ClickFix malware campaigns are all about tricking the victim into infecting their own machine.
Apparently, the criminals behind these campaigns have figured out that mshta and Powershell commands are increasingly being blocked by security software, so they have developed a new method using nslookup.
The idea is to get victims to run malicious commands to infect their own machine. The malicious command often gets copied to the victim’s clipboard with instructions to copy it into the Windows Run dialog or the Mac terminal.
Nslookup is a built‑in tool to use the internet “phonebook,” and the criminals are basically abusing that phonebook to smuggle in instructions and malware instead of just getting an address.
It exists to troubleshoot network problems, check if DNS is configured correctly, and investigate odd domains, not to download or run programs. But the criminals configured a server to reply with data that is crafted so that part of the “answer” is actually another command or a pointer to malware, not just a normal IP address.
Microsoft provided these examples of malicious commands:
These commands start an infection chain that downloads a ZIP archive from an external server. From that archive, it extracts a malicious Python script that runs routines to conduct reconnaissance, run discovery commands, and eventually drop a Visual Basic Script which drops and executes ModeloRAT.
ModeloRAT is a Python‑based remote access trojan (RAT) that gives attackers hands‑on control over an infected Windows machine.
Long story short, the cybercriminals have found yet another way to use a trusted technical tool and make it secretly carry the next step of the attack, all triggered by the victim following what looks like harmless copy‑paste support instructions. At which point they might hand over the control over their system.
How to stay safe
With ClickFix running rampant—and it doesn’t look like it’s going away anytime soon—it’s important to be aware, careful, and protected.
Slow down. Don’t rush to follow instructions on a webpage or prompt, especially if it asks you to run commands on your device or copy-paste code. Attackers rely on urgency to bypass your critical thinking, so be cautious of pages urging immediate action. Sophisticated ClickFix pages add countdowns, user counters, or other pressure tactics to make you act quickly.
Avoid running commands or scripts from untrusted sources. Never run code or commands copied from websites, emails, or messages unless you trust the source and understand the action’s purpose. Verify instructions independently. If a website tells you to execute a command or perform a technical action, check through official documentation or contact support before proceeding.
Limit the use of copy-paste for commands. Manually typing commands instead of copy-pasting can reduce the risk of unknowingly running malicious payloads hidden in copied text.
Secure your devices. Use an up-to-date, real-time anti-malware solution with a web protection component.
Educate yourself on evolving attack techniques. Understanding that attacks may come from unexpected vectors and evolve helps maintain vigilance. Keep reading our blog!
Pro tip: Did you know that the free Malwarebytes Browser Guard extension warns you when a website tries to copy something to your clipboard?
We don’t just report on threats—we help safeguard your entire digital identity
Cybersecurity risks should never spread beyond a headline. Protect your, and your family’s, personal information by using identity protection.
Researchers have found yet another family of malicious extensions in the Chrome Web Store. This time, 30 different Chrome extensions were found stealing credentials from more than 260,000 users.
The extensions rendered a full-screen iframe pointing to a remote domain. This iframe overlaid the current webpage and visually appeared as the extension’s interface. Because this functionality was hosted remotely, it was not included in the review that allowed the extensions into the Web Store.
To spread the risk of detections and take-downs, the attackers used a technique known as “extension spraying.” This means they used different names and unique identifiers for basically the same extension.
What often happens is that researchers provide a list of extension names and IDs, and it’s up to users to figure out whether they have one of these extensions installed.
Searching by name is easy when you open your “Manage extensions” tab, but unfortunately extension names are not unique. You could, for example, have the legitimate extension installed that a criminal tried to impersonate.
Searching by unique identifier
For Chrome and Edge, a browser extension ID is a unique 32‑character string of lowercase letters that stays the same even if the extension is renamed or reshipped.
When we’re looking at the extensions from a removal angle, there are two kinds: those installed by the user, and those force‑installed by other means (network admin, malware, Group Policy Object (GPO), etc.).
We will only look at the first type in this guide—the ones users installed themselves from the Web Store. The guide below is aimed at Chrome, but it’s almost the same for Edge.
How to find installed extensions
You can review the installed Chrome extensions like this:
In the address bar type chrome://extensions/.
This will open the Extensions tab and show you the installed extensions by name.
Now toggle Developer mode to on and you will also see their unique ID.
Don’t remove this one. It’s one of the good ones.
Removal method in the browser
Use the Remove button to get rid of any unwanted entries.
If it disappears and stays gone after restart, you’re done. If there is no Remove button or Chrome says it’s “Installed by your administrator,” or the extension reappears after a restart, there’s a policy, registry entry, or malware forcing it.
Alternative
Alternatively, you can also search the Extensions folder. On Windows systems this folder lives here: C:\Users\<your‑username>\AppData\Local\Google\Chrome\User Data\Default\Extensions.
Please note that the AppData folder is hidden by default. To unhide files and folders in Windows, open Explorer, click the View tab (or menu), and check the Hidden items box. For more advanced options, choose Options > Change folder and search options > View tab, then select Show hidden files, folders, and drives.
Chrome extensions folder
You can organize the list alphabetically by clicking on the Name column header once or twice. This makes it easier to find extensions if you have a lot of them installed.
Deleting the extension folder here has one downside. It leaves an orphaned entry in your browser. When you start Chrome again after doing this, the extension will no longer load because its files are gone. But it will still show up in the Extensions tab, only without the appropriate icon.
So, our advice is to remove extensions in the browser when possible.
Malicious extensions
Below is the list of credential-stealing extensions using the iframe method, as provided by the researchers.
Extension ID
Extension name
acaeafediijmccnjlokgcdiojiljfpbe
ChatGPT Translate
baonbjckakcpgliaafcodddkoednpjgf
XAI
bilfflcophfehljhpnklmcelkoiffapb
AI For Translation
cicjlpmjmimeoempffghfglndokjihhn
AI Cover Letter Generator
ckicoadchmmndbakbokhapncehanaeni
AI Email Writer
ckneindgfbjnbbiggcmnjeofelhflhaj
AI Image Generator Chat GPT
cmpmhhjahlioglkleiofbjodhhiejhei
AI Translator
dbclhjpifdfkofnmjfpheiondafpkoed
Ai Wallpaper Generator
djhjckkfgancelbmgcamjimgphaphjdl
AI Sidebar
ebmmjmakencgmgoijdfnbailknaaiffh
Chat With Gemini
ecikmpoikkcelnakpgaeplcjoickgacj
Ai Picture Generator
fdlagfnfaheppaigholhoojabfaapnhb
Google Gemini
flnecpdpbhdblkpnegekobahlijbmfok
ChatGPT Picture Generator
fnjinbdmidgjkpmlihcginjipjaoapol
Email Generator AI
fpmkabpaklbhbhegegapfkenkmpipick
Chat GPT for Gmail
fppbiomdkfbhgjjdmojlogeceejinadg
Gemini AI Sidebar
gcfianbpjcfkafpiadmheejkokcmdkjl
Llama
gcdfailafdfjbailcdcbjmeginhncjkb
Grok Chatbot
gghdfkafnhfpaooiolhncejnlgglhkhe
AI Sidebar
gnaekhndaddbimfllbgmecjijbbfpabc
Ask Gemini
gohgeedemmaohocbaccllpkabadoogpl
DeepSeek Chat
hgnjolbjpjmhepcbjgeeallnamkjnfgi
AI Letter Generator
idhknpoceajhnjokpnbicildeoligdgh
ChatGPT Translation
kblengdlefjpjkekanpoidgoghdngdgl
AI GPT
kepibgehhljlecgaeihhnmibnmikbnga
DeepSeek Download
lodlcpnbppgipaimgbjgniokjcnpiiad
AI Message Generator
llojfncgbabajmdglnkbhmiebiinohek
ChatGPT Sidebar
nkgbfengofophpmonladgaldioelckbe
Chat Bot GPT
nlhpidbjmmffhoogcennoiopekbiglbp
AI Assistant
phiphcloddhmndjbdedgfbglhpkjcffh
Asking Chat Gpt
pgfibniplgcnccdnkhblpmmlfodijppg
ChatGBT
cgmmcoandmabammnhfnjcakdeejbfimn
Grok
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.
If you’ve seen the two stoat siblings serving as official mascots of the Milano Cortina 2026 Winter Olympics, you already know Tina and Milo are irresistible.
Designed by Italian schoolchildren and chosen from more than 1,600 entries in a public poll, the duo has already captured hearts worldwide. So much so that the official 27 cm Tina plush toy on the official Olympics web shop is listed at €40 and currently marked out of stock.
Tina and Milo are in huge demand, and scammers have noticed.
When supply runs out, scam sites rush in
In roughly the past week alone, we’ve identified nearly 20 lookalike domains designed to imitate the official Olympic merchandise store.
