The vulnerability landscape shifted significantly in Q2 2026. First, the number of registered CVEs reached an unprecedented level. This is driven primarily by the widespread adoption of AI, both for application development and search for security flaws. This resulted in entire new classes of vulnerabilities emerging, particularly in the Linux networking subsystem.
Second, security researchers have been publishing exploits for unpatched vulnerabilities more frequently. Publications like these can generate significant fallout, since they potentially open the door for attackers to target unprotected systems.
Statistics on registered vulnerabilities
This section provides statistical data on registered vulnerabilities. The data comes from Kaspersky’s vulnerability knowledge base, which draws on the CVE database as well as the Russian BDU database and GitHub Advisory (GHSA). As a result, the figures for previous reporting periods may differ from those published in earlier reports.
We examine the number of registered vulnerabilities for each month over the last five years. As the chart below shows, this number continues to surge, a trend reflected across all the databases we track. It’s driven primarily by the widespread adoption of AI tools: as we predicted in our previous report, these tools have played a major role in the discovery of vulnerabilities in third-party software. Meanwhile, these tools often contain security issues of their own. For example, OpenClaw, a popular AI project, ranked 12th among those with the highest number of vulnerabilities discovered and published in Q2, with over 200 CVEs registered during the reporting period. Finally, AI development tools are also contributing to the vulnerability landscape, since the quality of the code they produce can vary widely. Therefore, the rate at which new vulnerabilities are discovered will inevitably keep growing.
Total published vulnerabilities per month from 2022 through 2026 (download)
Next, we analyze the number of new critical vulnerabilities (CVSS > 9.0) over the same period.
Total critical vulnerabilities published per month from 2022 through 2026 (download)
As the chart shows, the number of published critical vulnerabilities jumped sharply in Q2. This is because using AI for vulnerability research makes it possible to analyze massive amounts of previously unexamined code, uncover new attack surfaces, and identify entire classes of vulnerabilities that have gone unnoticed for decades. In particular, AI was used to find a series of Dirty Frag vulnerabilities in the Linux kernel.
Exploitation statistics
This section presents statistics on vulnerability exploitation for Q2 2026. The data draws on open sources and our telemetry.
Windows and Linux vulnerability exploitation
Q2 2026 saw a new precedent in the publication of vulnerabilities in Windows components and exploits for these: researchers no longer waiting for CVE registration, let alone patches. A case in point: a researcher who goes by Nightmare Eclipse (also known as Chaotic Eclipse) published a list of new “named” vulnerabilities across various Windows subsystems. At the time the technical details were published, none of the vulnerabilities had been assigned a CVE identifier:
BlueHammer: a local privilege escalation vulnerability in Windows Defender. During signature database updates, a time-of-check to time-of-use (TOCTOU) race condition occurs, allowing an attacker to substitute the directory where temporary update files are written. The researcher published a fully functional exploit for the vulnerability.
RedSun: another logical vulnerability in Windows Defender with a working exploit. Suspicious and malicious files marked as “cloud” can be overwritten or restored to their original directory with elevated privileges. The exploit incorporates fragments of algorithms that make it possible to leverage various logical vulnerabilities in Windows, effectively combining a large number of popular exploitation techniques.
YellowKey: a vulnerability that lets the user bypass BitLocker full-disk encryption and access system data through the Windows Recovery Environment (WinRE). A fully functional exploit was also published.
GreenPlasma: a vulnerability that enables system object injection via the CTF loader for the Collaborative Translation Framework (CTFMON) service in Windows. The original publication included an exploit with limited functionality.
RoguePlanet: yet another Windows Defender vulnerability that, like BlueHammer, stems from a TOCTOU issue, this time in the engine responsible for real-time system scanning. The published exploit uses the vulnerability to overwrite the system file wermgr.exe with a malicious one.
UnDefend: another vulnerability in the Windows Defender service. This time, the exploit causes a denial of service and blocks updates.
Even though such cases remain isolated for now, we believe they’ll grow into a full-fledged trend. Early publication of exploits gives attackers an advantage over software developers, who are left with no time to fix the issues.
Veteran vulnerabilities in Windows software also remain relevant. These are the ones our solutions most frequently detect exploits for:
CVE-2018-0802: a remote code execution (RCE) vulnerability in the Equation Editor component
CVE-2017-11882: another RCE vulnerability also affecting Equation Editor
CVE-2017-0199: a vulnerability in Microsoft Office and WordPad that allows an attacker to gain control over the system
CVE-2023-38831: a vulnerability in WinRAR that involves improper handling of objects within an archive
CVE-2025-6218 (formerly ZDI-CAN-27198): another WinRAR vulnerability allowing the specification of relative paths to extract files into arbitrary directories, potentially leading to malicious command execution
CVE-2025-8088: a vulnerability similar in exploitation method to CVE-2025-6218. The attackers used NTFS Streams to circumvent controls on the directory into which files are being unpacked
The vulnerabilities listed here can be leveraged to gain initial access to a vulnerable system and for privilege escalation. This underscores the critical importance of timely software updates.
That said, the number of Windows users who encountered exploits declined slightly in Q2, hitting an 18-month low.
Dynamics of the number of Windows users encountering exploits, Q1 2025 – Q2 2026. The number of users who encountered exploits in Q1 2025 is taken as 100% (download)
Linux also hit a rough patch in Q2 2026. Specifically, the period saw the disclosure of the Dirty Frag family of vulnerabilities, which lets an attacker reliably escalate privileges within the operating system.
