Blog
/
Network
/
March 10, 2026

NetSupport RAT: How Legitimate Tools Can Be as Damaging as Malware

NetSupport RAT is the malicious abuse of the legitimate NetSupport Manager remote administration tool. Originally designed for IT support, threat actors exploit it to gain unauthorized system access, exfiltrate data, and deploy malware or info‑stealers, turning trusted functionality into a dangerous attack vector.
Written by
George Kim
Analyst Consulting Lead – AMS
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
George Kim
Analyst Consulting Lead – AMS
NetSupport RAT: How Legitimate Tools Can Be as Damaging as MalwareDefault blog imageDefault blog imageDefault blog imageDefault blog imageDefault blog imageDefault blog image
10
Mar 2026

What is NetSupport Manager?

NetSupport Manager is a legitimate IT tool used by system administrators for remote support, monitoring, and management. In use since 1989, NetSupport Manager enables users to remotely access and navigate systems across different platforms and operating systems [1].

What is NetSupport RAT?

Although NetSupport Manager is a legitimate tool that can be used by IT and security professionals, there has been a rising number of cases in which it is abused to gain unauthorized access to victim systems. This misuse has become so prevalent that, in recent years, security researchers have begun referring to NetSupport as a Remote Access Trojan (RAT), a term typically used for malware that enables a threat actor to remotely access or control an infected device [2][3][4].

NetSupport RAT activity summary

The initial stages of NetSupport RAT infection may vary depending on the source of the initial compromise. Using tactics such as the social engineering tactic ClickFix, threat actors attempt to trick users into inadvertently executing malicious PowerShell commands under the guise of resolving a non-existent issue or completing a fake CAPTCHA verification [5]. Other attack vectors such as phishing emails, fake browser updates, malicious websites, search engine optimization (SEO) poisoning, malvertising and drive-by downloads are also employed to direct users to fraudulent pages and fake reCAPTCHA verification checks, ultimately inducing them to execute malicious PowerShell commands [5][6][7]. This leads to the successful installation of NetSupport Manager on the compromised device, which is often placed in non-standard directories such as AppData, ProgramData, or Downloads [3][8].

Once installed, the adversary is able to gain remote access to the affected machine, monitor user activity, exfiltrate data, communicate with the command-and-control (C2) server, and maintain persistence [5]. External research has also highlighted that post-exploitation of NetSupport RAT has involved the additional download of malicious payloads [2][5].

Attack flow diagram highlighting key events across each phase of the attack phase
Figure 1: Attack flow diagram highlighting key events across each phase of the attack phase [2][5].

Darktrace coverage

In November of 2025, suspicious behavior indicative of the malicious abuse of NetSupport Manager was observed on multiple customers across Europe, the Middle East, and Africa (EMEA) and the Americas (AMS).

While open-source intelligence (OSINT) has reported that, in a recent campaign, a threat actor impersonated government entities to trick users in organizations in the Information Technology, Government and Financial Services sectors in Central Asia into downloading NetSupport Manager [8], approximately a third of Darktrace’s affected customers in November were based in the US while the rest were based in EMEA. This contrast underscores how widely NetSupport Manager is leveraged by threat actors and highlights its accessibility as an initial access tool.  

The Darktrace customers affected were in sectors including Information and Communication, Manufacturing and Arts, entertainment and recreation.

The ClickFix social engineering tactic typically used to distribute the NetSupport RAT is known to target multiple industries, including Technology, Manufacturing and Energy sectors [9]. It also reflects activity observed in the campaign targeting Central Asia, where the Information Technology sector was among those affected [8].

The prevalence of affected Education customers highlights NetSupport’s marketing focus on the Education sector [10]. This suggests that threat actors are also aware of this marketing strategy and have exploited the trust it creates to deploy NetSupport Manager and gain access to their targets’ systems. While the execution of the PowerShell commands that led to the installation of NetSupport Manager falls outside of Darktrace's purview in cases identified, Darktrace was still able to identify a pattern of devices making connections to multiple rare external domains and IP addresses associated with the NetSupport RAT, using a wide range of ports over the HTTP protocol. A full list of associated domains and IP addresses is provided in the Appendices of this blog.

