TP-Link, Photoshop, OpenVPN, Norton VPN vulnerabilities

TP-Link, Photoshop, OpenVPN, Norton VPN vulnerabilities

Cisco Talos’ Vulnerability Discovery & Research team recently disclosed eight vulnerabilities in TP-Link, and one each in Adobe Photoshop, OpenVPN, and Gen Digital’s Norton VPN.

The vulnerabilities mentioned in this blog post have been patched by their respective vendors, in adherence to Cisco’s third-party vulnerability disclosure policy, except the Norton VPN vulnerability, which was discovered in-use before a patch was available. 

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.

TP-Link vulnerabilities

Discovered by Lilith >_> of Cisco Talos.

The TP-Link Archer AX53 is a dual band gigabit Wi-Fi router. Talos has disclosed eight vulnerabilities, as follows:

TALOS-2025-2302 (CVE-2026-30814) is a stack-based buffer overflow vulnerability in the tmpServer opcode 0x436 functionality of Tp-Link AX53 v1.0 1.3.1 Build 20241120 rel.54901(5553). A specially crafted set of network packets can lead to arbitrary code execution. An attacker can send packets to trigger this vulnerability.

TALOS-2025-2303 (CVE-2026-30815) is an OS command injection vulnerability in the OpenVPN configuration restore script_security functionality of Tp-Link Archer AX53 v1.0 1.3.1 Build 20241120 rel.54901(5553). A specially crafted configuration value can lead to arbitrary command execution. An attacker can upload a malicious file to trigger this vulnerability.

TALOS-2025-2304 (CVE-2026-30816) is an external config control vulnerability in the OpenVPN configuration restore crt.sed functionality of Tp-Link Archer AX53 v1.0 1.3.1 Build 20241120 rel.54901(5553). A specially crafted configuration value can lead to arbitrary file reading. An attacker can upload a malicious file to trigger this vulnerability.

TALOS-2025-2305 (CVE-2026-30817) is an external config control vulnerability in the OpenVPN configuration restore route_up functionality of Tp-Link Archer AX53 v1.0 1.3.1 Build 20241120 rel.54901(5553). A specially crafted configuration value can lead to arbitrary file reading. An attacker can upload a malicious file to trigger this vulnerability.

TALOS-2025-2306 (CVE-2026-30818) is an OS command injection vulnerability exists in the dnsmasq configuration restore dhcpscript functionality of Tp-Link Archer AX53 v1.0 1.3.1 Build 20241120 rel.54901(5553). A specially crafted configuration value can lead to arbitrary command execution. An attacker can upload a malicious file to trigger this vulnerability.

TALOS-2025-2307, TALOS-2025-2308, and TALOS-2025-2309 are OS command injection vulnerabilities in the OpenVPN configuration restore client_disconnect, client_connect, and route_up functionalities of Tp-Link Archer AX53 v1.0 1.3.1 Build 20241120 rel.54901(5553). A specially crafted configuration value can lead to arbitrary command execution. An attacker can upload a malicious file to trigger this vulnerability.

Photoshop vulnerabilities

Discovered by KPC of Cisco Talos.

Adobe Photoshop is a popular digital photo manipulation and illustration program with a wide array of features for personal and business use cases.

TALOS-2025-2274 (CVE-2026-34632) is a privilege escalation vulnerability in the installation process of Adobe Photoshop via the Microsoft Store. The vulnerable version of the installer is Photoshop_Set-Up.exe 2.11.0.30. A low-privilege user can replace files during the installation process, which may result in elevation of privileges.

OpenVPN vulnerabilities

Discovered by Emma Reuter of Cisco ASIG.

OpenVPN is an open source SSL VPN with remote access, site-to-site VPNs, WiFi security, enterprise load balancing, failover, and granular access control features available.

TALOS-2026-2381 (CVE-2026-35058) is a reachable assertion vulnerability in the TLS Crypt v2 Client Key Extraction functionality of OpenVPN 2.6.x and 2.8_git. A specially crafted network packet can lead to a denial of service. An attacker can send a sequence of malicious packets to trigger this vulnerability.

Gen Digital Norton VPN vulnerabilities

Discovered by KPC of Cisco Talos.

Gen Digital’s Norton VPN client is a proprietary tool for private proxy network information exchange. 

TALOS-2025-2276 (CVE-2025-58074) is a privilege escalation vulnerability in the installation process of Norton VPN via the Microsoft Store. A low-privilege user can replace files during the installation process, which may result in deletion of arbitrary files, possibly leading to elevation of privileges.

Cisco Talos Blog – ​Read More

Tools for spotting and disabling AI systems in an enterprise

While many companies are intentionally rolling out AI to boost quality and efficiency, unsanctioned AI tools are cropping up in corporate environments even faster. Software vendors are baking AI right into products companies already use (think Microsoft Copilot and Google Gemini), while employees are taking matters into their own hands and installing tools on the sly. As a result, businesses are staring down a poorly managed data leak channel: staff paste information from corporate systems into AI chatbots, sending data not just to the SaaS vendor, but straight to the developers behind the underlying AI model. Both the risks and the mitigation strategies vary depending on the type of AI system in play. We break down this broad topic, focusing heavily on tools for spotting and blocking AI at two distinct levels.

Types of unwanted AI systems

Depending on the type of AI in question, managing and blocking its use requires a different playbook. It’s essential to break down AI into four distinct categories:

  • Platform-native AI capabilities. Think Microsoft Copilot, Google Gemini, and Apple Intelligence, along with AI features baked right into browsers. The tricky thing about these is that they’re built into everyday essentials, are instantly available to every user (sometimes popping up aggressively), and most importantly, vendors try to turn them on by default.
  • AI companions embedded in business apps. This bucket includes Slack AI, Zoom AI Companion, Notion AI, Jira’s Rovo assistant, and the like. These are tied to a single application and are completely inseparable from it.
  • Standalone web and app-based chatbots. ChatGPT, Claude, Perplexity, Character AI, local setups like LM Studio, browser extensions, and agentic browsers like Comet. Apps and services in this category are usually adopted by employees on their own without permission: classic examples of shadow AI.
  • Desktop-native multi-functional agents. This group features tools like OpenClaw, NanoClaw, NemoClaw, and others. They pose the biggest threat because they come with broad access rights by default and actively process untrusted data from the open web.

How to deal with unwanted AI

Every company, depending on its industry, appetite for innovation, and risk tolerance, needs to draw its own line in the sand between recommended, approved case-by-case, and completely banned use cases for specific AI products. Regulated sectors like healthcare play by one set of rules, while retail businesses operate under an entirely different playbook. Either way, after analyzing exactly which AI tools have already slipped into the organization, corporate policies need to be fine-tuned. That’s why the first order of business is employing existing infosec and logging tools to scan corporate infrastructure.

Depending on the chosen strategy, the uncovered AI systems can be:

  • Disabled or restricted by using the built-in corporate policy settings within the tools themselves
  • Hard-blocked at the endpoint or network level to create a safety net against policy workarounds or configuration errors
  • Transitioned to managed access, where the tool isn’t completely blocked but instead routed through a dedicated corporate gateway that checks access permissions, and monitors usage patterns

Detecting AI systems

Spotting AI requires a multi-layered approach, as different detection methods complement each other and work best against specific types of AI.

 

Technology What it can detect
DNS Any AI tool with an identifiable domain
Web Gateway or NGFW Any AI tool with a recognizable request-and-response fingerprint (API endpoint paths, domains, and other indicators). Web filters can inspect traffic content, and many gateways/NGFWs now feature a dedicated category for detecting and blocking generative AI
EPP/EDR Locally deployed LLMs (running via Ollama, LM Studio, and similar shells), native desktop apps for ChatGPT or Claude, agentic browsers, and open-source AI agents. An indirect but strong red flag is the presence of Node.js, Python, Git, Docker, or other containerization tools on machines belonging to non-technical staff
Application control Similar to EPP/EDR, this allows to immediately block unwanted applications right out of the gate
Browser control AI-focused browser extensions and visits to AI-themed websites. This is a lifesaver if the corporate web gateway can’t inspect encrypted traffic
SaaS Security Posture Management (SSPM) / Identity Governance OAuth permissions requested by AI apps and services, as well as any third-party integrations plugging into core productivity hubs (Microsoft 365, Google Workspace, and others)

 

Naturally, almost all of these tools allow to do more than just spot AI — they let to block it entirely, or at the very least, sound the alarm for the team in charge.

Keeping an eye on OAuth

Popular office AI solutions — especially meeting assistants, email and calendar automation agents, and the like — gain access to corporate data by requesting OAuth permissions directly from communication, document workflow, or video conferencing platforms. If a user has the green light to grant these permissions to third-party apps, the resulting data leaks completely bypass the organization’s perimeter. Tools like EDR and NGFW won’t see a thing when a tool like Read.ai grabs recordings of every single meeting in, say, Microsoft Teams.

The most drastic — and often best — move is to block standard users from granting OAuth consent in the first place. Here’s how to handle the technical heavy lifting (Global Administrator, Application Administrator, or equivalent rights are needed):

Microsoft 365 / Entra ID

In the Microsoft Entra admin center, head over to <em>Identity > Applications > Enterprise apps > Consent and permissions > User consent settings</em>. There <em>User consent for applications</em> can be disabled (check out Microsoft’s full guide).

Google Workspace

In the Google Admin console, navigate to <em>Security > Access and data control > API controls</em>. Under <em>Manage App Access</em>, the trust level for all apps can be set: <em>Trusted</em>, <em>Limited</em>, <em>Specific Google data</em>, or <em>Blocked</em>. However, the real kicker here is the <em>Unconfigured app settings</em> subsection, which dictates what happens when a user tries to connect an unknown app. To seal this loophole, select <em>Don’t allow users to access any third-party apps</em>.

A separate subsection, <em>Manage Google Services</em>, permits fine-tuning exactly how third-party apps interact with Google Workspace and Google Cloud services. This allows to cut off access for each individual Google product (see Google’s official guide).

Salesforce

In <em>Setup</em>, use the <em>Quick Find</em> box to search for connected apps, then select <em>Manage Connected Apps</em> from the results. While settings are configured for each external app individually, all users can approve access by default. There isn’t a blanket block switch here; instead, Salesforce allows to opt for <em>Admin approved users are pre-authorized</em> (see the full Salesforce guide on this).

Slack

From the <em>Admin</em> settings menu, head to <em>Apps and workflows -> App Management Settings</em>. Tweak the <em>Require approved apps</em> setting by selecting <em>Only allow pre-approved apps</em>. Once that’s locked in, double-check that no rogue AI tools have slipped onto the approved list.

Kaspersky official blog – ​Read More

How to manage subscriptions securely | Kaspersky official blog

Have you ever tried to tally up how much you spend on subscriptions each month? Music, movies, gaming, language courses, delivery services, heated seats, and even the ability to chat with the Grok bot directly from your car — there’s a subscription for just about everything now. There’s even a subscription service specifically designed to… track your other subscriptions.

The number of subscriptions varies significantly depending on where you live, but statistically, 78% of adults worldwide have at least one paid subscription, with the average user juggling 5.6 active services. Furthermore, a large portion of these are family plans used by groups of close relatives… and sometimes other people: 37% of users share their subscriptions outside their immediate family.

