Apart from the privacy concerns around smart glasses, researchers have found that some cheap brands come with barely any security at all.

ABC Australia reports that researchers from NSB Cyber and Abstract Shield tested two inexpensive pairs, costing A$60 and A$110 (around US$42 and US$78), and found more than a dozen flaws across the smart glasses themselves, their app, and an associated website.

The main problem they uncovered was insecure Bluetooth pairing: If the glasses were powered on and not connected to their owner’s phone, an attacker could connect first, with no password or meaningful pairing confirmation.

After connecting, an attacker could reportedly control the glasses to capture photos or recordings, copy existing media, and intercept data moving between the glasses and the phone. An attacker could also make another device appear to be the victim’s glasses, allowing it to connect to the owner’s mobile app.

The testing also found that a Bluetooth-visible device identifier could allegedly be used with a weakness in the app’s website to retrieve a user’s email address and date of birth.

The research uncovered another privacy issue. ABC reports that voice or text submitted to the built-in AI, along with images sent to it, was first transmitted to a server in Shenzhen and could be forwarded elsewhere, depending on the function. The tests did not establish how the data was subsequently used.

The server locations, combined with some of the AI’s answers to specific questions, led researchers to conclude that the chatbot companion relied at least in part on Chinese sovereign AI models. Professor Kimberlee Weatherall, a technology regulation expert involved in the testing, said the failure to identify China in the privacy policy appeared to violate the Australian Privacy Principles,

The timing of the testing is also relevant because Australia’s smart-device security standards apply to most consumer smart devices manufactured on or after March 4, 2026. They require, among other measures, no universal default passwords, a way to report vulnerabilities, and information about the minimum security-update period. Devices made before that date are outside the requirements.

Experts quoted by ABC said the devices violated Australia’s privacy laws and were also likely to breach several sections of the Cyber Security Act. However, whether the new smart-device standards apply would depend partly on when the glasses were manufactured, and the rules have not yet been tested in a known enforcement action.

Professor Weatherall said:

“The rules say that the password must be unique. It doesn’t even seem like they were applying a password, which might mean that their standards are so low they don’t even technically breach that rule, which I find amazing.”

What to do

We’re not fans of smart glasses, expensive or cheap. But if you own a pair:

• Avoid pairing or using inexpensive camera glasses that lack a clear physical pairing step, account authentication, a published security-contact process, and a stated update-support period.
• Stop using their AI or cloud features for sensitive material, remove unnecessary permissions from the companion app, check for firmware and app updates, and consider returning the product if the vendor cannot document a fix.
• Ask permission before recording people, and check your local laws to understand what is and isn’t allowed.

From reporting threats to removing them.

Cybersecurity risks should never spread beyond a headline. Keep threats off your devices by downloading Malwarebytes today.

Executive summary

In April 2026, we at Kaspersky’s Global Emergency Response Team (GERT) responded to a security incident at a manufacturing organization in the Middle East. The threat actor obtained domain admin-equivalent control of the organization’s Active Directory environment and authored a malicious Group Policy Object (GPO) named PAYLOAD, linking it at the domain root. Through that single object, the actor delivered ransom notes, hijacked the desktop wallpaper and lock screen, enforced a logon banner, and disabled the local administrator account across every domain-joined Windows workstation — all without dropping a ransomware binary or encrypting any data. The only ransomware we found in this incident was PAYLOAD sample targeting ESXi on Linux servers. Besides that, data exfiltration was observed originating from the file servers and several additional systems, and was later published on the dark web.

This case is an example of two converging trends that define the 2026 ransomware landscape:

1. Living-off-the-land abuse of trusted AD infrastructure. Group Policy is a signed, allowlisted, SYSTEM-privileged distribution channel that the majority of endpoint detection and response tools is designed not to inspect. By delivering impact through GPO rather than through malware, the actor sidestepped the entire file- and process-based detection stack.
2. Encryptionless extortion. Industry telemetry shows extortion-only incidents grow significantly year-on-year. PAYLOAD fits this model; the leverage is operational disruption and the threat of escalation rather than cryptographic denial of data.

We confirmed that no files were encrypted on Windows machines, no malicious binaries were resident on disk, no endpoint persistence was established, and no malicious processes were running at the time of analysis. The entire attack lived inside Active Directory itself. The defensive implication is stark: an organization whose detection strategy depends on catching a ransomware executable would have seen nothing until the first endpoint rebooted and the ransom wallpaper appeared.

In this article, we will describe the GPO attack chain and provide operational advice on how to detect such threats, including detailed remediation recommendations.

Group Policy as an attack surface

Attacks through group policies are nothing new. They can inflict significant, domain-wide damage with multiple malicious capabilities. A Group Policy Object (GPO) is essentially a combination of a Group Policy Container (GPC) in Active Directory and a Group Policy Template (GPT) in SYSVOL. The Group Policy scope depends on whether the GPC is linked to the directory tree at the domain, site, or organization unit (OU) level. A link at the domain root means the policy applies to every computer and user object beneath it. Thus, a GPO compromised at the domain root can affect all in-scope domain users and computers, potentially granting an attacker complete control over the corporate network. What makes GPO abuse even more dangerous is that group policies are processed in a trusted, high-privilege environment, ensuring persistence because endpoint cleanup is not enough to remove them.

We have already discussed GPO architecture and ways it can be compromised in greater detail in an earlier blog post. Other public threat intelligence has also repeatedly documented this technique in ransomware operations. Microsoft observed Ryuk operators distributing ransomware through Group Policy, SYSVOL startup items, and PsExec. LockBit affiliates have been documented modifying SYSVOL Group Policy files, including ScheduledTasks.xml, to support ransomware execution and propagation. BlackCat/ALPHV operators have also abused GPOs to create scheduled tasks and deploy ransomware.

Another notable example of GPO abuse is PAYLOAD ransomware, which weaponizes GPO Preferences and policy settings for pure impact rather than as a launcher for an encryptor. Let’s take a closer look at this attack, which is detailed further below.

Attack timeline

During the April 2026 investigation, we managed to reconstruct the attack timeline as outlined below:

Next, we will discuss each of these stages in more detail and share the findings from our incident response activities.

Incident overview

Initial access

The entry vector was a compromised valid account (MITRE ATT&CK T1078) used to authenticate through the organization’s FortiGate SSL VPN — an external remote service (T1133). Insufficient logging on the FortiGate appliance prevented us from reconstructing how the credential was originally compromised.

Three hypotheses were considered plausible in the context of the attack, in no particular order:

• Password spraying or credential stuffing against the SSL VPN portal.
• Phishing-led credential harvesting.
• Purchase of pre-compromised credentials from an initial access broker (IAB).

Once on the internal network, the actor operated with the compromised security principal’s privileges. Because the account was able to create and link a GPO at the domain root, it held either domain admin privileges or a delegated equivalent (e.g., membership of Group Policy Creator Owners combined with link rights on the domain object).

FortiGate SSL VPN authentication logs and ESXi/virtualization privilege escalation logs were insufficient to reconstruct the lateral movement and privilege escalation chain between initial VPN access and the GPO write privilege level. The most common real-world routes to GPO control — DCSync, Kerberoasting of privileged service accounts, and Pass-the-Hash/Pass-the-Ticket — could not be confirmed or ruled out.

Execution

Rather than deploying an encryptor, the actor abused the victim’s Active Directory policy infrastructure, resulting in malicious GPOs being configured and linked at the domain root to deliver the observed impact across domain-joined systems. The two GPOs below constitute the entire offensive toolkit observed.

The PAYLOAD GPO

We performed a Resultant Set of Policy (RSOP) analysis, which helped us list all policy settings on the affected workstations. From these results, we reconstructed the following changes delivered by PAYLOAD:

The PAYLOAD GPO enabled the following actions:

1. Drop SYSVOL\hello.txt to the desktop and root directories C:\ and D:\ as a read-only README-payload.txt by tampering with the “Group Policy Files” client-side extension (CSE).
2. Modify the HKLM\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Policies\System\ registry key, changing the legalnoticecaption value to "Welcome to Payload!" and the legalnoticetext to the ransom note text through the “Group Policy Registry” CSE.
3. Set payload.jpg located in the targeted domain controller’s SYSVOL as the lock screen image by altering the personalization policy, and as the wallpaper by altering the desktop policy at the user level.
4. Revoke administrator rights for the administrator account (locking the account) by editing the Security Settings CSE in the GptTmpl.inf file.

This activity was enabled entirely through a legitimate group policy mechanism, meaning there is no malware code for security solutions to look for because the malicious logic is contained within the policy configuration.

The win Firewall Off GPO

A second domain-root-linked GPO, named “win Firewall Off”, disabled Windows Firewall across the domain, private and public profiles on all endpoints (T1562.004). Deployed independently of PAYLOAD, this object degraded host defenses and ensured the actor retained unimpeded network reach to endpoints for any follow-on activity.

Settings changed by win Firewall Off GPO

The one-day delay detonation

The most forensically instructive detail is the one-day gap between GPO creation (13 April) and visible impact (14 April). Analysis of Master File Table (MFT) timestamps and the Group Policy History registry key confirmed the policy was written to SYSVOL and cached on endpoints on 13 April. However, computer configuration settings (wallpaper and lock screen machine policy, security settings, firewall disabling) only apply upon reboot or policy refresh — and no endpoint had rebooted in the interim. The attack therefore remained dormant in the GPO cache for one day before detonating en masse when machines were restarted in accordance with standard procedures.

We have to point out here that this delayed policy application is characteristic of GPO-based operations and has two potential consequences for defenders. Firstly, it may grant the actor a quiet window for exfiltration, persistence, or further staging between weaponization and impact. Secondly, it can be used to sever the temporal link between the cause (a GPO-creation event in the directory log) and the effect (mass user-visible disruption occurring at a later time), complicating timeline reconstruction unless directory service auditing is in place.

Forensic findings

Initial incident response engagement revealed a number of findings associated with the attack that we share below.

1. No file encryption
   A full review of the MFT on affected workstations found no files bearing a .payload extension characteristic to PAYLOAD ransomware and no evidence of bulk renaming or encryption I/O patterns. The attackers’ objectives were operational disruption and extortion via visual impact and access denial.
2. No endpoint persistence
   All standard persistence locations were clean:
   • Scheduled tasks — no malicious tasks
   • Run/RunOnce keys — clean
   • Startup folders (user and system) — clean
   • Services — no malicious service installed
   • WMI event subscriptions — none
   • Boot sector/MBR — unmodified

   The attack’s persistence mechanism is the GPO link itself on the domain controller, with no endpoint-resident component.

3. No active malicious processes
   Live process and memory analysis revealed no injected threads, process hollowing or anomalous outbound connections.
4. Registry timeline analysis
   Group Policy History, Shadow and State registry keys on the workstation recorded the application of PAYLOAD on 13 April:
   HKLM\…\Group Policy\History\{35378EAC-683F-11D2-A89A-00C04FBBCFA2}\1
   HKLM\…\Group Policy\Shadow\{827D319E-6EAC-11D2-A4EA-00C04F79F83A}\0
   HKLM\…\Group Policy\State\Machine\GPO-List\7
   HKCU\…\Group Policy\History\{7150F9BF-48AD-4da4-A49C-29EF4A8369BA}\1
   HKCU\…\Group Policy\State\S-1-5-21-…\Loopback-GPO-List\5
   The presence of the “Loopback-GPO-List” entry indicates the GPO was processed in loopback mode, ensuring the user configuration (wallpaper) applied regardless of which user logged on to the machine.
5. SYSVOL artifacts
   Two files were staged on the domain controller’s SYSVOL share and served to endpoints through the Files Group Policy Preference CSE:
   • payload.jpg — the ransom image used for both wallpaper and lock screen.
   • hello.txt — the ransom note, distributed to desktops and drive roots as README-payload.txt.

Detection engineering

Because no malicious binary or process exists, the detection logic should focus on the directory service and SYSVOL indicators. Below are the highest-value telemetry sources for identifying the described malicious activity.

• Directory service change auditing (DS Access)
  Enable Advanced Audit Policy → DS Access → Audit Directory Service Changes on all domain controllers and set up alerts for the following events:

  Event ID	Meaning	Hunt focus
  5137	A directory service object was created	The account that created new groupPolicyContainer objects must be an authorized GPO administrator
  5136	A directory service object was modified	Changes to gPLink on the domain root or sensitive organizational units; changes to gPCMachineExtensionNames/gPCUserExtensionNames/gPCFileSysPath/versionNumber for all GPOs
  5141	A directory service object was deleted	GPO deletions (relevant for tamper detection and remediation assessment)

  A gPLink modification at the domain root by a non-standard account is one of the most telling indicators of this attack class.

• SYSVOL file integrity monitoring
  Monitor \\DC.THECOMPANY.local\sysvol\THECOMPANY.local\Policies\ for unexpected files, particularly image files, text files, scripts, ScheduledTasks.xml, and modified registry.pol/GptTmpl.inf files that were created by sources other than legitimate replication.
• Endpoint policy application telemetry
  On endpoints, GPO application is logged in the Group Policy Operational log (Microsoft-Windows-GroupPolicy/Operational) and reflected in the History and Shadow registry keys shown above. A sudden domain-wide change to the applied policy set is a strong post-detonation signal.
• Missing 5136 events
  If the contents of a GPO’s SYSVOL change without a corresponding 5136 event, this can indicate direct SYSVOL/template editing (e.g., via open-source tools such as PowerView or SharpGPOAbuse) that bypasses the normal Group Policy Management Console (GPMC) modification path. While we recommend treating the absence of expected audit events as suspicious, it should be noted that this can be caused by misconfigured auditing.

Anti-forensics and recovery-inhibition capabilities

Confirmed PAYLOAD family capabilities

The Windows endpoint attack described in this report was implemented through malicious Group Policy Objects and did not involve a recovered ransomware executable, resident endpoint malware, confirmed file encryption or active malicious processes at the time of the forensic examination. However, PAYLOAD cryptomalware for Windows does exist, and other sources, including public analysis of its samples, reveal further malicious capabilities of this ransomware that could be used by security teams to enrich detection logic and security policies.

The behaviors documented in this section must therefore be interpreted as family-level capabilities identified through the public reverse engineering of PAYLOAD ransomware samples. They were not confirmed as having executed during the GPO-based incident unless corresponding evidence was identified in the host, memory, process, event-log, or hypervisor.

Windows Event Log clearing

Public reverse engineering of the PAYLOAD Windows variant reveals an optional event log clearing capability (T1685.005, formerly T1070.001). The ransomware dynamically resolves Windows Event Log APIs, enumerates available event log channels, and clears individual channels.

Implementation artifacts include:

• Runtime loading of wevtapi.dll
• EvtOpenChannelEnum
• EvtNextChannelPath
• EvtClearLog
• Enumeration of Security, System, Application, and PowerShell logs, and operational channels
• A command-line option controlling whether log clearing is performed

Clearing event logs reduces the availability of records related to process execution, authentication, PowerShell, service control, and system changes. However, it does not necessarily remove events that were already forwarded to a SIEM, Windows Event Collector, EDR backend, or protected log archive.

Forensic indicators

• Windows Security Event ID 1102
• Event logging shutdown or failure events
• Sudden reductions in event record identifiers
• Multiple event channels restarting from low record numbers
• Gaps between endpoint and centrally forwarded telemetry
• Execution of utilities or APIs associated with log management
• Direct access to EVTX files (Windows Event Log files) under the Windows event log directory

We should note that these indicators can’t be interpreted on their own. For instance, Event ID 1102 should be correlated with a number of aggravating factors, such as:

• Event ID 4688 or Sysmon Event ID 1 for process creation
• Event ID 4624 for the associated administrative logon
• EDR process trees
• PowerShell operational logging
• Windows Event Forwarding records
• Privileged access management activity

At the same time, the absence of Event ID 1102 does not prove that log clearing did not occur. Direct deletion, truncation, service impairment, or an incomplete audit configuration may produce different evidence.

Security process and service termination

PAYLOAD analysis reveals that the Windows ransomware variant contains logic that targets security processes and services (T1685 and T1489). This capability is intended to stop security products, backup software, database services, and applications that may lock files targeted for encryption.
Process and service termination serves several objectives:

1. Reduce endpoint detection and response visibility.
2. Release file handles so data can be modified.
3. Interrupt backup and recovery services.
4. Prevent databases and enterprise applications from protecting active data.
5. Reduce interference with encryption operations.

Forensic indicators

• Security agent services changing from running to stopped
• Event ID 7036 service state changes
• Event ID 7040 service start type changes
• Event ID 4688 or Sysmon Event ID 1 for service control utilities
• Sysmon Event ID 5 for terminated processes
• EDR health degradation affecting many endpoints
• Repeated termination attempts against security or backup processes
• Execution of dedicated process killing utilities

VSS deletion, backup and recovery suppression

Public PAYLOAD sample analysis reports the deletion of Windows Volume Shadow Copies before encryption (T1490). This behavior removes local restore points and reduces the victim’s ability to recover files without external backups.

Recovery inhibition is broader than VSS deletion and may include multiple other malicious techniques, including the following:

• Deleting shadow copies, backup catalogs, and hypervisor snapshots
• Disabling recovery services
• Modifying boot recovery settings
• Compromising backup management platforms
• Deleting or encrypting backup repositories

In the PAYLOAD Windows sample that is proven to perform encryption, VSS deletion is confirmed to have taken place before encryption. A broader compromise of the backup platform was not established in the investigated incident.

Forensic indicators

• Execution of shadow copy management utilities
• Backup catalog deletion attempts
• Recovery configuration changes
• Backup service termination
• Mass snapshot deletions
• Backup administrator logons outside normal maintenance windows
• Backup retention or immutability changes
• Backup jobs failing immediately before disruptive activity

Ecosystem-relevant ransomware techniques

Above, we discussed the techniques specific to PAYLOAD ransomware. In this section, we’ll review other common ransomware techniques, such as BYOVD abuse and ESXi policy weakening, that remain relevant risks in the ransomware ecosystem. However, these techniques should not be attributed to this incident without supporting driver load, process, memory, ESXi, vCenter, or backup platform telemetry. We describe these techniques below as they may prove useful in other ransomware-related forensic investigations.

The examples used in this section are therefore ecosystem-relevant: they are commonly observed in ransomware operations but not conclusively attributed to the analyzed PAYLOAD samples.

ETW suppression and in-memory patching

Event Tracing for Windows (ETW) is a kernel-supported tracing architecture used by Windows components, diagnostic utilities, security products, and endpoint monitoring systems.

Although we didn’t encounter this technique in our case, some ransomware families can patch ETW-related functions inside the ransomware process (T1685, formerly T1562.001). The reported routine changes the memory protection of code pages, overwrites the beginning of selected ETW functions so they return without producing events, restores the original protection, and refreshes the instruction cache.

Reported target functions include EtwEventWrite, EtwEventWriteFull, EtwEventWriteTransfer, and EtwRegister.

This modification applies to the process-local mapping of ntdll.dll. It does not disable ETW globally across Windows, but it can reduce the telemetry generated by the modified process.

Forensic indicators

• Writable or recently modified executable pages within ntdll.dll
• Memory protection changes affecting ETW function addresses
• In-memory code differing from the corresponding clean DLL on disk
• EDR memory tampering alerts
• Unexpected calls to memory protection APIs followed by telemetry silence
• Process execution visible in network or filesystem telemetry but absent from expected ETW-derived sources
• Inconsistent telemetry between EDR, Sysmon, Windows Event Logs, and network monitoring

It should be noted that telemetry gaps are not conclusive evidence of ETW patching. Other factors include agent upgrades, network outages, endpoint shutdowns, SIEM ingestion failures, collector backpressure, and filtering or licensing changes.

Memory acquisition is the strongest validation source when process-local ETW patching is suspected.

Vulnerable signed driver abuse, BYOVD

Bring Your Own Vulnerable Driver (BYOVD) involves introducing or abusing a legitimately signed but vulnerable kernel driver (T1068 and T1685). The attacker exploits the driver’s exposed functionality to gain kernel-level capabilities, modify protected memory, terminate security processes, remove security callbacks, or bypass operating system security controls.

BYOVD is highly relevant to contemporary ransomware operations. However, the reviewed public PAYLOAD analyses do not provide sufficient evidence to conclude that BYOVD is an intrinsic PAYLOAD capability.

It should therefore be presented as an ecosystem-relevant technique rather than a confirmed PAYLOAD feature.

Forensic indicators

• Unexpected .sys files written to user-writable or temporary directories
• New kernel driver services
• Sysmon Event ID 6
• Driver hashes matching Microsoft or community vulnerable driver blocklists
• Invalid, revoked, expired, or unusual driver signatures
• Driver load followed by EDR termination
• New privileged processes immediately following driver loading
• Code Integrity or Defender alerts
• Service creation events referencing driver files

ESXi security policy weakening

Ransomware operators are increasingly targeting ESXi and vCenter because compromising the virtualization layer provides access to many business-critical virtual machines.

Public research typically describes operators performing the following activities (T1685, T1490 and T1489):

• Enabling SSH on ESXi hosts
• Changing root passwords
• Disabling execInstalledOnly
• Modifying lockdown mode exceptions
• Stopping virtual machines
• Deleting snapshots and backups
• Changing host firewall policies
• Copying custom ransomware binaries to hypervisors

On the target organization’s Linux servers we saw an ESXi PAYLOAD variant, which makes this behavior operationally relevant. Nevertheless, the reviewed evidence does not indicate that PAYLOAD operators used any of these policy-weakening actions in the investigated incident.

Forensic indicators

• Unexpected ESXi SSH enablement
• Changes to execInstalledOnly
• Secure Boot enforcement changes
• Lockdown mode configuration changes
• Root password changes
• New or unusual administrator accounts
• Bulk VM shutdown activity
• Bulk snapshot deletion
• New binaries in datastore or temporary paths
• vCenter tasks originating from unexpected accounts or systems
• Missing or disabled remote syslog forwarding

Remediation

To contain the described threat and limit possible damage, several remediation steps should be taken. Below, we recommend a four-phase remediation approach for containing this threat and restoring the affected environment.

Phase 1 — domain controller actions (to be performed first)

When dealing with PAYLOAD GPO, the first priority of the remediation plan should be to remove the source GPOs. Until this is done, endpoint cleanup is ineffective because the next policy refresh re-infects cleaned machines.

The immediate domain controller actions to be taken are:

1. Delete PAYLOAD GPO. Remove {C897F2C7-C2AC-4E6F-BF48-58036FF29E79} via GPMC.
2. Delete or revert win Firewall Off GPO. Remove {22099AD2-E062-4F56-B574-5099BBA4E7A6}.
3. Clean SYSVOL. Delete jpg and hello.txt from \\DC.THECOMPANY.local\sysvol\THECOMPANY.local\.
4. Rotate credentials. Reset the compromised account; audit all privileged accounts and group memberships for unauthorized changes; rotate krbtgt twice if domain admin compromise is confirmed.
5. Force refresh. Perform gpupdate /force across endpoints after deletion; re-enable local administrator and firewall via clean policy.

Phase 2 — Active Directory and GPO hardening

• Adopt the AD tiered administration model and confine domain admins to Tier 0 with no interactive logon to workstations and member servers.
• Separate GPO creation from GPO linking rights, and grant both only to a dedicated, audited administrator role.
• Enable GPO change auditing (Event IDs 5136, 5137, 5141) and forward to a SIEM.
• Monitor SYSVOL with file integrity tooling.

Phase 3 — credential and access hardening

• Enforce phishing-resistant MFA on all VPN and remote access entry points.
• Deploy Windows LAPS to generate unique, rotated local administrator passwords.
• Enable Credential Guard to protect LSASS-resident secrets.
• Adopt Privileged Access Workstations (PAW) for all administration.
• Implement just-in-time elevation through Privileged Identity Management (PIM) for domain admin.

Phase 4 — detection and monitoring

• SIEM rule: GPO creation or domain-root gPLink change by a non-standard account.
• SIEM rule: file creation events under SYSVOL from non-replication sources.
• Implement enhanced, centrally collected FortiGate SSL VPN logging (auth events, session detail, source IP geolocation, impossible travel check) and detailed perimeter monitoring.
• Deploy a canary GPO whose application anywhere signals attacker GPO write access.

Conclusion

PAYLOAD demonstrates a maturing tactic of turning the victim’s own trusted infrastructure into a weapon. By weaponizing Group Policy, the actor achieved a domain-wide impact without a single malicious binary on any endpoint, evaded file- and process-based detection entirely, and caused organization-wide disruption within seconds of the first reboot.

The absence of encryption is the most strategically significant finding and is consistent with the 2026 trend toward encryptionless extortion. At Kaspersky GERT, we assess with moderate confidence that the missing encryption reflects one of two scenarios: (1) a deliberate decision to stay below the irreversible data destruction threshold while preserving the option of a follow-on encryption phase, or (2) an operation interrupted before full execution.

The absence of encrypted files must not be mistaken for the absence of a serious compromise — the most critical impact lies in the actor gaining domain admin-level control. This incident proves that a threat actor with domain admin access and a working knowledge of group policy internals can inflict domain-wide disruption equivalent to a ransomware attack without writing a single malicious file to any endpoint.

Detection strategies anchored solely in file- or process-based indicators are blind to this attack class. Effective controls include directory service change auditing, SYSVOL integrity monitoring, and privileged access governance, which allow for GPO protection.

Detection by Kaspersky solutions

Kaspersky security solutions effectively detect the described malicious activity at various stages of the attack. Possible detection scenarios are listed below.
To protect organizations that use our Kaspersky SIEM system, we have prepared a package of correlation rules designed to help detect this type of malicious activity. The rules are now available for customers to download from the SIEM repository; the package name is: [OOTB] Group policy hijacked: PAYLOAD ransomware – ENG.

The “Group policy hijacked: PAYLOAD ransomware” package contains rules that detect suspicious file creation or modification in the SYSVOL shared folder on a domain controller, as well as changes to critical attributes and settings of domain group policies. Some rules may require adjustment if they trigger in response to legitimate activity, such as synchronization between domain controllers or the configuration of a new group policy.

To ensure the detection rules function correctly, verify that events from Windows systems are being received in full, including events with the following identifiers: Sysmon: 11, Security — 4663, 5136, 4657.

We also recommend applying the following rules available in the repository to detect all attack stages.

