June 20, 2024

Post-Exploitation Activities on PAN-OS Devices: A Network-Based Analysis

This blog investigates the network-based activity detected by Darktrace in compromises stemming from the exploitation of a vulnerability in Palo Alto Networks firewall devices, namely CVE-2024-3400.

Written by

Adam Potter

Senior 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

Adam Potter

Senior Cyber Analyst

Jun 2024

Update:
Following the initial publication of this blog detailing exploitation campaigns utilizing the recently disclosed vulnerability, Darktrace analysts expanded the scope of the threat research investigation to identify potential earlier, pre-CVE disclosure, exploitation of CVE 2024-3400. While the majority of PAN-OS exploitation activity seen in the Darktrace customer base occurred after the public release of the CVE, Darktrace did also see tooling activity likely related to CVE-2024-3400 exploitation prior to the vulnerability's disclosure. Unlike the post-CVE-release exploitation activity, which largely reflected indiscriminate, opportunistic targeting of unpatched systems, these pre-CVE release activities likely represented selective targeting by more calculated actors.

Between March 26 and 28, Darktrace identified two Palo Alto firewall devices within the network of a public sector customer making HTTP GET requests utilizing both cURL and wget user agents, versions of which were seen in later compromise activity in April. The devices requested multiple shell script files (.sh) from rare external IP addresses. These IPs are likely associated with an operational relay box (ORB) network^[1]. The connections also occurred without a specified hostname lookup, suggesting the IPs were hardcoded into process code or already cached through unexpected running processes. One of the destination IPs was later confirmed by Palo Alto Network’s Unit 42 as associated with exploitation of the PAN-OS vulnerability^[2]. This observed activity closely resembles post-exploitation activity seen on affected firewall devices in mid-April. However, unlike the more disruptive and noisier follow-on exploitation activity seen in post-CVE-release incidents, the pre-CVE-release case observed by Darktrace appears to have been much more discreet, likely due to the relevant threat actor's desire to remain undetected.

--

Introduction

Perimeter devices such as firewalls, virtual private networks (VPNs), and intrusion prevention systems (IPS), have long been the target of adversarial actors attempting to gain access to internal networks. However, recent publications and public service announcements by leading public institutions underscore the increased emphasis threat actors are putting on leveraging such products to initiate compromises.

A blog post by the UK National Cyber Security Center (NCSC) released in early 2024 notes that as improvements are made in the detection of phishing email payloads, threat actors have again begun re-focusing efforts to exploiting network edge devices, many of which are not secure by design, as a means of breach initiation.^[i] As such, it comes as no surprise that new Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures (CVEs) are constantly discovered that exploit such internet-exposed systems.

Darktrace analysts frequently observe the impacts of such CVEs first through their investigations via Darktrace’s Security Operations Center (SOC). Beginning in April 2024, Darktrace’s SOC began handling alerts and customer requests for potential incidents involving Palo Alto Networks firewall devices. Just days prior, external researchers publicly disclosed what would later be classified as PAN-OS CVE-2024-3400, a form of remote command execution vulnerability that affects several versions of Palo Alto Networks’ firewall operating system (PAN-OS), namely PAN-OS 11.1, 11.0 and 10.2. At the time, multiple Darktrace customers were unaware of the recently announced vulnerability.

The increase in observed SOC activity for Palo Alto firewall devices, coupled with the public announcement of the new CVE prompted Darktrace researchers to look for evidence of PAN-OS exploitation on customer networks. Researchers also focused on documenting post-exploitation activity from threat actors leveraging the recently disclosed vulnerability.

As such, this blog highlights the network-based behaviors involved in the CVE-2024-3400 attack chains investigated by Darktrace’s SOC and Threat Research teams. Moreover, this investigation also provides a deeper insight into the post-compromise activities of threat actors leveraging the novel CVE. Such insights will not only prove relevant for cybersecurity teams looking to inhibit compromises in this specific instance, but also highlights general patterns of behavior by threat actors utilizing such CVEs to target internet-facing systems.

CVE-2024-3400

In mid-April 2024, the Darktrace SOC observed an uptick in activity involving recurring patterns of malicious activity from Palo Alto firewall appliances. In response to this trend, Darktrace initiated a Threat Research investigation into such activity to try and identify common factors and indicators across seemingly parallel events. Shortly before the Threat Research team opened their investigation, external researchers provided public details of CVE-2024-3400, a form of remote command execution vulnerability in the GlobalProtect feature on Palo Alto Network firewall devices running PAN-OS versions: 10.2, 11.0, and 11.1.^[ii]

In their proof of concept, security researchers at watchTowr demonstrated how an attacker can pass session ID (SESSID) values to these PAN-OS devices to request files that do not exist. In response, the system creates a zero-byte file with root privileges with the same name.^[iii] Log data is passed on devices running telemetry services to external servers through command line functionality.^[iv] Given this functionality, external actors could then request non-existent files in the SESSID containing command parameters which then be interpreted by the command line functionality.^[v] Although researchers first believed the exploit could only be used against devices running telemetry services, this was later discovered to be untrue.^[vi]

As details of CVE-2024-3400 began to surface, Darktrace’s Threat Research analysts quickly identified distinct overlaps in the observed activity on specific customer deployments and the post-exploitation behavior reported by external researchers. Given the parallels, Darktrace correlated the patterns of activity observed by the SOC team to exploitation of the newly discovered vulnerability in PAN-OS firewall appliances.

