Introduction

In February 2026, we discovered a set of malicious activities that had been ongoing since late 2025. These activities involved a RAT module written in Go with proxy capabilities, which served as the main stage of the attack. The attack targeted government and diplomatic entities in Southeast Asia and showed a level of sophistication that caught our attention.

During the attack, the main malware, dubbed GoSerpent, received an encrypted argument and started communicating with a remote server. It was also used to deploy further malicious tools to collect sensitive data and dump credentials on the system.

Monitoring the activities of this threat actor revealed that in May 2026, they came back with an evolved set of malicious tools: a new RAT and proxy tool, Stowaway, which resembled the initial malware, as well as an additional stealthy tool to exfiltrate sensitive data collected in the previous few months through network shares.

We found earlier versions of the GoSerpent backdoor used since 2021 against victims in Southeast Asia with relatively simpler code that received command-line arguments in plain text. Even though the newer variant is stealthier, the attackers continued using the simpler version alongside the latest one in their recent attacks.

What makes this threat particularly concerning is the strategic deployment of various tools with sophisticated data collection and exfiltration capabilities.

In this article, we introduce the malicious tools uncovered by us, which have been used since late 2025.

Technical details

Initial phase of the attacks

The initial phase of the attacks involved deployment of the GoSerpent backdoor, followed by additional malicious tools. During this phase, the main goal was to collect sensitive files and store them for future exfiltration, which was done by a data collecting tool, ThumbcacheService. The attackers also needed system credentials to exfiltrate the collected data through network drives at a later stage. This was achieved through a number of credential dumping tools deployed in this phase via the GoSerpent backdoor.

GoSerpent backdoor

The primary weapon in this campaign is the GoSerpent backdoor, a sophisticated Go-based remote access Trojan that has been active since at least 2021, with the most recent variant deployed in 2026.

This malware receives encrypted and base64-encoded command-line arguments containing a C2 server address and communication password, which are decrypted using AES-CBC mode with a fixed IV (31323334353637383930616263646566) and keys derived from predefined strings.

The backdoor connects to command-and-control servers using ChaCha20 encryption for communications, with the SHA256 hash of the communication password serving as the encryption key.

GoSerpent supports multiple C2 commands by receiving special command values. The commands include the following:

Command	Symbol (as derived from corresponding function names)	Description
2BA1	Sync	Respond to the server to show the infection is active
3BA2	Exit	Exit process
4BA3	Ls	Start listening on a port
5BA4	Connect	Connect to a remote server
6BA5	Hello	Create a shell on the infected machine
7BA6	Ul	Upload a file or directory to the server
8BA7	Dl	Download from the server
9BA8	Ss5	Start a SOCKS5 proxy on the infected machine
ABA9	Cl	Close a listening port
CBAB	RF	Forward to a connected node

GoSerpent can establish SOCKS5 proxy servers to route traffic through compromised hosts, enabling attackers to access other networks while masking their true IP addresses. The backdoor is capable of deploying additional malicious tools, including ThumbcacheService for file collection, Mimikatz for credential dumping, and QuarksDumpLocalHash for local account password hash extraction. The malware exhibits strong persistence mechanisms and uses filenames that mimic legitimate system processes such as lass.exe and updates.exe to evade detection.

McMx RAT

McMx is a basic Go-based proxy and remote access tool that represents a simpler variant of the GoSerpent backdoor, apparently compiled from a different GitHub repository path.

Unlike the latest variant of GoSerpent, which uses encrypted command-line arguments, McMx receives input parameters from text files in plaintext format — in a way that resembles older versions of GoSerpent. The malware features similar function names with apparent typos present in both tools.

Before executing McMx, attackers manipulate batch files to generate configuration files containing C2 parameters. The patterns observed show the use of echo commands to create configuration files with parameters like remote host addresses, ports, and secret keys. The McMx malware is then deployed with this configuration.

The tool shares core functionalities with GoSerpent, including:

• SOCKS5 proxying
• port forwarding
• file transfer
• remote shell capabilities

Data collection and credential dumping tools

Following initial deployment of the GoSerpent backdoor, attackers typically wait several days before utilizing it to download and execute additional malware components for data collection and credential dumping.

ThumbcacheService

ThumbcacheService is a malicious DLL deployed as a Windows service that functions as a sophisticated file collection mechanism within the GoSerpent ecosystem. The malware employs XOR encryption with a single-byte key of 0x13 for string obfuscation. It decrypts embedded strings and creates a database file named thumbcache_605a.db in the C:\Users\Public\ directory to store collected sensitive files. It specifically targets documents with the following extensions: .doc, .docx, .pdf, .xls and .xlsx.

The targeted files are then archived using 7-Zip and protected with a predefined password @vx0a9n5W2M0c3D6.#, enforcing a 20MB size limit for archives.
The malicious service also monitors the $Recycle.Bin directory for deleted files with the extensions of interest, ensuring comprehensive data collection.

Credential dumping tools

The threat actor deploys the following tools via GoSerpent backdoor to dump credentials:

1. Mimikatz — dumps memory from the LSASS process to extract credential material, including cached credentials and Kerberos tickets.
2. QuarksDumpLocalHash — extracts local account password hashes from the SAM registry hive, allowing for offline password cracking attacks.

These tools work together to maximize information extraction from compromised systems. The stolen credentials were used in later stages of the attack to facilitate the exfiltration of sensitive files collected by ThumbcacheService.

Second stage of the attacks

After the initial phase of the malware deployments, the attackers allowed a few weeks for the ThumbcacheService to silently collect sensitive files without exfiltrating them. In the meantime, the credential dumping tools also continued to steal credentials. In May 2026, the threat actor came back with a set of new tools. The main malware of this round of activity was another Go-based RAT and proxy tool, Stowaway. It was used to deploy the two-stage data exfiltration tool TmcLoader/TmcPayload, which was the last piece of the data theft puzzle.

Stowaway

Stowaway is a proxy and remote access tool compiled from an open-source framework with customized functions to make the infection stealthier. This malware features both network admin and agent capabilities, enabling attackers to establish chained proxy paths across multiple hosts with the following functionalities:

• SOCKS5 proxying
• port forwarding
• reverse tunneling
• remote shell access
• file transfer
• SSH-based tunneling

Communications are transported over TCP, HTTP, or WebSocket channels protected by AES-256-GCM or TLS encryption.
As the next step, the attackers deliver two files to the victim machine via Stowaway:

• TmcLoader with an embedded payload
• {BBF061R2-BE25-4F6D-8B2D-1A6A39C3FSA2}.db — an encrypted configuration file

TmcLoader/TmcPayload

TmcLoader is a stealthy C++ loader module registered as a Windows service. The malware embeds an encrypted payload dubbed TmcPayload within its .data section, which is decrypted and loaded into the memory space of the svchost process to maintain persistence and avoid detection.

TmcLoader employs dynamic API resolution through a circular XOR encryption, where each byte is XORed with the value of the subsequent byte, combined with Base64 encoding for string obfuscation to hide API names.

The loader creates a unique event to prevent multiple infections on the same system. After that, it extracts and decrypts the embedded TmcPayload. This payload component is responsible for exfiltrating sensitive data from the victim’s machine.

TmcPayload generates a file path from an obfuscated string: C:\Users\Public\Libraries\{BBF061R2-BE25-4F6D-8B2D-1A6A39C3FSA2}.db.

It then checks for the existence of this configuration file. If the file doesn’t exist, it delays execution for a random period of time before rechecking. The configuration file contains encrypted network share credentials and destination paths for data exfiltration. It specifically references the thumbcache_605a.db file created by ThumbcacheService as the file to be exfiltrated, demonstrating the integrated nature of the attack chain.

Toolset integration

What distinguishes this threat actor’s approach is the deliberate integration between different components of their toolset. The chain from ThumbcacheService to TmcLoader/TmcPayload demonstrates sophisticated operational planning:

1. ThumbcacheService: deployed via GoSerpent, collects and archives sensitive files into the thumbcache_605a.db database file.
2. Credential dumping tools: deployed via GoSerpent to retrieve system credentials.
3. Configuration file: delivered via Stowaway, contains credentials and file paths for data exfiltration.
4. TmcLoader/TmcPayload: deployed via Stowaway, reads the configuration file for data exfiltration.
5. Data transfer: using network credentials and destination paths from the configuration file, TmcPayload transfers the exact same thumbcache_605a.db.

This integration shows that the threat actor has carefully orchestrated their tools to work together seamlessly, ensuring that data collected by one component is available for exfiltration by another component.

Infrastructure

The malware operators leverage legitimate hosting providers, including Alibaba Cloud and UCLOUD HK, for their command-and-control infrastructure. The use of legitimate hosting platforms demonstrates operational security awareness, making detection more challenging.
The technical similarities between GoSerpent and the newer Stowaway tools strongly suggest the threat actor’s deep familiarity with network proxy technologies. The consistent use of legitimate domain names as secret keys, with GoSerpent employing www.microsoft.com and www.spacex.com and Stowaway utilizing github.code, indicates a standardized operational methodology.

Attribution

While the exact attribution of the GoSerpent campaign remains uncertain, there are indications of a potential link to the TetrisPhantom threat actor. The similarities in victim targeting, technical capabilities, and operational methodologies suggest a possible connection. However, further investigation is necessary to confirm this association.

