Microsoft researchers observed a high-volume phishing campaign using invisible Unicode tag characters, a technique popularized in AI prompt injection research as ASCII Smuggling. Instead of using these characters to hide instructions from people while exposing them to AI models, the attacker used them to split financial lure words such as ‘funding’ to prevent email filters from parsing them.

The finding emerged from Microsoft Defender for Office 365 prompt injection protection research, showing how AI-era evasion techniques can surface in traditional phishing campaigns. In Microsoft telemetry, hits on a hunting signature designed to detect ASCII-smuggling increased sharply beginning February 9, 2026, and remained elevated on weekdays for approximately three months. Microsoft Defender for Office 365 telemetry showed that the majority of messages were flagged by layered protections rather than by reliance on a single Unicode-specific signal.

What is ASCII smuggling?

“ASCII smuggling” refers to the use of invisible or non-rendering Unicode characters to hide content inside text that looks normal. The most abused range is the Unicode Tags block, U+E0000 to U+E007F. This block contains a shadow copy of the printable ASCII characters (for example, U+E0041 mirrors ‘A’, U+E0061 mirrors ‘a’). The block was originally intended for language tagging and is now largely deprecated.

The important property for an attacker is this: most of these code points are not rendered by typical fonts and user interfaces. A string can therefore carry a message that is not readable to a human but will be processed by any language model or other software that receives a copy of the email content.

Why the AI-security world made it famous

Over the past year, ASCII smuggling became a recurring technique in the prompt injection and cross-prompt injection (XPIA) literature. The attack pattern is straightforward:

1. An attacker hides instructions inside invisible tag characters embedded in a web page, document, email, or other content.
2. A human (and many user interfaces) sees nothing unusual.
3. An AI assistant that ingests the raw text does “see” the hidden characters, decodes them as text, and may be induced to follow threat actor-controlled instructions, potentially including data exposure or unauthorized actions depending on the assistant’s permissions and safeguards.

Because this technique cleanly demonstrates the gap between what the human sees and what the model reads, it appeared frequently in AI red-teaming write-ups, conference talks, and tooling throughout 2025. That attention put a spotlight on the U+E0000-U+E007F range.

Because tag characters are invisible to humans but exist at the text-processing level, the same property that makes them useful for smuggling instructions into a model also makes them useful for obfuscating keywords before a detector evaluates them. The intent is inverted, but the mechanism is similar and a user’s suspicions are not raised.

Writing a practical ASCII-smuggling signature

As part of work on Microsoft Defender for Office 365 prompt injection protection, we built hunting logic for email-borne XPIA and prompt obfuscation patterns: content that looks harmless to users but may carry hidden instructions for an AI system that ingests the raw message. The same hunt designed to identify prompt injection risk in email became the starting point for this phishing-evasion discovery.

One practical way to hunt for ASCII smuggling is to look for messages carrying characters from the Unicode tags block (U+E0000-U+E007F), the hallmark of attempts to hide instructions from, or for, an AI model. That broad signature is a useful starting point, but it needs enough Unicode context to avoid mistaking legitimate tag-character sequences for abuse.

The first version simply flagged any code point in that range, which proved too blunt. It kept firing on a small subset of perfectly legitimate messages – which, on inspection, all contained one of three subdivision flag emojis: the flags of England, Scotland, and Wales – because those emojis are encoded using tag characters.

After those exclusions, remaining hits were mostly benign artifacts from email-security gateways, mailbox providers, and security or AI researchers forwarding or testing messages that contained tag characters. This provided a good baseline where any spikes would indicate abuse of this technique by attackers.

Figure 1. The three subdivision flag emojis – England, Scotland, and Wales – that tripped the naive signature. Each is encoded as a sequence of invisible Unicode tag characters (U+E0000-U+E007F).

Figure 2. The Wales flag emoji pasted into the ASCII Smuggler tool from Embrace The Red. What renders as a single flag is actually a base flag code point (U+1F3F4) followed by an invisible tag-character sequence spelling gbwls (U+E0067 U+E0062 U+E0077 U+E006C U+E0073) and a terminating tag (U+E007F) – the same U+E0000-U+E007F range the signature watches for.

What we observed: ASCII smuggling repurposed for phishing

New activity emerges in telemetry

The tuned ASCII-smuggling signature began as an AI-security hunt for hidden prompt injection content in email. Instead, it surfaced finance-themed phishing messages using the same Unicode range for filter evasion.

On February 9, 2026, signature hits increased sharply. The following chart reflects Microsoft Defender for Office 365 telemetry for the hunting signature over the measured period:

The day before onset (February 8) the signature fired on roughly 21,000 messages; the next day it fired on more than 1.3 million. Most of the emails can be formed into a cluster of roughly 150 finance-themed sender domains.

Observed over three months with a weekly rhythm

Continuing to track the clustered sender domains forward in time, we measured messages matching the activity described every day. The high-volume phase persisted for roughly three months after February 9 and dropped sharply after May 15, 2026. These dates bound the observed use of the specific technique in our telemetry, not the broader campaign, which started earlier without it and continued without it.

Two characteristics stand out:

• A strict weekly cadence. The campaign ran hard on weekdays and went almost completely silent every weekend. Sundays’ volume collapsed to a near-zero and then back to full volume the next day. This on/off pattern is typical of scheduled bulk-sending infrastructure.
• A long, gradual decline. After an intense first phase, with weekday volumes of 1 to 2.37 million messages, peaking on February 26, the numbers stepped down slowly to roughly 80% less per weekday by late March. The high-volume usage of the technique dropped sharply after May 15, with lower residual activity through mid-June and occasional smaller spikes.

After identifying the activity through this technique-specific signal, we connected it to a broader ActiveCampaign-delivered SBA-themed phishing campaign that Fortra had documented earlier. That earlier reporting indicates the campaign predated the adoption of Unicode tag characters; our analysis focuses on the period and messages in which this method was present, not the full lifetime of the broader campaign.

Not instruction smuggling, but filter evasion

Observed obfuscation pattern

When we looked at a sampling of the flagged messages, the surprise was there were no smuggled instructions to an AI assistant. Instead, the invisible tag characters were inserted inside common financial keywords, splitting them apart so that a literal signature or keyword match would fail.

For example, a finance lure term that appeared normal to the recipient could be transmitted with an invisible tag character in the middle:

funding

became:

fun⟨U+E0020⟩ding

Here, ⟨U+E0020⟩ represents the invisible Unicode TAG SPACE inserted between letters. In the messages we examined, the campaign did not encode a hidden ASCII message in the tag block; it used a single invisible tag character as a separator sprinkled inside high-signal words. Strictly speaking, this is invisible-character insertion using a code point from the ASCII-smuggling tag block, rather than full message smuggling.

Why it can affect detection

To a recipient, and to parsing pipelines that drop or normalize these characters, the word still reads as funding. To a detector matching the literal string funding, or a regex that does not account for interleaved invisible code points, the byte sequence no longer contains the contiguous keyword. Whether real-world detectors behave that way depends on their normalization step, which is examined below.

The bigger prize for the attacker, though, is not preventing the literal string matches; it is the ML- and NLP-based models that increasingly drive modern spam and phishing classification. Unless a filtering system takes a picture of a message and does OCR extraction over the visual image, it may miss this type of attack. A standard email classifier may not reason over whole words exactly as a human sees them; for efficiency, they can first split text into tokens or sub-word pieces. A clean lure term such as funding may be represented as a familiar token or a familiar sequence of sub-tokens. Insert an invisible U+E0020 into the middle, however, and the tokenizer may no longer see that same familiar unit. It might split the text into fun, an unexpected tag character, and ding; it might emit rare or unknown sub-tokens; or, if normalization runs first, it simply removes the U+E0020 character, leaving funding.

Why it can help defenders

There is also a defensive opportunity. Since this kind of manipulation appears so seldom in normal traffic, its presence becomes a high-confidence signal. A technique meant to make messages look more benign to ML models can instead give defenders a low-false-positive indicator to detect on.

What is known and what is new

Inserting invisible or look-alike characters to break keyword and signature matching is a long-standing evasion technique used in spam and phishing: defenders have for years seen zero-width spaces (U+200B), zero-width non-joiners, the no-break space (U+00A0), soft hyphens, and homoglyph substitutions used to fracture words so naive string matchers fail.

What is new is the specific characters and scale of the campaign:

• The character choice. Instead of the usual zero-width space or NBSP, this campaign reached for the Unicode Tags block. That block went from forgotten to famous over the past year because of AI security research into ASCII smuggling and prompt injections.
• The scale and discipline. At its peak in Microsoft telemetry, the campaign generated multi-million message daily volume.
• A possible detection blind spot. Because the Unicode Tags block is less commonly abused than zero-width spaces or NBSP, defenders should verify that normalization and tokenization pipelines handle tag characters consistently.

Financially themed sending domains

The campaign ran on hundreds of disposable, finance-themed sender domains with lures that resembled business loan, line-of-credit, and advance-funding phishing patterns often associated with fraud or credential-harvesting funnels. This pattern accounted for roughly 96% of the volume flagged by the hunting signature. The signature also fired on other domains, but those were unrelated senders – chiefly email-security gateways and personal mailbox providers – not part of the campaign.

A partial sample of sender domains counts from February 9, 2026 alone illustrates both the naming pattern and the per-domain volume:

Table 1. Top 20 (by signature hits) of the 148 finance-themed campaign sender domains seen on February 9, 2026, illustrating the naming convention and per-domain volume.

Every domain is just a recombination of the same small vocabulary. The 20 domains above are built from only 28 word-tokens:

advance · boost · business · capital · catalyst · choice · digital · direct · elevate · express · finance · funding · growth · guardian · harbor · loan · loans · loc · online · our · pulse · rocket · rush · the · united · wave · way · your

Sent through a legitimate email-marketing platform

The finance-themed domains in Table 1 are the brand (header / P2) domains the recipient sees, but the actual mail was relayed through infrastructure associated with the legitimate email-marketing platform ActiveCampaign. The platform, which is used widely for marketing, rewrites every outbound link in the message body to route through its own click-tracking domains (acemlnd[.]com and activehosted[.]com), so the URLs the recipient clicks do not point at the brand domain at all – they look like:

hxxps://＜account-id＞.acemlnd[.]com/＜tracking-token＞
hxxps://＜brand-subdomain＞.activehosted[.]com/＜tracking-token＞

Most of the flagged messages carried links associated with the platform’s tracking domains rather than direct links that point directly to the sender-branded domains. The envelope (P1) senders were platform subdomains of the form em-<id>.<brand-domain>.

ActiveCampaign response

Before we published this information, we shared our findings with ActiveCampaign to help them with this abuse, and they wanted us to share the following statement on their work to detect it:

“We appreciate Microsoft’s research and welcome collaboration with the security community to combat this activity. We take abuse, fraud, and security extremely seriously. We tested the specific technique described in this research against our content-moderation systems: messages containing invisible Unicode characters receive the same moderation verdicts as their unobfuscated equivalents, and heavy use of the technique is itself treated as a suspicious signal. We continually invest in improving our detection and prevention capabilities, including expanding our use of AI and machine learning to identify abusive sending behavior earlier in the account lifecycle.” — ActiveCampaign spokesperson

As with any shared sending service, attacker abuse of customer accounts or workflows can complicate reputation-based filtering. By originating from a reputable marketing platform with established IP reputation and authentication, the activity may appear more similar to legitimate marketing traffic and can complicate reputation-based filtering.

