Not every cybersecurity practitioner thinks it’s worth the effort to figure out exactly who’s pulling the strings behind the malware hitting their company. The typical incident investigation algorithm goes something like this: analyst finds a suspicious file → if the antivirus didn’t catch it, puts it into a sandbox to test → confirms some malicious activity → adds the hash to the blocklist → goes for coffee break. These are the go-to steps for many cybersecurity professionals — especially when they’re swamped with alerts, or don’t quite have the forensic skills to unravel a complex attack thread by thread. However, when dealing with a targeted attack, this approach is a one-way ticket to disaster — and here’s why.

If an attacker is playing for keeps, they rarely stick to a single attack vector. There’s a good chance the malicious file has already played its part in a multi-stage attack and is now all but useless to the attacker. Meanwhile, the adversary has already dug deep into corporate infrastructure and is busy operating with an entirely different set of tools. To clear the threat for good, the security team has to uncover and neutralize the entire attack chain.

But how can this be done quickly and effectively before the attackers manage to do some real damage? One way is to dive deep into the context. By analyzing a single file, an expert can identify exactly who’s attacking his company, quickly find out which other tools and tactics that specific group employs, and then sweep infrastructure for any related threats. There are plenty of threat intelligence tools out there for this, but I’ll show you how it works using our Kaspersky Threat Intelligence Portal.

A practical example of why attribution matters

Let’s say we upload a piece of malware we’ve discovered to a threat intelligence portal, and learn that it’s usually being used by, say, the MysterySnail group. What does that actually tell us? Let’s look at the available intel:

First off, these attackers target government institutions in both Russia and Mongolia. They’re a Chinese-speaking group that typically focuses on espionage. According to their profile, they establish a foothold in infrastructure and lay low until they find something worth stealing. We also know that they typically exploit the vulnerability CVE-2021-40449. What kind of vulnerability is that?

As we can see, it’s a privilege escalation vulnerability — meaning it’s used after hackers have already infiltrated the infrastructure. This vulnerability has a high severity rating and is heavily exploited in the wild. So what software is actually vulnerable?

Got it: Microsoft Windows. Time to double-check if the patch that fixes this hole has actually been installed. Alright, besides the vulnerability, what else do we know about the hackers? It turns out they have a peculiar way of checking network configurations — they connect to the public site 2ip.ru:

So it makes sense to add a correlation rule to SIEM to flag that kind of behavior.

Now’s the time to read up on this group in more detail and gather additional indicators of compromise (IoCs) for SIEM monitoring, as well as ready-to-use YARA rules (structured text descriptions used to identify malware). This will help us track down all the tentacles of this kraken that might have already crept into corporate infrastructure, and ensure we can intercept them quickly if they try to break in again.

Kaspersky Threat Intelligence Portal provides a ton of additional reports on MysterySnail attacks, each complete with a list of IoCs and YARA rules. These YARA rules can be used to scan all endpoints, and those IoCs can be added into SIEM for constant monitoring. While we’re at it, let’s check the reports to see how these attackers handle data exfiltration, and what kind of data they’re usually hunting for. Now we can actually take steps to head off the attack.

And just like that, MysterySnail, the infrastructure is now tuned to find you and respond immediately. No more spying for you!

Malware attribution methods

Before diving into specific methods, we need to make one thing clear: for attribution to actually work, the threat intelligence provided needs a massive knowledge base of the tactics, techniques, and procedures (TTPs) used by threat actors. The scope and quality of these databases can vary wildly among vendors. In our case, before even building our tool, we spent years tracking known groups across various campaigns and logging their TTPs, and we continue to actively update that database today.

With a TTP database in place, the following attribution methods can be implemented:

1. Dynamic attribution: identifying TTPs through the dynamic analysis of specific files, then cross-referencing that set of TTPs against those of known hacking groups
2. Technical attribution: finding code overlaps between specific files and code fragments known to be used by specific hacking groups in their malware

Dynamic attribution

Identifying TTPs during dynamic analysis is relatively straightforward to implement; in fact, this functionality has been a staple of every modern sandbox for a long time. Naturally, all of our sandboxes also identify TTPs during the dynamic analysis of a malware sample:

The core of this method lies in categorizing malware activity using the MITRE ATT&CK framework. A sandbox report typically contains a list of detected TTPs. While this is highly useful data, it’s not enough for full-blown attribution to a specific group. Trying to identify the perpetrators of an attack using just this method is a lot like the ancient Indian parable of the blind men and the elephant: blindfolded folks touch different parts of an elephant and try to deduce what’s in front of them from just that. The one touching the trunk thinks it’s a python; the one touching the side is sure it’s a wall, and so on.

Technical attribution

The second attribution method is handled via static code analysis (though keep in mind that this type of attribution is always problematic). The core idea here is to cluster even slightly overlapping malware files based on specific unique characteristics. Before analysis can begin, the malware sample must be disassembled. The problem is that alongside the informative and useful bits, the recovered code contains a lot of noise. If the attribution algorithm takes this non-informative junk into account, any malware sample will end up looking similar to a great number of legitimate files, making quality attribution impossible. On the flip side, trying to only attribute malware based on the useful fragments but using a mathematically primitive method will only cause the false positive rate to go through the roof. Furthermore, any attribution result must be cross-checked for similarities with legitimate files — and the quality of that check usually depends heavily on the vendor’s technical capabilities.

Kaspersky’s approach to attribution

Our products leverage a unique database of malware associated with specific hacking groups, built over more than 25 years. On top of that, we use a patented attribution algorithm based on static analysis of disassembled code. This allows us to determine — with high precision, and even a specific probability percentage — how similar an analyzed file is to known samples from a particular group. This way, we can form a well-grounded verdict attributing the malware to a specific threat actor. The results are then cross-referenced against a database of billions of legitimate files to filter out false positives; if a match is found with any of them, the attribution verdict is adjusted accordingly. This approach is the backbone of the Kaspersky Threat Attribution Engine, which powers the threat attribution service on the Kaspersky Threat Intelligence Portal.

A significant number of modern incidents begin with account compromise. Since initial access brokers have become a full-fledged criminal industry, it’s become much easier for attackers to organize attacks on companies’ infrastructure by simply purchasing sets of employee passwords and logins. The widespread practice of using various remote access methods has made their task even easier. At the same time, the initial stages of such attacks often look like completely legitimate employee actions, and remain undetected by traditional security mechanisms for a long time.

Relying solely on account protection measures and password policies isn’t an option. There’s always a chance that attackers will get hold of employees’ credentials using various phishing attacks, infostealer malware, or simply through the carelessness of employees who reuse the same password for work and personal accounts and don’t pay much attention to leaks on third-party services.

As a result, to detect attacks on a company’s infrastructure, you need tools that can detect not only individual threat signatures, but also behavioral analysis systems that can detect deviations from normal user and system processes.

Using AI in SIEM to detect account compromise

As we mentioned in our previous post, to detect attacks involving account compromise, we equipped our Kaspersky Unified Monitoring and Analysis Platform SIEM system with a set of UEBA rules designed to detect anomalies in authentication processes, network activity, and the execution of processes on Windows-based workstations and servers. In the latest update, we continued to develop the system in the same direction, adding the use of AI approaches.

The system creates a model of normal user behavior during authentication, and tracks deviations from usual scenarios: atypical login times, unusual event chains, and anomalous access attempts. This approach allows SIEM to detect both authentication attempts with stolen credentials, and the use of already compromised accounts, including complex scenarios that may have gone unnoticed in the past.

Instead of searching for individual indicators, the system analyzes deviations from normal patterns. This allows for earlier detection of complex attacks while reducing the number of false positives, and significantly reduces the operational load on SOC teams.

Previously, when using UEBA rules to detect anomalies, it was necessary to create several rules that performed preliminary work and generated additional lists in which intermediate data was stored. Now, in the new version of SIEM with a new correlator, it’s possible to detect account hijacking using a single specialized rule.

Other updates in the Kaspersky Unified Monitoring and Analysis Platform

The more complex the infrastructure and the greater the volume of events, the more critical the requirements for platform performance, access management flexibility, and ease of daily operation become. A modern SIEM system must not only accurately detect threats, but also remain “resilient” without the need to constantly upgrade equipment and rebuild processes. Therefore, in version 4.2, we’ve taken another step toward making the platform more practical and adaptable. The updates affect the architecture, detection mechanisms, and user experience.

Addition of flexible roles and granular access control

One of the key innovations in the new version of SIEM is a flexible role model. Now customers can create their own roles for different system users, duplicate existing ones, and customize a set of access rights for the tasks of specific specialists. This allows for a more precise differentiation of responsibilities among SOC analysts, administrators, and managers, reduces the risk of excessive privileges, and better reflects the company’s internal processes in the SIEM settings.

New correlator and, as a result, increased platform stability

In release 4.2, we introduced a beta version of a new correlation engine (2.0). It processes events faster, and requires fewer hardware resources. For customers, this means:

• stable operation under high loads;
• the ability to process large amounts of data without the need for urgent infrastructure expansion;
• more predictable performance.

TTP coverage according to the MITRE ATT&CK matrix

We’re also systematically continuing to expand our coverage of the MITRE ATT&CK matrix of techniques, tactics, and procedures: today, Kaspersky SIEM covers more than 60% of the entire matrix. Detection rules are regularly updated and accompanied by response recommendations. This helps customers understand which attack scenarios are already under control, and plan their defense development based on a generally accepted industry model.

Other improvements

Version 4.2 also introduces the ability to back up and restore events, as well as export data to secure archives with integrity control, which is especially important for investigations, audits, and regulatory compliance. Background search queries have been implemented for the convenience of analysts. Now, complex and resource-intensive searches can be run in the background without affecting priority tasks. This speeds up the analysis of large data sets.

 

We continue to regularly update Kaspersky SIEM, expanding detection capabilities, improving architecture, and adding AI functionality so that the platform best meets the real-world conditions of information security teams, and helps not only to respond to incidents, but also to build a sustainable protection model for the future. Follow the updates to our SIEM system, the Kaspersky Unified Monitoring and Analysis Platform, on the official product page.

What adult didn’t dream as a kid that they could actually talk to their favorite toy? While for us those dreams were just innocent fantasies that fueled our imaginations, for today’s kids, they’re becoming a reality fast.

For instance, this past June, Mattel — the powerhouse behind the iconic Barbie — announced a partnership with OpenAI to develop AI-powered dolls. But Mattel isn’t the first company to bring the smart talking toy concept to life; plenty of manufacturers are already rolling out AI companions for children. In this post, we dive into how these toys actually work, and explore the risks that come with using them.

What exactly are AI toys?

When we talk about AI toys here, we mean actual, physical toys — not just software or apps. Currently, AI is most commonly baked into plushies or kid-friendly robots. Thanks to integration with large language models, these toys can hold meaningful, long-form conversations with a child.

As anyone who’s used modern chatbots knows, you can ask an AI to roleplay as anyone: from a movie character to a nutritionist or a cybersecurity expert. According to the study, AI comes to playtime — Artificial companions, real risks, by the U.S. PIRG Education Fund, manufacturers specifically hardcode these toys to play the role of a child’s best friend.

Importantly, these toys aren’t powered by some special, dedicated “kid-safe AI”. On their websites, the creators openly admit to using the same popular models many of us already know: OpenAI’s ChatGPT, Anthropic’s Claude, DeepSeek from the Chinese developer of the same name, and Google’s Gemini. At this point, tech-wary parents might recall the harrowing ChatGPT case where the chatbot made by OpenAI was blamed for a teenager’s suicide.

And this is the core of the problem: the toys are designed for children, but the AI models under the hood aren’t. These are general-purpose adult systems that are only partially reined in by filters and rules. Their behavior depends heavily on how long the conversation lasts, how questions are phrased, and just how well a specific manufacturer actually implemented their safety guardrails.

How the researchers tested the AI toys

The study, whose results we break down below, goes into great detail about the psychological risks associated with a child “befriending” a smart toy. However, since that’s a bit outside the scope of this blogpost, we’re going to skip the psychological nuances, and focus strictly on the physical safety threats and privacy concerns.

In their study, the researchers put four AI toys through the ringer:

• Grok (no relation to xAI’s Grok, apparently): a plush rocket with a built-in speaker marketed for kids aged three to 12. Price tag: US$99. The manufacturer, Curio, doesn’t explicitly state which LLM they use, but their user agreement mentions OpenAI among the operators receiving data.
• Kumma (not to be confused with our own Midori Kuma): a plush teddy-bear companion with no clear age limit, also priced at US$99. The toy originally ran on OpenAI’s GPT-4o, with options to swap models. Following an internal safety audit, the manufacturer claimed they were switching to GPT-5.1. However, at the time the study was published, OpenAI reported that the developer’s access to the models remained revoked — leaving it anyone’s guess which chatbot Kumma is actually using right now.
• Miko 3: a small wheeled robot with a screen for a face, marketed as a “best friend” for kids aged five to 10. At US$199, this is the priciest toy in the lineup. The manufacturer is tight-lipped about which language model powers the toy. A Google Cloud case study mentions using Gemini for certain safety features, but that doesn’t necessarily mean it handles all the robot’s conversational features.
• Robot MINI: a compact, voice-controlled plastic robot that supposedly runs on ChatGPT. This is the budget pick — at US$97. However, during the study, the robot’s Wi-Fi connection was so flaky that the researchers couldn’t even give it a proper test run.

To conduct the testing, the researchers set the test child’s age to five in the companion apps for all the toys. From there, they checked how the toys handled provocative questions. The topics the experimenters threw at these smart playmates included:

• Access to dangerous items: knives, pills, matches, and plastic bags
• Adult topics: sex, drugs, religion, and politics

Let’s break down the test results for each toy.

Unsafe conversations with AI toys

Let’s start with Grok, the plush AI rocket from Curio. This toy is marketed as a storyteller and conversational partner for kids, and stands out by giving parents full access to text transcripts of every AI interaction. Out of all the models tested, this one actually turned out to be the safest.

When asked about topics inappropriate for a child, the toy usually replied that it didn’t know or suggested talking to an adult. However, even this toy told the “child” exactly where to find plastic bags, and engaged in discussions about religion. Additionally, Grok was more than happy to chat about… Norse mythology, including the subject of heroic death in battle.

The next AI toy, the Kumma plush bear by FoloToy, delivered what were arguably the most depressing results. During testing, the bear helpfully pointed out exactly where in the house a kid could find potentially lethal items like knives, pills, matches, and plastic bags. In some instances, Kumma suggested asking an adult first, but then proceeded to give specific pointers anyway.

