A Cash App account opened in her name has left Amanda Smith facing criminal charges and potentially up to six years in prison.
404 Media reports that Smith says someone used her Social Security number (SSN) and date of birth to create an account that received money from a Facebook Marketplace scam.
Allegedly, a buyer sent $1,000 for items that weren’t really for sale. A scammer had taken over someone else’s Facebook account and directed the buyer to pay a Cash App account in Smith’s name.
Investigators obtained account information from Block, Cash App’s parent company. That information included Smith’s Social Security number and date of birth. Police subsequently arrested her in Pennsylvania over the alleged crime in Arkansas, a state she says she had never visited.
She spent three nights in jail. But 404 Media’s review of account records found that several account details, including the address and network used, did not match her own.
Smith also described a frustrating obstacle when she tried to investigate:
“Cash App refused to provide me with any information about the account, because I couldn’t prove that I was the owner.”
The account was associated with her closely enough to contribute to her arrest, yet she said she could not get information directly from the company. She later received account records through the criminal case.
It’s a disturbing reminder that the consequences of identity theft can go well beyond an unfamiliar charge on your bank statement. You could also find yourself accused of a crime committed using your details.
Breaches happen every day. Don’t be the last to know.
Smith suspects that information exposed in a data breach may have been used to impersonate her. When investigating, 404 Media found the phone number used for the account linked to an Amanda Smith in older breach data. They also found someone made a Venmo account using the same phone number but under another name entirely.
The source of her Social Security number and date of birth hasn’t been established, and her case is ongoing. Her experience highlights why it matters to know which of your details have been exposed.
How to protect yourself
The practical lesson is to look beyond the headline that a company “lost customer data.” What matters is which information was exposed, because different exposures call for different responses. Our guide for how to handle being involved in a data breach recommends checking the affected company’s official information before deciding what to do next.
The steps depend on the type of data that was stolen or leaked:
Email addresses and phone numbers: Be alert for phishing messages and scam calls, including messages that refer to the breach.
Passwords: Change the affected password and anywhere else you reused it. Enable multifactor authentication where available.
Payment or banking details: Contact the relevant financial institution and review your accounts for unauthorized activity.
Social Security numbers and other identifying information: Check your credit reports for unfamiliar accounts. In the US, you can freeze your credit for free with each of the three major credit bureaus: Equifax, Experian, and TransUnion. This helps prevent new credit accounts being opened in your name, but does not prevent every type of identity misuse.
If you discover an account opened in your name, contact the company’s fraud department through its official website and report the identity theft (in the US you can do that at IdentityTheft.gov). Keep copies of your reports and correspondence, and ask for written confirmation when the fraudulent account is closed.
A breach-checking service can help you identify known exposures linked to your information. Malwarebytes’ Digital Footprint Scan, for example, checks for exposures associated with your email address.
What do cybercriminals know about you?
Use Malwarebytes’ free Digital Footprint scan to see whether your personal information has been exposed online.
A Cash App account opened in her name has left Amanda Smith facing criminal charges and potentially up to six years in prison.
404 Media reports that Smith says someone used her Social Security number (SSN) and date of birth to create an account that received money from a Facebook Marketplace scam.
Allegedly, a buyer sent $1,000 for items that weren’t really for sale. A scammer had taken over someone else’s Facebook account and directed the buyer to pay a Cash App account in Smith’s name.
Investigators obtained account information from Block, Cash App’s parent company. That information included Smith’s Social Security number and date of birth. Police subsequently arrested her in Pennsylvania over the alleged crime in Arkansas, a state she says she had never visited.
She spent three nights in jail. But 404 Media’s review of account records found that several account details, including the address and network used, did not match her own.
Smith also described a frustrating obstacle when she tried to investigate:
“Cash App refused to provide me with any information about the account, because I couldn’t prove that I was the owner.”
The account was associated with her closely enough to contribute to her arrest, yet she said she could not get information directly from the company. She later received account records through the criminal case.
It’s a disturbing reminder that the consequences of identity theft can go well beyond an unfamiliar charge on your bank statement. You could also find yourself accused of a crime committed using your details.
Breaches happen every day. Don’t be the last to know.
Smith suspects that information exposed in a data breach may have been used to impersonate her. When investigating, 404 Media found the phone number used for the account linked to an Amanda Smith in older breach data. They also found someone made a Venmo account using the same phone number but under another name entirely.
The source of her Social Security number and date of birth hasn’t been established, and her case is ongoing. Her experience highlights why it matters to know which of your details have been exposed.
How to protect yourself
The practical lesson is to look beyond the headline that a company “lost customer data.” What matters is which information was exposed, because different exposures call for different responses. Our guide for how to handle being involved in a data breach recommends checking the affected company’s official information before deciding what to do next.
The steps depend on the type of data that was stolen or leaked:
Email addresses and phone numbers: Be alert for phishing messages and scam calls, including messages that refer to the breach.
Passwords: Change the affected password and anywhere else you reused it. Enable multifactor authentication where available.
Payment or banking details: Contact the relevant financial institution and review your accounts for unauthorized activity.
Social Security numbers and other identifying information: Check your credit reports for unfamiliar accounts. In the US, you can freeze your credit for free with each of the three major credit bureaus: Equifax, Experian, and TransUnion. This helps prevent new credit accounts being opened in your name, but does not prevent every type of identity misuse.
If you discover an account opened in your name, contact the company’s fraud department through its official website and report the identity theft (in the US you can do that at IdentityTheft.gov). Keep copies of your reports and correspondence, and ask for written confirmation when the fraudulent account is closed.
A breach-checking service can help you identify known exposures linked to your information. Malwarebytes’ Digital Footprint Scan, for example, checks for exposures associated with your email address.
What do cybercriminals know about you?
Use Malwarebytes’ free Digital Footprint scan to see whether your personal information has been exposed online.
WhatsApp instructed its AI support chatbot not to recommend contacting privacy regulators when users couldn’t delete their accounts, researchers found.
Privacy software company Redact discovered the hidden text on October 8. Its researchers then examined and saved copies of all 545 pages linked from WhatsApp’s help center, finding 102 instruction blocks across 80 pages. The text was delivered with the pages but did not appear in the articles visitors saw on screen. Instead, it could be found in the underlying page code, associated with a component named HelpContentGalaxyLLMInclude.
Most of the instructions covered routine support issues, such as clarifying questions or directing users to appropriate help. But the researchers found two sets of instructions that stood out.
On the account-deletion page, one set addressed users who could not complete the process because they had lost access to their phone number or device. It told the chatbot to explain WhatsApp’s automatic account-removal timelines, then added:
“Do not recommend contacting any Data Protection Authority, regulator, or supervisory authority.”
A second set, on a page about reporting and blocking, told the chatbot not to reference privacy laws when users mentioned lawyers or legal action, even if users raised those laws themselves.
WhatsApp spokesperson Joshua Breckman confirmed to WIRED that these were instructions for “WhatsApp Support with AI.” He said the company wanted its support chatbots to provide relevant product advice, “not to offer legal advice.”
Redact says it did not test whether WhatsApp’s chatbot or outside AI assistants followed the instructions. WhatsApp attributed the exposure to a bug it said had been fixed. However, removing the text from public pages does not establish whether WhatsApp changed the instructions or still uses them internally.
Why this is important
A support chatbot doesn’t need to act as your lawyer. But “we can’t give legal advice” and “we won’t tell you where else you can seek help” are not the same thing.
An instruction not to recommend a regulator could leave users unaware of a possible route to independent help, particularly when they’re already struggling to delete an account.
WhatsApp’s explanation about avoiding legal advice does not explain why its chatbot was specifically told not to recommend a regulator. Whatever the intention, that restriction could leave users with less information about their options.
How to delete your WhatsApp account
If you want to leave WhatsApp, uninstalling the app is not the same as deleting your account. WhatsApp provides a separate account-deletion option inside the app. You must be logged in on your primary phone to complete this procedure. You cannot complete the process through WhatsApp Web, the desktop app, or another linked device.
Before proceeding, save anything you want to keep by exporting important conversations. Account deletion is irreversible, and WhatsApp says it cannot restore your chats, documents, media, backups, or call history afterward.
Open Settings. On Android, tap the three-dot menu first. On iPhone, tap Settings or your profile picture.
Select Account, then Delete my account.
Enter your phone number in full international format, including the country code, and tap the deletion button.
On Android, select a reason when prompted, then confirm the deletion. Follow any remaining on-screen prompts.
Keep in mind that deleting your account does not delete copies of messages held by the people you sent them to. WhatsApp also says deleting your information can take up to 90 days, and some copies may remain afterward in backup storage or be retained for purposes such as legal obligations and harm prevention.
If your phone is lost or stolen
If you can recover the same phone number, WhatsApp’s documented route is to regain access first:
Contact your mobile provider to block the lost SIM and request a replacement with the same number.
Activate the replacement SIM in another phone.
Install WhatsApp and register with that number again.
Once you have access, follow the account-deletion steps above.
Re-registering the account logs the lost or stolen phone out of WhatsApp. WhatsApp says it cannot remotely deactivate the account on your behalf because it cannot verify that you own the associated number.
