[HN Gopher] The Kimwolf botnet is stalking your local network
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       The Kimwolf botnet is stalking your local network
        
       Author : SamValYlieRcHE2
       Score  : 105 points
       Date   : 2026-01-03 02:04 UTC (2 days ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (krebsonsecurity.com)
 (TXT) w3m dump (krebsonsecurity.com)
        
       | ConorSheehan1 wrote:
       | Very interesting! A tutorial to check if kimwolf is running on
       | your network would be nice
        
         | nubinetwork wrote:
         | Based on the article, try looking for android devices with adb
         | running on the network.
        
           | thenthenthen wrote:
           | This article[0] includes a link to a online checker:
           | https://synthient.com/check
           | 
           | Have not tested it myself ymmv.
           | 
           | [0] https://synthient.com/blog/a-broken-system-fueling-
           | botnets
        
             | nubinetwork wrote:
             | It only references a database of publicly scanned IPs, it
             | won't help you if the device is behind a nat router.
        
           | HappyPanacea wrote:
           | Does someone know if the port must be 5555 for this botnet?
        
             | tgv wrote:
             | It's the Android debugger port, and it's used for
             | infection, but the article doesn't exclude other methods
             | nor mentions ports used by the malware.
        
         | pamcake wrote:
         | Not exactly the answer but if you have one of the affected
         | mentioned devices it should be listening on TCP port 5555. You
         | can do a port scan for that.                  nmap -Pn
         | 192.168.0.0/16 -p 5555
         | 
         | Replace netmask as appropriate.
         | 
         | Now that it's publicly known I guess it's possible that they
         | will close the door post-infection to avoid detecton. And it
         | won't detect any other devices it's spread further to.
         | 
         | If you have a cheapo Android-based TV box or stick like the
         | ones mentioned, throw it out or reflash it with Armbian after
         | forensics.
         | 
         | I'm sure there are HN readers out there who have one of these.
         | They were very popular a couple of years back.
        
         | BloodyIron wrote:
         | Well the first thing to check is, do you own and operate any of
         | these janky Android "TV" boxes sold by companies nobody has
         | heard of? If yes? Then there's probably your answer.
        
       | pamcake wrote:
       | This is wild.
       | 
       | It must be crowded on these devices by now - it may be a bit
       | misleading to think of it as a single botnet when there are
       | multiple unrelated entities controlling the same devices via the
       | same methods.
        
       | haburka wrote:
       | I love how frequently Botnet creators reference Krebs. Like they
       | are his biggest fans, and they just want a shoutout on his blog.
        
       | BloodyIron wrote:
       | How is it not obvious to everyone reading HN that janky Android
       | "TV" boxes (like the article references) are a by-default threat?
       | 
       | Like seriously, many of them are sold for stupid cheap prices
       | like $5/ea. Or advertise unlimited movies/shows/etc for similarly
       | unbelievable prices.
       | 
       | Putting aside the copyright infringement aspect of it, to me it's
       | extremely obvious "wait... _why_ am I paying so little here?".
       | 
       | No, it's not because movies and shows are 99.9999% profit
       | (spoiler: they aren't), it's because you're _paying_ to install a
       | backdoor that will rip and tear everything on your network it
       | can.
       | 
       | You like having a credit card? That's precious, it's mine now.
       | 
       | Look at me, I'm the network now.
        
         | kadoban wrote:
         | > it's because you're _paying_ to install a backdoor that will
         | rip and tear everything on your network it can.
         | 
         | I mean, maybe. More likely imo you're paying for the absolute
         | cheapest hardware and fastest never-updated software someone
         | could throw together and make _any_ profit on. Someone probably
         | had 100k shitty little chips sitting in a warehouse and this
         | was a way to do something with them.
         | 
         | The outcome is really the same, it's just the steps to get
         | there are more human nature.
        
           | BloodyIron wrote:
           | At a price tag of $5/ea the cost of just advertising and
           | distribution exceeds the cost of the product itself. There is
           | zero room for profit. The business model is installing back
           | doors to the "clients" and stealing money, information, and
           | anything else from them. Consider that even the cost of the
           | included remote is a huge part of the actual hardware cost,
           | and nobody is going to buy something like this without a
           | remote.
        
         | GolfPopper wrote:
         | >you're _paying_ to install a backdoor that will rip and tear
         | everything on your network it can*
         | 
         | How is this different from buying hardware and software from
         | big market players?
        
       | polishdude20 wrote:
       | So is there some catch all setting I can enable in my router to
       | prevent my devices talking to eachother on the local network?
        
         | kadoban wrote:
         | In most shitty routers: no. They don't even have raw ability to
         | do that.
         | 
         | You can look around for something like device isolation, but I
         | doubt you'll find it unless you go a couple of steps up from
         | whatever router ISPs ~give away these days.
        
         | aspbee555 wrote:
         | usually lan devices do not talk to the router unless they need
         | a resource outside your lan network
         | 
         | you can however isolate with vlans and a vlan capable switch,
         | then it would be on the router to isolate traffic between lans
         | (I do exactly this for my less trusted virtual machines)
        
       | Nextgrid wrote:
       | > to relay malicious and abusive Internet traffic -- such as _ad
       | fraud_ , account takeover attempts and _mass content scraping_
       | 
       | Oh no, let me get my tiny violin! Really hard to feel bad here.
       | For most home users (that don't expose anything sensitive on
       | their LAN) these boxes are not a threat, seem to be doing a
       | useful service in providing a superior streaming service that the
       | balkanized official ones, _and_ also shits on internet spammers
       | /advertisers and frees up loginwalled content - sounds like a
       | pretty good box really.
        
         | hedora wrote:
         | I'd be nice to control where the money and content go. If I
         | could, I'd strongly consider firing up an old raspberry pi or
         | two.
         | 
         | Also, is there a better word than ad fraud? It needs an
         | innocuous sounding euphemism like pretty much everything else
         | involving that industry has. "Monetizing ad display"? "User-
         | agent driven conversions?"
        
           | cryzinger wrote:
           | The actual industry lingo is "invalid traffic" :P
        
       | cogman10 wrote:
       | How hard would it be to grab one of these little virus boxes and
       | flash it with linux?
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2026-01-05 23:00 UTC)