January | 2025 | Dark Lab

Ransomware’s Uneven Playing Field: Re-Thinking Protection and Detection from Small and Medium Enterprises

Recently, Dark Lab attended a conference to present the lessons learnt from ransomware incidents impacting small and medium enterprises (“SMEs”), and how these lessons learnt can help us find effective measures against ransomware threats.

Apart from our experience dealing with ransomware, it has been reported by the industry, that 85% of ransomware attack victims are small businesses.[1] These businesses present as lucrative targets for opportunistic ransomware actors, given their limited access to resources to implement robust security solutions.

In the past year, we have responded to numerous ransomware incidents involving small to medium enterprises (“SMEs”) that lack of the resources to invest in advanced security tools such as Endpoint Detection and Response (“EDR”) or Security Information and Event Management (“SIEM”) systems. Despite the absence of these tools, our incident response efforts have revealed simple controls that can effectively serve as containment, preventive, or damage-control measures.

Our presentation covered several ransomware incidents involving both well-known operators and newcomers to the field. We provided our insights into the threat intelligence associated with these actors, analyse the Tactics, Techniques, and Procedures (“TTPs”) used compared to large-scale ransomware, and share lessons learned from handling these incidents, including mistakes made by the threat actors. We further note the potential applications of these strategies in larger enterprises as a means to strengthen their own posture.

This blog will deep dive into the threat intelligence associated with the current ransomware landscape, the Tactics, Techniques and Procedures (“TTPs”) behind ransomware attacks, and our lessons learnt along with the insights from previous incident experience.

The Current Ransomware Landscape

Figure 1: Overview of changes in the ransomware landscape

In 2024, we observe an increasingly unpredictable and diverse ransomware landscape following multiple disruptive events that have reshaped how the ransomware ecosystem operates today.

Figure 2: Timeline of 2024’s “major disruptors” in the ransomware and wider cybercriminal landscape

Significant catalysts for these shifts include the persistence of law enforcement disruptions against larger Ransomware-as-a-Service (RaaS) operators, as exemplified in the ongoing #OpCronos against LockBit. Not to mention BlackCat’s alleged exit scam following allegations of failure to payout their affiliate for their attack on UnitedHealth.

These two instances alone incited heightened scepticism and distrust within the cybercriminal community, leading to a shift away from these “market leaders”. Quickly, we observed smaller and new players seize this opportunity to establish their presence within the ransomware ecosystem. Not only applying the lessons learnt from the downfalls of bigger players, and factoring in the changes to the ways in which victims respond to ransomware attacks, we observe these new joiners seeking to distinguish themselves and increase their chances of success through alternative means of approaching ransomware attacks. For example;

Figure 3: Latest trends observed amongst newer ransomware groups

A Focus on SMEs

Contrary to the misconception that SMEs are not a priority for ransomware groups due to the lower payout opportunity, we observe the majority of ransomware attacks are targeted against SMEs. This is as larger enterprises are now well-equipped with security solutions designed to prevent and detect against impending threats, thus posing SMEs as enticing targets for a higher likelihood of success.

We attribute this to a number of factors; limited funds to invest in cybersecurity professionals and technologies, lack of preparedness to respond to an attack, and the impact that operational disruptions may have on the viability of the business. Statistically, 75% of SMEs could not continue operating beyond seven (7) days if hit by ransomware [2], whilst 20% of SMEs that fell victim to a ransomware attack paid the ransom.[3] Furthermore, learning from the cases of LockBit and BlackCats’ notoriety, newer players seek to evade attention from media and law enforcement; conducting lower-profile attacks to maintain their presence and longevity.

Who’s targeting SMEs?

Figure 4: Snapshot of ransomware operators known to target SMEs

As seen in the image above, we observe both established RaaS operators who we track and know well, and newer players, experimental in the approaches to ransomware attacks, targeting SMEs. We note that this list is not exhaustive given the opportunistic nature of ransomware actors, and is further applicable in the context of larger enterprises.

With newer groups diversifying their attack methods and creating an increasingly ‘unpredictable’ ransomware threat, how can we stay focused?

Focusing on the “critical path”

Despite the abundance of new players on the market – bringing new approaches and techniques used to facilitate their attacks – we still observe overarching commonalities in their Tactics, Techniques, and Procedures (“TTPs”).

