Company Blogs – Page 2 – BackBox.org News

Kaspersky Embedded Systems Security: what’s new?

December 2, 2025/in Company Blogs

What generates the fastest profit for cybercriminals? Attacking systems that can help them access confidential information or finances directly. Therefore, it’s no surprise that entire groups of cybercriminals specialize in embedded systems: primarily ATMs full of cash, payment systems where transactions can be intercepted, medical equipment where personal data is processed and stored, and so on. All these devices often have less than an adequate level of security (both cyber and physical), making them a convenient target for attackers.

The classic challenge of protecting embedded systems running Windows is that their hardware typically becomes obsolete much slower than their software. These are often expensive devices that organizations won’t replace simply because the operating system has stopped receiving updates. The result is a high percentage of embedded devices with limited resources due to their narrow specialization, outdated software, and an operating system that’s no longer supported by manufacturer.

The end of support for Windows 10 is exacerbating this last issue. A multitude of devices that are perfectly capable of performing their primary functions for years to come will never be able to upgrade to Windows 11 — simply because they lack a TPM module.

The situation isn’t much better in the market for embedded Linux devices. Those built on x86 processors generally have newer hardware — but even that becomes outdated over time. Furthermore, many new embedded systems running Linux are based on the ARM architecture, which has its own specific requirements and challenges.

Because of these unique characteristics, standard endpoint security solutions are a poor fit. Protecting these devices requires a product equipped with technologies that can effectively counter modern threats targeting embedded systems. At the same time, it must be capable of running not only on modern hardware with the latest OS versions, but also on resource-constrained devices, and should be able to provide ideal stability in “unattended” mode, plus compatibility with specific embedded software. Ideally, it should be manageable from the same console as the rest of owner’s IT infrastructure, and support integration with corporate SIEM systems. As you’ve probably guessed, we’re talking about Kaspersky Embedded Systems Security.

How Kaspersky Embedded Systems Security can help

We’ve talked repeatedly in this blog about the specific challenges of securing embedded systems, and our take on the same. However, Kaspersky Embedded Systems Security continues to evolve. In late November, we released a sweeping product update that enhances both the Windows and Linux versions.

What’s new in Kaspersky Embedded Systems Security for Windows

Our experts have overhauled the solution’s codebase, adding a range of advanced threat detection and blocking mechanisms. The cornerstone of this update is a full-fledged behavioral analysis engine, which powers several technologies essential for modern device protection:

Our non-invasive Automatic Exploit Prevention technology, already proven in other products, is a reliable tool for blocking the exploitation of known and new vulnerabilities. It’s been instrumental in helping our experts discover numerous zero-day vulnerabilities in past years.
Our advanced Anti-Cryptor technology serves as an additional layer of defense against ransomware. Leveraging the behavioral engine, it now more effectively detects and blocks local attempts to encrypt files.
Our Remediation Engine is designed to roll back malicious changes made to a device. Even if attackers manage to bypass other security mechanisms and execute malicious code, its activity would be promptly detected, and all changes it made reverted. This is also particularly effective in combating ransomware.

Another technology added to the updated Kaspersky Embedded Systems Security for Windows is BadUSB Attack Prevention. In a BadUSB attack, a malicious device that mimics a legitimate input peripheral — most often a keyboard — is connected to the target system. Through this device, the attacker can then cause all sorts of problems: input their own commands, intercept data entered from other devices (such as the login credentials of a service technician), cause denial of service, and more. This threat is especially relevant for embedded systems installed outside a company’s physical security perimeter. A BadUSB device plugged into the port of a standalone ATM in a remote rural area can go unnoticed for months and, unless blocked by a security solution, inflict significant damage.

We’ve also added our firewall to the solution. This allows administrators to control network access for specific applications via rules based on predefined trust levels for that software. Since an embedded device typically has a limited set of tasks, it makes sense to only permit network access for the applications that genuinely need it to function properly, while blocking all others. This not only makes life harder for attackers attempting to communicate with command-and-control (C&C) servers or exfiltrate data, but also reduces the risk of the system being used as a platform to attack the rest of the corporate infrastructure.

Finally, for administrator convenience, we’ve added a security status indicator, or a “traffic light”. This provides an at-a-glance assessment of how thoroughly each device is configured, showing whether all critical protection technologies are enabled, or if an administrator needs to review the settings and check the device’s security posture.

What’s new in Kaspersky Embedded Systems Security for Linux

We’ve also significantly enhanced the new Kaspersky Embedded Systems Security for Linux. While most of the improvements boost the effectiveness of existing protection mechanisms, one fundamental change is our revamped application allowlist control system. It now uses certificate-based signing to streamline the process of updating the system and the applications required by the embedded device.

Unlike Windows, Linux systems don’t have a universal, ready-made certificate infrastructure that we could simply support. Therefore, at the request of one of our largest customers, we built our own. As a result, there’s no longer a need to regularly create and completely redeploy a full golden system image to every device — though, of course, you can continue to do this if your company needs it for any reason. Now, you simply need to sign a new application with your certificate, and the allowlist system in Kaspersky Embedded Systems Security will accept it and allow it to run without any further issues.

Another new technology in Kaspersky Embedded Systems Security for Linux is Web Threat Protection. The average usage model for embedded systems implies that it’s not the most useful feature on a device without a direct user. However, in practice, there are scenarios where embedded systems do use web protocols. For instance, some PoS devices require access to a corporate web-based CRM system, and the medical terminal can communicate in the same way with the internal portal that manages patient data. Such system could be compromised by attackers to perform a watering hole attack — infecting machines that connect to it. Furthermore, this protection is essential when using Kaspersky Embedded Systems Security on a regular computer with an outdated OS and no hope of updating it, rather than on an embedded system.

