Halo Security Honored with 2026 MSP Today Product of the Year Award

Miami Beach, FL, USA, 2nd June 2026, CyberNewswire

Hackread – Cybersecurity News, Data Breaches, AI and More – ​Read More

This easy prompt trick gave me better AI-generated images – no matter the model

Having trouble getting the right image out of ChatGPT, Gemini, or another AI tool? Try this foolproof prompt.

Latest news – ​Read More

From Fake Purchase Orders to Remote Access: Analyzing the JS.MonoGlyphRAT Threat to US Enterprises

A previously unidentified cyberattack is quietly spreading through US businesses — and most security tools are not catching it. Researchers at ANY.RUN have identified a new backdoor called JS.MonoGlyphRAT, an advanced piece of malware delivered as an ordinary-looking JavaScript file disguised as a purchase order, quote, or business proposal. Once an employee opens the file, the attacker gains silent, persistent access to the company’s systems.

This threat is currently active and primarily targeting organizations in the United States, with victims confirmed across the technology sector, managed security service providers (MSSPs), telecommunications, and education. It has also been observed in Germany, Sweden, Australia, and several other countries.

The financial consequences can quickly escalate beyond incident response costs. Organizations may face operational downtime, regulatory penalties, contractual liabilities, lost business opportunities, reputational damage, and increased cyber insurance expenses. Because MonoGlyphRAT functions as a loader capable of delivering additional malware, even a seemingly minor infection can become the first step toward a large-scale breach with significant business impact.

Key Takeaways

  • It is actively targeting US businesses. JS.MonoGlyphRAT is an operational threat, with confirmed victims in the US technology, MSSP, and telecom sectors, delivered via convincing sales-themed phishing lures.
  • Most security tools are blind to it. The malware is currently classified as ‘Unknown malware’ on VirusTotal and ThreatFox. Standard signature-based antivirus provides little to no protection.
  • It is designed for persistence and deep access. The RAT establishes a permanent foothold via the Windows registry, runs silently in the background, and can pivot to download ransomware, exfiltrate data, or deploy further stages.
  • The attack begins with a single click. Employees in procurement, sales, and finance are the primary targets. A .js file disguised as a purchase order or quote is all it takes to compromise a machine.
  • The financial exposure is real and immediate. From ransomware deployment to data breach fines and incident response costs, a successful compromise can cost a mid-sized US business millions of dollars — plus reputational damage that is harder to quantify.
  • Behavioral detection is the key defense. The malware’s most reliable detection artifacts are behavioral: unusual wscript.exe activity, PowerShell chains launched from a user directory, suspicious registry writes, and HTTP beaconing to non-standard ports. Hunt for these patterns actively.
  • ANY.RUN detects and analyzes this threat in real time. ANY.RUN’s Interactive Sandbox first identified and documented JS.MonoGlyphRAT, providing full behavioral analysis, C2 traffic capture, and MITRE ATT&CK mapping. The ANY.RUN Threat Intelligence suit allows defenders to query related IOCs — including C2 IPs, domains, URI patterns, and Suricata rule IDs — to proactively hunt for this threat across their environments. Organizations using ANY.RUN can analyze suspicious .js files in seconds before they reach endpoints, dramatically reducing the window of exposure.

What This Attack Means for Your Business

JS.MonoGlyphRAT is not a smash-and-grab attack. It is designed for persistence — staying hidden on infected machines for as long as possible while giving attackers full remote control. The financial consequences for affected organizations can be severe and varied:

  • Ransomware deployment: The malware can silently download and execute ransomware or other destructive payloads, potentially locking businesses out of critical systems and demanding seven-figure ransoms.
  • Data theft and regulatory fines: Attackers can exfiltrate sensitive data — customer records, financial information, intellectual property — triggering GDPR, HIPAA, or SEC disclosure obligations and associated penalties.
  • Business email compromise (BEC) and fraud: With full access to an employee’s machine, attackers can pivot to email systems and initiate fraudulent wire transfers or supplier fraud.
  • Operational disruption: A compromised endpoint in a network operations center or a managed service provider can cascade into downtime for dozens of downstream clients.
  • Incident response costs: The average cost of a data breach in the US exceeded $9.4 million in 2024. Detection, containment, forensics, legal counsel, and notification alone typically run into hundreds of thousands of dollars.
  • Reputational damage: Clients who learn their MSSP or technology vendor was compromised often terminate contracts, compounding the financial blow.

Because this malware cluster is currently unattributed in public threat intelligence feeds (flagged only as ‘Unknown malware’ on VirusTotal and ThreatFox), standard signature-based antivirus provides little protection. Behavioral detection and sandbox analysis are essential to identify and stop it.

Stop threats before they become costly incidents.
Integrate ANY.RUN to detect, investigate, and block attacks like JS.MonoGlyphRAT early.



