January 13, 2025

Agent vs. Agentless Cloud Security: Why Deployment Methods Matter

Cloud security solutions can be deployed with agentless or agent-based approaches or use a combination of methods. Organizations must weigh which method applies best to the assets and data the tool will protect.

Written by

Kellie Regan

Director, Product Marketing - Cloud Security

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

Kellie Regan

Director, Product Marketing - Cloud Security

Jan 2025

The rapid adoption of cloud technologies has brought significant security challenges for organizations of all sizes. According to recent studies, over 70% of enterprises now operate in hybrid or multi-cloud environments, with 93% employing a multi-cloud strategy^[1]. This complexity requires robust security tools, but opinions vary on the best deployment method—agent-based, agentless, or a combination of both.

Agent-based and agentless cloud security approaches offer distinct benefits and limitations, and organizations often make deployment choices based on their unique needs depending on the function of the specific assets covered, the types of data stored, and cloud architecture, such as hybrid or multi-cloud deployments.

For example, agentless solutions are increasingly favored for their ease of deployment and ability to provide broad visibility across dynamic cloud environments. These are especially useful for DevOps teams, with 64% of organizations citing faster deployment as a key reason for adopting agentless tools^[2].

On the other hand, agent-based solutions remain the preferred choice for environments requiring deep monitoring and granular control, such as securing sensitive high-value workloads in industries like finance and healthcare. In fact, over 50% of enterprises with critical infrastructure report relying on agent-based solutions for their advanced protection capabilities^[3].

As the debate continues, many organizations are turning to combined approaches, leveraging the strengths of both agent-based and agentless tools to address the full spectrum of their security needs for comprehensive coverage. Understanding the capabilities and limitations of these methods is critical to building an effective cloud security strategy that adapts to evolving threats and complex infrastructures.

Agent-based cloud security

Agent-based security solutions involve deploying software agents on each device or system that needs protection. Agent-based solutions are great choices when you need in-depth monitoring and protection capabilities. They are ideal for organizations that require deep security controls and real-time active response, particularly in hybrid and on-premises environments.

Key advantages include:

1. Real-time monitoring and protection: Agents detect and block threats like malware, ransomware, and anomalous behaviors in real time, providing ongoing protection and enforcing compliance by continuously monitoring workload activities. Agents enable full control over workloads for active response such as blocking IP addresses, killing processes, disabling accounts, and isolating infected systems from the network, stopping lateral movement.

2. Deep visibility for hybrid environments: Agent-based approaches allow for full visibility across on-premises, hybrid, and multi-cloud environments by deploying agents on physical and virtual machines. Agents offer detailed insights into system behavior, including processes, files, memory, network connections, and more, detecting subtle anomalies that might indicate security threats. Host-based monitoring tracks vulnerabilities at the system and application level, including unpatched software, rogue processes, and unauthorized network activity.

3. Comprehensive coverage: Agents are very effective in hybrid environments (cloud and on-premises), as they can be installed on both physical and virtual machines. Agents can function independently on each host device onto which they are installed, which is especially helpful for endpoints that may operate outside of constant network connectivity.

Challenges:

1. Resource-intensive: Agents can consume CPU, memory, and network resources, which may affect performance, especially in environments with large numbers of workloads or ephemeral resources.

2. Challenging in dynamic environments: Managing hundreds or thousands of agents in highly dynamic or ephemeral environments (e.g., containers, serverless functions) can be complex and labor-intensive.

3. Slower deployment: Requires agent installation on each workload or instance, which can be time-consuming, particularly in large or complex environments.

Agentless cloud security

Agentless security does not require software agents to be installed on each device. Instead, it uses cloud infrastructure and APIs to perform security checks. Agentless solutions are highly scalable with minimal impact on performance, and ideal for cloud-native and highly dynamic environments like serverless and containerized. These solutions are great choices for your cloud-native and multi-cloud environments where rapid deployment, scalability, and minimal impact on performance are critical, but response actions can be handled through external tools or manual processes.

