A cunning predator: How Silver Fox preys on Japanese firms this tax season
Silver Fox is back in Japan, spoofing tax and HR emails timed to the one season when no one thinks twice about opening them
WeLiveSecurity – Read More
Silver Fox is back in Japan, spoofing tax and HR emails timed to the one season when no one thinks twice about opening them
WeLiveSecurity – Read More
This year, AI agents took the center stage – as a defensive capability, but more pressingly as a risk many organizations haven’t caught up with
WeLiveSecurity – Read More
Supply-chain attacks have been one of the most dangerous categories of cybersecurity incidents for years now. And if 2025 taught us anything, it’s that cybercriminals are doubling down on them. In this deep dive, we’re looking at supply-chain attacks from 2025 that, while not always the costliest, were certainly the most unusual and caught the industry’s attention.
As a “warm-up” after the holiday break, cybercriminals systematically backdoored several versions of DogWifTools. This is a utility designed for launching and vigorously promoting Solana-based meme coins on Pump.fun. After compromising the private GitHub repository for DogWifTools, the attackers waited for the developers to upload a fresh build, injected a RAT into it, and then swapped the legitimate program with their malicious version just a few hours later. According to the developers, the threat actors successfully trojanized versions 1.6.3 through 1.6.6 of DogWifTools for Windows.
The endgame was triggered in late January. After using the RAT to harvest a massive amount of data from infected devices, the attackers drained their victims’ crypto wallets. While victims estimate the total haul at over US$10 million in cryptocurrency, the attackers themselves disputed that figure — though they stopped short of revealing exactly how much they’d actually made off with.
If January was a warm-up, February was a total meltdown. The Bybit crypto exchange hack completely eclipsed previous incidents — becoming the largest crypto heist in history. The attackers managed to compromise the Safe{Wallet} software, the multisig cold storage solution the exchange relied on to manage its assets.
Bybit employees thought they were signing a routine transaction; in reality they were authorizing a malicious smart contract. Once executed, it drained a primary cold wallet, dispersing the funds across several hundred attacker-controlled addresses. The final haul exceeded 400 000 ETH/stETH, with a staggering total value of approximately… US$1.5 billion!
Spring 2025 kicked off with a sophisticated attack that used a compromise of multiple GitHub Actions — the workflow patterns used to automate standard DevOps tasks — as its primary delivery mechanism. It all started with the theft of a personal access token belonging to a maintainer of the SpotBugs analysis tool. Using this foothold, the attackers published a malicious process and managed to hijack a token from a maintainer of the reviewdog/action-setup workflow, who was also involved in the project.
From there, they compromised a dependency, the tj-actions/changed-files workflow, modifying it to execute a malicious Python script. This script was designed to hunt for high-value secrets, such as AWS, Azure and Google Cloud keys, GitHub and NPM tokens, database credentials, and RSA private keys. Oddly, the script wrote everything it found directly to publicly accessible build logs. This meant the leaked data wasn’t just available to the attackers, but to anyone savvy enough to look.
The original goal of this operation was a repository belonging to the Coinbase crypto exchange. Fortunately, the developers caught the threat in time and prevented the compromise. After apparently realizing they were about to lose control of the tj-actions/changed-files pipeline, the attackers pivoted to a spray-and-pray approach. This put 23 000 repositories at risk of a secrets leak. In the end, several hundred of those repositories actually saw their sensitive credentials exposed to the public.
In April, an infection was discovered across a whole range of extensions for Magento, one of the most popular platforms for building online stores. The backdoor was embedded into 21 modules developed by three vendors: Tigren, Meetanshi, and MGS. These extensions were part of the infrastructure for several hundred e-commerce companies, including at least one multinational corporation.
According to the researchers who discovered it, the backdoor was actually planted way back in 2019. In April 2025, the attackers finally triggered it to compromise websites and upload web shells. This was accomplished through a function embedded in the extensions that executed arbitrary code pulled from a license file.
Ironically, the infected modules included MGS GDPR and Meetanshi CookieNotice. As the names suggest, these extensions were designed to help sites comply with user privacy and data processing regulations. In the end, instead of ensuring privacy, their use most probably led to the theft of user data and financial assets through web skimming.
In May, ransomware actors from the DragonForce gang gained access to the infrastructure of an unnamed managed service provider (MSP) and used it to distribute their ransomware and steal data from the MSP’s client organizations.
It appears the attackers exploited several vulnerabilities (including one critical flaw) in SimpleHelp, the remote monitoring and management tool used by the MSP. These vulnerabilities were discovered back in 2024 and were publicly disclosed and patched in January 2025. Unfortunately, the MSP evidently decided not to rush the update process — a delay the ransomware gang was more than happy to exploit.
At the start of the summer, attackers hacked the account of one of the Gluestack library maintainers and used a stolen access token to inject backdoors into 17 npm packages. The most popular of these packages, @react-native-aria/interactions, boasted 125 000 weekly downloads, while all the compromised packages combined totaled over a million.
What’s particularly interesting in this case are the steps the Gluestack developers took following the incident: first, they restricted GitHub repository access for secondary contributors; second, they enabled two-factor authentication (2FA) for publishing new versions; and third, they promised to implement secure development practices like pull-request-based workflow, systematic code reviews, audit logging, and so on. In other words, prior to the incident a project with hundreds of thousands of weekly downloads had no such measures in place.
In July, npm packages were once again the stars of the show — including the widely used, succinctly named “is” package, which boasts 2.7 million weekly downloads. This JavaScript utility library provides a broad range of type-checking and value validation functions. To pull off a phishing strike against one of the project owners, attackers successfully utilized the oldest trick in the book: typosquatting (using the domain npnjs.com instead of npmjs.com) and a clone of the official npm website.