Future development plans for Kaspersky Embedded Systems Security

The next major product update is scheduled for the first quarter of 2026. In it, we plan to:

Achieve full compatibility between Kaspersky Embedded Systems Security and the Kaspersky Managed Detection and Response This will allow our SOC experts to assist companies that use embedded devices in detecting complex, stealthy threats, and providing recommendations for effective incident mitigation.
Integrate the BadUSB attack prevention technology into Kaspersky Embedded Systems Security for Linux, mirroring the capability already available in the Windows version.
Add support for the ARM architecture to Kaspersky Embedded Systems Security for Linux, enabling us to provide comprehensive protection for the new energy-efficient embedded systems that are rapidly gaining market share.

You can learn more about Kaspersky Embedded Systems Security on the official product page.

Kaspersky official blog – Read More

This month in security with Tony Anscombe – November 2025 edition

November 29, 2025/in Company Blogs

Data exposure by top AI companies, the Akira ransomware haul, Operation Endgame against major malware families, and more of this month’s cybersecurity news

WeLiveSecurity – Read More

What parents should know to protect their children from doxxing

November 28, 2025/in Company Blogs

Online disagreements among young people can easily spiral out of control. Parents need to understand what’s at stake.

WeLiveSecurity – Read More

How your dashcam can be hacked, and how to protect yourself from the attack | Kaspersky official blog

November 27, 2025/in Company Blogs

Dashcams, popular in some countries and while illegal in others, are typically seen as insurance in case of an accident or roadside dispute. But a team of Singaporean cybersecurity researchers have a different take. They see offline (!) dashcams as a suitable foundation for… a mass surveillance system — moreover, one that can broaden automatically. They presented the details of their research at the Security Analyst Summit 2025.

The espionage potential of a dashcam

So, how can offline device be used for surveillance? Well, though it’s true that most dashcams aren’t equipped with a SIM card or 4G/5G connectivity — even inexpensive models have Wi-Fi. This allows the driver’s phone to connect to the device through a mobile app to adjust settings, download videos, and for other purposes. And as it turns out, many dashcams allow authentication to be bypassed, meaning a malicious actor can connect to them from their own device and then download the stored data.

An attacker has a lot to gain from this. First, there’s the high-resolution video, which clearly shows license plates and road signs. Some dashcam models also record the car’s interior, and others feature wide-angle lenses and/or rear-facing cameras. Second, dashcams can record audio — primarily conversations — inside the vehicle. Third, these video and audio recordings are tagged with precise timestamps and GPS tags.

Therefore, by downloading data from a dashcam, someone could track the owner’s movements, obtain images of the locations where they drive and park, find out what they talk about in the car, and often get photos and videos of the vehicle’s passengers or people near the car. Naturally, for targeted surveillance, a hacker would need to compromise a specific dashcam, while for mass surveillance, they’d need to compromise a large number of devices.

Attack vectors for dashcams

The researchers began their experiments with a popular Thinkware dashcam, but quickly widenend the scope of the study to include two dozen models from 15 or so different brands.

They discovered many similarities in how the different devices operate. The initial connection is typically made to a Wi-Fi access point created by the dashcam itself, using the default SSID and password from the manual.

Most of the models tested by the researchers had a hardcoded password, allowing an attacker to establish a connection with them. Once connected, a hacker gains access to a familiar setup found in other IoT gadgets: an ARM processor and a lightweight Linux build. The attacker then has a whole arsenal of proven tricks to choose from to bypass the manufacturer’s authentication — designed to distinguish the owner from an unauthorized user. At least one of these methods typically works:

Direct file access. While the minuscule web server in the dashcam waits for a client to send a password at the official entry point, malicious requests for direct video downloads often go through without a password check
MAC address spoofing. Many dashcams verify the owner’s identity by checking the unique MAC address of their smartphone’s Wi-Fi adapter. The attacker can first intercept this address over the airwaves, and then spoof it in their own requests, which is often enough to establish a connection
Replay attack. By simply recording the entire Wi-Fi data exchange between the dashcam and the owner’s smartphone during a legitimate connection, an attacker can later replay this recording to gain the needed permissions

Most online services have been protected against these types of attacks for years if not decades. However, these classic vulnerabilities from the past are still frequently discovered in embedded devices.

To allow users to quickly review recorded files on their phone screen, or even watch a live feed from the camera, dashcams typically run several servers similar to those used on the internet. An FTP server enables quick file downloads, while an RTSP server streams live video, and so on. In theory, these servers have their own password-based security to protect them from unauthorized access. In practice, they often use a default, hardcoded password that’s identical for every unit of that model — a password that can be easily extracted from the manufacturer’s mobile app.

The one-hack-fits-all situation

Why are researchers convinced that these devices can be hacked on a massive scale? Due to two key factors:

Just a few popular dashcam models account for the lion’s share of the market. For instance, in Singapore, nearly half of all dashcams sold are from the brand IMAKE
Different models, sometimes from different brands, have very similar hardware and software architecture. This is because these dashcam manufacturers source their components and firmware from the same developer

As a result, a single piece of malicious code designed to try a few dozen passwords and three or four different attack methods could successfully compromise roughly a quarter of all dashcams in a real-world urban environment.

In the initial version of the attack, the researchers modeled a semi-stationary scenario. In this setup, an attacker with a laptop would be located at a place where cars stop for a few minutes, such as a gas station or a drive-through. However, further research led them to a more alarming conclusion: everything needed for the attack could be run directly on the dashcam itself! They managed to write code that operates like a computer worm: an infected dashcam attempts to connect to and compromise the dashcams in nearby cars while on the move. This is feasible when vehicles travel at similar speeds, for instance in heavy traffic.

From mass compromise to mass surveillance

The authors of the study didn’t stop at just proving that the hack was possible; they developed a complete system for harvesting and analyzing data. The data from compromised dashcams can be harvested to one central location in two ways: by sending the data directly to the attackers’ computer located at, say, a gas station, or by exploiting the built-in cloud-enabled features of some dashcams.

Some dashcam models are equipped with an LTE module, allowing the malicious code to send data directly to the botnet owner. But there’s also an option for simpler models. For example, a dashcam can have functionality to upload data to a smartphone for syncing it to the vendor cloud, or the compromised device can forward the data to other dashcams, which then relay it to the attacker.