Conclusion

The GoSerpent campaign represents a sophisticated and evolving threat to government and diplomatic entities in Southeast Asia. The threat actor’s use of customized tools, such as the GoSerpent backdoor, Stowaway, and TmcLoader, demonstrates a high degree of technical expertise and operational planning. The integration of these tools to collect and exfiltrate sensitive data highlights the actor’s focus on long-term access and intelligence gathering. As the threat landscape continues to shift, it is essential for organizations to remain vigilant and implement robust security measures to detect and prevent such attacks. By understanding the tactics, techniques, and procedures (TTPs) employed by this threat actor, defenders can better prepare themselves to counter similar threats in the future.

Indicators of compromise

File hashes

GoSerpent
EBFFD5A76AAA690BCDB922F82E0BACC5
DC506FF7BB72735444FB3703A6BEE6D8

McMx
D6E86BF8A90E9B632ADD5FA495F97FBC

ThumbcacheService
CB6C4C70A3B171FA3404B8E1A3382116
64E9D1950E42BC98486DFD9919463D1C

Stowaway
CBBB6D483737EA3566726E51752DFF40
7F223EE0716CE2AD56F55D3744419449
19F8BEFCB035F52BF70094E6B4F5779A
846EF7C1C7323849B2A778C5E4CDA162

TmcLoader
D08A059E8B815E3B891505BC8777FC28
93A1569D5D5AB2C4761FEDF84F83709E

C2 IP addresses

152.32.160[.]239
8.220.194[.]108
8.220.214[.]132
8.220.209[.]155
8.220.193[.]189
101.36.104[.]87
144.48.6[.]46
103.138.13[.]30
47.80.22[.]58
152.32.222[.]113
43.106.30[.]226

Introduction

In January 2026, we identified multiple attacks involving unknown malware that captures the contents of cryptocurrency wallet windows. During the investigation, we reconstructed the complete infection chain, which consisted of four tightly linked stages initiated by the execution of the previously described malicious PowerShell script TookPS. However, this campaign differs from previous activity in that it uses a new framework to deliver all malicious modules and orchestrate them via an SSH tunnel. In total, the framework includes more than 20 malicious payloads and implants, covering a wide variety of functions. At the time of writing, the threat remains active.

Kaspersky’s products detect this threat as Trojan-Downloader.Win32.TookPS.*, Trojan.Win64.BypassUAC.*, Trojan-Banker.Script.Agent.gen, Trojan.Win32.Dllhijack.*, Backdoor.Win32.TeviRat.*, Trojan-PSW.Win64.Stealer.*, Trojan-Spy.Win64.Keylogger.*, Trojan-Spy.Win64.Agent.*, Trojan.Win64.Agent.*.

Background

TookPS is a downloader used for retrieving malicious commands and scripts from attacker-controlled servers to further propagate attacks. The first campaign using TookPS was discovered in March 2025. At that time, malicious scripts delivered a Python‑based infostealer along with a script that installed and configured an SSH tunnel on the victim’s machine. The next wave appeared in April 2025: the payload was changed, and TookPS was used to deliver the TeviRAT malware with the same SSH installer.

Then at the end of April 2025, TookPS underwent minor changes, yet its attack chain was completely redesigned. Unlike previous incidents, in this case, TookPS was used solely for the initial infection, with an automated SSH bot responsible for payload delivery. This new malicious campaign has multiple stages that cover the full attack lifecycle, from initial infection to persistence and data exfiltration. Among various malware strains, at one of the stages, the TeviRAT backdoor is delivered to the compromised host, ultimately fetching another version of a TookPS script.

We dubbed this updated TookPS campaign “OkoBot”.

We will break down this chain in greater detail later in the article. However, this is not the only version of OkoBot we were able to find. Already in March 2026, we discovered a new phase in the development of the framework, with Volume2 now being installed directly using TookPS. The HDUtil launcher → extl injector → Rilide chain was found to be abandoned in this newer version since it was replaced in full by the identical ext_daemon Volume2 plugin. TeviRAT was also removed, most likely because its functions were covered by the new plugins dispatcher.

Initial infection

The initial infection is primarily delivered through two vectors: a ClickFix attack, and malware distributed through GitHub that masquerades as legitimate software. One such example is the fake SQL Server Management Studio (SSMS) package distributed through GitHub. In fact, it is actually the legitimate Audacity — a popular audio editor — compiled with a malicious implant embedded in one of its libraries. Because the repository was indexed by most search engines and appeared at the top of the results for the query SSMS, the malware looked legitimate and quickly earned users’ trust.

This repository was created at the end of March 2025 and existed until June of that year. It consisted of a single file, README.md, which provided a fake SSMS installation guide written in an official style and likely derived from excerpts of Microsoft’s documentation. However, the download link for the program, located at the beginning of the guide, pointed to the latest release in the same repository.

Both infection vectors trigger the execution of the malicious script TookPS, which installs SSH on the victim’s system, establishes a connection to the attacker-controlled SSH server and subsequently forwards the SSH daemon port. Following a delay, an automated SSH bot connects to the forwarded port.

Back connection

The automated SSH bot collects system information such as usernames, antivirus software installed, the IP address, and OS version. It harvests cryptocurrency wallet files, browser cookies, profiles, and other credentials through an SSH tunnel. For subsequent delivery of malicious modules, it disables Windows Defender notifications via a registry modification. Moreover, it gains access to the graphical session on the victim’s system using the following sequence:

1. Open firewall ports for inbound RDP traffic
2. Create a user in the “Remote Desktop Users” group
3. Replace the legitimate termsrv.dll with a patched one to permit multiple concurrent RDP sessions
4. Create a scheduled task named Apple Sync to maintain a reverse SSH tunnel that forwards the local RDP port every hour

After that, the SSH bot begins retrieving malicious modules over SFTP.

Launcher with advanced options

One of the deployed modules is HDUtil, an auxiliary utility protected with VMProtect and heavily obfuscated. This launcher is used by the SSH bot during an attack to deploy various malicious modules via the target command. Additionally, it implements three auxiliary commands that were not observed during the attacks we analyzed. Nevertheless, their presence and potential capabilities further demonstrate the high degree of integration among all components of the framework.

Active sessions

At startup, the launcher verifies its execution environment by checking the HWID in the contents of %PROGRAMDATA%\hwid.dat, a technique consistently employed throughout the framework. If the file is missing or contains invalid data, such as a non‑MD5 hash, the launcher terminates without performing any further actions. Otherwise, the specified commands are executed. For example, enumsessions provides a list of sessions along with detailed information, including the session type (Console, Services, RDP, and others), username, connection host, and domain. In turn, enumadapters returns the names of all graphics adapters present on the system.

UAC bypass

The most important command of the launcher is target, which enables payload execution on the system. An optional nouac argument enables automatic UAC bypassing via Windows RPC and an auto-elevated msconfig.exe program, allowing the payload to run with elevated privileges stealthily. This technique has been known for a long time, discovered and described in 2019 by the Project Zero team, who provided a full report with a detailed technical description.

Below is the list of all HDUtil commands.

Command	Description
target [nouac [user=<user>]] [noattach] <file>	Starts file and prints its output. If optional argument noattach passed, command to be executed in background. If optional argument nouac passed, automatic UAC bypass to be performed. If optional argument user passed, new process to be executed under , otherwise default local administrator to be chosen.
pcopy <file> <dir_src> <dir_dst>	Copies file <file> located in <dir_src> to <dir_dst>. Not used by SSH bot.
enumadapters	Prints names of graphical adapters on current system. Not used by SSH bot.
enumsessions	Prints all sessions on current system. Not used by SSH bot.

Browser extensions loader

The first malicious module delivered to the infected system via SFTP is executed using the previously described launcher with the command .\HDUtil.exe target extl.exe. It is a heavily obfuscated DLL injector protected with VMProtect. At startup, the module enters an infinite loop and uses the EnumWindows and IsWindowVisible API methods to enumerate the PIDs of active windows and retrieve the corresponding executable filenames. For processes associated with widely used Chromium‑based browsers, the module invokes a routine that injects a specialized implant.

The injector opens a process, allocates a memory region, and writes the payload directly into this region as unencrypted raw bytes. Then it resolves two exported implant functions, LdrInitMain and LdrCallMain, based on a pre-specified hash derived from a modified version of DJB2 hash function. The first function performs the final PE unpacking, including rebase operations and the initialization of the import and exception tables. The second function directly initiates malware execution.

This loader installs malicious browser extensions and hides them from the user. It uses an internal engine that resolves the addresses of stripped functions by analyzing the byte patterns of their calls using YARA-style syntax. This approach enables the malicious code to access critical Chromium engine functions required for extension installation and management. This functionality is also implemented for other browsers with appropriate modifications. For example, in the case of Microsoft Edge, the corresponding DLL msedge.dll is hooked using the specific patterns.

Using the obtained address of the BrowserProcess object, the loader traverses the inheritance hierarchy and subsequently resolves a pointer to the function responsible for registering observers of browser‑window creation, specifically ProfileManager::BrowserListObserver::OnBrowserAdded. With a specialized built‑in engine, they are hooked using the attacker’s own implementations while preserving the original function’s address.

When a new Chromium window is opened, a hooked function is invoked that silently installs extensions. This routine scans the user’s %APPDATA% directory, loads all .crx files (Chromium-based browsers extension format), and records them in the ext_table. The extensions are then installed in the browser.

