Former Huntress analyst alleges insider contact with ransomware group; company disputes claim

A public dispute has emerged between cybersecurity firm Huntress and a former employee who says the company concealed an insider-related security issue involving a ransomware group.

The controversy began after Huntress disclosed it had been affected by a supply-chain breach at Klue, noting that it was among the many customers impacted and saying it aims to be transparent about incidents. Former security operations analyst Ben Folland responded on social media, but his comments focused on an earlier dispute rather than the Klue event.

What the former employee alleges

Folland, who left Huntress in February, says he resigned over what he described as a conflict of interest and personal reasons. In posts on LinkedIn, he claimed he learned in December that another Huntress employee had forwarded communications from U.S. law enforcement to a cybercriminal known as DevMan, a ransomware actor that has publicly targeted him and his family.

He also alleged that the company has been trying to keep the matter quiet and suggested that concerns about reputation and an upcoming initial public offering influenced its response. Folland said he plans to release supporting material, including communications with the FBI and internal company messages, over the coming weeks.

How Huntress responded

Huntress CEO Kyle Hanslovan, responding through a spokesperson and later on Reddit, rejected the idea that the company had prioritized an IPO over customer safety. He said a former employee raised concerns about a teammate’s “poor judgment” in communicating with a cybercriminal, but added that security researchers sometimes need to interact with suspected threat actors to collect intelligence that helps customers and partners.

Hanslovan said the company has taken the concerns seriously and must also protect the privacy of employees involved in the matter and any related investigation. He added that if new information changes Huntress’s assessment, the company will act quickly.

What remains unclear

• Whether the alleged insider conduct amounted to wrongdoing or an authorized intelligence-gathering effort.
• What role, if any, law enforcement communications played in the case.
• Whether Huntress will issue a formal public statement beyond the comments already provided.

As of publication, the dispute remains unresolved, and the two sides offer sharply different accounts of what happened.