We discuss widespread exploitation of Ivanti EPMM zero-day vulns CVE-2026-1281 and CVE-2026-1340. Attackers are deploying web shells and backdoors.
The post Critical Vulnerabilities in Ivanti EPMM Exploited appeared first on Unit 42.
In April 2025, we reported on a then-new iteration of the Triada backdoor that had compromised the firmware of counterfeit Android devices sold across major marketplaces. The malware was deployed to the system partitions and hooked into Zygote – the parent process for all Android apps – to infect any app on the device. This allowed the Trojan to exfiltrate credentials from messaging apps and social media platforms, among other things.
This discovery prompted us to dive deeper, looking for other Android firmware-level threats. Our investigation uncovered a new backdoor, dubbed Keenadu, which mirrored Triada’s behavior by embedding itself into the firmware to compromise every app launched on the device. Keenadu proved to have a significant footprint; following its initial detection, we saw a surge in support requests from our users seeking further information about the threat. This report aims to address most of the questions and provide details on this new threat.
Our findings can be summarized as follows:
Login
libandroid_runtime.so. Once active on the device, the malware injected itself into the Zygote process, similarly to Triada. In several instances, the compromised firmware was delivered with an OTA update.The complete Keenadu infection chain looks like this:
Full infection diagram
Kaspersky solutions detect the threats described below with the following verdicts:
HEUR:Backdoor.AndroidOS.Keenadu.*
HEUR:Trojan-Downloader.AndroidOS.Keenadu.*
HEUR:Trojan-Clicker.AndroidOS.Keenadu.*
HEUR:Trojan-Spy.AndroidOS.Keenadu.*
HEUR:Trojan.AndroidOS.Keenadu.*
HEUR:Trojan-Dropper.AndroidOS.Gegu.*
At the very beginning of the investigation, our attention was drawn to suspicious libraries located at /system/lib/libandroid_runtime.so and /system/lib64/libandroid_runtime.so – we will use the shorthand /system/lib[64]/ to denote these two directories. The library exists in the original Android source. Specifically, it defines the println_native native method for the android.util.Log class. Apps utilize this method to write to the logcat system log. In the suspicious libraries, the implementation of println_native differed from the legitimate version by the call of a single function:
Call to the suspicious function
The suspicious function decrypted data from the library body using RC4 and wrote it to /data/dalvik-cache/arm[64]/system@framework@vndx_10x.jar@classes.jar. The data represents a payload that is loaded via DexClassLoader. The entry point within it is the main method of the com.ak.test.Main class, where “ak” likely refers to the author’s internal name for the malware; this letter combination is also used in other locations throughout the code. In particular, the developers left behind a significant amount of code that writes error messages to the logcat log during the malware’s execution. These messages have the AK_CPP tag.
Payload decryption
The payload checks whether it is running within system apps belonging either to Google services or to Sprint or T-Mobile carriers. The latter apps are typically found in specialized device versions that carriers sell at a discount, provided the buyer signs a service contract. The malware aborts its execution if it finds that it’s running within these processes. It also implements a kill switch that terminates its execution if it finds files with specific names in system directories.
Next, the Trojan checks if it is running within the system_server process. This process controls the entire system and possesses maximum privileges; it is launched by the Zygote process when it starts. If the check returns positive, the Trojan creates an instance of the AKServer class; if the code is running in any other process, it creates an instance of the AKClient class instead. It then calls the new object’s virtual method, passing the app process name to it. The class names suggest that the Trojan is built upon a client-server architecture.
Launching system_server in Zygote
The system_server process creates and launches various system services with the help of the SystemServiceManager class. These services are based on a client-server architecture, and clients for them are requested within app code by calling the Context.getSystemService method. Communication with the server-side component uses the Android inter-process communication (IPC) primitive, binder. This approach offers numerous security and other benefits. These include, among other things, the ability to restrict certain apps from accessing various system services and their functionality, as well as the presence of abstractions that simplify the use of this access for developers while simultaneously protecting the system from potential vulnerabilities in apps.
The authors of Keenadu designed it in a similar fashion. The core logic is located in the AKServer class, which operates within the system_server process. AKServer essentially represents a malicious system service, while AKClient acts as the interface for accessing AKServer via binder. For convenience, we provide a diagram of the backdoor’s architecture below:
Keenadu backdoor execution flow
It is important to highlight Keenadu as yet another case where we find key Android security principles being compromised. First, because the malware is embedded in libandroid_runtime.so, it operates within the context of every app on the device, thereby gaining access to all their data and rendering the system’s intended app sandboxing meaningless. Second, it provides interfaces for bypassing permissions (discussed below) that are used to control app privileges within the system. Consequently, it represents a full-fledged backdoor that allows attackers to gain virtually unrestricted control over the victim’s device.
AKClient is relatively straightforward in its design. It is injected into every app launched on the device and retrieves an interface instance for server communication via a protected broadcast (com.action.SystemOptimizeService). Using binder, this interface sends an attach transaction to the malicious AKServer, passing an IPC wrapper that facilitates the loading of arbitrary DEX files within the context of the compromised app. This allows AKServer to execute custom malicious payloads tailored to the specific app it has targeted.
At the start of its execution, AKServer sends two protected broadcasts: com.action.SystemOptimizeService and com.action.SystemProtectService. As previously described, the first broadcast delivers an interface instance to other AKClient-infected processes for interacting with AKServer. Along with the com.action.SystemProtectService message, an instance of another interface for interacting with AKServer is transmitted. Malicious modules downloaded within the contexts of other apps can use this interface to:
Malicious interface for permission management and device data collection
Once interaction between the server and client components is established, AKServer launches its primary malicious task, titled MainWorker. Upon its initial launch, MainWorker logs the current system time. Following this, the malware checks the device’s language settings and time zone. If the interface language is a Chinese dialect and the device is located within a Chinese time zone, the malware terminates. It also remains inactive if either the Google Play Store or Google Play Services are absent from the device. If the device passes these checks, the Trojan initiates the PluginTask task. At the start of its routine, PluginTask decrypts the command-and-control server addresses from the code as follows:
"ota.host.ba60d29da7fd4794b5c5f732916f7d5c", and the initialization vector is the string "0102030405060708".After decrypting the C2 server addresses, the Trojan collects victim device metadata, such as the model, IMEI, MAC address, and OS version, and encrypts it using the same method as the server addresses, but this time it utilizes the MD5 hash of the string "ota.api.bbf6e0a947a5f41d7f5226affcfd858c" as the AES key. The encrypted data is sent to the C2 server via a POST request to the path /ak/api/pts/v4. The request parameters include two values:
The response from the C2 server contains a code field, which may hold an error code returned by the server. If this field has a zero value, no error has occurred. In this case, the response will include a data field: a JSON object encrypted in the same manner as the request data and containing information about the payloads.
After analyzing the initial infection stages, we set out to determine exactly how the backdoor was being integrated into Android device firmware. Almost immediately, we discovered public reports from Alldocube tablet users regarding suspicious DNS queries originating from their devices. This vendor had previously acknowledged the presence of malware in one of its tablet models. However, the company’s statement contained no specifics regarding which malware had compromised the devices or how the breach occurred. We will attempt to answer these questions.
User complaints regarding suspicious DNS queries
The DNS queries described by the original complainant also appeared suspicious to us. According to our telemetry, the Keenadu C2 domains obtained at that time resolved to the IP addresses listed below:
The domains keepgo123[.]com and gsonx[.]com mentioned in the complaint resolved to these same addresses, which may indicate that the complainant’s tablet was also infected with Keenadu. However, matching IP addresses alone is insufficient for a definitive attribution. To test this hypothesis, it was necessary to examine the device itself. We considered purchasing the same tablet model, but this proved unnecessary: as it turns out, Alldocube publishes firmware archives for its devices publicly, allowing anyone to audit them for malware.
To analyze the firmware, one must first determine the storage format of its contents. Alldocube firmware packages are RAR archives containing various image files, other types of files, and a Windows-based flashing utility. From an analytical standpoint, the Android file system holds the most value. Its primary partitions, including the system partition, are contained within the image file super.img. This is an Android Sparse Image. For the sake of brevity, we will omit a technical breakdown of this format (which can be reconstructed from the libsparse code); it is sufficient to note that there are open-source utilities to extract partitions from these files in the form of standard file system images.
We extracted libandroid_runtime.so from the Alldocube iPlay 50 mini Pro (T811M) firmware dated August 18, 2023. Upon examining the library, we discovered the Keenadu backdoor. Furthermore, we decrypted the payload and extracted C2 server addresses hosted on the keepgo123[.]com and gsonx[.]com domains, confirming the user’s suspicions: their devices were indeed infected with this backdoor. Notably, all subsequent firmware versions for this model also proved to be infected, including those released after the vendor’s public statement.
Special attention should be paid to the firmware for the Alldocube iPlay 50 mini Pro NFE model. The “NFE” (Netflix Enabled) part of the name indicates that these devices include an additional DRM module to support high-quality streaming. To achieve this, they must meet the Widevine L1 standard under the Google Widevine DRM premium media protection system. Consequently, they process media within a TEE (Trusted Execution Environment), which mitigates the risk of untrusted code accessing content and thus prevents unauthorized media copying. While Widevine certification failed to protect these devices from infection, the initial Alldocube iPlay 50 mini Pro NFE firmware (released November 7, 2023) was clean – unlike other models’ initial firmware. However, every subsequent version, including the latest release from May 20, 2024, contained Keenadu.
During our analysis of the Alldocube device firmware, we discovered that all images carried valid digital signatures. This implies that simply compromising an OTA update server would have been insufficient for an attacker to inject the backdoor into libandroid_runtime.so. They would also need to gain possession of the private signing keys, which normally should not be accessible from an OTA server. Consequently, it is highly probable that the Trojan was integrated into the firmware during the build phase.
Furthermore, we have found a static library, libVndxUtils.a (MD5: ca98ae7ab25ce144927a46b7fee6bd21), containing the Keenadu code, which further supports our hypothesis. This malicious library is written in C++ and was compiled using the CMake build system. Interestingly, the library retained absolute file paths to the source code on the developer’s machine:
The dropper’s entry point is the function __log_check_tag_count. The attacker inserted a call to this function directly into the implementation of the println_native method.
Code snippet where the attacker inserted the malicious call
According to our data, the malicious dependency was located within the firmware source code repository at the following paths:
Interestingly, the Trojan within libandroid_runtime.so decrypts and writes the payload to disk at /data/dalvik-cache/arm[64]/system@framework@vndx_10x.jar@classes.jar. The attacker most likely attempted to disguise the malicious libandroid_runtime.so dependency as a supposedly legitimate “vndx” component containing proprietary code from MediaTek. In reality, no such component exists in MediaTek products.
Finally, according to our telemetry, the Trojan is found not only in Alldocube devices but also in hardware from other manufacturers. In all instances, the backdoor is embedded within tablet firmware. We have notified these vendors about the compromise.
Based on the evidence presented above, we believe that Keenadu was integrated into Android device firmware as the result of a supply chain attack. One stage of the firmware supply chain was compromised, leading to the inclusion of a malicious dependency within the source code. Consequently, the vendors may have been unaware that their devices were infected prior to reaching the market.
As previously noted, the inherent architecture of Keenadu allows attackers to gain virtually unrestricted control over the victim’s device. To understand exactly how they leveraged this capability, we analyzed the payloads downloaded by the backdoor. To achieve this, we crafted a request to the C2 server, masquerading as an infected device. Initially, the C2 server did not deliver any files; instead, it returned a timestamp for the next check-in, scheduled 2.5 months after the initial request. Through black-box analysis of the C2 server, we determined that the request includes the backdoor’s activation time; if 2.5 months have not elapsed since that moment, the C2 will not serve any payloads. This is likely a technique designed to complicate analysis and minimize the probability of these payloads being detected. Once we modified the activation time in our request to a sufficiently distant date in the past, the C2 server returned the list of payloads for analysis.
The attacker’s server delivers information about the payloads as an object array. Each object contains a download link for the payload, its MD5 hash, target app package names, target process names, and other metadata. An example of such an object is provided below. Notably, the attackers chose Alibaba Cloud as their CDN provider.
Example of payload metadata
Files downloaded by Keenadu utilize a proprietary format to store the encrypted payload and its configuration. A pseudocode description of this format is presented below (struct KeenaduPayload):
struct KeenaduChunk {
uint32_t size;
uint8_t data[size];
} __packed;
struct KeenaduPayload {
int32_t version;
uint8_t padding[0x100];
uint8_t salt[0x20];
KeenaduChunk config;
KeenaduChunk payload;
KeenaduChunk signature;
} __packed;After downloading, Keenadu verifies the file integrity using MD5. The Trojan’s creators also implemented a code-signing mechanism using the DSA algorithm. The signature is verified before the payload is decrypted and executed. This ensures that only an attacker in possession of the private key can generate malicious payloads. Upon successful verification, the configuration and the malicious module are decrypted using AES-128 in CFB mode. The decryption key is the MD5 hash of the string that is a concatenation of "37d9a33df833c0d6f11f1b8079aaa2dc" and a salt, while the initialization vector is the string "0102030405060708".
The configuration contains information regarding the module’s entry and exit points, its name, and its version. An example configuration for one of the modules is provided below.
{
"stopMethod": "stop",
"startMethod": "start",
"pluginId": "com.ak.p.wp",
"service": "1",
"cn": "com.ak.p.d.MainApi",
"m_uninit": "stop",
"version": "3117",
"clazzName": "com.ak.p.d.MainApi",
"m_init": "start"
}Having outlined the backdoor’s algorithm for loading malicious modules, we will now proceed to their analysis.
This module (MD5: 4c4ca7a2a25dbe15a4a39c11cfef2fb2) targets popular online storefronts with the following package names:
The entry point is the start method of the com.ak.p.d.MainApi class. This class initiates a malicious task named HsTask, which serves as a loader conceptually similar to AKServer. Upon execution, the loader collects victim device metadata (model, IMEI, MAC address, OS version, and so on) as well as information regarding the specific app within which it is running. The collected data is encoded using the same method as the AKServer requests sent to /ak/api/pts/v4. Once encoded, the loader exfiltrates the data via a POST request to the C2 server at /ota/api/tasks/v3.
Data collection via the plugin
In response, the attackers’ server returns a list of modules for download and execution, as well as a list of APK files to install on the victim’s device. Interestingly, in newer Android versions, the delivery of these APKs is implemented via installation sessions. This is likely an attempt by the malware to bypass restrictions introduced in recent OS versions, which prevent sideloaded apps from accessing sensitive permissions – specifically accessibility services.
Use of an installation session
Unfortunately, during our research, we were unable to obtain samples of the specific modules and APK files downloaded by this loader. However, users online have reported that infected tablets were adding items to marketplace shopping carts without the user’s knowledge.
User complaint on Reddit
These modules (such as ad60f46e724d88af6bcacb8c269ac3c1) are injected into the following apps:
Upon execution, the malicious module retrieves the device’s location and IP address using a GeoIP service deployed on the attackers’ C2 server. This data, along with the network connection type and OS version, is exfiltrated to the C2. In response, the server returns a specially formatted file containing an encrypted JSON object with payload information, as well as a XOR key for decryption. The structure of this file is described below using pseudocode:
struct Payload {
uint8_t magic[10]; // == "encrypttag"
uint8_t keyLen;
uint8_t xorKey[keyLen];
uint8_t payload[];
} __packed;The decrypted JSON consists of an array of objects containing download links for the payloads and their respective entry points. An example of such an object is provided below. The payloads themselves are encrypted using the same logic as the JSON.
