T1660: Phishing
Adversaries may send malicious content to users in order to gain access to their mobile devices. All forms of phishing are electronically delivered social engineering. Adversaries can conduct both non-targeted phishing, such as in mass malware spam campaigns, as well as more targeted phishing tailored for a specific individual, company, or industry, known as “spearphishing.” Phishing often involves social engineering techniques, such as posing as a trusted source, as well as evasion techniques, such as removing or manipulating emails or metadata/headers from compromised accounts being abused to send messages.
Mobile phishing may take various forms. For example, adversaries may send emails containing malicious attachments or links, typically to deliver and then execute malicious code on victim devices. Phishing may also be conducted via third-party services, like social media platforms. Adversaries may also impersonate executives of organizations to persuade victims into performing some action on their behalf. For example, adversaries will often use social engineering techniques in text messages to trick the victims into acting quickly, which leads to adversaries obtaining credentials and other information.
Mobile devices are a particularly attractive target for adversaries executing phishing campaigns. Due to their smaller form factor than traditional desktop endpoints, users may not be able to notice minor differences between genuine and phishing websites. Further, mobile devices have additional sensors and radios that allow adversaries to execute phishing attempts over several different vectors, such as:
- SMS messages: Adversaries may send SMS messages (known as “smishing”) from compromised devices to potential targets to convince the target to, for example, install malware, navigate to a specific website, or enable certain insecure configurations on their device. - Quick Response (QR) Codes: Adversaries may use QR codes (known as “quishing”) to redirect users to a phishing website. For example, an adversary could replace a legitimate public QR Code with one that leads to a different destination, such as a phishing website. A malicious QR code could also be delivered via other means, such as SMS or email. In the latter case, an adversary could utilize a malicious QR code in an email to pivot from the user’s desktop computer to their mobile device. - Phone Calls: Adversaries may call victims (known as "vishing") to persuade them to perform an action, such as providing login credentials or navigating to malicious websites. Common vishing targets include employees, especially executives of organizations, and help desks. This may also be used as a technique to perform the initial access on a mobile device, but then pivot to a desktop computer by having the victims perform actions on a desktop computer. With the rise of artificial intelligence (AI), adversaries may also use AI to clone a person’s voice, resulting in deepfake vishing. The cloned voice provides familiarity to the victims, increasing the likelihood of successful malicious actions performed by the victims. Additionally, adversaries may leave voicemails, which may use a real person’s voice or an AI-generated voice; these scams would urgently ask victims into calling back to perform an action, e.g. sending money or providing sensitive information and credentials.
Analyst context for executives and security teams
Mobile phishing is a business resilience issue, not just a user-awareness problem. On Android and iOS, adversaries can use email, SMS, QR codes, social platforms, phone calls, and executive impersonation to push users toward credential disclosure, malware installation, or insecure device actions. Mobile form factors make this material because users may miss URL, sender, or website differences that would be easier to spot on a desktop.
Executive priority
Prioritize this technique where mobile devices are used for identity, executive communications, help desk workflows, finance approvals, or access to sensitive business applications. Leaders should ask whether phishing response plans include mobile-specific vectors such as smishing, quishing, and vishing; whether managed and BYOD devices have appropriate visibility; and whether user guidance and mobile security controls produce evidence suitable for audit, incident response, and risk decisions.
Technical view
For SOC, detection engineering, and IR teams, validate coverage across Android and iOS rather than assuming email security controls cover the whole problem. ATT&CK does not provide official detection text for T1660, but it does identify a related detection strategy, DET0684 Detection of Phishing, and mitigations M1011 User Guidance and M1058 Antivirus/Antimalware. Defensive validation should connect mobile message delivery, suspicious links or attachments, QR-driven redirects, reported vishing attempts, mobile app installation events, permission changes, mobile threat defense alerts, and downstream identity activity such as credential use after a lure. Relationship context shows this behavior is associated in ATT&CK with multiple groups and mobile malware families, including Android and iOS examples, so detections should not be limited to one delivery channel or one malware family.
Likely telemetry
- Mobile threat defense or mobile security product alerts on Android and iOS devices
- Email security logs for malicious links, attachments, sender anomalies, and message metadata
- SMS, messaging, or user-reported smishing evidence where collection is available and policy-compliant
- QR-code investigation artifacts, including destination URLs and redirect chains
- Help desk, executive support, and fraud-reporting records for vishing or impersonation attempts
Detection direction
- Confirm whether DET0684-style phishing detection is implemented for mobile-specific channels, not only corporate email.
