Blog
‍

Inside the SOC

Self-Learning AI for Zero-Day and N-Day Attack Defense

Jul 2022

Explore the differences between zero-day and n-day attacks on different customer servers to learn how Darktrace detects and prevents cyber threats effectively.

‍Key Terms:

Zero-day | A recently discovered security vulnerability in computer software that has no currently available fix or patch. Its name come from the reality that vendors have “zero days” to act and respond.

N-day | A vulnerability that emerges in computer software in which a vendor is aware and may have already issued (or are currently working on) a patch or fix. Active exploits often already exist and await abuse by nefarious actors.

Traditional security solutions often apply signature-based-detection when identifying cyber threats, helping to defend against legacy attacks but consequently missing novel ones. Therefore, security teams often lend a lot of focus to ensuring that the risk of zero-day vulnerabilities is reduced [1]. As explored in this blog, however, organizations can face just as much of a risk from n-day attacks, since they invite the most attention from malicious actors [2]. This is due in part to the reduced complexity, cost and time invested in researching and finding new exploits compared with that found when attackers exploit zero-days.

This blog will examine both a zero-day and n-day attack that two different Darktrace customers faced in the fall of 2021. This will include the activity Darktrace detected, along with the steps taken by Darktrace/Network to intervene. It will then compare the incidents, discuss the possible dangers of third-party integrations, and assess the deprecation of legacy security tools.

Revisiting zero-day attacks

Zero-days are among the greatest concerns security teams face in the era of modern technology and networking. Defending critical systems from zero-day compromises is a task most legacy security solutions are often unable to handle. Due to the complexity of uncovering new security flaws and developing elaborate code that can exploit them, these attacks are often carried out by funded or experienced groups such as nation-state actors and APTs. One of history’s most prolific zero-days, ‘Stuxnet’, sent security teams worldwide into a global panic in 2010. This involved a widespread attack on Iranian nuclear infrastructure and was widely accepted to be a result of nation-state actors [3]. The Stuxnet worm took advantage of four zero-day exploits, compromising over 200,000 devices and physically damaging around 10% of the 9,000 critical centrifuges at the Natanz nuclear site.

More recently, 2021 saw the emergence of several critical zero-day vulnerabilities within SonicWall’s product suite [4]. SonicWall is a security hardware manufacturer that provides hardware firewall devices, unified threat management, VPN gateways and network security solutions. Some of these vulnerabilities lie within their Secure Mobile Access (SMA) 100 series (for example, CVE-2019-7481, CVE-2021-20016 and CVE-2021-20038 to name a few). These directly affected VPN devices and often allowed attackers easy remote access to company devices. CVE-2021-20016 in particular incorporates an SQL-Injection vulnerability within SonicWall’s SSL VPN SMA 100 product line [5]. If exploited, this defect would allow an unauthenticated remote attacker to perform their own malicious SQL query in order to access usernames, passwords and other session related information.

The N-day underdog

The shadow cast by zero-day attacks often shrouds that of n-day attacks. N-days, however, often pose an equal - if not greater - risk to the majority of organizations, particularly those in industrial sectors. Since these vulnerabilities have fixes available, all of the hard work around research is already done; malicious actors only need to view proof of concepts (POCs) or, if proficient in coding, reverse-engineer software to reveal code-changes (binary diffing) in order to exploit these security flaws in the wild. These vulnerabilities are typically attributed to opportunistic hackers and script-kiddies, where little research or heavy lifting is required.

August 2021 gave rise to a critical vulnerability in Atlassian Confluence servers, namely CVE-2021-26084 [6]. Confluence is a widely used collaboration wiki tool and knowledge-sharing platform. As introduced and discussed a few months ago in a previous Darktrace blog, this vulnerability allows attackers to remotely execute code on internet-facing servers after exploiting injection vulnerabilities in Object-Graph Navigation Language (OGNL). Whilst Confluence had patches and fixes available to users, attackers still jumped on this opportunity and began scanning the internet for signs of critical devices serving this outdated software [7]. Once identified, they would exploit the vulnerability, often installing crypto mining software onto the device. More recently, Darktrace explored a new vulnerability (CVE-2022-26134), disclosed midway through 2022, that affected Confluence servers and data centers using similar techniques to that found in CVE-2021-26084 [8].

