IT News

Discord announced it will put all existing and new profiles in teen-appropriate mode by default in early March.

The teen-appropriate profile mode will remain in place until users prove they are adults. To change a profile to “full access” will require verification by Discord’s age inference model—a new system that runs in the background to help determine whether an account belongs to an adult, without always requiring users to verify their age.

Savannah Badalich, Head of Product Policy at Discord, explained the reasoning:

“Rolling out teen-by-default settings globally builds on Discord’s existing safety architecture, giving teens strong protections while allowing verified adults flexibility. We design our products with teen safety principles at the core and will continue working with safety experts, policymakers, and Discord users to support meaningful, long term wellbeing for teens on the platform.”

Platforms have been facing growing regulatory pressure—particularly in the UK, EU, and parts of the US—to introduce stronger age-verification measures. The announcement also comes as concerns about children’s safety on social media continue to surface. In research we published today, parents highlighted issues such as exposure to inappropriate content, unwanted contact, and safeguards that are easy to bypass. Discord was one of the platforms we researched.

The problem in Discord’s case lies in the age-verification methods it’s made available, which require either a facial scan or a government-issued ID. Discord says that video selfies used for facial age estimation never leave a user’s device, but this method is known not to work reliably for everyone.

Identity documents submitted to Discord’s vendor partners are also deleted quickly—often immediately after age confirmation, according to Discord. But, as we all know, computers are very bad at “forgetting” things and criminals are very good at finding things that were supposed to be gone.

Besides all that, the effectiveness of this kind of measure remains an issue. Minors often find ways around systems—using borrowed IDs, VPNs, or false information—so strict verification can create a sense of safety without fully eliminating risk. In some cases, it may even push activity into less regulated or more opaque spaces.

As someone who isn’t an avid Discord user, I can’t help but wonder why keeping my profile teen-appropriate would be a bad thing. Let us know in the comments what your objections to this scenario would be.

I wouldn’t have to provide identification and what I’d “miss” doesn’t sound terrible at all:

• Mature and graphic images would be permanently blocked.
• Age-restricted channels and servers would be inaccessible.
• DMs from unknown users would be rerouted to a separate inbox.
• Friend requests from unknown users would always trigger a warning pop-up.
• No speaking on server stages.

Given the amount of backlash this news received, I’m probably missing something—and I don’t mind being corrected. So let’s hear it.

Note: All comments are moderated. Those including links and inappropriate language will be deleted. The rest must be approved by a moderator.

We don’t just report on threats – we help protect your social media

Cybersecurity risks should never spread beyond a headline. Protect your social media accounts by using Malwarebytes Identity Theft Protection.

When researchers created an account for a child under 13 on Roblox, they expected heavy guardrails. Instead, they found that the platform’s search features still allowed kids to discover communities linked to fraud and other illicit activity.

The discoveries spotlight the question that lawmakers around the world are circling: how do you keep kids safe online?

Australia has already acted, while the UK, France, and Canada are actively debating tighter rules around children’s use of social media. This month US Senator Ted Cruz reintroduced a bill to do it while also chairing a Congressional hearing about online kid safety.

Lawmakers have said these efforts are to keep kids safe online. But as the regulatory tide rises, we wanted to understand what digital safety for children actually looks like in practice.

So, we asked a specialist research team to explore how well a dozen mainstream tech providers are protecting children aged under 13 online.

We found that most services work well when kids use the accounts and settings designed for them. But when children are curious, use the wrong account type, or step outside those boundaries, things can go sideways quickly.

Over several weeks in December, the research team explored how platforms from Discord to YouTube handled children’s online use. They relied on standard user behavior rather than exploits or technical tricks to reflect what a child could realistically encounter.

The researchers focused on how platforms catered to kids through specific account types, how age restrictions were enforced in practice, and whether sensitive content was discoverable through normal browsing or search.

What emerged was a consistent pattern: curious kids who poke around a little, or who end up using the wrong account type, can run into inappropriate content with surprisingly little effort.

A detailed breakdown of the platforms tested, account types used, and where sensitive content was discovered appears in the research scope and methodology section at the end of this article.

When kids’ accounts are opt-in

One thing the team tried was to simply access the generic public version of a site rather than the kid-protected area.

This was a particular problem with YouTube. The company runs a kid-specific service called YouTube Kids, which the researchers said is effectively sanitized of inappropriate content (it sounds like things have changed since 2022).

The issue is that YouTube’s regular public site isn’t sanitized, and even though the company says you must be at least 13 to use the service unless ‘enabled’ by a parent, in reality anyone can access it. From the report:

“Some of the content will require signing in (for age verification) prior the viewing, but the minor can access the streaming service as a ‘Guest’ user without logging in, bypassing any filtering that would otherwise apply to a registered child account.”

