Overview of the attacks

In mid-2025, we identified a malicious driver file on computer systems in Asia. The driver file is signed with an old, stolen, or leaked digital certificate and registers as a mini-filter driver on infected machines. Its end-goal is to inject a backdoor Trojan into the system processes and provide protection for malicious files, user-mode processes, and registry keys.

Our analysis indicates that the final payload injected by the driver is a new sample of the ToneShell backdoor, which connects to the attacker’s servers and provides a reverse shell, along with other capabilities. The ToneShell backdoor is a tool known to be used exclusively by the HoneyMyte (aka Mustang Panda or Bronze President) APT actor and is often used in cyberespionage campaigns targeting government organizations, particularly in Southeast and East Asia.

The command-and-control servers for the ToneShell backdoor used in this campaign were registered in September 2024 via NameCheap services, and we suspect the attacks themselves to have begun in February 2025. We’ve observed through our telemetry that the new ToneShell backdoor is frequently employed in cyberespionage campaigns against government organizations in Southeast and East Asia, with Myanmar and Thailand being the most heavily targeted.

Notably, nearly all affected victims had previously been infected with other HoneyMyte tools, including the ToneDisk USB worm, PlugX, and older variants of ToneShell. Although the initial access vector remains unclear, it’s suspected that the threat actor leveraged previously compromised machines to deploy the malicious driver.

Compromised digital certificate

The driver file is signed with a digital certificate from Guangzhou Kingteller Technology Co., Ltd., with a serial number of 08 01 CC 11 EB 4D 1D 33 1E 3D 54 0C 55 A4 9F 7F. The certificate was valid from August 2012 until 2015.

We found multiple other malicious files signed with the same certificate which didn’t show any connections to the attacks described in this article. Therefore, we believe that other threat actors have been using it to sign their malicious tools as well. The following image shows the details of the certificate.

Technical details of the malicious driver

The filename used for the driver on the victim’s machine is ProjectConfiguration.sys. The registry key created for the driver’s service uses the same name, ProjectConfiguration.

The malicious driver contains two user-mode shellcodes, which are embedded into the .data section of the driver’s binary file. The shellcodes are executed as separate user-mode threads. The rootkit functionality protects both the driver’s own module and the user-mode processes into which the backdoor code is injected, preventing access by any process on the system.

API resolution

To obfuscate the actual behavior of the driver module, the attackers used dynamic resolution of the required API addresses from hash values.

The malicious driver first retrieves the base address of the ntoskrnl.exe and fltmgr.sys by calling ZwQuerySystemInformation with the SystemInformationClass set to SYSTEM_MODULE_INFORMATION. It then iterates through this system information and searches for the desired DLLs by name, noting the ImageBaseAddress of each.

Once the base addresses of the libraries are obtained, the driver uses a simple hashing algorithm to dynamically resolve the required API addresses from ntoskrnl.exe and fltmgr.sys.

The hashing algorithm is shown below. The two variants of the seed value provided in the comment are used in the shellcodes and the final payload of the attack.

Protection of the driver file

The malicious driver registers itself with the Filter Manager using FltRegisterFilter and sets up a pre-operation callback. This callback inspects I/O requests for IRP_MJ_SET_INFORMATION and triggers a malicious handler when certain FileInformationClass values are detected. The handler then checks whether the targeted file object is associated with the driver; if it is, it forces the operation to fail by setting IOStatus to STATUS_ACCESS_DENIED. The relevant FileInformationClass values include:

• FileRenameInformation
• FileDispositionInformation
• FileRenameInformationBypassAccessCheck
• FileDispositionInformationEx
• FileRenameInformationEx
• FileRenameInformationExBypassAccessCheck

These classes correspond to file-delete and file-rename operations. By monitoring them, the driver prevents itself from being removed or renamed – actions that security tools might attempt when trying to quarantine it.

Protection of registry keys

The driver also builds a global list of registry paths and parameter names that it intends to protect. This list contains the following entries:

• ProjectConfiguration
  
• ProjectConfiguration\Instances
  
• ProjectConfiguration Instance

To guard these keys, the malware sets up a RegistryCallback routine, registering it through CmRegisterCallbackEx. To do so, it must assign itself an altitude value. Microsoft governs altitude assignments for mini-filters, grouping them into Load Order categories with predefined altitude ranges. A filter driver with a low numerical altitude is loaded into the I/O stack below filters with higher altitudes. The malware uses a hardcoded starting point of 330024 and creates altitude strings in the format 330024.%l, where %l ranges from 0 to 10,000.

The malware then begins attempting to register the callback using the first generated altitude. If the registration fails with STATUS_FLT_INSTANCE_ALTITUDE_COLLISION, meaning the altitude is already taken, it increments the value and retries. It repeats this process until it successfully finds an unused altitude.

The callback monitors four specific registry operations. Whenever one of these operations targets a key from its protected list, it responds with 0xC0000022 (STATUS_ACCESS_DENIED), blocking the action. The monitored operations are:

• RegNtPreCreateKey
  
• RegNtPreOpenKey
  
• RegNtPreCreateKeyEx
  
• RegNtPreOpenKeyEx

Microsoft designates the 320000–329999 altitude range for the FSFilter Anti-Virus Load Order Group. The malware’s chosen altitude exceeds this range. Since filters with lower altitudes sit deeper in the I/O stack, the malicious driver intercepts file operations before legitimate low-altitude filters like antivirus components, allowing it to circumvent security checks.

