Double extortion ransomware explained: the complete defense guide

Key insights

  • Double extortion is now the default ransomware model. With 96% of attacks involving data theft before encryption, every ransomware incident should be treated as a data breach from the outset.
  • The detection window is shrinking fast. While median dwell time remains four to five days, the fastest attackers now exfiltrate data in just 72 minutes — demanding sub-hour detection capabilities.
  • Paying the ransom does not guarantee safety. The Change Healthcare case demonstrated that exit scams and secondary extortion can expose data even after a $22 million payment.
  • Encryption-less extortion is surging. Data-only extortion jumped from 2% to 22% of incident response cases in a single year, rendering backup-centric defenses insufficient.
  • Network-level visibility is the critical defense. Detecting exfiltration tools like rclone (present in 57% of incidents) and anomalous outbound traffic patterns provides the best opportunity to stop attacks before data is lost.

Ransomware is no longer just about locking files. In 2025, 96% of ransomware attacks involved data exfiltration alongside encryption, turning every incident into a potential data breach. This shift — known as double extortion ransomware — has fundamentally rewritten the threat landscape for security teams. Backups alone no longer guarantee recovery, and the stakes now include regulatory penalties, reputational damage, and the permanent exposure of sensitive data on dark web leak sites. A record 7,458 to 7,960 victims were named on ransomware leak sites in 2025, a 53% year-over-year increase. This guide breaks down how double extortion works, who is behind it, and what security teams can do to detect and stop these attacks before data leaves the network.

What is double extortion ransomware?

Double extortion ransomware is a cyberattack model in which threat actors steal sensitive data before encrypting the victim's systems, then threaten to publish the stolen information on dark web leak sites unless a ransom is paid. Unlike traditional ransomware that relies solely on encryption, this approach creates two simultaneous leverage points: the inability to access encrypted systems and the risk of public data exposure.

The Maze ransomware group pioneered this tactic in late 2019 when they published a victim's stolen data after the organization refused to pay. Within months, nearly every major ransomware operation adopted the approach. By Q3 2025, BlackFog reported that 96% of ransomware attacks involved data exfiltration, making double extortion the dominant attack model rather than the exception.

This matters because backups — long considered the primary defense against ransomware — address only the encryption component. Even organizations that can fully restore their systems from immutable backups still face the threat of sensitive data being published, sold, or used in further attacks. Double extortion is not the same as data extortion alone; it specifically combines both encryption and data theft as parallel pressure mechanisms.

Single vs double vs triple extortion

Comparison of ransomware extortion models

Extortion model Tactic Victim leverage Backup effective?
Single extortion Encrypt systems Loss of access to data and operations Yes — restoring from backups recovers systems
Double extortion Steal data + encrypt systems Data exposure threat + loss of access Partially — restores systems but cannot prevent data publication
Triple extortion Steal data + encrypt + DDoS or third-party pressure All of the above + service disruption or pressure on customers and partners No — multiple independent leverage points remain

Triple extortion extends the model further by adding distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) attacks against the victim, pressuring third parties such as customers or partners, or threatening to report the victim to regulators. Some ransomware as a service operators now bundle DDoS capabilities as an affiliate service, making multi-extortion ransomware increasingly accessible.

How double extortion attacks work

The double extortion attack lifecycle follows a predictable sequence of stages. Understanding this progression is critical because each stage presents detection opportunities — particularly during the pre-encryption exfiltration phase.

  1. Initial access. Attackers gain entry through phishing (T1566), exploitation of public-facing applications, or credentials purchased from initial access brokers (IABs). Cisco Talos documented the ToyMaker IAB, which sells network access directly to ransomware operators like CACTUS.
  2. Privilege escalation and lateral movement. Attackers use remote services (T1021) to move laterally across the network, escalate privileges, and identify high-value data repositories.
  3. Data staging and exfiltration. Attackers archive target data (T1560.001) and exfiltrate it to cloud storage (T1567.002). Symantec/Broadcom research found that rclone appears in 57% of ransomware exfiltration incidents.
  4. Encryption. Attackers deploy data encryption for impact (T1486). Splunk/Sophos analysis places median dwell time at four to five days before encryption. However, the Unit 42 2026 Global Incident Response Report found the fastest quartile of attackers now reaches exfiltration in just 72 minutes.
  5. Ransom demand and negotiation. Attackers post proof-of-compromise — often a sample of roughly 1% of stolen data — to their leak site, set payment deadlines, and negotiate via encrypted channels.
  6. Leak site publication. If payment is not received, data is published on dedicated dark web leak sites. Between 7,458 and 7,960 victims were listed on leak sites in 2025.

