7zip.com Is Serving Malware

2026-02-1414:5818896www.malwarebytes.com

A convincing lookalike of the popular 7-Zip archiver site has been silently turning victims’ machines into residential proxy nodes.

A convincing lookalike of the popular 7-Zip archiver site has been serving a trojanized installer that silently converts victims’ machines into residential proxy nodes—and it has been hiding in plain sight for some time.

A PC builder recently turned to Reddit’s r/pcmasterrace community in a panic after realizing they had downloaded 7‑Zip from the wrong website. Following a YouTube tutorial for a new build, they were instructed to download 7‑Zip from 7zip[.]com, unaware that the legitimate project is hosted exclusively at 7-zip.org.

In their Reddit post, the user described installing the file first on a laptop and later transferring it via USB to a newly built desktop. They encountered repeated 32‑bit versus 64‑bit errors and ultimately abandoned the installer in favor of Windows’ built‑in extraction tools. Nearly two weeks later, Microsoft Defender alerted on the system with a generic detection: Trojan:Win32/Malgent!MSR.

The experience illustrates how a seemingly minor domain mix-up can result in long-lived, unauthorized use of a system when attackers successfully masquerade as trusted software distributors.

This is not a simple case of a malicious download hosted on a random site. The operators behind 7zip[.]com distributed a trojanized installer via a lookalike domain, delivering a functional copy of functional 7‑Zip File Manager alongside a concealed malware payload.

The installer is Authenticode‑signed using a now‑revoked certificate issued to Jozeal Network Technology Co., Limited, lending it superficial legitimacy. During installation, a modified build of 7zfm.exe is deployed and functions as expected, reducing user suspicion. In parallel, three additional components are silently dropped:

  • Uphero.exe—a service manager and update loader
  • hero.exe—the primary proxy payload (Go‑compiled)
  • hero.dll—a supporting library

All components are written to C:\Windows\SysWOW64\hero\, a privileged directory that is unlikely to be manually inspected.

An independent update channel was also observed at update.7zip[.]com/version/win-service/1.0.0.2/Uphero.exe.zip, indicating that the malware payload can be updated independently of the installer itself.

One of the more concerning aspects of this campaign is its reliance on third‑party trust. The Reddit case highlights YouTube tutorials as an inadvertent malware distribution vector, where creators incorrectly reference 7zip.com instead of the legitimate domain.

This shows how attackers can exploit small errors in otherwise benign content ecosystems to funnel victims toward malicious infrastructure at scale.

Behavioral analysis shows a rapid and methodical infection chain:

1. File deployment—The payload is installed into SysWOW64, requiring elevated privileges and signaling intent for deep system integration.

2. Persistence via Windows services—Both Uphero.exe and hero.exe are registered as auto‑start Windows services running under System privileges, ensuring execution on every boot.

3. Firewall rule manipulation—The malware invokes netsh to remove existing rules and create new inbound and outbound allow rules for its binaries. This is intended to reduce interference with network traffic and support seamless payload updates.

4. Host profiling—Using WMI and native Windows APIs, the malware enumerates system characteristics including hardware identifiers, memory size, CPU count, disk attributes, and network configuration. The malware communicates with iplogger[.]org via a dedicated reporting endpoint, suggesting it collects and reports device or network metadata as part of its proxy infrastructure.

While initial indicators suggested backdoor‑style capabilities, further analysis revealed that the malware’s primary function is proxyware. The infected host is enrolled as a residential proxy node, allowing third parties to route traffic through the victim’s IP address.

The hero.exe component retrieves configuration data from rotating “smshero”‑themed command‑and‑control domains, then establishes outbound proxy connections on non‑standard ports such as 1000 and 1002. Traffic analysis shows a lightweight XOR‑encoded protocol (key 0x70) used to obscure control messages.

This infrastructure is consistent with known residential proxy services, where access to real consumer IP addresses is sold for fraud, scraping, ad abuse, or anonymity laundering.

