Kratos is a mature Phishing-as-a-Service operation targeting Microsoft 365 users across the US, Europe, and other regions. By combining trusted platforms, anti-bot checks, and convincing login pages, ithelps attackers steal credentials while delaying detection and response. For security leaders, that increases the risk of account takeover, fraud, data exposure, and higher incident response costs.
ANY.RUN researchers traced three generations of the kit, uncovered 1,484 previously unattributed detonations, and mapped its infrastructure, operator panel, and victim patterns. This article gives security teams practical fingerprints, exfiltration indicators, SIEM scoring rules, and response guidance to reduce exposure, speed up investigations, and make faster decisions when Kratos activity appears.
Microsoft 365 is the main brand impersonated by Kratos. In total, 1,365 sandbox tasks led to login.live.com or microsoftonline.com, while 412 were classified as **“Fake Microsoft Authentication Page”**incidents.
Previous public research has documented Kratos activity across more than 20 countries, with around 33% of observed targeting linked to the United States. This confirms that the service has a broadinternational reach and poses a direct risk to US organizations.
TI Lookup showing all the data related to Kratos attacks for deeper analysis
ANY.RUN data adds a more detailed view of activity in Europe. We identified 148 suspected victim organizations based on SharePoint tenant names found in phishing lures. The targeting appears opportunistic and spans a wide range of sectors, including SMBs, law firms, schools, polytechnic institutions, industrial organizations, and others.
The strongest concentration in our dataset was in Southern Europe, particularly Spain. This assessment is based on the ccTLDs of suspected victim organizations, the language used on phishing pages, and the brands and services impersonated by attackers.
|
Region |
Sessions |
|---|---|
|
Spain (.es, .cat, .eus) |
171 |
|
International TLDs (.com, .org, .net) |
~162 |
|
France |
31 |
|
Sweden |
15 |
|
Austria |
11 |
|
Portugal |
10 |
|
Italy, Germany, Norway, Slovenia, and Belgium |
4–5 each |
This geographic pattern does not suggest that Kratos is limited to Europe. Instead, it indicates that some affiliates represented in the sandbox data appear to specialize in Spain and Southern Europe. Spanish-language tokens found in URL paths, including factura, abogados, and dgt, provide further evidence of this regional focus.
A stolen Microsoft 365 account can give attackers more than access to one inbox. It can create a trusted route into company data, financial processes, and relationships with employees, customers, and suppliers.
Kratos phishing email targeting employees
Kratos rarely targets victims directly. The attack chain typically works as follows:
Kratos phishing attack chain targeting US and EU companies
Phishing email → often passes through corporate email filters
In 114 analysis sessions, the emails had already passed through corporate email filters or secure email gateways before being submitted to the sandbox.
Common subject lines include:
Some sessions also establish a WebSocket connection. This may indicate possible adversary-in-the-middle activity or live credential relaying, but a WebSocket connection alone does not prove sessiontheft.
One visual detail makes Kratos particularly recognizable: before displaying the login form, the page shows an animated envelope with the message “Loading in progress…” over a blurred invoice ordocument. The browser tab is also almost always titled Authentication.
These details may seem minor, but together they form a consistent and reliable fingerprint.
Full attack chain of Kratos analyzed inside ANY.RUN sandbox in just 1 min
The victim is given only three attempts to enter a password. After that, they are either redirected to a predefined URL, office.com in V1, or shown an “incorrect password” message.
ANY.RUN’s in-browser data investigation showing browser-level execution
ANY.RUN’s in-browser data investigation reveals this logic directly in the page code. Analysts can see the submitData() function sending the di and pr values to next.php, the redirect to office.com, and the handling of the #pass-err element. This confirms that the behavior is intentional and designed to filter out invalid or random submissions.