Figure 5: MITRE ATT&CK Heatmap – highlighting the most frequently leveraged TTPs*

The above MITRE ATT&CK heatmap compiles the TTPs used by various aforementioned threat actors. By focusing on the most frequently used TTPs (highlighted in red and orange), we can prioritise our efforts to strengthen defences against these techniques, creating a ‘critical path’ for us to focus our efforts in devising protection and detection.

This critical path provides a holistic view of RaaS operators, not just applicable to SMEs but all types of victims. In the case of SMEs, given the limited access to resources, this critical path provides a realistic baseline to focus resources on preventing and detecting against ransomware threats.

Our experience responding to ransomware attacks against SMEs

To consider how this “critical path” translates into real life, we referenced some historic cases we have battled, and the lessons learnt. Specifically, we deep dived into three (3) case studies, attributed to RansomHouse, SEXi (a.k.a. APT Inc.), and LockBit, respectively.

Each case study shared commonality in that initial access was obtained via breaching perimeter devices e.g., SSLVPN. However, the case studies provided a useful comparison on the degree of impact incurred within an SME environment depending on the presence (or lack thereof) sufficient security controls.

Figure 6: Case Studies – highlighted in pink are the techniques performed in these incidents

Case Study 1: RansomHouse affiliate (an “Old Guard”)

Figure 7: High-level timeline of incident attributed to RansomHouse affiliate

In the first case study, the RansomHouse affiliate achieved initial access via a known vulnerability. The affiliate proceeded to perform account brute forcing and network scanning using the commonly leveraged, SoftPerfect Scanner. Obtaining a service account granted with administrative privileges, the affiliate proceeded to perform Remote Desktop Protocol (RDP) for lateral movement. Notably, the service account was secured with a weak password and the last date of password reset was the same as its creation date – a common issue we have observed across SMEs, whereby they use a weak password for account creation, and subsequently neglect to change the password later.

The affiliate further enumerated the victim’s environment, obtaining additional credentials to access their ESXi, Network Attached Storage (NAS), various databases and Software-as-a-Service (SaaS) platforms. With their better understanding of the victim’s environment and the “crown jewels” to target for sensitive data, the affiliate proceeded to deploy the AnyDesk remote access software and a PowerShell script. This resulted in large outbound data exfiltration over 700 gigabytes (GB) of data before removing backups and deploying ransomware across their Network Attached Storage (NAS), backup servers, and virtual infrastructure (VMware ESXi) servers.

This case study highlights the sheer impact of a ransomware attack in environments lacking network segmentation, password policy enforcement, and sufficient access controls.

Case Study 2: SEXi affiliate (“New Blood”)

Figure 8: High-level timeline of incident attributed to SEXi (a.k.a. APT Inc.) affiliate

In our incident attributed to an affiliate of SEXi (now rebranded as APT Inc.) ransomware, the affiliate infiltrated via a SSLVPN entry, landing on a demilitarised zone (DMZ) server subnet. The affiliate was also observed to deploy the SoftPerfect Scanner for network discovery, resulting in the identification of a vulnerable Veeam Backup & Replication server. Exploiting the vulnerability to create a new local admin account, the threat actor proceeded to perform credential dumping on the Veeam server, obtaining valid ESXi and NAS credentials.

Pivoting to the ESXi and NAS servers, the SEXi affiliate proceeded to deploy their ransomware and delete all backup data on the NAS. Due to network segmentation in place, ransomware deployment was contained within the DMZ, and no data exfiltration was observed.

Case Study 3: LockBit affiliate (another “Old Guard”)

Figure 9: High-level timeline of incident attributed to LockBit affiliate

In our latest battle with LockBit, the affiliate infiltrated via a SSLVPN server using a valid SSLVPN account. In this case, the SSLVPN account belonged to a third-party vendor and had a weak password which had not been changed for over three (3) years. The affiliate landed on a DMZ zone, though due to poor network segmentation in place, the SSLVPN account was capable of accessing a management subnet with /16 IP addresses – a significantly large IP address range for the threat actor to access, not to mention a vendor.

Due to password reuse, the LockBit affiliate proceeded to takeover an administrator account, leveraged to laterally move to additional environments via RDP protocol. Notably, the admin account was utilised to perform a DCSync attack on the Domain Controller (DC). The affiliate then proceeded to perform data staging, focused on discovering Excel, PDF, and Word documents contained within shared folders. At this point, the affiliate installed MegaSync, a legitimate tool for data transfers, and created a folder for file staging. The affiliate then deployed ransomware. However, due to outbound network restrictions in place – no data exfiltration was involved.