- Tune detections around sequences: suspicious message or QR/vishing report followed by mobile link access, app installation, permission changes, or unusual identity activity.
- Account for false positives from legitimate marketing SMS, QR-based business processes, travel workflows, and help desk calls; require context such as destination reputation, impersonation indicators, user report volume, or post-click behavior.
- Validate visibility gaps for unmanaged/BYOD devices, encrypted messaging apps, personal email, voice calls, and QR codes scanned from physical locations or desktop screens.
- Use relationship context to test coverage against Android-heavy malware delivery as well as iOS-targeting scenarios, without assuming the listed groups or software are present in the local environment.
Mitigation priorities
- Start with M1011 User Guidance: train users on mobile-specific phishing behaviors, including smishing, quishing, vishing, executive impersonation, and urgent credential or payment requests.
- Use M1058 Antivirus/Antimalware where appropriate through mobile security or Mobile Threat Defense capabilities to provide device-based mitigation against certain malicious behaviors.
- Harden identity workflows so a phished credential alone is less useful, and ensure suspicious mobile-driven sign-ins trigger response review.
- Define executive, help desk, and finance verification procedures for phone-call and message-based requests before credentials, payments, or configuration changes are approved.
- Ensure incident response playbooks include mobile evidence collection, device containment decisions, credential reset workflows, and user reporting channels for SMS, QR, email, social, and voice lures.
Analyst notes and limits
The supplied ATT&CK object is in the mobile domain, applies to Android and iOS, and has no specified tactics. ATT&CK relationships associate T1660 with several groups and mobile software families, including examples on Android and iOS, which supports prioritizing broad mobile phishing readiness. The most decision-useful control question is whether the organization can connect the lure, the mobile device action, and the downstream identity or business-process impact.
Official ATT&CK detection guidance for this object is not provided, and the related detection strategy is named but not described in the supplied fields. Local telemetry, device ownership model, messaging platforms, MDM/MTD deployment, and privacy/legal constraints will determine what can actually be monitored or proven. Group and software relationships do not establish current targeting or exposure for any specific organization.
Phishing
Adversaries may send malicious content to users in order to gain access to their mobile devices. All forms of phishing are electronically delivered social engineering. Adversaries can conduct both non-targeted phishing, such as in mass malware spam campaigns, as well as more targeted phishing tailored for a specific individual, company, or industry, known as “spearphishing.” Phishing often involves social engineering techniques, such as posing as a trusted source, as well as evasion techniques, such as removing or manipulating emails or metadata/headers from compromised accounts being abused to send messages.
Mobile phishing may take various forms. For example, adversaries may send emails containing malicious attachments or links, typically to deliver and then execute malicious code on victim devices. Phishing may also be conducted via third-party services, like social media platforms. Adversaries may also impersonate executives of organizations to persuade victims into performing some action on their behalf. For example, adversaries will often use social engineering techniques in text messages to trick the victims into acting quickly, which leads to adversaries obtaining credentials and other information.
Mobile devices are a particularly attractive target for adversaries executing phishing campaigns. Due to their smaller form factor than traditional desktop endpoints, users may not be able to notice minor differences between genuine and phishing websites. Further, mobile devices have additional sensors and radios that allow adversaries to execute phishing attempts over several different vectors, such as:
- SMS messages: Adversaries may send SMS messages (known as “smishing”) from compromised devices to potential targets to convince the target to, for example, install malware, navigate to a specific website, or enable certain insecure configurations on their device. - Quick Response (QR) Codes: Adversaries may use QR codes (known as “quishing”) to redirect users to a phishing website. For example, an adversary could replace a legitimate public QR Code with one that leads to a different destination, such as a phishing website. A malicious QR code could also be delivered via other means, such as SMS or email. In the latter case, an adversary could utilize a malicious QR code in an email to pivot from the user’s desktop computer to their mobile device. - Phone Calls: Adversaries may call victims (known as "vishing") to persuade them to perform an action, such as providing login credentials or navigating to malicious websites. Common vishing targets include employees, especially executives of organizations, and help desks. This may also be used as a technique to perform the initial access on a mobile device, but then pivot to a desktop computer by having the victims perform actions on a desktop computer. With the rise of artificial intelligence (AI), adversaries may also use AI to clone a person’s voice, resulting in deepfake vishing. The cloned voice provides familiarity to the victims, increasing the likelihood of successful malicious actions performed by the victims. Additionally, adversaries may leave voicemails, which may use a real person’s voice or an AI-generated voice; these scams would urgently ask victims into calling back to perform an action, e.g. sending money or providing sensitive information and credentials.