SonicWall in the wild – 1. Zero-day attack

At the beginning of August 2021, Darktrace prevented an attack from taking place within a European automotive customer’s environment (Figure 1). The attack targeted a vulnerable internet-facing SonicWall VPN server, and while the attacker’s motive remains unclear, similar historic events suggest that they intended to perform ransomware encryption or data exfiltration.

Figure 1: Timeline of the SonicWall attack

Darktrace was unable to confirm the definite tactics, techniques and procedures (TTPs) used by the attacker to compromise the customer’s environment, as the device was compromised before Darktrace installation and coverage. However, from looking at recently disclosed SonicWall VPN vulnerabilities and patterns of behaviour, it is likely CVE-2021-20016 played a part. At some point after this initial infection, it is also believed the device was able to move laterally to a domain controller (DC) using administrative credentials; it was this server that then initiated the anomalous activity that Darktrace detected and alerted on.

On August 5^th 2021 , Darktrace observed this compromised domain controller engaging in unusual ICMP scanning - a protocol used to discover active devices within an environment and create a map of an organization’s network topology. Shortly after, the infected server began scanning devices for open RDP ports and enumerating SMB shares using unorthodox methods. SMB delete and HTTP requests (over port 445 and 80 respectively) were made for files named delete.me in the root directory of numerous network shares using the user agent Microsoft WebDAV. However, no such files appeared to exist within the environment. This may have been the result of an attacker probing devices in the network in an effort to see their responses and gather information on properties and vulnerabilities they could later exploit.

Soon the infected DC began establishing RDP tunnels back to the VPN server and making requests to an internal DNS server for multiple endpoints relating to exploit kits, likely in an effort to strengthen the attacker’s foothold within the environment. Some of the endpoints requested relate to:

- EternalBlue vulnerability

- Petit Potam NTLM hash attack tool

- Unusual GitHub repositories

- Unusual Python repositories

The DC made outgoing NTLM requests to other internal devices, implying the successful installation of Petit Potam exploitation tools. The server then began performing NTLM reconnaissance, making over 1,000 successful logins under ‘Administrator’ to several other internal devices. Around the same time, the device was also seen making anonymous SMBv1 logins to numerous internal devices, (possibly symptomatic of the attacker probing machines for EternalBlue vulnerabilities).

Interestingly, the device also made numerous failed authentication attempts using a spoofed credential for one of the organization’s security managers. This was likely in an attempt to hide themselves using ‘Living off the Land’ (LotL) techniques. However, whilst the attacker clearly did their research on the company, they failed to acknowledge the typical naming convention used for credentials within the environment. This ultimately backfired and made the compromise more obvious and unusual.

In the morning of the following day, the initially compromised VPN server began conducting further reconnaissance, engaging in similar activity to that observed by the domain controller. Until now, the customer had set Darktrace RESPOND to run in human confirmation mode, meaning interventions were not made autonomously but required confirmation by a member of the internal security team. However, thanks to Proactive Threat Notifications (PTNs) delivered by Darktrace’s dedicated SOC team, the customer was made immediately aware of this unusual behaviour, allowing them to apply manual Darktrace RESPOND blocks to all outgoing connections (Figure 2). This gave the security team enough time to respond and remediate before serious damage could be done.

Figure 2: Darktrace RESPOND model breach showing the manually applied “Quarantine Device” action taken against the compromised VPN server. This screenshot displays the UI from Darktrace version 5.1

Confluence in the wild – 2. N-day attack

Towards the end of 2021, Darktrace saw a European broadcasting customer leave an Atlassian Confluence internet-facing server unpatched and vulnerable to crypto-mining malware using CVE-2021-26084. Thanks to Darktrace, this attack was entirely immobilized within only a few hours of the initial infection, protecting the organization from damage (Figure 3).

Figure 3: Timeline of the Confluence attack

On midday on September 1^st 2021, an unpatched Confluence server was seen receiving SSL connections over port 443 from a suspicious new endpoint, 178.238.226[.]127. The connections were encrypted, meaning Darktrace was unable to view the contents and ascertain what requests were being made. However, with the disclosure of CVE-2021-26084 just 7 days prior to this activity, it is likely that the TTPs used involved injecting OGNL expressions to Confluence server memory; allowing the attacker to remotely execute code on the vulnerable server.