• Detection of Windows Event Log clearing to cover up traces of an attack: R050_03_Windows Event Log was cleared
• Detection of suspicious access to the LSASS process, which may indicate attempts to dump credentials: R262_Suspicious access to the LSASS process
• Detection of the Volume Shadow Copy service being started, which is used to create shadow copies before deleting them: R231_20_Running the Volume Shadow Copy service
• Detection of shadow copy deletion: R321_Shadow copy deletion
• Detection of Windows Defender disablement: R076_01_Windows Defender Antivirus was disabled
• Detection of attempts to disable or modify the system firewall: R240_03_Disabling system firewall via the registry
• Detection of a service installation from a non-system folder, which may indicate malware persistence techniques: R281_01_Installation of a service from a non-system folder

For the rules in this list to function correctly, it is necessary to configure Security event auditing for event IDs 4663, 5136, 4657, 7036, and 1102.

In addition to the SIEM system, when audit settings are configured correctly, the process of creating, modifying, and deleting GPOs generates a large number of characteristic artifacts on the domain controller, enabling Kaspersky Endpoint Detection and Response Expert to promptly alert the user to anomalies in the infrastructure.

The creation of a new GPO is covered by the gpo_creation rule, which triggers in response to the corresponding event in the infrastructure. Changes to existing policies are detected by the following rules:

• The setting_the_gpcmachineextensionname_attribute rule detects changes to the gPCMachineExtensionNames attribute.
• The setting_the_gpcfilesyspath_attribute rule detects the use of the gPCFileSysPath attribute of a Group Policy Object, which specifies the path to the GPO’s contents in SYSVOL.
• The broader rule setting_the_grouppolicycontainer_class detects a change to the groupPolicyContainer class.

GPO deletion is covered by the gpo_deletion rule.

In the next major version update of Kaspersky EDR Expert, a new event type, GPO, will be introduced, allowing users to track changes to Group Policy Objects.

For information security officers, GPO events will serve as an additional source of context when investigating activity in Active Directory and will help detect changes that could affect the configuration, access rights, and security of endpoints before a potentially malicious policy is deployed.

MITRE ATT&CK mapping

Indicators of compromise

GPOs
PAYLOAD ransomware GPO: {C897F2C7-C2AC-4E6F-BF48-58036FF29E79}
win Firewall Off GPO: {22099AD2-E062-4F56-B574-5099BBA4E7A6}

File names and MD5 hashes
payload.jpg: Ransom wallpaper and lock screen image (SYSVOL)
hello.txt: Ransom note source (SYSVOL)
README-payload.txt: Ransom note dropped to desktops and drive roots
killer.exe (0108656A3E1ADE6CA4F21B084F5E1208): process killer tool
kill.exe (BEA5E267F24D7DA59F6821BFFDBFF293): process killer tool

IP addresses
37.19.210[.]12
146.70.117[.]239
149.102.229[.]154
104.164.55[.]46
104.28.162[.]228
104.28.163[.]162
64.190.76[.]14
192.42.116[.]50
192.42.116[.]12
192.42.116[.]56
192.42.116[.]97
192.42.116[.]52

Registry keys
HKLM\...\Policies\System\legalnoticecaption = Welcome to Payload!

SYSVOL path
\\DC.THECOMPANY.local\sysvol\THECOMPANY.local\payload.jpg

Event IDs
5137: GPO object creation on DC — review creator account
5136: GPO attribute modification — watch gPLink at domain root

Apart from the privacy concerns around smart glasses, researchers have found that some cheap brands come with barely any security at all.

ABC Australia reports that researchers from NSB Cyber and Abstract Shield tested two inexpensive pairs, costing A$60 and A$110 (around US$42 and US$78), and found more than a dozen flaws across the smart glasses themselves, their app, and an associated website.

The main problem they uncovered was insecure Bluetooth pairing: If the glasses were powered on and not connected to their owner’s phone, an attacker could connect first, with no password or meaningful pairing confirmation.

After connecting, an attacker could reportedly control the glasses to capture photos or recordings, copy existing media, and intercept data moving between the glasses and the phone. An attacker could also make another device appear to be the victim’s glasses, allowing it to connect to the owner’s mobile app.

The testing also found that a Bluetooth-visible device identifier could allegedly be used with a weakness in the app’s website to retrieve a user’s email address and date of birth.

The research uncovered another privacy issue. ABC reports that voice or text submitted to the built-in AI, along with images sent to it, was first transmitted to a server in Shenzhen and could be forwarded elsewhere, depending on the function. The tests did not establish how the data was subsequently used.

The server locations, combined with some of the AI’s answers to specific questions, led researchers to conclude that the chatbot companion relied at least in part on Chinese sovereign AI models. Professor Kimberlee Weatherall, a technology regulation expert involved in the testing, said the failure to identify China in the privacy policy appeared to violate the Australian Privacy Principles,

The timing of the testing is also relevant because Australia’s smart-device security standards apply to most consumer smart devices manufactured on or after March 4, 2026. They require, among other measures, no universal default passwords, a way to report vulnerabilities, and information about the minimum security-update period. Devices made before that date are outside the requirements.

Experts quoted by ABC said the devices violated Australia’s privacy laws and were also likely to breach several sections of the Cyber Security Act. However, whether the new smart-device standards apply would depend partly on when the glasses were manufactured, and the rules have not yet been tested in a known enforcement action.

Professor Weatherall said:

“The rules say that the password must be unique. It doesn’t even seem like they were applying a password, which might mean that their standards are so low they don’t even technically breach that rule, which I find amazing.”

What to do

We’re not fans of smart glasses, expensive or cheap. But if you own a pair:

• Avoid pairing or using inexpensive camera glasses that lack a clear physical pairing step, account authentication, a published security-contact process, and a stated update-support period.
• Stop using their AI or cloud features for sensitive material, remove unnecessary permissions from the companion app, check for firmware and app updates, and consider returning the product if the vendor cannot document a fix.
• Ask permission before recording people, and check your local laws to understand what is and isn’t allowed.

From reporting threats to removing them.

Cybersecurity risks should never spread beyond a headline. Keep threats off your devices by downloading Malwarebytes today.

Hackers captured a Flock camera and got a look (alternate link) at the software:

While much of the automatic license plate reader’s (ALPR) most sensitive storage remained encrypted and inaccessible, the joint analysis of the recovered data shows that software running on the device explicitly detects people as well as vehicles, license plates, and bicycles. The camera can produce dozens of images of a single passing vehicle and, according to several weeks of recovered logs, generated more than a million images. Its computer-vision software also sometimes isolated bumper stickers and other graphics, including, in one case, an American flag patch on a motorcyclist’s saddlebag.

If you’re wondering how the hackers got by disk encryption, one of the unencrypted partitions contained the key for an encrypted partition. That’s pretty bad security engineering.

Executive summary

In April 2026, we at Kaspersky’s Global Emergency Response Team (GERT) responded to a security incident at a manufacturing organization in the Middle East. The threat actor obtained domain admin-equivalent control of the organization’s Active Directory environment and authored a malicious Group Policy Object (GPO) named PAYLOAD, linking it at the domain root. Through that single object, the actor delivered ransom notes, hijacked the desktop wallpaper and lock screen, enforced a logon banner, and disabled the local administrator account across every domain-joined Windows workstation — all without dropping a ransomware binary or encrypting any data. The only ransomware we found in this incident was PAYLOAD sample targeting ESXi on Linux servers. Besides that, data exfiltration was observed originating from the file servers and several additional systems, and was later published on the dark web.

This case is an example of two converging trends that define the 2026 ransomware landscape:

1. Living-off-the-land abuse of trusted AD infrastructure. Group Policy is a signed, allowlisted, SYSTEM-privileged distribution channel that the majority of endpoint detection and response tools is designed not to inspect. By delivering impact through GPO rather than through malware, the actor sidestepped the entire file- and process-based detection stack.
2. Encryptionless extortion. Industry telemetry shows extortion-only incidents grow significantly year-on-year. PAYLOAD fits this model; the leverage is operational disruption and the threat of escalation rather than cryptographic denial of data.

We confirmed that no files were encrypted on Windows machines, no malicious binaries were resident on disk, no endpoint persistence was established, and no malicious processes were running at the time of analysis. The entire attack lived inside Active Directory itself. The defensive implication is stark: an organization whose detection strategy depends on catching a ransomware executable would have seen nothing until the first endpoint rebooted and the ransom wallpaper appeared.

In this article, we will describe the GPO attack chain and provide operational advice on how to detect such threats, including detailed remediation recommendations.

Group Policy as an attack surface

Attacks through group policies are nothing new. They can inflict significant, domain-wide damage with multiple malicious capabilities. A Group Policy Object (GPO) is essentially a combination of a Group Policy Container (GPC) in Active Directory and a Group Policy Template (GPT) in SYSVOL. The Group Policy scope depends on whether the GPC is linked to the directory tree at the domain, site, or organization unit (OU) level. A link at the domain root means the policy applies to every computer and user object beneath it. Thus, a GPO compromised at the domain root can affect all in-scope domain users and computers, potentially granting an attacker complete control over the corporate network. What makes GPO abuse even more dangerous is that group policies are processed in a trusted, high-privilege environment, ensuring persistence because endpoint cleanup is not enough to remove them.

We have already discussed GPO architecture and ways it can be compromised in greater detail in an earlier blog post. Other public threat intelligence has also repeatedly documented this technique in ransomware operations. Microsoft observed Ryuk operators distributing ransomware through Group Policy, SYSVOL startup items, and PsExec. LockBit affiliates have been documented modifying SYSVOL Group Policy files, including ScheduledTasks.xml, to support ransomware execution and propagation. BlackCat/ALPHV operators have also abused GPOs to create scheduled tasks and deploy ransomware.

Another notable example of GPO abuse is PAYLOAD ransomware, which weaponizes GPO Preferences and policy settings for pure impact rather than as a launcher for an encryptor. Let’s take a closer look at this attack, which is detailed further below.

Attack timeline

During the April 2026 investigation, we managed to reconstruct the attack timeline as outlined below:

Next, we will discuss each of these stages in more detail and share the findings from our incident response activities.

Incident overview

Initial access

The entry vector was a compromised valid account (MITRE ATT&CK T1078) used to authenticate through the organization’s FortiGate SSL VPN — an external remote service (T1133). Insufficient logging on the FortiGate appliance prevented us from reconstructing how the credential was originally compromised.

Three hypotheses were considered plausible in the context of the attack, in no particular order:

• Password spraying or credential stuffing against the SSL VPN portal.
• Phishing-led credential harvesting.
• Purchase of pre-compromised credentials from an initial access broker (IAB).

Once on the internal network, the actor operated with the compromised security principal’s privileges. Because the account was able to create and link a GPO at the domain root, it held either domain admin privileges or a delegated equivalent (e.g., membership of Group Policy Creator Owners combined with link rights on the domain object).

FortiGate SSL VPN authentication logs and ESXi/virtualization privilege escalation logs were insufficient to reconstruct the lateral movement and privilege escalation chain between initial VPN access and the GPO write privilege level. The most common real-world routes to GPO control — DCSync, Kerberoasting of privileged service accounts, and Pass-the-Hash/Pass-the-Ticket — could not be confirmed or ruled out.

Execution

Rather than deploying an encryptor, the actor abused the victim’s Active Directory policy infrastructure, resulting in malicious GPOs being configured and linked at the domain root to deliver the observed impact across domain-joined systems. The two GPOs below constitute the entire offensive toolkit observed.

The PAYLOAD GPO

We performed a Resultant Set of Policy (RSOP) analysis, which helped us list all policy settings on the affected workstations. From these results, we reconstructed the following changes delivered by PAYLOAD:

The PAYLOAD GPO enabled the following actions:

1. Drop SYSVOL\hello.txt to the desktop and root directories C:\ and D:\ as a read-only README-payload.txt by tampering with the “Group Policy Files” client-side extension (CSE).
2. Modify the HKLM\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Policies\System\ registry key, changing the legalnoticecaption value to "Welcome to Payload!" and the legalnoticetext to the ransom note text through the “Group Policy Registry” CSE.
3. Set payload.jpg located in the targeted domain controller’s SYSVOL as the lock screen image by altering the personalization policy, and as the wallpaper by altering the desktop policy at the user level.
4. Revoke administrator rights for the administrator account (locking the account) by editing the Security Settings CSE in the GptTmpl.inf file.

This activity was enabled entirely through a legitimate group policy mechanism, meaning there is no malware code for security solutions to look for because the malicious logic is contained within the policy configuration.

The win Firewall Off GPO

A second domain-root-linked GPO, named “win Firewall Off”, disabled Windows Firewall across the domain, private and public profiles on all endpoints (T1562.004). Deployed independently of PAYLOAD, this object degraded host defenses and ensured the actor retained unimpeded network reach to endpoints for any follow-on activity.

Settings changed by win Firewall Off GPO

The one-day delay detonation

The most forensically instructive detail is the one-day gap between GPO creation (13 April) and visible impact (14 April). Analysis of Master File Table (MFT) timestamps and the Group Policy History registry key confirmed the policy was written to SYSVOL and cached on endpoints on 13 April. However, computer configuration settings (wallpaper and lock screen machine policy, security settings, firewall disabling) only apply upon reboot or policy refresh — and no endpoint had rebooted in the interim. The attack therefore remained dormant in the GPO cache for one day before detonating en masse when machines were restarted in accordance with standard procedures.

We have to point out here that this delayed policy application is characteristic of GPO-based operations and has two potential consequences for defenders. Firstly, it may grant the actor a quiet window for exfiltration, persistence, or further staging between weaponization and impact. Secondly, it can be used to sever the temporal link between the cause (a GPO-creation event in the directory log) and the effect (mass user-visible disruption occurring at a later time), complicating timeline reconstruction unless directory service auditing is in place.

Forensic findings

Initial incident response engagement revealed a number of findings associated with the attack that we share below.

1. No file encryption
   A full review of the MFT on affected workstations found no files bearing a .payload extension characteristic to PAYLOAD ransomware and no evidence of bulk renaming or encryption I/O patterns. The attackers’ objectives were operational disruption and extortion via visual impact and access denial.
2. No endpoint persistence
   All standard persistence locations were clean:
   • Scheduled tasks — no malicious tasks
   • Run/RunOnce keys — clean
   • Startup folders (user and system) — clean
   • Services — no malicious service installed
   • WMI event subscriptions — none
   • Boot sector/MBR — unmodified

   The attack’s persistence mechanism is the GPO link itself on the domain controller, with no endpoint-resident component.

3. No active malicious processes
   Live process and memory analysis revealed no injected threads, process hollowing or anomalous outbound connections.
4. Registry timeline analysis
   Group Policy History, Shadow and State registry keys on the workstation recorded the application of PAYLOAD on 13 April:
   HKLM\…\Group Policy\History\{35378EAC-683F-11D2-A89A-00C04FBBCFA2}\1
   HKLM\…\Group Policy\Shadow\{827D319E-6EAC-11D2-A4EA-00C04F79F83A}\0
   HKLM\…\Group Policy\State\Machine\GPO-List\7
   HKCU\…\Group Policy\History\{7150F9BF-48AD-4da4-A49C-29EF4A8369BA}\1
   HKCU\…\Group Policy\State\S-1-5-21-…\Loopback-GPO-List\5
   The presence of the “Loopback-GPO-List” entry indicates the GPO was processed in loopback mode, ensuring the user configuration (wallpaper) applied regardless of which user logged on to the machine.
5. SYSVOL artifacts
   Two files were staged on the domain controller’s SYSVOL share and served to endpoints through the Files Group Policy Preference CSE:
   • payload.jpg — the ransom image used for both wallpaper and lock screen.
   • hello.txt — the ransom note, distributed to desktops and drive roots as README-payload.txt.

Detection engineering

Because no malicious binary or process exists, the detection logic should focus on the directory service and SYSVOL indicators. Below are the highest-value telemetry sources for identifying the described malicious activity.

• Directory service change auditing (DS Access)
  Enable Advanced Audit Policy → DS Access → Audit Directory Service Changes on all domain controllers and set up alerts for the following events:

  Event ID	Meaning	Hunt focus
  5137	A directory service object was created	The account that created new groupPolicyContainer objects must be an authorized GPO administrator
  5136	A directory service object was modified	Changes to gPLink on the domain root or sensitive organizational units; changes to gPCMachineExtensionNames/gPCUserExtensionNames/gPCFileSysPath/versionNumber for all GPOs
  5141	A directory service object was deleted	GPO deletions (relevant for tamper detection and remediation assessment)

  A gPLink modification at the domain root by a non-standard account is one of the most telling indicators of this attack class.

• SYSVOL file integrity monitoring
  Monitor \\DC.THECOMPANY.local\sysvol\THECOMPANY.local\Policies\ for unexpected files, particularly image files, text files, scripts, ScheduledTasks.xml, and modified registry.pol/GptTmpl.inf files that were created by sources other than legitimate replication.
• Endpoint policy application telemetry
  On endpoints, GPO application is logged in the Group Policy Operational log (Microsoft-Windows-GroupPolicy/Operational) and reflected in the History and Shadow registry keys shown above. A sudden domain-wide change to the applied policy set is a strong post-detonation signal.
• Missing 5136 events
  If the contents of a GPO’s SYSVOL change without a corresponding 5136 event, this can indicate direct SYSVOL/template editing (e.g., via open-source tools such as PowerView or SharpGPOAbuse) that bypasses the normal Group Policy Management Console (GPMC) modification path. While we recommend treating the absence of expected audit events as suspicious, it should be noted that this can be caused by misconfigured auditing.

Anti-forensics and recovery-inhibition capabilities

Confirmed PAYLOAD family capabilities

The Windows endpoint attack described in this report was implemented through malicious Group Policy Objects and did not involve a recovered ransomware executable, resident endpoint malware, confirmed file encryption or active malicious processes at the time of the forensic examination. However, PAYLOAD cryptomalware for Windows does exist, and other sources, including public analysis of its samples, reveal further malicious capabilities of this ransomware that could be used by security teams to enrich detection logic and security policies.

The behaviors documented in this section must therefore be interpreted as family-level capabilities identified through the public reverse engineering of PAYLOAD ransomware samples. They were not confirmed as having executed during the GPO-based incident unless corresponding evidence was identified in the host, memory, process, event-log, or hypervisor.

Windows Event Log clearing

Public reverse engineering of the PAYLOAD Windows variant reveals an optional event log clearing capability (T1685.005, formerly T1070.001). The ransomware dynamically resolves Windows Event Log APIs, enumerates available event log channels, and clears individual channels.

Implementation artifacts include:

• Runtime loading of wevtapi.dll
• EvtOpenChannelEnum
• EvtNextChannelPath
• EvtClearLog
• Enumeration of Security, System, Application, and PowerShell logs, and operational channels
• A command-line option controlling whether log clearing is performed

Clearing event logs reduces the availability of records related to process execution, authentication, PowerShell, service control, and system changes. However, it does not necessarily remove events that were already forwarded to a SIEM, Windows Event Collector, EDR backend, or protected log archive.

Forensic indicators

• Windows Security Event ID 1102
• Event logging shutdown or failure events
• Sudden reductions in event record identifiers
• Multiple event channels restarting from low record numbers
• Gaps between endpoint and centrally forwarded telemetry
• Execution of utilities or APIs associated with log management
• Direct access to EVTX files (Windows Event Log files) under the Windows event log directory

We should note that these indicators can’t be interpreted on their own. For instance, Event ID 1102 should be correlated with a number of aggravating factors, such as:

• Event ID 4688 or Sysmon Event ID 1 for process creation
• Event ID 4624 for the associated administrative logon
• EDR process trees
• PowerShell operational logging
• Windows Event Forwarding records
• Privileged access management activity

At the same time, the absence of Event ID 1102 does not prove that log clearing did not occur. Direct deletion, truncation, service impairment, or an incomplete audit configuration may produce different evidence.

Security process and service termination

PAYLOAD analysis reveals that the Windows ransomware variant contains logic that targets security processes and services (T1685 and T1489). This capability is intended to stop security products, backup software, database services, and applications that may lock files targeted for encryption.
Process and service termination serves several objectives:

1. Reduce endpoint detection and response visibility.
2. Release file handles so data can be modified.
3. Interrupt backup and recovery services.
4. Prevent databases and enterprise applications from protecting active data.
5. Reduce interference with encryption operations.

Forensic indicators

• Security agent services changing from running to stopped
• Event ID 7036 service state changes
• Event ID 7040 service start type changes
• Event ID 4688 or Sysmon Event ID 1 for service control utilities
• Sysmon Event ID 5 for terminated processes
• EDR health degradation affecting many endpoints
• Repeated termination attempts against security or backup processes
• Execution of dedicated process killing utilities

VSS deletion, backup and recovery suppression

Public PAYLOAD sample analysis reports the deletion of Windows Volume Shadow Copies before encryption (T1490). This behavior removes local restore points and reduces the victim’s ability to recover files without external backups.

Recovery inhibition is broader than VSS deletion and may include multiple other malicious techniques, including the following:

• Deleting shadow copies, backup catalogs, and hypervisor snapshots
• Disabling recovery services
• Modifying boot recovery settings
• Compromising backup management platforms
• Deleting or encrypting backup repositories

In the PAYLOAD Windows sample that is proven to perform encryption, VSS deletion is confirmed to have taken place before encryption. A broader compromise of the backup platform was not established in the investigated incident.

Forensic indicators

• Execution of shadow copy management utilities
• Backup catalog deletion attempts
• Recovery configuration changes
• Backup service termination
• Mass snapshot deletions
• Backup administrator logons outside normal maintenance windows
• Backup retention or immutability changes
• Backup jobs failing immediately before disruptive activity

Ecosystem-relevant ransomware techniques

Above, we discussed the techniques specific to PAYLOAD ransomware. In this section, we’ll review other common ransomware techniques, such as BYOVD abuse and ESXi policy weakening, that remain relevant risks in the ransomware ecosystem. However, these techniques should not be attributed to this incident without supporting driver load, process, memory, ESXi, vCenter, or backup platform telemetry. We describe these techniques below as they may prove useful in other ransomware-related forensic investigations.

The examples used in this section are therefore ecosystem-relevant: they are commonly observed in ransomware operations but not conclusively attributed to the analyzed PAYLOAD samples.

ETW suppression and in-memory patching

Event Tracing for Windows (ETW) is a kernel-supported tracing architecture used by Windows components, diagnostic utilities, security products, and endpoint monitoring systems.

Although we didn’t encounter this technique in our case, some ransomware families can patch ETW-related functions inside the ransomware process (T1685, formerly T1562.001). The reported routine changes the memory protection of code pages, overwrites the beginning of selected ETW functions so they return without producing events, restores the original protection, and refreshes the instruction cache.

Reported target functions include EtwEventWrite, EtwEventWriteFull, EtwEventWriteTransfer, and EtwRegister.

This modification applies to the process-local mapping of ntdll.dll. It does not disable ETW globally across Windows, but it can reduce the telemetry generated by the modified process.

Forensic indicators

• Writable or recently modified executable pages within ntdll.dll
• Memory protection changes affecting ETW function addresses
• In-memory code differing from the corresponding clean DLL on disk
• EDR memory tampering alerts
• Unexpected calls to memory protection APIs followed by telemetry silence
• Process execution visible in network or filesystem telemetry but absent from expected ETW-derived sources
• Inconsistent telemetry between EDR, Sysmon, Windows Event Logs, and network monitoring

It should be noted that telemetry gaps are not conclusive evidence of ETW patching. Other factors include agent upgrades, network outages, endpoint shutdowns, SIEM ingestion failures, collector backpressure, and filtering or licensing changes.

Memory acquisition is the strongest validation source when process-local ETW patching is suspected.

Vulnerable signed driver abuse, BYOVD

Bring Your Own Vulnerable Driver (BYOVD) involves introducing or abusing a legitimately signed but vulnerable kernel driver (T1068 and T1685). The attacker exploits the driver’s exposed functionality to gain kernel-level capabilities, modify protected memory, terminate security processes, remove security callbacks, or bypass operating system security controls.

BYOVD is highly relevant to contemporary ransomware operations. However, the reviewed public PAYLOAD analyses do not provide sufficient evidence to conclude that BYOVD is an intrinsic PAYLOAD capability.

It should therefore be presented as an ecosystem-relevant technique rather than a confirmed PAYLOAD feature.

Forensic indicators

• Unexpected .sys files written to user-writable or temporary directories
• New kernel driver services
• Sysmon Event ID 6
• Driver hashes matching Microsoft or community vulnerable driver blocklists
• Invalid, revoked, expired, or unusual driver signatures
• Driver load followed by EDR termination
• New privileged processes immediately following driver loading
• Code Integrity or Defender alerts
• Service creation events referencing driver files

ESXi security policy weakening

Ransomware operators are increasingly targeting ESXi and vCenter because compromising the virtualization layer provides access to many business-critical virtual machines.

Public research typically describes operators performing the following activities (T1685, T1490 and T1489):

• Enabling SSH on ESXi hosts
• Changing root passwords
• Disabling execInstalledOnly
• Modifying lockdown mode exceptions
• Stopping virtual machines
• Deleting snapshots and backups
• Changing host firewall policies
• Copying custom ransomware binaries to hypervisors

On the target organization’s Linux servers we saw an ESXi PAYLOAD variant, which makes this behavior operationally relevant. Nevertheless, the reviewed evidence does not indicate that PAYLOAD operators used any of these policy-weakening actions in the investigated incident.

Forensic indicators

• Unexpected ESXi SSH enablement
• Changes to execInstalledOnly
• Secure Boot enforcement changes
• Lockdown mode configuration changes
• Root password changes
• New or unusual administrator accounts
• Bulk VM shutdown activity
• Bulk snapshot deletion
• New binaries in datastore or temporary paths
• vCenter tasks originating from unexpected accounts or systems
• Missing or disabled remote syslog forwarding

Remediation

To contain the described threat and limit possible damage, several remediation steps should be taken. Below, we recommend a four-phase remediation approach for containing this threat and restoring the affected environment.

Phase 1 — domain controller actions (to be performed first)

When dealing with PAYLOAD GPO, the first priority of the remediation plan should be to remove the source GPOs. Until this is done, endpoint cleanup is ineffective because the next policy refresh re-infects cleaned machines.

The immediate domain controller actions to be taken are:

1. Delete PAYLOAD GPO. Remove {C897F2C7-C2AC-4E6F-BF48-58036FF29E79} via GPMC.
2. Delete or revert win Firewall Off GPO. Remove {22099AD2-E062-4F56-B574-5099BBA4E7A6}.
3. Clean SYSVOL. Delete jpg and hello.txt from \\DC.THECOMPANY.local\sysvol\THECOMPANY.local\.
4. Rotate credentials. Reset the compromised account; audit all privileged accounts and group memberships for unauthorized changes; rotate krbtgt twice if domain admin compromise is confirmed.
5. Force refresh. Perform gpupdate /force across endpoints after deletion; re-enable local administrator and firewall via clean policy.

