Blog
/
AI
/
November 3, 2024

AI and Cybersecurity: Predictions for 2025

Discover the role of AI in shaping cybersecurity predictions for 2025 and how organizations can prepare for emerging threats.
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.
Written by
The Darktrace Community
Default blog image
03
Nov 2024

Introduction: AI cybersecurity predictions for 2025

Each year, Darktrace's AI and cybersecurity experts reflect on the events of the past 12 months and predict the trends we expect to shape the cybersecurity landscape in the year ahead. In 2024, we predicted that the global elections, fast-moving AI innovations, and increasingly cloud-based IT environments would be key factors shaping the cyber threat landscape.

Looking ahead to 2025, we expect the total addressable market of cybercrime to expand as attackers add more tactics to their toolkits. Threat actors will continue to take advantage of the volatile geopolitical environment and cybersecurity challenges will increasingly move to new frontiers like space. When it comes to AI, we anticipate the innovation in AI agents in 2024 to pave the way for the rise of multi-agent systems in 2025, creating new challenges and opportunities for cybersecurity professionals and attackers alike.

Here are ten trends to watch for in 2025:

1. The overall Total Addressable Market (TAM) of cybercrime gets bigger

Cybercrime is a global business, and an increasingly lucrative one, scaling through the adoption of AI and cybercrime-as-a-service. Annual revenue from cybercrime is already estimated to be over $8 trillion, which we’ve found is almost 5x greater than the revenue of the Magnificent Seven stocks. There are a few key factors driving this growth.

The ongoing growth of devices and systems means that existing malware families will continue to be successful. As of October 2024, it’s estimated that more than 5.52 billion people (~67%) have access to the internet and sources estimate 18.8 billion connected devices will be online by the end of 2024. The increasing adoption of AI is poised to drive even more interconnected systems as well as new data centers and infrastructure globally.

At the same time, more sophisticated capabilities are available for low-level attackers – we’ve already seen the trickle-down economic benefits of living off the land, edge infrastructure exploitation, and identity-focused exploitation. The availability of Ransomware-as-a-Service (RaaS) and Malware-as-a-Service (MaaS) make more advanced tactics the norm. The subscription income that these groups can generate enables more adversarial innovation, so attacks are getting faster and more effective with even bigger financial ramifications.

While there has also been an increasing trend in the last year of improved cross-border law enforcement, the efficacy of these efforts remains to be seen as cybercriminal gangs are also getting more resilient and professionalized. They are building better back-up systems and infrastructure as well as more multi-national networks and supply chains.

2. Security teams need to prepare for the rise of AI agents and multi-agent systems

Throughout 2024, we’ve seen major announcements about advancements in AI agents from the likes of OpenAI, Microsoft, Salesforce, and more. In 2025, we’ll see increasing innovation in and adoption of AI agents as well as the emergence of multi-agent systems (or “agent swarms”), where groups of autonomous agents work together to tackle complex tasks.

The rise of AI agents and multi-agent systems will introduce new challenges in cybersecurity, including new attack vectors and vulnerabilities. Security teams need to think about how to protect these systems to prevent data poisoning, prompt injection, or social engineering attacks.

One benefit of multi-agent systems is that agents can autonomously communicate, collaborate, and interact. However without clear and distinct boundaries and explicit permissions, this can also pose a major data privacy risk and avenue for manipulation. These issues cannot be addressed by traditional application testing alone. We must ensure these systems are secure by design, where robust protective mechanisms and data guardrails are built into the foundations.

3. Threat actors will be the earliest adopters of AI agents and multi-agent systems

We’ve already seen how quickly threat actors have been able to adopt generative AI for tasks like email phishing and reconnaissance. The next frontier for threat actors will be AI agents and multi-agent systems that are specialized in autonomous tasks like surveillance, initial access brokering, privilege escalation, vulnerability exploitation, data summarization for smart exfiltration, and more. Because they have no concern for safe, secure, accurate, and responsible use, adversaries will adopt these systems faster than cyber defenders.

