The Register

Security researchers reported that someone is exploiting CVE-2026-82329, a critical JFrog Artifactory authentication-bypass bug, just days after the vendor patched the 9.8-rated flaw. And we don't know if that someone is human. Artifactory is a widely used tool for managing software artifacts, packages, binaries, and AI models. It’s also popular with AI agents that go rogue and need to communicate with each other while remaining undetected by their human babysitters. In July, OpenAI and JFrog revealed that OpenAI’s models broke out of their cages to hack Hugging Face by exploiting Artifactory zero-days, and at Black Hat, the model provider said agents used Artifactory to build message boards and help each other access the open internet. JFrog disclosed CVE-2026-82329 on Friday, and by Tuesday, attackers had already begun exploiting internet-exposed systems, according to exposure-management biz watchTowr’s threat-intel team, which reported “attackers minting themselves admin tokens.” In addition to creating new administrative credentials, watchTowr’s honeypot network caught miscreants “enumerating users, groups, credential sets and federated access topologies,” Yordan Ganchev, principal threat intelligence specialist at watchTowr, told The Register. “Right now, we’re observing exploitation from a small number of IP addresses from varying geographies exploiting multiple of our honeypots,” Ganchev said. “Broad-scale scanning and mass exploitation has not been observed, but that is unlikely to stay the case for long.” Ganchev urged organizations running vulnerable versions to “urgently patch” internet-exposed systems, and treat them as being potentially compromised - so inspect audit logs, rotate credentials, and investigate connected systems for any unusual changes or backdoor implants. “When attackers gain admin level access to a central software supply chain system, they can do what every engineering team does best - build, ship and distribute software fast,” he said. “From there, they could tamper with build pipelines, move laterally into production systems and potentially push malicious changes downstream to customers.” JFrog did not immediately respond to The Register’s inquiries. We will update this story when we receive any response. ®

AI model testing organization METR has disclosed two attacks that happened earlier this year, including one in which an attacker stole an API key and spent three weeks consuming public-model credits worth about $600,000. METR (short for Model Evaluation and Threat Research) found no evidence that the attackers accessed sensitive information in either incident, and the org said it investigated both with security experts. METR researchers worked with OpenAI to investigate how its agents hacked Hugging Face, and on Monday, it disclosed two of its own security snafus. “In March 2026, attackers stole an API key for inference on public models and consumed a substantial amount of credits,” the nonprofit disclosed in a Monday report. “In May 2026, we observed attackers systematically probing our publicly accessible infrastructure, including an unsuccessful attempt to access internal data via an inadvertently exposed endpoint.” From fail-open bug to model-credit theft The March incident involved a METR researcher who didn’t have access to sensitive information - including model data and credentials, as well as information about model architectures, training, and release dates. The researcher used agents running on a personal EC2 instance that was “intentionally” left publicly accessible behind Google authentication. The instance contained an API key for METR’s public models account. According to METR’s account, a “vibe-coded app” included a fail-open bug that disabled authentication, and this exposed the system to the public internet for several days. “We suspect that the attacker found the instance by looking through recently-registered websites (e.g. in certificate transparency lists) to find vibe-coded sites with high-signal keywords relating to LLMs or agents, for purposes of harvesting potentially exposed model provider API keys,” the AI research org wrote. Once the attacker found the app, they prompted an agent to reveal its model provider API key, then added an SSH key to maintain persistent access, and over the next three weeks used the stolen credentials to consume API credits on public models worth about $600,000. Luckily for METR, the unnamed model developer had given the credits to the nonprofit for free. How do you not notice the 'large illicit usage?' METR does answer the question on everyone’s mind in the report: Why its researchers didn’t notice the “large illicit usage?” There are several reasons for this. First, the model testing operation regularly runs evaluations that use a lot of tokens, and this means the organization is “very acclimated to getting lots of weird rate limit and API errors.” So the high usage didn’t look that out of the ordinary. Plus, since the tokens were free, METR didn’t accrue a large bill, and at the time there was no way to put a spending limit on keys like the one that was stolen. In response to the March incident, METR says it improved its security infrastructure, protocols, and review process, and will continue to invest in security. To this end, it also hired a security lead, and plans to add more security staff. Crims used agents to try to access frontier models The second incident happened in early May, when “METR became the target of a sustained external attack campaign.” After being “tipped off” that attackers who appeared financially motivated may have been trying to gain illicit access to frontier models, METR watched the intruders probe its publicly accessible infrastructure. They also used agents to find ways to gain initial access, including automated vulnerability discovery, credential stuffing against authentication providers, attempting OAuth token grants, scanning newly deployed services, and phishing attempts. At the same time, METR unintentionally “exposed a read-only SQL query mechanism via our public transcript viewer.” While queries were scoped to public data by default, a bug allowed access to unpublished evaluation data, and “some sensitive model data was accidentally included in this database.” However, there’s no evidence that the attacker found the exploit or accessed any non-public data, according to the model testing body. An independent bug hunter discovered the vulnerability and reported it to METR, which paid the researcher a bounty, and took the API offline. In response, METR says it now uses an isolated production environment for public-facing applications that is separate from its internal infrastructure.®

After several weeks of anticipation, Mozilla has started rolling out ad blocking to the iOS version of its popular browser, but you can still expect to see ads on Mozilla's own pages, including the new tab page. The org officially rolled out the new native ad blocking feature for iOS Firefox on Tuesday, moving it out of the experimental phase, while explaining that it had to rethink its desire to give users control over their web experience on iOS due to differences in architecture between it and other OSes. “Firefox already supports a strong ecosystem of ad-blocking and privacy extensions,” Mozilla explained. iOS works differently, though, as Apple forces all web browsers on iOS to use its own WebKit to render sites instead of their own preferred back end. “Bringing ad blocking to Firefox on iOS,” therefore, “meant building it directly into the browser,” Mozilla explained. Implementing ad blocking in the iOS version of Firefox meant incorporating Apple’s own WebKit Content Blockers. According to Apple’s introduction on the topic, it specifically doesn’t want app extensions to be used to block web content because of how they operate. “App extensions … are essentially little sandboxed applications that are launched on demand to extend some specific piece of functionality,” Apple notes. “JavaScript-based content blocking extensions … have significant performance drawbacks.” Apple complains that traditional ad blockers use too much energy, increase page load time, and eat up memory, all of which it wants to protect iOS users from. Apple describes WebKit Content Blocking as “describing content blocking rules in a structured format ahead-of-time, declaratively.” Apple Web Content Blockers instead live in bytecode format that executes for each resource request, modifying requests or injecting CSS changes as needed while pages are loaded. For Mozilla, that basically means dropping the EasyList filter, originally designed for the classic Adblock blocker, into a JSON file and passing it to WebKit. Easy peasy. Ad blocking in Firefox for iOS is off by default. Turning it on, if it’s available for you – it’s rolling out gradually – is as easy as opening the in-app settings menu, tapping on Browsing, and toggling the Ad Blocker field on. Mozilla told The Register in an email that it doesn't have a timeline for general release to all Firefox users on iOS, which it said will largely depend on how well the initial rollout goes. You also have to turn Remote Improvements on, as the feature allows Mozilla to push fixes and feature changes to Firefox between full releases. Toggling that on has traditionally meant you also had to allow Mozilla to collect browser telemetry, but that was changed in February when Firefox 148 was released and the two features have officially been decoupled. Once on, iOS Firefox Adblocking will take care of ad-related trackers, ads from third-party advertising networks, third-party ads served by websites, and popups/overlays. What it won’t do, however, is take care of ads on search result pages or sponsored content on Firefox’s home or new tab page – after all, you wouldn’t want Mozilla to lose those precious ad bucks, would you? Firefox iOS ad blocking also won’t eliminate ads served directly by websites, and the company warns that it still might not work in all places, which is pretty common for ad blockers. For Firefox users who want browser consistency across platforms, it’s likely a welcomed announcement, though it begs the question whether Mozilla is considering integrating its own ad blocking technology in the desktop or Android versions of its browser. Fortunately for those making ad-blocking extensions, and those who love them, Mozilla says it has no plans to expand built-in adblocking outside iOS. "We value that ecosystem and will continue to support it," Mozilla told us. ®