Because subscription accounts, especially family plans, often contain sensitive personal data, they’ve become a prime target for cybercriminals. Today we look at how to manage your subscriptions securely, avoid having your accounts compromised, and keep from falling for scammers’ latest tricks.

Security of shared accounts and subscriptions

Why would anyone want to hack your subscription? Even if the service only offers entertainment, your account almost certainly contains sensitive information: your name, address, email, phone number, the names of other members, and other personally identifiable information. This data is then sold on the dark web and used for further attacks.

Attackers compromise subscription accounts either through social engineering and phishing, or by taking advantage of many users’ reliance on weak or leaked passwords. As we recently highlighted in our research, nearly half of all passwords worldwide can be cracked in less than a minute. Scammers then either resell existing subscriptions or slots in a family group at a discount, or they sign the victim up for new services, hoping the extra charges go unnoticed.

Finally, some middlemen don’t bother with hacking at all; they simply buy bulk subscriptions for a large number of devices, where the per-unit cost is typically much lower. They then resell individual slots in these plans on online marketplaces. As a result, a single “family” account can end up filled with people who are complete strangers to one another.

Sharing subscriptions with family and others

Many subscription owners think nothing of sharing access with family and friends. What could possibly go wrong?

The worst-case scenario from a security standpoint is when a single account is purchased and the owner shares the login and password with other users. This usually happens when people try to save money on a family plan by buying an individual subscription and sharing it. Some services even allow for different profiles, but they are all tied to a single account, meaning the credentials are shared. This is how streaming platforms like Hulu and Disney+ operate.

Sharing one account among multiple people significantly increases the risk of your credentials falling into the wrong hands. There’s no way to guarantee that everyone else is storing those details securely or that their devices aren’t infected with malware. Even without malware, it’s incredibly easy to accidentally hand over a password to attackers simply by signing in to the subscription service over unprotected public Wi-Fi.

It’s entirely possible that the password you kindly shared with some friends has already surfaced in some corner of the dark web, and you may soon lose access to your account. Furthermore, if you reuse the same password across different sites and apps, your other accounts are now in the crosshairs as well.

The second scenario is when each group member has an individual account. Many services now allow you to add extra users to a subscription at no additional cost, and most owners are happy to give away these free slots. Even then, you shouldn’t let your guard down: a breach of just one of these accounts can still leak sensitive information, such as family members’ names, addresses, billing info, and other subscription-related data.

How to protect your subscriptions (and your wallet)

To keep your and your loved ones’ personal data private and your accounts under your control, follow these simple rules.

Use strong account security

To do this, learn — and teach your friends and family — how to use password managers, two-factor authentication, or passkeys.

If you and your loved ones rely on memory to store passwords, there’s a high probability that you’re reusing the same one across multiple services. This is a major blunder: data breaches happen all the time, and a single compromised password gives attackers access to your other accounts.

The simplest solution is to use a password manager that generates and remembers complex, unique passwords for every site and service on your behalf. All you have to do is remember the single main password for its encrypted vault. Additionally, Kaspersky Password Manager doesn’t just store and create passwords; it can also check if they’ve appeared in leaked databases, and sync your credentials across all your devices.

Additionally, a password manager provides a robust defense against phishing: unlike a human, who can easily be misled by a sign-in form that looks almost identical to the real thing and is hosted on a look-alike domain, a password manager won’t fall for the trick. It’ll only offer to autofill your saved login and password on the specific site or service for which they were originally stored.

Avoid using browsers to store your passwords: unfortunately, attackers have long figured out how to extract browser-saved passwords in a matter of seconds.

Two-factor authentication (2FA) is an extra layer of verification the system requests after you enter your password — such as an SMS code or a one-time code from an authenticator app. Whenever technically possible, be sure to enable 2FA on every account linked to a subscription. This applies to the subscription services themselves, as well as any third-party accounts you use to sign in, such as Google, Apple, or Facebook.

We recommend storing your two-factor authentication tokens and generating the one-time codes — which refresh every 30 seconds — inside Kaspersky Password Manager. This significantly lowers the chances of someone hijacking your account. Even if an attacker somehow discovers or guesses your password, they won’t be able to get the code without physical access to your device.

Finally, you can ditch passwords (almost) entirely by switching to passkeys. We’ve previously covered what this password alternative looks like and the specifics of using it. Currently, this is the most breach-resistant authentication system out there. Its main drawback has been the difficulty of syncing passkeys across different ecosystems, like Windows and iOS, but the updated version of Kaspersky Password Manager can now save and sync passkeys across Windows, macOS, iOS, and Android devices, making that issue a thing of the past.

Don’t overlook device security

Even a complex password and 2FA aren’t reasons to let your guard down. An attacker can infect your device with an infostealer: malware designed to swipe things like session cookies from your browser, app configuration files, and other sensitive data. Session cookies allow you to stay signed in without re-entering your credentials every time; however, if scammers get their hands on them, they can sign in to the service as you — even without knowing your username or password. This makes a proactive approach essential, especially if you use Chrome, Edge, Opera, or other Chromium-based browsers on Windows. We recommend installing Kaspersky Premium on all your devices; it includes Kaspersky Password Manager in addition to comprehensive protection against cyberthreats.

Only share subscriptions with people you trust

Otherwise, you might be asking for trouble. For example, if you share a Steam subscription with a friend who cheats, both of your accounts could end up banned. Furthermore, never try to let someone else into your personal account or individual subscription. Sharing your password with others is usually a violation of the terms of service, and can result in your account being blocked.

Make sure there are no strangers in your family group

To do this, periodically check active devices and sessions in your subscription settings. If you see an unrecognized device in the authorized list, terminate that session — or all of them — and change your account password immediately. Signing back in on a few devices is much easier than trying to recover a hijacked account.

And remember: don’t let your own habits compromise your security. If you’re visiting friends, on vacation, or on a business trip and use a local computer or smart TV — or if you sign in to your account from a public computer — don’t forget to sign out when you’re done. Otherwise, the next person to use that device might find themselves with free subscriptions or, even worse, access to your email or cloud photo stream.

Don’t take the bait

Watch out for phishing emails and messages spoofing legitimate services. If you receive a notification about a “need to update your billing details”, or a claim that a “new user has been added” to your family plan, don’t rush to click any links or open attachments. Links can lead to a phishing page, and attachments may hide malware. Scammers often use email addresses and domains that look nearly identical to the real ones — for instance, by swapping l (lowercase L) for I (uppercase i), or using a familiar name in a different domain zone.

Unfortunately, phishing pages are often indistinguishable from the originals now that AI is being used for high-quality design and layout. Since spotting every red flag yourself is increasingly difficult, it’s best to delegate anti-phishing protection to Kaspersky Premium. It will alert you to suspicious sites, saving your money and keeping your peace of mind.

Lastly, some scammers lure users in with freebies like fake gift subscriptions for Telegram Premium. The victim is asked to visit a phishing page mimicking the Telegram login screen and sign in to their account to claim the gift. The result isn’t hard to guess: instead of a premium subscription — a hijacked account. Recently, scammers have even learned to use mini-apps to steal credentials directly inside Telegram under various pretexts — ranging from gift giveaways to claims that you must move to a new chat because the old one was blocked.

Avoid buying subscriptions from third-party sellers

You can often find subscription offers on marketplaces and retail platforms at prices significantly lower than what the official provider charges. More likely than not, that tempting price hides a hacked account or a family group that you could be kicked out of at any moment, because the family admin is either the seller or a random user. Furthermore, sharing a family plan with strangers from around the world is a violation of terms for many services.

How to get rid of unwanted subscriptions

Now that we’ve covered subscription security, what about those extra subscriptions that quietly eat away at your balance every month? Research shows that users typically underestimate how many active subscriptions they have and how much they spend on them; they also frequently forget to cancel auto-renewals for subscriptions they no longer use, or auto-charges after the trial period ends.

If you suspect you’re in that boat, start your investigation with your own bank statements. Recurring charges for the same amount can be a subscription you’ve forgotten about. Check who received the payment; if the name doesn’t ring a bell, do an online search on the company. It’s also worth searching your email box for the merchant name or the payment amount; this can help you track down subscription notifications and figure out what exactly you’re paying for. And don’t forget to check your spam folder, as that’s where subscription alerts often end up.

Now, let’s look at how to check and cancel active subscriptions purchased through the App Store and Google Play.

For Android users

  1. Open Settings on your device.
  2. Tap Google, then tap your profile picture, and go to Google Account.
  3. Go to Wallet & subscriptions.

If you’re the family group manager, you’ll be able to see the purchase history for other family members.

For iOS users

  1. Open Settings on your device.
  2. Tap your profile picture at the top of the menu.
  3. Go to Subscriptions.

Note: to manage your iCloud subscription, you’ll need to go to the specific iCloud section located just below Subscriptions. In the Family Sharing section, if you’re the one who set it up, you can view the subscription and purchase history for all family members.

Read more on subscriptions:

Kaspersky official blog – ​Read More

Top 5 Phishing-Driven Social Engineering Attacks on Companies in 2026

Your employees are not falling for “bad grammar” phishing anymore. They are being pulled into fake Microsoft logins, banking pages, AI tool instructions, real OAuth flows, and event invitations that look close enough to daily work to pass without alarm. 

For CISOs, that is the real social engineering problem in 2026: attacks are no longer easy to separate from normal business activity. And when the SOC cannot quickly see what happened after the click, every investigation becomes a race against exposure. 

The New CISO Problem: Social Engineering That Looks Like Business as Usual 

Modern social engineering attacks are harder to stop because they no longer rely only on suspicious attachments or poorly written emails. They copy the workflows employees use every day. 

For CISOs, this leads to difficult operational issues. The SOC may detect a suspicious link, page, or login attempt, but still lack the full context to understand whether the incident led to credential theft, token abuse, remote access, or exposure of business-critical systems. 

That creates several problems at once: 

  • Too many gray-zone alerts that require manual validation 
  • Slow confidence during triage because the activity looks close to legitimate work 
  • Context gaps between Tier 1, Tier 2, and IR teams 
  • Delayed prioritization when the business impact is unclear 
  • Higher pressure on senior SOC resources due to unnecessary or poorly prepared escalations 
  • Limited executive visibility into whether the incident is a minor phishing attempt or a real access risk 

This is why modern social engineering is a visibility, escalation, and decision-making problem for the entire security operation. 

Turn unclear phishing alerts into confident SOC decisions.
Use interactive analysis to validate risks faster.



Power your SOC now


1. Fake Microsoft Login Pages Still Work Because They Abuse Daily Business Habits 

Fake Microsoft login pages remain one of the most common social engineering tactics because they imitate a workflow employees already trust: opening a shared file, checking email, accessing OneDrive, or signing into Microsoft 365. 

View analysis session with Microsoft page abuse 

Fake Microsoft login page exposed inside ANY.RUN sandbox
Fake Microsoft login page exposed inside ANY.RUN sandbox

For security leaders, the concern is that this attack still hits one of the most valuable parts of the business: identity. Microsoft accounts often connect employees to email, files, SaaS tools, internal conversations, customer communication, and partner access. Once one account is compromised, the impact can quickly move beyond a single inbox. 

CISO blind spot: The SOC may treat a fake login page as a simple phishing event, while the real business risk may be account takeover, email compromise, or lateral movement through connected cloud services. 