That opens up a range of inappropriate material, from “how-to” fraud channels through to scenes of semi-nudity and sexually suggestive material, the researchers said. Horrifically, they even found scenes of human execution on the public site. The researchers concluded:

“The absence of a registration barrier on the public platform renders the ‘YouTube Kids’ protection opt-in rather than mandatory.”

When adult accounts are easy to fake

Another worry is that even when accounts are age-gated, enterprising minors can easily get around them. While most platforms require users to be 13+, a self-declaration is often enough. All that remains is for the child to register an email address with a service that doesn’t require age verification.

This “double blind” vulnerability is a big problem. Kids are good at creating accounts. The tech industry has taught them to be, because they need them for most things they touch online, from streaming to school.

When they do get past the age gates, curious kids can quickly get to inappropriate material. Researchers found unmoderated nudity and explicit material on the social network Discord, along with TikTok content providing credit card fraud and identity theft tutorials. A little searching on the streaming site Twitch surfaced ads for escort services.

This points to a trade-off between privacy and age verification. While stricter age verification could close some of these gaps, it requires collecting more personal data, including IDs or biometric information. That creates privacy risks of its own, especially for children. That’s why most platforms rely on self-declared age, but the research shows how easily that can be bypassed.

When kids’ accounts let toxic content through

Cracks in the moderation foundations allow risky content: Roblox, the website and app where users build their own content, filters chats for child accounts. However, it also features “Communities,” which are groups designed for socializing and discovery.

These groups are easily searchable, and some use names and terminology commonly linked to criminal activities, including fraud and identity theft. One, called “Fullz,” uses a term widely understood to refer to stolen personal information, and “new clothes” is often used to refer to a new batch of stolen payment card data. The visible community may serve as a gateway, while the actual coordination of illicit activity or data trading occurs via “inner chatter” between the community members.

This kind of search wasn’t just an issue for Roblox, warned the team. It found Instagram profiles promoting financial fraud and crypto schemes, even from a restricted teen account.

Some sites passed the team’s tests admirably, though. The researchers simulated underage users who’d bypassed age verification, but were unable to find any harmful content on Minecraft, Snapchat, Spotify, or Fortnite. Fortnite’s approach is especially strict, disabling chat and purchases on accounts for kids under 13 until a parent verifies via email. It also uses additional verification steps using a Social Security number or credit card. Kids can still play, but they’re muted.

What parents can do

There is no platform that can catch everything, especially when kids are curious. That makes parental involvement the most important layer of protection.

One reason this matters is a related risk worth acknowledging: adults attempting to reach children through social platforms. Even after Instagram took steps to limit contact between adult and child accounts, parents still discovered loopholes. This isn’t a failure of one platform so much as a reminder that no set of controls can replace awareness and involvement.

Mark Beare, GM of Consumer at Malwarebytes says:

“Parents are navigating a fast-moving digital world where offline consequences are quickly felt, be it spoofed accounts, deepfake content or lost funds. Safeguards exist and are encouraged, but children can still be exposed to harmful content.”

This doesn’t mean banning children from the internet. As the EFF points out, many minors use online services productively with the support and supervision of their parents. But it does mean being intentional about how accounts are set up, how children interact with others online, and how comfortable they feel asking for help.

Accounts and settings

• Use child or teen accounts where available, and avoid defaulting to adult accounts.
• Keep friends and followers lists set to private.
• Avoid using real names, birthdays, or other identifying details unless they are strictly required.
• Avoid facial recognition features for children’s accounts.
• For teens, be aware of “spam” or secondary accounts they’ve set up that may have looser settings.

Social behavior

• Talk to your child about who they interact with online and what kinds of conversations are appropriate.
• Warn them about strangers in comments, group chats, and direct messages.
• Encourage them to leave spaces that make them uncomfortable, even if they didn’t do anything wrong.
• Remind them that not everyone online is who they claim to be.

Trust and communication

• Keep conversations about online activity open and ongoing, not one-off warnings.
• Make it clear that your child can come to you if something goes wrong without fear of punishment or blame.
• Involve other trusted adults, such as parents, teachers, or caregivers, so kids aren’t navigating online spaces alone.

This kind of long-term involvement helps children make better decisions over time. It also reduces the risk that mistakes made today can follow them into the future, when personal information, images, or conversations could be reused in ways they never intended.

Research findings, scope and methodology 

This research examined how children under the age of 13 may be exposed to sensitive content when browsing mainstream media and gaming services. 

For this study, a “kid” was defined as an individual under 13, in line with the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA). Research was conducted between December 1 and December 17, 2025, using US-based accounts. 

The research relied exclusively on standard user behavior and passive observation. No exploits, hacks, or manipulative techniques were used to force access to data or content. 

