DuckDuckGo’s web browser, often referred to as the DuckDuckGo Privacy Browser, can now block video ads, including in-video ads on YouTube.

The post DuckDuckGo Now Blocks Most Video Ads on Windows, Mac, iPhone appeared first on TechRepublic.

Introduction

We continue to share details on the malicious techniques and toolsets used by the ToddyCat APT group. In the first part of this report, we examined the group’s attacks aimed at stealing data from browsers, as well as from local and cloud email services. The methods used in that campaign indicated that ToddyCat was attempting to access corporate correspondence while evading monitoring tools. However, all of the group’s methods we described previously are effectively detected by EPP and EDR solutions.

The attackers continued their search for ways to bypass security solutions and developed a new tool to gain access to a victim’s cloud account via the Google API. Armed with this tool, the group automated all stages of the attack and managed to remain undetected by monitoring systems.

In this part of the report, we break down the mechanics of this new attack and analyze the tool that was used to automate it. We’ll also discuss how to detect and defend against this threat.

Umbrij

In this campaign, the attackers focused their attention on corporate email communications hosted on Gmail, targeting access compromise via APIs. Because the Google API relies on the OAuth 2.0 protocol for authorization, applications can use an OAuth token to access requested email resources. To acquire this token, the threat actors developed a tool called Umbrij and used it to connect to the browser’s management console in headless mode via a remote debugging port. Through a series of requests, they obtained an OAuth authorization code, which they subsequently exchanged for an access token to reach the target resources via the API. We have dubbed this technique Shadow Token via Remote Debug (STRD).

This attack is viable on Chromium-based browsers. If the user has not logged out of their Gmail account, the browser maintains an active session. The attackers exploit this: they launch the browser, connect via the remote debugging port to take control, and send a request to the Gmail service to grant access to the Google account resources within the context of the user’s saved session.

During our investigation of this attack, we discovered several versions of the Umbrij tool. These versions included a variety of helper functions designed for debugging, as well as for searching and selecting user accounts within the browser, among other tasks.

Kaspersky solutions detect this tool with the following verdicts: HEUR:Trojan-PSW.MSIL.Umbrij.gen, HEUR:Trojan.MSIL.Agent.gen, HEUR:Trojan-PSW.MSIL.Agent.gen.

Execution

The Umbrij tool was discovered during a proactive threat hunting operation: a scheduled task, KasperskyEndpointSecurityEDRAvp, was running on a user host, launching a digitally signed file. Kaspersky solutions do not create scheduled tasks with that name; the attackers were attempting to masquerade their malicious activity as a legitimate process.

The signed file then used the DLL sideloading technique to load the malicious tool.

Umbrij execution events within Kaspersky Managed Detection and Response

Throughout our observation period, we identified the following legitimate files vulnerable to the DLL sideloading technique that were used to launch Umbrij:

1. BDSubWiz.exe: a component of the Submission Wizard in Bitdefender ConnectAgent, which is used to support connection features and interaction with other Bitdefender services or agents. This file insecurely loads a file named log.dll.
2. VSTestVideoRecorder.exe: a component of the video-recording tool used for testing with Visual Studio (VS Test). This executable insecurely loads a file named Microsoft.VisualStudio.QualityTools.VideoRecorderEngine.dll.
3. GoogleDesktop.exe: the discontinued Google Desktop Search application for indexing files and performing quick searches on a local Windows computer. This executable insecurely loads a file named GoogleServices.dll.

These files were used to load different versions of Umbrij; the same legitimate file could be leveraged to launch more than one variant. In total, we discovered three versions of Umbrij, which we refer to as a, b, and c for convenience.

The tool itself is a DLL written in .NET and obfuscated with ConfuserEx, an open-source obfuscator for .NET applications.

Example of an obfuscated code snippet

Umbrij is managed with the help of parameters passed through a command line at startup, although it is occasionally executed without any parameters. Below are examples of the command lines observed in attacks against users:

"c:\Users\Public\BDSubWiz.exe" -regex <name> -deepsearch
c:\windows\vss\bds.exe

However, these are not the only parameters the tool can accept and process. During the analysis of its executable code, we discovered additional parameters that vary depending on the version of Umbrij. See the table below for the parameters and their descriptions.

Environment preparation

At startup, the tool evaluates several prerequisites required to carry out the attack and performs preparatory actions to subsequently compromise the Gmail account.

First, Umbrij verifies the availability of the port that will be designated for browser debugging. To accomplish this, the tool utilizes a function named ChekPortAvailable() (original spelling retained), which accepts the target port number as a parameter. It then retrieves information about active connections on the host using the .NET GetActiveTcpConnections() function from the System.Net.NetworkInformation namespace. The tool iterates through each connection in a loop, comparing the port number to the one it is checking.

The ChekPortAvailable function used to verify open ports

After this, the tool retrieves the user context. It searches the system for the explorer.exe process and duplicates its token, retaining all of its privileges (T1134.003 Access Token Manipulation: Make and Impersonate Token). This is the exact same mechanism used by another tool in the group’s arsenal, TomBerBil, which we covered previously.

The ImpersonateWithProcess function used to retrieve user context

By default, Umbrij duplicates the token of the first explorer.exe process it encounters. If multiple users are logged in to the system, the -user <username> switch can be used to specify the name of the target user whose token to duplicate. If the -runas-currentuser switch is specified, the tool will execute within the context of the current user without duplicating any tokens.

Next, Umbrij constructs the path to the browser application folder within the user’s local application data repository. To do this, it uses the Environment.SpecialFolder.LocalApplicationData command to retrieve the repository directory from the environment variable and appends the directory of the target browser. The tool then searches for the Local State file in the following folders:

• %LOCALAPPDATA%\Google\Chrome\User Data\Local State
• %LOCALAPPDATA%\Microsoft\Edge\User Data\Local State

See below for an example of the Local State file structure.

Structure of the Local State JSON file

Within this file, the tool searches for the info_cache array, which stores information about browser user profiles. Umbrij enumerates all user profiles and looks for those containing a user_name field that includes an email address. The presence of an email address indicates that the user is authenticated to a Google service. While the tool can interact with every profile it finds, if the -regex <string> parameter is passed through a command line, it searches for the specified substring within the email addresses being enumerated and proceeds exclusively with those matches.

