Every year, scammers cook up new ways to trick people, and 2025 was no exception. Over the past year, our anti-phishing system thwarted more than 554 million attempts to follow phishing links, while our Mail Anti-Virus blocked nearly 145 million malicious attachments. To top it off, almost 45% of all emails worldwide turned out to be spam. Below, we break down the most impressive phishing and spam schemes from last year. For the deep dive, you can read the full Spam and Phishing in 2025 report on Securelist.

Phishing for fun

Music lovers and cinephiles were prime targets for scammers in 2025. Bad actors went all out creating fake ticketing aggregators and spoofed versions of popular streaming services.

On these fake aggregator sites, users were offered “free” tickets to major concerts. The catch? You just had to pay a small “processing fee” or “shipping cost”. Naturally, the only thing being delivered was your hard-earned cash straight into a scammer’s pocket.

With streaming services, the hustle went like this: users received a tempting offer to, say, migrate their Spotify playlists to YouTube by entering their Spotify credentials. Alternatively, they were invited to vote for their favorite artist in a chart — an opportunity most fans find hard to pass up. To add a coat of legitimacy, scammers name-dropped heavy hitters like Google and Spotify. The phishing form targeted multiple platforms at once — Facebook, Instagram, or email — requiring users to enter their credentials to vote hand over their accounts.

In Brazil, scammers took it a step further: they offered users the chance to earn money just by listening to and rating songs on a supposed Spotify partner service. During registration, users had to provide their ID for Pix (the Brazilian instant payment system), and then make a one-time “verification payment” of 19.9 Brazilian reals (about $4) to “confirm their identity”. This fee was, of course, a fraction of the promised “potential earnings”. The payment form looked incredibly authentic and requested additional personal data — likely to be harvested for future attacks.

The “cultural date” scheme turned out to be particularly inventive. After matching and some brief chatting on dating apps, a new “love interest” would invite the victim to a play or a movie and send a link to buy tickets. Once the “payment” went through, both the date and the ticketing site would vanish into thin air. A similar tactic was used to sell tickets for immersive escape rooms, which have surged in popularity lately; the page designs mirrored real sites to lower the user’s guard.

Phishing via messaging apps

The theft of Telegram and WhatsApp accounts became one of the year’s most widespread threats. Scammers have mastered the art of masking phishing as standard chat app activities, and have significantly expanded their geographical reach.

On Telegram, free Premium subscriptions remained the ultimate bait. While these phishing pages were previously only seen in Russian and English, 2025 saw a massive expansion into other languages. Victims would receive a message — often from a friend’s hijacked account — offering a “gift”. To activate it, the user had to log in to their Telegram account on the attacker’s site, which immediately led to another hijacked account.

Another common scheme involved celebrity giveaways. One specific attack, disguised as an NFT giveaway, stood out because it operated through a Telegram Mini App. For the average user, spotting a malicious Mini App is much harder than identifying a sketchy external URL.

Finally, the classic vote for my friend messenger scam evolved in 2025 to include prompts to vote for the “city’s best dentist” or “top operational leader” — unfortunately, just bait for account takeovers.

Another clever method for hijacking WhatsApp accounts was spotted in China, where phishing pages perfectly mimicked the actual WhatsApp interface. Victims were told that due to some alleged “illegal activity”, they needed to undergo “additional verification”, which — you guessed it — ended up with a stolen account.

Impersonating Government Services

Phishing that mimics government messages and portals is a “classic of the genre”, but in 2025, scammers added some new scripts to the playbook.

In Russia, vishing attacks targeting government service users picked up steam. Victims received emails claiming an unauthorized login to their account, and were urged to call a specific number to undergo a “security check”. To make it look legit, the emails were packed with fake technical details: IP addresses, device models, and timestamps of the alleged login. Scammers also sent out phony loan approval notifications: if the recipient hadn’t applied for a loan (which they hadn’t), they were prompted to call a fake support team. Once the panicked victim reached an “operator”, social engineering took center stage.

In Brazil, attackers hunted for taxpayer numbers (CPF numbers) by creating counterfeit government portals. Since this ID is the master key for accessing state services, national databases, and personal documents, a hijacked CPF is essentially a fast track to identity theft.

In Norway, scammers targeted people looking to renew their driver’s licenses. A site mimicking the Norwegian Public Roads Administration collected a mountain of personal data: everything from license plate numbers, full names, addresses, and phone numbers to the unique personal identification numbers assigned to every resident. For the cherry on top, drivers were asked to pay a “license replacement fee” of 1200 NOK (over US$125). The scammers walked away with personal data, credit card details, and cash. A literal triple-combo move!

Generally speaking, motorists are an attractive target: they clearly have money and a car and a fear of losing it. UK-based scammers played on this by sending out demands to urgently pay some overdue vehicle tax to avoid some unspecified “enforcement action”. This “act now!” urgency is a classic phishing trope designed to distract the victim from a sketchy URL or janky formatting.

Let us borrow your identity, please

In 2025, we saw a spike in phishing attacks revolving around Know Your Customer (KYC) checks. To boost security, many services now verify users via biometrics and government IDs. Scammers have learned to harvest this data by spoofing the pages of popular services that implement these checks.

What sets these attacks apart is that, in addition to standard personal info, phishers demand photos of IDs or the victim’s face — sometimes from multiple angles. This kind of full profile can later be sold on dark web marketplaces or used for identity theft. We took a deep dive into this process in our post, What happens to data stolen using phishing?

AI scammers

Naturally, scammers weren’t about to sit out the artificial intelligence boom. ChatGPT became a major lure: fraudsters built fake ChatGPT Plus subscription checkout pages, and offered “unique prompts” guaranteed to make you go viral on social media.

The “earn money with AI” scheme was particularly cynical. Scammers offered passive income from bets allegedly placed by ChatGPT: the bot does all the heavy lifting while the user just watches the cash roll in. Sounds like a dream, right? But to “catch” this opportunity, you had to act fast. A special price on this easy way to lose your money was valid for only 15 minutes from the moment you hit the page, leaving victims with no time to think twice.

Across the board, scammers are aggressively adopting AI. They’re leveraging deepfakes, automating high-quality website design, and generating polished copy for their email blasts. Even live calls with victims are becoming components of more complex schemes, which we detailed in our post, How phishers and scammers use AI.

Booby-trapped job openings

Someone looking for work is a prime target for bad actors. By dangling high-paying remote roles at major brands, phishers harvested applicants’ personal data — and sometimes even squeezed them for small “document processing fees” or “commissions”.

In more sophisticated setups, “employment agency” phishing sites would ask for the phone number linked to the user’s Telegram account during registration. To finish “signing up”, the victim had to enter a “confirmation code”, which was actually a Telegram authorization code. After entering it, the site kept pestering the applicant for more profile details — clearly a distraction to keep them from noticing the new login notification on their phone. To “verify the user”, the victim was told to wait 24 hours, giving the scammers, who already had a foot in the door, enough time to hijack the Telegram account permanently.

Hype is a lie (but a very convincing one)

As usual, scammers in 2025 were quick to jump on every trending headline, launching email campaigns at breakneck speed.

For instance, following the launch of $TRUMP meme coins by the U.S. President, scam blasts appeared promising free NFTs from “Trump Meme Coin” and “Trump Digital Trading Cards”. We’ve previously broken down exactly how meme coins work, and how to (not) lose your shirt on them.

The second the iPhone 17 Pro hit the market, it became the prize in countless fake surveys. After “winning”, users just had to provide their contact info and pay for shipping. Once those bank details were entered, the “winner” risked losing not just the shipping fee, but every cent in their account.

Riding the Ozempic wave, scammers flooded inboxes with offers for counterfeit versions of the drug, or sketchy “alternatives” that real pharmacists have never even heard of.

And during the BLACKPINK world tour, spammers pivoted to advertising “scooter suitcases just like the band uses”.

Even Jeff Bezos’s wedding in the summer of 2025 became fodder for “Nigerian” email scams. Users received messages purportedly from Bezos himself or his ex-wife, MacKenzie Scott. The emails promised massive sums in the name of charity or as “compensation” from Amazon.

How to stay safe

As you can see, scammers know no bounds when it comes to inventing new ways to separate you from your money and personal data — or even stealing your entire identity. These are just a few of the wildest examples from 2025; you can dive into the full analysis of the phishing and spam threat landscape over at Securelist. In the meantime, here are a few tips to keep you from becoming a victim. Be sure to share these with your friends and family — especially kids, teens, and older relatives. These groups are often the main targets in the scammers’ crosshairs.

1. Check the URL before entering any data. Even if the page looks pixel-perfect, the address bar can give the game away.
2. Don’t follow links in suspicious messages, even if they come from someone you know. Their account could easily have been hijacked.
3. Never share verification codes with anyone. These codes are the master keys to your digital life.
4. Enable two-factor authentication everywhere you can. It adds a crucial extra hurdle for hackers.
5. Be skeptical of “too good to be true” offers. Free iPhones, easy money, and gifts from strangers are almost always a trap. For a refresher, check out our post, Phishing 101: what to do if you get a phishing email.
6. Install robust protection on all your devices. Kaspersky Premium automatically blocks phishing sites, malicious attachments, and spam blasts before you even have a chance to click. Plus, our Kaspersky for Android app features a three-tier anti-phishing system that can sniff out and neutralize malicious links in any message from any app. Read more about it in our post, A new layer of anti-phishing security in Kaspersky for Android.

The Olympic Games are more than just a massive celebration of sports; they’re a high-stakes business. Officially, the projected economic impact of the Winter Games — which kicked off on February 6 in Italy — is estimated at 5.3 billion euros. A lion’s share of that revenue is expected to come from fans flocking in from around the globe — with over 2.5 million tourists predicted to visit Italy. Meanwhile, those staying home are tuning in via TV and streaming. According to the platforms, viewership ratings are already hitting their highest peaks since 2014.

But while athletes are grinding for medals and the world is glued to every triumph and heartbreak, a different set of “competitors” has entered the arena to capitalize on the hype and the trust of eager fans. Cyberscammers of all stripes have joined an illegal race for the gold, knowing full well that a frenzy is a fraudster’s best friend.

Kaspersky experts have tracked numerous fraudulent schemes targeting fans during these Winter Games. Here’s how to avoid frustration in the form of fake tickets, non-existent merch, and shady streams, so you can keep your money and personal data safe.

Tickets to nowhere

The most popular scam on this year’s circuit is the sale of non-existent tickets. Usually, there are far fewer seats at the rinks and slopes than there are fans dying to see the main events. In a supply-and-demand crunch, folks scramble for any chance to snag those coveted passes, and that’s when phishing sites — clones of official vendors — come to the “rescue”. Using these, bad actors fish for fans’ payment details to either resell them on the dark web or drain their accounts immediately.

Remember: tickets for any Olympic event are sold only through the authorized Olympic platform or its listed partners. Any third-party site or seller outside the official channel is a scammer. We’re putting that play in the penalty box!

A fake goalie mitt, a counterfeit stick…

Dreaming of a Sydney Sweeney — sorry, Sidney Crosby — jersey? Or maybe you want a tracksuit with the official Games logo? Scammers have already set up dozens of fake online stores just for you! To pull off the heist, they use official logos, convincing photos, and padded rave reviews. You pay, and in return, you get… well, nothing but a transaction alert and your card info stolen.

I want my Olympic TV!

What if you prefer watching the action from the comfort of your couch rather than trekking from stadium to stadium, but you’re not exactly thrilled about paying for a pricey streaming subscription? Maybe there’s a free stream out there?

Sure thing! Five seconds of searching and your screen is flooded with dozens of “cheap”, “exclusive”, or even “free” live streams. They’ve got everything from figure skating to curling. But there’s a catch: for some reason — even though it’s supposedly free — a pop-up appears asking for your credit card details.

You type them in and hit “Play”, but instead of the long-awaited free skate program, you end up on a webcam ad site or somewhere even sketchier. The result: no show for you. At best, you were just used for traffic arbitrage; at worst, they now have access to your bank account. Either way, it’s a major bummer.

Defensive tactics

Scammers have been ripping off sports fans for years, and their payday depends entirely on how well they can mimic official portals. To stay safe, fans should mount a tiered defense: install reliable security software to block phishing, and keep a sharp eye on every URL you visit. If something feels even slightly off, never, ever enter your personal or payment info.

• Stick to authorized channels for tickets. Steer clear of third-party resellers and always double-check info on the official Olympic website.
• Use legitimate streaming services. Read the reviews and don’t hand over your credit card details to unverified sites.
• Be wary of Olympic merch and gift vendors. Don’t get baited by “exclusive” offers or massive discounts from unknown stores. Only buy from official retail partners.
• Avoid links in emails, direct messages, texts, or ads offering free tickets, streams, promo codes, or prize giveaways.
• Deploy a robust security solution. For instance, Kaspersky Premium automatically shuts down phishing attempts and blocks dangerous websites, malicious ads, and credit card skimmers in real time.

Want to see how sports fans were targeted in the past? Check out our previous posts:

• Summer scams in Paris
• How to watch soccer safely
• Soccer Cyberthreats

The year in figures

• 44.99% of all emails sent worldwide and 43.27% of all emails sent in the Russian web segment were spam
• 32.50% of all spam emails were sent from Russia
• Kaspersky Mail Anti-Virus blocked 144,722,674 malicious email attachments
• Our Anti-Phishing system thwarted 554,002,207 attempts to follow phishing links

Phishing and scams in 2025

Entertainment-themed phishing attacks and scams

In 2025, online streaming services remained a primary theme for phishing sites within the entertainment sector, typically by offering early access to major premieres ahead of their official release dates. Alongside these, there was a notable increase in phishing pages mimicking ticket aggregation platforms for live events. Cybercriminals lured users with offers of free tickets to see popular artists on pages that mirrored the branding of major ticket distributors. To participate in these “promotions”, victims were required to pay a nominal processing or ticket-shipping fee. Naturally, after paying the fee, the users never received any tickets.

In addition to concert-themed bait, other music-related scams gained significant traction. Users were directed to phishing pages and prompted to “vote for their favorite artist”, a common activity within fan communities. To bolster credibility, the scammers leveraged the branding of major companies like Google and Spotify. This specific scheme was designed to harvest credentials for multiple platforms simultaneously, as users were required to sign in with their Facebook, Instagram, or email credentials to participate.

As a pretext for harvesting Spotify credentials, attackers offered users a way to migrate their playlists to YouTube. To complete the transfer, victims were to just enter their Spotify credentials.

Beyond standard phishing, threat actors leveraged Spotify’s popularity for scams. In Brazil, scammers promoted a scheme where users were purportedly paid to listen to and rate songs.

To “withdraw” their earnings, users were required to provide their identification number for PIX, Brazil’s instant payment system.

Users were then prompted to verify their identity. To do so, the victim was required to make a small, one-time “verification payment”, an amount significantly lower than the potential earnings.

The form for submitting this “verification payment” was designed to appear highly authentic, even requesting various pieces of personal data. It is highly probable that this data was collected for use in subsequent attacks.

In another variation, users were invited to participate in a survey in exchange for a $1000 gift card. However, in a move typical of a scam, the victim was required to pay a small processing or shipping fee to claim the prize. Once the funds were transferred, the attackers vanished, and the website was taken offline.

Even deciding to go to an art venue with a girl from a dating site could result in financial loss. In this scenario, the “date” would suggest an in-person meeting after a brief period of rapport-building. They would propose a relatively inexpensive outing, such as a movie or a play at a niche theater. The scammer would go so far as to provide a link to a specific page where the victim could supposedly purchase tickets for the event.

To enhance the site’s perceived legitimacy, it even prompted the user to select their city of residence.

However, once the “ticket payment” was completed, both the booking site and the individual from the dating platform would vanish.

A similar tactic was employed by scam sites selling tickets for escape rooms. The design of these pages closely mirrored legitimate websites to lower the target’s guard.

Phishing pages masquerading as travel portals often capitalize on a sense of urgency, betting that a customer eager to book a “last-minute deal” will overlook an illegitimate URL. For example, the fraudulent page shown below offered exclusive tours of Japan, purportedly from a major Japanese tour operator.

Sensitive data at risk: phishing via government services

To harvest users’ personal data, attackers utilized a traditional phishing framework: fraudulent forms for document processing on sites posing as government portals. The visual design and content of these phishing pages meticulously replicated legitimate websites, offering the same services found on official sites. In Brazil, for instance, attackers collected personal data from individuals under the pretext of issuing a Rural Property Registration Certificate (CCIR).

Through this method, fraudsters tried to gain access to the victim’s highly sensitive information, including their individual taxpayer registry (CPF) number. This identifier serves as a unique key for every Brazilian national to access private accounts on government portals. It is also utilized in national databases and displayed on personal identification documents, making its interception particularly dangerous. Scammer access to this data poses a severe risk of identity theft, unauthorized access to government platforms, and financial exposure.

Furthermore, users were at risk of direct financial loss: in certain instances, the attackers requested a “processing fee” to facilitate the issuance of the important document.

Fraudsters also employed other methods to obtain CPF numbers. Specifically, we discovered phishing pages mimicking the official government service portal, which requires the CPF for sign-in.