Get for your team


Technical Analysis of a WSH/JScript Backdoor with Monoglyph Obfuscation and PowerShell Stagers

During analysis of Generic clusters of tracked activity, researchers identified an obfuscated JScript sample executed via Windows Script Host (WSH).

The malware uses a distinctive monoglyph obfuscation technique for identifiers: variable and function names are constructed from repeated characters in mixed case (e.g., IiIiIiIiiIII, KkkKKKkKkK, and so on), making the code difficult to read and hampering static analysis.

Obfuscated JS file

This cluster has not been publicly identified. In open threat intelligence sources, related samples are classified as unknown malware: ThreatFox marks one of the C2 addresses as ‘Unknown malware’ with threat type ‘payload delivery’, while VirusTotal shows Malicious activity (29/59 detections) but no specific family name.

For tracking purposes, ANY.RUN researchers have designated this cluster JS.MonoGlyphRAT, named after the monoglyph identifier obfuscation method (IiiIIii…, KkkKkKk…, etc.).

The malware implements persistent RAT/loader functionality running on the JS/WScript platform. It achieves persistence via the HKCU Run registry key, collects system and process information via WMI, communicates with its C2 server over HTTP, receives commands through control headers, launches AES-encrypted PowerShell stagers, and supports file execution, remote shell access, payload download, and self-update.

Malware activity in the system

Delivery Vector & Victimology

Based on filenames submitted to the sandbox, the presumed delivery vector is social engineering (phishing with malicious JS attachments) using sales-themed lures: purchase orders, requests for proposals (RFPs), requests for quotations (RFQs), and similar documents.

Sample filenames observed:

Industries affected: Technology sector, MSSPs, Education, Telecommunications.
Geographic distribution of victims: primarily the United States, Germany, and Sweden; to a lesser extent Australia, Costa Rica, Greece, Poland, and Turkey.

Execution Chain

The following analysis is based on sandbox session: https://app.any.run/tasks/e39d92e9-a8c3-4c71-8009-2087847fb669/

Malicious JS detonated in the sandbox

Initialization

The analyzed sample is a heavily obfuscated JS script (SHA256: 5446b24959c1c2707accfc257aaac61819c01d1ed65bca910a7e8be1787d200f).

The defining characteristic is the repeating pattern of object and function names in the code: sequences of the same letter in alternating case — for example, ‘function iiiiiiiiiiiiii()’, ‘var IiIiiiiiiIiIIi’, ‘function Iiiiiiiiiiiiii(iIiiiiiiiiiiii, IIiiiiiiiiiiii)’, and so on.

The characteristic code obfuscation

In the sandbox, the script runs under the wscript.exe process. Shortly after execution, a series of behavioral signatures fire with Malicious and Suspicious severity levels.

Malicious behavior detected in the sandbox
Malware behavioral signatures

Network activity is also visible: the script sends HTTP requests to an unknown IP address.

Network Block HTTP requests
One of the malware’s HTTP requests

Observed URLs:

  • hxxp[://]158[.]94[.]211[.]76:34567/ceoznp
  • hxxp[://]158[.]94[.]211[.]76:34567/ceoznp?ia=GEZHOV8LBB7PY4KX&df=0
  • hxxp[://]158[.]94[.]211[.]76:34567/ceoznp?ia=GEZHOV8LBB7PY4KX
  • hxxp[://]158[.]94[.]211[.]76:34567/ceoznp?ia=UDP3HIP4P5SH3U5R&df=0
  • hxxp[://]158[.]94[.]211[.]76:34567/ceoznp?ia=UDP3HIP4P5SH3U5R

Reduce breach costs with faster threat detection.
Analyze suspicious files and uncover malicious infrastructure with ANY.RUN.



Start now


WSH Bindings

The malware creates wrapper objects for interacting with WScript and WMI.

Wrappers for working with WinHost API, WScript, and ActiveX/COM

These provide the following capabilities:

  • Process execution;
  • PowerShell payload execution;
  • WMI data collection;
  • File system operations;
  • C2 HTTP communication;
  • Registry value writing;
  • Persistence mechanisms and self-copying to the installation path.

Installation and Persistence

On the first run, the script copies itself into a subdirectory of %USERPROFILE%. After a successful C2 exchange, it adds itself to the Windows autorun mechanism by writing to the registry:

Persistence mechanisms
Changing Windows Registry for persistence

C2 Implementation and Capabilities

C2 connection parameters are defined in a static configuration within the main RAT class.

C2 connection parameters in the malware config

HTTP C2 addresses are hardcoded; the connectionMode parameter determines the communication scheme: header C2 mode (commands delivered via HTTP response headers) or legacy mode.

