Security researchers from Evalian’s SOC team identified the operation, which leverages convincing OpenAI branding and search engine ads to lure users actively seeking legitimate AI tools.

The campaign centers around a malicious domain, openew[.]An app designed to mimic an official ChatGPT download page closely.

Victims are presented with multiple download options, including Windows, macOS, and a Chrome extension.

While the browser extension redirects to a legitimate listing to build trust, the Windows and macOS installers deliver trojanized payloads.

The domain is newly registered via Namecheap and resolves to IP address 144[.]172[.]104[.]205, which is hosted on RouterHosting infrastructure, a provider frequently observed in short-lived malicious campaigns.

The Windows payload, distributed as Chat_GPT.exe (SHA256: 56CC26E88C064B0C423AA8AD6530E58F91D1E4D28FAB1A8BCEDEF16A6582B4D2), uses an Inno Setup installer to deploy an Electron-based application.

Despite appearing legitimate, the binary contains inconsistencies, including mismatched metadata and a code-signing certificate issued to an unrelated entity, F.F.A.P. Hurkmans Beheer B.V.

Fake ChatGPT Site Spreads Malware via Ads

This highlights a common tactic where valid signatures are abused to bypass user suspicion without guaranteeing software legitimacy.

Static analysis reveals that the application bundles a Chromium-based runtime with an obfuscated JavaScript payload stored in the app. asar file.

A large script, identified as winter.js, contains heavily obfuscated logic that uses encoded strings and dynamic execution patterns, making straightforward analysis difficult.

The application includes Node.js modules such as child_process, fs, and systeminformation, indicating capabilities for system reconnaissance, file manipulation, and command execution.

Dynamic analysis shows the malware employs CAPTCHA-based gating before executing its core functionality, a technique designed to evade automated sandbox detection.

Once the user completes the CAPTCHA, the malware spawns multiple PowerShell processes with execution flags such as “-ExecutionPolicy Unrestricted,” suggesting staged payload delivery in which commands are injected at runtime rather than embedded statically.

According to Evalian’s SOC team, the malware creates a Chromium-style profile in %AppData%\Satoshi to maintain persistence and store data such as cookies and cache files.

This behavior, combined with event-driven execution, indicates that the malware delays its primary actions until specific user interactions occur, further complicating detection.

Interestingly, the embedded network configurations reference legitimate DNS-over-HTTPS services such as Cloudflare and Google, thereby blending malicious traffic into normal encrypted DNS traffic.

This approach helps obscure command-and-control communications and evade traditional network monitoring tools.

The macOS variant (SHA256: 7E5B708F6659B1FAD3AAE7B589A706434FBF21708AEEC5AF5910189B96E25FEF) remained largely undetected by antivirus engines at the time of discovery, suggesting either low distribution volume or effective evasion techniques.

This campaign demonstrates how threat actors are evolving malvertising strategies by combining trusted branding, modern application frameworks such as Electron, and layered evasion techniques, including obfuscation, CAPTCHA validation, and staged execution.

Unlike traditional phishing, malvertising targets users with high intent, making the initial compromise more effective.

For defenders, key signals include unexpected Electron applications spawning scripting engines, mismatched installer metadata, and unusual directories such as %APPDATA%\Satoshi.

Monitoring newly registered domains impersonating software vendors and analyzing process behavior rather than relying solely on signatures remains critical.

As AI tools continue to gain widespread adoption, campaigns like this highlight the growing risk of brand impersonation in malware delivery, reinforcing the need for stronger user awareness and behavioral detection controls.

Follow us on Google News, LinkedIn, and X to Get More Instant Updates.

The post Weaponized ChatGPT Download Site Delivers Malware Via Sponsored Search Results appeared first on Cyber Security News.

Akamai Prolexic scores highest for enterprise scrubbing, and AWS Shield leads for AWS-native estates.

DDoS protection services detect and filter denial-of-service traffic before it exhausts your bandwidth or servers. Here are the ten best, scored. 

