The screen dump shows that it was under the GPL v2.
The GPL gives permission to use the code, so nobody can claim that they used it without permission, not even the author.
The GPL requires that the source of the derived work be distributed to the _users_ of the software along with binaries, in a timely manner, upon _user_ request.
The GPL doesn't require to distribute the source widely, only to the _users_ of the binaries. Notice that those may be _paying_ users, and having paid for the binaries and obtained the sources, (GPL honored), the _paying_ users may be reluctant to redistribute the binary. If they do not redistribute the binary, they are in no obligation to redistribute the sources of the derived work.
Article 2)b) requires that the derived work be distributed under the GPLv2 license. Perhaps _paying_ _users_ received the derived work under a different license. Then they and the author could suit.
In conclusion, assuming HackerTeam didn't distribute their derived works software widely and for free, the only legal question is whether the _paying_ _users_ of HackerTearm's software received the sources of the derived work upon request in a timely manner. I'd guess courts would accept a lawsuit only from those users, and not from the author, given that AFAIK, the GPL v.2 was perfectly respected.
In this case, the __users__ were targets who had the software installed on their devices without their knowledge, right? Maybe they can sue because they didn't get a copy of the source code with their malware infection?
