Kaspersky uncovered a ValleyRAT backdoor adware campaign using signed wallpaper apps to drop malware. Learn how to protect your systems.
Related Posts:
UAT-10147 Deploys SPECTRE Cross-Platform Implant
Kimsuky Spear Phishing Abuses Remote Control Tools
Fire Ant Threat Actor Targets Trusted Infrastructure
The post ValleyRAT Backdoor Spread via Signed Chinese Adware appeared first on Daily CyberSecurity.
Attackers typically try to pass off malware as legitimate applications or as potentially unwanted programs that users deliberately search for and download, such as cheats or cracks. They often rely on ad and affiliate networks to deliver their creations to victims’ devices. This post examines a less conventional case: a well-known backdoor distributed under the guise of adware. The attackers may have chosen this distribution method because the adware was signed by the developer. On top of that,
Attackers typically try to pass off malware as legitimate applications or as potentially unwanted programs that users deliberately search for and download, such as cheats or cracks. They often rely on ad and affiliate networks to deliver their creations to victims’ devices. This post examines a less conventional case: a well-known backdoor distributed under the guise of adware. The attackers may have chosen this distribution method because the adware was signed by the developer. On top of that, users often manually add these apps to exclusions, so their useful features don’t get blocked.
Some time ago, a client asked us to analyze a file with the MD5 hash c24e99f9437feacaa63766a3cde3fe3d and add it to our detection database. We initially classified it as adware, but a cursory analysis turned up suspicious network activity, which prompted us to dig deeper. It turned out the sample did far more than serve ads. In fact, its advertising functionality doesn’t even work; instead, it triggers an infection chain that delivers the ValleyRAT backdoor.
Malicious installer
The file the client shared with us turned out to be an installer that performed different actions depending on the two-letter suffix used in the file name, positioned just before the numeric string.
Installer name
What it does
FS_SETUP_DD_173.exe
Installs DingTalk, a workplace collaboration platform
FS_SETUP_GG_173.exe
Installs Google Chrome
FS_SETUP_HY_173.exe
Opens hxxps://meeting[.]tencent[.]com/download/
These actions are most likely designed to divert the user’s attention away from the sample’s malicious functionality. Regardless of the file name, the installer deploys a modified Chinese desktop wallpaper management tool called QN Wallpaper (hxxps://qnwallpaper[.]keansoft[.]cn/) and adds it to the registry’s autorun entries.
The original version of QN Wallpaper is genuine adware: on installation, it delivers bundled partner apps to the device and then displays ad banners to the user. In this case, however, the attackers use it to carry out DLL sideloading, a technique that allows malicious code to run under the guise of a signed process by way of a malicious DLL.
The QN Wallpaper modules, along with the malicious components, are unpacked to C:\Program Files\QNWallpaper\5.4.0.1662\<random string of letters and digits>. The following files are saved in that directory:
File name
MD5
Purpose
1.zip
7ad1e3ef4e6d9d636c9e7e967733850e
Archive containing the adware files QnWallpeper.exe and QnwPlayer.exe, along with the modules needed to run them
7z.dll
96b4c1d0683dce22bd3223e1e40689c1
7z archiver library
7z.exe
9b86d3ab6cef15c633933fbbeab39c0a
Archiver
chrome_elf.dll
edfdc30cbd85879776b8f735ea7de1f1
Library used to launch Electron-based applications
libcef.dll
07ddbbe2c71c45577a7a4fbcdba0df91
Malicious library
PeLoader
48826d5ca845979d2e6ebd66dc1aae90
File containing the encrypted backdoor
QnWallpaper.exe
6c158c0f8e029342192d4f0d72e102b7
Adware module
QnwPlayer.exe
9a71d6a41cd258b9e89cdc5fc224de73
Adware module
<random string of letters and digits>Nedca.exe
c24e99f9437feacaa63766a3cde3fe3d
Malicious installer copy
After unpacking, the installer uses the DisableAntiSpyware registry key to disable Windows Defender and then launches QnWallpaper.exe.
Disabling Windows Defender
DLL Sideloading via libcef.dll
QnWallpaper.exe has dependencies in libcef.dll, so this library gets loaded when the process starts. QnWallpaper.exe also launches QnwPlayer.exe, which likewise calls libcef.dll.
QnWallpaper and QnwPlayer won’t actually function correctly, because the functions exported from libcef.dll are put into an infinite sleep. However, in case that sleep is ever interrupted, the attackers have implemented a function that loads all the necessary functions from the original library into memory, provided it can locate that library on the system.
Example of an exported function
Loading functions from the original libcef.dll
The malicious functionality in libcef.dll is invoked by a call to DllMain, which runs automatically when the library is loaded. That said, alongside the original exports, the library also contains a function named RunDLL, which likewise initiates execution of the malicious code. QnWallpaper never calls this function. We suspect the attackers intended to invoke it manually via rundll32 or planned to use a separate executable for this purpose, one that wasn’t included in the package downloaded by the sample.
The RunDLL function
Running the malicious code
When the library is loaded, code runs that ensures QnWallpaper.exe persists at startup: it adds a file extension association and drops a file with the corresponding extension in C:\Documents and Settings\<username>\Start Menu\Programs\Startup\.
This is followed by a chain of wrapper functions whose main job is to call the next one. Execution eventually reaches the function that contains the actual malicious code. For convenience, we’ll refer to it as mw_entry.
Inside mw_entry, the malware checks two things:
Whether the current user belongs to the Administrators group
Which process the DLL is running inside
Checking for administrator privileges
If the user isn’t a member of the Administrators group, the program attempts to obtain administrator privileges by using the runas utility.
Relaunching the process to obtain administrator privileges
Once it has administrator privileges, the malicious code determines which process the DLL has been loaded into, and selects the payload accordingly:
If the library is running inside QnWallpaper.exe, the payload is loaded from the PeLoader file.
Encrypted payload
If the library is running inside QnwPlayer.exe, the payload is loaded from libcef.dll resources.
Retrieving the payload from a resource
Both payloads are AES-encrypted DLLs that contain the ValleyRAT backdoor. The only difference between them is their configuration, specifically, the C2 server addresses. After decryption, libcef.dll checks the magic signatures in the resulting PE file’s headers to confirm the sample is valid. If this check fails, the library releases its resources and takes no further action.
Validating the PE file headers after decryption
If the headers check out, libcef.dll loads the payload into the process’s memory space and hands control over to the backdoor by calling DllMain.
