Introduction

Back in 2024, we gave a brief description of a complex cyberespionage campaign that we dubbed “PassiveNeuron”. This campaign involved compromising the servers of government organizations with previously unknown APT implants, named “Neursite” and “NeuralExecutor”. However, since its discovery, the PassiveNeuron campaign has been shrouded in mystery. For instance, it remained unclear how the implants in question were deployed or what actor was behind them.

After we detected this campaign and prevented its spreading back in June 2024, we did not see any further malware deployments linked to PassiveNeuron for quite a long time, about six months. However, since December 2024, we have observed a new wave of infections related to PassiveNeuron, with the latest ones dating back to August 2025. These infections targeted government, financial and industrial organizations located in Asia, Africa, and Latin America. Since identifying these infections, we have been able to shed light on many previously unknown aspects of this campaign. Thus, we managed to discover details about the initial infection and gather clues on attribution.

Additional information about this threat, including indicators of compromise, is available to customers of the Kaspersky Intelligence Reporting Service. Contact: intelreports@kaspersky.com.

SQL servers under attack

While investigating PassiveNeuron infections both in 2024 and 2025, we found that a vast majority of targeted machines were running Windows Server. Specifically, in one particular infection case, we observed attackers gain initial remote command execution capabilities on the compromised server through the Microsoft SQL software. While we do not have clear visibility into how attackers were able to abuse the SQL software, it is worth noting that SQL servers typically get compromised through:

• Exploitation of vulnerabilities in the server software itself
• Exploitation of SQL injection vulnerabilities present in the applications running on the server
• Getting access to the database administration account (e.g. by brute-forcing the password) and using it to execute malicious SQL queries

After obtaining the code execution capabilities with the help of the SQL software, attackers deployed an ASPX web shell for basic malicious command execution on the compromised machine. However, at this stage, things did not go as planned for the adversary. The Kaspersky solution installed on the machine was preventing the web shell deployment efforts, and the process of installing the web shell ended up being quite noisy.

In attempts to evade detection of the web shell, attackers performed its installation in the following manner:

1. They dropped a file containing the Base64-encoded web shell on the system.
2. They dropped a PowerShell script responsible for Base64-decoding the web shell file.
3. They launched the PowerShell script in an attempt to write the decoded web shell payload to the filesystem.

As Kaspersky solutions were preventing the web shell installation, we observed attackers to repeat the steps above several times with minor adjustments, such as:

• Using hexadecimal encoding of the web shell instead of Base64
• Using a VBS script instead of a PowerShell script to perform decoding
• Writing the script contents in a line-by-line manner

Having failed to deploy the web shell, attackers decided to use more advanced malicious implants to continue the compromise process.

Malicious implants

Over the last two years, we have observed three implants used over the course of PassiveNeuron infections, which are:

• Neursite, a custom C++ modular backdoor used for cyberespionage activities
• NeuralExecutor, a custom .NET implant used for running additional .NET payloads
• the Cobalt Strike framework, a commercial tool for red teaming

While we saw different combinations of these implants deployed on targeted machines, we observed that in the vast majority of cases, they were loaded through a chain of DLL loaders. The first-stage loader in the chain is a DLL file placed in the system directory. Some of these DLL file paths are:

• C:\Windows\System32\wlbsctrl.dll
• C:\Windows\System32\TSMSISrv.dll
• C:\Windows\System32\oci.dll

Storing DLLs under these paths has been beneficial to attackers, as placing libraries with these names inside the System32 folder makes it possible to automatically ensure persistence. If present on the file system, these DLLs get automatically loaded on startup (the first two DLLs are loaded into the svchost.exe process, while the latter is loaded into msdtc.exe) due to the employed Phantom DLL Hijacking technique.

It also should be noted that these DLLs are more than 100 MB in size — their size is artificially inflated by attackers by adding junk overlay bytes. Usually, this is done to make malicious implants more difficult to detect by security solutions.

