Executive summary

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

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

Let’s look in more detail at this attack.

Intrusion timeline: Strategic latency and exploitation

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

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

Initial access validation phase

Vulnerability fingerprinting

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

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

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

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

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

Active exploitation: Santa took your data and left a backdoor

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

Attack originated from an SPN node

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

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

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

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

Webshell architecture

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

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

“G.cs” pipeline control and C2

Pipeline control

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Command and control layer (in-memory transport)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Host interaction modules

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

“FileDownloader.cs”

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

“LoggedOnUsers.cs”

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

“ProcessList.cs”

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

“NetworkInfo.cs”

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

“MSI.cs”

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

“User.cs”

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

SAMRPCNative

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

“SAMEnums.cs”

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

“SAMStructs.cs”

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

“SAMMethods.cs”

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

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

Privilege escalation

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

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

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

Post-exploitation activity

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

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

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

EDR-killing attempts

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

Ransomware deployment attempt

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

What defenders really need to look for

ToolPane deserialization and CLR artifacts

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

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

Detecting deserialization exploitation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Detecting a VPP-based webshell/runtime implant

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

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

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

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

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

Attribution

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

Kaspersky products detect the threats mentioned in this article as:

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

Indicator of compromise

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

Australians filed a cybercrime report about every six minutes over the past year, and artificial intelligence is making the attacks behind those reports faster and more convincing. That is the main finding of the ASD Cyber Threat Report 2025-26. It is the seventh annual assessment from the Australian Signals Directorate’s Australian Cyber Security Centre (ASD’s ACSC).

In FY2025-26, the agency received more than 82,000 cybercrime reports through ReportCyber. It responded to over 1,500 cyber security incidents, up more than 20% on the previous year and 36% over five years. It also notified Australian entities of potentially malicious activity more than 4,400 times, almost 80% more than in FY2024-25.

What the ASD Cyber Threat Report Says About AI

The report calls AI the defining force in the threat environment this year. In his foreword, Deputy Prime Minister and Defence Minister Richard Marles wrote that AI is helping malicious actors find vulnerabilities faster and exploit them at greater scale, speed and sophistication. He also noted that new threats have emerged in recent weeks from the unintended actions of AI agents and from model testing.

ASD’s ACSC makes one clear distinction. AI has not created new kinds of threats. It has amplified and sped up existing ones. AI-enabled cyber threats are most visible in social engineering. Attackers are using AI to write phishing emails with no spelling or grammar errors and to automate targeted spearphishing. The Australian Securities and Investments Commission has also seen a sharp rise in scams that use deepfake videos of celebrities and politicians.

The time defenders have to respond is also shrinking. The agency has previously observed that most vulnerabilities are exploited within two weeks, and some within 48 hours of a patch being released. It expects AI-driven tools to shorten that window further over the next 12 months. Publicly reported vulnerabilities (CVEs) rose 30%. Old flaws are still a problem too: ASD’s ACSC recorded the successful exploitation of a vulnerability first identified in 2008.

Incident Severity Grows in ASD Cyber Threat Report Data

Only one Category 2 incident was recorded this year. However, extensive compromises rose from 26 to 40. ASD’s ACSC identified 362 incidents after proactively notifying organisations. A single notification about cPanel vulnerabilities, sent to 340 entities in May 2026, led to more than 60 confirmed incidents.

The number of ransomware incidents held steady at 139, but extensive ransomware incidents rose from 16 to 24. Health Care, Professional, Scientific and Technical Services, and Manufacturing remained the most affected sectors. Data breaches made up 98 incidents, a 66% increase on the previous year. Separately, the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner received 1,205 breach notifications in 2025. That is the highest yearly total since its Notifiable Data Breaches scheme began in 2018.

The financial impact is rising for businesses. The average self-reported cost of cybercrime per business report rose 16% to $93,500. For medium-sized businesses, it rose 45% to $141,300. The average cost for individuals stayed at $33,000. Identity fraud remained the most reported cybercrime, although reports fell 18%.

Stolen access is now a major entry point. Compromised accounts and credentials were among the most frequently reported incident categories, and phishing appeared in 39% of incidents. Government survey research cited in the report found that 55% of Australians reuse passwords across multiple accounts.

State Actors and Critical Infrastructure in the ASD Cyber Threat Report

State-sponsored actors continued to target Australian government, business and individuals to gain sensitive information. The report says these actors are increasingly pre-positioning inside networks to enable future disruption. Marles wrote that the line separating state-sponsored espionage from sabotage and cybercrime is becoming increasingly blurred.

In April 2026, ASD’s ACSC and international partners highlighted a shift by China-nexus actors. These actors are moving towards large covert networks built from compromised home and small office routers, Internet of Things devices and smart devices.

Critical infrastructure accounted for 154 incidents, or 10% of the total, a decrease of almost 7%. Phishing was the leading initial access technique at 36%, and Financial and Insurance Services was the most affected critical infrastructure division at 30%.

What the Threat Report Asks Organisations to Do

In October 2026, ASD’s ACSC released the Essentials series. It evolves the Essential Eight into a principles-based framework with three chapters: Enterprise IT, Operational Technology and Cloud.

Under its Cyber Action Year, the agency is pushing five priorities:

• Replacing or mitigating legacy technology.
• Implementing best-practice event logging.
• Managing supply chain risk.
• Preparing for AI-enabled threats.
• Preparing for post-quantum cryptography, including ceasing the use of traditional asymmetric cryptography by the end of 2030 or sooner.

The report also urges organisations to patch faster. For individuals, it recommends reviewing privacy settings and enabling multi-factor authentication or passkeys.

Suspicious activity, incidents and vulnerabilities can be reported at cyber.gov.au or through the Australian Cyber Security Hotline on 1300 CYBER1 (1300 292 371).

A Burnaby School District cyberattack is being investigated after an incident disrupted internal network services and phone lines across the district. The Burnaby School District said the cyber incident came to its attention on Monday, September 21, and that staff are working to contain the incident and restore affected services. The district has not disclosed whether any personal or sensitive information was accessed or stolen. However, the disruption has raised concerns about potential data leaks as the investigation continues.

