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.
Artificial intelligence is increasingly influencing the cyber security infrastructure, but recent claims about “AI-powered” cybercrime often exaggerate how advanced these threats currently are. While AI is changing how both defenders and attackers operate, evidence does not support the idea that cybercriminals are already running fully autonomous, self-directed AI attacks at scale.
For several years, AI has played a defining role in cyber security as organisations modernise their systems. Machine learning tools now assist with threat detection, log analysis, and response automation. At the same time, attackers are exploring how these technologies might support their activities. However, the capabilities of today’s AI tools are frequently overstated, creating a disconnect between public claims and operational reality.
Recent attention has been driven by two high-profile reports. One study suggested that artificial intelligence is involved in most ransomware incidents, a conclusion that was later challenged by multiple researchers due to methodological concerns. The report was subsequently withdrawn, reinforcing the importance of careful validation. Another claim emerged when an AI company reported that its model had been misused by state-linked actors to assist in an espionage operation targeting multiple organisations.
According to the company’s account, the AI tool supported tasks such as identifying system weaknesses and assisting with movement across networks. However, experts questioned these conclusions due to the absence of technical indicators and the use of common open-source tools that are already widely monitored. Several analysts described the activity as advanced automation rather than genuine artificial intelligence making independent decisions.
There are documented cases of attackers experimenting with AI in limited ways. Some ransomware has reportedly used local language models to generate scripts, and certain threat groups appear to rely on generative tools during development. These examples demonstrate experimentation, not a widespread shift in how cybercrime is conducted.
Well-established ransomware groups already operate mature development pipelines and rely heavily on experienced human operators. AI tools may help refine existing code, speed up reconnaissance, or improve phishing messages, but they are not replacing human planning or expertise. Malware generated directly by AI systems is often untested, unreliable, and lacks the refinement gained through real-world deployment.
Even in reported cases of AI misuse, limitations remain clear. Some models have been shown to fabricate progress or generate incorrect technical details, making continuous human supervision necessary. This undermines the idea of fully independent AI-driven attacks.
There are also operational risks for attackers. Campaigns that depend on commercial AI platforms can fail instantly if access is restricted. Open-source alternatives reduce this risk but require more resources and technical skill while offering weaker performance.
The UK’s National Cyber Security Centre has acknowledged that AI will accelerate certain attack techniques, particularly vulnerability research. However, fully autonomous cyberattacks remain speculative.
The real challenge is avoiding distraction. AI will influence cyber threats, but not in the dramatic way some headlines suggest. Security efforts should prioritise evidence-based risk, improved visibility, and responsible use of AI to strengthen defences rather than amplify fear.
Japanese e-commerce firm Askul Corporation has officially confirmed that a ransomware attack earlier this year led to the unauthorized access and theft of data belonging to nearly 740,000 individuals. The company made the disclosure after completing a detailed investigation into the cyber incident that occurred in October.
Askul operates a large-scale online platform that provides office supplies and logistics services to both corporate clients and individual consumers. The company is part of the Yahoo! Japan corporate group and plays a significant role in Japan’s business-to-business supply chain.
The cyberattack caused serious disruptions to Askul’s internal systems, resulting in an operational shutdown that forced the company to suspend product shipments. This disruption affected a wide range of customers, including major retail partners such as Muji.
Following the conclusion of its internal review, Askul clarified the categories of data that were compromised. According to the company, service-related records of approximately 590,000 business customers were accessed. Data connected to around 132,000 individual customers was also involved. In addition, information related to roughly 15,000 business partners, including outsourcing firms, agents, and suppliers, was exposed. The incident further affected personal data linked to about 2,700 executives and employees, including those from group companies.
Askul stated that it is deliberately limiting the disclosure of specific details related to the stolen data to reduce the risk of further exploitation. The company confirmed that affected customers and business partners will be informed directly through individual notifications.
Regulatory authorities have also been notified. Askul reported the data exposure to Japan’s Personal Information Protection Commission and has implemented long-term monitoring measures to identify and prevent any potential misuse of the compromised information.
System recovery remains ongoing. As of December 15, shipping operations had not fully returned to normal, and the company continues to work toward restoring all affected services.
Responsibility for the attack has been claimed by the ransomware group known as RansomHouse. The group publicly disclosed the breach at the end of October and later released portions of the stolen data in two separate leaks in November and December.
