We discuss a novel AI-augmented attack method where malicious webpages use LLM services to generate dynamic code in real-time within a browser.

The post The Next Frontier of Runtime Assembly Attacks: Leveraging LLMs to Generate Phishing JavaScript in Real Time appeared first on Unit 42.

The hackers trick victims into accessing GitHub or GitLab repositories that are opened using Visual Studio Code.

The post North Korean Hackers Target macOS Developers via Malicious VS Code Projects appeared first on SecurityWeek.

Providing cyberespionage and remote code execution capabilities, the malware is executed via DLL sideloading.

The post APT-Grade PDFSider Malware Used by Ransomware Groups appeared first on SecurityWeek.

The information stealer abuses legitimate APIs and libraries to exfiltrate data to Discord webhooks.

The post ‘SolyxImmortal’ Information Stealer Emerges appeared first on SecurityWeek.

Introduction

Findings

behash:"4acaac53c8340a8c236c91e68244e6cb"

/api/v3/files/09a8b930c8b79e7c313e5e741e1d59c39ae91bc1f10cdefa68b47bf77519be57/execution_parents

signature:"Peastaking plenipotence ductileness chilopodous codicillary."

signature:"© 2026 Eosinophil LLC"

exports:15Mmm95ml1RbfjH1VUyelYFCf exports:2dlSKEtPzvo1mHDN4FYgv

behash:5ddb604194329c1f182d7ba74f6f5946

IOCs

import "pe"

rule win_dll_sideload_eosinophil_infostealer_jan26
{
  meta:
    author = "VirusTotal"
    description = "Detects malicious DLLs (CoreMessaging.dll) from an infostealer campaign impersonating Malwarebytes, Logitech, and others via DLL sideloading."
    reference = "https://blog.virustotal.com/2026/01/malicious-infostealer-january-26.html"
    date = "2026-01-16"
    behash = "4acaac53c8340a8c236c91e68244e6cb"
    target_entity = "file"
    hash = "606baa263e87d32a64a9b191fc7e96ca066708b2f003bde35391908d3311a463"
  condition:
    (uint16(0) == 0x5A4D and uint32(uint32(0x3C)) == 0x00004550 and pe.is_dll()) and
    pe.exports("15Mmm95ml1RbfjH1VUyelYFCf") and pe.exports("2dlSKEtPzvo1mHDN4FYgv")
}

Designed for long-term access, the framework targets cloud and container environments with loaders, implants, and rootkits.

The post VoidLink Linux Malware Framework Targets Cloud Environments appeared first on SecurityWeek.

Some attackers are increasingly moving away from simple redirects in favor of more “selective” methods of payload delivery. This approach filters out regular human visitors, allowing attackers to serve malicious content to search engine crawlers while remaining invisible to the website owner.

What did we find?

During a malware investigation, we identified a selective content injection attack inside the main index.php file of a WordPress website.

Instead of always loading WordPress normally, this modified file checks who is visiting the site.

Continue reading Malware Intercepts Googlebot via IP-Verified Conditional Logic at Sucuri Blog.

The botnet’s propagation is fueled by the AI-generated server deployments that use weak credentials, and legacy web stacks.

The post GoBruteforcer Botnet Targeting Crypto, Blockchain Projects appeared first on SecurityWeek.

We recently handled a case where a customer reported strange SEO behavior on their website. Regular visitors saw a normal site. No popups. No redirects. No visible spam.

However, when they checked their site on Google, the search results were flooded with eBay-type-looking websites and “Situs Toto” gambling spam.

This is a professional-grade SEO cloaking attack. The malware turns the application into a double agent: it serves your genuine website content to real people but swaps it for a massive list of gambling ads the second a search engine bot crawls the page.

Continue reading Google Sees Spam, You See Your Site: A Cloaked SEO Spam Attack at Sucuri Blog.

We recently investigated a case involving a WordPress website where a customer reported persistent fake pop-up notifications appearing on their site. The warnings were urging them to update their browser (Chrome or Firefox), even though their software was already fully up-to-date.

What made this case particularly unique was the targeting. The fake alerts were not visible to regular visitors on the public-facing site. They only appeared when the site owner was logged into the wp-admin dashboard.

Continue reading Fake Browser Updates Targeting WordPress Administrators via Malicious Plugin at Sucuri Blog.

VVS stealer (or VVS $tealer) is a Python-based infostealer targeting Discord users. It employs Pyarmor for obfuscation, contributing to its efficacy.

The post VVS Discord Stealer Using Pyarmor for Obfuscation and Detection Evasion appeared first on Unit 42.

Overview of the attacks

In mid-2025, we identified a malicious driver file on computer systems in Asia. The driver file is signed with an old, stolen, or leaked digital certificate and registers as a mini-filter driver on infected machines. Its end-goal is to inject a backdoor Trojan into the system processes and provide protection for malicious files, user-mode processes, and registry keys.

Our analysis indicates that the final payload injected by the driver is a new sample of the ToneShell backdoor, which connects to the attacker’s servers and provides a reverse shell, along with other capabilities. The ToneShell backdoor is a tool known to be used exclusively by the HoneyMyte (aka Mustang Panda or Bronze President) APT actor and is often used in cyberespionage campaigns targeting government organizations, particularly in Southeast and East Asia.

The command-and-control servers for the ToneShell backdoor used in this campaign were registered in September 2024 via NameCheap services, and we suspect the attacks themselves to have begun in February 2025. We’ve observed through our telemetry that the new ToneShell backdoor is frequently employed in cyberespionage campaigns against government organizations in Southeast and East Asia, with Myanmar and Thailand being the most heavily targeted.

Notably, nearly all affected victims had previously been infected with other HoneyMyte tools, including the ToneDisk USB worm, PlugX, and older variants of ToneShell. Although the initial access vector remains unclear, it’s suspected that the threat actor leveraged previously compromised machines to deploy the malicious driver.

Compromised digital certificate

The driver file is signed with a digital certificate from Guangzhou Kingteller Technology Co., Ltd., with a serial number of 08 01 CC 11 EB 4D 1D 33 1E 3D 54 0C 55 A4 9F 7F. The certificate was valid from August 2012 until 2015.

We found multiple other malicious files signed with the same certificate which didn’t show any connections to the attacks described in this article. Therefore, we believe that other threat actors have been using it to sign their malicious tools as well. The following image shows the details of the certificate.

Technical details of the malicious driver

The filename used for the driver on the victim’s machine is ProjectConfiguration.sys. The registry key created for the driver’s service uses the same name, ProjectConfiguration.

The malicious driver contains two user-mode shellcodes, which are embedded into the .data section of the driver’s binary file. The shellcodes are executed as separate user-mode threads. The rootkit functionality protects both the driver’s own module and the user-mode processes into which the backdoor code is injected, preventing access by any process on the system.

API resolution

To obfuscate the actual behavior of the driver module, the attackers used dynamic resolution of the required API addresses from hash values.

The malicious driver first retrieves the base address of the ntoskrnl.exe and fltmgr.sys by calling ZwQuerySystemInformation with the SystemInformationClass set to SYSTEM_MODULE_INFORMATION. It then iterates through this system information and searches for the desired DLLs by name, noting the ImageBaseAddress of each.

Once the base addresses of the libraries are obtained, the driver uses a simple hashing algorithm to dynamically resolve the required API addresses from ntoskrnl.exe and fltmgr.sys.

The hashing algorithm is shown below. The two variants of the seed value provided in the comment are used in the shellcodes and the final payload of the attack.

Protection of the driver file

The malicious driver registers itself with the Filter Manager using FltRegisterFilter and sets up a pre-operation callback. This callback inspects I/O requests for IRP_MJ_SET_INFORMATION and triggers a malicious handler when certain FileInformationClass values are detected. The handler then checks whether the targeted file object is associated with the driver; if it is, it forces the operation to fail by setting IOStatus to STATUS_ACCESS_DENIED. The relevant FileInformationClass values include:

• FileRenameInformation
• FileDispositionInformation
• FileRenameInformationBypassAccessCheck
• FileDispositionInformationEx
• FileRenameInformationEx
• FileRenameInformationExBypassAccessCheck

These classes correspond to file-delete and file-rename operations. By monitoring them, the driver prevents itself from being removed or renamed – actions that security tools might attempt when trying to quarantine it.

Protection of registry keys

The driver also builds a global list of registry paths and parameter names that it intends to protect. This list contains the following entries:

• ProjectConfiguration
  
• ProjectConfiguration\Instances
  
• ProjectConfiguration Instance

To guard these keys, the malware sets up a RegistryCallback routine, registering it through CmRegisterCallbackEx. To do so, it must assign itself an altitude value. Microsoft governs altitude assignments for mini-filters, grouping them into Load Order categories with predefined altitude ranges. A filter driver with a low numerical altitude is loaded into the I/O stack below filters with higher altitudes. The malware uses a hardcoded starting point of 330024 and creates altitude strings in the format 330024.%l, where %l ranges from 0 to 10,000.

The malware then begins attempting to register the callback using the first generated altitude. If the registration fails with STATUS_FLT_INSTANCE_ALTITUDE_COLLISION, meaning the altitude is already taken, it increments the value and retries. It repeats this process until it successfully finds an unused altitude.