Most observed volume also originated from cloud-hosting ranges consistent with the platform’s outbound infrastructure, with the vast majority coming froma single network block, 173.236.20[.]0/24. This indicator helped us cluster the campaign more precisely but note that this is a legitimate segment that belongs to the abused service, and not an IOC on its own.

Identifying the campaign

Content and infrastructure remained consistent for a long time span, providing an effective way to easily fingerprint this phase of the campaign:

• Unicode content (primary). Invisible Unicode tag characters in the range U+E0000-U+E007F – specifically U+E0020 – spliced inside keywords. Legitimate mail rarely ever carries these code points: the one routine exception, the England/Scotland/Wales flag emojis, is easily excluded.
• Lure and brand pattern. Sender (header / P2) domains assembled from a small finance vocabulary – capital, fund/funding, loan, loc, lend, finance, business, express, growth, solutions, choice, hedge, pillar – recombined into fresh, disposable domains and rotated.
• Envelope (P1) pattern. The bulk of mail is relayed through a single email-marketing platform, recognizable by envelope shape rather than any one name:
  • per-account subdomains shaped em-<digits>.<brand-domain> (regex em-\d+\.), where a small set of reused account numbers fans out across hundreds of brand domains; and
  • the platform’s shared sending pool, shaped acems<N>[.]com and emsd<N>[.]com (e.g. emsd4[.]com, s9.acems10[.]com). Across the measured activity, ~98.5% of messages matched this envelope pattern, and ~99.8% matched the envelope pattern or the platform’s tracking-URL pattern (below).
• Tracking-URL pattern. Click/tracking links on the platform’s domains activehosted[.]com and acemlnd[.]com.
• Sending-origin pattern. The bulk of daily volume – about 92% across two measured weeks – originated from a single /24 network block, 173.236.20[.]0/24.

For a high-precision rule, look for the Unicode content pattern combined with the finance-brand pattern, using the sender infrastructure patterns as corroboration.

However, this is just a phase in a long-running broader campaign, that keeps adapting and evolving. The campaign was observed months earlier following a different set of behaviors and continued even after the usage of the specific technique was dropped. During these shifts in behavior, one signature may no longer describe the campaign, while another still matches.

Is there a detection gap?

The potential gap for mail-defense pipelines is whether Unicode tag characters are normalized or flagged before content detections run. In Defender, our filter stack can take a picture of message contents, extract visible text through OCR, and run analysis over that extracted text to avoid these types of tricks. Implementations vary, so defenders should test how these characters are handled in their own pipelines. For MDO protection, over 99% of messages were flagged by layers that did not depend on catching the tag characters directly, including sender, IP, URL and domain reputations, ML spam/phishing classification, brand-impersonation detection, authentication checks and more.

Emerging techniques don’t stay in one domain

ASCII smuggling earned its reputation as an AI attack, hiding instructions from people while leaving them visible to models. This campaign shows the same technique being repurposed for a different objective: obscuring phishing content from detection systems while remaining readable to the intended target.

The broader lesson is that security techniques rarely stay confined to a single domain. As AI-era attack methods become better understood, threat actors may adapt them for use in more traditional threats such as phishing and spam. This case illustrates how techniques that emerge in AI security research can quickly cross over into established attack ecosystems, reinforcing the need for defenders to view emerging threats through a cross-domain lens.

Mitigation and protection guidance

The core defensive principle is simple: normalize before you match. Any content that will be evaluated by keyword, signature, or regex logic should first have invisible and non-rendering Unicode code points stripped or folded, so that splicing them into a word no longer defeats the match.

Recommended controls

• Strip or normalize Unicode tag characters (U+E0000-U+E007F) – and other zero-width / invisible code points – from email subject and body text before applying spam and phishing content signatures.
• Treat the presence of tag-block characters as a strong anomaly signal. Outside known legitimate tag-sequence uses such as certain subdivision flag emojis, these code points are rare in ordinary mail and can be a high-value anomaly signal.
• Look for the behavioral fingerprint. The observed activity had a distinctive shape: bulk volume from churning, finance-themed disposable domains, on a strict weekday-on / weekend-off schedule. A sudden spike of tag-block characters concentrated on finance-themed senders, switching on and off weekly, is a high-confidence campaign indicator.
• Apply the same normalization upstream of AI ingestion. The same control that defeats this evasion also reduces XPIA / ASCII-smuggling exposure for AI assistants that ingest email content.

Microsoft protections

Microsoft Defender for Office 365 has heuristic detections in place to flag these the tactics employed in this type of campaign. The detection that first surfaced the spike continues to flag messages carrying Unicode tag-block characters, and the financially themed sending domains are being tracked and blocked as they rotate. Microsoft uses layered email protections, including standard and OCR content analysis, sender and domain reputation, URL detonation and reputation, bulk-mail detection, and anti-phishing models, to reduce reliance on any single signal that an attacker can try to evade.

Microsoft Defender for Office 365 prompt injection protection further helps protect against emails that contain prompt injection attempts, including cases where invisible characters are used to hide instructions from users while exposing them to AI systems. The same normalization and detection principles that reduce ASCII-smuggling-based prompt injection risk also help blunt this email-borne reuse of the technique for phishing evasion. Investments in AI security and traditional email security increasingly reinforce one another.

Coverage depends on product licensing, configuration, and telemetry.

Advanced hunting

These queries run against the EmailEvents Advanced Hunting table (and EmailUrlInfo for URL joins). They hunt the campaign by its infrastructure fingerprint – the finance-vocabulary brand senders and the marketing-platform envelope shape – rather than by the invisible tag characters, as the mail body is not exposed through the table’s columns. These queries are starting points and may require environment-specific tuning. The proactive defense is implemented with multiple layers of the enterprise mail-filtering pipeline.

1. Infrastructure pattern – finance-vocabulary senders relayed with the campaign’s envelope shape. Combines the brand-domain pattern (a header sender built from three or more adjacent finance/brand keywords, e.g. digital+capital+boost) with the envelope (MAIL FROM) shape em-<digits> / acems<digits> / emsd<digits> – the durable fingerprint that held across the entire period we measured.

// Finance/brand vocabulary the operator recombines into disposable domains.
let kwds = @"(capital|fund|hedge|express|solutions|choice|lend|growth|loan|loc|finance|business|pillar|advance|boost|catalyst|digital|direct|elevate|guardian|harbor|online|pulse|rocket|rush|united|wave|way|surge|swift|elite)";
EmailEvents
| where Timestamp > ago(30d)
| where EmailDirection == "Inbound"
// Header sender domain made of 3 or more adjacent finance/brand tokens.
| where SenderFromDomain matches regex strcat("(?i)", kwds, kwds, kwds)
// Envelope (MAIL FROM) shape: em-[digits] | acems[digits] | emsd[digits].
| where SenderMailFromDomain matches regex @"(?i)(em-|acems|emsd)\d"
| sort by Timestamp desc

For extra corroboration you can scope to the single dominant /24 that carried the bulk of this campaign’s volume, 173.236.20[.]0/24, by adding | where ipv4_is_in_range(SenderIPv4, “173.236.20.0/24”). Like the tracking URLs, that network block is shared platform space (it also carries unrelated legitimate newsletters), so use it to scope, never as a standalone filter.

2. Pivot on the platform tracking URLs. Start from the click/tracking links and join back to the mail events. Useful for scoping, but treat it as corroboration, not a verdict: the tracking domains activehosted[.]com and acemlnd[.]com are shared by every legitimate customer of the same marketing platform, so the URL on its own is not a malicious indicator. The finance-brand filter is what keeps this on the campaign; drop it only if you deliberately want a wider search.

let kwds = @"(capital|fund|hedge|express|solutions|choice|lend|growth|loan|loc|finance|business|pillar|advance|boost|catalyst|digital|direct|elevate|guardian|harbor|online|pulse|rocket|rush|united|wave|way|surge|swift|elite)";
EmailEvents
| where Timestamp > ago(30d)
| where EmailDirection == "Inbound"
| where SenderFromDomain matches regex strcat("(?i)", kwds, kwds, kwds)
| join kind=inner (
    EmailUrlInfo
    | where Timestamp > ago(30d)
    | where UrlDomain endswith "activehosted.com" or UrlDomain endswith "acemlnd.com"
    | distinct NetworkMessageId
  ) on NetworkMessageId 
| sort by Timestamp desc

3. Filter for prompt injection detection in emails

The feature used in the query below is available for Microsoft Defender for Office 365 Plan 2 or Microsoft 365 E5 customers.

EmailEvents
| where DetectionMethods has "Prompt Injection Protection"

MITRE ATT&CK techniques observed

This campaign exhibits the following MITRE ATT&CK® techniques. The table includes MITRE ATT&CK for phishing/evasion behavior and MITRE ATLAS for the AI-security technique class related to prompt obfuscation.

Indicators and hunting pivots

References

• Unicode Standard Annex #45 – Tags (U+E0000-U+E007F) – the deprecated Unicode tags block abused for ASCII smuggling
• ASCII Smuggler Tool: Crafting Invisible Text and Decoding Hidden Codes | Embrace The Red – public write-up showing how Unicode tag characters can hide text from users while remaining present to language models
• LLM Prompt Obfuscation | MITRE ATLAS™ – the AI-security technique class this evasion crossed over from
• Attackers exploit ActiveCampaign to deliver thousands of AI-generated SBA phish | Fortra – earlier reporting on the broader ActiveCampaign-delivered SBA-themed phishing campaign, before the Unicode tag-character evolution examined here

Learn More

For the latest security research from the Microsoft Threat Intelligence community, check out the Microsoft Threat Intelligence Blog.

To get notified about new publications and to join discussions on social media, follow us on LinkedIn, X (formerly Twitter), and Bluesky.

To hear stories and insights from the Microsoft Threat Intelligence community about the ever-evolving threat landscape, listen to the Microsoft Threat Intelligence podcast.

Review our documentation to learn more about our real-time protection capabilities and see how to enable them within your organization.  

• Learn more about securing Copilot Studio agents with Microsoft Defender 
• Evaluate your AI readiness with our latest Zero Trust for AI workshop.
• Microsoft 365 Copilot AI security documentation
• How Microsoft discovers and mitigates evolving attacks against AI guardrails

• Manipulating AI memory for profit: The rise of AI Recommendation Poisoning | Microsoft Security Blog – a related example of an AI-era technique observed in email traffic
• Defending the inbox against prompt injection attacks | Microsoft Defender for Office 365 Blog – feature announcement introducing prompt injection protection in Microsoft Defender for Office 365.
• Prompt injection protection in Microsoft Defender for Office 365 – official documentation of the prompt injection protection in Microsoft Defender for Office 365.
• How Microsoft discovers and mitigates evolving attacks against AI guardrails | Microsoft Security Blog

The post ASCII smuggling crosses over from AI prompt injection to phishing evasion appeared first on Microsoft Security Blog.

All threats

In Q2 2026, the percentage of ICS computers on which malicious objects were blocked continued to decrease, falling to 19.15%, its lowest level since 2022.

Percentage of ICS computers on which malicious objects were blocked, Q3 2023–Q2 2026

Regionally, the percentages ranged from 8.1% in Northern Europe to 27.9% in Africa.

Regions ranked by percentage of attacked ICS computers

The figures increased in five regions over the quarter, most notably in East Asia (by 2.0 pp) and Africa (by 0.5 pp).

East Asia saw increases in percentages for all threats except miners. The region ranked first in terms of growth for malicious scripts and phishing pages, spyware, and viruses. East Asia also led in terms of growth in threats from the internet. The percentage of ICS computers on which email threats were blocked also increased.

