Google has revealed plans to collaborate with the UK government to allow researchers to explore potential applications of its advanced qu...
Cybersecurity investigators are warning about a spreading threat in which cybercriminals impersonate law enforcement officers to unlawfully obtain sensitive user information from major technology companies. These attackers exploit emergency data request systems that are designed to help police respond quickly in life-threatening situations.
In one documented incident earlier this year, a US internet service provider received what appeared to be an urgent email from a police officer requesting user data. The request was treated as authentic, and within a short time, the company shared private details belonging to a gamer based in New York. The information included personal identifiers such as name, residential address, phone numbers, and email contact. Later investigations revealed that the email was fraudulent and not sent by any law enforcement authority.
Journalistic review of internal evidence indicates that the message originated from an organized hacking group that profits by selling stolen personal data. These groups offer what is commonly referred to as doxing services, where private information is extracted from companies and delivered to paying clients.
One individual associated with the operation admitted involvement in the incident and claimed that similar impersonation tactics have worked against multiple large technology platforms. According to the individual, the process requires minimal time and relies on exploiting weak verification procedures. Some companies acknowledged receiving inquiries about these incidents but declined to provide further comment.
Law enforcement officials have expressed concern over the misuse of officer identities, particularly when attackers use real names, badge numbers, and department references to appear legitimate. This tactic exponentially increases the likelihood that companies will comply without deeper scrutiny.
Under normal circumstances, police data requests are processed through formal legal channels, often taking several days. Emergency requests, however, are designed to bypass standard timelines when immediate harm is suspected. Hackers take advantage of this urgency by submitting forged documents that mimic legitimate legal language, seals, and citations.
Once attackers obtain a small amount of publicly accessible data, such as a username or IP address, they can convincingly frame their requests. In some cases, falsified warrants were used to seek even more sensitive records, including communication logs.
Evidence reviewed by journalists suggests the operation is extensive, involving hundreds of fraudulent requests and generating substantial financial gain. Materials such as call recordings and internal documents indicate repeated successful interactions with corporate legal teams. In certain cases, companies later detected irregularities and blocked further communication, introducing additional safeguards without disclosing technical details.
A concerning weakness lies in the fragmented nature of US law enforcement communication systems. With thousands of agencies using different email domains and formats, companies struggle to establish consistent verification standards. Attackers exploit this by registering domains that closely resemble legitimate police addresses and spoofing official phone numbers.
Experts note that many companies still rely on email-based systems for emergency data requests and publicly available submission guidelines. While intended to assist law enforcement, these instructions can unintentionally provide attackers with ready-made templates.
Although warnings about fake emergency requests have circulated for years, recent findings show the practice remains widespread. The issue gives centre stage to a broader challenge in balancing rapid response with rigorous verification, especially when human judgment is pressured by perceived urgency. Without systemic improvements, trust-based processes will continue to be abused.
The ransomware group known as RansomHouse has recently enhanced the encryption mechanism used in its attacks, moving away from a basic, single-step process to a more advanced, multi-layered approach. This change reflects a deliberate effort to strengthen the effectiveness of its ransomware operations.
Earlier versions of the encryptor relied on a linear method, where data was transformed in one continuous pass. The updated version introduces multiple stages of processing, which results in stronger encryption, improved execution speed, and greater stability across modern systems. These improvements increase the pressure on victims by making encrypted data harder to recover and negotiations more favorable for attackers after systems are locked.
RansomHouse first appeared in late 2021 as a cybercrime group focused on data extortion, where stolen information was used as leverage rather than encryption alone. Over time, the group expanded its tactics and began deploying ransomware encryptors during attacks. It also developed an automated tool, known as MrAgent, designed to simultaneously encrypt multiple VMware ESXi hypervisors, a technique that allows attackers to disrupt large virtualized environments efficiently.
In more recent activity, security analysts observed RansomHouse using more than one ransomware strain during attacks on a major Japanese e-commerce company. This suggests a flexible operational strategy rather than reliance on a single malware family.
Further insight into the group’s evolving capabilities comes from a new analysis by cybersecurity researchers, who examined RansomHouse’s latest encryptor, internally referred to as “Mario.” This version introduces a two-stage data transformation process that relies on two different encryption keys: one substantially longer than the other. Using multiple keys increases the randomness of the encrypted output, making partial file recovery or reconstruction far more challenging.
The updated encryptor also changes how files are handled during the encryption process. Instead of treating all files the same way, it adjusts its behavior based on file size. Large files are processed in dynamically sized chunks, with encryption applied intermittently rather than continuously. This irregular pattern makes the malware harder to analyze because it avoids predictable processing behavior.
Researchers also noted improvements in how the encryptor manages memory. The newer version separates tasks across multiple buffers, with each buffer assigned a specific role during encryption. This design increases operational complexity and reduces inefficiencies found in earlier variants.
Another visible change is the amount of internal information displayed during file processing. Unlike older versions, which only indicated when encryption was complete, the new encryptor provides more detailed status output as it operates.
Despite these changes, the ransomware continues to focus on virtual machine-related files, renaming encrypted data with a new extension and placing ransom instructions across affected directories.
Security researchers caution that these upgrades indicate a troubling direction in ransomware development. While RansomHouse does not carry out attacks at the scale of larger ransomware groups, its continued investment in advanced encryption techniques points to a strategy centered on precision, resilience, and evasion rather than volume.