Threats Tagged 'web'

Bulletin ID: 2026-069-AWS Scope: AWS Content Type: Important (requires attention) Publication Date: 07/31/2026 12:30 PM PDT Description: Strands Agents is an open-source SDK for building AI agents. The strands-agents-tools package provides pre-built tools for use with the SDK, including the http_request tool for making HTTP API requests. We identified CVE-2026-18394, an incorrect authorization issue in the http_request tool. Operators can use the HTTP_REQUEST_TOKEN_CONFIG allowlist to bind a credential to a set of approved hostnames so it is sent only to those hosts. The tool also exposed a proxies parameter in the input schema that the large language model (LLM) could control. A crafted prompt, for example one delivered through untrusted web content the agent reads (indirect prompt injection), could set proxies to an actor-controlled endpoint. The hostname allowlist check still passes on the request URL, the credential is attached, and the request is routed through the actor's proxy on the first hop, disclosing the credential in cleartext in the Authorization header. Impacted versions: < 0.8.2 Please refer to the article below for the most up-to-date and complete information related to this AWS Security Bulletin.

Bulletin ID: 2026-048-AWS Scope: AWS Content Type: Important (requires attention) Publication Date: 06/29/2026 11:15 PM PDT Description: AWS WAF is a web application firewall that monitors the HTTP(S) requests that are forwarded to your protected web application resources. We identified CVE-2026-13762 and CVE-2026-13763, which are issues affecting HTTP/2 multi-frame request body inspection by AWS WAF. CVE-2026-13762 affects AWS WAF deployment with CloudFront. This issue was remediated server-side; no customer action is required. CVE-2026-13763 affects AWS WAF deployment with AWS Application Load Balancer (ALB). Under certain conditions, a crafted multi-frame HTTP/2 request could cause only a partial request body to be inspected. This issue has been addressed on ALB, and customers can ensure full protection by configuring how AWS WAF inspects HTTP/2 request bodies on their ALB. Please refer to the article below for the most up-to-date and complete information related to this AWS Security Bulletin.

Bulletin ID: 2026-002-AWS Scope: AWS Content Type: Informational Publication Date: 2026/01/15 07:03 AM PST Description: A security research team identified a configuration issue affecting the following AWS-managed open source GitHub repositories that could have resulted in the introduction of inappropriate code: - aws-sdk-js-v3 - aws-lc - amazon-corretto-crypto-provider - awslabs/open-data-registry Specifically, researchers identified the above repositories' configured regular expressions for AWS CodeBuild webhook filters intended to limit trusted actor IDs were insufficient, allowing a predictably acquired actor ID to gain administrative permissions for the affected repositories. We can confirm these were project-specific misconfigurations in webhook actor ID filters for these repositories and not an issue in the CodeBuild service itself. The researchers carefully demonstrated the potential to commit inappropriate code, through an empty code commit, to one repository and promptly informed AWS Security of their research activity and its potential negative impact. No inappropriate code was introduced to any of the affected repositories during this security research activity, the demonstrated empty code commit to one repository had no impact to any AWS customer environments and did not impact any AWS services or infrastructure. No customer action is required. Please refer to the article below for the most up-to-date and complete information related to this AWS Security Bulletin.

Online advertising firm Adform suffered a supply-chain attack that delivered cryptocurrency-stealing scripts to websites using its ad platform, replacing wallet addresses copied to visitors' clipboards with ones controlled by an attacker. [...]