All the vulnerabilities published in Q2 2026 were, in one way or another, related to the Linux caching subsystem. Here are the ones being most actively exploited:
CVE-2026-31431 (Copy Fail): a local privilege escalation vulnerability in the Linux kernel that lets an unprivileged user modify the page cache and gain root privileges. Especially dangerous for cloud and containerized environments
CVE-2026-43284, CVE-2026-43500 (Dirty Frag): a family of vulnerabilities in the Linux networking subsystem (IPsec ESP and RxRPC) that lets a local user overwrite the page cache and escalate privileges to root
CVE-2026-46300 (Fragnesia): a local privilege escalation vulnerability in the Linux kernel related to packet fragment handling and the page cache mechanism. It lets an unprivileged user gain root privileges and is also classified as part of the Dirty Frag family
CVE-2026-31635 (DirtyDecrypt): a Linux kernel vulnerability that lets a local attacker escalate privileges due to improper handling of decryption operations and page cache data modification
CVE-2026-43494 (PinTheft): a Linux kernel vulnerability that lets a local user gain elevated privileges due to errors in the memory page pinning mechanism
CVE-2026-46331 (pedit COW): a vulnerability in the Linux kernel’s traffic control subsystem (tc-pedit) that exploits a flaw in copy-on-write to modify the page cache and subsequently escalate privileges to root
The vulnerabilities described above were quickly embraced by attackers. At the same time, our solutions continue to detect exploitation attempts targeting older vulnerabilities as well:
CVE-2022-0847: a vulnerability known as Dirty Pipe, which enables privilege escalation and the hijacking of running applications
CVE-2019-13272: a vulnerability caused by improper handling of privilege inheritance, which can be exploited to achieve privilege escalation
CVE-2021-22555: a heap out-of-bounds write vulnerability in the Netfilter kernel subsystem
CVE-2023-32233: another Netfilter subsystem vulnerability that allows for Use-After-Free conditions and privilege escalation through improper processing of network requests
Dynamics of the number of Linux users encountering exploits, Q1 2025 – Q2 2026. The number of users who encountered exploits in Q1 2025 is taken as 100% (download)
In Q2 2026, the number of Linux users who encountered exploits declined slightly compared to Q1. Given that a significant share of new vulnerabilities are tied to the operating system’s caching subsystem, we recommend installing patches as quickly as possible, or disabling vulnerable kernel modules if patching isn’t an option.
Most common published exploits
The distribution of published exploits by software type in Q2 2026 includes categories that haven’t appeared in the sample for a long time. For instance, we’re once again seeing exploits targeting SharePoint. It’s worth noting that while several vulnerability write-ups for Exchange and SharePoint were published during the quarter, most turned out to be fake, AI-generated research. While the articles and exploit source code themselves look fairly polished, they describe nonexistent problems in the software or its components — often close to genuinely vulnerable mechanisms — in order to mislead researchers. This type of attack is aimed at increasing the time it takes to detect real vulnerabilities. In some cases, the description of a nonexistent vulnerability came bundled with completely unrelated malware.
Distribution of published exploits by platform, Q1 2026 (download)
Distribution of published exploits by platform, Q2 2026 (download)
Vulnerability exploitation in APT attacks
We analyzed which vulnerabilities were exploited in APT attacks during Q2 2026. The rankings provided below include data based on our telemetry, research, and open sources.
TOP 10 vulnerabilities exploited in APT attacks, Q2 2026 (download)
In Q2 2026, a trend emerged in APT attacks toward exploiting new vulnerabilities right from the moment they’re published. As before, we’re also seeing a large number of zero-day vulnerabilities. The Langflow vulnerability deserves particular attention: it’s one of the first cases of an APT group exploiting AI technology, which many organizations are only just beginning to integrate. Because most of this tech is proprietary, it has a considerable number of security blind spots. Therefore, given the growing number of AI-based automation tools, we strongly recommend going beyond the usual patching and developing secure procedures for credential use and sensitive data handling in systems that rely on agents and LLMs.
C2 frameworks
In this section, we examine the most popular C2 frameworks used by APT groups and analyze the vulnerabilities targeted by the exploits that interacted with C2 agents in APT attacks.
The chart below shows the frequency of known C2 framework usage in attacks during Q2 2026, according to open sources.
TOP 10 C2 frameworks used by APTs to compromise user systems, Q2 2026 (download)
Sliver, Havoc, AdaptixC2, and Metasploit remain the most widely used C2 frameworks. After studying open sources and analyzing samples of malicious C2 agents that contained exploits, we determined that the following vulnerabilities were utilized in APT attacks involving the C2 frameworks mentioned above:
CVE-2026-35273: a vulnerability in Oracle PeopleSoft PeopleTools that security vendors classify as server-side request forgery (SSRF). The details of the vulnerability have never been disclosed, although some research covers the post-exploitation steps
CVE-2023-46604: an insecure deserialization vulnerability in Apache ActiveMQ that allows arbitrary code execution in the context of the service process
CVE-2024-12356 and CVE-2026-1731: command injection vulnerabilities in BeyondTrust software that allow an attacker to send malicious commands even without system authentication
CVE-2023-36884: a vulnerability in the Windows Search component that allows commands to be run on the system, bypassing the mark-of-the-web (MoTW) mechanism
CVE-2025-53770: an insecure deserialization vulnerability in Microsoft SharePoint that allows for unauthenticated command execution on the server
CVE-2025-8088 and CVE-2025-6218: similar directory traversal vulnerabilities in WinRAR that allow files to be extracted from an archive to a predetermined path, potentially without the archiving utility displaying any alerts to the user
These vulnerabilities show that attackers used them for initial access and privilege escalation on vulnerable systems, setting the stage for launching a C2 agent. They include both zero-day vulnerabilities and fairly well-known security issues.
