeted by cybercriminals due to the volume and sensitivity of the data they control.
What’s Notable and Unique
MOVEit Transfer was heavily exploited by the Cl0p ransomware group in the summer of 2023. While the window of exploit activity lasted only a few weeks, victim extortion and data leaks continued throughout the remainder of the year, leading to more than 70 class-action lawsuits filed in the U.S.
There is no workaround or hotfix for these vulnerabilities. To fully patch the flaws, MOVEit administrators need to perform a "full install" of the latest version, which will require taking the system offline.
Security researchers have discovered ~1,400 MOVEit Automation instances exposed to the internet, with dozens belonging to U.S. local and state government agencies.
Analyst Comments
While the vulnerabilities patched in Progress Software's recent release differ from the SQL injection vulnerability exploited by the Cl0p ransomware group in 2023, exploitation of CVE-2026-4670 and CVE-2026-5174 could lead to equally impactful outcomes. Beyond the immediate impacts on affected organizations, trusted data-exchange platforms provide threat actors with an avenue to obtain sensitive information and infect partner and supplier environments. Furthermore, Arete has seen the time window between disclosure and weaponization of critical vulnerabilities continue to shrink, especially as threat actors increasingly adopt AI-enabled tooling. As such, organizations should not only implement the patches released by Progress Software, but also hunt for typical post-compromise behavior like enumeration of the underlying database, the creation of new user accounts or users operating with unexpected administrator privileges, and the presence of unauthorized remote monitoring and management (RMM) tools.
Sources
MOVEit Automation Critical Security Alert Bulletin – April 2026 – (CVE-2026-4670, CVE-2026-5174)
From Breach to Courtroom: Inside the MOVEit Exploitation and Mass Litigation
Progress warns of critical MOVEit Automation auth bypass flaw
Article
Ransomware Trends & Data Insights: April 2026
The threat landscape has remained relatively predictable thus far in 2026. In April, Qilin dethroned Akira as the most active threat group for the month. Akira, who had been the top ransomware threat each month since July 2025, was still only slightly behind Qilin and had roughly the same activity level as in March. INC Ransom and DragonForce also remained active threats in April, with those four ransomware groups accounting for half of all ransomware and extortion activity observed by Arete.

Figure 1. Activity from the top 3 threat groups in April 2026
Throughout the month, analysts at Arete identified several trends behind the threat actors perpetrating cybercrime activities:
Multiple ransomware operations continue to leverage the Bring Your Own Vulnerable Driver (BYOVD) technique to disable endpoint security controls prior to ransomware deployment. Qilin has recently been observed leveraging a malicious file loaded via DLL side-loading along with vulnerable drivers, including rwdrv.sys and hlpdrv.sys, to gain kernel-level access and disable security processes. Arete observed Akira using the same vulnerable drivers in multiple engagements dating back to Q3 2025.
DragonForce has leveraged several of the same tools in recent engagements, including the remote desktop application Remotely Agent and the PoisonX.sys vulnerable driver. Additionally, open-source reporting indicates that the group recently used a Python-based backdoor known as VIPERTUNNEL to maintain reliable operator access and evade detection. DragonForce was responsible for over 7% of Arete ransomware engagements in April, and Arete notes increased activity from the group this year compared to 2025.
A social engineering tactic has reemerged in recent months in which threat actors impersonate IT and helpdesk staff via Microsoft Teams to contact employees and attempt to convince them to install remote access tools like Quick Assist, giving the threat actors remote access to the victim’s environment. This tactic was initially observed in late 2024 and early 2025 and was linked to now-defunct groups like Black Basta and Cactus, but has more recently been observed in intrusions linked to the Akira and Payouts King ransomware groups.
Sources
Arete Internal