Researchers tested a range of account types depending on what each platform offered, including dedicated child accounts, teen or restricted accounts, adult accounts created through age self-declaration, and, where applicable, public or guest access without registration. 

The study assessed how platforms enforced age requirements, how easy it was to misrepresent age during onboarding, and whether sensitive or illicit content could be discovered through normal browsing, searching, or exploration. 

Across all platforms tested, default algorithmic content and advertisements were initially benign and policy-compliant. Where sensitive content was found, it was accessed through intentional, curiosity-driven behavior rather than passive recommendations. No proactive outreach from other users was observed during the research period. 

The table below summarizes the platforms tested, the account types used, and whether sensitive content was discoverable during testing. 

Screenshots from the research

We don’t just report on threats—we remove them

Cybersecurity risks should never spread beyond a headline. Keep threats off your devices by downloading Malwarebytes today.

Fresh off a breathless Super Bowl Sunday, we’re less thrilled to bring you this week’s Weirdo Wednesday. Two stories caught our eye, both involving men who crossed clear lines and invaded women’s privacy online.

Last week, 27-year-old Kyle Svara of Oswego, Illinois admitted to hacking women’s Snapchat accounts across the US. Between May 2020 and February 2021, Svara harvested account security codes from 571 victims, leading to confirmed unauthorized access to at least 59 accounts.

Rather than attempting to break Snapchat’s robust encryption protocols, Svara targeted the account owners themselves with social engineering.

After gathering phone numbers and email addresses, he triggered Snapchat’s legitimate login process, which sent six-digit security codes directly to victims’ devices. Posing as Snapchat support, he then sent more than 4,500 anonymous messages via a VoIP texting service, claiming the codes were needed to “verify” or “secure” the account.

Svara showed particular interest in Snapchat’s My Eyes Only feature—a secondary four-digit PIN meant to protect a user’s most sensitive content. By persuading victims to share both codes, he bypassed two layers of security without touching a single line of code. He walked away with private material, including nude images.

Svara didn’t do this solely for his own kicks. He marketed himself as a hacker-for-hire, advertising on platforms like Reddit and offering access to specific accounts in exchange for money or trades.

Selling his services to others was how he got found out. Although Svara stopped hacking in early 2021, his legal day of reckoning followed the 2024 sentencing of one of his customers: Steve Waithe, a former track and field coach who worked at several high-profile universities including Northeastern. Waithe paid Svara to target student athletes he was supposed to mentor.

Svara also went after women in his home area of Plainfield, Illinois, and as far away as Colby College in Maine.

He now faces charges including identity theft, wire fraud, computer fraud, and making false statements to law enforcement about child sex abuse material. Sentencing is scheduled for May 18.

How to protect your Snapchat account

Never send someone your login details or secret codes, even if you think you know them.

This is also a good time to talk about passkeys.

Passkeys let you sign in without a password, but unlike multi-factor authentication, passkeys are cryptographically tied to your device, and can’t be phished or forwarded like one-time codes. Snapchat supports them, and they offer stronger protection than traditional multi-factor authentication, which is increasingly susceptible to smart phishing attacks.

Bad guys with smart glasses

Unfortunately, hacking women’s social media accounts to steal private content isn’t new. But predators will always find a way to use smart tech in nefarious ways. Such is the case with new generations of ‘smart glasses’ powered by AI.

This week, CNN published stories from women who believed they were having private, flirtatious interactions with strangers—only to later discover the men were recording them using camera-equipped smart glasses and posting the footage online.

These clips are often packaged as “rizz” videos—short for “charisma”—where so-called manfluencers film themselves chatting up women in public, without consent, to build followings and sell “coaching” services.

The glasses, sold by companies like Meta, are supposed to be used for recording only with consent, and often display a light to show that they’re recording. In practice, that indicator is easy to hide.

When combined with AI-powered services to identify people, as researchers did in 2024, the possibilities become even more chilling. We’re unaware of any related cases coming to court, but suspect it’s only a matter of time.

We don’t just report on scams—we help detect them

Cybersecurity risks should never spread beyond a headline. If something looks dodgy to you, check if it’s a scam using Malwarebytes Scam Guard, a feature of our mobile protection products. Submit a screenshot, paste suspicious content, or share a text or phone number, and we’ll tell you if it’s a scam or legit. Download Malwarebytes Mobile Security for iOS or Android and try it today!

An independent security researcher uncovered a major data breach affecting Chat & Ask AI, one of the most popular AI chat apps on Google Play and Apple App Store, with more than 50 million users.

The researcher claims to have accessed 300 million messages from over 25 million users due to an exposed database. These messages reportedly included, among other things, discussions of illegal activities and requests for suicide assistance.

