Blog
/
Network
/
January 8, 2024

Uncovering CyberCartel Threats in Latin America

Examine the growing threat of cyber cartels in Latin America and learn how to safeguard against their attacks.
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
Alexandra Sentenac
Cyber Analyst
Default blog image
08
Jan 2024

Introduction

In September 2023, Darktrace published its first Half-Year Threat Report, highlighting Threat Research, Security Operation Center (SOC), model breach, and Cyber AI Analyst analysis and trends across the Darktrace customer fleet. According to Darktrace’s Threat Report, the most observed threat type to affect Darktrace customers during the first half of 2023 was Malware-as-a-Service (Maas). The report highlighted a growing trend where malware strains, specifically in the MaaS ecosystem, “use cross-functional components from other strains as part of their evolution and customization” [1].  

Darktrace’s Threat Research team assessed this ‘Frankenstein’ approach would very likely increase, as shown by the fact that indicators of compromise (IoCs) are becoming “less and less mutually exclusive between malware strains as compromised infrastructure is used by multiple threat actors through access brokers or the “as-a-Service” market” [1].

Darktrace investigated one such threat during the last months of summer 2023, eventually leading to the discovery of CyberCartel-related activity across a significant number of Darktrace customers, especially in Latin America.

CyberCartel Overview and Darktrace Coverage

During a threat hunt, Darktrace’s Threat Research team discovered the download of a binary with a unique Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) pattern. When examining Darktrace’s customer base, it was discovered that binaries with this same URI pattern had been downloaded by a significant number of customer accounts, especially by customers based in Latin America. Although not identical, the targets and tactics, techniques, and procedures (TTPs) resembled those mentioned in an article regarding a botnet called Fenix [2], particularly active in Latin America.

During the Threat Research team’s investigation, nearly 40 potentially affected customer accounts were identified. Darktrace’s global Threat Research team investigates pervasive threats across Darktrace’s customer base daily. This cross-fleet research is based on Darktrace’s anomaly-based detection capability, Darktrace DETECT™, and revolves around technical analysis and contextualization of detection information.

Amid the investigation, further open-source intelligence (OSINT) research revealed that most indicators observed during Darktrace’s investigations were associated to a Latin American threat group named CyberCartel, with a small number of IoCs being associated with the Fenix botnet. While CyberCartel seems to have been active since 2012 and relies on MaaS offerings from well-known malware families, Fenix botnet was allegedly created at the end of last year and “specifically targets users accessing government services, particularly tax-paying individuals in Mexico and Chile” [2].

Both groups share similar targets and TTPs, as well as objectives: installing malware with information-stealing capabilities. In the case of Fenix infections, the compromised device will be added to a botnet and execute tasks given by the attacker(s); while in the case of CyberCartel, it can lead to various types of second-stage info-stealing and Man-in-the-Browser capabilities, including retrieving system information from the compromised device, capturing screenshots of the active browsing tab, and redirecting the user to fraudulent websites such as fake banking sites. According to a report by Metabase Q [2], both groups possibly share command and control (C2) infrastructure, making accurate attribution and assessment of the confidence level for which group was affecting the customer base extremely difficult. Indeed, one of the C2 IPs (104.156.149[.]33) observed on nearly 20 customer accounts during the investigation had OSINT evidence linking it to both CyberCartel and Fenix, as well as another group known to target Mexico called Manipulated Caiman [3] [4] [5].

CyberCartel and Fenix both appear to target banking and governmental services’ users based in Latin America, especially individuals from Mexico and Chile. Target institutions purportedly include tax administration services and several banks operating in the region. Malvertising and phishing campaigns direct users to pages imitating the target institutions’ webpages and prompt the download of a compressed file advertised in a pop-up window. This file claims enhance the user’s security and privacy while navigating the webpage but instead redirects the user to a compromised website hosting a zip file, which itself contains a URL file containing instructions for retrieval of the first stage payload from a remote server.

pop-up window with malicious file
Figure 1: Example of a pop-up window asking the user to download a compressed file allegedly needed to continue navigating the portal. Connections to the domain srlxlpdfmxntetflx[.]com were observed in one account investigated by Darktrace

During their investigations, the Threat Research team observed connections to 100% rare domains (e.g., situacionfiscal[.]online, consultar-rfc[.]online, facturmx[.]info), many of them containing strings such as “mx”, “rcf” and “factur” in their domain names, prior to the downloads of files with the unique URI pattern identified during the aforementioned threat hunting session.

