Executive summary

In 2025, several threat actors exploited CVE-2025-53770 and CVE-2025-53771 (ToolShell vulnerabilities) in on-premises Microsoft SharePoint to achieve remote code execution through crafted HTTP requests. One of the threat actors deployed ransomware on the target’s systems after successful exploitation. Microsoft attributed this ransomware-related ToolShell activity to Storm-2603, distinguishing it from other actors whose observed activity was primarily focused on credential theft, espionage, and data exfiltration.

In December, our retrospective analysis identified activity consistent with Storm-2603’s TTPs. This activity involved the attacker using the IIS worker process as an in-memory bridge to the customer’s infrastructure, keeping the access and control layer entirely within w3wp.exe without writing anything to disk. Although subsequent post-exploitation activity generated disk artifacts, the bridge used to maintain access remained memory-resident.

Let’s look in more detail at this attack.

The attack chain, from reconnaissance to infrastructure compromise

Intrusion timeline: Strategic latency and exploitation

The intrusion analyzed in this report occurred in two stages, with a temporal gap between initial access and subsequent exploitation activity. The attack timeline was as follows:

• Dec 20 – Vulnerability fingerprinting: A single HTTP request targeted a SharePoint administrative endpoint associated with the ToolPane component to determine whether the host was vulnerable to CVE-2025-53770.
• Dec 21-23 – Tactical latency: A three-day period of silence followed the initial probe, separating the vulnerability fingerprinting from subsequent malicious activity and potentially reducing the likelihood of immediate detection.
• Dec 24 – High-intensity re-engagement: On Christmas Eve, when security staffing at many companies is reduced, the full RCE chain was executed through the IIS worker process (w3wp.exe) on the same endpoint as the initial probe.
• Dec 26 – Incident discovery: The three-day gap initially prevented the December 20 probe from being correlated with subsequent malicious activity, marking the event as low priority. Retrospective analysis established that the probe was the initial phase of the subsequent intrusion.

Intrusion timeline

Initial access validation phase

Vulnerability fingerprinting

A vulnerability fingerprinting request on December 20 marked the first observed interaction with the target. The request originated from infrastructure associated with ONYPHE, an internet-scale attack surface discovery and management platform for identifying exposed assets, vulnerabilities, and cyberthreats. Unlike widely used tools such as Shodan and Censys, which merely provide a list of internet-facing assets correlated with the open-source data about known vulnerabilities, ONYPHE actually checks if the target system is vulnerable.

Fingerprinting with ONYPHE

The request characteristics were consistent with ONYPHE’s vulnerability checks, which use active, non-intrusive probes to identify internet-exposed systems vulnerable to specific CVEs. For ToolShell, ONYPHE adopted the approach used by Niels Hofmans (hazcod). Namely, it attempts to inject a harmless marker into the target server to find out if it is vulnerable.

OFFICIAL ONYPHE CVE CHECKER (TOOLSHELL)

This phase served as a validation step against the SharePoint execution surface exposed over HTTP:

• The target processed structured requests through the ASP.NET pipeline without rejection.
• The request path reached application logic capable of handling serialized input.
• No defensive controls interrupted or altered the execution flow at the application boundary.

Approximately 12 minutes later, a second inbound connection originated from infrastructure associated with Pfcloud UG, a provider operating under a bulletproof hosting (BPH) model. Given the timing and the IP’s documented history of scanning and abusive activity, the connection may represent follow-on reconnaissance against the newly identified target. No exploitation was attempted at this stage.

A connection from an IP address belonging to Pfcloud UG BPH

Active exploitation: Santa took your data and left a backdoor

The main malicious activity occurred on December 24. The actor targeted the same SharePoint host with a crafted request from 45.91.94.204 (45.91.92.0/22, ASN 63473, HostHatch, LLC). This resulted in a webshell execution within the IIS worker process (w3wp.exe). The payload was not written to disk; rather, it was loaded directly into the ASP.NET runtime and used during subsequent request processing. The implant remained resident for the lifetime of the affected application domain. This runtime state was lost when the application pool was recycled or IIS was restarted.

Attack originated from an SPN node

The IP address 45.91.94.204 is a Safing Privacy Network (SPN) node. SPN routes each connection through a multilayer VPN path with multiple relay nodes that can obscure the originating IP.

SPN promotes itself as a network that offers strong privacy protection for internet traffic. Its infrastructure resembles Tor’s in many ways, but with some differences. It features the following capabilities:

• Speed: Near-VPN performance for high-speed data transfer.
• Layer 3 support: Supports multiple protocols like TCP, UDP, ICMP (unlike Tor, which only supports TCP).
• App-routing: Direct tunneling without a browser.
• Multi-identity: Simultaneous exit nodes to bypass IP rate limits.
• Fixed-size packets and padding make it harder to analyze its traffic.

It is less common than Tor, and frequently bypasses standard Tor blocklists.

Webshell architecture

The webshell the attackers injected into the w3wp.exe runtime is a multi-module in-memory framework, where execution is orchestrated through the main component (G.cs) and extended via multiple functional units across namespaces.

The implementation follows a modular C# project structure in which each capability is isolated into its own compilation unit and invoked dynamically at runtime.

Webshell components

“G.cs” pipeline control and C2

Pipeline control

The main webshell component is G.cs. It orchestrates the implant’s execution context, lifecycle, C2 and session management.

To ensure persistence within the runtime, G.cs performs the following actions:

• Registers a custom VirtualPathProvider using the non-public RegisterVirtualPassProviderInternal method from the ASP.NET HostingEnvironment class so that ASP.NET uses it for virtual-path processing. The provider is automatically added to the chain of registered virtual path providers.
  
• Delegates the provider’s .NET Remoting lifetime policy to the previous provider in the chain, preserving the existing lifetime behavior.
  

Additionally, to evade defenses and enable the VirtualPathProvider to be registered even if the application in whose AppDomain the webshell is running is precompiled, the module implements the trust control subversion (T1553) technique:

• Uses reflection to check if the application is precompiled.
• Extracts pointers for internal state fields for the BuildManager class, which manages application compilation, and modifies them at runtime.
  
• Uses reflection once again to force runtime injection.

G.cs uses the GetCacheKey() function as the interception point for the virtual path processing flow. It processes incoming requests to the SharePoint server and checks their headers to filter out requests from the attacker.

The specific User-Agent in the request headers triggers the webshell execution. If the request doesn’t match this condition, the implant remains dormant, making its traffic harder to recognize.

Command and control layer (in-memory transport)

The same core module (G.cs) implements the communication layer.

Instead of relying on external frameworks or standard beacons, it uses a custom binary protocol with XOR-based obfuscation to exchange data with the C2. These communications blend into normal application traffic. The module uses the GetCacheKey() hook to intercept standard HTTP requests. When a specific User-Agent is detected in the request headers, the module parses it, extracts the payload, and establishes a TCP connection to a target host inside the target’s network if needed.

Bidirectional TCP tunnel initialization

G.cs establishes a full-duplex proxy tunnel to support interactive control. It stores active target sockets in memory to pair concurrent HTTP read and write channels.

TCP connections from the C2 server to arbitrary hosts inside the target network are supported for pivoting and lateral movement. The traffic is proxied through the SharePoint host.

Target-to-attacker data channel

Attacker-to-target data channel

As can be seen in the screenshots, the attackers used the suo5 tool to implement traffic proxying. Its authors promote it as a stable forward-proxying tool for scenarios where outbound internet connections are prohibited.

To increase its performance, G.cs manipulates ThreadPool by raising its limits for concurrent operations and maximum timeout.

ThreadPool manipulation

“Prog.cs”: Execution entry point and task dispatcher

Prog.cs is the entry point that receives command-line arguments and passes them to uk/London.cs. The latter acts as the orchestrator, handling command parsing and privilege escalation (via named pipe impersonation). We’ll review it in more detail later. If the “suo5” command is provided, London.cs triggers G.cs to hook into the ASP.NET runtime as a memory shell. Once active, G.cs independently processes incoming web traffic inside the web server memory.

Host interaction modules

The following modules provide direct system interaction capabilities, each implemented as a separate unit. London.cs triggers these modules when it receives a corresponding command from Prog.cs.

“FileDownloader.cs”

The FileDownloader.cs module downloads arbitrary files from external URLs provided by the C2. It stores the downloaded files in the Program Data directory without any user interaction.

“LoggedOnUsers.cs”

This module enumerates logged-on users and identifies their session types (interactive, service, remote). The results are stored in memory. The attackers can retrieve them using the proxy and tunneling capabilities provided by G.cs.

“ProcessList.cs”

This module lists running processes with full paths to the corresponding executables on the disk. The results are stored in memory and the attackers can retrieve them via G.cs.

“NetworkInfo.cs”

This module extracts information about existing network connections, including protocols, local and remote IPs and ports, and connection state. It also enumerates network interfaces and headers. The results are stored in memory and can be retrieved by the attackers via G.cs.

“MSI.cs”

This module silently installs and executes MSI packages previously downloaded by FileDownloader.cs.

“User.cs”

This module creates administrative accounts using the native SAM RPC subsystem (SAMRPCNative namespace) rather than standard command-line tooling. This may indicate an attempt to evade detection and provide the attackers with privileged stealthy access to target systems that persists after the webshell has finished its work.

