If you're responsible for Linux security, someone just dumped a pile of work onto your desk: 432 Linux kernel CVEs were published across Sunday and Monday this week. Linux watchers at nixCraft pointed out the volume on Monday morning, and it didn’t take long for seasoned sysadmins to start expressing concerns. Jan Schaumann, chief information security architect at Akamai Technologies, took to the OSS-SEC mailing list Tuesday to express concerns over the sheer volume of Linux kernel CVEs published in recent days. Aside from noting that the CVE system isn’t the best way to track security changes, Schaumann also wondered in his post whether there was any good way to deal with so many kernel security issues. “This onslaught really shows it's not feasible to attempt to prioritize individual kernel changes,” Schaumann said. “You might attempt to process this large set of changes by pointing an LLM at the intake and asking it to prioritize them,” he suggested, “but if it spits out a dozen today and another 25 the next, you haven't won much.” Schaumann also suggested waiting to see which ones emerge as serious issues and focusing on those in the weeks to come, or updating one’s entire fleet of Linux machines on a weekly basis. “I sure would like to be able to do [that], but reality keeps getting in my way,” Schaumann said. “I'm not sure what to do here going forward.” In an email to The Register, Schaumann said that individually reviewing vulnerabilities for patching was already difficult enough before things rose to this level, and that automation may be the only option - but it's not a great one. "Automated, regular, and frequent updates that pull in all changes within a given time window of tolerance seem to me the only reasonable approach, but that is very difficult for many large organizations," Schaumann explained. Those orgs often rely on lengthy QA processes, slow and staged development cycles, and may even have contractual requirements for long-term support that make an automated approach an impossible one. The nixCraft team speculated on social media that AI bug reports are a likely reason for all those kernel CVEs, which wouldn’t be without precedent - Linus Torvalds himself said in May that the Linux kernel security mailing list had become “almost entirely unmanageable” due to AI-assisted bug hunting. Nonetheless, Torvalds has described AI as a useful tool for Linux development while still noting it can be a drag for maintainers, both from a workload standpoint and the fact "it keeps finding embarrassing bugs." On that note, it's worth understanding what a Linux kernel CVE actually means - many of the vulnerabilities included in the Sunday-to-Monday batch are small in scope, but they're vulnerabilities nonetheless. As senior Linux maintainer Greg Kroah-Hartman noted in a February blog post, the Linux kernel CVE team follows the CVE Program's definition of a vulnerability: a weakness in a product that can negatively affect a system's confidentiality, integrity, or availability. “At the level that the Linux kernel runs, almost any type of bug that can affect a running system can be classified as a vulnerability,” Kroah-Hartman noted. The kernel team looks at every bugfix that is added to stable kernel releases, he added, and if it fixes an issue that meets that CVE criteria, a CVE is assigned. AI-assisted bug hunting has increased the volume of reports reaching Linux kernel maintainers. We reached out to the Linux kernel team, but didn’t hear back. Kroah-Hartman did tell The Register earlier this year that AI bug reports had become worthwhile in recent months, and he predicted they're likely to keep adding to his workload. Unfortunately for Linux sysadmins, the position in which they find themselves in this current mess isn’t one that’s readily solved. CVEs might be a messy way to track and prioritize security updates, especially when hundreds of them are published over a short period, but without something better, it falls to IT and security teams to determine which vulnerabilities affect their systems and which kernel updates they need to deploy. Hope you’ve got the coffee machine filled up: The onslaught is unlikely to ease if other recent patch cycles are any indication. ®