Next, Umbrij creates the following directories for Google Chrome and Microsoft Edge, respectively:

• %LOCALAPPDATA%\Google\Chrome\BackupFiles\
• %LOCALAPPDATA%\Microsoft\Edge\BackupFiles\

The tool copies the following user files and folders of each target user profile into these directories:

• IndexedDB: a folder containing a relational database used for client-side storage of structured data
• Local Storage: a component of the browser’s web storage that provides a key-value mechanism for storing data on the client side
• Network: a folder where the browser stores files related to network requests and caching, such as the network cache and session files
• Login Data: a file that stores saved passwords for various websites and applications
• Login Data For Account: a file that stores credentials associated with a Google account or other synchronized accounts within the browser
• Preferences: a file containing profile-level browser settings
• Secure Preferences: a file that stores protected configurations, such as security and synchronization data
• Web Data: a file that stores auto-fill data

If these files are locked by other processes, the tool includes a dedicated function to force-copy them.

The ForceCopyFolder function used to copy files locked by other processes

As the next step, the tool searches the “Program Files” and “Program Files (x86)” directories for the browser installation folder. Once it locates the executable file and successfully copies all required files, it is ready to proceed with acquiring the authorization code.

Acquiring the authorization code

In the next phase of execution, Umbrij launches Google Chrome, Microsoft Edge, or both browsers sequentially, depending on the parameters passed in the command line. It then passes arguments to the browser based on the following template:

"\"{1}\" --user-data-dir=\"{0}\" --remote-debugging-port={2}  --profile-directory=\"Default\" --headless https://www.google.com/"

It populates the template with the following values:

• {0}: the path to \BackupFiles\, where the user profile files were copied
• {1}: the path to the browser executable file
• {2}: the remote debugging port number

The table below describes the parameters used in this browser launch template:

The browser process runs in headless mode while utilizing the copied user profile. Consequently, all active user cookies are applied, which means sites with saved credentials will skip authentication prompts. Furthermore, the browser will log history to a new folder, keeping it completely hidden from the user’s primary account view.

Through this method, the threat actors gain access to the user’s authenticated sessions — specifically their Google account — along with the ability to erase any trace of their activity within the browser.

Code snippet showing Umbrij connecting to the browser via the debugging port

Next, the tool uses the Puppeteer Sharp library, a .NET version of Puppeteer, to connect to the remote debugging port. Puppeteer provides a high-level API to control Chrome or Chromium browsers over the DevTools protocol. Its primary use is for automated testing.

The Puppeteer module GitHub page

If the connection to the remote debugging port is successful, Umbrij sends a GET request to direct the browser to the following URL:

https[:]//accounts[.]google[.]com/o/oauth2/v2/auth/identifier?response_type=code&client_id=279448736670.apps.googleusercontent.com&redirect_uri=http%3A%2F%2Flocalhost&scope=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.googleapis.com%2Fauth%2Fcalendar%20https%3A%2F%2Fwww.googleapis.com%2Fauth%2Fcalendar.readonly%20https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Fm8%2Ffeeds%2F%20https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Fm8%2Ffeeds%2F%20https%3A%2F%2Fmail.google.com%2F%20https%3A%2F%2Fwww.googleapis.com%2Fauth%2Fgmail.insert%20https%3A%2F%2Fwww.googleapis.com%2Fauth%2Fgmail.labels%20https%3A%2F%2Fwww.googleapis.com%2Fauth%2Fdrive%20https%3A%2F%2Fwww.googleapis.com%2Fauth%2Fadmin.directory.user%20https%3A%2F%2Fwww.googleapis.com%2Fauth%2Ftasks%20https%3A%2F%2Fwww.googleapis.com%2Fauth%2Fadmin.directory.group.readonly%20https%3A%2F%2Fwww.googleapis.com%2Fauth%2Fapps.groups.migration%20https%3A%2F%2Fwww.googleapis.com%2Fauth%2Fuserinfo.email%20https%3A%2F%2Fwww.googleapis.com%2Fauth%2Fuserinfo.profile&flowName=GeneralOAuthFlow

The value specified in the client_id field belongs to Google Workspace Migration for Microsoft Outlook (GWMMO). This is Google’s official tool for importing email, calendar events, and contacts from Microsoft Exchange accounts or local PST files into a Google Workspace account.

Umbrij also includes the ability to switch the client_id value from 279448736670 to 1095133494869 by using the -sync parameter. This second identifier belongs to another application: Google Workspace Sync for Microsoft Outlook (GWSMO), which allows users to sync email, calendars, and other data from the cloud account directly into Microsoft Outlook.

Code snippet where the client_id replacement occurs

The remaining parameters used in the request differ from those typically utilized by the legitimate applications. See the table below for a comparison of these parameters:

As seen from the list above, Umbrij omits several parameters characteristic of the legitimate applications. For instance, Umbrij drops the code_challenge parameter, normally used for data protection when retrieving an authorization code. Additionally, the tool modifies the redirection address: while the legitimate application specifies a dedicated port and a callback path, the tool simply points to localhost.

The authorization code request specifies the set of permissions for Google services required by the application. This list also differs significantly between requests issued by the legitimate application and those generated by Umbrij. The table below details the variations in the requested scopes:

After the browser navigates to the URL provided by Umbrij, the Google account selection page opens.

Account selection

Because the attackers copied the victim’s profile folder and are operating within their specific environment, the account selection options will include the currently signed-in user’s authenticated session. Umbrij identifies the corresponding element within the page’s HTML source code.

Searching for HTML code elements on the page

The tool uses JavaScript to emulate a mouse click on the elements, allowing it to proceed to the next step.

Simulating a mouse click on a page element

The subsequent step opens a page displaying the list of requested permissions.

Confirming the list of requested access permissions

As shown in the screenshot, Umbrij requests full access to email, cloud storage, and contacts. Just like in the previous step, it uses JavaScript to click the “Allow” button, which completes the authentication process.

The browser is then redirected to the local address that was specified in the redirect_uri parameter of the initial request. The tool intentionally omits a port and a path to a specific page in the redirect_uri because the true objective of this action is simply to capture the code parameter from the context of the GET request. This parameter contains the OAuth authorization code. To retrieve it, Umbrij extracts the substring located between the code= and &scope parameters.

Extracting the authorization code from the GET request

Results

Umbrij, like most other tools in ToddyCat’s arsenal, logs its actions in detail and saves them to a file. It also saves the retrieved authorization code to this log file, which the operator subsequently exfiltrates from the compromised host.

Below is an example of a log file generated by version a of the tool.

