If your phone has started behaving in ways you cannot explain, such as draining power unusually fast, heating up during minimal use, crashing, or displaying unfamiliar apps, it may be more than a routine technical fault. In some cases, these irregularities signal the presence of spyware, a type of malicious software designed to quietly monitor users and extract personal information.
Spyware typically enters smartphones through deceptive mobile applications, phishing emails, malicious attachments, fraudulent text messages, manipulated social media links, or unauthorized physical access. These programs are often disguised as legitimate utilities or helpful tools. Once installed, they operate discreetly in the background, avoiding obvious detection.
Depending on the variant, spyware can log incoming and outgoing calls, capture SMS and MMS messages, monitor conversations on platforms such as Facebook and WhatsApp, and intercept Voice over IP communications. Some strains are capable of taking screenshots, activating cameras or microphones, tracking location through GPS, copying clipboard data, recording keystrokes, and harvesting login credentials or cryptocurrency wallet details. The stolen information is transmitted to external servers controlled by unknown operators.
Not all spyware functions the same way. Some applications focus on aggressive advertising tactics, overwhelming users with pop-ups, altering browser settings, and collecting browsing data for revenue generation. Broader mobile surveillance tools extract system-level data and financial credentials, often distributed through mass phishing campaigns. More intrusive software, frequently described as stalkerware, is designed to monitor specific individuals and has been widely associated with domestic abuse cases. At the highest level, intricately designed commercial surveillance platforms such as Pegasus have been deployed in targeted operations, although these tools are costly and rarely directed at the general public.
Applications marketed as parental supervision or employee productivity tools also require caution. While such software may have legitimate oversight purposes, its monitoring capabilities mirror those of spyware if misused or installed without informed consent.
Identifying spyware can be difficult because it is engineered to remain hidden. However, several warning indicators may appear. These include sudden battery drain, overheating, sluggish performance, unexplained crashes, random restarts, increased mobile data consumption, distorted calls, persistent pop-up advertisements, modified search engine settings, unfamiliar applications, difficulty shutting down the device, or unexpected subscription charges. Receiving suspicious messages that prompt downloads or permission changes may also signal targeting attempts. If a device has been out of your possession and returns with altered settings, tampering should be considered.
On Android devices, reviewing whether installation from unofficial sources has been enabled is critical, as this setting allows apps outside the Google Play Store to be installed. Users should also inspect special app access and administrative permissions for unfamiliar entries. Malicious programs often disguise themselves with neutral names such as system utilities. Although iPhones are generally more resistant without jailbreaking or exploited vulnerabilities, they are not immune. Failing to install firmware updates increases exposure to known security flaws.
If spyware is suspected, measured action is necessary. Begin by installing reputable mobile security software from verified vendors and running a comprehensive scan. Manually review installed applications and remove anything unfamiliar. Examine permission settings and revoke excessive access. On Android, restarting the device in Safe Mode temporarily disables third-party apps, which may assist in removal. Updating the operating system can also disrupt malicious processes. If the issue persists, a factory reset may be required. Important data should be securely backed up before proceeding, as this step erases all stored content. In rare instances, professional technical assistance or device replacement may be needed.
Long-term protection depends on consistent preventive practices. Maintain strict physical control over your phone and secure it with a strong password or biometric authentication. Configure automatic screen locking to reduce the risk of unauthorized access. Install operating system updates promptly, as they contain critical security patches. Download applications only from official app stores and review developer credibility, ratings, and permission requests carefully before installation. Enable built-in security scanners and avoid disabling system warnings. Regularly audit app permissions, especially for access to location, camera, microphone, contacts, and messages.
Remain cautious when interacting with links or attachments received through email, SMS, or social media, as phishing remains a primary delivery method for spyware. Avoid jailbreaking or rooting devices, since doing so weakens built-in protections and increases vulnerability. Activate multi-factor authentication on essential accounts such as email, banking, and cloud storage services, and monitor login activity for irregular access. Periodically review mobile data usage and billing statements for unexplained charges. Maintain encrypted backups so decisive action, including a factory reset, can be taken without permanent data loss.