The callback monitors four specific registry operations. Whenever one of these operations targets a key from its protected list, it responds with 0xC0000022 (STATUS_ACCESS_DENIED), blocking the action. The monitored operations are:

• RegNtPreCreateKey
  
• RegNtPreOpenKey
  
• RegNtPreCreateKeyEx
  
• RegNtPreOpenKeyEx

Microsoft designates the 320000–329999 altitude range for the FSFilter Anti-Virus Load Order Group. The malware’s chosen altitude exceeds this range. Since filters with lower altitudes sit deeper in the I/O stack, the malicious driver intercepts file operations before legitimate low-altitude filters like antivirus components, allowing it to circumvent security checks.

Finally, the malware tampers with the altitude assigned to WdFilter, a key Microsoft Defender driver. It locates the registry entry containing the driver’s altitude and changes it to 0, effectively preventing WdFilter from being loaded into the I/O stack.

Protection of user-mode processes

The malware sets up a list intended to hold protected process IDs (PIDs). It begins with 32 empty slots, which are filled as needed during execution. A status flag is also initialized and set to 1 to indicate that the list starts out empty.

Next, the malware uses ObRegisterCallbacks to register two callbacks that intercept process-related operations. These callbacks apply to both OB_OPERATION_HANDLE_CREATE and OB_OPERATION_HANDLE_DUPLICATE, and both use a malicious pre-operation routine.

This routine checks whether the process involved in the operation has a PID that appears in the protected list. If so, it sets the DesiredAccess field in the OperationInformation structure to 0, effectively denying any access to the process.

The malware also registers a callback routine by calling PsSetCreateProcessNotifyRoutine. These callbacks are triggered during every process creation and deletion on the system. This malware’s callback routine checks whether the parent process ID (PPID) of a process being deleted exists in the protected list; if it does, the malware removes that PPID from the list. This eventually removes the rootkit protection from a process with an injected backdoor, once the backdoor has fulfilled its responsibilities.

Payload injection

The driver delivers two user-mode payloads.

The first payload spawns an svchost process and injects a small delay-inducing shellcode.  The PID of this new svchost instance is written to a file for later use.

The second payload is the final component – the ToneShell backdoor – and is later injected into that same svchost process.

Injection workflow:

The malicious driver searches for a high-privilege target process by iterating through PIDs and checking whether each process exists and runs under SeLocalSystemSid. Once it finds one, it customizes the first payload using random event names, file names, and padding bytes, then creates a named event and injects the payload by attaching its current thread to the process, allocating memory, and launching a new thread.

After injection, it waits for the payload to signal the event, reads the PID of the newly created svchost process from the generated file, and adds it to its protected process list. It then similarly customizes the second payload (ToneShell) using random event name and random padding bytes, then creates a named event and injects the payload by attaching to the process, allocating memory, and launching a new thread.

Once the ToneShell backdoor finishes execution, it signals the event. The malware then removes the svchost PID from the protected list, waits 10 seconds, and attempts to terminate the process.

ToneShell backdoor

The final stage of the attack deploys ToneShell, a backdoor previously linked to operations by the HoneyMyte APT group and discussed in earlier reporting (see Malpedia and MITRE). Notably, this is the first time we’ve seen ToneShell delivered through a kernel-mode loader, giving it protection from user-mode monitoring and benefiting from the rootkit capabilities of the driver that hides its activity from security tools.

Earlier ToneShell variants generated a 16-byte GUID using CoCreateGuid and stored it as a host identifier. In contrast, this version checks for a file named C:\ProgramData\MicrosoftOneDrive.tlb, validating a 4-byte marker inside it. If the file is absent or the marker is invalid, the backdoor derives a new pseudo-random 4-byte identifier using system-specific values (computer name, tick count, and PRNG), then creates the file and writes the marker. This becomes the unique ID for the infected host.

The samples we have analyzed contact two command-and-control servers:

• avocadomechanism[.]com
  
• potherbreference[.]com

ToneShell communicates with its C2 over raw TCP on port 443 while disguising traffic using fake TLS headers. This version imitates the first bytes of a TLS 1.3 record (0x17 0x03 0x04) instead of the TLS 1.2 pattern used previously. After this three-byte marker, each packet contains a size field and an encrypted payload.

Packet layout:

• Header (3 bytes): Fake TLS marker
• Size (2 bytes): Payload length
• Payload: Encrypted with a rolling XOR key

The backdoor supports a set of remote operations, including file upload/download, remote shell functionality, and session control. The command set includes:

Conclusion

We assess with high confidence that the activity described in this report is linked to the HoneyMyte threat actor. This conclusion is supported by the use of the ToneShell backdoor as the final-stage payload, as well as the presence of additional tools long associated with HoneyMyte – such as PlugX, and the ToneDisk USB worm – on the impacted systems.

HoneyMyte’s 2025 operations show a noticeable evolution toward using kernel-mode injectors to deploy ToneShell, improving both stealth and resilience. In this campaign, we observed a new ToneShell variant delivered through a kernel-mode driver that carries and injects the backdoor directly from its embedded payload. To further conceal its activity, the driver first deploys a small user-mode component that handles the final injection step. It also uses multiple obfuscation techniques, callback routines, and notification mechanisms to hide its API usage and track process and registry activity, ultimately strengthening the backdoor’s defenses.

Because the shellcode executes entirely in memory, memory forensics becomes essential for uncovering and analyzing this intrusion. Detecting the injected shellcode is a key indicator of ToneShell’s presence on compromised hosts.

Recommendations

To protect themselves against this threat, organizations should:

• Implement robust network security measures, such as firewalls and intrusion detection systems.
• Use advanced threat detection tools, such as endpoint detection and response (EDR) solutions.
• Provide regular security awareness training to employees.
• Conduct regular security audits and vulnerability assessments to identify and remediate potential vulnerabilities.
• Consider implementing a security information and event management (SIEM) system to monitor and analyze security-related data.

By following these recommendations, organizations can reduce their risk of being compromised by the HoneyMyte APT group and other similar threats.

Indicators of Compromise

More indicators of compromise, as well as any updates to these, are available to the customers of our APT intelligence reporting service. If you are interested, please contact intelreports@kaspersky.com.

36f121046192b7cac3e4bec491e8f1b5        AppvVStram_.sys
fe091e41ba6450bcf6a61a2023fe6c83         AppvVStram_.sys
abe44ad128f765c14d895ee1c8bad777       ProjectConfiguration.sys
avocadomechanism[.]com                            ToneShell C2
potherbreference[.]com                                 ToneShell C2

Overview of the attacks

In mid-2025, we identified a malicious driver file on computer systems in Asia. The driver file is signed with an old, stolen, or leaked digital certificate and registers as a mini-filter driver on infected machines. Its end-goal is to inject a backdoor Trojan into the system processes and provide protection for malicious files, user-mode processes, and registry keys.

Our analysis indicates that the final payload injected by the driver is a new sample of the ToneShell backdoor, which connects to the attacker’s servers and provides a reverse shell, along with other capabilities. The ToneShell backdoor is a tool known to be used exclusively by the HoneyMyte (aka Mustang Panda or Bronze President) APT actor and is often used in cyberespionage campaigns targeting government organizations, particularly in Southeast and East Asia.

The command-and-control servers for the ToneShell backdoor used in this campaign were registered in September 2024 via NameCheap services, and we suspect the attacks themselves to have begun in February 2025. We’ve observed through our telemetry that the new ToneShell backdoor is frequently employed in cyberespionage campaigns against government organizations in Southeast and East Asia, with Myanmar and Thailand being the most heavily targeted.

Notably, nearly all affected victims had previously been infected with other HoneyMyte tools, including the ToneDisk USB worm, PlugX, and older variants of ToneShell. Although the initial access vector remains unclear, it’s suspected that the threat actor leveraged previously compromised machines to deploy the malicious driver.

Compromised digital certificate

The driver file is signed with a digital certificate from Guangzhou Kingteller Technology Co., Ltd., with a serial number of 08 01 CC 11 EB 4D 1D 33 1E 3D 54 0C 55 A4 9F 7F. The certificate was valid from August 2012 until 2015.

We found multiple other malicious files signed with the same certificate which didn’t show any connections to the attacks described in this article. Therefore, we believe that other threat actors have been using it to sign their malicious tools as well. The following image shows the details of the certificate.

Technical details of the malicious driver

The filename used for the driver on the victim’s machine is ProjectConfiguration.sys. The registry key created for the driver’s service uses the same name, ProjectConfiguration.

The malicious driver contains two user-mode shellcodes, which are embedded into the .data section of the driver’s binary file. The shellcodes are executed as separate user-mode threads. The rootkit functionality protects both the driver’s own module and the user-mode processes into which the backdoor code is injected, preventing access by any process on the system.

API resolution

To obfuscate the actual behavior of the driver module, the attackers used dynamic resolution of the required API addresses from hash values.

The malicious driver first retrieves the base address of the ntoskrnl.exe and fltmgr.sys by calling ZwQuerySystemInformation with the SystemInformationClass set to SYSTEM_MODULE_INFORMATION. It then iterates through this system information and searches for the desired DLLs by name, noting the ImageBaseAddress of each.

