Blog
/
Network
/
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
Default blog image
20
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
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

From Click to Command: Behavioral Detection of AppleScript-Led MacOS Intrusions

Network
•
June 24, 2026
Justin Torres
Cyber Analyst
Watch the NIS2 Webinar
Trending blogs
1
Prompt Security in Enterprise AI: Strengths, Weaknesses, and Common Approaches
May 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
•
June 24, 2026

From Click to Command: Behavioral Detection of AppleScript-Led MacOS Intrusions

Darktrace researchers analyze a recurring macOS intrusion pattern leveraging ClickFix-style social engineering and AppleScript post-compromise activity. By correlating weak behavioral signals such as HTTP POST beaconing, rare destinations, and SSL anomalies, defenders can detect and disrupt command-and-control activity before sustained attacker control is established.
Justin Torres
Cyber Analyst
Read more
Network
•
June 15, 2026

Hola VPN Abuse: From Proxy Traffic to Malware and Cryptomining

Darktrace’s analysis of Hola VPN-related activity across multiple environments reveals how peer-to-peer proxy functionality can enable malware delivery, command-and-control traffic, and cryptomining. Darktrace data highlights consistent patterns, suspicious downloads from rare endpoints, and post-compromise behavior, demonstrating how seemingly benign software can obscure threats and facilitate further malicious activity.
Min Kim
Cyber Security Analyst
Read more
Network
•
June 10, 2026

How Attackers Abuse the Chinese Nezha Monitoring Tool

This blog examines how attackers abuse the Chinese-developed Nezha monitoring tool, a legitimate open-source platform with remote access capabilities. Darktrace analysis of a honeypot intrusion highlights malicious deployment via containers, demonstrating how dual-use software enables stealthy operations, trust inversion, and detection challenges in dynamic cloud and enterprise environments modern.
Nathaniel Bill
Malware Research Engineer
Read more

Blog

/

Network

/

June 24, 2026

From Click to Command: Behavioral Detection of AppleScript-Led MacOS Intrusions

applescript-led mac os intrusionDefault blog imageDefault blog image

Introduction

Darktrace’s Threat Research team is publishing this analysis to help defenders understand an active pattern of macOS tradecraft observed in multiple customer environments. This post summarizes the behaviors observed, how they were assessed, and what defenders can do now.

Across multiple environments, Darktrace observed a consistent MacOS intrusion pattern beginning with ClickFix-style user-assisted “update” execution and transitioning into AppleScript-driven post-compromise activity and sustained outbound signaling.

While individual indicators were low-confidence, the repeated convergence of weak behavioral signals — including HTTP POST beaconing, rare or IP-only destinations, SSL anomalies, and abnormal client characteristics — provided a defensible indication of command-and-control establishment Darktrace detection and response in these cases was driven by behavior over artifacts. In the highest-confidence instances, automated containment disrupted outbound signaling before sustained tasking could occur.

Background

ClickFix-style activity typically relies on user-assisted execution and plausible “update” pretexting, followed by post-execution use of native tools to keep the footprint light. In MacOS environments, AppleScript and other built-in scripting mechanisms enable flexible post-compromise workflows while minimizing stable file-based indicators.

Following execution, affected devices exhibited a consistent behavioral pattern. AppleScript or equivalent native scripting activity was observed initiating follow-on workflows, after which outbound communications began to establish a structured rhythm.

These communications were characterized by repeated HTTP POST requests to low-prevalence or IP-only endpoints, often combined with unusual SSL properties and client identifiers that diverged from baseline device behavior. Individually, these signals were weak. When correlated across time and devices, they formed a pattern consistent with control establishment rather than benign software activity.

In higher-confidence cases, Autonomous Response actions were able to reduce or halt outbound signaling, interrupting the attacker’s ability to maintain control.

Detection Timeline

In representative cases, the sequence unfolded as follows:

Stage 1 – Initial Execution

Initial activity began with suspicious or masqueraded execution on a MacOS endpoint, consistent with ClickFix-style user deception.

Stage 2 – Post-Execution Scripting

This was followed closely by native scripting activity, most commonly AppleScript, indicating the transition into post-execution workflow.

Stage 3 – Outbound Communications

Outbound communications then emerged, initially sporadic but quickly forming a consistent cadence of HTTP POST requests to rare external endpoints.