------------------------------
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
[*] switch to sync mode.
[!] port 11111 is available!
[*] Impersonate <username> success!
[*] browser switch to chrome .
Parsing C:\Users\<username>\AppData\Local\Google\Chrome\User Data\Local State ...
[*] detected profile: Profile 4 ==> <email>@gmail.com
[*] ready auth for <email>@gmail.com.
[*] Browser Exe path C:\Program Files\Google\Chrome\Application\chrome.exe.
[!] CreateProcessAsUserW...
[*] Browser created with pid 3108
[???] <email>@gmail.com
[pup] mail : <email>@gmail.com
[pup] account choice click !
[pup] Allow click !
[<email>@gmail.com] 4%2F0AcvDMrDtzQaC-TT8<hash>uMhg 
[*] RevertToSelf succeed!
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

The log indicates that the sync mode is selected (meaning the Google Workspace Sync for Microsoft Outlook application is used) and the debugging port is set to 11111. After locating the user profile and copying its folder, Umbrij launches Google Chrome. After this, the tool emulates clicks on the appropriate buttons to confirm permissions, ultimately outputting the final result of the operation: the stolen OAuth authorization code.

Since all requests occur within a background browser instance, the tool includes a feature to generate a PDF snapshot of the web page where the permission confirmation process halted in the event of an error.

Saving a web page as a PDF file in the case of an error

Additionally, the tool can create a PDF file for the user profile in Google Chrome and Microsoft Edge by navigating to the following internal addresses:

• edge://profile-internals
• chrome://profile-internals

Example contents of a generated PDF file

The acquired authorization code is then exchanged for an OAuth access token. The threat actors use that token to connect to the Gmail account through the API, thus compromising corporate email communications. The diagram below illustrates the complete attack workflow.

Umbrij workflow diagram

Detection

DLL sideloading

First and foremost, defenders should monitor library loading events (DLL loads) associated with the known applications vulnerable to DLL sideloading that are exploited by this tool: Bitdefender ConnectAgent, Visual Studio, and Google Desktop Search.

title: Possible Dll Hijacking Of Microsoft VisualStudio QualityTools dll
id: 246f1409-2993-46f6-9b77-e447a327df5d
status: experimental
description: Detects possible DLL hijacking of Microsoft.VisualStudio.QualityTools.VideoRecorderEngine.dll by looking for suspicious image loads, loading this DLL from unexpected locations
author: kaspersky
date: 2025-08-11
tags:
    - attack.defense-evasion
    - attack.t1574.001
logsource:
    product: windows
    category: image_load
detection:
    selection:
        ImageLoaded|endswith: 'Microsoft.VisualStudio.QualityTools.VideoRecorderEngine.dll'
    filter:
        ImageLoaded|contains: '\IDE\Extensions\TestPlatform\Extensions\'
    condition: selection
falsepositives:  Legitimate activity
level: high

Browser launch

Launching a browser with a remote debugging port specified is a highly unusual event on standard user hosts that are not running web application development or automated testing workflows. Consequently, monitoring for these specific command-line arguments can serve as a reliable indicator of this attack.

title: Launching Chrome With Debug Parameters
id: f072803f-3cf4-4537-82e6-e8b3a201d99f
status: stable
description: Detects the execution of Chromium based browsers launched with incognito mode and remote debugging enabled
author: kaspersky
date: 2025-12-11
tags:
    - attack.lateral_movement
    - attack.defense_evasion
    - attack.t1550.001
logsource:
    category: process_creation
    product: windows

detection:
    selection:
        CommandLine|contains|all:
            - '--remote-debugging-port'
            - '--headless'
    condition: selection
falsepositives: Opening a browser as part of web application testing. Legitimate activity
level: high

Revoking third-party access

To review the authorization codes granted to applications, navigate to the Google Account settings under the Third-party apps & services section, or access the following URL directly:

https://myaccount.google.com/connections

This page displays a comprehensive list of applications and services that currently have permission to access the account.

List of apps connected to the Google account

If the Google Workspace Migration for Microsoft Outlook or Google Workspace Sync for Microsoft Outlook applications appear in this list but are not actually used within your organization, revoke their access immediately. This will invalidate all potentially compromised OAuth tokens associated with them.

Risk mitigation

Launching a browser with a remote debugging port enabled is inherently suspicious for users who do not engage in web development. For these employees, you can completely disable Chromium-based browser developer tools.

This can be achieved by configuring the DeveloperToolsAvailability policy. To enforce this, set the registry value to 0x00000002 for the following Windows Registry key and restart the browser:

HKLM\Software\Policies\Google\Chrome\DeveloperToolsAvailability

To verify that the policy has been successfully applied, navigate to the browser’s internal policies page at chrome://policy:

Note that while disabling developer tools can successfully disrupt the automated retrieval of the OAuth authorization code, it will not help, however, if the adversary decides to leverage the browser’s graphical user interface (GUI) — though this manual approach is significantly less likely due to the friction it introduces for the attackers. Therefore, as a risk mitigation measure, users should be instructed to explicitly log out of their Google accounts as soon as their sessions are complete.

Takeaways

The ToddyCat APT group continues to search for ways of compromising corporate email communications. We have been tracking the group for a long time and we have observed continuous updates to its arsenal in an attempt to bypass security defenses, even as their core techniques remain consistent. For instance, the group has long relied on DLL sideloading to stealthily drop malicious utilities and scheduled tasks. However, their new tool, Umbrij, automates the attackers’ attempts to gain access to organizational email accounts. This automation not only helps increase the scale and frequency of their attacks but also demonstrates ToddyCat’s strong motivation and advanced technical skills.

To defend against these threats, corporate security teams must monitor for suspicious library loading events initiated by legitimate files, watch for instances of browsers launching in developer mode, and conduct regular audits of third-party applications and services with access permissions to Google accounts. Furthermore, deploying a robust, comprehensive security solution — such as Kaspersky Next — is critical to detect this type of malicious host-based activity in a timely manner.

Indicators of compromise

Additional information about this threat is available to customers of the Kaspersky Threat Intelligence Reporting service. Contact: intelreports@kaspersky.com.