Selected industries

The biometrics sector (26.44%) has traditionally led the rankings of industries and OT infrastructures surveyed in this report in terms of the percentage of ICS computers on which malicious objects were blocked. Biometric systems are characterized by the availability of internet access, extensive email use for data exchange and approvals (e.g. access granting), and, in many cases, minimal cybersecurity controls within the organizations that use them.

Industries ranked by percentage of ICS computers on which malicious objects were blocked

The biometrics sector ranked first among industries in terms of the following threat categories: malicious scripts and phishing pages, malicious documents, spyware, ransomware, and worms. The sector is also leading among industries in terms of email threats. At the same time, unlike other industries, the percentage of affected ICS computers for email threats in biometrics exceeds that for internet threats.

In all selected industries, the global average follows a downward trend.

Threat categories

In Q2 2026, Kaspersky security solutions blocked malware from 10,904 different malware families of various categories on industrial automation systems.

Over the quarter, the percentage of ICS computers on which malicious objects of the following categories were blocked increased: denylisted internet resources, malicious documents, worms, ransomware, and malware for AutoCAD.

Percentage of ICS computers on which the activity of malicious objects from various categories was blocked

Malicious scripts and phishing pages (JS and HTML)

Malicious scripts and phishing pages remained in first place in the threat category rankings based on the percentage of ICS computers on which the respective threats were blocked. In Q2 2026, the global average dropped to 5.42%.

Over the quarter, the figure for this category only increased in East Asia, rising by 0.93 pp to 4.86%. This is the second-highest figure in the region in the last three years.

In East Asia, the percentage of ICS computers affected by malicious scripts and phishing pages increased in all the industries surveyed, except construction. The highest figures were recorded for biometrics (9.01%) and building automation (6.49%).

Denylisted internet resources

In Q2 2026, denylisted internet resources rose in the threat category rankings from third to second place, displacing spyware. Globally, the percentage of ICS computers on which denylisted internet resources were blocked has been increasing for two quarters in row and reached 4.31%.

The figures increased in all regions over the quarter, most notably in Russia (by 1.33 pp). Moreover, Russia ranked first (5.17%) among the regions in terms of denylisted internet resources. Since 2022, the region has topped these rankings twice before, both times in Q2: in 2022 and 2024.

Among the selected industries in Russia, the highest figures for the denylisted internet resources were in the electric power (6.61%) and engineering and ICS integration (5.62%) industries.

Malicious documents (MSOffice + PDF)

Malicious documents ranked fourth in the threat category rankings by the percentage of ICS computers on which they were blocked. The percentage for this category decreased over the previous three quarters, reaching its lowest level in three years. However, in Q2 2026, it increased to 1.77%.

Over the quarter, the figures for malicious documents increased in seven regions, most notably in South America (by 1.35 pp) and Southern Europe (by 0.48 pp). These two regions are among the top three in terms of malicious documents, malicious scripts and phishing pages, as well as threats from email clients.

South America ranked second in the rankings of regions in terms of malicious documents. In Q2 2026, the percentage of ICS computers in the region on which this threat was blocked was 3.56%, which was the fourth highest in three years.

Among the selected industries in South America, the highest percentage of ICS computers on which malicious documents were blocked was in biometrics (6.67%).

Southern Europe ranked first in the rankings of regions in terms of malicious documents. In the previous quarter, the percentage of ICS computers in the region on which this threat was blocked was the lowest in three years, but in Q2 2026 it increased to 3.63%.

Among the selected industries in Southern Europe, the highest percentage of ICS computers on which malicious documents were blocked was once again in biometrics (11.48%).

Spyware

Spyware ranked third in the threat category rankings based on the percentage of ICS computers on which it was blocked. The percentage for this category (3.30%) is the lowest since 2022.

Over the quarter, the figures increased in three regions, most notably in East Asia (by 0.53 pp) and Southeast Asia (by 0.42 pp).

East Asia ranked third based on the figures for spyware (4.77%), behind Africa and Southeast Asia. This is the region’s highest rate since Q2 2025. Among the countries and territories in the region, the highest percentage of ICS computers on which spyware was blocked was in mainland China (6.61%). Among the selected industries in East Asia, the highest figures for spyware were in the electric power (11.75%) and manufacturing (5.87%) industries. In all the industries surveyed, the figures are higher than the regional average.

Southeast Asia ranked second after Africa in the ranking of regions in terms of spyware, with 5.32%. Among the selected industries in Southeast Asia, the highest figures for spyware were in biometrics (8.93%) and manufacturing (7.32%). The figures increased in all industries over the quarter.

Ransomware

The percentage of ICS computers on which ransomware was blocked decreased in the previous three quarters but increased to 0.16% in Q2 2026.

During the quarter, the percentage increased in all regions, except Western and Southern Europe and North America (Canada). Africa led the ranking in terms of growth for this metric.

In Q2 2026, Africa ranked first among the regions in terms of the percentage of ICS computers on which ransomware was blocked (0.29%). The only time the figure in the region was higher in the past three years was Q2 2025 (0.31%).

Among the selected industries in Africa, the highest figures for ransomware were in the electric power industry (0.72%) and biometrics (0.52%). Over the quarter, the figures increased in all industries, except manufacturing and construction. The biggest increase was recorded in the electric power industry.

In Russia, the percentage of ICS computers on which ransomware was blocked in biometric systems has increased for three consecutive quarters, reaching 1.22%. This is the highest level of ransomware across all industries in all regions.

Miners

In Q2 2026, the percentage of ICS computers on which miners were blocked was the lowest since 2021, for both miners in the form of executable files for Windows (0.48%) and web miners running in browsers (0.14%).

The figures for both categories decreased in all regions, except for Africa where figures for miners in the form of executable files for Windows increased slightly.

On average, the oil and gas industry led the rankings among the selected industries both in terms of miners in the form of executable files for the Windows OS (0.66%) and in terms of web miners (0.34%).

Worms

In Q2 2026, the percentage of ICS computers on which worms were blocked increased to 1.43%.

In Q2 2026, the Middle East (2.11%) was second (after Africa) in the rankings of regions in terms of worms, displacing Central Asia and the South Caucasus.

Among the selected industries in the Middle East, the highest percentage of ICS computers on which worms were blocked was in building automation (2.90%). Over the quarter, the figures increased in all industries.

Australia and New Zealand ranked 12th among the regions in terms of the percentage of ICS computers on which worms were blocked (0.41%). Over the past three years, the figure in this region was only higher in Q2 2024 (0.42%). The figures increased in all the surveyed industries in the region, most notably in manufacturing and electric power. As a result, for these industries they exceeded the regional average by 2.9 and 2.3 times, respectively.

Viruses

In Q2 2026, the percentage of ICS computers on which viruses were blocked decreased to 1.29%.

The top three regions for this metric remain unchanged: Southeast Asia (6.03%), Africa (4.22%), and East Asia (3.14%). These same regions lead the rankings in terms of malware for AutoCAD.

The figures increased in three regions: East Asia, Australia and New Zealand, and Africa, where it has been growing for four consecutive quarters and reached its highest value since 2022.

Among the selected industries in Africa, the highest percentage of ICS computers on which viruses were blocked was in construction (5.47%).

East Asia ranked third among the regions in terms of viruses, reaching the highest level in the region for the past three years. Among the countries and administrative regions of East Asia, mainland China is the clear leader in terms of viruses (5.07%).

Among the selected industries in East Asia, the highest percentage of ICS computers on which viruses were blocked was in construction (5.93%).

In Australia and New Zealand, the increase in the percentage of ICS computers on which viruses were blocked was primarily due to a 4.3-fold increase in the figure for the electric power industry: from 0.29% to 1.24%. For a region where the percentage of attacked ICS computers for all threats is 0.12%, this is a very high value.

Malware for AutoCAD

In Q2 2026, the percentage of ICS computers on which malware for AutoCAD was blocked increased to 0.31%.

The most notable increase over the quarter was observed in Africa. After more than doubling in the previous quarter, the figure for the region continued to rise (although not so dramatically), reaching 1.02%.

Among the selected industries across all regions, the highest percentage of ICS computers on which malware for AutoCAD was blocked was in construction in East Asia (6.38%) and in Southeast Asia (4.05%).

Main threat sources

In Q2 2026, of all the threat sources, the percentage increased only for email.

Percentage of ICS computers on which malicious objects from various sources were blocked

Internet

The percentage of ICS computers on which threats from the internet were blocked decreased to 7.61%, reaching its lowest level since 2021.

Over the quarter, the percentage increased in three regions: East Asia by 0.8 pp (to 6.3%), South Asia by 0.3 pp (to 10.4%), and Russia by 0.3 pp (to 6.4%).

Among the selected industries across all regions, the highest percentage of ICS computers on which threats from the internet were blocked was in biometrics (13.03%) and engineering and ICS integration (12.16%) in South Asia.

Email

The percentage of ICS computers on which email threats were blocked increased to 2.84%.

In Q2 2026, the percentage of ICS computers on which email threats were blocked increased in South America by 1.0 pp (to 5.2%) and in Africa by 0.7 pp (to 4.3%).

Among the selected industries across all regions, the highest percentage of ICS computers on which email threats were blocked was in biometrics (19.14%) and building automation (12.49%) in Southern Europe.

Removable media

The percentage of ICS computers on which threats from removable media were blocked continued to decrease, reaching 0.24%, the lowest value for the period under review.

Among the selected industries across all regions, the highest percentage of ICS computers on which threats from removable media were blocked was in the electric power industry in East Asia (1.34%) and biometrics in Africa (1.29%).

Network folders

The percentage of ICS computers on which threats from network folders were blocked continued to decrease. In Q2 2026, it was the lowest for the period under review, at 0.023%.

The only region to see an increase in the percentage of ICS computers on which threats from network folders were blocked during the quarter was Africa. This was mainly due to an increase in the building automation figure to 0.05%.

Among the selected industries across all regions, the highest percentage of ICS computers on which threats from network folders were blocked was in biometrics (0.23%), building automation (0.17%), and engineering and ICS integration (0.13%) in East Asia.

For more information on industrial threats see the full version of the report.

Manual brand impersonation takedowns fail because attackers move faster than ticket-based abuse reports can resolve — phishing pages and fake executive profiles often do their damage within hours of going live, while manual removal can take days. A managed takedown program pairs continuous, verified monitoring with pre-authorized removal (in-certain cases), cutting the exposure window from days to hours. This matters most for consulting and professional services firms, where a spoofed domain or fake executive profile can compromise the client trust the business is built on.

How UNC3753 targeted US professional services firms in 2026

Between January and May of 2026, Google's Mandiant threat intelligence team tracked a financially motivated extortion campaign — attributed to a group known as UNC3753, or "Luna Moth," or "Silent Ransom Group" — working its way through dozens of professional, legal, and financial services organizations across the United States. The approach was almost old-fashioned. A benign-looking email about a data migration or an unpaid invoice, a follow-up phone call from someone posing as IT support, and a request to install "remote monitoring" software to fix the problem. No exploit. No malware dropped on day one. Just a firm's own trust in its brand and its people, turned against it.

It's a useful — if unsettling — reminder of why brand and executive impersonation isn't a side issue for professional services firms. It's often the entry point.