Once the base addresses of the libraries are obtained, the driver uses a simple hashing algorithm to dynamically resolve the required API addresses from ntoskrnl.exe and fltmgr.sys.

The hashing algorithm is shown below. The two variants of the seed value provided in the comment are used in the shellcodes and the final payload of the attack.

Protection of the driver file

The malicious driver registers itself with the Filter Manager using FltRegisterFilter and sets up a pre-operation callback. This callback inspects I/O requests for IRP_MJ_SET_INFORMATION and triggers a malicious handler when certain FileInformationClass values are detected. The handler then checks whether the targeted file object is associated with the driver; if it is, it forces the operation to fail by setting IOStatus to STATUS_ACCESS_DENIED. The relevant FileInformationClass values include:

• FileRenameInformation
• FileDispositionInformation
• FileRenameInformationBypassAccessCheck
• FileDispositionInformationEx
• FileRenameInformationEx
• FileRenameInformationExBypassAccessCheck

These classes correspond to file-delete and file-rename operations. By monitoring them, the driver prevents itself from being removed or renamed – actions that security tools might attempt when trying to quarantine it.

Protection of registry keys

The driver also builds a global list of registry paths and parameter names that it intends to protect. This list contains the following entries:

• ProjectConfiguration
  
• ProjectConfiguration\Instances
  
• ProjectConfiguration Instance

To guard these keys, the malware sets up a RegistryCallback routine, registering it through CmRegisterCallbackEx. To do so, it must assign itself an altitude value. Microsoft governs altitude assignments for mini-filters, grouping them into Load Order categories with predefined altitude ranges. A filter driver with a low numerical altitude is loaded into the I/O stack below filters with higher altitudes. The malware uses a hardcoded starting point of 330024 and creates altitude strings in the format 330024.%l, where %l ranges from 0 to 10,000.

The malware then begins attempting to register the callback using the first generated altitude. If the registration fails with STATUS_FLT_INSTANCE_ALTITUDE_COLLISION, meaning the altitude is already taken, it increments the value and retries. It repeats this process until it successfully finds an unused altitude.

The callback monitors four specific registry operations. Whenever one of these operations targets a key from its protected list, it responds with 0xC0000022 (STATUS_ACCESS_DENIED), blocking the action. The monitored operations are:

• RegNtPreCreateKey
  
• RegNtPreOpenKey
  
• RegNtPreCreateKeyEx
  
• RegNtPreOpenKeyEx

Microsoft designates the 320000–329999 altitude range for the FSFilter Anti-Virus Load Order Group. The malware’s chosen altitude exceeds this range. Since filters with lower altitudes sit deeper in the I/O stack, the malicious driver intercepts file operations before legitimate low-altitude filters like antivirus components, allowing it to circumvent security checks.

Finally, the malware tampers with the altitude assigned to WdFilter, a key Microsoft Defender driver. It locates the registry entry containing the driver’s altitude and changes it to 0, effectively preventing WdFilter from being loaded into the I/O stack.

Protection of user-mode processes

The malware sets up a list intended to hold protected process IDs (PIDs). It begins with 32 empty slots, which are filled as needed during execution. A status flag is also initialized and set to 1 to indicate that the list starts out empty.

Next, the malware uses ObRegisterCallbacks to register two callbacks that intercept process-related operations. These callbacks apply to both OB_OPERATION_HANDLE_CREATE and OB_OPERATION_HANDLE_DUPLICATE, and both use a malicious pre-operation routine.

This routine checks whether the process involved in the operation has a PID that appears in the protected list. If so, it sets the DesiredAccess field in the OperationInformation structure to 0, effectively denying any access to the process.

The malware also registers a callback routine by calling PsSetCreateProcessNotifyRoutine. These callbacks are triggered during every process creation and deletion on the system. This malware’s callback routine checks whether the parent process ID (PPID) of a process being deleted exists in the protected list; if it does, the malware removes that PPID from the list. This eventually removes the rootkit protection from a process with an injected backdoor, once the backdoor has fulfilled its responsibilities.

Payload injection

The driver delivers two user-mode payloads.

The first payload spawns an svchost process and injects a small delay-inducing shellcode.  The PID of this new svchost instance is written to a file for later use.

The second payload is the final component – the ToneShell backdoor – and is later injected into that same svchost process.

Injection workflow:

The malicious driver searches for a high-privilege target process by iterating through PIDs and checking whether each process exists and runs under SeLocalSystemSid. Once it finds one, it customizes the first payload using random event names, file names, and padding bytes, then creates a named event and injects the payload by attaching its current thread to the process, allocating memory, and launching a new thread.

After injection, it waits for the payload to signal the event, reads the PID of the newly created svchost process from the generated file, and adds it to its protected process list. It then similarly customizes the second payload (ToneShell) using random event name and random padding bytes, then creates a named event and injects the payload by attaching to the process, allocating memory, and launching a new thread.

Once the ToneShell backdoor finishes execution, it signals the event. The malware then removes the svchost PID from the protected list, waits 10 seconds, and attempts to terminate the process.

ToneShell backdoor

The final stage of the attack deploys ToneShell, a backdoor previously linked to operations by the HoneyMyte APT group and discussed in earlier reporting (see Malpedia and MITRE). Notably, this is the first time we’ve seen ToneShell delivered through a kernel-mode loader, giving it protection from user-mode monitoring and benefiting from the rootkit capabilities of the driver that hides its activity from security tools.

Earlier ToneShell variants generated a 16-byte GUID using CoCreateGuid and stored it as a host identifier. In contrast, this version checks for a file named C:\ProgramData\MicrosoftOneDrive.tlb, validating a 4-byte marker inside it. If the file is absent or the marker is invalid, the backdoor derives a new pseudo-random 4-byte identifier using system-specific values (computer name, tick count, and PRNG), then creates the file and writes the marker. This becomes the unique ID for the infected host.

The samples we have analyzed contact two command-and-control servers:

• avocadomechanism[.]com
  
• potherbreference[.]com

ToneShell communicates with its C2 over raw TCP on port 443 while disguising traffic using fake TLS headers. This version imitates the first bytes of a TLS 1.3 record (0x17 0x03 0x04) instead of the TLS 1.2 pattern used previously. After this three-byte marker, each packet contains a size field and an encrypted payload.

Packet layout:

• Header (3 bytes): Fake TLS marker
• Size (2 bytes): Payload length
• Payload: Encrypted with a rolling XOR key

The backdoor supports a set of remote operations, including file upload/download, remote shell functionality, and session control. The command set includes:

Conclusion

We assess with high confidence that the activity described in this report is linked to the HoneyMyte threat actor. This conclusion is supported by the use of the ToneShell backdoor as the final-stage payload, as well as the presence of additional tools long associated with HoneyMyte – such as PlugX, and the ToneDisk USB worm – on the impacted systems.

HoneyMyte’s 2025 operations show a noticeable evolution toward using kernel-mode injectors to deploy ToneShell, improving both stealth and resilience. In this campaign, we observed a new ToneShell variant delivered through a kernel-mode driver that carries and injects the backdoor directly from its embedded payload. To further conceal its activity, the driver first deploys a small user-mode component that handles the final injection step. It also uses multiple obfuscation techniques, callback routines, and notification mechanisms to hide its API usage and track process and registry activity, ultimately strengthening the backdoor’s defenses.

Because the shellcode executes entirely in memory, memory forensics becomes essential for uncovering and analyzing this intrusion. Detecting the injected shellcode is a key indicator of ToneShell’s presence on compromised hosts.

Recommendations

To protect themselves against this threat, organizations should:

• Implement robust network security measures, such as firewalls and intrusion detection systems.
• Use advanced threat detection tools, such as endpoint detection and response (EDR) solutions.
• Provide regular security awareness training to employees.
• Conduct regular security audits and vulnerability assessments to identify and remediate potential vulnerabilities.
• Consider implementing a security information and event management (SIEM) system to monitor and analyze security-related data.

By following these recommendations, organizations can reduce their risk of being compromised by the HoneyMyte APT group and other similar threats.

Indicators of Compromise

More indicators of compromise, as well as any updates to these, are available to the customers of our APT intelligence reporting service. If you are interested, please contact intelreports@kaspersky.com.

36f121046192b7cac3e4bec491e8f1b5        AppvVStram_.sys
fe091e41ba6450bcf6a61a2023fe6c83         AppvVStram_.sys
abe44ad128f765c14d895ee1c8bad777       ProjectConfiguration.sys
avocadomechanism[.]com                            ToneShell C2
potherbreference[.]com                                 ToneShell C2

Introduction

The Evasive Panda APT group (also known as Bronze Highland, Daggerfly, and StormBamboo) has been active since 2012, targeting multiple industries with sophisticated, evolving tactics. Our latest research (June 2025) reveals that the attackers conducted highly-targeted campaigns, which started in November 2022 and ran until November 2024.

The group mainly performed adversary-in-the-middle (AitM) attacks on specific victims. These included techniques such as dropping loaders into specific locations and storing encrypted parts of the malware on attacker-controlled servers, which were resolved as a response to specific website DNS requests. Notably, the attackers have developed a new loader that evades detection when infecting its targets, and even employed hybrid encryption practices to complicate analysis and make implants unique to each victim.