Kratos is not a static phishing kit. Based on public industry reports and ANY.RUN research, we identified three generations of its phishing pages. Each can be recognized by a distinct set of files and, more importantly, by its own exfiltration code:
|
Generation |
How to Identify It |
Exfiltration Code |
Sessions |
Example |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
V0: PTT/SOft |
URLs containing */PTT/SOft/; associated domain: dwbud.vilaribit.com; “Secure File Access” page asking the victim to verify their email over a blurred invoice |
sendDataToPHP()→ POST to mini.php inside /PTT/SOft/ |
9 |
TI Lookup query: SHA256:"c447e75f1029ed7a5882add16bcd13ad44be3bd47c93c830ff39185e23d25ebb" AND SHA256:"cd231b895bbcd7154b81df1e065bf02f1ec667b920c8b6d23308cd509833b5ea" |
|
V1: Dominant generation |
barr.svg + lg.svg + ani.gif + res.css + styles.css; direct imitation of the Microsoft Sign In page |
submitData() → next.php, with variants including nex.php, n3xt.php, and officers*eur.php |
1,397 |
TI Lookup query: SHA256:"c447e75f1029ed7a5882add16bcd13ad44be3bd47c93c830ff39185e23d25ebb" AND SHA256:"cd231b895bbcd7154b81df1e065bf02f1ec667b920c8b6d23308cd509833b5ea" |
|
V2 |
dsa.svg + sid.gif + imag.jpg + main.js; uses jQuery 4.0 beta; code is obfuscated |
Deobfuscatedmain.js → fetch("save.php") |
231 |
TI Lookup query: SHA256:"a3c298ccf2456989ceb080e661b01c3b00445902ae7bb3e58dad4d846334ff9c" AND SHA256:"9d1a1a5e3b5e5de8a6c76ded7a01fa01709d426232b0048c9ee6ba0c5c1b8b42" AND SHA256:"cd231b895bbcd7154b81df1e065bf02f1ec667b920c8b6d23308cd509833b5ea" |
Check relevant ANY.RUN sandbox sessions:
The evolution of Kratos’s disguise is easy to see. V0 presents itself as a “Secure File Access” page, shown in the screenshot below. It asks the victim to verify their email address to open a document, with a blurred Excel invoice displayed in the background.
“Secure File Access” page displayed inside ANY.RUN sandbox
Starting with V1, shown in the screenshot below, the kit moves to direct brand impersonation, closely replicating the Microsoft Sign In window. According to comments in the code, the goal of these changes was to make the page resemble Microsoft’s login window more closely and restructure the code to evade existing vendor signatures.
Fake Microsoft Sign In window
Most importantly, the three generations appear to belong to the same Kratos service rather than three separate actors. The link between V1 and V2 is particularly strong at the operator level:
Check this TI Lookup query based on the lg.svg and styles.css hashes:
Here is also an example of the V2 login page:
V2 login page analyzed inside ANY.RUN’s sandbox
We started with the data already available to us: 156 analysis sessions that had been tagged as Kratos. After examining their network traffic in detail, we noticed that the browser loaded nearly the same setof page assets from the /assets/ directory on almost every landing page. Two files had particularly unusual names: barr.svg and res.css.
The next step was simple but important: we checked how exclusively these files appeared together.
Even before our hunt, the ANY.RUN engine had already been detecting these pages with generic signatures. The numbers below refer to signature detections, not individual sessions:
In other words, the activity had been detected all along, but only through generic Generic Phishkit signatures. The analysis sessions remained hidden within that broader category because they had not yetbeen attributed to a specific family. Our fingerprint closed this attribution gap by linking the generic phishing-kit activity to Kratos.
|
Month (2026) |
Kratos V1 Sessions |
|---|---|
|
January |
93 |
|
February |
90 |
|
March |
217 |
|
April |
221 |
|
May |
373 |
|
June |
393 |
|
July (partial) |
10 |
The current detection engine also includes Kratos-specific signatures, such as Kratos related URL chain observed, Kratos exfil activity, and Xbit Setter for barr.svg.
This enables security teams to run retrospective hunts, group related activity and create more accurate detection rules without relying on short-lived domains alone.
The sandbox reveals the victim side of the attack. But Kratos also has an operator-facing side, which we were able to investigate through OSINT.
Victim-side sandbox analysis does not expose the panel because it is designed for operators. However, every web panel has a favicon.
By searching public internet indexes for services whose page titles contained the word Kratos, we identified a distinctive icon in the favicon results: a stylized Kratos logo.
The icon led to active Kratos login panels displaying “© 2026 Kratos” and the message **“Enter the realm of power.”**This was an operator-side finding, not a conclusion drawn from victim-side sandbox data.
Active Kratos login panel
The service includes the following components, based on operator-side OSINT, public industry reports, and ANY.RUN research. The panel has been active since at least September 10, 2025:
Kratos admin panel component code with the option to select the type of phishing page
Kratos Admin Panel API Client Component Code
Data delivery settings: Operators can choose between a Telegram bot and email. Stolen data is packaged as JSON and sent to the attacker’s Telegram channel. This configuration is handled server-sideand is not visible in victim-side traffic.
Kratos deployments fall into several clear clusters:
The front end is almost always hidden behind Cloudflare, while the actual origin infrastructure is hosted on standard cloud providers such as Azure, Google Cloud, and Host4Geeks.