The 2026 DDoS Protection Scorecard 

Each service is scored 1–10 against five weighted criteria (defined in the methodology below).

Scores reflect documented capabilities and public evidence not lab testing. 

Totals are weighted averages rounded to one decimal. Scores are editorial assessments of publicly documented capability, not benchmark results. 

How We Scored These Services 

Transparency first: this is a structured research-based evaluation, not a hands-on lab test. We did not launch attacks against these networks and make no claim to have. Each criterion was weighted by how much it actually changes outcomes for buyers: 

• Mitigation capacity (30%) — published network capacity, scrubbing footprint, and the largest attacks the provider has publicly absorbed. Capacity is the one factor you cannot compensate for later. 
• Detection-to-mitigation speed (25%) — always-on versus on-demand architecture and any documented SLA. Record attacks now last well under a minute. 
• Coverage breadth (20%) — L3/4 volumetric, protocol-layer, L7 application-layer, and DNS protection, plus bot mitigation. 
• Cost clarity (15%) — published pricing, metered versus unmetered billing, and financial exposure during a large attack. 
• Operational fit (10%) — deployment effort, console quality, managed options, and integration with existing stacks. 

Every pricing claim below is either published by the vendor or marked as quote-based. Unverified details carry a [VERIFY] flag. 

The Threat Picture Behind These Scores 

The numbers moved sharply this cycle. Cloudflare’s Q4 2025 threat reporting documented a 31.4 Tbps attack the largest publicly disclosed and 47.1 million DDoS attacks across 2025, a 121% year-over-year rise.

Much of that volume traces to the Aisuru/Kimwolf botnet, assembled largely from compromised consumer devices including Android TV boxes. 

Two implications shaped our weighting. First, capacity now has to be measured in tens of terabits, which concentrates credibility among providers running genuinely large networks.

Second, the record attack lasted roughly 35 seconds shorter than most on-demand mitigation workflows take to divert traffic. That is why speed carries 25% of the score and why we treat on-demand-only services skeptically. 

The 10 Best DDoS Protection Services, Scored 

1. Cloudflare — Score 9.5/10 

Why it scores highest: Perfect marks on capacity and cost clarity. Cloudflare’s anycast network publicly mitigated the 31.4 Tbps record, and its unmetered pricing means attack size never inflates your invoice eliminating financial exposure while deploying alongside Zero Trust Architecture policies.

Strengths: always-on mitigation with no traffic diversion; free tier plus published paid plans; DDoS, CDN, WAF, DNS, and bot management on one platform; minutes to deploy via DNS change. 

Trade-offs: granular logging and advanced analytics live in higher tiers; you are consolidating your entire front door with one provider, which is an availability and vendor-concentration decision. 

Ideal buyer: essentially any organization from a single site to a global enterprise that wants strong protection without metered attack billing. 

Verify before buying: current published Pro/Business plan rates and Enterprise/Magic Transit terms. [VERIFY: pricing] 

Image ALT: Cloudflare DDoS protection analytics showing mitigated attack traffic 

2. Akamai (Prolexic) — Score 8.8/10 

Why it scores here: Maximum capacity and speed marks, held back only by opaque pricing. Prolexic’s dedicated scrubbing centers plus a 24/7 SOC represent the enterprise standard, capable of absorbing multi-terabit DDoS traffic with mitigation SLAs and human defenders tuning during live attacks.

Strengths: enormous dedicated scrubbing capacity; BGP diversion protects entire network ranges, not just websites; SOC-led custom mitigation; board- and auditor-ready reporting. 

Trade-offs: enterprise contracts with real onboarding effort; economics only justify themselves above a certain traffic and risk threshold. 

Ideal buyer: banks, gaming platforms, large e-commerce, and critical infrastructure where an hour of downtime is a material financial event. 

Verify before buying: committed clean-traffic levels and overage terms in the contract. 

Image ALT: Akamai Prolexic global DDoS scrubbing center coverage 

3. Imperva — Score 8.2/10

Why it scores here: Top marks on coverage and speed thanks to an aggressive, contractual time-to-mitigation SLA and unified WAF+DDoS+bot defense.

