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

Cyber Security Analyst

•

June 11, 2026

Nathaniel Jones

VP, Security & AI Strategy, Field CISO

Watch the NIS2 Webinar

Blog

Network

June 15, 2026

Hola VPN Abuse: From Proxy Traffic to Malware and Cryptomining

Introduction

In enterprise environments, non-compliant software traffic can introduce unexpected exposure by creating unmanaged paths for outbound connectivity. Hola VPN is a notable example because of its peer-to-peer design, which can effectively turn user devices into routing or exit nodes for other parties’ traffic, shifting the risk profile from that of a traditional virtual private network (VPN) to something closer to a distributed proxy.

As a result, the appearance of Hola-related activity, whether from prior installation or unintended background connections, should be treated with caution. Such activity may provide a foothold for malicious behavior, including lateral movement or command-and-control communication.

This blog explores how Hola-associated activity appeared as part of broader patterns of suspicious behavior observed across the Darktrace customer base.

The campaign

In February and March 2026, Darktrace observed similar anomalous activity across multiple customer environments, with affected devices showing consistent behavioral patterns. These included connections to multiple *.hola[.]org endpoints using Hola-related user agents, suggesting interaction with Hola infrastructure rather than isolated or incidental traffic.

Following these connections, affected customer environments showed downloads of suspicious executable files from rare external endpoints 188.241.219[.]55 and 184.241.218[.]111. Both endpoints have been flagged as potentially malicious by open-source intelligence (OSINT) [1][2].

These downloads were conducted using consistent user agents across impacted customers, specifically ‘Hola svc_js_win32/1.249.408’ and ‘Hola svc_js_win32/1.251.389’, suggesting a possible association with Hola-related activity.

Notably, this pattern aligns with recent reporting that, in some cases, Hola distributed an undeclared executable component, me[.]exe, which was later assessed to be a likely Monero-mining binary introduced via a compromised delivery pipeline [3].

Case Study 1

Darktrace first observed a new device on January 19, 2026, within a customer environment based in the Europe, Middle East, and Africa (EMEA) region. On the same day it appeared on the network, the device communicated with multiple pieces of Hola VPN-linked infrastructure before downloading a binary from a hola[.]org subdomain.

Figure 1: Cyber AI Analyst investigation highlighting Hola VPN service activity potentially associated with subsequent HTTP command-and-control (C2) connections.

Subsequent Darktrace telemetry revealed a recurring pattern of activity from the day the device was first observed through to March 4, 2026. During this period, the device repeatedly issued HTTP GET requests to the URI /bwfile?size=1048576, each returning a 200 OK response, indicating successful file retrieval.

This behavior was accompanied by a POST request to /bwfile, followed by an additional GET request for a significantly larger file at /bwfile?size=26214400, suggesting a deliberate and structured file transfer pattern.

Notably, the binary download activity was not tied to a single static host. Instead, it was observed across multiple URLs that changed over time while remaining within the same hola[.]org domain. This pattern suggests the use of rotating or distributed delivery infrastructure rather than a fixed endpoint.

Figure 2: Variation in URLs over time within the same hola[.]org domain, indicating the use of dynamically changing endpoints.

Across these events, the activity was consistently associated with the user agent Hola svc_js_win32/1.249.408, further linking the traffic to Hola-related service components. Amid these persistent and unusual connections, on February 22, Darktrace observed the device connecting to 188.241.219[.]55/proxy-peer-windows-amd64[.]exe, resulting in the download of an executable file.

Figure 3: File transfer event showing the download of an executable from the rare external endpoint 188.241.219[.]55.

Based on its file hash, the downloaded file was assessed as a likely Trojan downloader [4], with import hash (imphash) values showing similarities to samples linked to Vidar, Rhadamanthys, and Stealc according to OSINT [5]. Overall, this sequence of activity suggests that Hola-related connectivity may have been leveraged as part of a broader malware delivery chain.

Darktrace’s Autonomous Response

Due to the highly unusual activity observed, Darktrace Autonomous Response was triggered by the device’s behavior. However, as the customer deployment was configured in “Human Confirmation” mode, manual approval was required before any action could be taken.

Had the deployment been set to “Fully Autonomous” mode, Darktrace would have automatically:

Blocked connections to the associated ports and external endpoints
Prevented all outgoing network connections from the device
Enforced the device’s established ‘pattern of life’, allowing normal activity to continue while restricting any anomalous behavior

Figure 4: Example of a Darktrace Autonomous Response model highlighting the action that would have been taken, demonstrating how the system identifies anomalous behavior and applies targeted containment measures to restrict suspicious network activity.

