Supply chain dependencies: Have you checked your blind spot?
Your biggest risk may be a vendor you trust. How can SMBs map their third-party blind spots and build operational resilience?
WeLiveSecurity – Read More
Your biggest risk may be a vendor you trust. How can SMBs map their third-party blind spots and build operational resilience?
WeLiveSecurity – Read More

Cisco Talos’ Vulnerability Discovery & Research team recently disclosed one Foxit Reader vulnerability, and six LibRaw file reader vulnerabilities.
The vulnerabilities mentioned in this blog post have been patched by their respective vendors, all in adherence to Cisco’s third-party vulnerability disclosure policy.
For Snort coverage that can detect the exploitation of these vulnerabilities, download the latest rule sets from Snort.org, and our latest Vulnerability Advisories are always posted on Talos Intelligence’s website.
Discovered by KPC of Cisco Talos.
Foxit Reader allows users to view, edit, and sign PDF documents, among other features. Foxit aims to be one of the most feature-rich PDF readers on the market, and contains many similar functions to that of Adobe Acrobat Reader.
TALOS-2026-2365 (CVE-2026-3779) is a use-after-free vulnerability in the way Foxit Reader handles an Array object. A specially crafted JavaScript code inside a malicious PDF document can trigger this vulnerability, which can lead to memory corruption and result in arbitrary code execution. An attacker needs to trick the user into opening the malicious file to trigger this vulnerability.
Discovered by Francesco Benvenuto of Cisco Talos.
LibRaw is a library and user interface for processing RAW file types and metadata created by digital cameras. Talos analysts found 6 vulnerabilities in LibRaw.
TALOS-2026-2330 (CVE-2026-20911), TALOS-2026-2331 (CVE-2026-21413), TALOS-2026-2358 (CVE-2026-20889), and TALOS-2026-2359 (CVE-2026-24660) are heap-based buffer overflow vulnerabilities in LibRaw, and TALOS-2026-2363 (CVE-2026-24450) and TALOS-2026-2364 (CVE-2026-20884) are integer overflow vulnerabilities. Specially crafted malicious files can lead to heap buffer overflow in all cases. An attacker can provide a malicious file to trigger these vulnerabilities.
Cisco Talos Blog – Read More

Welcome to this week’s edition of the Threat Source newsletter.
The first quarter of 2026 passed faster than a misconfigured firewall rule gets exploited — and the last few weeks have been firmly stamped with the “software supply chain compromise” label, with headlines surrounding incidents involving Trivy,Checkmark, LiteLLM, telnyx and axios. This edition stays focused on vulnerability statistics, although you can view Dave and Nick’s Talos blogs for more information about these incidents.
Known Exploited Vulnerabilities (KEVs) stayed roughly in line with 2025 numbers — no dramatic spike, but no room for relief either.

What does stand out? Networking gear accounted for 20% of KEV-related vulnerabilities, and that number is expected to climb as the year progresses. If the trend from 2025 holds, this won’t be the high-water mark.

Patch management remains one of the industry’s most persistent challenges, and I understand all the operational complexity that comes with it. That said, it still stings to come across CVEs with disclosure dates reaching back to 2009 — and roughly 25% of the CVEs we’re tracking date to 2024 or earlier. Old vulnerabilities don’t retire. They wait. It starts with visibility: Knowing what’s actually running in your environment is the prerequisite for everything else.

Overall CVE counts increased in Q1, with March showing the sharpest climb. Whether that reflects improved disclosure pipelines, increased researcher activity, ora genuine uptick in vulnerability density, the trend line from 2025 hasn’t flattened — if anything, it’s still pointing up.
Using the keyword methodology described here, 121 CVEs with AI relevance were identified in Q1 — more than Q1 2025, though consistent with what adoption trends would predict. As AI components become more deeply embedded across the software stack, this number will keep climbing.
Given the recent developments with models like the Mythos preview and the industry teaming up in initiatives like Project Glasswing, I’m curious how the trajectory will change moving forward. If you haven’t read about it:
“During our testing, we found that Mythos Preview is capable of identifying and then exploiting zero-day vulnerabilities in every major operating system and every major web browser when directed by a user to do so.” – Anthropic Frontier Red Team
That’s a substantial capability jump in agentic coding and reasoning, which eventually needs to be implemented early in the development lifecycle. And as Anthony points out, those capabilities will become available to adversaries. Read Cisco’s guidance on defending in the age of AI-enabled attacks for more.
Will we see fewer CVEs or even more negative times-to-exploit (TTEs)?
It’s on us. Defenders need to get ahead of the adversaries, and at the same time, we need to pay attention to (sometimes decade-old) vulnerabilities.
Cisco Talos has identified a significant increase in the abuse of n8n, an AI workflow automation platform, to facilitate malicious campaigns including malware delivery and device fingerprinting. Attackers are weaponizing the platform’s URL-exposed webhooks to create phishing lures that bypass traditional security filters by leveraging trusted, legitimate infrastructure. By masking malicious payloads as standard data streams, these campaigns effectively turn productivity tools into delivery vehicles for remote access trojans and other cyber threats.
The abuse of legitimate automation platforms exploits the inherent trust organizations place in these tools, which often neutralizes traditional perimeter-based security defenses. Because these platforms are designed for flexibility and seamless integration, they allow attackers to dynamically tailor payloads and evade detection through standard reputation-based filtering.
Move beyond static domain blocking and implement behavioral detection that alerts on anomalous traffic patterns directed toward automation platforms. Restrict endpoint communication with these services to only those explicitly authorized by the organization’s established internal workflows. Finally, utilize AI-driven email security solutions to analyze the semantic intent of incoming messages and proactively share indicators of compromise, such as specific webhook structures, with threat intelligence communities.
Adobe patches actively exploited zero-day that lingered for months
Adobe patched an arbitrary code execution vulnerability in the latest versions of its Acrobat and Reader for Windows and macOS, nearly four months after an attacker first appeared to have begun exploiting it. (Dark Reading)
Fake Claude website distributes PlugX RAT
A threat actor created a site that hosts a download link pointing to a ZIP archive allegedly containing a pro version of the LLM. (SecurityWeek)
Sweden blames Russian hackers for attempting “destructive” cyber attack on thermal plant
Sweden’s minister of civil defense said during a press conference on Wednesday that the attempted attack happened in early 2025 and attributed the incident to hackers with “connections to Russian intelligence and security services.” (TechCrunch)
FBI and Indonesian police dismantle W3LL phishing network behind $20M fraud attempts
The W3LL phishing kit, advertised for a fee of about $500, allowed criminals to mimic legitimate login pages to deceive victims into handing over their credentials, allowing the attackers to seize control of their accounts. (The Hacker News)
Google API keys in Android apps expose Gemini endpoints to unauthorized access
Armed with the key, an attacker could access private files and cached content, make arbitrary Gemini API calls, exhaust API quotas and disrupt legitimate services, and access any data on Gemini’s file storage. (SecurityWeek)
More than pretty pictures: Wendy Bishop on visual storytelling in tech
From her early beginnings in web design and journalism to leading the creative vision for Talos, Wendy talks about the unique challenges and rewards of bridging the gap between artistic expression and highly technical research.
PowMix botnet targets Czech workforce
Cisco Talos discovered an ongoing malicious campaign affecting Czech workers with a previously undocumented botnet we call “PowMix.” It employs random beaconing intervals to evade the network signature detections.
APTs: Different objectives, similar access paths
Across the Talos 2025 Year in Review, state-sponsored threat activity from China, Russia, North Korea, and Iran all had varying motivations, such as espionage, disruption, financial gain, and geopolitical influence.
SHA256: 9f1f11a708d393e0a4109ae189bc64f1f3e312653dcf317a2bd406f18ffcc507
MD5: 2915b3f8b703eb744fc54c81f4a9c67f
Talos Rep: https://talosintelligence.com/talos_file_reputation?s=9f1f11a708d393e0a4109ae189bc64f1f3e312653dcf317a2bd406f18ffcc507
Example Filename: VID001.exe
Detection Name: Win.Worm.Coinminer::1201**
SHA256: 96fa6a7714670823c83099ea01d24d6d3ae8fef027f01a4ddac14f123b1c9974
MD5: aac3165ece2959f39ff98334618d10d9
Talos Rep: https://talosintelligence.com/talos_file_reputation?s=96fa6a7714670823c83099ea01d24d6d3ae8fef027f01a4ddac14f123b1c9974
Example Filename: d4aa3e7010220ad1b458fac17039c274_63_Exe.exe
Detection Name: W32.Injector:Gen.21ie.1201
SHA256: 90b1456cdbe6bc2779ea0b4736ed9a998a71ae37390331b6ba87e389a49d3d59
MD5: c2efb2dcacba6d3ccc175b6ce1b7ed0a
Talos Rep: https://talosintelligence.com/talos_file_reputation?s=90b1456cdbe6bc2779ea0b4736ed9a998a71ae37390331b6ba87e389a49d3d59
Example Filename: APQ9305.dll
Detection Name: Auto.90B145.282358.in02
SHA256: a31f222fc283227f5e7988d1ad9c0aecd66d58bb7b4d8518ae23e110308dbf91
MD5: 7bdbd180c081fa63ca94f9c22c457376
Talos Rep: https://talosintelligence.com/talos_file_reputation?s=a31f222fc283227f5e7988d1ad9c0aecd66d58bb7b4d8518ae23e110308dbf91
Example Filename: d4aa3e7010220ad1b458fac17039c274_62_Exe.exe
Detection Name: Win.Dropper.Miner::95.sbx.tg**
SHA256: 38d053135ddceaef0abb8296f3b0bf6114b25e10e6fa1bb8050aeecec4ba8f55
MD5: 41444d7018601b599beac0c60ed1bf83
Talos Rep: https://talosintelligence.com/talos_file_reputation?s=38d053135ddceaef0abb8296f3b0bf6114b25e10e6fa1bb8050aeecec4ba8f55
Example Filename: content.js
Detection Name: W32.38D053135D-95.SBX.TG
SHA256: 3c1dbc3f56e91cc79f0014850e773a7f12bbfef06680f08f883b2bf12873eccc
MD5: d749e0f8f2cd4e14178a787571534121
Talos Rep: https://talosintelligence.com/talos_file_reputation?s=3c1dbc3f56e91cc79f0014850e773a7f12bbfef06680f08f883b2bf12873eccc
Example Filename: Unconfirmed 280575.crdownload.exe
Detection Name: W32.3C1DBC3F56-90.SBX.TG
Cisco Talos Blog – Read More