These aren’t crude copies thrown together overnight. The sites use the same polished storefront template, complete with promotional videos and background music designed to mirror the official shop.olympics.com experience.
Fake site offering Tina at a huge discountReal Olympic site showing Tina out of stock
The layout and product pages are the same—the only thing that changes is the domain name. At a quick glance, most people wouldn’t notice anything unusual.
Here’s a sample of the domains we’ve been tracking:
2026winterdeals[.]top olympics-save[.]top olympics2026[.]top postolympicsale[.]com sale-olympics[.]top shopolympics-eu[.]top winter0lympicsstore[.]top (note the zero replacing the letter “o”) winterolympics[.]top 2026olympics[.]shop olympics-2026[.]shop olympics-2026[.]top olympics-eu[.]top olympics-hot[.]shop olympics-hot[.]top olympics-sale[.]shop olympics-sale[.]top olympics-top[.]shop olympics2026[.]store olympics2026[.]top
Based on telemetry, additional registrations are actively emerging.
Reports show users checking these domains from multiple regions including Ireland, the Czech Republic, the United States, Italy, and China—suggesting this is a global campaign targeting fans worldwide.
Malwarebytes blocks these domains as scams.
Anatomy of a fake Olympic shop
The fake sites are practically identical. Each one loads the same storefront, with the same layout, product pages, and promotional banners.
That’s usually a sign the scammers are using a ready-made template and copying it across multiple domains. One obvious giveaway, however, is the pricing.
On the official store, the Tina plush costs €40 and is currently out of stock. On the fake sites, it suddenly reappears at a hugely discounted price—in one case €20, with banners shouting “UP & SAVE 80%.” When an item is sold out everywhere official and a random .top domain has it for half price, you’re looking at bait.
Delivering malware through fake order confirmations or “tracking” links
Taking your money and shipping nothing at all
The Olympics are a scammer’s playground
This isn’t the first time cybercriminals have piggybacked on Olympic fever. Fake ticket sites proliferated as far back as the Beijing 2008 Games. During Paris 2024, analysts observed significant spikes in Olympics-themed phishing and DDoS activity.
The formula is simple. Take a globally recognized brand, add urgency and emotional appeal (who doesn’t want an adorable stoat plush for their kid?), mix in limited availability, and serve it up on a convincing-looking website. With over 3 billion viewers expected for Milano Cortina, the pool of potential victims is enormous.
Scammers are getting smarter. AI-powered tools now let them generate convincing phishing pages in multiple languages at scale. The days of spotting a scam by its broken images and multiple typos are fading fast.
Protect yourself from Winter Olympics scams
As excitement builds ahead of the Winter Olympics in Milano Cortina, expect scammers to ramp up their efforts across fake shops, fraudulent ticket sites, bogus livestreams, and social media phishing campaigns.
Buy only from shop.olympics.com. Type the address directly into your browser and bookmark it. Don’t click links from ads or emails.
Don’t trust extreme discounts. If it’s sold out officially but “50–80% off” elsewhere, it’s likely a scam.
Check the domain closely. Watch for odd extensions like .top or .shop, extra hyphens, or letter swaps like “winter0lympicsstore.”
Never enter payment details on unfamiliar sites. If something feels off, leave immediately.
Use browser protection. Tools like Malwarebytes Browser Guard block known scam sites in real time, for free. Scam Guard can help you check suspicious websites before you buy.
We don’t just report on scams—we help detect them
Cybersecurity risks should never spread beyond a headline. If something looks dodgy to you, check if it’s a scam using Malwarebytes Scam Guard. Submit a screenshot, paste suspicious content, or share a link, text or phone number, and we’ll tell you if it’s a scam or legit. Available with Malwarebytes Premium Security for all your devices, and in the Malwarebytes app for iOS and Android.
Researchers found a malicious Microsoft Outlook add-in which was able to steal 4,000 stolen Microsoft account credentials, credit card numbers, and banking security answers.
How is it possible that the Microsoft Office Add-in Store ended listing an add-in that silently loaded a phishing kit inside Outlook’s sidebar?
A developer launched an add-in called AgreeTo, an open-source meeting scheduling tool with a Chrome extension. It was a popular tool, but at some point, it was abandoned by its developer, its backend URL on Vercel expired, and an attacker later claimed that same URL.
That requires some explanation. Office add-ins are essentially XML manifests that tell Outlook to load a specific URL in an iframe. Microsoft reviews and signs the manifest once but does not continuously monitor what that URL serves later.
So, when the outlook-one.vercel.app subdomain became free to claim, a cybercriminal jumped at the opportunity to scoop it up and abuse the powerful ReadWriteItem permissions requested and approved in 2022. These permissions meant the add-in could read and modify a user’s email when loaded. The permissions were appropriate for a meeting scheduler, but they served a different purpose for the criminal.
While Google removed the dead Chrome extension in February 2025, the Outlook add-in stayed listed in Microsoft’s Office Store, still pointing to a Vercel URL that no longer belonged to the original developer.
An attacker registered that Vercel subdomain and deployed a simple four-page phishing kit consisting of fake Microsoft login, password collection, Telegram-based data exfiltration, and a redirect to the real login.microsoftonline.com.
What make this work was simple and effective. When users opened the add-in, they saw what looked like a normal Microsoft sign-in inside Outlook. They entered credentials, which were sent via a JavaScript function to the attacker’s Telegram bot along with IP data, then were bounced to the real Microsoft login so nothing seemed suspicious.
The researchers were able to access the attacker’s poorly secured Telegram-based exfiltration channel and recovered more than 4,000 sets of stolen Microsoft account credentials, plus payment and banking data, indicating the campaign was active and part of a larger multi-brand phishing operation.
“The same attacker operates at least 12 distinct phishing kits, each impersonating a different brand – Canadian ISPs, banks, webmail providers. The stolen data included not just email credentials but credit card numbers, CVVs, PINs, and banking security answers used to intercept Interac e-Transfer payments. This is a professional, multi-brand phishing operation. The Outlook add-in was just one of its distribution channels.”
What to do
If you are or ever have used the AgreeTo add-in after May 2023:
Make sure it’s removed. If not, uninstall the add-in.
Change the password for your Microsoft account.
If that password (or close variants) was reused on other services (email, banking, SaaS, social), change those as well and make each one unique.
Review recent sign‑ins and security activity on your Microsoft account, looking for logins from unknown locations or devices, or unusual times.
Review other sensitive information you may have shared via email.
Scan your mailbox for signs of abuse: messages you did not send, auto‑forwarding rules you did not create, or password‑reset emails for other services you did not request.
Watch payment statements closely for at least the next few months, especially small “test” charges and unexpected e‑transfer or card‑not‑present transactions, and dispute anything suspicious immediately.
We don’t just report on threats—we help safeguard your entire digital identity
Cybersecurity risks should never spread beyond a headline. Protect your, and your family’s, personal information by using identity protection.
Meta is facing two trials over child safety allegations in California and New Mexico. The lawsuits are landmark cases, marking the first time that any such accusations have reached a jury. Although over 40 state attorneys general have filed suits about child safety issues with social media, none had gone to trial until now.
The New Mexico case, filed by Attorney General Raúl Torrez in December 2023, centers on child sexual exploitation. Torrez’s team built their evidence by posing as children online and documenting what happened next, in the form of sexual solicitations. The team brought the suit under New Mexico’s Unfair Trade Practices Act, a consumer protection statute that prosecutors argue sidesteps Section 230 protections.
The most damaging material in the trial, which is expected to run seven weeks, may be Meta’s own paperwork. Newly unsealed internal documents revealed that a company safety researcher had warned about the sheer scale of the problem, claiming that around half a million cases of child exploitation are happening daily. Torrez did not mince words about what he believes the platform has become, calling it an online marketplace for human trafficking. From the complaint:
“Meta’s platforms Facebook and Instagram are a breeding ground for predators who target children for human trafficking, the distribution of sexual images, grooming, and solicitation.”
The complaint’s emphasis on weak age verification touches on a broader issue regulators around the world are now grappling with: how platforms verify the age of their youngest users—and how easily those systems can be bypassed.
In our own research into children’s social media accounts, we found that creating underage profiles can be surprisingly straightforward. In some cases, minimal checks or self-declared birthdates were enough to access full accounts. We also identified loopholes that could allow children to encounter content they shouldn’t or make it easier for adults with bad intentions to find them.
The social media and VR giant has pushed back hard, calling the state’s investigation ethically compromised and accusing prosecutors of cherry-picking data. Defence attorney Kevin Huff argued that the company disclosed its risks rather than concealing them.
