Parcel delivery phishing campaigns appear around the world under different courier names. In the United States, the messages commonly impersonate USPS and claim that a package has an invalid address or could not be delivered. Similar messages impersonate Colissimo and Chronopost in France, Correos in Spain, Poste Italiane in Italy, and PostNL in the Netherlands.
The details vary, but the aim is usually the same: to persuade you to visit a fake courier website and provide personal and financial information.
A fake bpost delivery email
A recent campaign targeting customers of the Belgian postal service bpost begins with an email claiming that a package could not be delivered because €4.95 in customs duties has not been paid.
A phishing email, in Dutch, pretending to be from bpost.
In English, the subject and message read:
Undelivered package—customs duties due (tracking no. 3232116291*******).
Your package could not be delivered on September 9, 2026, because the customs duties (€4.95) have not been paid.
The amount is small enough that recipients may pay without giving it much thought. However, the website does not stop at collecting the supposed fee. It asks for personal information, card details, and banking information.
How the scam works
The link first passes through a URL-shortening service (hxxps://qr[.]paps[.]jp/1GWsa) before redirecting to a fake bpost site. The campaign used several fake bpost domains, including:
bpost[.]center, which is the domain shown in the screenshots below.
The page copies bpost’s branding and displays security claims such as “Secure SSL connection,” “256-bit SSL,” “SEPA compliant,” and “Secure payment.” These labels were added by the scammers and do not prove that the page or payment is secure.
We’ve translated the screenshots below from the original Dutch into English.
The first page asks for the recipient’s name, phone number, email address, and age:
That reference to receiving funds does not match the email’s claim that a customs fee must be paid. The next page asks for an IBAN, card number, expiry date, and payment amount:
Then it asks for the real target: full card and bank details.
The original Dutch version contained another mistake: One of its buttons read “Indian search” instead of “Betaal,” the Dutch word for “Pay.” Mistakes like this can expose a scam, but many phishing pages are built carefully enough that there will be no obvious typo or mistranslation.
Once submitted, card details may be used for fraudulent purchases or sold to other criminals. The personal and banking information may also be used to make later scams more convincing.
How to protect yourself
Check delivery claims independently. Open the courier’s official app or type its website address into your browser, then use your tracking number to check the delivery.
Check the sender and destination. A message may use a courier’s name while coming from an unrelated email address or linking to a different domain.
Be wary of unexpected fees or refunds. A small payment or promised refund can be used to persuade you to provide much more valuable information.
Be wary of requests for extensive financial information. A request for an IBAN as well as card details should be treated with suspicion, particularly when it supposedly relates to a small delivery fee.
If you entered your card or banking information on a suspicious site, contact your bank or card provider immediately. Freeze the affected card if your banking app allows it, monitor your accounts for unfamiliar transactions, and change any password you entered on the site.
Malwarebytes tracks and blocks these campaigns as they appear. If you’re unsure about a message, Scam Guard—built into Malwarebytes for Windows, Mac, Android, and iOS—can check it for you. Paste in the message or link, or upload a screenshot, for an instant assessment.
Scam Guard can analyze a suspicious email, text, link, or screenshot and tell you whether it may be a scam.
Something feel off? Check it before you click.
Malwarebytes Scam Guard helps you analyze suspicious links, texts, and screenshots instantly.
Parcel delivery phishing campaigns appear around the world under different courier names. In the United States, the messages commonly impersonate USPS and claim that a package has an invalid address or could not be delivered. Similar messages impersonate Colissimo and Chronopost in France, Correos in Spain, Poste Italiane in Italy, and PostNL in the Netherlands.
The details vary, but the aim is usually the same: to persuade you to visit a fake courier website and provide personal and financial information.
A fake bpost delivery email
A recent campaign targeting customers of the Belgian postal service bpost begins with an email claiming that a package could not be delivered because €4.95 in customs duties has not been paid.
A phishing email, in Dutch, pretending to be from bpost.
In English, the subject and message read:
Undelivered package—customs duties due (tracking no. 3232116291*******).
Your package could not be delivered on September 9, 2026, because the customs duties (€4.95) have not been paid.
The amount is small enough that recipients may pay without giving it much thought. However, the website does not stop at collecting the supposed fee. It asks for personal information, card details, and banking information.
How the scam works
The link first passes through a URL-shortening service (hxxps://qr[.]paps[.]jp/1GWsa) before redirecting to a fake bpost site. The campaign used several fake bpost domains, including:
bpost[.]center, which is the domain shown in the screenshots below.
The page copies bpost’s branding and displays security claims such as “Secure SSL connection,” “256-bit SSL,” “SEPA compliant,” and “Secure payment.” These labels were added by the scammers and do not prove that the page or payment is secure.
We’ve translated the screenshots below from the original Dutch into English.
The first page asks for the recipient’s name, phone number, email address, and age:
That reference to receiving funds does not match the email’s claim that a customs fee must be paid. The next page asks for an IBAN, card number, expiry date, and payment amount:
Then it asks for the real target: full card and bank details.
The original Dutch version contained another mistake: One of its buttons read “Indian search” instead of “Betaal,” the Dutch word for “Pay.” Mistakes like this can expose a scam, but many phishing pages are built carefully enough that there will be no obvious typo or mistranslation.
Once submitted, card details may be used for fraudulent purchases or sold to other criminals. The personal and banking information may also be used to make later scams more convincing.
How to protect yourself
Check delivery claims independently. Open the courier’s official app or type its website address into your browser, then use your tracking number to check the delivery.
Check the sender and destination. A message may use a courier’s name while coming from an unrelated email address or linking to a different domain.
Be wary of unexpected fees or refunds. A small payment or promised refund can be used to persuade you to provide much more valuable information.
Be wary of requests for extensive financial information. A request for an IBAN as well as card details should be treated with suspicion, particularly when it supposedly relates to a small delivery fee.
If you entered your card or banking information on a suspicious site, contact your bank or card provider immediately. Freeze the affected card if your banking app allows it, monitor your accounts for unfamiliar transactions, and change any password you entered on the site.
Malwarebytes tracks and blocks these campaigns as they appear. If you’re unsure about a message, Scam Guard—built into Malwarebytes for Windows, Mac, Android, and iOS—can check it for you. Paste in the message or link, or upload a screenshot, for an instant assessment.
Scam Guard can analyze a suspicious email, text, link, or screenshot and tell you whether it may be a scam.
Something feel off? Check it before you click.
Malwarebytes Scam Guard helps you analyze suspicious links, texts, and screenshots instantly.
Only days after Revolut acknowledged that it disclosed sensitive customer records to an unauthorized party, affected customers are receiving phishing texts. However, we don’t know yet if the phishing texts are linked to the breach.
Through this social engineering attack, rather than by gaining access to Revolut’s systems, the criminals obtained the following types of information about customers:
Identity and contact information such as dates of birth, postal addresses, email addresses, and phone numbers
Copies of IDs such as passports and driver’s licenses
Verification selfies
Account statements and transaction histories
Revolut has said only that a “limited” or “very limited” number of customers were affected, and that it contacted them directly.
One affected customer received a phishing text on Monday, September 14, two days after Revolut publicly acknowledged the data breach. The message appeared in the same conversation as other Revolut texts, making it look as though it had come from the bank.
Phishing text to a Revolut customer
According to VirusTotal, the phishing domain was first scanned that same day.
In a separate example, another customer said that opening the link took them to a web page that requested access to their device’s camera. If you tap Allow, the page reportedly imitates Revolut’s live-video “turn your head” identity check before prompting you to enter a password.
This makes the phishing page appear more authentic. It may also allow the scammers to collect a selfie or video that could be used for further social engineering, identity fraud, or to make subsequent scams more convincing.
A convincing fake liveness check followed by a password screen is a common way to lower suspicion and obtain the information attackers need to attempt a real login or account-recovery flow.
If the campaign is connected to the breach, the information obtained from Revolut, combined with login details entered by victims or their approval of a login request, could be enough to take over their accounts.
How to stay safe
We don’t yet know whether the phishing campaign is using data exposed in the breach or whether unrelated scammers are exploiting news of the incident to target Revolut customers more broadly.
Either way, treat unexpected messages about your account with caution:
Don’t follow links in unsolicited messages. If a message concerns your account, open the official Revolut app directly.
Check the actual domain in your browser’s address bar to see if it corresponds with what you expect.
Use an up-to-date, real-time anti-malware solution on your device, preferably with a web protection component.
Malwarebytes Scam Guard can help you determine whether a message is a scam and advise you on what to do next.
Stop threats before they can do any harm.
Malwarebytes Browser Guard blocks phishing pages and malicious sites automatically. Free, one click to install. Add it to your browser →
Only days after Revolut acknowledged that it disclosed sensitive customer records to an unauthorized party, affected customers are receiving phishing texts. However, we don’t know yet if the phishing texts are linked to the breach.
Through this social engineering attack, rather than by gaining access to Revolut’s systems, the criminals obtained the following types of information about customers:
Identity and contact information such as dates of birth, postal addresses, email addresses, and phone numbers
Copies of IDs such as passports and driver’s licenses
Verification selfies
Account statements and transaction histories
Revolut has said only that a “limited” or “very limited” number of customers were affected, and that it contacted them directly.
One affected customer received a phishing text on Monday, September 14, two days after Revolut publicly acknowledged the data breach. The message appeared in the same conversation as other Revolut texts, making it look as though it had come from the bank.
Phishing text to a Revolut customer
According to VirusTotal, the phishing domain was first scanned that same day.
In a separate example, another customer said that opening the link took them to a web page that requested access to their device’s camera. If you tap Allow, the page reportedly imitates Revolut’s live-video “turn your head” identity check before prompting you to enter a password.
This makes the phishing page appear more authentic. It may also allow the scammers to collect a selfie or video that could be used for further social engineering, identity fraud, or to make subsequent scams more convincing.
A convincing fake liveness check followed by a password screen is a common way to lower suspicion and obtain the information attackers need to attempt a real login or account-recovery flow.
If the campaign is connected to the breach, the information obtained from Revolut, combined with login details entered by victims or their approval of a login request, could be enough to take over their accounts.
How to stay safe
We don’t yet know whether the phishing campaign is using data exposed in the breach or whether unrelated scammers are exploiting news of the incident to target Revolut customers more broadly.
Either way, treat unexpected messages about your account with caution:
Don’t follow links in unsolicited messages. If a message concerns your account, open the official Revolut app directly.
Check the actual domain in your browser’s address bar to see if it corresponds with what you expect.
Use an up-to-date, real-time anti-malware solution on your device, preferably with a web protection component.
Malwarebytes Scam Guard can help you determine whether a message is a scam and advise you on what to do next.
Stop threats before they can do any harm.
Malwarebytes Browser Guard blocks phishing pages and malicious sites automatically. Free, one click to install. Add it to your browser →
Since early May 2026, we’ve been monitoring a large phishing campaign based on T-Mobile rewards points.
The messages falsely warn that a customer’s rewards points are about to expire. They aren’t legitimate account notices: They use urgency, invented point balances, and phishing links to push recipients into acting before they can verify the claim.
A typical message says that a T-Mobile Rewards account holds 18,400 points, gives an imminent expiry date, and states that unused points will be removed under the program’s terms. These details make the message look as though it was written specifically for the recipient, even though it was sent to many people.
“T-Mobile Rewards Points Reminder: Your Points Are About to Expire
Dear Customer,
We are hereby reminding you that your T-Mobile Rewards account points are about to expire. You currently have 18,400 points, which will expire on June 4, 2026, if unused.
Your Points Overview:
Current Balance: 18,400 Points
Expiry Date: {today or tomorrow}
Points will not be recovered after this date.
