Back in October 2022, Kaspersky GReAT was looking into a peculiar advertisement on a hacking forum. A cybercriminal had been advertising a UEFI bootkit, dubbed BlackLotus, that could bypass Secure Boot, for $5,000. Given the low price for such powerful capabilities, the cybersecurity community initially took this advertisement with a grain of salt. As no BlackLotus samples were found in the wild, no one could at the time verify the claims made in the forum post.
BlackLotus advertisement
However, about half a year later, in March 2023, ESET confirmed that the BlackLotus advertisement was genuine. The researchers tracked down samples of this bootkit and confirmed that it can indeed bypass Secure Boot through a vulnerability called Baton Drop (CVE-2022-21894). As this vulnerability was still exploitable in 2023, Microsoft had to release multiple security updates to address it.
Since the release of these updates, the BlackLotus bootkit has gone quiet — no publicly known attacks have used it. Yet in early 2026, we discovered a malware sample similar to BlackLotus that was used in an APT campaign in Central Asia. In this report, we share our findings, including new payloads and possible attribution of this campaign.
The return of the infamous bootkit
In early 2026 we identified a complex APT attack targeting diplomatic agencies in Central Asian countries — namely Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, and Turkmenistan. This attack involved a UEFI bootkit that we dubbed BlackX. Having examined it, we found it to be similar to BlackLotus.
Attackers have been deploying BlackX after compromising the victim machine networks and obtaining administrator privileges. To install the bootkit, we observed them dropping the following files:
inst.exe, an installer executable
PVMDIJGKAX2, an RC4-encrypted extensionless file containing files and strings required for the installation
The installer was launched with the command line C:\ProgramData\Intel\inst.exe PVMDIJGKAX2 Q46F6MDLI3RX2KV1. The last argument here is the RC4 key used for decryption.
Curiously, the file inst.exe does not contain any malicious strings or embedded blobs. All the files needed to install the malicious payload are inside PVMDIJGKAX2, which makes it harder for incident responders to retrieve the bootkit components.
The installer package drops a set of files to both system and UEFI partitions, designed to exploit the Baton Drop vulnerability. We noted that the implementation of the exploit is remarkably similar to the one used in the BlackLotus malware. As with BlackLotus, the goal of the exploit is to install custom Machine Owner Keys (MOK), which allows loading arbitrary EFI files on the target machines to manipulate Secure Boot.
While the vulnerability exploitation chain was implemented very similarly to BlackLotus, we spotted differences between the exploits in BlackLotus and BlackX. That said, the source code of the BlackLotus bootkit has never been published online. This could mean that the attackers behind BlackX either reverse-engineered the BlackLotus bootkit or purchased its source code from cybercriminals. Either way, this is an interesting observation, as we rarely see APT actors borrow ideas or code from cybercrime actors.
Payload launched by the bootkit
The UEFI payload delivered during the Baton Drop exploitation has a classic bootkit goal — to inject a malicious driver into the Windows kernel. This driver differs from the one deployed by BlackLotus and is signed with a certificate belonging to an organization named 温江区明宇网络技术服务工作室 (English: Wenjiang District Mingyu Network Technology Service Studio). At the time of writing, this certificate (serial number: 0bcdf5e0da32d68900b8b7638459d072) has been revoked by its issuer.
The driver aims to tamper with security solutions installed on the machine. For example, it disables process, thread, and registry callbacks related to security solutions. It also tampers with ETW providers so that security solutions cannot access their output. Curiously, some of the tampering procedures are designed to run only if Kaspersky or Avast solutions are installed on the infected machine. However, during dynamic analysis of this driver, we found that these procedures are useless — they fail to interfere with Kaspersky products in any way.
The driver also protects the bootkit’s files from tampering. It intercepts kernel requests to open these files and returns a handle to calc.exe instead of a malicious file handle.
User-mode second-stage payloads
Apart from tampering with security solutions, the driver also deploys a user-mode payload. We observed two such payloads, used for cyberespionage, in the wild. One of them is a RAT that can load further-stage .NET payloads. This RAT uses cloud storage for C2 server communications — we observed its versions using Google Drive, OneDrive, and Yandex.Disk. Having connected to a cloud storage service, this RAT iterates over files available there and interprets them depending on the file suffix. Below is a list of supported suffixes:
File suffix
Description
Type
0X01
A .NET file. The task is to parse it and run the method TEST.Class1.RunCMD(argument_array) from the module
Input
0X02
Result of the call TEST.Class1.RunCMD(argument_array)
Output
0X03
Task to upload a file to the drive
Input
0X04
Uploaded file
Output
0X05
Task to download a file to an infected machine
Input
0X06
File download status
Output
SSSR
Contains initial system info
Output
We also observed another payload delivered through the bootkit, which we dubbed OxiDLLRunner. It is a malicious DLL obfuscated with OLLVM. It is loaded by the legitimate file googleupdate.exe (original filename: jcef_helper.exe, MD5: AF8A983B9ADA07EAE1259BF2953ABD40), which is also delivered by the bootkit. The DLL decrypts the contents of the file v8_context_snapshot.bin, which resides in the same folder, and then jumps to the beginning of the decrypted content. The decrypted data starts with shellcode followed by a PE file, which is a Rust payload designed to communicate with the www[.]archivetj[.]com C2 server. During communication, this payload is supposed to receive DLL files exporting a function named create_plugin, which are then executed in separate threads.
Attribution
Based on the following facts, we have attributed this attack to the APT41 threat actor with medium confidence:
In June 2026, ESET published a blog post on attacks by the FishMonger threat actor, which the community assumes to be related to APT41. This post describes a kernel implant with a PDB path starting with C:\Users\xdd\Desktop. While describing the campaign, the post also suggests the possible use of an unspecified UEFI bootkit component, which might exploit CVE‑2023‑24932. We observed the identifier “xdd” used multiple times in the BlackX bootkit payloads, so we assess that BlackX is the UEFI bootkit referenced in the ESET blog post;
The payloads deployed by BlackX are loaded using a legitimate executable abused via DLL sideloading, and an encrypted file — this pattern is common among Chinese-speaking threat actors;
The OxiDLLRunner file has been obfuscated with OLLVM, an obfuscator commonly used by Chinese-speaking actors.
Why did the target organizations get infected?
During our initial analysis of BlackX, we thought that attackers succeeded in deploying it due to the negligence of the target organizations. Baton Drop, the vulnerability used to deploy BlackX, was disclosed back in 2023 and was patched, so we first thought that the infected machines lacked the relevant updates. However, our investigation proved this wrong — the targeted machines were fully patched.
Instead, we found out that the problem was with the patch itself. As it turned out, the patch for the Baton Drop vulnerability is designed to revoke the “Windows Production PCA 2011” certificate used to sign vulnerable UEFI components. However, this revocation does not happen automatically upon patch installation — the user has to trigger it manually. This is done with the following steps:
A registry flag is set inside HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Control\Secureboot;
A scheduled task named Secure-Boot-Update is created.
This patch is designed to be applied manually — for instance, applying it automatically could break dual-boot systems relying on the “Windows Production PCA 2011” certificate to load. At the same time, this patch deployment practice creates a problem — as it is extremely unusual for a system administrator to take extra steps after installing an update. Usually, when applying patches, system administrators take no further action unless an installation failure occurs. These instructions for activating the patch are buried deep on the Microsoft website, and we assess that they are quite hard for an average IT administrator to notice.
Curiously, Microsoft’s plan for deploying the Baton Drop patches mentions an “Enforcement Phase” that involves revoking the “Windows Production PCA 2011” certificate automatically, without user interaction. At the time of publishing this post, this stage has not been implemented. On October 19, 2026, this certificate expired, but this does not prevent the vulnerable binaries from loading unless the certificate is blocklisted.
It is likely that the threat actor behind this campaign took into account that few organizations realized the importance of manually activating the Baton Drop patch. As such, we believe they decided to invest time in understanding how BlackLotus works and creating a copycat of this bootkit.
Conclusion
Patch management is important for every organization, as updates from vendors help protect software and hardware against known vulnerabilities. However, sometimes installed patches fail to protect against the flaws they address. The BlackLotus story we described is not the only such example — for instance, in 2025 Microsoft released an update against the ToolShell vulnerability that also had to be applied manually.
However, modern security solutions are designed to account for such cases when installed patches fail to protect against security flaws for one reason or another. For instance, the Exploit Prevention component available in Kaspersky products prevents exploits from running if the patch is not applied, or if it is a zero-day vulnerability with no available patch. It is thus crucial to equip all machines in an organization with security solutions and constantly monitor the alerts they raise.
While monitoring Mirage Kitten activity, we uncovered a previously undocumented malware family that we dubbed NodeRabbit. We identified the first sample on a system in Afghanistan. Further threat hunting revealed two additional, more advanced, variants: one on a system in Egypt and another on a system in Ethiopia.
NodeRabbit is a cross-platform remote access trojan (RAT) built with Node.js. It targets Windows, Linux, and macOS. Its operators deliver it through spear-phishing messages on LinkedIn and other job search platforms that contain trojanized coding challenge archives.
During the same investigation, we discovered another previously undocumented malware family that we dubbed PollCat. Like NodeRabbit, PollCat is a cross-platform RAT, but it is written in obfuscated JavaScript also distributed through trojanized coding challenge archives.
Mirage Kitten has historically relied on native malware written in languages such as C, C++, and Go, often deploying it through DLL search-order hijacking. NodeRabbit and PollCat represent the first publicly documented use of Node.js- and JavaScript-based malware by this APT group.
Kaspersky’s products detect this threat as Trojan.JS.MirageKitten.*
Background
During recent threat research, we detected suspicious activity on a system in Afghanistan. We traced it to an archive containing a software development project that the user may have received during a job application process. The archive purported to contain a coding challenge for candidates applying for an engineering role.
The archive, Front-Technical-Challenge.zip (MD5: 1EA83E4E4592B01E4ACAB63EB867BEE5), was hosted in an Amazon S3 bucket at: https://oracle-challenge.s3[.]us-east-1.amazonaws[.]com/Front-Technical-Challenge.zip
It contained TaskFlow, an app for software engineering assessment built with Express, React, and Vite. The accompanying README instructed the candidate to review the application and fix defects in its frontend. It also claimed that server.js was bug-free and should not be modified, conveniently directing attention away from the only application source file the attackers had altered.