Furthermore, the group has developed an injector that allows them to execute their MgBot implant in memory by injecting it into legitimate processes. It resides in the memory space of a decade-old signed executable by using DLL sideloading and enables them to maintain a stealthy presence in compromised systems for extended periods.

Additional information about this threat, including indicators of compromise, is available to customers of the Kaspersky Intelligence Reporting Service. Contact: intelreports@kaspersky.com.

Technical details

Initial infection vector

The threat actor commonly uses lures that are disguised as new updates to known third-party applications or popular system applications trusted by hundreds of users over the years.

In this campaign, the attackers used an executable disguised as an update package for SohuVA, which is a streaming app developed by Sohu Inc., a Chinese internet company. The malicious package, named sohuva_update_10.2.29.1-lup-s-tp.exe, clearly impersonates a real SohuVA update to deliver malware from the following resource, as indicated by our telemetry:

http://p2p.hd.sohu.com[.]cn/foxd/gz?file=sohunewplayer_7.0.22.1_03_29_13_13_union.exe&new=/66/157/ovztb0wktdmakeszwh2eha.exe

There is a possibility that the attackers used a DNS poisoning attack to alter the DNS response of p2p.hd.sohu.com[.]cn to an attacker-controlled server’s IP address, while the genuine update module of the SohuVA application tries to update its binaries located in appdata\roaming\shapp\7.0.18.0\package. Although we were unable to verify this at the time of analysis, we can make an educated guess, given that it is still unknown what triggered the update mechanism.

Furthermore, our analysis of the infection process has identified several additional campaigns pursued by the same group. For example, they utilized a fake updater for the iQIYI Video application, a popular platform for streaming Asian media content similar to SohuVA. This fake updater was dropped into the application’s installation folder and executed by the legitimate service qiyiservice.exe. Upon execution, the fake updater initiated malicious activity on the victim’s system, and we have identified that the same method is used for IObit Smart Defrag and Tencent QQ applications.

The initial loader was developed in C++ using the Windows Template Library (WTL). Its code bears a strong resemblance to Wizard97Test, a WTL sample application hosted on Microsoft’s GitHub. The attackers appear to have embedded malicious code within this project to effectively conceal their malicious intentions.

The loader first decrypts the encrypted configuration buffer by employing an XOR-based decryption algorithm:

for ( index = 0; index < v6; index = (index + 1) )
{
if ( index >= 5156 )
break;
mw_configindex ^= (&mw_deflated_config + (index & 3));
}

After decryption, it decompresses the LZMA-compressed buffer into the allocated buffer, and all of the configuration is exposed, including several components:

• Malware installation path: %ProgramData%\Microsoft\MF
• Resource domain: http://www.dictionary.com/
• Resource URI: image?id=115832434703699686&product=dict-homepage.png
• MgBot encrypted configuration

The malware also checks the name of the logged-in user in the system and performs actions accordingly. If the username is SYSTEM, the malware copies itself with a different name by appending the ext.exe suffix inside the current working directory. Then it uses the ShellExecuteW API to execute the newly created version. Notably, all relevant strings in the malware, such as SYSTEM and ext.exe, are encrypted, and the loader decrypts them with a specific XOR algorithm.

Decryption routine of encrypted strings

If the username is not SYSTEM, the malware first copies explorer.exe into %TEMP%, naming the instance as tmpX.tmp (where X is an incremented decimal number), and then deletes the original file. The purpose of this activity is unclear, but it consumes high system resources. Next, the loader decrypts the kernel32.dll and VirtualProtect strings to retrieve their base addresses by calling the GetProcAddress API. Afterwards, it uses a single-byte XOR key to decrypt the shellcode, which is 9556 bytes long, and stores it at the same address in the .data section. Since the .data section does not have execute permission, the malware uses the VirtualProtect API to set the permission for the section. This allows for the decrypted shellcode to be executed without alerting security products by allocating new memory blocks. Before executing the shellcode, the malware prepares a 16-byte-long parameter structure that contains several items, with the most important one being the address of the encrypted MgBot configuration buffer.

Multi-stage shellcode execution

As mentioned above, the loader follows a unique delivery scheme, which includes at least two stages of payload. The shellcode employs a hashing algorithm known as PJW to resolve Windows APIs at runtime in a stealthy manner.

unsigned int calc_PJWHash(_BYTE *a1)
{
unsigned int v2;
v2 = 0;
while ( *a1 )
{
v2 = *a1++ + 16 * v2;
if ( (v2 & 0xF0000000) != 0 )
v2 = ~(v2 & 0xF0000000) & (v2 ^ ((v2 & 0xF0000000) >> 24));
}
return v2;
}

The shellcode first searches for a specific DAT file in the malware’s primary installation directory. If it is found, the shellcode decrypts it using the CryptUnprotectData API, a Windows API that decrypts protected data into allocated heap memory, and ensures that the data can only be decrypted on the particular machine by design. After decryption, the shellcode deletes the file to avoid leaving any traces of the valuable part of the attack chain.

If, however, the DAT file is not present, the shellcode initiates the next-stage shellcode installation process. It involves retrieving encrypted data from a web source that is actually an attacker-controlled server, by employing a DNS poisoning attack. Our telemetry shows that the attackers successfully obtained the encrypted second-stage shellcode, disguised as a PNG file, from the legitimate website dictionary[.]com. However, upon further investigation, it was discovered that the IP address associated with dictionary[.]com had been manipulated through a DNS poisoning technique. As a result, victims’ systems were resolving the website to different attacker-controlled IP addresses depending on the victims’ geographical location and internet service provider.

To retrieve the second-stage shellcode, the first-stage shellcode uses the RtlGetVersion API to obtain the current Windows version number and then appends a predefined string to the HTTP header:

sec-ch-ua-platform: windows %d.%d.%d.%d.%d.%d

This implies that the attackers needed to be able to examine request headers and respond accordingly. We suspect that the attackers’ collection of the Windows version number and its inclusion in the request headers served a specific purpose, likely allowing them to target specific operating system versions and even tailor their payload to different operating systems. Given that the Evasive Panda threat actor has been known to use distinct implants for Windows (MgBot) and macOS (Macma) in previous campaigns, it is likely that the malware uses the retrieved OS version string to determine which implant to deploy. This enables the threat actor to adapt their attack to the victim’s specific operating system by assessing results on the server side.

Downloading a payload from the web resource

From this point on, the first-stage shellcode proceeds to decrypt the retrieved payload with a XOR decryption algorithm:

key = *(mw_decryptedDataFromDatFile + 92);
index = 0;
if ( sz_shellcode )
{
mw_decryptedDataFromDatFile_1 = Heap;
do
{
*(index + mw_decryptedDataFromDatFile_1) ^= *(&key + (index & 3));
++index;
}
while ( index < sz_shellcode );
}

The shellcode uses a 4-byte XOR key, consistent with the one used in previous stages, to decrypt the new shellcode stored in the DAT file. It then creates a structure for the decrypted second-stage shellcode, similar to the first stage, including a partially decrypted configuration buffer and other relevant details.

Next, the shellcode resolves the VirtualProtect API to change the protection flag of the new shellcode buffer, allowing it to be executed with PAGE_EXECUTE_READWRITE permissions. The second-stage shellcode is then executed, with the structure passed as an argument. After the shellcode has finished running, its return value is checked to see if it matches 0x9980. Depending on the outcome, the shellcode will either terminate its own process or return control to the caller.

Although we were unable to retrieve the second-stage payload from the attackers’ web server during our analysis, we were able to capture and examine the next stage of the malware, which was to be executed afterwards. Our analysis suggests that the attackers may have used the CryptProtectData API during the execution of the second shellcode to encrypt the entire shellcode and store it as a DAT file in the malware’s main installation directory. This implies that the malware writes an encrypted DAT file to disk using the CryptProtectData API, which can then be decrypted and executed by the first-stage shellcode. Furthermore, it appears that the attacker attempted to generate a unique encrypted second shellcode file for each victim, which we believe is another technique used to evade detection and defense mechanisms in the attack chain.

Secondary loader

We identified a secondary loader, named libpython2.4.dll, which was disguised as a legitimate Windows library and used by the Evasive Panda group to achieve a stealthier loading mechanism. Notably, this malicious DLL loader relies on a legitimate, signed executable named evteng.exe (MD5: 1c36452c2dad8da95d460bee3bea365e), which is an older version of python.exe. This executable is a Python wrapper that normally imports the libpython2.4.dll library and calls the Py_Main function.

The secondary loader retrieves the full path of the current module (libpython2.4.dll) and writes it to a file named status.dat, located in C:\ProgramData\Microsoft\eHome, but only if a file with the same name does not already exist in that directory. We believe with a low-to-medium level of confidence that this action is intended to allow the attacker to potentially update the secondary loader in the future. This suggests that the attacker may be planning for future modifications or upgrades to the malware.

The malware proceeds to decrypt the next stage by reading the entire contents of C:\ProgramData\Microsoft\eHome\perf.dat. This file contains the previously downloaded and XOR-decrypted data from the attacker-controlled server, which was obtained through the DNS poisoning technique as described above. Notably, the implant downloads the payload several times and moves it between folders by renaming it. It appears that the attacker used a complex process to obtain this stage from a resource, where it was initially XOR-encrypted. The attacker then decrypted this stage with XOR and subsequently encrypted and saved it to perf.dat using a custom hybrid of Microsoft’s Data Protection Application Programming Interface (DPAPI) and the RC5 algorithm.

