EXPLORE

Article

Remote Access and IoT Search Engines

Arete Analysis

Recently, Arete Incident Response Tiger Teams (“Arete IR”) have responded to an increased volume of ransomware incidents involving the Sodinikibi, Phobos, and Dharma ransomware variants. The threat actors deploying these variants are known to use anti-forensics techniques to hide their tracks. Once access is gained, they usually delete artifacts which aid cyber investigators with reconstructing steps taken by the threat actors, revealing important information pertaining to the root cause for the computer security event. In most cases, Arete was able to recover critical artifacts to forensically reconstruct the various attacks to identify a single entry point consistent across the three variants: Remote Desktop.

Requirements Businesses have a need to enable workers to access files and business resources remotely from home, hotels, or business relationships. The cheapest way for businesses to allow remote access is to “expose” the Remote Desktop Protocol (“RDP”) to the public internet. The business’ firewall configuration is altered to allow inbound connectivity to the default port 3389, and any connections to that port are automatically forwarded to a specific computer on the network, which is usually a terminal services server. Using only an Internet Protocol (“IP”) address, anyone can attempt to connect to the RDP service.

Limitations on Protocol and Service Most businesses who implement remote access via RDP aren’t aware of the limitations of the service nor do they implement intrusion detection and prevention services. Lastly, many don’t require multi-factor authentication. The downside to allowing any connection into a network is exactly that: any connection can be allowed into the network. This connection can be from anywhere, at any time, for any reason and with any number of authentication attempts. The RDP service itself doesn’t monitor for bad credential combinations and automatically disable or block connection attempts. Port forwarding on firewalls doesn’t inspect the inbound traffic either. Essentially, once a port is exposed to the public internet, anyone, anywhere, can try an unlimited number of usernames and passwords to gain access to that system. Since any number of combinations can be attempted, this makes the configuration vulnerable to credential stuffing, dictionary, and brute force attacks.

Crime of Opportunity Quite often during our investigations, clients ask “was this a targeted attack or a crime of opportunity?” Nine out of 10 times, it’s a crime of opportunity. Then the follow up question “Why us?” Well, for starters, it’s your configuration. These threat actors have their attack mechanics down to a series of steps: 1. Identify target 2. Gain access to target 3. Cover tracks 4. Deploy ransomware 5. Repeat

While they most likely aren’t outright targeting your organization directly, they may be targeting exposed services which link them to your organization.

Internet of Things (IoT) Search Engines

Google, Bing, and DuckDuckGo are three very popular search engines. They’re used to find all sorts of text information or images. These search engines aren’t designed to identify specific computers or services across the world. Rather a different set of search engines can be used to find computers that are connected directly to the internet along with their IP addresses and any other information about the computer involving their geo location, running services, and protocol history. Use caution when visiting these sites as unintended side effects can occur.

  1. https://shodan.io

  2. https://censys.io

  3. https://zoomeye.org

These sites can be used by anyone, anonymously, to identify internet attached devices, the services they’re running and any other information the IoT crawlers can index. The anonymous feature is obtained via the IoT indexer by allowing anyone to query the index stored by the IoT search engine, instead of scanning the node directly. Essentially, this search engine is the phone book, allowing anyone to find street addresses by person’s names or people by street addresses.

A search for “port:3389”, which is the default port for RDP services, can return several million devices. Again, this isn’t real time information because the query is run against the index of the IoT search engine. Once an IP address is identified, additional steps would be needed to test if the IP address is online. Additionally, the resulting information can be filtered by organization, operating system, and country.

Reviewing the results, there’s approximately 1,060 IP addresses that are detected as the Windows 2003 operating system. At face value, this is extremely alarming because Windows 2003 was discontinued during July of 2015. Microsoft officially stopped supporting the operating system as well as providing security updates. Given the information returned from shodan.io, businesses are still relying on it as a means for remote connectivity. Again, these results would need to be qualified as online and available. Regardless, the number is still alarming.

Attack Methodologies

After the threat actor identifies a target, any number of steps can be performed to initiate an attack. Typically, the threat actor will profile the target to gain as much information as possible in order to increase the success of the attack. Profiling can occur in any of the following ways:

  1. Verifying the IP address is online and attempting to brute force access automatically.

  2. Attempting to resolve the IP address to a domain name or company name in order to:

  3. Construct phishing emails for obtaining credentials.

  4. Employ social engineering of employees for obtaining credentials

  5. Research running services against known vulnerabilities to identify pre-built payloads to exploit the services.

Whichever approach the threat actor takes, there’s a good chance they will be successful with gaining unauthorized access to your network.

Preventative Actions

While it’s a waiting game to become the next victim, there are steps you can take to mitigate or prolong falling prey to these threat actor methodologies. Successful mitigation of unauthorized access can be achieved through the proper implementation of layered computer and network security controls. The following steps, while not exhaustive, can be taken to mitigate the exposure of services used by your organization.