Campaign Analysis

Between the April and May 2024, Darktrace identified four main themes of post-exploitation activity involving Palo Alto Network firewall devices likely targeted via CVE-2024-3400: exploitation validation, shell command and tool retrieval, configuration data exfiltration, and ongoing command and control through encrypted channels and application protocols.

1. Exploit Validation and Further Vulnerability Enumeration

Many of the investigated attack chains began with malicious actors using out-of-band application security testing (OAST) services such as Interactsh to validate exploits against Palo Alto firewall appliances. This exploit validation activity typically resulted in devices attempting to contact unusual external endpoints (namely, subdomains of ‘oast[.]pro’, ‘oast[.]live’, ‘oast[.]site’, ‘oast[.]online’, ‘oast[.]fun’, ‘oast[.]me’, and ‘g3n[.]in’) associated with OAST services such as Interactsh. These services can be used by developers to inspect and debug internet traffic, but also have been easily abused by threat actors.

While attempted connections to OAST services do not alone indicate CVE-2024-3400 exploitation, the prevalence of such activities in observed Palo Alto firewall attack chains suggests widespread usage of these OAST services to validate initial access methods and possibly further enumerate systems for additional vulnerabilities.

Figure 1: Model alert log details showcasing a PAN-OS device making DNS queries for Interactsh domain names in what could be exploit validation, and/or further host enumeration.

2. Command and Payload Transmission

The most common feature across analyzed incidents was HTTP GET requests for shell scripts and Linux executable files (ELF) from external IPs associated with exploitation of the CVE. These HTTP requests were frequently initiated using the utilities, cURL and wget. On nearly every device likely targeted by threat actors leveraging the CVE, Darktrace analysts highlighted the retrieval of shell scripts that either featured enumeration commands, the removal of evidence of compromise activity, or commands to retrieve and start binaries on the destination device.

a) Shell Script Retrieval

Investigated devices commonly performed HTTP GET requests to retrieve shell command scripts. Despite this commonality, there was some degree of variety amongst the retrieved payloads and their affiliation with certain command tools. Several distinct types of shell commands and files were identified during the analyzed breaches. For example, some firewall devices were seen requesting .txt files associated with both Sliver C2, whose malicious use has previously been investigated by Darktrace, and Cobalt Strike. The target URIs of devices’ HTTP requests for these files included, “36shr.txt”, “2.txt”, “bin.txt”, and “data.txt”.

More interestingly, though, was the frequency with which analyzed systems requested bash scripts from rare external IP addresses, sometimes over non-standard ports for the HTTP protocol. These bash scripts would feature commands usually for the recipient system to check for certain existing files and or running processes. If the file did not exist, the system would then use cURL or wget to obtain content from external sites, change the permissions of the file, and then execute, sending output to dev/null as a means of likely defense evasion. In some scripts, the system would first make a new folder, and change directories prior to acquiring external content. Additionally, some samples highlighted multiple attempts at enumeration of the host system.

Figure 2: Packet capture (PCAP) data highlighting the incoming shell scripts providing instructions to use cURL to obtain external content, change the permissions of the file to execute, and then run the binary using the credentials and details provided.

Figure 3: PCAP data highlighting a variation of a shell script seen in an HTTP response processed by compromised devices. The script provides instructions to make a directory, retrieve and execute external content, and to hide the output.

Not every retrieved file that was not explicitly a binary featured bash scripts. Model alerts on some deployments also included file masquerading attempts by threat actors, whereby the Palo Alto firewall device would request content with a misleading extension in the URI. In one such instance, the requested URI, and HTTP response header suggests the returned content is an image/png, but the actual body response featured configuration parameters for a new daemon service to be run on the system.

Figure 4: PCAP data indicating configuration details likely for a new daemon on an investigated host. Such HTTP body content differs from the image/png extension within the request URI and declared content type in the HTTP response header.

Bash scripts analyzed across customer deployments also mirrored those identified by external security teams. External researchers previously reported on a series of identifiable shell commands in some cases of CVE-2024-3400 exploitation analyzed by their teams. Commands frequently involved a persistence mechanism they later labeled as the “UPSTYLE” backdoor.^[vii] This python-based program operates by reading commands hidden in error logs generated by 404 requests to the compromised server. The backdoor interprets the requests and writes the output to CSS files on the device. In many cases, Darktrace’s Threat Research team noted clear parallels between shell commands retrieved via HTTP GET request with those directly involving UPSTYLE. There were also matches with some URI patterns identified with the backdoor and requests observed on Darktrace deployments.

Figure 5: HTTP response data containing shell commands potentially relating to the UPSTYLE backdoor.