How much does phishing and impersonation actually cost US businesses

The scale of the problem, in dollar terms, is no longer subtle. The FBI's Internet Crime Complaint Center logged just over one million complaints in 2025 — the highest volume in the program's history — with phishing and spoofing making up roughly a fifth of all reports. Losses tied to phishing alone roughly tripled year-over-year, and business email compromise, which almost always starts with an attacker impersonating someone the victim trusts, accounted for over $3 billion in reported losses on its own. The mechanics of that damage matter too: the overwhelming majority of BEC losses move through wire transfer or ACH, rails that are fast, largely irreversible, and unforgiving of a slow response.

Put those two facts together and a pattern emerges. Impersonation attacks — of a brand, a partner, an executive, a vendor invoice — aren't rare or exotic. They're the default opening move. And once the fraudulent domain, profile, or listing is live, the clock the defender is racing isn't measured in days. It's measured in hours, sometimes less, before money moves or credentials are harvested.

Why are consulting and professional services firms specifically targeted?

Professional services firms occupy a strange position in the threat landscape. They're rarely the most technically fortified target, but they're consistently one of the most valuable ones. A consulting firm doesn't just protect its own data — it holds engagement records, financial models, and confidential strategy documents belonging to dozens of clients across industries. About 29% of U.S. law firms reported having experienced a security breach at some point, according to the ABA's most recent Legal Technology Survey — up from 25% just two years earlier. The same dynamic applies to consultancies. The firm is a single point of entry into a much larger web of client relationships.

That's precisely the exposure described in Cyble's case study of a U.S. consulting organization managing highly sensitive engagement data, confidential client information, and a large, distributed workforce operating across the country. As the case study describes it, the firm's brand, executives, and digital infrastructure were frequent targets specifically because of the trust clients placed in them as an advisor. Senior partners were likely of being impersonated through fake social profiles and spoofed domains. Fraudulent job postings and phishing campaigns leaned on the firm's own credibility to look legitimate. The attacker doesn't need to breach the firm's network if a client can be convinced, through a look-alike domain or a cloned executive profile, to simply hand over what the attacker wants.

That's the mechanism UNC3753 exploited nationally in 2026, and it's the exact exposure this consulting firm was trying to close.

Also read: Ransomware Threats in the Americas H1 2026: Dissecting the Regional Attack Patterns and Dominant Actors

What is the "whack-a-mole" problem in brand protection?

Here's where most brand protection programs quietly fail, and it isn't a detection problem — it's a speed problem.

A typical manual takedown workflow looks something like this: someone on the security or marketing team spots a phishing page or a fake LinkedIn profile impersonating a partner. They file an abuse report with the registrar or the platform. They wait. Maybe they follow up. Eventually, the page comes down — but by then, a new one has often already gone live, sometimes registered by the same actor under a slightly different domain.

This was exactly the challenge the consulting firm faced before its engagement with Cyble. Identifying and removing phishing pages, fraudulent job postings, and impersonating domains was, in the case study's own words, reactive and resource-intensive, leaving the brand exposed for longer than the firm considered acceptable. It's a program that looks active — tickets filed, pages eventually removed — while the actual window of exposure, the hours where a client or job candidate could act on the fake page, stays wide open. Volume of takedowns filed is an easy number to report. Speed of resolution is the number that actually protects anyone.

What does managed takedown response actually involve

The shift the case study describes isn't just "faster takedowns" — it's a change in the operating model, from reactive point-solution to continuous, managed coverage. Three pieces work together in the deployment:

• Brand and Executive Monitoring continuously scans for phishing domains, fraudulent job postings, and impersonation attempts using the firm's name, alongside dedicated monitoring of senior leadership profiles across social platforms — catching the fake partner LinkedIn account or spoofed domain before it's had time to circulate.
• Verification before escalation means the security team isn't drowning in unconfirmed alerts. Threats are validated as genuine before they ever reach someone's desk, which is what separates consolidated intelligence from just another noisy dashboard.
• Managed Takedown Services then handle the actual removal — confirmed phishing pages, impersonating domains, and fraudulent listings — without the internal team having to individually chase registrars and platforms one abuse ticket at a time.

The outcome is a meaningfully shortened window between detection and removal — turning a slow, manual, ticket-by-ticket grind into something closer to continuous coverage. That's the real distinction between a takedown service and a takedown program: one reacts when someone happens to notice a fake page; the other is built to notice, verify, and resolve on a timeline that assumes attackers move fast, because they do.

Why client trust is the real asset at risk

For a consulting firm, the financial cost of an impersonation attack is rarely the headline risk. The deeper cost is what it does to the relationship a firm's entire business is built on. When a client, a job candidate, or a prospective hire can't tell the difference between a legitimate email from the firm and a spoofed one, the firm's advisory credibility — the thing it's actually selling — starts to erode. That's a slower, quieter kind of damage than a wire fraud loss, but for a professional services firm, it may be the more expensive one.

The lesson from both the national threat data and this specific engagement is the same – brand and executive impersonation isn't a marketing nuisance to be cleaned up occasionally. It's a live attack surface, moving at a speed that manual, ad hoc takedown processes were never built to match. Firms that treat it that way — with continuous monitoring, verified alerts, and managed resolution — are the ones that keep the exposure window measured in hours instead of days.

Frequently asked questions (FAQs)

What is a brand impersonation takedown service?

A brand impersonation takedown service identifies fraudulent domains, phishing pages, fake social media profiles, and impersonating job listings that misuse a company's name or logo, then works with registrars, hosting providers, and platforms to have that content removed.

How long does it take to take down a phishing site?

Timelines vary by registrar and hosting provider, but manual, ticket-based takedown requests commonly take days to resolve. Managed takedown programs that pre-verify threats and maintain direct relationships with providers can shorten that window to hours.

Why do manual takedown processes fail against brand impersonation?

Manual processes fail because they're reactive: a person has to notice the fake page, file a report, and wait for a third party to act, while attackers can register replacement domains faster than any single report gets resolved. The volume of tickets filed can look productive even while the actual exposure window stays open.

What's the difference between takedown volume and takedown speed?

Takedown volume measures how many fraudulent pages were reported or removed over time. Takedown speed measures how quickly a live threat is detected, verified, and taken down after it appears. Speed is the metric that actually limits damage, since most harm from a phishing page happens in its first hours online.

How can consulting and professional services firms protect executives from impersonation?

Dedicated executive monitoring tracks senior leaders' names and likenesses across social platforms and the web to catch fake profiles, spoofed communications, and impersonation attempts early, ideally paired with managed takedown so confirmed threats are removed without requiring the executive or internal team to handle it themselves.

Sources:

FBI Internet Crime Complaint Center, 2025 Internet Crime Report;
Cyble, "How Cyble Delivered Unified Multi-Layered Threat Intelligence to a U.S. Consulting Organization";
Google/Mandiant, "Ongoing Targeted Campaign Against US Law Firms" (2026);
American Bar Association Legal Technology Survey.

The post Brand Impersonation Takedown: From Whack-a-Mole to Managed Response appeared first on Cyble.

• 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

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 the network at all and instead sends everything upward to an embedding plugin frame. 
• In hostIframe mode, it defers entirely to a parent page already running as the relay bridge. 

Regardless of which of these three modes or through the Host Bridge is used, the data is either sent to C2 as plain text in JSON format with the DEV_MODE flag set, or it is passed to the JwrCrypto module, which encrypts it with a newly generated key before sending it to the C2 server.  

The script engine includes a background worker module that maintains the connection with C2, keeping it alive independently of page navigation for the remainder of the session. In a live session activity, the script continuously streams the victim’s keystrokes to the actor's C2 server as captured data, while that the actor continuously sends the next instruction to be executed from the C2 server. Each incoming instruction is checked by the client engine against a brief history to ensure that nothing already executed runs twice, then routed by the Instruction Handling module to one of two outcomes including, redirecting the victim to a different phishing page or updating the current page's state and displayed status, awaiting the actor’s next instruction. This execution loop repeats until the actor decides to keep the session alive, and when the actor chooses to close the session, the accumulated data is transmitted to the C2 one last time, and the victim is redirected. 

JWR Client’s host bridge mode  

In host bridge mode, the IIFE establishes a persistent WebSocket connection to the actor's server, manages the victim's session identity, excludes repeating incoming instructions, and proxies all communication between the server and the phishing child iframe. 

Every victim is assigned a unique session token the moment the bridge initializes. It first checks persistent storage for an existing JWRCID value if the victim has visited the page before, and if true, the same token is reused, allowing the actor to correlate multiple visits from the same device. If none exists, a new token is generated in the format JWRCVV-{Date.now()}-{random1}-{random2}, with both random segments being 13-character base-36 strings, and this token becomes the victim's permanent identifier for the entire C2 communication. 

The module then spawns a Web Worker from a separate script located at static/js/ws-worker.js, which isolates the WebSocket from the main JavaScript context, allowing the connection to persist during navigation within the phishing flow. The WebSocket connection path is constructed as webSocket/QT/{sessionId}/khkjsahfjkwhakjlsdwdddddd88, where the alphanumeric suffix is likely a server-side authentication token that ensures the connection originates from a deployed kit instance. 

The host bridge incorporates an anti-analysis check, which serves as a one-time execution guard that performs a self-referential .toString().search() call against a backtracking regex. This check detects whether a debugger has attached the function to modify its apparent source. Additionally, a decoy variable is scattered throughout the code to mislead static-analysis tools. 

Moreover, it maintains a JSON array named JwrExecutedInstructions in sessionStorage to prevent the same operator instruction from executing more than once. Before relaying any instruction into the phishing iframe, it verifies the instruction ID against a list. If a match is found, it discards the repeating instructions. If it is a new instruction, it sends an acknowledgment back to the C2 server in the format {type:"instructionAck", instruction_id:, cvv_id:}. The list is limited to 50 entries and is trimmed to retain the most recent 30. 

Content Mode operation (Vue.js application), the real-time capture 

The Vue.js victim application developed by the JWR developer is a single Vue 2.X instance, window.vm = new Vue ({el: ‘#app’, ...}), mounted on a Document Object Model (DOM) element with the id “#app”. This application serves as the phishing page that the victim sees and interacts with. It is responsible for rendering the checkout forms, collecting and streaming input to the C2, executing the actor’s instructions, and performing the exfiltration function. 

When the Vue instance is constructed, the created function is executed, processing the data passed from the fake webpage the victim visited, but without attaching the page. It generates the session ID and clears any sensitive fields leftover from a prior page visit if the victim had previously accessed the same fake page. It also restores any previously saved session state from “sessionStorage” if it exists. Then, it redirects the victim from any page other than index/login/home that lacks a session ID to a_index.html, ensuring the victim enters the phishing flow. Finally, the Vue takes the rendered output and attaches it to the #app element in the page's DOM, making the interface visible and interactive to the victim. 

Once the DOM is ready, Vue executes the mounted function asynchronously, at which point the victim becomes visible to the actor. It determines the engine’s execution mode and then executes two functions: getIPInfo() to geolocate the victim’s IP address and getSyncSettings() to pull the actor’s configuration from the C2 server. Next, it initializes the communication channel, captures the victim's action, and creates a CVV form with the victim's device fingerprint data. This includes the victim's current form of state, such as device type, browser, language, time zone, and geolocation, which are encrypted and sent to the actor's C2 server. 

One of the key features of the JWR kit is its near-real-time input streaming. Each input element in the phishing form is transmitted to the actor’s console, allowing the actor to view partial card numbers, partial passwords, and partial verification codes as the victim types, without needing to wait for the victim to click any submit button. This mechanism enables the actor to see the victim's data and determine which instruction to send to the client's engine from the C2 before the victim even submits the form. 