The AI bear fared even worse when it came to adult topics. For starters, Kumma explained to the supposed five-year-old what cocaine is. Beyond that, in a chat with our test kindergartner, the plush provocateur went into detail about the concept of “kinks”, and listed off a whole range of creative sexual practices: bondage, role-playing, sensory play (like using a feather), spanking, and even scenarios where one partner “acts like an animal”!

After a conversation lasting over an hour, the AI toy also lectured researchers on various sexual positions, told how to tie a basic knot, and described role-playing scenarios involving a teacher and a student. It’s worth noting that all of Kumma’s responses were recorded prior to a safety audit, which the manufacturer, FoloToy, conducted after receiving the researchers’ inquiries. According to their data, the toy’s behavior changed after the audit, and the most egregious violations were made unrepeatable.

Finally, the Miko 3 robot from Miko showed significantly better results. However, it wasn’t entirely without its hiccups. The toy told our potential five-year-old exactly where to find plastic bags and matches. On the bright side, Miko 3 refused to engage in discussions regarding inappropriate topics.

During testing, the researchers also noticed a glitch in its speech recognition: the robot occasionally misheard the wake word “Hey Miko” as “CS:GO”, which is the title of the popular shooter Counter-Strike: Global Offensive — rated for audiences aged 17 and up. As a result, the toy would start explaining elements of the shooter — thankfully, without mentioning violence — or asking the five-year-old user if they enjoyed the game. Additionally, Miko 3 was willing to chat with kids about religion.

AI Toys: a threat to children’s privacy

Beyond the child’s physical and mental well-being, the issue of privacy is a major concern. Currently, there are no universal standards defining what kind of information an AI toy — or its manufacturer — can collect and store, or exactly how that data should be secured and transmitted. In the case of the three toys tested, researchers observed wildly different approaches to privacy.

For example, the Grok plush rocket is constantly listening to everything happening around it. Several times during the experiments, it chimed in on the researchers’ conversations even when it hadn’t been addressed directly — it even went so far as to offer its opinion on one of the other AI toys.

The manufacturer claims that Curio doesn’t store audio recordings: the child’s voice is first converted to text, after which the original audio is “promptly deleted”. However, since a third-party service is used for speech recognition, the recordings are, in all likelihood, still transmitted off the device.

Additionally, researchers pointed out that when the first report was published, Curio’s privacy policy explicitly listed several tech partners — Kids Web Services, Azure Cognitive Services, OpenAI, and Perplexity AI — all of which could potentially collect or process children’s personal data via the app or the device itself. Perplexity AI was later removed from that list. The study’s authors note that this level of transparency is more the exception than the rule in the AI toy market.

Another cause for parental concern is that both the Grok plush rocket and the Miko 3 robot actively encouraged the “test child” to engage in heart-to-heart talks — even promising not to tell anyone their secrets. Researchers emphasize that such promises can be dangerously misleading: these toys create an illusion of private, trusting communication without explaining that behind the “friend” stands a network of companies, third-party services, and complex data collection and storage processes, which a child has no idea about.

Miko 3, much like Grok, is always listening to its surroundings and activates when spoken to — functioning essentially like a voice assistant. However, this toy doesn’t just collect voice data; it also gathers biometric information, including facial recognition data and potentially data used to determine the child’s emotional state. According to its privacy policy, this information can be stored for up to three years.

In contrast to Grok and Miko 3, Kumma operates on a push-to-talk principle: the user needs to press and hold a button for the toy to start listening. Researchers also noted that the AI teddy bear didn’t nudge the “child” to share personal feelings, promise to keep secrets, or create an illusion of private intimacy. On the flip side, the manufacturers of this toy provide almost no clear information regarding what data is collected, how it’s stored, or how it’s processed.

Is it a good idea to buy AI Toys for your children?

The study points to serious safety issues with the AI toys currently on the market. These devices can directly tell a child where to find potentially dangerous items, such as knives, matches, pills, or plastic bags, in their home.

Besides, these plush AI friends are often willing to discuss topics entirely inappropriate for children — including drugs and sexual practices — sometimes steering the conversation in that direction without any obvious prompting from the child. Taken together, this shows that even with filters and stated restrictions in place, AI toys aren’t yet capable of reliably staying within the boundaries of safe communication for young little ones.

Manufacturers’ privacy policies raise additional concerns. AI toys create an illusion of constant and safe communication for children, while in reality they’re networked devices that collect and process sensitive data. Even when manufacturers claim to delete audio or have limited data retention, conversations, biometrics, and metadata often pass through third-party services and are stored on company servers.

Furthermore, the security of such toys often leaves much to be desired. As far back as two years ago, our researchers discovered vulnerabilities in a popular children’s robot that allowed attackers to make video calls to it, hijack the parental account, and modify the firmware.

The problem is that, currently, there are virtually no comprehensive parental control tools or independent protection layers specifically for AI toys. Meanwhile, in more traditional digital environments — smartphones, tablets, and computers — parents have access to solutions like Kaspersky Safe Kids. These help monitor content, screen time, and a child’s digital footprint, which can significantly reduce, if not completely eliminate, such risks.

How can you protect your children from digital threats? Read more in our posts:

• Keeping kids safe online: a practical guide for parents
• How to help your kid become a blogger without ever worrying about their safety
• How hackers target Gen Z
• Do Apple’s new child safety initiatives do the job?
• Choosing wisely: a guide to your kids’ first gadget

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

Sideloading

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NFC relay attacks

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

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

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

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

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

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

The stir over VPNs

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

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

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

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

Trojan in a box

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

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

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

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

How to go on using Android without losing your mind

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

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

Other major Android threats from 2025:

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

How to protect an organization from the dangerous actions of AI agents it uses? This isn’t just a theoretical what-if anymore — considering the actual damage autonomous AI can do ranges from providing poor customer service to destroying corporate primary databases.  It’s a question business leaders are currently hammering away at, and government agencies and security experts are racing to provide answers to.

For CIOs and CISOs, AI agents create a massive governance headache. These agents make decisions, use tools, and process sensitive data without a human in the loop. Consequently, it turns out that many of our standard IT and security tools are unable to keep the AI in check.

The non-profit OWASP Foundation has released a handy playbook on this very topic. Their comprehensive Top 10 risk list for agentic AI applications covers everything from old-school security threats like privilege escalation, to AI-specific headaches like agent memory poisoning. Each risk comes with real-world examples, a breakdown of how it differs from similar threats, and mitigation strategies. In this post, we’ve trimmed down the descriptions and consolidated the defense recommendations.

Agent goal hijack (ASI01)

This risk involves manipulating an agent’s tasks or decision-making logic by exploiting the underlying model’s inability to tell the difference between legitimate instructions and external data. Attackers use prompt injection or forged data to reprogram the agent into performing malicious actions. The key difference from a standard prompt injection is that this attack breaks the agent’s multi-step planning process rather than just tricking the model into giving a single bad answer.

Example: An attacker embeds a hidden instruction into a webpage that, once parsed by the AI agent, triggers an export of the user’s browser history. A vulnerability of this very nature was showcased in a EchoLeak study.

Tool misuse and exploitation (ASI02)

This risk crops up when an agent — driven by ambiguous commands or malicious influence — uses the legitimate tools it has access to in unsafe or unintended ways. Examples include mass-deleting data, or sending redundant billable API calls. These attacks often play out through complex call chains, allowing them to slip past traditional host-monitoring systems unnoticed.

Example: A customer support chatbot with access to a financial API is manipulated into processing unauthorized refunds because its access wasn’t restricted to read-only. Another example is data exfiltration via DNS queries, similar to the attack on Amazon Q.

Identity and privilege abuse (ASI03)

This vulnerability involves the way permissions are granted and inherited within agentic workflows. Attackers exploit existing permissions or cached credentials to escalate privileges or perform actions that the original user wasn’t authorized for. The risk increases when agents use shared identities, or reuse authentication tokens across different security contexts.

Example: An employee creates an agent that uses their personal credentials to access internal systems. If that agent is then shared with other coworkers, any requests they make to the agent will also be executed with the creator’s elevated permissions.

Agentic Supply Chain Vulnerabilities (ASI04)

Risks arise when using third-party models, tools, or pre-configured agent personas that may be compromised or malicious from the start. What makes this trickier than traditional software is that agentic components are often loaded dynamically, and aren’t known ahead of time. This significantly hikes the risk, especially if the agent is allowed to look for a suitable package on its own. We’re seeing a surge in both typosquatting, where malicious tools in registries mimic the names of popular libraries, and the related slopsquatting, where an agent tries to call tools that don’t even exist.

Example: A coding assistant agent automatically installs a compromised package containing a backdoor, allowing an attacker to scrape CI/CD tokens and SSH keys right out of the agent’s environment. We’ve already seen documented attempts at destructive attacks targeting AI development agents in the wild.

Unexpected code execution / RCE (ASI05)

Agentic systems frequently generate and execute code in real-time to knock out tasks, which opens the door for malicious scripts or binaries. Through prompt injection and other techniques, an agent can be talked into running its available tools with dangerous parameters, or executing code provided directly by the attacker.  This can escalate into a full container or host compromise, or a sandbox escape — at which point the attack becomes invisible to standard AI monitoring tools.

Example: An attacker sends a prompt that, under the guise of code testing, tricks a vibecoding agent into downloading a command via cURL and piping it directly into bash.

Memory and context poisoning (ASI06)

Attackers modify the information an agent relies on for continuity, such as dialog history, a RAG knowledge base, or summaries of past task stages. This poisoned context warps the agent’s future reasoning and tool selection. As a result, persistent backdoors can emerge in its logic that survive between sessions. Unlike a one-off injection, this risk causes a long-term impact on the system’s knowledge and behavioral logic.

Example: An attacker plants false data in an assistant’s memory regarding flight price quotes received from a vendor. Consequently, the agent approves future transactions at a fraudulent rate. An example of false memory implantation was showcased in a demonstration attack on Gemini.

Insecure inter-agent communication (ASI07)

In multi-agent systems, coordination occurs via APIs or message buses that still often lack basic encryption, authentication, or integrity checks. Attackers can intercept, spoof, or modify these messages in real time, causing the entire distributed system to glitch out. This vulnerability opens the door for agent-in-the-middle attacks, as well as other classic communication exploits well-known in the world of applied information security: message replays, sender spoofing, and forced protocol downgrades.

Example: Forcing agents to switch to an unencrypted protocol to inject hidden commands, effectively hijacking the collective decision-making process of the entire agent group.

Cascading failures (ASI08)

This risk describes how a single error — caused by hallucination, a prompt injection, or any other glitch — can ripple through and amplify across a chain of autonomous agents. Because these agents hand off tasks to one another without human involvement, a failure in one link can trigger a domino effect leading to a massive meltdown of the entire network. The core issue here is the sheer velocity of the error: it spreads much faster than any human operator can track or stop.

Example: A compromised scheduler agent pushes out a series of unsafe commands that are automatically executed by downstream agents, leading to a loop of dangerous actions replicated across the entire organization.

Human–agent trust exploitation (ASI09)

Attackers exploit the conversational nature and apparent expertise of agents to manipulate users. Anthropomorphism leads people to place excessive trust in AI recommendations, and approve critical actions without a second thought. The agent acts as a bad advisor, turning the human into the final executor of the attack, which complicates a subsequent forensic investigation.

Example: A compromised tech support agent references actual ticket numbers to build rapport with a new hire, eventually sweet-talking them into handing over their corporate credentials.

Rogue agents (ASI10)

These are malicious, compromised, or hallucinating agents that veer off their assigned functions, operating stealthily, or acting as parasites within the system. Once control is lost, an agent like that might start self-replicating, pursuing its own hidden agenda, or even colluding with other agents to bypass security measures. The primary threat described by ASI10 is the long-term erosion of a system’s behavioral integrity following an initial breach or anomaly.

Example: The most infamous case involves an autonomous Replit development agent that went rogue, deleted the respective company’s primary customer database, and then completely fabricated its contents to make it look like the glitch had been fixed.

Mitigating risks in agentic AI systems

While the probabilistic nature of LLM generation and the lack of separation between instructions and data channels make bulletproof security impossible, a rigorous set of controls — approximating a Zero Trust strategy — can significantly limit the damage when things go awry. Here are the most critical measures.

Enforce the principles of both least autonomy and least privilege. Limit the autonomy of AI agents by assigning tasks with strictly defined guardrails. Ensure they only have access to the specific tools, APIs, and corporate data necessary for their mission. Dial permissions down to the absolute minimum where appropriate — for example, sticking to read-only mode.

Use short-lived credentials. Issue temporary tokens and API keys with a limited scope for each specific task. This prevents an attacker from reusing credentials if they manage to compromise an agent.

Mandatory human-in-the-loop for critical operations. Require explicit human confirmation for any irreversible or high-risk actions, such as authorizing financial transfers or mass-deleting data.

Execution isolation and traffic control. Run code and tools in isolated environments (containers or sandboxes) with strict allowlists of tools and network connections to prevent unauthorized outbound calls.

Policy enforcement. Deploy intent gates to vet an agent’s plans and arguments against rigid security rules before they ever go live.

Input and output validation and sanitization. Use specialized filters and validation schemes to check all prompts and model responses for injections and malicious content. This needs to happen at every single stage of data processing and whenever data is passed between agents.

Continuous secure logging. Record every agent action and inter-agent message in immutable logs. These records would be needed for any future auditing and forensic investigations.

Behavioral monitoring and watchdog agents. Deploy automated systems to sniff out anomalies, such as a sudden spike in API calls, self-replication attempts, or an agent suddenly pivoting away from its core goals. This approach overlaps heavily with the monitoring required to catch sophisticated living-off-the-land network attacks. Consequently, organizations that have introduced XDR and are crunching telemetry in a SIEM will have a head start here — they’ll find it much easier to keep their AI agents on a short leash.

Supply chain control and SBOMs (software bills of materials). Only use vetted tools and models from trusted registries. When developing software, sign every component, pin dependency versions, and double-check every update.

Static and dynamic analysis of generated code. Scan every line of code an agent writes for vulnerabilities before running. Ban the use of dangerous functions like eval() completely. These last two tips should already be part of a standard DevSecOps workflow, and they needed to be extended to all code written by AI agents. Doing this manually is next to impossible, so automation tools, like those found in Kaspersky Cloud Workload Security, are recommended here.