Sometimes, inadequate cloud storage security allows data to be extracted directly — especially if the attacker knows the user identifiers stored within the camera.

The attacker can combine several methods to analyze the harvested data:

Extracting GPS metadata from photos and videos
Analyzing video footage to detect road signs and recognize text — identifying specific streets and landmarks
Using a Shazam-like service to identify music playing in the car
Leveraging OpenAI models to transcribe audio and generate a concise summary of all conversations inside the vehicle

The result is a brief, informative summary of every trip: the route, travel time, and topics that were discussed. At first glance, the value of this data seems limited because it’s anonymous. In reality, de-anonymization isn’t a problem. Sometimes the owner’s name or license plate number is explicitly listed in the camera’s settings. Furthermore, by analyzing the combination of frequently visited locations (like home and work), it’s relatively straightforward to identify the dashcam owner.

Conclusions and defense strategies

The recent revelations about the partnership between Flock and Nexar underscore how dashcams could indeed become a valuable link in a global surveillance and video monitoring system. Flock operates the largest network of automated license plate reader cameras for police in the United States, while Nexar runs a popular network of cloud-connected dashcams designed to create a “crowdsourced vision” of the roads.

However, the mass hacking of dashcams could lead to a much more aggressive and malicious data-harvesting effort, with information being abused for criminal and fraudulent schemes. Countering this threat is primarily the responsibility of vendors, which need to adopt secure development practices (Security by Design), implement robust cryptography, and employ other technical controls. For drivers, self-defense options are limited, and heavily dependent on the specific features of their dashcam model. We list them below in order of the most to least radical:

Purchase a model without LTE, Wi-Fi and Bluetooth capabilities. This is the most secure option
Completely disable Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, and other communication features on the dashcam
Disable audio recording and, ideally, physically disable the microphone if possible
Turn off parking mode. This feature keeps the dashcam active at all times to record incidents while the car is parked. However, it drains the car’s battery and, very likely, keeps the Wi-Fi on — significantly increasing the risk of a hack
Check the available Wi-Fi settings on the dashcam:
- If there’s an auto-shutoff for Wi-Fi after a certain period, set it to the shortest time possible
- If you can change the default Wi-Fi password or network name (SSID), be sure to do so
- If there’s an option to hide the network name (often referred to as Hidden SSID, Wi-Fi Broadcast Off, or Stealth Mode), enable it
Regularly update your dashcam firmware and its paired smartphone app. This increases the chances that vulnerabilities — like those described in this article — will be patched when you install a newer version.

Modern cars are susceptible to other types of cyberattacks too:

Highway to… hacked: cyberthreats to connected cars

Car hacking via Bluetooth

How millions of Kia cars could be tracked

I know how you drove last summer

Spies on wheels: how carmakers collect and then resell information

Kaspersky official blog – Read More

Microsoft Exchange on-premises hardening recommendations

November 26, 2025/in Company Blogs

Few cybersecurity experts would dispute that attacks on Microsoft Exchange servers should be viewed as inevitable, and the risk of compromise remains consistently high. In October, Microsoft ended support for Exchange Server 2019, making Exchange Server Subscription Edition (Exchange SE) the only supported on-premises solution for 2026. Despite this, many organizations continue to operate Exchange Server 2016, 2013, and even more antiquated releases.

For threat actors, Exchange is an irresistible target. Its popularity, complexity, abundance of settings, and, most importantly, its accessibility from external networks make it susceptible to a wide range of attacks:

Infiltration of mailboxes via password spraying attacks or spearphishing
Account compromise via outdated authentication protocols
Theft of specific emails by injecting malicious mail flow rules through Exchange Web Services
Hijacking of employee authentication tokens or message forgery by exploiting flaws in the Exchange mail processing infrastructure
Exploitation of Exchange vulnerabilities to execute arbitrary code (deploy web shells) on the server
Lateral movement and server compromise, where the Exchange server becomes a foothold for network reconnaissance, malware hosting, and traffic tunneling
Long-term email exfiltration via specialized implants for Exchange

To truly grasp the complexity and variety of Exchange attacks, it’s worth reviewing research on the GhostContainer, Owowa, ProxyNotShell, and PowerExchange threats.

Making it harder for attackers to compromise Exchange and reducing the impact of a successful attack is not impossible, but requires a wide range of measures — from simple configuration changes to effort-intensive authentication protocol migrations. A joint review of priority defense measures was recently published by CISA (the Canadian Centre for Cyber Security) and other cybersecurity regulators. So how do you start hardening your on-premises Exchange server?

Migrating away from EOL versions

Both Microsoft and CISA recommend transitioning to Exchange SE to receive timely security updates. For organizations unable to make the switch immediately, a paid Extended Security Updates (ESU) subscription is available for versions 2016 and 2019. Microsoft emphasizes that upgrading from 2016 or 2019 to Exchange SE is comparable in complexity to installing a standard Cumulative Update.

If for any reason you need to keep an unsupported version in operation, it should be thoroughly isolated from both internal and external networks. All mail flow should be routed through a specially configured email security gateway.

Regular updates

Microsoft releases two Cumulative Updates (CUs) per year, along with monthly security hotfixes. A key task for Exchange administrators is to establish a process for deploying these updates without delay, as threat actors are quick to weaponize known vulnerabilities. You can track the release schedule and contents of these updates on the official Microsoft page. To verify the health and update status of your Exchange installation, use tools like SetupAssist and the Exchange Health Checker.

Emergency mitigations

For critical, actively exploited vulnerabilities, temporary mitigation guidance is typically published in the Exchange blog and on the Exchange mitigations page. The Emergency Mitigation (EM) service should be enabled on your Exchange Mailbox servers. EM automatically connects to the Office Config Service to download and apply mitigation rules for urgent threats. These measures can quickly disable vulnerable services and block malicious requests using URL rewrite rules in IIS.

