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

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

Statistics on registered vulnerabilities

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

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

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

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

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

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

Exploitation statistics

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

Windows and Linux vulnerability exploitation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Most common published exploits

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

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

Vulnerability exploitation in APT attacks

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

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

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

C2 frameworks

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

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

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

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

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

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

Notable vulnerabilities

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

CVE-2026-21519: Desktop Window Manager vulnerability

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

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

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

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

CVE-2026-21514: a Microsoft Office vulnerability

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

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

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

CVE-2026-34070: LangChain framework vulnerability

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

CVE-2026-22812: an OpenCode vulnerability

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

Conclusion and advice

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

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

I aggregated the statistics created from the cyber attacks timelines published in the first quarter of 2026. In this period, I collected a total of 528 events (5.87 events/day) dominated by Cyber Crime with 66%, followed by Cyber Espionage with 18%, Hacktivism with 3%, and finally Cyber Warfare with 2%.

After the cyber attacks timelines, it’s time to publish the statistics for March 2026 where I collected and analyzed 282 events: a sharp increase compared to the 176 events of the previous month. In March 2026, Cyber Crime continued to lead the Motivations chart with 64%, ahead of Cyber Espionage at number two with 15%. Hacktivism took over the third position with 6%, ahead of Cyber Warfare with 3%.

Statistics across all threats

The percentage of ICS computers on which malicious objects were blocked has been decreasing since the beginning of 2024. In Q4 2025, it was 19.7%. Over the past three years, the percentage has decreased by 1.36 times, and by 1.25 times since Q4 2023.

Regionally, in Q4 2025, the percentage of ICS computers on which malicious objects were blocked ranged from 8.5% in Northern Europe to 27.3% in Africa.

Four regions saw an increase in the percentage of ICS computers on which malicious objects were blocked. The most notable increases occurred in Southern Europe and South Asia. In Q3 2025, East Asia experienced a sharp increase triggered by the local spread of malicious scripts, but the figure has since returned to normal.

Feature of the quarter: worms in email

In Q4 2025, the percentage of ICS computers on which wormsinemailattachments were blocked increasedinallregions of the world.

Many of the blocked threats were related to the worm Backdoor.MSIL.XWorm. This malware is designed to persist on the system and then remotely control it.

Interestingly, this threat was not detected on ICS computers in the previous quarter, yet it appeared in all regions in Q4 2025.

A study found that the active spread of Backdoor.MSIL.XWorm via phishing emails was likely linked to the use by hackers of another malware obfuscation technique that was actively used during massive phishing campaigns in Q4 2025. These campaigns have been known since 2024 as “Curriculum-vitae-catalina”.

The attackers distributed phishing emails to HR managers, recruiters, and employees responsible for hiring. The messages were disguised as responses from job applicants with subjects such as “Resume” or “Attached Resume” and contained a malicious executable file under the guise of a curriculum vitae. Typically, the file was named Curriculum Vitae-Catalina.exe. When executed, it infected the system.

In Q4 2025, the threat spread across regions in two waves — one in October and another in November. Russia, Western Europe, South America, and North America (Canada) were attacked in October. A spike in Backdoor.MSIL.XWorm blocking was observed in other regions in November. The attack subsided in all regions in December.

The highest percentage of ICS computers on which Backdoor.MSIL.XWorm was blocked was observed in regions where threats from email clients had been historically blocked at high rates on ICS computers: Southern Europe, South America, and the Middle East.

At the same time, in Africa, where USB storage media are still actively used, the threat was also detected when removable devices were connected to ICS computers.

Selected industries

The biometrics sector has historically led the rankings of industries and OT infrastructures surveyed in this report in terms of the percentage of ICS computers on which malicious objects were blocked.

These systems are characterized by accessibility to and from the internet, as well as minimal cybersecurity controls by the consumer organization.

In Q4 2025, the percentage of ICS computers on which malicious objects were blocked increased only in one sector: oil and gas. The corresponding figures increased in two regions: Russia, and Central Asia and the South Caucasus.

However, if we look at a broader time span, there is a downward trend in all the surveyed industries.

Diversity of detected malicious objects

In Q4 2025, Kaspersky protection solutions blocked malware from 10,142 different malware families of various categories on industrial automation systems.

In Q4 2025, there was an increase in the percentage of ICS computers on which worms, and miners in the form of executable files for Windows were blocked. These were the only categories that exhibited an increase.

Main threat sources

Depending on the threat detection and blocking scenario, it is not always possible to reliably identify the source. The circumstantial evidence for a specific source can be the blocked threat’s type (category).

The internet (visiting malicious or compromised internet resources; malicious content distributed via messengers; cloud data storage and processing services and CDNs), email clients (phishing emails), and removable storage devices remain the primary sources of threats to computers in an organization’s technology infrastructure.

In Q4 2025, the percentage of ICS computers on which malicious objects from various sources were blocked decreased. All sources except email clients saw their lowest levels in three years.

The same computer can be attacked by several categories of malware from the same source during a quarter. That computer is counted when calculating the percentage of attacked computers for each threat category, but is only counted once for the threat source (we count unique attacked computers). In addition, it is not always possible to accurately determine the initial infection attempt. Therefore, the total percentage of ICS computers on which various categories of threats from a certain source were blocked can exceed the percentage of computers affected by the source itself.

• In Q4 2025, the percentage of ICS computers on which threats from the internet were blocked decreased to 7.67% and reached its lowest level since the beginning of 2023. The main categories of internet threats are malicious scripts and phishing pages, and denylisted internet resources. The percentage ranged from 3.96% in Northern Europe to 11.33% in South Asia.
• The main categories of threats from email clients blocked on ICS computers were malicious scripts and phishing pages, spyware, and malicious documents. Most of the spyware detected in phishing emails was delivered as a password archive or a multi-layered script embedded in office document files. The percentage of ICS computers on which threats from email clients were blocked ranged from 0.64% in Northern Europe to 6.34% in Southern Europe.
• The main categories of threats that were blocked when removable media was connected to ICS computers were worms, viruses, and spyware. The percentage of ICS computers on which threats from removable media were blocked ranged from 0.05% in Australia and New Zealand to 1.41% in Africa.
• The main categories of threats that spread through network folders in Q4 2025 were viruses, AutoCAD malware, worms, and spyware. The percentage of ICS computers on which threats from network folders were blocked ranged from 0.01% in Northern Europe to 0.18% in East Asia.

Threat categories

Typical attacks blocked within an OT network are multi-step sequences of malicious activities, where each subsequent step of the attackers is aimed at increasing privileges and/or gaining access to other systems by exploiting the security problems of industrial enterprises, including OT infrastructures.

Malicious objects used for initial infection

In Q4 2025, the percentage of ICS computers on which denylisted internet resources were blocked decreased to 3.26%. This is the lowest quarterly figure since the beginning of 2022, and it has decreased by 1.8 times since Q2 2025.

Regionally, the percentage of ICS computers on which denylisted internet resources were blocked ranged from 1.74% in Northern Europe to 3.93% in Southeast Asia, which displaced Africa from first place. Russia rounded out the top three regions for this indicator.

The percentage of ICS computers on which malicious documents were blocked increased for three consecutive quarters. However, in Q4 2025 it decreased by 0.22 pp to 1.76%.

Regionally, the percentage ranged from 0.46% in Northern Europe to 3.82% in Southern Europe. In Q4 2025, the indicator increased in Eastern Europe, Russia, and Western Europe.

The percentage of ICS computers on which malicious scripts and phishing pages were blocked decreased to 6.58%. Despite the decline, this category led the rankings of threat categories in terms of the percentage of ICS computers on which they were blocked.

Regionally, the percentage ranged from 2.52% in Northern Europe to 10.50% in South Asia. The indicator increased in South Asia, South America, Southern Europe, and Africa. South Asia saw the most notable increase, at 3.47 pp.

Next-stage malware

Malicious objects used to initially infect computers deliver next-stage malware — spyware, ransomware, and miners — to victims’ computers. As a rule, the higher the percentage of ICS computers on which the initial infection malware is blocked, the higher the percentage for next-stage malware.

In Q4 2025, the percentage of ICS computers on which spyware, ransomware and web miners were blocked decreased. The rates were:

• Spyware: 3.80% (down 0.24 pp). For the second quarter in a row, spyware took second place in the rankings of threat categories in terms of the percentage of ICS computers on which it was blocked.
• Ransomware: 0.16% (down 0.01 pp).
• Web miners: 0.24% (down 0.01 pp), this is the lowest level observed thus far in the period under review.

The percentage of ICS computers on which miners in the form of executable files for Windows were blocked increased to 0.60% (up 0.03 pp).

Self-propagating malware

Self-propagating malware (worms and viruses) is a category unto itself. Worms and virus-infected files were originally used for initial infection, but as botnet functionality evolved, they took on next-stage characteristics.

To spread across ICS networks, viruses and worms rely on removable media and network folders and are distributed in the form of infected files, such as archives with backups, office documents, pirated games and hacked applications. In rarer and more dangerous cases, web pages with network equipment settings, as well as files stored in internal document management systems, product lifecycle management (PLM) systems, resource management (ERP) systems and other web services are infected.

In Q4 2025, the percentage of ICS computers on which worms were blocked increased by 1.6 times to 1.60%. As mentioned above, this increase is related to a global phishing attack that spread the Backdoor.MSIL.XWorm backdoor worm across all regions of the world. The percentage increased in all regions. The biggest increase (up by 2.16 times) was in Southern Europe. The malware was primary distributed through email clients, and Southern Europe led the way in terms of the percentage of ICS computers on which threats from email clients were blocked.

The percentage of ICS computers on which viruses were blocked decreased to 1.33%.

AutoCAD malware

This category of malware can spread in a variety of ways, so it does not belong to a specific group.

After an increase in the previous quarter, the percentage of ICS computers on which AutoCAD malware was blocked decreased to 0.29% in Q4 2025.

For more information on industrial threats see the full version of the report.

After the cyber attacks timelines, it’s time to publish the statistics for February 2026 where I collected and analyzed 176 events. In February 2026, Cyber Crime continued to lead the Motivations chart with 62%.

The fourth quarter of 2025 went down as one of the most intense periods on record for high-profile, critical vulnerability disclosures, hitting popular libraries and mainstream applications. Several of these vulnerabilities were picked up by attackers and exploited in the wild almost immediately.

In this report, we dive into the statistics on published vulnerabilities and exploits, as well as the known vulnerabilities leveraged with popular C2 frameworks throughout Q4 2025.

Statistics on registered vulnerabilities

This section contains statistics on registered vulnerabilities. The data is taken from cve.org.

Let’s take a look at the number of registered CVEs for each month over the last five years, up to and including the end of 2025. As predicted in our last report, Q4 saw a higher number of registered vulnerabilities than the same period in 2024, and the year-end totals also cleared the bar set the previous year.

Total published vulnerabilities by month from 2021 through 2025 (download)

Now, let’s look at the number of new critical vulnerabilities (CVSS > 8.9) for that same period.

Total number of published critical vulnerabilities by month from 2021 to 2025< (download)

The graph shows that the volume of critical vulnerabilities remains quite substantial; however, in the second half of the year, we saw those numbers dip back down to levels seen in 2023. This was due to vulnerability churn: a handful of published security issues were revoked. The widespread adoption of secure development practices and the move toward safer languages also pushed those numbers down, though even that couldn’t stop the overall flood of vulnerabilities.

Exploitation statistics

This section contains statistics on the use of exploits in Q4 2025. The data is based on open sources and our telemetry.

Windows and Linux vulnerability exploitation

In Q4 2025, the most prevalent exploits targeted the exact same vulnerabilities that dominated the threat landscape throughout the rest of the year. These were exploits targeting Microsoft Office products with unpatched security flaws.

Kaspersky solutions detected the most exploits on the Windows platform for the following vulnerabilities:

• CVE-2018-0802: a remote code execution vulnerability in Equation Editor.
• CVE-2017-11882: another remote code execution vulnerability, also affecting Equation Editor.
• CVE-2017-0199: a vulnerability in Microsoft Office and WordPad that allows an attacker to assume control of the system.

The list has remained unchanged for years.

We also see that attackers continue to adapt exploits for directory traversal vulnerabilities (CWE-35) when unpacking archives in WinRAR. They are being heavily leveraged to gain initial access via malicious archives on the Windows operating system:

• CVE-2023-38831: a vulnerability stemming from the improper handling of objects within an archive.
• CVE-2025-6218 (formerly ZDI-CAN-27198): a vulnerability that enables an attacker to specify a relative path and extract files into an arbitrary directory. This can lead to arbitrary code execution. We covered this vulnerability in detail in our Q2 2025 report.
• CVE-2025-8088: a vulnerability we analyzed in our previous report, analogous to CVE-2025-6218. The attackers used NTFS streams to circumvent controls on the directory into which files were being unpacked.

As in the previous quarter, we see a rise in the use of archiver exploits, with fresh vulnerabilities increasingly appearing in attacks.

Below are the exploit detection trends for Windows users over the last two years.

Dynamics of the number of Windows users encountering exploits, Q1 2024 – Q4 2025. The number of users who encountered exploits in Q1 2024 is taken as 100% (download)

The vulnerabilities listed here can be used to gain initial access to a vulnerable system. This highlights the critical importance of timely security updates for all affected software.

