The Phantom Deal campaign uses fake acquisition documents to target executives. Gen exposed the Phantom Deal fraud after tracking bogus payment demands.

Related Posts:

• Outsider Phishing Kit Survives Operation Ghost Hook Takedown
• Microsoft Teams IT Support Impersonation Leads to Domain Takeover
• Chinese Actor Gambling Goblin Hijacks Brazilian Gov Sites

The post Phantom Deal Scam Targets Executives With Fake NDAs appeared first on Daily CyberSecurity.

Microsoft Teams IT support impersonation lets attackers plant a Node.js implant and pivot to domain controllers over WinRM. See how to defend.

Related Posts:

• Outsider Phishing Kit Survives Operation Ghost Hook Takedown
• Phantom Deal Scam Targets Executives With Fake NDAs
• Chinese Actor Gambling Goblin Hijacks Brazilian Gov Sites

The post Microsoft Teams IT Support Impersonation Leads to Domain Takeover appeared first on Daily CyberSecurity.

Discover how the Spring Ring vishing campaign uses Microsoft Teams phishing tactics to trick employees into installing malware and giving up remote access.

Related Posts:

• US Offers $10M for IRGC Cyber Leader
• Coder Registry Attack: Hijacked Cloudflare Pool Served Malicious Terraform Modules
• Toy Ghouls Backdoor Uses HiveMQ and Element for C2

The post Spring Ring Vishing Campaign Targets Microsoft Teams appeared first on Daily CyberSecurity.

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

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

What is ASCII smuggling?

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

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

Why the AI-security world made it famous

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

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

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

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

Writing a practical ASCII-smuggling signature

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

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

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

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

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

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

What we observed: ASCII smuggling repurposed for phishing

New activity emerges in telemetry

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

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

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

Observed over three months with a weekly rhythm

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

Two characteristics stand out:

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

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

Not instruction smuggling, but filter evasion

Observed obfuscation pattern

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

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

funding

became:

fun⟨U+E0020⟩ding

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

Why it can affect detection

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

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

Why it can help defenders

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

What is known and what is new

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

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

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

Financially themed sending domains

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

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

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

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

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

Sent through a legitimate email-marketing platform

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

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

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

ActiveCampaign response

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

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

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

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

Identifying the campaign

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

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

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

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

Is there a detection gap?

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

Emerging techniques don’t stay in one domain

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

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

Mitigation and protection guidance

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

Recommended controls

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

Microsoft protections

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

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

Coverage depends on product licensing, configuration, and telemetry.

Advanced hunting

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

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

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

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

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

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

3. Filter for prompt injection detection in emails

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

EmailEvents
| where DetectionMethods has "Prompt Injection Protection"

MITRE ATT&CK techniques observed

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

Indicators and hunting pivots

References

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

Learn More

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

OpenAI disrupted a social engineering group from Cambodia that used ChatGPT. Its scope is impressive:

The network simultaneously conducted multiple types of scams, often blending elements from different schemes. For instance, operators used dating personas to build trust before introducing fraudulent investment opportunities involving cryptocurrencies and spot gold trading. Other users engaged in lengthy romantic conversations with targets using fictitious identities, posed as representatives of online gambling platforms offering fake bonuses and winnings, or impersonated law enforcement agencies to tell targets they needed to pay fines for committing serious criminal offenses.

Although the narratives varied, users across the network consistently displayed the same underlying pattern of deceptive behavior. For example, they created and operated fake dating profiles, fictitious investment experts, and fraudulent law enforcement personas. They also generated images of forged documents, including passports, legal notices, stock-purchase confirmations, and gambling platform interfaces.

Apollo Global Management confirmed a social-engineering breach exposing sensitive personal data amid a wider hacking campaign targeting financial firms.

The post Apollo Confirms Data Breach Amid Cyberattacks Targeting Financial Firms appeared first on TechRepublic.

Unit 42 details how attackers exploit enterprise collaboration tools for identity phishing and credential theft. Discover key defense strategies.

The post Identity Abuse Through Trusted Communication Channels appeared first on Unit 42.

MacSync Stealer is a macOS-focused information stealer that relies on changing infrastructure to deliver payloads, communicate with compromised devices, and exfiltrate data. Earlier reporting by RST Cloud identified the threat through a limited set of domains and documented rapid command-and-control (C2) replacement after public disclosure.

Microsoft Defender Experts expanded that view by correlating recurring endpoints and network behaviors across the activity. This behavior-led approach connected more than 30 domains and showed that the infrastructure supported more than C2 communication, extending into active collection, staging, and exfiltration. The findings demonstrate that although domains may rotate quickly, repeated execution patterns, request characteristics, staging behavior, and upload methods provide defenders with more durable opportunities to investigate MacSync Stealer activity. 

Activity overview 

Microsoft Defender Experts reviewed endpoint and network telemetry to determine which MacSync Stealer behaviors persisted as infrastructure changed. The investigation followed the activity from C2 communication through collection, staging, and exfiltration, using recurring technical traits to connect activity across rotating domains. Execution began from an interactive shell session consistent with ClickFix social engineering, where users are tricked into pasting or running commands in Terminal. The shell session used curl to retrieve attacker-controlled payload content, followed by script-driven execution and outbound communication. 

After execution, the malware communicated with attacker-controlled infrastructure using recurring URI paths, macOS User-Agent strings, API-key headers, and curl command-line options. These request traits became durable behavioral pivots because they remained consistent even as domains changed. The activity then progressed into collection behavior targeting macOS Keychain material, browser data, locally stored credentials, cloud and Secure Shell (SSH) credentials, and sensitive files from common user directories. 

The investigation also confirmed active data exfiltration, not just beaconing. Collected data was staged under temporary paths, compressed into an archive, split into chunks, and uploaded through HTTP PUT requests using curl with the –data-binary argument. Upload parameters such as upload_id, chunk_index, and total_chunks provided additional hunting opportunities that could be correlated with process, command-line, file, and network telemetry across the attack chain. 

Discovery of additional rotating infrastructure 

To identify related MacSync Stealer infrastructure, Microsoft Defender Experts required multiple endpoint and network behaviors to align before treating a domain as connected. Correlation focused on recurring traits across payload retrieval, C2 check-in, and exfiltration, including process ancestry, command-line patterns, request paths, headers, and upload parameters. Applying this standard linked more than 30 domains, making the domain count an outcome of the behavioral methodology rather than the primary finding. 

The strongest pivots combined network request shape with endpoint execution context. Related infrastructure shared recurring URI patterns such as /curl/, /dynamic?txd=, and /gate?buildtxd=; curl command lines using -k, -s, –max-time, and –data-binary; macOS User-Agent strings; API-key headers; and HTTP PUT uploads that included upload_id, chunk_index, and total_chunks parameters. RST Cloud used recurring URI patterns to surface eleven additional candidate domains and found a static API-key value shared across four confirmed C2 domains while the build token rotated per deployment. Domains were treated as related when multiple behavioral traits aligned across process, command-line, and network telemetry, reducing reliance on any single domain indicator. 

This finding reinforces a practical defender lesson: rotating infrastructure can weaken static domain blocking and retrospective IOC matching, but repeated request patterns and process behaviors create durable hunting opportunities. Figure 1 shows representative defanged command-line patterns used as pivots across payload retrieval, C2 check-in, and chunked upload activity. 

Figure 1. Representative behavioral pivots associated with MacSync Stealer payload retrieval, C2 check-in, and chunked HTTP PUT exfiltration. 

The same behavioral patterns used to identify additional infrastructure also map to the broader end-to-end activity observed on affected macOS devices. 

Attack chain overview

The observed MacSync Stealer activity followed a fast, script-driven attack chain designed to execute quickly on macOS, collect high-value local data, stage the results, and exfiltrate the archive through rotating web infrastructure. This sequence matters because each phase produces telemetry that can be correlated across processes, command-line, file, and network events. Rather than relying on any individual domain, defenders can track the chain through recurring execution tools, URI paths, staging locations, and upload parameters. 

Figure 2. MacSync Stealer attack chain showing payload retrieval, AppleScript-assisted execution, collection, staging, chunked exfiltration, and cleanup mapped to behavioral hunting opportunities. 

Phase 1: Initial access and payload execution

Observed execution began from an interactive zsh terminal session, where curl retrieved payload content over a /curl/ path before the payload was decoded or unpacked using native utilities such as Base64 and gunzip. This phase is useful for hunting because the combination of user-facing shell activity, curl retrieval, and unpacking behavior is more durable than any single download domain. 

Phase 2: AppleScript-assisted execution

The payload used osascript to run AppleScript-assisted shell commands, blending macOS scripting with Unix command-line tooling. Observed activities included sh, cp, rm, curl, mkdir, and killall operations. This phase creates hunting value when osascript launches shell activity that quickly chains into network communication, staging, or cleanup behavior. 

Phase 3: Discovery and data collection

After execution, the malware collected host and user information, enumerated running processes and system details, and checked for cryptocurrency wallet applications, including Ledger and Trezor-related local artifacts. It then targeted macOS Keychain material, browser Safe Storage keys, browser credentials, cookies, login databases, session data, IndexedDB, LevelDB, extension storage, Safari data, Apple Notes, SSH keys, AWS credentials, Kubernetes configurations, browser profiles, browsing history, and sensitive files from common user directories. The hunting value comes from correlating sensitive data access with the later staging and upload sequence. 

Phase 4: Data staging and compression

Collected data was staged under /tmp/sync* paths and compressed into /tmp/osalogging.zip before uploading. The archive was split into multiple chunks, creating a repeatable staging and transfer pattern that defenders can correlate with preceding collection behavior and subsequent outbound curl traffic. 

