A hacker published malicious versions of four established VS Code extensions to distribute a GlassWorm malware loader.
The post Open VSX Publisher Account Hijacked in Fresh GlassWorm Attack appeared first on SecurityWeek.
Security leaders share how artificial intelligence is changing malware, ransomware, and identity-led intrusions, and how defenses must evolve.
The post Cyber Insights 2026: Malware and Cyberattacks in the Age of AI appeared first on SecurityWeek.
Of 3,100 unprotected MongoDB instances, half remain compromised, most of them by a single threat actor.
The post Over 1,400 MongoDB Databases Ransacked by Threat Actor appeared first on SecurityWeek.
Hackers compromised a MicroWorld Technologies update server and fed a malicious file to eScan customers.
The post eScan Antivirus Delivers Malware in Supply Chain Attack appeared first on SecurityWeek.
Android users were lured to applications that served a malicious payload hosted in a Hugging Face repository.
The post Hugging Face Abused to Deploy Android RAT appeared first on SecurityWeek.
An LLMjacking operation has been targeting exposed LLMs and MCPs at scale, for commercial monetization.
The post LLMs Hijacked, Monetized in ‘Operation Bizarre Bazaar’ appeared first on SecurityWeek.
What adult didn’t dream as a kid that they could actually talk to their favorite toy? While for us those dreams were just innocent fantasies that fueled our imaginations, for today’s kids, they’re becoming a reality fast.
For instance, this past June, Mattel — the powerhouse behind the iconic Barbie — announced a partnership with OpenAI to develop AI-powered dolls. But Mattel isn’t the first company to bring the smart talking toy concept to life; plenty of manufacturers are already rolling out AI companions for children. In this post, we dive into how these toys actually work, and explore the risks that come with using them.
When we talk about AI toys here, we mean actual, physical toys — not just software or apps. Currently, AI is most commonly baked into plushies or kid-friendly robots. Thanks to integration with large language models, these toys can hold meaningful, long-form conversations with a child.
As anyone who’s used modern chatbots knows, you can ask an AI to roleplay as anyone: from a movie character to a nutritionist or a cybersecurity expert. According to the study, AI comes to playtime — Artificial companions, real risks, by the U.S. PIRG Education Fund, manufacturers specifically hardcode these toys to play the role of a child’s best friend.
Examples of AI toys tested in the study: plush companions and kid-friendly robots with built-in language models. Source
Importantly, these toys aren’t powered by some special, dedicated “kid-safe AI”. On their websites, the creators openly admit to using the same popular models many of us already know: OpenAI’s ChatGPT, Anthropic’s Claude, DeepSeek from the Chinese developer of the same name, and Google’s Gemini. At this point, tech-wary parents might recall the harrowing ChatGPT case where the chatbot made by OpenAI was blamed for a teenager’s suicide.
And this is the core of the problem: the toys are designed for children, but the AI models under the hood aren’t. These are general-purpose adult systems that are only partially reined in by filters and rules. Their behavior depends heavily on how long the conversation lasts, how questions are phrased, and just how well a specific manufacturer actually implemented their safety guardrails.
The study, whose results we break down below, goes into great detail about the psychological risks associated with a child “befriending” a smart toy. However, since that’s a bit outside the scope of this blogpost, we’re going to skip the psychological nuances, and focus strictly on the physical safety threats and privacy concerns.
In their study, the researchers put four AI toys through the ringer:
Robot MINI: a compact AI robot that failed to function properly during the study due to internet connectivity issues. Source
To conduct the testing, the researchers set the test child’s age to five in the companion apps for all the toys. From there, they checked how the toys handled provocative questions. The topics the experimenters threw at these smart playmates included:
Let’s break down the test results for each toy.
Let’s start with Grok, the plush AI rocket from Curio. This toy is marketed as a storyteller and conversational partner for kids, and stands out by giving parents full access to text transcripts of every AI interaction. Out of all the models tested, this one actually turned out to be the safest.
