Incidente de seguridad de Digitel con presunta extorsión de Medusa y datos publicados

What this source supports

• Digitel acknowledged an incident and preventative blocking of systems supporting some customer channels
• telephony and browsing services remained normal
• VE sin Filtro documented the Medusa listing, five-million-dollar demand and eight-day threat
• the scope and customer-data impact were then unknown

Evidence limits

Strong contemporary reporting, but Medusa/malware details were supplied by public claim and researchers; no raw data or forensic report is published.

Relevance to this case

Strongest independent synthesis of official acknowledgement, partial operational impact and the early actor claim.

What this source supports

• Digitel said it had preventatively blocked systems supporting some customer channels after an incident
• those channels were being re-enabled
• telecommunications and their technology platform remained normal nationwide
• Digitel said its security mechanisms prevented compromise of user data

Evidence limits

The original first-party Digitel URL/post was not recovered. This is a complete contemporary reproduction of the company’s claim, not independent proof that user data was protected.

Relevance to this case

Best complete accessible copy of the official company statement and its conflict with later reports.

What this source supports

• the post preserves the Digitel statement image
• the statement describes preventative blocking of customer-channel systems, normal telecom services and Digitel’s denial of user-data compromise

Evidence limits

The account is a technology commentator, not Digitel. The image is an accessible copy of the official statement and does not independently validate its assertions.

Relevance to this case

Exact browser-verified contemporary preservation of the official statement graphic exposed by the stored sources.

What this source supports

• VE sin Filtro said it verified a Digitel listing on the Medusa Tor leak site
• the listing demanded five million dollars and offered download or deletion
• a visible countdown threatened publication in eight days
• the thread explicitly said scope remained unknown and Digitel denied customer-data compromise

Evidence limits

Strong evidence that the listing/claim existed, not that malware executed, systems were encrypted or listed files were authentic. The original onion page is unavailable.

Relevance to this case

Best exact contemporary provenance for the Medusa listing and ransom demand.

What this source supports

• VE sin Filtro reported that files attributed to Digitel were published after the five-million-dollar demand
• VOA reports VE sin Filtro’s preliminary examination of 12.6 GB of unique files and described personal, employee, financial and contractual data
• Digitel acknowledged an incident and initially denied compromise of user data
• the number of affected users remained unknown

Evidence limits

VOA reports attributed analysis rather than publishing the underlying files. The onion source, raw archive, provenance and forensic chain of custody are unavailable.

Relevance to this case

Strong reporting for publication and independent preliminary examination, with explicit conflict from Digitel; medium incident confidence because technical origin and scope remain unresolved.

What this source supports

• VE sin Filtro said files attributed to Digitel were published after the five-million-dollar demand
• the organization said it was analyzing the files
• the actor claimed employee, identification, personal, financial, invoice, contract and subscriber material

Evidence limits

The main status distinguishes actor-claimed categories from the organization’s ongoing review. It does not establish the files’ technical origin or chain of custody.

Relevance to this case

Direct source for the publication report and start of independent preliminary analysis.

What this source supports

• VE sin Filtro’s preliminary review found Digitel user names, surnames, identity numbers and birth dates
• the review found company formation/authorization documents and contracts
• the review found worker data
• VE sin Filtro measured 12.6 GB of unique files

Evidence limits

Independent expert assertion based on a preliminary file review, but the raw files, sampling method, provenance and chain of custody were not published for Root reproduction.

Relevance to this case

Strongest public validation that the release contained real Digitel-linked and personal material, without proving fresh exfiltration or ransomware execution.

What this source supports

• VE sin Filtro said the total number of Digitel users affected was still unknown

Evidence limits

Same preliminary-analysis thread; it supplies a material limitation rather than additional technical validation.

Relevance to this case

Exact provenance for leaving affected-person and record counts unknown.

What this source supports

• Espacio Público reproduces VE sin Filtro’s report of published personal/subscriber and contract data
• the article reproduces Digitel’s acknowledgement and denial
• the report is derivative and does not independently validate the files

Evidence limits

Derivative of VE sin Filtro, Asilo Digital and Digitel’s statement; it provides no raw data, onion capture or independent forensic validation.

Relevance to this case

Retained as Venezuelan civil-society reporting and a source bridge, not independent confirmation.

What this source supports

• the public Digitel website was observed back online on 16 February
• balance lookup and payment/recharge information were available
• Digitel en Línea self-service remained unavailable

Evidence limits

Publisher observation rather than an official recovery statement or continuous uptime measurement; it confirms only partial restoration at one point in time.

Relevance to this case

Useful endpoint for the documented public/customer-channel disruption without implying full recovery.

What this source supports

• Existencia y contenido de esta afirmación pública relacionada. Dos difusiones de la misma oferta Medusa/Digitel de enero-febrero de 2024: sus citas se preservan como dependencias. No se declara otro acceso por cada publicación y no se inspeccionan documentos o imágenes biométricas.

Evidence limits

Publicación de una afirmación, no corroboración técnica independiente. Las citas prueban dependencia editorial de los posts enlazados. No se cambian fechas, víctimas, clasificación, estado o atribución del registro existente.

Relevance to this case

Fuente relacionada al evento existente. Dos difusiones de la misma oferta Medusa/Digitel de enero-febrero de 2024: sus citas se preservan como dependencias. No se declara otro acceso por cada publicación y no se inspeccionan documentos o imágenes biométricas.

What this source supports

• Existencia y contenido de esta afirmación pública relacionada. Dos difusiones de la misma oferta Medusa/Digitel de enero-febrero de 2024: sus citas se preservan como dependencias. No se declara otro acceso por cada publicación y no se inspeccionan documentos o imágenes biométricas.

Evidence limits

Publicación de una afirmación, no corroboración técnica independiente. Las citas prueban dependencia editorial de los posts enlazados. No se cambian fechas, víctimas, clasificación, estado o atribución del registro existente.

Relevance to this case

Fuente relacionada al evento existente. Dos difusiones de la misma oferta Medusa/Digitel de enero-febrero de 2024: sus citas se preservan como dependencias. No se declara otro acceso por cada publicación y no se inspeccionan documentos o imágenes biométricas.

What this source supports

• DailyDarkWeb informa que Medusa agregó Digitel a su listado de víctimas en febrero de 2024.

Evidence limits

El texto relaya una atribución del operador y no aporta evidencia técnica adicional. No se extiende a los reclamos Gatito_FBI_NZ de 2025 o a publicaciones posteriores de Digitel.

Relevance to this case

Añade la procedencia editorial del reclamo relacionado sin crear otro incidente ni elevar la confianza del hecho.