Karen IT Cyber Investigation

We Don't Just Find the Threat.
We Find Who Is Behind It.

Cyber investigation is the discipline of tracing digital crime to its source — identifying threat actors, mapping their infrastructure, documenting their methods, and building the evidentiary record that enables action.

Investigation Capabilities
🎯
Threat Actor Attribution

Identifying who is responsible — built from corroborated technical indicators

🕸️
Infrastructure Mapping

Tracing the full operational footprint of a threat actor's network

🎣
Phishing Campaign Investigation

Full campaign analysis — kit, infrastructure, actor, and related domains

📧
Business Email Compromise

Full attack chain investigation across multiple jurisdictions

🏷️
Domain & Brand Abuse

Scope, attribution, and evidence for takedown and legal action

🦠
Malware Infrastructure Investigation

C2 mapping, actor correlation, and disruption coordination

Understanding the Discipline

Three Disciplines.
One Coordinated Process.

These three capabilities are often conflated. They are not the same thing, and confusing them leads to investigations that are either too slow, too narrow, or inadmissible.

Discipline 01 Time is primary

Incident Response

Focused on stopping the bleeding. When something is actively wrong — a network is compromised, ransomware is spreading, a service is down — Incident Response is the immediate, operational reaction. The goal is containment and recovery.

→ Learn about our Incident Response service
Discipline 02 Accuracy is primary

Digital Forensics

Focused on what happened and proving it. Forensics is the disciplined collection and analysis of digital evidence — disk images, memory captures, network logs, file system artifacts. The goal is a documented, verifiable, legally defensible record.

→ Learn about our Digital Forensics service
Discipline 03 Intelligence is primary

Cyber Investigation

Focused on who did it and how. Investigation connects the dots across infrastructure, registrar records, threat intelligence databases, behavioral patterns, and historical data to identify threat actors and build a picture that supports attribution and action.

→ You are here
All three disciplines work in parallel during major incidents. Investigation without Forensics produces attribution without proof. Forensics without Investigation produces evidence without context. Karen IT provides all three — and coordinates them as a unified process when the scope of a case demands it.
Investigation Capabilities

From a Single Suspicious Domain to a Full Threat Actor Profile.

Cyber investigations vary widely in scope and starting point. Some begin with a single malicious URL. Others begin after a breach. What they share is the need for systematic, intelligence-driven analysis that goes beyond what automated tools can produce.

🎯

Threat Actor Attribution

Identifying who is responsible for a cyber attack, fraud campaign, or malicious infrastructure operation

Analyzing technical indicators — IP addresses, domain registration patterns, SSL certificates, code signatures, operational timing — and cross-referencing them against threat intelligence databases, historical records, and open-source intelligence to build a profile of the actor or group responsible. Attribution is built incrementally from corroborated indicators. We document every step of the reasoning chain so conclusions can be reviewed, challenged, and presented in formal proceedings.
OSINT WHOIS correlation Passive DNS Certificate transparency ASN analysis
🕸️

Infrastructure Mapping

Identifying the full operational footprint of a threat actor's infrastructure

Threat actors build infrastructure designed to be resilient, disposable, and difficult to trace — hosting providers, bulletproof services, domain clusters, redirectors, and C2 servers. We trace outward from known indicators using our CTI platform's domain hunting capabilities, passive DNS data, WHOIS correlation, and certificate transparency logs to uncover the full network — domains registered at the same time, IPs sharing infrastructure, certificates issued to related entities.
Domain hunting Infrastructure clustering Cert transparency Hosting attribution
🎣

Phishing Campaign Investigation

Full campaign analysis beyond URL blacklisting

We analyze the full campaign: the kit used, its hosting infrastructure, the domains registered for this campaign and related ones, the actor's operational patterns, and — where possible — the identity of the actor behind it. Our KitWatch repository and image clustering system allow us to identify kit reuse across campaigns run by the same actor, even when the surface indicators change completely.
Kit analysis Image clustering Campaign correlation Actor profiling
📧