Immediately after successful exploitation of the Confluence server, the infected device was observed making outgoing HTTP GET requests to several external endpoints using a new user agent (curl/7.61.1). Curl was used to silently download and configure multiple suspicious files relating to XMRig cryptocurrency miner, including ld.sh, XMRig and config.json. Subsequent outgoing connections were then made to europe.randomx-hub.miningpoolhub[.]com · 172.105.210[.]117 using the JSON-RPC protocol, seen alongside the mining credential maillocal.confluence (Figure 4). Only 3 seconds after initial compromise, the infected device began attempting to mine cryptocurrency using the Minergate protocol but was instantly and autonomously blocked by Darktrace RESPOND. This prevented the server from abusing system resources and generating profits for the attacker.

Figure 4: A graph showing the frequency of external connections using the JSON-RPC protocol made by the breach device over a 48-hour window. The orange-red dots represent models that breached as a result of this activity, demonstrating the “waterfall” effect commonly seen when a device suffers a compromise. This screenshot displays the UI from Darktrace version 5.1

In the afternoon, the malware persisted with its infection. The compromised server began making successive HTTP GET requests to a new rare endpoint 195.19.192[.]28 using the same curl user agent (Figures 5 & 6). These requests were for executable and dynamic library files associated with Kinsing malware (but fortunately were also blocked by Darktrace RESPOND). Kinsing is a malware strain found in numerous attack campaigns which is often associated with crypto-jacking, and has appeared in previous Darktrace blogs [9].

Figure 5: Cyber AI Analyst summarising the unusual download of Kinsing software using the new curl user agent. This screenshot displays the UI from Darktrace version 5.1

The attacker then began making HTTP POST requests to an IP 185.154.53[.]140, using the same curl user agent; likely a method for the attacker to maintain persistence within the network and establish a foothold using its C2 infrastructure. The Confluence server was then again seen attempting to mine cryptocurrency using the Minergate protocol. It made outgoing JSON-RPC connections to a different new endpoint, 45.129.2[.]107, using the following mining credential: ‘42J8CF9sQoP9pMbvtcLgTxdA2KN4ZMUVWJk6HJDWzixDLmU2Ar47PUNS5XHv4Kmfdh8aA9fbZmKHwfmFo8Wup8YtS5Kdqh2’. This was once again blocked by Darktrace RESPOND (Figure 7).

Figure 6: VirusTotal showing the unusualness of one of these external IPs [10]

Figure 7: Log data showing the action taken by Darktrace RESPOND in response to the device breaching the “Crypto Currency Mining Activity” model. This screenshot displays the UI from Darktrace version 5.1

The final activity seen from this device involved the download of additional shell scripts over HTTP associated with Kinsing, namely spre.sh and unk.sh, from 194.38.20[.]199 and 195.3.146[.]118 respectively (Figure 8). A new user agent (Wget/1.19.5 (linux-gnu)) was used when connecting to the latter endpoint, which also began concurrently initiating repeated connections indicative of C2 beaconing. These scripts help to spread the Kinsing malware laterally within the environment and may have been the attacker's last ditch efforts at furthering their compromise before Darktrace RESPOND blocked all connections from the infected Confluence server [11]. With Darktrace RESPOND's successful actions, the customer’s security team were then able to perform their own response and remediation.

Figure 8: Cyber AI Analyst revealing the last ditch efforts made by the threat actor to download further malicious software. This screenshot displays the UI from Darktrace version 5.1

Darktrace Coverage: N- vs Zero-days

In the SonicWall case the attacker was unable to achieve their actions on objectives (thanks to Darktrace's intervention). However, this incident displayed tactics of a more stealthy and sophisticated attacker - they had an exploited machine but waited for the right moment to execute their malicious code and initiate a full compromise. Due to the lack of visibility over attacker motive, it is difficult to deduce what type of actor led to this intrusion. However, with the disclosure of a zero-day vulnerability (CVE-2021-20016) not long before this attack, along with a seemingly dormant initially compromised device, it is highly possible that it was carried out by a sophisticated cyber criminal or gang.

On the other hand, the Confluence case engaged in a slightly more noisy approach; it dropped crypto mining malware on vulnerable devices in the hope that the target’s security team did not maintain visibility over their network or would merely turn a blind eye. The files downloaded and credentials observed alongside the mining activity heavily imply the use of Kinsing malware [11]. Since this vulnerability (CVE-2021-26084) emerged as an n-day attack with likely easily accessible POCs, as well as there being a lack of LotL techniques and the motive being long term monetary gain, it is possible this attack was conducted by a less sophisticated or amateur actor (script-kiddie); one that opportunistically exploits known vulnerabilities in internet-facing devices in order to make a quick profit [12].