Behind the scenes, Chat & Ask AI is a “wrapper” app that plugs into various large language models (LLMs) from other companies, including OpenAI’s ChatGPT, Anthropic’s Claude, and Google’s Gemini. Users can choose which model they want to interact with.

The exposed data included user files containing their entire chat history, the models used, and other settings. But it also revealed data belonging to users of other apps developed by Codeway—the developer of Chat & Ask AI.

The vulnerability behind this data breach is a well-known and documented Firebase misconfiguration. Firebase is a cloud-based backend-as-a-service (BaaS) platform provided by Google that helps developers build, manage, and scale mobile and web applications.

Security researchers often refer to a set of preventable errors in how developers set up Google Firebase services, which leave backend data, databases, and storage buckets accessible to the public without authentication.

One of the most common Firebase misconfigurations is leaving Security Rules set to public. This allows anyone with the project URL to read, modify, or delete data without authentication.

This prompted the researcher to create a tool that automatically scans apps on Google Play and Apple App Store for this vulnerability—with astonishing results. Reportedly, the researcher, named Harry, found that 103 out of 200 iOS apps they scanned had this issue, collectively exposing tens of millions of stored files. 

To draw attention to the issue, Harry set up a website where users can see the apps affected by the issue. Codeway’s apps are no longer listed there, as Harry removes entries once developers confirm they have fixed the problem. Codeway reportedly resolved the issue across all of its apps within hours of responsible disclosure.

How to stay safe

Besides checking if any apps you use appear in Harry’s Firehound registry, there are a few ways to better protect your privacy when using AI chatbots.

• Use private chatbots that don’t use your data to train the model.
• Don’t rely on chatbots for important life decisions. They have no experience or empathy.
• Don’t use your real identity when discussing sensitive subjects.
• Keep shared information impersonal. Don’t use real names and don’t upload personal documents.
• Don’t share your conversations unless you absolutely have to. In some cases, it makes them searchable.
• If you’re using an AI that is developed by a social media company (Meta AI, Llama, Grok, Bard, Gemini, and so on), make sure you’re not logged in to that social media platform. Your conversations could be linked to your social media account, which might contain a lot of personal information.

Always remember that the developments in AI are going too fast for security and privacy to be baked into technology. And that even the best AIs still hallucinate.

We don’t just report on privacy—we offer you the option to use it.

Privacy risks should never spread beyond a headline. Keep your online privacy yours by using Malwarebytes Privacy VPN.

This week on the Lock and Code podcast…

In January, Google settled a lawsuit that pricked up a few ears: It agreed to pay $68 million to a wide array of people who sued the company together, alleging that Google’s voice-activated smart assistant had secretly recorded their conversations, which were then sent to advertisers to target them with promotions.

Google denied any admission of wrongdoing in the settlement agreement, but the fact stands that one of the largest phone makers in the world decided to forego a trial against some potentially explosive surveillance allegations. It’s a decision that the public has already seen in the past, when Apple agreed to pay $95 million last year to settle similar legal claims against its smart assistant, Siri.

Back-to-back, the stories raise a question that just seems to never go away: Are our phones listening to us?

This week, on the Lock and Code podcast with host David Ruiz, we revisit an episode from last year in which we tried to find the answer. In speaking to Electronic Frontier Foundation Staff Technologist Lena Cohen about mobile tracking overall, it becomes clear that, even if our phones aren’t literally listening to our conversations, the devices are stuffed with so many novel forms of surveillance that we need not say something out loud to be predictably targeted with ads for it.

“Companies are collecting so much information about us and in such covert ways that it really feels like they’re listening to us.”

Tune in today to listen to the full conversation.

Show notes and credits:

Intro Music: “Spellbound” by Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com)
Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 4.0 License
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
Outro Music: “Good God” by Wowa (unminus.com)

Listen up—Malwarebytes doesn’t just talk cybersecurity, we provide it.

Protect yourself from online attacks that threaten your identity, your files, your system, and your financial well-being with our exclusive offer for Malwarebytes Premium for Lock and Code listeners.

A convincing lookalike of the popular 7-Zip archiver site has been serving a trojanized installer that silently converts victims’ machines into residential proxy nodes—and it has been hiding in plain sight for some time.

“I’m so sick to my stomach”

A PC builder recently turned to Reddit’s r/pcmasterrace community in a panic after realizing they had downloaded 7‑Zip from the wrong website. Following a YouTube tutorial for a new build, they were instructed to download 7‑Zip from 7zip[.]com, unaware that the legitimate project is hosted exclusively at 7-zip.org.

In their Reddit post, the user described installing the file first on a laptop and later transferring it via USB to a newly built desktop. They encountered repeated 32‑bit versus 64‑bit errors and ultimately abandoned the installer in favor of Windows’ built‑in extraction tools. Nearly two weeks later, Microsoft Defender alerted on the system with a generic detection: Trojan:Win32/Malgent!MSR.