Notably, the victim was not observed to be listed on LockBit’s dedicated leak site, which we hypothesised was due to their inability to exfiltrate data from the victim’s environment. This highlights the effectiveness in file transfer restrictions in not only mitigating against the compromise of data, but the ability to avoid reputational damage from public awareness of the ransomware incident.

Case Study Comparison; Same Same (TTPs), But Different (Impact)

Comparison of these similar attacks highlight how enforcing simple controls to restrict malicious activity can significantly minimise the impact of ransomware attacks.

Figure 10: Case Studies – summary of key observations

Through our incident experience, we highlight the following common issues in SMEs:

Initial access is achieved through preventable “low hanging fruit”, such as;
- Commodity VPNs (e.g., Fortinet SSLVPN, SonicWall SSLVPN, etc.)
- Infostealer data and credentials leaked on dark web
Lack of awareness and/or implementation of:
- Strong password policies – guidelines that enforce the creation and use of complex, hard-to-crack passwords
- Patch management – regular updating of software to remediate susceptibility to vulnerabilities that otherwise may be exploited by malicious actors
- Perimeter services – security measures that protect the outer boundaries of a network, such as firewalls and intrusion detection systems (IDS)
- Network segmentation – practice of dividing a network into smaller, isolated segments to limit access and lateral movement opportunities

What can SMEs do to minimise the risk and impact of ransomware threats?

From basic hardening configurations within Active Directory to enabling detection with honeytokens and strategically planning network restrictions, we share practical tips and strategies that we have implemented in our clients’ environments. This demonstrates how small businesses can reduce their risk from a full-scale ransomware attack or minimize the impact of such events. Additionally, we note that these strategies can be further leveraged by larger entities to strengthen their own environments.

Initial Access

Threat actors often seek “low hanging fruit” to gain initial access. For example, exposed SSLVPN gateways are frequently brute forced by malicious actors using leaked credentials.

The following tips can aid SMEs in minimising their attack surface exposure to reduce the risk of unauthorised access.

On the perimeter-level, SMEs can consider the follow tips to minimise their attack surface exposure;

Stock take exposed services, patch or restrict administrative portals
Trim down access from SSL VPN to internal network
Isolate the systems with legacy operating systems

Access controls can further limit the opportunity for threat actors to infiltrate and/or persist in their post-compromise stages;

Housekeep accounts, and strengthen existing multi-factor authentication
Trim down access from SSL VPN to internal network
Use a separate set of credentials for SSL VPN access

Discovery

Threat actors typically use tools like Network Scanners (e.g., SoftPerfect) that rely on file shares to enumerate files for targeting.

A file share is a network resource that allows multiple users or devices to access and share the files and folders over a network. Threat actors frequently leverage these file shares to identify files of interest (e.g., containing ‘password’, ‘confidential’, ‘finance’, ‘secret’, ‘backup’, ‘admin’, etc.).

To restrict the opportunity for threat actors to perform discovery via file shares, we recommend:

Perform a stock-take on file servers to identify critical files housing sensitive and/or confidential data
Review what users are allowed to access critical files, and restrict access based on the principle of least privilege

Canary tokens[4], otherwise known as a honey tokens, provide another avenue for proactive threat detection. Canary tokens are a digital identifier embedded within files, URLs, or systems to detect unauthorised access or activity. When an attacker interacts with a canary token, it triggers an alert to notify administrators of a potential breach.

Figure 12: Canary Token for Network Folders[5]

Figure 13: Canary Token for Windows Folders[6]

Lateral Movement

Threat actors target privileged accounts as part of their intrusion, in particular Domain Admins, leveraging their heightened privileges to perform various activities, spanning from data collection and exfiltration to ransomware deployment.

This begs the question; Do we really need to use “Domain Admins” for day-to-day operations?

Tips to secure domain admin accounts and reduce opportunities for lateral movement:

Account tiering is an effective means to reduce the risk of credential theft for administrative accounts. In short, it is the process of categorizing accounts and systems into tiers based on criticality. According to Microsoft, the “tier model creates divisions between administrators based on what resources they manage….[so that] admins with control over user workstations are separated from those that control applications”.[7]

Enforce logon restrictions to ensure highly privileged accounts do not possess access to less secure resources. For example, domain admins (tier 0) should not possess permissions to access user workstations (tier 2).[8]

Restrict login attempts from Remote Desktop Services[9]

Ensure critical systems are kept up-to-date with regular patching. This involves referencing the systems categorized as critical (or “tier 0), and prioritizing these systems in your patch management process. As an example, Veeam Backup & Replication[10] and ESXi instances [11] are regularly targeted by multiple groups for ransomware deployment.

