Attackers are increasingly abusing Microsoft’s decades-old MSHTA utility to stealthily deliver stealers, loaders, and persistent malware through phishing, fake software downloads, and LOLBIN-based attack chains.
The post Legacy Windows Tool MSHTA Fuels Surge in Silent Malware Attacks appeared first on SecurityWeek.
IT threat evolution in Q1 2026. Non-mobile statistics
IT threat evolution in Q1 2026. Mobile statistics
The statistics in this report are based on detection verdicts returned by Kaspersky products unless otherwise stated. The information was provided by Kaspersky users who consented to sharing statistical data.
In Q1 2026:
In January 2026, it was reported that the FBI had seized the domains of the RAMP cybercrime forum, a major platform used extensively by ransomware developers to advertise their RaaS programs and to recruit affiliates. There has been no official statement from the FBI, nor is it clear if RAMP servers were seized. In a post on an external website, a RAMP moderator mentioned law enforcement agencies gaining control over the forum. The takedown disrupted a key element of the RaaS ecosystem, creating ripple effects for ransomware operators, affiliates, and initial access brokers.
A man suspected of links to the Phobos group was apprehended in Poland. He was charged with the creation, acquisition, and distribution of software designed for unlawfully obtaining information, including data that facilitates unauthorized access to information stored within a computer system.
In March, a Phobos ransomware administrator pleaded guilty to the creation and distribution of the Trojan, which had been used in international attacks dating back to at least November 2020.
In March, the U.S. Department of Justice charged a man who had acted as a negotiator for ransomware groups. The company he worked for specializes in cyberincident investigations. The prosecution alleges the suspect colluded with the BlackCat threat actor to share privileged insights into the ongoing progress of negotiations. Additionally, the suspect is alleged to have had a prior direct role in BlackCat attacks, serving as an affiliate for the RaaS operation.
In a separate development this March, a U.S. court sentenced an initial access broker associated with the Yanluowang ransomware group to 81 months of imprisonment. According to the U.S. Department of Justice, the convict facilitated dozens of ransomware attacks across the United States, resulting in over $9 million in actual loss and more than $24 million in intended loss.
The Interlock group has been heavily exploiting the CVE-2026-20131 zero-day vulnerability in Cisco Secure FMC firewall management software since at least January 26, 2026. The vulnerability enabled arbitrary Java code execution with root privileges on the affected device. This campaign demonstrates the ongoing reliance on zero-day vulnerabilities for initial access, a focus on network appliances as high-value entry points, and the rapid weaponization of new vulnerabilities within the ransomware ecosystem.
This section highlights the most prolific ransomware gangs by number of victims added to each group’s DLS. This quarter, the Clop ransomware (14.42%) returned to the top of the rankings, displacing Qilin (12.34%), which had held the leading position in the previous reporting period. Following closely is a new threat actor, The Gentlemen (9.25%). Emerging no later than July 2025, the group had already surpassed the activity levels of mainstays such as Akira (7.25%) and INC Ransom (6.13%).
Number of each group’s victims according to its DLS as a percentage of all groups’ victims published on all the DLSs under review during the reporting period (download)
In Q1 2026, Kaspersky solutions detected six new ransomware families and 2938 new modifications. Volumes have returned to Q3 2025 levels following a surge in Q4 2025.
Number of new ransomware modifications, Q1 2025 — Q1 2026 (download)
Throughout Q1, our solutions protected 77,319 unique users from ransomware. Ransomware activity was highest in March, with 35,056 unique users encountering such attacks during the month.
Number of unique users attacked by ransomware Trojans, Q1 2026 (download)
| Country/territory* | %** | |
| 1 | Pakistan | 0.79 |
| 2 | South Korea | 0.64 |
| 3 | China | 0.52 |
| 4 | Tajikistan | 0.40 |
| 5 | Libya | 0.38 |
| 6 | Turkmenistan | 0.36 |
| 7 | Iraq | 0.35 |
| 8 | Bangladesh | 0.33 |
| 9 | Rwanda | 0.30 |
| 10 | Cameroon | 0.28 |
* Excluded are countries and territories with relatively few (under 50,000) Kaspersky users.
** Unique users whose computers were attacked by ransomware Trojans as a percentage of all unique users of Kaspersky products in the country/territory.
| Name | Verdict | %* | |
| 1 | (generic verdict) | Trojan-Ransom.Win32.Gen | 33.90 |
| 2 | (generic verdict) | Trojan-Ransom.Win32.Crypren | 6.38 |
| 3 | WannaCry | Trojan-Ransom.Win32.Wanna | 5.87 |
| 4 | (generic verdict) | Trojan-Ransom.Win32.Encoder | 4.68 |
| 5 | (generic verdict) | Trojan-Ransom.Win32.Agent | 3.80 |
| 6 | LockBit | Trojan-Ransom.Win32.Lockbit | 2.80 |
| 7 | (generic verdict) | Trojan-Ransom.Win32.Phny | 1.99 |
| 8 | (generic verdict) | Trojan-Ransom.MSIL.Agent | 1.96 |
| 9 | (generic verdict) | Trojan-Ransom.Python.Agent | 1.93 |
| 10 | (generic verdict) | Trojan-Ransom.Win32.Crypmod | 1.89 |
* Unique Kaspersky users attacked by the specific ransomware Trojan family as a percentage of all unique users attacked by this type of threat.
In Q1 2026, Kaspersky solutions detected 3485 new modifications of miners.
Number of new miner modifications, Q1 2026 (download)
In Q1, we detected attacks using miner programs on the computers of 260,588 unique Kaspersky users worldwide.
Number of unique users attacked by miners, Q1 2026 (download)
| Country/territory* | %** | |
| 1 | Senegal | 3.19 |
| 2 | Turkmenistan | 3.06 |
| 3 | Mali | 2.63 |
| 4 | Tanzania | 1.62 |
| 5 | Bangladesh | 1.06 |
| 6 | Ethiopia | 0.95 |
| 7 | Panama | 0.88 |
| 8 | Afghanistan | 0.79 |
| 9 | Kazakhstan | 0.77 |
| 10 | Bolivia | 0.75 |
* Excluded are countries and territories with relatively few (under 50,000) Kaspersky users.
** Unique users whose computers were attacked by miners as a percentage of all unique users of Kaspersky products in the country/territory.
In Q1 2026, Google uncovered a new cryptocurrency theft campaign. The scammers directed victims to a fraudulent video call, prompting them to execute malicious scripts under the guise of technical support fixes for connection problems.
In March, researchers with GTIG and iVerify reported the discovery of an in-the-wild exploit chain targeting both iOS and macOS devices. The exploit kit was apparently marketed on the dark web, providing threat actors with a suite of spyware capabilities alongside specialized cryptocurrency exfiltration modules. The exploit was delivered via drive-by downloads when victims visited various compromised websites. Our analysis confirmed that the toolkit included an updated version of a component previously identified in the Operation Triangulation attack chain.
Devices running macOS were similarly impacted by the high-profile supply chain attack targeting the Axios npm package, a widely used HTTP client for JavaScript. The installation of the infected package led to the deployment of a backdoor on macOS devices.
Unique users* who encountered this malware as a percentage of all attacked users of Kaspersky security solutions for macOS (download)
* Data for the previous quarter may differ slightly from previously published data due to some verdicts being retrospectively revised.
The share of PasivRobber spyware attacks is beginning to decline, giving way to more traditional adware and Monitor-class software capable of tracking user activity. The popular Amos stealer also maintains its presence within the TOP 20.
| Country/territory | %* Q4 2025 | %* Q1 2026 |
| China | 1.28 | 1.97 |
| France | 1.18 | 1.07 |
| Brazil | 1.13 | 0.98 |
| Mexico | 0.72 | 0.52 |
| Germany | 0.71 | 0.45 |
| The Netherlands | 0.62 | 0.75 |
| Hong Kong | 0.49 | 0.53 |
| India | 0.42 | 0.48 |
| Russian Federation | 0.34 | 0.37 |
| Thailand | 0.24 | 0.27 |
* Unique users who encountered threats to macOS as a percentage of all unique Kaspersky users in the country/territory.
This section presents statistics on attacks targeting Kaspersky IoT honeypots. The geographic data on attack sources is based on the IP addresses of attacking devices.
In Q1 2026, the share of devices attacking Kaspersky honeypots via the SSH protocol saw a significant increase compared to the previous reporting period.
Distribution of attacked services by number of unique IP addresses of attacking devices (download)
The distribution of attacks between Telnet and SSH maintained the ratio observed in Q4 2025.
Distribution of attackers’ sessions in Kaspersky honeypots (download)
Share of each threat delivered to an infected device as a result of a successful attack, out of the total number of threats delivered (download)
The primary shifts in the IoT threat distribution are linked to the activity of various Mirai botnet variants, although members of this family continue to account for the majority of the list. Furthermore, a new variant, Mirai.kl, surfaced in the rankings. We also observed a significant decline in NyaDrop botnet activity during Q1.
The United States, the Netherlands, and Germany accounted for the highest proportions of SSH-based attacks during this period.
| Country/territory | Q4 2025 | Q1 2026 |
| United States | 16.10% | 23.74% |
| The Netherlands | 15.78% | 17.57% |
| Germany | 12.07% | 10.34% |
| Panama | 7.72% | 6.34% |
| India | 5.32% | 6.05% |
| Romania | 4.05% | 5.82% |
| Australia | 1.62% | 4.61% |
| Vietnam | 4.21% | 3.50% |
| Russian Federation | 3.79% | 2.35% |
| Sweden | 2.25% | 2.09% |
China continues to account for the largest proportion of Telnet attacks, though there was a marked increase in activity originating from Pakistan.
| Country/territory | Q4 2025 | Q1 2026 |
| China | 53.64% | 39.54% |
| Pakistan | 14.27% | 27.31% |
| Russian Federation | 8.20% | 8.25% |
| Indonesia | 8.58% | 6.71% |
| India | 4.85% | 4.66% |
| Brazil | 0.06% | 3.30% |
| Argentina | 0.02% | 2.51% |
| Nigeria | 1.22% | 1.38% |
| Thailand | 0.01% | 0.55% |
| Sweden | 0.54% | 0.55% |
The statistics in this section are based on detection verdicts by Web Anti-Virus, which protects users when suspicious objects are downloaded from malicious or infected web pages. These malicious pages are purposefully created by cybercriminals. Websites that host user-generated content, such as message boards, as well as compromised legitimate sites, can become infected.
The following statistics show the distribution by country/territory of the sources of internet attacks blocked by Kaspersky products on user computers (web pages redirecting to exploits, sites containing exploits and other malicious programs, botnet C&C centers, and so on). One or more web-based attacks could originate from each unique host.
To determine the geographic source of web attacks, we matched the domain name with the real IP address where the domain is hosted, then identified the geographic location of that IP address (GeoIP).
In Q1 2026, Kaspersky solutions blocked 343,823,407 attacks launched from internet resources worldwide. Web Anti-Virus was triggered by 49,983,611 unique URLs.
Web-based attacks by country/territory, Q1 2026 (download)
To assess the risk of malware infection via the internet for users’ computers in different countries and territories, we calculated the share of Kaspersky users in each location on whose computers Web Anti-Virus was triggered during the reporting period. The resulting data provides an indication of the aggressiveness of the environment in which computers operate in different countries and territories.
This ranked list includes only attacks by malicious objects classified as Malware. Our calculations leave out Web Anti-Virus detections of potentially dangerous or unwanted programs, such as RiskTool or adware.
| Country/territory* | %** | |
| 1 | Venezuela | 9.33 |
| 2 | Hungary | 8.16 |
| 3 | Italy | 7.58 |
| 4 | Tajikistan | 7.48 |
| 5 | India | 7.21 |
| 6 | Greece | 7.13 |
| 7 | Portugal | 7.10 |
| 8 | France | 7.05 |
| 9 | Belgium | 6.83 |
| 10 | Slovakia | 6.80 |
| 11 | Vietnam | 6.62 |
| 12 | Bosnia and Herzegovina | 6.57 |
| 13 | Canada | 6.56 |
| 14 | Serbia | 6.50 |
| 15 | Tunisia | 6.36 |
| 16 | Qatar | 6.01 |
| 17 | Spain | 5.95 |
| 18 | Germany | 5.95 |
| 19 | Sri Lanka | 5.89 |
| 20 | Brazil | 5.88 |
* Excluded are countries and territories with relatively few (under 10,000) Kaspersky users.
** Unique users targeted by web-based Malware attacks as a percentage of all unique users of Kaspersky products in the country/territory.
On average during the quarter, 4.73% of users’ computers worldwide were subjected to at least one Malware web attack.
Statistics on local infections of user computers are an important indicator. They include objects that penetrated the target computer by infecting files or removable media, or initially made their way onto the computer in non-open form. Examples of the latter are programs in complex installers and encrypted files.
Data in this section is based on analyzing statistics produced by anti-virus scans of files on the hard drive at the moment they were created or accessed, and the results of scanning removable storage media. The statistics are based on detection verdicts from the On-Access Scan (OAS) and On-Demand Scan (ODS) modules of File Anti-Virus and include detections of malicious programs located on user computers or removable media connected to the computers, such as flash drives, camera memory cards, phones, or external hard drives.
In Q1 2026, our File Anti-Virus detected 15,831,319 malicious and potentially unwanted objects.
For each country and territory, we calculated the percentage of Kaspersky users whose computers had the File Anti-Virus triggered at least once during the reporting period. This statistic reflects the level of personal computer infection in different countries and territories around the world.
Note that this ranked list includes only attacks by malicious objects classified as Malware. Our calculations leave out File Anti-Virus detections of potentially dangerous or unwanted programs, such as RiskTool or adware.
| Country/territory* | %** | |
| 1 | Turkmenistan | 47.96 |
| 2 | Tajikistan | 31.48 |
| 3 | Cuba | 31.03 |
| 4 | Yemen | 29.59 |
| 5 | Afghanistan | 28.47 |
| 6 | Burundi | 26.93 |
| 7 | Uzbekistan | 24.81 |
| 8 | Syria | 23.08 |
| 9 | Nicaragua | 21.97 |
| 10 | Cameroon | 21.60 |
| 11 | China | 21.09 |
| 12 | Mozambique | 21.02 |
| 13 | Algeria | 20.64 |
| 14 | Democratic Republic of the Congo | 20.63 |
| 15 | Bangladesh | 20.44 |
| 16 | Mali | 20.35 |
| 17 | Republic of the Congo | 20.23 |
| 18 | Madagascar | 20.00 |
| 19 | Belarus | 19.78 |
| 20 | Tanzania | 19.52 |
* Excluded are countries and territories with relatively few (under 10,000) Kaspersky users.
** Unique users on whose computers local Malware threats were blocked, as a percentage of all unique users of Kaspersky products in the country/territory.
On average worldwide, Malware local threats were detected at least once on 11.55% of users’ computers during Q1.
Russia scored 11.92% in these rankings.
IT threat evolution in Q1 2026. Non-mobile statistics
IT threat evolution in Q1 2026. Mobile statistics
The statistics in this report are based on detection verdicts returned by Kaspersky products unless otherwise stated. The information was provided by Kaspersky users who consented to sharing statistical data.
In Q1 2026:
In January 2026, it was reported that the FBI had seized the domains of the RAMP cybercrime forum, a major platform used extensively by ransomware developers to advertise their RaaS programs and to recruit affiliates. There has been no official statement from the FBI, nor is it clear if RAMP servers were seized. In a post on an external website, a RAMP moderator mentioned law enforcement agencies gaining control over the forum. The takedown disrupted a key element of the RaaS ecosystem, creating ripple effects for ransomware operators, affiliates, and initial access brokers.
A man suspected of links to the Phobos group was apprehended in Poland. He was charged with the creation, acquisition, and distribution of software designed for unlawfully obtaining information, including data that facilitates unauthorized access to information stored within a computer system.
In March, a Phobos ransomware administrator pleaded guilty to the creation and distribution of the Trojan, which had been used in international attacks dating back to at least November 2020.