Finally, the malware tampers with the altitude assigned to WdFilter, a key Microsoft Defender driver. It locates the registry entry containing the driver’s altitude and changes it to 0, effectively preventing WdFilter from being loaded into the I/O stack.

Protection of user-mode processes

The malware sets up a list intended to hold protected process IDs (PIDs). It begins with 32 empty slots, which are filled as needed during execution. A status flag is also initialized and set to 1 to indicate that the list starts out empty.

Next, the malware uses ObRegisterCallbacks to register two callbacks that intercept process-related operations. These callbacks apply to both OB_OPERATION_HANDLE_CREATE and OB_OPERATION_HANDLE_DUPLICATE, and both use a malicious pre-operation routine.

This routine checks whether the process involved in the operation has a PID that appears in the protected list. If so, it sets the DesiredAccess field in the OperationInformation structure to 0, effectively denying any access to the process.

The malware also registers a callback routine by calling PsSetCreateProcessNotifyRoutine. These callbacks are triggered during every process creation and deletion on the system. This malware’s callback routine checks whether the parent process ID (PPID) of a process being deleted exists in the protected list; if it does, the malware removes that PPID from the list. This eventually removes the rootkit protection from a process with an injected backdoor, once the backdoor has fulfilled its responsibilities.

Payload injection

The driver delivers two user-mode payloads.

The first payload spawns an svchost process and injects a small delay-inducing shellcode.  The PID of this new svchost instance is written to a file for later use.

The second payload is the final component – the ToneShell backdoor – and is later injected into that same svchost process.

Injection workflow:

The malicious driver searches for a high-privilege target process by iterating through PIDs and checking whether each process exists and runs under SeLocalSystemSid. Once it finds one, it customizes the first payload using random event names, file names, and padding bytes, then creates a named event and injects the payload by attaching its current thread to the process, allocating memory, and launching a new thread.

After injection, it waits for the payload to signal the event, reads the PID of the newly created svchost process from the generated file, and adds it to its protected process list. It then similarly customizes the second payload (ToneShell) using random event name and random padding bytes, then creates a named event and injects the payload by attaching to the process, allocating memory, and launching a new thread.

Once the ToneShell backdoor finishes execution, it signals the event. The malware then removes the svchost PID from the protected list, waits 10 seconds, and attempts to terminate the process.

ToneShell backdoor

The final stage of the attack deploys ToneShell, a backdoor previously linked to operations by the HoneyMyte APT group and discussed in earlier reporting (see Malpedia and MITRE). Notably, this is the first time we’ve seen ToneShell delivered through a kernel-mode loader, giving it protection from user-mode monitoring and benefiting from the rootkit capabilities of the driver that hides its activity from security tools.

Earlier ToneShell variants generated a 16-byte GUID using CoCreateGuid and stored it as a host identifier. In contrast, this version checks for a file named C:\ProgramData\MicrosoftOneDrive.tlb, validating a 4-byte marker inside it. If the file is absent or the marker is invalid, the backdoor derives a new pseudo-random 4-byte identifier using system-specific values (computer name, tick count, and PRNG), then creates the file and writes the marker. This becomes the unique ID for the infected host.

The samples we have analyzed contact two command-and-control servers:

• avocadomechanism[.]com
  
• potherbreference[.]com

ToneShell communicates with its C2 over raw TCP on port 443 while disguising traffic using fake TLS headers. This version imitates the first bytes of a TLS 1.3 record (0x17 0x03 0x04) instead of the TLS 1.2 pattern used previously. After this three-byte marker, each packet contains a size field and an encrypted payload.

Packet layout:

• Header (3 bytes): Fake TLS marker
• Size (2 bytes): Payload length
• Payload: Encrypted with a rolling XOR key

The backdoor supports a set of remote operations, including file upload/download, remote shell functionality, and session control. The command set includes:

Command ID	Description
0x1	Create temporary file for incoming data
0x2 / 0x3	Download file
0x4	Cancel download
0x7	Establish remote shell via pipe
0x8	Receive operator command
0x9	Terminate shell
0xA / 0xB	Upload file
0xC	Cancel upload
0xD	Close connection

Conclusion

We assess with high confidence that the activity described in this report is linked to the HoneyMyte threat actor. This conclusion is supported by the use of the ToneShell backdoor as the final-stage payload, as well as the presence of additional tools long associated with HoneyMyte – such as PlugX, and the ToneDisk USB worm – on the impacted systems.

HoneyMyte’s 2025 operations show a noticeable evolution toward using kernel-mode injectors to deploy ToneShell, improving both stealth and resilience. In this campaign, we observed a new ToneShell variant delivered through a kernel-mode driver that carries and injects the backdoor directly from its embedded payload. To further conceal its activity, the driver first deploys a small user-mode component that handles the final injection step. It also uses multiple obfuscation techniques, callback routines, and notification mechanisms to hide its API usage and track process and registry activity, ultimately strengthening the backdoor’s defenses.

Because the shellcode executes entirely in memory, memory forensics becomes essential for uncovering and analyzing this intrusion. Detecting the injected shellcode is a key indicator of ToneShell’s presence on compromised hosts.

