Search/busybox
● Vendor

busybox

Known CVEs
0
Highest CVSS
—
In KEV
0
Vendor
busybox
Connections
7 relationships
DShield (Cowrie) Honeypot Stats and When Sessions Disconnect, (Mon, Mar 30th)
A lot of the information seen on DShield honeypots [1] is repeated bot traffic, especially when looking at the Cowrie [2] telnet and SSH sessions. However, how long a session lasts, how many commands are run per session and what the last commands run before a session disconnects can vary. Some of this information could help indicate whether a session is automated and if a honeypot was fingerprinted. This information can also be used to find more interesting honeypot sessions. To get an idea of what that variety looks like, I reviewed about 3 years of data from 6 honeypots. Some of the honeypots have been running for different periods of time, but it should give a good overview of different attacks seen on telnet/SSH honeypots. Since I already made a python script [3] that summarizes some of this data for me, it made the process a bit easier. Before going into the details, some of the basic information: Data Timeframe: 4/13/2022 - 3/21/2026 Number of Sessions: 1,206,566 Figure 1: Basic statistics for Cowrie session durations and number of commands run per session. In most sessions, we see about 20 commands and a session lasts for about 20 seconds. Number of Commands Per Session When a Cowrie session is allowed through, the client connection has the option of running commands. They client may decide to disconnect, run an automated script or run commands manually. Most of the time, there are usually under 30 commands run per session, but there are some sessions that have had over 25,000 commands run in a single session. Figure 2: There are many telnet/SSH sessions interacting with DShield honeypots that run over 25,000 commands in a single session, but most are much lower. Figure 3: Looking at most frequenty occuring number of commands run per telnet/SSH session, the majority are under 50 commads with the most frequent being 22 commands in a session. Figure 4: The top 10 most commonly seen number of commands run in a session accounts for about 94% of the telnet/SSH sessions. Are the sessions with 22 commands similar? To help commands for differnet sessions the commands per session were concatenated and then hashed to arrive at a value that could be compared across sessions. This value would be the same if the same commands were run in the same order. This seemed like a great idea until I found a very small number of similar hashes when looking at sessions with 22 commands. Rather than seeing tens or hundreds of thousands of similar hashes, there were only 4. Looking more closely at the data demonstrated what was missed. Figure 5: Cowrie sessions with matching command hashes, but with data that changed based on script inputs, in this case, passwords. Many attacks will often try to change passwords, but these comamnds will often change since differnet passwords may be successful on a honeypot and new password used could also be different. Trying to simplify the search and ignoring command by command details, 99.95% of sessions with a total command count of 22 may be similar (461,344 out of 461,561). select count(sessions.session) from sessions, commands where sessions.total_commands="22" and sessions.session=commands.session and commands.command LIKE "%Enter new UNIX password:%"; The total number of commands run may be a good indicator of bot scripts being run. Even though many sessions may run the same commands in the same order, the duration of the sessions has a wide range. SELECT printf('%.10f', min(cast(session_duration as real))), printf('%.10f', max(cast(session_duration as real))) FROM sessions, commands WHERE sessions.total_commands = "22" AND sessions.session = commands.session AND commands.command LIKE "%Enter new UNIX password:%" AND cast(session_duration as real) != 0; Minimum Duration: 1.63 seconds Maximum Duration: 233.05 seconds (a little under 4 minutes) While a shorter session time may indicate automation, a longer session duration doesn't neccessarily mean that there is a person behind the keyboard. Session Durations Session durations had much more variety than expected. They can range from about a second to upwards of 26 minutes. Taking into account only those command counts where we had at least two sessions: Figure 6: Breakdown of session durations grouped by the number of commands run per session. Looking at one of the sessions with a higher frequency of command run shows an ELF executable being constructed byte by byte (command count 440, 12.80 commands per second). Figure 7: ELF exeutable being constructed byte by byte (file name "anthrax") [4]. The file being constructed is shown as benign on VirusTotal, but similar sessions with the file "/tmp/anthrax" has also been noted as being a Mirai variant [5] and affiliated with other benign files [6]. Last Command Before Session Disconnect Commands run usually have a purpose. Maybe it's to create an executable, gain persistence or even fingerprint a honeypot. Looking at the last command run on a honeypot may help indicate why a session disconnection happened. If the attacker things they have run into a honeypot, there may be no value into performing other actions. Figure 8: The 10 most frequently run "last command" before a Cowrie session ends, which accounts for almost 93% of sessions. Since I wanted to see, from these examples, what the output looked like for a honeypot in comparison to a real system, I set up a Ubuntu VM for testing. This may not fit an IoT scenario, but it's just a starting point. I also wanted to see output from