Non Extortion Group Targets Global Shipping

Published On : 2026-10-16
Share :
Non Extortion Group Targets Global Shipping

Executive Summary

CYFIRMA has assessed N0n (also written n0n), a data-theft extortion group that launched a Tor leak site on 18 September 2026. Between 11 and 13 October 2026, the group posted 54 new entries, including 38 port, terminal, shipping and logistics organisations across 18 countries and territories, all posted within 23 minutes on 12 October. All 38 carry a single publication deadline of 19 October 2026, 13:27 UTC. Of the 38, 26 are in Asia, led by South Korea with 12 entries. In total, CYFIRMA has recorded 76 N0n leak-site entries, which correspond to an estimated 64 to 66 distinct organisations once duplicate anonymised posts are removed.

No listed organisation has publicly confirmed a breach. According to public reporting, the Korea Internet & Security Agency (KISA) is notifying named Korean port companies, and at least one firm has acknowledged receiving an intrusion notice. This is the first third-party signal that part of the maritime batch may reflect real intrusions. N0n claims to encrypt or destroy backups, but CYFIRMA has not identified an encryptor, ransom note, or other technical artefact linked to the group.

Assessment: N0n is a data-extortion actor with credible access to at least some listed victims (moderate confidence). Its claims of encryption, backup destruction, and network disruption are unverified (low confidence that the capability exists). Origin is unknown.

Recommended action: Organisations that exchange EDI with, or use systems from, a listed party should rotate shared EDI, SFTP, API and port community system credentials, enforce MFA on RDP, VPN, Citrix and cloud administration consoles, and monitor the N0n leak site and RSS feed through the 19 October 2026, 13:27 UTC deadline.

About This Report: This is a FIRST SIGHT report: an early assessment of an emerging threat, based on information collected up to 13 October 2026. CYFIRMA continues to monitor N0n’s leak site and related channels and will update this assessment, the indicators, and the threat hunting guidance as new details on the group’s victims, infrastructure, tooling, and TTPs emerge.

What We Discovered

N0n moved from opportunistic, multi-sector targeting in September to a concentrated campaign against the maritime supply chain in October. The 12 October posting is the group’s largest single release and its first focused on one sector.

Why It Is Significant

  • Sector concentration: Maritime and logistics organisations now account for 38 of an estimated 66 distinct victims (58%), covering terminal operators, container lines, ship managers, port community systems and port IT providers in 18 countries and territories. Of the 38, 26 are in Asia, and South Korea alone accounts for almost a third.
  • Supply-chain data: The claimed data is dominated by EDI archives, terminal operating system (TOS) material and invoices. These records name trading partners beyond the listed victims.
  • Pre-staged posting: The 38 maritime entries were posted within 23 minutes, and nine of the 10 launch-day entries within five minutes. Listings are prepared in advance and released in bulk, so posting time is not a proxy for intrusion time.
  • Monetisation: Korean listings carried Bitcoin demands ranging from USD 600,000 to USD 14 million. N0n also marked its first victim as paid, an anonymised Canadian financial services firm said to have settled on 7 October.

Timeline

Date (2026) Event
18 Sep Leak site goes live with 10 entries, nine of them posted within five minutes. Victims include a US labour union, a business process outsourcing (BPO) provider supporting a payment platform, a Venezuelan internet service provider, a South American government ministry and a pharmaceutical subsidiary in Türkiye.
20 to 30 Sep Eight further entries, including a sports e-commerce platform, a retail software vendor, a marketing analytics SaaS vendor, a cloud hosting provider, a construction contractor, a mortgage lending platform and a US endocrinology practice.
5 to 7 Oct Anonymised “Company #” pre-listings begin (Company #1 to #3). A US IT managed services provider listed.
11 Oct 14 anonymised entries describing an estimated six organisations. Company #14 marked as having settled on 7 October.
12 Oct 38 maritime and logistics entries posted between 13:53 and 14:16, with a shared 19 October deadline.
13 Oct Two US businesses, a specialty retailer and a confectionery company, named after their anonymised deadlines expired. KISA notifies Korean victims, according to public reporting. A listed Korean steelmaker publicly describes its listing as a one-sided claim.
19 Oct, 13:27 UTC Scheduled publication of maritime batch data.