Recommendations

To protect themselves against this threat, organizations should:

• Implement robust network security measures, such as firewalls and intrusion detection systems.
• Use advanced threat detection tools, such as endpoint detection and response (EDR) solutions.
• Provide regular security awareness training to employees.
• Conduct regular security audits and vulnerability assessments to identify and remediate potential vulnerabilities.
• Consider implementing a security information and event management (SIEM) system to monitor and analyze security-related data.

By following these recommendations, organizations can reduce their risk of being compromised by the HoneyMyte APT group and other similar threats.

Indicators of Compromise

More indicators of compromise, as well as any updates to these, are available to the customers of our APT intelligence reporting service. If you are interested, please contact intelreports@kaspersky.com.

36f121046192b7cac3e4bec491e8f1b5        AppvVStram_.sys
fe091e41ba6450bcf6a61a2023fe6c83         AppvVStram_.sys
abe44ad128f765c14d895ee1c8bad777       ProjectConfiguration.sys
avocadomechanism[.]com                            ToneShell C2
potherbreference[.]com                                 ToneShell C2

Introduction

The Evasive Panda APT group (also known as Bronze Highland, Daggerfly, and StormBamboo) has been active since 2012, targeting multiple industries with sophisticated, evolving tactics. Our latest research (June 2025) reveals that the attackers conducted highly-targeted campaigns, which started in November 2022 and ran until November 2024.

The group mainly performed adversary-in-the-middle (AitM) attacks on specific victims. These included techniques such as dropping loaders into specific locations and storing encrypted parts of the malware on attacker-controlled servers, which were resolved as a response to specific website DNS requests. Notably, the attackers have developed a new loader that evades detection when infecting its targets, and even employed hybrid encryption practices to complicate analysis and make implants unique to each victim.

Furthermore, the group has developed an injector that allows them to execute their MgBot implant in memory by injecting it into legitimate processes. It resides in the memory space of a decade-old signed executable by using DLL sideloading and enables them to maintain a stealthy presence in compromised systems for extended periods.

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

Technical details

Initial infection vector

The threat actor commonly uses lures that are disguised as new updates to known third-party applications or popular system applications trusted by hundreds of users over the years.

In this campaign, the attackers used an executable disguised as an update package for SohuVA, which is a streaming app developed by Sohu Inc., a Chinese internet company. The malicious package, named sohuva_update_10.2.29.1-lup-s-tp.exe, clearly impersonates a real SohuVA update to deliver malware from the following resource, as indicated by our telemetry:

http://p2p.hd.sohu.com[.]cn/foxd/gz?file=sohunewplayer_7.0.22.1_03_29_13_13_union.exe&new=/66/157/ovztb0wktdmakeszwh2eha.exe

There is a possibility that the attackers used a DNS poisoning attack to alter the DNS response of p2p.hd.sohu.com[.]cn to an attacker-controlled server’s IP address, while the genuine update module of the SohuVA application tries to update its binaries located in appdata\roaming\shapp\7.0.18.0\package. Although we were unable to verify this at the time of analysis, we can make an educated guess, given that it is still unknown what triggered the update mechanism.

Furthermore, our analysis of the infection process has identified several additional campaigns pursued by the same group. For example, they utilized a fake updater for the iQIYI Video application, a popular platform for streaming Asian media content similar to SohuVA. This fake updater was dropped into the application’s installation folder and executed by the legitimate service qiyiservice.exe. Upon execution, the fake updater initiated malicious activity on the victim’s system, and we have identified that the same method is used for IObit Smart Defrag and Tencent QQ applications.

The initial loader was developed in C++ using the Windows Template Library (WTL). Its code bears a strong resemblance to Wizard97Test, a WTL sample application hosted on Microsoft’s GitHub. The attackers appear to have embedded malicious code within this project to effectively conceal their malicious intentions.

The loader first decrypts the encrypted configuration buffer by employing an XOR-based decryption algorithm:

for ( index = 0; index < v6; index = (index + 1) )
{
if ( index >= 5156 )
break;
mw_configindex ^= (&mw_deflated_config + (index & 3));
}

After decryption, it decompresses the LZMA-compressed buffer into the allocated buffer, and all of the configuration is exposed, including several components:

• Malware installation path: %ProgramData%\Microsoft\MF
• Resource domain: http://www.dictionary.com/
• Resource URI: image?id=115832434703699686&product=dict-homepage.png
• MgBot encrypted configuration

The malware also checks the name of the logged-in user in the system and performs actions accordingly. If the username is SYSTEM, the malware copies itself with a different name by appending the ext.exe suffix inside the current working directory. Then it uses the ShellExecuteW API to execute the newly created version. Notably, all relevant strings in the malware, such as SYSTEM and ext.exe, are encrypted, and the loader decrypts them with a specific XOR algorithm.

If the username is not SYSTEM, the malware first copies explorer.exe into %TEMP%, naming the instance as tmpX.tmp (where X is an incremented decimal number), and then deletes the original file. The purpose of this activity is unclear, but it consumes high system resources. Next, the loader decrypts the kernel32.dll and VirtualProtect strings to retrieve their base addresses by calling the GetProcAddress API. Afterwards, it uses a single-byte XOR key to decrypt the shellcode, which is 9556 bytes long, and stores it at the same address in the .data section. Since the .data section does not have execute permission, the malware uses the VirtualProtect API to set the permission for the section. This allows for the decrypted shellcode to be executed without alerting security products by allocating new memory blocks. Before executing the shellcode, the malware prepares a 16-byte-long parameter structure that contains several items, with the most important one being the address of the encrypted MgBot configuration buffer.

