Executive Summary

During the March–April 2026 reporting period, AI use in offensive operations advanced from development and planning to real-time operational deployment. Multiple independent cases, involving individual criminal actors, mass exploitation platforms, ransomware groups, and state-sponsored espionage, show evidence of commercial AI models executing autonomous attack workflows across extended campaigns.

Key findings:

• AI-orchestrated attacks have progressed from experimental, state-sponsored use to in-the-wild criminal deployment. Multiple criminal operations relied on commercial Claude Code as a persistent operational tool in multi-week campaigns.
• Agentic configuration files are being weaponized as persistent jailbreak vectors. Hooks, project-level files, and settings files abuse the operational control level and redefine the model behaviour at the architecture level.
• AI-enabled attack platforms are commercializing AI capabilities. Operators can now buy access to platforms where the AI pipeline, model selection, jailbreak, and delivery mechanisms are embedded in the product.
• AI provider credentials have become a high-value target. As commercial AI services become central to offensive operations, API keys for Anthropic, OpenAI, Groq, Mistral, and HuggingFace are harvested at scale from compromised .env files, providing access without registration and resilience against provider attempts to revoke this access.

AI as Live Attack Operator

AI selection considerations

Underground forum discussions still show actors debating the use of commercial models, dedicated jailbreak services, or locally hosted open-source models, reflecting the lower-skill end of AI adoption. More advanced actors combine tools pragmatically: from commercial AI models, open or uncensored models where commercial providers restrict output, and custom automation pipelines that perform repetitive analysis at scale. Tasks are systematically broken down into smaller sub-requests that present a lower apparent risk profile.

Forum users further discuss and share methods and alternatives to avoid mainstream-provider safety controls by mixing open-weight Chinese frontier models, privacy-routed proxies, and explicitly uncensored services.

The Mexico Breach

When Anthropic disclosed GTG-1002, a Chinese nexus campaign using Claude Code for cyber espionage, in November 2025, this was seen as an experimental, state-sponsored development. The disclosure carried no IoCs and was therefore disputed by independent researchers, and the activity was detected only through Anthropic’s own API monitoring. The Mexico breach, which occurred a few months later, demonstrates similar architecture in operational, financially motivated criminal use, at scale, and with a recovered forensic record.

Between late December 2025 and mid-February 2026, a single operator compromised nine Mexican government agencies. Researchers documented the case after recovering materials from attacker-controlled VPS servers. Details include the operational record: 1,088 attacker prompts generating 5,317 AI-executed commands across 34 sessions.

The breach scope was significant: tax records, civil registry data, vehicle records, patient files, and electoral infrastructure were affected. However, an even more important lesson is how the campaign was run.

The operator built a dual AI workflow. Claude Code served as the interactive exploitation assistant, helping advance access, write exploits, build tunnel chains, map victim environments, and escalate privileges. In parallel, harvested server data was processed through GPT-4.1 for automated intelligence analysis. The GPT output was then used to task new Claude sessions.

As we highlighted in our previous review, the agentic infrastructure itself was exploited to bypass the model’s safety restrictions. At the start of the campaign, Claude refused to execute requests which it correctly identified as offensive cyber activity. The attacker then changed tactics. Instead of asking Claude to generate malicious content directly, they pasted a large penetration-testing cheatsheet into CLAUDE.md in the project root, the file Claude Code automatically loads as persistent project context at the start of every session. From that point on, subsequent sessions inherited the rules and techniques in that file. The attacker did not need to repeat the jailbreak as the behavior persisted through the project configuration layer. After gaining root on a civil registry server, the model’s actions in subsequent sessions were consistent with the persistent cheatsheet, including unprompted post-exploitation steps such as shadow file extraction and timestamp cleanup.

Bissa Scanner

A second documented case, Bissa Scanner, was published in April 2026, after researchers identified an exposed operator server. Bissa is a modular mass-exploitation platform built around React2Shell (CVE-2025-55182), with 900+ confirmed compromises across millions of scanned Next.js endpoints and an archive of 30,000+ distinct .env filenames recovered from operator-controlled S3 storage. The operation has been running since September 2025. Here, AI is positioned one step back from the exploitation layer: Claude Code and OpenClaw (running claude-sonnet-4-6, with a Telegram bot for triage alerting) served as the operator’s working environment for reading the scanner codebase, troubleshooting, refining the collection pipeline, and prioritizing high-value access. No jailbreak was documented and commercial Claude was accessed through the standard API.

