Solid Trading B.V. Listed by N0n Ransomware Group: Ransomware Claim — What’s Alleged & What To Do

On October 18, 2026, the ransomware group known as N0n listed Solid Trading B.V., a Netherlands-based firm in FX liquidity and trading technology, on its leak site. The listing is an unverified accusation from the group. Solid Trading B.V. has not publicly confirmed the claim as of writing. Public detail on timing, method, scale, and exact contents remains limited to what the group has posted.

Leak-site listings are pressure tactics. They do not by themselves prove that systems were compromised, that files left the company, or that any particular records are in third-party hands. Readers should treat the claims as claims and weigh practical steps only if their own relationship to the firm makes the conditional risk relevant.

What is being claimed

According to the listing, N0n has named Solid Trading B.V. and marked the entry in terms that indicate the group presents material as exposed and unpaid. The reported summary on the listing describes the firm as operating in FX liquidity and trading technology in the Netherlands. The group claims to hold material it characterises as live client trading records (order and execution data for banks and institutions trading through the firm, with amounts and account identifiers); a client database (companies, platform users with password hashes, credit limits, clearing paths and fee schedules); FIX venue session configurations, including login credentials for liquidity providers; and trade history and bank matching audit records.

Those descriptions are the group’s own marketing language on the leak site, not an independent inventory. The number of people affected is unknown. How any intrusion would have occurred, when it would have begun or ended, and whether any files were actually copied are not established in public reporting beyond the listing itself. The company has not publicly confirmed the claim as of writing.

Who is N0n?

N0n appears in public reporting as a ransomware and extortion actor that uses leak sites to name organisations and threaten publication of material it says it holds. Groups in this category typically combine encryption or data theft claims with timed disclosure pressure, and they often post sample descriptions meant to persuade victims and third parties that the threat is real. Their posts are not audited disclosures; they are part of an extortion narrative.

Well-documented patterns for such actors include listing company names, sector tags, and purported data categories, sometimes with “exposed” or payment-status labels. None of that pattern converts a listing into confirmed fact about a specific victim. For this case, the only incident-specific assertions available in the given record are those on N0n’s listing about Solid Trading B.V.; nothing in the public facts independently verifies them.

About Solid Trading B.V.

Solid Trading B.V. is identified in the listing context as a Netherlands organisation in FX liquidity and trading technology—work that typically sits between banks, institutions, and electronic trading venues. Firms in this sector often operate platforms and connectivity that handle order flow, execution, credit and clearing arrangements, and technical sessions with liquidity providers.

A credible compromise in that environment would matter because the same systems that move markets also hold identifiers, commercial terms, and technical access details that counterparties and staff rely on. That sector context explains why a leak-site claim draws attention; it does not establish that Solid Trading B.V. was breached or that any particular dataset left its control. The listing alone does not prove operational failure or success at the company.

What data was at risk

The structured public record does not independently confirm exposed data types; named categories come from the group’s listing text. N0n claims the material includes live client trading records with order and execution detail, amounts, and account identifiers; client and platform-user related records including password hashes, credit limits, clearing paths, and fee schedules; FIX venue session configurations and related login credentials for liquidity providers; and trade history and bank matching audit records. Exact contents, completeness, and authenticity are unconfirmed.

If files of the kinds such firms typically hold were taken, organisations in FX liquidity and trading technology commonly retain counterparty and user identifiers, commercial limits and fee terms, execution and audit trails, and technical session configuration for venue connectivity. Password hashes, if present in any stolen set, are not the same as cleartext passwords but can still support cracking attempts where weak credentials were used. None of this should be read as a statement that those items were in fact allegedly stolen from Solid Trading B.V.—only as conditional sector context while the group’s inventory remains unverified.

Why it matters

For banks, institutions, and platform users who trade through a firm like this, the conditional risk is misuse of trading, account, or commercial detail if the group’s claims were accurate—for example fraud attempts that reference real order patterns, social engineering that cites credit or clearing arrangements, or attempts to abuse technical session information. Password hashes, if involved, raise credential-stuffing and password-reuse risk on other services. For the organisation, an extortion listing can create reputational and contractual pressure even when facts are unsettled.

A leak-site post establishes that a named group chose to accuse a named company. It does not establish volume of records, identity of every affected person, or that data is circulating beyond the actors’ control. People affected remain unknown in the public facts. Calm verification beats assuming the worst or dismissing the claim outright.

If your data was involved

If you have a relationship with Solid Trading B.V. or its trading platforms and you are concerned the listing could relate to you, treat the situation as conditional and take measured steps:

• Watch for unexpected messages that reference trades, accounts, limits, or fees and verify them through channels you already trust—not links or contacts supplied in unsolicited mail.
• If you used a password on any related platform, change it where you still can, and stop reusing that password elsewhere; enable multi-factor authentication on email and financial accounts.
• Monitor bank and brokerage statements for unfamiliar activity; report anomalies through official support paths.
• Be cautious of follow-on phishing that cites this listing as urgency bait.
• Prefer primary notices from the company or regulators over screenshots from leak sites.

You can run a free exposure scan of your email to check whether your information has surfaced in known breach data. That kind of check looks only for matches in datasets already collected for that purpose; it cannot confirm or deny N0n’s specific claims about Solid Trading B.V. Public detail remains limited to an unverified listing dated October 18, 2026, and the company has not publicly stated the incident as of writing.

AICompiled with AI assistance from public sources and published under our editorial standards.