Phase 2 — Active Directory and GPO hardening

• Adopt the AD tiered administration model and confine domain admins to Tier 0 with no interactive logon to workstations and member servers.
• Separate GPO creation from GPO linking rights, and grant both only to a dedicated, audited administrator role.
• Enable GPO change auditing (Event IDs 5136, 5137, 5141) and forward to a SIEM.
• Monitor SYSVOL with file integrity tooling.

Phase 3 — credential and access hardening

• Enforce phishing-resistant MFA on all VPN and remote access entry points.
• Deploy Windows LAPS to generate unique, rotated local administrator passwords.
• Enable Credential Guard to protect LSASS-resident secrets.
• Adopt Privileged Access Workstations (PAW) for all administration.
• Implement just-in-time elevation through Privileged Identity Management (PIM) for domain admin.

Phase 4 — detection and monitoring

• SIEM rule: GPO creation or domain-root gPLink change by a non-standard account.
• SIEM rule: file creation events under SYSVOL from non-replication sources.
• Implement enhanced, centrally collected FortiGate SSL VPN logging (auth events, session detail, source IP geolocation, impossible travel check) and detailed perimeter monitoring.
• Deploy a canary GPO whose application anywhere signals attacker GPO write access.

Conclusion

PAYLOAD demonstrates a maturing tactic of turning the victim’s own trusted infrastructure into a weapon. By weaponizing Group Policy, the actor achieved a domain-wide impact without a single malicious binary on any endpoint, evaded file- and process-based detection entirely, and caused organization-wide disruption within seconds of the first reboot.

The absence of encryption is the most strategically significant finding and is consistent with the 2026 trend toward encryptionless extortion. At Kaspersky GERT, we assess with moderate confidence that the missing encryption reflects one of two scenarios: (1) a deliberate decision to stay below the irreversible data destruction threshold while preserving the option of a follow-on encryption phase, or (2) an operation interrupted before full execution.

The absence of encrypted files must not be mistaken for the absence of a serious compromise — the most critical impact lies in the actor gaining domain admin-level control. This incident proves that a threat actor with domain admin access and a working knowledge of group policy internals can inflict domain-wide disruption equivalent to a ransomware attack without writing a single malicious file to any endpoint.

Detection strategies anchored solely in file- or process-based indicators are blind to this attack class. Effective controls include directory service change auditing, SYSVOL integrity monitoring, and privileged access governance, which allow for GPO protection.

Detection by Kaspersky solutions

Kaspersky security solutions effectively detect the described malicious activity at various stages of the attack. Possible detection scenarios are listed below.
To protect organizations that use our Kaspersky SIEM system, we have prepared a package of correlation rules designed to help detect this type of malicious activity. The rules are now available for customers to download from the SIEM repository; the package name is: [OOTB] Group policy hijacked: PAYLOAD ransomware – ENG.

The “Group policy hijacked: PAYLOAD ransomware” package contains rules that detect suspicious file creation or modification in the SYSVOL shared folder on a domain controller, as well as changes to critical attributes and settings of domain group policies. Some rules may require adjustment if they trigger in response to legitimate activity, such as synchronization between domain controllers or the configuration of a new group policy.

To ensure the detection rules function correctly, verify that events from Windows systems are being received in full, including events with the following identifiers: Sysmon: 11, Security — 4663, 5136, 4657.

We also recommend applying the following rules available in the repository to detect all attack stages.

• Detection of Windows Event Log clearing to cover up traces of an attack: R050_03_Windows Event Log was cleared
• Detection of suspicious access to the LSASS process, which may indicate attempts to dump credentials: R262_Suspicious access to the LSASS process
• Detection of the Volume Shadow Copy service being started, which is used to create shadow copies before deleting them: R231_20_Running the Volume Shadow Copy service
• Detection of shadow copy deletion: R321_Shadow copy deletion
• Detection of Windows Defender disablement: R076_01_Windows Defender Antivirus was disabled
• Detection of attempts to disable or modify the system firewall: R240_03_Disabling system firewall via the registry
• Detection of a service installation from a non-system folder, which may indicate malware persistence techniques: R281_01_Installation of a service from a non-system folder

For the rules in this list to function correctly, it is necessary to configure Security event auditing for event IDs 4663, 5136, 4657, 7036, and 1102.

In addition to the SIEM system, when audit settings are configured correctly, the process of creating, modifying, and deleting GPOs generates a large number of characteristic artifacts on the domain controller, enabling Kaspersky Endpoint Detection and Response Expert to promptly alert the user to anomalies in the infrastructure.

The creation of a new GPO is covered by the gpo_creation rule, which triggers in response to the corresponding event in the infrastructure. Changes to existing policies are detected by the following rules:

• The setting_the_gpcmachineextensionname_attribute rule detects changes to the gPCMachineExtensionNames attribute.
• The setting_the_gpcfilesyspath_attribute rule detects the use of the gPCFileSysPath attribute of a Group Policy Object, which specifies the path to the GPO’s contents in SYSVOL.
• The broader rule setting_the_grouppolicycontainer_class detects a change to the groupPolicyContainer class.

GPO deletion is covered by the gpo_deletion rule.

In the next major version update of Kaspersky EDR Expert, a new event type, GPO, will be introduced, allowing users to track changes to Group Policy Objects.

For information security officers, GPO events will serve as an additional source of context when investigating activity in Active Directory and will help detect changes that could affect the configuration, access rights, and security of endpoints before a potentially malicious policy is deployed.

MITRE ATT&CK mapping

Indicators of compromise

GPOs
PAYLOAD ransomware GPO: {C897F2C7-C2AC-4E6F-BF48-58036FF29E79}
win Firewall Off GPO: {22099AD2-E062-4F56-B574-5099BBA4E7A6}

File names and MD5 hashes
payload.jpg: Ransom wallpaper and lock screen image (SYSVOL)
hello.txt: Ransom note source (SYSVOL)
README-payload.txt: Ransom note dropped to desktops and drive roots
killer.exe (0108656A3E1ADE6CA4F21B084F5E1208): process killer tool
kill.exe (BEA5E267F24D7DA59F6821BFFDBFF293): process killer tool

IP addresses
37.19.210[.]12
146.70.117[.]239
149.102.229[.]154
104.164.55[.]46
104.28.162[.]228
104.28.163[.]162
64.190.76[.]14
192.42.116[.]50
192.42.116[.]12
192.42.116[.]56
192.42.116[.]97
192.42.116[.]52

Registry keys
HKLM\...\Policies\System\legalnoticecaption = Welcome to Payload!

SYSVOL path
\\DC.THECOMPANY.local\sysvol\THECOMPANY.local\payload.jpg

Event IDs
5137: GPO object creation on DC — review creator account
5136: GPO attribute modification — watch gPLink at domain root

Malicious extensions and ClickFix attacks are two hugely popular topics on our blog, and for a good reason: they’re both very common. In this post, we bring them together. Here’s the thing: in our posts about malicious ClickFix instructions, we don’t always explain exactly how users end up on the attackers’ pages in the first place. A recent study gives us a chance to fill that gap and talk about one of those methods: malicious extensions.

Readers who are not deep into cybersecurity may already have a bunch of questions at this point: how can extensions be malicious? where do they come from? and what exactly is ClickFix, anyway? Fret not: this post answers all these questions.

The danger of browser extensions

Let’s start with the basics. Browser extensions or add-ons are lightweight tools installed in your browser to give it extra capabilities or change how it works with web pages. For example, extensions can block ads, translate pages, download audio and video, save passwords, or take screenshots.

Most browser developers offer users an official extension store. For instance, for the most popular browser, Chrome, that store is the Chrome Web Store. There are also alternative platforms for distributing extensions, though browser developers have recently made it much harder to install and use extensions that don’t come from an official source.

Just like any other software, extensions can be useful, but they can also be malicious. In fact, cybercriminals often spread malicious extensions through those very same official stores, and we’ve covered plenty of such cases on our blog before.

It’s no accident that criminals love spreading malicious plug-ins. To work properly, most extensions need permission to read and modify the content of every web page the user visits. Without that permission, add-ons would be basically useless. For instance, a translation extension needs to read all the text on a page before it can swap the original for the translation.

Cybercriminals take advantage of these capabilities for their own purposes: for example, they intercept logins, passwords and other data entered on websites, swap out payment details, or show victims fake forms and messages. And all of this happens on legitimate sites that users have come to trust without a second thought.

Now let’s move on to a fresh piece of research about a campaign that spread 19 malicious add-ons through the Chrome and Edge extension stores. We’ll use it as an example to look at what these tools can actually do.

Almost twenty malicious extensions for Chrome and Edge

In late August, cybersecurity researchers reported finding 18 malicious extensions for Chrome and one for Edge. They said all 19 add-ons were probably linked to the same campaign. They base this on the similarity of the malicious code and the methods the attackers used. You’ll find the full list of malicious extensions at the end of this post.

Most of the extensions discovered, 14 in total, were built by the attackers themselves. Their first versions weren’t malicious at all and did exactly what users downloaded them for. But after a while, once users had come to trust the add-on, the attackers pushed an update that slipped in malicious functionality.

As for the remaining five extensions, their creators had nothing to do with the cybercriminals at all. They simply sold their creations to them. This way of getting hold of extensions is also popular among cybercrooks. There are plenty of reasons for that: ready-made add-ons can be bought for relatively little money, and criminals don’t have to build or promote them from scratch. And most importantly, along with the extension, they also inherit its existing user base. Upon buying the add-on, all the attackers need to do is add malicious functions and push an update that installs automatically for users. Users are never told that the extension’s real owner has changed.

In this case, the add-on cybercriminals bought most often was Enable Right Click & Copy — Smart Unlock + OCR. It had 70 000 users in Chrome and 10 000 in Edge. This purchase is exactly why there’s a single Edge extension among all its Chrome relatives. The add-on itself originally served a perfectly benign purpose: it let users select and copy text on sites where that’s normally blocked, and it could also pull text out of images with optical character recognition (OCR).

At the time of the research, the Edge version of the extension had more than 10 000 users. Source

The malicious functionality introduced into the extension makes it reach out to the attackers’ command-and-control (C2) server to download additional modules of nefarious code. These modules can change over time. Since Chrome automatically updates all installed extensions by default, the malicious version lands on the device without users having to do anything at all.

For the downloaded code to run on the websites the user visits, the extension disables one of their defenses — Content Security Policy (CSP). This mechanism allows website owners to declare which scripts and other resources are allowed to load and run on a page. Once this protection is turned off, the extension can inject code it gets from the C2 server right into the pages open in the browser. The website itself isn’t hacked, and it looks the same to everyone else, but for that one infected user, the legitimate page quietly turns malicious.

What these 19 extensions can do

Now let’s take a closer look at what the malicious modules loaded by the extension are actually capable of. Researchers found 16 such modules, built for all sorts of tasks: from stealing data and hijacking cryptocurrency to the ClickFix attacks we’re focusing on here.

Some of the modules simply collect user data. They intercept logins, passwords, email addresses, and other valuable information the user enters into web forms, including payment details. On top of that, the add-ons steal data from Facebook and LinkedIn accounts and collect browsing history. Criminals can use this information to take over accounts, steal money, and launch further attacks against the victim.

A few other modules focus specifically on stealing cryptocurrency and related data directly. One of them is a crypto drainer, a tool that empties crypto wallets. It works with Ethereum and compatible blockchains as well as Solana and Tron. It replaces the real Connect Wallet and Swap buttons on websites with its own fake ones. When a user clicks one of these buttons, the drainer takes over all further interaction with the wallet and walks the victim through confirming the actions needed to steal their cryptocurrency.

Other modules target users of Ledger and Trezor hardware wallets. Right on the official websites of these services, the malicious extension displays a fake wallet update-and-restore page that asks for a seed phrase of 12, 18, or 24 words. The seed phrase the user enters is forwarded straight to the attackers, giving them full control over the wallet.

The fake form asks the user to enter a seed phrase of 12, 18, or 24 words, which then ends up in the attackers’ hands. Source

Finally, some modules gather information from crypto service pages open in the browser, such as OKX, MEXC, Kraken, KuCoin, Coinbase, Binance, Bybit, and MetaMask, including balance details and active session data that can be used to hijack accounts.

And now we’ve finally reached the module that matters most for this post: the one used for ClickFix attacks. We’ll talk about it in the next part.

How malicious extensions are used in ClickFix attacks

The ClickFix attack technique has become extremely popular among cybercriminals lately. It relies on social engineering: the victim is shown fake instructions supposedly needed to complete some action, such as passing a CAPTCHA check, fixing an error, or updating a program. Following these instructions, the user copies the command suggested by the attackers, pastes it into a system tool built for running these commands, and runs it, all by themselves.

We’ve written about attacks like this and their consequences more than once on our blog. But we rarely dig into exactly how a victim ends up on a page with fake instructions in the first place. A campaign that spread malicious extensions through the Chrome Web Store shows us one way this can happen.

Add-ons turn out to be a very handy tool for ClickFix attacks. As we mentioned earlier, when a user visits a page, extensions are allowed reading and changing its content in order to work. That gives attackers the chance to swap in a fake ClickFix instruction at just the right moment, replacing the content of the page the person actually wanted to open.

What’s more, the ClickFix technique itself lets attackers break out of the browser and gain a foothold directly in the system. That means removing the malicious extension won’t necessarily undo the damage: after the user has run the ClickFix command, malware may already be installed outside the browser.

In the specific attack example the researchers describe, the user sees a fake notification saying their browser needs to be updated, along with instructions on how to do it. The instructions change depending on the operating system, and the extension picks up that information automatically too.

In the macOS version of this attack, the user is told to open Terminal, copy a command, paste it there and run it, then restart Chrome to supposedly finish the update. Source

How to avoid falling victim to infected extensions

First off, we recommend checking whether any of the following malicious extensions are already installed in your browser:

• Enable Right Click & Copy — Smart Unlock + OCR
• RapidLens – Google Lens for Screen Search & Images
• QuickLens – Search Screen with Google Lens
• Password Protect PDF
• Allow Copy – Select & Enable Right Click
• PixelCheck
• Creative Library – Ad Spy Tool
• Website Traffic Checker: MirrorSphere SEO Stats
• Site Signal – Website Traffic & SEO Checker
• SEO Pulse Pro – Website Traffic & SEO Analyzer
• Private Crypto News Reader
• Blockfolio: Address Monitor
• Crypto Rates & Fiat Converter
• Crypto Alerter: Price Alarms & Volatility Warnings
• DeFi Pulse Tracker
• Crypto Price Badge: Quick Glance
• Multi-Chain Explorer
• LedgerLook: Wallet Checker
• Meta & Facebook Ad Library Spy — Save Ads, Finder, Downloader | FeedX-Ray

If you find any of these extensions on your device, we recommend removing it as soon as you can and running a full system scan with a reliable antivirus. As we mentioned above, simply deleting the add-on might not be enough. You can use a free trial version to detect and remove the infection.

How to avoid falling victim to malicious extensions and ClickFix attacks in the future?

• Don’t install too many extensions and regularly check the list of those you have.
• Remove extensions you don’t use.
• Trust the warnings from your operating system and security software, rather than the instructions — or even the demands — of websites and apps.
• Install a trusted security solution on all your devices.

What else makes browser extensions and the ClickFix technique dangerous? Find out in our other posts:

• Bad advice for gamers: ClickFix hits Steam forums
• ClickFix on macOS: how Apple users are being scammed
• Infostealer has entered the chat
• AI sidebar spoofing: a new attack on AI browsers
• Dangerous browser extensions

In short, WordPress security plugins are tools you add to your site to strengthen your settings, scan for malware, watch for file changes, and block suspicious activity from within WordPress. Most sites should use one, along with a firewall that filters traffic before WordPress even loads. Look for layered protection, good detection, clear handling of false alarms, minimal impact on performance, and real human support.

If you manage a WordPress site, you have probably searched for “best WordPress security plugin” at some point.

Continue reading WordPress Security Plugins: How to Choose the Right One at Sucuri Blog.

Threat actors are increasingly improving their tactics to make suspicious emails look like legitimate email notifications to potential victims, deploying techniques that impersonate internally sent emails from executive team members. While this technique is not new, the adoption of AI has enabled threat actors to improve their campaign templates and construct emails tailored to their recipients. Additionally, threat actors are incorporating multiple techniques within the same email to improve the overall narrative further.

In this blog, we will discuss a recent campaign observed using third-party email delivery infrastructure to send out over a million financial fraud scam emails that displayed multiple indicators consistent with the use of generative AI during email template creation. The threat actor impersonated CEOs of multiple target companies, attempting to convince accounts payable departments of the same companies to process an Automated Clearing House (ACH) payment of nearly $50,000. To add legitimacy, the actor included a forwarded email thread (and a fabricated invoice) between the impersonated CEO and ServiceNow (which was also being impersonated).

Attack chain overview

The campaign follows steps before and during the execution of the campaign: threat actors register impersonation domains, send executive-themed payment requests through trusted infrastructure, embed fabricated invoices and supporting conversations, and attempt to convince finance personnel to initiate ACH transfers.

Email Delivery

Between August 3 and 5, Microsoft detected a campaign consisting of more than a million emails targeting enterprise users. The attacker used multiple third-party email service accounts to send out the emails. A huge majority of these emails were sent to users in the United States (87.7% of the total campaign).

Unlike traditional invoice scams that rely on a single social engineering lure, this campaign layered executive impersonation, vendor branding, fabricated invoices, and supporting email conversations into a unified narrative intended to reduce recipient skepticism.

The threat actor impersonated executive team members (such as a CEO, CFO, President) of multiple targeted companies, attempting to convince accounts payable departments of the same companies to process an ACH payment of nearly $50,000. More specifically, the CEOs were impersonated in multiple places in the email such as in the sender display name, reply-to display name, and in the email signature. Email bodies contained a simple and direct “approval” of the “invoice below” as well as urged users to request a PDF version if they need it. Additionally, as mentioned earlier, the email signature contained certain details about the spoofed CEO such as name and email address.

Important note: Throughout this campaign, threat actors impersonated legitimate organizations using attacker-controlled infrastructure, fabricated communications, and lookalike domains. Microsoft found no evidence that the legitimate organizations referenced in the lures, including ServiceNow, were compromised or involved in the activity. Rather, the campaign relied on fraudulent domains and content designed to mimic trusted brands and individuals.

The threat actor did not stop there. To add further legitimacy, directly below the CEO signature, the actor included “forwarded” content , specifically a professional looking but fabricated “ServiceNow Platform — Annual Subscription” invoice. The extremely detailed invoice contains various ServiceNow branding and logos. It has basic invoice details such as invoice number, issue and due dates, currency, amount due, payment method, and itemized line items. The payment method instructed is a bank transfer to accounts controlled by the threat actor. Microsoft observed the use of multiple financial institutions across samples, indicating that payment destinations may vary between targets. Certain parts of the invoice are personalized to the recipient. Specifically, the “BILLED TO” section has the recipient company name and executive name.

The invoice shown below is a threat actor-created impersonation and was not issued by ServiceNow.

Finally, directly below the fake invoice, two more “forwarded” emails are included which are essentially a short conversation between the two spoofed executives (the targeted company executive, and ServiceNow President). The two executives are seen discussing the ServiceNow purchase, implementation and handling of the invoice.

From a defender point of view there are several indicators within the email indicating that the email and the “forwarded” thread are not genuine.

• “From” headers from the spoofed thread lack any data headers like actual forwarded emails.

• Suspicious language used in the spoofed thread such as “no need to copy me”.
• Suspicious language in headers i.e display name not matching sender address, subjects using financial lure keywords like ‘due bill’, ‘ACH Parment’ etc.
• Despite the sophistication of the generated content, several inconsistencies remained visible to defenders
• In real email threads, the previous threads are normally tabbed or otherwise visually grouped, while the previous threads in this example were left aligned.
• An additional inconsistency was observed where the targeted company’s CEO requested the recipient to send the invoice directly to victims and not CC the sender. However, in the most recent thread, the CEO stated that the invoice is approved and the invoice is sent from his address.

Domain registration

Before initiating the campaign, the threat actor registered several domains. A ‘ServiceNow’ lookalike domain service-nowinc[.]com was registered on July 31, shortly before the campaign activity was observed. This domain was used for the spoofed email address of ServiceNow President. It was also used in several places in the fabricated invoice such as in the contact email in case of any questions. The actor also registered another domain on the same day. The domain domainlify[.]net was used in the Reply-To email.

Generative AI usage

Microsoft observed several indicators consistent with AI-assisted template development. These included extensive HTML comments, structured section labeling, and highly uniform template construction. While these indicators suggest generative AI involvement, they do not independently establish the extent to which AI generated campaign content.

Examples:

Additionally, the use of ‘em dash’ (“—”) and banner ‘===========’ have also become other indicators associated with AI usage.

One possible indication of template-based generation is that invoice identifiers and narrative structure remained largely consistent across samples while organization-specific details changed between targets.

Mitigation and protection guidance

Microsoft provides layered protection against this type of executive-impersonation and invoice-fraud campaign. Properly configured email authentication, spoof protection, mail-flow connectors, and Microsoft Defender for Office 365 help identify and block suspicious messages before delivery; messages later determined to be malicious can be quarantined or removed through post-delivery remediation, including Zero-hour Auto Purge. Security teams can then use Microsoft Defender XDR and Security Copilot to investigate related alerts, affected users, and campaign indicators, coordinate response, and take remediation actions.

Together, these capabilities help reduce the likelihood that fraudulent payment requests reach finance personnel and support faster containment if a message is delivered.

To defend against social engineering campaigns involving executive impersonation, invoice fraud, and potentially AI-assisted content development, Microsoft recommends the following mitigations:

Configure automatic attack disruption in Microsoft Defender XDR. Automatic attack disruption is designed to contain attacks in progress, limit the impact on an organization’s assets, and provide more time for security teams to remediate the attack fully.

Enable Zero-hour auto purge (ZAP) in Office 365 to quarantine sent mail in response to newly acquired threat intelligence and retroactively neutralize malicious phishing, spam, or malware messages that have already been delivered to mailboxes.

Invest in advanced anti-phishing solutions that monitor and scan incoming emails and visited websites. For example, organizations can leverage web browsers like Microsoft Edge that automatically identify and block malicious websites, including those used in this phishing campaign, and solutions that detect and block malicious emails, links, and files.

These links provide information on how to properly configure mail flow with connectors:

• Manage mail flow using a third-party cloud service with Exchange Online
• Configure mail flow using connectors in Exchange Online
• Mail flow rules (transport rules) in Exchange Online
• Enhanced filtering for connectors in Exchange Online

These links provide information on configuring SPF, DKIM, and DMARC:

• Email authentication in cloud organizations
• Set up SPF to identify valid email sources for your custom cloud domains
• Set up DKIM to sign mail from your cloud domain

Microsoft Defender detections

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

Microsoft Security Copilot

Security Copilot customers can use the standalone experience to create their own prompts or run the following prebuilt promptbooks to automate incident response or investigation tasks related to this threat:

• Incident investigation
• Microsoft User analysis
• Threat actor profile
• Threat Intelligence 360 report based on MDTI article
• Vulnerability impact assessment

Note that some promptbooks require access to plugins for Microsoft products such as Microsoft Defender XDR or Microsoft Sentinel.

Threat intelligence reports

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

MITRE ATT&CK Techniques observed

This threat has exhibited use of the following attack techniques. For standard industry documentation about these techniques, refer to the MITRE ATT&CK framework.

Reconnaissance

T1591 – Gather Victim Organization Information
Threat actors collect publicly available information about target organizations, executives, finance personnel, vendors, and business relationships to build convincing invoice-fraud narratives.

T1598 – Phishing for Information
Information gathered from victims and public sources is used to craft highly targeted business email compromise (BEC) lures.

Resource Development

T1583.001 – Acquire Infrastructure: Domains
Threat actors register domains that impersonate trusted organizations, vendors, or business partners.

T1585.002 – Establish Accounts: Email Accounts
Attacker-controlled email accounts are created to support impersonation and fraudulent communications.

T1583 – Acquire Infrastructure
Third-party email delivery infrastructure and supporting services are leveraged to distribute campaigns.

Initial Access

T1566 – Phishing
Targeted phishing emails are delivered to finance personnel using executive and vendor impersonation themes.

T1566.001 – Spearphishing Attachment
Fraudulent invoices or supporting documents are attached to phishing emails.

T1566.003 – Spearphishing via Service
Third-party email services are used to distribute phishing messages and improve legitimacy.

Defense evasion

T1036 – Masquerading
Attackers disguise emails, domains, invoices, and business correspondence as legitimate communications.

T1656 – Impersonation
Executives, vendors, and trusted business entities are impersonated to establish credibility and influence payment decisions.

Impact

T1657 – Financial Theft
Victims are deceived into transferring funds to attacker-controlled financial accounts through fraudulent invoice payment requests.

Indicators of compromise (IOC)

Learn More

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

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

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

Review our documentation to learn more about our real-time protection capabilities and see how to enable them within your organization.  

• Learn more about securing Copilot Studio agents with Microsoft Defender 
• Evaluate your AI readiness with our latest Zero Trust for AI workshop.
• Microsoft 365 Copilot AI security documentation
• How Microsoft discovers and mitigates evolving attacks against AI guardrails

• How Microsoft discovers and mitigates evolving attacks against AI guardrails | Microsoft Security Blog
• Manipulating AI memory for profit: The rise of AI Recommendation Poisoning | Microsoft Security Blog – a related example of an AI-era technique observed in email traffic
• Defending the inbox against prompt injection attacks | Microsoft Defender for Office 365 Blog – feature announcement introducing prompt injection protection in Microsoft Defender for Office 365.
• Prompt injection protection in Microsoft Defender for Office 365 – official documentation of the prompt injection protection in Microsoft Defender for Office 365.

The post Protecting organizations from AI-assisted executive impersonation and invoice fraud appeared first on Microsoft Security Blog.

Every wave of technology excitement creates a new opportunity for cyberattackers, and AI is no exception. Microsoft Threat Intelligence has published research showing a growing set of campaigns that impersonate popular AI platforms and tools, including ChatGPT, Microsoft Copilot, DeepSeek, and Claude.¹ The goal is to make phishing, search-driven malware campaigns, and malvertising—which is malicious advertising that uses online ads to lure users to harmful sites, downloads, or redirect chains—more convincing. A ChatGPT-themed phishing campaign sent up to 100,000 emails in a single day, tricking users into updating their ChatGPT Plus payment information and stealing personal and credit card data. These campaigns do not represent a compromise of the AI services being referenced. They represent something more familiar—cyberattackers doing what they have always done: borrowing trust. Right now, AI brands can carry significant trust and curiosity, making them attractive themes for cyberattackers to exploit.

