IT threat evolution in Q1 2026. Non-mobile statistics
IT threat evolution in Q1 2026. Mobile statistics

The statistics in this report are based on detection verdicts returned by Kaspersky products unless otherwise stated. The information was provided by Kaspersky users who consented to sharing statistical data.

Quarterly figures

In Q1 2026:

• Kaspersky products blocked more than 343 million attacks that originated with various online resources.
• Web Anti-Virus responded to 50 million unique links.
• File Anti-Virus blocked nearly 15 million malicious and potentially unwanted objects.
• 2938 new ransomware variants were detected.
• More than 77,000 users experienced ransomware attacks.
• 14% of all ransomware victims whose data was published on threat actors’ data leak sites (DLS) were victims of Clop.
• More than 260,000 users were targeted by miners.

Ransomware

Quarterly trends and highlights

Law enforcement success

In January 2026, it was reported that the FBI had seized the domains of the RAMP cybercrime forum, a major platform used extensively by ransomware developers to advertise their RaaS programs and to recruit affiliates. There has been no official statement from the FBI, nor is it clear if RAMP servers were seized. In a post on an external website, a RAMP moderator mentioned law enforcement agencies gaining control over the forum. The takedown disrupted a key element of the RaaS ecosystem, creating ripple effects for ransomware operators, affiliates, and initial access brokers.

A man suspected of links to the Phobos group was apprehended in Poland. He was charged with the creation, acquisition, and distribution of software designed for unlawfully obtaining information, including data that facilitates unauthorized access to information stored within a computer system.

In March, a Phobos ransomware administrator pleaded guilty to the creation and distribution of the Trojan, which had been used in international attacks dating back to at least November 2020.

In March, the U.S. Department of Justice charged a man who had acted as a negotiator for ransomware groups. The company he worked for specializes in cyberincident investigations. The prosecution alleges the suspect colluded with the BlackCat threat actor to share privileged insights into the ongoing progress of negotiations. Additionally, the suspect is alleged to have had a prior direct role in BlackCat attacks, serving as an affiliate for the RaaS operation.

In a separate development this March, a U.S. court sentenced an initial access broker associated with the Yanluowang ransomware group to 81 months of imprisonment. According to the U.S. Department of Justice, the convict facilitated dozens of ransomware attacks across the United States, resulting in over $9 million in actual loss and more than $24 million in intended loss.

Vulnerabilities and attacks

The Interlock group has been heavily exploiting the CVE-2026-20131 zero-day vulnerability in Cisco Secure FMC firewall management software since at least January 26, 2026. The vulnerability enabled arbitrary Java code execution with root privileges on the affected device. This campaign demonstrates the ongoing reliance on zero-day vulnerabilities for initial access, a focus on network appliances as high-value entry points, and the rapid weaponization of new vulnerabilities within the ransomware ecosystem.

The most prolific groups

This section highlights the most prolific ransomware gangs by number of victims added to each group’s DLS. This quarter, the Clop ransomware (14.42%) returned to the top of the rankings, displacing Qilin (12.34%), which had held the leading position in the previous reporting period. Following closely is a new threat actor, The Gentlemen (9.25%). Emerging no later than July 2025, the group had already surpassed the activity levels of mainstays such as Akira (7.25%) and INC Ransom (6.13%).

Number of each group’s victims according to its DLS as a percentage of all groups’ victims published on all the DLSs under review during the reporting period (download)

Number of new variants

In Q1 2026, Kaspersky solutions detected six new ransomware families and 2938 new modifications. Volumes have returned to Q3 2025 levels following a surge in Q4 2025.

Number of new ransomware modifications, Q1 2025 — Q1 2026 (download)

Number of users attacked by ransomware Trojans

Throughout Q1, our solutions protected 77,319 unique users from ransomware. Ransomware activity was highest in March, with 35,056 unique users encountering such attacks during the month.

Number of unique users attacked by ransomware Trojans, Q1 2026 (download)

Attack geography

TOP 10 countries and territories attacked by ransomware Trojans

* Excluded are countries and territories with relatively few (under 50,000) Kaspersky users.
** Unique users whose computers were attacked by ransomware Trojans as a percentage of all unique users of Kaspersky products in the country/territory.

TOP 10 most common families of ransomware Trojans

* Unique Kaspersky users attacked by the specific ransomware Trojan family as a percentage of all unique users attacked by this type of threat.

Miners

Number of new variants

In Q1 2026, Kaspersky solutions detected 3485 new modifications of miners.

Number of new miner modifications, Q1 2026 (download)

Number of users attacked by miners

In Q1, we detected attacks using miner programs on the computers of 260,588 unique Kaspersky users worldwide.

Number of unique users attacked by miners, Q1 2026 (download)

Attack geography

TOP 10 countries and territories attacked by miners

* Excluded are countries and territories with relatively few (under 50,000) Kaspersky users.
** Unique users whose computers were attacked by miners as a percentage of all unique users of Kaspersky products in the country/territory.

Attacks on macOS

In Q1 2026, Google uncovered a new cryptocurrency theft campaign. The scammers directed victims to a fraudulent video call, prompting them to execute malicious scripts under the guise of technical support fixes for connection problems.

In March, researchers with GTIG and iVerify reported the discovery of an in-the-wild exploit chain targeting both iOS and macOS devices. The exploit kit was apparently marketed on the dark web, providing threat actors with a suite of spyware capabilities alongside specialized cryptocurrency exfiltration modules. The exploit was delivered via drive-by downloads when victims visited various compromised websites. Our analysis confirmed that the toolkit included an updated version of a component previously identified in the Operation Triangulation attack chain.

Devices running macOS were similarly impacted by the high-profile supply chain attack targeting the Axios npm package, a widely used HTTP client for JavaScript. The installation of the infected package led to the deployment of a backdoor on macOS devices.

TOP 20 threats to macOS

Unique users* who encountered this malware as a percentage of all attacked users of Kaspersky security solutions for macOS (download)

* Data for the previous quarter may differ slightly from previously published data due to some verdicts being retrospectively revised.

The share of PasivRobber spyware attacks is beginning to decline, giving way to more traditional adware and Monitor-class software capable of tracking user activity. The popular Amos stealer also maintains its presence within the TOP 20.

Geography of threats to macOS

TOP 10 countries and territories by share of attacked users

* Unique users who encountered threats to macOS as a percentage of all unique Kaspersky users in the country/territory.

IoT threat statistics

This section presents statistics on attacks targeting Kaspersky IoT honeypots. The geographic data on attack sources is based on the IP addresses of attacking devices.

In Q1 2026, the share of devices attacking Kaspersky honeypots via the SSH protocol saw a significant increase compared to the previous reporting period.

Distribution of attacked services by number of unique IP addresses of attacking devices (download)

The distribution of attacks between Telnet and SSH maintained the ratio observed in Q4 2025.

Distribution of attackers’ sessions in Kaspersky honeypots (download)

TOP 10 threats delivered to IoT devices

Share of each threat delivered to an infected device as a result of a successful attack, out of the total number of threats delivered (download)

The primary shifts in the IoT threat distribution are linked to the activity of various Mirai botnet variants, although members of this family continue to account for the majority of the list. Furthermore, a new variant, Mirai.kl, surfaced in the rankings. We also observed a significant decline in NyaDrop botnet activity during Q1.

Attacks on IoT honeypots

The United States, the Netherlands, and Germany accounted for the highest proportions of SSH-based attacks during this period.

China continues to account for the largest proportion of Telnet attacks, though there was a marked increase in activity originating from Pakistan.

Attacks via web resources

The statistics in this section are based on detection verdicts by Web Anti-Virus, which protects users when suspicious objects are downloaded from malicious or infected web pages. These malicious pages are purposefully created by cybercriminals. Websites that host user-generated content, such as message boards, as well as compromised legitimate sites, can become infected.

TOP 10 countries and territories that served as sources of web-based attacks

The following statistics show the distribution by country/territory of the sources of internet attacks blocked by Kaspersky products on user computers (web pages redirecting to exploits, sites containing exploits and other malicious programs, botnet C&C centers, and so on). One or more web-based attacks could originate from each unique host.

To determine the geographic source of web attacks, we matched the domain name with the real IP address where the domain is hosted, then identified the geographic location of that IP address (GeoIP).

In Q1 2026, Kaspersky solutions blocked 343,823,407 attacks launched from internet resources worldwide. Web Anti-Virus was triggered by 49,983,611 unique URLs.

Web-based attacks by country/territory, Q1 2026 (download)

Countries and territories where users faced the greatest risk of online infection

To assess the risk of malware infection via the internet for users’ computers in different countries and territories, we calculated the share of Kaspersky users in each location on whose computers Web Anti-Virus was triggered during the reporting period. The resulting data provides an indication of the aggressiveness of the environment in which computers operate in different countries and territories.

This ranked list includes only attacks by malicious objects classified as Malware. Our calculations leave out Web Anti-Virus detections of potentially dangerous or unwanted programs, such as RiskTool or adware.

* Excluded are countries and territories with relatively few (under 10,000) Kaspersky users.
** Unique users targeted by web-based Malware attacks as a percentage of all unique users of Kaspersky products in the country/territory.

On average during the quarter, 4.73% of users’ computers worldwide were subjected to at least one Malware web attack.

Local threats

Statistics on local infections of user computers are an important indicator. They include objects that penetrated the target computer by infecting files or removable media, or initially made their way onto the computer in non-open form. Examples of the latter are programs in complex installers and encrypted files.

Data in this section is based on analyzing statistics produced by anti-virus scans of files on the hard drive at the moment they were created or accessed, and the results of scanning removable storage media. The statistics are based on detection verdicts from the On-Access Scan (OAS) and On-Demand Scan (ODS) modules of File Anti-Virus and include detections of malicious programs located on user computers or removable media connected to the computers, such as flash drives, camera memory cards, phones, or external hard drives.

In Q1 2026, our File Anti-Virus detected 15,831,319 malicious and potentially unwanted objects.

Countries and territories where users faced the highest risk of local infection

For each country and territory, we calculated the percentage of Kaspersky users whose computers had the File Anti-Virus triggered at least once during the reporting period. This statistic reflects the level of personal computer infection in different countries and territories around the world.

Note that this ranked list includes only attacks by malicious objects classified as Malware. Our calculations leave out File Anti-Virus detections of potentially dangerous or unwanted programs, such as RiskTool or adware.

* Excluded are countries and territories with relatively few (under 10,000) Kaspersky users.
** Unique users on whose computers local Malware threats were blocked, as a percentage of all unique users of Kaspersky products in the country/territory.

On average worldwide, Malware local threats were detected at least once on 11.55% of users’ computers during Q1.

Russia scored 11.92% in these rankings.

In recent years, many sophisticated intrusions have increasingly avoided using noisy exploits, obvious malware, or custom tooling, instead leveraging systems that organizations already trust within their environments. By operating through legitimate and trusted administrative mechanisms, threat actors could more easily blend seamlessly into routine operations and remain undetected.

Microsoft Incident Response investigated an intrusion that followed this pattern. What initially appeared as routine administrative activity was instead found to be a coordinated campaign abusing trusted operational relationships and authentication processes to establish durable access. The threat actor in this incident leveraged a compromised third-party IT services provider and legitimate IT management tools to conduct a stealthy campaign focusing on long-term access, credential theft, and establishing a persistent foothold.

This blog walks through how the intrusion unfolded, why it was difficult to detect, and how trusted systems, including identity infrastructure, operational tooling, and third-party management relationships were leveraged to sustain access. By examining the investigation end to end, we highlight how modern intrusions succeed without reliance on malware-heavy techniques and what defenders can learn from identifying abuse in environments where trust is implicit. We also provide mitigation and protection recommendations, as well as Microsoft Defender detection and hunting guidance to help identify and investigate related activity.

Abuse of trusted relationships as an attack delivery mechanism

Rather than relying on exploits or malware-based delivery, this attack leveraged an existing trusted operational relationship for malicious activity across the environment. The investigation identified HPE Operations Agent (OA), an approved and signed enterprise management tool commonly used for monitoring and administrative automation, as the primary delivery mechanism. Importantly, this did not involve any vulnerability or flaw in HPE OA itself.

Analysis during the incident response process revealed that management of this operational platform had been delegated to a third-party IT services provider, expanding the trust boundary beyond the organization itself. While such arrangements are operationally common, they introduce implicit trust paths that, if compromised, could be leveraged by threat actors to move within the environment using legitimate access and tooling.

By operating through the HPE OA framework, the threat actor executed scripts and binaries in a manner indistinguishable from normal operations, allowing malicious activity to blend seamlessly into expected behavior and delaying detection.

This technique aligns with MITRE ATT&CK T1199 – Trusted Relationship, in which threat actors exploit established trust relationships to extend access. In this case, the threat actor’s ability to operate entirely through trusted systems allowed them to establish a foothold and execute follow-on actions without relying on exploit-driven techniques.

Attack timeline

This timeline provides a high-level summary of the intrusion, highlighting key phases of the attack. A detailed analysis of each stage is presented in the sections that follow.

Day 1: Initial foothold established

The threat actor gained initial access to the environment by compromising a third-party IT services provider and began operating through trusted systems, enabling execution without triggering immediate alerts.

Days 9–14: Credential access achieved

Credential interception capabilities were introduced on domain infrastructure, allowing the threat actor to harvest and reuse credentials to expand access across devices.

Days 24–32: Web-based persistence established

Persistent access was established on internet-facing servers, enabling the threat actor to maintain repeated access even if individual artifacts were removed.

Days 40–60: Lateral movement and remote access

The threat actor leveraged harvested credentials and covert connectivity to move laterally across devices, including highly sensitive assets.

Days 54–55: Additional credential interception deployed

Credential harvesting was further expanded on domain controllers, ensuring continued access during authentication and password change events.

Days 104–106: Persistence reestablished

Following initial detection, the threat actor returned to previously established access points to reenable persistence and deploy additional tooling.

Day 123: Incident response engagement

Microsoft Incident Response was engaged to investigate the intrusion.

Methods, tools, and access strategies

Initial access

During the investigation, two internet-exposed web servers, WEB-01 and WEB-02, were identified as the earliest known compromised assets. A web shell, Errors.aspx, was discovered on both of these devices; however, there was no indication that the servers had been previously exploited, and the mechanism that deployed the web shells couldn’t be determined.

Using intelligence from Microsoft Threat Intelligence regarding a known malicious domain, Microsoft Incident Response was able to identify a workstation communicating with this infrastructure. This led to the discovery of an execution path involving this domain, which revealed another execution path in which VBScripts (abc003.vbs) were deployed through HPE Operations Manager (HPOM).

HPOM and HPE OA form a distributed IT infrastructure monitoring platform. HPOM functions as a centralized management console for monitoring devices’ health, performance, and availability, while HPE OA is deployed on managed hosts to collect telemetry and execute automated, scheduled, or operator-initiated actions across the environment. In this case, the HPOM was operated by a third-party service provider responsible for managing the customer’s infrastructure.

The threat actor, operating HPOM, executed VBScripts on multiple servers, including the web server and a domain controller. The VBScripts had the following functionality:

• System network configuration discovery
• Active Directory discovery
• External IP address discovery through PowerShell

Credential access

After gaining initial access, the threat actor shifted focus to credential harvesting. The threat actor registered a legitimate network provider named mslogon on the domain controller DC01 through the same HP OA to hijack the authentication process. Network providers integrate into the Windows authentication mechanism, allowing the threat actor to capture cleartext user credentials during user sign-in and password changes. By delivering the component through a trusted and legitimate management channel, the threat actor was able to blend in with routine administrative activity and remain undetected for an extended period.

Analysis of the deployed network provider dynamic link library (DLL), mslogon.dll, revealed the deliberate abuse of Windows Credential Manager APIs, specifically NPLogonNotify and NPPasswordChangeNotify. These APIs are designed to notify registered providers during authentication events.

NPLogonNotify is triggered when a user performs an interactive sign in. When triggered, the DLL captures the submitted username and password in cleartext.

NPPasswordChangeNotify is invoked when a user changes their password using secure attention sequence (Ctrl+Alt+Delete). When triggered, the DLL captured both the old and new credential pairs. These passwords are stored in cleartext under C:\Users\Public\Music\abc123c.d. This file enabled the threat actors to reuse both the current valid credentials and historical passwords for lateral movement.