SAMRPCNative

The SAMRPCNative namespace implements a low-level C# P/Invoke wrapper for the native Windows samlib.dll library, comprising three types: SAMStructs.cs, SAMMethods.cs, and SAMEnums.cs.

“SAMEnums.cs”

Implements structured bitwise lists and constant flags mapping numeric codes to their security meaning in SAM, and translates system status return codes.

“SAMStructs.cs”

Defines native data structures required for P/Invoke memory alignment and for marshalling. It securely formats and aligns data structures.

“SAMMethods.cs”

Contains external API declarations (P/Invoke) imported from samlib.dll to perform actions such as connecting to the SAM server, creating users and opening domains.

This layer is crucial for the attackers because it enables account operations.

Privilege escalation

The uk namespace contains offensive primitives for privilege escalation. To elevate privileges to SYSTEM, it uses a local token impersonation technique via the Encrypting File System Remote Protocol (EFSRPC) interface adopted from the EfsPotato tool.

This functionality is implemented in the uk/London class. It creates a malicious named pipe while the EfsrTiny class (a tiny version of the EfsPotato tool) connects to the LSASS.exe RPC server. Then it’s London.RpcThread function calls the EfsRpcEncryptFileSrv function from EfsrTiny with a crafted \\localhost path. This tricks LSASS.exe into connecting back to the attacker’s named pipe. Finally, the London.Exp function uses ImpersonateNamedPipeClient to coerce and impersonate the LSASS.exe token and spawn a new process via CreateProcessAsUser with SYSTEM privileges. As the webshell resides in the IIS worker process, it has the necessary SeImpersonatePrivilege to perform this technique.

The uk namespace also implements a minimal MSRPC client layer by explicitly defining structures such as RPC_CLIENT_INTERFACE and MIDL_STUB_DESC, thereby spoofing an interface stub. This enables direct interaction with the Windows RPC runtime (Rpcrt4.dll) without relying on MIDL-generated stubs or higher-level RPC abstractions. This provides direct control over binding and marshaling that goes beyond the constraints of standard client APIs.

Post-exploitation activity

Shortly after the webshell injection, the infected worker process spawned msiexec.exe to install a remote MSI payload hosted in Supabase cloud storage. The payload was Velociraptor, an open-source digital forensics and incident response tool – namely version 0.73.4.0 vulnerable to CVE-2025-6264 – that the attackers abused for command execution on the target network.

In October 2025, Cisco Talos reported Velociraptor being leveraged by threat actors as a post-compromise execution framework and attributed this activity to Storm-2603. This tool enables arbitrary command execution, and can be used for various purposes. In our case, it was used for persistence, discovery, data collection and payload execution.

The threat actor used Velociraptor to deploy multiple independent tunneling mechanisms, including Zoho Assist-Unattended Support for unauthorized remote access, VS Code CLI tunneling, Cloudflare Tunnel, and a lightweight reverse proxy utility. By doing so, they attempted to maintain access even if some of their tools were detected and deleted. At this stage, they also no longer depended on the IIS worker process lifecycle and ToolShell vulnerability.

EDR-killing attempts

Once the threat actor had access to the target system, they were able to upload a vulnerable driver that is used by many attackers to terminate EDR solutions. We were able to detect the main driver at C:\programdata\rsndispot.sys (054a32d6033b1744dca7f49b2e466ea2). In addition, the adversary used a malicious DLL (2d9ebf9c042f596f435865b40edad928) in a sideloading attack. This DLL was identified as Warlock ransomware’s AV killer. It was possibly intended to kill security solutions using the vulnerable rsndispot.sys driver.

Ransomware deployment attempt

The attackers made attempts to launch ransomware on the compromised system. However, the Proactive Defense Module in Kaspersky Endpoint Security blocked the ransomware process, effectively preventing this activity. The malware DLL we obtained was identified as Warlock ransomware.

What defenders really need to look for

ToolPane deserialization and CLR artifacts

When the attackers tried to access ToolPane, both the dynamically compiled App_Web_toolpane.aspx assembly and the Microsoft.GeneratedCode helper assembly were present within the same application domain.

Both assemblies are used in legitimate scenarios. App_Web_* assemblies are generated during normal ASP.NET page compilation, while Microsoft.GeneratedCode is typically produced by the XmlSerializer during legitimate serialization workflows. However, a request to the ToolPane endpoint that results in immediate loading of Microsoft.GeneratedCode within the same execution window indicates that the runtime is processing serialized data supplied through the request.

Detecting deserialization exploitation

First, it is highly recommended to read this article (in Russian) on how deserialization exploit attempts in the CLR should be detected, with examples of YARA rules and monitoring recommendations. A summary of the main idea of the detection logic is provided below.

Deserialization vulnerabilities should be treated as a distinct class of exploitation events. In the CLR, deserialization is not merely the conversion of bytes into values – it is the reconstruction of an object graph from an incoming stream. Serialization and deserialization are performed by formatters. One of the most widely used formatters is BinaryFormatter. It uses the NRBF format, which defines the stream as a sequence of records describing classes, arrays, primitives, and references between objects. The shape of the resulting graph is determined by the data supplied to the deserializer. This means that the input stream defines not only the values but also the specific types, relationships, and lifecycle points that the runtime must materialize.

Microsoft states explicitly that BinaryFormatter is unsafe and cannot be made safe; beginning with .NET 9, the in-box implementation is effectively removed from ordinary use. However, Microsoft continues to use it in its products, including SharePoint, because it is powerful and easy to use. To fix BinaryFormatter-related issues, architectural changes are needed. Similar warnings also apply to related unsafe mechanisms, including LosFormatter (used in the vulnerable page).

The primary risk of unsafe deserialization is that the CLR may resolve unexpected types, instantiate objects outside normal constructor invariants, and invoke special lifecycle mechanisms such as ISerializable, IObjectReference, IDeserializationCallback, and methods marked [OnDeserialized]. In other words, the attacker-controlled data can force the runtime to construct a graph containing types with executable side effects.

A practical detection strategy should therefore focus on graph-construction artifacts. CLR loader events identify the relevant assemblies and application domains. Memory and metadata inspection then reveal the type names and generated serializer structures associated with the suspected gadget chain. In ToolShell-like scenarios, unsafe deserialization usually produces helper assemblies (evidence in loader events) with metadata containing fully qualified type names, gadget class names, and string representations of the constructed generic types (just scan via YARA for it). In our case, the artifacts to look for include Microsoft.GeneratedCode, App_Web_toolpane.aspx* (evidence of deserialization in loader events) as well as strings identifying ObjectDataProvider, ExpandedWrapper, and LosFormatter (evidence that the input stream was deserialized into dangerous objects). Note that these indicators are not significant in isolation; their value lies in the fact that they show the runtime has already received data requiring helper code generation to reconstruct a dangerous object graph.

Gadget objects that exploit vulnerabilities like those associated with ToolShell are conveniently represented in corpus-style tooling such as ysoserial.net/YSoNet, which aggregate known gadget chains for unsafe .NET deserialization. For defensive purposes, the value of these projects lies not in their offensive capability but in the catalog of types and structures that can be searched for in streams, memory, and helper assemblies. The presence of any of them in memory or in a helper assembly should be treated as a strong indicator of exploitation.

To simplify deserialization exploit detection, we created a tool named CLRDeserializationExploitFinder. It can detect ToolShell exploitation attempts, as well as other gadget chains covered by ysoserial.net.

Detecting a VPP-based webshell/runtime implant

A mechanism based on VirtualPathProvider should be treated as a separate class of runtime implant (no files involved). In ASP.NET, HostingEnvironment.RegisterVirtualPathProvider registers a new virtual-path provider (VPP) in the application’s compilation system. Once registered, the application can serve virtual paths during dynamic compilation as though they were ordinary on-disk pages. Dynamic compilation does not require the payload to exist as a file in the filesystem. It operates entirely within the trust boundary of the application itself. During the compilation process, temporary files may be generated, but they cannot be treated as reliable forensic artifacts. Because VPPs can also be used for legitimate purposes, the defensive model should begin with an inventory of the legitimate VirtualPathProvider implementations. In all other cases, the registration or use of a new VPP should be considered anomalous.

To see how the dynamic generation of virtual pages using ASP.NET, IIS, and the CLR works, and to learn how to detect such activity, use our project VirtualPathProvider Lab.

The most useful telemetry source for this technique is the Microsoft-Windows-IIS-Configuration ETW provider. To detect virtual paths, events 25 and 47 are of primary value. Event 25 records the mapping of ConfigPath to PhysicalPath, and event 47 records the mapping of the configuration path to a directory. In the case of a VPP-backed path, these events create an inconsistency: IIS and ASP.NET behave as if the path has a physical representation, while the corresponding file does not exist on disk. In the example provided by VirtualPathProvider Lab, this appears as a mapping of the virtual resource googlecheck.aspx to a physical path where no real file is present. This discrepancy between configuration resolution and filesystem reality is the primary indicator of virtual content.

The second indicator is more negative than positive. For disk-backed files, IIS normally creates a FileChangeNotificationMonitor chain, as reflected in events 17, 18, 19, and 21. For virtual paths served by a custom VirtualPathProvider, this chain is absent or does not match the normal profile of an ordinary file because there is no physical object or corresponding on-disk change lifecycle. Consequently, the presence of positive events 25 and 47 combined with the absence of the expected events 17, 18, 19, and 21 for the same path forms a reliable detection pattern: the path exists for IIS as a configuration-resolved resource, yet it is not backed by the filesystem and is not accompanied by normal file-change monitoring.