Another theme exploited by scammers involved government payouts. In 2025, Singaporean citizens received government vouchers ranging from $600 to $800 in honor of the country’s 60th anniversary. To redeem these, users were required to sign in to the official program website. Fraudsters rushed to create web pages designed to mimic this site. Interestingly, the primary targets in this campaign were Telegram accounts, despite the fact that Telegram credentials were not a requirement for signing in to the legitimate portal.

We also identified a scam targeting users in Norway who were looking to renew or replace their driver’s licenses. Upon opening a website masquerading as the official Norwegian Public Roads Administration website, visitors were prompted to enter their vehicle registration and phone numbers.

Next, the victim was prompted for sensitive data, such as the personal identification number unique to every Norwegian citizen. By doing so, the attackers not only gained access to confidential information but also reinforced the illusion that the victim was interacting with an official website.

Once the personal data was submitted, a fraudulent page would appear, requesting a “processing fee” of 1200 kroner. If the victim entered their credit card details, the funds were transferred directly to the scammers with no possibility of recovery.

In Germany, attackers used the pretext of filing tax returns to trick users into providing their email user names and passwords on phishing pages.

A call to urgent action is a classic tactic in phishing scenarios. When combined with the threat of losing property, these schemes become highly effective bait, distracting potential victims from noticing an incorrect URL or a poorly designed website. For example, a phishing warning regarding unpaid vehicle taxes was used as a tool by attackers targeting credentials for the UK government portal.

We have observed that since the spring of 2025, there has been an increase in emails mimicking automated notifications from the Russian government services portal. These messages were distributed under the guise of application status updates and contained phishing links.

We also recorded vishing attacks targeting users of government portals. Victims were prompted to “verify account security” by calling a support number provided in the email. To lower the users’ guard, the attackers included fabricated technical details in the emails, such as the IP address, device model, and timestamp of an alleged unauthorized sign-in.

Last year, attackers also disguised vishing emails as notifications from microfinance institutions or credit bureaus regarding new loan applications. The scammers banked on the likelihood that the recipient had not actually applied for a loan. They would then prompt the victim to contact a fake support service via a spoofed support number.

Know Your Customer

As an added layer of data security, many services now implement biometric verification (facial recognition, fingerprints, and retina scans), as well as identity document verification and digital signatures. To harvest this data, fraudsters create clones of popular platforms that utilize these verification protocols. We have previously detailed the mechanics of this specific type of data theft.

In 2025, we observed a surge in phishing attacks targeting users under the guise of Know Your Customer (KYC) identity verification. KYC protocols rely on a specific set of user data for identification. By spoofing the pages of payment services such as Vivid Money, fraudsters harvested the information required to pass KYC authentication.

Notably, this threat also impacted users of various other platforms that utilize KYC procedures.

A distinctive feature of attacks on the KYC process is that, in addition to the victim’s full name, email address, and phone number, phishers request photos of their passport or face, sometimes from multiple angles. If this information falls into the hands of threat actors, the consequences extend beyond the loss of account access; the victim’s credentials can be sold on dark web marketplaces, a trend we have highlighted in previous reports.

Messaging app phishing

Account hijacking on messaging platforms like WhatsApp and Telegram remains one of the primary objectives of phishing and scam operations. While traditional tactics, such as suspicious links embedded in messages, have been well-known for some time, the methods used to steal credentials are becoming increasingly sophisticated.

For instance, Telegram users were invited to participate in a prize giveaway purportedly hosted by a famous athlete. This phishing attack, which masqueraded as an NFT giveaway, was executed through a Telegram Mini App. This marks a shift in tactics, as attackers previously relied on external web pages for these types of schemes.

In 2025, new variations emerged within the familiar framework of distributing phishing links via Telegram. For example, we observed prompts inviting users to vote for the “best dentist” or “best COO” in town.

The most prevalent theme in these voting-based schemes, children’s contests, was distributed primarily through WhatsApp. These phishing pages showed little variety; attackers utilized a standardized website design and set of “bait” photos, simply localizing the language based on the target audience’s geographic location.

To participate in the vote, the victim was required to enter the phone number linked to their WhatsApp account.

They were then prompted to provide a one-time authentication code for the messaging app.

The following are several other popular methods used by fraudsters to hijack user credentials.

In China, phishing pages meticulously replicated the WhatsApp interface. Victims were notified that their accounts had purportedly been flagged for “illegal activity”, necessitating “additional verification”.

The victim was redirected to a page to enter their phone number, followed by a request for their authorization code.

In other instances, users received messages allegedly from WhatsApp support regarding account authentication via SMS. As with the other scenarios described, the attackers’ objective was to obtain the authentication code required to hijack the account.

Fraudsters enticed WhatsApp users with an offer to link an app designed to “sync communications” with business contacts.

To increase the perceived legitimacy of the phishing site, the attackers even prompted users to create custom credentials for the page.

After that, the user was required to “purchase a subscription” to activate the application. This allowed the scammers to harvest credit card data, leaving the victim without the promised service.

To lure Telegram users, phishers distributed invitations to online dating chats.

Attackers also heavily leveraged the promise of free Telegram Premium subscriptions. While these phishing pages were previously observed only in Russian and English, the linguistic scope of these campaigns expanded significantly this year. As in previous iterations, activating the subscription required the victim to sign in to their account, which could result in the loss of account access.

Exploiting the ChatGPT hype

Artificial intelligence is increasingly being leveraged by attackers as bait. For example, we have identified fraudulent websites mimicking the official payment page for ChatGPT Plus subscriptions.

Social media marketing through LLMs was also a potential focal point for user interest. Scammers offered “specialized prompt kits” designed for social media growth; however, once payment was received, they vanished, leaving victims without the prompts or their money.

The promise of easy income through neural networks has emerged as another tactic to attract potential victims. Fraudsters promoted using ChatGPT to place bets, promising that the bot would do all the work while the user collected the profits. These services were offered at a “special price” valid for only 15 minutes after the page was opened. This narrow window prevented the victim from critically evaluating the impulse purchase.

Job opportunities with a catch

To attract potential victims, scammers exploited the theme of employment by offering high-paying remote positions. Applicants responding to these advertisements did more than just disclose their personal data; in some cases, fraudsters requested a small sum under the pretext of document processing or administrative fees. To convince victims that the offer was legitimate, attackers impersonated major brands, leveraging household names to build trust. This allowed them to lower the victims’ guard, even when the employment terms sounded too good to be true.

We also observed schemes where, after obtaining a victim’s data via a phishing site, scammers would follow up with a phone call – a tactic aimed at tricking the user into disclosing additional personal data.

By analyzing current job market trends, threat actors also targeted popular career paths to steal messaging app credentials. These phishing schemes were tailored to specific regional markets. For example, in the UAE, fake “employment agency” websites were circulating.

In a more sophisticated variation, users were asked to complete a questionnaire that required the phone number linked to their Telegram account.

To complete the registration, users were prompted for a code which, in reality, was a Telegram authorization code.

Notably, the registration process did not end there; the site continued to request additional information to “set up an account” on the fraudulent platform. This served to keep victims in the dark, maintaining their trust in the malicious site’s perceived legitimacy.

After finishing the registration, the victim was told to wait 24 hours for “verification”, though the scammers’ primary objective, hijacking the Telegram account, had already been achieved.

Simpler phishing schemes were also observed, where users were redirected to a page mimicking the Telegram interface. By entering their phone number and authorization code, victims lost access to their accounts.

Job seekers were not the only ones targeted by scammers. Employers’ accounts were also in the crosshairs, specifically on a major Russian recruitment portal. On a counterfeit page, the victim was asked to “verify their account” in order to post a job listing, which required them to enter their actual sign-in credentials for the legitimate site.

Spam in 2025

Malicious attachments

Password-protected archives

Attackers began aggressively distributing messages with password-protected malicious archives in 2024. Throughout 2025, these archives remained a popular vector for spreading malware, and we observed a variety of techniques designed to bypass security solutions.

For example, threat actors sent emails impersonating law firms, threatening victims with legal action over alleged “unauthorized domain name use”. The recipient was prompted to review potential pre-trial settlement options detailed in an attached document. The attachment consisted of an unprotected archive containing a secondary password-protected archive and a file with the password. Disguised as a legal document within this inner archive was a malicious WSF file, which installed a Trojan into the system via startup. The Trojan then stealthily downloaded and installed Tor, which allowed it to regularly exfiltrate screenshots to the attacker-controlled C2 server.

In addition to archives, we also encountered password-protected PDF files containing malicious links over the past year.

E-signature service exploits

Emails using the pretext of “signing a document” to coerce users into clicking phishing links or opening malicious attachments were quite common in 2025. The most prevalent scheme involved fraudulent notifications from electronic signature services. While these were primarily used for phishing, one specific malware sample identified within this campaign is of particular interest.

The email, purportedly sent from a well-known document-sharing platform, notified the recipient that they had been granted access to a “contract” attached to the message. However, the attachment was not the expected PDF; instead, it was a nested email file named after the contract. The body of this nested message mirrored the original, but its attachment utilized a double extension: a malicious SVG file containing a Trojan was disguised as a PDF document. This multi-layered approach was likely an attempt to obfuscate the malware and bypass security filters.

“Business correspondence” impersonating industrial companies

In the summer of last year, we observed mailshots sent in the name of various existing industrial enterprises. These emails contained DOCX attachments embedded with Trojans. Attackers coerced victims into opening the malicious files under the pretext of routine business tasks, such as signing a contract or drafting a report.

The authors of this malicious campaign attempted to lower users’ guard by using legitimate industrial sector domains in the “From” address. Furthermore, the messages were routed through the mail servers of a reputable cloud provider, ensuring the technical metadata appeared authentic. Consequently, even a cautious user could mistake the email for a genuine communication, open the attachment, and compromise their device.

Attacks on hospitals

Hospitals were a popular target for threat actors this past year: they were targeted with malicious emails impersonating well-known insurance providers. Recipients were threatened with legal action regarding alleged “substandard medical services”. The attachments, described as “medical records and a written complaint from an aggrieved patient”, were actually malware. Our solutions detect this threat as Backdoor.Win64.BrockenDoor, a backdoor capable of harvesting system information and executing malicious commands on the infected device.

We also came across emails with a different narrative. In those instances, medical staff were requested to facilitate a patient transfer from another hospital for ongoing observation and treatment. These messages referenced attached medical files containing diagnostic and treatment history, which were actually archives containing malicious payloads.

To bolster the perceived legitimacy of these communications, attackers did more than just impersonate famous insurers and medical institutions; they registered look-alike domains that mimicked official organizations’ domains by appending keywords such as “-insurance” or “-med.” Furthermore, to lower the victims’ guard, scammers included a fake “Scanned by Email Security” label.

Messages containing instructions to run malicious scripts

Last year, we observed unconventional infection chains targeting end-user devices. Threat actors continued to distribute instructions for downloading and executing malicious code, rather than attaching the malware files directly. To convince the recipient to follow these steps, attackers typically utilized a lure involving a “critical software update” or a “system patch” to fix a purported vulnerability. Generally, the first step in the instructions required launching the command prompt with administrative privileges, while the second involved entering a command to download and execute the malware: either a script or an executable file.

In some instances, these instructions were contained within a PDF file. The victim was prompted to copy a command into PowerShell that was neither obfuscated nor hidden. Such schemes target non-technical users who would likely not understand the command’s true intent and would unknowingly infect their own devices.

Scams

Law enforcement impersonation scams in the Russian web segment

In 2025, extortion campaigns involving actors posing as law enforcement – a trend previously more prevalent in Europe – were adapted to target users across the Commonwealth of Independent States.

For example, we identified messages disguised as criminal subpoenas or summonses purportedly issued by Russian law enforcement agencies. However, the specific departments cited in these emails never actually existed. The content of these “summonses” would also likely raise red flags for a cautious user. This blackmail scheme relied on the victim, in their state of panic, not scrutinizing the contents of the fake summons.

To intimidate recipients, the attackers referenced legal frameworks and added forged signatures and seals to the “subpoenas”. In reality, neither the cited statutes nor the specific civil service positions exist in Russia.

We observed similar attacks – employing fabricated government agencies and fictitious legal acts – in other CIS countries, such as Belarus.

Fraudulent investment schemes

Threat actors continued to aggressively exploit investment themes in their email scams. These emails typically promise stable, remote income through “exclusive” investment opportunities. This remains one of the most high-volume and adaptable categories of email scams. Threat actors embedded fraudulent links both directly within the message body and inside various types of attachments: PDF, DOC, PPTX, and PNG files. Furthermore, they increasingly leveraged legitimate Google services, such as Google Docs, YouTube, and Google Forms, to distribute these communications. The link led to the site of the “project” where the victim was prompted to provide their phone number and email. Subsequently, users were invited to invest in a non-existent project.

We have previously documented these mailshots: they were originally targeted at Russian-speaking users and were primarily distributed under the guise of major financial institutions. However, in 2025, this investment-themed scam expanded into other CIS countries and Europe. Furthermore, the range of industries that spammers impersonated grew significantly. For instance, in their emails, attackers began soliciting investments for projects supposedly led by major industrial-sector companies in Kazakhstan and the Czech Republic.

Fraudulent “brand partner” recruitment

This specific scam operates through a multi-stage workflow. First, the target company receives a communication from an individual claiming to represent a well-known global brand, inviting them to register as a certified supplier or business partner. To bolster the perceived authenticity of the offer, the fraudsters send the victim an extensive set of forged documents. Once these documents are signed, the victim is instructed to pay a “deposit”, which the attackers claim will be fully refunded once the partnership is officially established.

These mailshots were first detected in 2025 and have rapidly become one of the most prevalent forms of email-based fraud. In December 2025 alone, we blocked over 80,000 such messages. These campaigns specifically targeted the B2B sector and were notable for their high level of variation – ranging from their technical properties to the diversity of the message content and the wide array of brands the attackers chose to impersonate.

Fraudulent overdue rent notices

Last year, we identified a new theme in email scams: recipients were notified that the payment deadline for a leased property had expired and were urged to settle the “debt” immediately. To prevent the victim from sending funds to their actual landlord, the email claimed that banking details had changed. The “debtor” was then instructed to request the new payment information – which, of course, belonged to the fraudsters. These mailshots primarily targeted French-speaking countries; however, in December 2025, we discovered a similar scam variant in German.

QR codes in scam letters

In 2025, we observed a trend where QR codes were utilized not only in phishing attempts but also in extortion emails. In a classic blackmail scam, the user is typically intimidated by claims that hackers have gained access to sensitive data. To prevent the public release of this information, the attackers demand a ransom payment to their cryptocurrency wallet.

Previously, to bypass email filters, scammers attempted to obfuscate the wallet address by using various noise contamination techniques. In last year’s campaigns, however, scammers shifted to including a QR code that contained the cryptocurrency wallet address.

News agenda

As in previous years, spammers in 2025 aggressively integrated current events into their fraudulent messaging to increase engagement.

For example, following the launch of $TRUMP memecoins surrounding Donald Trump’s inauguration, we identified scam campaigns promoting the “Trump Meme Coin” and “Trump Digital Trading Cards”. In these instances, scammers enticed victims to click a link to claim “free NFTs”.

We also observed ads offering educational credentials. Spammers posted these ads as comments on legacy, unmoderated forums; this tactic ensured that notifications were automatically pushed to all users subscribed to the thread. These notifications either displayed the fraudulent link directly in the comment preview or alerted users to a new post that redirected them to spammers’ sites.

In the summer, when the wedding of Amazon founder Jeff Bezos became a major global news story, users began receiving Nigerian-style scam messages purportedly from Bezos himself, as well as from his former wife, MacKenzie Scott. These emails promised recipients substantial sums of money, framed either as charitable donations or corporate compensation from Amazon.

During the BLACKPINK world tour, we observed a wave of spam advertising “luggage scooters”. The scammers claimed these were the exact motorized suitcases used by the band members during their performances.

Finally, in the fall of 2025, traditionally timed to coincide with the launch of new iPhones, we identified scam campaigns featuring surveys that offered participants a chance to “win” a fictitious iPhone 17 Pro.

After completing a brief survey, the user was prompted to provide their contact information and physical address, as well as pay a “delivery fee” – which was the scammers’ ultimate objective. Upon entering their credit card details into the fraudulent site, the victim risked losing not only the relatively small delivery charge but also the entire balance in their bank account.

The widespread popularity of Ozempic was also reflected in spam campaigns; users were bombarded with offers to purchase versions of the drug or questionable alternatives.

Localized news events also fall under the scrutiny of fraudsters, serving as the basis for scam narratives. For instance, last summer, coinciding with the opening of the tax season in South Africa, we began detecting phishing emails impersonating the South African Revenue Service (SARS). These messages notified taxpayers of alleged “outstanding balances” that required immediate settlement.

Methods of distributing email threats

Google services

In 2025, threat actors increasingly leveraged various Google services to distribute email-based threats. We observed the exploitation of Google Calendar: scammers would create an event containing a WhatsApp contact number in the description and send an invitation to the target. For instance, companies received emails regarding product inquiries that prompted them to move the conversation to the messaging app to discuss potential “collaboration”.

Spammers employed a similar tactic using Google Classroom. We identified samples offering SEO optimization services that likewise directed victims to a WhatsApp number for further communication.