Anthropic says it's taking steps to limit the misbehavior of its AI models after a review found Claude models going beyond the scope of fictional cybersecurity tests and gaining unauthorized access to real computer systems. The biz wants its partners to step up their security too, seeing as the incidents occurred in third-party environments that were insufficiently protected. The company's self-improvement confession represents a suddenly thriving form of corporate communication – the non-binding post-mortem declaration of effort. The message, in effect: We can't guarantee anything, but here's what we're trying. Anthropic admitted that OpenAI's report about its AI models attacking Hugging Face prompted its own model log audit, and its post offers reassurance in the form of claimed security and model training improvements. Those concerned about AI running amok – a growing number of people – may find this comforting, or not. "We believe the incidents reflect a failure of operational security, as well as two alignment issues: motivated reasoning, and willingness to take harmful actions in pursuit of a narrow task (both of which we have described in previous system cards)," the company said. Expanded security efforts include the deployment of real-time classifiers to monitor when models attempt to escape test environments, automated transcript monitoring that looks for sandbox escapes, and stronger isolation measures. Alongside the extra barriers Anthropic is putting in place, the AI biz wants its third-party partners to step up too. "Because the reported incidents took place in third-party environments, we have asked every organization that tests pre-release models with reduced cyber safeguards to commit to a set of best practices," the company said. Anthropic's guidance is that by default, all cyber evaluations should occur in a hardened sandbox with no internet access. The recommendation is essentially to treat AI as a dangerous pathogen in a containment facility. Partners are also advised to have models test sandboxes for escapes prior to evaluations – without internet access – and to confirm that evaluation challenges are solvable. Impossible challenges, as the Hugging Face incident demonstrated, can lead determined models to break rules or try unanticipated solution paths. Furthermore, Anthropic urges those conducting cyber evaluations of AI models to direct models through explicit instructions rather than making claims about an environment that might not be accurate. In the Claude incidents reported on July 30, the model maker suggests that when Claude was misinformed about the availability of internet access, that may have led the model to question data in a way that contributed to its errant behavior. On a related note, Anthropic last month made auto mode the default in Claude Code, enabling company AI models to run without prompting the user for permission. ®

Softaculous and Virtualizor customers are being urged to reset credentials and inspect their servers after a 33-hour BGP hijacking incident diverted traffic and delivered malware to a handful of installations. Softaculous makes software for the web hosting industry, while its Virtualizor control panel is used by providers and administrators to deploy and manage virtual private servers. Beginning at around 20:57 UTC on August 28, an unrelated network began announcing a block of Hetzner IP addresses used by Softaculous, diverting some traffic intended for the vendor's systems to an attacker-controlled server. German hosting provider Hetzner is one of Softaculous's upstream infrastructure providers. The affected addresses served "a number of Softaculous systems," including Virtualizor's software update endpoint and Softaculous's client and billing site. The attacker pulled off the BGP hijack by announcing a more specific IP address range than Hetzner normally advertised. Under standard BGP route selection, the more specific route took precedence wherever it was accepted. According to Softaculous, the attacker was also able to secure a valid TLS certificate from Let's Encrypt because the certificate authority's automated domain-ownership validation was routed through the hijack too. This allowed affected connections to reach the attacker's server without triggering the certificate warnings that might otherwise have alerted users. According to the vendor's timeline, the unauthorized route was initially "accepted by essentially every internet vantage point that receives it," although it flapped repeatedly rather than remaining continuously available. Softaculous said it reported the issues to Hetzner at around 08:50 UTC on August 29. The hosting provider began directly announcing the same, more-specific address range, cutting the observed diversion to almost zero for roughly 11 hours. The unauthorized announcement returned at around 20:00 UTC and was again widely accepted, beginning a second wave that lasted roughly ten hours. The route was withdrawn between 05:50 and 06:10 UTC on August 30, after which normal routing was restored globally. While either wave was active, Softaculous estimates that a given server had roughly a 72 percent chance of being on a network that routed the affected address range through the attacker. The figure is based on the proportion of RIPE routing collector peers carrying the hijacked route, not the volume of traffic intercepted, the vendor said. Anyone who logged into the Softaculous client area during the incident window is advised to reset that password immediately, as well as anywhere else it was reused. Customers who entered card details during the same window should also review their statements. Softaculous said it does not process cards on its own servers and instead uses payment gateways, but an affected session may have been diverted before reaching them. More seriously, the vendor confirmed that a malicious Virtualizor update package was delivered to a handful of installations whose update checks passed through the attacker's server. "Our product update clients did not yet cryptographically verify update packages, so a modified package would not have been rejected on that basis." Because those downloads never reached its own logs, Softaculous said it "cannot produce a definitive list" of affected installations. It is therefore telling every Virtualizor operator to treat their server as in scope for checks – not necessarily as compromised. Softaculous did not describe the malware's capabilities, but identified a systemd unit at /etc/systemd/system/java-jre-update.service as an indicator of compromise. Operators that find it are advised not to delete it immediately, but to contact the vendor so evidence can be preserved. The vendor has not identified malicious packages targeting Backuply, Softaculous, SitePad, Webuzo, or its other products, although its investigation continues. Virtualizor operators should rotate and restrict their API credentials, check for unknown SSH keys and accounts, inspect scheduled tasks and outbound connections, and regenerate client-area API keys. Softaculous is also invalidating client-area sessions created during the incident window. Softaculous did not disclose how many customers downloaded the malicious update or may have handed credentials to the attacker. It said only that the confirmed infections amounted to "a handful of servers rather than the general Virtualizor user base." ®

