Abstract:Australian broker ThinkMarkets suffers a Chaos ransomware attack; 512GB of sensitive company and client data leaked online.

Australian online brokerage ThinkMarkets has been listed as a victim of a ransomware attack by a group calling itself Chaos, which claims to have stolen and leaked 512 gigabytes of sensitive data.
The group posted ThinkMarkets on its dark web extortion site on 8 December, alongside another unnamed victim. The leaked files appear to include human resources records, client disputes, legal advice, company policies, and trading information. Cyber Daily reporters also observed passport scans of employees and know-your-customer (KYC) documents belonging to clients.
ThinkMarkets has not issued a public statement or responded to requests for comment.

Chaos is a relatively new ransomware group, first detected in February 2025, and has claimed 28 victims to date. Analysts at Talos Intelligence describe the group as active on Russian-language hacking forums, where it promotes its ransomware and recruits affiliates.
The malware is advertised as compatible with Windows, ESXi, Linux, and NAS systems, offering features such as individual file encryption keys, rapid encryption speeds, and network resource scanning. Chaos also provides an automated management panel for affiliates, requiring a paid entry fee that is refunded after the first ransom payment.
The group has stated it avoids targeting BRICS/CIS countries, hospitals, and government entities, focusing instead on corporate victims.
Headquartered in Melbourne, ThinkMarkets operates globally with offices in the Middle East, South Africa, Europe, and the United States. Originally launched as ThinkForex in 2012 under regulation by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC), the firm rebranded as ThinkMarkets in 2016.
The company markets itself as a provider of innovative online trading services, offering clients advanced tools, educational resources, and customer support.


This Trading Pro broker review checks the FCA warning, Indonesia blocklist evidence, licence claims, and what South Asian users should verify before depositing.
The visible fee in an MT4 white label proposal is rarely the real cost of operating it. For an existing broker, the decision is not simply whether an MT4 white label platform is “cheap” or “expensive.” The real question is whether the commercial model remains viable after integration, support, data, client migration, compliance, and exit costs are included. That is why an MT4 white label cost review should be built as a 24- to 36-month operating case. It should compare three credible choices: 1. Keep the present MT4 setup and improve its weakest controls. 2. Replace the MT4 white label provider but retain the client proposition. 3. Migrate selected clients or products to another platform while running MT4 in parallel. This guide explains how to build that case without relying on headline prices or generic vendor claims.

The decision to switch white label providers or migrate to a modern white label trading platform is no longer a luxury for growth-minded brokers—it's a strategic necessity for survival in 2026. The convergence of technological stagnation, regulatory evolution, and shifting client expectations has created a perfect storm.

ABET, a Bulgaria-based brokerage firm, faces severe allegations from users for the reportedly inefficient way it handles their funds. While some alleged illegitimate account blocks by the broker, others reported fund scams and trade manipulations. These ABET reviews have raised question marks over the broker’s legitimacy.