Whilst Darktrace RESPOND was enabled in human confirmation mode only during the start of the SonicWall attack, Darktrace’s Cyber AI Analyst still offered invaluable insight into the unusual activity associated with the infected machines during both the Confluence and SonicWall compromises. SOC analysts were able to see these uncharacteristic behaviours and escalate the incident through Darktrace’s PTN and ATE services. Analysts then worked through these tickets with the customers, providing support and guidance and, in the SonicWall case, quickly helping to configure Darktrace RESPOND. In both scenarios, Darktrace RESPOND was able to block abnormal connections and enforce a device’s pattern of life, affording the security team enough time to isolate the infected machines and prevent further threats such as ransomware detonation or data exfiltration.

Concluding thoughts and dangers of third-party integrations

Organizations with internet-facing devices will inevitably suffer opportunistic zero-day and n-day attacks. While little can be done to remove the risk of zero-days entirely, ensuring that organizations keep their systems up to date will at the very least help prevent opportunistic and script-kiddies from exploiting n-day vulnerabilities.

However, it is often not always possible for organizations to keep their systems up to date, especially for those who require continuous availability. This may also pose issues for organizations that rely on, and put their trust in, third party integrations such as those explored in this blog (Confluence and SonicWall), as enforcing secure software is almost entirely out of their hands. Moreover, with the rising prevalence of remote working, it is essential now more than ever that organizations ensure their VPN devices are shielded from external threats, guidance on which has been released by the NSA/CISA [13].

These two case studies have shown that whilst organizations can configure their networks and firewalls to help identify known indicators of compromise (IoC), this ‘rearview mirror’ approach will not account for, or protect against, any new and undisclosed IoCs. With the aid of Self-Learning AI and anomaly detection, Darktrace can detect the slightest deviation from a device’s normal pattern of life and respond autonomously without the need for rules and signatures. This allows for the disruption and prevention of known and novel attacks before irreparable damage is caused- reassuring security teams that their digital estates are secure.

Thanks to Paul Jennings for his contributions to this blog.

Appendices: SonicWall (Zero-day)

Darktrace model detections

· AIA / Suspicious Chain of Administrative Credentials

· Anomalous Connection / Active Remote Desktop Tunnel

· Anomalous Connection / SMB Enumeration

· Anomalous Connection / Unusual Internal Remote Desktop

· Compliance / High Priority Compliance Model Breach

· Compliance / Outgoing NTLM Request from DC

· Device / Anomalous RDP Followed By Multiple Model Breaches

· Device / Anomalous SMB Followed By Multiple Model Breaches

· Device / ICMP Address Scan

· Device / Large Number of Model Breaches

· Device / Large Number of Model Breaches from Critical Network Device

· Device / Multiple Lateral Movement Model Breaches (PTN/Enhanced Monitoring model)

· Device / Network Scan

· Device / Possible SMB/NTLM Reconnaissance

· Device / RDP Scan

· Device / Reverse DNS Sweep

· Device / SMB Session Bruteforce

· Device / Suspicious Network Scan Activity (PTN/Enhanced Monitoring model)

· Unusual Activity / Possible RPC Recon Activity

Darktrace RESPOND (Antigena) actions (as displayed in example)

· Antigena / Network / Manual / Quarantine Device

MITRE ATT&CK Techniques Observed

IoCs

‍

Appendices: Confluence (N-day)

Darktrace model detections

· Anomalous Connection / New User Agent to IP Without Hostname

· Anomalous Connection / Posting HTTP to IP Without Hostname

· Anomalous File / EXE from Rare External Location

· Anomalous File / Script from Rare Location

· Compliance / Crypto Currency Mining Activity

· Compromise / High Priority Crypto Currency Mining (PTN/Enhanced Monitoring model)

· Device / Initial Breach Chain Compromise (PTN/Enhanced Monitoring model)

· Device / Internet Facing Device with High Priority Alert

· Device / New User Agent

Darktrace RESPOND (Antigena) actions (displayed in example)