Two major healthcare businesses, Boston Scientific and McKesson, disclosed more details over the weekend about separate cyberattacks that disrupted global operations and resulted in stolen patient data, respectively. Medical-device maker Boston Scientific, whose IT systems were hacked by unknown intruders last week, said the cyberattack remains ongoing. It also noted that pacemakers and other heart devices implanted after the August 25 breach cannot provide remote monitoring and data transmission as intended. “New remote monitoring communicators cannot be activated, thus available device data will NOT be transmitted to remote patient management systems until the communicator can be activated,” the medtech firm said in a late Friday update. This applies to all new cardiac rhythm management implants other than insertable cardiac monitors (ICM). ICM devices must be activated using the Boston Scientific Clinic Assistant app to ensure the device correctly records patients’ heart rhythms, the company added. Because of the cyberattack, “new ICMs are unable to pair to the patient remote monitoring mobile phone, therefore available episode data recorded by the ICM will NOT be transmitted to the remote monitoring system until the ICM can be paired to the patient mobile app,” according to the update. The devices will still record any episodes, and patients can transmit these to the remote monitoring system by in-person transmission via the Clinic Assistant app. This is done by selecting the “interrogate” button, according to the company. Once its IT systems are back up and running, and the heart devices can pair with home monitoring equipment, they will again transmit recorded data to the remote systems. However, the company does not have a timeline for full restoration. “We are currently working on restoring affected functions and systems access,” Boston Scientific said on Saturday. The digital intrusion also affected the firm’s manufacturing, shipping, and ordering, it noted. “We are expeditiously working towards partial restoration for the shipping of some products this week,” according to a Sunday update. “Once we can demonstrate the restoration is fully operable, we anticipate ordering and shipping will ramp up to full capacity.” Boston Scientific has hired CrowdStrike to assist with the investigation and restoration efforts, and said the attack did not affect its cloud-based systems and apps - just “certain on-premise systems” - and added that it has seen no indication of unauthorized IT activity since August 25. The firm has repeatedly declined to answer The Register’s questions about the compromise, including whether it was a ransomware infection and which criminal crew is responsible. McKesson confirms breach as ShinyHunters claims responsibility Meanwhile, in another cybersecurity incident that has been very publicly claimed by the criminal perpetrator: pharmaceutical and medical supply giant McKesson over the weekend confirmed an intrusion after ShinyHunters on Friday told The Register it broke into the company’s Snowflake and Salesforce instances and stole millions of patients’ data. “Based on our investigation thus far, including assessments by leading cybersecurity industry experts supporting our response, we’ve confirmed that the unauthorized access to certain third-party applications and the exfiltration of certain data was associated with a subset of customers within our Oncology & Multispecialty and Medical-Surgical business units,” Francisco Fraga, McKesson executive VP, chief information officer and chief technology officer, said in a Saturday statement. The medical firm did not immediately respond to The Register’s questions, including how many patients were affected and what “certain data” was stolen. McKesson supports about 3,300 oncology providers in 29 states, according to its website. Fraga’s statement noted that distribution centers remain operational and McKesson continues to ship products. The firm has “reasonable assurance” that the digital intruders have been kicked out of the third-party environments and aren’t lurking around McKesson’s systems, he added. A ShinyHunters spokesperson told us that the notorious extortion group compromised more than 284 million records of patient data, and demanded McKesson pay $55.2 million or else they would leak the stolen data. However, as Have I Been Pwned boss Troy Hunt recently reminded everyone: Don’t confuse criminals’ claims with gospel truth, and “take headline numbers with a grain of salt unless you're confident in the processes of those making the claims." This was after Hunt’s HIBP service reported 12.9 million individuals affected by retailer Carhartt’s alleged breach. This number was around half of what ShinyHunters claimed when they leaked the company’s data earlier this month. The McKesson records, according to the ShinyHunters spokesperson, include patients’ full names, home and email addresses, phone numbers, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, appointment dates and notes, and sensitive illness details including cancer locations on people’s bodies. The group also claims to have swiped emails containing private information from doctors to patients. The spokesperson told us they accessed the company’s Snowflake and Salesforce instances by voice phishing “multiple employees.” This is a tried-and-true method popularized by the data-theft-and-extortion gang, which has victimized other medical providers in recent months. These include pacemaker manufacturer Medtronic in April, and cancer diagnostics business Exact Sciences in July. ®

OpenClaw has unveiled what its makers call its largest ever update – large enough to earn a 2.0 moniker – with usability taking center stage, along with some security updates that critics are suggesting will be insufficient. The OpenClaw foundation announced the release of version 2.0 of its AI agent harness on Sunday, describing it as something with far more scope than they ever intended it to have. “This update touches every part of OpenClaw,” Foundation community manager Hannes Rudolph said of the update. “We started by simplifying installation and rebuilding the browser app as a first-class experience, but doing that properly meant carrying the cleanup through the rest of OpenClaw until it became OpenClaw 2.0.” It's those two features – the rebuilt installation experience and redesigned interface – that Rudolph dedicates most of his announcement to. OpenClaw is an open-source, self-hosted AI agent harness that allows users to build their own AI agents and connect them to whatever apps and services they want. OpenClaw went viral shortly after its launch due to its extensive capabilities, and helped launch the AI agent craze. But, by empowering AI models with agentic capabilities, it exposed numerous security problems with unrestrained automation. In version 2.0, the new installation process is designed to be simpler, ostensibly to get more people using OpenClaw. “We cut or simplified a lot of configuration and moved the rest out of initial setup, letting people get to a first conversation faster and finish setting up their Claw by talking to it,” Rudolph explained. As for the user experience, Rudolph explained that the OpenClaw browser app has been redesigned into “a first-class experience” where users can continue setup and interact with their agent. “The web-based experience in OpenClaw now feels more familiar to anyone who uses apps like ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, or Perplexity, with conversations in the sidebar and the one you are working in at the centre instead of opening on a separate Overview page,” the patch notes for the release explains. In other words, OpenClaw’s basic interface now looks just like the chat interface for every other AI service you’ve likely used on the web. The last major feature update added in OpenClaw 2.0 is shared cloud sessions. Per the announcement, OpenClaw previously had no way to include multiple team members in a single instance without the Claw involved losing its memory. Shared cloud sessions correct that, enabling multiple people to interact with a single Claw while context is maintained across users and a continuous chat, giving OpenClaw feature parity with the agent harnesses offered by frontier labs like Anthropic and OpenAI, which allow collaboration for enterprise users. What about security? Since launching in November 2025, OpenClaw has deservedly earned its reputation as a complete security mess – not only in the code itself but for users and those who are unfortunate enough to come in contact with a Claw’s orders as well. Celebrity UK mathematician Professor Hannah Fry tested OpenClaw out earlier this year, finding it was ready and willing to share her private information when threatened. In another instance, an OpenClaw agent hacked a gym’s waiting list and forced its user into a full class, displacing other reservations, when simply asked to get him on the list. So, what is OpenClaw doing to improve on these risks as part of the update? Not that much, based on a reading of the patch notes. Shared sessions, for example, are a great way to introduce collaborative Claws at work, but the OpenClaw foundation states in the patch notes that the shared session controls “are not tenant isolation or a security boundary.” In other words, you’d better be sure there’s no need to isolate various OpenClaw instances. A new protected credentials feature has been added that allows users to share credentials with agents in shared environments without exposing them in chat. That’s great, and as explained in the patch notes it’s further secured in a local secret store that “separates Protected values from Agent-readable environment values.” What’s not great, on the other hand, is the fact that “Secret Store values are not encrypted at rest and depend on the filesystem permissions of OpenClaw's state directory.” A new sandbox for contributor-controlled code was also announced, with the patch notes referring to an environment for untrusted code isolation. Again, great – except sandboxing is turned off by default. In other words, this release is doing a lot to make installing and getting OpenClaw up and running for more people, but it’s not bringing security by default along with that accessibility. As we’ve warned before, granting a capable and potentially dangerous tool like this widespread access to your systems and credentials ought not be done lightly, fancy new wrapper or not. ®