How We Discovered It

This assessment is built on monitoring of the N0n leak site and relevant context via our DeCYFIR platform. Each data point is graded as confirmed (two or more independent observers), actor claim (leak-site text only), or analyst inference.

Technical Analysis

Leak Site and Extortion Infrastructure

The leak site uses the tagline “no js | no mercy” and runs without JavaScript or a CAPTCHA. It has Active, Leaked, and Honor sections, offers stolen data as .zip and .torrent downloads, and publishes an RSS feed. Victims enter a private negotiation room using a personal key.

Listing Behaviour

Listings follow a consistent English template: sector and country, claimed data, an operational claim, and a status with a UTC deadline. Status labels are ACTIVE, PENDING EXPOSURE, NOT PAID / EXPOSED and HONORED. Since 5 October, N0n has posted anonymised “Company #” entries describing only sector and location, then named the victim after the deadline. This pattern is confirmed for two US businesses. The tactic adds pressure on victims and inflates entry counts: the 14 anonymised entries posted on 11 October appear to describe about six organisations, several of them listed two to four times.

Pseudonym numbering is non-sequential in CYFIRMA’s collection. Company #6 to #13 and #15 to #18 have not been observed. This may indicate entries removed after settlement or posted and withdrawn between collection intervals (analyst inference, low confidence).

The tone of the claims has changed. September listings claimed operational disruption, such as a “network blackout” at a BPO provider and severed network traffic at an ISP. The October maritime listings claim only data categories and make no disruption claims.

Capabilities

Tactic ID Technique Evidence basis
Initial Access T1078 Valid Accounts Assessed as the most probable vector. No stealer family or access artefact identified.
Lateral Movement T1021.001 Remote Desktop Protocol Assessed. No artefacts identified.
Collection T1074 Data Staged Consistent with listing contents.
Exfiltration Not determined Not determined No exfiltration tooling identified.
Impact T1657 Financial Theft (extortion) Supported by leak-site demands and the claimed payment.
Impact T1486, T1490 Data Encrypted for Impact; Inhibit System Recovery Actor claims only. No encryptor or ransom note identified.

Encryption Capability

N0n’s listings claim that backups and shadow copies were encrypted or destroyed (a retail software vendor and an IT services provider) and that victim networks were taken offline (a BPO provider, an ISP, a government ministry, and a cloud hosting provider). CYFIRMA has not identified an encryptor, file hash, ransom note, or encrypted-file extension associated with N0n. CYFIRMA assesses with low confidence that N0n has deployed encryption and treats the group as a data-extortion actor. Mappings of N0n to T1486 should be treated as actor-claimed until a sample is recovered.

Initial Access

Use of valid credentials, most plausibly harvested by infostealer malware, is the most probable initial access vector given the spread of small and large victims across unrelated sectors and the absence of any shared exploited product. No artefact confirms this.

Attribution and Links

Question Assessment Confidence
Origin Unknown. No language, infrastructure, or forum evidence ties N0n to a country. The leak site is in English. The listing of an Uzbek company (a CIS member state) argues weakly against a Russian-speaking criminal profile. Low
RaaS or affiliates No recruitment posts, affiliate panel, or forum advertising observed. Low
Links to known groups No shared infrastructure, code, or template overlap observed. The bulk-posting pattern resembles 0APT, whose early-2026 victim list was shown to be largely fabricated. This is an analogy, not a link. Low
Real access to victims KISA’s reported notifications and one Korean firm’s acknowledged intrusion notice support real access for part of the Korean set. Moderate
Shared supplier compromise The batch includes port IT intermediaries: port community system operators in the Middle East and South Korea, a port logistics IT provider in Indonesia, and a port consultancy in Germany. EDI data naming many parties could come from a single hub compromise rather than 38 separate intrusions. Low (hypothesis)

Who Is at Risk

CYFIRMA has recorded 76 N0n leak-site entries between 18 September and 13 October 2026. After removing anonymised entries that duplicate other listings, the dataset represents an estimated 66 distinct organisations, or 64 if two further pairs (Company #2 and #14; Company #3 and the IT managed services provider listed on 7 October) are also duplicates. The analysis below uses the 66-organisation set unless stated.

