New research shows at least a million inexpensive Android devices—from TV streaming boxes to car infotainment systems—are compromised to allow bad actors to commit ad fraud and other cybercrime.

Cheap TV streaming boxes seem like one of the most straightforward gadgets out there, but they can come with hidden costs. In 2023, researchers revealed that tens of thousands of Android TV boxes being used in homes, schools, and businesses were equipped with secret backdoors that allowed them to be used in a host of cybercrime and online fraud. Now, the same researchers have found that the China-based ecosystem behind the compromised devices and the illicit activities they’re used for—collectively dubbed Badbox 2.0—is fueling a next-generation campaign that’s broader in scope and even more sneaky.

At least 1 million Android-based TV streaming boxes, tablets, projectors, and after-sale car infotainment systems are infected with malware that conscripts them into a scammer-controlled botnet, according to new research shared exclusively with WIRED by the cybersecurity firm Human Security. The compromised devices are used for a range of advertising fraud and in so-called residential proxy services, which allow their operators to use victim internet connections for routing and masking web traffic. And all of this activity happens behind the scenes without the owners of compromised devices having any idea of how their streaming boxes are being used.

“This is all completely unbeknownst to the poor users that have bought this device just to watch Netflix or whatever,” Gavin Reid, Human’s chief information security officer, tells WIRED. “Ad fraud including click fraud is all happening behind the scenes, but the main way they are monetizing the million devices is reselling this proxy service. Victims don't know that they're a proxy, they never agreed to be a proxy service, but they're being used for that. Any bad thing you want to do, scraping, whatever it is, these proxy services are an enabler for that.”

The researchers found that the majority of infected devices are in South America, particularly Brazil. The impacted devices often use generic names and aren’t produced by known brands. For example, there are dozens of impacted streaming boxes, but the majority of Badbox 2.0 targets are in the “TV98” and “X96” device families. Virtually all of the targeted devices are designed using Android’s open source operating system code, meaning they run versions of Android but aren’t part of Google’s ecosystem of protected devices.

Google collaborated with the researchers to address the ad fraud component of the activity, though. The company says it worked to terminate publisher accounts associated with the scams and block the ability of those accounts to generate revenue through Google’s advertising ecosystem.

“Malicious attacks like the one described in this report are expressly prohibited on our platforms,” Google spokesperson Nate Funkhouser told WIRED in a statement. “Bad actors’ tactics are constantly evolving. Partnering with organizations like HUMAN helps us share threat intelligence and expands our collective ability to identify and take swift action against bad actors, as we did here.”

In the original Badbox campaign, scammers focused on installing backdoored firmware in streaming boxes before they arrived in the hands of consumers. The Badbox 2.0 campaign is significant, the researchers say, because it reflects a major change in tactics. Rather than focusing on low-level firmware infections, Badbox 2.0 involves more traditional software-level malware distributed through common tactics like drive-by downloads, in which victims accidentally download malware without realizing it.

Researchers from multiple firms say that the campaign seems to come from a loosely connected ecosystem of fraud groups rather than one single actor. Each group has its own versions of the Badbox 2.0 backdoor and malware modules and distributes the software in a variety of ways. In some cases, malicious apps come preinstalled on compromised devices, but in many examples that the researchers tracked, attackers are tricking users into unknowingly installing compromised apps.

The researchers highlight a technique in which the scammers create a benign app—say, a game—post it in Google's Play Store to show that it’s been vetted, but then trick users into downloading nearly identical versions of the app that are not hosted in official app stores and are malicious. Such “evil twin” apps showed up at least 24 times, the researchers say, allowing the attackers to run ad fraud in the Google Play versions of their apps, and distribute malware in their imposter apps. Human also found that the scammers distributed over 200 compromised, re-bundled versions of popular, mainstream apps as yet another way of spreading their backdoors.

“We saw four different types of fraud modules—two ad fraud ones, one fake click one, and then the residential proxy network one—but it's extensible,” says Lindsay Kaye, Human’s vice president of threat intelligence. “So you can imagine how, if time had gone on and they were able to develop more modules, maybe forge more relationships, there is the opportunity to have additional ones.”

Researchers from the security firm Trend Micro collaborated with Human on the Badbox 2.0 investigation, particularly focusing on the actors behind the activity.

“The scale of the operation is huge,” says Fyodor Yarochkin, a Trend Micro senior threat researcher. He added that while there are “easily up to a million devices online” for any of the groups, “This is only a number of devices that are currently connected to their platform. If you count all the devices that would probably have their payload, it probably would be exceeding a few millions.”

Yarochkin adds that many of the groups involved in the campaigns seem to have some connection to Chinese gray market advertising and marketing firms. More than a decade ago, Yarochkin explains, there were multiple legal cases in China in which companies had installed “silent” plugins on devices and used them for a diverse array of seemingly fraudulent activity.