In March, the U.S. Department of Justice charged a man who had acted as a negotiator for ransomware groups. The company he worked for specializes in cyberincident investigations. The prosecution alleges the suspect colluded with the BlackCat threat actor to share privileged insights into the ongoing progress of negotiations. Additionally, the suspect is alleged to have had a prior direct role in BlackCat attacks, serving as an affiliate for the RaaS operation.
In a separate development this March, a U.S. court sentenced an initial access broker associated with the Yanluowang ransomware group to 81 months of imprisonment. According to the U.S. Department of Justice, the convict facilitated dozens of ransomware attacks across the United States, resulting in over $9 million in actual loss and more than $24 million in intended loss.
The Interlock group has been heavily exploiting the CVE-2026-20131 zero-day vulnerability in Cisco Secure FMC firewall management software since at least January 26, 2026. The vulnerability enabled arbitrary Java code execution with root privileges on the affected device. This campaign demonstrates the ongoing reliance on zero-day vulnerabilities for initial access, a focus on network appliances as high-value entry points, and the rapid weaponization of new vulnerabilities within the ransomware ecosystem.
This section highlights the most prolific ransomware gangs by number of victims added to each group’s DLS. This quarter, the Clop ransomware (14.42%) returned to the top of the rankings, displacing Qilin (12.34%), which had held the leading position in the previous reporting period. Following closely is a new threat actor, The Gentlemen (9.25%). Emerging no later than July 2025, the group had already surpassed the activity levels of mainstays such as Akira (7.25%) and INC Ransom (6.13%).
Number of each group’s victims according to its DLS as a percentage of all groups’ victims published on all the DLSs under review during the reporting period (download)
In Q1 2026, Kaspersky solutions detected six new ransomware families and 2938 new modifications. Volumes have returned to Q3 2025 levels following a surge in Q4 2025.
Number of new ransomware modifications, Q1 2025 — Q1 2026 (download)
Throughout Q1, our solutions protected 77,319 unique users from ransomware. Ransomware activity was highest in March, with 35,056 unique users encountering such attacks during the month.
Number of unique users attacked by ransomware Trojans, Q1 2026 (download)
| Country/territory* | %** | |
| 1 | Pakistan | 0.79 |
| 2 | South Korea | 0.64 |
| 3 | China | 0.52 |
| 4 | Tajikistan | 0.40 |
| 5 | Libya | 0.38 |
| 6 | Turkmenistan | 0.36 |
| 7 | Iraq | 0.35 |
| 8 | Bangladesh | 0.33 |
| 9 | Rwanda | 0.30 |
| 10 | Cameroon | 0.28 |
* Excluded are countries and territories with relatively few (under 50,000) Kaspersky users.
** Unique users whose computers were attacked by ransomware Trojans as a percentage of all unique users of Kaspersky products in the country/territory.
| Name | Verdict | %* | |
| 1 | (generic verdict) | Trojan-Ransom.Win32.Gen | 33.90 |
| 2 | (generic verdict) | Trojan-Ransom.Win32.Crypren | 6.38 |
| 3 | WannaCry | Trojan-Ransom.Win32.Wanna | 5.87 |
| 4 | (generic verdict) | Trojan-Ransom.Win32.Encoder | 4.68 |
| 5 | (generic verdict) | Trojan-Ransom.Win32.Agent | 3.80 |
| 6 | LockBit | Trojan-Ransom.Win32.Lockbit | 2.80 |
| 7 | (generic verdict) | Trojan-Ransom.Win32.Phny | 1.99 |
| 8 | (generic verdict) | Trojan-Ransom.MSIL.Agent | 1.96 |
| 9 | (generic verdict) | Trojan-Ransom.Python.Agent | 1.93 |
| 10 | (generic verdict) | Trojan-Ransom.Win32.Crypmod | 1.89 |
* Unique Kaspersky users attacked by the specific ransomware Trojan family as a percentage of all unique users attacked by this type of threat.
In Q1 2026, Kaspersky solutions detected 3485 new modifications of miners.
Number of new miner modifications, Q1 2026 (download)
In Q1, we detected attacks using miner programs on the computers of 260,588 unique Kaspersky users worldwide.
Number of unique users attacked by miners, Q1 2026 (download)
| Country/territory* | %** | |
| 1 | Senegal | 3.19 |
| 2 | Turkmenistan | 3.06 |
| 3 | Mali | 2.63 |
| 4 | Tanzania | 1.62 |
| 5 | Bangladesh | 1.06 |
| 6 | Ethiopia | 0.95 |
| 7 | Panama | 0.88 |
| 8 | Afghanistan | 0.79 |
| 9 | Kazakhstan | 0.77 |
| 10 | Bolivia | 0.75 |
* Excluded are countries and territories with relatively few (under 50,000) Kaspersky users.
** Unique users whose computers were attacked by miners as a percentage of all unique users of Kaspersky products in the country/territory.
In Q1 2026, Google uncovered a new cryptocurrency theft campaign. The scammers directed victims to a fraudulent video call, prompting them to execute malicious scripts under the guise of technical support fixes for connection problems.
In March, researchers with GTIG and iVerify reported the discovery of an in-the-wild exploit chain targeting both iOS and macOS devices. The exploit kit was apparently marketed on the dark web, providing threat actors with a suite of spyware capabilities alongside specialized cryptocurrency exfiltration modules. The exploit was delivered via drive-by downloads when victims visited various compromised websites. Our analysis confirmed that the toolkit included an updated version of a component previously identified in the Operation Triangulation attack chain.
Devices running macOS were similarly impacted by the high-profile supply chain attack targeting the Axios npm package, a widely used HTTP client for JavaScript. The installation of the infected package led to the deployment of a backdoor on macOS devices.
Unique users* who encountered this malware as a percentage of all attacked users of Kaspersky security solutions for macOS (download)
* Data for the previous quarter may differ slightly from previously published data due to some verdicts being retrospectively revised.
The share of PasivRobber spyware attacks is beginning to decline, giving way to more traditional adware and Monitor-class software capable of tracking user activity. The popular Amos stealer also maintains its presence within the TOP 20.
| Country/territory | %* Q4 2025 | %* Q1 2026 |
| China | 1.28 | 1.97 |
| France | 1.18 | 1.07 |
| Brazil | 1.13 | 0.98 |
| Mexico | 0.72 | 0.52 |
| Germany | 0.71 | 0.45 |
| The Netherlands | 0.62 | 0.75 |
| Hong Kong | 0.49 | 0.53 |
| India | 0.42 | 0.48 |
| Russian Federation | 0.34 | 0.37 |
| Thailand | 0.24 | 0.27 |
* Unique users who encountered threats to macOS as a percentage of all unique Kaspersky users in the country/territory.
This section presents statistics on attacks targeting Kaspersky IoT honeypots. The geographic data on attack sources is based on the IP addresses of attacking devices.
In Q1 2026, the share of devices attacking Kaspersky honeypots via the SSH protocol saw a significant increase compared to the previous reporting period.
Distribution of attacked services by number of unique IP addresses of attacking devices (download)
The distribution of attacks between Telnet and SSH maintained the ratio observed in Q4 2025.
Distribution of attackers’ sessions in Kaspersky honeypots (download)
Share of each threat delivered to an infected device as a result of a successful attack, out of the total number of threats delivered (download)
The primary shifts in the IoT threat distribution are linked to the activity of various Mirai botnet variants, although members of this family continue to account for the majority of the list. Furthermore, a new variant, Mirai.kl, surfaced in the rankings. We also observed a significant decline in NyaDrop botnet activity during Q1.
The United States, the Netherlands, and Germany accounted for the highest proportions of SSH-based attacks during this period.
| Country/territory | Q4 2025 | Q1 2026 |
| United States | 16.10% | 23.74% |
| The Netherlands | 15.78% | 17.57% |
| Germany | 12.07% | 10.34% |
| Panama | 7.72% | 6.34% |
| India | 5.32% | 6.05% |
| Romania | 4.05% | 5.82% |
| Australia | 1.62% | 4.61% |
| Vietnam | 4.21% | 3.50% |
| Russian Federation | 3.79% | 2.35% |
| Sweden | 2.25% | 2.09% |
China continues to account for the largest proportion of Telnet attacks, though there was a marked increase in activity originating from Pakistan.
| Country/territory | Q4 2025 | Q1 2026 |
| China | 53.64% | 39.54% |
| Pakistan | 14.27% | 27.31% |
| Russian Federation | 8.20% | 8.25% |
| Indonesia | 8.58% | 6.71% |
| India | 4.85% | 4.66% |
| Brazil | 0.06% | 3.30% |
| Argentina | 0.02% | 2.51% |
| Nigeria | 1.22% | 1.38% |
| Thailand | 0.01% | 0.55% |
| Sweden | 0.54% | 0.55% |
The statistics in this section are based on detection verdicts by Web Anti-Virus, which protects users when suspicious objects are downloaded from malicious or infected web pages. These malicious pages are purposefully created by cybercriminals. Websites that host user-generated content, such as message boards, as well as compromised legitimate sites, can become infected.
The following statistics show the distribution by country/territory of the sources of internet attacks blocked by Kaspersky products on user computers (web pages redirecting to exploits, sites containing exploits and other malicious programs, botnet C&C centers, and so on). One or more web-based attacks could originate from each unique host.
To determine the geographic source of web attacks, we matched the domain name with the real IP address where the domain is hosted, then identified the geographic location of that IP address (GeoIP).
In Q1 2026, Kaspersky solutions blocked 343,823,407 attacks launched from internet resources worldwide. Web Anti-Virus was triggered by 49,983,611 unique URLs.
Web-based attacks by country/territory, Q1 2026 (download)
To assess the risk of malware infection via the internet for users’ computers in different countries and territories, we calculated the share of Kaspersky users in each location on whose computers Web Anti-Virus was triggered during the reporting period. The resulting data provides an indication of the aggressiveness of the environment in which computers operate in different countries and territories.
This ranked list includes only attacks by malicious objects classified as Malware. Our calculations leave out Web Anti-Virus detections of potentially dangerous or unwanted programs, such as RiskTool or adware.
| Country/territory* | %** | |
| 1 | Venezuela | 9.33 |
| 2 | Hungary | 8.16 |
| 3 | Italy | 7.58 |
| 4 | Tajikistan | 7.48 |
| 5 | India | 7.21 |
| 6 | Greece | 7.13 |
| 7 | Portugal | 7.10 |
| 8 | France | 7.05 |
| 9 | Belgium | 6.83 |
| 10 | Slovakia | 6.80 |
| 11 | Vietnam | 6.62 |
| 12 | Bosnia and Herzegovina | 6.57 |
| 13 | Canada | 6.56 |
| 14 | Serbia | 6.50 |
| 15 | Tunisia | 6.36 |
| 16 | Qatar | 6.01 |
| 17 | Spain | 5.95 |
| 18 | Germany | 5.95 |
| 19 | Sri Lanka | 5.89 |
| 20 | Brazil | 5.88 |
* Excluded are countries and territories with relatively few (under 10,000) Kaspersky users.
** Unique users targeted by web-based Malware attacks as a percentage of all unique users of Kaspersky products in the country/territory.
On average during the quarter, 4.73% of users’ computers worldwide were subjected to at least one Malware web attack.
Statistics on local infections of user computers are an important indicator. They include objects that penetrated the target computer by infecting files or removable media, or initially made their way onto the computer in non-open form. Examples of the latter are programs in complex installers and encrypted files.
Data in this section is based on analyzing statistics produced by anti-virus scans of files on the hard drive at the moment they were created or accessed, and the results of scanning removable storage media. The statistics are based on detection verdicts from the On-Access Scan (OAS) and On-Demand Scan (ODS) modules of File Anti-Virus and include detections of malicious programs located on user computers or removable media connected to the computers, such as flash drives, camera memory cards, phones, or external hard drives.
In Q1 2026, our File Anti-Virus detected 15,831,319 malicious and potentially unwanted objects.
For each country and territory, we calculated the percentage of Kaspersky users whose computers had the File Anti-Virus triggered at least once during the reporting period. This statistic reflects the level of personal computer infection in different countries and territories around the world.
Note that this ranked list includes only attacks by malicious objects classified as Malware. Our calculations leave out File Anti-Virus detections of potentially dangerous or unwanted programs, such as RiskTool or adware.
| Country/territory* | %** | |
| 1 | Turkmenistan | 47.96 |
| 2 | Tajikistan | 31.48 |
| 3 | Cuba | 31.03 |
| 4 | Yemen | 29.59 |
| 5 | Afghanistan | 28.47 |
| 6 | Burundi | 26.93 |
| 7 | Uzbekistan | 24.81 |
| 8 | Syria | 23.08 |
| 9 | Nicaragua | 21.97 |
| 10 | Cameroon | 21.60 |
| 11 | China | 21.09 |
| 12 | Mozambique | 21.02 |
| 13 | Algeria | 20.64 |
| 14 | Democratic Republic of the Congo | 20.63 |
| 15 | Bangladesh | 20.44 |
| 16 | Mali | 20.35 |
| 17 | Republic of the Congo | 20.23 |
| 18 | Madagascar | 20.00 |
| 19 | Belarus | 19.78 |
| 20 | Tanzania | 19.52 |
* Excluded are countries and territories with relatively few (under 10,000) Kaspersky users.
** Unique users on whose computers local Malware threats were blocked, as a percentage of all unique users of Kaspersky products in the country/territory.
On average worldwide, Malware local threats were detected at least once on 11.55% of users’ computers during Q1.
Russia scored 11.92% in these rankings.
It’s nasty, but it requires physical access to the computer:
The exploit, named YellowKey, was published earlier this week by a researcher who goes by the alias Nightmare-Eclipse. It reliably bypasses default Windows 11 deployments of BitLocker, the full-volume encryption protection Microsoft provides to make disk contents off-limits to anyone without the decryption key, which is stored in a secured piece of hardware known as a trusted platform module (TPM). BitLocker is a mandatory protection for many organizations, including those that contract with governments.
Slashdot thread. And here’s Nightmare-Eclipse’s GitHub account.
The researcher dropped the MiniPlasma exploit that uses the original proof-of-concept (PoC) code targeting the bug.
The post Researcher Drops MiniPlasma Windows Exploit for Unpatched 2020 CVE appeared first on SecurityWeek.
In recent years, many sophisticated intrusions have increasingly avoided using noisy exploits, obvious malware, or custom tooling, instead leveraging systems that organizations already trust within their environments. By operating through legitimate and trusted administrative mechanisms, threat actors could more easily blend seamlessly into routine operations and remain undetected.
Microsoft Incident Response investigated an intrusion that followed this pattern. What initially appeared as routine administrative activity was instead found to be a coordinated campaign abusing trusted operational relationships and authentication processes to establish durable access. The threat actor in this incident leveraged a compromised third-party IT services provider and legitimate IT management tools to conduct a stealthy campaign focusing on long-term access, credential theft, and establishing a persistent foothold.
This blog walks through how the intrusion unfolded, why it was difficult to detect, and how trusted systems, including identity infrastructure, operational tooling, and third-party management relationships were leveraged to sustain access. By examining the investigation end to end, we highlight how modern intrusions succeed without reliance on malware-heavy techniques and what defenders can learn from identifying abuse in environments where trust is implicit. We also provide mitigation and protection recommendations, as well as Microsoft Defender detection and hunting guidance to help identify and investigate related activity.
Rather than relying on exploits or malware-based delivery, this attack leveraged an existing trusted operational relationship for malicious activity across the environment. The investigation identified HPE Operations Agent (OA), an approved and signed enterprise management tool commonly used for monitoring and administrative automation, as the primary delivery mechanism. Importantly, this did not involve any vulnerability or flaw in HPE OA itself.
Analysis during the incident response process revealed that management of this operational platform had been delegated to a third-party IT services provider, expanding the trust boundary beyond the organization itself. While such arrangements are operationally common, they introduce implicit trust paths that, if compromised, could be leveraged by threat actors to move within the environment using legitimate access and tooling.