C2 address and communication mode selection

On initial connection, the client collects basic host telemetry:

  • USERDOMAIN
  • USERNAME
  • Win32_SystemEnclosure.SerialNumber (via WMI)
  • Win32_OperatingSystem.Caption (via WMI)
Basic telemetry collection

This data is sent to the C2 in an HTTP POST request.

HTTP C2 Check-in
POST-request example

The server responds with two control headers:

  • X-S: <session ID>
  • X-A: <command_id>

If the response status code is not 200, or if the X-S header is absent, the RAT client considers the connection failed and enters a shutdown state.

HTTP C2 check-in response w/ control headers (X-S, X-A)

After successful registration, MonoGlyphRAT enters a beacon loop.

C2 interaction in beacon loop mode
HTTP beacon-request example

The beacon URL format is:
http://<c2_host>/<endpoint>?ia=<session_id>[&<param>=<value>]

If the response status is below 300, the response is passed to the command dispatcher. Otherwise, the connection is considered broken and the client attempts to reconnect.

The command dispatcher reads the command code from the ‘X-A’ header. Supported commands:

Command ID Description
-7 Receive MonoGlyphRAT client update from C2
-6 Uninstall — remove self from host
-5 Terminate client process
-4 Restart client
-3 … 0 C2 connection management: disconnect / reconnect / sleep / wake
1 Download, decrypt, and execute payload from C2
2 Decrypt and execute PowerShell command
3 Download encrypted stage and execute in-memory
4 Collect and send host telemetry to C2
Switch-case on C2 command number in X-A

The following POST-requests from the client also add parameters to the URL (along with ‘?ia=<session_id>’):

  • “&ex=<token>”: file download
  • “&sb=<token>”: loader/stage
  • “&vc=<token>”: payload URL for stage
  • “&df=0”: host telemetry upload

X-A: -7 “Update client”

Deobfuscated implementation code for the ‘Update client’ command (X-A: -7)

X-A: 1 “Execute file”

Deobfuscated implementation code for the ‘Execute file’ command (X-A:1)

C2 response body format:

  • [0:12] — file token
  • [12:44] — AES encryption key
  • [44:] — hex-encoded file extension

The extracted parameters are passed to SystemUtilities.DownloadAesEncryptedFile, which interpolates them into a PowerShell command executed via the WSH/WMI wrapper objects.

Preparation of the PS command to execute the C2 file payload

Encryption parameters used:

  • Mode: AES-128-CBC
  • Padding: PKCS #7
  • Key: 16 bytes, supplied per-task in the C2 response body
  • IV: ‘sixteenbyteslong’ — static across samples, stored as reverse-hex

X-A: 2 “Execute shell”

Deobfuscated implementation code for the ‘Execute shell’ command (X-A:2)

C2 response body format:

  • [0:32] — AES encryption key
  • [32:] — hex-encoded encrypted PowerShell command

Parameters are passed to SystemUtilities.RunEncryptedPowerShellCommand, which constructs and executes a PowerShell command in the same manner as the Execute File handler.

Preparation of the PS command to execute the C2 shell payload

X-A: 3 — In-Memory .NET Execution

This is the most sophisticated C2 handler. C2 response body format:

  • [0:12] — loader token
  • [12:44] — loader AES encryption key
  • [44:] — loader host / argument encrypted blob (hex-encoded)

The handler builds two URLs (loaderUrl and payloadUrl), encodes them as reversed hex, then downloads and executes an additional payload in memory within a newly created .NET process.

Deobfuscated implementation code for the ‘in-memory execution’ command (X-A:3)

The PowerShell command used for execution:

  • Reconstructs loaderUrl from its obfuscated form
  • Downloads the additional payload
  • Decrypts the payload
  • Patches AmsiScanBuffer to bypass AMSI
  • Assembles the decrypted bytes into a memory buffer
  • Reflectively loads a .NET Assembly via [System.Reflection.Assembly]::Load()
  • Transfers execution to the entry point: [Software.Program].GetMethod(‘Main’).Invoke()

AMSI patching is implemented using LoadLibrary(‘amsi.dll’), GetProcAddress(‘AmsiScanBuffer’), VirtualProtect(), and Marshal.Copy().

