Brand abuse involves impersonating an organization's IP to launch an attack or damage its reputation. This blog lays out how this can be pre-empted and prevented with Darktrace.
Brand abuse refers to the unauthorized imitation of an organization's brand. Its discovery is often a reminder to organizations that they need to protect more than just their data and IP – their reputation is at stake. But brand impersonation can also be used to launch a direct attack against the organization – and those around it.
During a first demonstration meeting recently, Darktrace PREVENT discovered a website deploying a classic trick: the letters ‘rn’ were used in sequence in an attempt to imitate the letter ‘m’ in the company’s name (e.g. “exarnple-brand.com”). Whilst obvious when you’re looking out for it, for an unsuspecting employee this goes easily unnoticed.
This website was set up by an attacker two weeks before the PREVENT demo. The website was taken down immediately, and the company was also advised to launch an internal investigation to find out if somebody had received an email from this address. The company also launched an information campaign informing their supply chain of this attack, and this last activity resulted in the discovery that one of their suppliers had been scammed through the same email domain and had transferred a large sum of money towards a shell company that was not related to the main brand. By alerting that supplier, additional money transfers were prevented.
This example is part of a broader trend being seen across the industry. ZDNET’s Fraud Trends Report found that roughly 250,000 attacks in Q2 of 2021 involved some form of brand abuse. These attacks harm companies by inflicting reputational damage, incurring financial losses from fraudulent competition, or serving as steppingstones for larger threats like supply chain attacks.
Organizations work hard to cultivate brand identities that differentiate themselves from competitors and build relationships with consumers. Yet, the stronger and more recognizable a brand is, the more often it is targeted for abuse as malicious actors take advantage of their success to reach more victims. Companies with greater online presences or international operations across multiple channels are also at higher risk.
Brand abuse takes many forms. It can be a website designed to look like it belongs to the brand to collect personal information such as email addresses and passwords. It can be an invoice sent by a vendor with a slight typo in its name. It can be an unauthorized branded webshop that never ships products to buyers. It can be a fake social media account directing customers to malicious websites that distribute malware or spreading fake news. It can be as simple as copyright or trademark infringement.
Figure 1: The general pattern malicious actors use for brand abuse.
Responding to Brand Abuse
Reconquering brand reputation after a brand abuse incident can prove to be much more difficult and costly than investing beforehand to help secure the brand. Risk detection and monitoring require a holistic approach to cover the diverse forms of brand abuse, and requires patrolling the internet for copycats, typo squatters, and other malicious appropriations.
Figure 2: Mapping to the stages of brand abusein Figure 1, the security team has a set of signals to look for and actions totake to stop brand abuse before it is too late.
Protecting the brand identity and external attack surface can seem like a daunting task for security teams, especially in an age where monitoring internal systems proves enough of a challenge itself. Moreover, how often should the team perform this brand abuse monitoring? Companies can try to search every six months, every quarter, even every month, however there would still be gaps between when a threat actor launches an attack and when the security team discovers it. This is when AI becomes a tremendous ally, as it works at a speed and scale that human teams cannot.
The Power of PREVENT
PREVENT/Attack Surface ManagementTM works autonomously and continuously to uncover instances of brand abuse, and proactively hardens defenses against any attack that might be launched as a result.
It uses AI to distinguish a company’s external assets from the rest of the global internet. Its processing features learn brand-related assets such as logos and domain names. It also leverages natural language processing and image classification algorithms to tackle even the most ambiguous and error-prone assets encountered to identify and stop copycats and typosquatters.
PREVENT/ASM carries out this comprehensive level of monitoring continuously, closing the gap between when an attacker spins up malicious infrastructure and when the security team identifies it. With PREVENT, should an attacker create a malicious website tomorrow morning, the security team will be alerted tomorrow morning.
In addition to identifying brand abuse, PREVENT/ASM helps the team to collect all the relevant data needed to support a Notice and Takedown procedure. It also integrates with the rest of Darktrace’s security ecosystem to ensure that cyber defense is hardened ahead of time, should malicious assets discovered by PREVENT/ASM be used to launch an attack.
