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

Senior Product Marketing Manager, Email

Watch the NIS2 Webinar

Blog

Network

July 27, 2026

Hiding in Plain Sight: Uncovering a Multi-Stage Ransomware Attack Through Behavioral Detection

Why ransomware has changed

Ransomware attacks have continued to increase globally, with 698 incidents reported in May 2026, representing a 48% rise compared to 472 incidents in May 2025 [1]. At the same time, the ransomware landscape is evolving. Several major ransomware groups, including LockBit [2], have been disrupted by successful joint law enforcement operations, resulting in a shift away from a small number of dominant actors towards a more fragmented and distributed ecosystem. This is increasingly composed of smaller groups who play a specialized role in the attack, such as initial access brokers, affiliates or developers.

As a result, ransomware tactics, techniques, and procedures (TTPs) are becoming more diverse and less predictable. On top of this, adversaries are leveraging native tools and legitimate penetration testing frameworks to evade detection. Anomaly-based detection is therefore critical to identify pre-ransomware activity, rather than relying on signatures associated with a handful of well-known ransomware groups.

As these attacks often unfold over several days, there is a critical window for defenders to act. In this context, behavioral-based detection plays a vital role in identifying suspicious pre-ransomware activity, and enabling early intervention before encryption or exfiltration occurs.

Inside a modern ransomware intrusion

In early 2026, Darktrace detected activity within a customer’s environment related to a multi-stage ransomware intrusion from the initial compromise. This activity does not appear to be attributable to a specific ransomware group, and no known ransomware payload was observed until the final stage.

The attack aligns with a broader industry trend in which compromised virtual private network (VPN) credentials are used as an entry point, followed by rapid internal reconnaissance and lateral movement using legitimate administrative tools. This growing preference for native tools and legitimate frameworks in cyber-attacks illustrates that it is increasingly unreliable to depend solely on traditional indicators of compromise such as known malware signatures or exploit detection.

The intrusion also involved the use of Sliver, an open-source adversary emulation framework, which is increasingly observed in real-world attacks. Originally designed for penetration testing and red teaming, Sliver has gained traction among threat actors as a stealthier alternative to more heavily signatured frameworks such as Cobalt Strike. As a legitimate framework, its use further complicates detection for security tools that rely on known malicious signatures.

Darktrace’s detection of a ransomware event in a customer’s environment

The initial compromise appears to have occurred via compromised credentials used over the VPN shortly before, or at the onset of the first indicators of suspicious activity. While it remains unclear as to how or when the threat actors gained access to these credentials, the use of initial access brokers (IABs) is a common feature of modern ransomware operations. This suggests that access to the environment may have been established several days or weeks beforehand.

The intrusion unfolded over three days, presenting multiple opportunities for early detection and intervention before ransomware deployment. The attack progressed through a compressed but structured sequence: initial access and reconnaissance were completed within hours, followed by privilege escalation and lateral movement the next day, and culminating in data exfiltration and encryption shortly thereafter. Throughout each stage, distinct behavioral anomalies emerged across the network providing clear indicators of malicious activity well before the ransomware was deployed.

While Darktrace’s Autonomous Response capability was enabled within the customer’s environment, it was not fully configured across the impacted devices, allowing the attack to progress to ransomware deployment. Had Autonomous Response been fully deployed across the affected systems, it could have taken targeted action against the earliest stages of malicious activity, potentially disrupting the intrusion before it escalated.

Figure 1: Timeline of the attack progression.

Day 1: Reconnaissance and privilege escalation

The threat actor gained access via compromised VPN credentials and initiated internal reconnaissance. Darktrace detected anomalous scanning behavior, including unusual port scanning activity and widespread network enumeration.

Specifically, Darktrace detected a high volume of east-west scanning activity across a broad range of ports, with TCP connections targeting ports 21, 80, 445, 4899 and 8080. Associated URIs suggested the use of Nmap, a widely used penetration testing tool. This highlights how attackers often leverage legitimate penetration testing tools for malicious reconnaissance, enabling them to blend into normal network activity and evade traditional signature-based detection methods.