Redeem Points:
Visit:
https://t-mobile.{rotating domains}.top/pay
Use the T-Mobile App: Account > Rewards & Benefits
Our points expiry policy aims to ensure the fairness of the program and encourage active participation. Please don’t let these valuable points go to waste.
Thank you for choosing T-Mobile.
Customer Service Team”
This phishing operation does not rely on a single, identical SMS. We found more than 1,000 closely related campaign templates with a semantic similarity score of at least 0.60. The 199 closest matches all scored at least 0.95.
This means the variations only change superficial elements, such as the salutation, headline, expiry date, point balance, and whether the message is called a “reminder,” “alert,” or “important update.” The central story remains the same: T-Mobile rewards points are supposedly expiring, and the recipient must follow a link to redeem them as soon as possible.
The messages use formal but generic language, such as “Dear T-Mobile Customer,” “Dear Valued Customer,” or “T-Mobile User,” rather than naming the recipient or providing verifiable account information.
Detection events for the T-Mobile rewards phishing campaign
The campaign began slowly before producing two huge spikes in activity. The green line shows detections of message variants seen previously, while the red line shows messages detected on the first day that particular variant appeared. We’re still seeing messages from the campaign, although activity has fallen considerably since those spikes.
The scam relies on a familiar social engineering formula: a valuable-looking reward, a deadline, and a simple action that supposedly protects the customer from losing out. A recipient who has a T-Mobile account may click first and question the message later.
The links use rotating domains designed to look as though they belong to T-Mobile. Their purpose is to persuade recipients to follow the link to supposedly redeem their points. Do not enter login credentials, personal information, payment details, or verification codes after following a link in an unsolicited message.
How to stay safe
The anonymized data used in this analysis was gathered through Text Protection in Malwarebytes Mobile Security, which alerts users to potentially malicious or scam text messages.
You can also reduce your risk by following these tips:
Don’t follow links in unsolicited messages. Instead, open the alleged sender’s website or app independently and check for notifications there.
Check the domain in your browser’s address bar to make sure it matches the site you expected to visit.
Malwarebytes Scam Guard can help you determine whether a message is a scam and advise you on what to do next.
The URLs in this campaign are very short-lived. The criminals used at least 81 domains over four months, but the domains follow a recognizable pattern that is blocked in Malwarebytes Browser Guard.
IOCs
Example domains showing the pattern used by the campaign:
t-mobile.biktpw[.]top
t-mobile.cugbjl[.]top
t-mobile.cymfjd[.]top
t-mobile.gdikxv[.]top
t-mobile.hdzcnb[.]top
t-mobile.koxetp[.]top
t-mobile.nxdcfp[.]top
t-mobile.pkrbai[.]top
t-mobile.qfrhkt[.]top
t-mobile.qscizj[.]top
t-mobile.tmfncb[.]top
t-mobile.vmnqsu[.]top
Stop threats before they can do any harm.
Malwarebytes Browser Guard blocks phishing pages and malicious sites automatically. Free, one click to install. Add it to your browser →
Since early May 2026, we’ve been monitoring a large phishing campaign based on T-Mobile rewards points.
The messages falsely warn that a customer’s rewards points are about to expire. They aren’t legitimate account notices: They use urgency, invented point balances, and phishing links to push recipients into acting before they can verify the claim.
A typical message says that a T-Mobile Rewards account holds 18,400 points, gives an imminent expiry date, and states that unused points will be removed under the program’s terms. These details make the message look as though it was written specifically for the recipient, even though it was sent to many people.
“T-Mobile Rewards Points Reminder: Your Points Are About to Expire
Dear Customer,
We are hereby reminding you that your T-Mobile Rewards account points are about to expire. You currently have 18,400 points, which will expire on June 4, 2026, if unused.
Your Points Overview:
Current Balance: 18,400 Points
Expiry Date: {today or tomorrow}
Points will not be recovered after this date.
Redeem Points:
Visit:
https://t-mobile.{rotating domains}.top/pay
Use the T-Mobile App: Account > Rewards & Benefits
Our points expiry policy aims to ensure the fairness of the program and encourage active participation. Please don’t let these valuable points go to waste.
Thank you for choosing T-Mobile.
Customer Service Team”
This phishing operation does not rely on a single, identical SMS. We found more than 1,000 closely related campaign templates with a semantic similarity score of at least 0.60. The 199 closest matches all scored at least 0.95.
This means the variations only change superficial elements, such as the salutation, headline, expiry date, point balance, and whether the message is called a “reminder,” “alert,” or “important update.” The central story remains the same: T-Mobile rewards points are supposedly expiring, and the recipient must follow a link to redeem them as soon as possible.
The messages use formal but generic language, such as “Dear T-Mobile Customer,” “Dear Valued Customer,” or “T-Mobile User,” rather than naming the recipient or providing verifiable account information.
Detection events for the T-Mobile rewards phishing campaign
The campaign began slowly before producing two huge spikes in activity. The green line shows detections of message variants seen previously, while the red line shows messages detected on the first day that particular variant appeared. We’re still seeing messages from the campaign, although activity has fallen considerably since those spikes.
The scam relies on a familiar social engineering formula: a valuable-looking reward, a deadline, and a simple action that supposedly protects the customer from losing out. A recipient who has a T-Mobile account may click first and question the message later.
The links use rotating domains designed to look as though they belong to T-Mobile. Their purpose is to persuade recipients to follow the link to supposedly redeem their points. Do not enter login credentials, personal information, payment details, or verification codes after following a link in an unsolicited message.
How to stay safe
The anonymized data used in this analysis was gathered through Text Protection in Malwarebytes Mobile Security, which alerts users to potentially malicious or scam text messages.
You can also reduce your risk by following these tips:
Don’t follow links in unsolicited messages. Instead, open the alleged sender’s website or app independently and check for notifications there.
Check the domain in your browser’s address bar to make sure it matches the site you expected to visit.
Malwarebytes Scam Guard can help you determine whether a message is a scam and advise you on what to do next.
The URLs in this campaign are very short-lived. The criminals used at least 81 domains over four months, but the domains follow a recognizable pattern that is blocked in Malwarebytes Browser Guard.
IOCs
Example domains showing the pattern used by the campaign:
t-mobile.biktpw[.]top
t-mobile.cugbjl[.]top
t-mobile.cymfjd[.]top
t-mobile.gdikxv[.]top
t-mobile.hdzcnb[.]top
t-mobile.koxetp[.]top
t-mobile.nxdcfp[.]top
t-mobile.pkrbai[.]top
t-mobile.qfrhkt[.]top
t-mobile.qscizj[.]top
t-mobile.tmfncb[.]top
t-mobile.vmnqsu[.]top
Stop threats before they can do any harm.
Malwarebytes Browser Guard blocks phishing pages and malicious sites automatically. Free, one click to install. Add it to your browser →
Antivirus renewal scams often begin with a message claiming that your subscription has automatically renewed. When you follow the instructions to cancel it, you are taken to a fake page designed to collect your contact details. The renewal charge never existed.
Receiving a message that names the antivirus software you use does not necessarily mean the sender has access to your device or account. Scammers impersonate popular brands and send the same message to large numbers of people, knowing that some recipients will be customers.
As we’ve reported before, simply responding to a scam message can make your contact details more valuable because it confirms that your number is active and that you are willing to engage. Filling in this form gives scammers even more: your name, email address, phone number, and an indication that you may respond to a call about a supposed antivirus payment.
Those details can be sold to other scammers or used for the next stage of the scam: a phone call from someone who tries to persuade you to install remote access software or help them reverse a payment that never happened.
A closer look at a fake Avast site
During our scam-hunting activity, we saw one renewal scam site impersonating Avast, aimed at users in Belgium. It was noticeably more polished than most scam sites and contained several signs that it had been produced with the help of AI.
The page tells you that your Avast Premium Security subscription has renewed for €129.99, that it covers five devices, and that it will renew again the following February. There is a green tick, a status badge reading Active, and a tidy summary table laying out the amount, the payment method, and the dates.
None of it is real. There is no subscription and no charge, and the page has no connection to Avast, whose branding is being used without permission.
The page is written in French for a Belgian audience. The screenshots below have been machine-translated into English so the layout and wording are easier for you to follow.
Alongside the renewal summary is the part the scammers actually care about. A cancellation form asks for your full name, email address, and Belgian mobile number, but nothing else.
There is no password field or request for card details, which may be deliberate. A form asking only for a name, email address, and phone number can feel harmless and is far easier to fill in than a login page. A working mobile number attached to a real name is exactly what a scammer needs for the next stage: calling the victim and posing as support staff. The form is the lure, and the call is where the real danger begins.
The signs of AI involvement
The page was left with two notes in its code that were never meant for victims. Both were written in polite French and addressed to whoever had commissioned the work, explaining that the form did not yet send anything anywhere and that a real submission process would need to be connected later.
They read like a contractor handing over an unfinished job rather than a scammer leaving themselves a reminder, and that courteous, second-person summary of what still needs doing is very much how an AI assistant signs off.
Other clues are also consistent with AI-generated code. The code contained unused styling for a section that had been removed, suggesting that the page had been created in stages without a final review. The copy was grammatically correct but vague. It described the benefits of the subscription across four paragraphs without mentioning any specific Avast features, such as its firewall, VPN, or ransomware protection.
Taken together, these signs suggest that the page was built with the help of AI. Generated code carries no watermark, so that cannot be proven from the files alone.
The page was never finished
As the comments in the code explain, the form on this page sent nothing at all. Someone built a convincing fake, got the difficult parts right, and then stopped before connecting the piece that actually sends the data anywhere.
Other signs in the code suggest nobody had even opened the page in a browser to check it, since two pieces of text would have displayed as visible gibberish if they had. What we were looking at was most likely half-built, or possibly a template waiting to be sold on to someone who would add a destination for the stolen details.
Building a page like this used to take a certain amount of skill, which limited how many of them could be made. AI has lowered that barrier. Whoever made this could ask for a version in Dutch or German, or one aimed at an entirely different brand, and have it within minutes.
How to spot an antivirus renewal scam
The old advice was to look for mistakes: bad grammar, the wrong currency, a clumsy layout, or a stretched logo. That advice is less useful now because AI can produce fluent copy and polished layouts, while scammers can easily copy real logos. A page that looks professional is no longer evidence that it is genuine.
But the structure of the scam hasn’t changed. It still needs you to arrive somewhere unexpected, worry about losing money, and provide a way to contact you. Judge the situation rather than the appearance of the page.
Check whether you were charged. If the message says a payment has already been taken, check your bank or card statement directly. If the payment is not there, there is nothing to cancel.
Check the subscription through the official app or website. Don’t click the link in the message. Open the company’s app or website independently and sign in. Your account will show whether you have an active subscription and when your next payment is due.
Be wary of a cancellation form that mainly wants your phone number. Legitimate cancellations usually happen inside your account, and a company you already pay knows how to reach you.
Treat the follow-up call as the real danger. If you have filled in a form like this, you may receive a scam call next. You are under no obligation to answer or engage.
Don’t install remote access software for someone who called you. It gives them control of your device and could put your accounts, passwords, and money at risk.
If you have already been on a call and installed something, disconnect the device from the internet, remove the software they asked you to install, and change your passwords from a different device. If you sent money or shared card details, contact your bank straight away.
Block and check suspected scams
The best protection is to stop scam pages before they open. Malwarebytes Browser Guard is a free extension for Chrome, Edge, Firefox, and Safari that blocks malicious websites, phishing attempts, and scam ads before they can do any harm.
Not sure whether something is a scam? Share a screenshot, message, phone number, or link with Scam Guard. It checks it in seconds and recommends what to do next. Scam Guard is built into Malwarebytes Premium Security for Windows, Mac, iOS, and Android.
If you received a call after filling in a form like this, enter the number into Malwarebytes Scam Number Check to see whether it has been linked to scam activity.