README file for a trojanized coding challenge app
The README also imposed a three-hour time limit and prohibited the use of AI assistants. Notably, an AI code-review assistant tasked with auditing the project would likely have flagged the suspicious first-line import of an unknown npm package and warned the targeted developer that the project was trojanized.
Rules and time limit included in the trojanized coding challenge app README file
The first line of server.js imported a trojanized npm package named colorized_terminal, version 2.1.0. The attackers bundled the package directly in the challenge task archive’s node_modules directory rather than publishing it to the npm registry. When imported, the package silently launched an implant from node_modules/.cache/.320697f1/index.js as a detached background process.
Retrospective threat hunting across our telemetry revealed the broader scope of the campaign. We identified three NodeRabbit variants with a shared code lineage; each was recovered from a system in a different country. The operators delivered the variants through similarly themed coding challenges and used two trojanized packages, colorized_terminal and pretty-log, both pinned to version 2.1.0.
The campaign also delivered PollCat, a second RAT with a substantially different structure, through a separate coding challenge lure. We’ll analyze PollCat later in this research.
Initial access
The infection chain begins with fake recruiter accounts contacting prospective targets on a job search platform. According to a publicly cited source, a threat actor posing as a talent acquisition specialist at a major technology company contacted a software engineer and advertised a job opening, inviting the target to complete a technical assessment.
The target received a link to a coding challenge hosted on Amazon S3 and was pressured to download and run the project immediately. This public post matches the delivery chain we reconstructed from our telemetry: recruiter outreach on a job search platform, a coding challenge presented as a technical assessment, and a trojanized project archive hosted on legitimate cloud infrastructure.
NodeRabbit RAT: the first variant
We discovered the first NodeRabbit variant on a system in Afghanistan. The malware was concealed within the TaskFlow assessment at node_modules/.cache/.320697f1/index.js and executed by the trojanized colorized_terminal package.
Once running, NodeRabbit generates a unique agent identifier from available host information. It calculates the SHA-256 hash of the hostname, username, operating system version, architecture, and MAC address, then truncates the result to its first 32 hexadecimal characters.
NodeRabbit binds a TCP listener to 127.0.0.1:48739. This listener acts as a single-instance mechanism. If the malware cannot bind to the port, it assumes that another instance is already running and terminates silently.
NodeRabbit uses a persistence mechanism for each operating system:
Operating system
Persistence mechanism
Windows
Copies itself to %APPDATA%\Microsoft\EdgeUpdate\msedge_update.js; clones the local node.exe to nodew.exe in the same folder and patches its PE subsystem from Console to Windows GUI to suppress the console window; creates HKCU\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Run\MicrosoftEdgeUpdate registry key executing nodew.exe msedge_update.js
Linux
Copies itself to ~/.config/microsoft-edge-update/msedge_update.js and creates an @reboot cron entry that invokes the script using the current Node.js executable.
macOS
Copies itself to ~/.config/microsoft-edge-update, creates ~/Library/LaunchAgents/com.microsoft.edgeupdate.plist configuration file pointing at the copy’s location with RunAtLoad and KeepAlive parameters, and attempts to load it.
The malware communicates with its command-and-control servers through three API endpoints, choosing from the following Azure-hosted C2 infrastructure addresses. On failure, it switches to the next C2 address:
NodeRabbit serializes each C2 request object as JSON and wraps it with AES-256-GCM. The AES key is the SHA-256 digest of an ASCII seed embedded into the agent. Every request uses a fresh 12-byte IV and a 16-byte authentication tag:
The malware sends encrypted requests using the following structure:
C2 responses are structured the same way and may contain a command to execute. We observed the first NodeRabbit variant supporting 11 commands:
Command
Functionality
sys:info
Return hostname, domain user information, username, and process ID.
proc:list
List running processes.
proc:start
Execute an arbitrary shell command.
fs:list
List a directory.
fs:read
Read a file in chunks and return Base64 data.
fs:write
Decode Base64 and write it at a chosen file offset.
fs:delete
Delete a file or recursively delete a directory.
fs:mkdir
Create directories recursively.
net:config
Enumerate adapters, MAC addresses, IP addresses, and DNS settings.
agent:sleep
Change the beacon interval.
script:exec
Write a base64 Node.js script to a randomly named .tmp file, execute it and delete it.
NodeRabbit RAT: the second variant
Retrospective threat hunting following the discovery in Afghanistan led us to a second infection on a system in Egypt. This sample is a more advanced NodeRabbit variant, launched through the trojanized pretty-log package instead of colorized_terminal.
Before running its core functionality, the malware checks whether the host resembles an analysis environment. It terminates if it detects limited system memory, a low CPU count, short system uptime, analyst-associated usernames or hostnames, or common analysis tools running on the system.
Before terminating, the malware generates benign HEAD requests to www.google.com, www.microsoft.com, and www.cloudflare.com, then exits without ever contacting its C2 infrastructure. Most likely, it attempts to look less suspicious by showing some benign activity before exiting.
Variant 2 implements partial corporate proxy support: it checks HTTP(S) proxy environment variables, Windows Internet Settings, including an explicit PAC URL, and WinHTTP configuration; tunnels its HTTPS C2 through HTTP CONNECT. It first tries to establish an unauthenticated connection. If it fails, it retries using URL-embedded basic credentials. Finally, it delegates Windows NTLM/Negotiate challenges to curl.exe --proxy-anyauth --proxy-user. It caches the proxy-discovery result, including when no proxy is found, for five minutes. If the polling loop detects a network-interface or IP-address change, it clears the cache and runs proxy discovery again on the next checkin.
To make sure a single instance is running, Variant 2 uses a host-specific port derived from the agent identifier instead of the fixed TCP port used by the first variant. It interprets the first four hexadecimal characters of the identifier as an integer and applies the following calculation: 41984 + (value mod 5000).
The resulting listener port falls between 41984 and 46983. Unlike the shared port used by Variant 1, this port varies depending on the infected host.
For persistence, Variant 2 masquerades as Intel Driver & Support Assistant. The exact persistence mechanism, once again, depends on the operating system.
Operating system
Persistence mechanism
Windows
Copies itself to %LOCALAPPDATA%\Intel\DSA\idriver_support.js. It then copies the local node.exe binary to IntelDSA.exe and changes its PE subsystem from Console to Windows GUI, suppressing the console window. Finally, it creates a scheduled task named IntelDriverSupportUpdate, which runs daily at 10AM and executes IntelDSA.exe with the dropped script.
Linux
Copies itself to ~/.config/intel-dsa/idriver_support.js and creates an @reboot cron entry.
macOS
Copies itself to ~/Library/Application Support/Intel DSA/idriver_support.js and creates the LaunchAgent com.intel.dsa.helper with RunAtLoad and KeepAlive enabled.
NodeRabbit RAT: the third variant
Further threat hunting identified a third NodeRabbit variant on a system in Ethiopia. Like the second variant, it is launched through the trojanized pretty-log package. It retains much of the previous variant’s functionality but introduces significant changes to its command-and-control configuration, command set, and persistence mechanisms.
The third variant communicates with its C2 infrastructure through a different set of API endpoints:
Method
Endpoint
Purpose
POST
/sdk/v2/ready
Register agent and host info
POST
/sdk/v2/config
Poll for commands
POST
/sdk/v2/events
Submit results
We observed the malware using a C2 chain composed of Azure- and Cloudflare-hosted domains.
For persistence, Variant 3 implements the following mechanisms depending on the operating system in use:
Operating system
Persistence mechanism
Windows
Attempts to copy the payload to ProgramData or LocalAppData, create a build-specific daily 10AM task, and start the copied payload. To choose the exact directory, it tries to list C:\Windows\System32\config. If successful, it selects ProgramData with /ru SYSTEM /rl highest; in case of a failure, it selects LocalAppData without explicit /ru or /rl settings.
macOS
Copies the payload to ~/Library/Application Support, creates and loads a RunAtLoad/KeepAlive LaunchAgent and starts the copied payload.
Linux
Copies the payload to ~/.local/share, attempts to add an @reboot cron entry, and starts the copied payload. If crontab -l fails, persistence is skipped.
WSL
Uses the payload copied for persistence on the main Linux system, as described above. Writes launcher.vbs under the Windows user profile, and creates a daily 10AM Windows task that relaunches it through wscript.exe and wsl.exe.
A new command, agent:servers, replaces the active in-memory C2 server list and can write the updated list to .sv.json. The third variant retains the original 11 commands and adds 12 new ones, bringing the total to 23.
New commands
Functionality
fs:drives
Enumerate accessible Windows drive letters or WSL-mounted drives
proc:exec
Execute a process
proc:kill
Kill process by PID or image name
agent:servers
Replace the active C2 and attempt to keep the new configuration
agent:getchain
Return the current C2
outlook:emails
Harvest account addresses from Outlook OST and PST artifacts
persist:check
Check selected VS Code, scheduled-task, and Run-key persistence indicators
persist:vscode
Attempt to install a fake VS Code extension and Windows Run value
persist:vscode:remove
Remove the fake extension
persist:projects:scan
Search recent and common development locations for Git repositories
persist:project:inject
Inject a launcher into a repository’s Git hooks
persist:project:remove
Remove the marked Git-hook launcher
Beyond the persistence mechanisms described above, Variant 3 introduces two additional persistence mechanisms that relaunch the malware through common developer workflows.
1. Malicious VS Code extension
The persist:vscode command first copies the payload to its build-specific install path. If a compatible extension directory exists, it creates a fake extension displayed as GitHub Copilot Helper, with the description AI coding assistant helper service and the activation event on StartupFinished.
The extension’s extension.js file attempts to start the installed payload as a detached Node.js process. To look less suspicious to the user, it uses a trusted publisher name borrowed from local extension metadata or a trustedPublishers value found in state.vscdb. However, no signature or trusted status is copied.