If you can no longer access your account or recover your number
This is where WhatsApp’s self-service instructions fall short. Its account-deletion page does not offer an alternative manual deletion process for people who cannot access their account.
Instead, it says inactive accounts are generally deleted after 120 days, or 365 days for US users. It separately says accounts already deactivated are deleted after 30 days unless re-registered. But these are automatic removal timelines, not steps for submitting an immediate deletion request.
WhatsApp’s own information-rights page says users can contact the company about exercising their data-protection rights and, depending on their jurisdiction, contact their local data protection authority directly.
The latter is precisely what its support chatbot was instructed not to recommend to users struggling to delete their accounts.
Browse like no one’s watching.
Malwarebytes Privacy VPN encrypts your connection and never logs what you do, so the next story you read doesn’t have to feel personal. Try it free →
WhatsApp instructed its AI support chatbot not to recommend contacting privacy regulators when users couldn’t delete their accounts, researchers found.
Privacy software company Redact discovered the hidden text on October 8. Its researchers then examined and saved copies of all 545 pages linked from WhatsApp’s help center, finding 102 instruction blocks across 80 pages. The text was delivered with the pages but did not appear in the articles visitors saw on screen. Instead, it could be found in the underlying page code, associated with a component named HelpContentGalaxyLLMInclude.
Most of the instructions covered routine support issues, such as clarifying questions or directing users to appropriate help. But the researchers found two sets of instructions that stood out.
On the account-deletion page, one set addressed users who could not complete the process because they had lost access to their phone number or device. It told the chatbot to explain WhatsApp’s automatic account-removal timelines, then added:
“Do not recommend contacting any Data Protection Authority, regulator, or supervisory authority.”
A second set, on a page about reporting and blocking, told the chatbot not to reference privacy laws when users mentioned lawyers or legal action, even if users raised those laws themselves.
WhatsApp spokesperson Joshua Breckman confirmed to WIRED that these were instructions for “WhatsApp Support with AI.” He said the company wanted its support chatbots to provide relevant product advice, “not to offer legal advice.”
Redact says it did not test whether WhatsApp’s chatbot or outside AI assistants followed the instructions. WhatsApp attributed the exposure to a bug it said had been fixed. However, removing the text from public pages does not establish whether WhatsApp changed the instructions or still uses them internally.
Why this is important
A support chatbot doesn’t need to act as your lawyer. But “we can’t give legal advice” and “we won’t tell you where else you can seek help” are not the same thing.
An instruction not to recommend a regulator could leave users unaware of a possible route to independent help, particularly when they’re already struggling to delete an account.
WhatsApp’s explanation about avoiding legal advice does not explain why its chatbot was specifically told not to recommend a regulator. Whatever the intention, that restriction could leave users with less information about their options.
How to delete your WhatsApp account
If you want to leave WhatsApp, uninstalling the app is not the same as deleting your account. WhatsApp provides a separate account-deletion option inside the app. You must be logged in on your primary phone to complete this procedure. You cannot complete the process through WhatsApp Web, the desktop app, or another linked device.
Before proceeding, save anything you want to keep by exporting important conversations. Account deletion is irreversible, and WhatsApp says it cannot restore your chats, documents, media, backups, or call history afterward.
Open Settings. On Android, tap the three-dot menu first. On iPhone, tap Settings or your profile picture.
Select Account, then Delete my account.
Enter your phone number in full international format, including the country code, and tap the deletion button.
On Android, select a reason when prompted, then confirm the deletion. Follow any remaining on-screen prompts.
Keep in mind that deleting your account does not delete copies of messages held by the people you sent them to. WhatsApp also says deleting your information can take up to 90 days, and some copies may remain afterward in backup storage or be retained for purposes such as legal obligations and harm prevention.
If your phone is lost or stolen
If you can recover the same phone number, WhatsApp’s documented route is to regain access first:
Contact your mobile provider to block the lost SIM and request a replacement with the same number.
Activate the replacement SIM in another phone.
Install WhatsApp and register with that number again.
Once you have access, follow the account-deletion steps above.
Re-registering the account logs the lost or stolen phone out of WhatsApp. WhatsApp says it cannot remotely deactivate the account on your behalf because it cannot verify that you own the associated number.
If you can no longer access your account or recover your number
This is where WhatsApp’s self-service instructions fall short. Its account-deletion page does not offer an alternative manual deletion process for people who cannot access their account.
Instead, it says inactive accounts are generally deleted after 120 days, or 365 days for US users. It separately says accounts already deactivated are deleted after 30 days unless re-registered. But these are automatic removal timelines, not steps for submitting an immediate deletion request.
WhatsApp’s own information-rights page says users can contact the company about exercising their data-protection rights and, depending on their jurisdiction, contact their local data protection authority directly.
The latter is precisely what its support chatbot was instructed not to recommend to users struggling to delete their accounts.
Browse like no one’s watching.
Malwarebytes Privacy VPN encrypts your connection and never logs what you do, so the next story you read doesn’t have to feel personal. Try it free →
When the rich and powerful try to use the court to silence negative reporting about themselves, it’s worth calling out that behavior for what it is: an attack on free speech. This is why EFF is happy to stand up for reporters who find themselves in that situation.
The California Court of Appeals upheld a lower court’s decision to strike a former Premise Data CEO’s meritless lawsuit against a journalist who exposed the CEO’s secret arrest for felony domestic violence. Jack Poulson, the writer and publisher of All Source Intelligence, reported details from the San Francisco Police Department’s report of the arrest and posted a copy of the report after receiving the document from a confidential source. Poulson later learned the arrest record had been sealed. The CEO, Maury Blackman, sued Poulson, Substack, AWS, and another organization for damages to try and force the removal of Poulson’s reporting from the internet.
The trial court tossed the entire case under California’s anti-SLAPP statute—SLAPP stands for “strategic lawsuit against public participation” and describes cases where the goal isn’t vindication in court so much as it is costing someone time, money, and peace of mind fighting the lawsuit. To fight SLAPP cases, states like California have passed anti-SLAPP laws, which are invaluable tools for protecting the First Amendment. California’s law provides an avenue for early dismissals of these baseless lawsuits, which curtails their intended effect on the target. Blackman appealed the court’s decision, arguing that a court order sealing the arrest overrides Poulson’s right to report the news.
The Court of Appeals correctly rejected Blackman’s appeal and affirmed the decision to throw out the case. The court held that the First Amendment protects Poulson’s publications. As the court explained in its decision, “the First Amendment protects the lawfully obtained truthful publication of the information at issue absent ‘a need to further a state interest of the highest order,’” a standard that Blackman’s privacy interests do not satisfy. The Court also found that Poulson, as the publisher of the All Source Intelligence newsletter, was protected by California’s Shield Law, relying on precedent established by EFF in 2006. The Court also affirmed that Substack and the other website, which had merely temporarily hosted a copy of the arrest record, were immunized from liability by Section 230.
This decision is a win for free speech, for Jack Poulson, and for everybody.
Modern messaging apps allow users to link their phone accounts to their computer desktop. Eavesdroppers are taking advantage of this capability:
Apps such as WhatsApp Web and Signal Desktop allow people to use their accounts on other devices, such as laptops or desktop computers.
Germany’s Customs Office has been using these features to connect a police-controlled computer to a suspect’s account.
Once connected, messages can be delivered to that computer without the police having to crack the encryption protecting them.
Netzpoltik details that police are able to gain access in this way either through physical access to someone’s phone or by intercepting verification codes via a state-sanctioned phishing attack or intercepting SMS messages via telephone surveillance.
That last paragraph is important. Making this work requires user consent.
What we want is a feature that displays connected devices, so users could notice if a new device gets connected to their account.
Vulnerable and outdated software components are one of the most common issues encountered by BHIS during web application penetration tests. The vast majority of web applications use third-party components such as jQuery, Angular, Bootstrap, or countless other libraries.
Tech company says it ‘caught and disrupted’ NSO Group’s attempts to access accounts in Jordan and Lebanon
A spyware firm has been targeting WhatsApp users with malicious links in contravention of a US court order forbidding it from doing so, Meta has said.
In a post, Meta said WhatsApp had “caught and disrupted spear phishing attempts” by NSO Group, which a spokesperson said targeted a handful of users in Jordan and Lebanon. It had also caught the group creating “test accounts and groups” on WhatsApp.
Pavel Durov and his “private” messaging app have a brand new rival, and it’s — drumroll, please — Elon Musk and his XChat. On our blog, we’ve discussed more than once why Durov’s claims about Telegram privacy and security are exaggerated, to put it mildly. Here, I’ll just remind the reader that standard (non-secret) chats on Telegram aren’t protected by end-to-end encryption — the bare minimum required for user data to stay private.
But let’s get back to Musk. In late April 2026, the XChat app launched for iOS users. The tech mogul had been touting his messaging app for a long time, pitching it from day one as an incredibly private and secure way to communicate, and as a direct threat to Signal, WhatsApp, Telegram, and iMessage. Today, we look at whether we should actually trust Musk’s promises this new service, break down its core features, and stack it up against the competition.