  1. Enable Multi-Factor Authentication (“MFA”) on any third party accounts or remote access on any third party accounts or remote access accounts. accounts.

  2. Disable RDP services and port forwarding on firewalls.

  3. Implement VPN services to remotely connect to your organization’s network or leverage to your organization’s network or leverage remote

  4. connection technologies that remote connection technologies that support MFA. support MFA.

  5. Research open source intelligence to develop a public footprint of your organization. a public footprint of your organization.

  6. Train employees on social engineering and phishing email tactics and techniques. phishing email tactics and techniques.

  7. Purchase a cyber insurance policy and familiarize yourself with the preferred vendors yourself with the preferred vendors within your policy. within your policy.

  8. Build a close working relationship with a cyber advisory company.

Back to Blog Posts

Podcast

Digital Forensics Meets the Courtroom: Insights on Expert Witness and Cyber-Related Litigation

In this episode of Bytes of Insight, host Vinny Sakore and special guest Dr. Bruce Hartley, Managing Director and Co-Founder of Advisory Services at Arete, discuss the evolving role of digital forensics and expert witness work in cybersecurity litigation. Tune in for firsthand insights on how Arete conducts post-breach investigations, what it takes to undergo cross-examination on the stand, and how emerging threats like AI-driven social engineering and third-party breaches are reshaping the advisory landscape.

Article

Helix Extortion Group Debuts in SharePoint Data Theft Attacks

A newly identified data-extortion group, Helix, is reportedly conducting targeted campaigns by exploiting identity-based attack techniques to gain access to Microsoft 365 environments and exfiltrate data from SharePoint Online. The group leverages voice phishing (vishing), device code phishing, and multi-factor authentication (MFA) abuse to compromise user accounts and establish unauthorized access. 

  • Helix threat actors reportedly initiate intrusions through vishing campaigns, impersonating trusted individuals—often the target's manager—and leveraging caller ID spoofing to enhance credibility. 


  • The actors then attempt to persuade victims to complete device code phishing workflows, enabling unauthorized access to corporate accounts and Microsoft 365 resources. 


  • Following successful authentication, the actors conduct reconnaissance and enumeration of SharePoint environments before identifying and exfiltrating sensitive data for extortion purposes. 


  • Helix's variable dwell times suggest a flexible, target-specific operational approach, enabling the group to adapt its intrusion timeline to victim environments to maximize data theft and extortion opportunities while minimizing the likelihood of detection. Helix's operations also appear to be focused on large-scale data theft and extortion, with an emphasis on automated SharePoint data exfiltration following successful credential or session compromise.

Overlaps with Other Extortion Groups

Researchers assess that Helix likely emerged from or has operational overlap with the ShinyHunters and BlackFile/Redact cybercriminal ecosystems. ShinyHunters historically focuses on compromising websites, developer repositories, and exposed credentials or API keys to gain access to corporate cloud environments, monetizing stolen victim data on the dark web. BlackFile utilizes identity-centric and social engineering–driven methods of intrusion, relying less on traditional malware and instead leveraging credential theft, privilege escalation, rapid data exfiltration, and coercive tactics such as swatting to maximize extortion pressure. In May 2026, BlackFile announced that it would be rebranding as “Redact” (which may have later rebranded again to “Pink”), yet despite the rebrands, threat actors operating within these groups continued to exhibit similar operational models, victimology, and extortion methodologies.  

Analyst Comments

Collectively, the similarities between the groups suggest the possibility of a shared criminal ecosystem, affiliate network, or loosely connected threat cluster rather than entirely independent operations.  The emergence of Helix further reflects the broader trend of extortion groups rebranding or fragmenting while retaining proven attack techniques and operational infrastructure to support their criminal activities. Despite suspicion of these groups’ connectivity, the exact nature of the relationship remains unconfirmed.  As Helix focuses on identity-based attack techniques to gain access to Microsoft 365 environments, Arete recommends that organizations remain vigilant in using MFA, enforcing strong identity security controls, continuously monitoring authentication activity, and enhancing user awareness of social engineering tactics.

  • Sources

  • Helix, a New Name in the Data Extortion Ecosystem?

  • BlackFile actively extorting data-theft victims in retail and hospitality sector

  • "Pink" Data Extortion Group Hunting With Evasive Phishing Kits

Article

FortiBleed Campaign Linked to INC and Lynx Ransomware Operations

Researchers have linked the FortiBleed credential-harvesting campaign to the INC and Lynx ransomware-as-a-service (RaaS) operations, establishing a direct connection between large-scale FortiGate credential theft and subsequent ransomware deployment. The attribution is based on a variety of factors, including an operator observed managing negotiation panels for both ransomware groups, notable overlap between FortiBleed victim data and subsequent ransomware targets, and internal infrastructure exposing attack workflows. The campaign is estimated to have targeted more than 430,000 internet-facing FortiGate devices, resulting in administrative access to hundreds of organizations. 

