The Olympic Games are more than just a massive celebration of sports; they’re a high-stakes business. Officially, the projected economic impact of the Winter Games — which kicked off on February 6 in Italy — is estimated at 5.3 billion euros. A lion’s share of that revenue is expected to come from fans flocking in from around the globe — with over 2.5 million tourists predicted to visit Italy. Meanwhile, those staying home are tuning in via TV and streaming. According to the platforms, viewership ratings are already hitting their highest peaks since 2014.

But while athletes are grinding for medals and the world is glued to every triumph and heartbreak, a different set of “competitors” has entered the arena to capitalize on the hype and the trust of eager fans. Cyberscammers of all stripes have joined an illegal race for the gold, knowing full well that a frenzy is a fraudster’s best friend.

Kaspersky experts have tracked numerous fraudulent schemes targeting fans during these Winter Games. Here’s how to avoid frustration in the form of fake tickets, non-existent merch, and shady streams, so you can keep your money and personal data safe.

Tickets to nowhere

The most popular scam on this year’s circuit is the sale of non-existent tickets. Usually, there are far fewer seats at the rinks and slopes than there are fans dying to see the main events. In a supply-and-demand crunch, folks scramble for any chance to snag those coveted passes, and that’s when phishing sites — clones of official vendors — come to the “rescue”. Using these, bad actors fish for fans’ payment details to either resell them on the dark web or drain their accounts immediately.

Remember: tickets for any Olympic event are sold only through the authorized Olympic platform or its listed partners. Any third-party site or seller outside the official channel is a scammer. We’re putting that play in the penalty box!

A fake goalie mitt, a counterfeit stick…

Dreaming of a Sydney Sweeney — sorry, Sidney Crosby — jersey? Or maybe you want a tracksuit with the official Games logo? Scammers have already set up dozens of fake online stores just for you! To pull off the heist, they use official logos, convincing photos, and padded rave reviews. You pay, and in return, you get… well, nothing but a transaction alert and your card info stolen.

I want my Olympic TV!

What if you prefer watching the action from the comfort of your couch rather than trekking from stadium to stadium, but you’re not exactly thrilled about paying for a pricey streaming subscription? Maybe there’s a free stream out there?

Sure thing! Five seconds of searching and your screen is flooded with dozens of “cheap”, “exclusive”, or even “free” live streams. They’ve got everything from figure skating to curling. But there’s a catch: for some reason — even though it’s supposedly free — a pop-up appears asking for your credit card details.

You type them in and hit “Play”, but instead of the long-awaited free skate program, you end up on a webcam ad site or somewhere even sketchier. The result: no show for you. At best, you were just used for traffic arbitrage; at worst, they now have access to your bank account. Either way, it’s a major bummer.

Defensive tactics

Scammers have been ripping off sports fans for years, and their payday depends entirely on how well they can mimic official portals. To stay safe, fans should mount a tiered defense: install reliable security software to block phishing, and keep a sharp eye on every URL you visit. If something feels even slightly off, never, ever enter your personal or payment info.

• Stick to authorized channels for tickets. Steer clear of third-party resellers and always double-check info on the official Olympic website.
• Use legitimate streaming services. Read the reviews and don’t hand over your credit card details to unverified sites.
• Be wary of Olympic merch and gift vendors. Don’t get baited by “exclusive” offers or massive discounts from unknown stores. Only buy from official retail partners.
• Avoid links in emails, direct messages, texts, or ads offering free tickets, streams, promo codes, or prize giveaways.
• Deploy a robust security solution. For instance, Kaspersky Premium automatically shuts down phishing attempts and blocks dangerous websites, malicious ads, and credit card skimmers in real time.

Want to see how sports fans were targeted in the past? Check out our previous posts:

• Summer scams in Paris
• How to watch soccer safely
• Soccer Cyberthreats

AI tool Vercel was abused by cybercriminals to create a Malwarebytes lookalike website.

Cybercriminals no longer need design or coding skills to create a convincing fake brand site. All they need is a domain name and an AI website builder. In minutes, they can clone a site’s look and feel, plug in payment or credential-stealing flows, and start luring victims through search, social media, and spam.

One side effect of being an established and trusted brand is that you attract copycats who want a slice of that trust without doing any of the work. Cybercriminals have always known it is much easier to trick users by impersonating something they already recognize than by inventing something new—and developments in AI have made it trivial for scammers to create convincing fake sites.​​

Registering a plausible-looking domain is cheap and fast, especially through registrars and resellers that do little or no upfront vetting. Once attackers have a name that looks close enough to the real thing, they can use AI-powered tools to copy layouts, colors, and branding elements, and generate product pages, sign-up flows, and FAQs that look “on brand.”

A flood of fake “official” sites

Data from recent holiday seasons shows just how routine large-scale domain abuse has become.

Over a three‑month period leading into the 2025 shopping season, researchers observed more than 18,000 holiday‑themed domains with lures like “Christmas,” “Black Friday,” and “Flash Sale,” with at least 750 confirmed as malicious and many more still under investigation. In the same window, about 19,000 additional domains were registered explicitly to impersonate major retail brands, nearly 3,000 of which were already hosting phishing pages or fraudulent storefronts.

These sites are used for everything from credential harvesting and payment fraud to malware delivery disguised as “order trackers” or “security updates.”

Attackers then boost visibility using SEO poisoning, ad abuse, and comment spam, nudging their lookalike sites into search results and promoting them in social feeds right next to the legitimate ones. From a user’s perspective, especially on mobile without the hover function, that fake site can be only a typo or a tap away.​

When the impersonation hits home

A recent example shows how low the barrier to entry has become.

We were alerted to a site at installmalwarebytes[.]org that masqueraded from logo to layout as a genuine Malwarebytes site.

Close inspection revealed that the HTML carried a meta tag value pointing to v0 by Vercel, an AI-assisted app and website builder.

The tool lets users paste an existing URL into a prompt to automatically recreate its layout, styling, and structure—producing a near‑perfect clone of a site in very little time.

The history of the imposter domain tells an incremental evolution into abuse.

Registered in 2019, the site did not initially contain any Malwarebytes branding. In 2022, the operator began layering in Malwarebytes branding while publishing Indonesian‑language security content. This likely helped with search reputation while normalizing the brand look to visitors. Later, the site went blank, with no public archive records for 2025, only to resurface as a full-on clone backed by AI‑assisted tooling.​

Traffic did not arrive by accident. Links to the site appeared in comment spam and injected links on unrelated websites, giving users the impression of organic references and driving them toward the fake download pages.

Payment flows were equally opaque. The fake site used PayPal for payments, but the integration hid the merchant’s name and logo from the user-facing confirmation screens, leaving only the buyer’s own details visible. That allowed the criminals to accept money while revealing as little about themselves as possible.

Behind the scenes, historical registration data pointed to an origin in India and to a hosting IP (209.99.40[.]222) associated with domain parking and other dubious uses rather than normal production hosting.

Combined with the AI‑powered cloning and the evasive payment configuration, it painted a picture of low‑effort, high‑confidence fraud.

AI website builders as force multipliers

The installmalwarebytes[.]org case is not an isolated misuse of AI‑assisted builders. It fits into a broader pattern of attackers using generative tools to create and host phishing sites at scale.

Threat intelligence teams have documented abuse of Vercel’s v0 platform to generate fully functional phishing pages that impersonate sign‑in portals for a variety of brands, including identity providers and cloud services, all from simple text prompts. Once the AI produces a clone, criminals can tweak a few links to point to their own credential‑stealing backends and go live in minutes.

Research into AI’s role in modern phishing shows that attackers are leaning heavily on website generators, writing assistants, and chatbots to streamline the entire kill chain—from crafting persuasive copy in multiple languages to spinning up responsive pages that render cleanly across devices. One analysis of AI‑assisted phishing campaigns found that roughly 40% of observed abuse involved website generation services, 30% involved AI writing tools, and about 11% leveraged chatbots, often in combination. This stack lets even low‑skilled actors produce professional-looking scams that used to require specialized skills or paid kits.​

Growth first, guardrails later

The core problem is not that AI can build websites. It’s that the incentives around AI platform development are skewed. Vendors are under intense pressure to ship new capabilities, grow user bases, and capture market share, and that pressure often runs ahead of serious investment in abuse prevention.

As Malwarebytes General Manager Mark Beare put it:

“AI-powered website builders like Lovable and Vercel have dramatically lowered the barrier for launching polished sites in minutes. While these platforms include baseline security controls, their core focus is speed, ease of use, and growth—not preventing brand impersonation at scale. That imbalance creates an opportunity for bad actors to move faster than defenses, spinning up convincing fake brands before victims or companies can react.”

Site generators allow cloned branding of well‑known companies with no verification, publishing flows skip identity checks, and moderation either fails quietly or only reacts after an abuse report. Some builders let anyone spin up and publish a site without even confirming an email address, making it easy to burn through accounts as soon as one is flagged or taken down.