“One of the best cybersecurity suites on the planet.”
Antivirus renewal scams often begin with a message claiming that your subscription has automatically renewed. When you follow the instructions to cancel it, you are taken to a fake page designed to collect your contact details. The renewal charge never existed.
Receiving a message that names the antivirus software you use does not necessarily mean the sender has access to your device or account. Scammers impersonate popular brands and send the same message to large numbers of people, knowing that some recipients will be customers.
As we’ve reported before, simply responding to a scam message can make your contact details more valuable because it confirms that your number is active and that you are willing to engage. Filling in this form gives scammers even more: your name, email address, phone number, and an indication that you may respond to a call about a supposed antivirus payment.
Those details can be sold to other scammers or used for the next stage of the scam: a phone call from someone who tries to persuade you to install remote access software or help them reverse a payment that never happened.
A closer look at a fake Avast site
During our scam-hunting activity, we saw one renewal scam site impersonating Avast, aimed at users in Belgium. It was noticeably more polished than most scam sites and contained several signs that it had been produced with the help of AI.
The page tells you that your Avast Premium Security subscription has renewed for €129.99, that it covers five devices, and that it will renew again the following February. There is a green tick, a status badge reading Active, and a tidy summary table laying out the amount, the payment method, and the dates.
None of it is real. There is no subscription and no charge, and the page has no connection to Avast, whose branding is being used without permission.
The page is written in French for a Belgian audience. The screenshots below have been machine-translated into English so the layout and wording are easier for you to follow.
Alongside the renewal summary is the part the scammers actually care about. A cancellation form asks for your full name, email address, and Belgian mobile number, but nothing else.
There is no password field or request for card details, which may be deliberate. A form asking only for a name, email address, and phone number can feel harmless and is far easier to fill in than a login page. A working mobile number attached to a real name is exactly what a scammer needs for the next stage: calling the victim and posing as support staff. The form is the lure, and the call is where the real danger begins.
The signs of AI involvement
The page was left with two notes in its code that were never meant for victims. Both were written in polite French and addressed to whoever had commissioned the work, explaining that the form did not yet send anything anywhere and that a real submission process would need to be connected later.
They read like a contractor handing over an unfinished job rather than a scammer leaving themselves a reminder, and that courteous, second-person summary of what still needs doing is very much how an AI assistant signs off.
Other clues are also consistent with AI-generated code. The code contained unused styling for a section that had been removed, suggesting that the page had been created in stages without a final review. The copy was grammatically correct but vague. It described the benefits of the subscription across four paragraphs without mentioning any specific Avast features, such as its firewall, VPN, or ransomware protection.
Taken together, these signs suggest that the page was built with the help of AI. Generated code carries no watermark, so that cannot be proven from the files alone.
The page was never finished
As the comments in the code explain, the form on this page sent nothing at all. Someone built a convincing fake, got the difficult parts right, and then stopped before connecting the piece that actually sends the data anywhere.
Other signs in the code suggest nobody had even opened the page in a browser to check it, since two pieces of text would have displayed as visible gibberish if they had. What we were looking at was most likely half-built, or possibly a template waiting to be sold on to someone who would add a destination for the stolen details.
Building a page like this used to take a certain amount of skill, which limited how many of them could be made. AI has lowered that barrier. Whoever made this could ask for a version in Dutch or German, or one aimed at an entirely different brand, and have it within minutes.
How to spot an antivirus renewal scam
The old advice was to look for mistakes: bad grammar, the wrong currency, a clumsy layout, or a stretched logo. That advice is less useful now because AI can produce fluent copy and polished layouts, while scammers can easily copy real logos. A page that looks professional is no longer evidence that it is genuine.
But the structure of the scam hasn’t changed. It still needs you to arrive somewhere unexpected, worry about losing money, and provide a way to contact you. Judge the situation rather than the appearance of the page.
Check whether you were charged. If the message says a payment has already been taken, check your bank or card statement directly. If the payment is not there, there is nothing to cancel.
Check the subscription through the official app or website. Don’t click the link in the message. Open the company’s app or website independently and sign in. Your account will show whether you have an active subscription and when your next payment is due.
Be wary of a cancellation form that mainly wants your phone number. Legitimate cancellations usually happen inside your account, and a company you already pay knows how to reach you.
Treat the follow-up call as the real danger. If you have filled in a form like this, you may receive a scam call next. You are under no obligation to answer or engage.
Don’t install remote access software for someone who called you. It gives them control of your device and could put your accounts, passwords, and money at risk.
If you have already been on a call and installed something, disconnect the device from the internet, remove the software they asked you to install, and change your passwords from a different device. If you sent money or shared card details, contact your bank straight away.
Block and check suspected scams
The best protection is to stop scam pages before they open. Malwarebytes Browser Guard is a free extension for Chrome, Edge, Firefox, and Safari that blocks malicious websites, phishing attempts, and scam ads before they can do any harm.
Not sure whether something is a scam? Share a screenshot, message, phone number, or link with Scam Guard. It checks it in seconds and recommends what to do next. Scam Guard is built into Malwarebytes Premium Security for Windows, Mac, iOS, and Android.
If you received a call after filling in a form like this, enter the number into Malwarebytes Scam Number Check to see whether it has been linked to scam activity.
“One of the best cybersecurity suites on the planet.”
Bitrefill is a legitimate company that sells gift cards for popular stores like Amazon, Deliveroo, Apple, Nintendo, and thousands of others. They also sell eSIMs, and mobile top-ups. You can pay on their website for all of these with cryptocurrency.
The scam is designed to catch people searching for Bitrefill or something it sells, like a gift card. Victims see a search result that appears to lead to Bitrefill but actually points to a lookalike domain. The fake site then takes them through what appears to be a normal purchase. The fake sites are not operated by or affiliated with Bitrefill; scammers have copied its branding and checkout process.
The victim chooses an amount and a cryptocurrency before receiving a QR code and payment address. But instead of paying Bitrefill, they send the cryptocurrency directly to an address controlled by the scammers. They receive nothing in return, and recovering the payment is extremely unlikely.
Why fake crypto checkouts work so well
Phishing typically involves several steps. First, an attacker has to steal a password. Then, they may have to get past two-factor authentication (2FA), log in to the account without tripping a fraud check, and find some way to turn account access into money. Plenty of scams fall apart somewhere in that chain.
This payment scam avoids those hurdles by persuading victims to send money directly to the scammers. There is no account to break into and no stolen card to use. The victim sends cryptocurrency straight to an address the scammers control, and cryptocurrency payments generally cannot be reversed or charged back.
The payment request also fits the situation. A demand for cryptocurrency might look suspicious on many websites, but Bitrefill genuinely accepts it. On a convincing copy of its checkout, paying with cryptocurrency appears completely normal.
All this may explain why we found a cluster of fake sites rather than a single page, with checkouts allowing payments of up to $1,990.
What the fake checkout looks like
The site we examined is a close copy of Bitrefill’s checkout, hosted on a domain built by bolting a word onto the brand name. Everything a customer would expect is present. The branding is right, the layout matches, the page is quick and polished, and the payment flow behaves exactly the way the real one does.
The fake checkout asks for an email address and links to terms of service and a privacy policy, helping it look legitimate.
You’re asked for an email address for order updates, with links to terms of service and a privacy policy. You then choose how to pay, from a list offering Bitcoin, Ethereum, USDC, USDT, Solana, and Litecoin. The site also offers card payments for a small surcharge.
The fake checkout offers several cryptocurrencies and appears to support card payments.
Next, you pick an amount, with preset buttons and a maximum of $1,990, although inconsistent currency symbols offer a small clue that something is wrong.
The fake checkout accepts payments of up to $1,990.
Finally, you reach a payment screen showing a QR code, an address marked for one-time use, the amount converted into your chosen cryptocurrency, and a countdown clock giving you just under an hour to send the funds.
The final screen provides a cryptocurrency address and QR code, along with a countdown timer .
None of those elements is a red flag on its own. Unique addresses, expiry timers, and currency conversion are all normal for crypto checkouts, which is exactly why the copy is convincing. Every pressure cue on the page is borrowed from legitimate payment systems.
The only meaningful difference is the address the money goes to, and by the time the victim sends the cryptocurrency, getting it back is extremely unlikely.
How people are reaching these pages
The distribution here does not appear to rely on email. Bitrefill has said publicly that sites copying its checkout and using similar names have been turning up in search engine results, and that its security team has been working with takedown specialists to have them removed.
The site’s configuration supports that. The fake checkout hands visitors back to a second domain in the same family, and the link it uses carries a parameter naming a search engine, suggesting the operators are tagging incoming traffic by where it came from.
There’s a detail here that deserves more attention than it usually gets. The fake checkout has commercial analytics software installed on it, the same kind of product a legitimate e-commerce team uses to measure how many visitors abandon a cart. Its presence suggests the operators want to measure and improve the number of visitors who complete a payment.
These campaigns are not opportunistic one-offs thrown together by someone hoping for a lucky hit. They’re run as businesses, measured and tuned like any other funnel, with the victim in the role of the customer.
A brand name is not a destination
The domains in this cluster use several tricks to make their addresses look convincing. Some swap one letter for a visually similar character, making the brand appear correct unless you look closely. Others add a plausible word such as pay or gift, producing addresses that resemble official payment sites. Some do both.
Several use internationalized domain names, which can contain characters from different alphabets or accented versions of Latin letters. Browsers translate these domains into an ASCII format beginning with xn--, known as Punycode. To the eye, the displayed versions can be almost indistinguishable from the genuine name.
Different domain names display as variations of “Bitrefill,” while their Punycode versions begin with xn--.
The answer is not simply to become better at spotting tiny differences. These domains are designed to defeat visual inspection, and they can be especially difficult to recognize on a phone screen. Recognizing a company name somewhere in a web address does not tell you who owns it.
Remember, seeing the right company name in a URL is not enough. Check that the actual domain is exactly the one the company uses.
What to do
Start at the website you already trust. Use a saved bookmark or carefully enter bitrefill.com yourself. If you are already making a purchase on the legitimate site, stay within that session instead of opening a checkout page from a separate search.
Treat search results for payment and checkout pages with suspicion. Scammers can buy search ads or manipulate their sites into appearing prominently. The first result is not necessarily the safest one.
Check the address bar before you send. Cryptocurrency payments generally cannot be reversed or charged back. Confirm that the main domain is exactly bitrefill.com before approving a payment.
Be wary of domains containing a brand followed by an extra word. A legitimate subdomain would place the additional wording before the company’s main domain, as in pay.example.com. An address such as example-pay.com is a completely separate domain that anyone could register.
Don’t approve wallet requests on a site you have not verified. Simply connecting a wallet does not normally transfer funds, but a fraudulent site may ask you to sign a transaction or grant token permissions that allow assets to be stolen.
If you have already sent funds, act quickly, although recovery is unlikely. Report the destination address to the exchange or wallet provider you used, report the incident to your national fraud reporting service, and notify Bitrefill so it can add the domain to its takedown efforts. Recovery services that promise to retrieve stolen cryptocurrency for an upfront fee are often follow-up scams.
Check before you click
The simplest protection against a page like this is to avoid reaching it. Malwarebytes Browser Guard is a free browser extension that blocks known scam and phishing sites, along with malicious ads and search results that lead to them.
Got a screenshot or URL of a suspected scam? Upload it to Scam Guard—built into Malwarebytes Premium Security on Windows, Mac, iOS, and Android—and you’ll get a verdict and safety tips in seconds.