We also detected the distribution of fraudulent links via legitimate YouTube notifications. Attackers would reply to user comments under various videos, triggering an automated email notification to the victim. This email contained a link to a video that displayed only a message urging the viewer to “check the description”, where the actual link to the scam site was located. As the victim received an email containing the full text of the fraudulent comment, they were often lured through this chain of links, eventually landing on the scam site.

Over the past two years or so, there has been a significant rise in attacks utilizing Google Forms. Fraudsters create a survey with an enticing title and place the scam messaging directly in the form’s description. They then submit the form themselves, entering the victims’ email addresses into the field for the respondent email. This triggers legitimate notifications from the Google Forms service to the targeted addresses. Because these emails originate from Google’s own mail servers, they appear authentic to most spam filters. The attackers rely on the victim focusing on the “bait” description containing the fraudulent link rather than the standard form header.

Google Groups also emerged as a popular tool for spam distribution last year. Scammers would create a group, add the victims’ email addresses as members, and broadcast spam through the service. This scheme proved highly effective: even if a security solution blocked the initial spam message, the user could receive a deluge of automated replies from other addresses on the member list.

At the end of 2025, we encountered a legitimate email in terms of technical metadata that was sent via Google and contained a fraudulent link. The message also included a verification code for the recipient’s email address. To generate this notification, scammers filled out the account registration form in a way that diverted the recipient’s attention toward a fraudulent site. For example, instead of entering a first and last name, the attackers inserted text such as “Personal Link” followed by a phishing URL, utilizing noise contamination techniques. By entering the victim’s email address into the registration field, the scammers triggered a legitimate system notification containing the fraudulent link.

OpenAI

In addition to Google services, spammers leveraged other platforms to distribute email threats, notably OpenAI, riding the wave of artificial intelligence popularity. In 2025, we observed emails sent via the OpenAI platform into which spammers had injected short messages, fraudulent links, or phone numbers.

This occurs during the account registration process on the OpenAI platform, where users are prompted to create an organization to generate an API key. Spammers placed their fraudulent content directly into the field designated for the organization’s name. They then added the victims’ email addresses as organization members, triggering automated platform invitations that delivered the fraudulent links or contact numbers directly to the targets.

Spear phishing and BEC attacks in 2025

QR codes

The use of QR codes in spear phishing has become a conventional tactic that threat actors continued to employ throughout 2025. Specifically, we observed the persistence of a major trend identified in our previous report: the distribution of phishing documents disguised as notifications from a company’s HR department.

In these campaigns, attackers impersonated HR team members, requesting that employees review critical documentation, such as a new corporate policy or code of conduct. These documents were typically attached to the email as PDF files.

To maintain the ruse, the PDF document contained a highly convincing call to action, prompting the user to scan a QR code to access the relevant file. While attackers previously embedded these codes directly into the body of the email, last year saw a significant shift toward placing them within attachments – most likely in an attempt to bypass email security filters.

Upon scanning the QR code within the attachment, the victim was redirected to a phishing page meticulously designed to mimic a Microsoft authentication form.

In addition to fraudulent HR notifications, threat actors created scheduled meetings within the victim’s email calendar, placing DOC or PDF files containing QR codes in the event descriptions. Leveraging calendar invites to distribute malicious links is a legacy technique that was widely observed during scam campaigns in 2019. After several years of relative dormancy, we saw a resurgence of this technique last year, now integrated into more sophisticated spear phishing operations.

In one specific example, the attachment was presented as a “new voicemail” notification. To listen to the recording, the user was prompted to scan a QR code and sign in to their account on the resulting page.

As in the previous scenario, scanning the code redirected the user to a phishing page, where they risked losing access to their Microsoft account or internal corporate sites.

Link protection services

Threat actors utilized more than just QR codes to hide phishing URLs and bypass security checks. In 2025, we discovered that fraudsters began weaponizing link protection services for the same purpose. The primary function of these services is to intercept and scan URLs at the moment of clicking to prevent users from reaching phishing sites or downloading malware. However, attackers are now abusing this technology by generating phishing links that security systems mistakenly categorize as “safe”.

This technique is employed in both mass and spear phishing campaigns. It is particularly dangerous in targeted attacks, which often incorporate employees’ personal data and mimic official corporate branding. When combined with these characteristics, a URL generated through a legitimate link protection service can significantly bolster the perceived authenticity of a phishing email.

After opening a URL that seemed safe, the user was directed to a phishing site.

BEC and fabricated email chains

In Business Email Compromise (BEC) attacks, threat actors have also begun employing new techniques, the most notable of which is the use of fake forwarded messages.

This BEC attack unfolded as follows. An employee would receive an email containing a previous conversation between the sender and another colleague. The final message in this thread was typically an automated out-of-office reply or a request to hand off a specific task to a new assignee. In reality, however, the entire initial conversation with the colleague was completely fabricated. These messages lacked the thread-index headers, as well as other critical header values, that would typically verify the authenticity of an actual email chain.

In the example at hand, the victim was pressured to urgently pay for a license using the provided banking details. The PDF attachments included wire transfer instructions and a counterfeit cover letter from the bank.

The bank does not actually have an office at the address provided in the documents.

Statistics: phishing

In 2025, Kaspersky solutions blocked 554,002,207 attempts to follow fraudulent links. In contrast to the trends of previous years, we did not observe any major spikes in phishing activity; instead, the volume of attacks remained relatively stable throughout the year, with the exception of a minor decline in December.

Anti-Phishing triggers, 2025 (download)

The phishing and scam landscape underwent a shift. While in 2024, we saw a high volume of mass attacks, their frequency declined in 2025. Furthermore, redirection-based schemes, which were frequently used for online fraud in 2024, became less prevalent in 2025.

Map of phishing attacks

As in the previous year, Peru remains the country with the highest percentage (17.46%) of users targeted by phishing attacks. Bangladesh (16.98%) took second place, entering the TOP 10 for the first time, while Malawi (16.65%), which was absent from the 2024 rankings, was third. Following these are Tunisia (16.19%), Colombia (15.67%), the latter also being a newcomer to the TOP 10, Brazil (15.48%), and Ecuador (15.27%). They are followed closely by Madagascar and Kenya, both with a 15.23% share of attacked users. Rounding out the list is Vietnam, which previously held the third spot, with a share of 15.05%.

Country/territory	Share of attacked users**
Peru	17.46%
Bangladesh	16.98%
Malawi	16.65%
Tunisia	16.19%
Colombia	15.67%
Brazil	15.48%
Ecuador	15.27%
Madagascar	15.23%
Kenya	15.23%
Vietnam	15.05%

** Share of users who encountered phishing out of the total number of Kaspersky users in the country/territory, 2025

Top-level domains

In 2025, breaking a trend that had persisted for several years, the majority of phishing pages were hosted within the XYZ TLD zone, accounting for 21.64% – a three-fold increase compared to 2024. The second most popular zone was TOP (15.45%), followed by BUZZ (13.58%). This high demand can be attributed to the low cost of domain registration in these zones. The COM domain, which had previously held the top spot consistently, fell to fourth place (10.52%). It is important to note that this decline is partially driven by the popularity of typosquatting attacks: threat actors frequently spoof sites within the COM domain by using alternative suffixes, such as example-com.site instead of example.com. Following COM is the BOND TLD, entering the TOP 10 for the first time with a 5.56% share. As this zone is typically associated with financial websites, the surge in malicious interest there is a logical progression for financial phishing. The sixth and seventh positions are held by ONLINE (3.39%) and SITE (2.02%), which occupied the fourth and fifth spots, respectively, in 2024. In addition, three domain zones that had not previously appeared in our statistics emerged as popular hosting environments for phishing sites. These included the CFD domain (1.97%), typically used for websites in the clothing, fashion, and design sectors; the Polish national top-level domain, PL (1.75%); and the LOL domain (1.60%).

Most frequent top-level domains for phishing pages, 2025 (download)

Organizations targeted by phishing attacks

The rankings of organizations targeted by phishers are based on detections by the Anti-Phishing deterministic component on user computers. The component detects all pages with phishing content that the user has tried to open by following a link in an email message or on the web, as long as links to these pages are present in the Kaspersky database.

Phishing pages impersonating web services (27.42%) and global internet portals (15.89%) maintained their positions in the TOP 10, continuing to rank first and second, respectively. Online stores (11.27%), a traditional favorite among threat actors, returned to the third spot. In 2025, phishers showed increased interest in online gamers: websites mimicking gaming platforms jumped from ninth to fifth place (7.58%). These are followed by banks (6.06%), payment systems (5.93%), messengers (5.70%), and delivery services (5.06%). Phishing attacks also targeted social media (4.42%) and government services (1.77%) accounts.

Distribution of targeted organizations by category, 2025 (download)

Statistics: spam

Share of spam in email traffic

In 2025, the average share of spam in global email traffic was 44.99%, representing a decrease of 2.28 percentage points compared to the previous year. Notably, contrary to the trends of the past several years, the fourth quarter was the busiest one: an average of 49.26% of emails were categorized as spam, with peak activity occurring in November (52.87%) and December (51.80%). Throughout the rest of the year, the distribution of junk mail remained relatively stable without significant spikes, maintaining an average share of approximately 43.50%.

Share of spam in global email traffic, 2025 (download)

In the Russian web segment (Runet), we observed a more substantial decline: the average share of spam decreased by 5.3 percentage points to 43.27%. Deviating from the global trend, the fourth quarter was the quietest period in Russia, with a share of 41.28%. We recorded the lowest level of spam activity in December, when only 36.49% of emails were identified as junk. January and February were also relatively calm, with average values of 41.94% and 43.09%, respectively. Conversely, the Runet figures for March–October correlated with global figures: no major surges were observed, spam accounting for an average of 44.30% of total email traffic during these months.

Share of spam in Runet email traffic, 2025 (download)

Countries and territories where spam originated

The top three countries in the 2025 rankings for the volume of outgoing spam mirror the distribution of the previous year: Russia, China, and the United States. However, the share of spam originating from Russia decreased from 36.18% to 32.50%, while the shares of China (19.10%) and the U.S. (10.57%) each increased by approximately 2 percentage points. Germany rose to fourth place (3.46%), up from sixth last year, displacing Kazakhstan (2.89%). Hong Kong followed in sixth place (2.11%). The Netherlands and Japan shared the next spot with identical shares of 1.95%; however, we observed a year-over-year increase in outgoing spam from the Netherlands, whereas Japan saw a decline. The TOP 10 is rounded out by Brazil (1.94%) and Belarus (1.74%), the latter ranking for the first time.

TOP 20 countries and territories where spam originated in 2025 (download)

Malicious email attachments

In 2025, Kaspersky solutions blocked 144,722,674 malicious email attachments, an increase of nineteen million compared to the previous year. The beginning and end of the year were traditionally the most stable periods; however, we also observed a notable decline in activity during August and September. Peaks in email antivirus detections occurred in June, July, and November.

Email antivirus detections, 2025 (download)

The most prevalent malicious email attachment in 2025 was the Makoob Trojan family, which covertly harvests system information and user credentials. Makoob first entered the TOP 10 in 2023 in eighth place, rose to third in 2024, and secured the top spot in 2025 with a share of 4.88%. Following Makoob, as in the previous year, was the Badun Trojan family (4.13%), which typically disguises itself as electronic documents. The third spot is held by the Taskun family (3.68%), which creates malicious scheduled tasks, followed by Agensla stealers (3.16%), which were the most common malicious attachments in 2024. Next are Trojan.Win32.AutoItScript scripts (2.88%), appearing in the rankings for the first time. In sixth place is the Noon spyware for all Windows systems (2.63%), which also occupied the tenth spot with its variant specifically targeting 32-bit systems (1.10%). Rounding out the TOP 10 are Hoax.HTML.Phish (1.98%) phishing attachments, Guloader downloaders (1.90%) – a newcomer to the rankings – and Badur (1.56%) PDF documents containing suspicious links.

TOP 10 malware families distributed via email attachments, 2025 (download)

The distribution of specific malware samples traditionally mirrors the distribution of malware families almost exactly. The only differences are that a specific variant of the Agensla stealer ranked sixth instead of fourth (2.53%), and the Phish and Guloader samples swapped positions (1.58% and 1.78%, respectively). Rounding out the rankings in tenth place is the password stealer Trojan-PSW.MSIL.PureLogs.gen with a share of 1.02%.

TOP 10 malware samples distributed via email attachments, 2025 (download)

Countries and territories targeted by malicious mailings

The highest volume of malicious email attachments was blocked on devices belonging to users in China (13.74%). For the first time in two years, Russia dropped to second place with a share of 11.18%. Following closely behind are Mexico (8.18%) and Spain (7.70%), which swapped places compared to the previous year. Email antivirus triggers saw a slight increase in Türkiye (5.19%), which maintained its fifth-place position. Sixth and seventh places are held by Vietnam (4.14%) and Malaysia (3.70%); both countries climbed higher in the TOP 10 due to an increase in detection shares. These are followed by the UAE (3.12%), which held its position from the previous year. Italy (2.43%) and Colombia (2.07%) also entered the TOP 10 list of targets for malicious mailshots.

TOP 20 countries and territories targeted by malicious mailshots, 2025 (download)

Conclusion

2026 will undoubtedly be marked by novel methods of exploiting artificial intelligence capabilities. At the same time, messaging app credentials will remain a highly sought-after prize for threat actors. While new schemes are certain to emerge, they will likely supplement rather than replace time-tested tricks and tactics. This underscores the reality that, alongside the deployment of robust security software, users must remain vigilant and exercise extreme caution toward any online offers that raise even the slightest suspicion.

The intensified focus on government service credentials signals a rise in potential impact; unauthorized access to these services can lead to financial theft, data breaches, and full-scale identity theft. Furthermore, the increased abuse of legitimate tools and the rise of multi-stage attacks – which often begin with seemingly harmless files or links – demonstrate a concerted effort by fraudsters to lull users into a false sense of security while pursuing their malicious objectives.

The year in figures

• 44.99% of all emails sent worldwide and 43.27% of all emails sent in the Russian web segment were spam
• 32.50% of all spam emails were sent from Russia
• Kaspersky Mail Anti-Virus blocked 144,722,674 malicious email attachments
• Our Anti-Phishing system thwarted 554,002,207 attempts to follow phishing links

Phishing and scams in 2025

Entertainment-themed phishing attacks and scams

In 2025, online streaming services remained a primary theme for phishing sites within the entertainment sector, typically by offering early access to major premieres ahead of their official release dates. Alongside these, there was a notable increase in phishing pages mimicking ticket aggregation platforms for live events. Cybercriminals lured users with offers of free tickets to see popular artists on pages that mirrored the branding of major ticket distributors. To participate in these “promotions”, victims were required to pay a nominal processing or ticket-shipping fee. Naturally, after paying the fee, the users never received any tickets.

In addition to concert-themed bait, other music-related scams gained significant traction. Users were directed to phishing pages and prompted to “vote for their favorite artist”, a common activity within fan communities. To bolster credibility, the scammers leveraged the branding of major companies like Google and Spotify. This specific scheme was designed to harvest credentials for multiple platforms simultaneously, as users were required to sign in with their Facebook, Instagram, or email credentials to participate.

As a pretext for harvesting Spotify credentials, attackers offered users a way to migrate their playlists to YouTube. To complete the transfer, victims were to just enter their Spotify credentials.

Beyond standard phishing, threat actors leveraged Spotify’s popularity for scams. In Brazil, scammers promoted a scheme where users were purportedly paid to listen to and rate songs.

To “withdraw” their earnings, users were required to provide their identification number for PIX, Brazil’s instant payment system.

Users were then prompted to verify their identity. To do so, the victim was required to make a small, one-time “verification payment”, an amount significantly lower than the potential earnings.

The form for submitting this “verification payment” was designed to appear highly authentic, even requesting various pieces of personal data. It is highly probable that this data was collected for use in subsequent attacks.

In another variation, users were invited to participate in a survey in exchange for a $1000 gift card. However, in a move typical of a scam, the victim was required to pay a small processing or shipping fee to claim the prize. Once the funds were transferred, the attackers vanished, and the website was taken offline.

Even deciding to go to an art venue with a girl from a dating site could result in financial loss. In this scenario, the “date” would suggest an in-person meeting after a brief period of rapport-building. They would propose a relatively inexpensive outing, such as a movie or a play at a niche theater. The scammer would go so far as to provide a link to a specific page where the victim could supposedly purchase tickets for the event.

To enhance the site’s perceived legitimacy, it even prompted the user to select their city of residence.

However, once the “ticket payment” was completed, both the booking site and the individual from the dating platform would vanish.

A similar tactic was employed by scam sites selling tickets for escape rooms. The design of these pages closely mirrored legitimate websites to lower the target’s guard.

Phishing pages masquerading as travel portals often capitalize on a sense of urgency, betting that a customer eager to book a “last-minute deal” will overlook an illegitimate URL. For example, the fraudulent page shown below offered exclusive tours of Japan, purportedly from a major Japanese tour operator.

Sensitive data at risk: phishing via government services

To harvest users’ personal data, attackers utilized a traditional phishing framework: fraudulent forms for document processing on sites posing as government portals. The visual design and content of these phishing pages meticulously replicated legitimate websites, offering the same services found on official sites. In Brazil, for instance, attackers collected personal data from individuals under the pretext of issuing a Rural Property Registration Certificate (CCIR).