Secure baselines

A uniform, organization-wide set of configurations optimized for an organization’s needs must be applied not only to Exchange servers but also to mail clients across all platforms and their underlying operating systems.

Since the recommended security baselines differ for various OS and Exchange versions, the CISA guide references the popular, freely available CIS Benchmarks and Microsoft instructions. The latest CIS Benchmark was created for Exchange 2019, but it’s also fully applicable to Exchange SE — since the current Subscription Edition doesn’t differ in its configurable options from Exchange Server 2019 CU15.

Specialized security solutions

A critical mistake many organizations make is not having EDR and EPP agents on their Exchange servers. To prevent vulnerability exploitation and the execution of web shells, the server needs to be protected by a security solution like Kaspersky Endpoint Detection and Response. Exchange Server integrates with the Antimalware Scan Interface (AMSI), which enables security tools to effectively process server-side events.

Application allowlisting can significantly hinder attackers attempting to exploit Exchange vulnerabilities. This feature comes as standard in most advanced EPP solutions. However, if you need to implement it with native Windows tools, you can restrict untrusted applications via App Control for Business or AppLocker.

To protect employees and their machines, the server should use a solution like Kaspersky Security for Mail Server to filter mail traffic. This addresses several challenges that the out-of-the-box on-prem Exchange lacks the tools for — such as sender authentication via SPF, DKIM and DMARC protocols, or protection against sophisticated spam and spearphishing.

If for any reason a full EDR isn’t deployed on the server, it’s essential to at least activate the default anti-virus, and ensure the Attack Surface Reduction (ASR) rule “Block Webshell creation for Servers” is enabled.

To prevent server performance degradation when running default anti-virus, Microsoft recommends excluding specific files and folders from scans.

Restricting administrative access

Attackers often escalate privileges by abusing access to the Exchange Admin Center (EAC) and PowerShell remoting. Best practice dictates making these tools accessible only from a fixed number of privileged access workstations (PAWs). This can be enforced via firewall rules on the Exchange servers themselves, or by using firewall. The built-in Client Access Rules in Exchange can also offer limited utility in this scenario, but they can’t counter PowerShell abuse.

Adopting Kerberos and SMB instead of NTLM

Microsoft is gradually phasing out legacy network and authentication protocols. Modern Windows installations disable SMBv1 and NTLMv1 by default, with future versions slated to disable NTLMv2. Starting with Exchange SE CU1, NTLMv2 will be replaced with Kerberos, implemented using MAPI over HTTP, as the default authentication protocol.

IT and security teams should conduct a thorough audit of legacy protocol usage within their infrastructure, and develop a plan for migration to modern, more secure authentication methods.

Modern authentication methods

Beginning with Exchange 2019 CU13, clients can leverage a combination of OAuth 2.0, MFA, and ADFS for robust server authentication — a framework known as Modern Authentication, or Modern Auth for short. This way, a user can only access a mailbox after successfully completing MFA through ADFS, with the Exchange server then receiving a valid access token from the ADFS server. Once all users have migrated to Modern Auth, Basic authentication should be disabled on the Exchange server.

Enabling Extended Protection

Extended Protection (EP) provides a defense against NTLM relay attacks, Adversary-in-the-Middle, and similar techniques. It enhances TLS security by using a Channel Binding Token (CBT). If an attacker steals credentials or a token, and attempts to use them in a different TLS session, the server terminates the connection. To enable EP, all Exchange servers must be configured to use the same version of TLS.

Extended Protection is active by default on new server installations starting with Exchange 2019 CU14.

Secure TLS versions

The entire server infrastructure, including all Exchange servers, should be configured to use the same TLS version: 1.2 or, ideally, 1.3. Microsoft provides detailed guidance on optimal configuration and necessary prerequisite checks. You can use the Health Checker script to verify the correctness and uniformity of these settings.

HSTS

To ensure all connections are protected by TLS, you should additionally configure HTTP Strict Transport Security (HSTS). This helps prevent certain AitM attacks. After implementing the Exchange Server configuration changes as recommended by Microsoft, all connections to Outlook on the web (OWA) and the EAC will be forced to use encryption.

Download domains

The Download Domains feature provides protection against certain cross-site request forgery attacks and cookie theft by moving attachment downloads to a domain other than one hosting the organization’s Outlook on the web. This separates the loading of the UI and message list from downloading file attachments.

Role-based administration model

Exchange Server implements a Role-Based Access Control (RBAC) model for privileged users and administrators. CISA notes that accounts with AD administrator privileges are often also used to manage Exchange. In this configuration, a compromise of the Exchange server immediately leads to a full domain compromise. So it’s critical to use split permissions and RBAC to separate Exchange management from other administrative privileges. This reduces the number of users and administrators with excessive privileges.

PowerShell stream signing

Administrators frequently use PowerShell scripts known as cmdlets to modify settings and manage Exchange servers via the Exchange Management Shell (EMS). Remote PowerShell access should ideally be disabled. When it is enabled, command data streams sent to the server must be protected with certificates. As of November 2023, this setting is enabled by default for Exchange 2013, 2016, and 2019.

Protection of mail headers

In November 2024, Microsoft introduced enhanced protection against attacks involving the forgery of P2 FROM mail headers, which made emails appear to victims as if they were sent from a trusted sender. New detection rules now flag emails where these headers have likely been manipulated. Administrators mustn’t disable this protection, and should forward suspicious emails bearing the X-MS-Exchange-P2FromRegexMatch header to security experts for further analysis.

Kaspersky official blog – Read More

Dell ControlVault, Lasso, GL.iNet vulnerabilities

November 26, 2025/in Company Blogs

Cisco Talos’ Vulnerability Discovery & Research team recently disclosed five vulnerabilities in Dell ControlVault 3 firmware and its associated Windows software, four vulnerabilities in Entr’ouvert Lasso, and one vulnerability in GL.iNet Slate AX.

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.

Dell vulnerabilities

Discovered by Philippe Laulheret of Cisco Talos.