Calling DllMain
ValleyRAT
ValleyRAT begins its operation by parsing its configuration, which consists of key:value pairs concatenated into a single string. To obfuscate this configuration, the attackers wrote the string in reverse.
Obfuscated configuration
During parsing, the backdoor restores the correct character order and reads the key values one by one. The set of keys is the same regardless of which process the backdoor is running in.
Parsing the configuration
Some of the configuration fields are listed below:
Key
Description
p?
C2 server IP address
o?
C2 server port
t?
Protocol (1: TCP, 0: UDP)
dd
Sleep duration before executing the main code
cl
Sleep duration after receiving the corresponding command from the server
bz
Configuration creation date
bh
Whether to mark the current process as critical (so that terminating it triggers a blue screen of death) Possible values: 1: yes, 0: no
ll
Whether to check for running security/traffic-analysis tools/processes (1: check, 0: do not check)
sh
Whether to inject code into svchost that will restart the malicious process (1: inject, 0: do not inject)
The backdoor uses several techniques to protect its process. Some are configuration-dependent, while others are always applied:
Injecting code into svchost to restart the process: a configurable option. The backdoor allocates memory inside the svchost process, injects code into it, and sets PAGE_NOACCESS permissions on the memory page containing the injected data. It then creates a suspended thread, waits 60 seconds, grants read, write, and execute permissions on the page, and resumes the thread.
Injecting code into svchost
The function injected into the process has a single job: restart the backdoor if its execution is interrupted for any reason.
Injected function
Marking its own process as critical (so that terminating it triggers a blue screen of death): a configurable option.
Setting its own process as critical
Restarting on an unhandled exception. This protection mechanism is always active, regardless of the backdoor’s configuration.
Restarting on exceptions
The backdoor also has spyware functionality. While running, it tracks keystrokes and the currently focused window by using functions from the DirectInput8 library. It also captures clipboard contents. All collected data is saved to a file on disk.
Capturing clipboard data
If the ll key in the configuration is set to 1, ValleyRAT periodically checks for active windows belonging to applications that could be used to analyze processes or traffic. Window enumeration is done via the EnumWindows function, using the following callback:
Window name checks
After completing these checks, the backdoor collects system information, including:
Host name
Host IP addresses
User idle time
Detailed Windows version information (ProductName, EditionId, DisplayVersion)
Number of CPU cores
Free disk space
Graphics adapter
Currently focused window and its title
System bitness
Language settings
Path to the system directory
On command, the backdoor can perform the actions typical of this malware category:
Rebooting the computer
Shutting down the computer
Taking a screenshot
Wiping logs
Updating its C2 addresses
Downloading additional modules
Sending keylogger logs along with clipboard contents
Snippet of the command handler
Let’s take a closer look at the module-loading functionality. Upon receiving the corresponding command with a link from its operator, the backdoor downloads the file at that link and executes it. The download can come from either the C2 server or a third-party address.
The DownloadPeFile function is responsible for downloading a PE file
The DownloadAndExecute function calls DownloadPeFile, then launches the downloaded module
Additional modules can take the form of purpose-built dynamic libraries or shellcode. If the payload is shellcode, the backdoor uses process hollowing with svchost to launch the module.
Implementation of the process hollowing technique
If the module is a dynamic library, the backdoor loads the PE file into its own process, calls DllMain, and searches for a Main function among the exported functions. Once Main has been called, the library is unloaded from memory.
Calling DllMain after the backdoor loads the PE file
Targets and attribution
Over the course of 2026, we detected the ValleyRAT backdoor and its associated malware more than 100,000 times, with more than 1500 unique users affected, primarily in China and India.
This attack geography, combined with the use of the ValleyRAT backdoor, points to Silver Fox, a known operator of this malware family, as the likely group behind the campaign.
Conclusion
This case is a clear example of how adware and affiliate networks can turn out to be far more dangerous than they appear. ValleyRAT is a sophisticated backdoor capable of collecting sensitive data such as keystrokes and clipboard contents, taking screenshots, and delivering additional malicious modules. The attackers exploited a well-known adware application to run the backdoor under the guise of a signed process, which complicates detection.
Motivated by both cyberespionage and financial gain, Silver Fox targets organizations across multiple countries. To stay protected, organizations should keep employee cybersecurity awareness up to date and enforce clear policies on the use of third-party software on work devices.
For individual users, we recommend avoiding the installation of software with a questionable reputation, and, even more importantly, never adding such software to your security solutions’ exclusion lists.
While monitoring Android threats in June 2026, we discovered a new piece of Android malware. What struck us as unusual was that it installed like an ordinary user app yet made no attempt to disguise itself as legitimate software: it had no user interface at all. This led us to suspect the app might be reaching users’ devices without their knowledge. Further investigation confirmed that hypothesis and allowed us to reconstruct the entire infection chain.
Key findings:
We identified new Android m
While monitoring Android threats in June 2026, we discovered a new piece of Android malware. What struck us as unusual was that it installed like an ordinary user app yet made no attempt to disguise itself as legitimate software: it had no user interface at all. This led us to suspect the app might be reaching users’ devices without their knowledge. Further investigation confirmed that hypothesis and allowed us to reconstruct the entire infection chain.
Key findings:
We identified new Android malware: a multi-stage downloader whose ultimate purpose is ad fraud and creation of a proxy botnet.
The malware spread through the built-in updaters of Android-based automotive head unit firmware. This is the first documented case of malware found on a car head unit with an infection chain specific to that type of device.
We attribute this activity, with high confidence, to the MoYu Group, an actor linked to the BADBOX botnet.
Kaspersky solutions detect the threats described below under the following detection names:
HEUR:Trojan-Dropper.AndroidOS.Agent.vu
HEUR:Trojan-Downloader.AndroidOS.Agent.ov
HEUR:Trojan-Proxy.AndroidOS.Zhima.*
HEUR:Trojan.AndroidOS.Vo1d.*
Head unit firmware overview
A head unit is a system that combines multimedia functions with partial control over certain vehicle functions. Head units may come as part of a car’s factory equipment or as an aftermarket upgrade. The main attack vectors for these systems are compromise via physical access and vulnerabilities in the head unit’s OS or components, both of which we’ve covered previously.
In some cases, head units run on Android, primarily because it’s convenient for manufacturers: Android’s source code already accounts for use cases within automotive head units. Android also allows manufacturers to add their own system applications during the build process, which they can use for a range of purposes: customizing the UI, adding system components tailored to the vendor’s needs, and more.