On Linux-based devices, the most frequently detected exploits targeted the following vulnerabilities:

• CVE-2022-0847, also known as Dirty Pipe: a vulnerability that allows privilege escalation and enables attackers to take control 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 overflow vulnerability in the Netfilter kernel subsystem.
• CVE-2023-32233: another vulnerability in the Netfilter subsystem that creates a use-after-free condition, allowing for privilege escalation due to the improper handling of network requests.

Dynamics of the number of Linux users encountering exploits, Q1 2024 – Q4 2025. The number of users who encountered exploits in Q1 2024 is taken as 100% (download)

We are seeing a massive surge in Linux-based exploit attempts: in Q4, the number of affected users doubled compared to Q3. Our statistics show that the final quarter of the year accounted for more than half of all Linux exploit attacks recorded for the entire year. This surge is primarily driven by the rapidly growing number of Linux-based consumer devices. This trend naturally attracts the attention of threat actors, making the installation of security patches critically important.

Most common published exploits

The distribution of published exploits by software type in Q4 2025 largely mirrors the patterns observed in the previous quarter. The majority of exploits we investigate through our monitoring of public research, news, and PoCs continue to target vulnerabilities within operating systems.

Distribution of published exploits by platform, Q1 2025 (download)

Distribution of published exploits by platform, Q2 2025 (download)

Distribution of published exploits by platform, Q3 2025 (download)

Distribution of published exploits by platform, Q4 2025 (download)

In Q4 2025, no public exploits for Microsoft Office products emerged; the bulk of the vulnerabilities were issues discovered in system components. When calculating our statistics, we placed these in the OS category.

Vulnerability exploitation in APT attacks

We analyzed which vulnerabilities were utilized in APT attacks during Q4 2025. The following rankings draw on our telemetry, research, and open-source data.

TOP 10 vulnerabilities exploited in APT attacks, Q4 2025 (download)

In Q4 2025, APT attacks most frequently exploited fresh vulnerabilities published within the last six months. We believe that these CVEs will remain favorites among attackers for a long time, as fixing them may require significant structural changes to the vulnerable applications or the user’s system. Often, replacing or updating the affected components requires a significant amount of resources. Consequently, the probability of an attack through such vulnerabilities may persist. Some of these new vulnerabilities are likely to become frequent tools for lateral movement within user infrastructure, as the corresponding security flaws have been discovered in network services that are accessible without authentication. This heavy exploitation of very recently registered vulnerabilities highlights the ability of threat actors to rapidly implement new techniques and adapt old ones for their attacks. Therefore, we strongly recommend applying the security patches provided by vendors.

C2 frameworks

In this section, we will look at the most popular C2 frameworks used by threat actors and analyze the vulnerabilities whose exploits interacted with C2 agents in APT attacks.

The chart below shows the frequency of known C2 framework usage in attacks against users during Q4 2025, according to open sources.

TOP 10 C2 frameworks used by APTs to compromise user systems in Q4 2025 (download)

Despite the significant footprints it can leave when used in its default configuration, Sliver continues to hold the top spot among the most common C2 frameworks in our Q4 2025 analysis. Mythic and Havoc were second and third, respectively. After reviewing open sources and analyzing malicious C2 agent samples that contained exploits, we found that the following vulnerabilities were used in APT attacks involving the C2 frameworks mentioned above:

• CVE-2025-55182: a React2Shell vulnerability in React Server Components that allows an unauthenticated user to send commands directly to the server and execute them from RAM.
• CVE-2023-36884: a vulnerability in the Windows Search component that allows the execution of commands on a system, bypassing security mechanisms built into Microsoft Office applications.
• CVE-2025-53770: a critical insecure deserialization vulnerability in Microsoft SharePoint that allows an unauthenticated user to execute commands on the server.
• CVE-2020-1472, also known as Zerologon, allows for compromising a vulnerable domain controller and executing commands as a privileged user.
• CVE-2021-34527, also known as PrintNightmare, exploits flaws in the Windows print spooler subsystem, enabling remote access to a vulnerable OS and high-privilege command execution.
• CVE-2025-8088 and CVE-2025-6218 are similar directory-traversal vulnerabilities that allow extracting files from an archive to a predefined path without the archiving utility notifying the user.

The set of vulnerabilities described above suggests that attackers have been using them for initial access and early-stage maneuvers in vulnerable systems to create a springboard for deploying a C2 agent. The list of vulnerabilities includes both zero-days and well-known, established security issues.

Notable vulnerabilities

This section highlights the most noteworthy vulnerabilities that were publicly disclosed in Q4 2025 and have a publicly available description.

React2Shell (CVE-2025-55182): a vulnerability in React Server Components

We typically describe vulnerabilities affecting a specific application. CVE-2025-55182 stood out as an exception, as it was discovered in React, a library primarily used for building web applications. This means that exploiting the vulnerability could potentially disrupt a vast number of applications that rely on the library. The vulnerability itself lies in the interaction mechanism between the client and server components, which is built on sending serialized objects. If an attacker sends serialized data containing malicious functionality, they can execute JavaScript commands directly on the server, bypassing all client-side request validation. Technical details about this vulnerability and an example of how Kaspersky solutions detect it can be found in our article.

CVE-2025-54100: command injection during the execution of curl (Invoke-WebRequest)

This vulnerability represents a data-handling flaw that occurs when retrieving information from a remote server: when executing the curl or Invoke-WebRequest command, Windows launches Internet Explorer in the background. This can lead to a cross-site scripting (XSS) attack.

CVE-2025-11001: a vulnerability in 7-Zip

This vulnerability reinforces the trend of exploiting security flaws found in file archivers. The core of CVE-2025-11001 lies in the incorrect handling of symbolic links. An attacker can craft an archive so that when it is extracted into an arbitrary directory, its contents end up in the location pointed to by a symbolic link. The likelihood of exploiting this vulnerability is significantly reduced because utilizing such functionality requires the user opening the archive to possess system administrator privileges.

This vulnerability was associated with a wave of misleading news reports claiming it was being used in real-world attacks against end users. This misconception stemmed from an error in the security bulletin.

RediShell (CVE-2025-49844): a vulnerability in Redis

The year 2025 saw a surge in high-profile vulnerabilities, several of which were significant enough to earn a unique nickname. This was the case with CVE-2025-49844, also known as RediShell, which was unveiled during a hacking competition. This vulnerability is a use-after-free issue related to how the load command functions within Lua interpreter scripts. To execute the attack, an attacker needs to prepare a malicious script and load it into the interpreter.

As with any named vulnerability, RediShell was immediately weaponized by threat actors and spammers, albeit in a somewhat unconventional manner. Because technical details were initially scarce following its disclosure, the internet was flooded with fake PoC exploits and scanners claiming to test for the vulnerability. In the best-case scenario, these tools were non-functional; in the worst, they infected the system. Notably, these fraudulent projects were frequently generated using LLMs. They followed a standardized template and often cross-referenced source code from other identical fake repositories.

CVE-2025-24990: a vulnerability in the ltmdm64.sys driver

Driver vulnerabilities are often discovered in legitimate third-party applications that have been part of the official OS distribution for a long time. Thus, CVE-2025-24990 has existed within code shipped by Microsoft throughout nearly the entire history of Windows. The vulnerable driver has been shipped since at least Windows 7 as a third-party driver for Agere Modem. According to Microsoft, this driver is no longer supported and, following the discovery of the flaw, was removed from the OS distribution entirely.

The vulnerability itself is straightforward: insecure handling of IOCTL codes leading to a null pointer dereference. Successful exploitation can lead to arbitrary command execution or a system crash resulting in a blue screen of death (BSOD) on modern systems.

CVE-2025-59287: a vulnerability in Windows Server Update Services (WSUS)

CVE-2025-59287 represents a textbook case of insecure deserialization. Exploitation is possible without any form of authentication; due to its ease of use, this vulnerability rapidly gained traction among threat actors. Technical details and detection methodologies for our product suite have been covered in our previous advisories.

Conclusion and advice

In Q4 2025, the rate of vulnerability registration has shown no signs of slowing down. Consequently, consistent monitoring and the timely application of security patches have become more critical than ever. To ensure resilient defense, it is vital to regularly assess and remediate known vulnerabilities while implementing technology designed to mitigate the impact of potential exploits.

Continuous monitoring of infrastructure, including the network perimeter, allows for the timely identification of threats and prevents them from escalating. Effective security also demands tracking the current threat landscape and applying preventative measures to minimize risks associated with system flaws. Kaspersky Next serves as a reliable partner in this process, providing real-time identification and detailed mapping of vulnerabilities within the environment.

Securing the workplace remains a top priority. Protecting corporate devices requires the adoption of solutions capable of blocking malware and preventing it from spreading. Beyond basic measures, organizations should implement adaptive systems that allow for the rapid deployment of security updates and the automation of patch management workflows.

Starting from the third quarter of 2025, we have updated our statistical methodology based on the Kaspersky Security Network. These changes affect all sections of the report except for the installation package statistics, which remain unchanged.

To illustrate trends between reporting periods, we have recalculated the previous year’s data; consequently, these figures may differ significantly from previously published numbers. All subsequent reports will be generated using this new methodology, ensuring accurate data comparisons with the findings presented in this article.

Kaspersky Security Network (KSN) is a global network for analyzing anonymized threat intelligence, voluntarily shared by Kaspersky users. The statistics in this report are based on KSN data unless explicitly stated otherwise.

The year in figures

According to Kaspersky Security Network, in 2025:

• Over 14 million attacks involving malware, adware or unwanted mobile software were blocked.
• Adware remained the most prevalent mobile threat, accounting for 62% of all detections.
• Over 815 thousand malicious installation packages were detected, including 255 thousand mobile banking Trojans.

The year’s highlights

In 2025, cybercriminals launched an average of approximately 1.17 million attacks per month against mobile devices using malicious, advertising, or unwanted software. In total, Kaspersky solutions blocked 14,059,465 attacks throughout the year.

Attacks on Kaspersky mobile users in 2025 (download)

Beyond the malware mentioned in previous quarterly reports, 2025 saw the discovery of several other notable Trojans. Among these, in Q4 we uncovered the Keenadu preinstalled backdoor. This malware is integrated into device firmware during the manufacturing stage. The malicious code is injected into libandroid_runtime.so – a core library for the Android Java runtime environment – allowing a copy of the backdoor to enter the address space of every app running on the device. Depending on the specific app, the malware can then perform actions such as inflating ad views, displaying banners on behalf of other apps, or hijacking search queries. The functionality of Keenadu is virtually unlimited, as its malicious modules are downloaded dynamically and can be updated remotely.

Cybersecurity researchers also identified the Kimwolf IoT botnet, which specifically targets Android TV boxes. Infected devices are capable of launching DDoS attacks, operating as reverse proxies, and executing malicious commands via a reverse shell. Subsequent analysis revealed that Kimwolf’s reverse proxy functionality was being leveraged by proxy providers to use compromised home devices as residential proxies.

Another notable discovery in 2025 was the LunaSpy Trojan.

Disguised as antivirus software, this spyware exfiltrates browser passwords, messaging app credentials, SMS messages, and call logs. Furthermore, it is capable of recording audio via the device’s microphone and capturing video through the camera. This threat primarily targeted users in Russia.

Mobile threat statistics

815,735 new unique installation packages were observed in 2025, showing a decrease compared to the previous year. While the decline in 2024 was less pronounced, this past year saw the figure drop by nearly one-third.

Detected Android-specific malware and unwanted software installation packages in 2022–2025 (download)

The overall decrease in detected packages is primarily due to a reduction in apps categorized as not-a-virus. Conversely, the number of Trojans has increased significantly, a trend clearly reflected in the distribution data below.

Detected packages by type

Distribution* of detected mobile software by type, 2024–2025 (download)

* The data for the previous year may differ from previously published data due to some verdicts being retrospectively revised.

A significant increase in Trojan-Banker and Trojan-Spy apps was accompanied by a decline in AdWare and RiskTool files. The most prevalent banking Trojans were Mamont (accounting for 49.8% of apps) and Creduz (22.5%). Leading the persistent adware category were MobiDash (39%), Adlo (27%), and HiddenAd (20%).

Share* of users attacked by each type of malware or unwanted software out of all users of Kaspersky mobile solutions attacked in 2024–2025 (download)

* The total may exceed 100% if the same users encountered multiple attack types.

Trojan-Banker malware saw a significant surge in 2025, not only in terms of unique file counts but also in the total number of attacks. Nevertheless, this category ranked fourth overall, trailing far behind the Trojan file category, which was dominated by various modifications of Triada and Fakemoney.

TOP 20 types of mobile malware

Note that the malware rankings below exclude riskware and potentially unwanted apps, such as RiskTool and adware.