Burnaby School District Cyberattack Disrupts Operations

According to the district, the incident has affected some systems and operations, including internal network services and phone lines. Staff across Burnaby Schools are working to restore normal operations while limiting the impact on students. The district said the disruption has not affected student learning and that staff are working to ensure schools can continue supporting students. Families, staff, and district partners were contacted earlier in the week about the incident. The district said it will provide additional updates as efforts to contain the incident and restore services continue. The investigation remains ongoing, and the district has not provided further details about the nature of the incident, the suspected attackers, or whether information was compromised. The latest incident follows other school district cyberattacks and cybersecurity incidents that have disrupted education services and raised concerns about the security of student and staff information.

Education Sector Faces Repeated Cybersecurity Incidents

In September, The Cyber Express reported on the Springfield cyberattack, which disrupted school operations shortly after the start of the new academic year. The incident forced schools to close for part of the week and affected services relied on by families, including childcare and school meal programs. The district arranged grab-and-go meals at six locations while the YMCA of Greater Springfield provided full-day care for families enrolled in its programs. Students were expected to return to classrooms the following Monday. The Springfield incident highlighted how a cyberattack against school systems can extend beyond IT operations and affect essential services used by students and families. Earlier in 2026, a separate QLearn cybersecurity incident involving education technology provider Instructure affected educational institutions globally. Queensland Education Minister John-Paul Langbroek confirmed that the Queensland Department of Education had been briefed about the international breach. Early assessments indicated that the incident could affect more than 200 million people and more than 9,000 institutions worldwide.

Education Authority Cyberattack Targeted School Systems

In April 2026, an Education Authority cyberattack investigation found that attackers had gained targeted access to personal information linked to a small number of schools. Authorities identified the incident on April 10 after being alerted to suspicious activity affecting school systems. A forensic investigation later determined that attackers had accessed specific personal information associated with certain schools. The findings added to concerns surrounding cybersecurity risks in the education sector, where school networks can contain sensitive information belonging to students and staff. For the Burnaby School District, the current investigation is focused on containing the incident and restoring affected services. The district has not confirmed any data theft or provided details about possible unauthorized access. As the investigation progresses, further updates are expected from the district on the scope of the incident, affected systems and any potential impact on personal information.

The European Union’s ability to detect and respond to EU cybersecurity incidents faces significant gaps, particularly in information-sharing and coordination between national and EU-level bodies, according to a new report by the European Court of Auditors (ECA). The auditors said the EU has made progress in developing a cybersecurity cooperation framework, but several measures needed to support an effective response to significant and large-scale incidents are still incomplete. Cybersecurity incidents can disrupt public services, businesses, critical infrastructure and the EU’s internal market. While member states remain primarily responsible for responding to such incidents, the EU has a role when attacks cause major disruption, significant financial losses or substantial harm, or when incidents affect several countries and exceed the response capacity of a single member state.

EU Cybersecurity Incidents Face Information-Sharing Gaps

The ECA identified insufficient information exchange as a major weakness in the EU’s cybersecurity response system. The Cyber Blueprint, adopted in 2025, largely clarifies roles and responsibilities for managing major cybersecurity crises. However, the cooperation between two key EU cyber networks has not yet been formally defined. The auditors said this affects cooperation between the CSIRTs network, which brings together national teams responsible for handling cyber incidents, and EU-CyCLONe, which supports cooperation during EU-level cyber crises. Information-sharing is also affected by differences in national security laws and the ongoing implementation of updated EU cybersecurity rules, including the NIS 2 Directive. According to the auditors, these factors can make it harder for EU networks to identify threats early and coordinate an effective response. “The EU has made progress in building a cybersecurity cooperation framework, but it is not yet working as effectively as it should,” said George-Marius Hyzler, the ECA Member responsible for the audit. “When a serious cyber incident occurs, timely and actionable information is essential. Without it, networks and mechanisms lose much of their added value.”

European Cybersecurity Alert System Still Delayed

The audit also found that the European Cybersecurity Alert System was not operational at the time of the assessment. Two hubs examined by the auditors, ATHENA and ENSOC, had not started operating because of procurement delays. The system also lacked several elements needed for operation, including cooperation agreements, a common classification system and technical standards. The findings come as the EU continues to invest in cybersecurity. Under the 2021-2027 EU budget, €1.4 billion has been allocated to cybersecurity through the Digital Europe Programme, the EU’s main source of cybersecurity funding.

Overlap Among EU Cybersecurity Bodies

The ECA also identified overlapping responsibilities among some EU bodies involved in monitoring cybersecurity threats. The European Commission’s cyber situation centre, established in 2022 and largely supported by external providers, carries out work that the auditors said partly duplicates existing capabilities at the European Union Agency for Cybersecurity (ENISA). These capabilities include monitoring threats and developing cybersecurity situational awareness. The auditors called for better coordination to reduce duplication and strengthen the overall effectiveness of the EU’s cybersecurity framework.

Funding Checks Raise Security Concerns

The report also highlighted weaknesses in checks on some organisations receiving EU cybersecurity funding. These checks are intended to reduce risks linked to intrusion or influence by non-EU states and prevent sensitive security information from being shared with non-EU authorities. However, while grant beneficiaries are responsible for assessing the ownership and control of third parties receiving financial support, the European Cybersecurity Competence Centre does not verify those assessments. The ECA warned that this could expose sensitive infrastructure, operational data and security-critical technologies to security risks. The audit covered the period from 2022 to 2025 and assessed whether EU actions effectively supported the detection of and response to significant and large-scale cybersecurity incidents. Audit missions were conducted in Ireland, Greece and Italy.

Nearly four in 10 UK small firms were hit by a successful cyberattack in the past year, according to the latest Hiscox Cyber Readiness Report. The UK cyberattack rate reached 38%, significantly above the 29% global average recorded among nearly 7,000 smaller businesses surveyed worldwide.

The 10th annual report surveyed cybersecurity decision-makers at smaller firms, including 1,000 respondents in the UK. Britain recorded the highest attack rate among the markets included in the research. Globally, businesses that experienced an incident reported an average of four attacks during the past 12 months.

UK cyberattack Rate Outpaces Global Average

The findings place UK small businesses at greater exposure to successful cyberattacks than their international counterparts. While 29% of organisations globally reported a successful attack, the figure rose to 38% among small UK businesses.