The presence of these UPSTYLE-related shell commands in response to Palo Alto firewall devices’ HTTP requests provides further evidence for initial exploitation of the CVE. Many bash scripts in examined cases interacted with folders and files likely related to CVE-2024-3400 exploitation. These scripts frequently sought to delete contents of certain folders, such as “/opt/panlogs/tmp/device_telemetry/minute/*” where evidence of exploitation would likely reside. Moreover, recursive removal and copy commands were frequently seen targeting CSS files within the GlobalProtect folder, already noted as the vulnerable element within PAN-OS versions. This evidence is further corroborated by host-based forensic analysis conducted by external researchers.^[viii]

Figure 6: PCAP data from investigated system indicating likely defense evasion by removing content on folders where CVE exploitation occurred.

b) Executable File Retrieval

Typically, following command processing, compromised Palo Alto firewall devices proceeded to make web requests for several unusual and potentially malicious files. Many such executables would be retrieved via processed scripts. While there a fair amount of variety in specific executables and binaries obtained, overall, these executables involved either further command tooling such as Sliver C2 or Cobalt Strike payloads, or unknown executables. Affected systems would also employ uncommon ports for HTTP connections, in a likely attempt to evade detection. Extensions featured within the URI, when visible, frequently noted ‘.elf’ (Linux executable) or ‘.exe’ payloads. While most derived hashes did not feature identifiable open-source intelligence (OSINT) details, some samples did have external information tying the sample to specific malware. For example, one such investigation featured a compromised system requesting a file with a hash identified as the Spark malware (backdoor) while another investigated case included a host requesting a known crypto-miner.

Figure 7: PCAP data highlighting compromised system retrieving ELF content from a rare external server running a simple Python HTTP server.

Figure 8: Darktrace model alert logs highlighting a device labeled “Palo Alto” making a HTTP request on an uncommon port for an executable file following likely CVE exploitation.

3. Configuration Data Exfiltration and Unusual HTTP POST Activity

During Darktrace’s investigations, there were also several instances of sensitive data exfiltration from PAN-OS firewall devices. Specifically, targeted systems were observed making HTTP POST requests via destination port 80 to rare external endpoints that OSINT sources associate with CVE-2024-3400 exploitation and activity. PCAP analysis of such HTTP requests revealed that they often contained sensitive configuration details of the targeted Palo Alto firewall devices, including the IP address, default gateway, domain, users, superusers, and password hashes, to name only a few. Threat actors frequently utilized Target URIs such as “/upload” in their HTTP POST requests of this multi-part boundary form data. Again, the User-Agent headers of these HTTP requests largely involved versions of cURL, typically 7.6.1, and wget.

Figure 9: PCAP datahighlighting Palo Alto Firewall device running vulnerable version of PAN-OSposting configuration details to rare external services via HTTP.

Figure 10: Model alert logs highlighting a Palo Alto firewall device performing HTTP POSTs to a rare external IP, without a prior hostname lookup, on an uncommon port using a URI associated with configuration data exfiltration across analyzed incidents

Figure 11: Examples of TargetURIs of HTTP POST requests involving base64 encoded IPs and potential dataegress.

4. Ongoing C2 and Miscellaneous Activity

Lastly, a smaller number of affected Palo Alto firewall devices were seen engaging in repeated beaconing and/or C2 communication via both encrypted and unencrypted protocols during and following the initial series of kill chain events. Such encrypted channels typically involved protocols such as TLS/SSL and SSH. This activity likely represented ongoing communication of targeted systems with attacker infrastructure. Model alerts typically highlighted unusual levels of repeated external connectivity to rare external IP addresses over varying lengths of time. In some investigated incidents, beaconing activity consisted of hundreds of thousands of connections over several days.

Figure 12: Advanced search details highlighting high levels of ongoing external communication to endpoints associated with C2 infrastructure exploiting CVE-2024-3400.

Some beaconing activity appears to have involved the use of the WebSocket protocol, as indicated by the appearance of “/ws” URIs and validated within packet captures. Such connections were then upgraded to an encrypted connection.

Figure 13: PCAP highlighting use of WebSocket protocol to engage in ongoing external connectivity to likely C2 infrastructure following CVE-2024-3400 compromise.

While not directly visible in all the deployments, some investigations also yielded evidence of attempts at further post-exploitation activity. For example, a handful of the analyzed binaries that were downloaded by examined devices had OSINT information suggesting a relation to crypto-mining malware strains. However, crypto-mining activity was not directly observed at this time. Furthermore, several devices also triggered model alerts relating to brute-forcing activity via several authentication protocols (namely, Keberos and RADIUS) during the time of compromise. This brute-force activity likely represented attempts to move laterally from the affected firewall system to deeper parts of the network.

Figure 14: Model alert logs noting repeated SSL connectivity to a Sliver C2-affiliated endpoint in what likely constitutes C2 connectivity.

Figure 15: Model alert logs featuring repeated RADIUS login failures from a compromised PAN-OS device using generic usernames, suggesting brute-force activity.