Exfiltration tools and techniques

Current double extortion groups rely on a consistent set of data exfiltration tools. Knowing what to look for is the first step toward detection.

According to Symantec/Broadcom and Infosecurity Magazine reporting, the most common exfiltration tools include rclone (57% of incidents), MEGAsync, Cobalt Strike, FileZilla, WinSCP, curl, and WinRAR/7-Zip for archiving prior to transfer. The DFIR Report documented a LockBit case in which attackers used Cobalt Strike for command and control communications and rclone for bulk data exfiltration.

Detection indicators for these tools include unusual outbound data volumes to cloud storage providers, connections to known rclone or MEGAsync endpoints, DNS anomalies indicating data tunneling, and behavioral analytics flagging mass file access or staging patterns.

Leak site mechanics and negotiation dynamics

Ransomware leak sites — also called data leak sites (DLS) or shame sites — operate as dark web platforms where groups publish stolen data from victims who do not pay. From a defender's perspective, understanding how these sites work is essential for incident response planning.

The typical escalation follows a pattern. The threat actor first posts the victim's name and a description of the stolen data, often with a countdown timer. A small sample (usually 1% to 5% of stolen data) serves as proof. If the victim engages in negotiation, the timer may be extended. If the deadline passes without payment, data is published incrementally or in full.

Security teams should know that data appearing on a leak site confirms exfiltration occurred, which triggers data breach notification obligations under most regulatory frameworks. Monitoring leak sites through threat intelligence feeds provides early warning, but the goal is to detect and stop exfiltration before data ever reaches these platforms.

Notable double extortion threat actors and case studies

Double extortion groups range from well-resourced advanced persistent threat operations to loosely organized affiliate networks. Paying the ransom does not guarantee data safety — as several high-profile cases demonstrate.

Major double extortion ransomware groups active in 2025-2026

Group Active since 2025 victim count Primary tactic Notable campaign
Qilin 2022 697-1,034 Double extortion with healthcare focus NHS Synnovis (90% blood testing halted)
Clop 2019 Hundreds (mass campaigns) Zero-day supply chain attacks MOVEit Transfer (~2,000 victims)
Medusa 2021 300+ Critical infrastructure targeting CISA/FBI joint advisory AA25-071A
BlackCat/ALPHV 2021 Disbanded after exit scam RaaS with affiliate betrayal Change Healthcare ($22M payment)
LockBit 2019 Reemerging Cartel coalition model Announced cartel with DragonForce and Qilin
DragonForce 2023 363 White-label RaaS (80/20 split) Cartel-model franchise expansion

Change Healthcare / BlackCat ALPHV stands as the most instructive case. After paying $22 million in ransom, the BlackCat operators executed an exit scam, keeping the payment without providing the promised data deletion. A different affiliate group — RansomHub — then attempted secondary extortion using the same stolen data. Approximately 100 million individuals had their data compromised.

Qilin emerged as the most active group in 2025, with up to 1,034 attributed victims. Their attack on NHS blood testing provider Synnovis in June 2024 halted 90% of blood testing services and cancelled over 1,100 surgeries. The Covenant Health breach in May 2025 saw 852 GB exfiltrated and 478,188 patients affected.

Clop pioneered mass zero-day exploitation for data-only extortion. Their MOVEit Transfer campaign in 2023 impacted approximately 2,000 organizations and 17 million individuals — without ever deploying encryption.

The ransomware as a service model continues to lower the barrier to entry. DragonForce now offers a white-label franchise model with an 80/20 revenue split, while Medusa offers affiliates up to $1 million for initial access to high-value targets.

Business impact and statistics

Double extortion ransomware statistics for 2024-2026 reveal a paradox: victim counts are surging while ransom payments are declining, signaling that more organizations are refusing to pay — but the attacks keep coming.

Double extortion ransomware by the numbers (2024-2026)

Metric Value Year Source
Victims named on leak sites 7,458-7,960 2025 SecurityBrief
Year-over-year victim increase 53% 2025 vs 2024 SecurityBrief
Total ransomware payments $813.55M 2024 Chainalysis
Payment decline from prior year 35% (from $1.25B) 2024 vs 2023 Chainalysis
Attacks involving data exfiltration 96% Q3 2025 BlackFog
Active ransomware groups 85-134 2025 CybersecurityNews
Healthcare breaches 700+ (275M+ patient records) 2024-2025 Security Boulevard
January 2026 incidents 678 (10% YoY increase) Jan 2026 Check Point

Chainalysis reported that total ransomware payments fell 35% from $1.25 billion in 2023 to $813.55 million in 2024, with the median payment declining 50% to $1 million in 2025 (Sophos). Yet the volume of attacks continues to climb. Between 45 and 84 newly observed ransomware and extortion groups emerged in 2025, pushing total active operations to as many as 134 distinct threat actors.