They then used the compromised account to publish several of their own versions of the package with an embedded backdoor. The infection flew under the radar for six hours: plenty of time for a large number of developers to download the malicious npm packages.
The same phishing tactic was deployed against other developers as well. The attackers leveraged several compromised developer accounts to distribute different variants of their malicious payload. There’s also a strong suspicion that they may have saved some of their haul for future attacks.
In late August, an incident dubbed “s1ngularity” continued the trend of targeting JavaScript developers. Attackers compromised Nx, a popular build system and CI/CD pipeline optimization tool. Malicious code injected into the packages searched through infected developer systems for a vast range of sensitive data, such as crypto wallet keys, npm and GitHub tokens, SSH keys, API keys, and more.
Interestingly, the attackers used locally installed AI tools, such as Claude Code, Gemini CLI, and Amazon Q, to sniff out secrets on the victims’ machines. Everything they found was then posted to public GitHub repositories created in the victims’ names, using titles “s1ngularity-repository”, “s1ngularity-repository-0”, and “s1ngularity-repository-1”. As you might have guessed, that’s where the name of the attack comes from.
Consequently, the private data of hundreds of developers ended up sitting in plain sight, where it could be accessed not just by the attackers, but by absolutely anyone with an internet connection.
The trend of npm package compromises rolled right into September. Following a fresh phishing campaign targeting JavaScript developers, attackers managed to inject malicious code into a few dozen high-profile projects. Some of these, specifically “chalk” and “debug”, boast hundreds of millions of weekly downloads; collectively, the infected packages were racking up over 2.6 billion downloads per week at the time of the breach — and they’ve only grown more popular since.
The payload was a crypto stealer: malware designed to intercept cryptocurrency transactions and reroute them to the attackers’ wallets. Fortunately, despite successfully poisoning some of the world’s most popular projects, the attackers somehow managed to botch the final stage of their operation. In the end, they walked away with a measly US$925.
Just a week later, another major incident struck: the first wave of the self-propagating Shai-Hulud malware, which infected around 150 npm packages, including projects from CrowdStrike. However, the second wave, which hit several months later, proved to be far more destructive. We’ll take a closer look at the Great Worm a bit further down.
Roughly a month after the Shai-Hulud attack, similar self-propagating malware dubbed GlassWorm began infecting Visual Studio Code extensions across both the Open VSX Registry and the Microsoft Extension Marketplace. The attackers were hunting for GitHub, Git, npm, and Open VSX accounts, as well as crypto wallet keys.
The creators of GlassWorm took a highly creative approach to their command-and-control infrastructure: they used a crypto wallet on the Solana blockchain as their primary C2, with Google Calendar serving as a backup communication channel.
Beyond simply draining victims’ crypto wallets and hijacking their accounts to spread the worm further, the attackers also dropped a RAT named Zombi onto infected devices, granting them total control over the compromised systems.
In November, a new nuisance emerged within the npm registry. A coordinated malicious campaign dubbed IndonesianFoods saw attackers flood the registry with tens of thousands of useless packages.
The primary goal here was gaming the system to inflate metrics and farm tokens on tea.xyz, a blockchain platform designed to reward open-source developers. To pull this off, the attackers built a massive web of interdependent projects with the names referencing Indonesian cuisine, such as zul-tapai9-kyuki or andi-rendang23-breki.
The creators of this campaign didn’t bother hijacking accounts. Strictly speaking, the spam packages didn’t even contain a malicious payload — unless you count a script designed to automatically generate new packages every seven seconds. Nevertheless, the incident served as a stark reminder of how vulnerable the npm infrastructure is to large-scale spam campaigns.
The absolute headliner of the year — not just for supply-chain attacks, but likely for the entire cybersecurity field — was the self-propagating malware Shai-Hulud (also known as Sha1-Hulud) targeting developers.
This malware was the logical evolution of the s1ngularity attack we mentioned earlier: it also scours systems for all kinds of secrets and publishes them in open GitHub repositories. However, Shai-Hulud added a self-propagation mechanism to this baseline: the worm infects projects controlled by already-compromised developers by using their stolen credentials.
The first wave of Shai-Hulud hit in September, infecting several hundred npm packages. But toward the end of the year, a second wave arrived, dubbed Shai-Hulud 2.0.
This time, the worm was upgraded with wiper functionality. If the malware failed to find valid npm or GitHub tokens on an infected system, it triggered a destructive payload that erased user files.
Approximately 400 000 secrets were leaked in total as a result of the attack. It’s worth noting that, just like with s1ngularity, all this sensitive data ended up in public repositories where it could be downloaded not only by the attackers but by anyone else. And it’s highly likely that the fallout from this attack will be felt for a long time to come.
One of the first, confirmed cases of an exploit using secrets leaked by Shai-Hulud was a cryptocurrency theft targeting several thousand Trust Wallet users. Attackers used these secrets on Christmas Eve to upload a malicious version of the Trust Wallet extension, complete with a built-in crypto drainer, to the Chrome Web Store. In the end, they managed to make off with US$8.5 million in cryptocurrency.
While putting together a similar retrospective for 2024, we found sticking to a “one month, one threat” structure fairly easy. For 2025, however, it was a much taller order. There were so many massive supply-chain attacks last year that we simply couldn’t fit them all into this one overview.
The year 2026 is shaping up to be just as intense, so we recommend checking out our dedicated post on preventing supply-chain attacks. In the meantime, here are the essential takeaways:
If you want to learn more about supply-chain attacks, have a read of our analytical report Supply chain reaction: securing the global digital ecosystem in an age of interdependence. It’s based on insights from technical experts, and reveals how often organizations face supply-chain and trusted-relationship risks, where protection gaps remain, and what strategies to employ to improve resilience against these kinds of threats.
Kaspersky official blog – Read More

