January 9, 2025

Detecting and Mitigating Adversary-in-the-Middle Phishing Attacks with Darktrace Services

Threat actors often use advanced phishing toolkits and Adversary-in-the-Middle (AitM) attacks in Business Email Compromise (BEC) campaigns, Discover how Darktrace detected and mitigated a sophisticated attack leveraging Dropbox, highlighting the importance of robust cybersecurity measures.

Written by

Justin Torres

Cyber Analyst

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

Justin Torres

Cyber Analyst

Jan 2025

What is an Adversary-in-the-Middle Attack?

Threat actors are increasingly utilizing advanced phishing toolkits and techniques to carry out Adversary-in-the-Middle (AitM) attacks. These attacks involve the use of a proxy to a legitimate service, where the attacker’s webpage mimics the expected site. While the victim believes they are visiting the legitimate site, they are actually interacting with the attacker’s device, allowing the malicious actor to monitor all interactions and control the authenticated session, ultimately gaining access to the user’s account [1][2].

This blog will explore how Darktrace detected AitM techniques being leveraged in a Business Email Compromise (BEC) attack that used the widely used and trusted cloud storage service, Dropbox, for delivery. Dropbox’s popularity has made it a prime target for attackers to exploit in recent years. Threat actors can exploit the service for various malicious activities, including distributing malware and exposing sensitive information.

Attack Overview

In these types of AitM BEC attacks, recipients are often targeted with Dropbox-related emails, featuring subject headings like ‘FirstLast shared "Filename" with you,’ which suggest an individual is sharing an invoice-related attachment. These email subjects are common in such attacks, as threat actors attempt to encourage victims to access Dropbox links by masquerading them as legitimate files.

While higher priority users are, of course, targeted, the scope of these attacks remains broad. For instance, if a lower priority user is targeted by a phishing attack or their token is stolen, an attacker can still attempt BEC for further malicious intent and financial gain.

In October 2024, a Darktrace customer received a phishing email from a seemingly legitimate Dropbox address. This email originated from the IP, 54.240.39[.]219 and contained multiple link payloads to Dropbox-related hostnames were observed, inviting the user to access a file. Based on anomaly indicators and detection by Darktrace / EMAIL, Darktrace recognized that one of the payloads was attempting to abuse a legitimate cloud platform to share files or other unwanted material with the recipient.

Figure 1: Overview of the malicious email in the Darktrace / EMAIL console, highlighting Dropbox associated content/link payloads.

Following the recipient’s engagement with this email, Darktrace / IDENTITY identified a series of suspicious activities within the customer’s environment.

AitM attacks allow threat actors to bypass multi-factor authentication (MFA). Initially, when a user is phished, the malicious infrastructure captures both the user’s credentials and the token. This includes replaying a token issued to user that has already completed the MFA requirement, allowing the threat actor to satisfy the validity of the requirement and gain access to sensitive organizational resources. Darktrace is able to analyze user activity and authentication patterns to determine whether MFA requirements were met. This capability helps verify and indicate token theft via AitM.

Darktrace observed the associated user account making requests over Microsoft 365 from the IP 41.90.175[.]46. Given the unusual nature and rare geolocation based in Kenya, Africa, this activity did not appear indicative of legitimate business operations.

Figure 2: Geographical location of the SaaS user in relation to the source IP 41.90.175[.]46.

Further analysis using open-source intelligence (OSINT) revealed that the endpoint was likely associated with a call-back proxy network [3]. This suggested the presence of a network device capable of re-routing traffic and harvesting information.

Darktrace also detected that the same SaaS user was logging in from two different locations around the same time. One login was from a common, expected location, while the other was from an unusual location. Additionally, the user was observed registering security information using the Microsoft Authenticator app, indicating an attempt by an attacker to maintain access to the account by establishing a new method of MFA. This new MFA method could be used to bypass future MFA requirements, allowing the attacker to access sensitive material or carry out further malicious activities.

Figure 3: External sites summary for the SaaS account in relation to the source IP 13.74.161[.]104, observed with Registering Security Information.

Ultimately, this anomalous behavior was escalated to the Darktrace Security Operations Centre (SOC) via the Managed Detection & Response service for prompt triage and investigation by Darktrace’s SOC Analysts who notified the customer of strong evidence of compromise.