EXCLUSIVE A Windows information-stealer targeting more than 300 applications comes equipped with a novel surveillance tool: an AI profiler that ranks infected victims so crooks know who to target first. Varonis Threat Labs spotted the new stealer and remote access trojan (RAT), called Dolphin X, for sale on a cybercrime forum, and shared their research exclusively with The Register. The ad for the malware claims it can target upwards of 300 applications and has the ability to bypass browser passwords and steal enterprise credentials, cryptocurrency wallets, .env files, SSH keys, cloud tokens, and DevOps secrets. Dolphin X also promises users a super-sneaky surveillance feature called the AI Profiler. It scores infected users by app usage, browsing history, and installed software, and sends the cybercriminals a daily summary that ranks victims’ based on the likely payoff from an attack. “There's two things that stand out,” Daniel Kelley, a senior threat researcher with Varonis, told The Register. “The first thing is the AI profiler. That's something I've never seen before. And then it’s also the breadth of applications that it steals - and it’s not even just applications. It’s everything, you name it: it will steal files, or credentials, cryptocurrencies. It’s probably one of the biggest stealers I’ve ever seen, and covers the biggest attack surface.” A malware vendor using the alias “Kontraktnik” posted Dolphin X for sale, promising: “You can use it as a stealer, as an HVNC [Hidden Virtual Network Computing], as a DDoS botnet, as a loader.” The crimeware currently only runs under Windows, but “we are working on Debian,” Kontraktnik claimed, adding that the malware also only supports English and Russian. Kelley suspects the developer is Russian-speaking, and told us that the stealer includes an option not to infect any users in the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) countries, a common choice among Russian-based ransomware and cybercrime gangs. Kelley and his team obtained and analyzed the malware builder, operator panel and its network traffic, but didn't examine a malware sample. Varonis therefore can’t guarantee that all of the developer’s claims are true. However, “when we looked at the builder, it had everything to suggest the features were legitimate,” he said. “We couldn’t test out the malware itself, but I would say it probably lives up to most of its expectations.” Feedback left on the forum where the malware is sold supports that analysis. As of Tuesday, the sales thread has passed 3,000 views, we’re told, with Kontraktnik closing at least two confirmed deals. Both of these included positive feedback from the buyers. Three-tier subscription model Beyond the 300 + apps it targets, Dolphin X's operator panel lists 329 features across 10 categories. Buyers can subscribe to one of three tiers, each unlocking new features, or buy a lifetime subscription. The minimalist suscription costs about $80 per month, which buys rewriting and altering capabilities across Windows Portable Executable (PE) timestamp, Rich headers, and section padding, along with capabilities allowing the malware to exploit the brittle YARA rules to bypass detection and hash-based blocklists. The middle tier advertises shuffling the import table, which would change the binary's import hash between builds. The top level sub (about $230 per month) claims to rewrite the code’s control flow, substitute instructions, and re-encrypt embedded strings with a new random key each time, thus making stable byte sequences harder to identify. Lifetime subscription cost about $1,140 for basic access, $2,280 for mid-tier malware, or $3,420 for perpetual pro-level Pwnage. “It really lowers the barrier to entry,” Kelley said, adding that in the not-so-distant past, cybercriminals needed a certain level of technical expertise to develop and use different types of malware. “Now it's set up in a way where it's almost like SaaS. Anyone can purchase it. Anyone can take it out of the package and use it.” All of this suggests two takeaways for defenders, according to the security sleuths. First, keep long-lived credentials off disk if possible. “Infostealers are designed to grab everything in one pass, so anything stored locally should be treated as potentially exposed,” the report warns. Second: focus threat detection on behavior - not file signatures - because this and other malwares include capabilities to bypass signature-based detection. “For example, explorer.exe running under a non-default desktop is a strong indicator of an HVNC session, regardless of how the malware binary is packed or what hash it uses,” the authors wrote. Varonis’ threat hunters previously uncovered other AI-powered malware, including an all-in-one phishing kit called Bluekit, and an email attack tool called SpamGPT. “It’s a huge trend,” Kelley said. “Cybercriminals are finding a lot of unique ways to integrate AI, and then they're using it to make their lives a lot easier, which is problematic.” ®