“The companies that basically survived that age of 2015 were the companies who adapted,” Yarochkin says. He notes that his investigations have now identified multiple “business entities” in China which appear to be linked back to some of the groups involved in Badbox 2. The connections include both economic and technical links. “We identified their addresses, we’ve seen some pictures of their offices, they have accounts of some employees on LinkedIn,” he says.

Human, Trend Micro, and Google also collaborated with the internet security group Shadow Server to neuter as much Badbox 2.0 infrastructure as possible by sinkholing the botnet so it essentially sends its traffic and requests for instructions into a void. But the researchers caution that after scammers pivoted following revelations about the original Badbox scheme, it’s unlikely that exposing Badbox 2.0 will permanently end the activity.

“As a consumer, you should keep in mind that if the device is too cheap to be true, you should be prepared that there might be some additional surprises hidden in the device,” Trend Micro’s Yarochkin says. “There is no free cheese unless the cheese is in a mousetrap.”

1 Million Third-Party Android Devices Have a Secret Backdoor for Scammers

Brazil, South Africa, Indonesia, Argentina, and Thailand have become the targets of a campaign that has infected Android TV devices with a botnet malware dubbed Vo1d.
The improved variant of Vo1d has been found to encompass 800,000 daily active IP addresses, with the botnet scaling a peak of 1,590,299 on January 19, 2025, spanning 226 countries. As of February 25, 2025, India has experienced a

Vo1d Botnet's Peak Surpasses 1.59M Infected Android TVs, Spanning 226 Countries

One of the most notorious providers of abuse-friendly "bulletproof" web hosting for cybercriminals has started routing its operations through networks run by the Russian antivirus and security firm Kaspersky Lab, KrebsOnSecurity has learned.

One of the most notorious providers of abuse-friendly “bulletproof” web hosting for cybercriminals has started routing its operations through networks run by the Russian antivirus and security firm **Kaspersky Lab**, KrebsOnSecurity has learned.

Security experts say the Russia-based service provider **Prospero OOO** (the triple O is the Russian version of “LLC”) has long been a persistent source of malicious software, botnet controllers, and a torrent of phishing websites. Last year, the French security firm **Intrinsec** detailed Prospero’s connections to bulletproof services advertised on Russian cybercrime forums under the names **Securehost** and **BEARHOST**.

The bulletproof hosting provider BEARHOST. This screenshot has been machine-translated from Russian. Image: Ke-la.com.

Bulletproof hosts are so named when they earn or cultivate a reputation for ignoring legal demands and abuse complaints. And BEARHOST has been cultivating its reputation since at least 2019.

“If you need a server for a botnet, for malware, brute, scan, phishing, fakes and any other tasks, please contact us,” BEARHOST’s ad on one forum advises. “We completely ignore all abuses without exception, including SPAMHAUS and other organizations.”

Intrinsec found Prospero has courted some of Russia’s nastiest cybercrime groups, hosting control servers for multiple ransomware gangs over the past two years. Intrinsec said its analysis showed Prospero frequently hosts malware operations such as SocGholish and GootLoader, which are spread primarily via fake browser updates on hacked websites and often lay the groundwork for more serious cyber intrusions — including ransomware.

A fake browser update page pushing mobile malware. Image: Intrinsec.

BEARHOST prides itself on the ability to evade blocking by Spamhaus, an organization that many Internet service providers around the world rely on to help identify and block sources of malware and spam. Earlier this week, Spamhaus said it noticed that Prospero was suddenly connecting to the Internet by routing through networks operated by Kaspersky Lab in Moscow.

Kaspersky did not respond to repeated requests for comment.

Kaspersky began selling antivirus and security software in the United States in 2005, and the company’s malware researchers have earned accolades from the security community for many important discoveries over the years. But in September 2017, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) barred U.S. federal agencies from using Kaspersky software, mandating its removal within 90 days.

Cybersecurity reporter **Kim Zetter** notes that DHS didn’t cite any specific justification for its ban in 2017, but media reports quoting anonymous government officials referenced two incidents. Zetter wrote:

> According to one story, an NSA contractor developing offensive hacking tools for the spy agency had Kaspersky software installed on his home computer where he was developing the tools, and the software detected the source code as malicious code and extracted it from his computer, as antivirus software is designed to do. A second story claimed that Israeli spies caught Russian government hackers using Kaspersky software to search customer systems for files containing U.S. secrets.
> 
> Kaspersky denied that anyone used its software to search for secret information on customer machines and said that the tools on the NSA worker’s machine were detected in the same way that all antivirus software detects files it deems suspicious and then quarantines or extracts them for analysis. Once Kaspersky discovered that the code its antivirus software detected on the NSA worker’s machine were not malicious programs but source code in development by the U.S. government for its hacking operations, CEO Eugene Kaspersky says he ordered workers to delete the code.