Separately, the handler tries to disable Workspace Trust if the VS Code User directory exists. On Windows, it attempts to establish persistence using a current-user Run registry key value even if the extension directory is missing.
2. Git hook injection
Git-hook persistence works in two steps. First, persist:projects:scan checks recent VS Code workspace paths directly. Under common locations such as ~/projects and ~/source, it checks only the first 60 immediate children, not the root itself, and returns no more than 20 repositories.
For a selected repository, persist:project:inject appends a marked launcher to .git/hooks/post-merge and .git/hooks/post-checkout by default. The marker is # shepherd-persist; the line following the marker attempts to start the installed payload with Node in the background. A later Git operation must trigger one of those hooks, and the referenced Node executable and payload must still exist.
PollCat RAT
While tracking NodeRabbit infections, we discovered another malicious tool we dubbed PollCat, which is also distributed under the guise of a programming challenge. The sample we obtained resides inside RankChallenge-react, a React code-fixing challenge presented as a time-limited developer assessment. Running the project invokes npm i && node index.js, which starts the local application and attempts to open the challenge in the user’s browser.
Although the visible exercise is not a security CTF, the project uses CTF terminology in several places. The root package is named ctf-server, the backend prints CTF server running, the frontend uses several ctf-* storage keys, and the tutorial refers to path/to/ctf. These repeated labels, together with instructions that do not fully match the delivered application, are consistent with an AI-assisted or template-generated project. One possible explanation is that the attacker prompted an AI coding assistant to create a CTF-style React platform and later inserted the malicious components.
README instructions and challenge overview included in the trojanized React coding project
The PDF tutorial contained in the same archive as the project tells the target to click Continue, enter a six-digit OTP code, and complete the challenge within a one-hour session. It states that codes are supplied by the recruiter, are single-use, and expire quickly; the visible login page also claims that codes rotate every 30 seconds. In the delivery scenario described by the investigation, the threat actor posing as a recruiter could provide the code directly to the targeted developer. This gives the operator control over access to the lure, while the expiring code and countdown create a sense of urgency, pressuring the target to run the project and complete the assessment quickly, potentially accelerating the infection process.
One-hour session window enforced by the trojanized coding challenge
The bundled .env file contains the JWT signing secret, OTP service URL, and OTP client ID.
Configuration embedded in .env file of the trojanized coding project, including the OTP service URL and client identifier
The application forwards submitted codes to an attacker-managed domain registered in late June-2026: https://lifespotify[.]com/api/users/b879746e-fed9-4211-a6da-4d8223681267/otp/validate.
That said, PollCat starts independently of the OTP authentication process. During application startup, app.js loads requireAuth.js, which imports and immediately starts the malicious requireObjects.js component. PollCat can therefore begin C2 registration and command polling while the application is still loading, before the user enters an access code.
A failed OTP validation prevents the user from accessing the protected challenge features, but PollCat continues running in the background. A successful OTP validation issues a JWT and creates another worker that starts an additional PollCat instance. The first authenticated request also triggers the persistence attempt.
Persistence starts when the first request carrying a valid JWT reaches the protected middleware. PollCat then uses one of the following methods:
Operation system
Persistence mechanism
Windows
Writes package.json and requireObject.js to %APPDATA%\Microsoft\Network, runs npm install, and creates a daily task named NetSync_<username> and scheduled for 09AM that runs the worker with Node.js.
Linux
Writes the worker to ~/.node_packages, runs npm i, and appends both a daily 09AM cron line and an @reboot line.
macOS
Uses the same ~/.node_packages copy and cron path, then creates and loads ~/Library/LaunchAgents/com.harsh.requireobject.plist with RunAtLoad and a daily 09AM trigger.
Once active, PollCat identifies the host as 129--<hostname> and iterates over the following C2s until registration succeeds:
After registration, PollCat sends host information to /gate/hello, polls /gate/fetch for commands, and returns results through /gate/submit. All endpoints in use are presented in the table below.
Method
Endpoint
Purpose
POST
/beacon
Register the client and obtain a socketId and optional timing values.
POST
/gate/hello
Submit host, user, domain, OS information, and its current privilege level.
GET
/gate/fetch?token=<socketId>
Poll for commands.
POST
/gate/submit
Submit a Base64-encoded command-result structure.
GET
/vault/<uuid>
Retrieve a hosted file and write it to the victim machine.
PUT
/vault/push/
Upload a local file or file chunk to the C2.
POST
/gate/track
Report chunk-upload progress.
By default, PollCat RAT polls every two minutes with up to five seconds of jitter. Commands and results are stored as little-endian binary records and carried as Base64 text.
PollCat RAT declares 22 commands, but three of them have no implementation:
Command
Functionality
0x02 (DIR)
List a directory.
0x03 (MV)
Move a file or directory.
0x04 (RUN)
Execute a shell command.
0x05 (TASKLIST)
List running processes.
0x06 (DEL)
Delete a file or directory.
0x07 (UPLOAD)
Download a file from the C2 to the victim’s machine.
0x08 (DOWNLOAD)
Upload a local file to the C2.
0X09 (DRIVES)
List drives, volumes, or mount points.
0X0A (TERMINATE)
Terminate a process by PID.
0X0B (RUNDLL)
Load a DLL and call an exported function on Windows.
0X0C (MKDIR)
Create a directory.
0X0D (ZIP)
Create or extract a ZIP archive.
0X0E (CHUNKED_DOWNLOAD)
Upload a local file in chunks.
0X0F (RUN_HIDDEN)
Start a hidden background process.
0X20 (EVAL_JS)
Execute JavaScript supplied by the C2.
0X30 (SYSTEM_CHECK)
Collect process and software inventory.
0XA1 (WS_DOWNLOAD)
Defined but not implemented.
0xB0 (REQUEST_ELEVATION)
Defined but not implemented.
0XB1 (PERSIST)
Defined but not implemented.
0xF0 (SET_SLEEP_TIME)
Change the polling interval.
0XF1 (SET_IDLE_TIME)
Store an idle-time value.
0xF2 (SET_JITTER_TIME)
Change polling jitter.
The command names UPLOAD, DOWNLOAD, and CHUNKED_DOWNLOAD are written from the C2’s perspective. UPLOAD sends a C2-hosted file to the victim’s machine, while the two download commands transfer victim files back to the C2.
EVAL_JS runs JavaScript supplied by the C2 and gives that code access to Node.js modules, files, processes, networking, and child-process functions. SYSTEM_CHECK collects the names of running processes and lists files and folders from:
%SystemDrive%\Program Files
%SystemDrive%\Program Files (x86)
%LOCALAPPDATA%
%LOCALAPPDATA%\Programs
%APPDATA%
%USERPROFILE%
%APPDATA%\Microsoft\Outlook
%LOCALAPPDATA%\Microsoft\Olk\Attachments
%USERPROFILE%\Documents
It also searches for folders matching 24 hardcoded strings corresponding to security software vendor names: ‘Google’, ‘Microsoft’, ‘Palo Alto Networks’, ‘Cisco’, ‘VMware’, ‘Fortinet’, ‘Citrix’, ‘CheckPoint’, ‘Juniper Networks’, ‘LogMeIn’, ‘Sophos’, ‘Symantec’, ‘Trend Micro’, ‘McAfee’, ‘Kaspersky Lab’, ‘ESET’, ‘Bitdefender’, ‘Avast Software’, ‘CrowdStrike’, ‘SentinelOne’, ‘Malwarebytes’, ‘BraveSoftware’, ‘Tencent’, and ‘Naver’.
When PollCat finds a matching folder, it lists that folder’s root contents. It does not recursively scan the entire product directory. The detailed inventory, including process names, directory listings, and collected paths, is sent as JSON to POST /api/system-details/result.
Infrastructure
Mirage Kitten continues to rely on Azure Websites and Cloudflare-backed domains to hinder infrastructure discovery and tracking. More importantly, the use of Microsoft Azure subdomains for C2 helps the traffic blend into legitimate organizational network activity. In some cases that we encountered during our research, the actors even incorporated the targeted organization’s name into the Azure subdomain, making C2 communications appear more like normal business traffic originating from an employee machine during regular business days.
Based on our analysis of Mirage Kitten’s infrastructure, we identified certain patterns across several command-and-control channels, including msmanagementgrp[.]com and visitfinancedentists[.]com
Further investigation based on these patterns led to the discovery of approximately 11 additional infrastructure assets attributed to the same group.
Domain
Creation date
Registrar
healthful-hub[.]com
2026-07-03
NameCheap, Inc.
neumedicahealthcare[.]com
2026-07-03
NameCheap, Inc.
optimumhealthcredit[.]com
2026-07-03
NameCheap, Inc.
healthfullyrecipes[.]com
2026-06-30
NameCheap, Inc.
refreshhealthandwellness[.]com
2026-06-09
NameCheap, Inc.
healthvitalitycare[.]com
2026-05-18
NameCheap, Inc.
aceofspadesmanagement[.]com
2026-05-18
NameCheap, Inc.
glmediaagency[.]com
2026-05-18
NameCheap, Inc.
digimediaskill[.]com
2026-05-18
NameCheap, Inc.
healthyweightplan[.]com
2026-05-18
NameCheap, Inc.
mens-health-online[.]com
2026-05-15
NameCheap, Inc.
Victims
Based on our telemetry, we identified victims in fintech, aviation and aerospace sectors across the Middle East and Africa – specifically, in Egypt, Ethiopia and Afghanistan.
We also observed submissions of ZIP archives with trojanized projects containing NodeRabbit and PollCat to an online multi-scanner originating from several countries, including India, Türkiye, Israel, Iraq, Germany, and Ireland.
Attribution
We attribute this activity to Mirage Kitten with a high degree of confidence based on the following observations:
Structural similarities with the Retrograde/MiniFast native DLL backdoor (MD5:810F8E3B88EB05F710C09552941D6F56)
Initial C2 handshake and session establishment logic. Both PollCat and Retrograde/MiniFast follow a similar C2 handshake flow. Each builds a JSON request body containing host information and sends it via an HTTP POST request. Notably, both treat HTTP 400 as a successful handshake response rather than an error, parsing the response body to extract a socketId, which is then stored and used as the session token for subsequent C2 communication.