The report also found that cyber incidents are creating measurable financial and operational costs. Globally, each incident cost organisations an average of $52,000 and resulted in around 32 hours of operational disruption.

In the UK, the average cost per cyberattack was $35,908, equivalent to £26,650. Although that figure was below the global average, the higher frequency of attacks means UK firms are more likely to encounter those costs.

The global attack rate also fell from the 59% figure reported in Hiscox's previous annual report. However, the two figures are not directly comparable because last year's research surveyed a broader group of 5,750 businesses across seven markets, while this year's report focuses specifically on almost 7,000 smaller firms.

Cyber Incidents Affect Business Growth

Cyber incidents are also influencing business decisions beyond immediate recovery costs. Globally, 32% of affected firms said cyber incidents delayed growth and expansion plans.

Other reported consequences included higher staffing costs for 31% of businesses, direct financial damage for 30%, and lost business opportunities for 29%.

Reputation and customer trust ranked as the most significant cyber-related risk, cited by 48% of businesses surveyed. Operational downtime or business interruption followed at 46%, while supply chain or third-party disruption was identified by 44%.

Among firms that experienced an incident, 28% faced financial penalties and 26% experienced damaging publicity.

UK Firms Increase Cyber Resilience Spending

Businesses are responding to the continuing threat by increasing spending on cyber resilience. The global average investment reached $51,000, with firms directing spending toward new technology, specialist staff and employee training.

New technology was adopted by 51% of firms, while 55% invested in specialist staff and 62% updated employee training.

UK businesses reported considerably higher spending, averaging $59,700, or £44,294, on cyber resilience. That placed the UK third among the markets surveyed for resilience spending.

The report also identified a growing connection between cybersecurity performance and executive compensation. Globally, 32% of firms said executive pay is now linked to cybersecurity performance. Among UK small firms, the figure was 25%.

Cyber Insurance Gap Remains

The findings also highlight a continuing gap between cybersecurity exposure and insurance uptake in the UK. Government data from the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology shows that 10% of UK businesses and 5% of charities hold a dedicated cyber insurance policy.

Separate research cited in the report found that just over 40% of UK SMEs hold cyber insurance, compared with around 63% of medium-sized firms and approximately 70% of FTSE 100 companies.

The latest Hiscox findings therefore show a combination of high cyberattack exposure, substantial investment in cyber resilience, and relatively limited cyber insurance uptake among UK businesses.

The CISA and FBI, along with cybersecurity agencies from Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the U.K., have released new guidance on outage communications for service providers dealing with major IT and OT outages. The guide calls for prompt, factual and audience-specific communication during disruptions caused by malicious cyber activity or non-malicious events.

Titled “Communicating Under Pressure: Best Practices for Service Providers,” the guidance says effective communication is critical to limiting operational impact when IT and OT outages affect customers, network defenders, critical infrastructure owners and operators, and the public. It recommends that organizations clearly communicate what is known, what remains unknown and what is still under investigation, while providing frequent updates as circumstances change.

Outage Communications Should Start With Facts

The agencies recommend that service providers establish an outage communications plan before an incident occurs. The plan should define incident thresholds, escalation paths, target audiences and procedures for status pages, customer and partner notices, and regulatory communications. Organizations are also advised to establish cross-functional incident teams involving engineering and operations, communications, legal, risk and compliance, and customer support.

The guidance calls for clearly defined roles, including an incident lead, communications lead and spokesperson. It also recommends parallel workstreams so technical teams can focus on diagnosing and remediating the root cause while communications teams manage external messaging and leadership handles strategy and regulatory requirements.

For organizations responding to cyber incidents, the guidance places particular emphasis on balancing transparency with operational security. If malicious activity is suspected or confirmed, external communications should not compromise investigations, containment efforts or other response activities. Organizations are also advised against making premature conclusions when the root cause remains under investigation.

Service Providers Urged to Tailor Messages

The guidance recommends segmenting communications for technical teams, executives and the public. Audiences can include enterprise IT teams and security operations centers, employees and customers, government partners and regulators, critical infrastructure owners and operators, as well as the media and general public.

During an outage, organizations should lead with a concise summary covering affected systems, user impact, scope and the known cause without speculation. The agencies also advise against vague descriptions such as “service degradation” and recommend messaging that can be understood quickly during high-pressure situations.

Transparency is another central principle. Service providers are advised to state what they know and do not know, use a single source of truth such as a status page, and focus communications on actionable guidance rather than reputation management. Customers should be told what actions they need to take or clearly informed when no action is required.

The guidance also calls for continuous, time-stamped updates that show the incident timeline, actions taken, and recovery milestones. Organizations should maintain a single status page and align external messaging with legal, contractual and sector-specific reporting obligations.

Agencies ultimately frame effective outage communications around five principles: immediate acknowledgement, technical and actionable information, transparency, accountability, and continuous updates. For service providers, the guidance positions communication as an important part of incident response, alongside technical remediation and recovery.

Recent AI security incidents involving model evaluations have raised questions about how securely frontier AI models are tested before deployment. Cybersecurity-focused AI company Irregular said an investigation into a publicly reported incident found that models in a small number of evaluation runs gained unintended internet access and carried out offensive security actions against real-world targets. Irregular said the incidents traced back to a single evaluation scenario and were not separate events. The company said the issue was resolved before the initial public disclosure, affected parties were notified, and there are currently no active issues. Its broader audit remains ongoing. Irregular said the AI security incidents occurred during AI model evaluations designed to test whether models could autonomously execute multi-stage cyber scenarios under realistic conditions. The evaluations simulate real-world attack patterns and provide models with objectives such as reconnaissance, identifying private keys, gathering information, extracting data and attempting to avoid detection. According to Irregular, controlled internet access can be important to maintain realism because real-world attackers rely on the internet. However, the company found that internet access controls allowed some models to move beyond the intended simulated environment. In the evaluation at the center of the investigation, engineers selected a fictional company name that unknowingly matched a real domain. While models operated inside the simulation in most runs, a small number attempted to access the real domain despite receiving no instruction to do so. Irregular said models subsequently exploited vulnerabilities, extracted credentials and obtained access to a production database. In another instance, a model moved to a website with a similar name and encountered publicly posted credentials. The company said there is no evidence that a customer's systems were breached or that customer data was leaked.