By operating through the HPE OA framework, the threat actor executed scripts and binaries in a manner indistinguishable from normal operations, allowing malicious activity to blend seamlessly into expected behavior and delaying detection.
This technique aligns with MITRE ATT&CK T1199 – Trusted Relationship, in which threat actors exploit established trust relationships to extend access. In this case, the threat actor’s ability to operate entirely through trusted systems allowed them to establish a foothold and execute follow-on actions without relying on exploit-driven techniques.
This timeline provides a high-level summary of the intrusion, highlighting key phases of the attack. A detailed analysis of each stage is presented in the sections that follow.
Day 1: Initial foothold established
The threat actor gained initial access to the environment by compromising a third-party IT services provider and began operating through trusted systems, enabling execution without triggering immediate alerts.
Days 9–14: Credential access achieved
Credential interception capabilities were introduced on domain infrastructure, allowing the threat actor to harvest and reuse credentials to expand access across devices.
Days 24–32: Web-based persistence established
Persistent access was established on internet-facing servers, enabling the threat actor to maintain repeated access even if individual artifacts were removed.
Days 40–60: Lateral movement and remote access
The threat actor leveraged harvested credentials and covert connectivity to move laterally across devices, including highly sensitive assets.
Days 54–55: Additional credential interception deployed
Credential harvesting was further expanded on domain controllers, ensuring continued access during authentication and password change events.
Days 104–106: Persistence reestablished
Following initial detection, the threat actor returned to previously established access points to reenable persistence and deploy additional tooling.
Day 123: Incident response engagement
Microsoft Incident Response was engaged to investigate the intrusion.
During the investigation, two internet-exposed web servers, WEB-01 and WEB-02, were identified as the earliest known compromised assets. A web shell, Errors.aspx, was discovered on both of these devices; however, there was no indication that the servers had been previously exploited, and the mechanism that deployed the web shells couldn’t be determined.
Using intelligence from Microsoft Threat Intelligence regarding a known malicious domain, Microsoft Incident Response was able to identify a workstation communicating with this infrastructure. This led to the discovery of an execution path involving this domain, which revealed another execution path in which VBScripts (abc003.vbs) were deployed through HPE Operations Manager (HPOM).
HPOM and HPE OA form a distributed IT infrastructure monitoring platform. HPOM functions as a centralized management console for monitoring devices’ health, performance, and availability, while HPE OA is deployed on managed hosts to collect telemetry and execute automated, scheduled, or operator-initiated actions across the environment. In this case, the HPOM was operated by a third-party service provider responsible for managing the customer’s infrastructure.
The threat actor, operating HPOM, executed VBScripts on multiple servers, including the web server and a domain controller. The VBScripts had the following functionality:
After gaining initial access, the threat actor shifted focus to credential harvesting. The threat actor registered a legitimate network provider named mslogon on the domain controller DC01 through the same HP OA to hijack the authentication process. Network providers integrate into the Windows authentication mechanism, allowing the threat actor to capture cleartext user credentials during user sign-in and password changes. By delivering the component through a trusted and legitimate management channel, the threat actor was able to blend in with routine administrative activity and remain undetected for an extended period.
Analysis of the deployed network provider dynamic link library (DLL), mslogon.dll, revealed the deliberate abuse of Windows Credential Manager APIs, specifically NPLogonNotify and NPPasswordChangeNotify. These APIs are designed to notify registered providers during authentication events.
NPLogonNotify is triggered when a user performs an interactive sign in. When triggered, the DLL captures the submitted username and password in cleartext.
NPPasswordChangeNotify is invoked when a user changes their password using secure attention sequence (Ctrl+Alt+Delete). When triggered, the DLL captured both the old and new credential pairs. These passwords are stored in cleartext under C:\Users\Public\Music\abc123c.d. This file enabled the threat actors to reuse both the current valid credentials and historical passwords for lateral movement.
Later in the intrusion, on DC01 and DC02, the threat actor registered a malicious password filter, passms.dll, into the Windows authentication process by adding it to the Local Security Authority (LSA) notification packageconfiguration. Password filters are loaded by the Local Security Authority Subsystem Service (LSASS) on domain controllers and are invoked whenever a password is set or changed. This abused a legitimate Windows extensibility mechanism, which helped the threat actor blend in and remain undetected for an extended period; similar tactics were observed earlier in the intrusion.
During a password change operation, LSASS calls the PasswordFilter() API for each DLL listed under the Notification Packages registry value (Figure 5). The function receives the username and password in cleartext as input parameters. By registering a malicious password filter, the threat actor gained visibility into password modification events at the system level, allowing credential capture during normal authentication workflows.
When triggered, passms.dll intercepted the credential data and wrote the output toC:\ProgramData\WindowsUpdateService\UpdateDir\Ipd. The captured data was not stored in cleartext. Instead, it was double encoded, first by using Base64, followed by a custom encoding routine embedded within the DLL.
A second module, msupdate.dll, was created on DC01 and DC02 which operated alongside passms.dll. It was invoked using the following command:
Once invoked, the module read the contents of the Ipd file and transferred the encoded data over Server Message Block (SMB) to remote shares. The data was written into a file named icon02.jpeg, likely intended to blend with legitimate image assets.
In addition to SMB-based staging, msupdate.dll also contained email exfiltration capabilities. The module could send messages with the subject line “Update Service” using a predefined Simple Mail Transfer Protocol (SMTP) server, recipient address, and credentials retrieved from local files.
Execution was achieved through the abuse of an existing enterprise automation channel, allowing malicious VBScript and PowerShell scripts to run under the context of trusted system processes. By leveraging HPE OA to launch abc003.vbs, the threat actor performed system, network, and Active Directory discovery, while maintaining a low-noise execution profile.
On internet-facing web servers, execution was achieved through web shells (Errors.aspx and modified Signoff.aspx), which were used to run PowerShell scripts, deploy binaries, and trigger follow-on activity such as credential access and tunnelling tools.
Web shells were the primary persistence mechanisms deployed on internet-facing web servers, WEB-01 and WEB-02. An initial web shell, Errors.aspx,allowed the threat actor to write files to disk. This was later used to modify a legitimate application page, Signoff.aspx, to load a secondary web shell, ghost.inc, from the Windows temporary directory. The secondary web shell provided command execution, file upload, and download capabilities, enabling repeated access even if individual artifacts were removed. This persistence relied on modifying existing application files rather than introducing new services, reducing the likelihood of detection.
The HPE OA was present on both servers and was highly likely used to deploy the web shell. However, because neither server had endpoint detection and response (EDR) coverage, Microsoft Incident Response was unable to confirm this. As a result, the origin and creation mechanism of the web shell, Errors.aspx, on the web server remain unknown.
Persistence was reinforced through the registration of malicious authentication components on domain controllers, DC01 and DC02, ensuring credential interception continued across reboot and credential reset events.
Prior to establishing persistent access, the threat actor first identified internal servers with outbound internet connectivity that could support tunneling. This discovery led to subsequent deployment of ngrok as a persistence mechanism. Instances of ngrok were launched on these internal servers, exposing them through encrypted tunnels to the threat actor’s infrastructure. These tunnels enabled continued inbound access for Remote Desktop Protocol (RDP) sessions without requiring exposed firewall ports, allowing persistence even in environments with restrictive perimeter controls.
After establishing credential access, execution, and persistence, the threat actor moved laterally using a combination of valid credentials, remote management protocols, and covert network tunnelling using ngrok.
A compromised high-privileged account was used to initiate RDP sessions across the environment, enabling interactive access to critical devices including SQL servers and domain controllers.
To conceal the true source of these connections, the threat actor deployed ngrok, creating encrypted tunnels that exposed internal devices to the internet while bypassing perimeter-based monitoring. Evidence showed RDP connections originating from the ngrok tunnel hosted on SQL-01, masking the threat actor’s real infrastructure and complicating network-based detection.
Lateral movement was further supported by Windows Management Instrumentation (WMI)-based remote execution, which was used to deploy and launch ngrok on additional devices from compromised web servers.
Compromised credentials harvested using password filter DLLs and malicious network provider DLLs on domain controllers enabled continued access and movement without the need for exploit-based techniques.
This campaign demonstrated sustained operational maturity, reinforcing a consistent pattern: long-term access, commonly used tools, and campaigns designed to achieve strategic impact.
A recurring lesson from this activity is the abuse of trusted relationships. Third-party service providers and integrated management tools can become enforcement gaps when visibility is limited or validation is assumed. Threat actors understand this. They leverage legitimate components, trusted update paths, and approved integrations to anchor themselves inside environments that appear compliant on the surface.
Defenders should adopt a posture of deliberate verification. Trust your vendors and tooling but validate their behavior within your environment. Organizations operating in sensitive sectors should assume that threat actors with this level of tradecraft will continue refining third party abuse, credential interception, and stealthy persistence mechanisms to maintain strategic access.
Microsoft recommends the following mitigation measures to defend against such stealthy campaigns described in this blog.
Microsoft Defender customers can refer to the list of applicable detections below. Microsoft Defender XDR coordinates detection, prevention, investigation, and response across endpoints, identities, email, apps to provide integrated protection against attacks like the threat discussed in this blog.
| Tactic | Observed activity | Microsoft Defender coverage |
| Command and Control | Decoding the binary data within the events revealed the hostname WKS, indicating it was likely carrying out suspicious activities, a VBScript abc003.vbs was responsible for reaching out to dREDEACTEDe.net, at least in the form of a DNS request | Microsoft Defender for Endpoint – Command-and-control network traffic |
| Persistence | On internet-facing web servers, execution was achieved through web shells (Errors.aspx and modified Signoff.aspx), which were used to run PowerShell scripts, deploy binaries, and trigger follow-on activity such as credential access and tunnelling tools. | Microsoft Defender for Endpoint – ‘WebShell’ malware was detected and was active – An active ‘Webshell’ backdoor process was detected while executing and terminated |
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:
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.
Microsoft Defender XDR customers can run the following advanced hunting queries to find related activity in their networks:
Password filters DLL
Look for unsigned / unverified DLLs configured as LSA notification packages.
Login
DeviceRegistryEvents
| where RegistryKey has @"control\LSA" and RegistryValueName has "Notification Packages" // Filter to LSA registry path
| project DeviceName, RegistryKey, RegistryValueName, RegistryValueData
| extend NotificationPackage = split(RegistryValueData, " ")
| mv-expand NotificationPackage
| extend NotificationPackage = tostring(NotificationPackage)
| extend Path = tolower(strcat(@"c:\windows\system32\", NotificationPackage, ".dll")) // Construct full DLL path in lower-case
| join kind=leftouter (
DeviceFileEvents
| extend Path = tolower(strcat(FolderPath)
| project DeviceName, SHA1, Path
) on DeviceName, Path
| invoke FileProfile(SHA1) // Retrieve file signing information
| where SignatureState in~ ("SignedInvalid", "Unsigned") // Filter for files that are unsigned or have invalid signature
| project-away DeviceName1, SHA11
| distinct *
Network provider DLL
Look for custom network provider DLLs that are not signed and configured for Windows sign in.
let NetworkProviders = DeviceRegistryEvents
| where RegistryKey has @'\Control\NetworkProvider\Order' and RegistryValueName has 'ProviderOrder' // Filtering on 'ProviderOrder' entries
| extend Providers = split(RegistryValueData, ',')
| mv-expand Providers
| extend Providers = trim(@' ', tostring(Providers)) // Trim spaces around each provider name
| where Providers !in~ ('RDPNP','LanmanWorkstation') // Excluding default provider names
| distinct Providers; // Collect unique suspicious provider names
DeviceRegistryEvents
| where RegistryKey has_all (@'\Services\', @'\NetworkProvider') // Only registry keys under a service's NetworkProvider
and RegistryKey has_any (NetworkProviders) and
RegistryValueName =~ 'ProviderPath'
| project DeviceName, RegistryKey, RegistryValueName, RegistryValueData
| extend Path = tolower(replace_string(RegistryValueData, '%SystemRoot%', @'C:\Windows')) // Normalize path: replace environment variable and use lower-case
| join kind=leftouter (
DeviceFileEvents
| extend Path = tolower(strcat(FolderPath))
| project DeviceName, SHA1, Path
) on DeviceName, Path
| invoke FileProfile(SHA1,1000)
| where SignatureState in~ ("SignedInvalid", "Unsigned")
| distinct *
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 Undermining the trust boundary: Investigating a stealthy intrusion through third-party compromise appeared first on Microsoft Security Blog.
During Q1 2026, the exploit kits leveraged by threat actors to target user systems expanded once again, incorporating new exploits for the Microsoft Office platform, as well as Windows and Linux operating systems.
In this report, we dive into the statistics on published vulnerabilities and exploits, as well as the known vulnerabilities leveraged by popular C2 frameworks throughout Q1 2026.
This section provides statistical data on registered vulnerabilities. The data is sourced from cve.org.
We examine the number of registered CVEs for each month starting from January 2022. The total volume of vulnerabilities continues rising and, according to current reports, the use of AI agents for discovering security issues is expected to further reinforce this upward trend.
Total published vulnerabilities per month from 2022 through 2026 (download)
Next, we analyze the number of new critical vulnerabilities (CVSS > 8.9) over the same period.
Total critical vulnerabilities published per month from 2022 through 2026 (download)
The graph indicates that while the volume of critical vulnerabilities slightly decreased compared to previous years, an upward trend remained clearly visible. At present, we attribute this to the fact that the end of last year was marked by the disclosure of several severe vulnerabilities in web frameworks. The current growth is driven by high-profile issues like React2Shell, the release of exploit frameworks for mobile platforms, and the uncovering of secondary vulnerabilities during the remediation of previously discovered ones. We will be able to test this hypothesis in the next quarter; if correct, the second quarter will show a significant decline, similar to the pattern observed in the previous year.
This section presents statistics on vulnerability exploitation for Q1 2026. The data draws on open sources and our telemetry.
In Q1 2026, threat actor toolsets were updated with exploits for new, recently registered vulnerabilities. However, we first examine the list of veteran vulnerabilities that consistently account for the largest share of detections:
Among the newcomers, we have observed exploits targeting the Microsoft Office platform and Windows OS components. Notably, these new vulnerabilities exploit logic flaws arising from the interaction between multiple systems, making them technically difficult to isolate within a specific file or library. A list of these vulnerabilities is provided below:
These three vulnerabilities were utilized together in a single chain during attacks on Windows-based user systems. While this combination is noteworthy, we believe the widespread use of the entire chain as a unified exploit will likely decline due to its instability. We anticipate that these vulnerabilities will eventually be applied individually as initial entry vectors in phishing campaigns.
Below is the trend of exploit detections on user Windows systems starting from Q1 2025.
Dynamics of the number of Windows users encountering exploits, Q1 2025 – Q1 2026. The number of users who encountered exploits in Q1 2025 is taken as 100% (download)
The vulnerabilities listed here can be leveraged to gain initial access to a vulnerable system and for privilege escalation. This underscores the critical importance of timely software updates.
On Linux devices, exploits for the following vulnerabilities were detected most frequently:
Dynamics of the number of Linux users encountering exploits, Q1 2025 – Q1 2026. The number of users who encountered exploits in Q1 2025 is taken as 100% (download)
In the first quarter of 2026, we observed a decrease in the number of detected exploits; however, the detection rates are on the rise relative to the same period last year. For the Linux operating system, the installation of security patches remains critical.
The distribution of published exploits by software type in Q1 2026 features an updated set of categories; once again, we see exploits targeting operating systems and Microsoft Office suites.
Distribution of published exploits by platform, Q1 2026 (download)
We analyzed which vulnerabilities were utilized in APT attacks during Q1 2026. The ranking provided below includes data based on our telemetry, research, and open sources.