Through this method, fraudsters tried to gain access to the victim’s highly sensitive information, including their individual taxpayer registry (CPF) number. This identifier serves as a unique key for every Brazilian national to access private accounts on government portals. It is also utilized in national databases and displayed on personal identification documents, making its interception particularly dangerous. Scammer access to this data poses a severe risk of identity theft, unauthorized access to government platforms, and financial exposure.

Furthermore, users were at risk of direct financial loss: in certain instances, the attackers requested a “processing fee” to facilitate the issuance of the important document.

Fraudsters also employed other methods to obtain CPF numbers. Specifically, we discovered phishing pages mimicking the official government service portal, which requires the CPF for sign-in.

Another theme exploited by scammers involved government payouts. In 2025, Singaporean citizens received government vouchers ranging from $600 to $800 in honor of the country’s 60th anniversary. To redeem these, users were required to sign in to the official program website. Fraudsters rushed to create web pages designed to mimic this site. Interestingly, the primary targets in this campaign were Telegram accounts, despite the fact that Telegram credentials were not a requirement for signing in to the legitimate portal.

We also identified a scam targeting users in Norway who were looking to renew or replace their driver’s licenses. Upon opening a website masquerading as the official Norwegian Public Roads Administration website, visitors were prompted to enter their vehicle registration and phone numbers.

Next, the victim was prompted for sensitive data, such as the personal identification number unique to every Norwegian citizen. By doing so, the attackers not only gained access to confidential information but also reinforced the illusion that the victim was interacting with an official website.

Once the personal data was submitted, a fraudulent page would appear, requesting a “processing fee” of 1200 kroner. If the victim entered their credit card details, the funds were transferred directly to the scammers with no possibility of recovery.

In Germany, attackers used the pretext of filing tax returns to trick users into providing their email user names and passwords on phishing pages.

A call to urgent action is a classic tactic in phishing scenarios. When combined with the threat of losing property, these schemes become highly effective bait, distracting potential victims from noticing an incorrect URL or a poorly designed website. For example, a phishing warning regarding unpaid vehicle taxes was used as a tool by attackers targeting credentials for the UK government portal.

We have observed that since the spring of 2025, there has been an increase in emails mimicking automated notifications from the Russian government services portal. These messages were distributed under the guise of application status updates and contained phishing links.

We also recorded vishing attacks targeting users of government portals. Victims were prompted to “verify account security” by calling a support number provided in the email. To lower the users’ guard, the attackers included fabricated technical details in the emails, such as the IP address, device model, and timestamp of an alleged unauthorized sign-in.

Last year, attackers also disguised vishing emails as notifications from microfinance institutions or credit bureaus regarding new loan applications. The scammers banked on the likelihood that the recipient had not actually applied for a loan. They would then prompt the victim to contact a fake support service via a spoofed support number.

Know Your Customer

As an added layer of data security, many services now implement biometric verification (facial recognition, fingerprints, and retina scans), as well as identity document verification and digital signatures. To harvest this data, fraudsters create clones of popular platforms that utilize these verification protocols. We have previously detailed the mechanics of this specific type of data theft.

In 2025, we observed a surge in phishing attacks targeting users under the guise of Know Your Customer (KYC) identity verification. KYC protocols rely on a specific set of user data for identification. By spoofing the pages of payment services such as Vivid Money, fraudsters harvested the information required to pass KYC authentication.

Notably, this threat also impacted users of various other platforms that utilize KYC procedures.

A distinctive feature of attacks on the KYC process is that, in addition to the victim’s full name, email address, and phone number, phishers request photos of their passport or face, sometimes from multiple angles. If this information falls into the hands of threat actors, the consequences extend beyond the loss of account access; the victim’s credentials can be sold on dark web marketplaces, a trend we have highlighted in previous reports.

Messaging app phishing

Account hijacking on messaging platforms like WhatsApp and Telegram remains one of the primary objectives of phishing and scam operations. While traditional tactics, such as suspicious links embedded in messages, have been well-known for some time, the methods used to steal credentials are becoming increasingly sophisticated.

For instance, Telegram users were invited to participate in a prize giveaway purportedly hosted by a famous athlete. This phishing attack, which masqueraded as an NFT giveaway, was executed through a Telegram Mini App. This marks a shift in tactics, as attackers previously relied on external web pages for these types of schemes.

In 2025, new variations emerged within the familiar framework of distributing phishing links via Telegram. For example, we observed prompts inviting users to vote for the “best dentist” or “best COO” in town.

The most prevalent theme in these voting-based schemes, children’s contests, was distributed primarily through WhatsApp. These phishing pages showed little variety; attackers utilized a standardized website design and set of “bait” photos, simply localizing the language based on the target audience’s geographic location.

To participate in the vote, the victim was required to enter the phone number linked to their WhatsApp account.

They were then prompted to provide a one-time authentication code for the messaging app.

The following are several other popular methods used by fraudsters to hijack user credentials.

In China, phishing pages meticulously replicated the WhatsApp interface. Victims were notified that their accounts had purportedly been flagged for “illegal activity”, necessitating “additional verification”.

The victim was redirected to a page to enter their phone number, followed by a request for their authorization code.

In other instances, users received messages allegedly from WhatsApp support regarding account authentication via SMS. As with the other scenarios described, the attackers’ objective was to obtain the authentication code required to hijack the account.

Fraudsters enticed WhatsApp users with an offer to link an app designed to “sync communications” with business contacts.

To increase the perceived legitimacy of the phishing site, the attackers even prompted users to create custom credentials for the page.

After that, the user was required to “purchase a subscription” to activate the application. This allowed the scammers to harvest credit card data, leaving the victim without the promised service.

To lure Telegram users, phishers distributed invitations to online dating chats.

Attackers also heavily leveraged the promise of free Telegram Premium subscriptions. While these phishing pages were previously observed only in Russian and English, the linguistic scope of these campaigns expanded significantly this year. As in previous iterations, activating the subscription required the victim to sign in to their account, which could result in the loss of account access.

Exploiting the ChatGPT hype

Artificial intelligence is increasingly being leveraged by attackers as bait. For example, we have identified fraudulent websites mimicking the official payment page for ChatGPT Plus subscriptions.

Social media marketing through LLMs was also a potential focal point for user interest. Scammers offered “specialized prompt kits” designed for social media growth; however, once payment was received, they vanished, leaving victims without the prompts or their money.

The promise of easy income through neural networks has emerged as another tactic to attract potential victims. Fraudsters promoted using ChatGPT to place bets, promising that the bot would do all the work while the user collected the profits. These services were offered at a “special price” valid for only 15 minutes after the page was opened. This narrow window prevented the victim from critically evaluating the impulse purchase.

Job opportunities with a catch

To attract potential victims, scammers exploited the theme of employment by offering high-paying remote positions. Applicants responding to these advertisements did more than just disclose their personal data; in some cases, fraudsters requested a small sum under the pretext of document processing or administrative fees. To convince victims that the offer was legitimate, attackers impersonated major brands, leveraging household names to build trust. This allowed them to lower the victims’ guard, even when the employment terms sounded too good to be true.

We also observed schemes where, after obtaining a victim’s data via a phishing site, scammers would follow up with a phone call – a tactic aimed at tricking the user into disclosing additional personal data.

By analyzing current job market trends, threat actors also targeted popular career paths to steal messaging app credentials. These phishing schemes were tailored to specific regional markets. For example, in the UAE, fake “employment agency” websites were circulating.

In a more sophisticated variation, users were asked to complete a questionnaire that required the phone number linked to their Telegram account.

To complete the registration, users were prompted for a code which, in reality, was a Telegram authorization code.

Notably, the registration process did not end there; the site continued to request additional information to “set up an account” on the fraudulent platform. This served to keep victims in the dark, maintaining their trust in the malicious site’s perceived legitimacy.

After finishing the registration, the victim was told to wait 24 hours for “verification”, though the scammers’ primary objective, hijacking the Telegram account, had already been achieved.

Simpler phishing schemes were also observed, where users were redirected to a page mimicking the Telegram interface. By entering their phone number and authorization code, victims lost access to their accounts.

Job seekers were not the only ones targeted by scammers. Employers’ accounts were also in the crosshairs, specifically on a major Russian recruitment portal. On a counterfeit page, the victim was asked to “verify their account” in order to post a job listing, which required them to enter their actual sign-in credentials for the legitimate site.

Spam in 2025

Malicious attachments

Password-protected archives

Attackers began aggressively distributing messages with password-protected malicious archives in 2024. Throughout 2025, these archives remained a popular vector for spreading malware, and we observed a variety of techniques designed to bypass security solutions.

For example, threat actors sent emails impersonating law firms, threatening victims with legal action over alleged “unauthorized domain name use”. The recipient was prompted to review potential pre-trial settlement options detailed in an attached document. The attachment consisted of an unprotected archive containing a secondary password-protected archive and a file with the password. Disguised as a legal document within this inner archive was a malicious WSF file, which installed a Trojan into the system via startup. The Trojan then stealthily downloaded and installed Tor, which allowed it to regularly exfiltrate screenshots to the attacker-controlled C2 server.

In addition to archives, we also encountered password-protected PDF files containing malicious links over the past year.

E-signature service exploits

Emails using the pretext of “signing a document” to coerce users into clicking phishing links or opening malicious attachments were quite common in 2025. The most prevalent scheme involved fraudulent notifications from electronic signature services. While these were primarily used for phishing, one specific malware sample identified within this campaign is of particular interest.

The email, purportedly sent from a well-known document-sharing platform, notified the recipient that they had been granted access to a “contract” attached to the message. However, the attachment was not the expected PDF; instead, it was a nested email file named after the contract. The body of this nested message mirrored the original, but its attachment utilized a double extension: a malicious SVG file containing a Trojan was disguised as a PDF document. This multi-layered approach was likely an attempt to obfuscate the malware and bypass security filters.

“Business correspondence” impersonating industrial companies

In the summer of last year, we observed mailshots sent in the name of various existing industrial enterprises. These emails contained DOCX attachments embedded with Trojans. Attackers coerced victims into opening the malicious files under the pretext of routine business tasks, such as signing a contract or drafting a report.

The authors of this malicious campaign attempted to lower users’ guard by using legitimate industrial sector domains in the “From” address. Furthermore, the messages were routed through the mail servers of a reputable cloud provider, ensuring the technical metadata appeared authentic. Consequently, even a cautious user could mistake the email for a genuine communication, open the attachment, and compromise their device.

Attacks on hospitals

Hospitals were a popular target for threat actors this past year: they were targeted with malicious emails impersonating well-known insurance providers. Recipients were threatened with legal action regarding alleged “substandard medical services”. The attachments, described as “medical records and a written complaint from an aggrieved patient”, were actually malware. Our solutions detect this threat as Backdoor.Win64.BrockenDoor, a backdoor capable of harvesting system information and executing malicious commands on the infected device.

We also came across emails with a different narrative. In those instances, medical staff were requested to facilitate a patient transfer from another hospital for ongoing observation and treatment. These messages referenced attached medical files containing diagnostic and treatment history, which were actually archives containing malicious payloads.

To bolster the perceived legitimacy of these communications, attackers did more than just impersonate famous insurers and medical institutions; they registered look-alike domains that mimicked official organizations’ domains by appending keywords such as “-insurance” or “-med.” Furthermore, to lower the victims’ guard, scammers included a fake “Scanned by Email Security” label.

Messages containing instructions to run malicious scripts

Last year, we observed unconventional infection chains targeting end-user devices. Threat actors continued to distribute instructions for downloading and executing malicious code, rather than attaching the malware files directly. To convince the recipient to follow these steps, attackers typically utilized a lure involving a “critical software update” or a “system patch” to fix a purported vulnerability. Generally, the first step in the instructions required launching the command prompt with administrative privileges, while the second involved entering a command to download and execute the malware: either a script or an executable file.

In some instances, these instructions were contained within a PDF file. The victim was prompted to copy a command into PowerShell that was neither obfuscated nor hidden. Such schemes target non-technical users who would likely not understand the command’s true intent and would unknowingly infect their own devices.

Scams

Law enforcement impersonation scams in the Russian web segment

In 2025, extortion campaigns involving actors posing as law enforcement – a trend previously more prevalent in Europe – were adapted to target users across the Commonwealth of Independent States.

For example, we identified messages disguised as criminal subpoenas or summonses purportedly issued by Russian law enforcement agencies. However, the specific departments cited in these emails never actually existed. The content of these “summonses” would also likely raise red flags for a cautious user. This blackmail scheme relied on the victim, in their state of panic, not scrutinizing the contents of the fake summons.

To intimidate recipients, the attackers referenced legal frameworks and added forged signatures and seals to the “subpoenas”. In reality, neither the cited statutes nor the specific civil service positions exist in Russia.

We observed similar attacks – employing fabricated government agencies and fictitious legal acts – in other CIS countries, such as Belarus.

Fraudulent investment schemes

Threat actors continued to aggressively exploit investment themes in their email scams. These emails typically promise stable, remote income through “exclusive” investment opportunities. This remains one of the most high-volume and adaptable categories of email scams. Threat actors embedded fraudulent links both directly within the message body and inside various types of attachments: PDF, DOC, PPTX, and PNG files. Furthermore, they increasingly leveraged legitimate Google services, such as Google Docs, YouTube, and Google Forms, to distribute these communications. The link led to the site of the “project” where the victim was prompted to provide their phone number and email. Subsequently, users were invited to invest in a non-existent project.

We have previously documented these mailshots: they were originally targeted at Russian-speaking users and were primarily distributed under the guise of major financial institutions. However, in 2025, this investment-themed scam expanded into other CIS countries and Europe. Furthermore, the range of industries that spammers impersonated grew significantly. For instance, in their emails, attackers began soliciting investments for projects supposedly led by major industrial-sector companies in Kazakhstan and the Czech Republic.

Fraudulent “brand partner” recruitment

This specific scam operates through a multi-stage workflow. First, the target company receives a communication from an individual claiming to represent a well-known global brand, inviting them to register as a certified supplier or business partner. To bolster the perceived authenticity of the offer, the fraudsters send the victim an extensive set of forged documents. Once these documents are signed, the victim is instructed to pay a “deposit”, which the attackers claim will be fully refunded once the partnership is officially established.

These mailshots were first detected in 2025 and have rapidly become one of the most prevalent forms of email-based fraud. In December 2025 alone, we blocked over 80,000 such messages. These campaigns specifically targeted the B2B sector and were notable for their high level of variation – ranging from their technical properties to the diversity of the message content and the wide array of brands the attackers chose to impersonate.

Fraudulent overdue rent notices

Last year, we identified a new theme in email scams: recipients were notified that the payment deadline for a leased property had expired and were urged to settle the “debt” immediately. To prevent the victim from sending funds to their actual landlord, the email claimed that banking details had changed. The “debtor” was then instructed to request the new payment information – which, of course, belonged to the fraudsters. These mailshots primarily targeted French-speaking countries; however, in December 2025, we discovered a similar scam variant in German.

QR codes in scam letters

In 2025, we observed a trend where QR codes were utilized not only in phishing attempts but also in extortion emails. In a classic blackmail scam, the user is typically intimidated by claims that hackers have gained access to sensitive data. To prevent the public release of this information, the attackers demand a ransom payment to their cryptocurrency wallet.

Previously, to bypass email filters, scammers attempted to obfuscate the wallet address by using various noise contamination techniques. In last year’s campaigns, however, scammers shifted to including a QR code that contained the cryptocurrency wallet address.

News agenda

As in previous years, spammers in 2025 aggressively integrated current events into their fraudulent messaging to increase engagement.

For example, following the launch of $TRUMP memecoins surrounding Donald Trump’s inauguration, we identified scam campaigns promoting the “Trump Meme Coin” and “Trump Digital Trading Cards”. In these instances, scammers enticed victims to click a link to claim “free NFTs”.

We also observed ads offering educational credentials. Spammers posted these ads as comments on legacy, unmoderated forums; this tactic ensured that notifications were automatically pushed to all users subscribed to the thread. These notifications either displayed the fraudulent link directly in the comment preview or alerted users to a new post that redirected them to spammers’ sites.

In the summer, when the wedding of Amazon founder Jeff Bezos became a major global news story, users began receiving Nigerian-style scam messages purportedly from Bezos himself, as well as from his former wife, MacKenzie Scott. These emails promised recipients substantial sums of money, framed either as charitable donations or corporate compensation from Amazon.

During the BLACKPINK world tour, we observed a wave of spam advertising “luggage scooters”. The scammers claimed these were the exact motorized suitcases used by the band members during their performances.

Finally, in the fall of 2025, traditionally timed to coincide with the launch of new iPhones, we identified scam campaigns featuring surveys that offered participants a chance to “win” a fictitious iPhone 17 Pro.

After completing a brief survey, the user was prompted to provide their contact information and physical address, as well as pay a “delivery fee” – which was the scammers’ ultimate objective. Upon entering their credit card details into the fraudulent site, the victim risked losing not only the relatively small delivery charge but also the entire balance in their bank account.

