
Red Teamer @BHinfoSecurity. Implant Dev is my passion. Part-time Comic Book Nerd. CVE-2026-69328
Toronto, Ontario
Joined August 2015
- Tweets1.7K
- Following281
- Followers6.4K
- Likes1.6K
Pinned Tweet
ScareCrow 3.0 is out now, with a huge set of new options and evasion features. More IoC's stripped out. If you are curious take a look at the changelog. Check it out: github.com/optiv/ScareCrow
#netsec #redteam #EDR #evasion
Small updated to SourcePoint github.com/Tylous/SourcePoin…
Been really sick for the past few days, didn't stop me from adding some new features to my C2. No days wasted 💪
Matt Eidelberg retweeted
As yall may have realized, I disappeared from the community for a little while we fight the most difficult fight of our life. My wife Angela was diagnosed with stage 3 cancer. We need all the help we can get, please consider supporting our fight. givesendgo.com/anchors-for-a…
Whats old is new again labs.infoguard.ch/posts/ghos…
Matt Eidelberg retweeted
Everyone except me ? We are in fact still in court over this.
Over the past several days, we have been listening to the conversation around coordinated disclosure and the relationship between security researchers and vendors. We recognize that this relationship is both critical and, at times, fragile. We deeply value the security community, and will continue to take your feedback seriously.
To be clear about our approach to legal matters, we have no intention to pursue action against individuals conducting or publishing their security research. When an individual breaks the law and engages in malicious activity causing real harm to our customers, we will work with law enforcement as appropriate.
We recognize the work that goes into researching and submitting a vulnerability. We are committed to approaching every interaction with transparency, clear communication, and professionalism. We continue to believe strongly in Coordinated Vulnerability Disclosure as the foundation for protecting customers and improving our products. Each year we process a high volume of vulnerability reports. That volume continues to grow and will continue with the rise of AI-enabled research. We acknowledge that some interactions have fallen short and are working to learn from them.
Many of us have experience on both sides of this work, as researchers reporting vulnerabilities and as responders triaging and assessing them. That perspective informs how we approach this feedback and the importance we place on getting it right, particularly as the volume and complexity of research continues to grow.
The security community plays a vital role in helping us protect customers. We are committed to maintaining a constructive and respectful relationship and growing together. We know that, given the nature of this work, there will at times be misunderstandings. We remain committed to engaging in good faith and to providing a respectful and professional experience for all researchers, regardless of past interactions.
Readers added context they thought people might want to know
The root of this statement is a post by a security researcher that stated MS revoked the access to their reporting account. When the researcher asked for explanation, his account got deleted. He got no answer. This escalated further by MS deleting the github account as well.
deadeclipse666.blogspot.com/2026/05/dear-m…
"Copilot, write me an apology tweet… make no mistakes..."
Over the past several days, we have been listening to the conversation around coordinated disclosure and the relationship between security researchers and vendors. We recognize that this relationship is both critical and, at times, fragile. We deeply value the security community, and will continue to take your feedback seriously.
To be clear about our approach to legal matters, we have no intention to pursue action against individuals conducting or publishing their security research. When an individual breaks the law and engages in malicious activity causing real harm to our customers, we will work with law enforcement as appropriate.
We recognize the work that goes into researching and submitting a vulnerability. We are committed to approaching every interaction with transparency, clear communication, and professionalism. We continue to believe strongly in Coordinated Vulnerability Disclosure as the foundation for protecting customers and improving our products. Each year we process a high volume of vulnerability reports. That volume continues to grow and will continue with the rise of AI-enabled research. We acknowledge that some interactions have fallen short and are working to learn from them.
Many of us have experience on both sides of this work, as researchers reporting vulnerabilities and as responders triaging and assessing them. That perspective informs how we approach this feedback and the importance we place on getting it right, particularly as the volume and complexity of research continues to grow.
The security community plays a vital role in helping us protect customers. We are committed to maintaining a constructive and respectful relationship and growing together. We know that, given the nature of this work, there will at times be misunderstandings. We remain committed to engaging in good faith and to providing a respectful and professional experience for all researchers, regardless of past interactions.
Readers added context they thought people might want to know
The root of this statement is a post by a security researcher that stated MS revoked the access to their reporting account. When the researcher asked for explanation, his account got deleted. He got no answer. This escalated further by MS deleting the github account as well.
deadeclipse666.blogspot.com/2026/05/dear-m…
I had a similar situation where, a couple of weeks before the "fix" was supposed to go live, I received an email saying they had re-evaluated my case and no longer believed it met the bar for a fix, so they were closing the case.
This came after they had requested an extension beyond the 90-day deadline because a fix was in progress, and a CVE had already been promised.
My last submission to MSRC was for a Device Guard bypass. I learned my lesson from prior drawn-out submissions, so I included a 90 day window this time. MSRC responded saying that it met their bar and they would fix it, but asked me to withhold disclosure well past 90 days because they needed a few extra months to fix it. I agreed on the condition that they issue a CVE, to which they agreed.
After the agreed-upon Patch Tuesday a few months later, I couldn’t find any mention in the CVE list, so I reached out to MSRC to inquire. It turns out - they changed their minds, deciding it did not meet their bar for servicing, yet they patched it anyway. Since it didn’t meet the bar, they didn’t issue a CVE. MSRC strung me along for a few extra months to keep me quiet, then broke their word.
They could have at least bought me dinner first.
The interaction left such a bad taste in my mouth that I don’t really feel like interacting with them again. That’s why I didn’t publish any exploits/tools last year. #MeTooMSRC
Microsoft ridiculed a researcher reporting very serious bugs to them, deleted his account, and no bug bounties were paid. These should be high payouts. Now $MSFT is threatening legal action and speaking as if a researcher’s proof of concept code is illegal.
This is because the unappreciated researcher released more zero-day vulnerabilities on his own and had those GitHub/Lab accounts banned.
They were serious enough that Microsoft is scrambling to fix them but wasn’t serious enough to be paid or recognized, instead was ridiculed.
News of the Nightmare Eclipse exploits are everywhere but read the personal blog of the researcher, Nightmare Eclipse:
deadeclipse666.blogspot.com/…
This on international banana day… crazy
**NEW** BHIS | Blog
How do sideloading techniques work in today’s runtime environment?
Signed, Trusted, and Abused: Proxy Execution via WebView2
by: @Tyl0us
Published: 4/15/2026
Learn more: blackhillsinfosec.com/proxy-…
A phenomenal article! The AI addiction and great dumbing sections have been frequent a discussion point with friends. @curi0usJack spot on man!
Matt Eidelberg retweeted
Replying to @Defte_
Update:
Thanks to @RedTeamPT, I created a pull request for ntlmrelayx to reflect the new requirements:
github.com/fortra/impacket/p…
Now Shadow Creds are working again 😀
Been silent for a while, working on many different things, but I think it’s time to start talking about them....





