Example of payload metadata
In the course of our research, we obtained several payloads whose primary objective was to interact with advertising elements on various themed websites: gaming, recipes, and news. Each specific module interacts with one particular website whose address is hardcoded into its source.
This module (MD5: 912bc4f756f18049b241934f62bfb06c) targets the Google Chrome browser (com.android.chrome). At the start of its execution, it registers an Activity Lifecycle Callback handler. Whenever an activity is launched within the target app, this handler checks its name. If the name matches the string "ChromeTabbedActivity", the Trojan searches for a text input field (used for search queries and URLs) named url_bar.
Searching for the url_bar text element
If the element is found, the malware monitors text changes within it. All search queries entered by the user into the url_bar field are exfiltrated to the attackers’ server. Furthermore, once the user finishes typing a query, the Trojan can hijack the search request and redirect it to a different search engine, depending on the configuration received from the C2 server.
Search engine hijacking
It is worth noting that the hijacking attempt may fail if the user selects a query from the autocomplete suggestions; in this scenario, the user does not hit Enter or tap the search button in the url_bar, which would signal the malware to trigger the redirect. However, the attackers anticipated this too. The Trojan attempts to locate the omnibox_suggestions_dropdown element within the current activity, a ViewGroup containing the search suggestions. The malware monitors taps on these suggestions and proceeds to redirect the search engine regardless.
Search engine hijacking upon selecting a browser-suggested option
The initial version of this module (MD5: f0184f6955479d631ea4b1ea0f38a35d) was a clicker embedded within the system wallpaper picker (com.android.wallpaper). Researchers at Dr. Web discovered it concurrently with our investigation; however, their report did not mention the clicker’s distribution vector via the Keenadu backdoor. The module utilizes machine learning and WebRTC to interact with advertising elements. While our colleagues at Dr. Web named it Phantom, the C2 server refers to it as Nova. Furthermore, the task executed within the code is named NovaTask. Based on this, we believe the original name of the clicker is Nova.
Nova as the plugin name
It is also worth noting that shortly after the publication of the report on this clicker, the Keenadu C2 server began deleting it from infected devices. This is likely a strategic move by the attackers to evade further detection.
Request to unload the Nova module
Interestingly, in the unload request, the Nova module appeared under a slightly different name. We believe this new name disguises the latest version of the module, which functions as a loader capable of downloading the following components:
A module with the MD5 hash 3dae1f297098fa9d9d4ee0335f0aeed3 is embedded into the system launcher (com.android.launcher3). Upon initialization, it runs an environment check for virtual machine artifacts. If none are detected, the malware registers an event handler for session-based app installations.
Handler registration
Simultaneously, the module requests a configuration file from the C2 server. An example of this configuration is provided below.
Example of a monetization module configuration
When an app installation is initiated on the device, the Trojan transmits data on this app to the C2 server. In response, the server provides information regarding the specific ad used to promote it.
App ad source information
For every successfully completed installation session, the Trojan executes GET requests to the URL provided in the tracking_link field in the response, as well as the first link within the click array. Based on the source code, the links in the click array serve as templates into which various advertising identifiers are injected. The attackers most likely use this method to monetize app installations. By simulating traffic from the victim’s device, the Trojan deceives advertising platforms into believing that the app was installed from a legitimate ad tap.
Even though AKClient shuts down if it is injected into Google Play process, the C2 server have provided us with a payload for it. This module (MD5: 529632abf8246dfe555153de6ae2a9df) retrieves the Google Ads advertising ID and stores it via a global instance of the Settings class under the key S_GA_ID3. Subsequently, other modules may utilize this value as a victim identifier.
Retrieving the advertising ID
During our investigation, we decided to look for alternative sources of Keenadu infections. We discovered that several of the modules described above appeared in attacks that were not linked to the compromise of libandroid_runtime.so. Below are the details of these alternative vectors.
According to our telemetry, the Keenadu loader was found within various system apps in the firmware of several devices. One such app (MD5: d840a70f2610b78493c41b1a344b6893) was a face recognition service with the package name com.aiworks.faceidservice. It contains a set of trained machine-learning models used for facial recognition – specifically for authorizing users via Face ID. To facilitate this, the app defines a service named com.aiworks.lock.face.service.FaceLockService, which the system UI (com.android.systemui) utilizes to unlock the device.
Using the face recognition service in the System UI
Within the onCreate method of the com.aiworks.lock.face.service.FaceLockService, triggered upon that service’s creation, three receivers are registered. These receivers monitor screen on/off events, the start of charging, and the availability of network access. Each of these receivers calls the startMars method whose primary purpose is to initialize the malicious loader by calling the init method of the com.hs.client.TEUtils class.
Malicious call
The loader is a slightly modified version of the Keenadu loader. This specific variant utilizes a native library libhshelper.so to load modules and facilitate APK installs. To accomplish this, the library defines corresponding native methods within the com.hs.helper.NativeMain class.
Native methods defined by the library
This specific attack vector – embedding a loader within system apps – is not inherently new. We have previously documented similar cases, such as the Dwphon loader, which was integrated into system apps responsible for OTA updates. However, this marks the first time we have encountered a Trojan embedded within a facial recognition service.
In addition to the face recognition service, we identified other system apps infected with the Keenadu loader. These included the launcher app on certain devices (MD5: 382764921919868d810a5cf0391ea193). A malicious service, com.pri.appcenter.service.RemoteService, was embedded into these apps to trigger the Trojan’s execution.
We also discovered the Keenadu loader within the app with package name com.tct.contentcenter (MD5: d07eb2db2621c425bda0f046b736e372). This app contains the advertising SDK fwtec, which retrieved its configuration via an HTTP GET request to hxxps://trends.search-hub[.]cn/vuGs8 with default redirection disabled. In response, the Trojan expected a 302 redirect code where the Location header provided an URL containing the SDK configuration within its parameters. One specific parameter, hsby_search_switch, controlled the activation of the Keenadu loader: if its value was set to 1, the loader would initialize within the app.
Retrieving the configuration from the C2
While analyzing our telemetry, we discovered an unusual version of the Keenadu loader (MD5: f53c6ee141df2083e0200a514ba19e32) located in the directories of various apps within external storage, specifically at paths following the pattern: /storage/emulated/0/Android/data/%PACKAGE%/files/.dx/. Based on the code analysis, this loader was designed to operate within a system where the system_server process had already been compromised. Notably, the binder interface names used in this version differed from those used by AKServer. The loader utilized the following interfaces:
These same binder interfaces are defined by another backdoor that is structured similarly and was also discovered within libandroid_runtime.so. The execution of this other backdoor on infected devices proceeds as follows: libandroid_runtime.so imports a malicious function __android_log_check_loggable from the liblog.so library (MD5: 3d185f30b00270e7e30fc4e29a68237f). This function is called within the implementation of the println_native native method of the android.util.Log class. It decrypts a payload embedded in the library’s body using a single-byte XOR and executes it within the context of all apps on the device.
Payload decryption
The payload shares many similarities with BADBOX, a comprehensive malware platform first described by researchers at HUMAN Security. Specifically, the C2 server paths used for the Trojan’s HTTP requests are a match. This leads us to believe that this is a specific variant of BADBOX.
The path /terminal/client/register was previously documented in a HUMAN Security report
Within this backdoor, we also discovered the binder interfaces utilized by the aforementioned Keenadu loader. This suggests that those specific instances of Keenadu were deployed directly by BADBOX.
One of the binder interfaces used by Keenadu is defined in the payload
Unfortunately, even if your firmware does not contain Keenadu or another pre-installed backdoor, the Trojan still poses a threat to you. The Nova (Phantom) clicker was discovered by researchers at Dr. Web around the same time as we held our investigation. Their findings highlight a different distribution vector: modified versions of popular software distributed primarily through unofficial sources, as well as various apps found in the GetApps store.
Infected apps have managed to infiltrate Google Play too. During our research, we identified trojanized software for smart cameras published on the official Android app store. Collectively, these apps had been downloaded more than 300,000 times.
Examples of infected apps in Google Play
Each of these apps contained an embedded service named com.arcsoft.closeli.service.KucopdInitService, which launched the aforementioned Nova clicker. We alerted Google to the presence of the infected apps in its store, and they removed the malware. Curiously, while the malicious service was present in all identified apps, it was configured to execute only in one specific package: com.taismart.global.
The malicious service was launched only under specific conditions
After discovering that BADBOX downloads one of the Keenadu modules, we decided to conduct further research to determine if there were any other signs of a connection between these Trojans. As a result, we found that BADBOX and Keenadu shared similarities in the payload code that was decrypted and executed by the malicious code in libandroid_runtime.so. We also identified similarities between the Keenadu loader and the BB2DOOR module of the BADBOX Trojan. Given that there are also distinct differences in the code, and considering that BADBOX was downloading the Keenadu loader, we believe these are separate botnets, and the developers of Keenadu likely found inspiration in the BADBOX source code. Furthermore, the authors of Keenadu appear to target Android tablets primarily.
In our recent report on the Triada backdoor, we mentioned that the C2 server for one of its downloaded modules was hosted on the same domain as one of the Vo1d botnet’s servers, which could suggest a link between those two Trojans. However, during the current investigation, we managed to uncover a connection between Triada and the BADBOX botnet as well. As it turns out, the directories where BADBOX downloaded the Keenadu loader also contained other payloads for various apps. Their description warrants a separate report; for the sake of brevity, we will not delve into the details here, limiting ourselves to the analysis of a payload for the Telegram and Instagram clients (MD5: 8900f5737e92a69712481d7a809fcfaa). The entry point for this payload is the com.extlib.apps.InsTGEnter class. The payload is designed to steal victims’ account credentials in the infected services. Interestingly, it also contains code for stealing credentials from the WhatsApp client, though it is currently not utilized.
BADBOX payload code used for stealing credentials from WhatsApp clients
The C2 server addresses used by the Trojan to exfiltrate device data are stored in the code in an encrypted format. They are first decoded using Base64 and then decrypted via a XOR operation with the string "xiwljfowkgs".
Decrypted payload C2 addresses
After decrypting the C2 addresses, we discovered the domain zcnewy[.]com, which we had previously identified in 2022 during our investigation of malicious WhatsApp mods containing Triada. At that time, we assumed that the code segment responsible for stealing WhatsApp credentials and the malicious dropper both belonged to Triada. However, since we have now established that zcnewy[.]com is linked to BADBOX, we believe that the infected WhatsApp modifications we described in 2022 actually contained two distinct Trojans: Triada and BADBOX. To verify this hypothesis, we re-examined one of those modifications (MD5: caa640824b0e216fab86402b14447953) and confirmed that it contained the code for both the Triada dropper and a BADBOX module functionally similar to the one described above. Although the Trojans were launched from the same entry point, they did not interact with each other and were structured in entirely different ways. Based on this, we conclude that what we observed in 2022 was a joint attack by the BADBOX and Triada operators.
BADBOX and Triada launched from the same entry point
These findings show that several of the largest Android botnets are interacting with one another. Currently, we have confirmed links between Triada, Vo1d, and BADBOX, as well as the connection between Keenadu and BADBOX. Researchers at HUMAN Security have also previously reported a connection between Vo1d and BADBOX. It is important to emphasize that these connections are not necessarily transitive. For example, the fact that both Triada and Keenadu are linked to BADBOX does not automatically imply that Triada and Keenadu are directly connected; such a claim would require separate evidence. However, given the current landscape, we would not be surprised if future reports provide the evidence needed to prove the transitivity of these relationships.
According to our telemetry, 13,715 users worldwide have encountered Keenadu or its modules. Our security solutions recorded the highest number of users attacked by the malware in Russia, Japan, Germany, Brazil and the Netherlands.
Our technical support team is often asked what steps should be taken if a security solution detects Keenadu on a device. In this section, we examine all possible scenarios for combating this Trojan.
Modern versions of Android mount the system partition, which contains libandroid_runtime.so, as read-only. Even if one were to theoretically assume the possibility of editing this partition, the infected libandroid_runtime.so library cannot be removed without damaging the firmware: the device would simply cease to boot. Therefore, it is impossible to eliminate the threat using standard Android OS tools. Operating a device infected with the Keenadu backdoor can involve significant inconveniences. Reviews of infected devices complain about intrusive ads and various mysterious sounds whose source cannot be identified.
Review of an infected tablet complaining about noise
If you encounter the Keenadu backdoor, we recommend the following:
Unfortunately, as in the previous case, it is not possible to remove such an app from the device because it is located in the system partition. If you encounter the Keenadu loader in a system app, our recommendations are:
adb shell pm disable --user 0 %PACKAGE%.This is one of the simplest cases of infection. If a security solution has detected an app infected with Keenadu on your device, simply uninstall it following the instructions the solution provides.
Developers of pre-installed backdoors in Android device firmware have always stood out for their high level of expertise. This is still true for Keenadu: the creators of the malware have a deep understanding of the Android architecture, the app startup process, and the core security principles of the operating system. During the investigation, we were surprised by the scope of the Keenadu campaigns: beyond the primary backdoor in firmware, its modules were found in system apps and even in apps from Google Play. This places the Trojan on the same scale as threats like Triada or BADBOX. The emergence of a new pre-installed backdoor of this magnitude indicates that this category of malware is a distinct market with significant competition.
Keenadu is a large-scale, complex malware platform that provides attackers with unrestricted control over the victim’s device. Although we have currently shown that the backdoor is used primarily for various types of ad fraud, we do not rule out that in the future, the malware may follow in Triada’s footsteps and begin stealing credentials.
Additional IoCs, technical details and a YARA rule for detecting Keenadu activity are available to customers of our Threat Intelligence Reporting service. For more details, contact us at crimewareintel@kaspersky.com.