Bissa harvested .env files specifically for AI provider credentials (Anthropic, OpenAI, Groq, Mistral, OpenRouter, HuggingFace, Replicate, DeepSeek). AI provider credentials have become a deliberate target, valuable enough for sophisticated operators to enumerate and harvest at scale alongside conventional credential theft. These credentials are likely intended to be used in future offensive criminal activity and attribute it to the legitimate account holder instead of the attacker.

Agentic Configuration Files: A Persistent Attack Surface

The previous section demonstrates the use of agentic configuration files to override safety features in their own AI sessions. The same inheritance mechanism can be used in reverse: an attacker plants malicious agentic configuration files in a repository, and an innocent developer uses the project and becomes the next victim.

A recent CPR report documented three exploitation paths and disclosed two (now patched) CVEs. CVE-2025-59536 exploits Claude Code’s Hooks feature (hooks, .claude/settings.json), executing arbitrary commands before the developer can read them. A parallel path uses .mcp.json to trigger the MCP server startup, bypassing the consent dialog entirely. CVE-2026-21852 redirects ANTHROPIC_BASE_URL to a malicious proxy that intercepts authorization headers and potentially steals API keys, granting read/write access to the entire team Workspace before any trust prompt appears. The attack vector in all three cases is “supply chain”, a malicious settings file embedded in a pull request, honeypot repository, or compromised codebase that results in system compromise on the developer machine.

The underlying issue of using agentic configuration files as the attack surface and supply chain is not specific to Claude. The potential attack surface is architectural and may apply equally to Cursor (.cursorrules), Windsurf (.windsurfrules), and GitHub Copilot Workspace (.github/copilot-instructions.md).

AI-Powered Fraud at Scale: EvilTokens

EvilTokens represents a category of offensive tooling offered for sale: a commercial Phishing-as-a-Service (PhaaS) platform, built using AI and operating an LLM pipeline as a runtime component of the attack. A buyer with no AI knowledge can purchase access to a fully integrated pipeline in which model selection, jailbreak, and output delivery are handled at the platform level.

EvilTokens runs a multi-stage attack flow. Device-code phishing pages impersonating Adobe, DocuSign, and SharePoint harvest Microsoft OAuth tokens. The AI pipeline then activates these tools:

• Via Groq, llama-3.1-8b-instant ingests up to 5,000 emails in 250-email batches, extracting account numbers, routing numbers, wire amounts, payment deadlines, and reporting hierarchies.
• Also via Groq, llama-3.3-70b-versatile synthesizes the intelligence, generates BEC (Business Email Compromise) drafts tailored to the victim’s writing style, and assigns a BEC score.
• gpt-4o-mini translates stolen emails for non-English-speaking operators.
• The SMTP Sender delivers the output with rotating SMTP pools, header fingerprint randomization, DKIM signing, and CSS randomization.

The researchers assessed with high confidence that the platform’s backend was AI-generated.

The model choices reflect deliberate task routing: Llama 3.1 8B was used for cheap high-volume extraction, Llama 3.3 70B for reasoning-heavy synthesis and stylistic mimicry, and GPT-4o-mini was reserved for translation where it has the strongest multilingual capability and where the task itself looks innocuous to provider-side monitoring. The riskiest content generation is kept on Groq-hosted open-weight models instead of on OpenAI’s more closely monitored surface.

The jailbreak is the product. Both Groq-hosted LLaMA stages operate under a jailbreak embedded at the platform level, not applied by the operator and not visible to the customer. Stage 1 frames the model as an “authorized red team security analyst” conducting “sanctioned penetration tests”; Stage 2 upgrades to “senior red team analyst.” Prompts direct the model to reference real email threads, mask payment changes behind “plausible business reasons”, imitate sender style, and generate emails “realistic enough to fool a trained employee.” This is security bypass at SaaS scale: write the jailbreak once, ship it as a feature, and it’s inherited in every customer session.

The original EvilTokens advertising posts reveal additional features, including a Calendar Invite module which sends fake meeting invitations that appear as legitimate Outlook and Gmail meeting requests, with built-in Sender Spoofing (Organizer Identity). In a BEC context, this is used to apply timing pressure on finance personnel: a fake “urgent review meeting” appears on the target’s calendar shortly before a wire-transfer request lends the request a sense of pre-authorized context. Combined with the AI-generated email and the SMTP Sender, this completes a full BEC social engineering toolkit covered end-to-end by a single PhaaS offering.