Cowrie, so I set it up using a docker container on the same system. Some troubleshooting was needed to get the configuration to function based on the Cowrie download for the DShield honeypot, but I've been able to repeat the setup multiple times with success. #install docker sudo apt update sudo apt install ca-certificates curl -y sudo install -m 0755 -d /etc/apt/keyrings sudo curl -fsSL https://download.docker.com/linux/ubuntu/gpg -o /etc/apt/keyrings/docker.asc sudo chmod a+r /etc/apt/keyrings/docker.asc echo \ "deb [arch=$(dpkg --print-architecture) signed-by=/etc/apt/keyrings/docker.asc] https://download.docker.com/linux/ubuntu \ $(. /etc/os-release && echo "$VERSION_CODENAME") stable" | \ sudo tee /etc/apt/sources.list.d/docker.list > /dev/null sudo apt update sudo apt install docker-ce docker-ce-cli containerd.io docker-buildx-plugin docker-compose-plugin -y #download DShield Cowrie curl https://www.dshield.org/cowrie.zip > cowrie.zip unzip cowrie.zip #copy and configure settings for honeypot cd cowrie/docker sed -i 's/context: context/context: ./' docker-compose.yml sed -i 's/- cowrie-etc:\/cowrie\/cowrie-git\/etc/- .\/etc:\/cowrie\/cowrie-git\/etc/' docker-compose.yml sed -i 's/- cowrie-var:\/cowrie\/cowrie-git\/var/- .\/var:\/cowrie\/cowrie-git\/var/' docker-compose.yml sed -i 's|- ./var:/cowrie/cowrie-git/var|- ./var:/cowrie/cowrie-git/var\n - ./honeyfs:/cowrie/cowrie-git/honeyfs|' docker-compose.yml sed -i 's|- ./honeyfs:/cowrie/cowrie-git/honeyfs|- ./honeyfs:/cowrie/cowrie-git/honeyfs\n - ./share:/cowrie/cowrie-git/share|' docker-compose.yml cp ../requirements.txt ./requirements-output.txt cp -r ../src . cp ../setup.py . cp ../setup.cfg . cp ../pyproject.toml . cp -r ../honeyfs . cp -r ../etc . cp -r ../var . cp -r ../share . #change settings to all passwords attempted are allowed cp etc/userdb.example etc/userdb.txt echo "*:x:*" >> etc/userdb.txt sudo chown -R 1000:1000 var/log var/lib sudo chmod -R 777 var/log var/lib #run Cowrie in docker sudo docker compose up -d #connect to cowrie ssh root@localhost -p 2222 Figure 9: Comparison of different command outputs for a Cowrie versus Ubuntu VM. Some of these commands will be different for any system, but the most notable in this comparison were: df -h | head -n 2 | awk 'FNR == 2 {print $2;}' /bin/busybox cat /proc/self/exe || cat /bin/echo kill %1 cat /proc/uptime 2 > /dev/null | cut -d. -f1 /bin/busybox cat /proc/self/exe || cat /proc/self/exe This was a limited comparison since they didn't account for any of the preceeding commands, which may change the output. However, it gives a process that can be used for comparison and improving honeypot configurations. Modifying the file system or text outputs could be options to test how differences in returned data impact honeypot interactions [7]. At the very least, some additional data, such as the number of commands run in a session, could help highlight interesting honeypot data. Some future items to explore for this data: Improve identification similar sessions by removing data that may have variable input/output (password changes, URL downloads, etc) Modify Cowrie to better replicate responses to some of the examples from real systems Look at sessions that are outliers within the session durations and total command counts per session How are you modifying your honeypots or finding interesting data? Let us know! -- Jesse La Grew Senior Handler
isc.sans.eduMar 30, 2026extracted
OpenWrt 25.12.0 ships with new package manager, built-in upgrade tool, support for 2200+ devices
OpenWrt 25.12.0 ships with new package manager, built-in upgrade tool, support for 2200+ devices OpenWrt 25.12.0 is now available for download. The release incorporates over 4,700 commits since branching from OpenWrt 24.10. Package manager changes One of the most significant structural changes in 25.12.0 is the replacement of the opkg package manager with apk, the Alpine Package Keeper. The OpenWrt fork of opkg is no longer maintained, and the project moved to apk as an actively maintained alternative. The command-line interface for apk differs from opkg, and the project has published an opkg-to-apk cheatsheet for users managing existing systems. Most package names remain the same, with only a small number changing. Attended sysupgrade now installed by default The attended sysupgrade (ASU) application is now included in default LuCI installations. On devices with larger flash storage, the owut command-line upgrade tool is also included by default. ASU enables users to upgrade firmware while retaining installed packages and configuration. It does this by submitting the list of installed packages to a build server, which assembles a custom firmware image with those packages baked into the SquashFS filesystem. This stores packages more compactly than the overlay filesystem method. Three clients are available for running ASU: the web-based Firmware Selector, the LuCI Attended Sysupgrade interface, and owut for command-line use. Shell history stored in RAM Shell command history is now preserved across sessions using a RAM-backed filesystem. Prior to this change, history was lost between logins. The default configuration avoids writing history to flash storage, which reduces write cycles on devices with limited flash endurance. Users who want persistent history storage can change the behavior by editing /etc/profile.d/busybox-history-file.sh. Wi-Fi management scripts rewritten in ucode The Wi-Fi scripts have been rewritten in ucode, continuing a broader effort to replace shell scripts in OpenWrt’s management layer. The project uses ucode for system scripts because it runs faster and has fewer error-prone behaviors