Dark Web Informer Company CyberSecurity Posture

darkwebinformer.com
ISOSOC2 Type 1SOC2 Type 2PCI DSSHIPAAGDPR

Providing Cyber Threat Intelligence from the Dark Web & Clearnet: Breaches, Ransomware, Darknet Markets, Threat Alerts & more. Follow me on X: https://x.com/DarkWebInformer

Dark Web Informer A.I CyberSecurity Scoring

DWI

Company Details

Linkedin ID:

darkwebinformer

Website:

https://www.darkwebinformer.com

Employees number:

10

Number of followers:

10,666

NAICS:

541514

Industry Type:

Computer and Network Security

Homepage:

darkwebinformer.com

IP Addresses:

Scan still pending

Company ID:

DAR_5551933

Scan Status:

In-progress

AI scoreDWI Risk Score (AI oriented)

Between 600 and 649

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/darkwebinformer.jpeg
DWI Computer and Network Security
Updated:
  • Powered by our proprietary A.I cyber incident model
  • Insurance preferes TPRM score to calculate premium
globalscoreDWI Global Score (TPRM)

XXXX

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/darkwebinformer.jpeg
DWI Computer and Network Security
  • Instant access to detailed risk factors
  • Benchmark vs. industry & size peers
  • Vulnerabilities
  • Findings

Dark Web Informer

Poor
Current Score
649
Caa (Poor)
01000
3 incidents
-36.0 avg impact

Incident timeline with MITRE ATT&CK tactics, techniques, and mitigations.

DECEMBER 2025
650
NOVEMBER 2025
648
OCTOBER 2025
647
SEPTEMBER 2025
644
AUGUST 2025
642
JULY 2025
639
JUNE 2025
640
Vulnerability
16 Jun 2025 • Wing FTP Server
Critical RCE Vulnerability in Wing FTP Server (CVE-2025-47812)

A critical vulnerability (CVE-2025-47812) in Wing FTP Server allows unauthenticated attackers to achieve complete server control. The vulnerability affects all versions up to 7.4.3 and has a maximum CVSSv4 score of 10.0. The flaw exploits improper NULL byte handling, enabling attackers to inject arbitrary Lua code and execute system commands with elevated privileges. This vulnerability's impact is particularly severe because Wing FTP Server typically runs with elevated privileges, resulting in complete administrative control over the affected server.

635
critical -5
DAR354070325
Incident Details -
Type
Vulnerability Exploitation
Attack Vector
NULL byte injection in /loginok.html endpoint
Vulnerability Exploited
CVE-2025-47812
Motivation
Complete server takeover with root/SYSTEM privileges
Impact
Systems Affected: Wing FTP Server Operational Impact: Complete administrative control over the affected server
Response
Containment Measures: Update to version 7.4.4 Remediation Measures: Review anonymous access configurations Enhanced Monitoring: Implement network-level protections such as firewalls and intrusion detection systems
Recommendations
Update to version 7.4.4 immediately Review anonymous access configurations Implement network-level protections such as firewalls and intrusion detection systems
Initial Access Broker
Entry Point: /loginok.html endpoint
Post Incident Analysis
Root Causes: Improper NULL byte handling in the server’s authentication mechanism Corrective Actions: Proper input validation to prevent NULL byte injection attacks
References
Blog URL Source URL
MAY 2025
703
Breach
01 May 2025 • Logitech International S.A.
Logitech Data Breach via Zero-Day Exploit in Oracle E-Business Suite