To sum up, the hunting target here is the discrepancy between how IIS/ASP.NET resolves a resource and what is actually present on the disk and in the change-monitoring chain. For known applications, such cases can be filtered through an allowlist of legitimate VirtualPathProvider implementations. Anything else should be treated as a potential runtime implant and examined using ETW, filesystem verification, and memory inspection of the w3wp.exe process.

Attribution

Microsoft tracks Storm-2603 as a standalone threat actor with no known links to other groups. While they are careful about assessing the actor’s motivation, they mention that it has previously deployed Warlock and LockBit ransomware following active exploitation of on-premises SharePoint vulnerabilities. In the analyzed incident, we observed similar SharePoint exploitation activities, as well as an EDR killer associated with Warlock ransomware and unsuccessful Warlock launch attempts.

Other documented intrusions have identified Storm-2603 as leveraging known flaws within perimeter mail gateways to achieve initial access, subsequently staging the Velociraptor framework with elevated privileges and establishing persistent encrypted tunnels via commercial remote management software to orchestrate secondary lateral movement. This aligns with the post-exploitation behavior we observed in our case. Together with the ToolShell exploitation scenario, this allows us to attribute this case to Storm-2603 with moderate confidence.

Conclusion

From the incident analyzed in this article, the main defensive lesson is that exploiting an internet-facing SharePoint server can enable fileless code execution directly inside the application trust boundary. Storm-2603 did not require a conventional dropper, persistent service, or exposed C2 endpoint; instead, it deployed a webshell inside w3wp.exe, from which tunneling, privilege escalation, credential access, and lateral movement could be orchestrated. Detection therefore needs to move beyond file-based webshell hunting toward runtime behavior, such as anomalous w3wp.exe activity, unexpected outbound connections, RPC coercion, token impersonation, and the introduction of remote-management or DFIR tooling after application compromise.

To correctly attribute malicious activity and develop appropriate response measures, defenders should reconstruct execution chains and temporal relationships across application, host, and identity layers. They should also preserve memory and IIS telemetry, and correlate low-signal reconnaissance with subsequent privileged activity rather than evaluating events in isolation. A confirmed SharePoint exploit with code execution should trigger host-level containment, persistence hunting, credential and exposed MachineKey rotation, and TTP-driven investigation rather than remediation limited to the initial exploit or known IOCs.

Kaspersky products detect the threats mentioned in this article as:

• Trojan.MSIL.Agent.gen
• Trojan.Win64.DLLhijack.cdp

Indicator of compromise

Background

Network-connected surveillance cameras are now widespread in both home and enterprise environments, so securing them is essential to safeguarding physical spaces and sensitive assets. As these devices continue to gain new features and network connectivity capabilities, vulnerabilities in their implementation can have significant security implications.

During our research, we discovered a denial-of-service vulnerability that affects Intelbras IP cameras systems. The flaw resides in a firmware update endpoint that is accessible without authentication and allows anyone with access to the local Wi-Fi network to knock cameras offline. A single request disrupts the camera for only about a minute, but sending periodic requests keeps the device offline indefinitely. We reported the issue to Intelbras, monitored the remediation process, validated the fix in the new firmware, and will now demonstrate the exploitation procedure step-by-step.

Following our notification, Intelbras patched the vulnerability and released updated firmware (R.260804) along with update instructions. A candidate ID of CAN-2026-2035970 has been assigned by MITRE following submission, pending the final CVE assignment. Additionally, the Intelbras team recently informed us that MITRE has classified the vulnerability as Medium, assigning it a score of 5.1 under the CVSS 4.0 framework. The issue discussed in this article is no longer present in the latest firmware version.

Firmware

Intelbras provides firmware files on its official website. While users can manually install these updates via an SD card, the cameras also natively support firmware upgrades over the local network via their web interface and mobile app. We obtained the firmware version v240927 for the iM3B-C (IM3 C) camera, which was the latest available version at the time of our research. According to Intelbras, the same firmware is also compatible with the iMX C, iM4 C, iM5 SC, iME 360 C, and iM7+ FC models. Below, we can view the firmware version and the camera model used as an example.

To provide context, we will explain how the camera’s authentication mechanism works and why it is relevant to accessing the camera’s endpoints. The main firmware component is an ARM binary named sonia, responsible for controlling the kernel drivers used by the camera hardware, authentication, and livestream recording, among other things.

How authentication works

The global.login RPC method handles authentication at the /RPC2_Login endpoint. First, the client, such as the mobile app or a custom script, sends the username and an empty password. The camera responds with an authentication challenge (a set of values to verify the password without transmitting it). This response returns a temporary session, the encryption type in the encryption field, a random value, and a realm (authentication scope). At this stage, a false response is normal and does not indicate a failed login, as the authentication process is not yet complete.

Next, the client calculates the response password from the authentication challenge. It first generates an MD5 (username:realm:original_password) hash as the base. It then calculates a second MD5 (username:random:first_md5) hash,  where first_md5 is the result of the previous step. To complete the authentication, the client sends this final result back to /RPC2_Login in a second global.login call, passing the username, calculated password, and temporary session ID.

If the login is accepted, the camera returns true and a new, authenticated session. This session must be used for all subsequent RPC calls, including the camera’s other endpoints, for example, the one that reboots the device or those that expose sensitive information.

Affected endpoint

The affected endpoint is the firmware upgrade route http://<ip_address>/firmwareUpgrade_service/Demo, which lacks authentication checks; furthermore, it fails to verify whether the firmware is actually valid before initiating the upgrade process. This creates a serious issue because the upgrade requires the camera to reboot, and that is precisely when the problem occurs: the camera enters reboot mode and eventually shuts down, appearing offline to the user and anyone who has the camera registered on their device.

PoC: vulnerability exploitation

Now that we have outlined how the vulnerability works, we will use a Python script on an iM3B-C camera to exploit it for demonstration purposes. The exploit contacts the camera’s endpoint to upload firmware. Below, we can see sonia creating the endpoint responsible for the firmware upgrade.

Next, the exploit will hit the endpoint and cause the camera to reboot. Consequently, mobile phones running the Intelbras app will lose connection with the registered device. Below, we can see the camera operating normally: the green light is on and the app is showing it is available for viewing.

The camera is online

After the exploit executes, we can see the effects: the camera goes offline and loses connection to the registered devices.

The camera is offline

The exploit is quite simple: it sends an HTTP POST request with the firmware, which causes the camera to accept the request and initiate the reboot process. It does not matter whether the firmware is original; the reboot process will start regardless.

New firmware version

After we notified Intelbras about this flaw in the endpoint implementation, the company contacted the OEM vendor. As a result, a new firmware version was released that requires authentication to initiate an update through this endpoint.

Below, we can compare the new firmware, which validates cookies and session data, with the old firmware, which performed no authentication checks and proceeded directly to the update routine.

Real risk

An attacker can remotely trigger the camera firmware upgrade and reboot process without authenticating or supplying a valid firmware image. This may cause the device to go offline, which results in a denial-of-service condition preventing legitimate users from accessing live monitoring or managing the camera.

The potential impact is significant due to the number of affected users. The Intelbras Mibo Smart app, which the company provides to connect and manage the devices mentioned in this report, has over 4,000,000 downloads. Brazil represents the largest user base, followed by Paraguay, Ecuador, Colombia, Argentina, Chile, Peru, Bolivia, Uruguay, and Venezuela. As a result, exploitation of this issue affects a large number of users.

Takeaways

This is a medium-severity vulnerability that Intelbras is already aware of. The issue has been addressed in a newer firmware release (R.260804 along with update instructions), which mitigates this attack vector. Because the vulnerability directly affects the availability and normal operation of the affected cameras, it is highly recommended that users verify the firmware version currently installed on their devices and update to the latest available version as soon as possible. Keeping the firmware up to date is an essential security practice, especially for internet-connected surveillance devices, as outdated versions may remain exposed to known vulnerabilities.

CVE-2026-109618 and CVE-2026-109619 are Critical vulnerabilities in PHP, a scripting language used globally for web servers and CMS systems.

The post Threat Brief: Critical Vulnerabilities in PHP: CVE-2026-109618, CVE-2026-109619 (Updated October 29) appeared first on Unit 42.

Update Oct 22 2026: New sections were added for “Observed Threat Activity and Indicators” and “Mitigations and Recommendations.”

Introduction

Back in October 2022, Kaspersky GReAT was looking into a peculiar advertisement on a hacking forum. A cybercriminal had been advertising a UEFI bootkit, dubbed BlackLotus, that could bypass Secure Boot, for $5,000. Given the low price for such powerful capabilities, the cybersecurity community initially took this advertisement with a grain of salt. As no BlackLotus samples were found in the wild, no one could at the time verify the claims made in the forum post.

BlackLotus advertisement

However, about half a year later, in March 2023, ESET confirmed that the BlackLotus advertisement was genuine. The researchers tracked down samples of this bootkit and confirmed that it can indeed bypass Secure Boot through a vulnerability called Baton Drop (CVE-2022-21894). As this vulnerability was still exploitable in 2023, Microsoft had to release multiple security updates to address it.