No mobile device can be guaranteed completely immune from surveillance threats. However, informed digital habits, timely updates, disciplined permission management, and layered account security significantly reduce the likelihood of covert monitoring. In an era where smartphones store personal, financial, and professional data, vigilance remains the strongest defense.
As ransomware operators weaponize commercially available monitoring and remote management platforms, they avoid traditional red flags and embed themselves within routine administrative traffic. Nevertheless, the result is not immediate chaos, but calculated persistence. This involves silent access, continuous control, and the staging of systems for extortion, extortion, and financial coercion. Huntress has published a technical analysis that illustrates the evolution of this tactic.
In a study, researchers found that attackers are no longer relying solely on custom malware to maintain access to systems. Instead, they are repurposing legitimate employee surveillance software as well as remote monitoring and management tools to turn passive oversight tools into active intrusion tools. In the field of ransomware tradecraft, a subtle but significant evolution has occurred, as it becomes increasingly difficult to distinguish between administrative utility and adversarial control.
As outlined in a report February 2026 report, a threat actor associated with the Crazy ransomware gang utilized Net Monitor for Employees Professional, a commercially marketed workplace monitoring product in tandem with SimpleHelp, a remote management platform. Together, these tools enabled more than discrete observation of employees.
As a result, attackers were able to control the system interactively, transfer files, and execute commands remotely—functions reminiscent of legitimate IT administration, but quietly paved the way for the deployment of disruptive ransomware. In accordance with these findings, Huntress investigators discovered that operators consistently used Net Monitor for Employees Professional and SimpleHelp to secure low-noise, durable access to victim environments using Net Monitor for Employees Professional.
The monitoring agent was initially sideloaded with the legitimate Windows Installer utility, msiexec.exe, during its initial deployment, resulting in a combination of malicious installation activity and routine administrative processes. The agent, once embedded, provided complete access to victim desktops, allowing for real-time screen surveillance, file transfers, and remote command execution without causing the behavioral anomalies commonly associated with customized backdoors.
A scripted PowerShell command was used by the attackers to install SimpleHelp, which was renamed frequently to mimic benign system artifacts such as VShost.exe or files related to OneDrive synchronization in order to strengthen persistence. As a result of this deliberate masquerading, cursory process reviews and endpoint inspections were less likely to be scrutinized. Attempts were also made to weaken native defenses, including the disablement of Microsoft Defender protections, by researchers.
It was found several times that the remote management client generated alerts related to cryptocurrency wallet activity or the presence of additional remote access utilities, an indication that the intrusions were not opportunistic reconnaissance alone, but rather preparatory steps aligned with ransomware deployment and the theft of assets.
In the absence of disparate affiliates, correlated command-and-control endpoints and recurring filename conventions suggest that a single, coordinated operator is responsible for the incidents. The broader trend indicates a growing preference for legitimate remote management and monitoring software as an access vector due to their widespread use in enterprise IT administration. As such, their presence rarely raises immediate suspicions.
Initial compromise in the cases examined was caused by the exposure or theft of SSL VPN credentials, which enabled adversaries to authenticate into networks and then silently layer commercial management tools over that access.
Observations such as these reinforce the need for multi-factor authentication to be enforced across all remote access services as well as continuous monitoring controls designed to detect unauthorized deployments of remote management tools. Those who lack such safeguards can exploit trusted administrative frameworks to move laterally, persist, and eventually execute ransomware. The operational model observed in these intrusions has been seen previously.
During the year 2025, DragonForce ransomware operated on a managed service provider and leveraged SimpleHelp deployments to pivot into downstream customer environments. By utilizing the MSP's own remote monitoring and management system, the attackers were able to conduct reconnaissance at scale without installing conspicuous malware.
In order to exfiltrate sensitive data and deploy encryption payloads across client networks, the platform was used to enumerate user accounts, system configurations, and active network connections. Upon subverting trusted administrative infrastructure, it can function as a force multiplier—extending a single breach into multiple organizations, thus demonstrating the power of trusted administrative infrastructure.
