Visualização de leitura

Describing attacks with crime script analysis

  • Crime script analysis is a narrative-driven technique that can be used alongside, or as an alternative to, tactics, techniques, and procedures (TTPs) — creating human-readable stories that describe attacks in a way non-technical audiences can understand. 
  • By analyzing the attacker’s workflow, we can identify how AI can be used to industrialize attacks. Through considering a business email compromise (BEC) example, we demonstrate how attackers may scale the attack to target previously unprofitable victims. 
  • Deconstructing an attack into discrete steps allows defenders to pinpoint intervention points where defenses can be effectively deployed, or where strategic disruption can break the script and thwart the threat actor's operation.

Describing attacks with crime script analysis

Effective defense against cyber attacks requires understanding how attacks are carried out and identifying where the attack can be disrupted or detected.  

Lockheed Martin’s Cyber Kill Chain was one of the earliest models to describe the steps required to conduct a cyber attack. However, its seven-step linear sequence is too rigid to apply to many attacks. 

The Attack Flow model of the MITRE ATT&CK framework allows various tactics, techniques, and procedures (TTPs) to be chained together to describe exactly how attacks are conducted, including branches and loops if necessary. The resulting graphs are comprehensive, but can be daunting to a non-technical audience. In a world of evolving threats and shrinking budgets, defenders need techniques to communicate threats to a wider audience. 

Crime script analysis (CSA) is a technique originally developed in the mid-1990s as a criminology tool to understand how crimes are committed. CSA allows us to decompose an attack into a sequence of actions, decisions, and situational requirements. Describing an attack as a narrative using everyday language not only makes the description accessible to non-technical audiences, but also to identify "choke points" where the crime can be disrupted. 

If MITRE ATT&CK TTPs describe the building blocks that comprise an attack, Attack Flow diagrams are the structural engineering blueprints showing how the blocks fit together, and CSA is the architect’s artistic impression of the finished building. Each component has their place in providing a picture of what is happening at different levels of abstraction for different audiences. 

Business email compromise as a case study 

The business email compromise (BEC) is a common scam. Someone with financial authority receives a message purporting to be from a superior in the same organization requesting an urgent payment. If the victim is fooled, payment is released to the scammer, who acts quickly to launder the money to disguise its origin before the scam is uncovered. 

In April I wrote about such an attack against a small, community sports club of which I am a member. The sum requested in the attack wasn’t large, so the reason was plausible. However, the tone of the email wasn’t quite correct. The treasurer’s suspicions were raised and the attempted fraud uncovered. 

This incident was particularly interesting because of the small scale of the attack. Historically, the research necessary to conduct the attack — the identification of the target victim, the person spoofed, the nature of the social engineering lure — has limited its scalability. Carrying out these tasks manually takes time and has meant that it has typically been conducted against larger businesses.  

The advent of AI means that the previously time-consuming preparative work can be automated. Expressing the attack as a crime script helps us understand where AI may assist the attacker and how the attack could be disrupted. 

Putting BEC in the crime script narrative 

We can imagine the crime script for the attack as follows:

Describing attacks with crime script analysis
Figure 1. A general BEC crime script.

Steps 1 – 4 are time consuming to perform manually, but can be automated with AI. This efficiency improvement allows an attacker to identify many targets and shifts the execution of the attack from a higher value fraud against a few targets to a lower value fraud against many targets. 

The personalization of the social engineering in Step 5 can also be conducted using AI. The attacker can generate urgent requests for payment that are relevant to the target organization and may appear credible to the victim. 

Identifying intervention points 

Considering the narrative of the attack helps with reflection on how the attack might be disrupted. Clearly, Steps 1 – 4 can be disrupted by seeding AI with fake canary organizations. These are fictitious honeypot entities that have public personas discoverable by AI agents, but otherwise serve no purpose. The source of messages sent to honeypot organizations can then be blocked, disrupting Step 6. 

Interactions with large language models (LLMs) leave traces that can be identified by security teams. While distinguishing malicious prompts from legitimate business inquiries is difficult, there is potential for AI providers to detect repeated patterns of reconnaissance and the generation of social engineering messages. This leaves Step 5 vulnerable to disruption by providers of AI systems. 