Indicators of compromise (IOCs)
Domains:
biterflll[.]com
bitigift[.]com
bitrefall[.]com
bitrefill-payments[.]com
bitrefill-pays[.]com
bitregift[.]com
bitregill[.]com
bitretill[.]com
bitrgift[.]com
bitrgifts[.]com
bitrnfill[.]com
bitruflli[.]com
butrefill[.]com
pay-bitregill[.]com
pay-bitrgift[.]com
pay-bitrgifts[.]com
pay-butrefill[.]com
pay-bitigift[.]com
xn--bitrefll-71a[.]com
xn--bitrefll-h2a[.]com
xn--bitrefll-pay-kfb[.]com
xn--bitrefll-pay-xfb[.]com
xn--bitrefll-q2a[.]com
xn--bitreill-cz9c[.]com
xn--bitreill-pay-yq4f[.]com
xn--btrefill-l2a[.]com
xn--pay-bitrefll-fgb[.]com
Stop threats before they can do any harm.
Malwarebytes Browser Guard blocks phishing pages and malicious sites automatically. Free, one click to install. Add it to your browser →
Bitrefill is a legitimate company that sells gift cards for popular stores like Amazon, Deliveroo, Apple, Nintendo, and thousands of others. They also sell eSIMs, and mobile top-ups. You can pay on their website for all of these with cryptocurrency.
The scam is designed to catch people searching for Bitrefill or something it sells, like a gift card. Victims see a search result that appears to lead to Bitrefill but actually points to a lookalike domain. The fake site then takes them through what appears to be a normal purchase. The fake sites are not operated by or affiliated with Bitrefill; scammers have copied its branding and checkout process.
The victim chooses an amount and a cryptocurrency before receiving a QR code and payment address. But instead of paying Bitrefill, they send the cryptocurrency directly to an address controlled by the scammers. They receive nothing in return, and recovering the payment is extremely unlikely.
Why fake crypto checkouts work so well
Phishing typically involves several steps. First, an attacker has to steal a password. Then, they may have to get past two-factor authentication (2FA), log in to the account without tripping a fraud check, and find some way to turn account access into money. Plenty of scams fall apart somewhere in that chain.
This payment scam avoids those hurdles by persuading victims to send money directly to the scammers. There is no account to break into and no stolen card to use. The victim sends cryptocurrency straight to an address the scammers control, and cryptocurrency payments generally cannot be reversed or charged back.
The payment request also fits the situation. A demand for cryptocurrency might look suspicious on many websites, but Bitrefill genuinely accepts it. On a convincing copy of its checkout, paying with cryptocurrency appears completely normal.
All this may explain why we found a cluster of fake sites rather than a single page, with checkouts allowing payments of up to $1,990.
What the fake checkout looks like
The site we examined is a close copy of Bitrefill’s checkout, hosted on a domain built by bolting a word onto the brand name. Everything a customer would expect is present. The branding is right, the layout matches, the page is quick and polished, and the payment flow behaves exactly the way the real one does.
The fake checkout asks for an email address and links to terms of service and a privacy policy, helping it look legitimate.
You’re asked for an email address for order updates, with links to terms of service and a privacy policy. You then choose how to pay, from a list offering Bitcoin, Ethereum, USDC, USDT, Solana, and Litecoin. The site also offers card payments for a small surcharge.
The fake checkout offers several cryptocurrencies and appears to support card payments.
Next, you pick an amount, with preset buttons and a maximum of $1,990, although inconsistent currency symbols offer a small clue that something is wrong.
The fake checkout accepts payments of up to $1,990.
Finally, you reach a payment screen showing a QR code, an address marked for one-time use, the amount converted into your chosen cryptocurrency, and a countdown clock giving you just under an hour to send the funds.
The final screen provides a cryptocurrency address and QR code, along with a countdown timer .
None of those elements is a red flag on its own. Unique addresses, expiry timers, and currency conversion are all normal for crypto checkouts, which is exactly why the copy is convincing. Every pressure cue on the page is borrowed from legitimate payment systems.
The only meaningful difference is the address the money goes to, and by the time the victim sends the cryptocurrency, getting it back is extremely unlikely.
How people are reaching these pages
The distribution here does not appear to rely on email. Bitrefill has said publicly that sites copying its checkout and using similar names have been turning up in search engine results, and that its security team has been working with takedown specialists to have them removed.
The site’s configuration supports that. The fake checkout hands visitors back to a second domain in the same family, and the link it uses carries a parameter naming a search engine, suggesting the operators are tagging incoming traffic by where it came from.
There’s a detail here that deserves more attention than it usually gets. The fake checkout has commercial analytics software installed on it, the same kind of product a legitimate e-commerce team uses to measure how many visitors abandon a cart. Its presence suggests the operators want to measure and improve the number of visitors who complete a payment.
These campaigns are not opportunistic one-offs thrown together by someone hoping for a lucky hit. They’re run as businesses, measured and tuned like any other funnel, with the victim in the role of the customer.
A brand name is not a destination
The domains in this cluster use several tricks to make their addresses look convincing. Some swap one letter for a visually similar character, making the brand appear correct unless you look closely. Others add a plausible word such as pay or gift, producing addresses that resemble official payment sites. Some do both.
Several use internationalized domain names, which can contain characters from different alphabets or accented versions of Latin letters. Browsers translate these domains into an ASCII format beginning with xn--, known as Punycode. To the eye, the displayed versions can be almost indistinguishable from the genuine name.
Different domain names display as variations of “Bitrefill,” while their Punycode versions begin with xn--.
The answer is not simply to become better at spotting tiny differences. These domains are designed to defeat visual inspection, and they can be especially difficult to recognize on a phone screen. Recognizing a company name somewhere in a web address does not tell you who owns it.
Remember, seeing the right company name in a URL is not enough. Check that the actual domain is exactly the one the company uses.
What to do
Start at the website you already trust. Use a saved bookmark or carefully enter bitrefill.com yourself. If you are already making a purchase on the legitimate site, stay within that session instead of opening a checkout page from a separate search.
Treat search results for payment and checkout pages with suspicion. Scammers can buy search ads or manipulate their sites into appearing prominently. The first result is not necessarily the safest one.
Check the address bar before you send. Cryptocurrency payments generally cannot be reversed or charged back. Confirm that the main domain is exactly bitrefill.com before approving a payment.
Be wary of domains containing a brand followed by an extra word. A legitimate subdomain would place the additional wording before the company’s main domain, as in pay.example.com. An address such as example-pay.com is a completely separate domain that anyone could register.
Don’t approve wallet requests on a site you have not verified. Simply connecting a wallet does not normally transfer funds, but a fraudulent site may ask you to sign a transaction or grant token permissions that allow assets to be stolen.
If you have already sent funds, act quickly, although recovery is unlikely. Report the destination address to the exchange or wallet provider you used, report the incident to your national fraud reporting service, and notify Bitrefill so it can add the domain to its takedown efforts. Recovery services that promise to retrieve stolen cryptocurrency for an upfront fee are often follow-up scams.
Check before you click
The simplest protection against a page like this is to avoid reaching it. Malwarebytes Browser Guard is a free browser extension that blocks known scam and phishing sites, along with malicious ads and search results that lead to them.
Got a screenshot or URL of a suspected scam? Upload it to Scam Guard—built into Malwarebytes Premium Security on Windows, Mac, iOS, and Android—and you’ll get a verdict and safety tips in seconds.
Indicators of compromise (IOCs)
Domains:
biterflll[.]com
bitigift[.]com
bitrefall[.]com
bitrefill-payments[.]com
bitrefill-pays[.]com
bitregift[.]com
bitregill[.]com
bitretill[.]com
bitrgift[.]com
bitrgifts[.]com
bitrnfill[.]com
bitruflli[.]com
butrefill[.]com
pay-bitregill[.]com
pay-bitrgift[.]com
pay-bitrgifts[.]com
pay-butrefill[.]com
pay-bitigift[.]com
xn--bitrefll-71a[.]com
xn--bitrefll-h2a[.]com
xn--bitrefll-pay-kfb[.]com
xn--bitrefll-pay-xfb[.]com
xn--bitrefll-q2a[.]com
xn--bitreill-cz9c[.]com
xn--bitreill-pay-yq4f[.]com
xn--btrefill-l2a[.]com
xn--pay-bitrefll-fgb[.]com
Stop threats before they can do any harm.
Malwarebytes Browser Guard blocks phishing pages and malicious sites automatically. Free, one click to install. Add it to your browser →
An attacker breached an email marketing platform and launched targeted attacks against the newsletter subscribers of some of its customers, especially those working in cryptocurrency and adjacent fields.
The incident was a supply-chain phishing campaign carried out through Brevo, an email marketing provider used by several cryptocurrency companies and other firms.
Brevo initially said an attacker had gained access to 120 customer accounts, some of which were used to send phishing emails to the customers’ contact lists.
Brevo later said 138 customer accounts had been accessed in its postmortem:
“On September 10th at 6:30 AM UTC we identified a security issue where an attacker exploited a flaw in the way Brevo handles SAML SSO to gain access to 138 Brevo accounts. 6 of those accounts were used to send phishing emails to the contacts stored there, and for 43 accounts they exported the contacts. 93 accounts have no meaningful activity.”
According to reports, popular cryptocurrency companies Trezor, CoinTracking, and BitBox confirmed that phishing emails were sent to customers subscribed to their newsletters. Trezor warned its roughly 347,000 newsletter subscribers that a security incident at a third-party provider had resulted in a massive phishing campaign.
Trezor makes hardware wallets that store cryptocurrency private keys offline. Its customers received a phishing email titled “Critical Security Alert: STM32 Entropy Bug Identified.”
The subtitle read: “Urgent update regarding hardware microcontroller vulnerability.”
The email said:
“Dear customer,
We have some difficult news to share. Unfortunately, our engineering team has identified a critical hardware-level vulnerability in the STM32 microcontrollers used in a range of Trezor devices.
Currently we believe the majority of defective devices were initialized prior to 2023, however some newer devices also may be vulnerable. The bug is a hardware factory defect present in an estimated 1 in 4 devices.
The vulnerability results in:
Insufficient randomness in recovery phrase generation
Exposure of seeds to brute-force cracking
Seeds with as little as 40 bits of entropy”
That phishing email also contained a link that prompted recipients to download an app and enter their wallet backup.
CoinTracking said the attackers sent its customers an email titled “Data Breach Notice: Please refresh API Keys as soon as possible,” which also contained a malicious link.
Because the emails came from legitimate company domains and looked convincing, some recipients may have fallen for them. The exact number is not currently known.
How to stay safe
It can be difficult to recognize a phishing email when it comes from a legitimate company domain and looks convincing. But there are a few things to keep in mind:
If a company emails you about an urgent security problem, check its official website or app for confirmation.
Do not install apps through links in unsolicited emails, no matter how urgent the message claims to be.
Never enter your recovery phrase anywhere other than on your physical device.
Reputable companies will not ask for recovery phrases, API keys, or login details by email.
Use Malwarebytes Scam Guard to check whether a message might be a scam and get guidance on what to do next.
Keep an eye out for further information about other Brevo customers that have been affected. The attackers exported contacts from 43 accounts, which could be used in future targeted phishing attacks.
What to do if you followed the link
Trezor advises moving your funds to a new wallet if you entered your wallet backup in any form. If you followed a link in a similar email from another provider, contact that company directly for advice.
Something feel off? Check it before you click.
Malwarebytes Scam Guard helps you analyze suspicious links, texts, and screenshots instantly.
An attacker breached an email marketing platform and launched targeted attacks against the newsletter subscribers of some of its customers, especially those working in cryptocurrency and adjacent fields.
The incident was a supply-chain phishing campaign carried out through Brevo, an email marketing provider used by several cryptocurrency companies and other firms.
Brevo initially said an attacker had gained access to 120 customer accounts, some of which were used to send phishing emails to the customers’ contact lists.