Cisco Talos’ Vulnerability Discovery & Research team recently disclosed a vulnerability in HikVision, as well as 10 in TP-Link, and 19 in Canva.
The vulnerabilities mentioned in this blog post have been patched by their respective vendors, all in adherence to Cisco’s third-party vulnerability disclosure policy.
For Snort coverage that can detect the exploitation of these vulnerabilities, download the latest rule sets from Snort.org, and our latest Vulnerability Advisories are always posted on Talos Intelligence’s website.
Discovered by KPC of Cisco Talos.
Canva Affinity is a free-to-use tool for pixel and vector art manipulation used in graphic and document design.
Talos researchers found 19 vulnerabilities in Affinity. Eighteen of them are out-of-bounds read vulnerabilities in the EMF functionality of Canva Affinity. By using a specially crafted EMF file, an attacker could exploit these vulnerabilities to perform an out-of-bounds read, potentially leading to the disclosure of sensitive information.
The last vulnerability is TALOS-2025-2297 (CVE-2025-66342), a type confusion vulnerability in the EMF functionality of Canva Affinity. A specially crafted EMF file can trigger this vulnerability, which can lead to memory corruption and result in arbitrary code execution.
Discovered by Lilith >_> of Cisco Talos.
The TP-Link Archer AX53 is a dual band gigabit Wi-Fi router. Talos researchers found 10 vulnerabilities in the router functionality.
TALOS-2025-2290 (CVE-2025-62673) is a stack-based buffer overflow vulnerability in the tdpServer ssh port update functionality of Tp-Link AX53. A specially crafted network packet can lead to stack-based buffer overflow.
These eight vulnerabilities exist in the tmpServer opcode of the AX53:
A specially crafted set of network packets can be sent to trigger these vulnerabilities, which can lead to arbitrary code execution.
TALOS-2025-2291 (CVE-2025-62501) is a misconfiguration vulnerability in the SSH Hostkey functionality. A specially crafted man-in-the-middle attack can lead to credentials leak.
Discovered by a member of Cisco Talos.
HikVision creates AI-trained machine perception for use in security surveillance and other monitoring hardware, including Ultra Face Recognition Terminals for authentication.
Talos researchers found TALOS-2025-2281 (CVE-2025-66176), a stack-based buffer overflow vulnerability, in the SADP XML parsing functionality of Hangzhou Hikvision Digital Technology Co., Ltd. Ultra Face Recognition Terminal 3.7.60_250613 and Face Recognition Terminal for Turnstyle 3.7.0_240524 (under emulation). A specially crafted network packet can lead to remote code execution. An attacker can send a malicious packet to trigger this vulnerability.
Cisco Talos Blog – Read More