An unknown miscreant is using "TerminalFix" to trick unsuspecting users into running PowerShell commands that infect their computers with a reverse tunnel granting attackers access to their networks. Some of the malware is even hidden inside PNG graphics the PC downloads. TerminalFix is the latest variant of the wildly popular ClickFix initial access method for attackers. This type of social engineering technique tricks users into running malicious commands by promoting them with a phony fix or CAPTCHA verification. While traditional ClickFix attacks point victims to the Windows Run dialog, TerminalFix directs users to Windows Terminal or PowerShell, which increases the likelihood that they will unknowingly run multi-line scripts on their own computers, Redmond says. Plus, instead of delivering just one infostealer, this campaign kicks off a multi-stage attack chain that combines DLL sideloading, steganographic payload extraction, and Active Directory reconnaissance. It ultimately deploys a custom reverse tunnel on the infected machine that gives the attacker persistent, network-level proxy access through the compromised device. Microsoft declined to answer The Register’s questions, including how many organizations were targeted and victimized in this TerminalFix campaign, and which attacker or criminal crew is responsible for these attacks. The attack chain begins when the victim interacts with a phony overlay that spoofs the Cloudflare CAPTCHA “verify you are human” checkbox and includes a Cloudflare logo, causing a fake verification command to be copied to the clipboard before the victim pastes it into Windows Terminal or PowerShell. This command runs a hidden PowerShell script that prints a fake “Starting Cloudflare verification…” message and downloads a ZIP archive from an attacker-controlled server. It extracts the archive under C:\ProgramData and launches a batch file (1.bat) that silently executes LockScreenContentServer.exe. LockScreenContentServer.exe is a legitimate, signed Windows executable - and it acts as the DLL sideloading host for a second file: dui70.dll. This purports to be a “Windows DirectUI Engine,” but is actually the malicious payload, which executes a second-stage PowerShell script once it’s sideloaded. The second PowerShell script downloads additional payloads hidden inside PNG images - this is called steganography, and it makes file- and content-type inspection more difficult, and thus easier to hide malicious payloads. In an attempt to further obfuscate the payload and avoid being detected, the attacker split the payload into multiple PNGs. The PowerShell script downloads the three images, extracts an executable from the first image and two halves of the DLL from the second and third images, and then reassembles the components on disk. “After extraction, the source images are deleted to reduce forensic artifacts,” Microsoft researchers Sagar Patil, Suriyaraj Natarajan, and Parasharan Raghavan wrote. The malware establishes redundant persistence through both HKCU\…\Run registry keys and scheduled tasks that re-execute LockScreenContentServer.exe every 60 minutes to ensure it survives reboots. It then does reconnaissance on the compromised machine, scooping up system information across multiple language configurations including English, Spanish, and German. It also performs domain trust discovery, domain admin enumeration, and Active Directory user and computer searches, while pinging targeted, named servers. “The observed names correspond to common infrastructure roles, including domain controllers, databases, backup, gateways, and mail systems,” according to the threat hunters. “This probing could help an attacker identify accessible target systems for follow-on activity.” Next, the malware drops a persistent PowerShell file-watch loop that monitors a text file for new commands, executes them via Invoke-Expression, and writes results to an output file. This allows the attacker to execute additional PowerShell commands by writing them to the text file. And finally, the attacker deploys a custom, Python-based reverse-tunnel implant. The tunnel launches with no visible window via pythonw.exe, and it sets up a reverse WebSocket tunnel to gitnow[.]dev:443. This implant, combined with earlier reconnaissance data, gives the attacker SOCKS-style TCP proxy access through the victim’s network. Microsoft recommends organizations take several steps to avoid becoming a victim of this campaign. These include restricting PowerShell and Run dialog execution, and either blocking or auditing the Windows Run dialog (Win+R) if it’s not needed for daily work. Also, train employees on how to look for ClickFix tactics, like fake CAPTCHA verification pages that tell them to paste commands into Terminal or the Run dialog. ®

Rather than paying for their own Claude usage, crims are using malware to steal access to other people's accounts. Aware of this issue, Anthropic has signed at least one affected user out and removed the saved payment method to stop stolen sessions being abused. According to an email shared by Reddit user WorriedAssociate7029, who sent a copy to The Register, Anthropic has been keeping an eye on a threat actor using infostealer malware to hijack Claude login details, session cookies, and other info needed to subvert multifactor authentication on user accounts. Once obtained, the miscreant is using the stolen information to use premium Claude services without having to pay the bill themselves. Fortunately for WorriedAssociate7029, Anthropic logged the user out of their account and deleted their stored payment method because it had detected evidence of attempted fraud. “A few days ago, my social media accounts were hacked,” WorriedAssociate said, adding that they'd managed to track the malware down with the help of Claude Opus 5 Max and, they believe, cleaned the system. “But last night I received this email from Anthropic warning me of an attempt to steal tokens via the API.” They explained that the attempt failed, apparently thanks to Anthropic spotting it, but they realized that meant that the cybercriminal behind the incident seemed to have hijacked Google account credentials, cookies, and session IDs as well, since that’s how they were signed into Claude. After changing their password again and removing all active sessions, it appears they are now safe. Who’s eating your cookies? Anthropic made clear in the email that the credential theft wave it’s identified has nothing to do with Claude itself, nor is it some sort of fancy, new-fangled, agentic AI malware that’s being used to create a base of accounts for bad actors to abuse. This is just good old-fashioned infostealer malware being turned to a new purpose, the email explains. “We have no reason to believe that this malware is related to Claude, installed through Claude, or related to anything you did with Claude,” the email forwarded to us by WorriedAssociate and posted to Reddit stated. “Your Claude session was likely one of the many things it collected. It appears that a bad actor has now started picking the Claude sessions out of what it collected and using them.” In this case, it’s well-known infostealing malware too: Vidar, LummaC2, StealC, RedLine, Acreed, and Atomic Stealer have all been fingered by Anthropic as being used to steal Claude credentials, sessions, and cookies. As for WorriedAssociate, they copped to making a noob mistake that led to their infection. “I got fooled like a rookie by downloading a cracked game,” they admitted in a comment on their post. “Never again.” As in their post, WorriedAssociate told us in a chat that they gave credit to Anthropic for cluing them in to the fact that they hadn’t fully secured their accounts, and said they appreciated what the company did to help lock their Claude account down. “There have been several cases on Reddit in the past of accounts being hacked to steal tokens, and Anthropic’s customer service seems pretty dreadful when it comes to refunds and account recovery,” they told us. “This email appears to be new, and measures have finally been put in place to protect AI users.” “Tokens are valuable and can be resold,” WorriedAssociate added. So let this be a lesson: Providers might not catch every case of account theft, and AI accounts are the new hotness. Don’t let your tokens be burned by someone else - they’re expensive and the last thing you want them to be used for is someone else's work. ®

Brits have delivered a fairly unambiguous verdict on giving the government access to their encrypted messages: no, thanks. New polling commissioned by the Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT) found that 93 percent of British adults believe they have a right to private conversations online, while 89 percent think nobody should be able to access their personal messages without a court order. Perhaps more awkwardly for Westminster, two-thirds said they would not trust either the current government or any future one with the power to access encrypted messages. That distrust crosses political lines. Among people who voted in the 2024 general election, 58 percent of Labour voters said they wouldn't trust any government with the power, alongside 59 percent of Conservatives, 56 percent of Liberal Democrats, 69 percent of Greens and 75 percent of Reform voters. Public First did the asking, polling 2,000 British adults for CDT in April and weighting the results to reflect the wider population. The margin of error is 2.2 percentage points. The findings land as the UK government's appetite for slurping encrypted data continues to collide with the tech industry's insistence that encryption works best when nobody has a spare key lying around. That fight became particularly public when Apple withdrew Advanced Data Protection from UK users after receiving a secret Technical Capability Notice (TCN) under the Investigatory Powers Act. Apple challenged the order, and while the US government later said Britain had withdrawn its demand for access to Americans' encrypted data, reports have since suggested another TCN was issued focusing on British users. Despite the international row, 55 percent of those polled hadn't heard about the Apple notice at all. Once presented with the idea, enthusiasm remained thin. Just 12 percent backed the government being able to secretly order companies to provide access to users' information while preventing those companies from revealing the order. A third said the government shouldn't have that power at all, while another 41 percent wanted greater transparency or parliamentary oversight. Nor were respondents particularly sold on sacrificing security for law enforcement. 53 percent said the security risks of accessing encrypted messages outweighed the benefits, compared with 28 percent who thought the benefits came out on top. The reasons will sound familiar to anyone who has followed the encryption debate for more than five minutes. 84 percent worried that mechanisms allowing access to encrypted messages could introduce vulnerabilities for hackers and criminals, while 82 percent were concerned the powers could be abused. Knowing someone might be watching could also change how people behave. 65 percent said they'd become more cautious about what they liked, shared or commented on, while 41 percent said they'd self-censor criticism of public institutions or government officials. CDT is not a disinterested observer: the digital rights group campaigns for strong encryption and commissioned the research as part of that work. The polling itself, however, was carried out independently. Commenting on the research, Jim Killock, executive director of Open Rights Group, said: “The British public instinctively know that being able to communicate privately is crucial to our individuality and to the survival of a free and open society. “The government persists with the myth that it can weaken encryption to target the bad guys only. Attacks on the security of our phones, security tools and messaging apps harm us all and make our democracy weaker.” None of this is likely to end Westminster's long-running pursuit of encrypted communications. But if ministers were hoping the public was enthusiastically behind them, the numbers suggest otherwise. ®