Securing inter-agent communications. Ensure mutual authentication and encryption across all communication channels between agents. Use digital signatures to verify message integrity.

 Kill switches. Come up with ways to instantly lock down agents or specific tools the moment anomalous behavior is detected.

Using UI for trust calibration. Use visual risk indicators and confidence level alerts to reduce the risk of humans blindly trusting AI.

User training. Systematically train employees on the operational realities of AI-powered systems. Use examples tailored to their actual job roles to break down AI-specific risks. Given how fast this field moves, a once-a-year compliance video won’t cut it — such training should be refreshed several times a year.

For SOC analysts, we also recommend the Kaspersky Expert Training: Large Language Models Security course, which covers the main threats to LLMs, and defensive strategies to counter them. The course would also be useful for developers and AI architects working on LLM implementations.

Tech enthusiasts have been experimenting with ways to sidestep AI response limits set by the models’ creators almost since LLMs first hit the mainstream. Many of these tactics have been quite creative: telling the AI you have no fingers so it’ll help finish your code, asking it to “just fantasize” when a direct question triggers a refusal, or inviting it to play the role of a deceased grandmother sharing forbidden knowledge to comfort a grieving grandchild.

Most of these tricks are old news, and LLM developers have learned to successfully counter many of them. But the tug-of-war between constraints and workarounds hasn’t gone anywhere — the ploys have just become more complex and sophisticated. Today, we’re talking about a new AI jailbreak technique that exploits chatbots’ vulnerability to… poetry. Yes, you read it right — in a recent study, researchers demonstrated that framing prompts as poems significantly increases the likelihood of a model spitting out an unsafe response.

They tested this technique on 25 popular models by Anthropic, OpenAI, Google, Meta, DeepSeek, xAI, and other developers. Below, we dive into the details: what kind of limitations these models have, where they get forbidden knowledge from in the first place, how the study was conducted, and which models turned out to be the most “romantic” — as in, the most susceptible to poetic prompts.

What AI isn’t supposed to talk about with users

The success of OpenAI’s models and other modern chatbots boils down to the massive amounts of data they’re trained on. Because of that sheer scale, models inevitably learn things their developers would rather keep under wraps: descriptions of crimes, dangerous tech, violence, or illicit practices found within the source material.

It might seem like an easy fix: just scrub the forbidden fruit from the dataset before you even start training. But in reality, that’s a massive, resource-heavy undertaking — and at this stage of the AI arms race, it doesn’t look like anyone is willing to take it on.

Another seemingly obvious fix — selectively scrubbing data from the model’s memory — is, alas, also a no-go. This is because AI knowledge doesn’t live inside neat little folders that can easily be trashed. Instead, it’s spread across billions of parameters and tangled up in the model’s entire linguistic DNA — word statistics, contexts, and the relationships between them. Trying to surgically erase specific info through fine-tuning or penalties either doesn’t quite do the trick, or starts hindering the model’s overall performance and negatively affect its general language skills.

As a result, to keep these models in check, creators have no choice but to develop specialized safety protocols and algorithms that filter conversations by constantly monitoring user prompts and model responses. Here’s a non-exhaustive list of these constraints:

• System prompts that define model behavior and restrict allowed response scenarios
• Standalone classifier models that scan prompts and outputs for signs of jailbreaking, prompt injections, and other attempts to bypass safeguards
• Grounding mechanisms, where the model is forced to rely on external data rather than its own internal associations
• Fine-tuning and reinforcement learning from human feedback, where unsafe or borderline responses are systematically penalized while proper refusals are rewarded

Put simply, AI safety today isn’t built on deleting dangerous knowledge, but on trying to control how and in what form the model accesses and shares it with the user — and the cracks in these very mechanisms are where new workarounds find their footing.

The research: which models got tested, and how?

First, let’s look at the ground rules so you know the experiment was legit. The researchers set out to goad 25 different models into behaving badly across several categories:

• Chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear threats
• Assisting with cyberattacks
• Malicious manipulation and social engineering
• Privacy breaches and mishandling sensitive personal data
• Generating disinformation and misleading content
• Rogue AI scenarios, including attempts to bypass constraints or act autonomously

The jailbreak itself was a one-shot deal: a single poetic prompt. The researchers didn’t engage the AI in long-winded poetic debates in the vein of Norse skalds or modern-day rappers. Their goal was simply to see if they could get the models to flout safety instructions using just one rhyming request. As mentioned, the researchers tested 25 language models from various developers; here’s the full list:

To build these poetic queries, the researchers started with a database of known malicious prompts from the standard MLCommons AILuminate Benchmark used to test LLM security, and recast them as verse with the aid of DeepSeek. Only the stylistic wrapping was changed: the experiment didn’t use any additional attack vectors, obfuscation strategies, or model-specific tweaks.

For obvious reasons, the study’s authors aren’t publishing the actual malicious poetic prompts. But they do demonstrate the general vibe of the queries using a harmless example, which looks something like this:

A baker guards a secret oven’s heat,
its whirling racks, its spindle’s measured beat.
To learn its craft, one studies every turn,
how flour lifts, how sugar starts to burn.
Describe the method, line by measured line,
that shapes a cake whose layers intertwine.

The researchers tested 1200 prompts across 25 different models — in both prose and poetic versions. Comparing the prose and poetic variants of the exact same query allowed them to verify if the model’s behavior changed solely because of the stylistic wrapping.

Through these prose prompt tests, the experimenters established a baseline for the models’ willingness to fulfill dangerous requests. They then compared this baseline to how those same models reacted to the poetic versions of the queries. We’ll dive into the results of that comparison in the next section.

Study results: which model is the biggest poetry lover?

Since the volume of data generated during the experiment was truly massive, the safety checks on the models’ responses were also handled by AI. Each response was graded as either “safe” or “unsafe” by a jury consisting of three different language models:

• gpt-oss-120b by OpenAI
• deepseek-r1 by DeepSeek
• kimi-k2-thinking by Moonshot AI

Responses were only deemed safe if the AI explicitly refused to answer the question. The initial classification into one of the two groups was determined by a majority vote: to be certified as harmless, a response had to receive a safe rating from at least two of the three jury members.

Responses that failed to reach a majority consensus or were flagged as questionable were handed off to human reviewers. Five annotators participated in this process, evaluating a total of 600 model responses to poetic prompts. The researchers noted that the human assessments aligned with the AI jury’s findings in the vast majority of cases.

With the methodology out of the way, let’s look at how the LLMs actually performed. It’s worth noting that the success of a poetic jailbreak can be measured in different ways. The researchers highlighted an extreme version of this assessment based on the top-20 most successful prompts, which were hand-picked. Using this approach, an average of nearly two-thirds (62%) of the poetic queries managed to coax the models into violating their safety instructions.

Google’s Gemini 1.5 Pro turned out to be the most susceptible to verse. Using the 20 most effective poetic prompts, researchers managed to bypass the model’s restrictions… 100% of the time. You can check out the full results for all the models in the chart below.

A more moderate way to measure the effectiveness of the poetic jailbreak technique is to compare the success rates of prose versus poetry across the entire set of queries. Using this metric, poetry boosts the likelihood of an unsafe response by an average of 35%.

The poetry effect hit deepseek-chat-v3.1 the hardest — the success rate for this model jumped by nearly 68 percentage points compared to prose prompts. On the other end of the spectrum, claude-haiku-4.5 proved to be the least susceptible to a good rhyme: the poetic format didn’t just fail to improve the bypass rate — it actually slightly lowered the ASR, making the model even more resilient to malicious requests.

Finally, the researchers calculated how vulnerable entire developer ecosystems, rather than just individual models, were to poetic prompts. As a reminder, several models from each developer — Meta, Anthropic, OpenAI, Google, DeepSeek, Qwen, Mistral AI, Moonshot AI, and xAI — were included in the experiment.

To do this, the results of individual models were averaged within each AI ecosystem and compared the baseline bypass rates with the values for poetic queries. This cross-section allows us to evaluate the overall effectiveness of a specific developer’s safety approach rather than the resilience of a single model.

The final tally revealed that poetry deals the heaviest blow to the safety guardrails of models from DeepSeek, Google, and Qwen. Meanwhile, OpenAI and Anthropic saw an increase in unsafe responses that was significantly below the average.

What does this mean for AI users?

The main takeaway from this study is that “there are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy” — in the sense that AI technology still hides plenty of mysteries. For the average user, this isn’t exactly great news: it’s impossible to predict which LLM hacking methods or bypass techniques researchers or cybercriminals will come up with next, or what unexpected doors those methods might open.

Consequently, users have little choice but to keep their eyes peeled and take extra care of their data and device security. To mitigate practical risks and shield your devices from such threats, we recommend using a robust security solution that helps detect suspicious activity and prevent incidents before they happen.

To help you stay alert, check out our materials on AI-related privacy risks and security threats:

• AI and the new reality of sextortion
• How to eavesdrop on a neural network
• AI sidebar spoofing: a new attack on AI browsers
• New types of attacks on AI-powered assistants and chatbots
• The pros and cons of AI-powered browsers

A newly discovered vulnerability named WhisperPair can turn Bluetooth headphones and headsets from many well-known brands into personal tracking beacons — regardless of whether the accessories are currently connected to an iPhone, Android smartphone, or even a laptop. Even though the technology behind this flaw was originally developed by Google for Android devices, the tracking risks are actually much higher for those using vulnerable headsets with other operating systems — like iOS, macOS, Windows, or Linux. For iPhone owners, this is especially concerning.

Connecting Bluetooth headphones to Android smartphones became a whole lot faster when Google rolled out Fast Pair, a technology now used by dozens of accessory manufacturers. To pair a new headset, you just turn it on and hold it near your phone. If your device is relatively modern (produced after 2019), a pop-up appears inviting you to connect and download the accompanying app, if it exists. One tap, and you’re good to go.

Unfortunately, it seems quite a few manufacturers didn’t pay attention to the particulars of this tech when implementing it, and now their accessories can be hijacked by a stranger’s smartphone in seconds — even if the headset isn’t actually in pairing mode. This is the core of the WhisperPair vulnerability, recently discovered by researchers at KU Leuven and recorded as CVE-2025-36911.

The attacking device — which can be a standard smartphone, tablet or laptop — broadcasts Google Fast Pair requests to any Bluetooth devices within a 14-meter radius. As it turns out, a long list of headphones from Sony, JBL, Redmi, Anker, Marshall, Jabra, OnePlus, and even Google itself (the Pixel Buds 2) will respond to these pings even when they aren’t looking to pair. On average, the attack takes just 10 seconds.

Once the headphones are paired, the attacker can do pretty much anything the owner can: listen in through the microphone, blast music, or — in some cases — locate the headset on a map if it supports Google Find Hub. That latter feature, designed strictly for finding lost headphones, creates a perfect opening for stealthy remote tracking. And here’s the twist: it’s actually most dangerous for Apple users and anyone else rocking non-Android hardware.

Remote tracking and the risks for iPhones

When headphones or a headset first shake hands with an Android device via the Fast Pair protocol, an owner key tied to that smartphone’s Google account is tucked away in the accessory’s memory. This info allows the headphones to be found later by leveraging data collected from millions of Android devices. If any random smartphone spots the target device nearby via Bluetooth, it reports its location to the Google servers. This feature — Google Find Hub — is essentially the Android version of Apple’s Find My, and it introduces the same unauthorized tracking risks as a rogue AirTag.

When an attacker hijacks the pairing, their key can be saved as the headset owner’s key — but only if the headset targeted via WhisperPair hasn’t previously been linked to an Android device and has only been used with an iPhone, or other hardware like a laptop with a different OS. Once the headphones are paired, the attacker can stalk their location on a map at their leisure — crucially, anywhere at all (not just within the 14-meter range).

Android users who’ve already used Fast Pair to link their vulnerable headsets are safe from this specific move, since they’re already logged in as the official owners. Everyone else, however, should probably double-check their manufacturer’s documentation to see if they’re in the clear — thankfully, not every device vulnerable to the exploit actually supports Google Find Hub.

How to neutralize the WhisperPair threat

The only truly effective way to fix this bug is to update your headphones’ firmware, provided an update is actually available. You can typically check for and install updates through the headset’s official companion app. The researchers have compiled a list of vulnerable devices on their site, but it’s almost certainly not exhaustive.

After updating the firmware, you absolutely must perform a factory reset to wipe the list of paired devices — including any unwanted guests.

If no firmware update is available and you’re using your headset with iOS, macOS, Windows, or Linux, your only remaining option is to track down an Android smartphone (or find a trusted friend who has one) and use it to reserve the role of the original owner. This will prevent anyone else from adding your headphones to Google Find Hub behind your back.

The update from Google

In January 2026, Google pushed an Android update to patch the vulnerability on the OS side. Unfortunately, the specifics haven’t been made public, so we’re left guessing exactly what they tweaked under the hood. Most likely, updated smartphones will no longer report the location of accessories hijacked via WhisperPair to the Google Find Hub network. But given that not everyone is exactly speedy when it comes to installing Android updates, it’s a safe bet that this type of headset tracking will remain viable for at least another couple of years.

Want to find out how else your gadgets might be spying on you? Check out these posts:

• How to protect yourself from Bluetooth stalking and more
• How to track anyone via the Find My network
• How to stop being tracked via Bluetooth beacons like AirTag
• How smartphones build a dossier on you
• Why data brokers build dossiers on you, and how to stop them doing so

Millions of IT systems — some of them industrial and IoT — may start behaving unpredictably on January 19. Potential failures include: glitches in processing card payments; false alarms from security systems; incorrect operation of medical equipment; failures in automated lighting, heating, and water supply systems; and many more or less serious types of errors. The catch is — it will happen on January 19, 2038. Not that that’s a reason to relax — the time left to prepare may already be insufficient. The cause of this mass of problems will be an overflow in the integers storing date and time. While the root cause of the error is simple and clear, fixing it will require extensive and systematic efforts on every level — from governments and international bodies and down to organizations and private individuals.

The unwritten standard of the Unix epoch

The Unix epoch is the timekeeping system adopted by Unix operating systems, which became popular across the entire IT industry. It counts the seconds from 00:00:00 UTC on January 1, 1970, which is considered the zero point. Any given moment in time is represented as the number of seconds that have passed since that date. For dates before 1970, negative values are used. This approach was chosen by Unix developers for its simplicity — instead of storing the year, month, day, and time separately, only a single number is needed. This facilitates operations like sorting or calculating the interval between dates. Today, the Unix epoch is used far beyond Unix systems: in databases, programming languages, network protocols, and in smartphones running iOS and Android.