To be fair, there are signs that some providers are starting to respond by blocking specific phishing campaigns after disclosure or by adding limited brand-protection controls. But these are often reactive fixes applied after the damage is done.

Meanwhile, attackers can move to open‑source clones or lightly modified forks of the same tools hosted elsewhere, where there may be no meaningful content moderation at all.

In practice, the net effect is that AI companies benefit from the growth and experimentation that comes with permissive tooling, while the consequences is left to victims and defenders.

We have blocked the domain in our web protection module and requested a domain and vendor takedown.

How to stay safe

End users cannot fix misaligned AI incentives, but they can make life harder for brand impersonators. Even when a cloned website looks convincing, there are red flags to watch for:

• Before completing any payment, always review the “Pay to” details or transaction summary. If no merchant is named, back out and treat the site as suspicious.
• Use an up-to-date, real-time anti-malware solution with a web protection module.
• Do not follow links posted in comments, on social media, or unsolicited emails to buy a product. Always follow a verified and trusted method to reach the vendor.

If you come across a fake Malwarebytes website, please let us know.

---

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.

Unit 42 reveals new infrastructure associated with the Notepad++ attack. This expands understanding of threat actor operations and malware delivery.

The post Nation-State Actors Exploit Notepad++ Supply Chain appeared first on Unit 42.

As the agentic era reshapes security operations, leaders face a strategic inflection point: legacy security information and event management (SIEM) solutions and fragmented toolchains can no longer keep pace with the scale, speed, and complexity of modern cyberthreats. Organizations can choose to spend the next year tuning and integrating their SIEM stack—or simplify the architecture and let a unified platform do the heavy lifting. If they choose a platform, it should make it inexpensive to ingest and retain more telemetry, automatically shape that data into analysis‑ready form, and enrich it with graph‑driven intelligence so both analysts and AI can quickly understand what matters and why. The strategic SIEM buyer’s guide outlines what decision‑makers should look for as they build a future‑ready security operations center (SOC). Read on for a preview of key concepts covered in the guide.

Build a unified, future-proof foundation

As organizations step into the agentic AI era, the priority shifts to establishing a security foundation that can absorb rapid change without adding operational drag. That requires an architecture built for flexibility—one that brings security data, analytics, and response capabilities together rather than scattering them across aging infrastructure. A unified, cloud‑native platform gives security teams the structural advantage of consistent visibility, elastic scale, and a single source of truth for both human analysts and AI systems. By consolidating core functions into one environment, leaders can modernize the SOC in a deliberate, sustainable way while positioning their teams to capitalize on emerging AI‑powered security capabilities.

Accelerate detection and response with AI

As cyberthreats evolve faster than traditional workflows can manage, the advantage shifts to SOCs that can elevate detection and response with adaptive automation. Modern platforms augment analysts with real‑time correlation, automated investigation, and adaptive orchestration that reduces manual steps and shortens exposure windows. By standardizing access to high‑quality security data and enabling agents to act on that context, organizations improve precision, reduce noise, and transition from reactive triage to continuous, intelligence‑driven response. This shift not only accelerates outcomes but frees teams to focus on higher‑value threat hunting and strategic risk reduction.

Maximize return on investment and accelerate time to value

Driving measurable value is now a leadership imperative, and modern SIEM platforms must deliver results without protracted deployments or heavy reliance on specialized expertise. AI-ready solutions reduce onboarding friction through prebuilt connectors, embedded analytics, and turnkey content that produce meaningful detection coverage within hours—not months.

“Microsoft Sentinel’s ease of use means we can go ahead and deploy our solutions much faster. It means we can get insights into how things are operating more quickly.”

—Director of IT in the healthcare industry

By consolidating core workflows into a single environment, organizations avoid the hidden costs of operating multiple tools and shorten the path from implementation to impact. As adaptive AI optimizes configurations, prioritizes coverage gaps, and streamlines operations, security leaders gain a clearer return on investment while reallocating resources toward strategic risk reduction instead of maintenance and integration work. AI‑ready solutions reduce onboarding friction through pre‑built connectors, embedded analytics, and turnkey content that produce meaningful detection coverage within hours—not months.

Turning guidance into action with Microsoft

The guide also outlines where Microsoft Sentinel delivers meaningful advantages for modern SOC leaders—from its cloud‑native scale and unified data foundation to integrated SIEM, security orchestration, automation, and response (SOAR), extended detection and response (XDR), and advanced analytics in a single AI‑ready platform. It includes practical tips for evaluating vendors, highlighting the importance of unification, cloud‑native elasticity, and avoiding fragmented add‑ons that drive hidden costs. Together, the three essentials—building a unified foundation, accelerating detection and response with AI, and maximizing return on investment through rapid time to value—establish a clear roadmap for modernizing security operations.

Read The strategic SIEM buyer’s guide for the full analysis, vendor considerations, and detailed guidance on selecting an AI‑ready platform for the agentic era.

Learn more

Learn more about Microsoft Sentinel or discover more about Microsoft Unified SecOps.

To learn more about Microsoft Security solutions, visit our website. Bookmark the Security blog to keep up with our expert coverage on security matters. Also, follow us on LinkedIn (Microsoft Security) and X (@MSFTSecurity) for the latest news and updates on cybersecurity.

The post The strategic SIEM buyer’s guide: Choosing an AI-ready platform for the agentic era appeared first on Microsoft Security Blog.

AI is transforming cybersecurity, but without skilled people to manage it, organizations can increase risk. Learn how AI, training, and certifications must work together to close the cybersecurity skills gap.

As Valentine’s Day 2026 approaches, people are turning to online shopping, digital dating, and last‑minute gift ideas. Unfortunately, cyber criminals are doing the same. Check Point researchers have identified a sharp rise in Valentine‑themed phishing websites, fraudulent stores, and fake dating platforms designed to steal personal data and payment information. A Seasonal Spike in Valentine-Themed Domains From March to December 2025, new Valentine-related domains averaged 474 per month. But in January 2026, registrations jumped to 696 — a 44% increase. In just the first five days of February, researchers detected 152 additional domains, a further 36% rise in daily average […]

The post Love Is in the Air — and So Are Scammers: Valentine’s Day 2026 Threats to Watch For appeared first on Check Point Blog.

The post N-Day Vulnerability Trends: The Shrinking Window of Exposure and the Rise of “Turn-Key” Exploitation appeared first on Flashpoint.

We often describe cases of malware distribution under the guise of game cheats and pirated software. Sometimes such methods are used to spread complex malware that employs advanced techniques and sophisticated infection chains.

In February 2026, researchers from Howler Cell announced the discovery of a mass campaign distributing pirated games infected with a previously unknown family of malware. It turned out to be a loader called RenEngine, which was delivered to the device using a modified version of the Ren’Py engine-based game launcher. Kaspersky solutions detect the RenEngine loader as Trojan.Python.Agent.nb and HEUR:Trojan.Python.Agent.gen.

However, this threat is not new. Our solutions began detecting the first samples of the RenEngine loader in March 2025, when it was used to distribute the Lumma stealer (Trojan-PSW.Win32.Lumma.gen).

In the ongoing incidents, ACR Stealer (Trojan-PSW.Win32.ACRstealer.gen) is being distributed as the final payload. We have been monitoring this campaign for a long time and will share some details in this article.

Incident analysis

Disguise as a visual novel

Let’s look at the first incident, which we detected in March 2025. At that time, the attackers distributed the malware under the guise of a hacked game on a popular gaming web resource.

The website featured a game download page with two buttons: Free Download Now and Direct Download. Both buttons had the same functionality: they redirected users to the MEGA file-sharing service, where they were offered to download an archive with the “game.”

When the “game” was launched, the download process would stop at 100%. One might think that the game froze, but that was not the case — the “real” malicious code just started working.

“Game” source files analysis

After analyzing the source files, we found Python scripts that initiated the initial device infection. These scripts imitated the endless loading of the game. In addition, they contained the is_sandboxed function for bypassing the sandbox and xor_decrypt_file for decrypting the malicious payload. Using the latter, the script decrypts the ZIP archive, unpacks its contents into the .temp directory, and launches the unpacked files.

There are five files in the .temp directory. The DKsyVGUJ.exe executable is not malicious. Its original name is Ahnenblatt4.exe, and it is a well-known legitimate application for organizing genealogical data. The borlndmm.dll library also does not contain malicious code; it implements the memory manager required to run the executable. Another library, cc32290mt.dll, contains a code snippet patched by attackers that intercepts control when the application is launched and deploys the first stage of the payload in the process memory.

HijackLoader

The dbghelp.dll system library is used as a “container” to launch the first stage of the payload. It is overwritten in memory with decrypted shellcode obtained from the gayal.asp file using the cc32290mt.dll library. The resulting payload is HijackLoader. This is a relatively new means of delivering and deploying malicious implants. A distinctive feature of this malware family is its modularity and configuration flexibility. HijackLoader was first detected and described in the summer of 2023. More detailed information about this loader is available to customers of the Kaspersky Intelligence Reporting Service.