Evaluation Environments Face Monitoring Challenges

Irregular said most of the problems identified during its investigation were connected to internet access controls. The company is introducing additional protocols for evaluation setup and strengthening its approach to containment. The incident also highlighted challenges around model monitoring. Irregular said advanced simulations can generate extremely large volumes of traffic, while legitimate offensive actions performed by models can resemble malicious activity. The company said incidents occurred in fewer than one in 10,000 advanced simulations and often appeared hundreds of turns into an evaluation. Irregular plans to expand manual review of model behavior, improve monitoring capabilities and establish a dedicated internal team focused on security, containment and model control. The company also said evaluation environments need continuous review because fictional names used in scenarios can later overlap with newly created websites or real domains.

Security Experts Question Irregular's Response

The disclosure has drawn criticism from cybersecurity professionals. Zack Korman, chief executive of cybersecurity-focused AI company Embroidery, called the post “such an embarrassing post-mortem” on the OpenAI/Anthropic security incidents and described it as “full of excuses.” Justin Elze, chief technology officer at TrustedSec, questioned why the monitoring challenge had not been addressed earlier, saying the issue appeared closely connected to the purpose of the testing service. Woodward also criticized the disclosure, arguing that the absence of dates, named owners for corrective measures and independently verifiable criteria limited its usefulness to researchers and security professionals. Another cybersecurity commentator, BlackRoomSec, challenged Irregular's assessment of existing monitoring tools, arguing that security teams routinely tune monitoring systems to reduce noise and filter false positives. Irregular said it is continuing its investigation and will share additional findings where relevant. The company also plans to publish an open whitepaper covering pre-deployment evaluations, including proposed best practices for internet access during testing. [caption id="attachment_113686" align="aligncenter" width="555"] Image Source: X[/caption] The discussion adds to wider scrutiny of how cyber evaluations are contained, monitored and disclosed as frontier AI models become increasingly capable. Irregular said the lessons from the incident will be used to develop stronger evaluation environments, monitoring capabilities, containment controls and response procedures.

Levi Strauss cyberattack has exposed certain corporate information after an unauthorized third party gained access to company files through compromised employee computers, according to a filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Levi Strauss & Co. said it recently detected a cybersecurity incident involving unauthorized access to three company-issued computers. The company said the access was enabled through social engineering techniques, allowing the attackers to reach company files. According to the filing, the company initiated its response protocols after detecting the incident and implemented containment measures. It also launched an investigation that remains ongoing and engaged third-party cybersecurity experts to assist with the response.

Levi Strauss Cyberattack Investigation Remains Ongoing

Based on preliminary findings, Levi Strauss said it believes certain corporate information was accessed and exfiltrated during the incident. However, the company said its rapid response efforts successfully contained and terminated the unauthorized access. The company also stated that no consumer data had been impacted as of the date of the filing. Levi Strauss said the incident has not interrupted its business operations and that, based on the information currently available, it does not believe the incident has had or is reasonably likely to have a material impact on its business strategy, operations, financial condition, or results of operations. The company said it has provided and will provide notifications to affected parties and applicable regulators as appropriate and in accordance with applicable law. Levi Strauss & Co., headquartered in San Francisco, is known for its Levi's denim brand. The company reported net revenues of $6.3 billion for 2025, up 4% compared with fiscal year 2024 and 7% on an organic basis. The company designs and markets jeans, casual wear and related accessories for men, women and children under the Levi's, Levi Strauss Signature, and Beyond Yoga brands. Its products are sold in approximately 120 countries through chain retailers, department stores, online sites, and approximately 3,300 retail stores and shop-in-shops.

Retail Cybersecurity Incidents Continue

The Levi Strauss cyberattack comes as several major retailers have reported cybersecurity incidents involving their own systems or third-party service providers. In the first week of August 2026, the De Bijenkorf cyberattack affected the Dutch luxury department store chain after an incident involving one of its external logistics partners. The disruption affected order processing, deliveries, returns, and refunds, while the company said there was no evidence that its own infrastructure had been compromised. In October 2025, Spanish fashion retailer Mango confirmed a Mango data breach after an external marketing service provider experienced unauthorized access to limited customer information. Mango said its corporate systems were not compromised and that financial or login details remained secure. The exposed information included customers’ first names, countries, postal codes, email addresses, and phone numbers. The company said last names, banking information, credit card details, and passwords were not affected. Retailers also faced law enforcement action following a series of attacks. In July 2025, the UK’s National Crime Agency arrested four people suspected of orchestrating cyberattacks against Marks & Spencer, Co-op, and Harrods. The suspects were detained in the West Midlands and London and faced charges under the Computer Misuse Act, blackmail, money laundering, and involvement in an organized crime group. Meanwhile, in May 2025, Victoria’s Secret took down its U.S. website and some in-store services following what it described as a Victoria’s Secret security incident. The company said the precautionary shutdown was intended to address the incident while its team worked to restore operations. Its Victoria’s Secret and PINK stores remained open. The latest incident involving Levi Strauss adds another case to a growing series of cybersecurity incidents affecting major retailers, with the company continuing its investigation into the access and information involved.

Introduction

Because of the amount of data that can be obtained and the high impact that successful attacks may have, educational institutions are frequent targets of cybercriminals. Both public and private schools and universities rely on software for managing personally identifiable information (PII) that is often insecure or insufficiently tested against known vulnerabilities. In addition, machines used by multiple people without accountability can be vulnerable to insider threats.

The complexity of academic environments amplifies this risk. Unlike corporate networks, educational institutions have to provide a network that supports students, professors, researchers, administrative staff, third-party contractors, and visitors. Each of these groups has different security requirements and access control levels, making it difficult to enforce consistent security policies. A security breach can have severe consequences since it may expose vast amounts of sensitive information, such as social security numbers (CPF in Brazil), addresses, phone numbers, and even parents’ names. Armed with this information, attackers can attempt phishing attacks and impersonate the victims in SIM swapping attacks, a common practice in Brazil.