Bitcoin-style encryption
Musk initially teased XChat on June 1, 2025, naturally via his X (formerly Twitter) account. Responding to another user’s question about when to expect the new service, Musk wrote: “This week if there are no scaling issues.”
Apparently, scaling issues there were: the app’s beta didn’t drop until September 2025, and iOS users didn’t get full access until April 2026. As for Android, there is zero info on when that version would launch at the time of this writing. That said, an XChat page is already live on Google Play where users can queue up “pre-register”, whatever that means.
But let’s go back to Musk’s post announcing XChat. That specific post turned a lot of heads in the privacy and cybersecurity community, and here’s why: the tech mogul wrote that the service would be built on an “entirely new architecture”, written in Rust, and featuring “Bitcoin-style encryption”.
Elon Musk announces the launch of XChat, claiming the new messaging app is written in Rust and uses “Bitcoin-style encryption”. Source
The expert community spent a long time scratching their heads and trying to figure out what Musk actually meant. After all, Bitcoin isn’t an anonymous, encrypted data exchange system. The blockchain does use public and private cryptographic keys, but for something entirely different: signing transactions. Meanwhile, these transactions aren’t hidden from prying eyes; they’re out in the open for anyone to see, forever. Simply put, Bitcoin protects its users not by ensuring privacy, but quite the opposite — through ultimate transparency.
Most likely, Musk used “Bitcoin-style encryption” as a marketing gimmick. Bitcoin was trading near all-time highs at the time of his announcement, and cryptocurrency was the talk of the town. Technically, the XChat beta that dropped in September 2025 protected user chats with a “kind of” end-to-end encryption, but this was implemented in a way that raised serious doubts among cryptography experts.
And not without a reason. Normally, setting up an end-to-end encrypted chat automatically generates a public and private key pair. The public key is used to encrypt messages, while the private key decrypts them. Because other users need your public key to start a secure chat with you, these keys are usually stored on the app’s servers.
The private key, however, should ideally live only on the user’s device — which is exactly how Signal does it. This serves as a simple, ironclad guarantee that neither the company itself nor any third party breaching its infrastructure can access user chats, even if they really want to.
But Elon Musk’s projects always march to the beat of their own drum: the XChat developers decided it would be a great idea to store users’ private keys on XChat servers. X claims they’ll use hardware security modules (HSMs) to store these private keys — specialized appliances designed to prevent even the system owner from easily accessing the data inside. However, experts are also questioning the reliability of this setup, and coming to a grim conclusion: if X really wants to get a user’s private key, they will most likely be able to do so.
How encrypted messaging in XChat works in practice
Finally, once the scaling issues were ironed out nearly a year after the announcement, X officially rolled out the XChat app for iOS in April 2026. Now anyone can use it, but from a practical standpoint, the situation with encrypted chats seems even more convoluted than in Telegram.
According to the social network’s help center, to use end-to-end chat encryption in XChat, both users must have an X account, set up XChat, and have some sort of connection between them:
Follow, or be subscribed to each other
Have exchanged messages before
Have previously accepted a direct message request
Be a member of the same Premium Business / Premium Organization subscription on X
If users don’t follow each other and haven’t interacted before, XChat might still let them send a message request. However, that initial request goes out without end-to-end encryption.
Again, this is how the process is described in the messaging app’s official help documentation. Sound overly complicated? Let me reassure you: in practice, it works — or rather, doesn’t — completely differently. I personally managed to send a message to another user who had NOT set up XChat. The app itself, of course, gave me absolutely no warning about this.
The app allows you to start a chat with a user who hasn’t even set up XChat yet, without giving the sender any heads-up.
It gets even better. The user I messaged saw a notification for it on the web version of X, but couldn’t actually access the message. Here’s the catch: to start using XChat, the user first has to create a four-digit PIN. Yet, the app asks for this PIN the very first time the user tries to open it — meaning, before they even get a chance to create one. Along with this prompt, the user also sees a warning stating that without the PIN, they won’t be able to view past encrypted chats.
The user is prompted to enter a PIN to decrypt past messages before even completing the initial XChat setup.
The only workaround I found to actually start using XChat is to tap “Forgot PIN?” — even though that PIN never existed in the first place — confirm your identity, and create a new (well, your first) PIN. Naturally, you lose access to your chat history this way, so you won’t be able to read any messages sent to you in XChat before you officially set up the app.
XChat: the new Telegram, WhatsApp, Signal… or Facebook Messenger?
All these PIN hurdles actually exist for a reason. Remember, unlike WhatsApp and Signal, the XChat developers decided to store users’ private keys on their own servers. Consequently, the app uses these four-digit PINs to encrypt those keys.
According to the XChat help documentation, this mechanism was designed to ensure a “seamless” multi-device experience. It’s impossible not to point out that both WhatsApp and Signal managed to pull this off without sketchy workarounds like PIN requirements or server-side private key storage.
The problem is, workarounds like these undermine any claims of app privacy and security. First and chief among them, a PIN isn’t exactly the most secure way to protect sensitive data. We’ve mentioned time and again that four-digit combinations are easy to crack via brute force — especially since XChat gives you a generous 20 attempts to guess the right code.
The app allows up to 20 attempts to enter the four-digit PIN. Once the limit is reached, XChat warns that access to messages will be permanently lost.
Stepping away from the bizarre implementation of end-to-end encryption compared to other messaging apps, it’s hard to ignore the overall sense of pointlessness that comes with trying to use XChat. As a Wired journalist rightly pointed out, the app feels less like a relative of WhatsApp, Signal, or Telegram, and much more like Facebook Messenger. Except people usually open Messenger to read a text from their mom or grandma, whereas XChat seems meant for anyone wanting to check in on that weird nephew who spends all his free time on X, still believes John McAfee’s promise of $500 000 Bitcoin, and fanboys over Elon Musk.
So, what’s the bottom line on XChat?
The best way to wrap up this post is with a quote from a cybersecurity expert: “If what you want is good security, use Signal. If what you want is to be able to talk to pretty much anybody using encrypted messages, use WhatsApp. If your whole life is based around X, I guess this is better than nothing.”
If you do use XChat, rule number one is to avoid a predictable PIN — absolutely don’t use your birth year or, worse, 1234. It’s also crucial not to forget this code, because if you do, your entire chat history is gone for good. Finally, just like your other passwords, you shouldn’t keep it in your notes app, but rather in a secure password manager. This won’t only save you from having to memorize dozens of character combinations, but will also reduce the risk of losing access to your vital data and conversations.
To learn more about secure messaging in other apps, check out our other posts:
It starts with the familiar: a short message, a trusted name, a routine tone. Delivery updates, work pings, brand alerts hum in the background, rarely attracting scrutiny. You check, you answer… — until minutes later you’ve slipped into a trap built to lower your guard and hijack your trust.
That’s why messaging scams cut deep: they exploit everyday habits where instinct, not caution, leads. Communication once moved slowly, leaving room for doubt. Now it’s instant — and that speed is a weapon in criminal hands.
On our blog, we’ve already examined numerous scam schemes in messaging apps — from pig butchering, where the victim is groomed for a very long time, or catfishing, where the scammer creates a fake identity, to phishing via chatbots or through gift-giving campaigns in messaging apps.
Now, for the first time, Kaspersky has set out to capture the full end-to-end reality of messaging-based scams to understand how quickly harm occurs, how they impact trust and what remains after the interaction ends. What emerges is a highly organized and industrialized scam ecosystem embedded within everyday messaging channels such as SMS, WhatsApp, and email.
Kaspersky experts have prepared a report on targeted scams in messaging apps, detailing not only the financial but also the emotional damage caused by such attacks, as well as providing tips on how to protect yourself and avoid them. In this post, we explore the most interesting facts, but you can find more details in the full report.
The damage is underestimated
How much do you think a single successful attack via a messaging app costs the average victim? Ten dollars? Or maybe 50? You’re underestimating the scammers. Although more than a third (36%) of victims incur losses of less than $135, on average a victim loses… $733!
Country
Average loss per victim
Senegal
$392.94
Serbia
$493.32
Morocco
$504.28
Greece
$609.32
United Kingdom
$617.38
Côte d’Ivoire
$654.11
Spain
$672.67
United States
$724.73
Portugal
$868.20
Italy
$896.02
France
$1,193.58
Germany
$1,369.35
The average amount lost by a victim in a successful attack via a messaging app
On the one hand, the financial hit doesn’t look catastrophic in isolation. These are micro-losses by design. Small enough that some never report them to the police. Small enough that banks don’t always investigate. Small enough to be dismissed as bad luck rather than organized crime.
But $733 is not nothing. It’s enough to cover a month’s worth of groceries, school or daycare fees, or utility bills. Against the backdrop of the global cost-of-living crisis, a single such loss can seriously dent a family’s budget.
In 11% of cases, losses exceed $1,350, and more than a quarter of victims (28%) report having been scammed three or more times in the past six months. Once scammers discover that a phone number responds, that contact becomes an asset, circulating from one database to another.