Malicious files
1AB58838E5790EFB22F2D35AB98C0B7D              Umbrij ver. a
A7D7D6C4C3F227F7117261C63B9E23A9              Umbrij ver. a
3D3A621F852C42D97FD7260681E42508              Umbrij ver. a
3432DD9AC0DF80EF86EB80BD080F839B             Umbrij ver. a
22AAEB4946BA6D2F2E27FEB7DBB295DE             Umbrij ver. b
F61FBFB7AA1CD5DC8F70B055B51563E2              Umbrij ver. b
F169D6D172DFB775895A5E2B1540C854              Umbrij ver. c

Legitimate files leveraged for DLL sideloading

Paths to DLL sideloading files

Executive summary

• A suspicious website is a web resource that cannot be definitively classified as phishing, but whose activities are unsafe. Such sites manipulate users, tricking them into voluntarily transferring money for non-existent services, signing up for hidden subscriptions, or disclosing personal data through carefully crafted terms of service. These include fake online stores, dubious crypto exchanges, investment platforms, and services with paid subscriptions.
• Kaspersky has introduced a new web filtering category, “Sites with an undefined trust level,” into its security products (Kaspersky Premium, Android and iOS apps, etc.). The system analyzes the domain name and age, IP address reputation, DNS configuration, HTTP security headers, and SSL certificate to automatically detect suspicious resources.
• According to Kaspersky data for January 2026, the most widespread global threat is fake browser extensions that mimic security products — they were detected in 9 out of 10 regions analyzed worldwide. Such extensions intercept browser data, track user activity, hijack search queries, and inject ads.
• Kaspersky’s regional statistics reveal the specific nature of these threats: in Africa, over 90% of the top 10 suspicious websites are online trading scam platforms; in Latin America, fake betting services predominate; in Russia, fake binary options brokers and “educational platforms” with fraudulent subscriptions lead the way; in CIS countries — crypto scams and bots for inflating engagement.
• Key indicators of a suspicious website to check: a strange domain name with numbers or random characters, cheap top-level domains (.xyz, .top, .shop), a recently registered domain (less than 6 months old according to WHOIS data), unrealistic promises (“100% guaranteed income,” “up to 300% profit”), lack of company contact information, and payments only via cryptocurrency or irreversible bank transfers.

Introduction

The online landscape is filled with various traps lying in wait for users. One such threat involves websites that can’t be strictly classified as phishing, yet whose activities are inherently unsafe. These sites often operate on the fringes of the law, even if they aren’t directly violating it. Sometimes they use a cleverly crafted Terms of Service document as a loophole. These agreements might include clauses such as no-refund policies or forced automatic subscription renewals.

Fake online stores, dubious financial platforms, and various online services that mimic legitimate business operations are all categorized as suspicious. Unlike actual phishing sites, which aim to steal sensitive data like banking credentials or passwords, these suspicious sites represent a far more cunning trap. Their goal is manipulation: tricking the victim into willingly paying for non-existent goods and services or signing them up for a subscription that’s nearly impossible to cancel. Beyond financial gain, these sketchy websites may also hunt for personal data to sell later on the dark web.

Our solutions categorize them as having an “undefined trust level”. This article explains what these sites look like, how to identify them, and what you can do to stay safe.

The dangers of shady websites

One of the biggest risks associated with making a purchase from an untrusted website that seems to be an online store is the financial loss and falling victim to fraud. Fake shops will entice you with attractive deals to get you hooked. After you pay, you may never receive what you paid for, or you may receive some cheap piece of unusable junk instead of the item you ordered. Investment or “guaranteed income” programs are another type of classic scam — they promise rapid returns, and once they take your deposits, they disappear without a trace.

Visiting or buying from untrusted suspicious websites can expose you to various risks that go beyond a single bad purchase. Fraudulent websites often collect your personal information even if you do not end up making a purchase. By completing a form or signing up for a “free offer”, you may be providing the scammer with access to your information.

Personal data collection can happen in a fairly straightforward and obvious way — for instance, through a standard order delivery form. In this scenario, attackers end up with sensitive information like the user’s full name, shipping and billing addresses, phone number, email address, and, of course, payment details. As we’ve previously discussed, fraudsters sell this kind of information, and there’re countless ways it can be used down the line. For example, this data might be leveraged for spam campaigns or more serious threats like stalking or targeted attacks.

Common types of suspicious sites

Let’s take a closer look at the different types of shady sites out there and how interacting with them can lead to financial loss, data leaks, the unauthorized use of personal information, and other consequences.

It’s worth noting that rogue websites can masquerade as legitimate ones in almost any industry. The first type of fraudulent site we’ll look at is fake online stores. These can appear as clones of real brand websites or as standalone stores. Usually, the scam follows one of two paths: the buyer either receives a counterfeit or poor-quality product, or they receive nothing at all. These sites lure victims in with suspiciously low prices and “exclusive” deals. Often, users are subjected to psychological pressure: the time to make a purchase decision is purposefully limited, provoking the victim, as with any other scam, into making an impulse purchase.

Another common type of shady site includes online exchanges and trading platforms. These primarily target cryptocurrency, as the lack of legislative regulation for digital currency in certain countries makes them a magnet for fraudsters. These suspicious sites often lure victims with supposedly favorable exchange rates or other enticing gimmicks. If the user attempts to exchange cryptocurrency, their tokens are gone for good. Beyond simple exchanges, rogue sites offer investment services and even display a fake balance growth to appear credible. However, withdrawing funds is impossible; when the victim tries to cash out, they’re prompted to pay some fee or fictional tax.

Subscription traps are also worth noting, offering everything from psychological tests to online video streaming platforms. The hallmark of these sites is that they deliberately withhold critical information, such as recurring charges, or hide the fact it even exists. Typically, the scheme works like this: a user is offered a subscription for a nominal fee, like $1. While that seems attractive, the next charge – perhaps only a week later – might be as much as $50. This information is intentionally obscured, buried in fine print or tucked away in the Terms of Service where it’s harder to find. Legitimate services always clearly disclose subscription terms and provide an easy way to cancel before a trial period ends. Scam services, on the other hand, do everything possible to distract the user from the actual terms of use and subscription.

Shady sites can also masquerade as providers of mediation services, such as legal or real estate assistance. In reality, the service is either never delivered or provided in a stripped-down, incomplete form. For example, a user might be prompted to pay for a service that’s normally provided for free. The danger here lies not only in losing money for non-existent services but also in the significant risk of exposing personal data, such as ID details, taxpayer identification numbers, social security numbers, or driver’s license information. Once in the hands of attackers, this data can become a tool for executing further scams or targeted attacks.

On the whole, suspicious sites are fairly difficult to distinguish from legitimate, trustworthy services. Masquerading as a legitimate business is the primary goal of these sites, and the fraudulent schemes they employ are not always obvious. Nevertheless, there are protective measures as well as certain indicators that can help you suspect a site is unsafe for purchases or financial transactions.

How to identify suspicious or fraudulent websites

Despite the increasingly convincing attempts to create fake shops, the majority of them still lack the quality of real online stores, and there are many signs that may give them away. Some of these signs can be caught by the eye while others require a bit of technical investigation. By combining visual inspection, technical checks, and trusted online tools, you can protect yourself from financial loss or data theft.