The infrastructure patterns suggest that several affiliates may be operating in parallel. Persistent tokens found in URL paths provide indirect evidence of these different affiliate fingerprints:
|
Token |
Sessions |
Meaning |
|---|---|---|
|
factura |
141 |
Spanish/Portuguese for “invoice” |
|
dgt |
38 |
Reference to Spain’s traffic authority |
|
Clbsrus / Svgclur |
33 / 24 |
Pattern associated with V2 |
|
Suclers |
25 |
Distinctive token linked to the kit |
|
paidoffice |
23 |
Microsoft 365-themed token |
|
yhwh + elroi |
20 |
Biblical names that may indicate a specific campaign or operator style, but do not confirm actor attribution |
It is important to note that this is proxy-based segmentation, not confirmed actor attribution. The true actor-level identifier, the Telegram bot or email address that receives the stolen data, is configured server-side through the same panel.
Kratos also shares hosting infrastructure with other AiTM phishing kits, including Tycoon, Flowerstorm, Sneaky2FA, and EvilProxy. The same VPS servers, and sometimes even the same SharePoint pages, mayhost vax/qen DGA families, Spanish-language kits, and other campaigns behind the same Cloudflare infrastructure.
However, their code is different, and neighboring domains do not serve barr.svg. At the analysis level, there is no overlap between Kratos tags and these other families.
A shared IP address confirms co-hosting, but it does not prove that the campaigns are operated by the same actor. Kratos should therefore be tagged only when its asset pattern is present. Otherwise, unrelated campaigns may be incorrectly attributed to the family.
Kratos can be identified through a combination of asset fingerprints, content hashes, exfiltration endpoints, engine signatures, and browser-level behavior.
This is the primary detection method, with 90% recall and a false-positive rate close to zero in negative-control testing.
These hashes remain useful even when the files are renamed:
The styles.css hash connects 636 tasks across V1 and V2.
These signatures can already be used to trigger retrospective detection:
ANY.RUN’s in-browser data investigation helps analysts confirm how the phishing page behaves after it loads. Inside the sandbox, they can inspect the page code, loaded assets, DOM changes, redirects, and network requests without relying only on the initial page appearance.
Kratos in-browser data investigation
For Kratos, this makes it possible to see:
This browser-level view helps confirm that the page is part of the Kratos family and gives analysts evidence they can use for triage, hunting, and response.
Additional behavioral signs include:
WebSocket activity should be treated as a risk indicator, not as proof of an AiTM attack.
Instead of using a simple binary match, apply a cumulative scoring model to assign confidence levels:
|
Indicator |
Score |
|---|---|
|
barr.svg + lg.svg for V1, or dsa.svg + sid.gif + imag.jpg for V2 |
+80 |
|
Matching asset content hash |
+80 |
|
POST request to next.php, save.php, or officers*.php for V1/V2, or */PTT/SOft/mini.php for V0 |
+35 |
|
“Fake Microsoft auth,” page title Authentication, or Einvoice Beta footer |
+30 |
|
Turnstile displayed before the login form |
+15 |
|
Lure delivered through SharePoint, an email gateway, or Microsoft Forms |
+10 |
|
Tags associated with another kit, such as stealc, vidar, clickfix, tycoon, or sneaky2fa |
−80 |
Use a tiered response model instead of blocking everything by default.
The response should also depend on the type of credential theft observed.
A password reset alone may not be enough if the attacker has already obtained a valid session.
Analyze suspicious links using both static verdicts and observed behavior. Train employees not to open suspicious links and to submit them to the internal security team for review.
When needed, use the ANY.RUN interactive sandbox to investigate the link safely. Never enter real authentication credentials during analysis.
Kratos shows how credential phishing can remain visible as isolated detections without being understood as a wider operation. Security leaders should make sure their teams can connect technical evidenceto business risk and take consistent action before one compromised account becomes a broader incident.
Kratos shows how a single stolen Microsoft 365 account can create wider business risk, from fraud and data exposure to costly incident response. Its repeatable assets and infrastructure patterns givesecurity teams a practical way to detect the kit earlier, connect related activity, and respond with greater confidence.
By combining sandbox analysis, browser-level evidence, and family-level attribution, organizations can reduce investigation time, avoid unnecessary blocking, and contain account compromise before itdevelops into a larger incident.
ANY.RUN, a leading provider of interactive malware analysis and threat intelligence solutions, helps organizations investigate threats faster and make response decisions based on clear behavioral evidence.
Its solutions include the Interactive Sandbox for enterprise-scale malware and phishing analysis, along with Threat Intelligence products built on investigation data from more than 15,000 organizations. This intelligence helps security teams enrich alerts, uncover active threats earlier, and add relevant context to detection, investigation, and response workflows.
ANY.RUN is SOC 2 Type II attested, demonstrating its commitment to strong security controls and customer data protection. For SOCs, MSSPs, and enterprise security teams, the platform helps reduce investigation uncertainty, accelerate triage, and turn threat analysis into actionable findings.