Understanding why this trend matters and what it means for security teams is critical to shaping a modern protection strategy. The tactics are the same ones cyberattackers have always refined: urgency, curiosity, and impersonation of something familiar to lower a user’s guard. What has changed is the wrapper. A message about a new model release, a policy update from a familiar AI assistant, or a plugin that promises to make the workday easier is today’s version of the fake invoice or the shipping notification. AI-themed lures deserve attention not because they are a passing trend tied to one product cycle, but because AI remains a genuine source of excitement and urgency for employees and consumers alike, and cyberattackers are exploiting the human instinct to explore what is new, useful, or urgent.

The attack pattern is evolving

Microsoft’s research team recently observed several AI brand campaigns including:

• A ChatGPT-themed phishing kit built to harvest credit card data.
• A Claude-themed campaign that harvested credentials and access tokens through adversary-in-the-middle (AiTM) techniques.
• Malvertising for a fake AI Windows plugin that delivered the Vidar stealer.
• Fraudulent DeepSeek installers distributed through GitHub.

In one case, an initial access broker tracked as Storm-3075 used AI-themed malvertising to distribute payloads for multiple downstream actors, a sign of how quickly this tactic is being commoditized across the criminal ecosystem.

What ties these campaigns together is not sophistication in the traditional sense. It is patience and precision in exploiting a moment. Threat actors are capitalizing on anticipated launches and emerging trends, layering multi-stage redirection chains and disposable infrastructure to slip past both users and defenses. That has real implications for security leaders: it means these incidents cannot be evaluated one surface at a time. A single AI-themed lure can begin as an email, become a malicious link, trigger a suspicious download, and end as an identity or endpoint compromise. Organizations that assess each of those as an isolated event are always a step behind. Organizations that connect them see the full shape of the cyberattack, often early enough to stop it.

Turning AI lures into dead ends with Microsoft Defender

In practice, protection starts before the user ever engages with the lure. Microsoft Defender’s anti-phishing policies can help detect spoofing and impersonation attempts, including user and domain impersonation, first-contact messages, mailbox intelligence signals, and other suspicious sender characteristics. For an AI-themed lure, that might look like a fake “Copilot policy update,” a spoofed support notice, or a lookalike domain designed to make a credential collection page feel legitimate.

If the campaign relies on links, Defender’s Safe Links provides URL scanning and detonation during mail flow, plus time-of-click verification when a user selects a link in email, Microsoft Teams, or supported Microsoft 365 apps. That is important when cyberattackers use redirect chains, delayed activation, or links that appear benign at delivery but later resolve to phishing infrastructure, fake sign-in pages, or malicious downloads.

For campaigns that use fake installers, malicious downloads, or weaponized attachments, Safe Attachments adds another layer by detonating attachments in a virtual environment before delivery when policies are configured. For example, if a message promotes a “new AI plugin” but includes a harmful attachment, Safe Attachments can analyze the file for malware, ransomware, or phishing behavior before it reaches the user. If a cyberthreat is identified after delivery, Defender’s post-delivery filtering capabilities help remove malicious content from mailboxes and reduce the window of exposure.

Protect against multi-stage attacks with attack disruption

But AI-powered attacks don’t stop at email. Their objective is to gain the highest level of access possible, using compromised accounts as a foothold to move across identities, devices, and data. When a cyberattack moves beyond the inbox, Defender helps connect the evidence. Signals from email and collaboration tools, endpoints, identities, and software as a service (SaaS) apps are correlated into an attack story so analysts can see whether the same lure led to a clicked link, a downloaded payload, risky sign-in behavior, or endpoint activity.

As cyberattackers expand beyond email to gain broader access across the environment, Defender moves from detection to disruption. For multi-stage, multi-domain attacks like business email compromise or AiTM, Defender’s powerful, built-in response capability, attack disruption, will contain the compromised asset during the attack to prevent further lateral movement while security teams investigate and remediate. Attack disruption contains more than 81,000 compromised user accounts monthly and is now disrupting more than 45,000 AiTM attacks each month.

In a recent case study, Defender disrupted a business email compromise attack within four minutes of the initial activity (Figure 4). While response times may vary by scenario, this case shows the impact of attack disruption on a real cyberthreat. The cyberattacker used a convincing document-sharing lure to trick a user to start a legitimate Microsoft device code sign-in flow, which avoided traditional credential theft techniques. Defender recognized the resulting device code authentication and follow-on activity as suspicious, correlated signals across identity and email telemetry, and disrupted the attack within four minutes before the attacker could establish persistence, create inbox rules, or execute payroll fraud.

The takeaway

AI brands are the new bait, but the underlying lesson is bigger than any single campaign. As cyberattackers continue to exploit the momentum around AI, organizations should expect social engineering to become more targeted, more believable, and more difficult to evaluate in isolation.

The answer is not to treat every new lure as a brand-new category of risk. It is to build a protection model that makes trust harder to exploit across the full attack chain. Microsoft Defender helps organizations do that by connecting prevention, detection, investigation, and response across the attack path, so AI-themed lures are harder to deliver, harder to trust, and harder to turn into broader compromise.

To learn more about Microsoft Security solutions, visit our website. Bookmark the Security blog to keep up with our expert coverage on security matters. Also, follow us on LinkedIn (Microsoft Security) and X (@MSFTSecurity) for the latest news and updates on cybersecurity.

¹AI brands as bait: How threat actors are using the AI hype in social engineering, Microsoft Threat Intelligence. June 8, 2026.

The post Detect and disrupt AI-themed attacks with Microsoft Defender appeared first on Microsoft Security Blog.

Microsoft Security Research is tracking active cloud-based intrusions spanning multiple accounts in which unusual sign-ins were followed by threat actor-added authentication methods, high-volume Microsoft Graph activity, SharePoint and OneDrive downloads, and email collection through REST APIs. Microsoft Security Research assesses that this sequence is consistent with automated collection from compromised cloud identities using proxy-associated infrastructure, the activity has been observed since May 2026.

The activity begins with identity-focused social engineering and impersonation infrastructure, proceeds through authentication persistence and cloud reconnaissance, and is followed by targeted data access and activity consistent with data collection and potential exfiltration. Domains, IP addresses, and hosting providers can change quickly, but the recurring sequence of identity compromise, persistence, reconnaissance, content discovery, and exfiltration provides a more durable basis for investigation. Defenders should investigate this sequence across identity, Microsoft Graph, SharePoint, OneDrive, and Exchange signals, then revoke sessions and remove unauthorized authentication methods for confirmed compromises.

Attack chain overview

Step 1-2 : Initial access: Passkey and SSO lures

The attack often begins with a seemingly routine call or message on a user’s personal phone number from someone claiming to be from the organization’s IT helpdesk. The caller creates a sense of urgency, explaining that a passkey, multifactor authentication (MFA), or single sign-on (SSO) configuration must be updated immediately to avoid disruption. Employees are directed to a website that closely resembles a legitimate Microsoft sign-in experience and may receive the link through SMS messages sent directly to their personal mobile phones.

Despite the frequent use of passkey-themed lures, passkey enrollment is often not the actor’s true objective. Instead, the passkey narrative serves as a convincing pretext to guide victims through adversary-in-the-middle (AiTM) phishing or device-code authentication flows. In AiTM scenarios, the actor captures credentials and session tokens; in device code attacks, the victim unknowingly authorizes access on the actor’s behalf. This initial interaction may leave very little forensic evidence. If the victim opens the phishing link on a personal mobile device that is not onboarded to Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, the related activity may be absent from endpoint telemetry.

In many investigations, the employee’s recollection of a phone call or text message becomes the earliest and sometimes the only evidence explaining how the compromise began. As a result, investigators must often reconstruct the attack by connecting these reports with subsequent sign-ins, device code authentication events, token activity, and authentication method changes.

Reconnaissance on targeted organization

The actor appears to invest heavily in pre-attack research, likely gathering information about employees and organizational structure from public sources such as social networking and professional profiling platforms.

Reusable domains, personalized targeting

In a smaller number of cases, actors take advantage of already compromised accounts to expand their reach. Using a trusted employee identity, they send similar passkey-themed messages through Microsoft Teams, making the request appear legitimate and significantly increasing the likelihood of engagement. To support these operations, the actors rapidly deploy convincing phishing infrastructure built around themes such as passkeys, SSO enrollment, account activation, and identity verification.

A commonly observed technique involves registering generic domains and embedding the target organization’s name as a subdomain, creating URLs that appear familiar at first glance. Multiple domains may be created for the same organization, allowing the actor to rotate infrastructure as needed. These domains are often registered with Nicenic registrar (observed in previous extortion campaigns) and operational within hours, giving defenders little opportunity to identify and block the infrastructure before employees encounter it. Registration alone should not be interpreted as evidence of registrar involvement in the activity. For example, company-name.integratedsso[.]com and company-name.secure-passkey[.]com illustrate how the same company name can appear under different actor-controlled domains.

Together, the phone-based social engineering, personalized targeting, trusted internal messaging, and rapidly changing phishing infrastructure form the opening chapter of a highly coordinated intrusion designed to blend technical deception with human trust.

The actor creates domains following the pattern companyname[.]maliciousdomain[.]com to impersonate organization-specific authentication portals. Including the victim organization’s name in the URL helps establish credibility and can persuade users to proceed with authentication. Example: contoso[.]add-passkey[.]com.

Step 3-4 : User identity compromise

From one sign-in to broader application access

In one investigated attack sequence, the activity began with an anomalous sign-in to Microsoft OfficeHome application from an unmanaged device, possibly attacker-owned. Once MFA was completed, the actor began accessing identity portals such as My Sign-Ins and enterprise application stores such as My Apps. Sign-in artifacts, including user-agent patterns, indicated possible AiTM phishing.

Using the same session, the actor further accessed several management applications, including Microsoft Approval Management, which is used for identity and approval-related services. SharePoint Online and OneDrive were used to enumerate sensitive files, primarily through the Graph API. The investigation revealed that the actor’s sessions persisted for approximately one hour while enumerating sensitive files and internal applications.

Passkey lure leads to device code phishing

In another investigated attack sequence, the actor was observed using the device code flow to compromise the session token after the passkey lure. In device code phishing, the user is persuaded to enter a code on the legitimate Microsoft authentication page. This approval issues a token to an attacker-controlled client, which can then access permitted resources without stealing a browser cookie. Following the device code flow, the actor successfully replayed the compromised token, effectively bypassing MFA and conducting enumeration and further attack progression.

Reusing the same credentials after an earlier compromise

The third attack pattern involved the actor signing in with compromised credentials, with MFA approved using a previously registered PhoneAppOTP method. This suggests that the attacker had registered the authenticator app days before launching the campaign. Once the sign in was successful, the actor followed the same reconnaissance pattern observed in other attack sequences. This activity was primarily carried out using an automated system developed with Node.js and Microsoft Graph.

To illustrate how the activity unfolded over time, the following timeline summarizes the key events identified during the investigation.

Step 5 : New MFA device for persistence

Following initial access, the actor’s first objective was to transform a temporary compromise into a persistent foothold. Rather than relying solely on stolen credentials, the actor enrolled an MFA method under their control, typically by registering a new phone number, authenticator application, or software-based one-time password (OTP) token. This effectively inserted an actor-controlled factor into the victim’s identity, allowing future authentication challenges to be satisfied without the user’s involvement.

By registering an actor-controlled MFA method, the threat actor ensured that future authentication challenges could be satisfied using a factor they controlled. While MFA enrollment alone does not survive a complete credential and session reset, it provides a durable persistence mechanism when combined with stolen tokens, unrevoked sessions, or subsequent access to valid credentials. As a result, actors frequently establish MFA persistence early in the intrusion to increase the likelihood of maintaining long-term access to the compromised identity.

Phone or authenticator device addition

Detects a newly registered MFA device with a populated device token. The query compares the previous and updated authentication method values and returns newly added device records.

CloudAppEvents
 | where ActionType == "Update user."
 | where tostring(RawEventData.ResultStatus) == "Success"
 | where RawEventData has_any ("StrongAuthenticationPhoneAppDetail", "StrongAuthenticationUserDetails")
 | extend AccountObjectId = extract(@"User_([a-f0-9\-]+)", 1, tostring(RawEventData.Target))
 | where isnotempty(AccountObjectId)
 | mvexpand ModifiedProp = RawEventData.ModifiedProperties
 | where tostring(ModifiedProp.Name) in ("StrongAuthenticationPhoneAppDetail", "StrongAuthenticationUserDetails")
 | extend OldValue = tostring(ModifiedProp.OldValue),
          NewValue = tostring(ModifiedProp.NewValue)
 | extend OldDeviceCount = countof(OldValue, @"""Id"""),
          NewDeviceCount = countof(NewValue, @"""Id""")
 | where NewDeviceCount > OldDeviceCount

Software token addition

Below is a real-world example of attacker controlled Software token added to the user’s identity with Update user operation. This is added as a second NewValue entry containing the device name NO_DEVICE, device token NO_DEVICE_TOKEN, and the SoftwareTokenActivated device tag.

{
[EF1.1][KR1.2]   "Id": "[GUID_REDACTED]",
   "CreationTime": "2026-09-04T16:57:42.0000000Z",
   "OrganizationId": "[GUID_REDACTED]",
   "Operation": "Update user.",
   "RecordType": 8,
   "Workload": "AzureActiveDirectory",
   "ResultStatus": "Success",
   "UserKey": "Not Available",
   "UserId": "ServicePrincipal_[GUID_REDACTED]",
   "Version": 1,
   "UserType": 4,
   "ObjectId": "[EMAIL_REDACTED]",
   "ModifiedProperties": [
     {
       "Name": "StrongAuthenticationPhoneAppDetail",
       "OldValue": [
         {
           "DeviceName": "[DEVICE_NAME_REDACTED]",
           "DeviceToken": "[DEVICE_TOKEN_REDACTED]",
           "DeviceTag": "iOS",
           "PhoneAppVersion": "6.8.53",
           "OathTokenTimeDrift": 0,
           "DeviceId": "[GUID_REDACTED]",
           "Id": "[GUID_REDACTED]",
           "TimeInterval": 0,
           "AuthenticationType": 3,
           "NotificationType": 2,
           "LastAuthenticatedTimestamp": "2026-09-04T16:54:47.6425033Z",
           "AuthenticatorFlavor": "Authenticator",
           "HashFunction": null,
           "TenantDeviceId": null,
           "SecuredPartitionId": 20111,
           "SecuredKeyId": 7
         }
       ],
       "NewValue": [
         {
           "DeviceName": "[DEVICE_NAME_REDACTED]",
           "DeviceToken": "[DEVICE_TOKEN_REDACTED]",
           "DeviceTag": "iOS",
           "PhoneAppVersion": "6.8.53",
           "OathTokenTimeDrift": 0,
           "DeviceId": "[GUID_REDACTED]",
           "Id": "[GUID_REDACTED]",
           "TimeInterval": 0,
           "AuthenticationType": 3,
           "NotificationType": 2,
           "LastAuthenticatedTimestamp": "2026-09-04T16:54:47.6425033Z",
           "AuthenticatorFlavor": "Authenticator",
           "HashFunction": null,
           "TenantDeviceId": null,
           "SecuredPartitionId": 20111,
           "SecuredKeyId": 7
         },
         {
           "DeviceName": "NO_DEVICE",
           "DeviceToken": "NO_DEVICE_TOKEN",
           "DeviceTag": "SoftwareTokenActivated",
           "PhoneAppVersion": "NO_PHONE_APP_VERSION",
           "OathTokenTimeDrift": 0,
           "DeviceId": "[GUID_REDACTED]",
           "Id": "[GUID_REDACTED]",
           "TimeInterval": 0,
           "AuthenticationType": 2,
           "NotificationType": 1,
           "LastAuthenticatedTimestamp": "2026-09-04T16:57:42.4514487Z",
           "AuthenticatorFlavor": "Authenticator",
           "HashFunction": "hmacsha1",
           "TenantDeviceId": null,
           "SecuredPartitionId": 20111,
           "SecuredKeyId": 7
         }
       ]
     },
     {
       "Name": "Included Updated Properties",
       "OldValue": "",
       "NewValue": "StrongAuthenticationPhoneAppDetail"
     },
     {
       "Name": "TargetId.UserType",
       "OldValue": "",
       "NewValue": "Member"
     }
   ]
 }

Step 6 : Graph reconnaissance

Once MFA persistence was established, the actor initiated an extensive internal reconnaissance phase using Microsoft Graph to inventory users, groups, permissions, resources, and accessible content across the tenant with the compromised identity. The actor deliberately rotated infrastructure throughout the attack lifecycle, with separate IP addresses often used for authentication, reconnaissance, and exfiltration activities. As a result, piecing together the full intrusion required correlating activity across multiple stages rather than relying on individual network indicators.

The attack underscores a critical detection challenge: Microsoft Graph abuse rarely appears suspicious when viewed through a single API call. Requests to endpoints such as /users, /groups, or /sites are commonplace in enterprise environments. However, when the same identity, application, or access token systematically traverses multiple tenant resources, evaluates privilege and authentication settings, and subsequently accesses mail, files, attachments, or document content, those actions collectively form a clear reconnaissance-to-exfiltration chain. This attack serves as a strong example of why Graph activity must be assessed holistically, with emphasis on behavioral progression and cross-event correlation rather than individual API requests in isolation.

Graph reconnaissance pattern matrix initiated by the actor

Hunt for broad Graph reconnaissance in one session

Find identities or applications touching several reconnaissance categories from the same IP within 30 minutes.

let Lookback = 24h; [MI25.1][IM25.2]
GraphAPIAuditEvents 
| where Timestamp > ago(Lookback) 
| where toint(ResponseStatusCode) between (200 .. 299) 
| extend Uri = tolower(RequestUri), 
        ActorId = coalesce(AccountObjectId,  
                           ServicePrincipalId, ApplicationId), 
        Path = tostring(split(tolower(RequestUri), "?")[0]) 
| extend ReconType = case( 
   Uri has "/organization" or Uri has "/subscribedskus", "Tenant", 
   Uri has "/users" or Uri has "/groups", "Directory", 
   Uri has "/directoryroles" or Uri has "/rolemanagement", "Privilege", 
   Uri has "/applications" or Uri has "/serviceprincipals" 
       or Uri has "/oauth2permissiongrants", "Application", 
   Uri has "/sites" or Uri has "/drive", "Repository", 
   Uri has "/messages" or Uri has "/mailfolders", "Mailbox", 
   "Other") 
| where ReconType != "Other" and isnotempty(ActorId) 
| summarize Requests=count(), Categories=dcount(ReconType), 
           DistinctPaths=dcount(Path), 
           ReconTypes=make_set(ReconType, 10), 
           SampleUris=make_set(RequestUri, 10) 
   by ActorId, IpAddress, ApplicationId, bin(Timestamp, 30m) 
| where Requests >= 10 and Categories >= 3 and DistinctPaths >= 6 
| order by Categories desc, Requests desc

Hunt for privilege, MFA, application, and consent discovery

Highlight sensitive control-plane reconnaissance that can expose persistence or escalation opportunities.

GraphAPIAuditEvents 
| where Timestamp > ago(24h) 
| where toint(ResponseStatusCode) between (200 .. 299) 
| extend Uri = tolower(RequestUri), 
         ActorId = coalesce(AccountObjectId,
                            ServicePrincipalId, ApplicationId) 
| where Uri has_any ("/directoryroles", "/rolemanagement", 
                     "/authentication/methods", "/applications", 
                     "/serviceprincipals", "/oauth2permissiongrants", 
                     "/approleassign") 
| summarize Requests=count(), DistinctPaths=dcount(tostring(split(Uri, "?")[0])), 
            ScopesSeen=make_set(Scopes, 10), 
            SampleUris=make_set(RequestUri, 12) 
    by ActorId, IpAddress, ApplicationId, bin(Timestamp, 30m) 
| where Requests >= 4 and DistinctPaths >= 2 
| order by Requests desc

Hunt for SharePoint and OneDrive repository discovery

Detect search, child traversal, delta queries, and paging used to map file repositories.

GraphAPIAuditEvents 
| where Timestamp > ago(24h) 
| where toint(ResponseStatusCode) between (200 .. 299) 
| extend Uri = tolower(RequestUri), 
         ActorId = coalesce(AccountObjectId,
                            ServicePrincipalId, ApplicationId), 
         Path = tostring(split(tolower(RequestUri), "?")[0]) 
| where Uri has_any ("/sites", "/drives", "/drive/") 
| where Uri has_any ("/search", "/children", "/delta", 
                     "$skiptoken", "%24skiptoken", "$top", "%24top") 
| summarize Requests=count(), DistinctPaths=dcount(Path), 
            SampleUris=make_set(RequestUri, 12) 
    by ActorId, IpAddress, ApplicationId, bin(Timestamp, 20m) 
| where Requests >= 8 and DistinctPaths >= 4 
| order by Requests desc

Hunt for mailbox and attachment reconnaissance

Find concentrated enumeration of messages, mail folders, and attachments.

GraphAPIAuditEvents 
| where Timestamp > ago(24h) 
| where toint(ResponseStatusCode) between (200 .. 299) 
| extend Uri = tolower(RequestUri), 
         ActorId = coalesce(AccountObjectId, 
                            ServicePrincipalId, ApplicationId), 
         Path = tostring(split(tolower(RequestUri), "?")[0]) 
| where Uri has_any ("/messages", "/mailfolders", "/attachments") 
| summarize Requests=count(), 
            DistinctPaths=dcount(Path), 
            MessageRequests=countif(Uri has "/messages"), 
            AttachmentRequests=countif(Uri has "/attachments"), 
            TotalResponseBytes=sum(coalesce(ResponseSize, 0)), 
            SampleUris=make_set(RequestUri, 12) 
    by ActorId, IpAddress, ApplicationId, bin(Timestamp, 30m) 
| where (Requests >= 8 and DistinctPaths >= 4) or AttachmentRequests >= 3 
| order by AttachmentRequests desc, Requests desc

Step 7-8 : High-volume cloud data collection and suspected exfiltration

Following reconnaissance, the actor transitioned into large-scale data collection across Microsoft 365 workloads using the compromised identities. Microsoft observed high-volume access and download activity targeting Microsoft SharePoint Online and Microsoft OneDrive for Business, with some intrusions extending into Microsoft Exchange Online through REST API-based access to email content. Across SharePoint and OneDrive, the activity generated significant volumes of FileAccessed and FileDownloaded events, indicating systematic retrieval of cloud-hosted documents and organizational data.

The activity frequently exhibited characteristics of automation rather than interactive user behavior. In several cases, Microsoft observed the python-httpx user agent associated with high-volume SharePoint and OneDrive access patterns. However, the user agent alone should not be treated as malicious. Instead, such activity should be evaluated in the broader context of data volume, affected identities, source infrastructure, prior reconnaissance activity, and evidence of identity compromise.

Unlike rapid smash-and-grab operations, data exfiltration was typically measured and sustained, often spanning several hours to multiple days depending on the volume of files and email content available to the compromised user. The actors generally maintained a controlled pace of collection, with fewer than 1,000 files or emails accessed within any one-hour period, likely helping the activity blend with normal enterprise usage while enabling the gradual extraction of large amounts of sensitive data over time.

Hunt for exfiltration through Exchange Online

Exfiltration of data through REST API using Microsoft Office or One Outlook Web

CloudAppEvents 
| where isempty(AccountObjectId) 
| where ApplicationId == '20893' 
| where AccountDisplayName in ("One Outlook Web", "9199bf20-a13f-4107-85dc-02114787ef48", "d3590ed6-52b3-4102-aeff-aad2292ab01c") 
| where isnotempty(IPAddress) 
| extend AccountObjectId = tostring(RawEventData.TokenObjectId) 
| summarize ExchangeRestEventCount=count() by IPAddress, AccountObjectId, bin(Timestamp,1h) 
| where ExchangeRestEventCount >= 500

Hunt for exfiltration through Microsoft SharePoint Online, OneDrive for Business

Exfiltration of data through python-httpx user agent

CloudAppEvents 
| where ApplicationId == "20892" or ApplicationId == "15600"
| where ActionType in ("FileDownloaded", "FileAccessed", "SyncDownloadedFull")
| where isnotempty(AccountObjectId) 
| where isnotempty(IPAddress) 
| where isnotempty(UserAgent) 
| where UncommonForUser has_any("ISP","UserAgent") 
| where UserAgent has 'python-httpx' 
| project Timestamp, AccountObjectId, IPAddress, ISP, UserAgent 
| summarize FilesAccessedLastWindow = count() by AccountObjectId, IPAddress, ISP, UserAgent, bin(Timestamp,2h) 
| where FilesAccessedLastWindow >=100

Hunt for anomalous high-volume exfiltration

Exfiltration of data through anonymous proxy

CloudAppEvents
| where ApplicationId in (20892, 20893, 15600)
| where ActionType in~ ("FileDownloaded", "FileAccessed", "FilePreviewed")
| where IsAnonymousProxy == true
| where UserAgent !has "ODMTADemand"
| extend FileSizeBytes = coalesce(tolong(RawEventData.FileSizeBytes), 0)
| summarize
    FileSizeBytes = sum(FileSizeBytes),
    FirstSeen = min(Timestamp),
    LastSeen = max(Timestamp),
    EventCount = count(),
    ActionTypes = make_set(ActionType),
    Applications = make_set(Application)
    by AccountObjectId, IPAddress,
       TimeBucket = bin(Timestamp, 2h), UserAgent, ISP
| extend FileSizeGB =
    round(FileSizeBytes / 1024.0 / 1024.0 / 1024.0, 2)
| where FileSizeGB >= 5 or EventCount >= 1000
| order by EventCount desc

Attribution

Microsoft Threat Intelligence assesses that the initial access activity observed in this campaign is used by a range of threat actors, including Storm-3121, Storm-3032, and others. Storm-3121 conducts initial access activity leading to ShinyHunters and Falcon extortion. Storm-3032 represents a set of actors that splintered from the BlackFile group and now operate under the Helix extortion banner. That being said, Microsoft Defender has detection coverage for the known tactics, techniques and procedures from Storm-3121, Storm-3032 and other operators in the same ecosystem.

Mitigation and protection guidance

Microsoft recommends that organizations investigate identity and cloud-workload signals as a connected sequence, with priority given to unusual sign-ins followed bys authentication method enrollment, Microsoft Graph reconnaissance, token issuance, and abnormal SaaS download or mailbox activity.

Investigate

• Review newly registered authentication methods and devices for users with risky or unusual sign-ins and remove unauthorized methods after validating the user.
• Investigate high-volume or programmatic Microsoft Graph activity involving directory enumeration, role discovery, service principal discovery, SharePoint, OneDrive, or sensitivity-label discovery.
• Correlate SharePoint and OneDrive download anomalies, Exchange REST activity, and mailbox or attachment searches with identity and authentication events.