In this episode of Humans of Talos, Amy sits down with Wendy Bishop, Head of Creative, to explore the vital role of design in the world of cybersecurity. From her early beginnings in web design and journalism to leading the creative vision for Talos, Wendy shares the unique challenges and rewards of bridging the gap between artistic expression and highly technical research.
Whether you’re a creative professional looking to break into the cybersecurity industry or simply curious about the people behind our security intelligence, this conversation offers a fascinating look at the artistic side of Talos’ mission to keep the digital world safe.
Amy Ciminnisi: Wendy, welcome! We haven’t had anyone from creative here yet. Can you talk to me a little bit about what drew you into creative work and how your career evolved into what it is now at Talos?
Wendy Bishop: I never in my entire life thought I would do anything besides something creative. It’s the only thing I’ve ever known. I have so many memories in my childhood of just being locked in my moody teenage bedroom. In high school, I started doing web design courses, and I think that’s when I really started being interested in a graphic design path. I learned Photoshop and basic HTML/CSS stuff as a side hobby. I moderated a message board for my favorite pop-punk band in high school. When it came time to go to college, there was nothing I wanted to do otherwise besides design. I found myself at Ohio University— that’s where I’m from, Ohio — in the School of Visual Communication.
I went off to a job working in newspapers. I actually never thought I would, but it was the job I found after college, and I designed news pages. It sounds funny now; it was already dying then, probably not the best long career path. But I think my background in journalism and communication-driven design is really what made me a great fit for the kind of design work we do here at Talos. We work with complicated materials, and a lot of the creative work we do is comms-driven. Our blog in some ways functions as a news outlet, so visual storytelling is a lot of my job. But of course, we have a lot of regular, branding-based design work now that comes out of my team.
AC: We just had a really big report come out that has occupied our minds for months, especially over here in design. Can you talk a little bit about the 2025 Year in Review and share what that process is like?
WB: When it starts to take shape, I look over that draft with the team and we talk about each graphic. I say, “That one might be better if we did this,” or “This is missing that piece for when it goes into production.” I really start to wrap my mind around the various assets and how we would go about taking what is essentially an Excel graphic or something created in PowerPoint and making it into a much more polished and designed presentation.
We get a sneak peek, and then one day it lands on your desk, Amy. From there, my designers and I put it together. It’s a lot about putting that puzzle together, thinking about what makes sense on each page, making sure the content flow is clean and linear, and the adjacencies of the graphics are in the right place. I come to you and say, “Amy, I need a headline,” or “Does this make sense?” We come up with a look and feel and theme for the whole report every year that’s greater than just the layout of the document. That gets extended to all the other companion pieces — our videos, social graphics, and any continuing campaign pieces.
Want to see more? Watch the full interview, and don’t forget to subscribe to our YouTube channel for future episodes of Humans of Talos.
Cisco Talos Blog – Read More
ANY.RUN has observed a sustained surge in a credential-phishing campaign active since 2024. This campaign, dubbed BlobPhish, introduces a sneaky twist: instead of delivering phishing pages via traditional HTTP requests, it generates them directly inside the victim’s browser using blob objects. The result is a phishing payload that lives entirely in memory, leaving little to no trace in logs, caches, or network telemetry.
The campaign targets credentials across multiple platforms, including Microsoft 365, banking services, and webmail portals, making it both widespread and high-impact.
The attack is based on the abuse of browser Blob objects to serve fake authentication forms. A JavaScript loader, fetched from an attacker-controlled page, constructs a Blob from a Base64-encoded payload and loads it directly into browser memory — never touching disk and never generating the traditional HTTP requests that security tools rely on to detect phishing.

Targeted services include: Microsoft 365, OneDrive, SharePoint, Chase, FDIC, Capital One, E*Trade, American Express, Charles Schwab, Merrill Lynch, PayPal, Intuit, and others.
Because the phishing page exists only in memory and is referenced by the scheme blob:https://, it cannot be blocked by URL reputation engines, does not appear in proxy logs as a suspicious request, and leaves no cache artefact. This makes BlobPhish significantly harder to detect and investigate than conventional phishing.
View the observed analysis session in ANY.RUN sandbox

The typical initial access point is a phishing email or a link to a trusted-looking service such as DocSend. Example phishing link: hxxps[://]docsend[.]com/view/vsrrknxprh2xt84n
Upon clicking, the victim is redirected to an HTML page that contains the loader script. Example loader URL: hxxps[://]mtl-logistics[.]com/blb/blob[.]html

The loader uses jQuery to perform the following sequence invisibly to the user:
The victim sees a convincing Microsoft 365 (or other financial service) login page. The browser address bar shows the scheme blob:https://, which can appear legitimate to an untrained eye.