Most apps developed for Android devices can also run on an Android-based head unit, and that is true for malware as well. That said, it’s hard to imagine certain categories of smartphone-targeted malware being used to attack a head unit. Banking Trojans are a good example: since mobile banking is used almost exclusively on smartphones, infecting a head unit with a banking Trojan would be a waste of the attacker’s resources.
It’s worth noting that head units often include SIM card slots and can connect to the internet, enabling features like navigation and software updates. Since a head unit typically holds nothing of value to an attacker, one of the more likely attack scenarios using “classic” Android malware is infecting the device to recruit it into a botnet – similar to attacks on IoT devices.
During our research, we found exactly that kind of malware. The design of firmware for DoFun head units enabled attackers to distribute malware. We notified the vendor about the distribution scheme, and they subsequently reported fixing the security issues.
Below is the entire infection chain:
Head unit infection scheme
Let’s look at exactly how these head units became infected.
The TWCore app
TWCore is a legitimate system application responsible for collecting analytics data and updating the head unit software. Let’s take a closer look at how the update function works.
The process is fairly simple. An MQTT message broker hosted on the subdomain cardoor[.]cn sends a message containing information about the APK files that need to be downloaded and installed on the head unit. Notably, the object describing this message includes an installNotExists field, a Boolean flag that can be set to true or false. This flag allows TWCore to install apps that weren’t originally present on the device.
TWCore only checks whether an app is already installed on the device when installNotExists = false
The APK file is downloaded to <TWCore external cache dir>/push/apk/ for installation.
The path TWCore uses to download APK files
Our telemetry revealed previously unknown malware at these file paths. On top of that, our data indicates that in every observed case, the malware was installed by an app with the package name com.tw.core, which matches the TWCore package name.
Next, we’ll break down the malware installed by TWCore: the JarService dropper.
Stage 1: the JarService dropper
As mentioned earlier, JarService is a small dropper app with no UI of any kind. It decrypts data stored as encrypted blocks within the Trojan’s code. Each block is XOR-encrypted with a single-byte key that shifts linearly from block to block. The decrypted data contains serialized information about the payload version and entry point, along with the malware’s own code for further loading.
Decrypting and deserializing information about the stage 2 payload
In the version of JarService we analyzed, the entry point for the next-stage payload was the wa method of the com.c.j.qbh class.
Stage 2: the loader
This stage’s payload is a malicious loader. Its code contains encrypted strings that are later used as class names to execute the stage 3 payload using the reflection mechanism. The loader sends implant information to one of the attackers’ servers via a POST request. Example of a request to the C2 server:
The Trojan uses the link in the dexUrl field of the data object to download serialized data for loading the next stage. This data begins with a single-byte integer, a key used to decrypt the strings in the loader’s code. Immediately following this number is a four-byte floating-point value used to XOR-decrypt the stage 3 payload, which itself is located after these keys.
Decrypting the stage 3 payload
In the decrypted payload, the entry point is the init method of the com.ast.sdk.BillingMain class, shown in the screenshot below.
Entry point of the stage 3 payload
While analyzing this stage, we noticed that the download link for the next-stage payload includes a version number. We decided to try other version numbers to retrieve different payload versions, and ultimately obtained seven distinct variants, which we list under “Indicators of Compromise” at the end of this report. The earliest version, numbered 3.57, uses a different decoding algorithm than the one described above. This may indicate that an earlier version of the infection chain used a different loader between JarService and the stage 3 payload.
Stage 3: clicker / reverse proxy loader
In this stage, the malware sends a POST request to /cpc/api/task every 90 minutes by default, containing information about the infected device (display resolution, device model, the SSID of the connected Wi-Fi network, MAC address, and so on) along with the Trojan’s configuration version. If the configuration is outdated, the C2 server returns an updated configuration containing new C2 addresses and new paths for sending HTTP requests. An example of a response is shown below. Note that at the time of our research, the most up-to-date configuration version was 3.82.
If the configuration version doesn’t need updating, the C2 server instead returns integer command identifiers, which the attackers refer to as productId. The Trojan maps each identifier to command information, which it stores as a serialized JSON object using the SharedPreferences API. Each identifier also has its own version, expressed as a UNIX timestamp. If the C2 response includes an unknown productId or one whose version is outdated, the malware sends a GET request to the attackers’ server at /cpc/api/xml to retrieve the command contents for all such identifiers. The C2 server responds with command information for each unknown identifier. An example of a response is shown below.
The command information includes a tagName field, which is the command name. The code maps each name to the corresponding class responsible for executing it.
List of executable commands
At the time of our research, the attackers had implemented nine commands. The table below lists command names, brief descriptions, and arguments. The functionality of these commands suggests that the malware can be used to display ads, commit ad fraud (serving as a clicker), and download additional malicious code.
Command name
Description
Arguments
return
Return a value from SharedPreferences.
key: the key whose value should be returned
copy
Set the contents of the clipboard.
text: the key whose value from SharedPreferences is returned as the clipboard contents url: a link for downloading gzip-compressed data (optional); this data is then concatenated with the value of the text key, with (5 spaces) used as a separator
http
Make a POST/GET HTTP request to a specified resource and, if instructed, save the response in SharedPreferences under a specified key.
url: the resource address method: the HTTP method name (optional) startLabel: a marker for the start of the data to save from the resource (optional) endLabel: a marker for the end of the data to save from the resource (optional) valueLabel: the key under which to save the value (optional) header: a dictionary of headers for the HTTP request (optional) content: the content of the POST request (optional)
web
Open a link in the WebView and execute arbitrary JavaScript code within it.
url: the link to open in the WebView js: base64-encoded JavaScript code to execute in the WebView; used when the url parameter is empty or absent corejs: JavaScript code to execute when the resource loads in the WebView (optional) param: a string dictionary of parameters for launching the WebView client: if this key is present, WebViewClient is used to handle redirects manually time: task timeout
loadlib
Not fully implemented at the time of publishing this report.
–
loadlib2
Download and execute arbitrary code.
url: the address to download the payload from name: the name of the module being downloaded md5: the MD5 hash of the payload clear: a comma-separated list of payload names to delete (optional) params: an array of parameters to launch the payload with className: the class name of the payload entry point method: the name of the virtual method at the payload entry point cmethod: the name of the static method used to instantiate the entry-point class (optional) thread: a flag; the payload runs in a separate thread if this flag is not set reload: a flag that, when set, restarts already loaded modules
loadlib3
Not fully implemented at the time of publishing this report.