Last year, the U.S. Commerce Department banned the sale of Kaspersky software in the U.S. effective July 20, 2024. U.S. officials argued the ban was needed because Russian law requires domestic companies to cooperate in all official investigations, and thus the Russian government could force Kaspersky to secretly gather intelligence on its behalf.

Phishing data gathered last year by the **Interisle Consulting Group** ranked hosting networks by their size and concentration of spambot hosts, and found Prospero had a higher spam score than any other provider by far.

AS209030, owned by Kaspersky Lab, is providing connectivity to the bulletproof host Prospero (AS200593). Image: cidr-report.org.

It remains unclear why Kaspersky is providing transit to Prospero. **Doug Madory**, director of Internet analysis at **Kentik**, said routing records show the relationship between Prospero and Kaspersky started at the beginning of December 2024.

Madory said Kaspersky’s network appears to be hosting several financial institutions, including Russia’s largest — **Alfa-Bank**. Kaspersky sells services to help protect customers from distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) attacks, and Madory said it could be that Prospero is simply purchasing that protection from Kaspersky.

But if that is the case, it doesn’t make the situation any better, said **Zach Edwards**, a senior threat researcher at the security firm **Silent Push**.

“In some ways, providing DDoS protection to a well-known bulletproof hosting provider may be even worse than just allowing them to connect to the rest of the Internet over your infrastructure,” Edwards said.

Notorious Malware, Spam Host “Prospero” Moves to Kaspersky Lab

A new malware campaign has been observed targeting edge devices from Cisco, ASUS, QNAP, and Synology to rope them into a botnet named PolarEdge since at least the end of 2023.
French cybersecurity company Sekoia said it observed the unknown threat actors leveraging CVE-2023-20118 (CVSS score: 6.5), a critical security flaw impacting Cisco Small Business RV016, RV042, RV042G, RV082, RV320, and

PolarEdge Botnet Exploits Cisco and Other Flaws to Hijack ASUS, QNAP, and Synology Devices

A botnet of 130,000 devices is launching a Password-Spraying attack on Microsoft 365, bypassing MFA and exploiting legacy authentication to access accounts.

A new botnet-powered cyber attack is putting Microsoft 365 users at risk. Security researchers at SecurityScorecard have reported that over 130,000 compromised devices are being used to launch coordinated password-spraying attacks against Microsoft 365 accounts.

****What’s Happening?****

Instead of relying on the usual login mechanisms that trigger alerts through repeated failed attempts, the attackers are using non-interactive sign-ins for their campaigns. This method is normally meant for automated processes or background services and does not invoke the usual MFA checks. As a result, suspicious activities may go unnoticed by security monitoring systems that focus on standard user log-ins.

What’s more, attackers are making systematic attempts using stolen credentials from infostealer logs. Their approach targets a wide range of Microsoft 365 tenants, affecting organizations from financial services, healthcare, government, technology firms, and educational institutions.

****How the Attack Works****

*   **Non-Interactive Sign-Ins:** The attackers perform sign-in attempts that do not trigger immediate account lockouts or alerts. Since these log-ins are not interactive, they often escape the notice of standard monitoring tools.

*   **Basic Authentication Abuse:** By exploiting legacy Basic Authentication protocols, attackers send user credentials without encryption. This leaves accounts more exposed compared to modern authentication methods.

*   **Command and Control Coordination:** Evidence shows that attackers are coordinating their efforts through six command-and-control (C2) servers. These servers communicate with thousands of infected devices and are supported by proxy services from well-known cloud providers with ties to China. Analysis of the network traffic has revealed several open ports on these servers, which are likely used for tasks such as managing the botnet and sending instructions to the compromised devices.

According to SecurityScorecard’s report, this is concerning for organizations relying on Microsoft 365, as they face multiple risks. Unauthorized account access can expose sensitive emails, documents, and collaboration tools to attackers. Service disruptions may occur due to repeated login attempts, leading to account lockouts that interrupt daily operations.

Additionally, once in control, cybercriminals can misuse compromised accounts for phishing campaigns or move laterally within the organization, further escalating security threats. Because the attack exploits non-interactive sign-ins, teams that monitor just the usual interactive log-in events might miss these suspicious activities. Updating security monitoring to include non-interactive log events is an important step for organizations using Microsoft 365.

Security teams are encouraged to review sign-in logs carefully. Paying attention to non-interactive log entries and suspicious login attempts can help spot this kind of unwanted activity.

Organizations should audit background service accounts by identifying those using Basic Authentication and updating any exposed credentials found in non-interactive sign-in logs. It’s also crucial to review authentication methods and transition from legacy protocols to modern authentication practices that fully support MFA.

Additionally, monitoring for unusual traffic, such as abnormal login patterns or connections from IP addresses associated with command and control servers, can help detect and mitigate potential security threats.