Researchers have observed attackers configuring granular monitoring rules within SimpleHelp to track specific operational activities. The agent was configured to continuously search for cryptocurrency-related keywords in connection with wallet applications, exchanges, blockchain explorers, and payment service providers, an indication that digital assets were being discovered and potential financial targets were being targeted.
Meanwhile, it monitored for references to remote access technologies such as RDP, AnyDesk, UltraViewer, TeamViewer, and VNC so that legitimate administrators or incident responders would be able to determine whether they were communicating with infected systems. Upon reviewing log data, investigators found that the agent repeatedly cycled through triggers and resets associated with these keyword sets, indicating automated surveillance that alerted operators to threats in near real time.
In addition to redundancy, threat actors maintained multiple remote access pathways to maintain control even when one tool was identified and removed from the deployment strategy. The layered persistence approach aligns with a wider “living off the land” strategy, which is a form of adversary exploitation that relies upon legitimate, digitally signed software that has already been trusted within an enterprise environment.
Remote support utilities and employee monitoring platforms are commonly used as productivity monitors, troubleshooters, and distributed workforce management tools. These platforms offer built-in capabilities such as screen capture, keystroke logging, and file transfer.
In addition to complicating detection efforts and reducing the forensic footprint typically associated with custom backdoors, their behavior closely mirrors sanctioned administrative behavior when repurposed for malicious purposes. Health care and managed services sectors are particularly affected by remote management frameworks, which are often integrated into workflows supporting medical devices, telehealth systems, and electronic health record platforms.
It is possible for attackers to gain privileged access to protected health information and critical infrastructure if these tools are commandeered. A deliberate strategy was demonstrated by ransomware operators in exploiting widely used RMM software: compromising authentication, blending into legitimate management channels, and expanding laterally through the very mechanisms organizations rely on for operational resilience.
Following the successful deployment of the monitoring utility, it became a fully interactive remote access channel for organizations. This allowed operators to monitor victim computers in real time, transfer files bidirectionally, and execute arbitrary commands, effectively assuming the role of local privileged users.
There were several instances where they used the command net user administrator /active:yes to activate the built-in Windows Administrator account, which was consistent with privilege consolidation and fallback access planning. Through scripted execution of PowerShell, the threat actors obtained and installed the SimpleHelp client, reinforcing persistence. Filenames mimicking Microsoft Visual Studio VShost.exe were frequently used to rename the binary to resemble legitimate development or system artifacts.
A number of times it was staged within directories designed to appear associated with the OneDrive services, including C:/ProgramData/OneDriveSvc/OneDriveSvc.exe, thereby reducing suspicion during routine administrative review processes. Once executed, the payload ensured continued remote connectivity, even if the original employee monitoring agent was identified and removed. Huntress researchers observed attempts to weaken host-based defenses as well.
By stopping and deleting related services, the attackers attempted to disable Microsoft Defender, reducing real-time protection prior to any encryption attempts. As part of SimpleHelp’s monitoring policies, they were configured so that alerts were generated when cryptocurrency wallets were accessed or remote management tools were invoked behavior which suggests a preparation for reconnaissance and a desire to detect potential incident response activities.
Based on log telemetry, it is evident that the agent repeatedly triggers based on keywords associated with wallets, cryptocurrency exchanges, blockchain explorers, and payment platforms, while simultaneously flagging references to RDP sessions, AnyDesk sessions, UltraViewer sessions, TeamViewer sessions, and VNC sessions.
By utilizing multiple remote access mechanisms simultaneously, operational redundancy was achieved. Despite the disruption of one channel, alternative channels permitted the intruders to remain in control of the network.
Although only one of the documented intrusions resulted in the deployment of the Crazy ransomware gang encryptor, an overlap in command and control infrastructure as well as the re-use of distinctive filenames such as vhost.exe across incidents strongly suggests the presence of one operator or coordinated group.