Case Study 2

While the first case focused on anomalous activity from a newly observed device, Darktrace also identified cases in which devices had already been communicating with Hola-related endpoints prior to the suspected campaign. This may suggest pre-existing Hola usage within the environment, potentially increasing exposure and creating an avenue for subsequent suspicious activity.

One case involved three devices within a customer network based in the Americas (AMS). In this instance, a different payload was identified: me[.]exe, a potentially malicious cryptocurrency miner also referred to as HolaMonitorService[.]exe [6][7]. The downloads were observed from infrastructure similar to that seen in Case 1, including an IP address within the same 188.241.0.0/16 subnet.

Connections to *.hola[.]org, alongside the use of potential Hola-related user agents consistent with those in Case 1, were also identified, further suggesting a link between the observed activity and Hola-associated infrastructure.

Darktrace observed activity indicative of unusual VPN usage on the first affected device on February 2, followed by telemetry suggesting potential Tor usage. This was later followed by the download of me[.]exe on March 10 from 188.241.218[.]111. Notably, this device was the earliest among the three within the deployment to exhibit the presence of the suspicious executable.

Figure 5: Cyber AI Analyst detection highlighting the download of a suspicious executable from a similar external endpoint in a separate deployment.

On March 5, 2026, the second affected device exhibited a slightly different progression, initiating connections to http-test1[.]hola[.]org using the user agent ‘hola_get’. This activity was followed by the download of me[.]exe from the same endpoint on March 13, consistent with the broader pattern of Hola-related downloads observed across the environment.

Figure 6: Example of Hola VPN-related connectivity observed on the network prior to the suspected campaign, indicating pre-existing usage that may have contributed to subsequent activity.

The final affected device within this customer’s network demonstrated a more limited but related pattern, also downloading me[.]exe on March 17 using the same ‘hola_get’ user agent.

While the earlier Hola VPN usage observed across the deployment may not have been directly related to the suspected malware campaign, it may nonetheless have contributed to reduced visibility. The presence of pre-existing Hola-related traffic could have obscured malicious activity, making it more difficult to distinguish legitimate usage from attacker-driven behavior and, in turn, hindering the timely identification of the emerging compromise.

Darktrace’s Autonomous Response

For this deployment, the customer had their Autonomous Response capability configured in “Fully Autonomous” mode, allowing Darktrace to take action without human intervention. As a result, the system was able to autonomously disrupt the activity as soon as relevant events were identified through model detections.

Figure 7: Darktrace Autonomous Response actions taken against suspicious activity linked to Hola VPN.

Suspected cryptomining activity

As previously noted, some of the observed executable payloads appear to be linked to cryptomining malware. Across a subset of affected customer environments, this assessment was further supported by subsequent device activity consistent with Monero mining. Affected devices established follow-on connections to multiple external endpoints aligned with known mining infrastructure, indicating post-download execution.

Considering the broader sequence of activity, this pattern may point to a wider form of abuse in which legitimate VPN-related traffic is used to mask or facilitate malicious behavior following compromise.

On several devices, the download of executable files, including a newly observed peer[.]exe, was followed by alerts indicative of cryptocurrency mining activity. Mining-related credentials such as ‘x’ were observed using the Minergate protocol to communicate with endpoints within the 89.125.255.0/24 subnet and 188.241.218[.]111, the same endpoint involved in earlier download activity. Additional credentials appeared to reflect device-specific CPU identifiers, for example ‘12th Gen Intel(R) Core (TM) i5-1235U’.

Observed mining methods included login, submit, and job, consistent with active participation in a pool-based mining workflow rather than passive or incidental contact. The login method indicates that the host authenticated to the mining service as a worker, job reflects the assignment of computational tasks, and submit shows completed work being returned to the pool [8]. This sequence suggests that affected devices were actively contributing processing resources as part of an unauthorized distributed mining operation.

The presence of unauthorized cryptominers can lead to degraded system performance and reduced device stability. Beyond the immediate resource impact, such activity often serves as an indicator of a broader compromise rather than an isolated issue. This may increase the risk of further malware deployment, persistence mechanisms, and lateral movement, particularly in environments where the initial intrusion has not been fully contained.