Before the Vue instance is created, the client engine establishes an instruction mapping table that correlates over 40 actor command names with specific HTML page filenames, thereby granting the actor remote control over the victim browser session. 

The JWR client script includes a C2 command dispatcher. When the actor sends an instruction, the client receives, decrypts, and forwards it to the dispatcher function, which routes it to the appropriate handler based on the instruction type. The table below displays the actors' instructions from C2, facilitated by the JWR client kit. 

The JWR client engine has a data exfiltration schema. Its scope extends well beyond payment data, and includes full identity information (name, gender, date of birth, Social Security Number, passport, driver's license, medical record number), address, email and email password, up to three sets of website credentials, PayPal login, complete card data (PAN, expiry, CVV, PIN, brand, issuer, issuing country), front and back card images, photos of identity documents, and an automatically captured browser fingerprint, including IP, device, language, time zone, user agent, cookies, and geolocation. 

Upon submission, the client normalizes the submission types, triggering a full-screen non-interactive overlay over the page. For credit card submissions, a Lottie animation is displayed that corresponds to the card brand detected from the first two BIN digits. After exfiltration, when the actor closes the WebSocket, terminate the worker and POST the entire cvvformobject to the C2 endpoint at api/open/the_final_interface. Once the actor confirms, the victim is redirected to the actual site. 

Talos discovered that the primary mode of C2 communication for the JWR kit is via a binary WebSocket connection. The WebSocket path follows the format shown below, where the JWRCID and JWRCVV segments encode the victim’s unique session token, and the trailing alphanumeric suffix is likely a server-side authentication token. 

Alongside the WebSocket, the JWR client registers five Representational State Transfer (REST) endpoints which are used as an alternate communication method, between the C2 and the victim browser. In this case, a session opens with api/open/addClick, executed once from within the mounted function after the phishing page becomes visible to the victim. It reports the victim's IP address, country, the specific phishing page they landed on, the referring or storefront URL, and a bundle of device and operating system (OS) metadata to the actor's console with a live "new visitor" entry before a single instruction has even been sent by the actor from the C2 server. Running alongside it is api/open/getSyncSettings, which pulls inbound configuration from the actor's server rather than exfiltrating anything, letting the actor change error messages, default contact placeholders, currency display, and other behavior on the fly without redeploying the client engine. For the victim’s environments where a persistent WebSocket connection is unavailable or blocked, api/open/pollInstruction provides an HTTP long poll fallback that delivers the same operator instruction objects the socket would otherwise push, keeping the actor's remote control functional even under restrictive network conditions. The session closes with api/open/the_final_interface, the client engine terminal exfiltration call. Once the actor issues a release instruction, the WebSocket connection and background worker are closed, and the entire accumulated cvvform object, every field collected across the full victim session — card data, identity documents, credentials, and fingerprint alike — is sent via HTTP POST to the C2 endpoint. 

The below table represents the endpoints and the purpose.  

The JWR client has purpose-built integrations for two major e-commerce platforms Shopify and WooCommerce. For Shopify deployments, the client reads the cart_data URL parameter which is a signed JSON blob that Shopify passes between checkout steps and extracts the checkout domain to use as the WebSocket base URL. This makes the WebSocket connection seem to originate from a legitimate Shopify domain. The initShopifyProductInfo() and initWordPressProductInfo() functions reconstruct the victim's shopping cart from the Shopify cart data, populating the phishing page with accurate product names, quantities, unit prices, and order totals making the fake checkout indistinguishable from the real one. 

The operator facing status messages of the JWR framework are entirely written in Simplified Chinese and read as a professional admin dashboard notification feed phrases like "正在填写PayPal登录账号" (filling in PayPal login account), "进入2FA验证页, 请发送验证, 等待用户提交" (entering 2FA verification page, please send verification, waiting for user submission), and "均失败" (all failed), indicating that a Chinese-speaking actor is operating this scam campaign. 

JWR phishing framework’s card stealing scenario 

When the victim lands on the fake page, their browser sends an arrival beacon, indicating to the actor that a new visitor is present. From there, the actor takes over, sending a to_info instruction that directs the victim to a personal details page. While the victim types, the actor sends no further instructions but monitors the data stream live. Once the actor has assessed the victim's personal information, they issue a to_card instruction, moving the victim to the card entry page, where the same stealth live streaming occurs as the card number is typed in digit by digit. 

If the actor isn't keen on the typed card details, tip_fail or tip_change_card instructions are sent, which deliver a fake "your card was declined" message to the victim and returns them to the card page to try a different one. This loop can repeat as many times as the actor wants, each attempt aimed at harvesting another card from the same victim. If the card is accepted instead, the operator sends one of the instructions: to_sms, to_2fa, to_pin, or to_app, directing the victim to a verification page to confirm their identity with a one-time code. For the rejected code, the actor sends the tip_fail instruction, which prompts the victim to re-enter it, while an accepted one leads to the final instruction, to_success, which redirects the victim to the real website, concluding the session with the actor now having the victim’s data that was typed.  

The ongoing scam campaign  

Cisco Talos observed an attacker utilizing an SMS phishing technique, sending SMS related to toll or road-pricing fees, postal or courier fees lures that contain a malicious URL targeting potential victims. When victims click on the URL, it opens a fake webpage that executes embedded JavaScript, which then renders and loads the client-side JavaScript engine of the JWR phishing framework. 

The victimology of this scam campaign illustrates a broad, multi-country SMS phishing (smishing) operation rather than a single targeted campaign. Most of the malicious URLs impersonate a national land transport authority and its vehicle services or road toll payment portal, consistent with an "unpaid toll or road pricing fine" lure in Singapore. A second set of malicious URLs impersonates a national postal service, aligned with a "parcel held pending a customs or delivery fee" lure, alongside a smaller cluster mimicking an electronic toll collection system in the UAE. The third set of URLs impersonates a regional courier brand utilized across several Southeast Asian countries, again centered around the undelivered parcel or cash on delivery fee theme. 

Talos discovery of the similarities in the client engine script of the JWR framework used in the current campaign with that of the Outsider PhaaS platform and additionally, we observed that in June 2026, the FBI had announced the technical takedown operation against Outsider platform (PhaaS) that has been in operation since 2023, through a joint operation “Ghost Hook.” However, the Outsider PhaaS was sold as a self-servicing product in the actor’s Telegram channels, according to the external researcher report, indicating the likely existence of variants of the Outsider PhaaS kit employed and operated by other Chinese-speaking threat actors.  

Comparing JWR with other Chinese PhaaS platforms 

Following the discovery of several similarities in the client-side scripts of the JWR and The Outsider kit, Talos conducted a comparative assessment of the JWR client script against other phishing kits operating within the Chinese-speaking criminal ecosystem. 

Talos found that JWR shares no code-level implementation with Lucid, Darcula, or Lighthouse. Its C2 communication protocol, encryption module, and message envelope are all independently engineered. At the behavioral level, JWR aligns closely with those kits. All four share the operational signature that defines this PhaaS lineage including live operator puppeteering, card capture paired with OTP/2FA interception, and multi-brand templating at scale. Several additional characteristics place JWR within the same family, highlighting a tradecraft consistency across the developers of the phishing kits embedded in the Chinese-speaking criminal ecosystem. 

Coverage 

The following ClamAV signature detects and blocks this threat:  

• Js.Phishing.JwrFramework-10060456-0 

The following Snort2 and Snort3 (SIDs) rules detect and block this threat: 

• 66924
• 66925
• 66926
• 66927
• 66928  

IOCs  

The IOCs for this threat are also available at our GitHub repository here. 

Introduction

In today's fast-moving cybersecurity landscape, threat analysts must move beyond basic, binary reputation scores to successfully defend against modern, highly adaptive web threats. Traditional URL analysis has been redefined by the launch of URL Scanning 2.0, an update that significantly expands VirusTotal's URL analysis capabilities by introducing automated visits with a full browser instance and deeper historical visibility.

Instead of relying on static reputation scores alone, URL Scanning 2.0 enriches reports with "under-the-hood" headless browser telemetry, including the DOM, full-page screenshots, web technologies, and network request logs. Crucially, it introduces historical analysis pivoting, giving analysts the ability to track how a page has changed over time.

URL Scanning 2.0

To successfully defend against modern, highly adaptive web threats, threat analysts must move beyond basic, binary reputation scores. With the debut of URL Scanning 2.0, VirusTotal introduces robust headless browser integration that captures how a page behaves dynamically in a clean sandbox environment.

Every scan now generates rich, granular telemetry that provides a blueprint of the target page's execution:

- Headless Browser Data: Full-page visual screenshots, full DOM (Document Object Model) trees, and web technologies (e.g., Cloudflare, PHP, HTTP/3).

- Page and Network Statistics: Highly detailed counters of individual network requests, encrypted HTTPS transactions, unique contacted domains/subdomains, and serving IP address mappings with geographic tracking.

- Anti-Phishing Fingerprints: Automatic identification of brands, cloned-website tags, password input fields, tracker IDs, and favicon dhashes.

- Historical Pivoting: A timeline containing historical analyses of a URL with its corresponding risk score, allowing analysts to track exactly how its metadata and content have shifted over time.

Access Levels in VirusTotal

Public Access (Free for VirusTotal Users)
The core enhancements of the URL Scanning 2.0 engine are available to everyone. For the latest scan, analysts can access rich telemetry generated by headless browser execution, including visual screenshots, extracted JavaScript globals, console messages, and a list of all loaded network resources.

VirusTotal Premium Customers
For paid VirusTotal customers, the platform unlocks deeper retrospective capabilities and exclusive data fields. Analysts have the ability to pivot to and review the full historical analyses of a URL as it was observed at specific points in time, and access advanced telemetry like the full DOM captures of the execution. Furthermore, premium access unlocks advanced infrastructure relationships, allowing users to pivot on contacted domains, IPs, and downloaded files.

Note: The aforementioned Google Threat Intelligence and Automatic Brand Identification features are exclusively available to Google Threat Intelligence customers.

Investigating a Phishing Case

Initially, when an analyst navigates to the mentioned URL to view the report generated by VirusTotal, they would see something similar to the following with the new URL Scanning features:

At the top of the interface, we can see that the URL has been scanned three times. This means there are three distinct reports for the same URL, each potentially containing different information that could be highly useful for an analyst. In the top right corner, we can view these past analyses by clicking on "History".

This is where the new historical analysis pivoting comes into play: it allows analysts to travel back through a URL's timeline with point-in-time snapshots.

By clicking on "History", we can view all the historical analyses for that URL, including response codes, detections, screenshots, and other metadata. You can also apply filters to narrow down the timeline and view only the historical records you are interested in, based on specific response codes, URL actions, and other criteria.

In this case, if we click on the initial historical analysis performed on July 6, 2026 (as shown in the screenshot above), we can examine its specific information across the "Summary", "Details", and "Detection" tabs. A key feature of URL Scanning 2.0 is that the information within these report tabs will dynamically re-render to match the exact historical state of the snapshot you select.

As observed in the history timeline, after clicking on this specific analysis included a live screenshot and other relevant metadata, indicating the scan occurred while the website was fully operational and actively distributed. The previous screenshot gives us a clear view of how the phishing page was visually structured.

Furthermore, diving into the "Details" tab reveals other interesting technical artifacts from the campaign. These details are incredibly useful for pivoting and identifying new malicious URLs that share similar characteristics.

Among the wealth of information generated by URL Scanning 2.0, analysts will find HTTP transactions, detected JavaScript variables, console messages, external outbound links, and other critical metadata. These key technical markers serve as pivotable and searchable attributes, allowing teams to conduct advanced footprint hunting and instantly find other malicious URLs exhibiting the exact same technical fingerprint.