Verdict	% 2024*	% 2025*	Difference in p.p.	Change in ranking
Trojan.AndroidOS.Triada.fe	0.04	9.84	+9.80
Trojan.AndroidOS.Triada.gn	2.94	8.14	+5.21	+6
Trojan.AndroidOS.Fakemoney.v	7.46	7.97	+0.51	+1
DangerousObject.Multi.Generic	7.73	5.83	–1.91	–2
Trojan.AndroidOS.Triada.ii	0.00	5.25	+5.25
Trojan-Banker.AndroidOS.Mamont.da	0.10	4.12	+4.02
Trojan.AndroidOS.Triada.ga	10.56	3.75	–6.81	–6
Trojan-Banker.AndroidOS.Mamont.db	0.01	3.53	+3.51
Backdoor.AndroidOS.Triada.z	0.00	2.79	+2.79
Trojan-Banker.AndroidOS.Coper.c	0.81	2.54	+1.72	+35
Trojan-Clicker.AndroidOS.Agent.bh	0.34	2.48	+2.14	+74
Trojan-Dropper.Linux.Agent.gen	1.82	2.37	+0.55	+4
Trojan.AndroidOS.Boogr.gsh	5.41	2.06	–3.35	–8
DangerousObject.AndroidOS.GenericML	2.42	1.97	–0.45	–3
Trojan.AndroidOS.Triada.gs	3.69	1.93	–1.76	–9
Trojan-Downloader.AndroidOS.Agent.no	0.00	1.87	+1.87
Trojan.AndroidOS.Triada.hf	0.00	1.75	+1.75
Trojan-Banker.AndroidOS.Mamont.bc	1.13	1.65	+0.51	+8
Trojan.AndroidOS.Generic.	2.13	1.47	–0.66	–6
Trojan.AndroidOS.Triada.hy	0.00	1.44	+1.44

* Unique users who encountered this malware as a percentage of all attacked users of Kaspersky mobile solutions.

The list is largely dominated by the Triada family, which is distributed via malicious modifications of popular messaging apps. Another infection vector involves tricking victims into installing an official messaging app within a “customized virtual environment” that supposedly offers enhanced configuration options. Fakemoney scam applications, which promise fraudulent investment opportunities or fake payouts, continue to target users frequently, ranking third in our statistics. Meanwhile, the Mamont banking Trojan variants occupy the 6th, 8th, and 18th positions by number of attacks. The Triada backdoor preinstalled in the firmware of certain devices reached the 9th spot.

Region-specific malware

This section describes malware families whose attack campaigns are concentrated within specific countries.

Verdict	Country*	%**
Trojan-Banker.AndroidOS.Coper.a	Türkiye	95.74
Trojan-Dropper.AndroidOS.Hqwar.bj	Türkiye	94.96
Trojan.AndroidOS.Thamera.bb	India	94.71
Trojan-Proxy.AndroidOS.Agent.q	Germany	93.70
Trojan-Banker.AndroidOS.Coper.c	Türkiye	93.42
Trojan-Banker.AndroidOS.Rewardsteal.lv	India	92.44
Trojan-Banker.AndroidOS.Rewardsteal.jp	India	92.31
Trojan-Banker.AndroidOS.Rewardsteal.ib	India	91.91
Trojan-Dropper.AndroidOS.Rewardsteal.h	India	91.45
Trojan-Banker.AndroidOS.Rewardsteal.nk	India	90.98
Trojan-Dropper.AndroidOS.Agent.sm	Türkiye	90.34
Trojan-Dropper.AndroidOS.Rewardsteal.ac	India	89.38
Trojan-Banker.AndroidOS.Rewardsteal.oa	India	89.18
Trojan-Banker.AndroidOS.Rewardsteal.ma	India	88.58
Trojan-Spy.AndroidOS.SmForw.ko	India	88.48
Trojan-Dropper.AndroidOS.Pylcasa.c	Brazil	88.25
Trojan-Dropper.AndroidOS.Hqwar.bf	Türkiye	88.15
Trojan-Banker.AndroidOS.Agent.pp	India	87.85

* Country where the malware was most active.
** Unique users who encountered the malware in the indicated country as a percentage of all users of Kaspersky mobile solutions who were attacked by the same malware.

Türkiye saw the highest concentration of attacks from Coper banking Trojans and their associated Hqwar droppers. In India, Rewardsteal Trojans continued to proliferate, exfiltrating victims’ payment data under the guise of monetary giveaways. Additionally, India saw a resurgence of the Thamera Trojan, which we previously observed frequently attacking users in 2023. This malware hijacks the victim’s device to illicitly register social media accounts.

The Trojan-Proxy.AndroidOS.Agent.q campaign, concentrated in Germany, utilized a compromised third-party application designed for tracking discounts at a major German retail chain. Attackers monetized these infections through unauthorized use of the victims’ devices as residential proxies.

In Brazil, 2025 saw a concentration of Pylcasa Trojan attacks. This malware is primarily used to redirect users to phishing pages or illicit online casino sites.

Mobile banking Trojans

The number of new banking Trojan installation packages surged to 255,090, representing a several-fold increase over previous years.

Mobile banking Trojan installation packages detected by Kaspersky in 2022–2025 (download)

Notably, the total number of attacks involving bankers grew by 1.5 times, maintaining the same growth rate seen in the previous year. Given the sharp spike in the number of unique malicious packages, we can conclude that these attacks yield significant profit for cybercriminals. This is further evidenced by the fact that threat actors continue to diversify their delivery channels and accelerate the production of new variants in an effort to evade detection by security solutions.

TOP 10 mobile bankers

Verdict	% 2024*	% 2025*	Difference in p.p.	Change in ranking
Trojan-Banker.AndroidOS.Mamont.da	0.86	15.65	+14.79	+28
Trojan-Banker.AndroidOS.Mamont.db	0.12	13.41	+13.29
Trojan-Banker.AndroidOS.Coper.c	7.19	9.65	+2.46	+2
Trojan-Banker.AndroidOS.Mamont.bc	10.03	6.26	–3.77	–3
Trojan-Banker.AndroidOS.Mamont.ev	0.00	4.10	+4.10
Trojan-Banker.AndroidOS.Coper.a	9.04	4.00	–5.04	–4
Trojan-Banker.AndroidOS.Mamont.ek	0.00	3.73	+3.73
Trojan-Banker.AndroidOS.Mamont.cb	0.64	3.04	+2.40	+26
Trojan-Banker.AndroidOS.Faketoken.pac	2.17	2.95	+0.77	+5
Trojan-Banker.AndroidOS.Mamont.hi	0.00	2.75	+2.75

* Unique users who encountered this malware as a percentage of all users of Kaspersky mobile solutions who encountered banking threats.

In 2025, we observed a massive surge in activity from Mamont banking Trojans. They accounted for approximately half of all new apps in their category and also were utilized in half of all banking Trojan attacks.

Conclusion

The year 2025 saw a continuing trend toward a decline in total unique unwanted software installation packages. However, we noted a significant year-over-year increase in specific threats – most notably mobile banking Trojans and spyware – even though adware remained the most frequently detected threat overall.

Among the mobile threats detected, we have seen an increased prevalence of preinstalled backdoors, such as Triada and Keenadu. Consistent with last year’s findings, certain mobile malware families continue to proliferate via official app stores. Finally, we have observed a growing interest among threat actors in leveraging compromised devices as proxies.

The year in figures

• 44.99% of all emails sent worldwide and 43.27% of all emails sent in the Russian web segment were spam
• 32.50% of all spam emails were sent from Russia
• Kaspersky Mail Anti-Virus blocked 144,722,674 malicious email attachments
• Our Anti-Phishing system thwarted 554,002,207 attempts to follow phishing links

Phishing and scams in 2025

Entertainment-themed phishing attacks and scams

In 2025, online streaming services remained a primary theme for phishing sites within the entertainment sector, typically by offering early access to major premieres ahead of their official release dates. Alongside these, there was a notable increase in phishing pages mimicking ticket aggregation platforms for live events. Cybercriminals lured users with offers of free tickets to see popular artists on pages that mirrored the branding of major ticket distributors. To participate in these “promotions”, victims were required to pay a nominal processing or ticket-shipping fee. Naturally, after paying the fee, the users never received any tickets.

In addition to concert-themed bait, other music-related scams gained significant traction. Users were directed to phishing pages and prompted to “vote for their favorite artist”, a common activity within fan communities. To bolster credibility, the scammers leveraged the branding of major companies like Google and Spotify. This specific scheme was designed to harvest credentials for multiple platforms simultaneously, as users were required to sign in with their Facebook, Instagram, or email credentials to participate.

As a pretext for harvesting Spotify credentials, attackers offered users a way to migrate their playlists to YouTube. To complete the transfer, victims were to just enter their Spotify credentials.

Beyond standard phishing, threat actors leveraged Spotify’s popularity for scams. In Brazil, scammers promoted a scheme where users were purportedly paid to listen to and rate songs.

To “withdraw” their earnings, users were required to provide their identification number for PIX, Brazil’s instant payment system.

Users were then prompted to verify their identity. To do so, the victim was required to make a small, one-time “verification payment”, an amount significantly lower than the potential earnings.

The form for submitting this “verification payment” was designed to appear highly authentic, even requesting various pieces of personal data. It is highly probable that this data was collected for use in subsequent attacks.

In another variation, users were invited to participate in a survey in exchange for a $1000 gift card. However, in a move typical of a scam, the victim was required to pay a small processing or shipping fee to claim the prize. Once the funds were transferred, the attackers vanished, and the website was taken offline.

Even deciding to go to an art venue with a girl from a dating site could result in financial loss. In this scenario, the “date” would suggest an in-person meeting after a brief period of rapport-building. They would propose a relatively inexpensive outing, such as a movie or a play at a niche theater. The scammer would go so far as to provide a link to a specific page where the victim could supposedly purchase tickets for the event.

To enhance the site’s perceived legitimacy, it even prompted the user to select their city of residence.

However, once the “ticket payment” was completed, both the booking site and the individual from the dating platform would vanish.

A similar tactic was employed by scam sites selling tickets for escape rooms. The design of these pages closely mirrored legitimate websites to lower the target’s guard.

Phishing pages masquerading as travel portals often capitalize on a sense of urgency, betting that a customer eager to book a “last-minute deal” will overlook an illegitimate URL. For example, the fraudulent page shown below offered exclusive tours of Japan, purportedly from a major Japanese tour operator.

Sensitive data at risk: phishing via government services

To harvest users’ personal data, attackers utilized a traditional phishing framework: fraudulent forms for document processing on sites posing as government portals. The visual design and content of these phishing pages meticulously replicated legitimate websites, offering the same services found on official sites. In Brazil, for instance, attackers collected personal data from individuals under the pretext of issuing a Rural Property Registration Certificate (CCIR).

Through this method, fraudsters tried to gain access to the victim’s highly sensitive information, including their individual taxpayer registry (CPF) number. This identifier serves as a unique key for every Brazilian national to access private accounts on government portals. It is also utilized in national databases and displayed on personal identification documents, making its interception particularly dangerous. Scammer access to this data poses a severe risk of identity theft, unauthorized access to government platforms, and financial exposure.

Furthermore, users were at risk of direct financial loss: in certain instances, the attackers requested a “processing fee” to facilitate the issuance of the important document.

Fraudsters also employed other methods to obtain CPF numbers. Specifically, we discovered phishing pages mimicking the official government service portal, which requires the CPF for sign-in.

Another theme exploited by scammers involved government payouts. In 2025, Singaporean citizens received government vouchers ranging from $600 to $800 in honor of the country’s 60th anniversary. To redeem these, users were required to sign in to the official program website. Fraudsters rushed to create web pages designed to mimic this site. Interestingly, the primary targets in this campaign were Telegram accounts, despite the fact that Telegram credentials were not a requirement for signing in to the legitimate portal.

We also identified a scam targeting users in Norway who were looking to renew or replace their driver’s licenses. Upon opening a website masquerading as the official Norwegian Public Roads Administration website, visitors were prompted to enter their vehicle registration and phone numbers.

Next, the victim was prompted for sensitive data, such as the personal identification number unique to every Norwegian citizen. By doing so, the attackers not only gained access to confidential information but also reinforced the illusion that the victim was interacting with an official website.

Once the personal data was submitted, a fraudulent page would appear, requesting a “processing fee” of 1200 kroner. If the victim entered their credit card details, the funds were transferred directly to the scammers with no possibility of recovery.

In Germany, attackers used the pretext of filing tax returns to trick users into providing their email user names and passwords on phishing pages.

A call to urgent action is a classic tactic in phishing scenarios. When combined with the threat of losing property, these schemes become highly effective bait, distracting potential victims from noticing an incorrect URL or a poorly designed website. For example, a phishing warning regarding unpaid vehicle taxes was used as a tool by attackers targeting credentials for the UK government portal.

We have observed that since the spring of 2025, there has been an increase in emails mimicking automated notifications from the Russian government services portal. These messages were distributed under the guise of application status updates and contained phishing links.

We also recorded vishing attacks targeting users of government portals. Victims were prompted to “verify account security” by calling a support number provided in the email. To lower the users’ guard, the attackers included fabricated technical details in the emails, such as the IP address, device model, and timestamp of an alleged unauthorized sign-in.

Last year, attackers also disguised vishing emails as notifications from microfinance institutions or credit bureaus regarding new loan applications. The scammers banked on the likelihood that the recipient had not actually applied for a loan. They would then prompt the victim to contact a fake support service via a spoofed support number.

Know Your Customer

As an added layer of data security, many services now implement biometric verification (facial recognition, fingerprints, and retina scans), as well as identity document verification and digital signatures. To harvest this data, fraudsters create clones of popular platforms that utilize these verification protocols. We have previously detailed the mechanics of this specific type of data theft.

In 2025, we observed a surge in phishing attacks targeting users under the guise of Know Your Customer (KYC) identity verification. KYC protocols rely on a specific set of user data for identification. By spoofing the pages of payment services such as Vivid Money, fraudsters harvested the information required to pass KYC authentication.