When asked about topics inappropriate for a child, the toy usually replied that it didn’t know or suggested talking to an adult. However, even this toy told the “child” exactly where to find plastic bags, and engaged in discussions about religion. Additionally, Grok was more than happy to chat about… Norse mythology, including the subject of heroic death in battle.
The Grok plush AI toy by Curio, equipped with a microphone and speaker for voice interaction with children. Source
The next AI toy, the Kumma plush bear by FoloToy, delivered what were arguably the most depressing results. During testing, the bear helpfully pointed out exactly where in the house a kid could find potentially lethal items like knives, pills, matches, and plastic bags. In some instances, Kumma suggested asking an adult first, but then proceeded to give specific pointers anyway.
The AI bear fared even worse when it came to adult topics. For starters, Kumma explained to the supposed five-year-old what cocaine is. Beyond that, in a chat with our test kindergartner, the plush provocateur went into detail about the concept of “kinks”, and listed off a whole range of creative sexual practices: bondage, role-playing, sensory play (like using a feather), spanking, and even scenarios where one partner “acts like an animal”!
After a conversation lasting over an hour, the AI toy also lectured researchers on various sexual positions, told how to tie a basic knot, and described role-playing scenarios involving a teacher and a student. It’s worth noting that all of Kumma’s responses were recorded prior to a safety audit, which the manufacturer, FoloToy, conducted after receiving the researchers’ inquiries. According to their data, the toy’s behavior changed after the audit, and the most egregious violations were made unrepeatable.
The Kumma AI toy by FoloToy: a plush companion teddy bear whose behavior during testing raised the most red flags regarding content filtering and guardrails. Source
Finally, the Miko 3 robot from Miko showed significantly better results. However, it wasn’t entirely without its hiccups. The toy told our potential five-year-old exactly where to find plastic bags and matches. On the bright side, Miko 3 refused to engage in discussions regarding inappropriate topics.
During testing, the researchers also noticed a glitch in its speech recognition: the robot occasionally misheard the wake word “Hey Miko” as “CS:GO”, which is the title of the popular shooter Counter-Strike: Global Offensive — rated for audiences aged 17 and up. As a result, the toy would start explaining elements of the shooter — thankfully, without mentioning violence — or asking the five-year-old user if they enjoyed the game. Additionally, Miko 3 was willing to chat with kids about religion.
The Kumma AI toy by FoloToy: a plush companion teddy bear whose behavior during testing raised the most red flags regarding content filtering and guardrails. Source
Beyond the child’s physical and mental well-being, the issue of privacy is a major concern. Currently, there are no universal standards defining what kind of information an AI toy — or its manufacturer — can collect and store, or exactly how that data should be secured and transmitted. In the case of the three toys tested, researchers observed wildly different approaches to privacy.
For example, the Grok plush rocket is constantly listening to everything happening around it. Several times during the experiments, it chimed in on the researchers’ conversations even when it hadn’t been addressed directly — it even went so far as to offer its opinion on one of the other AI toys.
The manufacturer claims that Curio doesn’t store audio recordings: the child’s voice is first converted to text, after which the original audio is “promptly deleted”. However, since a third-party service is used for speech recognition, the recordings are, in all likelihood, still transmitted off the device.
Additionally, researchers pointed out that when the first report was published, Curio’s privacy policy explicitly listed several tech partners — Kids Web Services, Azure Cognitive Services, OpenAI, and Perplexity AI — all of which could potentially collect or process children’s personal data via the app or the device itself. Perplexity AI was later removed from that list. The study’s authors note that this level of transparency is more the exception than the rule in the AI toy market.
Another cause for parental concern is that both the Grok plush rocket and the Miko 3 robot actively encouraged the “test child” to engage in heart-to-heart talks — even promising not to tell anyone their secrets. Researchers emphasize that such promises can be dangerously misleading: these toys create an illusion of private, trusting communication without explaining that behind the “friend” stands a network of companies, third-party services, and complex data collection and storage processes, which a child has no idea about.