Later in the intrusion, on DC01 and DC02, the threat actor registered a malicious password filter, passms.dll, into the Windows authentication process by adding it to the Local Security Authority (LSA) notification packageconfiguration. Password filters are loaded by the Local Security Authority Subsystem Service (LSASS) on domain controllers and are invoked whenever a password is set or changed. This abused a legitimate Windows extensibility mechanism, which helped the threat actor blend in and remain undetected for an extended period; similar tactics were observed earlier in the intrusion.

During a password change operation, LSASS calls the PasswordFilter() API for each DLL listed under the Notification Packages registry value (Figure 5). The function receives the username and password in cleartext as input parameters. By registering a malicious password filter, the threat actor gained visibility into password modification events at the system level, allowing credential capture during normal authentication workflows.

When triggered, passms.dll intercepted the credential data and wrote the output toC:\ProgramData\WindowsUpdateService\UpdateDir\Ipd. The captured data was not stored in cleartext. Instead, it was double encoded, first by using Base64, followed by a custom encoding routine embedded within the DLL.

A second module, msupdate.dll, was created on DC01 and DC02 which operated alongside passms.dll. It was invoked using the following command:

Once invoked, the module read the contents of the Ipd file and transferred the encoded data over Server Message Block (SMB) to remote shares. The data was written into a file named icon02.jpeg, likely intended to blend with legitimate image assets.

In addition to SMB-based staging, msupdate.dll also contained email exfiltration capabilities. The module could send messages with the subject line “Update Service” using a predefined Simple Mail Transfer Protocol (SMTP) server, recipient address, and credentials retrieved from local files.

Execution

Execution was achieved through the abuse of an existing enterprise automation channel, allowing malicious VBScript and PowerShell scripts to run under the context of trusted system processes. By leveraging HPE OA to launch abc003.vbs, the threat actor performed system, network, and Active Directory discovery, while maintaining a low-noise execution profile.

On internet-facing web servers, execution was achieved through web shells (Errors.aspx and modified Signoff.aspx), which were used to run PowerShell scripts, deploy binaries, and trigger follow-on activity such as credential access and tunnelling tools.

Persistence

Web shells were the primary persistence mechanisms deployed on internet-facing web servers, WEB-01 and WEB-02. An initial web shell, Errors.aspx,allowed the threat actor to write files to disk. This was later used to modify a legitimate application page, Signoff.aspx, to load a secondary web shell, ghost.inc, from the Windows temporary directory. The secondary web shell provided command execution, file upload, and download capabilities, enabling repeated access even if individual artifacts were removed. This persistence relied on modifying existing application files rather than introducing new services, reducing the likelihood of detection.

The HPE OA was present on both servers and was highly likely used to deploy the web shell. However, because neither server had endpoint detection and response (EDR) coverage, Microsoft Incident Response was unable to confirm this. As a result, the origin and creation mechanism of the web shell, Errors.aspx, on the web server remain unknown.

Persistence was reinforced through the registration of malicious authentication components on domain controllers, DC01 and DC02, ensuring credential interception continued across reboot and credential reset events.

Prior to establishing persistent access, the threat actor first identified internal servers with outbound internet connectivity that could support tunneling. This discovery led to subsequent deployment of ngrok as a persistence mechanism. Instances of ngrok were launched on these internal servers, exposing them through encrypted tunnels to the threat actor’s infrastructure. These tunnels enabled continued inbound access for Remote Desktop Protocol (RDP) sessions without requiring exposed firewall ports, allowing persistence even in environments with restrictive perimeter controls.

Lateral movement

After establishing credential access, execution, and persistence, the threat actor moved laterally using a combination of valid credentials, remote management protocols, and covert network tunnelling using ngrok.

A compromised high-privileged account was used to initiate RDP sessions across the environment, enabling interactive access to critical devices including SQL servers and domain controllers.

To conceal the true source of these connections, the threat actor deployed ngrok, creating encrypted tunnels that exposed internal devices to the internet while bypassing perimeter-based monitoring. Evidence showed RDP connections originating from the ngrok tunnel hosted on SQL-01, masking the threat actor’s real infrastructure and complicating network-based detection.

Lateral movement was further supported by Windows Management Instrumentation (WMI)-based remote execution, which was used to deploy and launch ngrok on additional devices from compromised web servers.

Compromised credentials harvested using password filter DLLs and malicious network provider DLLs on domain controllers enabled continued access and movement without the need for exploit-based techniques.

Campaign conclusion

This campaign demonstrated sustained operational maturity, reinforcing a consistent pattern: long-term access, commonly used tools, and campaigns designed to achieve strategic impact.

A recurring lesson from this activity is the abuse of trusted relationships. Third-party service providers and integrated management tools can become enforcement gaps when visibility is limited or validation is assumed. Threat actors understand this. They leverage legitimate components, trusted update paths, and approved integrations to anchor themselves inside environments that appear compliant on the surface.

Defenders should adopt a posture of deliberate verification. Trust your vendors and tooling but validate their behavior within your environment. Organizations operating in sensitive sectors should assume that threat actors with this level of tradecraft will continue refining third party abuse, credential interception, and stealthy persistence mechanisms to maintain strategic access.

Mitigation and protection guidance

Microsoft recommends the following mitigation measures to defend against such stealthy campaigns described in this blog.

• Turn on cloud-delivered protection in Microsoft Defender Antivirus or the equivalent for your antivirus product to cover rapidly evolving attacker tools and techniques. Cloud-based machine learning protections block a majority of new and unknown variants.
• Deploy endpoint detection and response (EDR) across all endpoints to strengthen visibility, accelerate detection, and improve response to malicious activity.
• Adopt a default-deny egress filtering model so servers only allow explicitly approved outbound traffic, reducing opportunities for communication with malicious command-and-control and data exfiltration.
• Remove unnecessary software and tools from systems to reduce the attack surface and limit opportunities for attacker abuse.
• Enable detailed logging and monitoring on web servers and actively watch for anomalies (such as unexpected file changes or suspicious web requests).
• Implement the enterprise access model to contain privilege escalation and enforce stronger access controls across the environment.
• Strengthen security operations center (SOC) monitoring and incident response by addressing detection, response, and operational gaps identified during the incident.

Microsoft Defender detection and hunting guidance

Microsoft Defender customers can refer to the list of applicable detections below. Microsoft Defender XDR coordinates detection, prevention, investigation, and response across endpoints, identities, email, apps to provide integrated protection against attacks like the threat discussed in this blog.

Microsoft Security Copilot

Microsoft Security Copilot is embedded in Microsoft Defender and provides security teams with AI-powered capabilities to summarize incidents, analyze files and scripts, summarize identities, use guided responses, and generate device summaries, hunting queries, and incident reports.

Customers can also deploy AI agents, including the following Microsoft Security Copilot agents, to perform security tasks efficiently:

• Threat Intelligence Briefing agent
• Phishing Triage agent
• Threat Hunting agent
• Dynamic Threat Detection agent

Security Copilot is also available as a standalone experience where customers can perform specific security-related tasks, such as incident investigation, user analysis, and vulnerability impact assessment. In addition, Security Copilot offers developer scenarios that allow customers to build, test, publish, and integrate AI agents and plugins to meet unique security needs.

Hunting queries

Microsoft Defender XDR customers can run the following advanced hunting queries to find related activity in their networks:

Password filters DLL

Look for unsigned / unverified DLLs configured as LSA notification packages.

DeviceRegistryEvents
| where RegistryKey has @"control\LSA"  and RegistryValueName has "Notification Packages" // Filter to LSA registry path
| project DeviceName, RegistryKey, RegistryValueName, RegistryValueData
| extend NotificationPackage = split(RegistryValueData, " ")
| mv-expand NotificationPackage
| extend NotificationPackage = tostring(NotificationPackage)
| extend Path = tolower(strcat(@"c:\windows\system32\", NotificationPackage, ".dll")) // Construct full DLL path in lower-case
| join kind=leftouter (
    DeviceFileEvents
    | extend Path = tolower(strcat(FolderPath)
    | project DeviceName, SHA1, Path
) on DeviceName, Path
| invoke FileProfile(SHA1) // Retrieve file signing information
| where SignatureState in~ ("SignedInvalid", "Unsigned") // Filter for files that are unsigned or have invalid signature
| project-away DeviceName1, SHA11
| distinct *

Network provider DLL

Look for custom network provider DLLs that are not signed and configured for Windows sign in.

let NetworkProviders = DeviceRegistryEvents
| where RegistryKey has @'\Control\NetworkProvider\Order' and RegistryValueName has 'ProviderOrder' // Filtering on 'ProviderOrder' entries
| extend Providers = split(RegistryValueData, ',')
| mv-expand Providers
| extend Providers = trim(@' ', tostring(Providers)) // Trim spaces around each provider name
| where Providers !in~ ('RDPNP','LanmanWorkstation') // Excluding default provider names
| distinct Providers; // Collect unique suspicious provider names
DeviceRegistryEvents
| where RegistryKey has_all (@'\Services\', @'\NetworkProvider') // Only registry keys under a service's NetworkProvider
and RegistryKey has_any (NetworkProviders) and 
RegistryValueName =~ 'ProviderPath'
| project DeviceName, RegistryKey, RegistryValueName, RegistryValueData
| extend Path = tolower(replace_string(RegistryValueData, '%SystemRoot%', @'C:\Windows')) // Normalize path: replace environment variable and use lower-case
| join kind=leftouter (
    DeviceFileEvents
    | extend Path = tolower(strcat(FolderPath))
    | project DeviceName, SHA1, Path
) on DeviceName, Path
| invoke FileProfile(SHA1,1000)
| where SignatureState in~ ("SignedInvalid", "Unsigned")
| distinct *

Learn more

For the latest security research from the Microsoft Threat Intelligence community, check out the Microsoft Threat Intelligence Blog.

To get notified about new publications and to join discussions on social media, follow us on LinkedIn, X (formerly Twitter), and Bluesky.

To hear stories and insights from the Microsoft Threat Intelligence community about the ever-evolving threat landscape, listen to the Microsoft Threat Intelligence podcast.

The post Undermining the trust boundary: Investigating a stealthy intrusion through third-party compromise appeared first on Microsoft Security Blog.

During Q1 2026, the exploit kits leveraged by threat actors to target user systems expanded once again, incorporating new exploits for the Microsoft Office platform, as well as Windows and Linux operating systems.

In this report, we dive into the statistics on published vulnerabilities and exploits, as well as the known vulnerabilities leveraged by popular C2 frameworks throughout Q1 2026.

Statistics on registered vulnerabilities

This section provides statistical data on registered vulnerabilities. The data is sourced from cve.org.

We examine the number of registered CVEs for each month starting from January 2022. The total volume of vulnerabilities continues rising and, according to current reports, the use of AI agents for discovering security issues is expected to further reinforce this upward trend.

Total published vulnerabilities per month from 2022 through 2026 (download)

Next, we analyze the number of new critical vulnerabilities (CVSS > 8.9) over the same period.

Total critical vulnerabilities published per month from 2022 through 2026 (download)

The graph indicates that while the volume of critical vulnerabilities slightly decreased compared to previous years, an upward trend remained clearly visible. At present, we attribute this to the fact that the end of last year was marked by the disclosure of several severe vulnerabilities in web frameworks. The current growth is driven by high-profile issues like React2Shell, the release of exploit frameworks for mobile platforms, and the uncovering of secondary vulnerabilities during the remediation of previously discovered ones. We will be able to test this hypothesis in the next quarter; if correct, the second quarter will show a significant decline, similar to the pattern observed in the previous year.

Exploitation statistics

This section presents statistics on vulnerability exploitation for Q1 2026. The data draws on open sources and our telemetry.

Windows and Linux vulnerability exploitation

In Q1 2026, threat actor toolsets were updated with exploits for new, recently registered vulnerabilities. However, we first examine the list of veteran vulnerabilities that consistently account for the largest share of detections:

• CVE-2018-0802: a remote code execution (RCE) vulnerability in the Equation Editor component
• CVE-2017-11882: another RCE vulnerability also affecting Equation Editor
• CVE-2017-0199: a vulnerability in Microsoft Office and WordPad that allows an attacker to gain control over the system
• CVE-2023-38831: a vulnerability resulting from the improper handling of objects contained within an archive
• CVE-2025-6218: a vulnerability allowing the specification of relative paths to extract files into arbitrary directories, potentially leading to malicious command execution
• CVE-2025-8088: a directory traversal bypass vulnerability during file extraction utilizing NTFS Streams

Among the newcomers, we have observed exploits targeting the Microsoft Office platform and Windows OS components. Notably, these new vulnerabilities exploit logic flaws arising from the interaction between multiple systems, making them technically difficult to isolate within a specific file or library. A list of these vulnerabilities is provided below:

• CVE-2026-21509 and CVE-2026-21514: security feature bypass vulnerabilities: despite Protected View being enabled, a specially crafted file can still execute malicious code without the user’s knowledge. Malicious commands are executed on the victim’s system with the privileges of the user who opened the file.
• CVE-2026-21513: a vulnerability in the Internet Explorer MSHTML engine, which is used to open websites and render HTML markup. The vulnerability involves bypassing rules that restrict the execution of files from untrusted network sources. Interestingly, the data provider for this vulnerability was an LNK file.

These three vulnerabilities were utilized together in a single chain during attacks on Windows-based user systems. While this combination is noteworthy, we believe the widespread use of the entire chain as a unified exploit will likely decline due to its instability. We anticipate that these vulnerabilities will eventually be applied individually as initial entry vectors in phishing campaigns.

Below is the trend of exploit detections on user Windows systems starting from Q1 2025.

Dynamics of the number of Windows users encountering exploits, Q1 2025 – Q1 2026. The number of users who encountered exploits in Q1 2025 is taken as 100% (download)

The vulnerabilities listed here can be leveraged to gain initial access to a vulnerable system and for privilege escalation. This underscores the critical importance of timely software updates.

On Linux devices, exploits for the following vulnerabilities were detected most frequently:

• CVE-2022-0847: a vulnerability known as Dirty Pipe, which enables privilege escalation and the hijacking of running applications
• CVE-2019-13272: a vulnerability caused by improper handling of privilege inheritance, which can be exploited to achieve privilege escalation
• CVE-2021-22555: a heap out-of-bounds write vulnerability in the Netfilter kernel subsystem
• CVE-2023-32233: a vulnerability in the Netfilter subsystem that allows for Use-After-Free conditions and privilege escalation through the improper processing of network requests

Dynamics of the number of Linux users encountering exploits, Q1 2025 – Q1 2026. The number of users who encountered exploits in Q1 2025 is taken as 100% (download)

In the first quarter of 2026, we observed a decrease in the number of detected exploits; however, the detection rates are on the rise relative to the same period last year. For the Linux operating system, the installation of security patches remains critical.

Most common published exploits

The distribution of published exploits by software type in Q1 2026 features an updated set of categories; once again, we see exploits targeting operating systems and Microsoft Office suites.

Distribution of published exploits by platform, Q1 2026 (download)

Vulnerability exploitation in APT attacks

We analyzed which vulnerabilities were utilized in APT attacks during Q1 2026. The ranking provided below includes data based on our telemetry, research, and open sources.

TOP 10 vulnerabilities exploited in APT attacks, Q1 2026 (download)

In Q1 2026, threat actors continued to utilize high-profile vulnerabilities registered in the previous year for APT attacks. The hypothesis we previously proposed has been confirmed: security flaws affecting web applications remain heavily exploited in real-world attacks. However, we are also observing a partial refresh of attacker toolsets. Specifically, during the first quarter of the year, APT campaigns leveraged recently discovered vulnerabilities in Microsoft Office products, edge networking device software, and remote access management systems. Although the most recent vulnerabilities are being exploited most heavily, their general characteristics continue to reinforce established trends regarding the categories of vulnerable software. Consequently, we strongly recommend applying the security patches provided by vendors.

C2 frameworks

In this section, we examine the most popular C2 frameworks used by threat actors and analyze the vulnerabilities targeted by the exploits that interacted with C2 agents in APT attacks.

