Article
What To Do When A Hacker Encrypts Your Data
Combating Ransomware
Cyber Threats

RANSOMWARE, RANSOMWARE...
It’s the boogeyman looming in the corners of every digital task we do. Even businesses that don’t operate primarily online have data points that can be exploited, and hackers are always on the lookout for those with poor cyber health.

[This article originally appeared in Risk & Insurance at:
We Talk About Ransomware All the Time. So What Do We Actually Do When a Hacker Has Our Data? : Risk & Insurance (riskandinsurance.com)]
The cost of an attack is growing, too. As Gallagher reported in its 2022 Cyber Insurance Market Conditions Report, during the first six months of 2021, $590 million were paid in ransom payments, as opposed to $416 million paid in all of 2020.
While we talk about best practices to protect ourselves, how often do we flip the conversation and look at the steps we must take when a hack actually occurs? “Unfortunately, no one is safe from ransomware,” said Evgueni Erchov, head of security research & strategy, Arete.
“The most sophisticated groups can focus on larger organizations … but we also see the small companies being targeted all the time.”
Erchov is an experienced hacker negotiator, with more than 20 years in IT security, application development, cybercrime investigations, computer forensics, cryptocurrency blockchain and cyber threat intelligence analysis.
Erchov, alongside John Farley, managing director, cyber practice, at Gallagher, put on a recent webinar on what to do when a hacker strikes, running through a simulated hack to give businesses recovery tips.
The presentation, “What Really Happens When You Negotiate With a Hacker: An Insider’s View,” illuminated several key points, from how to communicate with hackers, where to gather cryptocurrency if a hacker demands it, and what conversations with underwriters should look like when reviewing cyber controls.
Getting in Touch with Your Hacker
Believe it or not, hacking is a business, and hackers treat what they do as such.
Organized criminals work together to suss out vulnerable targets — from a large corporation all the way down to the neighborhood corner store. If the business has the capability to store data — credit card info, health records, trade secrets, you name it — the business is a viable target.
When a hacker infiltrates a system, the language used in their demand can follow a similar pattern. Hackers will note the data they have access to — employee personal records, partner and client data, financial and accountant documents — and how they intend to gain ransom for encrypting these files.
Next steps will focus on how to communicate with the hacker.
“It depends on how sophisticated the group is,” Erchov said. “Sometimes a ransom note will contain an email address that will be used to go back and forth and negotiate a ransom.”
Money and Extortion: How Demands Lives Have Changed
“In the old days, five or six years ago, we had hackers typically freezing our data, we had extortion, but if you didn’t pay, you just didn’t get your data back,” Farley said.
The scare tactics being used by hackers are changing.
In the simulation during the presentation, the fictive hacker threatens to reveal extremely sensitive data from the company CEO if they don’t receive $1 million in bitcoin within five days. To prove how serious they are, the hacker sends an excerpt of that sensitive info.
Extortion and double extortion are commonplace for hackers these days, Erchov said.
“That really happens quite often, on average, close to 70% of cases nowadays will involve data exfiltration along with the encryption,” he said.
It’s a tactic used to encourage payment, because it not only involves the encryption of sensitive data, but it also hangs corporate reputation in the balance. The ransom becomes more than just retrieving data; it becomes about keeping that data out of public hands.
Bitcoin: How the Heck Do I get My Hands on That?
Once the decision to pay the hackers is made, the next issue is figuring out how to follow through. More hackers are demanding bitcoin payments in their ransoms, but not all companies are working in bitcoin.
So then, what do companies do when their data is held for ransom?
As noted by Farley and Erchov, people believe the first place to go for bitcoin is their cyber insurer. But this is not correct.
“The forensic investigator … the company that deals with forensic investigation and interim response, that’s typically the company that will be handling that,” Erchov said.
However, the cyber insurer can be there to guide the process.
“The beauty of the cyber insurance policy is that you have access to these companies [like a forensic investigation company] that have access to bitcoin and can facilitate the payments,” added Farley.
Forensic investigation companies are often operating on a 24/7 basis as well, and the cyber insurance policy acts as a bridge between client and forensics.
Farley noted these payments are also on reimbursement, so the cyber policy is typically designed to reimburse ransoms after the fact.
The Decision to Negotiate
While paying a hacker immediately to get encrypted data back seems like a no brainer, sometimes negotiating down the ransom is the best line of action, especially if a ransom demand is really large or unfeasible.
But what if low-balling a hacker leads to a bigger data leak?
“They almost expect the initial demand is not going to be paid,” said Erchov.
But it’s important to partner with a negotiator, he said, because the negotiation strategist knows what is a reasonable offer versus what could anger the hacker.
The good news: On average, hackers will negotiate down a ransom by 70%, according to Erchov, based on the cases his company Arete has dealt with in the past.
But that depends on several different factors.
“Potentially, the backups might be available. So in that case, if we only have to negotiate for promise of data deletion, it gives us additional leverage because we don’t need a decryption tool,” Erchov gave as an example.
