April 30, 2024

Detecting Attacks Across Email, SaaS, and Network Environments with Darktrace’s ActiveAI Security Platform

This blog explores how Darktrace’s combined AI approach enabled it to identify and connect an attack that took place over three critical areas of a customer’s digital environment, namely email, SaaS and network.

Written by

Zoe Tilsiter

Cyber Analyst

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

Zoe Tilsiter

Cyber Analyst

Apr 2024

The State of AI in Cybersecurity

In a recent survey outlined in Darktrace’s State of AI Cyber Security whitepaper, 95% of cyber security professionals agree that AI-powered security solutions will improve their organization’s detection of cyber-threats [1]. Crucially, a combination of multiple AI methods is the most effective to improve cybersecurity; improving threat detection, accelerating threat investigation and response, and providing visibility across an organization’s digital environment.

In March 2024, Darktrace’s AI-led security platform was able to detect suspicious activity affecting a customer’s email, Software-as-a-Service (SaaS), and network environments, whilst its applied supervised learning capability, Cyber AI Analyst, autonomously correlated and connected all of these events together in one single incident, explained concisely using natural language processing.

Attack Overview

Following an initial email attack vector, an attacker logged into a compromised SaaS user account from the Netherlands, changed inbox rules, and leveraged the account to send thousands of phishing emails to internal and external users. Internal users fell victim to the emails by clicking on contained suspicious links that redirected them to newly registered suspicious domains hosted on same IP address as the hijacked SaaS account login. This activity triggered multiple alerts in Darktrace DETECT™ on both the network and SaaS side, all of which were correlated into one Cyber AI Analyst incident.

In this instance, Darktrace RESPOND™ was not active on any of the customer’s environments, meaning the compromise was able to escalate until their security team acted on the alerts raised by DETECT. Had RESPOND been enabled at the time of the attack, it would have been able to apply swift actions to contain the attack by blocking connections to suspicious endpoints on the network side and disabling users deviating from their normal behavior on the customer’s SaaS environment.

Nevertheless, thanks to DETECT and Cyber AI Analyst, Darktrace was able to provide comprehensive visibility across the customer’s three digital estate environments, decreasing both investigation and response time which enabled them to quickly enact remediation during the attack. This highlights the crucial role that Darktrace’s combined AI approach can play in anomaly detection cyber defense

Attack Details & Darktrace Coverage

1. Email: the initial attack vector

The initial attack vector was likely email, as on March 18, 2024, Darktrace observed a user device making several connections to the email provider “zixmail[.]net”, shortly before it connected to the first suspicious domain. Darktrace/Email identified multiple unusual inbound emails from an unknown sender that contained a suspicious link. Darktrace recognized these emails as potentially malicious and locked the link, ensuring that recipients could not directly click it.

‍

Figure 1: Suspected initial compromise email from an unknown sender, containing a suspicious link, which was locked by Darktrace/Email.

2. Escalation to Network

Later that day, despite Darktrace/Email having locked the link in the suspicious email, the user proceeded to click on it and was directed to a suspicious external location, namely “rz8js7sjbef[.]latovafineart[.]life”, which triggered the Darktrace/Network DETECT model “Suspicious Domain”. Darktrace/Email was able to identify that this domain had only been registered 4 days before this activity and was hosted on an IP address based in the Netherlands, 193.222.96[.]9.

3. SaaS Account Hijack

Just one minute later, Darktrace/Apps observed the user’s Microsoft 365 account logging into the network from the same IP address. Darktrace understood that this represented unusual SaaS activity for this user, who had only previously logged into the customer’s SaaS environment from the US, triggering the “Unusual External Source for SaaS Credential Use” model.

4. SaaS Account Updates

A day later, Darktrace identified an unusual administrative change on the user’s Microsoft 365 account. After logging into the account, the threat actor was observed setting up a new multi-factor authentication (MFA) method on Microsoft Authenticator, namely requiring a 6-digit code to authenticate. Darktrace understood that this authentication method was different to the methods previously used on this account; this, coupled with the unusual login location, triggered the “Unusual Login and Account Update” DETECT model.