· Antigena / Network / Compliance / Antigena Crypto Currency Mining Block

· Antigena / Network / External Threat / Antigena File then New Outbound Block

· Antigena / Network / External Threat / Antigena Suspicious Activity Block

· Antigena / Network / External Threat / Antigena Suspicious File Block

· Antigena / Network / Significant Anomaly / Antigena Block Enhanced Monitoring

MITRE ATT&CK Techniques Observed

IOCs

References:

[1] https://securitybrief.asia/story/why-preventing-zero-day-attacks-is-crucial-for-businesses

[2] https://electricenergyonline.com/energy/magazine/1150/article/Security-Sessions-More-Dangerous-Than-Zero-Days-The-N-Day-Threat.htm

[3] https://www.wired.com/2014/11/countdown-to-zero-day-stuxnet/

[4] https://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvekey.cgi?keyword=SonicWall+2021

[5] https://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CVE-2021-20016

[6] https://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CVE-2021-26084

[7] https://www.zdnet.com/article/us-cybercom-says-mass-exploitation-of-atlassian-confluence-vulnerability-ongoing-and-expected-to-accelerate/

[8] https://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CVE-2022-26134

[9] https://attack.mitre.org/software/S0599/

[10] https://www.virustotal.com/gui/ip-address/195.19.192.28/detection

[11] https://sysdig.com/blog/zoom-into-kinsing-kdevtmpfsi/

[12] https://github.com/alt3kx/CVE-2021-26084_PoC

[13] https://www.nsa.gov/Press-Room/Press-Releases-Statements/Press-Release-View/Article/2791320/nsa-cisa-release-guidance-on-selecting-and-hardening-remote-access-vpns/

INSIDE THE SOC

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

Lewis Morgan

Cyber Analyst

Watch the NIS2 Webinar

share this article

More in this series

No items found.

Blog
‍

Inside the SOC

Detecting Attacks Across Email, SaaS, and Network Environments with Darktrace’s AI Platform Approach

Apr 2024

The State of AI in Cybersecurity

In a recent survey outlined in Darktrace’s State of AI Cyber Security whitepaper, 95% of cyber security professionals agree that AI-powered security solutions will improve their organization’s detection of cyber-threats [1]. Crucially, a combination of multiple AI methods is the most effective to improve cybersecurity; improving threat detection, accelerating threat investigation and response, and providing visibility across an organization’s digital environment.

In March 2024, Darktrace’s AI-led security platform was able to detect suspicious activity affecting a customer’s email, Software-as-a-Service (SaaS), and network environments, whilst its applied supervised learning capability, Cyber AI Analyst, autonomously correlated and connected all of these events together in one single incident, explained concisely using natural language processing.

Attack Overview

Following an initial email attack vector, an attacker logged into a compromised SaaS user account from the Netherlands, changed inbox rules, and leveraged the account to send thousands of phishing emails to internal and external users. Internal users fell victim to the emails by clicking on contained suspicious links that redirected them to newly registered suspicious domains hosted on same IP address as the hijacked SaaS account login. This activity triggered multiple alerts in Darktrace DETECT™ on both the network and SaaS side, all of which were correlated into one Cyber AI Analyst incident.

In this instance, Darktrace RESPOND™ was not active on any of the customer’s environments, meaning the compromise was able to escalate until their security team acted on the alerts raised by DETECT. Had RESPOND been enabled at the time of the attack, it would have been able to apply swift actions to contain the attack by blocking connections to suspicious endpoints on the network side and disabling users deviating from their normal behavior on the customer’s SaaS environment.

Nevertheless, thanks to DETECT and Cyber AI Analyst, Darktrace was able to provide comprehensive visibility across the customer’s three digital estate environments, decreasing both investigation and response time which enabled them to quickly enact remediation during the attack. This highlights the crucial role that Darktrace’s combined AI approach can play in anomaly detection cyber defense

Attack Details & Darktrace Coverage

1. Email: the initial attack vector

The initial attack vector was likely email, as on March 18, 2024, Darktrace observed a user device making several connections to the email provider “zixmail[.]net”, shortly before it connected to the first suspicious domain. Darktrace/Email identified multiple unusual inbound emails from an unknown sender that contained a suspicious link. Darktrace recognized these emails as potentially malicious and locked the link, ensuring that recipients could not directly click it.

Figure 1: Suspected initial compromise email from an unknown sender, containing a suspicious link, which was locked by Darktrace/Email.