The final payload can be delivered in two ways, depending on the configuration parameters of the malicious sample. The main HijackLoader ti module is used to launch and prepare the process for the final payload injection. In some cases, an additional module is also used, which is injected into an intermediate process launched by the main one. The code that performs the injection is the same in both cases.

Before creating a child process, the configuration parameters are encrypted using XOR and saved to the %TEMP% directory with a random name. The file name is written to the system environment variables.

In the analyzed sample, the execution follows a longer path with an intermediate child process, cmd.exe. It is created in suspended mode by calling the auxiliary module modCreateProcess. Then, using the ZwCreateSection and ZwMapViewOfSection system API calls, the code of the same dbghelp.dll library is loaded into the address space of the process, after which it intercepts control.

Next, the ti module, launched inside the child process, reads the hap.eml file, from which it decrypts the second stage of HijackLoader. The module then loads the pla.dll system library and overwrites the beginning of its code section with the received payload, after which it transfers control to this library.

The decrypted payload is an EXE file, and the configuration parameters are set to inject it into the explorer.exe child process. The payload is written to the memory of the child process in several stages:

1. First, the malicious payload is written to a temporary file on disk using the transaction mechanism provided by the Windows API. The payload is written in several stages and not in the order in which the data is stored in the file. The MZ signature, with which any PE file begins, is written last with a delay.
   
   

   Writing the payload to a temporary file

2. After that, the payload is loaded from the temporary file into the address space of the current process using the ZwCreateSection call. The transaction that wrote to the file is rolled back, thus deleting the temporary file with the payload.
3. Next, the sample uses the modCreateProcess module to launch the child process explorer.exe and injects the payload into it by creating a shared memory region with the ZwMapViewOfSection call.
   
   

   Payload injection into the child process

   
   Another HijackLoader module, rshell, is used to launch the shellcode. Its contents are also injected into the child process, replacing the code located at its entry point.
   
   

   The rshell module injection

4. The last step performed by the parent process is starting a thread in the child process by calling ZwResumeThread. After that, the thread starts executing the rshell module code placed at the child process entry point, and the parent process terminates.

   The rshell module prepares the final malicious payload. Once it has finished, it transfers control to another HijackLoader module called ESAL. It replaces the contents of rshell with zeros using the memset function and launches the final payload, which is a stealer from the Lumma family (Trojan-PSW.Win32.Lumma).

In addition to the modules described above, this HijackLoader sample contains the following modules, which were used at intermediate stages: COPYLIST, modTask, modUAC, and modWriteFile.
Kaspersky solutions detect HijackLoader with the verdicts Trojan.Win32.Penguish and Trojan.Win32.DllHijacker.

Not only games

In addition to gaming sites, we found that attackers created dozens of different web resources to distribute RenEngine under the guise of pirated software. On one such site, for example, users can supposedly download an activated version of the CorelDRAW graphics editor.

When the user clicks the Descargar Ahora (“Download Now”) button, they are redirected several times to other malicious websites, after which an infected archive is downloaded to their device.

Distribution

According to our data, since March 2025, RenEngine has affected users in the following countries:

Distribution of incidents involving the RenEngine loader by country (TOP 20), February 2026 (download)

The distribution pattern of this loader suggests that the attacks are not targeted. At the time of publication, we have recorded the highest number of incidents in Russia, Brazil, Türkiye, Spain, and Germany.

Recommendations for protection

The format of game archives is generally not standardized and is unique for each game. This means that there is no universal algorithm for unpacking and checking the contents of game archives. If the game engine does not check the integrity and authenticity of executable resources and scripts, such an archive can become a repository for malware if modified by attackers. Despite this, Kaspersky Premium protects against such threats with its Behavior Detection component.

The distribution of malware under the guise of pirated software and hacked games is not a new tactic. It is relatively easy to avoid infection by the malware described in this article: simply install games and programs from trusted sites. In addition, it is important for gamers to remember the need to install specialized security solutions. This ongoing campaign employs the Lumma and ACR stylers, and Vidar was also found — none of these are new threats, but rather long-known malware. This means that modern antivirus technologies can detect even modified versions of the above-mentioned stealers and their alternatives, preventing further infection.

Indicators of compromise

12EC3516889887E7BCF75D7345E3207A – setup_game_8246.zip
D3CF36C37402D05F1B7AA2C444DC211A – __init.py__
1E0BF40895673FCD96A8EA3DDFAB0AE2 – cc32290mt.dll
2E70ECA2191C79AD15DA2D4C25EB66B9 – Lumma Stealer

hxxps://hentakugames[.]com/country-bumpkin/
hxxps://dodi-repacks[.]site
hxxps://artistapirata[.]fit
hxxps://artistapirata[.]vip
hxxps://awdescargas[.]pro
hxxps://fullprogramlarindir[.]me
hxxps://gamesleech[.]com
hxxps://parapcc[.]com
hxxps://saglamindir[.]vip
hxxps://zdescargas[.]pro
hxxps://filedownloads[.]store
hxxps://go[.]zovo[.]ink

Lumma C2
hxxps://steamcommunity[.]com/profiles/76561199822375128
hxxps://localfxement[.]live
hxxps://explorebieology[.]run
hxxps://agroecologyguide[.]digital
hxxps://moderzysics[.]top
hxxps://seedsxouts[.]shop
hxxps://codxefusion[.]top
hxxps://farfinable[.]top
hxxps://techspherxe[.]top
hxxps://cropcircleforum[.]today

Welcome to Issue #145 of Detection Engineering Weekly!

✍️ Musings from the life of Zack:

• I’ve been tinkering a ton with Anthropic’s Opus 4.6, and the agentic swarm mode is gratifying and terrifying to watch in action. I recommend trying it out!

• My life the last two weeks have been sickness and travel. I got COVID before my office visit trip in NY (I went in negative!), came home, got a sinus infection 2 days later and I’m sitting here writing this with a fever. Go figure.

• For those who watched the Superbowl: When the Patriots lose, America wins.

Sponsor: runZero

Master KEV Prioritization with Evidence-Based Intelligence

The CISA KEV Catalog tells you what to patch, but not how urgently or why it matters to your environment. 68% of KEV entries need additional context to prioritize effectively, yet most teams patch in order without understanding true operational risk.

A new KEVology report by former CISA KEV Section Chief Tod Beardsley reveals what KEV entries actually mean for defenders. Plus, the free KEV Collider tool from runZero helps you prioritize based on evidence, not assumptions.

Get The Report

💎 Detection Engineering Gem 💎

The Detection Engineering Baseline: Hypothesis and Structure (Part 1) by Brandon Lyons

Baselining is an overused term in this field because, at least in my experience, it’s a hand-wavy marketing term. You’ll read about a product that’ll perform baselines of your behavior and environment, and it’ll alert you if it detects something abnormal or outside that baseline. In practice, this works, but the opaqueness of some of these methods makes it hard to understand how it happens.

This is why posts like Lyons help cut through the opaqueness and show the receipts of how to do this in practice. And to be honest, it’s nothing groundbreaking, only in the sense that the concepts Lyons proposes here are part of entry-level statistics literacy. Which is why I’m pretty opinionated on the engineer of detection engineer. Don’t get it twisted: although the concepts in this post are entry-level statistics, understanding the application requires deep security expertise.

Lyons lays out a 7-step, repeatable process to establish a detection baseline, quoted here:

• Backtesting of rule logic: Validate your detection against historical data before deploying

• Codified thought process: Document why you chose specific thresholds and methods

• Historical context: Capture what your environment looked like when the baseline was created

• Reproducible process: Enable re-running when tuning or validating detection logic

• Foundation for the ADS: Feed directly into your Alerting Detection Strategy documentation

• Cross-team collaboration fuel: Surface insecure patterns and workflows with data-backed evidence

• Threat hunting runway: When alert precision isn’t achievable, convert the baseline into a scheduled hunt

This process succinctly captures a well-thought-out detection process. Without data, how can anyone possibly deploy detections that will fire? Without context around that data, how can anyone possibly believe the rules that are firing outside of the baseline?

They step through the 7 steps here using a CloudTrail API example. Basically, Lyons tries to map out what anomalous behavior looks like for CloudTrail access across an environment. The statistics section focuses on a modified Z-Score. Here’s the rundown:

Security metrics (API calls per day, login attempts per hour, file accesses) approximate a normal distribution (a bell curve), especially when aggregated over time. This means that:

• Most values cluster around the median (middle value)

• Extreme values become increasingly rare as you move away from the center

• The distribution is symmetric

To establish a baseline, Lyons collects historical data, such as 30 days of activity, and computes two key statistics:

• Median - the middle value

• MAD (Median Absolute Deviation) - measures spread around the median

When a new value enters your queue, you compute the Modified Z-score, which is the distance-via-standard-deviation of that value from the median. Modified Z-score is really good at capturing outliers, versus the regular Z-score, which focuses on standard deviations from the mean, and can be sensitive to outliers.