The 7‑Zip impersonation appears to be part of a broader operation. Related binaries have been identified under names such as upHola.exe, upTiktok, upWhatsapp, and upWire, all sharing identical tactics, techniques, and procedures:

  • Deployment to SysWOW64
  • Windows service persistence
  • Firewall rule manipulation via netsh
  • Encrypted HTTPS C2 traffic

Embedded strings referencing VPN and proxy brands suggest a unified backend supporting multiple distribution fronts.

Memory analysis uncovered a large pool of hardcoded command-and-control domains using hero and smshero naming conventions. Active resolution during sandbox execution showed traffic routed through Cloudflare infrastructure with TLS‑encrypted HTTPS sessions.

The malware also uses DNS-over-HTTPS via Google’s resolver, reducing visibility for traditional DNS monitoring and complicating network-based detection.

The malware incorporates multiple layers of sandbox and analysis evasion:

  • Virtual machine detection targeting VMware, VirtualBox, QEMU, and Parallels
  • Anti‑debugging checks and suspicious debugger DLL loading
  • Runtime API resolution and PEB inspection
  • Process enumeration, registry probing, and environment inspection

Cryptographic support is extensive, including AES, RC4, Camellia, Chaskey, XOR encoding, and Base64, suggesting encrypted configuration handling and traffic protection.

Any system that has executed installers from 7zip.com should be considered compromised. While this malware establishes SYSTEM‑level persistence and modifies firewall rules, reputable security software can effectively detect and remove the malicious components. Malwarebytes is capable of fully eradicating known variants of this threat and reversing its persistence mechanisms. In high‑risk or heavily used systems, some users may still choose a full OS reinstall for absolute assurance, but it is not strictly required in all cases.

Users and defenders should:

  • Verify software sources and bookmark official project domains
  • Treat unexpected code‑signing identities with skepticism
  • Monitor for unauthorized Windows services and firewall rule changes
  • Block known C2 domains and proxy endpoints at the network perimeter

This investigation would not have been possible without the work of independent security researchers who went deeper than surface-level indicators and identified the true purpose of this malware family.

  • Luke Acha provided the first comprehensive analysis showing that the Uphero/hero malware functions as residential proxyware rather than a traditional backdoor. His work documented the proxy protocol, traffic patterns, and monetization model, and connected this campaign to a broader operation he dubbed upStage Proxy. Luke’s full write-up is available on his blog.
  • s1dhy expanded on this analysis by reversing and decoding the custom XOR-based communication protocol, validating the proxy behavior through packet captures, and correlating multiple proxy endpoints across victim geolocations. Technical notes and findings were shared publicly on X (Twitter).
  • Andrew Danis contributed additional infrastructure analysis and clustering, helping tie the fake 7-Zip installer to related proxyware campaigns abusing other software brands.

Additional technical validation and dynamic analysis were published by researchers at RaichuLab on Qiita and WizSafe Security on IIJ.

Their collective work highlights the importance of open, community-driven research in uncovering long-running abuse campaigns that rely on trust and misdirection rather than exploits.

This campaign demonstrates how effective brand impersonation combined with technically competent malware can operate undetected for extended periods. By abusing user trust rather than exploiting software vulnerabilities, attackers bypass many traditional security assumptions—turning everyday utility downloads into long‑lived monetization infrastructure.

Malwarebytes detects and blocks known variants of this proxyware family and its associated infrastructure.

  • C:\Windows\SysWOW64\hero\Uphero.exe
  • C:\Windows\SysWOW64\hero\hero.exe
  • C:\Windows\SysWOW64\hero\hero.dll
  • e7291095de78484039fdc82106d191bf41b7469811c4e31b4228227911d25027 (Uphero.exe)
  • b7a7013b951c3cea178ece3363e3dd06626b9b98ee27ebfd7c161d0bbcfbd894 (hero.exe)
  • 3544ffefb2a38bf4faf6181aa4374f4c186d3c2a7b9b059244b65dce8d5688d9 (hero.dll)

Domains:

  • soc.hero-sms[.]co
  • neo.herosms[.]co
  • flux.smshero[.]co
  • nova.smshero[.]ai
  • apex.herosms[.]ai
  • spark.herosms[.]io
  • zest.hero-sms[.]ai
  • prime.herosms[.]vip
  • vivid.smshero[.]vip
  • mint.smshero[.]com
  • pulse.herosms[.]cc
  • glide.smshero[.]cc
  • svc.ha-teams.office[.]com
  • iplogger[.]org

Observed IPs (Cloudflare-fronted):

  • 104.21.57.71
  • 172.67.160.241
  • Windows services with image paths pointing to C:\Windows\SysWOW64\hero\
  • Firewall rules named Uphero or hero (inbound and outbound)
  • Mutex: Global\3a886eb8-fe40-4d0a-b78b-9e0bcb683fb7

We don’t just report on threats—we remove them

Cybersecurity risks should never spread beyond a headline. Keep threats off your devices by downloading Malwarebytes today.


Read the original article

Comments

  • By Dwedit 2026-02-1417:071 reply

    7zip.com has never been the official website of the project. It's been 7-zip.org

    • By pibaker 2026-02-1417:269 reply

      How can the average 7zip user know which one it is?

      Search results can be gamed by SEO, there were also cases of malware developers buying ads so links to the malware download show up above legitimate ones. Wikipedia works only for projects prominent enough to have a Wikipedia page.

      What are the other mechanisms for finding out the official website of a software?

      • By n4bz0r 2026-02-1418:121 reply

        There is normally a wiki page for every popular program which normally contains an official site URL. That's how I remember where to actually get PuTTY. Wiki can potentially be abused if it's a lesser known software, but, in general, it's a good indicator of legitimacy.

        • By throwaway198846 2026-02-1418:244 reply

          So wikipedia is now part of the supply chain (informally) which means there is another set of people who will try to hijack Wikipedia, as if we didn't had enough, just great.

          • By jolmg 2026-02-152:211 reply

            You can corroborate multiple trusted sources, especially those with histories. You can check the edit history of the Wikipedia article. Also, if you search "7zip" on HN, the second result with loads of votes and comments is 7-zip.org. Another is searching the Archlinux package repos; you can check the git history of the package build files to see where it's gotten the source from.

            • By halJordan 2026-02-153:532 reply

              And we're really going to do all the brouhaha for a single dl of an alternative compressor ? And then multiple that work as a best practice for every single interaction on the Internet? No we're not.

              • By carshodev 2026-02-155:26

                The dl for some programs are often on some subdomain page with like 2 lines of text and 10 dl links for binaries, even for official programs. Its so hard to know whether they are legit or not.

              • By jolmg 2026-02-157:04

                My point was more along the lines of "there's no need to complain about Wikipedia being hijackable, there are other options", and now you're complaining about having too many options...

                You don't need to do everything or anything. They're options. Use your own judgment.

          • By lyu07282 2026-02-1418:57

            I was always impressed by how fast wikipedia editors revert that kind of stuff, so I think it's great advice actually!

          • By jamespo 2026-02-1418:50

            What's your solution? If you search google for 7-zip the official website is the first hit.

          • By n4bz0r 2026-02-1419:15

            Not exactly news, wiki's been used for misinformation quite extensively from what I recall. You can't always be 100% sure with any online source of information, but at least you know there is an extensive community that'll notice if something's fishy rather sooner than later.

      • By antisthenes 2026-02-1417:544 reply

        > How can the average 7zip user know which one it is?

        I dunno, if you type "download 7zip" into Google, the top result is the official website.

        Also, 7zip.com is nowhere on the first page, and the most common browsers show you explicitly it's a phishing website.

        This is actually a pretty good case of the regular user being pretty safe from downloading malware.

        • By pibaker 2026-02-1418:181 reply

          I feel I need to clarify my earlier comment. I was asking how can a user tell, in general, what is the legitimate website of a software, not just how to know what 7zip.com is malicious.

          Are the search removals and phishing warnings reactive or proactive? Because if it is the former then we don't really know how many users are already affected before security researchers got notified and took action.