How security teams should use this page
Treat this object as behavior context, not an attribution claim. Validate the related groups, software, data sources, and mitigations against official ATT&CK relationships and your own telemetry before making control-coverage decisions.
Groups, software, and campaigns
G0094: Kimsuky
Kimsuky is a Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK)-based cyber espionage group that has been active since at least 2012. The group initially targeted South Korean government agencies, think tanks, and subject-matter experts in various fields. Its operations expanded to include the United Nations and organizations in the government, education, business services, and manufacturing sectors across the United States, Japan, Russia, and Europe. Kimsuky has focused collection on foreign policy and national security issues tied to the Korean Peninsula, nuclear policy, and sanctions. Kimsuky operations have overlapped with those of other North Korean state-sponsored cyber espionage actors as a result of ad hoc collaborations or other limited resource sharing.[1][2][3][4][5][6]
Kimsuky was assessed to be responsible for the 2014 Korea Hydro & Nuclear Power Co. compromise; other notable campaigns include Operation STOLEN PENCIL (2018), Operation Kabar Cobra (2019), and Operation Smoke Screen (2019).[7][8][9] In 2023, Kimsuky was observed using commercial large language models (LLMs) to assist with vulnerability research, scripting, social engineering and reconnaissance.[10]
DPRK threat actor cluster boundaries overlap in open source reporting, with some security researchers consolidating all attributed North Korean state-sponsored cyber activity under Lazarus Group, rather than tracking operationally distinct subgroups.
G1015: Scattered Spider
Scattered Spider is a native English-speaking cybercriminal group active since at least 2022. [1] [2] The group initially targeted customer relationship management (CRM) providers, business process outsourcing (BPO) firms, and telecommunications and technology companies before expanding in 2023 to gaming, hospitality, retail, managed service provider (MSP), manufacturing, and financial sectors. [2] Scattered Spider relies heavily on social engineering, including impersonating IT and help-desk staff, to gain initial access, bypass multi-factor authentication (MFA), and compromise enterprise networks. The group has adapted its tooling to evade endpoint detection and response (EDR) defenses and used ransomware for financial gain. [3] [4] [5] Scattered Spider had expanded into hybrid cloud and identity environments, using help-desk impersonation and MFA bypass to obtain administrator access in Okta, AWS, and Office 365. [6]
G1002: BITTER
G1029: UNC788
G0034: Sandworm Team
Sandworm Team is a destructive threat group that has been attributed to Russia's General Staff Main Intelligence Directorate (GRU) Main Center for Special Technologies (GTsST) military unit 74455.[1][2] This group has been active since at least 2009.[3][4][5][6]
In October 2020, the US indicted six GRU Unit 74455 officers associated with Sandworm Team for the following cyber operations: the 2015 and 2016 attacks against Ukrainian electrical companies and government organizations, the 2017 worldwide NotPetya attack, targeting of the 2017 French presidential campaign, the 2018 Olympic Destroyer attack against the Winter Olympic Games, the 2018 operation against the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, and attacks against the country of Georgia in 2018 and 2019.[1][2] Some of these were conducted with the assistance of GRU Unit 26165, which is also referred to as APT28.[7]
G1028: APT-C-23
S1241: RatMilad
RatMilad is an Android remote access tool (RAT) with spyware functionality that has been used to target enterprise mobile devices in the Middle East since at least 2021. Variants of RatMilad have been disguised as VPN applications and a fake app named NumRent. Upon installation, RatMilad employs multiple Collection techniques to collect sensitive information before uploading the collected data to its command and control (C2) server. [1]
S1083: Chameleon
Chameleon is an Android banking trojan that can leverage Android’s Accessibility Services to perform malicious activities. Believed to have been first active in January 2023, Chameleon has been observed targeting users in Australia and Poland by masquerading as official applications. A new variant of Chameleon has expanded its targets to include Android users in the United Kingdom and Italy.[1][2]
S1225: CherryBlos
CherryBlos is an Android malware that steals credentials and redirects cryptocurrency to adversary-controlled wallets. CherryBlos was labelled Robot 999 in its first appearance in April 2023; since then, various aliases have been used, including GPTalk, Happy Miner, and SynthNet. The threat actors behind CherryBlos uploaded the malware to different Google Play regions, such as Malaysia, Vietnam, Indonesia, Philippines, Uganda, and Mexico.[1]
S0289: Pegasus for iOS
Pegasus for iOS is the iOS version of malware that has reportedly been linked to the NSO Group. It has been advertised and sold to target high-value victims.[1][2] The Android version is tracked separately under Pegasus for Android.