An outlier can be, according to Lyons, creating administrative credentials at 3am to an abnormal amount of S3 bucket accesses, perhaps used for exfiltration. Here’s a graphic I prompted Claude to create to drive this point home:

This type of rigor removes the guessing game about whether events are absolute measurements. Is 1000 API calls weird, or is 100? Is 10 pm an acceptable window for Administrator access, or is 5 pm? By looking at the standard deviations away from the median, you focus on relative measurement. It removes the human judgment about the absolute weirdness of an event, and whenever you remove a human from a large data problem, you get a bit closer to sanity.

Lyons created a follow-along Jupyter notebook with synthetic data to recreate the measurements in his blog. I’ll link that repository below in the Open Source section!

🔬 State of the Art

Building a Production-Ready Snowflake Audit Log Pipeline to S3 by xcal

Centralizing logs to your SIEM is a full-time endeavor, and requires expertise in so many areas, such as:

• Data formats of the logs you are extracting, transforming, and loading into the SIEM

• Telemetry source peculiarities, such as APIs, subsystems on hosts, or weird licensing issues

• Choosing a technology stack that can normalize logs and send them into the SIEM

• Navigating technological barriers due to inherent design choices, especially between data lakes or SaaS products

This is why I really enjoyed reading this post about moving audit log data from Snowflake into a SIEM. It focuses on the software engineering component of detection engineering, because many of the design choices made inside this post are things that you’ll hear about on a Software Engineering interview.

The first half of this blog details the design choices behind moving data from Snowflake to S3 and then to a SIEM, with clear architectural “gotchas” you need to design around. The most interesting one to me is the watermark strategy.

Snowflake audit logs have built-in latency. An event can occur at 12:00, but the audit log does not appear until 12:03. You use a watermark to pull the oldest events up to the last event you saw. For example, a watermark of 12:00 means you processed events up to 11:59. This watermark doesn’t work if you focus only on the timestamp generated, so you try to use it to focus on what you’ve observed.

In the purple example, 3 export runs for logs came in, and the watermark is updated based on the export time. When the “late arrival” log comes in, the watermark is later than the data's arrival time, so the log is lost forever. In the second yellow example, this is fixed by looking at the maximum observed time in the logs, not at the time the export is run.

What’s beautiful about this blog, too, is how it sets up a “configuration-as-data” design pattern. They use a statically stored procedure for the export logic and a table that maps the target View, such as SESSION or LOGIN, to the timestamp used to perform the watermark.

This design choice makes it easy to add more views, VIEW_NAME, specify a target timestamp, TS_COLUMN_NAME, then store the watermark in LAST_TS. A singular INSERT into the EXPORT_WATERMARK table adds additional Audit logs views to export, without changing the code.

Detection Rule Fragility: Design Pitfalls Every Detection Engineer Must Know by SOCLabs

Detection rule fragility occurs when your rules become too precise for a single detection scenario and miss variants that achieve the same outcome. In this post, SOCLabs details several “gotcha” scenarios on the command line where classic detection on strings can be circumvented by operating-system-level trickery.

My favorite examples they list involve URL detection with cURL. There’s something about the concept of URL parsing that is so fascinating on the operating system level, because it’s a little known attack path that can have some hilarious results. For example, if you want some light reading, check out RFC3986 - Uniform Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax.

Let’s say you write a rule to detect a local IP address, such as http://192.168.x.x Your operating system and browser parses it, and can navigate to it, so you write a rule to detect local subnet usage in cURL. But you can also write http://192.168. as hex, http://0xC0.0xA, or even octal, http://0300.0250. So, did you write a rule for those? :)

How I Use LLMs for Security Work by Josh Rickard

This is a cool, battle-tested approach by Rickard for prompting an LLM to do security work. I think people can become overwhelmed by what to prompt an LLM, because they are generally really good at taking vanilla prompt sessions and running with whatever work you assign them. But, as your work gets more complex, there are some nifty strategies you can use, and Rickard lays out, to make the best use of what they have to offer.

Giving context is probably the biggest takeaway here, so Rickard describes the concept of role-stacking, explains your technology stack, clarifies the current understanding of the ask, and gives it time to execute the ask.

What AI Really Looks Like Inside the SOC: Notes from a Fireside Chat by Daniel Santiago

In this post, Santiago shares his notes around a SOC fireside chat they attended during a Simply Cyber event. The cool part of his synopsis was seeing the “ground reality” of AI working and not working in a SOC environment. Most of the insights aren’t surprising to me, but it’s good to hear it validate some of our feelings. For example, Santiago points out how these agents raise the baseline for analysts, rather than replace them.

☣️ Threat Landscape

Beyond the Battlefield: Threats to the Defense Industrial Base by Google Threat Intelligence Group (GTIG)

The GTIG group published a large survey of threats they are tracking against Defense firms and organizations, such as contractors, critical infrastructure and government entities. They have four large takeaways and specify which threat actor groups are part of these takeaways:

• Targeting of critical infrastructure by Russian-nexus threat actor groups to introduce physical and security effects

• Hiring of fake IT Workers and DPRK’s focus on espionage using IT workers and malware campaigns

• China-nexus threat actors representing the largest campaigns targeting these sectors by volume

• An uptick of data leak sites and extortion groups against manufacturing firms that may supply the defense industrial base

VoidLink: Dissecting an AI-Generated C2 Implant by Rhys Downing

VoidLink is a post-exploitation and implant framework that focuses on cloud-native infrastructure. It was in the headlines around a month ago, and the main headline was that it was likely LLM-generated. Downing pulled apart the payloads and tried to confirm this finding, so it’s nice to see proof rather than believing the hype. The fun part is that within the binary, several clues suggested it was LLM-generated, primarily in the code comments.

According to Downing, and I tend to agree here, adding comments to your malware seems like a rookie move because you want operational security and anti-research capabilities, so this likely suggests it’s LLM-generated and the operators were careless.

New Clickfix variant ‘CrashFix’ deploying Python Remote Access Trojan by Microsoft Defender Security Research Team

Microsoft Security Research uncovered a new style of ClickFix social engineering techniques, dubbed CrashFix. When a victim is funneled to the malicious site, they are tricked to thinking their computer is crashing, and are directed to run the malicious payload.

The rest of the campaign is well-researched, but nothing particularly different from other ClickFix and infostealer campaigns. I imagine we’ll continue to see these social engineering threats evolve until we blow up command-line access for people and move to something else. Perhaps Claude Cowork social engineering?

Malicious use of virtual machine infrastructure by Sophos Counter Threat Unit Research Team

This piece by the Sophos Threat Research Team began with a security incident in which they uncovered attacker infrastructure with unique Windows hostnames. When the team dug into these hostnames, they found they were out-of-the-box names from a legitimate IT provider, ISPSystem. At first, it seemed like a single actor was leveraging ISPSystem to quickly deploy infrastructure, but when the team pivoted to Shodan, they found several thousand instances of ISPSystem infrastructure in use across many different malware campaigns.

Windows hostnames are a cool pivot that I haven’t really seen much of in my years of threat research. This worked in Sophos’ favor because it’s virtual machine software that offers some ease of use for several threat actor groups.

ClawdBot Skills Just Ganked Your Crypto by Open Source Malware

This ClawdBot malware post is a little different from the VirusTotal one I posted last week, mostly because it shows some of the conversations to the creator of ClawdBot on X on removing them. Hint: it doesn’t look good, and you should avoid using these skills registries until they get much better security and governance practices in place.

🔗 Open Source

Btlyons1/Detection-Engineering-Baseline

Link to Brandon Lyon’s modified Z-score lab listed above in the Gem. Contains a Jupyter notebook to help readers follow along, as well as loads of synthetic data to try out the detections.

moltenbit/NotepadPlusPlus-Attack-Triage

PowerShell cmdlet to test if you ran a compromised version of NotepadPlusPlus from their incident announcement last week. It checks known IOCs, so it’s not a guarantee that they are still relevant or that a clean run means you weren’t compromised.

S1lkys/PhantomFS

This is a clever technique that abuses Windows ProjFS. ProjFS allows processes to project filesystems based on several attributes, so it’s used for things like OneDrive where you connect out to a drive hosted on a cloud provider. S1lkys built this in a way that it’ll project an encrypted payload, like Mimikatz, if it detects a source process coming from the command line versus EDR tools.

wardgate/wardgate

Wardgate is an Agentic proxy that stores secrets and API keys on your agent’s behalf. The idea here is that the Agent is aware it has API access to some external service, you have it use Wardgate, and Wardgate will serve as the API proxy. This is especially helpful if you are afraid of attacks on Agents that steal local or cached credentials.

praetorian-inc/augustus

August is an LLM penetration testing harness that integrates with dozens of LLMs. It has hundreds of attacks in 47 attack categories that you can let loose on models you are using from foundational labs, or some that you are training on top of the foundational models.