Posting Cadence

Figure 1: N0n leak-site entries per day (all 76 entries)

Activity came in three bursts: the 18 September launch (10 entries), the 11 October anonymised wave (14 entries) and the 12 October maritime batch (38 entries). Between bursts, N0n posted one to three entries on scattered days. In total, 52 of 76 entries (68%) were posted on 11 and 12 October.

Industries

Figure 2: N0n victims by industry (estimated 66 distinct organisations)

Transportation & Logistics accounts for 35 organisations (53%), of which 33 are classified as Maritime Logistics. Including a port machinery manufacturer, a shipbuilder and a steelmaker, all posted in the maritime batch, 38 victims (58%) sit in the maritime supply chain. Within the batch, terminal and port operators form the largest group (13, including eight container terminal operators), followed by shipping lines and ship operators (10), port and ship agencies and logistics providers (6), port IT and terminal systems providers (4), maritime services firms (2) and three manufacturers (steel, shipbuilding and port machinery). The four port IT and terminal systems providers carry the widest downstream risk, because each serves many terminals, carriers and agents.

Outside the batch, victims are spread thinly across 23 sectors, with no sector holding more than two organisations, which is consistent with opportunistic access rather than sector targeting.

Geographies

Figure 3: N0n victims by country (estimated 66 distinct organisations)

Victims are located in 27 named countries and territories, with four further victims whose country was with held.

The geographic profile changed with the maritime batch. Outside the batch, victims are mainly in the Americas (15 of 24 with a known country), led by the United States with 10 organisations spanning a labour union, e-commerce, SaaS, healthcare, managed IT services, investment and small businesses. Before deduplication, the US accounts for 19 entries, because most anonymised repeat listings describe US businesses. The maritime batch is Asia-heavy: 26 of its 38 victims are in Asia, 18 of them in East Asia. As a result, Asia now holds 29 of the 62 victims with a known country (47%), against 19 in the Americas and nine in Europe.

South Korea is the clearest concentration. All 12 Korean victims are in the batch and cover nearly every layer of a port ecosystem: container and port terminals, an inland container depot, ship management, ferry, tanker and dry bulk operators, a ship agency, a logistics company and a port community IT provider, plus a steel manufacturer. A spread this broad within one country fits either deliberate targeting of the Korean port sector or a single upstream compromise, such as a shared port IT platform. Indonesia (4) and Brazil (4) follow. The Indonesian victims are two port agencies, a coastal shipping operator and a port logistics IT provider; the Brazilian victims are three terminal or port operators and a terminal systems provider. Elsewhere the batch is thin: one or two organisations each in Japan, China, Singapore, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Vietnam and India, five in Europe including Türkiye, two in the Gulf and one in Morocco.

Technologies

Technologies named in N0n listings or assessed as relevant to its access and targeting: terminal operating systems, EDI messaging (manifests, bookings, gate movements), port community systems, remote access services (RDP, VPN, Citrix), cloud hosting and accounting software.

Data Exposure and Likely Misuse

All data categories below are actor claims taken from leak-site listings. CYFIRMA has not yet validated the contents of published N0n data.

Claimed data Victim types Likely downstream misuse
EDI archives (manifests, bookings, gate movements) Container terminals in Brazil and Vietnam; container shipping lines in China and Taiwan Mapping of cargo contents and movements, which could support cargo theft, smuggling, and targeting of trading partners.
TOS database scripts and configuration Port and terminal operators in Brazil and South Korea Reconnaissance for follow-on intrusion into terminal systems.
Invoices, settlements, banking correspondence templates Korean steelmaker, ship agency and terminal operator; Japanese ferry operator Invoice fraud and business email compromise against shipping counterparties.
Credentials Korean ferry operator (plaintext staff credentials); US specialty retailer (577 accounts) Credential stuffing and re-entry into victim networks.
Infrastructure and vulnerability records Korean logistics company; BPO provider (AD and PKI map) Targeted intrusion by N0n or third parties.
Personal and patient data US endocrinology practice, US labour union, Canadian mortgage platform Identity fraud, phishing, and regulatory exposure for the victim.