Exfiltration (and Remote Access)

Threat actors frequently abuse legitimate solutions to facilitate their remote access (e.g., AnyDesk, TeamViewer, etc.) and data exfiltration (e.g., MegaSync, Rclone, etc.). Furthermore, in some cases we observed that host-based firewall may have been controlled by a compromised administrative account.

To detect for the malicious misuse of these legitimate tooling and/or accounts, we advise the use of an Active Directory-Integrated DNS (ADIDNS) sinkhole – ensuring proper Access Control Lists (ACLs) are configured.

A DNS sinkhole, otherwise known as a sinkhole server, is a DNS server that provides false information to prevent the use of domain names. It is a strategy used to block malicious traffic. When a device attempts to access a known malicious domain, the DNS sinkhole redirects the request to a non-routable address, effectively “sinking” the traffic and preventing the device from connecting to a harmful site.[12]

Conclusion

As the ransomware landscape continues to evolve and diversify in the threats faced, focusing on identification of predictable TTPs, or even a ‘critical path’, helps us prioritize efforts to defend against the most pertinent threats.

Whilst SMEs may struggle due to their technical limitations and resources, we hope this blog helps provide insight in the simple, yet effective means in which SMEs can uplift their security posture. As a reminder, implementation of these strategies requires carefully designed architecture and process planning (e.g., appropriate access controls, standard operating processes) to maintain effectiveness. Furthermore, we note that these approaches are universal and applicable in larger enterprises, providing proactive opportunities to harden your security posture.

What lies ahead for the future of ransomware?

As organisations increasingly shift to cloud and integration of Software-as-a-Solution (SaaS), we expect to see increased targeting against these environments. Whilst we already observe ransomware actors selling compromised databases, we project an uptick in the reselling of access for re-intrusion into victim environments by other threat actors. The application of artificial intelligence (AI) and automation intelligence within the cybercriminal is a continued discussion, as we anticipate threat actors expanding beyond the use of AI for content generation (in the context of social engineering) to other applications. There’s no telling for certain what else the future holds, but for now, let’s concentrate on safeguarding ourselves against the most crucial threats.

MITRE ATT&CK TTPs for the “Critical Path”

We include the observed MITRE ATT&CK tactics and techniques highlighted in the “critical path”:

MITRE ID	MITRE ATT&CK Tactic	MITRE ATT&CK Technique
T1583	Resource Development	Acquire Infrastructure
T1587	Resource Development	Develop Capabilities
T1588	Resource Development	Obtain Capabilities
T1566	Initial Access	Phishing
T1190	Initial Access	Exploit Public-Facing Application
T1078	Initial Access	Valid Accounts
T1133	Initial Access	External Remote Services
T1059	Execution	Command and Scripting Interpreter
T1053	Execution	Scheduled Task/Job
T1047	Execution	Windows Management Instrumentation
T1106	Execution	Native API
T1204	Execution	User Execution
T1569	Execution	System Services
T1136	Persistence	Create Account
T1543	Persistence	Create or Modify System Process
T1098	Persistence	Account Manipulation
T1505	Persistence	Server Software Component
T1547	Persistence	Boot or Logon Autostart Execution
T1055	Privilege Escalation	Process Injection
T1134	Privilege Escalation	Access Token Manipulation
T1027	Defense Evasion	Obfuscated Files or Information
T1562	Defense Evasion	Impair Defenses
T1112	Defense Evasion	Modify Registry
T1140	Defense Evasion	Deobfuscate/Decode Files or Information
T1036	Defense Evasion	Masquerading
T1218	Defense Evasion	System Binary Proxy Execution
T1497	Defense Evasion	Virtualization/Sandbox Evasion
T1070	Defense Evasion	Indicator Removal on Host
T1222	Defense Evasion	File and Directory Permissions Modification
T1564	Defense Evasion	Hide Artifacts
T1003	Credential Access	OS Credential Dumping
T1083	Discovery	File and Directory Discovery
T1082	Discovery	System Information Discovery
T1018	Discovery	Remote System Discovery
T1057	Discovery	Process Discovery
T1135	Discovery	Network Share Discovery
T1016	Discovery	System Network Configuration Discovery
T1046	Discovery	Network Service Discovery
T1069	Discovery	Permission Groups Discovery
T1087	Discovery	Account Discovery
T1482	Discovery	Domain Trust Discovery
T1518	Discovery	Software Discovery
T1021	Lateral Movement	Remote Services
T1210	Lateral Movement	Exploitation of Remote Services
T1570	Lateral Movement	Lateral Tool Transfer
T1005	Collection	Data from Local System
T1560	Collection	Archive Collected Data
T1039	Collection	Data from Network Shared Drive
T1105	Command and Control	Ingress Tool Transfer
T1219	Command and Control	Remote Access Software
T1071	Command and Control	Application Layer Protocol
T1041	Exfiltration	Exfiltration Over C2 Channel
T1048	Exfiltration	Exfiltration Over Alternative Protocol
T1567	Exfiltration	Exfiltration Over Web Service
T1486	Impact	Data Encrypted for Impact
T1490	Impact	Inhibit System Recovery
T1485	Impact	Data Destruction

