CTIPilot

NetSupport Manager

product · product:netsupport-manager single-source

Coverage timeline
1
first 2026-09-21 → last 2026-09-21
Peak priority
high
1 high
Sources cited
2
1 hosts
Sections touched
1
active-threats
Co-occurring entities
3
see Co-occurring entities below
ATT&CK techniques
13
pinned v19.2 · see below

ATT&CK techniques

13 techniques observed across 1 entry, derived from entry metadata and body evidence, never asserted without a published entry behind it · pinned to MITRE ATT&CK v19.2 · compare on the matrix · Navigator layer (JSON)

Initial Access TA0001

T1566.003Phishing: Spearphishing via Service×1

Adversaries may send spearphishing messages via third-party services in an attempt to gain access to victim systems. Spearphishing via service is a specific variant of spearphishing. It is different from other forms of spearphishing in that it employs the use of third party services rather than directly via enterprise email channels.

Evidence: 2026-09-21/conference-phishing-rogue-root-ca-mitm-persistence · ATT&CK page ↗

Execution TA0002

T1059.001Command and Scripting Interpreter: PowerShell×1

Adversaries may abuse PowerShell commands and scripts for execution. PowerShell is a powerful interactive command-line interface and scripting environment included in the Windows operating system. Adversaries can use PowerShell to perform a number of actions, including discovery of information and execution of code. Examples include the <code>Start-Process</code> cmdlet which can be used to run an executable and the <code>Invoke-Command</code> cmdlet which runs a command locally or on a remote computer (though administrator permissions are required to use PowerShell to connect to remote systems).

Evidence: 2026-09-21/conference-phishing-rogue-root-ca-mitm-persistence · ATT&CK page ↗

T1204.002User Execution: Malicious File×1

An adversary may rely upon a user opening a malicious file in order to gain execution. Users may be subjected to social engineering to get them to open a file that will lead to code execution. This user action will typically be observed as follow-on behavior from Spearphishing Attachment. Adversaries may use several types of files that require a user to execute them, including .doc, .pdf, .xls, .rtf, .scr, .exe, .lnk, .pif, .cpl, .reg, and .iso.

Evidence: 2026-09-21/conference-phishing-rogue-root-ca-mitm-persistence · ATT&CK page ↗

T1204.004User Execution: Malicious Copy and Paste×1

An adversary may rely upon a user copying and pasting code in order to gain execution. Users may be subjected to social engineering to get them to copy and paste code directly into a Command and Scripting Interpreter. One such strategy is "ClickFix," in which adversaries present users with seemingly helpful solutions (such as prompts to fix errors or complete CAPTCHAs) that instead instruct the user to copy and paste malicious code.

Evidence: 2026-09-21/conference-phishing-rogue-root-ca-mitm-persistence · ATT&CK page ↗

Persistence TA0003

T1546.015Event Triggered Execution: Component Object Model Hijacking×1

Adversaries may establish persistence by executing malicious content triggered by hijacked references to Component Object Model (COM) objects. COM is a system within Windows to enable interaction between software components through the operating system. References to various COM objects are stored in the Registry.

Evidence: 2026-09-21/conference-phishing-rogue-root-ca-mitm-persistence · ATT&CK page ↗

Privilege Escalation TA0004

T1546.015Event Triggered Execution: Component Object Model Hijacking×1

Adversaries may establish persistence by executing malicious content triggered by hijacked references to Component Object Model (COM) objects. COM is a system within Windows to enable interaction between software components through the operating system. References to various COM objects are stored in the Registry.

Evidence: 2026-09-21/conference-phishing-rogue-root-ca-mitm-persistence · ATT&CK page ↗

Stealth TA0005

T1027.010Obfuscated Files or Information: Command Obfuscation×1

Adversaries may obfuscate content during command execution to impede detection. Command-line obfuscation is a method of making strings and patterns within commands and scripts more difficult to signature and analyze. This type of obfuscation can be included within commands executed by delivered payloads (e.g., Phishing and Drive-by Compromise) or interactively via Command and Scripting Interpreter.

Evidence: 2026-09-21/conference-phishing-rogue-root-ca-mitm-persistence · ATT&CK page ↗

Defense Impairment TA0112

T1553.002Subvert Trust Controls: Code Signing×1

Adversaries may create, acquire, or steal code signing materials to sign their malware or tools. Code signing provides a level of authenticity on a binary from the developer and a guarantee that the binary has not been tampered with. The certificates used during an operation may be created, acquired, or stolen by the adversary. Unlike Invalid Code Signature, this activity will result in a valid signature.

Evidence: 2026-09-21/conference-phishing-rogue-root-ca-mitm-persistence · ATT&CK page ↗

T1553.004Subvert Trust Controls: Install Root Certificate×1

Adversaries may install a root certificate on a compromised system to avoid warnings when connecting to adversary controlled web servers. Root certificates are used in public key cryptography to identify a root certificate authority (CA). When a root certificate is installed, the system or application will trust certificates in the root's chain of trust that have been signed by the root certificate. Certificates are commonly used for establishing secure TLS/SSL communications within a web browser. When a user attempts to browse a website that presents a certificate that is not trusted an error message will be displayed to warn the user of the security risk. Depending on the security settings, the browser may not allow the user to establish a connection to the website.