Contain and remediate

• Revoke active sessions and refresh tokens for confirmed compromised identities, reset credentials, remove attacker-registered authentication methods, remove attacker created mailbox rules, and require secure re-registration of authentication methods.

Reduce future risk

• Do not treat an IP or domain match as conclusive on its own. Validate workload behavior, affected identities, persistence events, and data access volume.
• Enforce phishing-resistant MFA (FIDO2/passkeys, Windows Hello for Business) via Conditional Access
• Enforce Conditional Access that requires a managed, compliant device for Exchange, SharePoint, and Graph-privileged apps
• Enforce strict conditional access controls for security info registration, including setting required sign-in frequency to always (require a new interactive auth), requiring managed devices and/or named locations, and requiring phish-resistant MFA as a required authentication strength, and in a separate policy blocking security info registration with a high sign-in risk condition
• Enforce risk-based access policies for risky sign-ins and risky users – remediate elevated risk with phishing-resistant MFA or secure password change, and block access at the highest risk levels.
• Train users against voice and email phishing that targets MFA and passkey enrollment. Provide a verified channel to report unsolicited authentication requests.
• Block the device code and authentication transfer flows via Conditional Access, except where an explicit business need exists.
• Restrict user consent for applications, require admin approval, and regularly review service principals holding high-privilege Graph permissions such as Mail.Read, Files.Read.All, and Directory.Read.All.
• Limit access from unmanaged devices to web-only sessions without download or sync, and disable anonymous sharing links in SharePoint and OneDrive.
• Enable Microsoft Graph activity logs and mailbox auditing, and alert on anomalous enumeration, authentication-method registration, and high-volume file or mail access.
• Educational training: Verify user identity through a rigorous process before performing any helpdesk-initiated credential or MFA reset, and alert on every such reset.

Microsoft Defender XDR detections

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

Customers with provisioned access can also use Microsoft Security Copilot in Microsoft Defender to investigate and respond to incidents, hunt for threats, and protect their organization with relevant threat intelligence.

Microsoft Security Copilot

Security Copilot customers can use the standalone experience to create their own prompts or run the following prebuilt promptbooks to investigate activity associated with this intrusion pattern:

• Incident investigation – Generates investigation summaries and helps analysts understand incidents involving compromised identities, suspicious sign-ins, persistence activity, and cloud-based data access.
• Microsoft User analysis – Analyses user accounts, sign-in activity, authentication events, risk indicators, and related identity signals that may help identify compromised accounts.

Customers can also use Microsoft Security Copilot together with Microsoft Threat Intelligence to investigate indicators, threat activity, and related intelligence associated with suspicious sign-ins, Microsoft Graph reconnaissance, and cloud data exfiltration activity.

Note that some promptbooks require access to plugins for Microsoft products such as Microsoft Defender XDR or Microsoft Sentinel.

Threat intelligence reports

Microsoft customers can use the following reports in Microsoft products to get the most up-to-date information about the threat actor, malicious activity, and techniques discussed in this blog. These reports provide intelligence, protection information, and recommended actions to prevent, mitigate, or respond to associated threats found in customer environments.

MITRE ATT&CK Techniques observed

Reconnaissance

• T1591 Gather Victim Org Information | Use of themed domains for credential phishing pages
• T1598.003 Phishing for Information: Spear-phishing Link | Use of spear-phishing emails with links to spoofed sign-in pages

Resource Development

• T1583.001 Acquire Infrastructure: Domains | Use of themed domains for credential phishing pages
• T1585.002 Establish Accounts: Email Accounts | Delivery infrastructure that is comprised of accounts from consumer email providers like Hotmail

Initial Access

• T1078.004 Valid Accounts: Cloud Accounts | The compromised cloud identity is used to authenticate to Microsoft cloud services.

Persistence

• T1556.006 Modify Authentication Process: Multi-Factor Authentication | After gaining account access, the threat actor registers a new authentication method, mobile device, or software-based OTP to establish persistent access to the compromised identity.

Discovery

• T1087.004 Account Discovery: Cloud Account | The threat actor uses Microsoft Graph to enumerate tenant users and identities, including information useful for identifying high-value identities and privileged accounts.
• T1069.003 Permission Groups Discovery: Cloud Groups | Microsoft Graph reconnaissance enumerates group memberships and directory roles, allowing the threat actor to understand privilege relationships and identify potentially valuable identities.

Collection

• T1530 Data from Cloud Storage | The actor searches and accesses SharePoint and OneDrive content and performs high-volume file access/download activity to collect targeted cloud-hosted information.
• T1114 Email Collection | Mailboxes, messages, and attachments are searched for material of interest and email is collected through REST APIs.
• T1213 Data from Information Repositories | The actor searches enterprise cloud repositories, including SharePoint content and other organizational cloud data, to identify information of value for collection.

Exfiltration

• T1567 Exfiltration Over Web Service | The campaign performs high-volume cloud data access and uses automated Python-based activity for rapid collection and exfiltration.

Advanced hunting queries

Additional advanced hunting query for Graph reconnaissance:

Hunt for automated pagination, delta, and search behavior

Identify actors walking large Graph result sets or repeatedly querying for data.

GraphAPIAuditEvents 
| where Timestamp > ago(24h) 
| where toint(ResponseStatusCode) between (200 .. 299) 
| extend Uri = tolower(RequestUri), 
         ActorId = coalesce(AccountObjectId, 
                            ServicePrincipalId, ApplicationId), 
         Path = tostring(split(tolower(RequestUri), "?")[0]) 
| where Uri has_any ("$top", "%24top", "$skip", "%24skip", 
                     "$skiptoken", "%24skiptoken", "$count", 
                     "%24count", "/delta", "/search") 
| summarize AutomatedRequests=count(), DistinctPaths=dcount(Path), 
            SampleUris=make_set(RequestUri, 12) 
    by ActorId, IpAddress, ApplicationId, bin(Timestamp, 15m) 
| where AutomatedRequests >= 8 and DistinctPaths >= 4 
| order by AutomatedRequests desc

Hunt for reconnaissance progressing to content collection

Prioritize sessions where broad discovery and content retrieval occur together.

GraphAPIAuditEvents 
| where Timestamp > ago(24h) 
| where toint(ResponseStatusCode) between (200 .. 299) 
| extend Uri = tolower(RequestUri), 
         ActorId = coalesce(AccountObjectId,
                            ServicePrincipalId, ApplicationId) 
| extend ActivityType = case( 
    Uri has "/content" or Uri has "/attachments", "ContentCollection", 
    Uri has "/users" or Uri has "/groups", "DirectoryRecon", 
    Uri has "/directoryroles" or Uri has "/rolemanagement" 
        or Uri has "/authentication/methods", "PrivilegeRecon", 
    Uri has "/applications" or Uri has "/serviceprincipals", "ApplicationRecon", 
    Uri has "/sites" or Uri has "/drives" or Uri has "/drive/", "RepositoryRecon", 
    Uri has "/messages" or Uri has "/mailfolders", "MailboxRecon", 
    "Other") 
| where ActivityType != "Other" 
| summarize DiscoveryFirst=minif(Timestamp, ActivityType != "ContentCollection"), 
            CollectionFirst=minif(Timestamp, ActivityType == "ContentCollection"), 
            DiscoveryCategories=dcountif(ActivityType, ActivityType != "ContentCollection"), 
            ContentRequests=countif(ActivityType == "ContentCollection"), 
            TotalResponseBytes=sum(coalesce(ResponseSize, 0)), 
            SampleUris=make_set(RequestUri, 15) 
    by ActorId, IpAddress, ApplicationId, bin(Timestamp, 1h) 
| where isnotnull(DiscoveryFirst) and isnotnull(CollectionFirst) 
| where CollectionFirst >= DiscoveryFirst 
    and DiscoveryCategories >= 2 and ContentRequests >= 1 
| order by CollectionFirst desc

Hunt for exfiltration through Microsoft Graph

Prioritize sessions where broad discovery and content retrieval occur together.

GraphAPIAuditEvents 
| where Timestamp > ago(24h) 
| where toint(ResponseStatusCode) between (200 .. 299) 
| extend Uri = tolower(RequestUri), 
         ActorId = coalesce(AccountObjectId, 
                            ServicePrincipalId, ApplicationId) 
| extend ActivityType = case( 
    Uri has "/content" or Uri has "/attachments", "ContentCollection", 
    Uri has "/users" or Uri has "/groups", "DirectoryRecon", 
    Uri has "/directoryroles" or Uri has "/rolemanagement" 
        or Uri has "/authentication/methods", "PrivilegeRecon", 
    Uri has "/applications" or Uri has "/serviceprincipals", "ApplicationRecon", 
    Uri has "/sites" or Uri has "/drives" or Uri has "/drive/", "RepositoryRecon", 
    Uri has "/messages" or Uri has "/mailfolders", "MailboxRecon", 
    "Other") 
| where ActivityType != "Other" 
| summarize DiscoveryFirst=minif(Timestamp, ActivityType != "ContentCollection"), 
            CollectionFirst=minif(Timestamp, ActivityType == "ContentCollection"), 
            DiscoveryCategories=dcountif(ActivityType, ActivityType != "ContentCollection"), 
            ContentRequests=countif(ActivityType == "ContentCollection"), 
            TotalResponseBytes=sum(coalesce(ResponseSize, 0)), 
            SampleUris=make_set(RequestUri, 15) 
    by ActorId, IpAddress, ApplicationId, bin(Timestamp, 1h) 
| where isnotnull(DiscoveryFirst) and isnotnull(CollectionFirst) 
| where CollectionFirst >= DiscoveryFirst 
    and DiscoveryCategories >= 2 and ContentRequests >= 1 
| order by CollectionFirst desc

Indicators of compromise (IOC)

Learn more

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

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

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

Review our documentation to learn more about our real-time protection capabilities and see how to enable them within your organization.  

• Evaluate your AI readiness with our latest Zero Trust for AI workshop.
• Microsoft 365 Copilot AI security documentation
• How Microsoft discovers and mitigates evolving attacks against AI guardrails
• Learn more about securing Copilot Studio agents with Microsoft Defender 

The post Passkey-themed social engineering leads to identity and cloud compromise appeared first on Microsoft Security Blog.

Microsoft researchers observed a high-volume phishing campaign using invisible Unicode tag characters, a technique popularized in AI prompt injection research as ASCII Smuggling. Instead of using these characters to hide instructions from people while exposing them to AI models, the attacker used them to split financial lure words such as ‘funding’ to prevent email filters from parsing them.

The finding emerged from Microsoft Defender for Office 365 prompt injection protection research, showing how AI-era evasion techniques can surface in traditional phishing campaigns. In Microsoft telemetry, hits on a hunting signature designed to detect ASCII-smuggling increased sharply beginning February 9, 2026, and remained elevated on weekdays for approximately three months. Microsoft Defender for Office 365 telemetry showed that the majority of messages were flagged by layered protections rather than by reliance on a single Unicode-specific signal.

What is ASCII smuggling?

“ASCII smuggling” refers to the use of invisible or non-rendering Unicode characters to hide content inside text that looks normal. The most abused range is the Unicode Tags block, U+E0000 to U+E007F. This block contains a shadow copy of the printable ASCII characters (for example, U+E0041 mirrors ‘A’, U+E0061 mirrors ‘a’). The block was originally intended for language tagging and is now largely deprecated.

The important property for an attacker is this: most of these code points are not rendered by typical fonts and user interfaces. A string can therefore carry a message that is not readable to a human but will be processed by any language model or other software that receives a copy of the email content.

Why the AI-security world made it famous

Over the past year, ASCII smuggling became a recurring technique in the prompt injection and cross-prompt injection (XPIA) literature. The attack pattern is straightforward:

1. An attacker hides instructions inside invisible tag characters embedded in a web page, document, email, or other content.
2. A human (and many user interfaces) sees nothing unusual.
3. An AI assistant that ingests the raw text does “see” the hidden characters, decodes them as text, and may be induced to follow threat actor-controlled instructions, potentially including data exposure or unauthorized actions depending on the assistant’s permissions and safeguards.

Because this technique cleanly demonstrates the gap between what the human sees and what the model reads, it appeared frequently in AI red-teaming write-ups, conference talks, and tooling throughout 2025. That attention put a spotlight on the U+E0000-U+E007F range.

Because tag characters are invisible to humans but exist at the text-processing level, the same property that makes them useful for smuggling instructions into a model also makes them useful for obfuscating keywords before a detector evaluates them. The intent is inverted, but the mechanism is similar and a user’s suspicions are not raised.

Writing a practical ASCII-smuggling signature

As part of work on Microsoft Defender for Office 365 prompt injection protection, we built hunting logic for email-borne XPIA and prompt obfuscation patterns: content that looks harmless to users but may carry hidden instructions for an AI system that ingests the raw message. The same hunt designed to identify prompt injection risk in email became the starting point for this phishing-evasion discovery.

One practical way to hunt for ASCII smuggling is to look for messages carrying characters from the Unicode tags block (U+E0000-U+E007F), the hallmark of attempts to hide instructions from, or for, an AI model. That broad signature is a useful starting point, but it needs enough Unicode context to avoid mistaking legitimate tag-character sequences for abuse.

The first version simply flagged any code point in that range, which proved too blunt. It kept firing on a small subset of perfectly legitimate messages – which, on inspection, all contained one of three subdivision flag emojis: the flags of England, Scotland, and Wales – because those emojis are encoded using tag characters.

After those exclusions, remaining hits were mostly benign artifacts from email-security gateways, mailbox providers, and security or AI researchers forwarding or testing messages that contained tag characters. This provided a good baseline where any spikes would indicate abuse of this technique by attackers.

Figure 1. The three subdivision flag emojis – England, Scotland, and Wales – that tripped the naive signature. Each is encoded as a sequence of invisible Unicode tag characters (U+E0000-U+E007F).

Figure 2. The Wales flag emoji pasted into the ASCII Smuggler tool from Embrace The Red. What renders as a single flag is actually a base flag code point (U+1F3F4) followed by an invisible tag-character sequence spelling gbwls (U+E0067 U+E0062 U+E0077 U+E006C U+E0073) and a terminating tag (U+E007F) – the same U+E0000-U+E007F range the signature watches for.

What we observed: ASCII smuggling repurposed for phishing

New activity emerges in telemetry

The tuned ASCII-smuggling signature began as an AI-security hunt for hidden prompt injection content in email. Instead, it surfaced finance-themed phishing messages using the same Unicode range for filter evasion.

On February 9, 2026, signature hits increased sharply. The following chart reflects Microsoft Defender for Office 365 telemetry for the hunting signature over the measured period:

The day before onset (February 8) the signature fired on roughly 21,000 messages; the next day it fired on more than 1.3 million. Most of the emails can be formed into a cluster of roughly 150 finance-themed sender domains.

Observed over three months with a weekly rhythm

Continuing to track the clustered sender domains forward in time, we measured messages matching the activity described every day. The high-volume phase persisted for roughly three months after February 9 and dropped sharply after May 15, 2026. These dates bound the observed use of the specific technique in our telemetry, not the broader campaign, which started earlier without it and continued without it.

Two characteristics stand out:

• A strict weekly cadence. The campaign ran hard on weekdays and went almost completely silent every weekend. Sundays’ volume collapsed to a near-zero and then back to full volume the next day. This on/off pattern is typical of scheduled bulk-sending infrastructure.
• A long, gradual decline. After an intense first phase, with weekday volumes of 1 to 2.37 million messages, peaking on February 26, the numbers stepped down slowly to roughly 80% less per weekday by late March. The high-volume usage of the technique dropped sharply after May 15, with lower residual activity through mid-June and occasional smaller spikes.

After identifying the activity through this technique-specific signal, we connected it to a broader ActiveCampaign-delivered SBA-themed phishing campaign that Fortra had documented earlier. That earlier reporting indicates the campaign predated the adoption of Unicode tag characters; our analysis focuses on the period and messages in which this method was present, not the full lifetime of the broader campaign.

Not instruction smuggling, but filter evasion

Observed obfuscation pattern

When we looked at a sampling of the flagged messages, the surprise was there were no smuggled instructions to an AI assistant. Instead, the invisible tag characters were inserted inside common financial keywords, splitting them apart so that a literal signature or keyword match would fail.

For example, a finance lure term that appeared normal to the recipient could be transmitted with an invisible tag character in the middle:

funding

became:

fun⟨U+E0020⟩ding

Here, ⟨U+E0020⟩ represents the invisible Unicode TAG SPACE inserted between letters. In the messages we examined, the campaign did not encode a hidden ASCII message in the tag block; it used a single invisible tag character as a separator sprinkled inside high-signal words. Strictly speaking, this is invisible-character insertion using a code point from the ASCII-smuggling tag block, rather than full message smuggling.

Why it can affect detection

To a recipient, and to parsing pipelines that drop or normalize these characters, the word still reads as funding. To a detector matching the literal string funding, or a regex that does not account for interleaved invisible code points, the byte sequence no longer contains the contiguous keyword. Whether real-world detectors behave that way depends on their normalization step, which is examined below.

The bigger prize for the attacker, though, is not preventing the literal string matches; it is the ML- and NLP-based models that increasingly drive modern spam and phishing classification. Unless a filtering system takes a picture of a message and does OCR extraction over the visual image, it may miss this type of attack. A standard email classifier may not reason over whole words exactly as a human sees them; for efficiency, they can first split text into tokens or sub-word pieces. A clean lure term such as funding may be represented as a familiar token or a familiar sequence of sub-tokens. Insert an invisible U+E0020 into the middle, however, and the tokenizer may no longer see that same familiar unit. It might split the text into fun, an unexpected tag character, and ding; it might emit rare or unknown sub-tokens; or, if normalization runs first, it simply removes the U+E0020 character, leaving funding.

Why it can help defenders

There is also a defensive opportunity. Since this kind of manipulation appears so seldom in normal traffic, its presence becomes a high-confidence signal. A technique meant to make messages look more benign to ML models can instead give defenders a low-false-positive indicator to detect on.

What is known and what is new

Inserting invisible or look-alike characters to break keyword and signature matching is a long-standing evasion technique used in spam and phishing: defenders have for years seen zero-width spaces (U+200B), zero-width non-joiners, the no-break space (U+00A0), soft hyphens, and homoglyph substitutions used to fracture words so naive string matchers fail.

What is new is the specific characters and scale of the campaign:

• The character choice. Instead of the usual zero-width space or NBSP, this campaign reached for the Unicode Tags block. That block went from forgotten to famous over the past year because of AI security research into ASCII smuggling and prompt injections.
• The scale and discipline. At its peak in Microsoft telemetry, the campaign generated multi-million message daily volume.
• A possible detection blind spot. Because the Unicode Tags block is less commonly abused than zero-width spaces or NBSP, defenders should verify that normalization and tokenization pipelines handle tag characters consistently.

Financially themed sending domains

The campaign ran on hundreds of disposable, finance-themed sender domains with lures that resembled business loan, line-of-credit, and advance-funding phishing patterns often associated with fraud or credential-harvesting funnels. This pattern accounted for roughly 96% of the volume flagged by the hunting signature. The signature also fired on other domains, but those were unrelated senders – chiefly email-security gateways and personal mailbox providers – not part of the campaign.

A partial sample of sender domains counts from February 9, 2026 alone illustrates both the naming pattern and the per-domain volume:

Table 1. Top 20 (by signature hits) of the 148 finance-themed campaign sender domains seen on February 9, 2026, illustrating the naming convention and per-domain volume.

Every domain is just a recombination of the same small vocabulary. The 20 domains above are built from only 28 word-tokens:

advance · boost · business · capital · catalyst · choice · digital · direct · elevate · express · finance · funding · growth · guardian · harbor · loan · loans · loc · online · our · pulse · rocket · rush · the · united · wave · way · your

Sent through a legitimate email-marketing platform

The finance-themed domains in Table 1 are the brand (header / P2) domains the recipient sees, but the actual mail was relayed through infrastructure associated with the legitimate email-marketing platform ActiveCampaign. The platform, which is used widely for marketing, rewrites every outbound link in the message body to route through its own click-tracking domains (acemlnd[.]com and activehosted[.]com), so the URLs the recipient clicks do not point at the brand domain at all – they look like:

hxxps://＜account-id＞.acemlnd[.]com/＜tracking-token＞
hxxps://＜brand-subdomain＞.activehosted[.]com/＜tracking-token＞

Most of the flagged messages carried links associated with the platform’s tracking domains rather than direct links that point directly to the sender-branded domains. The envelope (P1) senders were platform subdomains of the form em-<id>.<brand-domain>.

ActiveCampaign response

Before we published this information, we shared our findings with ActiveCampaign to help them with this abuse, and they wanted us to share the following statement on their work to detect it:

“We appreciate Microsoft’s research and welcome collaboration with the security community to combat this activity. We take abuse, fraud, and security extremely seriously. We tested the specific technique described in this research against our content-moderation systems: messages containing invisible Unicode characters receive the same moderation verdicts as their unobfuscated equivalents, and heavy use of the technique is itself treated as a suspicious signal. We continually invest in improving our detection and prevention capabilities, including expanding our use of AI and machine learning to identify abusive sending behavior earlier in the account lifecycle.” — ActiveCampaign spokesperson

As with any shared sending service, attacker abuse of customer accounts or workflows can complicate reputation-based filtering. By originating from a reputable marketing platform with established IP reputation and authentication, the activity may appear more similar to legitimate marketing traffic and can complicate reputation-based filtering.

Most observed volume also originated from cloud-hosting ranges consistent with the platform’s outbound infrastructure, with the vast majority coming froma single network block, 173.236.20[.]0/24. This indicator helped us cluster the campaign more precisely but note that this is a legitimate segment that belongs to the abused service, and not an IOC on its own.

Identifying the campaign

Content and infrastructure remained consistent for a long time span, providing an effective way to easily fingerprint this phase of the campaign:

• Unicode content (primary). Invisible Unicode tag characters in the range U+E0000-U+E007F – specifically U+E0020 – spliced inside keywords. Legitimate mail rarely ever carries these code points: the one routine exception, the England/Scotland/Wales flag emojis, is easily excluded.
• Lure and brand pattern. Sender (header / P2) domains assembled from a small finance vocabulary – capital, fund/funding, loan, loc, lend, finance, business, express, growth, solutions, choice, hedge, pillar – recombined into fresh, disposable domains and rotated.
• Envelope (P1) pattern. The bulk of mail is relayed through a single email-marketing platform, recognizable by envelope shape rather than any one name:
  • per-account subdomains shaped em-<digits>.<brand-domain> (regex em-\d+\.), where a small set of reused account numbers fans out across hundreds of brand domains; and
  • the platform’s shared sending pool, shaped acems<N>[.]com and emsd<N>[.]com (e.g. emsd4[.]com, s9.acems10[.]com). Across the measured activity, ~98.5% of messages matched this envelope pattern, and ~99.8% matched the envelope pattern or the platform’s tracking-URL pattern (below).
• Tracking-URL pattern. Click/tracking links on the platform’s domains activehosted[.]com and acemlnd[.]com.
• Sending-origin pattern. The bulk of daily volume – about 92% across two measured weeks – originated from a single /24 network block, 173.236.20[.]0/24.

For a high-precision rule, look for the Unicode content pattern combined with the finance-brand pattern, using the sender infrastructure patterns as corroboration.

However, this is just a phase in a long-running broader campaign, that keeps adapting and evolving. The campaign was observed months earlier following a different set of behaviors and continued even after the usage of the specific technique was dropped. During these shifts in behavior, one signature may no longer describe the campaign, while another still matches.

Is there a detection gap?

The potential gap for mail-defense pipelines is whether Unicode tag characters are normalized or flagged before content detections run. In Defender, our filter stack can take a picture of message contents, extract visible text through OCR, and run analysis over that extracted text to avoid these types of tricks. Implementations vary, so defenders should test how these characters are handled in their own pipelines. For MDO protection, over 99% of messages were flagged by layers that did not depend on catching the tag characters directly, including sender, IP, URL and domain reputations, ML spam/phishing classification, brand-impersonation detection, authentication checks and more.

Emerging techniques don’t stay in one domain

ASCII smuggling earned its reputation as an AI attack, hiding instructions from people while leaving them visible to models. This campaign shows the same technique being repurposed for a different objective: obscuring phishing content from detection systems while remaining readable to the intended target.

The broader lesson is that security techniques rarely stay confined to a single domain. As AI-era attack methods become better understood, threat actors may adapt them for use in more traditional threats such as phishing and spam. This case illustrates how techniques that emerge in AI security research can quickly cross over into established attack ecosystems, reinforcing the need for defenders to view emerging threats through a cross-domain lens.

Mitigation and protection guidance

The core defensive principle is simple: normalize before you match. Any content that will be evaluated by keyword, signature, or regex logic should first have invisible and non-rendering Unicode code points stripped or folded, so that splicing them into a word no longer defeats the match.

Recommended controls

• Strip or normalize Unicode tag characters (U+E0000-U+E007F) – and other zero-width / invisible code points – from email subject and body text before applying spam and phishing content signatures.
• Treat the presence of tag-block characters as a strong anomaly signal. Outside known legitimate tag-sequence uses such as certain subdivision flag emojis, these code points are rare in ordinary mail and can be a high-value anomaly signal.
• Look for the behavioral fingerprint. The observed activity had a distinctive shape: bulk volume from churning, finance-themed disposable domains, on a strict weekday-on / weekend-off schedule. A sudden spike of tag-block characters concentrated on finance-themed senders, switching on and off weekly, is a high-confidence campaign indicator.
• Apply the same normalization upstream of AI ingestion. The same control that defeats this evasion also reduces XPIA / ASCII-smuggling exposure for AI assistants that ingest email content.

Microsoft protections

Microsoft Defender for Office 365 has heuristic detections in place to flag these the tactics employed in this type of campaign. The detection that first surfaced the spike continues to flag messages carrying Unicode tag-block characters, and the financially themed sending domains are being tracked and blocked as they rotate. Microsoft uses layered email protections, including standard and OCR content analysis, sender and domain reputation, URL detonation and reputation, bulk-mail detection, and anti-phishing models, to reduce reliance on any single signal that an attacker can try to evade.

Microsoft Defender for Office 365 prompt injection protection further helps protect against emails that contain prompt injection attempts, including cases where invisible characters are used to hide instructions from users while exposing them to AI systems. The same normalization and detection principles that reduce ASCII-smuggling-based prompt injection risk also help blunt this email-borne reuse of the technique for phishing evasion. Investments in AI security and traditional email security increasingly reinforce one another.