Since the release of these updates, the BlackLotus bootkit has gone quiet — no publicly known attacks have used it. Yet in early 2026, we discovered a malware sample similar to BlackLotus that was used in an APT campaign in Central Asia. In this report, we share our findings, including new payloads and possible attribution of this campaign.

The return of the infamous bootkit

In early 2026 we identified a complex APT attack targeting diplomatic agencies in Central Asian countries — namely Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, and Turkmenistan. This attack involved a UEFI bootkit that we dubbed BlackX. Having examined it, we found it to be similar to BlackLotus.

Attackers have been deploying BlackX after compromising the victim machine networks and obtaining administrator privileges. To install the bootkit, we observed them dropping the following files:

• inst.exe, an installer executable
• PVMDIJGKAX2, an RC4-encrypted extensionless file containing files and strings required for the installation

The installer was launched with the command line C:\ProgramData\Intel\inst.exe PVMDIJGKAX2 Q46F6MDLI3RX2KV1. The last argument here is the RC4 key used for decryption.

Curiously, the file inst.exe does not contain any malicious strings or embedded blobs. All the files needed to install the malicious payload are inside PVMDIJGKAX2, which makes it harder for incident responders to retrieve the bootkit components.

The installer package drops a set of files to both system and UEFI partitions, designed to exploit the Baton Drop vulnerability. We noted that the implementation of the exploit is remarkably similar to the one used in the BlackLotus malware. As with BlackLotus, the goal of the exploit is to install custom Machine Owner Keys (MOK), which allows loading arbitrary EFI files on the target machines to manipulate Secure Boot.

While the vulnerability exploitation chain was implemented very similarly to BlackLotus, we spotted differences between the exploits in BlackLotus and BlackX. That said, the source code of the BlackLotus bootkit has never been published online. This could mean that the attackers behind BlackX either reverse-engineered the BlackLotus bootkit or purchased its source code from cybercriminals. Either way, this is an interesting observation, as we rarely see APT actors borrow ideas or code from cybercrime actors.

Payload launched by the bootkit

The UEFI payload delivered during the Baton Drop exploitation has a classic bootkit goal — to inject a malicious driver into the Windows kernel. This driver differs from the one deployed by BlackLotus and is signed with a certificate belonging to an organization named 温江区明宇网络技术服务工作室 (English: Wenjiang District Mingyu Network Technology Service Studio). At the time of writing, this certificate (serial number: 0bcdf5e0da32d68900b8b7638459d072) has been revoked by its issuer.

The driver aims to tamper with security solutions installed on the machine. For example, it disables process, thread, and registry callbacks related to security solutions. It also tampers with ETW providers so that security solutions cannot access their output. Curiously, some of the tampering procedures are designed to run only if Kaspersky or Avast solutions are installed on the infected machine. However, during dynamic analysis of this driver, we found that these procedures are useless — they fail to interfere with Kaspersky products in any way.

The driver also protects the bootkit’s files from tampering. It intercepts kernel requests to open these files and returns a handle to calc.exe instead of a malicious file handle.

User-mode second-stage payloads

Apart from tampering with security solutions, the driver also deploys a user-mode payload. We observed two such payloads, used for cyberespionage, in the wild. One of them is a RAT that can load further-stage .NET payloads. This RAT uses cloud storage for C2 server communications — we observed its versions using Google Drive, OneDrive, and Yandex.Disk. Having connected to a cloud storage service, this RAT iterates over files available there and interprets them depending on the file suffix. Below is a list of supported suffixes:

We also observed another payload delivered through the bootkit, which we dubbed OxiDLLRunner. It is a malicious DLL obfuscated with OLLVM. It is loaded by the legitimate file googleupdate.exe (original filename: jcef_helper.exe, MD5: AF8A983B9ADA07EAE1259BF2953ABD40), which is also delivered by the bootkit. The DLL decrypts the contents of the file v8_context_snapshot.bin, which resides in the same folder, and then jumps to the beginning of the decrypted content. The decrypted data starts with shellcode followed by a PE file, which is a Rust payload designed to communicate with the www[.]archivetj[.]com C2 server. During communication, this payload is supposed to receive DLL files exporting a function named create_plugin, which are then executed in separate threads.

Attribution

Based on the following facts, we have attributed this attack to the APT41 threat actor with medium confidence:

• In June 2026, ESET published a blog post on attacks by the FishMonger threat actor, which the community assumes to be related to APT41. This post describes a kernel implant with a PDB path starting with C:\Users\xdd\Desktop. While describing the campaign, the post also suggests the possible use of an unspecified UEFI bootkit component, which might exploit CVE‑2023‑24932. We observed the identifier “xdd” used multiple times in the BlackX bootkit payloads, so we assess that BlackX is the UEFI bootkit referenced in the ESET blog post;
• The payloads deployed by BlackX are loaded using a legitimate executable abused via DLL sideloading, and an encrypted file — this pattern is common among Chinese-speaking threat actors;
• The OxiDLLRunner file has been obfuscated with OLLVM, an obfuscator commonly used by Chinese-speaking actors.

Why did the target organizations get infected?

During our initial analysis of BlackX, we thought that attackers succeeded in deploying it due to the negligence of the target organizations. Baton Drop, the vulnerability used to deploy BlackX, was disclosed back in 2023 and was patched, so we first thought that the infected machines lacked the relevant updates. However, our investigation proved this wrong — the targeted machines were fully patched.

Instead, we found out that the problem was with the patch itself. As it turned out, the patch for the Baton Drop vulnerability is designed to revoke the “Windows Production PCA 2011” certificate used to sign vulnerable UEFI components. However, this revocation does not happen automatically upon patch installation — the user has to trigger it manually. This is done with the following steps:

• A registry flag is set inside HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Control\Secureboot;
• A scheduled task named Secure-Boot-Update is created.

This patch is designed to be applied manually — for instance, applying it automatically could break dual-boot systems relying on the “Windows Production PCA 2011” certificate to load. At the same time, this patch deployment practice creates a problem — as it is extremely unusual for a system administrator to take extra steps after installing an update. Usually, when applying patches, system administrators take no further action unless an installation failure occurs. These instructions for activating the patch are buried deep on the Microsoft website, and we assess that they are quite hard for an average IT administrator to notice.

Curiously, Microsoft’s plan for deploying the Baton Drop patches mentions an “Enforcement Phase” that involves revoking the “Windows Production PCA 2011” certificate automatically, without user interaction. At the time of publishing this post, this stage has not been implemented. On October 19, 2026, this certificate expired, but this does not prevent the vulnerable binaries from loading unless the certificate is blocklisted.

It is likely that the threat actor behind this campaign took into account that few organizations realized the importance of manually activating the Baton Drop patch. As such, we believe they decided to invest time in understanding how BlackLotus works and creating a copycat of this bootkit.

Conclusion

Patch management is important for every organization, as updates from vendors help protect software and hardware against known vulnerabilities. However, sometimes installed patches fail to protect against the flaws they address. The BlackLotus story we described is not the only such example — for instance, in 2025 Microsoft released an update against the ToolShell vulnerability that also had to be applied manually.

However, modern security solutions are designed to account for such cases when installed patches fail to protect against security flaws for one reason or another. For instance, the Exploit Prevention component available in Kaspersky products prevents exploits from running if the patch is not applied, or if it is a zero-day vulnerability with no available patch. It is thus crucial to equip all machines in an organization with security solutions and constantly monitor the alerts they raise.

UPD 23.10.2026: added Kaspersky SIEM rules and events for developing custom detection rules or conducting threat hunting.

UPD 22.10.2026: added a description of how the Kaspersky Managed Detection and Response service detects the described malicious activity.

UPD 22.10.2026: added a description of how Kaspersky Vulnerability Management detects vulnerable versions of PHP.

Vulnerability overview

On October 20, 2026, the PHP security team published a preliminary notice regarding an upcoming emergency release that addresses two critical vulnerabilities (both rated 9.2 on the CVSS scale). The patches were released on Wednesday, October 21, 2026, at 14:00 UTC.

The release was expedited after information about the vulnerabilities was leaked to the public before the scheduled embargo was lifted. In a post on Hacker News, a user reported two RCE vulnerabilities in PHP, allegedly affecting all versions starting with PHP 5.4.0.

The vulnerabilities in question are CVE-2026-109618 and CVE-2026-109619. Shortly after the post appeared, researchers confirmed the existence of the vulnerabilities. Along with the leak of details, an exploit unofficially named PHP2Shell appeared online. In the leaked demo video, the exploit is shown in action on web servers running WordPress, MediaWiki, phpBB, Magento, Joomla, Laravel, Symfony, Drupal, and WHMCS — platforms that power many modern websites. The authenticity of the demonstration and the exact behavior of the exploit had not been independently verified at the time of publication.

According to the researcher who published the PoC, the vulnerabilities are related to the handling of the multipart/form-data MIME type in conjunction with the session upload progress mechanism (session.upload_progress) in the PHP core and fall under the categories of use-after-free and memory corruption. This means that the flaws cannot be fixed via application code, and the only fix is to update PHP on the server. The attack requires no authentication: an attacker with network access to a PHP application can execute arbitrary code with the privileges of the PHP process without needing to authenticate. Security advisories issued by the PHP team on October 21 confirm this information.