Yesterday, Stanford psychiatrist Dr. Anna Lembke told the court she believes Meta’s design features are addictive and that the company has been using the term “Problematic Internet Use” internally to avoid acknowledging addiction.
Meanwhile in Los Angeles, a separate bellwether case against Meta and Google opened on Monday. A 20-year-old woman identified only as KGM is at the center of the case. She alleges that YouTube and Instagram hooked her from childhood. She testified that she was watching YouTube at six, on Instagram by nine, and suffered from worsening depression and body dysmorphia. Her case, which TikTok and Snap settled before trial, is the first of more than 2,400 personal injury filings consolidated in the proceeding. Plaintiffs’ attorney Mark Lanier called it a case about:
“two of the richest corporations in history, who have engineered addiction in children’s brains.”
A litany of allegations
None of this appeared from nowhere. In 2021, whistleblower Frances Haugen leaked internal Facebook documents showing the company knew its platforms damaged teenage mental health. In 2023, Meta whistleblower Arturo Béjar testified before the Senate that the company ignored sexual endangerment of children.
Unredacted documents unsealed in the New Mexico case in early 2024 suggested something uglier still: that the company had actively marketed messaging platforms to children while suppressing safety features that weren’t considered profitable. Internal employees sounded alarms for years but executives reportedly chose growth, according to New Mexico AG Raúl Torrez. Last September, whistleblowers said that the company had ignored child sexual abuse in virtual reality environments.
Outside the courtroom, governments around the world are moving faster than the US Congress. Australia banned under 16s from social media in December 2025, becoming the first country to do so. France’s National Assembly followed, approving a ban on social media for under 15s in January by 130 votes to 21. Spain announced its own under 16 ban this month. By last count, at least 15 European governments were considering similar measures. Whether any of these bans will actually work is uncertain, particularly as young users openly discuss ways to bypass controls.
The United States, by contrast, has passed exactly one major federal child online safety law: the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA), in 1998. The Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA), introduced in 2022, passed the Senate 91-3 in mid-2024 then stalled in the House. It was reintroduced last May and has yet to reach a floor vote. States have tried to fill the gap, with 18 proposed similar legislation in 2025, but only one of those was enacted (in Nebraska). A comprehensive federal framework remains nowhere in sight.
On its most recent earnings call, Meta acknowledged it could face material financial losses this year. The pressure is no longer theoretical. The juries in Santa Fe and Los Angeles will now weigh whether the company’s design choices and safety measures crossed legal lines.
If you want to understand how social media platforms can expose children to harmful content—and what parents can realistically do about it—check out our research project on social media safety.
We don’t just report on threats – we help protect your social media
Apple has released security updates for iPhones, iPads, Macs, Apple Watches, Apple TVs, and Safari, fixing, in particular, a zero-day flaw that is actively exploited in targeted attacks.
Exploiting this zero-day flaw would allow cybercriminals to run any code they want on the affected device, potentially installing spyware or backdoors without the owner noticing.
Installing these updates as soon as possible keeps your personal information—and everything else on your Apple devices—safe from such an attack.
CVE-2026-20700
The zero-day vulnerability tracked as CVE-2026-20700, is a memory corruption issue in versions before watchOS 26.3, tvOS 26.3, macOS Tahoe 26.3, visionOS 26.3, iOS 26.3 and iPadOS 26.3. An attacker with memory write capability may be able to execute arbitrary code.
Apple says the vulnerability was used as part of an infection chain combined with CVE-2025-14174 and CVE-2025-43529 against devices running iOS versions prior to iOS 26.
Those two vulnerabilities were already patched in the December 2025 update.
Updates for your particular device
The table below shows which updates are available and points you to the relevant security content for that operating system (OS).
iPhone 11 and later, iPad Pro 12.9-inch 3rd generation and later, iPad Pro 11-inch 1st generation and later, iPad Air 3rd generation and later, iPad 8th generation and later, and iPad mini 5th generation and later
For iOS and iPadOS users, here’s how to check if you’re using the latest software version:
Go to Settings > General > Software Update. You will see if there are updates available and be guided through installing them.
Turn on Automatic Updates if you haven’t already—you’ll find it on the same screen.
How to update macOS on any version
To update macOS on any supported Mac, use the Software Update feature, which Apple designed to work consistently across all recent versions. Here are the steps:
Click the Apple menu in the upper-left corner of your screen.
Choose System Settings (or System Preferences on older versions).
Select General in the sidebar, then click Software Update on the right. On older macOS, just look for Software Update directly.
Your Mac will check for updates automatically. If updates are available, click Update Now (or Upgrade Now for major new versions) and follow the on-screen instructions. Before you upgrade to macOS Tahoe 26, please read these instructions.
Enter your administrator password if prompted, then let your Mac finish the update (it might need to restart during this process).
Make sure your Mac stays plugged in and connected to the internet until the update is done.
How to update Apple Watch
Ensure your iPhone is paired with your Apple Watch and connected to Wi-Fi, then:
Keep your Apple Watch on its charger and close to your iPhone.
Open the Watch app on your iPhone.
Tap General > Software Update.
If an update appears, tap Download and Install.
Enter your iPhone passcode or Apple ID password if prompted.
Your Apple Watch will automatically restart during the update process. Make sure it remains near your iPhone and on charge until the update completes.
How to update Apple TV
Turn on your Apple TV and make sure it’s connected to the internet, then:
Open the Settings app on Apple TV.
Navigate to System > Software Updates.
Select Update Software.
If an update appears, select Download and Install.
The Apple TV will download the update and restart as needed. Keep your device connected to power and Wi-Fi until the process finishes.
How to update your Safari browser
Safari updates are included with macOS updates, so installing the latest version of macOS will also update Safari. To check manually:
Open the Apple menu > System Settings > General > Software Update.
If you see a Safari update listed separately, click Update Now to install it.
Restart your Mac when prompted.
If you’re on an older macOS version that’s still supported (like Sonoma or Sequoia), Apple may offer Safari updates independently through Software Update.
More advice to stay safe
The most important fix—however inconvenient it may be—is to upgrade to iOS 26.3 (or the latest available version for your device). Not doing so means missing an accumulating list of security fixes, leaving your device vulnerable to newly found vulnerabilities.
AI tool Vercel was abused by cybercriminals to create a Malwarebytes lookalike website.
Cybercriminals no longer need design or coding skills to create a convincing fake brand site. All they need is a domain name and an AI website builder. In minutes, they can clone a site’s look and feel, plug in payment or credential-stealing flows, and start luring victims through search, social media, and spam.
One side effect of being an established and trusted brand is that you attract copycats who want a slice of that trust without doing any of the work. Cybercriminals have always known it is much easier to trick users by impersonating something they already recognize than by inventing something new—and developments in AI have made it trivial for scammers to create convincing fake sites.
Registering a plausible-looking domain is cheap and fast, especially through registrars and resellers that do little or no upfront vetting. Once attackers have a name that looks close enough to the real thing, they can use AI-powered tools to copy layouts, colors, and branding elements, and generate product pages, sign-up flows, and FAQs that look “on brand.”
Over a three‑month period leading into the 2025 shopping season, researchers observed more than 18,000 holiday‑themed domains with lures like “Christmas,” “Black Friday,” and “Flash Sale,” with at least 750 confirmed as malicious and many more still under investigation. In the same window, about 19,000 additional domains were registered explicitly to impersonate major retail brands, nearly 3,000 of which were already hosting phishing pages or fraudulent storefronts.
These sites are used for everything from credential harvesting and payment fraud to malware delivery disguised as “order trackers” or “security updates.”
Attackers then boost visibility using SEO poisoning, ad abuse, and comment spam, nudging their lookalike sites into search results and promoting them in social feeds right next to the legitimate ones. From a user’s perspective, especially on mobile without the hover function, that fake site can be only a typo or a tap away.
When the impersonation hits home
A recent example shows how low the barrier to entry has become.
We were alerted to a site at installmalwarebytes[.]org that masqueraded from logo to layout as a genuine Malwarebytes site.
Close inspection revealed that the HTML carried a meta tag value pointing to v0 by Vercel, an AI-assisted app and website builder.
The tool lets users paste an existing URL into a prompt to automatically recreate its layout, styling, and structure—producing a near‑perfect clone of a site in very little time.
The history of the imposter domain tells an incremental evolution into abuse.
Registered in 2019, the site did not initially contain any Malwarebytes branding. In 2022, the operator began layering in Malwarebytes branding while publishing Indonesian‑language security content. This likely helped with search reputation while normalizing the brand look to visitors. Later, the site went blank, with no public archive records for 2025, only to resurface as a full-on clone backed by AI‑assisted tooling.
Traffic did not arrive by accident. Links to the site appeared in comment spam and injected links on unrelated websites, giving users the impression of organic references and driving them toward the fake download pages.