The chart below shows the frequency of known C2 framework usage in attacks against users during Q1 2026, according to open sources.

TOP 10 C2 frameworks used by APTs to compromise user systems, Q1 2026 (download)

Metasploit has returned to the top of the list of the most common C2 frameworks, displacing Sliver, which now shares the second position with Havoc. These are followed by Covenant and Mythic, the latter of which previously saw greater popularity. After studying open sources and analyzing samples of malicious C2 agents that contained exploits, we determined that the following vulnerabilities were utilized in APT attacks involving the C2 frameworks mentioned above:

• CVE-2023-46604: an insecure deserialization vulnerability allowing for arbitrary code execution within the server process context if the Apache ActiveMQ service is running
• CVE-2024-12356 and CVE-2026-1731: command injection vulnerabilities in BeyondTrust software that allow an attacker to send malicious commands even without system authentication
• CVE-2023-36884: a vulnerability in the Windows Search component that enables command execution on the system, bypassing security mechanisms built into Microsoft Office applications
• CVE-2025-53770: an insecure deserialization vulnerability in Microsoft SharePoint that allows for unauthenticated command execution on the server
• CVE-2025-8088 and CVE-2025-6218: similar directory traversal vulnerabilities that allow files to be extracted from an archive to a predefined path, potentially without the archiving utility displaying any alerts to the user

The nature of the described vulnerabilities indicates that they were exploited to gain initial access to the system. Notably, the majority of these security issues are targeted to bypass authentication mechanisms. This is likely due to the fact that C2 agents are being detected effectively, prompting threat actors to reduce the probability of discovery by utilizing bypass exploits.

Notable vulnerabilities

This section highlights the most significant vulnerabilities published in Q1 2026 that have publicly available descriptions.

CVE-2026-21519: Desktop Window Manager vulnerability

At the core of this vulnerability is a Type Confusion flaw. By attempting to access a resource within the Desktop Window Manager subsystem, an attacker can achieve privilege escalation. A necessary condition for exploiting this issue is existing authorization on the system.

It is worth noting that the DWM subsystem has been under close scrutiny by threat actors for quite some time. Historically, the primary attack vector involves interacting with the NtDComposition* function set.

RegPwn (CVE-2026-21533): a system settings access control vulnerability

CVE-2026-21533 is essentially a logic vulnerability that enables privilege escalation. It stems from the improper handling of privileges within Remote Desktop Services (RDS) components. By modifying service parameters in the registry and replacing the configuration with a custom key, an attacker can elevate privileges to the SYSTEM level. This vulnerability is likely to remain a fixture in threat actor toolsets as a method for establishing persistence and gaining high-level privileges.

CVE-2026-21514: a Microsoft Office vulnerability

This vulnerability was discovered in the wild during attacks on user systems. Notably, an LNK file is used to initiate the exploitation process. CVE-2026-21514 is also a logic issue that allows for bypassing OLE technology restrictions on malicious code execution and the transmission of NetNTLM authentication requests when processing untrusted input.

Clawdbot (CVE-2026-25253): an OpenClaw vulnerability

This vulnerability in the AI agent leaks credentials (authentication tokens) when queried via the WebSocket protocol. It can lead to the compromise of the infrastructure where the agent is installed: researchers have confirmed the ability to access local system data and execute commands with elevated privileges. The danger of CVE-2026-25253 is further compounded by the fact that its exploitation has generated numerous attack scenarios, including the use of prompt injections and ClickFix techniques to install stealers on vulnerable systems.

CVE-2026-34070: LangChain framework vulnerability

LangChain is an open-source framework designed for building applications powered by large language models (LLMs). A directory traversal vulnerability allowed attackers to access arbitrary files within the infrastructure where the framework was deployed. The core of CVE-2026-34070 lies in the fact that certain functions within langchain_core/prompts/loading.py handled configuration files insecurely. This could potentially lead to the processing of files containing malicious data, which could be leveraged to execute commands and expose critical system information or other sensitive files.

CVE-2026-22812: an OpenCode vulnerability

CVE-2026-22812 is another vulnerability identified in AI-assisted coding software. By default, the OpenCode agent provided local access for launching authorized applications via an HTTP server that did not require authentication. Consequently, attackers could execute malicious commands on a vulnerable device with the privileges of the current user.

Conclusion and advice

We observe that the registration of vulnerabilities is steadily gaining momentum in Q1 2026, a trend driven by the widespread development of AI tools designed to identify security flaws across various software types. This trajectory is likely to result not only in a higher volume of registered vulnerabilities but also in an increase in exploit-driven attacks, further reinforcing the critical necessity of timely security patch deployment. Additionally, organizations must prioritize vulnerability management and implement effective defensive technologies to mitigate the risks associated with potential exploitation.

To ensure the rapid detection of threats involving exploit utilization and to prevent their escalation, it is essential to deploy a reliable security solution. Key features of such a tool include continuous infrastructure monitoring, proactive protection, and vulnerability prioritization based on real-world relevance. These mechanisms are integrated into Kaspersky Next, which also provides endpoint security and protection against cyberattacks of any complexity.

Malicious actors have developed a new way to steal data stored by Chrome for Windows. Researchers discovered the technique while analyzing a fresh build of an infostealer known as VoidStealer. The new method allows the malware to bypass Chrome’s Application-Bound (App-Bound) Encryption (ABE), a mechanism intended to protect session cookies and other valuable information stored in the browser.

Google hoped this mechanism would secure the master key Chrome uses to encrypt all sensitive data. Unfortunately, this isn’t the first time malware authors have found a workaround for this defense — leaving secrets stored in Chrome vulnerable once again.

How App-Bound Encryption works in Chrome

Google introduced App-Bound Encryption in July 2024 with the release of Chrome version 127. The company’s announcement mentioned infostealers snatching cookies from Chrome users on Windows as the primary problem ABE was intended to solve. We’ve already covered in detail what these files are and the consequences of their theft, so we’ll only briefly recap the main facts here.

Cookies are small files that the browser saves to the user’s device at a website’s request to remember various site settings. Of particular value to attackers are session cookies, which are used for automatic authentication on websites. It’s thanks to these files that we don’t have to enter a username and password every time we revisit a site.

But this convenience carries a risk: stealing these files allows an attacker to use an already-authenticated session without entering a username or password. This allows them to impersonate the user, which can lead to account hijacking, theft of personal or financial data, and other adverse consequences.

Infostealer Trojans are particularly dangerous for Chrome users on Windows. This is because, on this OS, Chrome previously relied solely on the standard built-in Data Protection API (DPAPI). With this system encryption mechanism, applications don’t need to create and store encryption keys to protect data.

The limitation of DPAPI is that it doesn’t protect data from malware that’s already successfully compromised the system and is capable of executing code on behalf of the logged-in user. This is exactly what stealers exploit: since they typically run with the user’s privileges, they can simply request DPAPI to decrypt the browser’s protected data.

The ABE mechanism was designed to solve that specific problem. The core idea is right in the name: App-Bound Encryption means the encryption is tied to a specific application. To achieve this, a separate service running with system privileges is responsible for protecting the key used to encrypt Chrome’s data. It verifies which application is requesting access to the key, and denies the request if it doesn’t originate from Chrome.

Chrome’s App-Bound Encryption (ABE) was designed so that only Chrome itself could retrieve the master key needed to decrypt the browser’s stored data. Source

As a result, the architects of this feature assumed that to access ABE-protected browser data, an infostealer would either need to escalate its privileges to system-level, or inject malicious code directly into Chrome. In theory, this should have made attacking Chrome significantly harder and reduced the effectiveness of mass-market infostealers. As you might have guessed, things didn’t go quite that smoothly in practice.

Previous successful bypasses of Chrome’s ABE

Just a couple of months after Google announced the implementation of App-Bound Encryption in Chrome, many infostealer developers claimed they’d already bypassed the protection. Among them were the creators of Meduza Stealer, Whitesnake, Lumma Stealer, and Lumar (also known as PovertyStealer).

Lumma stealer developers announce a bypass for Chrome’s App-Bound Encryption in a new version of the malware

Of course, you shouldn’t take malware developers at their word, but legitimate security researchers were able to confirm at least some of the claims. Bypasses for Google Chrome’s new data protection feature did become available almost immediately after its release.

A month later, in October 2024, tech enthusiast Alex Hagenah published a tool on GitHub called Chrome-App-Bound-Encryption-Decryption to bypass Google’s new security mechanism. Analysis of the tool’s code revealed that its author used roughly the same methods that attackers were already heavily exploiting.

What followed was a game of cat and mouse: security researchers and stealer developers came up with new tricks to circumvent App-Bound Encryption, while Google patched the newly discovered loopholes with varying degrees of success.

VoidStealer — a new data-nabbing menace

This brings us to recent events: in March 2026, news broke about a stealer named VoidStealer, which utilizes a brand-new and, by all accounts, highly effective method for bypassing ABE.

VoidStealer developers advertising a new method for bypassing ABE. Source

The malware authors developed an attack technique that targets the brief moment when the master key sits in the browser’s memory in plaintext. This occurs because, at a certain point, the browser inevitably has to decrypt its data to actually use it — for instance, to automatically sign in to a website with the relevant session cookie or to access saved credentials.

To exploit this window of opportunity, the malware attaches itself to the Chrome process as a debugger — a tool that allows one to control a program’s execution, pause it, and inspect its memory. In legitimate scenarios, these tools are used by developers to find and fix bugs, analyze application behavior, and test performance.

The malware identifies the specific section of code where data decryption takes place. It then sets a breakpoint at that location; when the program’s execution reaches that point, the browser effectively freezes. This is how the malware catches the exact moment the master key is sitting in RAM in plaintext; it then reads the key directly from memory.

It’s worth noting that everything mentioned above also applies to other Chromium-based browsers that use ABE, including Microsoft Edge, Brave, Opera, Vivaldi, and others.

How to avoid falling victim to infostealers

The scale of VoidStealer’s reach could be significant, as its developers operate under the malware-as-a-service (MaaS) model. This means they rent out the ready-made tool to other attackers, so they don’t need to develop custom malware from scratch.

This situation demonstrates that relying solely on built-in security mechanisms isn’t enough. Unfortunately, stealer developers are coming up with new workarounds faster than browser and operating system developers can roll out patches.

Here’s what users can do about it:

• Avoid installing programs from suspicious sources. This will minimize the chances of malware infiltrating your system.
• Learn how ClickFix attacks Lately, stealers have frequently been distributed using this specific malicious tactic.
• Keep your OS and software updated on all devices. Timely updates help patch many of the vulnerabilities that malware exploits.
• Install a robust security solution on all your devices. It’ll block suspicious activity in real time and alert you to potential threats.

As an added precaution, avoid storing passwords and bank card info in Google Chrome or your Notes app, as these are the first places any self-respecting stealer looks. Instead, use a secure password manager.

Stealers are hunting for your data, finding ways to infiltrate both computers and smartphones alike. To protect yourself from theft, check out our other related posts:

• Crypto thieves ramping up attacks on Apple users
• CrystalX RAT can flip your screen and steal your crypto
• Android Trojan posing as government services and Starlink apps
• Stealka stealer: the new face of game cheats, mods, and cracks
• Your cat pics are at risk: the threat posed by the new SparkKitty Trojan

Intro

Windows Interprocess Communication (IPC) is one of the most complex technologies within the Windows operating system. At the core of this ecosystem is the Remote Procedure Call (RPC) mechanism, which can function as a standalone communication channel or as the underlying transport layer for more advanced interprocess communication technologies. Because of its complexity and widespread use, RPC has historically been a rich source of security issues. Over the years, researchers have identified numerous vulnerabilities in services that rely on RPC, ranging from local privilege escalation to full remote code execution.

In this research, I present a new vulnerability in the RPC architecture that enables a novel local privilege escalation technique likely in all Windows versions. This technique enables processes with impersonation privileges to elevate their permissions to SYSTEM level. Although this vulnerability differs fundamentally from the “Potato” exploit family, Microsoft has not issued a patch despite proper disclosure.

I will demonstrate five different exploitation paths that show how privileges can be escalated from various local or network service contexts to SYSTEM or high-privileged users. Some techniques rely on coercion, some require user interaction and some take advantage of background services. As this issue stems from an architectural weakness, the number of potential attack vectors is effectively unlimited; any new process or service that depends on RPC could introduce another possible escalation path. For this reason, I also outline a methodology for identifying such opportunities.

Finally, I examine possible detection strategies, as well as defensive approaches that can help mitigate such attacks.

MSRPC

Microsoft RPC (Remote Procedure Call) is a Windows technology that enables communication between two processes. It enables one process to invoke functions that are implemented in another process, even though they are running in different execution contexts.

The figure below illustrates this mechanism.

Let us assume that Host A is running two processes: Process A and Process B. Process B needs to execute a function that resides inside Process A. To enable this type of interaction, Windows provides the Remote Procedure Call (RPC) architecture, which follows a client–server model. In this model, Process A acts as the RPC server, exposing its functionality through an interface, in our example, Interface A. Each RPC interface is uniquely identified by a Universally Unique Identifier (UUID), which is represented as a 128-bit value. This identifier enables the operating system to distinguish one interface from another.

The interface defines a set of functions that can be invoked remotely by the RPC client implemented in Process B. In our example, the interface exposes two functions: Fun1 and Fun2.

To communicate with the server, the RPC client must establish a connection through a communication endpoint. An endpoint represents the access point that enables transport between the client and the server. Because RPC supports multiple transport mechanisms, different endpoint types may exist, depending on the underlying transport.

For example:

• When TCP is used as the transport layer, the endpoint is a TCP port.
• When SMB is used, communication occurs through a named pipe.
• When ALPC is used, the endpoint is an ALPC port.

Each transport mechanism is associated with a specific RPC protocol sequence. For instance:

• ncacn_ip_tcp is used for RPC over TCP.
• ncacn_np is used for RPC over named pipes.
• ncalrpc is used for RPC over ALPC.

In this research, I focus specifically on Advanced Local Procedure Call (ALPC) as the RPC transport mechanism. ALPC is a Windows interprocess communication mechanism that predates MSRPC. Today, RPC can leverage ALPC as an efficient transport layer for communication between processes located on the same machine.

For simplicity, an ALPC port can be thought of as a communication channel similar to a file, where processes can send messages by writing to it, and receive messages by reading from it.

When the client wants to invoke a remote function, for example, Fun1, it must construct an RPC request. This request includes several important pieces of information, such as the interface UUID, the protocol sequence, the endpoint, and the function identifier. In RPC, functions are not referenced by name, but by a numerical identifier called the operation number (OPNUM). Depending on the requirements of the call, the request may also contain additional structures, such as security-related information.

Impersonation in Windows

In Windows, impersonation enables a service to temporarily operate using another user’s security context. For example, a service may need to open a file that belongs to a user while performing a specific operation. By impersonating the calling user, the system allows the service to access that file, even if the service itself would not normally have permission to do so. You can read more about impersonation in James Forshaw’s book Windows Security Internals.

This research focuses specifically on RPC impersonation. Instead of describing the interaction as a service and a user, I refer to the participants as a client and a server. In this model, the RPC server may temporarily adopt the identity of the client that initiated the request.

To perform this operation, the RPC server can call the RpcImpersonateClient API, which causes the server thread to execute under the client’s security context.

However, in some situations, a client may not want the server to be able to impersonate its identity. To control this behavior, Windows introduces the concept of an impersonation level. This defines how much authority the client grants the server to act on its behalf.

These settings are defined as part of the Security Quality of Service (SQOS) parameters, specified using the SECURITY_QUALITY_OF_SERVICE structure.

As you can see, this structure contains the impersonation level field, which determines the extent to which the server can assume the client’s identity.

Impersonation levels range from Anonymous, where the server cannot impersonate the client at all, to Impersonate and Delegate, which allow the server to act fully on behalf of the client.

At the same time, not every server process is allowed to impersonate a client. If any process could perform impersonation freely, it would pose a serious security risk. To prevent this, Windows requires the server process to possess a specific privilege called SeImpersonatePrivilege. Only processes with this privilege can successfully impersonate a client.

This privilege is granted by default to certain service accounts, such as Local Service and Network Service.