Although OSINT identifies multiple malicious domains and IP addresses as used as C2 servers, signature-based detections of NetSupport RAT indicators of compromise (IoCs) may miss broader activity, as new malicious websites linked to the RAT continue to appear.

Darktrace’s anomaly‑based approach allows it to establish a normal ‘pattern of life’ for each device on a network and identify when behavior deviates from this baseline, enabling the detection of unusual activity even when it does not match known IoCs or tactics, techniques and procedures (TTPs).

In one customer environment in late 2025, Darktrace / NETWORK detected a device initiating new connections to the rare external endpoint, thetavaluemetrics[.]com (74.91.125[.]57), along with the use of a previously unseen user agent, which it recognized as highly unusual for the network.

Darktrace’s detection of HTTP POST requests to a suspicious URI and new user agent usage.
Figure 2: Darktrace’s detection of HTTP POST requests to a suspicious URI and new user agent usage.

Darktrace identified that user agent present in connections to this endpoint was the ‘NetSupport Manager/1.3’, initially suggesting legitimate NetSupport Manager activity. Subsequent investigation, however, revealed that the endpoint was in fact a malicious NetSupportRAT C2 endpoint [12]. Shortly after, Darktrace detected the same device performing HTTP POST requests to the URI fakeurl[.]htm. This pattern of activity is consistent with OSINT reporting that details communication between compromised devices and NetSupport Connectivity Gateways functioning as C2 servers [11].

Conclusion

As seen not only with NetSupport Manager but with any legitimate or open‑source software used by IT and security professionals, the legitimacy of a tool does not prevent it from being abused by threat actors. Open‑source software, especially tools with free or trial versions such as NetSupport Manager, remains readily accessible for malicious use, including network compromise. In an age where remote work is still prevalent, validating any anomalous use of software and remote management tools is essential to reducing opportunities for unauthorized access.

Darktrace’s anomaly‑based detection enables security teams to identify malicious use of legitimate tools, even when clear signatures or indicators of compromise are absent, helping to prevent further impact on a network.


Credit to George Kim (Analyst Consulting Lead – AMS), Anna Gilbertson (Senior Cyber Analyst)

Edited by Ryan Traill (Analyst Content Lead)

Appendices

Darktrace Model Alerts

·       Compromise / Suspicious HTTP and Anomalous Activity

·       Compromise / New User Agent and POST

·       Device / New User Agent

·       Anomalous Connection / New User Agent to IP Without Hostname

·       Anomalous Connection / Posting HTTP to IP Without Hostname

·       Anomalous Connection / Multiple Failed Connections to Rare Endpoint

·       Anomalous Connection / Application Protocol on Uncommon Port

·       Anomalous Connection / Multiple HTTP POSTs to Rare Hostname

·       Compromise / Beaconing Activity To External Rare

·       Compromise / HTTP Beaconing to Rare Destination

·       Compromise / Agent Beacon (Medium Period)

·       Compromise / Agent Beacon (Long Period)

·       Compromise / Quick and Regular Windows HTTP Beaconing

·       Compromise / Sustained TCP Beaconing Activity To Rare Endpoint

·       Compromise / POST and Beacon to Rare External

Indicators of Compromise (IoCs)

Indicator           Type     Description

/fakeurl.htm URI            NetSupportRAT C2 URI

thetavaluemetrics[.]com        Connection hostname              NetSupportRAT C2 Endpoint

westford-systems[.]icu            Connection hostname              NetSupportRAT C2 Endpoint

holonisz[.]com                Connection hostname              NetSupportRAT C2 Endpoint

heaveydutyl[.]com      Connection hostname              NetSupportRAT C2 Endpoint

nsgatetest1[.]digital   Connection hostname              NetSupportRAT C2 Endpoint

finalnovel[.]com            Connection hostname              NetSupportRAT C2 Endpoint