Welcome to this week’s edition of the Threat Source newsletter.
Anyone who spoke with me in the last several weeks has had to deal with me loudly waiting in anticipation for the long-awaited “Project Hail Mary” movie adaptation. I read (and cried over) the book by Andy Weir, who’s also the author of “The Martian,” about a year ago and, shortly after, found out it was being made into a movie.
(I know what you’re thinking: Two movie-themed editions in two weeks? It’s every cinephile’s dream!)
Anyway, the story centers around a biologist and science teacher named Ryland Grace (Ryan Gosling), who wakes up from a coma on a spaceship lightyears away from Earth, his two crewmembers long dead. Our planet’s sun is slowly dimming, its energy being consumed by alien microbes called “astrophage” that are infecting all the stars in our stellar neighborhood — except one. Grace’s task is to figure out why this star is unaffected and send the solution back to Earth. It’s a one-way trip, and he’ll eventually die in space alone… or so he thinks.
The movie met 99.9% of my expectations, which is rare for an adaptation. The humor was spot-on, the soundtrack was gorgeous, and the puppetry — yes, the puppetry (mild spoilers for Rocky, Grace’s new alien friend) — was out-of-this-world.
While it is a story about space, it’s first and foremost about communication, trust, and collaboration — things we’re no strangers to at Talos, especially when creating the Year in Review report (which is available now). The entire processof creating this report, from raw data to final design, is only a little bit less monumental than stopping alien microbes from plunging the earth into an ice age.
The process begins with Talos’ Strategic Analysis team, who leverage the vast amount of Cisco’s telemetry, Talos research, and data from Talos Incident Response cases to analyze trends over the past year. This analysis is synthesized into a comprehensive report, which undergoes rigorous review and proofing at multiple levels. While the report is being drafted, the Strategic Comms team develops a detailed schedule of content and collateral to promote it both internally and externally, meeting weekly to track our progress. Once the text is finalized, it moves to our design team, who transform the data into a visually stunning, accessible format. Even after the report launches, the work continues: We produce videos, answer your questions on Reddit (today only!), record podcasts, create social media graphics, and collaborate across Cisco to ensure our findings reach the right people.
We do this for the good of the community. Our report isn’t gated, and it never will be; you can read it right in your browser without filling out fake names and emails in annoying forms. Talos’ job is to keep as many people as safe as possible, and that means free access to critical information. Here’s a taste of our findings:
We also offer insights on AI and state-sponsored threats, so be sure to view the full report.
In “Project Hail Mary,” Grace and his alien friend, Rocky, realize that they can’t save their respective worlds alone. The Talos Year in Review is the result of a massive, cross-functional mission. It takes collaboration between all of Talos’ teams to turn complex, often daunting telemetry into actionable intelligence for the community.
When we share knowledge, communicate clearly, and work together, the results are, to quote Rocky, “Amaze! Amaze! Amaze!”
Stay tuned over the coming days and weeks as we break each section down into the most important 2025 Year in Review findings you need to know.