than shell scripts, and it integrates directly with the ubus messaging system and UCI configuration interface. Device and hardware support OpenWrt 25.12.0 supports over 2,200 devices in total, adding support for over 180 devices that were not supported in 24.10. New hardware targets include: The siflower target for Siflower SF21A6826 and SF21H8898 SoCs The sunxi/arm926ejs subtarget for Allwinner F1C100 and F1C200s SoCs The microchipsw/lan969x target for Microchip LAN969x switches Extended support in the realtek target, covering 10G Ethernet switch SoCs Extended support in the qualcommax target for ipq50xx and ipq60xx SoCs Core component versions The 25.12.0 release ships with Linux kernel 6.12.71 across all targets. The toolchain includes gcc 14.3.0, binutils 2.44, musl libc 1.2.5, and glibc 2.41. Key package versions include dnsmasq 2.91, dropbear 2025.89, busybox 1.37.0, and a hostapd master snapshot from August 2025. The cfg80211/mac80211 wireless stack is drawn from kernel 6.18.7. Known issues Two Wi-Fi interoperability problems are documented at release. Pixel 10 phones have difficulty connecting to WPA3-protected Wi-Fi 6 access points. Separately, enabling 802.11r Fast Transition causes connectivity problems with some Wi-Fi clients when WPA3 is in use. Both issues are tracked in the project’s GitHub issue tracker. Users of Zyxel EX5601-T0 devices need to verify WAN interface configuration, as the port was renamed from eth1 to wan. End-of-life timeline for 24.10 With the 25.12.0 stable release, the 24.10 series enters a six-month wind-down period. Security updates for OpenWrt 24.10 will end in September 2026. Direct sysupgrade from 23.05 to 25.12.0 is not officially supported.
helpnetsecurity.comMar 9, 2026extracted
Chinese state hackers target telcos with new malware toolkit
A China-linked advanced persistent threat actor tracked as UAT-9244 has been targeting telecommunication service providers in South America since 2024, compromising Windows, Linux, and network-edge devices. According to Cisco Talos researchers, the adversary is closely associated with the FamousSparrow and Tropic Trooper hacker groups, but is tracked as a separate activity cluster. This assessment has high confidence and is based on similar tooling, tactics, techniques, and procedures (TTPs), and victimology observed in attacks attributed to the threat actors. The researchers note that while UAT-9244 shares the same target profile as Salt Typhoon, they could not establish a solid connection between the two activity clusters. New malware targeting telco networks The researchers found that the campaign used three previously undocumented malware families: TernDoor, a Windows backdoor; PeerTime, a Linux backdoor that uses BitTorrent; and BruteEntry, a brute-force scanner that builds proxy infrastructure (ORBs). TernDoor is deployed through DLL side-loading, using the legitimate executable wsprint.exe to load malicious code from BugSplatRc64.dll, which decrypts and executes the final payload in memory (injected into msiexec.exe). The malware contains an embedded Windows driver, WSPrint.sys, which is used to terminate, suspend, and resume processes. Persistence is achieved via scheduled tasks and Windows Registry modifications, which are also used to hide the scheduled task. Additionally, TernDoor can execute commands via remote shell, run arbitrary processes, read/write files, collect system information, and self-uninstall. PeerTime is an ELF Linux backdoor that targets multiple architectures (ARM, AARCH, PPC, MIPS), suggesting it was designed to compromise a broad range of embedded systems and network devices used in telecom environments. Cisco Talos documented two versions for PeerTime. One variant is written in C/C++ and the other is based on Rust. The researchers also noticed Simplified Chinese debug strings in the instrumentor binary, an indicator of its origin. Its payload is decrypted and loaded in memory, and its process is renamed to appear legitimate. PeerTime, an ELF-based peer-to-peer (P2P) backdoor, uses the BitTorrent protocol for command-and-control (C2) communications, downloads and executes payloads from peers, and uses BusyBox to write the files on the host. Finally, there’s BruteEntry, which consists of a Go-based instrumentor binary and a brute-forcing component. Its role is to turn compromised devices into scanning nodes, known as Operational Relay Boxes (ORBs). The attacker uses the machines running BruteEntry to scan for new targets and brute-force access to SSH, Postgres, and Tomcat. Login attempt results are sent back to the C2 with task status and notes. In a technical report today, Cisco Talos researchers provide details on the capabilities of the three pieces of malware, how they are deployed, and achieve persistence. Cisco Talos researchers have listed indicators of compromise (IoCs) associated with the observed UAT-9244 activity, which defenders can use to detect and block these attacks early. Overall prevention scores can hide what happens after initial access. Once attackers are using valid credentials, prevention drops sharply. The Blue Report 2026 measures defenses technique by technique across 338 million simulations run in customer production environments. Get the report
bleepingcomputer.comMar 5, 2026extracted
CISA warns that RESURGE malware can be dormant on Ivanti devices