217.91.235[.]17              IP             NetSupportRAT C2 Endpoint

45.94.47[.]224                 IP             NetSupportRAT C2 Endpoint

74.91.125[.]57                 IP             NetSupportRAT C2 Endpoint

88.214.27[.]48                 IP             NetSupportRAT C2 Endpoint

104.21.40[.]75                 IP             NetSupportRAT C2 Endpoint

38.146.28[.]242              IP             NetSupportRAT C2 Endpoint

185.39.19[.]233              IP             NetSupportRAT C2 Endpoint

45.88.79[.]237                 IP             NetSupportRAT C2 Endpoint

141.98.11[.]224              IP             NetSupportRAT C2 Endpoint

88.214.27[.]166              IP             NetSupportRAT C2 Endpoint

107.158.128[.]84          IP             NetSupportRAT C2 Endpoint

87.120.93[.]98                 IP             Rhadamanthys C2 Endpoint

References‍

  1. ‍https://mspalliance.com/netsupport-debuts-netsupport-24-7/
  2. https://blogs.vmware.com/security/2023/11/netsupport-rat-the-rat-king-returns.html‍
  3. https://redcanary.com/threat-detection-report/threats/netsupport-manager/ ‍
  4. https://www.elastic.co/guide/en/security/8.19/netsupport-manager-execution-from-an-unusual-path.html‍
  5. https://rewterz.com/threat-advisory/netsupport-rat-delivered-through-spoofed-verification-pages-active-iocs ‍
  6. https://thehackernews.com/2025/11/new-evalusion-clickfix-campaign.html‍
  7. https://corelight.com/blog/detecting-netsupport-manager-abuse ‍
  8. https://thehackernews.com/2025/11/bloody-wolf-expands-java-based.html‍‍
  9. https://unit42.paloaltonetworks.com/preventing-clickfix-attack-vector
  10. ‍https://www.netsupportsoftware.com/education-solutions
  11. ‍https://www.esentire.com/blog/unpacking-netsupport-rat-loaders-delivered-via-clickfix‍
  12. https://threatfox.abuse.ch/browse/malware/win.netsupportmanager_rat/
  13. ‍https://www.virustotal.com/gui/url/5fe6936a69c786c9ded9f31ed1242c601cd64e1d90cecd8a7bb03182c47906c2

‍

Written by
George Kim
Analyst Consulting Lead – AMS
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
George Kim
Analyst Consulting Lead – AMS

How a Compromised eScan Update Enabled Multi‑Stage Malware and Blockchain C2

Network
•
April 21, 2026
Joanna Ng
Associate Principal Analyst
Watch the NIS2 Webinar
Trending blogs
1
Darktrace Recognized as the Only Visionary in the 2026 Gartner® Magic Quadrant™ for CPS Protection Platforms
Mar 20, 2026
2
How Empowering End Users can Improve Your Email Security and Decrease the Burden on the SOC
May 8, 2024
3
Elevating Network Security: Confronting Trust, Ransomware, & Novel Attacks
Jun 21, 2024
4
The State of AI in Cybersecurity: Unveiling Global Insights from 1,800 Security Practitioners
Apr 9, 2024
5
The State of AI in Cybersecurity: The Impact of AI on Cybersecurity Solutions
May 13, 2024

More in this series

No items found.
Continue reading
Network
•
April 21, 2026

How a Compromised eScan Update Enabled Multi‑Stage Malware and Blockchain C2

A malicious eScan software update triggered a supply chain compromise that deployed multi‑stage malware and used blockchain‑based domains for resilient C2 communications. Darktrace identified rare, anomalous network activity across customer environments, helping organizations uncover the attack chain and strengthen defenses against increasingly sophisticated supply chain threats.
Joanna Ng
Associate Principal Analyst
Read more
Network
•
April 2, 2026

How Chinese-Nexus Cyber Operations Have Evolved – And What It Means For Cyber Risk and Resilience 

Darktrace's latest threat research reveals how Chinese-nexus cyber operations have evolved from isolated intrusions into long-term strategic positioning, with attackers prioritizing persistent access to critical infrastructure and digital ecosystems to gain lasting operational and economic advantage.
Nathaniel Jones
VP, Security & AI Strategy, Field CISO
Read more
Network
•
March 26, 2026

Phantom Footprints: Tracking GhostSocks Malware

GhostSocks is an emerging threat turning compromised devices into residential proxy nodes to help attackers evade detection. Darktrace identifies its growing use alongside Lumma Stealer, highlighting the malware’s stealth, payload delivery, and persistence. AI-driven detection and Autonomous Response reveal the full attack lifecycle and underscore the need for proactive defense.
Isabel Evans
Cyber Analyst
Read more