Brevo later said 138 customer accounts had been accessed in its postmortem:
“On September 10th at 6:30 AM UTC we identified a security issue where an attacker exploited a flaw in the way Brevo handles SAML SSO to gain access to 138 Brevo accounts. 6 of those accounts were used to send phishing emails to the contacts stored there, and for 43 accounts they exported the contacts. 93 accounts have no meaningful activity.”
According to reports, popular cryptocurrency companies Trezor, CoinTracking, and BitBox confirmed that phishing emails were sent to customers subscribed to their newsletters. Trezor warned its roughly 347,000 newsletter subscribers that a security incident at a third-party provider had resulted in a massive phishing campaign.
Trezor makes hardware wallets that store cryptocurrency private keys offline. Its customers received a phishing email titled “Critical Security Alert: STM32 Entropy Bug Identified.”
The subtitle read: “Urgent update regarding hardware microcontroller vulnerability.”
The email said:
“Dear customer,
We have some difficult news to share. Unfortunately, our engineering team has identified a critical hardware-level vulnerability in the STM32 microcontrollers used in a range of Trezor devices.
Currently we believe the majority of defective devices were initialized prior to 2023, however some newer devices also may be vulnerable. The bug is a hardware factory defect present in an estimated 1 in 4 devices.
The vulnerability results in:
Insufficient randomness in recovery phrase generation
Exposure of seeds to brute-force cracking
Seeds with as little as 40 bits of entropy”
That phishing email also contained a link that prompted recipients to download an app and enter their wallet backup.
CoinTracking said the attackers sent its customers an email titled “Data Breach Notice: Please refresh API Keys as soon as possible,” which also contained a malicious link.
Because the emails came from legitimate company domains and looked convincing, some recipients may have fallen for them. The exact number is not currently known.
How to stay safe
It can be difficult to recognize a phishing email when it comes from a legitimate company domain and looks convincing. But there are a few things to keep in mind:
If a company emails you about an urgent security problem, check its official website or app for confirmation.
Do not install apps through links in unsolicited emails, no matter how urgent the message claims to be.
Never enter your recovery phrase anywhere other than on your physical device.
Reputable companies will not ask for recovery phrases, API keys, or login details by email.
Use Malwarebytes Scam Guard to check whether a message might be a scam and get guidance on what to do next.
Keep an eye out for further information about other Brevo customers that have been affected. The attackers exported contacts from 43 accounts, which could be used in future targeted phishing attacks.
What to do if you followed the link
Trezor advises moving your funds to a new wallet if you entered your wallet backup in any form. If you followed a link in a similar email from another provider, contact that company directly for advice.
Something feel off? Check it before you click.
Malwarebytes Scam Guard helps you analyze suspicious links, texts, and screenshots instantly.
In Q2 2026, the percentage of ICS computers on which malicious objects were blocked continued to decrease, falling to 19.15%, its lowest level since 2022.
Percentage of ICS computers on which malicious objects were blocked, Q3 2023–Q2 2026
Regionally, the percentages ranged from 8.1% in Northern Europe to 27.9% in Africa.
Regions ranked by percentage of attacked ICS computers
The figures increased in five regions over the quarter, most notably in East Asia (by 2.0 pp) and Africa (by 0.5 pp).
East Asia saw increases in percentages for all threats except miners. The region ranked first in terms of growth for malicious scripts and phishing pages, spyware, and viruses. East Asia also led in terms of growth in threats from the internet. The percentage of ICS computers on which email threats were blocked also increased.
Selected industries
The biometrics sector (26.44%) has traditionally led the rankings of industries and OT infrastructures surveyed in this report in terms of the percentage of ICS computers on which malicious objects were blocked. Biometric systems are characterized by the availability of internet access, extensive email use for data exchange and approvals (e.g. access granting), and, in many cases, minimal cybersecurity controls within the organizations that use them.
Industries ranked by percentage of ICS computers on which malicious objects were blocked
The biometrics sector ranked first among industries in terms of the following threat categories: malicious scripts and phishing pages, malicious documents, spyware, ransomware, and worms. The sector is also leading among industries in terms of email threats. At the same time, unlike other industries, the percentage of affected ICS computers for email threats in biometrics exceeds that for internet threats.
In all selected industries, the global average follows a downward trend.
Threat categories
In Q2 2026, Kaspersky security solutions blocked malware from 10,904 different malware families of various categories on industrial automation systems.
Over the quarter, the percentage of ICS computers on which malicious objects of the following categories were blocked increased: denylisted internet resources, malicious documents, worms, ransomware, and malware for AutoCAD.
Percentage of ICS computers on which the activity of malicious objects from various categories was blocked
Malicious scripts and phishing pages (JS and HTML)
Malicious scripts and phishing pages remained in first place in the threat category rankings based on the percentage of ICS computers on which the respective threats were blocked. In Q2 2026, the global average dropped to 5.42%.
Over the quarter, the figure for this category only increased in East Asia, rising by 0.93 pp to 4.86%. This is the second-highest figure in the region in the last three years.
In East Asia, the percentage of ICS computers affected by malicious scripts and phishing pages increased in all the industries surveyed, except construction. The highest figures were recorded for biometrics (9.01%) and building automation (6.49%).
Denylisted internet resources
In Q2 2026, denylisted internet resources rose in the threat category rankings from third to second place, displacing spyware. Globally, the percentage of ICS computers on which denylisted internet resources were blocked has been increasing for two quarters in row and reached 4.31%.
The figures increased in all regions over the quarter, most notably in Russia (by 1.33 pp). Moreover, Russia ranked first (5.17%) among the regions in terms of denylisted internet resources. Since 2022, the region has topped these rankings twice before, both times in Q2: in 2022 and 2024.
Among the selected industries in Russia, the highest figures for the denylisted internet resources were in the electric power (6.61%) and engineering and ICS integration (5.62%) industries.
Malicious documents (MSOffice + PDF)
Malicious documents ranked fourth in the threat category rankings by the percentage of ICS computers on which they were blocked. The percentage for this category decreased over the previous three quarters, reaching its lowest level in three years. However, in Q2 2026, it increased to 1.77%.
Over the quarter, the figures for malicious documents increased in seven regions, most notably in South America (by 1.35 pp) and Southern Europe (by 0.48 pp). These two regions are among the top three in terms of malicious documents, malicious scripts and phishing pages, as well as threats from email clients.
South America ranked second in the rankings of regions in terms of malicious documents. In Q2 2026, the percentage of ICS computers in the region on which this threat was blocked was 3.56%, which was the fourth highest in three years.
Among the selected industries in South America, the highest percentage of ICS computers on which malicious documents were blocked was in biometrics (6.67%).
Southern Europe ranked first in the rankings of regions in terms of malicious documents. In the previous quarter, the percentage of ICS computers in the region on which this threat was blocked was the lowest in three years, but in Q2 2026 it increased to 3.63%.
Among the selected industries in Southern Europe, the highest percentage of ICS computers on which malicious documents were blocked was once again in biometrics (11.48%).
Spyware
Spyware ranked third in the threat category rankings based on the percentage of ICS computers on which it was blocked. The percentage for this category (3.30%) is the lowest since 2022.
Over the quarter, the figures increased in three regions, most notably in East Asia (by 0.53 pp) and Southeast Asia (by 0.42 pp).
East Asia ranked third based on the figures for spyware (4.77%), behind Africa and Southeast Asia. This is the region’s highest rate since Q2 2025. Among the countries and territories in the region, the highest percentage of ICS computers on which spyware was blocked was in mainland China (6.61%). Among the selected industries in East Asia, the highest figures for spyware were in the electric power (11.75%) and manufacturing (5.87%) industries. In all the industries surveyed, the figures are higher than the regional average.
Southeast Asia ranked second after Africa in the ranking of regions in terms of spyware, with 5.32%. Among the selected industries in Southeast Asia, the highest figures for spyware were in biometrics (8.93%) and manufacturing (7.32%). The figures increased in all industries over the quarter.
Ransomware
The percentage of ICS computers on which ransomware was blocked decreased in the previous three quarters but increased to 0.16% in Q2 2026.
During the quarter, the percentage increased in all regions, except Western and Southern Europe and North America (Canada). Africa led the ranking in terms of growth for this metric.
In Q2 2026, Africa ranked first among the regions in terms of the percentage of ICS computers on which ransomware was blocked (0.29%). The only time the figure in the region was higher in the past three years was Q2 2025 (0.31%).
Among the selected industries in Africa, the highest figures for ransomware were in the electric power industry (0.72%) and biometrics (0.52%). Over the quarter, the figures increased in all industries, except manufacturing and construction. The biggest increase was recorded in the electric power industry.
In Russia, the percentage of ICS computers on which ransomware was blocked in biometric systems has increased for three consecutive quarters, reaching 1.22%. This is the highest level of ransomware across all industries in all regions.
Miners
In Q2 2026, the percentage of ICS computers on which miners were blocked was the lowest since 2021, for both miners in the form of executable files for Windows (0.48%) and web miners running in browsers (0.14%).
The figures for both categories decreased in all regions, except for Africa where figures for miners in the form of executable files for Windows increased slightly.
On average, the oil and gas industry led the rankings among the selected industries both in terms of miners in the form of executable files for the Windows OS (0.66%) and in terms of web miners (0.34%).
Worms
In Q2 2026, the percentage of ICS computers on which worms were blocked increased to 1.43%.
In Q2 2026, the Middle East (2.11%) was second (after Africa) in the rankings of regions in terms of worms, displacing Central Asia and the South Caucasus.
Among the selected industries in the Middle East, the highest percentage of ICS computers on which worms were blocked was in building automation (2.90%). Over the quarter, the figures increased in all industries.
Australia and New Zealand ranked 12th among the regions in terms of the percentage of ICS computers on which worms were blocked (0.41%). Over the past three years, the figure in this region was only higher in Q2 2024 (0.42%). The figures increased in all the surveyed industries in the region, most notably in manufacturing and electric power. As a result, for these industries they exceeded the regional average by 2.9 and 2.3 times, respectively.
Viruses
In Q2 2026, the percentage of ICS computers on which viruses were blocked decreased to 1.29%.
The top three regions for this metric remain unchanged: Southeast Asia (6.03%), Africa (4.22%), and East Asia (3.14%). These same regions lead the rankings in terms of malware for AutoCAD.
The figures increased in three regions: East Asia, Australia and New Zealand, and Africa, where it has been growing for four consecutive quarters and reached its highest value since 2022.
Among the selected industries in Africa, the highest percentage of ICS computers on which viruses were blocked was in construction (5.47%).
East Asia ranked third among the regions in terms of viruses, reaching the highest level in the region for the past three years. Among the countries and administrative regions of East Asia, mainland China is the clear leader in terms of viruses (5.07%).
Among the selected industries in East Asia, the highest percentage of ICS computers on which viruses were blocked was in construction (5.93%).
In Australia and New Zealand, the increase in the percentage of ICS computers on which viruses were blocked was primarily due to a 4.3-fold increase in the figure for the electric power industry: from 0.29% to 1.24%. For a region where the percentage of attacked ICS computers for all threats is 0.12%, this is a very high value.
Malware for AutoCAD
In Q2 2026, the percentage of ICS computers on which malware for AutoCAD was blocked increased to 0.31%.
The most notable increase over the quarter was observed in Africa. After more than doubling in the previous quarter, the figure for the region continued to rise (although not so dramatically), reaching 1.02%.
Among the selected industries across all regions, the highest percentage of ICS computers on which malware for AutoCAD was blocked was in construction in East Asia (6.38%) and in Southeast Asia (4.05%).
Main threat sources
In Q2 2026, of all the threat sources, the percentage increased only for email.
Percentage of ICS computers on which malicious objects from various sources were blocked
Internet
The percentage of ICS computers on which threats from the internet were blocked decreased to 7.61%, reaching its lowest level since 2021.