Notably, this threat also impacted users of various other platforms that utilize KYC procedures.

A distinctive feature of attacks on the KYC process is that, in addition to the victim’s full name, email address, and phone number, phishers request photos of their passport or face, sometimes from multiple angles. If this information falls into the hands of threat actors, the consequences extend beyond the loss of account access; the victim’s credentials can be sold on dark web marketplaces, a trend we have highlighted in previous reports.

Messaging app phishing

Account hijacking on messaging platforms like WhatsApp and Telegram remains one of the primary objectives of phishing and scam operations. While traditional tactics, such as suspicious links embedded in messages, have been well-known for some time, the methods used to steal credentials are becoming increasingly sophisticated.

For instance, Telegram users were invited to participate in a prize giveaway purportedly hosted by a famous athlete. This phishing attack, which masqueraded as an NFT giveaway, was executed through a Telegram Mini App. This marks a shift in tactics, as attackers previously relied on external web pages for these types of schemes.

In 2025, new variations emerged within the familiar framework of distributing phishing links via Telegram. For example, we observed prompts inviting users to vote for the “best dentist” or “best COO” in town.

The most prevalent theme in these voting-based schemes, children’s contests, was distributed primarily through WhatsApp. These phishing pages showed little variety; attackers utilized a standardized website design and set of “bait” photos, simply localizing the language based on the target audience’s geographic location.

To participate in the vote, the victim was required to enter the phone number linked to their WhatsApp account.

They were then prompted to provide a one-time authentication code for the messaging app.

The following are several other popular methods used by fraudsters to hijack user credentials.

In China, phishing pages meticulously replicated the WhatsApp interface. Victims were notified that their accounts had purportedly been flagged for “illegal activity”, necessitating “additional verification”.

The victim was redirected to a page to enter their phone number, followed by a request for their authorization code.

In other instances, users received messages allegedly from WhatsApp support regarding account authentication via SMS. As with the other scenarios described, the attackers’ objective was to obtain the authentication code required to hijack the account.

Fraudsters enticed WhatsApp users with an offer to link an app designed to “sync communications” with business contacts.

To increase the perceived legitimacy of the phishing site, the attackers even prompted users to create custom credentials for the page.

After that, the user was required to “purchase a subscription” to activate the application. This allowed the scammers to harvest credit card data, leaving the victim without the promised service.

To lure Telegram users, phishers distributed invitations to online dating chats.

Attackers also heavily leveraged the promise of free Telegram Premium subscriptions. While these phishing pages were previously observed only in Russian and English, the linguistic scope of these campaigns expanded significantly this year. As in previous iterations, activating the subscription required the victim to sign in to their account, which could result in the loss of account access.

Exploiting the ChatGPT hype

Artificial intelligence is increasingly being leveraged by attackers as bait. For example, we have identified fraudulent websites mimicking the official payment page for ChatGPT Plus subscriptions.

Social media marketing through LLMs was also a potential focal point for user interest. Scammers offered “specialized prompt kits” designed for social media growth; however, once payment was received, they vanished, leaving victims without the prompts or their money.

The promise of easy income through neural networks has emerged as another tactic to attract potential victims. Fraudsters promoted using ChatGPT to place bets, promising that the bot would do all the work while the user collected the profits. These services were offered at a “special price” valid for only 15 minutes after the page was opened. This narrow window prevented the victim from critically evaluating the impulse purchase.

Job opportunities with a catch

To attract potential victims, scammers exploited the theme of employment by offering high-paying remote positions. Applicants responding to these advertisements did more than just disclose their personal data; in some cases, fraudsters requested a small sum under the pretext of document processing or administrative fees. To convince victims that the offer was legitimate, attackers impersonated major brands, leveraging household names to build trust. This allowed them to lower the victims’ guard, even when the employment terms sounded too good to be true.

We also observed schemes where, after obtaining a victim’s data via a phishing site, scammers would follow up with a phone call – a tactic aimed at tricking the user into disclosing additional personal data.

By analyzing current job market trends, threat actors also targeted popular career paths to steal messaging app credentials. These phishing schemes were tailored to specific regional markets. For example, in the UAE, fake “employment agency” websites were circulating.

In a more sophisticated variation, users were asked to complete a questionnaire that required the phone number linked to their Telegram account.

To complete the registration, users were prompted for a code which, in reality, was a Telegram authorization code.

Notably, the registration process did not end there; the site continued to request additional information to “set up an account” on the fraudulent platform. This served to keep victims in the dark, maintaining their trust in the malicious site’s perceived legitimacy.

After finishing the registration, the victim was told to wait 24 hours for “verification”, though the scammers’ primary objective, hijacking the Telegram account, had already been achieved.

Simpler phishing schemes were also observed, where users were redirected to a page mimicking the Telegram interface. By entering their phone number and authorization code, victims lost access to their accounts.

Job seekers were not the only ones targeted by scammers. Employers’ accounts were also in the crosshairs, specifically on a major Russian recruitment portal. On a counterfeit page, the victim was asked to “verify their account” in order to post a job listing, which required them to enter their actual sign-in credentials for the legitimate site.

Spam in 2025

Malicious attachments

Password-protected archives

Attackers began aggressively distributing messages with password-protected malicious archives in 2024. Throughout 2025, these archives remained a popular vector for spreading malware, and we observed a variety of techniques designed to bypass security solutions.

For example, threat actors sent emails impersonating law firms, threatening victims with legal action over alleged “unauthorized domain name use”. The recipient was prompted to review potential pre-trial settlement options detailed in an attached document. The attachment consisted of an unprotected archive containing a secondary password-protected archive and a file with the password. Disguised as a legal document within this inner archive was a malicious WSF file, which installed a Trojan into the system via startup. The Trojan then stealthily downloaded and installed Tor, which allowed it to regularly exfiltrate screenshots to the attacker-controlled C2 server.

In addition to archives, we also encountered password-protected PDF files containing malicious links over the past year.

E-signature service exploits

Emails using the pretext of “signing a document” to coerce users into clicking phishing links or opening malicious attachments were quite common in 2025. The most prevalent scheme involved fraudulent notifications from electronic signature services. While these were primarily used for phishing, one specific malware sample identified within this campaign is of particular interest.

The email, purportedly sent from a well-known document-sharing platform, notified the recipient that they had been granted access to a “contract” attached to the message. However, the attachment was not the expected PDF; instead, it was a nested email file named after the contract. The body of this nested message mirrored the original, but its attachment utilized a double extension: a malicious SVG file containing a Trojan was disguised as a PDF document. This multi-layered approach was likely an attempt to obfuscate the malware and bypass security filters.

“Business correspondence” impersonating industrial companies

In the summer of last year, we observed mailshots sent in the name of various existing industrial enterprises. These emails contained DOCX attachments embedded with Trojans. Attackers coerced victims into opening the malicious files under the pretext of routine business tasks, such as signing a contract or drafting a report.

The authors of this malicious campaign attempted to lower users’ guard by using legitimate industrial sector domains in the “From” address. Furthermore, the messages were routed through the mail servers of a reputable cloud provider, ensuring the technical metadata appeared authentic. Consequently, even a cautious user could mistake the email for a genuine communication, open the attachment, and compromise their device.

Attacks on hospitals

Hospitals were a popular target for threat actors this past year: they were targeted with malicious emails impersonating well-known insurance providers. Recipients were threatened with legal action regarding alleged “substandard medical services”. The attachments, described as “medical records and a written complaint from an aggrieved patient”, were actually malware. Our solutions detect this threat as Backdoor.Win64.BrockenDoor, a backdoor capable of harvesting system information and executing malicious commands on the infected device.

We also came across emails with a different narrative. In those instances, medical staff were requested to facilitate a patient transfer from another hospital for ongoing observation and treatment. These messages referenced attached medical files containing diagnostic and treatment history, which were actually archives containing malicious payloads.

To bolster the perceived legitimacy of these communications, attackers did more than just impersonate famous insurers and medical institutions; they registered look-alike domains that mimicked official organizations’ domains by appending keywords such as “-insurance” or “-med.” Furthermore, to lower the victims’ guard, scammers included a fake “Scanned by Email Security” label.

Messages containing instructions to run malicious scripts

Last year, we observed unconventional infection chains targeting end-user devices. Threat actors continued to distribute instructions for downloading and executing malicious code, rather than attaching the malware files directly. To convince the recipient to follow these steps, attackers typically utilized a lure involving a “critical software update” or a “system patch” to fix a purported vulnerability. Generally, the first step in the instructions required launching the command prompt with administrative privileges, while the second involved entering a command to download and execute the malware: either a script or an executable file.

In some instances, these instructions were contained within a PDF file. The victim was prompted to copy a command into PowerShell that was neither obfuscated nor hidden. Such schemes target non-technical users who would likely not understand the command’s true intent and would unknowingly infect their own devices.

Scams

Law enforcement impersonation scams in the Russian web segment

In 2025, extortion campaigns involving actors posing as law enforcement – a trend previously more prevalent in Europe – were adapted to target users across the Commonwealth of Independent States.

For example, we identified messages disguised as criminal subpoenas or summonses purportedly issued by Russian law enforcement agencies. However, the specific departments cited in these emails never actually existed. The content of these “summonses” would also likely raise red flags for a cautious user. This blackmail scheme relied on the victim, in their state of panic, not scrutinizing the contents of the fake summons.

To intimidate recipients, the attackers referenced legal frameworks and added forged signatures and seals to the “subpoenas”. In reality, neither the cited statutes nor the specific civil service positions exist in Russia.

We observed similar attacks – employing fabricated government agencies and fictitious legal acts – in other CIS countries, such as Belarus.

Fraudulent investment schemes

Threat actors continued to aggressively exploit investment themes in their email scams. These emails typically promise stable, remote income through “exclusive” investment opportunities. This remains one of the most high-volume and adaptable categories of email scams. Threat actors embedded fraudulent links both directly within the message body and inside various types of attachments: PDF, DOC, PPTX, and PNG files. Furthermore, they increasingly leveraged legitimate Google services, such as Google Docs, YouTube, and Google Forms, to distribute these communications. The link led to the site of the “project” where the victim was prompted to provide their phone number and email. Subsequently, users were invited to invest in a non-existent project.

We have previously documented these mailshots: they were originally targeted at Russian-speaking users and were primarily distributed under the guise of major financial institutions. However, in 2025, this investment-themed scam expanded into other CIS countries and Europe. Furthermore, the range of industries that spammers impersonated grew significantly. For instance, in their emails, attackers began soliciting investments for projects supposedly led by major industrial-sector companies in Kazakhstan and the Czech Republic.

Fraudulent “brand partner” recruitment

This specific scam operates through a multi-stage workflow. First, the target company receives a communication from an individual claiming to represent a well-known global brand, inviting them to register as a certified supplier or business partner. To bolster the perceived authenticity of the offer, the fraudsters send the victim an extensive set of forged documents. Once these documents are signed, the victim is instructed to pay a “deposit”, which the attackers claim will be fully refunded once the partnership is officially established.

These mailshots were first detected in 2025 and have rapidly become one of the most prevalent forms of email-based fraud. In December 2025 alone, we blocked over 80,000 such messages. These campaigns specifically targeted the B2B sector and were notable for their high level of variation – ranging from their technical properties to the diversity of the message content and the wide array of brands the attackers chose to impersonate.

Fraudulent overdue rent notices

Last year, we identified a new theme in email scams: recipients were notified that the payment deadline for a leased property had expired and were urged to settle the “debt” immediately. To prevent the victim from sending funds to their actual landlord, the email claimed that banking details had changed. The “debtor” was then instructed to request the new payment information – which, of course, belonged to the fraudsters. These mailshots primarily targeted French-speaking countries; however, in December 2025, we discovered a similar scam variant in German.

QR codes in scam letters

In 2025, we observed a trend where QR codes were utilized not only in phishing attempts but also in extortion emails. In a classic blackmail scam, the user is typically intimidated by claims that hackers have gained access to sensitive data. To prevent the public release of this information, the attackers demand a ransom payment to their cryptocurrency wallet.

Previously, to bypass email filters, scammers attempted to obfuscate the wallet address by using various noise contamination techniques. In last year’s campaigns, however, scammers shifted to including a QR code that contained the cryptocurrency wallet address.

News agenda

As in previous years, spammers in 2025 aggressively integrated current events into their fraudulent messaging to increase engagement.

For example, following the launch of $TRUMP memecoins surrounding Donald Trump’s inauguration, we identified scam campaigns promoting the “Trump Meme Coin” and “Trump Digital Trading Cards”. In these instances, scammers enticed victims to click a link to claim “free NFTs”.

We also observed ads offering educational credentials. Spammers posted these ads as comments on legacy, unmoderated forums; this tactic ensured that notifications were automatically pushed to all users subscribed to the thread. These notifications either displayed the fraudulent link directly in the comment preview or alerted users to a new post that redirected them to spammers’ sites.

In the summer, when the wedding of Amazon founder Jeff Bezos became a major global news story, users began receiving Nigerian-style scam messages purportedly from Bezos himself, as well as from his former wife, MacKenzie Scott. These emails promised recipients substantial sums of money, framed either as charitable donations or corporate compensation from Amazon.

During the BLACKPINK world tour, we observed a wave of spam advertising “luggage scooters”. The scammers claimed these were the exact motorized suitcases used by the band members during their performances.