LLM/AI tool vulnerabilities
This section analyzes data published in Kaspersky’s vulnerability knowledge base. We reviewed the Q2 2026 version of the knowledge base.
As mentioned above, AI tools, plugins, and technologies have proven fairly effective at automating the search for problematic code and anomalous behavior. The high speed at which new vulnerabilities are being discovered has naturally created a need to fix them just as quickly. AI is often used for this too, which increases the volume of code being generated. However, neither code written without human involvement nor AI-generated advice is always correct.
The chart below covers registered vulnerabilities in AI tools for 2025–2026.
Number of published vulnerabilities in LLMs, AI tools, and plugins with similar functionality, 2025–2026 (download)
As the charts show, AI tools are racking up a substantial number of registered vulnerabilities, and that number keeps growing quarter over quarter. It’s also worth looking at how AI tool vulnerabilities break down by type, according to the CWE system:
TOP 6 vulnerability types in products that implement or use AI/LLM logic, 2025–2026
Interestingly, vulnerabilities of an undetermined type have ranked first in every quarter since the start of 2025. Traditionally-made software has the same issue, and it doesn’t look like the growing number of AI tools will fix it. It’s also notable that the list includes classes CWE developers themselves don’t recommend using for vulnerability classification, since they lump together a whole range of more specific types. CWE-284 is an example of this.
Looking at the most common classes, the key issues found in AI-related software can be summed up as follows:
Inadequate access control over critical system objects
Improper implementation of authentication and authorization mechanisms
Injections
It’s worth noting that injection-related vulnerabilities were relatively rare before AI agents took off (previously, they mostly affected web apps). Recently, though, these security issues have become relevant again.
Looking back at a year and a half of the AI boom, one conclusion stands out regarding registered vulnerabilities: AI tool developers are more focused on expanding functionality than on security. This is worth keeping in mind when using these tools. Let’s look at the projects and applications that either integrated AI tools or offered them as the core product. Below is a list of the those with the highest number of registered vulnerabilities for 2025–2026.
TOP AI/LLM-related projects by number of published vulnerabilities, 2025–2026 (download)
Notable vulnerabilities
This section highlights the most significant vulnerabilities published in Q2 2026 that have publicly available descriptions. Since the above already covers several significant vulnerabilities published during the reporting period, this section consists mainly of LLM/AI tool vulnerabilities.
CVE-2026-25253: a gatewayUrl vulnerability in OpenClaw
The issue stems from the fact that the OpenClaw user interface trusts the value of the gatewayUrl parameter passed in the URL and automatically establishes a WebSocket connection to the specified address. During this connection process, it sends an authentication token without any additional user confirmation.
The attack algorithm exploiting this vulnerability works as follows:
The application obtains a critical connection address from an external source (the gatewayUrl URL parameter), which is controlled by the attacker.
There is no validation before use.
The client automatically initiates a connection to the address specified in the parameter, which belongs to the attacker.
While connected, the application sends credentials (an access token) to the specified address.
If the attacker obtains a valid token, the consequences depend on that token’s level of access within the system. In general, this could lead to:
User session compromise
Execution of operations on the user’s behalf
Modification of the AI agent configuration
Unauthorized access to tools and resources connected to the agent
Under certain OpenClaw configurations, further compromise of the host running the agent
It’s worth noting that the risk of exploitation arises from a combination of several factors: the automatic connection and token transmission, the lack of address trust verification, and the high privileges granted to the local AI agent.
CVE-2026-41948: a path traversal vulnerability in the Dify AI platform
The vulnerability lets an authenticated user craft a request that enables the application to escape its permitted tenant and gain access to internal REST APIs that weren’t meant for that user. The root cause is insufficient normalization and validation of the URL path before it’s passed to the internal service.
Depending on the Dify configuration, the consequences can include:
Unauthorized access to internal service interfaces
Breach of isolation between workspaces
Exposure of internal service information
Conditions favorable to further attacks when combined with other vulnerabilities
The use of Dify in enterprise AI platforms is particularly risky, since internal services there tend to hold elevated privileges.
CVE-2026-45386: an improper access control vulnerability in Open WebUI
In Open WebUI, pin/unpin operations on messages are write operations, since they modify that message’s metadata (is_pinned, pinned_by, pinned_at). In vulnerable versions, however, before performing these actions, the API only checked for read access to the channel (a chat between a user or group and the AI) containing the message, not permission to modify its content. As a result, a user with a role limited to viewing messages could still change a message’s pinned status.
The vulnerability’s mechanism works as follows:
The user initiates an action that changes the state of an object.
The application treats this action as a regular read request.
Only channel view permission is checked.
The application performs a write without verifying the required user authorization.
This violates one of the fundamental principles of access control models — namely, that any operation that changes the state of data must be checked for the appropriate write or moderation permissions, regardless of whether the object itself is readable.
Although the vulnerability doesn’t lead to arbitrary code execution or compromise of sensitive data, it can affect data integrity and collaborative workflows. Potential consequences of exploitation include unauthorized pinning or unpinning of messages, disruption of channel moderators’ and administrators’ activities, changes to the display order of important information, and even the potential spread of false or misleading information by altering the channel containing a pinned message.