Visual and manual clues

You don’t need to be a cybersecurity expert to catch many red flags just by observing the site’s domain, visuals, language and behavior. For instance, scam sites often have strange or randomly generated names, filled with numbers, underscores, hyphens, or meaningless words, like best-shop43.com. In addition, such vague top-level domains as .xyz, .top, or .shop are also frequently used in scams because they’re cheap and easy to register.

Furthermore, most fake stores sites look unprofessional, with poor visuals, pixelated images, mismatched fonts, or copied templates. Many fraudulent websites borrow layouts or logos from other brands or free templates, which makes them appear generic and sketchy.

Another major giveaway lies in the content itself. Be aware of persuasive language, unrealistic promises, or emotional triggers such as No KYC, Risk-free returns, 100% guaranteed income, Up to 300% profit, or Passive income with zero effort. Unrealistic deals are another red flag. If the products are listed at extremely low prices, continuous countdown timers, and “limited time only” messages that are often used to pressure you into making a quick purchase, it’s a clear tell of a fraudulent website.

Legitimate businesses always provide verifiable contact details, such as a physical address, company name, and customer support. On the contrary, scam sites hide this information. You may also notice the non-functioning pages, broken or suspicious links leading to unrelated external sites which indicate poor maintenance or malicious intent.

Another important signal is the website’s social media presence. Legitimate online businesses usually maintain at least one active social media account to promote their products and communicate with customers. In most cases, these businesses have long-established social media accounts with harmonized posting history and engagement from real users, consistency between the brand website and social media profiles (same name, logo, and links). The links to social media profiles from the website are usually direct. In contrast, fraudulent or deceptive websites often lack any meaningful social media presence or display signs of superficial or artificial activity. This may include missing social media accounts altogether, social media icons that lead to non-existent, inactive, or unrelated pages, or recently created profiles with very few posts and minimal user engagement. In some cases, comment sections are disabled or dominated by spam and automated content, suggesting an attempt to avoid public interaction rather than engage with customers.

Lastly, the payment options offered by the site can also tell a lot about its legitimacy. Be extremely cautious if a website only accepts cryptocurrency, wire transfers, or third-party P2P payments. These payment methods are irreversible and are preferred by scammers. Legitimate e-commerce platforms typically offer secure and reversible payment options, such as credit cards or trusted payment gateways that include buyer protection policies.

However, the absence or existence of any of these factors alone does not necessarily indicate malicious intent. It should be evaluated in combination with technical, linguistic, and behavioral indicators, rather than treated as a standalone signal of legitimacy.

Technical indicators to check

Looking into technical signs can reveal whether a website is trustworthy or potentially fraudulent.

One of the first things to check is the domain age. Scam websites are often short-lived, appearing only for a few weeks or months before disappearing once users start reporting them. To check when the domain was created, use a WHOIS lookup. If it’s less than six months old, be cautious — especially for e-commerce or investment sites, where legitimacy and trust take time to build.

Let’s take a look at the registration details for the popular online marketplace Amazon. As we can see from the WHOIS information, it was registered in 1994.

Meanwhile, a reported suspicious online store was created a couple of months ago.

Legitimate websites usually operate on stable hosting platforms and remain on the same IP addresses or networks for long periods. In contrast, fraudulent websites often move between servers (in most cases using a cheap shared hosting service) or reuse infrastructure already associated with abuse. Checking the IP address reputation can reveal if the website or the hosting server has previously been linked to suspicious activities. Even if the website looks legitimate, a poor IP reputation can expose it.

In addition to that, looking at the infrastructure behavior over time can reveal patterns about its legitimacy. Websites associated with fraudulent activity often show short lifespans, sudden spikes in activity, or rapid appearance and disappearance, which indicates a coordinated campaign rather than a legitimate business.

Another important clue is hidden ownership. When the WHOIS details show “Redacted for Privacy” or leaves the organization name blank, it may indicate that the website owner is deliberately hiding their identity.

We should point out that while this can raise suspicion during investigations, hidden WHOIS data is not inherently malicious. Many legitimate businesses use privacy protection services for valid reasons. These may include protection from spam and phishing after public email addresses are taken from WHOIS databases, personal safety for small business owners, and brand protection to prevent competitors or malicious actors from targeting the registrant. This means that some businesses can use services like WHOIS Privacy Protection, Domains By Proxy, or PrivacyGuardian.org to remove the WHOIS data while still operating transparently on their websites through clear contact details, customer support channels, and legal pages (e.g. terms of use).

Therefore, hidden ownership should be treated as a contextual risk indicator, not a standalone proof of fraud. It becomes more suspicious when combined with other signals such as newly registered domains, and lack of legal information.

Next, you can check the security headers of the website. Legitimate websites are usually well maintained and include several key HTTP headers for protection. Some examples include:

• Content-Security-Policy (CSP) provides strong defense against cross-site scripting (XSS) attacks by defining which scripts are allowed to run on the site and blocking any malicious JavaScript that could steal login data or inject fake forms.
• HTTP Strict-Transport-Security (HSTS) forces browsers to connect to the site only over HTTPS. It ensures all communication is encrypted and prevents redirecting users to an insecure (HTTP) version of the site.
• X-Frame-Options prevents clickjacking, which is a type of attack where a legitimate-looking button or link on a malicious page secretly performs another action in the background.
• X-Content-Type-Options blocks MIME-type attacks by preventing browsers from misinterpreting file types.
• Referrer-Policy controls how much information about your previous browsing (referrer URLs) is shared with other sites.

These headers form the “digital hygiene” of a website. Their absence doesn’t always mean a site is malicious, but it does suggest a lack of security awareness or professional maintenance — both strong reasons to be cautious.

You should also check the SSL certificate. Scam sites may use self-signed or short-lived SSL certificates. You can inspect this by clicking the padlock icon in your browser’s address bar — if it says “not secure” or the certificate authority seems unfamiliar, that’s a red flag.

You can check the security headers and the SSL certificate by sending an HTTP request programmatically or by using some online service.

Another indicator that provides insight into how well a website is done and managed is DNS configurations. Legitimate businesses typically use reliable DNS providers and maintain consistent DNS records. Missing the name server NS or mail exchange MX records may indicate poor DNS configuration. In addition to NS and MX, reputable sites also configure SPF and DMARC records to protect their brand from email spoofing and phishing. Something scam website developers won’t bother with because they don’t intend to build a long-standing reputation.

You can check the configurations of DNS records either programmatically or by using an online service.