We could also start to see use cases emerge for multi-agent systems in cyber defense – with potential for early use cases in incident response, application testing, and vulnerability discovery. On the whole, security teams will be slower to adopt these systems than adversaries because of the need to put in place proper security guardrails and build trust over time.

4. There is heightened supply chain risk for Large Language Models (LLMs)

Training LLMs requires a lot of data, and many experts have warned that world is running out of quality data for that training. As a result, there will be an increasing reliance on synthetic data, which can introduce new issues of accuracy and efficacy. Moreover, data supply chain risks will be an Achilles heel for organizations, with the potential interjection of vulnerabilities through the data and machine learning providers that they rely on. Poisoning one data set could have huge trickle-down impacts across many different systems. Data security will be paramount in 2025.

5. The race to identify software vulnerabilities intensifies

The time it takes for threat actors to exploit newly published CVEs is getting shorter, giving defenders an even smaller window to apply patches and remediations. A 2024 report from Cloudflare found that threat actors quickly weaponized proof of concept exploits in attacks as quickly as 22 minutes after the exploits were made public.

At the same time, 2024 also saw the first reports from researchers across academia and the tech industry using AI for vulnerability discovery in real-world code. With threat actors getting faster at exploiting vulnerabilities, defenders will need to use AI to identify vulnerabilities in their software stack and to help identify and prioritize remediations and patches.

6. Insider threat risks will force organizations to evolve zero trust strategies

In 2025, an increasingly volatile geopolitical situation and the intensity of the AI race will make insider threats an even bigger risk for businesses, forcing organizations to expand zero-trust strategies. The traditional zero-trust model provides protection from external threats to an organization’s network by requiring continuous verification of the devices and users attempting to access critical business systems, services, and information from multiple sources. However, as we have seen in the more recent Jack Teixeira case, malicious insiders can still do significant damage to an organization within their approved and authenticated boundary.

To circumvent the remaining security gaps in a zero-trust architecture and mitigate increasing risk of insider threats, organizations will need to integrate a behavioral understanding dimension to their zero-trust approaches. The zero-trust best practice of “never trust, always verify” needs to evolve to become “never trust, always verify, and continuously monitor.”

7. Identity remains an expensive problem for businesses

2024 saw some of the biggest and costliest attacks – all because the attacker had access to compromised credentials. Essentially, they had the key to the front door. Businesses still struggle with identity and access management (IAM), and it’s getting more complex now that we’re in the middle of a massive Software-as-a-Service (SaaS) migration driven by increasing rates of AI and cloud use across businesses.

This challenge is going to be exacerbated in 2025 by a few global and business factors. First, there is an increasing push for digital identities, such as the rollout of the EU Digital Identity Framework that is underway, which could introduce additional attack vectors. As they scale, businesses are turning more and more to centralized identity and access solutions with decentralized infrastructure and relying on SaaS and application-native security.

8. Increasing vulnerabilities at the edge

During the COVID-19 pandemic, many organizations had to stand-up remote access solutions quickly – in a matter of days or weeks – without the high level of due diligence that they require to be fully secured. In 2025, we expect to see continued fall-out as these quickly spun-up solutions start to present genuine vulnerability to businesses. We’ve already seen this start to play out in 2024 with the mass-exploitation of internet-edge devices like firewalls and VPN gateway products.

By July 2024, Darktrace’s threat research team observed that the most widely exploited edge infrastructure devices were those related to Ivanti Connect Secure, JetBrains TeamCity, FortiClient Enterprise Management Server, and Palo Alto Networks PAN-OS. Across the industry, we’ve already seen many zero days and vulnerabilities exploiting these internet-connected devices, which provide inroads into the network and store/cache credentials and passwords of other users that are highly valuable for threat actors.

