Threats tagged 'phishing'

Cisco Talos recently identified an undocumented phishing framework, internally branded "JWR" by its developer, built to convincingly impersonate checkout and login pages across major payment and shopping platforms. The client engine of the JWR phishing framework is a real-time, operator-driven system that, rather than merely logging form submissions like a static credential-stealing page, keeps an AES-CTR encrypted WebSocket open to the threat actor so they can steer each victim's session live. The victim data targeted by the actor using JWR extends well beyond payment data, encompassing identity documents, Social Security numbers, passport and driver's license images, website and PayPal credentials, 2FA codes, and full device fingerprints, all committed to the actor's server once a session ends. Talos assesses with medium confidence that the JWR phishing framework is a variant of "The Outsider," a phishing-as-a-service (PhaaS) platform, based on several similarities in the client engine scripts and functionalities of the two PhaaS platforms. Talos observed a real-world campaign delivering the JWR client via SMS lures impersonating toll authorities, and postal and courier services of several countries in Southeast Asia and the Middle East. JWR phishing framework, a likely variant of the Outsider JWR is a phishing framework capable of harvesting complete payment card data, login credentials, and personally identifiable information (PII) documents and images in real time. The client-side engine of the framework impersonates login, and checkout flows of several payment gateways, including Shopify, PayPal, Apple, Klarna, and banks, while allowing the operator to stealthily control the victim session through an AES-CTR encrypted WebSocket channel. The client engine architecture is divided into a Host Bridge module that relays commands into a phishing inline frame (iframe) and a Vue.js victim application that renders across 44 phishing pages, streams the victim's keystrokes to the actor as they are typed, and carries out more than 40 distinct instructions issued from the command-and-control (C2) console. The data exfiltration schema is a cvvform object that includes fields such as credit card number, CVV, PIN, expiry date, Social Security Number (SSN), passport or ID images, two-factor authentication (2FA) codes, website logins, PayPal credentials, and device fingerprint. Talos discovered that the JWR client engine shares significant code and functional similarities with the client of The Outsider PhaaS platform operated by the Chinese-speaking actor “Outsider Enterprise,” which was reported by external researchers . JWR client architecture and workflow Figure 1. JWR phishing framework’s client engine architecture and execution flow. The execution starts when the parent phishing webpage loads and executes the client's engine. It checks a single global flag, window.__HOST_MODE , which is set by the parent phishing page, and selects one of two execution modes. If the flag is set, the script enters Host Mode, and control passes to the Host Bridge module, an immediately invoked function expression (IIFE) that operates within the parent page, typically a replica of a legitimate checkout or account login page, relaying received details into a child iframe that contains the actual phishing form. It establishes a persistent WebSocket connection to the actor’s C2 server. If the flag is not set, the page enters Content Mode, and control passes to the Vue.js Application, an interactive front end that renders the phishing pages, collects victim input, manages the flow across 44 HTML files, and handles the actor’s instructions from the C2 server, ultimately redirecting to a custom error page after sending the data to the C2. The Content Mode of execution has three communication modes: standalone, pluginIframe, and hostIframe. In standalone mode, the application fully owns its WebSocket connection. In pluginIframe mode, it has no direct link to t…

Recent investigations have uncovered sophisticated phishing campaigns employing multi-stage redirection chains that abuse trusted cloud infrastructure and newly registered domains. One campaign exploits Framer, a no-code web platform, combined with Cloudflare Workers to host deceptive landing pages. These pages utilize HTML redirection smuggling via the Blob API, Web Crypto API for decryption, and anti-debugging techniques to evade detection. Another campaign involves device code phishing targeting OneDrive credentials through three-stage redirections using newly registered domains with randomized alphanumeric strings. Both campaigns employ brand impersonation, custom CAPTCHA challenges, and anti-analysis measures including keyboard shortcut blocking. The threat actors leverage a hybrid infrastructure combining legitimate cloud services with short-lived domains to bypass traditional detection methods.