The U.S. Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) has released new details about RESURGE, a malicious implant used in zero-day attacks exploiting CVE-2025-0282 to breach Ivanti Connect Secure devices. The update focuses on the implant's undetected latency on the appliances and its "sophisticated network-level evasion and authentication techniques" that enable covert communication with the attacker. CISA originally documented the malware on March 28 last year, saying that it can survive reboots, create webshells for stealing credentials, create accounts, reset passwords, and escalate privileges. According to researchers at incident response company Mandiant, the critical CVE-2025-0282 vulnerability was exploited as a zero-day since mid-December 2024 by a threat actor linked to China, tracked internally as UNC5221. Network-level evasion CISA's updated bulletin provides additional technical information on RESURGE, a malicious 32-bit Linux Shared Object file named libdsupgrade.so that was extracted from a compromised device. The implant is described as a passive command-and-control (C2) implant with rootkit, bootkit, backdoor, dropper, proxying, and tunneling capabilities. Instead of beaconing to the C2, it waits indefinitely for a particular inbound TLS connection, evading network monitoring, CISA says in the updated document. When loaded under the ‘web’ process, it hooks the ‘accept()’ function to inspect incoming TLS packets before they reach the web server, looking for specific connection attempts from a remote attacker that are identified using the CRC32 TLS fingerprint hashing scheme. If the fingerprint does not match, traffic is directed to the legitimate Ivanti server. CISA further details Rusrge's authentication mechanism saying that the threat actor also uses a fake Ivanti certificate to ensure that they are interacting with the implant and not the Ivanti web server. The agency highlights that the certificate's purpose is just to for authentication and verification purposes, as it is not used to encrypt communication. Furthermore, the fake certificate also helps the actor evade detection by impersonating the legitimate server. Because the forged certificate is sent unencrypted over the internet, CISA says that defenders could use it as a network signature to detect an active compromise. After fingerprint validation and authentication with the malware, the threat actor establishes secure remote access to the implant using a Mutual TLS session encrypted with the Elliptic Curve protocol. "Static analysis indicates the RESURGE implant will request the remote actors' EC key to utilize for encryption, and will also verify it with a hard-coded EC Certificate Authority (CA) key," CISA says. By mimicking legitimate TLS/SSH traffic, the implant achieves stealth and persistence, the American cybersecurity agency says. Another file analyzed is a variant of the SpawnSloth malware using the name liblogblock.so and contained by the RESURGE implant. Its main purpose is log tampering to hide malicious activity on compromised devices. A third file that CISA analyzed is dsmain, a kernel extraction script that embeds the open-source script 'extract_vmlinux.sh' and the BusyBox collection of Unix/Linux utilities. liblogblock.so - 3526af9189533470bc0e90d54bafb0db7bda784be82a372ce112e361f7c7b104 libdsupgrade.so - 52bbc44eb451cb5e16bf98bc5b1823d2f47a18d71f14543b460395a1c1b1aeda dsmain - b1221000f43734436ec8022caaa34b133f4581ca3ae8eccd8d57ea62573f301d It allows RESURGE to decrypt, modify, and re-encrypt coreboot firmware images and manipulate filesystem contents for boot-level persistence. “CISA’s updated analysis shows that RESURGE can remain latent on systems until a remote actor attempts to connect to the compromised device,” the agency notes. Because of this, the malicious implant "may be dormant and undetected on Ivanti Connect Secure devices and remains an active threat." CISA suggests that system administrators use the updated indicators of compromise (IoCs) to discover dormant RESURGE infections and remove them from Ivanti devices. Overall prevention scores can hide what happens after initial access. Once attackers are using valid credentials, prevention drops sharply. The Blue Report 2026 measures defenses technique by technique across 338 million simulations run in customer production environments. Get the report
bleepingcomputer.comFeb 27, 2026extracted
VShell and SparkRAT Observed in Exploitation of BeyondTrust Critical Vulnerability (CVE-2026-1731)
Unit 42 stopped monitoring this threat and updating the brief on May 19, 2026. Please refer to the BeyondTrust website for the latest information. On Feb. 6, 2026, BeyondTrust released a security advisory regarding CVE-2026-1731. BeyondTrust is an identity and access management platform. This specific vulnerability involves a pre-authentication remote code execution (RCE) issue within BeyondTrust remote support software. It could allow attackers to execute operating system commands in the context of the site user, which may lead to system compromise, including unauthorized access, data exfiltration and service disruption. Unit 42 is actively investigating exploitation of this vulnerability and has observed attacker activity consistent with the following: Network reconnaissance and account creation Webshell deployment Command-and-control (C2) traffic Backdoor and remote management tool deployment Lateral movement Data theft The campaign tracked by Unit 42 has so far affected the following sectors in the U.S., France, Germany, Australia and Canada: Financial services Legal services High technology Higher education Wholesale and retail Healthcare Due to the severity of the risk and confirmed active exploitation, the U.S. Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) added this vulnerability to its Known Exploited Vulnerabilities (KEV) Catalog on Feb. 13, 2026. This addition mandated immediate remediation for federal agencies and signaled urgent prioritization for the private sector. At the time of publication, Palo Alto Networks Cortex Xpanse has identified the presence of 16,400-plus exposed instances potentially vulnerable to CVE-2026-1731 based on our telemetry. Palo Alto Networks customers are better protected from CVE-2026-1731 through the following products: Palo Alto Networks also recommends that BeyondTrust self-hosted customers of Remote Support and Privileged Remote Access manually patch any instances that are not subscribed to automatic updates in the appliance interface in accordance with their February 2026 advisory. The Unit 42 Incident Response team can also be engaged to help with a compromise or to provide a proactive assessment to lower your risk. CVE-2026-1731 is a critical RCE vulnerability affecting the thin-scc-wrapper component of unpatched versions of BeyondTrust remote support software. This component is exposed to the network and handles incoming WebSocket connections. The flaw allows unauthenticated remote attackers to execute arbitrary operating system commands with high privileges. The vulnerability has been assigned a CVSS score of 9.9, reflecting its low attack complexity and the immediate threat to system integrity and confidentiality. Characteristics of this vulnerability include: Type: OS Command Injection (CWE-78) Severity: Critical (CVSS v4 Score: 9.9) Vector: Network/Pre-authentication Affected Component: thin-scc-wrapper script (reachable via WebSocket interface) The vulnerability is triggered during the WebSocket handshake process. The backend script, thin-scc-wrapper, is designed to parse and evaluate the remoteVersion value provided by the connecting client. This value is ostensibly used for version compatibility checks. The script uses bash arithmetic contexts (such as (( ... )) or let) to compare the version numbers. In bash, these contexts are not strictly limited to integer values. These contexts can also treat operands as expressions. Consequently, if input is not rigorously sanitized, an arithmetic context will evaluate and execute embedded commands — such as command substitutions $(command) — before performing the intended comparison. While previous patches for this component reportedly introduced numeric coherence checks, our analysis indicates these measures were not fully comprehensive. They failed to prevent the bash interpreter from evaluating expressions within the input string, leaving the endpoint exposed to injection. Successful exploitation requires no prior authentication or user interaction. The attack sequence typically follows this trajectory: Connection: The attacker initiates a standard WebSocket connection to the target appliance, directing traffic to /nw [path] or endpoints associated with get_portal_info. Injection: During the handshake phase, the attacker submits an intentionally crafted, malformed remoteVersion value that contains the malicious payload. The payload leverages a specific format, observed in proof-of-concept (PoC) code as a[$(cmd)]0, to force the arithmetic evaluation. Payload execution: The thin-scc-wrapper script processes the remoteVersion value, inadvertently triggering the malicious payload, which is an injected shell command. The injected commands execute in the context of the “site user.” While this account is distinct from the root user, compromising it effectively grants the attacker control over the appliance's configuration, managed sessions and network traffic. Unit 42 is actively investigating multiple compromises related to the exploitation of CVE-2026-1731. We have observed successful exploitation of the vulnerability followed by attackers leveraging their access to: Create domain accounts Install remote management tools to perform reconnaissance of domain administrators and trusts Create local administrator accounts Deploy a backdoor Attempt to install additional remote management tools (i.e., SimpleHelp and AnyDesk) and/or tunneling tools (i.e., Cloudflare) Data theft We have observed attackers using a custom Python script for temporary account takeover, granting access to an administrative account (User ID 1) for 60 seconds before deleting the file to minimize artifact recovery. The Python script functions by querying the target's database to back up the existing password hash for the primary administrator (User ID 1). It leverages the application's own authentication binary (check_auth) to generate a valid hash for the password string password and injects the hash into the database. After sleeping for one minute, the script restores the original password hash and self-destructs, effectively hiding the intrusion from the legitimate administrator and minimizing forensic artifacts on disk. Figure 1 shows this Python script. Unit 42 identified attackers installing multiple web shells across directories, including a password-protected one-line PHP web shell. This compact PHP backdoor uses the eval() function to execute raw PHP code submitted via the POST['1'] parameter, contingent on the presence of the GET['aaaa'] parameter. This structure allows attackers to execute post-exploitation tasks such as file uploads or database dumps without writing additional files to disk. Figure 2 shows an example of this one-line PHP web shell. We recovered a compact, multi-vector PHP web shell (aws.php) designed to function as a stealthy execution gate for an automated C2 client. It aggregates all incoming HTTP data sources (POST, GET and Cookie) to locate a specific parameter named 'ASS', which serves as the payload carrier. The script Base64-decodes this parameter and executes it via eval(), allowing the attacker to run arbitrary