Over the quarter, the percentage increased in three regions: East Asia by 0.8 pp (to 6.3%), South Asia by 0.3 pp (to 10.4%), and Russia by 0.3 pp (to 6.4%).
Among the selected industries across all regions, the highest percentage of ICS computers on which threats from the internet were blocked was in biometrics (13.03%) and engineering and ICS integration (12.16%) in South Asia.
Email
The percentage of ICS computers on which email threats were blocked increased to 2.84%.
In Q2 2026, the percentage of ICS computers on which email threats were blocked increased in South America by 1.0 pp (to 5.2%) and in Africa by 0.7 pp (to 4.3%).
Among the selected industries across all regions, the highest percentage of ICS computers on which email threats were blocked was in biometrics (19.14%) and building automation (12.49%) in Southern Europe.
Removable media
The percentage of ICS computers on which threats from removable media were blocked continued to decrease, reaching 0.24%, the lowest value for the period under review.
Among the selected industries across all regions, the highest percentage of ICS computers on which threats from removable media were blocked was in the electric power industry in East Asia (1.34%) and biometrics in Africa (1.29%).
Network folders
The percentage of ICS computers on which threats from network folders were blocked continued to decrease. In Q2 2026, it was the lowest for the period under review, at 0.023%.
The only region to see an increase in the percentage of ICS computers on which threats from network folders were blocked during the quarter was Africa. This was mainly due to an increase in the building automation figure to 0.05%.
Among the selected industries across all regions, the highest percentage of ICS computers on which threats from network folders were blocked was in biometrics (0.23%), building automation (0.17%), and engineering and ICS integration (0.13%) in East Asia.
In Q2 2026, the percentage of ICS computers on which malicious objects were blocked continued to decrease, falling to 19.15%, its lowest level since 2022.
Percentage of ICS computers on which malicious objects were blocked, Q3 2023–Q2 2026
Regionally, the percentages ranged from 8.1% in Northern Europe to 27.9% in Africa.
Regions ranked by percentage of attacked ICS computers
The figures increased in five regions over the quarter, most notably in East Asia (by 2.0 pp) and Africa (by 0.5 pp).
East Asia saw increases in percentages for all threats except miners. The region ranked first in terms of growth for malicious scripts and phishing pages, spyware, and viruses. East Asia also led in terms of growth in threats from the internet. The percentage of ICS computers on which email threats were blocked also increased.
Selected industries
The biometrics sector (26.44%) has traditionally led the rankings of industries and OT infrastructures surveyed in this report in terms of the percentage of ICS computers on which malicious objects were blocked. Biometric systems are characterized by the availability of internet access, extensive email use for data exchange and approvals (e.g. access granting), and, in many cases, minimal cybersecurity controls within the organizations that use them.
Industries ranked by percentage of ICS computers on which malicious objects were blocked
The biometrics sector ranked first among industries in terms of the following threat categories: malicious scripts and phishing pages, malicious documents, spyware, ransomware, and worms. The sector is also leading among industries in terms of email threats. At the same time, unlike other industries, the percentage of affected ICS computers for email threats in biometrics exceeds that for internet threats.
In all selected industries, the global average follows a downward trend.
Threat categories
In Q2 2026, Kaspersky security solutions blocked malware from 10,904 different malware families of various categories on industrial automation systems.
Over the quarter, the percentage of ICS computers on which malicious objects of the following categories were blocked increased: denylisted internet resources, malicious documents, worms, ransomware, and malware for AutoCAD.
Percentage of ICS computers on which the activity of malicious objects from various categories was blocked
Malicious scripts and phishing pages (JS and HTML)
Malicious scripts and phishing pages remained in first place in the threat category rankings based on the percentage of ICS computers on which the respective threats were blocked. In Q2 2026, the global average dropped to 5.42%.
Over the quarter, the figure for this category only increased in East Asia, rising by 0.93 pp to 4.86%. This is the second-highest figure in the region in the last three years.
In East Asia, the percentage of ICS computers affected by malicious scripts and phishing pages increased in all the industries surveyed, except construction. The highest figures were recorded for biometrics (9.01%) and building automation (6.49%).
Denylisted internet resources
In Q2 2026, denylisted internet resources rose in the threat category rankings from third to second place, displacing spyware. Globally, the percentage of ICS computers on which denylisted internet resources were blocked has been increasing for two quarters in row and reached 4.31%.
The figures increased in all regions over the quarter, most notably in Russia (by 1.33 pp). Moreover, Russia ranked first (5.17%) among the regions in terms of denylisted internet resources. Since 2022, the region has topped these rankings twice before, both times in Q2: in 2022 and 2024.
Among the selected industries in Russia, the highest figures for the denylisted internet resources were in the electric power (6.61%) and engineering and ICS integration (5.62%) industries.
Malicious documents (MSOffice + PDF)
Malicious documents ranked fourth in the threat category rankings by the percentage of ICS computers on which they were blocked. The percentage for this category decreased over the previous three quarters, reaching its lowest level in three years. However, in Q2 2026, it increased to 1.77%.
Over the quarter, the figures for malicious documents increased in seven regions, most notably in South America (by 1.35 pp) and Southern Europe (by 0.48 pp). These two regions are among the top three in terms of malicious documents, malicious scripts and phishing pages, as well as threats from email clients.
South America ranked second in the rankings of regions in terms of malicious documents. In Q2 2026, the percentage of ICS computers in the region on which this threat was blocked was 3.56%, which was the fourth highest in three years.
Among the selected industries in South America, the highest percentage of ICS computers on which malicious documents were blocked was in biometrics (6.67%).
Southern Europe ranked first in the rankings of regions in terms of malicious documents. In the previous quarter, the percentage of ICS computers in the region on which this threat was blocked was the lowest in three years, but in Q2 2026 it increased to 3.63%.
Among the selected industries in Southern Europe, the highest percentage of ICS computers on which malicious documents were blocked was once again in biometrics (11.48%).
Spyware
Spyware ranked third in the threat category rankings based on the percentage of ICS computers on which it was blocked. The percentage for this category (3.30%) is the lowest since 2022.
Over the quarter, the figures increased in three regions, most notably in East Asia (by 0.53 pp) and Southeast Asia (by 0.42 pp).
East Asia ranked third based on the figures for spyware (4.77%), behind Africa and Southeast Asia. This is the region’s highest rate since Q2 2025. Among the countries and territories in the region, the highest percentage of ICS computers on which spyware was blocked was in mainland China (6.61%). Among the selected industries in East Asia, the highest figures for spyware were in the electric power (11.75%) and manufacturing (5.87%) industries. In all the industries surveyed, the figures are higher than the regional average.
Southeast Asia ranked second after Africa in the ranking of regions in terms of spyware, with 5.32%. Among the selected industries in Southeast Asia, the highest figures for spyware were in biometrics (8.93%) and manufacturing (7.32%). The figures increased in all industries over the quarter.
Ransomware
The percentage of ICS computers on which ransomware was blocked decreased in the previous three quarters but increased to 0.16% in Q2 2026.
During the quarter, the percentage increased in all regions, except Western and Southern Europe and North America (Canada). Africa led the ranking in terms of growth for this metric.
In Q2 2026, Africa ranked first among the regions in terms of the percentage of ICS computers on which ransomware was blocked (0.29%). The only time the figure in the region was higher in the past three years was Q2 2025 (0.31%).
Among the selected industries in Africa, the highest figures for ransomware were in the electric power industry (0.72%) and biometrics (0.52%). Over the quarter, the figures increased in all industries, except manufacturing and construction. The biggest increase was recorded in the electric power industry.
In Russia, the percentage of ICS computers on which ransomware was blocked in biometric systems has increased for three consecutive quarters, reaching 1.22%. This is the highest level of ransomware across all industries in all regions.
Miners
In Q2 2026, the percentage of ICS computers on which miners were blocked was the lowest since 2021, for both miners in the form of executable files for Windows (0.48%) and web miners running in browsers (0.14%).
The figures for both categories decreased in all regions, except for Africa where figures for miners in the form of executable files for Windows increased slightly.
On average, the oil and gas industry led the rankings among the selected industries both in terms of miners in the form of executable files for the Windows OS (0.66%) and in terms of web miners (0.34%).
Worms
In Q2 2026, the percentage of ICS computers on which worms were blocked increased to 1.43%.
In Q2 2026, the Middle East (2.11%) was second (after Africa) in the rankings of regions in terms of worms, displacing Central Asia and the South Caucasus.
Among the selected industries in the Middle East, the highest percentage of ICS computers on which worms were blocked was in building automation (2.90%). Over the quarter, the figures increased in all industries.
Australia and New Zealand ranked 12th among the regions in terms of the percentage of ICS computers on which worms were blocked (0.41%). Over the past three years, the figure in this region was only higher in Q2 2024 (0.42%). The figures increased in all the surveyed industries in the region, most notably in manufacturing and electric power. As a result, for these industries they exceeded the regional average by 2.9 and 2.3 times, respectively.
Viruses
In Q2 2026, the percentage of ICS computers on which viruses were blocked decreased to 1.29%.
The top three regions for this metric remain unchanged: Southeast Asia (6.03%), Africa (4.22%), and East Asia (3.14%). These same regions lead the rankings in terms of malware for AutoCAD.
The figures increased in three regions: East Asia, Australia and New Zealand, and Africa, where it has been growing for four consecutive quarters and reached its highest value since 2022.
Among the selected industries in Africa, the highest percentage of ICS computers on which viruses were blocked was in construction (5.47%).
East Asia ranked third among the regions in terms of viruses, reaching the highest level in the region for the past three years. Among the countries and administrative regions of East Asia, mainland China is the clear leader in terms of viruses (5.07%).
Among the selected industries in East Asia, the highest percentage of ICS computers on which viruses were blocked was in construction (5.93%).
In Australia and New Zealand, the increase in the percentage of ICS computers on which viruses were blocked was primarily due to a 4.3-fold increase in the figure for the electric power industry: from 0.29% to 1.24%. For a region where the percentage of attacked ICS computers for all threats is 0.12%, this is a very high value.
Malware for AutoCAD
In Q2 2026, the percentage of ICS computers on which malware for AutoCAD was blocked increased to 0.31%.
The most notable increase over the quarter was observed in Africa. After more than doubling in the previous quarter, the figure for the region continued to rise (although not so dramatically), reaching 1.02%.
Among the selected industries across all regions, the highest percentage of ICS computers on which malware for AutoCAD was blocked was in construction in East Asia (6.38%) and in Southeast Asia (4.05%).
Main threat sources
In Q2 2026, of all the threat sources, the percentage increased only for email.
Percentage of ICS computers on which malicious objects from various sources were blocked
Internet
The percentage of ICS computers on which threats from the internet were blocked decreased to 7.61%, reaching its lowest level since 2021.
Over the quarter, the percentage increased in three regions: East Asia by 0.8 pp (to 6.3%), South Asia by 0.3 pp (to 10.4%), and Russia by 0.3 pp (to 6.4%).
Among the selected industries across all regions, the highest percentage of ICS computers on which threats from the internet were blocked was in biometrics (13.03%) and engineering and ICS integration (12.16%) in South Asia.
Email
The percentage of ICS computers on which email threats were blocked increased to 2.84%.
In Q2 2026, the percentage of ICS computers on which email threats were blocked increased in South America by 1.0 pp (to 5.2%) and in Africa by 0.7 pp (to 4.3%).
Among the selected industries across all regions, the highest percentage of ICS computers on which email threats were blocked was in biometrics (19.14%) and building automation (12.49%) in Southern Europe.
Removable media
The percentage of ICS computers on which threats from removable media were blocked continued to decrease, reaching 0.24%, the lowest value for the period under review.