Multi-stage shellcode execution

As mentioned above, the loader follows a unique delivery scheme, which includes at least two stages of payload. The shellcode employs a hashing algorithm known as PJW to resolve Windows APIs at runtime in a stealthy manner.

unsigned int calc_PJWHash(_BYTE *a1)
{
unsigned int v2;
v2 = 0;
while ( *a1 )
{
v2 = *a1++ + 16 * v2;
if ( (v2 & 0xF0000000) != 0 )
v2 = ~(v2 & 0xF0000000) & (v2 ^ ((v2 & 0xF0000000) >> 24));
}
return v2;
}

The shellcode first searches for a specific DAT file in the malware’s primary installation directory. If it is found, the shellcode decrypts it using the CryptUnprotectData API, a Windows API that decrypts protected data into allocated heap memory, and ensures that the data can only be decrypted on the particular machine by design. After decryption, the shellcode deletes the file to avoid leaving any traces of the valuable part of the attack chain.

If, however, the DAT file is not present, the shellcode initiates the next-stage shellcode installation process. It involves retrieving encrypted data from a web source that is actually an attacker-controlled server, by employing a DNS poisoning attack. Our telemetry shows that the attackers successfully obtained the encrypted second-stage shellcode, disguised as a PNG file, from the legitimate website dictionary[.]com. However, upon further investigation, it was discovered that the IP address associated with dictionary[.]com had been manipulated through a DNS poisoning technique. As a result, victims’ systems were resolving the website to different attacker-controlled IP addresses depending on the victims’ geographical location and internet service provider.

To retrieve the second-stage shellcode, the first-stage shellcode uses the RtlGetVersion API to obtain the current Windows version number and then appends a predefined string to the HTTP header:

sec-ch-ua-platform: windows %d.%d.%d.%d.%d.%d

This implies that the attackers needed to be able to examine request headers and respond accordingly. We suspect that the attackers’ collection of the Windows version number and its inclusion in the request headers served a specific purpose, likely allowing them to target specific operating system versions and even tailor their payload to different operating systems. Given that the Evasive Panda threat actor has been known to use distinct implants for Windows (MgBot) and macOS (Macma) in previous campaigns, it is likely that the malware uses the retrieved OS version string to determine which implant to deploy. This enables the threat actor to adapt their attack to the victim’s specific operating system by assessing results on the server side.

From this point on, the first-stage shellcode proceeds to decrypt the retrieved payload with a XOR decryption algorithm:

key = *(mw_decryptedDataFromDatFile + 92);
index = 0;
if ( sz_shellcode )
{
mw_decryptedDataFromDatFile_1 = Heap;
do
{
*(index + mw_decryptedDataFromDatFile_1) ^= *(&key + (index & 3));
++index;
}
while ( index < sz_shellcode );
}

The shellcode uses a 4-byte XOR key, consistent with the one used in previous stages, to decrypt the new shellcode stored in the DAT file. It then creates a structure for the decrypted second-stage shellcode, similar to the first stage, including a partially decrypted configuration buffer and other relevant details.

Next, the shellcode resolves the VirtualProtect API to change the protection flag of the new shellcode buffer, allowing it to be executed with PAGE_EXECUTE_READWRITE permissions. The second-stage shellcode is then executed, with the structure passed as an argument. After the shellcode has finished running, its return value is checked to see if it matches 0x9980. Depending on the outcome, the shellcode will either terminate its own process or return control to the caller.

Although we were unable to retrieve the second-stage payload from the attackers’ web server during our analysis, we were able to capture and examine the next stage of the malware, which was to be executed afterwards. Our analysis suggests that the attackers may have used the CryptProtectData API during the execution of the second shellcode to encrypt the entire shellcode and store it as a DAT file in the malware’s main installation directory. This implies that the malware writes an encrypted DAT file to disk using the CryptProtectData API, which can then be decrypted and executed by the first-stage shellcode. Furthermore, it appears that the attacker attempted to generate a unique encrypted second shellcode file for each victim, which we believe is another technique used to evade detection and defense mechanisms in the attack chain.

Secondary loader

We identified a secondary loader, named libpython2.4.dll, which was disguised as a legitimate Windows library and used by the Evasive Panda group to achieve a stealthier loading mechanism. Notably, this malicious DLL loader relies on a legitimate, signed executable named evteng.exe (MD5: 1c36452c2dad8da95d460bee3bea365e), which is an older version of python.exe. This executable is a Python wrapper that normally imports the libpython2.4.dll library and calls the Py_Main function.

The secondary loader retrieves the full path of the current module (libpython2.4.dll) and writes it to a file named status.dat, located in C:\ProgramData\Microsoft\eHome, but only if a file with the same name does not already exist in that directory. We believe with a low-to-medium level of confidence that this action is intended to allow the attacker to potentially update the secondary loader in the future. This suggests that the attacker may be planning for future modifications or upgrades to the malware.