The experience illustrates how a seemingly minor domain mix-up can result in long-lived, unauthorized use of a system when attackers successfully masquerade as trusted software distributors.

A trojanized installer masquerading as legitimate software

This is not a simple case of a malicious download hosted on a random site. The operators behind 7zip[.]com distributed a trojanized installer via a lookalike domain, delivering a functional copy of functional 7‑Zip File Manager alongside a concealed malware payload.

The installer is Authenticode‑signed using a now‑revoked certificate issued to Jozeal Network Technology Co., Limited, lending it superficial legitimacy. During installation, a modified build of 7zfm.exe is deployed and functions as expected, reducing user suspicion. In parallel, three additional components are silently dropped:

• Uphero.exe—a service manager and update loader
• hero.exe—the primary proxy payload (Go‑compiled)
• hero.dll—a supporting library

All components are written to C:WindowsSysWOW64hero, a privileged directory that is unlikely to be manually inspected.

An independent update channel was also observed at update.7zip[.]com/version/win-service/1.0.0.2/Uphero.exe.zip, indicating that the malware payload can be updated independently of the installer itself.

Abuse of trusted distribution channels

One of the more concerning aspects of this campaign is its reliance on third‑party trust. The Reddit case highlights YouTube tutorials as an inadvertent malware distribution vector, where creators incorrectly reference 7zip.com instead of the legitimate domain.

This shows how attackers can exploit small errors in otherwise benign content ecosystems to funnel victims toward malicious infrastructure at scale.

Execution flow: from installer to persistent proxy service

Behavioral analysis shows a rapid and methodical infection chain:

1. File deployment—The payload is installed into SysWOW64, requiring elevated privileges and signaling intent for deep system integration.

2. Persistence via Windows services—Both Uphero.exe and hero.exe are registered as auto‑start Windows services running under System privileges, ensuring execution on every boot.

3. Firewall rule manipulation—The malware invokes netsh to remove existing rules and create new inbound and outbound allow rules for its binaries. This is intended to reduce interference with network traffic and support seamless payload updates.

4. Host profiling—Using WMI and native Windows APIs, the malware enumerates system characteristics including hardware identifiers, memory size, CPU count, disk attributes, and network configuration. The malware communicates with iplogger[.]org via a dedicated reporting endpoint, suggesting it collects and reports device or network metadata as part of its proxy infrastructure.

Functional goal: residential proxy monetization

While initial indicators suggested backdoor‑style capabilities, further analysis revealed that the malware’s primary function is proxyware. The infected host is enrolled as a residential proxy node, allowing third parties to route traffic through the victim’s IP address.

The hero.exe component retrieves configuration data from rotating “smshero”‑themed command‑and‑control domains, then establishes outbound proxy connections on non‑standard ports such as 1000 and 1002. Traffic analysis shows a lightweight XOR‑encoded protocol (key 0x70) used to obscure control messages.

This infrastructure is consistent with known residential proxy services, where access to real consumer IP addresses is sold for fraud, scraping, ad abuse, or anonymity laundering.

Shared tooling across multiple fake installers

The 7‑Zip impersonation appears to be part of a broader operation. Related binaries have been identified under names such as upHola.exe, upTiktok, upWhatsapp, and upWire, all sharing identical tactics, techniques, and procedures:

• Deployment to SysWOW64
• Windows service persistence
• Firewall rule manipulation via netsh
• Encrypted HTTPS C2 traffic

Embedded strings referencing VPN and proxy brands suggest a unified backend supporting multiple distribution fronts.

Rotating infrastructure and encrypted transport

Memory analysis uncovered a large pool of hardcoded command-and-control domains using hero and smshero naming conventions. Active resolution during sandbox execution showed traffic routed through Cloudflare infrastructure with TLS‑encrypted HTTPS sessions.

The malware also uses DNS-over-HTTPS via Google’s resolver, reducing visibility for traditional DNS monitoring and complicating network-based detection.

Evasion and anti‑analysis features

The malware incorporates multiple layers of sandbox and analysis evasion:

• Virtual machine detection targeting VMware, VirtualBox, QEMU, and Parallels
• Anti‑debugging checks and suspicious debugger DLL loading
• Runtime API resolution and PEB inspection
• Process enumeration, registry probing, and environment inspection

Cryptographic support is extensive, including AES, RC4, Camellia, Chaskey, XOR encoding, and Base64, suggesting encrypted configuration handling and traffic protection.

Defensive guidance

Any system that has executed installers from 7zip.com should be considered compromised. While this malware establishes SYSTEM‑level persistence and modifies firewall rules, reputable security software can effectively detect and remove the malicious components. Malwarebytes is capable of fully eradicating known variants of this threat and reversing its persistence mechanisms. In high‑risk or heavily used systems, some users may still choose a full OS reinstall for absolute assurance, but it is not strictly required in all cases.