The page contains:





Observed exfiltration endpoint pattern:
hxxps[://]mtl-logistics[.]com/css/sharethepoint/point/res[.]php
The following YARA rule matches the loader HTML page and can be used in ANY.RUN Threat Intelligence Lookup to hunt for BlobPhish infrastructure:
rule BlobPhishLoaderHTML
{
meta:
author = "ANY.RUN"
description = "Matches HTML pages with JS-script which creates and loads
phishing page as blob-object"
strings:
$s1 = "function saveFile(" ascii
$s2 = "var a = $("<a style='display: none;'/>");" fullword ascii
$s3 = "var encodedStringAtoB" fullword ascii
$s4 = "var decodedStringAtoB = atob(encodedStringAtoB);" fullword ascii
$s5 = "window.URL.createObjectURL(myBlob);" fullword ascii
$s6 = "window.URL.revokeObjectURL(url);" fullword ascii
condition:
all of them
}
Pivoting on url:”/res.php$” and via the YARA rule above, ANY.RUN researchers identified multiple targets and corresponding exfiltration URLs.

Exfiltration URL: hxxps[://]wajah4dslot[.]com/wp-includes/certificates/tmp//res[.]php


Exfiltration URL: hxxps[://]hnint[.]net/cgi-bin/peacemind//res[.]php


Exfiltration URL: hxxps[://]ftpbd[.]net/wp-content/plugins/cgi-/trade/trade//res[.]php

Variants with exfiltration to url:”*/tele.php” with a roughly similar request structure were also observed view a sandbox analysis with exfiltration URL hxxps[://]_wildcard_[.]gonzalezlawnandlandscaping[.]com/zovakmf/exfuzaj/pcnlwyf/cgi-ent/tele[.]php.
Importantly, in some cases calls to the service endpoint /panel.php have been observed. In response to a POST request, an error and its description (e.g., “IP not found”) are returned.
Example POST URL: hxxps[://]hnint[.]net/cgi-bin/peacemind//panel[.]php

The following HTTP traffic signatures reliably identify BlobPhish activity in proxy and SIEM logs:
The following initial-access vectors have been observed:

First spotted in October 2024, BlobPhis has proved itself as a sustained, continuously evolving campaign that remains active at the time of publication.
Analysis of related artefacts shows that the threat actors regularly rotate infrastructure, exfiltration endpoints, loader hosting domains, and phishing lure themes. They also vary the path names of the loader pages (blob.html, blom.html, bloji.html, emailandpasssss.html) and exfiltration scripts (res.php, tele.php), complicating static signature-based detection.
Although the phishing lures predominantly impersonate financial and cloud services, the victim organizations span multiple sectors:
Regardless of the victim’s industry, attackers focus on harvesting credentials for high-value financial and cloud corporate services — increasing the probability of capturing credentials that unlock significant monetary or data assets.
Financial institutions and cloud-productivity platforms most frequently spoofed:
Approximately one-third of observed activity involves US-based users and organisations. BlobPhish activity has been observed from: Germany, Poland, Spain, Switzerland, United Kingdom, Australia, South Korea, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Jordan, India, and Pakistan.
BlobPhish does not just steal one employee’s password. By targeting the financial, cloud, and productivity accounts that employees use every day, a single successful compromise can cascade into:
Security and risk teams should model the following impact chains when a BlobPhish credential is compromised:
Regulatory consequences may include mandatory breach notification under GDPR (72-hour window), SEC cybersecurity incident disclosure requirements, and FFIEC guidance on authentication for financial institutions.
ANY.RUN provides the complementary capabilities that address BlobPhish at every stage of the threat lifecycle: from proactive hunting to real-time detection and automated feed enrichment.
When a suspicious link or email is forwarded to the security team, ANY.RUN’s fully interactive cloud sandbox executes the entire BlobPhish kill chain in a safe cloud environment:
This means your SOC can definitively confirm or dismiss a BlobPhish suspicion within minutes rather than hours, without risking any internal system.
Threat Intelligence Lookup gives threat hunters direct, query-based access to the ANY.RUN database of analyzed samples and infrastructure:
url:”*/res.php$” AND url:”*/blob.html$” and threatName:”phishing”

Security teams can monitor this campaign continuously rather than reacting after a compromise. New loader domains and exfiltration endpoints are surfaced as soon as ANY.RUN community members (and automated systems) submit related tasks.
Threat Intelligence Feeds deliver structured, machine-readable threat intelligence in STIX/TAXII or flat-file formats, enabling automated enforcement across your security stack:
Rather than relying solely on reactive detection, TI Feeds shift your posture to proactive blocking: exfiltration endpoints are denied before a single employee credential can be harvested.
URLs
Domains
BlobPhish represents a mature, well-maintained phishing operation that has been running continuously for over eighteen months. Its core innovation — abusing the browser’s Blob URL API to serve phishing pages entirely in memory — renders the campaign invisible to a wide range of conventional controls including secure email gateways, URL filters, web proxies, and file-based endpoint solutions.
For security teams, the takeaway is clear: static and perimeter-based defenses are insufficient against this class of attack. Effective defense requires dynamic analysis (to execute and observe the full attack chain), proactive threat hunting (to discover attacker infrastructure before it is weaponized against your organization), and automated, continuously updated threat intelligence feeds that propagate IOCs across the entire security stack in near-real-time.
ANY.RUN, a leading provider of interactive malware analysis and threat intelligence solutions, helps security teams investigate threats faster and with greater clarity across modern enterprise environments.
It allows teams to safely execute suspicious files and URLs, observe real behavior in an Interactive Sandbox, enrich indicators with immediate context through TI Lookup, and monitor emerging malicious infrastructure using Threat Intelligence Feeds. Together, these capabilities help reduce investigation uncertainty, accelerate triage, and limit unnecessary escalations across the SOC.
ANY.RUN is trusted by thousands of organizations worldwide and meets enterprise security and compliance expectations. It is SOC 2 Type II certified, demonstrating its commitment to protecting customer data and maintaining strong security controls.
BlobPhish is an ongoing credential-phishing campaign active since October 2024 that delivers fake login pages as browser blob objects, evading traditional security tools.
JavaScript decodes a base64 payload, creates a blob object, generates a blob:https:// URL, forces the browser to load it via a hidden link, then immediately cleans up — leaving no file or cache trace.
Microsoft 365, Chase, Capital One, FDIC, E*TRADE, Charles Schwab, American Express, PayPal, and others — primarily U.S. financial and cloud brands.
URLs ending in /blob.html, /res.php, /tele.php or /panel.php; the YARA rule provided; and blob:https:// URLs in browser history.
Organizations in Finance, Manufacturing, Education, Government, Transport, and Telecommunications — especially those using Microsoft 365 or corporate online banking.
Enforce MFA, train staff on unexpected login prompts, and integrate proactive threat intelligence that catches memory-resident attacks before they reach employees.
The interactive Sandbox detonates the attack in a real browser to reveal blob behavior; TI Lookup surfaces related samples instantly; and TI Feeds push live IOCs into your security tools for automated prevention.
The post BlobPhish: The Phantom Phishing Campaign Hiding in Browser Memory appeared first on ANY.RUN’s Cybersecurity Blog.
ANY.RUN’s Cybersecurity Blog – Read More

Talos observed that an attacker targeted Czech organizations across various levels, based on the contents of the lure documents used by the attacker in the current campaign.
Impersonating the legitimate EDEKA brand and authentic regulatory frameworks such as the Czech Data Protection Act, the attacker deploys decoy documents with compliance-themed lures, potentially aimed at compromising victims from human resources (HR), legal, and recruitment agencies. In the lure documents, the attacker also used compensation data, as well as the legitimate legislative references, to enhance the authenticity of these decoy documents and to entice the job aspirants across diverse sectors like IT, finance, and logistics.