On **November 14, 2025**, Logitech disclosed a cybersecurity breach stemming from a **zero-day vulnerability (CVE-2025-61882)** in Oracle E-Business Suite, exploited by the **Clop extortion gang** since July 2025. The attack led to **unauthorized data exfiltration** from Logitech’s internal IT systems, including **limited employee, consumer, customer, and supplier information**. While no **sensitive personal data** (e.g., national IDs, credit cards) was compromised, the breach exposed non-sensitive records, raising risks of **follow-on phishing or social engineering attacks**.Logitech confirmed **no operational disruption**—manufacturing, financials, and business continuity remained unaffected—thanks to **prompt detection, patching, and external cybersecurity support**. The incident was contained, with regulatory notifications filed and affected parties being assessed for disclosure. However, the breach underscores **third-party software risks** and the **evolving tactics of ransomware groups** shifting from encryption to **data theft-driven extortion**.Though Logitech downplayed material impact, the exposure of **internal and stakeholder data**—even if non-critical—highlights vulnerabilities in **supply chain security** and the need for **proactive zero-day defense strategies**. Regulatory scrutiny (e.g., GDPR) may apply if European consumer data was involved, though no fines were reported at disclosure.

636
high -67
DAR4802248111625
Incident Details -
Type
Data Breach Zero-Day Exploit Third-Party Vulnerability
Attack Vector
Zero-Day Exploit (CVE-2025-61882) Third-Party Software (Oracle E-Business Suite) Multi-Stage Java Implant
Vulnerability Exploited
CVE-2025-61882 (Oracle E-Business Suite)
Motivation
Data Theft Extortion
Impact
Financial Loss: No material financial impact reported Employee information Consumer information Customer information Supplier information Internal IT systems Downtime: None Operational Impact: None Brand Reputation Impact: Potential reputational risk (limited data exposure) Legal Liabilities: Potential regulatory scrutiny (e.g., GDPR if European consumer data affected) Identity Theft Risk: Low (no sensitive PII compromised) Payment Information Risk: None (no credit card details exposed)
Response
External cybersecurity firms (unnamed) Prompt detection Vulnerability patching (post-Oracle fix) Engagement of external experts Investigation Assessment of affected parties Regulatory notifications Public disclosure (SEC filings, press releases) Stakeholder notifications Transparency reports
Data Breach
Non-sensitive employee data Consumer data Customer data Supplier data Sensitivity Of Data: Low (no PII like national IDs or payment info)
Regulatory Compliance
Government entities (as required) Potential GDPR notifications if EU data affected
Lessons Learned
Third-party software vulnerabilities pose significant risks, even for non-core systems. Zero-day exploits require rapid patching and vendor coordination. Extortion-focused attacks (data theft without encryption) are increasing, necessitating proactive threat intelligence. Transparency in disclosure helps maintain stakeholder trust. Multi-layered defenses (e.g., zero-trust architectures) are critical to mitigate supply chain risks.
Recommendations
Implement robust third-party vulnerability management programs. Adopt zero-trust security models to limit lateral movement. Enhance threat intelligence sharing to preemptively identify indicators of compromise (IoCs). Invest in advanced detection tools for zero-day exploits. Conduct regular supply chain risk assessments, especially for enterprise software dependencies. Foster a culture of security vigilance with employee training on phishing and social engineering risks.
Investigation Status
Ongoing (external cybersecurity firms engaged; containment confirmed)
Customer Advisories
Assessment and notification of affected parties in progress
Stakeholder Advisories
Public disclosure via SEC filings Press releases Regulatory notifications
Initial Access Broker
Entry Point: Zero-day vulnerability in Oracle E-Business Suite (CVE-2025-61882) Reconnaissance Period: Exploited since July 2025 (prior to Oracle patch on October 4, 2025) Internal IT systems Employee/consumer/customer/supplier data
Post Incident Analysis
Unpatched zero-day vulnerability in third-party software (Oracle E-Business Suite). Lack of real-time detection for multi-stage Java implants used by Clop. Supply chain risk exposure due to reliance on external enterprise software. Immediate patching of the vulnerability post-Oracle fix. Engagement of external cybersecurity experts for investigation. Enhanced monitoring for indicators of compromise (IoCs) related to CVE-2025-61882. Review of third-party software dependencies and vulnerability management processes. Public disclosure and transparency to maintain trust.
References
Blog URL Source URL
APRIL 2025
703
MARCH 2025
701
FEBRUARY 2025
700
JANUARY 2025
698
AUGUST 2024
748
Cyber Attack
01 Aug 2024 • Unnamed Cryptocurrency Victim (Washington, D.C.)
Massive $230 Million Cryptocurrency Heist and Money Laundering Scheme (2023–2025)