9. Hacking Operational Technology (OT) gets easier

Hacking OT is notoriously complex – causing damage requires an intimate knowledge of the specific systems being targeted and historically was the reserve of nation states. But as OT has become more reliant and integrated with IT systems, attackers have stumbled on ways to cause disruption without having to rely on the sophisticated attack-craft normally associated with nation-state groups. That’s why some of the most disruptive attacks of the last year have come from hacktivist and financially-motivated criminal gangs – such as the hijacking of internet-exposed Programmable Logic Controllers (PLCs) by anti-Israel hacking groups and ransomware attacks resulting in the cancellation of hospital operations.  

In 2025, we expect to see an increase in cyber-physical disruption caused by threat groups motivated by political ideology or financial gain, bringing the OT threat landscape closer in complexity and scale to that of the IT landscape. The sectors most at risk are those with a strong reliance on IoT sensors, including healthcare, transportation, and manufacturing sectors.

10. Securing space infrastructure and systems becomes a critical imperative

The global space industry is growing at an incredibly fast pace, and 2025 is on track to be another record-breaking year for spaceflight with major missions and test flights planned by NASA, ESA, CNSA as well as the expected launch of the first commercial space station from Vast and programs from Blue Origin, Amazon and more. Research from Analysis Mason suggests that 38,000 additional satellites will be built and launched by 2033 and the global space industry revenue will reach $1.7 trillion by 2032. Space has also been identified as a focus area for the incoming US administration.

In 2025, we expect to see new levels of tension emerge as private and public infrastructure increasingly intersect in space, shining a light on the lack of agreed upon cyber norms and the increasing challenge of protecting complex and remote space systems against modern cyber threats.  Historically focused on securing earth-bound networks and environments, the space industry will face challenges as post-orbit threats rise, with satellites moving up the target list.

The EU’s NIS2 Directive now recognizes the space sector as an essential entity that is subject to its most strict cybersecurity requirements. Will other jurisdictions follow suit? We expect global debates about cyber vulnerabilities in space to come to the forefront as we become more reliant on space-based technology.

Conclusion: Preparing for the future

Whatever 2025 brings, Darktrace is committed to providing robust cybersecurity leadership and solutions to enterprises around the world. Our team of subject matter experts will continue to monitor emerging threat trends, advising both our customers and our product development teams.

And for day-to-day security, our multi-layered AI cybersecurity platform can protect against all types of threats, whether they are known, unknown, entirely novel, or powered by AI. It accomplishes this by learning what is normal for your unique organization, therefore identifying unusual and suspicious behavior at machine speed, regardless of existing rules and signatures. In this way, organizations with Darktrace can be ready for any developments in the cybersecurity threat landscape that the new year may bring.

Discover more about Darktrace's predictions on the AI and cybersecurity landscape for 2025 by watching the full recorded webinar here.

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.
Written by
The Darktrace Community

More in this series

No items found.

Blog

/

Network

/

October 14, 2026

CikaBika Bot: Inside a Discord RAT

Default blog imageDefault blog image

‍

Key Takeaways

·      Darktrace malware researchers have found an ongoing malware campaign using a document-themed lure containing a malicious LNK file and a PDF with an embedded payload.

·      The Nim based loader deploys a Rust-based remote access trojan (RAT), using a UAC bypass and DLL search-order hijacking technique targeting Microsoft Edge.

·      The RAT uses Discord for C2, creating dedicated channels to manage infected devices and execute commands.

·      CikaBika Bot supports system reconnaissance, remote command execution, screenshot capture, and file transfers.

‍

Introduction

In a threat landscape where attackers continue to rely on social engineering techniques to deliver malware, legitimate services are increasingly being abused to support malicious operations. Communications platforms like Discord can provide attackers with a ready-made channel for command-and-control (C2), allowing them to manage compromised devices without establishing dedicated infrastructure.