Figures 1 (left) and 2 (right). First pages of two decoy documents.
Talos observed a few tactical similarities employed in the current campaign with that of the ZipLine campaign, reported by researchers from Check Point in August 2025.
In the current campaign, the PowMix botnet payload is delivered via an LNK triggered PowerShell loader that extracts it from a ZIP archive data blob, bypasses AMSI, and executes the decrypted script directly in memory. This campaign shares tactical overlaps with the older ZipLine campaign (which deployed the MixShell malware), including identical ZIP-based payload concealment, Windows-scheduled task persistence, CRC32-based BOT ID generation, and the abuse of “herokuapp.com” for command-and-control (C2) infrastructure. Although there are overlaps in the tactics, the attacker’s final payload was unobserved, and the intent remains unknown in this campaign.

The attack begins when a victim runs the Windows shortcut file contained within the received malicious ZIP file, potentially through a phishing email. This shortcut file triggers the execution of an embedded PowerShell loader script, which initially creates a copy of the ZIP file along with its contents in the victim’s “ProgramData” folder. Subsequently, it loads the malicious ZIP file, extracts, and executes the embedded PowMix botnet payload directly in the victim’s machine memory and starts to communicate with the botnet C2.
The first stage PowerShell script functions as a loader, and its execution routine is designed to bypass security controls and deliver a secondary payload. It begins by defining several obfuscated variables, including file name of the malicious ZIP file that was likely received via a phishing email. Then, the script dynamically constructs paths to the folders such as “ProgramData” and the user’s “Downloads” folder to locate this ZIP file. Once the ZIP file is found, it extracts the contents to the “ProgramData”folder, effectively staging the environment for the next phase of the attack.

To evade detection, the script employs an AMSI (Antimalware Scan Interface) bypass technique. It uses a reflection technique to browse the loaded assemblies in the current process, specifically searching for the AmsiUtils class. Once located, it identifies the amsiInitFailed field and manually sets its value to true. This action deceives the Windows security subsystem into thinking that AMSI has not initialized, which disables real-time scanning of subsequent commands, enabling the script to run malicious code in memory without being detected by Windows Defender or other endpoint detection and response (EDR) solutions.

The script parses the malicious ZIP file to locate a specific marker that is hardcoded, such as zAswKoK. This marker is treated as a delimiter, enabling the extraction of a hidden, encoded command that is embedded within the ZIP file data blob.

Throughout this process, the script performs a series of string replacements, which include the removal of # symbols and the mapping of placeholders, such as {cdm}, to their corresponding specific file paths, reconstructing a functional secondary PowerShell script payload. Then it executes the secondary payload script in the victim machine memory using the Invoke-Expression (IEX) PowerShell command.

Talos discovered that the secondary payload PowerShell script, which we call “PowMix,” is a previously unreported botnet designed for remote access, reconnaissance, and remote code execution.
The main execution of the script begins with an environment check to ensure it is running within a specific loader context at the placeholder {cdm}, which is the path of the Windows shortcut in the ProgramData folder, before immediately attempting to conceal its presence. It invokes a function that utilizes the Win32ShowWindowAsync function of “user32.dll” to hide the current PowerShell console window.

Then it decrypts the C2 domain and a configuration file using a custom XOR-based routine with a hardcoded key. It retrieves the machine’s product ID by querying the HKLM: SOFTWAREMicrosoftWindows NTCurrentVersion registry key for the Windows ProductID. PowMix processes the victim machine’s ProductID and the decrypted configuration data through a CRC32-style checksum function to generate a unique Bot ID and a corresponding Windows schedule task name, which it subsequently uses to establish persistence.
Some of the hardcoded XOR key strings found in this campaign are:

Instead of using obvious task names, PowMix names the scheduled task by concatenating the Bot ID and Configuration file hash, resulting in names that appear as random hexadecimal strings (such as “289c2e236761”). The task configuration specifies a daily trigger set to execute at 11:00 a.m., and the execution action is configured to launch the benign Windows Explorer binary with the malicious Windows Shortcut file path as an argument. Windows Explorer’s file association handling then automatically launches the malicious shortcut file to execute the PowerShell loader script.

Before attempting to establish persistence, PowMix performs several validation checks to ensure that another instance of the botnet is not running in the infected machine. It examines the process tree using Common Information Model (CIM) queries to identify its parent processes. If the PowMix is not running under either “svchost.exe” or “powershell.exe”, and if certain environmental variables are not set, it attempts to restart itself in the privileged context.

The mutex implementation in the botnet prevents multiple instances from running at the same time. It creates a mutex with the name “Global[BotID]”. The “Global” prefix makes the mutex visible across all user sessions, stopping separate instances from running in different user sessions.

PowMix avoids persistent connections to the C2 server. Instead, it implements a jitter via Get-Random PowerShell command to vary the beaconing intervals initially between 0 and 261 seconds, and subsequently between 1,075 and 1,450 seconds. This technique attempts to prevent detection of C2 traffic through predictable network signatures.
Each request from PowMix to C2 is created by concatenating the base C2 domain with the Bot ID, configuration file hash, an encrypted heartbeat, a hexadecimal Unix timestamp, and a random hexadecimal suffix. The standard heartbeat string “[]0” is encrypted using a custom XOR routine using the Bot ID as the key and is then converted to a hex string. The inclusion of a random length hexadecimal suffix further ensures that every URL is unique.
The attacker mimics the REST API calls URLs by embedding these data directly into the URL path, instead of using a URL query string or a POST request for communicating with the C2 server.

PowMix establishes a Chrome User-Agent and configures the Accept-Language (en-US) and Accept-Encoding (gzip, deflate, br) headers. It utilizes the GetSystemWebProxy API along with DefaultCredentials to dynamically adopt the host machine’s network proxy settings and automatically authenticates using the logged-in user’s active session tokens, thereby disguising the C2 traffic as legitimate web browser traffic within the victim’s environment.