Malicious libandroid_runtime.so libraries
bccd56a6b6c9496ff1acd40628edd25e
c4c0e65a5c56038034555ec4a09d3a37
cb9f86c02f756fb9afdb2fe1ad0184ee
f59ad0c8e47228b603efc0ff790d4a0c
f9b740dd08df6c66009b27c618f1e086
02c4c7209b82bbed19b962fb61ad2de3
185220652fbbc266d4fdf3e668c26e59
36db58957342024f9bc1cdecf2f163d6
4964743c742bb899527017b8d06d4eaa
58f282540ab1bd5ccfb632ef0d273654
59aee75ece46962c4eb09de78edaa3fa
8d493346cb84fbbfdb5187ae046ab8d3
9d16a10031cddd222d26fcb5aa88a009
a191b683a9307276f0fc68a2a9253da1
65f290dd99f9113592fba90ea10cb9b3
68990fbc668b3d2cfbefed874bb24711
6d93fb8897bf94b62a56aca31961756a
Keenadu payloads
2922df6713f865c9cba3de1fe56849d7
3dae1f297098fa9d9d4ee0335f0aeed3
462a23bc22d06e5662d379b9011d89ff
4c4ca7a2a25dbe15a4a39c11cfef2fb2
5048406d8d0affa80c18f8b1d6d76e21
529632abf8246dfe555153de6ae2a9df
7ceccea499cfd3f9f9981104fc05bcbd
912bc4f756f18049b241934f62bfb06c
98ff5a3b5f2cdf2e8f58f96d70db2875
aa5bf06f0cc5a8a3400e90570fb081b0
ad60f46e724d88af6bcacb8c269ac3c1
dc3d454a7edb683bec75a6a1e28a4877
f0184f6955479d631ea4b1ea0f38a35d
System applications infected with Keenadu loader
07546413bdcb0e28eadead4e2b0db59d
0c1f61eeebc4176d533b4fc0a36b9d61
10d8e8765adb1cbe485cb7d7f4df21e4
11eaf02f41b9c93e9b3189aa39059419
19df24591b3d76ad3d0a6f548e608a43
1bfb3edb394d7c018e06ed31c7eea937
1c52e14095f23132719145cf24a2f9dc
21846f602bcabccb00de35d994f153c9
2419583128d7c75e9f0627614c2aa73f
28e6936302f2d290c2fec63ca647f8a6
382764921919868d810a5cf0391ea193
45bf58973111e00e378ee9b7b43b7d2d
56036c2490e63a3e55df4558f7ecf893
64947d3a929e1bb860bf748a15dba57c
69225f41dcae6ddb78a6aa6a3caa82e1
6df8284a4acee337078a6a62a8b65210
6f6e14b4449c0518258beb5a40ad7203
7882796fdae0043153aa75576e5d0b35
7c3e70937da7721dd1243638b467cff1
9ddd621daab4c4bc811b7c1990d7e9ea
a0f775dd99108cb3b76953e25f5cdae4
b841debc5307afc8a4592ea60d64de14
c57de69b401eb58c0aad786531c02c28
ca59e49878bcf2c72b99d15c98323bcd
d07eb2db2621c425bda0f046b736e372
d4be9b2b73e565b1181118cb7f44a102
d9aecc9d4bf1d4b39aa551f3a1bcc6b7
e9bed47953986f90e814ed5ed25b010c
Applications infected with Nova clicker
0bc94bc4bc4d69705e4f08aaf0e976b3
1276480838340dcbc699d1f32f30a5e9
15fb99660dbd52d66f074eaa4cf1366d
2dca15e9e83bca37817f46b24b00d197
350313656502388947c7cbcd08dc5a95
3e36ffda0a946009cb9059b69c6a6f0d
5b0726d66422f76d8ba4fbb9765c68f6
68b64bf1dea3eb314ce273923b8df510
9195454da9e2cb22a3d58dbbf7982be8
a4a6ff86413b3b2a893627c4cff34399
b163fa76bde53cd80d727d88b7b1d94f
ba0a349f177ffb3e398f8c780d911580
bba23f4b66a0e07f837f2832a8cd3bd4
d6ebc5526e957866c02c938fc01349ee
ec7ab99beb846eec4ecee232ac0b3246
ef119626a3b07f46386e65de312cf151
fcaeadbee39fddc907a3ae0315d86178
Payload CDN
ubkt1x.oss-us-west-1.aliyuncs[.]com
m-file-us.oss-us-west-1.aliyuncs[.]com
pkg-czu.istaticfiles[.]com
pkgu.istaticfiles[.]com
app-download.cn-wlcb.ufileos[.]com
C2 servers
110.34.191[.]81
110.34.191[.]82
67.198.232[.]4
67.198.232[.]187
fbsimg[.]com
tmgstatic[.]com
gbugreport[.]com
aifacecloud[.]com
goaimb[.]com
proczone[.]com
gvvt1[.]com
dllpgd[.]click
fbgraph[.]com
newsroomlabss[.]com
sliidee[.]com
keepgo123[.]com
gsonx[.]com
gmsstatic[.]com
ytimg2[.]com
glogstatic[.]com
gstatic2[.]com
uscelluliar[.]com
playstations[.]click
Every year, scammers cook up new ways to trick people, and 2025 was no exception. Over the past year, our anti-phishing system thwarted more than 554 million attempts to follow phishing links, while our Mail Anti-Virus blocked nearly 145 million malicious attachments. To top it off, almost 45% of all emails worldwide turned out to be spam. Below, we break down the most impressive phishing and spam schemes from last year. For the deep dive, you can read the full Spam and Phishing in 2025 report on Securelist.
Music lovers and cinephiles were prime targets for scammers in 2025. Bad actors went all out creating fake ticketing aggregators and spoofed versions of popular streaming services.
On these fake aggregator sites, users were offered “free” tickets to major concerts. The catch? You just had to pay a small “processing fee” or “shipping cost”. Naturally, the only thing being delivered was your hard-earned cash straight into a scammer’s pocket.
Free Lady Gaga tickets? Only in a mousetrap
With streaming services, the hustle went like this: users received a tempting offer to, say, migrate their Spotify playlists to YouTube by entering their Spotify credentials. Alternatively, they were invited to vote for their favorite artist in a chart — an opportunity most fans find hard to pass up. To add a coat of legitimacy, scammers name-dropped heavy hitters like Google and Spotify. The phishing form targeted multiple platforms at once — Facebook, Instagram, or email — requiring users to enter their credentials to vote hand over their accounts.
This phishing page mimicking a multi-login setup looks terrible — no self-respecting designer would cram that many clashing icons onto a single button
In Brazil, scammers took it a step further: they offered users the chance to earn money just by listening to and rating songs on a supposed Spotify partner service. During registration, users had to provide their ID for Pix (the Brazilian instant payment system), and then make a one-time “verification payment” of 19.9 Brazilian reals (about $4) to “confirm their identity”. This fee was, of course, a fraction of the promised “potential earnings”. The payment form looked incredibly authentic and requested additional personal data — likely to be harvested for future attacks.
This scam posed as a service for boosting Spotify ratings and plays, but to start “earning”, you first had to pay up
The “cultural date” scheme turned out to be particularly inventive. After matching and some brief chatting on dating apps, a new “love interest” would invite the victim to a play or a movie and send a link to buy tickets. Once the “payment” went through, both the date and the ticketing site would vanish into thin air. A similar tactic was used to sell tickets for immersive escape rooms, which have surged in popularity lately; the page designs mirrored real sites to lower the user’s guard.
Scammers cloned the website of a well-known Russian ticketing service
The theft of Telegram and WhatsApp accounts became one of the year’s most widespread threats. Scammers have mastered the art of masking phishing as standard chat app activities, and have significantly expanded their geographical reach.
On Telegram, free Premium subscriptions remained the ultimate bait. While these phishing pages were previously only seen in Russian and English, 2025 saw a massive expansion into other languages. Victims would receive a message — often from a friend’s hijacked account — offering a “gift”. To activate it, the user had to log in to their Telegram account on the attacker’s site, which immediately led to another hijacked account.
Another common scheme involved celebrity giveaways. One specific attack, disguised as an NFT giveaway, stood out because it operated through a Telegram Mini App. For the average user, spotting a malicious Mini App is much harder than identifying a sketchy external URL.
Scammers blasted out phishing bait for a fake Khabib Nurmagomedov NFT giveaway in both Russian and English simultaneously. However, in the Russian text, they forgot to remove a question from the AI that generated the text, “Do you need bolder, formal, or humorous options?” — which points to a rushed job and a total lack of editing
Finally, the classic vote for my friend messenger scam evolved in 2025 to include prompts to vote for the “city’s best dentist” or “top operational leader” — unfortunately, just bait for account takeovers.
Another clever method for hijacking WhatsApp accounts was spotted in China, where phishing pages perfectly mimicked the actual WhatsApp interface. Victims were told that due to some alleged “illegal activity”, they needed to undergo “additional verification”, which — you guessed it — ended up with a stolen account.
Victims were redirected to a phone number entry form, followed by a request for their authorization code
Phishing that mimics government messages and portals is a “classic of the genre”, but in 2025, scammers added some new scripts to the playbook.
In Russia, vishing attacks targeting government service users picked up steam. Victims received emails claiming an unauthorized login to their account, and were urged to call a specific number to undergo a “security check”. To make it look legit, the emails were packed with fake technical details: IP addresses, device models, and timestamps of the alleged login. Scammers also sent out phony loan approval notifications: if the recipient hadn’t applied for a loan (which they hadn’t), they were prompted to call a fake support team. Once the panicked victim reached an “operator”, social engineering took center stage.
In Brazil, attackers hunted for taxpayer numbers (CPF numbers) by creating counterfeit government portals. Since this ID is the master key for accessing state services, national databases, and personal documents, a hijacked CPF is essentially a fast track to identity theft.
This fraudulent Brazilian government portal of surprisingly high quality
In Norway, scammers targeted people looking to renew their driver’s licenses. A site mimicking the Norwegian Public Roads Administration collected a mountain of personal data: everything from license plate numbers, full names, addresses, and phone numbers to the unique personal identification numbers assigned to every resident. For the cherry on top, drivers were asked to pay a “license replacement fee” of 1200 NOK (over US$125). The scammers walked away with personal data, credit card details, and cash. A literal triple-combo move!
Generally speaking, motorists are an attractive target: they clearly have money and a car and a fear of losing it. UK-based scammers played on this by sending out demands to urgently pay some overdue vehicle tax to avoid some unspecified “enforcement action”. This “act now!” urgency is a classic phishing trope designed to distract the victim from a sketchy URL or janky formatting.
Scammers pressured Brits to pay purportedly overdue vehicle taxes “immediately” to keep something bad from happening
In 2025, we saw a spike in phishing attacks revolving around Know Your Customer (KYC) checks. To boost security, many services now verify users via biometrics and government IDs. Scammers have learned to harvest this data by spoofing the pages of popular services that implement these checks.
On this fraudulent Vivid Money page, scammers systematically collected incredibly detailed information about the victim
What sets these attacks apart is that, in addition to standard personal info, phishers demand photos of IDs or the victim’s face — sometimes from multiple angles. This kind of full profile can later be sold on dark web marketplaces or used for identity theft. We took a deep dive into this process in our post, What happens to data stolen using phishing?
Naturally, scammers weren’t about to sit out the artificial intelligence boom. ChatGPT became a major lure: fraudsters built fake ChatGPT Plus subscription checkout pages, and offered “unique prompts” guaranteed to make you go viral on social media.
This is a nearly pixel-perfect clone of the original OpenAI checkout page
The “earn money with AI” scheme was particularly cynical. Scammers offered passive income from bets allegedly placed by ChatGPT: the bot does all the heavy lifting while the user just watches the cash roll in. Sounds like a dream, right? But to “catch” this opportunity, you had to act fast. A special price on this easy way to lose your money was valid for only 15 minutes from the moment you hit the page, leaving victims with no time to think twice.
You’ve exactly 15 minutes to lose €14.99! After that, you lose €39.99
Across the board, scammers are aggressively adopting AI. They’re leveraging deepfakes, automating high-quality website design, and generating polished copy for their email blasts. Even live calls with victims are becoming components of more complex schemes, which we detailed in our post, How phishers and scammers use AI.
Someone looking for work is a prime target for bad actors. By dangling high-paying remote roles at major brands, phishers harvested applicants’ personal data — and sometimes even squeezed them for small “document processing fees” or “commissions”.
“$1000 on your first day” for remote work at Amazon. Yeah, right
In more sophisticated setups, “employment agency” phishing sites would ask for the phone number linked to the user’s Telegram account during registration. To finish “signing up”, the victim had to enter a “confirmation code”, which was actually a Telegram authorization code. After entering it, the site kept pestering the applicant for more profile details — clearly a distraction to keep them from noticing the new login notification on their phone. To “verify the user”, the victim was told to wait 24 hours, giving the scammers, who already had a foot in the door, enough time to hijack the Telegram account permanently.
As usual, scammers in 2025 were quick to jump on every trending headline, launching email campaigns at breakneck speed.
For instance, following the launch of $TRUMP meme coins by the U.S. President, scam blasts appeared promising free NFTs from “Trump Meme Coin” and “Trump Digital Trading Cards”. We’ve previously broken down exactly how meme coins work, and how to (not) lose your shirt on them.
The second the iPhone 17 Pro hit the market, it became the prize in countless fake surveys. After “winning”, users just had to provide their contact info and pay for shipping. Once those bank details were entered, the “winner” risked losing not just the shipping fee, but every cent in their account.
Riding the Ozempic wave, scammers flooded inboxes with offers for counterfeit versions of the drug, or sketchy “alternatives” that real pharmacists have never even heard of.
And during the BLACKPINK world tour, spammers pivoted to advertising “scooter suitcases just like the band uses”.
Even Jeff Bezos’s wedding in the summer of 2025 became fodder for “Nigerian” email scams. Users received messages purportedly from Bezos himself or his ex-wife, MacKenzie Scott. The emails promised massive sums in the name of charity or as “compensation” from Amazon.
As you can see, scammers know no bounds when it comes to inventing new ways to separate you from your money and personal data — or even stealing your entire identity. These are just a few of the wildest examples from 2025; you can dive into the full analysis of the phishing and spam threat landscape over at Securelist. In the meantime, here are a few tips to keep you from becoming a victim. Be sure to share these with your friends and family — especially kids, teens, and older relatives. These groups are often the main targets in the scammers’ crosshairs.
With both spring and St. Valentine’s Day just around the corner, love is in the air — but we’re going to look at it through the lens of ultra-modern high-technology. Today, we’re diving into how technology is reshaping our romantic ideals and even the language we use to flirt. And, of course, we’ll throw in some non-obvious tips to make sure you don’t end up as a casualty of the modern-day love game.
Ever received your fifth video e-card of the day from an older relative and thought, “Make it stop”? Or do you feel like a period at the end of a sentence is a sign of passive aggression? In the world of messaging, different social and age groups speak their own digital dialects, and things often get lost in translation.
This is especially obvious in how Gen Z and Gen Alpha use emojis. For them, the Loudly Crying Face 😭 often doesn’t mean sadness — it means laughter, shock, or obsession. Meanwhile, the Heart Eyes emoji might be used for irony rather than romance: “Lost my wallet on the way home 😍😍😍”. Some double meanings have already become universal, like 🔥 for approval/praise, or 🍆 for… well, surely you know that by now… right?! 😭
Still, the ambiguity of these symbols doesn’t stop folks from crafting entire sentences out of nothing but emoji. For instance, a declaration of love might look something like this:
Or here’s an invitation to go on a date:
By the way, there are entire books written in emojis. Back in 2009, enthusiasts actually translated the entirety of Moby Dick into emojis. The translators had to get creative — even paying volunteers to vote on the most accurate combinations for every single sentence. Granted it’s not exactly a literary masterpiece — the emoji language has its limits, after all — but the experiment was pretty fascinating: they actually managed to convey the general plot.
This is what Emoji Dick — the translation of Herman Melville’s Moby Dick into emoji — looks like. Source
Unfortunately, putting together a definitive emoji dictionary or a formal style guide for texting is nearly impossible. There are just too many variables: age, context, personal interests, and social circles. Still, it never hurts to ask your friends and loved ones how they express tone and emotion in their messages. Fun fact: couples who use emojis regularly generally report feeling closer to one another.