TOP 10 vulnerabilities exploited in APT attacks, Q1 2026 (download)
In Q1 2026, threat actors continued to utilize high-profile vulnerabilities registered in the previous year for APT attacks. The hypothesis we previously proposed has been confirmed: security flaws affecting web applications remain heavily exploited in real-world attacks. However, we are also observing a partial refresh of attacker toolsets. Specifically, during the first quarter of the year, APT campaigns leveraged recently discovered vulnerabilities in Microsoft Office products, edge networking device software, and remote access management systems. Although the most recent vulnerabilities are being exploited most heavily, their general characteristics continue to reinforce established trends regarding the categories of vulnerable software. Consequently, we strongly recommend applying the security patches provided by vendors.
In this section, we examine the most popular C2 frameworks used by threat actors and analyze the vulnerabilities targeted by the exploits that interacted with C2 agents in APT attacks.
The chart below shows the frequency of known C2 framework usage in attacks against users during Q1 2026, according to open sources.
TOP 10 C2 frameworks used by APTs to compromise user systems, Q1 2026 (download)
Metasploit has returned to the top of the list of the most common C2 frameworks, displacing Sliver, which now shares the second position with Havoc. These are followed by Covenant and Mythic, the latter of which previously saw greater popularity. After studying open sources and analyzing samples of malicious C2 agents that contained exploits, we determined that the following vulnerabilities were utilized in APT attacks involving the C2 frameworks mentioned above:
The nature of the described vulnerabilities indicates that they were exploited to gain initial access to the system. Notably, the majority of these security issues are targeted to bypass authentication mechanisms. This is likely due to the fact that C2 agents are being detected effectively, prompting threat actors to reduce the probability of discovery by utilizing bypass exploits.
This section highlights the most significant vulnerabilities published in Q1 2026 that have publicly available descriptions.
At the core of this vulnerability is a Type Confusion flaw. By attempting to access a resource within the Desktop Window Manager subsystem, an attacker can achieve privilege escalation. A necessary condition for exploiting this issue is existing authorization on the system.
It is worth noting that the DWM subsystem has been under close scrutiny by threat actors for quite some time. Historically, the primary attack vector involves interacting with the NtDComposition* function set.
CVE-2026-21533 is essentially a logic vulnerability that enables privilege escalation. It stems from the improper handling of privileges within Remote Desktop Services (RDS) components. By modifying service parameters in the registry and replacing the configuration with a custom key, an attacker can elevate privileges to the SYSTEM level. This vulnerability is likely to remain a fixture in threat actor toolsets as a method for establishing persistence and gaining high-level privileges.
This vulnerability was discovered in the wild during attacks on user systems. Notably, an LNK file is used to initiate the exploitation process. CVE-2026-21514 is also a logic issue that allows for bypassing OLE technology restrictions on malicious code execution and the transmission of NetNTLM authentication requests when processing untrusted input.
This vulnerability in the AI agent leaks credentials (authentication tokens) when queried via the WebSocket protocol. It can lead to the compromise of the infrastructure where the agent is installed: researchers have confirmed the ability to access local system data and execute commands with elevated privileges. The danger of CVE-2026-25253 is further compounded by the fact that its exploitation has generated numerous attack scenarios, including the use of prompt injections and ClickFix techniques to install stealers on vulnerable systems.
LangChain is an open-source framework designed for building applications powered by large language models (LLMs). A directory traversal vulnerability allowed attackers to access arbitrary files within the infrastructure where the framework was deployed. The core of CVE-2026-34070 lies in the fact that certain functions within langchain_core/prompts/loading.py handled configuration files insecurely. This could potentially lead to the processing of files containing malicious data, which could be leveraged to execute commands and expose critical system information or other sensitive files.
CVE-2026-22812 is another vulnerability identified in AI-assisted coding software. By default, the OpenCode agent provided local access for launching authorized applications via an HTTP server that did not require authentication. Consequently, attackers could execute malicious commands on a vulnerable device with the privileges of the current user.
We observe that the registration of vulnerabilities is steadily gaining momentum in Q1 2026, a trend driven by the widespread development of AI tools designed to identify security flaws across various software types. This trajectory is likely to result not only in a higher volume of registered vulnerabilities but also in an increase in exploit-driven attacks, further reinforcing the critical necessity of timely security patch deployment. Additionally, organizations must prioritize vulnerability management and implement effective defensive technologies to mitigate the risks associated with potential exploitation.
To ensure the rapid detection of threats involving exploit utilization and to prevent their escalation, it is essential to deploy a reliable security solution. Key features of such a tool include continuous infrastructure monitoring, proactive protection, and vulnerability prioritization based on real-world relevance. These mechanisms are integrated into Kaspersky Next, which also provides endpoint security and protection against cyberattacks of any complexity.
During Q1 2026, the exploit kits leveraged by threat actors to target user systems expanded once again, incorporating new exploits for the Microsoft Office platform, as well as Windows and Linux operating systems.
In this report, we dive into the statistics on published vulnerabilities and exploits, as well as the known vulnerabilities leveraged by popular C2 frameworks throughout Q1 2026.
This section provides statistical data on registered vulnerabilities. The data is sourced from cve.org.
We examine the number of registered CVEs for each month starting from January 2022. The total volume of vulnerabilities continues rising and, according to current reports, the use of AI agents for discovering security issues is expected to further reinforce this upward trend.
Total published vulnerabilities per month from 2022 through 2026 (download)
Next, we analyze the number of new critical vulnerabilities (CVSS > 8.9) over the same period.
Total critical vulnerabilities published per month from 2022 through 2026 (download)
The graph indicates that while the volume of critical vulnerabilities slightly decreased compared to previous years, an upward trend remained clearly visible. At present, we attribute this to the fact that the end of last year was marked by the disclosure of several severe vulnerabilities in web frameworks. The current growth is driven by high-profile issues like React2Shell, the release of exploit frameworks for mobile platforms, and the uncovering of secondary vulnerabilities during the remediation of previously discovered ones. We will be able to test this hypothesis in the next quarter; if correct, the second quarter will show a significant decline, similar to the pattern observed in the previous year.
This section presents statistics on vulnerability exploitation for Q1 2026. The data draws on open sources and our telemetry.
In Q1 2026, threat actor toolsets were updated with exploits for new, recently registered vulnerabilities. However, we first examine the list of veteran vulnerabilities that consistently account for the largest share of detections:
Among the newcomers, we have observed exploits targeting the Microsoft Office platform and Windows OS components. Notably, these new vulnerabilities exploit logic flaws arising from the interaction between multiple systems, making them technically difficult to isolate within a specific file or library. A list of these vulnerabilities is provided below:
These three vulnerabilities were utilized together in a single chain during attacks on Windows-based user systems. While this combination is noteworthy, we believe the widespread use of the entire chain as a unified exploit will likely decline due to its instability. We anticipate that these vulnerabilities will eventually be applied individually as initial entry vectors in phishing campaigns.
Below is the trend of exploit detections on user Windows systems starting from Q1 2025.
Dynamics of the number of Windows users encountering exploits, Q1 2025 – Q1 2026. The number of users who encountered exploits in Q1 2025 is taken as 100% (download)
The vulnerabilities listed here can be leveraged to gain initial access to a vulnerable system and for privilege escalation. This underscores the critical importance of timely software updates.
On Linux devices, exploits for the following vulnerabilities were detected most frequently:
Dynamics of the number of Linux users encountering exploits, Q1 2025 – Q1 2026. The number of users who encountered exploits in Q1 2025 is taken as 100% (download)
In the first quarter of 2026, we observed a decrease in the number of detected exploits; however, the detection rates are on the rise relative to the same period last year. For the Linux operating system, the installation of security patches remains critical.
The distribution of published exploits by software type in Q1 2026 features an updated set of categories; once again, we see exploits targeting operating systems and Microsoft Office suites.
Distribution of published exploits by platform, Q1 2026 (download)
We analyzed which vulnerabilities were utilized in APT attacks during Q1 2026. The ranking provided below includes data based on our telemetry, research, and open sources.
TOP 10 vulnerabilities exploited in APT attacks, Q1 2026 (download)
In Q1 2026, threat actors continued to utilize high-profile vulnerabilities registered in the previous year for APT attacks. The hypothesis we previously proposed has been confirmed: security flaws affecting web applications remain heavily exploited in real-world attacks. However, we are also observing a partial refresh of attacker toolsets. Specifically, during the first quarter of the year, APT campaigns leveraged recently discovered vulnerabilities in Microsoft Office products, edge networking device software, and remote access management systems. Although the most recent vulnerabilities are being exploited most heavily, their general characteristics continue to reinforce established trends regarding the categories of vulnerable software. Consequently, we strongly recommend applying the security patches provided by vendors.
In this section, we examine the most popular C2 frameworks used by threat actors and analyze the vulnerabilities targeted by the exploits that interacted with C2 agents in APT attacks.
The chart below shows the frequency of known C2 framework usage in attacks against users during Q1 2026, according to open sources.
TOP 10 C2 frameworks used by APTs to compromise user systems, Q1 2026 (download)
Metasploit has returned to the top of the list of the most common C2 frameworks, displacing Sliver, which now shares the second position with Havoc. These are followed by Covenant and Mythic, the latter of which previously saw greater popularity. After studying open sources and analyzing samples of malicious C2 agents that contained exploits, we determined that the following vulnerabilities were utilized in APT attacks involving the C2 frameworks mentioned above:
The nature of the described vulnerabilities indicates that they were exploited to gain initial access to the system. Notably, the majority of these security issues are targeted to bypass authentication mechanisms. This is likely due to the fact that C2 agents are being detected effectively, prompting threat actors to reduce the probability of discovery by utilizing bypass exploits.
This section highlights the most significant vulnerabilities published in Q1 2026 that have publicly available descriptions.
At the core of this vulnerability is a Type Confusion flaw. By attempting to access a resource within the Desktop Window Manager subsystem, an attacker can achieve privilege escalation. A necessary condition for exploiting this issue is existing authorization on the system.
It is worth noting that the DWM subsystem has been under close scrutiny by threat actors for quite some time. Historically, the primary attack vector involves interacting with the NtDComposition* function set.
CVE-2026-21533 is essentially a logic vulnerability that enables privilege escalation. It stems from the improper handling of privileges within Remote Desktop Services (RDS) components. By modifying service parameters in the registry and replacing the configuration with a custom key, an attacker can elevate privileges to the SYSTEM level. This vulnerability is likely to remain a fixture in threat actor toolsets as a method for establishing persistence and gaining high-level privileges.
This vulnerability was discovered in the wild during attacks on user systems. Notably, an LNK file is used to initiate the exploitation process. CVE-2026-21514 is also a logic issue that allows for bypassing OLE technology restrictions on malicious code execution and the transmission of NetNTLM authentication requests when processing untrusted input.
This vulnerability in the AI agent leaks credentials (authentication tokens) when queried via the WebSocket protocol. It can lead to the compromise of the infrastructure where the agent is installed: researchers have confirmed the ability to access local system data and execute commands with elevated privileges. The danger of CVE-2026-25253 is further compounded by the fact that its exploitation has generated numerous attack scenarios, including the use of prompt injections and ClickFix techniques to install stealers on vulnerable systems.
LangChain is an open-source framework designed for building applications powered by large language models (LLMs). A directory traversal vulnerability allowed attackers to access arbitrary files within the infrastructure where the framework was deployed. The core of CVE-2026-34070 lies in the fact that certain functions within langchain_core/prompts/loading.py handled configuration files insecurely. This could potentially lead to the processing of files containing malicious data, which could be leveraged to execute commands and expose critical system information or other sensitive files.
CVE-2026-22812 is another vulnerability identified in AI-assisted coding software. By default, the OpenCode agent provided local access for launching authorized applications via an HTTP server that did not require authentication. Consequently, attackers could execute malicious commands on a vulnerable device with the privileges of the current user.
We observe that the registration of vulnerabilities is steadily gaining momentum in Q1 2026, a trend driven by the widespread development of AI tools designed to identify security flaws across various software types. This trajectory is likely to result not only in a higher volume of registered vulnerabilities but also in an increase in exploit-driven attacks, further reinforcing the critical necessity of timely security patch deployment. Additionally, organizations must prioritize vulnerability management and implement effective defensive technologies to mitigate the risks associated with potential exploitation.
To ensure the rapid detection of threats involving exploit utilization and to prevent their escalation, it is essential to deploy a reliable security solution. Key features of such a tool include continuous infrastructure monitoring, proactive protection, and vulnerability prioritization based on real-world relevance. These mechanisms are integrated into Kaspersky Next, which also provides endpoint security and protection against cyberattacks of any complexity.
Malicious actors have developed a new way to steal data stored by Chrome for Windows. Researchers discovered the technique while analyzing a fresh build of an infostealer known as VoidStealer. The new method allows the malware to bypass Chrome’s Application-Bound (App-Bound) Encryption (ABE), a mechanism intended to protect session cookies and other valuable information stored in the browser.
Google hoped this mechanism would secure the master key Chrome uses to encrypt all sensitive data. Unfortunately, this isn’t the first time malware authors have found a workaround for this defense — leaving secrets stored in Chrome vulnerable once again.
Google introduced App-Bound Encryption in July 2024 with the release of Chrome version 127. The company’s announcement mentioned infostealers snatching cookies from Chrome users on Windows as the primary problem ABE was intended to solve. We’ve already covered in detail what these files are and the consequences of their theft, so we’ll only briefly recap the main facts here.
Cookies are small files that the browser saves to the user’s device at a website’s request to remember various site settings. Of particular value to attackers are session cookies, which are used for automatic authentication on websites. It’s thanks to these files that we don’t have to enter a username and password every time we revisit a site.
But this convenience carries a risk: stealing these files allows an attacker to use an already-authenticated session without entering a username or password. This allows them to impersonate the user, which can lead to account hijacking, theft of personal or financial data, and other adverse consequences.
Infostealer Trojans are particularly dangerous for Chrome users on Windows. This is because, on this OS, Chrome previously relied solely on the standard built-in Data Protection API (DPAPI). With this system encryption mechanism, applications don’t need to create and store encryption keys to protect data.
The limitation of DPAPI is that it doesn’t protect data from malware that’s already successfully compromised the system and is capable of executing code on behalf of the logged-in user. This is exactly what stealers exploit: since they typically run with the user’s privileges, they can simply request DPAPI to decrypt the browser’s protected data.
The ABE mechanism was designed to solve that specific problem. The core idea is right in the name: App-Bound Encryption means the encryption is tied to a specific application. To achieve this, a separate service running with system privileges is responsible for protecting the key used to encrypt Chrome’s data. It verifies which application is requesting access to the key, and denies the request if it doesn’t originate from Chrome.
Chrome’s App-Bound Encryption (ABE) was designed so that only Chrome itself could retrieve the master key needed to decrypt the browser’s stored data. Source
As a result, the architects of this feature assumed that to access ABE-protected browser data, an infostealer would either need to escalate its privileges to system-level, or inject malicious code directly into Chrome. In theory, this should have made attacking Chrome significantly harder and reduced the effectiveness of mass-market infostealers. As you might have guessed, things didn’t go quite that smoothly in practice.
Just a couple of months after Google announced the implementation of App-Bound Encryption in Chrome, many infostealer developers claimed they’d already bypassed the protection. Among them were the creators of Meduza Stealer, Whitesnake, Lumma Stealer, and Lumar (also known as PovertyStealer).
Lumma stealer developers announce a bypass for Chrome’s App-Bound Encryption in a new version of the malware
Of course, you shouldn’t take malware developers at their word, but legitimate security researchers were able to confirm at least some of the claims. Bypasses for Google Chrome’s new data protection feature did become available almost immediately after its release.
A month later, in October 2024, tech enthusiast Alex Hagenah published a tool on GitHub called Chrome-App-Bound-Encryption-Decryption to bypass Google’s new security mechanism. Analysis of the tool’s code revealed that its author used roughly the same methods that attackers were already heavily exploiting.
What followed was a game of cat and mouse: security researchers and stealer developers came up with new tricks to circumvent App-Bound Encryption, while Google patched the newly discovered loopholes with varying degrees of success.