Due to the widespread use of remote monitoring and support tools within enterprise environments, their network traffic and process behavior tend to align with sanctioned IT operations, reflecting a larger shift in ransomware tradecraft toward strategic abuse of legitimate administrative software. The result is that malicious activity can remain concealed within routine management processes.
To identify unauthorized deployments, Huntress suggests that organizations implement strict oversight over the installation and execution of remote monitoring utilities. This can be accomplished through the correlation of endpoint telemetry with change management logs. Because both breaches originated from compromised SSL VPN credentials, the implementation of multi-factor authentication across all remote access services remains a foundational control to prevent adversarial persistence following initial entry.
All of these incidents illustrate that modern enterprise security models have a structural weakness: trust in administrative tools is not generally scrutinized in the same way as unfamiliar executables or overt malware. Due to the continued operationalization of legitimate remote management frameworks by ransomware groups, defensive strategies must expand beyond signature-based detections and perimeter controls.
A mature security program will consider unauthorized implementation of RMM as a high-severity event, enforce strict administrative utility access governance, and perform behavioral monitoring to distinguish between sanctioned IT activity and anomalous control patterns in the network.
It is also critical to harden authentication pathways, limit credential exposure, and segment high-value systems in order to reduce blast radius during compromises. It is not possible to ensure resilience in an environment where adversaries are increasingly blending into routine operations by blocking every tool, but by ensuring that every instance of trust is validated.
As artificial intelligence becomes embedded in daily business functions, concerns are growing over whether the workforce is adequately prepared to manage its risks and responsibilities. EC-Council has announced the launch of four new AI-focused certifications along with an updated Certified CISO v4 program, marking the largest single expansion in the organization’s 25-year history.
The rollout comes amid projections that unmanaged AI-related vulnerabilities could expose the global economy to as much as $5.5 trillion in risk, according to industry estimates attributed to IDC. At the same time, analysis from Bain & Company suggests that approximately 700,000 workers in the United States will require reskilling in AI and cybersecurity disciplines to meet rising demand.
Global institutions including the International Monetary Fund and the World Economic Forum have identified workforce capability as a primary constraint on AI-driven productivity, arguing that the barrier is no longer access to technology but access to trained professionals.
Security threats are escalating in parallel with adoption. Reports indicate that 87 percent of organizations have encountered AI-enabled cyberattacks. Additionally, generative AI-related network traffic has increased by 890 percent, significantly expanding potential attack surfaces. Emerging risks include prompt injection attacks, data poisoning, manipulation of machine learning models, and compromise of AI supply chains.
The new Enterprise AI Credential Suite is structured around EC-Council’s operational framework described as Adopt, Defend, and Govern. The “Adopt” pillar emphasizes structured and safeguarded AI deployment. “Defend” focuses on protecting AI systems from evolving threats. “Govern” integrates oversight, accountability, and risk management mechanisms into AI systems from the design stage.
Artificial Intelligence Essentials serves as the foundational certification, aimed at building practical literacy and responsible AI usage across professional roles. The Certified AI Program Manager credential prepares professionals to convert AI strategy into coordinated implementation, ensuring governance alignment and measurable return on investment.
The Certified Offensive AI Security Professional program trains specialists to identify vulnerabilities in large language models, simulate adversarial techniques, and strengthen AI infrastructure. The Certified Responsible AI Governance and Ethics certification centers on enterprise-scale oversight and compliance, referencing established standards such as those developed by NIST and ISO.
Certified CISO v4 has also been updated to prepare executive leaders for AI-integrated risk environments, where intelligent systems influence operational and strategic decisions. According to EC-Council leadership, security executives must now manage adaptive systems that evolve rapidly and require clear governance accountability.
The initiative aligns with U.S. federal priorities outlined in Executive Order 14179, the July 2025 AI Action Plan’s workforce development pillar, and Executive Orders 14277 and 14278, all of which emphasize expanding AI education pathways and strengthening job-ready skills across professional and skilled trade sectors.