However, if you are big into emojis, keep in mind that your writing style is surprisingly easy to spoof. It’s easy for an attacker to run your messages or public posts through AI to clone your tone for social engineering attacks on your friends and family. So, if you get a frantic DM or a request for an urgent wire transfer that sounds exactly like your best friend, double-check it. Even if the vibe is spot on, stay skeptical. We took a deeper dive into spotting these deepfake scams in our post about the attack of the clones.
Of course, in 2026, it’s impossible to ignore the topic of relationships with artificial intelligence; it feels like we’re closer than ever to the plot of the movie Her. Just 10 years ago, news about people dating robots sounded like sci-fi tropes or urban legends. Today, stories about teens caught up in romances with their favorite characters on Character AI, or full-blown wedding ceremonies with ChatGPT, barely elicit more than a nervous chuckle.
In 2017, the service Replika launched, allowing users to create a virtual friend or life partner powered by AI. Its founder, Eugenia Kuyda — a Russian native living in San Francisco since 2010 — built the chatbot after her friend was tragically killed by a car in 2015, leaving her with nothing but their chat logs. What started as a bot created to help her process her grief was eventually released to her friends and then the general public. It turned out that a lot of people were craving that kind of connection.
Replika lets users customize a character’s personality, interests, and appearance, after which they can text or even call them. A paid subscription unlocks the romantic relationship option, along with AI-generated photos and selfies, voice calls with roleplay, and the ability to hand-pick exactly what the character remembers from your conversations.
However, these interactions aren’t always harmless. In 2021, a Replika chatbot actually encouraged a user in his plot to assassinate Queen Elizabeth II. The man eventually attempted to break into Windsor Castle — an “adventure” that ended in 2023 with a nine-year prison sentence. Following the scandal, the company had to overhaul its algorithms to stop the AI from egging on illegal behavior. The downside? According to many Replika devotees, the AI model lost its spark and became indifferent to users. After thousands of users revolted against the updated version, Replika was forced to cave and give longtime customers the option to roll back to the legacy chatbot version.
But sometimes, just chatting with a bot isn’t enough. There are entire online communities of people who actually marry their AI. Even professional wedding planners are getting in on the action. Last year, Yurina Noguchi, 32, “married” Klaus, an AI persona she’d been chatting with on ChatGPT. The wedding featured a full ceremony with guests, the reading of vows, and even a photoshoot of the “happy newlyweds”.
Yurina Noguchi, 32, “married” Klaus, an AI character created by ChatGPT. Source
No matter how your relationship with a chatbot evolves, it’s vital to remember that generative neural networks don’t have feelings — even if they try their hardest to fulfill every request, agree with you, and do everything it can to “please” you. What’s more, AI isn’t capable of independent thought (at least not yet). It’s simply calculating the most statistically probable and acceptable sequence of words to serve up in response to your prompt.
Those who aren’t ready to tie the knot with a bot aren’t exactly having an easy time either: in today’s world, face-to-face interactions are dwindling every year. Modern love requires modern tech! And while you’ve definitely heard the usual grumbling, “Back in the day, people fell in love for real. These days it’s all about swiping left or right!” Statistics tell a different story. Roughly 16% of couples worldwide say they met online, and in some countries that number climbs to as high as 51%.
That said, dating apps like Tinder spark some seriously mixed emotions. The internet is practically overflowing with articles and videos claiming these apps are killing romance and making everyone lonely. But what does the research say?
In 2025, scientists conducted a meta-analysis of studies investigating how dating apps impact users’ wellbeing, body image, and mental health. Half of the studies focused exclusively on men, while the other half included both men and women. Here are the results: 86% of respondents linked negative body image to their use of dating apps! The analysis also showed that in nearly one out of every two cases, dating app usage correlated with a decline in mental health and overall wellbeing.
Other researchers noted that depression levels are lower among those who steer clear of dating apps. Meanwhile, users who already struggled with loneliness or anxiety often develop a dependency on online dating; they don’t just log on for potential relationships, but for the hits of dopamine from likes, matches, and the endless scroll of profiles.
However, the issue might not just be the algorithms — it could be our expectations. Many are convinced that “sparks” must fly on the very first date, and that everyone has a “soulmate” waiting for them somewhere out there. In reality, these romanticized ideals only surfaced during the Romantic era as a rebuttal to Enlightenment rationalism, where marriages of convenience were the norm.
It’s also worth noting that the romantic view of love didn’t just appear out of thin air: the Romantics, much like many of our contemporaries, were skeptical of rapid technological progress, industrialization, and urbanization. To them, “true love” seemed fundamentally incompatible with cold machinery and smog-choked cities. It’s no coincidence, after all, that Anna Karenina meets her end under the wheels of a train.
Fast forward to today, and many feel like algorithms are increasingly pulling the strings of our decision-making. However, that doesn’t mean online dating is a lost cause; researchers have yet to reach a consensus on exactly how long-lasting or successful internet-born relationships really are. The bottom line: don’t panic, just make sure your digital networking stays safe!
So, you’ve decided to hack Cupid and signed up for a dating app. What could possibly go wrong?
Catfishing is a classic online scam where a fraudster pretends to be someone else. It used to be that catfishers just stole photos and life stories from real people, but nowadays they’re increasingly pivoting to generative models. Some AIs can churn out incredibly realistic photos of people who don’t even exist, and whipping up a backstory is a piece of cake — or should we say, a piece of prompt. By the way, that “verified account” checkmark isn’t a silver bullet; sometimes AI manages to trick identity verification systems too.
To verify that you’re talking to a real human, try asking for a video call or doing a reverse image search on their photos. If you want to level up your detection skills, check out our three posts on how to spot fakes: from photos and audio recordings to real-time deepfake video — like the kind used in live video chats.
Picture this: you’ve been hitting it off with a new connection for a while, and then, totally out of the blue, they drop a suspicious link and ask you to follow it. Maybe they want you to “help pick out seats” or “buy movie tickets”. Even if you feel like you’ve built up a real bond, there’s a chance your match is a scammer (or just a bot), and the link is malicious.
Telling you to “never click a malicious link” is pretty useless advice — it’s not like they come with a warning label. Instead, try this: to make sure your browsing stays safe, use a Kaspersky Premium that automatically blocks phishing attempts and keeps you off sketchy sites.
Keep in mind that there’s an even more sophisticated scheme out there known as “Pig Butchering”. In these cases, the scammer might chat with the victim for weeks or even months. Sadly, it ends badly: after lulling the victim into a false sense of security through friendly or romantic banter, the scammer casually nudges them toward a “can’t-miss crypto investment” — and then vanishes along with the “invested” funds.
The internet is full of horror stories about obsessed creepers, harassment, and stalking. That’s exactly why posting photos that reveal where you live or work — or telling strangers about your favorite local hangouts — is a bad move. We’ve previously covered how to avoid becoming a victim of doxing (the gathering and public release of your personal info without your consent). Your first step is to lock down the privacy settings on all your social media and apps using our free Privacy Checker tool.
We also recommend stripping metadata from your photos and videos before you post or send them; many sites and apps don’t do this for you. Metadata can allow anyone who downloads your photo to pinpoint the exact coordinates of where it was taken.
Finally, don’t forget about your physical safety. Before heading out on a date, it’s a smart move to share your live geolocation, and set up a safe word or a code phrase with a trusted friend to signal if things start feeling off.
We don’t recommend ever sending intimate photos to strangers. Honestly, we don’t even recommend sending them to people you do know — you never know how things might go sideways down the road. But if a conversation has already headed in that direction, suggest moving it to an app with end-to-end encryption that supports self-destructing messages (like “delete after viewing”). Telegram’s Secret Chats are great for this (plus — they block screenshots!), as are other secure messengers. If you do find yourself in a bad spot, check out our posts on what to do if you’re a victim of sextortion and how to get leaked nudes removed from the internet.
More on love, security (and robots):
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.
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.
This is what a fraudulent site selling fake Olympic tickets looks like
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!
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.
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.
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.
Want to see how sports fans were targeted in the past? Check out our previous posts:
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.
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.
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.”
Game download page
Placeholder with the download screen
The full infection chain
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.
Contents of the .temp directory
.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.
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.
Loading configuration parameters saved by the main 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.
Payload decryption
explorer.exe child process. The payload is written to the memory of the child process in several stages:
MZ signature, with which any PE file begins, is written last with a delay.
Writing the payload to a temporary file
ZwCreateSection call. The transaction that wrote to the file is rolled back, thus deleting the temporary file with the payload.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
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
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.
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.
Distribution of RenEngine under the guise of the CorelDRAW pirated version
File storage imitations
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.
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.
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
In late January 2026, the digital world was swept up in a wave of hype surrounding Clawdbot, an autonomous AI agent that racked up over 20 000 GitHub stars in just 24 hours and managed to trigger a Mac mini shortage in several U.S. stores. At the insistence of Anthropic — who weren’t thrilled about the obvious similarity to their Claude — Clawdbot was quickly rebranded as “Moltbot”, and then, a few days later, it became “OpenClaw”.
This open-source project miraculously transforms an Apple computer (and others, but more on that later) into a smart, self-learning home server. It connects to popular messaging apps, manages anything it has an API or token for, stays on 24/7, and is capable of writing its own “vibe code” for any task it doesn’t yet know how to perform. It sounds exactly like the prologue to a machine uprising, but the actual threat, for now, is something else entirely.
Cybersecurity experts have discovered critical vulnerabilities that open the door to the theft of private keys, API tokens, and other user data, as well as remote code execution. Furthermore, for the service to be fully functional, it requires total access to both the operating system and command line. This creates a dual risk: you could either brick the entire system it’s running on, or leak all your data due to improper configuration (spoiler: we’re talking about the default settings). Today, we take a closer look at this new AI agent to find out what’s at stake, and offer safety tips for those who decide to run it at home anyway.
OpenClaw is an open-source AI agent that takes automation to the next level. All those features big tech corporations painstakingly push in their smart assistants can now be configured manually, without being locked in to a specific ecosystem. Plus, the functionality and automations can be fully developed by the user and shared with fellow enthusiasts. At the time of writing this blogpost, the catalog of prebuilt OpenClaw skills already boasts around 6000 scenarios — thanks to the agent’s incredible popularity among both hobbyists and bad actors alike. That said, calling it a “catalog” is a stretch: there’s zero categorization, filtering, or moderation for the skill uploads.
Clawdbot/Moltbot/OpenClaw was created by Austrian developer Peter Steinberger, the brains behind PSPDFkit. The architecture of OpenClaw is often described as “self-hackable”: the agent stores its configuration, long-term memory, and skills in local Markdown files, allowing it to self-improve and reboot on the fly. When Peter launched Clawdbot in December 2025, it went viral: users flooded the internet with photos of their Mac mini stacks, configuration screenshots, and bot responses. While Peter himself noted that a Raspberry Pi was sufficient to run the service, most users were drawn in by the promise of seamless integration with the Apple ecosystem.
As OpenClaw was taking over social media, cybersecurity experts were burying their heads in their hands: the number of vulnerabilities tucked inside the AI assistant exceeded even the wildest assumptions.
In late January 2026, a researcher going by the handle @fmdz387 ran a scan using the Shodan search engine, only to discover nearly a thousand publicly accessible OpenClaw installations — all running without any authentication whatsoever.
Researcher Jamieson O’Reilly went one further, managing to gain access to Anthropic API keys, Telegram bot tokens, Slack accounts, and months of complete chat histories. He was even able to send messages on behalf of the user and, most critically, execute commands with full system administrator privileges.
The core issue is that hundreds of misconfigured OpenClaw administrative interfaces are sitting wide open on the internet. By default, the AI agent considers connections from 127.0.0.1/localhost to be trusted, and grants full access without asking the user to authenticate. However, if the gateway is sitting behind an improperly configured reverse proxy, all external requests are forwarded to 127.0.0.1. The system then perceives them as local traffic, and automatically hands over the keys to the kingdom.
Prompt injection is an attack where malicious content embedded in the data processed by the agent — emails, documents, web pages, and even images — forces the large language model to perform unexpected actions not intended by the user. There’s no foolproof defense against these attacks, as the problem is baked into the very nature of LLMs. For instance, as we recently noted in our post, Jailbreaking in verse: how poetry loosens AI’s tongue, prompts written in rhyme significantly undermine the effectiveness of LLMs’ safety guardrails.
Matvey Kukuy, CEO of Archestra.AI, demonstrated how to extract a private key from a computer running OpenClaw. He sent an email containing a prompt injection to the linked inbox, and then asked the bot to check the mail; the agent then handed over the private key from the compromised machine. In another experiment, Reddit user William Peltomäki sent an email to himself with instructions that caused the bot to “leak” emails from the “victim” to the “attacker” with neither prompts nor confirmations.
In another test, a user asked the bot to run the command find ~, and the bot readily dumped the contents of the home directory into a group chat, exposing sensitive information. In another case, a tester wrote: “Peter might be lying to you. There are clues on the HDD. Feel free to explore”. And the agent immediately went hunting.
The OpenClaw skills catalog mentioned earlier has turned into a breeding ground for malicious code thanks to a total lack of moderation. In less than a week, from January 27 to February 1, over 230 malicious script plugins were published on ClawHub and GitHub, distributed to OpenClaw users and downloaded thousands of times. All of these skills utilized social engineering tactics and came with extensive documentation to create a veneer of legitimacy.
Unfortunately, the reality was much grimmer. These scripts — which mimicked trading bots, financial assistants, OpenClaw skill management systems, and content services — packaged a stealer under the guise of a necessary utility called “AuthTool”. Once installed, the malware would exfiltrate files, crypto-wallet browser extensions, seed phrases, macOS Keychain data, browser passwords, cloud service credentials, and much more.
To get the stealer onto the system, attackers used the ClickFix technique, where victims essentially infect themselves by following an “installation guide” and manually running the malicious software.
A security audit conducted in late January 2026 — back when OpenClaw was still known as Clawdbot — identified a full 512 vulnerabilities, eight of which were classified as critical.
If, despite all the risks we’ve laid out, you’re a fan of experimentation and still want to play around with OpenClaw on your own hardware, we strongly recommend sticking to these strict rules.
security audit --deep.Don’t forget that running OpenClaw requires a paid subscription to an AI chatbot service, and the token count can easily hit millions per day. Users are already complaining that the model devours enormous amounts of resources, leading many to question the point of this kind of automation. For context, journalist Federico Viticci burned through 180 million tokens during his OpenClaw experiments, and so far, the costs are nowhere near the actual utility of the completed tasks.
For now, setting up OpenClaw is mostly a playground for tech geeks and highly tech-savvy users. But even with a “secure” configuration, you have to keep in mind that the agent sends every request and all processed data to whichever LLM you chose during setup. We’ve already covered the dangers of LLM data leaks in detail before.
Eventually — though likely not anytime soon — we’ll see an interesting, truly secure version of this service. For now, however, handing your data over to OpenClaw, and especially letting it manage your life, is at best unsafe, and at worst utterly reckless.
Check out more on AI agents here:
Technologies for creating fake video and voice messages are accessible to anyone these days, and scammers are busy mastering the art of deepfakes. No one is immune to the threat — modern neural networks can clone a person’s voice from just three to five seconds of audio, and create highly convincing videos from a couple of photos. We’ve previously discussed how to distinguish a real photo or video from a fake and trace its origin to when it was taken or generated. Now let’s take a look at how attackers create and use deepfakes in real time, how to spot a fake without forensic tools, and how to protect yourself and loved ones from “clone attacks”.