Finally, in the fall of 2025, traditionally timed to coincide with the launch of new iPhones, we identified scam campaigns featuring surveys that offered participants a chance to “win” a fictitious iPhone 17 Pro.

After completing a brief survey, the user was prompted to provide their contact information and physical address, as well as pay a “delivery fee” – which was the scammers’ ultimate objective. Upon entering their credit card details into the fraudulent site, the victim risked losing not only the relatively small delivery charge but also the entire balance in their bank account.

The widespread popularity of Ozempic was also reflected in spam campaigns; users were bombarded with offers to purchase versions of the drug or questionable alternatives.

Localized news events also fall under the scrutiny of fraudsters, serving as the basis for scam narratives. For instance, last summer, coinciding with the opening of the tax season in South Africa, we began detecting phishing emails impersonating the South African Revenue Service (SARS). These messages notified taxpayers of alleged “outstanding balances” that required immediate settlement.

Methods of distributing email threats

Google services

In 2025, threat actors increasingly leveraged various Google services to distribute email-based threats. We observed the exploitation of Google Calendar: scammers would create an event containing a WhatsApp contact number in the description and send an invitation to the target. For instance, companies received emails regarding product inquiries that prompted them to move the conversation to the messaging app to discuss potential “collaboration”.

Spammers employed a similar tactic using Google Classroom. We identified samples offering SEO optimization services that likewise directed victims to a WhatsApp number for further communication.

We also detected the distribution of fraudulent links via legitimate YouTube notifications. Attackers would reply to user comments under various videos, triggering an automated email notification to the victim. This email contained a link to a video that displayed only a message urging the viewer to “check the description”, where the actual link to the scam site was located. As the victim received an email containing the full text of the fraudulent comment, they were often lured through this chain of links, eventually landing on the scam site.

Over the past two years or so, there has been a significant rise in attacks utilizing Google Forms. Fraudsters create a survey with an enticing title and place the scam messaging directly in the form’s description. They then submit the form themselves, entering the victims’ email addresses into the field for the respondent email. This triggers legitimate notifications from the Google Forms service to the targeted addresses. Because these emails originate from Google’s own mail servers, they appear authentic to most spam filters. The attackers rely on the victim focusing on the “bait” description containing the fraudulent link rather than the standard form header.

Google Groups also emerged as a popular tool for spam distribution last year. Scammers would create a group, add the victims’ email addresses as members, and broadcast spam through the service. This scheme proved highly effective: even if a security solution blocked the initial spam message, the user could receive a deluge of automated replies from other addresses on the member list.

At the end of 2025, we encountered a legitimate email in terms of technical metadata that was sent via Google and contained a fraudulent link. The message also included a verification code for the recipient’s email address. To generate this notification, scammers filled out the account registration form in a way that diverted the recipient’s attention toward a fraudulent site. For example, instead of entering a first and last name, the attackers inserted text such as “Personal Link” followed by a phishing URL, utilizing noise contamination techniques. By entering the victim’s email address into the registration field, the scammers triggered a legitimate system notification containing the fraudulent link.

OpenAI

In addition to Google services, spammers leveraged other platforms to distribute email threats, notably OpenAI, riding the wave of artificial intelligence popularity. In 2025, we observed emails sent via the OpenAI platform into which spammers had injected short messages, fraudulent links, or phone numbers.

This occurs during the account registration process on the OpenAI platform, where users are prompted to create an organization to generate an API key. Spammers placed their fraudulent content directly into the field designated for the organization’s name. They then added the victims’ email addresses as organization members, triggering automated platform invitations that delivered the fraudulent links or contact numbers directly to the targets.

Spear phishing and BEC attacks in 2025

QR codes

The use of QR codes in spear phishing has become a conventional tactic that threat actors continued to employ throughout 2025. Specifically, we observed the persistence of a major trend identified in our previous report: the distribution of phishing documents disguised as notifications from a company’s HR department.

In these campaigns, attackers impersonated HR team members, requesting that employees review critical documentation, such as a new corporate policy or code of conduct. These documents were typically attached to the email as PDF files.

To maintain the ruse, the PDF document contained a highly convincing call to action, prompting the user to scan a QR code to access the relevant file. While attackers previously embedded these codes directly into the body of the email, last year saw a significant shift toward placing them within attachments – most likely in an attempt to bypass email security filters.

Upon scanning the QR code within the attachment, the victim was redirected to a phishing page meticulously designed to mimic a Microsoft authentication form.

In addition to fraudulent HR notifications, threat actors created scheduled meetings within the victim’s email calendar, placing DOC or PDF files containing QR codes in the event descriptions. Leveraging calendar invites to distribute malicious links is a legacy technique that was widely observed during scam campaigns in 2019. After several years of relative dormancy, we saw a resurgence of this technique last year, now integrated into more sophisticated spear phishing operations.

In one specific example, the attachment was presented as a “new voicemail” notification. To listen to the recording, the user was prompted to scan a QR code and sign in to their account on the resulting page.

As in the previous scenario, scanning the code redirected the user to a phishing page, where they risked losing access to their Microsoft account or internal corporate sites.

Link protection services

Threat actors utilized more than just QR codes to hide phishing URLs and bypass security checks. In 2025, we discovered that fraudsters began weaponizing link protection services for the same purpose. The primary function of these services is to intercept and scan URLs at the moment of clicking to prevent users from reaching phishing sites or downloading malware. However, attackers are now abusing this technology by generating phishing links that security systems mistakenly categorize as “safe”.

This technique is employed in both mass and spear phishing campaigns. It is particularly dangerous in targeted attacks, which often incorporate employees’ personal data and mimic official corporate branding. When combined with these characteristics, a URL generated through a legitimate link protection service can significantly bolster the perceived authenticity of a phishing email.

After opening a URL that seemed safe, the user was directed to a phishing site.

BEC and fabricated email chains

In Business Email Compromise (BEC) attacks, threat actors have also begun employing new techniques, the most notable of which is the use of fake forwarded messages.

This BEC attack unfolded as follows. An employee would receive an email containing a previous conversation between the sender and another colleague. The final message in this thread was typically an automated out-of-office reply or a request to hand off a specific task to a new assignee. In reality, however, the entire initial conversation with the colleague was completely fabricated. These messages lacked the thread-index headers, as well as other critical header values, that would typically verify the authenticity of an actual email chain.

In the example at hand, the victim was pressured to urgently pay for a license using the provided banking details. The PDF attachments included wire transfer instructions and a counterfeit cover letter from the bank.

The bank does not actually have an office at the address provided in the documents.

Statistics: phishing

In 2025, Kaspersky solutions blocked 554,002,207 attempts to follow fraudulent links. In contrast to the trends of previous years, we did not observe any major spikes in phishing activity; instead, the volume of attacks remained relatively stable throughout the year, with the exception of a minor decline in December.

Anti-Phishing triggers, 2025 (download)

The phishing and scam landscape underwent a shift. While in 2024, we saw a high volume of mass attacks, their frequency declined in 2025. Furthermore, redirection-based schemes, which were frequently used for online fraud in 2024, became less prevalent in 2025.

Map of phishing attacks

As in the previous year, Peru remains the country with the highest percentage (17.46%) of users targeted by phishing attacks. Bangladesh (16.98%) took second place, entering the TOP 10 for the first time, while Malawi (16.65%), which was absent from the 2024 rankings, was third. Following these are Tunisia (16.19%), Colombia (15.67%), the latter also being a newcomer to the TOP 10, Brazil (15.48%), and Ecuador (15.27%). They are followed closely by Madagascar and Kenya, both with a 15.23% share of attacked users. Rounding out the list is Vietnam, which previously held the third spot, with a share of 15.05%.

Country/territory	Share of attacked users**
Peru	17.46%
Bangladesh	16.98%
Malawi	16.65%
Tunisia	16.19%
Colombia	15.67%
Brazil	15.48%
Ecuador	15.27%
Madagascar	15.23%
Kenya	15.23%
Vietnam	15.05%

** Share of users who encountered phishing out of the total number of Kaspersky users in the country/territory, 2025

Top-level domains

In 2025, breaking a trend that had persisted for several years, the majority of phishing pages were hosted within the XYZ TLD zone, accounting for 21.64% – a three-fold increase compared to 2024. The second most popular zone was TOP (15.45%), followed by BUZZ (13.58%). This high demand can be attributed to the low cost of domain registration in these zones. The COM domain, which had previously held the top spot consistently, fell to fourth place (10.52%). It is important to note that this decline is partially driven by the popularity of typosquatting attacks: threat actors frequently spoof sites within the COM domain by using alternative suffixes, such as example-com.site instead of example.com. Following COM is the BOND TLD, entering the TOP 10 for the first time with a 5.56% share. As this zone is typically associated with financial websites, the surge in malicious interest there is a logical progression for financial phishing. The sixth and seventh positions are held by ONLINE (3.39%) and SITE (2.02%), which occupied the fourth and fifth spots, respectively, in 2024. In addition, three domain zones that had not previously appeared in our statistics emerged as popular hosting environments for phishing sites. These included the CFD domain (1.97%), typically used for websites in the clothing, fashion, and design sectors; the Polish national top-level domain, PL (1.75%); and the LOL domain (1.60%).

Most frequent top-level domains for phishing pages, 2025 (download)

Organizations targeted by phishing attacks

The rankings of organizations targeted by phishers are based on detections by the Anti-Phishing deterministic component on user computers. The component detects all pages with phishing content that the user has tried to open by following a link in an email message or on the web, as long as links to these pages are present in the Kaspersky database.

Phishing pages impersonating web services (27.42%) and global internet portals (15.89%) maintained their positions in the TOP 10, continuing to rank first and second, respectively. Online stores (11.27%), a traditional favorite among threat actors, returned to the third spot. In 2025, phishers showed increased interest in online gamers: websites mimicking gaming platforms jumped from ninth to fifth place (7.58%). These are followed by banks (6.06%), payment systems (5.93%), messengers (5.70%), and delivery services (5.06%). Phishing attacks also targeted social media (4.42%) and government services (1.77%) accounts.

Distribution of targeted organizations by category, 2025 (download)

Statistics: spam

Share of spam in email traffic

In 2025, the average share of spam in global email traffic was 44.99%, representing a decrease of 2.28 percentage points compared to the previous year. Notably, contrary to the trends of the past several years, the fourth quarter was the busiest one: an average of 49.26% of emails were categorized as spam, with peak activity occurring in November (52.87%) and December (51.80%). Throughout the rest of the year, the distribution of junk mail remained relatively stable without significant spikes, maintaining an average share of approximately 43.50%.

Share of spam in global email traffic, 2025 (download)

In the Russian web segment (Runet), we observed a more substantial decline: the average share of spam decreased by 5.3 percentage points to 43.27%. Deviating from the global trend, the fourth quarter was the quietest period in Russia, with a share of 41.28%. We recorded the lowest level of spam activity in December, when only 36.49% of emails were identified as junk. January and February were also relatively calm, with average values of 41.94% and 43.09%, respectively. Conversely, the Runet figures for March–October correlated with global figures: no major surges were observed, spam accounting for an average of 44.30% of total email traffic during these months.

Share of spam in Runet email traffic, 2025 (download)

Countries and territories where spam originated

The top three countries in the 2025 rankings for the volume of outgoing spam mirror the distribution of the previous year: Russia, China, and the United States. However, the share of spam originating from Russia decreased from 36.18% to 32.50%, while the shares of China (19.10%) and the U.S. (10.57%) each increased by approximately 2 percentage points. Germany rose to fourth place (3.46%), up from sixth last year, displacing Kazakhstan (2.89%). Hong Kong followed in sixth place (2.11%). The Netherlands and Japan shared the next spot with identical shares of 1.95%; however, we observed a year-over-year increase in outgoing spam from the Netherlands, whereas Japan saw a decline. The TOP 10 is rounded out by Brazil (1.94%) and Belarus (1.74%), the latter ranking for the first time.

TOP 20 countries and territories where spam originated in 2025 (download)

Malicious email attachments

In 2025, Kaspersky solutions blocked 144,722,674 malicious email attachments, an increase of nineteen million compared to the previous year. The beginning and end of the year were traditionally the most stable periods; however, we also observed a notable decline in activity during August and September. Peaks in email antivirus detections occurred in June, July, and November.

Email antivirus detections, 2025 (download)

The most prevalent malicious email attachment in 2025 was the Makoob Trojan family, which covertly harvests system information and user credentials. Makoob first entered the TOP 10 in 2023 in eighth place, rose to third in 2024, and secured the top spot in 2025 with a share of 4.88%. Following Makoob, as in the previous year, was the Badun Trojan family (4.13%), which typically disguises itself as electronic documents. The third spot is held by the Taskun family (3.68%), which creates malicious scheduled tasks, followed by Agensla stealers (3.16%), which were the most common malicious attachments in 2024. Next are Trojan.Win32.AutoItScript scripts (2.88%), appearing in the rankings for the first time. In sixth place is the Noon spyware for all Windows systems (2.63%), which also occupied the tenth spot with its variant specifically targeting 32-bit systems (1.10%). Rounding out the TOP 10 are Hoax.HTML.Phish (1.98%) phishing attachments, Guloader downloaders (1.90%) – a newcomer to the rankings – and Badur (1.56%) PDF documents containing suspicious links.

