Security researchers at Check Point Research have published a report about God loader. God loader is a malware loader using Godot as its runtime to execute malicious code and infect users with known malware. The Godot Engine is a programming system with a scripting language. It is possible to write malicious programs in any programming language.Security researchers at Check Point Research have published a report about God loader. God loader is a malware loader using Godot as its runtime to execute malicious code and infect users with known malware. The Godot Engine is a programming system with a scripting language. It is possible to write malicious programs in any programming language.

GodLoader Malware Loader: What You Need to Be Aware of

2025/11/02 03:00

Security researchers at Check Point Research have published a report about GodLoader, a malware loader using Godot as its runtime to execute malicious code and infect unaware users with known malware. Based on the report, affected users thought they were downloading and executing cracks for paid software, but instead executed the malware loader.

\ As the report states, the vulnerability is not specific to Godot. The Godot Engine is a programming system with a scripting language. It is akin to, for instance, the Python and Ruby runtimes. It is possible to write malicious programs in any programming language. We do not believe that Godot is particularly more or less suited to do so than other such programs.

\ If you downloaded a Godot game or the editor from a reliable source, you don’t have to do anything. You are not at risk. We encourage people to only execute software from trusted sources – whether it’s written using Godot or any other programming system.

\ For some more technical details:

Godot does not register a file handler for .pck files. This means that a malicious actor always has to ship the Godot runtime (.exe file) together with a .pck file. The user will always have to unpack the runtime together with the .pck to the same location and then execute the runtime. There is no way for a malicious actor to create a “one click exploit”, barring other OS-level vulnerabilities. If such an OS-level vulnerability were used then Godot would not be a particularly attractive option due to the size of the runtime.

\ This is similar to writing malicious software in Python or Ruby, the malicious actor will have to ship a python.exe or ruby.exe together with their malicious program.

Good security practices

We would like to take this opportunity to remind users about some good security practices when it comes to downloading and executing software.

\

  • Only download and execute software (including game mods) from trusted sources:
  • Official project website. Confirm it by checking the URL, and verify with a search engine that this seems to be the most frequently referenced website for this software.
  • Trusted distribution platform: Steam, Epic Games Store, Windows Store, Google Play, Apple Store, etc.
  • People you know, after confirming that they are who they claim to be if the communication is text-based (see below).
  • On Windows and macOS, verify that the executable is signed (and notarized, on macOS) by a trusted party.
  • Be wary of executing cracked software, which is a prime attack vector for malicious actors.
  • Be wary of executing software even from people you know, if you can’t confirm that their account hasn’t been compromised. A very common attack vector targeting specifically game developers is for Discord accounts to get hacked, and then malicious actors use them to send malicious downloads to their friends in private messages (“hey will you try my game?”). Make sure to confirm the identity of your contacts before executing such software.

Reporting security issues

We thank Check Point Research for following the security guidelines of responsible disclosure, which let us confirm that this attack vector, while unfortunate, is not specific to Godot and does not expose a vulnerability in the engine or for its users.

\ If you would like to report a security vulnerability or concern, please send an email to [email protected].


By Godot Security Team

\ Also published here

\ Photo by Ümit Yıldırım on Unsplash

Disclaimer: The articles reposted on this site are sourced from public platforms and are provided for informational purposes only. They do not necessarily reflect the views of MEXC. All rights remain with the original authors. If you believe any content infringes on third-party rights, please contact [email protected] for removal. MEXC makes no guarantees regarding the accuracy, completeness, or timeliness of the content and is not responsible for any actions taken based on the information provided. The content does not constitute financial, legal, or other professional advice, nor should it be considered a recommendation or endorsement by MEXC.

You May Also Like

BFX Presale Raises $7.5M as Solana Holds $243 and Avalanche Eyes $1B Treasury — Best Cryptos to Buy in 2025

BFX Presale Raises $7.5M as Solana Holds $243 and Avalanche Eyes $1B Treasury — Best Cryptos to Buy in 2025

BFX presale hits $7.5M with tokens at $0.024 and 30% bonus code BLOCK30, while Solana holds $243 and Avalanche builds a $1B treasury to attract institutions.
Share
Blockchainreporter2025/09/18 01:07
Crypto ETF Update: This Altcoin Could 1000x by 2026

Crypto ETF Update: This Altcoin Could 1000x by 2026

Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.
Share
Blockchainreporter2025/09/19 04:15
OCC Findings Suggest Major U.S. Banks Restricted Access for Digital Asset Firms Amid Debanking Probe

OCC Findings Suggest Major U.S. Banks Restricted Access for Digital Asset Firms Amid Debanking Probe

The post OCC Findings Suggest Major U.S. Banks Restricted Access for Digital Asset Firms Amid Debanking Probe appeared on BitcoinEthereumNews.com. The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) has confirmed that nine major U.S. banks engaged in debanking practices from 2020 to 2023, restricting access for digital asset firms and other sectors. This marks the first official acknowledgment of these policies, which limited services based on customer types, affecting crypto businesses significantly. OCC report highlights inappropriate distinctions by banks like JPMorgan Chase and Bank of America, targeting crypto and high-risk sectors. Nine banks reviewed showed similar policies restricting customer access without objective risk assessments. Impacted industries include digital asset firms, with potential referrals to the Attorney General for unlawful practices. Discover how major U.S. banks’ debanking policies hit crypto firms hard, per OCC’s 2025 report. Learn the implications for digital assets and what regulators are doing next—stay informed on banking risks today! What Are the OCC’s Findings on Banks Debanking Crypto Firms? Banks debanking crypto firms involves major financial institutions limiting or denying services to digital asset businesses based on perceived risks, as detailed in a recent Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) report. From 2020 to 2023, nine of the largest U.S. banks implemented policies that required escalated reviews or outright restrictions for certain customers, including those in the crypto sector. This practice, now publicly confirmed, underscores ongoing tensions between traditional banking and emerging digital asset industries. How Did These Debanking Practices Affect Digital Asset Companies? The OCC’s six-page report, released on Wednesday, revealed that institutions such as JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, Citigroup, Wells Fargo, U.S. Bancorp, Capital One, PNC Financial Services Group, Toronto-Dominion Bank, and Bank of Montreal made distinctions among customers that were deemed inappropriate. For digital asset firms, this meant heightened scrutiny or complete denial of banking services, hindering operations in an already volatile market. The regulator noted that these policies spanned…
Share
BitcoinEthereumNews2025/12/11 11:01