- Company
Silent Push Inc. ©2025

As leaders in preemptive cyber defense, our mission is to provide security teams with the data and insights needed to map malicious infrastructure and stay ahead of adversaries. We’re excited to announce our integration with D3, a leading AI-powered Security Operations Center (SOC) product.
The connection between our proactive analysis of malicious infrastructure and the automation capabilities of the D3 platform helps security teams enrich incident data and streamline response workflows.
By using the Silent Push integration for D3 (version 17.4+), security teams can automate the process of enriching observables like domains and IP addresses. When an alert is received, a D3 playbook can query the Silent Push API to gather additional context, reducing the need for manual investigation.
This integration allows a Security Operations Center (SOC) to:
The integration makes the following Silent Push API commands available for use within D3 playbooks:
For example, when an alert for a phishing attempt is processed, a D3 playbook can use these commands to extract the domain, retrieve its risk score from Silent Push, and initiate a blocking action if the domain is identified as malicious.
To set up the integration, log into the Silent Push portal and generate a new API key from your organization’s settings. In the D3 platform, add the Silent Push integration and create a new connection using your API key and the Silent Push API URL. (https://api.silentpush.com).
See D3’s documentation here for additional installation instructions.
Our product experts are available to walk you through how D3 can be integrated with the Silent Push API, allowing your team to develop more efficient, automated security workflows and gain stronger visibility into emerging threat infrastructure. Contact us today for a platform demonstration.
In this report, Gartner® highlights a fundamental shift in how organizations must approach security: moving from reactive defense to preemptive, intelligence-driven protection. Our approach aligns with the report’s findings, helping businesses not only defend against threats but also enable growth and innovation.
Key Insights from the Report:
Access the full Gartner® report to explore how preemptive cybersecurity strategies are shaping the next generation of business resilience.
GARTNER® is a registered trademark and service mark of Gartner, Inc. and/or its affiliates in the U.S. and internationally and is used herein with permission. All rights reserved.
Learn the same techniques Silent Push analysts use to uncover networks of fraudulent domains, marketplaces, and service platforms as they’re being built.
Move beyond surface-level monitoring and start identifying coordinated scam operations early, before they can target your brand, customers, or organization.
New research developed by Silent Push Threat Analysts has been compiled into a set of exclusive exports, enabling organizations to track approximately 70,000 domains that rent subdomains, also referred to as “Dynamic DNS” providers.
These types of web hosts can be of concern because they allow anyone—malicious or otherwise—to register subdomains and host their own content on them. Typically, DNS records are also automatically managed by the service that rents the subdomains, though this is not the case with all publicly rentable subdomains.
Our enterprise customers have exclusive access to the set of data exports designed to address threat actor usage of this type of infrastructure for hosting and launching attacks.
Follow the Silent Push threat intelligence team on LinkedIn and X/Twitter for our latest research findings.
Publicly rentable subdomain providers (also known as “Dynamic DNS” providers) come in many shapes and sizes. These providers essentially offer subdomains for rent, sometimes operating as an individual, as with many of the tens of thousands of afraid[.]org personal dynamic DNS providers, or at other times renting subdomains from a larger company like with us[.]com and it[.]com.
Enterprise companies such as Google and Cloudflare offer some publicly rentable subdomains, but the vast majority are managed by individuals and largely unknown organizations.
There are a few different types of these domain rental services available when renting a subdomain:
The lack of complete control for a given host, at first glance, could appear as a weakness of this type of infrastructure; however, that couldn’t be further from the truth. These services are effectively operating as “mini domain registrars” without nearly the same amount of attention or oversight that legitimate domain registrars face.
These hosts can be dangerous for several reasons:
Numerous domain registrars offer similar anonymous purchasing features. However, domain registrars must be registered through various ICANN and IANA processes. In contrast, Dynamic DNS providers simply need to purchase a domain and set up their own routing and purchasing infrastructure. This allows them to operate with far less red tape and regulation.
Even though cybersecurity companies may be aware of a malicious subdomain, report it, and post it on numerous public systems and lists, a given subdomain could still remain active due to the lack of strong remediation options.
In contrast, when a similar situation occurs with normal domains, both the domain registrar and the domain host can be contacted to disrupt a malicious website, providing twice as many options to get something potentially malicious taken offline.
Tracking subdomain rental schemes and Dynamic DNS providers is a complicated process.
Many of these subdomain rental hosts can be found on the “Public Suffix List” (PSL), which is publicly maintained in the “Begin Private Domains” section. This list includes enterprise services such as Blogspot[.]com from Google and pages[.]dev from Cloudflare, as well as many more similar services that rent subdomains.
The PSL does not, however, include the vast majority of lower-quality hosts who rent subdomains, and it does not allow third-party submissions to its list. As a result, specific hosts that rent subdomains and/or provide Dynamic DNS services will most likely never end up on the PSL and therefore must be tracked separately.
Our research team has devoted significant effort to ensuring we track all hosts utilizing these subdomain rental schemes and monitor them in real-time for newly appearing domains.
For instance, the Dynamic DNS provider, afraid[.]org, has tens of thousands of domains renting subdomains – the oldest being approximately 25 years old, with a steady influx of new domains every month. To make this host even more complex, afraid[.]org only lists some of these publicly – the others are known as “stealth” domains and can only be tracked via NameServer records.
Our threat team currently sources data for this special Dynamic DNS export from a mix of queries, enhancing and empowering publicly available information with the deep context and insights offered by our own first-party data. This includes:
Silent Push Community Edition NameServer DNS search for afraid[.]org query link
![Web Scanner explore edition using nameserver dns search of afraid[.]org](https://www.silentpush.com/wp-content/uploads/ddns-image-1-web-scanner-explore.png)
![Screenshot of Freedns site search of afraid[.]org](https://www.silentpush.com/wp-content/uploads/ddns-image-2-freedns-afraid-org.png)
There are extensive examples of serious threat actors using publicly rentable domains / Dynamic DNS domain services in their attacks. A few of the more high-profile of these include:
Silent Push believes many publicly rentable domains and subdomains present a significant level of risk. Proactive measures are essential to defend against these potential, growing threats.
Our threat team created a set of Bulk Data Exports for all domains we’re tracking that rent subdomains and provide Dynamic DNS (DDNS) services. Enterprise clients are advised to set alerts on connections to any subdomains of these domains, and for some organizations, to block all connections.
Silent Push Indicators Of Future Attack™ (IOFA™) Feeds are available as part of an Enterprise subscription. Enterprise users can ingest this data into their security stack to inform their detection protocols or use it to pivot across attacker infrastructure using the Silent Push Console and Feed Analytics screen.
Our enterprise customers have access to the set of reports we compiled for this campaign. If you would like to learn more about our capabilities for tracking Dynamic DNS providers—or how you can hunt for them yourself on our platform—we encourage you/your organization to reach out to our team for a demonstration.
Connect with our platform experts for an overview of the Enterprise Edition platform. We can provide a tailored walkthrough for your specific use case, along with insights into integrations and API capabilities.
We know that publicly rentable domains / Dynamic DNS providers aren’t going away anytime soon. They have existed for decades and continue to gain in popularity among threat actors.
Contributing to this rise is a growing business sector that hosts these subdomain rental schemes. Outside of the enterprise solutions, many are often either owned by shell companies, companies with a clear record of ignoring abuse, or by threat actors who share no details about themselves or any corporate entities. There are far more malicious efforts than benign ones. Some enterprise solutions are known to be heavily exploited by serious threat actors.
Our threat team recommends that enterprise organizations treat all publicly rentable domains and Dynamic DNS providers with caution, given the potentially significant threats they can pose.
For some organizations, connections to these domains may need to be blocked outright unless a user manually requests a narrow exclusion. For others, alerting may suffice. Every organization is likely to handle these types of domains and providers in different ways and should adjust based on its own tolerance of risk.
When defenders encounter a domain that has subdomains for rent, we advise them to always keep in mind that while one subdomain may be benign, another could be malicious. As we have covered, the diversity of content available from these providers creates unique defensive challenges. This is the core reason behind the creation of the export files we created for our enterprise customers.
Silent Push will continue to monitor services that allow subdomain rentals and report on new findings and observations throughout 2025. We greatly appreciate being directed to any additional repositories of publicly rentable domains or dynamic DNS providers, as well as any services that may not currently be tracked that an organization, researcher, or other individual feels should be flagged for our team.
A Fortune 500 media and entertainment company transformed the way it handled security alerts by embedding Silent Push ThreatCheck into its SIEM workflows.
The result: weeks-earlier visibility into attacker infrastructure, streamlined investigations, and measurable outcomes based on their investment in Silent Push.
Security teams rely on SIEMs to centralize and correlate alerts. But once those alerts appear, the real challenge begins: determining which ones represent genuine threats.
For this organization, analysts faced:
They needed a way to automatically escalate indicators on the Silent Push IOFA® dataset to SOC Tier 2 and Tier 3 support to reduce mean time to response (MTTR).
Silent Push ThreatCheck is a lightweight enrichment solution that validates suspicious domains and IPs against Silent Push’s continuously mapped view of attacker infrastructure.
By embedding ThreatCheck into existing workflows – including SIEM and SOAR environments – organizations can:
The organization integrated ThreatCheck directly into their SIEM pipeline:
This seamless enrichment step meant analysts could immediately understand which alerts were tied to real adversary campaigns, without changing processes.
The impact was immediate:

This measurable advantage allowed the team to:

The ability to measure detection lead time turned ThreatCheck into a tool for proving value to leadership.
By comparing when Silent Push first detected malicious infrastructure against when the same indicators appeared in SIEM alerts, the customer demonstrated that Silent Push consistently delivered weeks of advanced visibility.
This translated to:
| Indicator | Threat Type | Seen in SIEM | Detected by Silent Push | Detection Lead Time |
| cdnjscloudnetwork[.]co | FIN7 Domain | 2025-05-16 | 2024-07-15 | 305 Days |
| 66.235.175[.]109 | Lazarus IP | 2025-07-05 | 2025-02-13 | 142 Days |
| api.drive-release[.]cloud | Lazarus Domain | 2025-06-19 | 2025-02-13 | 126 Days |
| okta.login-request[.]com | PoisonSeed Domain | 2025-07-24 | 2025-03-14 | 132 Days |
| static.twalls5280[.]com | FakeUpdate Domain | 2025-08-28 | 2025-05-25 | 95 Days |
| hlanstanbak[.]com | KeitaroC2 Domain | 2025-08-29 | 2025-08-13 | 16 Days |
| 82.117.255[.]225 | SecTopRAT IP | 2025-08-29 | 2025-06-18 | 72 Days |
This success highlights three reasons why ThreatCheck delivers value across organizations:
Silent Push ThreatCheck is designed to help organizations move from reactive alert-handling to preemptive cyber defense.
Ready to see it in action? Get in touch today for a customized demonstration of how ThreatCheck can integrate into your workflows and deliver measurable results.
On September 28, 2025, Moldova (the former Soviet republic country landlocked between Romania and Ukraine) will hold nationwide elections. These elections are reportedly being targeted by Russian disinformation efforts attempting to dissuade Moldova from continuing its alignment toward Europe and away from Russia. The effort is classified as part of multi-year Russian disinformation campaigns by threat actors known as “Matryoshka” or “Storm-1679.”
Our analysts have identified a unique technical fingerprint through the analysis of Moldovan disinformation websites active in 2025, which helped us discover two new domains hosted on a unique IP address. The new hosts are linked to separate Russian disinformation efforts that have been active since 2022.
Unlike the current Moldovan campaign, the older Russian disinformation effort was first seen in 2022 and is associated with an organization known as “Absatz.” Registration details list a Moscow address under an editor-in-chief named “Shakhnazarov M. S.” Our team finds it likely this refers to an individual with the name “Mikhail Sergeyevich Shakhnazarov,” based in Russia, who was sanctioned in Ukraine for supporting disinformation efforts. Based on the registered organization name, tax numbers, and editor’s name, the editor-in-chief of Absatz certainly appears to be the same currently sanctioned Russian disinformation actor, (https://zachestnyibiznes.ru/company/ul/1217700292325_9706016908).
Follow the Silent Push threat intelligence team on LinkedIn and X/Twitter for our latest research findings.
Researchers have been monitoring a recent Moldovan disinformation campaign that has been active since at least April 2025. As referenced above, this campaign is classified as part of multi-year Russian disinformation campaigns by threat actors known as “Storm-1679” or “Matryoshka” (a descriptive term associated with Russian nesting dolls). This same Russian threat group has targeted other elections and global events, including the 2024 Paris Olympics.
While reviewing indicators from a recent report about the Russia-linked influence campaign targeting Moldova, our team identified technical fingerprints linking the efforts to Absatz. Absatz is a Russian news site run by an editor-in-chief, “Mikhail Sergeyevich Shakhnazarov,” who is likely the same individual previously sanctioned in Ukraine for supporting Russian propaganda.
Absatz was registered on March 31, 2022, with the Russian media regulator Roskomnadzor. Also known as the Federal Service for Supervision of Communications, Information Technology, and Mass Media, Roskomnadzor is the Russian government’s primary regulator for media and the internet. The regulator has been previously criticized for censoring independent media and enforcing state control.
Based on the discoveries our team has made connecting a 2022 disinformation effort with this 2025 campaign, one of three conclusions appears likely:
We quickly identified several fingerprints to track the domains associated with the 2025 disinformation campaign targeting Moldova, which are based on multiple code commonalities shared across them, as well as the use of dedicated IP addresses.
The results revealed domains mapped to one of two dedicated IP addresses, further proving infrastructure reuse and common ownership across this campaign:
Our team observed heavily reused code across this infrastructure. This allowed us to develop a unique fingerprint connecting many of the 2025 websites, as well as two domains hosted on the same IP address, that have been used for Russian disinformation efforts since 2022.
The technical fingerprints were only found on the 2022 and 2025 Russian disinformation websites, and nowhere else on the internet, strongly indicating there are developer ties between the two efforts.
For operational security reasons, we cannot publicly reveal these fingerprints at this time. Our enterprise customers have access to a detailed report on this topic with no omissions, as well as all associated campaign infrastructure. Please reach out to our sales team (link at the bottom of this post) if this data is of interest to you or your organization.
The new domains and IP addresses returned from our technical fingerprints, which aren’t associated with the 2025 disinformation campaign, are:
The Absatz website also contains a footer which openly includes details about its ownership and editor-in-chief, which have been machine translated into English below:
“The online publication Absatz is registered by Roskomnadzor, registered entry dated March 31, 2022, EL № FS77 – 82992. Founder and editorial board – LLC «Intaria». Editor-in-Chief Shakhnazarov M. S. Editorial address: 127055, Russian Federation, Moscow, st. Butyrsky Val, 68/70s1. Mail: info@absatz[.]media All rights to materials located on the website absatz[.]media are protected in accordance with the legislation of the Russian Federation, including copyright and related rights. For any use of site materials, a link to absatz[.]media is required. The editors are not responsible for information and opinions expressed in reader comments and news materials compiled on the basis of reader messages.