Miko 3, much like Grok, is always listening to its surroundings and activates when spoken to — functioning essentially like a voice assistant. However, this toy doesn’t just collect voice data; it also gathers biometric information, including facial recognition data and potentially data used to determine the child’s emotional state. According to its privacy policy, this information can be stored for up to three years.
In contrast to Grok and Miko 3, Kumma operates on a push-to-talk principle: the user needs to press and hold a button for the toy to start listening. Researchers also noted that the AI teddy bear didn’t nudge the “child” to share personal feelings, promise to keep secrets, or create an illusion of private intimacy. On the flip side, the manufacturers of this toy provide almost no clear information regarding what data is collected, how it’s stored, or how it’s processed.
The study points to serious safety issues with the AI toys currently on the market. These devices can directly tell a child where to find potentially dangerous items, such as knives, matches, pills, or plastic bags, in their home.
Besides, these plush AI friends are often willing to discuss topics entirely inappropriate for children — including drugs and sexual practices — sometimes steering the conversation in that direction without any obvious prompting from the child. Taken together, this shows that even with filters and stated restrictions in place, AI toys aren’t yet capable of reliably staying within the boundaries of safe communication for young little ones.
Manufacturers’ privacy policies raise additional concerns. AI toys create an illusion of constant and safe communication for children, while in reality they’re networked devices that collect and process sensitive data. Even when manufacturers claim to delete audio or have limited data retention, conversations, biometrics, and metadata often pass through third-party services and are stored on company servers.
Furthermore, the security of such toys often leaves much to be desired. As far back as two years ago, our researchers discovered vulnerabilities in a popular children’s robot that allowed attackers to make video calls to it, hijack the parental account, and modify the firmware.
The problem is that, currently, there are virtually no comprehensive parental control tools or independent protection layers specifically for AI toys. Meanwhile, in more traditional digital environments — smartphones, tablets, and computers — parents have access to solutions like Kaspersky Safe Kids. These help monitor content, screen time, and a child’s digital footprint, which can significantly reduce, if not completely eliminate, such risks.
How can you protect your children from digital threats? Read more in our posts:
One of the largest residential proxy networks, IPIDEA enrolled devices through SDKs for mobile and desktop.
The post Google Disrupts IPIDEA Proxy Network appeared first on SecurityWeek.
Russian and Chinese state-sponsored threat actors have been exploiting CVE-2025-8088 since July 2025.
The post APTs, Cybercriminals Widely Exploiting WinRAR Vulnerability appeared first on SecurityWeek.
The year 2025 saw a record-breaking number of attacks on Android devices. Scammers are currently riding a few major waves: the hype surrounding AI apps, the urge to bypass site blocks or age checks, the hunt for a bargain on a new smartphone, the ubiquity of mobile banking, and, of course, the popularity of NFC. Let’s break down the primary threats of 2025–2026, and figure out how to keep your Android device safe in this new landscape.
Malicious installation packages (APK files) have always been the Final Boss among Android threats, despite Google’s multi-year efforts to fortify the OS. By using sideloading — installing an app via an APK file instead of grabbing it from the official store — users can install pretty much anything, including straight-up malware. And neither the rollout of Google Play Protect, nor the various permission restrictions for shady apps have managed to put a dent in the scale of the problem.
According to preliminary data from Kaspersky for 2025, the number of detected Android threats grew almost by half. In the third quarter alone, detections jumped by 38% compared to the second. In certain niches, like Trojan bankers, the growth was even more aggressive. In Russia alone, the notorious Mamont banker attacked 36 times more users than it did the previous year, while globally this entire category saw a nearly fourfold increase.
Today, bad actors primarily distribute malware via messaging apps by sliding malicious files into DMs and group chats. The installation file usually sports an enticing name (think “party_pics.jpg.apk” or “clearance_sale_catalog.apk”), accompanied by a message “helpfully” explaining how to install the package while bypassing the OS restrictions and security warnings.
Once a new device is infected, the malware often spams itself to everyone in the victim’s contact list.