Conclusion

Between April and late May 2024, Darktrace’s SOC and Threat Research teams identified several instances of likely PAN-OS CVE-2024-3400 exploitation across the Darktrace customer base. The subsequent investigation yielded four major themes that categorize the observed network-based post-exploitation activity. These major themes were exploit validation activity, retrieval of binaries and shell scripts, data exfiltration via HTTP POST activity, and ongoing C2 communication with rare external endpoints. The insights shared in this article will hopefully contribute to the ongoing discussion within the cybersecurity community about how to handle the likely continued exploitation of this vulnerability. Moreover, this article may also help cybersecurity professionals better respond to future exploitation of not only Palo Alto PAN-OS firewall devices, but also of edge devices more broadly.

Threat actors will continue to discover and leverage new CVEs impacting edge infrastructure. Since it is not yet known which CVEs threat actors will exploit next, relying on rules and signatures for the detection of exploitation of such CVEs is not a viable approach. Darktrace’s anomaly-based approach to threat detection, however, is well positioned to robustly adapt to threat actors’ changing methods, since although threat actors can change the CVEs they exploit, they cannot change the fact that their exploitation of CVEs results in highly unusual patterns of activity.

Credit to Adam Potter, Cyber Analyst, Sam Lister, Senior Cyber Analyst

Appendices ‍

Pre-CVE-Release IoCs

38.54[.]104[.]14/3.sh
154.223[.]16[.]34/1.sh
154.223[.]16[.]34/co.sh
38.54[.]104[.]14/