Now imagine the scale of the problem: if just 10% of the three billion messaging‑app users worldwide fell victim with the average loss, the total damage would amount to… nearly $220 billion! This is comparable to the GDP of Greece, and exceeds that of Morocco, Serbia, or Côte d’Ivoire.
It becomes clear that behind the daily flood of fraudulent schemes lie large scam cartels operating on an industrial scale, using AI to personalize messages that mimic those of family members, friends, and familiar brands. This, in essence, forms the basis of a full-fledged economy built on digital identity theft.
Speed beats scrutiny
More than half of successful messaging scams (52%) unfold in under 30 minutes — from first contact to the moment money or personal data changes hands — or even faster, before the victim begins to doubt the legitimacy of the sender. In fact, one in seven scams takes less than five minutes — quicker than boiling an egg!
The speed isn’t accidental. It’s the method. Scammers structure their schemes to deny the victim a chance to come to their senses. Every element is engineered to compress the decision-making window: the urgency of the scenario, the familiarity of the format, the plausibility of the request.
They rush you — faster, faster, don’t tell anyone, you only have a few minutes, solve the problem, don’t ask questions. Click the link, fill in the details, approve the transaction, or else… Or else what? The scammers’ imagination knows no bounds here, but if you don’t do something right now, you’ll definitely regret it.
Alas, the realization of what has happened usually comes when the damage is already irreversible. More than half of victims (51%) lose money; another 43% hand over their personal data — most commonly phone numbers, names, and email addresses — to scammers, and often the victim loses both.
Where and how attacks occur
A delivery notification, a bank alert, a message from a merchant you ordered from last week — messaging apps permeate every aspect of everyday life, making such interactions completely normal. An attack shouldn’t feel like an attack. It should feel like the same message you’ve received hundreds of times.
It’s no surprise that scammers focus their attention on this method of communication first and foremost. The most popular platforms for scams are predictable: WhatsApp (43%), SMS/iMessage (40%), Facebook (27%), Telegram (22%), and Instagram (19%) — these are the ones that people trust most.
A wide variety of schemes is used. Brand impersonation is now one of the three most common types of messaging scam worldwide — accounting for 31% of cases. Fake delivery notifications top the list at 38%, followed by investment scams at 37%.
At the same time, nearly two-thirds (63%) of fraudulent schemes span multiple platforms, moving from SMS to WhatsApp, from WhatsApp to Telegram, etc. In this way, scammers achieve two goals: they mimic organic messaging and evade moderation algorithms.
AI has taken scams to a new level
Just a couple of years ago, fraudulent messages gave themselves away with bad grammar, awkward phrasing, illogical requests, and an obsessive sense of urgency. Today, a phishing message looks, sounds, and reads just like the real thing.
Scam cartels want to catch people in motion — between meetings, on a commute, or during everyday tasks — when your attention is already fragmented. They mimic your mother’s turn of phrase. They match your bank’s tone of voice. They copy your courier’s format exactly. They mirror the rhythm, structure, and style of authentic brand communications across messaging platforms. And AI is accelerating all of it.
What this creates is overlap. Legitimate and fraudulent messages appear in the same environment, using the same formats, language, and triggers. The difference between them is no longer obvious.
The data shows that two-thirds of victims (66%) believe AI was used in the scam against them, 42% cite messages written by AI, 31% report generated or cloned voices, and 25% encountered deepfake images or videos.
That’s why mere awareness and “tech-savviness” may no longer be enough to protect oneself. From Gen Z to Gen X, messaging scams cut across every generation.
And what about the emotional toll?
But money is far from the only problem a victim is left with after an attack. After what they’ve been through, people develop distrust toward incoming messages, unfamiliar numbers, and any requests for action. As a result, 99% of fraud victims say they no longer trust incoming notifications in messaging apps.
This creates a crisis of trust in all digital channels in general. Every legitimate message can now be perceived as a scam. Brands, banks, and delivery services are forced to operate in an environment where the customer is, by default, in a state of distrust.
Dr. Elizabeth Carter, a forensic linguist and criminologist at Kingston University in London, notes that scammers use familiar contexts, common social settings and embedded linguistic norms to create the illusion for the victim that their decision-making is rational and reasonable in the moment. However, what is actually happening is that they construct false realities in which those decisions end up causing financial and psychological harm. She also notes that it is very hard to identify a false reality while you are in it.
After realizing they had been deceived, more than half of victims felt anger — the kind that comes from having trusted something and discovering it was used against you. 42% of victims report frustration, 38% — feeling upset. Moreover, several months later, these feelings haven’t gone away: nearly half of all victims (48%) are still angry, a third (33%) remain frustrated, and 30% are upset.
And nearly one in 10 victims don’t tell anyone what happened. They feel shame, a sense of having fallen for something so obvious. This leaves a significant portion of the actual damage unreported: only 24% of victims contact the police, and only 23% report it to their bank.
So what can be done?
The crisis of trust — and even a touch of paranoia — that has arisen due to widespread attacks on users can linger in victims’ minds for a long time, affecting their quality of life. To prevent this, follow these guidelines:
Pause before you act. The sense of urgency you feel is almost always artificial. A legitimate bank, retailer, or delivery service won’t penalize you for taking 30 seconds to verify before clicking a link or confirming details. It’s precisely this instinct to resolve the situation quickly that scammers are counting on.
Verify through another channel. If a message appears to be from a relative, colleague, or company you trust — contact them through another channel before taking any action. Use secure verification methods, and cross-check identities when something doesn’t feel right. For families, agreeing on a “safe word” in advance can defeat even the most convincing voice clones.
Use a password manager. It will not only help you generate strong, unique passwords for all your accounts and store them securely, syncing them across all your devices, but also protect you from spoofed sites. Even if you click a phishing link and land on such a site, our password manager will notify you about the domain mismatch and refuse to autofill your username and password.
Use protection that works in real time. Modern security solutions, such as Kaspersky Premium, provide real-time protection against malicious links and phishing attempts in the apps and websites you use every day. On Android devices, a dedicated layer of anti-phishing security scans and neutralizes suspicious links as they appear, even within notifications, before you even have a chance to click them.
We’ve covered other threats in messaging apps in similar articles:
Recent news had us wondering whether Meta actually knows what it wants.
On one platform, Meta is promoting AI chats that it says even it cannot read. On another, it has removed one of the few features that genuinely prevented Meta from accessing private conversations.
At the moment, Meta is heavily promoting a new Incognito Chat mode for its Meta AI assistant in WhatsApp, built on top of a system it calls Private Processing. According to WhatsApp’s own announcement, Incognito Chat is:
“Truly private — no one can read your conversation, not even us.”
When you start an Incognito chat with Meta AI, you get a temporary conversation where messages aren’t saved and disappear by default, which Meta pitches as “a space to think and explore ideas without anyone watching.”
BBC News and others report that these AI chats are text‑only for now, run in a sandboxed environment, and are separate from your regular end‑to‑end encrypted (E2EE) messaging with other people on WhatsApp.
Meta is also preparing “Side Chat,” which will let you invoke Meta AI inside other WhatsApp chats, again using this Private Processing infrastructure to claim AI assistance without breaking the underlying encryption.
On paper, that’s an impressive technical and marketing story: powerful AI, wrapped in layers of privacy‑preserving infrastructure, added to an app that already has a strong reputation for end‑to‑end encryption by default.
Meanwhile, on Instagram…
Now contrast that with what’s happening on Instagram. On 8 May 2026, Meta removed optional end‑to‑end encryption for Instagram Direct Messages (DMs) entirely. Users who had previously turned the feature on were shown notices that “end‑to‑end encrypted messaging on Instagram is no longer supported as of 8 May 2026,” and were urged to download backups of their encrypted conversations before the cutoff.
End‑to‑end encryption ensures that only the sender and recipient can read their conversations. Instagram offered this as an opt‑in feature since late 2023, but it was buried several taps deep inside individual conversation settings and never turned on by default. Meta’s explanation for shutting it down is that “very few people” used encrypted DMs and that maintaining a separate encrypted system added complexity. Critics have pointed out the circular logic. The company hid the feature, did not advertise it, and is now using low adoption as the reason to kill it rather than, say, making it easier to find or turning it on by default.
What all this means
From a user’s perspective, the result is confusing: one Meta product introduces stronger privacy than ever for AI chats, while another removes the one feature that truly stopped Meta from reading your conversations.
The key point to remember here is that “incognito” and “private” are marketing words, while end‑to‑end encryption is a technical guarantee.
For security‑conscious users, this split personality means you can no longer treat all Meta chats the same. WhatsApp remains end‑to‑end encrypted for person‑to‑person messages and adds optional privacy features around its AI, while Instagram DMs should now be assumed readable by Meta and potentially accessible to law enforcement, advertisers, or attackers who gain access to Meta’s systems.
We also know there have been lawsuits against chatbot providers in cases where the outcome of an AI conversation led to very undesirable results. But how would you be able to provide evidence when messages auto-disappear?