For example, identifying a webpage impersonating a brand is useful data for email security. PREVENT forewarns Darktrace/Email of malicious domains, which in turn heightens its sensitivity against emails sent from this site. The same is true with regards to network traffic as well as endpoint security: an endpoint device visiting this host will have Darktrace DETECTTM + Darktrace RESPONDTM on higher alert – ready to immediately neutralize threatening activity when it occurs.
This is the power of the Cyber AI Loop, a virtuous feedback cycle in which AI engines continuously feed into and strengthen one another.
And PREVENT not only identifies instances of brand abuse (along with Shadow IT, misconfigurations, supply chain risk, and other vulnerabilities), but it also prioritizes these risks according to exposure and potential damage and impact. With PREVENT/End-to-EndTM using Darktrace’s understanding of every device and connection inside an organization – every user and their interactions, every possible attack path – insights from the internal and external attack surface combine to give security teams a fully informed understanding of how they can spend their time most effectively to reduce cyber risk.
In these ways, PREVENT not only monitors for brand abuse at a scope and scale far beyond the capabilities of human security teams, but it also integrates with DETECT + RESPOND to harden a company’s cyber security.
Like this and want more?
Receive the latest blog in your inbox
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
NEWSLETTER
Like this and want more?
Stay up to date on the latest industry news and insights.
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Darktrace cyber analysts are world-class experts in threat intelligence, threat hunting and incident response, and provide 24/7 SOC support to thousands of Darktrace customers around the globe. Inside the SOC is exclusively authored by these experts, providing analysis of cyber incidents and threat trends, based on real-world experience in the field.
AUTHOR
ABOUT ThE AUTHOR
Elliot Stocker
Product SME
After 2 years in a commercial role helping to deploy Darktrace across a broad range of digital environments, Elliot currently occupies the role of Product Subject Matter Expert, where he helps to articulate the value of Darktrace’s technology to customers around the world. Elliot holds a Masters degree in Data Science and Machine Learning, using this knowledge to communicate concepts around machine learning and AI in an accessible way to different audiences.
The State of AI in Cybersecurity: The Impact of AI on Cybersecurity Solutions
13
May 2024
About the AI Cybersecurity Report
Darktrace surveyed 1,800 CISOs, security leaders, administrators, and practitioners from industries around the globe. Our research was conducted to understand how the adoption of new AI-powered offensive and defensive cybersecurity technologies are being managed by organizations.
Overwhelming alert volumes, high false positive rates, and endlessly innovative threat actors keep security teams scrambling. Defenders have been forced to take a reactive approach, struggling to keep pace with an ever-evolving threat landscape. It is hard to find time to address long-term objectives or revamp operational processes when you are always engaged in hand-to-hand combat.
The impact of AI on the threat landscape will soon make yesterday’s approaches untenable. Cybersecurity vendors are racing to capitalize on buyer interest in AI by supplying solutions that promise to meet the need. But not all AI is created equal, and not all these solutions live up to the widespread hype.
Do security professionals believe AI will impact their security operations?
Yes! 95% of cybersecurity professionals agree that AI-powered solutions will level up their organization’s defenses.
Not only is there strong agreement about the ability of AI-powered cybersecurity solutions to improve the speed and efficiency of prevention, detection, response, and recovery, but that agreement is nearly universal, with more than 95% alignment.
This AI-powered future is about much more than generative AI. While generative AI can help accelerate the data retrieval process within threat detection, create quick incident summaries, automate low-level tasks in security operations, and simulate phishing emails and other attack tactics, most of these use cases were ranked lower in their impact to security operations by survey participants.
There are many other types of AI, which can be applied to many other use cases:
Supervised machine learning: Applied more often than any other type of AI in cybersecurity. Trained on attack patterns and historical threat intelligence to recognize known attacks.
Natural language processing (NLP): Applies computational techniques to process and understand human language. It can be used in threat intelligence, incident investigation, and summarization.
Large language models (LLMs): Used in generative AI tools, this type of AI applies deep learning models trained on massively large data sets to understand, summarize, and generate new content. The integrity of the output depends upon the quality of the data on which the AI was trained.
Unsupervised machine learning: Continuously learns from raw, unstructured data to identify deviations that represent true anomalies. With the correct models, this AI can use anomaly-based detections to identify all kinds of cyber-attacks, including entirely unknown and novel ones.
What are the areas of cybersecurity AI will impact the most?