Further information

Feel free to contact us at [darklab dot cti at hk dot pwc dot com] for any further information.

Forecasting the Cyber Threat Landscape: What to Expect in 2025

Posted on January 10 by darklabhk

2024 marked a pivotal shift in the cyber threat landscape, with threat actors increasingly experimental, yet intentional in their approaches to cyberattacks. Leveraging new and emerging technologies to weaponise trust and further lower the barrier to entry for cybercriminals, we anticipate no less for 2025. Based on PwC Dark Lab’s observations throughout 2024, we share our assessment of the potentially most prevalent threats and likely emerging trends for this year.

Identities will continue to be the primary target for threat actors, resulting in a gradual rise of infostealer infections and credential sales on the dark web

Hong Kong saw a 23% rise in infostealer infections in 2024, further reflected in our incident experience, as infostealers and leaked credentials persisted as a frequent root cause in cyberattacks. We assess this growth in infostealer usage is given the wider trend observed, whereby threat actors of varying motivations have increasingly shifted focus to identity-based attacks.

Through our ongoing dark web monitoring, we observed threat actors have become increasingly deliberate in their weaponisation of infostealers – intentionally targeting specific types of data during collection. This is as reflected in the uptick of network access sales for SSH, VPN, firewall, and cloud. We posit that credentials and database sales will remain a hot commodity within the dark web marketplaces given they allow for easy entry. Furthermore, we observed that data sales are not always need to be associated with an active data breach – as we repeatedly observe threat actors farming data from organisations’ exposed libraries, directories, publicly released information, as well as historically leaked data on the dark web – to publish as a single data dump on the dark web. We posit this repurposing and collating of already available information is performed by threat actors as a means to establish their reputation on dark web hacking forums.

As witnessed in our incident experience and open-source reporting, threat actors now target individuals’ personal devices with the intention to obtain access to enterprise environments. Thiswas most recently evidenced Cyberhaven’s Chrome extension security incident, whereby a phishing attack resulted in attacker takeover of their legitimate browser extension. Replacing the extension with a tampered, maliciously-embedded update designed to steal cookies and authenticated sessions, the extension was automatically dispensed to approximately 400,000 users.[1] In a previous incident, we observed that the victim organisation was compromised as a result of an infostealer deployed on their employee’s personal, unmanaged laptop, leading to the obtaining of valid corporate credentials and subsequent corporate compromise. We anticipate that threat actors will continue to adopt new means to distribute and weaponise infostealers at mass to collect valid identities to initiate their attacks.

Cybercriminals will exploit any means to deliver malware, with Search Engine Optimisation (SEO) being a good mode for compromise – bringing potential reputational damage

Search Engine Optimisation (SEO) plays a crucial role in today’s digital society, enabling visibility and accessibility of websites to seamlessly connect users with the most relevant information. As such, it’s no surprise that SEO has become a growing driver in malicious campaigns. Be it directing users to malicious sites impersonating legitimate brands, spreading of disinformation, or compromising legitimate websites to benefit from their SEO results, threat actors have continuously refined their means to weaponise, or ‘poison’, SEO.