Preparation for .NET in-memory payload execution
AMSI patching
.NET reflective loading
Handler function code LoadAesEncryptedDotNetStage

X-A: 4 “Host telemetry”

Deobfuscated implementation code for the ‘get host telemetry’ command (X-A:4)

C2 response body format:

  • [0:32] — XOR key from server
  • [32] — extended telemetry flag
C2 request-responce with command ID = 4

In the request body:

  • “X-A: 4” — “Get host telemetry” command
  • “766BBAE98154B60B381CE91BFB5473ED” — XOR encryption key (in hex)
  • “1” – get extended info flag

When the flag is set to ‘1’, the client collects an extended host profile:

Host telemetry collection code

The data collected:

  • USERDOMAIN / USERNAME
  • Win32_SystemEnclosure.SerialNumber
  • Win32_OperatingSystem.Caption
  • Win32_ComputerSystem.TotalPhysicalMemory
  • Win32_ComputerSystem.Model
  • Win32_Processor.Name
  • Win32_VideoController.Name
  • Win32_Process.Name (unique entries list, via separate WMI call)

The collected data is XOR-encoded and sent as a JSON payload via POST:

{
    “b”: “<xored_host_info>”,
    “c”: “<xored_process_list>”
}

The POST-request:

POST /<endpoint>?ia=<session_id>&df=0
Content-Type: application/json
<JSON host info payload in request body>
POST-request with collected host info

MonoGlyphRAT C2 protocol operation scheme:

MonoGlyphRAT C2 protocol operation scheme:

The RAT client configuration is set statically in the JS script code:

MonoGlyphRAT configuration example

Threat Landscape

Based on available sources, JS.MonoGlyphRAT is supported by a stable infrastructure cluster — IP addresses, C2 domains, and non-standard URI paths — that remains without attribution (classified as Unknown RAT/malware in public feeds).

ANY.RUN TI related samples query:

destinationIP:”158.94.211.76″ or url:”?ia=&df=” or domainName:”aryamint.com$” or destinationIP:”91.92.243.79″ or url:”/gATIjh” or url:”/ceoznp” or suricataID:”85006579″ or suricataID:”85006580″ or suricataID:”85006581″

Within the kill chain, MonoGlyphRAT occupies the role of a first- or mid-stage RAT/loader: it establishes persistence on the victim host, sets up a persistent C2 session, and can download and execute additional stage payloads (files, shell commands, in-memory .NET execution).

Attribution to a specific campaign or threat actor cannot be confirmed on the current dataset. While there are consistent infrastructure artifacts, network traffic patterns, and a shared execution chain, these are insufficient for reliable actor attribution.

MITRE ATT&CK Mapping

Tactic Technique Procedure
Initial Access T1204.002 – User Execution: Malicious File User executes a JS script disguised as a business document
Execution T1059.007 – JavaScript Core implant written in JavaScript, executed via wscript.exe
Execution T1059.001 – PowerShell Script generates PowerShell wrappers, launched via powershell -nop -enc; used for download, AES decryption, command execution, and staging
Execution T1620 – Reflective Code Loading Decrypted .NET assembly loaded into memory via reflection; payload never written to disk
Persistence T1547.001 – Registry Run Keys Script copies itself to %USERPROFILE% and registers via HKCU…Run
Discovery T1082 – System Information Discovery Client collects host fingerprint: domain, username, serial number, OS, RAM, model, CPU, GPU, OS architecture
Discovery T1057 – Process Discovery Running process list collected via WMI Win32_Process.Name on C2 command
C&C T1071.001 – Web Protocols C2 over HTTP: check-in, beacon loop, tasking, telemetry upload, payload delivery; control via X-S / X-A headers
C&C T1571 – Non-Standard Port C2 endpoints served on non-standard HTTP ports
C&C T1105 – Ingress Tool Transfer Malware downloads additional files and stages from C2 in encrypted form; decrypted and executed locally
C&C T1132.002 – Non-Standard Data Encoding XOR for telemetry, reversed hex for strings/URLs, hex-encoded keys, AES-encrypted task bodies
Exfiltration T1041 – Exfiltration Over C2 Collected telemetry sent over the same HTTP C2 channel used for commands
Defense Evasion T1027 – Obfuscated Files or Information Monoglyph identifier obfuscation, encoded strings, AES/XOR, hidden PowerShell stagers
Defense Evasion T1027.010 – Command Obfuscation PowerShell commands built dynamically, launched via -enc (Base64 UTF-16LE); parameters/URLs additionally obscured via hex/reverse-encoding
Defense Evasion T1027.013 – Encrypted/Encoded File Payloads and stages transferred AES-encrypted; key from C2 body, static IV ‘sixteenbyteslong’
Defense Evasion T1140 – Deobfuscate/Decode Files or Information During execution: hex/Base64 decode, reversed string restoration, XOR, AES-CBC decryption
Defense Evasion T1562.001 – Disable or Modify Tools Stage loader implements AMSI bypass by patching AmsiScanBuffer, reducing detection likelihood for subsequent .NET payloads
Defense Evasion T1070.004 – File Deletion On uninstall/update, malware deletes installed JS copy, temp files, or older client version

How ANY.RUN Helps Defend Against JS.MonoGlyphRAT

Defending against threats like JS.MonoGlyphRAT requires visibility across the entire attack chain, from the initial phishing attachment to command-and-control communications and follow-on payload delivery. ANY.RUN’s security solutions help organizations identify and stop such activity at multiple stages.