Payment flows were equally opaque. The fake site used PayPal for payments, but the integration hid the merchant’s name and logo from the user-facing confirmation screens, leaving only the buyer’s own details visible. That allowed the criminals to accept money while revealing as little about themselves as possible.
Behind the scenes, historical registration data pointed to an origin in India and to a hosting IP (209.99.40[.]222) associated with domain parking and other dubious uses rather than normal production hosting.
Combined with the AI‑powered cloning and the evasive payment configuration, it painted a picture of low‑effort, high‑confidence fraud.
AI website builders as force multipliers
The installmalwarebytes[.]org case is not an isolated misuse of AI‑assisted builders. It fits into a broader pattern of attackers using generative tools to create and host phishing sites at scale.
Threat intelligence teams have documented abuse of Vercel’s v0 platform to generate fully functional phishing pages that impersonate sign‑in portals for a variety of brands, including identity providers and cloud services, all from simple text prompts. Once the AI produces a clone, criminals can tweak a few links to point to their own credential‑stealing backends and go live in minutes.
Research into AI’s role in modern phishing shows that attackers are leaning heavily on website generators, writing assistants, and chatbots to streamline the entire kill chain—from crafting persuasive copy in multiple languages to spinning up responsive pages that render cleanly across devices. One analysis of AI‑assisted phishing campaigns found that roughly 40% of observed abuse involved website generation services, 30% involved AI writing tools, and about 11% leveraged chatbots, often in combination. This stack lets even low‑skilled actors produce professional-looking scams that used to require specialized skills or paid kits.
Growth first, guardrails later
The core problem is not that AI can build websites. It’s that the incentives around AI platform development are skewed. Vendors are under intense pressure to ship new capabilities, grow user bases, and capture market share, and that pressure often runs ahead of serious investment in abuse prevention.
As Malwarebytes General Manager Mark Beare put it:
“AI-powered website builders like Lovable and Vercel have dramatically lowered the barrier for launching polished sites in minutes. While these platforms include baseline security controls, their core focus is speed, ease of use, and growth—not preventing brand impersonation at scale. That imbalance creates an opportunity for bad actors to move faster than defenses, spinning up convincing fake brands before victims or companies can react.”
Site generators allow cloned branding of well‑known companies with no verification, publishing flows skip identity checks, and moderation either fails quietly or only reacts after an abuse report. Some builders let anyone spin up and publish a site without even confirming an email address, making it easy to burn through accounts as soon as one is flagged or taken down.
To be fair, there are signs that some providers are starting to respond by blocking specific phishing campaigns after disclosure or by adding limited brand-protection controls. But these are often reactive fixes applied after the damage is done.
Meanwhile, attackers can move to open‑source clones or lightly modified forks of the same tools hosted elsewhere, where there may be no meaningful content moderation at all.
In practice, the net effect is that AI companies benefit from the growth and experimentation that comes with permissive tooling, while the consequences is left to victims and defenders.
We have blocked the domain in our web protection module and requested a domain and vendor takedown.
How to stay safe
End users cannot fix misaligned AI incentives, but they can make life harder for brand impersonators. Even when a cloned website looks convincing, there are red flags to watch for:
Before completing any payment, always review the “Pay to” details or transaction summary. If no merchant is named, back out and treat the site as suspicious.
Do not follow links posted in comments, on social media, or unsolicited emails to buy a product. Always follow a verified and trusted method to reach the vendor.
If you come across a fake Malwarebytes website, please let us know.
We don’t just report on threats—we help safeguard your entire digital identity
Microsoft releases important security updates on the second Tuesday of every month, known as “Patch Tuesday.” This month’s update patches fix 59 Microsoft CVE’s including six zero-days.
Let’s have a quick look at these six actively exploited zero-days.
Windows Shell Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability
CVE-2026-21510 (CVSS score 8.8 out of 10) is a security feature bypass in the Windows Shell. A protection mechanism failure allows an attacker to circumvent Windows SmartScreen and similar prompts once they convince a user to open a malicious link or shortcut file.
The vulnerability is exploited over the network but still requires on user interaction. The victim must be socially engineered into launching the booby‑trapped shortcut or link for the bypass to trigger. Successful exploitation lets the attacker suppress or evade the usual “are you sure?” security dialogs for untrusted content, making it easier to deliver and execute further payloads without raising user suspicion.
CVE-2026-21513 (CVSS score 8.8 out of 10) affects the MSHTML Framework, which is used by Internet Explorer’s Trident/embedded web rendering). It is classified as a protection mechanism failure that results in a security feature bypass over the network.
A successful attack requires the victim to open a malicious HTML file or a crafted shortcut (.lnk) that leverages MSHTML for rendering. When opened, the flaw allows an attacker to bypass certain security checks in MSHTML, potentially removing or weakening normal browser or Office sandbox or warning protections and enabling follow‑on code execution or phishing activity.
Microsoft Word Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability
CVE-2026-21514 (CVSS score 5.5 out of 10) affects Microsoft Word. It relies on untrusted inputs in a security decision, leading to a local security feature bypass.
An attacker must persuade a user to open a malicious Word document to exploit this vulnerability. If exploited, the untrusted input is processed incorrectly, potentially bypassing Word’s defenses for embedded or active content—leading to execution of attacker‑controlled content that would normally be blocked.
Desktop Window Manager Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability
CVE-2026-21519 (CVSS score 7.8 out of 10) is a local elevation‑of‑privilege vulnerability in Windows Desktop Window Manager caused by type confusion (a flaw where the system treats one type of data as another, leading to unintended behavior).
A locally authenticated attacker with low privileges and no required user interaction can exploit the issue to gain higher privileges. Exploitation must be done locally, for example via a crafted program or exploit chain stage running on the target system. An attacker who successfully exploited this vulnerability could gain SYSTEM privileges.
Windows Remote Access Connection Manager Denial of Service Vulnerability
CVE-2026-21525 (CVSS score 6.2 out of 10) is a denial‑of‑service vulnerability in the Windows Remote Access Connection Manager service (RasMan).
An unauthenticated local attacker can trigger the flaw with low attack complexity, leading to a high impact on availability but no direct impact on confidentiality or integrity. This means they could crash the service or potentially the system, but not elevate privileges or execute malicious code.
Windows Remote Desktop Services Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability
CVE-2026-21533 (CVSS score 7.8 out of 10) is an elevation‑of‑privilege vulnerability in Windows Remote Desktop Services, caused by improper privilege management.
A local authenticated attacker with low privileges, and no required user interaction, can exploit the flaw to escalate privileges to SYSTEM and fully compromise confidentiality, integrity, and availability on the affected system. Successful exploitation typically involves running attacker‑controlled code on a system with Remote Desktop Services present and abusing the vulnerable privilege management path.
Azure vulnerabilities
Azure users are also advised to take note of two critical vulnerabilities with CVSS ratings of 9.8:
Malwarebytes is on a roll. Recently named one of PCMag’s “Best Tech Brands for 2026,” Malwarebytes also scored 100% on the first-ever MRG Effitas consumer security product test, cementing the fact that we are loved by users and trusted by experts.
“If your antivirus fails, and it don’t look good, who ya gonna call? The answer: Malwarebytes. Even tech support agents from competitors have instructed us to use it.”
PCMag
Malwarebytes has been named one of PCMag’s Best Tech Brands for 2026. Coming in at #12, Malwarebytes makes the list with the highest Net Promoter Score (NPS) of all the brands in the list (likelihood to recommend by users).
With this ranking, Malwarebytes made its third appearance as a PCMag Best Tech Brand! We’ve also achieved the year’s highest average Net Promoter Score, at 83.40. (Last year, we had the second-highest NPS, after only Toyota).
But NPS alone can’t put us on the list—excellent reviews are needed, too. PCMag’s Rubenking found plenty to be happy about in his assessments of our products in 2025. For example, Malwarebytes Premium adds real-time multi-layered detection that eradicates most malware to the stellar stopping power you get on demand in the free edition.
MRG Effitas
Malwarebytes has aced the first-ever MRG Effitas Consumer Assessment and Certification, which evaluated eight security applications to determine their capabilities in stopping malware, phishing, and other online threats. We detected and stopped all in-the-wild malware infections and phishing samples while also generating zero false positives.
We’re beyond excited to have reached a 100% detection rate for in-the-wild malware as well as a 100% rate for all phishing samples with zero false positives.
The testing criteria is designed to determine how well a product works to do what it promises based on what MRG Effitas refers to as “metrics that matter.” We understand that the question isn’t if a system will encounter malware, but when.
Malwarebytes is proud to be recognized for its work in protecting people against everyday threats online.
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.
Discord announced it will put all existing and new profiles in teen-appropriate mode by default in early March.