The Dell ControlVault is a hardware-based security solution designed for user authentication functions. Talos reported five vulnerabilities, as follows:

TALOS-2025-2173 (CVE-2025-31649) is a hard-coded password vulnerability. A specially crafted ControlVault API call can lead to an execution of privileged operation.
TALOS-2025-2174 (CVE-2025-31361) is a privilege escalation vulnerability. A specially crafted WinBioControlUnit API call can lead to privilege escalation.
TALOS-2025-2175 (CVE-2025-36460-CVE-2025-36463) covers multiple out-of-bounds read and write vulnerabilities. A specially crafted WinBioControlUnit API call can lead to memory corruption.
TALOS-2025-2188 (CVE-2025-32089) is a buffer overflow vulnerability. A specially crafted ControlVault API call can lead to an arbitrary code execution.
TALOS-2025-2189 (CVE-2025-36553) is a buffer overflow vulnerability. A specially crafted ControlVault API call can lead to memory corruption.

Entr’ouvert Lasso vulnerabilities

Discovered by Keane O’Kelley and another member of Cisco Advanced Security Initiative Group.

Lasso is a free (GNU General Public License) C library that defines processes for federated identities, single sign-on, and related protocols.

TALOS-2025-2193 (CVE-2025-47151) is a type confusion vulnerability, where a specially crafted SAML response can lead to an arbitrary code execution.

TALOS-2025-2194 (CVE-2025-46404), TALOS-2025-2195 (CVE-2025-46784), and TALOS-2025-2196 (CVE-2025-46705) are denial of service vulnerabilities. Specially crafted SAML responses can lead to a denial of service in all three cases.

GL.iNet Slate AX vulnerability

Discovered by Lilith >_> of Cisco Talos.

Slate AX (GL-AXT1800) is a Wi-Fi 6GB travel router. Cisco Talos discovered a firmware downgrade vulnerability, TALOS-2025-2230 (CVE-2025-44018), in the OTA Update functionality. A specially crafted .tar file can lead to a firmware downgrade. An attacker can perform a man-in-the-middle attack to trigger this vulnerability.

Cisco Talos Blog – Read More

Care that you share

November 26, 2025/in Company Blogs

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

Back in April, I wrote about the risks of unintentionally leaking information while using search engines. Since then, I’ve been thinking: Life doesn’t just happen in front of a keyboard. There’s a social side, too (or so I’m told). With Thanksgiving around the corner, it seems the perfect time to flip the script and focus on a different but related concept: Care that you share.

For my non-American friends, who may be enjoying just another Thursday, stick with me. This season brings heightened risks everywhere. Many teams are running with skeleton crews, whether due to holiday mode (family, turkey, football, days off) or the year-end compliance push (hello, NIS2 and DORA). At the same time, on the other side of the fence, attackers ramp up their efforts; globally, Black Friday and similar events are peak periods for phishing campaigns, often targeting credentials with fake employee perk emails and other seasonal lures.

So, why emphasize “care that you share?”

Recently, I visited a university of applied sciences to give a guest lecture and learn more about the projects students are working on. It was a great experience, though preparing for an audience of students (not my usual crowd) was challenging. What do they already know? What topics interest them? Should I give them some history of STIX/TAXII? Geopolitical tensions? Honestly speaking, none of this was interesting to me when I was a student. I chose to start simple, discussing what threats and the DKIW pyramid were, and then focusing on CVE, CVSS, and KEV — one of my favorite topic clusters.

To my surprise, not only did the students engage and ask questions, but they also stuck around late on a Friday afternoon, diving into discussions about software supply chain risks and beyond. I don’t remember ever staying at university past 6:00 p.m. on a Friday as a student! A week later, when they presented their projects — many centered on authentication, TOTP, and SmartCards — I was genuinely impressed by their ideas and the real-world problems they were addressing.

“Care that you share” is a mindset that helps us appreciate the knowledge exchange that happens in person, too.

Whether sharing stories over dinner, IOCs over email, or ideas in a classroom, let’s all take a moment to consider not just what we share, but how and why we share it. I’ll admit, I sometimes hesitate to share certain stories myself, worried they might seem too obvious or uninteresting, or maybe even dumb. But more often than not, those moments of openness lead to the best conversations and new perspectives.

This rings especially true during busy or understaffed times, when teams are stretched thin. It’s tempting to keep things to ourselves to avoid “bothering” others. In reality, sharing a helpful tip, a concern, or just a quick update can make all the difference for colleagues who might be juggling extra responsibilities or missing context.

So this holiday season, care that you share. Thoughtful communication isn’t just about protecting information — it’s also about supporting each other, especially when resources are limited. You never know who might benefit from what you have to offer, yourself included.

The one big thing

Last week, Cisco Talos announced an initiative to retire outdated ClamAV signatures to reduce database sizes and improve efficiency by focusing on currently relevant threats. Starting Dec. 16, 2025, the “main.cvd” and “daily.cvd” databases will be cut roughly in half, offering smaller downloads and reduced resource usage. Retired signatures may be reintroduced if old threats reappear, and only supported ClamAV container images will remain available on Docker Hub to enhance security and management.

Why do I care?

Smaller signature databases mean faster updates, lower bandwidth and storage requirements, and improved performance, especially on resource-constrained systems. By focusing detection on active threats, ClamAV can more efficiently protect against current malware without being bogged down by obsolete signatures.

So now what?

We will continue to monitor the activity of retired signatures and will restore any that are needed to protect the community. Stay attentive and request the reinstatement of retired signatures if older threats reappear. In the meantime, we recommend that ClamAV container image users select a feature release tag rather than a specific minor release tag to stay up to date with security updates and bug fixes.