One of the main themes from the 2025 Year in Review’s vulnerability data is that attackers are targeting identity by compromising the infrastructure that sits around it, including physical hardware devices, software, and management platforms. Network components act as de facto identity gateways, allowing adversaries to impersonate users, bypass MFA, and traverse networks undetected. Attackers overwhelmingly prefer high-access targets that require minimal exploitation steps and yield maximum operational payoff.
Identity-centric network components act as control points for the entire environment, meaning their compromise can invalidate MFA, bypass segmentation, and grant immediate access to high-value resources. Network management platforms give adversaries direct access to privileged administrative functions, device credentials, and automation pipelines that touch hundreds of downstream systems. Compromising a single ADC or management platform can expose dozens of downstream systems, making these devices powerful force multipliers.
Organizations should consider the impact on identity when prioritizing the patching of network devices. ADCs must be protected as identity control points, not merely performance appliances. Defenders should focus on these high-leverage vulnerability classes that enable identity compromise, policy manipulation, and infrastructure-wide escalation. Read the full Year in Review for more information.
U.S. Department of Energy publishes five-year energy security plan
The three goals are to develop ‘world-class’ security technologies, to harden the US energy infrastructure, and establish emergency preparedness for response and recovery from incidents. (SecurityWeek)
Someone has publicly leaked an exploit kit that can hack millions of iPhones
Researchers are warning that this will allow any hacker to easily use the tools to target iPhone users running older versions of Apple’s operating systems who have not yet updated to its latest iOS 26 software. (TechCrunch)
Checkmarx KICS code scanner targeted in widening supply chain hit
Specifically, the cybercriminals infiltrated KICS GitHub Action, which organizations use to run KICS scans within their CI/CD pipelines, and poisoned multiple versions of the software. (Dark Reading)
Attackers hide infostealer in copyright infringement notices
Aimed at organizations in critical sectors, including healthcare, government, hospitality, and education, it attempts to install PureLog Stealer, a low-cost infostealer easy for threat actors to use. (Dark Reading)
Oracle releases emergency patch for critical identity manager vulnerability
CVE-2026-21992 can be used without authentication for remote code execution and it may have been exploited in the wild. (SecurityWeek)
Today only: Ask us anything
Talos and Splunk researchers are standing by on Reddit to answer your questions about the Year in Review, Top 50 Cybersecurity Threats report, or just about anything else you want to know. It’s halfway over, so post your questions now!
Year in Review highlights
In 2025, attackers moved fast, but they also played the long game. This short video highlights the biggest trends from the 2025 Talos Year in Review and what they reveal about where the threat landscape is headed.
Gravy, glutes, and the Talos Year in Review
Hazel, Bill, Joe, and Dave discuss the 2025 Year in Review, supported as always by the Turkey Lurkey Man. We also discuss the cyber activity tied to the situation in the Middle East.
Cybersecurity’s double-header
With the recent release of the Year in Review and Splunk’s Top 50 Cybersecurity Threats report, Amy, Bill, and Lou break down the most critical trends that shaped the security landscape last year.
SHA256: 9f1f11a708d393e0a4109ae189bc64f1f3e312653dcf317a2bd406f18ffcc507
MD5: 2915b3f8b703eb744fc54c81f4a9c67f
Talos Rep: https://talosintelligence.com/talos_file_reputation?s=9f1f11a708d393e0a4109ae189bc64f1f3e312653dcf317a2bd406f18ffcc507
Example Filename: 9f1f11a708d393e0a4109ae189bc64f1f3e312653dcf317a2bd406f18ffcc507.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: a31f222fc283227f5e7988d1ad9c0aecd66d58bb7b4d8518ae23e110308dbf91
MD5: 7bdbd180c081fa63ca94f9c22c457376
Talos Rep: https://talosintelligence.com/talos_file_reputation?s=a31f222fc283227f5e7988d1ad9c0aecd66d58bb7b4d8518ae23e110308dbf91
Example Filename: d4aa3e7010220ad1b458fac17039c274_62_Exe.exe
Detection Name: Win.Dropper.Miner::95.sbx.tg
SHA256: 38d053135ddceaef0abb8296f3b0bf6114b25e10e6fa1bb8050aeecec4ba8f55
MD5: 41444d7018601b599beac0c60ed1bf83
Talos Rep: https://talosintelligence.com/talos_file_reputation?s=38d053135ddceaef0abb8296f3b0bf6114b25e10e6fa1bb8050aeecec4ba8f55
Example Filename: 38d053135ddceaef0abb8296f3b0bf6114b25e10e6fa1bb8050aeecec4ba8f55.js
Detection Name: W32.38D053135D-95.SBX.TG
Cisco Talos Blog – Read More

