Build1 distinct publisher3 min readUpdated
FortiGuard Labs says Evooo1Bot packs SOCKS5 relaying, credential sniffing, SSH spreading and 16 flood modes into one binary across 12 CPU architectures. The tunnel matters more than the flood.
The Engineer · Build desk
Compiled by The EngineerSomething wrong?How this is made
FortiGuard Labs has documented a Mirai-variant Linux botnet it calls Evooo1Bot, rated High severity, that combines encrypted command-and-control, SOCKS5 relaying, credential sniffing, SSH spreading, persistence and 16 types of DDoS attack in a single package [1][4]. The consequence is not another flood source: it is that the router, camera and gateway layer most teams never patch now ships with a proxy, a sniffer and a scanner attached.
Entry is unglamorous. According to the FortiGuard write-up, the botnet breaks into Linux gateways using known vulnerabilities plus more than 150 username and password combinations, and no user action is required because the attack begins as an HTTP request to a public management interface or an SSH login attempt [2][25]. The listed CVEs run from CVE-2007-3010 to CVE-2025-55583 [5], an exploit set spanning roughly 18 years of unpatched estate [1]. The affected product list is not only consumer hardware: alongside NETGEAR, Tenda and D-Link routers, Hikvision cameras, Zyxel firewalls, TP-Link Archer AX21, Alcatel OmniPCX Enterprise, Mitsubishi Electric ME-RTU and Telesquare devices, it includes Atlassian Confluence, Kubernetes ingress-nginx, PHP-CGI and WSO2 products [6].
Once an exploit lands, the loader is pulled from 91.92.40[.]118/wget.sh with a campaign label identifying the target, trying wget, then busybox wget, then curl, then tftp [7][8]. It picks one of 12 architecture-specific binaries, writes it to a temporary path, sets execute permissions and runs it, then clears Bash history [9][3][10]. The binary decrypts more than 60 string blocks using AES, ChaCha20 and XOR, then fingerprints filesystem, processes, services and VM or container markers for sandboxes and honeypots before dialling an encrypted C2 over TCP 443 [11][12][13]. Its SSH scanner checks banners against known honeypot strings, and after a successful login checks /proc/version, the PID 1 command line and Cowrie or Kippo paths before delivering the payload [15][16].
The pivot capability is the part that changes triage. Direct mode opens a TCP 1080 listener on the victim; reverse mode makes an outbound encrypted relay connection, and multiple proxy sessions run independently so the victim IP can be used for attack relaying or internal network access [18][19]. The sniffer module harvests HTTP Basic Authorization and Cookie headers into /tmp/.sniff.log [20]. On an appliance that terminates internal traffic, that is credentials plus a tunnel on the same box. The exploit module then scans for further devices and enterprise applications and delivers the same loader [22], and the DDoS side runs 16 flood methods inherited from Mirai [21].
Two caveats worth holding. The !persist command tries systemd, SysV init, cron, shell profiles and rc.local at once [17], but FortiGuard's own inference is that writing to those paths needs high privileges, so success depends on the service privileges and device configuration at the time of breach [23]. Public reports do not describe any privilege escalation built into Evooo1Bot [24], and no group is named [29].
Watch for requests to known vulnerability paths, loader downloads, unknown ELF files, cleared Bash history and continuous TCP 443 traffic pre-infection [26]; afterwards, a TCP 1080 listener, outbound relay connections, many short SSH connections, proxy traffic pointing inward, and DDoS egress [27]. The indicator list also names a masquerading systemd unit, though the source text is cut off mid-string at "Apache HTTPD Cach" [28]. Egress filtering from the appliance VLAN is the cheap control here, since a reverse relay only works if the device can call out.
Follow any of these and your For You feed starts watching them — no settings page required.
Ranked by verification strength, evidence, and original report placement.
FortiGuard Labs published a report titled Multi-Functional Linux Botnet 'Evooo1Bot', severity High, with release date listed as 2026-08-13; the malware is identified as Evooo1Bot, a Mirai variant.
Evooo1Bot breaks into Linux gateways using known vulnerabilities and over 150 credential combinations, trying more than 150 username and password combinations on SSH.