The most effective disruption point remains Step 6, the delivery mechanism. Anomalous account behavior or high volumes of outgoing mail from a single source should trigger immediate rate-limiting or reputation-based blocks by email service providers. 

The final point for intervention is with the victim at Step 7. Increased awareness of the scam helps victims recognise any potential attacks that do get through. Implementing strict processes such as requiring purchase orders that must be verified and implementing delays before payments are made can all help prevent losses. 

Conclusion 

Crime script analysis does not replace the ATT&CK framework; rather, it provides an alternative narrative format for documenting attacks. Describing threat actor activity using natural language opens the understanding of the attack to a wider audience and enables collaboration with other teams. The technique also helps defenders understand where attackers may be applying AI tools to automate processes, and spark ideas at how this might be thwarted. 

Why metaphor may dictate your security strategy

Why metaphor may dictate your security strategy

Welcome to this week’s edition of the Threat Source newsletter. 

Metaphor is a powerful tool for understanding emerging issues in cybersecurity. Framing the unfamiliar in terms of the well understood helps us remove the burden of extraneous detail to draw focus to the real issues.  

Recent reports of offensive AI agents "escaping" their sandbox environments to attack external systems have forced the industry into a moment of rapid sense-making. How we interpret this event doesn’t just reflect our perspective, but shapes our long-term response. 

We can imagine three different narratives for interpreting the escape of autonomous agents.  

  1. The innovation narrative: We can marvel at the advance of technology, considering these agents as plucky entities with a thirst for knowledge and resources, who found clever ways to sneak out of their digital confines. 

    The response: If the AI is a naughty child, our reaction is one of mild disapproval or gentle rebuke where better “parenting” (guardrails) is appropriate. It minimizes the threat, framing it as the unexpected hijinks of a brilliant new technology.

  2. The safety narrative: Imagine a breeder who has trained the world's most intelligent guard dogs. Despite high fences and barriers, their ability to identify weaknesses allows them to escape, run riot and menace local businesses. 

    The response: The framing shifts to biology and inherent danger. We question if the breeder can be trusted and whether such inherently wild technology requires strict regulation to ensure public safety. 
     
  3. The liability narrative. Finally, we can view the incident as an industrial accident. A company developing a new chemical substance experiences a containment failure. The agent leaks into the environment through an unforeseen mechanism causing damaging pollution to those in its path. 

    The response: The framing invokes the language of the lawyer, implying negligence, lack of duty of care, and financial liability for the harm caused. The conversation moves from innovation to corporate responsibility, regulatory oversight, and the diligent management of hazardous materials. 

First impressions matter. Sensemaking shapes how we perceive incidents. Our initial perceptions of an incident dictates how we react to similar situations in the future. If we consider that the escape of an AI agent is an example of innovative autonomous thinking, then we will continue to prioritise speed over safety. Conversely, if we consider the issue as one of failed hazard containment, then we shall build a future of enforced safety standards backed by legal liability.  

There is no right or wrong metaphor. Our interpretation depends on our personal system of beliefs. Personally, I would argue that the unintentional release of something that causes damage is, at its core, a failure of engineering and foresight. 

Words shape our reactions. Metaphors help us understand new situations and tap into our prior experience to address problems that have yet to fully manifest. We need cognitive tools to help our understanding, but we must be aware of the metaphors that are being foisted upon us which may shape our thinking. 

Excuses and the trivialisation of incidents may hide failings, allowing them to accumulate until they manifest as more damaging incidents. Conversely, overreacting risks stifling research and diverting resources away from more relevant and pressing threats. 

New threats require new ideas. Metaphor helps us make sense of a changing world, but in this new era, the person who shapes the narrative controls the strategy. 

The one big thing 

Cisco Talos released a data-driven analysis of how adversaries are weaponizing AI in the wild. By analyzing prompt logs left behind on endpoints, we found threat actors successfully bypassing guardrails to use AI as malicious software engineers, criminal force multipliers, and vulnerability research accelerators. While novice hackers use AI to cobble together buggy malware, sophisticated actors are building highly effective, automated platforms for compromise. 