Askul shared limited technical findings regarding how the attackers gained access. The company believes the intrusion began through stolen login credentials associated with an administrator account belonging to an outsourced partner. This account did not have multi-factor authentication enabled, making it easier for attackers to exploit.
After entering the network, the attackers conducted internal reconnaissance, collected additional authentication information, and expanded their access to multiple servers. Askul reported that security defenses, including endpoint detection and response tools, were disabled during the attack. The company also noted that several ransomware variants were deployed, some of which bypassed existing detection mechanisms despite recent updates.
The attack resulted in both data encryption and widespread system failures. The ransomware was executed simultaneously across multiple servers, and backup files were deliberately erased to prevent rapid system recovery.
In response, Askul disconnected affected networks, restricted communication between data centers and logistics facilities, isolated compromised devices, and strengthened endpoint security controls. Multi-factor authentication has since been enforced across critical systems, and all administrator account passwords have been reset.
The financial consequences of the incident have not yet been determined. Askul has postponed its earnings report to allow additional time for a comprehensive assessment of the impact.
Cybersecurity experts from Huntress have noticed a sharp rise in ransomware incidents on hypervisors and have asked users to be safe and have proper back-up.
The Huntress case data has disclosed a surprising increase in hypervisor ransomware. It was involved in malicious encryption and rose from a mere three percent in the first half to a staggering 25 percent in 2025.
Experts think that the Akira ransomware gang is the primary threat actor behind this, other players are also going after hypervisors to escape endpoint and network security controls. According to Huntress threat hunters, players are going after hypervisors as they are not secure and hacking them can allow hackers to trigger virtual machines and manage networks.
“This shift underscores a growing and uncomfortable trend: Attackers are targeting the infrastructure that controls all hosts, and with access to the hypervisor, adversaries dramatically amplify the impact of their intrusion," experts said. The attack tactic follows classic playbook. Researchers have "seen it with attacks on VPN appliances: Threat actors realize that the host operating system is often proprietary or restricted, meaning defenders cannot install critical security controls like EDR [Endpoint Detection and Response]. This creates a significant blind spot.”
The experts have also found various cases where ransomware actors install ransomware payloads directly via hypervisors, escaping endpoint security. In a few cases, threat actors used built-in-tools like OpenSSL to run encryption of the virtual machine volume without having to upload custom ransomware binaries.
Huntress researchers have also found attackers disrupting a network to steal login credentials and then attack hypervisors.
“We’ve seen misuse of Hyper-V management utilities to modify VM settings and undermine security features,” they add. “This includes disabling endpoint defenses, tampering with virtual switches, and preparing VMs for ransomware deployment at scale," they said.
Due to the high level of attacks on hypervisors, experts have suggested admins to revisit infosec basics such as multi-factor authentication and password patch updates. Admins should also adopt hypervisor-specific safety measures like only allow-listed binaries can run on a host.
For decades, the Infosec community has known hypervisors to be an easy target. In a worst-case scenario of a successful VM evasion where an attack on a guest virtual machine allows hijacking of the host and its hypervisor, things can go further south. If this were to happen, the impact could be massive as the entire hyperscale clouds depend on hypervisors to isolate tenants' virtual systems.
Security agencies have issued a new warning about the Akira ransomware group after investigators confirmed that the operators have added Nutanix AHV virtual machines to their list of targets. This represents a significant expansion of the group’s capabilities, which had already included attacks on VMware ESXi and Microsoft Hyper-V environments. The update signals that Akira is no longer limiting itself to conventional endpoints or common hypervisors and is now actively pursuing a wider range of virtual infrastructure used in large organisations.
Although Akira was first known for intrusions affecting small and medium businesses across North America, Europe and Australia, the pattern of attacks has changed noticeably over the last year. Incident reports now show that the group is striking much larger companies, particularly those involved in manufacturing, IT services, healthcare operations, banking and financial services, and food-related industries. This shift suggests a strategic move toward high-value victims where disruptions can cause substantial operational impact and increase the pressure to pay ransom demands.
Analysts observing the group’s behaviour note that Akira has not simply created a few new variants. Instead, it has invested considerable effort into developing ransomware that functions across multiple operating systems, including Windows and Linux, and across several virtualisation platforms. Building such wide-reaching capability requires long-term planning, and researchers interpret this as evidence that the group aims to remain active for an extended period.