–
deeplink
Open a resource in the browser.
url: a link to the resource
traceroute
Check resource availability via an ICMP ping.
host: comma-separated list of resources to check
However, attackers use only a relatively small subset of these commands in real-world attacks. As shown in the example C2 response above, at the time of publishing this report the attackers were using the loadlib2 and http commands. The payload downloaded via the loadlib2 command is a reverse proxy module named “zhima”, which researchers from the Nokia Deepfield Emergency Response Team independently discovered in TV set-top boxes around the same time as we did and also described in their report. This confirms that the attackers’ ultimate goal is building a proxy botnet.
While investigating this stage of the attack chain, we noticed that the zhima download link also included a version number. As with the previous stage, we tried other possible version numbers and found eight variants of the zhima module, the earliest of which was version 57. The complete list of identified zhima modules is provided under “Indicators of Compromise” below.
Attribution
While analyzing the complete infection chain, we noticed that the stage 2 loader created a thread with the meaningful name mosdk-host-loader. We decided to investigate what mosdk referred to in that name. This led us to a malicious app installed on various TV set-top boxes with the package name com.abc.nexus (3AD4BF5A86D26FFBF09CAE42AF330A98). It consists of several components (including a dropper similar to JarService), each used by the attackers to covertly monetize the device’s computing power. Each malicious component in the app corresponds to its own service, and the service containing the launch code for the JarService-like dropper is named AdmoyuService. In light of this and the name of the malicious thread found in the payload code, we concluded that moyu in the service name referred to MoYu Group, one of the actors linked to the BADBOX malware platform, which had been described by researchers at HUMAN. This assessment is further supported by extensive overlap between the malware’s network infrastructure and that of MoYu Group, which was independently identified by researchers from the Nokia Deepfield Emergency Response Team around the same time as our own research. Based on these similar naming patterns and prominent infrastructure overlap between the activity of MoYu Group and the attacks described in this report, we attribute it to the same actor with high confidence.
While investigating the malware downloaded by TWCore, we noticed that the domain admin.uipoxy[.]com resolved to the IP address 128.14.210[.]58, one of the C2 servers for the zhima reverse proxy module. It appears that the URL hxxp://admin.uipoxy[.]com/proxy/u/login hosts the zhima admin panel. Interestingly, this panel allows anyone to register as long as they have a valid invite code.
The malware operator registration page
During registration, users are prompted to review the terms of use and privacy policy. Both documents are hosted on links under the pxyedge[.]com domain, which belongs to PXYEDGE, a vendor specializing in the sale of residential proxies.
We found several similarities in the authentication APIs across all of these sites:
The sign-in page was hosted on an admin.* subdomain.
The sign-in page was located at /proxy/u/login.
The signup page was located at /proxy/register?channelKey=<invitation code>.
Based on this, we believe these services are connected to MoYu Group.
Conclusion
Despite efforts by cybersecurity professionals and law enforcement to shut down the BADBOX botnet, individual actors linked to it continue their malicious activity, infecting devices worldwide. Delivery methods for this kind of malware vary widely, from downloads via pre-installed backdoors to infected builds of IPTV apps. The case examined here demonstrates an even more sophisticated delivery method: distribution through the legitimate update functionality of a system application. Attackers are also actively expanding into new platforms. This malware is the first known malicious app targeting head units, which means these platforms now require protection against malware as well.
IT threat evolution in Q2 2026. Mobile statistics
IT threat evolution in Q2 2026. Non-mobile statistics
The mobile section of the quarterly cyberthreat report includes statistics on malware, adware, and potentially unwanted software for Android, as well as descriptions of the most notable threats for Android and iOS discovered during the reporting period. These statistics are based on detection alerts from Kaspersky products, collected from users who consented to provide statistical data to Kasp
The mobile section of the quarterly cyberthreat report includes statistics on malware, adware, and potentially unwanted software for Android, as well as descriptions of the most notable threats for Android and iOS discovered during the reporting period. These statistics are based on detection alerts from Kaspersky products, collected from users who consented to provide statistical data to Kaspersky Security Network.
The quarter in figures
According to Kaspersky Security Network, in Q2 2026:
More than 1.99 million attacks on mobile devices utilizing malware, adware, or unwanted mobile software were blocked.
The Trojan-Banker category was the most prevalent mobile malware threat with a 30.77% share of total detected applications.
More than 304,000 malicious installation packages were discovered, including:
93,574 packages were related to mobile banking Trojans;
570 packages were related to mobile ransomware Trojans.
Quarterly highlights
Attacks on mobile devices involving malware, adware, or unwanted software continued their downward trend, falling to 1,996,823 in Q2 from 2,676,328 the previous quarter.
Attacks on users of Kaspersky mobile solutions, Q4 2024 — Q2 2026 (download)
We noted a downward trend in attacks driven by specific strains of pre-installed Trojans — a shift likely tied to the rollout of patched vendor firmware.
In Q2, our telemetry uncovered multiple malicious loaders hosted directly on Google Play. As highlighted in a prior report (link in Russian), one such instance involved a PDF reader app trojanized to drop the Anatsa banking malware. Upon execution, the app presented users with a fake request to install an update, which served as a front to stage the banking Trojan on the victim’s device.
Another notable case involves a loader we detected in the Cleanova app alongside several others. The malware sent requests to a command-and-control server containing telemetry gathered from various SDKs that track the installation source. A malicious payload was returned only for certain sources. This is a fairly interesting method for bypassing app store review processes while ensuring precise victim targeting. If an analytics SDK indicates that an arbitrary installation originated from a source outside the threat actors’ scope, the malicious logic remains dormant. This effectively hides the malware from app store scanners.
Mobile threat statistics
In Q2, the number of Android malware samples totaled 304,128. It remained steady compared to the previous reporting period.
The detected installation packages were distributed by type as follows:
Detected mobile apps by type, Q1 — Q2 2026* (download)
* Data for the previous quarter may differ slightly from previously published data due to certain verdicts being retrospectively revised.
While the number of newly discovered banking Trojan variants fell precipitously, they continued to dominate the threat landscape as they did in Q1. Notably, the share of Creduz malware family among identified banking samples has grown significantly despite low activity in victim telemetry. This discrepancy suggests the threat actors are actively iterating on the malware — likely testing new features or bypasses — by generating a high volume of builds before staging a broader campaign.