On startup, the first-stage DLLs iterate through a list of installed network adapters, calculating a 32-bit hash of each adapter’s MAC address. If neither of the MAC addresses is equal to the value specified in the loader configuration, the loader exits. This MAC address check is designed to ensure that the DLLs get solely launched on the intended victim machine, in order to hinder execution in a sandbox environment. Such detailed narrowing down of victims implies the adversary’s interest towards specific organizations and once again underscores the targeted nature of this threat.

Having checked that it is operating on a target machine, the loader continues execution by loading a second-stage loader DLL that is stored on disk. The paths where the second-stage DLLs were stored as well as their names (examples include elscorewmyc.dll and wellgwlserejzuai.dll) differed between machines. We observed the second-stage DLLs to also have an artificially inflated file size (in excess of 60 MB), and the malicious goal was to open a text file containing a Base64-encoded and AES-encrypted third-stage loader, and subsequently launch it.

This payload is a DLL as well, responsible for launching a fourth-stage shellcode loader inside another process (e.g. WmiPrvSE.exe or msiexec.exe) which is created in suspended mode. In turn, this shellcode loads the final payload: a PE file converted to a custom executable format.

In summary, the process of loading the final payload can be represented with the following graph:

It is also notable that attackers attempted to use slightly different variants of the loading scheme for some of the target organizations. For example, we have seen cases without payload injection into another process, or with DLL obfuscation on disk with VMProtect.

The Neursite backdoor

Among the three final payload implants that we mentioned above, the Neursite backdoor is the most potent one. We dubbed it so because we observed the following source code path inside the discovered samples: E:\pro\code\Neursite\client_server\nonspec\mbedtls\library\ssl_srv.c. The configuration of this implant contains the following parameters:

• List of C2 servers and their ports
• List of HTTP proxies that can be used to connect to C2 servers
• List of HTTP headers used while connecting to HTTP-based C2 servers
• A relative URL used while communicating with HTTP-based C2 servers
• A range of wait time between two consecutive C2 server connections
• A byte array of hours and days of the week when the backdoor is operable
• An optional port that should be opened for listening to incoming connections

The Neursite implant can use the TCP, SSL, HTTP and HTTPS protocols for C2 communications. As follows from the configuration, Neursite can connect to the C2 server directly or wait for another machine to start communicating through a specified port. In cases we observed, Neursite samples were configured to use either external servers or compromised internal infrastructure for C2 communications.

The default range of commands implemented inside this backdoor allows attackers to:

• Retrieve system information.
• Manage running processes.
• Proxy traffic through other machines infected with the Neursite implant, in order to facilitate lateral movement.

Additionally, this implant is equipped with a component that allows loading supplementary plugins. We observed attackers deploy plugins with the following capabilities:

• Shell command execution
• File system management
• TCP socket operations

The NeuralExecutor loader

NeuralExecutor is another custom implant deployed over the course of the PassiveNeuron campaign. This implant is .NET based, and we found that it employed the open-source ConfuserEx obfuscator for protection against analysis. It implements multiple methods of network communication, namely TCP, HTTP/HTTPS, named pipes, and WebSockets. Upon establishing a communication channel with the C2 server, the backdoor can receive commands allowing it to load .NET assemblies. As such, the main capability of this backdoor is to receive additional .NET payloads from the network and execute them.

Tricky attribution

Both Neursite and NeuralExecutor, the two custom implants we found to be used in the PassiveNeuron campaign, have never been observed in any previous cyberattacks. We had to look for clues that could hint at the threat actor behind PassiveNeuron.

Back when we started investigating PassiveNeuron back in 2024, we spotted one such blatantly obvious clue:

In the code of the NeuralExecutor samples we observed in 2024, the names of all functions had been replaced with strings prefixed with “Супер обфускатор”, the Russian for “Super obfuscator”. It is important to note, however, that this string was deliberately introduced by the attackers while using the ConfuserEx obfuscator. When it comes to strings that are inserted into malware on purpose, they should be assessed carefully during attribution. That is because threat actors may insert strings in languages they do not speak, in order to create false flags intended to confuse researchers and incident responders and prompt them to make an error of judgement when trying to attribute the threat. For that reason, we attached little evidential weight to the presence of the “Супер обфускатор” string back in 2024.