How attackers get into networks
Investigations into real-world intrusions show that Akira typically begins by taking advantage of weak points in remote access systems and devices connected to the internet. Many victims used VPN systems that lacked multifactor authentication, making them vulnerable to attackers trying common password combinations or using previously leaked credentials. The group has also exploited publicly known vulnerabilities in networking products from major vendors and in backup platforms that had not been updated with security patches.
In addition to these weaknesses, Akira has used targeted phishing emails, misconfigured Remote Desktop Protocol portals, and exposed SSH interfaces on network routers. In some breaches, compromising a router allowed attackers to tunnel deeper into internal networks and reach critical servers, especially outdated backup systems that had not been maintained.
Once inside, the attackers survey the entire environment. They run commands designed to identify domain controllers and trust relationships between systems, giving them a map of how the network is structured. To avoid being detected, they often use remote-access tools that are normally employed by IT administrators, making their activity harder to differentiate from legitimate work. They also disable security software, create administrator-level user accounts for long-term access, and deploy tools capable of running commands on multiple machines at once.
Data theft and encryption techniques
Akira uses a double-extortion method. The attackers first locate and collect sensitive corporate information, which they compress and transfer out of the network using well-known tools such as FileZilla, WinRAR, WinSCP or RClone. Some investigations show that this data extraction process can be completed in just a few hours. Once the information has been removed, they launch the ransomware encryptor, which uses modern encryption algorithms that are designed to work quickly and efficiently. Over time, the group has changed the file extensions that appear after encryption and has modified the names and placement of ransom notes. The ransomware also removes Windows shadow copies to block easy recovery options.
Why the threat continues to succeed
Cybersecurity experts point out that Akira benefits from long-standing issues that many organisations fail to address. Network appliances, remote access devices, and backup servers often remain unpatched for months, giving attackers opportunities to exploit vulnerabilities that should have been resolved. These overlooked systems create gaps that remain unnoticed until an intrusion is already underway.
How organisations can strengthen defences
While applying patches, enabling multifactor authentication, and keeping offline backups remain essential, the recent wave of incidents shows that more comprehensive measures are necessary. Specialists recommend dividing networks into smaller segments to limit lateral movement, monitoring administrator-level activity closely, and extending security controls to backup systems and virtualisation consoles. Organisations should also conduct complete ransomware readiness exercises that include not only technical recovery procedures but also legal considerations, communication strategies, and preparations for potential data leaks.
Security researchers emphasise that companies must approach defence with the same mindset attackers use to find vulnerabilities. Identifying weaknesses before adversaries exploit them can make the difference between a minor disruption and a large-scale crisis.
Akira, one of the most active ransomware operations this year, has expanded its capabilities and increased the scale of its attacks, according to new threat intelligence shared by global security agencies. The group’s operators have upgraded their ransomware toolkit, continued to target a broad range of sectors, and sharply increased the financial impact of their attacks.
Data collected from public extortion portals shows that by the end of September 2025 the group had claimed roughly 244.17 million dollars in ransom proceeds. Analysts note that this figure represents a steep rise compared to estimates released in early 2024. Current tracking data places Akira second in overall activity among hundreds of monitored ransomware groups, with more than 620 victim organisations listed this year.
The growing number of incidents has prompted an updated joint advisory from international cyber authorities. The latest report outlines newly observed techniques, warns of the group’s expanded targeting, and urges all organisations to review their defensive posture.
Researchers confirm that Akira has introduced a new ransomware strain, commonly referenced as Akira v2. This version is designed to encrypt files at higher speeds and make data recovery significantly harder. Systems affected by the new variant often show one of several extensions, which include akira, powerranges, akiranew, and aki. Victims typically find ransom instructions stored as text files in both the main system directory and user folders.
Investigations show that Akira actors gain entry through several familiar but effective routes. These include exploiting security gaps in edge devices and backup servers, taking advantage of authentication bypass and scripting flaws, and using buffer overflow vulnerabilities to run malicious code. Stolen or brute forced credentials remain a common factor, especially when multi factor authentication is disabled.
Once inside a network, the attackers quickly establish long-term access. They generate new domain accounts, including administrative profiles, and have repeatedly created an account named itadm during intrusions. The group also uses legitimate system tools to explore networks and identify sensitive assets. This includes commands used for domain discovery and open-source frameworks designed for remote execution. In many cases, the attackers uninstall endpoint detection products, change firewall rules, and disable antivirus tools to remain unnoticed.