Share* of users attacked by the given type of malicious or potentially unwanted apps out of all targeted users of Kaspersky mobile products, Q1 — Q2 2026 (download)
* The total may exceed 100% if the same users experienced multiple attack types.
Within the adware category, the sharpest declines were observed in the HiddenAd and MobiDash families. Meanwhile, the proportion of users targeted by Trojan-Dropper malware increased, primarily driven by surges in banking droppers such as Trojan-Dropper.AndroidOS.Banker and Trojan-Dropper.AndroidOS.Mamont. The corresponding drop in the Trojan-Banker category is partially explained by a shift in tactics: several banking Trojans which are now being packed were subsequently reclassified as droppers.
TOP 20 most frequently detected types of mobile malware
Note that the malware rankings below exclude riskware or potentially unwanted software, such as RiskTool or adware.
Verdict
%* Q1 2026
%* Q2 2026
Difference in p.p.
Change in ranking
Backdoor.AndroidOS.Triada.ag
7.09
9.35
+2.25
0
DangerousObject.Multi.Generic.
5.84
5.65
-0.19
0
DangerousObject.AndroidOS.GenericML.
5.51
5.25
-0.26
0
Trojan.AndroidOS.Boogr.gsh
2.15
3.33
+1.18
+9
Backdoor.AndroidOS.Triada.z
3.08
3.23
+0.15
+3
Trojan-Banker.AndroidOS.Mamont.hl
1.10
2.48
+1.38
+22
Trojan.AndroidOS.Fakemoney.v
3.44
2.31
-1.13
-2
Trojan-Spy.AndroidOS.Btmob.e
0.00
2.27
+2.27
Trojan.AndroidOS.Triada.fe
2.98
2.18
-0.81
0
Trojan-Dropper.AndroidOS.Banker.dd
0.01
2.16
+2.15
Trojan.AndroidOS.Triada.hf
2.23
1.93
-0.29
+1
Backdoor.AndroidOS.Triada.ad
1.40
1.93
+0.53
+8
Backdoor.AndroidOS.Keenadu.a
2.73
1.88
-0.85
-3
Backdoor.AndroidOS.Triada.ab
1.72
1.79
+0.07
+2
Trojan-Banker.AndroidOS.Mamont.iv
1.03
1.63
+0.60
+16
Trojan.AndroidOS.Generic.
1.32
1.47
+0.15
+7
Backdoor.AndroidOS.Triada.ae
1.76
1.44
-0.31
-2
Trojan.AndroidOS.Fakemoney.ej
0.00
1.43
+1.43
Trojan.AndroidOS.Triada.ii
2.07
1.41
-0.66
-5
Trojan-Spy.AndroidOS.Agent.asa
0.02
1.38
+1.36
* Unique users who encountered this malware as a percentage of all attacked users of Kaspersky mobile solutions.
The distribution of top malware families in Q2 largely mirrors the rankings from the previous reporting period. Newer variants of the Mamont banking Trojan climbed the leaderboards, displacing older iterations. This shift points to ongoing, active development of new variants by the threat actors behind the malware.
Mobile banking Trojans
In Q2, the total volume of Trojan-Banker applications dropped sharply compared to the previous quarter, totaling 93,574 installation packages.
Number of installation packages for mobile banking Trojans detected by Kaspersky, Q2 2025 — Q2 2026 (download)
Against the backdrop of this trend, the distribution shifted heavily toward Creduz Trojans. However, as noted earlier, this shift was not reflected in real-world attack metrics: virtually the entire leaderboard by proportion of targeted users continues to be dominated by diverse Mamont variants.
TOP 10 mobile bankers
Verdict
%* Q1 2026
%* Q2 2026
Difference in p.p.
Change in ranking
Trojan-Banker.AndroidOS.Mamont.hl
3.27
11.13
+7.86
+6
Trojan-Banker.AndroidOS.Mamont.iv
3.08
7.33
+4.25
+6
Trojan-Banker.AndroidOS.Mamont.mv
0.00
5.12
+5.12
Trojan-Banker.AndroidOS.Agent.ws
3.78
4.99
+1.22
+2
Trojan-Banker.AndroidOS.Mamont.mg
0.35
4.71
+4.36
+62
Trojan-Banker.AndroidOS.Faketoken.pac
2.56
4.10
+1.54
+6
Trojan-Banker.AndroidOS.Mamont.jo
15.75
3.73
-12.02
-6
Trojan-Banker.AndroidOS.Mamont.mc
0.83
3.51
+2.67
+26
Trojan-Banker.AndroidOS.Mamont.lf
0.00
2.79
+2.79
Trojan-Banker.AndroidOS.Agent.eq
0.89
2.58
+1.69
+23
* Unique users who encountered this malware as a percentage of all users of Kaspersky mobile security solutions who encountered banking threats.
Connecting certain LG monitors prompts Windows Update to install an LG app without consent, while the software runs at startup and displays McAfee trial adverts.
Connecting certain LG monitors prompts Windows Update to install an LG app without consent, while the software runs at startup and displays McAfee trial adverts.
Unit 42 analyzes TamperedChef malware clusters that use trojanized productivity apps and malvertising to deliver stealthy payloads to targets.
The post Tracking TamperedChef Clusters via Certificate and Code Reuse appeared first on Unit 42.
IT threat evolution in Q1 2026. Mobile statistics
IT threat evolution in Q1 2026. Non-mobile statistics
In the third quarter of 2025, we updated the methodology for calculating statistical indicators based on the Kaspersky Security Network. These changes affected all sections of the report except for the statistics on installation packages, which remained unchanged.
To illustrate the differences between the reporting periods, we have also recalculated data for the previous quarters. Consequently
In the third quarter of 2025, we updated the methodology for calculating statistical indicators based on the Kaspersky Security Network. These changes affected all sections of the report except for the statistics on installation packages, which remained unchanged.
To illustrate the differences between the reporting periods, we have also recalculated data for the previous quarters. Consequently, these figures may significantly differ from the previously published ones. However, subsequent reports will employ this new methodology, enabling precise comparisons with the data presented in this post.
The Kaspersky Security Network (KSN) is a global network for analyzing anonymized threat information, voluntarily shared by users of Kaspersky solutions. The statistics in this report are based on KSN data unless explicitly stated otherwise.