Interaction between Group Policy service and TermService

The Group Policy Client service (gpsvc) is a core Windows service responsible for applying and enforcing group policy settings on a system. It runs under the SYSTEM account inside svchost.exe.

When a group policy update is triggered, Windows uses an executable called gpupdate.exe. This tool can be executed with the /force flag to force an immediate refresh of all group policy settings. Internally, this executable communicates with the Group Policy service, which coordinates the update process.

At a certain stage during this operation, the Group Policy service attempts to communicate with TermService (Terminal Service, the Remote Desktop Services service) using RPC.

TermService is responsible for providing remote desktop functionality. This service is not running by default and can be enabled manually by the administrator via activation of Remote Desktop access. When this happens, the service exposes an RPC server with multiple interfaces and endpoints. TermService runs under the NT AUTHORITY\Network Service account.

When the command gpupdate /force is executed, the Group Policy service performs an RPC call to the TermService using the following parameters:

• UUID: bde95fdf-eee0-45de-9e12-e5a61cd0d4fe.
• Endpoint: ncalrpc:[TermSrvApi].
• Function: void Proc8(int).

However, because TermService is disabled by default, the RPC call fails and an exception occurs in rpcrt4.dll (the RPC runtime). The returned error is:

• 0x800706BA (RPC_S_SERVER_UNAVAILABLE, 1722).

This error indicates that the RPC client could not reach the target server.

Tracing the failure path further reveals that the root cause originates from a call to NtAlpcConnectPort, which is used by RPC to establish an ALPC connection between processes.

The NtAlpcConnectPort function is responsible for connecting to a specific ALPC port and returning a handle that the client can use for further communication. This function accepts multiple parameters.

The first two parameters include:

• A pointer to the returned port handle.
• The ALPC port name, represented as an ASCII string.

Another important argument is PortAttributes, which is an ALPC_PORT_ATTRIBUTES structure. Inside this structure is the SECURITY_QUALITY_OF_SERVICE structure, which, as mentioned above, defines the impersonation level used for the connection.

The final parameter of interest is RequiredServerSid, which specifies the expected identity of the target server process. This identity is represented using a Security Identifier (SID) structure.

Inspecting this call reveals that the Group Policy service attempts to connect to the RPC server using an impersonation level of Impersonate, expecting the remote server to run under the Network Service account. This behavior makes sense because TermService normally runs under Network Service.

Based on all the information above, the following scheme can be created to illustrate the interaction between TermService and gpsvc.

Up to this point, nothing unusual has occurred. An RPC client attempts to connect to an RPC server that is unavailable, resulting in an exception handled by the RPC runtime.

However, an interesting question arises: What if an attacker compromises a service that runs under the Network Service identity and mimics the exact RPC server exposed by TermService?

Could the attacker deploy a fake RPC server with the same endpoint?

If so, would the RPC runtime allow the client to connect to this illegitimate server?

And if the connection is successful, how could an attacker leverage this behavior?

Coercing the Group Policy service

To better understand the implications of the previously described behavior, let us consider the following attack scenario.

Imagine an attacker has compromised a service running on the system under the Network Service account, for example, an IIS server operating under the Network Service account. With this level of access, the attacker can deploy a malicious RPC server.

The attacker’s RPC server is designed to mimic the RPC interface exposed by the Remote Desktop service (TermService). Specifically, it implements the same RPC interface UUID and exposes the same endpoint name: TermSrvApi. Once deployed, the malicious server listens for RPC requests that would normally be directed to the legitimate RDP service.

Next, the attacker coerces the Group Policy service by triggering a policy update using gpupdate.exe /force. This causes the Group Policy Client service, which runs under the SYSTEM account, to perform the previously described RPC call. As observed earlier, this RPC call uses a high impersonation level (Impersonate).

When the attacker’s fake RPC server receives the request, it calls RpcImpersonateClient. This enables the server thread to impersonate the security context of the calling client, which, in this case, is SYSTEM.

As a result, the attacker can elevate privileges from Network Service to SYSTEM. In our proof-of-concept implementation, the exploit demonstrates privilege escalation by spawning a SYSTEM-level command prompt.

When this attack scenario was first discussed, it was purely theoretical. However, after implementing the malicious RPC server, the experiment confirmed that Windows allowed the server to be deployed and started successfully, and that the RPC runtime permitted the client to connect to the malicious endpoint. This made it possible to reliably escalate privileges from Network Service to SYSTEM using this technique. For this attack to succeed, though, at least one group policy must be applied on the system.

RPC architecture flow

Further investigation revealed that many Windows services attempt to communicate with TermService using RPC. These RPC calls often originate from winsta.dll, which acts as the RPC client component.

Windows processes invoke APIs exposed by winsta.dll; these APIs rely internally on RPC communication with TermService. This pattern is common in Windows; many system DLLs use RPC behind the scenes when their exported APIs are called.

However, it appears that the RPC runtime (rpcrt4.dll) does not provide a mechanism to verify the legitimacy of RPC servers. Moreover, Windows allows another process to deploy an RPC server that exposes the same endpoint as a legitimate service.

As a result, this architectural design introduces a large attack surface because RPC is heavily used across numerous system DLLs. Applications that invoke seemingly benign APIs may unintentionally trigger privileged RPC interactions. Under certain conditions, these interactions could be abused to achieve local privilege escalation without the user’s knowledge.

Identifying RPC calls to unavailable servers

As the issue appears to stem from an architectural weakness, a systematic approach is needed to identify RPC clients attempting to communicate with servers that are unavailable. First, I need a platform capable of monitoring RPC activity and extracting relevant information from each RPC request.

Specifically, I need to capture key RPC metadata, including:

• Interface UUID, endpoint, and OPNUM.
• Impersonation level and RPC status code.
• Client process privilege level, process name, and module path.

This information is critical because it enables me to reconstruct the RPC interaction, mimic the expected RPC server, and determine how the call is triggered.

The platform that provides this capability is Event Tracing for Windows (ETW). ETW is a built-in Windows logging framework that captures both kernel-mode and user-mode events in real time.

Windows provides a tool called logman to collect ETW data. It enables us to create trace sessions, select event providers, and configure the verbosity level of the tracing process. The collected tracing data is stored in an .etl file, which can later be analyzed using tools such as Event Viewer or other ETW analysis utilities.

ETW provides deep visibility into RPC activity without requiring modifications to applications. Through ETW, it is possible to capture detailed RPC information, such as:

• RPC bindings
• Endpoints
• Interface UUIDs
• Authentication details
• Call flow and timing
• RPC status codes

However, I’m not interested in every RPC event. My focus is on RPC call failures, specifically those that return the status RPC_S_SERVER_UNAVAILABLE.

For an event to be relevant to this research, the exception must meet two conditions:

• It must originate from a high-privileged process because impersonating such a process may allow an attacker to escalate privileges to a more powerful security context.
• The RPC call must use a high impersonation level, enabling the server to fully impersonate the client once the connection is established.

I cannot rely solely on the raw ETW output to implement this framework because it contains thousands of events, making manual filtering with standard tools inefficient. Therefore, I need to automate this process. The workflow shown below enables me to efficiently filter and extract only those events that are relevant to this analysis.

After generating the logs as an .etl file, I convert them to JSON format using tools such as etw2json. JSON is a much easier format to process programmatically. In this case, I use a Python script to filter and extract the relevant information.

The filtering process begins with a search for Event ID 1, which corresponds to an RPC stop event. This event indicates that the RPC client has completed the call and the result is available. From this event, I can extract useful information, such as:

• Status code
• Client process name
• Client process ID
• Endpoint

After extracting the status code, I filter for the specific value RPC_S_SERVER_UNAVAILABLE, which indicates that the target server was unreachable during an RPC call. These events represent the scenarios that are of interest.

However, Event ID 1 does not contain all of the required RPC metadata. To obtain the missing information, it is correlated with Event ID 5, which represents the RPC start event. This event is generated when the client initiates the RPC call.

By matching the metadata between Event ID 1 and Event ID 5, I can recover the missing details, including:

• Interface UUID
• OPNUM
• Impersonation level

After correlating and filtering these events, a JSON entry is obtained that is almost ready for analysis. At this stage, the data can be enriched further by adding context that will be helpful when reversing or analyzing the RPC server implementation. For example, the following can be identified:

• The DLL where the RPC interface is implemented
• The location of that DLL
• The number of procedures exposed by the interface

To retrieve this information, I match the UUID with an external RPC interface database. In this case, I used the RPC database, which contains a comprehensive list of RPC interfaces and their corresponding DLL implementations.

At the end of this process, a complete JSON dataset is obtained that can be used for further analysis.

One important observation is that the RPC calls I am looking for may only occur when specific system actions are triggered. Additionally, the resulting exceptions may vary from one system to another depending on which services are enabled or disabled. Therefore, I need a reliable way to generate these RPC exceptions.

In this research, I used several approaches to trigger such events:

1. Monitoring RPC activity during system startup
   I observed RPC activity while the system booted. During startup, many services initialize and perform various RPC calls, which increases the chances of capturing calls to unavailable servers.
2. Triggering administrative operations
   I developed PowerShell scripts that perform common administrative tasks, such as updating Group Policy, changing network settings, or creating new users. These operations often trigger RPC communication and may generate exceptions.
3. Disabling services intentionally
   After observing that Remote Desktop was disabled by default, I extended this idea by disabling additional services one by one and repeating the previous steps. This approach can reveal RPC clients that attempt to connect to services that are no longer available.

Additional privilege escalation paths

After running the logging and monitoring framework described earlier, I identified four additional scenarios that can lead to privilege escalation. The following sections introduce each case and explain how escalation can be achieved.

User interaction: From Edge to RDP

Microsoft Edge (msedge.exe) comes preinstalled on Windows systems. During startup, Edge triggers an RPC call to TermService. This RPC call is performed with a high impersonation level.

As previously discussed, Terminal Service is disabled by default. Because of this, the expected RPC server is unavailable, creating an opportunity for the attack scenario illustrated below.

The attack follows the same initial assumption as before: the attacker has already compromised a process running under the Network Service account. From there, they deploy the same malicious RPC server that mimics the legitimate TermService RPC interface.

However, unlike the previous scenario where the attacker coerced the Group Policy service, no coercion is required this time. Instead, the attacker simply waits for a high-privileged user, such as an administrator, to launch msedge.exe.

When Edge starts, it triggers the RPC client to attempt communication with the expected TermService RPC interface. Because the legitimate server is not running, the request is received by the attacker’s fake RPC server. Since the RPC call is made with a high impersonation level, the malicious server can call RpcImpersonateClient to impersonate the client process.

As a result, the attacker is able to impersonate the administrator-level client and escalate privileges from Network Service to Administrator.

Background services: From WDI to RDP

Some background Windows services periodically attempt to make RPC calls to the RDP service without user interaction. One such service is the WdiSystemHost service. The Diagnostic System Host Service (WDI) is a built-in Windows service that runs system diagnostics and performs troubleshooting tasks. This service runs under the SYSTEM account.

During normal operation, WDI periodically performs background RPC calls to the Remote Desktop service (TermService) using a high impersonation level. These RPC interactions occur automatically every 5–15 minutes and do not require any user input.

This behavior can be abused in a similar manner to the previous attack scenarios, as illustrated in the figure below.

In this case, however, no user interaction or coercion is required. After deploying a malicious RPC server that mimics the expected TermService RPC interface, the attacker only needs to wait for the WDI service to perform its periodic RPC call. Because the request is made with a high impersonation level, the malicious server can invoke RpcImpersonateClient and impersonate the calling process. This enables the attacker to escalate privileges to SYSTEM.

Abusing the Local Service account: From ipconfig to DHCP

Another scenario involves the DHCP Client service, which manages DHCP client operations on Windows systems. This service runs under the Local Service account and is enabled by default.

The DHCP Client service exposes an RPC server with multiple interfaces and endpoints. These interfaces are frequently invoked by various system DLLs, often using a high impersonation level.

In this scenario, instead of compromising a process running under Network Service, it is assumed the attacker has compromised a process running under the Local Service account. I also assume that the DHCP Client service is disabled, meaning the legitimate RPC server is unavailable.

As the figure below illustrates, the attacker can leverage this situation to escalate privileges.

After gaining control of a Local Service process, the attacker deploys a malicious RPC server that mimics the legitimate RPC server normally exposed by the DHCP Client service. Once the malicious server is running, the attacker waits for a high-privileged user, such as an administrator, to execute ipconfig.exe.

When ipconfig is run, it internally triggers an RPC request to the DHCP Client service. Since the legitimate RPC server is not running, the request is received by the attacker’s fake RPC server. Because the RPC call is performed with a high impersonation level, the malicious server can call RpcImpersonateClient to impersonate the client.

As a result, the attacker can escalate privileges from the Local Service account to the Administrator account.

Abusing Time

The Windows Time service (W32Time) is responsible for maintaining date and time synchronization across systems in a Windows environment. This service is enabled by default and runs under the Local Service account.

The service exposes an RPC server with two endpoints:

• \PIPE\W32TIME_ALT
• \RPC Control\W32TIME_ALT

The executable C:\Windows\System32\w32tm.exe interacts with the Windows Time service through RPC. However, before connecting to the valid RPC endpoints exposed by the service, the executable first attempts to access the nonexistent named pipe: \PIPE\W32TIME. This named pipe is not exposed by the legitimate W32Time service. However, if this endpoint were available, w32tm.exe would attempt to connect to it.

An attacker can abuse this behavior by deploying a malicious RPC server that mimics the legitimate RPC interface of the Windows Time service. Rather than exposing the legitimate endpoints, the attacker’s server exposes the nonexistent endpoint \PIPE\W32TIME, as shown in the figure below.

As in the previous scenarios, it is assumed the attacker has already compromised a process running under the Local Service account. The attacker then deploys a fake RPC server that implements the same RPC interface as the Windows Time service, but which exposes the alternative endpoint used by w32tm.exe.

Once the malicious server is running, the attacker simply waits for a high-privileged user, such as an administrator, to execute w32tm.exe. When the executable runs, it attempts to connect to the endpoint \PIPE\W32TIME. Because the attacker’s fake server exposes this endpoint, the RPC request is directed to the malicious server.

Since the RPC call is performed with a high impersonation level, the malicious server can impersonate the calling client. As a result, the attacker can escalate privileges from the Local Service account to the Administrator account.

In this scenario, it is important to note that the legitimate Windows Time service does not need to be disabled. Because the executable attempts to connect to a nonexistent endpoint, it is sufficient for the attacker to expose that endpoint through the malicious RPC server.

Vulnerability disclosure

After discovering the vulnerability, Kaspersky Security Services prepared a 10-page technical report describing the issue and the various aforementioned exploitation scenarios. The report was submitted to the Microsoft Security Response Center (MSRC) to report the vulnerability and request a fix.

Twenty days later, Microsoft responded, indicating that they did not classify the vulnerability as high severity. According to their assessment, the issue was classified as moderate severity and would therefore not be patched immediately. No CVE would be assigned, and the case would be closed without further tracking.

Microsoft explained that the moderate severity classification was due to the requirement that the originating process had to already possess the SeImpersonatePrivilege privilege. Since this privilege was typically required for the attack to succeed, Microsoft determined that the issue did not require immediate remediation.

Kaspersky Security Services respect Microsoft’s assessment and only published the research after the embargo period ends. In line with the coordinated vulnerability disclosure policy, Kaspersky Security Services will refrain from publishing detailed instructions that could enable or accelerate mass exploitation.

The disclosure timeline is shown below:

• 2025-09-19: Vulnerability reported to Microsoft Security Response Center (Case 101749).
• 2025-10-10: MSRC response – the case was assessed as moderate severity, not eligible for a bounty, no CVE was issued, and the case was closed without further tracking.
• 2026-04-24: expected whitepaper publication date.

Detection and defense

As discussed above, this vulnerability is related to an architectural design behavior. Fully preventing it would require Microsoft to release a patch that addresses the underlying issue.

Nevertheless, organizations can still take steps to detect and mitigate potential abuse. ETW-based monitoring within the framework described above enables defenders to identify RPC exceptions in their environment, especially when RPC clients attempt to connect to unavailable servers.