With Microsoft planning to fully retire certain Basic Authentication protocols later this year, now is a good time for organizations to strengthen their protection against these kinds of covert attacks.

Jason Soroko, Senior Fellow at Sectigo, a Scottsdale, Arizona-based provider of comprehensive certificate lifecycle management (CLM), offers valuable insights into securing non-interactive logins in Microsoft 365.

“Non-interactive logins are widespread in Microsoft 365, driven by service accounts, automated tasks, and API integrations,” Soroko explains. “They often represent a significant portion of overall authentication events, as background processes routinely access resources without direct user input.”

Unlike interactive user authentication, Multi-Factor Authentication (MFA) isn’t typically applicable to non-interactive logins. “Instead, these automated logins should use alternative secure mechanisms such as certificates, or other forms of non-shared managed identities,” Soroko advises. “Organizations should better secure non-interactive access with conditional access policies, strict credential management, and continuous monitoring.”

Microsoft 365 offers configurations to restrict non-interactive logins. “Administrators can enforce stronger authentication via conditional access policies and block legacy protocols that facilitate these silent sign-ins,” Soroko notes. “However, such restrictions must be applied thoughtfully to avoid disrupting legitimate automated processes.”

Botnet of 130K Devices Targets Microsoft 365 in Password-Spraying Attack

Several government departments are investigating TP-Link routers over Chinese cyberattack fears, but the company denies links.

If you buy something using links in our stories, we may earn a commission. This helps support our journalism. Learn more. Please also consider subscribing to WIRED

TP-Link is one of the most popular router manufacturers in the US, but the company is facing a potential ban due to security concerns about its links to China. A December report from The Wall Street Journal revealed that the US Commerce, Defense, and Justice Departments are investigating TP-Link, though no evidence of deliberate wrongdoing has yet emerged.

“We are a US company,” Jeff Barney, president of TP-Link told WIRED, “We have no affiliation with TP-Link Tech, which focuses on mainland China, and we can prove our separateness.”

The investigation was sparked by a letter from John Moolenaar, a Republican for Michigan, and Raja Krishnamoorthi, a Democrat of Illinois. Both are on the House Select Committee on the Strategic Competition Between the United States and the Chinese Communist Party. They outlined concerns that Chinese state-sponsored hackers may be able to compromise TP-Link’s routers more easily than other brands and thereby infiltrate US systems, and that TP-Link is subject to Chinese law, meaning it can be forced to hand over sensitive US information by Chinese intelligence officials.

Photograph: Simon Hill

TP-Link was founded in China in 1996 by two brothers, and TP-Link USA was established in 2008. It wasn’t until 2022 that the Chinese and US wings began to split. The process of moving the 170 subsidiaries and all the related ownership out of Hong Kong and into the United States was delayed by the pandemic, says Barney, but it was divested and restructured by 2024.

TP-Link now has headquarters in California and Singapore and manufactures in Vietnam. It researches, designs, develops, and manufactures everything except chipsets in-house, according to Barney. “Our entities in China are governed directly by us, our employees badged by us, secured by us, in our own facilities.” He also says TP-Link has shared documentation with investigators and that its factory in Vietnam was audited by US retail partners like Walmart, Best Buy, and Costco.

“Everybody has a Nexus in China,” Barney says. He claims that American rival Netgear uses Chinese ODMs (original device manufacturers) to build its products and that even Apple relies on manufacturing in China. Netgear says its routers are manufactured in Taiwan, Vietnam, and Thailand, not China.

**Competition Concerns**

The WSJ report suggests that TP-Link has a leading 64.9 percent share of the US router market, but TP-Link disputes this. The company claims its share hovered around 20 percent for the last few years, but jumped to a 36.5 percent unit share and a 30.7 percent dollar share in 2024. But even TP-Link’s lower estimate shows a company in the ascendancy. This dominance has been driven by aggressively low prices and a relatively early roll-out of Wi-Fi 7 routers, perceived by some as a concerted effort to flood the US market.

“Technology should not be exorbitant,” Barney says. “We're trying to democratize these products.”

However, the wide product range raises questions, with many wondering how TP-Link can profit from routers sold at such low prices compared to the competition. Former CNET reviewer Dong Ngo explores this point on the in-depth router review website, Dong Knows.

Concerns about the links between Chinese companies and its government are nothing new. The ban on Huawei’s networking equipment and US sanctions came after years of cybersecurity concerns and intellectual property lawsuits brought by US companies. The TikTok ban is not being enforced by President Donald Trump’s administration, but owner ByteDance is still under pressure to divest its US operations. These situations can be tricky for the average person to navigate because the lines between shoddy security, Chinese espionage, US protectionism, and the growing trade war are distinctly blurry and are not mutually exclusive.