PHP code without writing new files to disk. The distinct echoing of DQo= (CRLF characters) before and after execution acts as a data delimiter, a signature trait of C2 tools like China Chopper or AntSword. These delimiters enable the client software to programmatically extract command output from the noisy HTML response of the compromised page. This PHP web shell is shown below in Figure 3. Attackers also used a bash dropper that employs a “config STOMPing” technique to establish a persistent web shell. The script first writes a password-protected PHP backdoor (file_save.php) to the web root directory, which executes arbitrary system commands only when the query parameter key equals vjwr. It then momentarily injects a malicious Location directive into the active Apache configuration file, forcing requests for the backdoor to be handled by a specific Unix socket (/ns/tmp/php-fpm.sock). The script restarts the Apache service to load this malicious configuration into memory and immediately overwrites the configuration file on disk with a clean backup. This leaves the backdoor fully functional in the running process while ensuring the configuration file on disk appears unmodified to forensic investigators. Figure 4 below shows this bash dropper. Unit 42 observed numerous instances of SparkRAT backdoor activity across a wide swath of environments. SparkRAT was originally identified in 2023 as being used in a series of attacks nicknamed DragonSpark. This backdoor is a cross-platform, open-source remote access Trojan (RAT) written in the Go programming language. The tool has been used in various attacks since 2022. Attackers have also been leveraging VShell, a stealthy Linux backdoor [PDF] and RAT characterized by its evasion techniques, including fileless memory execution and the ability to masquerade as legitimate system services. Along with PowerShell scripts designed to download and install a Nezha monitoring agent, we also observed a multi-method "download and execute" cradle. This strategy is designed to guarantee payload delivery across diverse Linux environments (from servers to IoT devices) by chaining redundant commands (wget, curl, python, busybox). This strategy retrieves a malicious script (blue.drx) from a legitimate file transfer service and pipes the content directly into sh for immediate execution. Additionally, Unit 42 observed attackers attempting reverse shells to infrastructure consistent with the default Metasploit Meterpreter over port 4444. Attackers used out-of-band (OAST) techniques targeting the Burp Suite Collaborator service oastify[.]com to validate successful code execution and fingerprint compromised systems. Unlike traditional C2 channels that may be blocked by egress filtering, these attacks leverage the DNS protocol to bypass network firewalls. By encoding the victim's hostname into the subdomain of a DNS query (e.g., [encoded_hostname].[attacker_domain]), the attacker attempts to disguise the data leaving the network as legitimate-looking DNS traffic. The receiving OAST server logs the query, allowing the attacker to confirm the breach and identify the specific machine without establishing a TCP/HTTP connection. The script used in this attack captures the system hostname, converts it to a hexadecimal string and transmits it via nslookup queries to the attacker's OAST domain. Figure 5 below shows an example. These attacks have used the PowerShell command shown in Figure 6 to handle the BitConverter encoding and manage DNS label limits (chunking data into 63-character segments) to ensure successful transmission through strict DNS resolvers. Unit 42 observed attackers leveraging a remoteVersion parameter injection to execute a complex chain of commands designed to stage, compress and exfiltrate sensitive data. The attackers targeted configuration files, internal system databases and a full PostgreSQL dump, attempting to transmit data to an attacker-controlled C2 server. The relationship between CVE-2026-1731 and CVE-2024-12356 highlights a localized, recurring challenge with input validation within distinct execution pathways. CVE-2024-12356's insufficient validation was using third-party software (postgres), while CVE-2026-1731's insufficient validation problem occurred in the BeyondTrust Remote Support (RS) and older versions of the BeyondTrust Privileged Remote Access (PRA) codebase. In the case of CVE-2024-12356, attackers identified insufficient input validation within a WebSocket endpoint handling logic. By manipulating the remoteVersion parameter, they successfully bypassed existing validation checks to execute command lines via the thin-scc-wrapper. This evolution underscores that exposed input-handling pathways remain a primary, high-value target for adversaries seeking pre-authenticated initial access. The significance of this attack surface is underscored by historical precedent. The original vulnerability (CVE-2024-12356) was exploited by the threat actor Silk Typhoon (aka APT27, UNC5221, Emissary Panda) in high-profile campaigns, including a breach of the U.S. Treasury in 2024. This history suggests that CVE-2026-1731 could be a target for sophisticated threat actors seeking similar leverage. A February 2026 Beyond Trust advisory recommends that self-hosted customers of Remote Support and Privileged Remote Access manually patch any instances that are not subscribed to automatic updates in the appliance interface. Customers on a Remote Support version older than 21.3 or on Privileged Remote Access older than 22.1 will need to upgrade to a newer version to apply this patch. Self-hosted customers of Privileged Remote Access may also upgrade to 