Detecting Unknown Ransomware: A Darktrace Case Study
Learn how Darktrace uncovered uncategorized ransomware threats in the Summer of 2021 with Darktrace SOC. Stay ahead of cyber threats with Darktrace technology.
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
Emma Foulger
Senior Cyber Analyst
Share
24
Aug 2022
Uncategorized attacks happen frequently, with new threat groups and malware continually coming to light. Novel and known threat groups alike are changing their C2 domains, file hashes and other threat infrastructure, allowing them to avoid detection through traditional signature and rule-based techniques. Zero-day exploitation has also become increasingly apparent – a recent Mandiant report revealed that the number of identified zero-days in 2021 had dramatically increased from 2020 (80 vs 32). More specifically, the number of zero-days exploited by ransomware groups was, and continues to be, on an upward trend [1]. This trend appears to have continued into 2022. Given the unknown nature of these attacks, it is challenging to defend against them using traditional signature and rule-based approaches. Only those anomaly-based solutions functioning via deviations from normal behavior in a network, will effectively detect these threats.
It is particularly important that businesses can quickly identify threats like ransomware before the end-goal of encryption is reached. As the variety of ransomware strains increases, so do the number which are uncategorized. Whilst zero-days have recently been explored in another Darktrace blog, this blog looks at an example of a sophisticated novel ransomware attack that took place during Summer 2021 which Darktrace DETECT/Network detected ahead of it being categorized or found on popular OSINT. This occurred within the network of an East African financial organization.
Figure 1- Timeline of (then-uncategorized) Blackbyte ransom attack
On the 6th of July 2021, multiple user accounts were brute-forced on an external-facing VPN server via NTLM. Notably this included attempted logins with the generic account ‘Administrator’. Darktrace alerted to this initial bruteforcing activity, however as similar attempts had been made against the server before, it was not treated as a high-priority threat.
Following successful bruteforcing on the VPN, the malicious actor created a new user account which was then added to an administrative group on an Active Directory server. This new user account was subsequently used in an RDP session to an internal Domain Controller. Cyber AI Analyst picked up on the unusual nature of these administrative connections in comparison to normal activity for these devices and alerted on it (Figure 2).
Figure 2: AI Analyst detected the suspicious nature of the initial lateral movement. RDP, DCE-RPC, and SMB connections were seen from the VPN server to the domain controller using the newly created account. Note: this screenshot is from DETECT/Network v.5
Less than 20 minutes later, significant reconnaissance began on the domain controller with the new credential. This involved SMB enumeration with various file shares accessed including sensitive files such as the Security Account Manager (samr). This was followed by a two-day period of downtime where the threat actor laid low.
On the 8th of July, suspicious network behavior resumed – the default Administrator credential seen previously was also used on a second internal domain controller. Connections to a rare external IP were made by this device a few hours later. OSINT at the time suggested these connections may have been related to the use of penetration testing tools, in particular the tool Process Hacker [2].
Over the next two days reconnaissance and lateral movement activities occurred on a wider scale, originating from multiple network devices. A wide variety of techniques were used during this period:
· Exploitation of legitimate administrative services such as PsExec for remote command execution.
· Taking advantage of legacy protocols still in use on the network like SMB version 1.
· Bruteforcing login attempts via Kerberos.
· The use of other penetration testing tools including Metasploit and Nmap. These were intended to probe for vulnerabilities.
On the 10th of July, ransomware was deployed. File encryption occurred, with the extension ‘.blackbyte’ being appended to multiple files. At the time there were no OSINT references to this file extension or ransomware type, therefore any signature-based solution would have struggled to detect it. It is now apparent that BlackByte ransomware had only appeared a few weeks earlier and, since then, the Ransomware-as-a-Service group has been attacking businesses and critical infrastructure worldwide [3]. A year later they still pose an active threat.
The use of living-off-the-land techniques, popular penetration testing tools, and a novel strain of ransomware meant the attackers were able to move through the environment without giving away their presence through known malware-signatures. Although a traditional security solution would identify some of these actions, it would struggle to link these separate activities. The lack of attribution, however, had no bearing on Darktrace’s ability to detect the unusual behavior with its anomaly-based methods.