It’s no secret that US competitor Netgear has been lobbying the US government on “cybersecurity and strategic competition with China.” Netgear has had a tough couple of years after adopting a premium pricing strategy that did not resonate with consumers. It has also been embroiled in litigation against TP-Link for patent infringement, resulting in TP-Link paying a $135 million settlement in September 2024.

**Are TP-Link Routers Secure?**

TP-Link has signed CISA’s “Secure by Design” pledge and is part of the Technical Exchange Group. It has a vulnerability disclosure program, where independent researchers and the security community can report potential issues to security@tp-link.com. It claims report response time was 8.4 days on average in 2023, with patches released in an average of 38.5 days. The company is also planning to launch a bug bounty program.

Barney claims TP-Link’s rate of vulnerabilities per product is significantly lower than many of its peers, including Netgear and Cisco, citing public data collected by Finite State, an independent US cybersecurity company, from CVE Details, VulDB, and CISA (Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency), but not everyone agrees.

“TP-Link does not have a great reputation for patching vulnerabilities or working with security researchers, which does raise alarm bells,” Pieter Arntz, malware intelligence researcher for Malwarebytes told WIRED via email.

Photograph: TP-Link; Data Source: U.S. Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency

TP-Link was criticized in a recent Microsoft report over a “password spraying” hack that mostly impacted its routers, and the report suggested Chinese “nation-state threat actor activity.” Barney says these were end-of-service products and that Asus and Netgear routers were also impacted.

Other incidents include a Check Point Research exposé of a malicious firmware implant for TP-Link routers, linked to a Chinese state-sponsored “advanced persistent threat” group dubbed “Camaro Dragon.” Cyfirma researchers also found TP-Link router vulnerabilities for sale on underground forums.

“It’s also a challenge because regardless of the home router vendor, there will always be vulnerabilities found,” Arntz says.

A part of the problem with older routers is that the onus is often on the user to download and install updates, and this is rarely automatic or as simple as clicking on “update,” which means many patches are never installed, creating vulnerable devices for any savvy cybercriminals or nation-states. Even months after TP-Link released patches for a vulnerability on its popular Archer AX21 router, hackers continue to scan for and exploit it on unpatched routers.

These security concerns are moot in the face of built-in backdoors. Backdoors can be pieces of code or even hardware added to the circuit board that enables remote parties to gain access and potentially control the device. There’s no evidence that TP-Link devices have backdoors, but, as Ngo points out, when you use an online account with your router, you are already giving the company access through the front door. Whether remote connectivity is justified by the need for automatic software updates, remote control access, or other features for users, it effectively gives the manufacturer access to your router.

**Should You Worry?**

Ultimately, the concern isn’t so much about the Chinese government or other malicious actors spying on your web browsing habits—though that is possible—it’s the idea they might employ your router as a part of a botnet to launch a cyberattack on a US government agency or major service provider.

The NSA has been concerned about Chinese hackers for some time now, and China's Salt Typhoon spies continue to infiltrate US internet service providers and telecommunications companies. Speaking on the _NatSec Tech_ podcast recently, former special assistant to the president and cybersecurity coordinator on the US National Security Council, Rob Joyce, likened TP-Link routers to a Trojan Horse and suggested China is pre-positioning for a potentially devastating attack on US infrastructure.

While some cybersecurity experts suggest a ban is imminent, Barney is confident that TP-Link routers won’t be banned. Investigations are ongoing. Even if the government doesn't find anything or decides against a ban, it won’t publicly clear TP-Link. It’s more likely the investigation will fade from the news.

Photograph: Simon Hill

For owners of a TP-Link router or anyone considering buying one, it all boils down to trust. We've tested and recommend several TP-Link routers and Deco mesh systems in our buying guides because they offer good value and great performance. But we continually update our guides and will monitor the situation before deciding whether we need to reconsider those recommendations.

There’s no easy fix because all the major router manufacturers have issues with vulnerabilities, and most of them require you to use an online account. You can go down the rabbit hole with router security, or seek out security-focused brands like Firewalla, but expect to pay more for your equipment in both time and money.

Even if you stick with what you have, there are steps you can take to be more secure online. We recommend using a VPN service and learning a little about router settings. Malwarebytes’ Arntz says the most secure router is the one on which you are comfortable changing the settings: credentials, firewall options, and especially installing updates.

Here’s his advice for home TP-Link router owners who are concerned:

*   First, update your login credentials. Ensure you have moved away from the default login credentials set by the router manufacturer (or internet provider). Make this password different from your Wi-Fi name and password. And remember, length equals strength when it comes to passwords.
*   Second, patch your device and set a reminder to check regularly for firmware updates.
*   Third, turn on the firewall and Wi-Fi encryption. You can find these settings by logging into your router from its app or website.
*   Finally, consider purchasing a new router from a different vendor with a less problematic history.