The malware proceeds to decrypt the next stage by reading the entire contents of C:\ProgramData\Microsoft\eHome\perf.dat. This file contains the previously downloaded and XOR-decrypted data from the attacker-controlled server, which was obtained through the DNS poisoning technique as described above. Notably, the implant downloads the payload several times and moves it between folders by renaming it. It appears that the attacker used a complex process to obtain this stage from a resource, where it was initially XOR-encrypted. The attacker then decrypted this stage with XOR and subsequently encrypted and saved it to perf.dat using a custom hybrid of Microsoft’s Data Protection Application Programming Interface (DPAPI) and the RC5 algorithm.

This custom encryption algorithm works as follows. The RC5 encryption key is itself encrypted using Microsoft’s DPAPI and stored in the first 16 bytes of perf.dat. The RC5-encrypted payload is then appended to the file, following the encrypted key. To decrypt the payload, the process is reversed: the encrypted RC5 key is first decrypted with DPAPI, and then used to decrypt the remaining contents of perf.dat, which contains the next-stage payload.

The attacker uses this approach to ensure that a crucial part of the attack chain is secured, and the encrypted data can only be decrypted on the specific system where the encryption was initially performed. This is because the DPAPI functions used to secure the RC5 key tie the decryption process to the individual system, making it difficult for the encrypted data to be accessed or decrypted elsewhere. This makes it more challenging for defenders to intercept and analyze the malicious payload.

After completing the decryption process, the secondary loader initiates the runtime injection method, which likely involves the use of a custom runtime DLL injector for the decrypted data. The injector first calls the DLL entry point and then searches for a specific export function named preload. Although we were unable to determine which encrypted module was decrypted and executed in memory due to a lack of available data on the attacker-controlled server, our telemetry reveals that an MgBot variant is injected into the legitimate svchost.exe process after the secondary loader is executed. Fortunately, this allowed us to analyze these implants further and gain additional insights into the attack, as well as reveal that the encrypted initial configuration was passed through the infection chain, ultimately leading to the execution of MgBot. The configuration file was decrypted with a single-byte XOR key, 0x58, and this would lead to the full exposure of the configuration.

Our analysis suggests that the configuration includes a campaign name, hardcoded C2 server IP addresses, and unknown bytes that may serve as encryption or decryption keys, although our confidence in this assessment is limited. Interestingly, some of the C2 server addresses have been in use for multiple years, indicating a potential long-term operation.

Victims

Our telemetry has detected victims in Türkiye, China, and India, with some systems remaining compromised for over a year. The attackers have shown remarkable persistence, sustaining the campaign for two years (from November 2022 to November 2024) according to our telemetry, which indicates a substantial investment of resources and dedication to the operation.

Attribution

The techniques, tactics, and procedures (TTPs) employed in this compromise indicate with high confidence that the Evasive Panda threat actor is responsible for the attack. Despite the development of a new loader, which has been added to their arsenal, the decade-old MgBot implant was still identified in the final stage of the attack with new elements in its configuration. Consistent with previous research conducted by several vendors in the industry, the Evasive Panda threat actor is known to commonly utilize various techniques, such as supply-chain compromise, Adversary-in-the-Middle attacks, and watering-hole attacks, which enable them to distribute their payloads without raising suspicion.

Conclusion

The Evasive Panda threat actor has once again showcased its advanced capabilities, evading security measures with new techniques and tools while maintaining long-term persistence in targeted systems. Our investigation suggests that the attackers are continually improving their tactics, and it is likely that other ongoing campaigns exist. The introduction of new loaders may precede further updates to their arsenal.

As for the AitM attack, we do not have any reliable sources on how the threat actor delivers the initial loader, and the process of poisoning DNS responses for legitimate websites, such as dictionary[.]com, is still unknown. However, we are considering two possible scenarios based on prior research and the characteristics of the threat actor: either the ISPs used by the victims were selectively targeted, and some kind of network implant was installed on edge devices, or one of the network devices of the victims — most likely a router or firewall appliance — was targeted for this purpose. However, it is difficult to make a precise statement, as this campaign requires further attention in terms of forensic investigation, both on the ISPs and the victims.

The configuration file’s numerous C2 server IP addresses indicate a deliberate effort to maintain control over infected systems running the MgBot implant. By using multiple C2 servers, the attacker aims to ensure prolonged persistence and prevents loss of control over compromised systems, suggesting a strategic approach to sustaining their operations.

Indicators of compromise

File Hashes
c340195696d13642ecf20fbe75461bed sohuva_update_10.2.29.1-lup-s-tp.exe
7973e0694ab6545a044a49ff101d412a libpython2.4.dll
9e72410d61eaa4f24e0719b34d7cad19 (MgBot implant)

File Paths
C:\ProgramData\Microsoft\MF
C:\ProgramData\Microsoft\eHome\status.dat
C:\ProgramData\Microsoft\eHome\perf.dat

URLs and IPs
60.28.124[.]21     (MgBot C2)
123.139.57[.]103   (MgBot C2)
140.205.220[.]98   (MgBot C2)
112.80.248[.]27    (MgBot C2)
116.213.178[.]11   (MgBot C2)
60.29.226[.]181    (MgBot C2)
58.68.255[.]45     (MgBot C2)
61.135.185[.]29    (MgBot C2)
103.27.110[.]232   (MgBot C2)
117.121.133[.]33   (MgBot C2)
139.84.170[.]230   (MgBot C2)
103.96.130[.]107   (AitM C2)
158.247.214[.]28   (AitM C2)
106.126.3[.]78     (AitM C2)
106.126.3[.]56     (AitM C2)

Introduction

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

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

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

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

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

COM/DCOM technology

What is COM?