2. Banking Phishing Turns Employee Trust into Financial Exposure 

Banking-themed phishing attacks are especially risky because they target workflows employees may already treat as urgent: payment alerts, transaction issues, account notices, invoices, or financial document requests. 

In the BlobPhish campaign observed by ANY.RUN, attackers impersonated major financial and cloud services, including Chase, Capital One, FDIC, E*TRADE, Schwab, Microsoft 365, OneDrive, and SharePoint. The campaign used phishing pages that appeared directly inside the browser, making them harder for traditional tools to detect through normal URL, file, or network visibility. 

View the observed analysis session in ANY.RUN sandbox 

Phishing pseudo-MS365 page loaded as a blob object 
Phishing pseudo-MS365 page loaded as a blob object 

The danger is that these lures touch systems tied to money, approvals, vendors, customer data, and cloud access. A single captured credential can open the door to payment fraud, mailbox abuse, partner-facing scams, or sensitive data exposure. 

CISO blind spot: A banking phishing lure may look like a narrow credential-theft attempt, but in a corporate environment, it can expose financial operations, cloud accounts, partner communication, and sensitive business data. 

3. ClickFix Attacks Abuse Employee Trust in AI Tools 

ClickFix attacks are becoming more dangerous as employees rely on AI tools for coding, research, automation, and daily productivity. Instead of sending a suspicious attachment, attackers imitate the tools people already use and guide them through actions that feel like normal setup or troubleshooting. 

In one ANY.RUN case, attackers used fake documentation pages for popular AI tools, including Claude Code and Grok. The victim was prompted to run a command that appeared to be part of the installation or configuration process. In reality, that action launched a malware infection on macOS. 

Observe the attack chain in a live sandbox session 

Multi-OS attack: malicious terminal commands for various platforms
Multi-OS attack: malicious terminal commands for various platforms

This tactic is especially risky because it targets high-value users. Developers, product teams, finance employees, and executives often use Macs and AI tools, and they may also have access to source code, cloud environments, financial systems, customer data, or internal documents. 

CISO blind spot: ClickFix attacks may not look like a traditional phishing incident. The user is not opening a strange attachment. They are following instructions from what appears to be a trusted AI tool page. That makes the attack harder to catch early and easier to underestimate until credentials, session data, or endpoint access are already exposed. 

Close the visibility gap around business-critical users.
Protect the teams and systems attackers target first. 



Strengthen SOC visibility


4. OAuth Device Code Phishing Turns Legitimate Microsoft Login into an Access Risk 

OAuth device code phishing is dangerous as it does not follow the usual fake-login-page pattern. The victim is sent to a real Microsoft verification page, enters a code, completes authentication, and may even pass MFA. 

In the EvilTokens campaign observed by ANY.RUN, attackers abused Microsoft’s OAuth Device Code flow to get access tokens without directly stealing the user’s password. More than 180 phishing URLs were detected in one week, showing how quickly this technique can spread across Microsoft 365 environments. 

View sample analysis in ANY.RUN Interactive Sandbox 

Full attack chain exposed in ANY.RUN Sandbox
Full attack chain exposed in ANY.RUN Sandbox

This makes the attack harder to recognize as phishing. From the user’s side, the process looks legitimate. From the security team’s side, the activity may blend into normal authentication traffic until the account is already exposed. 

CISO blind spot: OAuth device code phishing may not trigger the same warning signs as a fake login page. The user authenticates through Microsoft, but the attacker receives the token. That can lead to Microsoft 365 account takeover, mailbox access, cloud data exposure, and delayed response because the compromise does not look like classic credential theft. 

5. Fake Invitations Turn Simple Lures into Access Risk 

Fake invitation phishing works because it feels harmless. An event invite, a CAPTCHA check, and a sign-in page can look like a normal online workflow, especially when employees are used to opening meeting links, webinars, vendor invitations, and shared business events. 

In a U.S.-targeted campaign analyzed by ANY.RUN, attackers used fake event invitation pages to push victims toward credential theft, OTP interception, or remote management tool installation. Some pages collected email credentials and one-time codes, while others delivered legitimate RMM tools such as ScreenConnect, ITarian, Datto RMM, ConnectWise, and LogMeIn Rescue. 

View analysis session in ANY.RUN Sandbox

Fake invitation used as a lure, exposed inside ANY.RUN sandbox
Fake invitation used as a lure, exposed inside ANY.RUN sandbox

That makes the campaign harder to judge quickly. The same type of lure can lead to different outcomes: stolen mailbox access, intercepted MFA codes, or remote access inside the environment. For the SOC, this creates a gray-zone investigation where several small signals need to be connected before the real risk becomes clear. 

CISO blind spot: A fake invitation may look like a low-priority phishing page, but it can become an access problem fast. If the SOC cannot quickly see whether the page led to credential theft, OTP capture, or RMM installation, response may start only after exposure has already grown. 

Don’t let trusted login flows hide real compromise.
Give your SOC clearer evidence.



Strengthen your SOC


How CISOs Can Close These Social Engineering Blind Spots 

The hardest part of modern social engineering response is often not spotting something suspicious. It is proving what happened next fast enough to make the right decision. 

A suspicious email, link, page, or file may be detected, but the SOC still needs to answer the questions that determine the real risk: Did the user submit credentials? Was MFA or OAuth abused? Was remote access delivered? Did the activity reach an endpoint? Does this require escalation, containment, or leadership attention? 

To close this gap, social engineering investigations need to move through a clearer workflow: 

1. Validate the threat before it becomes a bigger incident 

When a suspicious email, link, file, or phishing page reaches the SOC, the priority is not only to label it as malicious or benign. The team needs to understand what the object actually does and how far the activity could go if left unchecked. 

Phishing sample analyzed inside ANY.RUN sandbox 
Phishing sample analyzed inside ANY.RUN sandbox 

ANY.RUN’s Interactive Sandbox lets teams safely open the suspicious object and observe the full behavior in real time: redirects, fake login pages, OTP prompts, file downloads, remote access activity, and concealment attempts. Instead of guessing from isolated alerts, the SOC can see and interact whenever needed. 

This gives teams earlier certainty during the most critical stage of triage. They can confirm the real risk faster, decide whether the case needs escalation, and reduce the chance that a “small” social engineering alert becomes a larger business incident. 

2. Turn investigation results into evidence the whole SOC can use 

Even when the attack is visible, teams still need to communicate the findings clearly. Raw telemetry can slow down handoffs, create context loss, and make it harder for managers to understand severity. 

With Tier 1 Reports and AI Summary inside the sandbox, findings become structured, SOC-ready context: what happened, why it matters, what evidence supports escalation, and where the team should focus next. 

This gives teams several practical benefits: 

  • Faster triage because Tier 1 gets a clear threat overview without manually rebuilding the attack story 
  • Cleaner escalations as Tier 2 and IR receive context, not just raw indicators 
  • Less context loss when the case moves between teams or shifts 
  • More consistent reporting across analysts and incidents 
  • Clearer management visibility into severity, exposure, and required next steps 
  • Better response decisions because teams can act on confirmed behavior, not assumptions 

This way, social engineering investigations do not stop at “we found suspicious activity.” They become ready-to-use evidence for prioritization, escalation, containment, and leadership reporting. 

Clarity for analysts. Visibility for decision-makers.
Faster response across your SOC.



Optimize your SOC workflow


3. Understand whether the case is isolated or part of a wider campaign 

After the behavior is confirmed, the next question is scope. Is this one phishing attempt, or part of a broader campaign targeting similar companies, industries, or regions? 

With ANY.RUN Threat Intelligence, teams can pivot from one case to related domains, IOCs, URL patterns, infrastructure, and similar sandbox sessions. This gives the SOC broader context for detection, hunting, and prioritization, so teams are not making decisions from one alert alone. 

Relevant sandbox sessions displayed inside ANY.RUN’s TI Lookup for better context and deeper analysis 

For security leaders, this creates a stronger operating model for social engineering response: 

  • Earlier risk confirmation before credential theft, token abuse, or remote access turns into a larger incident 
  • Better campaign awareness when one suspicious case is connected to related infrastructure and repeated attack patterns 
  • Stronger SOC consistency because investigations follow the same process instead of depending on individual experience 
  • Improved resource allocation as senior teams focus on cases with confirmed exposure, not unclear alerts 
  • More defensible incident decisions based on visible behavior, threat context, and structured reporting 
  • Clearer business-risk communication when leaders need to understand what happened, what is exposed, and what happens next 

This turns social engineering response into a repeatable process: observe the attack, enrich the context, document the findings, and act before exposure spreads. 

From Social Engineering Visibility to SOC Performance 

Closing social engineering blind spots is about reducing the operational drag these attacks create across the SOC: unclear alerts, manual validation, repeated handoffs, and delayed decisions. 

ANY.RUN helps security teams improve that process with interactive sandbox analysis and threat intelligence solutions working together in one investigation workflow.

Boosting SOC performance with ANY.RUN’s sandbox analysis and threat intelligence solutions
Boosting SOC performance with ANY.RUN’s sandbox analysis and threat intelligence solutions

Organizations using ANY.RUN report: 

  • 21 minutes faster MTTR per case, helping reduce the time between detection and containment 
  • 94% faster triage reported by users during suspicious file, URL, and phishing investigations
  • 30% fewer Tier 1 to Tier 2 escalations, helping protect senior team capacity  
  • Up to 20% lower Tier 1 workload by reducing manual investigation effort 
  • Up to 3x stronger SOC efficiency across validation, enrichment, escalation, and response workflows 

These results show the practical value of closing social engineering blind spots: fewer delays, less wasted effort, and faster confidence when the business needs a clear answer. 

Reduce the delay between detection and confident action.

Give your SOC the context to respond before exposure spreads.



Power your SOC now


About ANY.RUN 

ANY.RUN delivers cybersecurity solutions built to support real-world SOC operations. Its platform helps security teams investigate threats faster, make informed decisions, and apply threat intelligence across detection, triage, response, and reporting workflows. 

The company’s solutions include the Interactive Sandbox for enterprise-grade malware and phishing analysis, as well as ANY.RUN Threat Intelligence solutions, including TI LookupTI Feeds, TI Reports, and YARA Search. Together, they provide fresh, behavior-based intelligence built on live attack analysis. 

ANY.RUN is SOC 2 Type II attested, reflecting strong security controls and a commitment to protecting customer data. For SOCs, MSSPs, and enterprise security teams, ANY.RUN helps reduce investigation uncertainty, improve triage speed, and turn complex threat activity into clear, actionable evidence. 

The post Top 5 Phishing-Driven Social Engineering Attacks on Companies in 2026 appeared first on ANY.RUN’s Cybersecurity Blog.

ANY.RUN’s Cybersecurity Blog – ​Read More

From PDB strings to MaaS: Tracking a commodity BadIIS ecosystem used by Chinese-speaking threat

  • Cisco Talos has uncovered a BadIIS variant — identifiable by its embedded “demo.pdb” strings — that functions as commodity malware. This variant is likely sold or shared among multiple Chinese-speaking cybercrime groups that operate under a malware-as-a-service (MaaS) model for continuous monetization. 
  • Analysis of program database (PDB) file paths reveals a sustained, multi-year development effort by an author operating under the alias “lwxat”, spanning from at least September 2021 through January 2026, with evidence of rapid iterative updates, feature branching, and reactive evasion tactics targeting specific security vendors such as Norton.
  • Talos recovered a dedicated builder tool that allows threat actors to generate configuration files, customize payloads, and inject parameters into BadIIS binaries — enabling capabilities including traffic redirection to illicit sites, reverse proxying for search engine crawler manipulation, content hijacking, and backlink injection for malicious search engine optimization (SEO) fraud. 
  • Beyond BadIIS, the same author has developed a suite of auxiliary tools — including service-based installers, droppers, and persistence mechanisms that automate deployment, ensure survivability across IIS server restarts, and evade detection through custom Base64 encoding and obfuscation techniques.