2. Escalation to Network

Later that day, despite Darktrace/Email having locked the link in the suspicious email, the user proceeded to click on it and was directed to a suspicious external location, namely “rz8js7sjbef[.]latovafineart[.]life”, which triggered the Darktrace/Network DETECT model “Suspicious Domain”. Darktrace/Email was able to identify that this domain had only been registered 4 days before this activity and was hosted on an IP address based in the Netherlands, 193.222.96[.]9.

3. SaaS Account Hijack

Just one minute later, Darktrace/Apps observed the user’s Microsoft 365 account logging into the network from the same IP address. Darktrace understood that this represented unusual SaaS activity for this user, who had only previously logged into the customer’s SaaS environment from the US, triggering the “Unusual External Source for SaaS Credential Use” model.

4. SaaS Account Updates

A day later, Darktrace identified an unusual administrative change on the user’s Microsoft 365 account. After logging into the account, the threat actor was observed setting up a new multi-factor authentication (MFA) method on Microsoft Authenticator, namely requiring a 6-digit code to authenticate. Darktrace understood that this authentication method was different to the methods previously used on this account; this, coupled with the unusual login location, triggered the “Unusual Login and Account Update” DETECT model.

5. Obfuscation Email Rule

On March 20, Darktrace detected the threat actor creating a new email rule, named “…”, on the affected account. Attackers are typically known to use ambiguous or obscure names when creating new email rules in order to evade the detection of security teams and endpoints users.

The parameters for the email rule were:

“AlwaysDeleteOutlookRulesBlob: False, Force: False, MoveToFolder: RSS Feeds, Name: ..., MarkAsRead: True, StopProcessingRules: True.”

This rule was seemingly created with the intention of obfuscating the sending of malicious emails, as the rule would move sent emails to the "RSS Feeds” folder, a commonly used tactic by attackers as the folder is often left unchecked by endpoint users. Interestingly, Darktrace identified that, despite the initial unusual login coming from the Netherlands, the email rule was created from a different destination IP, indicating that the attacker was using a Virtual Private Network (VPN) after gaining a foothold in the network.

Figure 2: Hijacked SaaS account making an anomalous login from the unusual Netherlands-based IP, before creating a new email rule.

6. Outbound Phishing Emails Sent

Later that day, the attacker was observed using the compromised customer account to send out numerous phishing emails to both internal and external recipients. Darktrace/Email detected a significant spike in inbound emails on the compromised account, with the account receiving bounce back emails or replies in response to the phishing emails. Darktrace further identified that the phishing emails contained a malicious DocSend link hidden behind the text “Click Here”, falsely claiming to be a link to the presentation platform Prezi.

Figure 3: Darktrace/Email detected that the DocSend link displayed via text “Click Here”, was embedded in a Prezi link.

7. Suspicious Domains and Redirects

After the phishing emails were sent, multiple other internal users accessed the DocSend link, which directed them to another suspicious domain, “thecalebgroup[.]top”, which had been registered on the same day and was hosted on the aforementioned Netherlands-based IP, 193.222.96[.]91. At the time of the attack, this domain had not been reported by any open-source intelligence (OSINT), but it has since been flagged as malicious by multiple vendors [2].

Figure 4: External Sites Summary showing the suspicious domain that had never previously been seen on the network. A total of 11 “Suspicious Domain” models were triggered in response to this activity.

8. Cyber AI Analyst’s Investigation

As this attack was unfolding, Darktrace’s Cyber AI Analyst was able to autonomously investigate the events, correlating them into one wider incident and continually adding a total of 14 new events to the incident as more users fell victim to the phishing links.

Cyber AI Analyst successfully weaved together the initial suspicious domain accessed in the initial email attack vector (Figure 5), the hijack of the SaaS account from the Netherlands IP (Figure 6), and the connection to the suspicious redirect link (Figure 7). Cyber AI Analyst was also able to uncover other related activity that took place at the time, including a potential attempt to exfiltrate data out of the customer’s network.

By autonomously analyzing the thousands of connections taking place on a network at any given time, Darktrace’s Cyber AI Analyst is able to detect seemingly separate anomalous events and link them together in one incident. This not only provides organizations with full visibility over potential compromises on their networks, but also saves their security teams precious time ensuring they can quickly scope out the ongoing incident and begin remediation.