Adform, a major advertising platform, remained compromised for roughly 24 hours from late on July 26 through the evening of July 27 after being breached by unknown attackers. Few people outside the industry recognize the name, but Adform serves around 1.5 billion ad impressions every day across tens of thousands of websites. That means anyone visiting any site that runs Adform ads could have been targeted. The attackers weren’t trying to install malware. Instead, they ran a script in the victim’s browser that checked the clipboard every three seconds, and if it found a cryptocurrency wallet address had been copied, swapped it for the attackers’ own wallet address. So if someone had a site with the malicious ad open in one browser tab, and was making a crypto transaction in another tab or in a dedicated app, the funds could have ended up in the attackers’ pockets instead. Adform’s owners caught the attack and fixed the problem, but there’s no guarantee a similar incident won’t happen again — which is why every user should defend themselves against malvertising . Check out our tips at the end of this post. What we know about the attack on Adform There isn’t a lot of information out there, since the company’s official statement covers only what happened and when, without getting into the root cause of the incident. Independent research has dug up technical details about how ordinary users were targeted, but none of that explains how Adform itself was breached in the first place. What’s clear is that the attackers slipped their own code into the JavaScript that loaded on every site running Adform ads. Whenever an ad was about to display, the script would load from Adform’s server, pick the right ad, and show it — but the attackers had tacked on a set of malicious functions: monitoring the clipboard, sending data about the site where the encounter happened, and the victim’s IP address back to their own server, and swapping out Bitcoin, Ethereum, and Tron wallet addresses. All it took to make it work was having any site with Adform-served ads open in one browser tab. It didn’t matter what kind of site it was, what the ad looked like, or which advertiser it belonged to. The one thing that mattered was whether the site ran over HTTP or HTTPS. According to Adform, the attack couldn’t succeed on a site loaded over HTTPS since the connection to the attackers’ server was blocked in this case. The company hasn’t shared any information on how many users were affected, or how many sites still serve their content and ads over HTTP. Malicious ads are an everyday occurrence Unfortunately, dangerous online ads have become a systemic problem. And we’re not just talking about sketchy supplement ads or gambling promos — we mean ads that spread malware or lead to sites designed to steal payment details and other valuable data. Attackers have built out industrial-scale infrastructure to pull this off, and they use several different approaches. Hacking and compromising ad servers. Adform isn’t an isolated case: attackers have previously breached Revive ad servers , for one, and spread malware through ads on PornHub . Hijacking the ad accounts of legitimate, reputable brands . All it takes is stealing a password from someone in marketing. From there, the cybercriminals run ads posing as the company they hacked, pushing fake app updates, bogus promotions, and similar scams. In the worst cases — like the account breaches at adtech.de and adxpansion.com — attackers managed to run ads that redirected victims straight into automatic malware installs ( drive-by downloads ). Buying ads directly. That’s right — attackers simply set up their own advertiser accounts and run ads for their phishing sites and malware, just like any other business online. Since ads show up practically everywhere — on websites, in apps, and on social media — these threats can turn up in pretty much any context. And you’ll find variations of this threat on both computers and mobile de…