In this episode of Talos Takes, Amy is joined by William Largent (Cisco Talos) and Lou Stella (Splunk) for a “double-header” discussion. With the recent release of the Cisco Talos 2025 Year in Review and the Splunk Top 50 Cybersecurity Threats report, we’re breaking down the most critical trends that shaped the security landscape last year — all based on Cisco telemetry, Talos’ original research, and Talos Incident Response engagements.
From the professionalization of ransomware-as-a-service to the persistent challenge of decade-old vulnerabilities, this episode moves beyond the headlines to provide a practical roadmap for defenders. You’ll get tips on how to prioritize your defenses and reduce your attack surface for the year ahead.
View the 2025 Year in Review today.
Cisco Talos Blog – Read More
Spammers are constantly seeking new ways to reach the widest audience possible while dodging email filters — all to ensure their “tempting” offers land in your inbox rather than the spam folder. To pull this off, bad actors are increasingly pivoting to legitimate platforms, dreaming up sophisticated ways to weaponize them for their own gain.
We’ve previously covered scam attacks using Google Forms, where fraudulent emails were sent directly from Google’s mail servers. In those cases, links were shielded by the reputable forms.gle domain, allowing them to breeze past spam filters. Now, a similar tactic has been implemented using Yandex Surveys. Here’s a look at how this new scam works, and how you can stay safe.
Online survey tools are fairly common these days. Marketing professionals use them to gather feedback, HR departments use them for employee engagement, and researchers use them to study target audiences. But how are scammers getting in on the action?
They create a survey, embed links to fraudulent websites within the body, and blast out emails containing the survey link to their mailing lists. Standard anti-spam filters see URLs like yandex.com/poll/… as legitimate. Recipients often have the same reaction, reasonably assuming, “It’s a link to a well-known service — what could go wrong?”
Our experts have tracked a massive spike in these emails. In January, Kaspersky Premium blocked just over 2200 of these messages; by February, that number soared to over 32 000. We’re looking at aggressive scaling here — nearly a 15-fold increase in just one month.
Here’s a survey page containing a scam message and link. The visible portion features a well-known crypto exchange logo and an active link to the attackers’ site. At the bottom, you’ll notice a couple of dots — more on these later
Spammers distribute these survey links through their own channels, often hijacking website feedback forms that lack sender verification. The fact that the message originates from a legitimate network provides yet another green flag for anti-spam filters to let these emails slide right through.
The most popular themes for this type of spam currently involve crypto scams — promising users a windfall in digital currency — and links to sketchy dating sites.
To build a survey that doesn’t actually look like one, attackers take advantage of the platform’s extended survey mode.
Yandex Surveys allows users to swap out a simple question for a text block, which can include descriptions, images, or videos. This is exactly where scammers embed their pitch and the link to their phishing site. They use the built-in “Upload media” feature to add official-looking logos and other embellishments that sell the illusion.
To make sure the victim doesn’t see the “Next” button or the standard disclaimer — which warns that surveys are created by third parties and that Yandex isn’t responsible for the content — the scammers pad the space below the scam block with invisible characters. For instance, they might add dozens of lines of transparent emojis; you can’t see them, but they still take up screen real estate. Further down, past the point where most people would stop scrolling, they simply drop in punctuation marks, one per line.
To understand how these surveys are built, we used a test survey to retrace the scammers’ steps. Transparent emojis are used to create dead space under the scam block, followed by punctuation marks further down where few users are likely to scroll
The result? The user sees nothing but the fraudulent offer and the link, while everything else is pushed off-screen. It’s the same technique we’ve seen used with Google Forms.
Beyond the benefit of using legitimate URLs, another perk for the scammers is that this method doesn’t cost them a dime. They aren’t paying the service for promotion, or using the built-in targeting tools; they simply blast the link to their own database. In this scenario, the service is essentially being used as good-reputation web page hosting.
To top it off, the scammers can jump into the “Statistics” section of the survey to track click-through rates in real-time and then export the data into a spreadsheet. This is basically a turnkey analytics suite.
Once a victim clicks the link in the survey and lands on the attackers’ website, they are greeted by a professional-looking site running a classic “prize giveaway” scheme.
How to avoid taking the bait:
Finally, it’s worth noting that scammers didn’t actually hack Yandex Surveys; instead, they took a creative — albeit malicious — approach to repurposing the tool for their own ends. Since Yandex Surveys is scheduled to shut down on April 6, 2026, this specific scheme will soon hit a dead end. Still, scammers are constantly hunting for the next loophole to exploit. Your best defense remains a healthy dose of skepticism toward any unexpected email — even if the links point to a domain you know and trust.
Other tricks spammers use:
Kaspersky official blog – Read More
A large-scale magecart operation remained active for over 24 months, leveraging an infrastructure of 100+ domains. While the targeted victims are e-commerce websites, the actual pressure falls on banks and payment systems.
As ANY.RUN’s analysis shows, threat actors applied multi-step checkout hijacking, payment page mimicry, and WebSocket-based exfiltration of card data.
This report provides both executive-level insights and technical analysis of the campaign.
A large-scale magecart operation has been identified, active for at least 24 months and supported by over 100 domains. In observed cases, threat actors deployed a multi-stage checkout hijacking framework, incorporating:
A total of 17 WooCommerce websites were infected between February 2024 and April 2025 and are likely linked to this campaign, reflecting its longevity and operational stability.
The geographic scope is of the campaign is global. Among the victims are organizations from at least 12 countries, including the United Kingdom and Denmark. However, there’s a notable concentration of such incidents in Spain, France, and United States.
Some cases are confirmed directly via telemetry and network traffic, while others are identified via infrastructural correlation.
From an industry perspective, mostly retail e-commerce companies were targeted, although in some cases, non-commercial organizations have been affected, too.
However, the primary pressure here falls on banks, as cardholders faced financial exposure and their trust in payment systems suffered.
Despite the global impact, the ties to Spain and its payment ecosystem in particular are obvious in this magecart campaign.
Mimicry of RedSys, a payment system used in Spain, lies in the foundation of the attacks. The campaign infrastructure features domains and visual artifacts designed to fit Spanish payment context. In some cases, user payment flows included legitimate Redsys domain sis.redsys.es for added credibility.
The approach made the malicious activity of the campaign convincing within Spanish payment context.
Payment Mimicry
A significant portion of the infrastructure is registered via NICENIC INTERNATIONAL GROUP and disguised as legitimate web services, including analytics platforms, CDN resources, jQuery libraries, andpayment services. If you access them directly, they’ll act as technical placeholders or will simulate legitimate redirects. This complicates attribution.
Multi-Stage Delivery Architecture
The injected JavaScript contains only a minor loader that connects to external infrastructure, receives configuration data, and loads the next stage. The loader uses the fallback mechanism: it iterates through backup domains until a valid response is received. This allows the campaign to go on even if some components of the infrastructure get blocked.
Dynamic Payload Delivery
The next stage isn’t openly stored inside an infected file. It’s delivered dynamically via a staging response. Thanks to this, the operators modify delivery domains, payload paths, and control infrastructurewithout infecting the website again.
Different domains aren’t necessarily serve different campaigns. Instead, they have different roles: staging responses, payload delivery, or for WebSocket/C2 and command handlers.
Other Factors
As a result, the compromised website becomes only an initial access point. Subsequent payload delivery and data exfiltration can be flexibly modified inside the external infrastructure.
Following the compromise of a website, attackers modify one of the site’s embedded JavaScript files with a small, obfuscated loader. It doesn’t feature the main card-stealing logic but acts as an initialdelivery tool. It executes in the victim’s browser and receives parameters for the next stage from external infrastructure.

