Because of the amount of data that can be obtained and the high impact that successful attacks may have, educational institutions are frequent targets of cybercriminals. Both public and private schools and universities rely on software for managing personally identifiable information (PII) that is often insecure or insufficiently tested against known vulnerabilities. In addition, machines used by multiple people without accountability can be vulnerable to insider threats.
The complexity of academic environments amplifies this risk. Unlike corporate networks, educational institutions have to provide a network that supports students, professors, researchers, administrative staff, third-party contractors, and visitors. Each of these groups has different security requirements and access control levels, making it difficult to enforce consistent security policies. A security breach can have severe consequences since it may expose vast amounts of sensitive information, such as social security numbers (CPF in Brazil), addresses, phone numbers, and even parents’ names. Armed with this information, attackers can attempt phishing attacks and impersonate the victims in SIM swapping attacks, a common practice in Brazil.
In this article, we provide details about attacks on educational institutions in Brazil observed by our Global Emergency Response Team (GERT) since 2025. We share general statistics, common threats, initial access vectors, and the impact of such violations. Additionally, we present some interesting cases encountered by our team and the identified TTPs. Finally, we offer recommendations to help institutions protect themselves against future attacks.
Our dataset encompasses incident response cases from January 2025 to June 2026. As the chart below shows, the majority of attacks targeted institutions in São Paulo state, Brazil’s most populous state and a significant center of economic and financial activity. We also had cases in Rio de Janeiro and Pernambuco.
Geographical distribution of incident response requests at educational institutions (download)
Of the customers who requested incident response, 60% were private institutions and 40% were public institutions.
Private and public institutions (download)
The most frequent reasons for requesting IR services were related to suspicious endpoint activities, encrypted files, and the presence of suspicious files.
Incident response request reasons (download)
High-severity incidents accounted for 40% of the total cases, while the remaining 60% were medium severity.
Distribution of incidents by severity (download)
The high-severity incidents were mainly related to ransomware attacks. Interestingly, private institutions were the most targeted by ransomware, while incidents in public institutions were mostly related to suspicious endpoint activity and privilege escalation attempts. The most common ransomware families found in our dataset were DragonForce and LockBit 3, whose builder was leaked back in 2022. By using the leaked LockBit builder with a valid privileged account, attackers can build variants capable of disabling defenses and erasing logs.
The most common initial access vectors included the use of valid accounts, exploitation of public-facing applications, and insiders.
Initial access vectors (download)
For privilege escalation, the attackers often relied on Potato variants (GodPotato, SweetPotato, and BadPotato).
We also observed attackers using tools like AnyDesk for remote access, PsExec for lateral movement within compromised infrastructures, and AV-killer malware to terminate the system’s defenses. The latter was mainly used in ransomware-related incidents.
These data reveal an interesting pattern in the threat landscape affecting educational institutions in the region. Many incidents were not caused by highly sophisticated techniques but rather by the abuse of common weaknesses such as valid accounts, exposed applications, and inadequate patch management, as well as the use of publicly available tools that are well-known to the adversaries. The prevalence of ransomware in private institutions suggests a stronger financial motivation, likely because attackers assume these organizations are more capable of paying for data recovery than public schools and universities.
Most attacks were discovered promptly and lasted from a few minutes to a couple of hours. However, technical incident response activities averaged 9.6 hours. This indicates that the impact caused by an incident often extends beyond the timeframe of the active attack, requiring extensive triage and analysis by the forensic investigators to fully restore operations.
One interesting fact is that we are still observing the use of Windows 10 in the infrastructures of educational institutions, even after Microsoft’s official end-of-support date of October 2025. In addition, we found that some customer organizations were using Windows Server 2016 without security patches and fixes. Using outdated and unsupported operating systems increases the attack surface of an infrastructure because attackers can exploit publicly available vulnerabilities to access vulnerable systems and expand their presence in the network. In addition, legacy operating systems may be incompatible with modern evidence collection tools, necessitating extra time and alternative procedures for forensic acquisition.