The group has also expanded its focus to virtual and cloud based environments. Security teams recently observed the encryption of virtual machine disk files on Nutanix AHV, in addition to previous activity on VMware ESXi and Hyper-V platforms. In one incident, operators temporarily powered down a domain controller to copy protected virtual disk files and load them onto a new virtual machine, allowing them to access privileged credentials.
Command and control activity is often routed through encrypted tunnels, and recent intrusions show the use of tunnelling services to mask traffic. Authorities warn that data theft can occur within hours of initial access.
Security agencies stress that the most effective defence remains prompt patching of known exploited vulnerabilities, enforcing multi factor authentication on all remote services, monitoring for unusual account creation, and ensuring that backup systems are fully secured and tested.
Authorities in the United States, the United Kingdom, and Australia have jointly imposed sanctions on a Russian bulletproof hosting provider accused of giving safe and long-term technical support to ransomware operators and other criminal groups. Officials say the newly sanctioned entities have played a central role in keeping several high-impact cybercrime operations online.
A bulletproof hosting service is a type of internet infrastructure provider that knowingly allows harmful activity on its servers. These companies rent out digital space and refuse to take down malicious websites, even when they receive complaints from victims or requests from law enforcement. Such services help threat actors conduct phishing campaigns, distribute malware, run command and control systems for their attacks, and host illegal content without fear of quick removal. This resistance to oversight makes it harder for investigators to disrupt cybercriminal networks.
Media Land and its linked companies named as key targets
The United States Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control announced that Media Land, a Russia-based provider, has been added to the sanctions list along with three related firms: Media Land Technology, Data Center Kirishi, and ML Cloud. According to officials, Media Land’s infrastructure has been connected to well-known ransomware groups. It has also been tied to distributed denial-of-service attacks that targeted American companies, including systems categorized as critical infrastructure such as parts of the telecommunications sector.
Officials name individuals connected to the operation
Sanctions also extend to three people associated with Media Land. Aleksandr Volosovik has been identified as someone who promoted the company’s services on underground cybercriminal forums under the username Yalishanda. Another individual, Kirill Zatolokin, is accused of handling customer payments. A third person, Yulia Pankova, is said to have assisted with legal matters and financial management. The United Kingdom additionally stated that Volosovik has interacted with multiple cybercrime groups in the past.
Other companies involved in supporting the infrastructure
The sanctions package further includes Aeza Group LLC, another bulletproof hosting operator that had already been sanctioned earlier this year. Authorities say Aeza attempted to continue operating by using a UK-based company named Hypercore Ltd as a front. Additional entities in Serbia and Uzbekistan that provided technical assistance to the network have also been designated.
Government agencies issue defensive guidance
Along with the sanctions, cybersecurity agencies across the Five Eyes alliance released technical recommendations to help defenders identify and block activity linked to bulletproof hosting services. They suggest creating high-confidence lists of harmful internet resources based on verified threat intelligence, performing continuous monitoring of network traffic, and applying filtering rules at network boundaries while examining how those rules might affect legitimate users. The guidance also encourages service providers to maintain stronger onboarding checks for new customers since criminal operators often hide behind temporary email accounts or phone numbers.
Implications of the sanctions
All assets connected to the named individuals and companies within the United States, the United Kingdom, and Australia will now be frozen. Any organisation or person that continues to conduct transactions with them may face secondary sanctions or other enforcement actions. This step builds on earlier actions taken in February, when the three nations sanctioned ZServers, another Russian hosting operation, while Dutch authorities seized more than one hundred of its servers.
The coordinated announcement signals a growing international effort to dismantle the online infrastructure that ransomware groups depend on. It also reinforces the need for organisations to maintain strong cybersecurity practices, rely on reputable service providers, and monitor threat intelligence to reduce exposure to criminal activity.
Cybersecurity incidents are often associated with sophisticated exploits, but many of the most damaging breaches across public institutions, private companies and individual accounts have originated from something far more basic: predictable passwords and neglected account controls. A review of several high-profile cases shows how easily attackers can bypass defences when organisations rely on outdated credentials, skip essential updates or fail to enforce multi-factor authentication.
One example resurfaced when an older assessment revealed that the server used to manage surveillance cameras at a prominent European museum operated with a password identical to the institution’s name. The report, which stresses on configuration weaknesses and poor access safeguards, has drawn renewed attention following recent thefts from the museum’s collection. The outdated credential underlined how critical systems often remain vulnerable because maintenance and password policies fall behind operational needs.