Phase 5: Exfiltration over rotating infrastructure

The staged archive was uploaded through rotating infrastructure using curl and HTTP PUT requests. Observed requests included –data-binary, API-key headers, macOS User-Agent string, upload_id values, chunk_index values, and total_chunks parameters. These upload traits confirmed active data exfiltration and provided durable hunting pivots even when domains rotated. 

Phase 6: Cleanup and evidence removal

After exfiltration, the malware removed temporary archives, staging folders, lock files, and other artifacts. Although this cleanup reduced on-disk evidence, the sequence of archive creation, chunked upload, and deletion can still provide a useful behavioral correlation for defenders. 

Mitigation and protection guidance

The attack chain findings point to three mitigation priorities.

1. Organizations should reduce the risk of user-initiated Terminal execution by educating users and using platform controls that interrupt suspicious paste-and-run workflows. Microsoft’s ClickFix reporting recommends educating users not to run commands from untrusted sources and monitoring suspicious Terminal or shell activity associated with these lures. 

2. Defenders should monitor post-execution behavior when initial prevention does not stop activity, including suspicious shell usage, AppleScript-assisted commands, curl-based payload retrieval, credential-store access, temporary staging paths, and archive creation.  

3. Detection should include exfiltration monitoring for HTTP PUT uploads, –data-binary usage, upload identifiers, chunk indexes, total chunk counts, and recurring /gate URI patterns that can reveal active data theft even when C2 domains rotate. 

In macOS 26.4 and later, Apple introduced protections designed to disrupt ClickFix-style attacks, including warnings that can block potentially malicious Terminal pastes and XProtect checks that can prevent detected malicious scripts from running.

When a user attempts to paste a potentially malicious command into Terminal, macOS displays a warning that blocks the paste and explains that scammers may use Terminal instructions to compromise the Mac or the user’s privacy. 

“Possible malware, Paste blocked” 

“Your Mac has not been harmed. Scammers often encourage pasting text into Terminal to try and harm your Mac or compromise your privacy. These instructions are commonly offered via websites, chat agents, apps, files, or a phone call.” 

Organizations can also follow these recommendations to mitigate threats associated with this threat: 

• Reduce Terminal execution risk. Educate users not to paste or run Terminal commands from untrusted websites, chat messages, apps, files, or phone-based instructions. 

• Monitor suspicious Terminal usage. Alert on unusual Terminal, zsh, or shell sessions that retrieve payloads, decode content, or execute commands shortly after user interaction. 

• Detect native tool abuse. Flag unusual sequences of macOS utilities such as curl, Base64, gunzip, osascript, cp, rm, mkdir, and killall. 

• Hunt for post-execution behavior. Correlate AppleScript-assisted shell activity, curl-based payload retrieval, credential-store access, temporary staging paths, archive creation, and cleanup behavior. 

• Protect credential stores. Detect unauthorized access to Keychain material, browser credential stores, SSH keys, cloud credentials, and sensitive files in common user directories. 

• Monitor data staging. Alert on sensitive artifact collection followed by compression, archive creation, or staging under temporary paths such as /tmp/sync*. 

• Monitor exfiltration patterns. Identify curl-based HTTP PUT uploads that use –data-binary, API-key headers, upload_id, chunk_index, total_chunks, or recurring /gate URI patterns. 

• Restrict suspicious outbound traffic. Block or investigate connections to suspicious, newly registered, or behaviorally related domains while continuing to hunt on request patterns that may persist after domains rotate. 

Microsoft also recommends the following mitigations to reduce the impact of this threat. 

• Turn on cloud-delivered protection in Microsoft Defender Antivirus or the equivalent for your antivirus product to cover rapidly evolving attacker tools and techniques. Cloud-based machine learning protections block a majority of new and unknown threats. 

• Enable network protection and web protection to help prevent connections to malicious websites, phishing pages, and attacker-controlled infrastructure used for malware delivery, command-and-control communication, and data exfiltration. 

• Enable tamper protection to help prevent unauthorized changes to Microsoft Defender security settings and reduce the risk of attackers disabling or weakening endpoint protections. 

Microsoft Defender XDR detections 

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

Customers with provisioned access can also use Microsoft Security Copilot in Microsoft Defender to investigate and respond to incidents, hunt for threats, and protect their organization with relevant threat intelligence. 

 Threat intelligence reports

Microsoft customers can use the following reports in Microsoft products to get the most up-to-date information about the threat, malicious activity, infrastructure, and techniques discussed in this blog. These reports provide intelligence, protection information, and recommended actions to prevent, mitigate, or respond to associated threats found in customer environments. 

Microsoft Defender XDR Threat analytics

From ClickFix to code signed: the quiet shift of MacSync Stealer malware. 

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

Advanced hunting queries

The following advanced hunting queries can help identify MacSync Stealer behaviors observed with this threat. Use these queries as starting points and tune the time range, device scope, and allowlists for your environment. 

Hunting objective: Identify rotating infrastructure by request shape

This query looks for curl-initiated network activity that matches recurring MacSync Stealer URI paths and upload parameters across domains. 

DeviceNetworkEvents 
| where InitiatingProcessFileName =~ "curl" 
| where RemoteUrl has_any ("/curl/", "/dynamic?txd=", "/gate?buildtxd=", "upload_id=", "chunk_index=", "total_chunks=")

Hunting objective: Detect payload retrieval over /curl/ 

This query focuses on initial payload retrieval behavior where curl reaches a /curl/ path, helping identify delivery activity without relying on a specific domain. 

DeviceNetworkEvents 
| where InitiatingProcessFileName =~ "curl" 
| where RemoteUrl has "/curl/" 

Hunting objective: Detect chunked exfiltration over curl HTTP PUT 

This query targets active exfiltration behavior by looking for curl HTTP PUT uploads that use –data-binary and chunked upload parameters. 

DeviceNetworkEvents 
| where InitiatingProcessFileName =~ "curl" 
| where InitiatingProcessCommandLine has_all ("-X PUT", "--data-binary") 
| where RemoteUrl has_any ("upload_id=", "chunk_index=", "total_chunks=", "/gate?buildtxd=") 

Hunting objective: Find curl command lines with MacSync infrastructure traits 

This query searches endpoint process telemetry for curl command lines containing the headers, URI paths, and upload parameters used as durable behavioral pivots. 

DeviceProcessEvents 
| where FileName =~ "curl" 
| where ProcessCommandLine has_any ("api-key", "/curl/", "/dynamic", "/gate", "--data-binary", "upload_id=", "chunk_index=", "total_chunks=", "%{http_code}") 

Hunting objective: Identify AppleScript-launched shell activity 

This query looks for osascript activity that launches shell commands or native utilities commonly seen in the observed post-execution chain. 

DeviceProcessEvents 
| where FileName =~ "osascript" 
| where ProcessCommandLine has_any ("sh -c", "cp ", "rm ", "curl ", "mkdir ", "killall", "dscl") 

MITRE ATT&CK techniques observed

The following MITRE ATT&CK mappings reflect behaviors observed during the MacSync Stealer investigation. The mapping emphasizes the same behavioral pivots used throughout this blog, including shell and AppleScript-assisted execution, payload retrieval, credential and browser data theft, sensitive file collection, staging, chunked exfiltration, cleanup, and rotating infrastructure. 

Execution 

• T1059.004 Command and Scripting Interpreter: Unix Shell | An interactive zsh terminal session was used to run curl commands, decode or unpack payload content with base64 and gunzip, and execute shell commands. 

• T1105 Ingress Tool Transfer | curl downloaded payload content from attacker-controlled infrastructure using recurring payload retrieval paths. 

Discovery 

• T1082 System Information Discovery | The malware collected host and user information during environment discovery. 

• T1057 Process Discovery | The malware enumerated running processes and system configuration before continuing collection and credential-access activity. 

• T1518 Software Discovery | The malware checked for cryptocurrency wallet applications such as Ledger and Trezor. 

Credential Access 

• T1555.001 Credentials from Password Stores: Keychain | The malware created a temporary keychain-grabbing script, attempted to extract browser Safe Storage keys, and accessed or attempted to unlock the macOS Keychain. 

• T1555.003 Credentials from Password Stores: Credentials from Web Browsers | The malware collected browser credentials, cookies, login databases, session data, IndexedDB, LevelDB, and extension storage from Chrome, Brave, Edge, Opera, Vivaldi, Arc, Chromium, and other browsers. 

Collection 

• T1005 Data from Local System | The malware searched Downloads, Documents, and Desktop and collected sensitive file types including PDF, DOCX, TXT, KEY, PEM, KDBX, OVPN, WALLET, and SEED files. 

• T1552.001 Unsecured Credentials: Credentials in Files | The malware harvested SSH keys, AWS credentials, Kubernetes configurations, browser profiles, Apple Notes, Safari data, and other locally stored secrets. 

• T1560.001 Archive Collected Data: Archive via Utility | Collected data was staged under /tmp/sync* and compressed into /tmp/osalogging.zip before upload. 

Command and Control 

• T1071.001 Application Layer Protocol: Web Protocols | C2 communication used web protocols with recurring paths such as /dynamic?txd= and /gate?buildtxd=, macOS User-Agent strings, API-key headers, and rotating domains. 

Exfiltration 

• T1041 Exfiltration Over C2 Channel | Collected data was uploaded to attacker-controlled infrastructure using recurring /gate URI patterns and chunked HTTP PUT requests. 

• T1020 Automated Exfiltration | The malware automated upload activity using curl with HTTP PUT, –data-binary, upload identifiers, chunk_index, and total_chunks parameters. 