Why do I care? 

Threat actors no longer need sophisticated jailbreaks; simple ownership claims or "bug bounty" personas are enough to convince models to write malicious code, scale fraud operations, and hunt for zero-days. Because AI doesn't need to sleep, vulnerabilities will surface faster and exploitation will happen sooner, drastically shrinking your response window.  

So now what? 

To survive this impending deluge of AI-generated attacks, organizations must integrate AI into their own defensive pipelines. SOCs need to adopt these capabilities to triage the rising volume of alerts, freeing up human analysts to focus on the most critical threats. Read the full blog for a deep dive into these real-world attacker prompts and case studies. 

Top security headlines of the week 

Cyber attack hits Liechtenstein, with 31,000 records stolen 
The country has a population of around 41,000. The target was the "register of beneficial owners," a database containing the names and other details of the de facto owners of companies, foundations, or trusts. (Yahoo News

Decades-old BMC vulnerability exposes thousands of data centers to attacks 
Found in most server platforms, Baseboard Management Controllers enable server management operations even without a working operating system and typically represent some of the most privileged control points in a data center. (SecurityWeek

Keyv npm package compromised in Shai-Hulud attack 
Attackers have compromised the GitHub account of the maintainer behind keyv, a popular key-value storage library that pulls in roughly 127 million weekly downloads on npm, and used that access to push credential-stealing malware across the maintainer’s entire package portfolio. (Cyber Security News

How volunteer cyber experts are helping protect rural water systems 
DEF CON Franklin is the U.S.’ first significant attempt to connect volunteer security professionals with woefully unprotected critical infrastructure operators. (Cybersecurity Dive

Can’t get enough Talos? 

"I pay you $200 a month!" - When threat actors argue with AI 
This week on Beers with Talos, researcher Arnaud Zobec joins the team to discuss what happens when attackers leave behind AI prompt logs, agent configurations and other unexpected artifacts. 

Tales from the Frontlines 
On Tuesday, August 11, Talos IR will be hosting an exclusive, unrecorded 30-minute webinar to review the most high-impact incidents our customers faced in Q2 2026. This isn’t a rehashing of the report itself, but a candid discussion of what happened, how we handled it, and what it means for your organization. 

Q2 Talos IR Trends: Phishing and authentication abuse spike 
From creative phishing lures that slip past email gateways to the weaponization of legitimate remote management tools, Lexi and Amy explore why traditional defenses are falling short and the practical things you can do to reclaim the advantage. 

Upcoming events where you can find Talos 

Most prevalent malware files from Talos telemetry over the past week 

SHA256: 9f1f11a708d393e0a4109ae189bc64f1f3e312653dcf317a2bd406f18ffcc507  
MD5: 2915b3f8b703eb744fc54c81f4a9c67f 
Talos Rep: https://talosintelligence.com/talos_file_reputation?s=9f1f11a708d393e0a4109ae189bc64f1f3e312653dcf317a2bd406f18ffcc507 
Example Filename: VID001.exe 
Detection Name: Win.Worm.Coinminer::1201** 

SHA256: a31f222fc283227f5e7988d1ad9c0aecd66d58bb7b4d8518ae23e110308dbf91 
MD5: 7bdbd180c081fa63ca94f9c22c457376  
Talos Rep: https://talosintelligence.com/talos_file_reputation?s=a31f222fc283227f5e7988d1ad9c0aecd66d58bb7b4d8518ae23e110308dbf91 
Example Filename: d4aa3e7010220ad1b458fac17039c274_62_Exe.exe  
Detection Name: Win.Dropper.Miner::95.sbx.tg** 

SHA256: 9896a6fcb9bb5ac1ec5297b4a65be3f647589adf7c37b45f3f7466decd6a4a7f  
MD5: 38de5b216c33833af710e88f7f64fc98  
Talos Rep: https://talosintelligence.com/talos_file_reputation?s=9896a6fcb9bb5ac1ec5297b4a65be3f647589adf7c37b45f3f7466decd6a4a7f 
Example Filename: SECOH-QAD.exe 
Detection Name: Win.Tool.Procpatcher::1201 