5. Obfuscation Email Rule

On March 20, Darktrace detected the threat actor creating a new email rule, named “…”, on the affected account. Attackers are typically known to use ambiguous or obscure names when creating new email rules in order to evade the detection of security teams and endpoints users.

The parameters for the email rule were:

“AlwaysDeleteOutlookRulesBlob: False, Force: False, MoveToFolder: RSS Feeds, Name: ..., MarkAsRead: True, StopProcessingRules: True.”

This rule was seemingly created with the intention of obfuscating the sending of malicious emails, as the rule would move sent emails to the "RSS Feeds” folder, a commonly used tactic by attackers as the folder is often left unchecked by endpoint users. Interestingly, Darktrace identified that, despite the initial unusual login coming from the Netherlands, the email rule was created from a different destination IP, indicating that the attacker was using a Virtual Private Network (VPN) after gaining a foothold in the network.

Figure 2: Hijacked SaaS account making an anomalous login from the unusual Netherlands-based IP, before creating a new email rule.

6. Outbound Phishing Emails Sent

Later that day, the attacker was observed using the compromised customer account to send out numerous phishing emails to both internal and external recipients. Darktrace/Email detected a significant spike in inbound emails on the compromised account, with the account receiving bounce back emails or replies in response to the phishing emails. Darktrace further identified that the phishing emails contained a malicious DocSend link hidden behind the text “Click Here”, falsely claiming to be a link to the presentation platform Prezi.

Figure 3: Darktrace/Email detected that the DocSend link displayed via text “Click Here”, was embedded in a Prezi link.

7. Suspicious Domains and Redirects

After the phishing emails were sent, multiple other internal users accessed the DocSend link, which directed them to another suspicious domain, “thecalebgroup[.]top”, which had been registered on the same day and was hosted on the aforementioned Netherlands-based IP, 193.222.96[.]91. At the time of the attack, this domain had not been reported by any open-source intelligence (OSINT), but it has since been flagged as malicious by multiple vendors [2].

Figure 4: External Sites Summary showing the suspicious domain that had never previously been seen on the network. A total of 11 “Suspicious Domain” models were triggered in response to this activity.

8. Cyber AI Analyst’s Investigation

As this attack was unfolding, Darktrace’s Cyber AI Analyst was able to autonomously investigate the events, correlating them into one wider incident and continually adding a total of 14 new events to the incident as more users fell victim to the phishing links.

Cyber AI Analyst successfully weaved together the initial suspicious domain accessed in the initial email attack vector (Figure 5), the hijack of the SaaS account from the Netherlands IP (Figure 6), and the connection to the suspicious redirect link (Figure 7). Cyber AI Analyst was also able to uncover other related activity that took place at the time, including a potential attempt to exfiltrate data out of the customer’s network.

By autonomously analyzing the thousands of connections taking place on a network at any given time, Darktrace’s Cyber AI Analyst is able to detect seemingly separate anomalous events and link them together in one incident. This not only provides organizations with full visibility over potential compromises on their networks, but also saves their security teams precious time ensuring they can quickly scope out the ongoing incident and begin remediation.

Figure 5: Cyber AI Analyst correlated the attack’s sequence, starting with the initial suspicious domain accessed in the initial email attack vector.

Figure 6: As the attack progressed, Cyber AI Analyst correlated and appended additional events to the same incident, including the SaaS account hijack from the Netherlands-based IP.

Figure 7: Cyber AI Analyst correlated and appended additional events to the same incident, including additional users connecting to the suspicious redirect link following the outbound phishing emails being sent.

Conclusion

In this scenario, Darktrace demonstrated its ability to detect and correlate suspicious activities across three critical areas of a customer’s digital environment: email, SaaS, and network.