Security teams are being asked to defend a growing attack surface with fewer people and around the clock, against threat actors who never take a night off. As cyberattackers increasingly use AI to launch and scale campaigns, the volume, speed, and sophistication of threats continue to rise. Closing that gap takes more than tooling. It takes a partner that pairs a leading security platform with scaled intelligence and human experts who can act on your behalf at any hour. That’s exactly what Microsoft Defender Experts MDR is built to do. We are excited to announce that we have been named a Leader in the 2026 IDC MarketScape: Worldwide MDR/MXDR for the Enterprise Vendor Assessment (Doc #US54792426, July 2026). Read the excerpt here . Scale your SOC with Microsoft Defender Experts MDR Expert-led MDR, built on the Microsoft Defender platform Microsoft Defender Experts MDR is a round-the-clock, expert-led managed detection and response service that helps security teams triage, investigate, and respond to incidents so they can stop cyberattackers in their tracks and prevent future compromise. Rather than bolting a separate stack of tools and connectors onto your environment, the service operates natively on Microsoft Defender , with built-in protection across endpoints, identities, email, cloud apps, cloud workloads, and network security, as well as around-the-clock proactive threat hunting with Microsoft Defender Experts Hunting . Because the service is delivered on the same platform it monitors, detection and intelligence improvements reach customers continuously. The insights our experts generate also strengthen protection across the broader Defender ecosystem, so every customer benefits from what we learn defending the next environment. The IDC MarketScape vendor assessment model is designed to provide an overview of the competitive fitness of technology and service suppliers in a given market. The research uses a rigorous scoring methodology based on both qualitative and quantitative criteria that results in a single graphical illustration of each supplier’s position within a given market. The Capabilities axis measures supplier product, go-to-market, and business execution in the short term, while the Strategy axis measures how well a supplier’s strategy aligns with customer requirements over a 3-5-year timeframe. Supplier market share is represented by the size of the icons . Threat intelligence at internet scale Great detection starts with great intelligence. Defender Experts MDR draws on Microsoft’s global threat intelligence: more than 10,000 security researchers and 100 trillion signals analyzed every day across billions of users and millions of organizations. 1 That breadth lets our analysts recognize subtle patterns early, often before a campaign escalates, and respond with higher-confidence attribution than intelligence sourced from any single customer’s telemetry could provide. AI-accelerated operations, expert-led decisions Defender Experts MDR also combines advanced AI and generative AI with seasoned human experts. AI filters noise, grades and classifies incidents, and accelerates investigation at machine speed and scale, while our analysts own the outcome. According to the IDC MarketScape, “70% AI-assisted workflows are enabled through automated noise filtering, AI-based grading, and agentic operations while maintaining expert decision-making.” Furthermore, “quantified outcomes noted include 97% AI classification accuracy, 77% malware/phishing agent-investigated, 72% faster resolution combining AI and humans, and 45% autonomous investigations.” The impact shows up in the work. Over the past year, Defender Experts mitigated 27,000 high-severity incidents, and the team’s threat research now contributes a meaningful share of all Defender detections, enriching protection for customers well beyond the MDR service itself. Throughout, a dedicated security delivery expert and on-demand access to our experts keep customers i…

Files built with the polyglot technique have been showing up more and more in cyberattacks in recent years. They let attackers slip malware past email filters and file scanners, deceive victims in phishing attacks, and complicate incident investigations. To pull this off, attackers deliberately construct a file that a system can interpret as different formats depending on which application opens it. A classic example is a file that can be handled as a PNG image or a ZIP archive. All it takes is changing the file’s extension, or simply using one or another application to open it. Let’s take a look at why it’s even possible to create files like this, which format combinations have turned up in real-world attacks, and how organizations can protect themselves from this threat. Why polyglot files are possible The data formats behind polyglot files are seldom exotic. It all comes down to a clever combination of common formats that happen to be structurally compatible. Polyglots exploit at least one of the following quirks in certain file formats: Most file formats need decoding from the very first byte, but some require to read them from the end. The clearest example is a ZIP archive: a corrupted or missing beginning doesn’t stop applications from reading the file, because all the needed headers actually sit at the end. This lets attackers simply glue two files together — in the example above, a PNG and a ZIP. The beginning reads as a valid PNG image, while the end reads as a valid ZIP archive. Many formats work like Russian matryoshka nesting dolls: despite outwardly having a specific extension matching its intended usage, inside the file is essentially a ZIP archive containing the necessary data. This group includes modern office documents (DOCX/XLSX/PPTX), Android installation packages (APK), Java library files (JAR), and many others. Some formats have no strict structural requirements — or their requirements are loose enough that the application that’s processing the file can locate the fragment it needs even when that fragment isn’t at the beginning. The Polydet GitHub repository describes numerous examples of possible file combinations for building a polyglot. Under the MITRE classification, this technique falls under the Masquerading category ( T1036.008 , Masquerade File Type). Examples of polyglot files in known cyberattacks Publicly available malware campaign analyses reveal all kinds of polyglots. Attackers adapt the entire attack scenario to fit a specific file type combination. The Head Mare group delivered the PhantomPyramid malware as a ZIP attachment. The file consisted of Windows executable code (EXE) with a small ZIP archive glued onto the end. When the victim opened the archive, it contained a file with the extension PDF.LNK, which would then launch that same polyglot attachment — this time as an executable file. In the attack documented by JPCERT , attackers created a file that started as a PDF and was detected as a PDF by most scanners but carried a DOC extension and opened in Office applications as a valid DOC file containing malicious macros. The attacks spreading the StrRAT and Ratty Trojans used a polyglot built from a signed Windows installer package (MSI) with malicious Java code (JAR) tacked onto the end. The StrelaStealer attacks used a polyglot with an HTML extension: a Windows library (DLL) with a decoy HTML document glued onto the end. A shortcut in the archive launched the file twice: once via the start command (the equivalent of a double-click, which opened a browser showing the HTML document), and once via rundll32 (which launched the malicious DLL). In a simulated but elegant attack, researchers joined two ordinary ZIP files together and found that different popular archive tools displayed the combined file differently: some showed only the first archive, some only the second, and some showed both at once as if it were a single archive with shared contents. If the attacker is familiar with the vic…