Figure 5: Cyber AI Analyst correlated the attack’s sequence, starting with the initial suspicious domain accessed in the initial email attack vector.

Figure 6: As the attack progressed, Cyber AI Analyst correlated and appended additional events to the same incident, including the SaaS account hijack from the Netherlands-based IP.

Figure 7: Cyber AI Analyst correlated and appended additional events to the same incident, including additional users connecting to the suspicious redirect link following the outbound phishing emails being sent.

Conclusion

In this scenario, Darktrace demonstrated its ability to detect and correlate suspicious activities across three critical areas of a customer’s digital environment: email, SaaS, and network.

It is essential that cyber defenders not only adopt AI but use a combination of AI technology capable of learning and understanding the context of an organization’s entire digital infrastructure. Darktrace’s anomaly-based approach to threat detection allows it to identify subtle deviations from the expected behavior in network devices and SaaS users, indicating potential compromise. Meanwhile, Cyber AI Analyst dynamically correlates related events during an ongoing attack, providing organizations and their security teams with the information needed to respond and remediate effectively.

Credit to Zoe Tilsiter, Analyst Consulting Lead (EMEA), Brianna Leddy, Director of Analysis

Appendices

References

[1] https://darktrace.com/state-of-ai-cyber-security

[2] https://www.virustotal.com/gui/domain/thecalebgroup.top

Darktrace DETECT Model Coverage

SaaS Models

- SaaS / Access / Unusual External Source for SaaS Credential Use

- SaaS / Compromise / Unusual Login and Account Update

- SaaS / Compliance / Anomalous New Email Rule

- SaaS / Compromise / Unusual Login and New Email Rule

Network Models

- Device / Suspicious Domain

- Multiple Device Correlations / Multiple Devices Breaching Same Model

Cyber AI Analyst Incidents

- Possible Hijack of Office365 Account

- Possible SSL Command and Control

Indicators of Compromise (IoCs)

IoC – Type – Description

193.222.96[.]91 – IP – Unusual Login Source

thecalebgroup[.]top – Domain – Possible C2 Endpoint

rz8js7sjbef[.]latovafineart[.]life – Domain – Possible C2 Endpoint

https://docsend[.]com/view/vcdmsmjcskw69jh9 - Domain - Phishing Link

About the author

Zoe Tilsiter

Cyber Analyst

Blog
‍

No items found.

Attack trends: Cloud-Based Cyber-Attacks and the Rise of Alternative Initial Access Methods

Apr 2024

What is the primary entry point for malware attacks?

Phishing attacks targeting employee inboxes are the most common initial access method used by malicious threat actors to deliver malware.

Because email remains the lifeblood of how organizations operate attackers continue to develop new techniques for creating more convincing and sophisticated phishing messages at scale.

What are new entry points cyber attackers are using?

While traditional phishing attacks are very common for attackers, they are not the only method threat actors are using to initiate malware delivery and other malicious campaigns of cyber disruption.

For its End of Year Threat Report, Darktrace analyzed attacks targeting customer environments. While email remains the most common means of attempted initial compromise, the second half of 2023 saw a significant rise in alternative initial access methods.

Much of this is taking advantage of cloud-base applications and collaboration tools including Dropbox, Microsoft Teams, and SharePoint which have become fundamental to how organizations operate in the era of hybrid work.

DarkGate exploits Microsoft Teams

Darktrace analysts have seen threat actors attempting to infect target networks with malware by leveraging Microsoft Teams and SharePoint.

In one example, Darktrace detected an attacker delivering DarkGate a trojan used to download other malware, by sending messages and attachments in Microsoft Teams and SharePoint.

The External Access functionality in Microsoft Teams allows users to contact people who aren’t in their organization. It’s designed as a tool to aid collaboration, but threat actors have realized they can abuse it for their own gain.

Users are told to lookout for suspicious email phishing messages, but often this thinking isn’t applied to Microsoft Teams and other collaboration platforms.

Messages from outside the organization are marked with a note that they are coming from an external source, but a well-designed phishing message with an urgent call to action can persuade the target to ignore this, driving them towards an external SharePoint URL, which tricks the user into downloading and installing malware.

Because this happens outside of the inbox, the activity can be missed by traditional email security solutions. Fortunately, in this case, it was detected by Darktrace DETECT and the activity was contained by Darktrace RESPOND before it could drop any additional malware.