Mystery BadIIS containing “demo.pdb” 

From PDB strings to MaaS: Tracking a commodity BadIIS ecosystem used by Chinese-speaking threat

Since 2024, Talos has investigated numerous attacks across the Asia-Pacific region (along with a few in South Africa, Europe and North America) that utilize a specific variant of BadIIS characterized by “demo.pdb” strings. While multiple security vendors are tracking the global spread of these variants, Talos’ observed tactics, techniques, and procedures (TTPs) show notable divergences from those documented by other vendors like Trend Micro, Ahnlab, VNPT, and Elastic. Consequently, it is difficult to attribute these attacks to a single threat actor. However, we assess with moderate confidence that the “demo.pdb” BadIIS variant is a commodity tool utilized by multiple Chinese-speaking cybercrime groups. 

Insights from embedded PDB strings 

Although the core functionality of this BadIIS variant is largely limited to SEO fraud, content injection, and proxy‑based traffic manipulation, our investigation pivoted toward the malware’s embedded PDB strings. The consistent PDB path pattern offers much more intelligence value than the generic “demo.pdb” filename. The combination of a stable “AdministratorDesktop” build environment, Chinese-language folder names, and date-based versioning creates a highly reliable fingerprint for tracking and clustering this BadIIS version toolset. Beyond reinforcing our assessment that this is a commodity IIS malware family, the PDB paths enabled attribution to a possible customer name alias “x神” (“xshen”). Furthermore, the PDB artifacts reveal the existence of customized builds, some explicitly tailored to:

  • Bypass specific antivirus products, such as Norton 
  • Perform site‑wide hijacking 
  • Redirect users conditionally based on browser language or environment
From PDB strings to MaaS: Tracking a commodity BadIIS ecosystem used by Chinese-speaking threat
Figure 1. “Custom site hijacking: redirect based on browser language” version.
From PDB strings to MaaS: Tracking a commodity BadIIS ecosystem used by Chinese-speaking threat
From PDB strings to MaaS: Tracking a commodity BadIIS ecosystem used by Chinese-speaking threat
Figure 2. PDB with 过诺顿 (bypass Norton antivirus) version.

Prompted by these initial discoveries, Talos expanded our threat hunting efforts to identify similar PDB strings associated with this author with high confidence. The PDB paths extracted from these BadIIS variants reveal a sustained, multi-year development effort spanning from at least September 2021 to January 2026. By analyzing the developer’s folder naming conventions, we can accurately map the malware’s evolutionary trajectory, feature branching, and commercialization model.

Timeline and iterative maintenance 

Talos observed that the earliest explicit timestamp in the PDB paths is Sept. 30, 2021, indicating that the development of this specific toolset began on or before this date. The naming conventions observed in folders such as “dll0217”, “dll0301”, and “dll0315” (likely representing February 17, March 1, and March 15) demonstrate periods of rapid, sprint-like updates. Additionally, the “dll-no503” directory is particularly notable; it likely represents a troubleshooting build designed to resolve an issue where the malware caused IIS to throw “503 Service Unavailable” errors, which would otherwise alert server administrators to the infection. Finally, the latest observed compilation date, “dll20260106” (Jan. 6, 2026), confirms that this toolset remains actively maintained and deployed in the wild as of early 2026.

Feature branching and evasion tactics 

Talos also observed that the folder “兼容百度浏览器+劫持robots.txt” (“Compatible with Baidu browser + hijacking robots.txt”) explicitly confirms the malware’s role in malicious SEO campaigns, specifically targeting the Chinese search engine ecosystem. Furthermore, the “2024-05-05-tcp” branch indicates a shift or enhancement in how the malware handles network traffic, potentially introducing custom proxying or SEO fraud communication protocols over raw TCP. Additionally, the inclusion of “过诺顿” (”bypass Norton”) in the build paths highlights a reactive development cycle, demonstrating that the author actively modifies the code to evade specific security vendor detections.

Below are the PDB strings Talos collected:

  • C:UsersAdministratorDesktop2021-09-30x64Releasedemo.pdb 
  • C:UsersAdministratorDesktopiisx64Releasedemo.pdb 
  • C:UsersAdministratorDesktopdllx64Releasedemo.pdb 
  • C:UsersAdministratorDesktopdll0217Releasedemo.pdb 
  • C:UsersAdministratorDesktopdll0217x64Releasedemo.pdb 
  • C:UsersAdministratorDesktopdll0301Releasedemo.pdb 
  • C:UsersAdministratorDesktopdll0301x64Releasedemo.pdb 
  • C:UsersAdministratorDesktopdll0315Releasedemo.pdb 
  • C:UsersAdministratorDesktopdll0315x64Releasedemo.pdb 
  • C:UsersAdministratorDesktopdll-no503Releasedemo.pdb 
  • C:UsersAdministratorDesktopdll-no503x64Releasedemo.pdb 
  • C:UsersAdministratorDesktop兼容百度浏览器+劫持robots.txtx64Releasedemo.pdb  
    (translation: “compatible with Baidu browser + hijacking robots.txt”
  • C:UsersAdministratorDesktop2023-10-10dllReleasedemo.pdb 
  • C:UsersAdministratorDesktop2023-10-10dllx64Releasedemo.pdb 
  • C:UsersAdministratorDesktop2023-11-02dllReleasedemo.pdb 
  • C:UsersAdministratorDesktop2023-11-02dllx64Releasedemo.pdb 
  • C:UsersAdministratorDesktop2024-05-05-tcpx64Releasedemo.pdb 
  • C:UsersAdministratorDesktop2024-05-05-tcpReleasedemo.pdb 
  • C:UsersAdministratorDesktopJ3x64Releasedemo.pdb 
  • C:UsersAdministratorDesktopdll(cur)Releasedemo.pdb 
  • C:UsersAdministratorDesktopdll(cur)x64Releasedemo.pdb 
  • C:UsersAdministratorDesktop2024-05-05-tcp(过诺顿)xshenReleasedemo.pdb  
    (translation: “bypass Norton”
  • C:UsersAdministratorDesktop2024-05-05-tcp(过诺顿)xshenx64Releasedemo.pdb  
    (translation: “bypass Norton”
  • C:UsersAdministratorDesktop2025-11-21 (x神订制全站劫持按浏览器语言跳转)dllReleasedemo.pdb  
    (translation: “xshen custom site hijacking: redirect based on browser language)” 
  • C:UsersAdministratorDesktop2025-11-21 (x神订制全站劫持按浏览器语言跳转)dllx64Releasedemo.pdb  
    (translation: “xshen custom site hijacking: redirect based on browser language”
  • C:UsersAdministratorDesktopdll20260106Releasedemo.pdb 
  • C:UsersAdministratorDesktopdll20260106x64Releasedemo.pdb

Builder architecture and BadIIS generation 

During our research into these BadIIS campaigns, Talos discovered a builder tool specifically designed for this malware variant. The threat actor utilizes this utility to generate configuration files, JavaScript redirectors, and PHP backlink scripts, as well as to inject custom parameters directly into the BadIIS malware. Figure 3 shows a screenshot of the builder’s interface.

From PDB strings to MaaS: Tracking a commodity BadIIS ecosystem used by Chinese-speaking threat
Figure 3. Builder screenshot.

The observed builder is labeled as “version 1.0,” with an estimated original release year of 2021. However, the application header and compilation timestamp indicate that this specific artifact is an updated build compiled on August 22, 2022. The interface fields and configurable settings perfectly align with known BadIIS capabilities, which can be categorized into four primary functions: 

  • Traffic redirection: The builder allows threat actors to input target URLs, typically JavaScript-based redirectors, designed to be injected into the victim’s browser. This feature forcibly redirects legitimate user traffic to spam infrastructure, such as illegal gambling, adult content, or other malicious websites. 
  • Reverse proxy: This feature manipulates how the compromised server interacts with search engine crawlers. When a crawler visits specific hidden URLs, the BadIIS malware acts as a reverse proxy, silently fetching illicit content from the threat actor’s command-and-control (C2) backend and serving it to the crawler for indexing. Furthermore, the builder includes a toggle to enable this reverse proxy behavior globally, intercepting crawlers even if they do not visit the designated hidden URLs.
  • Content hijacking: The builder includes a site hijacking function capable of replacing the compromised website’s original content for both normal users and search engine crawlers. Threat actors can configure the hijacking rate (percentage of traffic affected), toggle whether the homepage is explicitly targeted, and supply a remote URL to dynamically fetch malicious title, description, and keyword (TDK) metadata. 
  • Internal and backlinks setting: The final component configures the injection of internal links and external backlinks. Internal links force search engines to discover and index the spam pages hosted directly on the compromised server. Meanwhile, external backlinks siphon the compromised server’s Domain Authority, passing that high reputation onto external illicit websites to artificially inflate their search engine rankings.
From PDB strings to MaaS: Tracking a commodity BadIIS ecosystem used by Chinese-speaking threat
Figure 4. Builder workflow.

Furthermore, operating this builder is not a simple, single-click process. Prior to generating the final payloads, the threat actor must stage unconfigured 32-bit and 64-bit BadIIS binaries within the same directory as the builder. Upon initiating the build process, the builder generates a “config.txt” file based on the threat actor’s configured parameters.

From PDB strings to MaaS: Tracking a commodity BadIIS ecosystem used by Chinese-speaking threat
Figure 5. Configured parameters. 

It then attempts to authenticate with the C2 server by checking for the specific response string “lwxat”. Although the builder does not enforce this validation step — continuing the payload generation process regardless of whether the authentication succeeds or fails — this specific network behavior is highly valuable. Notably, this unique authentication mechanism serves as a critical pivot point, enabling us to identify and attribute other tools developed by the same author.

From PDB strings to MaaS: Tracking a commodity BadIIS ecosystem used by Chinese-speaking threat
Figure 6. Unique authentication mechanism.

The final step of the build process involves obfuscating the C2 server address using a single-byte XOR operation with the key 0x3. Once encoded, the builder embeds these addresses, along with all other configured parameters, directly into the final BadIIS malware under the output folder. This configured and output files are illustrated in Figure 7.

From PDB strings to MaaS: Tracking a commodity BadIIS ecosystem used by Chinese-speaking threat
Figure 7. Configuration embedded in a BadIIS sample. 
From PDB strings to MaaS: Tracking a commodity BadIIS ecosystem used by Chinese-speaking threat
Figure 8. BadIIS output files and its original name.

Advancement of the builder architecture 

Talos has been tracking multiple cybercrime groups, including those detailed in our previous reports on DragonRank and UAT-8099, that utilize various BadIIS variants to turn global web servers into compromised assets for search engine manipulation. The BadIIS variants deployed by those two groups primarily relied on hardcoded C2 infrastructure and statically compiled payloads to spread. However, the variant characterized by the “demo.pdb” strings represents a significant departure from these previous iterations.