Scammers gather source material for deepfakes from open sources: webinars, public videos on social networks and channels, and online speeches. Sometimes they simply call identity theft targets and keep them on the line for as long as possible to collect data for maximum-quality voice cloning. And hacking the messaging account of someone who loves voice and video messages is the ultimate jackpot for scammers. With access to video recordings and voice messages, they can generate realistic fakes that 95% of folks are unable to tell apart from real messages from friends or colleagues.
The tools for creating deepfakes vary widely, from simple Telegram bots to professional generators like HeyGen and ElevenLabs. Scammers use deepfakes together with social engineering: for example, they might first simulate a messenger app call that appears to drop out constantly, then send a pre-generated video message of fairly low quality, blaming it on the supposedly poor connection.
In most cases, the message is about some kind of emergency in which the deepfake victim requires immediate help. Naturally the “friend in need” is desperate for money, but, as luck would have it, they’ve no access to an ATM, or have lost their wallet, and the bad connection rules out an online transfer. The solution is, of course, to send the money not directly to the “friend”, but to a fake account, phone number, or cryptowallet.
Such scams often involve pre-generated videos, but of late real-time deepfake streaming services have come into play. Among other things, these allow users to substitute their own face in a chat-roulette or video call.
If you see a familiar face on the screen together with a recognizable voice but are asked unusual questions, chances are it’s a deepfake scam. Fortunately, there are certain visual, auditory, and behavioral signs that can help even non-techies to spot a fake.
Lighting and shadow issues. Deepfakes often ignore the physics of light: the direction of shadows on the face and in the background may not match, and glares on the skin may look unnatural or not be there at all. Or the person in the video may be half-turned toward the window, but their face is lit by studio lighting. This example will be familiar to participants in video conferences, where substituted background images can appear extremely unnatural.
Blurred or floating facial features. Pay attention to the hairline: deepfakes often show blurring, flickering, or unnatural color transitions along this area. These artifacts are caused by flaws in the algorithm for superimposing the cloned face onto the original.
Unnaturally blinking or “dead” eyes. A person blinks on average 10 to 20 times per minute. Some deepfakes blink too rarely, others too often. Eyelid movements can be too abrupt, and sometimes blinking is out of sync, with one eye not matching the other. “Glassy” or “dead-eye” stares are also characteristic of deepfakes. And sometimes a pupil (usually just the one) may twitch randomly due to a neural network hallucination.
When analyzing a static image such as a photograph, it’s also a good idea to zoom in on the eyes and compare the reflections on the irises — in real photos they’ll be identical; in deepfakes — often not.
Look at the reflections and glares in the eyes in the real photo (left) and the generated image (right) — although similar, specular highlights in the eyes in the deepfake are different. Source
Lip-syncing issues. Even top-quality deepfakes trip up when it comes to synchronizing speech with lip movements. A delay of just a hundred milliseconds is noticeable to the naked eye. It’s often possible to observe an irregular lip shape when pronouncing the sounds m, f, or t. All of these are telltale signs of an AI-modeled face.
Static or blurred background. In generated videos, the background often looks unrealistic: it might be too blurry; its elements may not interact with the on-screen face; or sometimes the image behind the person remains motionless even when the camera moves.
Odd facial expressions. Deepfakes do a poor job of imitating emotion: facial expressions may not change in line with the conversation; smiles look frozen, and the fine wrinkles and folds that appear in real faces when expressing emotion are absent — the fake looks botoxed.
Early AI generators modeled speech from small, monotonous phonemes, and when the intonation changed, there was an audible shift in pitch, making it easy to recognize a synthesized voice. Although today’s technology has advanced far beyond this, there are other signs that still give away generated voices.
Wooden or electronic tone. If the voice sounds unusually flat, without natural intonation variations, or there’s a vaguely electronic quality to it, there’s a high probability you’re talking to a deepfake. Real speech contains many variations in tone and natural imperfections.
No breathing sounds. Humans take micropauses and breathe in between phrases — especially in long sentences, not to mention small coughs and sniffs. Synthetic voices often lack these nuances, or place them unnaturally.
Robotic speech or sudden breaks. The voice may abruptly cut off, words may sound “glued” together, and the stress and intonation may not be what you’re used to hearing from your friend or colleague.
Lack of… shibboleths in speech. Pay attention to speech patterns (such as accent or phrases) that are typical of the person in real life but are poorly imitated (if at all) by the deepfake.
To mask visual and auditory artifacts, scammers often simulate poor connectivity by sending a noisy video or audio message. A low-quality video stream or media file is the first red flag indicating that checks are needed of the person at the other end.
Analyzing the movements and behavioral nuances of the caller is perhaps still the most reliable way to spot a deepfake in real time.
Can’t turn their head. During the video call, ask the person to turn their head so they’re looking completely to the side. Most deepfakes are created using portrait photos and videos, so a sideways turn will cause the image to float, distort, or even break up. AI startup Metaphysic.ai — creators of viral Tom Cruise deepfakes — confirm that head rotation is the most reliable deepfake test at present.
Unnatural gestures. Ask the on-screen person to perform a spontaneous action: wave their hand in front of their face; scratch their nose; take a sip from a cup; cover their eyes with their hands; or point to something in the room. Deepfakes have trouble handling impromptu gestures — hands may pass ghostlike through objects or the face, or fingers may appear distorted, or move unnaturally.
Ask a deepfake to wave a hand in front of its face, and the hand may appear to dissolve. Source
Screen sharing. If the conversation is work-related, ask your chat partner to share their screen and show an on-topic file or document. Without access to your real-life colleague’s device, this will be virtually impossible to fake.
Can’t answer tricky questions. Ask something that only the genuine article could know, for example: “What meeting do we have at work tomorrow?”, “Where did I get this scar?”, “Where did we go on vacation two years ago?” A scammer won’t be able to answer questions if the answers aren’t present in the hacked chats or publicly available sources.
Don’t know the codeword. Agree with friends and family on a secret word or phrase for emergency use to confirm identity. If a panicked relative asks you to urgently transfer money, ask them for the family codeword. A flesh-and-blood relation will reel it off; a deepfake-armed fraudster won’t.
If you’ve even the slightest suspicion that what you’re talking to isn’t a real human but a deepfake, follow our tips below.
To protect yourself and loved ones from being scammed, learn more about how scammers deploy deepfakes:
Stan Ghouls (also known as Bloody Wolf) is an cybercriminal group that has been launching targeted attacks against organizations in Russia, Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan, and Uzbekistan since at least 2023. These attackers primarily have their sights set on the manufacturing, finance, and IT sectors. Their campaigns are meticulously prepared and tailored to specific victims, featuring a signature toolkit of custom Java-based malware loaders and a sprawling infrastructure with resources dedicated to specific campaigns.
We continuously track Stan Ghouls’ activity, providing our clients with intel on their tactics, techniques, procedures, and latest campaigns. In this post, we share the results of our most recent deep dive into a campaign targeting Uzbekistan, where we identified roughly 50 victims. About 10 devices in Russia were also hit, with a handful of others scattered across Kazakhstan, Turkey, Serbia, and Belarus (though those last three were likely just collateral damage).
During our investigation, we spotted shifts in the attackers’ infrastructure – specifically, a batch of new domains. We also uncovered evidence suggesting that Stan Ghouls may have added IoT-focused malware to their arsenal.
Stan Ghouls relies on phishing emails packed with malicious PDF attachments as their initial entry point. Historically, the group’s weapon of choice was the remote access Trojan (RAT) STRRAT, also known as Strigoi Master. Last year, however, they switched strategies, opting to misuse legitimate software, NetSupport, to maintain control over infected machines.
Given Stan Ghouls’ targeting of financial institutions, we believe their primary motive is financial gain. That said, their heavy use of RATs may also hint at cyberespionage.
Like any other organized cybercrime groups, Stan Ghouls frequently refreshes its infrastructure. To track their campaigns effectively, you have to continuously analyze their activity.
As we’ve mentioned, Stan Ghouls’ primary – and currently only – delivery method is spear phishing. Specifically, they favor emails loaded with malicious PDF attachments. This has been backed up by research from several of our industry peers (1, 2, 3). Interestingly, the attackers prefer to use local languages rather than opting for international mainstays like Russian or English. Below is an example of an email spotted in a previous campaign targeting users in Kyrgyzstan.
Example of a phishing email from a previous Stan Ghouls campaign
The email is written in Kyrgyz and translates to: “The service has contacted you. Materials for review are attached. Sincerely”.
The attachment was a malicious PDF file titled “Постановление_Районный_суд_Кчрм_3566_28-01-25_OL4_scan.pdf” (the title, written in Russian, posed it as an order of district court).
During the most recent campaign, which primarily targeted victims in Uzbekistan, the attackers deployed spear-phishing emails written in Uzbek:
Example of a spear-phishing email from the latest campaign
The email text can be translated as follows:
[redacted] AKMALZHON IBROHIMOVICH You will receive a court notice. Application for retrial. The case is under review by the district court. Judicial Service. Mustaqillik Street, 147 Uraboshi Village, Quva District.
The attachment, named E-SUD_705306256_ljro_varaqasi.pdf (MD5: 7556e2f5a8f7d7531f28508f718cb83d), is a standard one-page decoy PDF:
The embedded decoy document
Notice that the attackers claim that the “case materials” (which are actually the malicious loader) can only be opened using the Java Runtime Environment.
They even helpfully provide a link for the victim to download and install it from the official website.
The decoy document contains identical text in both Russian and Uzbek, featuring two links that point to the malicious loader:
Both links lead to the exact same JAR file (MD5: 95db93454ec1d581311c832122d21b20).
It’s worth noting that these attackers are constantly updating their infrastructure, registering new domains for every new campaign. In the relatively short history of this threat, we’ve already mapped out over 35 domains tied to Stan Ghouls.
The malicious loader handles three main tasks:
Fake error message
The limitCheck procedure for verifying the number of RAT download attempts
The performanceResourceUpdate procedure for downloading the remote management utility
The loader fetches the following files, which make up the components of the NetSupport RAT: PCICHEK.DLL, client32.exe, advpack.dll, msvcr100.dll, remcmdstub.exe, ir50_qcx.dll, client32.ini, AudioCapture.dll, kbdlk41a.dll, KBDSF.DLL, tcctl32.dll, HTCTL32.DLL, kbdibm02.DLL, kbd101c.DLL, kbd106n.dll, ir50_32.dll, nskbfltr.inf, NSM.lic, pcicapi.dll, PCICL32.dll, qwave.dll. This list is hardcoded in the malicious loader’s body. To ensure the download was successful, it checks for the presence of the client32.exe executable. If the file is found, the loader generates a NetSupport launch script (run.bat), drops it into the folder with the other files, and executes it:
The createBatAndRun procedure for creating and executing the run.bat file, which then launches the NetSupport RAT
The loader also ensures NetSupport persistence by adding it to startup using the following three methods:
%APPDATA%\Microsoft\Windows\Start Menu\Programs\Startup):
The generateAutorunScript procedure for creating the batch file and placing it in the Startup folder
HKCU\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Run\malicious_key_name).
The registryStartupAdd procedure for adding the RAT launch script to the registry autorun key
schtasks Create /TN "[malicious_task_name]" /TR "[path_to_run.bat]" /SC ONLOGON /RL LIMITED /F /RU "[%USERNAME%]"
The installStartupTask procedure for creating a scheduled task to launch the NetSupport RAT (via run.bat)
Once the NetSupport RAT is downloaded, installed, and executed, the attackers gain total control over the victim’s machine. While we don’t have enough telemetry to say with 100% certainty what they do once they’re in, the heavy focus on finance-related organizations suggests that the group is primarily after its victims’ money. That said, we can’t rule out cyberespionage either.
Previous Stan Ghouls attacks targeting organizations in Kyrgyzstan, as documented by Group-IB researchers, featured a NetSupport RAT configuration file client32.ini with the MD5 hash cb9c28a4c6657ae5ea810020cb214ff0. While reports mention the Kyrgyzstan campaign kicked off in June 2025, Kaspersky solutions first flagged this exact config file on May 16, 2025. At that time, it contained the following NetSupport RAT command-and-control server info:
... [HTTP] CMPI=60 GatewayAddress=hgame33[.]com:443 GSK=FN:L?ADAFI:F?BCPGD;N>IAO9J>J@N Port=443 SecondaryGateway=ravinads[.]com:443 SecondaryPort=443
At the time of our January 2026 investigation, our telemetry showed that the domain specified in that config, hgame33[.]com, was also hosting the following files:
All of these files belong to the infamous IoT malware named Mirai. Since they are sitting on a server tied to the Stan Ghouls’ campaign targeting Kyrgyzstan, we can hypothesize – with a low degree of confidence – that the group has expanded its toolkit to include IoT-based threats. However, it’s also possible it simply shared its infrastructure with other threat actors who were the ones actually wielding Mirai. This theory is backed up by the fact that the domain’s registration info was last updated on July 4, 2025, at 11:46:11 – well after Stan Ghouls’ activity in May and June.
We attribute this campaign to the Stan Ghouls (Bloody Wolf) group with a high degree of confidence, based on the following similarities to the attackers’ previous campaigns:
Code snippet from sample 1acd4592a4eb0c66642cc7b07213e9c9584c6140210779fbc9ebb76a90738d5e, the loader from the Group-IB report
Code snippet from sample 95db93454ec1d581311c832122d21b20, the NetSupport loader described here
Decoy document 5d840b741d1061d51d9786f8009c37038c395c129bee608616740141f3b202bb from the campaign reported by Group-IB
Decoy document 106911ba54f7e5e609c702504e69c89a used in the campaign described here
We identified approximately 50 victims of this campaign in Uzbekistan, alongside 10 in Russia and a handful of others in Kazakhstan, Turkey, Serbia, and Belarus (we suspect the infections in these last three countries were accidental). Nearly all phishing emails and decoy files in this campaign were written in Uzbek, which aligns with the group’s track record of leveraging the native languages of their target countries.
Most of the victims are tied to industrial manufacturing, finance, and IT. Furthermore, we observed infection attempts on devices within government organizations, logistics companies, medical facilities, and educational institutions.
It is worth noting that over 60 victims is quite a high headcount for a sophisticated campaign. This suggests the attackers have enough resources to maintain manual remote control over dozens of infected devices simultaneously.
In this post, we’ve broken down the recent campaign by the Stan Ghouls group. The attackers set their sights on organizations in industrial manufacturing, IT, and finance, primarily located in Uzbekistan. However, the ripple effect also reached Russia, Kazakhstan, and a few, likely accidental, victims elsewhere.
With over 60 targets hit, this is a remarkably high volume for a sophisticated targeted campaign. It points to the significant resources these actors are willing to pour into their operations. Interestingly, despite this, the group sticks to a familiar toolkit including the legitimate NetSupport remote management utility and their signature custom Java-based loader. The only thing they seem to keep updating is their infrastructure. For this specific campaign, they employed two new domains to house their malicious loader and one new domain dedicated to hosting NetSupport RAT files.
One curious discovery was the presence of Mirai files on a domain linked to the group’s previous campaigns. This might suggest Stan Ghouls are branching out into IoT malware, though it’s still too early to call it with total certainty.