SEO poisoning involves the manipulation of search engine results to direct users to harmful websites. This may be achieved via the use of popular search terms and keywords to increase their sites’ ranks, mimicking of legitimate websites, typosquatting, and/or leveraging cloaking and multiple redirection techniques. Recently, we observed public reports regarding the distribution of a novel multipurpose malware, PLAYFULGHOST, distributed as a trojanised version of trusted VPN applications via SEO poisoning techniques.[2] In other cases, we observe threat actors installing ‘SEO malware’ on compromised websites – designed to perform black hat SEO poisoning, whereby search engines display the attackers’ malicious webpages as though they were contained within the legitimate, compromised website.[3]

In mid-2024, PwC’s Dark Lab have observed a sharp uptick in phishing sites masquerading as online gambling operators. Targeted against users in Southeast Asia, we assessed this is likely due to regional crackdown on online gambling – as evidenced in Philippines’ ban of Philippine Offshore Gaming Operators (POGOs). A notable instigator for the ban on POGOs was the shift into illicit scamming activities by POGOs following the impact of COVID-19 (e.g., online fake shopping, cryptocurrency, and investment scams).[4] As we observe further crackdowns within the region, we anticipate a growth in SEO campaigns pushing online gambling phishing sites, preying on unsuspecting, or vulnerable users. Furthermore, this reflects on how threat actors continue to opportunistically weaponise current events to their benefit.

Growth in identity-based attacks highlights threat of domain abuse and need for stringent governance of top-level domains (TLDs)

The topic of internet hygiene has come to our attention amidst the significant uptick in the amount malicious sites impersonating local Hong Kong brands. Globally, the landscape of domain registration has become increasingly under question due to the ease and anonymity with which domains can be purchased, facilitated by the lack of regulations surrounding Know Your Customer (KYC) processes. This has fostered a favourable environment for malicious actors to disguise their infrastructure, gaining trust via ‘reputable’ top-level domains (TLDs). Whilst some TLDs like [.]xyz and [.]biz are widely regarded as ‘untrustworthy’, we observe commonly trusted TLDs [.]com and [.]top persist as the two most abused TLDs in 2024.[5]

DNS abuse can take many forms, though ICANN defines it as; botnet, malware delivery, phishing, pharming, and spam.[6] Distributed Denial of Service (DDoS) is an example of an ever-present DNS-related threat increasingly observed in 2024, with the motivations behind these attacks being hacktivist in nature and correlating with major geopolitical events (e.g., elections, ongoing tensions). We anticipate a continuation of geopolitical-motivated DDoS attacks in 2025, as threat actors recognise the success that may be achieved through these attacks; being reputational damage and heightened visibility towards their hacktivist cause. In Q2 2024, we uncovered an active campaign masquerading as multiple local brands including Mannings and Yuu using typosquatted domain names registered to [.]top, [.]shop, and [.]vip TLDs. This campaign revealed how customised attacks against individuals are becoming; targeting of personal data now spans beyond credential harvesting – further collecting a broader set of attributes such as the device you are using, user location, behaviour patterns, and even loyalty program details. As highlighted during our 2024 Hack A Day: Securing Identity, identity is now contextual – collecting various attributes or ‘unique identifiers’ to build your holistic identity-profile.

Through PwC Dark Lab’s ongoing efforts to safeguard Hong Kong citizens, we foresee a need for more structured and regular analysis of generic TLDs (gTLDs) – e.g., [.]com, [.]top and country code TLDs (ccTLDs) – e.g., [.]com.hk, [.]hk. To proactively identify and mitigate against these active threats, we anticipate that in the longer run, governance is necessary to enforce and ensure adherence on registrars. This includes intelligence-driven ongoing detection, establishing consistent definitions, uplifting KYC validations, and appropriate procedures to handle known-bad domains. With over 96% of Hong Kong’s population (aged 10 or above) using the Internet[7], it is crucial that registrars collaborate in the collective goal to secure the internet and disrupt threat actors’ infrastructure supply.

Sophistication of social engineering scams will amplify as threat actors ‘smish’, abuse legitimate services, and weaponise automation intelligence

As organisations worldwide have invested efforts into hardening their security posture, we observe threat actors adapting their attacks to find alternative means to bypass the heightened defences. SMS phishing (“smishing”) has become increasingly tailored in response to heightened user awareness. In some cases, we have observed smishing messages no longer containing links, only phone numbers – suggesting a preference to perform voice call phishing (“vishing”) as a means of increasing their chances of success. Beyond abuse of trusted identities, we observe threat actors weaponising legitimate services to disguise their malicious traffic behind legitimate sources.

In Q4 2024, we observed an unknown threat actor leverage multiple trusted domains in Hong Kong to front their Cobalt Strike Beacon C2. Domain fronting is a technique used to disguise the true destination of Internet traffic by using different domain names in different layers of an HTTPS connection to route traffic through a legitimate and highly trusted domain. Similarly, we have observed the use of legitimate platforms such as Ticketmaster and Cloudflare to host phishing sites. In another context, our global counterparts have observed advanced persistent threat (APT) actors utilising TryCloudflare tunnels to stage malware and circumvent DNS filtering solutions. We project that threat actors will continue to experiment with different, legitimate platforms to find means to facilitate their attacks.