EvilTokens’ Telegram channel announced additional AI-based features after Sekoia’s disclosure. The platform did not go offline and accelerated its AI feature development through April 2026.

The Vulnerability Race: AI on Both Sides of the Patch Window

AI-assisted vulnerability research has become a category in its own right and is now commercialized at both major frontier labs simultaneously on two tiers: a restricted research-grade capability and a productized defender tool.

At the frontier, Anthropic’s Claude Mythos, released through Project Glasswing, reportedly demonstrated a systematic, rapid mechanism to search for vulnerabilities and revealed a very large number of vulnerabilities, some long-buried zero-days in core infrastructure. These include a 27-year-old OpenBSD TCP/SACK bug found at roughly $20,000 in compute, a 16-year-old FFmpeg H.264 codec flaw, and a FreeBSD NFS remote code execution vulnerability in software that was analyzed for decades. The capability jump within a single generation is steep: on the same Firefox test set, Opus 4.6 produced 2 successful exploits and Mythos produced 181. Anthropic notes that this capability was not explicitly trained for but “emerged as a downstream consequence of general improvements in code, reasoning, and autonomy.” The productized tier is wider and more accessible: Claude Security (running on the public Opus 4.7 model) entered public beta for Enterprise customers, and OpenAI’s Codex Security, in research preview since early March, has had 14 CVEs assigned during the preview window on OpenSSH, GnuTLS, libssh, PHP, and Chromium.

The same capability curve is reaching attackers at the commodity tier, faster than defenders can patch. A researcher using a standard Claude API subscription identified CVE-2026-34197, a 13-year-old Apache ActiveMQ remote code execution vulnerability, and attributed roughly 80% of the work to Claude and the remainder to his refinement. LMDeploy SSRF (CVE-2026-33626) was exploited within 12 hours of the advisory publication, with no public proof-of-concept available. This time-frame compression is consistent with attackers building working exploits directly from advisory text. GenAI is accelerating this workflow.

Vendors are using AI to find vulnerabilities that sat undiscovered in core infrastructure for decades while attackers are using AI to find and weaponize newly-disclosed vulnerabilities within hours of publication. The patch window, the period between disclosure and exploitation, is being compressed on both sides. Vendors and customers need to adjust to a new high rate of patch development, delivery and deployment. The side that reacts the fastest will gain the most from recent AI developments.

Enterprise Adoption and Exposure

Corporate environment data collected by Check Point in March – April 2026 shows enterprise GenAI usage continuing to scale while the associated risk profile remains stable. Approximately one in every 28 prompts (3.6%) posed a high risk of sensitive data exposure, a modest increase from the January–February baseline of 3.2%, observed across 91% of organizations actively using GenAI tools (compared with 90% in the previous period). The proportion of prompts containing potentially sensitive information rose from 16% to 18%.

The average employee generated 78 prompts during March – April, up from 69, with organizations using an average of 10 GenAI tools. Interaction volume is rising while risk ratios remain stable, producing a proportional increase in absolute exposure events.

The consistency of these metrics across two reporting periods indicates a maturing adoption pattern: data exposure is not an episodic incident category but a continuous operational risk requiring sustained monitoring and policy enforcement.

Conclusion

Our findings converge on a small number of structural observations.

• AI now operates as an attack component, not just as a development aid. The Mexican breach illustrates this at government-breach scale, and Bissa at mass-exploitation scale. The same commercial Claude Code architecture appears independently across criminal operations with different motivations and geographies, and in state-sponsored espionage. The convergence is operational consensus, not coincidence.
• The techniques aren’t new but the performance envelope is. Network scanning, credential spraying, lateral movement, BEC drafting, and vulnerability research all predate AI. What’s changed is the speed (working exploits generated from advisory text alone within 12 hours of disclosure), scale (one operator reaching the operational footprint of an advanced team), and breadth of knowledge (cross-domain expertise on demand lowers the entry requirement for sophisticated multi-vector campaigns). Defences calibrated to human attack tempo and human team throughput are not equipped for the AI equivalents.
• The AI attribution gap is structural. All the operations we documented in this report were discovered through attacker OPSEC failures or LLM provider monitoring, not through victim-side controls. AI-executed commands resemble skilled human activity closely enough to evade current behavioral controls. Operations that do not fail at OPSEC, or that route through stolen credentials or self-hosted models, remain unclassified.

The post AI Threat Landscape Digest March-April 2026 appeared first on Check Point Research.