Figure 2: Darktrace's detection of a sharp increase in anomalous internal connections, triggering multiple high-severity model alerts associated with reconnaissance activity.

Several devices were observed using administrative credentials to carry out privileged actions in a manner that was highly anomalous for the environment. This activity was accompanied by behavior consistent with SMB authentication scanning, suggesting efforts to identify and access additional systems. As the activity intensified, an increasing number of devices became involved, signalling lateral movement and further spread across the network.

Darktrace also identified privilege escalation through active directory (AD) replication abuse, specifically via the drsuapi::DRSGetNCChanges function. This technique allows an attacker with sufficient privileges to request directory replication data from a domain controller (DC), enabling them to extract credentials, including password hashes, without directly interacting with user accounts. Commonly associated with ‘DCSync’ attacks, this technique is frequently used to obtain highly privileged credentials and enable further escalation within an environment.

Figure 3: Darktrace’s detection of anomalous AD replication activity indicative of privilege escalation.

This activity was seen alongside the use of the now obsolete SMBv1, repeated NTLM authentication attempts using multiple variations of ‘Administrator’ credentials, reverse DNS scanning, and large-scale network scanning. Darktrace observed widespread use of SMBv1 across the customer’s environment, exposing a significant security weakness. As a legacy protocol with well-documented weaknesses, SMBv1 can be exploited to facilitate lateral movement, allowing the attackers to expand their access following initial compromise.

Day 3: Lateral Movement, Command & Control, and Exfiltration

Two days later, the attacker escalated privileges and expanded their foothold using living-off-the-land (LOTL) techniques such as PSExec, WMI, and RDP. Concurrently, Darktrace identified command-and-control (C2)-style communications consistent with the Sliver framework, alongside rare outbound connections to cloud infrastructure indicating potential data exfiltration. The volume and severity of observed activity increased as attack behavior intensified.

The device was observed conducting extensive lateral movement, leveraging LOTL techniques to evade detection. Activity included WMI execution (e.g. ExecQuery), DCE-RPC activity, SMB sessions and file writes, most of which were successful, as well as the deployment of PSEXESVC.exe via ADMIN$ shares and prolonged RDP sessions. Darktrace identified this behavior as highly anomalous for the environment. Such activity is commonly associated with the transfer of attacker tooling, remote command execution, and the establishment of persistent access across compromised systems.

Figure 4: Darktrace’s detection of a spike in RPC binding events indicative of potential lateral movement.

On the same day, Darktrace detected C2-style SSL communications originating from multiple internal devices to rare external endpoints. These connections exhibited anomalous characteristics, including invalid SSL certificates and repeated connection patterns resembling beaconing. Analysis of the observed JA3 fingerprint further linked the activity to Sliver, the adversary simulation framework referenced earlier, as the hash has previously been associated with Sliver-related infrastructure [3]. The use of this framework reflects a broader trend of attackers repurposing legitimate offensive security tools for stealthy C2 communications. Connections to 137[.]220[.]59[.]55 (ASN AS20473 AS-VULTR) indicated that the communications were likely routed via a virtual private server (VPS) hosted by Vultr. Attackers often utilize VPS infrastructure from legitimate cloud providers like Vultr to obscure their true origin, blend into benign traffic, and evade IP-based detection mechanisms [4].

Figure 5: Darktrace’s Cyber AI Analyst detection of two linked unusual connections to Vultr infrastructure.

Darktrace also observed a device initiating SSL connections to safedata.s3[.]wasabisys[.]com, an endpoint associated with Wasabi cloud storage. Darktrace recognized that neither the destination nor the associated IP address had previously been observed within the environment. More than 200 MB of data was subsequently uploaded externally to endpoints sharing the same JA3 client hash, indicating a sustained transfer session and potential data exfiltration to third-party storage. The apparent exfiltration prior to encryption is consistent with a double-extortion ransomware strategy.