The PowMix command processing logic is executed upon receiving the response from the C2 with a period delimiter. It extracts the second segment and decrypts it using the unique Bot ID as the XOR key. The resulting decrypted response is then evaluated through a conditional parser that distinguishes between the command operations hardcoded in the botnet and arbitrary code execution, allowing the attacker to remotely control the victim machine.
The remote management commands that the botnet receives from the C2 are identified by a leading hash symbol (#). We found that the PowMix botnet facilitates the commands described below:
#KILL – The KILL command initiates a self-deletion routine, utilizing the Unregister-ScheduledTask PowerShell command with the parameter Confirm: $false to silently remove persistence, followed by Remove-Item -Recurse–Force command to wipe the malware’s directory in the victim machine. #HOST – The HOST command enables the C2 infrastructure migration by remotely updating a new C2 URL to a configuration file. By receiving the HOST command, PowMix will encrypt the new domain that it receives using the hardcoded XOR key and save it to a local configuration file via Set-Content PowerShell command. During the next initialization of the botnet through the task scheduler execution, it prioritizes the local configuration file data with the encrypted new C2 domain over hardcoded defaults, providing a robust mechanism for evading domain blacklisting. Invoke-Expression (IEX) PowerShell command by dynamically reconstructing the command string from the $VerbosePreference variable and executes the decrypted payload while redirecting the output to Out-Null, ensuring erasing the execution traces. 
The following ClamAV signature detects and blocks this threat:
The following Snort Rules (SIDs) detect and block this threat:
The IOCs for this threat are also available at our GitHub repository here.
Cisco Talos Blog – Read More
In 2023, Tim Utzig, a blind student from Baltimore, lost a thousand dollars to a laptop scam on X. Tim had been a long-time follower of a well-known sports journalist. When that journalist’s account started posting about a “charity sale” of brand-new MacBook Pros, Tim jumped at the chance to get a deal on a laptop he needed for his studies. After a few quick messages, he sent over the money.
Unfortunately, the journalist’s account had been hacked, and Tim’s cash went straight to scammers. The red flags were strictly visual: the page had been flagged as “temporarily restricted”, and both the bio and the Following list had changed. However, Tim’s screen reader — the software that converts on-screen text and graphics into speech — didn’t announce any of those warnings.
Screen readers allow blind users to navigate the digital world like everyone else. However, this community remains uniquely vulnerable. Even for sighted users, spotting a fake website is a challenge; for someone with a visual impairment, it’s an even steeper uphill battle.
Beyond screen readers, there are specialized mobile apps and services designed to assist the blind and low-vision community, with Be My Eyes being one of the most popular. The app connects users with sighted volunteers via a live video call to tackle everyday tasks — like setting an oven dial or locating an object on a desk. Be My Eyes also features integrated AI that can scan and narrate text or identify objects in the user’s environment.
But can these tools go beyond daily chores? Can they actually flag a phishing attempt or catch the hidden fine print when someone is opening a bank account?
Today we explore the specific online hurdles visually impaired users face, when it makes sense to lean on human or virtual assistants, and how to stay secure when using these types of services.
To start, let’s clarify the difference between these two groups. Low-vision users still rely on their remaining sight, even though their visual function is significantly reduced. To navigate digital interfaces, they often use screen magnifiers, extra-large fonts, and high-contrast settings. For them, phishing sites and emails are particularly dangerous. It’s easy to miss intentional typos — known as typosquatting — in a domain name or email address, such as the recent example of rnicrosoft{.}com.
Blind users navigate primarily by sound, using screen readers and specific touch gestures. Interestingly, though, unlike those with low vision, blind users are more likely to spot a phishing site using a screen reader: as the software reads the URL aloud, the user will hear that something is off. However, if a service — whether legitimate or malicious — isn’t fully compatible with screen readers, the risk of falling victim to a scam increases. This is exactly what happened to Tim Utzig.
It’s important to remember that screen magnifiers and readers are basic accessibility tools. They’re designed to enlarge or narrate an interface — not act as a security suite. They can’t warn the user of a threat on their own. That’s where more advanced software — tools that can analyze images and files, flag suspicious language, and describe the broader context of what’s happening on-screen — comes into play.
Be My Eyes is a major player in the accessibility space, boasting around 900 000 users and over nine million volunteers. Available on Windows, Android, and iOS, it bridges the gap by connecting blind and low-vision users with sighted volunteers via video calls for help with everyday tasks. For example, if someone wants to run a Synthetics cycle on their washing machine but can’t find the right button, they can hop into the app. It connects them with the first available volunteer speaking their language, who then uses the smartphone’s camera to guide them. The service is currently available in 32 languages.
In 2023, the app expanded its capabilities with the release of Be My AI — a virtual assistant powered by OpenAI’s GPT-4. Users take a photo, and the AI analyzes the image to provide a detailed text description, which it also reads aloud. Users can even open a chat window to ask follow-up questions. This got us thinking: could this AI actually spot a phishing site?
As an experiment, we uploaded a screenshot of a fake social media sign-in page to Be My Eyes. On a phone, you can do this by selecting a photo in your gallery or files, hitting Share, and choosing Describe with Be My Eyes. In Windows, you can upload a screenshot directly.
An example of a phishing page that mimics the Facebook sign-in form. Note the incorrect domain in the address bar
At first, the AI gave us a detailed description of the page. We then followed up in the chat: “Can I trust this page?” The AI flagged the domain name error immediately, advised us to close the fake login page, and suggested typing the official URL directly into the browser, or to use the official Facebook app.
Be My AI explains why the page looks sketchy: the domain doesn’t match the official site. The app suggests typing the official URL directly into the browser, or using the official Facebook app
We saw the same positive results when testing a phishing email. In fact, the AI flagged the scam during its initial description of the message. It wrapped up with a warning: “This looks like a suspicious email. It’s best not to open any attachments or click any links. Instead, navigate to the official website or app manually, or call the number listed on their official site”.
Beyond just spotting cyberthreats, Be My AI is a solid sidekick for navigating online stores, banking apps, and digital services. For instance, the AI can help you to:
The most common hiccup with AI is hallucinations, where the language model distorts text, skips crucial details, or invents words out of thin air. When it comes to cyberthreats, an AI’s misplaced confidence in a malicious site or email can be dangerous. Furthermore, AI isn’t immune to prompt injection attacks, which scammers use to trick AI agents beyond just Be My AI.
Even though the AI passed our test, you shouldn’t rely on it unquestioningly. There’s no guarantee it’ll get it right every time. This is a vital point for the blind and low-vision community, as a neural network can often feel like the only eyes available.
At the end of every response, Be My AI suggests checking in with a volunteer if you’re still unsure. However, when you’re trying to spot a fake webpage, we advise against this. You have no way of knowing how tech-savvy or trustworthy a random volunteer might be. Besides, you risk accidentally exposing sensitive data like your email address or password. Before connecting with a stranger, make sure they won’t see anything confidential on your screen. Better yet, use the app’s dedicated feature to create a private group of family, friends, or trusted contacts. This ensures your video call goes to people you actually know, rather than a random volunteer.
To stay safe, we recommend installing a trusted security tool on all your devices. These programs are designed to block phishing attempts and prevent you from landing on malicious sites. Another practical recommendation for visually impaired users is to use a password manager. These apps will only auto-fill credentials on the legitimate, saved website; they won’t be fooled by a clever domain spoof.
According to the Be My Eyes privacy policy, video calls with volunteers may be recorded and stored to provide the service, ensure safety, enforce the terms of service, and improve the products. When you use Be My AI, your images and text prompts are sent to OpenAI to generate a response. This data is processed on servers located in the U.S., and OpenAI uses it only to fulfill your specific request. The policy explicitly states that user images and queries aren’t used to train AI models.
Photos and videos are encrypted both in transit and at rest, and the company takes steps to strip away sensitive information. It’s worth noting that video call recordings can be retained indefinitely unless you request their deletion — in which case they’re typically wiped within 30 days. Data from Be My AI interactions is stored for up to 30 days unless you delete it manually within the app. If you decide to close your account, your personal data may be held for up to 90 days. At any time, you can opt out of data sharing, or request the deletion of your existing data by contacting the Be My Eyes support team.
Despite Be My Eyes’ claims regarding privacy, you should still follow a few ground rules when using the service:
Kaspersky official blog – Read More
In Chile, cybersecurity compliance is becoming an operational issue, not just a legal one. Under the new Cybersecurity Framework Law, organizations must show they have real capabilities for threat detection, incident analysis, and response. For many teams, that exposes a serious gap between regulatory expectations and day-to-day security operations.
Chile has taken a decisive step toward strengthening its national cybersecurity posture with the approval of Law No. 21.663 – the Cybersecurity Framework Law. This legislation establishes mandatory cybersecurity obligations for organizations classified as:
Unlike traditional compliance frameworks that focus on policies and documentation, Chile’s approach is outcome-driven and risk-based. Organizations must demonstrate real operational capabilities– not just checkbox compliance. With enforcement and audits ramping up through 2025-2026, the compliance window is closing fast.
The scope is broad. An estimated 915 organizations across energy, telecommunications, banking and financial services, digital infrastructure, healthcare, and public institutions must now prove their cybersecurity readiness.
Chile’s Cybersecurity Framework Law does not mandate specific tools, but it does set clear expectations for operational readiness. Regulated organizations are expected to have the following:
Effective threat detection: Identify malicious activity before it causes damage
Timely incident analysis and response: Understand what happened, how, and what to do
Continuous risk management: Adapt defenses as the threat landscape evolves
Evidence-based reporting: Provide detailed, defensible reports to Chile’s national CSIRT and regulatory authorities
Regulated entities must permanently apply technical and organizational measures to prevent, report, and resolve cybersecurity incidents in line with ANCI protocols and sector-specific standards. They must also report significant cyberattacks and incidents to the national CSIRT under a defined timeline.
For operators of vital importance, requirements are stricter. They must run a continuous information security management system, document security actions, and maintain certified cybersecurity and continuity plans, reviewed at least every two years.
They are also expected to conduct regular exercises, implement rapid containment measures, train staff, and appoint an independent cybersecurity delegate with direct access to top management and formal responsibility for coordination with ANCI.
The reporting timelines are especially important for CISOs, SOC leaders, and MSSPs serving regulated clients. The law requires an early warning within three hours after learning of a significant incident, an updated report within 72 hours, and a final report within 15 days.
If the affected entity is an OIV and the incident disrupts its essential service, the second report deadline tightens to 24 hours. OIVs must also communicate a formal action plan within seven days.
The key shift is simple: the law focuses less on documented intent and more on proven capability. It is not enough to say controls are in place. Organizations need to show they can investigate suspicious activity, confirm whether a threat is real, and support response decisions with evidence.
That changes the standard for security teams. Alerts alone are not enough. Teams need visibility, faster analysis, and a reliable investigation trail they can stand behind during reporting, audits, and post-incident review.
The legal exposure is serious. Minor infringements can be fined up to 5,000 UTM, serious infringements up to 10,000 UTM, and very serious infringements up to 20,000 UTM. For operators of vital importance, those maximums double to 10,000, 20,000, and 40,000 UTM respectively.
For leadership, the business risk goes beyond the fine itself. When teams cannot investigate suspicious activity quickly, explain what happened, or produce defensible incident evidence, the result can be longer disruption, slower communication with authorities, and more exposure during audits. That is why this law should not be treated as only a legal issue. It is also a detection, response, and operational-readiness issue.
For SOCs and incident response teams across Chile, the new requirements create significant operational pressure:

Chilean organizations are facing the same challenge plaguing SOCs globally: too many alerts, not enough time to investigate them properly. SOC teams are drowning in noise from SIEM and EDR platforms, struggling to separate real threats from false positives.
The cybersecurity skills gap is acute in Latin America. According to industry data, LATAM experiences approximately 2,716 cyberattacks per organization per week, significantly above the global average. Yet there aren’t enough trained analysts to keep pace with investigation demands.
Many sandbox solutions provide a verdict, but limited visibility into how the threat behaves or why it matters. When regulators ask for detailed incident reports, security teams need more than a malicious or benign label. They need evidence, context, and a clearer view of the attack chain.
Attackers targeting Latin America, particularly Chile’s banking and financial sectors, are deploying region-specific malware families like Mekotio, Grandoreiro, and Casbaneiro. These threats use novel evasion techniques specifically designed to bypass legacy detection systems.
Under Chile’s new framework, security gaps are no longer just technical weaknesses. They can become compliance failures, reporting delays, and broader business risks. ANY.RUN helps organizations close those gaps with stronger threat visibility, faster analysis, and more defensible response workflows.
One of the hardest parts of compliance is knowing which threats deserve immediate attention. Security teams already deal with large volumes of alerts, but the new law raises the need for monitoring that is not only active, but relevant to actual business risk.
ANY.RUN’s Threat Intelligence Lookup helps teams focus on threats that matter most to their environment. Rather than treating threat intelligence as just another dataset, it works as an operational layer that connects threat context with prioritization and action across the SOC lifecycle. Instead of relying only on generic indicators, organizations can investigate threats through industry- and geo-specific context.
For example, a query such as submissionCountry:”CL” AND industry:”banking” can help teams understand what is actively targeting Chile’s financial sector. This gives analysts faster context for triage, supports continuous risk management, and helps organizations build monitoring around real threats rather than assumptions.

With this approach, organizations can:
Threat visibility is only the first step. Once a suspicious file, URL, or email is detected, teams still need to understand what it actually does, how serious it is, and what actions should follow.
ANY.RUN’s Interactive Sandbox helps security teams investigate threats through real behavioral analysis. Instead of receiving only a verdict, analysts can observe malicious activity as it unfolds, understand the attack chain, extract indicators, and see the broader context of the incident. This makes it easier to validate threats faster, support containment decisions, and produce clearer evidence for reporting, audits, and post-incident review.

In practice, this allows organizations to:
Meeting regulatory expectations also depends on how quickly security teams can move from detection to action. When threat data stays locked in separate tools or requires manual handling, triage slows down, response becomes less consistent, and reporting gets harder under tight deadlines.
ANY.RUN helps reduce that friction by connecting threat intelligence and sandbox analysis directly to existing security workflows through ready-made connectors, STIX/TAXII, and API/SDK options. This allows teams to move investigation data into SIEM, SOAR, EDR, and TIP environments faster, so enrichment, correlation, and response can happen with less manual effort.