The vulnerabilities affect PHP versions 5, 7, and 8. As of this publication, branches 8.2 through 8.5 are supported. Older branches, including PHP 8.1, 8.0, 7.x, and 5.x, have reached the end of their lifecycle; however, due to the critical severity of the vulnerabilities, backported patches have also been released for versions 7.4, 8.0, and 8.1.

Sansec experts estimate that widespread exploitation could begin within 15 minutes of the update’s release. We strongly recommend that administrators responsible for publicly accessible PHP web servers take the following steps before the patch is available:

1. Take an inventory of all PHP-based systems in your infrastructure (such as web servers, control panels, and third-party software).
2. Disable upload-progress: set session.upload_progress.enabled = Off using the php_admin_flag in PHP-FPM pools.
3. Block multipart requests on nginx and Apache servers.
4. Consider temporarily isolating PHP applications that connect to the Internet until fixes are released.
5. Be ready to install the patch immediately upon its release.
6. Plan to migrate servers running unsupported versions (8.1 and earlier) to the latest PHP branch.

Detection by Kaspersky solutions

Kaspersky solutions detect the described malicious activity at various stages of the attack. Possible detection scenarios are listed below.

When an attempt is made to exploit these RCE vulnerabilities, Kaspersky Endpoint Detection and Response promptly alerts the user to suspicious actions performed in the context of a web server, on both Linux and Windows machines. This activity is detected by the following rules:

• creating_windows_shell_from_a_web_servers_process;
• possible_web_shell_creating_via_exploit;
• spawning_process_from_webserver_more_filters_linux;
• webserver_interpreter_execution_linux;
• executable_file_in_www_folder.

Detection of the PHP2Shell vulnerability exploit by KEDR

Exploitation of the PHP2Shell vulnerability in network traffic is detected by Kaspersky Anti Targeted Attack (KATA). This solution detects such activity with the following verdicts: Exploit.CVE-2026-109618.HTTP.C&C and Exploit.CVE-2026-109619.HTTP.C&C.

Detection of the PHP2Shell vulnerability exploit by KATA

Kaspersky Endpoint Security, now available as Kaspersky Next, also detects malicious post-exploitation activity using the Behavior Detection component, with verdicts such as PDM:Exploit.Linux.Generic and PDM:Exploit.Win32.Generic.

Our Kaspersky Vulnerability Management solution detects vulnerable software versions using the Vulnerability scanning and Agentless black-box scanning components.

Detection of the PHP vulnerability in Kaspersky Vulnerability Management

• Spawning of suspicious processes by the web server;
• Creation of suspicious executable files in the web application directory;
• Creation of suspicious scripts in the web application directory;
• Creation of files with uncommon extensions in the web application directory;
• Execution of reconnaissance commands by the web server process;
• Execution of persistence commands by the web server process;
• Delivery and launch of web shells on the web server.

Moreover, MDR detects other malicious activity not directly related to remote code execution.

To protect companies that use our Kaspersky SIEM system, the product repository includes rules that help detect the following malicious activity.

• Execution of suspicious executable files by web server processes on Windows and Linux machines:
  • R300_04_Windows shell started by a web application
  • R152_08_A running Linux shell process has a suspicious parent process
• Execution of reconnaissance commands by the web server process:
  • R286_05_Possible web-shell (Linux)

We also recommend monitoring the creation of scripts or executable files in the web server directory when developing your own detection rules or conducting threat hunting:

((DeviceEventClassID = '4663' AND DeviceCustomString1 ilike 'WriteData') OR DeviceEventClassID = '11')
AND match(FileName,'(?i).*\.(php|asp|aspx|ashx|jsp|js|jar|jse|dll|exe|bat|ps1|vbs|wsf|wsh|msi|msp|hta|cpl)$')
AND match(DestinationProcessName,'(?i).*(php-cgi|nginx|httpd|w3wp)\.exe')

Name = 'openat' AND has(SA.Nametype, 'CREATE')
AND
length(arrayFilter(x -> match(x, '(public_html|var/www|usr/local/apache2|usr/local/httpd|var/apache|srv/www|home/httpd/html|srv/http|usr/share/nginx/html|var/lib/pgsql/data|usr/local/mysql/data|var/lib/mysql|var/vsftpd|etc/bind|var/named)'), SA.FileName))>1
AND
length(arrayFilter(x -> match(x, '\.(aspx|asp|asmx|asax|ashx|jspx|jsp|js|phpt|php|phtml|pht|cfm|shtml|htaccess|fcgi|cgi|pl|py|sh)'), SA.FileName))>1

Introduction

Imagine you’ve ordered a small paper unicorn from an online marketplace. You clicked “Buy”, received a cheerful notification, and expect a courier to bring the box tomorrow. If the unicorn is delayed by a day, it will be annoying but not catastrophic: an apology, a discount promo code — and the incident is forgotten.

Now let’s multiply one late unicorn by several hundred thousand orders.

Packages start heading to the wrong cities. The website shows an item is in stock, even though the required bin is empty. Conveyors stop, boxes get stuck between floors, the cargo piles up with no freight manifest. Trucks line up at the gates, and every minute of downtime turns into blown schedules, support tickets, fines, and lost sales.

It is at exactly this scale that a cyberincident in a warehouse becomes a problem for the entire business. A modern warehouse is no longer just a big building with shelving. It is a tightly interconnected hybrid system: web applications, radio channels, and an automated factory. Physical processes here depend on data, and errors in data have very physical consequences. Examples include an outage that affected warehouse management systems at the grocery giant Morrisons, and the 2025 Form 10-K annual report of United Natural Foods, Inc. (UNFI), which confirmed unauthorized activity on information technology systems that impacted order fulfillment. More recently, reports emerged that a cyberattack disrupted eight CEVA Logistics warehouses across Europe and exposed customer delivery data.

This paper follows a single order through a warehouse to show where the operation is vulnerable, the stages it traverses, the systems that drive it, and the points where an attacker can reach them. We then set out the threat model: what is at risk, who is in a position to take it, and how each risk lands on the business. From there, we look at how an attacker gets in, and what reaching the warehouse management system costs in practical terms: orders unshipped, inventory records nobody can trust, and an operation that stops. We close with recommendations on where the controls that matter actually sit.

Tracing the unicorn

A modern warehouse is a sequence of stages involving many machines and people, all working together to keep the business process stable so that, in the end, your order gets delivered. This process consists of eight main stages, shown in the figure below.

Stages of order fulfillment

So let’s assume we’ve ordered our paper unicorn and are waiting for it at home. Let’s follow our order through all the main stages, from its arrival at the warehouse to the final stop on its journey.

1. Unloading
   First, the unicorn arrives in the unloading zone, packed in a big truck. The driver is assigned a gate, for example, via a tablet with kiosk mode enabled, or an outdoor display board, indicating where the truck should park and where the cargo will be unloaded. Even at this very first step, a digital command (the gate number on the screen) is already triggering a physical action. Therefore, incorrectly assigned gates can create a queue, delay unloading, or send goods into the wrong workflow.
2. Receiving
   At this stage, employees identify the cargo. They scan a barcode using a portable data terminal (PDT) and the central system receives a message indicating that this object arrives at the warehouse. From this moment, the unicorn exists in two forms at once: as a real box and as a record in the information system. If these two versions diverge, the error is inherited by all subsequent processes.
3. Putaway
   Next, the goods are moved into internal storage. Two new devices come into play here. First, a thermal printer, connected to the internal network over Wi-Fi, creates an internal label for each item. Then an employee, forklift, or automated system moves the goods to the assigned bin, often with the help of lifts controlled by PLCs. Both of these devices can be valuable attack entry points: one can let an adversary pivot into the internal network, while the other can give them control over an electric motor.
4. Storage
   Then the unicorn goes into storage. Many distribution centers use multi-level mezzanine structures: several floors of metal shelving inside a huge space. They allow efficient use of the building’s height, but at the same time complicate control over the technical infrastructure. Wi-Fi access points, cameras, switches, cables, and sensors may be mounted high overhead or buried deep inside the rows. A forgotten Ethernet cable or misconfigured networked device (access point or switch) left behind in a dark corner can become a convenient initial access point into critical infrastructure.
5. Picking
   When the customer places an order, picking begins if the goods were already stored in the warehouse or as soon as they are unloaded. A PDT, workstation, light indicator, or voice terminal directs the employee to the required bin where they pick the goods and move them to the next stage. These devices are themselves potential attack entry points: compromising a workstation or PDT could allow an attacker to manipulate picking information, which could misdirect employees to the wrong bin. Here, both the speed and integrity of the information are critical, and any manipulation or disruption can lead to wrong orders, delays, or problems in subsequent stages.
6. Sorting
   At the sorting stage, the warehouse starts to look more like a factory. Boxes move through conveyor belts and pass through different scanners, diverters, and chutes. The sorting plans are usually stored and managed by dedicated servers, while PLCs are responsible for controlling the machinery and executing these plans. For example, when the warehouse management system (WMS) decides that our unicorn should take route A, the control system needs to activate the right diverter at the right moment, sometimes within a fraction of a second.
7. Packing
   During packing, an employee or a robotic arm places the goods into the final box, prints the shipping label, and sometimes measures the dimensions and weight of the package. Safety mechanisms usually prevent robotic arms from leaving the controlled zone and harming nearby operators, but their compromise might inflict physical damage on the packages being processed.
8. Shipment
   Finally, at the shipping stage, the parcel heads to the gates. Automated guided vehicles (AGVs) and autonomous mobile robots (AMRs) move containers and pallets across the warehouse, while the dock management system coordinates the truck that will carry the unicorn onward to a store, a sorting center, or straight to the customer. These robots are themselves a potential target for attackers. Attacks can be conducted against AGVs and AMRs to interfere with their operation, for example by affecting their navigation or preventing them from reaching their intended destination.

