<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Haproxy on CuraSec</title><link>https://curasec.metacog.co.kr/tags/haproxy/</link><description>Recent content in Haproxy on CuraSec</description><generator>Hugo</generator><language>en-us</language><lastBuildDate>Sat, 05 Sep 2026 13:51:48 +0000</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://curasec.metacog.co.kr/tags/haproxy/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/><item><title>Ted Backdoor Trojanizes HAProxy Builds to Intercept Web Traffic</title><link>https://curasec.metacog.co.kr/insights/2026-09-05-new-ted-backdoor-hides-inside-victims-own-haproxy-builds-to/</link><pubDate>Sat, 05 Sep 2026 13:51:48 +0000</pubDate><guid>https://curasec.metacog.co.kr/insights/2026-09-05-new-ted-backdoor-hides-inside-victims-own-haproxy-builds-to/</guid><description>&lt;ul>
&lt;li>&lt;strong>Engineer — Learn:&lt;/strong> No HAProxy vulnerability is involved — attackers needed prior code execution to recompile and replace the binary. This illustrates why runtime binary integrity checks (e.g., file hashing, dm-verity, or package-manager verification) on critical reverse-proxy binaries matter; no immediate patching action required.&lt;/li>
&lt;li>&lt;strong>SOC/IR — Learn:&lt;/strong> The technique — compiling a backdoor directly into a modified HAProxy binary — is a stealthy persistence method worth understanding, but no IOCs, ATT&amp;amp;CK mappings, or broader campaign details are available from this report to act on today.&lt;/li>
&lt;li>&lt;strong>Leader — Skip&lt;/strong>&lt;/li>
&lt;/ul></description></item></channel></rss>