Article
System Specific Encryption
Arete Analysis

Ransomware variants like Phobos, Dharma or CryLock are file level encryption. The TA gains access to the system, copies specific encryption executables onto the systems then runs the executables to encrypt the files. The results are files with a new extension appended to the old file name. Sometimes it’s a random sequence of numbers and letters (e.g. *.nocv) or a specific tag (e.g. *[CryLockDecrypt@****.com][1].[ID-*****- COM]). System specific encryption generates a unique key per encrypted system. The ransom note or the file extension may indicate an “ID” that would be different on each system.

CryLock Scanner & Decryptor
Communication preference: Email usually aol.com, protonmail.com, or cock.li domains
Average ransom payment: $27,000 – $500,000
Preferred currency: Bitcoin (BTC)
Decryptor Received: 95% of the time. Certain variants of Phobos and Dharma will attempt to re-extort a second payment if a large discount is negotiated.
Watch out: Phobos, Dharma, and CryLock are a two-step process. The TA will first send a “scan- ner” tool that needs to be run on every infected system. The scanner will look for the public keys used to encrypt the files, then write that informa- tion to a corresponding .txt or .ini file. Those cor- responding files need to be sent to the TA in or- der to generate a decryptor. The TA in return will send the decryptors. The two-step process adds significant overhead due to the running of mul- tiple tools on the infected system as well as the delay with communicating via email. On average after making a payment for the decryptor, clients are who are infected with Phobos are down for approximately 11 days whereas clients who are infected with Dharma experience downtime of about 7.75 days. The high number of days can be attributed to the two-step process and multiple email communications.
Notes: Negotiating with the Phobos and Dhar- ma group can be tricky. These variants are Ransom-as-a-Service (RaaS) model so you’re not dealing with the same core group of people as you would with variants like Ryuk (or now Conti). Negotiating with RaaS groups can also create confusion and complexities with a different operator responding to each email. The groups who deploy these variants also look for exploiting publicly accessible Remote Desktop Protocol (RDP). Disable external access to RDP to lessen the chance of being infected by this variant.
System Specific Encryption with a Universal Option
Ransomware variants like Sodinokibi are file level encryption with a unique ID per system. Once the TA gains access to the network, they release their Sodinokibi ransomware throughout the environment. The systems are infected with a unique randomly generated file extension per system. Their ransom notes are usually within a text file and explain what happened, including if any data was exfiltrated. The group is very organized and can often share information about their victim’s networks including domain information, infected systems, and any stolen data.

Sodinokibi Decryptor
Communication preference: TOR Website via chat room. The ransom note contains a link to the TOR site as well as a unique key to gain access to a private chat room where the negotia tions occur.
Average ransom payment: $170,000
Preferred currency: Monero (XMR)
Decryptor received: 100% of the time. Sodin offers a general decryptor which requires the victim to collect the file extensions from all of their infected systems. This can be very tedious once the payment is made, the victim can input any number of file extensions into the input box on the TOR site to generate a decryptor. Sodin will keep that private room open for 30 days after payment.
Back to Blog Posts
Article
Arete's 2026 Q1 Crimeware Report
Harness Arete’s unique data and expertise on extortion and ransomware to inform your response to the evolving threat landscape.
Article
CMS Vulnerability Leads to ClickFix Campaign
Threat actors compromised at least 700 education and technology websites in a recent ClickFix campaign by exploiting a critical SQL injection flaw (CVE-2026-26980) in the Ghost content management system (CMS). Adversaries combined the vulnerability with the ClickFix social engineering tactic to steal admin keys and inject a malicious JavaScript that delivers a fake Cloudflare or CAPTCHA verification pop-up, tricking victims into copying and pasting a malicious command into their systems.
What’s Notable and Unique
Rather than targeting the end user first, this campaign is unique in its initial exploitation of the system, followed by social engineering attempts. This hybrid attack style is likely being leveraged to bypass traditional defenses.
This recent campaign also highlights how trusted web properties can be weaponized at scale and coupled with unpatched CMS vulnerabilities. Rather than using the CMS compromise to perpetrate a single attack, threat actors turned it into a supply-chain attack that ultimately affected over 700 trusted websites.
Analyst Comments
As network defenders and their tools enhance threat detection capabilities, adversaries increasingly seek methods to bypass these defenses. By combining vulnerability exploitation, social engineering techniques, and staging for ancillary attacks, this campaign successfully bypassed traditional defenses and inflicted significant impact. Defending against hybrid cyberattacks requires comprehensive security controls beyond simply patching vulnerabilities. Organizations should focus on limiting movement within the environment, detecting abuse of trusted applications, and preventing end-user manipulation.
Sources
700+ education and tech websites hijacked in huge ClickFix malware campaign
Under the engineering hood: Why Malwarebytes chose WordPress as its CMS
Think before you Click(Fix): Analyzing the ClickFix social engineering technique
Ghost CMS Vulnerability Exploited to Infect 700 Sites With ClickFix Malware
Article
Threat Actors Leverage Fake JPEG Files for Initial Access
In a recent campaign, researchers observed threat actors using fake JPEG image files as a delivery mechanism to initiate the deployment of additional malicious components. The false JPEG files are typically distributed via phishing emails or other social engineering-based lures, and are actually PowerShell-based malware that deploys a trojanized version of ConnectWise ScreenConnect to establish and maintain persistence in the compromised environment.
What’s Notable and Unique
This campaign leverages JPEG images as the initial lure, where the images are not merely decoys but part of the infection workflow. Victims are typically led to download or open an image that triggers hidden execution logic or redirects them to a payload-delivery sequence that initiates later stages of the intrusion chain.
The attack chain is designed to blend into legitimate environments, making detection more difficult. Execution typically relies on scripted or native Windows components, often including PowerShell or other living-off-the-land binaries, enabling fileless or near-fileless execution and reducing forensic artifacts on disk.
The multistage design ensures that the initial JPEG does not directly contain the full payload but instead triggers retrieval or decryption steps that progressively assemble the final malicious components in memory.
Analyst Comments
This campaign illustrates how threat actors continue to blur the line between legitimate file handling and malicious execution chains, indicating potential overlap with remote management or administrative tooling. The use of JPEG-based staging combined with script-based execution reflects a broader evolution toward a stealth-first intrusion design, in which file formats serve as triggers rather than payload containers.
Sources
OPERATION SILENTCANVAS : JPEG BASED MULTISTAGE POWERSHELL INTRUSION
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.