A similar pattern was seen in May 2021 when a major fuel pipeline in the United States halted operations after attackers used a compromised login associated with an inactive remote-access account. The credential was not protected by secondary verification, allowing the intruders to infiltrate the network. The temporary shutdown triggered widespread disruption, and the operator ultimately paid a substantial ransom before systems could be restored. Investigators later recovered part of the payment, but the event demonstrated how a single unsecured account can affect national infrastructure.
In the corporate sector, a British transport company with more than a century of operations collapsed after a ransomware group accessed its internal environment by correctly guessing an employee’s password. Once inside, the attackers encrypted operational data and locked critical systems, demanding a ransom the firm could not pay. With its files unrecoverable, the company ceased trading and hundreds of employees lost their jobs. The case illustrated how small oversights in password hygiene can destabilise even long-established businesses.
Weak or unchanged default codes have also enabled intrusions into personal communications. Years-long investigations into unlawful phone-hacking in the United Kingdom revealed that some voicemail systems were protected by factory-set PINs or extremely simple numerical combinations. These lax protections enabled unauthorized access to private messages belonging to public figures, eventually triggering criminal proceedings, regulatory inquiries and the shutdown of a national newspaper.
Historical oversight is not limited to consumer systems. Former personnel who worked with early nuclear command procedures in the United States have described past practices in which launch mechanisms relied on extremely simple numeric sequences. Although additional procedural safeguards existed, later reforms strengthened the technical requirements to ensure that no single point of failure or simplistic code could enable unauthorized action.
More recently, a national elections authority in the United Kingdom was reprimanded after attackers accessed servers containing voter registration data between 2021 and 2022. Regulators found that essential patches had not been applied and that many internal accounts continued to use passwords similar to those originally assigned at setup. By impersonating legitimate users, intruders were able to penetrate the system, though no evidence indicated that the data was subsequently misused.
These incidents reinforce a consistent conclusion. Passwords remain central to digital security, and organisations that fail to enforce strong credential policies, update software and enable multi-factor authentication expose themselves to avoidable breaches. Even basic improvements in password complexity and account management can prevent the kinds of failures that have repeatedly resulted in financial losses, service outages and large-scale investigations.
The more we share online, the easier it becomes for attackers to piece together our personal lives. Photos, location tags, daily routines, workplace details, and even casual posts can be combined to create a fairly accurate picture of who we are. Cybercriminals use this information to imitate victims, trick service providers, and craft convincing scams that look genuine. When someone can guess where you spend your time or what services you rely on, they can more easily pretend to be you and manipulate systems meant to protect you. Reducing what you post publicly is one of the simplest steps to lower this risk.
Weak passwords add another layer of vulnerability, but a recent industry assessment has shown that the problem is not only with users. Many of the most visited websites do not enforce strong password requirements. Some platforms do not require long passwords, special characters, or case sensitivity. This leaves accounts easier to break into through automated attacks. Experts recommend that websites adopt stronger password rules, introduce passkey options, and guide users with clear indicators of password strength. Users can improve their own security by relying on password managers, creating long unique passwords, and enabling two factor authentication wherever possible.
Concerns about device security are also increasing. Several governments have begun reviewing whether certain networking devices introduce national security risks, especially when the manufacturers are headquartered in countries that have laws allowing state access to data. These investigations have sparked debates over how consumer hardware is produced, how data flows through global supply chains, and whether companies can guarantee independence from government requests. For everyday users, this tension means it is important to select routers and other digital devices that receive regular software updates, publish clear security policies, and have a history of addressing vulnerabilities quickly.
Another rising threat is ransomware. Criminal groups continue to target both individuals and large organisations, encrypting data and demanding payment for recovery. Recent cases involving individuals with cybersecurity backgrounds show how profitable illicit markets can attract even trained professionals. Because attackers now operate with high levels of organisation, users and businesses should maintain offline backups, restrict access within internal networks, and test their response plans in advance.
Privacy concerns are also emerging in the travel sector. Airline data practices are also drawing scrutiny. Travel companies cannot directly sell passenger information to government programs due to legal restrictions, so several airlines jointly rely on an intermediary that acts as a broker. Reports show that this broker had been distributing data for years but only recently registered itself as a data broker, which is legally required. Users can request removal from this data-sharing system by emailing the broker’s privacy address and completing identity verification. Confirmation records should be stored for reference. The process involves verifying identity details, and users should keep a copy of all correspondence and confirmations.