Security experts have been sounding the alarm for years about the risks of using generic TV boxes that promise unlimited content streaming for a one-time fee, warning that they secretly rent the user’s Internet connection out to strangers. But a groundbreaking new analysis finds these devices also routinely spoof themselves as mobile phones clicking ads on AI-generated websites as part of a sprawling operation that seeks to defraud online merchants and advertising networks. Pedro Falé is a threat researcher with the security firm Bitsight . Falé told KrebsOnSecurity he was able to peer inside a vast and complex ad fraud network by registering an expired domain name that was used to coordinate fake ad clicks across a particularly popular brand of these streaming devices known as H96 . An H96 TV streaming device currently advertised for sale on Amazon. Falé said the domain he scooped up was previously used for telemetry, periodically collecting full hardware information and the entire list of installed apps from tens of thousands of H96 streaming sticks plugged into television sets around the globe. But upon inspecting the traffic being funneled to the domain, he discovered nearly all of the TV boxes transmitting data claimed to be mobile phone models from a variety of manufacturers, including Samsung, Vivo, Huawei, and Xiaomi. “We noticed something was wildly wrong,” Falé said. “Multiple devices reporting to this factory Android TV Box backdoor were ‘phones.'” Image: Bitsight. The researcher found all of the devices reported having the same two apps installed, and that those apps were made by a company called Zhejiang Fengwo IoT Technology Ltd , an entity founded in 2019 in mainland China which operates an ad-publishing portfolio under the name Fengwo Group . Further investigation into the Fengwo Group revealed it has registered multiple patents that match the inner workings of these apps. “Bitsight TRACE identified several Hong Kong, Singapore, and single person ‘legal’ shell identities used to collect the monetization and traced the operation back to a mainland China company known as Zhejiang Fengwo IoT Technology Co., Ltd, which operates under the Fengwo Group,” Falé wrote in a report released today about their findings. Falé said an analysis of the apps shows they help to coordinate an ad fraud network that uses these H96 devices as a captive traffic source to click on ads at AI-generated websites operated by the Fengwo Group. Bitsight discovered the websites contain machine-generated news articles and graphics across a range of categories, including finance, health, education, gaming, music and food blogs. But they also found none of those sites displayed ads unless the device visiting the page matched the spoofed mobile profile of these H96 devices. AI DIGITAL HUMANS The domain for the Fengwo Group — fwgcloud[.]com — claims the company is “redefining the boundaries of human-AI interaction,” and that it has created more than 120,000 “AI digital humans” available to rent for everything from emotional companionship to 24/7 customer service and creative design. The homepage for fwgcloud dot com. Falé said the Fengwo Group’s domain shared its SSL certificate data with other domains associated with the apps found on H96 devices, specifically the phone spoofing mechanism. He noted the domain also has an internal wiki platform that directly ties the Fengwo Group to a proprietary implementation of a Google-built visual programming language called Blockly , which was originally designed to help kids learn how to write software. According to Bitsight, the Fengwo Group’s employees use Blockly to build the sham websites, allowing low-skilled operators to drag blocks of code together in their Blockly editor — without any need to understand what the underlying code blocks do or how they work. The Blockly homepage. “An operator can drag blocks together in their Blockly editor, to define each fraud routine, given a task type,” reads Bitsi…

Canada’s new Critical Cyber Systems Protection Act (Bill C-8) introduces a strict 72-hour cyber incident reporting mandate. Find out how Tenable is helping critical national infrastructure operators bridge the IT/OT divide to ensure full compliance. Key takeaways: Bill C-8 introduces stringent new cyber incident reporting requirements and heavy financial penalties for critical infrastructure operators. Eliminating network blind spots with a hybrid IT/OT discovery approach, including Safe Active Querying for isolated, hard-to-reach process-control systems, enables operators to establish a required security baseline. Predictive Vulnerability Priority Rating (VPR) scoring helps you prioritize and focus limited resources on the critical flaws that actually threaten physical safety and uptime. Advanced multi-detection engines and seamless IT workflow integrations accelerate mean-time-to-respond (MTTR) to help both security teams and operators align with a strict 72-hour reporting requirement. With the enactment of Canada’s Critical Cyber Systems Protection Act (CCSPA), commonly known as Bill C-8, the Canadian federal government is laying down a clear framework to protect the cyber-physical systems that are vital to national critical infrastructure security. For designated operators in telecommunications, energy, transportation, and banking, the mandate is clear: Establish formalized cybersecurity programs, mitigate supply chain risks, and — most critically — report cyber incidents to authorities within 72 hours. Failure to comply carries heavy consequences, including penalties that can reach up to $15 million Canadian dollars (CAD). But beyond the threat of fines, Bill C-8 highlights a fundamental operational challenge that many industrial organizations are still struggling to solve: How can you detect, investigate, and report a breach in 72 hours when you lack unified visibility across your converged IT and OT environments? Requirements for meeting Bill C-8's 72-hour incident reporting mandate In modern industrial operations and critical infrastructure, the line between IT and OT continues to blur. The introduction of connectivity (e.g., IoT-connected cameras and building management systems) has optimized processes and service delivery, but it has also introduced new cyber exposures. Today, threat actors do not honor traditional network silos; they frequently compromise a web-facing IT asset or IoT device and move laterally into the operational technology (OT) environment to disrupt physical processes. Meeting a 72-hour incident reporting window is nearly impossible if your security team is relying on fragmented point solutions. Solutions that focus exclusively on passive OT network monitoring often leave massive blind spots — especially considering that IT and IoT devices can constitute up to 50% of an industrial environment. When an incident occurs, teams waste precious hours manually correlating alerts across disconnected tools rather than actively investigating the root cause. To comply with CCSPA and protect uptime, critical national infrastructure (CNI) operators must bridge the IT/OT security divide. Establish your CCSPA cybersecurity baseline The CCSPA requires operators to implement formalized cybersecurity programs. The foundation of any mature security program is a comprehensive asset inventory — you cannot secure what you cannot see. The Tenable One Exposure Management Platform helps organizations eliminate security blind spots by building a complete, unified inventory of all OT, IoT, and IT assets. Tenable goes beyond passive-only network monitoring with our proprietary Safe Active Query technology. This hybrid approach safely communicates with industrial devices in their native protocols to uncover significantly more assets than passive monitoring alone — including dormant process control systems, shadow IT, and unmanaged IoT — without disrupting process integrity or impacting equipment uptime. Prioritize what matter…