Affected parties extend beyond the listed victims to shippers, consignees, carriers and agents named in EDI records and invoices, and to customers, patients and members whose data the victims held.

Does This Affect Me?

Concern is highest for three groups.

  • South Korean port and shipping organisations, especially users of Korean port community and terminal IT services, followed by port operators and agents in Indonesia and Brazil.
  • Terminal operators, carriers and agents in any country that exchange EDI with a listed party or use systems from one of the four listed port IT and terminal systems providers, since a single supplier compromise would reach beyond the named victims.
  • Shippers, consignees and freight forwarders named in EDI and invoice records, who face invoice fraud and business email compromise even if their own networks are untouched.

Remote access that accepts stolen single-factor credentials raises exposure in all three groups. Outside the maritime sector, N0n’s September and early-October entries show that healthcare, financial services, managed service providers, SaaS vendors and small businesses, mainly in the US and Canada, with single cases in the UK and Australia, remain exposed to opportunistic targeting.

How Exposed Am I?

Exposure depends on three factors: whether your records sit in EDI archives or invoice data held by listed parties; whether employee credentials appear in infostealer logs; and whether RDP, VPN, Citrix or cloud admin consoles accept single-factor logins. The data publication scheduled for 19 October will show what N0n actually holds and is the main test of whether the maritime claims are real.

Indicators of Compromise

Type Indicator Notes
Onion domain nongzecboljwv3yfndkggsybsglfrkffw7bvk2zemuteoxe6etpusnad.onion N0n leak site.

CYFIRMA has not identified file hashes, IP addresses, ransom notes, email addresses, or Tox IDs associated with N0n. No N0n malware sample is available. The rules in the next section are therefore threat hunting rules, not N0n detection signatures.

Threat Hunting Rules

No Non technique has yet been confirmed through technical artefacts. The rules below target techniques CYFIRMA assesses N0n is likely to use, based on its leak-site claims and common data-extortion tradecraft. They are intended for proactive threat hunting and prevention, so a match indicates activity worth investigating, not N0n involvement. None has been validated against N0n activity, and all need local testing and tuning for false positives.

Sigma Rules: Shadow Copy and Backup Catalogue Deletion (T1490)

title: Shadow Copy or Backup Catalogue Deletion

id: 6f1d2c9e-3b7a-4e52-9d1f-8a4c0b2e7d31

status: experimental

description: Hunts for deletion of volume shadow copies or the Windows backup catalogue. N0n claims to destroy backups, but this is not confirmed by artefacts.

author: CYFIRMA Research

date: 2026-10-14

tags:

– attack.impact

– attack.t1490

logsource:

category: process_creation

product: windows

detection:

selection_vssadmin:

Image|endswith: ‘\vssadmin.exe’

CommandLine|contains|all:

– ‘delete’

– ‘shadows’

selection_wmic:

Image|endswith: ‘\WMIC.exe’

CommandLine|contains|all:

– ‘shadowcopy’

– ‘delete’

selection_wbadmin:

Image|endswith: ‘\wbadmin.exe’

CommandLine|contains|all:

– ‘delete’

– ‘catalog’

condition: 1 of selection_*

falsepositives:

– Administrative backup maintenance

level: high

Sigma Rules: Rclone Execution (T1567.002)

title: Rclone Execution on Windows Host

id: 2b8e4a71-c05d-4f3e-a9b6-71d3e5f0c842

status: experimental

description: Hunts for rclone, a tool commonly used by extortion groups for bulk exfiltration to cloud storage. N0n exfiltration tooling is unknown.