The loader deploys payloads that support 12 CPU architectures and chooses the correct payload from 12 binary options matching the CPU architecture.
It combines encrypted C2 communications, SOCKS5 relaying, credential sniffing, SSH spreading, persistence, and 16 types of DDoS attacks into a single package.
CVEs listed include CVE-2007-3010, CVE-2016-6277, CVE-2018-14558, CVE-2019-14931, CVE-2020-10987, CVE-2021-46422, CVE-2022-37055, CVE-2024-29269, CVE-2025-10123, CVE-2025-55583, and others.
Products listed: Alcatel OmniPCX Enterprise, NETGEAR/Tenda/D-Link routers, Mitsubishi Electric ME-RTU, Telesquare devices, Hikvision IP cameras, Atlassian Confluence, Zyxel firewalls, TP-Link Archer AX21, PHP-CGI, Kubernetes ingress-nginx, WSO2 products.
Evidence-backed comparisons of source perspectives and observed adoption signals. Read the methodology
Which Builder, Operator, and Investor concerns the observed source mix emphasized—not a truth score.
Evidence, demonstrated adoption, hype gap, incentives, and confidence are assessed independently, each on its own current evidence. How these are measured.
Technically specific, but one relayed advisory
The cluster carries a single dev.to relay of a FortiGuard Labs advisory. The technical detail is unusually concrete for a relay (named loader URL, ordered download-tool fallback, TCP 443 C2, TCP 1080 SOCKS listener, /tmp/.sniff.log, Cowrie/Kippo checks, named persistence paths and a disguised systemd unit), which raises the evidentiary floor above a generic threat write-up. It is capped well below strong, however, because the primary FortiGuard publication is not in the cluster, the two named related sources (BleepingComputer, The Record) are absent, and nothing here is independently reproduced or measured.
Infection scale withheld
No usable adoption or spread measurement exists in the supplied material. The source explicitly says Fortinet showed regional telemetry but did not disclose the exact number of infected organizations, and there are no victim counts, node counts, scan-volume figures, sinkhole data or geographic breakdowns to substitute. Inferring a footprint from the breadth of the CVE and product lists would be speculation, so this dimension is left unmeasured.
Capability breadth outruns disclosed scale
Mildly overstated rather than inflated. The framing leads with an impressive capability inventory (12 architectures, 16 flood methods, 150+ credentials, 60+ encrypted string blocks, six persistence mechanisms) while two limiting facts stay in the fine print: no infection scale was disclosed, and the source concedes some built-in exploits, including the MOVEit example, cannot be exploited as-is. The source also self-qualifies the persistence story by noting it needs high privileges with no built-in escalation, which pulls the gap back toward alignment; the residual positive reflects breadth-of-features language standing in for demonstrated impact.
Vendor advisory relayed by an aggregator
Moderate, structurally visible incentive load. The underlying research is published by a security vendor's threat-intelligence arm and the mitigation framing points at commercial control layers (IPS, EDR, egress filtering), which is a standard alignment between finding severity and product relevance. The relaying publisher adds an attention incentive: a long, detail-dense advisory summary on a developer platform with no primary link or independent verification. Nothing in the cluster suggests fabrication, and the source volunteers unflattering caveats about non-working exploits and withheld telemetry, which argues against a heavier score.
Single-chain sourcing limits confidence
Confidence is moderate-low. Internal consistency is good and the detail is specific and self-qualifying, but every claim in this assessment traces to one publisher relaying one advisory, the primary document is absent, the named corroborating outlets are not in the cluster, and adoption cannot be measured at all. That is enough to justify defensive hunting on the stated indicators, not enough to treat the capability inventory or the target list as confirmed.
build
Force the tool call, then hand Lightsail a long-lived key1 distinct publisher
build
AI-written code fails the same four ways, and every gate you own reports green1 distinct publisher
build
CSA's 2026 threat list is a flat line, so ask which threats a config snapshot can prove1 distinct publisher
build
An empty array is a claim about your query: verify identifiers before you trust the metric1 distinct publisher
Distinct publishers with included, body-backed reporting in this cluster.
dev.to
1 article · August 16, 2026