The year in figures

• 44.99% of all emails sent worldwide and 43.27% of all emails sent in the Russian web segment were spam
• 32.50% of all spam emails were sent from Russia
• Kaspersky Mail Anti-Virus blocked 144,722,674 malicious email attachments
• Our Anti-Phishing system thwarted 554,002,207 attempts to follow phishing links

Phishing and scams in 2025

Entertainment-themed phishing attacks and scams

In 2025, online streaming services remained a primary theme for phishing sites within the entertainment sector, typically by offering early access to major premieres ahead of their official release dates. Alongside these, there was a notable increase in phishing pages mimicking ticket aggregation platforms for live events. Cybercriminals lured users with offers of free tickets to see popular artists on pages that mirrored the branding of major ticket distributors. To participate in these “promotions”, victims were required to pay a nominal processing or ticket-shipping fee. Naturally, after paying the fee, the users never received any tickets.

In addition to concert-themed bait, other music-related scams gained significant traction. Users were directed to phishing pages and prompted to “vote for their favorite artist”, a common activity within fan communities. To bolster credibility, the scammers leveraged the branding of major companies like Google and Spotify. This specific scheme was designed to harvest credentials for multiple platforms simultaneously, as users were required to sign in with their Facebook, Instagram, or email credentials to participate.

As a pretext for harvesting Spotify credentials, attackers offered users a way to migrate their playlists to YouTube. To complete the transfer, victims were to just enter their Spotify credentials.

Beyond standard phishing, threat actors leveraged Spotify’s popularity for scams. In Brazil, scammers promoted a scheme where users were purportedly paid to listen to and rate songs.

To “withdraw” their earnings, users were required to provide their identification number for PIX, Brazil’s instant payment system.

Users were then prompted to verify their identity. To do so, the victim was required to make a small, one-time “verification payment”, an amount significantly lower than the potential earnings.

The form for submitting this “verification payment” was designed to appear highly authentic, even requesting various pieces of personal data. It is highly probable that this data was collected for use in subsequent attacks.

In another variation, users were invited to participate in a survey in exchange for a $1000 gift card. However, in a move typical of a scam, the victim was required to pay a small processing or shipping fee to claim the prize. Once the funds were transferred, the attackers vanished, and the website was taken offline.

Even deciding to go to an art venue with a girl from a dating site could result in financial loss. In this scenario, the “date” would suggest an in-person meeting after a brief period of rapport-building. They would propose a relatively inexpensive outing, such as a movie or a play at a niche theater. The scammer would go so far as to provide a link to a specific page where the victim could supposedly purchase tickets for the event.

To enhance the site’s perceived legitimacy, it even prompted the user to select their city of residence.

However, once the “ticket payment” was completed, both the booking site and the individual from the dating platform would vanish.

A similar tactic was employed by scam sites selling tickets for escape rooms. The design of these pages closely mirrored legitimate websites to lower the target’s guard.

Phishing pages masquerading as travel portals often capitalize on a sense of urgency, betting that a customer eager to book a “last-minute deal” will overlook an illegitimate URL. For example, the fraudulent page shown below offered exclusive tours of Japan, purportedly from a major Japanese tour operator.

Sensitive data at risk: phishing via government services

To harvest users’ personal data, attackers utilized a traditional phishing framework: fraudulent forms for document processing on sites posing as government portals. The visual design and content of these phishing pages meticulously replicated legitimate websites, offering the same services found on official sites. In Brazil, for instance, attackers collected personal data from individuals under the pretext of issuing a Rural Property Registration Certificate (CCIR).

Through this method, fraudsters tried to gain access to the victim’s highly sensitive information, including their individual taxpayer registry (CPF) number. This identifier serves as a unique key for every Brazilian national to access private accounts on government portals. It is also utilized in national databases and displayed on personal identification documents, making its interception particularly dangerous. Scammer access to this data poses a severe risk of identity theft, unauthorized access to government platforms, and financial exposure.

Furthermore, users were at risk of direct financial loss: in certain instances, the attackers requested a “processing fee” to facilitate the issuance of the important document.

Fraudsters also employed other methods to obtain CPF numbers. Specifically, we discovered phishing pages mimicking the official government service portal, which requires the CPF for sign-in.

Another theme exploited by scammers involved government payouts. In 2025, Singaporean citizens received government vouchers ranging from $600 to $800 in honor of the country’s 60th anniversary. To redeem these, users were required to sign in to the official program website. Fraudsters rushed to create web pages designed to mimic this site. Interestingly, the primary targets in this campaign were Telegram accounts, despite the fact that Telegram credentials were not a requirement for signing in to the legitimate portal.

We also identified a scam targeting users in Norway who were looking to renew or replace their driver’s licenses. Upon opening a website masquerading as the official Norwegian Public Roads Administration website, visitors were prompted to enter their vehicle registration and phone numbers.

Next, the victim was prompted for sensitive data, such as the personal identification number unique to every Norwegian citizen. By doing so, the attackers not only gained access to confidential information but also reinforced the illusion that the victim was interacting with an official website.

Once the personal data was submitted, a fraudulent page would appear, requesting a “processing fee” of 1200 kroner. If the victim entered their credit card details, the funds were transferred directly to the scammers with no possibility of recovery.

In Germany, attackers used the pretext of filing tax returns to trick users into providing their email user names and passwords on phishing pages.

A call to urgent action is a classic tactic in phishing scenarios. When combined with the threat of losing property, these schemes become highly effective bait, distracting potential victims from noticing an incorrect URL or a poorly designed website. For example, a phishing warning regarding unpaid vehicle taxes was used as a tool by attackers targeting credentials for the UK government portal.

We have observed that since the spring of 2025, there has been an increase in emails mimicking automated notifications from the Russian government services portal. These messages were distributed under the guise of application status updates and contained phishing links.

We also recorded vishing attacks targeting users of government portals. Victims were prompted to “verify account security” by calling a support number provided in the email. To lower the users’ guard, the attackers included fabricated technical details in the emails, such as the IP address, device model, and timestamp of an alleged unauthorized sign-in.

Last year, attackers also disguised vishing emails as notifications from microfinance institutions or credit bureaus regarding new loan applications. The scammers banked on the likelihood that the recipient had not actually applied for a loan. They would then prompt the victim to contact a fake support service via a spoofed support number.

Know Your Customer

As an added layer of data security, many services now implement biometric verification (facial recognition, fingerprints, and retina scans), as well as identity document verification and digital signatures. To harvest this data, fraudsters create clones of popular platforms that utilize these verification protocols. We have previously detailed the mechanics of this specific type of data theft.

In 2025, we observed a surge in phishing attacks targeting users under the guise of Know Your Customer (KYC) identity verification. KYC protocols rely on a specific set of user data for identification. By spoofing the pages of payment services such as Vivid Money, fraudsters harvested the information required to pass KYC authentication.

Notably, this threat also impacted users of various other platforms that utilize KYC procedures.

A distinctive feature of attacks on the KYC process is that, in addition to the victim’s full name, email address, and phone number, phishers request photos of their passport or face, sometimes from multiple angles. If this information falls into the hands of threat actors, the consequences extend beyond the loss of account access; the victim’s credentials can be sold on dark web marketplaces, a trend we have highlighted in previous reports.

Messaging app phishing

Account hijacking on messaging platforms like WhatsApp and Telegram remains one of the primary objectives of phishing and scam operations. While traditional tactics, such as suspicious links embedded in messages, have been well-known for some time, the methods used to steal credentials are becoming increasingly sophisticated.

For instance, Telegram users were invited to participate in a prize giveaway purportedly hosted by a famous athlete. This phishing attack, which masqueraded as an NFT giveaway, was executed through a Telegram Mini App. This marks a shift in tactics, as attackers previously relied on external web pages for these types of schemes.

In 2025, new variations emerged within the familiar framework of distributing phishing links via Telegram. For example, we observed prompts inviting users to vote for the “best dentist” or “best COO” in town.

The most prevalent theme in these voting-based schemes, children’s contests, was distributed primarily through WhatsApp. These phishing pages showed little variety; attackers utilized a standardized website design and set of “bait” photos, simply localizing the language based on the target audience’s geographic location.

To participate in the vote, the victim was required to enter the phone number linked to their WhatsApp account.

They were then prompted to provide a one-time authentication code for the messaging app.

The following are several other popular methods used by fraudsters to hijack user credentials.

In China, phishing pages meticulously replicated the WhatsApp interface. Victims were notified that their accounts had purportedly been flagged for “illegal activity”, necessitating “additional verification”.

The victim was redirected to a page to enter their phone number, followed by a request for their authorization code.

In other instances, users received messages allegedly from WhatsApp support regarding account authentication via SMS. As with the other scenarios described, the attackers’ objective was to obtain the authentication code required to hijack the account.

Fraudsters enticed WhatsApp users with an offer to link an app designed to “sync communications” with business contacts.

To increase the perceived legitimacy of the phishing site, the attackers even prompted users to create custom credentials for the page.