Evidence: 2026-09-21/conference-phishing-rogue-root-ca-mitm-persistence · ATT&CK page ↗

Credential Access TA0006

T1557Adversary-in-the-Middle×1

Adversaries may attempt to position themselves between two or more networked devices using an adversary-in-the-middle (AiTM) technique to support follow-on behaviors such as Network Sniffing, Transmitted Data Manipulation, or replay attacks (Exploitation for Credential Access). By abusing features of common networking protocols that can determine the flow of network traffic (e.g. ARP, DNS, LLMNR, etc.), adversaries may force a device to communicate through an adversary controlled system so they can collect information or perform additional actions.

Evidence: 2026-09-21/conference-phishing-rogue-root-ca-mitm-persistence · ATT&CK page ↗

Discovery TA0007

T1518Software Discovery×1

Adversaries may attempt to get a listing of software and software versions that are installed on a system or in a cloud environment. Adversaries may use the information from Software Discovery during automated discovery to shape follow-on behaviors, including whether or not the adversary fully infects the target and/or attempts specific actions.

Evidence: 2026-09-21/conference-phishing-rogue-root-ca-mitm-persistence · ATT&CK page ↗

Collection TA0009

T1557Adversary-in-the-Middle×1

Adversaries may attempt to position themselves between two or more networked devices using an adversary-in-the-middle (AiTM) technique to support follow-on behaviors such as Network Sniffing, Transmitted Data Manipulation, or replay attacks (Exploitation for Credential Access). By abusing features of common networking protocols that can determine the flow of network traffic (e.g. ARP, DNS, LLMNR, etc.), adversaries may force a device to communicate through an adversary controlled system so they can collect information or perform additional actions.

Evidence: 2026-09-21/conference-phishing-rogue-root-ca-mitm-persistence · ATT&CK page ↗

Command and Control TA0011

T1071.001Application Layer Protocol: Web Protocols×1

Adversaries may communicate using application layer protocols associated with web traffic to avoid detection/network filtering by blending in with existing traffic. Commands to the remote system, and often the results of those commands, will be embedded within the protocol traffic between the client and server.

Evidence: 2026-09-21/conference-phishing-rogue-root-ca-mitm-persistence · ATT&CK page ↗

T1102.002Web Service: Bidirectional Communication×1

Adversaries may use an existing, legitimate external Web service as a means for sending commands to and receiving output from a compromised system over the Web service channel. Compromised systems may leverage popular websites and social media to host command and control (C2) instructions. Those infected systems can then send the output from those commands back over that Web service channel. The return traffic may occur in a variety of ways, depending on the Web service being utilized. For example, the return traffic may take the form of the compromised system posting a comment on a forum, issuing a pull request to development project, updating a document hosted on a Web service, or by sending a Tweet.

Evidence: 2026-09-21/conference-phishing-rogue-root-ca-mitm-persistence · ATT&CK page ↗

T1219Remote Access Tools×1

An adversary may use legitimate remote access tools to establish an interactive command and control channel within a network. Remote access tools create a session between two trusted hosts through a graphical interface, a command line interaction, a protocol tunnel via development or management software, or hardware-level access such as KVM (Keyboard, Video, Mouse) over IP solutions. Desktop support software (usually graphical interface) and remote management software (typically command line interface) allow a user to control a computer remotely as if they are a local user inheriting the user or software permissions. This software is commonly used for troubleshooting, software installation, and system management. Adversaries may similarly abuse response features included in EDR and other defensive tools that enable remote access.

Evidence: 2026-09-21/conference-phishing-rogue-root-ca-mitm-persistence · ATT&CK page ↗

Story timeline

  1. 2026-09-21A conference-targeted phishing chain installs a self-regenerating rogue root CA plus a hosts-file/firewall local proxy that fabricates clean HTTPS results for any domain, surviving reboot
    active-threatsHuntress: a fake Lenovo driver installs a working, private certificate authority into a victim's own trust store to fake 'clean' HTTPS results at will

Where this entity is cited

  • active-threats1

Source distribution

  • huntress.com2 (100%)

Co-occurring entities

Derived: referenced by the same focused operational entries (weekly summaries and report roundups don't count); ×N counts the shared entries.