How to proceed
Meta’s recent moves show that strong privacy features can be added where they support a strategic narrative and removed where they conflict with business or regulatory priorities. Users can’t control those decisions, but they can respond by choosing where they hold their most sensitive conversations and by assuming that if a chat isn’t end‑to‑end encrypted by default, it is ultimately readable by someone other than the people in it.
So, what’s a safe way to move forward?
Treat Instagram DMs as postcard-level privacy. Now that E2EE is gone, assume Meta can read and scan your messages and that content could be accessed under legal orders or in a breach. Do not send passwords, recovery codes, banking details, or compromising photos over Instagram.
When someone asks you to move a conversation to Signal, WhatsApp, or another E2EE messenger, ask them why. It does make sense when you’re sharing financial details, personal images, health information, or anything you would not want a platform provider to read. But sometimes scammers prefer encrypted platforms too, because they’re harder to monitor.
Do not confuse “incognito” AI chats with full encryption. WhatsApp’s Incognito mode for Meta AI may be a privacy improvement over standard cloud AI chats, but it is still a conversation with a large language model owned by the same company that runs the platform. Share only what you’re comfortable entrusting to Meta.
Regularly review your privacy and security settings. Check which devices are logged in, enable two‑factor authentication, and verify which of your chat apps are actually end‑to‑end encrypted by default.
Scammers know more about you than you think.
Malwarebytes Mobile Security protects you from phishing, scam texts, malicious sites, and more. With real-time AI-powered Scam Guard built right in.
To get a valid session token to use with Burp Suite tools, I ended up writing a small Python extension (110 lines of code, but who’s counting?) that obtained a new session token for each request, allowing items like Intruder to work as intended. Cool, I was able to use it during the test, but I would like this to be repeatable. So, this blog is releasing Swapper, a regex pattern-based match/replace Burp Suite extension.
Meta has published a new security advisory for messaging app WhatsApp, announcing patches for two vulnerabilities.
WhatsApp has fixed two security flaws that could be abused to interfere with how media and attachments are handled on your device. There is no evidence that either bug has been exploited in the wild.
These bugs don’t automatically infect devices, but they lower the barrier for social engineering and could be chained with other vulnerabilities for more serious attacks.
Malicious messages
The first issue, tracked as CVE‑2026‑23866, affects how WhatsApp processes AI‑generated “rich response messages” that embed Instagram Reels. On affected iOS and Android versions, incomplete validation means a specially crafted message could cause the app to load media from an attacker‑controlled URL. In some cases, this could trigger operating system‑level custom URL scheme handlers.
In other words: a booby‑trapped message could prompt your device to open content from an untrusted source.
Note: Updates may not be available immediately in all regions.
How to update WhatsApp on iOS
To update WhatsApp on iOS:
Open the App Store
Tap your profile icon
Scroll to find WhatsApp and tap Update
If it’s not listed, search for WhatsApp to check if an “Update” button is available.
Misleading filenames
The second bug, CVE‑2026‑23863, affects WhatsApp for Windows before version 2.3000.1032164386.258709.
In this case, WhatsApp did not correctly handle filenames containing embedded NUL bytes. This could allow a file to appear as a harmless type in the interface while actually being treated as an executable when opened. That’s a classic recipe for social engineering: “click the PDF,” but get an .exe file.
How to update WhatsApp for Windows
You can find your WhatsApp for Windows version number by clicking on your profile picture and selecting Help and feedback.
Version 2.3000.1038705703.261501
If your version number is earlier than 2.3000.1032164386.258709, update via the Microsoft Store:
Click the Start menu and search for Microsoft Store to open it
Click Library located at the bottom-left corner
Find WhatsApp Desktop
Click Get Updates or Update
Once installed, restart the app to apply the changes.
Automatic updates on Windows
My WhatsApp was already up to date because I have automatic updates turned on. Here’s how to turn it on:
Click the Start menu and search for Microsoft Store to open it
Select Profile (your account picture) > Settings
Make sure App updates is toggled to On
Scammers don’t need to hack you. They just need you to click once.
AI-assistenten en autonome agenten worden een steeds groter onderdeel van ons leven, maar bescherming is op dat gebied nog schaars. Althans, dat is wat Norton VPN zag toen het besloot een speciale, en de allereerste, VPN voor Agenten te ontwikkelen.
In a Public Service Announcement (PSA) the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) warn the public about ongoing Russian-linked phishing campaigns that aim to gain access to messaging accounts.
Earlier this month we wrote about a large‑scale phishing campaign aimed at hijacking Signal and WhatsApp accounts belonging to senior officials, military personnel, civil servants, and journalists.
Now the FBI and CISA have joined European intelligence services in warning that the same tactics are being used in a broader campaign targeting these commercial messaging apps. The goal is not to break end‑to‑end encryption, but to walk straight around it by stealing access to individual accounts.
In our previous article, we focused on warnings from the Dutch intelligence services AIVD and MIVD, which described how Russian state‑backed actors approached high‑value targets via Signal and WhatsApp, posing as “Signal Support”, “Signal Security Bot”, or similar. The PSA demonstrates how the same groups are now running global phishing campaigns against messaging app accounts, with evidence suggesting thousands of compromised accounts worldwide.
It’s important to reiterate that the attackers have not managed to break the apps’ end-to-end encryption. Instead, they are relying on social engineering to get a device added so they can eavesdrop on accounts.
The current targets include current and former US government officials, military staff, political figures, and journalists, but there is nothing to stop the same techniques being reused against businesses and everyday users.
So, while it’s tempting to dismiss this as a problem for diplomats and generals (and the agencies issuing these alerts do mention high‑profile targets first), the techniques scale very easily. Once playbooks like these are public, they tend to be copied by cybercriminals looking for new ways to steal money or accounts.
How to protect your accounts
As the PSA puts it:
“Phishing remains one of the most unsophisticated, yet effective means of cyber compromise, often rendering other protections irrelevant”
This calls asks for basic security measures:
Treat unsolicited messages from “Support” inside apps as suspicious by default. Legitimate support for apps like Signal and WhatsApp does not ask you, in a chat message, to send back verification codes, PINs, or passwords. If you receive a warning about account problems, do not follow links in the message. Open the app’s settings directly or visit the official website through other means.
Never share SMS verification codes or app PINs. SMS codes are there to prove that you control a phone number. Anyone who has the code can pretend to be you. App‑specific PINs or passcodes are there to protect account changes. Giving them away is like handing over the keys to your account. Consider anyone asking for them to be a scammer.
Be careful what you discuss and with whom. Both the Dutch and US advisories remind us that even with end‑to‑end encryption, some conversations are too sensitive for commercial chat apps.
Use the extra security features these apps offer. Enable options like registration lock, registration PIN and device‑change alerts so that your account cannot be silently re‑registered without an extra secret. Store your PIN in a password manager instead of choosing something easy to guess or reusing a common code, to reduce the chance of social engineering or shoulder‑surfing.
Another useful feature is disappearing messages. Short‑timer and disappearing messages reduce how much content is available if an attacker gets into a chat later, or if someone obtains long‑term access to a device or backup. They are not a complete solution, but they can limit the damage.
What to do if you think your account was hijacked
If you suspect an attacker has taken over your messaging account:
Try to re‑register your number in the app immediately to kick out other devices.
Revoke all linked devices and change any app‑specific PINs or lock codes.
Warn your contacts that someone may have impersonated you and ask them to treat recent messages with caution.
Review recent conversations for signs of data theft (for example, shared IDs, documents, or passwords that should now be considered exposed).
Report the incident to the app provider and, where appropriate, to national reporting centers such as the FBI’s Internet Crime Complaint Center (IC3) at ic3.gov or the relevant authority in your country.
The sooner you act, the smaller the window in which attackers can exploit your account.
We don’t just report on phone security—we provide it
GoPix is an advanced persistent threat targeting Brazilian financial institutions’ customers and cryptocurrency users. It represents an evolved threat targeting internet banking users through memory-only implants and obfuscated PowerShell scripts. It evolved from the RAT and Automated Transfer System (ATS) threats that were used in other malware campaigns into a unique threat never seen before. Operating as a LOLBin (Living-off-the-Land Binary), GoPix exemplifies a sophisticated approach that integrates malvertising vectors via platforms such as Google Ads to compromise prominent financial institutions’ customers.
Our extensive analysis reveals GoPix’s capabilities to execute man-in-the-middle attacks, monitor Pix transactions, Boleto slips, and manipulate cryptocurrency transactions. The malware strategically bypasses security measures implemented by financial institutions while maintaining persistence and employing robust cleanup mechanisms to challenge Digital Forensics and Incident Response (DFIR) efforts.
GoPix has reached a level of sophistication never before seen in malware originating in Brazil. It’s been over three years since we first identified it, and it remains highly active. The threat is recognized for its stealthy methods of infecting victims and evading detection by security software, using new tricks to stay operable.
The threat differs in its behavior from the RATs already seen in other Brazilian families, such as Grandoreiro. GoPix uses C2s with a very short lifespan, which stay online only for a few hours. In addition, the attackers behind this threat abuse legitimate anti-fraud and reputation services to perform targeted delivery of its payload and ensure that they have not infected a sandbox or system used in analysis. They handpick their victims, financial bodies of state governments and large corporations.