After that, the user was required to “purchase a subscription” to activate the application. This allowed the scammers to harvest credit card data, leaving the victim without the promised service.

To lure Telegram users, phishers distributed invitations to online dating chats.

Attackers also heavily leveraged the promise of free Telegram Premium subscriptions. While these phishing pages were previously observed only in Russian and English, the linguistic scope of these campaigns expanded significantly this year. As in previous iterations, activating the subscription required the victim to sign in to their account, which could result in the loss of account access.

Exploiting the ChatGPT hype

Artificial intelligence is increasingly being leveraged by attackers as bait. For example, we have identified fraudulent websites mimicking the official payment page for ChatGPT Plus subscriptions.

Social media marketing through LLMs was also a potential focal point for user interest. Scammers offered “specialized prompt kits” designed for social media growth; however, once payment was received, they vanished, leaving victims without the prompts or their money.

The promise of easy income through neural networks has emerged as another tactic to attract potential victims. Fraudsters promoted using ChatGPT to place bets, promising that the bot would do all the work while the user collected the profits. These services were offered at a “special price” valid for only 15 minutes after the page was opened. This narrow window prevented the victim from critically evaluating the impulse purchase.

Job opportunities with a catch

To attract potential victims, scammers exploited the theme of employment by offering high-paying remote positions. Applicants responding to these advertisements did more than just disclose their personal data; in some cases, fraudsters requested a small sum under the pretext of document processing or administrative fees. To convince victims that the offer was legitimate, attackers impersonated major brands, leveraging household names to build trust. This allowed them to lower the victims’ guard, even when the employment terms sounded too good to be true.

We also observed schemes where, after obtaining a victim’s data via a phishing site, scammers would follow up with a phone call – a tactic aimed at tricking the user into disclosing additional personal data.

By analyzing current job market trends, threat actors also targeted popular career paths to steal messaging app credentials. These phishing schemes were tailored to specific regional markets. For example, in the UAE, fake “employment agency” websites were circulating.

In a more sophisticated variation, users were asked to complete a questionnaire that required the phone number linked to their Telegram account.

To complete the registration, users were prompted for a code which, in reality, was a Telegram authorization code.

Notably, the registration process did not end there; the site continued to request additional information to “set up an account” on the fraudulent platform. This served to keep victims in the dark, maintaining their trust in the malicious site’s perceived legitimacy.

After finishing the registration, the victim was told to wait 24 hours for “verification”, though the scammers’ primary objective, hijacking the Telegram account, had already been achieved.

Simpler phishing schemes were also observed, where users were redirected to a page mimicking the Telegram interface. By entering their phone number and authorization code, victims lost access to their accounts.

Job seekers were not the only ones targeted by scammers. Employers’ accounts were also in the crosshairs, specifically on a major Russian recruitment portal. On a counterfeit page, the victim was asked to “verify their account” in order to post a job listing, which required them to enter their actual sign-in credentials for the legitimate site.

Spam in 2025

Malicious attachments

Password-protected archives

Attackers began aggressively distributing messages with password-protected malicious archives in 2024. Throughout 2025, these archives remained a popular vector for spreading malware, and we observed a variety of techniques designed to bypass security solutions.

For example, threat actors sent emails impersonating law firms, threatening victims with legal action over alleged “unauthorized domain name use”. The recipient was prompted to review potential pre-trial settlement options detailed in an attached document. The attachment consisted of an unprotected archive containing a secondary password-protected archive and a file with the password. Disguised as a legal document within this inner archive was a malicious WSF file, which installed a Trojan into the system via startup. The Trojan then stealthily downloaded and installed Tor, which allowed it to regularly exfiltrate screenshots to the attacker-controlled C2 server.

In addition to archives, we also encountered password-protected PDF files containing malicious links over the past year.

E-signature service exploits

Emails using the pretext of “signing a document” to coerce users into clicking phishing links or opening malicious attachments were quite common in 2025. The most prevalent scheme involved fraudulent notifications from electronic signature services. While these were primarily used for phishing, one specific malware sample identified within this campaign is of particular interest.

The email, purportedly sent from a well-known document-sharing platform, notified the recipient that they had been granted access to a “contract” attached to the message. However, the attachment was not the expected PDF; instead, it was a nested email file named after the contract. The body of this nested message mirrored the original, but its attachment utilized a double extension: a malicious SVG file containing a Trojan was disguised as a PDF document. This multi-layered approach was likely an attempt to obfuscate the malware and bypass security filters.

“Business correspondence” impersonating industrial companies

In the summer of last year, we observed mailshots sent in the name of various existing industrial enterprises. These emails contained DOCX attachments embedded with Trojans. Attackers coerced victims into opening the malicious files under the pretext of routine business tasks, such as signing a contract or drafting a report.

The authors of this malicious campaign attempted to lower users’ guard by using legitimate industrial sector domains in the “From” address. Furthermore, the messages were routed through the mail servers of a reputable cloud provider, ensuring the technical metadata appeared authentic. Consequently, even a cautious user could mistake the email for a genuine communication, open the attachment, and compromise their device.

Attacks on hospitals

Hospitals were a popular target for threat actors this past year: they were targeted with malicious emails impersonating well-known insurance providers. Recipients were threatened with legal action regarding alleged “substandard medical services”. The attachments, described as “medical records and a written complaint from an aggrieved patient”, were actually malware. Our solutions detect this threat as Backdoor.Win64.BrockenDoor, a backdoor capable of harvesting system information and executing malicious commands on the infected device.

We also came across emails with a different narrative. In those instances, medical staff were requested to facilitate a patient transfer from another hospital for ongoing observation and treatment. These messages referenced attached medical files containing diagnostic and treatment history, which were actually archives containing malicious payloads.

To bolster the perceived legitimacy of these communications, attackers did more than just impersonate famous insurers and medical institutions; they registered look-alike domains that mimicked official organizations’ domains by appending keywords such as “-insurance” or “-med.” Furthermore, to lower the victims’ guard, scammers included a fake “Scanned by Email Security” label.

Messages containing instructions to run malicious scripts

Last year, we observed unconventional infection chains targeting end-user devices. Threat actors continued to distribute instructions for downloading and executing malicious code, rather than attaching the malware files directly. To convince the recipient to follow these steps, attackers typically utilized a lure involving a “critical software update” or a “system patch” to fix a purported vulnerability. Generally, the first step in the instructions required launching the command prompt with administrative privileges, while the second involved entering a command to download and execute the malware: either a script or an executable file.

In some instances, these instructions were contained within a PDF file. The victim was prompted to copy a command into PowerShell that was neither obfuscated nor hidden. Such schemes target non-technical users who would likely not understand the command’s true intent and would unknowingly infect their own devices.

Scams

Law enforcement impersonation scams in the Russian web segment

In 2025, extortion campaigns involving actors posing as law enforcement – a trend previously more prevalent in Europe – were adapted to target users across the Commonwealth of Independent States.

For example, we identified messages disguised as criminal subpoenas or summonses purportedly issued by Russian law enforcement agencies. However, the specific departments cited in these emails never actually existed. The content of these “summonses” would also likely raise red flags for a cautious user. This blackmail scheme relied on the victim, in their state of panic, not scrutinizing the contents of the fake summons.

To intimidate recipients, the attackers referenced legal frameworks and added forged signatures and seals to the “subpoenas”. In reality, neither the cited statutes nor the specific civil service positions exist in Russia.

We observed similar attacks – employing fabricated government agencies and fictitious legal acts – in other CIS countries, such as Belarus.

Fraudulent investment schemes

Threat actors continued to aggressively exploit investment themes in their email scams. These emails typically promise stable, remote income through “exclusive” investment opportunities. This remains one of the most high-volume and adaptable categories of email scams. Threat actors embedded fraudulent links both directly within the message body and inside various types of attachments: PDF, DOC, PPTX, and PNG files. Furthermore, they increasingly leveraged legitimate Google services, such as Google Docs, YouTube, and Google Forms, to distribute these communications. The link led to the site of the “project” where the victim was prompted to provide their phone number and email. Subsequently, users were invited to invest in a non-existent project.

We have previously documented these mailshots: they were originally targeted at Russian-speaking users and were primarily distributed under the guise of major financial institutions. However, in 2025, this investment-themed scam expanded into other CIS countries and Europe. Furthermore, the range of industries that spammers impersonated grew significantly. For instance, in their emails, attackers began soliciting investments for projects supposedly led by major industrial-sector companies in Kazakhstan and the Czech Republic.

Fraudulent “brand partner” recruitment

This specific scam operates through a multi-stage workflow. First, the target company receives a communication from an individual claiming to represent a well-known global brand, inviting them to register as a certified supplier or business partner. To bolster the perceived authenticity of the offer, the fraudsters send the victim an extensive set of forged documents. Once these documents are signed, the victim is instructed to pay a “deposit”, which the attackers claim will be fully refunded once the partnership is officially established.