author: CYFIRMA Research

date: 2026-10-14

tags:

– attack.exfiltration

– attack.t1567.002

logsource:

category: process_creation

product: windows

detection:

selection_image:

Image|endswith: ‘\rclone.exe’

selection_pe:

OriginalFileName: ‘rclone.exe’

selection_desc:

Description: ‘Rsync for cloud storage’

condition: 1 of selection_*

falsepositives:

– Sanctioned backup or migration jobs

level: high

Sigma Rules: RDP Logon from Public Address (T1021.001, T1078)

title: Successful RDP Logon from Non-Private IP Address

id: 9c3f7d10-4e28-4b6a-8f05-d2a1b6e94c57

status: experimental

description: Hunts for successful RemoteInteractive logons from public IP addresses, consistent with use of stolen credentials over exposed RDP, an assessed but unconfirmed N0n access vector.

author: CYFIRMA Research

date: 2026-10-14

tags:

– attack.initial_access

– attack.t1078

– attack.lateral_movement

– attack.t1021.001

logsource:

product: windows

service: security

detection:

selection:

EventID: 4624

LogonType: 10

filter_private:

IpAddress|cidr:

– ‘10.0.0.0/8’

– ‘172.16.0.0/12’

– ‘192.168.0.0/16’

– ‘127.0.0.0/8’

– ‘::1/128’

– ‘fe80::/10’

condition: selection and not filter_private

falsepositives:

– Approved remote access through jump hosts with public addresses

level: medium

The YARA rules below scan files rather than logs. The first matches N0n’s leak-site address and tagline, which would appear in extortion notes, emails or saved web pages, and is the only rule tied to a known N0n artefact. The other three hunt for tooling linked to the likely techniques above: shadow copy and backup deletion, and bulk exfiltration with rclone.

YARA Rules: N0n Leak-Site Reference (infrastructure strings)

rule N0n_LeakSite_Reference

{

meta:

description = “Files referencing the N0n leak-site onion address or its tagline, such as extortion notes, emails or saved web pages”

author = “CYFIRMA Research”

date = “2026-10-14”

id = “725a81ae-d6e9-4bd2-b5ec-32194c53ba88”

reference = “CYFIRMA FIRST SIGHT: N0n Extortion Group Targets Global Shipping”

scope = “Known N0n infrastructure strings, not malware”

confidence = “high for $onion, medium for $tagline”

strings:

$onion = “nongzecboljwv3yfndkggsybsglfrkffw7bvk2zemuteoxe6etpusnad” ascii wide nocase

$tagline = /no\s?js\s?\|\s?no\s?mercy/ ascii wide nocase

condition:

filesize < 20MB and any of them

}

YARA Rules: Shadow Copy and Backup Deletion Commands (T1490)

rule Hunt_Shadow_Copy_And_Backup_Deletion_Commands

{

meta:

description = “Scripts or binaries containing two or more shadow copy, backup catalogue or recovery deletion commands, a technique N0n claims but has not been confirmed to use”

author = “CYFIRMA Research”

date = “2026-10-14”

id = “5cfd1f23-5451-46f8-83e8-a1b225f9880a”

mitre_attack = “T1490”

scope = “Threat hunting for a likely technique, not confirmed N0n activity”

false_positives = “Administrative backup maintenance scripts; legitimate security tools that embed these commands”

strings:

$c1 = /vssadmin(\.exe)?”?\s+delete\s+shadows/ ascii wide nocase

$c2 = /vssadmin(\.exe)?”?\s+resize\s+shadowstorage/ ascii wide nocase

$c3 = /wmic(\.exe)?”?\s+shadowcopy\s+delete/ ascii wide nocase

$c4 = /wbadmin(\.exe)?”?\s+delete\s+(catalog|systemstatebackup|backup)/ ascii wide nocase

$c5 = /bcdedit(\.exe)?”?\s+\/set\s+\{default\}\s+recoveryenabled\s+no/ ascii wide nocase