All eight stages are coordinated by the WMS. It looks like a large web application, but in its role it’s closer to the operating system of the entire warehouse: it knows which goods exist, where they’re located, who or what should move them, and where they go next, linking employees, inventory levels, storage addresses, tasks, and orders. It also exchanges data externally: with ERP systems, transport platforms, marketplaces, dark stores, and external carriers.

Surrounding the WMS is an even larger digital ecosystem: identity services, databases, APIs, printers, carrier systems, technicians’ laptops, video surveillance, access control, fire and gas alarms, power supply, and a building management system (BMS).

That is why a single “warehouse network” doesn’t really exist. As we’ve seen, there are many overlapping technologies — IT infrastructure, OT systems, radio, cloud services, building security, and automation — layered on top of one another. A lone vulnerability scanner will never tell you whether a warehouse is secure.

Hunting the unicorn

Securing an environment such as a warehouse requires a comprehensive security assessment covering all of its interconnected systems. This involves identifying vulnerabilities across each system and understanding how weaknesses can be combined into attack paths that a real attacker could exploit. But a vulnerability only matters in proportion to what it exposes and who is able to reach it, so before looking at the weaknesses themselves, we need to understand what an attacker in this environment is actually after, because in a warehouse, the blast radius extends well beyond data. Everything we just traced — the systems, the devices, and the people operating them — exists to keep goods moving, and attacks in various parts along that chain can affect the business differently. The chart below shows what is at risk in the warehouse and where those risks land for the business. The segment on the left groups them under the three core security properties: integrity, availability, and confidentiality. The segment on the right maps each property to the business outcomes a failure can cause.

Warehouse risks

The first area at risk is integrity. Inventory counts, locations, orders, and shipment data must stay in sync with the physical world. Corrupting a record silently desynchronizes the operation, and because the eight stages form a dependency chain, one falsified entry early on is inherited downstream, surfacing later as stockouts and mis-shipments. In its deliberate forms, this lets an attacker redirect goods, release stock, and perform other actions on behalf of the platform’s vendors under cover of legitimate records. Integrity is also a safety concern: when people or machines act on information that no longer reflects the physical environment, a data failure can become a physical incident. This is why integrity is the only property linked to all five outcomes, including harm to people.

The second is availability, the warehouse’s ability to keep goods moving. Halting a conveyor, a sorter, label printing, or the WMS stops orders from shipping, and in a business built on speed, every hour of downtime means delayed deliveries and broken promises. Ransomware can bring the whole warehouse to a standstill. The impact shows up as operational disruption, lost revenue, and reputational damage.

The third is confidentiality. Customer data, business records, and system credentials are valuable targets. Their exposure leads to legal liability and reputational damage, and stolen credentials often open the door to further attacks. Where the WMS connects to financial or ERP processes, the risk extends to theft of funds.
Knowing what is at risk tells us what an attacker stands to gain; the next question is who is in a position to take it. Threat actors differ in the access they already hold. For example, an attacker may be authenticated and privileged, have limited physical or remote access, or have no legitimate access to the environment at all. Based on their relationship with the warehouse and their level of access, threat actors can generally be divided into two categories:

1. External. An attacker with no legitimate relationship with the warehouse or the organization, operating without authorized access. External attackers can be divided into two categories based on their physical proximity to the environment:
   1. Remote. An attacker operating from outside the site’s physical area, reaching the environment through whatever the organization exposes or makes reachable over the internet, including web services, remote access infrastructure, and third-party connections used by suppliers, carriers, and integrators.
   2. Proximate. An attacker with no legitimate access who has nevertheless moved within physical range of the site’s locally reachable technologies. They may, for example, be in a parking lot, a neighboring unit, or a delivery bay. Their proximity may allow them to interact with wireless, radio, Bluetooth, or other short-range interfaces without possessing an account, badge, employment relationship, or other authorized access.
2. Internal. An individual with legitimate access to the warehouse, its systems, or its information, who intentionally or unintentionally creates a security risk. This includes employees, administrators, operators, contractors, and temporary staff.

Combining these threat actors and their access levels with the risks identified earlier, the vulnerabilities present in each system, the resulting attack surfaces, and the potential attack paths between them provides a threat model for the warehouse environment. This allows an organization to understand how different systems and people could be targeted, how individual weaknesses could be combined, and where security controls are most needed.

Cornering the unicorn

Knowing what is at risk and who might come after it still leaves the most practical question open: how they would actually get in, and how far they could go once they did. The diagram below sets out the warehouse’s attack surface: every point where an attacker can get in, organized by the access that reaching each point requires.

Warehouse attack surface

On the left are the attacker categories discussed above, distinguished by where they stand and what access they already hold. Each reaches the environment through a different set of entry points, and the impact of a successful attack can land on several systems, from the WMS to OT systems such as robots, sorters, and physical access control system (PACS). The WMS is highlighted because it is the most significant of these: it coordinates the OT systems, so compromising it can affect the entire operation rather than a single process.

Next, we will cover the initial access vectors, the points a threat actor can use to reach the warehouse environment. Following that, we turn to the impact on the logistics processes themselves, focusing on the WMS, since its compromise affects every logistics operation that depends on it.

Initial attack vectors

Internet-facing services

Remote access through internet-facing services, third-party connections, and corporate networks gives an external attacker a foothold on the warehouse network infrastructure. It is a well-covered problem and not specific to this environment, so we note it here as an entry point but will not examine it further.

Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, and other radio channels

Wi-Fi connects handhelds, tablets, printers, cameras, and workstations. Bluetooth serves scanners, headsets, and positioning beacons. Zigbee and similar low-power protocols run lighting, sensors, and building automation, while LoRaWAN carries telemetry over long distances. Cellular provides a backup channel for kiosks and contractor equipment, and proprietary protocols control industrial panels and specialized machinery.

Radio passes through windows, gates, roofing, and thin external panels, so a network built for receiving and processing goods may be reachable from the parking lot and, with a directional antenna, from considerably farther away.

That reach matters in two ways. It gives an external attacker a place to start, as proximity alone is enough to reach the Wi-Fi and the low-power protocols, and from there to gain an initial foothold in the warehouse networks.

However, radio does not only lead into the network. It also connects directly to the field devices and carries the live control traffic of warehouse operations, which makes availability a first-order concern. If hundreds of handhelds lose their connection at once, picking stops. If an AGV loses its control channel, the safe reaction may be to halt in place, and a stopped machine can block an entire route.

Physical network

The scale of the warehouse itself is part of the attack surface. A fulfillment warehouse can run up to tens of thousands of square meters, with racking climbing several stories and walkways threading through it. Structured cabling runs along that racking, cameras and access points are mounted on that, and wall jacks sit behind pallets that have not moved in months. Almost none of it is in anyone’s line of sight.

That gives a person in the warehouse something a normal office does not: unsupervised access to live network infrastructure. Unplugging a ceiling camera leaves an active port. An unused jack behind a shelf leaves another. Neither requires tools, credentials, or any interaction with a system that logs anything. And since the camera or access point sits on the same segment as the rest of the site, the compromised port, not being isolated, opens a path to the network core.

Barcode scanners

Barcode scanners are everywhere in a warehouse. They are the main tool workers use to tell the system what is moving and where, supporting receiving, picking, packing, and inventory management. A typical setup has handheld scanners communicating with a base station, which is in turn connected to a workstation or another business system.

This makes the scanner an entry point into the core network in two ways.

First, through the barcode itself. Since the scanner acts as a keyboard to the connected host, a maliciously crafted barcode or QR code can inject keystrokes when scanned, potentially giving the attacker an initial foothold on the host without directly accessing the network.

Second, through the scanner’s wireless link. During a customer engagement, with the provided test stand of such a device, we discovered that an attacker within range could inject keystrokes into the connected host and potentially achieve remote code execution without user interaction. This attack pattern was observed across multiple vendors, including, for example, Honeywell devices affected by CVE-2026-4272.

In both cases, the result is the same: a foothold on a host inside the warehouse network. The scanner is simply the entry point; the significance of that foothold comes from the host’s trusted position within the operational environment and its connectivity to core systems.

Portable data terminals

Portable data terminals (PDTs) are essentially ordinary Android devices with an embedded barcode scanner, carried by workers to scan items; each scan is passed to a dedicated application that forwards it to a remote server over an API. To keep workers on task, the devices usually run in kiosk mode, locking the user to that single application and preventing interaction with the rest of the Android system.

That lockdown is exactly what an attacker wants to break, and breaking it is what turns the terminal into an initial access vector: escaping the kiosk can expose the Wi-Fi password of the network the terminal is connected to, or allow malicious software to be installed that gives the attacker remote access to the network over the internet.