Using Interactive Sandbox, analysts can safely execute suspicious JavaScript attachments and immediately observe malicious behaviors associated with MonoGlyphRAT, including the execution of wscript.exe, PowerShell spawning, registry-based persistence, C2 communications, and payload delivery attempts.

AI Summary in the Sandbox analysis results automatically highlights key malicious actions, helping analysts understand the attack chain faster and reducing investigation time. In addition, AI Recommendations provide actionable guidance for further analysis, threat hunting, and incident response, helping teams move from detection to remediation more efficiently.

Tier 1 Reports provide ready-made analysis summaries that explain malware behavior, attack techniques, indicators of compromise, and detection opportunities in a structured, easy-to-consume format. This enables teams to quickly understand threats without requiring extensive reverse engineering expertise..

Threat Intelligence Lookup enables defenders to investigate indicators associated with the malware cluster, including IP addresses, domains, URLs, process chains, Suricata detections, and behavioral artifacts. Analysts can quickly determine whether their organization has encountered related infrastructure or attack patterns and pivot across connected indicators to uncover broader malicious activity.

For proactive defense, Threat Intelligence Feeds help security teams enrich SIEM, EDR, XDR, SOAR, and other security controls with continuously updated threat data. By automatically incorporating fresh indicators linked to emerging malware campaigns, organizations can improve detection coverage and block malicious infrastructure before attackers establish persistence.

Together, ANY.RUN’s Sandbox, Threat Intelligence Lookup, and Threat Intelligence Feeds provide security teams with the visibility needed to detect, investigate, and respond to MonoGlyphRAT infections early, reducing the likelihood of costly incidents, operational disruption, and follow-on attacks such as ransomware deployment.

Conclusions

JS.MonoGlyphRAT is a fully featured persistent RAT/loader built around Windows Script Host, PowerShell, and a custom HTTP C2 protocol. Its purpose is to establish persistence on the victim host, register with the C2, receive operator commands, and download additional payloads and stages.

The defining characteristic of this cluster is monoglyph obfuscation of JavaScript identifiers: class and variable names are constructed from repeated characters in mixed case, making the code difficult to read and hampering manual analysis.

C2 communication is conducted via HTTP headers X-S and X-A, where X-S carries the session identifier and X-A acts as a command selector. The C2 response body contains task parameters: tokens, encryption keys, and encrypted PowerShell or stager payloads.

Functionally, MonoGlyphRAT supports a broad capability set: host telemetry collection, active process enumeration, HKCU Run persistence, AES-encrypted payload download and execution, PowerShell task execution, in-memory .NET code execution, client self-update, and installed copy removal. The implant can also serve as an intermediate platform for delivering subsequent payloads.

From a Threat Intelligence perspective, a distinct code/infrastructure cluster is consistently observed; public TI sources currently classify related IOCs as ‘Unknown malware’, so attribution to a known group or family remains unconfirmed. The working designation JS.MonoGlyphRAT is proposed for analysis and indicator-sharing purposes.

In defensive practice, the most valuable detection artifacts are behavioral:

  • wscript.exe executing JS files from user-writable directories
  • Registry write to HKCU Run pointing to a .js file
  • Process chain: wscript.exe → powershell.exe -nop –enc …
  • HTTP POST requests to non-standard ports
  • Presence of query parameters ia=, df=, ex=, sb=, vc= and HTTP response headers X-S: and X-A:

Indicators of Compromise (IOCs)

Network Artifacts:

hxxp[://]158[.]94[.]211[.]76:34567/ceoznp

158[.]94[.]211[.]76

91[.]92[.]243[.]79

scan[.]aryamint[.]com

aryamint[.]com

HTTP / C2 protocol Artifacts:

HTTP Header: ‘X-A:’

HTTP Header: ‘X-S:’

POST body pattern: ‘a=iz&b=<data>’

Query parameter: ‘ia=<session_id>’

Query parameter: ‘ex=<token>’

Query parameter: ‘sb=<token>’

Query parameter: ‘vc=<token>’

Query parameter: ‘df=0’ or ‘df=<token>’

Query parameter: ‘kp=<token>’

Query parameter: ‘tw=<token>’

Query parameter: ‘fp=1’

Host-based Artifacts:

File path: %USERPROFILE%<random letters><random letters>.js

Registry key: HKCUSoftwareMicrosoftWindowsCurrentVersionRun<random letters>

Crypto IV:

Static string: ‘sixteenbyteslong’

Encoded IV: ‘76E6F6C63756479726E6565647879637’ (reversed hex)

Detection patterns:

Process tree: ‘wscript.exe -> powershell.exe -nop –enc …’

Registry key record: ‘HKCUSoftwareMicrosoftWindowsCurrentVersionRun*’, value contains: ‘wscript.exe | .js’