It is essential that cyber defenders not only adopt AI but use a combination of AI technology capable of learning and understanding the context of an organization’s entire digital infrastructure. Darktrace’s anomaly-based approach to threat detection allows it to identify subtle deviations from the expected behavior in network devices and SaaS users, indicating potential compromise. Meanwhile, Cyber AI Analyst dynamically correlates related events during an ongoing attack, providing organizations and their security teams with the information needed to respond and remediate effectively.

Credit to Zoe Tilsiter, Analyst Consulting Lead (EMEA), Brianna Leddy, Director of Analysis

Appendices

References

[1] https://darktrace.com/state-of-ai-cyber-security

[2] https://www.virustotal.com/gui/domain/thecalebgroup.top

Darktrace DETECT Model Coverage

SaaS Models

- SaaS / Access / Unusual External Source for SaaS Credential Use

- SaaS / Compromise / Unusual Login and Account Update

- SaaS / Compliance / Anomalous New Email Rule

- SaaS / Compromise / Unusual Login and New Email Rule

Network Models

- Device / Suspicious Domain

- Multiple Device Correlations / Multiple Devices Breaching Same Model

Cyber AI Analyst Incidents

- Possible Hijack of Office365 Account

- Possible SSL Command and Control

Indicators of Compromise (IoCs)

IoC – Type – Description

193.222.96[.]91 – IP – Unusual Login Source

thecalebgroup[.]top – Domain – Possible C2 Endpoint

rz8js7sjbef[.]latovafineart[.]life – Domain – Possible C2 Endpoint

https://docsend[.]com/view/vcdmsmjcskw69jh9 - Domain - Phishing Link

Written by

Zoe Tilsiter

Cyber Analyst

Inside the SOC

Written by

Zoe Tilsiter

Cyber Analyst

The Darktrace Community

Watch the NIS2 Webinar

Blog

July 1, 2025

Pre-CVE Threat Detection: 8 Examples Identifying Malicious Activity Prior to Public Disclosure of a Vulnerability

Can you detect cyber threats before the world knows about them?

Every year, tens of thousands of Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures (CVEs) are disclosed, over 40,000 in 2024 alone [1], and a predicted higher number for 2025 by the Forum for Incident Response and Security Teams (FIRST).

However, cybercriminals don't wait for disclosure. They exploit zero-days while defenders remain in the dark.

Traditional, signature-based tools struggle to detect these early-stage threats. That’s why anomaly detection is becoming essential for organizations seeking pre-CVE detection.

Understanding the gap between zero-day attacks and public CVE disclosure

When a vulnerability is discovered, the standard practice is to report it to the vendor or the responsible organization, allowing them to develop and distribute a patch or fix before the details are made public. This is known as responsible disclosure.

The gap between exploitation of a zero-day and the disclosure of the vulnerability can sometimes be considerable, and retroactively attempting to identify successful exploitation on your network can be challenging, particularly if taking a signature-based approach.

However, abnormal behaviors in networks or systems, such as unusual login patterns or data transfers, can indicate attempted cyber-attacks, insider threats, or compromised systems.

Detecting threats without relying on CVE disclosure

Since Darktrace does not rely on rules or signatures, it can detect malicious activity that is anomalous even without full context of the specific device or asset in question.

For example, during the Fortinet exploitation late last year, the Darktrace Threat Research team were investigating a different Fortinet vulnerability, namely CVE 2024-23113, for exploitation when Mandiant released a security advisory around CVE 2024-47575, which aligned closely with Darktrace’s findings.

Retrospective analysis like this is used by Darktrace’s threat researchers to better understand detections across the threat landscape and to add additional context.

Below are eight examples from the past year where Darktrace detected malicious activity days or even weeks before a vulnerability was publicly disclosed.

ten examples from the past year where Darktrace detected malicious activity days or even weeks before a vulnerability was publicly disclosed.