AI is making phishing, credential theft, and social engineering faster and more efficient, while traditional trust signals such as passwords, MFA, IP reputation, and geolocation become easier to bypass. Specops explains why organizations are increasingly adding device trust to their Zero Trust strategies. [...]

Noteworthy stories that might have slipped under the radar: ban on Chinese data center tech, QuickFox VPN supply chain attack, IEH Corporation mailbox breached via phishing. The post In Other News: AI Slop Limits Apple Bounties, North Carolina Port Attacks, Hackers Target Wall Street appeared first on SecurityWeek .

A 26-year-old Canadian man once described as one of the most consequential cybercrime threat actors of 2024 has pleaded guilty to computer fraud and conspiracy to hack and extort more than 165 organizations that used the cloud provider Snowflake . Connor Riley Moucka , of Kitchener, Ontario, also admitted to stealing call and text history records of more than 100 million AT&T customers. A surveillance photo of Connor Riley Moucka, a.k.a. “Judische” and “Waifu,” dated Oct 21, 2024, 9 days before Moucka’s arrest. This image was included in an affidavit filed by an investigator with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP). The U.S. Justice Department said between February and October 2024, Moucka and co-conspirators used stolen login credentials to steal cloud-hosted data belonging to at least 165 customers of a U.S.-based software-as-a-service company. The hackers targeted stolen credentials for Snowflake customer accounts that did not enforce multi-factor authentication, and extorted or attempted to extort a host of well-known companies, including TicketMaster, Lending Tree, Advance Auto Parts and Neiman Marcus. Snowflake responded to the data thefts by increasing password complexity requirements and enforcing multi-factor authentication. Moucka adopted new nicknames frequently — sometimes operating multiple identities concurrently — but two of his best-known monikers were “ Judische ” and “ Waifu .” Judische’s admitted role in the Snowflake data thefts was first documented by KrebsOnSecurity in a September 2024 story about the overlap between Western, English-speaking cybercriminals and extremist groups that harass and extort minors into harming themselves or others. That September 2024 story identified Judische as a software engineer from Ontario who has been involved in numerous data breaches and voice phishing attacks against U.S. companies since at least 2020. A little more than a month later, Canadian authorities arrested Moucka on a provisional warrant from the United States. The government says Moucka and others used their unauthorized access to steal billions of sensitive customer records and download terabytes of information, “including individuals’ non-content call and text history records, banking and other financial information, payroll records, Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) registration numbers, driver’s license numbers, passport numbers, social security numbers and other personally identifiable information. They then extorted victims by threatening to publish data online.” Moucka also threatened and harassed government officials and security researchers who were helping to track him down. The Justice Department said the conspirators made over $2.5 million in ransom payments, and that in at least one instance, Moucka re-extorted a victim with threats of further disclosure of the victim’s stolen data. “Moucka used the stolen data of a government officer and members of a then-former government officer’s immediate family in this re-extortion attempt,” reads a statement from the Justice Department. One of Moucka’s admitted co-conspirators is Cameron “Kiberphant0m” Wagenius , a U.S. Army soldier who pleaded guilty in July 2025 to extorting AT&T and Verizon for their customer account data. Less than a month before Wagenius’s arrest, KrebsOnSecurity published a deep dive into Kiberphant0m’s various Telegram and Discord identities over the years, revealing how the owner of the accounts told others they were in the Army and stationed in South Korea. One of several selfies on the Facebook page of Cameron Wagenius. Kiberphant0m also re-extorted victims. Immediately following Moucka’s arrest, Kiberphant0m posted on hacker forums what he claimed were the AT&T call logs for then President-elect Donald Trump and for then Vice President Kamala Harris, as well schematics allegedly stolen from the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA). Wagenius is set to be sentenced on September 3, 2026. The government says he faces a maxim…

A phishing campaign is exploiting fears surrounding the recently disclosed COLDCARD wallet vulnerability and suspected $88.6 million Bitcoin theft to trick users into installing ScreenConnect remote access software. [...]