Stage 4 – Anomaly Convergence

As activity persisted, additional anomalies became visible — unusual SSL characteristics, abnormal user agents, and connections to infrastructure with no prior network prevalence.

Stage 5 – Autonomous Response

In the most mature stages of the activity, automated containment actions disrupted outbound communications on affected devices, limiting the attacker’s ability to continue tasking while investigations progressed.

Darktrace coverage and detections

The following use-case highlights systems likely affected by malicious macOS intrusion activity linked by Microsoft to the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) [1], with indications of suspicious behavior observed between March 1 and May 3, 2026. The activity overlaps with patterns described in recent reporting on DPRK-nexus MacOS intrusions [1], though attribution confidence in this case remains moderate and based on behavioral alignment rather than solely infrastructure linkage.

Analyst confidence emerged through the correlation of multiple weak signals across time and devices. This included model coverage for rare external communications, sustained beaconing patterns, repeated HTTP POSTs, and anomalous client characteristics. Where enabled, Autonomous Response actions disrupted the most active outbound paths to reduce the attacker’s ability to maintain control while Darktrace’s investigation continued.

Notably, this highly anomalous behavior included:

  • Outbound connections to the rare external endpoint, zoom[.]uswebob[.]us associated with IP address, 148.72.73[.]98 [2][3] over port 443
  • Outbound connections to the rare external endpoint, check02id[.]com associated with IP address, 83.136.210[.]180 [4] over port 7365
  • Outbound connections to the rare external endpoints, 104.145.210[.]107 [5] over port 8443 and 83.136.208[.]48 [6] over port 443
  • Outbound connections to the rare external endpoint, 83.136.208[.]246 [7] over port 6783 with observed URI `/api/daemon` and a PowerShell user agent

Darktrace’s detection initially highlighted a desktop device (running MacOS) engaging in anomalous behavior as early as March 12, 2026. Starting on March 12, the source device triggered a ‘Possible Doppelganger Attack’ alert including connectivity to the hostname "zoom[.]uswebob[.]us · 148.72.73[.]98" over port 443 (TCP, HTTPS, H2). This model highlights a device connecting to a location that is rare but masquerades as legitimate software, such as Zoom in this case, a commonly used technique to blend into expected traffic [2] [3].

Initial connectivity observed to the rare external hostname, zoom[.]uswebob[.]us · 148.72.73[.]98, over port 443.
Figure 1: Initial connectivity observed to the rare external hostname, zoom[.]uswebob[.]us · 148.72.73[.]98, over port 443.

This was followed roughly seven later by a connection to 104.145.210[.]107 over port 8443, during which approximately 250 KiB of data of inbound data and 30 MiB of outbound data was observed, triggering the ‘Unusual Activity / Unusual External Data to New Endpoint’ in Darktrace.

Quickly after this connection, Darktrace’s Autonomous Response intervened, blocking the device’s access to the unusual external location and halting the data exfiltration attempt.

Figure 2: Darktrace’s detection of unusual data exfiltration, shortly followed by an Autonomous Response action to block it.

The device continued to consistently trigger model alerts relating to unusual external connectivity, including 'Posting HTTP to IP Without Hostname', 'Anomalous Connection / Rare External SSL Self-Signed' alerts, until well after 3 PM that day.

Figure 3: Additional external connectivity to new IP without a hostname, including connectivity to 83.136.208[.]246, alongside an anomalous ‘curl/8.7.1’ user agent and ‘/api/daemon’ URI.
Figure 4: Continued external SSL connectivity to IP 83.136.208[.]48, including connectivity to 83.136.208[.]246, alongside an anomalous ‘curl/8.7.1’ user agent and ‘/api/daemon’ URI.
Figure 5: Continued external HTTP connectivity to hostname, check02id[.]com · 83.136.210[.]180, alongside an anomalous ‘Go-http-client/1,1’ user agent.

From March 13 to March 28, the device continued exhibit unusual connectivity to various endpoints (e.g., 83.136.208[.]48, 83.136.208[.]246, check02id[.]com · 83.136.210[.]180), with the 'Multiple HTTP POSTs to Rare Hostname' model consistently triggering.

Windows OS Case

Pivoting over to an additional device, this time running Windows OS, anomalous behavior was also observed between March 30 and April 20. Notably, on March 30, the device was observed making a large number of suspicious external connection attempts to 83.136.208[.]246 over port 6783, all of which failed.