Fortunately, since this customer had Darktrace enabled in Autonomous Response mode, the compromised SaaS account had already been disabled, containing the attack. Darktrace’s SOC elected to extend this action to ensure the malicious activity remained halted until the customer could take further remedial action.

Figure 4: Attack timeline of observed activity, in chronological order; This highlighted anomalous SaaS events such as, MailItemsAccessed’, ‘Use of Unusual Credentials’, ‘User Registered Security Info’ events, and a ‘Disable User’ Autonomous Response action.

Conclusion

AitM attacks can play a crucial role in BEC campaigns. These attacks are often part of multi-staged operations, where an initial AitM attack is leveraged to launch a BEC by delivering a malicious URL through a trusted vendor or service. Attackers often attempt to lay low on their target network, sometimes persisting for extended periods, as they monitor user accounts or network segments to intercept sensitive communications.

In this instance, Darktrace successfully identified and acted against AitM techniques being leveraged in a BEC attack that used Dropbox for delivery. While Dropbox is widely used for legitimate purposes, its popularity has also made it a target for exploitation by threat actors, who have used it for a variety of malicious purposes, including delivering malware and revealing sensitive information.

Darktrace’s Security Operations Support service, combined with its Autonomous Response technology, provided timely and effective mitigation. Dedicated Security Operations Support analysts triaged the incident and implemented preventative measures, ensuring the customer was promptly notified. Meanwhile, Darktrace swiftly disabled the compromised SaaS account, allowing the customer to take further necessary actions, such as resetting the user’s password.

This case highlights the capabilities of Darktrace’s solutions, enabling the customer to resume normal business operations despite the malicious activity.

Credit to Justin Torres (Senior Cyber Analyst), Stefan Rowe (Technical Director, SOC) and Ryan Traill (Analyst Content Lead)

‍

Appendices

References

1. https://www.proofpoint.com/us/threat-reference/man-in-the-middle-attack-mitm

2. https://thehackernews.com/2024/08/how-to-stop-aitm-phishing-attack.html

3. https://spur.us/context/41.90.175.46

Darktrace Model Detections

Darktrace / NETWORK Model Alert(s):

SaaS / Compromise::SaaS Anomaly Following Anomalous Login

SaaS / Unusual Activity::Multiple Unusual SaaS Activities

SaaS / Compromise::Unusual Login and Account Update

SaaS / Compromise::Login From Rare Endpoint While User Is Active

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

SaaS / Email Nexus::Unusual Login Location Following Link to File Storage

SaaS / Access::MailItemsAccessed from Rare Endpoint

Darktrace/Autonomous Response Model Alert(s):

Antigena / SaaS::Antigena Suspicious SaaS Activity Block

List of Indicators of Compromise (IoCs)

(IoC - Type - Description)

41.90.175[.]46 – Source IP Observed with Suspicious Login Behavior

MITRE ATT&CK Mapping

(Technique Name - Tactic - ID - Sub-Technique of)

Cloud Accounts - DEFENSE EVASION, PERSISTENCE, PRIVILEGE ESCALATION, INITIAL ACCESS - T1078.004 - T1078

Email Accounts - RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT - T1586.002 - T1586

Cloud Service Dashboard - DISCOVERY - T1538

Compromise Accounts - RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT - T1586

Steal Web Session Cookie - CREDENTIAL ACCESS - T1539

Written by

Justin Torres

Cyber Analyst

Inside the SOC

Written by

Justin Torres

Cyber Analyst

VP, Security & AI Strategy, Field CISO

•

June 18, 2025

Carlos Gray

Senior Product Marketing Manager, Email

Watch the NIS2 Webinar

Blog

Proactive Security

July 1, 2025

Pre-CVE Threat Detection: 8 Examples Identifying Malicious Activity Prior to Public Disclosure of a Vulnerability

Can you detect cyber threats before the world knows about them?

Every year, tens of thousands of Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures (CVEs) are disclosed, over 40,000 in 2024 alone [1], and a predicted higher number for 2025 by the Forum for Incident Response and Security Teams (FIRST).

However, cybercriminals don't wait for disclosure. They exploit zero-days while defenders remain in the dark.

Traditional, signature-based tools struggle to detect these early-stage threats. That’s why anomaly detection is becoming essential for organizations seeking pre-CVE detection.

Understanding the gap between zero-day attacks and public CVE disclosure

When a vulnerability is discovered, the standard practice is to report it to the vendor or the responsible organization, allowing them to develop and distribute a patch or fix before the details are made public. This is known as responsible disclosure.