Coverage depends on product licensing, configuration, and telemetry.

Advanced hunting

These queries run against the EmailEvents Advanced Hunting table (and EmailUrlInfo for URL joins). They hunt the campaign by its infrastructure fingerprint – the finance-vocabulary brand senders and the marketing-platform envelope shape – rather than by the invisible tag characters, as the mail body is not exposed through the table’s columns. These queries are starting points and may require environment-specific tuning. The proactive defense is implemented with multiple layers of the enterprise mail-filtering pipeline.

1. Infrastructure pattern – finance-vocabulary senders relayed with the campaign’s envelope shape. Combines the brand-domain pattern (a header sender built from three or more adjacent finance/brand keywords, e.g. digital+capital+boost) with the envelope (MAIL FROM) shape em-<digits> / acems<digits> / emsd<digits> – the durable fingerprint that held across the entire period we measured.

// Finance/brand vocabulary the operator recombines into disposable domains.
let kwds = @"(capital|fund|hedge|express|solutions|choice|lend|growth|loan|loc|finance|business|pillar|advance|boost|catalyst|digital|direct|elevate|guardian|harbor|online|pulse|rocket|rush|united|wave|way|surge|swift|elite)";
EmailEvents
| where Timestamp > ago(30d)
| where EmailDirection == "Inbound"
// Header sender domain made of 3 or more adjacent finance/brand tokens.
| where SenderFromDomain matches regex strcat("(?i)", kwds, kwds, kwds)
// Envelope (MAIL FROM) shape: em-[digits] | acems[digits] | emsd[digits].
| where SenderMailFromDomain matches regex @"(?i)(em-|acems|emsd)\d"
| sort by Timestamp desc

For extra corroboration you can scope to the single dominant /24 that carried the bulk of this campaign’s volume, 173.236.20[.]0/24, by adding | where ipv4_is_in_range(SenderIPv4, “173.236.20.0/24”). Like the tracking URLs, that network block is shared platform space (it also carries unrelated legitimate newsletters), so use it to scope, never as a standalone filter.

2. Pivot on the platform tracking URLs. Start from the click/tracking links and join back to the mail events. Useful for scoping, but treat it as corroboration, not a verdict: the tracking domains activehosted[.]com and acemlnd[.]com are shared by every legitimate customer of the same marketing platform, so the URL on its own is not a malicious indicator. The finance-brand filter is what keeps this on the campaign; drop it only if you deliberately want a wider search.

let kwds = @"(capital|fund|hedge|express|solutions|choice|lend|growth|loan|loc|finance|business|pillar|advance|boost|catalyst|digital|direct|elevate|guardian|harbor|online|pulse|rocket|rush|united|wave|way|surge|swift|elite)";
EmailEvents
| where Timestamp > ago(30d)
| where EmailDirection == "Inbound"
| where SenderFromDomain matches regex strcat("(?i)", kwds, kwds, kwds)
| join kind=inner (
    EmailUrlInfo
    | where Timestamp > ago(30d)
    | where UrlDomain endswith "activehosted.com" or UrlDomain endswith "acemlnd.com"
    | distinct NetworkMessageId
  ) on NetworkMessageId 
| sort by Timestamp desc

3. Filter for prompt injection detection in emails

The feature used in the query below is available for Microsoft Defender for Office 365 Plan 2 or Microsoft 365 E5 customers.

EmailEvents
| where DetectionMethods has "Prompt Injection Protection"

MITRE ATT&CK techniques observed

This campaign exhibits the following MITRE ATT&CK® techniques. The table includes MITRE ATT&CK for phishing/evasion behavior and MITRE ATLAS for the AI-security technique class related to prompt obfuscation.

Indicators and hunting pivots

References

• Unicode Standard Annex #45 – Tags (U+E0000-U+E007F) – the deprecated Unicode tags block abused for ASCII smuggling
• ASCII Smuggler Tool: Crafting Invisible Text and Decoding Hidden Codes | Embrace The Red – public write-up showing how Unicode tag characters can hide text from users while remaining present to language models
• LLM Prompt Obfuscation | MITRE ATLAS™ – the AI-security technique class this evasion crossed over from
• Attackers exploit ActiveCampaign to deliver thousands of AI-generated SBA phish | Fortra – earlier reporting on the broader ActiveCampaign-delivered SBA-themed phishing campaign, before the Unicode tag-character evolution examined here

Learn More

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

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

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

Review our documentation to learn more about our real-time protection capabilities and see how to enable them within your organization.  

• Learn more about securing Copilot Studio agents with Microsoft Defender 
• Evaluate your AI readiness with our latest Zero Trust for AI workshop.
• Microsoft 365 Copilot AI security documentation
• How Microsoft discovers and mitigates evolving attacks against AI guardrails

• Manipulating AI memory for profit: The rise of AI Recommendation Poisoning | Microsoft Security Blog – a related example of an AI-era technique observed in email traffic
• Defending the inbox against prompt injection attacks | Microsoft Defender for Office 365 Blog – feature announcement introducing prompt injection protection in Microsoft Defender for Office 365.
• Prompt injection protection in Microsoft Defender for Office 365 – official documentation of the prompt injection protection in Microsoft Defender for Office 365.
• How Microsoft discovers and mitigates evolving attacks against AI guardrails | Microsoft Security Blog

The post ASCII smuggling crosses over from AI prompt injection to phishing evasion appeared first on Microsoft Security Blog.

Unit 42 details how attackers exploit enterprise collaboration tools for identity phishing and credential theft. Discover key defense strategies.

The post Identity Abuse Through Trusted Communication Channels appeared first on Unit 42.

Identity-based attacks drive 90% of incidents. Learn how modern attackers exploit identities and what SOC leaders can do to respond.

The post Inside the Modern SOC: The Identity Front Door appeared first on Unit 42.

Mac users have historically trusted their operating system to keep them safe. That peace of mind mostly comes from Apple’s strict control over its ecosystem, and the fact that macOS has historically faced fewer mass attacks than Windows. However, that doesn’t mean Macs are invulnerable: threats do exist, and new ones emerge all the time. Over just the past few weeks, security researchers have published reports on at least two new campaigns that target Apple devices.

The malware used in one of the campaigns has been dubbed CrashStealer, while the other is known as ClickLock. Both rely on different tricks to force users into entering their Mac password, which attackers then use to steal account credentials, crypto assets, documents, and much more. In today’s post, we take a close look at how CrashStealer operates — and how to avoid falling victim to it.

A videoconferencing app with CrashStealer inside

It was back in May 2026 that researchers spotted the first signs this malware was being developed, and by early July, they caught it operating in the wild. The malware earned its name because of its core mechanism: it disguises itself as the macOS built-in crash reporting tool (CrashReporter) while functioning as an infostealer designed to hijack sensitive data.

Researchers managed to trace one of the websites users visited to download the malware. The site poses as a legitimate platform for distributing the video conferencing tool Werkbit.

According to researchers, this is the site victims used to download Werkbit, which secretly contained the CrashStealer malware loader. Source

However, you can’t just visit the site and download the software. Before downloading, visitors are asked to enter a special meeting PIN. This setup likely allows the attackers to limit the distribution scope by targeting only specific, pre-selected victims. Exactly how the cybercriminals choose their targets and deliver the PIN remains unknown.

The “lucky” users with a code end up installing the initial malicious payload — named Werkbit Setup. Interestingly, it carries a valid Apple developer certificate and has successfully passed Apple’s notarization process — meaning it cleared the automated prescan for malicious code. As a result, the attackers manage to bypass the operating system’s built-in Gatekeeper defense. This allows the payload to launch without triggering the usual untrusted software warnings.

The Werkbit Setup installer is signed with a valid Apple developer certificate and has passed notarization. Source

Once launched, Werkbit Setup first reaches out to GitHub. Researchers believe using this popular platform helps attackers blend in by making these initial network requests look far less suspicious to security tools. After retrieving instructions from a GitHub repository, the program connects directly to the attackers’ server to fetch CrashStealer itself.

The loader then saves the malware to a temporary macOS folder, launches it, and wipes most of the intermediate setup files. As a result, a fully functional infostealer is up and running within seconds of Werkbit Setup starting. By the way, the user never gets any videoconferencing app.

How CrashStealer works

Unlike the Werkbit Setup loader, the CrashStealer malware itself isn’t signed with an Apple developer certificate. To keep users from suspecting anything, the malware disguises itself as the built-in macOS crash reporting tool, CrashReporter, by using the exact same name, app identifier, and a similar icon.

Once launched, CrashStealer completes a sequence of steps to gain access to sensitive data, establish persistence in the system, and cover its tracks:

1. Remove metadata — including the attribute that flags the app as an internet download.
2. Display a fake system prompt asking for the user’s macOS password.
3. Use the previously captured credentials to gain access to Keychain, the built-in macOS password manager.
4. Check the computer for installed security tools and malware analysis software.
5. Collect saved browser passwords, cookies, Keychain contents, and data from other password managers and crypto wallets.
6. Encrypt the data it stole and prepare it for forwarding to the attackers’ server.
7. Create a copy of itself and establish persistence to launch automatically every time macOS boots.
8. Delete temporary files and other installation traces to make detection much harder.

Step two deserves a closer look. The password prompt that the user sees looks extremely convincing. What’s more, the malware immediately verifies whether the credentials are correct: if you make a typo and enter an invalid password, CrashStealer will pop the window right back up to ask you again.

Once launched, CrashStealer displays a pop-up that mimics the standard macOS password request. Source

What data is CrashStealer after?

CrashStealer’s hit list is massive. First and foremost, its operators target Keychain: the built-in macOS password manager where the system stores account credentials, cryptographic keys, certificates, tokens, and more.

Users of third-party password managers aren’t safe either: the malware steals data from 14 of these services, including 1Password, Bitwarden, LastPass, Dashlane, Keeper, KeePassXC, NordPass, Enpass, and RoboForm.

In addition, the malware collects all credentials and cookies stored in Chromium-based browsers — Chrome, Brave, Edge, Opera, Opera GX, Vivaldi, Chromium, and NAVER Whale — as well as Firefox. The attackers clearly have a strong interest in crypto assets: CrashStealer specifically targets data from 80 different crypto wallet extensions, including MetaMask, Phantom, Coinbase Wallet, Trust Wallet, Rabby, Exodus, Keplr, and Solflare.

Finally, the malware scans the Documents and Downloads folders to pick files that might be of interest to the cybercriminals. CrashStealer encrypts all the stolen data with the AES-256-GCM algorithm, ZIP’s it up, and sends it to the attackers’ server.

How to protect your device

The spike in attacks on macOS is a clear wake-up call: Apple users need to get proactive about their security. We recommend:

• Researching apps online before installing them
• Sticking to utilities from official app stores whenever possible
• Using a reliable security solution that blocks malicious websites and stops malware activity on your device
• Keeping all your credentials and banking details in a secure password manager. One option is Kaspersky Password Manager— which, notably, wasn’t listed among the apps targeted by CrashStealer

Kaspersky security solutions detect the malware described in this post and assigns to it the verdicts HEUR:Trojan-Downloader.OSX.Agent.gen and HEUR:Trojan-PSW.OSX.Agent.gen.

Since early May 2026, Microsoft Threat Intelligence has observed Storm-2945, a sub-cluster of Midnight Blizzard, conducting widespread but targeted traffic manipulation attacks involving hospitality sector networks served by captive portals worldwide. Despite some tactic, technique, and procedure (TTP) similarities to the Forest Blizzard DNS hijacking operation that we publicly disclosed in April 2026, we attribute this campaign, which we call CaptiveCrunch, to Storm-2945. As reported by ReliaQuest on July 23, a portion of this activity leverages doppelganger domains mimicking Microsoft online services to conduct follow-on adversary-in-the-middle (AitM) phishing operations that abuse the device code authentication flow in Microsoft Entra ID. Microsoft Threat Intelligence has also identified active traffic manipulation attacks leading to the delivery of malware on impacted systems. Microsoft has observed Storm-2945 leveraging AI to support a significant portion of these operations.

Today, we are sharing our findings on these ongoing intrusions to raise awareness of this threat and enable customers to protect their devices, especially while traveling. We provide our assessment of Storm-2945’s relationship to Midnight Blizzard and analysis of the CaptiveCrunch campaign, detailing the malware and tradecraft used in these operations. We also provide mitigation, detection, and hunting guidance to help organizations identify and defend against Storm-2945 and related activity.

Microsoft Threat Intelligence would like to thank our partners at Anthropic and OpenAI for their collaboration and support during this investigation.

The CaptiveCrunch campaign

Since February 2026, Storm-2945 has conducted AI-augmented operations including targeted device code and OAuth code phishing campaigns leading to Entra device registration and subsequent data collection from Microsoft 365. Since early May 2026, Microsoft Threat Intelligence has observed Storm-2945 manipulating DNS and HTTP traffic from networks served by captive portals to redirect user traffic through actor-controlled infrastructure. Although our investigation into the initial compromise vector for the captive portal networks is ongoing, we have observed notable commonalities in the equipment and management systems used across multiple affected networks. These similarities suggest that the activity might not be limited to isolated compromises of individual venues and could reflect access to shared services within portions of the captive portal ecosystem.

As part of the CaptiveCrunch campaign, Storm-2945 has leveraged their AitM position to redirect users through actor-controlled phishing infrastructure and has also delivered malware purporting to be browser or operating system updates in response to automated connectivity checks issued by users’ browsers. Multiple variants have been delivered, including fully-featured Windows remote access trojans (RAT) in compiled Golang, with functionality to conduct system enumeration, collect files and keystrokes, steal credentials and session tokens, conduct audio and video surveillance, monitor for removable media, and provide the threat actor a remote shell on infected systems.  

The threat actor infrastructure leverages a variety of ClickFix techniques to elicit the user into downloading and executing the malware:

In addition to variants of malware targeting Windows systems, Microsoft Threat Intelligence is also aware of indications that the threat actor might be targeting Android devices with similar techniques as the ClickFix landings also include instructions for Android devices to download and install an APK file.

To date, Microsoft has identified widespread compromise of Wi-Fi networks at hospitality-related organizations and other networks serviced by captive portal equipment in several countries. ReliaQuest has identified this activity not only at hotels, but also conference centers and other shared venues, and assesses that the goal of this activity is to access the accounts of corporate travelers.

Storm-2945 and Midnight Blizzard

Microsoft Threat Intelligence assesses that Storm-2945 is an operational sub-cluster of Midnight Blizzard based on distinctive technical and operational overlaps. These include technical similarities to Storm-2372, a Midnight Blizzard initial access operations sub-cluster, also notable for their device code and OAuth code phishing operations tracked throughout 2025, Microsoft Graph-based email exfiltration, social engineering delivered via commercial messaging apps, and significant similarities in victimology.

Midnight Blizzard is a Russia-based threat actor attributed by the US and UK governments to the Foreign Intelligence Service of the Russian Federation, also known as the SVR. This threat actor is known to primarily target governments, diplomatic entities, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and information technology (IT) service providers, primarily in the US and Europe. Midnight Blizzard is consistent and persistent in their operational targeting, and their objectives rarely change. Their focus is to collect intelligence through longstanding and dedicated espionage in support of Russian foreign policy interests.

Midnight Blizzard operations often involve compromise of valid accounts and, in some highly targeted cases, advanced techniques to compromise authentication mechanisms within an organization to expand access and evade detection. They utilize diverse initial access methods, and Midnight Blizzard is also adept at identifying and abusing OAuth applications to move laterally across cloud environments and for post-compromise activity, such as email collection.

CaptiveCrunch tradecraft and tooling

CornFlake: Remote access and infostealer implant

CornFlake is a full-featured Windows RAT written in Go that serves as Storm-2945’s primary persistent implant. Microsoft has observed the threat actor rapidly iterating on this malware layer, which features customizable capabilities from the social engineering user interface and data collection capabilities to anti-detection and evasion techniques.

On initial execution, CornFlake operates in dropper mode: it displays a convincing fake progress window designed to occupy the victim’s attention while the binary copies itself to %APPDATA%\svchost32\svchost32.exe and establishes persistence.

Fake window options configurable by the threat actor at build time:

• winupdate — A Windows Update screen displaying “Working on updates… Don’t turn off your computer”
• defender — A Windows Security virus scan
• directx — A DirectX End-User Runtime Web Installer
• vcredist — A Microsoft Visual C++ 2015-2022 Redistributable installer
• sysopt — A disk optimization utility
• netfix — A Windows Network Diagnostics tool
• browser — A browser update prompt
• pdfview — A document viewer installer

CornFlake registers as a Windows service named svchost32 with the display name “Cloud Sync Service” and description “Synchronizes files with the cloud storage provider”, deliberately mimicking the legitimate svchost.exe process. It establishes redundant persistence mechanisms: Windows service registrations, Registry Run keys, named scheduled tasks, and a persistence watchdog routine that runs continuously to restore any persistence mechanism that is removed by defenders or endpoint protection.

For command and control (C2), CornFlake performs an Elliptic Curve Diffie-Hellman (ECDH) P-256 ephemeral key exchange with the C2 server, derives a session key via SHA-256, and communicates over a custom JSON protocol framed within the encrypted channel. This provides an encrypted channel to the C2 server, with each C2 session using a unique ephemeral key, making decryption of captured traffic impossible without the session-specific private key. The runtime configuration file sync.dat supports hot reconfiguration of C2 servers, watched directories, file targeting patterns, and Transport Layer Security (TLS) settings without requiring redeployment.

Once established on a victim system, CornFlake provides the operator with a comprehensive collection toolkit, gated by configuration flags that allow selective activation post-deployment:

CornFlake also exposes a localhost HTTP API server (/upload, /reload, /status) that transforms the RAT into a modular platform: companion or next-stage payloads such as ChocoShell could task file exfiltration, trigger configuration hot reloads or check C2 connectivity using the pre-established secure C2 channel for communication.

ChocoShell: PowerShell infostealer

ChocoShell is the campaign’s Powershell-based infostealer, delivered and executed entirely in-memory. Its primary objective is the high-volume theft of browser session cookies, saved passwords, Microsoft 365 Single Sign-On (SSO) tokens, and Wi-Fi credentials from compromised systems. Where CornFlake provides the operator with a persistent, long-running foothold on the device, ChocoShell is designed to extract the most operationally valuable credentials, giving the operator access to victim cloud environments.

The ChocoShell script was authored with full developer comments that reveal the operator’s intent behind each code decision, including explicit references to Microsoft detection signatures and the reasoning behind specific evasion choices. The consistent coding standard and descriptive commentary suggest the author might have leveraged AI-assisted code generation.

Defense evasion. Upon execution, ChocoShell beacons to a hardcoded C2 server at 213.145.86[.]112 and implements several evasion techniques in sequence. It disables the Antimalware Scan Interface (AMSI) via .NET reflection to prevent ScriptBlock scanning and evades Microsoft behavioral detection that triggers on suspicious PowerShell web request cmdlets. A timing-based sandbox detection check is also employed as a virtual machine (VM) detection mechanism, silently exiting without performing any collection if detected.

C2 communication. ChocoShell communicates with its C2 server using HTTPS with URI paths designed to blend in with legitimate web traffic. Beacons use /t/pixel.gif?m=<status>, mimicking an image tracking pixel. Additional tooling is fetched from /cdn/chunks/polyfill-7e2b.min.js, disguised as a JavaScript polyfill file. This downloaded module is Base64-decoded and executed in memory via [ScriptBlock]::Create(), providing browser encryption key extraction capabilities, SYSTEM token impersonation, and Defender signature locking. Exfiltrated data is sent by POST to /t/event as GZip-compressed, Base64-wrapped JSON.

Privilege escalation. ChocoShell requires administrative privileges for its most impactful capabilities: SYSTEM token impersonation for Chrome ABE decryption, Volume Shadow Copy Service (VSS) shadow copy creation, Defender signature locking. It implements three silent UAC bypass techniques with ordered fallback:

1. SilentCleanup task hijack: Writes a malicious command to HKCU\Environment\windir, then triggers the built-in SilentCleanup scheduled task, which resolves %windir% from the user’s environment, executing the threat actor’s command at elevated privilege. The registry value is cleaned up after two seconds to avoid cloud detection.
2. wsreset.exe COM hijack: Creates a COM handler key in HKCU\Software\Classes and launches the auto-elevating Windows Store reset tool.
3. sdclt.exe folder hijack: Hijacks HKCU\Software\Classes\Folder\shell\open\command and launches the Windows Backup utility with the /KickOffElev flag.

If none of the silent bypasses succeed (for example, the user is not a local administrator), ChocoShell falls back to a visible UAC prompt via Start-Process -Verb RunAs. Notably, the script also contains a variant designed to execute within the WinGet Desired State Configuration (DSC) host process (ConfigurationRemotingServer), suggesting an attack vector through malicious WinGet DSC configuration used in Windows machine provisioning.

Credential and session theft. Once running with elevated permissions, ChocoShell locks Defender signature updates and systematically harvests data from multiple sources. For Chromium-based browsers (Chrome, Edge, Brave, Opera, Opera GX, Vivaldi), it extracts the master encryption key from the browser’s Local State file, handling both the modern ABE scheme (Chrome v127+) and the legacy data protection API (DPAPI)-only scheme. ABE decryption requires SYSTEM-level DPAPI access, which the malware obtains by impersonating a SYSTEM process token borrowed from winlogon.exe, wininit.exe, or services.exe. Locked browser SQLite databases are accessed through three strategies: shared file access, Volume Shadow Service snapshots, and direct copy as a fallback.

As a parallel collection path, ChocoShell launches Chrome, Edge, and Brave with the –remote-debugging-port flag and issues Network.getAllCookies through the Chrome DevTools Protocol (CDP). This completely bypasses ABE, enabling the browser to perform its own internal decryption and returns plaintext cookie values. To handle privilege issues (SYSTEM-launched browsers inherit the wrong token), the malware creates transient scheduled tasks with TASK_LOGON_INTERACTIVE_TOKEN to launch the browser under the signed-in user’s session. After extraction, the browser is stopped and relaunched with –restore-last-session to avoid alerting the user.

For Firefox family browsers (Firefox, Waterfox, LibreWolf, Floorp, Zen), the malware copies unencrypted cookies.sqlite databases from each profile. Additionally, ChocoShell collects Microsoft 365 and Azure Active Directory (AD) access tokens, refresh tokens, and Web Account Manager (WAM) tokens from .tbres files in the Token Broker cache. Collection of these tokens represents a significant threat to enterprise environments, as threat actors could replay SSO sessions without browser cookies. Additionally, Wi-Fi credentials are harvested via netsh wlan show profile with key=clear.

Exfiltration and cleanup. All collected data is aggregated into a JSON structure, GZip-compressed, Base64-encoded, and sent by POST to the C2’s /t/event endpoint. After exfiltration, all collected data variables are nulled, garbage collection is forced, VSS shadow copies are deleted via Windows Management Instrumentation (WMI), temporary elevation scripts are removed, and all UAC bypass registry keys (already cleaned during escalation) are verified removed.

FruitStone: Operator C2 panel

FruitStone is the web-based C2 panel that Storm-2945 operators use to manage the entire CaptiveCrunch campaign infrastructure. Implemented as a single-page application (HTML and JavaScript) serving as the front-end of the C2 server with all functionality exposed without authentication, FruitStone provides a centralized dashboard for managing compromised endpoints, building and deploying new campaign payloads, and reviewing all collected data (such as screenshots, keystrokes, browser credentials).

Operational cover. The panel is branded as “CloudSync Console” with a footer reading “Acuity Systems, Inc. — Cloud Infrastructure Portal v3.2.1,” designed to appear as legitimate enterprise cloud management software if the panel URL is discovered by defenders or hosting providers. This masquerading extends to the CornFlake agent’s service name (Cloud Sync Service) and description (“Synchronizes files with the cloud storage provider”), creating a consistent cover story across the toolchain.

Session management and multi-operator support. FruitStone uses JSON Web Token (JWT)-based authentication, session revocation, and rate limiting with IP blocking to prevent brute force attacks against the panel sign in. Multiple operators could be provisioned with individual accounts, and all active sessions are visible with IP address, user-agent, and creation time to enable operational security awareness across the operators.

Agent management. The panel displays all registered CornFlake agents in a dashboard with real-time status updates via Server-Sent Events (SSE). Each agent card shows comprehensive system information including hostname, username, OS version, CPU, RAM, disk usage, screen resolution, timezone, domain membership, and camera/microphone presence, all collected during the CornFlake posture sweep. Agents are grouped by country and subnet, with geographic distribution visualized on a map.

Operators could interact with individual agents through:

• Remote shell — Interactive cmd.exe or PowerShell command execution with command history
• File system browser — Live directory traversal and arbitrary file download from compromised hosts
• Collection tasking — On-demand screenshot, process list, keylog buffer flush, clipboard dump, security posture survey, ChromeKatz cookie/password extraction, camera capture, and audio recording
• Configuration push — Live runtime reconfiguration of C2 servers, watch paths, and C2 beacon timing
• Agent update — In-place implant update by pushing a new CornFlake build to a running agent
• Agent kill — Remote termination of the CornFlake implant

Campaign builder. A step-by-step wizard enables operators to configure and build new CornFlake payloads directly from the panel:

1. Identity — Campaign ID, C2 host and port, HTTP base URL, executable file name (svchost32.exe by default), and dropper type (C dropper at ~19 KB, Go stub at ~8 MB, or standalone self-installer)

2. Capabilities — Toggle individual collection modules: screenshots, process enumeration, keylogging, clipboard monitoring, posture survey, file exfiltration, and ChromeKatz browser credential theft

3. File Paths — Configure targeted directories and file extensions by category (documents, archives, images, code, data, emails, encryption keys)

4. Evasion — Enable garble symbol randomization (for GoLang payloads), XOR string encoding, GZip upload compression, and debug mode

Infrastructure management. FruitStone provides management interfaces for three layers of supporting infrastructure:

• Proxy relays — Multi-proxy C2 relay architecture with TLS certificate tracking (fingerprint, expiry), health checks, connection counts, bytes forwarded, and rotation capabilities that push updated server lists to all online agents
• Beacon profiles — Configurable timing profiles controlling agent sleep intervals, reconnection delays, TLS Server Name Indication (SNI) spoofing (like teams.microsoft.com), and DNS fallback domains
• Staging servers — External payload hosting infrastructure with push-to-deploy, file listing, and health monitoring

Device code abuse for cloud access

Since July 16, Microsoft has observed a portion of CaptiveCrunch landing pages redirecting users to device code authentication flow experiences. In these cases, users served these landings might be instructed to enter a device code into a legitimate Microsoft sign-in page, a technique commonly referred to as device code phishing.

