INTERPOL’s Operation Jackal IV made 58 arrests and exposed global networks laundering money from scams, fraud and sextortion.

INTERPOL announced that Operation Jackal IV, running from November 2025 to June 2026, led to 58 arrests and identified 263 suspects tied to West African organized crime networks, groups like Black Axe that are responsible for a huge share of the world’s romance scams, crypto fraud, and business email compromise (BEC) schemes.

“Operation Jackal IV (November 2025 – June 2026) aimed to disrupt money laundering, identify high-value targets, seize assets, and support arrests and prosecution.” Interpol announced. “The operation, which brought together 22 countries from six continents, is a response to the escalating global threat posed by West African criminal networks – such as the Black Axe and other similar groups. These groups are responsible for a significant share of the world’s cyber-enabled financial fraud, typically through romance scams, cryptocurrency and investment scams or business email compromise fraud, as well as other serious and violent crimes.”

The goal wasn’t to chase individual scammers. Investigators followed the money behind the scams: shell companies, mule accounts and criminal services that help move and hide stolen funds. Tomonobu Kaya of INTERPOL’s Financial Crime and Anti-Corruption Centre explained the approach: By following illicit financial flows across borders, we are attacking the very lifeblood of organized crime.

Argentina turned up one of the operation’s biggest finds. Investigators identified 196 individuals connected to a crime-as-a-service network suspected of supplying website domains and laundering support specifically for West African criminal groups, resulting in 17 arrests. INTERPOL sent an Operational Support Team to help analyze seized data and map out the wider network of suspects, the kind of cross-border analytical work that individual national police forces usually can’t pull off on their own.

South African authorities raided seven locations in Johannesburg linked to a group running romance and investment scams against retirees in English-speaking countries.

The syndicate assigned members to specific roles, such as “conversion” and “retention” agents. The operation led to 39 arrests, $2.67 million seized and 257 bank accounts frozen, the largest number of arrests in the operation.

Italy’s case shows how much damage a single laundering account can absorb. One individual was tied to a pan-European laundering network moving money through shell companies and remittance services, and investigators traced €845,000 laundered through a single account across 560 separate transactions using 20 different financial instruments. That’s not a careless operator; that’s someone who understood exactly how to fragment a large sum into a pattern designed to look unremarkable at every individual step.

Romania’s case was the biggest by dollar value, and arguably the most brutal in its simplicity. A call center ran a fake investment scheme promising big returns on stocks and crypto, funneling victims’ money into wallets the operators controlled, and by the time authorities dismantled it, the estimated theft and laundering total had climbed to around €143 million globally. Eleven arrests and roughly €379,000 in cash and crypto seized, plus six properties and several luxury watches, is a real result, but it’s a fraction of what actually got stolen.

“Beyond individual cases, Operation Jackal IV also enabled the analysis of critical and emerging trends, including a rise in West African organized crime groups using sextortion to target minors, with victims as young as 14. Offenders typically contact minors via social media, build trust and coerce them into sharing explicit images or videos.” concludes INTERPOL. “They then threaten to distribute this material to the victim’s contacts unless a ransom is paid.”

The report’s darkest finding sits outside any single country’s arrest count. INTERPOL flagged a rising trend of these same criminal networks using sextortion against minors as young as 14, building trust through social media before coercing victims into sharing explicit images and then threatening to distribute that material unless a ransom gets paid. Some of these groups were even observed buying crime-as-a-service support through the dark web specifically to outsource pieces of that operation, treating exploitation infrastructure as just another service line alongside laundering and fraud.

That’s the uncomfortable throughline connecting every case here: these aren’t scattered opportunists, they’re networks running organized business models with specialized roles, outsourced services, and financial engineering sophisticated enough to move hundreds of millions across borders. Twenty-two countries coordinating for eight months produced real numbers, real arrests, real frozen accounts. It also produced a fairly clear picture of how much more organized this side of cybercrime has become, and how much further there is to go.

Follow me on Twitter: @securityaffairs and Facebook and Mastodon

Pierluigi Paganini

(SecurityAffairs – hacking, Operation Jackal)

Não é segredo que os cibercriminosos vêm usando grandes modelos de linguagem para otimizar suas operações. Como resultado, as inúmeras campanhas de phishing e malware direcionadas às organizações tornaram-se muito mais sofisticadas. Esses e-mails agora contêm menos erros evidentes, e o tom deles se aproxima muito de uma correspondência comercial legítima. No entanto, os métodos usados para distribuir essas campanhas sempre apresentam um indício claro: uma tentativa de roubar credenciais ou executar código malicioso. Os ataques de comprometimento de e-mail comercial (BEC), no entanto, representam um desafio ainda maior.

Os ataques BEC normalmente dependem inteiramente da engenharia social, induzindo um funcionário legítimo a executar as ações solicitadas pelos invasores. Esses ataques também se tornaram muito mais sofisticados desde o surgimento dos LLMs. Se as táticas forem bem-sucedidas, por exemplo, se eles conseguirem convencer um funcionário a transferir fundos para uma conta de terceiros em vez da conta de um prestador de serviços, a empresa poderá perder muito dinheiro em questão de instantes. Foi por isso que desenvolvemos uma tecnologia especializada para detectar e-mails de BEC gerados com IA.

Como funciona a tecnologia de detecção de BEC gerado com IA

Sem entrar em muitos detalhes técnicos, veja como essa nova tecnologia funciona. Como você deve saber, os grandes modelos de linguagem não produzem textos da mesma forma que os seres humanos. Em vez disso, eles preveem as palavras que têm maior probabilidade de se adequar à tarefa descrita no prompt. Além disso, os cibercriminosos tendem a seguir o caminho mais fácil: em vez de reinventar a roda, recorrem aos modelos de IA mais amplamente disponíveis.

Como o objetivo dos invasores é relativamente claro, podemos extrair do texto frases-chave específicas de ataques de BEC. Além disso, aprendemos a identificar quando um texto foi gerado por uma máquina. Esses indicadores são um dos pilares da nossa tecnologia de detecção. Como resultado, nossa solução de segurança agora consegue identificar e bloquear tentativas de ataques BEC logo no estágio inicial, antes mesmo que o invasor tenha a oportunidade de enganar um funcionário. Atualmente, a tecnologia detecta e-mails de BEC gerados com IA em inglês, russo, alemão, francês, italiano, espanhol, português e turco.

Quais de nossas soluções apresentam a tecnologia de detecção de BEC gerada com IA?

Nosso portfólio de soluções de segurança corporativa inclui o Kaspersky Security for Mail Server, que incorpora o Kaspersky Secure Mail Gateway. É no gateway seguro de e-mail que nossa tecnologia de detecção de e-mails BEC gerados por IA está implementada. Mais especificamente, o recurso está disponível na licença KSMS Plus após a recente atualização para o KSMG 3.1. Visite a página oficial do Kaspersky Secure Mail Server para saber mais sobre nossas soluções de segurança de e-mail e os recursos adicionados na atualização mais recente.

Introduction

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

The dangers of Amazon SES abuse

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

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

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

How compromise happens

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

Examples of phishing with Amazon SES

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

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

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

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

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

Amazon SES and BEC

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

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

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

Takeaways

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

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

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

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

I skipped last week's roundup. Holiday weekend, family stuff, the usual. So this is a two-week-ish view of what we've published in the Threat Intelligence series since Edition 03 dropped on April 13.

The post Best of the Worst: Five Attacks That Looked Broken (and Worked) appeared first on Security Boulevard.