Incident Response

Ransomware Simulation

The scenario examines evidence, containment, communication and recovery choices through safe injects or approved simulations.

Plan a ransomware exercise See how the scenario runs

Relevant ransomware scenario
Decision and communication pathways
Containment and recovery dependencies
Safe exercise evidence and actions

The proposition

Practise ransomware decisions without destructive code

Practise difficult ransomware decisions and dependency checks without introducing destructive code into the environment. The work focuses on relevant ransomware scenario and records where evidence or authorization limits the conclusion.

Simulate pressure without simulating damage

Ransomware incidents combine technical investigation, business interruption, legal questions and recovery choices. A safe exercise can explore those connections using facilitated injects and, where separately approved, benign technical signals.

Cyberus does not deploy ransomware or require harmful encryption. The design states which parts are discussion, emulation or assumption so the debrief reflects what was actually tested.

Ransomware without the ransomware

Initial signs. The scenario opens with early indicators that staff may or may not recognize as the start of an attack.
Escalation decision. Participants choose whether, when and to whom to escalate, with incomplete information.
Service disruption. Simulated loss of key services forces trade-offs about containment, communication and priorities.
Clean recovery. Recovery depends on trusted identity, usable backups and suppliers, which the exercise questions.

Why it matters

Business risk: A ransomware event hits identity, backups and suppliers together, and leaders often meet these dependencies for the first time.
Decision it supports: Leaders can decide how to prioritize services, who authorizes containment and what must be ready before an event.
What you receive: You receive a scenario timeline, decision observations, dependency notes and improvement actions, within the agreed scope.

A joined-up ransomware exercise record

Scenario timeline

Builds a plausible progression across initial signs, disruption and recovery decisions.

Why it matters: A believable sequence helps people reason about what they would see, and when, instead of imagining the end state.
Supports: A shared storyline for testing detection and decisions

Decision prompts

Tests escalation, containment, communications, evidence and service-priority choices.

Why it matters: Ransomware decisions involve many people, and delays or disagreements show up when prompts demand a choice.
Supports: Observed escalation, communication and priority choices

Dependency findings

Records assumptions about identity, backups, suppliers, access and clean recovery.

Why it matters: Recovery plans often assume backups, accounts or suppliers will be available, which may not hold during an event.
Supports: Tested assumptions about clean recovery

Improvement actions

Assigns specific plan, control, evidence or exercise follow-ups.

Why it matters: Lessons need an owner and a next step, or the exercise becomes a one-off conversation.
Supports: Specific follow-up work for plans, controls and evidence

How a ransomware simulation runs

Choose the disruption
Define affected services, exercise limits, participants and learning objectives.
Why it matters
Choosing the affected services keeps the exercise tied to the business functions that matter most.
Validate safe methods
Agree discussion injects and any benign technical signals under separate controls.
Why it matters
Agreeing safe methods up front means no real malware is deployed and operations are not put at risk.
Exercise decisions
Progress the scenario while participants use their existing plans and evidence.
Why it matters
Using existing plans shows what teams would really do, not what a document says they should.
Challenge assumptions
Review dependencies, unresolved questions and the preparation needed next.
Why it matters
Questioning assumptions about backups, identity and suppliers exposes the weak points before an attacker does.

Why choose Cyberus for ransomware simulation

Safety
No destructive ransomware
Pressure points
Containment and continuity decisions
Dependencies
Identity, backups and suppliers
Learning
Scenario-qualified actions

Team certifications

Individual qualifications held by members of the Cyberus team. They are not company accreditations, and not every consultant on an engagement holds every badge.

OSCP
Hands-on penetration testing skills, from enumeration to exploitation and privilege escalation.
OSWE
Web application security skills, including source code review and exploiting complex web vulnerabilities.
OSED
Exploit development skills, including analysing Windows software and writing custom exploits.
OSCP+
Hands-on penetration testing skills, from enumeration to exploitation and privilege escalation.
CRTA
Red team analysis skills, including adversary tactics and techniques.
eWPT
Web application penetration testing skills, from assessment method to exploiting common web flaws.
eWPTX
Advanced web application penetration testing skills, including complex attack techniques.
eMAPT
Mobile application penetration testing skills for Android and iOS applications.
BTL1
Defensive security skills across security operations, phishing analysis, forensics and incident response.
eCIR
Incident response skills, including investigating, containing and analysing security incidents.
CRTE
Red teaming skills focused on Windows environments and the tradecraft used against them.
CCT
EC-Council's Certified Cybersecurity Technician (CCT) validates foundational security, network, and defense skills.
Security+
CompTIA Security+ validates core skills in baseline cybersecurity, risk management, and threats.