CriticalVulnerabilityCanada#local#web#rce

CVE-2026-44098 is a high-severity vulnerability in Phoenix Contact CHARX SEC-3150 devices that allows network-adjacent attackers to execute arbitrary code. The vulnerability involves improper neutralization of special elements in OS commands (CWE-78), enabling OS command injection. Exploitation requires authentication, but the authentication mechanism can be bypassed. The CVSS 4.0 base score is 8.8, indicating a significant risk. No official patch or remediation guidance is currently available.

The Russian state-sponsored hacking group Laundry Bear, also known as Void Blizzard, is exploiting an Exchange Outlook Web Access vulnerability in email campaigns to deliver a sophisticated backdoor called OWAReaper. [...]

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…

An unauthenticated attacker can chain two WordPress Core vulnerabilities, CVE-2026-63030 and CVE-2026-60137, to achieve remote code execution against affected WordPress installations. Multiple security firms have confirmed active in-the-wild exploitation within days of public disclosure, and public proof-of-concept exploits are circulating. Key takeaways: Two WordPress Core vulnerabilities, CVE-2026-63030 and CVE-2026-60137, can be chained together to achieve pre-authentication remote code execution against WordPress 6.9.x and 7.0.x installations. Multiple security firms have confirmed in-the-wild exploitation, with public proof-of-concept exploits appearing within hours of the July 17, 2026 disclosure. Patches are available in WordPress 7.0.2 and 6.9.5; WordPress.org has enabled forced automatic updates across affected supported installations. Background Tenable's Research Special Operations (RSO) team has compiled this blog to answer Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) regarding wp2shell, two vulnerabilities in WordPress Core that can be chained together to achieve pre-authentication remote code execution. FAQ What is wp2shell? wp2shell is the name given to two vulnerabilities in WordPress Core. When was wp2shell first disclosed? On July 17, 2026, WordPress released security updates addressing the wp2shell vulnerabilities alongside two GitHub Security Advisories. Adam Kues of Searchlight Cyber, who discovered and disclosed CVE-2026-63030, published research on the same day and chose to hold back the technical specifics given the severity of the finding. Searchlight Cyber also launched wp2shell.com , a testing tool that allows administrators to check whether their WordPress installation is vulnerable. On July 20, Searchlight Cyber published a full technical breakdown of the attack chain. What are the vulnerabilities associated with wp2shell? wp2shell is a two-vulnerability exploit chain affecting WordPress Core. CVE Description CVSSv3 CVE-2026-63030 WordPress Core REST API Batch-Route Confusion Remote Code Execution Vulnerability 9.8 CVE-2026-60137 WordPress Core WP_Query author__not_in SQL Injection Vulnerability 5.9 CVE-2026-63030 is a REST API batch-route confusion weakness introduced in WordPress 6.9. CVE-2026-60137 is a SQL injection flaw in the author__not_in parameter of WP_Query , present in WordPress 6.8 and later. When chained on WordPress 6.9.0 through 7.0.1, the two flaws allow an unauthenticated attacker to reach the REST API batch endpoint at /wp-json/batch/v1 and achieve remote code execution. CVE-2026-60137 was discovered and disclosed by security researchers TF1T, dtro, and haongo. CVE-2026-60137 also affects WordPress 6.8.0 through 6.8.5 as a standalone SQL injection issue. Because CVE-2026-63030 was introduced in WordPress 6.9, the full RCE chain is only achievable on 6.9.x and 7.0.x installations. How severe is the wp2shell vulnerability chain? An anonymous, unauthenticated user can execute the chain against a default WordPress installation with no plugins required. No preconditions exist beyond the default WordPress configuration. Cloudflare notes that the vulnerable code path is reached when “a persistent object cache is not in use.” Note: wp2shell targets WordPress Core itself rather than a plugin or theme. All four prior WordPress-related entries in the CISA Known Exploited Vulnerabilities (KEV) catalog involve plugins, not core. Pre-authentication remote code execution in WordPress Core is uncommon. CVE Product Added to KEV Ransomware CVE-2026-41940 WebPros cPanel & WHM and WP2 (WordPress Squared) April 30, 2026 Known CVE-2020-25213 WordPress File Manager Plugin November 3, 2021 Unknown CVE-2020-11738 WordPress Snap Creek Duplicator Plugin November 3, 2021 Unknown CVE-2019-9978 WordPress Social Warfare Plugin November 3, 2021 Unknown How widespread are the attacks exploiting wp2shell? WordPress is the most widely deployed content management system in the world. Some hosted installations will receive patc…