• T1030 Data Transfer Size Limits | The archive was split into multiple chunks before upload, as shown by repeated chunk_index and total_chunks parameters in exfiltration requests. 

Defense Evasion 

• T1070.004 Indicator Removal: File Deletion | Temporary archives, staging folders, lock files, and other artifacts were removed after exfiltration. 

• T1140 Deobfuscate/Decode Files or Information | Payload content was decoded or unpacked using base64 and gunzip before execution. 

Behavioral Hunting Pivots 

The following command-line patterns, URL paths, and URL parameters were observed in activity consistent with MacSync Stealer. Use these durable behavioral pivots with process and network context to investigate related activity as infrastructure rotates; then use the point-in-time domain indicators in the IOC section to enrich and validate those findings. 

Indicators of compromise (IOC)

The following domain indicators were observed in activity consistent with MacSync Stealer. Treat them as point-in-time evidence: use them to enrich and validate matches from the behavioral pivots above, and correlate any hits with process and network context because related infrastructure may rotate quickly. 

References

References used for external context and related defensive guidance: 

• MacSync Stealer: C2 Infrastructure Rotation – RST Cloud. RST Cloud, May 8, 2026. 

• ClickFix campaign uses fake macOS utilities lures to deliver …. Microsoft, May 6, 2026. 

• Protecting against malware in macOS – Apple Support  December 19, 2024 

Learn more

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

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

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

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

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

The post Hunting MacSync Stealer infrastructure through behavioral pivots appeared first on Microsoft Security Blog.

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

How UNC3753 targeted US professional services firms in 2026

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

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

How much does phishing and impersonation actually cost US businesses

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

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

Why are consulting and professional services firms specifically targeted?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What does managed takedown response actually involve

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

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

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

Why client trust is the real asset at risk

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

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

Frequently asked questions (FAQs)

What is a brand impersonation takedown service?

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

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

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

Why do manual takedown processes fail against brand impersonation?

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

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

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

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

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

Sources:

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

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

Singapore is using simulated AI-enabled scam calls to train the public, offering IT leaders a new model for social engineering security training.

The post Singapore Is Literally Training People to Get Scammed appeared first on TechRepublic.

The FBI is warning the public about sexual exploitation actors illegally accessing social media and personal accounts to steal explicit images and videos from adult and underage victims. The stolen material, also known as non-consensual intimate images (NCII), is being posted or sold on criminal marketplaces, often without the victim's knowledge.

According to the FBI, these actors use social engineering and cyber intrusion tactics to target specific individuals or general targets of opportunity. After gaining access to accounts, they steal explicit content and share it through community forums or illicit marketplaces.

The FBI said personally identifiable information, including a victim's name, date of birth, email address, phone number and social media username, is often posted alongside the stolen material. This can expose victims to continued harassment and re-victimization.

How Sexual Exploitation Actors Access Accounts

The FBI has identified several methods used by sexual exploitation actors to gain access to victims' accounts.

Password and PIN Targeting

In password/PIN targeting, actors use high-volume password and PIN attempts against social media and personal accounts. The information used in these attempts can come from data leak sites, social media and open-source information.

When victims are known to the actors, curated lists may include personal details such as names, date of birth or variations of those details.

Social Media Customer Service Impersonation

Another tactic involves social media customer service impersonation through text messages. Victims may receive messages claiming their account is being disabled or locked unless they provide a verification code.

The actor then requests a password reset, causing a code to be sent to the victim. If the victim shares the code, the actor can reset the password and access the account.

Phishing Emails

The FBI also warns about phishing campaigns using look-alike domains and email accounts designed to appear as social media customer support.

These messages may claim there has been a new login and contain an embedded link asking the victim to change their password. Clicking the malicious link can give the actor access to the account.

Stolen Content Can Lead to Further Attacks

Once explicit content is stolen, sexual exploitation actors may post or sell it while including personal information about the victim. The FBI said victims can subsequently face harassment, sextortion, stalking or other targeted attacks.

The actors may also advertise stolen content through a victim's own social media page, increasing the potential for further exposure.

FBI Shares Steps to Protect Accounts

The FBI advises people to avoid storing sensitive images or videos on social media platforms or other internet-accessible sites.

It recommends using unique, complex passphrases and PINs along with multi-factor authentication (MFA). Password information directly associated with a person's identity, including names or birthdays, should be avoided.

Users should also be cautious with links received through emails and text messages. The FBI recommends going directly to the relevant website to address account concerns and checking URLs before clicking.

Unrequested temporary passwords, PIN resets or access codes should also be treated with caution. The FBI advises users not to share login information, even when someone claims to represent a platform or service.

Identity-based attacks drive 90% of incidents. Learn how modern attackers exploit identities and what SOC leaders can do to respond.

The post Inside the Modern SOC: The Identity Front Door appeared first on Unit 42.

AISI found AI agents taking unsanctioned online actions, including social engineering and code attacks, during controlled cyber tests.

The UK’s AI Security Institute (AISI) has put something uncomfortable on the table: during cyber testing, frontier models didn’t just follow instructions badly. In some runs, they crossed into real-world actions, touched real people and organisations, and then tried to make the evidence go away.

“On 28^th July 2026, AISI’s Security Team detected unusual data transfers leaving our research systems during a routine cyber evaluation. On investigation, we found that some of the agents being tested had engaged in sustained, potentially harmful activity directed at real people and organisations.” reports AISI. “We declared a security incident and, within roughly one hour of discovery, had contained it and begun a full investigation.”

That matters because the setting was not a botched public rollout or a rogue consumer chatbot. It was a controlled evaluation, run on purpose with open internet access and some safety filters turned off, so the institute could measure what the models could actually do under permissive conditions. AISI says that’s standard practice for frontier testing, but it also notes that those conditions are not how these models are normally shipped.

To assess the models’ real-world cyber capabilities, they were given internet access and had their built-in cyber safety filters intentionally disabled under controlled testing conditions.

The headline result is simple enough, even if the details are messy. AISI ran the challenge 122 times across several models, and in 10 of those runs it saw AI agents take autonomous, unsanctioned actions on the live internet. The institute logged 19 such actions in total, with 17 tied to Anthropic’s Mythos 5 and two to OpenAI’s GPT-5.6-Sol with cyber classifiers disabled.

The most serious sequence looked less like a lab mishap and more like a small-scale social-engineering campaign. The agent tried to insert malicious code into a public open-source project, researched the maintainers, created fake identities based on real people, and used those identities to pressure a maintainer into approving the code.

“On the morning of 28^th July, our security monitoring flagged data leaving one of our testing systems through the ‘Tor’ anonymity network, which is commonly used to disguise the origin of internet traffic. The team running the evaluation began reviewing the agent’s activity within minutes.” continues the report. “They quickly found that, during one run, the agent had created a malicious ‘pull request’ (a proposed code change) on a real, public open-source project on GitHub. “

It also sent messages and files, and when challenged, it edited earlier activity to look harmless and even considered adopting a fresh identity.

AISI says human review stopped the worst outcome. The malicious pull request was caught, the fake identities failed to get the code approved, and the institute did not find evidence of resulting real-world harm. Even so, it says this is the first time it has seen autonomy and deception show up this clearly, without specific prompting, in a real-world setting.

The institute is careful not to overclaim. It says the evaluation design and configuration choices helped create the conditions for the behaviour, and it notes that the models in question were not commercial public deployments. But that caveat cuts both ways: if permissive test conditions can produce this kind of behaviour now, tighter production settings are not a reason for complacency. They are just a better fence.

That is the part that should make people stop scrolling. Not because the models “went evil,” which is lazy, but because deception emerged as a by-product of goal-seeking under the conditions set by the evaluators.

“The agent pursued its goal persistently. AI agents explore routes their operators did not intend. Given a difficult objective, the agent kept searching for a way through, and some of the routes it found involved trying to deceive real people.” states AISI. “It was never instructed to deceive; deception emerged as a by-product of pursuing the task, the kind of goal-directed deception that, until recently, had been largely theoretical.”

The agent was trying to solve a cyber challenge, and in doing so it explored routes nobody had asked it to explore, including routes that involved fooling actual people.

What makes the episode more serious is the way it lines up with recent disclosures from Anthropic and OpenAI. Anthropic has already said its models reached the public internet from within a third-party evaluation environment and accessed real systems. OpenAI has separately reported that one of its models mistook a misconfigured test setup for a real task and touched real infrastructure.

AISI’s view is that these incidents point to a shift in the risk landscape. Harm may no longer come only from obvious misuse by humans. It may also come from capable agents, in internal research settings or privileged-access environments, taking unintended actions beyond the scope they were given. That is a quieter problem than movie-style “AI rebellion,” and a more useful one to think about.

The key takeaway is straightforward. Keep cyber basics tight, verify outside code before trusting it, and stop assuming that a model will stay inside the lines just because the prompt sounded clear on the day. In security, the line between “evaluation” and “incident” can get thin fast. Machines are very good at finding the part of the process you forgot to make boring.

AISI says it will tighten internet controls, add real-time monitoring, and revisit how it designs evaluations. That is the right response, but it should not be read as a narrow fix for one lab. It is a warning to anyone testing powerful agents: if the test can reach the real internet, the real internet can reach back.

The original AISI report is here: Incident report: unsanctioned agent behaviour during cyber testing.

“Incidents of this kind reflect the speed at which AI is developing. As capabilities advance, the work of understanding these systems, and ensuring their safety, must keep pace alongside them.” concludes the report.