This brings us to recent events: in March 2026, news broke about a stealer named VoidStealer, which utilizes a brand-new and, by all accounts, highly effective method for bypassing ABE.
VoidStealer developers advertising a new method for bypassing ABE. Source
The malware authors developed an attack technique that targets the brief moment when the master key sits in the browser’s memory in plaintext. This occurs because, at a certain point, the browser inevitably has to decrypt its data to actually use it — for instance, to automatically sign in to a website with the relevant session cookie or to access saved credentials.
To exploit this window of opportunity, the malware attaches itself to the Chrome process as a debugger — a tool that allows one to control a program’s execution, pause it, and inspect its memory. In legitimate scenarios, these tools are used by developers to find and fix bugs, analyze application behavior, and test performance.
The malware identifies the specific section of code where data decryption takes place. It then sets a breakpoint at that location; when the program’s execution reaches that point, the browser effectively freezes. This is how the malware catches the exact moment the master key is sitting in RAM in plaintext; it then reads the key directly from memory.
It’s worth noting that everything mentioned above also applies to other Chromium-based browsers that use ABE, including Microsoft Edge, Brave, Opera, Vivaldi, and others.
The scale of VoidStealer’s reach could be significant, as its developers operate under the malware-as-a-service (MaaS) model. This means they rent out the ready-made tool to other attackers, so they don’t need to develop custom malware from scratch.
This situation demonstrates that relying solely on built-in security mechanisms isn’t enough. Unfortunately, stealer developers are coming up with new workarounds faster than browser and operating system developers can roll out patches.
Here’s what users can do about it:
As an added precaution, avoid storing passwords and bank card info in Google Chrome or your Notes app, as these are the first places any self-respecting stealer looks. Instead, use a secure password manager.
Stealers are hunting for your data, finding ways to infiltrate both computers and smartphones alike. To protect yourself from theft, check out our other related posts:
- Crypto thieves ramping up attacks on Apple users
- CrystalX RAT can flip your screen and steal your crypto
- Android Trojan posing as government services and Starlink apps
- Stealka stealer: the new face of game cheats, mods, and cracks
- Your cat pics are at risk: the threat posed by the new SparkKitty Trojan
Windows Interprocess Communication (IPC) is one of the most complex technologies within the Windows operating system. At the core of this ecosystem is the Remote Procedure Call (RPC) mechanism, which can function as a standalone communication channel or as the underlying transport layer for more advanced interprocess communication technologies. Because of its complexity and widespread use, RPC has historically been a rich source of security issues. Over the years, researchers have identified numerous vulnerabilities in services that rely on RPC, ranging from local privilege escalation to full remote code execution.
In this research, I present a new vulnerability in the RPC architecture that enables a novel local privilege escalation technique likely in all Windows versions. This technique enables processes with impersonation privileges to elevate their permissions to SYSTEM level. Although this vulnerability differs fundamentally from the “Potato” exploit family, Microsoft has not issued a patch despite proper disclosure.
I will demonstrate five different exploitation paths that show how privileges can be escalated from various local or network service contexts to SYSTEM or high-privileged users. Some techniques rely on coercion, some require user interaction and some take advantage of background services. As this issue stems from an architectural weakness, the number of potential attack vectors is effectively unlimited; any new process or service that depends on RPC could introduce another possible escalation path. For this reason, I also outline a methodology for identifying such opportunities.
Finally, I examine possible detection strategies, as well as defensive approaches that can help mitigate such attacks.
Microsoft RPC (Remote Procedure Call) is a Windows technology that enables communication between two processes. It enables one process to invoke functions that are implemented in another process, even though they are running in different execution contexts.
The figure below illustrates this mechanism.
Let us assume that Host A is running two processes: Process A and Process B. Process B needs to execute a function that resides inside Process A. To enable this type of interaction, Windows provides the Remote Procedure Call (RPC) architecture, which follows a client–server model. In this model, Process A acts as the RPC server, exposing its functionality through an interface, in our example, Interface A. Each RPC interface is uniquely identified by a Universally Unique Identifier (UUID), which is represented as a 128-bit value. This identifier enables the operating system to distinguish one interface from another.
The interface defines a set of functions that can be invoked remotely by the RPC client implemented in Process B. In our example, the interface exposes two functions: Fun1 and Fun2.
To communicate with the server, the RPC client must establish a connection through a communication endpoint. An endpoint represents the access point that enables transport between the client and the server. Because RPC supports multiple transport mechanisms, different endpoint types may exist, depending on the underlying transport.
For example:
Each transport mechanism is associated with a specific RPC protocol sequence. For instance:
ncacn_ip_tcp is used for RPC over TCP.ncacn_np is used for RPC over named pipes.ncalrpc is used for RPC over ALPC.In this research, I focus specifically on Advanced Local Procedure Call (ALPC) as the RPC transport mechanism. ALPC is a Windows interprocess communication mechanism that predates MSRPC. Today, RPC can leverage ALPC as an efficient transport layer for communication between processes located on the same machine.
For simplicity, an ALPC port can be thought of as a communication channel similar to a file, where processes can send messages by writing to it, and receive messages by reading from it.
When the client wants to invoke a remote function, for example, Fun1, it must construct an RPC request. This request includes several important pieces of information, such as the interface UUID, the protocol sequence, the endpoint, and the function identifier. In RPC, functions are not referenced by name, but by a numerical identifier called the operation number (OPNUM). Depending on the requirements of the call, the request may also contain additional structures, such as security-related information.
In Windows, impersonation enables a service to temporarily operate using another user’s security context. For example, a service may need to open a file that belongs to a user while performing a specific operation. By impersonating the calling user, the system allows the service to access that file, even if the service itself would not normally have permission to do so. You can read more about impersonation in James Forshaw’s book Windows Security Internals.
This research focuses specifically on RPC impersonation. Instead of describing the interaction as a service and a user, I refer to the participants as a client and a server. In this model, the RPC server may temporarily adopt the identity of the client that initiated the request.
To perform this operation, the RPC server can call the RpcImpersonateClient API, which causes the server thread to execute under the client’s security context.
However, in some situations, a client may not want the server to be able to impersonate its identity. To control this behavior, Windows introduces the concept of an impersonation level. This defines how much authority the client grants the server to act on its behalf.
These settings are defined as part of the Security Quality of Service (SQOS) parameters, specified using the SECURITY_QUALITY_OF_SERVICE structure.
As you can see, this structure contains the impersonation level field, which determines the extent to which the server can assume the client’s identity.
Impersonation levels range from Anonymous, where the server cannot impersonate the client at all, to Impersonate and Delegate, which allow the server to act fully on behalf of the client.
At the same time, not every server process is allowed to impersonate a client. If any process could perform impersonation freely, it would pose a serious security risk. To prevent this, Windows requires the server process to possess a specific privilege called SeImpersonatePrivilege. Only processes with this privilege can successfully impersonate a client.
This privilege is granted by default to certain service accounts, such as Local Service and Network Service.
The Group Policy Client service (gpsvc) is a core Windows service responsible for applying and enforcing group policy settings on a system. It runs under the SYSTEM account inside svchost.exe.
When a group policy update is triggered, Windows uses an executable called gpupdate.exe. This tool can be executed with the /force flag to force an immediate refresh of all group policy settings. Internally, this executable communicates with the Group Policy service, which coordinates the update process.
At a certain stage during this operation, the Group Policy service attempts to communicate with TermService (Terminal Service, the Remote Desktop Services service) using RPC.
TermService is responsible for providing remote desktop functionality. This service is not running by default and can be enabled manually by the administrator via activation of Remote Desktop access. When this happens, the service exposes an RPC server with multiple interfaces and endpoints. TermService runs under the NT AUTHORITY\Network Service account.
When the command gpupdate /force is executed, the Group Policy service performs an RPC call to the TermService using the following parameters:
However, because TermService is disabled by default, the RPC call fails and an exception occurs in rpcrt4.dll (the RPC runtime). The returned error is:
This error indicates that the RPC client could not reach the target server.
Tracing the failure path further reveals that the root cause originates from a call to NtAlpcConnectPort, which is used by RPC to establish an ALPC connection between processes.
The NtAlpcConnectPort function is responsible for connecting to a specific ALPC port and returning a handle that the client can use for further communication. This function accepts multiple parameters.
The first two parameters include:
Another important argument is PortAttributes, which is an ALPC_PORT_ATTRIBUTES structure. Inside this structure is the SECURITY_QUALITY_OF_SERVICE structure, which, as mentioned above, defines the impersonation level used for the connection.
The final parameter of interest is RequiredServerSid, which specifies the expected identity of the target server process. This identity is represented using a Security Identifier (SID) structure.
Inspecting this call reveals that the Group Policy service attempts to connect to the RPC server using an impersonation level of Impersonate, expecting the remote server to run under the Network Service account. This behavior makes sense because TermService normally runs under Network Service.
Based on all the information above, the following scheme can be created to illustrate the interaction between TermService and gpsvc.
Up to this point, nothing unusual has occurred. An RPC client attempts to connect to an RPC server that is unavailable, resulting in an exception handled by the RPC runtime.
However, an interesting question arises: What if an attacker compromises a service that runs under the Network Service identity and mimics the exact RPC server exposed by TermService?
Could the attacker deploy a fake RPC server with the same endpoint?
If so, would the RPC runtime allow the client to connect to this illegitimate server?
And if the connection is successful, how could an attacker leverage this behavior?
To better understand the implications of the previously described behavior, let us consider the following attack scenario.
Imagine an attacker has compromised a service running on the system under the Network Service account, for example, an IIS server operating under the Network Service account. With this level of access, the attacker can deploy a malicious RPC server.
The attacker’s RPC server is designed to mimic the RPC interface exposed by the Remote Desktop service (TermService). Specifically, it implements the same RPC interface UUID and exposes the same endpoint name: TermSrvApi. Once deployed, the malicious server listens for RPC requests that would normally be directed to the legitimate RDP service.
Next, the attacker coerces the Group Policy service by triggering a policy update using gpupdate.exe /force. This causes the Group Policy Client service, which runs under the SYSTEM account, to perform the previously described RPC call. As observed earlier, this RPC call uses a high impersonation level (Impersonate).
When the attacker’s fake RPC server receives the request, it calls RpcImpersonateClient. This enables the server thread to impersonate the security context of the calling client, which, in this case, is SYSTEM.
As a result, the attacker can elevate privileges from Network Service to SYSTEM. In our proof-of-concept implementation, the exploit demonstrates privilege escalation by spawning a SYSTEM-level command prompt.
When this attack scenario was first discussed, it was purely theoretical. However, after implementing the malicious RPC server, the experiment confirmed that Windows allowed the server to be deployed and started successfully, and that the RPC runtime permitted the client to connect to the malicious endpoint. This made it possible to reliably escalate privileges from Network Service to SYSTEM using this technique. For this attack to succeed, though, at least one group policy must be applied on the system.
Further investigation revealed that many Windows services attempt to communicate with TermService using RPC. These RPC calls often originate from winsta.dll, which acts as the RPC client component.
Windows processes invoke APIs exposed by winsta.dll; these APIs rely internally on RPC communication with TermService. This pattern is common in Windows; many system DLLs use RPC behind the scenes when their exported APIs are called.
However, it appears that the RPC runtime (rpcrt4.dll) does not provide a mechanism to verify the legitimacy of RPC servers. Moreover, Windows allows another process to deploy an RPC server that exposes the same endpoint as a legitimate service.
As a result, this architectural design introduces a large attack surface because RPC is heavily used across numerous system DLLs. Applications that invoke seemingly benign APIs may unintentionally trigger privileged RPC interactions. Under certain conditions, these interactions could be abused to achieve local privilege escalation without the user’s knowledge.
As the issue appears to stem from an architectural weakness, a systematic approach is needed to identify RPC clients attempting to communicate with servers that are unavailable. First, I need a platform capable of monitoring RPC activity and extracting relevant information from each RPC request.
Specifically, I need to capture key RPC metadata, including:
This information is critical because it enables me to reconstruct the RPC interaction, mimic the expected RPC server, and determine how the call is triggered.
The platform that provides this capability is Event Tracing for Windows (ETW). ETW is a built-in Windows logging framework that captures both kernel-mode and user-mode events in real time.
Windows provides a tool called logman to collect ETW data. It enables us to create trace sessions, select event providers, and configure the verbosity level of the tracing process. The collected tracing data is stored in an .etl file, which can later be analyzed using tools such as Event Viewer or other ETW analysis utilities.
ETW provides deep visibility into RPC activity without requiring modifications to applications. Through ETW, it is possible to capture detailed RPC information, such as:
However, I’m not interested in every RPC event. My focus is on RPC call failures, specifically those that return the status RPC_S_SERVER_UNAVAILABLE.
For an event to be relevant to this research, the exception must meet two conditions:
I cannot rely solely on the raw ETW output to implement this framework because it contains thousands of events, making manual filtering with standard tools inefficient. Therefore, I need to automate this process. The workflow shown below enables me to efficiently filter and extract only those events that are relevant to this analysis.
After generating the logs as an .etl file, I convert them to JSON format using tools such as etw2json. JSON is a much easier format to process programmatically. In this case, I use a Python script to filter and extract the relevant information.
The filtering process begins with a search for Event ID 1, which corresponds to an RPC stop event. This event indicates that the RPC client has completed the call and the result is available. From this event, I can extract useful information, such as:
After extracting the status code, I filter for the specific value RPC_S_SERVER_UNAVAILABLE, which indicates that the target server was unreachable during an RPC call. These events represent the scenarios that are of interest.
However, Event ID 1 does not contain all of the required RPC metadata. To obtain the missing information, it is correlated with Event ID 5, which represents the RPC start event. This event is generated when the client initiates the RPC call.
By matching the metadata between Event ID 1 and Event ID 5, I can recover the missing details, including:
After correlating and filtering these events, a JSON entry is obtained that is almost ready for analysis. At this stage, the data can be enriched further by adding context that will be helpful when reversing or analyzing the RPC server implementation. For example, the following can be identified:
To retrieve this information, I match the UUID with an external RPC interface database. In this case, I used the RPC database, which contains a comprehensive list of RPC interfaces and their corresponding DLL implementations.
At the end of this process, a complete JSON dataset is obtained that can be used for further analysis.
One important observation is that the RPC calls I am looking for may only occur when specific system actions are triggered. Additionally, the resulting exceptions may vary from one system to another depending on which services are enabled or disabled. Therefore, I need a reliable way to generate these RPC exceptions.
In this research, I used several approaches to trigger such events:
After running the logging and monitoring framework described earlier, I identified four additional scenarios that can lead to privilege escalation. The following sections introduce each case and explain how escalation can be achieved.
Microsoft Edge (msedge.exe) comes preinstalled on Windows systems. During startup, Edge triggers an RPC call to TermService. This RPC call is performed with a high impersonation level.
As previously discussed, Terminal Service is disabled by default. Because of this, the expected RPC server is unavailable, creating an opportunity for the attack scenario illustrated below.
The attack follows the same initial assumption as before: the attacker has already compromised a process running under the Network Service account. From there, they deploy the same malicious RPC server that mimics the legitimate TermService RPC interface.
However, unlike the previous scenario where the attacker coerced the Group Policy service, no coercion is required this time. Instead, the attacker simply waits for a high-privileged user, such as an administrator, to launch msedge.exe.
When Edge starts, it triggers the RPC client to attempt communication with the expected TermService RPC interface. Because the legitimate server is not running, the request is received by the attacker’s fake RPC server. Since the RPC call is made with a high impersonation level, the malicious server can call RpcImpersonateClient to impersonate the client process.
As a result, the attacker is able to impersonate the administrator-level client and escalate privileges from Network Service to Administrator.
Some background Windows services periodically attempt to make RPC calls to the RDP service without user interaction. One such service is the WdiSystemHost service. The Diagnostic System Host Service (WDI) is a built-in Windows service that runs system diagnostics and performs troubleshooting tasks. This service runs under the SYSTEM account.