While this customer had RESPOND enabled at the time of this attack, its manual configuration meant that it was unable to act on the devices engaging in encryption. Nevertheless, a wide range of high-scoring Darktrace DETECT/Network models breached which were easily visible within the customer’s threat tray. This included multiple Enhanced Monitoring models that would have led to Proactive Threat Notifications (PTN) being alerted had the customer subscribed to the service. Whilst the attack was not prevented in this case, Darktrace analysts were able to give support to the customer via Ask the Expert (ATE), providing in-depth analysis of the compromise including a list of likely compromised devices and credentials. This helped the customer to work on post-compromise recovery effectively and ensured the ransomware had reduced impact within their environment.
Conclusion
While traditional security solutions may be able to deal well with ransomware that uses known signatures, AI is needed to spot new or unknown types of attack – a reliance on signatures will lead to these types of attack being missed.
Remediation can also be far more difficult if a victim doesn’t know how to identify the compromised devices or credentials because there are no known IOCs. Darktrace model breaches will highlight suspicious activity in each part of the cyber kill chain, whether involving a known IOC or not, helping the customer to efficiently identify areas of compromise and effectively remediate (Figure 3).
Figure 3: An example of the various stages of the attack on one of the compromise servers being identified by Cyber AI Analyst. Note: this screenshot is from DETECT/Network v.5
As long as threat actors continue to develop new methods of attack, the ability to detect uncategorized threats is required. As demonstrated above, Darktrace’s anomaly-based approach lends itself perfectly to detecting these novel or uncategorized threats.
Thanks to Max Heinemeyer for his contributions to this blog.
Appendices
Model Breaches
· Anomalous Connection / SMB Enumeration
· Anomalous Connection / Suspicious Activity On High Risk Device
· Anomalous Server Activity / Anomalous External Activity from Critical Network Device
· Compliance / Default Credential Usage
· Device / SMB Session Bruteforce
· Anomalous Connection / Sustained MIME Type Conversion
· Anomalous Connection / Unusual SMB Version 1 Connectivity
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.
Patch and Persist: Darktrace’s Detection of Blind Eagle (APT-C-36)
Since 2018, Blind Eagle has targeted Latin American organizations using phishing and RATs. Darktrace detected Blind Eagle activity on a customer network involving C2 connectivity, malicious payload downloads and data exfiltration. Without Autonomous Response, the attack escalated, highlighting the need for proactive detection and response defense to counter fast-evolving threats.
Customer Case Study: Leading Petrochemical Manufacturer
An industry leading petrochemical manufacturer uses the Darktrace ActiveAI Security Platform to improve visibility, protect against supply chain attacks, and save the security team hundreds of hours of incident investigation.
Tracking CVE-2025-31324: Darktrace’s detection of SAP Netweaver exploitation before and after disclosure
A critical SAP vulnerability, CVE-2025-31324, allows unauthenticated remote code execution via NetWeaver Visual Composer. Despite early mitigation guidance, many systems remain exposed. Darktrace detected exploitation attempts six days before public disclosure, highlighting the importance of proactive, threat-agnostic detection.
Defending the Cloud: Stopping Cyber Threats in Azure and AWS with Darktrace
Real-world intrusions across Azure and AWS
As organizations pursue greater scalability and flexibility, cloud platforms like Microsoft Azure and Amazon Web Services (AWS) have become essential for enabling remote operations and digitalizing corporate environments. However, this shift introduces a new set of security risks, including expanding attack surfaces, misconfigurations, and compromised credentials frequently exploited by threat actors.
This blog dives into three instances of compromise within a Darktrace customer’s Azure and AWS environment which Darktrace.
The first incident took place in early 2024 and involved an attacker compromising a legitimate user account to gain unauthorized access to a customer’s Azure environment.
The other two incidents, taking place in February and March 2025, targeted AWS environments. In these cases, threat actors exfiltrated corporate data, and in one instance, was able to detonate ransomware in a customer’s environment.
Case 1 - Microsoft Azure
Figure 1: Simplified timeline of the attack on a customer’s Azure environment.
In early 2024, Darktrace identified a cloud compromise on the Azure cloud environment of a customer in the Europe, the Middle East and Africa (EMEA) region.