The reference to “rfc” is likely a reference to the Registro Federal de Contribuyentes, a unique registration number issued by Mexico’s tax collection agency, Servicio de Administración Tributaria (SAT). These domains were observed as being 100% rare for the environment and were connected to a few minutes prior to connections to CyberCartel endpoints. Most of the endpoints were newly registered, with creation dates starting from only a few months earlier in the first half of 2023. Interestingly, some of these domains were very similar to legitimate government websites, likely a tactic employed by threat actors to convince users to trust the domains and to bypass security measures.

Figure 2: Screenshot from similarweb[.]com showing the degree of affinity between malicious domains situacionfiscal[.]online and facturmx[.]info and the legitimate Mexican government hostname sat[.]gob[.]mx
Figure 3: Screenshot of the likely source infection website facturmx[.]info taken when visited in a sandbox environment

In other customer networks, connections to mail clients were observed, as well as connections to win-rar[.]com, suggesting an interaction with a compressed file. Connections to legitimate government websites were also detected around the same time in some accounts. Shortly after, the infected devices were detected connecting to 100% rare IP addresses over the HTTP protocol using WebDAV user agents such as Microsoft-WebDAV-MiniRedir/10.0.X and DavCInt. Web Distributed Authoring and Versioning, in its full form, is a legitimate extension to the HTTP protocol that allows users to remotely share, copy, move and edit files hosted on a web server. Both CyberCartel and Fenix botnet reportedly abuse this protocol to retrieve the initial payload via a shortcut link. The use (or abuse) of this protocol allows attackers to evade blocklists and streamline payload distribution. In cases investigated by Darktrace, the use of this protocol was not always considered unusual for the breach device, indicating it also was commonly used for its legitimate purposes.

HTTP methods observed included PROPFIND, GET, and OPTIONS, where a higher proportion of PROPFIND requests were observed. PROPFIND is an HTTP method related to the use of WebDAV that retrieves properties in an exactly defined, machine-readable, XML document (GET responses do not have a define format). Properties are pieces of data that describe the state of a resource, i.e., data about data [7]. They are used in distributed authoring environments to provide for efficient discovery and management of resources.  

Figure 4: Device event log showing a connection to facturmx[.]info followed by a WebDAV connection to the 100% rare IP 172.86.68[.]104

In a number of cases, connections to compromised endpoints were followed by the download of one or more executable files with names following the regex pattern /(yes|4496|[A-Za-z]{8})/(((4496|4545)[A-Za-z]{24})|Herramienta_de_Seguridad_SII).(exe|jse), for example 4496UCJlcqwxvkpXKguWNqNWDivM.exe. PROPFIND and GET HTTP requests for dynamic-link library (DLL) files such as urlmon.dll and netutils.dll were also detected. These are legitimate Windows files that are essential to handle network and internet-related tasks in Windows. Irrespective of whether they had malicious or legitimate signatures, Darktrace DETECT was able to recognize that the download of these files was suspicious with rare external endpoints not previously observed on the respective customer networks.

Figure 5: Advanced Search results showing some of the HTTP requests made by the breach device to a CyberCartel endpoint via PROPFIND, GET, or OPTIONS methods for executable and DLL files

Following Darktrace DETECT’s model breaches, these HTTP connections were investigated by Cyber AI Analyst™. AI Analyst provided a summary and further technical details of these connections, as shown in figure 6.

Figure 6: Cyber AI Analyst incident showing a summary of the event, as well as technical details. The AI investigation process is also detailed

AI Analyst searched for all HTTP connections made by the breach device and found more than 2,500 requests to more than a hundred endpoints for one given device. It then looked for the user agents responsible for these connections and found 15 possible software agents responsible for the HTTP requests, and from these identified a single suspicious software agent, Microsoft-WebDAV-Min-Redir. As mentioned previously, this is a legitimate software, but its use by the breach device was considered unusual by Darktrace’s machine learning technology. By performing analysis on thousands of connections to hundreds of endpoints at machine speed, AI Analyst is able to perform the heavy lifting on behalf of human security teams and then collate its findings in a single summary pane, giving end-users the information needed to assess a given activity and quickly start remediation as needed. This allows security teams and administrators to save precious time and provides unparalleled visibility over any potentially malicious activity on their network.

Following the successful identification of CyberCartel activity by DETECT, Darktrace RESPOND™ is then able to contain suspicious behavior, such as by restricting outgoing traffic or enforcing normal patterns of life on affected devices. This would allow customer security teams extra time to analyze potentially malicious behavior, while leaving the rest of the network free to perform business critical operations. Unfortunately, in the cases of CyberCartel compromises detected by Darktrace, RESPOND was not enabled in autonomous response mode meaning preventative actions had to be applied manually by the customer’s security team after the fact.