Open WebUI is widely used as an interface for interacting with local and enterprise LLMs. In these systems, pinned messages often contain important instructions, announcements, or tips for users. The ability to modify them with minimal privileges can disrupt collaborative workflows, cause confusion, and undermine trust in information published by administrators and moderators.
CVE-2026-45501: a vulnerability in Microsoft Exchange
The vulnerability stems from improper neutralization of user input when generating Exchange web pages. As a result, the browser may interpret specially crafted data as active content instead of plain text.
Although Microsoft categorizes the potential impact of exploiting this vulnerability as spoofing, flaws like this can lead to alteration of displayed content, imitation of trusted interfaces, actions on behalf of the user within an active session, and abuse of user trust.
It’s worth noting that issues like this are still relevant in modern software, given that mechanisms like Content Security Policy and various parsers were specifically created to help developers neutralize dangerous parts of user page content.
Conclusion and advice
Q2 brought the first significant results of AI automation adoption in software development and vulnerability hunting tools. This research shows that beyond traditional patch management, organizations now need real-time monitoring of systems and access controls, since infrastructure and everyday applications now contain far more AI functionality that could lead to compromise.
Accordingly, besides quickly detecting infrastructure vulnerabilities and managing security patches, modern enterprise-grade security solutions need to provide a broad range of preventive measures for tracking the overall health of systems and workstations. Kaspersky Next meets these requirements by combining proactive mechanisms with the ability to respond promptly to emerging threats.
The statistics in this report are based on detection verdicts returned by Kaspersky products unless otherwise stated. The information was provided by Kaspersky users who consented to sharing statistical data.
Quarterly figures
In Q2 2026:
Kaspersky products blocked nearly 400 million attacks that originated with various online resources.
Web Anti-Virus responded to 52 million unique links.
File Anti-Virus blocked more than 16 million malicious and potentially unwanted objects.
There were 2538 new ransomware variants discovered.
More than 71,000 users experienced ransomware attacks.
15% of all ransomware victims whose data was published on threat actors’ data leak sites (DLS) were attacked by Qilin.
More than 213,000 users were targeted by miners.
Ransomware
Quarterly trends and highlights
Threat actor disruption
Microsoft has dismantled an illicit malware-signing service used by ransomware operators. Microsoft’s Digital Crimes Unit has shut down a malware-signing-as-a-service (MSaaS) operation run by the threat group Fox Tempest. The illicit service abused the Microsoft Artifact Signing platform to generate digital signature certificates for malicious software. Malware signed by these certificates was observed in campaigns conducted by such ransomware groups as Rhysida, Akira, INC, Qilin, and BlackByte. The service was also leveraged by operators of the Oyster loader as well as the Lumma and Vidar infostealers. To disrupt the operation, Microsoft seized the domain used by the MSaaS platform, revoked all associated certificates, and disabled the related accounts. Additionally, the company filed a lawsuit against Fox Tempest.
Vulnerabilities and attacks
CISA has confirmed that a Windows vulnerability known as BlueHammer is actively being exploited in ransomware attacks. On April 22, the agency updated its Known Exploited Vulnerabilities (KEV) catalog to note the ongoing ransomware exploitation of CVE-2026-33825. The local privilege escalation flaw in Microsoft Defender was originally disclosed earlier in April. Although Microsoft released a fix on April 14, unpatched systems remain vulnerable. CISA did not disclose further details or attribute the attacks to specific threat groups.
Check Point has linked zero-day exploitation of CVE-2026-50751 to the Qilin ransomware group. The critical vulnerability affects Check Point Remote Access VPN and Mobile Access. Attackers began exploiting the flaw as a zero-day on May 7, with activity spiking sharply in early June. While several dozen organizations have been targeted, at least one incident has been definitively tied to Qilin. Check Point also disclosed a related certificate validation flaw (CVE-2026-50752) that affects site-to-site VPN connections relying on the legacy IKEv1 key exchange protocol.
Researchers assess with high confidence that the PayoutsKing group is leveraging the legitimate QEMU emulator to deploy hidden, Alpine Linux-based virtual machines on compromised hosts. Because security solutions often lack visibility inside virtualized environments, the threat actors use this technique to evade detection. Inside the VM image, the operators deploy various tools — such as credential theft software — and configure the virtual machine as a backdoor managed via a reverse SSH tunnel to their command-and-control infrastructure. While the technique is not new, and we’ve detailed it before, it remains relatively rare in ransomware attacks.
The most prolific groups
This section highlights the most prolific ransomware gangs by number of victims added to each group’s DLS. Qilin reclaimed the top spot (accounting for 14.57% of total listings) after placing second last quarter. It is followed by the Akira ransomware (7.80%) and the DragonForce RaaS group (6.88%).
Number of each group’s victims according to its DLS as a percentage of all groups’ victims published on all the DLSs under review during the reporting period (download)
Number of new ransomware variants
In Q2, Kaspersky solutions detected four new ransomware families and 2538 new modifications. This signals a continued stabilization following spikes seen in Q1 and Q4 of last year.
Number of new ransomware modifications, Q2 2025 — Q2 2026 (download)
Number of users attacked by ransomware Trojans
Our solutions protected a total of 71,860 unique users from ransomware during Q2. Ransomware activity peaked in April, with 31,206 targeted users recorded during that month.