Indicators of Compromise

Indicator – Type – Description

94.131.120[.]80 IP C2 Endpoint

94.131.120[.]80:53/?src=[REDACTED]=hour=root URL C2/Exfiltration Endpoint

134.213.29[.]14/?src=[REDACTED]min=root URL C2/Exfiltration Endpoint

134.213.29[.]14/grep[.]mips64 URL Payload

134.213.29[.]14/grep[.]x86_64 URL Payload

134.213.29[.]14/?deer URL Payload

134.213.29[.]14/?host=IDS URL Payload

134.213.29[.]14/ldr[.]sh URL Payload

91ebcea4e6d34fd6e22f99713eaf67571b51ab01 SHA1 File Hash Payload

185.243.115[.]250/snmpd2[.]elf URL Payload

23.163.0[.]111/com URL Payload

80.92.205[.]239/upload URL C2/Exfiltration Endpoint

194.36.171[.]43/upload URL C2/Exfiltration Endpoint

update.gl-protect[.]com Hostname C2 Endpoint

update.gl-protect[.]com:63869/snmpgp URL Payload

146.70.87[.]237 IP address C2 Endpoint

146.70.87[.]237:63867/snmpdd URL Payload

393c41b3ceab4beecf365285e8bdf0546f41efad SHA1 File Hash Payload

138.68.44[.]59/app/r URL Payload

138.68.44[.]59/app/clientr URL Payload

138.68.44[.]59/manage URL Payload

72.5.43[.]90/patch URL Payload

217.69.3[.]218 IP C2 Endpoint

5e8387c24b75c778c920f8aa38e4d3882cc6d306 SHA1 File Hash Payload

217.69.3[.]218/snmpd[.]elf URL Payload

958f13da6ccf98fcaa270a6e24f83b1a4832938a SHA1 File Hash Payload

6708dc41b15b892279af2947f143af95fb9efe6e SHA1 File Hash Payload

dc50c0de7f24baf03d4f4c6fdf6c366d2fcfbe6c SHA1 File Hash Payload

109.120.178[.]253:10000/data[.]txt URL Payload

109.120.178[.]253:10000/bin[.]txt URL Payload

bc9dc2e42654e2179210d98f77822723740a5ba6 SHA1 File Hash Payload

109.120.178[.]253:10000/123 URL Payload

65283921da4e8b5eabb926e60ca9ad3d087e67fa SHA1 File Hash Payload

img.dxyjg[.]com/6hiryXjZN0Mx[.]sh URL Payload

149.56.18[.]189/IC4nzNvf7w/2[.]txt URL Payload

228d05fd92ec4d19659d71693198564ae6f6b117 SHA1 File Hash Payload

54b892b8fdab7c07e1e123340d800e7ed0386600 SHA1 File Hash Payload

165.232.121[.]217/rules URL Payload

165.232.121[.]217/app/request URL Payload

938faec77ebdac758587bba999e470785253edaf SHA1 File Hash Payload

165.232.121[.]217/app/request63 URL Payload

165.232.121[.]217:4443/termite/165.232.121[.]217 URL Payload

92.118.112[.]60/snmpd2[.]elf URL Payload

2a90d481a7134d66e8b7886cdfe98d9c1264a386 SHA1 File Hash Payload

92.118.112[.]60/36shr[.]txt URL Payload

d6a33673cedb12811dde03a705e1302464d8227f SHA1 File Hash Payload

c712712a563fe09fa525dfc01ce13564e3d98d67 SHA1 File Hash Payload

091b3b33e0d1b55852167c3069afcdb0af5e5e79 SHA1 File Hash Payload

5eebf7518325e6d3a0fd7da2c53e7d229d7b74b6 SHA1 File Hash Payload

183be7a0c958f5ed4816c781a2d7d5aa8a0bca9f SHA1 File Hash Payload

e7d2f1224546b17d805617d02ade91a9a20e783e SHA1 File Hash Payload

e6137a15df66054e4c97e1f4b8181798985b480d SHA1 File Hash Payload

95.164.7[.]33:53/sea[.]png URL Payload

95.164.7[.]33/rules URL Payload

95.164.7[.]33:53/lb64 URL Payload

c2bc9a7657bea17792048902ccf2d77a2f50d2d7 SHA1 File Hash Payload

923369bbb86b9a9ccf42ba6f0d022b1cd4f33e9d SHA1 File Hash Payload

52972a971a05b842c6b90c581b5c697f740cb5b9 SHA1 File Hash Payload

95d45b455cf62186c272c03d6253fef65227f63a SHA1 File Hash Payload

322ec0942cef33b4c55e5e939407cd02e295973e SHA1 File Hash Payload

6335e08873b4ca3d0eac1ea265f89a9ef29023f2 SHA1 File Hash Payload

134.213.29[.]14 IP C2 Endpoint

185.243.115[.]250 IP C2 Endpoint

80.92.205[.]239 IP C2 Endpoint

194.36.171[.]43 IP C2 Endpoint

92.118.112[.]60 IP C2 Endpoint

109.120.178[.]253 IP C2 Endpoint

23.163.0[.]111 IP C2 Endpoint

72.5.43[.]90 IP C2 Endpoint

165.232.121[.]217 IP C2 Endpoint

8.210.242[.]112 IP C2 Endpoint

149.56.18[.]189 IP C2 Endpoint

95.164.7[.]33 IP C2 Endpoint

138.68.44[.]59 IP C2 Endpoint

Img[.]dxyjg[.]com Hostname C2 Endpoint

Darktrace Model Alert Coverage

· Anomalous Connection / New User Agent to IP Without Hostname

· Device / New User Agent (triggered by pre-CVE-release activity)

· Anomalous File / Script from Rare External Location (triggered by pre-CVE-release activity)

· Anomalous File / Masqueraded File Transfer

· Anomalous File / EXE from Rare External Location

· Anomalous File / Multiple EXE from Rare External Locations

· Anomalous File / Script and EXE from Rare External

· Anomalous File / Suspicious Octet Stream Download

· Anomalous File / Numeric File Download

· Anomalous Connection / Application Protocol on Uncommon Port

· Anomalous Connection / Posting HTTP to IP Without Hostname

· Anomalous Connection / Multiple Failed Connections to Rare Endpoint

· Anomalous Connection / Suspicious Self-Signed SSL

· Anomalous Connection / Anomalous SSL without SNI to New External

· Anomalous Connection / Multiple Connections to New External TCP Port

· Anomalous Connection / Rare External SSL Self-Signed

· Anomalous Server Activity / Outgoing from Server

· Anomalous Server Activity / Rare External from Server

· Compromise / SSH Beacon

· Compromise / Beacon for 4 Days

· Compromise / Sustained TCP Beaconing Activity To Rare Endpoint

· Compromise / High Priority Tunnelling to Bin Services

· Compromise / Sustained SSL or HTTP Increase

· Compromise / Connection to Suspicious SSL Server

· Compromise / Suspicious File and C2

· Compromise / Large Number of Suspicious Successful Connections

· Compromise / Slow Beaconing Activity To External Rare

· Compromise / HTTP Beaconing to New Endpoint

· Compromise / SSL or HTTP Beacon

· Compromise / Suspicious HTTP and Anomalous Activity

· Compromise / Beacon to Young Endpoint

· Compromise / High Volume of Connections with Beacon Score

· Compromise / Suspicious Beaconing Behaviour

· Compliance / SSH to Rare External Destination

· Compromise / HTTP Beaconing to Rare Destination

· Compromise / Beaconing Activity To External Rare

· Device / Initial Breach Chain Compromise

· Device / Multiple C2 Model Breaches

MITRE ATTACK Mapping

Tactic – Technique

Initial Access T1190 – Exploiting Public-Facing Application

Execution T1059.004 – Command and Scripting Interpreter: Unix Shell

Persistence T1543.002 – Create or Modify System Processes: Systemd Service

Defense Evasion T1070.004 – Indicator Removal: File Deletion

Credential Access T1110.001 – Brute Force: Password Guessing

Discovery T1083 – File and System Discovery

T1057 – Process Discovery

Collection T1005 – Data From Local System

Command and Control

T1071.001 – Application Layer Protocol: Web Protocols

T1573.002 – Encrypted Channel: Asymmetric Cryptography

T1571 – Non-Standard Port

T1105 – Ingress Tool Transfer

Exfiltration

T1041 – Exfiltration over C2 Protocol

T1048.002 - Exfiltration Over Alternative Protocol: Exfiltration Over Asymmetric Encrypted Non-C2 Protocol

References

[1] https://cloud.google.com/blog/topics/threat-intelligence/china-nexus-espionage-orb-networks

[2] https://unit42.paloaltonetworks.com/cve-2024-3400/

^[i] https://www.ncsc.gov.uk/blog-post/products-on-your-perimeter

^[ii] https://security.paloaltonetworks.com/CVE-2024-3400

^[iii] https://labs.watchtowr.com/palo-alto-putting-the-protecc-in-globalprotect-cve-2024-3400/