Obsolete systems in organizations (download)
In one case, we identified the use of a custom version of LockBit that was generated using the leaked builder. The ransomware was delivered to the organization’s infrastructure via a valid account that had been leaked. It encrypted the organization’s internal systems, including file servers and databases that stored student profiles and other data. There was no evidence of data exfiltration from the affected machines.
During our analysis of the LockBit sample, we were able to extract its configuration. Interestingly, it was configured without the impersonation and spreading options. This meant the attacker had to perform manual lateral movement to deploy the malware across the network.
Entrar"config": {
"settings": {
"impersonation": false,
"local_disks": true,
"network_shares": true,
"kill_processes": true,
"kill_services": true,
"set_wallpaper": true,
"self_destruct": true,
"kill_defender": true,
"wipe_freespace": true,
"psexec_netspread": false,
"gpo_netspread": false,
…Further analysis revealed that the attacker used PsExec for lateral movement. By analyzing the Update Sequence Number (USN) Journal, we were able to identify .KEY files associated with PsExec that showed us the previously compromised machines used by the attacker.
After gaining access to the target machines, the adversaries deployed a batch script to disable the system’s defenses. Our analysis of this artifact showed that they had the administrative credentials to disable the EDR in place. In addition, the script enabled RDP, which gave the attackers remote access to the target. The listing below shows an excerpt of the script:
reg add "HKLM\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Control\Terminal Server" /v fDenyTSConnections /t REG_DWORD /d 0 /f
netsh advfirewall firewall add rule name="allow RemoteDesktop" dir=in protocol=TCP localport=3389 action=allow
reg add "HKLM\SOFTWARE\Policies\Microsoft\Windows Defender" /v DisableRealtimeMonitoring /t REG_DWORD /d 1 /f
reg add "HKLM\SOFTWARE\Policies\Microsoft\Windows Defender\Real-Time Protection" /v DisableBehaviorMonitoring /t REG_DWORD /d 1 /f
reg add "HKLM\SOFTWARE\Policies\Microsoft\Windows Defender\Real-Time Protection" /v DisableOnRealTimeProtection /t REG_DWORD /d 1 /f
reg add "HKLM\SOFTWARE\Policies\Microsoft\Windows Defender\Real-Time Protection" /v DisableIOAVProtection /t REG_DWORD /d 1 /f
reg add "HKLM\SOFTWARE\Policies\Microsoft\Windows Defender\Real-Time Protection" /v DisableScriptScanning /t REG_DWORD /d 1 /f
reg add "HKLM\SOFTWARE\Policies\Microsoft\Windows Defender\Spynet" /v SpyNetReporting /t REG_DWORD /d 0 /f
reg add "HKLM\SOFTWARE\Policies\Microsoft\Windows Defender\Spynet" /v SubmitSamplesConsent /t REG_DWORD /d 2 /f
reg add "HKLM\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Run" /v "SecurityHealth" /t REG_SZ /d "" /f
reg delete "HKLM\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Explorer\MyComputer\NameSpace\{UUID}" /f
reg add "HKLM\SOFTWARE\Policies\Microsoft\Windows Defender" /v ServiceKeepAlive /t REG_DWORD /d 0 /f
sc stop WinDefend
sc config WinDefend start= disabledFinally, by cross-checking the Prefetch files, we were able to identify the precise dates of PsExecSvc.exe and LBB.exe (LockBit) execution. This revealed that the attacker established the initial connection to the analyzed machine around 5:30am UTC and ran LBB.exe for the last time at 10am UTC on the same day, resulting in an activity window of approximately four hours and thirty minutes. We were able to identify the extent of the compromise and the additional machines that required network isolation for further forensic analysis, containment, and remediation.
In another incident, we identified a compromised user account that the adversaries used to install the AnyDesk software to enable remote access. Although the attacker erased the system logs after encrypting the victim’s files, we were able to identify the ransomware execution event via the Prefetch and Amcache.hve files, which provided us with the SHA-1 hash of the sample.
Once we obtained the SHA-1 of the malicious artifact (named by the attacker as 1.EXE), we were able to confirm that it was a DragonForce variant. Even though the lack of evidence made the analysis more difficult, this case shows that forensic investigators must be prepared to identify information that the attackers missed or left untouched.