Trends in pre-cve exploitation

The attack vs. patch race

In many cases, the disclosure of an exploited vulnerability can be off the back of an incident response investigation related to a compromise by an advanced threat actor using a zero-day. Once the vulnerability is registered and publicly disclosed as having been exploited, it can kick off a race between the attacker and defender.

Skilled nation-state actors

Nation-state actors, highly skilled with significant resources, are known to use a range of capabilities to achieve their target, including zero-day use. Often, pre-CVE activity is “low and slow”, last for months with high operational security.

After CVE disclosure, the barriers to entry lower, allowing less skilled and less resourced attackers, like some ransomware gangs, to exploit the vulnerability and cause harm. This is why two distinct types of activity are often seen: pre and post disclosure of an exploited vulnerability.

Examples of exploitation

Darktrace saw this consistent story line play out during several of the Fortinet and PAN OS threat actor campaigns highlighted above last year, where nation-state actors were seen exploiting vulnerabilities first, followed by ransomware gangs impacting organizations [2].

The same applies with the recent SAP Netweaver exploitations being tied to a China based threat actor earlier this spring with subsequent ransomware incidents being observed [3].

You spotted the anomaly but did you stop the breach?

Anomaly-based detection offers the benefit of identifying malicious activity even before a CVE is disclosed; however, security teams still need to quickly contain and isolate the activity.

For example, during the Ivanti chaining exploitation in the early part of 2025, a customer had Darktrace’s Autonomous Response capability enabled on their network. As a result, Darktrace was able to contain the compromise and shut down any ongoing suspicious connectivity by blocking internal connections and enforcing a “pattern of life” on the affected device.

This pre-CVE detection and response by Darktrace occurred 11 days before any public disclosure, demonstrating the value of an anomaly-based approach.

In some cases, customers have even reported that Darktrace stopped malicious exploitation of devices several days before a public disclosure of a vulnerability.

For example, During the ConnectWise exploitation, a customer informed the team that Darktrace had detected malicious software being installed via remote access. Upon further investigation, four servers were found to be impacted, while Autonomous Response had blocked outbound connections and enforced patterns of life on impacted devices.

Conclusion

By continuously analyzing behavioral patterns, systems can spot unusual activities and patterns from users, systems, and networks to detect anomalies that could signify a security breach.

Through ongoing monitoring and learning from these behaviors, anomaly-based security systems can detect threats that traditional signature-based solutions might miss, while also providing detailed insights into threat tactics, techniques, and procedures (TTPs). This type of behavioral intelligence supports pre-CVE detection, allows for a more adaptive security posture, and enables systems to evolve with the ever-changing threat landscape.

Credit to Nathaniel Jones (VP, Security & AI Strategy, Field CISO), Emma Fougler (Global Threat Research Operations Lead), Ryan Traill (Analyst Content Lead)

References and further reading:

Realted Darktrace blogs:

‍

*Self-reported by customer, confirmed afterwards.

**Updated January 2024 blog now reflects current findings

About the author

Blog

Network

June 27, 2025

Patch and Persist: Darktrace’s Detection of Blind Eagle (APT-C-36)

login on laptop dual factor authentication

What is Blind Eagle?

Since 2018, APT-C-36, also known as Blind Eagle, has been observed performing cyber-attacks targeting various sectors across multiple countries in Latin America, with a particular focus on Colombian organizations.

Blind Eagle characteristically targets government institutions, financial organizations, and critical infrastructure [1][2].

Attacks carried out by Blind Eagle actors typically start with a phishing email and the group have been observed utilizing various Remote Access Trojans (RAT) variants, which often have in-built methods for hiding command-and-control (C2) traffic from detection [3].

What we know about Blind Eagle from a recent campaign

Since November 2024, Blind Eagle actors have been conducting an ongoing campaign targeting Colombian organizations [1].