Improving threat detection is the #1 area within cybersecurity where AI is expected to have an impact.
The most frequent response to this question, improving threat detection capabilities in general, was top ranked by slightly more than half (57%) of respondents. This suggests security professionals hope that AI will rapidly analyze enormous numbers of validated threats within huge volumes of fast-flowing events and signals. And that it will ultimately prove a boon to front-line security analysts. They are not wrong.
Identifying exploitable vulnerabilities (mentioned by 50% of respondents) is also important. Strengthening vulnerability management by applying AI to continuously monitor the exposed attack surface for risks and high-impact vulnerabilities can give defenders an edge. If it prevents threats from ever reaching the network, AI will have a major downstream impact on incident prevalence and breach risk.
Where will defensive AI have the greatest impact on cybersecurity?
Cloud security (61%), data security (50%), and network security (46%) are the domains where defensive AI is expected to have the greatest impact.
Respondents selected broader domains over specific technologies. In particular, they chose the areas experiencing a renaissance. Cloud is the future for most organizations, and the effects of cloud adoption on data and networks are intertwined. All three domains are increasingly central to business operations, impacting everything everywhere.
Responses were remarkably consistent across demographics, geographies, and organization sizes, suggesting that nearly all survey participants are thinking about this similarly—that AI will likely have far-reaching applications across the broadest fields, as well as fewer, more specific applications within narrower categories.
Going forward, it will be paramount for organizations to augment their cloud and SaaS security with AI-powered anomaly detection, as threat actors sharpen their focus on these targets.
How will security teams stop AI-powered threats?
Most security stakeholders (71%) are confident that AI-powered security solutions are better able to block AI-powered threats than traditional tools.
There is strong agreement that AI-powered solutions will be better at stopping AI-powered threats (71% of respondents are confident in this), and there’s also agreement (66%) that AI-powered solutions will be able to do so automatically. This implies significant faith in the ability of AI to detect threats both precisely and accurately, and also orchestrate the correct response actions.
There is also a high degree of confidence in the ability of security teams to implement and operate AI-powered solutions, with only 30% of respondents expressing doubt. This bodes well for the acceptance of AI-powered solutions, with stakeholders saying they’re prepared for the shift.
On the one hand, it is positive that cybersecurity stakeholders are beginning to understand the terms of this contest—that is, that only AI can be used to fight AI. On the other hand, there are persistent misunderstandings about what AI is, what it can do, and why choosing the right type of AI is so important. Only when those popular misconceptions have become far less widespread can our industry advance its effectiveness.
Connecting the Dots: Darktrace’s Detection of the Exploitation of the ConnectWise ScreenConnect Vulnerabilities
10
May 2024
Introduction
Across an ever changing cyber landscape, it is common place for threat actors to actively identify and exploit newly discovered vulnerabilities within commonly utilized services and applications. While attackers are likely to prioritize developing exploits for the more severe and global Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures (CVEs), they typically have the most success exploiting known vulnerabilities within the first couple years of disclosure to the public.
Addressing these vulnerabilities in a timely manner reduces the effectiveness of known vulnerabilities, decreasing the pace of malicious actor operations and forcing pursuit of more costly and time-consuming methods, such as zero-day related exploits or attacking software supply chain operations. While actors also develop tools to exploit other vulnerabilities, developing exploits for critical and publicly known vulnerabilities gives actors impactful tools at a low cost they are able to use for quite some time.
Between January and March 2024, the Darktrace Threat Research team investigated one such example that involved indicators of compromise (IoCs) suggesting the exploitation of vulnerabilities in ConnectWise’s remote monitoring and management (RMM) software ScreenConnect.
What are the ConnectWise ScreenConnect vulnerabilities?
CVE-2024-1708 is an authentication bypass vulnerability in ScreenConnect 23.9.7 (and all earlier versions) that, if exploited, would enable an attacker to execute remote code or directly impact confidential information or critical systems. This exploit would pave the way for a second ScreenConnect vunerability, CVE-2024-1709, which allows attackers to directly access confidential information or critical systems [1].
ConnectWise released a patch and automatically updated cloud versions of ScreenConnect 23.9.9, while urging security temas to update on-premise versions immediately [3].