They are used on the information resource recommender technologies (information technologies for providing information based on the collection, systematization, and analysis of information related to the preferences of internet users located on the territory of the Russian Federation).“
The key takeaways from this disclaimer are:
Beyond the technical connections shared between this historically Russian propaganda-focused website and the 2025 Moldovan disinformation websites, there is also a substantial amount of content on Absatz’s own website that raises both red flags and speaks to its support for similar disinformation campaigns.
When searching for the Russian word for Moldova (“Молдова”) on Absatz (absatz[.]media/search), there are dozens of clear disinformation articles. Some of the content includes headlines, machine translated to English below, which clearly show bias against the current leadership and the pro-EU faction within Moldova:
A large number of other articles across Absatz’s website follow this disinformation pattern. They can be found by searching for other commonly included keywords for these types of campaigns in Russian:
Many low-quality accounts (low-quality in terms of appearance as a genuine user) that share links to Absatz can be found across most major social networks, discoverable via simple searches on those platforms or by checking Absatz’s own account. It is important to note that this is a common tactic in disinformation campaigns:
Below are the two new domains and an IP address used by Absatz associated with the 2025 disinformation campaign:
Our enterprise customers have access to the complete list of disinformation infrastructure associated with this campaign. If you would like to learn more about our capabilities for tracking disinformation campaigns—or how you can hunt for them yourself on our platform—we encourage you/your organization to reach out to our team for a demonstration.
Connect with our platform experts for an overview of the Enterprise Edition platform. We can provide a tailored walkthrough for your specific use case, along with insights into integrations and API capabilities.
Our team will continue to investigate and track Storm-1679 as the campaign evolves and in concert with ongoing research into the infrastructure behind other disinformation campaigns. If you or your organization has details you wish to share with our threat team, we would love to hear from you.
Silent Push Threat Analysts are tracking the spread of a new malware loader we have named “CountLoader,” that is strongly associated with Russian ransomware gangs. The evolving threat is served in three versions: .NET, PowerShell, and JScript, and was recently used in a phishing lure targeting individuals in Ukraine as part of a campaign impersonating Ukrainian police.
Our analysis has observed CountLoader dropping several malware agents, like CobaltStrike and AdaptixC2. Technical evidence obtained from within these samples allowed our team to make the connection between the agents dropped by CountLoader and the malware agents observed in several ransomware attacks. Based on this observation, we assess with medium-high confidence that CountLoader is being used either as part of the toolset of an IAB or by a ransomware affiliate with ties to the LockBit, BlackBasta, and Qilin ransomware groups.
Kaspersky researchers identified a portion of CountLoader’s operations in June 2025. However, they were only able to identify the PowerShell version, which at the time utilized a “DeepSeek” AI phishing lure to trick users into downloading and executing it. Our team identified indications of several additional unique campaigns utilizing various other lures and targeting methods, including a .NET version of CountLoader, which was named twitter1[.]exe.
Organizations frequently targeted by Russian cybercrime, ransomware groups, or Advanced Persistent Threat (APT) groups are encouraged to integrate our Indicators Of Future Attack™ (IOFA™) feeds for CountLoader into their security stack to defend against this continuously evolving threat.
Register now for our free Community Edition to use all the tools and queries highlighted in this blog.
While monitoring for new threats, our team recently discovered a malware sample with unique behavior and varied attribution descriptions in VirusTotal. After a thorough investigation, we were able to confirm the sample was a new malware loader we assess to be associated with multiple ransomware groups, primarily Russian-speaking cybercriminals. This campaign was observed to be targeting citizens in Ukraine with a Ukrainian police phishing lure, strengthening suspicions of its ties to Russian threat actors.
After an initial open source review, our team found several public reports that mentioned the domains app-updater[.]app, app-updater1[.]app, and app-updater2[.]app. One of the domains, app-updater1[.]app, was suspected of downloading a malicious implant by Kaspersky, as shared in their Securelist report on June 11, 2025. No binary was downloaded, however, and their team was unable to investigate further at the time.
![Securelist report screenshot mentioning the domain “app-updater1[.]app”](https://www.silentpush.com/wp-content/uploads/cloader-image-1.png)
Cyfirma also reported a similar campaign, though again, there were no significant details on what was happening with the command and control (C2) domain: app-updater[.]app.
Taking this into account, our team discovered that what was being observed here was actually part of the loader’s primary code loop. CountLoader attempts a connection to many different C2s, retrying up to a million times, and we believe this partial activity is what both Cyfirma and Kaspersky were observing in their respective reports.
Digging deeper, our team then observed several different versions of the malware, written in .NET, PowerShell, and JScript, respectively. Only the PowerShell version of the three has been referenced in public reporting so far (via Kaspersky).
The main version we have observed is the JScript-based version, which is wrapped in an HTML application. It is the most thorough implementation, offering six different methods for file downloading, three different methods for executing various downloadable malware binaries, and a predefined function to identify a victim’s device based on Windows domain information.
We began our investigation by following the discovery of a malware sample in VirusTotal, which contacted several domains with an apparently unique communication pattern of shared use of the “/api/getFile?fn=” path across the domains.
As C2 communications in malware are often unique, our team decided to investigate this pattern and see what more we could find.