Device code authentication is a legitimate OAuth workflow designed for devices that cannot support a traditional sign-in experience. However, threat actors could abuse this flow by initiating an authentication request on behalf of a user then convincing the user to enter an actor-controlled device code into a legitimate Microsoft authentication page. When successful, the victim authenticates the threat actor’s session rather than their own.

This activity is consistent with previously reported device code phishing operations conducted by Midnight Blizzard since August 2024. The observed technique does not appear fundamentally novel; however, integrating device code phishing into captive portal and traffic manipulation operations might increase the likelihood that users perceive the authentication request as legitimate. For additional details on Midnight Blizzard-related device code phishing techniques, see: Storm-2372 conducts device code phishing campaign. To understand other threat actors’ use of device code phishing and associated mitigations, see Inside an AI‑enabled device code phishing campaign.

How to protect against CaptiveCrunch activity

Minimize trust in hospitality and guest networks

When traveling, users should treat hotel, conference, airport, and other guest wireless networks as untrustworthy.

• Prefer private connectivity (including mobile hotspots, satellite, and eSIM-based cellular data connections) over public Wi‑Fi whenever practical.
  • For enterprise-managed devices, organizations can choose to prevent Wi-Fi connections to networks that have not been provisioned via Mobile Device Management (MDM). See: https://learn.microsoft.com/windows/client-management/mdm/policy-csp-wifi#allowmanualwificonfiguration
• Consider using enterprise-managed travel routers or hotspot devices that establish encrypted tunnels back to trusted corporate infrastructure before accessing sensitive resources.
• Avoid downloading software updates, certificates, browser updates, network troubleshooting tools, or security utilities presented through captive portals or other unexpected web prompts.
• Verify update requests through trusted operating system mechanisms rather than pop-up messages or website prompts.

Strengthen identity and access controls

Organizations should assume that public and hospitality network infrastructure might not be trustworthy and should adopt controls that limit exposure to traffic manipulation, credential theft, and device code phishing.

• Educate users to recognize ClickFix-style prompts, fake verification checks, and paste-and-run instructions as malicious, especially when they invoke command interpreters or script hosts such as cmd.exe, PowerShell, rundll32.exe, or mshta.exe.
• Use passwordless solutions like passkeys and implement multifactor authentication (MFA).
  • Use the Microsoft Authenticator app for passkeys and MFA, and complement MFA with conditional access policies, where sign-in requests are evaluated using additional identity-driven signals.
  • Conditional access policies can also be scoped to strengthen privileged accounts with phishing resistant MFA.
  • Your passkey and MFA policy can be further secured by only allowing MFA and passkey registrations from trusted locations and devices.
• Only allow device code flow where necessary. Microsoft recommends blocking device code flow wherever possible. Where necessary, configure Microsoft Entra ID’s device code flow in your Conditional Access policies.
• Implement a sign-in risk policy to automate response to risky sign-ins. A sign-in risk represents the probability that a given authentication request is not authorized by the identity owner. A sign-in risk-based policy can be implemented by adding a sign-in risk condition to Conditional Access policies that evaluates the risk level of a specific user or group. Based on the risk level (high/medium/low), a policy can be configured to block access or force MFA.
  • When a user is a high risk and Conditional access evaluation is enabled, the user’s access is revoked, and they are forced to re-authenticate.
  • For regular activity monitoring, use Risky sign-in reports, which surface attempted and successful user access activities where the legitimate owner might not have performed the sign-in. 
• Use a Security Service Edge (SSE) solution like Global Secure Access to secure access to any app or resource using network, identity, and endpoint access controls.

Reduce exposure during captive portal registration

Organizations should review what information employees provide to hospitality providers when connecting to guest networks.

• Do not reuse corporate credentials on hotel, conference, or guest-network registration pages.
• Where possible, organizations should evaluate whether venue-provided wireless is required for corporate events and conferences.
• Organizations should minimize unnecessary disclosure of employee identities, organizational affiliations, and travel details when booking accommodations or registering for guest network access, consistent with corporate policy and applicable local requirements.

Microsoft Defender detections and hunting guidance

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

Microsoft Defender for Endpoint detects Storm-2945 activity under the detection Suspicious activity linked to a Russian state-sponsored threat actor has been detected. However, these alerts might be triggered by unrelated threat actor activity. The following chart lists Microsoft Defender detections specific to the TTPs utilized by Storm-2945 in this attack.

Microsoft Security Copilot

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

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

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

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

Threat intelligence reports

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

• Actor profile: Midnight Blizzard

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

Hunting queries

Microsoft Defender XDR

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

Detect file creation after Wi-Fi connectivity test on devices

The following query checks for a file creation on a device within two minutes of the device performing built‑in Network Connectivity Status Indicator (NCSI) test, which occurs when network connectivity is established to a Wi-Fi network with a captive portal. This activity might indicate an attacker’s initial access file presence on a device.

Please note that not all files discovered through this query might be malicious or related to this threat activity.

let ncsi_endpoints = dynamic(["msftconnecttest.com","edge-http.microsoft.com","msftncsi.com","captive.apple.com","clients1.google.com",
    "clients3.google.com","clients4.google.com","clients6.google.com","connectivitycheck.gstatic.com","connectivitycheck.android.com",
    "android.clients.google.com","www.gstatic.com","detectportal.firefox.com","detectportal.brave-http-only.com","cloudflareportal.com",
    "cloudflarecp.com","cloudflareok.com","connectivity-check.warp-svc","connectivity.cloudflareclient.com","spectrum.s3.amazonaws.com",
    "nmcheck.gnome.org"]);
let NCSIEvents = DeviceNetworkEvents
    | where Timestamp > ago(7d)
    | where RemoteUrl has_any (ncsi_endpoints)
    | project NCSI_Timestamp = Timestamp, DeviceId, DeviceName, RemoteUrl, NCSI_ReportId = ReportId, NCSI_InitiatingProcessFileName = InitiatingProcessFileName, NCSI_InitiatingProcessCommandLine = InitiatingProcessCommandLine, NCSI_AccountName = InitiatingProcessAccountName;
let FileDownloadEvents = DeviceFileEvents
    | where Timestamp > ago(7d)
    | where ActionType == "FileCreated"
    | where FileName has_any (".exe",".msi",".zip",".rar",".7z")
    | project Download_Timestamp = Timestamp, DeviceId, FileName, FolderPath, Download_ReportId = ReportId, Download_InitiatingProcessFileName = InitiatingProcessFileName, Download_InitiatingProcessCommandLine = InitiatingProcessCommandLine, Download_AccountName = InitiatingProcessAccountName;
NCSIEvents
| join kind=inner (
    FileDownloadEvents
) on DeviceId
| where Download_Timestamp >= NCSI_Timestamp and Download_Timestamp 

Detect connectivity to Storm-2945 infrastructure

The following query checks for connectivity to Storm-2945 infrastructure observed in this attack activity.

let target_domains = dynamic(["ms365-device.com", "ms365-live.com", "m365-owa.com", "owa-ms365.com"]);
let target_ips = dynamic(["31.57.243.154", "38.146.28.75", "38.146.28.132", "104.194.159.150", "107.189.26.194", "213.145.86.112"]);
DeviceNetworkEvents
| where RemoteUrl has_any(target_domains) or RemoteIP in (target_ips)
| project
    Timestamp,
    DeviceName,
    DeviceId,
    RemoteUrl,
    RemoteIP,
    LocalIP,
    InitiatingProcessFileName,
    InitiatingProcessCommandLine,
    AccountName = InitiatingProcessAccountName,
    ReportId

Detect CornFlake RAT presence on affected systems

The following query checks for the presence of the CornFlake RAT binary.

DeviceProcessEvents
| where FolderPath == "%APPDATA%\\svchost32\\svchost32.exe"
   or FolderPath endswith @"\svchost32\svchost32.exe"
| project Timestamp, DeviceName, DeviceId, FileName, FolderPath, InitiatingProcessFileName, InitiatingProcessCommandLine, AccountName, ReportId

Detect CornFlake RAT Windows service registration

The following query checks for the CornFlake RAT Windows service registration.

DeviceRegistryEvents
| where RegistryKey has @"\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Services\svchost32"
| where ActionType == "RegistryValueSet"
| where (RegistryValueName == "DisplayName" and RegistryValueData == "Cloud Sync Service")
    or (RegistryValueName == "Description" and RegistryValueData == "Synchronizes files with the cloud storage provider")
| project
    Timestamp,
    DeviceName,
    DeviceId,
    RegistryKey,
    RegistryValueName,
    RegistryValueData,
    ActionType,
    InitiatingProcessFileName,
    InitiatingProcessCommandLine,
    InitiatingProcessAccountName,
    ReportId

Microsoft Sentinel

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

Detect network IP and domain indicators of compromise using ASIM

The following query checks IP addresses and domain IOCs across data sources supported by ASIM network session parser:

//IP list and domain list- _Im_NetworkSession
let lookback = 30d;
let ioc_ip_addr = dynamic(["213.145.86.112"]);
let ioc_domains = dynamic(["213.145.86.112/t/pixel.gif", "213.145.86.112/cdn/chunks/polyfill-7e2b.min.js", "213.145.86.112/t/event"]);
_Im_NetworkSession(starttime=todatetime(ago(lookback)), endtime=now())
| where DstIpAddr in (ioc_ip_addr) or DstDomain has_any (ioc_domains)
| summarize imNWS_mintime=min(TimeGenerated), imNWS_maxtime=max(TimeGenerated),
  EventCount=count() by SrcIpAddr, DstIpAddr, DstDomain, Dvc, EventProduct, EventVendor

Detect web sessions IP and file hash indicators of compromise using ASIM

The following query checks IP addresses, domains, and file hash IOCs across data sources supported by ASIM web session parser:

//IP list - _Im_WebSession
let lookback = 30d;
let ioc_ip_addr = dynamic(["213.145.86.112"]);
let ioc_sha_hashes =dynamic([“918fa52ae45ed60ba7cc8bdc99c3cbe9ab92e0375ec31fc05d0d4513be11c593”, “be99857449d2856dd5a84e21c8a3d5e0e01456adb44062ddec5a6b4970d8d42c”]);
_Im_WebSession(starttime=todatetime(ago(lookback)), endtime=now())
| where DstIpAddr in (ioc_ip_addr) or FileSHA256 in (ioc_sha_hashes)
| summarize imWS_mintime=min(TimeGenerated), imWS_maxtime=max(TimeGenerated),
  EventCount=count() by SrcIpAddr, DstIpAddr, Url, Dvc, EventProduct, EventVendor

Detect domain and URL indicators of compromise using ASIM

The following query checks domain and URL IOCs across data sources supported by ASIM web session parser:

// file hash list - imFileEvent
// Domain list - _Im_WebSession
let ioc_domains = dynamic(["https://213.145.86.112/t/pixel.gif", "https://213.145.86.112/cdn/chunks/polyfill-7e2b.min.js", "https://213.145.86.112/t/event"]);
_Im_WebSession (url_has_any = ioc_domains)

ChocoShell C2 communications

The following query detects ChocoShell communications with its C2 server using HTTPS with URI paths designed to blend in with legitimate web traffic. Beacons use /t/pixel.gif?m=<status>, mimicking an image tracking pixel.

let lookback = 30d;
let ioc_url_artifacts = dynamic(["/t/pixel.gif?m="]);
_Im_WebSession(starttime=todatetime(ago(lookback)), endtime=now())
| where DstDomain  in (ioc_url_artifacts)
| summarize imWS_mintime=min(TimeGenerated), imWS_maxtime=max(TimeGenerated),
  EventCount=count() by SrcIpAddr, DstIpAddr, Url, Dvc, EventProduct, EventVendor

Indicators of compromise

References

• https://reliaquest.com/blog/threat-spotlight-dns-poisoning-tactics-expand-to-hospitality/
• https://www.volexity.com/blog/2025/02/13/multiple-russian-threat-actors-targeting-microsoft-device-code-authentication

Learn more

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

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

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

The post CaptiveCrunch: Midnight Blizzard targets travelers worldwide for malware delivery and credential theft appeared first on Microsoft Security Blog.

Your phone rings, you pick up and say hello. On the other end: total silence. No one answers, and the call abruptly disconnects. If you don’t already use spam call blockers, you’ve almost certainly run into this situation before.

In most cases, these are scam calls. Today, we explain why these calls happen, what the callers want from you, and how to protect yourself. Most importantly, we’ll look at whether you even need to bother protecting yourself against them in the first place.

Who’s calling?

It’s not just scammers on the line — robots, legitimate call center operators, and ordinary folks make these calls too. Let’s break down each type of caller — ordered from best-case to worst-case scenario for your security.

Actual person

The most harmless scenario is that an actual person called you, but their microphone is acting up. Maybe they accidentally muted themselves with their ear, or their smartphone connected to a Bluetooth headset, speaker, or car system that isn’t capturing their voice. Carrier glitches can also mute one side of a call. The caller might have no idea there’s a problem — as far as they know, they are speaking, but no one can hear them. In cases like this, you usually recognize the incoming phone number.

If the call comes from an unknown number, there’s still no need to panic — though the list of those who might be calling gets much longer.

One legitimate possibility is a call center agent who simply didn’t pick up or connect their headset in time. Call center systems are designed to dial numbers faster than agents can wrap up their calls. The system tried to route the call to a human, but no reps were available. That’s why you sometimes have to wait a few seconds before hearing a single word, or why you might hear ringing tones as if you were the one making the call.

Robot or AI

Silence on the line is a common sign of robocalls. Robots test whether a phone number is active and, if it is, pass it along to a human — meaning a real sales rep (or scammer) will call you back in the next few days. It’s worth noting that scammers aren’t the only ones making these pinging calls. Legitimate call centers use the exact same tools to reduce the workload on their live agents.

An AI agent could also be behind the silent call. To the person answering, there’s no practical difference: the call looks identical to one made by a standard bot. However, AI can do more than just auto-dial numbers — it can analyze your response and use that data to decide whether your number is active and ready to be handed off to a live person for follow-up.

Unwanted caller

Now we get to the real threat. Perhaps one of the most dangerous and unpleasant sources of silent phone calls is a scammer. A quick, silent call like this can actually be the groundwork for a long, elaborate attack with cover stories about loans, government agencies, other fraudsters, even law enforcement.

Debt collectors might also be calling and staying quiet. Your number could end up on their radar if you, your family, or close contacts have outstanding debts. In these cases, a silent call is often used as a tactic for psychological pressure.

A similar technique is used in stalking. While silent calls cause no direct harm on their own, they can be leveraged to induce anxiety, create a feeling of being constantly watched, and cause ongoing emotional distress.

Why do they call and stay silent?

When you pick up, you likely respond out of habit with a quick “Hello?” or “Hi there.” That’s all it takes for the other party to gather a wealth of data. While this information used to be difficult to process, the rise of artificial intelligence has made the task significantly easier. Let’s look at what someone can learn about you from just one spoken word:

• Region, accent, and location. Scammers are sophisticated and cunning. Their tactics are often tailored by region — targeting residents of specific countries or even regions within them. This is especially relevant in places like India or South Africa, which have 22 and 11 official languages, respectively.
• Approximate age and gender. While a human listener might easily confuse a teenager’s voice with a young woman’s or misjudge someone’s age entirely, AI is far better at picking up on subtle vocal nuances. Knowing your age and gender helps scammers refine their playbook for future social engineering attacks.
• Times you’re available. If you answer the phone in the morning, afternoon, or late at night, attackers can schedule their follow-up call during the exact time window when you’re most likely to pick up.
• Likelihood of a successful attack. AI can automatically assess the potential value of a target. For instance, if someone answers quickly, speaks calmly, and doesn’t immediately hang up on unknown numbers, they’ll likely be assigned a higher priority for follow-up calls by live scam operators.

Back to the “why do they call and stay silent”, the main reason is to harvest biometric data. Just a few seconds of recorded audio can help cybercriminals create a voice deepfake. While one or two words might not yield a convincing clone on their own, attackers can stitch together recordings from multiple silent calls to build a believable replica.

This technology is already being used in real-world scams. Impersonating a relative, colleague, or boss, fraudsters can urgently ask you to send them money, to share a two-factor authentication code for government services, or to complete some other seemingly innocuous request. The more realistic the deepfake sounds, the harder it is to spot the scam — especially when backed by a convincing backstory.

What to do if you get a silent call?

If you answer a call, say a few words, and hang up, there’s no need to panic. However, that brief interaction can confirm to attackers that your number is active and that you’ll answer calls from unknown numbers. As a result, your phone number could end up on target lists for future spam or scam campaigns. That said, it’s important to remember that a single silent call poses no immediate security threat.

Here are a few tips to help you stay calm and avoid falling for scam tactics if those silent calls are becoming a problem:

• Don’t answer calls from unknown or hidden numbers. Here’s a helpful tip: if someone genuinely needs to reach you, they’ll find another way to do so, or keep calling from the exact same number at various times. Scammers almost always dial from different numbers, while automated bots operate on a rigid schedule — like calling every day at precisely 8:05 AM.
• Don’t rush to call back. Scammers often count on proactive victims who are curious enough to return calls from unfamiliar numbers. On top of that, calling back could end up costing you money if it’s a premium-rate number.
• Don’t speak first. Wait for the caller to greet you before starting a conversation. If you hear muffled noise or complete silence on the line, hang up and save yourself the hassle — it’s likely a scam.
• Block unknown numbers — even after the call. If you picked up and realized the call could be risky, it’s best to block the number right away. You can use the built-in features on most modern smartphones to do this.
• Don’t share your number everywhere. Phishing sites, fly-by-night web pages, and sketchy giveaways often exist solely to collect your personal data. When filling out forms online, it doesn’t hurt to use a burner or secondary number.
• Get a second phone number. Separate your daily life between two numbers. Use your main line strictly for family, friends, and work contacts, and reserve the secondary line for deliveries, online marketplaces, and general web sign-ups.

Further reading on scammers and deepfakes:

• They’re reading you like a book: scammers’ favorite tricks
• How to recognize a deepfake: attack of the clones
• The great messaging heist targeting your wallet
• You’re in for a big payout again
• Scareware: fake threats, real risks

AI is getting better and better at solving CAPTCHAs. This makes website creators — who still need to verify that they’re dealing with humans rather than bots — come up with increasingly sophisticated proof-of-humanity checks. It seems an average user would no longer be surprised if asked to recite a poem — or, say, dance Gangnam Style — just to access certain websites. The latter could double as an age check, but I digress.

Attackers have learned to exploit this variety of sometimes bizarre checks to their advantage. In our blog, we’ve talked more than once about the ClickFix attack technique, which is all about slipping a malicious instruction to the victim under the guise of yet another CAPTCHA. Historically, this technique has been used to attack users of Windows-powered devices. However, researchers recently discovered a campaign that targets macOS users. In this post, we talk in more detail about the ClickFix attack technique, the new campaign aimed at Mac users, and the criminals’ goals.

What is the ClickFix attack technique?

Many common attacks and scams rely on social engineering, or more simply put — manipulation. Instead of looking for software vulnerabilities, attackers try to trick the user into doing the dirty work themselves: opening a malicious file, clicking a link to a fake website, sharing sensitive data, or running a harmful command.

The simplest example of social engineering is scam calls, where criminals pose as a boss, neighbor, bank security specialist, police officer… the list goes on almost indefinitely. And if you think that only, let’s say, not-so-smart users fall for these tricks, you’re wrong: social engineering has been used to hack the CIA chief’s email, hijack the X (Twitter) accounts of Elon Musk and Joe Biden, and steal half a billion dollars. In our post, They’re reading you like a book: scammers’ favorite tricks, we take a close look at their favorite techniques — give it a read so you don’t end up sharing company with those famous victims.

The ClickFix attack also relies on social engineering, except the scammers aren’t betting on the victim’s fear of an authority figure, but rather on their trust in technology and their habit of following instructions — even when they don’t quite make sense.

In a classic ClickFix scenario, a user visits a compromised or fake website and, instead of the expected page, sees a notification that there’s an issue. The site might claim that to continue, you need to complete an extra verification check, update your browser, or fix an error.

ClickFix: how to infect your own computer with malware in three easy steps. One of the classic variations of the attack targeting Windows users Source

Next, the victim is prompted to follow a few simple steps that look harmless enough at first glance. Usually, this involves copying some text from the attackers’ website, opening the Run window, pasting the text there, and hitting Enter.

In reality, the text is a malicious command that downloads and runs malware on the device. Since the user carries out all the steps themselves, the operating system’s security mechanisms and built-in warnings are often dismissed as just another part of the instructions. In our blog, we’ve covered the typical pretexts used to trick victims into taking dangerous actions; you can read more about them here.

The ClickFix attack scheme quickly began spawning various spin-offs, such as FileFix and ConsentFix. Until recently, the victims of ClickFix and its variants were mostly Windows users, while Mac fans encountered it much more rarely. But lately, the number of ClickFix attacks targeting Apple device owners has been on the rise.

How does the ClickFix attack on macOS work?

The ClickFix attack on Macs, as documented by cybersecurity researchers, begins with the classic fake CAPTCHA scenario. To pass the proof-of-humanity check, attackers prompt the user to copy a command, open Terminal, and paste the text into it.

The contents of the command that the user is prompted to run via Terminal. Source

The more interesting part is what happens after the malicious command is run. First, it downloads a malicious DMG — the standard format for disk images containing installation files in macOS — from a remote server, and saves it to the /tmp temporary folder under a random name. Then the script mounts the disk image without showing it in Finder or creating a desktop icon — keeping it hidden from the user. After that, the script searches the disk image for an app or installation package, and automatically launches it once found.

One case documented in the researchers’ findings involved the widespread AMOS (Atomic macOS Stealer) infostealer being distributed this way. To gain extra privileges on the system, the stealer Trojan displays a fake macOS system authentication window tricking the user into willingly typing in their password.

What are the attackers’ goals?

After the malware is installed, the attackers steal literally everything they can get their hands on from the victim’s device. Atomic macOS Stealer extracts sensitive information stored in Chromium-based browsers (Google Chrome, Microsoft Edge, Brave, Opera, Arc, Vivaldi, CocCoc, and Yandex), as well as Firefox-based ones (LibreWolf, SeaMonkey, Tor Browser, Waterfox, and Zen Browser), such as the following:

• Cookies
• Saved logins and passwords
• Auto-fill data
• Saved credit and debit cards
• Browser profile data

On top of all that, the attackers also steal PDF, TXT, and RTF files from the victim’s device. The criminals are especially interested in crypto apps; specifically: desktop crypto wallets like Exodus, Electrum, Atomic Wallet, Wasabi Wallet, Bitcoin Core, Litecoin Core, DashCore, Guarda, Binance Wallet, Dogecoin Wallet, and Tonkeeper. The malware also gathers data from more than 200 cryptocurrency-related browser extensions.

But that’s still not everything…

It also targets the Telegram and Discord desktop apps. The malware doesn’t spare Apple’s ecosystem either — stealing Safari cookies, notes from Apple Notes, and passwords stored in the built-in Apple Keychain.

Once a device is infected, Atomic macOS Stealer whisks away everything valuable. Source

All of the collected information is added to a ZIP archive and uploaded to the attackers’ server. In addition, the malware replaces legitimate versions of hardware crypto wallet apps — specifically Ledger Wallet and Trezor Suite — with malicious fakes.

Together, this trove of data gives attackers broad opportunities to further compromise accounts, steal digital assets, and launch new attacks on behalf of the victim.

How do I avoid becoming a victim of ClickFix?

As social engineering attacks continue to grow, users need to be more vigilant than ever. That goes for everything from chatting with strangers on the phone or in messaging apps to everyday online activity.

• Never paste commands into your Terminal just because a website asks you to — whether it’s to pass a verification check, confirm your identity, or view hidden content. No legitimate website will ever ask you to enable its features by manually running commands Terminal.
• Never enter your macOS administrator password unless you completely understand what app is asking for it.
• Regularly install macOS security updates, or better yet, set them to install automatically by going to System Settings → General → Software Update and clicking the i icon next to Automatic Updates. While recent versions of macOS may warn you when you try to paste suspicious or malicious commands into Terminal, this isn’t a reliable feature. For example, the malicious code shown in the screenshot above didn’t trigger any warnings at all on macOS Tahoe 26.5.2.
• Trust the warnings from your operating system and security software rather than the instructions — or even the demands — of websites and apps.
• Install a reliable security suite for macOS. It’ll warn you and block malicious activity if you land on a suspicious website.
• Use secure password manager to keep your login credentials and crypto assets safe from cybercriminals.

Read our posts to learn about other threats facing Apple device owners:

• Crypto thieves ramping up attacks on Apple users
• The iPhone — invincible no more: a look at DarkSword and Coruna
• Predator vs. iPhone: the art of invisible surveillance
• AirBorne: Attacks on Apple devices through vulnerabilities in AirPlay
• SparkCat trojan stealer infiltrates App Store and Google Play, steals data from photos

This week on the Lock and Code podcast…

Twenty years ago, a British mathematician named Clive Humby popularized a phrase that came to describe data’s relationship with the entire global economy: “Data is the new oil.”

Pithy as the phrase sounds, it is undeniably true.

Data steers decisions at businesses of every size. Data created entirely new industries built around its capture. And, for a select number of companies, data has produced billions—if not trillions—of dollars in value.

So how is it that, on the dark web, your stolen identity can be purchased for just 95 cents?

That’s what a Malwarebytes researcher found last month after spending 48 hours inside the dark web to investigate cybercrime. Across a variety of forums and directories, he found subscription plans for malware that steals information once implanted on a device. He found guides for deploying social engineering scams. He found people selling their services to build fake websites that trick people into handing over their usernames and passwords. And he found one of the dark web’s most traded commodities—personal data, packaged together about individual people, to help a cybercriminal commit identity fraud.

These packages are called “fullz.” For victims in the United States, a fullz contains a full name, Social Security Number, date of birth, address, and other personal details. That is enough, on its own, for a cybercriminal to potentially open a bogus line of credit, file a fake tax return, access financial accounts, or obtain medical services under someone else’s name.

As we wrote on Malwarebytes Labs:

“For less than the cost of a cup of coffee, a cybercriminal can buy enough information to devastate someone’s financial life.”

It’s the kind of risk that could scare anyone, especially considering the scale behind it. In just the first six months of 2026, Malwarebytes found more than 7,500 compromised data sets on the dark web containing more than 8.4 billion records.

And yet, even today, cybersecurity professionals still get asked why anyone should bother protecting their data.