HTTP POST body: ‘a=iz&b=…’

HTTP response headers: ‘X-S:’ + ‘X-A:’

HTTP query parameters:

  • ‘?ia=<session_id>&ex=’
  • ‘?ia=<session_id>&sb=’
  • ‘?ia=<session_id>&vc=’
  • ‘?ia=<session_id>&df=’

JavaScript strings:

  • MSXML2.XMLHTTP
  • Scripting.FileSystemObject
  • Wscript.Shell
  • winmgmts:{impersonationLevel=impersonate}!\.rootcimv2
  • powershell
  • -nop
  • -enc
  • 76E6F6C63756479726E6565647879637

About ANY.RUN  

Trusted by over 600,000 cybersecurity professionals and 15,000+ organizations in finance, healthcare, manufacturing, and other critical industries, ANY.RUN helps security teams investigate threats faster and with greater accuracy.  

Our Interactive Sandbox accelerates incident response by allowing you to analyze suspicious files in real time, watch behavior as it unfolds, and make confident, well-informed decisions.  

Our Threat Intelligence Lookup and Threat Intelligence Feeds strengthen detection by providing the context your team needs to anticipate and stop today’s most advanced attacks. ANY.RUN is SOC 2 Type II attested, reflecting strong security controls and a commitment to protecting customer data. 

Try ANY.RUN to strengthen your proactive defense 

FAQ


What is JS.MonoGlyphRAT?

JS.MonoGlyphRAT is a newly identified backdoor and loader malware written in JavaScript and executed via Windows Script Host. It was named by ANY.RUN researchers after its signature obfuscation technique — using repeating characters in mixed case for all variable and function names. The malware gives attackers persistent remote access to infected machines and can download additional malicious payloads.


Who is being targeted?

Current victims are concentrated in the United States, Germany, and Sweden. The hardest-hit industries are technology companies, managed security service providers (MSSPs), telecommunications firms, and educational institutions. Other affected countries include Australia, Costa Rica, Greece, Poland, and Turkey.


How does the infection start?

The malware is delivered via phishing emails with malicious JavaScript file attachments. The files are disguised as business documents — purchase orders, quotes, and RFPs — to trick employees in procurement, sales, and finance roles into opening them.


Why aren’t antivirus tools catching it?

As of the time of research, JS.MonoGlyphRAT is classified as ‘Unknown malware’ in public threat intelligence platforms including VirusTotal and ThreatFox. Signature-based antivirus tools cannot detect threats they have no signatures for. Detection requires behavioral analysis — monitoring what the file actually does when executed, rather than matching it against a database of known bad files.


What can attackers do once they are inside?

Once installed, the attacker has extensive control: they can collect detailed system information, monitor running processes, execute arbitrary commands via PowerShell, download and run additional malware (including ransomware), run code entirely in memory to avoid leaving files on disk, and update or remove the implant remotely. The malware is specifically designed to maintain access for extended periods without being detected.


What are the most important indicators of compromise (IOCs) to watch for?

Key detection signals include: JavaScript files executing via wscript.exe from user directories; a process chain of wscript.exe spawning powershell.exe with -nop and -enc flags; new registry Run keys pointing to .js files under %USERPROFILE%; HTTP POST traffic to non-standard ports containing the pattern a=iz&b=; and HTTP responses containing the headers X-S: and X-A:.


7. Is there a known threat actor behind this campaign?

At this time, attribution to a specific threat actor or nation-state group has not been confirmed. Researchers have identified a consistent infrastructure cluster — recurring IP addresses, C2 domains, URI patterns, and code artifacts — but the available data is insufficient for reliable attribution. ANY.RUN is continuing to track the cluster and will update the community as new intelligence emerges.

The post From Fake Purchase Orders to Remote Access: Analyzing the JS.MonoGlyphRAT Threat to US Enterprises appeared first on ANY.RUN’s Cybersecurity Blog.

ANY.RUN’s Cybersecurity Blog – ​Read More

Study on the Wi-Fi security situation in Mexico | Kaspersky official blog

One of the biggest football (soccer) events of this summer is the World Cup 2026. The tournament is co-hosted by three countries: the U.S., Canada, and Mexico. Unfortunately, events of this scale attract not just fans, but also scammers from all over the globe. We’ve already covered how cybercriminals are prepping for the World Cup online, and today we’re talking about digital security for fans on the ground in Mexico.

The country will host 13 matches and welcome millions of tourists. They’ll be staying in hotels, heading to games, checking out restaurants, navigating airports, and visiting popular tourist spots — and everywhere they go, the temptation to connect to public Wi-Fi will be high.

We’ve surveyed more than 84 500 (!) public Wi-Fi access points in Mexico City, Guadalajara, and Monterrey — and we have a lot to share about their security. Spoiler alert: many networks are still using outdated security standards, so you really shouldn’t go on vacation without reliable protection and an eSIM.