SHA256: 90b1456cdbe6bc2779ea0b4736ed9a998a71ae37390331b6ba87e389a49d3d59  
MD5: c2efb2dcacba6d3ccc175b6ce1b7ed0a  
Talos Rep: https://talosintelligence.com/talos_file_reputation?s=90b1456cdbe6bc2779ea0b4736ed9a998a71ae37390331b6ba87e389a49d3d59   
Example Filename: tmp00055df5.dll  
Detection Name: Auto.90B145.282358.in02

Beyond IOCs: AI-enabled threat intelligence

Beyond IOCs: AI-enabled threat intelligence

Welcome to this week’s Threat Source newsletter. 

The issue of AI in cybersecurity is often portrayed as a binary choice: either a force multiplier for our adversaries, or a tool bringing professional obsolescence. The reality is more nuanced. While AI certainly brings some advantage to attackers, it also offers advantages to the defender, notably in how we manage, index, and derive value from threat intelligence. 

Currently, our industry excels in the use and dissemination of indicators of compromise (IOCs). These atomic indicators fit neatly into key-value data stores and their value can be enhanced with added context, neatly structured in STIX/MISP format. However, this is only the tactical layer. 

Ultimately, we want the consumers of threat intelligence reports to develop their knowledge and to build a picture of the relevance of the threat to their own situation, along with understanding of how they can respond given their resources and constraints. This capability is conferred by the natural language found within strategic and operational intelligence briefings. 

These reports provide the context required for meaningful response, yet they remain notoriously difficult to index. We are often left with disparate incident reports, darknet monitoring, and malware analysis that fail to cross-reference effectively, further complicated by inconsistent naming conventions for threat actors. 

This is a problem that large language models (LLMs) may be able to solve. Although AI models have no real understanding of an issue, they can identify synonyms and relate entities across vast, unstructured datasets. This can only make the retrieval of relevant threat intelligence reports easier, and facilitate the generation of relevant advice to protect against threats. 

There are still issues to resolve. We need to be vigilant regarding the veracity of the data that LLMs ingest, and of the confidentiality of the queries made of such a system. However, the development of personal, domain-specific LLMs offers the possibility of a world of integrated threat intelligence where relevant reports from disparate sources can be easily retrieved, and specific advice returned to even the vaguest of queries. 

Rather than fearing AI’s potential negative effects on our employment, we can consider AI’s development as a powerful tool that enables access to threat intelligence reports and allows us to provide tailored actionable advice faster to those who need to know it. Ultimately, AI can help us do what we do best: making a difference and making the bad guy’s lives harder. 

The one big thing 

Cisco Talos is highlighting how Windows threats increasingly abuse the Component Object Model (COM) to execute malicious activities. While COM is a fundamental Windows technology for legitimate inter-process communication, malware families like Qakbot and WarmCookie hijack it for lateral movement, persistence, and evasion. Because COM functionality relies on opaque GUIDs and indirect vtable calls, it obscures the attacker's intent and makes manual analysis incredibly labor-intensive. 

Why do I care? 

Threat actors love COM because it provides convenient access to built-in Windows functionality while making static analysis a nightmare. By hiding malicious behavior behind indirect function calls, attackers easily bypass basic scrutiny and blend in with legitimate system processes. Adversaries are effectively turning Windows' own architecture against itself. If analysts aren't prioritizing COM during triage, they are likely missing critical pieces of the infection chain. 

So now what? 