During normal operation, WDI periodically performs background RPC calls to the Remote Desktop service (TermService) using a high impersonation level. These RPC interactions occur automatically every 5–15 minutes and do not require any user input.
This behavior can be abused in a similar manner to the previous attack scenarios, as illustrated in the figure below.
In this case, however, no user interaction or coercion is required. After deploying a malicious RPC server that mimics the expected TermService RPC interface, the attacker only needs to wait for the WDI service to perform its periodic RPC call. Because the request is made with a high impersonation level, the malicious server can invoke RpcImpersonateClient and impersonate the calling process. This enables the attacker to escalate privileges to SYSTEM.
Another scenario involves the DHCP Client service, which manages DHCP client operations on Windows systems. This service runs under the Local Service account and is enabled by default.
The DHCP Client service exposes an RPC server with multiple interfaces and endpoints. These interfaces are frequently invoked by various system DLLs, often using a high impersonation level.
In this scenario, instead of compromising a process running under Network Service, it is assumed the attacker has compromised a process running under the Local Service account. I also assume that the DHCP Client service is disabled, meaning the legitimate RPC server is unavailable.
As the figure below illustrates, the attacker can leverage this situation to escalate privileges.
After gaining control of a Local Service process, the attacker deploys a malicious RPC server that mimics the legitimate RPC server normally exposed by the DHCP Client service. Once the malicious server is running, the attacker waits for a high-privileged user, such as an administrator, to execute ipconfig.exe.
When ipconfig is run, it internally triggers an RPC request to the DHCP Client service. Since the legitimate RPC server is not running, the request is received by the attacker’s fake RPC server. Because the RPC call is performed with a high impersonation level, the malicious server can call RpcImpersonateClient to impersonate the client.
As a result, the attacker can escalate privileges from the Local Service account to the Administrator account.
The Windows Time service (W32Time) is responsible for maintaining date and time synchronization across systems in a Windows environment. This service is enabled by default and runs under the Local Service account.
The service exposes an RPC server with two endpoints:
The executable C:\Windows\System32\w32tm.exe interacts with the Windows Time service through RPC. However, before connecting to the valid RPC endpoints exposed by the service, the executable first attempts to access the nonexistent named pipe: \PIPE\W32TIME. This named pipe is not exposed by the legitimate W32Time service. However, if this endpoint were available, w32tm.exe would attempt to connect to it.
An attacker can abuse this behavior by deploying a malicious RPC server that mimics the legitimate RPC interface of the Windows Time service. Rather than exposing the legitimate endpoints, the attacker’s server exposes the nonexistent endpoint \PIPE\W32TIME, as shown in the figure below.
As in the previous scenarios, it is assumed the attacker has already compromised a process running under the Local Service account. The attacker then deploys a fake RPC server that implements the same RPC interface as the Windows Time service, but which exposes the alternative endpoint used by w32tm.exe.
Once the malicious server is running, the attacker simply waits for a high-privileged user, such as an administrator, to execute w32tm.exe. When the executable runs, it attempts to connect to the endpoint \PIPE\W32TIME. Because the attacker’s fake server exposes this endpoint, the RPC request is directed to the malicious server.
Since the RPC call is performed with a high impersonation level, the malicious server can impersonate the calling client. As a result, the attacker can escalate privileges from the Local Service account to the Administrator account.
In this scenario, it is important to note that the legitimate Windows Time service does not need to be disabled. Because the executable attempts to connect to a nonexistent endpoint, it is sufficient for the attacker to expose that endpoint through the malicious RPC server.
After discovering the vulnerability, Kaspersky Security Services prepared a 10-page technical report describing the issue and the various aforementioned exploitation scenarios. The report was submitted to the Microsoft Security Response Center (MSRC) to report the vulnerability and request a fix.
Twenty days later, Microsoft responded, indicating that they did not classify the vulnerability as high severity. According to their assessment, the issue was classified as moderate severity and would therefore not be patched immediately. No CVE would be assigned, and the case would be closed without further tracking.
Microsoft explained that the moderate severity classification was due to the requirement that the originating process had to already possess the SeImpersonatePrivilege privilege. Since this privilege was typically required for the attack to succeed, Microsoft determined that the issue did not require immediate remediation.
Kaspersky Security Services respect Microsoft’s assessment and only published the research after the embargo period ends. In line with the coordinated vulnerability disclosure policy, Kaspersky Security Services will refrain from publishing detailed instructions that could enable or accelerate mass exploitation.
The disclosure timeline is shown below:
As discussed above, this vulnerability is related to an architectural design behavior. Fully preventing it would require Microsoft to release a patch that addresses the underlying issue.
Nevertheless, organizations can still take steps to detect and mitigate potential abuse. ETW-based monitoring within the framework described above enables defenders to identify RPC exceptions in their environment, especially when RPC clients attempt to connect to unavailable servers.
I have provide the tools used in the previously described framework so that organizations can check their environment for such behavior. You can find all of them in the research repository.
By monitoring these events, administrators can identify situations where legitimate RPC servers are expected but not running. In some cases, the attack surface may be reduced by enabling the corresponding services, ensuring that the legitimate RPC server is available. This can hinder attackers from deploying malicious RPC servers that imitate legitimate endpoints.
It is also good practice to reduce the use of the SeImpersonatePrivilege privilege in processes where it is not required. Some system processes need this privilege for normal operations. However, granting it to custom processes is generally not considered good security practice.
All the exploits described in this research were tested on Windows Server 2022 and Windows Server 2025 with the latest available updates prior to the submission date. The proof-of-concept implementations can be found in the research repository. However, it is highly likely that this issue may also be exploitable on other Windows versions.
Because the vulnerability stems from an architectural design issue, there may be additional attack scenarios beyond those presented in this research. The exact exploitation paths may vary from one system to another depending on factors such as installed software, the DLLs involved in RPC communication, and the availability of corresponding RPC servers.
Windows Interprocess Communication (IPC) is one of the most complex technologies within the Windows operating system. At the core of this ecosystem is the Remote Procedure Call (RPC) mechanism, which can function as a standalone communication channel or as the underlying transport layer for more advanced interprocess communication technologies. Because of its complexity and widespread use, RPC has historically been a rich source of security issues. Over the years, researchers have identified numerous vulnerabilities in services that rely on RPC, ranging from local privilege escalation to full remote code execution.
In this research, I present a new vulnerability in the RPC architecture that enables a novel local privilege escalation technique likely in all Windows versions. This technique enables processes with impersonation privileges to elevate their permissions to SYSTEM level. Although this vulnerability differs fundamentally from the “Potato” exploit family, Microsoft has not issued a patch despite proper disclosure.
I will demonstrate five different exploitation paths that show how privileges can be escalated from various local or network service contexts to SYSTEM or high-privileged users. Some techniques rely on coercion, some require user interaction and some take advantage of background services. As this issue stems from an architectural weakness, the number of potential attack vectors is effectively unlimited; any new process or service that depends on RPC could introduce another possible escalation path. For this reason, I also outline a methodology for identifying such opportunities.
Finally, I examine possible detection strategies, as well as defensive approaches that can help mitigate such attacks.
Microsoft RPC (Remote Procedure Call) is a Windows technology that enables communication between two processes. It enables one process to invoke functions that are implemented in another process, even though they are running in different execution contexts.
The figure below illustrates this mechanism.
Let us assume that Host A is running two processes: Process A and Process B. Process B needs to execute a function that resides inside Process A. To enable this type of interaction, Windows provides the Remote Procedure Call (RPC) architecture, which follows a client–server model. In this model, Process A acts as the RPC server, exposing its functionality through an interface, in our example, Interface A. Each RPC interface is uniquely identified by a Universally Unique Identifier (UUID), which is represented as a 128-bit value. This identifier enables the operating system to distinguish one interface from another.
The interface defines a set of functions that can be invoked remotely by the RPC client implemented in Process B. In our example, the interface exposes two functions: Fun1 and Fun2.
To communicate with the server, the RPC client must establish a connection through a communication endpoint. An endpoint represents the access point that enables transport between the client and the server. Because RPC supports multiple transport mechanisms, different endpoint types may exist, depending on the underlying transport.
For example:
Each transport mechanism is associated with a specific RPC protocol sequence. For instance:
ncacn_ip_tcp is used for RPC over TCP.ncacn_np is used for RPC over named pipes.ncalrpc is used for RPC over ALPC.In this research, I focus specifically on Advanced Local Procedure Call (ALPC) as the RPC transport mechanism. ALPC is a Windows interprocess communication mechanism that predates MSRPC. Today, RPC can leverage ALPC as an efficient transport layer for communication between processes located on the same machine.
For simplicity, an ALPC port can be thought of as a communication channel similar to a file, where processes can send messages by writing to it, and receive messages by reading from it.
When the client wants to invoke a remote function, for example, Fun1, it must construct an RPC request. This request includes several important pieces of information, such as the interface UUID, the protocol sequence, the endpoint, and the function identifier. In RPC, functions are not referenced by name, but by a numerical identifier called the operation number (OPNUM). Depending on the requirements of the call, the request may also contain additional structures, such as security-related information.
In Windows, impersonation enables a service to temporarily operate using another user’s security context. For example, a service may need to open a file that belongs to a user while performing a specific operation. By impersonating the calling user, the system allows the service to access that file, even if the service itself would not normally have permission to do so. You can read more about impersonation in James Forshaw’s book Windows Security Internals.
This research focuses specifically on RPC impersonation. Instead of describing the interaction as a service and a user, I refer to the participants as a client and a server. In this model, the RPC server may temporarily adopt the identity of the client that initiated the request.
To perform this operation, the RPC server can call the RpcImpersonateClient API, which causes the server thread to execute under the client’s security context.
However, in some situations, a client may not want the server to be able to impersonate its identity. To control this behavior, Windows introduces the concept of an impersonation level. This defines how much authority the client grants the server to act on its behalf.
These settings are defined as part of the Security Quality of Service (SQOS) parameters, specified using the SECURITY_QUALITY_OF_SERVICE structure.
As you can see, this structure contains the impersonation level field, which determines the extent to which the server can assume the client’s identity.
Impersonation levels range from Anonymous, where the server cannot impersonate the client at all, to Impersonate and Delegate, which allow the server to act fully on behalf of the client.
At the same time, not every server process is allowed to impersonate a client. If any process could perform impersonation freely, it would pose a serious security risk. To prevent this, Windows requires the server process to possess a specific privilege called SeImpersonatePrivilege. Only processes with this privilege can successfully impersonate a client.
This privilege is granted by default to certain service accounts, such as Local Service and Network Service.
The Group Policy Client service (gpsvc) is a core Windows service responsible for applying and enforcing group policy settings on a system. It runs under the SYSTEM account inside svchost.exe.
When a group policy update is triggered, Windows uses an executable called gpupdate.exe. This tool can be executed with the /force flag to force an immediate refresh of all group policy settings. Internally, this executable communicates with the Group Policy service, which coordinates the update process.
At a certain stage during this operation, the Group Policy service attempts to communicate with TermService (Terminal Service, the Remote Desktop Services service) using RPC.
TermService is responsible for providing remote desktop functionality. This service is not running by default and can be enabled manually by the administrator via activation of Remote Desktop access. When this happens, the service exposes an RPC server with multiple interfaces and endpoints. TermService runs under the NT AUTHORITY\Network Service account.
When the command gpupdate /force is executed, the Group Policy service performs an RPC call to the TermService using the following parameters:
However, because TermService is disabled by default, the RPC call fails and an exception occurs in rpcrt4.dll (the RPC runtime). The returned error is:
This error indicates that the RPC client could not reach the target server.
Tracing the failure path further reveals that the root cause originates from a call to NtAlpcConnectPort, which is used by RPC to establish an ALPC connection between processes.
The NtAlpcConnectPort function is responsible for connecting to a specific ALPC port and returning a handle that the client can use for further communication. This function accepts multiple parameters.
The first two parameters include:
Another important argument is PortAttributes, which is an ALPC_PORT_ATTRIBUTES structure. Inside this structure is the SECURITY_QUALITY_OF_SERVICE structure, which, as mentioned above, defines the impersonation level used for the connection.
The final parameter of interest is RequiredServerSid, which specifies the expected identity of the target server process. This identity is represented using a Security Identifier (SID) structure.
Inspecting this call reveals that the Group Policy service attempts to connect to the RPC server using an impersonation level of Impersonate, expecting the remote server to run under the Network Service account. This behavior makes sense because TermService normally runs under Network Service.
Based on all the information above, the following scheme can be created to illustrate the interaction between TermService and gpsvc.
Up to this point, nothing unusual has occurred. An RPC client attempts to connect to an RPC server that is unavailable, resulting in an exception handled by the RPC runtime.
However, an interesting question arises: What if an attacker compromises a service that runs under the Network Service identity and mimics the exact RPC server exposed by TermService?
Could the attacker deploy a fake RPC server with the same endpoint?
If so, would the RPC runtime allow the client to connect to this illegitimate server?
And if the connection is successful, how could an attacker leverage this behavior?
To better understand the implications of the previously described behavior, let us consider the following attack scenario.
Imagine an attacker has compromised a service running on the system under the Network Service account, for example, an IIS server operating under the Network Service account. With this level of access, the attacker can deploy a malicious RPC server.
The attacker’s RPC server is designed to mimic the RPC interface exposed by the Remote Desktop service (TermService). Specifically, it implements the same RPC interface UUID and exposes the same endpoint name: TermSrvApi. Once deployed, the malicious server listens for RPC requests that would normally be directed to the legitimate RDP service.
Next, the attacker coerces the Group Policy service by triggering a policy update using gpupdate.exe /force. This causes the Group Policy Client service, which runs under the SYSTEM account, to perform the previously described RPC call. As observed earlier, this RPC call uses a high impersonation level (Impersonate).
When the attacker’s fake RPC server receives the request, it calls RpcImpersonateClient. This enables the server thread to impersonate the security context of the calling client, which, in this case, is SYSTEM.
As a result, the attacker can elevate privileges from Network Service to SYSTEM. In our proof-of-concept implementation, the exploit demonstrates privilege escalation by spawning a SYSTEM-level command prompt.
When this attack scenario was first discussed, it was purely theoretical. However, after implementing the malicious RPC server, the experiment confirmed that Windows allowed the server to be deployed and started successfully, and that the RPC runtime permitted the client to connect to the malicious endpoint. This made it possible to reliably escalate privileges from Network Service to SYSTEM using this technique. For this attack to succeed, though, at least one group policy must be applied on the system.
Further investigation revealed that many Windows services attempt to communicate with TermService using RPC. These RPC calls often originate from winsta.dll, which acts as the RPC client component.
Windows processes invoke APIs exposed by winsta.dll; these APIs rely internally on RPC communication with TermService. This pattern is common in Windows; many system DLLs use RPC behind the scenes when their exported APIs are called.
However, it appears that the RPC runtime (rpcrt4.dll) does not provide a mechanism to verify the legitimacy of RPC servers. Moreover, Windows allows another process to deploy an RPC server that exposes the same endpoint as a legitimate service.
As a result, this architectural design introduces a large attack surface because RPC is heavily used across numerous system DLLs. Applications that invoke seemingly benign APIs may unintentionally trigger privileged RPC interactions. Under certain conditions, these interactions could be abused to achieve local privilege escalation without the user’s knowledge.
As the issue appears to stem from an architectural weakness, a systematic approach is needed to identify RPC clients attempting to communicate with servers that are unavailable. First, I need a platform capable of monitoring RPC activity and extracting relevant information from each RPC request.
Specifically, I need to capture key RPC metadata, including:
This information is critical because it enables me to reconstruct the RPC interaction, mimic the expected RPC server, and determine how the call is triggered.
The platform that provides this capability is Event Tracing for Windows (ETW). ETW is a built-in Windows logging framework that captures both kernel-mode and user-mode events in real time.