Figure 7. Device event log showing connections to 100% rare CyberCartel endpoint 172.86.68[.]194 and subsequent suggested RESPOND actions.

Conclusion

Threat actors targeting high-value entities such as government offices and banks is unfortunately all too commonplace.  In the case of Cyber Cartel, governmental organizations and entities, as well as multiple newspapers in the Latin America, have cautioned users against these malicious campaigns, which have occurred over the past few years [8] [9]. However, attackers continuously update their toolsets and infrastructure, quickly rendering these warnings and known-bad security precautions obsolete. In the case of CyberCartel, the abuse of the legitimate WebDAV protocol to retrieve the initial payload is just one example of this. This method of distribution has also been leveraged by in Bumblebee malware loader’s latest campaign [10]. The abuse of the legitimate WebDAV protocol to retrieve the initial CyberCartel payload outlined in this case is one example among many of threat actors adopting new distribution methods used by others to further their ends.

As threat actors continue to search for new ways of remaining undetected, notably by incorporating legitimate processes into their attack flow and utilizing non-exclusive compromised infrastructure, it is more important than ever to have an understanding of normal network operation in order to detect anomalies that are indicative of an ongoing compromise. Darktrace’s suite of products, including DETECT+RESPOND, is well placed to do just that, with machine-speed analysis, detection, and response helping security teams and administrators keep their digital environments safe from malicious actors.

Credit to: Nahisha Nobregas, SOC Analyst

References

[1] https://darktrace.com/blog/darktrace-half-year-threat-report

[2] https://www.metabaseq.com/fenix-botnet/

[3] https://perception-point.io/blog/manipulated-caiman-the-sophisticated-snare-of-mexicos-banking-predators-technical-edition/

[4] https://www.virustotal.com/gui/ip-address/104.156.149.33/community

[5] https://silent4business.com/tendencias/1

[6] https://www.metabaseq.com/cybercartel/

[7] http://www.webdav.org/specs/rfc2518.html#rfc.section.4.1

[8] https://www.csirt.gob.cl/alertas/8ffr23-01415-01/

[9] https://www.gob.mx/sat/acciones-y-programas/sitios-web-falsos

[10] https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/bumblebee-malware-returns-in-new-attacks-abusing-webdav-folders/

Appendices  

Darktrace DETECT Model Detections

AI Analyst Incidents:

• Possible HTTP Command and Control

• Suspicious File Download

Model Detections:

• Anomalous Connection / New User Agent to IP Without Hostname

• Device / New User Agent and New IP

• Anomalous File / EXE from Rare External Location

• Multiple EXE from Rare External Locations

• Anomalous File / Script from Rare External Location

List of IoCs

IoC - Type - Description + Confidence

f84bb51de50f19ec803b484311053294fbb3b523 - SHA1 hash - Likely CyberCartel Payload IoCs

4eb564b84aac7a5a898af59ee27b1cb00c99a53d - SHA1 hash - Likely CyberCartel payload

8806639a781d0f63549711d3af0f937ffc87585c - SHA1 hash - Likely CyberCartel payload

9d58441d9d31b5c4011b99482afa210b030ecac4 - SHA1 hash - Possible CyberCartel payload

37da048533548c0ad87881e120b8cf2a77528413 - SHA1 hash - Likely CyberCartel payload

2415fcefaf86a83f1174fa50444be7ea830bb4d1 - SHA1 hash - Likely CyberCartel payload

15a94c7e9b356d0ff3bcee0f0ad885b6cf9c1bb7 - SHA1 hash - Likely CyberCartel payload

cdc5da48fca92329927d9dccf3ed513dd28956af - SHA1 hash - Possible CyberCartel payload

693b869bc9ba78d4f8d415eb7016c566ead839f3 - SHA1 hash - Likely CyberCartel payload

04ce764723eaa75e4ee36b3d5cba77a105383dc5 - SHA1 hash - Possible CyberCartel payload

435834167fd5092905ee084038eee54797f4d23e - SHA1 hash - Possible CyberCartel payload

3341b4f46c2f45b87f95168893a7485e35f825fe - SHA1 hash - Likely CyberCartel payload

f6375a1f954f317e16f24c94507d4b04200c63b9 - SHA1 hash - Likely CyberCartel payload

252efff7f54bd19a5c96bbce0bfaeeecadb3752f - SHA1 hash - Likely CyberCartel payload

8080c94e5add2f6ed20e9866a00f67996f0a61ae - SHA1 hash - Likely CyberCartel payload

c5117cedc275c9d403a533617117be7200a2ed77 - SHA1 hash - Possible CyberCartel payload