Healthcare remains the most heavily targeted sector for double extortion ransomware, with 700+ breaches in 2024-2025 exposing more than 275 million patient records. The United States accounts for approximately 48% of global victims (Check Point, January 2026).

Cyber insurance considerations

Cyber insurance is rapidly adapting to the double extortion threat. Because double extortion inherently involves confirmed data exfiltration, it triggers both ransomware payment coverage and data breach response coverage — two areas where insurers are increasingly applying sub-limits rather than full policy coverage.

Insurers now commonly require specific security controls before issuing coverage, including EDR or XDR on all endpoints, immutable backups, and MFA across all privileged accounts. Roughly 76% of insurance losses come from ransomware, and 70% of brokers expect premium increases in 2026. The global cyber insurance market is projected to reach $22.5 billion in 2026. Organizations should review their policies to understand whether ransomware sub-limits apply separately from business interruption and data breach response limits.

Detecting and preventing double extortion

Detecting double extortion requires shifting focus from encryption indicators — which arrive too late — to network-level exfiltration anomalies that emerge during the pre-encryption phase. The median four to five day dwell time before encryption provides a critical detection window, but the fastest quartile of attackers now exfiltrates data in 72 minutes. Organizations need sub-hour detection and response capabilities.

The Picus Red Report 2026 found that data exfiltration prevention rates collapsed from 9% to just 3%, underscoring a critical gap in most organizations' defenses.

Key detection strategies include:

  • Network traffic analysis. Monitor for unusual outbound data volumes, connections to cloud storage APIs (MEGA, rclone endpoints), and DNS anomalies that may indicate data tunneling. Academic research confirms that network-based detection is the most effective approach for identifying exfiltration in progress.
  • Exfiltration tool monitoring. Watch for rclone, MEGAsync, WinSCP, and curl activity on endpoints and in network traffic. These tools appear in the majority of ransomware exfiltration incidents.
  • Identity threat detection. Credential compromise now outpaces vulnerability exploitation as the primary initial access vector. Monitor for anomalous authentication patterns, service account abuse, and privilege escalation.
  • Behavioral analytics. Detect unusual data access patterns, mass file staging, and credential harvesting that precede exfiltration, as recommended by the CISA #StopRansomware Guide.
  • BYOVD monitoring. Watch for vulnerable driver loading patterns. Reynolds ransomware recently demonstrated the Bring Your Own Vulnerable Driver technique to disable endpoint security before deploying ransomware.

Defense-in-depth checklist

Organize your double extortion prevention and detection controls across the NIST Cybersecurity Framework functions:

  1. Identify. Classify sensitive data assets and map data flows. Know what is most valuable and most exposed.
  2. Protect. Implement network segmentation to limit lateral movement. Enforce MFA on all privileged accounts. Maintain immutable, tested backups.
  3. Detect. Deploy network detection and response to identify exfiltration patterns. Use threat detection tools that correlate indicators of compromise across network, identity, and cloud.
  4. Respond. Maintain and regularly test incident response playbooks that assume data exfiltration has occurred. Include breach notification procedures alongside system recovery steps.
  5. Recover. Restore from immutable backups. Conduct post-incident analysis to close the initial access vector and improve detection coverage.

Common exfiltration tools and their detection signatures

Framework Notification deadline Who to notify Trigger condition
GDPR 72 hours Supervisory authority; affected individuals if high risk Personal data exfiltration confirmed
NIS2 24 hours initial; 72 hours detailed; one month final National CSIRT or competent authority Significant incident affecting essential or important entities
HIPAA 60 days (individuals); immediate (HHS for 500+) HHS, affected individuals, media (if 500+ affected) Protected health information exfiltrated
PCI DSS Per IR plan (Req. 12.10) Acquiring bank, PCI forensic investigator Cardholder data exfiltrated

Compliance and incident response

Double extortion always constitutes a confirmed data breach because data exfiltration is inherent to the tactic. This triggers mandatory notification timelines that encryption-only ransomware may not. Security teams must plan for compliance obligations from the moment a double extortion attack is identified.