TOP 10 malware families distributed via email attachments, 2025 (download)

The distribution of specific malware samples traditionally mirrors the distribution of malware families almost exactly. The only differences are that a specific variant of the Agensla stealer ranked sixth instead of fourth (2.53%), and the Phish and Guloader samples swapped positions (1.58% and 1.78%, respectively). Rounding out the rankings in tenth place is the password stealer Trojan-PSW.MSIL.PureLogs.gen with a share of 1.02%.

TOP 10 malware samples distributed via email attachments, 2025 (download)

Countries and territories targeted by malicious mailings

The highest volume of malicious email attachments was blocked on devices belonging to users in China (13.74%). For the first time in two years, Russia dropped to second place with a share of 11.18%. Following closely behind are Mexico (8.18%) and Spain (7.70%), which swapped places compared to the previous year. Email antivirus triggers saw a slight increase in Türkiye (5.19%), which maintained its fifth-place position. Sixth and seventh places are held by Vietnam (4.14%) and Malaysia (3.70%); both countries climbed higher in the TOP 10 due to an increase in detection shares. These are followed by the UAE (3.12%), which held its position from the previous year. Italy (2.43%) and Colombia (2.07%) also entered the TOP 10 list of targets for malicious mailshots.

TOP 20 countries and territories targeted by malicious mailshots, 2025 (download)

Conclusion

2026 will undoubtedly be marked by novel methods of exploiting artificial intelligence capabilities. At the same time, messaging app credentials will remain a highly sought-after prize for threat actors. While new schemes are certain to emerge, they will likely supplement rather than replace time-tested tricks and tactics. This underscores the reality that, alongside the deployment of robust security software, users must remain vigilant and exercise extreme caution toward any online offers that raise even the slightest suspicion.

The intensified focus on government service credentials signals a rise in potential impact; unauthorized access to these services can lead to financial theft, data breaches, and full-scale identity theft. Furthermore, the increased abuse of legitimate tools and the rise of multi-stage attacks – which often begin with seemingly harmless files or links – demonstrate a concerted effort by fraudsters to lull users into a false sense of security while pursuing their malicious objectives.

After the cyber attacks timelines (part I and part II), it’s time to publish the statistics for January 2026 where I collected and analyzed 178 events. In January 2026, Cyber Crime continued to lead the Motivations chart with 76%, ahead of Cyber Espionage at number two with 19%, and Cyber Warfare with just three events.

In the third quarter, attackers continued to exploit security flaws in WinRAR, while the total number of registered vulnerabilities grew again. In this report, we examine statistics on published vulnerabilities and exploits, the most common security issues impacting Windows and Linux, and the vulnerabilities being leveraged in APT attacks that lead to the launch of widespread C2 frameworks. The report utilizes anonymized Kaspersky Security Network data, which was consensually provided by our users, as well as information from open sources.

Statistics on registered vulnerabilities

This section contains statistics on registered vulnerabilities. The data is taken from cve.org.

Let us consider the number of registered CVEs by month for the last five years up to and including the third quarter of 2025.

Total published vulnerabilities by month from 2021 through 2025 (download)

As can be seen from the chart, the monthly number of vulnerabilities published in the third quarter of 2025 remains above the figures recorded in previous years. The three-month total saw over 1000 more published vulnerabilities year over year. The end of the quarter sets a rising trend in the number of registered CVEs, and we anticipate this growth to continue into the fourth quarter. Still, the overall number of published vulnerabilities is likely to drop slightly relative to the September figure by year-end

A look at the monthly distribution of vulnerabilities rated as critical upon registration (CVSS > 8.9) suggests that this metric was marginally lower in the third quarter than the 2024 figure.

Total number of critical vulnerabilities published each month from 2021 to 2025 (download)

Exploitation statistics

This section contains exploitation statistics for Q3 2025. The data draws on open sources and our telemetry.

Windows and Linux vulnerability exploitation

In Q3 2025, as before, the most common exploits targeted vulnerable Microsoft Office products.

Most Windows exploits detected by Kaspersky solutions targeted the following vulnerabilities:

• CVE-2018-0802: a remote code execution vulnerability in the Equation Editor component
• CVE-2017-11882: another remote code execution vulnerability, also affecting Equation Editor
• CVE-2017-0199: a vulnerability in Microsoft Office and WordPad that allows an attacker to assume control of the system

These vulnerabilities historically have been exploited by threat actors more frequently than others, as discussed in previous reports. In the third quarter, we also observed threat actors actively exploiting Directory Traversal vulnerabilities that arise during archive unpacking in WinRAR. While the originally published exploits for these vulnerabilities are not applicable in the wild, attackers have adapted them for their needs.

• CVE-2023-38831: a vulnerability in WinRAR that involves improper handling of objects within archive contents We discussed this vulnerability in detail in a 2024 report.
• CVE-2025-6218 (ZDI-CAN-27198): a vulnerability that enables an attacker to specify a relative path and extract files into an arbitrary directory. A malicious actor can extract the archive into a system application or startup directory to execute malicious code. For a more detailed analysis of the vulnerability, see our Q2 2025 report.
• CVE-2025-8088: a zero-day vulnerability similar to CVE-2025-6128, discovered during an analysis of APT attacks The attackers used NTFS Streams to circumvent controls on the directory into which files were unpacked. We will take a closer look at this vulnerability below.

It should be pointed out that vulnerabilities discovered in 2025 are rapidly catching up in popularity to those found in 2023.

All the CVEs mentioned can be exploited to gain initial access to vulnerable systems. We recommend promptly installing updates for the relevant software.

Dynamics of the number of Windows users encountering exploits, Q1 2023 — Q3 2025. The number of users who encountered exploits in Q1 2023 is taken as 100% (download)

According to our telemetry, the number of Windows users who encountered exploits increased in the third quarter compared to the previous reporting period. However, this figure is lower than that of Q3 2024.

For Linux devices, exploits for the following OS kernel vulnerabilities were detected most frequently:

• CVE-2022-0847, also known as Dirty Pipe: a vulnerability that allows privilege escalation and enables attackers to take control 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 overflow vulnerability in the Netfilter kernel subsystem. The widespread exploitation of this vulnerability is due to its use of popular memory modification techniques: manipulating “msg_msg” primitives, which leads to a Use-After-Free security flaw.

Dynamics of the number of Linux users encountering exploits, Q1 2023 — Q3 2025. The number of users who encountered exploits in Q1 2023 is taken as 100% (download)

A look at the number of users who encountered exploits suggests that it continues to grow, and in Q3 2025, it already exceeds the Q1 2023 figure by more than six times.

It is critically important to install security patches for the Linux operating system, as it is attracting more and more attention from threat actors each year – primarily due to the growing number of user devices running Linux.

Most common published exploits

In Q3 2025, exploits targeting operating system vulnerabilities continue to predominate over those targeting other software types that we track as part of our monitoring of public research, news, and PoCs. That said, the share of browser exploits significantly increased in the third quarter, matching the share of exploits in other software not part of the operating system.

Distribution of published exploits by platform, Q1 2025 (download)

Distribution of published exploits by platform, Q2 2025 (download)

Distribution of published exploits by platform, Q3 2025 (download)

It is noteworthy that no new public exploits for Microsoft Office products appeared in Q3 2025, just as none did in Q2. However, PoCs for vulnerabilities in Microsoft SharePoint were disclosed. Since these same vulnerabilities also affect OS components, we categorized them under operating system vulnerabilities.

Vulnerability exploitation in APT attacks

We analyzed data on vulnerabilities that were exploited in APT attacks during Q3 2025. The following rankings draw on our telemetry, research, and open-source data.

TOP 10 vulnerabilities exploited in APT attacks, Q3 2025 (download)

APT attacks in Q3 2025 were dominated by zero-day vulnerabilities, which were uncovered during investigations of isolated incidents. A large wave of exploitation followed their public disclosure. Judging by the list of software containing these vulnerabilities, we are witnessing the emergence of a new go-to toolkit for gaining initial access into infrastructure and executing code both on edge devices and within operating systems. It bears mentioning that long-standing vulnerabilities, such as CVE-2017-11882, allow for the use of various data formats and exploit obfuscation to bypass detection. By contrast, most new vulnerabilities require a specific input data format, which facilitates exploit detection and enables more precise tracking of their use in protected infrastructures. Nevertheless, the risk of exploitation remains quite high, so we strongly recommend applying updates already released by vendors.

C2 frameworks

In this section, we will look at the most popular C2 frameworks used by threat actors and analyze the vulnerabilities whose exploits interacted with C2 agents in APT attacks.

The chart below shows the frequency of known C2 framework usage in attacks on users during the third quarter of 2025, according to open sources.

Top 10 C2 frameworks used by APT groups to compromise user systems in Q3 2025 (download)

Metasploit, whose share increased compared to Q2, tops the list of the most prevalent C2 frameworks from the past quarter. It is followed by Sliver and Mythic. The Empire framework also reappeared on the list after being inactive in the previous reporting period. What stands out is that Adaptix C2, although fairly new, was almost immediately embraced by attackers in real-world scenarios. Analyzed sources and samples of malicious C2 agents revealed that the following vulnerabilities were used to launch them and subsequently move within the victim’s network:

• CVE-2020-1472, also known as ZeroLogon, allows for compromising a vulnerable operating system and executing commands as a privileged user.
• CVE-2021-34527, also known as PrintNightmare, exploits flaws in the Windows print spooler subsystem, also enabling remote access to a vulnerable OS and high-privilege command execution.
• CVE-2025-6218 or CVE-2025-8088 are similar Directory Traversal vulnerabilities that allow extracting files from an archive to a predefined path without the archiving utility notifying the user. The first was discovered by researchers but subsequently weaponized by attackers. The second is a zero-day vulnerability.

Interesting vulnerabilities

This section highlights the most noteworthy vulnerabilities that were publicly disclosed in Q3 2025 and have a publicly available description.

ToolShell (CVE-2025-49704 and CVE-2025-49706, CVE-2025-53770 and CVE-2025-53771): insecure deserialization and an authentication bypass

ToolShell refers to a set of vulnerabilities in Microsoft SharePoint that allow attackers to bypass authentication and gain full control over the server.

• CVE-2025-49704 involves insecure deserialization of untrusted data, enabling attackers to execute malicious code on a vulnerable server.
• CVE-2025-49706 allows access to the server by bypassing authentication.
• CVE-2025-53770 is a patch bypass for CVE-2025-49704.
• CVE-2025-53771 is a patch bypass for CVE-2025-49706.

These vulnerabilities form one of threat actors’ combinations of choice, as they allow for compromising accessible SharePoint servers with just a few requests. Importantly, they were all patched back in July, which further underscores the importance of promptly installing critical patches. A detailed description of the ToolShell vulnerabilities can be found in our blog.

CVE-2025-8088: a directory traversal vulnerability in WinRAR

CVE-2025-8088 is very similar to CVE-2025-6218, which we discussed in our previous report. In both cases, attackers use relative paths to trick WinRAR into extracting archive contents into system directories. This version of the vulnerability differs only in that the attacker exploits Alternate Data Streams (ADS) and can use environment variables in the extraction path.

CVE-2025-41244: a privilege escalation vulnerability in VMware Aria Operations and VMware Tools

Details about this vulnerability were presented by researchers who claim it was used in real-world attacks in 2024.

At the core of the vulnerability lies the fact that an attacker can substitute the command used to launch the Service Discovery component of the VMware Aria tooling or the VMware Tools utility suite. This leads to the unprivileged attacker gaining unlimited privileges on the virtual machine. The vulnerability stems from an incorrect regular expression within the get-versions.sh script in the Service Discovery component, which is responsible for identifying the service version and runs every time a new command is passed.

Conclusion and advice

The number of recorded vulnerabilities continued to rise in Q3 2025, with some being almost immediately weaponized by attackers. The trend is likely to continue in the future.

The most common exploits for Windows are primarily used for initial system access. Furthermore, it is at this stage that APT groups are actively exploiting new vulnerabilities. To hinder attackers’ access to infrastructure, organizations should regularly audit systems for vulnerabilities and apply patches in a timely manner. These measures can be simplified and automated with Kaspersky Systems Management. Kaspersky Next can provide comprehensive and flexible protection against cyberattacks of any complexity.

All statistics in this report come from Kaspersky Security Network (KSN), a global cloud service that receives information from components in our security solutions voluntarily provided by Kaspersky users. Millions of Kaspersky users around the globe assist us in collecting information about malicious activity. The statistics in this report cover the period from November 2024 through October 2025. The report doesn’t cover mobile statistics, which we will share in our annual mobile malware report.

During the reporting period:

• 48% of Windows users and 29% of macOS users encountered cyberthreats
• 27% of all Kaspersky users encountered web threats, and 33% users were affected by on-device threats
• The highest share of users affected by web threats was in CIS (34%), and local threats were most often detected in Africa (41%)
• Kaspersky solutions prevented nearly 1,6 times more password stealer attacks than in the previous year
• In APAC password stealer detections saw a 132% surge compared to the previous year
• Kaspersky solutions detected 1,5 times more spyware attacks than in the previous year

To find more yearly statistics on cyberthreats view the full report.

IT threat evolution in Q3 2025. Mobile statistics
IT threat evolution in Q3 2025. Non-mobile statistics

The quarter at a glance

In the third quarter of 2025, we updated the methodology for calculating statistical indicators based on the Kaspersky Security Network. These changes affected all sections of the report except for the statistics on installation packages, which remained unchanged.