What’s Notable and Unique

  • Researchers identified a shared operator actively managing negotiation panels for both the INC and Lynx ransomware groups, providing rare operational evidence linking the two RaaS operations beyond infrastructure or malware similarities. 


  • Analysis of the exposed infrastructure revealed a structured ransomware operation with dedicated roles for access acquisition, victim management, negotiations, and technical support, reflecting an organized ransomware-as-a-service (RaaS) model rather than an ad hoc criminal group. 


  • The operation reportedly integrates artificial intelligence into multiple stages of the attack lifecycle, including vulnerability research, penetration testing, attack automation, and ransomware development, demonstrating the increasing adoption of AI to enhance offensive capabilities.

Mitigations

Organizations should assume that exposed or previously compromised FortiGate credentials may be leveraged for ransomware deployment and immediately reset administrative and VPN credentials while enforcing multi-factor authentication (MFA) for all privileged access. Security teams should ensure that FortiGate appliances are fully patched, restrict management interfaces to trusted networks, and audit administrative accounts and firewall configurations for unauthorized changes. Organizations should also monitor for anomalous authentication activity, hunt for published indicators of compromise (IOCs), and review VPN and firewall logs for signs of unauthorized access. Maintaining centralized logging and a well-practiced incident response process can help detect and contain attacks before they progress to lateral movement or ransomware deployment.

Analyst Comments

The attribution of FortiBleed to the INC and Lynx ransomware operations reinforces the growing convergence between credential-harvesting campaigns and ransomware deployment, highlighting the role of initial access operations in modern RaaS ecosystems. The relationship between INC and Lynx also aligns with Arete's previous research, which identified a shared malware lineage. INC Ransom, first observed in 2023, was later leaked or sold, enabling code reuse by other threat actors. Lynx, which emerged in 2024, is widely regarded as an evolution of the INC codebase. Sinobi ransomware, identified in 2025, shares near-identical binaries and infrastructure, and approximately 99% code similarity with Lynx. Further details on the code correlation between INC, Lynx, and Sinobi are available in Arete's 2025 Annual Report.

Sources

  • Is FortiBleed Linked to INC and Lynx Ransomware?   

  • FortiBleed credential-theft campaign linked to Lynx ransomware   

  • FortiBleed Unmasked: A Joint Operation by Lynx and INC Ransomware Groups   

  • FortiBleed Credential Theft Campaign Attributed to INC and Lynx Ransomware Groups  

Article

Ransomware Trends & Data Insights: June 2026

Although Akira was once again the most active ransomware threat in June, activity remained relatively distributed among multiple threat groups, with 17 unique threat groups observed throughout the month. Along with Akira, Qilin and INC Ransom remained active and were among the top five most active threat groups observed in June. Several new threat actors also emerged during the month, including KryBit, Settra, and Icarus.

Figure 1. Activity from the top 5 threat groups in June 2026

Throughout the month, analysts at Arete identified several trends behind the threat actors perpetrating cybercrime activities:

  • In June, a threat actor calling themselves Icarus compromised and exfiltrated data from customers of the market intelligence platform Klue. Klue later confirmed the security incident, which involved attackers stealing OAuth tokens used to connect to customers' Salesforce environments, and reported that the threat actor was deleting the data stolen from affected Klue customers. In an odd twist, reports emerged of a second threat actor claiming to have compromised Icarus's infrastructure and attempting to re-extort Klue's customers. Regardless, the Klue breach highlights the growing threat of software-as-a-service (SaaS) supply chain compromises, particularly those exploiting OAuth tokens and trusted integrations to bypass traditional security controls.

  • In mid-June, security researchers identified a large-scale credential-harvesting and valid account abuse campaign dubbed “FortiBleed” that systematically targets internet-facing Fortinet FortiGate firewalls and SSL-VPN gateways, relying heavily on automated password spraying and configuration exfiltration rather than vulnerability exploitation. The scale of exposure and attack activity has been significant and globally distributed, with attackers collecting the login credentials of over 86,000 FortiGate devices across 194 countries. There is no singular ‘fix’ to mitigate the database exposure, and it is important that organizations work with their security teams, incident response providers, and other stakeholders to review environments holistically and monitor for signs of potentially unauthorized activity.

  • Multiple threat groups continue to leverage vulnerable drivers to bypass endpoint detection and response (EDR) solutions in a technique known as Bring Your Own Vulnerable Driver (BYOVD). Arete has observed Akira and DragonForce using the technique in multiple engagements, and The Gentlemen ransomware-as-a-service (RaaS) has also been observed using what researchers are calling "GentleKiller", a framework consisting of multiple variants that leverage vulnerable drivers and EDR-disabling utilities to target a wide range of endpoint security products.  

Sources

  • Arete Internal