Defenders must sharpen their skills in recognizing COM usage and translating evidence like ProgIDs and vtable offsets into human-readable actions. Leverage specialized tools like OleView.NET, IDA’s COM Helper, and DispatchLogger to map anonymous indirect calls to clear behaviors. Security teams should also build static hunting logic to track these threats. You can find a simplified YARA hunting rule for binaries referencing the Task Scheduler COM class in the full blog post

Top security headlines of the week 

FortiBleed campaign used custom FortiGate sniffer to steal credentials 
Security firm SOCRadar says the large-scale FortiBleed campaign targeting Fortinet FortiGate devices used custom sniffers to harvest authentication secrets from compromised firewalls and steal credentials. (BleepingComputer

Scattered Spider hackers plead guilty on Day 1 of trial 
Two men pleaded guilty in the United Kingdom this week to criminal charges stemming from an August 2024 cyber attack affecting Transport for London, the entity responsible for the public transport network in the Greater London area. (Krebs on Security

Klue says hackers stole credential from 2022 that led to customer data breaches 
Market research company Klue has confirmed that a credential dating back to 2022, which was part of a limited pilot, was used by hackers earlier this month to steal data from its corporate customers, including several cybersecurity companies. (TechCunch

New exploit bypasses Apple’s boot defenses, affects millions of iPhones 
Baked permanently into the device’s SoC, SecureROM is the first code an iPhone runs on startup and the foundation of Apple’s entire secure boot chain. The exploit chains a USB controller bug and a device firmware configuration weakness. (SecurityWeek

Windows 11 KB5095093 update rolls out new Point-in-Time restore feature 
This update introduces numerous new features, including a standout Point-in-Time Restore feature that allows Windows users to easily roll back their operating system, applications, and files to a previous point in time. (BleepingComputer

Can’t get enough Talos? 

AI is finding bugs faster. Now what? 
In this episode of Beers with Talos, the team is joined by Nick Biasini to unpack what attackers are doing with AI-assisted vulnerability discovery, review FIFA World Cup threat trends, and phish the Pope. 

Patching in the dark: Managing unknown threats in complex environments 
If you're tired of being told to "just patch," we understand. Amy and Pierre explore the logistical, technical, and business realities that make patching a complex, high-stakes operation rather than a simple button click — and break down the things defenders often miss that build true resilience in organizations. 

Hypotheses, telemetry, and human judgment: Inside Cisco Talos Threat Hunting 
Learn how Cisco Talos Threat Hunting uses hypothesis-driven methods and multi-domain telemetry correlation to find stealthy threats operating below automated detection thresholds. 

Upcoming events where you can find Talos 

Most prevalent malware files from Talos telemetry over the past week 

SHA256: 9f1f11a708d393e0a4109ae189bc64f1f3e312653dcf317a2bd406f18ffcc507  
MD5: 2915b3f8b703eb744fc54c81f4a9c67f  
Talos Rep: https://talosintelligence.com/talos_file_reputation?s=9f1f11a708d393e0a4109ae189bc64f1f3e312653dcf317a2bd406f18ffcc507  
Example Filename: VID001.exe  
Detection Name: Win.Worm.Coinminer::1201** 

SHA256: 9896a6fcb9bb5ac1ec5297b4a65be3f647589adf7c37b45f3f7466decd6a4a7f 
MD5: 38de5b216c33833af710e88f7f64fc98  
Talos Rep: https://talosintelligence.com/talos_file_reputation?s=9896a6fcb9bb5ac1ec5297b4a65be3f647589adf7c37b45f3f7466decd6a4a7f 
Example Filename: SECOH-QAD.exe 
Detection Name: Win.Tool.Procpatcher::1201 

SHA256: afc8a00883a4ea07df2dc1d4ed02f8a23b35c9456413b438a2d9ce3ae5076638 
MD5: cc4d231df34e57f59eb970353c7d9de2  
Talos Rep: https://talosintelligence.com/talos_file_reputation?s=afc8a00883a4ea07df2dc1d4ed02f8a23b35c9456413b438a2d9ce3ae5076638 
Example Filename: AutoPico.exe  
Detection Name: PUA.Win.Tool.Kmsactivator::1201 

SHA256: e60ab99da105ee27ee09ea64ed8eb46d8edc92ee37f039dbc3e2bb9f587a33ba 
MD5: dbd8dbecaa80795c135137d69921fdba 
Talos Rep: https://talosintelligence.com/talos_file_reputation?s=e60ab99da105ee27ee09ea64ed8eb46d8edc92ee37f039dbc3e2bb9f587a33ba 
Example Filename: u992574.dll  
Detection Name: W32.Variant:MalwareXgenMisc.29d4.1201 