^[iv] https://labs.watchtowr.com/palo-alto-putting-the-protecc-in-globalprotect-cve-2024-3400/

^[v] https://labs.watchtowr.com/palo-alto-putting-the-protecc-in-globalprotect-cve-2024-3400/

^[vi] https://security.paloaltonetworks.com/CVE-2024-3400

^[vii] https://www.volexity.com/blog/2024/04/12/zero-day-exploitation-of-unauthenticated-remote-code-execution-vulnerability-in-globalprotect-cve-2024-3400/

^[viii] https://www.volexity.com/blog/2024/05/15/detecting-compromise-of-cve-2024-3400-on-palo-alto-networks-globalprotect-devices/

‍

Written by

Adam Potter

Senior Cyber Analyst

Inside the SOC

Written by

Adam Potter

Senior Cyber Analyst

Director of Operational Technology

Watch the NIS2 Webinar

Blog

OT

June 9, 2026

Healthcare’s OT Cybersecurity Gap: Why Hospitals Must Make the Same Security Investments as Regulated Critical Infrastructures

Rethinking the healthcare attack surface

When most people think about Operational Technology (OT) cybersecurity, they think about oil & gas pipelines, utilities, manufacturing plants, or power grids. However, hospitals & healthcare systems have quickly become a point of focus in the OT cybersecurity community as they do employ a variety of OT in the form of IoMT (Internet of Medical Things) networked devices such as: infusion pumps, imaging systems, patient monitoring equipment, laboratory systems, and traditional industrial control systems (ICS) in the form of smart building management systems (BMS) and even on site power generation control systems. 

These healthcare environments are no longer just traditional IT ecosystems, they are cyber-physical environments where disruption can directly impact patient care, operational continuity, and ultimately patient safety.

The OT cybersecurity expertise gap in healthcare organizations

Our research in the OT cybersecurity space revealed a concerning trend. Many hospitals and healthcare networks lack dedicated OT cybersecurity teams, OT security full time employees (FTE) and even OT expertise in the form of OT security certifications when compared to other critical infrastructure sectors. 

On the other hand, within industries such as energy and manufacturing, we encounter more mature OT security programs that employ full time employees  dedicated to OT cybersecurity with OT security certifications and expertise to secure industrial and operational environments and lead investment in OT security processes and technology.

When reviewing the top 20 U.S. Hospitals by market cap, given what is publicly available on LinkedIn, only one FTE with an OT cybersecurity certification was found. The certifications that were searched for include: GIAC GICSP, GIAC GRID, GIAC GCIP and all ISA/IEC 62443 certifications. When replicating this same search across the top 20 utility providers in the US, 73 FTEs with OT related certifications were identified. As a control group, we looked within financial services, an industry NOT expected to have OT systems worth investing in FTEs to protect. However, the top 20 US financial institutions had 18 FTEs with OT related certifications. 

What these findings reveal

Overall, the findings regarding healthcare investment in OT security FTEs are surprising given how operationally dependent modern healthcare has become on OT. So why aren't hospitals investing in OT security personnel at the rate of peer critical infrastructures? It could just be lack of awareness; however, there are other, more plausible reasons.

Based on historical trends in cyber incidents within the healthcare space, one could speculate that there is significantly greater likelihood of being victim to an attack that focuses on extortion or data theft rather than an attack on specific OT systems. The amount of ransomware events incurred in healthcare, that historically do not target OT systems, may divert attention and security investment to the parts of the attack surface most likely to be targeted by ransomware. Additionally, data theft is a relevant threat objective for hospitals given PHI, PCI and PII, and data theft does not traditionally align with attacks targeting OT.

However, with focused investment to address data theft and with adversaries new capability to string together chains of vulnerabilities of different severity scores using advancements in AI, we could be entering a threat landscape where adversaries pivot their tactics to target exposed and under protected devices and systems like OT. For example, although not a patient records database, predominant IOMT protocols HL7 and DICOM are unencrypted plaintext protocols and unless encrypted it is very simple for adversaries, who are sniffing traffic, to identify protected health information (PHI) in these communication protocols.

Why OT cybersecurity expertise can be effective for healthcare organizations

The convergence of IT, OT, and IoMT is already here, and threat actors are increasingly aware of the operational vulnerabilities that come with it. Additionally, as AI solutions such as agentic or generative applications are adopted and deployed, the attack surface will continue to change as permissions, and new connections will exist to support AI efficiency. From a cybersecurity standpoint, the reality is that many healthcare organizations are still working to establish consistent visibility and governance across their enterprise-connected devices and systems as their attack surface is changing in real time.  As the healthcare sector remains a significant target for cyber-attacks, hospitals would be well advised to begin addressing their operational environments OT as a critical component of their attack surface and invest in securing them first with people, then process and technology. 

What can healthcare organizations do to secure their OT

Including OT in current cybersecurity processes such as red teaming and testing incident response plans that take OT into account alongside building dedicated OT security capabilities including improving OT network visibility, leveraging OT network anomaly detection, micro-segmentation, and secure remote access will become essential steps in strengthening healthcare resilience. 