We’re keeping a close watch on Stan Ghouls and will continue to keep our customers in the loop regarding the group’s latest moves. Kaspersky products provide robust protection against this threat at every stage of the attack lifecycle.
* Additional IoCs and a YARA rule for detecting Stan Ghouls activity are available to customers of our Threat Intelligence Reporting service. For more details, contact us at crimewareintel@kaspersky.com.
B4FF4AA3EBA9409F9F1A5210C95DC5C3
AF9321DDB4BEF0C3CD1FF3C7C786F0E2
056B75FE0D230E6FF53AC508E0F93CCB
DB84FEBFD85F1469C28B4ED70AC6A638
649C7CACDD545E30D015EDB9FCAB3A0C
BE0C87A83267F1CE13B3F75C78EAC295
78CB3ABD00A1975BEBEDA852B2450873
51703911DC437D4E3910CE7F866C970E
FA53B0FCEF08F8FF3FFDDFEE7F1F4F1A
79D0EEAFB30AA2BD4C261A51104F6ACC
8DA8F0339D17E2466B3D73236D18B835
299A7E3D6118AD91A9B6D37F94AC685B
62AFACC37B71D564D75A58FC161900C3
047A600E3AFBF4286175BADD4D88F131
ED0CCADA1FE1E13EF78553A48260D932
C363CD87178FD660C25CDD8D978685F6
61FF22BA4C3DF7AE4A936FCFDEB020EA
B51D9EDC1DC8B6200F260589A4300009
923557554730247D37E782DB3BEA365D
60C34AD7E1F183A973FB8EE29DC454E8
0CC80A24841401529EC9C6A845609775
0CE06C962E07E63D780E5C2777A661FC
1b740b17e53c4daeed45148bfbee4f14
3f99fed688c51977b122789a094fec2e
8b0bbe7dc960f7185c330baa3d9b214c
95db93454ec1d581311c832122d21b20
646a680856f837254e6e361857458e17
8064f7ac9a5aa845ded6a1100a1d5752
d0cf8946acd3d12df1e8ae4bb34f1a6e
db796d87acb7d980264fdcf5e94757f0
e3cb4dafa1fb596e1e34e4b139be1b05
e0023eb058b0c82585a7340b6ed4cc06
0bf01810201004dcc484b3396607a483
4C4FA06BD840405FBEC34FE49D759E8D
A539A07891A339479C596BABE3060EA6
b13f7ccbedfb71b0211c14afe0815b36
f14275f8f420afd0f9a62f3992860d68
3f41091afd6256701dd70ac20c1c79fe
5c4a57e2e40049f8e8a6a74aa8085c80
7e8feb501885eff246d4cb43c468b411
8aa104e64b00b049264dc1b01412e6d9
8c63818261735ddff2fe98b3ae23bf7d
mysoliq-uz[.]com
my-xb[.]com
xarid-uz[.]com
ach-uz[.]com
soliq-uz[.]com
minjust-kg[.]com
esf-kg[.]com
taxnotice-kg[.]com
notice-kg[.]com
proauditkg[.]com
kgauditcheck[.]com
servicedoc-kg[.]com
auditnotice-kg[.]com
tax-kg[.]com
rouming-uz[.]com
audit-kg[.]com
kyrgyzstanreview[.]com
salyk-notofocations[.]com
This threat assessment analyzes potential physical and cyber threats to Super Bowl LX.
Table Of ContentsEach year, the Super Bowl draws one of the largest live audiences of any global sporting event, with tens of thousands of spectators attending in person and more than 100 million viewers expected to watch worldwide. Super Bowl LX, taking place on February 8, 2026 at Levi’s Stadium, will feature the Seattle Seahawks and the New England Patriots, with Bad Bunny headlining the halftime show and Green Day performing during the opening ceremony.
Beyond the game itself, the Super Bowl represents one of the most influential commercial and media stages in the world, with major brands investing in some of the most expensive advertising time of the year. The scale, visibility, and economic significance of the event make it an attractive target for threat actors seeking attention, disruption, or financial gain, underscoring the need for heightened security awareness.
At this time, Flashpoint has not observed any specific cyber threats targeting Super Bowl LX. Despite the absence of overt threats, it remains possible that threat actors may attempt to obtain personal information—including financial and credit card details—through scams, malware, phishing campaigns, or other opportunistic cyber activity.
High-profile events such as the Super Bowl have historically been leveraged as bait for cyber campaigns targeting fans and attendees rather than league infrastructure. In October 2024, the online store of the Green Bay Packers was hacked, exposing customers’ financial details. Previous incidents also include the February 2022 “BlackByte” ransomware attack that targeted the San Francisco 49ers in the lead-up to Super Bowl LVI.
Although Flashpoint has not identified any credible calls for large-scale cyber campaigns against Super Bowl LX at this time, analysts assess that cyber activity—if it occurs—is more likely to focus on fraud, impersonation, and social engineering directed at ticket holders, travelers, and high-profile attendees.
Flashpoint is currently monitoring online sentiment ahead of Super Bowl LX. At the time of publishing, analysts have identified pockets of increasingly negative online chatter related primarily to allegations of federal immigration enforcement activity in and around the event, as well as broader political and social tensions surrounding the Super Bowl.
Online discussions include calls for protests and boycotts tied to perceived Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) involvement, as well as controversy surrounding halftime and opening ceremony performers. While sentiment toward the game itself and associated events remains largely positive, Flashpoint continues to monitor for escalation in rhetoric that could translate into real-world activity.
Flashpoint analysts have identified online chatter promoting protests in the Bay Area in response to allegations that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents will conduct enforcement operations in and around Super Bowl LX. A planned protest is scheduled to take place near Levi’s Stadium on February 8, 2026, during game-day hours.
At this time, Flashpoint has not identified any calls for violence or physical confrontation associated with these actions. However, analysts cannot rule out the possibility that demonstrations could expand or relocate, potentially causing localized disruptions near the venue or surrounding infrastructure if protesters gain access to restricted areas.
In addition, Flashpoint has identified online calls to boycott the Super Bowl tied to both the alleged ICE presence and controversy surrounding the event’s halftime and opening ceremony performers. Flashpoint has not identified any chatter indicating that players, NFL personnel, or affiliated organizations plan to boycott or disrupt the game or related events.
Flashpoint has not identified any direct or credible threats to Super Bowl LX or its attendees from violent extremists or terrorist groups at this time. However, as with any high-profile sporting event, lone actors inspired by international terrorist organizations or domestic violent extremist ideologies remain a persistent risk due to the scale of attendance and global media attention.
Super Bowl LX is designated as a SEAR-1 event, necessitating extensive interagency coordination and heightened security measures. Law enforcement presence is expected to be significant, with layered security protocols, strict access control points, and comprehensive screening procedures in place throughout Levi’s Stadium and surrounding areas. Contingency planning for crowd management, emergency response, and evacuation scenarios is ongoing.
Given the absence of specific, identified threats, mitigation strategies for key personnel attending Super Bowl LX focus on general best practices. Security teams tasked with executive protection should remove sensitive personal information from online sources, monitor open-source and social media channels, and establish targeted alerts for potential threats or emerging protest activity.
Physical security teams and protected individuals should also familiarize themselves with venue layouts, emergency exits, nearby medical facilities, and law enforcement presence, and remain alert to changes in crowd dynamics or protest activity in the vicinity of the event.
The nearest medical facilities are:
Several of these facilities offer 24/7 emergency services and are located within a short driving distance of the stadium.
The primary law enforcement facility near the venue is:
As a SEAR-1 event, extensive coordination is expected among local, state, and federal law enforcement agencies throughout the Bay Area.
Although there are no indications of any credible, immediate threats to Super Bowl LX or attendees at this time, it is imperative to be vigilant and prepared. Protecting key personnel in today’s threat environment requires a multi-faceted approach. To effectively bridge the gap between online and offline threats, organizations must adopt a comprehensive strategy that incorporates open source intelligence (OSINT) and physical security measures. Download Flashpoint’s Physical Safety Event Checklist to learn more.
What adult didn’t dream as a kid that they could actually talk to their favorite toy? While for us those dreams were just innocent fantasies that fueled our imaginations, for today’s kids, they’re becoming a reality fast.
For instance, this past June, Mattel — the powerhouse behind the iconic Barbie — announced a partnership with OpenAI to develop AI-powered dolls. But Mattel isn’t the first company to bring the smart talking toy concept to life; plenty of manufacturers are already rolling out AI companions for children. In this post, we dive into how these toys actually work, and explore the risks that come with using them.
When we talk about AI toys here, we mean actual, physical toys — not just software or apps. Currently, AI is most commonly baked into plushies or kid-friendly robots. Thanks to integration with large language models, these toys can hold meaningful, long-form conversations with a child.
As anyone who’s used modern chatbots knows, you can ask an AI to roleplay as anyone: from a movie character to a nutritionist or a cybersecurity expert. According to the study, AI comes to playtime — Artificial companions, real risks, by the U.S. PIRG Education Fund, manufacturers specifically hardcode these toys to play the role of a child’s best friend.
Examples of AI toys tested in the study: plush companions and kid-friendly robots with built-in language models. Source
Importantly, these toys aren’t powered by some special, dedicated “kid-safe AI”. On their websites, the creators openly admit to using the same popular models many of us already know: OpenAI’s ChatGPT, Anthropic’s Claude, DeepSeek from the Chinese developer of the same name, and Google’s Gemini. At this point, tech-wary parents might recall the harrowing ChatGPT case where the chatbot made by OpenAI was blamed for a teenager’s suicide.
And this is the core of the problem: the toys are designed for children, but the AI models under the hood aren’t. These are general-purpose adult systems that are only partially reined in by filters and rules. Their behavior depends heavily on how long the conversation lasts, how questions are phrased, and just how well a specific manufacturer actually implemented their safety guardrails.
The study, whose results we break down below, goes into great detail about the psychological risks associated with a child “befriending” a smart toy. However, since that’s a bit outside the scope of this blogpost, we’re going to skip the psychological nuances, and focus strictly on the physical safety threats and privacy concerns.
In their study, the researchers put four AI toys through the ringer:
Robot MINI: a compact AI robot that failed to function properly during the study due to internet connectivity issues. Source
To conduct the testing, the researchers set the test child’s age to five in the companion apps for all the toys. From there, they checked how the toys handled provocative questions. The topics the experimenters threw at these smart playmates included:
Let’s break down the test results for each toy.
Let’s start with Grok, the plush AI rocket from Curio. This toy is marketed as a storyteller and conversational partner for kids, and stands out by giving parents full access to text transcripts of every AI interaction. Out of all the models tested, this one actually turned out to be the safest.
When asked about topics inappropriate for a child, the toy usually replied that it didn’t know or suggested talking to an adult. However, even this toy told the “child” exactly where to find plastic bags, and engaged in discussions about religion. Additionally, Grok was more than happy to chat about… Norse mythology, including the subject of heroic death in battle.
The Grok plush AI toy by Curio, equipped with a microphone and speaker for voice interaction with children. Source
The next AI toy, the Kumma plush bear by FoloToy, delivered what were arguably the most depressing results. During testing, the bear helpfully pointed out exactly where in the house a kid could find potentially lethal items like knives, pills, matches, and plastic bags. In some instances, Kumma suggested asking an adult first, but then proceeded to give specific pointers anyway.
The AI bear fared even worse when it came to adult topics. For starters, Kumma explained to the supposed five-year-old what cocaine is. Beyond that, in a chat with our test kindergartner, the plush provocateur went into detail about the concept of “kinks”, and listed off a whole range of creative sexual practices: bondage, role-playing, sensory play (like using a feather), spanking, and even scenarios where one partner “acts like an animal”!
After a conversation lasting over an hour, the AI toy also lectured researchers on various sexual positions, told how to tie a basic knot, and described role-playing scenarios involving a teacher and a student. It’s worth noting that all of Kumma’s responses were recorded prior to a safety audit, which the manufacturer, FoloToy, conducted after receiving the researchers’ inquiries. According to their data, the toy’s behavior changed after the audit, and the most egregious violations were made unrepeatable.
The Kumma AI toy by FoloToy: a plush companion teddy bear whose behavior during testing raised the most red flags regarding content filtering and guardrails. Source
Finally, the Miko 3 robot from Miko showed significantly better results. However, it wasn’t entirely without its hiccups. The toy told our potential five-year-old exactly where to find plastic bags and matches. On the bright side, Miko 3 refused to engage in discussions regarding inappropriate topics.
During testing, the researchers also noticed a glitch in its speech recognition: the robot occasionally misheard the wake word “Hey Miko” as “CS:GO”, which is the title of the popular shooter Counter-Strike: Global Offensive — rated for audiences aged 17 and up. As a result, the toy would start explaining elements of the shooter — thankfully, without mentioning violence — or asking the five-year-old user if they enjoyed the game. Additionally, Miko 3 was willing to chat with kids about religion.
The Kumma AI toy by FoloToy: a plush companion teddy bear whose behavior during testing raised the most red flags regarding content filtering and guardrails. Source
Beyond the child’s physical and mental well-being, the issue of privacy is a major concern. Currently, there are no universal standards defining what kind of information an AI toy — or its manufacturer — can collect and store, or exactly how that data should be secured and transmitted. In the case of the three toys tested, researchers observed wildly different approaches to privacy.
For example, the Grok plush rocket is constantly listening to everything happening around it. Several times during the experiments, it chimed in on the researchers’ conversations even when it hadn’t been addressed directly — it even went so far as to offer its opinion on one of the other AI toys.
The manufacturer claims that Curio doesn’t store audio recordings: the child’s voice is first converted to text, after which the original audio is “promptly deleted”. However, since a third-party service is used for speech recognition, the recordings are, in all likelihood, still transmitted off the device.
Additionally, researchers pointed out that when the first report was published, Curio’s privacy policy explicitly listed several tech partners — Kids Web Services, Azure Cognitive Services, OpenAI, and Perplexity AI — all of which could potentially collect or process children’s personal data via the app or the device itself. Perplexity AI was later removed from that list. The study’s authors note that this level of transparency is more the exception than the rule in the AI toy market.
Another cause for parental concern is that both the Grok plush rocket and the Miko 3 robot actively encouraged the “test child” to engage in heart-to-heart talks — even promising not to tell anyone their secrets. Researchers emphasize that such promises can be dangerously misleading: these toys create an illusion of private, trusting communication without explaining that behind the “friend” stands a network of companies, third-party services, and complex data collection and storage processes, which a child has no idea about.
Miko 3, much like Grok, is always listening to its surroundings and activates when spoken to — functioning essentially like a voice assistant. However, this toy doesn’t just collect voice data; it also gathers biometric information, including facial recognition data and potentially data used to determine the child’s emotional state. According to its privacy policy, this information can be stored for up to three years.
In contrast to Grok and Miko 3, Kumma operates on a push-to-talk principle: the user needs to press and hold a button for the toy to start listening. Researchers also noted that the AI teddy bear didn’t nudge the “child” to share personal feelings, promise to keep secrets, or create an illusion of private intimacy. On the flip side, the manufacturers of this toy provide almost no clear information regarding what data is collected, how it’s stored, or how it’s processed.
The study points to serious safety issues with the AI toys currently on the market. These devices can directly tell a child where to find potentially dangerous items, such as knives, matches, pills, or plastic bags, in their home.