TP-Link also manufactures a wide range of smart home devices marketed under the Tapo brand, including everything from security cameras to water leak detectors. These are not part of the current investigation, which seems to be focused solely on routers. TP-Link says it has applied to the FCC’s Cyber Trust Mark program administered by UL Solutions, which ensures that internet-of-things devices are tested and labeled secure. Sadly, there is no such program for routers.

The US Is Considering a TP-Link Router Ban—Should You Worry?

Massive 1.17 TB data leak exposes billions of records from a Chinese IoT grow light company. Wi-Fi passwords,…

Massive 1.17 TB data leak exposes billions of records from a Chinese IoT grow light company. Wi-Fi passwords, IP addresses, and device IDs are among the exposed data. Learn more.

A large, unprotected database belonging to Mars Hydro, a company specializing in IoT grow lights (Internet of Things Grow Lights) and agricultural software, was discovered by cybersecurity researcher Jeremiah Fowler.

The database, containing a whopping 2.7 billion records totalling 1.17 terabytes, exposed a treasure trove of sensitive information, including Wi-Fi network names (SSIDs), passwords, IP addresses, device IDs, email addresses, and more.  

According to Fowler’s blog post for vpnMentor which the company shared with Hackread.com ahead of publishing on Wednesday 12th February 2025, within the database, folders labelled for logging, monitoring, and error records of IoT devices worldwide were found. 

Sample analysis revealed over 100 million records across 13 folders, containing not only Wi-Fi network names but also their corresponding passwords, along with IP addresses and unique device identifiers.  Interestingly, the data also seemed to link to the control devices, such as smartphones, used to manage these IoT products, revealing information about operating systems (e.g. iOS and Android).

Further investigation linked the database to LG-LED SOLUTIONS LIMITED, a California-registered company.  API details and URLs associated with LG-LED SOLUTIONS, Mars Hydro, and Spider Farmer- all involved in the manufacturing and sale of agricultural grow lights, fans, and cooling systems- were also present in the exposed data.  Numerous records were specifically labelled as “Mars-pro-iot-error” or “SF-iot-error,” suggesting a connection to these specific product lines.  

Fowler also found error logs containing potentially sensitive information, including tokens, application versions, device types, and IP addresses, in addition to the Wi-Fi credentials. 

Following the discovery, Fowler promptly notified LG-LED SOLUTIONS and Mars Hydro, leading to the database being secured within hours. Mars Hydro, identified as a Shenzhen, China-based LED grow light manufacturer with warehouses in the UK, US, and Australia, confirmed to Fowler that the Mars Pro app is their official product. 

Nevertheless, questions remain regarding the database’s ownership, management, and the duration of its exposure. It is unclear if the database was managed directly by LG-LED SOLUTIONS or a third-party contractor. A thorough forensic audit would be required to determine the extent of any unauthorized access, Fowler noted in the blog post.

The Mars Pro app and connected devices have been exposing vast amounts of information. Such lapses can lead to misuse, like surveillance, man-in-the-middle attacks, and manipulation. The recently reported Matrix hacker group is a prime example of the ongoing exploitation of exposed IoT devices for DDoS botnets.

Additionally, studies indicate that a significant percentage of IoT devices (57%) are highly vulnerable, with a majority of transmitted data (983%) being unencrypted. To mitigate these risks, IoT device makers and app developers must prioritize data protection, avoid plain text logging, use encryption, secure internal cloud storage, and conduct regular security audits and penetration testing.

.

Massive 1.17TB Data Leak Exposes Billions of IoT Grow Light Records

SystemBC RAT now targets Linux, enabling ransomware gangs like Ryuk & Conti to spread, evade detection, and maintain encrypted C2 traffic for stealthy cyberattacks.

Threat analysts have identified a new and emerging threat: a variant of the SystemBC RAT (Remote Access Trojan) that is now actively targeting Linux-based platforms. This development puts corporate networks, cloud infrastructures, and IoT devices at risk.

The latest version of SystemBC RAT is more stealthy and harder to detect, using encrypted communication to stay hidden while letting attackers move freely through compromised systems.

****SystemBC RAT: From Windows to Linux****

SystemBC is a Remote Access Trojan (RAT) commonly used in cyberattacks to provide attackers with remote control over infected systems. 

Initially a Windows-only threat, it has now expanded to Linux, making it even more dangerous as Linux-based servers are widely used in enterprise environments.

ANY.RUN’s analysts compared SystemBC’s Windows and Linux traffic

****What Makes the Linux Version of SystemBC RAT Dangerous?****

Let’s look at how this malware operates and why it poses a serious threat to Linux-based systems.

****Encrypted Communication with C2 Servers****

The SystemBC RAT for Linux maintains encrypted communication with C2 servers using the same custom protocols as its Windows counterpart. 