$ps1 = “Win32_ShadowCopy” ascii wide nocase

$ps2 = “Remove-CimInstance” ascii wide nocase

$ps3 = “Remove-WmiObject” ascii wide nocase

$ps4 = “.Delete()” ascii wide nocase

condition:

filesize < 10MB and

(

2 of ($c*) or

($ps1 and 1 of ($ps2, $ps3, $ps4))

)

}

YARA Rules: Rclone Binary (T1567.002)

rule Hunt_Rclone_Binary

{

meta:

description = “Rclone executables, including renamed copies; rclone is commonly used by extortion groups for bulk exfiltration to cloud storage”

author = “CYFIRMA Research”

date = “2026-10-14”

id = “938b7207-8a0d-463f-8b15-58d12991845d”

mitre_attack = “T1567.002”

scope = “Threat hunting for a likely technique, not confirmed N0n activity. N0n exfiltration tooling is unknown”

false_positives = “Sanctioned backup or migration tooling”

strings:

$s1 = “github.com/rclone/rclone” ascii

$s2 = “Rsync for cloud storage” ascii wide

$s3 = “rclone.org” ascii

condition:

(

uint16(0) == 0x5A4D or

uint32(0) == 0x464C457F or

uint32(0) == 0xFEEDFACF or

uint32(0) == 0xCFFAEDFE

)

and 2 of them

}

YARA Rules: Rclone Configuration with Cloud Remote (T1567.002)

rule Hunt_Rclone_Config_With_Cloud_Remote

{

meta:

description = “Rclone configuration files defining a cloud or file-transfer remote, or an encrypted rclone configuration”

author = “CYFIRMA Research”

date = “2026-10-14”

id = “6852333e-0590-4a34-aa31-c4c3ca1a2591”

mitre_attack = “T1567.002”

scope = “Threat hunting for a likely technique, not confirmed N0n activity”

false_positives = “Legitimate rclone use by administrators or developers”

strings:

$type = /\ntype\s?=\s?(mega|s3|ftp|sftp|pcloud|dropbox|drive|onedrive|b2|webdav|box|swift|azureblob|putio)\b/ ascii nocase

$key = /\n(user|pass|access_key_id|secret_access_key|token|host|endpoint|account)\s?=\s?\S/ ascii nocase

$enc = “RCLONE_ENCRYPT_V0:” ascii

condition:

filesize < 64KB and (($type and $key) or $enc)

}

What Should I Do Now?

Immediate Actions

  • Check the victim list (P1, Threat Intelligence): Compare the victim profiles in the appendix (country, sector and posting time) against your customers, suppliers and EDI partners, and contact CYFIRMA for the underlying entries where a match is possible. Monitor the leak site and RSS feed through the 19 October 13:27 UTC deadline and review published file trees for references to your organisation.
  • Rotate partner credentials (P1, Security Operations): Rotate EDI, SFTP, API, and port community system credentials shared with listed parties, and review their access logs from mid-September onwards.
  • Hunt for infostealer exposure (P1, Threat Intelligence): Search infostealer log sources for corporate domains and force password resets for exposed accounts.
  • Enforce MFA on remote access (P1, IT / Information Security): Require MFA on RDP, VPN, Citrix, and cloud administration consoles, and remove direct internet exposure of RDP.

Recommendations

  • Request partner incident status (P2, Vendor Management): Ask listed partners in writing whether they have confirmed an intrusion and which shared data is affected.
  • Alert on bulk outbound transfers (P2, Security Operations): Run the Sigma and YARA rules above as proactive hunts and alert on large transfers to cloud storage or Tor infrastructure.
  • Verify payment detail changes (P2, Finance): Confirm any change to banking details from shipping counterparties through a known contact, given the claimed theft of invoices and banking templates.
  • Protect backups (P2, IT Infrastructure): Keep immutable or offline backups and test restoration, independent of whether N0n’s destruction claims are proven.
  • Keep attribution open (P3, Threat Intelligence): Do not assign a national origin or an encryption capability to N0n until technical evidence supports them.