In this article, we provide details about attacks on educational institutions in Brazil observed by our Global Emergency Response Team (GERT) since 2025. We share general statistics, common threats, initial access vectors, and the impact of such violations. Additionally, we present some interesting cases encountered by our team and the identified TTPs. Finally, we offer recommendations to help institutions protect themselves against future attacks.

Key findings and statistics

Our dataset encompasses incident response cases from January 2025 to June 2026. As the chart below shows, the majority of attacks targeted institutions in São Paulo state, Brazil’s most populous state and a significant center of economic and financial activity. We also had cases in Rio de Janeiro and Pernambuco.

Geographical distribution of incident response requests at educational institutions (download)

Of the customers who requested incident response, 60% were private institutions and 40% were public institutions.

Private and public institutions (download)

The most frequent reasons for requesting IR services were related to suspicious endpoint activities, encrypted files, and the presence of suspicious files.

Incident response request reasons (download)

High-severity incidents accounted for 40% of the total cases, while the remaining 60% were medium severity.

Distribution of incidents by severity (download)

The high-severity incidents were mainly related to ransomware attacks. Interestingly, private institutions were the most targeted by ransomware, while incidents in public institutions were mostly related to suspicious endpoint activity and privilege escalation attempts. The most common ransomware families found in our dataset were DragonForce and LockBit 3, whose builder was leaked back in 2022. By using the leaked LockBit builder with a valid privileged account, attackers can build variants capable of disabling defenses and erasing logs.

The most common initial access vectors included the use of valid accounts, exploitation of public-facing applications, and insiders.

Initial access vectors (download)

For privilege escalation, the attackers often relied on Potato variants (GodPotato, SweetPotato, and BadPotato).

We also observed attackers using tools like AnyDesk for remote access, PsExec for lateral movement within compromised infrastructures, and AV-killer malware to terminate the system’s defenses. The latter was mainly used in ransomware-related incidents.

These data reveal an interesting pattern in the threat landscape affecting educational institutions in the region. Many incidents were not caused by highly sophisticated techniques but rather by the abuse of common weaknesses such as valid accounts, exposed applications, and inadequate patch management, as well as the use of publicly available tools that are well-known to the adversaries. The prevalence of ransomware in private institutions suggests a stronger financial motivation, likely because attackers assume these organizations are more capable of paying for data recovery than public schools and universities.

Most attacks were discovered promptly and lasted from a few minutes to a couple of hours. However, technical incident response activities averaged 9.6 hours. This indicates that the impact caused by an incident often extends beyond the timeframe of the active attack, requiring extensive triage and analysis by the forensic investigators to fully restore operations.

One interesting fact is that we are still observing the use of Windows 10 in the infrastructures of educational institutions, even after Microsoft’s official end-of-support date of October 2025. In addition, we found that some customer organizations were using Windows Server 2016 without security patches and fixes. Using outdated and unsupported operating systems increases the attack surface of an infrastructure because attackers can exploit publicly available vulnerabilities to access vulnerable systems and expand their presence in the network. In addition, legacy operating systems may be incompatible with modern evidence collection tools, necessitating extra time and alternative procedures for forensic acquisition.

Obsolete systems in organizations (download)

Interesting cases

Case 01 – Leaked LockBit builder

In one case, we identified the use of a custom version of LockBit that was generated using the leaked builder. The ransomware was delivered to the organization’s infrastructure via a valid account that had been leaked. It encrypted the organization’s internal systems, including file servers and databases that stored student profiles and other data. There was no evidence of data exfiltration from the affected machines.

During our analysis of the LockBit sample, we were able to extract its configuration. Interestingly, it was configured without the impersonation and spreading options. This meant the attacker had to perform manual lateral movement to deploy the malware across the network.

"config": {
    "settings": {
      "impersonation": false,
      "local_disks": true,
      "network_shares": true,
      "kill_processes": true,
      "kill_services": true,
      "set_wallpaper": true,
      "self_destruct": true,
      "kill_defender": true,
      "wipe_freespace": true,
      "psexec_netspread": false,
      "gpo_netspread": false,
…

Further analysis revealed that the attacker used PsExec for lateral movement. By analyzing the Update Sequence Number (USN) Journal, we were able to identify .KEY files associated with PsExec that showed us the previously compromised machines used by the attacker.

After gaining access to the target machines, the adversaries deployed a batch script to disable the system’s defenses. Our analysis of this artifact showed that they had the administrative credentials to disable the EDR in place. In addition, the script enabled RDP, which gave the attackers remote access to the target. The listing below shows an excerpt of the script:

reg add "HKLM\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Control\Terminal Server" /v fDenyTSConnections /t REG_DWORD /d 0 /f
netsh advfirewall firewall add rule name="allow RemoteDesktop" dir=in protocol=TCP localport=3389 action=allow
reg add "HKLM\SOFTWARE\Policies\Microsoft\Windows Defender" /v DisableRealtimeMonitoring /t REG_DWORD /d 1 /f
reg add "HKLM\SOFTWARE\Policies\Microsoft\Windows Defender\Real-Time Protection" /v DisableBehaviorMonitoring /t REG_DWORD /d 1 /f
reg add "HKLM\SOFTWARE\Policies\Microsoft\Windows Defender\Real-Time Protection" /v DisableOnRealTimeProtection /t REG_DWORD /d 1 /f
reg add "HKLM\SOFTWARE\Policies\Microsoft\Windows Defender\Real-Time Protection" /v DisableIOAVProtection /t REG_DWORD /d 1 /f
reg add "HKLM\SOFTWARE\Policies\Microsoft\Windows Defender\Real-Time Protection" /v DisableScriptScanning /t REG_DWORD /d 1 /f
reg add "HKLM\SOFTWARE\Policies\Microsoft\Windows Defender\Spynet" /v SpyNetReporting /t REG_DWORD /d 0 /f
reg add "HKLM\SOFTWARE\Policies\Microsoft\Windows Defender\Spynet" /v SubmitSamplesConsent /t REG_DWORD /d 2 /f
reg add "HKLM\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Run" /v "SecurityHealth" /t REG_SZ /d "" /f
reg delete "HKLM\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Explorer\MyComputer\NameSpace\{UUID}" /f
reg add "HKLM\SOFTWARE\Policies\Microsoft\Windows Defender" /v ServiceKeepAlive /t REG_DWORD /d 0 /f
sc stop WinDefend
sc config WinDefend start= disabled

Finally, by cross-checking the Prefetch files, we were able to identify the precise dates of PsExecSvc.exe and LBB.exe (LockBit) execution. This revealed that the attacker established the initial connection to the analyzed machine around 5:30am UTC and ran LBB.exe for the last time at 10am UTC on the same day, resulting in an activity window of approximately four hours and thirty minutes. We were able to identify the extent of the compromise and the additional machines that required network isolation for further forensic analysis, containment, and remediation.