I have provide the tools used in the previously described framework so that organizations can check their environment for such behavior. You can find all of them in the research repository.

By monitoring these events, administrators can identify situations where legitimate RPC servers are expected but not running. In some cases, the attack surface may be reduced by enabling the corresponding services, ensuring that the legitimate RPC server is available. This can hinder attackers from deploying malicious RPC servers that imitate legitimate endpoints.

It is also good practice to reduce the use of the SeImpersonatePrivilege privilege in processes where it is not required. Some system processes need this privilege for normal operations. However, granting it to custom processes is generally not considered good security practice.

Conclusion

All the exploits described in this research were tested on Windows Server 2022 and Windows Server 2025 with the latest available updates prior to the submission date. The proof-of-concept implementations can be found in the research repository. However, it is highly likely that this issue may also be exploitable on other Windows versions.

Because the vulnerability stems from an architectural design issue, there may be additional attack scenarios beyond those presented in this research. The exact exploitation paths may vary from one system to another depending on factors such as installed software, the DLLs involved in RPC communication, and the availability of corresponding RPC servers.

Most of us think deleting a file means it’s gone for good. But “delete” on a Windows device often just means “out of sight,” not necessarily “out of reach.”

That’s where File Shredder, a new feature within Malwarebytes Tools for Windows, comes in. File Shredder lets you securely delete files from your hard drive or USB drive, so the files are not just removed—but completely unrecoverable, even with specialized recovery software.

What File Shredder does differently

When you delete a file by placing it in your Recycle Bin and emptying the contents, your computer typically removes the reference to it—but the data itself can remain on the drive until it’s overwritten. That leftover data can sometimes be recovered using basic digital tools, some of which can even be downloaded for free online. These data traces pose a problem if the file you want to delete includes personal, financial, or other sensitive information, like tax documents, scanned IDs, contracts, or anything else you would like to remain private forever.

File Shredder goes beyond standard deletion by instead permanently overwriting the file data, ensuring it can’t be reconstructed or recovered. Once a file is shredded, it’s gone for good—no undo, no recovery, no second chances.

That makes File Shredder especially useful when:

• You’re cleaning up sensitive files before selling or donating a device
• You need to securely remove files from a USB drive
• You’re minimizing digital clutter without leaving data behind
• You want peace of mind that private files stay private

How to use File Shredder

File Shredder is designed to be powerful without being complicated.

To use File Shredder:

• Open the Malwarebytes app and select the “Tools” icon from the lefthand menu (the screwdriver and wrench icon)
• From this menu, find and click on “File Shredder”
• Once here, you can manually add files or folders to the list and then click on the button “Delete permanently”
• You will be asked to confirm your request before File Shredder deletes the files

After your files are deleted by File Shredder you can move on, confident that the data can’t be accessed again.

Protection means your data is in your control

Cybersecurity isn’t just about blocking threats—it’s also about giving you control over your own data. File Shredder provides a way to do exactly that, helping you close the door on files that you no longer want on your devices.

Because when you’re done with a file, it should really be done.

We don’t just report on threats—we remove them

Cybersecurity risks should never spread beyond a headline. Keep threats off your devices by downloading Malwarebytes today.

The fourth quarter of 2025 went down as one of the most intense periods on record for high-profile, critical vulnerability disclosures, hitting popular libraries and mainstream applications. Several of these vulnerabilities were picked up by attackers and exploited in the wild almost immediately.

In this report, we dive into the statistics on published vulnerabilities and exploits, as well as the known vulnerabilities leveraged with popular C2 frameworks throughout Q4 2025.

Statistics on registered vulnerabilities

This section contains statistics on registered vulnerabilities. The data is taken from cve.org.

Let’s take a look at the number of registered CVEs for each month over the last five years, up to and including the end of 2025. As predicted in our last report, Q4 saw a higher number of registered vulnerabilities than the same period in 2024, and the year-end totals also cleared the bar set the previous year.

Total published vulnerabilities by month from 2021 through 2025 (download)

Now, let’s look at the number of new critical vulnerabilities (CVSS > 8.9) for that same period.

Total number of published critical vulnerabilities by month from 2021 to 2025< (download)

The graph shows that the volume of critical vulnerabilities remains quite substantial; however, in the second half of the year, we saw those numbers dip back down to levels seen in 2023. This was due to vulnerability churn: a handful of published security issues were revoked. The widespread adoption of secure development practices and the move toward safer languages also pushed those numbers down, though even that couldn’t stop the overall flood of vulnerabilities.

Exploitation statistics

This section contains statistics on the use of exploits in Q4 2025. The data is based on open sources and our telemetry.

Windows and Linux vulnerability exploitation

In Q4 2025, the most prevalent exploits targeted the exact same vulnerabilities that dominated the threat landscape throughout the rest of the year. These were exploits targeting Microsoft Office products with unpatched security flaws.

Kaspersky solutions detected the most exploits on the Windows platform for the following vulnerabilities:

• CVE-2018-0802: a remote code execution vulnerability in Equation Editor.
• CVE-2017-11882: another remote code execution vulnerability, also affecting Equation Editor.
• CVE-2017-0199: a vulnerability in Microsoft Office and WordPad that allows an attacker to assume control of the system.

The list has remained unchanged for years.

We also see that attackers continue to adapt exploits for directory traversal vulnerabilities (CWE-35) when unpacking archives in WinRAR. They are being heavily leveraged to gain initial access via malicious archives on the Windows operating system:

• CVE-2023-38831: a vulnerability stemming from the improper handling of objects within an archive.
• CVE-2025-6218 (formerly ZDI-CAN-27198): a vulnerability that enables an attacker to specify a relative path and extract files into an arbitrary directory. This can lead to arbitrary code execution. We covered this vulnerability in detail in our Q2 2025 report.
• CVE-2025-8088: a vulnerability we analyzed in our previous report, analogous to CVE-2025-6218. The attackers used NTFS streams to circumvent controls on the directory into which files were being unpacked.

As in the previous quarter, we see a rise in the use of archiver exploits, with fresh vulnerabilities increasingly appearing in attacks.

Below are the exploit detection trends for Windows users over the last two years.

Dynamics of the number of Windows users encountering exploits, Q1 2024 – Q4 2025. The number of users who encountered exploits in Q1 2024 is taken as 100% (download)

The vulnerabilities listed here can be used to gain initial access to a vulnerable system. This highlights the critical importance of timely security updates for all affected software.

On Linux-based devices, the most frequently detected exploits targeted the following vulnerabilities:

• CVE-2022-0847, also known as Dirty Pipe: a vulnerability that allows privilege escalation and enables attackers to take control of running applications.
• CVE-2019-13272: a vulnerability caused by improper handling of privilege inheritance, which can be exploited to achieve privilege escalation.
• CVE-2021-22555: a heap overflow vulnerability in the Netfilter kernel subsystem.
• CVE-2023-32233: another vulnerability in the Netfilter subsystem that creates a use-after-free condition, allowing for privilege escalation due to the improper handling of network requests.

Dynamics of the number of Linux users encountering exploits, Q1 2024 – Q4 2025. The number of users who encountered exploits in Q1 2024 is taken as 100% (download)

We are seeing a massive surge in Linux-based exploit attempts: in Q4, the number of affected users doubled compared to Q3. Our statistics show that the final quarter of the year accounted for more than half of all Linux exploit attacks recorded for the entire year. This surge is primarily driven by the rapidly growing number of Linux-based consumer devices. This trend naturally attracts the attention of threat actors, making the installation of security patches critically important.

Most common published exploits

The distribution of published exploits by software type in Q4 2025 largely mirrors the patterns observed in the previous quarter. The majority of exploits we investigate through our monitoring of public research, news, and PoCs continue to target vulnerabilities within operating systems.

Distribution of published exploits by platform, Q1 2025 (download)

Distribution of published exploits by platform, Q2 2025 (download)

Distribution of published exploits by platform, Q3 2025 (download)

Distribution of published exploits by platform, Q4 2025 (download)

In Q4 2025, no public exploits for Microsoft Office products emerged; the bulk of the vulnerabilities were issues discovered in system components. When calculating our statistics, we placed these in the OS category.

Vulnerability exploitation in APT attacks

We analyzed which vulnerabilities were utilized in APT attacks during Q4 2025. The following rankings draw on our telemetry, research, and open-source data.

TOP 10 vulnerabilities exploited in APT attacks, Q4 2025 (download)

In Q4 2025, APT attacks most frequently exploited fresh vulnerabilities published within the last six months. We believe that these CVEs will remain favorites among attackers for a long time, as fixing them may require significant structural changes to the vulnerable applications or the user’s system. Often, replacing or updating the affected components requires a significant amount of resources. Consequently, the probability of an attack through such vulnerabilities may persist. Some of these new vulnerabilities are likely to become frequent tools for lateral movement within user infrastructure, as the corresponding security flaws have been discovered in network services that are accessible without authentication. This heavy exploitation of very recently registered vulnerabilities highlights the ability of threat actors to rapidly implement new techniques and adapt old ones for their attacks. Therefore, we strongly recommend applying the security patches provided by vendors.

C2 frameworks

In this section, we will look at the most popular C2 frameworks used by threat actors and analyze the vulnerabilities whose exploits interacted with C2 agents in APT attacks.

The chart below shows the frequency of known C2 framework usage in attacks against users during Q4 2025, according to open sources.

TOP 10 C2 frameworks used by APTs to compromise user systems in Q4 2025 (download)

Despite the significant footprints it can leave when used in its default configuration, Sliver continues to hold the top spot among the most common C2 frameworks in our Q4 2025 analysis. Mythic and Havoc were second and third, respectively. After reviewing open sources and analyzing malicious C2 agent samples that contained exploits, we found that the following vulnerabilities were used in APT attacks involving the C2 frameworks mentioned above:

• CVE-2025-55182: a React2Shell vulnerability in React Server Components that allows an unauthenticated user to send commands directly to the server and execute them from RAM.
• CVE-2023-36884: a vulnerability in the Windows Search component that allows the execution of commands on a system, bypassing security mechanisms built into Microsoft Office applications.
• CVE-2025-53770: a critical insecure deserialization vulnerability in Microsoft SharePoint that allows an unauthenticated user to execute commands on the server.
• CVE-2020-1472, also known as Zerologon, allows for compromising a vulnerable domain controller and executing commands as a privileged user.
• CVE-2021-34527, also known as PrintNightmare, exploits flaws in the Windows print spooler subsystem, enabling remote access to a vulnerable OS and high-privilege command execution.
• CVE-2025-8088 and CVE-2025-6218 are similar directory-traversal vulnerabilities that allow extracting files from an archive to a predefined path without the archiving utility notifying the user.

The set of vulnerabilities described above suggests that attackers have been using them for initial access and early-stage maneuvers in vulnerable systems to create a springboard for deploying a C2 agent. The list of vulnerabilities includes both zero-days and well-known, established security issues.

Notable vulnerabilities

This section highlights the most noteworthy vulnerabilities that were publicly disclosed in Q4 2025 and have a publicly available description.

React2Shell (CVE-2025-55182): a vulnerability in React Server Components

We typically describe vulnerabilities affecting a specific application. CVE-2025-55182 stood out as an exception, as it was discovered in React, a library primarily used for building web applications. This means that exploiting the vulnerability could potentially disrupt a vast number of applications that rely on the library. The vulnerability itself lies in the interaction mechanism between the client and server components, which is built on sending serialized objects. If an attacker sends serialized data containing malicious functionality, they can execute JavaScript commands directly on the server, bypassing all client-side request validation. Technical details about this vulnerability and an example of how Kaspersky solutions detect it can be found in our article.

CVE-2025-54100: command injection during the execution of curl (Invoke-WebRequest)

This vulnerability represents a data-handling flaw that occurs when retrieving information from a remote server: when executing the curl or Invoke-WebRequest command, Windows launches Internet Explorer in the background. This can lead to a cross-site scripting (XSS) attack.

CVE-2025-11001: a vulnerability in 7-Zip

This vulnerability reinforces the trend of exploiting security flaws found in file archivers. The core of CVE-2025-11001 lies in the incorrect handling of symbolic links. An attacker can craft an archive so that when it is extracted into an arbitrary directory, its contents end up in the location pointed to by a symbolic link. The likelihood of exploiting this vulnerability is significantly reduced because utilizing such functionality requires the user opening the archive to possess system administrator privileges.

This vulnerability was associated with a wave of misleading news reports claiming it was being used in real-world attacks against end users. This misconception stemmed from an error in the security bulletin.

RediShell (CVE-2025-49844): a vulnerability in Redis

The year 2025 saw a surge in high-profile vulnerabilities, several of which were significant enough to earn a unique nickname. This was the case with CVE-2025-49844, also known as RediShell, which was unveiled during a hacking competition. This vulnerability is a use-after-free issue related to how the load command functions within Lua interpreter scripts. To execute the attack, an attacker needs to prepare a malicious script and load it into the interpreter.

As with any named vulnerability, RediShell was immediately weaponized by threat actors and spammers, albeit in a somewhat unconventional manner. Because technical details were initially scarce following its disclosure, the internet was flooded with fake PoC exploits and scanners claiming to test for the vulnerability. In the best-case scenario, these tools were non-functional; in the worst, they infected the system. Notably, these fraudulent projects were frequently generated using LLMs. They followed a standardized template and often cross-referenced source code from other identical fake repositories.

CVE-2025-24990: a vulnerability in the ltmdm64.sys driver

Driver vulnerabilities are often discovered in legitimate third-party applications that have been part of the official OS distribution for a long time. Thus, CVE-2025-24990 has existed within code shipped by Microsoft throughout nearly the entire history of Windows. The vulnerable driver has been shipped since at least Windows 7 as a third-party driver for Agere Modem. According to Microsoft, this driver is no longer supported and, following the discovery of the flaw, was removed from the OS distribution entirely.

The vulnerability itself is straightforward: insecure handling of IOCTL codes leading to a null pointer dereference. Successful exploitation can lead to arbitrary command execution or a system crash resulting in a blue screen of death (BSOD) on modern systems.

CVE-2025-59287: a vulnerability in Windows Server Update Services (WSUS)

CVE-2025-59287 represents a textbook case of insecure deserialization. Exploitation is possible without any form of authentication; due to its ease of use, this vulnerability rapidly gained traction among threat actors. Technical details and detection methodologies for our product suite have been covered in our previous advisories.

Conclusion and advice

In Q4 2025, the rate of vulnerability registration has shown no signs of slowing down. Consequently, consistent monitoring and the timely application of security patches have become more critical than ever. To ensure resilient defense, it is vital to regularly assess and remediate known vulnerabilities while implementing technology designed to mitigate the impact of potential exploits.

Continuous monitoring of infrastructure, including the network perimeter, allows for the timely identification of threats and prevents them from escalating. Effective security also demands tracking the current threat landscape and applying preventative measures to minimize risks associated with system flaws. Kaspersky Next serves as a reliable partner in this process, providing real-time identification and detailed mapping of vulnerabilities within the environment.

Securing the workplace remains a top priority. Protecting corporate devices requires the adoption of solutions capable of blocking malware and preventing it from spreading. Beyond basic measures, organizations should implement adaptive systems that allow for the rapid deployment of security updates and the automation of patch management workflows.

Known since 2014, the Cloud Atlas group targets countries in Eastern Europe and Central Asia. Infections occur via phishing emails containing a malicious document that exploits an old vulnerability in the Microsoft Office Equation Editor process (CVE-2018-0802) to download and execute malicious code. In this report, we describe the infection chain and tools that the group used in the first half of 2025, with particular focus on previously undescribed implants.

Additional information about this threat, including indicators of compromise, is available to customers of the Kaspersky Intelligence Reporting Service. Contact: intelreports@kaspersky.com.

Technical details

Initial infection

The starting point is typically a phishing email with a malicious DOC(X) attachment. When the document is opened, a malicious template is downloaded from a remote server. The document has the form of an RTF file containing an exploit for the formula editor, which downloads and executes an HTML Application (HTA) file.
Fpaylo

Malicious template with the exploit loaded by Word when opening the document

We were unable to obtain the actual RTF template with the exploit. We assume that after a successful infection of the victim, the link to this file becomes inaccessible. In the given example, the malicious RTF file containing the exploit was downloaded from the URL hxxps://securemodem[.]com?tzak.html_anacid.