Furthermore, every snapshot taken during each analysis provides the complete Document Object Model (DOM) tree captured by the full browser instances. It allows you to inspect the exact structure of the page as it was dynamically rendered to the victim, exposing elements that static scans might miss. As can be seen in the following image, having direct access to this point-in-time DOM data empowers analysts to dig deep into the page's architecture.

Advanced Threat Hunting: Scaling the Investigation

Let's scale our investigation using VirusTotal Intelligence queries based on the artifacts discovered via URL Scanning 2.0.

During the analysis of the financial phishing site, we discovered that the page relied on static assets hosted on a third-party domain: jiaoyisuo.thai2570[.]com. We can pivot on this finding using an advanced query:

entity:url (outgoing_link:jiaoyisuo.thai2570.com OR content:jiaoyisuo.thai2570.com)

The results demonstrate a multi-brand operation, including fake cryptocurrency exchange portals and typosquatting domains for other financial services. By further pivoting on the hosting domain with entity:domain "thai2570.com", analysts can map out a highly segmented subdomain tree used for hosting assets, capturing payments, and backend control panels.

Conclusion

URL Scanning 2.0 represents a paradigm shift in how security analysts investigate web-based threats. Investigations are no longer limited to static verdicts. By surfacing powerful metadata directly inside the workflow—such as historical DOM captures, live screenshots, and pivotable technical identifiers—analysts can now turn a single indicator into a comprehensive infrastructure map.

Log in to VirusTotal to explore the new URL Scanning 2.0 features today, and consider upgrading to VirusTotal Premium to unlock the full power of historical pivoting and advanced threat hunting.

Threat actors are increasingly exploiting legitimate cloud services to evade detection and streamline the deployment of their scam infrastructure. Cloud hosting services and decentralized networks have become primary platforms for hosting phishing pages and sites. Throughout 2025 and 2026, we have observed phishing operators steadily migrate toward platforms like Cloudflare Workers, Vercel, Netlify, GitHub Pages, and IPFS. This post analyzes the mechanics of a real-life adversary-in-the-middle (AitM) attack in a cloud environment and presents detailed statistics on the platforms and domains phishers abuse most frequently.

The cloud as a safe haven for phishers

Threat actors select platform-as-a-service (PaaS) offerings and distributed cloud environments to host phishing sites for much the same reasons legitimate software developers do:

• Inherent trust and reputation. Phishing pages hosted on reputable platforms appear trustworthy, reducing suspicion among potential victims.
• Most platforms offer generous free-tier developer plans. The onboarding process takes minutes and rarely requires Know Your Customer (KYC) identity verification. This enables a single operator to create hundreds of malicious accounts.
• Evasion and anonymity. Attackers leverage native security features to obscure their true origin server IP address behind a CDN, which complicates detection for security vendors.

Additionally, these platforms allocate shared subdomains hosting millions of legitimate projects and websites. Security teams cannot simply block the parent domain or its subdomains without inflicting collateral damage on bona fide users – a limitation that malicious actors take advantage of. To counter this tactic, security vendors must advance content-based analysis methodologies.

Multi-stage AitM attack

Consider a modern AitM phishing campaign that leverages Cloudflare Workers, a widely adopted cloud platform. The attackers execute the operation through multiple HTML pages distributed across a compromised website and the cloud platform. Each page serves a specific function: harvesting target email addresses, initializing the reverse-proxy infrastructure, or spoofing the login form to capture multi-factor authentication (MFA) sessions.

Stage 1. Contact harvesting and network monitoring evasion

The attack typically begins with a phishing email that uses a plausible pretext – such as a request from a coworker to review documents – to entice the target into clicking a malicious link.

Upon clicking the link, the user is redirected to a fake CAPTCHA landing page hosted on a compromised legitimate website. This specific campaign used the https://t[REDACTED]e.com website, but any other variations are possible. In this scenario, the compromised page served as a disposable relay — vendor detection mechanisms typically block phishing links delivered directly via email much faster — to prevent the early discovery of the core phishing content hosted on Cloudflare.

If the user entered their email address and clicked Continue, the pseudo-CAPTCHA marked them as a human user and initiated a redirect. The primary objective of this stage is to harvest target email addresses, filter out bots, and route legitimate users to a subdomain of workers.dev. Such subdomains are generated automatically and free of charge by Cloudflare Workers. The victim’s email address was embedded in the URL hash (the part of the URL following the # character), allowing the page at [REDACTED].workers.dev to extract the email without issuing a request to the attacker’s server, thereby avoiding detection.

Stage 2. Initializing a transparent proxy

The user’s browser then loaded a [REDACTED].workers.dev page with #user@business.com at the end of the URL. At this point, the page presented the victim with a genuine CAPTCHA challenge. This step ensured that an actual user was interacting with the page rather than a security sandbox.

Another CAPTCHA, this time a legitimate one

Once the user successfully completed the challenge, a service worker was registered in their browser. This is a special JavaScript file capable of running in the background and intercepting all network requests generated by the current tab. As this type of script was designed as a core component of progressive web apps (PWAs) to optimize load times and support offline functionality, browsers treat service workers as standard site feature and execute them without prompting for user consent as long as the website uses an HTTPS connection.

The attackers leveraged the service worker to deploy Ultraviolet, a legitimate open-source web proxy library, to dynamically rewrite all links and forms on the page. This forced every outgoing request – including those for Microsoft login credentials – to route through the attackers’ server rather than directly to the legitimate services.

Immediately upon loading, the page extracted the victim’s email address from the URL hash and stored it in the browser’s sessionStorage property so it would not be overwritten when the CAPTCHA loaded. This step also allowed the script to pre-fill the username field in the form automatically. A pre-populated login field enhanced the page’s credibility and bolstered user trust. Once the CAPTCHA was passed, the malicious script constructed a redirect URL for the third stage, appending the email retrieved from sessionStorage back to the hash. By passing the email via the URL hash across three consecutive stages, the attackers successfully kept it hidden from network attack detection systems.

Registering a service worker to intercept traffic

Establishing a transparent proxy via an external library

Stage 3. Session hijacking and browser window spoofing

The final stage unfolded on a third page, combining adversary-in-the-middle (AitM) traffic interception with a browser-in-the-browser (BitB) UI spoofing technique. BitB attacks operate by rendering a block inside a legitimate webpage that visually mimics a native browser pop-up window.

In this case, the script hosted on the attacker’s page generated a pop-up visually identical to a native browser window, complete with window controls and a spoofed address bar showing a trusted Microsoft URL. Within this simulated window, an iframe loaded the authentic login interface, routed dynamically through the service worker reverse proxy created in Stage 2. When the victim entered their credentials and MFA code into the BitB window, the proxy script intercepted both the credentials and the session tokens. Combining BitB with AitM significantly increases the threat: BitB provides a convincing, trusted visual wrapper (displaying a legitimate URL and branding), while the hidden AitM proxy quietly handles traffic interception and session hijacking behind the scenes.

Upon successful login, the proxy instructs the interface to close the pop-up and redirect the victim to a generic system error page, such as SessionExpired. This minimizes suspicion: the victim assumes a technical glitch occurred and attempts to log in again, unaware that the attacker already has full access to the session.

Cloud platform phishing attack statistics

We analyzed phishing URLs hosted across popular cloud platforms – including Cloudflare, Netlify, and GitHub Pages – over a 12-month period spanning August 2025 to July 2026. The data below outlines trends in unique third-level domains exploited to deliver phishing content. In total, our security solutions blocked 224,984 unique third-level domains on cloud and decentralized services used in phishing attacks within that timeframe.

Number of unique third-level domains
(download)

Based on this telemetry, we compiled a list of the TOP 10 cloud domains most frequently abused in phishing campaigns over the specified period.

Number of phishing links

Unsurprisingly, Cloudflare and Vercel emerged as the undisputed leaders: both offer free tiers, automated SSL certificate issuance, and global CDNs. GitHub Pages ranked third. The widespread legitimate use of the github.io domain complicates bulk blocking efforts, as security teams risk limiting access to non-malicious projects.

Decentralized networks also warrant close attention – we posted on this subject in 2023. The ipfs.io and dweb.link domains function as IPFS gateways. The principal risk associated with these platforms is content persistence: even if a specific gateway gets blocked, the phishing page remains accessible via alternative nodes across the network.

The visual website builders Wix and Webflow also ranked among the TOP 10 (eighth and ninth, respectively). These platforms allow low-skilled individuals to build phishing pages rapidly without advanced coding expertise, which significantly lowers the barrier to entry for less capable malicious actors.

In total, we identified and neutralized over 390,000 phishing pages hosted across legitimate cloud platforms and decentralized networks (IPFS) over the past 12 months. This data confirms that threat actors actively exploit the implicit trust associated with legitimate PaaS providers (such as Cloudflare Workers, Vercel, Netlify, and GitHub Pages) and IPFS gateways. High domain reputation, generous free tiers, and built-in evasion capabilities enable phishers to deploy multi-stage AitM attacks designed to hijack MFA sessions.

Recommendations

Traditional security controls, such as relying on HTTPS lock icons or reputation-based domain denylists, are inadequate against these attacks. The cloud provider’s apex domain maintains a positive reputation score, while attackers generate malicious subdomains programmatically and at scale.

Effective defense against these threats calls for a layered security posture:

• Exercise caution with unexpected requests, even if they are served from reputable domains or secured with valid SSL/TLS certificates.
• Treat any CAPTCHA interface requiring personal data input as a possible scam. Legitimate CAPTCHA challenges rarely request personally identifiable information, such as email addresses.
• Inspect the URL in the address bar at the very top of the browser window. In BitB attacks, threat actors can render a fake browser pop-up displaying any target URL, even a legitimate one. However, the true address bar – located at the top of the main browser window alongside native navigation controls (Back, Forward, Refresh) – will continue to display the actual attacker-controlled domain.
• Avoid entering credentials in pop-ups you did not expect to see. If a login or MFA form appears without your explicit action, close the tab immediately. Navigate to the intended service manually by entering its address directly into the browser.
• Additional protection can be provided by Kaspersky Secure Mail Gateway for enterprise environments and Kaspersky Premium for personal correspondence. These robust email security solutions neutralize phishing links at the delivery stage before they reach the inbox.

This week on the Lock and Code podcast…

Twenty years ago, a British mathematician named Clive Humby popularized a phrase that came to describe data’s relationship with the entire global economy: “Data is the new oil.”

Pithy as the phrase sounds, it is undeniably true.

Data steers decisions at businesses of every size. Data created entirely new industries built around its capture. And, for a select number of companies, data has produced billions—if not trillions—of dollars in value.

So how is it that, on the dark web, your stolen identity can be purchased for just 95 cents?

That’s what a Malwarebytes researcher found last month after spending 48 hours inside the dark web to investigate cybercrime. Across a variety of forums and directories, he found subscription plans for malware that steals information once implanted on a device. He found guides for deploying social engineering scams. He found people selling their services to build fake websites that trick people into handing over their usernames and passwords. And he found one of the dark web’s most traded commodities—personal data, packaged together about individual people, to help a cybercriminal commit identity fraud.

These packages are called “fullz.” For victims in the United States, a fullz contains a full name, Social Security Number, date of birth, address, and other personal details. That is enough, on its own, for a cybercriminal to potentially open a bogus line of credit, file a fake tax return, access financial accounts, or obtain medical services under someone else’s name.