Top security headlines of the week

Second Sha1-Hulud wave affects 25,000+ repositories via npm preinstall credential theft
The new supply chain campaign, dubbed Sha1-Hulud, has compromised hundreds of npm packages, uploaded to npm between November 21 and 23, 2025. The attack has impacted popular packages from Zapier, ENS Domains, PostHog, and Postman, among others. (The Hacker News)

FBI: Cybercriminals stole $262M by impersonating bank support teams
Since January 2025, the FBI’s Internet Crime Complaint Center (IC3) has received over 5,100 complaints, with the attacks impacting individuals, as well as businesses and organizations across all industry sectors. (Bleeping Computer)

Everest ransomware claims breach at Spain’s national airline Iberia with 596 GB data theft
The group states that the data covers millions of customers in multiple countries, and says it had long-term access with the ability to read and alter bookings. (HackRead)

CISA warns of active spyware campaigns hijacking high-value Signal and WhatsApp users
CISA on Monday issued an alert warning of bad actors actively leveraging commercial spyware and remote access trojans (RATs) to target users of mobile messaging applications. (The Hacker News)

LINE messaging bugs open Asian users to cyber espionage
Researchers discovered critical vulnerabilities that open the door to three main buckets of compromise: message replay attacks, plaintext and sticker leakage, and, most concerningly, impersonation attacks. (Dark Reading)

Can’t get enough Talos?

Talos Takes: When you’re told “no budget”
From configuring what you already have, to open-source strategies, to the impact of cybersecurity layoffs, this episode is packed with practical guidance for securing your organization during an economic downturn.

Humans of Talos: On epic reads, lifelong learning, and empathy
In this episode, Bill Largent shares what drew him to Talos, how his love of reading has shaped his cybersecurity ethos, and the key insights he shares for the next generation of cybersecurity professionals.

The TTP: How Talos built an AI model into one of the internet’s most abused layers
Hazel talks with Talos researcher David Rodriguez about how adversaries use DNS tunneling to sneak data out of networks, why it’s so difficult to spot in real time, and how Talos built an AI model to detect it without breaking the internet.

Upcoming events where you can find Talos

AVAR (Dec. 3 – 5) Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Black Hat Europe (Dec. 8 – 11) London, U.K.

Most prevalent malware files from Talos telemetry over the past week

SHA256: d933ec4aaf7cfe2f459d64ea4af346e69177e150df1cd23aad1904f5fd41f44a
MD5: 1f7e01a3355b52cbc92c908a61abf643
Talos Rep: https://talosintelligence.com/talos_file_reputation?s=d933ec4aaf7cfe2f459d64ea4af346e69177e150df1cd23aad1904f5fd41f44a
Example Filename: cleanup.bat
Detection Name: W32.D933EC4AAF-90.SBX.TG

SHA256: 9f1f11a708d393e0a4109ae189bc64f1f3e312653dcf317a2bd406f18ffcc507
MD5: 2915b3f8b703eb744fc54c81f4a9c67f
Talos Rep: https://talosintelligence.com/talos_file_reputation?s=9f1f11a708d393e0a4109ae189bc64f1f3e312653dcf317a2bd406f18ffcc507
Example Filename: e74d9994a37b2b4c693a76a580c3e8fe_1_Exe.exe
Detection Name: Win.Worm.Coinminer::1201

SHA256: 90b1456cdbe6bc2779ea0b4736ed9a998a71ae37390331b6ba87e389a49d3d59
MD5: c2efb2dcacba6d3ccc175b6ce1b7ed0a
Talos Rep: https://talosintelligence.com/talos_file_reputation?s=90b1456cdbe6bc2779ea0b4736ed9a998a71ae37390331b6ba87e389a49d3d59
Example Filename: ck8yh2og.dll
Detection Name: Auto.90B145.282358.in02

SHA256: 96fa6a7714670823c83099ea01d24d6d3ae8fef027f01a4ddac14f123b1c9974
MD5: aac3165ece2959f39ff98334618d10d9
Talos Rep: https://talosintelligence.com/talos_file_reputation?s=96fa6a7714670823c83099ea01d24d6d3ae8fef027f01a4ddac14f123b1c9974
Example Filename: 96fa6a7714670823c83099ea01d24d6d3ae8fef027f01a4ddac14f123b1c9974.exe
Detection Name: W32.Injector:Gen.21ie.1201

SHA256: 26fa67db9a00f07600abe950d2ea0aed0ea7a0b49a0b5a452e3175ffa33970ff
MD5: 71da0bf3094e3ed17bc5a1c78de80933
Talos Rep: https://talosintelligence.com/talos_file_reputation?s=26fa67db9a00f07600abe950d2ea0aed0ea7a0b49a0b5a452e3175ffa33970ff
Example Filename: cleanup.bat
Detection Name: W32.26FA67DB9A-90.SBX.TG

Cisco Talos Blog – Read More

Major Cyber Attacks in November 2025: XWorm, JSGuLdr Loader, Phoenix Backdoor, Mobile Threats, and More

November 26, 2025/in Company Blogs

Stealers, loaders, and targeted campaigns dominated November’s activity. ANY.RUN analysts examined cases ranging from PNG-based in-memory loading used to deploy XWorm to JSGuLdr, a three-stage JavaScript-to-PowerShell loader pushing PhantomStealer.

Alongside these public cases, three Threat Intelligence Reports detailed new activity across Windows, Linux, and Android, including loader-enabled hijackers, Tor-based cryptotrojan communication, Linux ransomware in Go, MaaS stealers, and a WhatsApp-propagating campaign with geofencing controls.

Each case was analyzed inside ANY.RUN’s Interactive Sandbox, revealing execution flows, persistence mechanisms, and behavioral indicators that help teams tune detections and trace related activity.

Let’s break down how these attacks unfolded, where they hit, and what security teams can take away to strengthen their defenses before the next wave arrives.

1. XWorm: PNG Files Used as Containers for an In-Memory Loader

Post on X

ANY.RUN analysts observed a new wave of XWorm infections in November, delivered through phishing pages and emails that distribute a JavaScript dropper named PurchaseOrder_25005092.js. While it appears benign at first glance, the script unpacks a full multi-stage chain designed to bypass quick checks, hide payloads inside PNG files, and execute a .NET assembly directly in memory.