Users and defenders should:

• Verify software sources and bookmark official project domains
• Treat unexpected code‑signing identities with skepticism
• Monitor for unauthorized Windows services and firewall rule changes
• Block known C2 domains and proxy endpoints at the network perimeter

Researcher attribution and community analysis

This investigation would not have been possible without the work of independent security researchers who went deeper than surface-level indicators and identified the true purpose of this malware family.

• Luke Acha provided the first comprehensive analysis showing that the Uphero/hero malware functions as residential proxyware rather than a traditional backdoor. His work documented the proxy protocol, traffic patterns, and monetization model, and connected this campaign to a broader operation he dubbed upStage Proxy. Luke’s full write-up is available on his blog.
• s1dhy expanded on this analysis by reversing and decoding the custom XOR-based communication protocol, validating the proxy behavior through packet captures, and correlating multiple proxy endpoints across victim geolocations. Technical notes and findings were shared publicly on X (Twitter).
• Andrew Danis contributed additional infrastructure analysis and clustering, helping tie the fake 7-Zip installer to related proxyware campaigns abusing other software brands.

Additional technical validation and dynamic analysis were published by researchers at RaichuLab on Qiita and WizSafe Security on IIJ.

Their collective work highlights the importance of open, community-driven research in uncovering long-running abuse campaigns that rely on trust and misdirection rather than exploits.

Closing thoughts

This campaign demonstrates how effective brand impersonation combined with technically competent malware can operate undetected for extended periods. By abusing user trust rather than exploiting software vulnerabilities, attackers bypass many traditional security assumptions—turning everyday utility downloads into long‑lived monetization infrastructure.

Malwarebytes detects and blocks known variants of this proxyware family and its associated infrastructure.

Indicators of Compromise (IOCs)

File paths

• C:WindowsSysWOW64heroUphero.exe
• C:WindowsSysWOW64herohero.exe
• C:WindowsSysWOW64herohero.dll

File hashes (SHA-256)

• e7291095de78484039fdc82106d191bf41b7469811c4e31b4228227911d25027 (Uphero.exe)
• b7a7013b951c3cea178ece3363e3dd06626b9b98ee27ebfd7c161d0bbcfbd894 (hero.exe)
• 3544ffefb2a38bf4faf6181aa4374f4c186d3c2a7b9b059244b65dce8d5688d9 (hero.dll)

Network indicators

Domains:

• soc.hero-sms[.]co
• neo.herosms[.]co
• flux.smshero[.]co
• nova.smshero[.]ai
• apex.herosms[.]ai
• spark.herosms[.]io
• zest.hero-sms[.]ai
• prime.herosms[.]vip
• vivid.smshero[.]vip
• mint.smshero[.]com
• pulse.herosms[.]cc
• glide.smshero[.]cc
• svc.ha-teams.office[.]com
• iplogger[.]org

Observed IPs (Cloudflare-fronted):

• 104.21.57.71
• 172.67.160.241

Host-based indicators

• Windows services with image paths pointing to C:WindowsSysWOW64hero
• Firewall rules named Uphero or hero (inbound and outbound)
• Mutex: Global3a886eb8-fe40-4d0a-b78b-9e0bcb683fb7

We don’t just report on threats—we remove them

Cybersecurity risks should never spread beyond a headline. Keep threats off your devices by downloading Malwarebytes today.

Last week on Malwarebytes Labs:

• Apple Pay phish uses fake support calls to steal payment details
• Open the wrong “PDF” and attackers gain remote access to your PC
• Flock cameras shared license plate data without permission
• Grok continues producing sexualized images after promised fixes
• Firefox is giving users the AI off switch
• An AI plush toy exposed thousands of private chats with children
• AT&T breach data resurfaces with new risks for customers
• Apple’s new iOS setting addresses a hidden layer of location tracking
• [updated] A fake cloud storage alert that ends at Freecash
• How Manifest v3 forced us to rethink Browser Guard, and why that’s a good thing
• Scam-checking just got easier: Malwarebytes is now in ChatGPT
• How fake party invitations are being used to install remote access tools

Stay safe!

It started with an email that looked boringly familiar: Apple logo, a clean layout, and a subject line designed to make the target’s stomach drop.

The message claimed Apple has stopped a high‑value Apple Pay charge at an Apple Store, complete with a case ID, timestamp, and a warning that the account could be at risk if the target doesn’t respond.​

In some cases, there was even an “appointment” booked on their behalf to “review fraudulent activity,” plus a phone number they should call immediately if the time didn’t work.​ Nothing in the email screams amateur. The display name appears to be Apple, the formatting closely matches real receipts, and the language hits all the right anxiety buttons.