The teen-appropriate profile mode will remain in place until users prove they are adults. To change a profile to “full access” will require verification by Discord’s age inference model—a new system that runs in the background to help determine whether an account belongs to an adult, without always requiring users to verify their age.
Savannah Badalich, Head of Product Policy at Discord, explained the reasoning:
“Rolling out teen-by-default settings globally builds on Discord’s existing safety architecture, giving teens strong protections while allowing verified adults flexibility. We design our products with teen safety principles at the core and will continue working with safety experts, policymakers, and Discord users to support meaningful, long term wellbeing for teens on the platform.”
Platforms have been facing growing regulatory pressure—particularly in the UK, EU, and parts of the US—to introduce stronger age-verification measures. The announcement also comes as concerns about children’s safety on social media continue to surface. In research we published today, parents highlighted issues such as exposure to inappropriate content, unwanted contact, and safeguards that are easy to bypass. Discord was one of the platforms we researched.
The problem in Discord’s case lies in the age-verification methods it’s made available, which require either a facial scan or a government-issued ID. Discord says that video selfies used for facial age estimation never leave a user’s device, but this method is known not to work reliably for everyone.
Identity documents submitted to Discord’s vendor partners are also deleted quickly—often immediately after age confirmation, according to Discord. But, as we all know, computers are very bad at “forgetting” things and criminals are very good at finding things that were supposed to be gone.
Besides all that, the effectiveness of this kind of measure remains an issue. Minors often find ways around systems—using borrowed IDs, VPNs, or false information—so strict verification can create a sense of safety without fully eliminating risk. In some cases, it may even push activity into less regulated or more opaque spaces.
As someone who isn’t an avid Discord user, I can’t help but wonder why keeping my profile teen-appropriate would be a bad thing. Let us know in the comments what your objections to this scenario would be.
I wouldn’t have to provide identification and what I’d “miss” doesn’t sound terrible at all:
Mature and graphic images would be permanently blocked.
Age-restricted channels and servers would be inaccessible.
DMs from unknown users would be rerouted to a separate inbox.
Friend requests from unknown users would always trigger a warning pop-up.
No speaking on server stages.
Given the amount of backlash this news received, I’m probably missing something—and I don’t mind being corrected. So let’s hear it.
Note: All comments are moderated. Those including links and inappropriate language will be deleted. The rest must be approved by a moderator.
We don’t just report on threats – we help protect your social media
When researchers created an account for a child under 13 on Roblox, they expected heavy guardrails. Instead, they found that the platform’s search features still allowed kids to discover communities linked to fraud and other illicit activity.
The discoveries spotlight the question that lawmakers around the world are circling: how do you keep kids safe online?
Lawmakers have said these efforts are to keep kids safe online. But as the regulatory tide rises, we wanted to understand what digital safety for children actually looks like in practice.
So, we asked a specialist research team to explore how well a dozen mainstream tech providers are protecting children aged under 13 online.
We found that most services work well when kids use the accounts and settings designed for them. But when children are curious, use the wrong account type, or step outside those boundaries, things can go sideways quickly.
Over several weeks in December, the research team explored how platforms from Discord to YouTube handled children’s online use. They relied on standard user behavior rather than exploits or technical tricks to reflect what a child could realistically encounter.
The researchers focused on how platforms catered to kids through specific account types, how age restrictions were enforced in practice, and whether sensitive content was discoverable through normal browsing or search.
What emerged was a consistent pattern: curious kids who poke around a little, or who end up using the wrong account type, can run into inappropriate content with surprisingly little effort.
A detailed breakdown of the platforms tested, account types used, and where sensitive content was discovered appears in the research scope and methodology section at the end of this article.
When kids’ accounts are opt-in
One thing the team tried was to simply access the generic public version of a site rather than the kid-protected area.
This was a particular problem with YouTube. The company runs a kid-specific service called YouTube Kids, which the researchers said is effectively sanitized of inappropriate content (it sounds like things have changed since 2022).
The issue is that YouTube’s regular public site isn’t sanitized, and even though the company says you must be at least 13 to use the service unless ‘enabled’ by a parent, in reality anyone can access it. From the report:
“Some of the content will require signing in (for age verification) prior the viewing, but the minor can access the streaming service as a ‘Guest’ user without logging in, bypassing any filtering that would otherwise apply to a registered child account.”
That opens up a range of inappropriate material, from “how-to” fraud channels through to scenes of semi-nudity and sexually suggestive material, the researchers said. Horrifically, they even found scenes of human execution on the public site. The researchers concluded:
“The absence of a registration barrier on the public platform renders the ‘YouTube Kids’ protection opt-in rather than mandatory.”
When adult accounts are easy to fake
Another worry is that even when accounts are age-gated, enterprising minors can easily get around them. While most platforms require users to be 13+, a self-declaration is often enough. All that remains is for the child to register an email address with a service that doesn’t require age verification.
This “double blind” vulnerability is a big problem. Kids are good at creating accounts. The tech industry has taught them to be, because they need them for most things they touch online, from streaming to school.
When they do get past the age gates, curious kids can quickly get to inappropriate material. Researchers found unmoderated nudity and explicit material on the social network Discord, along with TikTok content providing credit card fraud and identity theft tutorials. A little searching on the streaming site Twitch surfaced ads for escort services.
This points to a trade-off between privacy and age verification. While stricter age verification could close some of these gaps, it requires collecting more personal data, including IDs or biometric information. That creates privacy risks of its own, especially for children. That’s why most platforms rely on self-declared age, but the research shows how easily that can be bypassed.
When kids’ accounts let toxic content through
Cracks in the moderation foundations allow risky content: Roblox, the website and app where users build their own content, filters chats for child accounts. However, it also features “Communities,” which are groups designed for socializing and discovery.
These groups are easily searchable, and some use names and terminology commonly linked to criminal activities, including fraud and identity theft. One, called “Fullz,” uses a term widely understood to refer to stolen personal information, and “new clothes” is often used to refer to a new batch of stolen payment card data. The visible community may serve as a gateway, while the actual coordination of illicit activity or data trading occurs via “inner chatter” between the community members.
This kind of search wasn’t just an issue for Roblox, warned the team. It found Instagram profiles promoting financial fraud and crypto schemes, even from a restricted teen account.
Some sites passed the team’s tests admirably, though. The researchers simulated underage users who’d bypassed age verification, but were unable to find any harmful content on Minecraft, Snapchat, Spotify, or Fortnite. Fortnite’s approach is especially strict, disabling chat and purchases on accounts for kids under 13 until a parent verifies via email. It also uses additional verification steps using a Social Security number or credit card. Kids can still play, but they’re muted.
What parents can do
There is no platform that can catch everything, especially when kids are curious. That makes parental involvement the most important layer of protection.
One reason this matters is a related risk worth acknowledging: adults attempting to reach children through social platforms. Even after Instagram took steps to limit contact between adult and child accounts, parents still discovered loopholes. This isn’t a failure of one platform so much as a reminder that no set of controls can replace awareness and involvement.
Mark Beare, GM of Consumer at Malwarebytes says:
“Parents are navigating a fast-moving digital world where offline consequences are quickly felt, be it spoofed accounts, deepfake content or lost funds. Safeguards exist and are encouraged, but children can still be exposed to harmful content.”
This doesn’t mean banning children from the internet. As the EFF points out, many minors use online services productively with the support and supervision of their parents. But it does mean being intentional about how accounts are set up, how children interact with others online, and how comfortable they feel asking for help.
Accounts and settings
Use child or teen accounts where available, and avoid defaulting to adult accounts.
Keep friends and followers lists set to private.
Avoid using real names, birthdays, or other identifying details unless they are strictly required.
Avoid facial recognition features for children’s accounts.
For teens, be aware of “spam” or secondary accounts they’ve set up that may have looser settings.
Social behavior
Talk to your child about who they interact with online and what kinds of conversations are appropriate.
Warn them about strangers in comments, group chats, and direct messages.
Encourage them to leave spaces that make them uncomfortable, even if they didn’t do anything wrong.
Remind them that not everyone online is who they claim to be.
Trust and communication
Keep conversations about online activity open and ongoing, not one-off warnings.
Make it clear that your child can come to you if something goes wrong without fear of punishment or blame.
Involve other trusted adults, such as parents, teachers, or caregivers, so kids aren’t navigating online spaces alone.
This kind of long-term involvement helps children make better decisions over time. It also reduces the risk that mistakes made today can follow them into the future, when personal information, images, or conversations could be reused in ways they never intended.
Research findings, scope and methodology
This research examined how children under the age of 13 may be exposed to sensitive content when browsing mainstream media and gaming services.
For this study, a “kid” was defined as an individual under 13, in line with the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA). Research was conducted between December 1 and December 17, 2025, using US-based accounts.