The quarter in numbers
According to Kaspersky Security Network, in Q1 2026:
More than 2.67 million attacks utilizing malware, adware, or unwanted mobile software were prevented.
The Trojan-Banker category was the prevalent mobile malware threat with a 52.96% share of total detected applications.
More than 306,000 malicious installation packages were discovered, including:
162,275 packages related to mobile banking Trojans;
439 packages related to mobile ransomware Trojans.
Quarterly highlights
The number of malware, adware, or unwanted software attacks on mobile devices decreased to 2,676,328 in Q1, down from 3,239,244 in the previous quarter.
Attacks on users of Kaspersky mobile solutions, Q3 2024 — Q1 2026 (download)
The overall drop in attack volume stems primarily from a reduction in adware and RiskTool detections. Nonetheless, this trend does not equate to a lower risk for mobile users. As shown later in this report, the number of unique users targeted by these threats remained relatively stable.
In Q1, Synthient researchers identified a link between the notorious Kimwolf botnet and the IPIDEA proxy network. This network was later taken down in cooperation with GTIG.
In early 2026, we discovered several apps on Google Play and the App Store that contained a new version of the SparkCat crypto stealer.
The Trojan code, meticulously concealed, was embedded into the infected Android apps. The obfuscated malicious Rust library was decrypted using a Dalvik-like virtual machine custom-built by the attackers. The iOS version of the malware also underwent several changes; specifically, the attackers began leveraging Apple’s proprietary Vision framework for optical character recognition (OCR).
Mobile threat statistics
The number of Android malware samples saw a slight increase compared to Q4 2025, reaching a total of 306,070.
The detected installation packages were distributed by type as follows:
Detected mobile apps by type, Q4 2025* — Q1 2026 (download)
* Data for the previous quarter may differ slightly from previously published figures due to certain verdicts being retrospectively revised.
Threat actors once again ramped up the production of new banking Trojans; as a result, this category overtook all others in volume, accounting for more than half of all installation packages.
Share* of users attacked by the given type of malicious or potentially unwanted app out of all targeted users of Kaspersky mobile products, Q4 2025 — Q1 2026 (download)
* The total percentage may exceed 100% if the same users encountered multiple attack types.
Following the surge in banking Trojan installation packages, the number of associated attacks also rose, causing Trojan-Banker apps to climb one spot in terms of their share of targeted users. Mamont variants emerged as the most prevalent banking Trojans, accounting for 73.5% of detections, with the rest of the users encountering Faketoken, Rewardsteal, Creduz, and other families.
Yet banking Trojans were still outpaced by adware and RiskTool-type unwanted apps when measured by the total number of affected users. Despite a decrease in their share of installation packages, these two app types retained their positions as the top two threats by attack volume. The most common adware detections involved HiddenAd (44.9%) and MobiDash (38.1%), while most frequently seen RiskTool apps were Revpn (67%) and SpyLoan (20.5%).
TOP 20 most frequently detected types of mobile malware
Note that the malware rankings below exclude riskware or potentially unwanted software, such as RiskTool or adware.
Verdict
%* Q4 2025
%* Q1 2026
Difference in p.p.
Change in ranking
Backdoor.AndroidOS.Triada.ag
2.62
7.09
+4.48
+10
DangerousObject.Multi.Generic.
6.75
5.84
-0.92
-1
DangerousObject.AndroidOS.GenericML.
3.52
5.51
+1.99
+6
Trojan-Banker.AndroidOS.Mamont.jo
0.00
5.28
+5.28
Trojan.AndroidOS.Fakemoney.v
5.40
3.44
-1.96
-1
Trojan-Downloader.AndroidOS.Keenadu.l
0.00
3.35
+3.35
Trojan-Banker.AndroidOS.Mamont.jx
0.00
3.09
+3.09
Backdoor.AndroidOS.Triada.z
4.87
3.08
-1.79
-2
Trojan.AndroidOS.Triada.fe
5.01
2.98
-2.02
-4
Backdoor.AndroidOS.Keenadu.a
2.07
2.73
+0.66
+6
Trojan-Banker.AndroidOS.Mamont.jg
0.34
2.37
+2.03
Trojan.AndroidOS.Triada.hf
2.15
2.23
+0.07
+3
Trojan.AndroidOS.Boogr.gsh
2.35
2.15
-0.20
0
Trojan.AndroidOS.Triada.ii
5.68
2.07
-3.60
-11
Backdoor.AndroidOS.Triada.ae
1.91
1.76
-0.16
+3
Backdoor.AndroidOS.Triada.ab
1.79
1.72
-0.08
+3
Trojan.AndroidOS.Triada.gn
2.38
1.58
-0.80
-5
Trojan-Banker.AndroidOS.Mamont.gg
1.56
1.50
-0.06
+2
Trojan.AndroidOS.Triada.ga
1.48
1.50
+0.01
+4
Backdoor.AndroidOS.Triada.ad
0.53
1.40
+0.87
+44
* Unique users who encountered this malware as a percentage of all attacked users of Kaspersky mobile solutions.
The pre-installed Triada.ag backdoor rose to the top spot; it is similar to the older Triada.z version we documented previously. Because the same variant was pre-installed across a wide range of devices, the total number of affected users is aggregated. Consequently, Triada outpaced even Mamont, as users encountered a variety of Mamont variants, causing the share of that banking Trojan to spread across multiple rows. Other pre-installed Triada variants (Triada.z, Triada.ae, Triada.ab, and Triada.ad) also made the rankings. Furthermore, we observed increasing activity from the Keenadu.a backdoor, while diverse variants of the embedded Triada Trojan remained in the rankings.
Mobile banking Trojans
Q1 2026 saw a characteristic rise in mobile banking Trojan activity, with the number of packages totaling 162,275, a 50% increase compared to the prior quarter.
Number of installation packages for mobile banking Trojans detected by Kaspersky, Q1 2025 — Q1 2026 (download)
We saw a similar growth in the previous quarter, with banking Trojan volumes rising by 50% during that period as well. Various Mamont variants accounted for the absolute majority of packages and represented nearly every entry in the rankings of most frequent banking Trojans by affected user count.
TOP 10 mobile bankers
Verdict
%* Q4 2025
%* Q1 2026
Difference in p.p.