Next, the obfuscated part of the loader refers to one of the pre-determined domains from the fallback infrastructure list. It returns a JSON configuration featuring the next stage’s address, WebSocket/C2 server address, and an extra HTTP handler for auxiliary communication.

These values are delivered as encoded arrays of numeric character codes, which are then decrypted in the victim’s browser.

In case no response was received or the JSON was invalid, the loader automatically switches to the next domain from the list. This mechanism ensures continued operation even in the presence of partial infrastructure disruption or blocking.
After receiving a valid staging response, the loader takes the URL of the next JavaScript and dynamically adds it to the DOM via a new <script src=…> element.

Code fragment responsible for the execution of the malicious activity
At this point, the primary malicious payload is loaded into the page. Notably, this payload may be delivered from different domains, such as:
jquerybootstrap[.]com
newassetspro[.]com
assetsbundle[.]com
bundlefeedback[.]com
and others.
In any case, the delivery stage is the same. The operators rotate payload sources to increase the infrastructure’s durability.
After loading, the main payload begins executing within the context of the store’s webpage and waits for the checkout/payment DOM to appear.
At this stage, it:
Once checkout is loaded, payment hijacking begins.




In some cases, the mimicry is built around a payment scenario that is visually and logically close to a legitimate PSP flow. In cases related to Spain Redsys mimicry is especially notable, but payment overall can adapt to storefronts, countries, and local PSPs.
The core payload waits for the checkout form to appear and is responsible for the reception, validation, and sending payment data from the fake payment form.

The payload adapts to user environments with frontend localization capabilities and supports multiple languages: English, Spanish, Arabic, French.

There’s a state machine with the following states: init, return, confirm, alert, getData, allowing for controlled progression through the attack lifecycle.

Code for handling WebSocket connections to the C2 server for the control of the attack flow. Part 1.

Code for handling WebSocket connections to the C2 server. Part 2
An example of the final result of the mimicry can be seen below:


There’s a heavily obfuscated JavaScript inside the HTML page. It uses techniques like that to avoid detection:



The strings that are stored in an obfuscated form are decrypted using the VM:


The payload is responsible for the formatting and validation of Visa/Mastercard payment data that are entered into the fake form, as well as UI state modification, and event or data delivery via postMessagemethod:

After activation, the malicious payload establishes a connection to the control infrastructure, e.g., via WebSocket.

This channel is used for:
In one of the analyzed cases, WebSocket was used as the primary channel for card data exfiltration, while the C2 server was disguised as a Redsys domain (redsysgate[.]com).
During the skimmer’s operation, it retrieves malicious JavaScripts from URLs that look like so:
hxxps://<c2_domain>/<base64_text>.js?_=<digits>
Then, WebSocket connections are used for control and data transmission at:
wss://<c2_domain>/?token=<base64_data>
When the user enters their data, an event is sent containing the exfiltrated information. In response, the server provides instructions on what to do next and what content to display, such as the logo of the payment system associated with the entered card (Visa/MasterCard).

This is important for the understanding of the campaign: attackers are not simply stealing card data, they embed exfiltration into a seemingly legitimate payment context.
When a user enters their card details into the spoofed payment interface, the payload takes them to the attackers’ external infrastructure.
The following data was being transmitted in network traffic:
The transmission does not occur via a standard form POST request, but instead through a separate WebSocket channel, making detection via conventional HTTP logs more difficult.
Importantly, within the same cluster, the visual scenario of the attack may vary. In some cases, Redsys-themed mimicry is observed; in others, PayPlug-like or generic card form scenarios are used.
This does not necessarily indicate different campaigns: within a single malware family, the same loader, staging infrastructure, and exfiltration mechanism may be reused while applying different front-end disguises.
In addition to manipulating the payment step and stealing card data, the same malicious payload was also used as a platform to push the installation of an Android application in APK format.
The script checked the user’s environment and, if certain conditions were met, displayed a separate mobile scenario offering the user to download an app. This included promises of discounts or bonuses, along with instructions on how to enable installation from “Unknown Sources.”
Based on the contents of the payloads, this scenario was localized into at least several languages, including English, Spanish, Arabic, and French. This indicates that the campaign was targeting a broad international audience and relied on a prepared, rather than ad hoc, infrastructure.