A Washington, D.C.-based cryptocurrency holder fell victim to a **$230 million Bitcoin heist** (now valued at over **$384.5 million**) in August 2024, orchestrated by a cybercrime ring led by individuals like **Malone Lam (aka 'Greavys')** and **Jeandiel Serrano**. The attackers used **social engineering** to compromise the victim’s crypto accounts, transferring **4,100+ Bitcoin** into wallets under their control. The stolen funds were laundered via **crypto mixers, peel chains, pass-through wallets, and VPNs**, with some converted to **Monero** to obscure traces. Despite efforts to hide transactions, investigators linked the funds due to operational errors by the attackers. The group, comprising mostly **18- to 22-year-olds**, operated across the U.S. and abroad, leveraging online gaming friendships to expand their network. **Kunal Mehta (aka 'The Accountant')** played a key role in laundering, using **shell companies** to convert crypto to cash, charging a **10% fee** per transaction. The stolen funds financed **luxury purchases**, including **private jets, 28 high-end cars (worth up to $3.8M), designer goods, and international travel**. The attack involved **conspiracy to commit wire fraud, cyber-enabled racketeering, and money laundering**, with **14 suspects indicted** by the DOJ in May 2025. The breach highlights vulnerabilities in **cryptocurrency security**, particularly against **social engineering and phishing tactics**, with no evidence of ransomware or direct physical harm but severe **financial and reputational damage** to the victim.

688
high -60
DAR1332113111925
Incident Details -
Type
cyber theft social engineering money laundering cryptocurrency fraud racketeering
Attack Vector
social engineering phishing (calls/emails/texts) hardware wallet theft cryptocurrency account takeover
Vulnerability Exploited
human trust (social engineering) lack of multi-factor authentication (MFA) on crypto accounts weak identity verification for wallet transfers
Motivation
financial profit luxury purchases (cars, jets, real estate) status/social validation
Impact
Financial Loss: $230 million (original) / $384.5 million (current Bitcoin value) cryptocurrency private keys wallet credentials personal identification info (PII) for account takeovers cryptocurrency exchanges personal crypto wallets (hardware/software) bank accounts (shell companies) Revenue Loss: $230 million (direct theft) eroded trust in cryptocurrency security high-profile media coverage of youth-led cybercrime DOJ charges: wire fraud, money laundering, racketeering, obstruction of justice potential civil lawsuits from victims Identity Theft Risk: high (for crypto account holders) Payment Information Risk: high (cryptocurrency credentials)
Response
FBI Cyber Division DOJ Criminal Division cryptocurrency forensics firms (e.g., Chainalysis) asset freezing (crypto wallets) shell company investigations arrests (14 indicted) victim restitution efforts public advisories on social engineering risks seizure of luxury assets (cars, properties) blockchain tracing to recover funds DOJ press releases FBI public warnings media interviews blockchain analysis for peel chains VPN/IP tracking
Data Breach
cryptocurrency private keys transaction histories PII (emails, phone numbers for phishing) Sensitivity Of Data: extremely high (financial credentials) wallet.dat files 2FA backup codes exchange API keys
Regulatory Compliance
18 U.S. Code § 1956 (money laundering) 18 U.S. Code § 1343 (wire fraud) RICO (racketeering) Bank Secrecy Act (shell companies) 14 indictments (May 2025) 8 guilty pleas (as of 2025) asset forfeiture (luxury items) FinCEN (suspicious activity reports) SEC (if exchanges involved)
Lessons Learned
Social engineering remains a critical vector for high-value crypto theft, exploiting trust in online communities (e.g., gaming). Crypto laundering techniques (mixers, peel chains) are effective but prone to operator error (e.g., Monero conversion tracing). Youth-led cybercrime groups can achieve sophisticated operations through division of labor (hackers, launderers, organizers). Shell companies and VPNs are common but traceable with blockchain forensics and financial investigations. Public-private collaboration (FBI, DOJ, exchanges) is essential for disrupting crypto-based crime rings.
Recommendations
Cryptocurrency users: Enable hardware-based MFA, use cold storage for large holdings, and never share private keys/2FA codes. Exchanges: Implement behavioral analysis for unusual transfers and educate users on phishing risks. Law enforcement: Expand focus on online gaming/community platforms as recruitment hubs for cybercrime. Regulators: Strengthen KYC/AML requirements for crypto-to-fiat conversions and shell company registrations. Parents/educators: Address the glamourization of cybercrime in youth subcultures (e.g., luxury purchases as status symbols).
Investigation Status
ongoing (8 guilty pleas, 6 defendants awaiting trial)
Customer Advisories
Use hardware wallets (e.g., Ledger, Trezor) for large crypto holdings. Verify all transaction requests via a secondary channel (e.g., in-person call). Monitor accounts for unauthorized transfers, especially after phishing attempts.
Stakeholder Advisories
FBI warning: 'Beware of unsolicited calls/emails requesting crypto credentials or 2FA codes.' DOJ advisory: 'Report suspicious crypto transactions to FinCEN and local law enforcement.'
Initial Access Broker
phishing calls/emails/texts stolen hardware wallets compromised exchange APIs Reconnaissance Period: October 2023 – March 2025 (18 months) persistent access to victim wallets shell company bank accounts whale crypto investors exchange users with weak security
Post Incident Analysis
Over-reliance on SMS/email-based 2FA for crypto accounts. Lack of transaction velocity limits on high-value transfers. Exploitation of online gaming communities for recruitment and coordination. Inadequate KYC/AML controls for crypto-to-fiat conversions via shell companies. Mandatory hardware 2FA for exchanges handling >$10k/day in transfers. Blockchain monitoring partnerships between exchanges and law enforcement. Public awareness campaigns targeting youth in online gaming spaces. Legislative proposals to close shell company loopholes for crypto laundering.
References
Blog URL Source URL