Authorities have long warned organizations not to pay ransoms, and fresh figures underline why: handing over the money doesn't mean the crooks leave you alone. Proofpoint survey data suggests that 58 percent of affected UK organizations paid a ransom. Worse, 22 percent of those who pay get extorted again anyway. The UK broadly tracks the global picture: 54 percent of victim organizations paid, though the rate swings sharply by region, from just 19 percent in Japan to 93 percent in the US. Cybersecurity biz Proofpoint, which published the data on Wednesday, attributes the regional variation to "a combination of regulatory environment, recovery capability, insurance incentive structures, and cultural norms around negotiation." "But the core finding holds everywhere: ransomware creates enough pressure that a significant share of organizations in each of the surveyed markets choose to pay." UK organizations that paid fared somewhat better than the 37 percent global average for repeat extortion. Still, the core lesson stands: paying doesn't reverse an attack. You can't trust a criminal's word. It just restarts a negotiation where the attacker holds every card, including the data, decryption keys, and the threat of publishing what they've stolen. Operation Cronos, law enforcement's LockBit takedown, provided hard proof of what had long been suspected: cybercriminals often retain victim data even after being paid. Before Dmitry Khoroshev's cybercrime empire collapsed, this was an assumption, not evidence-based. Cronos didn't just shutter the then-leading ransomware gang; it undermined the entire premise that paying restores the status quo. Proofpoint found that 2 percent of victims who paid a ransom never recovered their files at all. Earlier this year, Nitrogen's ESXi ransomware victims hit a similar wall after a coding error in the decryptor left some unable to fully restore access, and it was far from an isolated case. Attackers don't need to hold up their end of the bargain to keep the payments coming. The better answer is to build cyber-resilience into the organization itself. A word on AI No 2026 security report is complete without AI. In the UK, 65 percent of surveyed security practitioners said AI had sharpened the attacks that precede ransomware and extortion, most notably malicious links, business email compromise, malicious attachments, and credential harvesting. AI is not yet a key tool in ransomware payloads themselves, despite recent reports suggesting this may soon change. However, it is being used for more convincing phishing lures, sharper impersonation attempts, and faster system reconnaissance once attackers are inside a network. "AI hasn't fundamentally changed ransomware, but it has materially improved the attacks that lead to it," said Ryan Kalember, chief strategy officer at Proofpoint. "Today's attackers are using AI to create highly convincing phishing emails and credential theft campaigns that exploit human trust at scale. "Organizations that continue treating ransomware as an endpoint or recovery problem are missing where these attacks most frequently begin: people, identities and trusted communications." ®

A council worker who "abused" his position to unlawfully access "highly sensitive" personal records of family members and other people known to him has received a suspended sentence after admitting to violating the Computer Misuse Act (CMA). Geoffrey Smith, 31, from Ledbury, was a new Herefordshire Council employee working in the Children and Young People directorate. Over a four-day period, he accessed roughly 490 records and downloaded 94 documents relating to family members and "families known to him." This included data on adults and children, the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) said. The data accessed included "highly sensitive material" such as medical records, social worker reports, and child and family assessments, the watchdog said. Smith pleaded guilty to an offence under Section 1 of the CMA 1990 relating to "unlawful accessing of personal data held on computers." He was sentenced at Worcester Magistrates' Court on July 17 to two months' imprisonment, suspended for 12 months. Smith was also ordered to complete 120 hours of unpaid work and pay £2,000 in costs plus a £154 victim surcharge. Andy Curry, ICO head of investigations, said: "Smith abused his position as an employee and used his access to Herefordshire Council's systems to view the personal information of people known to him, without any legitimate reason to do so. "The sensitive nature of the records held within a Children and Young People directorate, and Smith's systematic misuse of that information, makes this particularly serious. People have a right to expect that their personal information is kept safe, and that those with access to it will only use it for the purposes for which it was intended." Tough words from the ICO, whose former information commissioner resigned after admitting that his conduct had fallen below the standards expected of public officials. ®