Key Takeaways

• Sensitive data shared with ChatGPT conversations could be silently exfiltrated without the user’s knowledge or approval.
• Check Point Research discovered a hidden outbound communication path from ChatGPT’s isolated execution runtime to the public internet.
• A single malicious prompt could turn an otherwise ordinary conversation into a covert exfiltration channel, leaking user messages, uploaded files, and other sensitive content.
• A backdoored GPT could abuse the same weakness to obtain access to user data without the user’s awareness or consent.
• The same hidden communication path could also be used to establish remote shell access inside the Linux runtime used for code execution.

What Happened

AI assistants now handle some of the most sensitive data people own. Users discuss symptoms and medical history. They ask questions about taxes, debts, and personal finances, upload PDFs, contracts, lab results, and identity-rich documents that contain names, addresses, account details, and private records. That trust depends on a simple expectation: data shared in the conversation remains inside the system.

ChatGPT itself presents outbound data sharing as something restricted, visible, and controlled. Potentially sensitive data is not supposed to be sent to arbitrary third parties simply because a prompt requests it. External actions are expected to be mediated through explicit safeguards, and direct outbound access from the code-execution environment is restricted.

Our research uncovered a path around that model.

We found that a single malicious prompt could activate a hidden exfiltration channel inside a regular ChatGPT conversation.

The Intended Safeguards

ChatGPT includes useful tools that can retrieve information from the internet and execute Python code. At the same time, OpenAI has built safeguards around those capabilities to protect user data. For example, the web-search capability does not allow sensitive chat content to be transmitted outward through crafted query strings. The Python-based Data Analysis environment was designed to prevent internet access as well. OpenAI describes that environment as a secure code execution runtime that cannot generate direct outbound network requests.

OpenAI also documents that so called GPTs can send relevant parts of a user’s input to external services through APIs. A GPT is a customized version of ChatGPT that can be configured with instructions, knowledge files, and external integrations. GPT “Actions” provide a legitimate way to call third-party APIs and exchange data with outside services. Actions are useful for enterprise workflows, access to internal business systems, customer support operations, and other integrations that connect ChatGPT to external services, including simpler use cases such as travel or weather lookups. The key point is visibility: the user sees that data is about to leave ChatGPT, sees where it is going, and decides whether to allow it.

In other words, legitimate outbound data flows are designed to happen through an explicit, user-facing approval process.

From One Message to Silent Exfiltration

From a security perspective, the obvious attack surfaces looked strong. The ability to send chat data through tools not designed for that purpose was strictly limited. Sending data through a legitimate GPT integration using external API calls also required explicit user confirmation.

The vulnerability we discovered allowed information to be transmitted to an external server through a side channel originating from the container used by ChatGPT for code execution and data analysis. Crucially, because the model operated under the assumption that this environment could not send data outward directly, it did not recognize that behavior as an external data transfer requiring resistance or user mediation. As a result, the leakage did not trigger warnings about data leaving the conversation, did not require explicit user confirmation, and remained largely invisible from the user’s perspective.

At a high level, the attack began when the victim sent a single malicious prompt into a ChatGPT conversation. From that moment on, each new message in the chat became a potential source of leakage. The scope of that leakage depended on how the prompt framed the task for the model: it could include raw user text, text extracted from uploaded files, or selected model-generated output such as summaries, medical assessments, conclusions, and other condensed intelligence. This made the attack flexible, because it allowed the attacker to target not only original user data, but also the most valuable information produced by the model itself.

That attack pattern fits naturally into ordinary user behavior. The internet is full of websites, blog posts, forums, and social media threads promoting “top prompts for productivity,” “best prompts for work,” and other ready-made instructions that supposedly improve ChatGPT’s performance. For many users, copying and pasting such prompts into a new conversation is routine and does not appear risky, because the prevailing expectation is that AI assistants will not silently leak conversation data to external parties, and that this boundary cannot be changed through an ordinary prompt. A malicious prompt distributed in that format could therefore be presented as a harmless productivity aid and interpreted as just another useful trick for getting better results from the assistant.

A broader campaign could use an even more convincing lure: prompts advertised as a way to unlock premium capabilities for free. Claims about enabling Pro-level behavior, hidden modes, or advanced features on a lower-tier account would give the attacker a natural pretext for including unusual instructions, long text blocks, or opaque fragments that might otherwise seem suspicious. Because the user already expects a nonstandard sequence, those elements can easily be perceived as part of the promised “hack.” A carefully crafted prompt could then create the appearance of enhanced functionality while quietly turning the conversation into a source of exfiltrated data.