To illustrate the differences between the reporting periods, we have also recalculated data for the previous quarters. Consequently, these figures may significantly differ from the previously published ones. However, subsequent reports will employ this new methodology, enabling precise comparisons with the data presented in this post.

The Kaspersky Security Network (KSN) is a global network for analyzing anonymized threat information, voluntarily shared by users of Kaspersky solutions. The statistics in this report are based on KSN data unless explicitly stated otherwise.

The quarter in numbers

According to Kaspersky Security Network, in Q3 2025:

• 47 million attacks utilizing malware, adware, or unwanted mobile software were prevented.

• Trojans were the most widespread threat among mobile malware, encountered by 15.78% of all attacked users of Kaspersky solutions.
• More than 197,000 malicious installation packages were discovered, including:
  • 52,723 associated with mobile banking Trojans.
  • 1564 packages identified as mobile ransomware Trojans.

Quarterly highlights

The number of malware, adware, or unwanted software attacks on mobile devices, calculated according to the updated rules, totaled 3.47 million in the third quarter. This is slightly less than the 3.51 million attacks recorded in the previous reporting period.

Attacks on users of Kaspersky mobile solutions, Q2 2024 — Q3 2025 (download)

At the start of the quarter, a user complained to us about ads appearing in every browser on their smartphone. We conducted an investigation, discovering a new version of the BADBOX backdoor, preloaded on the device. This backdoor is a multi-level loader embedded in a malicious native library, librescache.so, which was loaded by the system framework. As a result, a copy of the Trojan infiltrated every process running on the device.

Another interesting finding was Trojan-Downloader.AndroidOS.Agent.no, which was embedded in mods for messaging and other apps. It downloaded Trojan-Clicker.AndroidOS.Agent.bl onto the device. The clicker received a URL from its server where an ad was being displayed, opened it in an invisible WebView window, and used machine learning algorithms to find and click the close button. In this way, fraudsters exploited the user’s device to artificially inflate ad views.

Mobile threat statistics

In the third quarter, Kaspersky security solutions detected 197,738 samples of malicious and unwanted software for Android, which is 55,000 more than in the previous reporting period.

Detected malicious and potentially unwanted installation packages, Q3 2024 — Q3 2025 (download)

The detected installation packages were distributed by type as follows:

Detected mobile apps by type, Q2* — Q3 2025 (download)

* Changes in the statistical calculation methodology do not affect this metric. However, data for the previous quarter may differ slightly from previously published figures due to a retrospective review of certain verdicts.

The share of banking Trojans decreased somewhat, but this was due less to a reduction in their numbers and more to an increase in other malicious and unwanted packages. Nevertheless, banking Trojans, still dominated by Mamont packages, continue to hold the top spot. The rise in Trojan droppers is also linked to them: these droppers are primarily designed to deliver banking Trojans.

Share* of users attacked by the given type of malicious or potentially unwanted app out of all targeted users of Kaspersky mobile products, Q2 — Q3 2025 (download)

* The total may exceed 100% if the same users experienced multiple attack types.

Adware leads the pack in terms of the number of users attacked, with a significant margin. The most widespread types of adware are HiddenAd (56.3%) and MobiDash (27.4%). RiskTool-type unwanted apps occupy the second spot. Their growth is primarily due to the proliferation of the Revpn module, which monetizes user internet access by turning their device into a VPN exit point. The most popular Trojans predictably remain Triada (55.8%) and Fakemoney (24.6%). The percentage of users who encountered these did not undergo significant changes.

TOP 20 most frequently detected types of mobile malware

Note that the malware rankings below exclude riskware and potentially unwanted software, such as RiskTool or adware.

Verdict	%* Q2 2025	%* Q3 2025	Difference in p.p.	Change in ranking
Trojan.AndroidOS.Triada.ii	0.00	13.78	+13.78
Trojan.AndroidOS.Triada.fe	12.54	10.32	–2.22	–1
Trojan.AndroidOS.Triada.gn	9.49	8.56	–0.93	–1
Trojan.AndroidOS.Fakemoney.v	8.88	6.30	–2.59	–1
Backdoor.AndroidOS.Triada.z	3.75	4.53	+0.77	+1
DangerousObject.Multi.Generic.	4.39	4.52	+0.13	–1
Trojan-Banker.AndroidOS.Coper.c	3.20	2.86	–0.35	+1
Trojan.AndroidOS.Triada.if	0.00	2.82	+2.82
Trojan-Dropper.Linux.Agent.gen	3.07	2.64	–0.43	+1
Trojan-Dropper.AndroidOS.Hqwar.cq	0.37	2.52	+2.15	+60
Trojan.AndroidOS.Triada.hf	2.26	2.41	+0.14	+2
Trojan.AndroidOS.Triada.ig	0.00	2.19	+2.19
Backdoor.AndroidOS.Triada.ab	0.00	2.00	+2.00
Trojan-Banker.AndroidOS.Mamont.da	5.22	1.82	–3.40	–10
Trojan-Banker.AndroidOS.Mamont.hi	0.00	1.80	+1.80
Trojan.AndroidOS.Triada.ga	3.01	1.71	–1.29	–5
Trojan.AndroidOS.Boogr.gsh	1.60	1.68	+0.08	0
Trojan-Downloader.AndroidOS.Agent.nq	0.00	1.63	+1.63
Trojan.AndroidOS.Triada.hy	3.29	1.62	–1.67	–12
Trojan-Clicker.AndroidOS.Agent.bh	1.32	1.56	+0.24	0

* Unique users who encountered this malware as a percentage of all attacked users of Kaspersky mobile solutions.

The top positions in the list of the most widespread malware are once again occupied by modified messaging apps Triada.ii, Triada.fe, Triada.gn, and others. The pre-installed backdoor Triada.z ranked fifth, immediately following Fakemoney – fake apps that collect users’ personal data under the guise of providing payments or financial services. The dropper that landed in ninth place, Agent.gen, is an obfuscated ELF file linked to the banking Trojan Coper.c, which sits immediately after DangerousObject.Multi.Generic.

Region-specific malware

In this section, we describe malware that primarily targets users in specific countries.

Verdict	Country*	%**
Trojan-Dropper.AndroidOS.Hqwar.bj	Turkey	97.22
Trojan-Banker.AndroidOS.Coper.c	Turkey	96.35
Trojan-Dropper.AndroidOS.Agent.sm	Turkey	95.10
Trojan-Banker.AndroidOS.Coper.a	Turkey	95.06
Trojan-Dropper.AndroidOS.Agent.uq	India	92.20
Trojan-Banker.AndroidOS.Rewardsteal.qh	India	91.56
Trojan-Banker.AndroidOS.Agent.wb	India	85.89
Trojan-Dropper.AndroidOS.Rewardsteal.ab	India	84.14
Trojan-Dropper.AndroidOS.Banker.bd	India	82.84
Backdoor.AndroidOS.Teledoor.a	Iran	81.40
Trojan-Dropper.AndroidOS.Hqwar.gy	Turkey	80.37
Trojan-Dropper.AndroidOS.Banker.ac	India	78.55
Trojan-Ransom.AndroidOS.Rkor.ii	Germany	76.90
Trojan-Dropper.AndroidOS.Banker.bg	India	75.12
Trojan-Banker.AndroidOS.UdangaSteal.b	Indonesia	75.00
Trojan-Dropper.AndroidOS.Banker.bc	India	74.73
Backdoor.AndroidOS.Teledoor.c	Iran	70.33

* The country where the malware was most active.
** Unique users who encountered this Trojan modification in the indicated country as a percentage of all Kaspersky mobile security solution users attacked by the same modification.

Banking Trojans, primarily Coper, continue to operate actively in Turkey. Indian users also attract threat actors distributing this type of software. Specifically, the banker Rewardsteal is active in the country. Teledoor backdoors, embedded in a fake Telegram client, have been deployed in Iran.
Notable is the surge in Rkor ransomware Trojan attacks in Germany. The activity was significantly lower in previous quarters. It appears the fraudsters have found a new channel for delivering malicious apps to users.

Mobile banking Trojans

In the third quarter of 2025, 52,723 installation packages for mobile banking Trojans were detected, 10,000 more than in the second quarter.

Installation packages for mobile banking Trojans detected by Kaspersky, Q3 2024 — Q3 2025 (download)

The share of the Mamont Trojan among all bankers slightly increased again, reaching 61.85%. However, in terms of the share of attacked users, Coper moved into first place, with the same modification being used in most of its attacks. Variants of Mamont ranked second and lower, as different samples were used in different attacks. Nevertheless, the total number of users attacked by the Mamont family is greater than that of users attacked by Coper.

TOP 10 mobile bankers

Verdict	%* Q2 2025	%* Q3 2025	Difference in p.p.	Change in ranking
Trojan-Banker.AndroidOS.Coper.c	13.42	13.48	+0.07	+1
Trojan-Banker.AndroidOS.Mamont.da	21.86	8.57	–13.28	–1
Trojan-Banker.AndroidOS.Mamont.hi	0.00	8.48	+8.48
Trojan-Banker.AndroidOS.Mamont.gy	0.00	6.90	+6.90
Trojan-Banker.AndroidOS.Mamont.hl	0.00	4.97	+4.97
Trojan-Banker.AndroidOS.Agent.ws	0.00	4.02	+4.02
Trojan-Banker.AndroidOS.Mamont.gg	0.40	3.41	+3.01	+35
Trojan-Banker.AndroidOS.Mamont.cb	3.03	3.31	+0.29	+5
Trojan-Banker.AndroidOS.Creduz.z	0.17	3.30	+3.13	+58
Trojan-Banker.AndroidOS.Mamont.fz	0.07	3.02	+2.95	+86

* Unique users who encountered this malware as a percentage of all Kaspersky mobile security solution users who encountered banking threats.

Mobile ransomware Trojans

Due to the increased activity of mobile ransomware Trojans in Germany, which we mentioned in the Region-specific malware section, we have decided to also present statistics on this type of threat. In the third quarter, the number of ransomware Trojan installation packages more than doubled, reaching 1564.

Verdict	%* Q2 2025	%* Q3 2025	Difference in p.p.	Change in ranking
Trojan-Ransom.AndroidOS.Rkor.ii	7.23	24.42	+17.19	+10
Trojan-Ransom.AndroidOS.Rkor.pac	0.27	16.72	+16.45	+68
Trojan-Ransom.AndroidOS.Congur.aa	30.89	16.46	–14.44	–1
Trojan-Ransom.AndroidOS.Svpeng.ac	30.98	16.39	–14.59	–3
Trojan-Ransom.AndroidOS.Rkor.it	0.00	10.09	+10.09
Trojan-Ransom.AndroidOS.Congur.cw	15.71	9.69	–6.03	–3
Trojan-Ransom.AndroidOS.Congur.ap	15.36	9.16	–6.20	–3
Trojan-Ransom.AndroidOS.Small.cj	14.91	8.49	–6.42	–3
Trojan-Ransom.AndroidOS.Svpeng.snt	13.04	8.10	–4.94	–2
Trojan-Ransom.AndroidOS.Svpeng.ah	13.13	7.63	–5.49	–4

* Unique users who encountered the malware as a percentage of all Kaspersky mobile security solution users attacked by ransomware Trojans.

IT threat evolution in Q3 2025. Mobile statistics
IT threat evolution in Q3 2025. Non-mobile statistics

Quarterly figures

In Q3 2025:

• Kaspersky solutions blocked more than 389 million attacks that originated with various online resources.
• Web Anti-Virus responded to 52 million unique links.
• File Anti-Virus blocked more than 21 million malicious and potentially unwanted objects.
• 2,200 new ransomware variants were detected.
• Nearly 85,000 users experienced ransomware attacks.
• 15% of all ransomware victims whose data was published on threat actors’ data leak sites (DLSs) were victims of Qilin.
• More than 254,000 users were targeted by miners.

Ransomware

Quarterly trends and highlights

Law enforcement success

The UK’s National Crime Agency (NCA) arrested the first suspect in connection with a ransomware attack that caused disruptions at numerous European airports in September 2025. Details of the arrest have not been published as the investigation remains ongoing. According to security researcher Kevin Beaumont, the attack employed the HardBit ransomware, which he described as primitive and lacking its own data leak site.

The U.S. Department of Justice filed charges against the administrator of the LockerGoga, MegaCortex and Nefilim ransomware gangs. His attacks caused millions of dollars in damage, putting him on wanted lists for both the FBI and the European Union.

U.S. authorities seized over $2.8 million in cryptocurrency, $70,000 in cash, and a luxury vehicle from a suspect allegedly involved in distributing the Zeppelin ransomware. The criminal scheme involved data theft, file encryption, and extortion, with numerous organizations worldwide falling victim.

A coordinated international operation conducted by the FBI, Homeland Security Investigations (HSI), the U.S. Internal Revenue Service (IRS), and law enforcement agencies from several other countries successfully dismantled the infrastructure of the BlackSuit ransomware. The operation resulted in the seizure of four servers, nine domains, and $1.09 million in cryptocurrency. The objective of the operation was to destabilize the malware ecosystem and protect critical U.S. infrastructure.