Who needs expensive frontier models to find software vulns? Cisco has just released two open-weight models that specialize in finding known bugs in existing codebases. The models, Antares-350M and Antares-1B, are part of Cisco’s new Antares family of security small language models (SLMs), and are now available on Hugging Face - but only to vetted users. “We’re making sure we’re gating that and appropriately granting access,” DJ Sampath, Cisco's senior vice president and general manager of AI software and platform, told The Register. The company is working with academic and nonprofit organizations, as well as smaller and public organizations’ security teams, to ensure they have access to the vulnerability-hunting models. Plus, because both are small models designed to run locally, “you also need the keys to the source code” to scan for and find vulnerabilities, Sampath said. “This means an attacker is going to be able to exploit an endpoint or a service that you have.” It also means that proprietary code never leaves the organization’s machines, compared to cloud-based LLMs that send code to the AI providers’ external servers for processing and analysis. This enables security analysis in environments with strict privacy or compliance requirements, according to the networking and security giant. And yes, it's named after the massive red super-giant star. “It's almost 1,000 times bigger than the sun, even though the sun dominates the sky, and that is the analogy that we're using here for vulnerability detection and localization,” Cisco VP and chief AI scientist Amin Karbasi told The Register. “The impact of vulnerabilities in your codebase is huge, but it might be only a single file or a few lines of code in a million lines of code.” A future, 3-billion-parameter model in the Antares family won’t be released to the public, Karbasi added. “We are completely gating the 3B model to make sure that we responsibly release it to communities that need it,” he said. Small yet mighty Cisco claims that its models perform as well as or better than dozens of larger models in its new benchmark test that measures how efficiently AI models identify security flaws in codebases. Antares-1B outperforms Google’s Gemini 3 Pro and is comparable to Z.ai's GLM-5.2, we’re told, while the yet-to-be-released Antares-3B does a better job at finding vulnerabilities than GLM-5.2 and OpenAI’s GPT-5.5. Plus, we’re told that the small models scan code much faster and at a fraction of the cost of larger, token-gobbling AI systems. “If you look at the performance, in terms of the time it takes to finish 500 repositories, Antares finishes the entire cohort of repositories in 15 minutes, whereas frontier models take five hours,” Karbasi said, adding that this translates to significantly less cost. “It takes like less than $1 whereas frontier models are above $100 into $150 of cost,” he added. The difference, Karbasi explained, is that Cisco took a “fundamentally different approach” to building Antares. “These models have been trained in a very different way,” he said. “Antares is inherently not a chatbot. It is an investigator. It is a search engine. It has to find a very specific thing that might be a needle in a haystack, and it goes and finds that.” This required training the model on several different ways to search for vulnerabilities “because one way of search may not actually be fruitful, then it has to change its strategy, do it another way, and then do it another way,” Karbasi said. “Because it is very nimble and it’s very small, it can actually do a lot of search at the same time, which is very different from bigger models.” Karbasi likened it to a bicycle on a busy London street: “You can go much faster than the biggest truck.” Or, to use Sampath’s favorite analogy for the benefits of using a small, security-focused model to find bugs in code: “Sometimes you don't need a private jet to go to a corner store, right?”®

German authorities say they have neutralized the main infrastructure supporting the Kratos phishing-as-a-service (PhaaS) kit following an operation supported by the US and Indonesia. Officers from Frankfurt am Main's Central Office for Combating Internet Crime (ZIT) and the Federal Criminal Police (BKA) described Kratos as one of the most widespread and dangerous PhaaS kits on the market. In Indonesia, authorities said they arrested the Kratos kit's alleged "developer and technical administrator." The announcement of Kratos's takedown did not mention whether any other individuals are being pursued. According to the ZIT and BKA, Kratos allowed low-skill cybercrims to harvest credentials, including passwords and session cookies, to bypass MFA by providing them with convincing Microsoft-themed phishing pages. Criminals using Kratos phishing pages targeted hundreds of thousands of victims across more than 30 countries, while the operation behind the kit allegedly earned more than €300,000 ($342,000) since 2024. More than 1,800 criminal enterprises are estimated to have used Kratos, which was responsible for around 15,000 phishing campaigns per month. "Each individual campaign had the potential to harm several thousand recipients