Appendix: Non Victim List

All 76 leak-site entries recorded by CYFIRMA, in posting order. Victims are described by type. Anonymised “Company #” entries are shown with the actor’s label, including those assessed as duplicates.

Victim profile Posted Country Industry Sector
Labour union 18 Sep 15:22 USA Government & Civic Labor & Social Services (Union)
Online betting operator 18 Sep 15:23 Vietnam Consumer Goods & Services Events & Entertainment Services
Education centre operator 18 Sep 15:23 Vietnam Education Educational Technology & Learning Platforms
Legal services firm 18 Sep 15:24 Brazil Professional Goods & Services Legal Services
Digital securities platform 18 Sep 15:25 Luxembourg Finance FinTech
Pharmaceutical company subsidiary 18 Sep 15:25 Türkiye Healthcare Pharmaceuticals & Biotechnology
Investment firm 18 Sep 15:26 USA Finance Investment Firm
National government ministry 18 Sep 15:26 Argentina Government & Civic National Government & Executive Bodies
BPO provider (payment platform support) 18 Sep 15:27 Tunisia Professional Goods & Services Business Process Outsourcing (BPO)
Internet service provider 18 Sep 19:51 Venezuela Telecommunications & Media Internet Service Providers (ISPs)
Sports e-commerce platform 20 Sep 02:51 USA Consumer Goods & Services Retail – E-Commerce & Direct-to-Consumer
Retail back-office software vendor 22 Sep 01:51 Uzbekistan Information Technology Vertical Industry Software
IT and document processing services provider 22 Sep 17:22 Unidentified Information Technology Document & Workflow Management
Marketing analytics platform 25 Sep 03:21 USA Information Technology Digital Marketing Technology (MarTech)
Cloud hosting provider 28 Sep 05:51 Ireland Information Technology Cloud Service Providers (IaaS PaaS SaaS)
Facade contractor 29 Sep 05:51 UK Real Estate & Construction Specialty Trade Contractors
Commercial mortgage lending platform 30 Sep 12:52 Canada Finance Mortgage Brokerage
Endocrinology practice 30 Sep 22:53 USA Healthcare Specialized Medicine
Company #1 (anonymised) 05 Oct 09:53 Unidentified Unidentified Unidentified
Company #2 (anonymised) 05 Oct 09:54 Unidentified Finance Not specified
Company #3 (anonymised) 05 Oct 09:54 Unidentified Information Technology IT Consulting & Managed Services
IT managed services provider 07 Oct 05:51 USA Information Technology IT Consulting & Managed Services
Company #4 (anonymised) 11 Oct 07:23 USA Real Estate & Construction Architecture & Design Firms
Company #5 (anonymised) 11 Oct 08:23 USA Real Estate & Construction Building Systems Controls & Facility Services
Company #25 (anonymised) 11 Oct 14:22 USA Consumer Goods & Services Food & Beverage
Company #26 (anonymised) 11 Oct 14:23 USA Consumer Goods & Services Not specified
Company #27 (anonymised) 11 Oct 14:23 Australia Healthcare Specialized Medicine
Company #28 (anonymised) 11 Oct 14:24 USA Real Estate & Construction Architecture & Design Firms
Company #29 (anonymised) 11 Oct 14:24 USA Real Estate & Construction Building Systems Controls & Facility Services
Company #14 (anonymised) 11 Oct 18:53 Canada Finance Not specified
Company #19 (anonymised) 11 Oct 18:53 USA Consumer Goods & Services Food & Beverage
Company #20 (anonymised) 11 Oct 18:54 USA Consumer Goods & Services Not specified
Company #21 (anonymised) 11 Oct 18:55 Australia Healthcare Specialized Medicine
Company #22 (anonymised) 11 Oct 18:55 USA Real Estate & Construction Architecture & Design Firms
Company #23 (anonymised) 11 Oct 18:56 USA Real Estate & Construction Building Systems Controls & Facility Services
Company #24 (anonymised) 11 Oct 20:53 USA Real Estate & Construction Building Systems Controls & Facility Services