S1185: LightSpy
First observed in 2018, LightSpy is a modular malware family that initially targeted iOS devices in Southern Asia before expanding to Android and macOS platforms. It consists of a downloader, a main executable that manages network communications, and functionality-specific modules, typically implemented as `.dylib` files (iOS, macOS) or `.apk` files (Android). LightSpy can collect VoIP call recordings, SMS messages, and credential stores, which are then exfiltrated to a command and control (C2) server.[1]
S1067: FluBot
FluBot is a multi-purpose mobile banking malware that was first observed in Spain in late 2020. It primarily spread through European countries using a variety of SMS phishing messages in multiple languages.[1][2] An international law enforcement operation of 11 countries eventually disrupted the spread of FluBot.[3]
S9006: VajraSpy
VajraSpy is Android malware distributed via trojanized messaging and news applications. It has been used to target individuals in Pakistan and India since at least 2021 and has been delivered through the Google Play Store, malicious domains, and other uncontrolled distribution channels. VajraSpy is attributed with high confidence to Patchwork which has used the malware to conduct targeted espionage, primarily against devices in Pakistan.[1][2][3]
S1094: BRATA
BRATA (Brazilian Remote Access Tool, Android), is an evolving Android malware strain, detected in late 2018 and again in late 2021. Originating in Brazil, BRATA was later also found in the UK, Poland, Italy, Spain, and USA, where it is believed to have targeted financial institutions such as banks. There are currently three known variants of BRATA.[1][2][3]
S1231: GodFather
GodFather is an Android banking malware that uses virtualization to mimic legitimate applications and abuses accessibility services and other permissions to evade detection and exfiltrate sensitive data. First identified in 2020, GodFather targets nearly 500 banking applications, cryptocurrency wallets, and exchanges worldwide; however, its virtualization-based attacks have primarily focused on several Turkish financial institutions. This capability enables threat actors to steal banking credentials and other sensitive account information. [1][2]
S1208: FjordPhantom
FjordPhantom is a malicious Android application first discovered in September 2024 with targets in Southeast Asia, specifically Indonesia, Thailand, and Vietnam. FjordPhantom was distributed through email and messaging applications. Once installed, the application launches a virtualization solution to steal important information, such as bank accounts, and to manipulate the user interface. The malicious activity from the virtualization solution runs alongside legitimate banking applications.[1]
S9005: DocSwap
DocSwap is an Android malware first identified in 2025, and attributed to Kimsuky. DocSwap’s name is a combination of its Korean name “문서열람 인증 앱” (Document Viewing Authentication App) and a phishing page masquerading as CoinSwap at the C2 address. Based on DocSwap’s name and Korean-language strings, DocSwap potentially targets mobile device users in South Korea. Several variants of DocSwap exist; one of the latest samples indicates that the adversary added a native decryption function that decrypts an internal APK.[1][2]
All related ATT&CK context
Mitigation direction
Object version and sync metadata
The fields below describe the current mirrored snapshot. When Glexia retains multiple ATT&CK source imports, you can open the table to compare the same object across releases (hashes and MITRE timestamps). For MITRE’s own release notes and roadmap, see ATT&CK resources — Updates .
Imported snapshots across ATT&CK releases (1)
| Release | Bundle imported | Object version | Modified | Status | Raw hash |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 19.1 | 1.2 | Current bundle | 1bdc4f6c51e5… |
Mirrored ATT&CK source object
The raw object is retained through the mirrored ATT&CK source bundle and object hash. The raw endpoint returns the exact object from the mirrored bundle when available.
External references and citations
MITRE external references are preserved separately from Glexia analysis so citations remain traceable to their original source records.
-
[1]
NIST Mobile Threat Catalogue AUT-9Open source URL
-
[2]
mitre-attack T1660Open source URL
Source: MITRE ATT&CK®. © 2026 The MITRE Corporation. This work is reproduced and distributed with the permission of The MITRE Corporation. MITRE ATT&CK and ATT&CK are registered trademarks of The MITRE Corporation. Glexia is not affiliated with or endorsed by MITRE.