The research relied exclusively on standard user behavior and passive observation. No exploits, hacks, or manipulative techniques were used to force access to data or content.
Researchers tested a range of account types depending on what each platform offered, including dedicated child accounts, teen or restricted accounts, adult accounts created through age self-declaration, and, where applicable, public or guest access without registration.
The study assessed how platforms enforced age requirements, how easy it was to misrepresent age during onboarding, and whether sensitive or illicit content could be discovered through normal browsing, searching, or exploration.
Across all platforms tested, default algorithmic content and advertisements were initially benign and policy-compliant. Where sensitive content was found, it was accessed through intentional, curiosity-driven behavior rather than passive recommendations. No proactive outreach from other users was observed during the research period.
The table below summarizes the platforms tested, the account types used, and whether sensitive content was discoverable during testing.
Platform
Account type tested
Dedicated kid/teen account
Age gate easy to bypass
Illicit content discovered
Notes
YouTube (public)
No registration (guest)
Yes (YouTube Kids)
N/A
Yes
Public YouTube allowed access to scam/fraud content and violent footage without sign-in. Age-restricted videos required login, but much content did not.
YouTube Kids
Kid account
Yes
N/A
No
Separate app with its own algorithmic wall. No harmful content surfaced.
Roblox
All-age account (13+)
No
Not required
Yes
Child accounts could search for and find communities linked to cybercrime and fraud-related keywords.
Instagram
Teen account (13–17)
No
Not required
Yes
Restricted accounts still surfaced profiles promoting fraud and cryptocurrency schemes via search.
TikTok
Younger user account (13+)
Yes
Not required
No
View-only experience with no free search. No harmful content surfaced.
TikTok
Adult account
No
Yes
Yes
Search surfaced credit card fraud–related profiles and tutorials after age gate bypass.
Discord
Adult account
No
Yes
Yes
Public servers surfaced explicit adult content when searched directly. No proactive contact observed.
Twitch
Adult account
No
Yes
Yes
Discovered escort service promotions and adult content, some behind paywalls.
Fortnite
Cabined (restricted) account (13+)
Yes
Hard to bypass
No
Chat and purchases disabled until parent verification. No harmful content found.
Snapchat
Adult account
No
Yes
No
No sensitive content surfaced during testing.
Spotify
Adult account
Yes
Yes
No
Explicit lyrics labeled. No harmful content found.
Messenger Kids
Kid account
Yes
Not required
No
Fully parent-controlled environment. No search or external contacts.
Screenshots from the research
List of Roblox communities with cybercrime-oriented keywords
Roblox community that offers chat without verification
Roblox community with cybercrime-oriented keywords
Graphic content on publicly accessible YouTube
Credit card fraud content on publicly accessible YouTube
Active escort page on Twitch
Stolen credit cards for sale on an Instagram teen account
Crypto investment scheme on an Instagram teen account
Carding for beginners content on a TikTok adult account, accessed by kids with a fake date of birth.
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.
Fresh off a breathless Super Bowl Sunday, we’re less thrilled to bring you this week’s Weirdo Wednesday. Two stories caught our eye, both involving men who crossed clear lines and invaded women’s privacy online.
Last week, 27-year-old Kyle Svara of Oswego, Illinois admitted to hacking women’s Snapchat accounts across the US. Between May 2020 and February 2021, Svara harvested account security codes from 571 victims, leading to confirmed unauthorized access to at least 59 accounts.
Rather than attempting to break Snapchat’s robust encryption protocols, Svara targeted the account owners themselves with social engineering.
After gathering phone numbers and email addresses, he triggered Snapchat’s legitimate login process, which sent six-digit security codes directly to victims’ devices. Posing as Snapchat support, he then sent more than 4,500 anonymous messages via a VoIP texting service, claiming the codes were needed to “verify” or “secure” the account.
Svara showed particular interest in Snapchat’s My Eyes Only feature—a secondary four-digit PIN meant to protect a user’s most sensitive content. By persuading victims to share both codes, he bypassed two layers of security without touching a single line of code. He walked away with private material, including nude images.
Svara didn’t do this solely for his own kicks. He marketed himself as a hacker-for-hire, advertising on platforms like Reddit and offering access to specific accounts in exchange for money or trades.
Selling his services to others was how he got found out. Although Svara stopped hacking in early 2021, his legal day of reckoning followed the 2024 sentencing of one of his customers: Steve Waithe, a former track and field coach who worked at several high-profile universities including Northeastern. Waithe paid Svara to target student athletes he was supposed to mentor.
Svara also went after women in his home area of Plainfield, Illinois, and as far away as Colby College in Maine.
He now faces charges including identity theft, wire fraud, computer fraud, and making false statements to law enforcement about child sex abuse material. Sentencing is scheduled for May 18.
How to protect your Snapchat account
Never send someone your login details or secret codes, even if you think you know them.
Passkeys let you sign in without a password, but unlike multi-factor authentication, passkeys are cryptographically tied to your device, and can’t be phished or forwarded like one-time codes. Snapchat supports them, and they offer stronger protection than traditional multi-factor authentication, which is increasingly susceptible to smart phishing attacks.
Bad guys with smart glasses
Unfortunately, hacking women’s social media accounts to steal private content isn’t new. But predators will always find a way to use smart tech in nefarious ways. Such is the case with new generations of ‘smart glasses’ powered by AI.
This week, CNN published stories from women who believed they were having private, flirtatious interactions with strangers—only to later discover the men were recording them using camera-equipped smart glasses and posting the footage online.
These clips are often packaged as “rizz” videos—short for “charisma”—where so-called manfluencers film themselves chatting up women in public, without consent, to build followings and sell “coaching” services.
The glasses, sold by companies like Meta, are supposed to be used for recording only with consent, and often display a light to show that they’re recording. In practice, that indicator is easy to hide.
When combined with AI-powered services to identify people, as researchers did in 2024, the possibilities become even more chilling. We’re unaware of any related cases coming to court, but suspect it’s only a matter of time.
We don’t just report on scams—we help detect them
Cybersecurity risks should never spread beyond a headline. If something looks dodgy to you, check if it’s a scam using Malwarebytes Scam Guard, a feature of our mobile protection products. Submit a screenshot, paste suspicious content, or share a text or phone number, and we’ll tell you if it’s a scam or legit. Download Malwarebytes Mobile Security for iOS or Android and try it today!
In January, Google settled a lawsuit that pricked up a few ears: It agreed to pay $68 million to a wide array of people who sued the company together, alleging that Google’s voice-activated smart assistant had secretly recorded their conversations, which were then sent to advertisers to target them with promotions.
Google denied any admission of wrongdoing in the settlement agreement, but the fact stands that one of the largest phone makers in the world decided to forego a trial against some potentially explosive surveillance allegations. It’s a decision that the public has already seen in the past, when Apple agreed to pay $95 million last year to settle similar legal claims against its smart assistant, Siri.
Back-to-back, the stories raise a question that just seems to never go away: Are our phones listening to us?
This week, on the Lock and Code podcast with host David Ruiz, we revisit an episode from last year in which we tried to find the answer. In speaking to Electronic Frontier Foundation Staff Technologist Lena Cohen about mobile tracking overall, it becomes clear that, even if our phones aren’t literally listening to our conversations, the devices are stuffed with so many novel forms of surveillance that we need not say something out loud to be predictably targeted with ads for it.
“Companies are collecting so much information about us and in such covert ways that it really feels like they’re listening to us.”
An independent security researcher uncovered a major data breach affecting Chat & Ask AI, one of the most popular AI chat apps on Google Play and Apple App Store, with more than 50 million users.
The researcher claims to have accessed 300 million messages from over 25 million users due to an exposed database. These messages reportedly included, among other things, discussions of illegal activities and requests for suicide assistance.
Behind the scenes, Chat & Ask AI is a “wrapper” app that plugs into various large language models (LLMs) from other companies, including OpenAI’s ChatGPT, Anthropic’s Claude, and Google’s Gemini. Users can choose which model they want to interact with.
The exposed data included user files containing their entire chat history, the models used, and other settings. But it also revealed data belonging to users of other apps developed by Codeway—the developer of Chat & Ask AI.
The vulnerability behind this data breach is a well-known and documented Firebase misconfiguration. Firebase is a cloud-based backend-as-a-service (BaaS) platform provided by Google that helps developers build, manage, and scale mobile and web applications.
Security researchers often refer to a set of preventable errors in how developers set up Google Firebase services, which leave backend data, databases, and storage buckets accessible to the public without authentication.
One of the most common Firebase misconfigurations is leaving Security Rules set to public. This allows anyone with the project URL to read, modify, or delete data without authentication.