Container terminal operator 12 Oct 13:53 Vietnam Transportation & Logistics Maritime Logistics
Container terminal operator 12 Oct 13:54 South Korea Transportation & Logistics Maritime Logistics
Port logistics IT provider 12 Oct 13:55 Indonesia Transportation & Logistics Maritime Logistics
Container terminal operator 12 Oct 13:55 Morocco Transportation & Logistics Maritime Logistics
Ferry and RoRo operator 12 Oct 13:56 Japan Transportation & Logistics Maritime Logistics
Ship management company 12 Oct 13:57 South Korea Transportation & Logistics Maritime Logistics
Terminal systems provider 12 Oct 13:57 Brazil Transportation & Logistics Maritime Logistics
Ferry operator 12 Oct 13:58 South Korea Transportation & Logistics Maritime Logistics
Inland container depot operator 12 Oct 13:59 South Korea Transportation & Logistics Maritime Logistics
Marine surveying and inspection firm 12 Oct 13:59 UK Transportation & Logistics Maritime Logistics
Logistics company 12 Oct 14:00 South Korea Transportation & Logistics Integrated Logistics
Oil tanker operator 12 Oct 14:01 South Korea Transportation & Logistics Maritime Logistics
Port agency 12 Oct 14:01 Indonesia Transportation & Logistics Maritime Logistics
Ship agency 12 Oct 14:02 South Korea Transportation & Logistics Maritime Logistics
Container terminal operator 12 Oct 14:03 Spain Transportation & Logistics Maritime Logistics
Container terminal operator 12 Oct 14:03 India Transportation & Logistics Maritime Logistics
Steel manufacturer 12 Oct 14:04 South Korea Materials Steel & Iron Products
Coastal shipping operator 12 Oct 14:05 Indonesia Transportation & Logistics Maritime Logistics
Port community IT provider 12 Oct 14:05 South Korea Transportation & Logistics Maritime Logistics
Port IT services provider 12 Oct 14:06 Kuwait Transportation & Logistics Maritime Logistics
Industrial port operator 12 Oct 14:06 Saudi Arabia Transportation & Logistics Maritime Logistics
Port terminal operator 12 Oct 14:07 Brazil Transportation & Logistics Maritime Logistics
Commodity processing and logistics group 12 Oct 14:08 Singapore Transportation & Logistics Maritime Logistics
Port consulting firm 12 Oct 14:08 Germany Transportation & Logistics Maritime Logistics
Container shipping line 12 Oct 14:09 Taiwan Transportation & Logistics Maritime Logistics
Container terminal operator 12 Oct 14:09 South Korea Transportation & Logistics Maritime Logistics
Container shipping line 12 Oct 14:10 China Transportation & Logistics Maritime Logistics
Shipping network operator 12 Oct 14:10 Netherlands Transportation & Logistics Maritime Logistics
Third-party logistics provider 12 Oct 14:11 Hong Kong Transportation & Logistics Third-Party Logistics (3PL)
Shipbuilder and ship manager 12 Oct 14:12 Japan Manufacturing Marine & Shipbuilding
Port machinery manufacturer 12 Oct 14:12 China Manufacturing Machinery & Heavy Equipment
Dry bulk shipping company 12 Oct 14:13 South Korea Transportation & Logistics Maritime Logistics
Container terminal operator 12 Oct 14:13 Brazil Transportation & Logistics Maritime Logistics
Port terminal operator 12 Oct 14:14 South Korea Transportation & Logistics Maritime Logistics
Container shipping line 12 Oct 14:14 Singapore Transportation & Logistics Maritime Logistics
Container terminal operator 12 Oct 14:15 Türkiye Transportation & Logistics Maritime Logistics
Port operator 12 Oct 14:15 Brazil Transportation & Logistics Maritime Logistics
Port agency 12 Oct 14:16 Indonesia Transportation & Logistics Maritime Logistics
Specialty retailer 13 Oct 10:55 USA Consumer Goods & Services Specialty Retail
Confectionery company 13 Oct 10:56 USA Consumer Goods & Services Food & Beverage