worldwide," the German authorities said in a statement. The operation neutralized more than 200 servers, according to the ZIT and BKA, although the latter declined to explain how. Methods used in previous takedowns included handing legal warrants to infrastructure providers, such as Kratos's chosen hosting company, and working with ISPs to null-route or sinkhole traffic associated with suspect IP addresses. Dr Benjamin Krause, head of the ZIT at the Frankfurt am Main Public Prosecutor's Office, said, "Our approach of disruptive law enforcement works: In addition to the primary task of identifying and prosecuting the accused, we have once again succeeded in dismantling a criminal online service and thus contributing to greater cybersecurity." Carsten Meywirth, head of the cybercrime department at the BKA, added: "Anyone who steals login credentials online using fake websites shouldn't feel safe. The success against the Kratos phishing kit shows that even highly professional phishing infrastructures can be effectively combated. "This is pioneering work and a clear signal to other cyber actors – phishing will not go unpunished and will be consistently fought by the BKA." Many names, same focus German authorities referred to the PhaaS kit only as Kratos, although open source reporting has tied it to products previously sold under names such as SneakyLog and Sneaky 2FA. Similarly, the ZIT and BKA mentioned only fake Microsoft authentication pages among the templates offered by Kratos. Microsoft, meanwhile, reported earlier this year that SneakyLog had been used to generate phishing campaigns targeting US citizens with fake W-2 tax forms. As recently as July 16, security shops such as Heal Security reported that Kratos offered customers lures themed around various websites, including SharePoint, OneDrive, Microsoft Forms, Canva, Tilda, and more. KnowBe4 added Adobe lures to that list with its own investigation in February, which also raised uncertainty about when the kit first hit the market. Microsoft, which said Kratos was also known as SneakyLog, believes the latter entered the phishing kit market as of early 2025, although KnowBe4 said the first signs of Kratos only emerged in January 2026. Muddying the picture further, KnowBe4 did not mention SneakyLog or Sneaky 2FA as part of Kratos's past. The security shop said instead that it evolved from a previous life as a family of commercial trojans and infostealers. One thing that most open source reports agree on, however, is that the targets of the phishing kit's customers are based primarily in the US and Europe. Microsoft identified manufacturing, retail, and healthcare as the main target industries in the US, while in Europe, industrial organizations, law firms, polytechnic institutions, schools, SMBs, and others have all been attacked, according to ANY.RUN. ®

A data breach at AI music generator platform Suno exposed more than 55 million user accounts, according to Troy Hunt's Have I Been Pwned service, which ingested the files. The dump consisted mostly of email addresses, although phone numbers were also included where users had signed up with them instead, HIBP said. Tens of thousands of Stripe records further revealed data such as names, physical addresses, purchase amounts, as well as partial credit card data, such as card type, expiry date, and the last four digits of the card number. The breakdown from Have I Been Pwned puts a figure on the scale of Suno's data breach for the first time since the news of the slip-up broke last week. The individual who claimed responsibility for breaching Suno also supplied source code apparently dating from 2023 and 2024 that they said showed the company scraping millions of songs and lyrics from services including YouTube Music, Deezer, and Genius to train its AI. Suno has acknowledged training its AI on music available on the open internet, while arguing that doing so constitutes fair use. It did not immediately respond to The Register's request for comment. AI's imposition on the arts has been a persistent topic of ethical and moral debate for years. Major record labels came together to complain about mass data scraping and copyright infringement by AI companies prior to Suno's breach in November 2025. Record labels represented by the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) sued Suno and rival Udio in 2024 for allegedly scraping songs en masse without permission of the copyright holders. Among the plaintiffs in the case were Sony Music Entertainment, UMG Recordings, and Warner Records, which represent artists such as Bruce Springsteen, Beyoncé, Taylor Swift, and Dua Lipa. Warner has since settled its litigation with Suno and begun a commercial partnership with the AI company, while Sony and UMG are continuing their claims in court. ®