Under Thales ownership, it anchors a broad application-security portfolio including leading Web Application Firewall (WAF) solutions.

Strengths: documented mitigation SLA that compliance teams can point at; protection spanning websites, networks, DNS, and individual IPs; strong reporting for regulated industries. 

Trade-offs: premium pricing; full value assumes you also want Imperva’s application security stack. 

Ideal buyer: regulated enterprises that need contractual guarantees rather than best-effort commitments. 

Verify before buying: exact SLA wording and what triggers remedies. 

Image ALT: Imperva DDoS protection SLA dashboard and mitigation reporting 

4. AWS Shield — Score 8.2/10

Why it scores here: Strong capacity and unusually clear costs. Shield Standard protects all AWS customers free; Shield Advanced adds enhanced detection, 24/7 Shield Response Team access, and cost protection credits that offset attack-driven scaling charges to bolster AWS cyber resilience.

Strengths: native integration with CloudFront, ALB, Route 53, and Global Accelerator; published pricing; cost protection against bill spikes; WAF integration. 

Trade-offs: AWS-only; Advanced carries a substantial monthly commitment plus data-transfer fees; multi-cloud estates need something else anyway. 

Ideal buyer: organizations whose internet-facing footprint is essentially all AWS. 

Verify before buying: current Advanced subscription rate (commonly cited near $3,000/month on a 1-year commitment) plus data-processing charges. [VERIFY: pricing] 

Image ALT: AWS Shield Advanced DDoS protection dashboard with cost protection 

5. Radware — Score 7.8/10 

Why it scores here: Excellent coverage marks for behavioral mitigation. Radware generates real-time signatures for zero-day floods rather than relying on static thresholds, incorporating actionable threat intelligence data when your legitimate traffic is itself spiky.

Strengths: strong false-positive control during traffic surges; hybrid appliance plus cloud scrubbing; integrates with Radware WAF and bot manager; flexible licensing across hybrid estates. 

Trade-offs: smaller footprint than Akamai/Cloudflare; management interface trails cloud-first competitors; quote-only pricing. 

Ideal buyer: retail, ticketing, and gaming platforms where flash crowds and attacks look similar on a graph. 

Verify before buying: hybrid licensing model and cloud scrubbing capacity commitments. 

Image ALT: Radware behavioral DDoS mitigation real-time signature generation 

6.  CDNetworks — Score 7.8/10  

Why it scores here: Strong global mitigation capacity and broad L3/L4/L7 coverage, with DDoS protection and CDN delivery integrated across a large edge network.

CDNetworks operates more than 40 global DDoS scrubbing centers with over 20 Tbps of mitigation capacity, backed by more than 3,000 global CDN PoPs across 90+ countries and regions.  

Strengths: 20+ Tbps DDoS mitigation capacity; 40+ global scrubbing centers; 3,000+ CDN PoPs; L3/L4 and L7 DDoS protection; integrated CDN, WAF, bot management, and API security; always-on protection for web applications and network infrastructure.  

Trade-offs: pricing is primarily custom or traffic-based rather than publicly listed.  

Ideal buyer: Organizations that need scalable DDoS protection with global CDN and application security capabilities, particularly businesses serving users across Asia-Pacific and other global markets.  

Verify before buying: current pricing model and included traffic volumes.  

7. Fastly — Score 7.6/10 

Why it scores here: Solid across the board with strong developer ergonomics. Fastly absorbs volumetric attacks at its edge and pairs that with its Next-Gen WAF, giving teams deep visibility into cyber threat intelligence.

Strengths: excellent real-time visibility; strong L7 protection alongside volumetric defense; configuration as code; instant purge and rule updates. 

Trade-offs: enterprise scrubbing depth trails the top two; premium pricing; value assumes your delivery runs on Fastly. 

Ideal buyer: engineering-led organizations already delivering through Fastly’s edge. 