These mailshots were first detected in 2025 and have rapidly become one of the most prevalent forms of email-based fraud. In December 2025 alone, we blocked over 80,000 such messages. These campaigns specifically targeted the B2B sector and were notable for their high level of variation – ranging from their technical properties to the diversity of the message content and the wide array of brands the attackers chose to impersonate.

Fraudulent overdue rent notices

Last year, we identified a new theme in email scams: recipients were notified that the payment deadline for a leased property had expired and were urged to settle the “debt” immediately. To prevent the victim from sending funds to their actual landlord, the email claimed that banking details had changed. The “debtor” was then instructed to request the new payment information – which, of course, belonged to the fraudsters. These mailshots primarily targeted French-speaking countries; however, in December 2025, we discovered a similar scam variant in German.

QR codes in scam letters

In 2025, we observed a trend where QR codes were utilized not only in phishing attempts but also in extortion emails. In a classic blackmail scam, the user is typically intimidated by claims that hackers have gained access to sensitive data. To prevent the public release of this information, the attackers demand a ransom payment to their cryptocurrency wallet.

Previously, to bypass email filters, scammers attempted to obfuscate the wallet address by using various noise contamination techniques. In last year’s campaigns, however, scammers shifted to including a QR code that contained the cryptocurrency wallet address.

News agenda

As in previous years, spammers in 2025 aggressively integrated current events into their fraudulent messaging to increase engagement.

For example, following the launch of $TRUMP memecoins surrounding Donald Trump’s inauguration, we identified scam campaigns promoting the “Trump Meme Coin” and “Trump Digital Trading Cards”. In these instances, scammers enticed victims to click a link to claim “free NFTs”.

We also observed ads offering educational credentials. Spammers posted these ads as comments on legacy, unmoderated forums; this tactic ensured that notifications were automatically pushed to all users subscribed to the thread. These notifications either displayed the fraudulent link directly in the comment preview or alerted users to a new post that redirected them to spammers’ sites.

In the summer, when the wedding of Amazon founder Jeff Bezos became a major global news story, users began receiving Nigerian-style scam messages purportedly from Bezos himself, as well as from his former wife, MacKenzie Scott. These emails promised recipients substantial sums of money, framed either as charitable donations or corporate compensation from Amazon.

During the BLACKPINK world tour, we observed a wave of spam advertising “luggage scooters”. The scammers claimed these were the exact motorized suitcases used by the band members during their performances.

Finally, in the fall of 2025, traditionally timed to coincide with the launch of new iPhones, we identified scam campaigns featuring surveys that offered participants a chance to “win” a fictitious iPhone 17 Pro.

After completing a brief survey, the user was prompted to provide their contact information and physical address, as well as pay a “delivery fee” – which was the scammers’ ultimate objective. Upon entering their credit card details into the fraudulent site, the victim risked losing not only the relatively small delivery charge but also the entire balance in their bank account.

The widespread popularity of Ozempic was also reflected in spam campaigns; users were bombarded with offers to purchase versions of the drug or questionable alternatives.

Localized news events also fall under the scrutiny of fraudsters, serving as the basis for scam narratives. For instance, last summer, coinciding with the opening of the tax season in South Africa, we began detecting phishing emails impersonating the South African Revenue Service (SARS). These messages notified taxpayers of alleged “outstanding balances” that required immediate settlement.

Methods of distributing email threats

Google services

In 2025, threat actors increasingly leveraged various Google services to distribute email-based threats. We observed the exploitation of Google Calendar: scammers would create an event containing a WhatsApp contact number in the description and send an invitation to the target. For instance, companies received emails regarding product inquiries that prompted them to move the conversation to the messaging app to discuss potential “collaboration”.

Spammers employed a similar tactic using Google Classroom. We identified samples offering SEO optimization services that likewise directed victims to a WhatsApp number for further communication.

We also detected the distribution of fraudulent links via legitimate YouTube notifications. Attackers would reply to user comments under various videos, triggering an automated email notification to the victim. This email contained a link to a video that displayed only a message urging the viewer to “check the description”, where the actual link to the scam site was located. As the victim received an email containing the full text of the fraudulent comment, they were often lured through this chain of links, eventually landing on the scam site.

Over the past two years or so, there has been a significant rise in attacks utilizing Google Forms. Fraudsters create a survey with an enticing title and place the scam messaging directly in the form’s description. They then submit the form themselves, entering the victims’ email addresses into the field for the respondent email. This triggers legitimate notifications from the Google Forms service to the targeted addresses. Because these emails originate from Google’s own mail servers, they appear authentic to most spam filters. The attackers rely on the victim focusing on the “bait” description containing the fraudulent link rather than the standard form header.

Google Groups also emerged as a popular tool for spam distribution last year. Scammers would create a group, add the victims’ email addresses as members, and broadcast spam through the service. This scheme proved highly effective: even if a security solution blocked the initial spam message, the user could receive a deluge of automated replies from other addresses on the member list.

At the end of 2025, we encountered a legitimate email in terms of technical metadata that was sent via Google and contained a fraudulent link. The message also included a verification code for the recipient’s email address. To generate this notification, scammers filled out the account registration form in a way that diverted the recipient’s attention toward a fraudulent site. For example, instead of entering a first and last name, the attackers inserted text such as “Personal Link” followed by a phishing URL, utilizing noise contamination techniques. By entering the victim’s email address into the registration field, the scammers triggered a legitimate system notification containing the fraudulent link.

OpenAI

In addition to Google services, spammers leveraged other platforms to distribute email threats, notably OpenAI, riding the wave of artificial intelligence popularity. In 2025, we observed emails sent via the OpenAI platform into which spammers had injected short messages, fraudulent links, or phone numbers.

This occurs during the account registration process on the OpenAI platform, where users are prompted to create an organization to generate an API key. Spammers placed their fraudulent content directly into the field designated for the organization’s name. They then added the victims’ email addresses as organization members, triggering automated platform invitations that delivered the fraudulent links or contact numbers directly to the targets.

Spear phishing and BEC attacks in 2025

QR codes

The use of QR codes in spear phishing has become a conventional tactic that threat actors continued to employ throughout 2025. Specifically, we observed the persistence of a major trend identified in our previous report: the distribution of phishing documents disguised as notifications from a company’s HR department.

In these campaigns, attackers impersonated HR team members, requesting that employees review critical documentation, such as a new corporate policy or code of conduct. These documents were typically attached to the email as PDF files.

To maintain the ruse, the PDF document contained a highly convincing call to action, prompting the user to scan a QR code to access the relevant file. While attackers previously embedded these codes directly into the body of the email, last year saw a significant shift toward placing them within attachments – most likely in an attempt to bypass email security filters.

Upon scanning the QR code within the attachment, the victim was redirected to a phishing page meticulously designed to mimic a Microsoft authentication form.

In addition to fraudulent HR notifications, threat actors created scheduled meetings within the victim’s email calendar, placing DOC or PDF files containing QR codes in the event descriptions. Leveraging calendar invites to distribute malicious links is a legacy technique that was widely observed during scam campaigns in 2019. After several years of relative dormancy, we saw a resurgence of this technique last year, now integrated into more sophisticated spear phishing operations.

In one specific example, the attachment was presented as a “new voicemail” notification. To listen to the recording, the user was prompted to scan a QR code and sign in to their account on the resulting page.

As in the previous scenario, scanning the code redirected the user to a phishing page, where they risked losing access to their Microsoft account or internal corporate sites.

Link protection services

Threat actors utilized more than just QR codes to hide phishing URLs and bypass security checks. In 2025, we discovered that fraudsters began weaponizing link protection services for the same purpose. The primary function of these services is to intercept and scan URLs at the moment of clicking to prevent users from reaching phishing sites or downloading malware. However, attackers are now abusing this technology by generating phishing links that security systems mistakenly categorize as “safe”.

This technique is employed in both mass and spear phishing campaigns. It is particularly dangerous in targeted attacks, which often incorporate employees’ personal data and mimic official corporate branding. When combined with these characteristics, a URL generated through a legitimate link protection service can significantly bolster the perceived authenticity of a phishing email.

After opening a URL that seemed safe, the user was directed to a phishing site.

BEC and fabricated email chains

In Business Email Compromise (BEC) attacks, threat actors have also begun employing new techniques, the most notable of which is the use of fake forwarded messages.

This BEC attack unfolded as follows. An employee would receive an email containing a previous conversation between the sender and another colleague. The final message in this thread was typically an automated out-of-office reply or a request to hand off a specific task to a new assignee. In reality, however, the entire initial conversation with the colleague was completely fabricated. These messages lacked the thread-index headers, as well as other critical header values, that would typically verify the authenticity of an actual email chain.

In the example at hand, the victim was pressured to urgently pay for a license using the provided banking details. The PDF attachments included wire transfer instructions and a counterfeit cover letter from the bank.

The bank does not actually have an office at the address provided in the documents.