During installation, the extension is unpacked into a non‑default extensions directory, Local Extension Settings, and its manifest is dynamically modified. An object named custom_args is added, containing the fields hwid (the identifier of the infected system) and browser (the name of the browser in which the extension is installed). Then, using previously resolved internal functions of chrome.dll, the extension is installed and all requested permissions are granted.

All extensions loaded in this manner are added to a special array to be subsequently identified among regular extensions and to remain hidden from the user.

The remaining patched functions are used to hide the installed malicious extensions from the user. When invoked with registered extensions as parameters, they perform no operation and return a constant value. This enables the threat actor to suppress notifications related to the malicious nature of the extensions and to exclude them from the displayed list of installed extensions. As a result, the behavior of other extensions remains unaffected.

During the attack, the Rilide extension was installed on the victim’s system using the previously described loader. Rilide is a stealer targeting Chromium-based browsers that has been frequently used by Russian-speaking threat actors since April 2023. The malware is designed to steal sensitive user data, including login credentials, cookies, and financial information, with a specific emphasis on cryptocurrency theft.

Plugins dispatcher

The final module delivered via SFTP is an open-source utility called Volume2, which is executed with elevated privileges using the command .\HDUtil.exe target nouac noattach Volume2.exe. The executable was linked with the malicious protobuf.dll library. Although the library seems identical to the legitimate DLL, it has been modified to include a malicious exported function, ProtobufGetVer2. This function decrypts and initiates a malicious implant. The payload is encrypted using AES GCM, initialized with a static 256‑bit key and a 96‑bit nonce. The GCM authentication tag is omitted, resulting in the absence of integrity verification. Starting in March 2026, the name of protobuf.dll was changed to version.dll, although its contents remained a modified ProtoBuf library.

The loaded implant functions as a malicious plugin dispatcher. Upon initialization, it reads and verifies the HWID before establishing communication with the C2 server via the HTTP protocol. Each request follows a predefined binary format: a 2-byte numeric bot identifier encoded in little-endian format, followed by an AES CBC-encrypted JSON object. By default, the BotID is set to 0, and the key and IV consist of 32 and 16 bytes of 0xff, respectively. The implant polls the server every 20 seconds to retrieve new commands. The request contains client data encoded in Base64, and the server may respond with a command containing three mandatory fields: TaskIndex (the command number from the dispatcher), TaskID (a unique task identifier), and HWID (the client identifier). The dispatcher supports four built-in commands:

Task index	Action
1	Reconfigure client: update session keys, assign ID, switch to another C2
2	Load DLL implant into memory and run its entry point
3	Load plugin into process and register tasks with RegisterPlugin function
4	Restart dispatcher as new process
x	If the task number is none of the above, search for it among the registered plugins

Each plugin is required to export two functions: RegisterPlugin and PluginDispatch. These functions are used to manage and configure plugins. The RegisterPlugin function registers the plugin’s tasks with the dispatcher, whereas the PluginDispatch function is invoked when the plugin is called. Both these functions, as well as other external API functions, are located within the base libraries using one algorithm. This algorithm iterates through the export table and uses a specialized callback that calculates the MurmurHash3 hash and compares it against the target value to identify the appropriate function.

During the analysis, we were able to discover five plugins that implement functions under their unique task identifiers.

• CMD wrapper (10xx): allows running scripts and individual commands in cmd.
• PowerShell wrapper (11xx): allows running scripts and individual commands in PowerShell.
• Environment enumerator (12xx): gathers system information, active sessions, and processes.
• Dropper (14xx): downloads an additional payload directly onto the system both from embedded Base64-encoded binary blob and via URL.
• Process injector (16xx): launches additional malicious implants on the target system by injecting them into legitimate processes.

We identified four malicious implants that are delivered to the system via the process injector plugin.

ext daemon

The malware is functionally identical to the browser extensions loader (extl.exe) described above, but less obfuscated and not protected with VMProtect.

SeedHunter

Similarly to extl.exe, this malware monitors the list of active processes in the system and injects an implant into Trezor Suite, Ledger Wallet, and Ledger Live processes. The implant is malware that collects seed phrases of Ledger and Trezor cryptocurrency wallets. Initially, it verifies the HWID, and if it fails, it terminates immediately. Then, based on the value of BaseDllName, the malware determines the process context and uses the corresponding implementation for either Trezor or Ledger. It then utilizes the previously described technique to hook the internal Electron framework functions.

Then the malware communicates with the C2 (moonsand[.]store) over HTTPS, sending a Base64-encoded JSON request containing the fields Pid, HWID, and Build. In response, it receives a JSON payload containing the Wait flag. If this flag is set to true, the malware initiates periodic USB device scans filtered by VID and PID (Vendor and Product ID). Upon detecting a connected Trezor or Ledger hardware wallet, it invokes the hooked functions to display a hard‑coded phishing page designed for seed phrase recovery, with a distinct layout used for each identified wallet. If the Wait flag is set to false, the phishing page is displayed immediately.

When the seed phrase is entered and validated, the JavaScript code of the page outputs the phrase to the console prefixed with @:app:print. This prefix helps identify the malware messages in the hooked function mal_LogConsoleMessage.

The obtained seed phrase is subsequently sent to the C2 server within a JSON payload containing fields such as App (ledger or trezor), Build, DeviceName, DeviceHardwareId, and SeedData. Furthermore, an identical JSON, encrypted with the RC4 algorithm using the HWID as the key, is saved in a temporary directory under the filename sh_<ts>.json, where <ts> is the file creation timestamp.

MC Keylogger

This module is a keylogger that, in addition to recording user input, performs three malicious activities:

1. Clipboard logging: periodically checks various clipboard formats, including CF_HDROP for files dragged between windows, CF_DIB for copied bitmap images, and CF_UNICODETEXT for Unicode text. Each format is handled appropriately, and all copy events are logged under the Clipboard section. Text data is written directly to the log, while copied files are recorded by their file paths. Images are saved as JPG files following the naming pattern bf_YYYY-MM-DD hh_mm_ss.jpg, and the path to the saved image is added to the log.
2. Logging connected devices: logs information about USB devices connected to the system, including hardware characteristics like VID, PID, manufacturer, and other details.
3. Screenshot creation: creates a screenshot every five minutes with a name in the format sc_YYYY-MM-DD hh_mm_ss.jpg. A corresponding message is recorded in the log under the Screenshot section, including the path to the screenshot.

Thus, the keylogger creates three types of different file artifacts, which are placed in a temporary directory. Below is an example of a log file generated by the keylogger.

OkoSpyware

This module, which we dubbed OkoSpyware, captures both keystrokes and the video stream of the target application’s window. It first compiles a list of over 100 executable names, including cryptocurrency wallet applications (such as Exodus or Litecoin QT), password managers (such as KeePassXC or 1Password), and other widely used applications, to identify which processes should be monitored among all active system processes. For each identified process, the module uses a bundled FFmpeg instance to capture an MP4 video of the window while concurrently logging keystrokes within that window. The resulting video file is saved in %TEMP% as media_<ts> (where <ts> is the recording’s start timestamp). In the same folder, a JSON file named oko_<ts>.json is created, containing metadata about the captured stream, such as the process name, intercepted input, the stream’s MD5 hash, and additional details.

The malware also monitors the state of browsers, and when the window title matches a specified regular expression — for instance, a MetaMask or Tonkeeper wallet extension page — it performs video recording and input logging, adding the window title value to the corresponding field in the JSON metadata file.

Artifacts exfiltration

The TookPS script launched via a scheduled task receives a PowerShell exfiltration script as its payload from the C2. All files created by the MC Keylogger and OkoSpyware are sent to the C2 server to the endpoint ir-post.php. After that, the files are deleted from the victim’s system and a command history file, ConsoleHost_history.txt, is cleared.

Victims

At the time of writing, we have detected hundreds of victims of the OkoBot campaign in more than 25 countries, with the largest proportion of attacked end users found in Brazil, Vietnam, Canada, Mexico, and Türkiye.

Distribution of users attacked by OkoBot by country, April 2025–June 2026 (download)

Attribution

At the time of writing, we can’t attribute this malicious campaign to any known crimeware actor. However, during the analysis, we observed that the servers hosting the PowerShell scripts used in the initial infection stage implement server-side geoblocking. When attempting to retrieve the malicious script using an IP from Russia or CIS countries, the server returns an empty response. This technique is very popular among Russian-speaking threat actors.

It was previously mentioned that the campaign uses the malicious Rilide extension, an infostealer that is actively spreading on Russian-speaking, invitation-only cybercrime forums. Additionally, the source code of the SeedHunter phishing pages includes comments in Russian.

Conclusion

The framework described here has numerous modules — mostly written in C and C++ — that are obfuscated and use a variety of packing techniques. Across all stages, specific patterns and techniques can be identified that are borrowed and used in other modules, which allows us to conclude that there is a close interconnectedness among all stages, forming a full‑fledged high‑level framework. Overall, these modules enable a wide range of functions, such as collecting local files, executing remote commands, downloading arbitrary browser extensions, and stealing crypto wallets.

The OkoBot campaign has been ongoing for over a year, and it remains active at the time of publication. Moreover, it is adapting, which indicates that this framework is being maintained and distribution campaigns continue.

Indicators of compromise

Additional information about this threat, with a comprehensive IoC list and decryption scripts, is available to customers of the Kaspersky Threat Intelligence Reporting service. Contact: intelreports@kaspersky.com.