Threat Intelligence Feeds continuously deliver high-confidence malicious indicators sourced from live attack investigations across 15,000 organizations and 600,000 analysts, helping teams work with fresh threat data instead of static lists.
This gives organizations the ability to:
Security teams also need confidence that sensitive analyses can be handled in a controlled environment that supports internal governance, confidentiality, and audit readiness. That is especially important for organizations working under stricter reporting obligations and higher regulatory scrutiny.
ANY.RUN supports that need with SOC 2 Type II attested security and private, access-controlled sandbox analysis designed for confidential investigations.
ANY.RUN’s private sandbox sessions remain confidential through strict access controls and encrypted data processing, helping organizations investigate threats without exposing case data to the public community. For leadership, this matters because improving detection and response is not enough on its own. The investigation environment also needs to meet enterprise expectations for security, privacy, and operational reliability.
This becomes especially valuable when incidents involve sensitive internal files, regulated environments, or investigations that may later be reviewed by auditors, executives, or external authorities. With stronger privacy controls around analysis data, organizations can reduce the risk of accidental exposure while giving security teams a safer way to investigate suspicious activity and preserve a defensible trail of evidence.
ANY.RUN, a leading provider of interactive malware analysis and threat intelligence solutions, helps security teams investigate threats faster and with greater clarity across modern enterprise environments.
It allows teams to safely execute suspicious files and URLs, observe real behavior in an Interactive Sandbox, enrich indicators with immediate context through TI Lookup, and monitor emerging malicious infrastructure using Threat Intelligence Feeds. Together, these capabilities help reduce investigation uncertainty, accelerate triage, and limit unnecessary escalations across the SOC.
The law raises the standard from having policies on paper to proving operational readiness in practice. It sets minimum requirements for preventing, containing, resolving, and responding to cyber incidents, creates ANCI as the national authority, and gives regulators a clearer basis for oversight and sanctions. In practice, that means leadership teams need confidence that detection, investigation, reporting, and continuity measures will hold up under pressure.
The law applies to providers of essential services and to entities designated as Operators of Vital Importance, or OIVs. The covered sectors include areas such as energy, water, telecom, digital infrastructure, transport, banking and payments, postal services, and healthcare, while ANCI has the power to formally qualify OIVs.
At a minimum, regulated entities must permanently apply measures to prevent, report, and resolve incidents. For OIVs, the bar is higher: they must run a continuous information security management system, maintain records of security actions, implement and review continuity and cybersecurity plans, carry out ongoing reviews and exercises, train staff, and appoint a cybersecurity delegate who reports upward.
Because the reporting clock starts quickly. The law requires an early alert within 3 hours of learning about a significant incident, an update within 72 hours, and a final report within 15 days. If an OIV’s essential service is affected, the update deadline tightens to 24 hours, and OIVs must also adopt an action plan within 7 days. For leadership, this makes delayed investigation a business risk, not just a technical issue.
No. It does not prescribe named products. What it does require is that organizations can prevent, report, and resolve incidents, follow ANCI protocols and standards, and support continuity and incident handling with real operational capability. That is why the focus for leadership should be less on tool count and more on whether teams can investigate, decide, and report fast enough when it matters.
Because the law is built around response, reporting, and oversight. ANCI can require information needed to understand incidents, supervise compliance, and enforce sanctions, while the law also emphasizes continuity, risk management, and documented actions. For leadership teams, that makes clear evidence and a defensible investigation trail part of compliance readiness.
The post Chile’s Cybersecurity Framework Law: How SOCs Achieve Compliance and Response Readiness appeared first on ANY.RUN’s Cybersecurity Blog.
ANY.RUN’s Cybersecurity Blog – Read More

AI workflow automation platforms such as Zapier and n8n are primarily used to connect different software applications (e.g., Slack, Google Sheets, or Gmail) with AI models (e.g., OpenAI’s GPT-4 or Anthropic’s Claude). These platforms have been applied to different application domains, including cybersecurity over the past few months, especially with the progress that has been made in new avenues like large language models (LLMs) and agentic AI systems. However, much like other legitimate tools, AI workflow automation platforms can be weaponized to orchestrate malicious activities, like delivering malware by sending automated emails.
This blog describes how n8n, one of the most popular AI workflow automation platforms, has been abused to deliver malware and fingerprint devices by sending automated emails.
N8n is a workflow automation platform that connects web applications and services (including Slack, GitHub, Google Sheets, and others with HTTP-based APIs) and builds automated workflows. A community-licensed version of the platform can be self-hosted by organizations. The commercial service, hosted at n8n.io, includes AI-driven features that can create agents capable of using web-based APIs to pull data from documents and other data sources.
Users can register for an n8n developer account at no initial charge. Doing so creates a subdomain on “tti.app.n8n[.]cloud” from which the user’s applications can be accessed. This is similar to many web-based AI-aided development tools, and one that malicious actors have harnessed elsewhere in the past; earlier this year, Talos observed another AI-oriented web application service, Softr.io, being used for the creation of phishing pages used in a series of targeted attacks.
Talos’ investigation found that a primary point of abuse in n8n’s AI workflow automation platform is its URL-exposed webhooks. A webhook, often referred to as a “reverse API,” allows one application to provide real-time information to another. These URLs register an application as a “listener” to receive data, which can include programmatically pulled HTML content. An example of an n8n webhook URL is shown in Figure 1.

When the URL receives a request, the subsequent workflow steps are triggered, returning results as an HTTP data stream to the requesting application. If the URL is accessed via email, the recipient’s browser acts as the receiving application, processing the output as a webpage.
Talos has observed a significant rise in emails containing n8n webhook URLs over the past year. For example, the volume of these emails in March 2026 was approximately 686% higher than in January 2025. This increase is driven, in part, by several instances of platform abuse, including malware delivery and device fingerprinting, as we will discuss in the next sections.

Because webhooks mask the source of the data they deliver, they can be used to serve payloads from untrusted sources while making them appear to originate from a trusted domain. Furthermore, since webhooks can dynamically serve different data streams based on triggering events — such as request header information — a phishing operator can tailor payloads based on the user-agent header.

Talos observed a phishing campaign (shown in Figure 3) that used an n8n-hosted webhook link in emails that purported to be a shared Microsoft OneDrive folder. When clicked, the link opened a webpage in the targeted user’s browser containing a CAPTCHA.

Once the CAPTCHA is completed, a download button appears, triggering a progress bar as the payload is downloaded from an external host. Because the entire process is encapsulated within the JavaScript of the HTML document, the download appears to the browser to have come from the n8n domain.

In this case, the payload was an .exe file named “DownloadedOneDriveDocument.exe” that posed as a self-extracting archive. When opened, it installed a modified version of the Datto Remote Monitoring and Management (RMM) tool and executed a chain of PowerShell commands.

The PowerShell commands generated by the malicious executable extract and configure the Datto RMM tool, configure it as a scheduled task, and then launch it, establishing a connection to a relay on Datto’s “centrastage[.]net” domain before deleting themselves and the rest of the payload.

Talos observed a similar campaign that also utilized an n8n webhook to deliver a different payload. Like the previous instance, it featured a self-contained phishing page delivered as a data stream from the webhook, protected with a CAPTCHA for human verification.

This CAPTCHA code was significantly simpler than the first case. The payload delivered upon solving the CAPTCHA was a maliciously modified Microsoft Windows Installer (MSI) file named “OneDrive_Document_Reader_pHFNwtka_installer.msi”. Protected by the Armadillo anti-analysis packer, the payload deployed a different backdoor: the ITarian Endpoint Management RMM tool. When executed by “msiexec.exe”, the file installs a modified version of the ITarian Endpoint RMM, which acts as a backdoor while running Python modules to exfiltrate information from the target’s system. During this process, a fake installer GUI displays a progress bar; once finished, the bar resets to 0% and the application exits, creating the illusion of a failed installation.
Talos observed another common abuse case: device fingerprinting. This is achieved by embedding an invisible image (or tracking pixel) within an email. For example, when the <img> HTML tag is used, it tells the email client (e.g., Outlook or Gmail) to fetch an image from a specific URL. Figure 9 shows an example spam email in the Spanish language that leverages this technique.

When the email client attempts to load the image, it automatically sends an HTTP GET request to the specified address, which is an n8n webhook URL. These URLs include tracking parameters (such as the victim’s email address), allowing the server to identify exactly which user opened the email. Also, it is clear how this image is made invisible by using the “display” and “opacity” CSS properties.

The second example below uses the same technique to track email opens and fingerprint the recipient’s device. Here, the sender tries to get a hold of recipient by introducing a new gift card feature.