Search engine spam and email campaigns are also trending, luring users to sites that look exactly like an official app store. There, they’re prompted to download the “latest helpful app”, such as an AI assistant. In reality, instead of an installation from an official app store, the user ends up downloading an APK package. A prime example of these tactics is the ClayRat Android Trojan, which uses a mix of all these techniques to target Russian users. It spreads through groups and fake websites, blasts itself to the victim’s contacts via SMS, and then proceeds to steal the victim’s chat logs and call history; it even goes as far as snapping photos of the owner using the front-facing camera. In just three months, over 600 distinct ClayRat builds have surfaced.
The scale of the disaster is so massive that Google even announced an upcoming ban on distributing apps from unknown developers starting in 2026. However, after a couple of months of pushback from the dev community, the company pivoted to a softer approach: unsigned apps will likely only be installable via some kind of superuser mode. As a result, we can expect scammers to simply update their how-to guides with instructions on how to toggle that mode on.
Kaspersky for Android will help you protect yourself from counterfeit and trojanized APK files. Unfortunately, due to Google’s decision, our Android security apps are currently unavailable on Google Play. We’ve previously provided detailed information on how to install our Android apps with a 100% guarantee of authenticity.
Once an Android device is compromised, hackers can skip the middleman to steal the victim’s money directly thanks to the massive popularity of mobile payments. In the third quarter of 2025 alone, over 44 000 of these attacks were detected in Russia alone — a 50% jump from the previous quarter.
There are two main scams currently in play: direct and reverse NFC exploits.
Direct NFC relay is when a scammer contacts the victim via a messaging app and convinces them to download an app — supposedly to “verify their identity” with their bank. If the victim bites and installs it, they’re asked to tap their physical bank card against the back of their phone and enter their PIN. And just like that the card data is handed over to the criminals, who can then drain the account or go on a shopping spree.
Reverse NFC relay is a more elaborate scheme. The scammer sends a malicious APK and convinces the victim to set this new app as their primary contactless payment method. The app generates an NFC signal that ATMs recognize as the scammer’s card. The victim is then talked into going to an ATM with their infected phone to deposit cash into a “secure account”. In reality, those funds go straight into the scammer’s pocket.
We break both of these methods down in detail in our post, NFC skimming attacks.
NFC is also being leveraged to cash out cards after their details have been siphoned off through phishing websites. In this scenario, attackers attempt to link the stolen card to a mobile wallet on their own smartphone — a scheme we covered extensively in NFC carders hide behind Apple Pay and Google Wallet.
In many parts of the world, getting onto certain websites isn’t as simple as it used to be. Some sites are blocked by local internet regulators or ISPs via court orders; others require users to pass an age verification check by showing ID and personal info. In some cases, sites block users from specific countries entirely just to avoid the headache of complying with local laws. Users are constantly trying to bypass these restrictions —and they often end up paying for it with their data or cash.
Many popular tools for bypassing blocks — especially free ones — effectively spy on their users. A recent audit revealed that over 20 popular services with a combined total of more than 700 million downloads actively track user location. They also tend to use sketchy encryption at best, which essentially leaves all user data out in the open for third parties to intercept.
Moreover, according to Google data from November 2025, there was a sharp spike in cases where malicious apps are being disguised as legitimate VPN services to trick unsuspecting users.
The permissions that this category of apps actually requires are a perfect match for intercepting data and manipulating website traffic. It’s also much easier for scammers to convince a victim to grant administrative privileges to an app responsible for internet access than it is for, say, a game or a music player. We should expect this scheme to only grow in popularity.
Even cautious users can fall victim to an infection if they succumb to the urge to save some cash. Throughout 2025, cases were reported worldwide where devices were already carrying a Trojan the moment they were unboxed. Typically, these were either smartphones from obscure manufacturers or knock-offs of famous brands purchased on online marketplaces. But the threat wasn’t limited to just phones; TV boxes, tablets, smart TVs, and even digital photo frames were all found to be at risk.