Figure 6: Darktrace’s Cyber AI Analyst detection of more than 30 rare outbound connections to a Wasabi cloud storage endpoint, indicative of potential data exfiltration

Day 4: Encryption

The attack culminated in ransomware deployment, marking the transition from suspicious network activity to a business-impacting incident. Using SMB-based propagation, the threat actor encrypted thousands of files across the network, affecting multiple systems and disrupting normal operations. Throughout the encryption event, the legacy SMBv1 protocol was used extensively across multiple internal systems, resulting in a significant increase in newly encrypted files.

Figure 7: Darktrace’s detection of abnormal spikes in SMB activity and associated model alerts, indicative of ransomware encryption and propagation.

Darktrace’s Cyber AI Analyst automatically investigated and correlated the encryption activity and related events into a single incident narrative, providing the customer with real-time visibility into the attack while significantly reducing investigation time.

Figure 8: Darktrace’s Cyber AI Analyst’s investigation into the encryption activity. AI Analyst incident detailing example encryption activity in real time. Related events are automatically correlated and summarized into a clear narrative, reducing investigation time.

Defender action recommendations

What Could Have Stopped the Attack Earlier?

Although the attack ultimately resulted in ransomware deployment, there were multiple opportunities to detect, contain, and disrupt the intrusion before encryption occurred. The following actions could have significantly reduced the overall impact:

Detect and investigate indicators of reconnaissance and lateral movement

Unusual scanning
Active Directory replication anomalies consistent with DCSync activity
Anomalous use of native tools and processes indicative of LOTL attacks
Unusual use of common reconnaissance tools such as Nmap and NetScan

Contain compromised credentials and affected devices

Disable and reset compromised VPN credentials
Isolate devices performing anomalous scanning and lateral movement activity

Block suspicious external communications and data exfiltration

Use anomaly-based detection to detect and block repeated outbound connections to rare external infrastructure
Prevent data exfiltration to unauthorized cloud storage services such as Wasabi

Conclusion

The incident highlights the importance of anomaly-based detection, particularly against attacks that primarily use native or legitimate tools to evade traditional security measures. Darktrace identified suspicious activity from the first day of the compromise, providing multiple opportunities to disrupt the intrusion before it progressed to lateral movement and data exfiltration.

In this instance, detection was not the limiting factor; response time was. Prompt investigation and containment of devices exhibiting anomalous behavior could have prevented lateral movement, data exfiltration, and ultimately ransomware deployment.

As adversaries increasingly prioritize stealth over custom malware, relying instead on legitimate tools, valid credentials, and trusted infrastructure, traditional signature-based detection becomes less effective. Identifying subtle behavioral deviations early remains critical to disrupting attacks before they escalate into full-scale ransomware incidents.

Credit to Alexandra Evzona (Cyber Analyst), Priya Thapa (Senior Cyber Analyst)
Edited by Ryan Traill (Content Manager)

Appendices

References

[1] https://industrialcyber.co/ransomware/check-point-reports-ransomware-attacks-jump-48-year-over-year-despite-decline-in-overall-cyberattack-activity/

[2] https://www.europol.europa.eu/media-press/newsroom/news/law-enforcement-disrupt-worlds-biggest-ransomware-operation

[3] https://fieldeffect.com/blog/field-effect-mitigates-not-so-simplehelp-exploits-enabling-deployment-of-backdoors

[4] https://www.darktrace.com/blog/from-vps-to-phishing-how-darktrace-uncovered-saas-hijacks-through-virtual-infrastructure-abuse

Indicators of Compromise (IoCs)