Dropbox has established itself as a leading cloud storage service by allowing users to share and access files, no matter where they are in the world or what device they’re using. But while this is legitimate and useful for organizations, it has also opened a new avenue for threat actors to exploit.

Dropbox as an attack vector

Darktrace recently detected attackers attempting to leverage Dropbox as an initial access method. Emails from ‘no-reply@dropbox[.]com’ – a legitimate email address – were sent to employees at a Darktrace customer.

The emails contained a link to push users towards to a PDF file hosted on Dropbox, which in turn contained a phishing link which if followed, took users to a convincing looking spoof of a Microsoft 365 login page designed to steal usernames and passwords.

A user fell victim to this campaign, unwittingly entering their Microsoft 365 credentials. Shortly after that, Darktrace/Apps started to see suspicious activity relating to the account, with multiple logins from unusual locations which had never been associated with the account previously.

While many traditional security solutions successfully detect and disrupt email-based attacks, many struggle with cloud-based apps and services like Dropbox, Microsoft 365 and others.

There are several reasons for this, including the way in which the use of multiple different cloud services fragments the attack surface, making it hard for network administrators to keep track of everything, alongside the way in which some security solutions don’t take behavior into account in a system which can be accessed from anywhere. That means even from the other side of the world, attackers who have the right cloud credentials could access the network, potentially without being disrupted.

Why are attackers turning to alternative access methods?

Attackers are turning to alternative methods because delivering malicious links and payloads via cloud-based services potentially bypasses traditional cybersecurity protections. That, combined with how attackers can take legitimate login credentials to access system means attackers actions can’t be easily traced.

This rise in alternative initial access methods is likely a result of the continued development and enhancement of traditional email security solutions. But in the cat and mouse game of cybersecurity, threat actors continue to evolve new techniques to get by defenses.

Darktrace’s Self-Learning AI learns the unique digital environment and patterns of each business, meaning it can recognize subtle deviations in activity, even within cloud services, helping to mitigate and neutralize attacks and helping to keep your organization safe from cyber disruption.

Learn more about Darktrace

Join Darktrace LIVE half-day event to understand the reality versus the hype surrounding AI and how to achieve cyber resilience.

For more information on emerging threats read the Darktrace End of Year Threat Report 2023 here.

To learn more about Darktrace’s latest innovations watch the Darktrace Virtual Innovation Launch video here.

About the author

The Darktrace Community

Our ai. Your data.

Elevate your cyber defenses with Darktrace AI

Start your free trial

Darktrace AI protecting a business from cyber threats.

Check out this article by Darktrace: Self-Learning AI for Zero-Day and N-Day Attack Defense

Blog‍

Inside the SOC

Self-Learning AI for Zero-Day and N-Day Attack Defense

Revisiting zero-day attacks

The N-day underdog

SonicWall in the wild – 1. Zero-day attack

Confluence in the wild – 2. N-day attack

Darktrace Coverage: N- vs Zero-days

Concluding thoughts and dangers of third-party integrations

Appendices: SonicWall (Zero-day)

MITRE ATT&CK Techniques Observed

IoCs

Appendices: Confluence (N-day)

MITRE ATT&CK Techniques Observed

IOCs

Like this and want more?

Like this and want more?

More in this series

Blog‍

Inside the SOC

Detecting Attacks Across Email, SaaS, and Network Environments with Darktrace’s AI Platform Approach

The State of AI in Cybersecurity

Attack Overview

Attack Details & Darktrace Coverage

1. Email: the initial attack vector

2. Escalation to Network

3. SaaS Account Hijack

4. SaaS Account Updates

5. Obfuscation Email Rule

6. Outbound Phishing Emails Sent

7. Suspicious Domains and Redirects

8. Cyber AI Analyst’s Investigation

Conclusion

Appendices

References

Darktrace DETECT Model Coverage

Indicators of Compromise (IoCs)

Blog‍

Attack trends: Cloud-Based Cyber-Attacks and the Rise of Alternative Initial Access Methods

What is the primary entry point for malware attacks?

What are new entry points cyber attackers are using?

DarkGate exploits Microsoft Teams

Dropbox as an attack vector

Why are attackers turning to alternative access methods?

Learn more about Darktrace

Elevate your cyber defenses with Darktrace AI

Blog
‍

Blog
‍

Blog
‍