Verify before buying: current DDoS packaging and usage-based cost modelling. [VERIFY: packaging] 

Image ALT: Fastly edge DDoS protection real-time traffic dashboard 

8. Microsoft Azure DDoS Protection — Score 7.3/10

Why it scores here: Good capacity and cost clarity, narrower coverage. Azure DDoS Protection defends Azure virtual networks with always-on telemetry, integrating smoothly with Azure Firewall and AI Security Copilot.

Strengths: native Azure integration; published pricing; adaptive real-time tuning; rapid-response support at the Network Protection tier. 

Trade-offs: protects Azure resources only; L7 protection requires Azure WAF alongside; less useful for hybrid or multi-cloud estates. 

Ideal buyer: Azure-first organizations wanting native, billable-in-one-place protection. 

Verify before buying: current tier pricing and which resources each tier covers. [VERIFY: pricing] 

Image ALT: Microsoft Azure DDoS Protection metrics and attack analytics 

9. Nexusguard — Score 6.9/10 

Why it scores here: Capable regional player with smaller global capacity. Nexusguard’s strength is Asia-Pacific presence, integrating with broader DNS filtering and security services for regional coverage.

Strengths: meaningful APAC scrubbing coverage; service-provider and white-label offerings; flexible engagement sizes for mid-market buyers. 

Trade-offs: smaller capacity than the leaders; limited independent test visibility; lower brand recognition in Western enterprise procurement. 

Ideal buyer: APAC-centric organizations and service providers reselling DDoS protection. 

Verify before buying: current PoP footprint in your specific regions. [VERIFY: coverage] 

Image ALT: Nexusguard APAC DDoS scrubbing network coverage map 

10. F5 — Score 6.8/10

Why it scores here: Capable hybrid protection, scored down on cost clarity and vendor-risk events. F5 spans on-prem BIG-IP DDoS capabilities and cloud-delivered Distributed Cloud DDoS, attractive when one team owns ADC, WAF, and DDoS.

Note that after CISA Emergency Directive 26-01, buyers should verify patch statuses (see our coverage on F5 security updates).

Strengths: unified with existing F5 application delivery; hybrid on-prem and cloud; deep application-layer control and programmability. 

Trade-offs: in October 2025 F5 disclosed a nation-state breach of its development environment, prompting CISA Emergency Directive 26-01 and urgent federal patching.

F5 has shipped hardened releases, but buyers should demand post-incident security commitments and patch SLAs in writing. Pricing is quote-only and complexity is real. 

Ideal buyer: enterprises with substantial existing F5 estates. 

Verify before buying: F5’s post-incident security roadmap and your own patch cadence. 

Image ALT: F5 Distributed Cloud DDoS protection application security console 

Head-to-Head: Three Comparisons Buyers Actually Make 

Cloudflare vs Akamai Prolexic. Both have proven hyper-scale capacity. Cloudflare wins on price predictability, deployment speed, and self-service; Akamai wins on dedicated scrubbing, SOC-led custom mitigation, and protecting whole network ranges via BGP.

Choose Cloudflare unless you need humans tuning mitigation mid-attack and network-level (not just web) protection. 

AWS Shield vs a third-party service on AWS. Shield Advanced is cheaper to operate, natively integrated, and includes cost protection. A third party wins if you’re multi-cloud, need one console across environments, or want an SLA stronger than AWS provides.

Many enterprises run Shield Standard plus a third-party edge service and are perfectly rational to do so. 

Cloud scrubbing vs on-prem appliance (Corero/Arbor class). Appliances mitigate in sub-second time locally and keep traffic in your control but your upstream link is still a finite pipe, and a 31 Tbps flood saturates it regardless.

The mature answer is hybrid: appliance for speed and control, cloud for volumetric overflow. 

How to Choose the Right DDoS Protection Service 

Start with the two questions that eliminate most of the field: is mitigation always-on, and what happens to my bill during a large attack? Given sub-minute record attacks, on-demand-only diversion is inadequate for anything revenue-critical, and metered billing can turn an attack into a financial incident on top of an availability one. 

Then map coverage to your actual attack surface volumetric floods, protocol abuse, L7 request storms, and DNS all need answers, and leaving one uncovered simply relocates the target.