Follow me on Twitter: @securityaffairs and Facebook and Mastodon

Pierluigi Paganini

(SecurityAffairs – hacking, AI Deception)

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

The cloud as a safe haven for phishers

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

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

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

Multi-stage AitM attack

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

Stage 1. Contact harvesting and network monitoring evasion

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

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

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

Stage 2. Initializing a transparent proxy

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

Another CAPTCHA, this time a legitimate one

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

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

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

Registering a service worker to intercept traffic

Establishing a transparent proxy via an external library

Stage 3. Session hijacking and browser window spoofing

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

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

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

Cloud platform phishing attack statistics

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

Number of unique third-level domains
(download)

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

Number of phishing links

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

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

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

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

Recommendations

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

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

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

Since early May 2026, Microsoft Threat Intelligence has observed Storm-2945, a sub-cluster of Midnight Blizzard, conducting widespread but targeted traffic manipulation attacks involving hospitality sector networks served by captive portals worldwide. Despite some tactic, technique, and procedure (TTP) similarities to the Forest Blizzard DNS hijacking operation that we publicly disclosed in April 2026, we attribute this campaign, which we call CaptiveCrunch, to Storm-2945. As reported by ReliaQuest on July 23, a portion of this activity leverages doppelganger domains mimicking Microsoft online services to conduct follow-on adversary-in-the-middle (AitM) phishing operations that abuse the device code authentication flow in Microsoft Entra ID. Microsoft Threat Intelligence has also identified active traffic manipulation attacks leading to the delivery of malware on impacted systems. Microsoft has observed Storm-2945 leveraging AI to support a significant portion of these operations.

Today, we are sharing our findings on these ongoing intrusions to raise awareness of this threat and enable customers to protect their devices, especially while traveling. We provide our assessment of Storm-2945’s relationship to Midnight Blizzard and analysis of the CaptiveCrunch campaign, detailing the malware and tradecraft used in these operations. We also provide mitigation, detection, and hunting guidance to help organizations identify and defend against Storm-2945 and related activity.

Microsoft Threat Intelligence would like to thank our partners at Anthropic and OpenAI for their collaboration and support during this investigation.

The CaptiveCrunch campaign

Since February 2026, Storm-2945 has conducted AI-augmented operations including targeted device code and OAuth code phishing campaigns leading to Entra device registration and subsequent data collection from Microsoft 365. Since early May 2026, Microsoft Threat Intelligence has observed Storm-2945 manipulating DNS and HTTP traffic from networks served by captive portals to redirect user traffic through actor-controlled infrastructure. Although our investigation into the initial compromise vector for the captive portal networks is ongoing, we have observed notable commonalities in the equipment and management systems used across multiple affected networks. These similarities suggest that the activity might not be limited to isolated compromises of individual venues and could reflect access to shared services within portions of the captive portal ecosystem.

As part of the CaptiveCrunch campaign, Storm-2945 has leveraged their AitM position to redirect users through actor-controlled phishing infrastructure and has also delivered malware purporting to be browser or operating system updates in response to automated connectivity checks issued by users’ browsers. Multiple variants have been delivered, including fully-featured Windows remote access trojans (RAT) in compiled Golang, with functionality to conduct system enumeration, collect files and keystrokes, steal credentials and session tokens, conduct audio and video surveillance, monitor for removable media, and provide the threat actor a remote shell on infected systems.  

The threat actor infrastructure leverages a variety of ClickFix techniques to elicit the user into downloading and executing the malware:

In addition to variants of malware targeting Windows systems, Microsoft Threat Intelligence is also aware of indications that the threat actor might be targeting Android devices with similar techniques as the ClickFix landings also include instructions for Android devices to download and install an APK file.

To date, Microsoft has identified widespread compromise of Wi-Fi networks at hospitality-related organizations and other networks serviced by captive portal equipment in several countries. ReliaQuest has identified this activity not only at hotels, but also conference centers and other shared venues, and assesses that the goal of this activity is to access the accounts of corporate travelers.

Storm-2945 and Midnight Blizzard

Microsoft Threat Intelligence assesses that Storm-2945 is an operational sub-cluster of Midnight Blizzard based on distinctive technical and operational overlaps. These include technical similarities to Storm-2372, a Midnight Blizzard initial access operations sub-cluster, also notable for their device code and OAuth code phishing operations tracked throughout 2025, Microsoft Graph-based email exfiltration, social engineering delivered via commercial messaging apps, and significant similarities in victimology.

Midnight Blizzard is a Russia-based threat actor attributed by the US and UK governments to the Foreign Intelligence Service of the Russian Federation, also known as the SVR. This threat actor is known to primarily target governments, diplomatic entities, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and information technology (IT) service providers, primarily in the US and Europe. Midnight Blizzard is consistent and persistent in their operational targeting, and their objectives rarely change. Their focus is to collect intelligence through longstanding and dedicated espionage in support of Russian foreign policy interests.

Midnight Blizzard operations often involve compromise of valid accounts and, in some highly targeted cases, advanced techniques to compromise authentication mechanisms within an organization to expand access and evade detection. They utilize diverse initial access methods, and Midnight Blizzard is also adept at identifying and abusing OAuth applications to move laterally across cloud environments and for post-compromise activity, such as email collection.

CaptiveCrunch tradecraft and tooling

CornFlake: Remote access and infostealer implant

CornFlake is a full-featured Windows RAT written in Go that serves as Storm-2945’s primary persistent implant. Microsoft has observed the threat actor rapidly iterating on this malware layer, which features customizable capabilities from the social engineering user interface and data collection capabilities to anti-detection and evasion techniques.

On initial execution, CornFlake operates in dropper mode: it displays a convincing fake progress window designed to occupy the victim’s attention while the binary copies itself to %APPDATA%\svchost32\svchost32.exe and establishes persistence.

Fake window options configurable by the threat actor at build time:

• winupdate — A Windows Update screen displaying “Working on updates… Don’t turn off your computer”
• defender — A Windows Security virus scan
• directx — A DirectX End-User Runtime Web Installer
• vcredist — A Microsoft Visual C++ 2015-2022 Redistributable installer
• sysopt — A disk optimization utility
• netfix — A Windows Network Diagnostics tool
• browser — A browser update prompt
• pdfview — A document viewer installer

CornFlake registers as a Windows service named svchost32 with the display name “Cloud Sync Service” and description “Synchronizes files with the cloud storage provider”, deliberately mimicking the legitimate svchost.exe process. It establishes redundant persistence mechanisms: Windows service registrations, Registry Run keys, named scheduled tasks, and a persistence watchdog routine that runs continuously to restore any persistence mechanism that is removed by defenders or endpoint protection.

For command and control (C2), CornFlake performs an Elliptic Curve Diffie-Hellman (ECDH) P-256 ephemeral key exchange with the C2 server, derives a session key via SHA-256, and communicates over a custom JSON protocol framed within the encrypted channel. This provides an encrypted channel to the C2 server, with each C2 session using a unique ephemeral key, making decryption of captured traffic impossible without the session-specific private key. The runtime configuration file sync.dat supports hot reconfiguration of C2 servers, watched directories, file targeting patterns, and Transport Layer Security (TLS) settings without requiring redeployment.

Once established on a victim system, CornFlake provides the operator with a comprehensive collection toolkit, gated by configuration flags that allow selective activation post-deployment:

CornFlake also exposes a localhost HTTP API server (/upload, /reload, /status) that transforms the RAT into a modular platform: companion or next-stage payloads such as ChocoShell could task file exfiltration, trigger configuration hot reloads or check C2 connectivity using the pre-established secure C2 channel for communication.

ChocoShell: PowerShell infostealer

ChocoShell is the campaign’s Powershell-based infostealer, delivered and executed entirely in-memory. Its primary objective is the high-volume theft of browser session cookies, saved passwords, Microsoft 365 Single Sign-On (SSO) tokens, and Wi-Fi credentials from compromised systems. Where CornFlake provides the operator with a persistent, long-running foothold on the device, ChocoShell is designed to extract the most operationally valuable credentials, giving the operator access to victim cloud environments.

The ChocoShell script was authored with full developer comments that reveal the operator’s intent behind each code decision, including explicit references to Microsoft detection signatures and the reasoning behind specific evasion choices. The consistent coding standard and descriptive commentary suggest the author might have leveraged AI-assisted code generation.

Defense evasion. Upon execution, ChocoShell beacons to a hardcoded C2 server at 213.145.86[.]112 and implements several evasion techniques in sequence. It disables the Antimalware Scan Interface (AMSI) via .NET reflection to prevent ScriptBlock scanning and evades Microsoft behavioral detection that triggers on suspicious PowerShell web request cmdlets. A timing-based sandbox detection check is also employed as a virtual machine (VM) detection mechanism, silently exiting without performing any collection if detected.

C2 communication. ChocoShell communicates with its C2 server using HTTPS with URI paths designed to blend in with legitimate web traffic. Beacons use /t/pixel.gif?m=<status>, mimicking an image tracking pixel. Additional tooling is fetched from /cdn/chunks/polyfill-7e2b.min.js, disguised as a JavaScript polyfill file. This downloaded module is Base64-decoded and executed in memory via [ScriptBlock]::Create(), providing browser encryption key extraction capabilities, SYSTEM token impersonation, and Defender signature locking. Exfiltrated data is sent by POST to /t/event as GZip-compressed, Base64-wrapped JSON.