Number of unique users attacked by ransomware Trojans, Q2 2026 (download)
TOP 10 countries and territories attacked by ransomware Trojans
Country/territory*
%**
1
South Korea
0.87
2
Pakistan
0.76
3
China
0.71
4
Libya
0.49
5
Tajikistan
0.46
6
Turkmenistan
0.38
7
Cameroon
0.38
8
Indonesia
0.36
9
Bangladesh
0.36
10
Mozambique
0.34
* Excluded are countries and territories with relatively few (under 50,000) Kaspersky users.
** Unique users whose computers were attacked by ransomware Trojans as a percentage of all unique users of Kaspersky products in the country/territory.
* Unique Kaspersky users attacked by the specific ransomware Trojan family as a percentage of all unique users attacked by this type of threat.
Miners
Number of new miner variants
In Q2 2026, Kaspersky solutions detected 6067 new miner variants, almost twice the number for the previous reporting period.
Number of new miner modifications, Q2 2026 (download)
Number of users attacked by miners
In Q2, we detected attacks using miner programs on the computers of 213,003 unique Kaspersky users worldwide.
Number of unique users attacked by miners, Q2 2026 (download)
TOP 10 countries and territories attacked by miners
Country/territory*
%**
1
Mali
1.56
2
Senegal
1.54
3
Tanzania
1.32
4
Panama
1.04
5
Bangladesh
1.03
6
Ethiopia
0.87
7
Costa Rica
0.67
8
Bolivia
0.67
9
Côte d’Ivoire
0.65
10
Kazakhstan
0.62
* Excluded are countries and territories with relatively few (under 50,000) Kaspersky users.
** Unique users whose computers were attacked by miners as a percentage of all unique users of Kaspersky products in the country/territory.
Attacks on macOS
Quarterly highlights
In April, Aikido researchers reported a new attack by the GlassWorm stealer, which was distributed via malicious IDE extensions on the Open VSX Registry. The payload operated by installing a secondary malicious extension across all installed IDE environments on the host machine. Ultimately, this second-stage implant exfiltrated crypto wallet data, environment variables, and other secrets. It also installed a RAT on the infected device.
In May, Socket researchers uncovered a supply chain compromise involving the popular npm package art-template. As a result of the breach, the weaponized package injected the Coruna exploit kit into web applications it was used to build. Coruna targets iOS devices.
In June, Palo Alto Networks’ Unit 42 discovered FlutterShell, a new backdoor family that targets macOS devices. Developed with the Flutter framework, the malware leverages the WebView engine to load web pages that contain malicious JavaScript. On the client side, the backdoor registers bridge functions invoked by the loaded JavaScript that allow threat actors to execute arbitrary payloads on the victim’s device. Notably, the malicious applications successfully passed Apple notarization. Although the specific samples analyzed functioned primarily as adware, the underlying architecture permits the delivery of far more sophisticated malicious payloads.
TOP 20 threats to macOS
* Unique users who encountered this malware as a percentage of all attacked users of Kaspersky security solutions for macOS (download)
* Data for the previous quarter may differ slightly from previously published data due to some verdicts being retrospectively revised.
Detections of PasivRobber spyware continued their downward trend. Meanwhile, adware and traffic-routing utilities (categorized as NetTool) rose to the top of the rankings. Additionally, Q2 saw a noticeable spike in detections for the DirtyCow exploit frequently leveraged for iPhone jailbreaking.
TOP 10 countries and territories by share of attacked users
Country/territory
%* Q1 2026
%* Q2 2026
Brazil
1.13
1.13
China
1.04
1.28
Hong Kong
0.92
0.49
Singapore
0.85
0.19
France
0.62
1.18
Mexico
0.43
0.72
India
0.41
0.42
Thailand
0.40
0.24
Germany
0.33
0.71
The Netherlands
0.31
0.62
* Unique users who encountered threats to macOS as a percentage of all unique Kaspersky users in the country/territory.
IoT threat statistics
This section presents statistics on attacks targeting Kaspersky IoT honeypots. The geographic data on attack sources is based on the IP addresses of attacking devices.
In Q2 2026, the breakdown of attacking devices and sessions that targeted Kaspersky honeypots by protocol was as follows:
Distribution of attacked services by number of unique IP addresses of attacking devices (download)
The share of SSH attacks saw a slight uptick compared to the previous quarter.
Distribution of cybercriminal sessions in Kaspersky honeypots (download)
TOP 10 threats delivered to IoT devices
Share of each threat delivered to an infected device as a result of a successful attack, out of the total number of threats delivered (download)
As is typically the case, Mirai botnet variants continue to dominate the IoT threat landscape. Activity of another prominent botnet, Prometei, also saw an increase.
Attacks on IoT honeypots
the Netherlands, Germany, and The United States accounted for the highest proportions of SSH-based attacks during this period. While the top three countries remained the same as last quarter, their relative rankings shifted.
Country/territory
Q1 2026
Q2 2026
The Netherlands
17.57%
21.18%
Germany
10.34%
16.73%
United States
23.74%
6.76%
Bulgaria
1.10%
5.50%
Sweden
2.09%
4.93%
Panama
6.34%
4.67%
Luxembourg
0.16%
4.62%
Romania
5.82%
4.06%
Vietnam
3.50%
3.91%
India
6.05%
2.78%
The percentage of Telnet-based attacks originating from Pakistan continued to climb, knocking China down to second place.