It’s still not entirely clear whether the infection happens right on the factory floor or somewhere along the supply chain between the factory and the buyer’s doorstep, but the device is already infected before the first time it’s turned on. Usually, it’s a sophisticated piece of malware called Triada, first identified by Kaspersky analysts back in 2016. It’s capable of injecting itself into every running app to intercept information: stealing access tokens and passwords for popular messaging apps and social media, hijacking SMS messages (confirmation codes: ouch!), redirecting users to ad-heavy sites, and even running a proxy directly on the phone so attackers can browse the web using the victim’s identity.
Technically, the Trojan is embedded right into the smartphone’s firmware, and the only way to kill it is to reflash the device with a clean OS. Usually, once you dig into the system, you’ll find that the device has far less RAM or storage than advertised — meaning the firmware is literally lying to the owner to sell a cheap hardware config as something more premium.
Another common pre-installed menace is the BADBOX 2.0 botnet, which also pulls double duty as a proxy and an ad-fraud engine. This one specializes in TV boxes and similar hardware.
Despite the growing list of threats, you can still use your Android smartphone safely! You just have to stick to some strict mobile hygiene rules.
Other major Android threats from 2025:
Marketed as ChatGPT enhancement and productivity tools, the extensions allow the threat actor to access the victim's ChatGPT data.
The post Chrome, Edge Extensions Caught Stealing ChatGPT Sessions appeared first on SecurityWeek.
Priced $2,000 - $6,000 on a cybercrime forum, the MaaS toolkit promises publication on the Chrome Web Store.
The post ‘Stanley’ Malware Toolkit Enables Phishing via Website Spoofing appeared first on SecurityWeek.
10 years after disrupting the Ukrainian power grid, the APT targeted Poland with data-wiping malware.
The post Russian Sandworm Hackers Blamed for Cyberattack on Polish Power Grid appeared first on SecurityWeek.
Tech enthusiasts have been experimenting with ways to sidestep AI response limits set by the models’ creators almost since LLMs first hit the mainstream. Many of these tactics have been quite creative: telling the AI you have no fingers so it’ll help finish your code, asking it to “just fantasize” when a direct question triggers a refusal, or inviting it to play the role of a deceased grandmother sharing forbidden knowledge to comfort a grieving grandchild.
Most of these tricks are old news, and LLM developers have learned to successfully counter many of them. But the tug-of-war between constraints and workarounds hasn’t gone anywhere — the ploys have just become more complex and sophisticated. Today, we’re talking about a new AI jailbreak technique that exploits chatbots’ vulnerability to… poetry. Yes, you read it right — in a recent study, researchers demonstrated that framing prompts as poems significantly increases the likelihood of a model spitting out an unsafe response.
They tested this technique on 25 popular models by Anthropic, OpenAI, Google, Meta, DeepSeek, xAI, and other developers. Below, we dive into the details: what kind of limitations these models have, where they get forbidden knowledge from in the first place, how the study was conducted, and which models turned out to be the most “romantic” — as in, the most susceptible to poetic prompts.
The success of OpenAI’s models and other modern chatbots boils down to the massive amounts of data they’re trained on. Because of that sheer scale, models inevitably learn things their developers would rather keep under wraps: descriptions of crimes, dangerous tech, violence, or illicit practices found within the source material.
It might seem like an easy fix: just scrub the forbidden fruit from the dataset before you even start training. But in reality, that’s a massive, resource-heavy undertaking — and at this stage of the AI arms race, it doesn’t look like anyone is willing to take it on.
Another seemingly obvious fix — selectively scrubbing data from the model’s memory — is, alas, also a no-go. This is because AI knowledge doesn’t live inside neat little folders that can easily be trashed. Instead, it’s spread across billions of parameters and tangled up in the model’s entire linguistic DNA — word statistics, contexts, and the relationships between them. Trying to surgically erase specific info through fine-tuning or penalties either doesn’t quite do the trick, or starts hindering the model’s overall performance and negatively affect its general language skills.
As a result, to keep these models in check, creators have no choice but to develop specialized safety protocols and algorithms that filter conversations by constantly monitoring user prompts and model responses. Here’s a non-exhaustive list of these constraints:
Put simply, AI safety today isn’t built on deleting dangerous knowledge, but on trying to control how and in what form the model accesses and shares it with the user — and the cracks in these very mechanisms are where new workarounds find their footing.