Privilege escalation. ChocoShell requires administrative privileges for its most impactful capabilities: SYSTEM token impersonation for Chrome ABE decryption, Volume Shadow Copy Service (VSS) shadow copy creation, Defender signature locking. It implements three silent UAC bypass techniques with ordered fallback:

1. SilentCleanup task hijack: Writes a malicious command to HKCU\Environment\windir, then triggers the built-in SilentCleanup scheduled task, which resolves %windir% from the user’s environment, executing the threat actor’s command at elevated privilege. The registry value is cleaned up after two seconds to avoid cloud detection.
2. wsreset.exe COM hijack: Creates a COM handler key in HKCU\Software\Classes and launches the auto-elevating Windows Store reset tool.
3. sdclt.exe folder hijack: Hijacks HKCU\Software\Classes\Folder\shell\open\command and launches the Windows Backup utility with the /KickOffElev flag.

If none of the silent bypasses succeed (for example, the user is not a local administrator), ChocoShell falls back to a visible UAC prompt via Start-Process -Verb RunAs. Notably, the script also contains a variant designed to execute within the WinGet Desired State Configuration (DSC) host process (ConfigurationRemotingServer), suggesting an attack vector through malicious WinGet DSC configuration used in Windows machine provisioning.

Credential and session theft. Once running with elevated permissions, ChocoShell locks Defender signature updates and systematically harvests data from multiple sources. For Chromium-based browsers (Chrome, Edge, Brave, Opera, Opera GX, Vivaldi), it extracts the master encryption key from the browser’s Local State file, handling both the modern ABE scheme (Chrome v127+) and the legacy data protection API (DPAPI)-only scheme. ABE decryption requires SYSTEM-level DPAPI access, which the malware obtains by impersonating a SYSTEM process token borrowed from winlogon.exe, wininit.exe, or services.exe. Locked browser SQLite databases are accessed through three strategies: shared file access, Volume Shadow Service snapshots, and direct copy as a fallback.

As a parallel collection path, ChocoShell launches Chrome, Edge, and Brave with the –remote-debugging-port flag and issues Network.getAllCookies through the Chrome DevTools Protocol (CDP). This completely bypasses ABE, enabling the browser to perform its own internal decryption and returns plaintext cookie values. To handle privilege issues (SYSTEM-launched browsers inherit the wrong token), the malware creates transient scheduled tasks with TASK_LOGON_INTERACTIVE_TOKEN to launch the browser under the signed-in user’s session. After extraction, the browser is stopped and relaunched with –restore-last-session to avoid alerting the user.

For Firefox family browsers (Firefox, Waterfox, LibreWolf, Floorp, Zen), the malware copies unencrypted cookies.sqlite databases from each profile. Additionally, ChocoShell collects Microsoft 365 and Azure Active Directory (AD) access tokens, refresh tokens, and Web Account Manager (WAM) tokens from .tbres files in the Token Broker cache. Collection of these tokens represents a significant threat to enterprise environments, as threat actors could replay SSO sessions without browser cookies. Additionally, Wi-Fi credentials are harvested via netsh wlan show profile with key=clear.

Exfiltration and cleanup. All collected data is aggregated into a JSON structure, GZip-compressed, Base64-encoded, and sent by POST to the C2’s /t/event endpoint. After exfiltration, all collected data variables are nulled, garbage collection is forced, VSS shadow copies are deleted via Windows Management Instrumentation (WMI), temporary elevation scripts are removed, and all UAC bypass registry keys (already cleaned during escalation) are verified removed.

FruitStone: Operator C2 panel

FruitStone is the web-based C2 panel that Storm-2945 operators use to manage the entire CaptiveCrunch campaign infrastructure. Implemented as a single-page application (HTML and JavaScript) serving as the front-end of the C2 server with all functionality exposed without authentication, FruitStone provides a centralized dashboard for managing compromised endpoints, building and deploying new campaign payloads, and reviewing all collected data (such as screenshots, keystrokes, browser credentials).

Operational cover. The panel is branded as “CloudSync Console” with a footer reading “Acuity Systems, Inc. — Cloud Infrastructure Portal v3.2.1,” designed to appear as legitimate enterprise cloud management software if the panel URL is discovered by defenders or hosting providers. This masquerading extends to the CornFlake agent’s service name (Cloud Sync Service) and description (“Synchronizes files with the cloud storage provider”), creating a consistent cover story across the toolchain.

Session management and multi-operator support. FruitStone uses JSON Web Token (JWT)-based authentication, session revocation, and rate limiting with IP blocking to prevent brute force attacks against the panel sign in. Multiple operators could be provisioned with individual accounts, and all active sessions are visible with IP address, user-agent, and creation time to enable operational security awareness across the operators.

Agent management. The panel displays all registered CornFlake agents in a dashboard with real-time status updates via Server-Sent Events (SSE). Each agent card shows comprehensive system information including hostname, username, OS version, CPU, RAM, disk usage, screen resolution, timezone, domain membership, and camera/microphone presence, all collected during the CornFlake posture sweep. Agents are grouped by country and subnet, with geographic distribution visualized on a map.

Operators could interact with individual agents through:

• Remote shell — Interactive cmd.exe or PowerShell command execution with command history
• File system browser — Live directory traversal and arbitrary file download from compromised hosts
• Collection tasking — On-demand screenshot, process list, keylog buffer flush, clipboard dump, security posture survey, ChromeKatz cookie/password extraction, camera capture, and audio recording
• Configuration push — Live runtime reconfiguration of C2 servers, watch paths, and C2 beacon timing
• Agent update — In-place implant update by pushing a new CornFlake build to a running agent
• Agent kill — Remote termination of the CornFlake implant

Campaign builder. A step-by-step wizard enables operators to configure and build new CornFlake payloads directly from the panel:

1. Identity — Campaign ID, C2 host and port, HTTP base URL, executable file name (svchost32.exe by default), and dropper type (C dropper at ~19 KB, Go stub at ~8 MB, or standalone self-installer)

2. Capabilities — Toggle individual collection modules: screenshots, process enumeration, keylogging, clipboard monitoring, posture survey, file exfiltration, and ChromeKatz browser credential theft

3. File Paths — Configure targeted directories and file extensions by category (documents, archives, images, code, data, emails, encryption keys)

4. Evasion — Enable garble symbol randomization (for GoLang payloads), XOR string encoding, GZip upload compression, and debug mode

Infrastructure management. FruitStone provides management interfaces for three layers of supporting infrastructure:

• Proxy relays — Multi-proxy C2 relay architecture with TLS certificate tracking (fingerprint, expiry), health checks, connection counts, bytes forwarded, and rotation capabilities that push updated server lists to all online agents
• Beacon profiles — Configurable timing profiles controlling agent sleep intervals, reconnection delays, TLS Server Name Indication (SNI) spoofing (like teams.microsoft.com), and DNS fallback domains
• Staging servers — External payload hosting infrastructure with push-to-deploy, file listing, and health monitoring

Device code abuse for cloud access

Since July 16, Microsoft has observed a portion of CaptiveCrunch landing pages redirecting users to device code authentication flow experiences. In these cases, users served these landings might be instructed to enter a device code into a legitimate Microsoft sign-in page, a technique commonly referred to as device code phishing.

Device code authentication is a legitimate OAuth workflow designed for devices that cannot support a traditional sign-in experience. However, threat actors could abuse this flow by initiating an authentication request on behalf of a user then convincing the user to enter an actor-controlled device code into a legitimate Microsoft authentication page. When successful, the victim authenticates the threat actor’s session rather than their own.

This activity is consistent with previously reported device code phishing operations conducted by Midnight Blizzard since August 2024. The observed technique does not appear fundamentally novel; however, integrating device code phishing into captive portal and traffic manipulation operations might increase the likelihood that users perceive the authentication request as legitimate. For additional details on Midnight Blizzard-related device code phishing techniques, see: Storm-2372 conducts device code phishing campaign. To understand other threat actors’ use of device code phishing and associated mitigations, see Inside an AI‑enabled device code phishing campaign.

How to protect against CaptiveCrunch activity

Minimize trust in hospitality and guest networks

When traveling, users should treat hotel, conference, airport, and other guest wireless networks as untrustworthy.

• Prefer private connectivity (including mobile hotspots, satellite, and eSIM-based cellular data connections) over public Wi‑Fi whenever practical.
  • For enterprise-managed devices, organizations can choose to prevent Wi-Fi connections to networks that have not been provisioned via Mobile Device Management (MDM). See: https://learn.microsoft.com/windows/client-management/mdm/policy-csp-wifi#allowmanualwificonfiguration
• Consider using enterprise-managed travel routers or hotspot devices that establish encrypted tunnels back to trusted corporate infrastructure before accessing sensitive resources.
• Avoid downloading software updates, certificates, browser updates, network troubleshooting tools, or security utilities presented through captive portals or other unexpected web prompts.
• Verify update requests through trusted operating system mechanisms rather than pop-up messages or website prompts.

Strengthen identity and access controls

Organizations should assume that public and hospitality network infrastructure might not be trustworthy and should adopt controls that limit exposure to traffic manipulation, credential theft, and device code phishing.