Another recommendation is to pay attention to website behavior. If there are frequent redirects, pop-up ads, or background requests to unknown domains, this may indicate unsafe scripting or tracking.

How to protect yourself

Tools and databases for detecting suspicious websites

We at Kaspersky have built an intelligent system for detecting suspicious web resources and added this new type of protection into many of our products, including Kaspersky Premium, Kaspersky for Android and iOS, and others. Our detection model is based on many factors, including but not limited to the following:

• domain name and age,
• IP reputation,
• stability of the infrastructure used,
• DNS configurations,
• HTTP security headers,
• digital identity and popularity of the web resource.

Kaspersky has been certified as a provider of effective protective technology for fake shop detection.

When a user tries to visit a site flagged as having an undefined trust level, our solutions show a warning to stop the visitor from becoming a victim of personal data leaks, financial losses or a bad purchase:

This component is on by default.

Moreover, there are several online tools and databases that can help assess a website’s legitimacy:

• ScamAdviser analyzes trust based on WHOIS, server location, and web reputation.
• APIVoid provides risk scoring using DNS, IP, and domain reputation databases.
• National government databases often maintain official lists of fraudulent or blacklisted domains.

Preventive measures

To protect yourself from such threats, it might a good idea to take some additional preventive measures. Always double-check the URL and domain name, especially when you are about to click a link or make a payment. Make sure the site uses HTTPS and has a trusted certificate.

You can use standard browser tools to verify site security. For example, in Google Chrome, clicking the site information button (the lock or settings icon in the address bar) displays details about the connection security and the site’s certificate.

In the Security section, you can check whether the site supports HTTPS – it should say “Connection is secure” – and view the site’s digital certificate.

Additionally, keep reliable security software with real-time protection running on your device to stop you from accessing dangerous websites. Do not download any files or enter your personal information on websites that look unprofessional or suspicious. And finally, remember the golden rule: if a deal seems too good to be true, it often is.

If you realize that you’re on a scam website, it’s important to perform certain post-incident actions immediately. First, contact your bank or payment provider as soon as possible to block the transaction or card. Then, change your passwords for the services which might have been compromised, and run a full antivirus scan on your device to detect and remove any potential threats. Lastly, consider reporting the website to the cybercrime agency in your country or to the consumer protection agency. Sharing your experience online by leaving a review or warning will give notice to potential customers alike.

By staying careful and taking quick actions, you can significantly reduce the chances of being a target and help make the internet a safer place for everyone.

An overview of detection statistics for sites with an undefined trust level

To illustrate the types of suspicious sites prevalent in various regions around the world, we analyzed anonymized detection data from Kaspersky solutions for the “websites with an undefined trust level” category in January 2026. For each region, we identified the 10 most frequently encountered sites and calculated the share of each within that list. To maintain privacy, specific domains are not listed directly; instead, they’re described based on their functionality and characteristics.

Most visited suspicious sites

First, let’s examine the sites that appear across multiple regions, indicating a high prevalence.

In 9 out of the 10 regions analyzed, we encountered a suspicious image processing platform (*a*o*.com). This site positions itself as a photo editing tool, but in reality, it serves as an intermediary server for uploading images used in phishing and other campaigns. By interacting with such a site, users risk exposing personal data under the guise of uploading images or falling victim to a phishing attack.

Percentage of the *a*o*.com domain detections by region, January 2026 (download)

This site has the largest share of detections in the Russian Federation, where it ranks first in the TOP 10 with a 40.80% share. It is also prevalent in Latin American countries (21.70%) and the CIS (14.64%), while it’s least common in Canada at 0.24%.

The next site appeared in 7 regions. It consists of a landing page for a fake antivirus solution presented as a browser extension (*n*s*.com). This extension redirects the user to a fake search engine page allowing it to collect data and track user activity, specifically search queries.

Percentage of the *n*s*.com domain detections by region, January 2026 (download)

This site is most frequently detected in South Asia, with a share of 33.31%. Its presence in Canada and Oceania is roughly equal (15.47% and 15.09%, respectively). We recorded the lowest number of detections in Africa, at 2.99%.

Another suspicious browser extension appeared in the TOP 10 in 6 out of the 10 regions. It’s a fake privacy-enhancing tool hosted at *w*a*.com. Instead of providing the advertised privacy features, this extension carries a high risk of intercepting browser data. It can modify browser settings, harvest user data, and swap the default search engine for a fake one. Furthermore, it maintains full control over all browser traffic.

Percentage of the *w*a*.com domain detections by region, January 2026 (download)

This “service” has its largest share, 22.25%, in the Middle East and North Africa, and is also quite common in Canada (16.26%). It’s least frequently encountered in Latin America (5.38%) and East Asia (4.02%).

The site *o*r*.com appeared in five regional rankings. It’s a fake security service promising to provide online safety by warning users about malicious sites and dangerous search queries. This extension has the potential to steal cookies (including session cookies), inject advertisements, spoof login forms, and harvest browser history and search queries. We noted that this site made the TOP 10 in Africa (0.59%), the MENA (Middle East and North Africa) region (4.57%), Europe (5.61%), Canada (7.21%), and Oceania (1.93%).

In 4 out of the 10 regions, we identified several other recurring sites. One of them (*n*p*.xyz) mimics a repository for creative AI image generation prompts while capturing browser data. The domain hosting this site exhibits several red flags: it was recently registered, and the owner’s information is hidden. This site reached the TOP 10 in Africa (0.51%), the MENA region (7.04%), Latin America (22.54%, ranking first in that region), and South Asia (5.91%).

The second service (*i*s*.com) positions itself as a tool for safe searching, protecting the browser from threats, and verifying extensions. However, this is a typical browser hijacker, much like the others mentioned above. It made the TOP 10 in South Asia (8.03%), Oceania (17.97%), Europe (3.90%), and Canada (14.35%).

The third site (*h*t*.com) poses as a private browsing extension. In reality, it’s another potentially unwanted application designed for browser hijacking: it modifies settings, steals sensitive data (cookies, browser history, and queries), and can redirect the user to phishing pages. Users have specifically noted the difficulty involved in removing the extension. This site appears in the TOP 10 for the MENA region (10.17%), Canada (7.06%), Europe (3.81%), and Oceania (2.81%).

Another domain (*o*t*.com) that reached the TOP 10 in four regions is a service mimicking a browser extension for safe searching and web browsing. It’s dangerous because it injects ads and steals user data. It’s important to note that such extensions can be installed without explicit user consent – for example, via links embedded in other software. This service holds the number one spot in two regions: Canada (25.72%) and Oceania (30.92%), while also appearing in the TOP 10 for East Asia (8.01%) and Africa (0.88%).