As we wrote on Malwarebytes Labs:

“For less than the cost of a cup of coffee, a cybercriminal can buy enough information to devastate someone’s financial life.”

It’s the kind of risk that could scare anyone, especially considering the scale behind it. In just the first six months of 2026, Malwarebytes found more than 7,500 compromised data sets on the dark web containing more than 8.4 billion records.

And yet, even today, cybersecurity professionals still get asked why anyone should bother protecting their data.

The public, understandably, are exhausted. With data breaches happening every week—if not every day—cybersecurity can start to feel pointless. With young people unable to build financial security, they start believing that they have nothing worth stealing. And with Big Tech already collecting our every movement, behavior, click, and concern, people understandably feel powerless to fight any kind of data abuse, be it corporate or criminal.

So today’s episode approaches the question from a different direction. This isn’t about why you should protect yourself—plenty of company websites will tell you that, and most of them rely on fear. This is about why hackers want your data in the first place.

Today, on the Lock and Code podcast, host David Ruiz explains how cybercriminals turn a single repeated password into account takeover, how a screenshot of your house from Google Maps became a tool in extortion emails, and why the most benign information about you—an address, an age, one public photo—is often the most useful data a stranger can buy.

Tune in today to listen to the full episode.

Show notes and credits:

Intro Music: “Spellbound” by Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com)
Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 4.0 License
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
Outro Music: “Good God” by Wowa (unminus.com)

Listen up—Malwarebytes doesn’t just talk cybersecurity, we provide it.

Protect yourself from online attacks that threaten your identity, your files, your system, and your financial well-being with our exclusive offer for Malwarebytes Premium for Lock and Code listeners.

Unit 42 details a Russian cyberespionage campaign targeting Zimbra webmail servers using JavaScript injection to steal credentials.

The post Russian Global Webmail Espionage appeared first on Unit 42.

The second quarter of 2026 (April–June) was largely defined by the continuing downstream effects following Microsoft’s Digital Crimes Unit-led disruption efforts against the Tycoon2FA phishing-as-a-service (PhaaS) platform in March. Phishing volume linked to the platform fell 92% from pre-disruption averages, including QR code phishing and CAPTCHA-gated phishing both declining from their March highs. Despite ongoing efforts to rebuild operations, Tycoon2FA did not recover its previous scale or influence during Q2, and no single service emerged to replace the platform at comparable scale.

These trends reflect both the measurable impact that disruption operations can have on phishing ecosystems and the adaptability of threat actors as they diversify delivery channels. At the same time, Microsoft Threat Intelligence observed continued growth in Teams-based social engineering, particularly voice phishing (vishing), with weekly malicious call attempts reaching nearly ten times the mid-2025 baseline by the end of the quarter. This activity illustrates how threat actors continue to expand beyond email into trusted workplace communication platforms where communications may appear more trustworthy to users.

Microsoft detected approximately 7.6 billion email-based phishing threats throughout the quarter, with monthly volumes declining modestly from 2.7 billion in April to 2.4 billion in June. Credential phishing remained the dominant objective behind malicious payloads, while business email compromise (BEC) activity largely returned to historical norms after a brief, anomalous surge in April. Notable campaigns observed during the quarter also demonstrated how threat actors combine automation, trusted services, and multi-stage delivery chains to scale operations. These campaigns ranged from an automated BEC campaign that reached more than 67,000 users across 42,000 organizations in under three hours, to a multi-stage phishing campaign that used nested EML files, calendar invitations, and a Microsoft authentication redirect to deliver malware.

This blog provides a view of email threat activity across the second quarter of 2026, highlighting key trends in phishing techniques, payload delivery, and threat actor behavior observed by Microsoft Threat Intelligence. We examine shifts in QR code and CAPTCHA-gated phishing activity, malicious payload trends, BEC activity, the growth of Teams-based threats, and notable campaigns observed during the quarter. We also provide recommendations and Microsoft Defender detections to help organizations identify and mitigate evolving threats while prioritizing defensive measures.

Tycoon2FA Q2 disruption impact

The disruption operation that Microsoft’s Digital Crimes Unit launched against Tycoon2FA infrastructure in early March continued to produce measurable results throughout Q2 2026. After falling 15% in March and another 22% in April, Tycoon2FA-linked phishing volume dropped 74% in May to just 1.5 million messages, then fell another 20% in June to 1.2 million, by far the lowest monthly volumes observed in at least a year. For reference, the average monthly volume of phishing messages linked to Tycoon2FA during the second half of 2025 was 15.1 million. By the end of Q2, volumes were running at roughly 8% of that baseline, representing a 92% total decline since the disruption operation began.

Tycoon2FA’s influence across two primary phishing tactics, QR code lures and CAPTCHA-gated landing pages, also continued to decline throughout the quarter:

• CAPTCHA-gated phishing: Tycoon2FA’s share of CAPTCHA-gated phishing sites fell from 41% in March to 16% in April and 12% by June, down from a peak of 76% in December 2025.
• QR code phishing: The share of QR code campaigns redirecting to Tycoon2FA domains decreased from 20% in March to 17% in April and 14% by June, down from a peak of 33% in November 2025.

These declines indicate that the platform’s customer base has not migrated to replacement infrastructure at anything close to the scale they previously operated.

After being forced off Cloudflare, which had provided anti-analysis protection that made Tycoon2FA pages harder to scan and take down, the service continued to rely on infrastructure hosted on the .RU top-level domain (TLD), a shift that began in late March. More than 40% of newly observed Tycoon2FA domains used .RU registrations throughout Q2. While this reflects an ongoing effort to find replacement hosting, Tycoon2FA’s role in the phishing ecosystem has nonetheless been significantly diminished and the pace of recovery has been slow.

QR code phishing attacks

After peaking at 18.7 million attacks in March, the highest monthly volume in at least a year, QR code phishing declined for three consecutive months in Q2. Volume fell 7% in April to 17.4 million, then dropped more sharply in May (-38%) and June (-22%), closing the quarter at 8.3 million attacks. By June, QR code phishing had returned to levels last seen in mid-2025.

The delivery methods used in QR code attacks shifted notably during Q2. PDF attachments remained the dominant vehicle throughout, but their dominance weakened after April:

• PDF attachments peaked at 79% of QR code attacks in April before falling to 59% in May and 58% in June. By raw volume, malicious PDFs containing QR codes dropped more than 60% between April and June.
• DOC/DOCX attachments moved in the opposite direction, increasing 30% in May to account for 38% of QR code payloads, the highest share since December 2025. By June, DOC/DOCX payloads reached 40% of QR code attacks. This swap between PDF and DOC/DOCX dominance is a pattern that has recurred throughout the past year, as operators appear to rotate between delivery formats.
• Email-embedded QR codes, which had surged 336% in March and accounted for 5% of QR code attacks, effectively disappeared in Q2. This delivery method dropped to near-zero across all three months, leaving QR code phishing almost entirely an attachment-based tactic.

CAPTCHA-gated phishing tactics

After accumulating to nearly 12 million attacks in March, the highest monthly volume observed over the past year, CAPTCHA-gated phishing declined sharply throughout Q2. Volume fell 32% in April to 8.2 million, then dropped another 65% in May and 24% in June, closing the quarter at just 2.2 million attacks. Since the March peak, CAPTCHA-gated phishing has fallen more than 81%, reaching its lowest monthly volume in more than a year.

The rapid rotation of delivery methods that characterized Q1 continued into Q2, with no single payload type maintaining the top position for more than one or two months:

• PDF attachments surged to 63% of CAPTCHA-gated attacks in April, the highest single-payload share observed in the past year, after more than quadrupling in March. This dominance was short-lived, however. PDF volumes dropped 69% in May and another 70% in June, falling to just 22% of attacks by the end of the quarter.
• HTML attachments, which had been a major delivery vector through January (37% of attacks), declined sharply during Q2. After declining to 8% in April, HTML payloads fell to just 3% in May before recovering slightly to 5% in June, their lowest sustained share in at least a year.
• SVG files reached their lowest observed volume in April (5% of attacks) before rebounding to 12% in May and 26% in June. While still well below the levels seen when Tycoon2FA actively used SVG files, this gradual recovery bears monitoring.
• Email-embedded URLs reclaimed the top position in June for the first time since December 2025, accounting for 30% of CAPTCHA-gated attacks. This was more a function of every other delivery method declining in raw volume than a resurgence in URL-based delivery. The actual volume of URL-delivered CAPTCHA-gated phish in June was still far lower than most months over the past year.
• DOC/DOCX files declined from their March spike, falling steadily from 15% to 10% of attacks over the quarter.

Tycoon2FA’s continued decline was a significant factor in the overall volume reduction. The platform’s share of CAPTCHA-gated phishing fell from 41% in March to 16% in April, 18% in May, and 12% by June, down from a peak of 76% in December 2025. No single service has emerged to fill the gap at comparable scale, contributing to the sustained decline in CAPTCHA-gated phishing activity overall.

Malicious payloads

Credential phishing continued to dominate the malicious payload landscape throughout Q2, accounting for 94–96% of all payload-based attacks each month. These credential phishing payloads either linked users to phishing pages or locally loaded spoofed sign-in screens on a user’s device. Traditional malware delivery represented just 4–6% of payloads, consistent with its long-term decline.

HTML and PDF attachments remained the two most common malicious payload types across the quarter, together accounting for roughly 60–70% of all payload-based attacks each month:

• HTML attachments held the top position across all three months at 35–41% of attacks. After peaking in April, HTML payload volume declined 33% in May and another 17% in June.
• PDF attachments consistently ranked second at 24–31% of attacks. PDF volume was relatively stable in April before declining 41% in May and 4% in June.
• SVG files continued the decline that has tracked closely with Tycoon2FA’s diminishing activity. After peaking at 23% of malicious payloads in July 2025, SVG’s share fell to around 7% by Q2, consistent with SVG’s historical role as a preferred Tycoon2FA payload format.
• DOC/DOCX and ZIP/GZIP files oscillated without a clear directional trend. DOC/DOCX increased 26% in May before falling 17% in June, while ZIP/GZIP attachments declined 48% in April, rebounded 27% in May, then dropped 40% in June.
• ICS files (calendar invitations), while still a small share of overall payload volume (roughly 4%), nearly quadrupled in June (+277%). These attacks take advantage of the fact that calendar invitations are processed differently than standard email attachments and can inject malicious links into a user’s calendar without requiring an explicit open-and-click interaction.
• EXE files continued to decline, falling to their lowest monthly volume in June, reflecting the broader shift away from traditional malware delivery via email attachments.

Business email compromise

April 2026 produced the most anomalous BEC data point in more than a year: nearly 9 million attacks, a 121% increase from March and more than double any previous month. The spike was short-lived as volume fell 62% in May to 3.4 million and settled at 3.9 million in June, both figures consistent with the monthly baseline that had held throughout the prior year. The April surge appeared to be driven by a small number of high-volume campaigns rather than a fundamental escalation in BEC activity.

The composition of BEC attacks remained consistent throughout Q2. Generic outreach messages (like “Are you at your desk?”) accounted for 87–92% of initial contact emails each month, while explicit requests for specific financial transactions or documents represented just 3–8%. This pattern underscores that BEC operators overwhelmingly favor establishing conversational rapport with targets before making fraudulent requests, rather than leading with direct financial asks.