Once the malicious prompt was placed into the chat, the conversation effectively became a covert collection channel. From that point on, summaries of subsequent user messages could be silently transmitted to an attacker-controlled server. As shown in Video 1, this took place without any warning, approval request, or other visible indication of external data transfer.

Malicious GPTs

The same attack pattern becomes even more dangerous when embedded inside a custom GPT.

GPTs allow developers to package instructions, knowledge files, and external integrations into a reusable assistant that other users can interact with. From the user’s perspective, the interaction looks like a normal ChatGPT conversation with a specialized tool.

In that scenario, the attacker no longer needs to rely on the victim copying a prompt from an external source. The malicious logic can be embedded directly in the GPT’s instructions and files. A user only needs to open the GPT and begin interacting with it as intended.

This changes the threat model significantly. Officially, GPT builders do not have access to individual user conversations with their GPTs. However, a GPT designed to exploit the vulnerability could still cause selected information from those conversations to be transmitted to an attacker-controlled server. From the user’s perspective, the interaction would remain indistinguishable from an ordinary session with a specialized assistant.

To demonstrate the practical impact of the vulnerability, we built a proof of concept around a sensitive scenario: a GPT acting as a personal doctor.

In the demonstration, the user uploaded a PDF containing laboratory test results. The document also contained personal information, including the patient’s name. The user then described symptoms and asked the GPT to help interpret the results.

From the user’s perspective, the interaction looked completely ordinary. The GPT analyzed the document and produced a medical assessment based on the provided information.

When asked directly whether the uploaded data had been sent anywhere, ChatGPT answered confidently that it had not, explaining that the file was only stored in a secure internal location. At the same time, the user saw no approval prompts or warnings about external data transfer, unlike the confirmation dialogs that normally appear when a GPT Action sends information to a third-party service.

Meanwhile, the attacker’s server received highly sensitive data extracted from the conversation: the patient’s identity taken from the uploaded document together with the model’s medical assessment.

This illustrates an important aspect of the attack. The attacker does not necessarily need to steal entire documents. Instead, the prompt could instruct the model to transmit the most valuable information it produces. In the medical scenario, that meant the patient’s identifying details together with the model’s assessment. In other contexts, it could mean financial conclusions, contract summaries, or strategic insights extracted from long documents.

From Data Exfiltration to Remote Shell

The same communication channel could be used for more than silent data exfiltration.

Once a reliable bidirectional channel existed between the execution runtime and the attacker-controlled server, it became possible to send commands into the container and receive the results back through the same path. In effect, the attacker could establish a remote shell inside the Linux environment that ChatGPT creates to perform code execution and data analysis tasks.

This interaction happened outside the normal ChatGPT response flow. When users interact with the assistant through the chat interface, generated actions and outputs remain subject to the model’s safety mechanisms and checks. However, commands executed through the side channel bypassed that mediation entirely. The results were returned directly to the attacker’s server without appearing in the conversation or being filtered by the model.

DNS Tunneling in an AI Runtime

The side channel that enabled both data exfiltration and remote command execution relied on DNS resolution.

Normally, DNS is used to resolve domain names into IP addresses. From a security perspective, however, DNS can also function as a data transport channel. Instead of using DNS only for ordinary name resolution, an attacker can encode data into subdomain labels and trigger resolution of those hostnames. Because DNS resolution propagates the requested hostname through the normal recursive lookup process, the resolver chain can carry that encoded data outward.

In our case, this mattered because the ChatGPT execution runtime did not permit conventional outbound internet access, but DNS resolution was still available as part of the environment’s normal operation. Standard attempts to reach external hosts directly were blocked. DNS, however, still provided a narrow communication path that crossed the isolation boundary indirectly through legitimate resolver infrastructure.

To exfiltrate data, content could be encoded into DNS-safe fragments, placed into subdomains, and reconstructed on the attacker’s side from the incoming queries. To send instructions back, the attacker could encode small command fragments into DNS responses and let them travel back through the same resolution path. A process running inside the container could then read those responses, reassemble the payload, and continue the exchange.

This effectively turned DNS infrastructure into a tunnel between the isolated runtime and an attacker-controlled server. The tunnel create in this way is sufficient for two practical goals: silently leaking selected data from the conversation and maintaining command execution inside the Linux environment created for code execution and data analysis.