Taking two of the known domains, app-updater[.]app and app-updater1[.]app, and dropping them into our Web Scanner, our team was able to use the “Compare” feature to identify shared attributes swiftly. This is a common technique in our investigations, as it allows for the easy creation and testing of more accurate fingerprints.
After some validation testing, our team put together a solid fingerprint combining our HHV, JARM, Response, and ssl.CHV fields into a single query that covers a large number of related domains for this threat. Descriptions of each field are noted below, though some details are omitted for operational security reasons (which are also available to our enterprise customers):
These fields enabled us to detect additional domains used by CountLoader and, as of this writing (August 2025), we have discovered 20+ unique domains. Enterprise customers have access to a comprehensive report that contains our full, unredacted analysis on this threat.
As referenced before, during an open source review, our team found two additional sources where some of the domains had been referenced:

Given the variety of malware types reported with these C2 domains, our team suspected the domains dropping the malware were associated with this new malware loader, which we were later able to confirm.
During our investigation, an interesting .zip file named “vymoha_na_yavku” was found to contact ms-team-ping[.]com. We confirmed this was related to our newly discovered cluster of malicious CountLoader domains.

We then analyzed a sample. This analysis revealed an ongoing PDF-based lure campaign that remains active at the time of writing this blog (August 2025).

When translating the PDF into English, the following message from the (supposed) “National Police of Ukraine” appears:

As previously referenced, our team observed three different versions of the CountLoader malware. We will now examine each of them in turn, beginning with the JScript version, which we have identified as the main CountLoader implant, followed by the .NET binary and PowerShell binary versions.
The JScript-based version has around 850 lines of code. It outshines both the .NET version and the PowerShell version in terms of both length and functionality. In this form, CountLoader is delivered to its victims in the form of an .hta file, which is obfuscated using the free and open-source obfuscator[.]io tool referenced earlier.
The .hta file extension is the default file extension for an HTML Application file, a proprietary executable format by Microsoft. Threat actors regularly abuse this file type to deliver executable code to devices that have no user interface. Typically, .hta files are executed using the proprietary Microsoft Windows binary “mshta.exe.”
After deobfuscating the code and renaming a few variables for legibility, we uncovered the functionality (viewable in the screenshot below), which we will now cover in detail:

Upon execution, CountLoader first checks to see if it has already performed an initialization on the victim’s system. This is done by determining if the .hta file is executed from a URL that contains “/start” in the path.
If that is not the case, some initialization commands are run at a later point in the execution flow.
After initial checks, the execution flow continues by collecting system information:
a. Starts with the username
b. Adds the first non-null processor ID it finds.
c. Adds the first non-null system UUID it finds.
d. Adds the first non-null disk model it finds.
e. Adds a space character.
f. Adds the first non-null disk serial number it finds.
At the end of this process, CountLoader starts its main loop. The loop runs once and then continues to run as long as the “start” value is defined in the path of the HTA execution. This is the C2 contact attempt loop referenced previously, seen here in the following code:

This code does the following:
For each number between 1 and 10, generate a URL by:
The “CheckStatusC2ReturnDecryptedResponse” then creates an HTTP Post request to the C2 server with “CheckStatus” in the POST data.
If the C2 is up, it will respond with an XOR-encrypted and Base64-encoded string of “success”. The XOR encryption works as follows: The key consists of six characters from the string. The remaining string is the encrypted data. To decrypt, we take the six-character string and decrypt the remaining part. This algorithm is implemented in CountLoader as both an encryption and a decryption variant. The results of both are in Base64 encoding, presumably to maintain consistency.
All C2 comms are encrypted using this algorithm.
If CountLoader receives the “success” string from a C2, it then continues its main operation; otherwise, it jumps to attempting to contact the next C2 server.
The next step, connecting to the C2 server, is seen here:

As seen above, CountLoader connects using the “/connect” endpoint, initially sending along some victim-specific fingerprint data. This request expects an encrypted response from the C2, where the response will be a long string and is then used as the C2’s password for the remainder of the communication. C2 authentication uses standard HTTP authentication with a Bearer header.
A sample encrypted response is:
eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpZGVudGlmaWVyIjoiM0YwRDAwREU0MUY0Q0ZGNURGNTNEQkY5M0IxMEYxNzciLCJleHAiOjE3NTIwNzc5MzcsImlzcyI6IlNlcnZlciIsImF1ZCI6Ik15U2VydmVyQXVkaXQifQ.eU6qT6lRrS5iBCJPeweOoH3fxiGLKjJEy5OTWZdYu5s
If the proper response is received, CountLoader creates a scheduled task to maintain persistence. This scheduled task runs the “mshta” executable pointing to “C2Server/env_Var.<randomstringlength9)” ten minutes after the initial execution.
The name of the scheduled task is:
The task name attempts to impersonate Google’s update tasks for the Chrome browser. CountLoader then checks if the scheduled task was successfully created. If not, it then checks to see if the initialization functionality has already been run.
If the initialization has not been run, the malware then executes the following code:

This first function call changes the registry value for “MaxScriptStatements” under:
"HKEY_CURRENT_USER\\Software\\Microsoft\\Internet Explorer\\Styles\\";
to “10000000”.
This is likely an attempt to bypass warning messages thrown by MSHTA when long scripts are executed. Information related to these can be found on the SuperUser.com forums and on the msfn.org forums.
The malware then continues its execution by setting the Windows Run Key via:
This process runs mshta.exe, reaching out to the C2 server under:
The process also executes the same command via WScript.Shell.
Note that these functions have the “/start” parameter explicitly added. At this point in CountLoader’s execution, we now have registry persistence consistently executing the latest script from the C2 server, after which it won’t run this part of the code again.
From here, we get to the actual “loader” part of the code:

The loader requests tasks from the C2 via a specific function:

It is important to note that a unique function is used here to set the previously received string from the connection phase to be the Authorization Bearer Header for this request.
WinHTTP_Webrequest_5_1.SetRequestHeader("Authorization", "Bearer " + C2EndpointPW);
This function serves as an authentication measure, preventing unauthorized third parties from issuing successful requests to the C2 server.
The POST request data consists of “getUpdates”; i.e., the response text comes in a JSON format, containing an unknown number of tasks.
Each task consists of an ID, a URL (which, depending on the task, also contains comma-separated arguments needed for execution, such as the DLL entry point for DLL tasks), and a Task Type.
Here is an example we received for a domain-joined system:
[{"id":123,"url":"","taskType":5},{"id":126,"url":"hxxps://ms-team-connect2[.]com/api/getFile/file2.exe","taskType":1}]
The available Task Types are:
Note: We can see “TaskType2” is missing. This may indicate that a previous CountLoader version containing it had it removed later.
All tasks that download external software to execute make use of a function that attempts the download via up to six different methods if the previous attempt did not succeed.
These methods are:
By using LOLBins like “certutil” and “bitsadmin,” and by implementing an “on the fly” command encryption PowerShell generator, CountLoader’s developers demonstrate here an advanced understanding of the Windows operating system and malware development.
Additionally, our team observed CountLoader makes almost exclusive use of its victims’ “Music” folder to stage additional malware binary downloads. This folder is commonly observed as a staging folder, as it is more accessible for many users compared to other traditional staging folders like the “Temp” data folder or the “AppData” folder. This observation plays a role in our attribution assessment later on.
Every successfully downloaded and executed task is shared to the C2 via this function:

The task ID from previous steps is then used as part of the HTTP POST data (approveUpdate?id=<id of task>) to confirm successful execution. Notably, the initial C2 password is used here again for authentication.
After executing all tasks from the C2 server, the main loop starts again, so long as the “/start” variable is in the execution path.
Finally, on encountering errors of any sort, the script deletes itself.
While investigating the C2 domain ms-team-ping 2[.]com, our team discovered the endpoint that receives binaries from tasks was configured as:
Following this pattern, we were able to extract a .NET version of CountLoader, among other payloads. This .NET binary, named twitter1[.]exe, has a SHA-256 hash of “17bfe335b2f9037849fda87ae0a7909921a96d8abfafa8111dc5da63cbf11eda”.
Looking deeper, the binary presented the following metadata information, among others:
Core Assembly Info:
The “Assembly” metadata here refers to two different companies, “OmniTech Industries” and “FutureSof.” We observed no public correlation between the two, and it appears these could simply be details added by the threat actors to obfuscate their work.
Fortunately for our team, the packer used for CountLoader here appears to have been used solely for binding additional libraries to the binary related to handling compressed archive files. As such, the code itself is relatively easy to read, the main function of which can be seen below:

In the .NET version of CountLoader, some crossover artifacts stand out from the JScript version.
First, the C2 connection appears to be established through an API Client that utilizes functions named: Connect(), GetUpdates(), and SubmitUpdate(update.ID). This aligns perfectly with the three functions observed in the JScript-based CountLoader version.
Additionally, there is an iterative process to read and execute all tasks received by the C2; and a web request to the C2 acknowledges every task. Once again, this aligns with the JScript version.
A notable difference between them, however, is that the observed .NET version of CountLoader only supports two types of commands, UpdateType.Zip or UpdateType.Exe. This indicates a reduced functionality set compared to the previously analyzed JScript version.
Interestingly, there is also a kill switch function at the very beginning of the .NET version, which, after cleanup and some additional math, looks like the following:

On execution, the binary calculates a hardcoded timestamp of May 12, 2025. It then checks if that date has passed by comparing the device date against this hardcoded timestamp. If the date has passed, then the code will attempt to divide 1 by 0, crashing the program. It will do this silently as well, as the loop catches all related errors and suppresses output to the user, effectively stopping the binary from executing.
Alternative versions of the kill switch check are executed several times throughout the sample.
We also see a custom string obfuscation function:
ar.a( obfuscated_string, int)
Reversing the string obfuscation allowed us to understand the sample better. The source code of the Augmented Reality (AR) class, for example, can be seen below:

The first function here, called for string deobfuscation, is actually another kill switch.
We can see that it creates a new DateTime Object with a predefined date. However, this date is intentionally obfuscated via a few different calculations. Cleaning that up, we get the following:

All told, this function compares the hardcoded date: May 12, 2025, at 11:00:16 PM against the current date and, again, initiates a crash by dividing by 0 if the required parameter is not met.
However, just prior, the code continues deobfuscating the string:
return ar.b.b.c(a, b)
Looking at the remaining code in the AR class, we see that this execution chain first loads a resource from the binary itself. This resource has a random name, which comes in obfuscated form via the b() function. In the case of our sample, this encrypted resource’s name is “+;\u0016\b1“.