Questions Your Underwriter Will Ask
“We have a very hard cyber insurance marketplace today,” said Farley. “We’re in a place where ransomware and other factors are really getting the underwriting community very nervous.”
Because of the risk landscape and the size of demand, rates are increasing. Some entities with less cyber controls in place are facing nonrenewal.
So, how can a company make itself a good risk for an underwriter?
“They are going to have a lot of questions for you,” said Farley. He noted his list was not all encompassing, but these are key areas to start.
“Multi-factor authentication. If you don’t have that in place, there’s a chance you might not get underwritten at all,” he said.
Underwriters will also want to see patch management — a written and detailed plan to manage any hacker exploitation. Point detection and response, which is technology used to find a hacker in your system and alert you to them, is another control underwriters like to see.
At the end of the day, the key thing to remember is if your company is on the receiving end of a cyber ransomware event, call your cyber partners immediately.
They will know which resources, from bitcoin, negotiators, forensics and more, will aid in appeasing the hacker and getting your data secured.
Back to Blog Posts
Article
Payouts King Utilizes QEMU Emulator to Bypass EDR
Researchers recently identified threat actor campaigns leveraging QEMU, a free open-source virtual machine (VM) emulator, to evade endpoint security solutions. Since QEMU acts as a VM within the target environment, endpoint detection tools cannot scan inside the emulator or detect any malicious files or payloads QEMU contains. Although threat actors have been utilizing QEMU maliciously since 2020, recent activity is attributed to the Payouts King ransomware group and a cluster of threat actors believed to be initial access brokers who have also been exploiting the CitrixBleed2 vulnerability CVE-2025-5777.
What’s Notable and Unique
Payouts King has been observed deploying QEMU since November and uses the VM to create a reverse SSH backdoor to evade detection and install various tools, including Rclone, Chisel, and BusyBox.
In a separate campaign, threat actors are exploiting CVE-2025-5777, a Citrix NetScaler vulnerability that allows attackers to bypass authentication. Once they’ve gained initial access, the threat actors use QEMU to deploy tools inside the VM, which are then used to steal credentials, identify Kerberos usernames, perform Active Directory reconnaissance, and set up FTP servers for staging or data exfiltration.
Analyst Comments
Threat actors continue to focus their efforts on defense evasion, often leveraging legitimate, easily accessible tools such as QEMU. The continued use of QEMU by multiple threat actors highlights the effectiveness of these tactics and the difficulty in detecting and defending against them. To counter this campaign, organizations should proactively monitor for unauthorized QEMU installations, abnormal scheduled tasks, and port forwarding rules.
Sources
QEMU abused to evade detection and enable ransomware delivery
Article
Microsoft Teams Continues to be Leveraged in Social Engineering Attacks
Microsoft warns that threat actors are increasingly abusing Microsoft Teams and relying on legitimate tools to gain access and conduct lateral movement within enterprise networks. The threat actors impersonate IT or helpdesk staff to contact employees via cross-tenant chats and trick them into granting remote access for data theft. Microsoft has observed multiple intrusions with a similar attack chain that utilized commercial remote management software, like Quick Assist and the Rclone utility, to transfer files to an external cloud storage service. This tactic, notably associated with Black Basta and Cactus ransomware operations in late 2024 and early 2025, appears to have resurfaced, with similar activity more recently observed in intrusions linked to the Akira and Payouts King ransomware groups.
What’s Notable and Unique
Initial access is achieved by leveraging external collaboration features in Microsoft Teams to allow impersonation of internal support personnel, tricking users into bypassing security warnings. This reflects abuse of legitimate functionality rather than exploitation of a Microsoft Teams vulnerability.
Following initial access, attackers conduct rapid reconnaissance using Command Prompt and PowerShell to assess privileges, domain membership, and opportunities for lateral movement. Persistence is maintained through Windows Registry modifications, after which attackers leveraged WinRM for lateral movement, targeting domain-joined systems and high-value assets, including domain controllers.
Malicious payloads were staged in user-writable directories and executed through DLL side-loading via trusted, signed applications, enabling covert code execution while blending with legitimate activity. Additional remote management tools were also deployed to support broader access, while Rclone or similar utilities were used to stage and exfiltrate sensitive data to external cloud storage.
Analyst Comments
This activity highlights how modern threat actors can leverage trusted collaboration workflows, remote management tools, and stealthy exfiltration techniques to conduct intrusions through a combination of social engineering and misuse of legitimate functionality. Effective defense depends on layered mitigations that combine identity controls, restricted remote administration, endpoint hardening, network protections, and user awareness measures to disrupt attacker activity at multiple stages of the intrusion lifecycle. To mitigate the risk of this and similar campaigns, users should treat external Teams contacts as untrusted by default, and administrators should restrict or closely monitor remote assistance tools while limiting WinRM usage to controlled systems.