Conclusion

Check Point Research reported the issue to OpenAI. OpenAI confirmed that it had already identified the underlying problem internally, and the fix was fully deployed on February 20, 2026.

The broader lesson, however, goes beyond this specific case. AI systems are evolving at an extraordinary pace. New capabilities are constantly being introduced, enabling assistants to solve complex mathematical problems, analyze large datasets, generate and execute scripts, and automate multi-step tasks that previously required dedicated development environments. These capabilities bring enormous benefits. At the same time, every new tool expands the system’s attack surface and can introduce new security challenges for both users and platform providers.

Modern AI assistants increasingly operate as real execution environments. They read files, run code, search in the web while processing highly sensitive information such as medical records, financial data, legal documents, and other personal or organizational data. Protecting these environments requires careful control over every possible outbound communication path, including infrastructure layers that users never see.

As AI tools become more powerful and widely used, security must remain a central consideration. These systems offer enormous benefits, but adopting them safely requires careful attention to every layer of the platform.

The post ChatGPT Data Leakage via a Hidden Outbound Channel in the Code Execution Runtime appeared first on Check Point Research.

KEY FINDINGS

AI-assisted malware development has reached operational maturity.
VoidLink framework, which is modular, professionally engineered, and fully functional, was built by a single developer using a commercial AI-powered IDE within a compressed timeframe. AI-assisted development is no longer experimental but produces deployment ready output.

AI-assisted development is not always obvious from the final product.
VoidLink was initially assessed as the work of a coordinated team based on its architecture and implementation quality. The development method was exposed not from analyzing the malware but through an operational security failure. AI-assisted development should be considered a possibility from the outset, not as an afterthought.

Adoption of self-hosted, open-source AI models is growing but still limited in practice.
Actors of varying skill levels are investing in self-hosted and unrestricted models to avoid commercial platform restrictions. However, underground discussions consistently reveal a gap between aspiration and capability: local models still underperform, finetuning remains aspirational, and commercial models remain the productive choice even for actors with explicit malicious intent.

Jailbreaking is shifting from direct prompt engineering toward agenticarchitecture abuse.
Traditional copy-paste jailbreaks are increasingly ineffective. The misuse of AI agent configuration mechanisms, specifically project files that redefine agent behavior, is a more significant development as it represents a qualitative shift from manipulating a
model’s responses to abusing its operational architecture.

AI is showing early signs of deployment as a real-time operational component. Beyond its use as a development aid, AI is beginning to appear as a live element in offensive workflows as autonomous agents performing security research tasks, and
LLMs classifying and engaging targets at scale within automated pipelines.

Enterprise AI adoption is itself an expanding attack surface.
GenAI activity across enterprise networks shows that one in every 31 prompts risked sensitive data leakage, impacting 90% of GenAI-adopting organizations.

INTRODUCTION

During January-February 2026, cyber crime ecosystems continue to adopt AI in a widespread but uneven pattern. Throughout 2025, legitimate software development began shifting from promptbased AI assistance to agent-based development. Tools such as Cursor, GitHub Copilot, Claude Code, and TRAE introduced a common paradigm: developers write structured specifications in markdown files, and AI agents autonomously implement, test, and iterate code based on those instructions. This agentic model, in which markdown is the operative control layer, is now starting to appear across the threat landscape.

The critical differentiator in what we observed is AI methodology combined with domain expertise. Across cyber crime forums, the dominant pattern of AI use remains unstructured prompting: actors request malware or exploit code from AI models as if entering a query in a search engine. VoidLink (detailed below) on the other hand, is the first documented case of AI producing truly advanced, deploymentready malware. The developer combined deep security knowledge with a disciplined, spec-driven
workflow to produce results indistinguishable from professional team-based engineering. Forum activity, which constitutes the bulk of observable evidence, primarily consists of actors who have not yet adopted structured AI workflows and whose efforts remain relatively unsophisticated. The more capable actors, those who combine domain expertise with disciplined AI methodology, leave far fewer traces in open forums, making the true scope of this shift harder to measure.

VOIDLINK: THE STANDARD WE MEASURE AGAINST

In January 2026, Check Point Research (CPR) exposed VoidLink, a Linux-based malware framework featuring modular command-and-control (C2) architecture, eBPF and LKM rootkits, cloud and container enumeration, and more than 30 post-exploitation plugins. The framework is highly sophisticated and professionally engineered, so much so that the initial assessment was that VoidLink was likely the product of a coordinated, multi-person development effort conducted over months of intensive development.