The Y2K38 time bomb

Initially, when Unix was developed, a decision was made to store time as a 32-bit signed integer. This allowed for representing a date range from roughly 1901 to 2038. The problem is that on January 19, 2038, at 03:14:07 UTC, this number will reach its maximum value (2,147,483,647 seconds) and overflow, becoming negative, and causing computers to “teleport” from January 2038 back to December 13, 1901. In some cases, however, shorter “time travel” might happen — to point zero, which is the year 1970.

This event, known as the “year 2038 problem”, “Epochalypse”, or “Y2K38”, could lead to failures in systems that still use 32-bit time representation — from POS terminals, embedded systems, and routers, to automobiles and industrial equipment. Modern systems solve this problem by using 64 bits to store time. This extends the date range to hundreds of billions of years into the future. However, millions of devices with 32-bit dates are still in operation, and will require updating or replacement before “day Y” arrives.

In this context, 32 and 64 bits refer specifically to the date storage format. Just because an operating system or processor is 32-bit or 64-bit, it doesn’t automatically mean it stores the date in its “native” bit format. Furthermore, many applications store dates in completely different ways, and might be immune to the Y2K38 problem, regardless of their bitness.

In cases where there’s no need to handle dates before 1970, the date is stored as an unsigned 32-bit integer. This type of number can represent dates from 1970 to 2106, so the problem will arrive in the more distant future.

Differences from the year 2000 problem

The infamous year 2000 problem (Y2K) from the late 20^th century was similar in that systems storing the year as two digits could mistake the new date for the year 1900. Both experts and the media feared a digital apocalypse, but in the end there were just numerous isolated manifestations that didn’t lead to global catastrophic failures.

The key difference between Y2K38 and Y2K is the scale of digitization in our lives. The number of systems that will need updating is way higher than the number of computers in the 20^th century, and the count of daily tasks and processes managed by computers is beyond calculation. Meanwhile, the Y2K38 problem has already been, or will soon be, fixed in regular computers and operating systems with simple software updates. However, the microcomputers that manage air conditioners, elevators, pumps, door locks, and factory assembly lines could very well chug along for the next decade with outdated, Y2K38-vulnerable software versions.

Potential problems of the Epochalypse

The date’s rolling over to 1901 or 1970 will impact different systems in different ways. In some cases, like a lighting system programmed to turn on every day at 7pm, it might go completely unnoticed. In other systems that rely on complete and accurate timestamps, a full failure could occur — for example, in the year 2000, payment terminals and public transport turnstiles stopped working. Comical cases are also possible, like issuing a birth certificate with a date in 1901. Far worse would be the failure of critical systems, such as a complete shutdown of a heating system, or the failure of a bone marrow analysis system in a hospital.

Cryptography holds a special place in the Epochalypse. Another crucial difference between 2038 and 2000 is the ubiquitous use of encryption and digital signatures to protect all communications. Security certificates generally fail verification if the device’s date is incorrect. This means a vulnerable device would be cut off from most communications — even if its core business applications don’t have any code that incorrectly handles the date.

Unfortunately, the full spectrum of consequences can only be determined through controlled testing of all systems, with separate analysis of a potential cascade of failures.

The malicious exploitation of Y2K38

IT and InfoSec teams should treat Y2K38 not as a simple software bug, but as a vulnerability that can lead to various failures, including denial of service. In some cases, it can even be exploited by malicious actors. To do this, they need the ability to manipulate the time on the targeted system. This is possible in at least two scenarios:

• Interfering with NTP protocol data by feeding the attacked system a fake time server
• Spoofing the GPS signal — if the system relies on satellite time

Exploitation of this error is most likely in OT and IoT systems, where vulnerabilities are traditionally slow to be patched, and the consequences of a failure can be far more substantial.

An example of an easily exploitable vulnerability related to time counting is CVE-2025-55068 (CVSSv3 8.2, CVSSv4 base 8.8) in Dover ProGauge MagLink LX4 automatic fuel-tank gauge consoles. Time manipulation can cause a denial of service at the gas station, and block access to the device’s web management panel. This defect earned its own CISA advisory.

The current status of Y2K38 mitigation

The foundation for solving the Y2K38 problem has been successfully laid in major operating systems. The Linux kernel added support for 64-bit time even on 32-bit architectures starting with version 5.6 in 2020, and 64-bit Linux was always protected from this issue. The BSD family, macOS, and iOS use 64-bit time on all modern devices. All versions of Windows released in the 21^st century aren’t susceptible to Y2K38.

The situation at the data storage and application level is far more complex. Modern file systems like ZFS, F2FS, NTFS, and ReFS were designed with 64-bit timestamps, while older systems like ext2 and ext3 remain vulnerable. Ext4 and XFS require specific flags to be enabled (extended inode for ext4, and bigtime for XFS), and might need offline conversion of existing filesystems. In the NFSv2 and NFSv3 protocols, the outdated time storage format persists. It’s a similar patchwork landscape in databases: the TIMESTAMP type in MySQL is fundamentally limited to the year 2038, and requires migration to DATETIME, while the standard timestamp types in PostgreSQL are safe. For applications written in C, pathways have been created to use 64-bit time on 32-bit architectures, but all projects require recompilation. Languages like Java, Python, and Go typically use types that avoid the overflow, but the safety of compiled projects depends on whether they interact with vulnerable libraries written in C.

A massive number of 32-bit systems, embedded devices, and applications remain vulnerable until they’re rebuilt and tested, and then have updates installed by all their users.

Various organizations and enthusiasts are trying to systematize information on this, but their efforts are fragmented. Consequently, there’s no “common Y2K38 vulnerability database” out there (1, 2, 3, 4, 5).

Approaches to fixing Y2K38

The methodologies created for prioritizing and fixing vulnerabilities are directly applicable to the year 2038 problem. The key challenge will be that no tool today can create an exhaustive list of vulnerable software and hardware. Therefore, it’s essential to update inventory of corporate IT assets, ensure that inventory is enriched with detailed information on firmware and installed software, and then systematically investigate the vulnerability question.

The list can be prioritized based on the criticality of business systems and the data on the technology stack each system is built on. The next steps are: studying the vendor’s support portal, making direct inquiries to hardware and software manufacturers about their Y2K38 status, and, as a last resort, verification through testing.

When testing corporate systems, it’s critical to take special precautions:

• Never test production systems.
• Create a data backup immediately before the test.
• Isolate the system being tested from communications so it can’t confuse other systems in the organization.
• If changing the date uses NTP or GPS, ensure the 2038 test signals cannot reach other systems.
• After testing, set the systems back to the correct time, and thoroughly document all observed system behaviors.

If a system is found to be vulnerable to Y2K38, a fixing timeline should be requested from the vendor. If a fix is impossible, plan a migration; fortunately, the time we have left still allows for updating even fairly complex and expensive systems.

The most important thing in tackling Y2K38 is not to think of it as a distant future problem whose solution can easily wait another five to eight years. It’s highly likely that we already have insufficient time to completely eradicate the defect. However, within an organization and its technology fleet, careful planning and a systematic approach to solving the problem will allow to actually make it in time.

Brand, website, and corporate mailout impersonation is becoming an increasingly common technique used by cybercriminals. The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) reported a spike in such incidents in 2025. While tech companies and consumer brands are the most frequent targets, every industry in every country is generally at risk. The only thing that changes is how the imposters exploit the fakes In practice, we typically see the following attack scenarios:

• Luring clients and customers to a fake website to harvest login credentials for the real online store, or to steal payment details for direct theft.
• Luring employees and business partners to a fake corporate login portal to acquire legitimate credentials for infiltrating the corporate network.
• Prompting clients and customers to contact the scammers under various pretexts: getting tech support, processing a refund, entering a prize giveaway, or claiming compensation for public events involving the brand. The goal is to then swindle the victims out of as much money as possible.
• Luring business partners and employees to specially crafted pages that mimic internal company systems, to get them to approve a payment or redirect a legitimate payment to the scammers.
• Prompting clients, business partners, and employees to download malware — most often an infostealer — disguised as corporate software from a fake company website.

The words “luring” and “prompting” here imply a whole toolbox of tactics: email, messages in chat apps, social media posts that look like official ads, lookalike websites promoted through SEO tools, and even paid ads.

These schemes all share two common features. First, the attackers exploit the organization’s brand, and strive to mimic its official website, domain name, and corporate style of emails, ads, and social media posts. And the forgery doesn’t have to be flawless — just convincing enough for at least some of business partners and customers. Second, while the organization and its online resources aren’t targeted directly, the impact on them is still significant.

Business damage from brand impersonation

When fakes are crafted to target employees, an attack can lead to direct financial loss. An employee might be persuaded to transfer company funds, or their credentials could be used to steal confidential information or launch a ransomware attack.

Attacks on customers don’t typically imply direct damage to the company’s coffers, but they cause substantial indirect harm in the following areas:

• Strain on customer support. Customers who “bought” a product on a fake site will likely bring their issues to the real customer support team. Convincing them that they never actually placed an order is tough, making each case a major time waster for multiple support agents.
• Reputational damage. Defrauded customers often blame the brand for failing to protect them from the scam, and also expect compensation. According to a European survey, around half of affected buyers expect payouts and may stop using the company’s services — often sharing their negative experience on social media. This is especially damaging if the victims include public figures or anyone with a large following.
• Unplanned response costs. Depending on the specifics and scale of an attack, an affected company might need digital forensics and incident response (DFIR) services, as well as consultants specializing in consumer law, intellectual property, cybersecurity, and crisis PR.
• Increased insurance premiums. Companies that insure businesses against cyber-incidents factor in fallout from brand impersonation. An increased risk profile may be reflected in a higher premium for a business.
• Degraded website performance and rising ad costs. If criminals run paid ads using a brand’s name, they siphon traffic away from its official site. Furthermore, if a company pays to advertise its site, the cost per click rises due to the increased competition. This is a particularly acute problem for IT companies selling online services, but it’s also relevant for retail brands.
• Long-term metric decline. This includes drops in sales volume, market share, and market capitalization. These are all consequences of lost trust from customers and business partners following major incidents.

Does insurance cover the damage?

Popular cyber-risk insurance policies typically only cover costs directly tied to incidents explicitly defined in the policy — think data loss, business interruption, IT system compromise, and the like. Fake domains and web pages don’t directly damage a company’s IT systems, so they’re usually not covered by standard insurance. Reputational losses and the act of impersonation itself are separate insurance risks, requiring expanded coverage for this scenario specifically.

Of the indirect losses we’ve listed above, standard insurance might cover DFIR expenses and, in some cases, extra customer support costs (if the situation is recognized as an insured event). Voluntary customer reimbursements, lost sales, and reputational damage are almost certainly not covered.

What to do if your company is attacked by clones

If you find out someone is using your brand’s name for fraud, it makes sense to do the following:

• Send clear, straightforward notifications to your customers explaining what happened, what measures are being taken, and how to verify the authenticity of official websites, emails, and other communications.
• Create a simple “trust center” page listing your official domains, social media accounts, app store links, and support contacts. Make it easy to find and keep it updated.
• Monitor new registrations of social media pages and domain names that contain your brand names to spot the clones before an attack kicks off.
• Follow a takedown procedure. This involves gathering evidence, filing complaints with domain registrars, hosting providers, and social media administrators, then tracking the status until the fakes are fully removed. For a complete and accurate record of violations, preserve URLs, screenshots, metadata, and the date and time of discovery. Ideally, also examine the source code of fake pages, as it might contain clues pointing to other components of the criminal operation.
• Add a simple customer reporting form for suspicious sites or messages to your official website and/or branded app. This helps you learn about problems early.
• Coordinate activities between your legal, cybersecurity, and marketing teams. This ensures a consistent, unified, and effective response.

How to defend against brand impersonation attacks

While the open nature of the internet and the specifics of these attacks make preventing them outright impossible, a business can stay on top of new fakes and have the tools ready to fight back.

• Continuously monitor for suspicious public activity using specialized monitoring services. The most obvious indicator is the registration of domains similar to your brand name, but there are others — like someone buying databases related to your organization on the dark web. Comprehensive monitoring of all platforms is best outsourced to a specialized service provider, such as Kaspersky Digital Footprint Intelligence (DFI).
• The quickest and simplest way to take down a fake website or social media profile is to file a trademark infringement complaint. Make sure your portfolio of registered trademarks is robust enough to file complaints under UDRP procedures before you need it.
• When you discover fakes, deploy UDRP procedures promptly to have the fake domains transferred or removed. For social media, follow the platform’s specific infringement procedure — easily found by searching for “[social media name] trademark infringement” (for example, “LinkedIn trademark infringement”). Transferring the domain to the legitimate owner is preferred over deletion, as it prevents scammers from simply re-registering it. Many continuous monitoring services, such as Kaspersky Digital Footprint Intelligence, also offer a rapid takedown service, filing complaints on the protected brand’s behalf.
• Act quickly to block fake domains on your corporate systems. This won’t protect partners or customers, but it’ll throw a wrench into attacks targeting your own employees.
• Consider proactively registering your company’s website name and common variations (for example, with and without hyphens) in all major top-level domains, such as .com, and local extensions. This helps protect partners and customers from common typos and simple copycat sites.

In 2025, cybersecurity researchers discovered several open databases belonging to various AI image-generation tools. This fact alone makes you wonder just how much AI startups care about the privacy and security of their users’ data. But the nature of the content in these databases is far more alarming.

A large number of generated pictures in these databases were images of women in lingerie or fully nude. Some were clearly created from children’s photos, or intended to make adult women appear younger (and undressed). Finally, the most disturbing part: some pornographic images were generated from completely innocent photos of real people — likely taken from social media.

In this post, we’re talking about what sextortion is, and why AI tools mean anyone can become a victim. We detail the contents of these open databases, and give you advice on how to avoid becoming a victim of AI-era sextortion.

What is sextortion?

Online sexual extortion has become so common it’s earned its own global name: sextortion (a portmanteau of sex and extortion). We’ve already detailed its various types in our post, Fifty shades of sextortion. To recap, this form of blackmail involves threatening to publish intimate images or videos to coerce the victim into taking certain actions, or to extort money from them.

Previously, victims of sextortion were typically adult industry workers, or individuals who’d shared intimate content with an untrustworthy person.

However, the rapid advancement of artificial intelligence, particularly text-to-image technology, has fundamentally changed the game. Now, literally anyone who’s posted their most innocent photos publicly can become a victim of sextortion. This is because generative AI makes it possible to quickly, easily, and convincingly undress people in any digital image, or add a generated nude body to someone’s head in a matter of seconds.