• Educate users to recognize ClickFix-style prompts, fake verification checks, and paste-and-run instructions as malicious, especially when they invoke command interpreters or script hosts such as cmd.exe, PowerShell, rundll32.exe, or mshta.exe.
• Use passwordless solutions like passkeys and implement multifactor authentication (MFA).
  • Use the Microsoft Authenticator app for passkeys and MFA, and complement MFA with conditional access policies, where sign-in requests are evaluated using additional identity-driven signals.
  • Conditional access policies can also be scoped to strengthen privileged accounts with phishing resistant MFA.
  • Your passkey and MFA policy can be further secured by only allowing MFA and passkey registrations from trusted locations and devices.
• Only allow device code flow where necessary. Microsoft recommends blocking device code flow wherever possible. Where necessary, configure Microsoft Entra ID’s device code flow in your Conditional Access policies.
• Implement a sign-in risk policy to automate response to risky sign-ins. A sign-in risk represents the probability that a given authentication request is not authorized by the identity owner. A sign-in risk-based policy can be implemented by adding a sign-in risk condition to Conditional Access policies that evaluates the risk level of a specific user or group. Based on the risk level (high/medium/low), a policy can be configured to block access or force MFA.
  • When a user is a high risk and Conditional access evaluation is enabled, the user’s access is revoked, and they are forced to re-authenticate.
  • For regular activity monitoring, use Risky sign-in reports, which surface attempted and successful user access activities where the legitimate owner might not have performed the sign-in. 
• Use a Security Service Edge (SSE) solution like Global Secure Access to secure access to any app or resource using network, identity, and endpoint access controls.

Reduce exposure during captive portal registration

Organizations should review what information employees provide to hospitality providers when connecting to guest networks.

• Do not reuse corporate credentials on hotel, conference, or guest-network registration pages.
• Where possible, organizations should evaluate whether venue-provided wireless is required for corporate events and conferences.
• Organizations should minimize unnecessary disclosure of employee identities, organizational affiliations, and travel details when booking accommodations or registering for guest network access, consistent with corporate policy and applicable local requirements.

Microsoft Defender detections and hunting guidance

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

Microsoft Defender for Endpoint detects Storm-2945 activity under the detection Suspicious activity linked to a Russian state-sponsored threat actor has been detected. However, these alerts might be triggered by unrelated threat actor activity. The following chart lists Microsoft Defender detections specific to the TTPs utilized by Storm-2945 in this attack.

Microsoft Security Copilot

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

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

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

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

Threat intelligence reports

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

• Actor profile: Midnight Blizzard

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

Hunting queries

Microsoft Defender XDR

Microsoft Defender XDR customers can run the following advanced hunting queries to find related activity in their networks:

Detect file creation after Wi-Fi connectivity test on devices

The following query checks for a file creation on a device within two minutes of the device performing built‑in Network Connectivity Status Indicator (NCSI) test, which occurs when network connectivity is established to a Wi-Fi network with a captive portal. This activity might indicate an attacker’s initial access file presence on a device.

Please note that not all files discovered through this query might be malicious or related to this threat activity.

let ncsi_endpoints = dynamic(["msftconnecttest.com","edge-http.microsoft.com","msftncsi.com","captive.apple.com","clients1.google.com",
    "clients3.google.com","clients4.google.com","clients6.google.com","connectivitycheck.gstatic.com","connectivitycheck.android.com",
    "android.clients.google.com","www.gstatic.com","detectportal.firefox.com","detectportal.brave-http-only.com","cloudflareportal.com",
    "cloudflarecp.com","cloudflareok.com","connectivity-check.warp-svc","connectivity.cloudflareclient.com","spectrum.s3.amazonaws.com",
    "nmcheck.gnome.org"]);
let NCSIEvents = DeviceNetworkEvents
    | where Timestamp > ago(7d)
    | where RemoteUrl has_any (ncsi_endpoints)
    | project NCSI_Timestamp = Timestamp, DeviceId, DeviceName, RemoteUrl, NCSI_ReportId = ReportId, NCSI_InitiatingProcessFileName = InitiatingProcessFileName, NCSI_InitiatingProcessCommandLine = InitiatingProcessCommandLine, NCSI_AccountName = InitiatingProcessAccountName;
let FileDownloadEvents = DeviceFileEvents
    | where Timestamp > ago(7d)
    | where ActionType == "FileCreated"
    | where FileName has_any (".exe",".msi",".zip",".rar",".7z")
    | project Download_Timestamp = Timestamp, DeviceId, FileName, FolderPath, Download_ReportId = ReportId, Download_InitiatingProcessFileName = InitiatingProcessFileName, Download_InitiatingProcessCommandLine = InitiatingProcessCommandLine, Download_AccountName = InitiatingProcessAccountName;
NCSIEvents
| join kind=inner (
    FileDownloadEvents
) on DeviceId
| where Download_Timestamp >= NCSI_Timestamp and Download_Timestamp <= NCSI_Timestamp + 2m
| project
    NCSI_Timestamp,
    Download_Timestamp,
    DeviceName,
    DeviceId,
    RemoteUrl,
    FileName,
    FolderPath,
    InitiatingProcessFileName = Download_InitiatingProcessFileName,
    InitiatingProcessCommandLine = Download_InitiatingProcessCommandLine,
    AccountName = Download_AccountName,
    NCSI_ReportId,
    Download_ReportId

Detect connectivity to Storm-2945 infrastructure

The following query checks for connectivity to Storm-2945 infrastructure observed in this attack activity.

let target_domains = dynamic(["ms365-device.com", "ms365-live.com", "m365-owa.com", "owa-ms365.com"]);
let target_ips = dynamic(["31.57.243.154", "38.146.28.75", "38.146.28.132", "104.194.159.150", "107.189.26.194", "213.145.86.112"]);
DeviceNetworkEvents
| where RemoteUrl has_any(target_domains) or RemoteIP in (target_ips)
| project
    Timestamp,
    DeviceName,
    DeviceId,
    RemoteUrl,
    RemoteIP,
    LocalIP,
    InitiatingProcessFileName,
    InitiatingProcessCommandLine,
    AccountName = InitiatingProcessAccountName,
    ReportId

Detect CornFlake RAT presence on affected systems

The following query checks for the presence of the CornFlake RAT binary.

DeviceProcessEvents
| where FolderPath == "%APPDATA%\\svchost32\\svchost32.exe"
   or FolderPath endswith @"\svchost32\svchost32.exe"
| project Timestamp, DeviceName, DeviceId, FileName, FolderPath, InitiatingProcessFileName, InitiatingProcessCommandLine, AccountName, ReportId

Detect CornFlake RAT Windows service registration

The following query checks for the CornFlake RAT Windows service registration.

DeviceRegistryEvents
| where RegistryKey has @"\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Services\svchost32"
| where ActionType == "RegistryValueSet"
| where (RegistryValueName == "DisplayName" and RegistryValueData == "Cloud Sync Service")
    or (RegistryValueName == "Description" and RegistryValueData == "Synchronizes files with the cloud storage provider")
| project
    Timestamp,
    DeviceName,
    DeviceId,
    RegistryKey,
    RegistryValueName,
    RegistryValueData,
    ActionType,
    InitiatingProcessFileName,
    InitiatingProcessCommandLine,
    InitiatingProcessAccountName,
    ReportId

Microsoft Sentinel

Microsoft Sentinel customers can use the TI Mapping analytics (a series of analytics all prefixed with ‘TI map’) to automatically match the malicious domain indicators mentioned in this blog post with data in their workspace. If the TI Map analytics are not currently deployed, customers can install the Threat Intelligence solution from the Microsoft Sentinel Content Hub to have the analytics rule deployed in their Sentinel workspace.

Detect network IP and domain indicators of compromise using ASIM

The following query checks IP addresses and domain IOCs across data sources supported by ASIM network session parser:

//IP list and domain list- _Im_NetworkSession
let lookback = 30d;
let ioc_ip_addr = dynamic(["213.145.86.112"]);
let ioc_domains = dynamic(["213.145.86.112/t/pixel.gif", "213.145.86.112/cdn/chunks/polyfill-7e2b.min.js", "213.145.86.112/t/event"]);
_Im_NetworkSession(starttime=todatetime(ago(lookback)), endtime=now())
| where DstIpAddr in (ioc_ip_addr) or DstDomain has_any (ioc_domains)
| summarize imNWS_mintime=min(TimeGenerated), imNWS_maxtime=max(TimeGenerated),
  EventCount=count() by SrcIpAddr, DstIpAddr, DstDomain, Dvc, EventProduct, EventVendor

Detect web sessions IP and file hash indicators of compromise using ASIM

The following query checks IP addresses, domains, and file hash IOCs across data sources supported by ASIM web session parser:

//IP list - _Im_WebSession
let lookback = 30d;
let ioc_ip_addr = dynamic(["213.145.86.112"]);
let ioc_sha_hashes =dynamic([“918fa52ae45ed60ba7cc8bdc99c3cbe9ab92e0375ec31fc05d0d4513be11c593”, “be99857449d2856dd5a84e21c8a3d5e0e01456adb44062ddec5a6b4970d8d42c”]);
_Im_WebSession(starttime=todatetime(ago(lookback)), endtime=now())
| where DstIpAddr in (ioc_ip_addr) or FileSHA256 in (ioc_sha_hashes)
| summarize imWS_mintime=min(TimeGenerated), imWS_maxtime=max(TimeGenerated),
  EventCount=count() by SrcIpAddr, DstIpAddr, Url, Dvc, EventProduct, EventVendor

Detect domain and URL indicators of compromise using ASIM

The following query checks domain and URL IOCs across data sources supported by ASIM web session parser:

// file hash list - imFileEvent
// Domain list - _Im_WebSession
let ioc_domains = dynamic(["https://213.145.86.112/t/pixel.gif", "https://213.145.86.112/cdn/chunks/polyfill-7e2b.min.js", "https://213.145.86.112/t/event"]);
_Im_WebSession (url_has_any = ioc_domains)

ChocoShell C2 communications

The following query detects ChocoShell communications with its C2 server using HTTPS with URI paths designed to blend in with legitimate web traffic. Beacons use /t/pixel.gif?m=<status>, mimicking an image tracking pixel.

let lookback = 30d;
let ioc_url_artifacts = dynamic(["/t/pixel.gif?m="]);
_Im_WebSession(starttime=todatetime(ago(lookback)), endtime=now())
| where DstDomain  in (ioc_url_artifacts)
| summarize imWS_mintime=min(TimeGenerated), imWS_maxtime=max(TimeGenerated),
  EventCount=count() by SrcIpAddr, DstIpAddr, Url, Dvc, EventProduct, EventVendor

Indicators of compromise

References

• https://reliaquest.com/blog/threat-spotlight-dns-poisoning-tactics-expand-to-hospitality/
• https://www.volexity.com/blog/2025/02/13/multiple-russian-threat-actors-targeting-microsoft-device-code-authentication

Learn more

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

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

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

The post CaptiveCrunch: Midnight Blizzard targets travelers worldwide for malware delivery and credential theft appeared first on Microsoft Security Blog.