Printers

Warehouses contain different types of printers. Alongside the usual IT printers used for documents and paperwork, there are specialized thermal printers, small devices that use heated elements on the printhead to create labels, barcodes, and tags. As we mentioned earlier, these are mainly used to print the labels, usually containing barcodes, that are attached to goods during the putaway stage.

Here we focus on mobile thermal printers: small, battery-powered devices that workers can carry or wear. They typically connect to the internal network over Wi-Fi to receive print commands, while also supporting Bluetooth for connecting to nearby devices. This combination makes them a potential entry point into the internal network.

Some models, such as the Zebra ZQ630, support multiple interfaces and can run applications directly on the device. During a security assessment, we discovered that apps can be uploaded and executed over Bluetooth. By exploiting a pairing misconfiguration, an attacker within Bluetooth range could bypass pairing, upload malicious software, and gain an initial foothold through the printer.

Impact on logistics processes (attacks on WMS)

With a foothold in the network, an attacker can pivot to the logistics processes themselves: from the WMS through the warehouse infrastructure to the PLCs and the machinery they drive. As we saw earlier, all OT systems and devices are interconnected and the WMS sits at the head of that chain: it is the system of record every other process reads from and writes to, so compromising it reaches all of them at once. That, and its being specific to this environment, is why it is the focus here.

Warehouse management systems (WMS) are the software platforms that optimize warehouse processes from the entry of goods to their exit. They provide real-time visibility into inventory and orchestrate end-to-end fulfillment by integrating with many warehouse subsystems and pieces of automation equipment, such as conveyors, PLCs, robotics, scanners, and voice systems. A typical WMS includes modules for receiving, inventory control, order management, labor management, shipping, and reporting. Major vendors include SAP EWM, Oracle Warehouse Management, Manhattan Active, Blue Yonder, Infor, Körber/HighJump, Microsoft, and TECSYS.

To picture how central this is, think back to our unicorn. From the moment it was scanned at receiving, it stopped being only a physical box and became a record inside the WMS, a record the system then used to decide where it should be stored, when it should be picked, how it should be sorted, and where it should ship. Every device employed along the way — the PDT at receiving, the printer at putaway, the workstation at picking, the conveyor at sorting — was really just talking to the WMS. It is the thread that ties all eight stages together, which is exactly what makes it such a valuable target.

Because modern WMS platforms are usually web-based and heavily interconnected, they inherit common web and API vulnerabilities alongside flaws specific to the WMS itself. A recent example is CVE-2026-70774 in Oracle Warehouse Management, part of Oracle E-Business Suite. Oracle rated it High and described it as an easily exploitable authorization bypass flaw in which a low-privileged attacker with network access can compromise the application, affecting integrity and availability by allowing unauthorized creation, deletion, or modification of critical data.

A flaw like this may look like a typical web application issue, but its consequences in a warehouse are more serious, because the WMS is the system of record. If an attacker can modify its data, they can alter stock levels, bin locations, receiving records, picking tasks, or shipment information, silently corrupting the digital twin of the warehouse. And since the eight stages form a dependency chain, that corruption doesn’t stay contained: a falsified record at receiving is inherited by putaway, picking, and everything downstream. The physical box and its record diverge, and every later process trusts the record.

The most direct version of this attack comes from an authorization bypass flaw like the Oracle vulnerability above. Here the threat actor can be an external attacker who has reached the application over the network, or an insider such as a low-privileged operator or storekeeper who already holds a legitimate account.

The danger grows when such a flaw is chained with others. An external attacker who combines remote code execution with SQL injection could generate shipment orders to arbitrary addresses together with the documents needed for goods to physically leave the warehouse, fabricate waybills, acceptance or transfer records, and registers, while also exposing customer data such as names and delivery addresses. In effect, the goods are sent out with legitimate-looking paperwork.

This is why ordinary web vulnerabilities carry considerable weight in a WMS. For an external attacker or an insider probing beyond their assigned role, broken access control could open a path into another warehouse zone, allow manipulation of other workers’ tasks, permit unauthorized exception operations, or expose administrative APIs. A server-side request forgery flaw could force the WMS server to reach resources an external attacker cannot touch directly, and if the network is flat or only formally segmented, that server may in turn reach internal management panels, cloud service interfaces, or systems sitting close to the operational network, turning a single web bug into a bridge between IT and OT.

Attacks on a WMS don’t always target the application directly, though. As we saw while tracing the unicorn, the warehouse is full of connected devices that already hold trusted access. A handheld terminal carries authenticated WMS API access as a matter of course, and anyone who gains control of that terminal inherits it (by escaping the kiosk, for example). Depending on the device’s permissions, that might mean confirming picks that never occurred, falsifying receiving operations, adjusting stock counts, or marking orders complete — something warehouse employees themselves could use to avoid their assigned duties.

Where the WMS is connected to control and automation systems, access to the WMS can extend into physical operations, including conveyors, sorting systems, lifts, doors, and pumps.

PLCs translate WMS instructions and sensor inputs into physical actions. Compromising a system that controls them therefore creates an opportunity to manipulate those actions. The impact can be as simple as a sorting diverter sending boxes down the wrong route, a conveyor repeatedly entering an error state and creating a backlog, or a falsified sensor value causing a line to be treated as clear when it is full.

However the WMS is compromised, the business consequence is the same: inventory corruption, unauthorized shipments, and operational disruption, each reaching the customer in the end as a late or missing delivery, the wrong item in the box, or a personal address exposed to a stranger.

Securing the unicorn

We followed our unicorn through web applications and databases, radio channels and PDTs, printers, conveyors, robots, and the loading zone. Because warehouse environments combine IT, OT, wireless, physical, and human components, security controls should be implemented as a single, coordinated security architecture rather than as isolated measures. Network segmentation should be a foundational control, with clear separation between corporate IT, warehouse OT, operational devices, management networks, and externally connected systems. Segmentation should also extend across facilities and customer environments so that each site and customer integration is isolated from the others, limiting the potential impact of a compromise. A zero-trust approach should reinforce this architecture by requiring explicit authentication and authorization for connections between systems, regardless of their network location, and by applying least-privilege access wherever possible. Regular penetration testing of the corporate IT environment, including domain services, identity infrastructure, and endpoints, should be incorporated into the warehouse security program.

Physical and network access controls should be implemented together. Access to warehouse facilities, network rooms, communication cabinets, and operational areas should be restricted according to business need, with appropriate authentication, monitoring, and access logging. Network infrastructure should be hardened through controls such as switch port security, MAC-based access restrictions where appropriate, and IEEE 802.1X with EAP-TLS for strong device and user authentication. Network equipment should also be securely configured and regularly reviewed to ensure that unused interfaces, insecure management protocols, default credentials, and unnecessary services are disabled.

Web applications and their supporting infrastructure should be governed through a secure software development lifecycle (SSDLC), including security requirements, secure coding practices, code and dependency review, and application security assessment before deployment and throughout the application’s lifecycle. Third-party applications and components should be continuously monitored and updated, with a defined vulnerability and patch management process. This should explicitly include warehouse management systems (WMS), warehouse portals, APIs, and other applications that provide operational or customer-facing functionality.

Wireless technologies should be subject to dedicated security assessment and engineering. Radio-frequency surveys should be conducted to establish expected coverage, identify unauthorized or unexpected signals, validate the availability and protection of operational communications, and determine whether wireless deployments create unintended access paths into warehouse networks. Wireless security should be assessed not only from a connectivity perspective but also in terms of authentication, encryption, device provisioning, protocol exposure, interference resilience, and the potential impact of unauthorized devices.

Warehouse operational devices should be incorporated into the organization’s endpoint security and vulnerability management processes. Devices should receive security updates and firmware patches on a defined schedule, with accelerated remediation for critical vulnerabilities. Security assessments should be performed periodically to identify weaknesses in device configuration, applications, exposed services, and authentication mechanisms.

Personnel security should form an additional layer of the warehouse security architecture. In most industrial and ICS environments, getting inside means clearing background checks, holding relevant qualifications, or proving prior experience; the hiring process itself acts as a filter. A warehouse is different. Roles in sorting, packing, and courier work are hired quickly and in volume, and they typically require no prior expertise, certification, or specialized background at all. An ordinary person can walk in off the street, be hired within days, and immediately hold legitimate physical access to the facility. Therefore, a more restrictive and risk-based approach to hiring should be considered, particularly for roles that provide access to sensitive areas, operational systems, network infrastructure, or customer assets.

Ultimately, all of these measures serve the same objective: protecting the continuity and reliability of the warehouse as a whole. This matters because real warehouses handle food, medicines, machine parts, and the millions of ordinary things people and companies depend on every day. Protecting their journey means seeing the warehouse as it has actually become: a single digital system with doors, motors, shelving, and radio signals, and with entirely real consequences when it fails. And if the security program works, the customer never knows any of this happened. The unicorn simply arrives at the scheduled time.

If your warehouse operations rely on interconnected systems like these, we can help identify the gaps before an adversary does. Reach out to discuss a security assessment.

With contributions from James Rodriguez, Gus Stamatinos, and Timmy Lister.

We introduce OperTraitor, a tool to audit privileges of Kubernetes operators, identify excessive RBAC risks, and secure non-human identities.

The post OperTraitors: How Kubernetes Operators Betray Your Security Posture appeared first on Unit 42.