In this campaign, threat actors have been observed using phishing emails to deliver malicious URL links to targeted recipients, similar to the way threat actors have previously been observed exploiting CVE-2024-43451, a vulnerability in Microsoft Windows that allows the disclosure of a user’s NTLMv2 password hash upon minimal interaction with a malicious file [4].

Despite Microsoft patching this vulnerability in November 2024 [1][4], Blind Eagle actors have continued to exploit the minimal interaction mechanism, though no longer with the intent of harvesting NTLMv2 password hashes. Instead, phishing emails are sent to targets containing a malicious URL which, when clicked, initiates the download of a malicious file. This file is then triggered by minimal user interaction.

Clicking on the file triggers a WebDAV request, with a connection being made over HTTP port 80 using the user agent ‘Microsoft-WebDAV-MiniRedir/10.0.19044’. WebDAV is a transmission protocol which allows files or complete directories to be made available through the internet, and to be transmitted to devices [5]. The next stage payload is then downloaded via another WebDAV request and malware is executed on the target device.

Attackers are notified when a recipient downloads the malicious files they send, providing an insight into potential targets [1].

Darktrace’s coverage of Blind Eagle

In late February 2025, Darktrace observed activity assessed with medium confidence to be associated with Blind Eagle on the network of a customer in Colombia.

Within a period of just five hours, Darktrace / NETWORK detected a device being redirected through a rare external location, downloading multiple executable files, and ultimately exfiltrating data from the customer’s environment.

Since the customer did not have Darktrace’s Autonomous Response capability enabled on their network, no actions were taken to contain the compromise, allowing it to escalate until the customer’s security team responded to the alerts provided by Darktrace.

Darktrace observed a device on the customer’s network being directed over HTTP to a rare external IP, namely 62[.]60[.]226[.]112, which had never previously been seen in this customer’s environment and was geolocated in Germany. Multiple open-source intelligence (OSINT) providers have since linked this endpoint with phishing and malware campaigns [9].

The device then proceeded to download the executable file hxxp://62[.]60[.]226[.]112/file/3601_2042.exe.

Figure 1: Darktrace’s detection of the affected device connecting to an unusual location based in Germany.

Figure 2: Darktrace’s detection of the affected device downloading an executable file from the suspicious endpoint.

The device was then observed making unusual connections to the rare endpoint 21ene.ip-ddns[.]com and performing unusual external data activity.

This dynamic DNS endpoint allows a device to access an endpoint using a domain name in place of a changing IP address. Dynamic DNS services ensure the DNS record of a domain name is automatically updated when the IP address changes. As such, malicious actors can use these services and endpoints to dynamically establish connections to C2 infrastructure [6].

Further investigation into this dynamic endpoint using OSINT revealed multiple associations with previous likely Blind Eagle compromises, as well as Remcos malware, a RAT commonly deployed via phishing campaigns [7][8][10].

Figure 3: Darktrace’s detection of the affected device connecting to the suspicious dynamic DNS endpoint, 21ene.ip-ddns[.]com.

Shortly after this, Darktrace observed the user agent ‘Microsoft-WebDAV-MiniRedir/10.0.19045’, indicating usage of the aforementioned transmission protocol WebDAV. The device was subsequently observed connected to an endpoint associated with Github and downloading data, suggesting that the device was retrieving a malicious tool or payload. The device then began to communicate to the malicious endpoint diciembrenotasenclub[.]longmusic[.]com over the new TCP port 1512 [11].

Around this time, the device was also observed uploading data to the endpoints 21ene.ip-ddns[.]com and diciembrenotasenclub[.]longmusic[.]com, with transfers of 60 MiB and 5.6 MiB observed respectively.

Figure 4: UI graph showing external data transfer activity.

This chain of activity triggered an Enhanced Monitoring model alert in Darktrace / NETWORK. These high-priority model alerts are designed to trigger in response to higher fidelity indicators of compromise (IoCs), suggesting that a device is performing activity consistent with a compromise.

Figure 5: Darktrace’s detection of initial attack chain activity.