The third incident illustrates how a series of bad practices enabled an insider to collect passwords from other users inside the infrastructure. First, the customer contacted us stating that a machine was exhibiting strange behavior: files containing passwords were being created. We started with triage collection on one of the affected machines.
Evidence from the Program Compatibility Assistant (PCA) showed the execution of two suspicious files, Windows Host Widgets.exe and Windows Host Widgets_.exe, both located in the C:\Users\<user>\.vscode\dlo directory, where <user> represents a user account shared by everyone who uses the machine. The same artifacts were identified within the Amcache.hve file, and multiple executions were also confirmed by analyzing the Prefetch files. Another interesting source of evidence, UserAssist, confirmed that the threat actor also executed both EXE files by double-clicking on them.
MFT analysis showed that multiple log files named cacheX.txt were created in the previously mentioned directory, where X was a number that increased with each malware execution. We then analyzed the EXE files to confirm their behavior. Luckily, both proved to be the same Python script, which we could easily decompile.
As shown in the listing below, the script contains methods and strings with Portuguese names. It is capable of hiding the log files from view in Explorer. The developer also set a procedure to identify when the Caps Lock key was pressed, in order to record the correct passwords.
def get_base_path():
...
def encontrar_proximo_nome(base='cache'):
...
def set_file_hidden(filepath):
...
ctypes.windll.kernel32.SetFileAttributesW(str(filepath), FILE_ATTRIBUTE_HIDDEN)
...
with open(log_file, 'a', encoding='utf-8') as f:
f.write(f'\n\n--- Registro iniciado em {datetime.datetime.now()} ---\n')
set_file_hidden(log_file)
...
def is_capslock_on():
return bool(ctypes.windll.user32.GetKeyState(20) & 1)
...
def on_press(key):
...
def on_release(key):
...
def main():
with keyboard.Listener(on_press=on_press, on_release=on_release) as listener:
listener.join()
if __name__ == '__main__':
main()This simple script did not implement any persistence or automated data exfiltration mechanisms. Therefore, the insider likely had to manually retrieve the generated log files containing the text typed by the victims. By revisiting the previously collected evidence, we identified USB connections around the same time as the script’s executions. This suggests that removable media was probably used to collect the generated keylogging logs from the environment. As a result of the investigation, the customer changed the passwords of all affected accounts. However, without additional evidence or footage, it was not possible to conclusively attribute the activities to a specific individual and take the appropriate disciplinary and legal measures.
The incidents highlighted in this article demonstrate that Brazilian educational institutions face a diverse set of threats, ranging from ransomware operations to insider activity. In many cases, the attackers relied on valid credentials, exposed services, remote access tools, poor patch management, and insufficient endpoint hardening rather than advanced malware or new techniques. Based on these findings, educational institutions should prioritize controls that reduce the likelihood of account compromise and the impact of ransomware deployment. They should also improve forensic visibility after an incident.
Institutions should enforce the use of multi-factor authentication (MFA) for all publicly accessible services, especially VPNs, remote access portals, and email accounts. Since valid accounts were one of the most common initial access vectors observed in our dataset, MFA can significantly reduce the likelihood that stolen or reused credentials alone will compromise the entire environment. We also recommend periodically reviewing privileged accounts, removing unnecessary administrative permissions, and avoiding shared accounts, especially on machines accessed by multiple users, since this makes accountability extremely difficult.
Each user should have their own account, following the principle of least privilege to prevent unauthorized software execution. Additionally, it is advisable to restrict and monitor the use of remote access tools such as AnyDesk or TeamViewer. Unexpected installations or executions of these tools should be treated as high-priority alerts.
To minimize the impact of ransomware, educational institutions should improve their backup and recovery strategy. Backups should be isolated from the primary environment (preferably in more than one location) and tested regularly. Centralized logging, extended EDR telemetry retention, and proper time synchronization across hosts can also improve the ability to reconstruct an attack timeline and implement the necessary response measures.