Initial access
In this case, a threat actor gained access to the customer’s cloud environment after stealing access tokens and creating a rogue virtual machine (VM). The malicious actor was found to have stolen access tokens belonging to a third-party external consultant’s account after downloading cracked software.
With these stolen tokens, the attacker was able to authenticate to the customer’s Azure environment and successfully modified a security rule to allow inbound SSH traffic from a specific IP range (i.e., securityRules/AllowCidrBlockSSHInbound). This was likely performed to ensure persistent access to internal cloud resources.
Detection and investigation of the threat
Darktrace / IDENTITY recognized that this activity was highly unusual, triggering the “Repeated Unusual SaaS Resource Creation” alert.
Cyber AI Analyst launched an autonomous investigation into additional suspicious cloud activities occurring around the same time from the same unusual location, correlating the individual events into a broader account hijack incident.
Figure 2: Cyber AI Analyst’s investigation into unusual cloud activity performed by the compromised account.
Figure 3: Surrounding resource creation events highlighted by Cyber AI Analyst.
Figure 4: Surrounding resource creation events highlighted by Cyber AI Analyst.
“Create resource service limit” events typically indicate the creation or modification of service limits (i.e., quotas) for a specific Azure resource type within a region. Meanwhile, “Registers the Capacity Resource Provider” events refer to the registration of the Microsoft Capacity resource provider within an Azure subscription, responsible for managing capacity-related resources, particularly those related to reservations and service limits. These events suggest that the threat actor was looking to create new cloud resources within the environment.
Around ten minutes later, Darktrace detected the threat actor creating or modifying an Azure disk associated with a virtual machine (VM), suggesting an attempt to create a rogue VM within the environment.
Threat actors can leverage such rogue VMs to hijack computing resources (e.g., by running cryptomining malware), maintain persistent access, move laterally within the cloud environment, communicate with command-and-control (C2) infrastructure, and stealthily deliver and deploy malware.
Persistence
Several weeks later, the compromised account was observed sending an invitation to collaborate to an external free mail (Google Mail) address.
Darktrace deemed this activity as highly anomalous, triggering a compliance alert for the customer to review and investigate further.
The next day, the threat actor further registered new multi-factor authentication (MFA) information. These actions were likely intended to maintain access to the compromised user account. The customer later confirmed this activity by reviewing the corresponding event logs within Darktrace.
Case 2 – Amazon Web Services
Figure 5: Simplified timeline of the attack on a customer’s AWS environment
In February 2025, another cloud-based compromised was observed on a UK-based customer subscribed to Darktrace’s Managed Detection and Response (MDR) service.
How the attacker gained access
The threat actor was observed leveraging likely previously compromised credential to access several AWS instances within customer’s Private Cloud environment and collecting and exfiltrating data, likely with the intention of deploying ransomware and holding the data for ransom.
Darktrace alerting to malicious activity
This observed activity triggered a number of alerts in Darktrace, including several high-priority Enhanced Monitoring alerts, which were promptly investigated by Darktrace’s Security Operations Centre (SOC) and raised to the customer’s security team.
The earliest signs of attack observed by Darktrace involved the use of two likely compromised credentials to connect to the customer’s Virtual Private Network (VPN) environment.
Internal reconnaissance
Once inside, the threat actor performed internal reconnaissance activities and staged the Rclone tool “ProgramData\rclone-v1.69.0-windows-amd64.zip”, a command-line program to sync files and directories to and from different cloud storage providers, to an AWS instance whose hostname is associated with a public key infrastructure (PKI) service.
The threat actor was further observed accessing and downloading multiple files hosted on an AWS file server instance, notably finance and investment-related files. This likely represented data gathering prior to exfiltration.
Shortly after, the PKI-related EC2 instance started making SSH connections with the Rclone SSH client “SSH-2.0-rclone/v1.69.0” to a RockHoster Virtual Private Server (VPS) endpoint (193.242.184[.]178), suggesting the threat actor was exfiltrating the gathered data using the Rclone utility they had previously installed. The PKI instance continued to make repeated SSH connections attempts to transfer data to this external destination.
Darktrace’s Autonomous Response
In response to this activity, Darktrace’s Autonomous Response capability intervened, blocking unusual external connectivity to the C2 server via SSH, effectively stopping the exfiltration of data.