This allows attackers to keep a stable connection across a unified infrastructure of both Windows and Linux implants, making it easier to control infected machines without raising suspicion.

While SystemBC RAT is designed to keep its C2 communication encrypted and hidden, it becomes fully visible inside an ANY.RUN analysis session. By running a real sample in the sandbox, security teams can see the malware’s network connections, file modifications, and process activities in real time.

**View ANY.RUN analysis session**

SystemBC RAT analyzed inside ANY.RUN sandbox

Below the Linux Virtual Machine window, all network connections and system modifications related to this specific attack are clearly displayed. 

Suricata rule triggered by SystemBC RAT

In the Threats section, we can see that an alert was triggered by the Suricata rule: “Malware Command and Control Activity Detected – BOTNET SystemBC.Proxy Connection.” This immediate detection allows analysts to track the infection process and understand how the malware operates.

****Proxy Implant for Lateral Movement****

The malware operates as a proxy implant, meaning it can facilitate lateral movement within a compromised network without deploying additional, easily detectable tools. This makes it a powerful weapon for attackers who seek persistence and deeper infiltration within corporate infrastructures.

****Evasion of Traditional Detection****

One of the most concerning aspects is that security vendors struggle to detect this version as belonging to the SystemBC family. This stealthy approach allows the RAT to remain undetected for extended periods, making it a persistent threat.

****Sandbox and Virtualization Evasion****

Besides signature-based evasion, SystemBC also detects virtualized environments to resist dynamic analysis. In a real ANY.RUN analysis session mentioned above, the MITRE ATT&CK framework flags reveal “Virtualization/Sandbox Evasion- System Checks,” showing that the malware actively performs system checks to determine if it’s running inside a security sandbox or virtual machine. 

By identifying these environments, SystemBC can alter its behaviour or terminate execution, helping attackers bypass automated malware analysis tools while remaining fully operational on real infected systems.

Defense evasion techniques and tactics detected by ANY.RUN sandbox

****Integration with Other Malware Strains****

SystemBC is rarely deployed on its own. It often works alongside other malware to expand an attack’s impact. In Windows attacks, it has been observed delivering ransomware like Ryuk and Conti, as well as banking trojans and infostealers. 

With its new Linux variant, similar threats will likely follow, putting enterprise servers and cloud environments at greater risk of data theft, ransomware encryption, and persistent backdoor access.

****Unmasking Hidden Threats Before They Strike****

Cyber threats are getting smarter, and businesses can’t afford to play catch-up. With SystemBC RAT now hitting Linux, attackers have a new way to hide C2 traffic, move through networks unnoticed, and drop additional malware. Traditional security tools often miss these stealthy tactics, leaving corporate networks, and critical infrastructure at risk.

However, with tools like ANY.RUN interactive sandbox, hidden doesn’t mean unstoppable. Your security team can:

*   Analyze threats safely in a controlled environment.
*   Respond faster, containing threats before they spread and cause real harm.
*   Spot evasion techniques before they do damage, exposing how threats slip past defences.
*   Extract key IOCs, strengthening your threat intelligence and prevention strategies.
*   See hidden malware behaviours in real-time, from network traffic to system changes.

SystemBC RAT Now Targets Linux, Spreading Ransomware and Infostealers

A joint operation by Spanish law enforcement has resulted in the apprehension of Natohub, a “dangerous hacker” suspected of orchestrating numerous cyberattacks against prominent organizations in Spain and internationally.

A joint operation between the National Police and the Civil Guard concluded in the arrest of a suspected cybercriminal in Calpe, Alicante. The individual, whose name has not been released but goes by the handle of Natohub on **Breach Forums**, is allegedly responsible for over 40 cyberattacks targeting public and private entities in Spain and internationally and compromising personal data and sensitive documents.  

Among the Spanish government entities reportedly affected are the Civil Guard, the Ministries of Defence and Education, the National Currency and Timbre Factory, several Spanish universities and the Generalitat Valenciana, the governing body of the Valencian Community.

Internationally, databases belonging to NATO, the US Army, the United Nations, and the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) were targeted.

ICAO publicly **acknowledged** the incident last month, after an account known as “Natohub” leaked information from the breach on the cybercriminal forum BreachForums, also claiming to possess the personal data of 14,000 UN delegates. 

“Natohub” on Breach Forums (Screenshot credit: Hackread.com)

“The reported information security incident involves approximately 42,000 recruitment application data records from April 2016 to July 2024 claimed to be released by the threat actor known as Natohub,” ICAO confirmed.

According to the Spanish police’s **official press release**, the arrest took place after an extensive investigation into crimes involving the unauthorized access and disclosure of sensitive information, damage to computer systems, and money laundering. 

