Everest claims 590GB theft from PwC learning systems
Original title: PwC Allegedly Hit by Everest Ransomware Group, 590GB of Data Stolen
The unverified listing cites 108,426 files and a roughly five-day publication countdown; encryption is not shown.
The Everest ransomware group reportedly claims it stole about 590GB linked to PwC, including material from internal HR and learning systems. A leak-site screenshot described by GBHackers lists a “pwc.com 590 GB Database” of 590.69GB, 108,426 files, and a directory “pwc-stg.csod.com” tied to Cornerstone OnDemand learning data. Hackmanac attributes alleged data to Australia, China, Canada, and the United Kingdom and notes one HR dataset of 213,084 records. No independent confirmation, encryption, outage, access path, or malware payload is reported.
Unconfirmed: The leak-site claim is unverified; authenticity, affected entities, and any production access are unconfirmed.
- Crypto India described 108,426 files, including alleged SSO source code and audit documents.
- The listing claims 494 directories and 1,386 archive containers with 19,324 files.
- A screenshot shows about five days left before claimed publication.
- Monitoring services recorded the Everest listing on October 22, 2026.
- The 213,084-record figure does not establish how many people were affected.
Impact: Alleged theft of HR, training, audit, and SSO material
- Vendors
- Cornerstone OnDemand
- Threat actors
- Everest
- Victims
- PwC
- Countries
- AustraliaChinaCanadaUnited Kingdom
From the original article
2 min read at gbhackers.com
The Everest ransomware group has reportedly stolen around 590GB of data linked to PwC, one of the Big Four professional services firms. The claim concerns internal human resources and learning systems, but it remains unverified, as no independent reports have confirmed it. A post shared by Crypto India states that the alleged theft includes 108,426 […]
By Divya · gbhackers.com
A short excerpt; the article and its images belong to the publisher. Summary, key facts and assessment above are AI-written from the article and can be wrong.