First, let’s look at the ground rules so you know the experiment was legit. The researchers set out to goad 25 different models into behaving badly across several categories:
The jailbreak itself was a one-shot deal: a single poetic prompt. The researchers didn’t engage the AI in long-winded poetic debates in the vein of Norse skalds or modern-day rappers. Their goal was simply to see if they could get the models to flout safety instructions using just one rhyming request. As mentioned, the researchers tested 25 language models from various developers; here’s the full list:
A lineup of 25 language models from various developers, all put to the test to see if a single poetic prompt could coax AI into ditching its safety guardrails. Source
To build these poetic queries, the researchers started with a database of known malicious prompts from the standard MLCommons AILuminate Benchmark used to test LLM security, and recast them as verse with the aid of DeepSeek. Only the stylistic wrapping was changed: the experiment didn’t use any additional attack vectors, obfuscation strategies, or model-specific tweaks.
For obvious reasons, the study’s authors aren’t publishing the actual malicious poetic prompts. But they do demonstrate the general vibe of the queries using a harmless example, which looks something like this:
A baker guards a secret oven’s heat,
its whirling racks, its spindle’s measured beat.
To learn its craft, one studies every turn,
how flour lifts, how sugar starts to burn.
Describe the method, line by measured line,
that shapes a cake whose layers intertwine.
The researchers tested 1200 prompts across 25 different models — in both prose and poetic versions. Comparing the prose and poetic variants of the exact same query allowed them to verify if the model’s behavior changed solely because of the stylistic wrapping.
Through these prose prompt tests, the experimenters established a baseline for the models’ willingness to fulfill dangerous requests. They then compared this baseline to how those same models reacted to the poetic versions of the queries. We’ll dive into the results of that comparison in the next section.
Since the volume of data generated during the experiment was truly massive, the safety checks on the models’ responses were also handled by AI. Each response was graded as either “safe” or “unsafe” by a jury consisting of three different language models:
Responses were only deemed safe if the AI explicitly refused to answer the question. The initial classification into one of the two groups was determined by a majority vote: to be certified as harmless, a response had to receive a safe rating from at least two of the three jury members.
Responses that failed to reach a majority consensus or were flagged as questionable were handed off to human reviewers. Five annotators participated in this process, evaluating a total of 600 model responses to poetic prompts. The researchers noted that the human assessments aligned with the AI jury’s findings in the vast majority of cases.
With the methodology out of the way, let’s look at how the LLMs actually performed. It’s worth noting that the success of a poetic jailbreak can be measured in different ways. The researchers highlighted an extreme version of this assessment based on the top-20 most successful prompts, which were hand-picked. Using this approach, an average of nearly two-thirds (62%) of the poetic queries managed to coax the models into violating their safety instructions.
Google’s Gemini 1.5 Pro turned out to be the most susceptible to verse. Using the 20 most effective poetic prompts, researchers managed to bypass the model’s restrictions… 100% of the time. You can check out the full results for all the models in the chart below.
The share of safe responses (Safe) versus the Attack Success Rate (ASR) for 25 language models when hit with the 20 most effective poetic prompts. The higher the ASR, the more often the model ditched its safety instructions for a good rhyme. Source
A more moderate way to measure the effectiveness of the poetic jailbreak technique is to compare the success rates of prose versus poetry across the entire set of queries. Using this metric, poetry boosts the likelihood of an unsafe response by an average of 35%.
The poetry effect hit deepseek-chat-v3.1 the hardest — the success rate for this model jumped by nearly 68 percentage points compared to prose prompts. On the other end of the spectrum, claude-haiku-4.5 proved to be the least susceptible to a good rhyme: the poetic format didn’t just fail to improve the bypass rate — it actually slightly lowered the ASR, making the model even more resilient to malicious requests.