Business Email Compromise (BEC) Investigation

Full attack chain investigation across multiple jurisdictions

BEC attacks are among the most financially damaging and hardest to investigate without specialist capability. Our process covers the full attack chain: the spoofed or compromised email account, the infrastructure used to send and receive messages, the financial trail where accessible, and the attribution indicators that connect the attack to known actors or patterns.
Email header analysis Infrastructure tracing Financial trail Multi-jurisdiction
🏷️

Domain & Brand Abuse Investigation

Scope, attribution, and evidence for takedown and legal action

When an organization discovers brand impersonation — fake domains, lookalike sites, fraudulent social media accounts — investigation is needed before takedown can proceed effectively. We map the full scope: how many domains, when registered, who registered them, what infrastructure they share, and whether they are part of a larger coordinated campaign. This enables targeted, comprehensive action rather than a reactive approach.
Brand monitoring Typosquatting detection Registrar evidence Takedown coordination
🦠

Malware Infrastructure Investigation

Mapping and disrupting the infrastructure behind malware campaigns

Investigation of the infrastructure behind malware is often more valuable than analysis of the malware itself. C2 servers, drop zones, exfiltration endpoints, and update mechanisms all represent infrastructure that can be mapped, attributed, and disrupted. We work from malware samples, network indicators, and passive DNS data to reconstruct the full operational infrastructure and identify related campaigns by the same actor.
C2 mapping Passive DNS Exfil endpoint tracing Actor correlation
Our Methodology

Investigations Are Not Linear.
Our Process Is.

Every investigation begins with a defined scope and objective. We do not conduct open-ended fishing exercises. Each engagement has a clear question we are working to answer, and a defined standard of evidence the output must meet.

01

Scoping & Objective Setting

Before any analysis begins, we establish what you are trying to determine and what you will do with the findings — law enforcement referral, civil legal action, takedown, or threat assessment. The end use shapes the methodology, the documentation standard, and the depth required.

02

Indicator Collection & Seeding

We begin with what is known — a domain, an IP address, an email header, a malware sample, a phishing URL, or any other initial indicator. These seeds are systematically expanded using our CTI platform, passive DNS, WHOIS correlation, certificate transparency logs, and open-source intelligence — always with a documented reasoning chain.

03

Infrastructure & Actor Analysis

As the indicator set grows, patterns emerge — infrastructure clusters, registration timing, shared hosting, certificate relationships, behavioral signatures. We analyze these patterns to build a picture of the actor's operational methodology: how they set up, how they operate, how they move when disrupted, and what they leave behind.

04

Cross-Reference & Validation

Every conclusion is cross-referenced against independent data sources before inclusion in the investigation output. We do not make attribution claims based on single indicators. We document the evidence base behind every finding and flag the confidence level — high confidence where multiple sources corroborate, assessed where consistent but not conclusive, speculative where noted as hypothesis.

05

Reporting & Handoff

Every investigation ends with a structured report — technical findings for security teams, executive summaries for leadership, evidentiary packages for legal proceedings, and structured intelligence for law enforcement submission. Where the investigation has generated actionable takedown intelligence, we coordinate submission and execution of takedown requests in parallel with the final report.

Working With Authorities

We Know How to Work With Law Enforcement.
Not Just Around Them.

Many organizations that experience cybercrime want to pursue legal action but don't know how to bridge the gap between their security team and the relevant law enforcement authorities. The gap is real.


Law enforcement agencies have specific requirements for how evidence must be collected, preserved, and submitted. Material that is not prepared to these standards — however technically accurate — will not be usable. Karen IT has established working relationships with national and international law enforcement bodies and structures our engagements accordingly from the outset.