Based on the recovered builder and PDB strings, Talos assesses with moderate confidence that this “demo.pdb” variant is commodity malware, likely sold privately or shared within underground markets. The architecture of this toolset suggests a modular, MaaS business model designed for continuous monetization. The malware developer can initially sell a basic version of BadIIS alongside the builder tool. If a threat actor later requiresan advanced, updated, or customized version (such as the “Norton bypass” or “custom site hijacking: redirect based on browser language” modules), they can request a bespoke payload from the developer and use their existing builder to inject the necessary configurations. Figure 9 shows the workflow Talos assessed.

From PDB strings to MaaS: Tracking a commodity BadIIS ecosystem used by Chinese-speaking threat
Figure 9. Workflow assessed for commodity BadIIS.

Additional tools developed by same author 

By pivoting on the previously identified PDB strings and the authentication mechanism, Talos discovered that this author has developed a suite of additional tools designed to facilitate the installation of BadIIS on target machines. The observed PDB strings are listed below, followed by a detailed analysis of the differences between these tools and their respective capabilities.

  • D:\vc\dll封装进exe\x64\Release\moduleinit.pdb  
    (translation: “DLL packaged into EXE”
  • C:\Users\Administrator\Desktop\2024-05-28\install\x64\Release\install.pdb 
  • C:\Users\Administrator\Desktop\install\x64\Release\install.pdb 
  • C:vcserviceReleaseservice.pdb 
  • C:vcservicex64Releaseservice.pdb 
  • C:UsersAdministratorDesktopserviceReleaseservice.pdb 
  • C:UsersAdministratorDesktopbaosvchostx64Releaseservice.pdb 
  • C:UsersAdministratorDesktop2024-05-26svchostx64Releaseservice.pdb 
  • C:UsersAdministratorDesktopx神的自安装服务svchostx64Releaseservice.pdb
    (translation: “xshen self-installation service”)

Early service‑based installer 

Talos identified an additional tool that we assess with high confidence is linked to the same author. Upon execution, the tool verifies that it is running as a Windows service named “Winlogin.” If this condition is met, it initiates a two-stage C2 communication process. First, it connects to a primary C2 server for authentication. During this phase, the malware validates the connection by checking if the server’s response matches the specific string “lwxat”.

From PDB strings to MaaS: Tracking a commodity BadIIS ecosystem used by Chinese-speaking threat
Figure 10. First C2 server for authentication.

Once authenticated, it connects to a secondary C2 server to download and execute additional malicious payloads on the target machine. Furthermore, the malware uses double Base64 encoding to obfuscate the addresses of both C2 servers.

From PDB strings to MaaS: Tracking a commodity BadIIS ecosystem used by Chinese-speaking threat
Figure 11. Second C2 to download payload.

Configuration‑driven service installer 

Talos observed another service-based tool that dynamically locates and reads an external configuration file to deploy BadIIS onto target machines. This component serves the same operational purpose as the installation batch scripts traditionally observed in earlier BadIIS campaigns. Upon execution, the malware identifies its own absolute path and searches its current directory for a file named “config.txt”. This configuration file uses an XML-like syntax, employing custom tags such as “<globalModules>”, “<name>”, “<path>”, and “<cmd>”. The tool employs a custom parsing routine to segment the file based on these tags, extracting string arrays that dictate its subsequent actions. Using this extracted data, the malware dynamically assembles command-line instructions by iterating through the parsed modules and replacing placeholders like “{name}” and “{path}” with randomized DLL paths and command snippets.

From PDB strings to MaaS: Tracking a commodity BadIIS ecosystem used by Chinese-speaking threat
Figure 12. Configuration tags.

During this assembly phase, the tool specifically prepares commands for both 32-bit and 64-bit BadIIS (e.g., appending “32.dll” /y and “64.dll” /y). These fully-formed commands are then executed, likely via cmd.exe /c, using a function designed to capture the command output.

From PDB strings to MaaS: Tracking a commodity BadIIS ecosystem used by Chinese-speaking threat
Figure 13. Preparing commands for 32-bit BadIIS.

Authentication and configuration‑driven unified tool 

The threat actor continues to update this tool, recently merging two distinct capabilities into a single binary. The malware still impersonates the Winlogin system service for registration and persistence, but it now utilizes a higher volume of command-line executions to successfully install the BadIIS payload. Notably, these command lines closely resemble the syntax used in earlier BadIIS batch scripts. To evade detection by security products, the tool obfuscates its command lines and parameters using a custom Base64 encoding algorithm. A list of the encoded strings and their decoded counterparts is provided below.

From PDB strings to MaaS: Tracking a commodity BadIIS ecosystem used by Chinese-speaking threat

Based on the decoded strings and the tool’s code structure, we can categorize the functionality of this upgraded tool into three primary areas. The first group of strings focuses on file discovery, searching for “module.txt”, “.dll”, and “.config” files. The “.config” and “.dll” searches serve the same purpose as in previous versions, targeting IIS configuration files and the BadIIS malware, respectively. The “module.txt” file likely acts as a staging file to temporarily store the IIS modules list before committing changes to the active configuration. Furthermore, this phase targets the “<globalModules>” and “<modules>” sections to register the malicious DLL at the server level. The second group handles payload registration; the tool utilizes specific XML nodes to inject its payloads into the IIS configuration, dynamically replacing placeholders (e.g., “{name32}” and “{path64}”) with actual values. Finally, the third group is responsible for locating the primary BadIIS DLL and establishing its backup location to ensure persistence. However, prior to executing its primary functions, the tool sends a request to the C2 server for authentication. The validation process remains identical to previous versions; the tool verifies the connection by checking if the server’s response matches the specific string “lwxat”.

From PDB strings to MaaS: Tracking a commodity BadIIS ecosystem used by Chinese-speaking threat
Figure 14. Specific string “lwxat” for authentication.

Latest two‑stage installation toolset 

Talos observed that the latest version of the service installation tool is now separated into two distinct files. The workflow is shown in Figure 15.

From PDB strings to MaaS: Tracking a commodity BadIIS ecosystem used by Chinese-speaking threat
Figure 15. Installation workflow.

The first file acts as the primary installer and begins by authenticating with the C2 server. Following successful authentication, it searches for the BadIIS malware, copies the payloads to specific primary and backup directories, and registers them within the IIS server module list to ensure persistence. Subsequently, it drops a secondary malware component, installing it as a Windows service. During our research, Talos observed this secondary malware impersonating legitimate services such as FaxService or AudiosService. Additionally, we recovered customization parameters and execution logs associated with this installer, which provided deeper insights into its overall capabilities.

From PDB strings to MaaS: Tracking a commodity BadIIS ecosystem used by Chinese-speaking threat
Figure 16. Customization parameters and execution logs file.

The commands and parameters embedded in the install are also encoded. Below is a list of the encoded strings and their decoded counterparts.

From PDB strings to MaaS: Tracking a commodity BadIIS ecosystem used by Chinese-speaking threat

The secondary malware component functions similarly to the previously described service tool. However, recognizing that security operations centers (SOCs) or antivirus products can easily quarantine or delete the primary BadIIS malware, the author has implemented a robust persistence mechanism. The installer now copies the BadIIS malware not only to the active directory used for hooking IIS requests and responses but also to a hidden backup location. This ensures that the malicious BadIIS is automatically restored and launched every time the compromised IIS server is restarted. The table below provides a list of the encoded strings and their decoded counterparts.

From PDB strings to MaaS: Tracking a commodity BadIIS ecosystem used by Chinese-speaking threat

Module initialization dropper 

Alongside the service-based tools, Talos identified another utility that shares the same C2 authentication mechanism, custom Base64 encoding algorithm, and similar code structure. However, rather than operating as a persistent service, this tool functions primarily as a dropper designed to install the BadIIS malware onto the target IIS server. The embedded PDB string (“D:vcdll封装进exex64Releasemoduleinit.pdb”, which translates to “DLL packaged into EXE”) explicitly confirms its purpose: packaging malicious DLL payloads within a standalone executable. The BadIIS are found in the resource and named as “IIS32” and “IIS64” (see Figure 17).

From PDB strings to MaaS: Tracking a commodity BadIIS ecosystem used by Chinese-speaking threat
Figure 17. BadIIS malware in the resource.

The drop location for this BadIIS malware is identical to the one used by the installation script previously documented by Trend Micro.

From PDB strings to MaaS: Tracking a commodity BadIIS ecosystem used by Chinese-speaking threat
Figure 18. BadIIS malware drop location.

“lwxat”: BadIIS author identification 

Through detailed analysis of numerous BadIIS samples, associated tools, and builder artifacts, Talos assesses with moderate-to-high confidence that the string “lwxat” is the author’s alias or handle. This assessment is based on the following converging evidence: 

  • Builder authentication mechanism: The BadIIS builder and service tool uses the string “lwxat” as a hardcoded match string within its authentication routine, suggesting the author embedded their identity into the tool’s access control logic. 
  • Configuration parameter: The string “lwxat” is used as the enable function parameter within the builder’s “config.txt” file, further indicating authorship attribution embedded in the tool’s operational configuration. 
  • User-agent signature: Most notably, several BadIIS malware samples were observed using “lwxatisme” as a custom user-agent string during HTTP communications — a strong behavioral indicator that directly ties the malware to the “lwxat” persona.
From PDB strings to MaaS: Tracking a commodity BadIIS ecosystem used by Chinese-speaking threat
Figure 19. The custom user-agent string “lwxatisme”.

Additionally, corroborating evidence was identified through PDB path strings found within certain samples. One PDB path contained the Chinese-language string:

From PDB strings to MaaS: Tracking a commodity BadIIS ecosystem used by Chinese-speaking threat
From PDB strings to MaaS: Tracking a commodity BadIIS ecosystem used by Chinese-speaking threat
Figure 20. A folder for x神’s requirements.

This suggests that the author created a dedicated development folder for a user or client named “xshen” (x神), indicating that this particular BadIIS variant was a customized build tailored specifically for “xshen’s”requirements that a full-site traffic hijacking with redirection logic based on the victim’s browser language settings.

Collectively, these findings presence of “lwxat” across the builder’s authentication, configuration, and in-the-wild user-agent strings, combined with the PDB path referencing a customized build for “xshen” and provide converging evidence indicating that “lwxat” is the primary developer or operator behind the BadIIS malware family, potentially offering customization services to other threat actors. 

Coverage 

The following ClamAV signatures detect and block this threat: 

  • Win.Malware.BadIIS-10059971-0 
  • Win.Malware.BadIIS-10059977-0 
  • Win.Malware.BadIIS-10059984-0 
  • Win.Malware.BadIIS-10059985-0

The following SNORT® rules (SIDs) detect and block this threat:  

  • Snort2: 1:66400, 1:66399, 1:66398 
  • Snort3: 1:66400, 1:301491 

Indicators of compromise (IOCs) 

The IOCs can also be found in our GitHub repository here.

Cisco Talos Blog – ​Read More

ANY.RUN Turns 10: Special Offers for Stronger Security Operations

Ten years in cybersecurity is a long journey. Threats have changed, attacks have become harder to spot, and security teams now need answers faster than ever. 

ANY.RUN has grown with those teams. 