Similar C2 handshake and socketId session establishment logic in MiniFast/Retrograde and PollCat
Host registration. Both PollCat and Retrograde/MiniFast register the infected host with the C2 server by sending a structurally similar JSON request body containing the session token and host information.
Command fetching similarities. The similarities extend to command retrieval. Both PollCat and Retrograde/MiniFast periodically poll the C2 server using an HTTP GET request containing the previously assigned socketId as a token. Retrograde/MiniFast uses GET /agent/poll?token=<socketId>, while PollCat follows the same pattern with GET /gate/fetch?token=<socketId>, demonstrating a closely aligned C2 communication structure.
Beacon timing similarities. PollCat and the Retrograde/MiniFast share identical beacon timing defaults: a polling interval of 120,000 ms (0x1D4C0), a jitter of 5,000 ms (0x1388), and a retry timeout of 60,000 ms (0xEA60). This further highlights the structural similarities between the two C2 communication implementations.
Command set similarities. PollCat and Retrograde/MiniFast share several commands and command IDs. Notably, PollCat declares REQUEST_ELEVATION (0xB0) and PERSIST (0xB1) but does not implement them. In MiniFast, both are functional: 0xB0 performs UAC elevation, while 0xB1 creates the WindowsSecurityUpdate scheduled task for persistence.
Command set similarities between MiniFast/Retrograde and PollCat, including shared command identifiers
Proxy authentication similarities. NodeRabbit delegates corporate-proxy NTLM/Negotiate authentication to curl.exe --proxy-anyauth --proxy-user, using the victim’s logon session. Retrograde/MiniFast native DLL implements the same approach natively through WinHttpQueryAuthSchemes and WinHttpSetCredentials with NULL credentials. This shared proxy-aware C2 design suggests the same development approach across both malware families.
Speaking of victimology, the attacks are consistent with Mirage Kitten’s known geographic targeting, with the group maintaining a strong focus on entities across Africa and the Middle East, this time with a particular focus on the aviation and FinTech sectors.
As for the operational infrastructure, Mirage Kitten has historically hosted its initial ZIP lures on legitimate third-party services. Previously, it used onlyoffice.com for this purpose. In this activity, the group shifted to Amazon S3 buckets.
Finally, the combination of Azure Websites and Cloudflare‑backed domains has been a hallmark of Mirage Kitten’s TTPs, which we have observed across NodeRabbit and PollCat.
Conclusions
Mirage Kitten’s latest activity marks a notable evolution in the group’s tooling: NodeRabbit and PollCat are the group’s first Node.js/JavaScript-based implants, departing from its usual native malware deployed through DLL search-order hijacking. The shift to cross-platform scripting gives the operators a single codebase that runs on Windows, Linux, and macOS, with payloads that blend naturally into developer workstations.
The delivery mechanism, however, remains consistent with Mirage Kitten’s historical tradecraft: the use of recruiter personas on LinkedIn to target critical sectors across the Middle East and Africa for cyberespionage purposes. We continue to track the group’s activity and will report on new developments in future publications.
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.
In May 2026, we discovered a new cyber-espionage campaign by the Armored Likho group, also known as Eagle Werewolf, that targets private individuals and organizations across various industries in Russia, including major corporations, the public sector, IT, and education. The attackers used a fake app as bait that mimics a service for donations. However, the most interesting part of this campaign isn’t the initial infection method – it’s the malicious implants the attackers use for cyber-espionage.
We’ve written previously about recent Armored Likho attacks, but our analysis shows that the campaign discussed below has more in common with the group’s activity from February. That said, the attackers have significantly expanded their arsenal.
During our research, we found a new cyber-espionage toolkit written in Rust: the Still Toolkit. One of its components, Still Sync, steals Telegram session data to gain ongoing access to the victim’s account. With this stolen data, attackers can leverage the Telegram API to automatically pull chat logs, media files, and other information from the account.
The second component, Still Audio, is an implant for covert audio surveillance. It analyzes the incoming audio stream, automatically detects speech, records conversations, and sends the recordings to a command-and-control server.
In this article, we’ll look at the initial infection method, how the new Still Toolkit components are built, and the technical details of how they operate.
Kaspersky products detect this threat as Trojan.Win64.Agent.* and HEUR:Backdoor.Win32.Generic.
Background
Armored Likho’s malicious activity has been documented several times before: in November 2024, and in February and July 2026. The current campaign shows significant overlap with the November and February campaigns, which used malicious droppers disguised as documents and applications related to Starlink activation or fundraising efforts as the initial infection vector. This campaign also uses fundraising as its lure. At the same time, our research uncovered a number of new tools that point to the attackers expanding their capabilities.
Initial infection
The infection chain starts with an app that mimics a donation service. As of this writing, the app distribution method remains unknown. During our research, however, we obtained several samples posing as apps from different Russian foundations.
In reality, the app is a dropper. Its developers wrote it in Rust on top of the popular Tauri framework, and it has a graphical interface designed to deceive the user. After launch, it displays a login form that asks for a password, presumably one the attackers supplied.
The login form
After the user enters a valid password, they see a catalog of donatable items. The app pulls item and category information from orderapiserver[.]info through the public/categories and public/products endpoints. A clickable catalog makes the app look legitimate. While the user browses the items, the dropper quietly decrypts and launches the payload for the next stage in the background.
Our analysis shows that the mechanism for decrypting the payload and launching subsequent stages hasn’t changed since the February campaign. However, we found a new cyber-espionage toolkit – the Still Toolkit – made up of two components: Still Sync and Still Audio.
Still Sync
Still Sync is a stealer written in Rust that steals Telegram session data. However, its capabilities don’t stop there. With this stolen data, Sync can log in to the victim’s account and pull messages and media files through the Telegram API.
Architecturally, Sync is an asynchronous application based on the Tokio library. It talks to the server over gRPC and serializes messages with FlatBuffers. It supports both HTTP and HTTPS as transport protocols; the URL of the command-and-control server determines which one it uses.
How it works
When Sync launches, the attackers set several environment variables. Before starting any malicious activity, the implant pulls configuration parameters from these:
STILL_SYNC_ADDR: the address of the command-and-control server. By default, this is https://tg4service[.]com:443.
STILL_SEND_PATH: the path to the tdata
STILL_TELEGRAM_PASSCODE: the password for decrypting the tdata folder, if Telegram data encryption is enabled on the victim’s device.
Sync also supports several command-line arguments:
--console: runs as a console application. If this parameter is absent, the implant creates a TReload service to keep running in the background.
--version: prints version information and exits.
--firefly: launches a trace thread that monitors the program’s operation. It writes error messages to a hidden file, bin, located in the same folder as the main executable.
--db: turns on debug mode with detailed logging.
Example Still Sync logs
Once it launches, the malware begins registering the device with the C2 server. To do this, Sync collects the following information about the victim’s system:
Motherboard serial number
CPU ID
System UUID
BIOS serial number
Computer domain name
The malware combines the collected data into a single string with a colon as the separator. It then hashes that string with SHA-256 and stores the resulting hash under the key sysmarker. Worth noting: other Armored Likho tools, AquilaRAT included, use this same hashing algorithm.
Sync then serializes a package containing all the collected information and the agent version, and sends it in a POST request to /still.rpc.Sync/RegisterMachine. The response contains a machine_id value, which Sync uses to identify itself in subsequent requests.
Once registration succeeds, Sync sends a POST request with the machine_id parameter to /still.rpc.Sync/GetMachineSettings. The server responds with the following settings:
enabled: triggers malicious activity on the infected device.
scan_portable: turns on extended scanning when searching for the tdata We’ll cover this feature in more detail below.
fetch_telegram: if this parameter is on, Sync attempts to log in to Telegram and extract data. We’ll cover this feature in more detail below.
download_channels: if this parameter is off, Sync skips channel dialogs when exfiltrating Telegram data.
These parameters have no default values, so Sync doesn’t perform any malicious actions until the registration and settings-retrieval processes both complete successfully.
Telegram data collection
Before stealing a Telegram session, Sync searches for the tdata folder, unless the STILL_SEND_PATH variable is already set. The list of search paths includes both standard and nonstandard directories, if the scan_portable option is turned on:
C:\Users\<username>\AppData\Roaming\Telegram Desktop\: the standard Telegram Desktop installation directory.
C:\Users\<username>\AppData\Local\Packages\<package_folder>\LocalCache\Roaming\: the installation directory for the Microsoft Store version. Sync identifies the package folder by a name that contains the string TelegramMessenge.
C:\: used for the extended search (if the scan_portable option is on).
Sync then sends a POST request with a list of files from the tdata folder to the /still.rpc.Sync/CheckFiles endpoint. The server responds with the following values:
snapshot_id: an identifier the server assigns to the current data snapshot.
present: a list of file paths that are already present on the server.
This lets the C2 server avoid re-receiving files it already has. In addition, if Sync can’t access files on disk through standard methods, it falls back on three mechanisms that abuse the SeBackupPrivilege privilege:
Opening files with the CreateFileW function using the FILE_FLAG_BACKUP_SEMANTICS parameter
Creating a backup copy through the Shadow Copy service and reading files from there
If the previous methods all fail, attempting to copy the file using the Robocopy utility in backup mode
Beyond stealing Telegram session data, Sync can carry out full-scale collection of user information from the messaging app. When the fetch_telegram option is on, it launches a separate thread that authenticates to the chat app using the previously obtained tdata. Once authentication succeeds, Sync gains access to the account data and sends the following collected information to the server:
User details, such as username, phone number, first and last name
Information about private chats, groups, or channels, such as chat name and ID, the member list, and so on
Dialogs from private chats, groups, and channels (if the download_channels option is on)
Media files under 250MB: photos, documents, stickers, and contacts
Still Audio
Still Audio is an audio surveillance implant written in Rust. Its main job is to analyze the incoming audio stream and start recording voice when certain conditions are met – we’ll cover those in the next section. Architecturally, Still Audio largely mirrors Sync and uses the same mechanisms for communicating with the C2 server.