19dd866abdaf8bc3c518d1c1166fbf279787fc03 - SHA1 hash - Likely CyberCartel payload

548287c0350d6e3d0e5144e20d0f0ce28661f514 - SHA1 hash - Likely CyberCartel payload

f0478e88c8eefc3fd0a8e01eaeb2704a580f88e6 - SHA1 hash - Possible CyberCartel payload

a9809acef61ca173331e41b28d6abddb64c5f192 - SHA1 hash - Likely CyberCartel payload

be96ec94f8f143127962d7bf4131c228474cd6ac - SHA1 hash -Likely CyberCartel payload

44ef336395c41bf0cecae8b43be59170bed6759d - SHA1 hash - Possible CyberCartel payload

facturmx[.]info - Hostname - Likely CyberCartel infection source

consultar-rfc[.]online - Hostname - Possible CyberCartel infection source

srlxlpdfmxntetflx[.]com - Hostname - Likely CyberCartel infection source

facturmx[.]online - Hostname - Possible CyberCartel infection source

rfcconhomoclave[.]mx - Hostname - Possible CyberCartel infection source

situacionfiscal[.]online - Hostname - Likely CyberCartel infection source

descargafactura[.]club - Hostname - Likely CyberCartel infection source

104.156.149[.]33 - IP - Likely CyberCartel C2 endpoint

172.86.68[.]194 - IP - Likely CyberCartel C2 endpoint

139.162.73[.]58 - IP - Likely CyberCartel C2 endpoint

172.105.24[.]190 - IP - Possible CyberCartel C2 endpoint

MITRE ATT&CK Mapping

Tactic - Technique

Command and Control - Ingress Tool Transfer (T1105)

Command and Control - Web Protocols (T1071.001)

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
Alexandra Sentenac
Cyber Analyst

More in this series

No items found.

Blog

/

/

June 25, 2026

Shadow AI Detection: The First Step Toward Securing AI

shadow aiDefault blog imageDefault blog image

Why shadow AI is emerging  

Imagine you’re an employee under pressure, deadlines stacking up, repetitive tasks piling higher by the day. You find a free AI tool online that promises to automate the work in seconds; no approvals are needed. It feels like a simple win, paste in some data, write a quick prompt, and move faster.

But in that moment, something changed.  

Sensitive customer information is entered into a tool your organization doesn’t monitor, doesn’t govern, and can’t see and suddenly, that data is no longer where it should be, and no one knows where it’s gone.

This is the reality of Shadow AI: employees using unsanctioned AI tools to move faster, while unintentionally creating risk that exists entirely outside visibility and control.  

This is not just a one off case, research across businesses indicate that nearly half of employees report using unsanctioned AI tools, often prioritizing speed and productivity over security. Additionally, 51% of employees report connecting AI tools to work systems or apps without IT approval, creating significant operational risk where the average cost of security incidents in organizations with a high level of shadow AI usage can reach $670k.

While shadow AI is often top of mind for security professionals, it is just one component of how AI use can increase risk. Understanding and managing shadow AI use should be considered as part of a broader, comprehensive risk management strategy that aims to secure AI systems, including human and agent identities, interactions, human-AI partnerships, and behaviors operating across the digital enterprise from visibility and governance through detection, response, and recovery.  

Effective risk management calls for a layered and interdisciplinary strategy. It requires addressing issues across governance and visibility; identity, access and agent control, data security and privacy, secure MLOps / LLMOps, runtime security, behavior-based detection, autonomous response and recovery.  

This blog explores a specific governance and visibility use case linked to shadow AI and reveals the challenges it presents as well as the defensive strategies that security teams can adopt.

Why shadow AI is hard to detect  

When it comes to AI, what organizations can easily see does not always reflect the full scope of AI activity occurring within the tools, applications, and workflows used across an enterprise. As a result, organizations using traditional rule-based methods to flag unusual activity may struggle to distinguish unsanctioned AI usage from legitimate operational behavior, particularly as SaaS applications, APIs, and orchestration layers increasingly have AI embedded into normal business workflows. Identifying threats using previously observed intelligence or depending on hard to maintain allow and block lists does not provide a dynamic enough strategy to manage risk. Also, many organizations are focusing on identifying Shadow AI in their governed infrastructure, like gateways, endpoints, or SASE, which is foundational. But, organizations require visibility and Shadow AI detection across all networked infrastructure from on-prem, hybrid, data centers, and cloud infrastructure that may not have endpoint agent visibility. This uncovers the utilization of MCP, data flows, and autonomous agents across these domains.