If you use WordPress, patch now. Just hours after fixes came out, attackers have begun exploiting two bugs that, when chained together, allow pre-authentication remote code execution (RCE). And security researchers tell us there’s a very good chance the miscreants had an AI assist. “Once the vulnerabilities were publicly disclosed, reproducing them with the help of frontier AI models was only a matter of time and tokens,” Jake Knott, watchTowr principal security researcher, told The Register. “WatchTowr was able to trivially reproduce CVE-2026-63030 within minutes of disclosure, and the second CVE-2026-60137 with some additional effort.” WordPress released patches for both CVEs late Friday, but by Saturday it was game over. “By the early hours of Saturday morning, successful exploitation was already well underway, initially using public exploit code to exfiltrate hashed credentials, with remote code execution following once additional details were made public,” Knott said. “From our vantage point across a global client base, we are seeing widespread impact of this vulnerability across organizations of every size and every vertical.” Here are the details about both security holes, and what went down since WordPress revealed and fixed them on Friday. CVE-2026-60137 is a moderate-severity SQL injection issue, and CVE-2026-63030 is a critical REST API batch-route confusion bug. “A route confusion flaw causes the arrays containing the sub-requests, validation results, and matched handlers to become misaligned,” Hacktron researchers explained. This causes WordPress to become confused about which requests have been properly validated and thus treat all requests as trusted, including those that it should block. Individually, the bugs are difficult to exploit. But when chained together, they can wreak havoc on any organization using a vulnerable WordPress version because they allow unauthenticated RCE. WordPress 6.9 is affected by both vulnerabilities, and version 6.9.5 contains fixes for both, while WordPress 6.8 is only affected by the SQL injection flaw, and version 6.8.6 fixes it. Additionally, WordPress 7.1 Beta 1 is also vulnerable. Version 7.1 Beta 2 fixes both CVEs. Versions of WordPress prior to 6.8 are not affected. John Blackbourn, one of the WordPress core developers, recommended affected users “update your sites immediately.” Because of the flaws’ severity, the WordPress security team “enabled forced updates via the auto-update system for sites running affected versions,” he added. The content management system credited Searchlight Cyber researcher Adam Kues with finding and reporting CVE-2026-63030, and in a subsequent Friday advisory, Kues dubbed the bug wp2shell. “The attack has no preconditions and can be exploited by an anonymous user in a stock install of WordPress with no plugins,” Kues said, adding that his security shop released a free wp2shell checker to determine if your instance is vulnerable. Security firm PatchStack reported exploitation of both CVEs as of Friday night, but didn’t provide details about the attacks. VulnCheck’s research team, which also began researching the patches on Friday, verified more than two dozen unique proof-of-concept exploits targeting WP2Shell as of Sunday. “After public exploit code was released, attackers began spraying the internet indiscriminately, hitting anything reachable and trying to get lucky,” Knott told us. “Our honeypots recorded tens of thousands of exploitation attempts, and more than 100 backdoor accounts created by different threat actors using variations of public tooling.” After creating these backdoor admin accounts, watchTowr observed attackers deploying fake WordPress plugins to achieve RCE, exfiltrate credentials or secrets, or download additional tooling to further compromise the system, he added. “In one case, we watched a threat actor repeatedly attempt to pull down Overlord RAT, a Golang-based remote access trojan.” Any orgs that waited until Monday to patch are likely already compromised, Knott warned. “Defenders need to inspect their WordPress instances for new administrator accounts, malicious plugins, or other suspicious files, regardless of whether they’ve patched,” he said.®