However, before any of the above processes or investments in technology can be made, these healthcare organizations, like the other critical infrastructure sectors, need to invest in the people with the experience in OT security to lead, implement, manage and audit the investment in OT cybersecurity technology and processes.  In cases where headcount cannot be added, investment in OT security certifications, such as the ones listed in this article, and participation on OT security events focused on practitioner training for existing cybersecurity employees can move the needle in terms of bringing OT expertise to the existing team.

In an industry where uptime and safety are as mission critical as they are for a power utility, OT cybersecurity FTEs can no longer be viewed as optional for healthcare organizations and must become part of the foundation of modern healthcare cybersecurity strategy. 

‍

[related-resource]

About the author

Daniel Simonds

Director of Operational Technology

Blog

June 9, 2026

Always On, Always Defending: Inside the AI-Driven SOC

Today’s SOC: A system under pressure

The SOC has been described as the:

Control center for security systems management
Operations center for log analysis and alert response
Command center for network monitoring and investigation

But the CISO at a manufacturer of industrial power solutions says today’s SOC is far more dynamic:

“The SOC is an active player in a never-ending chess match where the pieces are always moving, the rules are constantly changing, and we’re continuously adjusting our tactical and strategic approaches to keep up.”

This has created a balancing act for cybersecurity professionals:

Support expanding digital estates to fuel innovation…or risk limiting business growth
Stop advanced cyberattacks at scale…or risk severe financial and reputational impacts

But balancing these responsibilities is increasingly difficult. Attackers are operating at machine speed and scale using sophisticated, adaptive techniques that overwhelm teams and bypass legacy defenses. At the same time, more than half of cybersecurity teams are understaffed, and 65% have unfilled cybersecurity positions (ISACA).

“The SOC is hitting its breaking point,” admits the VP of IT at a U.S.-based risk management services provider.”

“That’s the hard reality,” affirms a Chief Digital and Technology Officer at a North American financial services organization. “SOC teams are drowning in alerts, wasting time researching the most benign incidents while missing critical threats.”

Traditional tools lack the context and autonomous reasoning needed to determine which ones are truly dangerous, requiring analysts to manually review and respond. But with thousands of alerts hitting SOCs daily, the task exceeds human capacity, with recent industry research revealing that 40% to 42% of security alerts now go uninvestigated.

“Our old governance models of throwing bodies at it, that’s not going to work,” says the Group CIO of a multinational holding company. “Attackers move at machine speed, and our defenses have to operate at the same pace. Using AI for cybersecurity is the only way to do that.”

Why AI is essential

AI is about speed, scale, and context.

SOC teams are still expected to find the proverbial “needle in a haystack”, but the haystack keeps growing. As digital infrastructures expand and threat actors use AI to rapidly scale attacks and exploit vulnerabilities, success isn’t about keeping up but changing the approach.

This is where AI comes in, enabling security teams to operate at machine speed and scale by:

Analyzing vast amounts of data and correlating signals across domains within seconds
Detecting possible threats in real time and taking immediate action to mitigate risk
Prioritizing threats by severity and uncovering contextual details for rapid triage

The power of AI isn’t theoretical; it is transforming how today’s businesses operate.

The Chief Digital and Technology Officer at a financial services firm says within a single month of using Darktrace, the solution tracked billions of network events, autonomously investigated tens of millions of those incidents, and added the equivalent of 1,000 analyst hours of investigation. It also found threats that bypassed traditional tools, autonomously responding to contain or disrupt the threat on over 30,000 emails, including 18,000 the firm’s native email filter missed.

When Darktrace says it “takes action on a threat,” it generally means its platform can move beyond just detecting suspicious activity and automatically respond to contain or disrupt the threat—such as isolating a device, slowing or blocking suspicious network traffic, disabling risky user activity, or triggering security workflows—depending on how the system is configured.

AI isn’t about displacing humans.

AI is a powerful tool for handling large-scale data analysis, pattern detection, and repetitive tasks, but it cannot replace human critical thinking. By removing mindless work that does not require judgment, AI frees analysts to focus on what humans do best: applying reasoning, context, and sound decision-making to complex threats.

“AI is a workforce maximizer,” says the Chief Digital and Technology Officer. “It augments our team by monitoring and detecting threats at a scale beyond human capacity while providing the critical context we need to make faster, more confident decisions.

Rather than replacing people, AI is changing how security professionals work. Analysts can reclaim time previously spent on tedious, manual triage to focus on higher priorities and proactive initiatives like advanced threat hunting, strategic risk management, and security enablement and training.

“Aside from risk mitigation, our biggest ROI is in efficiency,” says the Head of Security at global business services provider. “What used to take 90% of our investigation time is now handled automatically, so we can focus on the final 10%, which requires critical thinking."