For example, employees interact with AI assistants across approved SaaS platforms every day. However, browser extensions and other types of plug-ins can route prompts that include enterprise data to embedded AI services in ways that are not visible to the security team. AI enabled workflows may invoke multiple APIs, orchestration layers, and cloud services behind the scenes, making it difficult for traditional security tooling to determine where data is processed, stored, or retransmitted. Because much of this activity occurs within trusted browser sessions and encrypted SaaS traffic, conventional network monitoring, DLP, and application allowlisting controls often lack the context needed to accurately identify or govern these interactions

Identifying AI tools in the environment is one part of the equation. Understanding the behavior surrounding their use is where the real challenge lies. An AI application is not inherently risky, but the way users or other assets interact with it may be. Sensitive data exposure, abnormal access patterns, and misuse of AI-assisted workflows often appear legitimate in isolation and only become visible through behavioral analysis across the broader environment.  

What Shadow AI visibility does and doesn’t show

Comprehensive Shadow AI visibility allows organizations to answer several important questions:

  • What types of AI are we using? What AI platforms, agents, MCP clients/servers, and services are active across the enterprise?  
  • Who is using AI services? Which users, business units, or systems are interacting with those AI services?  
  • Is our data safe? Is sensitive or regulated data being exposed through prompts, workflows, or integrations?  
  • Are AI systems behaving as expected? Are AI systems behaving anomalously or operating outside approved governance processes?  
  • Are our AI systems under attack? Is an attacker attempting to manipulate prompts, influence agent behavior, or abuse AI-enabled workflows?

Answering these questions is foundational to broader AI governance efforts. However, it is limited to helping teams understand initial interactions and fails to offer insight into dependencies and outcomes that are critical to securing AI across an enterprise.  

Deeper visibility that includes the ability to understand dependencies and outcomes are not always available in AI security point products. Answering the questions below requires understanding runtime behavior and operational outcomes:  

  • What actions did the AI interaction trigger?  
  • What systems, applications, or data did it access? Did the AI operate beyond its intended permissions or scope?  
  • Could a low-risk interaction lead to high-risk outcomes?  
  • What is the risk and context understanding of an anomalous activity to assist in prioritization of analysis and autonomous response action?

The distinction between these two sets of questions offers two different layers of AI security. The first set of questions focuses on discovery and interaction visibility. The second set focuses on providing visibility that includes the context and outcomes that are critical for managing follow-on risks associated with obfuscated downstream activities.  

Together, these layers help organizations move beyond simply identifying AI usage toward understanding how AI behaves operationally across the enterprise.

How organizations are addressing shadow AI

Most organizations still approach shadow AI as an application control problem, relying on policies, browser restrictions, and allow/block lists. However, AI adoption is evolving faster than most governance processes can realistically keep pace with. New assistants, plugins, and embedded AI features appear continuously, creating pressure to enable business productivity while simultaneously containing risk.  

Existing governance processes were designed for a more traditional SaaS adoption cycle, where new applications could be reviewed, approved, and monitored over longer time horizons. AI adoption operates differently. New capabilities can appear overnight inside existing platforms employees already use, making it difficult for security and governance teams to maintain an accurate understanding of enterprise AI exposure. This means that many organizations are experiencing significant operational overhead, particularly in large environments where AI usage is decentralized across teams, departments, and third-party services.  

Where should organizations start when securing their AI systems?

Shadow AI identification is an on-going critical component for AI Risk/Governance Boards as well as security organizations. As organizations seek AI certifications like ISO 42001 AI Management Systems, visibility into all AI adoption from enterprise use to custom innovation and development is crucial. Shadow AI identification provides organizations with the visibility needed to decide whether an AI tool should be brought into governed environments to reduce data loss (DLP) risks or whether policies should be established and enforced to restrict their use.

As organizations rapidly innovate and adopt AI, they are taking on more and more risk. Organizations need to have a strategy in place to mitigate the assumed risk, especially with third-party adoption. Visibility, monitoring, governance enforcement, behavioral-based detection of non-deterministic systems, and autonomous investigation and containment becomes critical to mitigating the risk of AI systems.  

How Darktrace secures AI and shadow AI

Attackers are using AI to move faster, scale tactics, and make threats more adaptive and convincing. Internally, organizations are grappling with new forms of risk created by generative AI, autonomous agents, shadow AI, and increasingly complex digital environments.

Darktrace helps organizations protect both people and AI in a world where AI is now central to how business gets done. Darktrace / SECURE AI helps organizations discover and control shadow AI by surfacing unsanctioned or unexpected AI activity where it appears – including MCP detections, distinguishing misuse of legitimate tools and unapproved services, and applying policy to contain data exposure while guiding users toward sanctioned options.