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

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

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

Terms

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

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

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

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

Client–server model

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

   In-process COM server

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

What is DCOM?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lateral movement via DCOM

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

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

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

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

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

   Internally, the script runs this command when connecting:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Enumerating COM/DCOM objects

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

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

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

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

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

   Shell.Application COM object function list in PowerShell

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

   Our strategy looks like this:

   

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

   However, this approach has several limitations:

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

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

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

   This method has several advantages:

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

   The figure below illustrates this strategy:

   

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

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

   Open-source tool for inspecting COM interfaces

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

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

Control Panel items as attack surfaces

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There are multiple ways to execute Control Panel items:

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

Both methods use rundll32.exe under the hood:

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

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

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

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

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

‘DCOMing’ through Control Panel items

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Based on my testing, I made the following observations:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Detection

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

Introduction

In March 2025, we discovered Operation ForumTroll, a series of sophisticated cyberattacks exploiting the CVE-2025-2783 vulnerability in Google Chrome. We previously detailed the malicious implants used in the operation: the LeetAgent backdoor and the complex spyware Dante, developed by Memento Labs (formerly Hacking Team). However, the attackers behind this operation didn’t stop at their spring campaign and have continued to infect targets within the Russian Federation.

More reports about this threat are available to customers of the Kaspersky Intelligence Reporting Service. Contact: intelreports@kaspersky.com.

Emails posing as a scientific library

In October 2025, just days before we presented our report detailing the ForumTroll APT group’s attack at the Security Analyst Summit, we detected a new targeted phishing campaign by the same group. However, while the spring cyberattacks focused on organizations, the fall campaign honed in on specific individuals: scholars in the field of political science, international relations, and global economics, working at major Russian universities and research institutions.

The emails received by the victims were sent from the address support@e-library[.]wiki. The campaign purported to be from the scientific electronic library, eLibrary, whose legitimate website is elibrary.ru. The phishing emails contained a malicious link in the format: https://e-library[.]wiki/elib/wiki.php?id=<8 pseudorandom letters and digits>. Recipients were prompted to click the link to download a plagiarism report. Clicking that link triggered the download of an archive file. The filename was personalized, using the victim’s own name in the format: <LastName>_<FirstName>_<Patronymic>.zip.

A well-prepared attack

The attackers did their homework before sending out the phishing emails. The malicious domain, e-library[.]wiki, was registered back in March 2025, over six months before the email campaign started. This was likely done to build the domain’s reputation, as sending emails from a suspicious, newly registered domain is a major red flag for spam filters.

Furthermore, the attackers placed a copy of the legitimate eLibrary homepage on https://e-library[.]wiki. According to the information on the page, they accessed the legitimate website from the IP address 193.65.18[.]14 back in December 2024.

The attackers also carefully personalized the phishing emails for their targets, specific professionals in the field. As mentioned above, the downloaded archive was named with the victim’s last name, first name, and patronymic.

Another noteworthy technique was the attacker’s effort to hinder security analysis by restricting repeat downloads. When we attempted to download the archive from the malicious site, we received a message in Russian, indicating the download link was likely for one-time use only:

Our investigation found that the malicious site displayed a different message if the download was attempted from a non-Windows device. In that case, it prompted the user to try again from a Windows computer.

The malicious archive

The malicious archives downloaded via the email links contained the following:

• A malicious shortcut file named after the victim: <LastName>_<FirstName>_<Patronymic>.lnk;
• A .Thumbs directory containing approximately 100 image files with names in Russian. These images were not used during the infection process and were likely added to make the archives appear less suspicious to security solutions.

When the user clicked the shortcut, it ran a PowerShell script. The script’s primary purpose was to download and execute a PowerShell-based payload from a malicious server.

The downloaded payload then performed the following actions:

• Contacted a URL in the format: https://e-library[.]wiki/elib/query.php?id=<8 pseudorandom letters and digits>&key=<32 hexadecimal characters> to retrieve the final payload, a DLL file.
• Saved the downloaded file to %localappdata%\Microsoft\Windows\Explorer\iconcache_<4 pseudorandom digits>.dll.
• Established persistence for the payload using COM Hijacking. This involved writing the path to the DLL file into the registry key HKCR\CLSID\{1f486a52-3cb1-48fd-8f50-b8dc300d9f9d}\InProcServer32. Notably, the attackers had used that same technique in their spring attacks.
• Downloaded a decoy PDF from a URL in the format: https://e-library[.]wiki/pdf/<8 pseudorandom letters and digits>.pdf. This PDF was saved to the user’s Downloads folder with a filename in the format: <LastName>_<FirstName>_<Patronymic>.pdf and then opened automatically.

The decoy PDF contained no valuable information. It was merely a blurred report generated by a Russian plagiarism-checking system.

At the time of our investigation, the links for downloading the final payloads didn’t work. Attempting to access them returned error messages in English: “You are already blocked…” or “You have been bad ended” (sic). This likely indicates the use of a protective mechanism to prevent payloads from being downloaded more than once. Despite this, we managed to obtain and analyze the final payload.