General overview of storing payload on disk by using hybrid encryption

This custom encryption algorithm works as follows. The RC5 encryption key is itself encrypted using Microsoft’s DPAPI and stored in the first 16 bytes of perf.dat. The RC5-encrypted payload is then appended to the file, following the encrypted key. To decrypt the payload, the process is reversed: the encrypted RC5 key is first decrypted with DPAPI, and then used to decrypt the remaining contents of perf.dat, which contains the next-stage payload.

The attacker uses this approach to ensure that a crucial part of the attack chain is secured, and the encrypted data can only be decrypted on the specific system where the encryption was initially performed. This is because the DPAPI functions used to secure the RC5 key tie the decryption process to the individual system, making it difficult for the encrypted data to be accessed or decrypted elsewhere. This makes it more challenging for defenders to intercept and analyze the malicious payload.

After completing the decryption process, the secondary loader initiates the runtime injection method, which likely involves the use of a custom runtime DLL injector for the decrypted data. The injector first calls the DLL entry point and then searches for a specific export function named preload. Although we were unable to determine which encrypted module was decrypted and executed in memory due to a lack of available data on the attacker-controlled server, our telemetry reveals that an MgBot variant is injected into the legitimate svchost.exe process after the secondary loader is executed. Fortunately, this allowed us to analyze these implants further and gain additional insights into the attack, as well as reveal that the encrypted initial configuration was passed through the infection chain, ultimately leading to the execution of MgBot. The configuration file was decrypted with a single-byte XOR key, 0x58, and this would lead to the full exposure of the configuration.

Our analysis suggests that the configuration includes a campaign name, hardcoded C2 server IP addresses, and unknown bytes that may serve as encryption or decryption keys, although our confidence in this assessment is limited. Interestingly, some of the C2 server addresses have been in use for multiple years, indicating a potential long-term operation.

Decryption of the configuration in the injected MgBot implant

Victims

Our telemetry has detected victims in Türkiye, China, and India, with some systems remaining compromised for over a year. The attackers have shown remarkable persistence, sustaining the campaign for two years (from November 2022 to November 2024) according to our telemetry, which indicates a substantial investment of resources and dedication to the operation.

Attribution

The techniques, tactics, and procedures (TTPs) employed in this compromise indicate with high confidence that the Evasive Panda threat actor is responsible for the attack. Despite the development of a new loader, which has been added to their arsenal, the decade-old MgBot implant was still identified in the final stage of the attack with new elements in its configuration. Consistent with previous research conducted by several vendors in the industry, the Evasive Panda threat actor is known to commonly utilize various techniques, such as supply-chain compromise, Adversary-in-the-Middle attacks, and watering-hole attacks, which enable them to distribute their payloads without raising suspicion.

Conclusion

The Evasive Panda threat actor has once again showcased its advanced capabilities, evading security measures with new techniques and tools while maintaining long-term persistence in targeted systems. Our investigation suggests that the attackers are continually improving their tactics, and it is likely that other ongoing campaigns exist. The introduction of new loaders may precede further updates to their arsenal.

As for the AitM attack, we do not have any reliable sources on how the threat actor delivers the initial loader, and the process of poisoning DNS responses for legitimate websites, such as dictionary[.]com, is still unknown. However, we are considering two possible scenarios based on prior research and the characteristics of the threat actor: either the ISPs used by the victims were selectively targeted, and some kind of network implant was installed on edge devices, or one of the network devices of the victims — most likely a router or firewall appliance — was targeted for this purpose. However, it is difficult to make a precise statement, as this campaign requires further attention in terms of forensic investigation, both on the ISPs and the victims.

The configuration file’s numerous C2 server IP addresses indicate a deliberate effort to maintain control over infected systems running the MgBot implant. By using multiple C2 servers, the attacker aims to ensure prolonged persistence and prevents loss of control over compromised systems, suggesting a strategic approach to sustaining their operations.

Indicators of compromise

File Hashes
c340195696d13642ecf20fbe75461bed sohuva_update_10.2.29.1-lup-s-tp.exe
7973e0694ab6545a044a49ff101d412a libpython2.4.dll
9e72410d61eaa4f24e0719b34d7cad19 (MgBot implant)

File Paths
C:\ProgramData\Microsoft\MF
C:\ProgramData\Microsoft\eHome\status.dat
C:\ProgramData\Microsoft\eHome\perf.dat

URLs and IPs
60.28.124[.]21     (MgBot C2)
123.139.57[.]103   (MgBot C2)
140.205.220[.]98   (MgBot C2)
112.80.248[.]27    (MgBot C2)
116.213.178[.]11   (MgBot C2)
60.29.226[.]181    (MgBot C2)
58.68.255[.]45     (MgBot C2)
61.135.185[.]29    (MgBot C2)
103.27.110[.]232   (MgBot C2)
117.121.133[.]33   (MgBot C2)
139.84.170[.]230   (MgBot C2)
103.96.130[.]107   (AitM C2)
158.247.214[.]28   (AitM C2)
106.126.3[.]78     (AitM C2)
106.126.3[.]56     (AitM C2)

Introduction

The Evasive Panda APT group (also known as Bronze Highland, Daggerfly, and StormBamboo) has been active since 2012, targeting multiple industries with sophisticated, evolving tactics. Our latest research (June 2025) reveals that the attackers conducted highly-targeted campaigns, which started in November 2022 and ran until November 2024.

The group mainly performed adversary-in-the-middle (AitM) attacks on specific victims. These included techniques such as dropping loaders into specific locations and storing encrypted parts of the malware on attacker-controlled servers, which were resolved as a response to specific website DNS requests. Notably, the attackers have developed a new loader that evades detection when infecting its targets, and even employed hybrid encryption practices to complicate analysis and make implants unique to each victim.

Furthermore, the group has developed an injector that allows them to execute their MgBot implant in memory by injecting it into legitimate processes. It resides in the memory space of a decade-old signed executable by using DLL sideloading and enables them to maintain a stealthy presence in compromised systems for extended periods.

Additional information about this threat, including indicators of compromise, is available to customers of the Kaspersky Intelligence Reporting Service. Contact: intelreports@kaspersky.com.

Technical details

Initial infection vector

The threat actor commonly uses lures that are disguised as new updates to known third-party applications or popular system applications trusted by hundreds of users over the years.

In this campaign, the attackers used an executable disguised as an update package for SohuVA, which is a streaming app developed by Sohu Inc., a Chinese internet company. The malicious package, named sohuva_update_10.2.29.1-lup-s-tp.exe, clearly impersonates a real SohuVA update to deliver malware from the following resource, as indicated by our telemetry:

http://p2p.hd.sohu.com[.]cn/foxd/gz?file=sohunewplayer_7.0.22.1_03_29_13_13_union.exe&new=/66/157/ovztb0wktdmakeszwh2eha.exe

There is a possibility that the attackers used a DNS poisoning attack to alter the DNS response of p2p.hd.sohu.com[.]cn to an attacker-controlled server’s IP address, while the genuine update module of the SohuVA application tries to update its binaries located in appdata\roaming\shapp\7.0.18.0\package. Although we were unable to verify this at the time of analysis, we can make an educated guess, given that it is still unknown what triggered the update mechanism.

Furthermore, our analysis of the infection process has identified several additional campaigns pursued by the same group. For example, they utilized a fake updater for the iQIYI Video application, a popular platform for streaming Asian media content similar to SohuVA. This fake updater was dropped into the application’s installation folder and executed by the legitimate service qiyiservice.exe. Upon execution, the fake updater initiated malicious activity on the victim’s system, and we have identified that the same method is used for IObit Smart Defrag and Tencent QQ applications.

The initial loader was developed in C++ using the Windows Template Library (WTL). Its code bears a strong resemblance to Wizard97Test, a WTL sample application hosted on Microsoft’s GitHub. The attackers appear to have embedded malicious code within this project to effectively conceal their malicious intentions.

The loader first decrypts the encrypted configuration buffer by employing an XOR-based decryption algorithm:

for ( index = 0; index < v6; index = (index + 1) )
{
if ( index >= 5156 )
break;
mw_configindex ^= (&mw_deflated_config + (index & 3));
}

After decryption, it decompresses the LZMA-compressed buffer into the allocated buffer, and all of the configuration is exposed, including several components:

• Malware installation path: %ProgramData%\Microsoft\MF
• Resource domain: http://www.dictionary.com/
• Resource URI: image?id=115832434703699686&product=dict-homepage.png
• MgBot encrypted configuration

The malware also checks the name of the logged-in user in the system and performs actions accordingly. If the username is SYSTEM, the malware copies itself with a different name by appending the ext.exe suffix inside the current working directory. Then it uses the ShellExecuteW API to execute the newly created version. Notably, all relevant strings in the malware, such as SYSTEM and ext.exe, are encrypted, and the loader decrypts them with a specific XOR algorithm.