Finally, several governments are exploring digital identity systems that would allow residents to store official identification on their phones. Although convenient, this approach raises significant privacy risks. Digital IDs place sensitive information in one central location, and if the surrounding protections are weak, the data could be misused for tracking or monitoring. Strong legal safeguards, transparent data handling rules, and external audits are essential before such systems are implemented.
Experts warn that centralizing identity increases the potential impact of a breach and may facilitate tracking unless strict limits, independent audits, and user controls are enforced. Policymakers must balance convenience with strong technical and legal protections.
Practical, immediate steps one should follow:
1. Reduce public posts that reveal routines or precise locations.
2. Use a password manager and unique, long passwords.
3. Turn on two factor authentication for important accounts.
4. Maintain offline backups and test recovery procedures.
5. Check privacy policies of travel brokers and submit opt-out requests if you want to limit data sharing.
6. Prefer devices with clear update policies and documented security practices.
These measures lower the chance that routine online activity becomes a direct route into your accounts or identity. Small, consistent changes will greatly reduce risk.
Overall, users can strengthen their protection by sharing less online, reviewing how their travel data is handled, and staying informed about the implications of digital identification. Small and consistent actions reduce the likelihood of becoming a victim of cyber threats.
Our world is entirely dependent on technology which are prone to attacks. Only a few people understand such complex infrastructure. The internet is built to be easy, and this makes it vulnerable. The first big cyberattack happened in 1988. That time, not many people knew about it.
The more we rely on networked computer technology, the more we become exposed to attacks and ransomware extortion.
There are various ways of hacking or disrupting a network. Threat actors get direct access through software bugs, they can access unprotected systems and leverage them as a zombie army called "botnet," to disrupt a network.
Currently, we are experiencing a wave of ransomware attacks. First, threat actors hack into a network, they may pretend to be an employee. They do this via phishing emails or social engineering attacks. After this, they increase their access and steal sensitive data for extortion reasons. By this, hackers gain control and assert dominance.
These days, "hypervisor" has become a favourite target. It is a server computer that lets many remote systems to use just one system (like work from home). Hackers then use ransomware to encode data, which makes the entire system unstable and it becomes impossible to restore the data without paying the ransom for a decoding key.
A major reason is a sudden rise in cryptocurrencies. It has made money laundering easier. In 2023, a record $1.1 billion was paid out across the world. Crypto also makes it easier to buy illegal things on the dark web. Another reason is the rise of ransomware as a service (RaaS) groups. This business model has made cyberattacks easier for beginner hackers
RaaS groups market on dark web and go by the names like LockBit, REvil, Hive, and Darkside sell tech support services for ransomware attack. For a monthly fees, they provide a payment portal, encryption softwares, and a standalone leak site for blackmailing the victims, and also assist in ransom negotiations.
The United Kingdom’s National Cyber Security Centre (NCSC) has cautioned that hacking groups connected to China are responsible for an increasing number of cyberattacks targeting British organisations. Officials say the country has become one of the most capable and persistent sources of digital threats worldwide, with operations extending across government systems, private firms, and global institutions.
Paul Chichester, the NCSC’s Director of Operations, explained that certain nations, including China, are now using cyber intrusions as part of their broader national strategy to gain intelligence and influence. According to the NCSC’s latest annual report, China remains a “highly sophisticated” threat actor capable of conducting complex and coordinated attacks.
This warning coincides with a government initiative urging major UK companies to take stronger measures to secure their digital infrastructure. Ministers have written to hundreds of business leaders, asking them to review their cyber readiness and adopt more proactive protection strategies against ransomware, data theft, and state-sponsored attacks.
Last year, security agencies from the Five Eyes alliance, comprising the UK, the United States, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand uncovered a large-scale operation by a Chinese company that controlled a botnet of over 260,000 compromised devices. In August, officials again warned that Chinese-backed hackers were targeting telecommunications providers by exploiting vulnerabilities in routers and using infected devices to infiltrate additional networks.
The NCSC also noted that other nations, including Russia, are believed to be “pre-positioning” their cyber capabilities in critical sectors such as energy and transportation. Chichester emphasized that the war in Ukraine has demonstrated how cyber operations are now used as instruments of power, enabling states to disrupt essential services and advance strategic goals.