This report discusses how AI-powered phishing techniques have rendered traditional blocklists ineffective by enabling attackers to rapidly create disposable phishing infrastructure and evolving toolkits. It highlights that browser-level, technique-based detection provides a more resilient defense compared to relying on domain blocklists, signatures, or other known-bad indicators. The content emphasizes the challenges in tracking and mitigating phishing attacks that leverage AI to adapt quickly.

The Greatness phishing-as-a-service (PhaaS) platform targets Microsoft 365 accounts using advanced phishing techniques including adversary-in-the-middle and device-code phishing. It spoofs RingCentral emails to bypass email security filters by exploiting whitelisting and safe-sender list trust. Post-compromise, attackers access Microsoft 365 data and services via stolen authentication tokens. The platform is sold to cybercriminals and has been active since at least mid-2022, targeting users in multiple countries. Researchers recommend auditing safe-sender lists and monitoring suspicious MFA-approved sign-ins.

Phishing#phishingUnited States+4

A sophisticated phishing campaign targets Windows users with fraudulent Bank of America emails, delivering ScreenConnect remote monitoring software as malware. The attack begins with convincing emails mimicking Bank of America branding, directing victims to fake security pages. Windows users receive AccountGuard.zip containing a VBS file with multiple layers of base64-encoded content. The attack chain deploys complex decoding scripts and employs a UAC bypass exploit via ICMLuaUtil COM interface to install ScreenConnect with administrator privileges. Additional components use SDDL and ACLs to hide the installation, prevent uninstallation, and conceal the malicious service. The installed client connects to command-and-control infrastructure in the UAE. Mac users encounter traditional credential phishing pages requesting banking credentials and personal information instead of receiving malware payloads.

A sophisticated scam is spreading through WhatsApp that exploits the platform's legitimate 'Linked devices' feature to take over user accounts. Attackers compromise existing accounts and send messages to contacts asking them to vote for a friend or relative in various online contests. When victims click the provided link, they are redirected through pages appearing to be WhatsApp-related, often using the legitimate wa.me domain. The attack tricks users into authorizing a new linked session, granting attackers full access to read messages, send messages as the victim, and access contacts. The scam is particularly effective because it comes from known contacts and relies on trust and quick reactions. Once compromised, attackers can continue the scam by messaging the victim's contacts, creating a chain of account takeovers without triggering traditional security alerts.

Most phishing campaigns rely on the fact that the victim is afraid to loose "something": money, access to information, ... Many brands have been impersonated by campaigns but I spotted some phishing emails that focus on AI services like ChatGPT.