Decryption routine of encrypted strings

If the username is not SYSTEM, the malware first copies explorer.exe into %TEMP%, naming the instance as tmpX.tmp (where X is an incremented decimal number), and then deletes the original file. The purpose of this activity is unclear, but it consumes high system resources. Next, the loader decrypts the kernel32.dll and VirtualProtect strings to retrieve their base addresses by calling the GetProcAddress API. Afterwards, it uses a single-byte XOR key to decrypt the shellcode, which is 9556 bytes long, and stores it at the same address in the .data section. Since the .data section does not have execute permission, the malware uses the VirtualProtect API to set the permission for the section. This allows for the decrypted shellcode to be executed without alerting security products by allocating new memory blocks. Before executing the shellcode, the malware prepares a 16-byte-long parameter structure that contains several items, with the most important one being the address of the encrypted MgBot configuration buffer.

Multi-stage shellcode execution

As mentioned above, the loader follows a unique delivery scheme, which includes at least two stages of payload. The shellcode employs a hashing algorithm known as PJW to resolve Windows APIs at runtime in a stealthy manner.

unsigned int calc_PJWHash(_BYTE *a1)
{
unsigned int v2;
v2 = 0;
while ( *a1 )
{
v2 = *a1++ + 16 * v2;
if ( (v2 & 0xF0000000) != 0 )
v2 = ~(v2 & 0xF0000000) & (v2 ^ ((v2 & 0xF0000000) >> 24));
}
return v2;
}

The shellcode first searches for a specific DAT file in the malware’s primary installation directory. If it is found, the shellcode decrypts it using the CryptUnprotectData API, a Windows API that decrypts protected data into allocated heap memory, and ensures that the data can only be decrypted on the particular machine by design. After decryption, the shellcode deletes the file to avoid leaving any traces of the valuable part of the attack chain.

If, however, the DAT file is not present, the shellcode initiates the next-stage shellcode installation process. It involves retrieving encrypted data from a web source that is actually an attacker-controlled server, by employing a DNS poisoning attack. Our telemetry shows that the attackers successfully obtained the encrypted second-stage shellcode, disguised as a PNG file, from the legitimate website dictionary[.]com. However, upon further investigation, it was discovered that the IP address associated with dictionary[.]com had been manipulated through a DNS poisoning technique. As a result, victims’ systems were resolving the website to different attacker-controlled IP addresses depending on the victims’ geographical location and internet service provider.

To retrieve the second-stage shellcode, the first-stage shellcode uses the RtlGetVersion API to obtain the current Windows version number and then appends a predefined string to the HTTP header:

sec-ch-ua-platform: windows %d.%d.%d.%d.%d.%d

This implies that the attackers needed to be able to examine request headers and respond accordingly. We suspect that the attackers’ collection of the Windows version number and its inclusion in the request headers served a specific purpose, likely allowing them to target specific operating system versions and even tailor their payload to different operating systems. Given that the Evasive Panda threat actor has been known to use distinct implants for Windows (MgBot) and macOS (Macma) in previous campaigns, it is likely that the malware uses the retrieved OS version string to determine which implant to deploy. This enables the threat actor to adapt their attack to the victim’s specific operating system by assessing results on the server side.

Downloading a payload from the web resource

From this point on, the first-stage shellcode proceeds to decrypt the retrieved payload with a XOR decryption algorithm:

key = *(mw_decryptedDataFromDatFile + 92);
index = 0;
if ( sz_shellcode )
{
mw_decryptedDataFromDatFile_1 = Heap;
do
{
*(index + mw_decryptedDataFromDatFile_1) ^= *(&key + (index & 3));
++index;
}
while ( index < sz_shellcode );
}

The shellcode uses a 4-byte XOR key, consistent with the one used in previous stages, to decrypt the new shellcode stored in the DAT file. It then creates a structure for the decrypted second-stage shellcode, similar to the first stage, including a partially decrypted configuration buffer and other relevant details.

Next, the shellcode resolves the VirtualProtect API to change the protection flag of the new shellcode buffer, allowing it to be executed with PAGE_EXECUTE_READWRITE permissions. The second-stage shellcode is then executed, with the structure passed as an argument. After the shellcode has finished running, its return value is checked to see if it matches 0x9980. Depending on the outcome, the shellcode will either terminate its own process or return control to the caller.

Although we were unable to retrieve the second-stage payload from the attackers’ web server during our analysis, we were able to capture and examine the next stage of the malware, which was to be executed afterwards. Our analysis suggests that the attackers may have used the CryptProtectData API during the execution of the second shellcode to encrypt the entire shellcode and store it as a DAT file in the malware’s main installation directory. This implies that the malware writes an encrypted DAT file to disk using the CryptProtectData API, which can then be decrypted and executed by the first-stage shellcode. Furthermore, it appears that the attacker attempted to generate a unique encrypted second shellcode file for each victim, which we believe is another technique used to evade detection and defense mechanisms in the attack chain.

Secondary loader

We identified a secondary loader, named libpython2.4.dll, which was disguised as a legitimate Windows library and used by the Evasive Panda group to achieve a stealthier loading mechanism. Notably, this malicious DLL loader relies on a legitimate, signed executable named evteng.exe (MD5: 1c36452c2dad8da95d460bee3bea365e), which is an older version of python.exe. This executable is a Python wrapper that normally imports the libpython2.4.dll library and calls the Py_Main function.

The secondary loader retrieves the full path of the current module (libpython2.4.dll) and writes it to a file named status.dat, located in C:\ProgramData\Microsoft\eHome, but only if a file with the same name does not already exist in that directory. We believe with a low-to-medium level of confidence that this action is intended to allow the attacker to potentially update the secondary loader in the future. This suggests that the attacker may be planning for future modifications or upgrades to the malware.

The malware proceeds to decrypt the next stage by reading the entire contents of C:\ProgramData\Microsoft\eHome\perf.dat. This file contains the previously downloaded and XOR-decrypted data from the attacker-controlled server, which was obtained through the DNS poisoning technique as described above. Notably, the implant downloads the payload several times and moves it between folders by renaming it. It appears that the attacker used a complex process to obtain this stage from a resource, where it was initially XOR-encrypted. The attacker then decrypted this stage with XOR and subsequently encrypted and saved it to perf.dat using a custom hybrid of Microsoft’s Data Protection Application Programming Interface (DPAPI) and the RC5 algorithm.

General overview of storing payload on disk by using hybrid encryption

This custom encryption algorithm works as follows. The RC5 encryption key is itself encrypted using Microsoft’s DPAPI and stored in the first 16 bytes of perf.dat. The RC5-encrypted payload is then appended to the file, following the encrypted key. To decrypt the payload, the process is reversed: the encrypted RC5 key is first decrypted with DPAPI, and then used to decrypt the remaining contents of perf.dat, which contains the next-stage payload.

The attacker uses this approach to ensure that a crucial part of the attack chain is secured, and the encrypted data can only be decrypted on the specific system where the encryption was initially performed. This is because the DPAPI functions used to secure the RC5 key tie the decryption process to the individual system, making it difficult for the encrypted data to be accessed or decrypted elsewhere. This makes it more challenging for defenders to intercept and analyze the malicious payload.

After completing the decryption process, the secondary loader initiates the runtime injection method, which likely involves the use of a custom runtime DLL injector for the decrypted data. The injector first calls the DLL entry point and then searches for a specific export function named preload. Although we were unable to determine which encrypted module was decrypted and executed in memory due to a lack of available data on the attacker-controlled server, our telemetry reveals that an MgBot variant is injected into the legitimate svchost.exe process after the secondary loader is executed. Fortunately, this allowed us to analyze these implants further and gain additional insights into the attack, as well as reveal that the encrypted initial configuration was passed through the infection chain, ultimately leading to the execution of MgBot. The configuration file was decrypted with a single-byte XOR key, 0x58, and this would lead to the full exposure of the configuration.

Our analysis suggests that the configuration includes a campaign name, hardcoded C2 server IP addresses, and unknown bytes that may serve as encryption or decryption keys, although our confidence in this assessment is limited. Interestingly, some of the C2 server addresses have been in use for multiple years, indicating a potential long-term operation.

Decryption of the configuration in the injected MgBot implant

Victims

Our telemetry has detected victims in Türkiye, China, and India, with some systems remaining compromised for over a year. The attackers have shown remarkable persistence, sustaining the campaign for two years (from November 2022 to November 2024) according to our telemetry, which indicates a substantial investment of resources and dedication to the operation.

Attribution

The techniques, tactics, and procedures (TTPs) employed in this compromise indicate with high confidence that the Evasive Panda threat actor is responsible for the attack. Despite the development of a new loader, which has been added to their arsenal, the decade-old MgBot implant was still identified in the final stage of the attack with new elements in its configuration. Consistent with previous research conducted by several vendors in the industry, the Evasive Panda threat actor is known to commonly utilize various techniques, such as supply-chain compromise, Adversary-in-the-Middle attacks, and watering-hole attacks, which enable them to distribute their payloads without raising suspicion.

Conclusion

The Evasive Panda threat actor has once again showcased its advanced capabilities, evading security measures with new techniques and tools while maintaining long-term persistence in targeted systems. Our investigation suggests that the attackers are continually improving their tactics, and it is likely that other ongoing campaigns exist. The introduction of new loaders may precede further updates to their arsenal.