This is how most users are lured in by a recent Apple Pay phishing campaign.

The call that feels like real support

The email warns recipients not to Apple Pay until they’ve spoken to “Apple Billing & Fraud Prevention,” and it provides a phone number to call.​

After dialing the number, an agent introduces himself as part of Apple’s fraud department and asks for details such as Apple ID verification codes or payment information.

The conversation is carefully scripted to establish trust. The agent explains that criminals attempted to use Apple Pay in a physical Apple Store and that the system “partially blocked” the transaction. To “fully secure” the account, he says, some details need to be verified.

The call starts with harmless‑sounding checks: your name, the last four digits of your phone number, what Apple devices you own, and so on.

Next comes a request to confirm the Apple ID email address. While the victim is looking it up, a real-looking Apple ID verification code arrives by text message.

The agent asks for this code, claiming it’s needed to confirm they’re speaking to the rightful account owner. In reality, the scammer is logging into the account in real time and using the code to bypass two-factor authentication.

Once the account is “confirmed,” the agent walks the victim through checking their bank and Apple Pay cards. They ask questions about bank accounts and suggest “temporarily securing” payment methods so criminals can’t exploit them while the “Apple team” investigates.

The entire support process is designed to steal login codes and payment data. At scale, campaigns like this work because Apple’s brand carries enormous trust, Apple Pay involves real money, and users have been trained to treat fraud alerts as urgent and to cooperate with “support” when they’re scared.

One example submitted to Malwarebytes Scam Guard showed an email claiming an Apple Gift Card purchase for $279.99 and urging the recipient to call a support number (1-812-955-6285).

Another user submitted a screenshot showing a fake “Invoice Receipt – Paid” styled to look like an Apple Store receipt for a 2025 MacBook Air 13-inch laptop with M4 chip priced at $1,157.07 and a phone number (1-805-476-8382) to call about this “unauthorized transaction.”

What you should know

Apple doesn’t set up fraud appointments through email. The company also doesn’t ask users to fix billing problems by calling numbers in unsolicited messages.

Closely inspect the sender’s address. In these cases, the email doesn’t come from an official Apple domain, even if the display name makes it seem legitimate.

Never share two-factor authentication (2FA) codes, SMS codes, or passwords with anyone, even if they claim to be from Apple.

Ignore unsolicited messages urging you to take immediate action. Always think and verify before you engage. Talk to someone you trust if you’re not sure.

Malwarebytes Scam Guard helped several users identify this type of scam. For those without a subscription, you can use Scam Guard in ChatGPT.

If you’ve already engaged with these Apple Pay scammers, it is important to:

• Change the Apple ID password immediately from Settings or appleid.apple.com, not from any link provided by email or SMS.
• Check active sessions, sign out of all devices, then sign back in only on devices you recognize and control.
• Rotate your Apple ID password again if you see any new login alerts, and confirm 2FA is still enabled. If not, turn it on.
• In Wallet, check every card for unfamiliar Apple Pay transactions and recent in-store or online charges. Monitor bank and credit card statements closely for the next few weeks and dispute any unknown transactions immediately.
• Check if the primary email account tied to your Apple ID is yours, since control of that email can be used to take over accounts.

We don’t just report on scams—we help detect them

Cybersecurity risks should never spread beyond a headline. If something looks dodgy to you, check if it’s a scam using Malwarebytes Scam Guard, a feature of our mobile protection products. Submit a screenshot, paste suspicious content, or share a text or phone number, and we’ll tell you if it’s a scam or legit. Download Malwarebytes Mobile Security for iOS or Android and try it today!

Cybercriminals behind a campaign dubbed DEAD#VAX are taking phishing one step further by delivering malware inside virtual hard disks that pretend to be ordinary PDF documents. Open the wrong “invoice” or “purchase order” and you won’t see a document at all. Instead, Windows mounts a virtual drive that quietly installs AsyncRAT, a backdoor Trojan that allows attackers to remotely monitor and control your computer.

It’s a remote access tool, which means attackers gain remote hands‑on‑keyboard control, while traditional file‑based defenses see almost nothing suspicious on disk.

From a high-level view, the infection chain is long, but every step looks just legitimate enough on its own to slip past casual checks.

Victims receive phishing emails that look like routine business messages, often referencing purchase orders or invoices and sometimes impersonating real companies. The email doesn’t attach a document directly. Instead, it links to a file hosted on IPFS (InterPlanetary File System), a decentralized storage network increasingly abused in phishing campaigns because content is harder to take down and can be accessed through normal web gateways.