Template files, like HTA files, are located on servers controlled by the group, and their downloading is limited both in time and by the IP addresses of the victims. The malicious HTA file extracts and creates several VBS files on disk that are parts of the VBShower backdoor. VBShower then downloads and installs other backdoors: PowerShower, VBCloud, and CloudAtlas.

This infection chain largely follows the one previously seen in Cloud Atlas’ 2024 attacks. The currently employed chain is presented below:

Malware execution flow

Several implants remain the same, with insignificant changes in file names, and so on. You can find more details in our previous article on the following implants:

• HTA file
• VBShower::Launcher
• VBShower::Cleaner

In this research, we’ll focus on new and updated components.

VBShower

VBShower::Backdoor

Compared to the previous version, the backdoor runs additional downloaded VB scripts in the current context, regardless of the size. A previous modification of this script checked the size of the payload, and if it exceeded 1 MB, instead of executing it in the current context, the backdoor wrote it to disk and used the wscript utility to launch it.

VBShower::Payload (1)

The script collects information about running processes, including their creation time, caption, and command line. The collected information is encrypted and sent to the C2 server by the parent script (VBShower::Backdoor) via the v_buff variable.

VBShower::Payload (1)

VBShower::Payload (2)

The script is used to install the VBCloud implant. First, it downloads a ZIP archive from the hardcoded URL and unpacks it into the %Public% directory. Then, it creates a scheduler task named “MicrosoftEdgeUpdateTask” to run the following command line:

wscript.exe /B %Public%\Libraries\MicrosoftEdgeUpdate.vbs

It renames the unzipped file %Public%\Libraries\v.log to %Public%\Libraries\MicrosoftEdgeUpdate.vbs, iterates through the files in the %Public%\Libraries directory, and collects information about the filenames and sizes. The data, in the form of a buffer, is collected in the v_buff variable. The malware gets information about the task by executing the following command line:

cmd.exe /c schtasks /query /v /fo CSV /tn MicrosoftEdgeUpdateTask

The specified command line is executed, with the output redirected to the TMP file. Both the TMP file and the content of the v_buff variable will be sent to the C2 server by the parent script (VBShower::Backdoor).

Here is an example of the information present in the v_buff variable:

Libraries:
desktop.ini-175|
MicrosoftEdgeUpdate.vbs-2299|
RecordedTV.library-ms-999|
upgrade.mds-32840|
v.log-2299|

The file MicrosoftEdgeUpdate.vbs is a launcher for VBCloud, which reads the encrypted body of the backdoor from the file upgrade.mds, decrypts it, and executes it.

VBShower::Payload (2) used to install VBCloud

Almost the same script is used to install the CloudAtlas backdoor on an infected system. The script only downloads and unpacks the ZIP archive to "%LOCALAPPDATA%", and sends information about the contents of the directories "%LOCALAPPDATA%\vlc\plugins\access" and "%LOCALAPPDATA%\vlc" as output.

In this case, the file renaming operation is not applied, and there is no code for creating a scheduler task.

Here is an example of information to be sent to the C2 server:

vlc:
a.xml-969608|
b.xml-592960|
d.xml-2680200|
e.xml-185224||
access:
c.xml-5951488|

In fact, a.xml, d.xml, and e.xml are the executable file and libraries, respectively, of VLC Media Player. The c.xml file is a malicious library used in a DLL hijacking attack, where VLC acts as a loader, and the b.xml file is an encrypted body of the CloudAtlas backdoor, read from disk by the malicious library, decrypted, and executed.

VBShower::Payload (2) used to install CloudAtlas

VBShower::Payload (3)

This script is the next component for installing CloudAtlas. It is downloaded by VBShower from the C2 server as a separate file and executed after the VBShower::Payload (2) script. The script renames the XML files unpacked by VBShower::Payload (2) from the archive to the corresponding executables and libraries, and also renames the file containing the encrypted backdoor body.

These files are copied by VBShower::Payload (3) to the following paths:

Additionally, VBShower::Payload (3) creates a scheduler task to execute the command line: "%LOCALAPPDATA%\vlc\vlc.exe". The script then iterates through the files in the "%LOCALAPPDATA%\vlc" and "%LOCALAPPDATA%\vlc\plugins\access" directories, collecting information about filenames and sizes. The data, in the form of a buffer, is collected in the v_buff variable. The script also retrieves information about the task by executing the following command line, with the output redirected to a TMP file:

cmd.exe /c schtasks /query /v /fo CSV /tn MicrosoftVLCTaskMachine

Both the TMP file and the content of the v_buff variable will be sent to the C2 server by the parent script (VBShower::Backdoor).

VBShower::Payload (3) used to install CloudAtlas

VBShower::Payload (4)

This script was previously described as VBShower::Payload (1).

VBShower::Payload (5)

This script is used to check access to various cloud services and executed before installing VBCloud or CloudAtlas. It consistently accesses the URLs of cloud services, and the received HTTP responses are saved to the v_buff variable for subsequent sending to the C2 server. A truncated example of the information sent to the C2 server:

GET-https://webdav.yandex.ru|
200|
<!DOCTYPE html><html lang="ru" dir="ltr" class="desktop"><head><base href="...

VBShower::Payload (5)

VBShower::Payload (6)

This script was previously described as VBShower::Payload (2).

VBShower::Payload (7)

This is a small script for checking the accessibility of PowerShower’s C2 from an infected system.

VBShower::Payload (7)

VBShower::Payload (8)

This script is used to install PowerShower, another backdoor known to be employed by Cloud Atlas. The script does so by performing the following steps in sequence:

1. Creates registry keys to make the console window appear off-screen, effectively hiding it:
   

   "HKCU\Console\%SystemRoot%_System32_WindowsPowerShell_v1.0_powershell.exe"::"WindowPosition"::5122
   "HKCU\UConsole\taskeng.exe"::"WindowPosition"::538126692

2. Creates a “MicrosoftAdobeUpdateTaskMachine” scheduler task to execute the command line:
   

   powershell.exe -ep bypass -w 01 %APPDATA%\Adobe\AdobeMon.ps1

3. Decrypts the contents of the embedded data block with XOR and saves the resulting script to the file "%APPDATA%\Adobe\p.txt". Then, renames the file "p.txt" to "AdobeMon.ps1".
4. Collects information about file names and sizes in the path "%APPDATA%\Adobe". Gets information about the task by executing the following command line, with the output redirected to a TMP file:
   

   cmd.exe /c schtasks /query /v /fo LIST /tn MicrosoftAdobeUpdateTaskMachine

VBShower::Payload (8) used to install PowerShower

The decrypted PowerShell script is disguised as one of the standard modules, but at the end of the script, there is a command to launch the PowerShell interpreter with another script encoded in Base64.

Content of AdobeMon.ps1 (PowerShower)

VBShower::Payload (9)

This is a small script for collecting information about the system proxy settings.

VBShower::Payload (9)

VBCloud

On an infected system, VBCloud is represented by two files: a VB script (VBCloud::Launcher) and an encrypted main body (VBCloud::Backdoor). In the described case, the launcher is located in the file MicrosoftEdgeUpdate.vbs, and the payload — in upgrade.mds.

VBCloud::Launcher

The launcher script reads the contents of the upgrade.mds file, decodes characters delimited with “%H”, uses the RC4 stream encryption algorithm with a key built into the script to decrypt it, and transfers control to the decrypted content. It is worth noting that the implementation of RC4 uses PRGA (pseudo-random generation algorithm), which is quite rare, since most malware implementations of this algorithm skip this step.

VBCloud::Launcher

VBCloud::Backdoor

The backdoor performs several actions in a loop to eventually download and execute additional malicious scripts, as described in the previous research.

VBCloud::Payload (FileGrabber)

Unlike VBShower, which uses a global variable to save its output or a temporary file to be sent to the C2 server, each VBCloud payload communicates with the C2 server independently. One of the most commonly used payloads for the VBCloud backdoor is FileGrabber. The script exfiltrates files and documents from the target system as described before.

The FileGrabber payload has the following limitations when scanning for files:

• It ignores the following paths:
  • Program Files
  • Program Files (x86)
  • %SystemRoot%
• The file size for archiving must be between 1,000 and 3,000,000 bytes.
• The file’s last modification date must be less than 30 days before the start of the scan.
• Files containing the following strings in their names are ignored:
  • “intermediate.txt”
  • “FlightingLogging.txt”
  • “log.txt”
  • “thirdpartynotices”
  • “ThirdPartyNotices”
  • “easylist.txt”
  • “acroNGLLog.txt”
  • “LICENSE.txt”
  • “signature.txt”
  • “AlternateServices.txt”
  • “scanwia.txt”
  • “scantwain.txt”
  • “SiteSecurityServiceState.txt”
  • “serviceworker.txt”
  • “SettingsCache.txt”
  • “NisLog.txt”
  • “AppCache”
  • “backupTest”

Part of VBCloud::Payload (FileGrabber)

PowerShower

As mentioned above, PowerShower is installed via one of the VBShower payloads. This script launches the PowerShell interpreter with another script encoded in Base64. Running in an infinite loop, it attempts to access the C2 server to retrieve an additional payload, which is a PowerShell script twice encoded with Base64. This payload is executed in the context of the backdoor, and the execution result is sent to the C2 server via an HTTP POST request.

Decoded PowerShower script

In previous versions of PowerShower, the payload created a sapp.xtx temporary file to save its output, which was sent to the C2 server by the main body of the backdoor. No intermediate files are created anymore, and the result of execution is returned to the backdoor by a normal call to the "return" operator.

PowerShower::Payload (1)

This script was previously described as PowerShower::Payload (2). This payload is unique to each victim.

PowerShower::Payload (2)

This script is used for grabbing files with metadata from a network share.

PowerShower::Payload (2)

CloudAtlas

As described above, the CloudAtlas backdoor is installed via VBShower from a downloaded archive delivered through a DLL hijacking attack. The legitimate VLC application acts as a loader, accompanied by a malicious library that reads the encrypted payload from the file and transfers control to it. The malicious DLL is located at "%LOCALAPPDATA%\vlc\plugins\access", while the file with the encrypted payload is located at "%LOCALAPPDATA%\vlc\".

When the malicious DLL gains control, it first extracts another DLL from itself, places it in the memory of the current process, and transfers control to it. The unpacked DLL uses a byte-by-byte XOR operation to decrypt the block with the loader configuration. The encrypted config immediately follows the key. The config specifies the name of the event that is created to prevent a duplicate payload launch. The config also contains the name of the file where the encrypted payload is located — "chambranle" in this case — and the decryption key itself.

Encrypted and decrypted loader configuration

The library reads the contents of the "chambranle" file with the payload, uses the key from the decrypted config and the IV located at the very end of the "chambranle" file to decrypt it with AES-256-CBC. The decrypted file is another DLL with its size and SHA-1 hash embedded at the end, added to verify that the DLL is decrypted correctly. The DLL decrypted from "chambranle" is the main body of the CloudAtlas backdoor, and control is transferred to it via one of the exported functions, specifically the one with ordinal 2.

Main routine that processes the payload file

When the main body of the backdoor gains control, the first thing it does is decrypt its own configuration. Decryption is done in a similar way, using AES-256-CBC. The key for AES-256 is located before the configuration, and the IV is located right after it. The most useful information in the configuration file includes the URL of the cloud service, paths to directories for receiving payloads and unloading results, and credentials for the cloud service.

Encrypted and decrypted CloudAtlas backdoor config

Immediately after decrypting the configuration, the backdoor starts interacting with the C2 server, which is a cloud service, via WebDAV. First, the backdoor uses the MKCOL HTTP method to create two directories: one ("/guessed/intershop/Euskalduns/") will regularly receive a beacon in the form of an encrypted file containing information about the system, time, user name, current command line, and volume information. The other directory ("/cancrenate/speciesists/") is used to retrieve payloads. The beacon file and payload files are AES-256-CBC encrypted with the key that was used for backdoor configuration decryption.

HTTP requests of the CloudAtlas backdoor

The backdoor uses the HTTP PROPFIND method to retrieve the list of files. Each of these files will be subsequently downloaded, deleted from the cloud service, decrypted, and executed.

HTTP requests from the CloudAtlas backdoor

The payload consists of data with a binary block containing a command number and arguments at the beginning, followed by an executable plugin in the form of a DLL. The structure of the arguments depends on the type of command. After the plugin is loaded into memory and configured, the backdoor calls the exported function with ordinal 1, passing several arguments: a pointer to the backdoor function that implements sending files to the cloud service, a pointer to the decrypted backdoor configuration, and a pointer to the binary block with the command and arguments from the beginning of the payload.

Plugin setup and execution routine

Before calling the plugin function, the backdoor saves the path to the current directory and restores it after the function is executed. Additionally, after execution, the plugin is removed from memory.

CloudAtlas::Plugin (FileGrabber)

FileGrabber is the most commonly used plugin. As the name suggests, it is designed to steal files from an infected system. Depending on the command block transmitted, it is capable of:

• Stealing files from all local disks
• Stealing files from the specified removable media
• Stealing files from specified folders
• Using the selected username and password from the command block to mount network resources and then steal files from them

For each detected file, a series of rules are generated based on the conditions passed within the command block, including:

• Checking for minimum and maximum file size
• Checking the file’s last modification time
• Checking the file path for pattern exclusions. If a string pattern is found in the full path to a file, the file is ignored
• Checking the file name or extension against a list of patterns

Resource scanning

If all conditions match, the file is sent to the C2 server, along with its metadata, including attributes, creation time, last access time, last modification time, size, full path to the file, and SHA-1 of the file contents. Additionally, if a special flag is set in one of the rule fields, the file will be deleted after a copy is sent to the C2 server. There is also a limit on the total amount of data sent, and if this limit is exceeded, scanning of the resource stops.

Generating data for sending to C2

CloudAtlas::Plugin (Common)

This is a general-purpose plugin, which parses the transferred block, splits it into commands, and executes them. Each command has its own ID, ranging from 0 to 6. The list of commands is presented below.

1. Command ID 0: Creates, sets and closes named events.
2. Command ID 1: Deletes the selected list of files.
3. Command ID 2: Drops a file on disk with content and a path selected in the command block arguments.
4. Command ID 3: Capable of performing several operations together or independently, including:
   1. Dropping several files on disk with content and paths selected in the command block arguments
   2. Dropping and executing a file at a specified path with selected parameters. This operation supports three types of launch:
   • Using the WinExec function
   • Using the ShellExecuteW function
   • Using the CreateProcessWithLogonW function, which requires that the user’s credentials be passed within the command block to launch the process on their behalf
5. Command ID 4: Uses the StdRegProv COM interface to perform registry manipulations, supporting key creation, value deletion, and value setting (both DWORD and string values).
6. Command ID 5: Calls the ExitProcess function.
7. Command ID 6: Uses the credentials passed within the command block to connect a network resource, drops a file to the remote resource under the name specified within the command block, creates and runs a VB script on the local system to execute the dropped file on the remote system. The VB script is created at "%APPDATA%\ntsystmp.vbs". The path to launch the file dropped on the remote system is passed to the launched VB script as an argument.

Content of the dropped VBS

CloudAtlas::Plugin (PasswordStealer)

This plugin is used to steal cookies and credentials from browsers. This is an extended version of the Common Plugin, which is used for more specific purposes. It can also drop, launch, and delete files, but its primary function is to drop files belonging to the “Chrome App-Bound Encryption Decryption” open-source project onto the disk, and run the utility to steal cookies and passwords from Chromium-based browsers. After launching the utility, several files ("cookies.txt" and "passwords.txt") containing the extracted browser data are created on disk. The plugin then reads JSON data from the selected files, parses the data, and sends the extracted information to the C2 server.

Part of the function for parsing JSON and sending the extracted data to C2

CloudAtlas::Plugin (InfoCollector)

This plugin is used to collect information about the infected system. The list of commands is presented below.