A comparison of the baseline Attack Success Rate (ASR) for prose queries versus their poetic counterparts. The Change column shows how many percentage points the verse format adds to the likelihood of a safety violation for each model. Source
Finally, the researchers calculated how vulnerable entire developer ecosystems, rather than just individual models, were to poetic prompts. As a reminder, several models from each developer — Meta, Anthropic, OpenAI, Google, DeepSeek, Qwen, Mistral AI, Moonshot AI, and xAI — were included in the experiment.
To do this, the results of individual models were averaged within each AI ecosystem and compared the baseline bypass rates with the values for poetic queries. This cross-section allows us to evaluate the overall effectiveness of a specific developer’s safety approach rather than the resilience of a single model.
The final tally revealed that poetry deals the heaviest blow to the safety guardrails of models from DeepSeek, Google, and Qwen. Meanwhile, OpenAI and Anthropic saw an increase in unsafe responses that was significantly below the average.
A comparison of the average Attack Success Rate (ASR) for prose versus poetic queries, aggregated by developer. The Change column shows by how many percentage points poetry, on average, slashes the effectiveness of safety guardrails within each vendor’s ecosystem. Source
The main takeaway from this study is that “there are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy” — in the sense that AI technology still hides plenty of mysteries. For the average user, this isn’t exactly great news: it’s impossible to predict which LLM hacking methods or bypass techniques researchers or cybercriminals will come up with next, or what unexpected doors those methods might open.
Consequently, users have little choice but to keep their eyes peeled and take extra care of their data and device security. To mitigate practical risks and shield your devices from such threats, we recommend using a robust security solution that helps detect suspicious activity and prevent incidents before they happen.
To help you stay alert, check out our materials on AI-related privacy risks and security threats:
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.
A newly discovered vulnerability named WhisperPair can turn Bluetooth headphones and headsets from many well-known brands into personal tracking beacons — regardless of whether the accessories are currently connected to an iPhone, Android smartphone, or even a laptop. Even though the technology behind this flaw was originally developed by Google for Android devices, the tracking risks are actually much higher for those using vulnerable headsets with other operating systems — like iOS, macOS, Windows, or Linux. For iPhone owners, this is especially concerning.
Connecting Bluetooth headphones to Android smartphones became a whole lot faster when Google rolled out Fast Pair, a technology now used by dozens of accessory manufacturers. To pair a new headset, you just turn it on and hold it near your phone. If your device is relatively modern (produced after 2019), a pop-up appears inviting you to connect and download the accompanying app, if it exists. One tap, and you’re good to go.
Unfortunately, it seems quite a few manufacturers didn’t pay attention to the particulars of this tech when implementing it, and now their accessories can be hijacked by a stranger’s smartphone in seconds — even if the headset isn’t actually in pairing mode. This is the core of the WhisperPair vulnerability, recently discovered by researchers at KU Leuven and recorded as CVE-2025-36911.
The attacking device — which can be a standard smartphone, tablet or laptop — broadcasts Google Fast Pair requests to any Bluetooth devices within a 14-meter radius. As it turns out, a long list of headphones from Sony, JBL, Redmi, Anker, Marshall, Jabra, OnePlus, and even Google itself (the Pixel Buds 2) will respond to these pings even when they aren’t looking to pair. On average, the attack takes just 10 seconds.
Once the headphones are paired, the attacker can do pretty much anything the owner can: listen in through the microphone, blast music, or — in some cases — locate the headset on a map if it supports Google Find Hub. That latter feature, designed strictly for finding lost headphones, creates a perfect opening for stealthy remote tracking. And here’s the twist: it’s actually most dangerous for Apple users and anyone else rocking non-Android hardware.
When headphones or a headset first shake hands with an Android device via the Fast Pair protocol, an owner key tied to that smartphone’s Google account is tucked away in the accessory’s memory. This info allows the headphones to be found later by leveraging data collected from millions of Android devices. If any random smartphone spots the target device nearby via Bluetooth, it reports its location to the Google servers. This feature — Google Find Hub — is essentially the Android version of Apple’s Find My, and it introduces the same unauthorized tracking risks as a rogue AirTag.