If exploited in conjunction, these vulnerabilities could allow a malicious actor to create new administrative accounts on publicly exposed instances by evading existing security measures. This, in turn, could enable attackers to assume an administrative role and disable security tools, create backdoors, and disrupt RMM processes. Access to an organization’s environment in this manner poses serious risk, potentially leading to significant consequences such as deploying ransomware, as seen in various incidents involving the exploitation of ScreenConnect [2]
Darktrace’s anomaly-based detection was able to identify evidence of exploitation related to CVE-2024-1708 and CVE-2024-1709 across two distinct timelines; these detections included connectivity with endpoints that were later confirmed to be malicious by multiple open-source intelligence (OSINT) vendors. The activity observed by Darktrace suggests that threat actors were actively exploiting these vulnerabilities across multiple customer environments.
In the cases observed across the Darktrace fleet, Darktrace DETECT™ and Darktrace RESPOND™ were able to work in tandem to pre-emptively identify and contain network compromises from the onset. While Darktrace RESPOND was enabled in most customer environments affected by the ScreenConnect vulnerabilities, in the majority of cases it was configured in Human Confirmation mode. Whilst in Human Confirmation mode, RESPOND will provide recommended actions to mitigate ongoing attacks, but these actions require manual approval from human security teams.
When enabled in autonomous response mode, Darktrace RESPOND will take action automatically, shutting down suspicious activity as soon as it is detected without the need for human intervention. This is the ideal end state for RESPOND as actions can be taken at machine speed, without any delays waiting for user approval.
Looking within the patterns of activity observed by Darktrace , the typical attack timeline included:
Darktrace observed devices on affected customer networks performing activity indicative of ConnectWise ScreenConnect usage, for example connections over 80 and 8041, connections to screenconnect[.]com, and the use of the user agent “LabTech Agent”. OSINT research suggests that this user agent is an older name for ConnectWise Automate [5] which also includes ScreenConnect as standard [6].
Figure 1: Darktrace DETECT model alert highlighting the use of a remote management tool, namely “screenconnect[.]com”.
This activity was typically followed by anomalous connections to the external IP address 108.61.210[.]72 using URIs of the form “/MyUserName_DEVICEHOSTNAME”, as well as additional connections to another external, IP 185.62.58[.]132. Both of these external locations have since been reported as potentially malicious [14], with 185.62.58[.]132 in particular linked to ScreenConnect post-exploitation activity [2].
Figure 2: Darktrace DETECT model alert highlighting the unusual connection to 185.62.58[.]132 via port 8041.
Figure 3: Darktrace DETECT model alert highlighting connections to 108.61.210[.]72 using a new user agent and the “/MyUserName_DEVICEHOSTNAME” URI.
Same Exploit, Different Tactics?
While the majority of instances of ConnectWise ScreenConnect exploitation observed by Darktrace followed the above pattern of activity, Darktrace was able to identify some deviations from this.
In one customer environment, Darktrace’s detection of post-exploitation activity began with the same indicators of ScreenConnect usage, including connections to screenconnect[.]com via port 8041, followed by connections to unusual domains flagged as malicious by OSINT, in this case 116.0.56[.]101 [16] [17]. However, on this deployment Darktrace also observed threat actors downloading a suspicious AnyDesk installer from the endpoint with the URI “hxxp[:]//116.0.56[.]101[:]9191/images/Distribution.exe”.
Figure 4: Darktrace DETECT model alert highlighting the download of an unusual executable file from 116.0.56[.]101.
Further investigation by Darktrace’s Threat Research team revealed that this endpoint was associated with threat actors exploiting CVE-2024-1708 and CVE-2024-1709 [1]. Darktrace was additionally able to identify that, despite the customer being based in the United Kingdom, the file downloaded came from Pakistan. Darktrace recognized that this represented a deviation from the device’s expected pattern of activity and promptly alerted for it, bringing it to the attention of the customer.
Figure 5: External Sites Summary within the Darktrace UI pinpointing the geographic locations of external endpoints, in this case highlighting a file download from Pakistan.
Darktrace’s Autonomous Response
In this instance, the customer had Darktrace enabled in autonomous response mode and the post-exploitation activity was swiftly contained, preventing the attack from escalating.