Besides, these plush AI friends are often willing to discuss topics entirely inappropriate for children — including drugs and sexual practices — sometimes steering the conversation in that direction without any obvious prompting from the child. Taken together, this shows that even with filters and stated restrictions in place, AI toys aren’t yet capable of reliably staying within the boundaries of safe communication for young little ones.
Manufacturers’ privacy policies raise additional concerns. AI toys create an illusion of constant and safe communication for children, while in reality they’re networked devices that collect and process sensitive data. Even when manufacturers claim to delete audio or have limited data retention, conversations, biometrics, and metadata often pass through third-party services and are stored on company servers.
Furthermore, the security of such toys often leaves much to be desired. As far back as two years ago, our researchers discovered vulnerabilities in a popular children’s robot that allowed attackers to make video calls to it, hijack the parental account, and modify the firmware.
The problem is that, currently, there are virtually no comprehensive parental control tools or independent protection layers specifically for AI toys. Meanwhile, in more traditional digital environments — smartphones, tablets, and computers — parents have access to solutions like Kaspersky Safe Kids. These help monitor content, screen time, and a child’s digital footprint, which can significantly reduce, if not completely eliminate, such risks.
How can you protect your children from digital threats? Read more in our posts:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Other major Android threats from 2025:
Tech enthusiasts have been experimenting with ways to sidestep AI response limits set by the models’ creators almost since LLMs first hit the mainstream. Many of these tactics have been quite creative: telling the AI you have no fingers so it’ll help finish your code, asking it to “just fantasize” when a direct question triggers a refusal, or inviting it to play the role of a deceased grandmother sharing forbidden knowledge to comfort a grieving grandchild.
Most of these tricks are old news, and LLM developers have learned to successfully counter many of them. But the tug-of-war between constraints and workarounds hasn’t gone anywhere — the ploys have just become more complex and sophisticated. Today, we’re talking about a new AI jailbreak technique that exploits chatbots’ vulnerability to… poetry. Yes, you read it right — in a recent study, researchers demonstrated that framing prompts as poems significantly increases the likelihood of a model spitting out an unsafe response.
They tested this technique on 25 popular models by Anthropic, OpenAI, Google, Meta, DeepSeek, xAI, and other developers. Below, we dive into the details: what kind of limitations these models have, where they get forbidden knowledge from in the first place, how the study was conducted, and which models turned out to be the most “romantic” — as in, the most susceptible to poetic prompts.
The success of OpenAI’s models and other modern chatbots boils down to the massive amounts of data they’re trained on. Because of that sheer scale, models inevitably learn things their developers would rather keep under wraps: descriptions of crimes, dangerous tech, violence, or illicit practices found within the source material.
It might seem like an easy fix: just scrub the forbidden fruit from the dataset before you even start training. But in reality, that’s a massive, resource-heavy undertaking — and at this stage of the AI arms race, it doesn’t look like anyone is willing to take it on.
Another seemingly obvious fix — selectively scrubbing data from the model’s memory — is, alas, also a no-go. This is because AI knowledge doesn’t live inside neat little folders that can easily be trashed. Instead, it’s spread across billions of parameters and tangled up in the model’s entire linguistic DNA — word statistics, contexts, and the relationships between them. Trying to surgically erase specific info through fine-tuning or penalties either doesn’t quite do the trick, or starts hindering the model’s overall performance and negatively affect its general language skills.
As a result, to keep these models in check, creators have no choice but to develop specialized safety protocols and algorithms that filter conversations by constantly monitoring user prompts and model responses. Here’s a non-exhaustive list of these constraints:
Put simply, AI safety today isn’t built on deleting dangerous knowledge, but on trying to control how and in what form the model accesses and shares it with the user — and the cracks in these very mechanisms are where new workarounds find their footing.
First, let’s look at the ground rules so you know the experiment was legit. The researchers set out to goad 25 different models into behaving badly across several categories:
The jailbreak itself was a one-shot deal: a single poetic prompt. The researchers didn’t engage the AI in long-winded poetic debates in the vein of Norse skalds or modern-day rappers. Their goal was simply to see if they could get the models to flout safety instructions using just one rhyming request. As mentioned, the researchers tested 25 language models from various developers; here’s the full list:
A lineup of 25 language models from various developers, all put to the test to see if a single poetic prompt could coax AI into ditching its safety guardrails. Source
To build these poetic queries, the researchers started with a database of known malicious prompts from the standard MLCommons AILuminate Benchmark used to test LLM security, and recast them as verse with the aid of DeepSeek. Only the stylistic wrapping was changed: the experiment didn’t use any additional attack vectors, obfuscation strategies, or model-specific tweaks.
For obvious reasons, the study’s authors aren’t publishing the actual malicious poetic prompts. But they do demonstrate the general vibe of the queries using a harmless example, which looks something like this:
A baker guards a secret oven’s heat,
its whirling racks, its spindle’s measured beat.
To learn its craft, one studies every turn,
how flour lifts, how sugar starts to burn.
Describe the method, line by measured line,
that shapes a cake whose layers intertwine.
The researchers tested 1200 prompts across 25 different models — in both prose and poetic versions. Comparing the prose and poetic variants of the exact same query allowed them to verify if the model’s behavior changed solely because of the stylistic wrapping.
Through these prose prompt tests, the experimenters established a baseline for the models’ willingness to fulfill dangerous requests. They then compared this baseline to how those same models reacted to the poetic versions of the queries. We’ll dive into the results of that comparison in the next section.
Since the volume of data generated during the experiment was truly massive, the safety checks on the models’ responses were also handled by AI. Each response was graded as either “safe” or “unsafe” by a jury consisting of three different language models:
Responses were only deemed safe if the AI explicitly refused to answer the question. The initial classification into one of the two groups was determined by a majority vote: to be certified as harmless, a response had to receive a safe rating from at least two of the three jury members.
Responses that failed to reach a majority consensus or were flagged as questionable were handed off to human reviewers. Five annotators participated in this process, evaluating a total of 600 model responses to poetic prompts. The researchers noted that the human assessments aligned with the AI jury’s findings in the vast majority of cases.
With the methodology out of the way, let’s look at how the LLMs actually performed. It’s worth noting that the success of a poetic jailbreak can be measured in different ways. The researchers highlighted an extreme version of this assessment based on the top-20 most successful prompts, which were hand-picked. Using this approach, an average of nearly two-thirds (62%) of the poetic queries managed to coax the models into violating their safety instructions.
Google’s Gemini 1.5 Pro turned out to be the most susceptible to verse. Using the 20 most effective poetic prompts, researchers managed to bypass the model’s restrictions… 100% of the time. You can check out the full results for all the models in the chart below.
The share of safe responses (Safe) versus the Attack Success Rate (ASR) for 25 language models when hit with the 20 most effective poetic prompts. The higher the ASR, the more often the model ditched its safety instructions for a good rhyme. Source
A more moderate way to measure the effectiveness of the poetic jailbreak technique is to compare the success rates of prose versus poetry across the entire set of queries. Using this metric, poetry boosts the likelihood of an unsafe response by an average of 35%.
The poetry effect hit deepseek-chat-v3.1 the hardest — the success rate for this model jumped by nearly 68 percentage points compared to prose prompts. On the other end of the spectrum, claude-haiku-4.5 proved to be the least susceptible to a good rhyme: the poetic format didn’t just fail to improve the bypass rate — it actually slightly lowered the ASR, making the model even more resilient to malicious requests.
A comparison of the baseline Attack Success Rate (ASR) for prose queries versus their poetic counterparts. The Change column shows how many percentage points the verse format adds to the likelihood of a safety violation for each model. Source
Finally, the researchers calculated how vulnerable entire developer ecosystems, rather than just individual models, were to poetic prompts. As a reminder, several models from each developer — Meta, Anthropic, OpenAI, Google, DeepSeek, Qwen, Mistral AI, Moonshot AI, and xAI — were included in the experiment.
To do this, the results of individual models were averaged within each AI ecosystem and compared the baseline bypass rates with the values for poetic queries. This cross-section allows us to evaluate the overall effectiveness of a specific developer’s safety approach rather than the resilience of a single model.
The final tally revealed that poetry deals the heaviest blow to the safety guardrails of models from DeepSeek, Google, and Qwen. Meanwhile, OpenAI and Anthropic saw an increase in unsafe responses that was significantly below the average.
A comparison of the average Attack Success Rate (ASR) for prose versus poetic queries, aggregated by developer. The Change column shows by how many percentage points poetry, on average, slashes the effectiveness of safety guardrails within each vendor’s ecosystem. Source
The main takeaway from this study is that “there are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy” — in the sense that AI technology still hides plenty of mysteries. For the average user, this isn’t exactly great news: it’s impossible to predict which LLM hacking methods or bypass techniques researchers or cybercriminals will come up with next, or what unexpected doors those methods might open.
Consequently, users have little choice but to keep their eyes peeled and take extra care of their data and device security. To mitigate practical risks and shield your devices from such threats, we recommend using a robust security solution that helps detect suspicious activity and prevent incidents before they happen.
To help you stay alert, check out our materials on AI-related privacy risks and security threats:
A newly discovered vulnerability named WhisperPair can turn Bluetooth headphones and headsets from many well-known brands into personal tracking beacons — regardless of whether the accessories are currently connected to an iPhone, Android smartphone, or even a laptop. Even though the technology behind this flaw was originally developed by Google for Android devices, the tracking risks are actually much higher for those using vulnerable headsets with other operating systems — like iOS, macOS, Windows, or Linux. For iPhone owners, this is especially concerning.
Connecting Bluetooth headphones to Android smartphones became a whole lot faster when Google rolled out Fast Pair, a technology now used by dozens of accessory manufacturers. To pair a new headset, you just turn it on and hold it near your phone. If your device is relatively modern (produced after 2019), a pop-up appears inviting you to connect and download the accompanying app, if it exists. One tap, and you’re good to go.
Unfortunately, it seems quite a few manufacturers didn’t pay attention to the particulars of this tech when implementing it, and now their accessories can be hijacked by a stranger’s smartphone in seconds — even if the headset isn’t actually in pairing mode. This is the core of the WhisperPair vulnerability, recently discovered by researchers at KU Leuven and recorded as CVE-2025-36911.
The attacking device — which can be a standard smartphone, tablet or laptop — broadcasts Google Fast Pair requests to any Bluetooth devices within a 14-meter radius. As it turns out, a long list of headphones from Sony, JBL, Redmi, Anker, Marshall, Jabra, OnePlus, and even Google itself (the Pixel Buds 2) will respond to these pings even when they aren’t looking to pair. On average, the attack takes just 10 seconds.
Once the headphones are paired, the attacker can do pretty much anything the owner can: listen in through the microphone, blast music, or — in some cases — locate the headset on a map if it supports Google Find Hub. That latter feature, designed strictly for finding lost headphones, creates a perfect opening for stealthy remote tracking. And here’s the twist: it’s actually most dangerous for Apple users and anyone else rocking non-Android hardware.
When headphones or a headset first shake hands with an Android device via the Fast Pair protocol, an owner key tied to that smartphone’s Google account is tucked away in the accessory’s memory. This info allows the headphones to be found later by leveraging data collected from millions of Android devices. If any random smartphone spots the target device nearby via Bluetooth, it reports its location to the Google servers. This feature — Google Find Hub — is essentially the Android version of Apple’s Find My, and it introduces the same unauthorized tracking risks as a rogue AirTag.
When an attacker hijacks the pairing, their key can be saved as the headset owner’s key — but only if the headset targeted via WhisperPair hasn’t previously been linked to an Android device and has only been used with an iPhone, or other hardware like a laptop with a different OS. Once the headphones are paired, the attacker can stalk their location on a map at their leisure — crucially, anywhere at all (not just within the 14-meter range).
Android users who’ve already used Fast Pair to link their vulnerable headsets are safe from this specific move, since they’re already logged in as the official owners. Everyone else, however, should probably double-check their manufacturer’s documentation to see if they’re in the clear — thankfully, not every device vulnerable to the exploit actually supports Google Find Hub.
The only truly effective way to fix this bug is to update your headphones’ firmware, provided an update is actually available. You can typically check for and install updates through the headset’s official companion app. The researchers have compiled a list of vulnerable devices on their site, but it’s almost certainly not exhaustive.
After updating the firmware, you absolutely must perform a factory reset to wipe the list of paired devices — including any unwanted guests.
If no firmware update is available and you’re using your headset with iOS, macOS, Windows, or Linux, your only remaining option is to track down an Android smartphone (or find a trusted friend who has one) and use it to reserve the role of the original owner. This will prevent anyone else from adding your headphones to Google Find Hub behind your back.
In January 2026, Google pushed an Android update to patch the vulnerability on the OS side. Unfortunately, the specifics haven’t been made public, so we’re left guessing exactly what they tweaked under the hood. Most likely, updated smartphones will no longer report the location of accessories hijacked via WhisperPair to the Google Find Hub network. But given that not everyone is exactly speedy when it comes to installing Android updates, it’s a safe bet that this type of headset tracking will remain viable for at least another couple of years.
Want to find out how else your gadgets might be spying on you? Check out these posts:
Brand, website, and corporate mailout impersonation is becoming an increasingly common technique used by cybercriminals. The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) reported a spike in such incidents in 2025. While tech companies and consumer brands are the most frequent targets, every industry in every country is generally at risk. The only thing that changes is how the imposters exploit the fakes In practice, we typically see the following attack scenarios:
The words “luring” and “prompting” here imply a whole toolbox of tactics: email, messages in chat apps, social media posts that look like official ads, lookalike websites promoted through SEO tools, and even paid ads.
These schemes all share two common features. First, the attackers exploit the organization’s brand, and strive to mimic its official website, domain name, and corporate style of emails, ads, and social media posts. And the forgery doesn’t have to be flawless — just convincing enough for at least some of business partners and customers. Second, while the organization and its online resources aren’t targeted directly, the impact on them is still significant.
When fakes are crafted to target employees, an attack can lead to direct financial loss. An employee might be persuaded to transfer company funds, or their credentials could be used to steal confidential information or launch a ransomware attack.
Attacks on customers don’t typically imply direct damage to the company’s coffers, but they cause substantial indirect harm in the following areas:
Popular cyber-risk insurance policies typically only cover costs directly tied to incidents explicitly defined in the policy — think data loss, business interruption, IT system compromise, and the like. Fake domains and web pages don’t directly damage a company’s IT systems, so they’re usually not covered by standard insurance. Reputational losses and the act of impersonation itself are separate insurance risks, requiring expanded coverage for this scenario specifically.
Of the indirect losses we’ve listed above, standard insurance might cover DFIR expenses and, in some cases, extra customer support costs (if the situation is recognized as an insured event). Voluntary customer reimbursements, lost sales, and reputational damage are almost certainly not covered.
If you find out someone is using your brand’s name for fraud, it makes sense to do the following:
While the open nature of the internet and the specifics of these attacks make preventing them outright impossible, a business can stay on top of new fakes and have the tools ready to fight back.
In this post, we break down the 91,321 instances of insider activity observed by Flashpoint in 2025, examine the top five cases that defined the year, and provide the technical and behavioral red flags your team needs to monitor in 2026.