How the attack begins

The campaign begins with a phishing lure (T1566.001) delivering a heavily obfuscated JavaScript installer (T1027). Once executed, the script checks whether the required components exist on the system and writes the missing files to C:UsersPUBLIC using Base64-encoded and AES-encrypted data (T1027.013). The staged components are later used during the PowerShell-driven decryption and in-memory execution stages.

The three staged files are:

Kile.cmd: A heavily obfuscated batch script filled with variable noise, percent-encoding, and fragmented Base64

Vile.png: Not an image but a Base64-encoded and AES-encrypted payload

Mands.png: Another encrypted data blob used during the second stage

Attackers deliberately use the “.png” extension (T1036.008) to make the files look harmless and evade quick manual reviews.

*XWorm execution chain revealed with its 4 main steps*

In-memory execution chain

After writing the staged components to C:UsersPUBLIC, the JavaScript dropper reconstructs readable commands from its fragments and launches a PowerShell payload (T1059). This PowerShell script operates as a two-stage AES-CBC loader.

Stage 1: Command runner

Reads C:UsersPUBLICMands.png as Base64 → AES-decrypt → yields Base64-encoded commands. Each command is decoded and executed via Invoke-Expression, enabling the script to run attacker-controlled instructions without a traditional executable.

Stage 2: In-memory assembly load

Reads C:UsersPUBLICVile.png as Base64 → AES-decrypt → raw bytes. Loader attempts to execute the resulting .NET assembly directly from memory (T1620).

This creates an in-memory loader that launches XWorm without dropping a traditional executable. A successful compromise enables credential theft, remote control, and lateral movement across corporate environments.

See the full execution inside ANY.RUN

Enrich this case using Threat Intelligence Lookup

Below are ready-to-use TI Lookup queries for finding similar campaigns:

PowerShell with .Replace() obfuscation: imagePath:”\powershell.exe$” AND commandLine:”.Replace(“

PowerShell invoking IEX: imagePath:”\powershell.exe$” AND commandLine:”iex”

JavaScript droppers writing to PublicLibraries: filePath:”^C:\Users\Public\Libraries\*.js$”

2. JSGuLdr: Multi-Stage Loader Delivering PhantomStealer

Post on X

In November, ANY.RUN analysts identified JSGuLdr, a multi-stage loader that moves from JScript to PowerShell and ultimately deploys PhantomStealer. The chain relies on obfuscation, COM-based execution, cloud-hosted payloads, and in-memory loading, allowing the final payload to run with limited on-disk exposure.

*JSGuLdr execution chain with the final delivery of PhantomStealer*

Stage 1: JScript Execution and COM-Based PowerShell Launch

The first stage is an obfuscated JScript file signed with a fake Authenticode certificate to appear trustworthy (T1027, T1553.006). It generates an encrypted PowerShell string and writes it to %APPDATA%Registreri62, forming the second-stage component.

Execution then shifts to Shell.Application and Explorer COM interaction, which launches powershell.exe under explorer.exe, masking the activity as normal user behavior (T1559.001, T1218).

Stage 2: PowerShell Loader, Cloud Retrieval, and In-Memory Execution

The PowerShell code decodes the contents of Registreri62, reconstructs hidden commands, and downloads an encrypted payload from Google Drive using a WebClient request (T1105). This payload is stored as %APPDATA%Autorise131.Tel, used as the on-disk container for the next stage (T1074.001).

Stage 3: In-Memory Loading and PhantomStealer Injection

PowerShell decrypts Autorise131.Tel, extracts raw bytes, and loads the resulting .NET assembly directly in memory (T1620). The final payload, PhantomStealer, is then injected into msiexec.exe, allowing it to run under a trusted Windows process and steal data without creating a conventional executable on disk (T1055, T1218.007).

Execution chain: wscript.exe → explorer.exe → explorer.exe (COM) → powershell.exe → msiexec.exe

Review the complete execution chain and behavioral indicators in the JSGuLdr analysis session.

*ANY.RUN sandbox reveals full execution chain of JSGuLdr*

Track similar activity with TI Lookup

Use the following TI Lookup query to identify related JSGuLdr activity, pivot from shared IOCs, and uncover additional loader variants across recent submissions.

commandLine:”windowssystem32″ and imagePath:”explorer.exe”

*ANY.RUN sandbox analyses related to JSGuLdr activity*

Gathered IOCs:

URL: hxxps://drive[.]google[.]com/uc?export=download&id=1gUB_fKBej5Va_l3ZSEXk_7r5Q4EeJuwd

Files: %APPDATA%Registreri62, %APPDATA%Autorise131[.]Tel

CMD: powershell.exe “$Citize=$env:appdata+’Registreri62′;$Guazuma=gc $Citize;$Aristape=$Guazuma[4460..4462] -join ””

Threat Intelligence Report 1: PDFChampions, Efimer, and BTMOB

Full analysis in TI Report

This Threat Brief provides a focused breakdown of three active threats, including how each sample behaves in the sandbox, its persistence and execution patterns, and the key detection points analysts can rely on. The report includes details about process activity, file system changes, network behavior, and extracted indicators, along with TI Lookup queries tailored to each malware family; PDFChampions’ mutex-based signature, Efimer’s Tor-based curl command, and BTMOB’s Android configuration file.

*TI report revealing PDFChampions, Efimer, and BTMOB*

PDFChampions (Windows)

A browser hijacker distributed via malvertising that also acts as a loader. It changes the default search engine, terminates competing browsers, and can download and run additional payloads directly in memory.

Detection note: identify activity via the mutex “Champion.”

TI Lookup: syncObjectName:”Champion”

Efimer (Windows)

A cryptocurrency-focused trojan spread through phishing and compromised WordPress sites. It steals wallets and credentials and uses curl.exe to reach a Tor-hidden C2 endpoint (.onion/route.php).
Detection note: monitor curl connections to .onion/route.php.
TI Lookup: commandLine:”curl.exe*.onion/route.php”

BTMOB RAT (Android)

An Android RAT sold as MaaS. It abuses Accessibility Services for full device control, records screen and audio, and targets financial apps. Distributed through phishing APKs.