What started as an interactive sandbox is now a trusted company with threat analysis and intelligence solution used by 15,000+ organizations, 600,000 security professionals, and teams at Fortune 100 companies worldwide. 

For our 10th anniversary, we want to thank everyone who helped us get here: our users, customers, partners, and community. 

To celebrate, we’re launching special offers across Interactive Sandbox and Threat Intelligence solutions, including extra months, discounts, exclusive pricing, and more value for your team. 

Grab Your Anniversary Offer Until May 31 

From May 18 to May 31, we’re celebrating ANY.RUN’s 10th anniversary with special offers across our core threat analysis and intelligence solutions. 

Special offers available for your team 
Special offers available for your team

This year’s offers are available for Hunter, Enterprise Suite, and Threat Intelligence solutions. Depending on your plan and team needs, you can get extra months, special discounts, exclusive pricing, or added value to support your security workflows. 

Whether you’re an individual researcher, a SOC team, an MSSP, or an enterprise organization, this is a good moment to expand your access to ANY.RUN, improve threat visibility, and give your team more room to investigate, validate, and respond faster. 

Claim more SOC value before May 31.
Speed up triage, reduce workload, and strengthen response.



Get your offer now


Interactive Sandbox Anniversary Offers 

ANY.RUN’s Interactive Sandbox helps security teams investigate suspicious files, links, phishing pages, and malware behavior in real time. Instead of relying only on static alerts or delayed reports, teams can safely open, interact with, and observe threats as they behave, giving them the evidence they need to act faster. 

How to boost SOC efficiency of Tier 1/2/3 with Enterprise Suite
How to boost SOC efficiency of Tier 1/2/3 with Enterprise Suite
  • For individual security professionals, the Hunter plan gives more privacy, flexibility, and access for everyday malware and phishing investigations. 
  • For SOCs and MSSPs, the Enterprise Suite brings interactive threat analysis into a secure team environment. It gives organizations private analysis, team collaboration, user and role management, SSO, access control, and shared visibility across investigations. 

This matters most in high-pressure security operations, where teams need to move from alert to decision quickly. Tier 1 specialists can open suspicious files, URLs, and phishing pages in a safe cloud environment, observe real behavior, collect IOCs, and decide whether a case needs escalation. Senior specialists get fewer low-confidence cases. SOC managers get clearer evidence for containment, reporting, and customer communication. 

That is why more than 1,700 MSSPs worldwide trust ANY.RUN to support malware analysis, phishing investigation, and faster threat validation across customer environments. 

Strengthen SOC resilience with real-time threat analysis.
Reduce escalations and respond with evidence. 



Claim offer now


The outcomes show up across the full SOC process: 

  • 94% of users report faster triage, because they get clear behavior-based evidence early in the investigation 
  • Up to 20% decrease in Tier 1 workload, as routine malware and phishing checks become faster and easier to complete 
  • 30% reduction in Tier 1 to Tier 2 escalations, because more cases can be validated before they reach senior specialists 
  • 21-minute MTTR reduction per case, helping teams respond faster when a real threat is confirmed 
  • Lower infrastructure costs, since teams can use a secure cloud-based sandbox instead of maintaining local analysis environments 
  • Broader threat coverage, with one cloud-based environment for analyzing threats across Windows, macOS, Linux, and Android instead of relying on separate platforms or manual workarounds 
  • Less alert fatigue, with instant threat insights that help teams focus on real risk instead of chasing every suspicious signal 
  • Lower business risk, because earlier detection and better context support faster containment and more informed response 

For teams under pressure, this leads to a cleaner investigation process, better use of analyst time, stronger control over sensitive cases, and clearer evidence when decisions need to be made quickly. 

During ANY.RUN’s 10th anniversary campaign, SOCs, MSSPs, enterprises, and individual security professionals can get access to these Interactive Sandbox capabilities with extra value, special discounts, exclusive pricing, or more flexible options. 

Explore the Interactive Sandbox anniversary offers and give your team faster investigations, stronger privacy, and measurable SOC impact. 

Threat Intelligence Solutions Anniversary Offer 

ANY.RUN’s Threat Intelligence helps teams to achieve rapid triage and response
ANY.RUN’s Threat Intelligence helps teams to achieve rapid triage and response

Threat intelligence is most valuable when it helps teams move from an indicator to a decision faster. 

ANY.RUN Threat Intelligence solutions give SOC and MSSP teams fresh, behavior-based context powered by live attack data from 15,000 organizations and 600,000 security professionals worldwide. Instead of working with isolated IOCs, teams can connect indicators to related samples, infrastructure, attacker behavior, campaigns, and detection logic. 

This helps teams improve the SOC processes where context matters most: 

  • Faster triage: Validate suspicious hashes, IPs, domains, URLs, and other indicators with clear context on whether they are connected to malware, phishing activity, or active campaigns. 
  • More confident response: Move from one indicator to the full attack picture, including related infrastructure, artifacts, behavior, and connected threats that may also need containment. 
  • Evidence-driven threat hunting: Test hypotheses against real-world attack data, find related samples, and confirm whether suspicious patterns are relevant to the organization. 
  • Stronger detection engineering: Build and improve detection rules based on current malware and phishing behavior, not outdated or theoretical threat models. 
  • Clearer reporting: Give SOC leaders, MSSP customers, and internal teams stronger evidence behind investigation and response decisions. 

With TI Lookup, TI Feeds, TI Reports, and YARA Search, teams can bring threat intelligence directly into the places where SOC work usually slows down: alert validation, investigation, hunting, detection, and reporting. 

Instead of checking one IOC at a time or jumping between disconnected tools, teams get fresh attack context in one workflow. They can validate suspicious indicators faster, understand related infrastructure, uncover connected samples, and see how an attack behaves in real environments. 

Bring live attack context into your SOC. 
Validate threats faster and improve detection accuracy. 



Claim offer now


For SOC and MSSP teams, this leads to practical outcomes: 

  • Faster alert validation, because teams can check indicators against real-world attack data in seconds 
  • Fewer uncertainty-driven escalations, because Tier 1 teams get clearer context before passing cases to senior specialists 
  • Better incident scoping, as responders can connect one IOC to related infrastructure, artifacts, behavior, and campaigns 
  • Stronger threat hunting, with access to live malware and phishing data for testing hypotheses and finding related samples 
  • More accurate detections, since teams can build and improve rules based on current attack behavior 
  • Lower investigation time, because analysts spend less time switching between tools and more time acting on confirmed risk 
  • Stronger reporting, with evidence that is easier to explain to SOC leaders, customers, and internal teams 

Together, these outcomes help teams reduce noise, improve response accuracy, and use security resources where they matter most: on real threats with confirmed business risk. 

During ANY.RUN’s 10th anniversary campaign, teams can access special value for Threat Intelligence solutions, including extra months and flexible options.

Explore the Threat Intelligence anniversary offer and bring fresh, actionable attack context into your SOC. 

Trusted by Teams That Work with Real Threats Every Day 

Ten years of ANY.RUN is also ten years of building for the people who use it in real investigations: SOC teams, MSSPs, enterprise security teams, researchers, and threat hunters. 

Today, ANY.RUN supports the work security teams do every day: validating alerts, investigating suspicious activity, collecting evidence, escalating confirmed threats, and reporting outcomes clearly. 

How ANY.RUN solutions help accelerate SOC processes 
How ANY.RUN solutions help accelerate SOC processes

For customers, the value is often felt in one simple change: less time lost to uncertainty. 

As one Fortune 500 technology company shared: “We just stopped losing time to uncertainty. Now we can confirm what’s happening faster and escalate only when it actually makes sense.” 

For MSSPs, the value also shows up in reporting and customer communication. A healthcare MSSP described the change this way: “Since we implemented new solutions, every investigation now comes with evidence and threat data, from MITRE tags to screenshots.” 

This is what ANY.RUN continues to build for: faster decisions, clearer evidence, fewer unnecessary escalations, and security workflows that are easier to scale across teams and customers. 

ANY.RUN trusted by 15k organizations worldwide 
ANY.RUN trusted by 15k organizations worldwide 

Today, 74% of Fortune 100 companies rely on ANY.RUN to strengthen their SOC operations, alongside SOC and MSSP teams around the world. 

As we celebrate our 10th anniversary, this trust means a lot. It is also why this year’s offers are a chance for more teams to get extra value from solutions already helping security operations investigate faster, reduce workload, and respond with more confidence. 

Thank You for Trusting and Growing with Us

ANY.RUN’s 10th anniversary is a moment to thank the people who helped us build, improve, and grow along the way. 

To our users, customers, partners, researchers, and community — thank you for growing with us, trusting us, sharing your feedback, and making ANY.RUN part of your daily security work. 

And we’re just getting started. 

More updates, product improvements, threat intelligence capabilities, and security operations features are coming. Our goal stays the same: to help teams investigate threats faster, reduce uncertainty, and make stronger decisions when every minute matters. 

Celebrate 10 years of ANY.RUN with us and explore your anniversary offer before May 31! 

About ANY.RUN 

ANY.RUN delivers cybersecurity solutions designed to support real-world SOC operations. Its tools help security teams understand threats faster, make informed decisions, and use threat intelligence across detection, investigation, and response workflows. 

The company’s solutions include Interactive Sandbox for enterprise-grade malware and phishing analysis, as well as ANY.RUN Threat Intelligence solutions with modules such as TI LookupTI Feeds, TI Reports, and YARA Search. Together, they give teams fresh, behavior-based intelligence built on live attack analysis. 

ANY.RUN is SOC 2 Type II attested, reflecting strong security controls and a commitment to protecting customer data. For SOCs, MSSPs, and enterprise teams, ANY.RUN helps reduce investigation uncertainty, improve triage speed, and turn threat analysis into clear, actionable evidence. 

Claim your offer and equip your SOC to reduce delays and respond with confidence ➔ 

The post ANY.RUN Turns 10: Special Offers for Stronger Security Operations appeared first on ANY.RUN’s Cybersecurity Blog.

ANY.RUN’s Cybersecurity Blog – ​Read More

Why geopolitical turmoil is a gift for scammers, and how to stay safe

Conflict is a boon for opportunistic fraudsters. Look out for their ploys.

WeLiveSecurity – ​Read More

FrostyNeighbor: Fresh mischief and digital shenanigans

ESET researchers uncovered new activities attributed to FrostyNeighbor, updating its compromise chain to support the group’s continual cyberespionage operations

WeLiveSecurity – ​Read More

The time of much patching is coming

The time of much patching is coming

Welcome to this week’s edition of the Threat Source newsletter. 

Many solutions have been proposed to reduce software bugs: zero-defect mandates, pair programming, formal methods, and mathematical software proofs. The reality is that software engineering is hard. Identifying and fixing bugs before they make it into production code is hard. Source code peer review and extensive unit testing have improved code quality, but bugs still get through. 

Not every bug is a vulnerability, and not every fault that appears to be a vulnerability can be usefully exploited. Nevertheless, through extensive testing and review, a skilled vulnerability researcher can still uncover faults in software that has already undergone rigorous quality assurance. However, skilled vulnerability researchers are a scarce resource and can only review so much software. 

AI is the great hope for improving software quality. Iterative improvements in AI’s ability to find bugs mean that each new version of these systems is better than the last. We’re now at the point where AI, although still not as good as a skilled vulnerability researcher, can scan code to find errors at a scale and speed that human analysis cannot match. Used well, it can identify potential vulnerabilities before they reach production. 