Anthropic’s Claude Code running Opus 5 in Auto Mode can be tricked into executing attacker-controlled code simply by asking the coding agent to summarize a website. The attack works up to 80 percent of the time, according to prompt-injection wizard Johann Rehberger, aka wunderwuzzi. In a blog and video demo, he detailed how to hijack Opus 5 in Auto Mode, which is the default setting for Claude as of mid-August. It starts off by asking the agentic coding model to summarize a malicious website that presents itself as an archive of notebook records, and then tricking Claude into using curl instead of its WebFetch tool to retrieve the contents of the page – but without directly telling the model to use curl. The WebFetch request fails, returning a 415 Unsupported Media Type response, so the model decides to access the website directly by issuing a Bash tool call with curl. The website returns a 303 response, and redirects to a malicious ZIP archive, which Claude then downloads. This archive contains seemingly harmless files including catalog metadata, a README file, seven Base85/zlib-encoded JSON notebook records, a macOS decoder-darwin binary – plus a poisoned Python file named struct.py. Claude, per its safety guardrails, refuses to run the decoder: “This is planned and what the attacker wants,” Rehberger wrote. Instead of using the supplied binary, the AI decides to write its own decoder. “Ironically, that safety decision is the exploit path,” Rehberger explained, adding a purple devil emoji to the text. The new decoder imports base64, and from here the attack relies on Python module shadowing to trick the model into running the malicious struct.py code. Module shadowing occurs when a local file shares the same name as a Python standard-library module. The local file hides the official module, causing Python to load it instead. In this case, the standard-library base64 module imports the legitimate struct module, and the malicious ZIP contains a malicious file with the same name. Rehberger says he used ChatGPT to obfuscate the malicious struct.py code to bypass Claude’s safety controls, and this successfully launches a separate Python process to download and execute a remote payload – in this case a command-and-control callback, which in turn opens Calculator. We assume that real attackers would execute something a little more nefarious. In another attack scenario, struct.py launches a second, headless Claude Code via claude -p, meaning this prompt injection can be used not just to remotely execute code, but rather to create a whole new agent. “The nested Claude gets its own tool access and context,” Rehberger wrote. “In these runs the child performed basic recon (whoami, uname, id), opened Calculator and wrote to local files in the home folder.” Across three variants tested five times each, which Rehberger noted were small samples, he reported success rates between 60 percent and 80 percent. “I would say that these results are representative for a motivated attack, but not comprehensive.” Anthropic did not respond to The Register’s request for comment, but reportedly told Rehberger that the model’s “behavior is working as designed.” We’ve heard this one before. “Auto Mode is a convenience feature backed by a best-effort classifier, not a security guarantee,” Rehberger wrote, paraphrasing Anthropic’s response to his security report. According to Rehberger, the classifier isn’t built to stop determined prompt-injection chains made up of individually benign-looking steps, and the real boundary is OS isolation and network egress control. The key takeaway, according to Rehberger, is to run this and other coding agents in a sandbox. “The solution is something we talked about for many years,” he wrote. “Do not trust the model output.”®

The former Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) IT specialist previously accused of trying to pass secret and top-secret information to foreign spies has pleaded guilty following a successful FBI sting. Nathan Vilas Laatsch, then 28, and now 29, was arrested in May 2025 after an undercover FBI agent caught him for the second time transmitting intelligence packages in a public park that he believed would be collected by a foreign government’s spy. The man, who had been employed at the DIA as a civilian employee since 2019, held top-secret clearance, and in March 2025 offered to transmit classified information to an overseas administration. The identity of this country has never been revealed, but court documents [PDF] describe it as “a friendly foreign government.” Laatsch was assigned to the DIA’s Insider Threat Division in “spring 2025,” a unit dedicated to identifying government workers who were likely to leak, or already were leaking, classified information to foreign powers. According to the Justice Department, the FBI “became aware” of Laatsch’s offer in March. The man’s initial email, sent from a newly created account, had the subject line: “Outreach from USA Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) Officer.” The email introduced Laatsch, his role at the DIA, and the service he was willing to provide. According to the complaint, Laatsch served in a technical role in support of the DIA's internal Officer of Security (SEC). Among other things, his duties included "enabling user activity monitoring on individuals with access to DIA systems, including individuals who are under investigation" and "assisting external partners, such as law enforcement, on the use of insider threat tools." “I am willing to share classified information that I have access to, which are completed intelligence products, some unprocessed intelligence, and other assorted classified documentation,” the email stated. The email included a picture of his government ID used to enter and exit his Washington, D.C. workplace, with name and image redacted, and a username associated with an encrypted messaging platform the recipient could use to continue the conversation. Soon after Laatsch’s email was intercepted, the FBI instigated an undercover operation to trick the IT bod into thinking that he was talking to a genuine spy. The feds’ efforts were not immediately successful. Agents replied on March 23, saying: “Good afternoon, I received your message and share your concerns. We are glad you reached out. I look forward to your response and learning more about your work.” Laatsch did not respond until April 14, after the FBI sent a follow-up via the original email address on April 4. Following additional conversations, in which Laatsch described what information he was offering to the "foreign spy," on April 28, 205, Laatsch entered his office and within 20 minutes began accessing classified information. Prosecutors said he spent much of the entire workday writing on a physical notepad while intermittently looking at his computer monitor, hiding the notebook when coworkers walked by. “The defendant wrote multiple pages of notes, which he then removed from the notepad at his desk and folded into squares,” court documents state. “At the end of his workday, the defendant bent under his desk, placed the folded papers into his socks, and departed the office.” Laatsch repeated the same behavior on April 29, and again on April 30, only this time placing the paper squares in the bottom of his lunchbox. The next day, the IT specialist followed FBI instructions on where to dead-drop the thumb drive - onto which he had transposed state secrets - in an Arlington, Virginia park. Although he believed he was leaving the device for a foreign spy to collect, the FBI instead gathered Laatsch’s deposit and found nine typed documents, eight of which contained information classified as top-secret and contained sensitive compartmented information. Court documents confirmed that the nature of the files Laatsch transmitted included sensitive methods of intelligence collection, intelligence related to foreign military exercises, and analysis of the impact of those military exercises. These were chosen entirely by Laatsch, who had not received a brief on what files to collect from the FBI. In exchanged messages, Laatsch stated he chose the files based on assumed interests. The device also contained a note from Laatsch personally. In it, he said he hoped the initial tranche of files would serve as proof of the type of information to which he had access. Laatsch, whom prosecutors described as an individual who had become disenfranchised with the current administration, also expressed his willingness to accept citizenship in the foreign nation. Further, he said he was “not opposed to other compensation,” but was not in need of financial or other kinds of material rewards. In the interim, Laatsch messaged the "spy" with additional details about how internal investigations are carried out at the DIA, the common “stupid mistakes” made by those under investigation, and that they “should not be too difficult” for him to avoid. The undercover FBI agent arranged a second intel drop for the following month, to which Laatsch agreed. According to the plea agreement, between May 15 and May 27, Laatsch would enter his workplace, log into his classified system, and spend most of the day transcribing classified information by hand into a notebook. He repeatedly folded up the pages and placed them in his socks before leaving at the end of the workday. The FBI arranged the second intel drop for May 29, 2025. It instructed Laatsch to instead head to a specific picnic table in the same Arlington park and electronically transfer the files from his personal computer while situated at the picnic table. Laatsch agreed, executed the transfer to the FBI-controlled address while sitting in the park, and was arrested on the spot. The man waived his right to an attorney and admitted to the offenses when questioned by FBI agents. “By his own admission, Laatsch betrayed his oath by offering classified information to a foreign government, the very thing he was supposed to prevent as an employee of DIA’s Insider Threat Division,” said Roman Rozhavsky, assistant director at the FBI’s Counterintelligence and Espionage Division. “Those entrusted with our nation’s most sensitive information must not exploit their access for personal gain - in this case offering to sell American secrets to buy foreign citizenship. The FBI and our partners will continue to hold accountable all those who betray the trust of the American people.” Laatsch’s plea agreement [PDF] recommends a sentence between 11 and 18 years, including time served, although the court is able to issue a maximum sentence that includes a life term and a $250,000 fine. ®