Statistics: phishing

In 2025, Kaspersky solutions blocked 554,002,207 attempts to follow fraudulent links. In contrast to the trends of previous years, we did not observe any major spikes in phishing activity; instead, the volume of attacks remained relatively stable throughout the year, with the exception of a minor decline in December.

Anti-Phishing triggers, 2025 (download)

The phishing and scam landscape underwent a shift. While in 2024, we saw a high volume of mass attacks, their frequency declined in 2025. Furthermore, redirection-based schemes, which were frequently used for online fraud in 2024, became less prevalent in 2025.

Map of phishing attacks

As in the previous year, Peru remains the country with the highest percentage (17.46%) of users targeted by phishing attacks. Bangladesh (16.98%) took second place, entering the TOP 10 for the first time, while Malawi (16.65%), which was absent from the 2024 rankings, was third. Following these are Tunisia (16.19%), Colombia (15.67%), the latter also being a newcomer to the TOP 10, Brazil (15.48%), and Ecuador (15.27%). They are followed closely by Madagascar and Kenya, both with a 15.23% share of attacked users. Rounding out the list is Vietnam, which previously held the third spot, with a share of 15.05%.

Country/territory	Share of attacked users**
Peru	17.46%
Bangladesh	16.98%
Malawi	16.65%
Tunisia	16.19%
Colombia	15.67%
Brazil	15.48%
Ecuador	15.27%
Madagascar	15.23%
Kenya	15.23%
Vietnam	15.05%

** Share of users who encountered phishing out of the total number of Kaspersky users in the country/territory, 2025

Top-level domains

In 2025, breaking a trend that had persisted for several years, the majority of phishing pages were hosted within the XYZ TLD zone, accounting for 21.64% – a three-fold increase compared to 2024. The second most popular zone was TOP (15.45%), followed by BUZZ (13.58%). This high demand can be attributed to the low cost of domain registration in these zones. The COM domain, which had previously held the top spot consistently, fell to fourth place (10.52%). It is important to note that this decline is partially driven by the popularity of typosquatting attacks: threat actors frequently spoof sites within the COM domain by using alternative suffixes, such as example-com.site instead of example.com. Following COM is the BOND TLD, entering the TOP 10 for the first time with a 5.56% share. As this zone is typically associated with financial websites, the surge in malicious interest there is a logical progression for financial phishing. The sixth and seventh positions are held by ONLINE (3.39%) and SITE (2.02%), which occupied the fourth and fifth spots, respectively, in 2024. In addition, three domain zones that had not previously appeared in our statistics emerged as popular hosting environments for phishing sites. These included the CFD domain (1.97%), typically used for websites in the clothing, fashion, and design sectors; the Polish national top-level domain, PL (1.75%); and the LOL domain (1.60%).

Most frequent top-level domains for phishing pages, 2025 (download)

Organizations targeted by phishing attacks

The rankings of organizations targeted by phishers are based on detections by the Anti-Phishing deterministic component on user computers. The component detects all pages with phishing content that the user has tried to open by following a link in an email message or on the web, as long as links to these pages are present in the Kaspersky database.

Phishing pages impersonating web services (27.42%) and global internet portals (15.89%) maintained their positions in the TOP 10, continuing to rank first and second, respectively. Online stores (11.27%), a traditional favorite among threat actors, returned to the third spot. In 2025, phishers showed increased interest in online gamers: websites mimicking gaming platforms jumped from ninth to fifth place (7.58%). These are followed by banks (6.06%), payment systems (5.93%), messengers (5.70%), and delivery services (5.06%). Phishing attacks also targeted social media (4.42%) and government services (1.77%) accounts.

Distribution of targeted organizations by category, 2025 (download)

Statistics: spam

Share of spam in email traffic

In 2025, the average share of spam in global email traffic was 44.99%, representing a decrease of 2.28 percentage points compared to the previous year. Notably, contrary to the trends of the past several years, the fourth quarter was the busiest one: an average of 49.26% of emails were categorized as spam, with peak activity occurring in November (52.87%) and December (51.80%). Throughout the rest of the year, the distribution of junk mail remained relatively stable without significant spikes, maintaining an average share of approximately 43.50%.

Share of spam in global email traffic, 2025 (download)

In the Russian web segment (Runet), we observed a more substantial decline: the average share of spam decreased by 5.3 percentage points to 43.27%. Deviating from the global trend, the fourth quarter was the quietest period in Russia, with a share of 41.28%. We recorded the lowest level of spam activity in December, when only 36.49% of emails were identified as junk. January and February were also relatively calm, with average values of 41.94% and 43.09%, respectively. Conversely, the Runet figures for March–October correlated with global figures: no major surges were observed, spam accounting for an average of 44.30% of total email traffic during these months.

Share of spam in Runet email traffic, 2025 (download)

Countries and territories where spam originated

The top three countries in the 2025 rankings for the volume of outgoing spam mirror the distribution of the previous year: Russia, China, and the United States. However, the share of spam originating from Russia decreased from 36.18% to 32.50%, while the shares of China (19.10%) and the U.S. (10.57%) each increased by approximately 2 percentage points. Germany rose to fourth place (3.46%), up from sixth last year, displacing Kazakhstan (2.89%). Hong Kong followed in sixth place (2.11%). The Netherlands and Japan shared the next spot with identical shares of 1.95%; however, we observed a year-over-year increase in outgoing spam from the Netherlands, whereas Japan saw a decline. The TOP 10 is rounded out by Brazil (1.94%) and Belarus (1.74%), the latter ranking for the first time.

TOP 20 countries and territories where spam originated in 2025 (download)

Malicious email attachments

In 2025, Kaspersky solutions blocked 144,722,674 malicious email attachments, an increase of nineteen million compared to the previous year. The beginning and end of the year were traditionally the most stable periods; however, we also observed a notable decline in activity during August and September. Peaks in email antivirus detections occurred in June, July, and November.

Email antivirus detections, 2025 (download)

The most prevalent malicious email attachment in 2025 was the Makoob Trojan family, which covertly harvests system information and user credentials. Makoob first entered the TOP 10 in 2023 in eighth place, rose to third in 2024, and secured the top spot in 2025 with a share of 4.88%. Following Makoob, as in the previous year, was the Badun Trojan family (4.13%), which typically disguises itself as electronic documents. The third spot is held by the Taskun family (3.68%), which creates malicious scheduled tasks, followed by Agensla stealers (3.16%), which were the most common malicious attachments in 2024. Next are Trojan.Win32.AutoItScript scripts (2.88%), appearing in the rankings for the first time. In sixth place is the Noon spyware for all Windows systems (2.63%), which also occupied the tenth spot with its variant specifically targeting 32-bit systems (1.10%). Rounding out the TOP 10 are Hoax.HTML.Phish (1.98%) phishing attachments, Guloader downloaders (1.90%) – a newcomer to the rankings – and Badur (1.56%) PDF documents containing suspicious links.

TOP 10 malware families distributed via email attachments, 2025 (download)

The distribution of specific malware samples traditionally mirrors the distribution of malware families almost exactly. The only differences are that a specific variant of the Agensla stealer ranked sixth instead of fourth (2.53%), and the Phish and Guloader samples swapped positions (1.58% and 1.78%, respectively). Rounding out the rankings in tenth place is the password stealer Trojan-PSW.MSIL.PureLogs.gen with a share of 1.02%.

TOP 10 malware samples distributed via email attachments, 2025 (download)

Countries and territories targeted by malicious mailings

The highest volume of malicious email attachments was blocked on devices belonging to users in China (13.74%). For the first time in two years, Russia dropped to second place with a share of 11.18%. Following closely behind are Mexico (8.18%) and Spain (7.70%), which swapped places compared to the previous year. Email antivirus triggers saw a slight increase in Türkiye (5.19%), which maintained its fifth-place position. Sixth and seventh places are held by Vietnam (4.14%) and Malaysia (3.70%); both countries climbed higher in the TOP 10 due to an increase in detection shares. These are followed by the UAE (3.12%), which held its position from the previous year. Italy (2.43%) and Colombia (2.07%) also entered the TOP 10 list of targets for malicious mailshots.

TOP 20 countries and territories targeted by malicious mailshots, 2025 (download)

Conclusion

2026 will undoubtedly be marked by novel methods of exploiting artificial intelligence capabilities. At the same time, messaging app credentials will remain a highly sought-after prize for threat actors. While new schemes are certain to emerge, they will likely supplement rather than replace time-tested tricks and tactics. This underscores the reality that, alongside the deployment of robust security software, users must remain vigilant and exercise extreme caution toward any online offers that raise even the slightest suspicion.

The intensified focus on government service credentials signals a rise in potential impact; unauthorized access to these services can lead to financial theft, data breaches, and full-scale identity theft. Furthermore, the increased abuse of legitimate tools and the rise of multi-stage attacks – which often begin with seemingly harmless files or links – demonstrate a concerted effort by fraudsters to lull users into a false sense of security while pursuing their malicious objectives.