Consequently, we can see that the majority of suspicious sites detected by our solutions worldwide are browser hijackers masquerading as security products. Nevertheless, other categories of sites also appear in the TOP 10.

Next, we’ll examine each region individually, focusing on descriptions of domains not previously covered. For clarity, the sites mentioned above will be marked as [MULTI-REGION], while those appearing in only two or three regions will include the names of those specific areas. We’ll observe several regional overlaps and similarities, allowing us to determine which types of suspicious sites are popular both within specific regions and globally.

Africa

Distribution of the TOP 10 suspicious websites in Africa, January 2026 (download)

The three most prevalent domains in African countries are found exclusively in this region. All of them – *i*r*.world (60.27%), *m*a*.com (22.84%), and *e*p*.com (9.36%) – are potentially fraudulent online trading platforms suspected of using forged licenses. These sites employ classic scam schemes where it’s impossible to withdraw any alleged earnings. In fifth place is a domain we’ll also see in the European TOP 10, *r*e*.com (1.46%): a platform marketed as a tool for retail and semi-professional traders. It charges for services available elsewhere for free. Eighth place is held by a site that also appears in the Russian TOP 10: *a*c*.com (0.56%). This is a dubious AI tool that claims to offer free subscriptions to a premium graphics editor. In ninth place is a domain that also surfaces in the Canadian TOP 10: *u*e*.com (0.53%), a browser extension of the “web protection” variety that we’ve encountered previously.

In summary, the African region is dominated by financial scams within the online trading and brokerage sectors. These include fake platforms that make it impossible to withdraw funds and use fake licenses and classic schemes to steal users’ money. Additionally, Africa sees paid tools that duplicate free services and questionable AI-based subscriptions. The primary threat in this region is financial loss through fraudulent investment-themed sites.

MENA

Distribution of the TOP 10 suspicious websites in the Middle East and North Africa, January 2026 (download)

In the MENA region, the site *a*v*.su holds the top spot with a 28.64% share; notably, this site also appears in the TOP 10 for Russia. It markets itself as a tool for building custom VoIP-PBX systems. However, it has an extremely low trust rating and is frequently associated with phishing, and hidden redirects. Using this service carries significant risks, including data leaks, and financial loss.

Ranked seventh is *a*r*.foundation (6.32%), an AI bot allegedly designed for trading, which we also identified in the TOP 10 for Oceania. This service has been flagged as an investment scam operating as a pyramid scheme with the hallmarks of a Ponzi scheme.

The ranking is rounded out by two domains not found in any other region. The first one, *l*e*.pro (4.42%), is a spoof of a popular betting service. The second, *p*r*.group (2.21%), is a clone of a well-known broker. Both sites are scams.

In the MENA region, the landscape is dominated by fake VoIP services as well as counterfeits of financial and betting platforms, which attackers use to conduct phishing attacks, and perform hidden redirects. A significant portion of suspicious sites consists of fake online privacy tools and browser hijackers masquerading as security extensions. Ponzi schemes and cryptocurrency scams are also prominent. The primary risks for the region are data theft, and financial loss.

Latin America

Distribution of the TOP 10 suspicious websites in Latin America, January 2026 (download)

In Latin America, we identified five popular suspicious sites specific to this region, which is unusual compared to other areas where more overlaps are typically observed. Ranking third with a share of 10.81% is the fake betting platform *b*e*.net. In fifth place is *r*e*.club, an illegitimate clone of a well-known bookmaker, with a share of 7.82%.

Further down the list of local threats are *a*a*.com.br (7.02%), a Brazilian Ponzi scam; *s*a*.com (5.07%), which offers dubious investment programs; and *t*r*.com (4.53%), a potentially dangerous trading platform.

In Latin America, the most-visited suspicious sites are betting-themed scams, including both clones of legitimate sites and those built from scratch. Also prevalent are Ponzi schemes, fake investment programs, and dubious online brokers. A significant portion of these sites consists of browser hijackers posing as crypto platforms and AI bots. The primary threats in Latin American countries include financial loss through gambling and Ponzi schemes, as well as the theft of NFTs and other tokens.

East Asia

Distribution of the TOP 10 suspicious websites in East Asia, January 2026 (download)

In the East Asian TOP 10, we see the highest concentration of domains that are absent from other regional rankings.

In first place, with an 18.77% share, is the fake broker *r*x*.com, which can be used to steal personal data or funds. Second place is held by a crypto-gaming site (16.44%) that we previously encountered in the Latin American TOP 10. Visitors to this site risk losing NFTs and other tokens. In third place is the domain *u*h*.net (11.61%), used for redirects, which can hijack sessions. Following this is *s*m*.com (9.98%), a domain typically used as a browser-hijacking server and for phishing attacks, serving as a link in an infection chain.

Rounding out the local threats in East Asia are the following domains: *e*v*.com (9.37%), utilized in drive-by attacks; *a*k*.com (9.16%), an API-like domain associated with suspicious scripts and extensions; and *b*l*.com (4.38%), a domain potentially used for redirects.

East Asia has a high concentration of region-specific fake brokers, crypto gaming platforms, and NFT marketplaces. The primary threats for this region include the loss of financial data, NFTs, and other tokens, as well as session hijacking.

South Asia

Distribution of the TOP 10 suspicious websites in South Asia, January 2026 (download)

In South Asian countries, we also observe a concentration of local suspicious sites specific to the region.

The second most popular site in the region is *a*s*.com (12.01%), a poor-reputation, high-risk microloan service typical of South Asia. By interacting with these sites, users risk not only losing significant funds but also compromising their overall security. Following this are *v*n*.com with a 9.47% share and *l*f*.com with 8.65%. These domains are employed in various fraudulent schemes, ranging from phishing to spam.

The TOP 10 also includes *s*o*.com (4.80%), a free video downloading service associated with a high risk of infection. The final site we analyzed in the South Asia region is *c*o*.site (1.89%), a pseudo-tool for local SEO optimization that carries the danger of data loss and a high risk of financial fraud through subscription sign-ups.

In summary, the region is dominated by fake antivirus extensions, microloan services, dubious video downloaders, and counterfeit SEO tools. The primary risks for South Asia include financial fraud, phishing and spam distribution, and data theft.

CIS

When analyzing statistics for suspicious sites in CIS countries, we treat Russia as a separate region due to the unique characteristics of its online space which are not found in any other CIS member states. However, we’ve placed these two regions in the same section, as we’ve observed overlaps between them that are not seen in other parts of the world.