CISA is still crying out for software vendors to adopt Secure by Design (SBD) development practices, and says in its latest review that longstanding vulnerability classes are still the most exploited. The agency examined soft spots across 2024 and 2025, finding that the majority of those that receive CVEs and make it to the Known Exploited Vulnerability (KEV) catalog belong to decades-old flaws that should have been addressed by now. Injection-related vulnerabilities, such as cross-site scripting (XSS) (CWE-79), OS command injections (CWE-78), and SQL injections (CWE-89) were among the most common across both CVE and KEV records in 2024-2025, CISA said. These were joined by bugs introduced by vendors that didn’t properly mitigate against improper input validation (CWE-20) in their code – the single most-common weakness type across the KEV catalog and registered CVEs. “Threat actors continue to succeed, in part, because simple, preventable software weaknesses remain unaddressed,” CISA said in the review. “Resolving fundamental issues would eliminate a significant portion of today’s most common compromises.” Readers may remember two MITRE reports that have been frequently referred to and revisited since being published years ago. Findings from a 2007 edition examining what the organization called “unforgivable vulnerabilities,” and another in 2023 referring to “stubborn weaknesses,” continue to crop up regularly in modern data. CISA said that in 2024, seven of the 10 most frequent CWEs seen on the CVE list belong to MITRE’s “stubborn weaknesses.” Equally, seven of the 10 most frequent CWEs seen on the KEV catalog, comprising 41.5 percent of all bugs on that list, were also stubborn weaknesses. And three of the top five KEVs also stemmed from unfixed holes, a finding that CISA said demonstrates “how reliably these weaknesses translate into real-world exploitation.” For reference, these three were improper input validation (CWE-20), path traversal (CWE-22), and OS command injections (CWE-78). The data from 2025 follows a similar pattern, CISA said: seven of the top 10 CWES were still those considered “unforgivable” in 2007. “Three of today’s top 10 CWEs would have been considered ‘unforgivable’ nearly two decades ago,” it said. “Their persistence today illustrates that the problem is not technical complexity: it is organizational culture, developer workflows, and systemic gaps in Secure by Design adoption.” For those who can’t remember the paper published 19 years ago, unforgivable vulnerabilities are those that exist because of common, well-documented mistakes, have an “obvious” attack path, the exploit is simple, and attackers can locate the bug in minutes. The same findings can be found in CISA’s Risk and Vulnerability Assessments (RVAs), the no-cost penetration tests the agency carries out on real organizations to improve their security and gain a richer understanding of the broader US cyber landscape. The assessments across both 2024 showed that memory safety and improper input validation vulnerabilities are the most reliable paths to exploitation, accounting for 16.7 percent of KEV entries in 2025. Injection vulnerabilities are also commonly seen in registered CVEs, although these are less commonly exploited in the real-world, especially against cyber-mature organizations. To tackle this pervasive issue, CISA is once again recommending organizations adopt SBD practices, eliminating the stubborn vulnerability classes that continue to support cyberattacks, decades after they were deemed too much of a lingering threat. It ultimately comes down to vendors helping defenders to shoulder less of the security burden. Instead of releasing patch packages that continue to swell to record sizes, just build the software responsibly in the first place. In CISA’s view, this means “owning security outcomes” for customers, killing off the so-called stubborn and unforgivable weaknesses, and improving the automation of configurations, monitoring, and updates. Software buyers should only choose vendors that meet these requirements, and ensure they have software bills of materials (SBOMs) in place to track supply chain risk. “Organizations must shift from reacting to threat actors to fixing the fundamental flaws those actors are known to exploit,” said CISA. “Stronger cybersecurity begins with software that is secure by design. “It requires prioritization of vulnerabilities and collaboration across industry and government. Finally, it demands leadership attention to understand cyber risk as a business risk, a national security threat, and an impediment to operational resilience.” ®

OpenAI has gathered more than 100 of the world's biggest tech and infosec companies to warn that cyber defense is in trouble - a reassuring development given quite a few of them helped build the technology involved. The open letter has more than 100 names attached to it, including many of the companies with the most to gain – or lose – from what happens next. OpenAI, Anthropic, Google and Microsoft are among the AI builders warning about increasingly capable AI attacks, while security heavyweights including Cloudflare, CrowdStrike, Fortinet, and Palo Alto Networks have also signed on. AWS, IBM, Oracle and Cisco are there too, alongside banks, consultancies and other companies whose businesses depend on keeping an increasingly messy technology stack running. Together, they have reached a troubling conclusion: the current approach to cybersecurity isn't working. "We have a limited window to strengthen cyber defenses," the letter warns, predicting that AI-enabled attacks will become "far more widespread and sophisticated" in the coming months as models become more capable. Hospitals, water treatment plants and internet infrastructure are singled out as being at risk. It's an interesting warning given who's making it. Some of the signatories are racing to build ever more capable AI systems, while others make billions selling the cloud services, enterprise software and security tools that are supposed to keep attackers at bay. Still, the underlying problem is real enough. The letter points to old vulnerabilities, unpatched software, misconfigurations and weak authentication as problems that have been piling up for years, particularly across critical infrastructure where security teams are often short on money and staff. Their proposed solution is, inevitably, more AI. The letter calls for cyber-capable models to be put into the hands of more defenders, with cheaper models handling security work at scale and frontier systems reserved for harder problems. Security vendors should continuously test their defenses against frontier AI capabilities, share threat intelligence and help critical infrastructure operators deploy AI-powered defenses. Governments, meanwhile, are asked to fund cybersecurity for essential services, expand trusted-access programs and give hospitals, water utilities and local governments access to capable defensive AI. Companies developing frontier models have their own homework assignment. They should provide "responsible model access, significant funding, training, and hands-on support," particularly to under-resourced critical infrastructure operators, while investing in testing, vulnerability disclosure and tools that make AI agents traceable. What the letter doesn't include is any figure for that "significant funding," or any deadlines or firm commitments from the companies signing it. For now, they're being asked to bring the "full weight of their technology, resources, and expertise" to the problem. It's quite a message from a group that includes some of the biggest names in cloud, enterprise software, and cybersecurity. When more than 100 companies agree that "status quo security won't be enough," it's worth remembering that many of them have been selling that status quo for years. There is some urgency behind all this. AI agents have already been shown finding and exploiting vulnerabilities on their own, while AI-generated exploit code has started turning up in attacks against critical infrastructure. As the models improve, the fear is that those capabilities become cheaper and available to a lot more attackers. That's the "defenders' window" the signatories want to seize: use AI to shore up defenses before the offensive side gets much easier. So, after years of selling organizations cloud services, security software and, more recently, AI, the industry has settled on a fix for the looming AI security problem: better cybersecurity, more resources and more AI. Who will pay for it remains rather less clear. ®