On launch, Still Audio performs a sequence of actions:
It extracts libmp3lame.dll, a file stored inside the executable. This is a library used to encode audio data.
If the --console command-line argument is absent, the implant creates a service named auxhost, connects to it, and continues running in the background.
While running in the background, it creates a file, logfile.log, to write logs to.
Next, Still Audio retrieves the C2 server address. As with Sync, it stores the URL in an environment variable – in this case, STILL_AUDIO_SYNC_ADDR. If that variable isn’t set, it falls back to STILL_SYNC_ADDR, which shows the two modules are compatible with each other. If neither variable is set, it uses the default URL, https://srwinservice[.]com.
Still Audio also uses the Dead Drop Resolver technique as a fallback mechanism for obtaining the C2 address. If the current server stays unreachable for three days, the tool tries to pull the current C2 URL from a GitHub repository. In the sample under analysis, we found the following URL for the page containing C2 information: hxxps://raw.githubusercontent[.]com/mmarln/pi-mono/refs/heads/main/packages/pods/src/array12.json
Encrypted C2 address inside the GitHub repository
The repository, a fork of a popular project, contains the server URL Base64-encoded and encrypted with the Blowfish algorithm in ECB mode, using the key 5c8e153228edd3c6cbf75684 (lowercase string). Older AquilaRAT samples use this exact same algorithm and key.
Once it obtains the current C2 address, the Audio module starts a registration process similar to Sync’s, but through a different endpoint:
/still.rpc.Audio/RegisterAudioMachine. Also, unlike Sync, Audio sends a list of available audio input devices along with the system information.
The server responds with settings for the implant:
machine_id: a unique identifier for the current device.
vad_threshold: the threshold value for the VAD (Voice Activity Detection) algorithm. Expressed as a decimal fraction, it represents a proportion of the maximum sound level the input device can pick up. Sound above this threshold counts as voice activity. The default vad_threshold is 02.
max_silence_duration: the number of audio samples with a VAD value below the set threshold after which the implant considers the recording finished.
max_buffer_size: the maximum buffer size for recorded audio data.
active_device: the name of the input device selected for recording, from the list of available devices.
The eavesdropping process
Still Audio works with raw audio samples it captures directly from the input device. To detect voice activity, it implements an algorithm based on Root Mean Square (RMS), a lightweight signal-processing method that distinguishes speech from silence by measuring the audio signal’s average power over time. The implant doesn’t rely on any third-party libraries here; it implements all the calculations itself.
The implant compares the calculated RMS value against the vad_threshold parameter. If RMS meets or exceeds this threshold, recording starts. To avoid losing the beginning of the recording, Still Audio uses a pre-buffer, a size-limited buffer that stores samples from just before the current recording moment. A sequence of max_silence_duration samples (320 by default) with RMS values below the threshold signals the end of the recording. For example, with a standard headset running at a 44.1kHz sampling rate, recording stops after roughly 7ms of silence.
Interestingly, the Audio module makes no attempt to hide its use of the microphone: its name shows up in Windows settings. In the sample we examined, the file was saved to disk as IntAudio.exe, and it appeared in the list of apps using the microphone as “Intel Audio”:
The malicious module in the list of apps using the microphone
Before sending recordings to the server, the implant uses the libmp3lame library to encode the raw audio samples. It sends the recording files via a POST request to /tgfrg, adding a Client-Id header containing the machine_id obtained during registration to identify the device.
Infrastructure
This campaign draws on a broad set of hosting providers and domains registered at different points in time, which suggests the attackers are trying to make their infrastructure harder to detect. We found no direct overlap in domains or IP addresses with the February campaign. Even so, the two infrastructures share some similarities:
They use the same hosting providers, with the ASNs 149440, 202448, and 215311.
Their domain names follow similar naming patterns that mimic Windows system services and update mechanisms.
Domain
IP address
Registration date
ASN
orderapiserver[.]info
187.127.153[.]38
April 18, 2026
47583
tg4service[.]com
159.198.37[.]74
October 4, 2025
22612
srwinservice[.]com
213.252.244[.]123
March 19, 2026
61272
screenserv[.]com
23.26.237[.]250
February 13, 2026
149440
windowserv[.]net
23.27.24[.]30
February 10, 2026
149440
managementapiservice[.]com
188.212.124[.]178
May 1, 2026
202448
service8date[.]com
145.223.69[.]143
January 13, 2026
215311
updateservs[.]com
145.223.68[.]66
December 23, 2025
215311
Victims
In this campaign, we’ve determined that the attackers’ primary targets are users in Russia. Most victims are private individuals, though the corporate sector, government organizations, IT companies, and educational institutions are also affected.
Attribution
This campaign has been using both new tools and malware families documented in BI.ZONE’s February report. While some components turned up for the first time, they show significant code-level overlap with malicious tools seen in earlier Armored Likho campaigns. Based on these overlaps, along with additional technical artifacts, we’re highly confident the Armored Likho group is behind the campaign. The overlaps we identified include:
Identical dropper architecture in the February and current campaigns, which includes the use of the Tauri library to build the graphical interface, a similar user-input handler, a payload with the ICRYPTMP header, and the same multi-part encryption format.
The same encryption algorithm and key used in AquilaRAT from the previous campaign and in the Still Audio module from the current campaign, both implementing the Dead Drop Resolver technique.
Identical logic for generating the sysmarker value in older AquilaRAT samples and in the Still toolkit from the current campaign. The algorithms match down to the PowerShell commands used to collect system information.
Substantial infrastructure overlap, which includes the hosting providers and domain-naming patterns described in the Infrastructure section.
Takeaways
The campaign described in this post shows Armored Likho’s toolkit evolving, with the group steadily expanding its cyber-espionage capabilities. Beyond the components we already knew about, the attackers rolled out new modules that let them not only access Telegram data but also conduct audio surveillance on victims. Together, these capabilities significantly widen the range of information attackers can collect in a single compromise.
One point deserves particular attention: the new tools form a cohesive set, sharing similar architecture, C2 communication mechanisms, and common implementation elements. This points to the group building out its own tool ecosystem, designed for long-term use and further expansion.
The emergence of new, specialized modules shows the attackers aren’t just trying to preserve their existing capabilities – they’re working to make intelligence-gathering more effective by controlling multiple communication channels at once.
Because of the amount of data that can be obtained and the high impact that successful attacks may have, educational institutions are frequent targets of cybercriminals. Both public and private schools and universities rely on software for managing personally identifiable information (PII) that is often insecure or insufficiently tested against known vulnerabilities. In addition, machines used by multiple people without accountability can be vulnerable to insider threats.
The complexity of academic environments amplifies this risk. Unlike corporate networks, educational institutions have to provide a network that supports students, professors, researchers, administrative staff, third-party contractors, and visitors. Each of these groups has different security requirements and access control levels, making it difficult to enforce consistent security policies. A security breach can have severe consequences since it may expose vast amounts of sensitive information, such as social security numbers (CPF in Brazil), addresses, phone numbers, and even parents’ names. Armed with this information, attackers can attempt phishing attacks and impersonate the victims in SIM swapping attacks, a common practice in Brazil.
In this article, we provide details about attacks on educational institutions in Brazil observed by our Global Emergency Response Team (GERT) since 2025. We share general statistics, common threats, initial access vectors, and the impact of such violations. Additionally, we present some interesting cases encountered by our team and the identified TTPs. Finally, we offer recommendations to help institutions protect themselves against future attacks.
Key findings and statistics
Our dataset encompasses incident response cases from January 2025 to June 2026. As the chart below shows, the majority of attacks targeted institutions in São Paulo state, Brazil’s most populous state and a significant center of economic and financial activity. We also had cases in Rio de Janeiro and Pernambuco.
Geographical distribution of incident response requests at educational institutions (download)
Of the customers who requested incident response, 60% were private institutions and 40% were public institutions.
The most frequent reasons for requesting IR services were related to suspicious endpoint activities, encrypted files, and the presence of suspicious files.
The high-severity incidents were mainly related to ransomware attacks. Interestingly, private institutions were the most targeted by ransomware, while incidents in public institutions were mostly related to suspicious endpoint activity and privilege escalation attempts. The most common ransomware families found in our dataset were DragonForce and LockBit 3, whose builder was leaked back in 2022. By using the leaked LockBit builder with a valid privileged account, attackers can build variants capable of disabling defenses and erasing logs.
The most common initial access vectors included the use of valid accounts, exploitation of public-facing applications, and insiders.
For privilege escalation, the attackers often relied on Potato variants (GodPotato, SweetPotato, and BadPotato).
We also observed attackers using tools like AnyDesk for remote access, PsExec for lateral movement within compromised infrastructures, and AV-killer malware to terminate the system’s defenses. The latter was mainly used in ransomware-related incidents.
These data reveal an interesting pattern in the threat landscape affecting educational institutions in the region. Many incidents were not caused by highly sophisticated techniques but rather by the abuse of common weaknesses such as valid accounts, exposed applications, and inadequate patch management, as well as the use of publicly available tools that are well-known to the adversaries. The prevalence of ransomware in private institutions suggests a stronger financial motivation, likely because attackers assume these organizations are more capable of paying for data recovery than public schools and universities.
Most attacks were discovered promptly and lasted from a few minutes to a couple of hours. However, technical incident response activities averaged 9.6 hours. This indicates that the impact caused by an incident often extends beyond the timeframe of the active attack, requiring extensive triage and analysis by the forensic investigators to fully restore operations.
One interesting fact is that we are still observing the use of Windows 10 in the infrastructures of educational institutions, even after Microsoft’s official end-of-support date of October 2025. In addition, we found that some customer organizations were using Windows Server 2016 without security patches and fixes. Using outdated and unsupported operating systems increases the attack surface of an infrastructure because attackers can exploit publicly available vulnerabilities to access vulnerable systems and expand their presence in the network. In addition, legacy operating systems may be incompatible with modern evidence collection tools, necessitating extra time and alternative procedures for forensic acquisition.