Stay up to date on AI security

Sign up for the Secure AI Readiness Program here: This gives you exclusive access to the latest news on the latest AI threats, updates on emerging approaches shaping AI security, and insights into the latest innovations, including Darktrace’s ongoing work in this area.

Ready to talk with a Darktrace expert on securing AI? Register here to receive practical guidance on the AI risks that matter most to your business, paired with clarity on where to focus first across governance, visibility, risk reduction, and long-term readiness.  

Continue reading
About the author

Blog

/

Network

/

June 25, 2026

From Click to Command: Behavioral Detection of AppleScript-Led MacOS Intrusions

applescript-led mac os intrusionDefault blog imageDefault blog image

Introduction

Darktrace’s Threat Research team is publishing this analysis to help defenders understand an active pattern of macOS tradecraft observed in multiple customer environments. This post summarizes the behaviors observed, how they were assessed, and what defenders can do now.

Across multiple environments, Darktrace observed a consistent MacOS intrusion pattern beginning with ClickFix-style user-assisted “update” execution and transitioning into AppleScript-driven post-compromise activity and sustained outbound signaling.

While individual indicators were low-confidence, the repeated convergence of weak behavioral signals — including HTTP POST beaconing, rare or IP-only destinations, SSL anomalies, and abnormal client characteristics — provided a defensible indication of command-and-control establishment Darktrace detection and response in these cases was driven by behavior over artifacts. In the highest-confidence instances, automated containment disrupted outbound signaling before sustained tasking could occur.

Background

ClickFix-style activity typically relies on user-assisted execution and plausible “update” pretexting, followed by post-execution use of native tools to keep the footprint light. In MacOS environments, AppleScript and other built-in scripting mechanisms enable flexible post-compromise workflows while minimizing stable file-based indicators.

Following execution, affected devices exhibited a consistent behavioral pattern. AppleScript or equivalent native scripting activity was observed initiating follow-on workflows, after which outbound communications began to establish a structured rhythm.

These communications were characterized by repeated HTTP POST requests to low-prevalence or IP-only endpoints, often combined with unusual SSL properties and client identifiers that diverged from baseline device behavior. Individually, these signals were weak. When correlated across time and devices, they formed a pattern consistent with control establishment rather than benign software activity.

In higher-confidence cases, Autonomous Response actions were able to reduce or halt outbound signaling, interrupting the attacker’s ability to maintain control.

Detection Timeline

In representative cases, the sequence unfolded as follows:

Stage 1 – Initial Execution

Initial activity began with suspicious or masqueraded execution on a MacOS endpoint, consistent with ClickFix-style user deception.

Stage 2 – Post-Execution Scripting

This was followed closely by native scripting activity, most commonly AppleScript, indicating the transition into post-execution workflow.

Stage 3 – Outbound Communications

Outbound communications then emerged, initially sporadic but quickly forming a consistent cadence of HTTP POST requests to rare external endpoints.

Stage 4 – Anomaly Convergence

As activity persisted, additional anomalies became visible — unusual SSL characteristics, abnormal user agents, and connections to infrastructure with no prior network prevalence.

Stage 5 – Autonomous Response

In the most mature stages of the activity, automated containment actions disrupted outbound communications on affected devices, limiting the attacker’s ability to continue tasking while investigations progressed.

Darktrace coverage and detections

The following use-case highlights systems likely affected by malicious macOS intrusion activity linked by Microsoft to the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) [1], with indications of suspicious behavior observed between March 1 and May 3, 2026. The activity overlaps with patterns described in recent reporting on DPRK-nexus MacOS intrusions [1], though attribution confidence in this case remains moderate and based on behavioral alignment rather than solely infrastructure linkage.

Analyst confidence emerged through the correlation of multiple weak signals across time and devices. This included model coverage for rare external communications, sustained beaconing patterns, repeated HTTP POSTs, and anomalous client characteristics. Where enabled, Autonomous Response actions disrupted the most active outbound paths to reduce the attacker’s ability to maintain control while Darktrace’s investigation continued.