Conclusion

Across affected environments, detections such as unusual VPN usage, connections to Hola infrastructure, anomalous HTTP activity, suspicious file downloads, and subsequent cryptomining behavior were linked into a single, evolving incident narrative. This aggregation provided a clearer view of attack progression, enabling security teams to understand not just isolated alerts, but the full sequence of compromise from initial contact through to post-exploitation.

Ultimately, these activities show that the risk posed by non-compliant software such as Hola VPN can extend far beyond simple policy violations. What began as traffic to Hola-related infrastructure was, in multiple cases, followed by behavior suggesting deliberate misuse, including suspicious executable downloads using Hola-related user agents and, in some instances, evidence of active cryptomining. These were not isolated anomalies, but elements of a broader pattern in which seemingly benign proxy or VPN-related communications may have created a pathway for malicious delivery and unauthorized resource exploitation.

The significance of this activity lies not only in the downloads or mining, but in what it reveals about an attacker’s ability to blend malicious operations into traffic associated with software that may already have a foothold in the environment. When unapproved software operates within an enterprise, it can reduce visibility, blur the distinction between legitimate and malicious traffic, and create opportunities to extend compromise in ways that are persistent and difficult to detect. Darktrace’s anomaly-based approach enables these behavioral distinctions to be identified, regardless of whether the device is new or long established within the network.

Credit to Min Kim (Associate Principal Analyst), Priya Thapa (Senior Cyber Analyst)
Edited by Ryan Traill (Content Manager)

Appendices

References

[1] https://www.virustotal.com/gui/ip-address/188.241.219.55

[2] https://www.virustotal.com/gui/ip-address/188.241.218.111

[3] https://www.sophos.com/en-us/blog/you-do-surprise-me-exe-an-unexpected-executable-in-hola-browser

[4] https://www.virustotal.com/gui/file/d275abca286cd75af971d0459fdf1df37c7b19c514abafae5d0b04bf42ccfb45/detection

[5] https://bazaar.abuse.ch/sample/d275abca286cd75af971d0459fdf1df37c7b19c514abafae5d0b04bf42ccfb45/

[6] https://any.run/report/4cdeb5df217764a8b6a20d518b76ccb30cbe623365a13d9dcd40900950f1ed99/de3a756a-3101-4369-8922-52c586c939fb

[7] https://www.virustotal.com/gui/file/e3541caf708c075f0bb22fc68b03acd8457fea7cf0732ea935b1eb016d1c7721/community

[8] https://bitcoinwiki.org/wiki/stratum

Darktrace Model Detections

· Anomalous File / EXE from Rare External Location

· Anomalous File / Multiple EXE from Rare External Locations

· Compromise / Crypto Currency Mining Activity

· Compromise / High Priority Crypto Currency Mining (EM)

· Device / New User Agent

· Anomalous Connection / New User Agent to IP Without Hostname

· Antigena / Network / Significant Anomaly / Antigena Controlled and Model Alert

· Antigena / Network / Significant Anomaly / Antigena Alerts Over Time Block

· Antigena / Network / External Threat / Antigena Tor Block

· Antigena / Network / External Threat / Antigena File then New Outbound Block

· Antigena / Network / External Threat / Antigena Suspicious Activity Block

· Antigena / Network / External Threat / Antigena Suspicious File Pattern of Life Block

· Antigena / Network / External threat / Antigena Suspicious File Block

Indicators of Compromise (IoCs)

IoC –Type -Description + Confidence

188.241.219[.]55 - IP Address - Malware distribution source

188.241.218[.]111 - IP Address -Malware distribution source

hxxp://188.241.218[.]111:8080/me[.]exe - URI - Malicious payload

hxxp://188.241.219[.]55:9000/proxy-peer-windows-amd64[.]exe - URI - Malicious payload