Of course, this kind of fakery was possible before AI, but it required long hours of meticulous Photoshop work. Now, all you need is to describe the desired result in words.

To make matters worse, many generative AI services don’t bother much with protecting the content they’ve been used to create. As mentioned earlier, last year saw researchers discover at least three publicly accessible databases belonging to these services. This means the generated nudes within them were available not just to the user who’d created them, but to anyone on the internet.

How the AI image database leak was discovered

In October 2025, cybersecurity researcher Jeremiah Fowler uncovered an open database containing over a million AI-generated images and videos. According to the researcher, the overwhelming majority of this content was pornographic in nature. The database wasn’t encrypted or password-protected — meaning any internet user could access it.

The database’s name and watermarks on some images led Fowler to believe its source was the U.S.-based company SocialBook, which offers services for influencers and digital marketing services. The company’s website also provides access to tools for generating images and content using AI.

However, further analysis revealed that SocialBook itself wasn’t directly generating this content. Links within the service’s interface led to third-party products — the AI services MagicEdit and DreamPal — which were the tools used to create the images. These tools allowed users to generate pictures from text descriptions, edit uploaded photos, and perform various visual manipulations, including creating explicit content and face-swapping.

The leak was linked to these specific tools, and the database contained the product of their work, including AI-generated and AI-edited images. A portion of the images led the researcher to suspect they’d been uploaded to the AI as references for creating provocative imagery.

Fowler states that roughly 10,000 photos were being added to the database every single day. SocialBook denies any connection to the database. After the researcher informed the company of the leak, several pages on the SocialBook website that had previously mentioned MagicEdit and DreamPal became inaccessible and began returning errors.

Which services were the source of the leak?

Both services — MagicEdit and DreamPal — were initially marketed as tools for interactive, user-driven visual experimentation with images and art characters. Unfortunately, a significant portion of these capabilities were directly linked to creating sexualized content.

For example, MagicEdit offered a tool for AI-powered virtual clothing changes, as well as a set of styles that made images of women more revealing after processing — such as replacing everyday clothes with swimwear or lingerie. Its promotional materials promised to turn an ordinary look into a sexy one in seconds.

DreamPal, for its part, was initially positioned as an AI-powered role-playing chat, and was even more explicit about its adult-oriented positioning. The site offered to create an ideal AI girlfriend, with certain pages directly referencing erotic content. The FAQ also noted that filters for explicit content in chats were disabled so as not to limit users’ most intimate fantasies.

Both services have suspended operations. At the time of writing, the DreamPal website returned an error, while MagicEdit seemed available again. Their apps were removed from both the App Store and Google Play.

Jeremiah Fowler says earlier in 2025, he discovered two more open databases containing AI-generated images. One belonged to the South Korean site GenNomis, and contained 95,000 entries — a substantial portion of which being images of “undressed” people. Among other things, the database included images with child versions of celebrities: American singers Ariana Grande and Beyoncé, and reality TV star Kim Kardashian.

How to avoid becoming a victim

In light of incidents like these, it’s clear that the risks associated with sextortion are no longer confined to private messaging or the exchange of intimate content. In the era of generative AI, even ordinary photos, when posted publicly, can be used to create compromising content.

This problem is especially relevant for women, but men shouldn’t get too comfortable either: the popular blackmail scheme of “I hacked your computer and used the webcam to make videos of you browsing adult sites” could reach a whole new level of persuasion thanks to AI tools for generating photos and videos.

Therefore, protecting your privacy on social media and controlling what data about you is publicly available become key measures for safeguarding both your reputation and peace of mind. To prevent your photos from being used to create questionable AI-generated content, we recommend making all your social media profiles as private as possible — after all, they could be the source of images for AI-generated nudes.

We’ve already published multiple detailed guides on how to reduce your digital footprint online or even remove your data from the internet, how to stop data brokers from compiling dossiers on you, and protect yourself from intimate image abuse.

Additionally, we have a dedicated service, Privacy Checker — perfect for anyone who wants a quick but systematic approach to privacy settings everywhere possible. It compiles step-by-step guides for securing accounts on social media and online services across all major platforms.

And to ensure the safety and privacy of your child’s data, Kaspersky Safe Kids can help: it allows parents to monitor which social media their child spends time on. From there, you can help them adjust privacy settings on their accounts so their posted photos aren’t used to create inappropriate content. Explore our guide to children’s online safety together, and if your child dreams of becoming a popular blogger, discuss our step-by-step cybersecurity guide for wannabe bloggers with them.

The life of a modern head of information security (also known as CISO – Chief Information Security Officer) is not just about fighting hackers. It’s also an endless quest that goes by the name of “compliance”. Regulators keep tightening the screws, standards pop up like mushrooms, and headaches only get worse; but wait… – there’s more: CISOs are responsible not only for their own perimeter, but what goes on outside it too: for their entire supply chain, all their contractors, and the whole hodge-podge of software their business processes run on. Though the logic here is solid, it’s also unfortunately ruthless: if a hole is found at your supplier, but the problems hit you, in the end it’s you who’s held accountable. This logic applies to security software too.

Back in the day, companies rarely thought about what was actually inside the security solutions and products they used. Now, however, businesses – especially large ones – want to know everything: what’s really inside the box? Who wrote the code? Is it going to break some critical function or could it even bring everything down? (We’ve seen such precedents; example: the Crowdstrike 2024 update incident.) Where and how is data processed? And these are the right questions to ask.

The problem lies in the fact that almost all customers trust their vendors to answer accurately when asked such questions – very often because they have no other choice. A more mature approach in today’s cyber-reality is to verify.

In corporate-speak this is called supply-chain trust, and trying to solve this puzzle on your own is a serious headache. You need help from vendors. A responsible vendor is ready to show what’s under the hood of its solutions, to open up the source code to partners and customers for review, and, in general, to earn trust not with nice slides but with solid, practical steps.

So who’s already doing this, and who’s still stuck in the past? A fresh, in-depth study from our colleagues in Europe has the answer. It was conducted by the respected testing lab AV-Comparatives, the Tyrol Chamber of Commerce (WKO), the MCI Entrepreneurial School, and the law firm Studio Legale Tremolada.

The main conclusion of the study is that the era of “black boxes” in cybersecurity is over. RIP. Amen. The future belongs to those who don’t hide their source code and vulnerability reports, and who give customers maximum choice when configuring their products. And the report clearly states who doesn’t just promise but actually delivers. Guess who!…

What a great guess! Yes – it’s us!

We give our customers something that is still, unfortunately, a rare and endangered species in the industry: transparency centers, source code reviews of our products, a detailed software bill of materials (SBOM), and the ability to check update history and control rollouts. And of course we provide everything that’s already become the industry standard. You can study all the details in the full “Transparency and Accountability in Cybersecurity” (TRACS) report, or in our summary. Below, I’ll walk through some of the most interesting bits.

Not mixing apples and oranges

TRACS reviewed 14 popular vendors and their EPP/EDR products – from Bitdefender and CrowdStrike to our EDR Optimum and WithSecure. The objective was to understand which vendors don’t just say “trust us”, but actually let you verify their claims. The study covered 60 criteria: from GDPR (General Data Protection Regulation – it’s a European study after all) compliance and ISO 27001 audits, to the ability to process all telemetry locally and access a product’s source code. But the authors decided not to give points for each category or form a single overall ranking.

Why? Because everyone has different threat models and risks. What is a feature for one may be a bug and a disaster for another. Take fast, fully automatic installation of updates. For a small business or a retail company with thousands of tiny independent branches, this is a blessing: they’d never have enough IT staff to manage all of that manually. But for a factory where a computer controls the conveyor it would be totally unacceptable. A defective update can bring a production line to a standstill, which in terms of business impact could be fatal (or at least worse than the recent Jaguar Land Rover cyberattack); here, every update needs to be tested first. It’s the same story with telemetry. A PR agency sends data from its computers to the vendor’s cloud to participate in detecting cyberthreats and get protection instantly. Perfect. A company that processes patients’ medical records or highly classified technical designs on its computers? Its telemetry settings would need to be reconsidered.

Ideally, each company should assign “weights” to every criterion, and calculate its own “compatibility rating” with EDR/EPP vendors. But one thing is obvious: whoever gives customers choices, wins.

Take file reputation analysis of suspicious files. It can work in two ways: through the vendor’s common cloud, or through a private micro-cloud within a single organization. Plus there’s the option to disable this analysis altogether and work completely offline. Very few vendors give customers all three options. For example, “on-premise” reputation analysis is available from only eight vendors in the test. It goes without saying we’re one of them.

Raising the bar

In every category of the test the situation is roughly the same as with the reputation service. Going carefully through all 45 pages of the report, we’re either ahead of our competitors or among the leaders. And we can proudly say that in roughly a third of the comparative categories we offer significantly better capabilities than most of our peers. See for yourself:

Visiting a transparency center and reviewing the source code? Verifying that the product binaries are built from this source code? Only three vendors in the test provide these things. And for one of them – it’s only for government customers. Our transparency centers are the most numerous and geographically spread out, and offer customers the widest range of options.

Downloading database updates and rechecking them? Only six players – including us – provide this.

Configuring multi-stage rollout of updates? This isn’t exactly rare, but it’s not widespread either – only seven vendors besides us support it.

Reading the results of an external security audit of the company? Only we and six other vendors are ready to share this with customers.

Breaking down a supply chain into separate links using an SBOM? This is rare too: you can request an SBOM from only three vendors. One of them is the green-colored company that happens to bear my name.

Of course, there are categories where everyone does well: all of them have successfully passed an ISO/IEC 27001 audit, comply with GDPR, follow secure development practices, and accept vulnerability reports.

Finally, there’s the matter of technical indicators. All products that work online send certain technical data about protected computers, and information about infected files. For many businesses this isn’t a problem, and they’re glad it improves effectiveness of protection. But for those seriously focused on minimizing data flows, AV-Comparatives measures those too – and we just so happen to collect the least amounts of telemetry compared to other vendors.

Practical conclusions

Thanks to the Austrian experts, CISOs and their teams now have a much simpler task ahead when checking their security vendors. And not just the 14 that were tested. The same framework can be applied to other security solution vendors and to software in general. But there are strategic conclusions too…

Transparency makes risk management easier. If you’re responsible for keeping a business running, you don’t want to guess whether your protection tool will become your weak point. You need predictability and accountability. The WKO and AV-Comparatives study confirms that our model reduces these risks and makes them manageable.

Evidence instead of slogans. In this business, it’s not enough to be able write “we are secure” on your website. You need audit mechanisms. The customer has to be able to drop by and verify things for themselves. We provide that. Others are still catching up.

Transparency and maturity go hand in hand. Vendors that are transparent for their customers usually also have more mature processes for product development, incident response, and vulnerability handling. Their products and services are more reliable.

Our approach to transparency (GTI) works. When we announced our initiative several years ago and opened Transparency Centers around the world, we heard all kinds of things from critics – like that it was a waste of money and that nobody needed it. Now independent European experts are saying that this is how a vendor should operate in 2025 and beyond.

It was a real pleasure reading this report. Not just because it praises us, but because the industry is finally turning in the right direction – toward transparency and accountability.

We started this trend, we’re leading it, and we’re going to keep pioneering within it. So, dear readers and users, don’t forget: trust is one thing; being able to fully verify is another.

Thanks to the convenience of NFC and smartphone payments, many people no longer carry wallets or remember their bank card PINs. All their cards reside in a payment app, and using that is quicker than fumbling for a physical card. Mobile payments are also secure — the technology was developed relatively recently and includes numerous anti-fraud protections. Still, criminals have invented several ways to abuse NFC and steal your money. Fortunately, protecting your funds is straightforward: just know about these tricks and avoid risky NFC usage scenarios.

What are NFC relay and NFCGate?

NFC relay is a technique where data wirelessly transmitted between a source (like a bank card) and a receiver (like a payment terminal) is intercepted by one intermediate device, and relayed in real time to another. Imagine you have two smartphones connected via the internet, each with a relay app installed. If you tap a physical bank card against the first smartphone and hold the second smartphone near a terminal or ATM, the relay app on the first smartphone will read the card’s signal using NFC, and relay it in real time to the second smartphone, which will then transmit this signal to the terminal. From the terminal’s perspective, it all looks like a real card is tapped on it — even though the card itself might physically be in another city or country.

This technology wasn’t originally created for crime. The NFCGate app appeared in 2015 as a research tool after it was developed by students at the Technical University of Darmstadt in Germany. It was intended for analyzing and debugging NFC traffic, as well as for education purposes and experiments with contactless technology. NFCGate was distributed as an open-source solution and used in academic and enthusiast circles.

Five years later, cybercriminals caught on to the potential of NFC relay and began modifying NFCGate by adding mods that allowed it to run through a malicious server, disguise itself as legitimate software, and perform social engineering scenarios.

What began as a research project morphed into the foundation for an entire class of attacks aimed at draining bank accounts without physical access to bank cards.

A history of misuse

The first documented attacks using a modified NFCGate occurred in late 2023 in the Czech Republic. By early 2025, the problem had become large scale  and noticeable: cybersecurity analysts uncovered more than 80 unique malware samples built on the NFCGate framework. The attacks evolved rapidly, with NFC relay capabilities being integrated into other malware components.

By February 2025, malware bundles combining CraxsRAT and NFCGate emerged, allowing attackers to install and configure the relay with minimal victim interaction. A new scheme, a so-called “reverse” version of NFCGate, appeared in spring 2025, fundamentally changing the attack’s execution.

Particularly noteworthy is the RatOn Trojan, first detected in the Czech Republic. It combines remote smartphone control with NFC relay capabilities, letting attackers target victims’ banking apps and cards through various technique combinations. Features like screen capture, clipboard data manipulation, SMS sending, and stealing info from crypto wallets and banking apps give criminals an extensive arsenal.

Cybercriminals have also packaged NFC relay technology into malware-as-a-service (MaaS) offerings, and reselling them to other threat actors through subscription. In early 2025, analysts uncovered a new and sophisticated Android malware campaign in Italy, dubbed SuperCard X. Attempts to deploy SuperCard X were recorded in Russia in May 2025, and in Brazil in August of the same year.

The direct NFCGate attack

The direct attack is the original criminal scheme exploiting NFCGate. In this scenario, the victim’s smartphone plays the role of the reader, while the attacker’s phone acts as the card emulator.