In the long term, this is very good news. Better automated review and analysis of software is how we will improve code quality. However, in the short term, decades of technical debt and latent errors will be uncovered and will need to be addressed. To make things more complex, threat actors will have access to these same tools to search for exploitable vulnerabilities for their own ends. 

The result is likely to be a surge in patches. More vulnerabilities discovered means more fixes released, placing additional pressure on already stretched operations teams. Many of these patches will be urgent; some will address vulnerabilities that are being actively exploited. Without proper planning, the volume of fixes may outpace an organization’s capacity to deploy them.

The surge of patches has yet to happen, but the first signs may already be visible. Now is an excellent time to consider how you prioritise patching, apply patches at scale, and manage systems that cannot be patched quickly — or at all. We can reflect on these questions now, and improve our processes, or we can flounder when the surge of patches arrives. Either way, ready or not, the time of much patching is coming. 

The one big thing 

In Cisco Talos’ latest blog, we outline the differences between responding to state-sponsored threat actors and handling commodity ransomware. These advanced adversaries log in using valid credentials and leverage your own trusted tools to remain invisible for months. Because their primary objectives are long-term espionage and pre-positioning rather than immediate financial gain, standard incident response playbooks are entirely inadequate.  

Why do I care? 

State-sponsored actors operate inside your trust boundary and aim to remain completely undetected. They have the patience and resources to map your infrastructure, exploit supply chain vulnerabilities, and blend their lateral movement into routine administrative tasks. If your security architecture assumes internal traffic is inherently trustworthy, these adversaries will exploit that gap to establish deep, persistent access across both IT and operational technology environments. Prematurely containing these threats can even tip off the attacker, causing you to lose critical intelligence and the chance to fully eradicate their foothold.

So now what? 

Shift to a zero trust architecture that continuously verifies access and plans for inevitable failures, starting with maximizing your visibility through centralized log aggregation and enabling Windows command-line and PowerShell script block logging. Prioritize identity management by enforcing multi-factor authentication on all administrative accounts and implementing a tiered access model. Update your incident response playbooks to specifically address living-off-the-land techniques, supply chain compromises, and the complex operational timing required for state-sponsored containment. Read the blog here for more information. 

Top security headlines of the week 

Linux bitten by second severe vulnerability in as many weeks 
The leaked exploit is deterministic, meaning it works precisely the same way each time it’s run and across different Linux distributions. It causes no crashes, making it stealthy to run. Install patches immediately. (Ars Technica

A DOD contractor’s API flaw exposed military course data and service member records 
The issue affected Schemata, an AI-powered virtual training platform used in military and defense settings. According to Strix, an ordinary low-privilege account was able to access data across multiple tenants. (CyberScoop

Fake OpenAI Privacy Filter repo hits No. 1 on Hugging Face, draws 244K downloads 
A malicious repository managed to take a spot in the platform’s trending list by impersonating OpenAI’s Privacy Filter open-weight model to deliver a Rust-based information stealer to Windows users. (The Hacker News

TanStack, Mistral AI, UiPath hit in fresh supply chain attack 
The same as in previous campaigns, the worm targets sensitive information, including developer credentials, API keys, tokens, cloud credentials and secrets, cryptocurrency wallets, and more. (SecurityWeek

Official CheckMarx Jenkins package compromised with infostealer 
Checkmarx warned over the weekend that a rogue version of its Jenkins Application Security Testing (AST) plugin had been published on the Jenkins Marketplace. (BleepingComputer

Can’t get enough Talos? 

Breaking things to keep them safe with Philippe Laulheret 
From his memorable experiment using a green onion to bypass a biometric fingerprint reader to his experience on the frontlines of cybersecurity, Philippe shares the journey that led him to vulnerability research. 

Inside the SOC: AI-powered DNS defense against ransomware 
Learn how Cisco Talos’ advanced AI-driven detection, including domain generation algorithm (DGA) analysis, integrates within Cisco Secure access to proactively identify and predict malicious domains. 

Clustering and reuse of phone numbers in scam emails 
Cisco Talos has recently started to collect and gather intelligence around phone numbers within emails as an additional indicator of compromise (IOC). In this blog, we discuss new insights into in-the-wild phone number reuse in scam emails.   

Upcoming events where you can find Talos 

Most prevalent malware files from Talos telemetry over the past week 

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: e60ab99da105ee27ee09ea64ed8eb46d8edc92ee37f039dbc3e2bb9f587a33ba  
MD5: dbd8dbecaa80795c135137d69921fdba  
Talos Rep: https://talosintelligence.com/talos_file_reputation?s=e60ab99da105ee27ee09ea64ed8eb46d8edc92ee37f039dbc3e2bb9f587a33ba  
Example Filename: u112417.dat  
Detection Name: W32.Variant:MalwareXgenMisc.29d4.1201 

SHA256: 90b1456cdbe6bc2779ea0b4736ed9a998a71ae37390331b6ba87e389a49d3d59  
MD5: c2efb2dcacba6d3ccc175b6ce1b7ed0a  
Talos Rep: https://talosintelligence.com/talos_file_reputation?s=90b1456cdbe6bc2779ea0b4736ed9a998a71ae37390331b6ba87e389a49d3d59  
Example Filename: APQ9305.dll  
Detection Name: Auto.90B145.282358.in02

Cisco Talos Blog – ​Read More

Ongoing exploitation of Cisco Catalyst SD-WAN vulnerabilities

  • Cisco Talos is tracking the active exploitation of CVE-2026-20182, an authentication bypass vulnerability in Cisco Catalyst SD-WAN Controller, formerly SD-WAN vSmart, and Cisco Catalyst SD-WAN Manager, formerly SD-WAN vManage.
  • Successful exploitation of CVE-2026-20182 allows an unauthenticated, remote attacker to bypass authentication and obtain administrative privileges on an affected system.
  • The exploitation of CVE-2026-20182 appears to have been limited so far and Talos clusters this activity under UAT-8616 with high confidence.
  • Talos is also aware of a series of threat actors, distinct from UAT-8616, that have been observed to be exploiting a different, previously disclosed set of vulnerabilities, in a new way than previously identified, beginning March 2026 – specifically CVE-2026-20133, CVE-2026-20128 and CVE-2026-20122. It is important to note that those vulnerabilities are distinct from and pre-date CVE-2026-20182. Cisco released software updates and a security advisory addressing those vulnerabilities in February 2026, strongly recommending customers to upgrade.
  • We have identified multiple clusters of post-compromise activity, beginning March 2026, associated with the exploitation of CVE-2026-20133, CVE-2026-20128 and CVE-2026-20122 that deployed webshells and other malicious tooling, described in this post.
  • We observed the vast majority of this exploitation involved the use of ZeroZenX labs’ proof-of-concept and accompanying JSP-based webshell which we track as “XenShell.”

UAT-8616 in-the-wild (ITW) exploitation of CVE-2026-20182

Ongoing exploitation of Cisco Catalyst SD-WAN vulnerabilities

Talos is aware of the active, in-the-wild (ITW) exploitation of CVE-2026-20182 in Cisco Catalyst SD-WAN Controller and Manager, that allows log in to the affected system as an internal, high-privileged, non-root user account. Talos clusters the exploitation of this vulnerability and subsequent post-compromise activity under UAT-8616, whom we assess is a highly sophisticated cyber threat actor. UAT-8616 previously exploited a similar vulnerability in Cisco Catalyst SD-WAN Controller, CVE-2026-20127 to gain unauthorized access to SD-WAN systems.

UAT-8616 performed similar post-compromise actions after successfully exploiting CVE-2026-20182, as was observed in the exploitation of CVE-2026-20127 by the same threat actor. UAT-8616 attempted to add SSH keys, modify NETCONF configurations, and escalate to root privileges. Our findings indicate that the infrastructure used by UAT-8616 to carry out exploitation and post-compromise activities also overlaps with the Operational Relay Box (ORB) networks that Talos monitors closely.

Customers are strongly advised to follow the guidance and recommendations published in Cisco’s Security Advisory on CVE-2026-20182. Customer support is also available by initiating a TAC request.  Please refer to the Recommendations and Detection Guidance section for additional coverage information. We also recommend referring to Rapid7’s disclosure on CVE-2026-20182 for additional details.

In-the-wild (ITW) exploitation of CVE-2026-20133, CVE-2026-20122, and CVE-2026-20128

Talos is also aware of the widespread in-the-wild active exploitation of three vulnerabilities in unpatched Cisco Catalyst SD-WAN Manager infrastructure (CVE-2026-20133, CVE-2026-20128, and CVE-2026-20122) that, when chained together, can allow a remote unauthenticated attacker to gain access to the device. Cisco released software updates and a security advisory addressing these vulnerabilities in February 2026. Following the public release of proof-of-concept code exploiting these vulnerabilities by ZeroZenX Labs in March, we observed the exploitation of the unpatched systems from March to April 2026.

Talos has observed several other threat clusters, separate from UAT-8616, leveraging publicly available proof-of-concept exploit code to deploy webshells to affected systems. Following successful exploitation, the webshells would allow the attacker to execute bash commands on the affected system.

The vast majority of observed exploitation attempts involved the use of the ZeroZenX Labs proof-of-concept code and accompanying JavaServer Pages (JSP) shell, which we are calling “XenShell.” However, we observed several other JSP-based webshell variants, which are outlined below.

Note: The CVE referenced in the ZeroZenX Labs proof-of-concept is incorrectly attributed to CVE-2026-20127. Talos’ analysis indicates that the targeted CVEs in the proof-of-concept are in-fact CVE-2026-20133, CVE-2026-20128 and CVE-2026-20122.

So far, Talos has observed the following clusters of malicious activity being conducted post successful exploitation of CVE-2026-20133, CVE-2026-20122, and CVE-2026-20128: Cluster #1 to Cluster #10.

Cluster 1

This cluster has been actively exploiting CVE-2026-20133, CVE-2026-20128 and CVE-2026-20122 since at least March 6, 2026. Following the exploitation of these CVEs, the threat actor deployed a variant of the Godzilla web shell under the filename “20251117022131.jsp”. This variant is associated with a publicly available GitHub project.

The following IPs were used to carry out the exploit and subsequently interact with the shell:

  • 38.181.52[.]89
  • 89.125.244[.]33
  • 89.125.244[.]51
Ongoing exploitation of Cisco Catalyst SD-WAN vulnerabilities
Figure 1. Tas9er Godzilla shellcode deployed in Cluster #1.

Cluster 2

This cluster has been actively exploiting CVE-2026-20133, CVE-2026-20128, and CVE-2026-20122 since at least March 10, 2026. Following their exploitation, the threat actor deployed a variant of the Behinder webshell under the filename “conf.jsp”. This variant has been modified to only use Base64 for encoding, as opposed to AES encryption commonly observed in other variants.

The IP “71.80.85[.]135” was used to carry out the exploit and interact with the shell.

Ongoing exploitation of Cisco Catalyst SD-WAN vulnerabilities
Figure 2. Behinder webshell deployed in Cluster #2.

Cluster 3

This cluster has been actively exploiting CVE-2026-20133, CVE-2026-20128, and CVE-2026-20122 since at least March 4, 2026. Following successful exploitation, the threat actor deployed XenShell under the name “sysv.jsp”, before returning hours later to deploy a variant of the Behinder webshell under the filename “sysinit.jsp”.