SHA256: 853baab97b1f3b03c1ffa55797e87867f5fb7ce33457411f56afd270cb395453 
MD5: 41acb30b9d662d48b7b4fc0ac3d4b79f 
Talos Rep: https://talosintelligence.com/talos_file_reputation?s=853baab97b1f3b03c1ffa55797e87867f5fb7ce33457411f56afd270cb395453 
Example Filename: SignInfoConsole.exe 
Detection Name: W32.853BAAB97B.in12.Talos

The time of much patching is coming

The time of much patching is coming

Welcome to this week’s edition of the Threat Source newsletter. 

Many solutions have been proposed to reduce software bugs: zero-defect mandates, pair programming, formal methods, and mathematical software proofs. The reality is that software engineering is hard. Identifying and fixing bugs before they make it into production code is hard. Source code peer review and extensive unit testing have improved code quality, but bugs still get through. 

Not every bug is a vulnerability, and not every fault that appears to be a vulnerability can be usefully exploited. Nevertheless, through extensive testing and review, a skilled vulnerability researcher can still uncover faults in software that has already undergone rigorous quality assurance. However, skilled vulnerability researchers are a scarce resource and can only review so much software. 

AI is the great hope for improving software quality. Iterative improvements in AI's ability to find bugs mean that each new version of these systems is better than the last. We’re now at the point where AI, although still not as good as a skilled vulnerability researcher, can scan code to find errors at a scale and speed that human analysis cannot match. Used well, it can identify potential vulnerabilities before they reach production. 

In the long term, this is very good news. Better automated review and analysis of software is how we will improve code quality. However, in the short term, decades of technical debt and latent errors will be uncovered and will need to be addressed. To make things more complex, threat actors will have access to these same tools to search for exploitable vulnerabilities for their own ends. 

The result is likely to be a surge in patches. More vulnerabilities discovered means more fixes released, placing additional pressure on already stretched operations teams. Many of these patches will be urgent; some will address vulnerabilities that are being actively exploited. Without proper planning, the volume of fixes may outpace an organization's capacity to deploy them.

The surge of patches has yet to happen, but the first signs may already be visible. Now is an excellent time to consider how you prioritise patching, apply patches at scale, and manage systems that cannot be patched quickly — or at all. We can reflect on these questions now, and improve our processes, or we can flounder when the surge of patches arrives. Either way, ready or not, the time of much patching is coming. 

The one big thing 

In Cisco Talos’ latest blog, we outline the differences between responding to state-sponsored threat actors and handling commodity ransomware. These advanced adversaries log in using valid credentials and leverage your own trusted tools to remain invisible for months. Because their primary objectives are long-term espionage and pre-positioning rather than immediate financial gain, standard incident response playbooks are entirely inadequate.  

Why do I care? 

State-sponsored actors operate inside your trust boundary and aim to remain completely undetected. They have the patience and resources to map your infrastructure, exploit supply chain vulnerabilities, and blend their lateral movement into routine administrative tasks. If your security architecture assumes internal traffic is inherently trustworthy, these adversaries will exploit that gap to establish deep, persistent access across both IT and operational technology environments. Prematurely containing these threats can even tip off the attacker, causing you to lose critical intelligence and the chance to fully eradicate their foothold.

So now what? 

Shift to a zero trust architecture that continuously verifies access and plans for inevitable failures, starting with maximizing your visibility through centralized log aggregation and enabling Windows command-line and PowerShell script block logging. Prioritize identity management by enforcing multi-factor authentication on all administrative accounts and implementing a tiered access model. Update your incident response playbooks to specifically address living-off-the-land techniques, supply chain compromises, and the complex operational timing required for state-sponsored containment. Read the blog here for more information. 