Distribution of the TOP 10 suspicious websites in the CIS, January 2026 (download)

The top two sites in the CIS TOP 10 also appear in the Russian TOP 10. The domain *r*a*.bar, which ranks first in the CIS (39.50%), holds the second spot in Russia (15.93%) and is a fake trading site. It’s worth noting that sites in the .bar domain zone are frequently used for scams. In second place in the CIS (15.29%) and sixth in Russia (3.75%) is the domain *p*o*.ru, which is often associated with bots for inflating follower counts and automating community management.

Domains from fourth to eighth place are specific only to the CIS region and don’t appear in the Russian TOP 10. These sites include:

• *a*e*.online (8.42%): an online image editor that carries risks of data harvesting
• *n*a*.io (6.51%): a high-risk cryptocurrency trading platform
• *e*r*.com (3.72%): a site promising free cryptocurrency and posing the risk of compromising visitors’ private keys and digital wallets
• *s*o*.ltd (3.70%): a domain with an extremely low trust rating
• *s*.gg (3.49%): a scam site masquerading as a play-to-earn blockchain game

The ranking concludes with sites that overlap with the Russian region. *a*.consulting (2.42%) is a fake clone of a binary options site, and *a*.lol (2.32%) is a domain suspected of dubious activity.

The CIS landscape is dominated by fake trading platforms (particularly crypto exchanges), promises of easy profits, play-to-earn scams, and dubious investment projects. We also observe many bots for inflating social metrics and automation. The primary threat in the CIS is the theft of private keys, digital wallets, and funds through investment schemes and lures involving online promotion.

Distribution of the TOP 10 suspicious websites in Russia, January 2026 (download)

The Russian TOP 10 includes three unique domains not found in the rankings of other regions. The first, *n*m*.top (7.84%), is an imitator of a well-known binary options broker. This suspicious site was recently registered and has a tellingly low rating on domain verification services. The second, *t*e*.ru (3.25%), claims to be an educational platform and has a dubious subscription system with a high probability of fraud involving difficulties in canceling subscriptions. The third site, *e*e*.org (3.14%), positions itself as a tool for a popular media platform, but it’s actually a scam that fails to provide its stated services.

Overall, the Russian landscape is characterized by fake binary options brokers and sketchy sites with fraudulent subscriptions posing as e-learning platforms. There are also frequent instances of sites spoofing well-known legitimate services. The primary risks in Russia are scams related to the knowledge business sector, as well as the theft of money and personal data.

Europe

Distribution of the TOP 10 suspicious websites in Europe, January 2026 (download)

In the European region, we’ve found two unique domains. The first of these, *c*r*.org, has been identified as part of a chain for massive phishing and spam attacks. It accounts for a 16.08% share of the TOP 10. The second site, *o*n*.de, is an unofficial reseller with a poor reputation and a high likelihood of fraud. This domain ranks second to last in our statistics with a 5.95% share.

Among the sites not previously covered, the European TOP 10 includes one site that also appears in the Oceania TOP 10: *o*i*.com (6.61%). This is a classic cryptocurrency scam promising passive income.

A significant portion of suspicious sites in Europe consists of intermediary sites for phishing and spam, fake security extensions, and crypto scams. Unofficial sales services and paid trading tools are also on the list. The primary threats in the European region include session hijacking, data theft, spam, and investment fraud.

Canada

Distribution of the TOP 10 suspicious websites in Canada, January 2026 (download)

Canada has been designated as a separate region to illustrate prevailing trends within North America. The first four positions in the Canadian TOP 10 are held by multiregional domains discussed previously. In fifth place is *t*c*.com (10.88%), which also appears in the TOP 10 rankings for Oceania and South Asia. This is yet another browser extension masquerading as a security solution. Occupying the final spot is the domain *e*w*.com (0.17%), which is unique to the Canadian market. This site operates a dropshipping scam, offering products at prices significantly below market value. Customers typically either never receive their orders or get low-quality counterfeits.

The landscape of dubious websites in Canada is largely defined by fraudulent extensions capable of hijacking browser data, tracking user activity, spoofing search queries, harvesting cookies, and injecting ads. This is further compounded by dropshipping schemes involving counterfeit goods. The primary risks for users in Canada include data theft and financial loss from purchasing substandard products.

Oceania

Distribution of the TOP 10 suspicious websites in Oceania, January 2026 (download)

The final region under consideration is Oceania. Notably, we didn’t identify a single domain unique to this region. Every site appearing in the TOP 10 represents a global threat that’s already been detailed in previous sections. To summarize the findings for this region: the primary threats consist of fake security extensions and privacy products designed for browser hijacking, tracking user activity, displaying advertisements, and stealing data. There’s a minimal presence of crypto Ponzi schemes in this area. The main risk for users in Oceania is the loss of privacy and confidentiality through unwanted apps.

Conclusion

Suspicious websites are particularly dangerous because they often masquerade as legitimate sites with high levels of persuasiveness. They mimic online stores, subscription-based streaming platforms, repair firms, and various other services. Unlike standard phishing sites, they employ more sophisticated manipulations to deceive users, tricking them into voluntarily handing over their personal data and transferring funds.

By examining the TOP 10 suspicious sites across the world’s major regions, we can draw several conclusions. On average, the most prevalent threats globally are fraudulent extensions masquerading as security solutions and privacy services. Their true purpose is to hijack browser data, track user activity, and display ads. We also frequently encounter phishing platforms for image processing and financial scams involving trading, cryptocurrency, betting, and microloans. Our statistics demonstrate that these sites not only employ classic fraudulent schemes centered on easy money but also adapt to contemporary trends targeting younger audiences and specific regional characteristics. The primary risks for users interacting with these sites are a combination of privacy threats and financial loss.

To help protect users from these shady sites, we’ve introduced the category of “websites with an undefined trust level” as part of the web filtering features in our solutions. However, it’s important to note that user awareness and individual responsibility play a significant role in ensuring safe web browsing. It’s essential for users to be able to recognize suspicious sites and remain vigilant toward any that appear untrustworthy.

Unit 42 uncovers high-risk AI browser extensions. Disguised as productivity tools, they steal data, intercept prompts, and exfiltrate passwords. Protect your browser.

The post That AI Extension Helping You Write Emails? It’s Reading Them First appeared first on Unit 42.

Millions installed 'productivity' Chrome extensions that became malware after acquisition. Here's how browser extensions became enterprise security's weakest link.

The post The Chrome Extension Backdoor: How ‘Productivity Tools’ Became Enterprise Attack Vectors appeared first on Security Boulevard.