In this article The CaptiveCrunch campaign Storm-2945 and Midnight Blizzard CaptiveCrunch tradecraft and tooling How to protect against CaptiveCrunch activity Microsoft Defender detections and hunting guidance Indicators of compromise Since early May 2026, Microsoft Threat Intelligence has observed Storm-2945, a sub-cluster of Midnight Blizzard, conducting widespread but targeted traffic manipulation attacks involving hospitality sector networks served by captive portals worldwide. Despite some tactic, technique, and procedure (TTP) similarities to the Forest Blizzard DNS hijacking operation that we publicly disclosed in April 2026, we attribute this campaign, which we call CaptiveCrunch, to Storm-2945. As reported by ReliaQuest on July 23, a portion of this activity leverages doppelganger domains mimicking Microsoft online services to conduct follow-on adversary-in-the-middle (AitM) phishing operations that abuse the device code authentication flow in Microsoft Entra ID. Microsoft Threat Intelligence has also identified active traffic manipulation attacks leading to the delivery of malware on impacted systems. Microsoft has observed Storm-2945 leveraging AI to support a significant portion of these operations. Today, we are sharing our findings on these ongoing intrusions to raise awareness of this threat and enable customers to protect their devices, especially while traveling. We provide our assessment of Storm-2945’s relationship to Midnight Blizzard and analysis of the CaptiveCrunch campaign, detailing the malware and tradecraft used in these operations. We also provide mitigation, detection, and hunting guidance to help organizations identify and defend against Storm-2945 and related activity. Microsoft Threat Intelligence would like to thank our partners at Anthropic and OpenAI for their collaboration and support during this investigation. The CaptiveCrunch campaign Since February 2026, Storm-2945 has conducted AI-augmented operations including targeted device code and OAuth code phishing campaigns leading to Entra device registration and subsequent data collection from Microsoft 365. Since early May 2026, Microsoft Threat Intelligence has observed Storm-2945 manipulating DNS and HTTP traffic from networks served by captive portals to redirect user traffic through actor-controlled infrastructure. Although our investigation into the initial compromise vector for the captive portal networks is ongoing, we have observed notable commonalities in the equipment and management systems used across multiple affected networks. These similarities suggest that the activity might not be limited to isolated compromises of individual venues and could reflect access to shared services within portions of the captive portal ecosystem. Figure 1. Overview of the CaptiveCrunch attack flow As part of the CaptiveCrunch campaign, Storm-2945 has leveraged their AitM position to redirect users through actor-controlled phishing infrastructure and has also delivered malware purporting to be browser or operating system updates in response to automated connectivity checks issued by users’ browsers. Multiple variants have been delivered, including fully-featured Windows remote access trojans (RAT) in compiled Golang, with functionality to conduct system enumeration, collect files and keystrokes, steal credentials and session tokens, conduct audio and video surveillance, monitor for removable media, and provide the threat actor a remote shell on infected systems. The threat actor infrastructure leverages a variety of ClickFix techniques to elicit the user into downloading and executing the malware: Figure 2. ClickFix prompt with manual user instructions Figure 3. ClickFix prompt with additional user instructions after verification failure In addition to variants of malware targeting Windows systems, Microsoft Threat Intelligence is also aware of indications that the threat actor might be targeting Android devices with similar techniques as the ClickFi…

Overview Two vulnerabilities in the REST API were found in Golf Compete foreUP. The first exposes the merchant, Finix, API credentials directly in customer record responses, allowing any user to obtain and use the payment processor account. The second is a missing object-level authorization check, which lets a user retrieve any other customer's full profile, payment token, and transaction history by changing the golfer_id in the request path. Description Golf Compete foreUP provides cloud-based golf course management software to over 2,000 golf courses. They offer tools that allow the management of customers, inventory, tee times, food & beverages, marketing, billing, etc. The vulnerabilities identified are listed below. CVE-2026-15657 A vulnerability in the foreUP customer REST API exposes merchant credentials. Each customer record response includes the facility’s merchant API credentials in cleartext, exposing the following details: finix_username finix_password finix_merchant_id Merchant credentials are identical across for customers at the same facility and are actively used by the backend to register new payment instruments. Any authenticated customer can obtain the facility’s merchant credentials when querying own record. Combined with the second vulnerability described below, an attacker can retrieve merchant credentials from any customer record at the facility. CVE-2026-15658 A missing object-level authorization also known as BOLA (Broken Object Level Authorization) and IDOR (Insecure Direct Object References) in the REST API endpoint returns the record identified by golfer_id without verifying ownership. A caller can substitute any golfer_id while using their own valid JSON Web Token (JWT) and receive another customer's full profile, including the following details: Name, email, phone numbers, date of birth, address Free‑text household relationship notes Finix payment‑instrument tokens Dwolla bank funding‑source tokens Billing and transaction history Impact With a single valid low‑privilege foreUP customer account, someone can perform the following actions: 1. Retrieve any customer’s full profile and contact data 2. Access stored card tokens and Dwolla ACH funding-source tokens 3. Enumerate and view full billing and transaction history for any customer 4. Obtain live Finix merchant API credentials for the facility Also, because the web API is shared by all tenants, all facilities using foreUP are affected, meaning that a customer from facility A could query merchant information from facility B. Solution On 07/26/2026, foreUP confirmed that all vulnerabilities in this report have been remediated. Users should remain aware of increased phishing and identity theft risks and monitor their accounts for suspicious activity. Acknowledgements Thank you to Eric Mead for reporting this vulnerability. This document was written by Bob Kemerer. Vendor Information One or more vendors are listed for this advisory. Please reference the full report for more information. References https://owasp.org/API-Security/editions/2023/en/0xa1-broken-object-level-authorization/ https://owasp.org/www-project-web-security-testing-guide/latest/4-Web_Application_Security_Testing/12-API_Testing/02-API_Broken_Object_Level_Authorization https://portswigger.net/web-security/access-control/idor https://owasp.org/www-project-web-security-testing-guide/latest/4-Web_Application_Security_Testing/05-Authorization_Testing/04-Testing_for_Insecure_Direct_Object_References Other Information CVE IDs: CVE-2026-15657 CVE-2026-15658 Date Public: 2026-07-30 Date First Published: 2026-07-30 Date Last Updated: 2026-07-30 15:12 UTC Document Revision: 1 About vulnerability notes Contact us about this vulnerability Provide a vendor statement