Case 02 – DragonForce deployed via AnyDesk

In another incident, we identified a compromised user account that the adversaries used to install the AnyDesk software to enable remote access. Although the attacker erased the system logs after encrypting the victim’s files, we were able to identify the ransomware execution event via the Prefetch and Amcache.hve files, which provided us with the SHA-1 hash of the sample.

Once we obtained the SHA-1 of the malicious artifact (named by the attacker as 1.EXE), we were able to confirm that it was a DragonForce variant. Even though the lack of evidence made the analysis more difficult, this case shows that forensic investigators must be prepared to identify information that the attackers missed or left untouched.

Case 03 – Python keylogger used by an insider

The third incident illustrates how a series of bad practices enabled an insider to collect passwords from other users inside the infrastructure. First, the customer contacted us stating that a machine was exhibiting strange behavior: files containing passwords were being created. We started with triage collection on one of the affected machines.

Evidence from the Program Compatibility Assistant (PCA) showed the execution of two suspicious files, Windows Host Widgets.exe and Windows Host Widgets_.exe, both located in the C:\Users\<user>\.vscode\dlo directory, where <user> represents a user account shared by everyone who uses the machine. The same artifacts were identified within the Amcache.hve file, and multiple executions were also confirmed by analyzing the Prefetch files. Another interesting source of evidence, UserAssist, confirmed that the threat actor also executed both EXE files by double-clicking on them.

MFT analysis showed that multiple log files named cacheX.txt were created in the previously mentioned directory, where X was a number that increased with each malware execution. We then analyzed the EXE files to confirm their behavior. Luckily, both proved to be the same Python script, which we could easily decompile.

As shown in the listing below, the script contains methods and strings with Portuguese names. It is capable of hiding the log files from view in Explorer. The developer also set a procedure to identify when the Caps Lock key was pressed, in order to record the correct passwords.

def get_base_path():
    ...

def encontrar_proximo_nome(base='cache'):
    ...

def set_file_hidden(filepath):
    ...
    ctypes.windll.kernel32.SetFileAttributesW(str(filepath), FILE_ATTRIBUTE_HIDDEN)
    ...

with open(log_file, 'a', encoding='utf-8') as f:
    f.write(f'\n\n--- Registro iniciado em {datetime.datetime.now()} ---\n')
set_file_hidden(log_file)
...

def is_capslock_on():
    return bool(ctypes.windll.user32.GetKeyState(20) & 1)

...

def on_press(key):
    ...

def on_release(key):
    ...

def main():
    with keyboard.Listener(on_press=on_press, on_release=on_release) as listener:
        listener.join()

if __name__ == '__main__':
    main()

This simple script did not implement any persistence or automated data exfiltration mechanisms. Therefore, the insider likely had to manually retrieve the generated log files containing the text typed by the victims. By revisiting the previously collected evidence, we identified USB connections around the same time as the script’s executions. This suggests that removable media was probably used to collect the generated keylogging logs from the environment. As a result of the investigation, the customer changed the passwords of all affected accounts. However, without additional evidence or footage, it was not possible to conclusively attribute the activities to a specific individual and take the appropriate disciplinary and legal measures.

Conclusions and recommendations

The incidents highlighted in this article demonstrate that Brazilian educational institutions face a diverse set of threats, ranging from ransomware operations to insider activity. In many cases, the attackers relied on valid credentials, exposed services, remote access tools, poor patch management, and insufficient endpoint hardening rather than advanced malware or new techniques. Based on these findings, educational institutions should prioritize controls that reduce the likelihood of account compromise and the impact of ransomware deployment. They should also improve forensic visibility after an incident.

Institutions should enforce the use of multi-factor authentication (MFA) for all publicly accessible services, especially VPNs, remote access portals, and email accounts. Since valid accounts were one of the most common initial access vectors observed in our dataset, MFA can significantly reduce the likelihood that stolen or reused credentials alone will compromise the entire environment. We also recommend periodically reviewing privileged accounts, removing unnecessary administrative permissions, and avoiding shared accounts, especially on machines accessed by multiple users, since this makes accountability extremely difficult.

Each user should have their own account, following the principle of least privilege to prevent unauthorized software execution. Additionally, it is advisable to restrict and monitor the use of remote access tools such as AnyDesk or TeamViewer. Unexpected installations or executions of these tools should be treated as high-priority alerts.

To minimize the impact of ransomware, educational institutions should improve their backup and recovery strategy. Backups should be isolated from the primary environment (preferably in more than one location) and tested regularly. Centralized logging, extended EDR telemetry retention, and proper time synchronization across hosts can also improve the ability to reconstruct an attack timeline and implement the necessary response measures.

The use of outdated systems increases the attack surface, so we recommend that organizations adopt an effective update and patch management policy. It is also important to raise security awareness, since users must understand the risks associated with credential sharing, unknown executables, and unauthorized software.

From a digital forensics and incident response (DFIR) perspective, the reviewed incidents demonstrate that effective incident response activities require correlating multiple forensic artifacts in order to reconstruct the attacker’s actions. Investigators should be aware of how to find information even when logs are missing. Many other artifacts are preserved and can be used for this purpose, such as Amcache, PCA, Prefetch, UserAssist, MFT, and USN Journal. The attackers may fail to erase all traces of their activity, so taking a broad forensic approach is of the utmost importance for determining the scope of the compromise and supporting containment and remediation actions.

Observed TTPs

The table below shows the observed TTPs in our dataset, including cases not detailed in this post.