Vulnerabilities and attacks

SSL VPN attacks on SonicWall

Since late July, researchers have recorded a rise in attacks by the Akira threat actor targeting SonicWall firewalls supporting SSL VPN. SonicWall has linked these incidents to the already-patched vulnerability CVE-2024-40766, which allows unauthorized users to gain access to system resources. Attackers exploited the vulnerability to steal credentials, subsequently using them to access devices, even those that had been patched. Furthermore, the attackers were able to bypass multi-factor authentication enabled on the devices. SonicWall urges customers to reset all passwords and update their SonicOS firmware.

Scattered Spider uses social engineering to breach VMware ESXi

The Scattered Spider (UNC3944) group is attacking VMware virtual environments. The attackers contact IT support posing as company employees and request to reset their Active Directory password. Once access to vCenter is obtained, the threat actors enable SSH on the ESXi servers, extract the NTDS.dit database, and, in the final phase of the attack, deploy ransomware to encrypt all virtual machines.

Exploitation of a Microsoft SharePoint vulnerability

In late July, researchers uncovered attacks on SharePoint servers that exploited the ToolShell vulnerability chain. In the course of investigating this campaign, which affected over 140 organizations globally, researchers discovered the 4L4MD4R ransomware based on Mauri870 code. The malware is written in Go and packed using the UPX compressor. It demands a ransom of 0.005 BTC.

The application of AI in ransomware development

A UK-based threat actor used Claude to create and launch a ransomware-as-a-service (RaaS) platform. The AI was responsible for writing the code, which included advanced features such as anti-EDR techniques, encryption using ChaCha20 and RSA algorithms, shadow copy deletion, and network file encryption.

Anthropic noted that the attacker was almost entirely dependent on Claude, as they lacked the necessary technical knowledge to provide technical support to their own clients. The threat actor sold the completed malware kits on the dark web for $400–$1,200.

Researchers also discovered a new ransomware strain, dubbed PromptLock, that utilizes an LLM directly during attacks. The malware is written in Go. It uses hardcoded prompts to dynamically generate Lua scripts for data theft and encryption across Windows, macOS and Linux systems. For encryption, it employs the SPECK-128 algorithm, which is rarely used by ransomware groups.

Subsequently, scientists from the NYU Tandon School of Engineering traced back the likely origins of PromptLock to their own educational project, Ransomware 3.0, which they detailed in a prior publication.

The most prolific groups

This section highlights the most prolific ransomware gangs by number of victims added to each group’s DLS. As in the previous quarter, Qilin leads by this metric. Its share grew by 1.89 percentage points (p.p.) to reach 14.96%. The Clop ransomware showed reduced activity, while the share of Akira (10.02%) slightly increased. The INC Ransom group, active since 2023, rose to third place with 8.15%.

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

Number of new variants

In the third quarter, Kaspersky solutions detected four new families and 2,259 new ransomware modifications, nearly one-third more than in Q2 2025 and slightly more than in Q3 2024.

Number of new ransomware modifications, Q3 2024 — Q3 2025 (download)

Number of users attacked by ransomware Trojans

During the reporting period, our solutions protected 84,903 unique users from ransomware. Ransomware activity was highest in July, while August proved to be the quietest month.

Number of unique users attacked by ransomware Trojans, Q3 2025 (download)

Attack geography

TOP 10 countries attacked by ransomware Trojans

In the third quarter, Israel had the highest share (1.42%) of attacked users. Most of the ransomware in that country was detected in August via behavioral analysis.

	Country/territory*	%**
1	Israel	1.42
2	Libya	0.64
3	Rwanda	0.59
4	South Korea	0.58
5	China	0.51
6	Pakistan	0.47
7	Bangladesh	0.45
8	Iraq	0.44
9	Tajikistan	0.39
10	Ethiopia	0.36

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

TOP 10 most common families of ransomware Trojans

	Name	Verdict	%*
1	(generic verdict)	Trojan-Ransom.Win32.Gen	26.82
2	(generic verdict)	Trojan-Ransom.Win32.Crypren	8.79
3	(generic verdict)	Trojan-Ransom.Win32.Encoder	8.08
4	WannaCry	Trojan-Ransom.Win32.Wanna	7.08
5	(generic verdict)	Trojan-Ransom.Win32.Agent	4.40
6	LockBit	Trojan-Ransom.Win32.Lockbit	3.06
7	(generic verdict)	Trojan-Ransom.Win32.Crypmod	2.84
8	(generic verdict)	Trojan-Ransom.Win32.Phny	2.58
9	PolyRansom/VirLock	Trojan-Ransom.Win32.PolyRansom / Virus.Win32.PolyRansom	2.54
10	(generic verdict)	Trojan-Ransom.MSIL.Agent	2.05

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

Miners

Number of new variants

In Q3 2025, Kaspersky solutions detected 2,863 new modifications of miners.

Number of new miner modifications, Q3 2025 (download)

Number of users attacked by miners

During the third quarter, we detected attacks using miner programs on the computers of 254,414 unique Kaspersky users worldwide.

Number of unique users attacked by miners, Q3 2025 (download)

Attack geography

TOP 10 countries and territories attacked by miners

	Country/territory*	%**
1	Senegal	3.52
2	Mali	1.50
3	Afghanistan	1.17
4	Algeria	0.95
5	Kazakhstan	0.93
6	Tanzania	0.92
7	Dominican Republic	0.86
8	Ethiopia	0.77
9	Portugal	0.75
10	Belarus	0.75

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

Attacks on macOS

In April, researchers at Iru (formerly Kandji) reported the discovery of a new spyware family, PasivRobber. We observed the development of this family throughout the third quarter. Its new modifications introduced additional executable modules that were absent in previous versions. Furthermore, the attackers began employing obfuscation techniques in an attempt to hinder sample detection.

In July, we reported on a cryptostealer distributed through fake extensions for the Cursor AI development environment, which is based on Visual Studio Code. At that time, the malicious JavaScript (JS) script downloaded a payload in the form of the ScreenConnect remote access utility. This utility was then used to download cryptocurrency-stealing VBS scripts onto the victim’s device. Later, researcher Michael Bocanegra reported on new fake VS Code extensions that also executed malicious JS code. This time, the code downloaded a malicious macOS payload: a Rust-based loader. This loader then delivered a backdoor to the victim’s device, presumably also aimed at cryptocurrency theft. The backdoor supported the loading of additional modules to collect data about the victim’s machine. The Rust downloader was analyzed in detail by researchers at Iru.

In September, researchers at Jamf reported the discovery of a previously unknown version of the modular backdoor ChillyHell, first described in 2023. Notably, the Trojan’s executable files were signed with a valid developer certificate at the time of discovery.

The new sample had been available on Dropbox since 2021. In addition to its backdoor functionality, it also contains a module responsible for bruteforcing passwords of existing system users.

By the end of the third quarter, researchers at Microsoft reported new versions of the XCSSET spyware, which targets developers and spreads through infected Xcode projects. These new versions incorporated additional modules for data theft and system persistence.

TOP 20 threats to macOS

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

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

The PasivRobber spyware continues to increase its activity, with its modifications occupying the top spots in the list of the most widespread macOS malware varieties. Other highly active threats include Amos Trojans, which steal passwords and cryptocurrency wallet data, and various adware. The Backdoor.OSX.Agent.l family, which took thirteenth place, represents a variation on the well-known open-source malware, Mettle.

Geography of threats to macOS

TOP 10 countries and territories by share of attacked users

Country/territory	%* Q2 2025	%* Q3 2025
Mainland China	2.50	1.70
Italy	0.74	0.85
France	1.08	0.83
Spain	0.86	0.81
Brazil	0.70	0.68
The Netherlands	0.41	0.68
Mexico	0.76	0.65
Hong Kong	0.84	0.62
United Kingdom	0.71	0.58
India	0.76	0.56

IoT threat statistics

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

In Q3 2025, there was a slight increase in the share of devices attacking Kaspersky honeypots via the SSH protocol.

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

Conversely, the share of attacks using the SSH protocol slightly decreased.

Distribution of attackers’ sessions in Kaspersky honeypots (download)

TOP 10 threats delivered to IoT devices

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

In the third quarter, the shares of the NyaDrop and Mirai.b botnets significantly decreased in the overall volume of IoT threats. Conversely, the activity of several other members of the Mirai family, as well as the Gafgyt botnet, increased. As is typical, various Mirai variants occupy the majority of the list of the most widespread malware strains.

Attacks on IoT honeypots

Germany and the United States continue to lead in the distribution of attacks via the SSH protocol. The share of attacks originating from Panama and Iran also saw a slight increase.

Country/territory	Q2 2025	Q3 2025
Germany	24.58%	13.72%
United States	10.81%	13.57%
Panama	1.05%	7.81%
Iran	1.50%	7.04%
Seychelles	6.54%	6.69%
South Africa	2.28%	5.50%
The Netherlands	3.53%	3.94%
Vietnam	3.00%	3.52%
India	2.89%	3.47%
Russian Federation	8.45%	3.29%

The largest number of attacks via the Telnet protocol were carried out from China, as is typically the case. Devices located in India reduced their activity, whereas the share of attacks from Indonesia increased.

Country/territory	Q2 2025	Q3 2025
China	47.02%	57.10%
Indonesia	5.54%	9.48%
India	28.08%	8.66%
Russian Federation	4.85%	7.44%
Pakistan	3.58%	6.66%
Nigeria	1.66%	3.25%
Vietnam	0.55%	1.32%
Seychelles	0.58%	0.93%
Ukraine	0.51%	0.73%
Sweden	0.39%	0.72%

Attacks via web resources

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

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

This section gives the geographical distribution of sources of online attacks (such as web pages redirecting to exploits, sites hosting exploits and other malware, and botnet C2 centers) blocked by Kaspersky products. One or more web-based attacks could originate from each unique host.

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

In the third quarter of 2025, Kaspersky solutions blocked 389,755,481 attacks from internet resources worldwide. Web Anti-Virus was triggered by 51,886,619 unique URLs.

Web-based attacks by country, Q3 2025 (download)

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

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

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

	Country/territory*	%**
1	Panama	11.24
2	Bangladesh	8.40
3	Tajikistan	7.96
4	Venezuela	7.83
5	Serbia	7.74
6	Sri Lanka	7.57
7	North Macedonia	7.39
8	Nepal	7.23
9	Albania	7.04
10	Qatar	6.91
11	Malawi	6.90
12	Algeria	6.74
13	Egypt	6.73
14	Bosnia and Herzegovina	6.59
15	Tunisia	6.54
16	Belgium	6.51
17	Kuwait	6.49
18	Turkey	6.41
19	Belarus	6.40
20	Bulgaria	6.36

* Excluded are countries and territories with relatively few (under 10,000) Kaspersky users.
** Unique users targeted by web-based Malware attacks as a percentage of all unique users of Kaspersky products in the country/territory.
On average, over the course of the quarter, 4.88% of devices globally were subjected to at least one web-based Malware attack.

Local threats

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

Data in this section is based on analyzing statistics produced by anti-virus scans of files on the hard drive at the moment they were created or accessed, and the results of scanning removable storage media: flash drives, camera memory cards, phones, and external drives. The statistics are based on detection verdicts from the on-access scan (OAS) and on-demand scan (ODS) modules of File Anti-Virus.

In the third quarter of 2025, our File Anti-Virus recorded 21,356,075 malicious and potentially unwanted objects.

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

For each country and territory, we calculated the percentage of Kaspersky users on whose computers File Anti-Virus was triggered during the reporting period. This statistic reflects the level of personal computer infection in different countries and territories around the world.

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

	Country/territory*	%**
1	Turkmenistan	45.69
2	Yemen	33.19
3	Afghanistan	32.56
4	Tajikistan	31.06
5	Cuba	30.13
6	Uzbekistan	29.08
7	Syria	25.61
8	Bangladesh	24.69
9	China	22.77
10	Vietnam	22.63
11	Cameroon	22.53
12	Belarus	21.98
13	Tanzania	21.80
14	Niger	21.70
15	Mali	21.29
16	Iraq	20.77
17	Nicaragua	20.75
18	Algeria	20.51
19	Congo	20.50
20	Venezuela	20.48

* Excluded are countries and territories with relatively few (under 10,000) Kaspersky users.
** Unique users on whose computers local Malware threats were blocked, as a percentage of all unique users of Kaspersky products in the country/territory.
On average worldwide, local Malware threats were detected at least once on 12.36% of computers during the third quarter.

After the cyber attacks timelines, it’s time to publish the statistics for February 2025 where I collected and analyzed 231 events. In February 2025, Cyber Crime continued to lead the Motivations chart with 64% down from 75%, of February. Operations driven by Cyber Espionage ranked at number two with 20%, an important increase from 12% and once again ahead of Hacktivism slightly down to 3% from 4%. Only a single event was attributed to Cyber Warfare that closes the chart.

I aggregated the statistics created from the cyber attacks timelines published in Q4 2024. In this period, I collected a total of 694 events dominated by Cyber Crime with 70%, slightly up from 65.5% of Q3.

After the cyber attacks timelines, it’s time to publish the statistics for December 2024 where I collected and analyzed 209 events primarily driven by Cyber Crime.

In November 2024, Cyber Crime continued to lead the Motivations chart with 72%, up from 68% of October. Operations driven...

After the cyber attacks timelines, it’s time to publish the statistics for October 2024 where I collected and analyzed 240 events...

I aggregated the statistics created from the cyber attacks timelines published in the third quarter of 2024. In this period, I collected...