Welcome to this week’s edition of the Threat Source newsletter. For my fianceé’s 30 th birthday, I took her on a weekend trip to Shenandoah National Park – a favorite of ours since we went to a wedding there several years back. We’ve done several incredible hikes over the years, but one in particular had always loomed over my head: Old Rag, a 9.3 mile circuit hike that’s largely considered the most difficult in Virginia. I've always been warned that at the beginning and end, you hate Old Rag. For the first 2.6 miles, you’re hiking a steep climb on a dirt road, with lots of switchbacks, and plenty of places where you turn a corner and groan, because there’s an even steeper section ahead. This part was pretty torturous, because 1) I felt like my heart was going to explode out of my chest, 2) I couldn’t breathe, and 3) several times, there was a family we passed as they were taking a break, then WE took a break and THEY passed US, and so on and so forth. So awkward. Finally, we reached the fun part: a mile-long rock scramble, where you're squeezing through (and down) narrow rock crevices, cramming your boots to desperately find any leverage to propel yourself upward, and using all your upper body strength to control your descent. This was definitely the most fun part, although my hands and knees were sore by the end. After hiking for hours, you reach the top and realize it was all worth it, because the summit has a a spectacular vie— ... That’s what we get for being excited to hike in overcast weather. Well, at least the way back down is fun— oh wait, four miles downward on a fire trail, crushing your toes in the front of your hiking boots? Yike. It may sound like I’m complaining a lot about this hike, but it was genuinely the most fun one that I’ve done to date. By the time I was freshly showered and drinking an iced coffee in Culpeper, I was gushing about when we’d go back. There’s a really good tie-in to cybersecurity somewhere here. Ah, got it. Everyone has had those uphill hike phases with the endless documentation, patching, and alerts that keep you up at night. You’re waiting for the misery to end and hoping that around the next corner, you’ll see a sign that you’re almost out of the woods. Bruised and out of breath, you finally arrive at the exciting parts: a complex project that finally comes together, the thrill of stopping an attack, or a feeling of pride when someone you're mentoring gets a new certification. Maybe the payoff is something completely unexpected. Those moments definitely don’t erase the exhaustion — you're still sore and bruised, and will be for days — but they do remind you why you started in the first place. The one big thing Talos released our Q2 2026 Incident Response Trends report , which showed a massive spike in authentication abuse and sophisticated phishing tactics. Phishing drove over half of all engagements, with attackers leveraging QR codes and advanced platforms like ARToken to bypass multi-factor authentication (MFA). Additionally, ransomware operators are increasingly weaponizing legitimate remote management tools like MeshAgent and Zoho Assist to establish stealthy, persistent access. Why do I care? Standard email gateways and basic MFA are no longer enough to stop adversaries from bypassing traditional defenses. By abusing legitimate administrative tools and trusted cloud infrastructure, threat actors can easily blend malicious traffic with normal network activity to remain undetected before deploying ransomware. Furthermore, the continued targeting of health care and public administration highlights a deliberate focus on organizations with zero tolerance for downtime. So now what? Organizations must transition from push- and SMS-based MFA to phishing-resistant methods like FIDO2 or hardware security keys. Defenders should also shift to behavior-based monitoring, specifically hunting for unauthorized instances of administrative tools. Finally, configure centralized logging with at leas…

A sophisticated malware campaign is targeting Indian taxpayers during filing season by impersonating the Income Tax Department. Attackers distribute fake penalty notices via WhatsApp from unknown or compromised accounts, using forged Office Memorandums citing legitimate tax law sections and creating 72-hour deadlines to induce panic. The campaign delivers ITD.zip files containing malicious Android APKs and Windows executables that harvest OTPs, banking credentials, and enable remote access. The infrastructure relies on disposable domains using cheap TLDs and Alibaba Cloud storage for payload delivery. This activity is part of a broader ecosystem including refund SMS fraud, cloned e-Filing portals, and fake e-PAN emails. The operation demonstrates resource and planning through bilingual content, payload rotation to evade detection, and abuse of legitimate code-signing certificates.