Check PoP presence in the regions where your users actually are, because scrubbing on the wrong continent adds latency for everyone. 

Finally, validate. Controlled, authorized DDoS simulation testing is the only way to confirm your mitigation performs before an attacker tests it for you and remember that AWS and Azure require approved partners for that testing.

Layer DDoS defense with your WAF and next-generation firewall coverage rather than treating it as a standalone control. 

Frequently Asked Questions 

Which DDoS protection service is best in 2026? 

Cloudflare scores highest overall (9.5/10) for combining record-proven capacity, always-on mitigation, and unmetered pricing. Akamai Prolexic (8.8) leads enterprise scrubbing with SOC-led defense, while AWS Shield and Azure DDoS Protection are the strongest choices inside their respective clouds. 

How big are DDoS attacks now? 

Cloudflare mitigated a record 31.4 Tbps attack in Q4 2025 and recorded 47.1 million attacks during the year a 121% increase over 2024. Large botnets built from compromised consumer devices, notably Aisuru/Kimwolf, drive these hyper-volumetric floods. 

Is free DDoS protection good enough? 

For small websites, often yes. Cloudflare’s free tier includes unmetered DDoS mitigation, and AWS Shield Standard protects all AWS customers at no cost.

Paid tiers add SLAs, advanced L7 rules, granular logging, and support which matter once downtime carries real revenue or compliance consequences. 

What is the difference between DDoS protection and a WAF? 

A WAF inspects HTTP/S requests to block application attacks like injection and credential stuffing. DDoS protection absorbs traffic floods designed to exhaust capacity.

They solve different problems and are commonly bought together most leading vendors sell both on one platform. 

How fast should DDoS mitigation be? 

Seconds, not minutes. Record-setting attacks now last under a minute, so always-on inspection that mitigates automatically is the practical standard.

Ask vendors for a documented time-to-mitigation SLA and confirm whether it applies to all attack types or only volumetric floods. 

Do I need DDoS protection if I use a CDN? 

Usually still yes. A CDN absorbs some volumetric load, but dedicated services add protocol-layer defense, application-layer rate limiting, DNS protection, and mitigation SLAs.

Most CDN providers now sell DDoS protection as a separate capability precisely because caching alone is not mitigation. 

Bottom Line 

Cloudflare takes the top score in 2026 for delivering record-proven capacity with pricing that doesn’t punish you for being attacked.

Akamai Prolexic remains the enterprise benchmark where SOC-led mitigation and network-range protection justify the contract, and AWS Shield or Azure DDoS Protection make the most economic sense inside a single cloud.

Whichever you shortlist, insist on always-on mitigation, get the SLA in writing, and test it under authorization before an attacker does. 

Related reading: 

• Top 10 Best Next-Generation Firewall (NGFW) Solutions
• Top 10 Best Web Application Firewall (WAF)
• Top 5 Best Tools for Simulated DDoS Attacks
• 10 Best Network Security Solutions for Enterprise  

The post Top 10 Best DDoS Protection Services in 2026  appeared first on Cyber Security News.

The resulting attack chain is highly effective: it locks legitimate users out of their WhatsApp accounts by preventing crucial security codes from ever reaching their device.

The Incident: A First-Hand Account from Zimbabwe

The incidents begin with the user suddenly finding themselves logged out of their WhatsApp account, followed by their own physical SIM card failing, often "no longer showing network in user's device."

At this point, the attackers have taken over the number. When the legitimate user attempts to log back into WhatsApp, they encounter a critical, frustrating roadblock: the One-Time Password (OTP) SMS never arrives. They are instead met with a time-based lockout warning: "requested too many times try again after 6 hours etc."

Attempts to resolve the issue via Meta’s automated support systems were largely ineffective. The solution, in reported cases, only occurred when the user was able to successfully log in using the Missed Call Verification method after an unspecified time period, raising questions about what truly enabled the recovery.

Phase One: The Network Signaling Interception Flaw.