Blog

/

Network

/

April 21, 2026

How a Compromised eScan Update Enabled Multi‑Stage Malware and Blockchain C2

multi-stage malwareDefault blog imageDefault blog image

The rise of supply chain attacks

In recent years, the abuse of trusted software has become increasingly common, with supply chain compromises emerging as one of the fastest growing vectors for cyber intrusions. As highlighted in Darktrace’s Annual Threat Report 2026, attackers and state-actors continue to find significant value in gaining access to networks through compromised trusted links, third-party tools, or legitimate software. In January 2026, a supply chain compromise affecting MicroWorld Technologies’ eScan antivirus product was reported, with malicious updates distributed to customers through the legitimate update infrastructure. This, in turn, resulted in a multi‑stage loader malware being deployed on compromised devices [1][2].

An overview of eScan exploitation

According to eScan’s official threat advisory, unauthorized access to a regional update server resulted in an “incorrect file placed in the update distribution path” [3]. Customers associated with the affected update servers who downloaded the update during a two-hour window on January 20 were impacted, with affected Windows devices subsequently have experiencing various errors related to update functions and notifications [3].

While eScan did not specify which regional update servers were affected by the malicious update, all impacted Darktrace customer environments were located in the Europe, Middle East, and Africa (EMEA) region.

External research reported that a malicious 32-bit executable file , “Reload.exe”, was first installed on affected devices, which then dropped the 64-bit downloader, “CONSCTLX.exe”. This downloader establishes persistence by creating scheduled tasks such as “CorelDefrag”, which are responsible for executing PowerShell scripts. Subsequently, it evades detection by tampering with the Windows HOSTS file and eScan registry to prevent future remote updates intended for remediation. Additional payloads are then downloaded from its command-and-control (C2) server [1].

Darktrace’s coverage of eScan exploitation

Initial Access and Blockchain as multi-distributed C2 Infrastructure

On January 20, the same day as the aforementioned two‑hour exploit window, Darktrace observed multiple devices across affected networks downloading .dlz package files from eScan update servers, followed by connections to an anomalous endpoint, vhs.delrosal[.]net, which belongs to the attackers’ C2 infrastructure.

The endpoint contained a self‑signed SSL certificate with the string “O=Internet Widgits Pty Ltd, ST=SomeState, C=AU”, a default placeholder commonly used in SSL/TLS certificates for testing and development environments, as well as in malicious C2 infrastructure [4].

Utilizing a multi‑distributed C2 infrastructure, the attackers also leveraged domains linked with the Solana open‑source blockchain for C2 purposes, namely “.sol”. These domains were human‑readable names that act as aliases for cryptocurrency wallet addresses. As browsers do not natively resolve .sol domains, the Solana Naming System (formerly known as Bonfida, an independent contributor within the Solana ecosystem) provides a proxy service, through endpoints such as sol-domain[.]org, to enable browser access.

Darktrace observed devices connecting to blackice.sol-domain[.]org, indicating that attackers were likely using this proxy to reach a .sol domain for C2 activity. Given this behavior, it is likely that the attackers leveraged .sol domains as a dead drop resolver, a C2 technique in which threat actors host information on a public and legitimate service, such as a blockchain. Additional proxy resolver endpoints, such as sns-resolver.bonfida.workers[.]dev, were also observed.

Solana transactions are transparent, allowing all activity to be viewed publicly. When Darktrace analysts examined the transactions associated with blackice[.]sol, they observed that the earliest records dated November 7, 2025, which coincides with the creation date of the known C2 endpoint vhs[.]delrosal[.]net as shown in WHOIS Lookup information [4][5].

WHOIS Look records of the C2 endpoint vhs[.]delrosal[.]net.
Figure 1: WHOIS Look records of the C2 endpoint vhs[.]delrosal[.]net.
Earliest observed transaction record for blackice[.]sol on public ledgers.
Figure 2: Earliest observed transaction record for blackice[.]sol on public ledgers.