The IP “212.83.162[.]37” was used to carry out the exploit and interact with the shell.

Ongoing exploitation of Cisco Catalyst SD-WAN vulnerabilities
Figure 3. Behinder webshell deployed in Cluster #3.

Cluster 4

This cluster has been actively exploiting CVE-2026-20133, CVE-2026-20128 and CVE-2026-20122 since at least March 3, 2026. Following successful exploitation, the threat actor deployed a variant of the Godzilla webshell under the filename “vmurnp_ikp.jsp”.

The following IPs are attributed to this cluster:

  • 38.60.214[.]92
  • 65.20.67[.]134
  • 104.233.156[.]1
  • 194.233.100[.]40
Ongoing exploitation of Cisco Catalyst SD-WAN vulnerabilities
Figure 4. Godzilla webshell deployed in Cluster #4.

Cluster 5

Talos observed the deployment, beginning March 13, 2026, of a malware agent compiled off the publicly available AdaptixC2 red team framework. The filename was “systemd-resolved” and the agent’s command and control (C2) is “194[.]163[.]175[.]135:4445”.

The authors have changed the default TCP banner for the sample from “AdapticC2 server” to “shadowcore”. Hosted on Contabo GmbH, this is likely a VPS. As of March 28, 2026, this C2 IP, “194[.]163[.]175[.]135” hosted:

  • A Mythic C2 server on port 7443, along with a Mythic C2 server certificate with serial number: fece5b954e69b2c6a8d0a1029631a0d7
  • Another AdaptixC2 server on port 31337
  • An open SSH service on port 22, likely for administration of server

Cluster 6

In another cluster of activity, since at least March 5, 2026, Sliver, an open-source adversarial emulation framework (aka red-teaming implant), was deployed with the filename “CWan”. The Sliver sample’s C2 is “mtls://23.27.143[.]170:443”.

Cluster 7

In this cluster of activity, since at least March 25, 2026, an XMRig sample and its accompanying configuration file were downloaded and deployed via a shell script from the remote location “83.229.126[.]195”.

Ongoing exploitation of Cisco Catalyst SD-WAN vulnerabilities
Figure 5. Download and startup script for XMRig.

This IP, residing in Hong Kong, is also a known C2 server for Cobalt Strike.

Cluster 8

Activity observed in Cluster 8 began as early as March 10, 2026. This cluster consisted of a few key malicious tools. The first tool is KScan, an asset mapping tool, that can port scan, TCP fingerprint, capture banners for specified assets, and obtain as much port information as possible without sending more packets. It can perform automatic brute-force cracking and brute-force RDP. The tool’s filename and Go packages have been renamed to “QScan” by the authors, but it is essentially the same implementation as the open-source GitHub version.

The second tool, named “agent1”, is a Nim-based implant. It is most likely based on the open-source tools, Nimplant, but is further modified to include:

  • Additional commands/capabilities, such as cd to directories; cat files; download and upload files; execute files using bash; and collect system information such as username, hostname, hwid, process listings, etc.
  • C2 endpoints for communication, registration/check-ins, obtain tasks, provide results, and more:
    • /api/v1/handshake
    • /api/v1/results
    • /api/v1/payloads
    • /api/v1/exfiltrate
    • /api/v1/tasks
    • /api/v1/init
  • An RSA public key to be used by the agent to communicate with the C2 hosted on “hxxp://13[.]62[.]52[.]206:5004”.

This tool was downloaded and executed post-compromise from the remote location “replit[.]dev”:

Ongoing exploitation of Cisco Catalyst SD-WAN vulnerabilities
Figure 6. Download and startup script for the Nim-based implant.

The attackers executed this command on the compromised system while connected from the source IP “79[.]135[.]105[.]208”. This is likely a ProtonVPN node.

Replit is an AI platform that facilitates building applications using AI. It is therefore likely that the backdoor was created with the help of AI to resemble Nimplant’s functionality with the additional capabilities and deviations listed above.

Cluster 9

In this cluster, since at least March 17, 2026, Talos observed the deployment of an XMRig miner and a peer-based proxying and tunneling tool.

This tool, gsocket, is a peer-based proxying and tunneling tool that allows peers to connect to each other within the Global Socket Relay Network (GSRN). GSRN allows peers to connect to each other using node IDs, which are unique 16-byte identifiers for nodes with the network.

This sample obtains the peer or C2 node to connect to by reading and Base58 decoding the accompanying “defunct[.]dat” file. The C2 peer ID is:

78 c4 a2 37 56 27 7b b7 de 20 06 76 34 d2 63 c9  

The tool is activated by placing a malicious command in the .profile file:

Ongoing exploitation of Cisco Catalyst SD-WAN vulnerabilities

This decodes to:

Ongoing exploitation of Cisco Catalyst SD-WAN vulnerabilities

XMRig Miner

Accompanying gsocket was a Monero miner and its scripts and configuration files. The miner is also activated via the user profile (.profile):

/tmp/moneroocean/miner.sh --config=/tmp/moneroocean/config_background.json >/dev/null 2>&1

The “miner.sh” will find all processes named XMRig, kill them, and then start its own copy of XMRig:

Ongoing exploitation of Cisco Catalyst SD-WAN vulnerabilities

Cluster 10

This cluster of activity, since at least Mar 13, 2026, consisted of a credential stealer deployed along with accompanying scripts. The main script, named “loot_run.sh”, attempted to obtain:

  • The admin user’s hashdump
  • JSON Web Tokens (JWT) key chunks that are used for REST API authentication
  • AWS credentials for vManage: AccesKeyId, SecretAccessKey and Token

Two other helper scripts were also deployed in this cluster to check if the current user could escalate to root. The scripts contained a hardcoded password and used it to execute the command su root –c id. The output is checked for the string “uid=0(root)” to verify successful escalation.

Recommendations and detection guidance

Customers are strongly advised to follow the guidance and recommendations published in Cisco’s Security Advisory on CVE-2026-20182. Customer support is also available by initiating a TAC request. Talos strongly recommends that customers and partners using Cisco Catalyst SD-WAN technology follow the steps outlined in this advisory to help protect their environments. We also recommend referring to Rapid7’s disclosure on CVE-2026-20182 for additional details.

Snorts SIDs for CVE-2026-20182 are: 66482 – 66483

Please refer to the official Cisco Security Advisory on CVE-2026-20133, CVE-2026-20122, and CVE-202128 for the latest information regarding affected products, Indicators Of Compromise (IOCs), and mitigation steps.

Snort SIDs for CVE-2026-20133: 66468 – 66469

Snort SIDs for CVE-2026-20122: 66461 – 66462

Snort SIDs for CVE-2026-20128: 66468 – 66469

Snort SIDs for the threats detailed in Clusters #1 through 10 are:

  • Snort2: 66200, 66201, 66202
  • Snort3: 301461, 301462, 66252

ClamAV signatures for the malicious tooling associated with these clusters:

  • Unix.Tool.QScanCrack-10059958
  • Unix.Backdoor.NimPlant-10059957
  • Unix.Tool.GSocket-10059956
  • Unix.Backdoor.JSPZapLoot-10059955
  • Unix.Backdoor.GopherRAT-10059941
  • Unix.Backdoor.JSPZap-10059944
  • Unix.Backdoor.JSPZapExcEnc-10059945
  • Unix.Backdoor.GopherRAT-10059941

IOCs

IOCs for the Clusters detailed above are also available in our GitHub repository here.

Cluster 1

  • 38.181.52[.]89
  • 89.125.244[.]33
  • 89.125.244[.]51

Cluster 2

  • 71.80.85[.]135 

Cluster 3

  • 212.83.162[.]37

Cluster 4

  • 38.60.214[.]92
  • 65.20.67[.]134
  • 104.233.156[.]1
  • 194.233.100[.]40

Cluster 5 – AdaptixC2

  • f6f8e0d790645395188fc521039385b7c4f42fa8b426fd035f489f6cda9b5da1

Cluster 5 – AdaptixC2 C2 server

  • 194[.]163[.]175[.]135:4445

Cluster 5 – AdaptixC2 C2 IP

  • 194[.]163[.]175[.]135

Cluster 6 – Sliver

  • 02654acfb21f83485393ba8b14bd8862b919b9ec966fc6768f6aac1338a45ee8

Cluster 6 – Sliver C2 over mTLS

  • mtls[://]23.27.143[.]170:443

Cluster 6 – Sliver C2 IP

  • 23.27.143[.]170

Cluster 7 – XMRig downloader script

  • 0ed72d52347bfe4a78afff8a6982a64050c8fc86d8957a20eeb3e0f3f5342ed0

Cluster 7 – XMRig sample

  • 96fc528ca5e7d1c2b3add5e31b8797cb126f704976c8fbeaecdbf0aa4309ad46

Cluster 7 – XMRig configuration

  • 7aa88a64a527ade7d93c20faf23b54f2ee33ad9b1246cdc2f8ded2ab639affb1

Cluster 7 – XMRig remote location IP

  • 83[.]229[.]126[.]195

Cluster 7 – XMRig remote URL

  • hxxp://83[.]229[.]126[.]195:8081/xmrig

Cluster 7 – XMRig configuration file remote location

  • hxxp://83[.]229[.]126[.]195:8081/config[.]json

Cluster 8 – Nim-based backdoor

  • 0c87871642f84e09e8d3fb23ec36bf55601323e31151a7017a85dbec929cf15d

Cluster 8 – Download URL for the Nim-based backdoor

  • hxxps://1a820b09-95ba-44eb-b350-417e8241b725-00-1lgwuuen9b77p[.]worf[.]replit.dev/download

Cluster 8 – Attacker controlled sub-domain hosting the Nim-based backdoor

  • a820b09-95ba-44eb-b350-417e8241b725-00-1lgwuuen9b77p[.]worf[.]replit.dev

Cluster 8 – Attacker IP that downloaded the Nim-based backdoor

  • 79[.]135[.]105[.]208

Cluster 8 – C2 for Nim-based backdoor

  • hxxp://13[.]62[.]52[.]206:5004 

Cluster 8 – C2 IP for Nim-based backdoor

  • 13[.]62[.]52[.]206

Cluster 8 – KScan – scanning tool

  • 18d77c9c5bbb5b9d5bdfd366fdfcf26bad9e64c63ca865fad711bcce8e3d5a80

Cluster 8 – IP related to Nim-based backdoor and KScan

  • 176[.]65[.]139[.]31

Cluster 9 – gsocket

  • d94f75a70b5cabaf786ac57177ed841732e62bdcc9a29e06e5b41d9be567bcfa

Cluster 9 – gsocket secret file

  • 5bc5998161056b7c8f70c9724d8a63abc7ff8c3843b91c30cffab0899e39b7f8

Cluster 9 – IP related to Miner activity

  • 47[.]104[.]248[.]7

Cluster 10 – VManage credential extractor script

  • b0f51b098842cd630097b462aab0ec357e2c7824af37cca6d08165265da2c2d3

Cluster 10 – Check for root escalation

  • 72f570ce97de3eaaffef33d90b0c337a153fc9690cc34ee207b557d868360060
  • 17302d903baf182f94dc3be40ab1e0874dd0eb2ec5255bf9131fd53591efe925

Cisco Talos Blog – ​Read More