Artificial Intelligence: A New Tool for Attackers
The report highlights that artificial intelligence is increasingly being used by hostile actors to improve the speed and efficiency of existing attack techniques. The NCSC clarified that, while AI is not currently enabling entirely new forms of attacks, it allows adversaries to automate certain stages of hacking, such as identifying security flaws or crafting convincing phishing emails.
Ollie Whitehouse, the NCSC’s Chief Technology Officer, described AI as a “productivity enhancer” for cybercriminals. He explained that it is helping less experienced hackers conduct sophisticated campaigns and enabling organized groups to expand operations more rapidly. However, he reassured that AI does not currently pose an existential threat to national security.
Ransomware Remains the Most Severe Risk
For UK businesses, ransomware continues to be the most pressing danger. Criminals behind these attacks are financially motivated, often targeting organisations with weak security controls regardless of size or industry. The NCSC reports seeing daily incidents affecting schools, charities, and small enterprises struggling to recover from system lockouts and data loss.
To strengthen national resilience, the upcoming Cyber Security and Resilience Bill will require critical service providers, including data centres and managed service firms, to report cyber incidents within 24 hours. By increasing transparency and response speed, the government hopes to limit the impact of future attacks.
The NCSC urges business leaders to treat cyber risk as a priority at the executive level. Understanding the urgency of action, maintaining up-to-date systems, and investing in employee awareness are essential steps to prevent further damage. As cyber activity grows “more intense, frequent, and intricate,” the agency stresses that a united effort between the government and private sector is crucial to protecting the UK’s digital ecosystem.
Global auction house Sotheby’s has disclosed that it recently suffered a data breach in which cybercriminals accessed and extracted files containing sensitive information. The company confirmed that the security incident, detected on July 24, 2025, led to unauthorized access to certain internal data systems.
According to a notification filed with the Maine Attorney General’s Office, the compromised records included details such as full names, Social Security Numbers (SSNs), and financial account information. While the filing listed only a few individuals from the states of Maine and Rhode Island, the overall number of people affected by the breach has not been publicly confirmed.
Sotheby’s stated that once the intrusion was identified, its cybersecurity team immediately launched a detailed investigation, working alongside external security experts and law enforcement authorities. The process reportedly took nearly two months as the company conducted a comprehensive audit to determine what type of information was taken and whose data was affected.
In its notice to those impacted, the company wrote that certain Sotheby’s data “appeared to have been removed from our environment by an unknown actor.” It added that an “extensive review of the data” was carried out to identify the affected records and confirm the individuals connected to them.
As a precautionary measure, Sotheby’s is offering affected individuals 12 months of free identity protection and credit monitoring services through TransUnion, encouraging them to register within 90 days of receiving the notification letter.
Initially, it was unclear whether the compromised data involved employees or clients. However, in an update on October 17, 2025, Sotheby’s clarified in a statement to BleepingComputer that the breach involved employee information, not customer data. The company emphasized that it took the incident seriously and immediately involved external cybersecurity experts to support the response and remediation process.
“Sotheby’s discovered a cybersecurity incident that may have involved certain employee information,” a company spokesperson said in an official statement. “Upon discovery, we promptly began an investigation with leading data protection specialists and law enforcement. The company is notifying all impacted individuals as required and remains committed to protecting the integrity of its systems and data.”
Sotheby’s is among the world’s most recognized auction houses, dealing in high-value art and luxury assets. In 2024, the firm recorded total annual sales of nearly $6 billion, highlighting the scale and sensitivity of the data it manages, including financial and transactional records.
Although no ransomware groups have claimed responsibility for this breach so far, similar attacks have previously targeted high-end auction platforms. In 2024, the RansomHub gang allegedly breached Christie’s, stealing personal data belonging to an estimated 500,000 clients. Such incidents indicate that cybercriminals increasingly view global art institutions as lucrative targets due to the financial and personal data they store.
This is not the first time Sotheby’s has dealt with cybersecurity issues. Between March 2017 and October 2018, the company’s website was compromised by a malicious web skimmer designed to collect customer payment information. A comparable supply-chain attack in 2021 also led to unauthorized access to sensitive data.
The latest breach reinforces the growing risks faced by major cultural and financial institutions that handle valuable client and employee data. As investigations continue, Sotheby’s has urged affected individuals to remain vigilant, review their financial statements regularly, and immediately report any suspicious activity to their bank or credit institution.