IP Addresses

137[.]220[.]59[.]55 – Potential C2 infrastructure (Vultr AS20473)
38[.]27[.]106[.]123 – Wasabi cloud storage endpoint associated with potential data exfiltration
38[.]27[.]106[.]128 – Wasabi cloud storage endpoint associated with potential data exfiltration
38[.]27[.]106[.]117 – Wasabi cloud storage endpoint associated with potential data exfiltration

Domains

safedata[.]s3[.]wasabisys[.]com – Potential data exfiltration endpoint
*.wasabisys[.]com – Associated Wasabi cloud storage infrastructure

JA3 Fingerprint

d6828e30ab66774a91a96ae93be4ae4c – Associated with the Sliver adversary emulation framework

Files

Delete[.]me – File observed during reconnaissance activity, commonly associated with NetScan

Darktrace Model Coverage

· Anomalous Connection / Active Remote Desktop Tunnel

· Anomalous Connection / Anomalous Remote Registry Service Control

· Anomalous Connection / Multiple Failed Windows UDP

· Anomalous Connection / New or Uncommon Service Control

· Anomalous Connection / New or Uncommon Service Enumeration

· Anomalous Connection / New User Agent to IP Without Hostname

· Anomalous Connection / SMB Enumeration

· Anomalous Connection / Suspicious Activity On High Risk Device

· Anomalous Connection / Suspicious Read Write Ratio

· Anomalous Connection / Sustained MIME Type Conversion

· Anomalous Connection / Uncommon 1 GiB Outbound

· Anomalous Connection / Unusual Admin RDP Session

· Anomalous Connection / Unusual Admin SMB Session

· Anomalous Connection / Unusual SMB Version 1 Connectivity

· Anomalous File / EXE from Rare External Location

· Anomalous File / Internal / Additional Extension Appended to SMB File

· Anomalous Server Activity / Outgoing from Server

· Compromise / Beaconing Activity To External Rare

· Compromise / Ransomware / Possible Ransom Note Read

· Compromise / Ransomware / Ransom or Offensive Words Written to SMB

· Compromise / Ransomware / Suspicious SMB Activity

· Device / Anonymous NTLM Logins

· Device / Attack and Recon Tools

· Device / Initial Attack Chain Activity

· Device / Large Number of Model Alerts

· Device / Long Agent Connection to New Endpoint

· Device / Multiple Lateral Movement Model Alerts

· Device / Network Scan

· Device / New or Uncommon SMB Named Pipe

· Device / New or Unusual Remote Command Execution

· Device / New User Agent

· Device / Possible RPC Lateral Movement

· Device / Possible SMB/NTLM Brute Force

· Device / RDP Scan

· Device / SMB Lateral Movement

· Device / SMB Session Brute Force (Non-Admin)

· Device / SMB Version 1 Access Failures

· Device / Suspicious File Delete Activity

· Device / Suspicious Network Scan Activity

· Device / Unusual SMB Error Detected

· Device / Unusual SMB To Critical Resource

· Device / Unusual Winreg Operation

· Unusual Activity / Multiple Failed Internal Connections

· Unusual Activity / Possible RPC Recon Activity

· Unusual Activity / Sustained Anomalous SMB Activity

· Unusual Activity / Unusual External Data to New Endpoint

· Unusual Activity / Unusual External Data Transfer

· Unusual Activity / Unusual File Storage Data Transfer

· Unusual Activity / Unusual Large Internal Transfer

· User / New Admin Credentials on Client

· User / NTLM Login from Unauthenticated Device

Autonomous Response Model Alerts

· Antigena / Network / External Threat / Antigena Ransomware Block

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

· Antigena / Network / Insider Threat / Antigena Active Threat SMB Write Block

· Antigena / Network / Insider Threat / Antigena Internal Anomalous File Activity

· Antigena / Network / Insider Threat / Antigena Large Data Volume Outbound Block

· Antigena / Network / Insider Threat / Antigena Network Scan Block

· Antigena / Network / Insider Threat / Antigena Unusual Privileged User Activities Block