In one case, we identified the use of a custom version of LockBit that was generated using the leaked builder. The ransomware was delivered to the organization’s infrastructure via a valid account that had been leaked. It encrypted the organization’s internal systems, including file servers and databases that stored student profiles and other data. There was no evidence of data exfiltration from the affected machines.
During our analysis of the LockBit sample, we were able to extract its configuration. Interestingly, it was configured without the impersonation and spreading options. This meant the attacker had to perform manual lateral movement to deploy the malware across the network.
Further analysis revealed that the attacker used PsExec for lateral movement. By analyzing the Update Sequence Number (USN) Journal, we were able to identify .KEY files associated with PsExec that showed us the previously compromised machines used by the attacker.
After gaining access to the target machines, the adversaries deployed a batch script to disable the system’s defenses. Our analysis of this artifact showed that they had the administrative credentials to disable the EDR in place. In addition, the script enabled RDP, which gave the attackers remote access to the target. The listing below shows an excerpt of the script:
Finally, by cross-checking the Prefetch files, we were able to identify the precise dates of PsExecSvc.exe and LBB.exe (LockBit) execution. This revealed that the attacker established the initial connection to the analyzed machine around 5:30am UTC and ran LBB.exe for the last time at 10am UTC on the same day, resulting in an activity window of approximately four hours and thirty minutes. We were able to identify the extent of the compromise and the additional machines that required network isolation for further forensic analysis, containment, and remediation.
Case 02 – DragonForce deployed via AnyDesk
In another incident, we identified a compromised user account that the adversaries used to install the AnyDesk software to enable remote access. Although the attacker erased the system logs after encrypting the victim’s files, we were able to identify the ransomware execution event via the Prefetch and Amcache.hve files, which provided us with the SHA-1 hash of the sample.
Once we obtained the SHA-1 of the malicious artifact (named by the attacker as 1.EXE), we were able to confirm that it was a DragonForce variant. Even though the lack of evidence made the analysis more difficult, this case shows that forensic investigators must be prepared to identify information that the attackers missed or left untouched.
Case 03 – Python keylogger used by an insider
The third incident illustrates how a series of bad practices enabled an insider to collect passwords from other users inside the infrastructure. First, the customer contacted us stating that a machine was exhibiting strange behavior: files containing passwords were being created. We started with triage collection on one of the affected machines.
Evidence from the Program Compatibility Assistant (PCA) showed the execution of two suspicious files, Windows Host Widgets.exe and Windows Host Widgets_.exe, both located in the C:\Users\<user>\.vscode\dlo directory, where <user> represents a user account shared by everyone who uses the machine. The same artifacts were identified within the Amcache.hve file, and multiple executions were also confirmed by analyzing the Prefetch files. Another interesting source of evidence, UserAssist, confirmed that the threat actor also executed both EXE files by double-clicking on them.
MFT analysis showed that multiple log files named cacheX.txt were created in the previously mentioned directory, where X was a number that increased with each malware execution. We then analyzed the EXE files to confirm their behavior. Luckily, both proved to be the same Python script, which we could easily decompile.
As shown in the listing below, the script contains methods and strings with Portuguese names. It is capable of hiding the log files from view in Explorer. The developer also set a procedure to identify when the Caps Lock key was pressed, in order to record the correct passwords.
def get_base_path():
...
def encontrar_proximo_nome(base='cache'):
...
def set_file_hidden(filepath):
...
ctypes.windll.kernel32.SetFileAttributesW(str(filepath), FILE_ATTRIBUTE_HIDDEN)
...
with open(log_file, 'a', encoding='utf-8') as f:
f.write(f'\n\n--- Registro iniciado em {datetime.datetime.now()} ---\n')
set_file_hidden(log_file)
...
def is_capslock_on():
return bool(ctypes.windll.user32.GetKeyState(20) & 1)
...
def on_press(key):
...
def on_release(key):
...
def main():
with keyboard.Listener(on_press=on_press, on_release=on_release) as listener:
listener.join()
if __name__ == '__main__':
main()
This simple script did not implement any persistence or automated data exfiltration mechanisms. Therefore, the insider likely had to manually retrieve the generated log files containing the text typed by the victims. By revisiting the previously collected evidence, we identified USB connections around the same time as the script’s executions. This suggests that removable media was probably used to collect the generated keylogging logs from the environment. As a result of the investigation, the customer changed the passwords of all affected accounts. However, without additional evidence or footage, it was not possible to conclusively attribute the activities to a specific individual and take the appropriate disciplinary and legal measures.
Conclusions and recommendations
The incidents highlighted in this article demonstrate that Brazilian educational institutions face a diverse set of threats, ranging from ransomware operations to insider activity. In many cases, the attackers relied on valid credentials, exposed services, remote access tools, poor patch management, and insufficient endpoint hardening rather than advanced malware or new techniques. Based on these findings, educational institutions should prioritize controls that reduce the likelihood of account compromise and the impact of ransomware deployment. They should also improve forensic visibility after an incident.
Institutions should enforce the use of multi-factor authentication (MFA) for all publicly accessible services, especially VPNs, remote access portals, and email accounts. Since valid accounts were one of the most common initial access vectors observed in our dataset, MFA can significantly reduce the likelihood that stolen or reused credentials alone will compromise the entire environment. We also recommend periodically reviewing privileged accounts, removing unnecessary administrative permissions, and avoiding shared accounts, especially on machines accessed by multiple users, since this makes accountability extremely difficult.
Each user should have their own account, following the principle of least privilege to prevent unauthorized software execution. Additionally, it is advisable to restrict and monitor the use of remote access tools such as AnyDesk or TeamViewer. Unexpected installations or executions of these tools should be treated as high-priority alerts.
To minimize the impact of ransomware, educational institutions should improve their backup and recovery strategy. Backups should be isolated from the primary environment (preferably in more than one location) and tested regularly. Centralized logging, extended EDR telemetry retention, and proper time synchronization across hosts can also improve the ability to reconstruct an attack timeline and implement the necessary response measures.
The use of outdated systems increases the attack surface, so we recommend that organizations adopt an effective update and patch management policy. It is also important to raise security awareness, since users must understand the risks associated with credential sharing, unknown executables, and unauthorized software.
From a digital forensics and incident response (DFIR) perspective, the reviewed incidents demonstrate that effective incident response activities require correlating multiple forensic artifacts in order to reconstruct the attacker’s actions. Investigators should be aware of how to find information even when logs are missing. Many other artifacts are preserved and can be used for this purpose, such as Amcache, PCA, Prefetch, UserAssist, MFT, and USN Journal. The attackers may fail to erase all traces of their activity, so taking a broad forensic approach is of the utmost importance for determining the scope of the compromise and supporting containment and remediation actions.
Observed TTPs
The table below shows the observed TTPs in our dataset, including cases not detailed in this post.
While tracking the activities of 4BID we uncovered a new string of campaigns that appear to be the work of several interconnected actors. While politically motivated groups generally limit their scope to specific nations – for 4BID and its peers, primarily Russian and occasionally Belarusian organizations – our latest findings reveal a shift. The actual geographic footprint of these attacks became broader than expected, striking companies across Kazakhstan, the UAE, Syria, and Egypt.
What triggered our investigation was spotting a cluster of indicators of compromise within a breached Russian organization’s infrastructure. We used these footprints to successfully track down other environments hit by the same threat actors and piece together the bigger picture.
This article dives into the software deployed throughout these hacktivist campaigns:
New ransomware samples
Scripts used at various stages of the attacks
Commercially available IT remote monitoring and management (RMM) tools
These include both updated versions of known threat-actor tools and previously unseen software.
Overlapping activity streams
Within the initial organization’s infrastructure, we found numerous activity indicators linked to several interconnected hacktivist groups – which ultimately set the direction for our follow-up analysis. We can attribute the following findings to hacktivist activity with a medium level of confidence:
Several samples of BlackReaperRAT, which we attribute to the 4BID group, were found alongside scripts designed to download Panorama9 RMM, AnyDesk, and Dev Tunnels.
Besides the artifacts listed above, we discovered ClearWater ransomware in other compromised infrastructures. Interestingly, during this same window, public sources showed Hakerskii Kit claiming a successful attack on a Russian factory. Also detected in that facility’s infrastructure was ClearWater ransomware, with the attackers publicly thanking the С.A.S. group for their contribution.
We uncovered several samples of Warp RAT within the hit infrastructures, which we link to the Goffee threat group. A detailed report on this specific activity will be published at a later date.
Technical details
Vulnerable web servers and fd.aspx
Analysis of the compromised environments revealed that the attackers gained initial access in most cases by exploiting the ProxyShell vulnerability in Microsoft Exchange, which allows for full server compromise.
Once inside, the attackers deployed the fd.aspx web shell – a modular ASP.NET file designed for remote control, file transfers, and system reconnaissance. Communication with the web shell relied on a basic security check: if the key parameter in an incoming request failed to match the AUTH_KEY constant, fd.aspx simply returned “Access Denied”.
Access key verification
If the verification was successful, the command contained in the request’s scriptText parameter was passed directly to PowerShell, and the output returned to the operator in the body of the HTTP response. In environments where PowerShell execution was restricted, the web shell swapped it out for cmd.exe. The CreateNoWindow: true and UseShellExecute: false flags were used to keep the command execution hidden from the user.
Beyond running commands, the web shell features bidirectional Base64-encoded file transfers. This allows any binary data – like executables, archives, or certificates – to be passed right inside the body of an HTTP request. The UploadFile function writes files to any directory the web server process can access, which makes it easy to drop additional shells or swap out legitimate files. The DownloadFile function exfiltrates any accessible file from the compromised system back to the attackers’ C2 server.
The web shell also includes a system reconnaissance feature that grabs the following data points:
OSVersion: operating system version
MachineName: hostname
UserName: current username
UserDomainName: domain name
ProcessorCount: number of processors
SystemDirectory: system directory path
CurrentDirectory: current working directory
Version: .NET Framework version
Additionally, the reconnaissance feature uses the DriveInfo.GetDrives() function to enumerate running processes and map out connected drives – along with the amount of free space available on each. This file system reconnaissance is topped off with LastWriteTime metadata for each object, which helps the operator quickly spot recently modified files and get their bearings within the storage layout.