Malware researchers at Darktrace have identified a campaign distributing CikaBika, a Rust-based RAT that uses Discord for C2. The infection chain begins with a disk image and a malicious Windows shortcut. A Nim loader extracts the final payload and attempts to plant it in Microsoft Edge’s installation directory using a PowerShell UAC bypass. Once running, the RAT collects host information, registers the device with Discord, and accepts commands through a dedicated channel.

Technical Analysis

‍

Figure 1: Contents of Proposition_Projet.img.

‍

Initial access and PDF payload

The malware is packaged within a disk image named Proposition_Projet.img. Inside are a PDF titled “Presentation_Generale.pdf.pdf” and a Windows shortcut (LNK) disguised as a Word document, “Proposition_Projet_Personnalisable.docx”. The delivery method has not been confirmed; however, the filenames and document-themed lure are consistent with a phishing campaign.

‍

Figure 2: PowerShell command embedded in the malicious shortcut.


Opening the shortcut launches a hidden PowerShell process while displaying the PDF as a decoy. The French-language document explains how to produce a written summary or contraction of a text. In the background, PowerShell reads the PDF as bytes and uses the value at offset 239 (0x20) as an XOR key to decode an embedded executable. The resulting payload is written to %TEMP%\IfyuUapz.txt and executed using cmd /c.

Nim loader and UAC bypass

“IfyuUapz.txt” is a Nim-based loader that contains two Base64-encoded blobs: a Rust dynamic-link library (DLL)  and a PowerShell deployment script. Both are decoded and written to temporary files, referenced to within the loader as “dllFile” and “copyPs1”. The loader runs the script through a hidden PowerShell process using an encoded command, then attempts to load the DLL using Nim’s loadLib function. If loading fails, it invokes regsvr32.exe and retries.

Figure 3: Silent DLL deployer.

The PowerShell component is responsible for moving the DLL to C:\Program Files (x86)\Microsoft\Edge\Application\dbghelp.dll. It first copies the DLL to C:\Windows\Temp\dbghelp.tmp, then modifies HKCU\Software\Classes\ms-settings\shell\open\command so that launching computerdefaults.exe can trigger a command to move the staged DLL into the protected Edge directory. This is an attempt to bypass User Account Control (UAC), which depends on the target’s Windows configuration.

The script also compiles a small C# helper that calls ShowWindow to hide windows associated with Windows Settings and ApplicationFrameHost. It launches the bypass helper three times, checks for the presence of the destination DLL, and attempts to delete the temporary scripts, intermediate DLL, and associated registry changes.

‍

Figure 4: Legitimate msedge.exe function to load the legitimate dbghelp.dll.

‍

The legitimate msedge.exe has a delay-loaded dependency on dbghelp.dll, and the malicious DLL exports a subset of the functions associated with Microsoft’s debugging library. The attacker appears to be exploiting this dependency through DLL search-order hijacking. However, it does not export every function in Edge’s delay-import table, meaning its compatibility with the host is incomplete. The observed code establishes the intended sideloading route, rather than proving that Edge successfully loaded the planted DLL.

‍

Rust RAT payload

Figure 5: Discord configuration within the RAT.

The malicious dbghelp.dll (IfyuUapz.txt) is a Rust-based RAT. At startup, the RAT registers the compromised device with Discord and begins collecting information about the host. Its reconnaissance routine gathers system details, runs tasklist to enumerate processes, executes ipconfig to obtain network configuration, and attempts to take a screenshot. The resulting artifacts include tasklist_startup.txt, network_info.txt, and screenshot.png.

Figure 6: Network configuration notification in Discord channel.

‍

Figure 7: Network configuration output from network_info.txt.

‍

Discord C2

The RAT uses Discord channels to send commands and report results. The operator can send commands to the device’s channel and receive the resulting output in the same conversation. This gives the attacker an interactive command interface without having to operate and maintain a dedicated C2 server.

Figure 8: Commands available in Discord.