As for the AitM attack, we do not have any reliable sources on how the threat actor delivers the initial loader, and the process of poisoning DNS responses for legitimate websites, such as dictionary[.]com, is still unknown. However, we are considering two possible scenarios based on prior research and the characteristics of the threat actor: either the ISPs used by the victims were selectively targeted, and some kind of network implant was installed on edge devices, or one of the network devices of the victims — most likely a router or firewall appliance — was targeted for this purpose. However, it is difficult to make a precise statement, as this campaign requires further attention in terms of forensic investigation, both on the ISPs and the victims.

The configuration file’s numerous C2 server IP addresses indicate a deliberate effort to maintain control over infected systems running the MgBot implant. By using multiple C2 servers, the attacker aims to ensure prolonged persistence and prevents loss of control over compromised systems, suggesting a strategic approach to sustaining their operations.

Indicators of compromise

File Hashes
c340195696d13642ecf20fbe75461bed sohuva_update_10.2.29.1-lup-s-tp.exe
7973e0694ab6545a044a49ff101d412a libpython2.4.dll
9e72410d61eaa4f24e0719b34d7cad19 (MgBot implant)

File Paths
C:\ProgramData\Microsoft\MF
C:\ProgramData\Microsoft\eHome\status.dat
C:\ProgramData\Microsoft\eHome\perf.dat

URLs and IPs
60.28.124[.]21     (MgBot C2)
123.139.57[.]103   (MgBot C2)
140.205.220[.]98   (MgBot C2)
112.80.248[.]27    (MgBot C2)
116.213.178[.]11   (MgBot C2)
60.29.226[.]181    (MgBot C2)
58.68.255[.]45     (MgBot C2)
61.135.185[.]29    (MgBot C2)
103.27.110[.]232   (MgBot C2)
117.121.133[.]33   (MgBot C2)
139.84.170[.]230   (MgBot C2)
103.96.130[.]107   (AitM C2)
158.247.214[.]28   (AitM C2)
106.126.3[.]78     (AitM C2)
106.126.3[.]56     (AitM C2)

In early 2025, security researchers uncovered a new malware family named Webrat. Initially, the Trojan targeted regular users by disguising itself as cheats for popular games like Rust, Counter-Strike, and Roblox, or as cracked software. In September, the attackers decided to widen their net: alongside gamers and users of pirated software, they are now targeting inexperienced professionals and students in the information security field.

Distribution and the malicious sample

In October, we uncovered a campaign that had been distributing Webrat via GitHub repositories since at least September. To lure in victims, the attackers leveraged vulnerabilities frequently mentioned in security advisories and industry news. Specifically, they disguised their malware as exploits for the following vulnerabilities with high CVSSv3 scores:

This is not the first time threat actors have tried to lure security researchers with exploits. Last year, they similarly took advantage of the high-profile RegreSSHion vulnerability, which lacked a working PoC at the time.

In the Webrat campaign, the attackers bait their traps with both vulnerabilities lacking a working exploit and those which already have one. To build trust, they carefully prepared the repositories, incorporating detailed vulnerability information into the descriptions. The information is presented in the form of structured sections, which include:

• Overview with general information about the vulnerability and its potential consequences
• Specifications of systems susceptible to the exploit
• Guide for downloading and installing the exploit
• Guide for using the exploit
• Steps to mitigate the risks associated with the vulnerability

Contents of the repository

In all the repositories we investigated, the descriptions share a similar structure, characteristic of AI-generated vulnerability reports, and offer nearly identical risk mitigation advice, with only minor variations in wording. This strongly suggests that the text was machine-generated.

The Download Exploit ZIP link in the Download & Install section leads to a password-protected archive hosted in the same repository. The password is hidden within the name of a file inside the archive.

The archive downloaded from the repository includes four files:

1. pass – 8511: an empty file, whose name contains the password for the archive.
2. payload.dll: a decoy, which is a corrupted PE file. It contains no useful information and performs no actions, serving only to divert attention from the primary malicious file.
3. rasmanesc.exe (note: file names may vary): the primary malicious file (MD5 61b1fc6ab327e6d3ff5fd3e82b430315), which performs the following actions:
   • Escalate its privileges to the administrator level (T1134.002).
   • Disable Windows Defender (T1562.001) to avoid detection.
   • Fetch from a hardcoded URL (ezc5510min.temp[.]swtest[.]ru in our example) a sample of the Webrat family and execute it (T1608.001).
4. start_exp.bat: a file containing a single command: start rasmanesc.exe, which further increases the likelihood of the user executing the primary malicious file.

The execution flow and capabilities of rasmanesc.exe

Webrat is a backdoor that allows the attackers to control the infected system. Furthermore, it can steal data from cryptocurrency wallets, Telegram, Discord and Steam accounts, while also performing spyware functions such as screen recording, surveillance via a webcam and microphone, and keylogging. The version of Webrat discovered in this campaign is no different from those documented previously.

Campaign objectives

Previously, Webrat spread alongside game cheats, software cracks, and patches for legitimate applications. In this campaign, however, the Trojan disguises itself as exploits and PoCs. This suggests that the threat actor is attempting to infect information security specialists and other users interested in this topic. It bears mentioning that any competent security professional analyzes exploits and other malware within a controlled, isolated environment, which has no access to sensitive data, physical webcams, or microphones. Furthermore, an experienced researcher would easily recognize Webrat, as it’s well-documented and the current version is no different from previous ones. Therefore, we believe the bait is aimed at students and inexperienced security professionals.

Conclusion

The threat actor behind Webrat is now disguising the backdoor not only as game cheats and cracked software, but also as exploits and PoCs. This indicates they are targeting researchers who frequently rely on open sources to find and analyze code related to new vulnerabilities.

However, Webrat itself has not changed significantly from past campaigns. These attacks clearly target users who would run the “exploit” directly on their machines — bypassing basic safety protocols. This serves as a reminder that cybersecurity professionals, especially inexperienced researchers and students, must remain vigilant when handling exploits and any potentially malicious files. To prevent potential damage to work and personal devices containing sensitive information, we recommend analyzing these exploits and files within isolated environments like virtual machines or sandboxes.

We also recommend exercising general caution when working with code from open sources, always using reliable security solutions, and never adding software to exclusions without a justified reason.

Kaspersky solutions effectively detect this threat with the following verdicts:

• HEUR:Trojan.Python.Agent.gen
• HEUR:Trojan-PSW.Win64.Agent.gen
• HEUR:Trojan-Banker.Win32.Agent.gen
• HEUR:Trojan-PSW.Win32.Coins.gen
• HEUR:Trojan-Downloader.Win32.Agent.gen
• PDM:Trojan.Win32.Generic

Indicators of compromise

Malicious GitHub repositories
https://github[.]com/RedFoxNxploits/CVE-2025-10294-Poc
https://github[.]com/FixingPhantom/CVE-2025-10294
https://github[.]com/h4xnz/CVE-2025-10294-POC
https://github[.]com/usjnx72726w/CVE-2025-59295/tree/main
https://github[.]com/stalker110119/CVE-2025-59230/tree/main
https://github[.]com/moegameka/CVE-2025-59230
https://github[.]com/DebugFrag/CVE-2025-12596-Exploit
https://github[.]com/themaxlpalfaboy/CVE-2025-54897-LAB
https://github[.]com/DExplo1ted/CVE-2025-54106-POC
https://github[.]com/h4xnz/CVE-2025-55234-POC
https://github[.]com/Hazelooks/CVE-2025-11499-Exploit
https://github[.]com/usjnx72726w/CVE-2025-11499-LAB
https://github[.]com/modhopmarrow1973/CVE-2025-11833-LAB
https://github[.]com/rootreapers/CVE-2025-11499
https://github[.]com/lagerhaker539/CVE-2025-12595-POC

Webrat C2
http://ezc5510min[.]temp[.]swtest[.]ru
http://shopsleta[.]ru

MD5
28a741e9fcd57bd607255d3a4690c82f
a13c3d863e8e2bd7596bac5d41581f6a
61b1fc6ab327e6d3ff5fd3e82b430315

In early 2025, security researchers uncovered a new malware family named Webrat. Initially, the Trojan targeted regular users by disguising itself as cheats for popular games like Rust, Counter-Strike, and Roblox, or as cracked software. In September, the attackers decided to widen their net: alongside gamers and users of pirated software, they are now targeting inexperienced professionals and students in the information security field.

Distribution and the malicious sample

In October, we uncovered a campaign that had been distributing Webrat via GitHub repositories since at least September. To lure in victims, the attackers leveraged vulnerabilities frequently mentioned in security advisories and industry news. Specifically, they disguised their malware as exploits for the following vulnerabilities with high CVSSv3 scores:

This is not the first time threat actors have tried to lure security researchers with exploits. Last year, they similarly took advantage of the high-profile RegreSSHion vulnerability, which lacked a working PoC at the time.

In the Webrat campaign, the attackers bait their traps with both vulnerabilities lacking a working exploit and those which already have one. To build trust, they carefully prepared the repositories, incorporating detailed vulnerability information into the descriptions. The information is presented in the form of structured sections, which include:

• Overview with general information about the vulnerability and its potential consequences
• Specifications of systems susceptible to the exploit
• Guide for downloading and installing the exploit
• Guide for using the exploit
• Steps to mitigate the risks associated with the vulnerability

Contents of the repository

In all the repositories we investigated, the descriptions share a similar structure, characteristic of AI-generated vulnerability reports, and offer nearly identical risk mitigation advice, with only minor variations in wording. This strongly suggests that the text was machine-generated.