Dispatcher

B07D451EE65A1580F20A784C8F0E7A46 # protobuf.dll
187A1F68AE786E53D3831166DC84E6D2 # protobuf.dll
D84E8DC509308523E0209D3CD3544619 # protobuf.dll
83E6B8FCB92A0B13E109301F8FF649CF # version.dll

Plugins

7306885BB4C98F2A9F056104CF092BC9 # PowerShell wrapper
B4C2E16CDB513BE4DC798F88E2527334 # CMD wrapper
2157D2429124AD28DB7A26F2477CB985 # Environment enumerator
77CECF5E2A622AE07D8AE9913457AB57 # Dropper
E0C3BC27A65750E740C4F1719E531C7D # Process injector

Injector payloads

3D2B43F91F65BFBF36A9C71B6B418876 # ext_daemon.exe
70FEF9FD6E351F4D53CFEEE8DCDFCD99 # seedhunter_x64.exe
ACD31C9941B6C1CABD4E45E6877B9038 # keylog_x64.dll
DD52F5108A176C62AD807C327734AD12 # oko.dll

SSH bot utilities

AC93A821617AEA1F56D4BC0BEF4AF327 # HDUtil.exe
11DBC8A2BEA04B15F8F68F3F01E8FAF9 # extl.exe

File paths

%USERPROFILE%\.ssh\go.bat
%PROGRAMDATA%\HDVideo\HDUtil.exe
%PROGRAMDATA%\hwid.dat
%PROGRAMDATA%\oko_ver
%TEMP%\extl.exe
%APPDATA%\hwid.dat

Domains and IPs

2baserec2[.]guru          # TookPS
recavb22[.]online         # TookPS
kbeautyreviews[.]com      # TookPS
coffeesaloon[.]online     # TookPS
104.243.43[.]16           # SSH bot
104.243.32[.]213          # SSH bot
62.210.188[.]209          # SSH bot
livewallpapers[.]online    # Volume2 C2
thatwascringe[.]com        # Volume2 C2
moonsand[.]store          # SeedHunter C2

All threats

The percentage of ICS computers on which malicious objects were blocked continued to decrease, reaching 19.6% in Q1 2026. This is the lowest value in three years, and it is 1.4 times lower than in Q2 2023.

Regionally, the percentages ranged from 9.1% in Northern Europe to 27.4% in Africa.

The percentage of ICS computers on which malicious objects were blocked increased in five regions over the quarter, most notably in Southern Europe, Northern Europe, and Russia.

In Q1 2026, Southern Europe led the way in growth for internet and email threats. The region also saw the fastest growth in spyware, as well as malicious scripts and phishing pages.

In Russia, the percentage of ICS computers on which malicious objects were blocked exceeded the figures for the previous two quarters. Russia saw an increase in the percentage for threats from the internet, and a slight increase in the figure for threats from email clients (Russia is one of three regions where this figure did not decrease).

Among the threat categories, the greatest increases were observed in the percentages for denylisted internet resources, as well as spyware (distributed in the region via the internet and email clients).

Selected industries

Biometric systems (26.4%) traditionally rank top among the industries and OT infrastructure types covered in this report in terms of the percentage of ICS computers on which malicious objects were blocked. These systems are characterized by internet access, extensive email use for data exchange and approvals (such as access granting), and, in many cases, minimal cybersecurity controls within the organizations that use these systems.

Biometric systems rank first among industries in terms of email threats. At the same time, unlike other industries, the percentage for email threats in biometric systems exceeds that for internet threats.

In all selected industries, the global average follows a downward trend. In Q1 2026, the percentage of ICS computers on which malicious objects were blocked increased only in the manufacturing sector — by 1.0 pp. The percentages for this industry increased across 10 regions, with the most notable increases in Western Europe, Northern Europe, and Russia.

Threat categories

In Q1 2026, Kaspersky security solutions blocked malware from 10,052 different malware families of various categories on industrial automation systems.

Over the quarter, the percentage of ICS computers on which denylisted internet resources were blocked increased (after decreasing over the previous two quarters), and there was a slight increase in the percentage for AutoCAD malware.

Malicious scripts and phishing pages (JS and HTML)

Malicious scripts and phishing pages retained their to spot among threat categories by the percentage of ICS computers on which these threats were blocked. The global average in Q1 2026 was 6.56%.

Over the quarter, the percentages increased in four regions. The most significant change was observed in Southern Europe (9.85%, +0.94 pp). The figures for malicious scripts in the region increased over three consecutive quarters.

Among the selected industries, across all regions, the highest percentages for the malicious scripts and phishing pages category were recorded for biometric systems (19.59%) and building automation (15.43%) in Southern Europe. These same industries lead in similar rankings for malicious documents and spyware.

Spyware

The percentage of ICS computers on which spyware was blocked decreased over two consecutive quarters, dropping to 3.73%. Despite the decline, spyware has ranked second among threat categories by the percentage of attacked computers for three consecutive quarters.

The percentages increased in five regions over the quarter, most notably in Southern Europe (5.46%, +0.35 pp) and Russia (2.84%, +0.24 pp).

In Southern Europe, the percentage of ICS computers on which spyware was blocked increased in all the selected industries except manufacturing. The greatest increase was observed in biometric systems.

Among the selected industries, the highest percentage of spyware in Russia was recorded in biometric systems. That said, the percentage of ICS computers on which spyware was blocked increased in all industries in the region except construction. The percentage figure has been increasing for two consecutive quarters in the oil and gas industry (by a factor of 1.63 over six months), and for three consecutive quarters in engineering and ICS integration, as well as electric power. In the remaining sectors, the values have been fluctuating.

Denylisted internet resources

The percentage of ICS computers on which denylisted internet resources were blocked increased to 3.54%.

The most notable increase over the quarter occurred in Southeast Asia (4.58%, +0.65 pp). Among the industries in the region, the highest percentage figures for this threat category were recorded in electric power and construction. Over the quarter, the largest increases in percentages figures were observed in the electric power and manufacturing industries.

In North America (Canada), denylisted internet resources (2.14%) showed the greatest increase among all categories — by a factor of 1.22.

Among the selected industries across all regions, the highest percentage figures for the denylisted internet resources category were in the electric power (7.11%) and construction (6.25%) industries in Southeast Asia.

Malicious documents (Microsoft Office + PDF)

The percentage figure for this category decreased over two consecutive quarters, reaching its lowest value (1.56%) for the entire period of observations in Q1 2026. It increased just in two regions: Australia and New Zealand (1.12%, +0.04 pp), and Russia (0.62%, +0.01 pp).

Among the selected industries across all regions, the highest percentages for malicious documents were recorded for biometric systems (9.02%) and building automation (6.97%) in Southern Europe. These same industries also lead in similar rankings for malicious scripts and spyware.

Ransomware

The percentage of ICS computers on which ransomware was blocked has decreased for two consecutive quarters, dropping to 0.14%. This is the lowest value among all categories.

The percentage increased in two regions: North America (Canada) (0.11%, +0.04 pp) and slightly in Northern Europe (0.06%, +0.01 pp).

Among the selected industries across all regions, the highest percentages for ransomware were recorded in the oil and gas and manufacturing industries (0.92% and 0.65%, respectively) in Central Asia and the South Caucasus, and in biometric systems (0.89%) in Russia.

Miners in the form of executable files for Windows

The percentage of ICS computers on which miners in the form of executable files for Windows were blocked decreased to 0.59%.

The percentage increased in seven regions. The largest increase was observed in Africa (0.63%, +0.16 pp). Among the selected industries, the largest increases in the region were in the manufacturing and oil and gas industries.

Among the selected industries across all regions, the highest percentages for miners in the form of executable files were recorded in construction (1.99%), biometric systems (1.98%), and the oil and gas industry (1.97%) in Central Asia and the South Caucasus.

Web miners

The percentage of ICS computers on which web miners were blocked has been declining for a year, and in Q1 2026, it reached the lowest value for the entire period under review (0.22%).

At the same time, the percentage increased in seven regions. The largest increases were observed in South Asia (0.28%, +0.11 pp), the Middle East (0.31%, +0.09 pp), and Africa (0.34%, +0.08 pp). Despite the increases, the percentages in these regions for Q1 2026 did not exceed those observed in 2023–2024 and in Q1 2025.

Among the selected industries across all regions, the highest percentages for web miners were recorded for biometric systems (0.97%) in Russia. Biometric systems in South Asia (0.79%) ranked second, and the electric power sector in Southeast Asia (0.76%) ranked third.

Worms

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

The percentage decreased across all regions following an increase in the previous quarter (due to a wave of phishing attacks that distributed the Backdoor.MSIL.XWorm backdoor worm across all regions of the world).

Among the selected industries across all regions, the highest percentage figure for worms was recorded for biometric systems (4.80%) in Central Asia and the South Caucasus. Two industries in Africa – biometric systems (4.04%) and electric power (3.53%) – took the second and third spots, respectively.

Viruses

The percentage of ICS computers on which viruses were blocked decreased to 1.31%.

The top 3 regions by this figure remained the same: Southeast Asia (6.11%, first by a wide margin), Africa (4.15%), and East Asia (2.97%). These same regions are also among the leaders by the percentage of systems affected by AutoCAD malware. The largest increase in this figure was observed in Africa (+0.41 pp).

Among the selected industries across all regions, the highest percentages for viruses were recorded in the construction industry (6.35%) and building automation (5.50%) in Southeast Asia.