Subsequent instructions found within the transactions contained strings such as “CNAME= vhs[.]delrosal[.]net”, indicating attempts to direct the device toward the malicious endpoint. A more recent transaction recorded on January 28 included strings such as “hxxps://96.9.125[.]243/i;code=302”, suggesting an effort to change C2 endpoints. Darktrace observed multiple alerts triggered for these endpoints across affected devices.

Similar blockchain‑related endpoints, such as “tumama.hns[.]to”, were also observed in C2 activities. The hns[.]to service allows web browsers to access websites registered on Handshake, a decentralized blockchain‑based framework designed to replace centralized authorities and domain registries for top‑level domains. This shift toward decentralized, blockchain‑based infrastructure likely reflects increased efforts by attackers to evade detection.

In outgoing connections to these malicious endpoints across affected networks, Darktrace / NETWORK recognized that the activity was 100% rare and anomalous for both the devices and the wider networks, likely indicative of malicious beaconing, regardless of the underlying trusted infrastructure. In addition to generating multiple model alerts to capture this malicious activity across affected networks, Darktrace’s Cyber AI Analyst was able to compile these separate events into broader incidents that summarized the entire attack chain, allowing customers’ security teams to investigate and remediate more efficiently. Moreover, in customer environments where Darktrace’s Autonomous Response capability was enabled, Darktrace took swift action to contain the attack by blocking beaconing connections to the malicious endpoints, even when those endpoints were associated with seemingly trustworthy services.

Conclusion

Attacks targeting trusted relationships continue to be a popular strategy among threat actors. Activities linked to trusted or widely deployed software are often unintentionally whitelisted by existing security solutions and gateways. Darktrace observed multiple devices becoming impacted within a very short period, likely because tools such as antivirus software are typically mass‑deployed across numerous endpoints. As a result, a single compromised delivery mechanism can greatly expand the attack surface.

Attackers are also becoming increasingly creative in developing resilient C2 infrastructure and exploiting legitimate services to evade detection. Defenders are therefore encouraged to closely monitor anomalous connections and file downloads. Darktrace’s ability to detect unusual activity amidst ever‑changing tactics and indicators of compromise (IoCs) helps organizations maintain a proactive and resilient defense posture against emerging threats.

Credit to Joanna Ng (Associate Principal Cybersecurity Analyst) and Min Kim (Associate Principal Cybersecurity Analyst) and Tara Gould (Malware Researcher Lead)

Edited by Ryan Traill (Content Manager)

Appendices

Darktrace Model Detections

  • Anomalous File::Zip or Gzip from Rare External Location
  • Anomalous Connection / Suspicious Self-Signed SSL
  • Anomalous Connection / Rare External SSL Self-Signed
  • Anomalous Connection / Suspicious Expired SSL
  • Anomalous Server Activity / Anomalous External Activity from Critical Network Device

List of Indicators of Compromise (IoCs)

  • vhs[.]delrosal[.]net – C2 server
  • tumama[.]hns[.]to – C2 server
  • blackice.sol-domain[.]org – C2 server
  • 96.9.125[.]243 – C2 Server

MITRE ATT&CK Mapping

  • T1071.001 - Command and Control: Web Protocols
  • T1588.001 - Resource Development
  • T1102.001 - Web Service: Dead Drop Resolver
  • T1195 – Supple Chain Compromise

References

[1] https://www.morphisec.com/blog/critical-escan-threat-bulletin/

[2] https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/escan-confirms-update-server-breached-to-push-malicious-update/

[3] hxxps://download1.mwti.net/documents/Advisory/eScan_Security_Advisory_2026[.]pdf

[4] https://www.virustotal.com/gui/domain/delrosal.net

[5] hxxps://explorer.solana[.]com/address/2wFAbYHNw4ewBHBJzmDgDhCXYoFjJnpbdmeWjZvevaVv

Continue reading
About the author
Joanna Ng
Associate Principal Analyst

Blog

/

/

April 17, 2026

Why Behavioral AI Is the Answer to Mythos

mythos behavioral aiDefault blog imageDefault blog image

How AI is breaking the patch-and-prevent security model

The business world was upended last week by the news that Anthropic has developed a powerful new AI model, Claude Mythos, which poses unprecedented risk because of its ability to expose flaws in IT systems.  