A further indicator was observed on April 1 with PowerShell connectivity to the same rare endpoint (83.136.208[.]246, port 6783), using the URI '/api/daemon' and the user agent 'Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT; Windows NT 10.0; fr-FR) WindowsPowerShell/5.1.26100.7920'.  Additional alerts included 'New User Agent to IP Without Hostname' and 'Anomalous Github Download', alongside activity involving the same endpoint.

Figure 6 : ‘Anomalous Powershell to Rare External Destination’ and ‘Github Download’ model alerts. This behavior involved connectivity with the endpoints ‘83.136.208[.]246’ and ‘github[.]com’.

The device continued triggering 'Posting HTTP to IP Without Hostname' & 'PowerShell to External Rare' alerts between April 4 and April 20 across multiple related endpoints (i.e., 83.136.208[.]48, 83.136.208[.]246, check02id[.]com · 83.136.210[.]180).

Darktrace’s Autonomous Response capability was able to block suspicious PowerShell attempts to unusual external locations, as shown below in an example from April 20.

Figure 7:  Autonomous Response intervening to block an unusual PowerShell connection to an external destination.

Cyber AI Analyst investigations

In higher-confidence instances, Darktrace’s Cyber AI Analyst investigations helped connect otherwise separate model alerts into a single incident narrative, highlighting the attacker’s progression from post-execution scripting into sustained outbound signaling. This contextual stitching is particularly valuable in macOS scenarios where static artefacts are limited, and behavioral sequencing defines the intrusion.

Cyber AI Analyst investigations highlighted alerts on March 12, including unusual repeated connections and possible SSL command-and-control (C2) to multiple endpoints:

Figure 8: Cyber AI Analyst investigation linking events into a unified incident.

Autonomous Response

In addition to the containment actions detailed earlier, Autonomous Response implemented multiple additional measures to contain suspicious activity throughout the course of this attack. Whenever unusual external connectivity was detected, Darktrace blocked it, closing down potential C2 channels. Likewise, when data exfiltration attempts were identified, these connections were stopped to prevent the potential loss of sensitive data.

Figure 9: Autonomous Response actions implemented by Darktrace in response to suspicious connectivity in mid-March.

Furthermore, in cases where a device was deemed to have carried out a significant number of anomalous activities, Darktrace enforced a “pattern of life” on the device, preventing it from deviating from its expected behavior while allowing legitimate business operations to continue uninterrupted.

Figure 10: Autonomous Response actions implemented by Darktrace in response to suspicious connectivity in April, including the “Enforce Pattern of Life” action.

Conclusion

macOS intrusion tradecraft continues to shift toward native tooling and lightweight control channels designed to evade signature-led controls.

The repeated convergence of rare destinations, POST-based signaling, and anomalous client behavior — observed across time and across devices — provided sufficient evidence to act early and with confidence.

As macOS tradecraft continues to evolve, the defender advantage increasingly lies not in signatures, but in the ability to reason from behavior.

‍

Credit to Justin Torres (Senior Cyber Analyst), Nathaniel Jones (VP, Security & AI Strategy, FCISO)

Edited by Ryan Traill (Content Manager)

Appendices

Darktrace Model Alert Coverage:

/ NETWORK-based model alerts:

·       Anomalous Connection::Multiple HTTP POSTs to Rare Hostname

·       Anomalous Connection::Rare External SSL Self-Signed

·       Anomalous Connection::Powershell to Rare External

·       Anomalous Connection::New User Agent to IP Without Hostname

·       Anomalous Connection::Posting HTTP to IP Without Hostname

·       Compromise::Fast Beaconing to DGA

·       Compromise::Large Number of Suspicious Failed Connections

·       Device::Anomalous Github Download

·       Device::New PowerShell User Agent

·       Unusual Activity::Unusual External Data to New Endpoint

/ NETWORK-based Autonomous Response model alerts:

·       Antigena / Network::Significant Anomaly::Antigena Significant Anomaly from Client Block

·       Antigena / Network::Significant Anomaly::Antigena Controlled and Model Breach

·       Antigena / Network::Significant Anomaly::Antigena Breaches Over Time Block

Indicators of Compromise (IoCs)

IP/Hostname:

·       zoom[.]uswebob[.]us · 148.72.73[.]98

·       83.136.208[.]246

·       check02id[.]com · 83.136.210[.]180

·       83.136.208[.]48

·       104.145.210[.]107

URIs:

·       /api/daemon

Destination Port Usage:

·       6783

·       5202

·       443

·       7365

·       8443

ASN:

·       AS400897 PETROSKY

·       AS398256 AS-ULTAHOST

User agents:

·       Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT; Windows NT 10.0; fr-FR) WindowsPowerShell/5.1.26100.7920

·       Go-http-client/1.1

·       curl/8.7.1

MITRE ATT&CK Mapping

(Technique Name - Tactic - ID - Sub-Technique of)

·       Browser Session Hijacking - COLLECTION - T1185

·       Web Protocols - COMMAND AND CONTROL - T1071.001 - T1071

·       Install Digital Certificate - RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT - T1608.003 - T1608

·       PowerShell - EXECUTION - T1059.001 - T1059

·       Domain Generation Algorithms - COMMAND AND CONTROL - T1568.002 - T1568

·       Non-Standard Port - COMMAND AND CONTROL - T1571

·       Malware - RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT - T1588.001 - T1588

·       Web Service - COMMAND AND CONTROL - T1102

·       Code Repositories - COLLECTION - T1213.003 - T1213

·       Exploitation of Remote Services - LATERAL MOVEMENT - T1210

·       Exfiltration Over C2 Channel - EXFILTRATION - T1041

·       Exfiltration to Cloud Storage - EXFILTRATION - T1567.002 - T1567

References:

[1] https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/security/blog/2026/04/16/dissecting-sapphire-sleets-macos-intrusion-from-lure-to-compromise/

[2] https://radar.securityalliance.org/advisory-on-dprk-unc1069-fake-microsoft-teams-and-zoom-calls/

[3] https://www.virustotal.com/gui/domain/uswebob.us

[4] https://www.virustotal.com/gui/ip-address/83.136.210.180/community

[5] https://www.virustotal.com/gui/ip-address/104.145.210.107/community

[6] https://www.virustotal.com/gui/ip-address/83.136.208.48/community

[7] https://www.virustotal.com/gui/ip-address/83.136.208.246/community

[8] https://www.darktrace.com/blog/applescript-abuse-unpacking-a-macos-phishing-campaign

Continue reading
About the author
Justin Torres
Cyber Analyst

Blog

/

/

June 24, 2026

A New Security Challenge: The Curious Case of Prompt Language Analysis

Default blog imageDefault blog image

Why prompt analysis is emerging as a key AI security challenge

If securing AI has been one of the defining cybersecurity conversations of the past year, prompt analysis is quickly becoming one of its most interesting frontiers.

Security leaders are under pressure to understand how AI is being used across the business. In some organizations, that means governing employee use of chatbots. In others, it means overseeing copilots embedded into SaaS platforms, monitoring coding assistants, or assessing the growing footprint of autonomous agents. However different these use cases may appear on the surface, they share a common factor: humans and machines are usually interacting with enterprise systems through language.  

How prompt language differs from traditional security telemetry

For years, defenders have become used to working with familiar forms of telemetry: email traffic, network connections, API calls, endpoint processes, authentication events. Prompt language is different. It is not simply another log source. It is an expression of intent, instruction, curiosity, urgency, and sometimes manipulation. It reflects the end-goal of a user or agent, but not always with enough surrounding context to interpret the risk correctly.

Why existing security approaches only partially explain prompt risk

A growing number of vendors are approaching the task of securing AI from the angle they know best. Perimeter vendors are extending web or browser controls into AI usage. Identity vendors are emphasizing agent permissions and access governance. Data security and DLP providers are focusing on content inspection and exfiltration risk. All of these perspectives matter, but individually can’t fully explain the problem.

The challenge with securing AI is not just that a new application category has emerged. It is that language has become a new operating layer in the enterprise.

Employees now use prompts to summarize documents, generate code, analyze spreadsheets, query internal knowledge, and trigger multi-step actions through agents. In each case, prompt language acts as the interface between human intent and machine execution. That makes prompts incredibly valuable from a security perspective as they can hint at misuse, policy violations, data exposure, or attempts to circumvent controls. However, they can also be deeply ambiguous when viewed in isolation. That ambiguity is the heart of the issue.