Entries about NetSupport Manager (1)

2026-09-21 · view entry permalink →

HIGHNATOB2

A conference-targeted phishing chain installs a self-regenerating rogue root CA plus a hosts-file/firewall local proxy that fabricates clean HTTPS results for any domain, surviving reboot

A Huntress researcher was targeted after DEFCON by an X account impersonating a CoinDesk marketing executive, who sent a legitimate Google Doc carrying a custom Google Apps Script sidebar (Huntress Labs, 2026-08-19). The sidebar runs client-side with no OAuth consent prompt; per Huntress's own recap of the incident, merely opening the document while signed in, no click, no download; was enough for it to silently report the viewer's public IP address, geolocation, browser, and whether a MetaMask, Phantom, Tron or Solana wallet extension was installed, beaconing every action through the Telegram Bot API (Huntress Labs, 2026-09-15), a reconnaissance and victim-qualification step requiring no interaction at all. A fake "decryption failure" overlay then delivered OS-specific ClickFix remediation instructions, each offering a choice between pasting a clipboard command or downloading a file manually. On macOS, the pasted command launched a piped zsh chain that never actually delivered a payload in Huntress's own testing, the fetched URL looped through repeated redirects until the browser gave up, so the actor's evident intent for that path went unconfirmed; the manual-download option instead led to a disk image bundling its own Gatekeeper-bypass instructions and password prompt, and running it delivered a confirmed AMOS-family stealer harvesting browser, crypto-wallet, Telegram, Apple Notes, cookie and login-keychain data, plus a LaunchDaemon-installed backdoor capable of arbitrary remote commands and of turning the host into a SOCKS5 proxy. On Windows, pasting the ClickFix command launched an encoded PowerShell command that fetched a loader which pulled down three further payloads; by the time Huntress analyzed the kit all three had already gone offline, and their existence is known only because copies had reached VirusTotal; no certificate or further technical detail on this particular set was recoverable. Windows victims who instead chose the manual download were led down an entirely separate route: the same fake decryption-failure message told them to update a "Google API Connector," an application signed with a certificate belonging to a small Norwegian company (either stolen or fraudulently issued) that deployed via abuse of Microsoft's ClickOnce feature, the first of the three stolen code-signing certificates Huntress recovered across the whole campaign.

In a later message, the same actor sent a second document link, this time via DropBox DocSend, that routed macOS victims to another host serving the same AMOS payload and told Windows victims to install a DocSend-branded desktop installer signed with a second stolen certificate, from Discord Inc., whose signature did not validate (Huntress Labs, 2026-08-19). That installer's own DocSend flow was itself a non-functional distraction, a five-screen fake onboarding carousel using genuine Dropbox marketing pages that installed nothing. Per Huntress's own recap, the firm reconstructed the sample's own command-and-control registration protocol from its bundled @sentry/electron module and queried the live infrastructure directly (Huntress Labs, 2026-09-15), recovering three payload archives this way: Manager.zip (NetSupport Manager), Localcertificate.zip (a TLS-intercepting local proxy) and asusdriverld.zip (a Ledger-wallet implant), each downloaded encrypted, launched detached and hidden, then relaunched twenty seconds later with an elevation request. The first, NetSupport Manager (a legitimate remote-monitoring tool reconfigured to redirect data to attacker infrastructure and disable its own chat/connect/disconnect alerts) carries persistence for all three payloads: a kernel-mode keyboard-filter driver, a Windows service, a Winlogon modification and its own registered COM object (Huntress Labs, 2026-08-19). The third, the Ledger-wallet implant, reuses the second payload's disguise and technique.

The most novel component is that second payload, the TLS-intercepting local proxy itself: disguised as a Lenovo driver package and signed with a genuine stolen Lenovo certificate, the third of the three abused code-signing certificates, after the Norwegian and Discord ones, it hollows MsBuild.exe and generates its own self-signed certificate authority presenting itself as "Google Trust Services CN=WR3" plus a fabricated www.virustotal.com leaf certificate, installs that CA into the system root store, adds a hosts-file entry and a local-proxy firewall rule, and thereby locally answers HTTPS connections with fabricated "clean" results and no certificate warning for any domain the operator chooses, crypto-wallet sites, antivirus update checks, or anything else (Huntress Labs, 2026-08-19). Because the certificate authority is regenerated per infected host, blocking a specific certificate thumbprint achieves nothing. The interception process itself dies at reboot, but the installed root CA, the hosts-file entry and the firewall rule all persist across reboots untouched.

Triage: a locally-installed root CA is not automatically malicious; some legitimate enterprise MDM and TLS-inspection proxies do this deliberately. The discriminator is provenance: a root CA your own PKI/MDM inventory does not recognize as provisioned by it, especially one impersonating a well-known public CA's name, is the signal; one your MDM issued is not.

VIEW is the one worth sitting with. Opening the document while signed in, clicking nothing, and downloading nothing, was enough to report the viewer's IP address, location, browser, and whether they were running a crypto wallet extension.

It hollowed MsBuild.exe and imported only kernel32, ultimately establishing what Jon called "purpose-built and working public key infrastructure on your machine."

Because the CA was regenerated per host, blocking a single certificate thumbprint does nothing.

Huntress Labs 2026-08-19
threat21 Sep 04:45Zsingle-sourceOpen finding ↗
Sources: Huntress Labs