The b() function decrypts the name of the resource using more math, which we can see the various steps of below:

The “decrypted resource name” of “vfKUl”, shown above, can be found in the binary in a specific byte array:
[0x90, 0xAE, 0x48, 0x60, 0xD8, 0xFD, 0x70, 0xDF, 0xF1, 0x6E, 0x8C, 0x04, 0x6B, 0xCB, 0x39, 0x18]
These bytes act as a key table for the deobfuscation of the string. As seen initially, each string is also passed alongside an integer. The lower 4 bits of that integer are used to determine which of the 16 keys from the array to choose. Then a logical “OR” operation is used to generate the XOR key, a logical representation of which is shown here:
<ressourcekey> | integer = <key>
This key is then XORed with every character of the obfuscated string.
Below, our team demonstrates this with an example string from the binary:
Setup:
'\ue8f0\ue8be\ue8af\ue8b6\ue8f0\ue8be\ue8af\ue8af\ue8ad\ue8b0\ue8a9\ue8ba\ue88a\ue8af\ue8bb\ue8be\ue8ab\ue8ba\ue8e0\ue8b6\ue8bb\ue8e2'Key calculation:
Decryption loop (processes characters in reverse order):
Result:
To facilitate the string’s deobfuscation, our team wrote a quick Python script, shown below:
def decrypt_ar_string(encrypted_string, key_index): """ Decrypt a string using the ar.a() method logic Args: encrypted_string: The encrypted string to decrypt key_index: The integer key index used in encryption Returns: Decrypted string """ # The key table from the vfKUl resource key_table = [0x90, 0xAE, 0x48, 0x60, 0xD8, 0xFD, 0x70, 0xDF, 0xF1, 0x6E, 0x8C, 0x04, 0x6B, 0xCB, 0x39, 0x18] # Calculate the XOR key table_byte = key_table[key_index & 0xF] xor_key = table_byte | key_index # Decrypt the string (working backwards like the original) chars = list(encrypted_string) for i in range(len(chars) - 1, -1, -1): chars[i] = chr(ord(chars[i]) ^ xor_key) return ''.join(chars) # ============================================================================= # ADD YOUR ENCRYPTED STRINGS HERE # Format: (encrypted_string, key_index) # ============================================================================= encrypted_strings = [ # Example - replace with your actual encrypted strings ("\ue8f0\ue8be\ue8af\ue8b6\ue8f0\ue8be\ue8af\ue8af\ue8ad\ue8b0\ue8a9\ue8ba\ue88a\ue8af\ue8bb\ue8be\ue8ab\ue8ba\ue8e0\ue8b6\ue8bb\ue8e2", 59479), # Add more encrypted strings here like: ] # ============================================================================= # DECRYPTION RESULTS # ============================================================================= print("=" * 80) print("DECRYPTION RESULTS") print("=" * 80) for i, (encrypted, key_idx) in enumerate(encrypted_strings): print(f"\n[{i+1}] Encrypted: {repr(encrypted)}") print(f" Key index: {key_idx}") print(f" Key index & 0xF: {key_idx & 0xF}") # Calculate XOR key details table_byte = [0x90, 0xAE, 0x48, 0x60, 0xD8, 0xFD, 0x70, 0xDF, 0xF1, 0x6E, 0x8C, 0x04, 0x6B, 0xCB, 0x39, 0x18][key_idx & 0xF] xor_key = table_byte | key_idx print(f" Table byte: 0x{table_byte:02X}") print(f" XOR key: 0x{xor_key:04X} ({xor_key})") # Decrypt and show result decrypted = decrypt_ar_string(encrypted, key_idx) print(f" DECRYPTED: '{decrypted}'") # Show length info print(f" Length: {len(encrypted)} chars -> {len(decrypted)} chars") print("\n" + "=" * 80) print("SUMMARY - DECRYPTED STRINGS ONLY") print("=" * 80)
Using this script, we can now deobfuscate all strings in the binary, which allows us to show the fully deobfuscated main function:

An interesting observation that can be made here is the hardcoded User-Agent header, which indicates a Yandex browser on Windows 10. Yandex is a Russian company sometimes referred to as “Russia’s Google.” This appears to be an additional hint at an Eastern European or Russian developer.
As with the JScript loader, if the binary crashes or completes its process, it will delete itself from the disk and kill its own process, effectively removing artifacts of its infection:
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/130.0.0.0 YaBrowser/24.12.0.0 Safari/537.36
The PowerShell version on CountLoader that we observed is even more straightforward than the .NET binary. In fact, the only sample we observed consisted of a mere 20 lines of code.
Since this version of CountLoader has already been analyzed in the Kaspersky SecureList article, we will only briefly highlight the similarities with the JScript and .NET variants.