AI expertise remains geographically concentrated, with 67 percent of U.S. AI talent located in just 15 cities, while women account for 28 percent of the workforce, underlining ongoing participation disparities.
Founded in 2001, EC-Council is known for its Certified Ethical Hacker credential. The organization holds ISO/IEC 17024 accreditation and reports certifying more than 350,000 professionals globally, including personnel within government agencies, the Department of Defense under DoD 8140 baseline recognition, and Fortune 100 companies.
As AI transitions from experimentation to infrastructure, workforce readiness and governance capability are increasingly central to secure and sustainable deployment.
A promotional campaign at South Korean cryptocurrency exchange Bithumb turned into a large scale operational incident after a data entry mistake resulted in users receiving bitcoin instead of a small cash-equivalent reward.
Initial reports suggested that certain customers were meant to receive 2,000 Korean won as part of a routine promotional payout. Instead, those accounts were credited with 2,000 bitcoin each. At current market valuations, 2,000 bitcoin represents roughly $140 million per account, transforming what should have been a minor incentive into an extraordinary allocation.
Bithumb later confirmed that the scope of the error was larger than early estimates. According to the exchange, a total of 620,000 bitcoin was mistakenly credited to 695 user accounts. Based on prevailing prices at the time of the incident, that amount corresponded to approximately $43 billion in value. The exchange stated that the issue stemmed from an internal processing mistake and was not connected to external hacking activity or a breach of its security infrastructure. It emphasized that customer asset custody systems were not compromised.
The sudden appearance of large bitcoin balances had an immediate effect on trading activity within the platform. Bithumb reported that the incident contributed to a temporary decline of about 10 percent in bitcoin’s price on its exchange, as some affected users rapidly sold the credited assets. To contain further disruption, the company restricted withdrawals and suspended certain transactions linked to the impacted accounts. It stated that 99.7 percent of the mistakenly issued bitcoin has since been recovered.
The event has revived discussion around the concept often described as “paper bitcoin.” On centralized exchanges, user balances are reflected in internal ledgers rather than always corresponding to coins held in individual blockchain wallets. In practice, exchanges may not maintain a one-to-one on-chain reserve for every displayed balance at every moment. This structural model has previously drawn criticism, most notably during the collapse of Mt. Gox in 2014, which was then the largest bitcoin exchange globally. Its failure exposed major discrepancies between reported and actual holdings.
Data from blockchain analytics firm Arkham Intelligence indicates that Bithumb currently controls digital assets worth approximately $5.3 billion. That figure is substantially lower than the $43 billion temporarily reflected in the erroneous credits, underscoring that the allocation existed within internal accounting records rather than as newly transferred blockchain assets.
Observers on social media platform X questioned how such a large discrepancy could occur without automated safeguards preventing the issuance. Bithumb has faced security challenges in the past. In 2017, an employee’s device was compromised, exposing customer data later used in phishing attempts. In 2018, around $30 million in cryptocurrency was stolen in an attack attributed to the Lazarus Group, an organization widely linked to North Korea. A further breach in 2019 resulted in losses of roughly $20 million and was initially suspected to involve insider participation. In each instance, Bithumb stated that it compensated affected users for lost funds, though earlier incidents included exposure of personal information.
Beyond cybersecurity events, the exchange has also been subject to regulatory scrutiny, including investigations related to alleged fraud, embezzlement, and promotional practices. Reports indicate it was again raided this week over concerns involving misleading advertising.
Bithumb maintains that no customer ultimately suffered a net financial loss from the recent error, though the price movement raised concerns about potential liquidations for leveraged traders. A comparable situation occurred at decentralized exchange Paradex, which reversed trades following a pricing malfunction.
The incident unfolds amid broader market strain, with digital asset prices astronomically below their October peaks and political debate intensifying around cryptocurrency-linked business interests connected to U.S. public figures. Recent disclosures from the U.S. Department of Justice concerning Jeffrey Epstein’s early involvement in cryptocurrency ventures have further fueled online speculation and conspiracy narratives across social platforms.