Article
Maze Ransomware: Is Posting Data Counterproductive?
Combating Ransomware

Summary
In 2020, Maze Ransomware began utilizing both encryption and data exfiltration in an attempt to maximize ransom payments, but these tactics may backfire by adding additional incident response costs for victims.
—————————————————————————
Ransomware incidents dominated INFOSEC news in 2019. Penetration methods continued to evolve, attacks became more targeted and ransom demands continued to rise. A major shift in attacker tactics happened in early December when the group behind the Maze ransomware variant started to exfiltrate their victim’s data along with encrypting their files. It was disclosed during active ransom negotiations with the Maze actors that the data that is being exfiltrated from victim networks is being analyzed by Maze actors to determine the price for the ransom demand. The Maze group also created a web page and began to publish data of the victims who refused to pay the ransom.
Maze victims could now be extorted in two different ways, forcing clients to deal with a double-pronged issue – data loss on the one hand and data leakage on the other. This makes restoration from backups a lot less appealing as attackers now are leveraging the data extortion component to apply pressure to victims to pay the ransom demands (even if they have valid backups) to stop further data leakage.
It didn’t take long for a few other ransomware variants, like REvil/Sodinokibi, DopplePaymer, Pysa/Mespinoza, Ako, Clop, Lockbit, Nefilm, Nemty, Netwalker, Ragnar, Sekhmet, Snatch, and Zeppelin, to follow Maze off the bridge and start accessing and exfiltrating their victim’s data as well. All groups believed that having their victim’s data may increase their chances of the ransom being paid but, in reality, this strategy will most likely do quite the opposite.
For every organization that is experiencing a ransomware event, the overall incident response price tag consists of several components:
Initial triage and containment efforts to ensure that the attackers no longer have access to systems and networks Legal assessment to identify all applicable obligations under state and federal laws and regulations Forensic evidence collection and preservation Recovery of data and systems (note: this can occur either by paying the ransom, restoring from backups, or rebuilding systems and data from scratch) Digital forensics investigation
And, if the results of the forensics investigation do not rule out data access or exfiltration by the attacker:
Collection and data mining of compromised data to identify all PII/PCI/PHI records (eDiscovery)
Legal review of results
Notifications of individuals and organizations whose data was compromised;
DarkWeb search and monitoring services to proactively detect if compromised data would get posted on hacker forums or under ground markets.
Prior to December 2019, data access and/or exfiltration for the majority of ransomware incidents were ruled out based upon the results of digital forensics investigations. Because of that, the chances of victims being required to pay hefty fees for eDiscovery and notification services were fairly low. Currently, since more and more ransomware groups have been adopting the tactic of stealing sensitive data, victims have to assume that, as a part of incident response costs, they’ll have to pay for eDiscovery and notification services as well.
At the end of the day, whether to pay or not to pay a ransom is a business decision for every company. By stealing sensitive data, ransomware groups automatically trigger additional mandatory expenses for their victims. This money will be going to companies that specialize in eDiscovery / breach notifications and not the ransomware groups. Even if victims of ransomware attacks have cyber insurance policies, a large portion of their coverage limits will be eaten away by those additional expenses, leaving less money on the table for potential ransom payments.
It might be a good time for ransomware groups to reconsider their strategy and climb back up on that bridge.
Some screen shots of sites where ransomware groups publish victims’ data:

Figure 1 - maze

Figure 2 - Dopplepaymer

Figure 3 - Sodinokibi

Figure 4 - Mespinoza
Back to Blog Posts
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
Article
Ransomware Trends & Data Insights: March 2026
The threat landscape in March had a much more even distribution of threat groups than has been observed since the first half of 2025. Although Akira, Qilin, Play, and INC remained among the most active groups, Arete observed 21 unique ransomware and extortion groups in March, compared to only 15 in February. Akira and Qilin’s activity also declined from the previous month; in February, the two groups were responsible for almost half of all ransomware incidents, but in March they only comprised a little more than a quarter of all activity. Arete also observed activity from several emerging groups in the past month, including BravoX, NightSpire, Payouts King, and Securotrop.

Figure 1. Activity from the top 5 threat groups in March 2026
Analysts at Arete identified several trends behind the threat actors perpetrating cybercrime activities:
In March, threat actors actively exploited FortiGate Next-Generation Firewall appliances as initial access vectors to compromise enterprise networks. The activity involves the exploitation of recently disclosed security vulnerabilities, including CVE-2025-59718, CVE-2025-59719, and CVE-2026-24858, or weak credentials, allowing attackers to gain administrative access, extract configuration files, and obtain service account credentials. Arete also observed Fortinet device exploitation involving various threat groups, with the Qilin ransomware group notably leveraging Fortinet device exploits.
Phishing campaigns leveraging OAuth redirection and a resurgence of Microsoft Teams–based social engineering were also observed in March. In one campaign, attackers sent emails disguised as Microsoft Teams recordings or Microsoft 365 alerts, redirecting victims through legitimate OAuth endpoints to attacker-controlled pages hosting malicious ZIP payloads. A separate campaign has been ongoing since last year, in which attackers flood users’ inboxes with spam and impersonate IT support personnel to trick victims into initiating remote support sessions via tools like Quick Assist.
Arete recently released its 2025 Annual Crimeware Report. Leveraging data and intelligence collected during ransomware and extortion incident response engagements, this report highlights notable trends and shifts in the threat landscape throughout 2025, including Akira’s unusually high activity levels in the second half of 2025, evolving social engineering techniques, and trends in ransom demands and impacted industries.
Sources
Arete Internal
Report
Arete's 2025 Annual Crimeware Report
Harness Arete’s unique data and expertise on extortion and ransomware to inform your response to the evolving threat landscape.