Among the selected industries across all regions, the highest percentage of ICS computers on which threats from removable media were blocked was in the electric power industry in East Asia (1.34%) and biometrics in Africa (1.29%).
Network folders
The percentage of ICS computers on which threats from network folders were blocked continued to decrease. In Q2 2026, it was the lowest for the period under review, at 0.023%.
The only region to see an increase in the percentage of ICS computers on which threats from network folders were blocked during the quarter was Africa. This was mainly due to an increase in the building automation figure to 0.05%.
Among the selected industries across all regions, the highest percentage of ICS computers on which threats from network folders were blocked was in biometrics (0.23%), building automation (0.17%), and engineering and ICS integration (0.13%) in East Asia.
To subscribe to my monthly email newsletter, you have to enter your information on the webpage, and then reply to an automatically generated email. This is, of course, to prevent people from subscribing addresses other than their own.
Starting last weekend, I have been receiving a lot of individual responses to those emails. Always one line:
Thank you for the positive impact your emails have had on my life.
Your emails are a game-changer.
Your emails are a constant reminder of why I subscribed.
Your emails rock.
Thank you for the time and effort you put into creating these informative emails.
Thank you for the passion and enthusiasm you infuse into your email content.
Your emails consistently exceed my expectations. Thank you for the exceptional value!
I responded to the first few, because sometimes I do get these nice emails from readers and I hadn’t yet realized it was all fake. But so many, and all at once—this is obviously AI. And obviously a scam, except I can’t figure out what the scam is.
All Gmail. None of the addresses has actually subscribed to Crypto-Gram. They could; whoever is sending the emails could easily have confirmed the subscription.
My first thought was pig butchering—wanting me to respond and turn this into a conversation—but no one has responded to any of my responses. Anyone have any idea?
When your encryption system generates millions of duplicate API calls per hour, costs spiral and performance degrades. That’s exactly the challenge NICE Actimize faced while operating their global-scale, event-driven financial crime detection platform on Amazon Web Services (AWS).
NICE Actimize, a leading provider of financial crime, risk, and compliance solutions, processes millions of encrypted messages daily across hundreds of tenants. By rethinking how they cache encryption keys, they reduced their AWS Key Management Service (AWS KMS) costs by 77% while maintaining strict security guarantees and per-tenant encryption isolation.
In this post, we explore the cache stampede problem that emerges when envelope encryption meets high-concurrency, multi-tenant architectures. We walk through two solutions: the AWS-recommended hierarchical keyring pattern and a custom caching approach that NICE Actimize built for their regulated environment. These patterns apply to multi-tenant software as a service (SaaS) environments and high-throughput systems where per-tenant encryption generates significant KMS API volume.
Why per-tenant encryption matters
Financial services systems operate under strict regulatory requirements. You must encrypt data at rest and in transit. For multi-tenant SaaS providers, this requirement might go further: each tenant’s data must be encrypted with separate keys to provide complete cryptographic isolation. If one tenant’s key is compromised, no other tenant’s data is at risk.
Consider an enterprise SaaS environment built on an event-driven architecture using Amazon Managed Streaming for Apache Kafka (Amazon MSK), with many different databases for storing data and Amazon Simple Queue Service (Amazon SQS) for messaging. Messages flow continuously between producers and consumers, and each message must be encrypted with the correct tenant-specific key. At scale with millions of messages daily across hundreds of tenants, this creates a massive volume of encryption and decryption operations.
To handle this volume efficiently, the standard approach is envelope encryption: a two-tier model where an AWS KMS key encrypts short-lived data keys, and those data keys encrypt the actual data. Your application can encrypt large volumes of data locally without calling AWS KMS for every operation, reducing latency and costs.
The cache stampede problem
Envelope encryption reduces AWS KMS calls, but it doesn’t eliminate them. Each encrypt operation still requires a data key, either generated fresh using GenerateDataKey or retrieved from a cache, and each decrypt operation must unwrap an encrypted data key (EDK) by calling Decrypt. In high-throughput systems processing millions of messages, these calls add up quickly.
The AWS Encryption SDK provides a built-in solution for this: the CachingCryptoMaterialsManager. This component caches data encryption materials (data keys) locally, so your application can reuse them across multiple operations without calling AWS KMS each time. You configure a time-to-live (TTL), a maximum message-use limit, and a local cache, and the SDK handles the rest.
This approach works well under moderate load when you partition the cache by tenant AWS KMS key Amazon Resource Name (ARN) so that each tenant’s encryption materials remain cryptographically isolated. However, a critical problem emerges as concurrency scales to hundreds of threads processing millions of encrypted messages in parallel: the cache stampede, also known as the thundering herd problem.
How the stampede occurs
The CachingCryptoMaterialsManager caches the result of the SDK’s internal getMaterialsForEncrypt and decryptMaterials calls at the materials level. The cache stampede, however, happens at the KMS API call level. When a cached data key expires or a new, previously-unseen EDK arrives, the following sequence unfolds:
On encrypt – data key explosion: Multiple threads simultaneously call encrypt() for the same tenant. Each thread finds the cache entry expired and independently calls GenerateDataKey against AWS KMS. Instead of one thread generating a data key while others wait, N threads create N distinct data keys. Each new data key produces a unique EDK, which inflates the EDK cardinality across the system.
On decrypt – redundant unwrap calls: Those extra unique EDKs propagate downstream. When consumers later read encrypted records, each distinct EDK is a separate cache key. Multiple threads encountering the same EDK simultaneously each trigger an independent Decrypt call to AWS KMS because the cache has no coordination mechanism to make competing threads wait for a single in-flight request.
Compounding effect: The encrypt-side stampede creates excess EDK cardinality, which degrades the decrypt-side cache hit ratio, which triggers more KMS calls, which drives up costs further. In the NICE Actimize case, this produced a ratio of 30% unique data keys to data records in DynamoDB tables, meaning nearly one in three records was encrypted with a different data key.
At enterprise SaaS scale, this compounding effect can generate millions of redundant AWS KMS GenerateDataKey and Decrypt calls per hour, even with the SDK’s built-in caching enabled. The following figure shows the pattern leading to a stampede.
Figure 1: Cache stampede – multiple threads independently calling AWS KMS for the same encrypted data key, creating duplicate requests
The stampede follows this sequence on the encrypt side:
Multiple threads call encrypt() for the same tenant concurrently.
Each thread checks the CachingCryptoMaterialsManager and finds the cache entry expired.
With no coordination mechanism, each thread independently calls GenerateDataKey.
AWS KMS returns N distinct data keys (one per thread).
Each data key produces a unique EDK, inflating cardinality across the system.
On the decrypt side, the inflated EDK cardinality compounds the problem:
Consumer threads encounter unique EDKs that were never cached.
Multiple threads hitting the same EDK simultaneously each trigger a separate Decrypt call. AWS KMS returns the same plaintext data key N times, doing redundant work.
Two paths forward
We evaluated two approaches to solve the cache stampede problem. Each fits different architectural requirements and regulatory constraints.
Option A: Hierarchical keyring with DynamoDB (AWS-recommended)
AWS addresses the cache stampede challenge through the hierarchical keyring pattern, which introduces an additional level of key hierarchy that significantly reduces how often cache stampedes occur.
In this architecture, branch keys serve as intermediate wrapping keys stored in a DynamoDB table. This DynamoDB table acts as a shared cache layer that coordinates across all instances in your distributed fleet.
Figure 2: Hierarchical keyring architecture – branch keys in DynamoDB coordinating across distributed instances
The architecture (shown in Figure 2) works as follows:
The application requests encryption through the hierarchical keyring.
The keyring checks the local cache for the tenant’s branch key.
On a cache miss, it queries the DynamoDB Key Store table for the active branch key.
AWS KMS decrypts the branch key (this is the only KMS call in the flow).
The decrypted branch key is returned to the keyring.
The keyring stores the branch key in the local cache for subsequent requests.
The keyring derives a unique wrapping key from the branch key and generates the data key locally.
The key insight is that the cache is thread-aware. When the cache expires, threads coordinate to make a single request to refresh the cache. Only a single thread is used to make a call to the branch key, rather than all the threads acting independently. Additionally, by adding an additional key into the key hierarchy, branch keys don’t live within AWS KMS. This means cache misses and the stampedes they trigger interact with the branch key, and don’t make as many calls to the AWS KMS service at the top of the hierarchy:
Without hierarchical keyrings: Your local cache needs to store all the data encryption keys, and has constant misses as new, unique data keys arrive with each encrypted message. A miss can trigger a stampede.
With hierarchical keyrings: The same branch key wraps thousands or millions of data keys. A cache miss only occurs when a branch key expires or is first requested, which happens orders of magnitude less frequently than without hierarchical keyrings.
The DynamoDB table acts as a coordination point. The first thread to request a missing branch key retrieves it from AWS KMS and stores it in DynamoDB (the Key Store table). Subsequent requests from instances in the fleet retrieve the cached branch key from DynamoDB instead of making duplicate AWS KMS calls.
Beyond reducing cache miss frequency, the hierarchical keyring provides built-in stampede protection within its local cache implementation. The SDK offers multiple cache types, and the Default cache, designed for heavily multi-threaded environments, prevents multiple threads from calling AWS KMS on cache expiry by notifying a single thread that the branch key materials entry is about to expire 10 seconds in advance. That one thread refreshes the cache while all other threads continue serving requests using the still-valid entry.
This solution integrates with the AWS Encryption SDK and requires minimal code changes to existing applications. For event-driven architectures processing encrypted Kafka streams, this approach reduces KMS call volume by orders of magnitude while preserving per-tenant cryptographic isolation.
Option B: Custom KMS client caching – Solving the stampede at the API layer
While the hierarchical keyring (Option A) addresses the stampede by reducing how often cache misses occur, there’s a complementary approach: eliminating the stampede at its source by caching KMS API responses directly, using atomic, single-flight cache loading that prevents concurrent threads from issuing duplicate calls. This is the path NICE Actimize took.
The IClientSupplier extension point in AWS Encryption SDK v3
In the AWS Encryption SDK v2, decorating the AWS KMS client on a per-request basis was possible through the RegionalClientSupplier interface, but it was an advanced and undocumented use case. Without explicit guidance or a supported pattern, caching strategies typically operated above the SDK layer, making it difficult to prevent duplicate KMS calls at their source. The AWS Encryption SDK v3 introduced the IClientSupplier interface, which the AwsKmsMrkMultiKeyring accepts at construction time. This interface is called by the SDK whenever it needs a KMS client for a given AWS Region, and you control what it returns, making it possible to insert a caching layer between the SDK and AWS KMS.
Architecture: A decorated KMS client with two Caffeine caches The solution is a CachedKmsClient—a decorator that wraps the standard AWS SDK KmsClient and interposes two Caffeine LoadingCache instances between the application and AWS KMS:
Cache
Key
Value
Purpose
GenerateDataKey cache
GenerateDataKeyRequest (tenant KMS key ARN and key spec)
GenerateDataKeyResponse (EDK and plaintext data key)
Ensures encrypt operations on the same node reuse the same data key for a given tenant KMS key during the cache window
Decrypt cache
DecryptRequest (EDK and key ARN)
DecryptResponse (plaintext data key)
Ensures decrypt operations for the same EDK share a single KMS call result
Both caches are configured with refreshAfterWrite (default: 1 hour, configurable), which means:
During the refresh window, concurrent threads receive the cached response instantly resulting in zero KMS calls.
When a cache entry expires, Caffeine’s LoadingCache.get() guarantees that exactly one thread executes the loader function (the actual KMS API call), while all other concurrent threads block and wait for that single result. This is the atomic, single-flight property that eliminates the stampede.