Prompts as behavioral signals, not just text to classify

A prompt by itself tells you what was asked. It does not necessarily tell you whether the request is expected, risky, accidental, or entirely legitimate in context. Two nearly identical prompts can carry very different meanings depending on the role and function of who issued them, what systems they can access, and what actions followed. In other words, prompts are not just text to classify. They are behavioral signals to interpret.

Example: How context changes prompt risk entirely

Consider a common enterprise scenario. An employee is pulled into a new project with an aggressive deadline. Almost overnight, their use of AI tools spikes. They begin prompting more frequently, working across unfamiliar documents, querying new data sources, and interacting with more systems than usual to accelerate delivery. Viewed narrowly, this may look suspicious. Prompt volume increases, file access patterns change, API and SaaS activity rise. From some vantage points, it may resemble insider risk or unmanaged AI usage.

But now add context. Imagine that, earlier that day, the employee received instructions from a senior leader asking them to support a time-sensitive initiative. Their communication history shows that this leader is a legitimate reporting-line superior. Their recent collaboration patterns align with the new project team. Their subsequent activity, while unusual for that individual’s baseline, is consistent with the business task they were assigned.

What initially looked like a risk event may actually be a normal response to business pressure. Without the surrounding context of communication, organizational relationships, and broader behavioral patterns, prompt activity alone could generate more noise than insight.

The reverse is also true. A prompt may appear benign on the surface while the context around it suggests elevated risk. A request that seems routine could originate from a compromised user, a newly connected external agent, a shadow AI workflow, or a user acting outside their normal role. The language itself may not contain anything obviously malicious, but the surrounding conditions may tell a very different story.

What security teams need to analyze prompts effectively

The future of prompt analysis is not just about understanding language. It is about understanding language in context.

To do that well, security teams need more than prompt inspection. They need to understand:

  • Who is issuing the prompt, whether human or agent
  • How that identity normally behaves across the enterprise
  • What systems, data, and workflows are connected to the interaction
  • Which relationships and communications explain the surrounding activity
  • Whether the downstream actions align with expected business behavior

When those layers are absent, prompt analysis can become another isolated control surface: useful in theory, but limited in practice. Security teams may detect unusual wording but miss the operational function behind it, overreact to benign changes in behavior, or miss subtle misuse because the prompt itself did not appear dangerous.

How organizations should think about prompt analysis going forward

Security teams have seen this pattern before. In the cloud, posture without runtime context left important gaps. In identity, access control without behavioral understanding missed misuse that looked legitimate on paper. In data security, content inspection without business context often created friction without resolving risk. AI is exposing the same lesson again: controls are strongest when they are coordinated, not isolated. As organizations work to secure AI and identify gaps across their security operations, prompt analysis will become an increasingly important source of insight, but only as part of a broader strategy.

Prompt analysis will undoubtedly become more common, as prompts are one of the clearest windows into how people and agents are using AI systems. However, what matters most is not simply collecting prompts or filtering dangerous phrases, but being able to place that language inside a wider behavioral and operational picture.

Organizations that already have a broader understanding of how work gets done across the enterprise will be better positioned to make sense of prompt language as this category matures. They will be better able to distinguish urgency from abuse, experimentation from exfiltration, and productive AI adoption from hidden risk.

Figure 1: Darktrace / SECURE AI reconstructs the full sequence of events, showing every user and agent interaction in context, with risky prompts highlighted and categorized, including PII, sensitive data, and other policy violations.

At Darktrace, this is the key lesson emerging from the market: prompt language does matter, but it does not stand alone. It is most valuable when treated as a new behavioral input that can enrich understanding across the enterprise, not as a self-contained source of truth.

Why prompts become less useful when analyzed in isolation

The curious case of prompt language analysis, then, is this: the more important prompts become, the less useful they are in a vacuum.

The real opportunity is not just to see what was asked. It is to understand why it was asked, what it meant in that moment, and what happened next.

For a deeper look at how organizations are approaching this challenge from the strengths of prompt analysis to its limitations in isolation see Prompt Security in Enterprise AI: Strengths, Weaknesses, and Common Approaches, which expands on the role prompt-level controls play within a broader, context-driven security strategy.

Continue reading
About the author
Nabil Zoldjalali
VP, Field CISO
Your data. Our AI.
Elevate your network security with Darktrace AI