          Also, 7zip is not the only software to be affected by similar domain squatting "attacks." If you search for PuTTY, the unofficial putty.org website will be very high on the list (top place when I googled "download putty.") While it is not serving malware, yet, the fact that the more legitimate sounding domain is not controlled by the original author does leave the door open for future attacks.

          • By layer8 2026-02-1419:56

            One way is to consult the same source(s) where the user learned about the software in the first place.

        • By sedatk 2026-02-1418:111 reply

          > I dunno, if you type "download 7zip" into Google, the top result is the official website.

          Until someone puts an ad above it.

          • By 8organicbits 2026-02-1419:371 reply

            Sure, but the answer to "How can the average 7zip user know which one it is?" would then be "do a Google search and use uBlock Origin".

            • By pixl97 2026-02-1420:111 reply

              How does the user know they are using the official uBlock Origin?

              • By 8organicbits 2026-02-1421:12

                The Mozilla extension store doesn't have ads, so it's the top item. It has clear download counts and a "recommended" icon.

                So the advice is to install it from the extension store.

        • By TiredOfLife 2026-02-1420:271 reply

          > Also, 7zip.com is nowhere on the first page

          In incognito window, for me, it's 3rd result

          • By antisthenes 2026-02-154:55

            It's possible, although I can't replicate this result anymore.

            On google search I don't see it on the first page, and the only sketchy link on page 2 is https://7zip.dev/en/download/.

            Bing is worse, since it shows 7zip.com on the 2nd page, but the site refuses to load.

            But I am using Thorium with manifest v2 ublock and Edge with medium setting for tracker/ad block.

      • By Lockal 2026-02-1513:23

        Fails to load for me with: "The page was blocked because of a matching filter in uBlock filters – Badware risks."

        Which is enabled by default in uBlock. And installing it is pretty much a standard suggestion for any web user.

      • By harladsinsteden 2026-02-1419:031 reply

        How would you ensure that the "average user" actually gets to the page he expects to get to?

        There are risks in everything you do. If the average user doesn't know where the application he wants to download _actually_ comes from then maybe the average user shouldn't use the internet at all?

        • By KronisLV 2026-02-152:041 reply

          > How would you ensure that the "average user" actually gets to the page he expects to get to?

          I think you practically can't and that's the problem.

          TLS doesn't help with figuring out which page is the real one, EV certs never really caught on and most financial incentives make such mechanisms unviable. Same for additional sources of information like Wikipedia, since that just shifts the burden of combatting misinformation on the editors there and not every project matters enought to have a page. You could use an OS with a package manager, but not all software is packaged like that and that doesn't immediately make it immune to takeovers or bad actors.

          An unreasonable take would be:

          > A set of government run repositories and mirrors under a new TLD which is not allowed for anything other than hosting software packages, similar to how .gov ones already owrk - be it through package manager repositories or websites. Only source can be submitted by developers, who also need their ID verified and need to sign every release, it then gets reviewed by the employees and is only published after automated checks as well. Anyone who tries funny business, goes to jail. The unfortunate side effect is that you now live in a dystopia and go to jail anyways.

          A more reasonable take would be that it's not something you can solve easily.

          > If the average user doesn't know where the application he wants to download _actually_ comes from then maybe the average user shouldn't use the internet at all?

          People die in car crashes. We can't eliminate those altogether, but at least we can take steps towards making things better, instead of telling them that maybe they should just not drive. Tough problems regardless.

          • By harladsinsteden 2026-02-1516:361 reply

            > People die in car crashes. We can't eliminate those altogether, but at least we can take steps towards making things better, instead of telling them that maybe they should just not drive. Tough problems regardless.

            I agree with the sentiment but there are limits to what we can and should do. To stay with your analogy: We don't let people drive around without taking a test. In that test they have to prove that they know the basics of how to drive a car. At least where I come from that means learning quite a bit of rules and regulations.