Real FBI agents won't slide into your DMs and offer to help you recover stolen funds. The bureau's Internet Crime Complaint Center (IC3) updated an earlier warning on Monday about scammers impersonating the agency online, saying fraudsters continue to use the scheme "to deceive and revictimize individuals." According to IC3, there are two different schemes being used to target cybercrime victims, both directly and by soliciting them to report incidents. In the first scheme, IC3 said scammers create fraudulent social media profiles and pages impersonating FBI personnel or IC3. They may also infiltrate online groups for fraud victims or contact victims directly while claiming to represent the FBI or the complaint center. In other cases, victims are being contacted by someone claiming to be an FBI agent after realizing they were approached by someone trying to scam them and saying they intended to report the incident to the FBI or file an IC3 complaint. The FBI said the impersonator then directs victims to a fake IC3 update page or continues communicating through messaging apps. In the other instance, scammers are creating AI-generated videos on social media depicting senior FBI officials and directing users to a spoofed IC3 website to report cybercrimes they may have fallen victim to, with the scammers then collecting the information and using it to contact victims for further fraud. AI-generated depictions of public figures are similarly being used to make such scams appear legitimate. “Some individuals received an email or a phone call, while others were approached, or observed an advertisement via social media or forums,” the IC3 said. “Almost all complainants indicated the scammers claimed to have recovered the victim's lost funds or offered to assist in recovering funds.” Regardless of how legitimate social media profiles look, or how realistic those AI-generated videos may be, the IC3 is warning that none of them should be believed for a simple reason: The IC3 doesn’t have a social media presence of any kind, and it doesn’t investigate crimes or offer to recover lost funds through social media. “Any social media profiles or pages claiming to represent IC3 or offering to recover lost money are fraudulent and are actively attempting to steal your personal or financial information,” the IC3 warned. “IC3 will never directly communicate with individuals via phone, email, social media, phone apps, online chat, or public forums.” The IC3 said that any contact made with a cybercrime victim who reports an incident via its actual website will be made by an FBI employee from a local field office or other law enforcement official. Here’s another hot tip: If you fall victim to a cybercrime or online scam, don’t post about it on social media - that’s only going to invite someone with bad intentions to seek you out. ®

Microsoft 365 calendars have become the latest hiding place for espionage malware, with attackers stashing commands and stolen files inside appointments dated 24 years into the future. Researchers at Group-IB say they've uncovered a malware component they call HOLLOWGRAPH that swaps the usual command-and-control server for something rather less conspicuous – a compromised Microsoft 365 calendar. Instead of reaching out to attacker-controlled infrastructure for instructions, the implant rummages through calendar events, picks up encrypted tasking, and drops stolen files into new appointments for its operators to collect later. Every event created by HOLLOWGRAPH is dated May 13, 2050, an otherwise empty corner of the diary where encrypted attachments are less likely to attract attention. HOLLOWGRAPH isn't exploiting Microsoft Graph so much as blending into it, wrapping its command-and-control traffic inside legitimate Graph API requests that look just like any other Microsoft 365 application talking to the cloud. The malware itself is relatively lean. Group-IB says it does little more than fetch instructions from one calendar event, stash stolen files in another, and periodically retrieve fresh Entra ID credentials over a DNS tunneling channel so the Graph-based communications keep working. The security firm linked the malware to the Cavern framework with high confidence after finding matching command formats and other implementation details. It also spotted similarities with the Iranian-linked espionage group Lyceum, although it stopped well short of pinning the operation on that crew, saying the connection was supported with only low confidence. "HOLLOWGRAPH represents an advanced and highly targeted espionage threat," Group-IB wrote. "By abusing trusted Microsoft 365 calendars through the Microsoft Graph API and refreshing its cloud authentication credentials through DNS tunneling, the malware conceals its command-and-control within legitimate Microsoft 365 and network traffic, evading conventional perimeter defenses." The campaign itself appears to be narrowly targeted. Group-IB identified 12 infected systems, only three of which communicated with the compromised mailbox during the period it observed. The compromised mailbox used for command-and-control belonged to an Israeli organization, malware samples were uploaded from Israel, and the researchers said the evidence points to a focused espionage operation rather than a broad smash-and-grab. HOLLOWGRAPH doesn't exploit a flaw in Microsoft 365 or Microsoft Graph. Instead, it takes advantage of services that are already trusted inside most organizations, making the activity far less conspicuous than malware calling home to attacker-controlled infrastructure. ®