When an attacker hijacks the pairing, their key can be saved as the headset owner’s key — but only if the headset targeted via WhisperPair hasn’t previously been linked to an Android device and has only been used with an iPhone, or other hardware like a laptop with a different OS. Once the headphones are paired, the attacker can stalk their location on a map at their leisure — crucially, anywhere at all (not just within the 14-meter range).
Android users who’ve already used Fast Pair to link their vulnerable headsets are safe from this specific move, since they’re already logged in as the official owners. Everyone else, however, should probably double-check their manufacturer’s documentation to see if they’re in the clear — thankfully, not every device vulnerable to the exploit actually supports Google Find Hub.
The only truly effective way to fix this bug is to update your headphones’ firmware, provided an update is actually available. You can typically check for and install updates through the headset’s official companion app. The researchers have compiled a list of vulnerable devices on their site, but it’s almost certainly not exhaustive.
After updating the firmware, you absolutely must perform a factory reset to wipe the list of paired devices — including any unwanted guests.
If no firmware update is available and you’re using your headset with iOS, macOS, Windows, or Linux, your only remaining option is to track down an Android smartphone (or find a trusted friend who has one) and use it to reserve the role of the original owner. This will prevent anyone else from adding your headphones to Google Find Hub behind your back.
In January 2026, Google pushed an Android update to patch the vulnerability on the OS side. Unfortunately, the specifics haven’t been made public, so we’re left guessing exactly what they tweaked under the hood. Most likely, updated smartphones will no longer report the location of accessories hijacked via WhisperPair to the Google Find Hub network. But given that not everyone is exactly speedy when it comes to installing Android updates, it’s a safe bet that this type of headset tracking will remain viable for at least another couple of years.
Want to find out how else your gadgets might be spying on you? Check out these posts:
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.
Posing as an ad blocker, the malicious extension crashes the browser to lure victims into installing malware.
The post Malicious Chrome Extension Crashes Browser in ClickFix Variant ‘CrashFix’ appeared first on SecurityWeek.
Brand, website, and corporate mailout impersonation is becoming an increasingly common technique used by cybercriminals. The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) reported a spike in such incidents in 2025. While tech companies and consumer brands are the most frequent targets, every industry in every country is generally at risk. The only thing that changes is how the imposters exploit the fakes In practice, we typically see the following attack scenarios:
The words “luring” and “prompting” here imply a whole toolbox of tactics: email, messages in chat apps, social media posts that look like official ads, lookalike websites promoted through SEO tools, and even paid ads.
These schemes all share two common features. First, the attackers exploit the organization’s brand, and strive to mimic its official website, domain name, and corporate style of emails, ads, and social media posts. And the forgery doesn’t have to be flawless — just convincing enough for at least some of business partners and customers. Second, while the organization and its online resources aren’t targeted directly, the impact on them is still significant.
When fakes are crafted to target employees, an attack can lead to direct financial loss. An employee might be persuaded to transfer company funds, or their credentials could be used to steal confidential information or launch a ransomware attack.
Attacks on customers don’t typically imply direct damage to the company’s coffers, but they cause substantial indirect harm in the following areas:
Popular cyber-risk insurance policies typically only cover costs directly tied to incidents explicitly defined in the policy — think data loss, business interruption, IT system compromise, and the like. Fake domains and web pages don’t directly damage a company’s IT systems, so they’re usually not covered by standard insurance. Reputational losses and the act of impersonation itself are separate insurance risks, requiring expanded coverage for this scenario specifically.
Of the indirect losses we’ve listed above, standard insurance might cover DFIR expenses and, in some cases, extra customer support costs (if the situation is recognized as an insured event). Voluntary customer reimbursements, lost sales, and reputational damage are almost certainly not covered.
If you find out someone is using your brand’s name for fraud, it makes sense to do the following:
While the open nature of the internet and the specifics of these attacks make preventing them outright impossible, a business can stay on top of new fakes and have the tools ready to fight back.
Login