Notably, this highly anomalous behavior included:

  • Outbound connections to the rare external endpoint, zoom[.]uswebob[.]us associated with IP address, 148.72.73[.]98 [2][3] over port 443
  • Outbound connections to the rare external endpoint, check02id[.]com associated with IP address, 83.136.210[.]180 [4] over port 7365
  • Outbound connections to the rare external endpoints, 104.145.210[.]107 [5] over port 8443 and 83.136.208[.]48 [6] over port 443
  • Outbound connections to the rare external endpoint, 83.136.208[.]246 [7] over port 6783 with observed URI `/api/daemon` and a PowerShell user agent

Darktrace’s detection initially highlighted a desktop device (running MacOS) engaging in anomalous behavior as early as March 12, 2026. Starting on March 12, the source device triggered a ‘Possible Doppelganger Attack’ alert including connectivity to the hostname "zoom[.]uswebob[.]us · 148.72.73[.]98" over port 443 (TCP, HTTPS, H2). This model highlights a device connecting to a location that is rare but masquerades as legitimate software, such as Zoom in this case, a commonly used technique to blend into expected traffic [2] [3].

 Initial connectivity observed to the rare external hostname, zoom[.]uswebob[.]us · 148.72.73[.]98, over port 443.
Figure 1: Initial connectivity observed to the rare external hostname, zoom[.]uswebob[.]us · 148.72.73[.]98, over port 443.

This was followed roughly seven later by a connection to 104.145.210[.]107 over port 8443, during which approximately 250 KiB of data of inbound data and 30 MiB of outbound data was observed, triggering the ‘Unusual Activity / Unusual External Data to New Endpoint’ in Darktrace.

Quickly after this connection, Darktrace’s Autonomous Response intervened, blocking the device’s access to the unusual external location and halting the data exfiltration attempt.

Figure 2: Darktrace’s detection of unusual data exfiltration, shortly followed by an Autonomous Response action to block it.

The device continued to consistently trigger model alerts relating to unusual external connectivity, including 'Posting HTTP to IP Without Hostname', 'Anomalous Connection / Rare External SSL Self-Signed' alerts, until well after 3 PM that day.

Figure 3: Additional external connectivity to new IP without a hostname, including connectivity to 83.136.208[.]246, alongside an anomalous ‘curl/8.7.1’ user agent and ‘/api/daemon’ URI.
Figure 4: Continued external SSL connectivity to IP 83.136.208[.]48, including connectivity to 83.136.208[.]246, alongside an anomalous ‘curl/8.7.1’ user agent and ‘/api/daemon’ URI.
Figure 5: Continued external HTTP connectivity to hostname, check02id[.]com · 83.136.210[.]180, alongside an anomalous ‘Go-http-client/1,1’ user agent.

From March 13 to March 28, the device continued exhibit unusual connectivity to various endpoints (e.g., 83.136.208[.]48, 83.136.208[.]246, check02id[.]com · 83.136.210[.]180), with the 'Multiple HTTP POSTs to Rare Hostname' model consistently triggering.

Windows OS Case

Pivoting over to an additional device, this time running Windows OS, anomalous behavior was also observed between March 30 and April 20. Notably, on March 30, the device was observed making a large number of suspicious external connection attempts to 83.136.208[.]246 over port 6783, all of which failed.

A further indicator was observed on April 1 with PowerShell connectivity to the same rare endpoint (83.136.208[.]246, port 6783), using the URI '/api/daemon' and the user agent 'Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT; Windows NT 10.0; fr-FR) WindowsPowerShell/5.1.26100.7920'.  Additional alerts included 'New User Agent to IP Without Hostname' and 'Anomalous Github Download', alongside activity involving the same endpoint.

Figure 6 : ‘Anomalous Powershell to Rare External Destination’ and ‘Github Download’ model alerts. This behavior involved connectivity with the endpoints ‘83.136.208[.]246’ and ‘github[.]com’.

The device continued triggering 'Posting HTTP to IP Without Hostname' & 'PowerShell to External Rare' alerts between April 4 and April 20 across multiple related endpoints (i.e., 83.136.208[.]48, 83.136.208[.]246, check02id[.]com · 83.136.210[.]180).

Darktrace’s Autonomous Response capability was able to block suspicious PowerShell attempts to unusual external locations, as shown below in an example from April 20.

Figure 7:  Autonomous Response intervening to block an unusual PowerShell connection to an external destination.

Cyber AI Analyst investigations

In higher-confidence instances, Darktrace’s Cyber AI Analyst investigations helped connect otherwise separate model alerts into a single incident narrative, highlighting the attacker’s progression from post-execution scripting into sustained outbound signaling. This contextual stitching is particularly valuable in macOS scenarios where static artefacts are limited, and behavioral sequencing defines the intrusion.

Cyber AI Analyst investigations highlighted alerts on March 12, including unusual repeated connections and possible SSL command-and-control (C2) to multiple endpoints:

Figure 8: Cyber AI Analyst investigation linking events into a unified incident.