This activity was further investigated by Darktrace’s SOC analysts as part of the MDR service. The team elected to extend the autonomously applied actions to ensure the compromise remained contained until the customer could fully remediate the incident.
Continued reconissance
Around the same time, the threat actor continued to conduct network scans using the Nmap tool, operating from both a separate AWS domain controller instance and a newly joined device on the network. These actions were accompanied by further internal data gathering activities, with around 5 GB of data downloaded from an AWS file server.
The two devices involved in reconnaissance activities were investigated and actioned by Darktrace SOC analysts after additional Enhanced Monitoring alerts had triggered.
Lateral movement attempts via RDP connections
Unusual internal RDP connections to a likely AWS printer instance indicated that the threat actor was looking to strengthen their foothold within the environment and/or attempting to pivot to other devices, likely in response to being hindered by Autonomous Response actions.
This triggered multiple scanning, internal data transfer and unusual RDP alerts in Darktrace, as well as additional Autonomous Response actions to block the suspicious activity.
Suspicious outbound SSH communication to known threat infrastructure
Darktrace subsequently observed the AWS printer instance initiating SSH communication with a rare external endpoint associated with the web hosting and VPS provider Host Department (67.217.57[.]252), suggesting that the threat actor was attempting to exfiltrate data to an alternative endpoint after connections to the original destination had been blocked.
Further investigation using open-source intelligence (OSINT) revealed that this IP address had previously been observed in connection with SSH-based data exfiltration activity during an Akira ransomware intrusion [1].
Once again, connections to this IP were blocked by Darktrace’s Autonomous Response and subsequently these blocks were extended by Darktrace’s SOC team.
The above behavior generated multiple Enhanced Monitoring alerts that were investigated by Darktrace SOC analysts as part of the Managed Threat Detection service.
Figure 5: Enhanced Monitoring alerts investigated by SOC analysts as part of the Managed Detection and Response service.
Final containment and collaborative response
Upon investigating the unusual scanning activity, outbound SSH connections, and internal data transfers, Darktrace analysts extended the Autonomous Response actions previously triggered on the compromised devices.
As the threat actor was leveraging these systems for data exfiltration, all outgoing traffic from the affected devices was blocked for an additional 24 hours to provide the customer’s security team with time to investigate and remediate the compromise.
Additional investigative support was provided by Darktrace analysts through the Security Operations Service, after the customer's opened of a ticket related to the unfolding incident.
Figure 8: Simplified timeline of the attack
Around the same time of the compromise in Case 2, Darktrace observed a similar incident on the cloud environment of a different customer.
Initial access
On this occasion, the threat actor appeared to have gained entry into the AWS-based Virtual Private Cloud (VPC) networkvia a SonicWall SMA 500v EC2 instance allowing inbound traffic on any port.
The instance received HTTPS connections from three rare Vultr VPS endpoints (i.e., 45.32.205[.]52, 207.246.74[.]166, 45.32.90[.]176).
Lateral movement and exfiltration
Around the same time, the EC2 instance started scanning the environment and attempted to pivot to other internal systems via RDP, notably a DC EC2 instance, which also started scanning the network, and another EC2 instance.
The latter then proceeded to transfer more than 230 GB of data to the rare external GTHost VPS endpoint 23.150.248[.]189, while downloading hundreds of GBs of data over SMB from another EC2 instance.
Figure 7: Cyber AI Analyst incident generated following the unusual scanning and RDP connections from the initial compromised device.
The same behavior was replicated across multiple EC2 instances, whereby compromised instances uploaded data over internal RDP connections to other instances, which then started transferring data to the same GTHost VPS endpoint over port 5000, which is typically used for Universal Plug and Play (UPnP).
What Darktrace detected
Darktrace observed the threat actor uploading a total of 718 GB to the external endpoint, after which they detonated ransomware within the compromised VPC networks.
This activity generated nine Enhanced Monitoring alerts in Darktrace, focusing on the scanning and external data activity, with the earliest of those alerts triggering around one hour after the initial intrusion.
Darktrace’s Autonomous Response capability was not configured to act on these devices. Therefore, the malicious activity was not autonomously blocked and escalated to the point of ransomware detonation.
Conclusion
This blog examined three real-world compromises in customer cloud environments each illustrating different stages in the attack lifecycle.