The gap between exploitation of a zero-day and the disclosure of the vulnerability can sometimes be considerable, and retroactively attempting to identify successful exploitation on your network can be challenging, particularly if taking a signature-based approach.

However, abnormal behaviors in networks or systems, such as unusual login patterns or data transfers, can indicate attempted cyber-attacks, insider threats, or compromised systems.

Detecting threats without relying on CVE disclosure

Since Darktrace does not rely on rules or signatures, it can detect malicious activity that is anomalous even without full context of the specific device or asset in question.

For example, during the Fortinet exploitation late last year, the Darktrace Threat Research team were investigating a different Fortinet vulnerability, namely CVE 2024-23113, for exploitation when Mandiant released a security advisory around CVE 2024-47575, which aligned closely with Darktrace’s findings.

Retrospective analysis like this is used by Darktrace’s threat researchers to better understand detections across the threat landscape and to add additional context.

Below are eight examples from the past year where Darktrace detected malicious activity days or even weeks before a vulnerability was publicly disclosed.

ten examples from the past year where Darktrace detected malicious activity days or even weeks before a vulnerability was publicly disclosed.

Trends in pre-cve exploitation

The attack vs. patch race

In many cases, the disclosure of an exploited vulnerability can be off the back of an incident response investigation related to a compromise by an advanced threat actor using a zero-day. Once the vulnerability is registered and publicly disclosed as having been exploited, it can kick off a race between the attacker and defender.

Skilled nation-state actors

Nation-state actors, highly skilled with significant resources, are known to use a range of capabilities to achieve their target, including zero-day use. Often, pre-CVE activity is “low and slow”, last for months with high operational security.

After CVE disclosure, the barriers to entry lower, allowing less skilled and less resourced attackers, like some ransomware gangs, to exploit the vulnerability and cause harm. This is why two distinct types of activity are often seen: pre and post disclosure of an exploited vulnerability.

Examples of exploitation

Darktrace saw this consistent story line play out during several of the Fortinet and PAN OS threat actor campaigns highlighted above last year, where nation-state actors were seen exploiting vulnerabilities first, followed by ransomware gangs impacting organizations [2].

The same applies with the recent SAP Netweaver exploitations being tied to a China based threat actor earlier this spring with subsequent ransomware incidents being observed [3].

You spotted the anomaly but did you stop the breach?

Anomaly-based detection offers the benefit of identifying malicious activity even before a CVE is disclosed; however, security teams still need to quickly contain and isolate the activity.

For example, during the Ivanti chaining exploitation in the early part of 2025, a customer had Darktrace’s Autonomous Response capability enabled on their network. As a result, Darktrace was able to contain the compromise and shut down any ongoing suspicious connectivity by blocking internal connections and enforcing a “pattern of life” on the affected device.

This pre-CVE detection and response by Darktrace occurred 11 days before any public disclosure, demonstrating the value of an anomaly-based approach.

In some cases, customers have even reported that Darktrace stopped malicious exploitation of devices several days before a public disclosure of a vulnerability.

For example, During the ConnectWise exploitation, a customer informed the team that Darktrace had detected malicious software being installed via remote access. Upon further investigation, four servers were found to be impacted, while Autonomous Response had blocked outbound connections and enforced patterns of life on impacted devices.

Conclusion

By continuously analyzing behavioral patterns, systems can spot unusual activities and patterns from users, systems, and networks to detect anomalies that could signify a security breach.

Through ongoing monitoring and learning from these behaviors, anomaly-based security systems can detect threats that traditional signature-based solutions might miss, while also providing detailed insights into threat tactics, techniques, and procedures (TTPs). This type of behavioral intelligence supports pre-CVE detection, allows for a more adaptive security posture, and enables systems to evolve with the ever-changing threat landscape.

Credit to Nathaniel Jones (VP, Security & AI Strategy, Field CISO), Emma Fougler (Global Threat Research Operations Lead), Ryan Traill (Analyst Content Lead)

References and further reading:

Realted Darktrace blogs:

‍

*Self-reported by customer, confirmed afterwards.

**Updated January 2024 blog now reflects current findings

About the author

Nathaniel Jones

VP, Security & AI Strategy, Field CISO

Blog

Network

June 27, 2025

Patch and Persist: Darktrace’s Detection of Blind Eagle (APT-C-36)

login on laptop dual factor authentication

What is Blind Eagle?