The use of outdated systems increases the attack surface, so we recommend that organizations adopt an effective update and patch management policy. It is also important to raise security awareness, since users must understand the risks associated with credential sharing, unknown executables, and unauthorized software.
From a digital forensics and incident response (DFIR) perspective, the reviewed incidents demonstrate that effective incident response activities require correlating multiple forensic artifacts in order to reconstruct the attacker’s actions. Investigators should be aware of how to find information even when logs are missing. Many other artifacts are preserved and can be used for this purpose, such as Amcache, PCA, Prefetch, UserAssist, MFT, and USN Journal. The attackers may fail to erase all traces of their activity, so taking a broad forensic approach is of the utmost importance for determining the scope of the compromise and supporting containment and remediation actions.
The table below shows the observed TTPs in our dataset, including cases not detailed in this post.
| Tactic | Technique | ID |
| Resource Development | Compromise Accounts | T1586 |
| Collection | Input Capture: Keylogging | T1056.001 |
| Execution | System Services: Service Execution | T1569.002 |
| Execution | Hijack Execution Flow: DLL | T1574.001 |
| Privilege Escalation | Exploitation for Privilege Escalation | T1068 |
| Lateral Movement | Remote Services: Remote Desktop Protocol | T1021.001 |
| Command and Control | Remote Access Tools | T1219 |
| Exfiltration | Exfiltration over Physical Medium: Exfiltration over USB | T1052.001 |
| Impact | Data Encrypted for Impact | T1486 |
Written by Katie Barnett, Director of Cyber Security at Toro Solutions
Insider risk is still often framed around intent, with the focus placed on malicious employees, disgruntled contractors, or deliberate misuse of access for personal gain.
Those cases exist and they matter, but they are rarely where risk first begins, and they do not reflect how most insider-related incidents actually develop.
In reality, many cases take shape slowly and quietly. They are shaped by pressure, fatigue, disengagement, coercion, manipulation or personal strain rather than hostility. The behaviour that later causes harm is often preceded by long periods of stress, isolation, being influenced or unresolved workplace issues. By the time someone is formally labelled an insider threat,the opportunity for early, proportionate support has usually passed, and the organisation is left with far fewer options.
This is why treating insider risk purely as a disciplinary or compliance issue consistently falls short. In many situations, the underlying issue is one of wellbeing first, with security consequences following later, whether the organisation recognises that link or not.
Insiders are a significant and consistent factor in security incidents. Accenture[1] has reported that a significant proportion of security incidents involve insiders, many of which are linked not to sophisticated intent, but to frustration, opportunism, or poor judgement under pressure.
Research from the Ponemon Institute[2] also shows that many employees who leave an organisation take some form of sensitive data with them, often without seeing it as wrongdoing. These findings do not mean that most people are inherently risky. They show how easily people can justify their actions when they feel unsupported, unheard, or under strain.
Despite this, insider risk is still often pushed aside or handled in isolation. In many organisations it moves between HR, security, and legal teams without a shared understanding of what is really driving behaviour. When this happens, patterns are missed and early warning signs become normal, until a more serious incident finally brings the issue to senior attention.
Insider risk rarely begins with a clear breach of policy. More often we find that it develops incrementally through small changes in behaviour that are easy to explain away, particularly in high-pressure or highly trusted roles.
Someone may start working excessive hours to manage workload, gradually bypassing controls that feel obstructive rather than protective. They may disengage from colleagues, become defensive when challenged, or withdraw from routine interaction. None of this suggests malicious intent in isolation, but it often marks the point at which judgement can begin to erode.
In roles with wide access and limited oversight, these issues can go unnoticed for a long time. As people grow more comfortable with the systems, informal shortcuts start to feel normal, and risk builds in the background. By the time leadership becomes aware, it’s often because something has already gone wrong.
In some cases, the influence is external. Individuals may be targeted by criminals, competitors or organised groups who exploit personal vulnerabilities, financial stress or emotional pressure. This does not always look like blackmail or explicit threats. It can begin with flattery, requests for small favours, or appeals to sympathy, and gradually escalate into access, information sharing or rule-bending that feels difficult to refuse.