After examining the NeuralExecutor samples used in 2025, we found that the Russian-language string had disappeared. However, this year we noticed another peculiar clue related to this implant. While the 2024 samples were designed to retrieve the C2 server addresses straight from the configuration, the 2025 ones did so by using the Dead Drop Resolver technique. Specifically, the new NeuralExecutor samples that we found were designed to retrieve the contents of a file stored in a GitHub repository, and extract a string from it:

The malware locates this string by searching for two delimiters, wtyyvZQY and stU7BU0R, that mark the start and the end of the configuration data. The bytes of this string are then Base64-decoded and decrypted with AES to obtain the C2 server address.

It is notable that this exact method of obtaining C2 server addresses from GitHub, using a string containing delimiter sequences, is quite popular among Chinese-speaking threat actors. For instance, we frequently observed it being used in the EastWind campaign, which we previously connected to the APT31 and APT27 Chinese-speaking threat actors.

Furthermore, during our investigation, we learned one more interesting fact that could be useful in attribution. We observed numerous attempts to deploy the PassiveNeuron loader in one particular organization. After discovering yet another failed deployment, we have detected a malicious DLL named imjp14k.dll. An analysis of this DLL revealed that it had the PDB path G:\Bee\Tree(pmrc)\Src\Dll_3F_imjp14k\Release\Dll.pdb. This PDB string was referenced in a report by Cisco Talos on activities likely associated with the threat actor APT41. Moreover, we identified that the discovered DLL exhibits the same malicious behavior as described in the Cisco Talos report. However, it remains unclear why this DLL was uploaded to the target machine. Possible explanations could be that the attackers deployed it as a replacement for the PassiveNeuron-related implants, or that it was used by another actor who compromised the organization simultaneously with the attackers behind PassiveNeuron.

When dealing with attribution of cyberattacks that are known to involve false flags, it is difficult to understand which attribution indicators to trust, or whether to trust any at all. However, the overall TTPs of the PassiveNeuron campaign most resemble the ones commonly employed by Chinese-speaking threat actors. Since TTPs are usually harder to fake than indicators like strings, we are, as of now, attributing the PassiveNeuron campaign to a Chinese-speaking threat actor, albeit with a low level of confidence.

Conclusion

The PassiveNeuron campaign has been distinctive in the way that it primarily targets server machines. These servers, especially the ones exposed to the internet, are usually lucrative targets for APTs, as they can serve as entry points into target organizations. It is thus crucial to pay close attention to the protection of server machines. Wherever possible, the attack surface associated with these servers should be reduced to a minimum, and all server applications should be monitored to prevent emerging infections in a timely manner. Specific attention should be paid to protecting applications against SQL injections, which are commonly exploited by threat actors to obtain initial access. Another thing to focus on is protection against web shells, which are deployed to facilitate compromise of servers.

Indicators of compromise

PassiveNeuron-related loader files
12ec42446db8039e2a2d8c22d7fd2946
406db41215f7d333db2f2c9d60c3958b
44a64331ec1c937a8385dfeeee6678fd
8dcf258f66fa0cec1e4a800fa1f6c2a2
d587724ade76218aa58c78523f6fa14e
f806083c919e49aca3f301d082815b30

Malicious imjp14k.dll DLL
751f47a688ae075bba11cf0235f4f6ee

Background

RevengeHotels, also known as TA558, is a threat group that has been active since 2015, stealing credit card data from hotel guests and travelers. RevengeHotels’ modus operandi involves sending emails with phishing links which redirect victims to websites mimicking document storage. These sites, in turn, download script files to ultimately infect the targeted machines. The final payloads consist of various remote access Trojan (RAT) implants, which enable the threat actor to issue commands for controlling compromised systems, stealing sensitive data, and maintaining persistence, among other malicious activities.