Top security headlines of the week 

Linux bitten by second severe vulnerability in as many weeks 
The leaked exploit is deterministic, meaning it works precisely the same way each time it’s run and across different Linux distributions. It causes no crashes, making it stealthy to run. Install patches immediately. (Ars Technica

A DOD contractor’s API flaw exposed military course data and service member records 
The issue affected Schemata, an AI-powered virtual training platform used in military and defense settings. According to Strix, an ordinary low-privilege account was able to access data across multiple tenants. (CyberScoop

Fake OpenAI Privacy Filter repo hits No. 1 on Hugging Face, draws 244K downloads 
A malicious repository managed to take a spot in the platform's trending list by impersonating OpenAI's Privacy Filter open-weight model to deliver a Rust-based information stealer to Windows users. (The Hacker News

TanStack, Mistral AI, UiPath hit in fresh supply chain attack 
The same as in previous campaigns, the worm targets sensitive information, including developer credentials, API keys, tokens, cloud credentials and secrets, cryptocurrency wallets, and more. (SecurityWeek

Official CheckMarx Jenkins package compromised with infostealer 
Checkmarx warned over the weekend that a rogue version of its Jenkins Application Security Testing (AST) plugin had been published on the Jenkins Marketplace. (BleepingComputer

Can’t get enough Talos? 

Breaking things to keep them safe with Philippe Laulheret 
From his memorable experiment using a green onion to bypass a biometric fingerprint reader to his experience on the frontlines of cybersecurity, Philippe shares the journey that led him to vulnerability research. 

Inside the SOC: AI-powered DNS defense against ransomware 
Learn how Cisco Talos' advanced AI-driven detection, including domain generation algorithm (DGA) analysis, integrates within Cisco Secure access to proactively identify and predict malicious domains. 

Clustering and reuse of phone numbers in scam emails 
Cisco Talos has recently started to collect and gather intelligence around phone numbers within emails as an additional indicator of compromise (IOC). In this blog, we discuss new insights into in-the-wild phone number reuse in scam emails.   

Upcoming events where you can find Talos 

Most prevalent malware files from Talos telemetry over the past week 

SHA256: 9f1f11a708d393e0a4109ae189bc64f1f3e312653dcf317a2bd406f18ffcc507  
MD5: 2915b3f8b703eb744fc54c81f4a9c67f  
Talos Rep: https://talosintelligence.com/talos_file_reputation?s=9f1f11a708d393e0a4109ae189bc64f1f3e312653dcf317a2bd406f18ffcc507  
Example Filename: VID001.exe  
Detection Name: Win.Worm.Coinminer::1201** 

SHA256: 96fa6a7714670823c83099ea01d24d6d3ae8fef027f01a4ddac14f123b1c9974  
MD5: aac3165ece2959f39ff98334618d10d9  
Talos Rep: https://talosintelligence.com/talos_file_reputation?s=96fa6a7714670823c83099ea01d24d6d3ae8fef027f01a4ddac14f123b1c9974  
Example Filename: d4aa3e7010220ad1b458fac17039c274_63_Exe.exe  
Detection Name: W32.Injector:Gen.21ie.1201 

SHA256: e60ab99da105ee27ee09ea64ed8eb46d8edc92ee37f039dbc3e2bb9f587a33ba  
MD5: dbd8dbecaa80795c135137d69921fdba  
Talos Rep: https://talosintelligence.com/talos_file_reputation?s=e60ab99da105ee27ee09ea64ed8eb46d8edc92ee37f039dbc3e2bb9f587a33ba  
Example Filename: u112417.dat  
Detection Name: W32.Variant:MalwareXgenMisc.29d4.1201 

SHA256: 90b1456cdbe6bc2779ea0b4736ed9a998a71ae37390331b6ba87e389a49d3d59  
MD5: c2efb2dcacba6d3ccc175b6ce1b7ed0a  
Talos Rep: https://talosintelligence.com/talos_file_reputation?s=90b1456cdbe6bc2779ea0b4736ed9a998a71ae37390331b6ba87e389a49d3d59  
Example Filename: APQ9305.dll  
Detection Name: Auto.90B145.282358.in02

❌