The final payload: the Tuoni framework

The DLL file deployed to infected devices proved to be an OLLVM-obfuscated loader, which we described in our previous report on Operation ForumTroll. However, while this loader previously delivered rare implants like LeetAgent and Dante, this time the attackers opted for a better-known commercial red teaming framework: Tuoni. Portions of the Tuoni code are publicly available on GitHub. By deploying this tool, the attackers gained remote access to the victim’s device along with other capabilities for further system compromise.

As in the previous campaign, the attackers used fastly.net as C2 servers.

Conclusion

The cyberattacks carried out by the ForumTroll APT group in the spring and fall of 2025 share significant similarities. In both campaigns, infection began with targeted phishing emails, and persistence for the malicious implants was achieved with the COM Hijacking technique. The same loader was used to deploy the implants both in the spring and the fall.

Despite these similarities, the fall series of attacks cannot be considered as technically sophisticated as the spring campaign. In the spring, the ForumTroll APT group exploited zero-day vulnerabilities to infect systems. By contrast, the autumn attacks relied entirely on social engineering, counting on victims not only clicking the malicious link but also downloading the archive and launching the shortcut file. Furthermore, the malware used in the fall campaign, the Tuoni framework, is less rare.

ForumTroll has been targeting organizations and individuals in Russia and Belarus since at least 2022. Given this lengthy timeline, it is likely this APT group will continue to target entities and individuals of interest within these two countries. We believe that investigating ForumTroll’s potential future campaigns will allow us to shed light on shadowy malicious implants created by commercial developers – much as we did with the discovery of the Dante spyware.

Indicators of compromise

e-library[.]wiki
perf-service-clients2.global.ssl.fastly[.]net
bus-pod-tenant.global.ssl.fastly[.]net
status-portal-api.global.ssl.fastly[.]net

Introduction

Imagine you’re cruising down the highway in your brand-new electric car. All of a sudden, the massive multimedia display fills with Doom, the iconic 3D shooter game. It completely replaces the navigation map or the controls menu, and you realize someone is playing it remotely right now. This is not a dream or an overactive imagination – we’ve demonstrated that it’s a perfectly realistic scenario in today’s world.

The internet of things now plays a significant role in the modern world. Not only are smartphones and laptops connected to the network, but also factories, cars, trains, and even airplanes. Most of the time, connectivity is provided via 3G/4G/5G mobile data networks using modems installed in these vehicles and devices. These modems are increasingly integrated into a System-on-Chip (SoC), which uses a Communication Processor (CP) and an Application Processor (AP) to perform multiple functions simultaneously. A general-purpose operating system such as Android can run on the AP, while the CP, which handles communication with the mobile network, typically runs on a dedicated OS. The interaction between the AP, CP, and RAM within the SoC at the microarchitecture level is a “black box” known only to the manufacturer – even though the security of the entire SoC depends on it.

Bypassing 3G/LTE security mechanisms is generally considered a purely academic challenge because a secure communication channel is established when a user device (User Equipment, UE) connects to a cellular base station (Evolved Node B, eNB). Even if someone can bypass its security mechanisms, discover a vulnerability in the modem, and execute their own code on it, this is unlikely to compromise the device’s business logic. This logic (for example, user applications, browser history, calls, and SMS on a smartphone) resides on the AP and is presumably not accessible from the modem.

To find out, if that is true, we conducted a security assessment of a modern SoC, Unisoc UIS7862A, which features an integrated 2G/3G/4G modem. This SoC can be found in various mobile devices by multiple vendors or, more interestingly, in the head units of modern Chinese vehicles, which are becoming increasingly common on the roads. The head unit is one of a car’s key components, and a breach of its information security poses a threat to road safety, as well as the confidentiality of user data.

During our research, we identified several critical vulnerabilities at various levels of the Unisoc UIS7862A modem’s cellular protocol stack. This article discusses a stack-based buffer overflow vulnerability in the 3G RLC protocol implementation (CVE-2024-39432). The vulnerability can be exploited to achieve remote code execution at the early stages of connection, before any protection mechanisms are activated.

Importantly, gaining the ability to execute code on the modem is only the entry point for a complete remote compromise of the entire SoC. Our subsequent efforts were focused on gaining access to the AP. We discovered several ways to do so, including leveraging a hardware vulnerability in the form of a hidden peripheral Direct Memory Access (DMA) device to perform lateral movement within the SoC. This enabled us to install our own patch into the running Android kernel and execute arbitrary code on the AP with the highest privileges. Details are provided in the relevant sections.

Acquiring the modem firmware

The modem at the center of our research was found on the circuit board of the head unit in a Chinese car.

Description of the circuit board components:

Number in the board photo	Component
1	Realtek RTL8761ATV 802.11b/g/n 2.4G controller with wireless LAN (WLAN) and USB interfaces (USB 1.0/1.1/2.0 standards)
2	SPRD UMW2652 BGA WiFi chip
3	55966 TYADZ 21086 chip
4	SPRD SR3595D (Unisoc) radio frequency transceiver
5	Techpoint TP9950 video decoder
6	UNISOC UIS7862A
7	BIWIN BWSRGX32H2A-48G-X internal storage, Package200-FBGA, ROM Type – Discrete, ROM Size – LPDDR4X, 48G
8	SCY E128CYNT2ABE00 EMMC 128G/JEDEC memory card
9	SPREADTRUM UMP510G5 power controller
10	FEI.1s LE330315 USB2.0 shunt chip
11	SCT2432STER synchronous step-down DC-DC converter with internal compensation

Using information about the modem’s hardware, we desoldered and read the embedded multimedia memory card, which contained a complete image of its operating system. We then analyzed the image obtained.