Malware for AutoCAD

The percentage of ICS computers on which malware for AutoCAD was blocked increased to 0.30%.

The most notable increase over the quarter was observed in Africa, with the region’s percentage figure rising by 0.47 pp, a very significant increase for this category, and almost doubling (to 0.91%).

Among the selected industries across all regions, the highest percentages for AutoCAD malware were recorded in the construction industry in East Asia (5.58%) and Southeast Asia (3.87%).

Main threat sources

In Q1 2026, the average percentages across all threat sources, except threats from the internet, decreased globally.

Internet

The percentage of ICS computers on which threats from the internet were blocked increased to 7.88%. However, over the past three years, the percentage figure for internet threats has followed a downward trend.

The largest increases in the percentages were recorded in Southern Europe (8.59%, +0.59 pp), Southeast Asia (10.16%, +0.55 pp), and Northern Europe (4.47%, +0.51 pp).

Among the selected industries across all regions, the highest percentages for threats from the internet were recorded in electric power (13.16%) and construction (12.55%) in Southeast Asia, and in the engineering and ICS integration sector (12.33%) in South Asia.

Email clients

The percentage of ICS computers on which threats delivered via email clients were blocked decreased to 2.59%. This is a three-year low.

The percentage of this threat source increased in three regions: Southern Europe (6.54%, +0.2 pp), East Asia (1.5%, +0.09 pp), and slightly in Russia (0.7%, +0.04 pp).

Among the selected industries across all regions, the highest percentages for email threats were recorded for biometric systems (19.78%) and building automation (12.34%) in Southern Europe. In these two industries, the percentage of ICS computers on which email threats are blocked is higher than the percentage for threats from the internet. A similar situation was observed in two other instances, both in biometric systems (in South America and Southeast Asia).

Removable media

The percentage of ICS computers on which threats were detected when connecting removable media continued to decrease, reaching its lowest value for the period under review (0.26%).

Among the selected industries across all regions, the highest percentages for removable media threats blocked on ICS computers were observed in the electric power sector in Central Asia and the South Caucasus (1.45%), East Asia (1.34%), and Africa (1.16%).

Network folders

The percentage of ICS computers on which threats are blocked in network folders is steadily decreasing. In Q1 2026, it was the lowest for the period under review (0.029%).

East Asia has traditionally led by a wide margin. The percentage for East Asia (0.135%) is 27 times higher than the lowest regional value (recorded in Northern Europe).

The largest increases in the percentages for threats from network folders were observed in Africa (0.037%, +0.006 pp) and South America (0.013%, +0.006 pp).
Among the selected industries across all regions, the construction industry in East Asia, at 0.36%, holds the top positions in the ranking by the percentage of ICS computers on which threats are blocked in network folders.

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

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

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

Key trends observed during compromise assessment engagements

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

About the Kaspersky Compromise Assessment service

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

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

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

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

Detection logic families

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

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

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

Distribution of detection logic families (download)

Reasons for requesting Kaspersky Compromise Assessment services

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

Statistics on the reasons behind CA project requests (download)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Case study: Dormant threat uncovered only by a compromise assessment

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

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

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

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

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

Missed long-term incidents

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

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

Severity distribution of incidents by MTTD (download)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Unintentional malware preservation

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

Web shell incident distribution by severity (download)

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

Web shell location (download)

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

Asset inventory issues (download)

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

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

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

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

Legitimate, yet suspicious: LoLBins and remote management tools

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

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

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

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

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

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

Impact of not having continuous monitoring and proactive threat hunting

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

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

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

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

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

Case study: Secure by design without continuous monitoring

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Incident response action statistics

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

Incident response actions required after compromise assessment (download)

The distribution highlights three frequently observed patterns:

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

Why forensic collection is the default entry point

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

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

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

Containment: The remove files/registry keys paradox

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

Communication failures: An additional operational overhead

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

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

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

The iterative nature of response plan updates

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

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

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

Distinguishing real attacker artifacts from penetration testing leftovers

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

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

Incident response maturity and its effect on severity

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Solving the root cause problems

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

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

Common observations on root causes

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

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

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

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

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

Lack of detections: Causes and impacts

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

Incident severity distribution when detection coverage was insufficient (download)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Insufficient vulnerability management: A catalyst for high-severity compromises

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

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

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

While tracking the activities of 4BID we uncovered a new string of campaigns that appear to be the work of several interconnected actors. While politically motivated groups generally limit their scope to specific nations – for 4BID and its peers, primarily Russian and occasionally Belarusian organizations – our latest findings reveal a shift. The actual geographic footprint of these attacks became broader than expected, striking companies across Kazakhstan, the UAE, Syria, and Egypt.

What triggered our investigation was spotting a cluster of indicators of compromise within a breached Russian organization’s infrastructure. We used these footprints to successfully track down other environments hit by the same threat actors and piece together the bigger picture.

This article dives into the software deployed throughout these hacktivist campaigns:

• New ransomware samples
• Scripts used at various stages of the attacks
• Commercially available IT remote monitoring and management (RMM) tools

These include both updated versions of known threat-actor tools and previously unseen software.

Overlapping activity streams

Within the initial organization’s infrastructure, we found numerous activity indicators linked to several interconnected hacktivist groups – which ultimately set the direction for our follow-up analysis. We can attribute the following findings to hacktivist activity with a medium level of confidence:

• Several samples of BlackReaperRAT, which we attribute to the 4BID group, were found alongside scripts designed to download Panorama9 RMM, AnyDesk, and Dev Tunnels.
• Besides the artifacts listed above, we discovered ClearWater ransomware in other compromised infrastructures. Interestingly, during this same window, public sources showed Hakerskii Kit claiming a successful attack on a Russian factory. Also detected in that facility’s infrastructure was ClearWater ransomware, with the attackers publicly thanking the С.A.S. group for their contribution.
• We uncovered several samples of Warp RAT within the hit infrastructures, which we link to the Goffee threat group. A detailed report on this specific activity will be published at a later date.

Technical details

Vulnerable web servers and fd.aspx

Analysis of the compromised environments revealed that the attackers gained initial access in most cases by exploiting the ProxyShell vulnerability in Microsoft Exchange, which allows for full server compromise.

Once inside, the attackers deployed the fd.aspx web shell – a modular ASP.NET file designed for remote control, file transfers, and system reconnaissance. Communication with the web shell relied on a basic security check: if the key parameter in an incoming request failed to match the AUTH_KEY constant, fd.aspx simply returned “Access Denied”.

If the verification was successful, the command contained in the request’s scriptText parameter was passed directly to PowerShell, and the output returned to the operator in the body of the HTTP response. In environments where PowerShell execution was restricted, the web shell swapped it out for cmd.exe. The CreateNoWindow: true and UseShellExecute: false flags were used to keep the command execution hidden from the user.

Beyond running commands, the web shell features bidirectional Base64-encoded file transfers. This allows any binary data – like executables, archives, or certificates – to be passed right inside the body of an HTTP request. The UploadFile function writes files to any directory the web server process can access, which makes it easy to drop additional shells or swap out legitimate files. The DownloadFile function exfiltrates any accessible file from the compromised system back to the attackers’ C2 server.

The web shell also includes a system reconnaissance feature that grabs the following data points:

• OSVersion: operating system version
• MachineName: hostname
• UserName: current username
• UserDomainName: domain name
• ProcessorCount: number of processors
• SystemDirectory: system directory path
• CurrentDirectory: current working directory
• Version: .NET Framework version

Additionally, the reconnaissance feature uses the DriveInfo.GetDrives() function to enumerate running processes and map out connected drives – along with the amount of free space available on each. This file system reconnaissance is topped off with LastWriteTime metadata for each object, which helps the operator quickly spot recently modified files and get their bearings within the storage layout.

Alongside the web shells, we encountered a variety of scripts and C2 frameworks across all compromised infrastructures, which we break down below.

Scripts deployed

Once the attackers gained control over a target system, they moved on to the next phase: loading their required toolkit via custom scripts. Variations of these scripts were consistently found alongside fd.aspx on compromised hosts. Most of them interact with legitimate tools, which makes them look almost identical to routine administrative scripts at first glance. The only real giveaway is the code comments, written in Ukrainian. One such script is responsible for deploying AnyDesk on the compromised host.

The build quality of these scripts is worth discussing separately. Several of them show telltale signs of AI generation; inside some compromised systems, we found multiple iterations of the exact same script, a few of which were completely broken. AI-generated code typically fails to work out of the box and requires manual tweaking to run properly.

First, the script checks for admin privileges, as it cannot proceed without them. If that check passes, it looks for an active anydesk.exe process. If the process is missing, the script fetches and installs the application directly from the official website. Once AnyDesk is successfully installed, the script configures an unattended access password and pulls the unique AnyDesk ID. All the collected details are compiled into a report and exfiltrated to the attackers’ server at 185.221.153[.]121. Because we spotted simultaneous activity from multiple groups – 4BID, Hakerskii Kit, and C.A.S. – on the analyzed hosts, this IP address could potentially belong to any one of them.

Besides AnyDesk, the threat actors leverage other legitimate tools. One example is Microsoft Dev Tunnels, a Microsoft service that exposes a local server to the internet. It’s brought into the system by a separate script that, much like the one for AnyDesk, checks if the utility is already present before downloading it from the official site. In certain instances, the utility was fetched directly from the attackers’ server instead:

Once installed, the application runs, and the resulting connection details are saved to a file named login.txt. The contents of this file consist of standard instructions for using a provided code to authenticate on a Microsoft page through a web browser.