Key advantages include:

1. Scalability and ease of deployment: Because agentless security doesn’t require installation on each individual device, it is much easier to deploy and can quickly scale across a vast number of cloud assets. This approach is ideal for environments where resources are frequently created and destroyed (e.g., serverless, containerized workloads), as there is no need for agent installation or maintenance.

2. Reduced system overhead: Without the need to run local agents, agentless security minimizes the impact on system performance. This is crucial in high-performance environments.

3. Broad visibility: Agentless security connects via API to cloud service providers, offering near-instant visibility and threat detection. It provides a comprehensive view of your cloud environment, making it easier to manage and secure large and complex infrastructures.

Challenges

1. Infrastructure-level monitoring: Agentless solutions rely on cloud service provider logs and API calls, meaning that detection might not be as immediate as agent-based solutions. They collect configuration data and logs, focusing on infrastructure misconfigurations, identity risks, exposed resources, and network traffic, but lack visibility and access to detailed, system-level information such as running processes and host-level vulnerabilities.

2. Cloud-focused: Primarily for cloud environments, although some tools may integrate with on-premises systems through API-based data gathering. For organizations with hybrid cloud environments, this approach fragments visibility and security, leading to blind spots and increasing security risk.

3. Passive remediation: Typically provides alerts and recommendations, but lacks deep control over workloads, requiring manual intervention or orchestration tools (e.g., SOAR platforms) to execute responses. Some agentless tools trigger automated responses via cloud provider APIs (e.g., revoking permissions, adjusting security groups), but with limited scope.

Combined agent-based and agentless approaches

A combined approach leverages the strengths of both agent-based and agentless security for complete coverage. This hybrid strategy helps security teams achieve comprehensive coverage by:

Using agent-based solutions for deep, real-time protection and detailed monitoring of critical systems or sensitive workloads.
Employing agentless solutions for fast deployment, broader visibility, and easier scalability across all cloud assets, which is particularly useful in dynamic cloud environments where workloads frequently change.

The combined approach has distinct practical applications. For example, imagine a financial services company that deals with sensitive transactions. Its security team might use agent-based security for critical databases to ensure stringent protections are in place. Meanwhile, agentless solutions could be ideal for less critical, transient workloads in the cloud, where rapid scalability and minimal performance impact are priorities. With different data types and infrastructures, the combined approach is best.

Best of both worlds: The benefits of a combined approach

The combined approach not only maximizes security efficacy but also aligns with diverse operational needs. This means that all parts of the cloud environment are secured according to their risk profile and functional requirements. Agent-based deployment provides in-depth monitoring and active protection against threats, suitable for environments requiring tight security controls, such as financial services or healthcare data processing systems. Agentless deployment complements agents by offering broader visibility and easier scalability across diverse and dynamic cloud environments, ideal for rapidly changing cloud resources.

There are three major benefits from combining agent-based and agentless approaches.

1. Building a holistic security posture: By integrating both agent-based and agentless technologies, organizations can ensure that all parts of their cloud environments are covered—from persistent, high-risk endpoints to transient cloud resources. This comprehensive coverage is crucial for detecting and responding to threats promptly and effectively.

2. Reducing overhead while boosting scalability: Agentless systems require no software installation on each device, reducing overhead and eliminating the need to update and maintain agents on a large number of endpoints. This makes it easier to scale security as the organization grows or as the cloud environment changes.

3. Applying targeted protection where needed: Agent-based solutions can be deployed on selected assets that handle sensitive information or are critical to business operations, thus providing focused protection without incurring the costs and complexity of universal deployment.

Use cases for a combined approach

A combined approach gives security teams the flexibility to deploy agent-based and agentless solutions based on the specific security requirements of different assets and environments. As a result, organizations can optimize their security expenditures and operational efforts, allowing for greater adaptability in cloud security use cases.