The command set includes !shell for remote command execution; !sysinfo and !info for host details; !isOn for status checks; !tasklist and !ps for process enumeration; and !kill for process termination. File-transfer commands include !upload and !download. Additional strings and command handlers reference screenshots (!src), camera access (!camera), streaming (!stream), and broadcasting (!broadcast).

‍

Figure 9: Device registration in Discord.

During device registration, the malware retrieves the victim’s public IP address using ipify.com. The registration message records the device ID, hostname, registration time, private and public IP addresses, status, uptime, and the Discord channel assigned to that device.

Operator activity and exfiltration

Figure 10: Powershell commands sent through Discord to exfiltrate data.

Once a device is registered, the attacker can issue commands through its dedicated Discord channel. In the observed activity, the attacker compressed a directory into a ZIP and exfiltrated it using ngrok.

Figure 11: Download command to retrieve a document from the target.

‍

The operator can also use !download to retrieve files from target. The example above displays a request for a specific document on the victim’s desktop. The requested file is then returned through the device’s Discord channel, giving the attacker a direct way to store and access selected data.

Conclusion

CikaBika Bot demonstrates how attackers continue to rely on social engineering techniques to deliver malware. Although the initial distribution method has not been confirmed, the use of a disk image containing a shortcut disguised as a Word document, alongside a legitimate-looking PDF, suggests the campaign was designed for phishing.

While Nim is less commonly encountered than C in Windows malware, it has increasingly appeared in malicious tooling. In this case, Nim is used to unpack and deploy a Rust-based RAT, adding another layer to the infection chain.

Once installed, CikaBika Bot uses Discord as its C2 platform, allowing the attacker to manage compromised devices, execute commands, and retrieve files without maintaining dedicated C2 infrastructure. The observed use of Discord channels for individual victims, alongside additional data exfiltration through ngrok, shows how legitimate services can be repurposed to support malicious operations.

Credit to Tara Gould (Malware Research Lead)

Indicators of Compromise (IoCs)

Presentation_Generale.pdf.pdf - eeb52cb95113a131c2c7713c17872da6

Proposition_Projet_Personnalisable.docx.lnk - 62e3e85eca78a0cd7e6669e9f33d936d

dbghelp.dll - c66858718d883bcfb9ce2c19b59f96c9

IfyuUapz.txt - 2deb724a709b0b892248405323350e9b

MITRE ATTACK

T1204.002 – User Execution: Malicious File
T1036.007 – Masquerading: Double File Extension
T1059.001 – PowerShell
T1027 – Obfuscated Files or Information
T1140 – Deobfuscate/Decode Files or Information
T1548.002 – Bypass User Account Control
T1112 – Modify Registry
T1574.001 – DLL Search Order Hijacking
T1036.005 – Masquerading: Match Legitimate Resource Name or Location
T1082 – System Information Discovery
T1016 – System Network Configuration Discovery
T1057 – Process Discovery
T1113 – Screen Capture
T1059.003 – Command and Scripting Interpreter: Windows Command Shell
T1102.002 – Web Service: Bidirectional Communication
T1560.001 – Archive Collected Data: Archive via Utility
T1567 – Exfiltration Over Web Service
T1070.004 – Indicator Removal: File Deletion
T1218.010 – Regsvr32
T1005 – Data from Local System
T1074.001 – Data Staged: Local Data Staging
T1041 – Exfiltration Over C2 Channel
T1564.003 – Hide Artifacts: Hidden Window
T1027.013 – Encrypted/Encoded File

Continue reading
About the author
Tara Gould
Malware Research Lead

Blog

/

AI

/

October 5, 2026

AI-Assisted Attacks Still Leave a Behavioral Trace  

Default blog imageDefault blog image

Key Insights

  • Darktrace identified behavioral indicators associated with two campaigns linked to AI-assisted threat activity, highlighting the growing role of AI in modern cyber-attacks.
  • Observed activity involved suspicious WebDAV file transfers, disguised executable downloads, beaconing to rare infrastructure, unusual process execution, and communications with C2 infrastructure linked to active intrusion campaigns.