Since 2018, APT-C-36, also known as Blind Eagle, has been observed performing cyber-attacks targeting various sectors across multiple countries in Latin America, with a particular focus on Colombian organizations.

Blind Eagle characteristically targets government institutions, financial organizations, and critical infrastructure [1][2].

Attacks carried out by Blind Eagle actors typically start with a phishing email and the group have been observed utilizing various Remote Access Trojans (RAT) variants, which often have in-built methods for hiding command-and-control (C2) traffic from detection [3].

What we know about Blind Eagle from a recent campaign

Since November 2024, Blind Eagle actors have been conducting an ongoing campaign targeting Colombian organizations [1].

In this campaign, threat actors have been observed using phishing emails to deliver malicious URL links to targeted recipients, similar to the way threat actors have previously been observed exploiting CVE-2024-43451, a vulnerability in Microsoft Windows that allows the disclosure of a user’s NTLMv2 password hash upon minimal interaction with a malicious file [4].

Despite Microsoft patching this vulnerability in November 2024 [1][4], Blind Eagle actors have continued to exploit the minimal interaction mechanism, though no longer with the intent of harvesting NTLMv2 password hashes. Instead, phishing emails are sent to targets containing a malicious URL which, when clicked, initiates the download of a malicious file. This file is then triggered by minimal user interaction.

Clicking on the file triggers a WebDAV request, with a connection being made over HTTP port 80 using the user agent ‘Microsoft-WebDAV-MiniRedir/10.0.19044’. WebDAV is a transmission protocol which allows files or complete directories to be made available through the internet, and to be transmitted to devices [5]. The next stage payload is then downloaded via another WebDAV request and malware is executed on the target device.

Attackers are notified when a recipient downloads the malicious files they send, providing an insight into potential targets [1].

Darktrace’s coverage of Blind Eagle

In late February 2025, Darktrace observed activity assessed with medium confidence to be associated with Blind Eagle on the network of a customer in Colombia.

Within a period of just five hours, Darktrace / NETWORK detected a device being redirected through a rare external location, downloading multiple executable files, and ultimately exfiltrating data from the customer’s environment.

Since the customer did not have Darktrace’s Autonomous Response capability enabled on their network, no actions were taken to contain the compromise, allowing it to escalate until the customer’s security team responded to the alerts provided by Darktrace.

Darktrace observed a device on the customer’s network being directed over HTTP to a rare external IP, namely 62[.]60[.]226[.]112, which had never previously been seen in this customer’s environment and was geolocated in Germany. Multiple open-source intelligence (OSINT) providers have since linked this endpoint with phishing and malware campaigns [9].

The device then proceeded to download the executable file hxxp://62[.]60[.]226[.]112/file/3601_2042.exe.

Figure 1: Darktrace’s detection of the affected device connecting to an unusual location based in Germany.

Figure 2: Darktrace’s detection of the affected device downloading an executable file from the suspicious endpoint.

The device was then observed making unusual connections to the rare endpoint 21ene.ip-ddns[.]com and performing unusual external data activity.

This dynamic DNS endpoint allows a device to access an endpoint using a domain name in place of a changing IP address. Dynamic DNS services ensure the DNS record of a domain name is automatically updated when the IP address changes. As such, malicious actors can use these services and endpoints to dynamically establish connections to C2 infrastructure [6].

Further investigation into this dynamic endpoint using OSINT revealed multiple associations with previous likely Blind Eagle compromises, as well as Remcos malware, a RAT commonly deployed via phishing campaigns [7][8][10].

Figure 3: Darktrace’s detection of the affected device connecting to the suspicious dynamic DNS endpoint, 21ene.ip-ddns[.]com.

Shortly after this, Darktrace observed the user agent ‘Microsoft-WebDAV-MiniRedir/10.0.19045’, indicating usage of the aforementioned transmission protocol WebDAV. The device was subsequently observed connected to an endpoint associated with Github and downloading data, suggesting that the device was retrieving a malicious tool or payload. The device then began to communicate to the malicious endpoint diciembrenotasenclub[.]longmusic[.]com over the new TCP port 1512 [11].