In previous campaigns, the group was observed using malicious emails with Word, Excel, or PDF documents attached. Some of them exploited the CVE-2017-0199 vulnerability, loading Visual Basic Scripting (VBS), or PowerShell scripts to install customized versions of different RAT families, such as RevengeRAT, NanoCoreRAT, NjRAT, 888 RAT, and custom malware named ProCC. These campaigns affected hotels in multiple countries across Latin America, including Brazil, Argentina, Chile, and Mexico, but also hotel front-desks globally, particularly in Russia, Belarus, Turkey, and so on.

Later, this threat group expanded its arsenal by adding XWorm, a RAT with commands for control, data theft, and persistence, amongst other things. While investigating the campaign that distributed XWorm, we identified high-confidence indicators that RevengeHotels also used the RAT tool named DesckVBRAT in their operations.

In the summer of 2025, we observed new campaigns targeting the same sector and featuring increasingly sophisticated implants and tools. The threat actors continue to employ phishing emails with invoice themes to deliver VenomRAT implants via JavaScript loaders and PowerShell downloaders. A significant portion of the initial infector and downloader code in this campaign appears to be generated by large language model (LLM) agents. This suggests that the threat actor is now leveraging AI to evolve its capabilities, a trend also reported among other cybercriminal groups.

The primary targets of these campaigns are Brazilian hotels, although we have also observed attacks directed at Spanish-speaking markets. Through a comprehensive analysis of the attack patterns and the threat actor’s modus operandi, we have established with high confidence that the responsible actor is indeed RevengeHotels. The consistency of the tactics, techniques, and procedures (TTPs) employed in these attacks aligns with the known behavior of RevengeHotels. The infrastructure used for payload delivery relies on legitimate hosting services, often utilizing Portuguese-themed domain names.

Initial infection

The primary attack vector employed by RevengeHotels is phishing emails with invoicing themes, which urge the recipient to settle overdue payments. These emails are specifically targeted at email addresses associated with hotel reservations. While Portuguese is a common language used in these phishing emails, we have also discovered instances of Spanish-language phishing emails, indicating that the threat actor’s scope extends beyond Brazilian hospitality establishments and may include targets in Spanish-speaking countries or regions.

In recent instances of these attacks, the themes have shifted from hotel reservations to fake job applications, where attackers sent résumés in an attempt to exploit potential job opportunities at the targeted hotels.

Malicious implant

The malicious websites, which change with each email, download a WScript JS file upon being visited, triggering the infection process. The filename of the JS file changes with every request. In the case at hand, we analyzed Fat146571.js (fbadfff7b61d820e3632a2f464079e8c), which follows the format Fat\{NUMBER\}.js, where “Fat” is the beginning of the Portuguese word “fatura”, meaning “invoice”.

The script appears to be generated by a large language model (LLM), as evidenced by its heavily commented code and a format similar to those produced by this type of technology. The primary function of the script is to load subsequent scripts that facilitate the infection.

A significant portion of the new generation of initial infectors created by RevengeHotels contains code that seems to have been generated by AI. These LLM-generated code segments can be distinguished from the original malicious code by several characteristics, including:

• The cleanliness and organization of the code
• Placeholders, which allow the threat actor to insert their own variables or content
• Detailed comments that accompany almost every action within the code
• A notable lack of obfuscation, which sets these LLM-generated sections apart from the rest of the code

Second loading step

Upon execution, the loader script, Fat\{NUMBER\}.js, decodes an obfuscated and encoded buffer, which serves as the next step in loading the remaining malicious implants. This buffer is then saved to a PowerShell (PS1) file named SGDoHBZQWpLKXCAoTHXdBGlnQJLZCGBOVGLH_{TIMESTAMP}.ps1 (d5f241dee73cffe51897c15f36b713cc), where “\{TIMESTAMP\}” is a generated number based on the current execution date and time. This ensures that the filename changes with each infection and is not persistent. Once the script is saved, it is executed three times, after which the loader script exits.