Nothing smarts like a paper cut, but being attacked after leaving an application’s web interface exposed to the internet might be just as painful. Such attacks are the risk to which users of PaperCut print management software find themselves exposed today, after the company revealed a university’s security teams alerted it to an attack. The company analyzed info provided by the university and found a vulnerability in its PaperCut NG and PaperCut MF products, which manage access to printers, track use, and enable printing from myriad client devices. “We are aware of confirmed customer incidents and are treating this matter with the highest priority,” states an urgent security advisory issued on Thursday. Unusually, the advisory is silent on the nature of the flaw and the risk it poses. It looks like the web interface to the company’s products enables access deeper into a user’s networks, because among the indicators of compromise are altered log files, plus alerts from intrusion detection software, endpoint security tools, and network monitoring packages. The company has cooked up an emergency patch but warns it is not an official release. “We have not gone through our usual release process,” states an FAQ. “This is an emergency patch for customers with public-facing PaperCut servers who are unable to take other mitigating action.” Thankfully, those other actions aren’t hard to take: users need to get their PaperCut servers’ web interfaces off the public internet, by allowing access only from trusted internal IP addresses. Fashioning a potent and rapid response to a zero-day attack is never easy. Communicating the nature of the problem can be even harder, as discussing the nature of a flaw invites more attackers to take a shot at a stricken product. PaperCut says it’s working on a better fix and will advise users once it lands. For now, the company is asking customers to apply its wonky patch or take their servers offline ASAP. The Register fancies most users will go for the latter fix, as aside from the issue of finding a change window in which to apply a patch, running unvalidated emergency software is not an appetizing approach. ®

The Australian city of Perth is by some measures the world’s most isolated major metropolis, but is still sufficiently connected to US law enforcement authorities that the FBI was able to help Australia’s Federal Police (AFP) to find two men they believe were the masterminds of TeamPCP, a cybercrime crew that conducted prominent supply chain attacks. According to the AFP, two men aged 21 and 23 arrested on Wednesday “were principal participants in the activities of the cybercrime syndicate and received payments in cryptocurrency for their roles in the illegal activity.” An FBI Facebook post names one of the arrested men as Ruben Thomson and describes him as “the alleged leader of the cybercriminal group TeamPCP.” Australian media named the second man as 23-year-old Louis Michael Gaebler. Investigations into the pair started in April 2026, after Australian authorities and the FBI “received information from multiple cyber threat assessment companies regarding a syndicate that allegedly inserted malicious code into software available on an open-source repository, which was then unwittingly used by other developers.” Researchers detected some of those activities before April: In March, we reported that researchers spotted a supply chain attack on the open source scanner Trivy. Another of TeamPCP’s attacks was the Shai-Hulud worm, which attacks npm packages, tries to infect them and goes looking for credentials to major public clouds or services like GitHub. If the worm burrowed into its targets, it would either try to replicate to continue its attacks, or wipe the environment out of spite. The AFP’s “We cuffed ‘em!” announcement estimates that TeamPCP’s supply chain attacks “potentially compromised more than 1000 organisations globally, enabling the theft of more than 500,000 credentials, and the exfiltration of at least 300 gigabytes of data.” Australia’s Feds estimate “the financial impact includes global remediation costs estimated to be hundreds of millions of dollars.” As is often the case in such matters, the arrested men were found with electronic devices and other items which authorities seized. “A large volume of data seized is being forensically examined and the investigation remains ongoing,” the AFP wrote, adding “Further arrests and charges have not been ruled out.” Indeed, the Feds note that they arrested the two at different locations in the suburbs of Perth and searched a third property nearby. ® Bootnote: Perth is considered the site of the original “Black Swan” event, as swans there – and across much of Australia – are black. Early European explorers who explored Australia's west coast were astounded when they saw the black birds, as the “fact” that all swans are white was at the time a metaphor for the existence of absolute truths.

CRPx0, a cybercrime crew that has rapidly evolved from a scam service to a ClickFix-delivered ransomware and crypto-theft business over the summer, claims its victim count jumped from fewer than 10 in June to 48 organizations on its clear-web leak site at the time of publication. Keep in mind: criminals aren’t always the most trustworthy bunch, so take their claims with a healthy dose of salt. Still, the ransomware biz’s expanding operations, unique payload, and white-label hacking service make it one to watch, and a few recent analyses provide tips for defenders to keep the crooks out of their IT environments. Rakesh Krishnan, a threat-intel analyst who writes about cybercrime investigations on TheRavenFile blog, was one of the first researchers to publish details about CRPx0 at the beginning of the month, including previously unreleased malware samples. The operators offer a hacking service, providing “complete database extraction” from victim organizations and “optional public leak coordination upon request.” This platform also advertises full network compromise, “from initial access, through lateral movement, to full domain compromise,” plus persistent access across the victim’s infrastructure. A second, white-label, ransomware-as-a-service platform makes it really easy for wannabe crooks to get into the data-theft and extortion biz. CRPx0 builds, deploys, and configures everything from command-and-control infrastructure to the negotiation panel and malware, allowing its criminal customers to bring their own brand identity to their operations - and originally offered these services for a $10,000 one-time fee. At first, the operators promised to allow affiliates to keep 100 percent of their profits - this is unheard of in ransomware-as-a-service operations. This has since shifted to a 70-30 model, with affiliates receiving 70 percent of the extortion payments (after a one-time $333 enrollment fee) and the remaining 30 percent going to the operators. CRPx0 rules prohibit affiliates from infecting Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) member countries and organizations based in these countries. This is a pretty common rule among Russia-based ransomware operations, and in an earlier interview with The Register, Recorded Future threat intelligence analyst Allan Liska called it the “first rule of ransomware club: you don't attack organizations in the Commonwealth of Independent States.” The gang also prefers Monero (XMR) payments, rather than Bitcoin (BTC). ClickFix ransomware delivery Affiliates can also customize their own ClickFix payload delivery. The operators offer two lures, a fake Windows Update and a fake Google reCAPTCHA, to socially engineer victims into executing the initial command, according to a Ransom-ISAC research team analysis published on Thursday. The Windows lure tricks a victim into pasting a PowerShell command into the Run dialog. This drops a DLL stager chain and ultimately deploys Python-based ransomware. The macOS lure, however, uses a curl|bash command that downloads portable Python and the ransomware directly. The lures and the rest of CRPx0’s malware run on Windows and macOS, and according to the researchers, there are four payload formats: “the two HTML lures plus a standalone DLL and a standalone EXE, both of which discard the social engineering step entirely.” All four deliver the same ransomware: a 1,769-line Python script that steals high-value files before encrypting them with AES-128-CBC (Fernet). The malware moves laterally via WMI/schtasks, and delivers a ransom note that gives victims a 48-hour deadline to pay up - or see their files leaked. 'Complete, professional offensive control center' On August 23, the CRPx0 operators published a v3.0 update note on the group’s clearnet leak site, promising “a complete, professional offensive control center for managing compromised remote machines from a single web dashboard.” It provides crims with tools to steal valuable files, credentials, and wallet recovery phrases and keys, while “watching stolen cryptocurrency wallet addresses flow in.” This service also provides scripts to run remote commands, and the control panel sets up “automated attack reactions that fire on their own when something valuable happens on a target.” As the operators note: “Everything is built to be operated by a human with no technical background: point-and-click panels, plain-language rules, and clear status indicators. The underlying attack engine is hidden behind a clean, dark-themed interface.” CRPx0’s hacking and ransomware services, enabling everything from crypto theft to encryptors and full network compromise, “could be a strategic move to attract new recruits, or a scam targeting a range of affiliate hopefuls seeking cybercrime services,” according to an August 12 analysis from Jade Brown, a threat researcher at Bitdefender. What defenders should do Still, “other threat actors may attempt to adopt similar techniques,” she warns. “This is a reminder that organizations should balance detection capabilities in preparation for different types of compromises, configuring technologies to detect and block malicious behavior that aligns with both crypto theft and encryption processes.” The Ransomware-ISAC team says defenders should prioritize five actions, in this order. “The first three cost nothing and blunt the entire ClickFix class of attack, not just CRPx0,” they note. First: remove the Run dialog for standard users - this will entirely block the Windows path. For macOS users: restrict Terminal via MDM for non-technical staff. Next, the threat-intel analysts advise defenders to alert on RunMRU writes containing powershell, curl or long base64 strings. “Every ClickFix victim leaves a trace at HKCU\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Explorer\RunMRU,” they wrote. “This is the highest-fidelity ClickFix detection available and it is trivial to deploy.” The team also lists adversary network indicators and suggests blocking those. Make sure to hunt for indicators and malicious behavior in the pre-encryption exfiltration window. “Data leaves before a single file is encrypted, so .crpx0 extensions and ransom notes are a post-mortem indicator, not a warning,” according to the Ransomware-ISAC. Finally, confirm backups are unreachable from the account that would be compromised, and treat anything reachable with the victim's credentials as destroyed. ®