For SOC teams under pressure, the impact can be transformative, with security leaders reporting significant real-world outcomes using Darktrace Self-Learning AI^TM, including:

Phishing emails reduced by 99%
1 million+ emails autonomously analyzed each month, with no email-based incidents reported
Potential threats autonomously neutralized in under four seconds, on average
99% of investigations conducted autonomously, surfacing only the high-priority 1% of threats for analyst review

How AI optimizes the SOC

To protect the modern enterprise, you absolutely need the right tools,” says CTO at leading European fashion brand. “Without them you’re a victim. With them, you’re a defender. AI and the machine speed detect/response it enables makes it the most critical tool.”

Replacing chaos with clarity and control

It’s important to note that different AI solutions address different needs. Companies should clearly understand their specific use case and select the solution that best aligns with their goals, requirements, and operational needs.

When it comes to choosing cybersecurity in a machine-speed threat landscape, time is the most valuable resource. Organizations require AI that can move from insight to action by:

Learning an organization’s unique behavioral patterners
Correlating signals across domains to detect anomalous activity
Prioritizing events and autonomously responding at scale to the vast majority
Quarantining high-impact threats until the SOC can investigate
Arming analysts with deep, contextual information to accelerate investigations

“Darktrace AI gives us threat detections based on facts, not guesses,” says the Group CIO. “It moves the SOC beyond alert overload to confident, informed decision-making. When Darktrace flags something, we pay attention. False positives are very rare, so we act with speed and confidence without second-guessing.”

Replacing anxiety with confidence and peace of mind

Every missed alert can have real-world consequences.

The strain of maintaining constant vigilance at scale without holistic visibility and automation is taking its toll on security professionals: 66% report increased stress, and nearly half say it’s the reason they’re leaving the field (ISACA).

The CIO at a professional sports organization says that’s not surprising: “If you don’t know what’s going on, anything could be happening. Operating with that level of uncertainty and control is incredibly stressful.”

AI gives SOCs the power to be proactive by unifying telemetry across network, email, identity, and cloud environments to provide a complete picture and a stronger foundation for action. The benefits for analysts, both personally and professionally, are significant:

Achieve greater work-life balance: “Knowing that Darktrace has our backs 24/7 and will take immediate action to stop threats means we can now work normal hours and take vacations without worrying,” says the Chief Digital and Technology Officer.
Feel in control with deeper insights: “It not only stops and quarantines threats but also provides the deep context we need to quickly investigate and respond,” explains the Head of Security.
Gain confidence the business is protected 24/7: “We can sleep at night. With Darktrace I’m confident that even with a small team we can protect the business 24/7,” adds the former retail CIO.

The modern SOC: A system of balance

Elevated to a core pillar of business strategy, the modern SOC is now considered:

The nerve center of cyber risk and proactive defense
The AI-powered command center for operational resilience
The strategic hub for contextual decision-making at scale

The SOC has evolved from a reactive center responsible for managing systems into a proactive, frontline defender and strategic business enabler—integral to innovation and growth.

AI is the key to balancing these responsibilities.

“We can only grow as fast as we can secure the business,” says the Head of Security. “AI gives us the speed, scale, and confidence to do both.”

*Metrics are based on the customer’s interview, data and sourced from its monthly Cyber AI Insights reporting.

About the author

The Darktrace Community

Your data. Our AI.

Elevate your network security with Darktrace AI

Get a demo

Check out this article by Darktrace: Post-Exploitation Activities on PAN-OS Devices: A Network-Based Analysis

Post-Exploitation Activities on PAN-OS Devices: A Network-Based Analysis

Introduction

CVE-2024-3400

Campaign Analysis

1. Exploit Validation and Further Vulnerability Enumeration

2. Command and Payload Transmission

a) Shell Script Retrieval

b) Executable File Retrieval

3. Configuration Data Exfiltration and Unusual HTTP POST Activity

4. Ongoing C2 and Miscellaneous Activity

Conclusion

Appendices ‍

Pre-CVE-Release IoCs

Indicators of Compromise

Darktrace Model Alert Coverage

MITRE ATTACK Mapping

References

When Open Source Is Weaponized: Analysis of a Trojanized 7 Zip Installer

Healthcare’s OT Cybersecurity Gap: Why Hospitals Must Make the Same Security Investments as Regulated Critical Infrastructures

Enjoying the blog?

More in this series

Darktrace named a Leader in the 2026 Gartner® Magic Quadrant™ for Network Detection and Response (NDR) For the Second Consecutive Year

When Open Source Is Weaponized: Analysis of a Trojanized 7 Zip Installer

Chinese APT Campaign Targets Entities with Updated FDMTP Backdoor

Blog

OT

June 9, 2026

Healthcare’s OT Cybersecurity Gap: Why Hospitals Must Make the Same Security Investments as Regulated Critical Infrastructures

Rethinking the healthcare attack surface

The OT cybersecurity expertise gap in healthcare organizations

What these findings reveal

Why OT cybersecurity expertise can be effective for healthcare organizations

What can healthcare organizations do to secure their OT

Blog

June 9, 2026

Always On, Always Defending: Inside the AI-Driven SOC

Today’s SOC: A system under pressure

Why AI is essential

AI is about speed, scale, and context.

AI isn’t about displacing humans.

How AI optimizes the SOC

Replacing chaos with clarity and control

Replacing anxiety with confidence and peace of mind

The modern SOC: A system of balance