The widespread popularity of Ozempic was also reflected in spam campaigns; users were bombarded with offers to purchase versions of the drug or questionable alternatives.

Localized news events also fall under the scrutiny of fraudsters, serving as the basis for scam narratives. For instance, last summer, coinciding with the opening of the tax season in South Africa, we began detecting phishing emails impersonating the South African Revenue Service (SARS). These messages notified taxpayers of alleged “outstanding balances” that required immediate settlement.

Methods of distributing email threats

Google services

In 2025, threat actors increasingly leveraged various Google services to distribute email-based threats. We observed the exploitation of Google Calendar: scammers would create an event containing a WhatsApp contact number in the description and send an invitation to the target. For instance, companies received emails regarding product inquiries that prompted them to move the conversation to the messaging app to discuss potential “collaboration”.

Spammers employed a similar tactic using Google Classroom. We identified samples offering SEO optimization services that likewise directed victims to a WhatsApp number for further communication.

We also detected the distribution of fraudulent links via legitimate YouTube notifications. Attackers would reply to user comments under various videos, triggering an automated email notification to the victim. This email contained a link to a video that displayed only a message urging the viewer to “check the description”, where the actual link to the scam site was located. As the victim received an email containing the full text of the fraudulent comment, they were often lured through this chain of links, eventually landing on the scam site.

Over the past two years or so, there has been a significant rise in attacks utilizing Google Forms. Fraudsters create a survey with an enticing title and place the scam messaging directly in the form’s description. They then submit the form themselves, entering the victims’ email addresses into the field for the respondent email. This triggers legitimate notifications from the Google Forms service to the targeted addresses. Because these emails originate from Google’s own mail servers, they appear authentic to most spam filters. The attackers rely on the victim focusing on the “bait” description containing the fraudulent link rather than the standard form header.

Google Groups also emerged as a popular tool for spam distribution last year. Scammers would create a group, add the victims’ email addresses as members, and broadcast spam through the service. This scheme proved highly effective: even if a security solution blocked the initial spam message, the user could receive a deluge of automated replies from other addresses on the member list.

At the end of 2025, we encountered a legitimate email in terms of technical metadata that was sent via Google and contained a fraudulent link. The message also included a verification code for the recipient’s email address. To generate this notification, scammers filled out the account registration form in a way that diverted the recipient’s attention toward a fraudulent site. For example, instead of entering a first and last name, the attackers inserted text such as “Personal Link” followed by a phishing URL, utilizing noise contamination techniques. By entering the victim’s email address into the registration field, the scammers triggered a legitimate system notification containing the fraudulent link.

OpenAI

In addition to Google services, spammers leveraged other platforms to distribute email threats, notably OpenAI, riding the wave of artificial intelligence popularity. In 2025, we observed emails sent via the OpenAI platform into which spammers had injected short messages, fraudulent links, or phone numbers.

This occurs during the account registration process on the OpenAI platform, where users are prompted to create an organization to generate an API key. Spammers placed their fraudulent content directly into the field designated for the organization’s name. They then added the victims’ email addresses as organization members, triggering automated platform invitations that delivered the fraudulent links or contact numbers directly to the targets.

Spear phishing and BEC attacks in 2025

QR codes

The use of QR codes in spear phishing has become a conventional tactic that threat actors continued to employ throughout 2025. Specifically, we observed the persistence of a major trend identified in our previous report: the distribution of phishing documents disguised as notifications from a company’s HR department.

In these campaigns, attackers impersonated HR team members, requesting that employees review critical documentation, such as a new corporate policy or code of conduct. These documents were typically attached to the email as PDF files.

To maintain the ruse, the PDF document contained a highly convincing call to action, prompting the user to scan a QR code to access the relevant file. While attackers previously embedded these codes directly into the body of the email, last year saw a significant shift toward placing them within attachments – most likely in an attempt to bypass email security filters.

Upon scanning the QR code within the attachment, the victim was redirected to a phishing page meticulously designed to mimic a Microsoft authentication form.

In addition to fraudulent HR notifications, threat actors created scheduled meetings within the victim’s email calendar, placing DOC or PDF files containing QR codes in the event descriptions. Leveraging calendar invites to distribute malicious links is a legacy technique that was widely observed during scam campaigns in 2019. After several years of relative dormancy, we saw a resurgence of this technique last year, now integrated into more sophisticated spear phishing operations.

In one specific example, the attachment was presented as a “new voicemail” notification. To listen to the recording, the user was prompted to scan a QR code and sign in to their account on the resulting page.

As in the previous scenario, scanning the code redirected the user to a phishing page, where they risked losing access to their Microsoft account or internal corporate sites.

Link protection services

Threat actors utilized more than just QR codes to hide phishing URLs and bypass security checks. In 2025, we discovered that fraudsters began weaponizing link protection services for the same purpose. The primary function of these services is to intercept and scan URLs at the moment of clicking to prevent users from reaching phishing sites or downloading malware. However, attackers are now abusing this technology by generating phishing links that security systems mistakenly categorize as “safe”.

This technique is employed in both mass and spear phishing campaigns. It is particularly dangerous in targeted attacks, which often incorporate employees’ personal data and mimic official corporate branding. When combined with these characteristics, a URL generated through a legitimate link protection service can significantly bolster the perceived authenticity of a phishing email.

After opening a URL that seemed safe, the user was directed to a phishing site.

BEC and fabricated email chains

In Business Email Compromise (BEC) attacks, threat actors have also begun employing new techniques, the most notable of which is the use of fake forwarded messages.

This BEC attack unfolded as follows. An employee would receive an email containing a previous conversation between the sender and another colleague. The final message in this thread was typically an automated out-of-office reply or a request to hand off a specific task to a new assignee. In reality, however, the entire initial conversation with the colleague was completely fabricated. These messages lacked the thread-index headers, as well as other critical header values, that would typically verify the authenticity of an actual email chain.

In the example at hand, the victim was pressured to urgently pay for a license using the provided banking details. The PDF attachments included wire transfer instructions and a counterfeit cover letter from the bank.

The bank does not actually have an office at the address provided in the documents.

Statistics: phishing

In 2025, Kaspersky solutions blocked 554,002,207 attempts to follow fraudulent links. In contrast to the trends of previous years, we did not observe any major spikes in phishing activity; instead, the volume of attacks remained relatively stable throughout the year, with the exception of a minor decline in December.

Anti-Phishing triggers, 2025 (download)

The phishing and scam landscape underwent a shift. While in 2024, we saw a high volume of mass attacks, their frequency declined in 2025. Furthermore, redirection-based schemes, which were frequently used for online fraud in 2024, became less prevalent in 2025.

Map of phishing attacks

As in the previous year, Peru remains the country with the highest percentage (17.46%) of users targeted by phishing attacks. Bangladesh (16.98%) took second place, entering the TOP 10 for the first time, while Malawi (16.65%), which was absent from the 2024 rankings, was third. Following these are Tunisia (16.19%), Colombia (15.67%), the latter also being a newcomer to the TOP 10, Brazil (15.48%), and Ecuador (15.27%). They are followed closely by Madagascar and Kenya, both with a 15.23% share of attacked users. Rounding out the list is Vietnam, which previously held the third spot, with a share of 15.05%.

Country/territory	Share of attacked users**
Peru	17.46%
Bangladesh	16.98%
Malawi	16.65%
Tunisia	16.19%
Colombia	15.67%
Brazil	15.48%
Ecuador	15.27%
Madagascar	15.23%
Kenya	15.23%
Vietnam	15.05%

** Share of users who encountered phishing out of the total number of Kaspersky users in the country/territory, 2025

Top-level domains

In 2025, breaking a trend that had persisted for several years, the majority of phishing pages were hosted within the XYZ TLD zone, accounting for 21.64% – a three-fold increase compared to 2024. The second most popular zone was TOP (15.45%), followed by BUZZ (13.58%). This high demand can be attributed to the low cost of domain registration in these zones. The COM domain, which had previously held the top spot consistently, fell to fourth place (10.52%). It is important to note that this decline is partially driven by the popularity of typosquatting attacks: threat actors frequently spoof sites within the COM domain by using alternative suffixes, such as example-com.site instead of example.com. Following COM is the BOND TLD, entering the TOP 10 for the first time with a 5.56% share. As this zone is typically associated with financial websites, the surge in malicious interest there is a logical progression for financial phishing. The sixth and seventh positions are held by ONLINE (3.39%) and SITE (2.02%), which occupied the fourth and fifth spots, respectively, in 2024. In addition, three domain zones that had not previously appeared in our statistics emerged as popular hosting environments for phishing sites. These included the CFD domain (1.97%), typically used for websites in the clothing, fashion, and design sectors; the Polish national top-level domain, PL (1.75%); and the LOL domain (1.60%).

Most frequent top-level domains for phishing pages, 2025 (download)

Organizations targeted by phishing attacks

The rankings of organizations targeted by phishers are based on detections by the Anti-Phishing deterministic component on user computers. The component detects all pages with phishing content that the user has tried to open by following a link in an email message or on the web, as long as links to these pages are present in the Kaspersky database.

Phishing pages impersonating web services (27.42%) and global internet portals (15.89%) maintained their positions in the TOP 10, continuing to rank first and second, respectively. Online stores (11.27%), a traditional favorite among threat actors, returned to the third spot. In 2025, phishers showed increased interest in online gamers: websites mimicking gaming platforms jumped from ninth to fifth place (7.58%). These are followed by banks (6.06%), payment systems (5.93%), messengers (5.70%), and delivery services (5.06%). Phishing attacks also targeted social media (4.42%) and government services (1.77%) accounts.

Distribution of targeted organizations by category, 2025 (download)

Statistics: spam

Share of spam in email traffic

In 2025, the average share of spam in global email traffic was 44.99%, representing a decrease of 2.28 percentage points compared to the previous year. Notably, contrary to the trends of the past several years, the fourth quarter was the busiest one: an average of 49.26% of emails were categorized as spam, with peak activity occurring in November (52.87%) and December (51.80%). Throughout the rest of the year, the distribution of junk mail remained relatively stable without significant spikes, maintaining an average share of approximately 43.50%.

Share of spam in global email traffic, 2025 (download)

In the Russian web segment (Runet), we observed a more substantial decline: the average share of spam decreased by 5.3 percentage points to 43.27%. Deviating from the global trend, the fourth quarter was the quietest period in Russia, with a share of 41.28%. We recorded the lowest level of spam activity in December, when only 36.49% of emails were identified as junk. January and February were also relatively calm, with average values of 41.94% and 43.09%, respectively. Conversely, the Runet figures for March–October correlated with global figures: no major surges were observed, spam accounting for an average of 44.30% of total email traffic during these months.

Share of spam in Runet email traffic, 2025 (download)

Countries and territories where spam originated

The top three countries in the 2025 rankings for the volume of outgoing spam mirror the distribution of the previous year: Russia, China, and the United States. However, the share of spam originating from Russia decreased from 36.18% to 32.50%, while the shares of China (19.10%) and the U.S. (10.57%) each increased by approximately 2 percentage points. Germany rose to fourth place (3.46%), up from sixth last year, displacing Kazakhstan (2.89%). Hong Kong followed in sixth place (2.11%). The Netherlands and Japan shared the next spot with identical shares of 1.95%; however, we observed a year-over-year increase in outgoing spam from the Netherlands, whereas Japan saw a decline. The TOP 10 is rounded out by Brazil (1.94%) and Belarus (1.74%), the latter ranking for the first time.

TOP 20 countries and territories where spam originated in 2025 (download)

Malicious email attachments

In 2025, Kaspersky solutions blocked 144,722,674 malicious email attachments, an increase of nineteen million compared to the previous year. The beginning and end of the year were traditionally the most stable periods; however, we also observed a notable decline in activity during August and September. Peaks in email antivirus detections occurred in June, July, and November.

Email antivirus detections, 2025 (download)

The most prevalent malicious email attachment in 2025 was the Makoob Trojan family, which covertly harvests system information and user credentials. Makoob first entered the TOP 10 in 2023 in eighth place, rose to third in 2024, and secured the top spot in 2025 with a share of 4.88%. Following Makoob, as in the previous year, was the Badun Trojan family (4.13%), which typically disguises itself as electronic documents. The third spot is held by the Taskun family (3.68%), which creates malicious scheduled tasks, followed by Agensla stealers (3.16%), which were the most common malicious attachments in 2024. Next are Trojan.Win32.AutoItScript scripts (2.88%), appearing in the rankings for the first time. In sixth place is the Noon spyware for all Windows systems (2.63%), which also occupied the tenth spot with its variant specifically targeting 32-bit systems (1.10%). Rounding out the TOP 10 are Hoax.HTML.Phish (1.98%) phishing attachments, Guloader downloaders (1.90%) – a newcomer to the rankings – and Badur (1.56%) PDF documents containing suspicious links.

TOP 10 malware families distributed via email attachments, 2025 (download)

The distribution of specific malware samples traditionally mirrors the distribution of malware families almost exactly. The only differences are that a specific variant of the Agensla stealer ranked sixth instead of fourth (2.53%), and the Phish and Guloader samples swapped positions (1.58% and 1.78%, respectively). Rounding out the rankings in tenth place is the password stealer Trojan-PSW.MSIL.PureLogs.gen with a share of 1.02%.

TOP 10 malware samples distributed via email attachments, 2025 (download)

Countries and territories targeted by malicious mailings

The highest volume of malicious email attachments was blocked on devices belonging to users in China (13.74%). For the first time in two years, Russia dropped to second place with a share of 11.18%. Following closely behind are Mexico (8.18%) and Spain (7.70%), which swapped places compared to the previous year. Email antivirus triggers saw a slight increase in Türkiye (5.19%), which maintained its fifth-place position. Sixth and seventh places are held by Vietnam (4.14%) and Malaysia (3.70%); both countries climbed higher in the TOP 10 due to an increase in detection shares. These are followed by the UAE (3.12%), which held its position from the previous year. Italy (2.43%) and Colombia (2.07%) also entered the TOP 10 list of targets for malicious mailshots.

TOP 20 countries and territories targeted by malicious mailshots, 2025 (download)

Conclusion

2026 will undoubtedly be marked by novel methods of exploiting artificial intelligence capabilities. At the same time, messaging app credentials will remain a highly sought-after prize for threat actors. While new schemes are certain to emerge, they will likely supplement rather than replace time-tested tricks and tactics. This underscores the reality that, alongside the deployment of robust security software, users must remain vigilant and exercise extreme caution toward any online offers that raise even the slightest suspicion.

The intensified focus on government service credentials signals a rise in potential impact; unauthorized access to these services can lead to financial theft, data breaches, and full-scale identity theft. Furthermore, the increased abuse of legitimate tools and the rise of multi-stage attacks – which often begin with seemingly harmless files or links – demonstrate a concerted effort by fraudsters to lull users into a false sense of security while pursuing their malicious objectives.

It started with an email that looked boringly familiar: Apple logo, a clean layout, and a subject line designed to make the target’s stomach drop.

The message claimed Apple has stopped a high‑value Apple Pay charge at an Apple Store, complete with a case ID, timestamp, and a warning that the account could be at risk if the target doesn’t respond.​

In some cases, there was even an “appointment” booked on their behalf to “review fraudulent activity,” plus a phone number they should call immediately if the time didn’t work.​ Nothing in the email screams amateur. The display name appears to be Apple, the formatting closely matches real receipts, and the language hits all the right anxiety buttons.

This is how most users are lured in by a recent Apple Pay phishing campaign.

The call that feels like real support

The email warns recipients not to Apple Pay until they’ve spoken to “Apple Billing & Fraud Prevention,” and it provides a phone number to call.​

After dialing the number, an agent introduces himself as part of Apple’s fraud department and asks for details such as Apple ID verification codes or payment information.

The conversation is carefully scripted to establish trust. The agent explains that criminals attempted to use Apple Pay in a physical Apple Store and that the system “partially blocked” the transaction. To “fully secure” the account, he says, some details need to be verified.

The call starts with harmless‑sounding checks: your name, the last four digits of your phone number, what Apple devices you own, and so on.

Next comes a request to confirm the Apple ID email address. While the victim is looking it up, a real-looking Apple ID verification code arrives by text message.

The agent asks for this code, claiming it’s needed to confirm they’re speaking to the rightful account owner. In reality, the scammer is logging into the account in real time and using the code to bypass two-factor authentication.

Once the account is “confirmed,” the agent walks the victim through checking their bank and Apple Pay cards. They ask questions about bank accounts and suggest “temporarily securing” payment methods so criminals can’t exploit them while the “Apple team” investigates.

The entire support process is designed to steal login codes and payment data. At scale, campaigns like this work because Apple’s brand carries enormous trust, Apple Pay involves real money, and users have been trained to treat fraud alerts as urgent and to cooperate with “support” when they’re scared.

One example submitted to Malwarebytes Scam Guard showed an email claiming an Apple Gift Card purchase for $279.99 and urging the recipient to call a support number (1-812-955-6285).

Another user submitted a screenshot showing a fake “Invoice Receipt – Paid” styled to look like an Apple Store receipt for a 2025 MacBook Air 13-inch laptop with M4 chip priced at $1,157.07 and a phone number (1-805-476-8382) to call about this “unauthorized transaction.”