Campaign#phishing#indiaIndia

Leveraging legitimate software is one of cybercriminals’ tactics of choice, with remote management tools ranking among their top tools. A recent example involves the remote administration utility ScreenConnect. It’s designed for IT support teams to troubleshoot systems and configure software seamlessly in the background. However, when weaponized by threat actors, ScreenConnect becomes a versatile attack vehicle used to harvest data, deploy malware, and move laterally across corporate networks. During a recent incident detected by Kaspersky Managed Detection and Response , our experts identified an attempt to use ScreenConnect in an attack. This allowed a detailed study of how attackers used this application in a large-scale malware distribution campaign. The following breakdown illustrates the mechanics of ScreenConnect-assisted attacks, and outlines key strategies to defend your organization against them. How ScreenConnect reaches target computers In the campaign analyzed by our experts, the attackers bundled ScreenConnect with legitimate free business software. They established a network of phishing websites to spoof popular tools, including OBS Studio, DS4Windows, DNS Jumper, Glary Utilities, Bandizip, Process Hacker, and others. These rogue websites featured high-quality designs that could be taken for the official pages, making them highly convincing to unsuspecting users. Once the victim clicks the download button for the software, an archive is downloaded to their computer that contains additional files alongside the requested application: A legitimately signed Microsoft executable ( exe ), renamed to match the expected application installer (for example, OBS-Studio-Installer.exe ) A malicious library named res.1033.dll An Assets directory containing installers for both ScreenConnect and the intended application Launching the renamed file disguised as the app installer triggers DLL sideloading of a malicious library. This library silently runs the ScreenConnect installation without restarting the system, while using the standard Windows installer to set up the software the user originally tried to install. The attackers used search engine optimization techniques to drive traffic to their fake websites. As a result, these malicious pages appeared at the top of search results for certain free software utilities on major search engines. Our experts discovered over 90 domain names translated into more than 10 different languages. While most of these websites targeted English, Russian, and Chinese speakers, several domains catered to German, French, Spanish, Arabic, and other regional audiences. A detailed analysis of the IP addresses and associated spoofed domains is available in our technical research article on Securelist, along with full indicators of compromise. Why the attackers exploited ScreenConnect In this campaign, attackers leveraged ScreenConnect to generate and execute malicious scripts on victim machines. These scripts served several key functions: they created exclusions for specific drives, directories, and processes within Windows Defender, disabled the User Account Control (UAC) security mechanism, and delivered and deployed AsyncRAT – a remote access Trojan. To maintain persistence, the scripts configured a Windows scheduled task to run the malicious code at preset intervals. AsyncRAT then established a connection with the attackers’ command-and-control server to receive further instructions. The primary objective of this campaign appears to be gaining unauthorized access to enterprise systems, likely to then resell it on cybercrime marketplaces. How to secure corporate infrastructure Although ScreenConnect in and of itself is a legitimate tool, its presence poses a security risk to corporate environments. Consequently, Kaspersky security solutions detect this application as not-a-virus:HEUR:RemoteAdmin.MSIL.ConnectWise.gen. Security teams should implement the following controls: Enforce strict applicatio…

A sophisticated ClickFix campaign variant uses social engineering to trick victims into executing commands via the Windows Run dialog. The technique leverages rundll32.exe to load remote non-DLL payloads by ordinal export #1 over WebDAV connections tunneled through HTTPS port 443. Multiple incidents at a single organization show evolving obfuscation methods including WMI process spawning, caret insertion, and runtime string assembly to evade detection. The attack chain utilizes trusted Windows binaries like pcalua.exe to break process lineage tracking. No files are dropped to disk, and payloads are invoked by ordinal rather than named functions. Successful attacks exfiltrated browser credentials and sensitive documents totaling 13MB. The most obfuscated variant evaded automated EDR detection entirely, being discovered only through proactive threat hunting focused on ordinal execution patterns rather than keyword detection.