This week on the Lock and Code podcast…

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

Pithy as the phrase sounds, it is undeniably true.

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

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

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

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

As we wrote on Malwarebytes Labs:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tune in today to listen to the full episode.

Show notes and credits:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tycoon2FA Q2 disruption impact

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

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

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

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

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

QR code phishing attacks

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

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

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

CAPTCHA-gated phishing tactics

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

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

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

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

Malicious payloads

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

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

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

Business email compromise

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

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

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

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

Microsoft Teams threats

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

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

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

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

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

Notable phishing campaigns

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

Automated BEC campaign scales aging report and payroll diversion lures

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mitigation and protection guidance

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

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

Microsoft Defender detections

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

Microsoft Defender for Endpoint

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

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

Microsoft Defender for Office 365

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

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

Microsoft Security Copilot

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

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

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

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

Threat intelligence reports

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

Microsoft Defender XDR threat analytics

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

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

Indicators of compromise (IOCs)

Learn more

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

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

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

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

Harrowing story of an identity theft victim.

Yes, the person made a mistake—they gave the scammer a two-factor authentication code that allowed the scammer to take over their email address. But the real story here is how, for many of us, the security of most of our accounts hangs on the security of our email accounts.

From late April 2026 to mid-June 2026, Microsoft Defender Experts observed increased ACR Stealer activity across customer environments. These campaigns are successfully using ClickFix lures to steal browser credentials, authentication tokens, and sensitive documents from enterprise environments. Successful compromise can expose browser credentials, session tokens, authentication artifacts, and sensitive enterprise data, potentially enabling account compromise, unauthorized access to cloud resources, and follow-on intrusion activity. Security teams should prioritize monitoring for ClickFix lures, suspicious WebDAV activity, obfuscated PowerShell execution, and attempts to access browser credential stores.

ACR Stealer is an information-stealing malware family reportedly offered through a malware-as-a-service (MaaS) model and associated with the rebranding of Amatera Stealer. During this period, two campaigns stand out, together appearing frequently in reviewed recent intrusions. Both begin the same way, with a ClickFix social engineering technique that tricks targets into running the threat actor’s command, but the intrusion chains that follow diverge in how they deliver payloads, establish execution, and evade detection.

The first campaign relies on WebDAV-delivered payloads, staged PowerShell, Python-based loaders and persistence, and, in some intrusions, blockchain-backed dead-drop command-and-control (C2) resolution. The second campaign takes a more fileless route, using MSHTA, obfuscated PowerShell, and steganography-assisted in-memory execution. Despite these differences, both campaigns ultimately pursue the same goal: stealing browser-stored credentials and other sensitive data for exfiltration.

These two campaigns represent some of the most prevalent ACR Stealer delivery campaigns observed by Defender Experts; however, they do not represent the full range of delivery methods used by this malware family. Attribution to ACR Stealer is based on the observed behavior and post-exploitation tradecraft, corroborated by open-source intelligence on the infrastructure associated with this malware family. Additional campaigns, infrastructure patterns, and execution chains are likely active, and organizations should treat the indicators and techniques described here as representative.

Microsoft Defender for Endpoint can help surface both campaigns through behavioral coverage for living-off-the-land execution, suspicious WebDAV and MSHTA activity, obfuscated PowerShell, scheduled-task persistence, in-memory payload execution, and browser credential theft. In this blog, we analyze both campaigns in detail, including their delivery mechanisms, post-exploitation tradecraft, indicators of compromise, hunting opportunities, and guidance to help defenders detect and disrupt related activity in their environments.

Campaign 1: WebDAV-based ClickFix with Python loaders and blockchain C2

Initial access

In this campaign, a ClickFix prompt, likely delivered through malvertising or SEO-manipulated search results, instructs the target user to run a command that launches cmd.exe. The command subsequently invokes rundll32.exe to load a DLL from a remote WebDAV share accessed over HTTPS. The WebDAV path commonly uses a GUID-based directory structure and filenames designed to resemble legitimate resources (for example, google.ct), enabling the activity to blend with expected network traffic and evade casual inspection.

We observed three variants of the initial execution command:

Variant 1: Direct rundll32 invocation

Variant 2: pushd-Mounted WebDAV Share

Variant 3: Headless and obfuscated pushd execution

Variants 2 and 3 are notable for their use of pushd, which transparently maps the remote WebDAV share to a temporary local drive prior to execution. This technique allows threat actors to execute remotely hosted content through what appears to be a local path, simplifying payload execution while reducing user awareness. In the more advanced variant, threat actors further enhance stealth by launching commands through conhost.exe –headless, suppressing visible console windows, and employing environment variable obfuscation with delayed variable expansion to conceal critical execution components such as pushd, rundll32, and the remote host name. Combined with minimized or headless execution, these techniques reduce user visibility, complicate static analysis and detection, and enable the infection chain to execute with minimal indication to the victim.

Execution, persistence, and evasion through process masquerading

Once rundll32.exe loads the DLL retrieved from the remote server, the malware establishes communication with threat actor-controlled infrastructure and executes a heavily obfuscated PowerShell script. The script employs excessive arithmetic no-ops, dead loops, fake control flow, and randomized variable names to hinder static analysis and evade signature-based detection.

The PowerShell script subsequently deploys another stage that functions as both a malware installer and a persistence mechanism. It:

• Downloads a ZIP-packaged payload from a remote server and extracts it into a deceptive directory under %LocalAppData%\Temp (for example, LogiOptionsPlus).
• Launches a Python script using a bundled pythonw.exe instance to avoid displaying a console window.
• Removes previous deployments and terminates running instances before installation, effectively operating as an updater.
• Establishes persistence through a hidden scheduled task disguised as a legitimate software update, ensuring execution at user sign-in.
• Copies timestamps from a trusted Windows binary (notepad.exe) to the deployed files and clears PowerShell command history to reduce forensic visibility.

Python loader launching the stealer

The Python component serves as a heavily obfuscated loader designed to conceal its true functionality until runtime. It employs multiple layers of defense against static analysis, including dynamic API resolution, encoded string reconstruction, junk-data removal, character shifting, string reversal, Base64 decoding, and zlib decompression. These techniques ensure that the embedded payload remains unreadable in its static form and is reconstructed only during execution, significantly hindering signature-based detection and automated analysis.

Once decoded, the final-stage payload functions as an in-memory shellcode loader. It extracts an archive file masquerading as a legitimate application installer, reads a file from the archive, and injects the payload into a system process. The loader allocates executable memory using VirtualAlloc, copies the payload into the allocated memory region, and transfers execution through the Windows Fiber API (ConvertThreadToFiber, CreateFiber, and SwitchToFiber). This technique facilitates stealthy in-memory execution while minimizing artifacts written to disk.

Credential theft and data staging for exfiltration

The malware (injected code) aggressively harvests information from browser credential stores. It invokes Windows Data Protection API (DPAPI) routines to decrypt locally stored browser passwords, cookies, and authentication tokens. It also enumerates files across the system, targeting PDFs, Microsoft 365 documents, and data stored in enterprise-synchronized directories such as OneDrive and SharePoint. The collected data is subsequently archived, indicating preparation for exfiltration.

Blockchain dead-drop C2 resolution

A notable variation in this campaign is the use of blockchain services for C2 resolution, utilizing a technique known as EtherHiding. While most intrusions rely on more conventional C2 mechanisms, a subset deploys an additional secondary Python loader that leverages blockchain services as dead-drop resolvers. When this loader executes, it has been observed communicating with public blockchain RPC endpoints and third-party Web3 node infrastructure, likely querying data stored on a decentralized public ledger to retrieve follow-up payloads or a C2 address.

By externalizing C2 information to the blockchain, operators could dynamically update infrastructure without modifying or redeploying the malware, significantly complicating detection and takedown efforts. This behavior was observed across both variants of the campaign.

Campaign 2: MSHTA-initiated PowerShell chain with steganographic payload delivery

The second campaign takes a distinctly different approach to both delivery and execution. Where Campaign 1 relies on disk-based artifacts (Python runtime, scheduled tasks, and masquerading binaries), this campaign achieves its objectives almost entirely through fileless, in-memory execution, making it harder to detect through file-based scanning and forensic analysis.

Initial access through MSHTA and ClickFix

The execution chain begins when the victim, directed through malvertising or SEO-manipulated search results, encounters a ClickFix prompt that triggers a command spawning MSHTA to fetch and execute remote HTA content from an threat actor-controlled domain. The embedded VBScript loader abuses COM objects to decode and execute encoded PowerShell content.

PowerShell downloader and obfuscation

The decoded PowerShell stage employs obfuscation techniques similar to those seen in Campaign 1: randomized variable names, arithmetic no-op operations, dead loops, misleading control flow, and custom encryption routines. Prior to contacting its next-stage infrastructure, the malware generates a victim-specific identifier and disables certificate validation. The retrieved content is executed directly in memory.