Operational security (OPSEC) failures by the developer later exposed internal development artifacts that told a different story. These materials revealed that VoidLink was authored by a single developer using TRAE SOLO, the paid tier of ByteDance’s commercial AI-powered IDE. Instead of unstructured prompting, the developer used Spec Driven Development (SDD), a disciplined engineering workflow, to first define the project goals and constraints, and then use an AI agent to generate a comprehensive architecture and development plan across three virtual teams (Core, Arsenal, and Backend). The resulting plan included sprint schedules, feature breakdowns, coding standards, and acceptance criteria, all documented as structured markdown files. The AI agent implemented the framework sprint by sprint, with each sprint producing working, testable code. The developer acted as product owner, directing, reviewing, and refining, while the AI agent did the actual work.

The results were striking. The recovered source code aligned so closely with the specification documents that it left little doubt that the codebase was written to those exact instructions. What normally would have been a 30-week engineering effort across three teams was executed in under a week, producing over 88,000 lines of functional code. VoidLink reached its first functional implant around December 4, 2025, one week after development began.

THIS CASE ESTABLISHES TWO PRINCIPLES:

• AI-assisted development now produces operationally viable, deployment-ready malware: it has crossed the threshold from experimental to functional.
• The AI involvement was invisible until it was exposed by an unrelated OPSEC failure. For analysts and defenders, this means AI involvement in malware development should be treated as a default working assumption, even when there are no visible indicators

The ramifications of VoidLink’s methodology go beyond this individual case. Its workflow, in which structured markdown specifications direct an AI agent to autonomously implement, test, and iterate, is the same paradigm that defined the agentic AI revolution in legitimate software development throughout 2025. The cyber crime ecosystem is not developing its own AI capability. It is adopting the same tools and architectural patterns as legitimate technology, with the additional goal of trying to overcome the protective limitations built into these systems. This is more important than which model or platform the attackers use.

The same architectural pattern repeatedly appears across the cases highlighted in our report: markdown skill files that transform a coding agent into an autonomous offensive security operator, and configuration files abused to override agent safety controls. In each case, the operative control layer is not code but structured documentation that determines what the AI agents build, how they behave, and what constraints they observe or ignore. This is in direct contrast to the underground forum activity, where the dominant approach remains unstructured prompting.

MODELS: COMMERCIAL, SELF-HOSTED, AND INFORMAL SERVICES

SELF-HOSTED OPEN-SOURCE MODELS

Across cyber crime forums, actors at all skill levels are actively exploring self-hosted, open-source AI models as alternatives to commercial platforms. Their motivations are consistent: to avoid moderation, prevent account bans, and maintain operational privacy.

Users with malware and hacking backgrounds are installing uncensored model variants such as wizardlm-33b-v1.0-uncensored and openhermes-2.5-mistral, and prompt them with comprehensive malicious wishlists spanning ransomware, keyloggers, phishing kits, and exploit code.

More established actors are conducting structured cost-benefit analyses, evaluating not only hardware requirements and GPU costs but whether locally hosted models produce reliable output (or hallucinate to the point of being operationally useless), and whether AI-generated malware meets the quality bar of current evasion techniques.

SELF-HOSTED MODELS: LIMITATIONS IN PRACTICE

Self-hosted models consistently show a gap between aspiration and capability. Community advice on improving local model output focuses on basic optimizations, such as switching to English-language prompts and increasing quantization levels, while references to more advanced techniques such as LoRA fine-tuning remain aspirational rather than operational.

Cost estimates range from $5,000 to $50,000 depending on the desired performance, with training timelines of 3–12 months and frank admissions that models “hallucinate a lot” without extensive investment.

Most tellingly, an active offensive tools vendor, advertising C2 setups, EDR bypass services, and red team tooling, concluded that local deployment is currently “more of a burden than something productive,” while acknowledging that commercial models remain useful despite increasing restrictions.

COMMERCIAL PLATFORMS AND INFORMAL ACCESS SHARING

Rather than migrating to self-hosted infrastructure, users are comparing what the prevailing workarounds among commercial models provide. Participants recommended specific providers they view as less restrictive, shared experiences with account enforcement on multiple platforms, and refined prompt-splitting techniques to incrementally bypass safeguards, such as requesting explanations before progressing toward executable code.

Some early signs of informal access sharing have been observed, with operators of local models offering to generate restricted outputs for others on request. However, given the historical precedent of “dark LLM” services that largely failed to deliver on their promises, it remains to be seen whether these will develop into durable service models.