Windows provides a tool called logman to collect ETW data. It enables us to create trace sessions, select event providers, and configure the verbosity level of the tracing process. The collected tracing data is stored in an .etl file, which can later be analyzed using tools such as Event Viewer or other ETW analysis utilities.
ETW provides deep visibility into RPC activity without requiring modifications to applications. Through ETW, it is possible to capture detailed RPC information, such as:
However, I’m not interested in every RPC event. My focus is on RPC call failures, specifically those that return the status RPC_S_SERVER_UNAVAILABLE.
For an event to be relevant to this research, the exception must meet two conditions:
I cannot rely solely on the raw ETW output to implement this framework because it contains thousands of events, making manual filtering with standard tools inefficient. Therefore, I need to automate this process. The workflow shown below enables me to efficiently filter and extract only those events that are relevant to this analysis.
After generating the logs as an .etl file, I convert them to JSON format using tools such as etw2json. JSON is a much easier format to process programmatically. In this case, I use a Python script to filter and extract the relevant information.
The filtering process begins with a search for Event ID 1, which corresponds to an RPC stop event. This event indicates that the RPC client has completed the call and the result is available. From this event, I can extract useful information, such as:
After extracting the status code, I filter for the specific value RPC_S_SERVER_UNAVAILABLE, which indicates that the target server was unreachable during an RPC call. These events represent the scenarios that are of interest.
However, Event ID 1 does not contain all of the required RPC metadata. To obtain the missing information, it is correlated with Event ID 5, which represents the RPC start event. This event is generated when the client initiates the RPC call.
By matching the metadata between Event ID 1 and Event ID 5, I can recover the missing details, including:
After correlating and filtering these events, a JSON entry is obtained that is almost ready for analysis. At this stage, the data can be enriched further by adding context that will be helpful when reversing or analyzing the RPC server implementation. For example, the following can be identified:
To retrieve this information, I match the UUID with an external RPC interface database. In this case, I used the RPC database, which contains a comprehensive list of RPC interfaces and their corresponding DLL implementations.
At the end of this process, a complete JSON dataset is obtained that can be used for further analysis.
One important observation is that the RPC calls I am looking for may only occur when specific system actions are triggered. Additionally, the resulting exceptions may vary from one system to another depending on which services are enabled or disabled. Therefore, I need a reliable way to generate these RPC exceptions.
In this research, I used several approaches to trigger such events:
After running the logging and monitoring framework described earlier, I identified four additional scenarios that can lead to privilege escalation. The following sections introduce each case and explain how escalation can be achieved.
Microsoft Edge (msedge.exe) comes preinstalled on Windows systems. During startup, Edge triggers an RPC call to TermService. This RPC call is performed with a high impersonation level.
As previously discussed, Terminal Service is disabled by default. Because of this, the expected RPC server is unavailable, creating an opportunity for the attack scenario illustrated below.
The attack follows the same initial assumption as before: the attacker has already compromised a process running under the Network Service account. From there, they deploy the same malicious RPC server that mimics the legitimate TermService RPC interface.
However, unlike the previous scenario where the attacker coerced the Group Policy service, no coercion is required this time. Instead, the attacker simply waits for a high-privileged user, such as an administrator, to launch msedge.exe.
When Edge starts, it triggers the RPC client to attempt communication with the expected TermService RPC interface. Because the legitimate server is not running, the request is received by the attacker’s fake RPC server. Since the RPC call is made with a high impersonation level, the malicious server can call RpcImpersonateClient to impersonate the client process.
As a result, the attacker is able to impersonate the administrator-level client and escalate privileges from Network Service to Administrator.
Some background Windows services periodically attempt to make RPC calls to the RDP service without user interaction. One such service is the WdiSystemHost service. The Diagnostic System Host Service (WDI) is a built-in Windows service that runs system diagnostics and performs troubleshooting tasks. This service runs under the SYSTEM account.
During normal operation, WDI periodically performs background RPC calls to the Remote Desktop service (TermService) using a high impersonation level. These RPC interactions occur automatically every 5–15 minutes and do not require any user input.
This behavior can be abused in a similar manner to the previous attack scenarios, as illustrated in the figure below.
In this case, however, no user interaction or coercion is required. After deploying a malicious RPC server that mimics the expected TermService RPC interface, the attacker only needs to wait for the WDI service to perform its periodic RPC call. Because the request is made with a high impersonation level, the malicious server can invoke RpcImpersonateClient and impersonate the calling process. This enables the attacker to escalate privileges to SYSTEM.
Another scenario involves the DHCP Client service, which manages DHCP client operations on Windows systems. This service runs under the Local Service account and is enabled by default.
The DHCP Client service exposes an RPC server with multiple interfaces and endpoints. These interfaces are frequently invoked by various system DLLs, often using a high impersonation level.
In this scenario, instead of compromising a process running under Network Service, it is assumed the attacker has compromised a process running under the Local Service account. I also assume that the DHCP Client service is disabled, meaning the legitimate RPC server is unavailable.
As the figure below illustrates, the attacker can leverage this situation to escalate privileges.
After gaining control of a Local Service process, the attacker deploys a malicious RPC server that mimics the legitimate RPC server normally exposed by the DHCP Client service. Once the malicious server is running, the attacker waits for a high-privileged user, such as an administrator, to execute ipconfig.exe.
When ipconfig is run, it internally triggers an RPC request to the DHCP Client service. Since the legitimate RPC server is not running, the request is received by the attacker’s fake RPC server. Because the RPC call is performed with a high impersonation level, the malicious server can call RpcImpersonateClient to impersonate the client.
As a result, the attacker can escalate privileges from the Local Service account to the Administrator account.
The Windows Time service (W32Time) is responsible for maintaining date and time synchronization across systems in a Windows environment. This service is enabled by default and runs under the Local Service account.
The service exposes an RPC server with two endpoints:
The executable C:\Windows\System32\w32tm.exe interacts with the Windows Time service through RPC. However, before connecting to the valid RPC endpoints exposed by the service, the executable first attempts to access the nonexistent named pipe: \PIPE\W32TIME. This named pipe is not exposed by the legitimate W32Time service. However, if this endpoint were available, w32tm.exe would attempt to connect to it.
An attacker can abuse this behavior by deploying a malicious RPC server that mimics the legitimate RPC interface of the Windows Time service. Rather than exposing the legitimate endpoints, the attacker’s server exposes the nonexistent endpoint \PIPE\W32TIME, as shown in the figure below.
As in the previous scenarios, it is assumed the attacker has already compromised a process running under the Local Service account. The attacker then deploys a fake RPC server that implements the same RPC interface as the Windows Time service, but which exposes the alternative endpoint used by w32tm.exe.
Once the malicious server is running, the attacker simply waits for a high-privileged user, such as an administrator, to execute w32tm.exe. When the executable runs, it attempts to connect to the endpoint \PIPE\W32TIME. Because the attacker’s fake server exposes this endpoint, the RPC request is directed to the malicious server.
Since the RPC call is performed with a high impersonation level, the malicious server can impersonate the calling client. As a result, the attacker can escalate privileges from the Local Service account to the Administrator account.
In this scenario, it is important to note that the legitimate Windows Time service does not need to be disabled. Because the executable attempts to connect to a nonexistent endpoint, it is sufficient for the attacker to expose that endpoint through the malicious RPC server.
After discovering the vulnerability, Kaspersky Security Services prepared a 10-page technical report describing the issue and the various aforementioned exploitation scenarios. The report was submitted to the Microsoft Security Response Center (MSRC) to report the vulnerability and request a fix.
Twenty days later, Microsoft responded, indicating that they did not classify the vulnerability as high severity. According to their assessment, the issue was classified as moderate severity and would therefore not be patched immediately. No CVE would be assigned, and the case would be closed without further tracking.
Microsoft explained that the moderate severity classification was due to the requirement that the originating process had to already possess the SeImpersonatePrivilege privilege. Since this privilege was typically required for the attack to succeed, Microsoft determined that the issue did not require immediate remediation.
Kaspersky Security Services respect Microsoft’s assessment and only published the research after the embargo period ends. In line with the coordinated vulnerability disclosure policy, Kaspersky Security Services will refrain from publishing detailed instructions that could enable or accelerate mass exploitation.
The disclosure timeline is shown below:
As discussed above, this vulnerability is related to an architectural design behavior. Fully preventing it would require Microsoft to release a patch that addresses the underlying issue.
Nevertheless, organizations can still take steps to detect and mitigate potential abuse. ETW-based monitoring within the framework described above enables defenders to identify RPC exceptions in their environment, especially when RPC clients attempt to connect to unavailable servers.
I have provide the tools used in the previously described framework so that organizations can check their environment for such behavior. You can find all of them in the research repository.
By monitoring these events, administrators can identify situations where legitimate RPC servers are expected but not running. In some cases, the attack surface may be reduced by enabling the corresponding services, ensuring that the legitimate RPC server is available. This can hinder attackers from deploying malicious RPC servers that imitate legitimate endpoints.
It is also good practice to reduce the use of the SeImpersonatePrivilege privilege in processes where it is not required. Some system processes need this privilege for normal operations. However, granting it to custom processes is generally not considered good security practice.
All the exploits described in this research were tested on Windows Server 2022 and Windows Server 2025 with the latest available updates prior to the submission date. The proof-of-concept implementations can be found in the research repository. However, it is highly likely that this issue may also be exploitable on other Windows versions.
Because the vulnerability stems from an architectural design issue, there may be additional attack scenarios beyond those presented in this research. The exact exploitation paths may vary from one system to another depending on factors such as installed software, the DLLs involved in RPC communication, and the availability of corresponding RPC servers.
Most of us think deleting a file means it’s gone for good. But “delete” on a Windows device often just means “out of sight,” not necessarily “out of reach.”
That’s where File Shredder, a new feature within Malwarebytes Tools for Windows, comes in. File Shredder lets you securely delete files from your hard drive or USB drive, so the files are not just removed—but completely unrecoverable, even with specialized recovery software.
When you delete a file by placing it in your Recycle Bin and emptying the contents, your computer typically removes the reference to it—but the data itself can remain on the drive until it’s overwritten. That leftover data can sometimes be recovered using basic digital tools, some of which can even be downloaded for free online. These data traces pose a problem if the file you want to delete includes personal, financial, or other sensitive information, like tax documents, scanned IDs, contracts, or anything else you would like to remain private forever.
File Shredder goes beyond standard deletion by instead permanently overwriting the file data, ensuring it can’t be reconstructed or recovered. Once a file is shredded, it’s gone for good—no undo, no recovery, no second chances.
That makes File Shredder especially useful when:
File Shredder is designed to be powerful without being complicated.
To use File Shredder:
After your files are deleted by File Shredder you can move on, confident that the data can’t be accessed again.
Cybersecurity isn’t just about blocking threats—it’s also about giving you control over your own data. File Shredder provides a way to do exactly that, helping you close the door on files that you no longer want on your devices.
Because when you’re done with a file, it should really be done.
We don’t just report on threats—we remove them
Cybersecurity risks should never spread beyond a headline. Keep threats off your devices by downloading Malwarebytes today.
Most of us think deleting a file means it’s gone for good. But “delete” on a Windows device often just means “out of sight,” not necessarily “out of reach.”
That’s where File Shredder, a new feature within Malwarebytes Tools for Windows, comes in. File Shredder lets you securely delete files from your hard drive or USB drive, so the files are not just removed—but completely unrecoverable, even with specialized recovery software.
When you delete a file by placing it in your Recycle Bin and emptying the contents, your computer typically removes the reference to it—but the data itself can remain on the drive until it’s overwritten. That leftover data can sometimes be recovered using basic digital tools, some of which can even be downloaded for free online. These data traces pose a problem if the file you want to delete includes personal, financial, or other sensitive information, like tax documents, scanned IDs, contracts, or anything else you would like to remain private forever.
File Shredder goes beyond standard deletion by instead permanently overwriting the file data, ensuring it can’t be reconstructed or recovered. Once a file is shredded, it’s gone for good—no undo, no recovery, no second chances.
That makes File Shredder especially useful when:
File Shredder is designed to be powerful without being complicated.
To use File Shredder:
After your files are deleted by File Shredder you can move on, confident that the data can’t be accessed again.
Cybersecurity isn’t just about blocking threats—it’s also about giving you control over your own data. File Shredder provides a way to do exactly that, helping you close the door on files that you no longer want on your devices.
Because when you’re done with a file, it should really be done.
We don’t just report on threats—we remove them
Cybersecurity risks should never spread beyond a headline. Keep threats off your devices by downloading Malwarebytes today.
The fourth quarter of 2025 went down as one of the most intense periods on record for high-profile, critical vulnerability disclosures, hitting popular libraries and mainstream applications. Several of these vulnerabilities were picked up by attackers and exploited in the wild almost immediately.
In this report, we dive into the statistics on published vulnerabilities and exploits, as well as the known vulnerabilities leveraged with popular C2 frameworks throughout Q4 2025.
This section contains statistics on registered vulnerabilities. The data is taken from cve.org.
Let’s take a look at the number of registered CVEs for each month over the last five years, up to and including the end of 2025. As predicted in our last report, Q4 saw a higher number of registered vulnerabilities than the same period in 2024, and the year-end totals also cleared the bar set the previous year.
Total published vulnerabilities by month from 2021 through 2025 (download)
Now, let’s look at the number of new critical vulnerabilities (CVSS > 8.9) for that same period.
Total number of published critical vulnerabilities by month from 2021 to 2025< (download)
The graph shows that the volume of critical vulnerabilities remains quite substantial; however, in the second half of the year, we saw those numbers dip back down to levels seen in 2023. This was due to vulnerability churn: a handful of published security issues were revoked. The widespread adoption of secure development practices and the move toward safer languages also pushed those numbers down, though even that couldn’t stop the overall flood of vulnerabilities.
This section contains statistics on the use of exploits in Q4 2025. The data is based on open sources and our telemetry.
In Q4 2025, the most prevalent exploits targeted the exact same vulnerabilities that dominated the threat landscape throughout the rest of the year. These were exploits targeting Microsoft Office products with unpatched security flaws.
Kaspersky solutions detected the most exploits on the Windows platform for the following vulnerabilities:
The list has remained unchanged for years.
We also see that attackers continue to adapt exploits for directory traversal vulnerabilities (CWE-35) when unpacking archives in WinRAR. They are being heavily leveraged to gain initial access via malicious archives on the Windows operating system:
As in the previous quarter, we see a rise in the use of archiver exploits, with fresh vulnerabilities increasingly appearing in attacks.
Below are the exploit detection trends for Windows users over the last two years.
Dynamics of the number of Windows users encountering exploits, Q1 2024 – Q4 2025. The number of users who encountered exploits in Q1 2024 is taken as 100% (download)
The vulnerabilities listed here can be used to gain initial access to a vulnerable system. This highlights the critical importance of timely security updates for all affected software.
On Linux-based devices, the most frequently detected exploits targeted the following vulnerabilities:
Dynamics of the number of Linux users encountering exploits, Q1 2024 – Q4 2025. The number of users who encountered exploits in Q1 2024 is taken as 100% (download)
We are seeing a massive surge in Linux-based exploit attempts: in Q4, the number of affected users doubled compared to Q3. Our statistics show that the final quarter of the year accounted for more than half of all Linux exploit attacks recorded for the entire year. This surge is primarily driven by the rapidly growing number of Linux-based consumer devices. This trend naturally attracts the attention of threat actors, making the installation of security patches critically important.
The distribution of published exploits by software type in Q4 2025 largely mirrors the patterns observed in the previous quarter. The majority of exploits we investigate through our monitoring of public research, news, and PoCs continue to target vulnerabilities within operating systems.
Distribution of published exploits by platform, Q1 2025 (download)
Distribution of published exploits by platform, Q2 2025 (download)
Distribution of published exploits by platform, Q3 2025 (download)
Distribution of published exploits by platform, Q4 2025 (download)
In Q4 2025, no public exploits for Microsoft Office products emerged; the bulk of the vulnerabilities were issues discovered in system components. When calculating our statistics, we placed these in the OS category.