What you should know

Apple doesn’t set up fraud appointments through email. The company also doesn’t ask users to fix billing problems by calling numbers in unsolicited messages.

Closely inspect the sender’s address. In these cases, the email doesn’t come from an official Apple domain, even if the display name makes it seem legitimate.

Never share two-factor authentication (2FA) codes, SMS codes, or passwords with anyone, even if they claim to be from Apple.

Ignore unsolicited messages urging you to take immediate action. Always think and verify before you engage. Talk to someone you trust if you’re not sure.

Malwarebytes Scam Guard helped several users identify this type of scam. For those without a subscription, you can use Scam Guard in ChatGPT.

If you’ve already engaged with these Apple Pay scammers, it is important to:

• Change the Apple ID password immediately from Settings or appleid.apple.com, not from any link provided by email or SMS.
• Check active sessions, sign out of all devices, then sign back in only on devices you recognize and control.
• Rotate your Apple ID password again if you see any new login alerts, and confirm 2FA is still enabled. If not, turn it on.
• In Wallet, check every card for unfamiliar Apple Pay transactions and recent in-store or online charges. Monitor bank and credit card statements closely for the next few weeks and dispute any unknown transactions immediately.
• Check if the primary email account tied to your Apple ID is yours, since control of that email can be used to take over accounts.

---

We don’t just report on scams—we help detect them

Cybersecurity risks should never spread beyond a headline. If something looks dodgy to you, check if it’s a scam using Malwarebytes Scam Guard, a feature of our mobile protection products. Submit a screenshot, paste suspicious content, or share a text or phone number, and we’ll tell you if it’s a scam or legit. Download Malwarebytes Mobile Security for iOS or Android and try it today!

It started with an email that looked boringly familiar: Apple logo, a clean layout, and a subject line designed to make the target’s stomach drop.

The message claimed Apple has stopped a high‑value Apple Pay charge at an Apple Store, complete with a case ID, timestamp, and a warning that the account could be at risk if the target doesn’t respond.​

In some cases, there was even an “appointment” booked on their behalf to “review fraudulent activity,” plus a phone number they should call immediately if the time didn’t work.​ Nothing in the email screams amateur. The display name appears to be Apple, the formatting closely matches real receipts, and the language hits all the right anxiety buttons.

This is how most users are lured in by a recent Apple Pay phishing campaign.

The call that feels like real support

The email warns recipients not to Apple Pay until they’ve spoken to “Apple Billing & Fraud Prevention,” and it provides a phone number to call.​

After dialing the number, an agent introduces himself as part of Apple’s fraud department and asks for details such as Apple ID verification codes or payment information.

The conversation is carefully scripted to establish trust. The agent explains that criminals attempted to use Apple Pay in a physical Apple Store and that the system “partially blocked” the transaction. To “fully secure” the account, he says, some details need to be verified.

The call starts with harmless‑sounding checks: your name, the last four digits of your phone number, what Apple devices you own, and so on.

Next comes a request to confirm the Apple ID email address. While the victim is looking it up, a real-looking Apple ID verification code arrives by text message.

The agent asks for this code, claiming it’s needed to confirm they’re speaking to the rightful account owner. In reality, the scammer is logging into the account in real time and using the code to bypass two-factor authentication.

Once the account is “confirmed,” the agent walks the victim through checking their bank and Apple Pay cards. They ask questions about bank accounts and suggest “temporarily securing” payment methods so criminals can’t exploit them while the “Apple team” investigates.

The entire support process is designed to steal login codes and payment data. At scale, campaigns like this work because Apple’s brand carries enormous trust, Apple Pay involves real money, and users have been trained to treat fraud alerts as urgent and to cooperate with “support” when they’re scared.

One example submitted to Malwarebytes Scam Guard showed an email claiming an Apple Gift Card purchase for $279.99 and urging the recipient to call a support number (1-812-955-6285).

Another user submitted a screenshot showing a fake “Invoice Receipt – Paid” styled to look like an Apple Store receipt for a 2025 MacBook Air 13-inch laptop with M4 chip priced at $1,157.07 and a phone number (1-805-476-8382) to call about this “unauthorized transaction.”

What you should know

Apple doesn’t set up fraud appointments through email. The company also doesn’t ask users to fix billing problems by calling numbers in unsolicited messages.

Closely inspect the sender’s address. In these cases, the email doesn’t come from an official Apple domain, even if the display name makes it seem legitimate.

Never share two-factor authentication (2FA) codes, SMS codes, or passwords with anyone, even if they claim to be from Apple.

Ignore unsolicited messages urging you to take immediate action. Always think and verify before you engage. Talk to someone you trust if you’re not sure.

Malwarebytes Scam Guard helped several users identify this type of scam. For those without a subscription, you can use Scam Guard in ChatGPT.

If you’ve already engaged with these Apple Pay scammers, it is important to:

• Change the Apple ID password immediately from Settings or appleid.apple.com, not from any link provided by email or SMS.
• Check active sessions, sign out of all devices, then sign back in only on devices you recognize and control.
• Rotate your Apple ID password again if you see any new login alerts, and confirm 2FA is still enabled. If not, turn it on.
• In Wallet, check every card for unfamiliar Apple Pay transactions and recent in-store or online charges. Monitor bank and credit card statements closely for the next few weeks and dispute any unknown transactions immediately.
• Check if the primary email account tied to your Apple ID is yours, since control of that email can be used to take over accounts.

---

We don’t just report on scams—we help detect them

Cybersecurity risks should never spread beyond a headline. If something looks dodgy to you, check if it’s a scam using Malwarebytes Scam Guard, a feature of our mobile protection products. Submit a screenshot, paste suspicious content, or share a text or phone number, and we’ll tell you if it’s a scam or legit. Download Malwarebytes Mobile Security for iOS or Android and try it today!

Technologies for creating fake video and voice messages are accessible to anyone these days, and scammers are busy mastering the art of deepfakes. No one is immune to the threat — modern neural networks can clone a person’s voice from just three to five seconds of audio, and create highly convincing videos from a couple of photos. We’ve previously discussed how to distinguish a real photo or video from a fake and trace its origin to when it was taken or generated. Now let’s take a look at how attackers create and use deepfakes in real time, how to spot a fake without forensic tools, and how to protect yourself and loved ones from “clone attacks”.

How deepfakes are made

Scammers gather source material for deepfakes from open sources: webinars, public videos on social networks and channels, and online speeches. Sometimes they simply call identity theft targets and keep them on the line for as long as possible to collect data for maximum-quality voice cloning. And hacking the messaging account of someone who loves voice and video messages is the ultimate jackpot for scammers. With access to video recordings and voice messages, they can generate realistic fakes that 95% of folks are unable to tell apart from real messages from friends or colleagues.

The tools for creating deepfakes vary widely, from simple Telegram bots to professional generators like HeyGen and ElevenLabs. Scammers use deepfakes together with social engineering: for example, they might first simulate a messenger app call that appears to drop out constantly, then send a pre-generated video message of fairly low quality, blaming it on the supposedly poor connection.

In most cases, the message is about some kind of emergency in which the deepfake victim requires immediate help. Naturally the “friend in need” is desperate for money, but, as luck would have it, they’ve no access to an ATM, or have lost their wallet, and the bad connection rules out an online transfer. The solution is, of course, to send the money not directly to the “friend”, but to a fake account, phone number, or cryptowallet.

Such scams often involve pre-generated videos, but of late real-time deepfake streaming services have come into play. Among other things, these allow users to substitute their own face in a chat-roulette or video call.

How to recognize a deepfake

If you see a familiar face on the screen together with a recognizable voice but are asked unusual questions, chances are it’s a deepfake scam. Fortunately, there are certain visual, auditory, and behavioral signs that can help even non-techies to spot a fake.

Visual signs of a deepfake

Lighting and shadow issues. Deepfakes often ignore the physics of light: the direction of shadows on the face and in the background may not match, and glares on the skin may look unnatural or not be there at all. Or the person in the video may be half-turned toward the window, but their face is lit by studio lighting. This example will be familiar to participants in video conferences, where substituted background images can appear extremely unnatural.

Blurred or floating facial features. Pay attention to the hairline: deepfakes often show blurring, flickering, or unnatural color transitions along this area. These artifacts are caused by flaws in the algorithm for superimposing the cloned face onto the original.

Unnaturally blinking or “dead” eyes. A person blinks on average 10 to 20 times per minute. Some deepfakes blink too rarely, others too often. Eyelid movements can be too abrupt, and sometimes blinking is out of sync, with one eye not matching the other. “Glassy” or “dead-eye” stares are also characteristic of deepfakes. And sometimes a pupil (usually just the one) may twitch randomly due to a neural network hallucination.

When analyzing a static image such as a photograph, it’s also a good idea to zoom in on the eyes and compare the reflections on the irises — in real photos they’ll be identical; in deepfakes — often not.

Lip-syncing issues. Even top-quality deepfakes trip up when it comes to synchronizing speech with lip movements. A delay of just a hundred milliseconds is noticeable to the naked eye. It’s often possible to observe an irregular lip shape when pronouncing the sounds m, f, or t. All of these are telltale signs of an AI-modeled face.

Static or blurred background. In generated videos, the background often looks unrealistic: it might be too blurry; its elements may not interact with the on-screen face; or sometimes the image behind the person remains motionless even when the camera moves.

Odd facial expressions. Deepfakes do a poor job of imitating emotion: facial expressions may not change in line with the conversation; smiles look frozen, and the fine wrinkles and folds that appear in real faces when expressing emotion are absent — the fake looks botoxed.

Auditory signs of a deepfake

Early AI generators modeled speech from small, monotonous phonemes, and when the intonation changed, there was an audible shift in pitch, making it easy to recognize a synthesized voice. Although today’s technology has advanced far beyond this, there are other signs that still give away generated voices.

Wooden or electronic tone. If the voice sounds unusually flat, without natural intonation variations, or there’s a vaguely electronic quality to it, there’s a high probability you’re talking to a deepfake. Real speech contains many variations in tone and natural imperfections.

No breathing sounds. Humans take micropauses and breathe in between phrases — especially in long sentences, not to mention small coughs and sniffs. Synthetic voices often lack these nuances, or place them unnaturally.

Robotic speech or sudden breaks. The voice may abruptly cut off, words may sound “glued” together, and the stress and intonation may not be what you’re used to hearing from your friend or colleague.

Lack of… shibboleths in speech. Pay attention to speech patterns (such as accent or phrases) that are typical of the person in real life but are poorly imitated (if at all) by the deepfake.

To mask visual and auditory artifacts, scammers often simulate poor connectivity by sending a noisy video or audio message. A low-quality video stream or media file is the first red flag indicating that checks are needed of the person at the other end.

Behavioral signs of a deepfake

Analyzing the movements and behavioral nuances of the caller is perhaps still the most reliable way to spot a deepfake in real time.

Can’t turn their head. During the video call, ask the person to turn their head so they’re looking completely to the side. Most deepfakes are created using portrait photos and videos, so a sideways turn will cause the image to float, distort, or even break up. AI startup Metaphysic.ai — creators of viral Tom Cruise deepfakes — confirm that head rotation is the most reliable deepfake test at present.

Unnatural gestures. Ask the on-screen person to perform a spontaneous action: wave their hand in front of their face; scratch their nose; take a sip from a cup; cover their eyes with their hands; or point to something in the room. Deepfakes have trouble handling impromptu gestures — hands may pass ghostlike through objects or the face, or fingers may appear distorted, or move unnaturally.

Screen sharing. If the conversation is work-related, ask your chat partner to share their screen and show an on-topic file or document. Without access to your real-life colleague’s device, this will be virtually impossible to fake.

Can’t answer tricky questions. Ask something that only the genuine article could know, for example: “What meeting do we have at work tomorrow?”, “Where did I get this scar?”, “Where did we go on vacation two years ago?” A scammer won’t be able to answer questions if the answers aren’t present in the hacked chats or publicly available sources.

Don’t know the codeword. Agree with friends and family on a secret word or phrase for emergency use to confirm identity. If a panicked relative asks you to urgently transfer money, ask them for the family codeword. A flesh-and-blood relation will reel it off; a deepfake-armed fraudster won’t.

What to do if you encounter a deepfake

If you’ve even the slightest suspicion that what you’re talking to isn’t a real human but a deepfake, follow our tips below.

• End the chat and call back. The surest check is to end the video call and connect with the person through another channel: call or text their regular phone, or message them in another app. If your opposite number is unhappy about this, pretend the connection dropped out.

• Don’t be pressured into sending money. A favorite trick is to create a false sense of urgency. “Mom, I need money right now, I’ve had an accident”; “I don’t have time to explain”; “If you don’t send it in ten minutes, I’m done for!” A real person usually won’t mind waiting a few extra minutes while you double-check the information.
• Tell your friend or colleague they’ve been hacked. If a call or message from someone in your contacts comes from a new number or an unfamiliar account, it’s not unusual — attackers often create fake profiles or use temporary numbers, and this is yet another red flag. But if you get a deepfake call from a contact in a messenger app or your address book, inform them immediately that their account has been hacked — and do it via another communication channel. This will help them take steps to regain access to their account (see our detailed instructions for Telegram and WhatsApp), and to minimize potential damage to other contacts, for example, by posting about the hack.

How to stop your own face getting deepfaked

• Restrict public access to your photos and videos. Hide your social media profiles from strangers, limit your friends list to real people, and delete videos with your voice and face from public access.
• Don’t give suspicious apps access to your smartphone camera or microphone. Scammers can collect biometric data through fake apps disguised as games or utilities. To stop such programs from getting on your devices, use a proven all-in-one security solution.
• Use passkeys, unique passwords, and two-factor authentication (2FA) where possible. Even if scammers do create a deepfake with your face, 2FA will make it much harder to access your accounts and use them to send deepfakes. A cross-platform password manager with support for passkeys and 2FA codes can help out here.
• Teach friends and family how to spot deepfakes. Elderly relatives, young children, and anyone new to technology are the most vulnerable targets. Educate them about scams, show them examples of deepfakes, and practice using a family codeword.
• Use content analyzers. While there’s no silver bullet against deepfakes, there are services that can identify AI-generated content with high accuracy. For graphics, these include Undetectable AI and Illuminarty; for video — Deepware; and for all types of deepfakes — Sensity AI and Hive Moderation.
• Keep a cool head. Scammers apply psychological pressure to hurry victims into acting rashly. Remember the golden rule: if a call, video, or voice message from anyone you know rouses even the slightest suspicion, end the conversation and make contact through another channel.

To protect yourself and loved ones from being scammed, learn more about how scammers deploy deepfakes:

• How phishers and scammers use AI
• How fraudsters bypass customer identity verification using deepfakes
• Watch the (verified) birdie, or new ways to recognize fakes
• Is it the boss — or is it a fraudster? Scams disguised as urgent orders from top brass
• Don’t believe your ears: voice deepfakes

In 2025 a threat group compromised government and critical infrastructure in 37 countries, with reconnaissance in 155.

The post The Shadow Campaigns: Uncovering Global Espionage appeared first on Unit 42.

Introduction

Stan Ghouls (also known as Bloody Wolf) is an cybercriminal group that has been launching targeted attacks against organizations in Russia, Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan, and Uzbekistan since at least 2023. These attackers primarily have their sights set on the manufacturing, finance, and IT sectors. Their campaigns are meticulously prepared and tailored to specific victims, featuring a signature toolkit of custom Java-based malware loaders and a sprawling infrastructure with resources dedicated to specific campaigns.

We continuously track Stan Ghouls’ activity, providing our clients with intel on their tactics, techniques, procedures, and latest campaigns. In this post, we share the results of our most recent deep dive into a campaign targeting Uzbekistan, where we identified roughly 50 victims. About 10 devices in Russia were also hit, with a handful of others scattered across Kazakhstan, Turkey, Serbia, and Belarus (though those last three were likely just collateral damage).

During our investigation, we spotted shifts in the attackers’ infrastructure – specifically, a batch of new domains. We also uncovered evidence suggesting that Stan Ghouls may have added IoT-focused malware to their arsenal.

Technical details

Threat evolution

Stan Ghouls relies on phishing emails packed with malicious PDF attachments as their initial entry point. Historically, the group’s weapon of choice was the remote access Trojan (RAT) STRRAT, also known as Strigoi Master. Last year, however, they switched strategies, opting to misuse legitimate software, NetSupport, to maintain control over infected machines.

Given Stan Ghouls’ targeting of financial institutions, we believe their primary motive is financial gain. That said, their heavy use of RATs may also hint at cyberespionage.

Like any other organized cybercrime groups, Stan Ghouls frequently refreshes its infrastructure. To track their campaigns effectively, you have to continuously analyze their activity.

Initial infection vector

As we’ve mentioned, Stan Ghouls’ primary – and currently only – delivery method is spear phishing. Specifically, they favor emails loaded with malicious PDF attachments. This has been backed up by research from several of our industry peers (1, 2, 3). Interestingly, the attackers prefer to use local languages rather than opting for international mainstays like Russian or English. Below is an example of an email spotted in a previous campaign targeting users in Kyrgyzstan.

The email is written in Kyrgyz and translates to: “The service has contacted you. Materials for review are attached. Sincerely”.