Country/territory
Q1 2026
Q2 2026
Pakistan
27.31%
36.60%
China
39.54%
35.62%
Russian Federation
8.25%
8.75%
India
4.66%
4.19%
Brazil
3.30%
3.34%
United States
0.45%
3.03%
Indonesia
6.71%
1.52%
Philippines
0.36%
0.95%
France
0.17%
0.84%
Thailand
0.55%
0.66%
Attacks via web resources
The statistics in this section are based on detection verdicts by Web Anti-Virus, which protects users when suspicious objects are downloaded from malicious or infected web pages. These malicious pages are purposefully created by cybercriminals. Websites that host user-generated content, such as message boards, as well as compromised legitimate sites, can become infected.
TOP 10 countries and territories that served as sources of web-based attacks
The following statistics show the distribution by country/territory of the sources of internet attacks blocked by Kaspersky products on user computers (web pages redirecting to exploits, sites containing exploits and other malware, botnet C&C centers, and so on). One or more web-based attacks could originate from each unique host.
To determine the geographic source of web attacks, we matched the domain name with the real IP address where the domain is hosted, then identified the geographic location of that IP address (GeoIP).
In Q2 2026, Kaspersky solutions blocked 399,312,961 attacks launched from internet resources worldwide. Web Anti-Virus was triggered by 52,850,592 unique URLs.
Web-based attacks by country/territory, Q1 2026 (download)
Countries and territories where users faced the greatest risk of online infection
To assess the risk of malware infection via the internet for users’ computers in different countries and territories, we calculated the share of Kaspersky users in each location on whose computers Web Anti-Virus was triggered during the reporting period. The resulting data provides an indication of the aggressiveness of the environment in which computers operate in different countries and territories.
This ranked list includes only attacks by malicious objects classified as Malware. Our calculations leave out Web Anti-Virus detections of potentially dangerous or unwanted programs, such as RiskTool or adware.
Country/territory*
%**
1
Bangladesh
11.71
2
India
7.40
3
Tajikistan
7.13
4
Venezuela
7.05
5
New Zealand
6.58
6
Vietnam
6.34
7
Taiwan
6.28
8
Belgium
6.24
9
France
5.97
10
Hungary
5.92
11
Nepal
5.91
12
Portugal
5.86
13
Italy
5.77
14
Costa Rica
5.72
15
Canada
5.65
16
Qatar
5.61
17
Dominican Republic
5.52
18
Palestine
5.48
19
Greece
5.47
20
UAE
5.43
* Excluded are countries and territories with relatively few (under 10,000) Kaspersky product users.
** Unique users targeted by web-based Malware attacks as a percentage of all unique users of Kaspersky products in the country/territory.
On average during the quarter, 4.54% of users’ computers worldwide were subjected to at least one Malware web attack.
Local threats
Statistics on local infections of user computers are an important indicator. They include objects that penetrated the target computer by infecting files or removable media, or initially made their way onto the computer in non-open form. Examples of the latter are programs in complex installers and encrypted files.
Data in this section is based on analyzing statistics produced by anti-virus scans of files on the hard drive at the moment they were created or accessed, and the results of scanning removable storage media. The statistics are based on detection verdicts from the On-Access Scan (OAS) and On-Demand Scan (ODS) modules of File Anti-Virus and include detections of malicious programs located on user computers or removable media connected to the computers, such as flash drives, camera memory cards, phones, or external hard drives.
In Q2 2026, our File Anti-Virus detected 16,986,351 malicious and potentially unwanted objects.
Countries and territories where users faced the highest risk of local infection
For each country and territory, we calculated the percentage of Kaspersky users whose computers had the File Anti-Virus triggered at least once during the reporting period. These statistics reflect the level of personal computer infection in different countries.
Note that this ranked list includes only attacks by malicious objects classified as Malware. Our calculations leave out File Anti-Virus detections of potentially dangerous or unwanted programs, such as RiskTool or adware.
Country/territory*
%**
1
Turkmenistan
46.38
2
Cuba
29.70
3
Tajikistan
28.46
4
Afghanistan
28.19
5
Yemen
27.85
6
Burundi
26.82
7
Mozambique
25.01
8
Republic of the Congo
24.88
9
Syria
23.17
10
Uzbekistan
22.49
11
China
21.92
12
Nicaragua
21.60
13
Cameroon
21.47
14
Bangladesh
20.43
15
Democratic Republic of the Congo
20.25
16
Algeria
19.78
17
Uganda
19.48
18
Ethiopia
18.57
19
Tanzania
18.54
20
Mali
18.53
* Excluded are countries and territories with relatively few (under 10,000) Kaspersky users.
** Unique users on whose computers Malware local threats were blocked, as a percentage of all unique users of Kaspersky products in the country/territory.
On average worldwide, Malware local threats were detected at least once on 10.93% of users’ computers during Q2.
The new GenieLocker ransomware family has been active since March 2026. It has been used in attacks against organizations in the Russian Federation, primarily in the manufacturing sector, and attributed to the Toy Ghouls group by open-source intelligence (link in Russian).
The Toy Ghouls, also known as Bearlyfy, Labubu and Laboo.boo, is a financially motivated extortion group, which previously relied on third-party encryption Trojans like RedAlert, LockBit, and Babuk. GenieLocker, apparently a custom design, upgrades their toolkit and reduces their reliance on third-party software. We discovered multiple samples of this Trojan in two variants: PE builds for Windows and ELF builds for Linux and ESXi.
Technical details
Modus operandi
We described typical TTPs and modus operandi of the Toy Ghouls threat actor in the previous post (link in Russian).
In this article, we aim to thoroughly describe the capabilities of Windows and Linux builds of the custom encryption Trojan GenieLocker. To give more context, we will also provide a brief overview of the attack that took place at the end of March 2026, where GenieLocker was deployed on the victim’s systems.