Change in ranking
Trojan-Banker.AndroidOS.Mamont.jo
0.00
15.75
+15.75
Trojan-Banker.AndroidOS.Mamont.jx
0.00
9.22
+9.22
Trojan-Banker.AndroidOS.Mamont.jg
1.47
7.08
+5.61
+24
Trojan-Banker.AndroidOS.Mamont.gg
6.79
4.48
-2.32
-3
Trojan-Banker.AndroidOS.Mamont.ks
0.00
3.98
+3.98
Trojan-Banker.AndroidOS.Agent.ws
6.03
3.78
-2.25
-2
Trojan-Banker.AndroidOS.Mamont.hl
4.30
3.27
-1.03
+1
Trojan-Banker.AndroidOS.Mamont.iv
6.00
3.08
-2.92
-3
Trojan-Banker.AndroidOS.Mamont.jb
3.93
3.07
-0.86
+1
Trojan-Banker.AndroidOS.Mamont.jv
0.00
2.79
+2.79
* Unique users who encountered this malware as a percentage of all users of Kaspersky mobile security solutions who encountered banking threats.
Starting from the third quarter of 2025, we have updated our statistical methodology based on the Kaspersky Security Network. These changes affect all sections of the report except for the installation package statistics, which remain unchanged.
To illustrate trends between reporting periods, we have recalculated the previous year’s data; consequently, these figures may differ significantly from previously published numbers. All subsequent reports will be generated using this new methodology, en
Starting from the third quarter of 2025, we have updated our statistical methodology based on the Kaspersky Security Network. These changes affect all sections of the report except for the installation package statistics, which remain unchanged.
To illustrate trends between reporting periods, we have recalculated the previous year’s data; consequently, these figures may differ significantly from previously published numbers. All subsequent reports will be generated using this new methodology, ensuring accurate data comparisons with the findings presented in this article.
Kaspersky Security Network (KSN) is a global network for analyzing anonymized threat intelligence, voluntarily shared by Kaspersky users. The statistics in this report are based on KSN data unless explicitly stated otherwise.
The year in figures
According to Kaspersky Security Network, in 2025:
Over 14 million attacks involving malware, adware or unwanted mobile software were blocked.
Adware remained the most prevalent mobile threat, accounting for 62% of all detections.
Over 815 thousand malicious installation packages were detected, including 255 thousand mobile banking Trojans.
The year’s highlights
In 2025, cybercriminals launched an average of approximately 1.17 million attacks per month against mobile devices using malicious, advertising, or unwanted software. In total, Kaspersky solutions blocked 14,059,465 attacks throughout the year.
Attacks on Kaspersky mobile users in 2025 (download)
Beyond the malware mentioned in previous quarterly reports, 2025 saw the discovery of several other notable Trojans. Among these, in Q4 we uncovered the Keenadu preinstalled backdoor. This malware is integrated into device firmware during the manufacturing stage. The malicious code is injected into libandroid_runtime.so – a core library for the Android Java runtime environment – allowing a copy of the backdoor to enter the address space of every app running on the device. Depending on the specific app, the malware can then perform actions such as inflating ad views, displaying banners on behalf of other apps, or hijacking search queries. The functionality of Keenadu is virtually unlimited, as its malicious modules are downloaded dynamically and can be updated remotely.
Cybersecurity researchers also identified the Kimwolf IoT botnet, which specifically targets Android TV boxes. Infected devices are capable of launching DDoS attacks, operating as reverse proxies, and executing malicious commands via a reverse shell. Subsequent analysis revealed that Kimwolf’s reverse proxy functionality was being leveraged by proxy providers to use compromised home devices as residential proxies.
Another notable discovery in 2025 was the LunaSpy Trojan.
LunaSpy Trojan, distributed under the guise of an antivirus app
Disguised as antivirus software, this spyware exfiltrates browser passwords, messaging app credentials, SMS messages, and call logs. Furthermore, it is capable of recording audio via the device’s microphone and capturing video through the camera. This threat primarily targeted users in Russia.
Mobile threat statistics
815,735 new unique installation packages were observed in 2025, showing a decrease compared to the previous year. While the decline in 2024 was less pronounced, this past year saw the figure drop by nearly one-third.
Detected Android-specific malware and unwanted software installation packages in 2022–2025 (download)
The overall decrease in detected packages is primarily due to a reduction in apps categorized as not-a-virus. Conversely, the number of Trojans has increased significantly, a trend clearly reflected in the distribution data below.
Detected packages by type
Distribution* of detected mobile software by type, 2024–2025 (download)
* The data for the previous year may differ from previously published data due to some verdicts being retrospectively revised.
A significant increase in Trojan-Banker and Trojan-Spy apps was accompanied by a decline in AdWare and RiskTool files. The most prevalent banking Trojans were Mamont (accounting for 49.8% of apps) and Creduz (22.5%). Leading the persistent adware category were MobiDash (39%), Adlo (27%), and HiddenAd (20%).
Share* of users attacked by each type of malware or unwanted software out of all users of Kaspersky mobile solutions attacked in 2024–2025 (download)
* The total may exceed 100% if the same users encountered multiple attack types.
Trojan-Banker malware saw a significant surge in 2025, not only in terms of unique file counts but also in the total number of attacks. Nevertheless, this category ranked fourth overall, trailing far behind the Trojan file category, which was dominated by various modifications of Triada and Fakemoney.
TOP 20 types of mobile malware
Note that the malware rankings below exclude riskware and potentially unwanted apps, such as RiskTool and adware.
Verdict
% 2024*
% 2025*
Difference in p.p.
Change in ranking
Trojan.AndroidOS.Triada.fe
0.04
9.84
+9.80
Trojan.AndroidOS.Triada.gn
2.94
8.14
+5.21
+6
Trojan.AndroidOS.Fakemoney.v
7.46
7.97
+0.51
+1
DangerousObject.Multi.Generic
7.73
5.83
–1.91
–2
Trojan.AndroidOS.Triada.ii
0.00
5.25
+5.25
Trojan-Banker.AndroidOS.Mamont.da
0.10
4.12
+4.02
Trojan.AndroidOS.Triada.ga
10.56
3.75
–6.81
–6
Trojan-Banker.AndroidOS.Mamont.db
0.01
3.53
+3.51
Backdoor.AndroidOS.Triada.z
0.00
2.79
+2.79
Trojan-Banker.AndroidOS.Coper.c
0.81
2.54
+1.72
+35
Trojan-Clicker.AndroidOS.Agent.bh
0.34
2.48
+2.14
+74
Trojan-Dropper.Linux.Agent.gen
1.82
2.37
+0.55
+4
Trojan.AndroidOS.Boogr.gsh
5.41
2.06
–3.35
–8
DangerousObject.AndroidOS.GenericML
2.42
1.97
–0.45
–3
Trojan.AndroidOS.Triada.gs
3.69
1.93
–1.76
–9
Trojan-Downloader.AndroidOS.Agent.no
0.00
1.87
+1.87
Trojan.AndroidOS.Triada.hf
0.00
1.75
+1.75
Trojan-Banker.AndroidOS.Mamont.bc
1.13
1.65
+0.51
+8
Trojan.AndroidOS.Generic.