            In other words: Don't let people off the hook. They need to do some form of learning by themselves. It's no different with what you do on the internet. If you're not willing to do some kind of work to familiarize yourself with how the bloody thing work then it's not the job of everyone else to make sure you'll be okay. It's _your_ job to understand the basics.

            I'm getting tired of just another thing we must take off peoples minds so that they can "just" use whatever they want to use. Don't try to blame (or god forbid sue) someone else because you didn't do your homework.

            • By KronisLV 2026-02-1520:361 reply

              > It's _your_ job to understand the basics

              I feel like this line of thinking is dangerous: people hit the wall hard when they don’t have sex ed, or financial education classes, or even basic classes on how to cook or do crafts (we had those in school, girls mostly cooked and the guys got to learn woodworking but also swapped sometimes; and later in university there were classes about work safety in general), or computer literacy classes.

              I think a lot of people don’t even have basic mental models of how OSes or the Internet works, what a web browser is (“the Google”) and so on.

              Saying that they should know that stuff won’t change the fact that they don’t unless you teach them as a part of their overall education.

              • By harladsinsteden 2026-02-1713:39

                The sheer amount of what you _might_ need later in life has proven to be simply too much for the time we usually spend for "overall education". I'm completely with you in that we should offer help along the way. But help can only bring you so far and you have to accept it.

                In the end that's fine. I have no idea how my car works and if the guy from the repair shop says that I need to pay for a new clutch then that's what I'm gonna do. I am aware that I don't have the knowledge to know whether or not I'm being scammed or not. But I _accept_ that because the alternative (getting to know a lot more details about a car) simply doesn't appeal to me.

                If someone wants to use the same approach for everything he does on the internet then that's perfectly fine. But then he needs to accept the consequences as well.

      • By imglorp 2026-02-1418:492 reply

        Open source software will have a code repo with active development happening on it. That repo will usually link to official Web page and download places.

        • By lukan 2026-02-1419:46

          Not universal true. Open source just means that the code is avaiable, not that developement happens in the open. (But 7zip does have a github repo)

        • By Someone 2026-02-158:18

          The fork with malware embedded could fairly easily apply most commits to the main repo in its public repo.

          They could even have support pages that look real, by copying them from the legitimate site.

          And the process of creating a repo that stays in sync with another fork can be automated, so, if needed, malware writers likely will do that.

      • By rtcode_io 2026-02-1418:20

        1. Go to the wikipedia article on 7-Zip

        2. Go the listed homepage

      • By cermicelli 2026-02-153:48

        Avoid downloading stuff of internet and avoid search engines.

        In a post AI world asking how not be scammed is hard cause now everything can be faked.

        Trust what you definitely know but still verify.

        Especially in the next 5-10 years that's going to become the reality so I guess sit tight and prepare for the waves and sunamis of scams.

      • By Markoff 2026-02-1418:43

        open About in the app?

  • By throwaway150 2026-02-1417:502 reply

    I tested with the 3 major browsers and all 3 block it as "Suspected Phishing". So looks like the system is working as designed.

    Lookalike websites serving malware have always existed. So this isn't exactly news. But the browsers are blocking them like they should.

    • By chalion 2026-02-1419:051 reply

      Weirdly, in Firefox 7zip.com is blocked but www.7zip.com isn't. If you type '7zip' in the address bar and then press Ctrl+Enter to go to the address, you'll get owned, because that key-combo adds the www at the beginning.

    • By pentagrama 2026-02-153:38

      Yes, and I think this case gets somewhat more notoriety because the phishing site has the .com domain and the legitimate one has a .org.

      Like it or not, .com adds perceived trustworthiness and works as a branding signal, especially in these times of VCs throwing large amounts of money at branding and buying 3 to 6 letter .com domains, but a small project like 7zip cannot afford that kind of expense.

  • By mmh0000 2026-02-1422:08

    This has been a long-standing problem with 7-Zip.

    An article from 2018:

    https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/fake-websites...

    And uBlock Origin's "Badware" filter blocks it:

    https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uAssets/blob/master/filters/...

HackerNews