The script SGDoHBZQWpLKXCAoTHXdBGlnQJLZCGBOVGLH_{TIMESTAMP}.ps1 runs a PowerShell command with Base64-encoded code. This code retrieves the cargajecerrr.txt (b1a5dc66f40a38d807ec8350ae89d1e4) file from a remote malicious server and invokes it as PowerShell.

This downloader, which is lightly obfuscated, is responsible for fetching the remaining files from the malicious server and loading them. Both downloaded files are Base64-encoded and have descriptive names: venumentrada.txt (607f64b56bb3b94ee0009471f1fe9a3c), which can be interpreted as “VenomRAT entry point”, and runpe.txt (dbf5afa377e3e761622e5f21af1f09e6), which is named after a malicious tool for in-memory execution. The first file, venumentrada.txt, is a heavily obfuscated loader (MD5 of the decoded file: 91454a68ca3a6ce7cb30c9264a88c0dc) that ensures the second file, a VenomRAT implant (3ac65326f598ee9930031c17ce158d3d), is correctly executed in memory.

The malicious code also exhibits characteristics consistent with generation by an AI interface, including a coherent code structure, detailed commenting, and explicit variable naming. Moreover, it differs significantly from previous samples, which had a structurally different, more obfuscated nature and lacked comments.

Exploring VenomRAT

VenomRAT, an evolution of the open-source QuasarRAT, was first discovered in mid-2020 and is offered on the dark web, with a lifetime license costing up to $650. Although the source code of VenomRAT was leaked, it is still being sold and used by threat actors.

According to the vendor’s website, VenomRAT offers a range of capabilities that build upon and expand those of QuasarRAT, including HVNC hidden desktop, file grabber and stealer, reverse proxy, and UAC exploit, amongst others.

As with other RATs, VenomRAT clients are generated with custom configurations. The configuration data within the implant (similar to QuasarRAT) is encrypted using AES and PKCS #5 v2.0, with two keys employed: one for decrypting the data and another for verifying its authenticity using HMAC-SHA256. Throughout the malware code, different sets of keys and initialization vectors are used sporadically, but they consistently implement the same AES algorithm.

Anti-kill

It is notable that VenomRAT features an anti-kill protection mechanism, which can be enabled by the threat actor upon execution. Initially, the RAT calls a function named EnableProtection, which retrieves the security descriptor of the malicious process and modifies the Discretionary Access Control List (DACL) to remove any permissions that could hinder the RAT’s proper functioning or shorten its lifespan on the system.

The second component of this anti-kill measure involves a thread that runs a continuous loop, checking the list of running processes every 50 milliseconds. The loop specifically targets those processes commonly used by security analysts and system administrators to monitor host activity or analyze .NET binaries, among other tasks. If the RAT detects any of these processes, it will terminate them without prompting the user.

The anti-kill measure also involves persistence, which is achieved through two mechanisms written into a VBS file generated and executed by VenomRAT. These mechanisms ensure the malware’s continued presence on the system:

1. Windows Registry: The script creates a new key under HKCU\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\RunOnce, pointing to the executable path. This allows the malware to persist across user sessions.
2. Process: The script runs a loop that checks for the presence of the malware process in the process list. If it is not found, the script executes the malware again.

If the user who executed the malware has administrator privileges, the malware takes additional steps to ensure its persistence. It sets the SeDebugPrivilege token, enabling it to use the RtlSetProcessIsCritical function to mark itself as a critical system process. This makes the process “essential” to the system, allowing it to persist even when termination is attempted. However, when the administrator logs off or the computer is about to shut down, VenomRAT removes its critical mark to permit the system to proceed with these actions.

As a final measure to maintain persistence, the RAT calls the SetThreadExecutionState function with a set of flags that forces the display to remain on and the system to stay in a working state. This prevents the system from entering sleep mode.

Separately from the anti-kill methods, the malware also includes a protection mechanism against Windows Defender. In this case, the RAT actively searches for MSASCui.exe in the process list and terminates it. The malware then modifies the task scheduler and registry to disable Windows Defender globally, along with its various features.