What and how we tested

Walking across Mexico looking for public Wi-Fi access points would have been a bit tough, though that’s exactly what we did for a similar Wi-Fi security survey in Paris. You can check out the results of that in our post, How safe is Wi-Fi in Paris?

This time the mission was far more demanding: mapping the wireless landscape of three major metropolises. That’s why we went wardriving — scanning for and logging wireless networks from a moving vehicle while equipped with a smartphone or laptop. It’s similar to searching for Wi-Fi on your phone, where the device constantly listens for nearby networks. Except instead of connecting to them, we just collect data about them.

All information was used strictly for passive observation and infrastructure analysis. Beyond receiving publicly broadcast service information, the experts of Kaspersky’s Global Research and Analysis Team (GReAT) didn’t attempt to authenticate, intercept traffic, exploit systems, or otherwise interact with the wireless networks they discovered. Mobile access points deployed in cars and on mobile devices were excluded from the sample.

Our main target was Mexico City — the capital and one of the most densely populated cities in Latin America. We took a drive through popular tourist spots: Mexico City Stadium, Mexico City International Airport, Zócalo, Paseo de la Reforma, Colonia Roma, La Condesa, Polanco, Coyoacán.

In Guadalajara and Monterrey, we drove similar routes: stadiums, main avenues, airports, and popular neighborhoods. Below you can see a heatmap of the areas we covered, ranging from red for areas with the highest density of public access points, through yellow and green, to blue for the lowest concentration.

We used passive radio reconnaissance to log 84 500 signals and 69 500 unique network identifiers across these three cities. The majority of the signals were caught in Mexico City (61.4%), followed by Guadalajara (23.6%) and Monterrey (14.8%).

What we analyzed:

  • Wireless network identifiers (SSIDs): the names that show up in your list of available Wi-Fi networks
  • Information that can be gleaned from these identifiers
  • Default router configurations and how ISPs deploy their networks
  • Frequencies used and signal characteristics
  • Channel load and radio frequency spectrum usage
  • Wireless network security configurations:
    • Open and insecure networks
    • Networks with WPS enabled
    • Secure networks (WPA2/WPA3) with WPS activated

You can find the full version of the study on the Securelist blog.

Telltale public Wi-Fi access point names

Network names (SSIDs) can tell you a lot by unintentionally revealing information about hardware manufacturers, ISPs, deployment methods, and whether an access point belongs to a business or a private user.

About 34% of the public Wi-Fi networks we logged didn’t bother changing their names at all, either sticking with the factory SSIDs from the router manufacturers or using standard naming conventions from their ISPs. For attackers, this can be a pretty solid hint, since this kind of network name lets them know which provider owns a given access point, what hardware is being used, and how it’s likely configured by default.

Another troubling nuance is the large number of Wi-Fi networks (over 30%) that use the access point’s MAC address (BSSID) as the visible network name. The first few bytes of a BSSID contain an Organizationally Unique Identifier (OUI), which gives away the router’s manufacturer. This is a useful lead for bad actors: they can find out who made the hardware and test for vulnerabilities specific to that brand’s models.

Is Mexican Wi-Fi well-protected?

An access point secured with WPA2/WPA3 can be considered more or less safe. All other authentication mechanisms yield much weaker results. We grouped the public Wi-Fi networks into four categories:

  • Secure (WPA2/WPA3)
  • Unsecured (open/WEP)
  • Weak (WPA)
  • Undetermined

The results are roughly the same across all three cities: about 82% of all analyzed access points are protected by secure standards. The outdated and insecure WPA protocol was practically nonexistent. However, more than 10% of the access points turned out to be completely unsecured. Connecting to these networks carries the risk of traffic interception and hidden surveillance.

But security isn’t evaluated by WPA protocols alone. We also checked for the presence of WPS, the infamous feature for quickly connecting to a network without entering a password, which is highly vulnerable to attacks. It turned out that WPS is enabled on nearly half (47%) of the access points in Mexico City, 43% in Guadalajara, and 41% in Monterrey. On average, 45% of the access points are potentially vulnerable to WPS-related attacks — sacrificing security for the sake of convenience.

What’s more, this feature frequently remained active even on seemingly secure WPA2/WPA3 networks — about half of them utilized WPS. This shows that having WPA2/WPA3 is still not enough to consider a Wi-Fi access point safe, as additional features like WPS can still leave the door open to attacks.

What else every tourist needs to know

Digital risks on a trip aren’t limited to public Wi-Fi alone, especially now that many are shifting away from public Wi-Fi to an eSIM. There are still plenty of threats in crowded places: public USB chargers, QR codes with swapped links, NFC and Bluetooth attacks, and, of course, social engineering tactics. Let’s break it all down.