To sign in, use a web browser to open https://login.microsoft.com/device and enter the code [CODE].

As a final step, the script opens up the required ports and creates the tunnel, giving the attackers a back door into the compromised host.

Another script we uncovered handles the installation of Panorama9, a legitimate remote monitoring and management utility. Immediately after downloading that application, the attackers configure it via the registry to hide both its system tray icon and its installation folder. To camouflage the Panorama9 services, the attackers rename them to Windows Update Helper and Windows Update Helper Cache and swap out their descriptions, making the utility look almost identical to standard system components. Once the utility finishes its job, the script clears its tracks.

The attackers used a dedicated script to establish persistence on the system. When executed, it used the net user command to spin up a local user account and then hid it via the registry. The script added this new user to every available local group; if the machine was domain-joined, it also attempted to inject the user into all Active Directory groups.

At the same time, the script tweaked RDP settings: it set the minimum encryption level through the registry, added a firewall rule to allow port 3389, and ran the relevant services.

After it wrapped up its main tasks, the script wiped the event logs, command history, temporary files, and finally itself. Once the attackers got what they wanted out of the infected host, they triggered another script that removed the previously created user account, cleaned out the registry keys generated during the earlier phases, and then deleted itself as well.

The scripts described here are just the most telling examples out of dozens of samples we found. An analysis of the attackers’ toolkit reveals a clear trend: they aren’t just fine-tuning the solutions they’ve used in the past (specifically, the AnyDesk deployment script), but are actively broadening their arsenal with new tools like Panorama9, Dev Tunnels, and others.

Publicly available utilities

As previously mentioned, the attackers leverage a broad spectrum of dual-use public software, such as all kinds of remote monitoring and management utilities. While they use the scripts discussed above to drop some of the utilities onto systems, we didn’t encounter scripts for others, so we can’t confirm whether any exist. We observed the following tools deployed across the campaigns in question:

• AnyDesk: a remote administration tool
• Advanced IP Scanner: a network scanning utility
• Dev Tunnels: a Microsoft service used for exposing a server to the internet
• Panorama9: an IT infrastructure management and monitoring service
• Nezha Monitoring: a server status monitoring utility
• Tactical RMM: a remote monitoring and management tool

C2 and communications

To gain a foothold in the victim’s infrastructure, the attackers relied on several post-exploitation frameworks. Some of these are publicly available utilities, while others are custom-built.

Among the publicly available tools in the group’s arsenal are:

• Sliver
• Havoc
• Apollo Mythic
• Adaptix

We also discovered a previously undocumented backdoor, dubbed BlackSalt, which contacts the C2 server to fetch commands and executes them via cmd.exe.

Sliver

On several hosts, following the initial Microsoft Exchange server compromise, files named upd.exe, winhost.exe, update1.exe, update.exe, and akolo.exe were dropped alongside the previously mentioned fd.aspx files and scripts. All of them were located in the C:\Windows\System32\inetsrv\ directory and were configured as SFX archives with nearly identical payloads, which ran an install.bat script upon extraction.

The script copies the malicious components into the Windows folder and installs servicechecker.bat as a system service. To do this, it leverages the legitimate Windows Service Wrapper (WinSW) utility included in the archive under the filename backupsrv.exe. The archive also contains the WinSW configuration file, backupsrv.xml, which specifies exactly which script should be registered as a service. Once installed, servicechecker.bat is configured to run automatically on system boot.

The servicechecker.bat script, in turn, runs backupagnt.exe, a loader for the main malicious component housed in WindowsInternal.UpdateComponent.dll. This file was built with the help of the Donut utility and is encrypted with a simple single-byte XOR key (0x0F). Its primary job is to inject the Sliver code straight into the device’s memory.

All Sliver instances uncovered during this investigation were configured to communicate with the C2 server at 185.221.153[.]121 over mTLS.

Havoc

Inside a similar SFX archive located in the user directory $user\desktop\ under the filename demon.x64.exe, we found another post-exploitation framework: Havoc. This instance was configured to communicate with the C2 server at 77.72.85[.]62.

Apollo

Mythic Apollo is a cross-platform post-exploitation agent used within the Mythic framework to manage compromised systems. It provides a persistent connection to the C2 server, executes operator commands, handles file uploads/downloads, runs arbitrary code, and supports expansion via plugins. We previously provided a detailed breakdown of the Mythic framework in our post, Hunting for Mythic in Network Traffic.

Here is an example of the Mythic Apollo configuration we encountered in these hacktivist attacks:

This specific sample of the .NET Mythic Apollo agent was compiled with an extensive suite of modules and supports multiple transport profiles that enable communication via HTTP, TCP, WebSocket, SMB, named pipes, and web shells. The C2 address 77.72.85[.]62 is hardcoded into its configuration.

Adaptix

AdaptixC2 is another post-exploitation framework in the attackers’ arsenal. This is a relatively new open-source project, which we broke down in our post, Adapt or pay:an analysis of the AdaptixC2 framework.

The agent samples discovered during our investigation into these hacktivist campaigns consist of a packed AdaptixC2 Beacon delivered via a custom x64 loader. Upon execution, the payload decrypts an embedded shellcode, allocates memory, and executes the malicious payload using the CreateThread WinAPI function. Packed inside the shellcode is the AdaptixC2 Beacon agent in DLL format, featuring a configuration encrypted using RC4.

According to the AdaptixC2 classification system, this agent falls under the BEACON_HTTP type. It is capable of executing commands, performing file operations, enumerating and killing processes, launching new programs, and exfiltrating data back to the C2. It also supports SOCKS port forwarding and BOF modules.

AdaptixC2 uses encryption to keep its configuration under wraps. The corresponding block contains the data size, the actual RC4-encrypted configuration, and a 16-byte key.

BlackSalt Backdoor

During the investigation, we also came across target infrastructures running vulnerable versions of Microsoft Exchange where – much like the Sliver cases – SFX archives named WindowsServiceHelper.exe were discovered in the C:\Windows\System32\inetsrv\ directory. Once extracted, the archive executed an install.bat file.

Similar to the other archives of this type, the script uses the WinSW utility to install the malicious components. In this specific case, however, the primary payload is a file named svc.exe, which turns out to be an obfuscated backdoor written in VBS. Much like the deployment scripts used for the remote management utilities, the code of this setup BAT script was clearly put together with AI tools and features comments in Ukrainian.

The backdoor is essentially a textbook reverse shell. Its capabilities boil down to fetching commands from the C2 server at 45.150.109[.]2, executing them via cmd.exe, and piping the output back to the C2.

EDR killers

In their attacks, the threat actors deploy what are known as EDR killers: malicious tools designed to disable security software on the system. In the vast majority of cases, these utilities rely on the BYOVD technique.

On the hosts compromised during these hacktivist operations, we discovered samples named kil.exe and Killer.exe. These are modified versions of the public, Rust-based BYOVD project EDRKiller. The attackers streamlined the utility to act strictly as a client for the driver and expanded the hardcoded list of security processes to terminate. The sample targets the vulnerable Warsaw_PM driver, though it lacks the functionality to load the driver itself – the attackers drop it onto the system separately.

The general workflow plays out as follows:

1. In user mode, the program finds the PID of the target process.
2. It opens a handle to \\.\Warsaw_PM.
3. It constructs a buffer containing the target process’s PID.
4. It calls DeviceIoControl.
5. The driver executes the calls:
   • ZwOpenProcess;
   • ZwTerminateProcess.

The EDR killer continuously enumerates processes, repeatedly sending the IOCTL and terminating the target processes every single time they pop up.

Both kil.exe and Killer.exe share the exact same list of processes targeted for termination:

MsMpEng.exe, SenseIR.exe, SenseNdr.exe, SenseCncProxy.exe, SenseSampleUploader.exe, NisSrv.exe, avp.exe, kavfs.exe, bdagent.exe, bdservicehost.exe, vsserv.exe, AvastSvc.exe, AvastUI.exe, aswidsagent.exe, avgsvc.exe, mfemms.exe, mfefire.exe, mfevtps.exe, dwengine.exe, dwservice.exe, elastic-agent.exe, elastic-endpoint.exe, Sysmon.exe, wazuh-agent.exe, ipban.exe

Another utility used to kill security software processes is ghostdriver.exe, an unmodified build of the open-source project GhostDriver. In this case, the attackers simply pulled a version straight from GitHub and didn’t modify any of its code.

The tool operates through the following stages:

1. Identify target processes
   The program takes a list of process names (such as msmpeng.exe) via command-line arguments. If no list is specified, it falls back to a default set.
2. Enumerate system processes
   To locate PIDs, the tool relies on standard Windows APIs:
   • CreateToolhelp32Snapshot
   • Process32First
   • Process32Next
3. Generate a list of processes to kill.
4. Load the vulnerable driver
   This is the core phase of the utility’s operation. During this step:
   • The sys driver is written to disk.
   • A SERVICE_KERNEL_DRIVER type service is created.
   • The driver is kicked off via the Service Control Manager (SCM).

GhostDriver.sys is hardcoded inside the GhostDriver executable and is a binary driver known as RentDrv2 (BadRentdrv2).

It contains the CVE-2023-44976 vulnerability, which allows it to:

• Accept user-mode commands via DeviceIoControl.
• Perform operations on processes from kernel mode.
• Bypass security mechanisms, including Protected Process.