The core of this attack is not porting the number via a corrupt employee, but rather exploiting flaws in the Mobile Switching Center (MSC) or international gateway (VoIP) call routing. The attacker is not physically swapping the SIM; they are telling the network that the verification call or SMS should be routed elsewhere.

The Evidence of Signaling Vulnerability

The observations made by Digital Vocano Cyber Security Team during their investigations on the reported case, which has resulted in a variety of tests ,regarding international calls provide the smoking gun for this hypothesis:

1. Caller ID Spoofing/Manipulation: When a user calls the NetOne victim number from an international VoIP source (e.g., South Africa's +27), the recipient sees the Caller ID as the local +263 format. This suggests the international gateway or a misconfigured third-party service is manipulating the Caller Line Identification (CLI) data.
2. Call Misrouting: The most critical sign is that the call is sometimes "lost to someone else" or simply disappears from the legitimate owner’s phone. This indicates a deep-seated flaw in the network’s Global Title Translation (GTT) or routing tables, allowing external entities to temporarily re-route the call path.

How the WhatsApp Account is Hijacked

This sophisticated interception mechanism bypasses standard physical security. Instead of relying on a physical SIM swap:

• SMS Interception: The flaw allows the attacker to temporarily redirect the destination of SMS messages—including the WhatsApp OTP—to an attacker-controlled gateway.
• Voice Verification Interception: When the initial SMS fails, WhatsApp attempts to verify via a quick Voice Call. The attacker exploits the routing flaw to divert this single verification call to their own device/gateway, allowing them to answer the call, hear the 6-digit code, and complete the account takeover.

Crucially, the user's SIM card stops working because the network, at a deep signaling level, recognizes the number as being temporarily registered or forwarded to a new destination—the attacker’s intercept point.

Phase Two: Weaponizing the Digital Lockout (Rate Limit Exploitation)

Once the attacker has gained control and logged in, they execute a tactical lockout designed to prevent the victim from immediately reclaiming the account.

When the legitimate user attempts to log back in, they are blocked by the warning: "requested too many times try again after 6 hours etc."

This is a deliberate exploitation of WhatsApp’s rate limiting security feature. After the initial takeover, the attacker executes multiple, rapid, failed registration attempts. This triggers WhatsApp’s system to perceive a high volume of failed attempts, resulting in the time-based lock on that number.

This maneuver guarantees the attacker a secure, uninterrupted time window—up to several hours—to execute fraud, read private messages, or initiate identity theft before the legitimate user can even attempt another login.

Comprehensive Mitigation and Recovery Protocol

Combating this hybrid threat requires a layered defense, addressing both the carrier and application vulnerabilities.

Carrier and Platform Security (Prevention)

Immediate Recovery Steps

Rapid action is paramount upon suspicion of a SIM swap:

1. Confirm SIM Failure & Contact MNO: If your phone suddenly loses connectivity ("No Signal"), immediately use a separate device to call NetOne. Report the unauthorized SIM swap and request that the number be deactivated or locked against any further changes .
2. Attempt WhatsApp Re-registration: Reinstall or open WhatsApp and attempt to register your number. A successful registration with a new 6-digit code will automatically log the attacker off, as WhatsApp permits only one active device per number .
3. Respect the Lockout Timer: If you receive the "try again after 6 hours" message, you must wait for the timer to expire. Repeated, frantic attempts to register will only prolong the mandatory waiting period .
4. Utilize Missed Call Verification (MCV): Once the timer resets, specifically choose the Missed Call or Voice Call option to verify your number. Ensure the WhatsApp application has the required device permissions (Call Log access) enabled, leveraging the method’s reliance on physical device presence to secure the account .

In conclusion, the incident targeting NetOne users serves as a potent reminder that digital security relies on the weakest link in the chain—which, in this case, is often the mobile carrier's internal processes. While platform security measures like rate limits can be exploited, user-side activation of strong defenses, particularly the WhatsApp 2FA PIN, remains the single most effective barrier to prevent a simple SIM swap from turning into a complete digital catastrophe.