As observed since the emergence of ChatGPT in late 2022, generative artificial intelligence (AI) has enabled threat actors to craft highly convincing, tailored social engineering contents at scale. This was observed in 2024, as the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) observed a surge in AI-driven financial fraud, leveraging GenAI to generate convincing phishing emails, social engineering scripts, and deepfake audio and video to deceive victims.[8] We predict that the application of AI by cybercriminals will expand beyond content generation to automate vulnerability exploitation, malware distribution and development, and AI-enabled ransomware. On the flipside, as the integration of AI into business processes rises, the need to secure these AI systems will continue to mount.

The ransomware landscape will continue to diversify, weaponising emerging technologies, trusted identities and services to increase their chances of success

2024 was a transformative year for the ransomware landscape, following continued disruptions of the LockBit Ransomware-as-a-Service (RaaS) operations by international law enforcement agencies, and BlackCat’s alleged exit scam. These occurrences resulted in heightened scepticism, posing an opportunity for new ransomware actors to enter the market. As new groups arise, we observe them increasingly experimental in their approaches to ransomware attacks – both through the Techniques, Tactics, and Procedures (TTPs) used and their malware offerings – diversifying the threat of ransomware.

We anticipate that 2025 will see a continuation of this trend, with an increased focus on weaponising trusted identities and legitimate services to increase their chances of success. Infostealers and Initial Access Brokers (“IABs”) will likely persist as a growing infiltration vector for ransomware affiliates, as we project increased targeting against systems likely to house sensitive information to enable rapid “smash and grab” attacks, such as cloud, Software-as-a-Service (SaaS), and file transfer platforms. Target systems for ransomware encryption are expected to further expand – as we already observed in mid-2024, with threat actors increasingly developing custom strains to target macOS and Network Attached Storage (NAS). This is evidenced in the recent discovery following the arrest of a LockBit developer that the group are working on tailored variants to target Proxmox and Nutanix; virtualisation service providers.[9]

Furthermore, we have observed discussion within the cybersecurity community regarding “quantum-proof ransomware”. As quantum computing develops, we hypothesise that ransomware operators will leverage the technology to harden their encryption processes and eliminate opportunities for victims to decrypt their data without the attacker-provided decryptors. On the other hand, we observe “harvest now, decrypt later” repeatedly referenced in these discussions, as researchers anticipate threat actors will weaponise quantum computing to enable mass decryption of previously stolen information. We further suspect that this may lead to attackers collecting and storing data from recent attacks even if unable to crack in the meantime. This poses a threat to existing victims of ransomware attacks, given the potential for ransomware actors to recover highly sensitive information and repurpose their past attack to extort victims and/or sell databases on the dark web.

Recommendations to Secure Your 2025

As we enter 2025, there is no telling with certainty what threats lie ahead. However, our experiences from 2024 have provided valuable lessons on how organisations can continue to strengthen their defences against ever-evolving threats.

Reduce your “low hanging fruit”. Monitor, minimise, and maintain visibility of your attack surface exposure to proactively identify and remediate potential security weaknesses that may expose you to external threats.
- Enforce 24×7 dark web monitoring to swiftly detect and mitigate potential threats, ensuring early detection of compromised data, i.e. leaked credentials from infostealer dumps.
- Extend 24×7 monitoring to social media listening, and brand reputation monitoring to identify mentions or impersonation attempts of your organisation, which may be indicative of potential or active targeting against your organisation.
- Adopt an offensive approach to Threat and Vulnerability Management (TVM) to achieve real-time visibility of your attack surface through autonomous, rapid detection and remediation against emerging threats.[10] This further allows for the discovery of shadow IT, which may otherwise fall under the radar and pose threats to your organisation.
- Periodically review your asset inventory, ensuring Internet-facing applications, exposed administrative ports, and non-production servers are intended to be publicly accessible, are appropriately configured, and segmented from your internal network. Ensure Internet-facing applications are regularly kept up-to-date, and prioritised in your patch management process.
- Leverage canary tokens both on the external perimeter and internal environment to detect unauthorised attempts to access your environment and/or resources. Further, leverage the canary token detection alerts to provide insight into the types of threats actively targeting your organisation and what services and/or data they seek to access.[11]