As soon as the suspicious AnyDesk download was detected, Darktrace RESPOND applied targeted measures to prevent additional malicious activity. This included blocking connections to 116.0.56[.]101 and “*.56.101”, along with blocking all outgoing traffic from the device. Furthermore, RESPOND enforced a “pattern of life” on the device, restricting its activity to its learned behavior, allowing connections that are considered normal, but blocking any unusual deviations.
Figure 6: Darktrace RESPOND enforcing a “pattern of life” on the offending device after detecting the suspicious AnyDesk download.
Figure 7: Darktrace RESPOND blocking connections to the suspicious endpoint 116.0.56[.]101 and “*.56.101” following the download of the suspicious AnyDesk installer.
The customer was later able to use RESPOND to manually quarantine the offending device, ensuring that all incoming and outgoing traffic to or from the device was prohibited, thus preventing ay further malicious communication or lateral movement attempts.
Figure 8: The actions applied by Darktrace RESPOND in response to the post-exploitation activity related to the ScreenConnect vulnerabilities, including the manually applied “Quarantine device” action.
Conclusion
In the observed cases of the ConnectWise ScreenConnect vulnerabilities being exploited across the Darktrace fleet, Darktrace was able to pre-emptively identify and contain network compromises from the onset, offering vital protection against disruptive cyber-attacks.
While much of the post-exploitation activity observed by Darktrace remained the same across different customer environments, important deviations were also identified suggesting that threat actors may be adapting their tactics, techniques and procedures (TTPs) from campaign to campaign.
While new vulnerabilities will inevitably surface and threat actors will continually look for novel ways to evolve their methods, Darktrace’s Self-Learning AI and behavioral analysis offers organizations full visibility over new or unknown threats. Rather than relying on existing threat intelligence or static lists of “known bads”, Darktrace is able to detect emerging activity based on anomaly and respond to it without latency, safeguarding customer environments whilst causing minimal disruption to business operations.
Credit: Emma Foulger, Principal Cyber Analyst for their contribution to this blog.
Appendices
Darktrace Model Coverage
DETECT Models
Compromise / Agent Beacon (Medium Period)
Compromise / Agent Beacon (Long Period)
Anomalous File / EXE from Rare External Location
Device / New PowerShell User Agent
Anomalous Connection / Powershell to Rare External
Anomalous Connection / New User Agent to IP Without Hostname
User / New Admin Credentials on Client
Device / New User Agent
Anomalous Connection / Multiple HTTP POSTs to Rare Hostname
Anomalous Server Activity / Anomalous External Activity from Critical Network Device
Compromise / Suspicious Request Data
Compliance / Remote Management Tool On Server
Anomalous File / Anomalous Octet Stream (No User Agent)
.png)
![Darktrace DETECT model alert highlighting the use of a remote management tool, namely “screenconnect[.]com”.](https://assets-global.website-files.com/626ff4d25aca2edf4325ff97/663e65c6b0ee97378e4509af_Screenshot%202024-05-10%20at%2011.21.43%20AM.png)
![Figure 2: Darktrace DETECT model alert highlighting the unusual connection to 185.62.58[.]132 via port 8041.](https://assets-global.website-files.com/626ff4d25aca2edf4325ff97/663e66b4de1b5491cb1af256_Screenshot%202024-05-10%20at%2011.22.47%20AM.png)
![Figure 3: Darktrace DETECT model alert highlighting connections to 108.61.210[.]72 using a new user agent and the “/MyUserName_DEVICEHOSTNAME” URI.](https://assets-global.website-files.com/626ff4d25aca2edf4325ff97/663e66d3c53f1631e9d6f3ec_Screenshot%202024-05-10%20at%2011.23.04%20AM.png)
![Figure 4: Darktrace DETECT model alert highlighting the download of an unusual executable file from 116.0.56[.]101.](https://assets-global.website-files.com/626ff4d25aca2edf4325ff97/663e671300e1a5b26483fcea_Screenshot%202024-05-10%20at%2011.27.20%20AM.png)
![Figure 7: Darktrace RESPOND blocking connections to the suspicious endpoint 116.0.56[.]101 and “*.56.101” following the download of the suspicious AnyDesk installer.](https://assets-global.website-files.com/626ff4d25aca2edf4325ff97/663e67ff976d5b71245b32a4_Screenshot%202024-05-10%20at%2011.31.17%20AM.png)