Initial Access
During the incident, the attackers first entered the environment through an OpenVPN connection originating from an external partner’s network. They likely exploited the trusted relationship with that partner and used stolen, yet still valid, credentials to connect.
Discovery and Credential Access
After breaching the target’s network, the attackers installed additional tools on the compromised hosts, including OpenSSH, socks5.exe, SoftPerfect Network Scanner, and Mimikatz. They employed SoftPerfect Network Scanner for discovery and used Mimikatz to dump credentials. Forensic analysis also shows that they accessed the KeePassXC password manager already installed on several compromised machines, likely attempting to extract the stored credentials from the KeePass databases.
Lateral Movement and Command and Control
Lateral movement was performed by using RDP to reach Windows machines and SSH for Linux servers. The widespread deployment of the encryption Trojan was conducted with the legitimate utilities PsExec and PAExec. Additionally, the attackers established a reverse SSH tunnel to communicate with their command‑and‑control server.
Impact
During the impact phase, the attackers encrypted files on the compromised Windows machines with the PE version of the GenieLocker ransomware. On the compromised Linux and ESXi servers, they stopped active virtual machines and encrypted their disks using the ELF version of GenieLocker.
The tactics, techniques, and procedures seen here match those documented in earlier attacks attributed to the Toy Ghouls group. As in those prior incidents, forensic analysis found no evidence of data exfiltration, which is typical behavior for this threat actor. Toy Ghouls have not employed a double‑extortion model and do not run a data‑leak website.
Encryption Trojan for Windows
The Windows version of GenieLocker (MD5: 5d62c1349b8981c396c9a23f4f8f053c) is primarily written in C, but compiled with the C++ libraries using Microsoft Visual C/C++. The malware incorporates several ransom‑related capabilities, including process termination, service shutdown, debugger evasion, and a sophisticated encryption routine. For its cryptographic operations, it relies on the open‑source libsodium library.
Aligned with the recent trend supported by our expertise, as observed in attacks of some other ransomware strains, GenieLocker doesn’t save the ransom notes on the victim’s system. The Trojan doesn’t contain any attackers’ contact info or negotiation addresses. Instead, the attackers will need to deliver the ransom demands and contacts manually during the attack. This approach may be an attempt by the GenieLocker developers to avoid proactive detection of the ransomware process being triggered by the creation of multiple readme files.
GenieLocker help message
Arguments and launch
GenieLocker supports multiple arguments for configuring its behavior.
Argument
Description
First argument
“Secret” argument, hex string value
-p, –percent N
Percentage of file content to encrypt
-r, –recursive
Process directories recursively
-l, –log <filename>
Set path for log file
-h, –help
Show help message
Last argument
Path to encrypt
GenieLocker expects the first argument to be a hex string referred to in the malware code as the “secret argument”, which is required for the ransomware to start. Most likely, the purpose of this is to avoid execution on sandboxes and other automated analysis environments. Another reason may be to prevent unauthorized usage by other threat actors.
Checking the secret argument
The secret argument is a hex value with a variable size that does not exceed 4096 bytes. This hex string value is converted to bytes and hashed with the SHA‑256 algorithm. The result is compared to a hardcoded value. If they match, the literal string session is appended to the secret value, and the whole string is hashed with BLAKE2b‑256, but the resulting hash is never used. This may be a part of a feature still in development.
Secret value hashing
Anti-debugging
GenieLocker contains multiple methods to inspect if its process is under debugging. After launch it makes the first check named Environment check and uses WinAPI functions IsDebuggerPresent and CheckRemoteDebuggerPresent to detect the debugger.
Environment check
After the secret argument validation, GenieLocker starts a new parallel thread called watchdog. It runs in an infinite loop that performs a number of checks to detect well-known debuggers every 500 milliseconds. If at least one of the checks fails, the whole GenieLocker process immediately terminates.
Watchdog checks
The only thing worth elaborating on is that the GenieLocker process calculates the CRC32 of its .text section when the watchdog thread is starting, saves the resulting hash, and then recalculates it again in every loop and compares with the initial value. In case the code in this section is modified by the debugger or other program, this method allows the Trojan to detect this modification.
Preparing for encryption
GenieLocker contains multiple exclusion lists. For example, it does not encrypt folders with names from the list below. Among those, there are mostly system folders, which are skipped to avoid corrupting the OS.
Furthermore, the Trojan contains an exclusion list for host names. The malware retrieves the computer name using GetComputerNameA and checks it against this list, but in the sample in question, the list is empty.
Output for whitelisted hosts
If the host name is not excluded, GenieLocker starts to kill processes that could be using the files of interest and therefore prevent the Trojan from encrypting them. These processes are listed below. The Trojan stops them by using the TerminateProcess function.
Finally, GenieLocker starts encryption threads and searches for all available drives, including network shares, to encrypt them.
Threads info output
File encryption and cryptography
The extension for the encrypted files is hardcoded in the Trojan’s body. In the sample under review, it is .03ffc1c4a3da0f02. Before starting to encrypt each file, GenieLocker creates two auxiliary files:
a lock file: <filename.fileext>.03ffc1c4a3da0f02.lock
a journal: <fileext>.03ffc1c4a3da0f02.journal
The lock file helps to protect files from double encryption by other threads or instances. Inside this file, the Trojan stores the current PID obtained from the GetCurrentProcessId function.