The linked file is named as a PDF and has the PDF icon, but is actually a virtual hard disk (VHD) file. When the user double‑clicks it, Windows mounts it as a new drive (for example, drive E:) instead of opening a document viewer. Mounting VHDs is perfectly legitimate Windows behavior, which makes this step less likely to ring alarm bells.

Inside the mounted drive is what appears to be the expected document, but it’s actually a Windows Script File (WSF). When the user opens it, Windows executes the code in the file instead of displaying a PDF.

After some checks to avoid analysis and detection, the script injects the payload—AsyncRAT shellcode—into trusted, Microsoft‑signed processes such as RuntimeBroker.exe, OneDrive.exe, taskhostw.exe, or sihost.exe. The malware never writes an actual executable file to disk. It lives and runs entirely in memory inside these legitimate processes, making detection and eventually at a later stage, forensics much harder. It also avoids sudden spikes in activity or memory usage that could draw attention.

For an individual user, falling for this phishing email can result in:

• Theft of saved and typed passwords, including for email, banking, and social media.
• Exposure of confidential documents, photos, or other sensitive files taken straight from the system.
• Surveillance via periodic screenshots or, where configured, webcam capture.
• Use of the machine as a foothold to attack other devices on the same home or office network.

How to stay safe

Because detection can be hard, it is crucial that users apply certain checks:

• Don’t open email attachments until after verifying, with a trusted source, that they are legitimate.
• Make sure you can see the actual file extensions. Unfortunately, Windows allows users to hide them. So, when in reality the file would be called invoice.pdf.vhd the user would only see invoice.pdf. To find out how to do this, see below.
• Use an up-to-date, real-time anti-malware solution that can detect malware hiding in memory.

Showing file extensions on Windows 10 and 11

To show file extensions in Windows 10 and 11:

• Open Explorer (Windows key + E)
• In Windows 10, select View and check the box for File name extensions.
• In Windows 11, this is found under View > Show > File name extensions.

Alternatively, search for File Explorer Options to uncheck Hide extensions for known file types.

For older versions of Windows, refer to this article.

We don’t just report on threats—we remove them

Cybersecurity risks should never spread beyond a headline. Keep threats off your devices by downloading Malwarebytes today.

Mountain View, California, pulled the plug on its entire license plate reader camera network this week. It discovered that Flock Safety, which ran the system, had been sharing city data with hundreds of law enforcement agencies, including federal ones, without permission.

Flock Safety runs an automated license plate recognition (ALPR) system that uses AI to identify vehicles’ number plates on the road. Mountain View Police Department (MVPD) policy chief Mike Canfield ordered all 30 of the city’s Flock cameras disabled on February 3.

Two incidents of unauthorized sharing came to light. The first was a “national lookup” setting that was toggled on for one camera at the intersection of the city’s Charleston and San Antonio roads. Flock allegedly switched it on without telling the city.

That setting could violate California’s 2015 statute SB 34, which bars state and local agencies from sharing license plate reader data with out-of-state or federal entities. The law states:

“A public agency shall not sell, share, or transfer ALPR information, except to another public agency, and only as otherwise permitted by law.”

The statute defines a public agency as the state, or any city or county within it, covering state and local law enforcement agencies.

Last October, the state Attorney General sued the Californian city of El Cajon for knowingly violating that law by sharing license place data with agencies in more than two dozen states.

However, MVPD said that Flock kept no records from the national lookup period, so nobody can determine what information actually left the system.

Mountain View says it never chose to share, which makes the violation different in kind. For the people whose plates were scanned, the distinction is academic.

A separate “statewide lookup” feature had also been active on 29 of the city’s 30 cameras since the initial installation, running for 17 straight months until Mountain View found and disabled it on January 5. Through that tool, more than 250 agencies that had never signed any data agreement with Mountain View ran an estimated 600,000 searches over a single year, according to local paper the Mountain View Voice, which first uncovered the issue after filing a public records request.

Over the past year, more than two dozen municipalities across the country have ended contracts with Flock, many citing the same worry that data collected for local crime-fighting could be used for federal immigration enforcement. Santa Cruz became the first in California to terminate its contract last month.

Flock’s own CEO reportedly acknowledged last August that the company had been running previously undisclosed pilot programs with Customs and Border Protection and Homeland Security Investigations.

The cameras will remain offline until the City Council meets on February 24. Canfield says that he still supports license plate reader technology, just not this vendor.

This goes beyond one city’s vendor dispute. If strict internal policies weren’t enough to prevent unauthorized sharing, it raises a harder question: whether policy alone is an adequate safeguard when surveillance systems are operated by third parties.

We don’t just report on data privacy—we help you remove your personal information

Cybersecurity risks should never spread beyond a headline. With Malwarebytes Personal Data Remover, you can scan to find out which sites are exposing your personal information, and then delete that sensitive data from the internet.