· Antigena / Network / Manual / Quarantine Device

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

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

· Antigena / Network / Significant Anomaly / Antigena Enhanced Monitoring from Client Block

· Antigena / Network / Significant Anomaly / Antigena Enhanced Monitoring from Server Block 100

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

MITRE ATT&CK MAPPING

Command and control - Protocol Tunneling - T1572

Command and control – Web Protocols – T1071.001

Credential Access- Exploitation for Credential Access- T1212

Credential Access- Password Guessing- T1110

Discovery- File and Directory Discovery- T1083

Discovery- Network Service Discovery- T1046

Discovery- Network Share Discovery- T1135

Discovery- Remote System Discovery- T1018

Exfiltration- Exfiltration Over C2 Channel- T1041

Exfiltration- Exfiltration to Cloud Storage- T1567

Impact- Data Encrypted for Impact- T1486

Impact- Service Stop - T1489

Initial Access- Public-Facing Application- T1190

Lateral Movement- Exploitation of Remote Services- T1210

Lateral Movement- Remote Desktop Protocol- T1021

Lateral Movement- SMB/Windows Admin Shares- T1021

Lateral Movement- Taint Shared Content- T1080

Persistence- Modify Registry- T1112

Privilege Escalation- Exploitation for Privilege Escalation- T0890

Privilege Escalation- Valid Accounts- T1078

Reconnaissance- Scanning IP Blocks- T1595

Reconnaissance- Vulnerability Scanning- T1595

Resource Development- Malware- T1588

Stealth- File Deletion- T1070

About the author

Alexandra Evzona

Cyber Analyst

Blog

Email

July 24, 2026

Darktrace / EMAIL Expands Behavioral Defense Across Email and Collaboration Workflows

Email and collaboration tools do more than carry messages. They are where organizations approve payments, share sensitive data, reset credentials, and make thousands of everyday decisions. Increasingly, they are interfaces through which humans direct AI agents in their daily activity. Email, Slack and Teams are high volume, rich with sensitive data, and an easy place to hide malicious activity.

The opportunity isn’t lost on bad actors. Darktrace / EMAIL detected more than 32 million high-confidence phishing emails globally in 2025, and 70% of those messages passed DMARC authentication. Phishing is increasingly difficult to detect and familiar trust signals alone are not enough. People and security teams need to understand how a message fits the normal behavior of the sender, recipient, and organization. They also need to correlate activity across platforms to spot threats that span multiple channels.

To effectively secure against today’s evolved threats, security teams need to act at two levels: they need to help each employee make a safer decision ‘in the moment’, and they need to understand the wider patterns that may expose the business to risk.

Darktrace is introducing four new capabilities in Darktrace / EMAIL to address both challenges. The new features explain suspicious content more clearly to end users, strengthen the capabilities of Darktrace / Adaptive Human Defense with richer guidance, let organizations define their own patterns for detecting sensitive data in messages, and give security teams a process-level view of risk across email and collaboration workflows.

Darktrace / EMAIL Inbox Analysis highlights risky content within your emails

A warning is more useful when it explains what the user should look at. To help do that, we’ve expanded Darktrace / EMAIL’s Inbox Analysis Add-In to highlight potentially dangerous content within the body of emails that Darktrace / EMAIL flags as potentially suspicious or high risk.

The add-in can highlight language designed to create urgency, financial references, requests for payment, suspicious links, and content that is unusual for the sender. Each highlighted element includes a pop up that explains why it may be suspicious. Instead of asking an employee to accept a verdict without context, the analysis helps them examine the message and make a more informed decision.

Enhanced Just-In-Time Training Banners in Darktrace / Adaptive Human Defense

Enhanced Just-In-Time Training Banners build on the same principle. The banners now include a contextual header, actionable advice, and specific detection context. This gives employees more useful guidance at the point of risk without adding unnecessary information or cognitive load.