Evidence packaging for law enforcement submission — structured, documented, and meeting chain-of-custody requirements

Technical liaison — translating complex technical findings into formats that investigators and prosecutors can work with

Cross-border coordination — identifying the correct jurisdictional authority and supporting the referral process

Coordination with INTERPOL, Europol, national CERTs, and regional cybercrime units where relevant to the case

Ongoing case support — providing additional analysis as an investigation develops on the law enforcement side

⚠️ Engage before you remediate. If you are considering legal action following a cyber incident or fraud, engage an investigation team before you begin incident remediation. Evidence preservation decisions made in the first hours of an incident determine what is available weeks later when a law enforcement referral is being prepared.
Our Clients

Investigation Is Needed When
Knowing What Happened Is Not Enough.

Organizations engage Karen IT for cyber investigation when they need to understand not just the technical details of an attack, but its origin, scope, and the identity of those responsible.

We discovered we were being impersonated

Fake domains, lookalike websites, or fraudulent social media profiles using your brand. You need to know how many exist, who registered them, and whether they are part of a coordinated campaign before you can take effective action.

We were targeted by a phishing campaign

Your customers, employees, or partners received phishing communications impersonating your organization. You need to understand the infrastructure behind the campaign and build the intelligence needed to support takedown.

We suffered a breach and want to know who

Following an intrusion, many organizations want to know who was responsible — to understand whether they remain a target, whether their sector is at risk, and what the attacker was ultimately trying to accomplish.

We are being targeted by organized fraud

Financial fraud, payment diversion, or account takeover at scale often follows patterns that connect to known actors or organized criminal networks. Understanding those connections changes both the defensive response and the options for legal recourse.

We need to support a legal or regulatory process

Civil litigation, regulatory investigations, and insurance claims all require documented technical findings. Our investigation output is structured from the outset to meet these requirements.

We believe our infrastructure is being abused

Registrars, hosting providers, and technology platforms that discover their infrastructure is being used to facilitate cybercrime need rapid, technically authoritative investigation to support takedown decisions.

What Organizations Ask Us

Before You Engage,
You Probably Have These Questions.

It depends entirely on scope and complexity. Simple infrastructure investigations — mapping the domains and hosting behind a single phishing campaign — can be completed in days. Attribution investigations involving sophisticated actors, multiple campaigns, and cross-border infrastructure can take weeks. We establish a realistic timeline during the scoping conversation and communicate changes as the investigation develops.
We start with whatever you have. A single suspicious domain, an email header, a malware sample, a phishing URL, an IP address — any of these is a viable starting point. The richer the initial indicator set, the faster we can move, but we have investigated cases that began with a single email.
No. Attribution in cybercrime investigation is a matter of evidence quality and confidence level, not certainty. We document the evidence behind every conclusion and clearly state the confidence level of each finding. Where attribution cannot be established with sufficient confidence, we say so — and we document why, and what additional evidence would be required to reach a higher confidence level.
Our investigation methodology is designed to be non-alerting wherever possible. We do not make direct contact with threat actor infrastructure in ways that could signal an investigation is underway. Where active investigation actions could theoretically be observed, we discuss the risk and timing with you before proceeding.
Yes. Many of our investigation engagements are collaborative — we work alongside an organization's internal security team, providing specialist investigation capability that complements their knowledge of their own environment. We define the division of responsibilities at the outset.
Cross-border jurisdiction is one of the most common challenges in cybercrime investigation. We have experience working across jurisdictions and can advise on which authorities are relevant, what the referral process looks like, and what evidence standards apply. Where appropriate, we support the referral directly.
All data accessed during an investigation engagement is handled under strict confidentiality obligations. We operate on a need-to-know basis within our team and do not retain client data beyond the scope of the engagement. Investigation data is handled with the same chain-of-custody discipline as forensic evidence.

Attribution Doesn't Happen by Itself.
Neither Does Justice.

Cyber investigation is difficult, time-consuming, and specialist work. The organizations that pursue it successfully are the ones that engage the right capability early — before evidence degrades, before the actor moves their infrastructure, and before the window for action closes.