Autonomous Response

In addition to the containment actions detailed earlier, Autonomous Response implemented multiple additional measures to contain suspicious activity throughout the course of this attack. Whenever unusual external connectivity was detected, Darktrace blocked it, closing down potential C2 channels. Likewise, when data exfiltration attempts were identified, these connections were stopped to prevent the potential loss of sensitive data.

Figure 9: Autonomous Response actions implemented by Darktrace in response to suspicious connectivity in mid-March.

Furthermore, in cases where a device was deemed to have carried out a significant number of anomalous activities, Darktrace enforced a “pattern of life” on the device, preventing it from deviating from its expected behavior while allowing legitimate business operations to continue uninterrupted.

Figure 10: Autonomous Response actions implemented by Darktrace in response to suspicious connectivity in April, including the “Enforce Pattern of Life” action.

Conclusion

macOS intrusion tradecraft continues to shift toward native tooling and lightweight control channels designed to evade signature-led controls.

The repeated convergence of rare destinations, POST-based signaling, and anomalous client behavior — observed across time and across devices — provided sufficient evidence to act early and with confidence.

As macOS tradecraft continues to evolve, the defender advantage increasingly lies not in signatures, but in the ability to reason from behavior.

Credit to Justin Torres (Senior Cyber Analyst), Nathaniel Jones (VP, Security & AI Strategy, FCISO)

Edited by Ryan Traill (Content Manager)

Appendices

Darktrace Model Alert Coverage:

/ NETWORK-based model alerts:

·       Anomalous Connection::Multiple HTTP POSTs to Rare Hostname

·       Anomalous Connection::Rare External SSL Self-Signed

·       Anomalous Connection::Powershell to Rare External

·       Anomalous Connection::New User Agent to IP Without Hostname

·       Anomalous Connection::Posting HTTP to IP Without Hostname

·       Compromise::Fast Beaconing to DGA

·       Compromise::Large Number of Suspicious Failed Connections

·       Device::Anomalous Github Download

·       Device::New PowerShell User Agent

·       Unusual Activity::Unusual External Data to New Endpoint

/ NETWORK-based Autonomous Response model alerts:

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

·       Antigena / Network::Significant Anomaly::Antigena Controlled and Model Breach

·       Antigena / Network::Significant Anomaly::Antigena Breaches Over Time Block

Indicators of Compromise (IoCs)

IP/Hostname:

·       zoom[.]uswebob[.]us · 148.72.73[.]98

·       83.136.208[.]246

·       check02id[.]com · 83.136.210[.]180

·       83.136.208[.]48

·       104.145.210[.]107

URIs:

·       /api/daemon

Destination Port Usage:

·       6783

·       5202

·       443

·       7365

·       8443

ASN:

·       AS400897 PETROSKY

·       AS398256 AS-ULTAHOST

User agents:

·       Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT; Windows NT 10.0; fr-FR) WindowsPowerShell/5.1.26100.7920

·       Go-http-client/1.1

·       curl/8.7.1

MITRE ATT&CK Mapping

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

·       Browser Session Hijacking - COLLECTION - T1185

·       Web Protocols - COMMAND AND CONTROL - T1071.001 - T1071

·       Install Digital Certificate - RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT - T1608.003 - T1608

·       PowerShell - EXECUTION - T1059.001 - T1059

·       Domain Generation Algorithms - COMMAND AND CONTROL - T1568.002 - T1568

·       Non-Standard Port - COMMAND AND CONTROL - T1571

·       Malware - RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT - T1588.001 - T1588

·       Web Service - COMMAND AND CONTROL - T1102

·       Code Repositories - COLLECTION - T1213.003 - T1213

·       Exploitation of Remote Services - LATERAL MOVEMENT - T1210

·       Exfiltration Over C2 Channel - EXFILTRATION - T1041

·       Exfiltration to Cloud Storage - EXFILTRATION - T1567.002 - T1567

References:

[1] https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/security/blog/2026/04/16/dissecting-sapphire-sleets-macos-intrusion-from-lure-to-compromise/

[2] https://radar.securityalliance.org/advisory-on-dprk-unc1069-fake-microsoft-teams-and-zoom-calls/

[3] https://www.virustotal.com/gui/domain/uswebob.us

[4] https://www.virustotal.com/gui/ip-address/83.136.210.180/community

[5] https://www.virustotal.com/gui/ip-address/104.145.210.107/community

[6] https://www.virustotal.com/gui/ip-address/83.136.208.48/community

[7] https://www.virustotal.com/gui/ip-address/83.136.208.246/community

[8] https://www.darktrace.com/blog/applescript-abuse-unpacking-a-macos-phishing-campaign

Continue reading
About the author
Justin Torres
Cyber Analyst
Your data. Our AI.
Elevate your network security with Darktrace AI