Upon execution, GhostDriver drops RentDrv2 to disk, loads it into the Windows kernel, and connects to it via the virtual device \\.\rentdrv2. The utility then issues command 0x22E010 to the driver, passing along the target process ID, and the driver terminates that process directly from kernel mode.

GhostDriver runs in a continuous loop. Every ~700 ms, it rescans for the target processes and sends out termination commands.

After the driver starts up, the utility attempts to delete the ghostdriver.sys file. To do this, it opens a file handle, uses the SetFileInformationByHandle WinAPI function to rename it to something like :GhostDriver, reopens the handle, and marks the file for deletion via FileDispositionInfo. Before wrapping up, it also tries to stop and remove the driver service, and delete the C:\rentdrv.log file where the driver writes its logs.

Example of the adversary command execution launching GhostDriver:

Current versions of Kaspersky products are resilient to these types of attacks: the utilities described in this post cannot terminate their processes.

Connection to the ClearWater ransomware

Alongside the previously described Mythic Apollo samples (C2: 77.72.85.62), backupagnt.exe loaders, and Panorama9 deployment scripts, we discovered a new ransomware strain named ClearWater across several compromised infrastructures. Written in C++ and compiled with GCC (MinGW), the sample is a 64-bit Windows executable. It features zero obfuscation; in fact, the binary wasn’t stripped of its DWARF debug information. This makes analyzing the sample significantly easier and points to either sloppiness or a lack of technical expertise on the developers’ part.

When executed, ClearWater logs its progress in a separate console window.

File encryption

Like most ransomware strains, ClearWater is a Trojan designed to locate and encrypt the victim’s files. The Trojan executable contains a hardcoded RSA-2048 primary public key in PEM format.

For every file it processes, the ransomware generates a new 32-byte key and a 12-byte nonce – though only 8 of those 12 bytes are actually used – and encrypts the file’s contents via the ChaCha20 symmetric algorithm. The ChaCha key is then RSA-encrypted and appended to a specific data structure at the end of the file. To pull this off, the malware leverages cryptographic implementations from the open-source libsodium library.

struct
{
	uint8_t label[4];			//'M', 'Y', 'E', 'K' marker
	uint32_t rsa_encr_size;		//size of RSA-encrypted data
	uint8_t rsa_encr_data[256];	//RSA-encrypted ChaCha key
};

The Trojan processes all files except those with a .txt extension. This approach can easily break installed software, as it blindly encrypts both libraries and executables; however, it does explicitly skip the system directory during its search. Encrypted files are additionally appended with the .clear extension. The malware scans for targets on local drives as well as SMB network shares, which it maps out by using the net view command.

Additional functionality

Within every directory it processes, the Trojan drops the attackers’ demands into a file named CLEARWATER_README.txt.

Additionally, by modifying the HKLM\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Run registry key, the malware sets up a persistence mechanism that automatically opens the ransom note with notepad.exe on startup.

ClearWater is distributed inside a self-extracting archive. The extraction script runs in silent mode (GUIMode=”2″), escalates privileges via a UAC prompt, drops the Trojan at C:\ProgramData\ClearWater_x64.exe, and kicks it off. Once the ransomware finishes running, the SFX archive cleans up after itself and wipes the original archive (SelfDelete=”1″).

Alongside this script and the Trojan executable, the archive includes a BMP image. The ransomware sets this image as both the desktop wallpaper (by tweaking the HKEY_USERS\<…>\Control Panel\Desktop\Wallpaper registry key and calling SystemParametersInfoA with the SPI_SETDESKWALLPAPER parameter) and the lock screen background (by modifying the LockScreenImagePath and LockScreenImageUrl values under HKLM\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\PersonalizationCSP).

To complicate system recovery after the attack, ClearWater performs several actions typical of ransomware:

• Deletes shadow copies using the following commands:
  
• Wipes the backup catalog and disables Windows Restore:
  
• Removes restore points:
  
• Disables the system startup recovery option:
  

ClearWater also features a kill_all_non_whitelisted_processes() function designed to terminate active tasks, though it doesn’t actually call it during execution. This function leverages PowerShell to look up and kill any process whose name isn’t included in a hardcoded allowlist within the Trojan’s body. It uses the following PowerShell code to do this:

Get-Process|Where-Object{$w -notcontains $_.Name.ToLower()}|Stop-Process -Force

The exclusion list contains various essential system processes and breaks down as follows:

system, idle, smss, csrss, wininit, services, lsass, winlogon, svchost, explorer, dwm, shellexperiencehost, runtimebroker, trustedinstaller, tiworker, textinputhost, taskhostw, mousocoreworker, fontdrvhost, audiodg, sihost, spoolsv, taskeng, taskhost, searchui, securityhealthservice, startmenuexperiencehost, searchindexer, backgroundtaskhost, sppsvc, wmiprvse, wudfhost, vboxservice, vboxtray, vmtoolsd, vmwaretray, vboxguest, vmsrvc, vgauthservice, vmacthlp, qemud, qemu-ga, msdtc, searchprotocolhost, wlanext, dllhost, conhost, comppkgsrv, msmpeng, mssecflt, systemsettings, securityhealthsystray, nvtray, nvvsvc, ravbg64, igfxtray, igfxem, igfxcuiservice, igfxhk, igfxext

Updated Blackout Locker

In a previously published report (link in Russian) on collaborations between several hacktivist groups, we highlighted a tool called Blackout Locker. In late January 2026, the 4BID group ran a series of attacks against organizations in Russia using an updated version of this malware. This section breaks down the new version of Blackout Locker and covers its key characteristics uncovered during our analysis.

Rust dropper

The attackers use a dropper written in Rust to distribute Blackout Locker. Depending on the specific sample, the dropper first carries out a series of staging actions. It then writes the payload executable to …\Users\[USERNAME]\AppData\Local\Microsoft\[REDACTED].dat and swaps its extension to EXE by calling the Windows command prompt:

After that, it launches the renamed executable.

Blackout Locker

The primary tool deployed in the attacks in question is an updated version of Blackout Locker.

Our analysis revealed that the key difference in this new version is the addition of a screen locker component, which it drops and executes in tandem with the ransomware’s main background payload.

During the initial phase, the screen locker file is created under the following paths:

To launch the screen locker, several tasks are created:

The screen locker is also written to the following registry keys:

After this, two LNK files, SystemHelper.lnk and WindowsHelper.lnk, are created via PowerShell for subsequent execution:

• The first file is placed in the %PROFILEPATH%\All users\Start menu\Programs\Startup directory:
  
• The second file is placed in the %USERPROFILE%\Start menu\Programs\Startup directory:
  

As a result, a shortcut is created in the startup folder pointing to WindowsSystemHelper.exe located on the desktop. This ensures the screen locker appears every time the user logs in. Even if the victim enters the correct password into the locker window, it will keep popping back up; while the window itself closes after password entry, the corresponding task is never actually deleted.

Screen locker

During execution, Blackout Locker generates a file named README.txt, which the screen locker later references to pull the text displayed to the user. Some Blackout Locker samples drop a ransom note written in English:

On the lock screen, it may look like this:

Other samples deploy a ransom note in Russian:

If the program fails to read README.txt, it falls back to a hardcoded ransom message. If this fallback message is in Russian but the victim’s operating system lacks support for Cyrillic encodings, the loader’s on-screen output renders as garbled text.

Attack geography

The majority of the compromised infrastructures belong to Russian and Belarusian organizations, which aligns with the stated agenda of these hacker groups. However, for the first time, we identified victims in other countries with no relation to this agenda: Kazakhstan, the UAE, Syria, and Egypt. Within the network of a Kazakh aviation company, we detected multiple post-exploitation frameworks pointing to C2 servers at 77.72.85[.]62 and 185.221.153[.]121, traces of the Panorama9 and Tactical RMM platforms, and backupagnt.exe loaders. A similar footprint was observed in the infrastructure of an Egyptian hospital, though the familiar toolkit was augmented by the fd.aspx web shell. The remaining international victims exhibited a nearly identical combination of artifacts, with only minor variations.

While the primary targeting vector previously centered on Russia and Belarus, the threat actors now appear to be pivoting their attention toward the wider CIS region and the Middle East. This strategic shift correlates with a statement from a member of the 4BID group, who claimed that attacking Russia is no longer profitable.

Takeaways

The hacktivist groups discussed in this report are steadily expanding the geographical footprint of their campaigns, pushing beyond Russia and the wider CIS region. Alongside this expansion, we observe the growing use of ransomware and other tooling consistent with financially motivated operations, which may further influence their choice of victims.

This shift underscores the critical need for continuous threat landscape monitoring. To stay ahead of threat actors, organizations must look beyond the immediate risks facing their perimeter and proactively track emerging threats, including the tactics of groups targeting specific industry verticals or geographic regions.

Detection by Kaspersky solutions

Kaspersky solutions reliably detect the malicious activity in question at every stage of the malware lifecycle. This section outlines potential detection scenarios.
Publicly available dual-use software leaves numerous artifacts on targeted hosts, which helps Kaspersky Endpoint Detection and Response Expert trace the activity of these utilities.

For instance, network connections established with Panorama9 servers both during the initial software launch and throughout the tool’s operation trigger the panorama9_dns_activity rule. The Hunt Hub section of our TI Portal features detection rules for other event types and specific operating systems, searchable with the keyword panorama9. Similar rules exist for the other utilities described in this post: Tactical RMM, Nezha, and Dev tunnels.