This prompted the researcher to create a tool that automatically scans apps on Google Play and Apple App Store for this vulnerability—with astonishing results. Reportedly, the researcher, named Harry, found that 103 out of 200 iOS apps they scanned had this issue, collectively exposing tens of millions of stored files.
To draw attention to the issue, Harry set up a website where users can see the apps affected by the issue. Codeway’s apps are no longer listed there, as Harry removes entries once developers confirm they have fixed the problem. Codeway reportedly resolved the issue across all of its apps within hours of responsible disclosure.
How to stay safe
Besides checking if any apps you use appear in Harry’s Firehoundregistry, there are a few ways to better protect your privacy when using AI chatbots.
Use private chatbots that don’t use your data to train the model.
Don’t rely on chatbots for important life decisions. They have no experience or empathy.
Don’t use your real identity when discussing sensitive subjects.
Keep shared information impersonal. Don’t use real names and don’t upload personal documents.
Don’t share your conversations unless you absolutely have to. In some cases, it makes them searchable.
If you’re using an AI that is developed by a social media company (Meta AI, Llama, Grok, Bard, Gemini, and so on), make sure you’re not logged in to that social media platform. Your conversations could be linked to your social media account, which might contain a lot of personal information.
Always remember that the developments in AI are going too fast for security and privacy to be baked into technology. And that even the best AIs still hallucinate.
We don’t just report on privacy—we offer you the option to use it.
Privacy risks should never spread beyond a headline. Keep your online privacy yours by using Malwarebytes Privacy VPN.
A convincing lookalike of the popular 7-Zip archiver site has been serving a trojanized installer that silently converts victims’ machines into residential proxy nodes—and it has been hiding in plain sight for some time.
“I’m so sick to my stomach”
A PC builder recently turned to Reddit’s r/pcmasterrace community in a panic after realizing they had downloaded 7‑Zip from the wrong website. Following a YouTube tutorial for a new build, they were instructed to download 7‑Zip from 7zip[.]com, unaware that the legitimate project is hosted exclusively at 7-zip.org.
In their Reddit post, the user described installing the file first on a laptop and later transferring it via USB to a newly built desktop. They encountered repeated 32‑bit versus 64‑bit errors and ultimately abandoned the installer in favor of Windows’ built‑in extraction tools. Nearly two weeks later, Microsoft Defender alerted on the system with a generic detection: Trojan:Win32/Malgent!MSR.
The experience illustrates how a seemingly minor domain mix-up can result in long-lived, unauthorized use of a system when attackers successfully masquerade as trusted software distributors.
A trojanized installer masquerading as legitimate software
This is not a simple case of a malicious download hosted on a random site. The operators behind 7zip[.]com distributed a trojanized installer via a lookalike domain, delivering a functional copy of functional 7‑Zip File Manager alongside a concealed malware payload.
The installer is Authenticode‑signed using a now‑revoked certificate issued to Jozeal Network Technology Co., Limited, lending it superficial legitimacy. During installation, a modified build of 7zfm.exe is deployed and functions as expected, reducing user suspicion. In parallel, three additional components are silently dropped:
Uphero.exe—a service manager and update loader
hero.exe—the primary proxy payload (Go‑compiled)
hero.dll—a supporting library
All components are written to C:\Windows\SysWOW64\hero\, a privileged directory that is unlikely to be manually inspected.
An independent update channel was also observed at update.7zip[.]com/version/win-service/1.0.0.2/Uphero.exe.zip, indicating that the malware payload can be updated independently of the installer itself.
Abuse of trusted distribution channels
One of the more concerning aspects of this campaign is its reliance on third‑party trust. The Reddit case highlights YouTube tutorials as an inadvertent malware distribution vector, where creators incorrectly reference 7zip.com instead of the legitimate domain.
This shows how attackers can exploit small errors in otherwise benign content ecosystems to funnel victims toward malicious infrastructure at scale.
Execution flow: from installer to persistent proxy service
Behavioral analysis shows a rapid and methodical infection chain:
1. File deployment—The payload is installed into SysWOW64, requiring elevated privileges and signaling intent for deep system integration.
2. Persistence via Windows services—Both Uphero.exe and hero.exe are registered as auto‑start Windows services running under System privileges, ensuring execution on every boot.
3. Firewall rule manipulation—The malware invokes netsh to remove existing rules and create new inbound and outbound allow rules for its binaries. This is intended to reduce interference with network traffic and support seamless payload updates.
4. Host profiling—Using WMI and native Windows APIs, the malware enumerates system characteristics including hardware identifiers, memory size, CPU count, disk attributes, and network configuration. The malware communicates with iplogger[.]org via a dedicated reporting endpoint, suggesting it collects and reports device or network metadata as part of its proxy infrastructure.
Functional goal: residential proxy monetization
While initial indicators suggested backdoor‑style capabilities, further analysis revealed that the malware’s primary function is proxyware. The infected host is enrolled as a residential proxy node, allowing third parties to route traffic through the victim’s IP address.
The hero.exe component retrieves configuration data from rotating “smshero”‑themed command‑and‑control domains, then establishes outbound proxy connections on non‑standard ports such as 1000 and 1002. Traffic analysis shows a lightweight XOR‑encoded protocol (key 0x70) used to obscure control messages.
This infrastructure is consistent with known residential proxy services, where access to real consumer IP addresses is sold for fraud, scraping, ad abuse, or anonymity laundering.
Shared tooling across multiple fake installers
The 7‑Zip impersonation appears to be part of a broader operation. Related binaries have been identified under names such as upHola.exe, upTiktok, upWhatsapp, and upWire, all sharing identical tactics, techniques, and procedures:
Deployment to SysWOW64
Windows service persistence
Firewall rule manipulation via netsh
Encrypted HTTPS C2 traffic
Embedded strings referencing VPN and proxy brands suggest a unified backend supporting multiple distribution fronts.
Rotating infrastructure and encrypted transport
Memory analysis uncovered a large pool of hardcoded command-and-control domains using hero and smshero naming conventions. Active resolution during sandbox execution showed traffic routed through Cloudflare infrastructure with TLS‑encrypted HTTPS sessions.
The malware also uses DNS-over-HTTPS via Google’s resolver, reducing visibility for traditional DNS monitoring and complicating network-based detection.
Evasion and anti‑analysis features
The malware incorporates multiple layers of sandbox and analysis evasion:
Virtual machine detection targeting VMware, VirtualBox, QEMU, and Parallels
Anti‑debugging checks and suspicious debugger DLL loading
Runtime API resolution and PEB inspection
Process enumeration, registry probing, and environment inspection
Cryptographic support is extensive, including AES, RC4, Camellia, Chaskey, XOR encoding, and Base64, suggesting encrypted configuration handling and traffic protection.
Defensive guidance
Any system that has executed installers from 7zip.com should be considered compromised. While this malware establishes SYSTEM‑level persistence and modifies firewall rules, reputable security software can effectively detect and remove the malicious components. Malwarebytes is capable of fully eradicating known variants of this threat and reversing its persistence mechanisms. In high‑risk or heavily used systems, some users may still choose a full OS reinstall for absolute assurance, but it is not strictly required in all cases.
Users and defenders should:
Verify software sources and bookmark official project domains
Treat unexpected code‑signing identities with skepticism
Monitor for unauthorized Windows services and firewall rule changes
Block known C2 domains and proxy endpoints at the network perimeter
Researcher attribution and community analysis
This investigation would not have been possible without the work of independent security researchers who went deeper than surface-level indicators and identified the true purpose of this malware family.
Luke Acha provided the first comprehensive analysis showing that the Uphero/hero malware functions as residential proxyware rather than a traditional backdoor. His work documented the proxy protocol, traffic patterns, and monetization model, and connected this campaign to a broader operation he dubbed upStage Proxy. Luke’s full write-up is available on his blog.
s1dhy expanded on this analysis by reversing and decoding the custom XOR-based communication protocol, validating the proxy behavior through packet captures, and correlating multiple proxy endpoints across victim geolocations. Technical notes and findings were shared publicly on X (Twitter).
Additional technical validation and dynamic analysis were published by researchers at RaichuLab on Qiita and WizSafe Security on IIJ.
Their collective work highlights the importance of open, community-driven research in uncovering long-running abuse campaigns that rely on trust and misdirection rather than exploits.
Closing thoughts
This campaign demonstrates how effective brand impersonation combined with technically competent malware can operate undetected for extended periods. By abusing user trust rather than exploiting software vulnerabilities, attackers bypass many traditional security assumptions—turning everyday utility downloads into long‑lived monetization infrastructure.
Malwarebytes detects and blocks known variants of this proxyware family and its associated infrastructure.
It started with an email that looked boringly familiar: Apple logo, a clean layout, and a subject line designed to make the target’s stomach drop.