Detection note: presence of BTConfig.xml in the app’s shared preferences.

TI Lookup: filePath:”/data/data/*/shared_prefs/BTConfig.xml”

Threat Intelligence Report 2: Monkey, Phoenix, and NonEuclid

Full analysis in TI Report

This month’s Threat Brief examines three threats in detail, with execution-flow screenshots, detection indicators, persistence artifacts, and public-sample telemetry. The report also provides ready-to-use TI Lookup queries and IOCs so teams can expand visibility and identify similar cases in their environments.

*TI report revealing Monkey, Phoenix, and NonEuclid*

Monkey (Linux)

Monkey is a Go-based x64 ELF ransomware that disables security controls, establishes persistence through cron, rc.local, and systemd, collects system information, and encrypts files with a .monkeyRansomware extension. It also drops a ransom note and changes the system wallpaper.

Detection note: creation of /etc/systemd/system/monkey.service.

Lookup: filePath:”/etc/systemd/system/monkey.service”

Phoenix (Windows)

Phoenix is a Windows backdoor delivered as a second-stage payload in targeted email campaigns. It creates a mutex, copies itself for persistence, gathers system information, and communicates with its C2 via WinHTTP. The malware also uses process injection during execution.

Detection note: dropped binary sysProcUpdate.exe used for injection.

Lookup: registryValue:”sysProcUpdate.exe”

NonEuclid (Windows)

NonEuclid is a C# RAT with persistence, AMSI and Defender bypass, anti-VM checks, UAC bypass, and optional AES-based file encryption using the .NonEuclid extension. Sold as a crimeware kit, it combines remote control features with ransomware capabilities and uses obfuscated strings and NTSTATUS codes that can be detected via a dedicated YARA rule.
Detection note: YARA detection based on obfuscated Unicode strings and NTSTATUS markers.

Threat Intelligence Report 3: Valkyrie, Sfuzuan, and Sorvepotel

Full analysis in TI Report

This Threat Brief examines three Windows-based threats with different infection vectors and persistence patterns. The report includes sandbox screenshots, process activity, on-disk artifacts, and TI Lookup queries for tracking related behavior across public submissions.

*TI report revealing Valkyrie, Sfuzuan, and Sorvepotel*

Valkyrie (Windows)

Valkyrie is a credential-stealing MaaS platform linked to Prysmax. It collects browser and system data, stores temporary output in Valkyrie.zip under the Temp directory, and exfiltrates the archive to a remote C2. Detection is possible through the Temp-path signature or a dedicated YARA rule included in the report.

TI Lookup: filePath:”C:\Users\admin\AppData\Local\Temp\Valkyrie.zip”

Sfuzuan (Windows)

Sfuzuan is a backdoor distributed through multiple, unrelated sources. It bypasses system protections to gain access, gathers system and location details, and connects to a set of rotating command-and-control domains. The malware drops a distinctive TXT file that serves as a reliable detection point.

TI Lookup: filePath:”C:\Windows\864ac8″

Sorvepotel (Windows)

Sorvepotel is a self-propagating campaign spread through WhatsApp messages containing malicious ZIP archives. After launch, it uses PowerShell and VBS scripts for execution and persistence, creates scheduled tasks, and automatically sends the same archive to all WhatsApp Web contacts. The campaign targets Portugal and Brazil using geofencing based on IP and system language.

TI Lookup: filePath:”Orcamento-2025*”

Empower Your SOC with Real-Time Behavioral Insights

Multi-stage loaders, encrypted payload containers, and region-aware campaigns are getting harder to catch with static filtering alone. While these threats unfold across PowerShell chains, COM-triggered executions, Linux services, or Android components, attackers move quickly, and manual triage can’t keep up. ANY.RUNgives SOC teams the behavioral visibility they need to respond at the speed of modern attacks.

Here’s how teams stay ahead:

Surface hidden execution paths immediately: Detonate loaders, encrypted payloads, and cloud-hosted components inside a live VM and watch each stage, JavaScript, PowerShell, .NET, Linux services, or APK behavior, as it unfolds.

Shorten investigation time: Automated unpacking, network tracing, and live indicators turn multi-stage chains into readable timelines, reducing time spent reversing obfuscated scripts or in-memory loaders.

Catch stealthy techniques earlier: From fileless PowerShell commands to COM-based execution and WhatsApp-triggered propagation, behavioral cues expose activity that traditional tools overlook.

Strengthen detections with instant enrichment: Use Threat Intelligence Lookup to pivot from a single IOC, file path, mutex, command line, or domain, to related submissions and shared TTPs across hundreds of cases.

Feed continuous intelligence into your stack: Integrate Threat Intelligence Feeds with your SIEM, SOAR, or XDR to keep detections updated as new loader variants, stealer kits, and region-specific campaigns emerge.

For SOC teams, MSSPs, and threat researchers, ANY.RUN provides the depth and real-time visibility needed to investigate faster, validate threats quickly, and turn emerging behaviors into reliable detection logic.

Explore ANY.RUN with a 14-day trial →

About ANY.RUN

ANY.RUN supports more than 15,000 organizations worldwide across finance, healthcare, telecom, retail, and technology, helping security teams investigate threats with clarity and confidence.

Built for speed and deep visibility, the solution combines interactive malware analysis with live threat intelligence, allowing SOC analysts to observe real execution behavior, extract indicators, and understand attacker techniques in seconds.

By integrating ANY.RUN’s Threat Intelligence suite into existing security workflows, teams can accelerate investigations, reduce uncertainty during incidents, and strengthen resilience against fast-evolving malware families and multi-stage attack chains.

The post Major Cyber Attacks in November 2025: XWorm, JSGuLdr Loader, Phoenix Backdoor, Mobile Threats, and More appeared first on ANY.RUN’s Cybersecurity Blog.

ANY.RUN’s Cybersecurity Blog – Read More