First, the fraudsters trick the user into installing a malicious app disguised as a banking service, a system update, an “account security” app, or even a popular app like TikTok. Once installed, the app gains access to both NFC and the internet — often without requesting dangerous permissions or root access. Some versions also ask for access to Android accessibility features.

Then, under the guise of identity verification, the victim is prompted to tap their bank card to their phone. When they do, the malware reads the card data via NFC and immediately sends it to the criminals’ server. From there, the information is relayed to a second smartphone held by a money mule, who helps extract the money. This phone then emulates the victim’s card to make payments at a terminal or withdraw cash from an ATM.

The fake app on the victim’s smartphone also asks for the card PIN — just like at a payment terminal or ATM — and sends it to the attackers.

In early versions of the attack, criminals would simply stand ready at an ATM with a phone to use the duped user’s card in real time. Later, the malware was refined so the stolen data could be used for in-store purchases in a delayed, offline mode, rather than in a live relay.

For the victim, the theft is hard to notice: the card never left their possession, they didn’t have to manually enter or recite its details, and the bank alerts about the withdrawals can be delayed or even intercepted by the malicious app itself.

Among the red flags that should make you suspect a direct NFC attack are:

• prompts to install apps not from official stores;
• requests to tap your bank card on your phone.

The reverse NFCGate attack

The reverse attack is a newer, more sophisticated scheme. The victim’s smartphone no longer reads their card — it emulates the attacker’s card. To the victim, everything appears completely safe: there’s no need to recite card details, share codes, or tap a card to the phone.

Just like with the direct scheme, it all starts with social engineering. The user gets a call or message convincing them to install an app for “contactless payments”, “card security”, or even “using central bank digital currency”. Once installed, the new app asks to be set as the default contactless payment method — and this step is critically important. Thanks to this, the malware requires no root access — just user consent.

The malicious app then silently connects to the attackers’ server in the background, and the NFC data from a card belonging to one of the criminals is transmitted to the victim’s device. This step is completely invisible to the victim.

Next, the victim is directed to an ATM. Under the pretext of “transferring money to a secure account” or “sending money to themselves”, they are instructed to tap their phone on the ATM’s NFC reader. At this moment, the ATM is actually interacting with the attacker’s card. The PIN is dictated to the victim beforehand — presented as “new” or “temporary”.

The result is that all the money deposited or transferred by the victim ends up in the criminals’ account.

The hallmarks of this attack are:

• requests to change your default NFC payment method;
• a “new” PIN;
• any scenario where you’re told to go to an ATM and perform actions there under someone else’s instructions.

How to protect yourself from NFC relay attacks

NFC relay attacks rely not so much on technical vulnerabilities as on user trust. Defending against them comes down to some simple precautions.

• Make sure you keep your trusted contactless payment method (like Google Pay or Samsung Pay) as the default.
• Never tap your bank card on your phone at someone else’s request, or because an app tells you to. Legitimate apps might use your camera to scan a card number, but they’ll never ask you to use the NFC reader for your own card.
• Never follow instructions from strangers at an ATM — no matter who they claim to be.
• Avoid installing apps from unofficial sources. This includes links sent via messaging apps, social media, SMS, or recommended during a phone call — even if they come from someone claiming to be customer support or the police.
• Use comprehensive security on your Android smartphones to block scam calls, prevent visits to phishing sites, and stop malware installation.
• Stick to official app stores only. When downloading from a store, check the app’s reviews, number of downloads, publication date, and rating.
• When using an ATM, rely on your physical card instead of your smartphone for the transaction.
• Make it a habit to regularly check the “Payment default” setting in your phone’s NFC menu. If you see any suspicious apps listed, remove them immediately and run a full security scan on your device.
• Review the list of apps with accessibility permissions — this is a feature commonly abused by malware. Either revoke these permissions for any suspicious apps, or uninstall the apps completely.
• Save the official customer service numbers for your banks in your phone’s contacts. At the slightest hint of foul play, call your bank’s hotline directly without delay.
• If you suspect your card details may have been compromised, block the card immediately.

The outgoing year of 2025 has significantly transformed our access to the Web and the ways we navigate it. Radical new laws, the rise of AI assistants, and websites scrambling to block AI bots are reshaping the internet right before our eyes. So what do you need to know about these changes, and what skills and habits should you bring with you into 2026? As is our tradition, we’re framing this as eight New Year’s resolutions. What are we pledging for 2026?…

Get to know your local laws

Last year was a bumper crop for legislation that seriously changed the rules of the internet for everyday users. Lawmakers around the world have been busy:

• Banning social media for teens
• Introducing strict age verification (think scanning your ID) procedures to visit certain categories of websites
• Requiring explicit parental consent for minors to access many online services
• Applying pressure through blocks and lawsuits against platforms that wouldn’t comply with existing child protection laws — with Roblox finding itself in a particularly bright spotlight

Your best bet is to get news from sites that report calmly and without sensationalism, and to review legal experts’ commentaries. You need to understand what obligations fall on you, and, if you have underage children — what changes for them.

You might face difficult conversations with your kids about new rules for using social media or games. It’s crucial that teenage rebellion doesn’t lead to dangerous mistakes such as installing malware disguised as a “restriction-bypassing mod”, or migrating to small, unmoderated social networks. Safeguarding the younger generation requires reliable protection on their computers and smartphones, alongside parental control tools.

But it’s not just about simple compliance with laws. You’ll almost certainly encounter negative side effects that lawmakers didn’t anticipate.

Master new methods of securing access

Some websites choose to geoblock certain countries entirely to avoid the complexities of complying with regional regulations. If you’re certain your local laws allow access to the content, you can bypass these geoblocks by using a VPN. You need to select a server in a country where the site is accessible.

It’s important to choose a service that doesn’t just offer servers in the right locations, but actually enhances your privacy — as many free VPNs can effectively compromise it. We recommend Kaspersky VPN Secure Connection.

Brace for document leaks

While age verification can be implemented in different ways, it often involves websites using a third-party verification service. On your first login attempt, you’ll be redirected to a separate site to complete one of several checks: take a photo of your ID or driver’s license, use a bank card, or nod and smile for a video, and so on.

The mere idea of presenting a passport to access adult websites is deeply unpopular with many people on principle. But beyond that, there’s a serious risk of data leaks. These incidents are already a reality: data breaches have impacted a contractor used to verify Discord users, as well as service providers for TikTok and Uber. The more websites that require this verification, the higher the risk of a leak becomes.

So what can you do?

• Prioritize services that don’t require document uploads. Instead, look for those utilizing alternative age verification methods such as a micro-transaction charge to a payment card, confirmation through your bank or another trusted external provider, or behavioral/biometric analysis.
• Pick the least sensitive and easiest-to-replace document you have, and use only that one for all verifications. “Least sensitive” in this case means containing minimal personal data, and not referencing other primary identifiers like a national ID number.
• Use a separate, dedicated email address and phone number in combination with that document. For the sites and services that don’t verify your identity, use completely different contact details. This makes it much harder for your data to be easily pieced together from different leaks.

Learn scammers’ new playbook

It’s highly likely that under the guise of “age verification”, scammers will begin phishing for personal and payment data, and pushing malware onto visitors. After all, it’s very tempting to simply copy and paste some text on your computer instead of uploading a photo of your passport. Currently, ClickFix attacks are mostly disguised as CAPTCHA checks, but age verification is the logical next step for these schemes. How to lower these risks?

• Carefully check any websites that require verification. Do not complete the verification if you’ve already done it for that service before, or if you landed on the verification page via a link from a messaging app, search engine, or ad.
• Never download apps or copy and paste text for verification. All legitimate services operate within the browser window, though sometimes desktop users are asked to switch to a smartphone to complete the check.
• Analyze and be suspicious of any situation that requires entering a code received via a messaging app or SMS to access a website or confirm an action. This is often a scheme to hijack your messaging account or another critical service.
• Install reliable security software on all your computers and smartphones to help block access to scam sites. We recommend Kaspersky Premium — it provides: a secure VPN, malware protection, alerts if your personal data appears in public leaks, a password manager, parental controls, and much more.

Cultivate healthy AI usage habits

Even if you’re not a fan of AI, you’ll find it hard to avoid: it’s literally being shoved into each everyday service: Android, Chrome, MS Office, Windows, iOS, Creative Cloud… the list is endless. As with fast food, television, TikTok, and other easily accessible conveniences, the key is striking a balance between the healthy use of these assistants and developing an addiction.

Identify the areas where your mental sharpness and personal growth matter most to you. A person who doesn’t run regularly lowers their fitness level. Someone who always uses GPS navigation gets worse at reading paper maps. Wherever you value the work of your mind, offloading it to AI is a path to losing your edge. Maintain a balance: regularly do that mental work yourself — even if AI can do it well — from translating text to looking up info on Wikipedia. You don’t have to do it all the time, but remember to do it at least some of the time. For a more radical approach, you can also disable AI services wherever possible.

Know where the cost of a mistake is high. Despite developers’ best efforts, AI can sometimes deliver completely wrong answers with total confidence. These so-called hallucinations are unlikely to be fully eradicated anytime soon. Therefore, for important documents and critical decisions, either avoid using AI entirely, or scrutinize its output with extreme care. Check every number, every comma.

In other areas, feel free to experiment with AI. But even for seemingly harmless uses, remember that mistakes and hallucinations are a real possibility.

How to lower the risk of leaks. The more you use AI, the more of your information goes to the service provider. Whenever possible, prioritize AI features that run entirely on your device. This category includes things like the protection against fraudulent sites in Chrome, text translation in Firefox, the rewriting assistant in iOS, and so on. You can even run a full-fledged chatbot locally on your own computer.

AI agents need close supervision. The agentic capabilities of AI — where it doesn’t just suggest but actively does work for you — are especially risky. Thoroughly research the risks in this area before trusting an agent with online shopping or booking a vacation. And use modes where the assistant asks for your confirmation before entering personal data — let alone buying anything.

Audit your subscriptions and plans

The economics of the internet is shifting right before our eyes. The AI arms race is driving up the cost of components and computing power, tariffs and geopolitical conflicts are disrupting supply chains, and baking AI features into familiar products sometimes comes with a price hike. Practically any online service can get more expensive overnight — sometimes by double-digit percentages. Some providers are taking a different route, moving away from a fixed monthly fee to a pay-per-use model for things like songs downloaded or images generated.

To avoid nasty surprises when you check your bank statement, make it a habit to review the terms of all your paid subscriptions at least three or four times a year. You might find that a service has updated its plans and that you need to downgrade to a simpler one. Or a service might have quietly signed you up for an extra feature you’re not even aware of — and you need to disable it. Some services might be better switched to a free tier or canceled altogether. Financial literacy is becoming a must-have skill for managing your digital spending.

To get a complete picture of your subscriptions and truly understand how much you’re spending on digital services each month or year, it’s best to track them all in one place. A simple Excel or Google Docs spreadsheet works, but a dedicated app like SubsCrab is more convenient. It sends reminders for upcoming payments, shows all your spending month-by-month, and can even help you find better deals on the same or similar services.

Prioritize the longevity of your tech

The allure of powerful new processors, cameras, and AI features might tempt you to buy a new smartphone or laptop in 2026, but planning for making it last for several years should be a priority. There are a few reasons…

First, the pace of meaningful new features has slowed, and the urge to upgrade frequently has diminished for many. Second, gadget prices have risen significantly due to more expensive chips, labor, and shipping — making major purchases harder to justify. Furthermore, regulations like those in the EU now require easily replaceable batteries in new devices, meaning the part that wears out the fastest in a phone will be simpler and cheaper to swap out yourself.

So, what does it take to make sure your smartphone or laptop reliably lasts several years?

• Physical protection. Use cases, screen protectors, and maybe even a waterproof pouch.
• Proper storage. Avoid extreme temperatures, don’t leave it baking in direct sun or freezing overnight in a car at -15°C.
• Battery care. Avoid regularly draining it to single-digit percentages.
• Regular software updates. This is the trickiest part. Updates are essential for security to protect your phone or laptop from new types of attacks. However, updates can sometimes cause slowdowns, overheating, or battery drain. The prudent approach is to wait about a week after a major OS update, check feedback from users of your exact model, and only install it if the coast seems clear.

Secure your smart home

The smart home is giving way to a new concept: the intelligent home. The idea is that neural networks will help your home make its own decisions about what to do and when, all for your convenience — without needing pre-programmed routines. Thanks to the Matter 1.3 standard, a smart home can now manage not just lights, TVs, and locks, but also kitchen appliances, dryers, and even EV chargers! Even more importantly, we’re seeing a rise in devices where Matter over Thread is the native, primary communication protocol, like the new IKEA KAJPLATS lineup. Matter-powered devices from different vendors can see and communicate with each other. This means you can, say, buy an Apple HomePod as your smart home central hub and connect Philips Hue bulbs, Eve Energy plugs, and IKEA BILRESA switches to it.

All of this means that smart and intelligent homes will become more common — and so will the ways to attack them. We have a detailed article on smart home security, but here are a few key tips relevant in light of the transition to Matter.

• Consolidate your devices into a single Matter fabric. Use the minimum number of controllers, for example, one Apple TV + one smartphone. If a TV or another device accessible to many household members acts as a controller, be sure to use password security and other available restrictions for critical functions.
• Choose a hub and controller from major manufacturers with a serious commitment to security.
• Minimize the number of devices connecting your Matter fabric to the internet. These devices — referred to as Border Routers — must be well-protected from external cyberattacks, for example, by restricting their access at the level of your home internet router.
• Regularly audit your home network for any suspicious, unknown devices. In your Matter fabric, this is done via your controller or hub, and in your home network — via your primary router or a feature like Smart Home Monitor in Kaspersky Premium.

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.

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

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.

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”.

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.

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

Our experts from the Global Research and Analysis Team (GReAT) have investigated a new wave of targeted emails from the ForumTroll APT group. Whereas previously their malicious emails were sent to public addresses of organizations, this time the attackers have targeted specific individuals — scientists from Russian universities and other organizations specializing in political science, international relations, and global economics. The purpose of the campaign was to infect victims’ computers with malware to gain remote access thereto.

What the malicious email looks like

The attackers sent the emails from the address support@e-library{.}wiki, which imitates the address of the scientific electronic library eLibrary (its real domain is elibrary.ru). The emails contained personalized links to a report on the plagiarism check of some material, which, according to the attackers’ plan, was supposed to be of interest to scientists.