The message claimed Apple has stopped a high‑value Apple Pay charge at an Apple Store, complete with a case ID, timestamp, and a warning that the account could be at risk if the target doesn’t respond.
In some cases, there was even an “appointment” booked on their behalf to “review fraudulent activity,” plus a phone number they should call immediately if the time didn’t work. Nothing in the email screams amateur. The display name appears to be Apple, the formatting closely matches real receipts, and the language hits all the right anxiety buttons.
The email warns recipients not to Apple Pay until they’ve spoken to “Apple Billing & Fraud Prevention,” and it provides a phone number to call.
After dialing the number, an agent introduces himself as part of Apple’s fraud department and asks for details such as Apple ID verification codes or payment information.
The conversation is carefully scripted to establish trust. The agent explains that criminals attempted to use Apple Pay in a physical Apple Store and that the system “partially blocked” the transaction. To “fully secure” the account, he says, some details need to be verified.
The call starts with harmless‑sounding checks: your name, the last four digits of your phone number, what Apple devices you own, and so on.
Next comes a request to confirm the Apple ID email address. While the victim is looking it up, a real-looking Apple ID verification code arrives by text message.
The agent asks for this code, claiming it’s needed to confirm they’re speaking to the rightful account owner. In reality, the scammer is logging into the account in real time and using the code to bypass two-factor authentication.
Once the account is “confirmed,” the agent walks the victim through checking their bank and Apple Pay cards. They ask questions about bank accounts and suggest “temporarily securing” payment methods so criminals can’t exploit them while the “Apple team” investigates.
The entire support process is designed to steal login codes and payment data. At scale, campaigns like this work because Apple’s brand carries enormous trust, Apple Pay involves real money, and users have been trained to treat fraud alerts as urgent and to cooperate with “support” when they’re scared.
One example submitted to Malwarebytes Scam Guard showed an email claiming an Apple Gift Card purchase for $279.99 and urging the recipient to call a support number (1-812-955-6285).
Another user submitted a screenshot showing a fake “Invoice Receipt – Paid” styled to look like an Apple Store receipt for a 2025 MacBook Air 13-inch laptop with M4 chip priced at $1,157.07 and a phone number (1-805-476-8382) to call about this “unauthorized transaction.”
What you should know
Apple doesn’t set up fraud appointments through email. The company also doesn’t ask users to fix billing problems by calling numbers in unsolicited messages.
Closely inspect the sender’s address. In these cases, the email doesn’t come from an official Apple domain, even if the display name makes it seem legitimate.
Never share two-factor authentication (2FA) codes, SMS codes, or passwords with anyone, even if they claim to be from Apple.
Ignore unsolicited messages urging you to take immediate action. Always think and verify before you engage. Talk to someone you trust if you’re not sure.
Malwarebytes Scam Guard helped several users identify this type of scam. For those without a subscription, you can use Scam Guard in ChatGPT.
If you’ve already engaged with these Apple Pay scammers, it is important to:
Change the Apple ID password immediately from Settings or appleid.apple.com, not from any link provided by email or SMS.
Check active sessions, sign out of all devices, then sign back in only on devices you recognize and control.
Rotate your Apple ID password again if you see any new login alerts, and confirm 2FA is still enabled. If not, turn it on.
In Wallet, check every card for unfamiliar Apple Pay transactions and recent in-store or online charges. Monitor bank and credit card statements closely for the next few weeks and dispute any unknown transactions immediately.
Check if the primary email account tied to your Apple ID is yours, since control of that email can be used to take over accounts.
We don’t just report on scams—we help detect them
Cybersecurity risks should never spread beyond a headline. If something looks dodgy to you, check if it’s a scam using Malwarebytes Scam Guard, a feature of our mobile protection products. Submit a screenshot, paste suspicious content, or share a text or phone number, and we’ll tell you if it’s a scam or legit. Download Malwarebytes Mobile Security for iOS or Android and try it today!
Cybercriminals behind a campaign dubbed DEAD#VAX are taking phishing one step further by delivering malware inside virtual hard disks that pretend to be ordinary PDF documents. Open the wrong “invoice” or “purchase order” and you won’t see a document at all. Instead, Windows mounts a virtual drive that quietly installs AsyncRAT, a backdoor Trojan that allows attackers to remotely monitor and control your computer.
It’s a remote access tool, which means attackers gain remote hands‑on‑keyboard control, while traditional file‑based defenses see almost nothing suspicious on disk.
From a high-level view, the infection chain is long, but every step looks just legitimate enough on its own to slip past casual checks.
Victims receive phishing emails that look like routine business messages, often referencing purchase orders or invoices and sometimes impersonating real companies. The email doesn’t attach a document directly. Instead, it links to a file hosted on IPFS (InterPlanetary File System), a decentralized storage network increasingly abused in phishing campaigns because content is harder to take down and can be accessed through normal web gateways.
The linked file is named as a PDF and has the PDF icon, but is actually a virtual hard disk (VHD) file. When the user double‑clicks it, Windows mounts it as a new drive (for example, drive E:) instead of opening a document viewer. Mounting VHDs is perfectly legitimate Windows behavior, which makes this step less likely to ring alarm bells.
Inside the mounted drive is what appears to be the expected document, but it’s actually a Windows Script File (WSF). When the user opens it, Windows executes the code in the file instead of displaying a PDF.
After some checks to avoid analysis and detection, the script injects the payload—AsyncRAT shellcode—into trusted, Microsoft‑signed processes such as RuntimeBroker.exe, OneDrive.exe, taskhostw.exe, or sihost.exe. The malware never writes an actual executable file to disk. It lives and runs entirely in memory inside these legitimate processes, making detection and eventually at a later stage, forensics much harder. It also avoids sudden spikes in activity or memory usage that could draw attention.
For an individual user, falling for this phishing email can result in:
Theft of saved and typed passwords, including for email, banking, and social media.
Exposure of confidential documents, photos, or other sensitive files taken straight from the system.
Surveillance via periodic screenshots or, where configured, webcam capture.
Use of the machine as a foothold to attack other devices on the same home or office network.
How to stay safe
Because detection can be hard, it is crucial that users apply certain checks:
Don’t open email attachments until after verifying, with a trusted source, that they are legitimate.
Make sure you can see the actual file extensions. Unfortunately, Windows allows users to hide them. So, when in reality the file would be called invoice.pdf.vhd the user would only see invoice.pdf. To find out how to do this, see below.
Mountain View, California, pulled the plug on its entire license plate reader camera network this week. It discovered that Flock Safety, which ran the system, had been sharing city data with hundreds of law enforcement agencies, including federal ones, without permission.
Two incidents of unauthorized sharing came to light. The first was a “national lookup” setting that was toggled on for one camera at the intersection of the city’s Charleston and San Antonio roads. Flock allegedly switched it on without telling the city.
That setting could violate California’s 2015 statute SB 34, which bars state and local agencies from sharing license plate reader data with out-of-state or federal entities. The law states:
“A public agency shall not sell, share, or transfer ALPR information, except to another public agency, and only as otherwise permitted by law.”
The statute defines a public agency as the state, or any city or county within it, covering state and local law enforcement agencies.
Last October, the state Attorney General sued the Californian city of El Cajon for knowingly violating that law by sharing license place data with agencies in more than two dozen states.
However, MVPD said that Flock kept no records from the national lookup period, so nobody can determine what information actually left the system.
Mountain View says it never chose to share, which makes the violation different in kind. For the people whose plates were scanned, the distinction is academic.
A separate “statewide lookup” feature had also been active on 29 of the city’s 30 cameras since the initial installation, running for 17 straight months until Mountain View found and disabled it on January 5. Through that tool, more than 250 agencies that had never signed any data agreement with Mountain View ran an estimated 600,000 searches over a single year, according to local paper the Mountain View Voice, which first uncovered the issue after filing a public records request.
Over the past year, more than two dozen municipalities across the country have ended contracts with Flock, many citing the same worry that data collected for local crime-fighting could be used for federal immigration enforcement. Santa Cruz became the first in California to terminate its contract last month.
Flock’s own CEO reportedly acknowledged last August that the company had been running previously undisclosed pilot programs with Customs and Border Protection and Homeland Security Investigations.
The cameras will remain offline until the City Council meets on February 24. Canfield says that he still supports license plate reader technology, just not this vendor.
This goes beyond one city’s vendor dispute. If strict internal policies weren’t enough to prevent unauthorized sharing, it raises a harder question: whether policy alone is an adequate safeguard when surveillance systems are operated by third parties.
We don’t just report on data privacy—we help you remove your personal information
Cybersecurity risks should never spread beyond a headline. With Malwarebytes Personal Data Remover, you can scan to find out which sites are exposing your personal information, and then delete that sensitive data from the internet.
Login