Whether it’s Mythos or OpenAI’s GPT-5.4-Cyber, which was just announced on Tuesday, supercharged AI models in the hands of hackers will allow them to carry out attacks at machine speed, much faster than most businesses can stop them.  

This news underscores a stark reality for all leaders: Patching holes alone is not a sufficient control against modern cyberattacks. You must assume that your software is already vulnerable right now. And while LLMs are very good at spotting vulnerabilities, they’re pretty bad at reliably patching them.

Project Glasswing members say it could take months or years for patches to be applied. While that work is done, enterprises must be protected against Zero-Day attacks, or security holes that are still undiscovered.  

Most cybersecurity strategies today are built like a daily multivitamin: broad, preventative, and designed to keep the system generally healthy over time. Patch regularly. Update software. Reduce known vulnerabilities. It’s necessary, disciplined, and foundational. But it’s also built for a world where the risks are well known and defined, cycles are predictable, and exposure unfolds at a manageable pace.

What happens when that model no longer holds?

The AI cyber advantage: Behavioral AI

The vulnerabilities exposed by AI systems like Mythos aren’t the well-understood risks your “multivitamin” was designed to address. They are transient, fast-emerging entry points that exist just long enough to be exploited.

In that environment, prevention alone isn’t enough. You don’t need more vitamins—you need a painkiller. The future of cybersecurity won’t be defined by how well you maintain baseline health. It will be defined by how quickly you respond when something breaks and every second counts.

That’s why behavioral AI gives businesses a durable cyber advantage. Rather than trying to figure out what the attacker looks like, it learns what “normal” looks like across the digital ecosystem of each individual business.  

That’s exactly how behavioral AI works. It understands the self, or what's normal for the organization, and then it can spot deviations in from normal that are actually early-stage attacks.

The Darktrace approach to cybersecurity

At Darktrace, we’ve been defending our 10,000 customers using behavioral AI cybersecurity developed in our AI Research Centre in Cambridge, U.K.

Darktrace was built on the understanding that attacks do not arrive neatly labeled, and that the most damaging threats often emerge before signatures, indicators, or public disclosures can catch up.  

Our AI algorithms learn in real time from your personalized business data to learn what’s normal for every person and every asset, and the flows of data within your organization. By continuously understanding “normal” across your entire digital ecosystem, Darktrace identifies and contains threats emerging from unknown vulnerabilities and compromised supply chain dependencies, autonomously curtailing attacks at machine speed.  

Security for novel threats

Darktrace is built for a world where AI is not just accelerating attacks, but fundamentally reshaping how they originate. What makes our AI so unique is that it's proven time and again to identify cyber threats before public vulnerability disclosures, such as critical Ivanti vulnerabilities in 2025 and SAP NetWeaver exploitations tied to nation-state threat actors.  

As AI reshapes how vulnerabilities are found and exploited, cybersecurity must be anchored in something more durable than a list of known flaws. It requires a real-time understanding of the business itself: what belongs, what does not, and what must be stopped immediately.

What leaders should do right now

The leadership priority must shift accordingly.

First, stop treating unknown vulnerabilities as an edge case. AI‑driven discovery makes them the norm. Security programs built primarily around known flaws, signatures, and threat intelligence will always lag behind an attacker that is operating in real time.

Second, insist on an understanding of what is actually normal across the business. When threats are novel, labels are useless. The earliest and most reliable signal of danger is abnormal behavior—systems, users, or data flows that suddenly depart from what is expected. If you cannot see that deviation as it happens, you are effectively blind during the most critical window.

Finally, assume that the next serious incident will occur before remediation guidance is available. Ask what happens in those first minutes and hours. The organizations that maintain resilience are not the ones waiting for disclosure cycles to catch up—they are the ones that can autonomously identify and contain emerging threats as they unfold.

This is the reality of cybersecurity in an AI‑shaped world. Patching and prevention remain important foundations, but the advantage now belongs to those who can respond instantly when the unpredictable occurs.

Behavioral AI is security designed not just for known threats, but for the ones that AI will discover next.

[related-resource]

Continue reading
About the author
Ed Jennings
President and CEO
Your data. Our AI.
Elevate your network security with Darktrace AI