The Download Exploit ZIP link in the Download & Install section leads to a password-protected archive hosted in the same repository. The password is hidden within the name of a file inside the archive.

The archive downloaded from the repository includes four files:

1. pass – 8511: an empty file, whose name contains the password for the archive.
2. payload.dll: a decoy, which is a corrupted PE file. It contains no useful information and performs no actions, serving only to divert attention from the primary malicious file.
3. rasmanesc.exe (note: file names may vary): the primary malicious file (MD5 61b1fc6ab327e6d3ff5fd3e82b430315), which performs the following actions:
   • Escalate its privileges to the administrator level (T1134.002).
   • Disable Windows Defender (T1562.001) to avoid detection.
   • Fetch from a hardcoded URL (ezc5510min.temp[.]swtest[.]ru in our example) a sample of the Webrat family and execute it (T1608.001).
4. start_exp.bat: a file containing a single command: start rasmanesc.exe, which further increases the likelihood of the user executing the primary malicious file.

The execution flow and capabilities of rasmanesc.exe

Webrat is a backdoor that allows the attackers to control the infected system. Furthermore, it can steal data from cryptocurrency wallets, Telegram, Discord and Steam accounts, while also performing spyware functions such as screen recording, surveillance via a webcam and microphone, and keylogging. The version of Webrat discovered in this campaign is no different from those documented previously.

Campaign objectives

Previously, Webrat spread alongside game cheats, software cracks, and patches for legitimate applications. In this campaign, however, the Trojan disguises itself as exploits and PoCs. This suggests that the threat actor is attempting to infect information security specialists and other users interested in this topic. It bears mentioning that any competent security professional analyzes exploits and other malware within a controlled, isolated environment, which has no access to sensitive data, physical webcams, or microphones. Furthermore, an experienced researcher would easily recognize Webrat, as it’s well-documented and the current version is no different from previous ones. Therefore, we believe the bait is aimed at students and inexperienced security professionals.

Conclusion

The threat actor behind Webrat is now disguising the backdoor not only as game cheats and cracked software, but also as exploits and PoCs. This indicates they are targeting researchers who frequently rely on open sources to find and analyze code related to new vulnerabilities.

However, Webrat itself has not changed significantly from past campaigns. These attacks clearly target users who would run the “exploit” directly on their machines — bypassing basic safety protocols. This serves as a reminder that cybersecurity professionals, especially inexperienced researchers and students, must remain vigilant when handling exploits and any potentially malicious files. To prevent potential damage to work and personal devices containing sensitive information, we recommend analyzing these exploits and files within isolated environments like virtual machines or sandboxes.

We also recommend exercising general caution when working with code from open sources, always using reliable security solutions, and never adding software to exclusions without a justified reason.

Kaspersky solutions effectively detect this threat with the following verdicts:

• HEUR:Trojan.Python.Agent.gen
• HEUR:Trojan-PSW.Win64.Agent.gen
• HEUR:Trojan-Banker.Win32.Agent.gen
• HEUR:Trojan-PSW.Win32.Coins.gen
• HEUR:Trojan-Downloader.Win32.Agent.gen
• PDM:Trojan.Win32.Generic

Indicators of compromise

Malicious GitHub repositories
https://github[.]com/RedFoxNxploits/CVE-2025-10294-Poc
https://github[.]com/FixingPhantom/CVE-2025-10294
https://github[.]com/h4xnz/CVE-2025-10294-POC
https://github[.]com/usjnx72726w/CVE-2025-59295/tree/main
https://github[.]com/stalker110119/CVE-2025-59230/tree/main
https://github[.]com/moegameka/CVE-2025-59230
https://github[.]com/DebugFrag/CVE-2025-12596-Exploit
https://github[.]com/themaxlpalfaboy/CVE-2025-54897-LAB
https://github[.]com/DExplo1ted/CVE-2025-54106-POC
https://github[.]com/h4xnz/CVE-2025-55234-POC
https://github[.]com/Hazelooks/CVE-2025-11499-Exploit
https://github[.]com/usjnx72726w/CVE-2025-11499-LAB
https://github[.]com/modhopmarrow1973/CVE-2025-11833-LAB
https://github[.]com/rootreapers/CVE-2025-11499
https://github[.]com/lagerhaker539/CVE-2025-12595-POC

Webrat C2
http://ezc5510min[.]temp[.]swtest[.]ru
http://shopsleta[.]ru

MD5
28a741e9fcd57bd607255d3a4690c82f
a13c3d863e8e2bd7596bac5d41581f6a
61b1fc6ab327e6d3ff5fd3e82b430315

Blogs

Blog

The Infostealer Gateway: Uncovering the Latest Methods in Defense Evasion

In this post, we analyze the evolving bypass tactics threat actors are using to neutralize traditional security perimeters and fuel the global surge in infostealer infections.

SHARE THIS:

Flashpoint Intel Team

December 22, 2025

Table Of Contents

Table of Contents

Neutralizing Mark of the Web (MotW) via Drag-and-Drop Lures

Executing Payloads via Vulnerabilities and Trusted Processes

Targeting Alternative Softwares as a Path of Least Resistance

Understanding the Identity Attack Surface

More

subscribe to our newsletter

Infostealer-driven credential theft in 2025 has surged, with Flashpoint observing a staggering 800% increase since the start of the year. With over 1.8 billion corporate and personal accounts compromised, the threat landscape finds itself in a paradox: while technical defenses have never been more advanced, the human attack surface has never been more vulnerable.

Information-stealing malware has become the most scalable entry point for enterprise breaches, but to truly defend against them, organizations must look beyond the malware itself. As teams move into 2026 security planning, it is critical to understand the deceptive initial access vectors—the latest tactics Flashpoint is seeing in the wild—that threat actors are using to manipulate users and bypass modern security perimeters.

Here are the latest methods threat actors are leveraging to facilitate infections:

1. Neutralizing Mark of the Web (MotW) via Drag-and-Drop Lures

Mark of the Web (MotW) is a critical Windows defense feature that tags files downloaded from the internet as “untrusted” by adding a hidden NTFS Alternate Data Stream (ADS) to the file. This tag triggers “Protected View” in Microsoft Office programs and prompts Windows SmartScreen warnings when a user attempts to execute an unknown file.

Flashpoint has observed a new social engineering method to bypass these protections through a simple drag-and-drop lure. Instead of asking a user to open a suspicious attachment directly, which would trigger an immediate MotW warning, threat actors are instead instructing the victim to drag the malicious image or file from a document onto their desktop to view it. This manual interaction is highly effective for two reasons:

1. Contextual Evasion: By dragging the file out of the document and onto the desktop, the file is executed outside the scope of the Protected View sandbox.
2. Metadata Stripping: In many instances, the act of dragging and dropping an embedded object from a parent document can cause the operating system to treat the newly created file as a local creation, rather than an internet download. This effectively strips the MotW tag and allows malicious code to run without any security alerts.

2. Executing Payloads via Vulnerabilities and Trusted Processes

Flashpoint analysts uncovered an illicit thread detailing a proof of concept for a client-side remote code execution (RCE) in the Google Web Designer for Windows, which was first discovered by security researcher Bálint Magyar.

Google Web Designer is an application used for creating dynamic ads for the Google Ads platform. Leveraging this vulnerability, attackers would be able to perform remote code execution through an internal API using CSS injection by targeting a configuration file related to ads documents.

Within this thread, threat actors were specifically interested in the execution of the payload using the chrome.exe process. This is because using chrome.exe to fetch and execute a file is likely to bypass several security restrictions as Chrome is already a trusted process. By utilizing specific command-line arguments, such as the –headless flag, threat actors showed how to force a browser to initiate a remote connection in the background without spawning a visible window. This can be used in conjunction with other malicious scripts to silently download additional payloads onto a victim’s systems.

3. Targeting Alternative Softwares as a Path of Least Resistance

As widely-used software becomes more hardened and secure, threat actors are instead pivoting to targeting lesser-known alternatives. These tools often lack robust macro-protections. By targeting vulnerabilities in secondary PDF viewers or Office alternatives, attackers are seeking to trick users into making remote server connections that would otherwise be flagged as suspicious.

Understanding the Identity Attack Surface

Social engineering is one of the driving factors behind the infostealer lifecycle. Once an initial access vector is successful, the malware immediately begins harvesting the logs that fuel today’s identity-based digital attacks.

As detailed in The Proactive Defender’s Guide to Infostealers, the end goal is not just a password. Instead, attackers are prioritizing session cookies, which allow them to perform session hijacking. By importing these stolen cookies into anti-detect browsers, they bypass Multi-Factor Authentication and step directly into corporate environments, appearing as a legitimate, authenticated user.

Understanding how threat actors weaponize stolen data is the first step toward a proactive defense. For a deep dive into the most prolific stealer strains and strategies for managing the identity attack surface, download The Proactive Defender’s Guide to Infostealers today.

The post The Infostealer Gateway: Uncovering the Latest Methods in Defense Evasion appeared first on Flashpoint.