Networking

VenomRAT employs a custom packet building and serialization mechanism for its networking connection to the C2 server. Each packet is tailored to a specific action taken by the RAT, with a dedicated packet handler for each action. The packets transmitted to the C2 server undergo a multi-step process:

1. The packet is first serialized to prepare it for transmission.
2. The serialized packet is then compressed using LZMA compression to reduce its size.
3. The compressed packet is encrypted using AES-128 encryption, utilizing the same key and authentication key mentioned earlier.

Upon receiving packets from the C2 server, VenomRAT reverses this process to decrypt and extract the contents.

Additionally, VenomRAT implements tunneling by installing ngrok on the infected computer. The C2 server specifies the token, protocol, and port for the tunnel, which are sent in the serialized packet. This allows remote control services like RDP and VNC to operate through the tunnel and to be exposed to the internet.

USB spreading

VenomRAT also possesses the capability to spread via USB drives. To achieve this, it scans drive letters from C to M and checks if each drive is removable. If a removable drive is detected, the RAT copies itself to all available drives under the name My Pictures.exe.

Extra stealth steps

In addition to copying itself to another directory and changing its executable name, VenomRAT employs several stealth techniques that distinguish it from QuasarRAT. Two notable examples include:

• Deletion of Zone.Identifier streams: VenomRAT deletes the Mark of the Web streams, which contain metadata about the URL from which the executable was downloaded. By removing this information, the RAT can evade detection by security tools like Windows Defender and avoid being quarantined, while also eliminating its digital footprint.
• Clearing Windows event logs: The malware clears all Windows event logs on the compromised system, effectively creating a “clean slate” for its operations. This action ensures that any events generated during the RAT’s execution are erased, making it more challenging for security analysts to detect and track its activities.

Victimology

The primary targets of RevengeHotels attacks continue to be hotels and front desks, with a focus on establishments located in Brazil. However, the threat actors have been adapting their tactics, and phishing emails are now being sent in languages other than Portuguese. Specifically, we’ve observed that emails in Spanish are being used to target hotels and tourism companies in Spanish-speaking countries, indicating a potential expansion of the threat actor’s scope. Note that among earlier victims of this threat are such Spanish-speaking countries as Argentina, Bolivia, Chile, Costa Rica, Mexico, and Spain.

It is important to point out that previously reported campaigns have mentioned the threat actor targeting hotel front desks globally, particularly in Russia, Belarus, and Turkey, although no such activity has yet been detected during the latest RevengeHotels campaign.

Conclusions

RevengeHotels has significantly enhanced its capabilities, developing new tactics to target the hospitality and tourism sectors. With the assistance of LLM agents, the group has been able to generate and modify their phishing lures, expanding their attacks to new regions. The websites used for these attacks are constantly rotating, and the initial payloads are continually changing, but the ultimate objective remains the same: to deploy a remote access Trojan (RAT). In this case, the RAT in question is VenomRAT, a privately developed variant of the open-source QuasarRAT.

Kaspersky products detect these threats as HEUR:Trojan-Downloader.Script.Agent.gen, HEUR:Trojan.Win32.Generic, HEUR:Trojan.MSIL.Agent.gen, Trojan-Downloader.PowerShell.Agent.ady, Trojan.PowerShell.Agent.aqx.

Indicators of compromise

fbadfff7b61d820e3632a2f464079e8c Fat146571.js
d5f241dee73cffe51897c15f36b713cc SGDoHBZQWpLKXCAoTHXdBGlnQJLZCGBOVGLH_{TIMESTAMP}.ps1
1077ea936033ee9e9bf444dafb55867c cargajecerrr.txt
b1a5dc66f40a38d807ec8350ae89d1e4 cargajecerrr.txt
dbf5afa377e3e761622e5f21af1f09e6 runpe.txt
607f64b56bb3b94ee0009471f1fe9a3c venumentrada.txt
3ac65326f598ee9930031c17ce158d3d deobfuscated runpe.txt
91454a68ca3a6ce7cb30c9264a88c0dc deobfuscated venumentrada.txt