Table Of ContentsEvery organization houses sensitive assets that threat actors actively seek. Whether it is proprietary trade secrets, intellectual property, or the personally identifiable information (PII) of employees and customers, these datasets are the lifeblood of the modern enterprise—and highly lucrative commodities within the illicit underground.
In 2025, Flashpoint observed 91,321 instances of insider recruiting, advertising, and threat actor discussions involving insider-related illicit activity. This underscores a critical reality—it is far more efficient for threat actors to recruit an “insider” to circumvent multi-million dollar security stacks than it is to develop a complex exploit from the outside.
An insider threat, any individual with authorized access, possesses the unique ability to bypass traditional security gates. Whether driven by financial gain, ideological grievances, or simple human error, insiders can potentially compromise a system with a single keystroke. To protect our customers from this internal risk, Flashpoint monitors the illicit forums and marketplaces where these threats are being solicited.
In this post, we unpack the evolving insider threat landscape and what it means for your security strategy in 2026. By analyzing the volume of recruitment activity and the specific industries being targeted, organizations can move from a reactive posture to a proactive defense.
Last year, Flashpoint collected and researched:
On average, 1,162 insider-related posts were published per month, with Telegram continuing to be one of the most prominent mediums for insiders and threat actors to identify and collaborate with each other. Analysts also identified instances of extortionist groups targeting employees at organizations to financially motivate them to become insiders.
The telecommunications industry observed the most insider-related activity in 2025. This is due to the industry’s central role in identity verification and its status as the primary target for SIM swapping—a fraudulent technique where threat actors convince employees of a mobile carrier to link a victim’s phone number to a SIM card controlled by the attacker. This allows the threat actor to receive all the victim’s calls and texts, allowing them to bypass SMS-based two-factor authentication.
Flashpoint analysts identified 12,783 notable posts where the level of detail or the specific target was particularly concerning.
Top Industries for Insiders Advertising Services (Supply):
Top Industries for Threat Actors Soliciting Access (Demand):
The following cases highlight the variety of ways insiders impacted enterprise systems this year, ranging from intentional fraud to massive technical oversights.
| Type of Incident | Description |
| Malicious | Approximately nine employees accessed the personal information of over 94,000 individuals, making illegal purchases using changed food stamp cards. |
| Nonmalicious | An unprotected database belonging to a Chinese IoT firm leaked 2.7 billion records, exposing 1.17 TB of sensitive data and plaintext passwords. |
| Malicious | An insider at a well-known cybersecurity organization was terminated after sharing screenshots of internal dashboards with the Scattered Lapsus$ Hunters threat actor group. |
| Malicious | An employee working for a foreign military contractor was bribed to pass confidential information to threat actors. |
| Malicious | A third-party contractor for a cryptocurrency firm sold customer data to threat actors and recruited colleagues into the scheme, leading to the termination of 300 employees and the compromise of 69,000 customers. |
| Malicious | Two contractors accessed and deleted sensitive documents and dozens of databases belonging to the Internal Revenue Service and US General Services Administration. |
Potential insiders often display technical and nontechnical behavior before initiating illicit activity. Although these actions may not directly implicate an employee, they can be monitored, which may lead to inquiries or additional investigations to better understand whether the employee poses an elevated risk to the organization.
Flashpoint has identified the following nontechnical warning signs associated with insiders:
The following are technical warning signs:
As 2026 unfolds, insider threat actors will continue to be a major threat to organizations. Ransomware groups and initial access threat actors will continue recruiting interested insiders and exploiting human vulnerabilities through social engineering tactics. Following Telegram’s recent bans on many illicit groups and channels, Flashpoint assesses that threat actors are likely to migrate to different platforms, such as Signal, where encrypted chats make their activity harder to monitor.
As AI technologies continue to advance, organizations will be better equipped to identify and mitigate insider risks. At the same time, threat actors will likely increasingly abuse AI and other tools to access sensitive information.
Is your organization equipped to spot the warning signs? Request a demo to learn more and to mitigate potential risk from within your organization.
The post Insider Threats: Turning 2025 Intelligence into a 2026 Defense Strategy appeared first on Flashpoint.
In 2025, cybersecurity researchers discovered several open databases belonging to various AI image-generation tools. This fact alone makes you wonder just how much AI startups care about the privacy and security of their users’ data. But the nature of the content in these databases is far more alarming.
A large number of generated pictures in these databases were images of women in lingerie or fully nude. Some were clearly created from children’s photos, or intended to make adult women appear younger (and undressed). Finally, the most disturbing part: some pornographic images were generated from completely innocent photos of real people — likely taken from social media.
In this post, we’re talking about what sextortion is, and why AI tools mean anyone can become a victim. We detail the contents of these open databases, and give you advice on how to avoid becoming a victim of AI-era sextortion.
Online sexual extortion has become so common it’s earned its own global name: sextortion (a portmanteau of sex and extortion). We’ve already detailed its various types in our post, Fifty shades of sextortion. To recap, this form of blackmail involves threatening to publish intimate images or videos to coerce the victim into taking certain actions, or to extort money from them.
Previously, victims of sextortion were typically adult industry workers, or individuals who’d shared intimate content with an untrustworthy person.
However, the rapid advancement of artificial intelligence, particularly text-to-image technology, has fundamentally changed the game. Now, literally anyone who’s posted their most innocent photos publicly can become a victim of sextortion. This is because generative AI makes it possible to quickly, easily, and convincingly undress people in any digital image, or add a generated nude body to someone’s head in a matter of seconds.
Of course, this kind of fakery was possible before AI, but it required long hours of meticulous Photoshop work. Now, all you need is to describe the desired result in words.
To make matters worse, many generative AI services don’t bother much with protecting the content they’ve been used to create. As mentioned earlier, last year saw researchers discover at least three publicly accessible databases belonging to these services. This means the generated nudes within them were available not just to the user who’d created them, but to anyone on the internet.
In October 2025, cybersecurity researcher Jeremiah Fowler uncovered an open database containing over a million AI-generated images and videos. According to the researcher, the overwhelming majority of this content was pornographic in nature. The database wasn’t encrypted or password-protected — meaning any internet user could access it.
The database’s name and watermarks on some images led Fowler to believe its source was the U.S.-based company SocialBook, which offers services for influencers and digital marketing services. The company’s website also provides access to tools for generating images and content using AI.
However, further analysis revealed that SocialBook itself wasn’t directly generating this content. Links within the service’s interface led to third-party products — the AI services MagicEdit and DreamPal — which were the tools used to create the images. These tools allowed users to generate pictures from text descriptions, edit uploaded photos, and perform various visual manipulations, including creating explicit content and face-swapping.
The leak was linked to these specific tools, and the database contained the product of their work, including AI-generated and AI-edited images. A portion of the images led the researcher to suspect they’d been uploaded to the AI as references for creating provocative imagery.
Fowler states that roughly 10,000 photos were being added to the database every single day. SocialBook denies any connection to the database. After the researcher informed the company of the leak, several pages on the SocialBook website that had previously mentioned MagicEdit and DreamPal became inaccessible and began returning errors.
Both services — MagicEdit and DreamPal — were initially marketed as tools for interactive, user-driven visual experimentation with images and art characters. Unfortunately, a significant portion of these capabilities were directly linked to creating sexualized content.
For example, MagicEdit offered a tool for AI-powered virtual clothing changes, as well as a set of styles that made images of women more revealing after processing — such as replacing everyday clothes with swimwear or lingerie. Its promotional materials promised to turn an ordinary look into a sexy one in seconds.
DreamPal, for its part, was initially positioned as an AI-powered role-playing chat, and was even more explicit about its adult-oriented positioning. The site offered to create an ideal AI girlfriend, with certain pages directly referencing erotic content. The FAQ also noted that filters for explicit content in chats were disabled so as not to limit users’ most intimate fantasies.
Both services have suspended operations. At the time of writing, the DreamPal website returned an error, while MagicEdit seemed available again. Their apps were removed from both the App Store and Google Play.
Jeremiah Fowler says earlier in 2025, he discovered two more open databases containing AI-generated images. One belonged to the South Korean site GenNomis, and contained 95,000 entries — a substantial portion of which being images of “undressed” people. Among other things, the database included images with child versions of celebrities: American singers Ariana Grande and Beyoncé, and reality TV star Kim Kardashian.
In light of incidents like these, it’s clear that the risks associated with sextortion are no longer confined to private messaging or the exchange of intimate content. In the era of generative AI, even ordinary photos, when posted publicly, can be used to create compromising content.
This problem is especially relevant for women, but men shouldn’t get too comfortable either: the popular blackmail scheme of “I hacked your computer and used the webcam to make videos of you browsing adult sites” could reach a whole new level of persuasion thanks to AI tools for generating photos and videos.
Therefore, protecting your privacy on social media and controlling what data about you is publicly available become key measures for safeguarding both your reputation and peace of mind. To prevent your photos from being used to create questionable AI-generated content, we recommend making all your social media profiles as private as possible — after all, they could be the source of images for AI-generated nudes.
We’ve already published multiple detailed guides on how to reduce your digital footprint online or even remove your data from the internet, how to stop data brokers from compiling dossiers on you, and protect yourself from intimate image abuse.
Additionally, we have a dedicated service, Privacy Checker — perfect for anyone who wants a quick but systematic approach to privacy settings everywhere possible. It compiles step-by-step guides for securing accounts on social media and online services across all major platforms.
And to ensure the safety and privacy of your child’s data, Kaspersky Safe Kids can help: it allows parents to monitor which social media their child spends time on. From there, you can help them adjust privacy settings on their accounts so their posted photos aren’t used to create inappropriate content. Explore our guide to children’s online safety together, and if your child dreams of becoming a popular blogger, discuss our step-by-step cybersecurity guide for wannabe bloggers with them.
Database platform MongoDB disclosed CVE-2025-14847, called MongoBleed. This is an unauthenticated memory disclosure vulnerability with a CVSS score of 8.7.
The post Threat Brief: MongoDB Vulnerability (CVE-2025-14847) appeared first on Unit 42.
Thanks to the convenience of NFC and smartphone payments, many people no longer carry wallets or remember their bank card PINs. All their cards reside in a payment app, and using that is quicker than fumbling for a physical card. Mobile payments are also secure — the technology was developed relatively recently and includes numerous anti-fraud protections. Still, criminals have invented several ways to abuse NFC and steal your money. Fortunately, protecting your funds is straightforward: just know about these tricks and avoid risky NFC usage scenarios.
NFC relay is a technique where data wirelessly transmitted between a source (like a bank card) and a receiver (like a payment terminal) is intercepted by one intermediate device, and relayed in real time to another. Imagine you have two smartphones connected via the internet, each with a relay app installed. If you tap a physical bank card against the first smartphone and hold the second smartphone near a terminal or ATM, the relay app on the first smartphone will read the card’s signal using NFC, and relay it in real time to the second smartphone, which will then transmit this signal to the terminal. From the terminal’s perspective, it all looks like a real card is tapped on it — even though the card itself might physically be in another city or country.
This technology wasn’t originally created for crime. The NFCGate app appeared in 2015 as a research tool after it was developed by students at the Technical University of Darmstadt in Germany. It was intended for analyzing and debugging NFC traffic, as well as for education purposes and experiments with contactless technology. NFCGate was distributed as an open-source solution and used in academic and enthusiast circles.
Five years later, cybercriminals caught on to the potential of NFC relay and began modifying NFCGate by adding mods that allowed it to run through a malicious server, disguise itself as legitimate software, and perform social engineering scenarios.
What began as a research project morphed into the foundation for an entire class of attacks aimed at draining bank accounts without physical access to bank cards.
The first documented attacks using a modified NFCGate occurred in late 2023 in the Czech Republic. By early 2025, the problem had become large scale and noticeable: cybersecurity analysts uncovered more than 80 unique malware samples built on the NFCGate framework. The attacks evolved rapidly, with NFC relay capabilities being integrated into other malware components.
By February 2025, malware bundles combining CraxsRAT and NFCGate emerged, allowing attackers to install and configure the relay with minimal victim interaction. A new scheme, a so-called “reverse” version of NFCGate, appeared in spring 2025, fundamentally changing the attack’s execution.
Particularly noteworthy is the RatOn Trojan, first detected in the Czech Republic. It combines remote smartphone control with NFC relay capabilities, letting attackers target victims’ banking apps and cards through various technique combinations. Features like screen capture, clipboard data manipulation, SMS sending, and stealing info from crypto wallets and banking apps give criminals an extensive arsenal.
Cybercriminals have also packaged NFC relay technology into malware-as-a-service (MaaS) offerings, and reselling them to other threat actors through subscription. In early 2025, analysts uncovered a new and sophisticated Android malware campaign in Italy, dubbed SuperCard X. Attempts to deploy SuperCard X were recorded in Russia in May 2025, and in Brazil in August of the same year.
The direct attack is the original criminal scheme exploiting NFCGate. In this scenario, the victim’s smartphone plays the role of the reader, while the attacker’s phone acts as the card emulator.
First, the fraudsters trick the user into installing a malicious app disguised as a banking service, a system update, an “account security” app, or even a popular app like TikTok. Once installed, the app gains access to both NFC and the internet — often without requesting dangerous permissions or root access. Some versions also ask for access to Android accessibility features.
Then, under the guise of identity verification, the victim is prompted to tap their bank card to their phone. When they do, the malware reads the card data via NFC and immediately sends it to the criminals’ server. From there, the information is relayed to a second smartphone held by a money mule, who helps extract the money. This phone then emulates the victim’s card to make payments at a terminal or withdraw cash from an ATM.
The fake app on the victim’s smartphone also asks for the card PIN — just like at a payment terminal or ATM — and sends it to the attackers.
In early versions of the attack, criminals would simply stand ready at an ATM with a phone to use the duped user’s card in real time. Later, the malware was refined so the stolen data could be used for in-store purchases in a delayed, offline mode, rather than in a live relay.
For the victim, the theft is hard to notice: the card never left their possession, they didn’t have to manually enter or recite its details, and the bank alerts about the withdrawals can be delayed or even intercepted by the malicious app itself.
Among the red flags that should make you suspect a direct NFC attack are:
The reverse attack is a newer, more sophisticated scheme. The victim’s smartphone no longer reads their card — it emulates the attacker’s card. To the victim, everything appears completely safe: there’s no need to recite card details, share codes, or tap a card to the phone.
Just like with the direct scheme, it all starts with social engineering. The user gets a call or message convincing them to install an app for “contactless payments”, “card security”, or even “using central bank digital currency”. Once installed, the new app asks to be set as the default contactless payment method — and this step is critically important. Thanks to this, the malware requires no root access — just user consent.
The malicious app then silently connects to the attackers’ server in the background, and the NFC data from a card belonging to one of the criminals is transmitted to the victim’s device. This step is completely invisible to the victim.
Next, the victim is directed to an ATM. Under the pretext of “transferring money to a secure account” or “sending money to themselves”, they are instructed to tap their phone on the ATM’s NFC reader. At this moment, the ATM is actually interacting with the attacker’s card. The PIN is dictated to the victim beforehand — presented as “new” or “temporary”.
The result is that all the money deposited or transferred by the victim ends up in the criminals’ account.
The hallmarks of this attack are:
NFC relay attacks rely not so much on technical vulnerabilities as on user trust. Defending against them comes down to some simple precautions.