Around this time, the device was also observed uploading data to the endpoints 21ene.ip-ddns[.]com and diciembrenotasenclub[.]longmusic[.]com, with transfers of 60 MiB and 5.6 MiB observed respectively.

Figure 4: UI graph showing external data transfer activity.

This chain of activity triggered an Enhanced Monitoring model alert in Darktrace / NETWORK. These high-priority model alerts are designed to trigger in response to higher fidelity indicators of compromise (IoCs), suggesting that a device is performing activity consistent with a compromise.

Figure 5: Darktrace’s detection of initial attack chain activity.

A second Enhanced Monitoring model was also triggered by this device following the download of the aforementioned executable file (hxxp://62[.]60[.]226[.]112/file/3601_2042.exe) and the observed increase in C2 activity.

Following this activity, Darktrace continued to observe the device beaconing to the 21ene.ip-ddns[.]com endpoint.

Darktrace’s Cyber AI Analyst was able to correlate each of the individual detections involved in this compromise, identifying them as part of a broader incident that encompassed C2 connectivity, suspicious downloads, and external data transfers.

Figure 6: Cyber AI Analyst’s investigation into the activity observed on the affected device.

Figure 7: Cyber AI Analyst’s detection of the affected device’s broader connectivity throughout the course of the attack.

As the affected customer did not have Darktrace’s Autonomous Response configured at the time, the attack was able to progress unabated. Had Darktrace been properly enabled, it would have been able to take a number of actions to halt the escalation of the attack.

For example, the unusual beaconing connections and the download of an unexpected file from an uncommon location would have been shut down by blocking the device from making external connections to the relevant destinations.

Conclusion

The persistence of Blind Eagle and ability to adapt its tactics, even after patches were released, and the speed at which the group were able to continue using pre-established TTPs highlights that timely vulnerability management and patch application, while essential, is not a standalone defense.

Organizations must adopt security solutions that use anomaly-based detection to identify emerging and adapting threats by recognizing deviations in user or device behavior that may indicate malicious activity. Complementing this with an autonomous decision maker that can identify, connect, and contain compromise-like activity is crucial for safeguarding organizational networks against constantly evolving and sophisticated threat actors.

Credit to Charlotte Thompson (Senior Cyber Analyst), Eugene Chua (Principal Cyber Analyst) and Ryan Traill (Analyst Content Lead)

Appendices

IoCs

IoC – Type - Confidence
Microsoft-WebDAV-MiniRedir/10.0.19045 – User Agent

62[.]60[.]226[.]112 – IP – Medium Confidence

hxxp://62[.]60[.]226[.]112/file/3601_2042.exe – Payload Download – Medium Confidence

21ene.ip-ddns[.]com – Dynamic DNS Endpoint – Medium Confidence

diciembrenotasenclub[.]longmusic[.]com - Hostname – Medium Confidence

Darktrace’s model alert coverage

Anomalous File / Suspicious HTTP Redirect
Anomalous File / EXE from Rare External Location
Anomalous File / Multiple EXE from Rare External Location
Anomalous Server Activity / Outgoing from Server
Unusual Activity / Unusual External Data to New Endpoint
Device / Anomalous Github Download
Anomalous Connection / Multiple Connections to New External TCP Port
Device / Initial Attack Chain Activity
Anomalous Server Activity / Rare External from Server
Compromise / Suspicious File and C2
Compromise / Fast Beaconing to DGA
Compromise / Large Number of Suspicious Failed Connections
Device / Large Number of Model Alert

Mitre Attack Mapping:

Tactic – Technique – Technique Name

Initial Access - T1189 – Drive-by Compromise
Initial Access - T1190 – Exploit Public-Facing Application
Initial Access ICS - T0862 – Supply Chain Compromise
Initial Access ICS - T0865 – Spearphishing Attachment
Initial Access ICS - T0817 - Drive-by Compromise
Resource Development - T1588.001 – Malware
Lateral Movement ICS - T0843 – Program Download
Command and Control - T1105 - Ingress Tool Transfer
Command and Control - T1095 – Non-Application Layer Protocol
Command and Control - T1571 – Non-Standard Port
Command and Control - T1568.002 – Domain Generation Algorithms
Command and Control ICS - T0869 – Standard Application Layer Protocol
Evasion ICS - T0849 – Masquerading
Exfiltration - T1041 – Exfiltration Over C2 Channel
Exfiltration - T1567.002 – Exfiltration to Cloud Storage