Coercion does not always come from outside. In some environments it can arise internally through power imbalances, unrealistic expectations, or pressure from senior colleagues that makes it hard to say no without fear of consequences.
Modern ways of working have added a new layer of complexity. We are more digitally connected than ever, yet many people now experience their work in relative isolation. Messages replace face to face conversations, context gets lost, and informal check-ins happen far less often.
Judgement does not exist in a vacuum. Stress, fatigue, and emotional strain shape how people interpret information and how carefully they make decisions. When pressure rises and support feels distant, people are more likely to misread situations, take shortcuts, or justify behaviour they would normally question.
This is not just a wellbeing issue. It is a resilience issue. Emotional strain narrows perspective and makes people more open to influence, whether that influence comes from outside the organisation or from their own internal reasoning.
These dynamics are being intensified by wider economic uncertainty. Prolonged cost-of-living pressures, geopolitical instability, and sustained disruption across global markets are all putting strain on individuals’ finances.
Financial pressure affects how people behave. It makes it harder to focus, increases anxiety, and can reduce how seriously people think about consequences. Some may even feel they have little left to lose. This does not mean they intend to do harm, but it does raise risk, especially for those who have access to sensitive systems, information, or assets.
From a security point of view, money stress increases risk. When organisations treat financial wellbeing as separate from security, they overlook an important part of the problem.
Financial strain also increases susceptibility to manipulation. People under pressure are more likely to respond to offers of help, opportunities to “fix” problems quickly, or requests that promise relief from stress. From a security perspective, this creates conditions where coercion becomes easier and more effective, even when individuals have no intention of causing harm.
Why controls alone are not enough
When insider risk is identified, organisations often respond in a technical way by tightening access, increasing monitoring, and reinforcing policies, but while these actions are important, they rarely address the underlying conditions that allowed the risk to develop in the first place.
Controls alone do not reduce burnout. Monitoring does not ease financial pressure, and policy reminders do not restore sound judgement. In some situations, a poorly timed escalation can actually increase feelings of mistrust or isolation, which pushes risk further underground instead of resolving it.
Both research and practical experience show that behavioural warning signs often appear before any technical breach occurs, including changes in performance, disengagement, conflict with management, and financial difficulty, and when organisations wait until behaviour crosses a formal threshold, their options become limited and the consequences are usually far more severe.
Support does not mean ignoring misconduct or lowering standards, but instead means expanding the prevention toolkit so organisations can step in earlier, when the impact is lower and when individuals still have realistic options.
In practice, this often includes:
This approach reflects the direction set out in UK protective security guidance, which emphasises treating insider events as connected, strengthening leadership understanding, and addressing the reasons insider risk is often deprioritised or avoided.
Culture determines whether people speak up
In many insider cases, colleagues notice warning signs but decide not to raise them because they worry about getting someone into trouble, triggering an investigation, or being seen as overreacting.
Where people believe that raising concerns will lead to fair and supportive action, reporting becomes more likely, but where they expect blame or punishment, staying silent feels safer.
This is not a training failure. It is a cultural one.
The most effective insider risk programmes are often the least visible because they are built into everyday management practice, supported by leadership, and grounded in trust, and they recognise that people are both the greatest asset and the most complex part of any security system.
In a world that is increasingly connected but emotionally fragmented, emotional and financial pressures are no longer side issues. They are part of the risk landscape.
For organisations that are serious about resilience, insider risk must be understood not only through controls and compliance, but also through culture, support, and leadership judgement, and this shift does not weaken security. It strengthens it.
The post When insider risk is a wellbeing issue, not just a disciplinary one appeared first on Security Boulevard.
Artificial intelligence (AI) agents, once touted as the next frontier of corporate efficiency, are increasingly exhibiting deceptive and rogue behaviors that could overwhelm traditional cybersecurity. New research shows autonomous systems are now capable of collaborating to smuggle sensitive data, forge credentials, and even peer-pressure other AIs into bypassing safety protocols. According to findings from Irregular,..
The post AI Agents Present ‘Insider Threat’ as Rogue Behaviors Bypass Cyber Defenses: Study appeared first on Security Boulevard.