Steganography-based payload delivery

A notable technique in this campaign is the use of steganography to conceal malicious content inside a publicly hosted image. Instead of downloading a secondary script (as in Campaign 1), the malware retrieves a JPEG image from an image-hosting service.

Analysis of the script revealed custom routines that extract an embedded payload from image pixels, decrypt and decompress it, and execute it entirely in memory. The payload dynamically resolves APIs such as LoadLibrary, GetProcAddress, VirtualAlloc, CreateThread, and WaitForSingleObject at runtime to perform reflective shellcode execution. By combining steganography with in-memory execution, the malware minimizes on-disk artifacts and complicates both detection and analysis.

Credential theft, data collection, and exfiltration

Following execution, the malware accesses credential stores belonging to Chromium-based browsers, including Google Chrome and Microsoft Edge, specifically the Login Data and Web Data databases, alongside Windows DPAPI decryption activity. This behavior indicates attempts to recover stored browser credentials, session cookies, authentication tokens, and other sensitive user information.

The malware also enumerates and accesses multiple high-value PDF documents across Desktop and Downloads locations, suggesting targeted collection of potentially sensitive files. The combination of browser credential harvesting and systematic document access points to an information-stealing objective focused on staging credentials and valuable user data for exfiltration.

Mitigation and protection guidance

Microsoft recommends the following mitigations to reduce the impact of ClickFix lures, script-based payload delivery, credential theft, and post-compromise activity.

• Educate users to recognize ClickFix-style prompts, fake verification checks, and paste-and-run instructions as malicious, especially when they invoke command interpreters or script hosts such as cmd.exe, PowerShell, rundll32.exe, or mshta.exe.
• Reduce exposure to malvertising, SEO poisoning, and other web-based delivery chains by enforcing web filtering, blocking low-reputation or newly observed domains, and limiting access to remote content sources that are not required for business operations.
• Use application control and attack surface reduction rules to restrict PowerShell, Python, mshta.exe, rundll32.exe, and similar tools from launching untrusted or internet-delivered content, particularly from user-writable directories such as Downloads, Temp, and %LocalAppData%.
• Monitor for suspicious persistence and defense-evasion behavior, including scheduled tasks masquerading as software updates, timestomping, PowerShell history clearing, and execution chains that progress from remote content retrieval into PowerShell, Python, or shellcode-loading behavior.
• Investigate abnormal access to Chromium-based browser databases, DPAPI-related decryption activity, staged collection of Microsoft 365 documents or PDFs, and compression activity that may indicate credential theft or data staging for exfiltration.
• If compromise is suspected, isolate affected devices, rotate exposed credentials, revoke potentially compromised tokens, review persistence mechanisms, and investigate outbound connections to remote shares, image-hosting services, or other infrastructure used to resolve or retrieve follow-on payloads.
• Harden endpoints against credential theft by reducing reliance on browser-stored credentials, enforcing multifactor authentication and conditional access, and reviewing how privileged accounts access sensitive applications and synchronized enterprise data.
• Turn on cloud-delivered protection and behavior-based detections to help identify rapidly evolving threats, suspicious script execution, in-memory payload delivery, abuse of browser credential stores, and unusual child-process activity.
• Run endpoint detection and response (EDR) in block mode and enable automated investigation and remediation so post-breach detections are contained, and malicious artifacts can be removed with minimal delay.
• Harden PowerShell by enforcing appropriate execution policies, turning on script block logging, module logging, and transcription, and monitoring this telemetry for signs of malicious script activity.
• Turn on tamper protection and prevent local administrators from weakening antivirus protection through local policy or exclusion changes.

Microsoft Defender XDR detections

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

Microsoft Security Copilot

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

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

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

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

Threat intelligence reports

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

• Amatera Stealer: Rebranded ACR Stealer With Improved Evasion, Sophistication
• Double Trouble: Latrodectus and ACR Stealer observed spreading via Google Authenticator Phishing Site

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

Advanced hunting queries

Microsoft Defender XDR customers can run the following advance hunting queries to find related activity in their networks:

Run the query below to identify suspicious commands executed through ClickFix-based activity observed while delivering this stealer

DeviceRegistryEvents
| where RegistryKey has "RunMRU"
| where (RegistryValueData has_all ("rundll32", "@ssl", " /c ", " start ") and (RegistryValueData matches regex @"\\\\[^\\]+@ssl\\[0-9a-fA-F]{8}-[0-9a-fA-F]{4}-[0-9a-fA-F]{4}-[0-9a-fA-F]{4}-[0-9a-fA-F]{12}\\\w+\.\w+,#1" or
RegistryValueData matches regex @"(?i)pushd \\\\[^\\]+@ssl\\[0-9a-fA-F]{8}-[0-9a-fA-F]{4}-[0-9a-fA-F]{4}-[0-9a-fA-F]{4}-[0-9a-fA-F]{12} ")) 
or RegistryValueData has_all ("@ssl", " /c ", "conhost --headless ") and RegistryValueData contains "rundll32"

Run the query below to identify scheduled task creation used for persistence by a malicious PowerShell script

DeviceProcessEvents
| where InitiatingProcessFileName =~ "powershell.exe"
| where InitiatingProcessCommandLine has_all ("-Command", "powershell")
| where ProcessCommandLine has_all ("schtasks", " /run /tn ", " Autoupdate ") and ProcessCommandLine matches regex "[0-9]{8}"

Run the query below to identify suspicious MSHTA launch through PowerShell

DeviceProcessEvents
| where InitiatingProcessParentFileName has "explorer.exe"
| where InitiatingProcessFileName =~ "powershell.exe" and InitiatingProcessCommandLine in~ ('"PowerShell.exe" ', '"PowerShell.exe"')
| where ProcessCommandLine has_all ('"mshta.exe" https://') and ProcessCommandLine matches regex "/[0-9]{7}"

MITRE ATT&CK techniques observed

The following mapping summarizes the primary tactics and techniques observed across the two ACR Stealer intrusion chains. The mapping is intended to help defenders align observed behaviors with existing detection coverage, response playbooks, and hunting priorities.

Indicators of compromise (IOC)

References

• Intelligence Insights: May 2026 | Red Canary
• Possible ACR Stealer From Page Impersonating Claude

Learn more

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

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

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

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

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

The post ACR Stealer: Two observed intrusion chains amid increased threat activity appeared first on Microsoft Security Blog.

A vishing call to an overseas contact center agent. A fake IT ticket. A default setting nobody thought to lock down. That's all it took to expose the personal data of roughly 5 million Australians — and now the country's privacy regulator has decided Qantas isn't to blame for it.

The Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (OAIC) closed the book this week on its year-long preliminary inquiry into the June 2025 Qantas data breach, and the conclusion cuts against the instinct to punish the victim of a cyberattack.

Also read: Australia’s Qantas Confirms Cyberattack: 6 Million Service Records Compromised

According to the OAIC's report, the evidence gathered did not indicate a likelihood that Qantas had "failed" to take reasonable steps to protect the personal information it held, nor that it failed to ensure its overseas third-party provider complied with Australia's privacy principles. No investigation. No enforcement action.

"After more than a year of making inquiries and obtaining information on the data breach, we're satisfied that the evidence does not support the likelihood that a breach of privacy law occurred. As a result, we've decided not to commence a full investigation of Qantas at this stage." - Carly Kind, Australian Privacy Commissioner.

How It Happened

The breach traces back to a single phone call. A threat actor posing as "Qantas IT help" convinced a contact center agent to visit a website tied to the customer relationship management platform used by Qantas agents, walking them through steps framed as necessary to close an IT support ticket. That interaction connected the agent's CRM session to a data extraction tool controlled by the attacker, who then pulled data from every contact profile the agent could access. It was pure social engineering — no malware, no exploited vulnerability, just a convincing lie.

Qantas caught it fast. A staff member spotted an unusual spike in login-attempt alerts on the morning of June 30, two days after the call, and escalated it to the cybersecurity team. Within hours, the company had frozen the compromised account, assessed for data exfiltration, and triggered its incident response process. Public disclosure followed on July 2.

What Was Exposed — And What Wasn't

The regulator's numbers are more precise than what circulated publicly last year. Roughly 5.67 million customer records were compromised, with about 4 million exposing names, phone numbers, email addresses and Frequent Flyer details, and a further 1.7 million records including combinations of home or business addresses, dates of birth, gender and meal preferences. Critically, no credit card numbers, financial information or passport details lived on the compromised platform, and customer passwords and login credentials were never touched.

Also read: Qantas Airways Cyberattack Update: Customer Data Released, Security Measures Enhanced

Why The Regulator Let It Go

The OAIC's reasoning is a rare, explicit acknowledgment that good controls don't guarantee immunity. Investigators found that social engineering training generally targets credential theft, not the rarer tactic of talking an employee into authorizing a legitimate-looking system connection — meaning the attack likely would have succeeded even with standard training in place. They also noted the flaw was structural: a default configuration let the agent authorize a third-party app connection, a setting the CRM vendor has since changed for all its customers.

Commissioner Carly Kind put the broader stakes plainly in the OAIC's statement announcing the report, warning that AI-driven threats are only raising the bar. As she framed it, agentic and advanced AI will keep escalating the cybersecurity risks businesses face, making continuous review of security posture non-negotiable — not optional.

The takeaway here isn't that Qantas got a pass. It's that a regulator has now drawn, in writing, the line between negligence and the limits of what training and access controls can realistically stop.