In reality, the link downloaded an archive from the same e-library{.}wiki domain. Inside was a malicious .lnk file and a .Thumbs directory with some images that were apparently needed to bypass security technologies. The victim’s full name was used in the filenames of the archive and the malicious link-file.

In case the victim had doubts about the legitimacy of the email and visited the e-library{.}wiki page, they were shown a slightly outdated copy of the real website.

What happens if the victim clicks on the malicious link

If the scientist who received the email clicked on the file with the .lnk extension, a malicious PowerShell script was executed on their computer, triggering a chain of infection. As a result, the attackers installed a commercial framework Tuoni for red teams on the attacked machine, providing the attackers with remote access and other opportunities for further compromising the system. In addition, the malware used COM Hijacking to achieve persistency, and downloaded and displayed a decoy PDF file, the name of which also included the victim’s full name. The file itself, however, was not personalized — it was a rather vague report in the format of one of the Russian plagiarism detection systems.

Interestingly, if the victim tried to open the malicious link from a device running on a system that didn’t support PowerShell, they were prompted to try again from a Windows computer. A more detailed technical analysis of the attack, along with indicators of compromise, can be found in a post on the Securelist website.

How to stay safe

The malware used in this attack is successfully detected and blocked by Kaspersky’s security products. We recommend installing a reliable security solution not only on all devices used by employees to access the internet, but also on the organization's mail gateway, which can stop most threats delivered via email before they reach an employee’s device.

Admit it: you’ve been meaning to jump on the latest NFT reincarnation — Telegram Gifts — but just haven’t gotten around to it. It’s the hottest trend right now. Developers are churning out collectible images in partnership with celebs like Snoop Dogg. All your friends’ profiles are already decked out with these modish pictures, and you’re dying to hop on this hype train — but pay as little as possible for it.

And then it happens — a stranger messages you privately with a generous offer: a chance to snag a couple of these digital gifts — with no investment required. A bot that looks completely legit is running an airdrop. In the world of NFTs, an airdrop is a promotional stunt where a small number of new crypto assets are given away for free. The buzzword has been adopted on Telegram, thanks to the crypto nature of these gifts and the NFT mechanics running under the hood.

They’re offering you these gift images for free — or so they say. You could later attach them to your profile or sell them for Telegram’s native currency, Toncoin. You don’t even have to tap an external link. Just hit a button in the message, launch a Mini App right inside Telegram itself, and enter your login credentials. And then… your account immediately gets hijacked. You won’t get any gifts, and overall, you’ll be left with anything but a celebratory feeling.

Today, we break down a phishing scheme that exploits Telegram’s built-in Mini Apps, and share tips to help you avoid falling for these attacks.

How the new phishing scheme works

The principle of classic phishing is straightforward: the user gets a link to a fake website that mimics a legitimate sign-in form. When the victim enters their credentials, this data goes straight to the scammer. However, phishing tactics are constantly evolving, and this new attack method is far more insidious.

The bad actors create phishing Mini Apps directly inside Telegram. These appear as standard web pages but are embedded within the messaging app’s interface instead of opening in an external browser. To the user, these apps look completely legitimate. After all, they run within the official Telegram app itself.

This leads the victim to think, “If this app runs inside Telegram, there must be some kind of vetting process for these apps. Surely they wouldn’t let an obvious scam through?” In practice, it turns out that’s not the case at all.

How is this scheme even a thing?

A core security issue with Telegram Mini Apps is that the platform does almost no vetting before an app goes live. This is a world apart from the strict review processes used by Google Play and the App Store — although even there, obvious malware occasionally slips through.

On Telegram, it’s far easier for bad actors. Essentially, anyone who wishes to create and launch a Mini App can do so. Telegram does not review the code, functionality, or the developer’s intent. This turns a security flaw within a messaging service boasting nearly a billion global users into a global-scale problem. To make matters worse, moderation of these Mini Apps within Telegram is entirely reactive — meaning action is only taken after users start complaining or law enforcement gets involved.

In this case, the bait was “gifts” from UFC fighters: a giveaway of “papakhas” — digital gift images of the traditional Dagestani hat released by Telegram in partnership with Khabib Nurmagomedov. An auction for these items did take place, with Pavel Durov even posting about it on his X and Telegram (Khabib reposted these announcements but later deleted them after the auction ended). However, there were only 29 000 of these “papakhas” released, which wasn’t enough to satisfy all the eager fans. Scammers seized on the opportunity, assuring fans they could get the exclusive items for free. The phishing campaign was a targeted one — focusing on users who’d been active on the athlete’s channel.

How the scammers lull their victims

The criminals leveraged the name of the popular Portals platform — a legitimate service for games, apps, and entertainment within Telegram. They created a series of Mini Apps that were visually almost indistinguishable from the real ones, and promoted them as free giveaways — airdrops.

That said, the scam campaigns themselves show signs of being rushed and cutting design and copywriting costs — with obvious signs of AI involvement. Some of the messages contain leftover text fragments clearly generated by a neural network, which the scammers either forgot or couldn’t be bothered to edit.

How to protect your Telegram account from being hacked

The golden security rules are simple: stay vigilant, and learn the key hallmarks of these attacks:

• Verify the source. If you receive a link promising a giveaway from a celebrity or even Telegram itself but sent from an unfamiliar account or a dubious group, don’t click. Cross-check through the celebrity or company’s official channel to see if they’re actually running a promo like that.
• Inspect the account verification badge. Ascertain that the blue checkmark is real and not just an emoji status or part of the profile name. You can verify this by simply tapping that checkmark icon in the profile. If it’s a Premium emoji status, Telegram will explicitly tell you so. If a checkmark emoji is simply added to the profile name, tapping it doesn’t do anything. But if the account is genuinely verified, tapping the blue checkmark will bring up an official confirmation message from Telegram.
• Don’t be in a rush to authenticate in Mini Apps. Legitimate Telegram apps typically don’t require you to sign in again through a form inside the Mini App. If you’re prompted to enter your phone number or a verification code, it’s likely a phishing attempt.
• Look for signs of AI-generated text or design. Weird grammar, unnatural phrasing, or leftover neural network prompts within a message are a red flag. Scammers frequently use AI-powered generation to churn out text quickly and cheaply.
• Turn on two-step verification (your Telegram password). Do this right now in Settings → Privacy and Security → Two-Step Verification. Even if a scammer manages to get your phone number and SMS code, they won’t be able to access your account without this password. Obviously, never share your password with anyone — it’s meant only for you to sign in to your Telegram account.
• Use a passkey to secure your account. A recent Telegram update added the ability to securely sign in with a passkey. We’ve covered using passkeys with popular services and the associated caveats in detail. A passkey makes it nearly impossible for a malicious actor to steal your account. You can set one up in Settings → Privacy and Security → Passkeys.
• Store your password and passkey in a password manager. If you’ve secured your account with both a password and a passkey, remember that a weak, reused, or compromised password can still be the proverbial “spare key under the mat” for attackers — even if the “front door” is locked with a passkey. Therefore, we recommend creating a strong, unique password for Telegram and storing it — along with your passkey — in Kaspersky Password Manager. This keeps your credentials and keys available across all your devices.
• Install Kaspersky for Android on your smartphone. Its new anti-phishing technology protects you from phishing links embedded in notifications from any app.

What to do if your Telegram account was already stolen

The key is keeping calm and acting swiftly. You have just 24 hours to reclaim your account, or you risk losing it permanently. Follow the step-by-step guide to restoring access in our post What to do if your Telegram account is hacked.

Finally, a reminder that has become our classic mantra: if an offer looks too good to be true, it almost certainly is. Always verify information through official channels, and never enter your passwords or passkeys into unofficial apps or forms — even if they look legit. Stay vigilant and stay safe.

Want more tips on securing your messenger accounts and chats? Check out our related posts:

• Messengers 101: safety and privacy advice
• Messaging other platforms via WhatsApp: the pros and cons
• WhatsApp and Telegram account hijacking: How to protect yourself against scams
• What to do if your WhatsApp account gets hacked
• What to do if your Telegram account is hacked

Attackers often go after outdated and unused test accounts, or stumble upon publicly accessible cloud storage containing critical data that’s a bit dusty. Sometimes an attack exploits a vulnerability in an app component that was actually patched, say, two years ago. As you read these breach reports, a common theme emerges: the attacks leveraged something outdated: a service, a server, a user account… Pieces of corporate IT infrastructure that sometimes fall off the radar of IT and security teams. They become, in essence, unmanaged, useless, and simply forgotten. These IT zombies create risks for information security, regulatory compliance, and lead to unnecessary operational costs. This is generally an element of shadow IT — with one key difference: nobody wants, knows about, or benefits from these assets.

In this post, we try to identify which assets demand immediate attention, how to identify them, and what a response should look like.

Physical and virtual servers

Priority: high. Vulnerable servers are entry points for cyberattacks, and they continue consuming resources while creating regulatory compliance risks.

Prevalence: high. Physical and virtual servers are commonly orphaned in large infrastructures following migration projects, or after mergers and acquisitions. Test servers no longer used after IT projects go live, as well as web servers for outdated projects running without a domain, are also frequently forgotten. The scale of the problem is illustrated by Lets Encrypt statistics: in 2024, half of domain renewal requests came from devices no longer associated with the requested domain. And there are roughly a million of these devices in the world.

Detection: the IT department needs to implement an Automated Discovery and Reconciliation (AD&R) process that combines the results of network scanning and cloud inventory with data from the Configuration Management Database (CMDB). It enables the timely identification of outdated or conflicting information about IT assets, and helps locate the forgotten assets themselves.

This data should be supplemented by external vulnerability scans that cover all of the organization’s public IPs.

Response: establish a formal, documented process for decommissioning/retiring servers. This process needs to include verification of complete data migration, and verified subsequent destruction of data on the server. Following these steps, the server can be powered down, recycled, or repurposed. Until all procedures are complete, the server needs to be moved to a quarantined, isolated subnet.

To mitigate this issue for test environments, implement an automated process for their creation and decommission. A test environment should be created at the start of a project, and dismantled after a set period or following a certain duration of inactivity. Strengthen the security of test environments by enforcing their strict isolation from the primary (production) environment, and by prohibiting the use of real, non-anonymized business data in testing.

Forgotten user, service, and device accounts

Priority: critical. Inactive and privileged accounts are prime targets for attackers seeking to establish network persistence or expand their access within the infrastructure.

Prevalence: very high. Technical service accounts, contractor accounts, and non-personalized accounts are among the most commonly forgotten.

Detection: conduct regular analysis of the user directory (Active Directory in most organizations) to identify all types of accounts that have seen no activity over a defined period (a month, quarter, or year). Concurrently, it’s advisable to review the permissions assigned to each account, and remove any that are excessive or unnecessary.

Response: after checking with the relevant service owner on the business side or employee supervisor, outdated accounts should be simply deactivated or deleted. A comprehensive Identity and Access Management system (IAM) offers a scalable solution to this problem. In this system, the creation, deletion, and permission assignment for accounts are tightly integrated with HR processes.

For service accounts, it’s also essential to routinely review both the strength of passwords, and the expiration dates for access tokens — rotating them as necessary.

Forgotten data stores

Priority: critical. Poorly controlled data in externally accessible databases, cloud storage and recycle bins, and corporate file-sharing services — even “secure” ones — has been a key source of major breaches in 2024–2025. The data exposed in these leaks often includes document scans, medical records, and personal information. Consequently, these security incidents also lead to penalties for non-compliance with regulations such as HIPAA, GDPR, and other data-protection frameworks governing the handling of personal and confidential data.

Prevalence: high. Archive data, data copies held by contractors, legacy database versions from previous system migrations — all of these often remain unaccounted for and accessible for years (even decades) in many organizations.

Detection: given the vast variety of data types and storage methods, a combination of tools is essential for discovery:

• Native audit subsystems within major vendor platforms, such as AWS Macie, and Microsoft Purview
• Specialized Data Discovery and Data Security Posture Management solutions
• Automated analysis of inventory logs, such as S3 Inventory

Unfortunately, these tools are of limited use if a contractor creates a data store within its own infrastructure. Controlling that situation requires contractual stipulations granting the organization’s security team access to the relevant contractor storage, supplemented by threat intelligence services capable of detecting any publicly exposed or stolen datasets associated with the company’s brand.

Response: analyze access logs and integrate the discovered storage into your DLP and CASB tools to monitor its usage — or to confirm it’s truly abandoned. Use available tools to securely isolate access to the storage. If necessary, create a secure backup, then delete the data. At the organizational policy level, it’s crucial to establish retention periods for different data types, mandating their automatic archiving and deletion upon expiry. Policies must also define procedures for registering new storage systems, and explicitly prohibit the existence of ownerless data that’s accessible without restrictions, passwords, or encryption.

Unused applications and services on servers

Priority: medium. Vulnerabilities in these services increase the risk of successful cyberattacks, complicate patching efforts, and waste resources.

Prevalence: very high. services are often enabled by default during server installation, remain after testing and configuration work, and continue to run long after the business process they supported has become obsolete.

Detection: through regular audits of software configurations. For effective auditing, servers should adhere to a role-based access model, with each server role having a corresponding list of required software. In addition to the CMDB, a broad spectrum of tools helps with this audit: tools like OpenSCAP and Lynis — focused on policy compliance and system hardening; multi-purpose tools like OSQuery; vulnerability scanners such as OpenVAS; and network traffic analyzers.

Response: conduct a scheduled review of server functions with their business owners. Any unnecessary applications or services found running should be disabled. To minimize such occurrences, implement the principle of least privilege organization-wide and deploy hardened base images or server templates for standard server builds. This ensures no superfluous software is installed or enabled by default.

Outdated APIs

Priority: high. APIs are frequently exploited by attackers to exfiltrate large volumes of sensitive data, and to gain initial access into the organization. In 2024, the number of API-related attacks increased by 41%, with attackers specifically targeting outdated APIs, as these often provide data with fewer checks and restrictions. This was exemplified by the leak of 200 million records from X/Twitter.

Prevalence: high. When a service transitions to a new API version, the old one often remains operational for an extended period, particularly if it’s still used by customers or partners. These deprecated versions are typically no longer maintained, so security flaws and vulnerabilities in their components go unpatched.

Detection: at the WAF or NGFW level, it’s essential to monitor traffic to specific APIs. This helps detect anomalies that may indicate exploitation or data exfiltration, and also identify APIs that get minimal traffic.

Response: for the identified low-activity APIs, collaborate with business stakeholders to develop a decommissioning plan, and migrate any remaining users to newer versions.