25.1.1 or a newer version to remediate this vulnerability. A patch has been applied to all Remote Support SaaS and Privileged Remote Access SaaS customers as of Feb. 2, 2026, that remediates this vulnerability. Self-hosted customers of Remote Support may also upgrade to 25.3.2 to remediate this vulnerability. The Unit 42 Managed Threat Hunting team continues to track any attempts to exploit this CVE across our customers, using Cortex XDR and the XQL queries below. Cortex XDR customers can also use these XQL queries to search for signs of exploitation. CVE-2026-1731 is a vulnerability that attackers are actively exploiting in systems running unpatched versions of BeyondTrust remote support software. Successfully exploiting this vulnerability can allow attackers to gain RCE privileges. CVE-2026-1731 is related to a similar vulnerability from 2024 that was also noted as exploited in the wild. The recurrence of this type of vulnerability underscores the necessity of defense-in-depth architecture for high-value remote access platforms. Rather than relying solely on patch management, organizations should prioritize architectural containment by strictly limiting administrative interfaces to internal, segmented management networks or zero trust network access gateways. This approach ensures that even if specific code paths remain vulnerable or new variants emerge, the management plane remains shielded from both opportunistic and targeted exploitation attempts. Palo Alto Networks has shared our findings with our fellow Cyber Threat Alliance (CTA) members. CTA members use this intelligence to rapidly deploy protections to their customers and to systematically disrupt malicious cyber actors. Learn more about the Cyber Threat Alliance. Palo Alto Networks customers are better protected by our products, as listed below. We will update this threat brief as more relevant information becomes available. Palo Alto Networks customers can leverage a variety of product protections and updates to identify and defend against this threat. If you think you might have been compromised or have an urgent matter, get in touch with the Unit 42 Incident Response team or call: North America: Toll Free: +1 (866) 486-4842 (866.4.UNIT42) UK: +44.20.3743.3660 Europe and Middle East: +31.20.299.3130 Asia: +65.6983.8730 Japan: +81.50.1790.0200 Australia: +61.2.4062.7950 India: 000 800 050 45107 South Korea: +82.080.467.8774 Advanced URL Filtering and Advanced DNS Security identify known domains and URLs associated with this activity as malicious. Cortex XDR and XSIAM help protect against post-exploitation activities using the multi-layer protection approach. Cortex Xpanse has the ability to identify exposed BeyondTrust Secure Remote Access systems on the public internet and escalate these findings to defenders. Customers can enable alerting on this risk by ensuring that the BeyondTrust Secure Remote Access Attack Surface Rule is enabled. Identified findings can either be viewed in the Threat Response Center or in the incident view of Expander. These findings are also available for Cortex XSIAM customers who have purchased the ASM module. While there are no known indications of the exploitation of this vulnerability within cloud infrastructure, Cortex Cloud customers are better protected from, and can detect and remediate, vulnerable cloud infrastructure by using Cortex Cloud’s vulnerability monitoring. Additionally, the proper placement of Cortex Cloud XDR endpoint agent and serverless agents within a cloud environment helps detect and prevent the malicious operations, configuration alterations or exploitation at runtime providing sustained defenses of the cloud environment. 23.162.40[.]187 37.19.221[.]180 45.61.150[.]96 70.23.0[.]66 82.29.53[.]187 82.29.72[.]16 83.138.53[.]139 85.155.186[.]121 92.223.44[.]134 98.10.233[.]76 134.122.13[.]34 138.197.14[.]95 142.111.152[.]50 144.172.103[.]200/4444 155.2.215[.]64 178.128.212[.]209 179.43.146[.]42 45.61.150[.]96/4444 138.197.14[.]95/ws (SparkRAT) hxxp[:]//64.31.28[.]221/support aliyundunupdate[.]xyz:8084/slt (VShell) d65sb7ngveucv5k2nm508abdsjmbn7qmn.oast[.]pro q0r2e5q2dzbykcox9qmkptm12s8mwb.oastify[.]com hxxp[:]//134.122.13[.]34:8979/c (SparkRAT) hxxp[:]//82.29.53[.]187:8778/app_cli hxxps[:]//transfer.weepee[.]io/7nZw7/blue.drx hxxp[://]85.155.186[.]121/access (SimpleHelp) hxxps[:]//temp[.]sh/tQTSs/storm.exe hxxps[:]//64.95.10[.]115:23011/update.sh hxxps[:]//judiemkqjajsfzpidfjlowgl8nyrtd49x.oast[.]fun hxxps[:]//raw.githubusercontent[.]com/nezhahq/scripts/main/agent/install.ps1 hxxp[:]//39uchxifap4cvgzsuirom0szrrg.d65lre9sfqnlcv49317gcis6pyjsatzho.oast[.]pro hxxps[:]//85.155.186[.]121/access/Remote%20Access-linux64-offline.tar?language=en&app=76049110434275449312180081368257747094 hxxps[:]//github[.]com/nicocha30/ligolo-ng/releases/download/v0.8.2/ligolo-ng_agent_0.8.2_linux_amd64.tar.gz 9f431d5549a03aee92cfd2bdbbe90f1c91e965c99e90a0c9ad5a001f4e80c350 (SparkRAT) 98a7b0900a9072bb40af579ec372da7b27af12b15868394df51fefe290ab176b (VShell) 66cceb2c2f1d9988b501832fd3b559775982e2fce4ab38fc4ffe71b74eafc726 (maintenance.php) 679ee05d92a858b6fe70aeb6072eb804548f1732e18b6c181af122b833386afb (d6) 4762e944a0ce1f9aef243e11538f84f16b6f36560ed6e32dfd9a5f99e17e8e50 (Installer for SimpleHelp) 98442387d466f27357d727b3706037a4df12a78602b93df973b063462a677761 (aws.php) cc2bc3750cc5125a50466f66ae4f2bedf1cac0e43477a78ed2fd88f3e987a292 (Bash Script) cf83e1357eefb8bdf1542850d66d8007d620e4050b5715dc83f4a921d36ce9ce (file_save.php) 0ecc867ce916d01640d76ec03de24d1d23585eb582e9c48a0364c62a590548ac Updated Feb. 20, 2026, at 9:50 a.m. PT to adjust the number of exposed instances identified by Cortex Xpanse.