2.13
1.47
–0.66
–6
Trojan.AndroidOS.Triada.hy
0.00
1.44
+1.44
* Unique users who encountered this malware as a percentage of all attacked users of Kaspersky mobile solutions.
The list is largely dominated by the Triada family, which is distributed via malicious modifications of popular messaging apps. Another infection vector involves tricking victims into installing an official messaging app within a “customized virtual environment” that supposedly offers enhanced configuration options. Fakemoney scam applications, which promise fraudulent investment opportunities or fake payouts, continue to target users frequently, ranking third in our statistics. Meanwhile, the Mamont banking Trojan variants occupy the 6th, 8th, and 18th positions by number of attacks. The Triada backdoor preinstalled in the firmware of certain devices reached the 9th spot.
Region-specific malware
This section describes malware families whose attack campaigns are concentrated within specific countries.
Verdict
Country*
%**
Trojan-Banker.AndroidOS.Coper.a
Türkiye
95.74
Trojan-Dropper.AndroidOS.Hqwar.bj
Türkiye
94.96
Trojan.AndroidOS.Thamera.bb
India
94.71
Trojan-Proxy.AndroidOS.Agent.q
Germany
93.70
Trojan-Banker.AndroidOS.Coper.c
Türkiye
93.42
Trojan-Banker.AndroidOS.Rewardsteal.lv
India
92.44
Trojan-Banker.AndroidOS.Rewardsteal.jp
India
92.31
Trojan-Banker.AndroidOS.Rewardsteal.ib
India
91.91
Trojan-Dropper.AndroidOS.Rewardsteal.h
India
91.45
Trojan-Banker.AndroidOS.Rewardsteal.nk
India
90.98
Trojan-Dropper.AndroidOS.Agent.sm
Türkiye
90.34
Trojan-Dropper.AndroidOS.Rewardsteal.ac
India
89.38
Trojan-Banker.AndroidOS.Rewardsteal.oa
India
89.18
Trojan-Banker.AndroidOS.Rewardsteal.ma
India
88.58
Trojan-Spy.AndroidOS.SmForw.ko
India
88.48
Trojan-Dropper.AndroidOS.Pylcasa.c
Brazil
88.25
Trojan-Dropper.AndroidOS.Hqwar.bf
Türkiye
88.15
Trojan-Banker.AndroidOS.Agent.pp
India
87.85
* Country where the malware was most active. ** Unique users who encountered the malware in the indicated country as a percentage of all users of Kaspersky mobile solutions who were attacked by the same malware.
Türkiye saw the highest concentration of attacks from Coper banking Trojans and their associated Hqwar droppers. In India, Rewardsteal Trojans continued to proliferate, exfiltrating victims’ payment data under the guise of monetary giveaways. Additionally, India saw a resurgence of the Thamera Trojan, which we previously observed frequently attacking users in 2023. This malware hijacks the victim’s device to illicitly register social media accounts.
The Trojan-Proxy.AndroidOS.Agent.q campaign, concentrated in Germany, utilized a compromised third-party application designed for tracking discounts at a major German retail chain. Attackers monetized these infections through unauthorized use of the victims’ devices as residential proxies.
In Brazil, 2025 saw a concentration of Pylcasa Trojan attacks. This malware is primarily used to redirect users to phishing pages or illicit online casino sites.
Mobile banking Trojans
The number of new banking Trojan installation packages surged to 255,090, representing a several-fold increase over previous years.
Mobile banking Trojan installation packages detected by Kaspersky in 2022–2025 (download)
Notably, the total number of attacks involving bankers grew by 1.5 times, maintaining the same growth rate seen in the previous year. Given the sharp spike in the number of unique malicious packages, we can conclude that these attacks yield significant profit for cybercriminals. This is further evidenced by the fact that threat actors continue to diversify their delivery channels and accelerate the production of new variants in an effort to evade detection by security solutions.
TOP 10 mobile bankers
Verdict
% 2024*
% 2025*
Difference in p.p.
Change in ranking
Trojan-Banker.AndroidOS.Mamont.da
0.86
15.65
+14.79
+28
Trojan-Banker.AndroidOS.Mamont.db
0.12
13.41
+13.29
Trojan-Banker.AndroidOS.Coper.c
7.19
9.65
+2.46
+2
Trojan-Banker.AndroidOS.Mamont.bc
10.03
6.26
–3.77
–3
Trojan-Banker.AndroidOS.Mamont.ev
0.00
4.10
+4.10
Trojan-Banker.AndroidOS.Coper.a
9.04
4.00
–5.04
–4
Trojan-Banker.AndroidOS.Mamont.ek
0.00
3.73
+3.73
Trojan-Banker.AndroidOS.Mamont.cb
0.64
3.04
+2.40
+26
Trojan-Banker.AndroidOS.Faketoken.pac
2.17
2.95
+0.77
+5
Trojan-Banker.AndroidOS.Mamont.hi
0.00
2.75
+2.75
* Unique users who encountered this malware as a percentage of all users of Kaspersky mobile solutions who encountered banking threats.
In 2025, we observed a massive surge in activity from Mamont banking Trojans. They accounted for approximately half of all new apps in their category and also were utilized in half of all banking Trojan attacks.
Conclusion
The year 2025 saw a continuing trend toward a decline in total unique unwanted software installation packages. However, we noted a significant year-over-year increase in specific threats – most notably mobile banking Trojans and spyware – even though adware remained the most frequently detected threat overall.
Among the mobile threats detected, we have seen an increased prevalence of preinstalled backdoors, such as Triada and Keenadu. Consistent with last year’s findings, certain mobile malware families continue to proliferate via official app stores. Finally, we have observed a growing interest among threat actors in leveraging compromised devices as proxies.