Regulatory notification requirements triggered by double extortion data breach

Tool Network indicator Endpoint indicator Detection approach
Rclone HTTPS to cloud storage APIs (MEGA, Backblaze, S3) rclone.exe or renamed binary with rclone config files Monitor for high-volume outbound transfers to cloud endpoints
MEGAsync Connections to mega.nz domains MEGAsync process or mega.nz browser sessions Block or alert on mega.nz traffic
Cobalt Strike Beaconing patterns, malleable C2 profiles Named pipes, reflective DLL injection Behavioral detection of beaconing intervals
WinSCP/FileZilla FTP/SFTP to external IPs WinSCP.exe, filezilla.exe in unexpected directories Alert on unauthorized file transfer tool execution
WinRAR/7-Zip N/A (local staging) Mass archiving of sensitive directories Monitor for bulk file archiving operations

The MITRE ATT&CK framework maps directly to double extortion techniques: T1566 (Phishing), T1021 (Remote Services), T1560.001 (Archive via Utility), T1567.002 (Exfiltration to Cloud Storage), T1486 (Data Encrypted for Impact), and T1657 (Financial Theft). Aligning incident response playbooks to these technique IDs ensures coverage at each stage.

The FTC issued its second Congressional report on ransomware in February 2026, signaling increased federal regulatory attention. Organizations should assume that any ransomware incident involves data exfiltration and include breach notification procedures — not just system recovery — in their incident response plans.

The evolution of extortion: from double to data-only

The ransomware landscape is undergoing a fundamental shift. Increasingly, threat groups are skipping encryption entirely and relying solely on data theft for leverage — a trend known as data-only or encryption-less extortion.

The numbers are stark. The Picus Red Report 2026 found that T1486 (Data Encrypted for Impact) usage dropped 38% year-over-year. Arctic Wolf's 2026 Threat Report documented an 11x increase in data-only extortion — rising from 2% to 22% of incident response cases. Unit 42 confirmed a 15% decline in encryption-based extortion alongside accelerating exfiltration speeds.

Clop's MOVEit Transfer and Cleo campaigns proved this model at scale. By exploiting zero-day vulnerabilities in file transfer software, Clop stole data from approximately 2,000 organizations without ever deploying encryption. The result was the same: pay or your data gets published.

This evolution has direct implications for defensive strategy. Backup-centric defenses become irrelevant when encryption is not part of the attack. Network traffic analysis and exfiltration detection become the primary line of defense. Triple extortion — which adds DDoS attacks, third-party pressure, or regulatory reporting threats — further increases the complexity of multi-extortion ransomware responses.

Modern approaches to defending against double extortion

The security industry is converging on a detection-first approach to double extortion defense. Current solutions span network detection and response (NDR), extended detection and response (XDR), identity threat detection and response, behavioral analytics, data loss prevention, and SIEM correlation.

Organizations evaluating solutions should prioritize real-time network visibility across hybrid environments, automated exfiltration detection, identity-based threat correlation, and sub-hour detection SLAs. Managed detection and response (MDR) services can supplement in-house SOC operations for organizations that lack 24/7 coverage. AI-driven detection of exfiltration patterns and the convergence of NDR with identity analytics represent the most promising emerging trends. Signal-based approaches that reduce alert noise allow security teams to focus on the behaviors that matter — lateral movement, data staging, and exfiltration — rather than drowning in low-fidelity alerts.

How Vectra AI thinks about double extortion

Double extortion reinforces the assume-compromise philosophy at the core of Vectra AI's approach. Since attackers will get in, the critical question is how quickly security teams can find them — particularly during the lateral movement and data staging phases that precede both exfiltration and encryption. Vectra AI's Attack Signal Intelligence focuses on identifying attacker behaviors across the modern network — on-premises, cloud, identity, and SaaS environments — rather than relying solely on prevention. Independent validation shows this approach reduces mean time to detect threats by over 50% (IDC) and cuts alert noise by up to 99% (Globe Telecom), enabling security teams to act within the critical detection window before data is lost.

Conclusion

Double extortion ransomware has become the dominant cyberattack model, transforming every ransomware incident into a potential data breach with regulatory, financial, and reputational consequences. The 96% data exfiltration rate, shrinking detection windows, and the shift toward encryption-less extortion all point to the same conclusion: organizations cannot rely on prevention and backups alone.

The most effective defense combines network-level visibility to catch exfiltration in progress, identity-focused detection to identify compromised credentials, and behavioral analytics to flag attacker behavior during the lateral movement and data staging phases. With the fastest attackers now exfiltrating data in 72 minutes, sub-hour detection and response capabilities are no longer optional.

Security teams that align their detection strategies to the double extortion lifecycle — focusing on the critical pre-encryption window — give themselves the best chance of stopping these attacks before data is lost and the leverage shifts to the attacker.

Explore how Vectra AI detects and stops ransomware threats across your hybrid environment.

Related cybersecurity fundamentals

FAQs

What is double extortion in cybersecurity?

How does double extortion ransomware work?

What is the difference between single and double extortion ransomware?

Can backups protect against double extortion ransomware?

What happens if you don't pay double extortion ransomware?

What is the first known double extortion ransomware attack?

What industries are most targeted by double extortion?