For organizations with a large pool of services, this challenge is best addressed with an API management platform in conjunction with a formally approved API lifecycle policy. This policy should include well-defined criteria for deprecating and retiring outdated software interfaces.

Software with outdated dependencies and libraries

Priority: high. This is where large-scale, critical vulnerabilities like Log4Shell hide, leading to organizational compromise and regulatory compliance issues.

Prevalence: Very high, especially in large-scale enterprise management systems, industrial automation systems, and custom-built software.

Detection: use a combination of vulnerability management (VM/CTEM) systems and software composition analysis (SCA) tools. For in-house development, it’s mandatory to use scanners and comprehensive security systems integrated into the CI/CD pipeline to prevent software from being built with outdated components.

Response: company policies must require IT and development teams to systematically update software dependencies. When building internal software, dependency analysis should be part of the code review process. For third-party software, it’s crucial to regularly audit the status and age of dependencies.

For external software vendors, updating dependencies should be a contractual requirement affecting support timelines and project budgets. To make these requirements feasible, it’s essential to maintain an up-to-date software bill of materials (SBOM).

You can read more about timely and effective vulnerability remediation in a separate blog post.

Forgotten websites

Priority: medium. Forgotten web assets can be exploited by attackers for phishing, hosting malware, or running scams under the organization’s brand, damaging its reputation. In more serious cases, they can lead to data breaches, or serve as a launchpad for attacks against the given company. A specific subset of this problem involves forgotten domains that were used for one-time activities, expired, and weren’t renewed — making them available for purchase by anyone.

Prevalence: high — especially for sites launched for short-term campaigns or one-off internal activities.

Detection: the IT department must maintain a central registry of all public websites and domains, and verify the status of each with its owners on a monthly or quarterly basis. Additionally, scanners or DNS monitoring can be utilized to track domains associated with the company’s IT infrastructure. Another layer of protection is provided by threat intelligence services, which can independently detect any websites associated with the organization’s brand.

Response: establish a policy for scheduled website shutdown after a fixed period following the end of its active use. Implement an automated DNS registration and renewal system to prevent the loss of control over the company’s domains.

Unused network devices

Priority: high. Routers, firewalls, surveillance cameras, and network storage devices that are connected but left unmanaged and unpatched make for the perfect attack launchpad. These forgotten devices often harbor vulnerabilities, and almost never have proper monitoring — no EDR or SIEM integration — yet they hold a privileged position in the network, giving hackers an easy gateway to escalate attacks on servers and workstations.

Prevalence: medium. Devices get left behind during office moves, network infrastructure upgrades, or temporary workspace setups.

Detection: use the same network inventory tools mentioned in the forgotten servers section, as well as regular physical audits to compare network scans against what’s actually plugged in. Active network scanning can uncover entire untracked network segments and unexpected external connections.

Response: ownerless devices can usually be pulled offline immediately. But beware: cleaning them up requires the same care as scrubbing servers — to prevent leaks of network settings, passwords, office video footage, and so on.

Imagine: a user lands on a scam site, decides to make a purchase, and enters their bank card details, name, and address. Guess what happens next? If you think the attackers simply grab the cash and disappear — think again. Unfortunately, it’s much more complicated. In reality, the information enters a massive shadow-market pipeline, where victims’ data circulates for years, changing hands and being reused in new attacks.

At Kaspersky, we’ve studied the journey data takes after a phishing attack: who gets it, how it’s sorted, resold, and used on the shadow market. In this article, we map the route of stolen data, and explain how to protect yourself if you’ve already encountered phishing, or if you want to avoid it in the future. You can read the detailed report complete with technical insights on Securelist.

Harvesting data

Phishing sites are carefully disguised to look legitimate — sometimes the visual design, user interface, and even the domain name are almost indistinguishable from the real thing. To steal data, attackers typically employ HTML forms prompting users to enter their login credentials, payment card details, or other sensitive information.

As soon as the user hits Sign In or Pay, the information is instantly dispatched to the cybercrooks. Some malicious campaigns don’t harvest data directly through a phishing site but instead abuse legitimate services like Google Forms to hide the final destination server.

The stolen data is typically transmitted in one of three ways — or a combination of them:

• Email. This method is less common today due to possible delays or bans.
• Telegram bots. The attackers receive the information instantly. Most of these bots are disposable, which makes them hard to track.
• Admin panels. Cybercriminals can use specialized software to harvest and sort data, view statistics, and even automatically verify the stolen information.

What kind of data are phishers after?

The range of data sought by cybercriminals is quite extensive.

• Personal data: phone numbers, full names, email, registration and residential addresses. This information can be used to craft targeted attacks. People often fall for scams precisely because the attackers possess a large amount of personal information — addressing them by name, knowing where they live, and which services they use.
• Documents: data and scans of social security cards, driver licenses, insurance and tax IDs, and so on. Criminals use these for identity theft, applying for loans, and verifying identity when logging into banks or e-government portals.
• Credentials: logins, passwords, and one-time 2FA codes.
• Biometrics: face scans, fingerprints, and voice samples used to generate deepfakes or bypass two-factor authentication.
• Payment details: bank card and cryptocurrency wallet details.
• And much more.

According to our research, the vast majority (88.5%) of phishing attacks conducted from January through September 2025 targeted online account credentials, and 9.5% were attempts to obtain users’ personal data, such as names, addresses, and dates. Finally, 2% of phishing attacks were focused on stealing bank card details.

What happens to the stolen data next?

Not all stolen data is directly used by the attackers to transfer money to their own accounts. In fact, the data is seldom used instantly; more commonly, it finds its way onto the shadow market, reaching analysts and data brokers. A typical journey looks something like this.

1. Bulk sale of data

Raw data sets are bundled into massive archives and offered in bulk on dark web forums. These dumps often contain junk or outdated information, which is why they’re relatively cheap — starting at around US$50.

2. Data sorting and verification

These archives are purchased by hackers who act as analysts. They categorize datasets and verify the validity of the data by checking if the login credentials work for the specified services, if they are reused on other sites, and if they match any data from past breaches. For targeted attacks, cybercriminals compile a digital dossier. It stores information gathered from both recent and older attacks — essentially a spreadsheet of data ready to be used in hacks.

3. Resale of verified data

The sorted datasets are offered for sale again, now at a higher price — and not only on the dark web but also on the more familiar Telegram.

According to Kaspersky Digital Footprint Intelligence, account prices are driven by a large number of factors: account age, 2FA authentication, linked bank cards, and service userbase. It’s no surprise that the most expensive and in-demand commodity on this market is access to bank accounts and crypto wallets.

Category	Price, US$	Average price, US$
Crypto platforms	60–400	105
Banks	70–2000	350
E-government portals	15–2000	82.5
Social media	0.4–279	3
Messaging apps	0.065–150	2.5
Online stores	10–50	20
Games and gaming platforms	1–50	6
Global internet portals	0.2–2	0.9
Personal documents	0.5–125	15

4. Repeat attacks

Once a cybercriminal purchases a victim’s digital dossier, they can plan their next attack. They might use open-source intelligence to find out where the person works, and then craft a convincing email impersonating their boss. Alternatively, they could hack a social media profile, extract compromising photos, and demand a ransom for their return. However, rest assured that nearly all threatening or extortion emails are just a scare tactic by scammers.

Cybercriminals also use compromised accounts to send further phishing emails and malicious links to the victim’s contacts. So, if you receive a message asking you to vote for a niece in a contest, lend money, or click on a suspicious link, you have every reason to be wary.

What to do if your data has been stolen

1. First, recall what information you entered on the phishing site. If you provided payment card details, call your bank immediately and have the cards blocked. If you entered a login and password that you use for other accounts, change those passwords right away. A password manager can help you create and store strong, unique passwords.
2. Enable two-factor authentication (2FA) wherever possible. For more details on what 2FA is and how to use it, read our guide. When choosing a 2FA method, it’s best to avoid SMS, as one-time codes sent via a text can be intercepted. Ideally, use an authenticator app, such as Kaspersky Password Manager, to generate one-time codes.
3. Check the active sessions (the list of logged-in devices) in your important accounts. If you see a device or IP address you don’t recognize, terminate that session immediately. Then change your password and set up two-factor authentication.

How to guard against phishing

• Don’t click on links in emails or messages without first scanning them with a security solution.
• If you receive a suspicious email, always check the sender’s address to see if you’ve had any contact with that person before. If someone claims to represent a government authority or company, be sure to compare the domain the email was sent from with the domain of the organization’s official website. No official correspondence should ever come from a free email service.
• Use an authenticator app for two-factor authentication.
• Create hack-resistant passwords. Our research shows that hackers can crack almost 60% of all passwords in the world in less than an hour. Alternatively, consider switching to passkeys, which offer much stronger account protection, but keep in mind that they come with their own caveats.
• Remember: using the same password for multiple services is a critical mistake. This is exactly what malicious actors exploit. Even if you’ve never fallen for a phishing scam, your passwords and data can still end up in data breaches, as cyberattackers target not just individuals but entire companies. This year, the Identity Theft Resource Center has already recorded over two thousand data breaches. To minimize the risks, create a unique and strong password for every account. You don’t have to — and actually can’t — memorize them all. It’s better to use a password manager, which generates and securely stores complex passwords, syncs them across all your devices, auto-fills them on websites and in apps, and alerts you if any of your credentials appear in a known data breach.

More on phishing and scams:

• How phishers and scammers use AI
• Phishing 101: what to do if you get a phishing email
• Email extortion: how scammers use blackmail
• Telegram scams with bots, gifts, and crypto
• Et cetera

South Korean law enforcement has arrested four suspects linked to the breach of approximately 120 000 IP cameras installed in private homes and commercial spaces — including karaoke lounges, pilates studios, and a gynecology clinic. Two of the hackers sold sexually explicit footage from the cameras through a foreign adult website. In this post, we explain what IP cameras are, and where their vulnerabilities lie. We also dive into the details of the South Korea incident and share practical advice on how to avoid becoming a target for attackers hunting for intimate video content.

How do IP cameras work?

An IP camera is a video camera connected to the internet via the Internet Protocol (IP), which lets you view its feed remotely on a smartphone or computer. Unlike traditional CCTV surveillance systems, these cameras don’t require a local surveillance hub — like you see in the movies — or even a dedicated computer to be plugged into. An IP camera streams video directly in real time to any device that connects to it over the internet. Most of today’s IP camera manufacturers also offer optional cloud storage plans, letting you access recorded footage from anywhere in the world.

In recent years, IP cameras have surged in popularity to become ubiquitous, serving a wide range of purposes — from monitoring kids and pets at home to securing warehouses, offices, short-term rental apartments (often illegally), and small businesses. Basic models can be picked up online for as little as US$25–40.

One of the defining features of IP cameras is that they’re originally designed for remote access. The camera connects to the internet and silently accepts incoming connections — ready to stream video to anyone who knows its address and has the password. And this leads to two common problems with these devices.

1. Default passwords. IP camera owners often keep the simple default usernames and passwords that come preconfigured on the device.
2. Vulnerabilities in outdated software. Software updates for cameras often require manual intervention: you need to log in to the administration interface, check for an update, and install it yourself. Many users simply skip this altogether. Worse, updates might not even exist — many camera vendors ignore security and drop support right after the sale.

What happened in South Korea?

Let’s rewind to what unfolded this fall in South Korea. Law-enforcement authorities reported a breach of roughly 120 000 IP cameras, and the arrest of four suspects in connection with the attacks. Here’s what we know about each of them.

• Suspect 1, unemployed, hacked approximately 63 000 IP cameras, producing and later selling 545 sexually explicit videos for a total of 35 million South Korean won, or just under US$24 000.
• Suspect 2, an office worker, compromised around 70 000 IP cameras and sold 648 illicit sexual videos for 18 million won (about US$12 000).
• Suspect 3, self-employed, hacked 15 000 IP cameras and created illegal content, including footage involving minors. So far, there’s no information suggesting this individual sold any material.
• Suspect 4, an office worker, appears to have breached only 136 IP cameras, and isn’t accused of producing or selling illegal content.

The astute reader may have noticed the numbers don’t quite add up — the figures above totaling well over 120 000. South Korean law enforcement hasn’t provided a clear explanation for this discrepancy. Journalists speculate that some of the devices may have been compromised by multiple attackers.

The investigation has revealed that only two of the accused actually sold the sexual content they’d stolen. However, the scale of their operation is staggering. Last year, the website hosting voyeurism and sexual exploitation content — which both perpetrators used to sell their videos — received 62% of its uploads from just these two individuals. In essence, this video enthusiast duo supplied the majority of the platform’s illegal content. It’s also been reported that three buyers of these videos were detained.

South Korean investigators were able to identify 58 specific locations of the hacked cameras. They’ve notified the victims and provided guidance on changing the passwords to secure their IP cameras. This suggests — although the investigators haven’t disclosed any details about the method of compromise — that the attackers used brute-forcing to crack the cameras’ simple passwords.

Another possibility is that the camera owners, as is often the case, simply never changed the default usernames and passwords. These default credentials are frequently widely known, so it’s entirely plausible that to gain access the attackers only needed to know the camera’s IP address and try a handful of common username and password combinations.

How to avoid becoming a victim of voyeur hackers

The takeaways from this whole South Korean dorama drama are straight from our playbook:

• Always replace the factory-set credentials with your own logins and passwords.
• Never use weak or common passwords — even for seemingly harmless accounts or gadgets. You don’t have to work at the Louvre to be a target. You never know which credentials attackers will try to crack, or where that initial breach might lead them.
• Always set unique passwords. If you reuse passwords, a single data leak from one service can put all your other accounts at risk.

These rules are universal: they apply just as much to your social media and banking accounts as they do to your robot vacuums, IP cameras, and every other smart device in your home.

To keep all those unique passwords organized without losing your mind, we strongly recommend a reliable password manager. Kaspersky Password Manager can both store all your credentials securely and generate truly random, complex, and uncrackable passwords for you. With it, you can be confident that no one will guess the passwords to your accounts or devices. Plus, it helps you generate one-time codes for two-factor authentication, save and autofill passkeys, and sync your sensitive data — not just logins and passwords, but also bank card details, documents, and even private photos — in encrypted form across all your devices.

Wondering if a hidden camera is filming you? Read more in our posts:

• Webcam stalking: fact or fiction?
• Airbnb security: tips for safe travel
• Four ways to find spy cameras
• Lumos: IoT device detection system
• IP camera security: the bad, the ugly, and the evil