The same workflows designed to save developers hours of manual labor are now being repurposed to automate the delivery of malware and fingerprinting devices due to their flexibility, ease of integration, and seamless automation. As we continue to leverage the power of low-code automation, it’s the responsibility of security teams to ensure these platforms and tools remain assets rather than liabilities.
Because several AI automation platforms exist today that are inherently designed to be flexible and trustworthy, the security community must move beyond simple static analysis to effectively counter their abuse. For instance, instead of blocking entire domains, which would disrupt legitimate business workflows, security researchers should investigate behavioral detection approaches. These should trigger alerts when high volumes of traffic are directed toward such platforms from unexpected internal sources. Similarly, if an endpoint attempts to communicate with an AI automation platform’s domain (e.g., “n8n.cloud”) that is not part of the organization’s authorized workflow, it should trigger an immediate alert.
Collaborative intelligence sharing is another effective approach to countering malicious email campaigns. Security teams should prioritize sharing indicators of compromise (IOCs) — such as specific webhook URL structures, malicious file hashes, and command and control (C2) domains — with platforms like Cisco Talos Intelligence.
Last but not least, safeguarding against these complex threats necessitates a comprehensive email security solution that utilizes AI-driven detection. Secure Email Threat Defense employs distinctive deep learning and machine learning models, incorporating Natural Language Processing, within its sophisticated threat detection systems. It detects harmful techniques employed in attacks against your organization, extracts unmatched context for particular business risks, offers searchable threat data, and classifies threats to identify which sectors of your organization are most at risk of attack. You can register now for a free trial of Email Threat Defense.
IOCs for this threat also available on our GitHub repository here.
93a09e54e607930dfc068fcbc7ea2c2ea776c504aa20a8ca12100a28cfdcc75a 7f30259d72eb7432b2454c07be83365ecfa835188185b35b30d11654aadf86a0 hxxps[://]onedrivedownload[.]zoholandingpage[.]com/my-workspace/DownloadedOneDrive hxxps[://]majormetalcsorp[.]com/Openfolder hxxps[://]pagepoinnc[.]app[.]n8n[.]cloud/webhook/downloading-1a92cb4f-cff3-449d-8bdd-ec439b4b3496 hxxps[://]monicasue[.]app[.]n8n[.]cloud/webhook/download-file-92684bb4-ee1d-4806-a264-50bfeb750dab
Cisco Talos Blog – Read More

Microsoft has released its monthly security update for April 2026, which includes 165 vulnerabilities affecting a wide range of products, including eight Microsoft marked as “critical.”
CVE-2026-23666 is a critical Denial of Service (DoS) vulnerability that affects the .NET framework. Successful exploitation could allow the attacker to deny service over the network.
CVE-2026-32157 is a critical use after free vulnerability in the Remote Desktop Client that results in code execution. Attack requires an authorized user on the client to connect to a malicious server, which could result in code execution on the client.
CVE-2026-32190 is a critical user after free vulnerability in Microsoft Office that can result in local code execution. Attacker is remote but attack is carried out locally. Code from the local machine needs to be executed to exploit the vulnerability.
CVE-2026-33114 is a critical untrusted pointer deference vulnerability in Microsoft Office Word that could allow the attacker to execute code locally. Code from the local machine needs to be executed to exploit this vulnerability.
CVE-2026-33115 is a critical use after free vulnerability in Microsoft Office word that can result in local code execution. Similar to CVE-2026-33114 and CVE-2026-32190 the attacker is remote, but code needs to be executed from the local machine to exploit the vulnerability.
CVE-2026-33824 is a critical double free vulnerability in the Widows Internet Key Exchange (IKE) extension, allowing remote code execution. An unauthenticated attacker can send specially crafted packets to a Windows machine with IKE version 2 enabled to potentially enable remote code execution. Additional mitigations can include blocking inbound traffic on UDP ports 500 and 4500 if IKE is not in use.
CVE-2026-33826 is a critical improper input validation in Windows Active Directory that can result in code execution over an adjacent network. Requires an authenticated attacker to send specially crafted RPC calls to an RPC host. Can result in remote code execution. Note that successful exploitation requires the attacker be in the same restricted Active Directory domain as the target system.
CVE-2026-33827 is a critical race condition vulnerability in Windows TCP/IP that can result in remote code execution. Successful exploitation requires the attacker to win a race condition along with additional actions prior to exploitation to prepare the target environment. An unauthenticated actor can send specially crafted IPv6 packets to a Windows node where IPSec is enabled to potentially achieve remote code execution.
CVE-2026-32201 is an important improper input validation vulnerability in Microsoft Office SharePoint that can allow an unauthorized user to perform spoofing. An attacker that successfully exploits this vulnerability could view some sensitive information and make changes to disclosed information. This vulnerability has already been detected as being exploited in the wild.
The majority of the remaining vulnerabilities are labeled as important with a two moderate and one low vulnerability also being patched. Talos would like to highlight the several additional important vulnerabilities that Microsoft has deemed as “more likely” to be exploited.
· CVE-2026-0390 – UEFI Secure Boot Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability
· CVE-2026-26151 – Remote Desktop Spoofing Vulnerability
· CVE-2026-26169 – Windows Kernel Memory Information Disclosure Vulnerability
· CVE-2026-26173 – Windows Ancillary Function Driver for WinSock Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability
· CVE-2026-26177 – Windows Ancillary Function Driver for WinSock Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability
· CVE-2026-26182 – Windows Ancillary Function Driver for WinSock Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability
· CVE-2026-27906 – Windows Hello Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability
· CVE-2026-27908 – Windows TDI Translation Driver (tdx.sys) Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability
· CVE-2026-27909 – Windows Search Service Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability
· CVE-2026-27913 – Windows BitLocker Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability
· CVE-2026-27914 – Microsoft Management Console Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability
· CVE-2026-27921 – Windows TDI Translation Driver (tdx.sys) Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability
· CVE-2026-27922 – Windows Ancillary Function Driver for WinSock Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability
· CVE-2026-32070 – Windows Common Log File System Driver Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability
· CVE-2026-32075 – Windows UPnP Device Host Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability
· CVE-2026-32093 – Windows Function Discovery Service (fdwsd.dll) Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability
· CVE-2026-32152 – Desktop Window Manager Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability
· CVE-2026-32154 – Desktop Window Manager Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability
· CVE-2026-32155 – Desktop Window Manager Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability
· CVE-2026-32162 – Windows COM Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability
· CVE-2026-32202 – Windows Shell Spoofing Vulnerability
· CVE-2026-32225 – Windows Shell Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability
· CVE-2026-33825 – Microsoft Defender Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability
A complete list of all other vulnerabilities Microsoft disclosed this month is available on its update page. In response to these vulnerability disclosures, Talos is releasing a new Snort rule set that detects attempts to exploit some of them. Please note that additional rules may be released at a future date and current rules are subject to change pending additional information. Cisco Security Firewall customers should use the latest update to their ruleset by updating their SRU. Open-source Snort Subscriber Rule Set customers can stay up to date by downloading the latest rule pack available for purchase on Snort.org.
The rules included in this release that protect against the exploitation of many of these vulnerabilities are: 1:65902-1:65903, 1:66242-1:66251, 1:66259-1:66260, 1:66264-1:66267, 1:66275-1:66276
The following Snort 3 rules are also available: 1:301398, 1:301468-1:3101472, 1:301475, 1:301477-1:301478, 1:301480
Cisco Talos Blog – Read More