We analyzed which vulnerabilities were utilized in APT attacks during Q4 2025. The following rankings draw on our telemetry, research, and open-source data.
TOP 10 vulnerabilities exploited in APT attacks, Q4 2025 (download)
In Q4 2025, APT attacks most frequently exploited fresh vulnerabilities published within the last six months. We believe that these CVEs will remain favorites among attackers for a long time, as fixing them may require significant structural changes to the vulnerable applications or the user’s system. Often, replacing or updating the affected components requires a significant amount of resources. Consequently, the probability of an attack through such vulnerabilities may persist. Some of these new vulnerabilities are likely to become frequent tools for lateral movement within user infrastructure, as the corresponding security flaws have been discovered in network services that are accessible without authentication. This heavy exploitation of very recently registered vulnerabilities highlights the ability of threat actors to rapidly implement new techniques and adapt old ones for their attacks. Therefore, we strongly recommend applying the security patches provided by vendors.
In this section, we will look at the most popular C2 frameworks used by threat actors and analyze the vulnerabilities whose exploits interacted with C2 agents in APT attacks.
The chart below shows the frequency of known C2 framework usage in attacks against users during Q4 2025, according to open sources.
TOP 10 C2 frameworks used by APTs to compromise user systems in Q4 2025 (download)
Despite the significant footprints it can leave when used in its default configuration, Sliver continues to hold the top spot among the most common C2 frameworks in our Q4 2025 analysis. Mythic and Havoc were second and third, respectively. After reviewing open sources and analyzing malicious C2 agent samples that contained exploits, we found that the following vulnerabilities were used in APT attacks involving the C2 frameworks mentioned above:
The set of vulnerabilities described above suggests that attackers have been using them for initial access and early-stage maneuvers in vulnerable systems to create a springboard for deploying a C2 agent. The list of vulnerabilities includes both zero-days and well-known, established security issues.
This section highlights the most noteworthy vulnerabilities that were publicly disclosed in Q4 2025 and have a publicly available description.
We typically describe vulnerabilities affecting a specific application. CVE-2025-55182 stood out as an exception, as it was discovered in React, a library primarily used for building web applications. This means that exploiting the vulnerability could potentially disrupt a vast number of applications that rely on the library. The vulnerability itself lies in the interaction mechanism between the client and server components, which is built on sending serialized objects. If an attacker sends serialized data containing malicious functionality, they can execute JavaScript commands directly on the server, bypassing all client-side request validation. Technical details about this vulnerability and an example of how Kaspersky solutions detect it can be found in our article.
This vulnerability represents a data-handling flaw that occurs when retrieving information from a remote server: when executing the curl or Invoke-WebRequest command, Windows launches Internet Explorer in the background. This can lead to a cross-site scripting (XSS) attack.
This vulnerability reinforces the trend of exploiting security flaws found in file archivers. The core of CVE-2025-11001 lies in the incorrect handling of symbolic links. An attacker can craft an archive so that when it is extracted into an arbitrary directory, its contents end up in the location pointed to by a symbolic link. The likelihood of exploiting this vulnerability is significantly reduced because utilizing such functionality requires the user opening the archive to possess system administrator privileges.
This vulnerability was associated with a wave of misleading news reports claiming it was being used in real-world attacks against end users. This misconception stemmed from an error in the security bulletin.
The year 2025 saw a surge in high-profile vulnerabilities, several of which were significant enough to earn a unique nickname. This was the case with CVE-2025-49844, also known as RediShell, which was unveiled during a hacking competition. This vulnerability is a use-after-free issue related to how the load command functions within Lua interpreter scripts. To execute the attack, an attacker needs to prepare a malicious script and load it into the interpreter.
As with any named vulnerability, RediShell was immediately weaponized by threat actors and spammers, albeit in a somewhat unconventional manner. Because technical details were initially scarce following its disclosure, the internet was flooded with fake PoC exploits and scanners claiming to test for the vulnerability. In the best-case scenario, these tools were non-functional; in the worst, they infected the system. Notably, these fraudulent projects were frequently generated using LLMs. They followed a standardized template and often cross-referenced source code from other identical fake repositories.
Driver vulnerabilities are often discovered in legitimate third-party applications that have been part of the official OS distribution for a long time. Thus, CVE-2025-24990 has existed within code shipped by Microsoft throughout nearly the entire history of Windows. The vulnerable driver has been shipped since at least Windows 7 as a third-party driver for Agere Modem. According to Microsoft, this driver is no longer supported and, following the discovery of the flaw, was removed from the OS distribution entirely.
The vulnerability itself is straightforward: insecure handling of IOCTL codes leading to a null pointer dereference. Successful exploitation can lead to arbitrary command execution or a system crash resulting in a blue screen of death (BSOD) on modern systems.
CVE-2025-59287 represents a textbook case of insecure deserialization. Exploitation is possible without any form of authentication; due to its ease of use, this vulnerability rapidly gained traction among threat actors. Technical details and detection methodologies for our product suite have been covered in our previous advisories.
In Q4 2025, the rate of vulnerability registration has shown no signs of slowing down. Consequently, consistent monitoring and the timely application of security patches have become more critical than ever. To ensure resilient defense, it is vital to regularly assess and remediate known vulnerabilities while implementing technology designed to mitigate the impact of potential exploits.
Continuous monitoring of infrastructure, including the network perimeter, allows for the timely identification of threats and prevents them from escalating. Effective security also demands tracking the current threat landscape and applying preventative measures to minimize risks associated with system flaws. Kaspersky Next serves as a reliable partner in this process, providing real-time identification and detailed mapping of vulnerabilities within the environment.
Securing the workplace remains a top priority. Protecting corporate devices requires the adoption of solutions capable of blocking malware and preventing it from spreading. Beyond basic measures, organizations should implement adaptive systems that allow for the rapid deployment of security updates and the automation of patch management workflows.
The fourth quarter of 2025 went down as one of the most intense periods on record for high-profile, critical vulnerability disclosures, hitting popular libraries and mainstream applications. Several of these vulnerabilities were picked up by attackers and exploited in the wild almost immediately.
In this report, we dive into the statistics on published vulnerabilities and exploits, as well as the known vulnerabilities leveraged with popular C2 frameworks throughout Q4 2025.
This section contains statistics on registered vulnerabilities. The data is taken from cve.org.
Let’s take a look at the number of registered CVEs for each month over the last five years, up to and including the end of 2025. As predicted in our last report, Q4 saw a higher number of registered vulnerabilities than the same period in 2024, and the year-end totals also cleared the bar set the previous year.
Total published vulnerabilities by month from 2021 through 2025 (download)
Now, let’s look at the number of new critical vulnerabilities (CVSS > 8.9) for that same period.
Total number of published critical vulnerabilities by month from 2021 to 2025< (download)
The graph shows that the volume of critical vulnerabilities remains quite substantial; however, in the second half of the year, we saw those numbers dip back down to levels seen in 2023. This was due to vulnerability churn: a handful of published security issues were revoked. The widespread adoption of secure development practices and the move toward safer languages also pushed those numbers down, though even that couldn’t stop the overall flood of vulnerabilities.
This section contains statistics on the use of exploits in Q4 2025. The data is based on open sources and our telemetry.
In Q4 2025, the most prevalent exploits targeted the exact same vulnerabilities that dominated the threat landscape throughout the rest of the year. These were exploits targeting Microsoft Office products with unpatched security flaws.
Kaspersky solutions detected the most exploits on the Windows platform for the following vulnerabilities:
The list has remained unchanged for years.
We also see that attackers continue to adapt exploits for directory traversal vulnerabilities (CWE-35) when unpacking archives in WinRAR. They are being heavily leveraged to gain initial access via malicious archives on the Windows operating system:
As in the previous quarter, we see a rise in the use of archiver exploits, with fresh vulnerabilities increasingly appearing in attacks.
Below are the exploit detection trends for Windows users over the last two years.
Dynamics of the number of Windows users encountering exploits, Q1 2024 – Q4 2025. The number of users who encountered exploits in Q1 2024 is taken as 100% (download)
The vulnerabilities listed here can be used to gain initial access to a vulnerable system. This highlights the critical importance of timely security updates for all affected software.
On Linux-based devices, the most frequently detected exploits targeted the following vulnerabilities:
Dynamics of the number of Linux users encountering exploits, Q1 2024 – Q4 2025. The number of users who encountered exploits in Q1 2024 is taken as 100% (download)
We are seeing a massive surge in Linux-based exploit attempts: in Q4, the number of affected users doubled compared to Q3. Our statistics show that the final quarter of the year accounted for more than half of all Linux exploit attacks recorded for the entire year. This surge is primarily driven by the rapidly growing number of Linux-based consumer devices. This trend naturally attracts the attention of threat actors, making the installation of security patches critically important.
The distribution of published exploits by software type in Q4 2025 largely mirrors the patterns observed in the previous quarter. The majority of exploits we investigate through our monitoring of public research, news, and PoCs continue to target vulnerabilities within operating systems.
Distribution of published exploits by platform, Q1 2025 (download)
Distribution of published exploits by platform, Q2 2025 (download)
Distribution of published exploits by platform, Q3 2025 (download)
Distribution of published exploits by platform, Q4 2025 (download)
In Q4 2025, no public exploits for Microsoft Office products emerged; the bulk of the vulnerabilities were issues discovered in system components. When calculating our statistics, we placed these in the OS category.
We analyzed which vulnerabilities were utilized in APT attacks during Q4 2025. The following rankings draw on our telemetry, research, and open-source data.
TOP 10 vulnerabilities exploited in APT attacks, Q4 2025 (download)
In Q4 2025, APT attacks most frequently exploited fresh vulnerabilities published within the last six months. We believe that these CVEs will remain favorites among attackers for a long time, as fixing them may require significant structural changes to the vulnerable applications or the user’s system. Often, replacing or updating the affected components requires a significant amount of resources. Consequently, the probability of an attack through such vulnerabilities may persist. Some of these new vulnerabilities are likely to become frequent tools for lateral movement within user infrastructure, as the corresponding security flaws have been discovered in network services that are accessible without authentication. This heavy exploitation of very recently registered vulnerabilities highlights the ability of threat actors to rapidly implement new techniques and adapt old ones for their attacks. Therefore, we strongly recommend applying the security patches provided by vendors.
In this section, we will look at the most popular C2 frameworks used by threat actors and analyze the vulnerabilities whose exploits interacted with C2 agents in APT attacks.
The chart below shows the frequency of known C2 framework usage in attacks against users during Q4 2025, according to open sources.
TOP 10 C2 frameworks used by APTs to compromise user systems in Q4 2025 (download)
Despite the significant footprints it can leave when used in its default configuration, Sliver continues to hold the top spot among the most common C2 frameworks in our Q4 2025 analysis. Mythic and Havoc were second and third, respectively. After reviewing open sources and analyzing malicious C2 agent samples that contained exploits, we found that the following vulnerabilities were used in APT attacks involving the C2 frameworks mentioned above:
The set of vulnerabilities described above suggests that attackers have been using them for initial access and early-stage maneuvers in vulnerable systems to create a springboard for deploying a C2 agent. The list of vulnerabilities includes both zero-days and well-known, established security issues.
This section highlights the most noteworthy vulnerabilities that were publicly disclosed in Q4 2025 and have a publicly available description.
We typically describe vulnerabilities affecting a specific application. CVE-2025-55182 stood out as an exception, as it was discovered in React, a library primarily used for building web applications. This means that exploiting the vulnerability could potentially disrupt a vast number of applications that rely on the library. The vulnerability itself lies in the interaction mechanism between the client and server components, which is built on sending serialized objects. If an attacker sends serialized data containing malicious functionality, they can execute JavaScript commands directly on the server, bypassing all client-side request validation. Technical details about this vulnerability and an example of how Kaspersky solutions detect it can be found in our article.
This vulnerability represents a data-handling flaw that occurs when retrieving information from a remote server: when executing the curl or Invoke-WebRequest command, Windows launches Internet Explorer in the background. This can lead to a cross-site scripting (XSS) attack.
This vulnerability reinforces the trend of exploiting security flaws found in file archivers. The core of CVE-2025-11001 lies in the incorrect handling of symbolic links. An attacker can craft an archive so that when it is extracted into an arbitrary directory, its contents end up in the location pointed to by a symbolic link. The likelihood of exploiting this vulnerability is significantly reduced because utilizing such functionality requires the user opening the archive to possess system administrator privileges.
This vulnerability was associated with a wave of misleading news reports claiming it was being used in real-world attacks against end users. This misconception stemmed from an error in the security bulletin.
The year 2025 saw a surge in high-profile vulnerabilities, several of which were significant enough to earn a unique nickname. This was the case with CVE-2025-49844, also known as RediShell, which was unveiled during a hacking competition. This vulnerability is a use-after-free issue related to how the load command functions within Lua interpreter scripts. To execute the attack, an attacker needs to prepare a malicious script and load it into the interpreter.
As with any named vulnerability, RediShell was immediately weaponized by threat actors and spammers, albeit in a somewhat unconventional manner. Because technical details were initially scarce following its disclosure, the internet was flooded with fake PoC exploits and scanners claiming to test for the vulnerability. In the best-case scenario, these tools were non-functional; in the worst, they infected the system. Notably, these fraudulent projects were frequently generated using LLMs. They followed a standardized template and often cross-referenced source code from other identical fake repositories.
Driver vulnerabilities are often discovered in legitimate third-party applications that have been part of the official OS distribution for a long time. Thus, CVE-2025-24990 has existed within code shipped by Microsoft throughout nearly the entire history of Windows. The vulnerable driver has been shipped since at least Windows 7 as a third-party driver for Agere Modem. According to Microsoft, this driver is no longer supported and, following the discovery of the flaw, was removed from the OS distribution entirely.
The vulnerability itself is straightforward: insecure handling of IOCTL codes leading to a null pointer dereference. Successful exploitation can lead to arbitrary command execution or a system crash resulting in a blue screen of death (BSOD) on modern systems.
CVE-2025-59287 represents a textbook case of insecure deserialization. Exploitation is possible without any form of authentication; due to its ease of use, this vulnerability rapidly gained traction among threat actors. Technical details and detection methodologies for our product suite have been covered in our previous advisories.
In Q4 2025, the rate of vulnerability registration has shown no signs of slowing down. Consequently, consistent monitoring and the timely application of security patches have become more critical than ever. To ensure resilient defense, it is vital to regularly assess and remediate known vulnerabilities while implementing technology designed to mitigate the impact of potential exploits.
Continuous monitoring of infrastructure, including the network perimeter, allows for the timely identification of threats and prevents them from escalating. Effective security also demands tracking the current threat landscape and applying preventative measures to minimize risks associated with system flaws. Kaspersky Next serves as a reliable partner in this process, providing real-time identification and detailed mapping of vulnerabilities within the environment.
Securing the workplace remains a top priority. Protecting corporate devices requires the adoption of solutions capable of blocking malware and preventing it from spreading. Beyond basic measures, organizations should implement adaptive systems that allow for the rapid deployment of security updates and the automation of patch management workflows.
After a decade and a half of service, the current certificates will expire, and new ones will be rolled out.
The post Microsoft to Refresh Windows Secure Boot Certificates in June 2026 appeared first on SecurityWeek.
Microsoft gives the FBI the ability to decrypt BitLocker in response to court orders: about twenty times per year.
It’s possible for users to store those keys on a device they own, but Microsoft also recommends BitLocker users store their keys on its servers for convenience. While that means someone can access their data if they forget their password, or if repeated failed attempts to login lock the device, it also makes them vulnerable to law enforcement subpoenas and warrants.
The next major Windows Server and Windows releases will have the deprecated authentication protocol disabled by default.
The post Microsoft Moves Closer to Disabling NTLM appeared first on SecurityWeek.
Two vulnerabilities patched this month by Microsoft were disclosed publicly before fixes were released.
The post Microsoft Patches Exploited Windows Zero-Day, 111 Other Vulnerabilities appeared first on SecurityWeek.