A second Enhanced Monitoring model was also triggered by this device following the download of the aforementioned executable file (hxxp://62[.]60[.]226[.]112/file/3601_2042.exe) and the observed increase in C2 activity.

Following this activity, Darktrace continued to observe the device beaconing to the 21ene.ip-ddns[.]com endpoint.

Darktrace’s Cyber AI Analyst was able to correlate each of the individual detections involved in this compromise, identifying them as part of a broader incident that encompassed C2 connectivity, suspicious downloads, and external data transfers.

Figure 6: Cyber AI Analyst’s investigation into the activity observed on the affected device.

Figure 7: Cyber AI Analyst’s detection of the affected device’s broader connectivity throughout the course of the attack.

As the affected customer did not have Darktrace’s Autonomous Response configured at the time, the attack was able to progress unabated. Had Darktrace been properly enabled, it would have been able to take a number of actions to halt the escalation of the attack.

For example, the unusual beaconing connections and the download of an unexpected file from an uncommon location would have been shut down by blocking the device from making external connections to the relevant destinations.

Conclusion

The persistence of Blind Eagle and ability to adapt its tactics, even after patches were released, and the speed at which the group were able to continue using pre-established TTPs highlights that timely vulnerability management and patch application, while essential, is not a standalone defense.

Organizations must adopt security solutions that use anomaly-based detection to identify emerging and adapting threats by recognizing deviations in user or device behavior that may indicate malicious activity. Complementing this with an autonomous decision maker that can identify, connect, and contain compromise-like activity is crucial for safeguarding organizational networks against constantly evolving and sophisticated threat actors.

Credit to Charlotte Thompson (Senior Cyber Analyst), Eugene Chua (Principal Cyber Analyst) and Ryan Traill (Analyst Content Lead)

Appendices

IoCs

IoC – Type - Confidence
Microsoft-WebDAV-MiniRedir/10.0.19045 – User Agent

62[.]60[.]226[.]112 – IP – Medium Confidence

hxxp://62[.]60[.]226[.]112/file/3601_2042.exe – Payload Download – Medium Confidence

21ene.ip-ddns[.]com – Dynamic DNS Endpoint – Medium Confidence

diciembrenotasenclub[.]longmusic[.]com - Hostname – Medium Confidence

Darktrace’s model alert coverage

Anomalous File / Suspicious HTTP Redirect
Anomalous File / EXE from Rare External Location
Anomalous File / Multiple EXE from Rare External Location
Anomalous Server Activity / Outgoing from Server
Unusual Activity / Unusual External Data to New Endpoint
Device / Anomalous Github Download
Anomalous Connection / Multiple Connections to New External TCP Port
Device / Initial Attack Chain Activity
Anomalous Server Activity / Rare External from Server
Compromise / Suspicious File and C2
Compromise / Fast Beaconing to DGA
Compromise / Large Number of Suspicious Failed Connections
Device / Large Number of Model Alert

Mitre Attack Mapping:

Tactic – Technique – Technique Name

Initial Access - T1189 – Drive-by Compromise
Initial Access - T1190 – Exploit Public-Facing Application
Initial Access ICS - T0862 – Supply Chain Compromise
Initial Access ICS - T0865 – Spearphishing Attachment
Initial Access ICS - T0817 - Drive-by Compromise
Resource Development - T1588.001 – Malware
Lateral Movement ICS - T0843 – Program Download
Command and Control - T1105 - Ingress Tool Transfer
Command and Control - T1095 – Non-Application Layer Protocol
Command and Control - T1571 – Non-Standard Port
Command and Control - T1568.002 – Domain Generation Algorithms
Command and Control ICS - T0869 – Standard Application Layer Protocol
Evasion ICS - T0849 – Masquerading
Exfiltration - T1041 – Exfiltration Over C2 Channel
Exfiltration - T1567.002 – Exfiltration to Cloud Storage