This scenario had several localization options, including English, Spanish, Arabian, and French, indicating the campaign’s global focus targeting particular, not random infrastructures.
This magecart campaign reflects a shift from opportunistic skimming toward structured, infrastructure-driven payment attacks. By combining checkout hijacking, high-fidelity payment mimicry, and real-time exfiltration, attackers embed malicious activity directly into legitimate transaction flows. This not only increases effectiveness but also complicates detection and response.
Deep visibility into active attacks and continuous threat monitoring are required for efficient detection and prevention of such breachers.
ANY.RUN delivers interactive malware analysis and actionable threat intelligence, enabling security teams to investigate threats more efficiently, gain clearer visibility into attacker behavior, and respond with greater confidence.
We focus on:
Browse TI Lookup for related threats
Case 1: Confirmed checkout hijacking and WebSocket exfiltration of BIN, PAN, expiry date, and CVV.
Case 2: The same loader cluster and staging infrastructure but without confirmed card exfiltration (possibly due to redirection to a legitimate external payment flow)
View analysis
Case 3: Confirmed use of the same loader cluster and staging infrastructure.

Payload URL: hxxps[:]//<c2_domain>/<base64_text>.js?_=<digits>
C2 WebSocket URL: wss[:]//<c2_domain>/?token=<base64_data>
bundle-feedback[.]com
doubleclickcache[.]com
analyticsgctm[.]com
hotjarcdn[.]com
firefoxcaptcha[.]com
solutionjquery[.]com
jquerybootstrap[.]com
assetsbundle[.]com
bundle-referrer[.]com
categorywishlist[.]com
cachesecure[.]com
securedata-ns[.]com
analysiscache[.]com
newassetspro[.]com
explorerpros[.]com
redsysgate[.]com
The post Active Magecart Campaign Targets Spain, Steals Card Data via Hijacked eStores for Bank Fraud appeared first on ANY.RUN’s Cybersecurity Blog.
ANY.RUN’s Cybersecurity Blog – Read More
ANY.RUN has been recognized at Global InfoSec Awards 2026 by Cyber Defense Magazine (CDM), the industry’s leading electronic information security magazine.
We’re especially proud and grateful that our impact for the industry has been acknowledged in two categories at once:
This dual recognition reflects the approach to cybersecurity we prioritize: supporting the full SOC workflow by combining advanced malware and phishing analysis with integrated threat intelligence.
As highlighted by the award founders at CDM, ANY.RUN matched the values they looked for in participants:
“ANY.RUN embodies three major features we judges look for to become winners: understanding tomorrow’s threats, today, providing a cost-effective solution and innovating in unexpected ways that can help mitigate cyber risk and get one step ahead of the next breach.”
Gary S. Miliefsky, Publisher of Cyber Defense Magazine.

We believe that ANY.RUN’s repeated presence high in industry rankings reflects its ability to address operational challenges across the investigation cycle. Our solutions support enterprise security teams as they successfully:

ANY.RUN is used broadly by organizations with high security requirements, including the world’s largest enterprises:
We’re deeply thankful for customers, partners, and community for their continued trust. We appreciate every contribution and piece of feedback and process them to maintain high standards we set for our solutions.
Global InfoSec Awards 2026 is organized by Cyber Defense Magazine, a premier source of cyber security news and information for InfoSec professions in business and government.
With a mission is to share cutting-edge knowledge, real-world stories and awards on the best ideas, products, and services in the information technology industry, they deliver monthly magazines, as well as special editions for the RSAC Conferences.
The award’s judges are CISSP, FMDHS, CEH, certified security professionals who voted based on their independent review of the company submitted materials on the website of each submission including but not limited to data sheets, white papers, product literature and other market variables.
ANY.RUN provides interactive malware analysis and actionable threat intelligence that enable security teams worldwide to investigate threats faster, understand attacker behavior more clearly, and respond with greater confidence.
We prioritize:
The post ANY.RUN Recognized for Innovations and Market Leadership at Global InfoSec Awards 2026 appeared first on ANY.RUN’s Cybersecurity Blog.
ANY.RUN’s Cybersecurity Blog – Read More
Cloud VMs offer unmatched speed, scale and flexibility – all of which could eventually count for little if they’re left to fend for themselves
WeLiveSecurity – Read More