The campaign leverages a malvertisement technique which has been active since December 2022. The strategic use of multiple obfuscation layers and a stolen code signing certificate showcases GoPix’s ability to evade traditional security defenses and steal and manipulate sensitive financial data.
The Brazilian group behind GoPix is clearly learning from APT groups to make malware persistent and hide it, loading its modules into memory, keeping few artifacts on disk, and making hunting with YARA rules ineffective for capturing them. The malware can also switch between processes for specific functionalities, potentially disabling security software, as well as executing a man-in-the-middle attack with a previously unseen technique.
Initial infection
Initial infection is achieved through malvertising campaigns. The threat actors in most cases use Google Ads to spread baits related to popular services like WhatsApp, Google Chrome, and the Brazilian postal service Correios and lure victims to malicious landing pages.
We have been monitoring this threat since 2023, and it continues to be very active for the time being.
When the user ends up on the GoPix landing page, the malware abuses legitimate IP scoring systems to determine whether the user is a target of interest or a bot running in malware analysis environments. The initial scoring is done through a legitimate anti-fraud service, with a number of browser and environment parameters sent to this service, which returns a request ID. The malicious website uses this ID to check whether the user should receive the malicious installer or be redirected to a harmless dummy landing page. If the user is not considered a valuable target, no malware is delivered.
Website shown if the user is detected as a bot or sandbox
However, if the victim passes the bot check, the malicious website will query the check.php endpoint, which will then return a JSON response with two URLs:
JSON response from a malicious endpoint
The victim will then be presented with a fake webpage offering to download advertised software, this being the malicious “WhatsApp Web installer” in the case at hand. To decide which URL the victim will be redirected to, another check happens in the JavaScript code for whether the 27275 port is open on localhost.
WebSocket request to check if the port is open
This port is used by the Avast Safe Banking feature, present in many Avast products, which are very popular in countries like Brazil. If the port is open, the victim is led to download the first-stage payload from the second URL (url2). It is a ZIP file containing an LNK file with an obfuscated PowerShell designed to download the next stage. If the port is closed, the victim is redirected to the first URL (url), which offers to download a fake WhatsApp executable NSIS installer.
At first, we thought this detection could lead the victim to a potential exploit. However, during our research, we discovered that the only difference was that if Avast was installed, the victim was led to another infection vector, which we describe below.
Malware delivered through a malicious website
Infection chain
First-stage payload
If no Avast solution is installed, an executable NSIS installer file is delivered to the victim’s device. The attackers change this installer frequently to avoid detection. It’s digitally signed with a stolen code signing certificate issued to “PLK Management Limited”, also used to sign the legitimate “Driver Easy Pro” software.
Stolen certificate used to sign the malicious installer
The purpose of the NSIS installer is to create and run an obfuscated batch file, which will use PowerShell to make a request to the malicious website for the next-stage payload.
NSIS installer code creating a batch file
However, if the 27275 port is open, indicating the victim has an Avast product installed, the infection happens through the second URL. The victim is led to download a ZIP file with an LNK file inside. This shortcut file contains an obfuscated command line.
The purpose of this command line is to download and execute the next-stage payload from the malicious URL referenced above.
It’s highly likely this method is used because Avast Safe Browser blocks direct downloads of executable files, so instead of downloading the executable NSIS installer, a ZIP file is delivered.
Once the PowerShell command from either the LNK or EXE file is executed, GoPix executes yet another obfuscated PowerShell script that is remotely retrieved (in the GoPix downloader image below, it’s defined as “PowerShell Script”).
GoPix delivery chain
Initial PowerShell script
This script’s purpose is to collect system information and send it to the GoPix C2. Upon doing so, the script obtains a JSON file containing GoPix modules and a configuration that is saved on the victim’s computer.
System information collection
The information contained within this JSON is as follows:
Folder and file names to be created under the %APPDATA% directory
Obfuscated PowerShell script
Encrypted PowerShell script ps
Malicious code implant sc containing encrypted GoPix dropper shellcode, GoPix dropper, main payload shellcode and main GoPix implant
GoPix configuration file pf
Once these files are saved, an additional batch file is also created and executed. Its purpose is to launch the obfuscated PowerShell script.
Upon execution, the obfuscated PowerShell script decrypts the encrypted PowerShell script ps, starts another PowerShell instance, and passes the decrypted script through its stdin, so that the decrypted script is never loaded to disk.
Deobfuscated PowerShell script
Decrypted PowerShell script “ps”
The purpose of this memory-only PowerShell script is to perform an in-memory decryption of the GoPix dropper shellcode, GoPix dropper, main payload shellcode and main GoPix malware implant into allocated memory. After that, it creates a small piece of shellcode within the PowerShell process to jump to the GoPix dropper shellcode previously decrypted.
PowerShell script shellcode jumps to the malware loader shellcode
The GoPix dropper shellcode is built for either the x86 or x64 architecture, depending on the victim’s computer.
Building the GoPix shellcode depending on the targeted architecture
Shellcode
This shellcode is bundled with the malware and stays in encrypted form on disk. It is utilized at two separate stages of the infection chain: first to launch the GoPix dropper and subsequently to execute the main GoPix malware. We’ve observed two versions of this shellcode. The main difference is the old one resolves API addresses by their names, while the latest one employs a hashing algorithm to determine the address of a given API. The API hash calculation begins by generating a hash for the DLL name, and this resulting hash is then used within the function name to compute the final API hash.
The old sample (left) used stack strings with API names. The new sample (right) uses the API hashing obfuscation technique
The first time GoPix is dropped into memory through PowerShell, its structure is as follows:
Memory dropper shellcode
Memory dropper DLL
Main payload shellcode
Main payload DLL
Both DLLs have their MZ signature erased, which helps to evade detection by memory dumping tools that scan for PE files in memory.
MZ signature zeroed
GoPix dropper
When the main function from the dropper is called, it verifies if it is running within an Explorer.exe process; if not, it will terminate. It then sequentially checks for installed browsers — Chrome, Firefox, Edge, and Opera — retrieving the full path of the first detected browser from the registry key SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\App Paths. A significant difference from previously analyzed droppers is that this version encrypts each string using a unique algorithm.
After selecting the browser, the dropper uses direct syscalls to launch the chosen browser process in a suspended state. This allows it to inject the main GoPix shellcode and its parameters into the process. The injected shellcode is tasked with extracting and loading the main GoPix implant directly into memory, subsequently calling its exported main function. The parameters passed include the number 1, to trigger the main GoPix function, and the current Process ID, which is that of Explorer.exe.
The dropper uses a syscall instruction and calls the GoPix in-memory implant’s main function
Main GoPix implant
Clipboard stealing functionality
Boleto bancário was added as one of the targets to the malware’s clipboard stealing and replacing feature. Boleto is a popular payment method in Brazil that functions similarly to an invoice, being the second most popular payment system in the country. It is a standardized document that includes important payment information such as the amount due, due date, and details of the payee. It features a typeable line, which is a sequence of numbers that can be entered in online banking applications to pay. This line is what GoPix targets with its functionality. An example of such a line is “23790.12345 60000.123456 78901.234567 8 76540000010000”.
Boleto bancário targeted in clipboard-stealing functionality
When GoPix detects a Pix or Boleto transaction, it simply sends this information to the C2. However, when a Bitcoin or Ethereum wallet is copied to the clipboard, the malware replaces the address with one belonging to the threat actor.
Unique man-in-the-middle attack
PAC (Proxy AutoConfig) files are nothing new; they’ve been used by Brazilian criminals for over two decades, but GoPix takes this to another level. While in the past, criminals used PAC files to redirect victims to a fake phishing page, the purpose of the PAC file in GoPix attacks is to manipulate the traffic while the user navigates the legitimate financial website.
In order to hide which site GoPix wants to intercept, it uses a CRC32 algorithm in the host field of the PAC file. It is formatted on the fly using a pf configuration file: the items in it determine which proxy the victim will be redirected to. To hide its malicious proxy server, once a connection is opened to the proxy server, the malware enumerates all connections and finds the process that initiated it. It then takes the process executable name CRC32C checksum and compares it with a hardcoded list of browsers’ CRC checksums. If it doesn’t match a known browser, the malware simply terminates the connection.
PAC file excerpt
To uncover GoPix targets, we compiled a list of many Brazilian financial institution domains and subdomains, computed their CRC32 checksums, and compared them against GoPix hardcoded values. The table below shows each CRC32 and its target.
CRC32
Target
8BD688E8
local
8CA8ACFF
www2.banco********.com.br
AD8F5213
autoatendimento.********.com.br
105A3F17
www2.****.com.br
B477FE70
internetbanking.*******.gov.br
785F39C2
loginx.********.br
C72C8593
internetpf.*****.com.br
75E3C3BA
internet.*****.com.br
FD4E6024
internetbanking.*******.com.br
HTTPS interception
Since every communication is encrypted via HTTPS, GoPix bypasses this by injecting a trusted root certificate into the memory of a web browser while on the victim’s machine. This allows the attacker to sniff and even manipulate the victim’s traffic. We have found two certificates across GoPix samples, one that expired in January 2025 and another created in February 2025 that is set to expire in February 2027.