The attachment was a malicious PDF file titled “Постановление_Районный_суд_Кчрм_3566_28-01-25_OL4_scan.pdf” (the title, written in Russian, posed it as an order of district court).

During the most recent campaign, which primarily targeted victims in Uzbekistan, the attackers deployed spear-phishing emails written in Uzbek:

The email text can be translated as follows:

[redacted] AKMALZHON IBROHIMOVICH

You will receive a court notice. Application for retrial. The case is under review by the district court. Judicial Service.

Mustaqillik Street, 147 Uraboshi Village, Quva District.

The attachment, named E-SUD_705306256_ljro_varaqasi.pdf (MD5: 7556e2f5a8f7d7531f28508f718cb83d), is a standard one-page decoy PDF:

Notice that the attackers claim that the “case materials” (which are actually the malicious loader) can only be opened using the Java Runtime Environment.

They even helpfully provide a link for the victim to download and install it from the official website.

The malicious loader

The decoy document contains identical text in both Russian and Uzbek, featuring two links that point to the malicious loader:

• Uzbek link (“- Ish materiallari 09.12.2025 y”): hxxps://mysoliq-uz[.]com/api/v2/documents/financial/Q4-2025/audited/consolidated/with-notes/financials/reports/annual/2025/tashkent/statistical-statements/
• Russian link (“- Материалы дела 09.12.2025 г.”): hxxps://my-xb[.]com/api/v2/documents/financial/Q4-2025/audited/consolidated/with-notes/financials/reports/annual/2025/tashkent/statistical-statements/

Both links lead to the exact same JAR file (MD5: 95db93454ec1d581311c832122d21b20).

It’s worth noting that these attackers are constantly updating their infrastructure, registering new domains for every new campaign. In the relatively short history of this threat, we’ve already mapped out over 35 domains tied to Stan Ghouls.

The malicious loader handles three main tasks:

1. Displaying a fake error message to trick the user into thinking the application can’t run. The message in the screenshot translates to: “This application cannot be run in your OS. Please use another device.”
   

   Fake error message

2. Checking that the number of previous RAT installation attempts is less than three. If the limit is reached, the loader terminates and throws the following error: “Urinishlar chegarasidan oshildi. Boshqa kompyuterni tekshiring.” This translates to: “Attempt limit reached. Try another computer.”
   

   The limitCheck procedure for verifying the number of RAT download attempts

3. Downloading a remote management utility from a malicious domain and saving it to the victim’s machine. Stan Ghouls loaders typically contain a list of several domains and will iterate through them until they find one that’s live.
   

   The performanceResourceUpdate procedure for downloading the remote management utility

The loader fetches the following files, which make up the components of the NetSupport RAT: PCICHEK.DLL, client32.exe, advpack.dll, msvcr100.dll, remcmdstub.exe, ir50_qcx.dll, client32.ini, AudioCapture.dll, kbdlk41a.dll, KBDSF.DLL, tcctl32.dll, HTCTL32.DLL, kbdibm02.DLL, kbd101c.DLL, kbd106n.dll, ir50_32.dll, nskbfltr.inf, NSM.lic, pcicapi.dll, PCICL32.dll, qwave.dll. This list is hardcoded in the malicious loader’s body. To ensure the download was successful, it checks for the presence of the client32.exe executable. If the file is found, the loader generates a NetSupport launch script (run.bat), drops it into the folder with the other files, and executes it:

The loader also ensures NetSupport persistence by adding it to startup using the following three methods:

1. It creates an autorun script named SoliqUZ_Run.bat and drops it into the Startup folder (%APPDATA%\Microsoft\Windows\Start Menu\Programs\Startup):
   

   The generateAutorunScript procedure for creating the batch file and placing it in the Startup folder

2. It adds the run.bat file to the registry’s autorun key (HKCU\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Run\malicious_key_name).
   

   The registryStartupAdd procedure for adding the RAT launch script to the registry autorun key

3. It creates a scheduled task to trigger run.bat using the following command:
   schtasks Create /TN "[malicious_task_name]" /TR "[path_to_run.bat]" /SC ONLOGON /RL LIMITED /F /RU "[%USERNAME%]"
   

   The installStartupTask procedure for creating a scheduled task to launch the NetSupport RAT (via run.bat)

Once the NetSupport RAT is downloaded, installed, and executed, the attackers gain total control over the victim’s machine. While we don’t have enough telemetry to say with 100% certainty what they do once they’re in, the heavy focus on finance-related organizations suggests that the group is primarily after its victims’ money. That said, we can’t rule out cyberespionage either.

Malicious utilities for targeting IoT infrastructure

Previous Stan Ghouls attacks targeting organizations in Kyrgyzstan, as documented by Group-IB researchers, featured a NetSupport RAT configuration file client32.ini with the MD5 hash cb9c28a4c6657ae5ea810020cb214ff0. While reports mention the Kyrgyzstan campaign kicked off in June 2025, Kaspersky solutions first flagged this exact config file on May 16, 2025. At that time, it contained the following NetSupport RAT command-and-control server info:

...
[HTTP]
CMPI=60
GatewayAddress=hgame33[.]com:443
GSK=FN:L?ADAFI:F?BCPGD;N>IAO9J>J@N
Port=443
SecondaryGateway=ravinads[.]com:443
SecondaryPort=443

At the time of our January 2026 investigation, our telemetry showed that the domain specified in that config, hgame33[.]com, was also hosting the following files:

• hxxp://www.hgame33[.]com/00101010101001/morte.spc
• hxxp://hgame33[.]com/00101010101001/debug
• hxxp://www.hgame33[.]com/00101010101001/morte.x86
• hxxp://www.hgame33[.]com/00101010101001/morte.mpsl
• hxxp://www.hgame33[.]com/00101010101001/morte.arm7
• hxxp://www.hgame33[.]com/00101010101001/morte.sh4
• hxxp://hgame33[.]com/00101010101001/morte.arm
• hxxp://hgame33[.]com/00101010101001/morte.i686
• hxxp://hgame33[.]com/00101010101001/morte.arc
• hxxp://hgame33[.]com/00101010101001/morte.arm5
• hxxp://hgame33[.]com/00101010101001/morte.arm6
• hxxp://www.hgame33[.]com/00101010101001/morte.m68k
• hxxp://www.hgame33[.]com/00101010101001/morte.ppc
• hxxp://www.hgame33[.]com/00101010101001/morte.x86_64
• hxxp://hgame33[.]com/00101010101001/morte.mips

All of these files belong to the infamous IoT malware named Mirai. Since they are sitting on a server tied to the Stan Ghouls’ campaign targeting Kyrgyzstan, we can hypothesize – with a low degree of confidence – that the group has expanded its toolkit to include IoT-based threats. However, it’s also possible it simply shared its infrastructure with other threat actors who were the ones actually wielding Mirai. This theory is backed up by the fact that the domain’s registration info was last updated on July 4, 2025, at 11:46:11 – well after Stan Ghouls’ activity in May and June.

Attribution

We attribute this campaign to the Stan Ghouls (Bloody Wolf) group with a high degree of confidence, based on the following similarities to the attackers’ previous campaigns:

1. Substantial code overlaps were found within the malicious loaders. For example:
   

   Code snippet from sample 1acd4592a4eb0c66642cc7b07213e9c9584c6140210779fbc9ebb76a90738d5e, the loader from the Group-IB report

   

   Code snippet from sample 95db93454ec1d581311c832122d21b20, the NetSupport loader described here

2. Decoy documents in both campaigns look identical.
   

   Decoy document 5d840b741d1061d51d9786f8009c37038c395c129bee608616740141f3b202bb from the campaign reported by Group-IB

   

   Decoy document 106911ba54f7e5e609c702504e69c89a used in the campaign described here

3. In both current and past campaigns, the attackers utilized loaders written in Java. Given that Java has fallen out of fashion with malicious loader authors in recent years, it serves as a distinct fingerprint for Stan Ghouls.

Victims

We identified approximately 50 victims of this campaign in Uzbekistan, alongside 10 in Russia and a handful of others in Kazakhstan, Turkey, Serbia, and Belarus (we suspect the infections in these last three countries were accidental). Nearly all phishing emails and decoy files in this campaign were written in Uzbek, which aligns with the group’s track record of leveraging the native languages of their target countries.

Most of the victims are tied to industrial manufacturing, finance, and IT. Furthermore, we observed infection attempts on devices within government organizations, logistics companies, medical facilities, and educational institutions.

It is worth noting that over 60 victims is quite a high headcount for a sophisticated campaign. This suggests the attackers have enough resources to maintain manual remote control over dozens of infected devices simultaneously.

Takeaways

In this post, we’ve broken down the recent campaign by the Stan Ghouls group. The attackers set their sights on organizations in industrial manufacturing, IT, and finance, primarily located in Uzbekistan. However, the ripple effect also reached Russia, Kazakhstan, and a few, likely accidental, victims elsewhere.

With over 60 targets hit, this is a remarkably high volume for a sophisticated targeted campaign. It points to the significant resources these actors are willing to pour into their operations. Interestingly, despite this, the group sticks to a familiar toolkit including the legitimate NetSupport remote management utility and their signature custom Java-based loader. The only thing they seem to keep updating is their infrastructure. For this specific campaign, they employed two new domains to house their malicious loader and one new domain dedicated to hosting NetSupport RAT files.

One curious discovery was the presence of Mirai files on a domain linked to the group’s previous campaigns. This might suggest Stan Ghouls are branching out into IoT malware, though it’s still too early to call it with total certainty.

We’re keeping a close watch on Stan Ghouls and will continue to keep our customers in the loop regarding the group’s latest moves. Kaspersky products provide robust protection against this threat at every stage of the attack lifecycle.

Indicators of compromise

* Additional IoCs and a YARA rule for detecting Stan Ghouls activity are available to customers of our Threat Intelligence Reporting service. For more details, contact us at crimewareintel@kaspersky.com.

PDF decoys

B4FF4AA3EBA9409F9F1A5210C95DC5C3
AF9321DDB4BEF0C3CD1FF3C7C786F0E2
056B75FE0D230E6FF53AC508E0F93CCB
DB84FEBFD85F1469C28B4ED70AC6A638
649C7CACDD545E30D015EDB9FCAB3A0C
BE0C87A83267F1CE13B3F75C78EAC295
78CB3ABD00A1975BEBEDA852B2450873
51703911DC437D4E3910CE7F866C970E
FA53B0FCEF08F8FF3FFDDFEE7F1F4F1A
79D0EEAFB30AA2BD4C261A51104F6ACC
8DA8F0339D17E2466B3D73236D18B835
299A7E3D6118AD91A9B6D37F94AC685B
62AFACC37B71D564D75A58FC161900C3
047A600E3AFBF4286175BADD4D88F131
ED0CCADA1FE1E13EF78553A48260D932
C363CD87178FD660C25CDD8D978685F6
61FF22BA4C3DF7AE4A936FCFDEB020EA
B51D9EDC1DC8B6200F260589A4300009
923557554730247D37E782DB3BEA365D
60C34AD7E1F183A973FB8EE29DC454E8
0CC80A24841401529EC9C6A845609775
0CE06C962E07E63D780E5C2777A661FC

Malicious loaders

1b740b17e53c4daeed45148bfbee4f14
3f99fed688c51977b122789a094fec2e
8b0bbe7dc960f7185c330baa3d9b214c
95db93454ec1d581311c832122d21b20
646a680856f837254e6e361857458e17
8064f7ac9a5aa845ded6a1100a1d5752
d0cf8946acd3d12df1e8ae4bb34f1a6e
db796d87acb7d980264fdcf5e94757f0
e3cb4dafa1fb596e1e34e4b139be1b05
e0023eb058b0c82585a7340b6ed4cc06
0bf01810201004dcc484b3396607a483
4C4FA06BD840405FBEC34FE49D759E8D
A539A07891A339479C596BABE3060EA6
b13f7ccbedfb71b0211c14afe0815b36
f14275f8f420afd0f9a62f3992860d68
3f41091afd6256701dd70ac20c1c79fe
5c4a57e2e40049f8e8a6a74aa8085c80
7e8feb501885eff246d4cb43c468b411
8aa104e64b00b049264dc1b01412e6d9
8c63818261735ddff2fe98b3ae23bf7d

Malicious domains

mysoliq-uz[.]com
my-xb[.]com
xarid-uz[.]com
ach-uz[.]com
soliq-uz[.]com
minjust-kg[.]com
esf-kg[.]com
taxnotice-kg[.]com
notice-kg[.]com
proauditkg[.]com
kgauditcheck[.]com
servicedoc-kg[.]com
auditnotice-kg[.]com
tax-kg[.]com
rouming-uz[.]com
audit-kg[.]com
kyrgyzstanreview[.]com
salyk-notofocations[.]com

Introduction

Stan Ghouls (also known as Bloody Wolf) is an cybercriminal group that has been launching targeted attacks against organizations in Russia, Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan, and Uzbekistan since at least 2023. These attackers primarily have their sights set on the manufacturing, finance, and IT sectors. Their campaigns are meticulously prepared and tailored to specific victims, featuring a signature toolkit of custom Java-based malware loaders and a sprawling infrastructure with resources dedicated to specific campaigns.

We continuously track Stan Ghouls’ activity, providing our clients with intel on their tactics, techniques, procedures, and latest campaigns. In this post, we share the results of our most recent deep dive into a campaign targeting Uzbekistan, where we identified roughly 50 victims. About 10 devices in Russia were also hit, with a handful of others scattered across Kazakhstan, Turkey, Serbia, and Belarus (though those last three were likely just collateral damage).

During our investigation, we spotted shifts in the attackers’ infrastructure – specifically, a batch of new domains. We also uncovered evidence suggesting that Stan Ghouls may have added IoT-focused malware to their arsenal.

Technical details

Threat evolution

Stan Ghouls relies on phishing emails packed with malicious PDF attachments as their initial entry point. Historically, the group’s weapon of choice was the remote access Trojan (RAT) STRRAT, also known as Strigoi Master. Last year, however, they switched strategies, opting to misuse legitimate software, NetSupport, to maintain control over infected machines.

Given Stan Ghouls’ targeting of financial institutions, we believe their primary motive is financial gain. That said, their heavy use of RATs may also hint at cyberespionage.

Like any other organized cybercrime groups, Stan Ghouls frequently refreshes its infrastructure. To track their campaigns effectively, you have to continuously analyze their activity.

Initial infection vector

As we’ve mentioned, Stan Ghouls’ primary – and currently only – delivery method is spear phishing. Specifically, they favor emails loaded with malicious PDF attachments. This has been backed up by research from several of our industry peers (1, 2, 3). Interestingly, the attackers prefer to use local languages rather than opting for international mainstays like Russian or English. Below is an example of an email spotted in a previous campaign targeting users in Kyrgyzstan.

The email is written in Kyrgyz and translates to: “The service has contacted you. Materials for review are attached. Sincerely”.

The attachment was a malicious PDF file titled “Постановление_Районный_суд_Кчрм_3566_28-01-25_OL4_scan.pdf” (the title, written in Russian, posed it as an order of district court).

During the most recent campaign, which primarily targeted victims in Uzbekistan, the attackers deployed spear-phishing emails written in Uzbek:

The email text can be translated as follows:

[redacted] AKMALZHON IBROHIMOVICH

You will receive a court notice. Application for retrial. The case is under review by the district court. Judicial Service.

Mustaqillik Street, 147 Uraboshi Village, Quva District.

The attachment, named E-SUD_705306256_ljro_varaqasi.pdf (MD5: 7556e2f5a8f7d7531f28508f718cb83d), is a standard one-page decoy PDF:

Notice that the attackers claim that the “case materials” (which are actually the malicious loader) can only be opened using the Java Runtime Environment.

They even helpfully provide a link for the victim to download and install it from the official website.

The malicious loader

The decoy document contains identical text in both Russian and Uzbek, featuring two links that point to the malicious loader:

• Uzbek link (“- Ish materiallari 09.12.2025 y”): hxxps://mysoliq-uz[.]com/api/v2/documents/financial/Q4-2025/audited/consolidated/with-notes/financials/reports/annual/2025/tashkent/statistical-statements/
• Russian link (“- Материалы дела 09.12.2025 г.”): hxxps://my-xb[.]com/api/v2/documents/financial/Q4-2025/audited/consolidated/with-notes/financials/reports/annual/2025/tashkent/statistical-statements/

Both links lead to the exact same JAR file (MD5: 95db93454ec1d581311c832122d21b20).

It’s worth noting that these attackers are constantly updating their infrastructure, registering new domains for every new campaign. In the relatively short history of this threat, we’ve already mapped out over 35 domains tied to Stan Ghouls.

The malicious loader handles three main tasks:

1. Displaying a fake error message to trick the user into thinking the application can’t run. The message in the screenshot translates to: “This application cannot be run in your OS. Please use another device.”
   

   Fake error message

2. Checking that the number of previous RAT installation attempts is less than three. If the limit is reached, the loader terminates and throws the following error: “Urinishlar chegarasidan oshildi. Boshqa kompyuterni tekshiring.” This translates to: “Attempt limit reached. Try another computer.”
   