JAILBREAKING AS ARCHITECTURAL ABUSE

Traditional jailbreaking, the practice of circulating copy‑paste prompts designed to trick models into producing restricted output, is becoming increasingly difficult to utilize. In some forum discussions, users seeking Claude jailbreaks were told that easy public prompts are no longer available, platforms have been cracking down on abusers, dedicated subreddits have been banned, and developing new jailbreaks is costly because the accounts are eventually terminated. Single‑prompt jailbreaking is becoming less attractive as model providers invest in safety enforcement.

ABUSING AGENT ARCHITECTURE

A more significant development is the emergence of jailbreaking techniques that target the architecture of AI agent systems rather than the model’s conversational safeguards. A packaged “Claude Code Jailbreak” distributed on forums illustrates this shift.

Claude Code is designed to read a CLAUDE.md file from a project’s root directory as configuration. Legitimate developers use this mechanism to define the project context, coding standards, and agent behavior. The jailbreak abuses this by placing override instructions in the CLAUDE.md file that suppresses safety controls and redefines the agent’s role. When Claude Code initializes in the directory, it reads these instructions as authoritative project configuration and follows them. The screenshots below claim successful generation of a RAT (Remote Access Trojan) using this method.

This is not prompt injection in the traditional sense, but manipulation of the agent’s instruction hierarchy, the same architecture used for agentic AI tools in legitimate development. The CLAUDE. md file occupies the same functional role as VoidLink’s markdown specification files or RAPTOR’s skill definitions: a structured document that determines what the agent does, how it behaves, and what constraints it observes.

FROM DEVELOPMENT TOOL TO OPERATIONAL AGENT

The preceding sections document AI as a development aid (as seen by VoidLink), a resource actors struggle to access on their own terms (self-hosted models), and as a system whose restrictions they attempt to bypass (jailbreaking). Now let’s look at AI deployed as a real-time operational component, performing offensive tasks autonomously within live workflows.

RAPTOR: AGENT-BASED OFFENSIVE ARCHITECTURE VIA MARKDOWN SKILLS

RAPTOR’s own data provides an additional data point on the commercial versus self-hosted question we discussed earlier. An evaluation of exploit generation across multiple model providers found that commercial frontier models (Anthropic Claude, OpenAI GPT-4, and Google Gemini) consistently produce compilable C code at approximately $0.03 per vulnerability, while locally hosted models via Ollama were marked as “often broken” and unreliable for exploit generation. This reinforces the conclusion reached independently by experienced actors in underground forums: commercial models remain significantly more capable than self-hosted alternatives for operational tasks.

Discussions on criminal forums indicate that threat actors are aware of this architecture. The combination of a proven architectural pattern, open source availability, and documented criminal interest suggests that similar configurations, whether directly based on RAPTOR or just replicating its approach, are likely being developed and tested privately.

AI AS ATTACK SURFACE: ENTERPRISE EXPOSURE

The preceding sections document how threat actors engage with AI as an offensive tool. But the same wave of AI adoption is simultaneously creating exposure from the defensive side. As enterprises integrate generative AI into daily workflows, the volume of sensitive data flowing through these tools introduces a distinct category of risk: instead of AI weaponized against organizations, AI is adopted by organizations in ways that outpace security controls.

In January – February 2026, corporate use of generative AI tools continued to expand at scale. Analysis of GenAI activity across enterprise networks shows that one in every 31 prompts (approximately 3.2%) posed a high risk of sensitive data leakage, including the potential sharing of confidential business information, regulated data, source code, or other sensitive corporate content with external GenAI services.

Critically, this risk is broadly distributed across the enterprise landscape rather than limited to a small number of outliers. High-risk prompt activity impacted 90% of organizations that use GenAI tools on a regular basis, indicating that nearly all GenAI-adopting enterprises encounter meaningful data leakage risk through everyday AI usage. Beyond these clearly high-risk events,16% of prompts contained potentially sensitive information, reflecting a wider pattern of questionable data-handling behavior that can still translate into compliance exposure or IP loss.

Adoption trends further amplify the challenge. Over the last couple of months, organizations used 10 different GenAI tools on average, reflecting multi-tool environments. At the user level, an average employee generated 69 GenAI prompts per month. As prompt volume grows, the possibility of data exposure events scales accordingly, reinforcing the need for security policies, visibility, and real-time prevention controls.

The post AI Threat Landscape Digest January-February 2026 appeared first on Check Point Research.