Together, the capabilities help turn a warning into a short learning moment. Employees can see what looks unusual, understand what action to take, and build their judgment.

Custom Sensitive Data Detection in Darktrace / EMAIL - Data Loss Prevention

Sensitive data is different for every business. Standard categories such as payment card details or government identifiers matter, but organizations also have their own customer codes, project names, research formats, account structures, and internal identifiers.

Custom Sensitive Data Detection in Darktrace / EMAIL - Data Loss Prevention allows administrators to write custom expressions for the data their organization needs to protect. Matched content can trigger existing model actions and data loss prevention (DLP) workflows, extending Darktrace's DLP capabilities.

This extends data loss detection beyond a fixed library of common data types. Security teams can apply controls to information that is sensitive in the context of their own organization and adapt those controls as the business changes.

Introducing Email and Collaboration Workflow Risk Posture Dashboards

Some of the most important risks are not isolated events. They are repeated ways of working that create an opening for error, misuse, or attack. For example, a payment request may be one suspicious message, but a recurring approval workflow that relies on weak verification is a business process risk.

The new Email and Collaboration Workflow Risk Posture Dashboard analyzes email and collaboration data across Email, Microsoft Teams, Slack and Zoom to provide a process-level view of risk in the organization. These may include financial authorization workflows, sensitive data sharing patterns, and activity that could expose credentials.

The dashboard brings these patterns into a view and provides actionable recommendations. This helps security teams determine where to investigate or strengthen controls, where ownership needs to be clarified, and where the business may need to change a risky process. It gives CISOs a clearer view of how human and communication risk is embedded in everyday operations, not only where individual alerts occur.

Behavior connects the individual decision to the wider risk

These capabilities build on Darktrace’s unique behavioral approach to security. We use Adaptive AI to learn how people and AI normally behave within an organization, creating the context needed to recognize when activity changes.

Within the Darktrace Behavioral Defense Platform, Darktrace / EMAIL helps protect people against phishing, account takeover, data exfiltration, and human risk across email and collaboration tools. The new capabilities extend that protection in both directions. They give employees clearer context for the decision in front of them, while giving security leaders a broader view of the workflows and behavior that create risk across the organization.

The result is not simply more alerts. It is a better understanding of why something is risky, what action to take, and where the organization can reduce risk before a familiar process becomes an easy route for an attacker.

‍

[related-resource]

About the author

Carlos Gray

Senior Product Marketing Manager, Email

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

Hiding in Plain Sight: Uncovering a Multi-Stage Ransomware Attack Through Behavioral Detection

Darktrace / EMAIL Expands Behavioral Defense Across Email and Collaboration Workflows

Enjoying the blog?

More in this series

Hiding in Plain Sight: Uncovering a Multi-Stage Ransomware Attack Through Behavioral Detection

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

Hola VPN Abuse: From Proxy Traffic to Malware and Cryptomining

Blog

Network

July 27, 2026

Hiding in Plain Sight: Uncovering a Multi-Stage Ransomware Attack Through Behavioral Detection

Why ransomware has changed

Inside a modern ransomware intrusion

Darktrace’s detection of a ransomware event in a customer’s environment

Day 1: Reconnaissance and privilege escalation

Day 3: Lateral Movement, Command & Control, and Exfiltration

Day 4: Encryption

Defender action recommendations

What Could Have Stopped the Attack Earlier?

Conclusion

Appendices

Blog

Email

July 24, 2026

Darktrace / EMAIL Expands Behavioral Defense Across Email and Collaboration Workflows

Darktrace / EMAIL Inbox Analysis highlights risky content within your emails

Enhanced Just-In-Time Training Banners in Darktrace / Adaptive Human Defense

Custom Sensitive Data Detection in Darktrace / EMAIL - Data Loss Prevention

Introducing Email and Collaboration Workflow Risk Posture Dashboards

Behavior connects the individual decision to the wider risk