GoPix trusted root certificate
Conclusion
With the ability to load its memory-only implant that employs a malicious Proxy AutoConfig (PAC) file and an HTTP server to execute an unprecedented man-in-the-middle attack, GoPix is by far the most advanced banking Trojan of Brazilian origin. The injection of a trusted root certificate into the browser enhances its ability to intercept and manipulate sensitive financial data while maintaining its stealth profile, as the malicious certificate is not visible to operating system tools. Additionally, GoPix has expanded its clipboard monitoring capability by adding Boleto slips to its arsenal, which already includes Pix transactions and cryptowallets addresses.
This is a sophisticated threat, with multiple layers of evasion, persistence, and functionality. The investigation into the malware’s shellcode, dropper, and main module uncovered intricate mechanisms, including process jumping to leverage specific functionalities across processes. This technique, combined with robust string encryption methods applied to both the dropper and main payload, indicates that the threat actor has gone to great lengths to hinder detection. Interestingly enough, attackers adopted the use of a legitimate commercial anti-fraud service to pre-qualify their targets, aiming to avoid sandboxes and security researchers’ investigations. Additionally, the persistence and cleanup mechanisms implemented by the malware enhance its durability during incident response efforts, with very short C2 lifespans.
GoPix is an advanced persistent threat targeting Brazilian financial institutions’ customers and cryptocurrency users. It represents an evolved threat targeting internet banking users through memory-only implants and obfuscated PowerShell scripts. It evolved from the RAT and Automated Transfer System (ATS) threats that were used in other malware campaigns into a unique threat never seen before. Operating as a LOLBin (Living-off-the-Land Binary), GoPix exemplifies a sophisticated approach that integrates malvertising vectors via platforms such as Google Ads to compromise prominent financial institutions’ customers.
Our extensive analysis reveals GoPix’s capabilities to execute man-in-the-middle attacks, monitor Pix transactions, Boleto slips, and manipulate cryptocurrency transactions. The malware strategically bypasses security measures implemented by financial institutions while maintaining persistence and employing robust cleanup mechanisms to challenge Digital Forensics and Incident Response (DFIR) efforts.
GoPix has reached a level of sophistication never before seen in malware originating in Brazil. It’s been over three years since we first identified it, and it remains highly active. The threat is recognized for its stealthy methods of infecting victims and evading detection by security software, using new tricks to stay operable.
The threat differs in its behavior from the RATs already seen in other Brazilian families, such as Grandoreiro. GoPix uses C2s with a very short lifespan, which stay online only for a few hours. In addition, the attackers behind this threat abuse legitimate anti-fraud and reputation services to perform targeted delivery of its payload and ensure that they have not infected a sandbox or system used in analysis. They handpick their victims, financial bodies of state governments and large corporations.
The campaign leverages a malvertisement technique which has been active since December 2022. The strategic use of multiple obfuscation layers and a stolen code signing certificate showcases GoPix’s ability to evade traditional security defenses and steal and manipulate sensitive financial data.
The Brazilian group behind GoPix is clearly learning from APT groups to make malware persistent and hide it, loading its modules into memory, keeping few artifacts on disk, and making hunting with YARA rules ineffective for capturing them. The malware can also switch between processes for specific functionalities, potentially disabling security software, as well as executing a man-in-the-middle attack with a previously unseen technique.
Initial infection
Initial infection is achieved through malvertising campaigns. The threat actors in most cases use Google Ads to spread baits related to popular services like WhatsApp, Google Chrome, and the Brazilian postal service Correios and lure victims to malicious landing pages.
We have been monitoring this threat since 2023, and it continues to be very active for the time being.
When the user ends up on the GoPix landing page, the malware abuses legitimate IP scoring systems to determine whether the user is a target of interest or a bot running in malware analysis environments. The initial scoring is done through a legitimate anti-fraud service, with a number of browser and environment parameters sent to this service, which returns a request ID. The malicious website uses this ID to check whether the user should receive the malicious installer or be redirected to a harmless dummy landing page. If the user is not considered a valuable target, no malware is delivered.
Website shown if the user is detected as a bot or sandbox
However, if the victim passes the bot check, the malicious website will query the check.php endpoint, which will then return a JSON response with two URLs:
JSON response from a malicious endpoint
The victim will then be presented with a fake webpage offering to download advertised software, this being the malicious “WhatsApp Web installer” in the case at hand. To decide which URL the victim will be redirected to, another check happens in the JavaScript code for whether the 27275 port is open on localhost.
WebSocket request to check if the port is open
This port is used by the Avast Safe Banking feature, present in many Avast products, which are very popular in countries like Brazil. If the port is open, the victim is led to download the first-stage payload from the second URL (url2). It is a ZIP file containing an LNK file with an obfuscated PowerShell designed to download the next stage. If the port is closed, the victim is redirected to the first URL (url), which offers to download a fake WhatsApp executable NSIS installer.
At first, we thought this detection could lead the victim to a potential exploit. However, during our research, we discovered that the only difference was that if Avast was installed, the victim was led to another infection vector, which we describe below.
Malware delivered through a malicious website
Infection chain
First-stage payload
If no Avast solution is installed, an executable NSIS installer file is delivered to the victim’s device. The attackers change this installer frequently to avoid detection. It’s digitally signed with a stolen code signing certificate issued to “PLK Management Limited”, also used to sign the legitimate “Driver Easy Pro” software.
Stolen certificate used to sign the malicious installer
The purpose of the NSIS installer is to create and run an obfuscated batch file, which will use PowerShell to make a request to the malicious website for the next-stage payload.
NSIS installer code creating a batch file
However, if the 27275 port is open, indicating the victim has an Avast product installed, the infection happens through the second URL. The victim is led to download a ZIP file with an LNK file inside. This shortcut file contains an obfuscated command line.
The purpose of this command line is to download and execute the next-stage payload from the malicious URL referenced above.
It’s highly likely this method is used because Avast Safe Browser blocks direct downloads of executable files, so instead of downloading the executable NSIS installer, a ZIP file is delivered.
Once the PowerShell command from either the LNK or EXE file is executed, GoPix executes yet another obfuscated PowerShell script that is remotely retrieved (in the GoPix downloader image below, it’s defined as “PowerShell Script”).
GoPix delivery chain
Initial PowerShell script
This script’s purpose is to collect system information and send it to the GoPix C2. Upon doing so, the script obtains a JSON file containing GoPix modules and a configuration that is saved on the victim’s computer.
System information collection
The information contained within this JSON is as follows:
Folder and file names to be created under the %APPDATA% directory
Obfuscated PowerShell script
Encrypted PowerShell script ps
Malicious code implant sc containing encrypted GoPix dropper shellcode, GoPix dropper, main payload shellcode and main GoPix implant
GoPix configuration file pf
Once these files are saved, an additional batch file is also created and executed. Its purpose is to launch the obfuscated PowerShell script.
Upon execution, the obfuscated PowerShell script decrypts the encrypted PowerShell script ps, starts another PowerShell instance, and passes the decrypted script through its stdin, so that the decrypted script is never loaded to disk.
Deobfuscated PowerShell script
Decrypted PowerShell script “ps”
The purpose of this memory-only PowerShell script is to perform an in-memory decryption of the GoPix dropper shellcode, GoPix dropper, main payload shellcode and main GoPix malware implant into allocated memory. After that, it creates a small piece of shellcode within the PowerShell process to jump to the GoPix dropper shellcode previously decrypted.
PowerShell script shellcode jumps to the malware loader shellcode
The GoPix dropper shellcode is built for either the x86 or x64 architecture, depending on the victim’s computer.
Building the GoPix shellcode depending on the targeted architecture
Shellcode
This shellcode is bundled with the malware and stays in encrypted form on disk. It is utilized at two separate stages of the infection chain: first to launch the GoPix dropper and subsequently to execute the main GoPix malware. We’ve observed two versions of this shellcode. The main difference is the old one resolves API addresses by their names, while the latest one employs a hashing algorithm to determine the address of a given API. The API hash calculation begins by generating a hash for the DLL name, and this resulting hash is then used within the function name to compute the final API hash.
The old sample (left) used stack strings with API names. The new sample (right) uses the API hashing obfuscation technique
The first time GoPix is dropped into memory through PowerShell, its structure is as follows:
Memory dropper shellcode
Memory dropper DLL
Main payload shellcode
Main payload DLL
Both DLLs have their MZ signature erased, which helps to evade detection by memory dumping tools that scan for PE files in memory.
MZ signature zeroed
GoPix dropper
When the main function from the dropper is called, it verifies if it is running within an Explorer.exe process; if not, it will terminate. It then sequentially checks for installed browsers — Chrome, Firefox, Edge, and Opera — retrieving the full path of the first detected browser from the registry key SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\App Paths. A significant difference from previously analyzed droppers is that this version encrypts each string using a unique algorithm.