Unit 42 is aware of possible 0-day activity against NetScaler devices. Citrix reports CVE-2026-88771, CVE-2026-88772 have been exploited in the wild.

The post Threat Brief: NetScaler Zero Days CVE-2026-88771 and CVE-2026-88772 Exploited in the Wild (Updated September 30) appeared first on Unit 42.

On Sept 27, Citrix released patches for two critical vulnerabilities being exploited in the wild. Based on current information, we confirm there has been no exposure or impact to LevelBlue or our clients. CISA has already added these vulnerabilities to the Known Exploited Vulnerabilities (KEV) list.

Microsoft's Self-Service Password Reset (SSPR) portal is a legitimate feature designed to let users recover their accounts without calling the helpdesk. As it turns out, it also tells you quite a lot about the accounts in a tenant — whether they exist, what authentication methods they have registered, and in some cases, which ones are likely administrators. This post covers what the portal leaks, why it matters from both sides, and what defenders can do about it.

(Edit - Sept 17, 2026): The originally released PoC had issues that broke exploitation. That PoC has been revised by the author. We have reviewed the revised version of the exploit and have validated that it now functions as expected in our lab. We have added a section at the end of our original article discussing this update and our results.

Over the past year, our Global Emergency Response Team (GERT) has investigated several incidents involving the NightEagle group (also tracked as APT-Q-95). This group has been active since at least 2023 and originally focused on organizations in Asia. We have now identified attacks by the group targeting businesses in Russia. This post examines both known and new tools NightEagle used in its latest campaign.

Initial access

In most incidents, the attackers used compromised valid credentials to gain access to corporate VPNs. VPN connections originated from IP addresses in the Russian segment linked to Cloudflare WARP tunnels, as well as from IP addresses associated with European virtual infrastructure providers.

GhostContainer on Microsoft Exchange

Both during the initial access stage and as the attack progressed, the attackers deployed the GhostContainer backdoor on Microsoft Exchange servers. It incorporates components from several open-source projects, including the Neo-reGeorg tunnel, an exploit for the CVE-2020-0688 vulnerability, and the GhostWebShell class from the ysoserial utility. All of these components are publicly available on GitHub.

We were unable to determine the exact method the attackers used to deliver the backdoor to Microsoft Exchange servers. We believe with a high degree of confidence that they applied a technique already familiar to us: extracting the cryptographic keys used by Microsoft Exchange from the ASP.NET configuration, overwriting the VIEWSTATE framework parameter, and injecting a payload into it, which then launched the GhostContainer backdoor in memory.

The backdoor is a .NET assembly containing three classes that implement its core functionality:

• Stub: processes C2 commands delivered to the infected system through the x-owa-urlpostdata headers and evades detection by the Antimalware Scan Interface (AMSI) and Windows Event Log mechanisms by overwriting addresses in amsi.dll and ntdll.dll.
• App_Web_843e75cf5b63: accepts the fakePath and fakePageName parameters and creates virtual paths that redirect requests to the App_Web_8c9b251fb5b3 class.
• App_Web_8c9b251fb5b3: implements network traffic redirection (proxying) and socket forwarding functionality.

Kaspersky products detect the GhostContainer backdoor as Trojan.MSIL.GhostContainer.gen.

GhostContainer samples identified by the Similarity technology from Kaspersky Threat Analysis

Traffic redirection

Once the attackers gain sufficient privileges during an attack, they leverage RDP to move laterally within the internal network segment. To do this, they download and run tools for tunneling and redirecting network traffic.

The attackers used GitHub repositories to host their archived tools. The names of the repositories and archives were disguised to look legitimate:

• https://github[.]com/mirror-js/mirror-js/refs/heads/main/js/js-webpack.zip
• https://github[.]com/mirror-js/mirror-js/refs/heads/main/js/jsonp-pack.zip
• https://github[.]com/browserthemes/resourcepack/releases/download/main/resource-pack.zip

One of the repositories used for storing network tools

The files contained within the archives were also given names mimicking known legitimate software, though unrelated to the archive names:

• adobe_32.exe;
• AdobeSync.exe;
• trueconf.exe;
• 1cbroker.exe;
• 1c-office-plugin.exe;
• trueconf-broker.exe.

Across the incidents we investigated, we found two tools that the attackers combined for traffic tunneling.

1. Microsoft dev tunnels
   This is a legitimate Microsoft mechanism that allows local web services to be published for internet access on *.*.devtunnels.ms domains. The attackers used this tunneling capability to expose port 3389 (RDP) on the compromised system.
   

   Execution graph of adobe_32.exe in Kaspersky Research Sandbox

2. rdp2tcp
   This is a publicly available tool for tunneling TCP traffic over an established RDP connection. It includes a server component that runs on the target system and a client component that runs on the attacker’s side.

   When virtual channels are opened and closed, corresponding events with IDs 132 (channel opened) and 148 (channel closed) are logged in the Microsoft-Windows-RemoteDesktopServices-RdpCoreTS/Operational.evtx Windows log. These events contain the names of the channels (such as XPSRD, cliprdr, Microsoft::Windows::RDS::DisplayControl, and others) used by the RemoteFX module, which extends the capabilities of the RDP protocol.

   When the rdp2tcp tool is used, events with IDs 132 and 148 will contain the channel name rdp2tcp or other random alphanumeric combinations chosen by the attackers.

   

   Creation event for a channel named rdp2tcp (server component startup)

The combination of Microsoft dev tunnels and rdp2tcp allows the attackers to maintain network access by using legitimate services without opening additional suspicious ports.

The attackers also used the atexec utility from the Impacket toolkit to create scheduled tasks on target systems. These tasks enabled network port forwarding through standard Windows functionality:

netsh interface portproxy add v4tov4 listenport=443 connectaddress=10.0.12.101 connectport=445

Lateral movement

To obtain elevated privileges and move laterally through the network, NightEagle exploited various vulnerabilities in Active Directory. The attackers used previously established tunnels to connect to internal infrastructure systems.

In one incident, they exploited a well-known RDP implementation vulnerability, CVE-2019-0708 (BlueKeep). They used the vulnerable mechanism to create a local account on the system and add it to the Administrators and Remote Desktop Users groups.

Contents of a system memory dump showing artifacts of the CVE-2019-0708 exploit

The attackers also requested Kerberos tickets with a non-standard combination of flags (Forwardable, Proxiable, Renewable) and attempted to replicate the Domain-Password object from the Active Directory database to impersonate the domain controller (a technique known as DCSync) after obtaining an account with sufficient privileges.

Through these methods, the attackers establish persistence in the infrastructure, obtain password hashes for domain accounts, use long-lived Kerberos tickets to gain legitimate access to target resources, and ultimately compromise domain controllers and the victim’s entire Active Directory infrastructure.

Takeaways

To expand the geographic scope of its targets, NightEagle is updating its methods and adopting new techniques for persistence and lateral movement. Despite the group’s efforts to stay hidden, timely detection of anomalies combined with a comprehensive approach to infrastructure protection can significantly hinder the attackers from achieving their goals. Since the attackers rely on known legitimate tools and infrastructure vulnerabilities, well-configured monitoring can help detect NightEagle’s presence on the network.

Detection by Kaspersky solutions

Kaspersky solutions reliably identify the malicious activity described above at various stages of the attack. We showed examples above of how Kaspersky Threat Analysis detects samples of the GhostContainer backdoor and the tunneling utility. This toolkit also includes the analytical solution Kaspersky Threat Attribution Engine (KTAE), which helps SOC analysts and incident responders determine which APT groups malware can be attributed to. The solution uses a proprietary comparison method that measures the similarity between analyzed samples of suspicious files and known malicious samples in Kaspersky’s collection.

The backdoor we discovered showed similarity to previously analyzed GhostContainer samples and a connection to the NightEagle APT group:

Backdoor analysis with KTAE

However, detection scenarios for this kind of attacks are not limited to file analysis. Deploying a backdoor on a target host produces numerous characteristic artifacts, which allow Kaspersky Endpoint Detection and Response Expert to alert users to anomalies in the infrastructure in a timely manner.

This malicious activity is detected by the following rules, available in the repository:

• Initial detection of the malicious signature occurs through the generic_ransomware_related_detection rule, based on EPP module events
• Detection of a malicious DLL’s .NET assembly being loaded via PowerShell: suspicious_assembly_loading_into_powershell_via_reflection
• Activity of tunneling and traffic redirection tools: detection_of_access_to_tunnel_domains_dns
• Use of tools from the Impacket toolkit, such as atexec:
  • impacket_possible_activity
  • attempt_to_download_hacktool_or_risktool_by_non_browser
  • credentials_dumping_tools_file_artifacts_creation
• Attempts to replicate an Active Directory database object to impersonate a domain controller: potential_dcsync_via_startupparameters

Process tree in KEDR Expert

Kaspersky Anti Targeted Attack (KATA) detects this malicious activity in network traffic. For example, the Exploit.CVE-2019-0708.TCP.C&C signature allows detecting attempts to exploit the CVE-2019-0708 (BlueKeep) vulnerability.

Alert card for the BlueKeep vulnerability exploitation

Beyond this activity, KATA also detects other NightEagle actions in network traffic, such as the following:

• Traffic redirection and tunneling variations
• Attacks on Active Directory (DCSync, attempts to compromise AD CS, and others)
• Lateral movement across the network

Indicators of compromise