The journal file contains the hardcoded string VCJOURN, value 1 (possibly version), some unused zeroed fields, total blocks to encrypt, and the count of blocks that are actually encrypted. The last field is a CRC32 hash sum for the integrity check of the journal content.
Journal content
By default GenieLocker encrypts files using 0x1000000-byte chunks. If the argument -p is passed (it sets the percentage of the file contents to be encrypted), the ransomware calculates how many chunks with 0x1000000 size are necessary to encrypt the specified percentage. Each chunk has a random position inside the file. Regardless of whether the percentage is set, even if it is zero, the first chunk in the beginning of the file will be encrypted anyway.
The Trojan encrypts the file content using the Authenticated Encryption with Associated Data (AEAD) algorithm XChaCha20-Poly1305, with a unique key and nonce for each file. The Trojan also adds a footer that contains the data necessary for future decryption and metadata. The metadata parts are encrypted using the same cipher and key as the file contents, but with a different nonce. The file key is encrypted using the Curve25519-XSalsa20-Poly1305 scheme, with the attackers’ master public key hardcoded in the Trojan’s body.
The metadata of each encrypted file contains the following fields.
Value or name
Size (bytes)
Description
version
1
Hardcoded byte with value 1, most likely the version.
encryption_percent
1
Percentage of file content to encrypt, value from -p argument.
file_nonce
24
Nonce used during encryption of the file content.
original_filesize
8
Original size of the file before encryption.
total_chunk_count
8
Max count of chunks inside the current file.
chunk_size
4
Size of a single encrypted chunk (by default, 0x1000000 bytes on Windows and 0x400000 on ESXi and Linux).
remain_size
4
The number of bytes remaining after splitting the file content into chunks.
blake2b_digest_of_chunks
32
BLAKE2b-256 hash calculated from the original data of all chunks before they are encrypted. Used for integrity checks.
chunk_count
4
Number of chunks that were encrypted.
extension
64
A string with the additional ransomware extension.
poly1305_tags (array)
16 bytes per chunk
Array of Poly1305 tags of encrypted chunks.
bitmask
varies, one bit per each chunk
Chunks bitmask; if set, the chunk is encrypted; otherwise, it is not.
The chunks bitmask contains as many bits as the maximum number of chunks inside a file at 100%. If a bit at a specific index is set to 1, the chunk is encrypted. The value 0 means that the chunk is not encrypted. Since the Trojan encrypts files based on the percentage value, it needs to know which chunks were encrypted.
Metadata structure at the end of an encrypted file (without a Poly1305 tags array or bitmask)
Encryption Trojan for ESXi and Linux
Compared with its Windows counterpart, the Linux and ESXi version of GenieLocker (MD5: 9201e35e2993612612919a3c71302cab) is simpler: there is no secret argument, anti‑debugging techniques, or exclusion lists. However, the sample has ESXi-specific features, such as double‑fork support and the ability to modify the Welcome Message. The sample has the version v1 and, similarly to the Windows version, uses the libsodium library for cryptography.
ESXi version description
The command‑line help output mirrors LockBit’s styling, reinforcing the theory that GenieLocker’s creators set out to craft a LockBit‑style replacement for their own operations.
LockBit output design, possibly the source layout for the GenieLocker ESXi variant
Based on the default path of the encryption directory /vmfs/volumes, we can assume that this version is intended primarily for ESXi. Nonetheless, it can still be executed on Linux distributions.
Argument
Description
-p <perc>
Percentage of file content to encrypt
-j <workers>
Number of encryption threads
-r <dir>
Process directories recursively
-w <sec>
Delay before start
-d
Daemonizing the process
-l <logfile>
Path to log file
ESXi and Linux features
This build allows daemonizing its process with the -d flag, employing the classic double‑fork method so the new process becomes fully detached from its parent.
This variant also modifies the /etc/vmware/welcome file, which contains the Welcome Message (Message of the Day) on the ESXi operating system. On Linux distributions, it does not change anything, because they use different paths for the Message of the Day. In the GenieLocker sample examined here, the message is left empty.
Additionally, the ESXi version supports a few basic features that are not included in the Windows version. For instance, there is a launch‑delay option and the ability to set the number of encryption worker threads. This build also includes several features that already exist in the Windows variant, such as configuring the percentage of a file to encrypt, choosing the target directory, and setting the log file location.
File encryption
The encryption scheme for files is identical to the Windows version. The Trojan uses XChaCha20-Poly1305 to encrypt the file content and metadata, and Curve25519-XSalsa20-Poly1305 for key encryption.
File encryption summary
Victims
According to KSN telemetry, GenieLocker detections are overwhelmingly concentrated on endpoints located in the Russian Federation. In the March 2026 campaign, the primary sector under siege was manufacturing, with construction trailing closely, followed by financial services, retail, and technology.
Conclusions
Toy Ghouls are ramping up their campaign against Russian enterprises. The rollout of their home‑grown encryption Trojan GenieLocker marks a major upgrade to the group’s ransomware toolkit. By engineering bespoke ransomware that runs natively on Windows, Linux, and ESXi, the actor has cut their dependence on off‑the‑shelf ransomware families and unified the cryptographic backbone across all targeted platforms.
Kaspersky’s products detect this malware as Trojan-Ransom.Win64.Agent.genie, HEUR:TrojanRansom.Win64.Generic, Trojan-Ransom.Linux.Agent.genie.
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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
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.
Periodically perform a software inventory audit to identify unauthorized remote management tools. Consider collecting data from the following registry keys on all hosts:
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.
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:
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.
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.
Login