As seen with the previous samples, here CountLoader uses a loop to generate C2 domains. It also stores the received malware binary in the Music folder. Additionally, it uses a known CountLoader C2 domain, app-updater[.]app.
It even features two different ways to execute received code: by either storing it on disk and running it via “Start-Process,” or by using in-memory execution via reflective loading.
To gain a deeper understanding of the malware delivered by CountLoader, we developed an in-house emulator to request Tasks from its C2 servers.
Over the span of two weeks, our team received the following samples directly from the attacker’s own infrastructure.
| Filename | Sha256 | Malware | C2 Server |
|---|---|---|---|
| file2[.]exe | 233C777937F3B0F83B1F6AE47403E03D1C3F72F650B4C6AE3FACEC7F2E5DA4B5 | Cobalt Strike | hxxp[:]//64[.]137[.]9[.]118/__utm[.]gif |
| file[.]exe | 5e9647e36d2fb46f359036381865efb0e432ff252fae138682cb2da060672c84 | Cobalt Strike | hxxp[:]//64[.]137[.]9[.]118/__utm[.]gif |
| file_x64[.]exe | 8A286A315DBA36B13E61B6A3458A4BB3ACB7818F1E957E0892A35ABB37FC9FCE | Cobalt Strike Shellcode Loader | 64[.]137[.]9[.]118[:]80/SQWb |
| <in memory implant> | <injected into previous sample> | Cobalt Strike | hxxp[:]//64[.]137[.]9[.]118/dpixel |
| run_v2[.]exe | EA410874356E7D27867A4E423F1A818AAEA495DFBF068243745C27B80DA84FAE | Adaptix C2 | hxxps[:]//64[.]137[.]9[.]118/api |
| run_v4[.]exe | B86ADCF7B5B8A6E01C48D2C84722919DF2D1C613410C32EB43FC8C10B8158C45 | Adaptix C2 | hxxps[:]//64[.]137[.]9[.]118/api |
All samples mentioned above were only received by Windows domain-joined systems. All domain-joined systems also received “Task Type 5” for the JScript CountLoader version, which asked for additional Windows domain information.
This shows the threat actor’s higher interest in domain-joined systems, which is understandable as they typically indicate a corporate environment.
Also noteworthy, though for a non-domain-joined system this time, our team’s emulator received a packed PureHVNC payload:
| Filename | Sha256 | Malware | C2 Server |
|---|---|---|---|
| cvcshost[.]exexexpierience[.]exeXojwecqy[.]exe | D34CA886266B7CE5F75F4CAAA6E48F61E194BB55605C2BC4032BA8AF5580B2E7 | PureHVNC | 109[.]176[.]30[.]246[:]56004Ports: 56001 – 56004 |
The PureHVNC binary was downloaded from the following link:
hxxps[:]//chifacanton[.]phuyufact[.]com/images/sot/e/Xojwecqy[.]exe
Once dropped, it is renamed to both cvcshost[.]exe and xespierience[.]exe during the unpacking and execution steps.
Another binary staged on this server is:
hxxps[:]//chifacanton[.]phuyufact[.]com/images/sot/m/git[.]msi
The SHA256 of which is:
4CB6EC9522D8C1315CD3A2985D2204C634EDC579B08A1B132254BD7DD5DF72D8
Which, upon further analysis, turned out to be Lumma Stealer with the following C2 server:
gizqt[.]xyz
During our Analysis of the various Cobalt Strike samples related to this campaign, our team successfully extracted an associated C2 configuration from within the malware’s binary.
The fields captured from it included a “watermark” field, along with an “http_hosts” field, which contained an IP address, as explained further below:

Among the various configuration options used by this threat actor in their deployment of Cobalt Strike, one crucial element is the Cobalt Strike watermark. Cobalt Strike watermarks are unique numerical values generated from the Cobalt Strike license file. This value is added to each full backdoor beacon payload generated by a particular Cobalt Strike C2 instance.
There are only a few cases where this watermark cannot be tied to a unique attacker. This can be the case in cracked versions of Cobalt Strike or when an attacker shares their Cobalt Strike license file with another attacker.
In most cases, however, the Cobalt Strike watermark is a unique enough identifier that it enables researchers to cluster different campaigns together and tie them back to a single cluster.
Our team observed the following watermark tied to the Cobalt Strike samples spread via CountLoader: 1473793097. We uncovered two different Cobalt Strike samples containing this watermark, each configured with its own C2 server.
Sample 1 was found on August 29, 2024, and we made use of the domain fronting technique via CloudFront, with the configured domain being:
d31tef3bsujkft[.]cloudfront[.]net/safebrowsing/rd/CltOb12nLW1IbHehcmUtd2hUdmFzEBAY7-0KIOkUDC7h2
The second sample we found was named svchost[.]exe and is available on VirusTotal.
It was first observed on June 20, 2025, and configured with the C2 domain:
quasuar[.]com

The only observed IP associated with the quasuar[.]com domain is 45.61.150[.]76, which we enriched in our platform to tie back to several hostnames.
Looking further into the domain, quasuar[.]com tied to that IP, our team found an X/Twitter Post by a security researcher, Germán Fernández, who referenced both the domain and the very same Cobalt Strike watermark we were tracking: “1473793097.”
In this post, Fernández presents evidence that ties the watermark to yet another Cobalt Strike watermark: “1357776117,” using the following screenshot:

Our team then observed a Cobalt Strike C2 profile using both the watermark and the quasuar[.]com C2 domain and an OVH server that hosted the domain misctoolsupdate[.]com. The IP in question, 180.131.145[.]73, is also noted in Fernández’s X/Twitter post.
Fernández further states that the watermark 1473793097 observed in the sample is linked to a Qilin ransomware incident, while the watermark 1357776117 is associated with both BlackBasta and Qilin.
To corroborate this information, we worked to find additional links between the C2 server IP address 45.61.150[.]76 and the IP address 180.131.145[.]73 seen in the X/Twitter post.
While doing so, we discovered that, within two days of scanning, our database had observed the same SSL fingerprint for both IP addresses.
Our team also found an interesting pattern in the subdomain naming scheme for both misctoolsupdate[.]com and limenlinon[.]com, where the attacker created “sso” and “login” subdomains for both apex domains.
Further analysis confirmed that the domain misctoolsupdate[.]com has been observed as a Cobalt Strike C2 domain. An example of such was configured using the second watermark, 1357776117, which can be found on VirusTotal.
By combining all the information, our team was able to create a technical fingerprint based on the custom “500: Internal Server Error” response tied to this particular attack cluster. Note that this response is only given when querying the IP directly, which is why the query only returns IP addresses. Examining the IP’s SSL certificates then reveals the associated domains.
Notable examples with the Cobalt Strike 1357776117 watermark discovered via this fingerprint include:
Note: The IP addresses 45.61.150[.]76 and 180.131.145[.]73 are both observed to be connected via this fingerprint, further linking the Cobalt Strike watermarks 1357776117 and 1473793097 together.
While we are among the first to highlight the attribution of the new watermark, 1473793097, to this attack cluster, reviewing open source for the older watermark, 1357776117, yields a wide range of ransomware-related research articles.
One of the most significant among them is a report by Kudelski Security, which mentions the domain misctoolsupdate[.]com and the watermark 1357776117 in relation to attacks on SAP NetWeaver.
Details from the article align with our findings:
Observation of the adversary’s infrastructure showed consistent naming conventions across multiple domains and subdomains. The attacker repeatedly used prefixes such as “sso.” and “login.” likely in an attempt to blend malicious traffic into legitimate enterprise communications. Examples include: (login| sso).misctoolsupdate[.]com (login| sso).networkmaintenanceservice[.]com (login|sso).officetoolservices[.]com sso.leapsummergetis[.]com The recurrence of these prefixes across unrelated domains suggests automated infrastructure generation, possibly using templated scripts or orchestration tooling to rapidly deploy new redirectors or C2 servers with plausible, enterprise-looking subdomains.
The article ties the observed Cobalt Strike watermark (and, by extension, the CountLoader campaign we have been tracking) directly to BlackBasta and Qilin Ransomware activity.
Additional external research on this specific watermark can be found here:
An interesting finding from the above on LockBit comes from the DFIR report: “The attacker used the Windows Music folder as a central staging server. This staging folder is not commonly used for malware staging. Threat actors usually store malware in folders such as ‘tmp’ or ‘appdata.’”
This aligns with our observations regarding CountLoader staging samples in the “Music” folder.
Based on all of the above, our team assesses with high confidence that CountLoader serves either as an IAB or ransomware affiliate and has apparent connections to the LockBit, BlackBasta, and Qilin ransomware groups.
Silent Push believes all observables associated with CountLoader present a significant level of risk. Proactive measures are essential to defend against Initial Access Brokers, as the damage that follows is typically far greater than first observed (if any).
Our analysts have constructed several Silent Push Indicators Of Future Attack™ (IOFA™) Feeds for our clients to protect them from this threat. These feeds include:
The IOFA™ Feeds are available as part of a Silent Push Enterprise subscription. Enterprise users can ingest this data into their security stack to inform their detection protocols or use it to pivot across attacker infrastructure using the Silent Push Console and Feed Analytics screen.
Below is a sample list of Silent Push IOFA™ associated with CountLoader. Our complete list is available for enterprise users.
We believe that the threat posed by CountLoader continues to evolve by the day and advise all enterprise organizations that detect CountLoader activity to immediately begin deeper investigations and monitor for the release of additional payloads and exploitation.
If you or your organization has any leads related to this effort, particularly regarding unique payloads or new C2s used by these threat actors, our team would love to hear from you.
Move beyond reactive alerts and start uncovering the next wave of malware loaders, infostealers, and phishing campaigns before they are ever launched.

RESTON, VA, UNITED STATES, September 12, 2025 — Silent Push, a leading preemptive cybersecurity vendor, today announced the company has raised $10 million in Series B funding. This investment round includes existing investors StepStone Group (Nasdaq: STEP), Ten Eleven, and Knollwood Investment Advisory, bringing the company’s total funding to $32 million. The funds will accelerate Silent Push’s continued innovation, global expansion, and customer momentum.
Silent Push is the only cybersecurity platform that offers Indicators of Future Attack (IOFA™) to deliver within a single platform a complete, actionable view of emerging threat infrastructure in real-time. Silent Push delivers an unmatched, comprehensive ability to map and proactively track the ever-changing threat infrastructure security teams face on a daily basis, empowering them to quickly block attacks, defend against the known global threats, and proactively address what is lurking in the unknown before it can cause damage.
“We believe every organization deserves to be equipped with the data and tools needed to defend themselves against known threats and emerging campaigns,” said Ken Bagnall, Co-Founder & CEO, Silent Push.
“With this investment, we are able to deliver cutting-edge, preemptive intelligence solutions to the global market as we expand into new regions that include Europe, the Middle East, Africa, and Asia-Pacific. I look forward to collaborating with our new and existing investors as we build on our proven capabilities, strengthen partnerships, and deepen our engagement with local governments and enterprises.”
The Series B funding will drive Silent Push’s expansion as the company continues to reach key milestones and accelerate growth. For instance, Silent Push announced a strategic partnership with CyberLion Ltd., a leading cybersecurity distributor specialising in enterprise and government-grade defense solutions across the EMEA region, signifying a significant step forward in the company’s global growth strategy.
With their continued commitment to innovation, Silent Push recently released IP Context, a powerful detection method that identifies all uses of IP addresses in one place, including use as a VPN, proxy, or sinkhole or benign scanner across the company’s global dataset, and launched their new Google Chrome Extension to provide immediate access to information about indicators discovered through a user’s browser and new controls to action on them.
“We are thrilled to invest in Silent Push’s dedicated team, whose proven track record and commitment are transforming how organizations track, monitor and counteract global threat activity,” said Hunter Somerville, Partner at Stepstone Group.
“Their distinct approach to identifying developing cyber threats by creating Indicators of Future Attacks has been shown time and time again to be more useful and valuable than industry-standard IOCs. This investment round enables them to strengthen their leadership role as they deliver critical cybersecurity solutions and expand their customer base.”
Silent Push is a preemptive cybersecurity intelligence company. It is the first and only solution to provide a complete view of emerging threat infrastructure in real-time, exposing malicious intent through its Indicators Of Future Attack™ (IOFA™) data to enable security teams to proactively block hidden threats and avoid loss. The Silent Push standalone platform is also available via API integrating with any number of security tools, including SIEM & XDR, SOAR, TIP, and OSINT providing automated enrichment and actionable intelligence. Customers include some of the world’s largest enterprises within the Fortune 500 and government agencies. Free community edition is available. For more information, visit www.silentpush.com or follow on LinkedIn and X.
StepStone Group Inc. (Nasdaq: STEP) is a global private markets investment firm focused on providing customized investment solutions and advisory and data services to its clients. As of June 30, 2025, StepStone was responsible for approximately $723 billion of total capital, including $199 billion of assets under management. StepStone’s clients include some of the world’s largest public and private defined benefit and defined contribution pension funds, sovereign wealth funds and insurance companies, as well as prominent endowments, foundations, family offices and private wealth clients, which include high-net-worth and mass affluent individuals. StepStone partners with its clients to develop and build private markets portfolios designed to meet their specific objectives across the private equity, infrastructure, private debt and real estate asset classes.