The first case showcased a notable progression from a SaaS compromise to a full cloud intrusion, emphasizing the critical role of anomaly detection when legitimate credentials are abused.
The latter two incidents demonstrated that while early detection is vital, the ability to autonomously block malicious activity at machine speed is often the most effective way to contain threats before they escalate.
Together, these incidents underscore the need for continuous visibility, behavioral analysis, and machine-speed intervention across hybrid environments. Darktrace's AI-driven detection and Autonomous Response capabilities, combined with expert oversight from its Security Operations Center, give defenders the speed and clarity they need to contain threats and reduce operational disruption, before the situation spirals.
Credit to Alexandra Sentenac (Senior Cyber Analyst) and Dylan Evans (Security Research Lead)
Top Eight Threats to SaaS Security and How to Combat Them
The latest on the identity security landscape
Following the mass adoption of remote and hybrid working patterns, more critical data than ever resides in cloud applications – from Salesforce and Google Workspace, to Box, Dropbox, and Microsoft 365.
As SaaS applications look set to remain an integral part of the digital estate, organizations are being forced to rethink how they protect their users and data in this area.
What is SaaS security?
SaaS security is the protection of cloud applications. It includes securing the apps themselves as well as the user identities that engage with them.
Below are the top eight threats that target SaaS security and user identities.
1. Account Takeover (ATO)
Attackers gain unauthorized access to a user’s SaaS or cloud account by stealing credentials through phishing, brute-force attacks, or credential stuffing. Once inside, they can exfiltrate data, send malicious emails, or escalate privileges to maintain persistent access.
2. Privilege escalation
Cybercriminals exploit misconfigurations, weak access controls, or vulnerabilities to increase their access privileges within a SaaS or cloud environment. Gaining admin or superuser rights allows attackers to disable security settings, create new accounts, or move laterally across the organization.
3. Lateral movement
Once inside a network or SaaS platform, attackers move between accounts, applications, and cloud workloads to expand their foot- hold. Compromised OAuth tokens, session hijacking, or exploited API connections can enable adversaries to escalate access and exfiltrate sensitive data.
4. Multi-Factor Authentication (MFA) bypass and session hijacking
Threat actors bypass MFA through SIM swapping, push bombing, or exploiting session cookies. By stealing an active authentication session, they can access SaaS environments without needing the original credentials or MFA approval.
5. OAuth token abuse
Attackers exploit OAuth authentication mechanisms by stealing or abusing tokens that grant persistent access to SaaS applications. This allows them to maintain access even if the original user resets their password, making detection and mitigation difficult.
6. Insider threats
Malicious or negligent insiders misuse their legitimate access to SaaS applications or cloud platforms to leak data, alter configurations, or assist external attackers. Over-provisioned accounts and poor access control policies make it easier for insiders to exploit SaaS environments.
SaaS applications rely on APIs for integration and automation, but attackers exploit insecure endpoints, excessive permissions, and unmonitored API calls to gain unauthorized access. API abuse can lead to data exfiltration, privilege escalation, and service disruption.
8. Business Email Compromise (BEC) via SaaS
Adversaries compromise SaaS-based email platforms (e.g., Microsoft 365 and Google Workspace) to send phishing emails, conduct invoice fraud, or steal sensitive communications. BEC attacks often involve financial fraud or data theft by impersonating executives or suppliers.
BEC heavily uses social engineering techniques, tailoring messages for a specific audience and context. And with the growing use of generative AI by threat actors, BEC is becoming even harder to detect. By adding ingenuity and machine speed, generative AI tools give threat actors the ability to create more personalized, targeted, and convincing attacks at scale.
Protecting against these SaaS threats
Traditionally, security leaders relied on tools that were focused on the attack, reliant on threat intelligence, and confined to a single area of the digital estate.
However, these tools have limitations, and often prove inadequate for contemporary situations, environments, and threats. For example, they may lack advanced threat detection, have limited visibility and scope, and struggle to integrate with other tools and infrastructure, especially cloud platforms.
AI-powered SaaS security stays ahead of the threat landscape
New, more effective approaches involve AI-powered defense solutions that understand the digital business, reveal subtle deviations that indicate cyber-threats, and action autonomous, targeted responses.