   The limitCheck procedure for verifying the number of RAT download attempts

3. Downloading a remote management utility from a malicious domain and saving it to the victim’s machine. Stan Ghouls loaders typically contain a list of several domains and will iterate through them until they find one that’s live.
   

   The performanceResourceUpdate procedure for downloading the remote management utility

The loader fetches the following files, which make up the components of the NetSupport RAT: PCICHEK.DLL, client32.exe, advpack.dll, msvcr100.dll, remcmdstub.exe, ir50_qcx.dll, client32.ini, AudioCapture.dll, kbdlk41a.dll, KBDSF.DLL, tcctl32.dll, HTCTL32.DLL, kbdibm02.DLL, kbd101c.DLL, kbd106n.dll, ir50_32.dll, nskbfltr.inf, NSM.lic, pcicapi.dll, PCICL32.dll, qwave.dll. This list is hardcoded in the malicious loader’s body. To ensure the download was successful, it checks for the presence of the client32.exe executable. If the file is found, the loader generates a NetSupport launch script (run.bat), drops it into the folder with the other files, and executes it:

The loader also ensures NetSupport persistence by adding it to startup using the following three methods:

1. It creates an autorun script named SoliqUZ_Run.bat and drops it into the Startup folder (%APPDATA%\Microsoft\Windows\Start Menu\Programs\Startup):
   

   The generateAutorunScript procedure for creating the batch file and placing it in the Startup folder

2. It adds the run.bat file to the registry’s autorun key (HKCU\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Run\malicious_key_name).
   

   The registryStartupAdd procedure for adding the RAT launch script to the registry autorun key

3. It creates a scheduled task to trigger run.bat using the following command:
   schtasks Create /TN "[malicious_task_name]" /TR "[path_to_run.bat]" /SC ONLOGON /RL LIMITED /F /RU "[%USERNAME%]"
   

   The installStartupTask procedure for creating a scheduled task to launch the NetSupport RAT (via run.bat)

Once the NetSupport RAT is downloaded, installed, and executed, the attackers gain total control over the victim’s machine. While we don’t have enough telemetry to say with 100% certainty what they do once they’re in, the heavy focus on finance-related organizations suggests that the group is primarily after its victims’ money. That said, we can’t rule out cyberespionage either.

Malicious utilities for targeting IoT infrastructure

Previous Stan Ghouls attacks targeting organizations in Kyrgyzstan, as documented by Group-IB researchers, featured a NetSupport RAT configuration file client32.ini with the MD5 hash cb9c28a4c6657ae5ea810020cb214ff0. While reports mention the Kyrgyzstan campaign kicked off in June 2025, Kaspersky solutions first flagged this exact config file on May 16, 2025. At that time, it contained the following NetSupport RAT command-and-control server info:

...
[HTTP]
CMPI=60
GatewayAddress=hgame33[.]com:443
GSK=FN:L?ADAFI:F?BCPGD;N>IAO9J>J@N
Port=443
SecondaryGateway=ravinads[.]com:443
SecondaryPort=443

At the time of our January 2026 investigation, our telemetry showed that the domain specified in that config, hgame33[.]com, was also hosting the following files:

• hxxp://www.hgame33[.]com/00101010101001/morte.spc
• hxxp://hgame33[.]com/00101010101001/debug
• hxxp://www.hgame33[.]com/00101010101001/morte.x86
• hxxp://www.hgame33[.]com/00101010101001/morte.mpsl
• hxxp://www.hgame33[.]com/00101010101001/morte.arm7
• hxxp://www.hgame33[.]com/00101010101001/morte.sh4
• hxxp://hgame33[.]com/00101010101001/morte.arm
• hxxp://hgame33[.]com/00101010101001/morte.i686
• hxxp://hgame33[.]com/00101010101001/morte.arc
• hxxp://hgame33[.]com/00101010101001/morte.arm5
• hxxp://hgame33[.]com/00101010101001/morte.arm6
• hxxp://www.hgame33[.]com/00101010101001/morte.m68k
• hxxp://www.hgame33[.]com/00101010101001/morte.ppc
• hxxp://www.hgame33[.]com/00101010101001/morte.x86_64
• hxxp://hgame33[.]com/00101010101001/morte.mips

All of these files belong to the infamous IoT malware named Mirai. Since they are sitting on a server tied to the Stan Ghouls’ campaign targeting Kyrgyzstan, we can hypothesize – with a low degree of confidence – that the group has expanded its toolkit to include IoT-based threats. However, it’s also possible it simply shared its infrastructure with other threat actors who were the ones actually wielding Mirai. This theory is backed up by the fact that the domain’s registration info was last updated on July 4, 2025, at 11:46:11 – well after Stan Ghouls’ activity in May and June.

Attribution

We attribute this campaign to the Stan Ghouls (Bloody Wolf) group with a high degree of confidence, based on the following similarities to the attackers’ previous campaigns:

1. Substantial code overlaps were found within the malicious loaders. For example:
   

   Code snippet from sample 1acd4592a4eb0c66642cc7b07213e9c9584c6140210779fbc9ebb76a90738d5e, the loader from the Group-IB report

   

   Code snippet from sample 95db93454ec1d581311c832122d21b20, the NetSupport loader described here

2. Decoy documents in both campaigns look identical.
   

   Decoy document 5d840b741d1061d51d9786f8009c37038c395c129bee608616740141f3b202bb from the campaign reported by Group-IB

   

   Decoy document 106911ba54f7e5e609c702504e69c89a used in the campaign described here

3. In both current and past campaigns, the attackers utilized loaders written in Java. Given that Java has fallen out of fashion with malicious loader authors in recent years, it serves as a distinct fingerprint for Stan Ghouls.

Victims

We identified approximately 50 victims of this campaign in Uzbekistan, alongside 10 in Russia and a handful of others in Kazakhstan, Turkey, Serbia, and Belarus (we suspect the infections in these last three countries were accidental). Nearly all phishing emails and decoy files in this campaign were written in Uzbek, which aligns with the group’s track record of leveraging the native languages of their target countries.

Most of the victims are tied to industrial manufacturing, finance, and IT. Furthermore, we observed infection attempts on devices within government organizations, logistics companies, medical facilities, and educational institutions.

It is worth noting that over 60 victims is quite a high headcount for a sophisticated campaign. This suggests the attackers have enough resources to maintain manual remote control over dozens of infected devices simultaneously.

Takeaways

In this post, we’ve broken down the recent campaign by the Stan Ghouls group. The attackers set their sights on organizations in industrial manufacturing, IT, and finance, primarily located in Uzbekistan. However, the ripple effect also reached Russia, Kazakhstan, and a few, likely accidental, victims elsewhere.

With over 60 targets hit, this is a remarkably high volume for a sophisticated targeted campaign. It points to the significant resources these actors are willing to pour into their operations. Interestingly, despite this, the group sticks to a familiar toolkit including the legitimate NetSupport remote management utility and their signature custom Java-based loader. The only thing they seem to keep updating is their infrastructure. For this specific campaign, they employed two new domains to house their malicious loader and one new domain dedicated to hosting NetSupport RAT files.

One curious discovery was the presence of Mirai files on a domain linked to the group’s previous campaigns. This might suggest Stan Ghouls are branching out into IoT malware, though it’s still too early to call it with total certainty.

We’re keeping a close watch on Stan Ghouls and will continue to keep our customers in the loop regarding the group’s latest moves. Kaspersky products provide robust protection against this threat at every stage of the attack lifecycle.

Indicators of compromise

* Additional IoCs and a YARA rule for detecting Stan Ghouls activity are available to customers of our Threat Intelligence Reporting service. For more details, contact us at crimewareintel@kaspersky.com.

PDF decoys

B4FF4AA3EBA9409F9F1A5210C95DC5C3
AF9321DDB4BEF0C3CD1FF3C7C786F0E2
056B75FE0D230E6FF53AC508E0F93CCB
DB84FEBFD85F1469C28B4ED70AC6A638
649C7CACDD545E30D015EDB9FCAB3A0C
BE0C87A83267F1CE13B3F75C78EAC295
78CB3ABD00A1975BEBEDA852B2450873
51703911DC437D4E3910CE7F866C970E
FA53B0FCEF08F8FF3FFDDFEE7F1F4F1A
79D0EEAFB30AA2BD4C261A51104F6ACC
8DA8F0339D17E2466B3D73236D18B835
299A7E3D6118AD91A9B6D37F94AC685B
62AFACC37B71D564D75A58FC161900C3
047A600E3AFBF4286175BADD4D88F131
ED0CCADA1FE1E13EF78553A48260D932
C363CD87178FD660C25CDD8D978685F6
61FF22BA4C3DF7AE4A936FCFDEB020EA
B51D9EDC1DC8B6200F260589A4300009
923557554730247D37E782DB3BEA365D
60C34AD7E1F183A973FB8EE29DC454E8
0CC80A24841401529EC9C6A845609775
0CE06C962E07E63D780E5C2777A661FC

Malicious loaders

1b740b17e53c4daeed45148bfbee4f14
3f99fed688c51977b122789a094fec2e
8b0bbe7dc960f7185c330baa3d9b214c
95db93454ec1d581311c832122d21b20
646a680856f837254e6e361857458e17
8064f7ac9a5aa845ded6a1100a1d5752
d0cf8946acd3d12df1e8ae4bb34f1a6e
db796d87acb7d980264fdcf5e94757f0
e3cb4dafa1fb596e1e34e4b139be1b05
e0023eb058b0c82585a7340b6ed4cc06
0bf01810201004dcc484b3396607a483
4C4FA06BD840405FBEC34FE49D759E8D
A539A07891A339479C596BABE3060EA6
b13f7ccbedfb71b0211c14afe0815b36
f14275f8f420afd0f9a62f3992860d68
3f41091afd6256701dd70ac20c1c79fe
5c4a57e2e40049f8e8a6a74aa8085c80
7e8feb501885eff246d4cb43c468b411
8aa104e64b00b049264dc1b01412e6d9
8c63818261735ddff2fe98b3ae23bf7d

Malicious domains

mysoliq-uz[.]com
my-xb[.]com
xarid-uz[.]com
ach-uz[.]com
soliq-uz[.]com
minjust-kg[.]com
esf-kg[.]com
taxnotice-kg[.]com
notice-kg[.]com
proauditkg[.]com
kgauditcheck[.]com
servicedoc-kg[.]com
auditnotice-kg[.]com
tax-kg[.]com
rouming-uz[.]com
audit-kg[.]com
kyrgyzstanreview[.]com
salyk-notofocations[.]com

Why do successful phishing attacks target our psychology rather than just our software? Discover Unit 42’s latest insights on defeating social engineering and securing your digital life.

The post Why Smart People Fall For Phishing Attacks appeared first on Unit 42.

Domains set up by the threat actor suggest attacks aimed at Atlassian, Canva, Epic Games, HubSpot, Moderna, ZoomInfo, and WeWork.

The post Over 100 Organizations Targeted in ShinyHunters Phishing Campaign appeared first on SecurityWeek.

Priced $2,000 - $6,000 on a cybercrime forum, the MaaS toolkit promises publication on the Chrome Web Store.

The post ‘Stanley’ Malware Toolkit Enables Phishing via Website Spoofing appeared first on SecurityWeek.

Threat actors are leveraging the file-sharing service for payload delivery in AitM phishing and BEC attacks.

The post Phishers Abuse SharePoint in New Campaign Targeting Energy Sector appeared first on SecurityWeek.

The LastPass Threat Intelligence, Mitigation, and Escalation (TIME) team has published a warning about an active phishing campaign in which fake “maintenance” emails pressure users to back up their vaults within 24 hours. The emails lead to credential-stealing phishing sites rather than any legitimate LastPass page.

The phishing campaign that started around January 19, 2026, uses emails that falsely claim upcoming infrastructure maintenance and urge users to “backup your vault in the next 24 hours.”

“Scheduled Maintenance: Backup Recommended

As part of our ongoing commitment to security and performance, we will be conducting scheduled infrastructure maintenance on our servers.
Why are we asking you to create a backup?
While your data remains protected at all times, creating a local backup ensures you have access to your credentials during the maintenance window. In the unlikely event of any unforeseen technical difficulties or data discrepancies, having a recent backup guarantees your information remains secure and recoverable. We recommend this precautionary measure to all users to ensure complete peace of mind and seamless continuity of service.

Create Backup Now (link)

How to create your backup
1 Click the “Create Backup Now” button above
2 Select “Export Vault” from you account settings
3 Download and store your encrypted backup file securely”

The link in the email points to mail-lastpass[.]com, a domain that doesn’t belong to LastPass and has now been taken down.

Note that there are different subject lines in use. Here is a selection:

• LastPass Infrastructure Update: Secure Your Vault Now
• Your Data, Your Protection: Create a Backup Before Maintenance
• Don’t Miss Out: Backup Your Vault Before Maintenance
• Important: LastPass Maintenance & Your Vault Security
• Protect Your Passwords: Backup Your Vault (24-Hour Window)

It is imperative for users to ignore instructions in emails like these. Giving away the login details for your password manager can be disastrous. For most users, it would provide access to enough information to carry out identity theft.

Stay safe

First and foremost, it’s important to understand that LastPass will never ask for your master password or demand immediate action under a tight deadline. Generally speaking, there are more guidelines that can help you stay safe.

• Don’t click on links in unsolicited emails without verifying with the trusted sender that they’re legitimate.
• Always log in directly on the platform that you are trying to access, rather than through a link.
• Use a real-time, up-to-date anti-malware solution with a web protection module to block malicious sites.
• Report phishing emails to the company that’s being impersonated, so they can alert other customers. In this case emails were forwarded to abuse@lastpass.com.

Pro tip: Malwarebytes Scam Guard  would have recognized this email as a scam and advised you how to proceed.

---

We don’t just report on threats—we help safeguard your entire digital identity

Cybersecurity risks should never spread beyond a headline. Protect your, and your family’s, personal information by using identity protection.

The LastPass Threat Intelligence, Mitigation, and Escalation (TIME) team has published a warning about an active phishing campaign in which fake “maintenance” emails pressure users to back up their vaults within 24 hours. The emails lead to credential-stealing phishing sites rather than any legitimate LastPass page.

The phishing campaign that started around January 19, 2026, uses emails that falsely claim upcoming infrastructure maintenance and urge users to “backup your vault in the next 24 hours.”

“Scheduled Maintenance: Backup Recommended

As part of our ongoing commitment to security and performance, we will be conducting scheduled infrastructure maintenance on our servers.
Why are we asking you to create a backup?
While your data remains protected at all times, creating a local backup ensures you have access to your credentials during the maintenance window. In the unlikely event of any unforeseen technical difficulties or data discrepancies, having a recent backup guarantees your information remains secure and recoverable. We recommend this precautionary measure to all users to ensure complete peace of mind and seamless continuity of service.

Create Backup Now (link)

How to create your backup
1 Click the “Create Backup Now” button above
2 Select “Export Vault” from you account settings
3 Download and store your encrypted backup file securely”

The link in the email points to mail-lastpass[.]com, a domain that doesn’t belong to LastPass and has now been taken down.

Note that there are different subject lines in use. Here is a selection:

• LastPass Infrastructure Update: Secure Your Vault Now
• Your Data, Your Protection: Create a Backup Before Maintenance
• Don’t Miss Out: Backup Your Vault Before Maintenance
• Important: LastPass Maintenance & Your Vault Security
• Protect Your Passwords: Backup Your Vault (24-Hour Window)

It is imperative for users to ignore instructions in emails like these. Giving away the login details for your password manager can be disastrous. For most users, it would provide access to enough information to carry out identity theft.

Stay safe

First and foremost, it’s important to understand that LastPass will never ask for your master password or demand immediate action under a tight deadline. Generally speaking, there are more guidelines that can help you stay safe.

• Don’t click on links in unsolicited emails without verifying with the trusted sender that they’re legitimate.
• Always log in directly on the platform that you are trying to access, rather than through a link.
• Use a real-time, up-to-date anti-malware solution with a web protection module to block malicious sites.
• Report phishing emails to the company that’s being impersonated, so they can alert other customers. In this case emails were forwarded to abuse@lastpass.com.

Pro tip: Malwarebytes Scam Guard  would have recognized this email as a scam and advised you how to proceed.

---

We don’t just report on threats—we help safeguard your entire digital identity

Cybersecurity risks should never spread beyond a headline. Protect your, and your family’s, personal information by using identity protection.

We discuss a novel AI-augmented attack method where malicious webpages use LLM services to generate dynamic code in real-time within a browser.

The post The Next Frontier of Runtime Assembly Attacks: Leveraging LLMs to Generate Phishing JavaScript in Real Time appeared first on Unit 42.

Threat actors may have wanted to take advantage of the holiday weekend in the United States to increase their chances of success.

The post LastPass Users Targeted With Backup-Themed Phishing Emails appeared first on SecurityWeek.

Unit 42 breaks down a payroll attack fueled by social engineering. Learn how the breach happened and how to protect your organization from similar threats.

The post Anatomy of an Attack: The Payroll Pirates and the Power of Social Engineering appeared first on Unit 42.

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

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

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

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

Business damage from brand impersonation

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

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

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

Does insurance cover the damage?

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

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

What to do if your company is attacked by clones

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

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

How to defend against brand impersonation attacks

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

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