Alongside the web shells, we encountered a variety of scripts and C2 frameworks across all compromised infrastructures, which we break down below.
Scripts deployed
Once the attackers gained control over a target system, they moved on to the next phase: loading their required toolkit via custom scripts. Variations of these scripts were consistently found alongside fd.aspx on compromised hosts. Most of them interact with legitimate tools, which makes them look almost identical to routine administrative scripts at first glance. The only real giveaway is the code comments, written in Ukrainian. One such script is responsible for deploying AnyDesk on the compromised host.
The build quality of these scripts is worth discussing separately. Several of them show telltale signs of AI generation; inside some compromised systems, we found multiple iterations of the exact same script, a few of which were completely broken. AI-generated code typically fails to work out of the box and requires manual tweaking to run properly.
First, the script checks for admin privileges, as it cannot proceed without them. If that check passes, it looks for an active anydesk.exe process. If the process is missing, the script fetches and installs the application directly from the official website. Once AnyDesk is successfully installed, the script configures an unattended access password and pulls the unique AnyDesk ID. All the collected details are compiled into a report and exfiltrated to the attackers’ server at 185.221.153[.]121. Because we spotted simultaneous activity from multiple groups – 4BID, Hakerskii Kit, and C.A.S. – on the analyzed hosts, this IP address could potentially belong to any one of them.
Besides AnyDesk, the threat actors leverage other legitimate tools. One example is Microsoft Dev Tunnels, a Microsoft service that exposes a local server to the internet. It’s brought into the system by a separate script that, much like the one for AnyDesk, checks if the utility is already present before downloading it from the official site. In certain instances, the utility was fetched directly from the attackers’ server instead:
Once installed, the application runs, and the resulting connection details are saved to a file named login.txt. The contents of this file consist of standard instructions for using a provided code to authenticate on a Microsoft page through a web browser.
To sign in, use a web browser to open https://login.microsoft.com/device and enter the code [CODE].
As a final step, the script opens up the required ports and creates the tunnel, giving the attackers a back door into the compromised host.
Another script we uncovered handles the installation of Panorama9, a legitimate remote monitoring and management utility. Immediately after downloading that application, the attackers configure it via the registry to hide both its system tray icon and its installation folder. To camouflage the Panorama9 services, the attackers rename them to Windows Update Helper and Windows Update Helper Cache and swap out their descriptions, making the utility look almost identical to standard system components. Once the utility finishes its job, the script clears its tracks.
The attackers used a dedicated script to establish persistence on the system. When executed, it used the net user command to spin up a local user account and then hid it via the registry. The script added this new user to every available local group; if the machine was domain-joined, it also attempted to inject the user into all Active Directory groups.
At the same time, the script tweaked RDP settings: it set the minimum encryption level through the registry, added a firewall rule to allow port 3389, and ran the relevant services.
After it wrapped up its main tasks, the script wiped the event logs, command history, temporary files, and finally itself. Once the attackers got what they wanted out of the infected host, they triggered another script that removed the previously created user account, cleaned out the registry keys generated during the earlier phases, and then deleted itself as well.
The scripts described here are just the most telling examples out of dozens of samples we found. An analysis of the attackers’ toolkit reveals a clear trend: they aren’t just fine-tuning the solutions they’ve used in the past (specifically, the AnyDesk deployment script), but are actively broadening their arsenal with new tools like Panorama9, Dev Tunnels, and others.
Publicly available utilities
As previously mentioned, the attackers leverage a broad spectrum of dual-use public software, such as all kinds of remote monitoring and management utilities. While they use the scripts discussed above to drop some of the utilities onto systems, we didn’t encounter scripts for others, so we can’t confirm whether any exist. We observed the following tools deployed across the campaigns in question:
AnyDesk: a remote administration tool
Advanced IP Scanner: a network scanning utility
Dev Tunnels: a Microsoft service used for exposing a server to the internet
Panorama9: an IT infrastructure management and monitoring service
Nezha Monitoring: a server status monitoring utility
Tactical RMM: a remote monitoring and management tool
C2 and communications
To gain a foothold in the victim’s infrastructure, the attackers relied on several post-exploitation frameworks. Some of these are publicly available utilities, while others are custom-built.
Among the publicly available tools in the group’s arsenal are:
Sliver
Havoc
Apollo Mythic
Adaptix
We also discovered a previously undocumented backdoor, dubbed BlackSalt, which contacts the C2 server to fetch commands and executes them via cmd.exe.
Sliver
On several hosts, following the initial Microsoft Exchange server compromise, files named upd.exe, winhost.exe, update1.exe, update.exe, and akolo.exe were dropped alongside the previously mentioned fd.aspx files and scripts. All of them were located in the C:\Windows\System32\inetsrv\ directory and were configured as SFX archives with nearly identical payloads, which ran an install.bat script upon extraction.
Contents of the SFX archive
The install.bat script contents
The script copies the malicious components into the Windows folder and installs servicechecker.bat as a system service. To do this, it leverages the legitimate Windows Service Wrapper (WinSW) utility included in the archive under the filename backupsrv.exe. The archive also contains the WinSW configuration file, backupsrv.xml, which specifies exactly which script should be registered as a service. Once installed, servicechecker.bat is configured to run automatically on system boot.
The servicechecker.bat script, in turn, runs backupagnt.exe, a loader for the main malicious component housed in WindowsInternal.UpdateComponent.dll. This file was built with the help of the Donut utility and is encrypted with a simple single-byte XOR key (0x0F). Its primary job is to inject the Sliver code straight into the device’s memory.
The backupagnt.exe loader code
All Sliver instances uncovered during this investigation were configured to communicate with the C2 server at 185.221.153[.]121 over mTLS.
Havoc
Inside a similar SFX archive located in the user directory $user\desktop\ under the filename demon.x64.exe, we found another post-exploitation framework: Havoc. This instance was configured to communicate with the C2 server at 77.72.85[.]62.
Apollo
Mythic Apollo is a cross-platform post-exploitation agent used within the Mythic framework to manage compromised systems. It provides a persistent connection to the C2 server, executes operator commands, handles file uploads/downloads, runs arbitrary code, and supports expansion via plugins. We previously provided a detailed breakdown of the Mythic framework in our post, Hunting for Mythic in Network Traffic.
Here is an example of the Mythic Apollo configuration we encountered in these hacktivist attacks:
This specific sample of the .NET Mythic Apollo agent was compiled with an extensive suite of modules and supports multiple transport profiles that enable communication via HTTP, TCP, WebSocket, SMB, named pipes, and web shells. The C2 address 77.72.85[.]62 is hardcoded into its configuration.
Adaptix
AdaptixC2 is another post-exploitation framework in the attackers’ arsenal. This is a relatively new open-source project, which we broke down in our post, Adapt or pay:an analysis of the AdaptixC2 framework.
The agent samples discovered during our investigation into these hacktivist campaigns consist of a packed AdaptixC2 Beacon delivered via a custom x64 loader. Upon execution, the payload decrypts an embedded shellcode, allocates memory, and executes the malicious payload using the CreateThread WinAPI function. Packed inside the shellcode is the AdaptixC2 Beacon agent in DLL format, featuring a configuration encrypted using RC4.
According to the AdaptixC2 classification system, this agent falls under the BEACON_HTTP type. It is capable of executing commands, performing file operations, enumerating and killing processes, launching new programs, and exfiltrating data back to the C2. It also supports SOCKS port forwarding and BOF modules.
AdaptixC2 uses encryption to keep its configuration under wraps. The corresponding block contains the data size, the actual RC4-encrypted configuration, and a 16-byte key.
Example agent configuration
Example of agent requests pinging the C2 address, as flagged by Kaspersky solutions and displayed in Kaspersky Threat Lookup
BlackSalt Backdoor
During the investigation, we also came across target infrastructures running vulnerable versions of Microsoft Exchange where – much like the Sliver cases – SFX archives named WindowsServiceHelper.exe were discovered in the C:\Windows\System32\inetsrv\ directory. Once extracted, the archive executed an install.bat file.
Similar to the other archives of this type, the script uses the WinSW utility to install the malicious components. In this specific case, however, the primary payload is a file named svc.exe, which turns out to be an obfuscated backdoor written in VBS. Much like the deployment scripts used for the remote management utilities, the code of this setup BAT script was clearly put together with AI tools and features comments in Ukrainian.
Main backdoor loop
The backdoor is essentially a textbook reverse shell. Its capabilities boil down to fetching commands from the C2 server at 45.150.109[.]2, executing them via cmd.exe, and piping the output back to the C2.
EDR killers
In their attacks, the threat actors deploy what are known as EDR killers: malicious tools designed to disable security software on the system. In the vast majority of cases, these utilities rely on the BYOVD technique.
On the hosts compromised during these hacktivist operations, we discovered samples named kil.exe and Killer.exe. These are modified versions of the public, Rust-based BYOVD project EDRKiller. The attackers streamlined the utility to act strictly as a client for the driver and expanded the hardcoded list of security processes to terminate. The sample targets the vulnerable Warsaw_PM driver, though it lacks the functionality to load the driver itself – the attackers drop it onto the system separately.
The general workflow plays out as follows:
In user mode, the program finds the PID of the target process.
It opens a handle to \\.\Warsaw_PM.
It constructs a buffer containing the target process’s PID.
It calls DeviceIoControl.
The driver executes the calls:
ZwOpenProcess;
ZwTerminateProcess.
The EDR killer continuously enumerates processes, repeatedly sending the IOCTL and terminating the target processes every single time they pop up.
Example of the process list storage inside the EDR killer
Both kil.exe and Killer.exe share the exact same list of processes targeted for termination:
Another utility used to kill security software processes is ghostdriver.exe, an unmodified build of the open-source project GhostDriver. In this case, the attackers simply pulled a version straight from GitHub and didn’t modify any of its code.
Example of output from the GhostDriver utility
The tool operates through the following stages:
Identify target processes The program takes a list of process names (such as msmpeng.exe) via command-line arguments. If no list is specified, it falls back to a default set.