Remote access to the modem (CVE-2024-39431)

The modem under investigation, like any modern modem, implements several protocol stacks: 2G, 3G, and LTE. Clearly, the more protocols a device supports, the more potential entry points (attack vectors) it has. Moreover, the lower in the OSI network model stack a vulnerability sits, the more severe the consequences of its exploitation can be. Therefore, we decided to analyze the data packet fragmentation mechanisms at the data link layer (RLC protocol).

We focused on this protocol because it is used to establish a secure encrypted data transmission channel between the base station and the modem, and, in particular, it is used to transmit higher-layer NAS (Non-Access Stratum) protocol data. NAS represents the functional level of the 3G/UMTS protocol stack. Located between the user equipment (UE) and core network, it is responsible for signaling between them. This means that a remote code execution (RCE) vulnerability in RLC would allow an attacker to execute their own code on the modem, bypassing all existing 3G communication protection mechanisms.

The RLC protocol uses three different transmission modes: Transparent Mode (TM), Unacknowledged Mode (UM), and Acknowledged Mode (AM). We are only interested in UM, because in this mode the 3G standard allows both the segmentation of data and the concatenation of several small higher-layer data fragments (Protocol Data Units, PDU) into a single data link layer frame. This is done to maximize channel utilization. At the RLC level, packets are referred to as Service Data Units (SDU).

Among the approximately 75,000 different functions in the firmware, we found the function for handling an incoming SDU packet. When handling a received SDU packet, its header fields are parsed. The packet itself consists of a mandatory header, optional headers, and data. The number of optional headers is not limited. The end of the optional headers is indicated by the least significant bit (E bit) being equal to 0. The algorithm processes each header field sequentially, while their E-bits equal 1. During processing, data is written to a variable located on the stack of the calling function. The stack depth is 0xB4 bytes. The size of the packet that can be parsed (i.e., the number of headers, each header being a 2-byte entry on the stack) is limited by the SDU packet size of 0x5F0 bytes.

As a result, exploitation can be achieved using just one packet in which the number of headers exceeds the stack depth (90 headers). It is important to note that this particular function lacks a stack canary, and when the stack overflows, it is possible to overwrite the return address and some non-volatile register values in this function. However, overwriting is only possible with a value ending in one in binary (i.e., a value in which the least significant bit equals 1). Notably, execution takes place on ARM in Thumb mode, so all return addresses must have the least significant bit equal to 1. Coincidence? Perhaps.

In any case, sending the very first dummy SDU packet with the appropriate number of “correct” headers caused the device to reboot. However, at that moment, we had no way to obtain information on where and why the crash occurred (although we suspect the cause was an attempt to transfer control to the address 0xAABBCCDD, taken from our packet).

Gaining persistence in the system

The first and most important observation is that we know the pointer to the newly received SDU packet is stored in register R2. Return Oriented Programming (ROP) techniques can be used to execute our own code, but first we need to make sure it is actually possible.

We utilized the available AT command handler to move the data to RAM areas. Among the available AT commands, we found a suitable function – SPSERVICETYPE.

Next, we used ROP gadgets to overwrite the address 0x8CE56218 without disrupting the subsequent operation of the incoming SDU packet handling algorithm. To achieve this, it was sufficient to return to the function from which the SDU packet handler was called, because it was invoked as a callback, meaning there is no data linkage on the stack. Given that this function only added 0x2C bytes to the stack, we needed to fit within this size.

Having found a suitable ROP chain, we launched an SDU packet containing it as a payload. As a result, we saw the output 0xAABBCCDD in the AT command console for SPSERVICETYPE. Our code worked!

Next, by analogy, we input the address of the stack frame where our data was located, but it turned out not to be executable. We then faced the task of figuring out the MPU settings on the modem. Once again, using the ROP chain method, we generated code that read the MPU table, one DWORD at a time. After many iterations, we obtained the following table.

The table shows what we suspected – the code section is only mapped for execution. An attempt to change the configuration resulted in another ROP chain, but this same section was now mapped with write permissions in an unused slot in the table. Because of MPU programming features, specifically the presence of the overlap mechanism and the fact that a region with a higher ID has higher priority, we were able to write to this section.

All that remained was to use the pointer to our data (still stored in R2) and patch the code section that had just been unlocked for writing. The question was what exactly to patch. The simplest method was to patch the NAS protocol handler by adding our code to it. To do this, we used one of the NAS protocol commands – MM information. This allowed us to send a large amount of data at once and, in response, receive a single byte of data using the MM status command, which confirmed the patching success.

As a result, we not only successfully executed our own code on the modem side but also established full two-way communication with the modem, using the high-level NAS protocol as a means of message delivery. In this case, it was an MM Status packet with the cause field equaling 0xAA.

However, being able to execute our own code on the modem does not give us access to user data. Or does it?

The full version of the article with a detailed description of the development of an AR exploit that led to Doom being run on the head unit is available on ICS CERT website.