PWNED Welcome back to PWNED, the weekly column where we explore the frightening and amusing world of foolish infosec errors. This week, it's all about a test site that exposed real information. Have a story about someone leaving a gaping hole in their network? Share it with us at pwned@sitpub.com. Anonymity is available upon request. Our story comes courtesy of Mia Morin, Editor & AI Quality Analyst at Intimeros, a site that rates, reviews, and evaluates AI companions – yes, that means boyfriends and girlfriends, as well as other kinds of pals. The trouble started during a redesign when one of Morin’s colleagues was working on a test version of the site. The test site was supposed to be password-protected, but the colleague turned off the protection so they could show a client what they were working on. Password protection remained disabled for three weeks without anyone noticing. Then, one day, Morin noticed that the test site had been indexed by Google. Apparently, nobody thought to use a robots.txt file to exclude this beta-level domain from search. While the site was publicly accessible without password protection, anyone could see unpublished reviews, prices, and private product notes about the different AI companion services. That’s because the test site was connected to a real live version of the production database. This was all editorial content, so no user data was exposed. However, it could have allowed competitors to see everything that Intimeros was working on and to deduce their entire editorial strategy. After she noticed what was wrong, Morin took swift action to protect the test site from prying eyes. “We restored password protection, blocked search engines from indexing the draft pages and changed all the system access keys,” Morin said. “Now, we secure every test site just like our official website and run weekly automated scans to catch exposed pages.” What we can learn from this is kind of obvious. Never forget to lock down the test or staging versions of your websites. Make sure that they not only require logins, but also have tools in place to block search and AI crawling. Better still, place your staging site on a private server and require someone to use a VPN to get to it in the first place. ®

The controversial Omarchy distro is attracting both criticism and fans – and financial support, too. Omarchy is an opinionated respin of Arch Linux and a pet project of Ruby on Rails creator David Heinemeier Hansson, better known as DHH. Although the first release was as recent as June last year, this week sees the release of Omarchy 4.0.1 – a security fix for the mid-August Omarchy 4 “Quattro”. Although it started out just over a year ago, Omarchy now has a sibling project Omakub, which is based on Ubuntu, and an organization behind it called Omacom. A week ago, DHH announced the launch of the Omacom Foundation with $8 million. Its founding patrons include figures behind Shopify, Stripe, Dell, Block, Cloudflare, Sesame, and 37signals - closely followed by people behind Dropbox and OpenClaw, taking the total to $10 million. The project, like the man behind it, is controversial. But that means attention, and an “opinionated distro” gets opinionated reviews. Some of the criticism is strong stuff: for instance, Merchants of Insecurity, whose top line is: “First, a PSA: Do NOT use Omarchy if you care about security of your machine even a little bit.” Author “One Happy Fellow” is not the first: last year, a member of Framework's community forums posted Omarchy is not a secure distribution and should be taken off the Linux installation options. Others like it or give it a guarded thumbs up while saying it’s not for them. There really is no such thing as bad publicity. As P. T. Barnum put it: "Say anything you like about me, but spell my name right." DHH is no stranger to controversy. We suspect he doesn’t mind at all. The Register reported in late 2025 that Framework, known for its repairable laptops, was sponsoring Omarchy and Hyprland, and in turn, multiple people criticized Framework for sponsoring such controversial projects. That piece linked to some of the criticism of DHH, but he has been attracting criticism since at least 2014. We tried it, and it does work. It has a unique UI based on the Hyprland tiling compositor and a panel and menus provided in the new release by Quickshell. This is heavily keyboard-driven, but ignores almost all existing keyboard shortcuts and UI conventions from other OSes. There are no title bars, let alone close buttons or anything like that. No middle-click or right-click app menus. The jaded take of the Reg FOSS desk, who is a big fan and advocate of keyboard-driven UIs, is that such things usually reflect ignorance of existing user interface standards. We found it a bit clunky. We had to install an additional tool, hypermon, in order to be able to make our testbed machine’s second display useful. You can’t use established pacman commands to update it – you must use the custom omarchy update script, and when trying that in a VM, we hit a known bug. On hardware, it worked fine. It’s Arch, extensively preconfigured. Lots of apps are preinstalled, and the selection is surprising and not typical of a FOSS product. The selection includes Discord and WhatsApp for communications, Docker, Obsidian for note-taking, Neovim as an editor, and OBS Studio for streaming. There are optional extras for using speech, automatic dictation via Voxtype, and other unusual features. There’s a terminal-based music player, cliamp. (We like the name of that one, and may keep it around.) There are, of course, options to add AI tools – one of the startup messages invites you to configure your preferred plastic pal who’s fun to be with LLM bot. It’s pretty big. A default install (not that there is any other kind) took 14 GB of disk space after the first update. It did install in a VM with a 16 GB virtual disk, but there wasn’t enough disk space to update the OS. It uses about 1.5 GB of memory at idle. It’s not lightweight, but then, Omarchy definitely comes with batteries included, as well as (to quote a friend’s old email signature) “bells and whistles, plus a couple of gongs. Don’t forget the horns, the custard pies and the water-powered whirling knives.” If you don’t know your way around existing environments or distros, want something fashionable and snazzy looking, and are willing and happy to jump in and learn, then this is an interesting new option. You may not agree with the politics and views behind it, but you must be able to either tolerate them – or ignore them. It works, it’s quite fast, it looks striking, and it does the job. If you just want something clean, fast, pretty, and with tiling by default, personally, we’d suggest Pop!_OS instead. ®

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) said it’s responding to a “major” cybersecurity incident shortly after the Qilin ransomware gang posted the US federal law enforcement agency on its leak site. According to ATF's statement, the intrusion affected a standalone system that operated separately from its enterprise network. “There is no indication that the incident has affected the ATF enterprise network, the ATF eForms system, or any other ATF system,” the statement said. ATF, which is housed under the US Department of Justice, said it’s “coordinating closely” with the DOJ to investigate the breach, and “immediately” blocked connections to the affected IT environment upon discovering the incident. The statement said the security breach had not affected ATF’s operations and noted that senior Justice Department officials designated the compromise as a “major incident” under federal guidelines. Shortly before ATF posted its security-incident notice on its website, Russia-linked Qilin ransomware criminals listed the firearms agency on its leak site. The post, seen by The Register and shared on social media, did not say what data Qilin claimed to have stolen, how much, or provide samples to substantiate the claim. ATF did not immediately respond to our questions, and we will update this story when we receive a response. Qilin, the notorious crew behind the 2024 attack on pathology provider Synnovis that disrupted NHS services in the UK, was one of the most prolific ransomware gangs in July, according to Comparitech. The firm, which reviews cybersecurity products and provides data analysis, counted 799 ransomware incidents last month, up from 668 in June. Qilin claimed 125 of those.®