Frequently Asked Questions

According to Rankiteo, the current A.I.-based Cyber Score for Dark Web Informer is 649, which corresponds to a Poor rating.

According to Rankiteo, the A.I. Rankiteo Cyber Score for November 2025 was 648.

According to Rankiteo, the A.I. Rankiteo Cyber Score for October 2025 was 647.

According to Rankiteo, the A.I. Rankiteo Cyber Score for September 2025 was 644.

According to Rankiteo, the A.I. Rankiteo Cyber Score for August 2025 was 642.

According to Rankiteo, the A.I. Rankiteo Cyber Score for July 2025 was 639.

According to Rankiteo, the A.I. Rankiteo Cyber Score for June 2025 was 640.

According to Rankiteo, the A.I. Rankiteo Cyber Score for May 2025 was 636.

According to Rankiteo, the A.I. Rankiteo Cyber Score for April 2025 was 703.

According to Rankiteo, the A.I. Rankiteo Cyber Score for March 2025 was 701.

According to Rankiteo, the A.I. Rankiteo Cyber Score for February 2025 was 700.

According to Rankiteo, the A.I. Rankiteo Cyber Score for January 2025 was 698.

Over the past 12 months, the average per-incident point impact on Dark Web Informer’s A.I Rankiteo Cyber Score has been -36.0 points.

You can access Dark Web Informer’s cyber incident details on Rankiteo by visiting the following link: https://www.rankiteo.com/company/darkwebinformer.

You can find the summary of the A.I Rankiteo Risk Scoring methodology on Rankiteo by visiting the following link: Rankiteo Algorithm.

You can view Dark Web Informer’s profile page on Rankiteo by visiting the following link: https://www.rankiteo.com/company/darkwebinformer.

With scores of 18.5/20 from OpenAI ChatGPT, 20/20 from Mistral AI, and 17/20 from Claude AI, the A.I. Rankiteo Risk Scoring methodology is validated as a market leader.