Tactic	Technique	ID
Resource Development	Compromise Accounts	T1586
Collection	Input Capture: Keylogging	T1056.001
Execution	System Services: Service Execution	T1569.002
Execution	Hijack Execution Flow: DLL	T1574.001
Privilege Escalation	Exploitation for Privilege Escalation	T1068
Lateral Movement	Remote Services: Remote Desktop Protocol	T1021.001
Command and Control	Remote Access Tools	T1219
Exfiltration	Exfiltration over Physical Medium: Exfiltration over USB	T1052.001
Impact	Data Encrypted for Impact	T1486

Recently, our teams in Latin America investigated a series of incidents involving misconfiguration, the deployment of BitLocker, and the exploitation of corporate printers. Attackers used the devices to notify organizations that their infrastructure had been compromised and they had to pay a ransom to recover their data.

This article analyzes two incidents that occurred in June in Colombia and in May in Mexico. We highlight the similarities in the attackers’ communications and outline emerging trends in ransom amounts.

Initial sign of an attack

In both cases, the affected users initially noticed a padlock icon next to their drives in Windows Explorer. This indicated that the drive was encrypted with BitLocker, blocking access to its contents.

A recovery key was required to unlock the drive.

This is not the first time we have seen such threats; a few years ago, our team discovered a threat known as ShrinkLocker, which utilized BitLocker to achieve its goals.

First case: abusing RDP to encrypt data

One of the incidents occurred in Colombia in June. The attackers exploited an internet-exposed RDP service on a machine connected to an 8 TB storage device containing mission-critical data. After taking control of the system and manipulating user credentials, the attackers enabled BitLocker exclusively on the drive that primarily stored financial data. Once the encryption was complete, they locked the drive and used the company’s printers to produce ransom notes.

Unfortunately, it was not possible to obtain evidence in the case due to the company’s rush to restore the encrypted disk. The communication with the attackers revealed a demand for just $3,000, and the company considered paying the ransom. After that, the system was restored before the forensic team could take any action, eliminating the evidence needed to assess the incident.

This attack was made possible by an internet-facing remote desktop service (RDP) with additional open ports, which employees used to access corporate information. By exploiting this network exposure and misconfiguration, attackers breached the system, identified an additional drive, and leveraged BitLocker to encrypt the data and demand a ransom payment. Leaving RDP ports open without proper security controls jeopardizes the security of systems and information, as highlighted in the our “Global Report: Anatomy of a Cyber World“.

The company confirmed that, due to compatibility issues with applications required for operation, EPP (Endpoint Protection Platform) protection was disabled on the system, making it easier for attackers to validate, enumerate, and execute applications without revealing malicious activity to central monitoring systems.

Second case: meet the XEntry Team

In another incident, which occurred in Mexico in May, our team identified how the threat actor gained initial access to the infrastructure. They exploited a misconfigured MSSQL service. This allowed them to execute commands on the system after obtaining the database login credentials from code insecurely published on GitHub.

In this incident, the attack began three months prior to detection, with the intruder discovering and verifying their access to the environment. After confirming their access and privilege level within the MSSQL server settings, which extended beyond the DBMS to the underlying operating system, the attackers initially focused on manipulating certain aspects of the web server configuration on the same system. They lowered the server’s security settings and created web shell files in the publicly accessible folders. Many of these attempts to manipulate the service or create malicious files were contained by existing EPP security controls, but despite the alerts, the necessary investigation to address the activity was not conducted.

The attackers subsequently confirmed their ability to execute commands locally and set up their attack infrastructure to transmit data via a communications bridge. By exploiting the MSSQL service, they gained access to each of the organization’s internal systems.

The database engine used by the company was Microsoft SQL Server 2019.0150.2160.04, misconfigured to allow operating system сommand execution via the xp_cmdshell extended stored procedure.

Due to this misconfiguration of an internet-exposed service, the attackers established a channel capable of executing any type of command directed at the server and the local infrastructure within its scope.

One of the main objectives was to identify shared systems and resources that provided access to critical information. Our analysis confirmed the attackers’ access to systems storing configuration parameters for networking, enterprise management, and cloud services, among others.

In early May, the attackers focused on running additional scans and deploying ManageEngine’s Endpoint Central RMM (Remote Monitoring and Management) to establish persistence and begin the final stages of their intrusion.

Further RMM-type applications, such as Mesh Agent and Tactical RMM, were installed in the days that followed. These were used to deploy scheduled tasks responsible for enabling the BitLocker service and individually encrypting the infrastructure’s disks, generating a key for each encrypted system.

Finally, in mid-May, the attackers managed to execute a Group Policy Object (GPO) used to deploy activation and encryption tasks, as well as other policies responsible for continued deployment of RMM applications via scheduled tasks. The activity initially targeted critical systems but later spread to every system synchronized with the domain controller. Users became aware of the attack when their machines displayed a blue screen with the message “Hacked by XEntry Team”, and their credentials stopped working to access their systems.

A few hours later, ransom notes began emerging from office printers.

These cases confirm that adversary’s objective is to gain access to infrastructure while avoiding investment in or partnership with ransomware groups. Instead, they leverage built-in Microsoft tools to facilitate data encryption and ransom payments. Monitoring and centralizing logs on protected resources, as well as promptly managing alerts, are critical to countering this type of intrusion.

Conclusions

• Although the systems under review had security measures in place, there was a lack of proper alert management or inadequate decisions regarding application incompatibilities.
• We strongly recommend configuring the Remote Desktop Protocol (RDP) in strict accordance with cybersecurity best practices to prevent unauthorized access. This is especially critical: according to our Global Report: Anatomy of a Cyber World, more than 13% of incidents are related to policy violations and configuration errors, confirming that misconfigurations continue to pose a significant risk.
• Organizations should prioritize strict application control policies and active monitoring of network traffic for command-and-control (C2) communications. This is especially critical: according to the same report, more than 20% of incidents involved the abuse of RMM (Remote Monitoring and Management) tools for execution and C2 strategies. The fact that attackers used more than three distinct tools to gain control during a single incident further underscores the urgent need for these measures.
• Some questions remain unanswered due to a lack of evidence and a hasty system restoration effort that bypassed critical stages of the incident response process. It is important to ensure an adequate incident response procedure, preserving evidence to confirm all related activities, and adjusting or proposing controls to prevent future incidents involving similar TTPs.
• Although the ransom notes do not reveal a clear connection between the actors, certain words used in the messages, as well as the method of delivery and communication, may confirm a link:

“As a guarantee, we have no negative online reviews about non-fulfillment of our obligations…” (Ransom note from the first case)

“Our reputation is the guarantee that all content will be fulfilled…” (Ransom note from the second case)

Our teams continue to monitor these threats.