GhostDriver.exe relies on an embedded vulnerable driver, which it drops onto the target host. The creation of these drivers is detected by the vuln_driver_created_by_unsigned_process rule family.

Ransomware is inherently quite noisy and so can be detected at various execution phases. The execution graph within Kaspersky Cloud Sandbox on our Threat Intelligence Portal visualizes the entire ClearWater execution chain, capturing key behaviors such as modifying the desktop wallpaper and deleting shadow copies.

Additionally, the Threat Lookup and Research Graph sections of Kaspersky Threat Intelligence Portal allow you to visualize and analyze the connections between the malicious domains and files used by the adversaries.

Monitoring network traffic is another highly effective method for detecting the malicious activity described here. Kaspersky Anti Targeted Attack (KATA) with the NDR module detects the network communications of all malware samples in question utilized throughout this campaign.

For instance, upon detecting HTTP network activity characteristic of the BlackSalt backdoor, the system triggers an alert for the Backdoor.BlackSalt.HTTP.C&C rule triggering.

Examples of using the Kaspersky Anti Targeted Attack (KATA) platform with the NDR module to detect other agents described here – along with their detailed technical analysis – are available in our dedicated reports on Adaptix and Mythic detection.

Indicators of compromise

Web shells
26100db3f56880110a92a2b4742d6eaf	fd.aspx
cf682a6fee80a78be578b1edd82627fa	fd.aspx
2d5533fb65ebb50a5a5fd53e62d73b9a	fd.aspx
fe04d230db612ea24af3826fda667131	fd.aspx
Scripts
2db94ee3ec69988588702bd77999a5d4	any_local.ps1
f88d2b5c3b885ad5a9c1c44551bccc60	main.ps1
1e1edf879b2dc6c9892a22bfa5985db1	main.ps1
78250fa890220821e2b91e31b965de59	main.ps1
f2af797ac45b9f578c53cc49e5797397	auto_dev.ps1
0c32bfdf83ecebe3a1399d261dc8ff57	auto_dev_test.ps1
e14cc9a959bbe16c48b8dff063b311f3	auto_dev_test_multimple_task.ps1
36b3be503c6e34613ff50cb28e0f3ddb	auto_dev_test_multimple_task.ps1
c12ebe625737ed0908b045e811f14ecd	tun.ps1, auto_dev_test_multimple_task.ps1
1c0924f5711a24821921de5ad822213b	grant.ps1
d78adab5e16c26d4cd14fe38f77e29e6	pan.ps1, pam.ps1
6cf548445c39aff844be96d73c89e376	test.ps1
911a21aa999c324dc960d3498eec528e	radiant.ps1
68e310de44c3165ffffa25bc495d6fc5
4f41a22b3e7469fb6b45a42d71ec7087
80e5bde401d6b0ca96015ae9cfeb6535
1c82a94c362a9e98a66ae57d6ff37900
fa04aeedc0d2f5bb6ed357fdae1c1435
AdaptixC2
555a6722436d7cf7de396e0c57d32a27
b974141ff9ad1efb60dd9e16977266ca
7da855b2fd9b52f9088e64d656164637
d08056c2ac28933d6843658c2c8c574f
038cab0c60c53cf12f048272014024c0
c183033d86d2e052b8eb0deb2136ab29
bc0ebf67986eea803b4c9633ed3a4bb5
18618f4b468ba4e64c2e1072a6da2134
1742a9fa35e253614b76ac0f687ba02e
c7eb6da3aa216816079a1b785097552a
3ee38b944e5c83922f99641846f7db0c
d8ff7f417d56fa2a3baf3c8933013a25
1ff222457f5e0e32adfa8341f260dde7
ede8ce887dd9ab7add0f0fc872d51369
1344e6bc51cea35befb4adff7a25899b
2a09162d72aa416e18bab46070043a13
841b7d3863b49f62d4faa9949ff5df38
1bd1ca848b15530e39792b4fe6f31367
Mythic Apollo
b36968b98046d1b033d84f292e7ca1cb
663a479d6d24c767f1d3229a0a91554b
54a308f734095d54ae0e1c86c849a2d8
3137958eb830186826d486afd9222aee
1d09499cb2d7d70df903b60602a58887
d74262f968dc3f378c4021a89d16a292
3d9cbc944f9a9e127550ffb4e8394965
bcd3859f4ddd72c4690d76c3b4ef8955
3a9b0875fc692944c180b165a83a0d17
c558e6a9d0a697c757aa6d7782e269c9
61647db645f7cc221046999ef1dbe1d1
02493e1cb684be6a1a1fc6334a56c516
a3dba01c76571adc0797801ff30f2b90
3f4fbba101b209b00e70787fd5bab819
cd0c5b9e4e47df4231d02ed87ff49f26
b8a13e808b5b5f1836d3e559755139d0
60f8b115aec8a13b0069efc84fc645f5
da55b5612a80ef20ec75b68151e7ff4b
7d35b4961914ad83a57f8832d8e870d8
334abbdc99d359aab2ea371dd4eda5f2
389a1bbdbf5c91bd1c179227f5ae0923
87d48fbccb4aaee95222e215ecb7ebec
76c819185e3c8b8557a2c3986ab80a7c
6d19c8eea11d50c01d20f18382a964d1
Other C2 frameworks
8db0adf8fd6dc6195d7ae55e37e49f97
08f3a14a2337eb9936c38f5159be007c
717ab7624c192f6f8dd38994116c28dc
d1c51b92939aa168f0951a8368841373
5398b7eaa94f0ee570b1c5642b559047
d65a79ea9257637c77cab6e087468912
008cd423ca45134d3343f66cced1d104
9741672506f26813c71839aaa6aa3882
06bed0a0906e52c764b3b7016d6a4428
upd.exe (SFX archive)
08c069f133ac27cbc02a0ed79e4e87ba	upd.exe
a36082c998391a3ebaf05ba4f834172c	backupagnt.exe
9810ea6752112b3569ddc096e1a72e1d	sliver
update1.exe (SFX archive)
10824d14c814524155f2b529cf5fee43	update1.exe
a36082c998391a3ebaf05ba4f834172c	backupagnt.exe
9810ea6752112b3569ddc096e1a72e1d	sliver
akolo.exe (SFX archive)
242038139842ec79ec1044c64eb0804a	akolo.exe
53ba13cc6066adfd67f8098c0a5b8dde	backupagnt.exe
9810ea6752112b3569ddc096e1a72e1d	sliver
update.exe (SFX archive)
84bb66a982710c5536143a07d84e8749	update.exe
a36082c998391a3ebaf05ba4f834172c	backupagnt.exe
9810ea6752112b3569ddc096e1a72e1d	sliver
akolo.exe (SFX archive)
fa3c222f6b53d6a2e35a54600f6aa011	akolo.exe
0b1870d57221eec6f3bbef648e71a724	backupagnt.exe
5e81f72614db42615489266be11b1d09	sliver
akolo.exe (SFX archive)
4c8a0531653b5398a35c6b1b80ff1350	akolo.exe
83f66862c0cc40da20236fd6b47138fd	backupagnt.exe
5e81f72614db42615489266be11b1d09	sliver
[REDACTED].exe (SFX archive)
56be07e46fd452315008ed246ebbf52b	[REDACTED].exe
579e8bbd6a5bcca89b5acd6fb5db32db	backupagnt.exe
dd8fea244afc8223b961f1d9d6ac8c5d	Apollo
WindowsServiceHelper.exe (SFX archive)
09d0517a1f69feff8186655ae3b567e0	WindowsServiceHelper.exe
62123c39477389d500e74e82782adea5	BlackSalt Backdoor
winexe.exe (SFX archive)
6d365de5c5a13006b7cadd6bc6876e84	winexe.exe
2f40bcee90abed0898e92521da17e52d	BlackSalt Backdoor
WindowsServiceHelper.exe (SFX archive)
6dfef58ef68fb7965a23da8be3141af9	WindowsServiceHelper.exe
56d1de3159adbfda20aca593c99901f9	BlackSalt Backdoor
[REDACTED].exe (SFX archive)
96dbdc2651d829bf9ba35674dd4bfcae	[REDACTED].exe
129225b3e93c17f131bcc2a982ffb09a	BlackSalt Backdoor
test.exe (SFX archive)
9f37fff7e5d22f83fc1c0872ad5332f9	test.exe
cf54f6cbdb4dbf1ce6fc2e5be4ca3b20	BlackSalt Backdoor
1.exe (SFX archive)
e99efd77392e2b4fe4d9bf5728a12b98	1.exe
129225b3e93c17f131bcc2a982ffb09a	BlackSalt Backdoor
WindowsServiceHelper.exe (SFX archive)
f2dc794bf93887e281ad89209493065a	WindowsServiceHelper.exe
2f40bcee90abed0898e92521da17e52d	BlackSalt Backdoor
EDR killers
d13997b1716e4c82ab454285202eafdc	killer.exe, 2.exe
ecb57d8793514aa02314417265b1853f	kil.exe, 3.exe
3b974ff986445e5944c51179d19bd6be	GhostDriver.exe

Network indicators
212.46.12[.]182
185.221.153[.]121
77.72.85[.]62
45.150.109[.]2
130.49.155[.]112
45.112.194[.]82
138.226.236[.]52
85.137.253[.]186