unit42.paloaltonetworks.comFeb 19, 2026extracted
Researchers Uncover WatchGuard VPN Bug That Could Let Attackers Take Over Devices
Cybersecurity researchers have disclosed details of a recently patched critical security flaw in WatchGuard Fireware that could allow unauthenticated attackers to execute arbitrary code. The vulnerability, tracked as CVE-2025-9242 (CVSS score: 9.3), is described as an out-of-bounds write vulnerability affecting Fireware OS 11.10.2 up to and including 11.12.4_Update1, 12.0 up to and including 12.11.3 and 2025.1. "An out-of-bounds write vulnerability in the WatchGuard Fireware OS iked process may allow a remote unauthenticated attacker to execute arbitrary code," WatchGuard said in an advisory released last month. "This vulnerability affects both the mobile user VPN with IKEv2 and the branch office VPN using IKEv2 when configured with a dynamic gateway peer." It has been addressed in the following versions - 2025.1 - Fixed in 2025.1.1 12.x - Fixed in 12.11.4 12.3.1 (FIPS-certified release) - Fixed in 12.3.1_Update3 (B722811) 12.5.x (T15 & T35 models) - Fixed in 12.5.13 11.x - Reached end-of-life A new analysis from watchTowr Labs has described CVE-2025-9242 as having "all the characteristics your friendly neighbourhood ransomware gangs love to see," including the fact that it affects an internet-exposed service, is exploitable sans authentication, and can execute arbitrary code on a perimeter appliance. The vulnerability, per security researcher McCaulay Hudson, is rooted in the function "ike2_ProcessPayload_CERT" present in the file "src/ike/iked/v2/ike2_payload_cert.c" that's designed to copy a client "identification" to a local stack buffer of 520 bytes, and then validate the provided client SSL certificate. The issue arises as a result of a missing length check on the identification buffer, thereby allowing an attacker to trigger an overflow and achieve remote code execution during the IKE_SA_AUTH phase of the handshake process used to establish a virtual private network (VPN) tunnel between a client and WatchGuard's VPN service via the IKE key management protocol. "The server does attempt certificate validation, but that validation happens after the vulnerable code runs, allowing our vulnerable code path to be reachable pre-authentication," Hudson said. WatchTowr noted that while WatchGuard Fireware OS lacks an interactive shell such as "/bin/bash," it's possible to for an attacker to weaponize the flaw and gain control of the instruction pointer register (aka RIP or program counter) to ultimately spawn a Python interactive shell over TCP by leveraging an mprotect() system call, effectively bypassing NX bit (aka no-execute bit) mitigations. Once the remote Python shell is launched, the foothold can be escalated further through a multi-step process to obtain a full Linux shell - Directly executing execve within Python in order to remount the filesystem as read/write Downloading a BusyBox busybox binary onto the target Symlinking /bin/sh to the BusyBox binary The development comes as watchTowr demonstrated that a now-fixed denial-of-service (DoS) vulnerability impacting Progress Telerik UI for AJAX (CVE-2025-3600, CVSS score: 7.5) can also enable remote code execution depending on the targeted environment. The vulnerability was addressed by Progress Software on April 30, 2025. "Depending on the target codebase – for example, the presence of particular no-argument constructors, finalizers, or insecure assembly resolvers – the impact can escalate to remote code execution," security researcher Piotr Bazydlo said. Earlier this month, watchTowr's Sina Kheirkhah also shed light on a critical pre-authenticated command injection flaw in Dell UnityVSA (CVE-2025-36604, CVSS score: 9.8/7.3) that could result in remote command execution. Dell remediated the vulnerability in July 2025 following responsible disclosure on March 28. Update The Shadowserver Foundation has revealed that there are an estimated 73,000 WatchGuard instances that are susceptible to CVE-2025-9242 as October 20, 2025, with the U.S. accounting for about 24,000 of them, followed by Germany (7,045), Italy (6,542), the U.K. (5,333), and Canada (3,866).
thehackernews.comOct 17, 2025extracted