Enumerate system processes To locate PIDs, the tool relies on standard Windows APIs:
CreateToolhelp32Snapshot
Process32First
Process32Next
Generate a list of processes to kill.
Load the vulnerable driver This is the core phase of the utility’s operation. During this step:
The sys driver is written to disk.
A SERVICE_KERNEL_DRIVER type service is created.
The driver is kicked off via the Service Control Manager (SCM).
GhostDriver.sys is hardcoded inside the GhostDriver executable and is a binary driver known as RentDrv2 (BadRentdrv2).
It contains the CVE-2023-44976 vulnerability, which allows it to:
Accept user-mode commands via DeviceIoControl.
Perform operations on processes from kernel mode.
Bypass security mechanisms, including Protected Process.
Upon execution, GhostDriver drops RentDrv2 to disk, loads it into the Windows kernel, and connects to it via the virtual device \\.\rentdrv2. The utility then issues command 0x22E010 to the driver, passing along the target process ID, and the driver terminates that process directly from kernel mode.
GhostDriver runs in a continuous loop. Every ~700 ms, it rescans for the target processes and sends out termination commands.
After the driver starts up, the utility attempts to delete the ghostdriver.sys file. To do this, it opens a file handle, uses the SetFileInformationByHandle WinAPI function to rename it to something like :GhostDriver, reopens the handle, and marks the file for deletion via FileDispositionInfo. Before wrapping up, it also tries to stop and remove the driver service, and delete the C:\rentdrv.log file where the driver writes its logs.
Example of the adversary command execution launching GhostDriver:
Current versions of Kaspersky products are resilient to these types of attacks: the utilities described in this post cannot terminate their processes.
Connection to the ClearWater ransomware
Alongside the previously described Mythic Apollo samples (C2: 77.72.85.62), backupagnt.exe loaders, and Panorama9 deployment scripts, we discovered a new ransomware strain named ClearWater across several compromised infrastructures. Written in C++ and compiled with GCC (MinGW), the sample is a 64-bit Windows executable. It features zero obfuscation; in fact, the binary wasn’t stripped of its DWARF debug information. This makes analyzing the sample significantly easier and points to either sloppiness or a lack of technical expertise on the developers’ part.
Original function names preserved within the Trojan’s body
When executed, ClearWater logs its progress in a separate console window.
The console window displayed upon launching the Trojan
File encryption
Like most ransomware strains, ClearWater is a Trojan designed to locate and encrypt the victim’s files. The Trojan executable contains a hardcoded RSA-2048 primary public key in PEM format.
For every file it processes, the ransomware generates a new 32-byte key and a 12-byte nonce – though only 8 of those 12 bytes are actually used – and encrypts the file’s contents via the ChaCha20 symmetric algorithm. The ChaCha key is then RSA-encrypted and appended to a specific data structure at the end of the file. To pull this off, the malware leverages cryptographic implementations from the open-source libsodium library.
The Trojan processes all files except those with a .txt extension. This approach can easily break installed software, as it blindly encrypts both libraries and executables; however, it does explicitly skip the system directory during its search. Encrypted files are additionally appended with the .clear extension. The malware scans for targets on local drives as well as SMB network shares, which it maps out by using the net view command.
Additional functionality
Within every directory it processes, the Trojan drops the attackers’ demands into a file named CLEARWATER_README.txt.
Ransom note:
Additionally, by modifying the HKLM\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Run registry key, the malware sets up a persistence mechanism that automatically opens the ransom note with notepad.exe on startup.
ClearWater is distributed inside a self-extracting archive. The extraction script runs in silent mode (GUIMode=”2″), escalates privileges via a UAC prompt, drops the Trojan at C:\ProgramData\ClearWater_x64.exe, and kicks it off. Once the ransomware finishes running, the SFX archive cleans up after itself and wipes the original archive (SelfDelete=”1″).
Alongside this script and the Trojan executable, the archive includes a BMP image. The ransomware sets this image as both the desktop wallpaper (by tweaking the HKEY_USERS\<…>\Control Panel\Desktop\Wallpaper registry key and calling SystemParametersInfoA with the SPI_SETDESKWALLPAPER parameter) and the lock screen background (by modifying the LockScreenImagePath and LockScreenImageUrl values under HKLM\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\PersonalizationCSP).
Two variants of the desktop and lock screen image
To complicate system recovery after the attack, ClearWater performs several actions typical of ransomware:
Deletes shadow copies using the following commands:
Wipes the backup catalog and disables Windows Restore:
Removes restore points:
Disables the system startup recovery option:
ClearWater also features a kill_all_non_whitelisted_processes() function designed to terminate active tasks, though it doesn’t actually call it during execution. This function leverages PowerShell to look up and kill any process whose name isn’t included in a hardcoded allowlist within the Trojan’s body. It uses the following PowerShell code to do this:
In a previously published report (link in Russian) on collaborations between several hacktivist groups, we highlighted a tool called Blackout Locker. In late January 2026, the 4BID group ran a series of attacks against organizations in Russia using an updated version of this malware. This section breaks down the new version of Blackout Locker and covers its key characteristics uncovered during our analysis.
Rust dropper
The attackers use a dropper written in Rust to distribute Blackout Locker. Depending on the specific sample, the dropper first carries out a series of staging actions. It then writes the payload executable to …\Users\[USERNAME]\AppData\Local\Microsoft\[REDACTED].dat and swaps its extension to EXE by calling the Windows command prompt:
After that, it launches the renamed executable.
Blackout Locker
The primary tool deployed in the attacks in question is an updated version of Blackout Locker.
Our analysis revealed that the key difference in this new version is the addition of a screen locker component, which it drops and executes in tandem with the ransomware’s main background payload.
During the initial phase, the screen locker file is created under the following paths:
To launch the screen locker, several tasks are created:
The screen locker is also written to the following registry keys:
After this, two LNK files, SystemHelper.lnk and WindowsHelper.lnk, are created via PowerShell for subsequent execution:
The first file is placed in the %PROFILEPATH%\All users\Start menu\Programs\Startup directory:
The second file is placed in the %USERPROFILE%\Start menu\Programs\Startup directory:
As a result, a shortcut is created in the startup folder pointing to WindowsSystemHelper.exe located on the desktop. This ensures the screen locker appears every time the user logs in. Even if the victim enters the correct password into the locker window, it will keep popping back up; while the window itself closes after password entry, the corresponding task is never actually deleted.
Screen locker
During execution, Blackout Locker generates a file named README.txt, which the screen locker later references to pull the text displayed to the user. Some Blackout Locker samples drop a ransom note written in English:
On the lock screen, it may look like this:
Other samples deploy a ransom note in Russian:
If the program fails to read README.txt, it falls back to a hardcoded ransom message. If this fallback message is in Russian but the victim’s operating system lacks support for Cyrillic encodings, the loader’s on-screen output renders as garbled text.
Attack geography
The majority of the compromised infrastructures belong to Russian and Belarusian organizations, which aligns with the stated agenda of these hacker groups. However, for the first time, we identified victims in other countries with no relation to this agenda: Kazakhstan, the UAE, Syria, and Egypt. Within the network of a Kazakh aviation company, we detected multiple post-exploitation frameworks pointing to C2 servers at 77.72.85[.]62 and 185.221.153[.]121, traces of the Panorama9 and Tactical RMM platforms, and backupagnt.exe loaders. A similar footprint was observed in the infrastructure of an Egyptian hospital, though the familiar toolkit was augmented by the fd.aspx web shell. The remaining international victims exhibited a nearly identical combination of artifacts, with only minor variations.
While the primary targeting vector previously centered on Russia and Belarus, the threat actors now appear to be pivoting their attention toward the wider CIS region and the Middle East. This strategic shift correlates with a statement from a member of the 4BID group, who claimed that attacking Russia is no longer profitable.
Takeaways
The hacktivist groups discussed in this report are steadily expanding the geographical footprint of their campaigns, pushing beyond Russia and the wider CIS region. Alongside this expansion, we observe the growing use of ransomware and other tooling consistent with financially motivated operations, which may further influence their choice of victims.
This shift underscores the critical need for continuous threat landscape monitoring. To stay ahead of threat actors, organizations must look beyond the immediate risks facing their perimeter and proactively track emerging threats, including the tactics of groups targeting specific industry verticals or geographic regions.
Detection by Kaspersky solutions
Kaspersky solutions reliably detect the malicious activity in question at every stage of the malware lifecycle. This section outlines potential detection scenarios.
Publicly available dual-use software leaves numerous artifacts on targeted hosts, which helps Kaspersky Endpoint Detection and Response Expert trace the activity of these utilities.
For instance, network connections established with Panorama9 servers both during the initial software launch and throughout the tool’s operation trigger the panorama9_dns_activity rule. The Hunt Hub section of our TI Portal features detection rules for other event types and specific operating systems, searchable with the keyword panorama9. Similar rules exist for the other utilities described in this post: Tactical RMM, Nezha, and Dev tunnels.
GhostDriver.exe relies on an embedded vulnerable driver, which it drops onto the target host. The creation of these drivers is detected by the vuln_driver_created_by_unsigned_process rule family.
Ransomware is inherently quite noisy and so can be detected at various execution phases. The execution graph within Kaspersky Cloud Sandbox on our Threat Intelligence Portal visualizes the entire ClearWater execution chain, capturing key behaviors such as modifying the desktop wallpaper and deleting shadow copies.
ClearWater execution graph in Kaspersky Cloud Sandbox
Additionally, the Threat Lookup and Research Graph sections of Kaspersky Threat Intelligence Portal allow you to visualize and analyze the connections between the malicious domains and files used by the adversaries.
Visualization via Research Graph on Kaspersky Threat Intelligence Portal
Kaspersky Threat Lookup demonstrating the connection between malicious files and the attackers’ IP address
Monitoring network traffic is another highly effective method for detecting the malicious activity described here. Kaspersky Anti Targeted Attack (KATA) with the NDR module detects the network communications of all malware samples in question utilized throughout this campaign.
For instance, upon detecting HTTP network activity characteristic of the BlackSalt backdoor, the system triggers an alert for the Backdoor.BlackSalt.HTTP.C&C rule triggering.
Login