The investigation began in February 2024 after a complaint from a Madrid business association that discovered their data published on a “specialized data leak forum.” Research revealed their website was compromised, data extracted, and the site defaced with a message claiming the hack. Eventually, investigators uncovered a pattern of cyberattacks occurring throughout 2024, culminating in late December, prompting the arrest.

“He attacked international agencies and governmental organizations by accessing databases with personal information from employees and clients, as well as internal documents that were subsequently sold or freely published in forums,” authorities noted.

Moreover, the individual used anonymous messaging apps and specialized navigation tools to create a complex technical network that made tracking a challenge for investigators. 

Authorities seized computer equipment, an iPhone, and around 50 cryptocurrency accounts containing “different types of cryptoactive” from the suspect’s residence. Spanish news outlet Larazon reports that the suspect is 18 years old and was released after a court appearance on the condition of passport confiscation.

Authorities Use Cellebrite to Extract Data from suspect’s iPhone (Via Spanish Police)

The National Cryptological Centre (CCN) of the National Intelligence Centre (CNI), the EUROPOL and the US Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) also assisted in this operation. This arrest is part of a larger effort by Spanish law enforcement to crack down on cybercrime, working with international agencies to dismantle cybercriminal operations originating within the country.

1.  Police Dismantle SIM Swapping Gang in Spain
2.  Spanish Police Nab Leader of Kelvin Security Hacker Group
3.  FBI Kills Kelihos Botnet after Russian Hacker Arrested in Spain
4.  Alcasec Hacker, aka “Robin Hood of Spanish Hackers,” Arrested
5.  Two Arrested in Spain as Authorities Dismantle Cracked and Nulled

Teen Hacker “Natohub” Caught for NATO, UN, and US Army Breaches

UpGuard discovers exposed Ollama APIs revealing DeepSeek model adoption globally. See where these AI models are running and the security risks involved.

Cybersecurity researchers at third-party risk management firm UpGuard have identified a vulnerability surrounding exposed Ollama APIs, which provide access to running AI models. These exposed APIs not only pose security risks for model owners but also offer a unique opportunity to gauge the adoption rate and geographic distribution of specific AI models, such as **DeepSeek**.

**Ollama** is an AI model framework that simplifies interaction with models by providing a user-friendly interface for selecting and downloading models. However, as per UpGuard’s research, shared exclusively with Hackread.com ahead of its release, the API can be exposed to the public internet; its functions to push, pull, and delete models can put data at risk and unauthenticated users can also bombard models with requests, potentially causing costs for cloud computing resource owners. Existing vulnerabilities within Ollama could also be exploited. 

According to UpGuard’s **research**, there is already evidence of the vulnerability being exploited, with targeted IPs being tampered with.

  
A screenshot provided by UpGuard to Hackread.com shows an Ollama instance where the models appear to have been deleted.

Researchers expressed concern that Ollama APIs are likely used by hobbyists on home or small business internet connections or university networks and these systems can be easily compromised and incorporated into botnets for future attacks.

UpGuard also analyzed the distribution of DeepSeek models across different parameter sizes running on exposed Ollama APIs. The 14b and 7b options (representing models with 14 billion and 7 billion parameters) were the most commonly observed among the exposed DeepSeek models, suggesting that many users are opting for these mid-range models.

Approximately seven thousand IP addresses currently expose Ollama APIs, indicating an over 70% rise in three months, since in its survey **Laava** found four thousand IP addresses in November 2024. Out of these exposed IPs, 700 are running some version of DeepSeek. Specifically, 334 are utilizing models from the deepseek-v2 family, while 434 are running the newer deepseek-r1 model. 

Geographically, the highest concentration of IPs running DeepSeek models is located in China (171 IP addresses, representing 24.4%), followed by the U.S. (140 IP addresses, or 20%), and Germany (90 IP addresses, or 12.9%). 

Furthermore, the distribution of DeepSeek models within the US by Internet Service Provider (ISP) analysis reveals a diverse range of providers, from large entities like Google LLC and AT&T Enterprises LLC to smaller providers and universities. Also, researchers found the highest concentration of DeepSeek instances in China, the US, and Germany, with other countries contributing smaller percentages.

> _“There are really two things that surprised us in this research: how fast exposed Ollama APIs are growing, and how quickly DeepSeek has spread. Either of those could have big consequences in the future.”_
> 
> Greg Pollock, Director of Research and Insights – Upguard

It is worth noting that DeepSeek has been restricted by entities like the **US Navy**, the state of **Texas**, **NASA**, and Italy over concerns of possible data leakage to the Chinese government. While these concerns may not apply to open-source models, most users are unlikely to scrutinize the code, UpGuard researchers noted along with identifying potential risks within the models themselves.

Therefore, to prevent **AI data leakage**, it is essential to audit one’s attack surface for exposed Ollama APIs and remain aware of which models or AI products can be crucial in third-party risk management.

Tag

#botnet