Charging stations. Public USB chargers can also be dangerous: bad actors could potentially gain access to the data on your device or try to install malware. We covered these attacks in detail in our post, Data theft during smartphone charging.

Dangerous QR codes. Criminals can plant phishing QR codes in popular tourist spots. The pretexts can vary wildly; for instance, ads for team-specific fan “events”, or links supposedly offering discounts or restaurant menus. In reality, any QR code posted on the street can be considered insecure by default, and you shouldn’t scan them with your smartphone unless you have a QR code threat analyzer installed.

Fake broadcasts, tickets, and betting pools. Earlier, we described cases where bad actors were distributing malware via fake IPTV apps to capitalize on the WC26 hype. Remember, even if you plan to watch the tournament from home, you still need to stay alert and not trust the first sites that pop up advertising free broadcasts, offering betting pools, or promising unbelievably generous payouts.

NFC and Bluetooth attacks. Leaving Bluetooth enabled in crowded places can also cause problems: someone might try to discover your device, track you, or initiate an unwanted pairing request. NFC services with contactless payments create additional risks too — especially when paying in sketchy spots.

How to protect yourself and your devices

Despite the prevalence of secure WPA2/WPA3 public Wi-Fi access points in Mexico City, Guadalajara, and Monterrey, our study shows that public Wi-Fi networks remain vulnerable. It’s also important to remember that attackers can create fake networks — so-called evil twins — disguised as legitimate public Wi-Fi in airports, hotels, cafés, and tourist spots.

For the average user, it’s practically impossible to tell how safe a specific access point is when trying to connect. That’s why the safest option is to use cellular data to access the internet — completely eliminating the need for Wi-Fi. Besides, there’s no need to research the nuances of local laws, rates, and other cellular details for every country you plan to visit; you can just buy a global eSIM online in two clicks. We explained how to make the entire process hassle-free in our post, Internet on the go with Kaspersky eSIM Store.

If you still plan on connecting to public Wi-Fi, always use a VPN to secure your device and data when connecting to unfamiliar — especially unsecured — Wi-Fi networks. This creates an encrypted tunnel between your device and the VPN server, making it impossible to intercept your data along the way. Haven’t picked a VPN yet? Try Kaspersky VPN Secure Connection, which is included with both Kaspersky Premium and Kaspersky Plus subscriptions.

Now, if you still plan to attend the World Cup without any cybersecurity solution, at least follow these basic rules of digital hygiene:

  • Don’t use public USB chargers
  • Don’t send sensitive information over connections that aren’t secure
  • Don’t log in to banking, email, or social media accounts over unsecured Wi-Fi
  • Turn off Bluetooth and NFC while walking around in crowded places
  • Don’t trust QR codes posted on the street
  • Connect to public Wi-Fi only when absolutely necessary

What else to read to make sure cheering for your favorite team isn’t only exciting, but also safe:

Kaspersky official blog – ​Read More

Want to be a Linux pro like me? Master these 8 skills first

I’ve been using Linux since 1997. If you intend to climb the hierarchical ladder of Linux users, then there are things you’ll need to learn along the way.

Latest news – ​Read More

Pakistan-Linked SideCopy Targets Afghanistan Finance Ministry with Xeno RAT

Cybersecurity researchers have disclosed details of a spear-phishing campaign likely undertaken by the Pakistan-aligned SideCopy group targeting Afghanistan’s Ministry of Finance with an open-source remote access trojan called Xeno RAT.

“The campaign opens with a spear phishing delivery – a ZIP archive containing a malicious LNK file bearing a carefully crafted Pashto-language filename,”

The Hacker News – ​Read More

Supply Chain Attack Hits 32 Red Hat NPM Packages

Hackers published 96 malicious package versions, injected with a credential-stealing worm similar to Mini Shai-Hulud.

The post Supply Chain Attack Hits 32 Red Hat NPM Packages appeared first on SecurityWeek.

SecurityWeek – ​Read More

The Manhattan Institute Helped Kill DEI. Now It’s Coming for Protests

The right-wing think tank is actively pushing “civil terrorism”—increasing penalties for minor crimes committed while people engage in constitutionally protected free speech.

Security Latest – ​Read More

I finally bought the Transmit MacOS app, and that 16x faster transfer speed is just the beginning

If you spend a good amount of time transferring files to and from your MacOS machine, do yourself a favor and grab a copy of Transmit.

Latest news – ​Read More

Oracle’s First Monthly Patches Resolve 77 Vulnerabilities

Oracle’s monthly Critical Security Patch Update (CSPU) rollouts are meant to deliver critical fixes faster.

The post Oracle’s First Monthly Patches Resolve 77 Vulnerabilities appeared first on SecurityWeek.

SecurityWeek – ​Read More