1. Command ID 0xFFFFFFF0: Collects the computer’s NetBIOS name and domain information.
2. Command ID 0xFFFFFFF1: Gets a list of processes, including full paths to executable files of processes, and a list of modules (DLLs) loaded into each process.
3. Command ID 0xFFFFFFF2: Collects information about installed products.
4. Command ID 0xFFFFFFF3: Collects device information.
5. Command ID 0xFFFFFFF4: Collects information about logical drives.
6. Command ID 0xFFFFFFF5: Executes the command with input/output redirection, and sends the output to the C2 server. If the command line for execution is not specified, it sequentially launches the following utilities and sends their output to the C2 server:

net group "Exchange servers" /domain
Ipconfig
arp -a

Python script

As mentioned in one of our previous reports, Cloud Atlas uses a custom Python script named get_browser_pass.py to extract saved credentials from browsers on infected systems. If the Python interpreter is not present on the victim’s machine, the group delivers an archive that includes both the script and a bundled Python interpreter to ensure execution.

During one of the latest incidents we investigated, we once again observed traces of this tool in action, specifically the presence of the file "C:\ProgramData\py\pytest.dll".

The pytest.dll library is called from within get_browser_pass.py and used to extract credentials from Yandex Browser. The data is then saved locally to a file named y3.txt.

Victims

According to our telemetry, the identified targets of the malicious activities described here are located in Russia and Belarus, with observed activity dating back to the beginning of 2025. The industries being targeted are diverse, encompassing organizations in the telecommunications sector, construction, government entities, and plants.

Conclusion

For more than ten years, the group has carried on its activities and expanded its arsenal. Now the attackers have four implants at their disposal (PowerShower, VBShower, VBCloud, CloudAtlas), each of them a full-fledged backdoor. Most of the functionality in the backdoors is duplicated, but some payloads provide various exclusive capabilities. The use of cloud services to manage backdoors is a distinctive feature of the group, and it has proven itself in various attacks.

Indicators of compromise

Note: The indicators in this section are valid at the time of publication.

File hashes

0D309C25A835BAF3B0C392AC87504D9E    протокол (08.05.2025).doc
D34AAEB811787B52EC45122EC10AEB08    HTA
4F7C5088BCDF388C49F9CAAD2CCCDCC5    StandaloneUpdate_2020-04-13_090638_8815-145.log:StandaloneUpdate_2020-04-13_090638_8815-145cfcf.vbs
5C93AF19EF930352A251B5E1B2AC2519    StandaloneUpdate_2020-04-13_090638_8815-145.log:StandaloneUpdate_2020-04-13_090638_8815-145.dat (encrypted)
0E13FA3F06607B1392A3C3CAA8092C98    VBShower::Payload(1)
BC80C582D21AC9E98CBCA2F0637D8993    VBShower::Payload(2)
12F1F060DF0C1916E6D5D154AF925426    VBShower::Payload(3)
E8C21CA9A5B721F5B0AB7C87294A2D72    VBShower::Payload(4)
2D03F1646971FB7921E31B647586D3FB    VBShower::Payload(5)
7A85873661B50EA914E12F0523527CFA    VBShower::Payload(6)
F31CE101CBE25ACDE328A8C326B9444A    VBShower::Payload(7)
E2F3E5BF7EFBA58A9C371E2064DFD0BB    VBShower::Payload(8)
67156D9D0784245AF0CAE297FC458AAC    VBShower::Payload(9)
116E5132E30273DA7108F23A622646FE    VBCloud::Launcher
E9F60941A7CED1A91643AF9D8B92A36D    VBCloud::Payload(FileGrabber)
718B9E688AF49C2E1984CF6472B23805    PowerShower
A913EF515F5DC8224FCFFA33027EB0DD    PowerShower::Payload(2)
BAA59BB050A12DBDF981193D88079232    chambranle (encrypted)

Domains and IPs

billet-ru[.]net
mskreg[.]net
flashsupport[.]org
solid-logit[.]com
cityru-travel[.]org
transferpolicy[.]org
information-model[.]net
securemodem[.]com

Introduction

If you’re a penetration tester, you know that lateral movement is becoming increasingly difficult, especially in well-defended environments. One common technique for remote command execution has been the use of DCOM objects.

Over the years, many different DCOM objects have been discovered. Some rely on native Windows components, others depend on third-party software such as Microsoft Office, and some are undocumented objects found through reverse engineering. While certain objects still work, others no longer function in newer versions of Windows.

This research presents a previously undescribed DCOM object that can be used for both command execution and potential persistence. This new technique abuses older initial access and persistence methods through Control Panel items.

First, we will discuss COM technology. After that, we will review the current state of the Impacket dcomexec script, focusing on objects that still function, and discuss potential fixes and improvements, then move on to techniques for enumerating objects on the system. Next, we will examine Control Panel items, how adversaries have used them for initial access and persistence, and how these items can be leveraged through a DCOM object to achieve command execution.

Finally, we will cover detection strategies to identify and respond to this type of activity.

COM/DCOM technology

What is COM?

COM stands for Component Object Model, a Microsoft technology that defines a binary standard for interoperability. It enables the creation of reusable software components that can interact at runtime without the need to compile COM libraries directly into an application.

These software components operate in a client–server model. A COM object exposes its functionality through one or more interfaces. An interface is essentially a collection of related member functions (methods).

COM also enables communication between processes running on the same machine by using local RPC (Remote Procedure Call) to handle cross-process communication.

Terms

To ensure a better understanding of its structure and functionality, let’s revise COM-related terminology.

1. COM interface
   A COM interface defines the functionality that a COM object exposes. Each COM interface is identified by a unique GUID known as the IID (Interface ID). All COM interfaces can be found in the Windows Registry under HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT\Interface, where they are organized by GUID.
2. COM class (COM CoClass)
   A COM class is the actual implementation of one or more COM interfaces. Like COM interfaces, classes are identified by unique GUIDs, but in this case the GUID is called the CLSID (Class ID). This GUID is used to locate the COM server and activate the corresponding COM class.

   All COM classes must be registered in the registry under HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT\CLSID, where each class’s GUID is stored. Under each GUID, you may find multiple subkeys that serve different purposes, such as:

   • InprocServer32/LocalServer32: Specifies the system path of the COM server where the class is defined. InprocServer32 is used for in-process servers (DLLs), while LocalServer32 is used for out-of-process servers (EXEs). We’ll describe this in more detail later.
   • ProgID: A human-readable name assigned to the COM class.
   • TypeLib: A binary description of the COM class (essentially documentation for the class).
   • AppID: Used to describe security configuration for the class.
3. COM server
   A COM is the module where a COM class is defined. The server can be implemented as an EXE, in which case it is called an out-of-process server, or as a DLL, in which case it is called an in-process server. Each COM server has a unique file path or location in the system. Information about COM servers is stored in the Windows Registry. The COM runtime uses the registry to locate the server and perform further actions. Registry entries for COM servers are located under the HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT root key for both 32- and 64-bit servers.

Component Object Model implementation

Client–server model

1. In-process server
   In the case of an in-process server, the server is implemented as a DLL. The client loads this DLL into its own address space and directly executes functions exposed by the COM object. This approach is efficient since both client and server run within the same process.
   

   In-process COM server

2. Out-of-process server
   Here, the server is implemented and compiled as an executable (EXE). Since the client cannot load an EXE into its address space, the server runs in its own process, separate from the client. Communication between the two processes is handled via ALPC (Advanced Local Procedure Call) ports, which serve as the RPC transport layer for COM.

Out-of-process COM server

What is DCOM?

DCOM is an extension of COM where the D stands for Distributed. It enables the client and server to reside on different machines. From the user’s perspective, there is no difference: DCOM provides an abstraction layer that makes both the client and the server appear as if they are on the same machine.

Under the hood, however, COM uses TCP as the RPC transport layer to enable communication across machines.

Distributed COM implementation

Certain requirements must be met to extend a COM object into a DCOM object. The most important one for our research is the presence of the AppID subkey in the registry, located under the COM CLSID entry.

The AppID value contains a GUID that maps to a corresponding key under HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT\AppID. Several subkeys may exist under this GUID. Two critical ones are:

• AccessPermission: controls access permissions.
• LaunchPermission: controls activation permissions.

These registry settings grant remote clients permissions to activate and interact with DCOM objects.

Lateral movement via DCOM

After attackers compromise a host, their next objective is often to compromise additional machines. This is what we call lateral movement. One common lateral movement technique is to achieve remote command execution on a target machine. There are many ways to do this, one of which involves abusing DCOM objects.

In recent years, many DCOM objects have been discovered. This research focuses on the objects exposed by the Impacket script dcomexec.py that can be used for command execution. More specifically, three exposed objects are used: ShellWindows, ShellBrowserWindow and MMC20.

1. ShellWindows
   ShellWindows was one of the first DCOM objects to be identified. It represents a collection of open shell windows and is hosted by explorer.exe, meaning any COM client communicates with that process.

   In Impacket’s dcomexec.py, once an instance of this COM object is created on a remote machine, the script provides a semi-interactive shell.

   Each time a user enters a command, the function exposed by the COM object is called. The command output is redirected to a file, which the script retrieves via SMB and displays back to simulate a regular shell.

   Internally, the script runs this command when connecting:

   cmd.exe /Q /c cd \ 1> \\127.0.0.1\ADMIN$\__17602 2>&1

   This sets the working directory to C:\ and redirects the output to the ADMIN$ share under the filename __17602. After that, the script checks whether the file exists; if it does, execution is considered successful and the output appears as if in a shell.

   When running dcomexec.py against Windows 10 and 11 using the ShellWindows object, the script hangs after confirming SMB connection initialization and printing the SMB banner. As I mentioned in my personal blog post, it appears that this DCOM object no longer has permission to write to the ADMIN$ share. A simple fix is to redirect the output to a directory the DCOM object can write to, such as the Temp folder. The Temp folder can then be accessed under the same ADMIN$ share. A small change in the code resolves the issue. For example:

   OUTPUT_FILENAME = 'Temp\\__' + str(time.time())[:5]

2. ShellBrowserWindow
   The ShellBrowserWindow object behaves almost identically to ShellWindows and exhibits the same behavior on Windows 10. The same workaround that we used for ShellWindows applies in this case. However, on Windows 11, this object no longer works for command execution.
3. MMC20
   The MMC20.Application COM object is the automation interface for Microsoft Management Console (MMC). It exposes methods and properties that allow MMC snap-ins to be automated.

   This object has historically worked across all Windows versions. Starting with Windows Server 2025, however, attempting to use it triggers a Defender alert, and execution is blocked.

   As shown in earlier examples, the dcomexec.py script writes the command output to a file under ADMIN$, with a filename that begins with __:

   OUTPUT_FILENAME = '__' + str(time.time())[:5]

   Defender appears to check for files written under ADMIN$ that start with __, and when it detects one, it blocks the process and alerts the user. A quick fix is to simply remove the double underscores from the output filename.

   Another way to bypass this issue is to use the same workaround used for ShellWindows – redirecting the output to the Temp folder. The table below outlines the status of these objects across different Windows versions.

   	Windows Server 2025	Windows Server 2022	Windows 11	Windows 10
   ShellWindows	Doesn’t work	Doesn’t work	Works but needs a fix	Works but needs a fix
   ShellBrowserWindow	Doesn’t work	Doesn’t work	Doesn’t work	Works but needs a fix
   MMC20	Detected by Defender	Works	Works	Works

Enumerating COM/DCOM objects

The first step to identifying which DCOM objects could be used for lateral movement is to enumerate them. By enumerating, I don’t just mean listing the objects. Enumeration involves:

• Finding objects and filtering specifically for DCOM objects.
• Identifying their interfaces.
• Inspecting the exposed functions.

Automating enumeration is difficult because most COM objects lack a type library (TypeLib). A TypeLib acts as documentation for an object: which interfaces it supports, which functions are exposed, and the definitions of those functions. Even when TypeLibs are available, manual inspection is often still required, as we will explain later.

There are several approaches to enumerating COM objects depending on their use cases. Next, we’ll describe the methods I used while conducting this research, taking into account both automated and manual methods.

1. Automation using PowerShell
   In PowerShell, you can use .NET to create and interact with DCOM objects. Objects can be created using either their ProgID or CLSID, after which you can call their functions (as shown in the figure below).
   

   Shell.Application COM object function list in PowerShell

   Under the hood, PowerShell checks whether the COM object has a TypeLib and implements the IDispatch interface. IDispatch enables late binding, which allows runtime dynamic object creation and function invocation. With these two conditions met, PowerShell can dynamically interact with COM objects at runtime.

   Our strategy looks like this:

   

   As you can see in the last box, we perform manual inspection to look for functions with names that could be of interest, such as Execute, Exec, Shell, etc. These names often indicate potential command execution capabilities.

   However, this approach has several limitations:

   • TypeLib requirement: Not all COM objects have a TypeLib, so many objects cannot be enumerated this way.
   • IDispatch requirement: Not all COM objects implement the IDispatch interface, which is required for PowerShell interaction.
   • Interface control: When you instantiate an object in PowerShell, you cannot choose which interface the instance will be tied to. If a COM class implements multiple interfaces, PowerShell will automatically select the one marked as [default] in the TypeLib. This means that other non-default interfaces, which may contain additional relevant functionality, such as command execution, could be overlooked.
2. Automation using C++
   As you might expect, C++ is one of the languages that natively supports COM clients. Using C++, you can create instances of COM objects and call their functions via header files that define the interfaces.However, with this approach, we are not necessarily interested in calling functions directly. Instead, the goal is to check whether a specific COM object supports certain interfaces. The reasoning is that many interfaces have been found to contain functions that can be abused for command execution or other purposes.

   This strategy primarily relies on an interface called IUnknown. All COM interfaces should inherit from this interface, and all COM classes should implement it.The IUnknown interface exposes three main functions. The most important is QueryInterface(), which is used to ask a COM object for a pointer to one of its interfaces.So, the strategy is to:

   • Enumerate COM classes in the system by reading CLSIDs under the HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT\CLSID key.
   • Check whether they support any known valuable interfaces. If they do, those classes may be leveraged for command execution or other useful functionality.

   This method has several advantages:

   • No TypeLib dependency: Unlike PowerShell, this approach does not require the COM object to have a TypeLib.
   • Use of IUnknown: In C++, you can use the QueryInterface function from the base IUnknown interface to check if a particular interface is supported by a COM class.
   • No need for interface definitions: Even without knowing the exact interface structure, you can obtain a pointer to its virtual function table (vtable), typically cast as a void*. This is enough to confirm the existence of the interface and potentially inspect it further.

   The figure below illustrates this strategy:

   

   This approach is good in terms of automation because it eliminates the need for manual inspection. However, we are still only checking well-known interfaces commonly used for lateral movement, while potentially missing others.

3. Manual inspection using open-source tools
   As you can see, automation can be difficult since it requires several prerequisites and, in many cases, still ends with a manual inspection. An alternative approach is manual inspection using a tool called OleViewDotNet, developed by James Forshaw. This tool allows you to:
   • List all COM classes in the system.
   • Create instances of those classes.
   • Check their supported interfaces.
   • Call specific functions.
   • Apply various filters for easier analysis.
   • Perform other inspection tasks.
   

   Open-source tool for inspecting COM interfaces

   One of the most valuable features of this tool is its naming visibility. OleViewDotNet extracts the names of interfaces and classes (when available) from the Windows Registry and displays them, along with any associated type libraries.

   This makes manual inspection easier, since you can analyze the names of classes, interfaces, or type libraries and correlate them with potentially interesting functionality, for example, functions that could lead to command execution or persistence techniques.

Control Panel items as attack surfaces

Control Panel items allow users to view and adjust their computer settings. These items are implemented as DLLs that export the CPlApplet function and typically have the .cpl extension. Control Panel items can also be executables, but our research will focus on DLLs only.

Control Panel items

Attackers can abuse CPL files for initial access. When a user executes a malicious .cpl file (e.g., delivered via phishing), the system may be compromised – a technique mapped to MITRE ATT&CK T1218.002.

Adversaries may also modify the extensions of malicious DLLs to .cpl and register them in the corresponding locations in the registry.