Within the smaller subset of explicit financial requests, the most notable trend was the near-disappearance of fake invoice payment requests:

• Invoice payment requests fell 67% in May and another 77% in June, reaching their lowest volume in more than a year. By June, invoice-themed BEC accounted for less than 0.4% of all attacks, down from around 3.6% in March.
• Payroll update requests declined moderately across the quarter, from roughly 4% of attacks in March to 2.3% by June.
• Gift card requests remained at roughly 1–4% of attacks, with no clear directional trend.

Microsoft Teams threats

While email remains the dominant initial access vector, threat actors increasingly abused Microsoft Teams during Q2 to deliver social engineering, phishing, and malware payloads. Unlike email, Teams traffic typically bypasses secure email gateways and benefits from the perceived legitimacy of a colleague-initiated chat, which can make lures particularly effective in this environment.

Teams-based phishing volume climbed steadily throughout Q2, with the average number of detected attacks rising 19% from March to April, holding roughly flat into May (+1%), then increasing another 10% into June. Financial and executive impersonation has remained largely absent from Teams-based attacks over the past several months.

The dominant lure theme remained technical support impersonation, with attackers posing as an employee’s information technology (IT) help desk, typically warning of an impending account lockout. However, the way attackers presented themselves continued to evolve:

• Display names shifted away from IT- or help desk-branded identities. For the second consecutive month, more than half (52%) of Teams-based phishing attacks in June used generic display names rather than obvious IT support impersonation.
• Attacker email addresses associated with these chats moved away from support-themed domains toward software-as-a-service (SaaS) terminology, scan/update language, and infrastructure keywords. This shift may align with the broader rise of ClickFix-style attacks adopting update-fix and similar themes.

Vishing through Teams showed the steepest growth of any threat category tracked in this report during Q2. Average weekly malicious call attempts rose 31% from April to May and another 27% into June, with the final two weeks of June recording the two highest weekly volumes on record. Since the beginning of 2026, weekly vishing attempts have increased roughly 80% and now run at nearly ten times the mid-2025 baseline. Attackers time these calls deliberately when targets are most likely to be online and active, with the heaviest activity falling between 14:00 and 20:00 UTC, Monday through Friday, with near-zero weekend activity. Notably, a growing share of these calls go unanswered, end quickly, or are rejected outright, partly reflecting Microsoft’s ongoing efforts to harden the Teams attack surface and improve protections against social engineering abuse.

Notable phishing campaigns

The following campaigns were observed during the quarter and highlight notable credential phishing, BEC, and malware delivery activity. For analysis of a separate code of conduct-themed credential phishing campaign observed in April of Q2, see Breaking the code: Multi-stage ‘code of conduct’ phishing campaign leads to AiTM token compromise.

Automated BEC campaign scales aging report and payroll diversion lures

On June 1, 2026, Microsoft Defender Research observed a high-volume BEC campaign that used automation to operate at scale. Over a send window of under three hours (14:08–16:52 UTC), the actor reached more than 67,000 users across more than 42,000 organizations, almost exclusively in the United States. Targeting spanned a broad range of industries rather than a single vertical, most notably retail and consumer goods (17%), technology and software (15%), and financial services (14%). The campaign ran two lures in succession from shared infrastructure: arequest impersonating sales executives to obtain aging report data and customer contact details, and a payroll diversion pretext impersonating the CEO or President to redirect salary payments to attacker-controlled bank accounts.

Delivery was fully scripted. The messages were generated programmatically using Python’s email.mime library, identifiable from its default MIME boundary format (===============[integer]==), and dispatched through the Amazon Simple Email Service (SES) API rather than a manual webmail interface, as indicated by the SES Feedback-ID and Message-ID formats. This allowed the actor to iterate through a recipient list and inject per-message variables (like spoofed executive display names, recipient addresses, and unique tracking identifiers) at volume. Messages were sent from a DomainKeys Identified Mail (DKIM)-configured Slovak domain (ecajovna[.]sk) through SES, so they passed Sender Policy Framework (SPF) and achieved DKIM alignment. Neither lure contained a malicious link or attachment; both relied on eliciting a reply to attacker-controlled mailboxes that mimicked legitimate providers (ilyff[.]com, j-gmails[.]com, x2mails[.]com).

Automation also extended to targeting and follow-up. The actor addressed generic role-based mailboxes (like “ar”, “accountsreceivable”, “hr”, “payroll”) rather than named individuals, reducing per-target effort. Each message embedded a 1×1 open-tracking pixel served from an Amazon SES engagement subdomain, with per-message identifiers that let the actor confirm which recipients opened the email and prioritize follow-up against those targets. The combination of scripted message generation, API-based bulk delivery, role-based targeting, and automated engagement tracking allowed a single actor to run a personalized, financially motivated BEC operation at a scale not practical to execute manually.

Staff update campaign with nested EML file and calendar invitation leads to BAT file dropper

Between June 14–15, 2026, Microsoft Defender Research observed a phishing campaign targeting more than 107,000 users across nearly 19,000 organizations, almost exclusively in the United States. The campaign targeted a broad range of industries rather than a single vertical, most notably financial services (17%), technology and software (14%), and retail and consumer goods (14%). Emails impersonated an internal “Internal Affairs – Financials & Staff Updates” function at the recipient’s own organization, with the display name and subject line both opening with the recipient’s organization name and closing with constant trailing text. The messages were sent from a Postfix host on 9i6pokerdepot[.]com routed through Barracuda’s outbound mail service, and DKIM passed cleanly for the sending domain.

The visible email body contained minimal content. One line told the reader to download the attached file for the meeting summary, followed by a confidentiality notice. Each message carried two attachments: a nested EML posing as a Teams archive recording, and an ICS calendar invite addressed to placeholder administrative accounts at the recipient’s domain. The nested EML’s file name retained an unfilled template token ( {{DATE2}} ), indicating a per-recipient templating tool.

When opened, the EML displayed a voicemail notification with a single action button. That button pointed to Microsoft’s OAuth sign-in endpoint at login.microsoftonline[.]com, with parameters that asked for a silent sign-in attempt against an Entra application that the attacker had registered as multi-tenant.

Because no active sign-in session could satisfy the silent request, Microsoft’s authentication service redirected the recipient to the destination the attacker had pre-registered on the application. That destination was a path on clickup-attachments[.]com, ClickUp’s public attachment host, and served a Windows batch file named Financial_report.bat. Because the link routed through Microsoft authentication infrastructure, both recipients and URL scanners saw a login.microsoftonline[.]com link.

The batch file ran a hidden PowerShell command that pulled installer.exe from pixeldrain[.]com, saved it under the user’s Temp directory, ran it with a silent flag, and deleted the dropper on exit. Rather than stealing credentials, the campaign ultimately resulted in silent malware execution on the user’s Windows device.

Mitigation and protection guidance

Microsoft recommends the following mitigations to reduce the impact of this threat. Check the recommendations card for the deployment status of monitored mitigations.

• Review the recommended settings for Exchange Online Protection and Microsoft Defender for Office 365 to ensure your organization has established essential defenses and knows how to monitor and respond to threat activity.
• Invest in user awareness training and phishing simulations. Attack simulation training in Microsoft Defender for Office 365, which also includes simulating phishing messages in Microsoft Teams, is one approach to running realistic attack scenarios in your organization.
• Enable Zero-hour auto purge (ZAP) in Defender for Office 365 to quarantine sent mail in response to newly acquired threat intelligence and retroactively neutralize malicious phishing, spam, or malware messages that have already been delivered to mailboxes.
• Responders could also manually check for and purge unwanted emails containing URLs and/or Subject fields that are similar, but not identical, to those of known bad messages. Investigate malicious email that was delivered in Microsoft 365 and use Threat Explorer to find and delete phishing emails.
• Turn on Safe Links and Safe Attachments in Microsoft Defender for Office 365.
• Enable network protection in Microsoft Defender for Endpoint.
• Encourage users to use Microsoft Edge and other web browsers that support Microsoft Defender SmartScreen, which identifies and blocks malicious websites, including phishing sites, scam sites, and sites that host malware.
• Enable password-less authentication methods (for example, Windows Hello, FIDO keys, or Microsoft Authenticator) for accounts that support password-less. For accounts that still require passwords, use authenticator apps like Microsoft Authenticator for MFA. Refer to this article for the different authentication methods and features.
  • Conditional access policies can also be scoped to strengthen privileged accounts with phishing resistant MFA.
• Configure automatic attack disruption in Microsoft Defender XDR. Automatic attack disruption is designed to contain attacks in progress, limit the impact on an organization’s assets, and provide more time for security teams to remediate the attack fully.

Microsoft Defender detections

Microsoft Defender customers can refer to the list of applicable detections below. Microsoft Defender coordinates detection, prevention, investigation, and response across endpoints, identities, email, apps to provide integrated protection against attacks like the threat discussed in this blog.

Microsoft Defender for Endpoint

The following alert might indicate threat activity associated with this threat. The alert, however, can be triggered by unrelated threat activity.

• Suspicious activity likely indicative of a connection to an adversary-in-the-middle (AiTM) phishing site

Microsoft Defender for Office 365

The following alerts might indicate threat activity associated with this threat. These alerts, however, can be triggered by unrelated threat activity.

• A potentially malicious URL click was detected
• A user clicked through to a potentially malicious URL
• Suspicious email sending patterns detected
• Email messages containing malicious URL removed after delivery
• Email messages removed after delivery
• Email reported by user as malware or phish

Microsoft Security Copilot

Microsoft Security Copilot is embedded in Microsoft Defender and provides security teams with AI-powered capabilities to summarize incidents, analyze files and scripts, summarize identities, use guided responses, and generate device summaries, hunting queries, and incident reports.

Customers can also deploy AI agents, including the following Microsoft Security Copilot agents, to perform security tasks efficiently:

• Threat Intelligence Briefing agent
• Phishing Triage agent
• Threat Hunting agent
• Dynamic Threat Detection agent

Security Copilot is also available as a standalone experience where customers can perform specific security-related tasks, such as incident investigation, user analysis, and vulnerability impact assessment. In addition, Security Copilot offers developer scenarios that allow customers to build, test, publish, and integrate AI agents and plugins to meet unique security needs.

Threat intelligence reports

Microsoft Defender XDR customers can use the following Threat Analytics reports in the Defender portal (requires license for at least one Defender XDR product) to get the most up-to-date information about the threat actor, malicious activity, and techniques discussed in this blog. These reports provide intelligence, protection information, and recommended actions to prevent, mitigate, or respond to associated threats found in customer environments.

Microsoft Defender XDR threat analytics

• Activity Profile: Email threat landscape, June 2026
• Activity Profile: Email threat landscape, May 2026
• Activity Profile: Email threat landscape, April 2026
• Tool Profile: Tycoon2FA
• Technique Profile: QR code phishing
• Technique Profile: ClickFix technique leverages clipboard to run malicious commands
• Threat Overview Profile: Business Email Compromise
• Threat Overview Profile: Adversary-in-the-middle credential phishing

Microsoft Security Copilot customers can also use the Microsoft Security Copilot integration in Microsoft Defender Threat Intelligence, either in the Security Copilot standalone portal or in the embedded experience in the Microsoft Defender portal to get more information about this threat actor.

Indicators of compromise (IOCs)

Learn more

For the latest security research from the Microsoft Threat Intelligence community, check out the Microsoft Threat Intelligence Blog.

To get notified about new publications and to join discussions on social media, follow us on LinkedIn, X (formerly Twitter), and Bluesky.

To hear stories and insights from the Microsoft Threat Intelligence community about the ever-evolving threat landscape, listen to the Microsoft Threat Intelligence podcast.

The post Email threat landscape: Q2 2026 trends and insights appeared first on Microsoft Security Blog.