Sources
Cross‑tenant helpdesk impersonation to data exfiltration: A human-operated intrusion playbook
Microsoft: Teams increasingly abused in helpdesk impersonation attacks
Payouts King Takes Aim at the Ransomware Throne
Article
Phishing-as-a-Service Evolves with Venom
“Whaling” has taken on a new meaning with a highly targeted phishing campaign active from November 2025 through March 2026, aimed exclusively at senior executives from more than 20 industries. The campaign, dubbed VENOM, is a phishing-as-a-service (PhaaS) platform that combines advanced evasion capabilities with immediate persistence of targeted executives. The initial phish impersonates an internal SharePoint document notification and uses embedded QR codes to convince victims to shift to unmanaged mobile devices to bypass corporate security controls. VENOM aims to establish persistence immediately by either registering a new MFA device or retaining long-lived refresh tokens, allowing threat actors to maintain access even after password resets or other base-level remediation efforts.
What’s Notable and Unique
This campaign is unique in its targeted nature of the PhaaS platform rather than broad, sweeping attempts. The threat actors behind VENOM create convincing phishing emails that impersonate SharePoint activity using the victim’s own domain, company name, and even fabricated email threads. These convincing social engineering tactics, combined with the specific targeting of executives, make this an effective capability for cybercriminals.
VENOM operates as a closed-access system, with full adversarial support, but has no public visibility on the dark web or from security researchers. The service likely operates on an invite-only basis, unlike most PhaaS platforms, which typically seek to have as many paying customers as possible. This, among other items such as the sophisticated evasion techniques, indicates a higher degree of sophistication than most other PhaaS offerings.
Either through MFA enrollment or Microsoft Device Code abuse, the threat actor forces the victim to aid them in establishing persistence early in the attack lifecycle. These tactics result in either valid tokens or an additional MFA login method controlled by the threat actor, meaning typical password resets alone are not effective against this technique. Administrators would be required to explicitly revoke sessions and token grants to mitigate the threat actors’ persistence.
Analyst Comments
Oftentimes, MFA is viewed as a one-stop shop to cybersecurity, but tactics such as this show how threat actors can bypass MFA, or worse, use it to establish persistence. Ultimately, this campaign highlights how modern attacks increasingly abuse legitimate authentication workflows rather than attempting to defeat them outright. Defenses that rely solely on MFA without other security posturing, such as continuous session monitoring, token revocation, and identity logging, can leave organizations vulnerable. As attackers shift toward token theft and device trust abuse, incident response and identity security strategies must evolve accordingly.
Sources
Meet VENOM: The PhaaS Platform That Neutralizes MFA
Article
Threat Actors Continue to Leverage BYOVD Technique
Multiple ransomware operations have recently been observed leveraging the Bring Your Own Vulnerable Driver (BYOVD) technique to disable endpoint security controls prior to ransomware deployment. Notably, the Qilin ransomware group commonly leverages a malicious msimg32.dll 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. Similarly, Warlock ransomware has been observed exploiting the vulnerable NSecKrnl.sys driver to bypass security controls. The use of BYOVD has also been observed across ransomware campaigns associated with Akira, INC, Medusa, and other threat actors.
What’s Notable and Unique
The Qilin ransomware group employs a sophisticated multi-stage infection chain, leveraging DLL side-loading (msimg32.dll) to execute malicious payloads directly in memory and evade traditional file-based detection. In DLL side-loading, a threat actor tricks a program into loading a malicious dynamic link library. The malware escalates privileges and uses signed but vulnerable drivers (rwdrv.sys and hlpdrv.sys) to bypass security controls, access system memory, and systematically disable endpoint defenses by terminating security processes and disabling monitoring callbacks at the kernel level.
Akira ransomware operators have also exploited the rwdrv.sys and hlpdrv.sys drivers. Additionally, Arete has observed threat actors leveraging multiple other drivers, including the vulnerable TrueSight.sys, to bypass security controls.
Meanwhile, Warlock ransomware operators disguised malicious activity by renaming rclone.exe to TrendSecurity.exe to appear legitimate. The file functioned as a loader, exploiting the vulnerable NSecKrnl.sys driver to disable security processes, while Group Policy Objects (GPOs) were leveraged to systematically disable security controls across the environment.
Analyst Comments
The BYOVD technique, employed by multiple known ransomware operators, reflects a broader shift toward pre-encryption defense evasion, including suppression of Windows telemetry, removal of monitoring callbacks, and abuse of legitimately signed but vulnerable drivers. This technique enables threat actors to evade detection, maintain persistence for extended periods, and maximize the operational impact of ransomware deployment across compromised environments. Organizations should implement strict driver control policies, such as Microsoft’s Vulnerable Driver Blocklist and application control mechanisms. Additionally, enforcing least privilege access, enabling multi-factor authentication (MFA), maintaining up-to-date patching, and continuously monitoring for anomalous driver and kernel-level activity can further reduce the risk of such attacks.
Sources
Qilin EDR killer infection chain
Web Shells, Tunnels, and Ransomware: Dissecting a Warlock Attack