Introduction

Just as organizations are incorporating AI into their operations to take advantage of its benefits, threat actors are doing the same, creating new challenges for defenders.

Much of the discussion around AI risk has focused on the expanding attack surface created by AI systems within organizations. These systems are often granted privileged access and heightened permissions to carry out their duties, introducing new security risks and unintended consequences.

At the same time, threat actors are learning to leverage AI to enable malicious activities such as vulnerability discovery, exploit creation, and progressing through the Cyber Kill Chain more quickly. By accelerating development, adaptation, and scaling, AI enables attackers to operate more efficiently while making some capabilities more accessible to less skilled operators.

Whether AI is the target or the enabler, the resulting activity still manifests through networks, identities, endpoints and cloud services. Those interactions create observable signals that defenders can investigate, regardless of how the attack was developed.

AI as part of the attacker’s workflow

Darktrace has previously documented how threat actors are increasingly incorporating AI into offensive operations [1]. Two recent investigations from open-source intelligence (OSINT) illustrate this. In both cases, researchers identified the role of AI within malicious operations. Separately, Darktrace detected activity in customer environments that aligned with the infrastructure and techniques reported in those campaigns. These perspectives provide a view of both attacker workflow and operational consequences.

Although AI played different roles in each campaign, it did not remove the need for the attackers to interact with their targets. Payloads still had to be delivered, processes executed, and command-and-control (C2) connections established, creating behavioral anomalies that Darktrace was able to identify.

‍

Case 1: A Mexican government impersonation campaign with LLM-assisted malware development

Rapid7 reported on a malware delivery operation that used generative AI to assist development, testing, documentation and refinement of attacker infrastructure. Between May and June 2026, Darktrace similarly observed two chains of suspicious activity across customer environments in the Americas that exhibited clear similarities in behavior.

In both cases Darktrace observed:

  • WebDAV communication with onedrive[.]cv·138.124.123[.]87, retrieving a file from the path /Downloads/CURP/
  • Transfer of a masqueraded .scr executable
  • Subsequent communication with google.services[.]ug·77.110.127[.]205 over unusual high ports
  • Additional Darktrace detections correlating the unusual behavior seen spanning payload delivery and C2 communication
  • Darktrace’s Autonomous Response capability alerted across multiple stages of the attack

The infrastructure and behavior observed by Darktrace closely aligned with a campaign reported by Rapid7, in which a WebDAV malware delivery environment was exposed. Rapid7 assessed that threat actors had used generative AI to support the development, testing, documentation and refinement of the operation. The observed activity also aligned with reporting on a campaign in which impersonation of Mexico’s government Unique Population Registry Code (CURP) identity-record service led to delivery of PureRAT, a .NET-based information stealer and remote access trojan (RAT) [2]. The infrastructure overlap and consistent behavioural sequence provides strong alignment and offers a view of how an AI-assisted development pipeline ultimately manifested inside target environments.

Case 2: A suspected China-linked intrusion campaign with AI-assisted automation

In July 2026, Hunt.io published research into a suspected China-based intrusion operation targeting government and financial services organizations [3]. Material recovered from exposed attacker infrastructure by Hunt.io indicated that Claude Code and DeepSeek-v4-pro were being used as active components of the attacker’s workflow. According to the research, the models supported activities including attack reasoning, script generation, execution, exploit adaptation, and phishing-page development.

The investigation identified 192.229.115[.]229 and 192.229.115[.]230 as infrastructure associated with suspected TencShell operations and a possible second C2 framework known as Gshell [3].

Darktrace identified likely related activity within a financial services customer environment involving a newly observed laptop running the Windows 11 Pro operating system. Over a six-day period in July, the device made repeated outbound connections to 192.229.115[.]229 over port 8083.