hxxp://188.241.219[.]55:9000/peer[.]exe - URI - Malicious payload

C8088f3c8bc3542eb1ad78a7cc5306d866c8ac81 - SHA1 - Malicious payload, me[.]exe

b595a6de0f6a18975b29e6f8ebe604956a173478 - SHA1 - Malicious payload, me[.]exe

e9139a2e0839e8b9e5c9787ea936347ae56e5460 - SHA1 - Possible malicious payload

c2e80073e4cafe757d5643bd8fd45f28ad89bff9 - SHA1 - Possible malicious payload

695355eceedcdd337d8fcbd35e6a531cda75b847 - SHA1 - Possible malicious payload

f0b0d8068a1b9ab5d68a8a46842d72b870b292e7 - SHA1 - Possible malicious payload

a21c8b8cabc7670ea45bc175e185a0f9bfcf4733 - SHA1 - Malicious payload, me[.]exe

0353ca44b9f397d8f492db0b2f7a1d00a9e4406a - SHA1 - Possible malicious payload

56824c8a110e35ab303dc27a6c758cd50c36174c - SHA1 - Malicious payload, peer[.]exe

c141fa0fa505fe7f9ad5dd21d9d4d6d411739682 - SHA1 - Malicious payload, peer[.]exe

0417ec988b16f1267065185a6eea98f0bd2e17cd - SHA1 - Possible malicious payload

c54f7eaaeb3e0b528cd2584bdcb3a4b13cc0f8a2 - SHA1 - Malicious payload, peer[.]exe

11c78f15fafd53f8cc5a52b828d7cbf2a99e0b09 - SHA1 - Malicious payload, peer[.]exe

0258bf7dbb0123247db29e8799991140bbdbd9bb - SHA1 - Malicious payload, proxy-peer-windows-amd64[.]exe

b46043a06dd9bbd63e4214d5fbc7fd56e1ff0618 - SHA1 - Possible malicious payload

753afdecd9f5402d004e8e5f768170ae9a468ca5 - SHA1 - Possible malicious payload

8f533c7cb1524b00f7b0311c2ea8603298d6b2ca - SHA1 - Possible malicious payload

3a3bc6a5b4db1a4e961abcb002d26fe9d5e5c349 - SHA1 - Possible malicious payload

897f70eb41d302b045fcb05ed0693675e778ce57 - SHA1 - Possible malicious payload

6ddd5644809606e3dc1e2cc06059c3f5e6176f85 - SHA1 - Malicious payload, proxy-peer-windows-amd64[.]exe

68a94f7cdcaf8853ea99251c1ecc67ae9b32eba8 - SHA1 - Malicious payload, proxy-peer-windows-amd64[.]exe

MITRE ATT&CK Mapping

T1659 -Initial Access, Command and Control -Content Injection

T1588.001 -Resource Development -Malware

T1189 -Initial Access -Drive-by Compromise

T1105 -Command and Control -Ingress Tool Transfer

T1657 -Impact -Financial Theft

T1497.001 -Impact -Compute Hijacking

T1496 -Impact -Resource Hijacking

T1210 -Lateral Movement -Exploitation of Remote Services

T1036.012 -Stealth -Browser Fingerprint

T1071.001 -Command and Control -Web Protocols

About the author

Min Kim

Cyber Security Analyst

Blog

June 12, 2026

Cybersecurity for the Sports Sector: The Threats Facing a Digitized Industry in 2026

Securing sporting events in 2026

When you walk into a stadium on game day, you are entering a small smart city. Ticketing, turnstiles, payments, public Wi-Fi for tens of thousands of fans, CCTV, lighting, even the HVAC all run on connected systems. The experience for fans has become unmatched, but that dependency has created a much larger attack surface than people may realize.

Our latest threat research backs that up. In the past year, a survey that Darktrace commissioned found that 84% of respondents from professional sports organizations had at least one cyber incident, and 57% were hit more than once. For a sector that relies on the impact of the live moment, those numbers translate directly into operational risk.

Why sports is a target for cyber attacks

Sport is a highly visible target with fixed timelines, so attackers know exactly when disruption will have the most impact. It also holds valuable data, athlete medical records, contracts, sponsorship deals, which carry financial, reputational, and regulatory risk if exposed. At the same time, delivery depends on a wide set of third parties: ticketing providers, broadcasters, cloud services, stadium technology. Any of those connections can become an entry point. Put visibility, timing, data, and dependency together, and you get an environment where even a small foothold can turn into a visible, time-critical incident.

How attackers target email and identity

Email and identity remain the front door. From October 2025 through March 2026, Darktrace / EMAIL™ detected more than 116,000 phishing emails aimed at sports organizations across our customer base, and our sports customers received 19% more phishing emails than organizations in other sectors. The numbers tell the story:

BY THE NUMBERS

‍21% of phishing emails were aimed at VIPs.‍
37% used novel social engineering.‍
84% of malicious emails passed DMARC authentication

A large proportion of these emails passed authentication checks, which means traditional security controls are no longer a reliable barrier. Attackers are not relying on spoofed domains – they're using legitimate infrastructure and trusted platforms. Behavior matters. Once an account is compromised, the behavior shifts quickly. Login patterns change, inbox rules are created to hide responses, and accounts start being used for internal discovery or further phishing. These aren’t high-noise events. They sit in normal workflows, which is why they’re often missed.