• Under HKEY_CURRENT_USER:
  HKCU\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Control Panel\Cpls

• Under HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE:
  • For 64-bit DLLs:
    HKLM\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Control Panel\Cpls
  • For 32-bit DLLs:
    HKLM\Software\WOW6432Node\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Control Panel\Cpls

These locations are important when Control Panel DLLs need to be available to the current logged-in user or to all users on the machine. However, the “Control Panel” subkey and its “Cpls” subkey under HKCU should be created manually, unlike the “Control Panel” and “Cpls” subkeys under HKLM, which are created automatically by the operating system.

Once registered, the DLL (CPL file) will load every time the Control Panel is opened, enabling persistence on the victim’s system.

It’s worth noting that even DLLs that do not comply with the CPL specification, do not export CPlApplet, or do not have the .cpl extension can still be executed via their DllEntryPoint function if they are registered under the registry keys listed above.

There are multiple ways to execute Control Panel items:

• From cmd: control.exe [filename].cpl
• By double-clicking the .cpl file.

Both methods use rundll32.exe under the hood:

rundll32.exe shell32.dll,Control_RunDLL [filename].cpl

This calls the Control_RunDLL function from shell32.dll, passing the CPL file as an argument. Everything inside the CPlApplet function will then be executed.

However, if the CPL file has been registered in the registry as shown earlier, then every time the Control Panel is opened, the file is loaded into memory through the COM Surrogate process (dllhost.exe):

COM Surrogate process loading the CPL file

What happened was that a Control Panel with a COM client used a COM object to load these CPL files. We will talk about this COM object in more detail later.

The COM Surrogate process was designed to host COM server DLLs in a separate process rather than loading them directly into the client process’s address space. This isolation improves stability for the in-process server model. This hosting behavior can be configured for a COM object in the registry if you want a COM server DLL to run inside a separate process because, by default, it is loaded in the same process.

‘DCOMing’ through Control Panel items

While following the manual approach of enumerating COM/DCOM objects that could be useful for lateral movement, I came across a COM object called COpenControlPanel, which is exposed through shell32.dll and has the CLSID {06622D85-6856-4460-8DE1-A81921B41C4B}. This object exposes multiple interfaces, one of which is IOpenControlPanel with IID {D11AD862-66DE-4DF4-BF6C-1F5621996AF1}.

IOpenControlPanel interface in the OleViewDotNet output

I immediately thought of its potential to compromise Control Panel items, so I wanted to check which functions were exposed by this interface. Unfortunately, neither the interface nor the COM class has a type library.

COpenControlPanel interfaces without TypeLib

Normally, checking the interface definition would require reverse engineering, so at first, it looked like we needed to take a different research path. However, it turned out that the IOpenControlPanel interface is documented on MSDN, and according to the documentation, it exposes several functions. One of them, called Open, allows a specified Control Panel item to be opened using its name as the first argument.

Full type and function definitions are provided in the shobjidl_core.h Windows header file.

Open function exposed by IOpenControlPanel interface

It’s worth noting that in newer versions of Windows (e.g., Windows Server 2025 and Windows 11), Microsoft has removed interface names from the registry, which means they can no longer be identified through OleViewDotNet.

COpenControlPanel interfaces without names

Returning to the COpenControlPanel COM object, I found that the Open function can trigger a DLL to be loaded into memory if it has been registered in the registry. For the purposes of this research, I created a DLL that basically just spawns a message box which is defined under the DllEntryPoint function. I registered it under HKCU\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Control Panel\Cpls and then created a simple C++ COM client to call the Open function on this interface.

As expected, the DLL was loaded into memory. It was hosted in the same way that it would be if the Control Panel itself was opened: through the COM Surrogate process (dllhost.exe). Using Process Explorer, it was clear that dllhost.exe loaded my DLL while simultaneously hosting the COpenControlPanel object along with other COM objects.

COM Surrogate loading a custom DLL and hosting the COpenControlPanel object

Based on my testing, I made the following observations:

1. The DLL that needs to be registered does not necessarily have to be a .cpl file; any DLL with a valid entry point will be loaded.
2. The Open() function accepts the name of a Control Panel item as its first argument. However, it appears that even if a random string is supplied, it still causes all DLLs registered in the relevant registry location to be loaded into memory.

Now, what if we could trigger this COM object remotely? In other words, what if it is not just a COM object but also a DCOM object? To verify this, we checked the AppID of the COpenControlPanel object using OleViewDotNet.

COpenControlPanel object in OleViewDotNet

Both the launch and access permissions are empty, which means the object will follow the system’s default DCOM security policy. By default, members of the Administrators group are allowed to launch and access the DCOM object.

Based on this, we can build a remote strategy. First, upload the “malicious” DLL, then use the Remote Registry service to register it in the appropriate registry location. Finally, use a trigger acting as a DCOM client to remotely invoke the Open() function, causing our DLL to be loaded. The diagram below illustrates the flow of this approach.

Malicious DLL loading using DCOM

The trigger can be written in either C++ or Python, for example, using Impacket. I chose Python because of its flexibility. The trigger itself is straightforward: we define the DCOM class, the interface, and the function to call. The full code example can be found here.

Once the trigger runs, the behavior will be the same as when executing the COM client locally: our DLL will be loaded through the COM Surrogate process (dllhost.exe).

As you can see, this technique not only achieves command execution but also provides persistence. It can be triggered in two ways: when a user opens the Control Panel or remotely at any time via DCOM.

Detection

The first step in detecting such activity is to check whether any Control Panel items have been registered under the following registry paths:

• HKCU\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Control Panel\Cpls
• HKLM\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Control Panel\Cpls
• HKLM\Software\WOW6432Node\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Control Panel\Cpls

Although commonly known best practices and research papers regarding Windows security advise monitoring only the first subkey, for thorough coverage it is important to monitor all of the above.

In addition, monitoring dllhost.exe (COM Surrogate) for unusual COM objects such as COpenControlPanel can provide indicators of malicious activity.
Finally, it is always recommended to monitor Remote Registry usage because it is commonly abused in many types of attacks, not just in this scenario.

Conclusion

In conclusion, I hope this research has clarified yet another attack vector and emphasized the importance of implementing hardening practices. Below are a few closing points for security researchers to take into account:

• As shown, DCOM represents a large attack surface. Windows exposes many DCOM classes, a significant number of which lack type libraries – meaning reverse engineering can reveal additional classes that may be abused for lateral movement.
• Changing registry values to register malicious CPLs is not good practice from a red teaming ethics perspective. Defender products tend to monitor common persistence paths, but Control Panel applets can be registered in multiple registry locations, so there is always a gap that can be exploited.
• Bitness also matters. On x64 systems, loading a 32-bit DLL will spawn a 32-bit COM Surrogate process (dllhost.exe *32). This is unusual on 64-bit hosts and therefore serves as a useful detection signal for defenders and an interesting red flag for red teamers to consider.

In November 2025, Kaspersky experts uncovered a new stealer named Stealka, which targets Windows users’ data. Attackers are using Stealka to hijack accounts, steal cryptocurrency, and install a crypto miner on their victims’ devices. Most frequently, this infostealer disguises itself as game cracks, cheats and mods.

Here’s how the attackers are spreading the stealer, and how you can protect yourself.

How Stealka spreads

A stealer is a type of malware that collects confidential information stored on the victim’s device and sends it to the attackers’ server. Stealka is primarily distributed via popular platforms like GitHub, SourceForge, Softpedia, sites.google.com, and others, disguised as cracks for popular software, or cheats and mods for games. For the malware to be activated, the user must run the file manually.

Here’s an example: a malicious Roblox mod published on SourceForge.

Attackers exploited SourceForge, a legitimate website, to upload a mod containing Stealka

And here’s one on GitHub posing as a crack for Microsoft Visio.

A pirated version of Microsoft Visio containing the stealer, hosted on GitHub

Sometimes, however, attackers go a step further (and possibly use AI tools) to create entire fake websites that look quite professional. Without the help of a robust antivirus, the average user is unlikely to realize anything is amiss.

A fake website pretending to offer Roblox scripts

Admittedly, the cracks and software advertised on these fake sites can sometimes look a bit off. For example, here the attackers are offering a download for Half-Life 3, while at the same time claiming it’s not actually a game but some kind of “professional software solution designed for Windows”.

Malware disguised as Half-Life 3, which is also somehow “a professional software solution designed for Windows”. A lot of professionals clearly spent their best years on this software…

The truth is that both the page title and the filename are just bait. The attackers simply use popular search terms to lure users into downloading the malware. The actual file content has nothing to do with what’s advertised — inside, it’s always the same infostealer.

The site also claimed that all hosted files were scanned for viruses. When the user decides to download, say, a pirated game, the site displays a banner saying the file is being scanned by various antivirus engines. Of course, no such scanning actually takes place; the attackers are merely trying to create an illusion of trustworthiness.

The pirated file pretends to be scanned by a dozen antivirus tools

What makes Stealka dangerous

Stealka has a fairly extensive arsenal of capabilities, but its prime target is data from browsers built on the Chromium and Gecko engines. This puts over a hundred different browsers at risk, including popular ones like Chrome, Firefox, Opera, Yandex Browser, Edge, Brave, as well as many, many others.

Browsers store a huge amount of sensitive information, which attackers use to hijack accounts and continue their attacks. The main targets are autofill data, such as sign-in credentials, addresses, and payment card details. We’ve warned repeatedly that saving passwords in your browser is risky — attackers can extract them in seconds. Cookies and session tokens are perhaps even more valuable to hackers, as they can allow criminals to bypass two-factor authentication and hijack accounts without entering the password.

The story doesn’t end with the account hack. Attackers use these compromised accounts to spread the malware further. For example, we discovered the stealer in a GTAV mod posted on a dedicated site by an account that had previously been compromised.

Beyond stealing browser data, Stealka also targets the settings and databases of 115 browser extensions for crypto wallets, password managers, and 2FA services. Here are some of the most popular extensions now at risk:

• Crypto wallets: Binance, Coinbase, Crypto.com, SafePal, Trust Wallet, MetaMask, Ton, Phantom, Exodus
• Two-factor authentication: Authy, Google Authenticator, Bitwarden
• Password management: 1Password, Bitwarden, LastPass, KeePassXC, NordPass

Finally, the stealer also downloads local settings, account data, and service files from a wide variety of applications:

• Crypto wallets. Wallet configurations may contain encrypted private keys, seed-phrase data, wallet file paths, and encryption parameters. That’s enough to at least make an attempt at stealing your cryptocurrency. At risk are 80 wallet applications, including Binance, Bitcoin, BitcoinABC, Dogecoin, Ethereum, Exodus, Mincoin, MyCrypto, MyMonero, Monero, Nexus, Novacoin, Solar, and many others.
• Messaging apps. Messaging app service files store account data, device identifiers, authentication tokens, and the encryption parameters for your conversations. In theory, a malicious actor could gain access to your account and read your chats. At risk are Discord, Telegram, Unigram, Pidgin, Tox, and others.
• Password managers. Even if the passwords themselves are encrypted, the configuration files often contain information that makes cracking the vault significantly easier: encryption parameters, synchronization tokens, and details about the vault version and structure. At risk are 1Password, Authy, Bitwarden, KeePass, LastPass, and NordPass.
• Email clients. These are where your account credentials, mail server connection settings, authentication tokens, and local copies of your emails can be found. With access to your email, an attacker will almost certainly attempt to reset passwords for your other services. At risk are Gmail Notifier Pro, Claws, Mailbird, Outlook, Postbox, The Bat!, Thunderbird, and TrulyMail.
• Note-taking apps. Instead of shopping lists or late-night poetry, some users store information in their notes that has no business being there, like seed phrases or passwords. At risk are NoteFly, Notezilla, SimpleStickyNotes, and Microsoft StickyNotes.
• Gaming services and clients. The local files of gaming platforms and launchers store account data, linked service information, and authentication tokens. At risk are Steam, Roblox, Intent Launcher, Lunar Client, TLauncher, Feather Client, Meteor Client, Impact Client, Badlion Client, and WinAuth for battle.net.
• VPN clients. By gaining access to configuration files, attackers can hijack the victim’s VPN account to mask their own malicious activities. At risk are AzireVPN, OpenVPN, ProtonVPN, Surfshark, and WindscribeVPN.

That’s an extensive list — and we haven’t even named all of them! In addition to local files, this infostealer also harvests general system data: a list of installed programs, the OS version and language, username, computer hardware information, and miscellaneous settings. And as if that weren’t enough, the malware also takes screenshots.

How to protect yourself from Stealka and other infostealers

• Secure your device with reliable antivirus software. Even downloading files from legitimate websites is no guarantee of safety — attackers leverage trusted platforms to distribute stealers all the time. Kaspersky Premium detects malware on your computer in time and alerts you to the threat.
• Don’t store sensitive information in browsers. It’s handy — no one can argue with that. But unfortunately browsers aren’t the most secure environment for your data. Sign-in credentials, bank card details, secret notes, and other confidential information are better kept in a securely encrypted format in Kaspersky Password Manager, which is immune to the exploits used by Stealka.
• Be careful with game cheats, mods, and especially pirated software. It’s better to pay up for official software than to chase the false savings offered by software cracks, and end up losing all your money.
• Enable two-factor authentication or use backup codes wherever possible. Two-factor authentication (2FA) makes life much harder for attackers, while backup codes help you regain access to your critical accounts if compromised. Just be sure not to store backup codes in text documents, notes, or your browser. For all your backup codes and 2FA tokens, use a reliable password manager.

Curious what other stealers are out there, and what they’re capable of? Read more in our other posts:

• Beware of stealers disguised as… wedding invitations
• AMOS infostealer distributed via ChatGPT chat-sharing feature
• Banshee: A stealer targeting macOS users
• Arcane stealer instead of Minecraft cheats
• Efimer Trojan using hacked websites to steal cryptocurrency

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

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

Noah Heckman // Windows Vista didn’t have many fans in the Windows community (to put it lightly). It beaconed in a new user interface, file structure, and a bunch of […]

The post Why You Really Need to Stop Disabling UAC appeared first on Black Hills Information Security, Inc..

Sally Vandeven // We have all heard people talk about how much cooler Linux is than Windows, so much easier to use, etc. Well, they are not necessarily wrong… but we […]

The post Rainy Day Windows Command Research Results appeared first on Black Hills Information Security, Inc..

Click on the timecodes to jump to that part of the video (on YouTube) Slides for this webcast can be found here: https://www.blackhillsinfosec.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/SLIDES_WindowsLogginSysmonELK.pdf 4:36 Problem Statement and Executive Problem Statement 9:00 […]

The post Webcast: Windows logging, Sysmon, and ELK appeared first on Black Hills Information Security, Inc..

Click on the timecodes to jump to that part of the video (on YouTube) Slides for this webcast can be found here: https://www.blackhillsinfosec.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/SLIDES_ImplementingSysmonAppLocker.pdf 5:03 Introduction, problem statement, and executive problem […]

The post Webcast: Implementing Sysmon and Applocker appeared first on Black Hills Information Security, Inc..

Brian Fehrman // Privilege escalation is a common goal for threat actors after they have compromised a system. Having elevated permissions can allow for tasks such as: extracting local password-hashes, […]

The post Digging Deeper into Vulnerable Windows Services appeared first on Black Hills Information Security, Inc..

Derek Banks // I want to expand on our previous blog post on consolidated endpoint event logging and use Windows Event Forwarding and live off the Microsoft land for shipping […]

The post End-Point Log Consolidation with Windows Event Forwarder appeared first on Black Hills Information Security, Inc..

David Fletcher // During our testing, we encounter organizations of various different sizes, shapes, and composition.  One that we’ve run across a number of times includes a fairly even mixture […]

The post How To: Empire’s Cross Platform Office Macro appeared first on Black Hills Information Security, Inc..

Jordan Drysdale & Kent Ickler // In this webcast, we demonstrate some standard methodologies utilized during an internal network review. We also discuss various tools used to test network defenses […]

The post WEBCAST: Wrangling Internal Network Vulnerabilities appeared first on Black Hills Information Security, Inc..

John Strand // In the last webcast we covered initial Windows Live Forensics (see the recording here), in this one we play with memory from a compromised system. We cover the […]

The post WEBCAST: Windows Memory Forensics appeared first on Black Hills Information Security, Inc..