The public, understandably, are exhausted. With data breaches happening every week—if not every day—cybersecurity can start to feel pointless. With young people unable to build financial security, they start believing that they have nothing worth stealing. And with Big Tech already collecting our every movement, behavior, click, and concern, people understandably feel powerless to fight any kind of data abuse, be it corporate or criminal.

So today’s episode approaches the question from a different direction. This isn’t about why you should protect yourself—plenty of company websites will tell you that, and most of them rely on fear. This is about why hackers want your data in the first place.

Today, on the Lock and Code podcast, host David Ruiz explains how cybercriminals turn a single repeated password into account takeover, how a screenshot of your house from Google Maps became a tool in extortion emails, and why the most benign information about you—an address, an age, one public photo—is often the most useful data a stranger can buy.

Tune in today to listen to the full episode.

Show notes and credits:

Intro Music: “Spellbound” by Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com)
Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 4.0 License
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
Outro Music: “Good God” by Wowa (unminus.com)

Listen up—Malwarebytes doesn’t just talk cybersecurity, we provide it.

Protect yourself from online attacks that threaten your identity, your files, your system, and your financial well-being with our exclusive offer for Malwarebytes Premium for Lock and Code listeners.

This week on the Lock and Code podcast…

Twenty years ago, a British mathematician named Clive Humby popularized a phrase that came to describe data’s relationship with the entire global economy: “Data is the new oil.”

Pithy as the phrase sounds, it is undeniably true.

Data steers decisions at businesses of every size. Data created entirely new industries built around its capture. And, for a select number of companies, data has produced billions—if not trillions—of dollars in value.

So how is it that, on the dark web, your stolen identity can be purchased for just 95 cents?

That’s what a Malwarebytes researcher found last month after spending 48 hours inside the dark web to investigate cybercrime. Across a variety of forums and directories, he found subscription plans for malware that steals information once implanted on a device. He found guides for deploying social engineering scams. He found people selling their services to build fake websites that trick people into handing over their usernames and passwords. And he found one of the dark web’s most traded commodities—personal data, packaged together about individual people, to help a cybercriminal commit identity fraud.

These packages are called “fullz.” For victims in the United States, a fullz contains a full name, Social Security Number, date of birth, address, and other personal details. That is enough, on its own, for a cybercriminal to potentially open a bogus line of credit, file a fake tax return, access financial accounts, or obtain medical services under someone else’s name.

As we wrote on Malwarebytes Labs:

“For less than the cost of a cup of coffee, a cybercriminal can buy enough information to devastate someone’s financial life.”

It’s the kind of risk that could scare anyone, especially considering the scale behind it. In just the first six months of 2026, Malwarebytes found more than 7,500 compromised data sets on the dark web containing more than 8.4 billion records.

And yet, even today, cybersecurity professionals still get asked why anyone should bother protecting their data.

The public, understandably, are exhausted. With data breaches happening every week—if not every day—cybersecurity can start to feel pointless. With young people unable to build financial security, they start believing that they have nothing worth stealing. And with Big Tech already collecting our every movement, behavior, click, and concern, people understandably feel powerless to fight any kind of data abuse, be it corporate or criminal.

So today’s episode approaches the question from a different direction. This isn’t about why you should protect yourself—plenty of company websites will tell you that, and most of them rely on fear. This is about why hackers want your data in the first place.

Today, on the Lock and Code podcast, host David Ruiz explains how cybercriminals turn a single repeated password into account takeover, how a screenshot of your house from Google Maps became a tool in extortion emails, and why the most benign information about you—an address, an age, one public photo—is often the most useful data a stranger can buy.

Tune in today to listen to the full episode.

Show notes and credits:

Intro Music: “Spellbound” by Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com)
Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 4.0 License
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
Outro Music: “Good God” by Wowa (unminus.com)

Listen up—Malwarebytes doesn’t just talk cybersecurity, we provide it.

Protect yourself from online attacks that threaten your identity, your files, your system, and your financial well-being with our exclusive offer for Malwarebytes Premium for Lock and Code listeners.

When an administrator introduces a rule change in AWS Network Firewall and network connectivity is disrupted, pinpointing the cause requires inspecting multiple points in the traffic path. The firewall gives you stateless and stateful rule engines, domain rules, and routing to the firewall endpoint inside your Amazon Virtual Private Cloud (Amazon VPC). A network drop looks the same from the workload no matter where it started. Isolating the cause means correlating the alert and flow logs with the firewall configuration, route tables, and recent API calls in AWS CloudTrail that might have changed them. That manual correlation is exactly where AWS DevOps Agent helps, accelerating root cause analysis so you can restore connectivity in minutes instead of hours.

AWS DevOps Agent does that correlation for you. As your always-available operations teammate, it resolves and proactively prevents operational issues across AWS, multicloud, and on-premises environments. When an Amazon CloudWatch alarm triggers, it reaches the agent through a webhook. The agent then reads the firewall configuration and logs through AWS APIs, ties the drop to recent API activity, and returns a root cause with a mitigation plan you review before you apply it.

This post connects CloudWatch monitoring to DevOps Agent. It walks through three Network Firewall failures from end to end. The first is a domain deny list blocking a legitimate endpoint. The second is a stateless rule priority misconfiguration. The third is an asymmetric cross Availability Zone (AZ) routing drop. Each maps to a different layer, so each leads down a different investigation path. An AWS Cloud Development Kit (AWS CDK) app deploys the whole environment in your own account so you can reproduce each failure and follow along.

As part of this blog post, we provide a CDK stack that deploys both the AWS DevOps Agent Space and a sample workload used to walk through three separate troubleshooting scenarios. A single t3.micro instance in a protected subnet checks its connectivity to a test endpoint on a continuous loop and publishes results to CloudWatch. Traffic takes the internet egress path through Network Firewall, the NAT gateway, and the internet gateway, so the firewall can intercept or drop it. After completing the walkthrough, you can apply the same troubleshooting techniques with DevOps Agent against your own Network Firewall deployments.

The test endpoint runs in a separate VPC deployed by the same CDK app. It serves HTTPS on port 443 and TCP on port 9142, giving each scenario a different protocol layer to exercise: Scenario 1 targets a TLS connection on 443 (matched by Server Name Indication), Scenario 2 targets a TCP connection on 9142, and Scenario 3 exercises the whole egress path.

A live status page shows one card per scenario plus the network topology. The whole stack deploys from a single CDK app across two Availability Zones, each with a firewall endpoint and NAT gateway, which is what makes Scenario 3 possible.

As shown in the following figure, the egress data path runs from the workload through Network Firewall and the NAT and internet gateways to the test endpoint. The alarm pipeline runs from CloudWatch through Amazon Simple Notification Service (Amazon SNS) and the webhook AWS Lambda function to DevOps Agent.

Figure 1: The sample workload

To use this with your own workload, you need a CloudWatch alarm that detects the connectivity problem and the webhook pipeline (SNS topic and Lambda function) that delivers it to DevOps Agent. The agent reads your firewall configuration, logs, and CloudTrail through AWS APIs, so no additional instrumentation is needed on the firewall side.

To follow along with this post, you need:

• An AWS account with permissions to deploy Amazon VPC, Network Firewall, Amazon Elastic Compute Cloud (Amazon EC2), CloudWatch, Amazon SNS, Lambda, Amazon CloudFront, and AWS Identity and Access Management (IAM) resources
• Access to AWS DevOps Agent, with permission to configure its webhook
• Node.js 18 or later and npm installed
• AWS Command Line Interface (AWS CLI) 2.x configured with credentials
• AWS CDK 2.x is required. You can use it through the project’s npx dependency, or install it globally:
  • npm install -g aws-cdk

Clone the project and deploy it into us-east-1 with one command (set awsRegion to use another AWS Region).

git clone https://github.com/aws-samples/sample-accelerating-aws-network-firewall-troubleshooting-with-aws-devops-agent.git
cd sample-accelerating-aws-network-firewall-troubleshooting-with-aws-devops-agent
bash scripts/deploy.sh

The script checks prerequisites, installs dependencies, compiles and tests, and bootstraps the CDK if needed. It then deploys all the stacks from a clean baseline and prints the outputs, including the status-page URL and sign-in details.

1. Open the status-page link (an https://<random-id>.cloudfront.net address).
2. Sign in using the username and password provided from the CDK output and confirm all three cards show the green Healthy status.
3. Keep the page open while you run the scenarios.

To connect AWS DevOps Agent to the alarm pipeline

1. In the AWS DevOps Agent console, open the nf-devops-agent-space Agent Space created by the CDK deployment.
2. Configure the DevOps Agent webhook and download the CSV file with the webhook URL and signing secret.
3. On the status page, choose Configure webhook, paste the URL and signing secret, and save. The page writes them to the nf-devops-agent-webhook-credentials AWS Secrets Manager secret, so there is no AWS CLI or console step. Until you set it, the bridge Lambda function sees a placeholder and skips delivery.
4. Verify the path before you run a scenario. In the Lambda console, open nf-devops-agent-webhook and use the Test tab with this event.

   {
     "Records": [
       {
         "Sns": {
           "Message": "{\"AlarmName\":\"TEST-webhook-verification\",\"AlarmDescription\":\"[TEST] Webhook integration test - not a real alarm.\",\"NewStateValue\":\"ALARM\",\"NewStateReason\":\"[TEST] Manual webhook connectivity test. Safe to ignore.\",\"Region\":\"us-east-1\"}"
         }
       }
     ]
   }

5. A 200 response confirms the path, and a test investigation appears in the DevOps Agent Operator Web App view.

Every scenario reaches DevOps Agent the same way. A CloudWatch alarm moves to ALARM and notifies the SNS topic. Amazon SNS invokes a Lambda function. The function reads the webhook URL and signing secret from Secrets Manager, signs an alarm payload, and POSTs it to the DevOps Agent webhook (as shown in Figure 1). Amazon SNS also provides delivery retries, fan-out to other subscribers, and cross-account publishing.

• Prebuilt Network Firewall metric (Scenario 1) – Alarm-1 watches the DroppedPackets metric, summed across the stateful streams, and triggers when drops rise above a baseline threshold. This requires no workload or custom metric and works on an already-deployed firewall. However, it only tells you that the firewall is dropping packets, not which rule is responsible.
• Application health metric (Scenarios 2 and 3) – Alarm-2 and Alarm-3 watch a custom metric from a connectivity check. Use this for an alarm tied to user-facing impact or to tell one traffic path from another, which requires running a component that emits the metric.

Work through each of the scenarios one at a time, following the same cycle. Interrupt network connectivity, watch the alarm trigger, let DevOps Agent investigate, apply the recommended fix, and confirm recovery before moving on.

The status-page cards follow the live CloudWatch alarm state. A card shows a green dot and the word Healthy when its alarm is clear, and a red dot and the word DROPPED when its alarm triggers. In the DROPPED state the card also adds a Condition: line describing what’s being dropped, which isn’t shown when the card is healthy. Network Firewall applies changes to new flows, so a change shows within a minute or two. Recovery comes from the mitigation DevOps Agent recommends, which you review and apply.

At baseline, the rg-domain Suricata domain rule group denies only an unused placeholder, so the test endpoint stays reachable. The rule group inspects the TLS Server Name Indication (SNI) on each outbound connection and drops any that matches a denied domain. The exact rule syntax and console steps follow.

To add the domain deny rule

1. Go to the Amazon VPC console.
2. In the navigation pane, under Network Firewall, choose Network Firewall rule groups.
3. Choose the rg-domain rule group to open its details page.
4. In the Rules section, choose Edit.
5. The rules box already contains two baseline placeholder rules (they match blocked.placeholder.invalid, so nothing real is denied). Leave those in place. Find the <app-endpoint-dns> value for Scenario 1 in the deployment script output (a Nework Load Balancer (NLB) DNS name such as NfTest-AppNl-a1b2C3dEf4G5-1234abcd5678efgh.elb.us-east-1.amazonaws.com). On a new line below the existing rules, add a drop rule that matches that DNS name on the TLS SNI, then choose Save.

   drop tls $HOME_NET any -> $EXTERNAL_NET any (ssl_state:client_hello; tls.sni; content:"<app-endpoint-dns>"; startswith; nocase; endswith; msg:"S1 domain denylist"; flow:to_server, established; sid:2000002; rev:1;)

6. After saving, the rules box holds all three lines. The two placeholders remain, plus the new drop rule for the endpoint DNS name (note the distinct sid 2000002).

Figure 2: Scenario 1 – Firewall rule change blocking the connection

What happens. The workload’s HTTPS check to the test endpoint times out, the “AWS/NetworkFirewall DroppedPackets metric climbs above baseline, and Alarm-1 moves to ALARM. The Scenario 1 card reads DROPPED (with the condition Firewall dropping the monitored domain on its allow/deny rules), while the Scenario 2 and Scenario 3 cards stay Healthy (Figure 3). On the topology, the alarm pipeline from CloudWatch through Amazon SNS and Lambda to DevOps Agent and the workload-to-firewall inspect lines both turn amber, which the legend defines as collateral / alarm active, because the packets are now dropped at the firewall. To demonstrate the resulting failure, the HTTPS · SNI line from the internet gateway to the test endpoint is shown in red, which the legend defines as dropped (root cause).

Figure 3: Scenario 1 active – Traffic blocked at the firewall

Let DevOps Agent investigate. The agent runs several lines of investigation in parallel and correlates them:

1. Reads the DroppedPackets metric and correlates the spike with a simultaneous drop in passed packets, confirming the firewall is actively blocking traffic.
2. Reads the ALERT log and finds the workload’s TLS connections to the test endpoint blocked by the S1 domain denylist rule.
3. Compares the current state against a baseline window, where the same endpoint was reachable with no alerts, which shows the block is new.
4. Searches CloudTrail and surfaces the UpdateRuleGroup call that added the deny rule, identifying the user, role, and timestamp approximately one minute before the drops began.
5. Reports the root cause as that manual rule-group change. Recommends removing the deny entry or adding an allow exception and enabling FirewallPolicyChangeProtection to prevent unauthorized changes.
6. Presents this as a plan you review and apply, not an automatic change.

In the DevOps Agent Operator Web App view, the agent first restates the Alarm-1 trigger and confirms the firewall is dropping packets above the threshold (Figure 4).

Figure 4: Scenario 1 – The symptom

Next, the agent identifies the root cause: a manual update to the rg-domain rule group that added a domain deny rule (SID 2000002) shortly before the alarm fired, blocking TLS connections to the ELB endpoint (Figure 5).

Figure 5: Scenario 1 – The root cause

Finally, the agent presents a mitigation plan, recommending you remove the problematic deny rule (SID 2000002) to restore connectivity (Figure 6).

Figure 6: Scenario 1 – The mitigation plan

Note: In a real-world environment, this type of rule typically exists for a reason. Before removing it, verify whether it was intentional but scoped too broadly. If so, refine the rule to block only unauthorized endpoints rather than removing it entirely.

Confirm recovery. Apply the change the agent recommends. After the deny entry is gone, DroppedPackets falls back to baseline, Alarm-1 clears, and the card returns to green. Move on to Scenario 2.

At baseline, the rg-stateless-priority stateless rule group keeps the allow rule at priority 100 and the drop rule at 200 for the test class, TCP destination port 9142. The workload opens a TCP connection to the test endpoint on this port. Lower priority numbers evaluate first, so the allow rule wins. This scenario uses port 9142 instead of 443 to demonstrate a stateless rule, which matches on the packet’s 5-tuple (protocol, ports, addresses) rather than application content.

Introduce the change. Invert the two rule priorities so the drop rule evaluates before the allow rule. This is the kind of change a rushed rule edit can introduce.

To invert the stateless rule priorities

1. Go to the Amazon VPC console.
2. In the navigation pane, under Network Firewall, choose Network Firewall rule groups.
3. Choose the rg-stateless-priority rule group to open its details page.
4. In the Rules section, choose Edit.
5. Raise the (Action: Pass) rule’s priority number so it sits after the (Action: Drop) rule, then choose Save. For example, change the (Action: Pass) rule from 100 to 300 (any number higher than the drop rule’s 200 works). You only need to move one rule, and using 300 avoids a clash with the drop rule that already sits at 200. Network Firewall evaluates the lowest priority number first, so the (Action: Drop) rule at 200 now wins for this traffic class, ahead of the (Action: Pass) rule at 300.

Figure 7: Scenario 2 – Rule priority change blocking the traffic class

What happens. The drop rule now wins, the TCP connection to the test endpoint on port 9142 times out, the StatelessRuleFailures metric climbs above baseline, and Alarm-2 moves to ALARM. The Scenario 2 card reads DROPPED (with the condition Stateless rules dropping the monitored traffic class), while the Scenario 1 and Scenario 3 cards stay Healthy (Figure 8). On the topology, the alarm pipeline from CloudWatch through Amazon SNS and Lambda to DevOps Agent and the workload-to-firewall inspect lines both turn amber, which the legend defines as collateral / alarm active, because the packets are now dropped at the firewall. To demonstrate the resulting failure, the TLS :9142 line from the internet gateway to the test endpoint is shown in red, which the legend defines as dropped (root cause).

Figure 8: Scenario 2 active

Let DevOps Agent investigate. A stateless drop happens before traffic reaches the stateful inspection engine, so it produces no ALERT log entries. The agent turns to configuration and flow logs instead:

1. Reads the stateless rule group state and finds the drop rule at the lower priority number, ahead of the pass rule, so the drop evaluates first.
2. Reads the flow logs and sees passed packets drop to zero within a minute of the change.
3. Searches CloudTrail and surfaces the UpdateRuleGroup call that inverted the priorities, identifying the user, role, and timestamp about a minute before the alarm.
4. Reports the root cause as that priority inversion. Recommends removing the redundant drop rule and managing the rule group through infrastructure-as-code (IaC) to prevent manual misconfigurations.
5. Presents this as a plan you review and apply, not an automatic change.

In the DevOps Agent Operator Web App view, the agent first restates the Alarm-2 trigger and confirms that a workload connectivity health check is failing because the firewall’s stateless rules are dropping egress (Figure 9).

Figure 9: Scenario 2 – The symptom

Next, the agent identifies the root cause, using the rule-group state and CloudTrail to pinpoint the conflicting DROP/PASS rules, where the new DROP rule’s lower priority number makes it match first (Figure 10).

Figure 10: Scenario 2 – The root cause

Finally, the agent presents a mitigation plan, recommending you remove the conflicting DROP rule at priority 200 to restore traffic flow (Figure 11).

Figure 11: Scenario 2 – The mitigation plan

Confirm recovery. Apply the change the agent recommends. After the allow rule is ahead of the drop rule again, Alarm-2 clears and the card returns to green. Move on to Scenario 3.

At baseline, the protected subnet in each Availability Zone routes its egress through the firewall endpoint in that same Availability Zone , and the matching return route uses that same endpoint. One endpoint sees both directions of the flow, so the stateful engine completes the handshake. The workload runs in the protected subnet in us-east-1a (CIDR 10.0.4.0/24), so at baseline its egress and its return both use the us-east-1a firewall endpoint.

Introduce the change. Make the flow asymmetric by sending egress out one Availability Zone endpoint while the return comes back through the other. This takes two route edits, and both are required. With only the first edit the flow can still complete, so the alarm will not trigger until both are saved. It makes no firewall-policy change, mirroring a real multi-Availability-Zone routing mistake.

To create asymmetric cross Availability Zone routing

1. Go to the Amazon VPC console and choose Route tables in the navigation pane.
2. Flip the egress. Select the NfNetworkStack/SampleVpc/protectedSubnet1 route table (the us-east-1a protected subnet, where the workload runs). On the Routes tab, choose Edit routes. Its 0.0.0.0/0 route currently targets the us-east-1a firewall endpoint. For the target, choose Gateway Load Balancer Endpoint and select the us-east-1b firewall endpoint, then choose Save changes.
3. Move the return. Select the NfNetworkStack/SampleVpc/publicSubnet2 route table (the us-east-1b public subnet, where egress now exits). Choose Edit routes, then Add route. For the destination enter the workload CIDR 10.0.4.0/24. For the target, choose Gateway Load Balancer Endpoint and select the us-east-1a firewall endpoint. Choose Save changes.

After both edits, a flow’s egress leaves through the us-east-1b endpoint while its return is directed to the us-east-1a endpoint. Neither endpoint sees the whole flow.

Figure 12: Scenario 3 routing change breaking the flow’s symmetry

What happens. A new connection leaves through one endpoint. Its return arrives at the other endpoint, which never saw the connection open, so the handshake fails. Unlike Scenarios 1 and 2, this affects the whole subnet, so all egress stops and Alarm-2 and Alarm-3 both move to ALARM. The AWS/NetworkFirewall DroppedPackets alarm (Alarm-1) stays quiet because no endpoint is making a drop decision. The flow is lost to asymmetric routing rather than counted as a firewall drop. This is why monitoring application connectivity matters. A routing fault is invisible to the firewall’s own drop counter. On the status page, the Scenario 2 card reads DROPPED (with the condition “Stateless rules dropping the monitored traffic class”) and the Scenario 3 card reads DROPPED (with the condition Return traffic dropped by asymmetric cross-Availability-Zone routing), while the Scenario 1 card stays Healthy (Figure 13). On the topology, the alarm pipeline from CloudWatch through Amazon SNS and Lambda to DevOps Agent and the workload-to-firewall inspect lines both turn amber, which the legend defines as collateral / alarm active, while the egress path from the firewall through the NAT gateway and the TLS :9142 and HTTPS · routing lines to the test endpoint turn red, which the legend defines as dropped (root cause).

Figure 13: Scenario 3 – The status page during a path-wide outage

Let DevOps Agent investigate. Both Alarm-2 and Alarm-3 fire in the same datapoint. DevOps Agent recognizes them as linked and merges them into a single investigation:

1. Reads the flow logs and sees bidirectional TLS connections stop abruptly, with only one-way traffic remaining and no flows reaching the established state.
2. Reads the firewall metrics and sees received and passed packets shift from one Availability Zone to the other at the moment of the change.
3. Calls DescribeRouteTables and finds the egress route pointing at one Availability Zone firewall endpoint while the return route points at the other.
4. Searches CloudTrail and surfaces the ReplaceRoute and CreateRoute calls by the same user, about a minute before both alarms fired.
5. Reports the root cause as that asymmetric routing change. Recommends restoring symmetric same-Availability-Zone routing so egress and return traverse the same endpoint.
6. Presents this as a plan you review and apply, not an automatic change.

A mitigation plan is a recommendation you review, not an automatic change, and the right fix depends on the intended design. Restoring symmetric routing can mean sending the workload subnet’s egress back through its own-Availability-Zone firewall endpoint (this sample’s architecture) or, in a design that doesn’t inspect this path, back through a NAT gateway. The agent infers a plausible target from what it can observe, so review the specific route it proposes against your intended topology before you apply it. (Connecting your pipeline or infrastructure-as-code, covered in the next section, lets the agent recommend the target that matches your design.)

In the DevOps Agent Operator Web App view, the agent restates the Alarm-3 (AsymmetricFlowFailures) trigger and confirms the workload’s egress to a monitored endpoint is being blocked by the Network Firewall (Figure 14).

Figure 14: Scenario 3 – The symptom

Next, the agent identifies the root cause: manual route table changes that created cross-AZ asymmetric routing through the network firewall, breaking its symmetric routing requirement (Figure 15)

Figure 15: Scenario 3 – The root cause

Finally, the agent presents a mitigation plan, recommending you restore symmetric routing by pointing protectedSubnet1‘s default route back to the same Availability Zone firewall endpoint, so one endpoint sees both directions of the flow again (Figure 16).

Figure 16: Scenario 3 – The mitigation plan

Confirm recovery. Apply the change the agent recommends, after checking the route target matches your intended design. After the workload subnet’s egress and return use the same Availability Zone firewall endpoint again, the control probe recovers, the alarms clear, and every card returns to green.

In production a single change can trigger several alarms at the same time, as Scenario 3 shows. DevOps Agent links related investigations and works them as one, so you review a single root cause. You can validate the linked findings or unlink an alarm to investigate it independently. If you would rather collapse alarms before they reach the agent, you can add correlation logic in the bridge Lambda function, buffering and grouping by firewall. You can also add email, Amazon Simple Queue Service (Amazon SQS), or HTTP subscribers to the SNS topic, or add the webhook Lambda function to a topic you already run. DevOps Agent produces a mitigation plan but does not change your environment on its own.

You can also give the agent more to work with. DevOps Agent connects to source repositories and CI/CD pipelines, integrating with GitHub (including GitHub Enterprise Server and GitLab Self-Managed through a private connection). It can associate AWS resources with deployments of AWS CloudFormation, AWS CDK, Amazon Elastic Container Registry (Amazon ECR) images, and Terraform. With deployed configuration and recent deployment events in view, the agent correlates the disruption against the change that introduced it and recommends a fix matching your intended design. For this sample, that means recommending the workload subnet’s own Availability Zone firewall endpoint rather than a generic symmetric path.

DevOps Agent also supports proactive incident prevention. It analyzes patterns across past investigations and delivers recommendations to prevent similar issues from recurring, including governance recommendations that strengthen deployment processes and pipeline controls. For Network Firewall rule changes, this means the agent can recommend guardrails for your CI/CD pipeline based on the classes of misconfigurations it has already resolved. You can access these recommendations through the Improvements page in the DevOps Agent Operator Web App.

Clean up the environment with one command.

bash scripts/destroy.sh

It reverts any active scenario, runs cdk destroy for all stacks, and sweeps for stragglers by the Project = nf-devops-agent tag. The main cost drivers are the two Network Firewall endpoints, the NAT gateways (one in the main VPC for each Availability Zone, one in the test-endpoint VPC), and the test endpoint’s load balancers. Each of these bills at an hourly rate for as long as it’s provisioned, whether or not traffic is flowing, so a stack left running continues to accrue charges around the clock even while idle. Running the scenarios and tearing the stack down the same day limits the cost to a few active hours rather than days of idle hourly charges.

In this post, we showed you how AWS DevOps Agent accelerates troubleshooting for three common network firewall connectivity issues. The first was a domain deny list. The second was a stateless priority inversion. The third was an asymmetric cross-AZ routing drop. For each one, DevOps Agent investigated the drop and returned a root cause with a mitigation plan you approve before applying. The first scenario triggered on a prebuilt Network Firewall metric, and the other two on application health metrics. That shows both ways to alarm on a firewall problem through one pipeline.

The pattern isn’t specific to Network Firewall. The same flow fits any service that emits CloudWatch metrics and logs, such as AWS WAF, security groups, and network ACLs. Clone the sample repository to explore the solution, then apply what you learn to your own firewall, application, and alarms. For more details, see the AWS Network Firewall Developer Guide and the AWS Network Firewall pricing page. Start with the Getting Started with AWS DevOps Agent guide to connect your first webhook.