Ransomware tells a similar story. In one case inside a sports deployment, attackers had quietly been moving data to an outside server for a full two weeks before they triggered encryption. By the time the ransom note appeared, the outcome was already set. That sequence shows up consistently is access first, movement next, disruption last. If detection starts at encryption, it’s already too late.‍

Why AI is an emerging blind spot in sports

The increasing adoption of AI is expanding the potential attack surface. 72% of the security professionals we surveyed expect AI to increase their cyber risk over the next year, and yet 35% are already using or planning to use it in stadium operations, the most critical functions to protect. In addition to prompt injection and AI build risks, shadow AI is becoming a more immediate issue. Staff are already putting sensitive data—performance metrics, scouting reports, contracts, health data—into tools with little or no governance. The upside is clear, but so is the exposure—and it is happening before most organizations have any visibility or control. At the same time, attackers are using the same technology to scale phishing and social engineering. The net effect is simple: more exposure, at higher speed.

How can cybersecurity professionals prepare

Across high profile events, Darktrace’s experience shows that effective cyber defense includes preparation, real‑time visibility, and the ability to respond dynamically and decisively when timing, complexity, and public exposure converge.

There are a few strategic implications for cybersecurity teams:

Get behavioral visibility across IT and OT, not just corporate systems.
Treat identity as your control plane. Most attacks in this sector start with credentials, not malware. MFA with behavioral detection helps solve that challenge.
Control third party and AI access the same way you control your own environment.
Rehearse response for live conditions, where decisions happen in minutes. Detection and response need to account for non-ideal conditions when engineers are under pressure and time constrained. In sport, timing is what turns small issues into major incidents. The same activity that would be manageable midweek becomes critical during a live event.

Why 2026 raises the cybersecurity stakes for sports

With the 2026 World Cup about to stretch across three countries and dozens of host cities, the attack surface is wide and the schedule is unforgiving.

Geopolitical signaling is raising the threat profile further. Previous international sporting events have demonstrated that nation‑state actors use the cyber domain to signal intent, influence narratives, or retaliate symbolically. In the context of the 2026 World Cup, Russia’s continued exclusion from international sport, the ongoing conflict in Ukraine, US defensive support to Ukraine, and Iran’s likely participation in the tournament introduce additional motivations for state‑aligned and non‑traditional affiliated actors to operate below the threshold of armed conflict. This doesn’t require new techniques—just the right timing and visibility.

In practice, this comes down to preparation: knowing what normal looks like across IT and OT, controlling third-party access, and spotting when behavior shifts.

In sport, disruption does not build slowly—it happens in real time and in public. By that point, the groundwork has already been set, long before the whistle goes.

About this research

Findings are based on Darktrace threat-research telemetry across sports-sector customer deployments (Q4 2025–Q1 2026) and a survey of 875 IT cybersecurity professionals in the US, UK, Australia, and Germany, fielded by Opinion Matters between May 28 and June 3, 2026. Read the full report for complete methodology, incident analysis, and strategic recommendations.

‍

[related-resource]

About the author

Nathaniel Jones

VP, Security & AI Strategy, Field CISO

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

Hola VPN Abuse: From Proxy Traffic to Malware and Cryptomining

Cybersecurity for the Sports Sector: The Threats Facing a Digitized Industry in 2026

Enjoying the blog?

More in this series

Hola VPN Abuse: From Proxy Traffic to Malware and Cryptomining

How Attackers Abuse the Chinese Nezha Monitoring Tool

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

Blog

Network

June 15, 2026

Hola VPN Abuse: From Proxy Traffic to Malware and Cryptomining

Introduction

The campaign

Case Study 1

Darktrace’s Autonomous Response

Case Study 2

Darktrace’s Autonomous Response

Suspected cryptomining activity

Conclusion

Appendices

References

Darktrace Model Detections

Indicators of Compromise (IoCs)

MITRE ATT&CK Mapping

Blog

June 12, 2026

Cybersecurity for the Sports Sector: The Threats Facing a Digitized Industry in 2026

Securing sporting events in 2026

Why sports is a target for cyber attacks

How attackers target email and identity

Why AI is an emerging blind spot in sports

How can cybersecurity professionals prepare

Why 2026 raises the cybersecurity stakes for sports

About this research