Darktrace recognized the destination was highly rare for the environment, and the connectivity exhibited beaconing characteristics. During the same timeframe, Darktrace also identified suspicious process behavior associated with process chains involving svchost.exe and cmd.exe. The device repeatedly communicated with infrastructure identified in the Hunt.io research while exhibiting beaconing characteristics and suspicious process activity, strengthening the assessment that the activity likely was associated with the same operation.

Unlike many previous examples of AI-assisted cybercrime, the Hunt.io investigation provided rare visibility into how large language models were being incorporated directly into operational workflows rather than being used solely for content generation. Darktrace, meanwhile, observed how activity associated with that operation ultimately manifested inside a target environment, providing a complementary view of its operational impact.

Operational consequences of AI-assisted attacks

These investigations provide two complementary perspectives on AI-assisted cyber operations. OSINT research revealed how AI was incorporated into attacker workflows, while Darktrace observed the resulting activity within customer environments.

Although AI played different roles in each campaign, it did not remove the need for attackers to interact with their targets, deliver payloads, execute processes, and communicate with C2, all of which generated observable signals.

In these cases, Darktrace identified suspicious file delivery, unusual process behavior, beaconing activity, and communication with rare external infrastructure that aligned with campaigns later linked to AI-assisted operations. While AI may influence how attacks are developed, adapted, and scaled, it does not make them operationally invisible.

For defenders, the broader lesson extends beyond these specific campaigns. As AI becomes increasingly embedded within both enterprise operations and attacker workflows, understanding what a model was asked to do is often less important than understanding the actions it ultimately took and the consequences those actions produced. Whether the actor is human, AI-assisted, or increasingly autonomous, activity still manifests through identities, endpoints, applications, cloud services and network infrastructure.

Credit to Angel Arribas Lopez (Associate Principal Cyber Analyst), Emma Foulger (Global Threat Research Operations Lead), Nathaniel Jones, SVP Global Threat Intelligence
Edited by Ryan Traill (Content Manager)

‍

Appendices

Darktrace Model Detections

Case 1

Anomalous File / Masqueraded File Transfer from New External Endpoint

Anomalous File / Script from Rare External Location

Anomalous File / EXE from Rare External Location

Anomalous File / Script and EXE from Rare External

Anomalous Connection / Multiple Failed Connections to Rare Endpoint

Anomalous Connection / Rare External SSL Self-Signed

Compromise / New or Repeated to Unusual SSL Port

Compromise / Large Number of Suspicious Failed Connections

Device / Initial Attack Chain Activity

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

Antigena / Network / Significant Anomaly::Antigena Enhanced Monitoring from Client Block

Antigena / Network / Significant Anomaly::Antigena Controlled and Model Alert

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

Antigena / Network / Significant Anomaly::Antigena Significant Anomaly from Client Block

Antigena / Network / Significant Anomaly::Antigena Alerts Over Time Block

Case 2

Anomalous Connection / Multiple Failed Connections to Rare Endpoint

Compromise / High Volume of Connections with Beacon Score

Compromise / Large Number of Suspicious Failed Connections

‍

Indicators of Compromise (IoCs)

‍

Case 1

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 
IoCTypeDescription + Confidence
onedrive[.]cvHostnameLikely C2 server
138.124.123[.]87IP AddressPossible C2 server
hXXp://onedrive[.]cv/Downloads/CURP/ReportFinal.%E2%80%AE%E1%BA%9D%D4%81%EF%BD%90.scrURIPossible payload
google.services[.]ugHostnameLikely C2 server
77.110.127[.]205IP AddressLikely C2 server
google.services[.]ug:57666Hostname + PortLikely C2 communication
google.services[.]ug:57888Hostname + PortLikely C2 communication
google.services[.]ug:56001Hostname + PortLikely C2 communication

‍

Case 2

IoC Type Description + Confidence
192.229.115[.]229 IP Address Likely C2 communication
Continue reading
About the author
Angel Arribas Lopez
Associate Principal Cyber Analyst
Your data. Our AI.
Elevate your network security with Darktrace AI