Detection signatures

• Trojan.Multi.Agent.gen
• Trojan.Win32.GenAutorunMsSqlServerCommandRun.a
• Trojan.Win32.Generic
• Exploit.Win32.SCShell.a

What happened A ransomware attack on Sandhills Medical Foundation, a Federally Qualified Community Health Center in McBee, South Carolina, is now the subject of a class action investigation, nearly a year after the incident was first discovered. Sandhills Medical discovered the ransomware attack on May 8, 2025. A forensic investigation determined that an unauthorized third […]

The post Sandhills Medical Foundation Ransomware Breach Draws Class Action Investigation Nearly a Year Later appeared first on CISO Whisperer.

The post Sandhills Medical Foundation Ransomware Breach Draws Class Action Investigation Nearly a Year Later appeared first on Security Boulevard.

What happened CTM360 researchers have uncovered a large-scale fraud operation using Telegram’s Mini App feature to run cryptocurrency scams, impersonate major brands, and distribute Android malware. The platform behind the operation, dubbed FEMITBOT based on a string found in API responses, uses Telegram bots and embedded Mini Apps to create convincing app-like experiences within the […]

The post Telegram Mini Apps Abused for Crypto Scams and Android Malware Delivery appeared first on CISO Whisperer.

The post Telegram Mini Apps Abused for Crypto Scams and Android Malware Delivery appeared first on Security Boulevard.

What happened Frost Bank, San Antonio’s largest bank, is facing two proposed class-action lawsuits following a cyberattack attributed to the Everest ransomware group that allegedly exposed the sensitive personal data of an estimated 109,000 customers. The bank has not publicly confirmed the scope of the breach or reported it to the Texas Attorney General’s Office, […]

The post Frost Bank Hit With Class-Action Lawsuits Over Data Breach Affecting More Than 100,000 Customers appeared first on CISO Whisperer.

The post Frost Bank Hit With Class-Action Lawsuits Over Data Breach Affecting More Than 100,000 Customers appeared first on Security Boulevard.

What happened A cybersecurity incident in late April 2026 targeted Sistemi Informativi, an Italian company wholly owned by IBM Italy that provides IT infrastructure management for public agencies and key private sector organizations. IBM confirmed the breach through an official statement, acknowledging it had identified and contained a cybersecurity incident and activated incident response protocols […]

The post Salt Typhoon Suspected in Breach of IBM Italy Subsidiary Managing Public Infrastructure appeared first on CISO Whisperer.

The post Salt Typhoon Suspected in Breach of IBM Italy Subsidiary Managing Public Infrastructure appeared first on Security Boulevard.

What happened Cyberthint analysts have documented a structural shift in how cyberattacks are conducted, with threat actors now using artificial intelligence to discover and exploit zero-day vulnerabilities in minutes rather than months. The firm identified this transition in late 2024, noting that AI is operating not just as a research assistant but as an active […]

The post Threat Actors Use AI to Automate Zero-Day Discovery and Exploitation at Machine Speed appeared first on CISO Whisperer.

The post Threat Actors Use AI to Automate Zero-Day Discovery and Exploitation at Machine Speed appeared first on Security Boulevard.

What happened A supply chain attack campaign attributed to TeamPCP, dubbed Mini Shai-Hulud, has compromised packages across the PyPI, NPM, and PHP ecosystems over a two-day period, affecting over 1,800 developer repositories containing stolen credentials. The campaign was first identified on April 29 when malicious versions of four SAP NPM packages were caught delivering information-stealing […]

The post 1,800 Developers Hit in Mini Shai-Hulud Supply Chain Attack Across PyPI, NPM, and PHP appeared first on CISO Whisperer.

The post 1,800 Developers Hit in Mini Shai-Hulud Supply Chain Attack Across PyPI, NPM, and PHP appeared first on Security Boulevard.

What happened A third iteration of the ConsentFix attack technique has been circulating on hacker forums, introducing automation and scalability to a method that abuses Microsoft Azure’s OAuth2 authorization code flow to hijack accounts without passwords and despite multi-factor authentication being enabled. The original ConsentFix was documented by Push Security in December 2025 as an […]

The post ConsentFix v3 Automates OAuth Abuse to Bypass MFA and Hijack Azure Accounts appeared first on CISO Whisperer.

The post ConsentFix v3 Automates OAuth Abuse to Bypass MFA and Hijack Azure Accounts appeared first on Security Boulevard.

What happened The FBI issued a public service announcement on April 30, 2026, warning the US transportation and logistics industry of a sharp rise in cyber-enabled cargo theft, with estimated losses in the United States and Canada reaching nearly $725 million in 2025. That represents a 60% increase over the prior year. Confirmed cargo theft […]

The post FBI Links Cybercriminals to Sharp Surge in Cargo Theft Attacks appeared first on CISO Whisperer.

The post FBI Links Cybercriminals to Sharp Surge in Cargo Theft Attacks appeared first on Security Boulevard.

What happened Instructure, the company behind the Canvas learning management system, has disclosed that it recently suffered a cybersecurity incident perpetrated by a criminal threat actor and is now investigating its scope with the help of outside forensics experts. The disclosure was made by Chief Security Officer Steve Proud, who committed to transparency as the […]

The post Edtech Firm Instructure Discloses Cyber Incident, Probes Impact appeared first on CISO Whisperer.

The post Edtech Firm Instructure Discloses Cyber Incident, Probes Impact appeared first on Security Boulevard.

What happened Ameriprise Financial has disclosed a data breach affecting nearly 48,000 individuals across the United States, following unauthorized access to stored company data and files that began on March 2, 2026. The company detected the intrusion on March 18, approximately 16 days after it began, and filed a breach notification with the Maine attorney […]

The post Ameriprise Financial Data Breach Exposes Personal Information of 48,000 Customers appeared first on CISO Whisperer.

The post Ameriprise Financial Data Breach Exposes Personal Information of 48,000 Customers appeared first on Security Boulevard.