Uplift identity security and access control. 2024 showed no signs of threat actors weaponising identities, and shed light on the importance of account housekeeping and appropriate access control provisioning.
- Govern and provision appropriate access controls and permissions following the principle of least privilege for all users. Ensure access is conditional and restricted only to the resources necessary for a user to perform their job functions. This includes enforcement of strong authentication mechanisms, such as strong password policies, multi-factor authentication (MFA), role-based access controls (RBAC), and continuous behavioural-based monitoring to detect anomalous behaviour.
- Review and uplift the process for managing credentials, particularly in the case of offboarding or unused accounts. This includes timely revocation of access (termination of account), password changes for any shared accounts the employee had access to, and ensuring the offboarded member’s MFA mechanism is no longer linked to any corporate accounts.
- Log, audit, and monitor all privileged account sessions via real-time monitoring, facilitated by Privileged Access Account (PAM) and Privileged Account and Session Management (PASM) solutions.

Protect your “crown jewels”. As threat actors become increasingly intentional in the systems and data they target, it is crucial that organisations identity, classify, and secure the critical systems most likely to be targeted.
- Leverage threat intelligence and continuous monitoring of your attack surface (e.g., canary tokens) to identify the systems actively being targeted by threat actors.
- Prioritise systems hosting critical data (e.g., file transfer systems) with layered preventive and detective strategies to safeguard data (e.g., Data Loss Prevention (DLP)).Regularly perform risk assessments against critical systems to evaluate the current state of its cybersecurity posture, and harden accordingly.
- Regularly perform risk assessments against critical systems to evaluate the current state of its cybersecurity posture, and harden accordingly.
- Review and uplift the lifecycle of data, including considerations of;
  - Where data is being shared?
  - Who has access, including consideration of third-party risks posed by vendors’ access to internal data?
  - What internal policies are enforced to govern staff on the handling of data? For example, no sharing of internal data via external communication channels such as WhatsApp.

Manage your “unknown” risks. Unmanaged devices, shadow IT, and third-party risks continue to pose significant threats to organisations, introducing potential opportunities for threat actors to exploit for infiltration and/or access to your sensitive data.
- For unmanaged devices;
  - Develop a Bring Your Own Device (BYOD) policy to govern the use of personal devices allowed to access the corporate network, including guidelines to enforce use of strong passwords and encryption. Regularly perform user awareness training to ensure understanding and adherence with guidelines and best practices.
  - Consider implementation of a Mobile Device Management (MDM) or Endpoint Management solution to gain visibility and control over all devices connect to your network.
  - Isolate unmanaged devices from critical network segments to minimise potential damage and access to resources.
- For shadow IT;
  - Ensure that only authorized personnel can create and publish webpages. Use role-based access controls to limit who can make changes to corporate web assets.
  - Consider use of a Content Management System (CMS) that requires approval from dedicate personnel(s) prior to webpage launch to ensure all webpages comply with security standards.
  - Conduct regular audits to identify unauthorized webpages and monitor for any new web assets that appear without proper authorization. Use automated tools to scan for shadow IT activities.
- For third-party risks;
  - Perform thorough due diligence to vet third-party vendors and fourth-party vendors through vendor risk management and ongoing monitoring. This includes assessment of their vulnerability management processes, security controls, and incident response capabilities.
  - Implement robust vendor management program that includes regular assessments, audits, and contractual agreements that define security requirements and expectations.
  - Restrict third-party access to specific network segments, enforcing the principle of least privilege alongside stringent access controls.

Counter the threat of DNS abuse. As threat actors increasingly abuse DNS infrastructure to enhance the capabilities of their attacks, it is crucial that organisations and registrars maintain awareness of the latest threats.
- For individuals and organisations; maintain awareness of the threat of DNS abuse, including visibility of which registrars should be perceived as higher-risk, and continuous tracking of DNS-related threats.
- For registrars, we recommend reviewing and uplifting the Know Your Customer (KYC) process, and establishing continuous monitoring to proactively flag DNS abuse. Monitoring would cover DNS/WHOIS data, combined with community reports of suspicious domains (e.g., via VirusTotal, URLScan, etc.).
- For ICANN, we recommend to lead the industry; establish and enforce the governance and security key risk indicators (KRIs) on whether registrars are in compliance; what are the penalties; what are the trends of threat actors, and how the registrars and organisations should detect, respond, and recover.

Further information

Feel free to contact us at [darklab dot cti at hk dot pwc dot com] for any further information.