Let’s take a look at how this could practically play out. In the combined approach, agent-based security can perform the following:

1. Deep monitoring and real-time protection:

Workload threat detection: Agent-based solutions monitor individual workloads for suspicious activity, such as unauthorized file changes or unusual resource usage, providing high granularity for detecting threats within critical cloud applications.
Behavioral analysis of applications: By deploying agents on virtual machines or containers, organizations can monitor behavior patterns and flag anomalies indicative of insider threats, lateral movement, or Advanced Persistent Threats (APTs).
Protecting high-sensitivity environments: Agents provide continuous monitoring and advanced threat protection for environments processing sensitive data, such as payment processing systems or healthcare records, leveraging capabilities like memory protection and file integrity monitoring.

2. Cloud asset protection:

Securing critical infrastructure: Agent-based deployments are ideal for assets like databases or storage systems that require real-time defense against exploits and ransomware.
Advanced packet inspection: For high-value assets, agents offer deep packet inspection and in-depth logging to detect stealthy attacks such as data exfiltration.
Customizable threat response: Agents allow for tailored security rules and automated responses at the workload level, such as shutting down compromised instances or quarantining infected files.

At the same time, agentless cloud security provides complementary benefits such as:

1. Broad visibility and compliance:‍

Asset discovery and management: Agentless systems can quickly scan the entire cloud environment to identify and inventory all assets, a crucial capability for maintaining compliance with regulations like GDPR or HIPAA, which require up-to-date records of data locations and usage.
Regulatory compliance auditing and configuration management: Quickly identify gaps in compliance frameworks like PCI DSS or SOC 2 by scanning configurations, permissions, and audit trails without installing agents. Using APIs to check configurations across cloud services ensures that all instances comply with organizational and regulatory standards, an essential aspect for maintaining security hygiene and compliance.
Shadow IT Detection: Detect and map unauthorized cloud services or assets that are spun up without security oversight, ensuring full inventory coverage.

2. Rapid environmental assessment:

Vulnerability assessment of new deployments: In environments where new code is frequently deployed, agentless security can quickly assess new instances, containers, or workloads in CI/CD pipelines for vulnerabilities and misconfigurations, enabling secure deployments at DevOps speed.
Misconfiguration alerts: Detect and alert on common cloud configuration issues, such as exposed storage buckets or overly permissive IAM roles, across cloud providers like AWS, Azure, and GCP.
Policy enforcement: Validate that new resources adhere to established security baselines and organizational policies, preventing security drift during rapid cloud scaling.

Combining agent-based and agentless approaches in cloud security not only maximizes the protective capabilities, but also offers flexibility, efficiency, and comprehensive coverage tailored to the diverse and evolving needs of modern cloud environments. This integrated strategy ensures that organizations can protect their assets more effectively while also adapting quickly to new threats and regulatory requirements.

Darktrace offers complementary and flexible deployment options for holistic cloud security

Powered by multilayered AI, Darktrace / CLOUD is a Cloud Detection and Response (CDR) solution that is agentless by default, with optional lightweight, host-based server agents for enhanced real-time actioning and deep inspection. As such, it can deploy in cloud environments in minutes and provide unified visibility and security across hybrid, multi-cloud environments.

With any deployment method, Darktrace supports multi-tenant, hybrid, and serverless cloud environments. Its Self-Learning AI learns the normal behavior across architectures, assets, and users to identify unusual activity that may indicate a threat. With this approach, Darktrace / CLOUD quickly disarms threats, whether they are known, unknown, or completely novel. It then accelerates the investigation process and responds to threats at machine speed.

Learn more about how Darktrace / CLOUD secures multi and hybrid cloud environments in the Solution Brief.

References:

1. Flexera 2023 State of the Cloud Report

2. ESG Research 2023 Report on Cloud-Native Security

3. Gartner, Market Guide for Cloud Workload Protection Platforms, 2023

Written by

Kellie Regan

Director, Product Marketing - Cloud Security

Inside the SOC

Written by

Kellie Regan

Director, Product Marketing - Cloud Security

The Darktrace Community

Watch the NIS2 Webinar

Blog

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

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