After selecting the browser, the dropper uses direct syscalls to launch the chosen browser process in a suspended state. This allows it to inject the main GoPix shellcode and its parameters into the process. The injected shellcode is tasked with extracting and loading the main GoPix implant directly into memory, subsequently calling its exported main function. The parameters passed include the number 1, to trigger the main GoPix function, and the current Process ID, which is that of Explorer.exe.
The dropper uses a syscall instruction and calls the GoPix in-memory implant’s main function
Main GoPix implant
Clipboard stealing functionality
Boleto bancário was added as one of the targets to the malware’s clipboard stealing and replacing feature. Boleto is a popular payment method in Brazil that functions similarly to an invoice, being the second most popular payment system in the country. It is a standardized document that includes important payment information such as the amount due, due date, and details of the payee. It features a typeable line, which is a sequence of numbers that can be entered in online banking applications to pay. This line is what GoPix targets with its functionality. An example of such a line is “23790.12345 60000.123456 78901.234567 8 76540000010000”.
Boleto bancário targeted in clipboard-stealing functionality
When GoPix detects a Pix or Boleto transaction, it simply sends this information to the C2. However, when a Bitcoin or Ethereum wallet is copied to the clipboard, the malware replaces the address with one belonging to the threat actor.
Unique man-in-the-middle attack
PAC (Proxy AutoConfig) files are nothing new; they’ve been used by Brazilian criminals for over two decades, but GoPix takes this to another level. While in the past, criminals used PAC files to redirect victims to a fake phishing page, the purpose of the PAC file in GoPix attacks is to manipulate the traffic while the user navigates the legitimate financial website.
In order to hide which site GoPix wants to intercept, it uses a CRC32 algorithm in the host field of the PAC file. It is formatted on the fly using a pf configuration file: the items in it determine which proxy the victim will be redirected to. To hide its malicious proxy server, once a connection is opened to the proxy server, the malware enumerates all connections and finds the process that initiated it. It then takes the process executable name CRC32C checksum and compares it with a hardcoded list of browsers’ CRC checksums. If it doesn’t match a known browser, the malware simply terminates the connection.
PAC file excerpt
To uncover GoPix targets, we compiled a list of many Brazilian financial institution domains and subdomains, computed their CRC32 checksums, and compared them against GoPix hardcoded values. The table below shows each CRC32 and its target.
CRC32
Target
8BD688E8
local
8CA8ACFF
www2.banco********.com.br
AD8F5213
autoatendimento.********.com.br
105A3F17
www2.****.com.br
B477FE70
internetbanking.*******.gov.br
785F39C2
loginx.********.br
C72C8593
internetpf.*****.com.br
75E3C3BA
internet.*****.com.br
FD4E6024
internetbanking.*******.com.br
HTTPS interception
Since every communication is encrypted via HTTPS, GoPix bypasses this by injecting a trusted root certificate into the memory of a web browser while on the victim’s machine. This allows the attacker to sniff and even manipulate the victim’s traffic. We have found two certificates across GoPix samples, one that expired in January 2025 and another created in February 2025 that is set to expire in February 2027.
GoPix trusted root certificate
Conclusion
With the ability to load its memory-only implant that employs a malicious Proxy AutoConfig (PAC) file and an HTTP server to execute an unprecedented man-in-the-middle attack, GoPix is by far the most advanced banking Trojan of Brazilian origin. The injection of a trusted root certificate into the browser enhances its ability to intercept and manipulate sensitive financial data while maintaining its stealth profile, as the malicious certificate is not visible to operating system tools. Additionally, GoPix has expanded its clipboard monitoring capability by adding Boleto slips to its arsenal, which already includes Pix transactions and cryptowallets addresses.
This is a sophisticated threat, with multiple layers of evasion, persistence, and functionality. The investigation into the malware’s shellcode, dropper, and main module uncovered intricate mechanisms, including process jumping to leverage specific functionalities across processes. This technique, combined with robust string encryption methods applied to both the dropper and main payload, indicates that the threat actor has gone to great lengths to hinder detection. Interestingly enough, attackers adopted the use of a legitimate commercial anti-fraud service to pre-qualify their targets, aiming to avoid sandboxes and security researchers’ investigations. Additionally, the persistence and cleanup mechanisms implemented by the malware enhance its durability during incident response efforts, with very short C2 lifespans.
Dutch intelligence services AIVD and MIVD warn that Russian state‑backed hackers are running a large‑scale campaign to break into Signal and WhatsApp accounts of high‑value targets.
The targets are said to be senior officials, military personnel, civil servants, and journalists. The attackers are not breaking end‑to‑end encryption or exploiting a vulnerability in the apps themselves. Instead, they rely on proven phishing and social engineering methods to trick users into handing over verification codes and PINs, or to add a malicious “linked device” to their account.
Last year we reported on GhostPairing, a method that tricks the target into completing WhatsApp’s own device-pairing flow, silently adding the attacker’s browser as an invisible linked device to the account.
In the cases reported by the Dutch intelligence services, the attackers contacted victims on Signal or WhatsApp while posing as “Signal Security Support Chatbot”, “Signal Support” or a similar official‑sounding account.
The message typically warns about suspicious activity or a possible detected data leak and instructs the user to complete a verification step to avoid losing data or having their account blocked.
Victims are then asked to send back the SMS verification code they just received and/or their Signal PIN.
If the victim complies, the attacker can register the account on a device they control and effectively take it over, receiving new messages and sending messages as the victim.
In a second variant, attackers abuse the “linked devices” feature (Signal’s and WhatsApp’s desktop or other secondary device function). Targets are pushed to click a link or scan a QR code that silently links the attacker’s device to the victim’s account. The victim keeps access as normal, but the attacker can now read along in real time without obvious signs of compromise.
These attacks are not new, but deserve a renewed warning because they rely entirely on human behavior, and understanding how they work makes them easier to stop. The methods used are not technically sophisticated and they can easily be copied by non‑state actors or ordinary cybercriminals.
Because of the current Russian campaigns, AIVD and MIVD say that chat apps such as Signal and WhatsApp are unsuitable for sharing classified, confidential, or otherwise sensitive government information, even though they technically support end‑to‑end encryption.
How to keep your conversations confidential
One specific warning for the targeted users is to use designated apps for sensitive information. Despite dedicated secure systems being available to many of them, some resorted to apps they already knew—Signal and WhatsApp. And to be fair, these apps are safe if you follow a few basic rules:
How to prevent and detect compromised accounts
Never share verification codes or PIN numbers. Your SMS verification code and PIN are only needed when you install or re‑register the app on a device. They are never legitimately requested in a chat. Any in‑app message, direct message (DM), email, or SMS asking you to send these codes back is a phishing attempt.
Do not trust “support” accounts in chat. Signal explicitly states that Support will never contact you via in‑app messages, SMS, or social media to ask for your verification code or PIN. Treat any “Signal Support Bot”, “Security Chatbot” or similar as malicious, block and report it and then delete the conversation.
Be cautious with links and QR codes in chat. Only scan QR codes or click device‑linking links when you yourself are in the app’s device‑linking menu and you initiated the process. If a message pushes you to “verify your device” or “secure your data” via a link or QR, assume it is part of this campaign.
Regularly review linked devices and group memberships. In Signal and WhatsApp, check the list of linked devices and remove anything you do not recognize. Also keep an eye out for strange group participants or duplicate contacts (for example “deleted account” or a contact that appears twice), which Dutch intelligence services mention as possible signs of account compromise.
Use built‑in hardening features. Enable options like registration lock, registration PIN and device‑change alerts so that your account cannot be silently re‑registered without an extra secret. Store your PIN in a password manager instead of choosing something easy to guess or reusing a common code, to reduce the chance of social engineering or shoulder‑surfing.
Use disappearing messages
Both Signal and WhatsApp support disappearing messages, and using them can meaningfully limit the impact of account compromise or device access (though they don’t prevent it completely).
Short‑timer and disappearing messages reduce how much content is available if an attacker gets into a chat later, or if someone obtains long‑term access to a device or backup. They are not a complete solution, but they can limit the damage.
Signal lets you set a per‑chat timer so that all new messages in that conversation auto‑delete from all devices after the chosen period. You can enable it for 1:1 or group chats and choose from various durations (seconds to weeks), and either party can see it is enabled and change the timer.
WhatsApp also supports disappearing messages with timers per chat (and a default option for new chats). Messages can auto-delete after periods such as 24 hours, 7 days, or 90 days, and newer builds include shorter options like 1 or 12 hours.
You turn it on in the chat info under “Disappearing messages,” then pick the desired timer; only messages sent after enabling it are affected.
For particularly sensitive media or voice messages, WhatsApp also offers “view once” photos, voice messages, and videos that can only be opened a single time before disappearing from the chat.
To set up two-factor authentication (2FA) on Signal, enable the Registration Lock feature, which requires your set PIN to log in on a new device. Open Signal, go to Settings > Privacy > Registration Lock and turn it on. This ensures that even if someone steals your SIM, they cannot access your account without your personal PIN.
We don’t just report on privacy—we offer you the option to use it.
Privacy risks should never spread beyond a headline. Keep your online privacy yours by using Malwarebytes Privacy VPN.
Login