Security consideration: Caching plaintext data keys in memory means the keys exist in process memory for the duration of the cache TTL. The TTL acts as a security control: shorter TTLs reduce the window of exposure in the event of a memory dump, while longer TTLs reduce KMS call volume. Choose a TTL that balances your security requirements with your cost and performance goals. Key rotation at the KMS key level remains unaffected by the cache, because rotated keys produce new data keys on the next cache refresh.
Integration with the AWS Encryption SDK v3
The integration is minimal. The IClientSupplierAWS Lambda function returns a CachedKmsClient singleton for each AWS Region, this singleton is passed into the AwsKmsMrkMultiKeyring at keyring construction time. From that point forward, each GenerateDataKey and Decrypt call the SDK makes flows through the caching decorator transparently, with no changes to the encrypt or decrypt call sites.
The CachedKmsClient is a singleton per Region (managed using a ConcurrentHashMap), so all tenants on the same node share the same caching layer but their data keys remain fully isolated because the cache keys include the tenant-specific AWS KMS key ARN.
Why Caffeine?
Caffeine is a high-performance, near-optimal Java caching library well-suited for this pattern for several reasons:
Atomic loading: LoadingCache.get() guarantees that on a cache miss, only one thread executes the loader while others wait. This is the core property that eliminates the stampede.
refreshAfterWrite semantics: Unlike expireAfterWrite (which blocks all threads during refresh), refreshAfterWrite allows one thread to asynchronously reload the entry while other threads continue to serve the stale-but-valid cached value. This eliminates latency spikes during key rotation.
Observability: Cache eviction listeners and Micrometer metric counters can be wired in to track actual KMS call volume per tenant KMS key, enabling real-time cost monitoring.
Choosing between the two options
The hierarchical keyring with DynamoDB (Option A) is a production-ready, AWS-recommended solution that reduces stampede frequency by introducing longer-lived branch keys. It’s the best choice for most organizations. Particularly when starting fresh or when the operational overhead of an additional data store is acceptable.
NICE Actimize chose the custom caching approach (Option B) for a pragmatic reason: it avoided introducing a new infrastructure dependency into the encryption critical path. Their platform already operated at scale across hundreds of tenants, and adding a DynamoDB table as a key coordination layer would have meant taking on additional operational responsibility: provisioning, monitoring, backup, access control, and ensuring high availability for a component that sits directly in the encrypt/decrypt hot path. In a regulated financial services environment, each new stateful component in the security chain requires its own resilience planning, failure-mode analysis, and compliance review. The Caffeine cache used in Option B, by contrast, is an in-process library (a JAR on the classpath). It is stateless, requires no network calls, no provisioning and no operational overhead. It makes a lighter dependency than a managed cloud resource in the critical path. There is no shared state to lose, no additional infrastructure to protect, and no new failure mode beyond what already exists with AWS KMS itself. If a node restarts, the cache rebuilds on the next KMS call.
Results
By implementing a rotation policy with the optimized caching approach, NICE Actimize achieved the following results:
77% reduction in AWS KMS costs – Eliminating millions of redundant API calls translated directly into significant cost savings.
Maintained strict per-tenant isolation – Per-tenant encryption isolation remained fully intact, with no compromise to their security posture.
Improved system performance – Removing the stampede of duplicate AWS KMS calls reduced latency and freed up system resources for core processing.
The cache stampede problem compounds in multi-tenant encryption systems: excess data key generation on the encrypt side degrades cache hit ratios on the decrypt side, creating a feedback loop of redundant KMS calls. The AWS-recommended hierarchical keyring pattern with DynamoDB provides a production-ready solution that integrates with the AWS Encryption SDK with minimal code changes. For regulated environments requiring additional control, a custom caching approach can deliver similar results.
If you operate a multi-tenant SaaS platform or a high-throughput system with per-tenant encryption requirements, consider these patterns to optimize your encryption costs and performance.
Fortnite scam pages like the ones below appear by the dozen every day, recycled endlessly under different names and designs.
One version promises $50 from a fake superhero collaboration. Another claims it can calculate what your locker is worth. Both lead to the same destination: a fake Epic Games login page designed to steal your account. It’s an old trick, but it still catches people out.
The short version
If a website promises free V-Bucks, cash, or a tool to calculate your locker’s value, then asks you to log in with your Epic account to get it, it’s not run by Epic.
Epic doesn’t offer an official tool that values accounts, and no legitimate giveaway requires you to sign in through a third-party site. You’re just handing your Epic username and password to scammers.
If you or your child entered your Epic login details on one of these sites, assume the account has been compromised. Change the password immediately, turn on two-factor authentication, and don’t reuse that password on any other accounts.
Why do they want your login?
A stolen Fortnite account can be worth real money. Criminals can take over accounts with rare skins, spend any saved payment methods, sell the account on underground marketplaces, or use it to scam the owner’s friends. They may also try the same username and password on other online accounts, hoping the password has been reused.
Why Fortnite?
Fortnite still attracts around 110 million monthly players and has more than 650 million registered accounts. That alone makes it an attractive target for cybercriminals.
The audience’s age matters too. In December 2022, the US Federal Trade Commission (FTC) fined Epic Games a record $520 million, after alleging that the company knew children made up a substantial share of its player base and left voice and text chat turned on by default, exposing them to strangers. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) also cites industry experts who say young gamers are especially vulnerable to phishing because they spend more time on social media and are less familiar with social engineering.
The game is also built around visible status. Skins, emotes, and pickaxes cost real money, making the idea that “your locker has a price” feel plausible. Rare or discontinued skins really do sell for hundreds of dollars on unofficial marketplaces, even though Epic offers no official way to cash out V-Bucks and selling accounts violates its terms of service. That kernel of truth is exactly what these locker-value scams exploit.
That’s also what makes them more convincing than a simple V-Bucks giveaway. Instead of promising something for nothing, they play on curiosity about something the player already owns. That’s probably why this version keeps coming back.
How the scam works
Some pages promise rewards:
Others skip the free-reward pitch and frame the locker itself as hidden value the player is owed:
Others frame it as competition instead of currency:
The hook changes, but the fake login page doesn’t. These sites all do the same thing. They ask you to sign in with your Epic account so they can steal your username and password.
Another variant: Fake settlement claims
This one borrows a real story. Epic did settle with the FTC for $520 million, and real payments are still going out in 2026. But the real settlement pays actual dollars through the FTC’s own process, not in-game V-Bucks through an “Epic Games Locker,” and the claim window closed in July 2025.
References to an “EU Regulatory Mandate” and the case number shown on these pages don’t match any genuine legal action.
How to stay safe
Fortnite scams change constantly, but the advice doesn’t.
Use Malwarebytes Browser Guard to block known phishing sites before they have a chance to steal your login details.
Only sign in to your Epic account at epicgames.com. If another website asks for your Epic login, leave.
Be sceptical of offers that sound too good to be true. Free V-Bucks, locker valuations, and surprise rewards are all common phishing lures.
Verify refunds and settlements on the official source. If a page claims you’re owed money, check the regulator’s website yourself instead of following its links.
Turn on two-factor authentication (2FA). It can stop attackers from accessing your account even if they steal your password.
Use Malwarebytes Scam Guard. It can help you identify suspicious links and messages before you click.
What to do if you clicked
Change the Epic password immediately, going directly to epicgames.com, not through the suspicious link.
Turn on two-factor authentication if you haven’t already.
Check your linked email for password reset requests or login alerts you didn’t make.
Review connected devices/services on the account and remove anything unfamiliar.
If you entered payment details anywhere, contact your card issuer and monitor your statements.
Report the page to Epic’s support and flag it as phishing in your browser.
If the page claims to be part of a settlement or refund, verify it on the regulator’s official website. For the Epic settlement, that’s ftc.gov.
Stop threats before they can do any harm.
Malwarebytes Browser Guard blocks phishing pages and malicious sites automatically. Free, one click to install. Add it to your browser →
Fortnite scam pages like the ones below appear by the dozen every day, recycled endlessly under different names and designs.
One version promises $50 from a fake superhero collaboration. Another claims it can calculate what your locker is worth. Both lead to the same destination: a fake Epic Games login page designed to steal your account. It’s an old trick, but it still catches people out.
The short version
If a website promises free V-Bucks, cash, or a tool to calculate your locker’s value, then asks you to log in with your Epic account to get it, it’s not run by Epic.
Epic doesn’t offer an official tool that values accounts, and no legitimate giveaway requires you to sign in through a third-party site. You’re just handing your Epic username and password to scammers.
If you or your child entered your Epic login details on one of these sites, assume the account has been compromised. Change the password immediately, turn on two-factor authentication, and don’t reuse that password on any other accounts.
Why do they want your login?
A stolen Fortnite account can be worth real money. Criminals can take over accounts with rare skins, spend any saved payment methods, sell the account on underground marketplaces, or use it to scam the owner’s friends. They may also try the same username and password on other online accounts, hoping the password has been reused.
Why Fortnite?
Fortnite still attracts around 110 million monthly players and has more than 650 million registered accounts. That alone makes it an attractive target for cybercriminals.
The audience’s age matters too. In December 2022, the US Federal Trade Commission (FTC) fined Epic Games a record $520 million, after alleging that the company knew children made up a substantial share of its player base and left voice and text chat turned on by default, exposing them to strangers. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) also cites industry experts who say young gamers are especially vulnerable to phishing because they spend more time on social media and are less familiar with social engineering.
The game is also built around visible status. Skins, emotes, and pickaxes cost real money, making the idea that “your locker has a price” feel plausible. Rare or discontinued skins really do sell for hundreds of dollars on unofficial marketplaces, even though Epic offers no official way to cash out V-Bucks and selling accounts violates its terms of service. That kernel of truth is exactly what these locker-value scams exploit.
That’s also what makes them more convincing than a simple V-Bucks giveaway. Instead of promising something for nothing, they play on curiosity about something the player already owns. That’s probably why this version keeps coming back.
How the scam works
Some pages promise rewards:
Others skip the free-reward pitch and frame the locker itself as hidden value the player is owed:
Others frame it as competition instead of currency:
The hook changes, but the fake login page doesn’t. These sites all do the same thing. They ask you to sign in with your Epic account so they can steal your username and password.
Another variant: Fake settlement claims
This one borrows a real story. Epic did settle with the FTC for $520 million, and real payments are still going out in 2026. But the real settlement pays actual dollars through the FTC’s own process, not in-game V-Bucks through an “Epic Games Locker,” and the claim window closed in July 2025.
References to an “EU Regulatory Mandate” and the case number shown on these pages don’t match any genuine legal action.
How to stay safe
Fortnite scams change constantly, but the advice doesn’t.
Use Malwarebytes Browser Guard to block known phishing sites before they have a chance to steal your login details.
Only sign in to your Epic account at epicgames.com. If another website asks for your Epic login, leave.
Be sceptical of offers that sound too good to be true. Free V-Bucks, locker valuations, and surprise rewards are all common phishing lures.
Verify refunds and settlements on the official source. If a page claims you’re owed money, check the regulator’s website yourself instead of following its links.
Turn on two-factor authentication (2FA). It can stop attackers from accessing your account even if they steal your password.
Use Malwarebytes Scam Guard. It can help you identify suspicious links and messages before you click.
What to do if you clicked
Change the Epic password immediately, going directly to epicgames.com, not through the suspicious link.
Turn on two-factor authentication if you haven’t already.
Check your linked email for password reset requests or login alerts you didn’t make.
Review connected devices/services on the account and remove anything unfamiliar.
If you entered payment details anywhere, contact your card issuer and monitor your statements.
Report the page to Epic’s support and flag it as phishing in your browser.
If the page claims to be part of a settlement or refund, verify it on the regulator’s official website. For the Epic settlement, that’s ftc.gov.
Stop threats before they can do any harm.
Malwarebytes Browser Guard blocks phishing pages and malicious sites automatically. Free, one click to install. Add it to your browser →
Login
